study to assess the impacts of different classification...

Study to assess the

impacts of different

classification

approaches for

hazard property "HP

14" on selected

waste streams

Final report

October 2015

2 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

on selected waste streams – Final report

Document information

CLIENT European Commission – DG ENV

REPORT TITLE Final report

PROJECT NAME Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for

hazard property "HP 14" on selected waste streams

DATE 16 October 2015

PROJECT TEAM BIO by Deloitte (BIO), INERIS

AUTHORS Ms Mariane Planchon (BIO)

Ms Nada Saïdi (BIO)

Mr Pascal Pandard (INERIS)

Mr Adrien Troise (INERIS)

KEY CONTACTS Mariane Planchon

+33 1 55 61 67 56

[email protected]

DISCLAIMER The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission.

The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included

in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the

Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be

made of the information contained therein.

Please cite this publication as:

BIO by Deloitte (2015). Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for

hazard property "HP 14" on selected waste streams – Final report. Prepared for the European

Commission (DG ENV), in collaboration with INERIS.

BIO by Deloitte is a commercial brand of the legal entity BIO Intelligence Service. Since

26 June 2013 the legal entity BIO Intelligence Service is a 100% owned subsidiary of

Société Fiduciaire Internationale d’Audit which is owned by Deloitte.

All the employees referred to in this proposal therefore remain available for the execution

of the project, via the legal entity BIO Intelligence Service or Deloitte.

mailto:[email protected]



Table of contents

ABSTRACT 9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY __________________________________________________ 11

1. INTRODUCTION _____________________________________________________ 23

1.1. Background _______________________________________________________ 23

1.2. Objectives _________________________________________________________ 26

2. METHODOLOGY ____________________________________________________ 27

2.1. Collecting data on how a sample of Member States perform the assessment of

HP 14 _____________________________________________________________ 27

2.1.1. Selection of countries and data collection by survey ____________________ 27 2.1.2. Data collection by desk study _____________________________________ 29 2.1.3. Reporting data in factsheets ______________________________________ 29

2.2. Selecting mirror pairs for the assessment _______________________________ 31

2.2.1. Selection process ______________________________________________ 31 2.2.2. Selection criteria _______________________________________________ 32 2.2.3. Global score and selection of mirror pairs ____________________________ 37 2.2.4. Taking into account the Commission and Member States’ inputs __________ 38

2.3. Collecting experimental data on selected waste codes ____________________ 38

2.4. Running the calculation methods ______________________________________ 39

2.4.1. Reporting collected data _________________________________________ 39 2.4.2. Worst-case selection ____________________________________________ 40 2.4.3. Calculation tool ________________________________________________ 40

2.5. Impact assessment _________________________________________________ 42

2.5.1. Scope of the impact assessment __________________________________ 42 2.5.2. Assessment steps ______________________________________________ 42

2.6. Workshops and conferences _________________________________________ 44

3. RESULTS: STRATEGIES OF SELECTED MEMBER STATES TO ASSESS HP 14 _________ 45

3.1. Member States survey _______________________________________________ 45

3.2. Full country factsheets ______________________________________________ 45

3.3. Description of the approaches ________________________________________ 45

3.3.1. General information ____________________________________________ 45 3.3.2. Approaches using chemical analysis _______________________________ 48 3.3.3. Approaches using biotests _______________________________________ 55 3.3.4. Combined approaches __________________________________________ 58

3.4. Costs associated with implementing HP 14 approaches ___________________ 59

3.5. Advantages and limits of the approaches _______________________________ 60

3.5.1. Approaches based on chemical analysis ____________________________ 60



3.5.2. Approaches based on biotests ____________________________________ 61 3.5.3. Combined approaches __________________________________________ 61

4. RESULTS: SELECTION OF WASTE CODES FOR THE ASSESSMENT _________________ 63

4.1. Scores obtained for the selection criteria _______________________________ 63

4.1.1. SC1: Preference of experts _______________________________________ 63 4.1.2. SC2: Availability and quality of data ________________________________ 63 4.1.3. SC3: Quantity of produced waste __________________________________ 64 4.1.4. SC4: Economic importance_______________________________________ 67 4.1.5. SC5: Potential presence of hazardous substances _____________________ 67 4.1.6. SC6: Criticality of waste classification _______________________________ 70

4.2. Selected waste codes _______________________________________________ 71

5. CALCULATION METHODS: RESULTS AND COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT _____________ 85

5.1. Presentation of the calculation methods ________________________________ 85

5.1.1. Introduction to the calculation methods ______________________________ 85 5.1.2. Theoretical consideration of the four calculation methods _______________ 86 5.1.3. Comparison of concentration limit values of the four calculation methods, M-factor

and generic cut-off values consideration _____________________________ 87

5.2. Data collected on the selected waste codes _____________________________ 88

5.2.1. Overview _____________________________________________________ 88 5.2.1. Chemical analyses _____________________________________________ 89 5.2.2. Biotests ______________________________________________________ 89

5.3. Determination of the classification of waste types according to the different

methodologies proposed ____________________________________________ 90

5.3.1. Classification of wastes types according to the calculation methods _______ 90 5.3.2. Classification of wastes types based on ecotoxicological data ____________ 91

5.4. Limitations ________________________________________________________ 91

5.4.1. Limitations due to characterisation data available ______________________ 91 5.4.2. Limitations of calculation methods _________________________________ 92 5.4.3. Limitations related to ecotoxicological data available ___________________ 92

5.5. Comparative assessment of the different methodologies __________________ 93

5.5.1. Comparison of the four calculation methods __________________________ 93 5.5.2. Comparison between calculation methods and ecotoxicological data ______ 97 5.5.3. Feasability of the different methods ________________________________ 99

5.6. Conclusion and potential orientations for a combined approach ___________ 100

6. IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE CHANGE OF CLASSIFICATION ____________________ 103

6.1. Principles ________________________________________________________ 103

6.2. Indicators for the baseline scenario and the impact assessment ___________ 104

6.3. Current situation and trends _________________________________________ 104

6.3.1. Soil and stones waste (17 05 03*/17 05 04) _________________________ 105 6.3.2. Incinerator bottom ash (19 01 11*/19 01 12) _________________________ 109 6.3.3. Fly ash from incinerators (19 01 13* / 19 01 14) ______________________ 113 6.3.4. Fluff-light fraction and dust from shredding of metal-containing waste (19 10

03*/19 10 04) ________________________________________________ 115 6.3.5. Other types of waste ___________________________________________ 117

6.4. Potential impacts of a change of classification __________________________ 117



6.4.1. Overview ____________________________________________________ 117 6.4.2. Soil and stones waste (17 05 03*/17 05 04) _________________________ 119 6.4.3. Incinerator bottom ash (19 01 11*/19 01 12) _________________________ 121 6.4.4. Fly ash from incinerators (19 01 13* / 19 01 14) ______________________ 124 6.4.5. Fluff-light fraction and dust from shredding of metal-containing waste (19 10

03*/19 10 04) ________________________________________________ 125

6.5. Conclusion _______________________________________________________ 126

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS _________________________________ 129

7.1. Lack of harmonisation of current approaches for assessing HP 14 _________ 129

7.2. Conclusion on the most relevant calculation method for the assessment of HP14:

Method 1 seems to be the most relevant for waste classification ___________ 129

7.3. Recommendations on next steps _____________________________________ 130

8. ANNEXES 131

Annex 1. First Questionnaire sent to Competent Authorities _________________ 132

Annex 2. Factsheets __________________________________________________ 136

Annex 3. Second questionnaire sent to Competent Authorities ______________ 175

Annex 4. Questionnaire sent to industrial stakeholders for the impact

assessment _______________________________________________________ 187

Annex 5. Application of the calculation methods __________________________ 195

Annex 6. Study from the French Ministry of Ecology _______________________ 196



List of Tables

Table 1: Waste production of the EU-28 Member States in 2012, extracted from Eurostat (Generation of waste [env_wasgen], WASTE: Total Waste, HAZARD: Total, Last update: 26/11/2014, Extracted on: 14/01/2015) ................................................................................... 27 Table 2: Example of publications in the waste classification topic of selected Member States (non-exhaustive)...................................................................................................................... 28 Table 3: Template for the country factsheets .......................................................................... 30 Table 4: Attribution of weights according to biases in data on quantity ................................... 35 Table 5: Score per Member State and weighted average score for SC3 - waste code 06 03 16 ............................................................................................................................................ 35 Table 6: Example of input in the calculation tool (Ref: sample 1, pair 06 05 02*/06 05 03) ..... 41 Table 7: National legislation or guidelines for the H14 assessment methods and protocols ... 45 Table 8: Generic concentration limits for individual ecotoxic substances, according to their classification (DPD-based approaches) .................................................................................. 50 Table 9: Concentration thresholds for ecotoxic substances, according to their classification ((DPD-based approaches) ...................................................................................................... 50 Table 10: Conditions rendering the waste hazardous by HP 14 during Step 4, per Member State adapting the DPD for HP 14 assessment ................................................................................ 51 Table 11: Hazard classes considered in the Italian HP 14 assessment .................................. 53 Table 12: Hydrocarbon fractions to be considered as substances in the assessment of HP 14 ...................................................................................................................................... 54 Table 13: Concentration thresholds for ecotoxic substances, according to their classification (ADR-based approach) ........................................................................................................... 54 Table 14: Conditions rendering the waste hazardous by HP 14 in Italy .................................. 54 Table 15: French additivity rules.............................................................................................. 55 Table 16: Standards for preparing waste samples .................................................................. 55 Table 17: Batteries of tests used in Member States using biotests to assess HP 14 .............. 56 Table 18: Tests on Daphnia magna, as used in Member States relying on biotests for the assessment of HP 14 .............................................................................................................. 57 Table 19: Comparison between France and Germany regarding calculation methods ........... 58 Table 20: Batteries of tests used in Germany and Italy ........................................................... 58 Table 21: Most produced waste types in the studied Member States ..................................... 65 Table 22: Preliminary selected mirror pairs ............................................................................. 71 Table 23: Wastes suggested by Member States and the corresponding mirror pairs ............. 73 Table 24: Pre-selected pairs which are in the original list of the Commission, and different from the 14 pairs selected earlier .................................................................................................... 81 Table 25: Final selection of Member States-suggested waste streams ................................... 81 Table 26: Final list of selected codes ...................................................................................... 82 Table 27: Hazard classes and statements considered for HP 14 assessment ........................ 85 Table 28: Comparison of the different concentration limit values (assuming all M-factors are equal to 1) ............................................................................................................................... 87 Table 29: Amount of data collected per mirror pair.................................................................. 88 Table 30: Biotests used to assess ecotoxicological hazard in the collected samples.............. 90 Table 31: Harmonised approach for hazard assessment with biotests ................................... 91 Table 32: Concordance of results with current classifications ................................................. 94 Table 33: False positives defined by taking the baseline classification as a reference, i.e. non-hazardous according to the baseline, assessed as hazardous by the calculation method ...... 94 Table 34: False negatives defined by taking the baseline classification as a reference, i.e. hazardous according to the baseline, assessed as non-hazardous by the calculation method .................................................................................................................................... 95 Table 35: Concordance of results with biotests results ........................................................... 97 Table 36: False positives (determined with regards to biotest results), i.e. non-hazardous according to the biotests, assessed as hazardous by the calculation method ........................ 98 Table 37: False negatives (determined with regards to biotest results), i.e. hazardous according to the biotests, assessed as non-hazardous by the calculation method .................................. 98 Table 38: Costs per sample (€) for assessing HP 14 with the proposed methods on some mirror pairs ...................................................................................................................................... 100 Table 39: The studied mirror pairs, classified by nature and by source ................................. 103



Table 40: Hazard of 17 05 03*/17 05 04 waste streams ........................................................ 105 Table 41: Costs of managing soil & stones waste in a few Member States .......................... 108 Table 42: Hazard of 19 01 11* / 19 01 12 waste streams ...................................................... 110 Table 43: Estimation of the number of workers needed for managing IBA in landfills and for recovery, considering the amounts of IBA generated in France and in Germany (per year) . 113 Table 44: Hazard of 19 01 13* / 19 01 14 waste streams ...................................................... 113 Table 45: Hazard of 19 10 03*/19 10 04 waste streams ........................................................ 115 Table 46: Shifts of classification caused by the four calculation methods ............................. 118 Table 47: 17 05 03*/17 05 04 – Shifts of classification caused by the four calculation methods ................................................................................................................................ 119 Table 48: 17 05 03*/17 05 04 – Status quo and impacts of the four calculation methods ..... 121 Table 49: 19 01 11*/19 01 12 – Shifts of classification caused by the four calculation methods ................................................................................................................................ 122 Table 50: 19 01 11*/19 01 12 – Impacts of the four calculation methods .............................. 123 Table 51: 19 01 13* / 19 01 14 – Shifts of classification caused by the four calculation methods .............................................................................................................................................. 124 Table 52: 19 01 13* / 19 01 14 – Impacts of the four calculation methods ............................ 125 Table 53: 19 10 03*/19 10 04 – Shifts of classification caused by the four calculation methods ................................................................................................................................ 126 Table 54: Experts who contributed (in grey: Member States who did not contribute) ............ 132 Table 55: Mirror pairs selected in the study (in bold: priority) ................................................ 192



List of Figures

Figure 1 : the 4 calculation methods for HP 14 assessment which have been assessed in this study ........................................................................................................................................ 12 Figure 2: Waste quantities in Germany and attribution of scores ............................................ 34 Figure 3: Approaches for the assessment of HP 14 in the nine studied Member States ......... 48 Figure 4: Decision tree for the assessment of HP 14 using chemical analyses (based on the DPD) ....................................................................................................................................... 49 Figure 5: Decision tree for the assessment of HP 14 in Italy ................................................... 53 Figure 6: Ranges of costs in Member States for which the information is available ................ 60 Figure 7: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports results for SC1 ...................................... 63 Figure 8: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports results for SC2 ...................................... 64 Figure 9: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports results for SC3 (the percentage of waste is indicated as compared to total waste produced in the Member State) ................................ 67 Figure 10: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports results for SC4 .................................... 67 Figure 11: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports EC50 values of potentially ecotoxic substances .............................................................................................................................. 68 Figure 12: EC50 of some of the most hazardous pesticides authorised in the EU .................. 69 Figure 13: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports results for SC5 .................................... 70 Figure 14: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports results for SC6 .................................... 70 Figure 15: Proposed calculation methods ............................................................................... 86 Figure 16: Source of samples with current classification available – (a) per Member States; (b) per type of approach ............................................................................................................... 96 Figure 17: Fate of soil & stones waste in Germany in 2012 .................................................. 106



Abstract

No guidelines or recommendations currently exist at EU level for a specific methodology

for the assessment of the ecotoxic property of waste HP 14. As a result, HP 14 assessment

is performed in different ways throughout EU Member States. The revised waste

legislation, which entered into force in June 2015, did not include amendments to the HP

14 property because no satisfactory methodology could be developed and assessed in

time. This study aimed to assess the impacts for Member States and industry of the

implementation of four different options of calculation methods for assessing HP 14. The

comparative assessment of the four calculation methods on a selected sample of mirror

pairs was restricted by limitations in data availability and quality. Nevertheless, results

suggest that the method based on the CLP regulation and considering all relevant H-

phrases, but including neither M-factors nor generic cut-off values, was the most suitable

for assessing HP 14. This method showed good concordance with current classification

(baseline) and classification based on biotest results, as well as reasonable environmental,

social and economic impacts of its implementation.

Il n’existe actuellement pas de lignes directrices ou de recommandations au niveau

européen concernant une méthodologie spécifique pour évaluer la propriété écotoxique

des déchets HP 14. Par conséquent, HP 14 est actuellement évaluée différemment selon

les Etats Membres. Néanmoins, les provisions sur HP 14 de la législation européenne sur

les déchets n’ont pas été amendées lors de la révision récente de cette législation, car il

n’a pas été possible de développer une méthodologie faisant consensus. Dans ce

contexte, cette étude visait à évaluer les impacts sur les Etats Membres et l’industrie, de

l’application de quatre options de calculs pour la détermination de HP 14. Cette étude

comparative, effectuée sur un échantillon de paires-miroir, a été limitée par un manque de

disponibilité et de qualité des données. Cependant, les résultats obtenus suggèrent que la

méthode basée sur le CLP et considérant toutes les phrases de danger pertinentes, mais

pas de facteurs M ni de valeurs seuil, était la plus adaptée pour évaluer HP 14. Cette

méthode a montré une bonne concordance avec la classification actuelle et celle obtenue

avec des biotests, ainsi que des impacts environnementaux, économiques et sociaux

modérés.



This page was left intentionally blank



Executive Summary

Background

The European List of Waste1 (LoW) is meant to be a reference nomenclature for

classification of waste, providing a common terminology throughout the European Union,

with the purpose to improve the efficiency of waste management activities. The assignment

of waste codes and hazardous/non-hazardous classification have a major impact on the

transport of waste, installation permits and decisions about recyclability of the waste.

The LoW comprises 839 waste codes, split into 20 waste chapters including about 200

wastes in so-called “mirror pairs”. A mirror pair consists of a pair of entries of which one

waste may be classified either as hazardous or non-hazardous according to the type and

concentration of the pollutants it contains. The unique basis for differentiating between

hazardous and non-hazardous wastes in mirror pairs is Annex III to the WFD2, which lists

the 15 properties (HP 1 to HP 15) which, if displayed by a waste, renders it hazardous.

Among them, HP 14 describes the ecotoxicological potential of waste, by indicating

whether the waste presents or may present immediate or delayed hazard for one or more

sectors of the environment.

No guidelines or recommendations currently exist at EU-wide level for a specific

methodology for the assessment of HP 14. As a result, assessment of HP 14 is performed

in different ways throughout EU Member States. The lack of harmonisation of methods for

assessing hazardous properties in Member States, including HP 14, is one aspect calling

for a revision of the legislation relevant to those hazardous properties. In particular, it

seems necessary to provide, in the legislation, a specific methodology for assessing the

ecotoxicity of waste, coherent with the methods recommended in the CLP3 and REACH 4regulations.

The revised waste legislation, which entered into force on June 1st 20155, did not include

amendments to the HP 14 property because no satisfactory methodology could be

developed and assessed in time.

Objectives

The study aimed to assess the impacts of changing the criteria for the definition of

ecotoxicity for waste, and especially to assess the implications for Member States and

industry of the implementation of four different options of calculation methods for HP 14

assessment and waste classification.

1 Decision 2014/955/EU, repealing Decision 2000/532/EC from 1 June 2015 and establishing the List of Waste (LoW) 2 Commission Regulation (EU) No 1357/2014 of 18 December 2014 replacing Annex III to Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste and repealing certain Directives, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014D0955&from=EN 3 Regulation 1272/2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP) 4 Regulation 1907/2006 on Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) 5 Decision 2014/955/EU, repealing Decision 2000/532/EC from 1 June 2015 and establishing the List of Waste (LoW); and Regulation 1357/2014, repealing Annex III to Directive 2008/98/EC on waste – Waste Framework Directive, or WFD, and defining the properties that render waste hazardous.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014D0955&from=EN




Figure 1 : the 4 calculation methods for HP 14 assessment which have been assessed in this study

A diversity of approaches in Member States

The assessment of HP 14 is currently performed in different ways throughout Member

States. When the composition of the waste is known, the attribution of the “ecotoxic”

property is often made on the basis of the criteria of the CLP or DPD6 using the summation

method, thanks to which the classification of a mixture can be derived from the

classification of its components. However, it is difficult to implement this approach for

complex mixtures of mainly unknown composition, which is a common situation for wastes:

the analytical determination of the composition of waste could be both expensive and

technically difficult. In this case, the performance of biotests on the mixture itself is

generally considered as a relevant approach because it allows integrating the effects of all

contaminants including additive, synergistic and antagonistic toxic effects. In addition,

reference data (i.e. EC50, LC50, M-factors) are only available for a limited number of

chemicals, which can significantly impede using the calculation method described in the

CLP regulation. Some Member States evaluate ecotoxicity by biotest or physicochemical

analysis, although there is no standardised battery of biotests for waste at EU level. Other

Member States use formulae or criteria adapted from other assessment methods, for

instance described in their national regulations, in order to determine HP 14. As an

example of diversity of HP14 assessment methods actually implemented in EU MS,

descriptive factsheets have been elaborated for a sample of 9 MS.

Application of the four calculation methods

The assessment of HP 14 according to the four classification methods under study was

performed on a restricted list of mirror pairs selected from an extended list provided by the

Commission and according to the following criteria:

Preference of experts

Availability and quality of data

Tonnage of waste production

6 Directive 1999/45/EC (the Dangerous Preparations Directive)



Economic importance

Potential presence of hazardous substances

Criticality of waste classification

However, limited data availability lead to the different mirror entries originally selected for

the study to not be well represented. After collection of the necessary data (waste

composition, etc.), the calculations using the 4 classification methods were run on the

following pairs:

Mirror pair Description

06 05 02* 06 05 03 sludges from on-site effluent treatment (inorganic chemical processes)

08 01 13* 08 01 14 sludges from paint or varnish (manufacture, formulation, supply and use)

10 01 14* 10 01 15 Bottom ash, slag and boiler dust from co-incineration wastes from power stations

and other combustion plants (except 19)

10 03 19* 10 03 20 flue-gas dust (from aluminium thermal metallurgy)

11 01 09* 11 01 10 sludges and filter cakes (from chemical surface treatment and coating of metals

and other materials)

12 01 14* 12 01 15 machining sludges from shaping and physical and mechanical surface treatment

of metals and plastics

15 01 10* 15 01 01 15

01 02

paper and cardboard packaging, plastic packaging (including separately

collected municipal packaging waste)

17 05 03* 17 05 04 soil and stones (construction and demolition waste, including excavated soil

from contaminated sites)

17 05 05* 17 05 06 dredging spoil (construction and demolition waste)

19 01 11* 19 01 12 bottom ash and slag (from incineration or pyrolysis of waste)

19 01 13* 19 01 14 fly ash (from incineration or pyrolysis of waste)

19 08 11* 19 08 12 sludges from biological treatment of industrial waste water

19 08 13* 19 08 14 sludges from other treatment of industrial waste water

19 10 03* 19 10 04 fluff-light fraction and dust (from shredding of metal-containing waste)

19 12 11* 19 12 12 other wastes (including mixtures of materials) from mechanical treatment of

waste

Results

According to the comparative assessment of the different calculation methods with the

current classification or the classification based on biotest results7, there are some

indications that suggest that Methods 1 and 3 could be the most relevant for waste

classification based on characterisation data. Indeed, even if these methods are associated

to a potential overestimation of waste classification (13% of sample for method 1 and 18%

for method 3), that lead to a good concordance with current classification or classification

based on biotest results, and the false negative rate is very low.

In addition to these observations, Method 1 seems to be more relevant because the same

criteria as those defined in the Regulation 1272/2008 for classification of mixture are

applied (whereas Method 3 is based on the old classification system of mixture, directive

1994/45/EC, that is very different to the concept of CLP regulation because summation of

7 Proposed threshold of 10% for EC50 of all tests in the battery



components classified for different hazard categories is not considered). The only two

differences of Method 1 with CLP are the non-consideration of M-factors and generic cut-

off values. The non-consideration of M-factor has a lesser impact on calculation because

this factor is available only on very few compounds with a harmonised classification.

Regarding the non-consideration of generic cut-off values, this is relevant because some

compounds could be present in waste and could contribute to its toxicity even at low

concentration due to additivity of hazards. This means that the application of this method

could then be consistent with the CLP regulation and allows industrials not to apply other

additional methods.

In the context of a combined approach, an alternative two-step strategy could be envisaged

for waste classification in relation to HP 14. The first step would consist into applying a

summation method (the one ultimately selected for HP 14 assessment). In a second step,

if the waste cannot be adequately classified according to step 1 (e.g. due to very limited

information on its composition), an experimental approach using one or several biotests

(perhaps also in a tiered approach) could be applied.

An experimental approach could also be directly considered if the composition of the waste

is unknown or complex.

Limitations

Several limitations are associated to available data:

In most cases, characterisation data only report elemental compound

concentrations, presence of organic compounds is rarely reported at all;

a significant fraction of the waste is not identified;

worst-case assumptions (based on highest toxicity values) are made in the

selection of the identity compounds used for subsequent classification of the

waste; and

the applicability of the calculation methods is limited by the availability of

harmonised classifications for the substances.

Impact assessment

The implementation of any of the four calculation methods is likely to lead to changes in

the classification of some waste, and thus affect the quantities of waste classified as

hazardous and non-hazardous for each individual mirror pair. This, in turn, would lead to

environmental, economic and social impacts.

The impact assessment conducted in this study aims at roughly estimating the

consequences of the implementation of each of the four methods on the waste streams

corresponding to the selected mirror pairs against a baseline scenario (i.e. the current

situation, and further development excluding the implementation of the 4 calculation

methods). The baseline scenario was determined at EU level, with no distinction between

Member States. This distinction would have been relevant (different Member States apply

different criteria), but lack of data prevents such a detailed assessment (not enough

collected samples).

The environmental, social and economic impacts of this implementation were investigated,

with the following indicators:

Environmental aspects:

o Recovery schemes (includes percentages of waste recycled vs

landfilled)

o Benefits of recovering the waste



o Pollution due to contaminated fractions of the waste

Economic aspects

o Costs of disposal

o Costs of recycling

Social aspects

o Employment

o Public Health

For data availability reasons, the full impact assessment could only be performed on four

mirror pairs:

Soil and stones waste (17 05 03*/17 05 04)

Incinerator bottom ash (19 01 11*/19 01 12)

Fly ash from incinerators (19 01 13* / 19 01 14)

Fluff-light fraction and dust from shredding of metal-containing waste (19 10

03*/19 10 04)

The impacts are qualitatively summarised below (lack of data prevented conclusions on

fluff-light fraction and dust from shredding of metal-containing waste):

Environmental Economic Social


Status quo / / /

Method 1 - + + -

Method 2 - - - + + + - - -

Method 3 - - - - -

Method 4 - - - + + + - - -


Status quo - - /

Method 1 ++ - -

Method 2 - - - + + + - - -

Method 3 ++ - -

Method 4 - - - + + + - - -


Status quo + NA /

Method 1 + NA /

Method 2 - - - NA - - -

Method 3 + NA /

Method 4 - - - NA - - -

This preliminary and semi-qualitative impact assessment highlights that, for the 3 mirror

pairs assessed, the Methods 1 & 3 are the most relevant methods. Method 1 was preferred

for the soil & stones waste stream.



Apart from the benefits provided by a harmonised approach across Member States,

positive impacts from Methods 1 & 3 are mainly environmental and economic, although

they are likely to have minor negative economic impacts on some operators.

Conclusions

The comparative assessment of the four calculation methods on a selected sample of

mirror pairs was restricted by limitations in data availability and quality. Nevertheless,

results of the comparison between the 4 calculation methods give some indication that

Method 1 is the most relevant:

Good concordance with current classification (baseline) and classification

based on biotest results;

Aligned with the CLP regulation;

Reasonable environmental, social and economic impacts of its

implementation.

Although this study focused on calculation methods, a combined approach has been

recommended by several experts to optimise the accuracy of hazard classification and

offset limitations of both calculation and biotests methods alone. Nevertheless, there will

be a need to derive a harmonised threshold value for use biotests in waste classification

for code HP 14, as well as the definition of a minimum test battery. Further to this, political

agreement on the proposal would have to be sought. Some work is currently performed in

some MS to build threshold values using non-hazardous absolute entries.

Although this study focused on calculation methods, a combined approach has been

recommended by several experts to optimise the accuracy of hazard classification and

offset limitations of both calculation and biotests methods alone. Nevertheless, there will

be a need to derive a harmonised threshold value for use biotests in waste classification

for code HP 14, as well as the definition of a minimum test battery. Further to this, political

agreement on the proposal would have to be sought. Some work is currently performed in

some MS to build threshold values using non-hazardous absolute entries.



Contexte

La liste européenne des déchets (List of Waste ou « LoW »)8 est destinée à servir de

nomenclature de référence pour la classification des déchets, fournissant une terminologie

commune dans toute l'Union européenne, dans le but d'améliorer l'efficacité des activités

de gestion des déchets. L’attribution de codes de déchets dangereux et la classification en

dangereux / non dangereux ont un impact majeur sur le transport des déchets, les permis

d’installation et les décisions relatives au recyclage.

La LoW comprend 839 codes de déchets, répartis en 20 chapitres incluant environ 200

déchets caractérisés par des « paires-miroir ». Un déchet caractérisé par une paire-miroir

peut être classé soit comme dangereux (selon une entrée de la paire) ou non dangereux

(selon l’autre entrée) selon le type et la concentration des polluants qu'il contient. L'annexe

III de la Directive Cadre sur les Déchets9 est la référence unique pour déterminer si un

déchet caractérisé par une paire-miroir est dangereux ou non. L’attribution à un déchet de

une ou plusieurs des propriétés (HP 1 à 15) énumérées dans cette annexe entraîne la

classification de ce déchet sous l’entrée « dangereuse » de la paire-miroir. Parmi ces

propriétés, HP 14 décrit le potentiel écotoxique des déchets, en indiquant s’ils présentent

ou peuvent présenter un danger à court ou long terme pour un ou plusieurs compartiments

environnementaux.

Il n’existe actuellement pas de lignes directrices ou de recommandations au niveau

européen concernant une méthodologie spécifique pour évaluer la propriété écotoxique

des déchets HP 14. Par conséquent, HP 14 est actuellement évaluée différemment selon

les Etats Membres. Ce manque d'harmonisation des méthodes d'évaluation des propriétés

dangereuses HP dans les États membres, y compris HP 14, est l’un des aspects ayant

appelé à une révision de la législation relative à ces propriétés. En particulier, il semble

nécessaire de prévoir, dans la loi, une méthodologie spécifique pour évaluer l'écotoxicité

des déchets, cohérente avec les méthodes recommandées dans les réglementations

CLP10 et REACH11.

