Validation of a Risk Application Matrix and Adding Recycling of Scrap Steel to the CERA Raw Materials Certification Scheme

Abstract

The aim of this master thesis is to improve a raw materials certification scheme by checking and validating the application matrix and the coherent hazards developed for the Certification of Raw materials (CERA) project. The scope of the original application matrix included exploration, mining, physical processing, chemical processing, smelting and refining. The validation in this thesis was focussed on the iron ore value chain. This validation showed that important methods associated with these processes were missing in the application matrix. Two main sections that are absent are recycling and storage and transportation, which have been added to the application matrix including the main methods used within those two sections. The risks and hazards developed by CERA, associated with the application matrix’s processes and methods, are transformed to only hazards. Next to this, new hazards are suggested to make the hazards list more holistically applicable. After the addition of recycling to the application matrix, an analysis on the addition of recycling to the CERA Performance Standard (CPS) and to the CERA Chain of Custody Standard (CCS) was done. This analysis showed that adding recycling to the Performance Standard deals with few challenges due to it being an industrial activity with many similarities to methods used in processing and smelting. Therefore, with the additions that are proposed in the validation of the matrix and the hazards analysis, recycling can be easily added to the CPS. This is done by including collection centres, recycling facilities and scrap transport in the standard under the general term ‘recycling facilities’. Adding recycled material to the CCS can be done in different ways, this thesis proposes multiple options of which three are viable. First, three types of recyclable materials have been distinguished: Recyclables of which the origin is known (1); Recyclables of which the origin is unknown and no further information is available (2); Recyclables of which the origin is unknown but a due diligence can show that it has sufficient added value to the raw materials value chain with regard to responsibility and sustainability (3). In all cases, CERA should include the certification of recycled material of which the origin is known. The first viable option is to only certify type one with the original CCS certificate and exclude the other two types from the scope. This requires no extra certification or requirements by CERA. The second viable option for CERA would be to also certify type three within the original CCS certification standard, and add a ‘recycled label’ to materials of type two. The third viable option would be for CERA to develop a ‘CCS recycled’ certificate for materials of the third type mentioned, and add a ‘recycled label’ to materials of type two. CERA should decide which option is best according to their basic criteria and values. If CERA decides to select option one, CERA safeguards their integrity but the option is lacking holistic applicability. If option two is preferred, CERA increases their holistic applicability level, however, the integrity of CERA might be at stake. If CERA decides to select option three, holistic applicability is maximized and their integrity is safeguarded, however, the system of CERA is complicated due to different levels of certifying.