Néanmoins, les provisions de la législation européenne sur les déchets concernant HP 14,

n’ont pas été amendées lors de la révision récente de cette législation12, car il n’a pas été

possible de développer une méthodologie faisant consensus.

Objectifs

L'étude vise à évaluer les impacts de la modification des critères de la définition de

l'écotoxicité des déchets, et en particulier à évaluer les implications pour les Etats Membres

et l'industrie de la mise en œuvre de quatre options différentes de méthodes de calcul pour

HP 14.

8 Décision 2014/955 / UE, abrogeant la décision 2000/532 / CE à partir du 1er Juin 2015 et établissant la liste des déchets 9 Règlement (UE) n ° 1357/2014 de la Commission du 18 Décembre 2014 remplaçant l'annexe III de la directive 2008/98 / CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil relative aux déchets et abrogeant certaines directives, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ juridique-content / FR / TXT / PDF / uri = CELEX: 32014D0955 & from = FR 10 Règlement 1272/2008 relatif à la classification, l'étiquetage et l'emballage des substances et des mélanges (CLP) 11 Règlement 1907/2006 sur l'enregistrement, évaluation, autorisation et restriction des produits chimiques (REACH) 12 Décision 2014/955 / UE, abrogeant la décision 2000/532 / CE à partir du 1er Juin 2015 et établissant la liste des déchets ; et le règlement 1357/2014, abrogeant l'annexe III de la directive 2008/98 / CE relative aux déchets - Directive cadre sur les déchets, et définissant les propriétés qui rendent les déchets dangereux



Figure : les quatre méthodes de calcul évaluées dans cette étude

Une diversité des approches dans les Etats Membres

L'évaluation de HP 14 est actuellement réalisée de différentes façons à travers les États

membres. Lorsque la composition des déchets est connu, l'attribution de la propriété

"écotoxique" est souvent effectuée sur la base des critères de la CLP ou DPD13 en utilisant

les méthodes de sommation, grâce auxquelles la classification d’un mélange peuvent être

dérivée de la classification de ses composants. Cependant, il est difficile de mettre en

œuvre cette approche pour des mélanges complexes de composition essentiellement

inconnue, ce qui est une situation courante pour les déchets: la détermination analytique

de la composition des déchets pourrait être à la fois coûteuse et techniquement difficile.

Dans ce cas, la mise en œuvre de bio-essais sur le mélange lui-même est généralement

considérée comme une approche pertinente, car elle permet d'intégrer les effets de tous

les contaminants, y compris additifs, synergiques et antagonistes. En outre, des données

de référence (par exemple CE50, CL50, facteurs M) ne sont disponibles que pour un

nombre limité de produits chimiques, ce qui peut entraver de manière significative

l'utilisation de la méthode de calcul décrite dans le règlement CLP. Certains États membres

évaluent l'écotoxicité par biotest, bien qu'il n'y ait pas de batterie standardisée de tests

biologiques pour les déchets au niveau de l'UE. D'autres États membres utilisent des

formules ou des critères adaptés à partir d'autres méthodes d'évaluation, par exemple

décrit dans leurs réglementations nationales, afin de déterminer HP 14. A titre d'exemple

de la diversité des méthodes d'évaluation effectivement mises en œuvre dans d’UE, des

fiches descriptives ont été élaborées pour un échantillon de 9 Etats Membres.

Calculs avec les quatre méthodes proposées

L'évaluation de HP 14 selon les quatre méthodes de classification étudiée a été réalisée

sur une liste restreinte de paires-miroir sélectionnées à partir d'une liste fournie par la

Commission et selon les critères suivants:

La préférence des experts

Disponibilité et qualité des données

Le tonnage de la production de déchets

Importance économique

Présence possible de substances dangereuses

13 Directive 1999/45/EC (Directive Préparations Dangereuses)



Criticité de la classification des déchets

Cependant, les paires-miroir ainsi sélectionnés n’ont pas pu être bien représentés par la

disponibilité effective des données. Après collecte des données nécessaires (composition

des déchets, etc.), les calculs correspondant aux quatre méthodes de classification à

l’étude ont été effectués sur les paires suivantes :

Paire-miroir Description

06 05 02* 06 05 03 boues provenant du traitement in situ des effluents (procédés de la chimie minérale )

08 01 13* 08 01 14 boues provenant de peintures ou vernis (fabrication, formulation, distribution et utilisation)

10 01 14* 10 01 15 mâchefers, scories et cendres sous chaudière provenant de la co-incinération (déchets provenant de centrales électriques et autres installations de combustion (sauf chapitre 19))

10 03 19* 10 03 20 poussières de filtration des fumées (pyrométallurgie de l'aluminium)

11 01 09* 11 01 10 boues et gâteaux de filtration (du traitement chimique de surface et du revêtement des métaux et autres matériaux)

12 01 14* 12 01 15 boues d'usinage de la mise en forme et du traitement physique et mécanique de surface des métaux et matières plastiques

15 01 10* 15 01 01 15 01 02

emballages en papier/carton et emballages en matière plastique (y compris les déchets d'emballages municipaux collectés séparément)

17 05 03* 17 05 04 terres et cailloux (déchets de construction et de démolition, y compris déblais provenant de sites contaminés)

17 05 05* 17 05 06 boues de dragage (déchets de construction et de démolition, construction and demolition waste)

19 01 11* 19 01 12 mâchefers (provenant des installations de gestion des déchets)

19 01 13* 19 01 14 cendres volantes (provenant des installations de gestion des déchets)

19 08 11* 19 08 12 boues provenant du traitement biologique des eaux usées industrielles

19 08 13* 19 08 14 boues provenant d'autres traitements des eaux usées industrielles

19 10 03* 19 10 04 fraction légère des résidus de broyage et poussières (provenant du broyage de déchets contenant des métaux

19 12 11* 19 12 12 autres déchets (y compris mélanges) provenant du traitement mécanique des déchets

Résultats

L'étude comparative des différentes méthodes de calcul avec la classification actuelle et

celle basée sur les résultats de biotests suggèrent que les méthodes 1 et 3 pourrait être

les plus pertinentes pour la classification des déchets sur la base de données de

caractérisation. En effet, même si ces méthodes sont associées à une surestimation

potentielle de la classification des déchets (13% de l'échantillon pour la méthode 1 et 18%

pour la méthode 3), elles mènent à une bonne concordance avec la classification actuelle

et celle basé sur les résultats de biotests. De plus, le taux de faux négatif est très faible.

Par ailleurs, la méthode 1 semble être plus pertinente car elle intègre les mêmes critères

que ceux définis dans le règlement CLP pour la classification du mélange (alors que la

méthode 3 est basé sur l'ancien système de classification du mélange DPD, dont l’esprit

est différent de celui du règlement CLP, car la somme des composants classés pour les

différentes catégories de danger ne sont pas considérés). Les deux seules différences de

la méthode 1 avec le CLP sont la non-considération des facteurs M et l’inclusion de valeurs

seuils génériques. La non prise en compte des facteurs M a un impact moindre sur le

calcul, car ce facteur est disponible uniquement sur très peu de composés ayant une

classification harmonisée. Il aurait cependant été pertinent d’inclure des valeurs seuils



génériques, car certains composés pourraient être présents dans les déchets et pourraient

contribuer à sa toxicité, même à faible concentration, en raison de l'additivité des risques.

Ainsi, la méthode 1 pourrait alors être compatible avec le règlement CLP et permettrait aux

industriels de ne pas appliquer des méthodes supplémentaires.

Dans le contexte d'une approche combinée, une stratégie alternative en deux étapes

pourrait être envisagée pour la classification des déchets selon HP 14. La première étape

consisterait en l'application d'une méthode de sommation (celle finalement retenue pour

l’évaluation de HP 14). Dans un deuxième temps, si les déchets ne peuvent être classés

de manière adéquate selon l'étape 1 (par exemple en raison de très peu d'informations sur

sa composition), une approche expérimentale en utilisant un ou plusieurs tests biologiques

(peut-être aussi dans une approche à plusieurs niveaux) pourrait être appliquée.

Une approche expérimentale pourrait également être directement envisagée si la

composition des déchets est inconnue ou complexe.

Limites

Plusieurs limites sont associées aux données disponibles:

Dans la plupart des cas, les données de caractérisation ne rapportent que les

concentrations de composés élémentaires, la présence de composés

organiques sont rarement signalés du tout;

Une fraction importante des déchets n’est pas identifiée ;

Des hypothèses pire-cas (basées sur les valeurs de toxicité les plus élevés)

sont réalisées dans la sélection des composés utilisés pour la classification

des déchets; et

L'applicabilité des méthodes de calcul est limitée par la disponibilité des

classifications harmonisées pour les substances.

Etude d’impact

La mise en œuvre de l'une des quatre méthodes de calcul est susceptible de conduire à

des changements dans la classification de certains déchets, et donc affecter les quantités

de déchets classés comme dangereux et non dangereux pour chaque paire-miroir. Ceci,

à son tour, conduirait à des impacts environnementaux, économiques et sociaux.

L'évaluation d'impact réalisée dans cette étude vise à estimer les conséquences de la mise

en œuvre de chacune des quatre méthodes sur les flux de déchets correspondant aux

paires-miroir sélectionnées par rapport à un scénario de référence (c’est-à-dire de

développement de la situation actuelle excluant l'application de l’une des 4 méthodes de

calcul). Le scénario de référence a été déterminé au niveau de l'UE, sans distinction entre

les États membres. Cette distinction aurait été pertinent (différents États membres

appliquent des critères différents), mais le manque de données empêche une telle

évaluation détaillée.

Les impacts environnementaux, sociaux et économiques ont été caractérisés par les

indicateurs suivants:

Les aspects environnementaux:

o systèmes de récupération des déchets (y compris les pourcentages

de déchets recyclés vs enfouis)

o les avantages de la récupération des déchets

o la pollution due à des fractions des déchets contaminés

Les aspects économiques



o Les coûts d'élimination des déchets

o Les coûts du recyclage

Les aspects sociaux

o Emploi

o Santé publique

Pour des raisons de disponibilité des données, l'évaluation complète de l'impact n’a pu être

réalisée que sur quatre paires-miroir:

terres et cailloux (17 05 03 * / 17 05 04)

mâchefers (19 01 11 * / 19 01 12)

cendres volantes provenant d'incinérateurs (19 01 13 * / 19 01 14)

fraction légère et poussière provenant du broyage de déchets contenant des

métaux (19 10 03 * / 19 10 04)

Les impacts sont résumées qualitativement ci-dessous (le manque de données a limité les

conclusions sur la fraction légère provenant du broyage de déchets contenant des métaux):

Environmental Economique Social

Pierres et cailloux (17 05 03*/17 05 04)

Status quo / / /

Méthode 1 - + + -

Méthode 2 - - - + + + - - -

Méthode 3 - - - - -

Méthode 4 - - - + + + - - -

Mâchefers (19 01 11*/19 01 12)

Status quo - - /

Méthode 1 ++ - -

Méthode 2 - - - + + + - - -

Méthode 3 ++ - -

Méthode 4 - - - + + + - - -

Cendres volantes (19 01 13* / 19 01 14)

Status quo + NA /

Méthode 1 + NA /

Méthode 2 - - - NA - - -

Méthode 3 + NA /

Méthode 4 - - - NA - - -

Cette évaluation préliminaire et semi-qualitative souligne que, pour les 3 paires-miroir

évaluées, les méthodes 1 et 3 sont les plus pertinentes. La méthode 1 donne de meilleurs

résultats pour le flux de déchets de construction « sol et pierres ».

Outre les avantages offerts par une approche harmonisée dans tous les États Membres,

les impacts positifs des méthodes 1 et 3 sont principalement environnementaux et

économiques, même si elles sont susceptibles d'avoir des répercussions économiques

négatives mineures sur certains opérateurs.Bien que cette étude ait porté sur 4 méthodes

de calcul proposées, une approche combinée calcul / biotests a été recommandée par

plusieurs experts pour optimiser la précision de la classification des dangers et compenser



à la fois les limites des méthodes de calcul et celles des méthodes biotests seules.

Néanmoins, il faudrait définir une valeur seuil harmonisée pour pouvoir utiliser les biotests

dans la classification des déchets selon HP 14, ainsi que la définition d'une batterie d'essai

minimale. Suite à cela, il faudrait trouver un accord politique sur la proposition. A noter que

certains travaux sont actuellement en cours dans certains États Membres pour construire

des valeurs de seuil.



1. Introduction

1.1. Background

In the EU, classification of waste is based on two regulatory texts:

Decision 2014/955/EU14, repealing Decision 2000/532/EC15 from 1 June 2015

and establishing the List of Waste (LoW); and

Regulation 1357/201416, repealing Annex III to Directive 2008/98/EC17 on

waste – Waste Framework Directive, or WFD, and defining the properties that

render waste hazardous.

The LoW is meant to be a reference nomenclature providing a common terminology

throughout the European Union, with the purpose to improve the efficiency of waste

management activities. Assignment of waste codes has a major impact on the transport of

waste, installation permits (which are usually granted for the processing of specific waste

codes) or decisions about recyclability of the waste. The LoW thus serves as a common

encoding of waste characteristics in a broad variety of purposes, including classification of

hazardous wastes.

Wastes classified as hazardous are those considered to display one or more of the 15

properties (H1 to H15) listed in Annex III to the WFD (now named HP 1 to HP 15 in

Regulation 1357/2014). Among them, HP 14 describes the ecotoxicological potential or

environmental hazards, as an intrinsic property of waste, by indicating whether the waste

presents or may present immediate or delayed risks for one or more sectors of the

environment.

The LoW comprises 839 waste codes in 20 waste chapters including 405 wastes marked

as hazardous (absolute entries) and about 200 wastes in so-called “mirror pairs”. Mirror

pairs consist of pairs of entries of which one waste may be classified as hazardous or non-

hazardous according to the type and concentration of the pollutants it contains. The unique

basis for differentiating between hazardous and non-hazardous wastes in mirror pairs is

Annex III to the WFD (i.e. the list of 15 hazardous properties). Wastes classified as

hazardous are marked with an asterisk “*” in the LoW. The majority of mirror pairs refer to

the term “hazardous” substances with no further description, while some describe

hazardous properties or the specific hazardous waste component.

The legislation framework for classifying waste in the EU is closely linked to

chemicals legislation. Prior to June 2015, the attribution of any of the hazardous

properties listed in Annex III of the WFD were to be done in accordance with the criteria

laid down by Annex VI to Directive 67/548/EEC18 (the Dangerous Substance Directive, or

DSD) regarding the terms ‘toxic’ (and ‘very toxic’), ‘harmful’, ‘corrosive’, ‘irritant’,

14 Commission Decision of 18 December 2014 amending Decision 2000/532/EC on the list of waste pursuant to Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014D0955&from=EN 15 2000/532/EC: Commission Decision of 3 May 2000 replacing Decision 94/3/EC establishing a list of wastes pursuant to Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste and Council Decision 94/904/EC establishing a list of hazardous waste pursuant to Article 1(4) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste (notified under document number C(2000) 1147), http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32000D0532&from=EN 16 Commission Regulation (EU) No 1357/2014 of 18 December 2014 replacing Annex III to Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste and repealing certain Directives, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014D0955&from=EN 17 Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0098&from=EN 18 Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31967L0548&from=en







http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0098&from=EN

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0098&from=EN



‘carcinogenic’, ‘toxic to reproduction’, ‘mutagenic’ and ‘eco-toxic’, used for the definition of

the DSD R-phrases. If relevant, the limit values listed in Annex II and III to Directive

1999/45/EC (the Dangerous Preparations Directive, or DPD) were to apply. However, the

DSD and the DPD were repealed on 1 June 2015 by Regulation 1272/200819 on

classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP) and Regulation

1907/200620 on Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals

(REACH). In particular, R-phrases do not exist under the CLP Regulation and are replaced

by the naming of a hazard class and a signal word.

According to Annex III of the WFD (repealed on June 2015 by Regulation 1357/2014), tests

for assessing the H1 to H15 properties must be done following the methods in Annex V to

the DSD and in other relevant CEN-notes. However, the REACH Regulation refers to Test

Method Regulation (EC) 440/2008, which has taken over all test methods from the Annex

V to the DSD. In practice, assessing some of the hazardous properties listed in Annex III

has not been straightforward. This is particularly true for H 14: although Part C of Annex V

to the DSD and Part C of Regulation (EC) No 440/2008 lay down the test methods for the

determination of ecotoxicity, no guidelines or recommendations exist at EU-wide level for

a specific methodology for the assessment of H 14. This is can be explained – at least

partly – by the fact that it is only relatively recently that the relevant pieces of legislation

have considered ecotoxic properties: in 1999 for the DPD and in 2008 for the WFD.

As a result, assessment of H 14 is performed in different ways throughout Member

States. When the composition of the waste is known, the attribution of the “ecotoxic”

property is often made on the basis of the criteria of the CLP using the summation method,

thanks to which the classification of a mixture can be derived from the classification of its

components. However, it is difficult to implement this approach for complex mixtures of

mainly unknown composition, which is a common situation for wastes: the analytical

determination of the composition of waste could be both expensive and technically difficult.

In this case, the performance of bio-tests on the mixture itself is generally considered as a

relevant approach because it allows integrating the effects of all contaminants including

additive, synergistic and antagonistic toxic effects. In addition, reference data (i.e. EC50,

LC50, M-factors) are only available for a limited number of chemicals, which can

significantly impede using the summation method described in the CLP regulation21. Some

Member States evaluate eco-toxicity by biotest or physicochemical analysis, although there

is no standardised battery of biotests for waste at EU level. Other Member States use

formulae or criteria adapted from other assessment methods, for instance described in their

national regulations, in order to determine H 14 properties of waste. The lack of

harmonisation of methods for assessing hazardous properties in Member States, including

H 14, is one aspect calling for a revision of the legislation relevant to those hazardous

properties. In particular, it seems necessary to provide, in the legislation, a specific

methodology for assessing the ecotoxicity of waste, coherent with the methods

recommended in the CLP and REACH regulations.

Reflecting scientific and technical progress and ensuring coherence with chemical

legislation was the main driver for the launch, in 2008, of the review of the LoW and

of the WFD22, which led to the amendment of Decision 2000/532/EC and of Annex III

to the WFD, by – respectively – Decision 2014/955/EU and Regulation 1357/2014.

19 Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008R1272&from=en 20 Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32006R1907&from=en 21J. Römbke, R. Ketelhut& J. Wuttke (2013) Scientific Position Paper: For the European Commission Ecotoxicological Classification of Wastes (Criterion HP 14) 22 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/pdf/Technical_proposal.pdf

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008R1272&from=en




http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/pdf/Technical_proposal.pdf



Indeed, a Member State stakeholders’ consultation performed by the EU Committee for

the Adaptation to Scientific and Technical Progress and Implementation (TAC), identified

the following issues:

Problems resulting from the structure of the LoW and the classification

procedure;

Problems concerning the classification of hazardous waste and the application

of mirror pairs;

Problems resulting from the lack of suitable waste codes;

Ambiguous classification on account of two or more possible codes;

Problems resulting from unclear or imprecise definitions.

The Commission constituted a dedicated Working Group in order to address these issues,

“the Working Group for the amendment of the European waste list” (WG). Work conducted

by the WG relates to the review of the hazardous properties listed in Annex III to the WSD

(including H 14) and the definition to be included in Article 2 of Decision 2000/532/EC.

During their meeting of June 201123, the Working Group agreed that the H-Criteria shall be

renamed HP1 to 15 in order to avoid confusions with the H-statements of the CLP

Regulation. Therefore, “H 14” will be named “HP 14” from this line on.

Although the governing principle of the review was an alignment with CLP, it was agreed

that a strict alignment, including concentration limits, may not in all cases be appropriate

for wastes and could lead to unpredictable changes in the amount of wastes being

classified as hazardous. This issue concerns HPs 4, 6, 8 13 and 14 and caused

disagreements within the Working Group.

In November 2011, it was proposed that specific concentration limits/M-factors according

to CLP Annex VI should not be used for waste classification24, but rather that generic

concentration limits be provided directly in Article 2 of the LoW. However, in the specific

case of HP 14, some Member States were not in favour of deleting the M-factors from the

CLP summation method and proposed keeping the M-factors but deleting the categories

chronic categories 3 and 4 in the summation.

As no agreement was reached, two options for the assessment of HP 14 were proposed

in the Technical Proposal on the review of the Hazardous Properties25. Option 1 is based

on aquatic toxicity and does not include M-factors, while Option 2 also relies on aquatic

toxicity but includes M-factors. The proposal was submitted for consultation and triggered

reactions from the industry, notably regarding the issue of the change of classification of

some types of waste.

Scientific and technical work is ongoing to refine and analyse the options for

assessing HP 14 under a revised legislation. In 2013, four options were designed on

the basis of the work conducted by the Working Group for the amendment of the European

waste list. These options take into account proposals from the Commission, France and

Austria and aim at fulfilling four criteria for the assessment of HP 14:

Smooth transition to CLP possible;

User-friendly;

Changes compared to status quo; and

Sufficient environmental protection level.

23 Working Group For The Amendment Of The European Waste List, Summary Record Of The Meeting Held On 15 -16 June 2011 24 Working Group For The Amendment Of The European Waste List, Summary Record Of The Meeting Held On 28 -29 November 2011 25 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/pdf/Technical_proposal_tc.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/pdf/Technical_proposal_tc.pdf



Based on these options, the Commission designed four calculation methods for further

evaluation of the impact of a revision of the assessment of HP 14, with regards to the

technical feasibility of such a revision, as well as its economic, social and environmental

impacts. The potential use of biotests in combination with those methods is also an issue

to be addressed for the assessment of HP 14. However, there was a consensus in the

working group that further work was needed to formulate a definition of ‘ecotoxicity’.

Therefore, it was decided to amend the waste classification legislation without changing

the definition of ecotoxicity. The amendment of this hazardous property should be

postponed until a satisfactory proposal could be developed and assessed.

Based on the proposals developed by the working group, legislative proposals to amend

Decision 2000/532/EC and Annex III to Directive 2008/98/EC were drafted and adopted,

being published in the OJ in December 2014 as Decision 2014/955/EU and Regulation

1357/2014, respectively. They entered into force on 1 June 2015.

1.2. Objectives

The objective of this study is to assist the Commission to assess the impacts of changing

the criteria for the definition of eco-toxicity for waste, and especially to assess the

implications for Member States and industry of the implementation of four different options

of calculation methods for HP 14 assessment and waste classification. The following

aspects will be studied:

The ability to apply the methodology as a function of the nature and amount of

analytical information available;

The degree of correlation with biotest results;

The workability of the methodology;

The cost of implementation of the methodology;

The impact of the classification method chosen for HP 14 with respect to the

other methods and with respect to the current baseline;

The nature and estimation of costs of possible waste management options for

high volume waste streams for which a significant change in the fraction of

waste classified as hazardous is to be expected based on the application of

the different methods.

The identification of the potential limits of the proposed methodologies is another objective

of this study.



2. Methodology

The impact assessment of changing the criteria for the definition of ecotoxicity for waste

involves the following tasks:

Task 1: Data collection on how 8 Member States perform the assessment of

HP 14 in practice;

Task 2: Identification and data-collection relative to waste codes to be selected for the assessment;

Task 3: Determining the classification of waste types according to the different methodologies proposed;

Task 4: Comparative assessment of the technical, economical and practical impacts of the different methodologies;

Task 5: A stakeholder consultation and a workshop.

The next sections detail the methodology used to perform these tasks.

2.1. Collecting data on how a sample of Member States perform the assessment of HP 14

The current strategies implemented in different Member States to assess HP 14, including

relevant legislation and details about the approaches, were reported in country factsheets

thanks to a survey of Member States and a desk study.

2.1.1. Selection of countries and data collection by survey

Ten Member States were contacted with the aim to gather data on their strategies to assess

HP 14:

Austria

France

Belgium

Germany

Italy

Finland

Czech

Republic

United

Kingdom

Spain

Poland

The relevance of this sample is based on the volume of waste generated and managed in

those countries, which belong to the biggest producers of waste in EU-28 (see Table 1);

and also based on the involvement of national authorities, researchers or industrial

stakeholders from those countries in the topic of hazardous waste classification or

ecotoxicological characterisation of waste. The publication of articles and reports regarding

ecotoxicity of waste was used as an indicator of the involvement of Member States (for

examples, see Table 2).

Table 1: Waste production of the EU-28 Member States in 2012, extracted from Eurostat (Generation of waste [env_wasgen], WASTE: Total Waste, HAZARD: Total, Last update:

26/11/2014, Extracted on: 14/01/2015)

Member State Waste produced (t) in 2012

Member State

Waste produced (t) in 2012

Germany 368 022 172 Czech Republic 23 171 358

France 344 731 922 Estonia 21 992 343

United Kingdom 241 372 727 Ireland 19 807 586

Romania 219 309 676 Hungary 16 370 208

Poland 163 377 949 Denmark 16 332 249



Member State Waste produced (t) in 2012

Member State

Waste produced (t) in 2012

Italy 162 764 633 Portugal 14 184 456

Bulgaria 161 252 166 Slovakia 8 425 384

Sweden 156 366 579 Luxembourg 8 397 228

Netherlands 123 612 767 Lithuania 5 583 082

Spain 118 561 669 Slovenia 4 546 505

Finland 91 824 193 Croatia 3 378 638

Greece 72 328 280 Latvia 2 309 581

Belgium 66 932 665 Cyprus 2 086 469

Austria 34 047 465 Malta 1 496 464

Table 2: Example of publications in the waste classification topic of selected Member States (non-exhaustive)

Member State Example of publication

UK University of Birmingham (2014) Health and Safety Guidance Hazardous

Waste: Guidance on Assessment GUIDANCE/11/HWGA/14

Hazardous waste Interpretation of the definition and classification of

hazardous waste (3rd Edition 2013)

Finland Kati Vaajasaari (2005) Leaching and Biotests as Methods for Classification

and Assessment of Environmental Hazard of Solid Wastes. Tempere

University of Technology

France Pascal Pandard and Jörg Römbke (2013) Proposal for a “Harmonized”

Strategy for the Assessment of the HP 14 Property; Integrated

Environmental Assessment and Management — Volume 9, Number 4—

pp. 665–672

Pandard P et al. (2006) Selecting a Battery of Biotests for Ecotoxicological

Characterization of Wastes. Science of the Total Environment 363:114-

125.

Germany J. Römbke et al. (2009) Ecotoxicological characterisation of 12 incineration

ashes using 6 laboratory tests; Waste Management 29 2475–2482

H. Moser et al. (2011) Evaluation of biological methods for a future

methodological implementation of the Hazard criterion H14 ‘ecotoxic’ in

the European waste list (2000/532/EC); Waste Management & Research,

29(2) 180–187

H. Moser and J. Römbke (2009) Ecotoxicological Characterization of

Waste- Results and Experiences of an International Ring Test.

UbA (2013) Recommendations for the Ecotoxicological Characterization

of Wastes

Austria Participation in the Working Group for the amendment of the European

Waste List

Czech Republic Vasahlova et al. (2012) The proposal for changes in evaluation of

ecotoxicity of wastes in the Czech legislation



Member State Example of publication

Italy Participation in the Working Group for the amendment of the European

Waste List

Belgium Participation in the Working Group for the amendment of the European

Waste List

Spain Perez Dueñas et al. for ATEGRUS (2008) Guia de caracterizacion de

residuos peligrosos

The contact points in the relevant Competent Authorities of the ten selected Member States

were provided by the Commission. They were sent a cover letter from the Commission and

a questionnaire aiming at gathering the approaches used in their country to assess the

ecotoxicity of representative samples of waste streams. The questionnaire asked the

stakeholders to describe the HP 14 approaches implemented in their country, provide some

case studies (i.e. examples of application of their method on 1-2 waste streams) and

indicate the relevant national legislation about waste hazard classification and HP 14

ecotoxicology assessment. The experts were also asked to provide their preference(s)

concerning the waste codes of the LoW to focus the impact assessment on, in order to

help in the selection of waste codes for in-depth data collection (see section 2.1.2 and 2.3).

The full questionnaire is reported in Annex 1.

A second questionnaire was sent to those Member States in order to address data gaps

identified during the selection of mirror pairs for further assessment (the selection process

and criteria are detailed in section 2.2). This questionnaire, available in Annex 3, also

included a section on the collection of experimental data for the next steps of the study

(see section 2.3 and 5.2).

2.1.2. Data collection by desk study

In parallel, the project team conducted a desk-based search and merged the results of this

search with the results of the consultation. The aim of the desk-based search was to gather

data on the approaches used in the 10 Member States to assess the ecotoxicity of

representative samples of waste streams.

In order to find data about tonnages of hazardous waste, research on websites of

Competent Authorities was performed. As such tonnages were often split into

categories/codes of waste that were based on the Eurostat EWC-Stat classification system,

research has been carried out to convert quantities registered under EWC-Stat categories

to LoW categories. Such estimation was used if the consultation does not provide data on

hazardous waste tonnage.

Research has also been carried out using keywords in the different national languages to

seek document about the approaches used to assess HP 14, and examples of results of

such assessments. Literature previously identified was used as primary source of

information but also was a starting point to identify new documents relevant for our study

(through the listed references). Competent Authorities and national agencies websites

have been consulted to find the official documentation on methodology for waste

classification (guidelines, pieces of legislation, etc.). Scientific databases – such as Web of

Knowledge, PubMed, Science Direct – have been explored using keywords rings to gather

scientific articles dealing with biotests on waste.

2.1.3. Reporting data in factsheets

The data collected on HP 14 assessment by Member States survey and by a desk study

was reported in country factsheets. The template for those factsheets is presented below

(Table 3).



Table 3: Template for the country factsheets

NAME OF COUNTRY

National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes

Type of approach(es) used in the country to assess H14 property of waste

Calculation method with limit value Calculation method without limit value – Biotests Combined approach Other (choose one or more, please specify)

Name of the method(s)

Variability in H14 assessment methods depending on the waste nature

Specify if some categories of waste are assessed with different approaches

Related legislation and guidelines

Legislation Name of national regulations, decree, etc.

Guidelines Name of national guidance (if available)

Stakeholders involved in the H14 assessment

Name of the institution(s) + type of the institution+ role (funding/performing assessment, etc.)

Waste with highest tonnage

Waste with highest tonnage Name or code of waste + tonnage + share (%)

Hazardous waste with highest tonnage

Name or code of waste + tonnage+ share (%)

Chapter of List of waste with the highest share of hazardous waste

Name or code of waste + tonnage+ share (%)

Percentage of waste considered as hazardous by H14

Share of waste assessed as positive for H14 (% of waste classified as ecotoxic - globally and by category)

Protocol used

If biotests are applied (complete if relevant)

Prioritisation of tests (aquatic vs terrestrial)

What kind of tests are used in your country

Terrestrial tests

Test organism

Endpoint Test method

Test duration

Expression of results

Threshold value

Leaching/extraction test used

Aquatic tests

Test organism

Endpoint Test method

Test duration


Threshold value



If calculation methods are used (complete if relevant)

Concentration limits, thresholds, as well as relevant equations

Illustrative examples

Results of the method on X types of waste, to show the diversity of approaches (if relevant)

Qualitative assessment of the method(s)

Advantages

Limits and uncertainties

Approximate cost of the method(s) Variability depending on waste types (%)

Other MS using the same approach (if known)

Additional comments

Expert contacted to elaborate this factsheet

Name of experts (if agree)

References Name of documents used to elaborate the factsheet

Additional information

Links to websites to have additional information, stakeholders websites, etc.

The full factsheets containing all information collected for each country are reported in

Annex 2.

2.2. Selecting mirror pairs for the assessment

The assessment of HP 14 according to the four classification methods chosen by the

Commission is to be performed on a restricted list of mirror pairs (not on absolute entries).

The next sections explain how those mirror pairs were selected.

2.2.1. Selection process

The selection of mirror pairs is based on an extended list provided by the Commission and

containing 133 waste codes. Among them, 124 mirror pairs have been identified and the

selection process is performed on these 124 waste codes.

The selection process is based on six selection criteria (SC):

SC 1 - Preference of experts

SC 2 - Availability and quality of data

SC 3 - Tonnage of waste production

SC 4 - Economic importance

SC 5 - Potential presence of hazardous substances

SC 6 - Criticality of waste classification

For each SC, waste codes were assigned a qualitative or quantitative value (depending on

the criterion). For instance, under SC1, waste codes were assigned the number of experts

which expressed their preference. Under SC2, waste codes were assigned sources and

various information regarding calculations and biotests. Furthermore, values for each SC



were translated into scores from 0 to 3, according to different scoring systems depending

on the criterion. Details on the methodology for each criterion are presented in section

2.2.2.

A global score is then calculated for each waste code by computing a weighted average of

all scores. The weight of each criterion in the global score, as well as the strategy adopted

to select codes with the global scores is presented in section 2.2.3.

2.2.2. Selection criteria

The rationale for the evaluation of some selection criteria is based on results from the data

collection on the strategies of Member States to assess HP 14.

2.2.2.1. SC1: Preference of experts

Experts from ten Member States were asked which waste codes they thought the study

should focus on. Each waste code was attributed the number of experts who chose it.

The scoring system is as follows:

Number of experts Score

0 0

1 2 1

3 5 2

≥ 6 3

2.2.2.2. SC2: Availability and quality of data

A desk study was performed in order to evaluate the availability and quality of data related

to waste streams classified under the extended list of waste codes:

Composition of waste;

Results of biotests;

Protocols.

Generic keywords were used (“ecotoxic + waste + assessment”, “H14 + waste +

assessment”, “H14 + waste + classification”) in Google and Google Scholar. The resulting

publications and pieces of grey literature were classified according to the waste codes they

studied. Publications and reports provided by the Competent Authorities were also included

in the sample. A more in-depth study was then performed by using keywords specific to

the subchapters of the LoW:

Subchapter Keywords

03 01 (03 01 05)

04 02, 06 05, 07 01, 07 02, 07 03, 07 05,

07 06, 08 01, 10 03, 10 08, 11 01, 12 01,

19 08

06 03

08 03

08 04

Sawdust + ecotoxic + waste

Sludge + ecotoxic + waste

Metallic oxides + ecotoxic + waste

Ink + ecotoxic + waste

Adhesive + ecotoxic + waste



Subchapter Keywords

10 01

10 02

10 03

10 05

10 06, 10 08

10 08, 10 10, 10 11

10 09, 10 10

10 11, 10 12, 10 13

16 11

17 01

17 03

17 05

17 06

17 08

19 01

19 07

19 10

19 13

Bottom ash + ecotoxic + waste

Fly ash + ecotoxic + waste

Gas cleaning + ecotoxic + waste

Filter cakes + ecotoxic + waste

cooling water treatment + ecotoxic + waste

Flue gas dust + ecotoxic + waste

Slag + ecotoxic + waste

Dross + ecotoxic + waste

cooling water treatment + ecotoxic + waste

Flue gas dust + ecotoxic + waste

Moulds + ecotoxic + waste

Gas treatment + ecotoxic + waste

Lining + ecotoxic + waste

Refractories + ecotoxic + waste

Concrete + ecotoxic + waste

Bituminous + ecotoxic + waste

Soil + ecotoxic + waste

Spoil + ecotoxic + waste

Insulation + ecotoxic + waste

Gypsum + ecotoxic + waste

Bottom ash + ecotoxic + waste

Fly ash + ecotoxic + waste

Boiler dust + ecotoxic + waste

Landfill leachate + ecotoxic + waste

Dust + ecotoxic + waste

Soil + ecotoxic + waste

The collected documents were attributed one or more waste codes depending on the waste

samples analysed. A few pieces of information (for instance, the name of the samples of

interest, or the fact that the protocols were performed according to ISO standards) were

also collected.

Although the desk study was not a formal systematic search, it should be representative of

the amount of literature (scientific and grey) publically available on the waste codes of the

list.


Number of publications Score

0 0

1 1

2 3 2

≥ 4 3



2.2.2.3. SC3: Tonnage of waste production

The quantities of waste produced per Member States and per waste code were retrieved

in official documents.

For Member States for which data was available (Germany, UK, Spain, Finland, Belgium),

a score was attributed to each waste code according to the logarithmic distribution of the

tonnages throughout the set of waste codes (Figure 2). Waste codes for which no stream

was produced in the Member State of interest (0 tons) were attributed a score of zero.

Those for which no data was available (Czech Republic and Austria) were not given any

score (noted “n/a”). This scoring system is illustrated in the figure below for Germany.

Figure 2: Waste quantities in Germany and attribution of scores

For some Member States (Italy and Poland), quantities were reported under other

classifications than the LoW: an extrapolation was therefore necessary to attribute

tonnages for LoW codes:

Country Type of raw data Method of extrapolation

Italy Total quantities of waste

generated (with a distinction

between hazardous and

non-hazardous waste) per

general categories of the

LoW (01, 02, 03, etc.)

Disaggregation of the quantity registered

under a category into the different category

codes:

- For hazardous waste codes: division26 of

the value for total hazardous waste of this

category with the number of hazardous

waste codes in this category

- For non-hazardous waste codes: division

of the value for total non-hazardous waste

of this category with the number of non-

hazardous waste codes in this category

Poland Total quantities of

hazardous and non-

Disaggregation of the total quantity of waste

into the different category codes for waste:

26 As no other relevant information was available, it was assumed that wastes in each category were evenly distributed.

1,0E+00

1,0E+01

1,0E+02

1,0E+03

1,0E+04

1,0E+05

1,0E+06

1,0E+07

1,0E+08

1,0E+09

Qu

an

tity

of

wa

ste

(to

ns)

Waste codes ranked from the highest to the lowest tonnage

Score: 3

Score: 2

Score: 1



Country Type of raw data Method of extrapolation

hazardous waste

generated; and share of

categories of the LoW

within the tonnages of the

hazardous and non-

hazardous waste

- For hazardous waste codes :

Multiplication of the total quantity of

hazardous waste by the share of each

LoW category; and division by the number

of hazardous waste code in this category

- For non-hazardous waste codes:

Multiplication of the total quantity of non-

hazardous waste by the share of each

LoW category; and division by the number

of non-hazardous waste code in this

category

For each waste code, a weighted average of the scores per Member State was calculated,

giving the score for SC3. The weights were attributed in the aim to take into account the

uncertainties and bias regarding the quantities of waste reported in the Member States.

Selection bias was not penalised because the average is computed per waste code,

therefore if the quality of the data for one waste code is good, the quality of the selection

cannot degrade its score.

Table 4: Attribution of weights according to biases in data on quantity

Bias Weight

Data from selected companies 1 if the selection is representative

0.5 if not

Data from a specific region of the

Member State

1

Data for some codes only 1

Data extrapolated from quantities

reported under another classification

than the LoW

0.5

Old data (< 2009) 0.5

If more than one bias was identified for a Member States, the weights were multiplied.

An example is provided below for waste code 06 03 16. Italy has a bias of extrapolation

and data from Poland dates from 2005 and is extrapolated.

Table 5: Score per Member State and weighted average score for SC3 - waste code 06 03 16

Country FR DE UK ES IT PL FI BE AT

Score for SC3

Weight 1 1 1 1 0.5 0.25 1 1 1

Score n/a 2 n/a n/a 2 3 n/a 2 n/a 2,07



2.2.2.4. SC4: Economic importance

The economic importance was evaluated by the volumes of transboundary shipments and

by the inputs of the Competent Authorities27 estimating economic importance according to

a set of criteria (high generated volumes, percentage of waste-to-energy recovery,

percentage of waste-to-material recovery).


Data Score

Identified as one of the most exported OR Identified by Italy AND Finland

3

Identified by Italy or Finland only 2

Belongs to one of the main categories of waste which are shipped

1

No data available n/a

2.2.2.5. SC5: Potential presence of hazardous substances

The identification of hazardous substances potentially contaminating waste, was done

thanks to a desk-based search and to the Competent Authorities’ experience with

hazardous waste.

Scores were attributed with regards to the level of hazard linked to the identified

substances. The level of hazard was evaluated based on the EC50 values, which were

retrieved through the INERIS portal of hazardous substances

(http://www.ineris.fr/substances/fr/homepage/search), or the USEPA ECOTOX portal

(http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/quick_query.htm)28 if the substance is not in the INERIS

inventory. When more than one value of EC50 was available, the lowest one was chosen.

For some waste codes, the potential presence of pesticides was reported, without naming

specific active ingredients. Therefore, a desk-based search was conducted to determine

the level of hazard of the most dangerous pesticides for the environment (worst-case

approach):

Step 1: Selection of pesticides having at least two "1" in Group 3

"Environmental toxicity" (except bees29) of the PAN International List of Highly

Hazardous Pesticides - June 2014

(http://www.panna.org/sites/default/files/PAN_HHP_List_2014.pdf)

Step 2: Selecting only pesticides authorised in the EU

(http://ec.europa.eu/sanco_pesticides/public/?event=activesubstance.selectio

n&language=EN)

Step 3: Reporting EC50 values, for selected pesticides for which such

information is available. The values are presented in sheet “Hazard of various

substances”, tables under the name “pesticides”.

The sheet “Hazard of various substances” of the Excel file also reports available EC50

values for metals, inorganics (except metals), pesticides and organics (except pesticides).


27 In practice, only Italy and Finland provided inputs on this matter. 28 The USEPA portal was used if the INERIS portal did not provide the requested information. 29 Bees are not an exposed species when pesticides are in waste

http://www.ineris.fr/substances/fr/homepage/search

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/quick_query.htm

http://www.panna.org/sites/default/files/PAN_HHP_List_2014.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/sanco_pesticides/public/?event=activesubstance.selection&language=EN

http://ec.europa.eu/sanco_pesticides/public/?event=activesubstance.selection&language=EN



Order of magnitude of EC50 of substances Score

10-4 / 10-3 (e.g. metals, pesticides) 3

10-2 / 10-1 (e.g. tars) 2

1 or more 1


2.2.2.6. SC6: Criticality of waste classification

This was evaluated according to:

a VITO study30 which identified a few waste codes for which waste streams

classified under one code of a mirror entry are likely to shift to being classified

under the other code.

Inputs from Member States assessing qualitatively and from expert judgement,

the likeliness of a change of classification.


Change of classification Score

No 0

Maybe 1.5

Yes 3


When more than one source is available for a waste code, the priority is set this way:

“yes” wins over the other possible impacts;

“maybe” wins over “no”.

2.2.3. Global score and selection of mirror pairs

The global score is calculated for each waste code by computing a weighted average of all

scores obtained for SC1 to SC6. The weights are the following:

Selection criteria Weight

SC1 3

SC2 3

SC3 2

SC4 1

SC5 1

SC6 2

30 Impact of the new List of Waste on the Flemish waste policy



For each waste code:

𝐺𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 =∑ 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 (𝑆𝐶𝑖). 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡(𝑆𝐶𝑖)𝑖

∑ 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡(𝑆𝐶𝑖)𝑖

𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑖 𝑠𝑢𝑐ℎ 𝑎𝑠 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒(𝑆𝐶𝑖) ≠ 𝑛/𝑎

Since a weighted average pulls all indicator values toward the mean, the global score is

rescaled to extend through the full range of values (0–3):

For each waste code:

𝑁𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 = 3. (𝐺𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 (𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑑𝑒) − min (𝐺𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒)

max(𝐺𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒) − min (𝐺𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒))

All waste codes with a normalised global score higher than 1.5 are selected. If the mirror

entry of a selected code is not included in the list, the mirror pair is nonetheless chosen.

2.2.4. Taking into account the Commission and Member States’ inputs

The Commission and Member States’ experience with the LoW lead to their suggesting

additional codes to the selection performed with the process detailed in the previous

sections. It was taken into account as described below:

Member States’ contribution

Some Member States (Austria, Belgium and the UK) shared a list of waste streams

relevant, in their experience, for assessing ecotoxicity. A list of mirror pairs was attributed

to the proposed waste streams, except for those which referred to absolute entries. Then,

only mirror pairs appearing in the original extended list of the Commission were kept. Of

those, the pairs chosen with the selection process described in section 2.2.1 were

removed.

The resulting list was further trimmed:

Only pairs from the most mentioned streams were kept (gas cleaning, sludge,

C&D waste); and then

Only pairs in which both entries have a score above 1 made the final cut.

European Commission’s contribution

Pairs proposed by the Commission were included.

2.3. Collecting experimental data on selected waste codes

The team collected the data necessary to perform the calculations required to apply the

four different methodologies for waste classification, along with all ecotoxicology test

results about the previously selected mirror pairs. The data collection was done by a new

consultation in the sample of Member States (see the questionnaire in Annex 3), and by

analysing the publications found during the desk study (see section 2.1.2).

The scope of the data collection is to obtain information on:

Current hazard classification of each waste mirror pairs (to establish the

baseline against which to determine impacts);

Composition of the waste:

o Nature of each component;

o Hazard statement codes according to CLP of each component (ex:

H420, H400, H410, H411, H412, H413, etc.);

o Exact concentration and M-factor of each component classified H420

or H400, H410, H411, H412, H413;

Results of ecotoxicity tests:



o Test strategy (number of tests, prioritisation, etc.);

o Way of expressing results (ECx, LID, etc.);

o Threshold values for classifying wastes as hazardous;

Protocols of sampling, preparation of samples, analyses and test:

o For composition:

Specify whether chemical analysis was performed on the solid

material itself or on its leachates;

Sampling time;

Sample preservation ;

Transport and storage of samples (including time of

conservation);

Pre-treatment of samples;

Preparation of waste eluates (including pH adjustment if

performed);

Storage of waste eluates ;

Leachant;

Analytical methods.

o For ecotoxicity tests:

Sampling date;

Sample preservation ;

Transport and storage of samples (including Time of

conservation);

Pre-treatment of samples ;


performed);

Storage of waste eluates ;

Organism [e.g. Daphnia magna];

Time of conservation before performing test;


appropriate);

Storage of waste eluates (including time and conditions);

Test method;

Control/dilution medium.

2.4. Running the calculation methods

2.4.1. Reporting collected data

The data collected were reported in an Excel file which contains the following information:

The current hazard classification of each waste mirror sample (to establish the

baseline against which to determine impacts),

The known composition of the waste,

The results of ecotoxicity tests, and,



The protocols of sampling, preparation of samples, analyses and test.

The protocols and methods followed for chemical analyses are also reported in the Excel

file.

2.4.2. Worst-case selection

The four calculation methods were applied using the collected characterisation data.

To perform the calculations, the specific compounds present in the sample must be known.

However, an important difficulty was identified: to perform the calculations, the specific

compounds present in the sample must be known. Indeed, in order to classify the waste, it

is necessary to identify the hazard properties of each constituent and the mass percentage

concentration associated. However, collected information only reports concentrations of

elemental constituents. Therefore, plausible worst case compounds were selected

according to the relevance of their presence in waste and reported in the table “Worst case

compounds selected for calculation” in Annex 5. In the absence of any other information,

the preference was given to simple compounds like oxides or chlorides, for which the

presence in the waste seems to be more relevant. As specified by Note 1 of Section 1.1.3.2

of Annex VI of the CLP regulation31, the molar mass of metallic compounds was not

considered for worst case selection. In case of presence of generic entries in the

harmonised classification (as for example, for lead compounds), this classification is

considered. Among simple compounds, those which have the most severe classification

according to the harmonised classification of the Regulation 1272/2008/EC (CLP) are used

for calculation.

For each worst case compound selected, the following information is extracted from the

harmonised classification for environmental hazards and reported in the table in Annex 5:

index number, EC number, CAS number, hazard class and categories, hazard statement

and M-factor. In this table, compounds underlined in green do not have a harmonised

classification for environmental hazard properties according to Regulation 1272/2008/EC

(CLP).

Tools for selecting worst case compounds are currently in development but not validated

and not yet review by a group of experts. For example, France has developed a tool that

allows the consideration of speciation and different parameters of the waste like the pH,

the stoichiometric ratio and the molar mass of compounds32. The tool was published as a

French standard: AFNOR FD X30-494 “Characterization of waste - Specification of

elements present in waste (May 2015)” and is currently being considered for a CEN

standard. As this tool was not yet fully finalised at the time of redaction, the simple default

approach described above is applied.

2.4.3. Calculation tool

An Excel file was created for the classification of waste samples from the selected mirror

pairs (see example in Table 6). Input data is the following: the element (to be selected in a

drop-down list) and the concentration in mg/kg of this element. In case of specific

substances like organic compounds, the most frequently detected ones present in wastes

are included in the drop-down list. Information regarding the classification of compounds

not appearing in the tool must be entered manually. For each hazard statement, the value

“1” corresponds to the classification of the compound for this hazard otherwise, the “0”

value corresponds to the non-classification. It is also necessary to fill the columns

corresponding to the M-factor (if no M-factor is available, the value “1” has to be filled).

31 The concentration stated or, in the absence of such concentrations, the generic concentrations of this Regulation (Table 3.1) or the generic concentrations of Directive 1999/45/EC (Table 3.2), are the percentages by weight of the metallic element calculated with reference to the total weight of the mixture 32 INERIS (2011) - Reconstitution d’une spéciation des éléments totaux en minéraux dans les déchets en vue de la détermination d’un potentiel de danger dans un objectif de classement SEVESO - Principes et mode d’emploi de l’outil de calcul (DRC-11-118157-06170A) - Tool still under development



Table 6: Example of input in the calculation tool (Ref: sample 1, pair 06 05 02*/06 05 03)

H420 H400 H410 H411 H412 H413M factor

(acute)

M factor

(chronic)

As 11

arsenic acid and its salts

with the exception of those

specified elsewhere in this

Annex 1 - 74.9216 74.9216 0.0011% 1 1 0 0 0 1 1

Pb 21

lead compounds with the

exception of those specified

elsewhere in this Annex 1 - 207.2 207.2 0.0021% 1 1 0 0 0 1 1

Cd 0.29

cadmium oxide (non-

pyrophoric) 1 1306-19-0 112.411 112.414 0.0000% 1 1 0 0 0 1 1

Cr 11 chromium (VI) trioxide 1 1333-82-0 51.9961 99.9 0.0021% 1 1 0 0 0 1 1

Cu 114

dicopper oxide

copper (I) oxide 2 1317-39-1 63.546 143.09 0.0128% 1 1 0 0 0 1 1

Ni 190 nickel sulfate 1 7786-81-4 58.6934 154.75 0.0501% 1 1 0 0 0 1 1

Hg 0.09 mercury 1 7439-97-6 200.59 200.59 0.0000% 1 1 0 0 0 1 1

Zn 1000 zinc oxide 1 1314-13-2 65.39 81.408 0.1245% 1 1 0 0 0 1 1

_Benzene 0.01 Benzene 1 71-43-2 #N/A 78.11 0.0000% 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

Worst case classification

CompoundConcentration

(mg/kg)Compound worst case

MM

element

(g/mol)

MM

compound

(g/mol)

Concentration

(% w/w)CAS

Number of element in

worst case

(e.g. dicopper oxide = 2)

(default value = 1)

Element/

Specific

Compoun

ds

(drop-

down list)



2.5. Impact assessment

The implementation of any of the four calculation methods is likely to lead to changes in

the classification of some waste, and thus affect the quantities of waste classified as

hazardous and non-hazardous for each individual mirror pair. This, in turn, would lead to

environmental, economic and social impacts.

The impact assessment conducted in this study aims at estimating the consequences of

the implementation of each of the four methods on the waste streams corresponding to the

selected mirror pairs against a baseline scenario (i.e. the current situation, and further

development excluding the implementation of the 4 calculation methods). The baseline

scenario was determined using EU-level data on the environmental, economic and social

aspects, with no distinction between Member States. This distinction would have been

relevant (different Member States apply different criteria), but lack of data prevents such a

detailed assessment (not enough collected samples).

The environmental, social and economic impacts of this implementation were investigated.

2.5.1. Scope of the impact assessment

The ideal scope would have been the whole list of selected mirror pairs. However, the

impact assessment can only be performed on pairs whose samples had both:

Characterisation data of enough quality for the calculations to be performed,

and

Their current classification (baseline) available.

This necessary requirement restricted the list of mirror pairs (see section 6.3) on which the

socio-economic impact was performed.. However, in order to maximise the number of

samples considered for each pair, the current classification of some samples was

determined “manually” by the project team, by applying the HP 14 assessment methods of

the Member State from which the sample originated. This determination was done for

samples which:

Were not assigned a current classification (samples extracted from scientific

publications or from other documents which did not mention the classification

for example); and

Originated from countries implementing a chemical approach (otherwise the

classification cannot be deducted from characterisation data).

2.5.2. Assessment steps

The impact assessment was conducted according to the following steps:

Setting indicators describing key factors of impact assessment, the variation of

which may affect the management of waste, the environment, public health,

recycling companies, etc.;

Evaluating the current “value” of those indicators (baseline), i.e. documenting

the current situation and trends of the generation and management of waste

streams classified under the codes included in the scope;

Estimating the likely “value” of those indicators linked to the implementation of

either one of the four methods of calculation, i.e. assessing the environmental

and socio-economic impacts of each of the four methods, considering the

proportion of waste that would change classification due to new HP 14

assessment.



2.5.2.1. Indicators

The aspects of interest for the impact assessment are described by the following indicators:



landfilled)

o Benefits of recovering the waste

o Pollution due to contaminated fractions of the waste

Economic aspects

o Costs of disposal

o Costs of recycling

Social aspects

o Employment

o Public Health

2.5.2.2. Data collection on the current situation and potential impacts

Information on the environmental, economic and social aspects of managing the selected

waste streams was collected thanks to a desk study and a dedicated stakeholder

consultation.

The desk study involved an Internet search in grey and scientific literature. For each waste

stream, key words including the name of the stream and of the indicator of interest were

used in Google and Google Scholar. Searches in specific websites were also performed:

Eurostat33, the ADEME website34, the Defra35 and WRAP36 websites.

As the desk study was not expected to yield sufficient results, a consultation targeting

industrial stakeholders was launched in parallel. Participants of the workshops in which the

study was presented in April and May 2015 (see section 2.6) were sent a questionnaire

aiming at gathering their inputs on the potential impacts of a change of classification for

their industry. The respondents were surveyed on the expected economic feasibility of the

four methods and were prompted to fill in one or more case studies on the potential impacts

of the changes of classification for one or more mirror pairs. The questionnaire is available

in Annex 4.

2.5.2.3. Establishment of the baseline

The current situation of waste management for the studied waste streams is described

based upon the chosen indicators and the data collection.

For each studied waste stream, the current situation in the EU according to environmental,

economic and social aspects are described. The baseline was not established per Member

States, because the determination of impacts (relying on calculation on collected samples)

cannot be done per Member State (lack of data).

2.5.2.4. Determination of impacts

The proportion of waste changing classification (for each mirror pair) was estimated

considering the samples collected for the purpose of running the calculation methods.

33 http://ec.europa.eu/ 34 www.ademe.fr/ 35 https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs 36 www.wrap.org.uk/



For each pair:

𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 ℎ𝑎𝑧𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑛𝑜𝑛 ℎ𝑎𝑧𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑑𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑀𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑑 𝑖 =𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 (𝐻 → 𝑁𝐻)𝑀𝑖

𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 (𝐻)𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑙𝑦

𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑛𝑜𝑛 ℎ𝑎𝑧𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑡𝑜 ℎ𝑎𝑧𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑑𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑀𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑑 𝑖 =𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 (𝑁𝐻 → 𝐻)𝑀𝑖

𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 (𝑁𝐻)𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑙𝑦

With:

𝐻 = 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑠 ℎ𝑎𝑧𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑜𝑢𝑠

𝑁𝐻 = 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑛 ℎ𝑎𝑧𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑜𝑢𝑠

(𝐻 → 𝑁𝐻)𝑀𝑖 , 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑦 (𝑁𝐻 → 𝐻)𝑀𝑖

= 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑓𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 ℎ𝑎𝑧𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑛𝑜𝑛 ℎ𝑎𝑧𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑜𝑢𝑠 (𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑦 𝑛𝑜𝑛 ℎ𝑎𝑧𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑡𝑜 ℎ𝑎𝑧𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑜𝑢𝑠) 𝑑𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑀𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑑 𝑖

(𝐻)𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑙𝑦 , 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑦 (𝑁𝐻)𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑙𝑦

= 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑠 ℎ𝑎𝑧𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑜𝑢𝑠 (𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑦 𝑛𝑜𝑛 ℎ𝑎𝑧𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑜𝑢𝑠) 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒

The impacts of these changes are estimated by considering the baseline and determining

how the indicators have changed due to the shift in proportion. For instance, environmental

impacts include the proportion of waste which would not be recycled anymore, following

the implementation of any of the four methods.

A brief description of the impacts of the status quo (i.e. the way the baseline situation would

evolve if none of the 4 calculation methods was implemented) is also provided.

2.6. Workshops and conferences

Interim results were presented in a workshop organised by the European Commission in

April 2015. The workshop was the opportunity to further clarify some points in the

factsheets and to gather the participants’ opinions on the four calculation methods and on

the relevance of an experimental approach based on biotests.

Those results were also shared within a workshop organised by the VTT institute in Espoo,

Finland.

The study was presented during the Technical Adaptation Committee (TAC meeting) held

in June 2015 in Brussels.



3. Results: strategies of selected

Member States to assess HP

14

3.1. Member States survey

Ten Member States (Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany,

Italy, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom) were sent a questionnaire via email (see

Annex 1), with the aim to document the approaches used in their country to assess the

ecotoxicity of waste streams. The list of contacts and their contribution is also reported in

Annex 1.

3.2. Full country factsheets

Factsheets were drafted for the following countries and are available in Annex 2:

Austria

France

Belgium

Germany

Italy

Finland

Czech Republic

United Kingdom

Spain

The next sections detail and analyse the information reported in the factsheets.

3.3. Description of the approaches

3.3.1. General information

The nine Member States have either national legislation, guidelines or both, describing

methods to assess HP 14 in their jurisdictions (Table 7). Italy and Austria passed laws

introducing the criteria assigning HP 14 to waste but did not issue guidelines37. In Spain,

the Ordinance determining the methods for assessing HP 14 is accompanied by

appendices providing guidance. In the other countries (France, Germany, Finland, UK and

Belgium), where no legislative instruments exist, guidelines are however available.

Table 7: National legislation or guidelines for the H14 assessment methods and protocols

Member State Legal instrument Guidelines

Austria Fed. Law Gaz No. 522/1973 as

amended by Fed Law Gaz III No.

36/2001

Belgium OVAM (2004) Europese

afvalstoffenlijst EURAL Handleiding

37 In Italy, although there are no official guidelines or specific protocols, studies detailing the assessment of HP 14 were published (see the “References” section of the Italian factsheet)




Czech

Republic

Decree No 376/2001 Coll. on

evaluation of hazardous properties

of waste

Instructions for waste ecotoxicity

evaluation (Bulletin of Ministry of

Environment (No.4, 2007)

Finland Dahlbo, H. 2002. Jätteen luokittelu

ongelmajätteeksi – arvioinnin

perusteet ja menetelmät

(Classification of waste as hazardous

waste – the basis and methods for

evaluation). Environment Guide 98.

Finnish Environment Institute.

Helsinki. Finland. 160 pp. (In Finnish)

Ympäristöministeriö, Tilastokeskus,

Suomen ympäristökeskus.

Jäteluokitusopas 2005 (Waset

Classification Guide 2005).

Tilastokeskus, Käsikirjoja 37.

Helsinki 2005. (In Finnish)

France FNADE (2003) Methodological Guide

- Waste Classification for a good

direction of waste to appropriate

storage centres – Appendix 3

INERIS (2013) Guide de classement

des déchets selon leur dangerosité

suivant le Code de l’Environnement

et la réglementation SEVESO II

(partie applicable aux déchets).

Rapport d’étude N°INERIS- DRC-12-

125740-06310A, 66 pp.

Germany German AVV

(Abfallverzeichnisverordnung)

(technical guide)

Guidelines on the Application of the

Waste Catalogue Ordinance

Italy - Legislative decree 152/2006 (part

IV). It replaces the legislative decree

22/97.

- Law 28/2012.This law has

introduced the criteria for H14

assessment into the legislative

decree 152/2006 (see point 5,

Annex D part IV)




Spain ORDEN de 13 de octubre de 1989

por la que se determinan los

métodos de caracterización de los

residuos tóxicos y peligrosos

ORDEN MAM/304/2002, de 8 de

febrero - Anejo 2 (“no contiene en la

actualidad disposiciones respecto a

las características H1, H2, H9 y H12

a H14”)

ORDEN de 13 de octubre de 1989

por la que se determinan los métodos

de caracterización de los residuos

tóxicos y peligrosos –Appendice IV

and A

Perez Dueñas et al. for ATEGRUS

(2008) Guia de caracterizacion de

residuos peligrosos

UK Environment Agency (2013) WM2:

Hazardous waste Interpretation of

the definition and classification of

hazardous waste (3rd Edition 2013),

147 pp.

University of Birmingham (2014)

Health and Safety Guidance -

Hazardous Waste: Guidance on

Assessment

GUIDANCE/11/HWGA/14, 32 pp

The assessment approaches adopted in the nine Member States can be qualified as:

Based on chemical analysis; or

Based on biotests; or

Based on chemical analysis and biotests (so-called combined approaches).

The following map (Figure 3) shows the types of approaches adopted by the nine Member

States.



Figure 3: Approaches for the assessment of HP 14 in the nine studied Member States

Austria, Belgium, Italy, Finland and the UK rely solely on chemical analysis to determine

the ecotoxic property of waste. It is worth mentioning that Finland and the UK allow biotests

in some cases, but discourage the use of such methods. Their position is discussed in

section 3.4. In Czech Republic and Spain, the assessment of HP 14 is performed thanks

to biotests only, while in France and Germany a tiered approach including chemical

analysis is in place.

The following sections (3.3.2 and 3.3.3) describe and compare the approaches based on

chemical analysis (whether used alone or in combination with biotests) and those based

on biotests (whether used alone or in combination with chemical analysis), respectively.

Section 3.3.3 focuses on the analysis of combined approaches.

3.3.2. Approaches using chemical analysis

Belgium, Finland, Germany, and the UK base their approach on the DPD, but did not adapt

it the same way. In Austria and Italy, the HP14 strategy is based on classification according

to the European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by

Road (ADR)38, while France adapts the CLP regulation.

3.3.2.1. Approaches based on the DPD

The process for assessing HP 14 is common to all Member States adapting the DPD for

this purpose and is described in the decision tree below (Figure 4). These Member States

rely on the first versions of the DPD, which do not include M-factors.

38 http://www.unece.org/trans/danger/publi/adr/adr_e.html

Type of approach

Not included in the sample

Biotests

Chemical analysis

Combined

http://www.unece.org/trans/danger/publi/adr/adr_e.html



Figure 4: Decision tree for the assessment of HP 14 using chemical analyses (based on the DPD)

Wastes which do not contain substances classified as dangerous for the aquatic

environment or for the ozone layer according to the DSD R-phrases are not hazardous by

HP 14 (Step 1). The relevant R-phrases are the following:

R50: very toxic to aquatic organisms;

R50-53: very toxic to aquatic organisms and may cause long-term effects in

the aquatic environment;

R51-53: toxic to aquatic organisms and may cause long-term effects in the

aquatic environment;

R52-53: harmful to aquatic organisms and may cause long-term effects in the

aquatic environment;

R52: harmful to aquatic organisms;

R53: may cause long-term effects in the aquatic environment; and

R59: dangerous for the ozone layer.

Substances classified as either one of these R-phrases will be considered “ecotoxic

substances”. If the chemical analysis of the waste shows that ecotoxic substances are

present, one must first determine whether the concentrations of the individual substances

are above the generic concentration limits set by the DPD, as presented in Table 8 (Step

2).

Does the waste contain

ecotoxic substances

assigned R50 to R53, R50-

53, R51-53 or R52-53?


ecotoxic substances at a

concentration at or above the

generic

concentration limits?

Does the waste contain two

or more ecotoxic substances

above the concentration

thresholds?

Is the waste ecotoxic

according to additivity rules

applied in the Member

State?

Does the waste contain ecotoxic

substances at a concentration at

or above the substance specific

threshold limits?

Ha

za

rdo

us b

y H

P 1

4

No

t h

aza

rdou

s b

y H

P 1

4

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

In dashes and italics: a UK-specific step.Italics

In green: Concentrations and equations detailed

below the diagram.

Step 1

Step 2

Step 4

Step 3

Step 2’



Table 8: Generic concentration limits for individual ecotoxic substances, according to their classification (DPD-based approaches)

Classification of the

substance (DSD)

Generic concentration

limits (w/w %)

R50 25

R50-53 0.25

R51-53 2.5

R52-53 25

R52 25

R53 25

R59 0.1

If at least one ecotoxic substance is present in the waste at a concentration at or exceeding

the relevant threshold limit, then the waste is hazardous by HP 14. Otherwise the

assessment process must continue.

In the next step (Step 3), one must compare the concentrations of ecotoxic substances to

concentration thresholds above which they must be taken into account for the

assessment (Table 9).

Table 9: Concentration thresholds for ecotoxic substances, according to their classification ((DPD-based approaches)


substance (DSD)

Concentration,

thresholds (w/w %)

R50 0.1

R50-53 0.1

R51-53 0.1

R52-53 1

R52 1

R53 1

R59 0.1

If no ecotoxic substance is present at a concentration at or above the relevant threshold,

then the waste is non-hazardous by HP 14. Otherwise, additivity rules must be applied to

the ecotoxic substances having concentrations above thresholds (Step 4). These rules

differ depending on the Member States (Table 10).



Table 10: Conditions rendering the waste hazardous by HP 14 during Step 4, per Member State adapting the DPD for HP 14 assessment

Member State(s) Conditions

Finland and UK ∑ (

PR50-53

0.25+

PR51-53

2.5+

PR52-53

25) ≥ 1

Or

∑(PR50+PR50-53) ≥ 25

Or

∑ PR52 ≥ 25

Or

∑ (PR53+PR50-53+PR51-53+PR52-53) ≥ 25

Belgium ∑(PR50-53) ≥ 2.5

Or

∑(PR51-53) ≥ 25

Or

∑(PR50) ≥ 25

Or

∑(PR59) ≥ 0.1

Germany39 ∑(PR50-53) ≥ 0.25

Or

∑(PR51-53) ≥ 2.5

Or

∑(PR52-53) ≥ 25

Or

∑(PR59) ≥ 0.1

Where PRX is the total concentration of substances classified as RX, expressed in w/w %.

The British approach adds one step to the process (Step 2’), which considers specific

concentration limits reported in Table 3.2 of the CLP regulation. In the UK, where an

individual dangerous substance has been assigned a substance specific concentration limit

for any ecotoxic R-phrase, which is lower than the generic limit (see Table 8), then the

lowest substance specific threshold must be considered for attribution of HP 14.

39 As implemented in Baden-Württemberg. Other Länder may have different methods.



3.3.2.2. Approaches based on the ADR

The ADR is applied differently by the two Member States (Italy and Austria) taking it as

reference.

Austria

Ecotoxic classification of waste is performed with reference to the ADR for aquatoxicity and

on the content of some hydrocarbons and halons for ozone depletion. A waste is classified

as hazardous by HP 14 if:

The waste in an environmental hazardous material according to Class 9, M6

and M7 of the ADR; or

It contains CFCs, CFHCs, HCFCs, HFHCs, FHCs, or halons in amount of more

than 2000 mg/kg dry matter.

The approach adopted in Austria does not rely on calculations. In the first case, it relies on

the conclusions of the assessment performed for ADR classification and in the second

case, a chemical analysis is enough.

Italy

HP 14 is attributed to the waste according to the processes of the ADR for Class 9, M6 and

M7, under Italian law 28/2012. This law adapts to waste classification the procedures for

the classification of mixtures. It calls for HP 14 to be attributed by applying “conventional”

ADR calculation methods, which are coherent with the limit values laid out in the CLP &

the DPD.

The process for assessing HP 14 in Italy is described in the decision tree below (Figure 5),

which follows a similar procedure as done in DPD-based approach (see Figure 4).



Figure 5: Decision tree for the assessment of HP 14 in Italy

Substances considered in the Italian assessment are those classified as Acute 1, Chronic

1 and Chronic 2 according to the GHS (Table 11).

Table 11: Hazard classes considered in the Italian HP 14 assessment

Hazard category DSD phrase CLP phrase

Acute 1 R50 H400

Chronic 1 R50-53 H410


The Chronic 3 & 4 categories are not taken into account, as they are not considered in the

ADR. Therefore, ADR-based approaches encompass a narrower range of toxic properties

than DPD-based approaches.

In addition to classified substances, the Italian ISS (Higher Institute of Health) identified

four groups of hydrocarbons (listed in Table 12) which are to be considered just like

substances, that is to say, like individual components that participate in the calculation in a

cumulative way with the other ecotoxic substances present.


according to additivity rule 2

regarding R50-53 (H410)?


ecotoxic substances

assigned R50 (H400), R50-

53 (H410), or R51-53

(H411)?

Does the waste contain two

or more ecotoxic substances

above the concentration

thresholds?


according to additivity rule 1

regarding R50 (H400)?

Hazard

ous b

y H

P 1

4

Not hazard

ous b

y H

P 1

4

No

Yes

Yes

No

In green: Concentrations and equations detailed

below the diagram

Step 1

Step 4

Step 3

No


according to the additivity

rule 3 regarding R50-53

(H410) and R52-53 (H411)?

No

Step 2

Step 5

Yes

Yes

Yes No



Table 12: Hydrocarbon fractions to be considered as substances in the assessment of HP 14

Hydrocarbon fractions R_H phrases Notes

C5 C8 (sum) R50/53

H410

As a fraction: R50/53; if the

various hydrocarbons are

expressed singularly, the

specific CLP classification

applies.

Aromatic hydrocarbons

C9 – cumene

C10 – dipentene, naftalene

R51/53

H411

R50/53

H410

Defined individually (see

Specific Limit Values of

each substance). Naftalene

can be determined with the

PAHs.

C>10 (C10 – C40) (sum) R51/53

H411

PAH (total sum) R50/53

H410

Specific limits (SL) apply to

DBahA and BaA

Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene

(DBahA)

Benzo[a]anthracene (BaA)

R50/53

H410

Specific limits

The concentration thresholds above which substances classified as Acute 1, Chronic 1 or

Chronic 2 must be taken into account for the assessment are presented in Table 13.

Table 13: Concentration thresholds for ecotoxic substances, according to their classification (ADR-based approach)


substance (DSD)


substance (CLP)

Concentration, thresholds (w/w %)

R50 H400 0.1

R50-53 H410 0.1

R51-53 H411 1

The additivity rules are detailed below (Table 14):

Table 14: Conditions rendering the waste hazardous by HP 14 in Italy

Name Formula

Additivity rule 1 ∑(PR50 ∗ 𝑀) ≥ 25 or ∑(PH400 ∗ 𝑀) ≥ 25

Additivity rule 2 ∑(PR50-53 ∗ 𝑀) ≥ 25 or ∑(PH410 ∗ 𝑀) ≥ 25

Additivity rule 3 ∑ (PR50-53 ∗ 10𝑀+ PR51-53+) ≥ 25 or

∑ (PH410 ∗ 10𝑀+ PH411+) ≥ 25

Where PX is the total concentration of substances classified as X, expressed in w/w %.

The Italian calculation methods include M-factors.



3.3.2.3. Approach based on the CLP regulation

The French approach is based on a proposal that was formulated to the TAC in 2012. The French additivity rules consider only the Acute 1, Chronic 1 and Chronic 2 categories (but not the categories Chronic 3 and Chronic 4) for assessing HP 14 and include M-factors.

Table 15: French additivity rules

∑(PH400 ∗ 𝑀) ≥ 25

∑ (PH410 ∗ 10𝑀+ PH411+) ≥ 25

The restricted list of hazard classes compared to DPD-based approaches, as well as the inclusion of M-factors and the structure of the formulas, makes the French approach quite similar to the Italian one.

The M-factors used in the calculations are those mentioned in the CLP and additional ones

are used as required, calculated from EC50s and NOECs. The calculated M-factors are

not harmonised at EU-level.

3.3.3. Approaches using biotests

Czech Republic, France, Spain and Germany use biotests for the assessment of HP 14;

the Czech Republic and Spain rely exclusively on them for the assessment, while Germany

and France use them in a combined approach with chemical analyses.

Approaches based on biotests involve assays on aquatic and soil organisms in order to

directly evaluate the ecotoxicity of waste. Preparing waste samples is a key step for the

assessment of ecotoxicity, as test results can be highly variable depending on the protocol.

All studied Member States follow standardised protocols (Table 16).

Table 16: Standards for preparing waste samples

Member State Standard Scope Description

Czech

Republic

EN 14735 raw wastes

or water

extracts

Necessary steps to be performed

before carrying out ecotoxicity tests

on wastes: taking of the sample,

transport, storage of wastes and to

define preparation.

France EN 12457 - 2 water

extracts

Leaching - Compliance test for

leaching of granular waste

materials and sludge. One stage

batch test at a liquid to solid ratio of

10 l/kg for materials with particle

size below 4 mm (without or with

size reduction)

Germany EN 12457 – 2

water

extracts

See France

DIN 19528 water

extracts

Leaching of solid materials -

Percolation method for the joint

examination of the leaching

behaviour of inorganic and organic

substances

Spain EN 12457 - 2 water

extracts

See France



While the Czech Republic has adopted a standard encompassing raw waste and water

extracts, the other Member States have opted for a specific standard on leaching solid

materials and sludges. The scope of the latter standard is narrower than the scope of the

first one.

Biotests performed to assess HP 14 aim at evaluating acute or chronic toxicity;

furthermore, threshold values were established to determine which conditions made waste

hazardous. The batteries of tests differ among Member States (Table 17).

Table 17: Batteries of tests used in Member States using biotests to assess HP 14

Aquatic tests Terrestrial tests

Member State Organism Standard Organism Standard

Czech Republic Daphnia magna

Sinapis alba

Desmodesmus

subspicatus

Poecilia reticulata

ISO 6341

Czech

guidelines

ISO 8692

ISO 7346-2

None

France (initial

strategy)40

Daphnia magna

(acute)

Vibrio fischeri

Pseudokirchneriella

subcapitata

Ceriodaphnia dubia

Brachionus

calyciflorus

ISO 6341

ISO 11348-3

NF EN ISO

8692

NF ISO 20665

NF ISO 20666

E. fetida (acute)

Lactuca sativa

ISO 11 268-1

ISO 11269-2

France (hybrid

strategy

combining

initial strategy

and German

strategy)

Daphnia magna

(acute)

Vibrio fischeri

Pseudokirchneriella

subcapitata

ISO 6341

ISO 11348-3

NF EN ISO

8692

E. fetida

(avoidance)

Avena sativa /

Brassica rapa

Arthrobacter

globiformis

ISO 17512-1

ISO 11269-2

ISO/DIS 18187

Spain Vibrio fischeri

OR41

Daphnia magna

ISO 11348

ISO 6341

None

40 According to the FNADE guidance, which is not regulatory-sanctioned 41 One or the other can be performed. There is no requirement to perform both, so there is not battery in Spain per se.





Germany Daphnia magna

(acute)

Daphnia magna

(chronic)

Vibrio fischeri

Pseudokirchneriella

subcapitata /

Desmodesmus

subspicatus

Lemna minor

ISO 6341

ISO 10706

ISO 11348-

1/2/3

NF EN ISO

8692

ISO 20079

First version

E. fetida (chronic)

Brassica rapa

Arthrobacter

globiformis

Second version

E. fetida (chronic)

Brassica rapa

Arthrobacter

globiformis

Folsomia candida

(chronic)

ISO 12 268-1

ISO 11269-2

ISO/DIS 18187

ISO 12 268-1

ISO 11269-2

ISO/DIS 18187

ISO 11267

France and Germany consider both aquatic and terrestrial organisms for assessing waste

ecotoxicity. In those countries, a tiered approach is used, where aquatic tests are prioritised

and terrestrial tests are performed only if aquatic tests are inconclusive. In Spain and the

Czech Republic, only aquatic tests are performed. Nevertheless, in the Czech Republic,

members of the scientific community recommend the use of terrestrial tests in the

assessment of HP 1442.

Among all biotests summarised in Table 17, standardised test on Daphnia magna (acute)

is the only test which is performed in all Member States. Nevertheless, others tests are

used by more than two Members States such as: the inhibition of light emission of Vibrio

fischeri and the algal growth inhibition test. Regarding Daphnia magna, threshold values

differ among Member States (as shown in Table 18).

Table 18: Tests on Daphnia magna, as used in Member States relying on biotests for the assessment of HP 14

Standard Test duration Expression of results Threshold value

France

ISO 6341

24h or 48h

EC50

10% (v/v)

Spain 750 mg/L43

Germany

48h

10% (v/v)

Czech

Republic

10mL/L43 (i.e. 1%

v/v)

Spain set values in mg/L and the Czech Republic in mL/L, while the other countries prefer

% (v/v).

42 D. Sirotková, M. Kulovaná, S. Vosáhlová, J. Hofman, V. Kočí, M. Záleská, Novelization of Czech approaches to ecotoxicity evaluation of hazardous wastes 43 Thresholds set in mg/L and mL/L are inseparable from the waste preparation protocols. They are associated to the L/S ratio of the leaching procedure and have only a meaning expressed in terms of the leachate itself



The overall description of strategies using biotests, as well as the focus on the one test the

studied countries have in common (Daphnia magna), clearly show the heterogeneity of

approaches based on biotests.

3.3.4. Combined approaches

In Germany and France, assessment of HP 14 follows a tiered approach and is dependent

upon the type of information available for the waste itself and for its components. If the

composition of the waste sample can be sufficiently known through chemical analysis, then

classification according to HP 14 is done following the methods described in section 3.3.2

(see Figure 3, Table 10 and Table 15). If the composition of the waste is unknown or

complex, biotests are applied. The testing strategy includes a test battery with terrestrial

and aquatic tests, as described in section 3.3.3 (see Table 17 and Table 18).

Germany and France adopted different strategies for assessing HP 14 with chemical

analysis. Germany follows the DPD, while France developed methods consistent with the

CLP regulation. The methods are reported in Table 19.

Table 19: Comparison between France and Germany regarding calculation methods

France Germany39

∑(PH400 ∗ 𝑴) ≥ 25

∑ (P𝐇𝟒𝟏𝟎 ∗ 𝟏𝟎𝑴+ PH411+) ≥ 25

∑(PR50-53) ≥ 0.25

Or

∑(PR51-53) ≥ 2.5

Or

∑(PR52-53) ≥ 25

Or

∑(PR59) ≥ 0.1

Where PRX is the total concentration of substances classified as RX, expressed in w/w %.

However, the German and French batteries of biotests are very similar (Table 20).

Table 20: Batteries of tests used in Germany and Italy



France (initial

strategy)44

Daphnia magna

(acute)

Vibrio fischeri

Pseudokirchneriella

subcapitata

Ceriodaphnia dubia

Brachionus

calyciflorus

ISO 6341

ISO 11348-3

NF EN ISO

8692

NF ISO 20665

NF ISO 20666

E. fetida (acute)

Lactuca sativa

ISO 11 268-1

ISO 11269-2

44 According to the FNADE guidance, which is not regulatory-sanctioned





France (hybrid

strategy

combining

initial strategy

and German

strategy)

Daphnia magna

(acute)

Vibrio fischeri

Pseudokirchneriella

subcapitata

ISO 6341

ISO 11348-3

NF EN ISO

8692

E. fetida

(avoidance)

Avena sativa /

Brassica rapa

Arthrobacter

globiformis

ISO 17512-1

ISO 11269-2

ISO/DIS 18187

Germany Daphnia magna

(acute)

Daphnia magna

(chronic)

Vibrio fischeri

Pseudokirchneriella

subcapitata /

Desmodesmus

subspicatus

Lemna minor

ISO 6341

ISO 10706

ISO 11348-

1/2/3

NF EN ISO

8692

ISO 20079

First version

E. fetida (chronic)

Brassica rapa

Arthrobacter

globiformis

Second version

E. fetida (chronic)

Brassica rapa

Arthrobacter

globiformis

Folsomia candida

(chronic)

ISO 12 268-1

ISO 11269-2

ISO/DIS 18187

ISO 12 268-1

ISO 11269-2

ISO/DIS 18187

ISO 11267

3.4. Costs associated with implementing HP 14 approaches

Costs associated with chemical analyses and biotests vary depending on the country and

the amount of tests necessary to reach a conclusion regarding the hazardous nature (due

to HP 14) of the waste. Thus, costs related to chemical analyses range from 100 € to 2,000

€ per sample and costs related to biotests range from 400 € to 5,000 €.

Strategies using only chemical analyses are globally less expensive than those using only

biotests. Ranges per country are shown in Figure 6.



Figure 6: Ranges of costs in Member States for which the information is available

France is the Member State in which assessing HP 14 is the most expensive if the whole

test battery is performed, followed by Belgium (Flanders) where chemical analyses using

AFNOR XP X30-489 are 1,900 € per sample. The Member States where assessing HP 14

is the least expensive are Austria and the UK. In Austria, no specific costs are associated

with assessing HP 14 because it relies on conclusions from assessments conducted for

transportation of waste (and on identification of ozone depleting substances in the waste).

3.5. Advantages and limits of the approaches

3.5.1. Approaches based on chemical analysis

Approaches based on chemical analyses are easy and satisfactory for well-defined waste

samples. In particular, strategies based on the DPD are clear and align directly with

chemical risk phrase classification systems. Non-inclusion of M-factors makes it possible

to apply concentration threshold cut-off values of 0.1% and 1% and thus exclude minor

concentrations of substances from the assessment: if M-factors are applied, thresholds

would be of 0.1%/M or 1%/M and would be exceeded by a lot of substances, then raising

concerns that it might be impossible to prove that a waste is not ecotoxic using this

approach. The Austrian strategy, partly based on classification according to the ADR, is

easier to apply than DPD-based approaches and costs less because it relies on

conclusions from assessments conducted for transportation of waste. Among Member

States which base their approaches on chemical analysis only, the British strategy is the

most complete. It extends concentration limits to specific values reported in the CLP

regulation, thus including more recent legislation and providing a more finely tuned

approach to waste classification with chemical analysis. An additional advantage of

approaches based on chemical analysis is their lower cost compared to approaches based

on biotests, which may involve batteries with several tests.

Limited information and uncertainties regarding the composition of waste is the main limit

of approaches based on chemical analysis. Methodologies provided in the DPD and the

CLP are meant for mixtures with known composition and their applicability for the

assessment of waste, which generally requires the assessment of a mixture with partially

unknown composition (to variable extents), is therefore limited. In particular, the

heterogeneity of waste samples, with high content of anions, alkaline earth metals and

silica, can make determination of composition difficult. Furthermore, there are only a few

suitable methods to identify many organic substances in waste (which are not widely

applied); as a result, approaches based on chemical analysis often do not take into account

Range of costs (€) – Biotests

Not included in the sample, or no

information

100 – 500

Range of costs (€) – Chemical analyses

500 – 1,000

1,000 – 3,000

3,000 – 5,000

100 – 500

500 – 1,000

1,000 – 3,000

3,000 – 5,000



the organic share of waste (as organic substances are not identified), thus underestimating

the share of potentially ecotoxic organic components. Additionally, the application of worst-

case scenarios when the composition of waste is not sufficiently known can lead to an

overestimation of the waste hazard. Thus, assessments using chemical analyses may not

reflect the actual ecotoxicity of waste.

3.5.2. Approaches based on biotests

Biotests are used to directly measure the effects of the bioavailable constituents, including

their potential interactions (additive, synergistic and antagonistic), and are useful in

assessing very complex matrices, having many constituents, which are very difficult or

impossible to be determined by chemical analysis. Furthermore, aquatic ecotoxicity tests

are known to be sensitive to many water soluble substances, thus being relevant to the

assessment of wastes and addressing the main limitation of ecotoxicity assessment with

chemical analysis, i.e. uncertainties regarding the composition of waste.

The lack of legally-fixed and harmonised threshold values is perhaps the main drawback

and barrier to assessing HP 14 using biotests. There is a need to collect sufficient

experimental data to conclude definitely on the suitability of the different proposed

threshold values to discriminate between “ecotoxic” and non-classified wastes.

Furthermore, threshold values set in mg/L or mL/L can lead to confusion in the

interpretation, as it can be unclear whether concentrations are expressed in terms of the

amount of residue of departure or in terms of the leachate (an order of magnitude difference

between the two interpretations [x 10]). Finland, which allows biotests as a means for

assessing HP 14 if information on the chemical composition of the waste is insufficient,

highlights that they are not applied in practice because no threshold values have been set.

In the UK, the scope for assessing waste with biotests is also very limited, for another

reason: UK holds the view that animal testing of solid wastes is of little or no scientific value

and raises ethical concerns. Those concerns are also stressed by Italy as a limit to biotests.

Nevertheless, it should be highlighted that test species are not in the scope of the Directive

2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes45, with the exception

of fish (Poecilia reticulata, used in Czech Republic).

Another limit exists when the battery of biotests only includes aquatic tests (Spain and the

Czech Republic): toxicity on soil ecosystems is not evaluated when assessing HP 1446.

There is a number of reasons legitimating the use of terrestrial tests42, the main one being

that using only aquatic tests means that toxic effects of substances (poorly or totally)

insoluble in water might be underestimated.

One last limit is the high cost of the most complete test batteries: for instance, costs are of

3,000 – 5,000 € in France. However, it should be stressed that these costs could be

significantly reduced by performing limit tests at the threshold concentration.

3.5.3. Combined approaches

Combined approaches address some limitations of the two individual approaches

(chemical analysis and biotests) and have a good complementarity. When determining the

composition of the waste is possible, conclusions on ecotoxicity can be drawn from

chemical analysis, so that testing on biological organisms is not necessary. If the waste

sample is too complex, or the preliminary process related information is not available, for

its relevant constituents´composition to be well-defined , the use of biotests can

nevertheless allow the assessment of its ecotoxicity. Furthermore, combined approaches

have recently been investigated by researchers as a promising alternative to the status quo

(i.e. no official requirement or guidance) regarding the assessment of HP 14 in the EU47.

45 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32010L0063&from=EN 46 This is also the case for chemical approaches 47 Pascal Pandard and Jörg Römbke (2013) Proposal for a “Harmonized” Strategy for the Assessment of the HP 14 Property, Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management — Volume 9, Number 4—pp. 665–672



However, as indicated above, some disadvantages remain. There are no harmonised

threshold or limit values to define the border between an “ecotoxic” and a non-ecotoxic

waste (for the purposes of classification) and there is no agreement on the minimum test

battery, as shown in Table 19 and Table 20 in section 3.3.4. Furthermore, it has been

noticed that the results of the two approaches (chemical analysis and biotests) are often

different (mainly because they do not apply on the same fraction of waste, i.e. biotests

apply on the whole sample whereas chemical analyses account for only the analysed mass

fraction of the sample, which is usually less than 15% of the sample weight) and therefore

can lead to different classification of the waste.



4. Results: selection of waste

codes for the assessment

4.1. Scores obtained for the selection criteria

4.1.1. SC1: Preference of experts

Experts mainly supported the selection of construction and demolition waste, in particular

soil, stones and dredging spoils as well as bituminous mixtures, coal tar and tarred

products. Wastes from incineration and pyrolysis of waste were also favoured.

Figure 7: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports results for SC1

4.1.2. SC2: Availability and quality of data

The types of waste for which the most data on ecotoxicity is available are soil from

construction & demolition waste and ashes from incineration of waste. Furthermore,

collected literature was mainly related to biotests and few occurrences of work on chemical

analysis were found.

Figure 8 below shows an example of how information is reported.

Waste code Waste description

Number of experts

who expressed their

preference

Member State(s) Score

17 05 03* soil and stones containing hazardous

substances 6 AT, UK, IT, DE, ES, BE 3

17 05 04 soil and stones other than those mentioned

in 17 05 03 6 AT, UK, IT, DE, ES, BE 3

17 01 06*

mixtures of, or separate fractions of

concrete, bricks, tiles and ceramics

containing hazardous substances 5 AT, FI, UK, DE, BE 2

17 01 07

mixtures of concrete, bricks, tiles and

ceramics other than those mentioned in 17

01 06 5 AT, FI, UK, DE, BE 2

17 05 05* dredging spoil containing hazardous

substances 4 AT, UK, DE, BE 2

17 05 06 dredging spoil other than those mentioned in

17 05 05 4 AT, UK, DE, BE 2

19 01 11* bottom ash and slag containing hazardous

substances 4 FI, UK, IT, BE 2

19 01 12 bottom ash and slag other than those

mentioned in 19 01 11 4 FI, UK, IT, BE 2

19 01 13* fly ash containing hazardous substances 4 FI, UK, IT, BE 2

19 01 14 fly ash other than those mentioned in 19 01

13 4 FI, UK, IT, BE 2




4.1.3. SC3: Quantity of produced waste

Data was collected for Germany, UK, Italy, Austria, the Belgian region Flanders, the

Spanish region Catalonia and Finland. It was not possible to attribute French waste

quantities to waste codes, because available data was reported according to a

classification which did not allow for an extrapolation of data, as could be done for Italy and

Poland. Moreover, thanks to a desk study, information on Polish tonnages of waste was

collected and used in assessing SC3 even if Poland was not initially part of the Member

States sample.

The highest tonnages were reached for construction and demolition waste, specifically soil

and stones as well as concrete and bricks (Table 21). For some Member States, there are

biases in the determination of the highest tonnages, for instance when data could only be

collected for a specific region or only for some types of waste.


Waste code Waste description Data Source Quality Data Source Quality

[10]AVAILABLE

IN [10][10]

water extract

= according

to CEN

standards

test =

according to

ISO and

AFNOR

standards

[3] [2]

High quality:

repeatability

and

reproducibility

assessed under

ISO standard

5725‐1

AVAILABLE

IN [2][2]

all

procedures

according to

ISO

standards

[12]

ISO and ASTM

procedure

when possible;

otherwise

protocols tested

in previous

publications

AVAILABLE

IN [12][12]

leaching

protocol

established

in the

Spanish

legislation

(MOPU,

1989).

Results of ecotoxicological testsProtocols of sampling, preparation of

samples, analyses and test

EC50(Eisenia fetida)

EC50(lactuca)

EC50(vibrio fisheri)

EC50(daphnia)

EC50(ceriodaphnia)

EC50(peudokirchneriella)

EC50(Brassica)

EC50(enchytraeus)

EC50(arthrobacter)

EC50(lemna minor)

EC50(pseudomonas putida)

EC50(salmonella)

EC50(brachionus)

03 01 04*

03 01 05

sawdust, shavings,

cuttings, wood,

particle board and

veneer containing

hazardous

substances

sawdust, shavings,

cuttings, wood,

particle board and

veneer other than

those mentioned in

03 01 04



Table 21: Most produced waste types in the studied Member States

Member State Reporting year LoW entry with highest tonnage Amount (t) Potential bias

Germany 2011 17 05 04

soil and stones other than those mentioned in

17 05 03

106,015,300 -

UK 2012 17 05 03*

soil and stones containing hazardous

substances

284,915 Only data for hazardous entries was reported

Spain (Catalonia) 2013 17 01 07

mixtures of concrete, bricks, tiles and ceramics

other than those mentioned in 17 01 06

47,806 t Data for industrial waste only

Data for a region and not the whole Member State

Italy 2013 17 01 07

mixtures of concrete, bricks, tiles and ceramics


2,346,782 t Extrapolation based on data not reported by waste

code

Poland 2005 03 01 05

sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood, particle

board and veneer other than those mentioned

in 03 01 04

1,215,150 t Extrapolation based on data not reported by waste

code

Not recent data

Finland 2012 06 05 03

sludges from on-site effluent treatment other

than those mentioned in 06 05 02

153,959 t Only data for operations that are licensed by state

authorities. Hence data is not available by waste

code on wastes that are produced by facilities that

are authorized and supervised by municipalities.



Member State Reporting year LoW entry with highest tonnage Amount (t) Potential bias

Belgium

(Flanders)

2012 17 05 04


17 05 03

960,826 t Data per waste code of selected companies: every

two years, OVAM selects about 8000 companies

(statistically relevant selection per economic sector

and dimension) who are obliged to report the

amount and type of waste produced.

Data for a region and not the whole Member State

Austria 2009 17 05 04


17 05 03

23,500,000 t -



The biases highlighted in Table 21 were taken into account when scoring: this is explained

in section 2.2.2.3, Table 4.

Figure 9 below shows an example of how information is reported in the Excel file:

Figure 9: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports results for SC3 (the percentage of waste is indicated as compared to total waste produced in the Member State)

4.1.4. SC4: Economic importance

Waste types identified as the most economically important with the methodology presented

in section 2.2.2.4 (taking into account volumes of transboundary shipments, inputs of the

Competent Authorities regarding high generated volumes, percentage of waste-to-energy

recovery, percentage of waste-to-material recovery). are soil and stones from construction

or demolition activities, as well as solid waste resulting from the iron and steel industry, and

fly ashes from incineration or pyrolysis of waste.

Figure 10 below shows an example of how information is reported in the Excel file:


4.1.5. SC5: Potential presence of hazardous substances

Appendix B “Wastes and Potential Hazards for Absolute and Mirror Entries in the European

Waste Catalogue” of the UK EA report “Hazardous Waste: Interpretation of the definition

Waste code Waste descriptionQuantity (t) or

qualitative indication

Percentage of

wasteSource Score

04 02 19* sludges from on-site effluent treatment

containing hazardous substances

04 02 20 sludges from on-site effluent treatment other

than those mentioned in 04 02 19 104,80 0,000584007

[34) 2

06 03 15* metallic oxides containing heavy metals

06 03 16 metallic oxides other than those mentioned in

06 03 15


containing hazardous substances 990,59 0,005520145

[34) 2


than those mentioned in 06 05 02 153958,600,85794706

[34) 3


containing hazardous substances 20,640,000115018

[34) 1


than those mentioned in 07 01 11 158,300,00088214

[34) 2

Tonnage in Finland

Waste code Waste description Info Source Score

19 01 11* bottom ash and slag containing hazardous

substances

Economically important

in IT Q-IT 1

19 01 12 bottom ash and slag other than those

mentioned in 19 01 11


in IT Q-IT 1

10 02 07* solid wastes from gas treatment containing

hazardous substances

Second most exported

hazardous waste in the

EU (282 098 tonnes) [9] p.19 3

17 05 03* soil and stones containing hazardous

substances

First most exported


EU (686 640 tonnes)


in IT

[9] p.19

Q-IT 3

19 01 13* fly ash containing hazardous substances

Fifth most exported


EU (207 736 tonnes)


in IT

[9] p.19

Q-IT 3

03 01 04*

sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood, particle

board and veneer containing hazardous

substances n/a



and classification of hazardous waste” (2nd edition v2.1)48 and Finnish inputs gave insight

into the dangerous substances that may be associated with a particular hazardous waste

entry. The Austrian Competent Authority provided, per hazardous waste code, a list of

possible pollutants which could trigger the criterion HP 14. The Austrian inputs allowed

having a more detailed knowledge of potential pollutants.

The EC50 and NOEC values of these individual hazardous substances (or categories),

retrieved through the US EPA or INERIS portals

(http://www.ineris.fr/substances/fr/homepage/search and

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/quick_query.htm) are reported in the sheet “Hazard of various

substances”.

Figure 11: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports EC50 values of potentially ecotoxic substances49

For the waste codes for which the potential presence of pesticides was reported, as the

specific active ingredients were not specified, the level of hazard of the most dangerous

pesticides for the environment was searched (see section 2.2.2.5). The results of the step-

by-step process are described below:

Step 1: Selection of pesticides having at least two "1" in Group 3 "Environmental toxicity"

(except bees) of the PAN International List of Highly Hazardous Pesticides - June 201450

48 UK Environment Agency (2006) Appendix B of Hazardous Waste: Interpretation of the definition and classification of hazardous waste (2nd edition v2.1) http://www.abdn.ac.uk/staffnet/documents/WM2_appB_2006.pdf 49 The values reported in the table were obtained testing soluble compounds of these elements. They may not reflect the true toxicity of the waste, as availability and solubility of these compounds can depend on the waste. 50 http://www.panna.org/sites/default/files/PAN_HHP_List_2014.pdf

Metals

Element EC50min (mg/L) Source

Hg 0,0007 INERIS

Cd 0,0034 INERIS

Cu 0,011 INERIS

As 0,011 INERIS

Pb 0,026 INERIS

Cr(VI) 0,03 INERIS

Zn 0,032 INERIS

Ni 0,06 INERIS

Ti 0,01 INERIS

U 0,04 INERIS

Be 0,1 INERIS

Sb 1,77 INERIS

Ba 14,5 INERIS

Mo 29 INERIS

PbO2 0,01 INERIS

Amisulbrom

Azocyclotin

Bromethalin

Bromoxynil heptanoate

Bromoxynil octanoate

Cadusafos

Chlorantraniliprole

DDT

Dimoxystrobin

Etofenprox; Ethofenprox

Fenbutatin-oxide

Fluazolate

Flufenoxuron

Flumetralin

Pirimicarb

Propargite

Prothiofos

Pyridalyl *

Quinoxyfen

Tebupirimifos

Tolfenpyrad

http://www.ineris.fr/substances/fr/homepage/search

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/quick_query.htm

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/staffnet/documents/WM2_appB_2006.pdf



Step 2: Selecting only pesticides authorised in the EU51 (this is a simplification: waste can

arise from uses in a time when a lot more pesticides were authorised):

Step 3: Reporting EC50 values, for selected pesticides for which such information is

available.

The values are presented in sheet “Hazard of various substances”, tables under the name

“pesticides” (Figure 12).

Figure 12: EC50 of some of the most hazardous pesticides authorised in the EU

The most hazardous pesticides have EC50 and NOEC of 10-4 / 10-3 mg/L, which is why

wastes containing pesticides were given a score of 3 (following a worst-case approach).

Figure 13 shows an example of information on the presence of hazardous substances:

51 http://ec.europa.eu/sanco_pesticides/public/?event=activesubstance.selection&language=EN

Substance EC50min (mg/L) Source

Bromoxynil heptanoate 0,031 USEPA

Bromoxynil octanoate 0,0042 USEPA

Chlorantraniliprole 0,0071 USEPA

Etofenprox 0,00012 USEPA

Pirimicarb 0,0065 USEPA

Pyridalyl 0,0042 USEPA

Quinoxyfen 0,028 INERIS

Tri-allate 0,0062 USEPA

Chlorfluazuron

Copper (II) hydroxide

Cyhexatin

Halfenprox

Isopyrazam

Lufenuron*

Tri-allate

Amisulbrom

Bromoxynil heptanoate

Bromoxynil octanoate

Chlorantraniliprole

Copper (II) hydroxide

Dimoxystrobin

Etofenprox; Ethofenprox

Isopyrazam

Lufenuron

Pirimicarb

Pyridalyl

Quinoxyfen

Tri-allate




4.1.6. SC6: Criticality of waste classification

The VITO study allowed to have information on the criticality of 11 waste codes. The

Italian52, Finnish53 and Austrian54 representatives gave inputs on 2, 4 and 64 waste codes

respectively.

Examples of information on criticality are shown in Figure 14 below.


The most “critical” codes were from chapter 19 (wastes from waste management facilities)

and chapter 7 (wastes from organic chemical processes). Only one code was attributed

the score of 0 (no change foreseen): 17 08 02 (“gypsum-based construction materials”).

52 Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale (ISPRA): Stefania Balzamo, Andrea Paina, Daniela Conti, Cristina Martone, Elisa Raso, Andrea Lanz 53 VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd, Margareta Wahlström 54 Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management, Sonja Löw

Waste code Waste description List of potentially hazardous substances Source Score

03 01 04*

sawdust, shavings, cuttings,

wood, particle board and

veneer containing hazardous

substances

oil, varnishes and glues

Pb, As, Cd, Cr, Hg, Cu, Zn, formaldehyde,

boric acid, PCP, PCB, PAH (creosotes), oil-

borne preservatives; Lindane (γ-HCH);

quaternary ammonium compounds, Cu-azoles,

fluorides

[6]

Q-AT 3

04 02 19*

sludges from on-site effluent

treatment containing hazardous

substances

Chemical products used during the cloth

finishing, dyeing and washing processes:

perchloroethylene, acids and alkalis (including

metallic complexes), organic solvents

Heavy metals (esp. Cr III), azo-dies, tensides

(alcyl aryl sulfonates), hydrocarbons/oils,

Naphthalene/chlorophenols, Glutaraldehyde

[6]

Q-AT 2

06 03 15* metallic oxides containing heavy

metals nickel; copper; zinc; arsenic; cadmium;

antimony; tellurium; mercury; thorium; lead; Sb,

Be or their compounds (e.g. As oxide)

[6]

Q-AT 3

06 05 02*

sludges from on-site effluent

treatment containing hazardous

substances

Heavy metals, Ni, Pb, Cu, Cd, Cr, Zn, etc.,

maybe CaO Q-AT 3


Countries performing

calculation methods in

which waste streams

classified under one code

of a mirror entry are

likely to shift to being

classified under the other

code

Rationale Source Score

03 01 04*

sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood,

particle board and veneer containing

hazardous substances n/a

03 01 05

sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood,

particle board and veneer other than

those mentioned in 03 01 04

BE-Yes

AT-Maybe

Data collection on waste

composition and assessment

with calculation methods

Presence of traces of heavy

metals especiallyCu-salts -

H410, formaldehyde,

fluorides Lindane -H410

[31]

Q-AT 3


containing hazardous substances n/a

04 02 20 sludges from on-site effluent treatment


AT-Maybe

Maybe

Glutaraldehyde -H400

Naphthalene -

H410Hydrocarbons - water

pollutant Q-AT 1,5



These scores were attributed based on Member States’ experts’ opinions (see section

2.2.2.6).

4.2. Selected waste codes

Mirror pairs selected implementing the process described in section 2.2.1 are the following

14 (see also sheet “Selected pairs”):

Table 22: Preliminary selected mirror pairs

03 Wastes from wood processing and the production of panels and furniture, pulp, paper and cardboard

03 01 wastes from wood processing and the production of panels and furniture

03 01 04* 03 01 05 sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood, particle board and veneer

07 Wastes from organic chemical processes

07 01 wastes from the manufacture, formulation, supply and use (MFSU) of basic organic

Chemicals

07 01 11* 07 01 12 sludge from on-site effluent treatment

08 Wastes from the manufacture, formulation, supply and use (MFSU) of coatings (paints,

varnishes and vitreous enamels), sealants and printing inks

08 01 wastes from MFSU and removal of paint and varnish

08 01 13* 08 01 14 sludges from paint or varnish

10 Wastes from thermal processes

10 01 wastes from power stations and other combustion plants (except 19)

10 01 14* 10 01 15 Bottom ash, slag and boiler dust from co-incineration

10 01 16* 10 01 17 fly ash from co-incineration

10 02 wastes from the iron and steel industry

10 02 07* 10 02 08 solid wastes from gas treatment

10 02 13* 10 02 14 sludges and filter cakes from gas treatment

17 Construction and demolition wastes (including excavated soil from contaminated sites)

17 03 bituminous mixtures, coal tar and tarred products

17 03 01* 17 03 02 bituminous mixtures

17 05 soil (including excavated soil from contaminated sites), stones and dredging spoil

17 05 03* 17 05 04 soil and stones

17 05 05* 17 05 06 dredging spoil

19 Wastes from waste management facilities, off-site waste water treatment plants and the

preparation of water intended for human consumption and water for industrial use



19 01 wastes from incineration or pyrolysis of waste

19 01 11* 19 01 12 bottom ash and slag

19 01 13* 19 01 14 fly ash

19 08 wastes from waste water treatment plants not otherwise specified



Waste streams suggested by the Member States and their correspondence are presented

in Table 23 below:



Table 23: Wastes suggested by Member States and the corresponding mirror pairs

Waste stream Mirror pair,

identified by its

hazardous entry

Waste type

Sewage sludge, non-hazardous

industrial sludges, having

hazardous mirror pairs (e.g.

sludges from textile industry,

tanning industry, metal industry

etc.)

04 02 19*

06 05 02*

07 01 11*

07 02 11*

07 03 11*

07 04 11*

07 05 11*

07 06 11*

07 07 11*

08 01 13*

08 01 15*

08 03 14*

08 04 11*

08 04 13*

10 01 20*

10 01 22*

10 02 13*

sludges from on-site effluent treatment (leather, fur, textile industries)

sludges from on-site effluent treatment (inorganic chemical process)

sludges from on-site effluent treatment (organic chemical processes)







sludges from paint or varnish

aqueous sludge containing paint or varnish

ink sludges

adhesive and sealant sludges

aqueous sludge containing adhesive and sealant sludges

sludges from on-site effluent treatment (thermal processes)

aqueous sludge from boiler cleansing

sludges and filter cakes from gas treatment (thermal processes, iron & steel)




identified by its

hazardous entry

Waste type

Sewage sludge, non-hazardous

industrial sludges, having

hazardous mirror pairs,

continued

10 03 25*

10 08 17*

10 11 13*

10 11 17*

11 01 09*

11 02 02*

12 01 14*

19 08 11*

19 08 13*

sludges and filter cakes from gas treatment (thermal processes, aluminium)

sludges and filter cakes from flue-gas treatment (non-ferrous thermal)

glass-polishing and –grinding sludge

sludges and filter cakes from gas treatment (glass manufacture)

sludges and filter cakes (chemical surface treatement)

sludges from zinc hydrometallurgy

machining sludges

sludges from biological treatment of industrial waste water

sludges from other treatment of industrial waste water

Wastes from gas cleaning (filter

dusts from metal industries,

where there are mirror pairs)

10 01 18*

10 03 19*

10 05 03*

10 06 03*

10 08 15*

10 08 17*

10 09 09*

10 10 09*

10 11 17*

wastes from gas cleaning (thermal processes)

flue-gas dust (thermal processes, aluminium)

flue-gas dust (thermal processes, zinc)

flue-gas dust (thermal processes, copper)

flue-gas dust (non-ferrous thermal)

sludges and filter cakes from flue-gas treatment (non-ferrous thermal)

flue-gas dust (casting of ferrous pieces)

flue-gas dust (casting of non-ferrous pieces)

sludges and filter cakes from flue-gas treatment (glass manufacture)




identified by its

hazardous entry

Waste type

All other batteries than those

already classified as hazardous

– it is likely that they all will fulfil

HP14 (they will also fulfil the

hazardous property HP15 – new

definition: explosive if heated

under confinement)

16 06 03*

20 01 33*

Mercury-containing batteries

Batteries and accumulators (separately collected fractions)

Wastes containing zinc oxide

such as zinc ashes, zinc

skimmings

10 05 10*

10 05 03*

dross and skimmings (thermal processes, zinc)

flue-gas dust (thermal processes, zinc)

Tanning liquor not containing

chromium VI (but containing

glutaraldehyde, salts,

chromium III etc.)

No mirror pair -

Wastes containing high

amounts of CaO / Ca(OH)2 (free

calcium oxide) such as ashes

from wood incineration, ferrous

metal slags - effect of high pH

on micro-organisms and maybe

also effects of salt

concentration if ph-moderation

is performed

03 01 04*

10 03 04*

10 03 29*

sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood, particle board and veneer

primary production slags, waste alumina

wastes from treatment of salt slags and black drosses

(ferrous metal slags are not described by mirror entries)




identified by its

hazardous entry

Waste type

(Mineral) construction and

demolition waste (heavy

metals, PAH in bituminous

wastes)

17 03 01*

17 05 03*

17 05 05*

17 05 07*

17 06 03*

17 08 01*

17 09 03*

bituminous mixtures

soil and stones

dredging spoil

track ballast

insulation materials (other than asbestos)

gypsum-based construction materials

other construction materials, not containing mercury or PCBs

filter cake from tank cleaning

(paint, food, textile) and gas

cleaning

10 02 13*

10 03 25*

10 08 17*

10 11 17*

11 01 09*

Gas cleaning, see

above

sludges and filter cakes from gas treatment (iron & steel industry)

sludges and filter cakes from gas treatment (aluminium thermal metallurgy)

sludges and filter cakes from gas treatment (non-ferrous thermal metallurgy)

sludges and filter cakes from gas treatment (glass manufacture)

sludges and filter cakes (chemical surface treatment)




identified by its

hazardous entry

Waste type

sludge (sewage, domestic, Cu,

Co, food)

See above, and

additionally:

Municipal: 19 02

05*

Food: no mirror

entry with sludge

Sludges from physico/chemical treatment

Refuse derived fuel No mirror entry

Car shredder (fluff, light

fraction)

19 10 03* fluff-light fraction and dust (from shredding of metal containing wastes)

Soil and residues from soil

cleaning

17 05 03*

17 05 05*

17 05 07*

19 13 01*

19 13 03*

19 13 05*

soil and stones

dredging spoil

track ballast

solid wastes from soil remediation

sludges from soil remediation

sludges from groundwater remediation

fly ash (wood, sludge) 10 01 16*

19 01 13*

fly ash from co-incineration

fly ash (from incineration or pyrolysis of waste)

waste blasting material 12 01 16* waste blasting material




identified by its

hazardous entry

Waste type

kettel ashes Not found in the

LoW

-

construction & demolition

waste (asphalt, with and wihout

tar, concrete, bitumen,

minerals)

See above -

Digestate No mirror pairs -

biodegradable (kitchen, garden)

waste

No mirror pairs -

sand (from C&D waste) No mirror pairs -

Most wastes, having hazardous

mirror pairs - General toxicity of

heavy metals : Hg > Ag > Cu >

Zn > Ni > Pb > Cd > As > Cr(III)

Not specific

enough for pairs to

be attributed




identified by its

hazardous entry

Waste type

Solvent 04 01 03*

04 02 14*

08 01 11*

08 01 13*

08 01 17*

08 01 19*

08 04 09*

08 04 11*

08 04 13*

08 04 15*

degreasing wastes containing solvents without a liguid phase

wastes from finishing (from the textile industry, potentially containing organic solvents

waste paint and varnish, potentially containing organic solvents

sludges from paint and varnish, potentially containing organic solvents

wastes from paint and varnish removal, potentially containing organic solvents

aqueous suspensions containing paint or varnish, potentially containing organic solvents

wastes adhesives and sealants, potentially containing organic solvents

adhesives and sealant sludges, potentially containing organic solvents

aqueous sludges containing adhesives and sealants, potentially containing organic solvents

aqueous liquid waste containing adhesives and sealants, potentially containing organic solvents

bottom ashes (waste

incineration, electricity

production)

19 01 11* bottom ash and slag (from incineration or pyrolysis of waste)

dredging spoil 17 05 05* dredging spoil

wood 19 12 06*

20 01 37*

03 01 04*

wood (from the mechanical treatment of waste)

wood (separately collected fractions)

sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood, particle board and veneer




identified by its

hazardous entry

Waste type

Metal-containing wastes such

as metal treatment sludges and

incinerator bottom ashes (from

a variety of incinerators)

See above -



The list of Member States-suggested mirror pairs which are in the original list of the

Commission, and different from the 14 pairs selected earlier, are presented in Table 24.

The second column shows which pairs belong to the three main categories proposed by

the Member States: gas cleaning, sludge and C&D waste.

Table 24: Pre-selected pairs which are in the original list of the Commission, and different from the 14 pairs selected earlier

Mirror pair, identified by its hazardous entry

Waste type Gas cleaning, sludge or C&D waste? (x=yes)

04 02 19* sludges from on-site effluent treatment (leather, fur, textile industries)

x

06 05 02* sludges from on-site effluent treatment (inorganic chemical process)

x

07 02 11* sludges from on-site effluent treatment (organic chemical processes)

x


x


x


x

08 03 14* ink sludges x

08 04 11* adhesive and sealant sludges x

10 01 18* wastes from gas cleaning (thermal processes) x

10 03 19* flue-gas dust (thermal processes, aluminium) x

10 03 25* sludges and filter cakes from gas treatment (thermal processes, aluminium)

x

10 03 29* wastes from treatment of salt slags and black drosses

10 05 10* dross and skimmings (thermal processes, zinc)

10 08 15* flue-gas dust (non-ferrous thermal) x

10 08 17* sludges and filter cakes from flue-gas treatment (non-ferrous thermal)

x

10 10 09* flue-gas dust (casting of non-ferrous pieces) x

11 01 09* sludges and filter cakes (chemical surface treatement)

x

12 01 14* machining sludges x

12 01 16* waste blasting material

17 06 03* insulation materials (other than asbestos) x

17 08 01* gypsum-based construction materials x

19 10 03* fluff-light fraction and dust (from shredding of metal containing wastes)

19 13 01* solid wastes from soil remediation

As described in section 2.2.4, only pairs in which both entries have a score above 1 make

the final cut (Table 25).

Table 25: Final selection of Member States-suggested waste streams


Score of hazardous entry

Score of non-hazardous entry

Final selection

04 02 19* 0,97 1,19

06 05 02* 1,35 1,30 X




Score of hazardous entry

Score of non-hazardous entry

Final selection

07 02 11* 0,78 1,19

07 03 11* 0,75 1,14

07 05 11* 0,87 1,23

07 06 11* 0,70 1,14

08 03 14* 0,86 0,74

08 04 11* 0,73 0,74

10 01 18* 0,93 0,86

10 03 19* 1,28 1,47 X

10 03 25* 0,74 1,03

10 08 15* 0,85 0,78

10 08 17* 0,92 1,03

10 10 09* 0,78 0,70

11 01 09* 1,36 1,21 X

12 01 14* 1,31 1,19 X

17 06 03* 1,31 1,25 X

17 08 01* 0,93 0,97

The 10 selected codes are completed with the following entries proposed by the

Commission:

The pair 19 10 03* / 19 10 04

The pair 19 12 11* / 19 12 12

The triplet 15 01 10* / 15 01 01 / 15 01 02

Therefore, the final list of selected codes is the following (45 codes):

Table 26: Final list of selected codes




06 Wastes from inorganic chemical processes

06 05 sludges from on-site effluent treatment

06 05 02* 06 05 03 sludges from on-site effluent treatment


07 01 wastes from the manufacture, formulation, supply and use (MFSU) of basic organic

Chemicals

07 01 11* 07 01 12 sludge from on-site effluent treatment

08 Wastes from the manufacture, formulation, supply and use (MFSU) of coatings (paints,

varnishes and vitreous enamels), sealants and printing inks



08 01 wastes from MFSU and removal of paint and varnish

08 01 13* 08 01 14 sludges from paint or varnish



10 01 14* 10 01 15 Bottom ash, slag and boiler dust from co-incineration





10 03 wastes from aluminium thermal metallurgy

10 03 19* 10 03 20 flue-gas dust

11 Wastes from chemical surface treatment and coating of metals and other materials; non-ferrous hydro-metallurgy

11 01 wastes from chemical surface treatment and coating of metals and other materials

11 01 09* 11 01 10 sludges and filter cakes

12 Wastes from shaping and physical and mechanical surface treatment of metals and plastics

12 01 wastes from shaping and physical and mechanical surface treatment of metals and

Plastics

12 01 14* 12 01 15 machining sludges

15 Waste packaging; absorbents, wiping cloths, filter materials and protective clothing not otherwise specified

15 01 packaging (including separately collected municipal packaging waste)

15 01 10* 15 01 01 15 01 02

paper and cardboard packaging, plastic packaging





17 05 03* 17 05 04 soil and stones

17 05 05* 17 05 06 dredging spoil

17 06 insulation materials and asbestos-containing construction materials

17 06 03* 17 06 04 insulation materials not containing asbestos



19 Wastes from waste management facilities, off-site waste water treatment plants and the

preparation of water intended for human consumption and water for industrial use



19 01 13* 19 01 14 fly ash




19 10 wastes from shredding of metal-containing wastes

19 10 03* 19 10 04 fluff-light fraction and dust

19 12 wastes from the mechanical treatment of waste (for example sorting, crushing,

compacting, pelletising) not otherwise specified

19 12 11* 19 12 12 other wastes (including mixtures of materials) from mechanical treatment of waste

It should be mentioned that construction and demolition wastes (Chapter 17) and entries

such as 19 08 11*/12 can be very complex to characterise, both chemically and via biotests,

due to their heterogeneity (and often rather massive form, for C&D waste). High variability

in any analytical data collected in following work (see sections 5 and 0), is to be expected.



5. Calculation methods: results

and comparative assessment

5.1. Presentation of the calculation methods

5.1.1. Introduction to the calculation methods

The Commission proposed four different calculation methods to determine the

classification of waste, based on the comparison of the concentration of hazardous

components with limit concentrations. If the concentration of the hazardous component

(individually or in summation with other hazardous components) exceeds the concentration

limit, the waste has to be classified as hazardous for the H14 criterion, if not, there is no

need for classification.

According to the CLP Regulation and its adaptations to technical progress, the hazard

classes/categories and hazard statements considered for HP 14 assessment are

presented in Table 27.

Table 27: Hazard classes and statements considered for HP 14 assessment

Hazard Category Hazard statement

Acute (short-term)

aquatic hazard

Acute

Category 1 H400: Very toxic to aquatic life

Chronic (long term)

aquatic hazard

Chronic

Category 1

H410: Very toxic to aquatic life with

long lasting effects

Chronic

Category 2

H411: Toxic to aquatic life with long

lasting effects

Chronic

Category 3

H412: Harmful to aquatic life with

long lasting effects

Chronic

Category 4

H413: May cause long lasting harmful

effects to aquatic life

Hazardous to the

ozone layer

Ozone

Category 1

H420: Harms public health and the

environment by destroying ozone in

the upper atmosphere



The four different calculation methods identified in the tender specifications are

summarized in the following figure:

Figure 15: Proposed calculation methods

5.1.2. Theoretical consideration of the four calculation methods

5.1.2.1. Method 1

This calculation method is based on Regulation 1272/2008 (CLP) for classification of

mixture based on summation of classified components. This calculation method allows for

the consideration of each class/category of hazard previously mentioned.

The same criteria as those defined in the Regulation 1272/2008 for classification of mixture

are applied, however, two differences could be observed. Firstly, this method does not take

into account multiplying factors (M-factors) of highly toxic compounds for calculation.

Secondly, no generic cut-off values that defined the relevant components that should be

taken into account for the purpose of classification are considered in this calculation

method. Therefore, all components are taken into account for calculation with the method

1.

5.1.2.2. Method 2

This calculation method is also based on Regulation 1272/2008 for classification of mixture

based on summation of classified components. The generic cut-off values reported in the

Regulation 1272/2008 are applied as well as the consideration of M-factor. The generic

cut-off values of “0.1/M %” and “1 %” are respectively applied for hazard statements H410

and H411. However, contrary to Regulation 1272/2008, the chronic hazard category 3 and

4 are not considered in this calculation method.

In addition, another calculation rule of Regulation 1272/2008 that uses higher multiplying

factor for category 1 and 2, and is then more strict, is not applied in method 2. The CLP

rule not taken into account is the following one: ∑ (M x 100 x c H410) + ∑ (10 x c H411) +

∑ (c H412) ≥ 25%.

In the third part of the algorithm of Figure 15, it should be noted that the values “0.1/M %”

and “1 %” are cut-off values that define the relevant components that should be taken into

account for the purpose of classification. The other values correspond to the concentration

limit values which are used for classification.



With this respect, this method is in line with the directive 2012/18/EU (SEVESO III)

principles.

5.1.2.3. Method 3

This calculation method is adapted from the old classification system of mixtures: Directive

1999/45/EC (Dangerous Preparations Directive). This method did not allow the summation

of components classified for different hazard categories. This is very different to the

concept of classification criteria of Regulation 1272/2008 based on summation of classified

components. Moreover, this calculation method does not take into account acute hazard

category 1, multiplying factor (M-factor) of highly toxic components and generic cut-off

values as reported in the Regulation 1272/2008.

5.1.2.4. Method 4

The hazard classes/categories considered in this calculation method are very limited. The

only hazards considered are the hazard to the ozone layer and the chronic hazard category

1 and 2. As in methods 1 and 3, this calculation method does not take into account generic

cut-off values reported in the Regulation 1272/2008. However, M-factors are taken into

account for calculation for chronic category 1 compounds.

5.1.3. Comparison of concentration limit values of the four calculation methods, M-factor and generic cut-off values consideration

As presented above, according to the four calculation methods, different concentration limit

values are used. The following table shows the comparison of the different concentration

limit values with the assumption that M-factors are equal to 1.

Table 28: Comparison of the different concentration limit values (assuming all M-factors are equal to 1)

This table shows that Method 2 and 4 have higher concentration limit values for chronic 1

and 2 categories (2.5% and 25%) as compared to the others calculation methods. Indeed,

the concentration limit values associated to chronic 1 and 2 categories are more than 10

fold higher than for Method 1 and 3. Then, this is an important point that could lead to an

underestimation of waste classification. On the contrary, the Method 3 shows the lowest

concentration limit values for chronic 1 category of 0.1%.



Based on this observation, if M-factor is equal to 1, Methods 1 and 3 seem to be the

methods leading to the most severe classification whereas Methods 2 and 4 are less

conservative.

5.2. Data collected on the selected waste codes

5.2.1. Overview

Data was collected from 21 documents from survey or provided by Member States and 42

bibliographic sources identified by the project team. The following countries have provided

data: Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and the United

Kingdom. The list of all sources identified and the associated mirror pair are presented in

Annex 5.

The following table shows the number of samples for each mirror entry and available data

(characterisation data, biotests, or both of them).

Table 29: Amount of data collected per mirror pair

As shown in Table 29, data was available for 15 of the 22 selected mirror pairs. The most

represented entries are soil and stones (17 05 03* / 17 05 04), bottom ash and slag (19 01

11* / 19 01 12), fly ash (19 01 13* / 19 01 14) and fluff-light fraction and dust (19 10 03* /

19 10 04): they represent 83% of available data.

A total of 169 samples were collected for mirror pairs of interest. Among this data, 29% of

samples contain both characterisation data and results of biotests; these samples are the

most useful for comparing the four calculation methods. 60% of samples contain only

characterisation data and 11% only biotest results. For the latter, the calculation methods

could then not be applied and therefore, these data are not considered in this project.

Thus, the assessment of H14 by the 4 calculation methods has been carried out on

149 samples.

Among sources identified, several data could not be taken into account because the waste

code was not mentioned. However, in some cases, it has been possible to identify the most



probable waste code according to waste characteristic and origin (these sources are

underlined in yellow in tables given in Annex 5).

5.2.1. Chemical analyses

Chemical analyses were available for 149 different samples. The characterisation data

were obtained for solid matrices, except for some samples for which both solid matrices

and leachates are considered.

In almost every case, characterisation data only report concentrations of inorganic

compounds, mostly as elements in mg/kg of waste: neither chemical speciation nor specific

compounds or salts are identified. In most cases, no information on organic compounds

was available. As a result the mass balance of the sample composition is often incomplete,

with a significant fraction of the waste not identified. For 80% of the samples, the unknown

fraction is greater than 85%.

All these shortcomings could lead to a potential underestimation of the waste classification.

This will be discussed thereafter in the section dedicated to the limitations.

It should also be highlighted that current hazard classifications (baseline) for each waste

sample were not always mentioned in the source of data. This will be discussed thereafter

and could be a limitation for calculation methods comparison, and also impact assessment.

The protocols and methods followed for chemical analyses are reported in the Excel file for

data collection. This information was not always mentioned or only briefly described, which

did not allow for a consistent comparison.

5.2.2. Biotests

Biotest results were available for 66 samples. However, as discussed previously, only

samples which report both characterisation data and biotest results can be taken into

account. A total of 47 samples is therefore considered.

Ecotoxicological tests are usually performed on a set of selected species and according to

standardised protocols. The main tests performed on aquatic and terrestrial organisms and

the protocols associated are indicated in Table 30.



Table 30: Biotests used to assess ecotoxicological hazard in the collected samples


Organism Standard Organism Standard

Vibrio fischeri ISO 11348-3 Arthrobacter globiformis

ISO/DIS 18187

Umu tes (Salmonella typhimurium55)

ISO 13829 Lactuca sativa / Brassica rapa

ISO 11269-2

Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata / Desmodesmus subspicatus

ISO 8692 Sinapis alba ISO 11269-1

Brachionus calyciflorus NF ISO 20666 E. fetida (acute) ISO 11268-1

Lemna minor ISO 20079 E. fetida (avoidance) ISO 17512-1

Daphnia magna (acute) ISO 6341

Daphnia magna (chronic) ISO 10706

Ceriodaphnia dubia NF ISO 20665

Poecilia reticulata ISO 7346-2

Danio rerio OECD 212

Some studies also included marine species (i.e. Nitocra spinipes and Vibrio fischeri).

Some differences in the dataset could be identified especially regarding:

The test battery (combination of terrestrial tests and aquatic tests performed

on waste eluates; aquatic tests only...);

The conditions of the leaching test;

The pH adjustment, or not, of the eluate when pH is not compatible with the

survival of the organisms;

The exposure duration which induces difficulties in the overall comparison of

the available data. For example, the results of a Daphnia magna immobilisation

test after a 24-hour exposure period cannot be readily compared with those

obtained after an exposure of 48 hours.

5.3. Determination of the classification of waste types according to the different methodologies proposed

5.3.1. Classification of wastes types according to the calculation methods

For each sample, calculation results using the four methods are presented in a table

available in Annex 5. The table also specifies the mass balance, if compounds with M-

factor are considered for the calculation for Methods 2 and 4, as well as the classification

identified in the source (current classification, i.e. baseline). For some sources like those

issued by the United Kingdom or Belgium, the current (baseline) waste classification was

not always mentioned. Therefore, these classifications were calculated according to the

rules of HP 14 assessment each Member States carries out, as identified in the factsheets.

Observations and discussions according to these results will be presented in the section

dedicated to the comparative assessment of the different methodologies (section 5.5).

55 Assesses the genotoxic potential of an environmental sample. Was considered in the CEN draft (2002) for the description of the H14 criterion



5.3.2. Classification of wastes types based on ecotoxicological data

As presented in section 5.2.2, for almost 50 samples, both biotest results and

characterisation data are available, that will allows comparison between these two

approaches. A similar methodology (see below) was applied to classify waste according to

ecotoxicological test results:

The threshold values presented in Table 31 were used. These values reflect

unequivocal adverse effects on selected organisms and end-points. They have

partly been established from experience gained on wastes in France and

Germany47;

One positive result was considered to be sufficient to classify a waste; and

Regarding the leaching tests, only results with an L/S ratio of 10 were

considered.

Table 31: Harmonised approach for hazard assessment with biotests

Test Proposal of threshold values

Duration Standard

Inhibition of the mobility of Daphnia magna (Dap)

EC50 ≤ 10% 48 h ISO 6341

Inhibition of the light emission of Vibrio fischeri (Luminescent bacteria test) (Vib)

EC50 ≤ 10% 30 min ISO 11348-3

Fresh water algal growth inhibition test with unicellular green algae (Alg)

EC50 ≤ 10% 72 h ISO 8692

Solid contact test using the dehydrogenase activity of Arthrobacter globiformis (Art)

EC50 ≤ 10% 2 h ISO/DIS 18187

Effects on the emergence and early growth of higher plants (Avena sativa, Brassica napus) (Ave, Bra)

EC50 ≤ 10% 14 d ISO 11269-2

Avoidance test with earthworms (Eisenia andrei/fetida) (Ear)

EC50 ≤ 10% 48 h ISO 17512-1

For each sample, results according to the harmonised approach (Table 31) are presented

in the table in Annex 5. A waste is considered hazardous if the EC50 of at least one test is

greater than or equal to 10% (see above for details on the choice of this threshold. For

some samples, ecotoxicological data is incomplete or ambiguous and does not allow waste

classification. These samples were identified in the table in Annex 5 with the mention

“further information needed”. The samples for which no data is available were identified

with the mention “No Data (ND)”.

Observations and discussions on these results are presented in section 5.5.

5.4. Limitations

5.4.1. Limitations due to characterisation data available

The lack of availability of characterisation data from chemical analyses can lead to

underestimation or overestimation of the waste classification:

As characterisation data, most of the time, only reported concentrations of elemental

compounds (mainly metallic compounds) and specific compounds or salts were not

identified, a worst case selection was performed as described previously. This worst case

selection is based the most severe classification (and on the most relevant compounds).

Therefore, the worst-case approach can lead to an overestimation of the classification.



However, the molar mass of compounds was not considered in the worst-case approach,

and this could have an impact in the mass concentration percentage used for calculation

(see section 2.4.2), thus leading to an underestimation of waste classification.

Moreover, in most cases no information on organic compounds was available and a

significant fraction of the waste was not identified (for 80% of the sample, the unknown

fraction is greater than 85%). This means that hazardous compounds at potentially relevant

concentrations were left out of calculations. This would lead to an underestimation of the

waste classification.

5.4.2. Limitations of calculation methods

The applicability of the calculation methods is limited by the availability of harmonised

classifications. Regarding the worst case selection, all compounds were associated to a

harmonised classification. However, other specific compounds that could be analysed in

the waste could not have harmonised classification available and then could lead to a

potential underestimation of the waste classification.

Another limitation is linked to the availability of M-factors. Only 13% of the 1,232

compounds classified in category 1 for acute and chronic hazard are assigned an M-factor,

70% of which are pesticides – making their presence in waste unlikely. Therefore, only a

few relevant substances had available M-factors; thus calculation methods relying on M-

factors (namely methods 2 & 4) were unsuitable for determining HP 14. This point will be

further discussed thereafter during the comparative assessment of the different

methodologies.

The lack of available M-factors is mainly due to the fact that they were not determined

during the transposition to CLP regulation. Nevertheless, a few M-factors will be updated

progressively with the publication of new Adaptations to Technical Progress (ATP). In the

meantime, M-factoran alternative approach proposed by some Member States is to realise

a self-determination of M-factor from ecotoxicological data. This approach is very complex

because the selection of M-factor needs an assessment of the quality of the value/study

and could imply different expert judgments and also a harmonisation among the different

countries (which is done in harmonised classification). Moreover, the assessment and

validation of M-factors is done at European level. Therefore, only M-factors identified in

harmonised classification are considered. For the worst case compounds identified in the

table in Annex 5, only two compounds have an M-factor (cobalt oxide and sodium cyanide).

Lack of information regarding the current hazard classification (baseline) for each waste

sample is another limitation. It must be noted that results for different samples originate

from multiple sources, sometimes in different Member States, and where the baseline

classification may be different as a function of the different national methodologies applied

to determine the HP 14 classification. In almost 35% of the cases, the source did not

indicate what the current classifications for the samples were (and a fortiori not for property

HP 14). This is a limitation for comparing the methods because no baseline is available to

provide a reference.

5.4.3. Limitations related to ecotoxicological data available

A main limitation on the use of experimental data is the availability of biotest results. Indeed,

among all samples identified, only 40% of them include ecotoxicological data (29% include

both characterisation and ecotoxicological data and 11% include only ecotoxicological

data). Therefore, comparing classifications obtained with calculations and classifications

obtained with biotests can only be considered for 29% of samples (47 samples).

Moreover, comparison of results is further limited by, for some samples:

the heterogeneity of the test battery applied and the protocol of eluate

preparation; and



The incompleteness of some results: for 4 samples, essential parameters like

the units in which the toxicity values are expressed or exposure duration were

not reported.

These samples were therefore not considered for comparing results. The full comparison

is presented in section 5.5.2.

It should also be stressed that, although the limit threshold value for waste classification is

fixed at 10% in the proposed approach described above, there is currently no regulatory

acceptance in this regard. This could then be inducing a bias for the comparison of

calculation and experimental approaches, as presented in section 5.5.2. Indeed, a

sensitivity analysis would be necessary to determine how the concordance (or lack thereof)

between calculations and ecotoxicological results, shown in section 5.5.2, would be

impacted by different thresholds.

5.5. Comparative assessment of the different methodologies

5.5.1. Comparison of the four calculation methods

The different calculation methods are based on harmonised classification and worst case

selection as discussed above. However, calculation Methods 2 and 4, which consider M-

factors, seems to be inadequate for waste classification:

As presented in section 5.1.3, Methods 2 and 4 have higher concentration limit

values if M-factor is equal to 1 (which is the default value of M-factors when

they are not available), thus leading to an unforeseen underestimation of waste

ecotoxicity, compared to what it would have been, if the method could be

applied properly;

These two methods do not take into account chronic 3 and 4 compounds.

The comparison of each calculation methods with the current hazard classification for each

waste sample identified in the different sources is presented in the following tables (Table

32, Table 33 and Table 34). For each mirror entry and calculation method, the percentage

of samples having the same classification as the baseline is reported, as well as the

number of sources for which the current (baseline) hazard classification is available. The

percentage represent the concordance of results with current classifications. This is an

important element to take into account when considering new classification methods;

nevertheless it should be kept in mind that a change in classification can be necessary if

new scientific evidence suggests so.

The values highlighted in green represent, for each mirror entry, methods that lead to a

good prediction (percentage upper than 90%) of waste classification as compared to the

current classification. The methods that induce a percentage lower than 50% are

highlighted in red.



Table 32: Concordance of results with current classifications

Table 33: False positives defined by taking the baseline classification as a reference, i.e. non-hazardous according to the baseline, assessed as hazardous by the calculation method

Concordance

for Method 1

Concordance

for Method 2

Concordance

for Method 3

Concordance

for Method 4

Baseline

available

(number of

sources)

06 05 02* / 06 05 03 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 1/1

08 01 13* / 08 01 14 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 2/4

10 03 19* / 10 03 20 0/2

11 01 09* / 11 01 10 75.0% 100.0% 50.0% 100.0% 4/5

12 01 14* / 12 01 15 100.0% 50.0% 100.0% 50.0% 2/2

15 01 10* / 15 01 01 / 15 01 02 100.0% 33.3% 100.0% 33.3% 3/3

17 05 03* / 17 05 04 92.3% 61.5% 69.2% 69.2% 13/21

19 01 11* / 19 01 12 96.7% 23.3% 93.3% 23.3% 30/57

19 01 13* / 19 01 14 71.0% 32.3% 71.0% 32.3% 31/32

19 08 11* / 19 08 12 0/3

19 08 13* / 19 08 14 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 1/3

19 10 03* / 19 10 04 90.9% 81.8% 90.9% 81.8% 11/11

19 12 11* / 19 12 12 0/5

False positive

for Method 1

False positive

for Method 2

False positive

for Method 3

False positive

for Method 4

Baseline

available

(number of

sources)

06 05 02* / 06 05 03 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1/1

08 01 13* / 08 01 14 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2/4

10 03 19* / 10 03 20 0/2

11 01 09* / 11 01 10 25.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 4/5

12 01 14* / 12 01 15 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2/2

15 01 10* / 15 01 01

/ 15 01 020.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3/3

17 05 03* / 17 05 04 0.0% 0.0% 30.8% 0.0% 13/22

19 01 11* / 19 01 12 3.3% 0.0% 6.7% 0.0% 30/57

19 01 13* / 19 01 14 29.0% 0.0% 29.0% 0.0% 31/32

19 08 11* / 19 08 12

19 08 13* / 19 08 14 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1/3

19 10 03* / 19 10 04 9.1% 0.0% 9.1% 9.1% 11/11

19 12 11* / 19 12 12 0/5



Table 34: False negatives defined by taking the baseline classification as a reference, i.e. hazardous according to the baseline, assessed as non-hazardous by the calculation method

As shown in these tables, no current classification was mentioned in the source of samples

concerning the following mirror entries: flue-gas dust (10 03 19* / 10 03 20), sludges

containing dangerous substances from biological treatment of industrial waste water (19

08 11* / 19 08 12) and other wastes (including mixtures of materials) from mechanical

treatment of waste (19 12 11* / 19 12 12). However, the impact on results remained limited

because the number of sources for these mirror entries was very limited. The most

represented are fly ash (19 01 13* / 19 01 14), bottom ash and slag (19 01 11* / 19 01 12)

and soil and stones (17 05 03* / 17 05 04).

Samples for which the current classification was available56 are mainly from Member States

implementing chemical approaches based on the DPD (Figure 16). This means that we

are mainly comparing the results of the proposed methods with results of DPD-

based methods. As shown in section 3.3.2.1, DPD-based approaches involve different

additivity rules depending on the Member States and are therefore not identical among

Member States. Therefore, the proposed methods are not being compared to one single

approach, but to a variety of approaches implemented in five different Member States.

56 Or could be calculated on the basis of the approaches applied in the Member States they originated from – see section 2.4

False negative

for Method 1

False negative

for Method 2

False negative

for Method 3

False negative

for Method 4

Baseline

available

(number of

sources)

06 05 02* / 06 05 03 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 1/1

08 01 13* / 08 01 14 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2/4

10 03 19* / 10 03 20 0/2

11 01 09* / 11 01 10 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4/5

12 01 14* / 12 01 15 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 2/2

15 01 10* / 15 01 01

/ 15 01 020.0% 66.6% 0.0% 66.6% 3/3

17 05 03* / 17 05 04 7.7% 38.5% 0.0% 30.8% 13/22

19 01 11* / 19 01 12 0.0% 76.7% 0.0% 76.7% 30/57

19 01 13* / 19 01 14 0.0% 67.7% 0.0% 67.7% 31/32

19 08 11* / 19 08 12

19 08 13* / 19 08 14 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 1/3

19 10 03* / 19 10 04 0.0% 27.3% 0.0% 9.1% 11/11

19 12 11* / 19 12 12 0/5



Figure 16: Source of samples with current classification available – (a) per Member States; (b) per type of approach

It appears clearly from Table 32 that Method 1 and 3 lead to a high level of concordance

with the current classification identified in the source (or calculated according to the rules

of each Member States as identified in Annex 5). The level of confidence of these

approaches is upper than 90%, except for some mirror entries (06 05 02* / 06 05 03, 11 01

09* / 11 01 10, 19 08 13* / 19 08 14) for which very few sample is available. For the mirror

entry “19 01 13* / 19 01 14” (fly ash, UK data), a correspondence of 71% is observed for

these two methods. This difference is mainly due to fact that these methods have lower

cut-off values than the UK calculation method. Furthermore, the relevance of these two

methods is enhanced by the observation of false positive/negative rate. The very low rate

of false negative shows that these methods are conservative and usually do not lead to an

underestimation of waste classification. However, the false positive rate shows that these

methods could lead to on overestimation of waste classification and especially for Method

3. Indeed, as it is presented in the table thereafter, almost 30% of overestimation is

observed for Method 1 for fly ashes and almost 30% for Method 3 for fly ashes and soil

and stones. Therefore, according to the concordance of results with the current

classification and the false positive rate, Method 1 seems to be the most relevant. Although

the false negative rate is equal to zero, the Method 3 could lead to an over estimation of

waste classification, the concentration limit for chronic 1 category being probably too low.

Regarding Methods 2 and 4, the level of concordance is very low, around to 20% to 30%.

Moreover, according to the false negative rate, this misclassification is mostly due to an

underestimation of waste classification. This means that around 25% to 75% of the wastes

are not considered as hazardous whereas there are currently classified as hazardous.

Based on these observations, these methods do not seem reliable for waste classification.

The overall concordance (Methods 1 & 3) and discrepancies (Methods 2 & 4) with current

classification can be explained by two factors:

Although the proposed methods differ from the DPD-based approaches in

many ways – no generic concentration limits other than for H420 (also H100

for Methods 1 & 2 and H411 for Method 2), cut-off values only applied in

Methods 2 & 4 (and different from the ones applied in DPD-based approaches)

and different additivity rules – Method 1 (and 3, to a lesser extent) are still quite

similar to the DPD approaches.

Higher concentration limit values for Methods 2 & 4 (when M-factors are not

available – which is frequent) than those generally applied in DPD approaches

leads to an underestimation of waste classification for these methods.



5.5.2. Comparison between calculation methods and ecotoxicological data

The comparison of each calculation methods with the classification based on

ecotoxicological data (biotests) according to the proposed threshold values of the approach

(thresholds of 10% for EC50s) is presented in the following tables (Table 35, Table 36 and

Table 37). For each mirror entry and calculation method, the percentage of sample which

shows the same classification as the one based on biotest results is reported, as well as

the number of sources for which ecotoxicological data is available. The values in green

represent, for each mirror entry, methods that lead to a good prediction (percentage upper

than 90%) of waste classification as compared to classification based on biotest results.

The methods that induce a percentage lower than 50% are in red.

Table 35: Concordance of results with biotests results

Concordance

for Method 1

Concordance

for Method 2

Concordance

for Method 3

Concordance

for Method 4

Biotests

available

(number of

sources)

06 05 02* / 06 05 03 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 1/1

08 01 13* / 08 01 14 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 2/4

10 03 19* / 10 03 20 0/2

11 01 09* / 11 01 10 75.0% 100.0% 50.0% 100.0% 4/5

12 01 14* / 12 01 15 100.0% 50.0% 100.0% 50.0% 2/2

15 01 10* / 15 01 01 / 15 01 02 0/3

17 05 03* / 17 05 04 100.0% 50.0% 100.0% 50.0% 2/22

19 01 11* / 19 01 12 40.7% 44.4% 44.4% 44.4% 27/57

19 01 13* / 19 01 14 20.0% 80.0% 20.0% 80.0% 5/32

19 08 11* / 19 08 12

19 08 13* / 19 08 14 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 1/3

19 10 03* / 19 10 04 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1/11

19 12 11* / 19 12 12 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1/5



Table 36: False positives (determined with regards to biotest results), i.e. non-hazardous according to the biotests, assessed as hazardous by the calculation method

Table 37: False negatives (determined with regards to biotest results), i.e. hazardous according to the biotests, assessed as non-hazardous by the calculation method

As can be observed from the tables, only few ecotoxicological data were available for each

mirror entry. The most represented are bottom ash and slag, fly ash; soil and stones. No

ecotoxicological data was available concerning the following mirror entries: flue-gas dust,

sludges and filter cakes and paper and cardboard packaging, plastic packaging. However,

the impact on results remained limited because the number of sources for these mirror

entries was very low.

The concordance of the different calculation methods with the classification based on

biotest results is quite similar. The number of sample in concordance between these two

False positive

for Method 1

False positive

for Method 2

False positive

for Method 3

False positive

for Method 4

Classification

available

(number of

sources)

06 05 02* / 06 05 03 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1/1

08 01 13* / 08 01 14 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2/4

10 03 19* / 10 03 20 0/2

11 01 09* / 11 01 10 25.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 4/5

12 01 14* / 12 01 15 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2/2

15 01 10* / 15 01 01

/ 15 01 020/3

17 05 03* / 17 05 04 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3/22

19 01 11* / 19 01 12 40.7% 7.4% 40.7% 7.4% 27/57

19 01 13* / 19 01 14 80.0% 0.0% 80.0% 0.0% 5/32

19 08 11* / 19 08 12

19 08 13* / 19 08 14 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1/3

19 10 03* / 19 10 04 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1/11

19 12 11* / 19 12 12 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1/5

False negative

for Method 1

False negative

for Method 2

False negative

for Method 3

False negative

for Method 4

Biotests

available

(number of

sources)

06 05 02* / 06 05 03 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 1/1

08 01 13* / 08 01 14 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2/4

10 03 19* / 10 03 20 0/2

11 01 09* / 11 01 10 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4/5

12 01 14* / 12 01 15 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 2/2

15 01 10* / 15 01 01

/ 15 01 020/3

17 05 03* / 17 05 04 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 3/22

19 01 11* / 19 01 12 18.5% 48.2% 14.8% 48.2% 27/57

19 01 13* / 19 01 14 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 20.0% 5/32

19 08 11* / 19 08 12

19 08 13* / 19 08 14 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 1/3

19 10 03* / 19 10 04 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1/11

19 12 11* / 19 12 12 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1/5



approaches for each calculation method is, out of 47 samples: 10 for Method 1, 12 for

Method 2, 12 for Method 3 and 12 for Method 4. Furthermore, there is an overall higher

number of false negatives than false positives, which means biotests are more likely to

classify wastes as hazardous than calculation methods. This is an indication that some

hazardous substances are not taken into account (because not detected or not analysed)

in calculation approaches.

However, regarding false negative/positive rate, a significant difference is observed. As

seen for comparison with current waste classification (section 5.5.1), Methods 1 and 3

show a very low rate of false negative. These methods are then conservative and do not

lead to an underestimation of waste classification, when considering thresholds of 10% for

EC50s. However, the false positive rate shows that these methods could lead to an

overestimation of waste classification. These results indicate that the proposed biotest

approach has a similar level of stringency compared to Methods 1 & 3 (the false positive

rate indicating it is slightly less strict).

Regarding Methods 2 and 4, according to the false negative rate, the misclassification

observed is mostly due to an underestimation of waste classification. This means that

around 10% to 50% of the wastes are not considered hazardous whereas they are

classified as hazardous according to biotests. Based on these observations, and

considering the proposed thresholds, these two methods do not seem reliable for waste

classification.

The modification of the classification rules (i.e. the selection of two positive results to

classify a waste), increased the correlation between test results and calculation methods 2

and 4 (66.7% for both methods) for the most representative mirror pair (i.e.19 01 11*/19 01

12). Nevertheless, these correlations should be interpreted cautiously due to the limitations

detailed above.

5.5.3. Feasability of the different methods

Industrial stakeholders were consulted on the technical and economic feasibility of the four

methods (see questionnaire in Annex 4). This section is a synthesis of their inputs.

5.5.3.1. Technical feasability

Individuals performing the calculations with Methods 1 or 3 must have a good knowledge

of chemicals, but a high level of specialist training is not necessary. However, Methods 2

& 4 can be challenging because of the inclusion of M-factors in the formulae. It was reported

by industry that one must be trained in order to know how to choose the relevant M-factors,

if they were to be self-derived. Required skills would include modelling for assessing the

speciation of inorganic substances.

Furthermore, it appears that consultancy work may be necessary, especially for SMEs

which lack specific skills for the interpretation of results. The need for consultancy would

be all the more important for Methods 2 & 4, as help would be required with M-factors.

5.5.3.2. Economic feasability

The costs for assessing HP 14 would be similar with any of the four methods, as it depends

on the type of waste. Indeed, the costs for sample preparation and chemical analysis

depend on the level of heterogeneity of the waste and on its complexity:

If the waste is rather homogeneous, a limited number of samples will be

needed to get a representative classification. The sampling costs would then

be low compared to an heterogeneous waste;



If the waste is complex (i.e. its composition is not well-known – this can affect

homogeneous and heterogeneous waste alike), large sets of analytical

determinations will be necessary, which makes analytical costs higher.

Costs for analysing a homogeneous and rather simple waste (i.e. one sample with only a

few analytical determinations needed) will be on the lower end of the spectrum (a few

hundred euros). If the composition of the waste is not well-known and the waste is

heterogeneous, then chemical analyses can cost a few thousand euros.

Furthermore, additional costs must be expected for the interpretation of analyses on a

heterogeneous waste. Higher costs might arise for Methods 2 & 4, as the choice of M-

factors might need consultancy work or training sessions. Thus, costs for consultancy

purposes can reach tens of thousands of euros in some cases.

Table 38 summarises the data collected from industry. The order of magnitude of costs

linked to the assessment of HP 14 with the four methods is around 1,000-10,000 €.

Table 38: Costs per sample (€) for assessing HP 14 with the proposed methods on some mirror pairs

Mirror pair Sample

preparation57 Chemical analysis

Application of methods

General 1,000-1,500 N/A

19 01 11* / 19 01 12 > 100 100-1,000 1,000-10,000

15 01 10* / 15 01 01 / 15 01 02

> 300 >>200 N/A

17 05 03* / 17 05 04 1,000 2,000 N/A

17 05 05* / 17 05 06 17 09 03* / 17 09

0458 N/A 250-2,500 N/A

10 01 14* / 10 01 15 1,500

5.6. Conclusion and potential orientations for a combined approach

Before drawing any conclusions, it is important to remind that several limitations are

associated to available data:

In most cases, characterisation data only report elemental compound

concentrations, presence of organic compounds is rarely reported at all;

a significant fraction of the waste is not identified;

worst-case assumptions (based on highest toxicity values) are made in the

selection of the identity compounds used for subsequent classification of the

waste; and

the applicability of the calculation methods is limited by the availability of

harmonised classifications for the substances.

Moreover, the number of sources identified is limited and therefore the different mirror

entries originally selected for the study have not been well represented.

However, according to the comparative assessment of the different calculation methods

with the current classification or the classification based on biotest results, there are some

indications that suggest that Methods 1 and 3 could be the most relevant for waste

57 Costs linked to efforts for a representative sample are not taken into account, but can be substantial 58 This is potentially the most heterogeneous of all and where size reduction and sample preparation would be more difficult.



classification based on characterisation data. Indeed, even if these methods are associated

to a potential overestimation of waste classification (13% of sample for method 1 and 18%

for method 3), that lead to a good concordance with current classification or classification

based on biotest results, and the false negative rate is very low.

In addition to these observations, as discussed in the presentation of the calculation

methods, Method 1 seems to be more relevant because the same criteria as those defined

in the Regulation 1272/2008 for classification of mixture are applied (whereas Method 3 is

based on the old classification system of mixture, directive 1994/45/EC, that is very

different to the concept of CLP regulation because summation of components classified for

different hazard categories is not considered). The only two differences of Method 1 with

CLP are the non-consideration of M-factors and generic cut-off values59. The non-

consideration of M-factor has a lesser impact on calculation because this factor is available

only on very few compounds with a harmonised classification. Regarding the non-

consideration of generic cut-off values, this is relevant because some compounds could be

present in waste and could contribute to its toxicity even at low concentration due to

additivity of hazards. This means that the application of this method could then be

consistent with the CLP regulation and allows industrials not to apply other additional

methods.

In the context of a combined approach, an alternative two-step strategy could be envisaged

for waste classification in relation to HP 14.. The first step would consist into applying a

summation method (the one ultimately selected for HP 14 assessment). In a second step,

if the waste cannot be adequately classified according to step 1 (e.g. due to very limited

information on its composition), an experimental approach using one or several biotests

(perhaps also in a tiered approach) could be applied.

An experimental approach could also be directly considered if the composition of the waste

is unknown or complex.

59 These could nevertheless be considered in a methodology to make calculations somewhat easier for those classifying waste. The drawback would be that some very toxic substances may be excluded.



6. Impact assessment of the

change of classification

6.1. Principles

In this chapter, the terms “studied mirror pairs” (respectively “studied (waste) codes”) refer

to the selected mirror pairs (respectively “selected (waste) codes”) on which the calculation

methods were applied. Table 39 below reports and classifies those pairs. The codes having

the most robust calculation results (see Chapter 6) are highlighted in bold.

Table 39: The studied mirror pairs, classified by nature and by source

Nature

Source

Sludge Dust Ash Spoil, Soil

& stones

Packaging Other

Inorganic

chemical

processes

06 05 02*/

06 05 03

MFSU and

removal of

paint and

varnish

08 01 13*/

08 01 14

Thermal

processes

10 03 19*/

10 03 20

Chemical

surface

treatment of

materials

11 01 09*/

11 01 10

Shaping,

physical and

mechanical

treatment of

materials

12 01 14*/

12 01 15

Construction

and

demolition

17 05 03*/

17 05 04

17 05 05*/

17 05 06

Incineration

or pyrolysis

of waste

19 08 11*/

19 08 12

19 08 13*/

19 08 14

19 10 03*/

19 10 04

19 01 11*/

19 01 12

19 01 13*/

19 01 14

Other 15 01 10*/

15 01 01/

15 01 02

19 12 11*/

19 12 12



There are only four pairs for which calculations were robust: the following impact

assessment is therefore impeded by lack of data regarding other pairs.

As mentioned in section 2.5, the impact assessment was conducted according to the

following steps:

Setting indicators describing key factors of the impact assessment, the

variation of which may affect the management of waste, the environment,

public health, recycling companies, etc.;

Evaluating the current “value” of those indicators (baseline), i.e. documenting

the current situation and trends of the generation and management of waste

streams classified under the studied codes.

o a more detailed description was drafted for the codes having the most

robust calculation results: 17 05 03*/17 05 04, 19 01 11*/19 01 12, 19

01 13*/19 01 14 and 19 10 03*/19 10 04;

Estimating the likely “value” of those indicators linked to the implementation of

either one of the four methods, i.e. assessing the environmental and socio-

economic impacts of each of the four methods, considering the proportion of

waste that would change classification (as determined in Chapter 5).

More details on these steps can be found in the methodology chapter, section 2.5.

6.2. Indicators for the baseline scenario and the impact assessment

The aspects of interest are described by the following indicators (see also section 2.5.2.1):



landfilled)

o Benefits of recovering the waste (including saving of raw materials)

o Pollution due to contaminated fractions of the waste (in case of

improper management)

Economic aspects

o Costs of disposal

o Costs of recycling (for hazardous and non-hazardous waste, and

including revenues for recyclers)

Social aspects

o Employment

o Public Health

6.3. Current situation and trends

This section documents the economic, social and environmental aspects of the current

waste generation and management practices, for waste streams classified under either of

the entries of the studied mirror pairs (Table 22).



Note on the quantities of waste reported for the studied waste streams:

The next sections report the percentage of waste classified as hazardous and non-

hazardous for each waste stream, according to two sources:

Quantities reported by Member States surveyed for the benchmark (see

section 3); and

The current classification of the samples collected for the calculation

exercise (see section 5).

Discrepancies between both estimations are to be expected, if only because collected

samples are not necessary representative of all generated waste.

6.3.1. Soil and stones waste (17 05 03*/17 05 04)

This waste stream refers to excavated soil and stones from construction and demolition

work. Although it is referenced in the LoW under the heading “waste from construction and

demolition”, experts’ opinions vary on whether to include it in the definition of Construction

& Demolition (C&D) waste60. Therefore, studies on excavated soil and stones are often

limited by aggregation of data at C&D waste level and lack of information on the specific

stream.

Soil and stones represent a large part of C&D waste (if one chooses to include it in the

definition): for instance, it makes up to 74% of all waste in Austria, 66% of C&D waste in

France and Ireland, and 57% in Germany61.

A large majority (97% when considering quantities reported in the Member States

studied in this project) of excavated soil and stones streams are considered non-

hazardous in their country of origin.

The baseline classifications of the collected experimental samples for the mirror pair 17 05

03* / 17 05 04, although they also show a majority of non-hazardous fractions among the

soil & stones stream, do not exactly reflect the volume proportion in the studied Member

States (Table 40).

Table 40: Hazard of 17 05 03*/17 05 04 waste streams

Hazard

Source Non-hazardous Hazardous Not determined

Quantities reported by

surveyed Member States

97% 3% n/a

Current classification of

the samples collected for

the calculation exercise

38%

(8 samples)

24%

(5 samples)

38%

(8 samples)

6.3.1.1. Environmental aspects

Current recovery schemes

Because soil & stones are mainly non-hazardous (97% when considering quantities

reported in the Member States studied in this project), environmental challenges focus on

the recovery of this waste in order to preserve virgin materials (aggregates extracted from

quarries and metals embedded in construction materials). Furthermore, seeing that landfills

60 Simon Magnusson, Kristina Lundberg, Bo Svedberg, Sven Knutsson, Sustainable management of excavated soil and rock in urban areas, A literature review Journal of Cleaner Production 93 (2015) 18 e 25 61 BIO by Deloitte (2015) Resource efficient use of mixed waste (to be published)



are attaining full capacity in the EU and that the European strategy is to divert waste from

landfills62, there is a need to foster the recovery of soil & stone waste.

In terms of recovery, soil & stones can be either recycled after going through a dedicated

facility, or used as backfilling. Some also consider the use of soil & stones as cover for

landfills as a method of recovery; however, as the European strategy is focused on the

closing of landfills62, it could be questioned if the accumulation of excavated soil and rock

at landfill due to covering purposes should be labelled as recovery60. The main product

generated from the recycling of soil & stones is recycled aggregate (used in the

construction of roads, for instance)

In Austria and France, around half of soil & stones waste is sent to landfills (53% in Austria

and 44% in France)61, and only 13.2% in Germany. Recovered soil & stones are mainly

using in backfilling activities, as illustrated for Germany below:

Figure 17: Fate of soil & stones waste in Germany in 201263

Few data exist regarding the recycling of soil & stones. Figure 17 shows that 10% of soil &

stones are recycled in Germany and research work undertaken by Hiete et al in 201164

showed that 8.5% of soil & stones are recycled in Baden-Württemberg. Based on these

few numbers, one can say that recycling activities do not account for a big part in the way

soil & stones waste is managed. Nevertheless, seeing the high volumes generated, this

could still account for a substantial amount of waste.

Benefits of recycling soil & stones waste

A 2015 literature review conducted by Magnusson et al60 outlined the various

environmental benefits of reusing and recycling soil and stones. In the paper, the authors

divide reuse and recycling activities as follows:

Reuse on-site: Several studies describe the environmental gains with reusing

excavated soil and rock at the construction site656667. Eras et al.66 showed that

by planning for mass balance of earthworks in an industrial construction

project, it was possible to relocate and reuse 44% of the excavated materials,

i.e. about 700 000 m3, and hence reduce earthwork and transports to landfill

as well as the production and use of quarry materials. However, it is very

62 European Environment Agency, 2009. Diverting Waste from Landfill e Effectiveness of Waste-management Policies in the European Union. 63 Kreislaufwirtschaft Bau, 2012 Monitoring Report: http://www.kreislaufwirtschaft-bau.de/daten.html 64 Hiete, M., Stengel, J., Ludwig, J., Schultmann, F., 2011. Matching construction and demolition waste supply to recycling demand: a regional management chain model. Build. Res. Inf. 39, 333 e 351. 65 Chittoori, B., Puppala, A.J., Reddy, R., Marshall, M., 2012. Sustainable reutilization of excavated trench material. GeoCongress 2012, 4280 e 4289. 66 Eras, C.J.J., Gutierrez, A.S., Capote, D.H., Hens, L., Vandecasteele, C., 2013. Improving the environmental performance of an earthwork project using cleaner production strategies. J. Clean. Prod. 47, 368 e 376. 67 Kenley, R., Harfield, T., 2011. Greening procurement: a research agenda for optimizing mass-haul during linear infrastructure construction. In: Sixth International Conference on Construction in the 21st Century (CITC-VI), pp. 235 e 240.

http://www.kreislaufwirtschaft-bau.de/daten.html



difficult to estimate the quantity of excavated material reused on site, because

there is no reporting on it. It is supposed to be a low figure because there is

often not enough space on building sites to enable reuse.

Reuse on other projects: Reuse of excavated soil and rock directly in other

projects means that materials are transported between construction sites.

Such reuse is possible when there are several construction projects going on

in the same region and when cooperation has previously been achieved. The

authors found no data regarding this uptake of this type of reuse.

Recycling through a recycling facility: The environmental potential for recycling

excavated soil and stones waste in such way has been studied by some

authors. For example, for 13 out of 14 environmental aspects studied by

Blengini and Garbarino68, there were environmental gains. Indeed, the CO2

emissions were reduced by about 14 kg CO2 equivalents per ton when

recycling C&D waste, compared to using quarry primary materials. Simion et

al69studied the climate effects of producing natural aggregates compared to

recycling C&D waste. Climate impact from natural aggregate production was

about 103 kg CO2 per ton, compared to about 16 kg per ton for recycled C&D

waste.

The first reuse activities can be included in the backfilling category. It is clear that reusing

soil & stones on site in more environmentally beneficial than using it in other projects,

because no emissions from transport are involved. The only recovery method the benefits

of which were quantified is recycling through dedicated channels.

Drivers and barriers to an increase of soil & stones recycling

A survey in a few Member States conducted for the a study on C&D waste61 showed that

the main driver for higher recycling rates of soil & stones – and C&D waste in general – is

a high landfill tax coupled with an exemption for the use of C&D material for recovery

purposes. For instance, the main Austrian incentive that drives recycling of CDW is the law

for Remediation of Contaminated Sites (Altlastensanierungsgesetz (ALSAG)), which

charges 9.20 € for every ton that is not recovered in proper and structurally engineered

way. In Flanders, the combination of stimulating both practical and technical solutions (use

of granulates in road construction) with economic benefits (landfill taxes) drove the stony-

fraction recycling rate at 90%.

Conversely, low taxes regarding landfills and virgin materials is a barrier to fostering the

recycling of C&D waste, including soil & stones. In France, the low General Tax on Polluting

Activities (0.2 € per ton) does not encourage building firms to favour recycling and recovery

over landfill. Furthermore, a few Member States stressed a strong competition coming from

low prices of primary raw material, making secondary building materials unattractive (e.g.

Austria, Germany and Finland)61. For instance, primary raw materials are abundant in most

of the regions in Germany and therefore cheap when compared to recycled materials,

which can sometimes be even more expensive. Since no subsidies or other economic

incentives exist that could drive the use of secondary materials, the choice to opt for primary

materials is most of the time price related. Another barrier to the recycling of soil & stones

waste is the illegal disposal of waste, which is a problem mainly for countries like Spain or

Portugal70.

Pollution due to contaminated soil & stones waste

68 Blengini, G.A., Garbarino, Elena, 2010. Resources and waste management in Turin (Italy): the role of recycled aggregates in the sustainable supply mix. J. Clean.Prod. 18, 1021 e 1030. 69 Simion, I.M., Fortuna, M.E., Bonoli, A., Gavrilescu, M., 2013. Comparing environmental impacts of natural inert and recycled construction and demolition waste processing using LCA. J. Environ. Eng. Landsc. Manag. 21, 273 e 287. 70 BIO Intelligence Service, Arcadis & IEEP (2011) Management of Construction and Demolition Waste in Europe – Final Report



Hazardous soil & stones waste represent around 3% of the total amount of soil & stones

waste, considering quantities reported in the Member States studied in this project (24%

when considering collected experimental samples). They mostly arise from contaminated

sites and have to undergo treatment (bioremediation, stabilisation, screening and complex

sorting, etc.) before disposal or recycling. The share of hazardous waste which can be

recycled depends on the batch of waste.

To our knowledge, no case of pollution arising from the disposal or the recycling of

hazardous soil and stones waste has been reported.

Trends in soil & stones waste management

The quantity of soil & stones waste arising is directly linked to the level of construction

activity. According to the 2014 Euroconstruct report71, the construction industry will

experience an average growth of 1.8 % a year, in real terms, from 2014 to 2016. After a

handful of hard and turbulent years, the European construction market is reaching firmer

ground and is likely to grow in the next years.

Therefore, the quantity of soil & stones will certainly increase in the future. High costs linked

to the opening of new landfills will lead to a decrease in the quantity of soil & stones used

as landfill cover. However, if virgin material continues to be cheaper than recycled material

in some Member States, then the share of recycled waste in the quantity of recovered

material is not likely to grow.

6.3.1.2. Economic aspects

Costs of management (disposal and recovery)

The costs of soil & stones waste management (including recycling) and trade vary widely

depending on the Member State and on the level of hazard.

In most Member States, C&D waste is divided into at least three categories for

management:

Inert waste (non-hazardous)

Non-inert non-hazardous waste

Hazardous waste

Soil & stones waste belongs to either the “inert waste” category or the “hazardous waste”

category. Inputs from EURELECTRIC indicate an estimated total cost of 450 €/t for

disposing of contaminated soil & stones waste in hazardous waste landfills and less

than 100 €/t for the recycling of non-hazardous soil & stones waste (without taking

into account the revenue generated from selling the recycled material).

Table 41 below reports costs linked to the disposal or recovery of C&D waste (including

soil & stones72) in a few Member States.

Table 41: Costs of managing soil & stones waste in a few Member States

Inert waste Hazardous waste

Recovery/recycling FR: a few euros per tonne

BE (Wallonia): 5.40€ / 6.40€

(Soils with max 5% of stones)

FR: between 200 € and

1,200 € per tonne

NL: from 30 € per tonne

Storage (landfill) FR: between 1 € and 8 € per

tonne

FR: between 200 € and 500

€ per tonne

71 http://www.uepg.eu/statistics/construction-activity-in-europe 72 The Member States/regions considered in the table all include soil and stones in their C&D waste definition

http://www.uepg.eu/statistics/construction-activity-in-europe



BE (Wallonia): 7.23 € (soils)

Logistics FR: Renting costs of a truck is around 90 €/hour. Skips can

be charged up to 50 € per month if the number of rotations is

not high enough.

NL: As an indication, the cost of the rental of a 9M2 CDW

container (including transport and treatment of the waste) is

329 €.

NB: France and Netherlands: total costs (excluding logistics); Wallonia: landfill tax excluding VAT

France is admittedly at the low end of the landfill costs compared to other Member States.

Therefore, in other countries (for which data was not readily available), costs for landfilling

soil & stones waste are likely to be higher. The costs of managing hazardous waste, based

on French data, are estimated at being in the order of magnitude of 200 – 500 €.

Table 41 shows that managing hazardous soil & stones can be as high as a hundred times

more expensive than managing non-hazardous waste. Because high volumes of soil &

stones waste are generated each year, mostly of a non-hazardous nature, a change of

classification from non-hazardous to hazardous would lead to soaring costs.

Trade

Value of the recovered material varies greatly depending on the regions. As mentioned in

the previous section, recycled soil & stones can sometimes be more expensive than virgin

materials if those are abundant. In other cases, the price of recycled soil & stones is at

least 20% lower compared to the price of natural aggregates73.

The exports/imports of CDW (including soil and stones waste) are marginal in France. In

Austria, less than 2% of CDW and soil & stones waste are exported.

6.3.1.3. Social aspects

Public health

No issues regarding public health have been reported regarding the management of soils

& stones waste.

Employment

No quantitative data estimating the number of jobs generated by the management of soil

& stones (landfill, backfill, recycling) was found.

6.3.2. Incinerator bottom ash (19 01 11*/19 01 12)

Incinerator bottom ash (IBA) is the ash that is left over after waste is burnt in an incinerator.

Municipal energy from waste plants that use incineration burn a wide range of municipal

wastes and therefore the term ‘ash’ is slightly misleading because it is not all powdery but

contains glass, brick, rubble, sand, grit, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, stone, concrete,

ceramics and fused clinker as well as combusted products such as ash and slag. Bottom

ash is generated at a rate of approximately 200-300 kg/t of waste incinerated. In the EU,

20 million tons of IBA is produced annually (2013)74, with France producing 3 million tons

per year and Germany 5 million75.

A large majority (92% when considering quantities reported in the Member States

studied in this project) of IBA streams are classified as non-hazardous in their

country of origin.

73 SARMa (2011) The Production of Recycled Aggregates from Inert Waste 74 https://resourcesandrecycling.wordpress.com/incinerator-bottom-ash/ 75 Communication from CEWEP

https://resourcesandrecycling.wordpress.com/incinerator-bottom-ash/




11*/19 01 12 do not show the same trend (Table 42).

Table 42: Hazard of 19 01 11* / 19 01 12 waste streams

Hazard




92% 8% n/a




12%

(7 samples)

40%

(23 samples)

48%

(27 samples)


Non-hazardous IBA can be disposed of at a non-hazardous landfill site or processed for

reuse (as a secondary aggregate in a variety of construction applications, see below).

Around 10%-20% of non-hazardous IBA gets sent to landfills (10% in Germany, 18% in

France and 20% in Ireland)75.

Hazardous IBA must either be disposed of at a hazardous waste landfill site or go for further

treatment.


First, the raw bottom ash is collected from the Waste-to-Energy plant and taken to a special

reprocessing facility. Ferrous (iron, steel) and non-ferrous metals (such as aluminium,

copper and zinc) are separated, and all particles above a certain size are broken down in

a crushing facility. The remaining combustible material is also removed. Then, bottom ash

is stored for ageing in order to improve its quality as a construction material.

In the reprocessing plant, ferrous metals are extracted magnetically. Non-ferrous metals

are sorted using the eddy current technique, which is based on the phenomenon that

changing magnetic fields create small currents in metal objects. The ferrous metals, which

on average make up 6 to 10% of the total amount of bottom ash, are sold to iron producers.

Non-ferrous metals (1-2%) are further refined and put back onto the market. All the

remaining not burnt-out material (about 1%) is returned to the Waste-to-Energy plant76.

Treated IBA is then recycled as a secondary aggregate (incinerator bottom ash aggregate,

or IBAA) which can be used in two major applications: unbound, it can be used for bulk fill

and sub bases or, when bound, it is ideal for road paving, cement and construction blocks.

It can also be used for landfill engineering and brownfield remediation. In the UK, 86% of

generated IBA was recycled as IBAA, an increase from 40% in 200077. Moreover, repairing

roads and producing asphalt concrete, permeable pavement, and bricks is now a practice

commonly seen in Denmark, Belgium, France (where it is the only way one can reuse IBA)

and the Netherlands. The reuse of bottom ash in road paving has reached 81% in France75

and 100%75 in the Netherlands78.

Benefits of recycling IBA

Recycling of IBA presents many environmental benefits, including:

76 CEWEP – Note: Environmentally sound use of bottom ash 77 Devon Waste Plan - Waste Topic Paper 7: Addendum on Incinerator Bottom Ash, Version 2, June 2014 78 J. Abbott, P. Coleman, L. Howlett, P. Wheeler, Environmental and Health Risk Associated With Use of Processed Incinerator Bottom Ash in Road Construction, BREWEB, 2003. And O. Hjelmar, J. Holm, K. Crillesen, Utilisation of MSWI bottom ash as sub-base in road construction: first results from a large-scale test site, J. Hazard. Mater. A 139 (2007) 471–480.



it avoids landfilling, therefore leaving void space available for other wastes

which cannot be treated further up the waste hierarchy;

It reduces the carbon footprint of the production of cement, metals, etc. through

recycling:

o Metals: Recovering fine non-ferrous metals from 1 ton of IBA saves 40

kg of CO2 emission. Furthermore, in order to produce 1 ton of

aluminium, the primary process generates 10.6 t CO2 while the

recycling process generates only 0.73 t CO279.

o Cement: reusing IBA in the production of cements allows for a

reduction of the impact on global warming. As a large amount of

energy is used in the cement production process to decompose the

calcium carbonate (CaCO3) into lime (CaO), a huge amount of carbon

dioxide is emitted during the process. Due to the fact that IBA is

composed of lime instead of calcium carbonate, it can reduce the

carbon dioxide emission80.

It reduces the use of natural resources such as quarried aggregates.

o It is possible to use IBA as concrete aggregate. The results show that

treated (immersion in sodium hydroxide for 15 days) bottom ash can

replace up to 50% of gravel in concrete without affecting the durability.

o A possible way to reuse IBA is to replace the materials in the base

course and sub-base of road pavement. This provides a simple and

direct method for reuse of the incineration ash and several road

sections have utilised IBA in road construction80.

It must be mentioned that some raise concerns over supporting the recycling of IBA. In

France, the National Centre for Independent Information on Waste (Centre national

d'information indépendante sur les déchets, or Cniid) fears that encouraging IBA recycling

can be seen as supporting incineration and thus going against waste prevention actions81.

Drivers and barriers to an increase of IBA recycling

The main motivation for recycling IBA is an increasing shortage of suitable natural

aggregate and lack of available landfill space82. The fact that IBA can be used directly as

a replacement of gravel for road pavement is also a plus.

However, ISWA reports that the different legislations regarding IBA across Member States

(limit values of leaching tests, for instance) hinders trade of bottom ash and that there is a

need of a level-playing field. Furthermore, a general barrier in most countries is that people

worry due to the fact that IBA originates from waste.

In France, it appeared that the economic model of companies recycling IBA is fragile, as

they strongly depend on the quantities of waste being incinerated. The success of waste

prevention campaigns lead to a stagnation and even a decrease of waste quantities, thus

locally producing less IBA in some cases81.

Pollution due to contaminated IBA

No case of pollution due to the utilisation or disposal of IBA seems to be reported. Notably,

a three-year study on the utilisation of IBA in road pavement in France, showed the

concentrations of heavy metals, fluorides and pH values in the leachate were below the

79 TU Delft (2013) Recycling of Incinerator Bottom Ash, Resources & Recycling (Presentation) 80 Charles H. K. Lam, Alvin W. M. Ip, John Patrick Barford and Gordon McKay, Use of Incineration MSW Ash: A Review, Sustainability 2010, 2, 1943-1968 81 http://mondeacplanete.blog.lemonde.fr/2014/04/21/le-machefer-des-ordures-incinerees-sous-le-bitume/ 82 ISWA (2006) Management of Bottom Ash from WTE Plants: An overview of management options and treatment methods

http://mondeacplanete.blog.lemonde.fr/2014/04/21/le-machefer-des-ordures-incinerees-sous-le-bitume/



limits authorised for potable water83. Nevertheless, a more recent environmental

assessment of IBA utilisation performed with the Life Cycle Assessment method84 found

that, although the utilisation of IBA saves natural resources and energy, the consequences

on the trace element leaching are more uncertain and may depend on the specific

materials. The study modelled leaching in a time perspective of 100 years with scenarios

involving different amounts of infiltrated water and showed a potential for toxic effects due

to leaching of trace elements (copper, in particular).

However, local environmental NGOs stress the scarce independent literature on the toxicity

of recycled IBA and are advocating the use of the precautionary principle.

Trends in IBA management

Innovative techniques are currently being developed for a better recovery of IBA and IBA

components: deep metal recovery85, steel scrap upgrading, more effective recycling for

concrete and cement production79.


By reducing landfill and saving primary aggregate, recycling IBA reduces costs both to the

incinerator operator and to the user (assuming proper market values). For instance, the

cost of disposal is at least twice (generally more) greater than recovery in France. In

Germany, it costs less than 5 €/ton to recover IBA and around 25-50 €/ton to landfill

hazardous IBA.

The UK Environment Agency estimates that using 469,000 tonnes of IBA each year can

save businesses over £47,350,000 each year, largely due to landfill charges, and creates

markets worth over £5.8 million a year.

There are numerous case studies of companies reducing their costs by using recycled

IBA86. For instance, a UK Infrastructure team used a mix of 30% IBA and recycled asphalt

containing IBA to surface 4,000 car park spaces at a new long stay facility at Stansted

Airport (UK). Approximately 54,000 tonnes of primary aggregate were replaced and cost

savings of £20,000 achieved. Another example is the use of processed IBA as a protection

liner at Burnhills landfill site in 2000, which allowed to avoid the Landfill Tax at £2 per tonne

for the suppliers of the IBA (the tax is the same today) totalling £12,000 of savings.

Furthermore, this project took place before the implementation of the Aggregates Levy:

had it been in place, a further £12,800 would have been saved by using secondary

aggregates87.

However, the market for utilising IBA in construction business is difficult due to

environmental demands and is becoming increasingly crowded, with more and more

recycled demolition waste and cleaned (former polluted) soil coming into the market82.


Public health

Recycling IBA in road construction can pose a risk due to the potential leaching of

hazardous substances such as dioxins, after percolation of storm water88. However,

recently-generated IBA contain fewer hazardous substances than in the past, and undergo

83 Bruder-Hubscher, C.; Lagarde, F.; Leroy, M.J.F.; Couganowr, C.; Enguehard, F. Utilisation of bottom ash in road construction: Evaluation of the environmental impact. Waste Manag. Res. 2001, 19, 545-556. 84 S. Toller, E. Kärrman, J.P. Gustafsson, Y. Magnusson, Environmental assessment of incinerator residue utilization, Waste Manage. 29 (2009) 2071–2077. 85 For instance, the ADR process: dry removal of fines from the IBA in a jet stream, for a high recovery of non-ferrous metals 86 See for instance http://www2.wrap.org.uk/applications/aggregain/casestudysearch/index.rm 87 WRAP, Factsheet AggRegain: The use of processed Incinerator bottom ash as a protection liner at Burnhills landfill site 88 Badreddine R, Bartet B, Francois D, Pepin G. Impact sur les sols des dioxines de MIOM utilisés en technique routière. Déchets Sci. Tech., 2003, 29, 1621

http://www2.wrap.org.uk/applications/aggregain/casestudysearch/index.rm



severe treatment before being reused. Furthermore, the use of appropriate materials (e.g.

geotextile liner) and soils (e.g. silt-clayey soil) allows for retention of those hazardous

substances, thus avoiding water contamination and potential adverse effects for humans89.

Therefore, the use of IBA in road construction, which is common in many countries such

as France or the Netherlands, does not seem to lead to public health issues.

Employment

According to CEWEP, 8-10 jobs are needed to produce 100kt/y of IBAA and to operate a

400kt/y quarry of natural aggregate. Managing 100kt/y of IBA in landfills requires less than

8-10 jobs. The current number of jobs for landfilling and recovery in France and Germany90

can be estimated thanks to CEWEP inputs (Table 43):

Table 43: Estimation of the number of workers needed for managing IBA in landfills and for recovery, considering the amounts of IBA generated in France and in Germany (per year)

Landfill Recovery

France Max 43 jobs 195 – 243 jobs

Germany Max 44 jobs 396 – 495 jobs

Recovering IBA generates much more jobs than landfilling, as the number of workers for

landfilling is lower per ton and the quantities of non-hazardous IBA landfilled are lower.

6.3.3. Fly ash from incinerators (19 01 13* / 19 01 14)

Fly ash is the lightest, finest and thermo-labile waste from municipal waste incineration

collected by a filtration system and it represents more than 1% by weight of the total waste.

The characteristics of fly ash are very variable, because they depend on the burnt material,

the combustion type and the temperature. Generally, fly ash is a highly soluble and reactive

material that contains significant quantities of heavy metals (Zn, Pb, Cd, Cr, etc.). Often

the heavy metals are present as anionic salts (chlorides and sulphates), and alkaline

anionic salts represent one of the main components of this waste (up to 25% of Cl in some

samples). In this inorganic fraction, which is very variable in composition, we find an organic

fraction relatively rich in unburnt elements, aromatic compounds and often also rich in

dioxins and furans91.

A large part (66% when considering quantities reported in the Member States studied

in this project) of MSWI fly ash streams are classified as hazardous.

The baseline classifications of the collected samples for the mirror pair 19 01 13* / 19 01

14 also show a majority of hazardous fractions among the fly ash stream (Table 44).

Table 44: Hazard of 19 01 13* / 19 01 14 waste streams

Hazard




44% 66% n/a




31%

(10 samples)

66%

(21 samples)

3%

(1 samples)

89 RECORD (2007) Risques sanitaires engendrés par la valorisation des déchets (recyclage et réutilisation) 90 Member States for which data was provided by CEWEP 91 Ebook on LIFE + projects regarding fly ash disposal, http://cosmos.csmt.eu/newsite/cosmos.csmt.eu/files_up/ebook_Fly%20ash%20disposal.pdf

http://cosmos.csmt.eu/newsite/cosmos.csmt.eu/files_up/ebook_Fly%20ash%20disposal.pdf





Recovery of MSWI fly ash as a second-hand raw material, for example in cement or in

other building materials, is not widespread in Europe. A scientific and grey literature search

showed no evidence of recovery of the non-hazardous streams, as available information

mainly focuses on the management of hazardous MSWI fly ash and deals with treatment

previous to landfilling or potential recovery. Indeed, a large part of available documentation

describes research on the technical and environment feasibility of fly ash reuse:

stabilisation for reuse in construction (buildings and roads), investigation of leaching from

the product using pre-treated (or “washed”) fly ash, mechanical properties of the materials

built from fly ash, etc. However, no evidence of large-scale industrial projects using reused

fly ash was found.

Benefits of recycling MSWI fly ash

Developing MSWI fly ash recycling and therefore treatment of fly ash for recycling, allows

to avoid sending it in hazardous and non-hazardous waste landfills. Thus, it diminishes the

need for virgin materials in construction and reduces

Furthermore, some studies highlight the interesting mechanical properties given by fly ash

to cement or other building materials.

Drivers and barriers to an increase of fly ash recycling

The main barrier to reusing or recycling fly ash is finding a suitable way to manage risks

linked to the hazardous properties of this waste. Although effective washing processes

have been developed to treat fly ash prior to reuse, it seems that the high costs of such

treatments, along with a negative perception of ashes, have prevented an uptake of fly ash

recycling in Europe. Another factor hindering reuse of fly ash is the highly variable

composition of this waste, which makes a burden of the need for characterisation and

regular analysis for the purpose of recovery.

The amount of research work on the optimal conditions and on the impact of reusing ash

– some of it funded by the EU under FPs or LIFE(+) projects – drives the development of

economical and environmentally-sound ways to reuse or recycle MSWI fly ash.

Pollution due to contaminated MSWI fly ash

The main risk of pollution from MSWI fly ash is the leaching of hazardous substances such

as heavy metals. Leaching can occur in landfills and in reuse applications.

One of the most common stabilisation process prior to landfilling has been the solidification

of fly ash using a hydraulic binder, most of the times Portland cement (for instance in

France and Italy92)91. The Belgian LIFE + project “REFIOM – Assessment of the long term

behaviour of the fine residues of municipal waste incineration process treated with

hydraulic binders” studied the fate of this material after a long period. The samples

analysed are the raw fly ash from MSWI, blocs of stabilised fly ash in cement and naturally

aged in their stocking sites and fresh solidified fly ash. The conclusions of this project are

clear and important:

The solidification process with hydraulic binder for fly ash from MSWI isn’t

effective, as on long term period, not all the pollutants are immobilised.

Analysis on test-bars do not always give information on the behaviour of the

material at long term, a multidisciplinary approach is necessary to understand

the evolution of this material, including, for instance, mineralogy.

92 Knut Jøssang, Michael Becidan (2013) Aske fra avfallsforbrenning: fra et problem til en ressurs? (Presentation)



Although the use of cement-solidified MSWI fly ash has been proved to be suitable for

safety reuse as artificial aggregate in Portland cement mortars93, it has also been reported

that the use of fly ash stabilised by cement, which would be used as a road base

construction material, did not meet the leaching standards for construction material80.

Therefore, it appears that there is not enough proof of the safety of using cement-solidified

MSWI fly ash, although a lot of effort has been devoted in last years to develop new

stabilisation and washing processes.

Trends in MSWI fly ash management

Seeing the amount of research regarding safe ways to reuse fly ash and avoid landfilling,

it seems that fly ash management in going towards the applications processes allowing fly

ashes to be reused or at least landfilled as inert waste at a low cost.


6.3.3.3. Fly ash disposal costs vary in Europe from 150 to 500 €/ton92 (when sent to hazardous landfills) and the cost of pre-processing, before disposal in standard landfills, is also very high.Social aspects

Public health

No issues regarding public health have been reported regarding the management of soils

& stones waste.

Employment

No quantitative data estimating the number of jobs generated by the management of soil

& stones (landfill, backfill, recycling) was found.

6.3.4. Fluff-light fraction and dust from shredding of metal-containing waste (19 10 03*/19 10 04)

End-of-life vehicles and household appliances, as well as mixed scrap, undergo a

shredding process, carried out by a hammer mill pulverising the waste, followed by a step

separating a heavy and a light fraction. The heavy fraction includes steel scrap and a non-

magnetic shredder fraction, while the light fraction is constituted of fluff and dust. This light

fraction, classified under the mirror pair “19 10 03*/19 10 04”, constitutes 25% (w/w) of

output waste streams of the shredding process. It is a complex mixture of non-ferrous

materials including plastics, foam, textiles, rubber, glass, sand and dust, as well as other

organic compounds and metals in varying proportions.

A majority (68% when considering quantities reported in the Member States studied

in this project) of the light fraction from shredding of metal-containing waste are

classified as non-hazardous in their country of origin.


03*/19 10 04 do not show the same trend (Table 45).

Table 45: Hazard of 19 10 03*/19 10 04 waste streams

Hazard




68% 32% n/a

93 Cinquepalmi, M.A.; Mangialardi, T.; Panei, L.; Paolini, A.E.; Piga, L. Reuse of cement-solidified municipal incinerator fly ash in cement mortars: Physico-mechanical and leaching characteristics. J. Hazard. Mater. 2008, 151, 585-593



Hazard





9%

(7 samples)

91%

(10 samples)

0%

(0 samples)


The light fraction from shredding of metal-containing waste is mainly non-hazardous

because European legislation (for instance the End-of-Life Vehicles (ELV) Directive)

requires the depollution of end-of-life products prior to shredding.

Hazardous fractions include foam fluff contaminated with organic compounds (such as

polybrominated diphenyl ethers used as flame retardant and classified as POPs)94.


The light fraction (fluff and dust) is currently not well recovered. For instance, in France, no

more than 18% of fluff from car-shredding is recovered, from which less than 1% is recycled

(the remaining being used for energy recovery)95. Plastics are the fluff fraction which is the

most recycled. Fine fractions benefit from recycling in construction work, as they are mostly

constituted of minerals.

Thus, the large majority of fluff and dust is being landfilled.

Drivers and barriers to an increase of fluff and dust recycling

With 2015 set to see the tightening of EU legislation governing recycling quotas for end-of-

life vehicles, it is becoming important to recycle fractions that have previously been

discarded96. The Landfill Directive also contributes to the pressure to minimise this waste

through recycling and recovery. Therefore, techniques are under development in order to

increase recycling rates of fluff and dust (see the “Trends” section below)

The main barrier to fluff and dust recycling is the variability of its composition, which differs

depending on the input material and the separation technique. For instance, the proportion

of ELV treated by shredder companies typically ranges between 27% and 85%.

Furthermore, the composition of passenger cars is changing over the time96. This hinders

the development of consistent and widely-applicable recycling techniques.

Pollution due to contaminated fluff and dust

There is no evidence of pollution with contaminated fluff and dust.

Trends in fluff & dust management

In an effort to achieve better fuel economy and reduce emissions, automobile

manufacturers are using lighter weight, non-metallic materials. Newer automobiles are

manufactured using less metal, while the use of plastics and other non-ferrous components

is increasing. The net effect leaves shredders with lower volumes of recyclable metal and

greater volumes of auto fluff for disposal or recycling97.

There is potential for improving the recycling rate of the fluff fraction. Since this material

contains a significant portion of fibres, further usage of the material should be considered.

Indeed, fibres exhibit specific properties such as high surface area at low mass, and are

94 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pops/pdf/Interim_POP_Waste_2010.pdf 95 ADEME (2013) Rapport annuel de la mise en œuvre des dispositions réglementaires relatives aux véhicules hors d'usage : situation en 2012 96 http://www.waste-management-world.com/articles/print/volume-12/issue-2/features/from-fluff-to-stuff-an-economic-solution.html 97 http://autorecyclers.blogspot.fr/2007/07/auto-fluff-what-to-do-with-remaining-25_16.html

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pops/pdf/Interim_POP_Waste_2010.pdf

http://www.waste-management-world.com/articles/print/volume-12/issue-2/features/from-fluff-to-stuff-an-economic-solution.html

http://www.waste-management-world.com/articles/print/volume-12/issue-2/features/from-fluff-to-stuff-an-economic-solution.html

http://autorecyclers.blogspot.fr/2007/07/auto-fluff-what-to-do-with-remaining-25_16.html



thus frequently used as a viscosity modifier or reinforcement agent for several construction

materials96.


No recent data on costs linked to fluff and dust management was found.


No data on employment was found.

No public health issue was reported.

6.3.5. Other types of waste

The current classification (baseline) of more than 4 samples of the remaining studied waste

codes could not be determined. These codes are the following: 06 05 02* / 06 05 03, 08

01 13* / 08 01 14, 10 03 19* / 10 03 20, 11 01 09* / 11 01 10, 12 01 14* / 12 01 15, 15 01

10* / 15 01 01 / 15 01 02, 19 08 11* / 19 08 12, 19 08 13* / 19 08 14, 19 12 11* / 19 12 12

(see also Table 46, grey, orange and red cells). This means that the impact assessment

cannot be performed on those codes. There is then no need to describe the current

situation.

6.4. Potential impacts of a change of classification

6.4.1. Overview

The impacts of the different methods depend on three factors:

The percentages of samples changing classification, either from hazardous to

non-hazardous or from non-hazardous to hazardous, among the samples

currently classified under one or the other entry;

The quantities of waste involved in the change of classification;

The environmental, economic and social importance of the waste.

The proportion of samples changing classification was calculated with the number of

samples classified under the source classification as a reference. For instance, a 50% shift

from hazardous to non-hazardous means that 50% of hazardous waste changed their

original classification to non-hazardous with our calculations. This is more relevant than

taking the total number of samples as a reference, because hazardous and non-hazardous

waste are managed in very different ways and would undergo very different impacts98.

Table 46 shows the shifts of classification for the mirror pairs for which data was available

(ten pairs). The most robust results are highlighted in green and are obtained for the four

pairs studied in detail in the previous section. Less robust results include pairs for which

only 2 to 3 samples were available with source classification (in orange) and pairs for which

only 1 sample was available with source classification (in red).

The pair 19 10 03* / 19 10 04 has several samples with a baseline classification, the

majority of them being hazardous. Only one sample of this pair had a baseline classification

as non-hazardous so the shift results corresponding to this sample are highlighted in red

in the table as they are less reliable because of low representativeness.

98 See also the Methodology section.



Table 46: Shifts of classification caused by the four calculation methods

Pair Number of samples

Number of samples with baseline classification

Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Method 4

Non-haz to haz

Haz to non-haz

Non-haz to haz

Haz to non-haz

Non-haz to haz

Haz to non-haz

Non-haz to haz

Haz to non-haz

06 05 02* / 06 05 03 1 1 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100%

08 01 13* / 08 01 14 4 2 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

10 03 19* / 10 03 20 2 0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

11 01 09* / 11 01 10 5 4 50.0% 0% 0% 0% 100.0% 0% 0% 0%

12 01 14* / 12 01 15 2 2 0% 0% 0% 50.0% 0% 0% 0% 50.0%

15 01 10* / 15 01 01 / 15 01 02 3 3 0% 0% 0% 66.7% 0% 0% 0% 66.7%

17 05 03* / 17 05 04 21 13 0% 20.0% 0% 100.0% 50.0% 0% 0% 80.0%

19 01 11* / 19 01 12 57 30 14.3% 0% 0% 100.0% 14.3% 0% 0% 87.0%

19 01 13* / 19 01 14 32 31 90.0% 0% 0% 100.0% 90.0% 0% 0% 100.0%


19 08 13* / 19 08 14 3 1 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100%

19 10 03* / 19 10 04 11 11 100.0% 0% 0% 20.0% 100.0% 0% 100.0% 10.0%


Legend

No samples with baseline classification Changes calculated on 1 sample only

Only 1 sample with baseline classification Changes calculated on 2-3 sample only

2-4 samples with baseline classification Changes calculated on more than 5 samples

> 10 samples with baseline classification



Based on the most robust results, it appears that Methods 2 & 4 cause changes of

classification from hazardous to non-hazardous only (false negative), and for almost all

pairs studied. A large proportion of waste samples are impacted by these changes, which

are more important with Method 2.

Methods 1 & 3 have generally less impact on waste classification and cause mainly

changes from non-hazardous to hazardous (false positive).

The next sections analyse in more detail the changes for specific mirror pairs and describe

the impacts of those changes (6.4.2, 6.4.3, 6.4.4 and 6.4.5).

6.4.2. Soil and stones waste (17 05 03*/17 05 04)

Table 47 reports the changes of classification due to each method. The changes were

calculated on 13 samples: 5 with a hazardous baseline classification and 8 with a non-

hazardous baseline classification.

Table 47: 17 05 03*/17 05 04 – Shifts of classification caused by the four calculation methods


Non-hazardous to hazardous

0% 0% 50.0% 0%

Hazardous to non-hazardous

20.0% 100.0% 0% 80.0%

Methods 1, 2 and 4 cause a shift from hazardous to non-hazardous, with Methods 2 and 4

reclassifying most of the waste. Nevertheless, the impact on the total quantity of soil &

stones waste remains low, as hazardous waste represents 3% of the total tonnage.

Method 3 reclassifies half of non-hazardous waste as hazardous, meaning that 48.5% of

the total quantities of waste would change classification.

6.4.2.1. Environmental impacts

Status quo

Current management of soil & stones waste does not lead to direct pollution of the

environment. This is not expected to change.

The uptake of recovery (and especially recycling) is strongly dependent on the regulatory

changes regarding taxes and incentives. If they do not change, virgin materials would

continue being cheaper and recovery will not increase.

Method 2 & 4

The implementation of these methods would increase the quantity of non-hazardous soil &

stones (thus suitable for recovery) by 2.5% to 3.1%. Nevertheless, there is no evidence

that it would lead to a higher uptake of waste recovery, if drivers such as landfill taxes are

not modified. Therefore, the impact on the recycling/backfilling rates would be rather low.

It is likely that the implementation of Methods 2 & 4 would lead to the misclassification of

contaminated soil & stones as non-hazardous. This would pose a great threat to the

environment, as non-hazardous landfills would receive contaminated waste which, without

proper management, would pollute soil and water compartments.

The risks for the environment outweigh largely the benefits brought by a potential higher

uptake of recycling; therefore Methods 2 & 4 would lead to negative environmental impacts.

Method 3

Shifting from non-hazardous to hazardous would lead to a lower risk of contamination of

the environment by potentially hazardous soil & stones waste. The extent of this benefit

would be low, as there is no evidence of current pollution from soil & stones waste, which

may indicate that current risk management of this waste is adequate.

Furthermore, under implementation of Method 3, up to half of soil & stones waste which is

currently recovered, would have to be sent to hazardous landfills or to undergo severe



treatment. A UK project investigated the feasibility of recycling contaminated soil99: under

the optimal conditions of the project, 19,500 t out of 49,500 t could be reused (representing

39%), the rest being not suitable for reuse. It seems then that widespread recovery of

hazardous soil & stones waste would be limited. This would lead to a necessity to open

new landfills and would impede recovery. The use of virgin materials would increase,

including for low-value purposes like backfilling.

Therefore, negative impacts outweigh the benefits.

Method 1

Method 1 causes a shift of 0.6% of the total waste volume from hazardous to non-

hazardous. Although this seems to be very low, soil & stones waste represent high volumes

of waste (e.g. around 110 million tonnes in Germany100), which means that a large quantity

of waste may change classification. This would pose a threat to the environment.

Moreover, as stated for Methods 2 & 4, the impact on the recycling/backfilling rates would

be low.

Benefits of Method 1 are limited and its implementation could threaten the environment.

6.4.2.2. Economic impacts

Status quo

No change unless taxes are modified by regulation.

Method 2 & 4

Costs of managing soil & stones waste would sharply decrease, as hazardous landfill taxes

are much higher than the cost of recovering non-hazardous waste. There would be fewer

landfills, meaning that costs to society would decrease.

Furthermore, economic activities linked to backfilling/recycling of waste would intensify.

However, this could lead to a saturated market.

Economic impacts of Methods 2 & 4 are mostly positive.

Method 3

A shift of half of waste tonnage from non-hazardous to hazardous would lead to increase

costs for companies, as they would have to pay high landfill taxes / severe treatment, and

they would lose recovery activities. The costs to society would also be higher, as new

landfills will have to be created.

Economic impacts of Method 3 are negative.

Method 1

For the same reasons as stated for Methods 2 & 4, economic impacts of Methods 1 would

be positive. The impact would be lower than for Methods 2 & 4, as fewer waste quantities

would be classified as non-hazardous.

6.4.2.3. Social impacts

Status quo

No change expected in public health or employment.

Method 2 & 4

The implementation of these methods would increase the quantity of non-hazardous soil &

stones (thus suitable for recovery) by 2.5% to 3.1%. In general, more jobs are created in

99 CL:AIRE case study bulletin (2013) Remediation of four sites in Northwest England: A successfully completed multi-site, multi-consultant cluster project 100 See section 4.1.3



recovery than in landfill, thus the implementation of those methods would have a positive

impact on employment. Nevertheless, this impact would be rather low, as

recycling/backfilling rates would not experience a sharp increase.

It is likely that the implementation of Methods 2 & 4 would lead to the misclassification of

contaminated soil & stones as non-hazardous. This would pose a great threat to public

health: workers would be directly exposed and the general public could be affected by

potentially contaminated water from leaching of hazardous soil.

The negative impacts to public health largely outweigh the benefits on employment.

Method 3

Under implementation of Method 3, up to half of soil & stones waste which is currently

recovered, would have to be sent to hazardous landfills. This means that the number of

jobs in recovery would decrease. As fewer jobs are needed in landfills than in recovery,

implementation of Method 3 would lead to a loss in employment.

There is no evidence that Method 3 would lead to positive or negative effects for public

health, as there are currently no health issue linked to soil & stones waste.

Therefore, social impacts of Method 3 are overall negative.

Method 1

As stated for Methods 2 & 4, Method 1 would lead to benefits for employment, albeit limited.

However, it would pose risks to public health.

6.4.2.4. Conclusion

Table 48 below summarises the impacts of the four calculation methods on soil & stones

waste. It appears that none of the methods have an overall positive impact. The least

negatively impacting method (overall neutral impact) is Method 1.

Table 48: 17 05 03*/17 05 04 – Status quo and impacts of the four calculation methods


Status quo / / /

Method 1 - + + -

Method 2 - - - + + + - - -

Method 3 - - - - -

Method 4 - - - + + + - - -

The potential implementation of Method 1 would require further assessment on the type of

currently hazardous waste which shifts from hazardous to non-hazardous (nature of

hazardous substances, etc.), in order to propose a proper way to manage potential risks to

health and the environment. A first screen of hazardous substances shows that those

classified as H410 are mainly responsible for the change of classification: compounds of

metals (Cu, Cd, Ni, etc.) and HAPs (Benzo[a]pyrene, benzo[def]chrysene,

Dibenz[a,h]anthracene, etc.).

6.4.3. Incinerator bottom ash (19 01 11*/19 01 12)



hazardous baseline classification.





Non-hazardous to hazardous 14.3% 0% 14.3% 0%

Hazardous to non-hazardous 0% 100.0% 0% 87.0%

Methods 2 and 4 cause a shift from hazardous to non-hazardous, reclassifying most of

hazardous waste. Nevertheless, the impact on the total quantity of IBA remains quite low,

as hazardous waste represents 8% of the total.

Method 1 and 3 reclassifies 14.3% of non-hazardous waste as hazardous, meaning that

around 13% of the total quantities of waste would change classification.


Status quo

The lack of harmonisation of Member State regulations and the expected stagnation of the

production of IBA would lead to a decrease in the use of recovered IBA in construction

purposes.

Method 2 & 4

The implementation of these methods would increase the quantity of non-hazardous IBA

(thus suitable for recovery) by 7.6% to 8.7%. As IBA currently experiences high rates of

recovery, Methods 2 & 4 would allow for an increase of around 5% of recovered material.

The benefits would then remain limited.

Furthermore, the implementation of Methods 2 & 4 would lead to the misclassification of

contaminated IBA as non-hazardous (as compared to the baseline). This would increase

the risk of leaching of trace elements from IBA used as aggregate in road construction.

The risks for the environment outweigh largely the benefits brought by a potential higher

uptake of recycling; therefore Methods 2 & 4 would lead to negative environmental impacts.

Method 1 & 3


the environment by potentially hazardous IBA. The extent of this benefit would be low, as

there is no evidence of current pollution from IBA, which may indicate that current risk

management of this waste is adequate. However, Methods 1 & 3 would allow for a

preservation of the current satisfactory state.

Furthermore, under implementation of Methods 1 & 3, around 14% of IBA which is currently

recovered, would have to be sent to hazardous landfills or undergo further treatment. The

low percentage of IBA changing classification would lead to a limited impact on IBA

recovery and landfilling.

Therefore, environmental impacts of Methods 1 & 3 are limited.


Status quo

Trade would continue being hindered by the lack of harmonisation of regulations across

Member States and by the stagnation of quantities of IBA. Furthermore, the fragile

economic models of companies recycling IBA and the reluctance of some Member States

to encourage this activity would likely lead to a decrease of economic activities linked to

IBA recovery.

Method 2 & 4

Costs of managing soil & stones waste would sharply decrease, as IBA disposal costs are

more than twice as much high as recovery costs. There would be fewer landfills, meaning

that costs to society would decrease.



Furthermore, economic activities linked to recovery of IBA (mainly production of IBAA for

road construction) would intensify. However, this could lead to a saturated market.

Economic impacts of Methods 2 & 4 are positive.

Method 1 & 3

A shift of around 14% of waste tonnage from non-hazardous to hazardous would lead to

increase costs for companies, as they would have to pay high landfill taxes / severe

treatment, and they would lose part of recovery activities. The costs to society would also

be higher, as new landfills will have to be created.

Economic impacts of Method 1 & 3 are negative, although rather limited because of the

low percentage of waste involved.


Status quo

No significant changes expected

Method 2 & 4

The implementation of Methods 2 & 4 would allow for an increase of around 5% of

recovered material. In general, more jobs are created in recovery than in landfill, thus the

implementation of those methods would have a positive impact on employment.

Nevertheless, this impact would be remain limited, seeing the low percentage of recovered

material.

Furthermore, the implementation of Methods 2 & 4 would lead to the misclassification of

contaminated IBA as non-hazardous. This would pose a great threat to public health:

workers would be directly exposed and the general public could be affected by potentially

contaminated water from hazardous soil.


Method 1 & 3

Under implementation of Methods 1 or 3, around 14% of IBA which is currently recovered,

would have to be sent to hazardous landfills. This means that the number of jobs in

recovery would slightly decrease. As fewer jobs are needed in landfills than in recovery,

implementation of Method 1 or 3 would lead to a loss in employment, albeit limited.

There is no evidence that Method 1 or 3 would lead to benefits for public health, as there

are currently no health issue linked to IBA.

Therefore, social impacts of Methods 1 & 3 are slightly negative.

6.4.3.4. Conclusion

Table 50 below summarises the impacts of the four calculation methods on IBA101. It

appears that none of the methods have an overall positive impact; however, Methods 1 &

3 have better impacts than the status quo.

Table 50: 19 01 11*/19 01 12 – Impacts of the four calculation methods


Status quo - - /

Method 1 ++ - -

101 Positive impacts of methods 1 & 3 have been heightened by one cross in the limit of three, in order to take into account the benefits of harmonising classification (as this was identified as a driver in section 6.3.2.




Method 2 - - - + + + - - -

Method 3 ++ - -

Method 4 - - - + + + - - -

6.4.4. Fly ash from incinerators (19 01 13* / 19 01 14)



hazardous baseline classification (baseline coming mainly from the UK – 22 out of 32

samples).

Table 51: 19 01 13* / 19 01 14 – Shifts of classification caused by the four calculation methods


Non-hazardous to hazardous 90.0% 0% 90.0% 0%


All methods shift a large proportion of waste towards the opposite classification. The most

important impact is caused by Methods 2 and 4, which reclassify all hazardous waste as

non-hazardous (false negative).


Status quo

R&D work conducted the past few years, on treatment and risk management of fly ash,

may lead to the development of projects involving fly ash reuse.

Enhanced knowledge on the leaching processes leading to environmental risk will allow for

a better management of those risks.

Method 2 & 4

These methods would be equivalent to redefining fly ash mirror pair as a non-hazardous

absolute entry. This would have adverse effects on the environment, as more than half of

fly ash are currently considered hazardous.

Method 1 & 3


the environment by potentially hazardous fly ashes. The extent of this benefit would be low,

as there is no evidence of current pollution from fly ash disposal, which indicates that

current risk management of this waste is adequate (and also already for those being

classified as non-hazardous).

Although Methods 1 & 3 “divert” currently non-hazardous fly ash from potential reuse, the

actual impacts on fostering reuse would be low, because almost no large-scale project is

currently run. However, Methods 1 & 3 would lead to the creation of new hazardous

landfills.


Status quo

Very high costs – no significant changes expected.

All Methods



Costs for treating fly ash and costs for sending them to hazardous landfills are both very

high. The cost for treating hazardous ashes being higher, Methods 1 & 3 would surely lead

to a great increase of costs.


Status quo

No change expected in public health or employment.

Method 2 & 4

The implementation of these methods would increase the quantity of fly ash (thus suitable

for recovery) by 150%. However, as recovery of fly ash is not developed, the impact on

recovery jobs would be very low.

The implementation of Methods 2 & 4 would lead to the misclassification of contaminated

fly ash as non-hazardous. This could potentially increase the risks for public health: workers

would be directly exposed and the general public could be affected by potentially

contaminated water by leaching of ill-managed fly ash.


Method 1 & 3

Under implementation of Method 1 or 3, a large majority of fly ash which is currently

disposed in non-hazardous landfills, would have to be sent to hazardous landfills. This

would not have any significant impact of employment.

There is no evidence that Methods 1 or 3 would lead to benefits for public health, but they

would preserve the current situation.

6.4.4.4. Conclusion

Table 52 below summarises the impacts of the four calculation methods on fly ash. In light

of the few data available, it appears that all would be detrimental compared to the status

quo. Nevertheless, Methods 1 & 3 would be the methods with the most beneficial impacts.

Table 52: 19 01 13* / 19 01 14 – Impacts of the four calculation methods


Status quo + / /

Method 1 + - - - /

Method 2 - - - - - - -

Method 3 + - - - /

Method 4 - - - - - - -

6.4.5. Fluff-light fraction and dust from shredding of metal-containing waste (19 10 03*/19 10 04)


calculated on 11 samples: 10 with a hazardous baseline classification and only 1 with a

non-hazardous baseline classification. Therefore, no valid assessment can be conducted

for changes from non-hazardous to hazardous.





Non-hazardous to hazardous n/a n/a n/a n/a


Method 1 and 3 do not impact the classification of hazardous streams: thus, their impact

cannot be assessed (see above). Methods 2 and 4 lead to a reclassification of 20% and

10% (respectively) of waste from hazardous to non-hazardous.

Status quo

With the relevant EU directives setting targets for recycling, the uptake of recovery of fluff

and dust is expected to increase. This will reduce the amount of this waste being sent to

landfills and thus benefit the environment.

Method 2 & 4

The implementation of those methods would likely increase the quantities of waste to be

recycled by a few percent. However, it would pose a risk for the environment and public

health (potentially hazardous substances could contaminate soil & water).

No conclusion can be reached regarding the impacts of the four calculations methods on

fluff and dust; mainly because of lack of data on non-hazardous samples and lack of data

on economic and social aspects.

6.5. Conclusion

This semi-qualitative, preliminary impact assessment, highlights that, for the 3 mirror pairs

assessed, the same relevant methods were identified: Methods 1 & 3. Method 1 was

preferred for the soil & stones waste stream.



Status quo / / /

Method 1 - + + -

Method 2 - - - + + + - - -

Method 3 - - - - -

Method 4 - - - + + + - - -


Status quo - - /

Method 1 ++ - -

Method 2 - - - + + + - - -

Method 3 ++ - -

Method 4 - - - + + + - - -






Status quo + NA /

Method 1 + NA /

Method 2 - - - NA - - -

Method 3 + NA /

Method 4 - - - NA - - -

Apart from the benefits provided by a harmonised approach across Member States,

positive impacts from Methods 1 & 3 are mainly environmental and economic., although

they are likely to have negative economic impacts on some operators.



7. Conclusions and

recommendations

7.1. Lack of harmonisation of current approaches for assessing HP 14

The study of a sample of nine Member States showed the lack of

harmonisation in the EU regarding the methods for assessment of HP 14.

o Even within Member States that apply calculation methods, calculation

approaches vary and are based on different regulatory texts (based on

the DPD, the ADR or the CLP);

o Similarly, biotest protocols differ within Member States that carry out

this approach: different batteries of tests are applied (some are only

aquatic, other both aquatic and terrestrial, test organisms vary) and

different thresholds are used;

o 2 Member States carry out combined approaches, using calculation

methods when the composition of the waste is known and biotests if

not.

Based on declarations of competent authorities and stakeholders, Member

States seem to be committed to their approaches.

Therefore it would seem that the use of very different approaches to waste

classification leads, for mirror entries where an investigation is required to

discriminate between hazardous and non-hazardous waste, to a situation

where wastes may be classified differently depending on the Member State

where the waste is produced. This has negative consequences upon the

transfrontier movement of waste and creates a distortion of the internal market,

not only as regards the trading in waste itself, but also as regards the waste

management costs associated to the industrial activities associated (and

therefore potentially affecting the competitiveness of the affected sectors).

7.2. Conclusion on the most relevant calculation method for the assessment of HP14: Method 1 seems to be the most relevant for waste classification

Four calculation methods were proposed by the European Commission to be

compared in terms of changes of classifications and impacts:

o 2 calculation methods including M-factors (Methods 2 & 4)

o 2 calculation methods based on the CLP regulation (Methods 1 & 4)

The comparative assessment of the four calculation methods on a selected

sample of mirror pairs was limited by limitations in data availability and quality.

Nevertheless, results of the comparison between the 4 calculation methods

give some indication that Method 1 is the most relevant:



o Good concordance with current classification (baseline) and

classification based on biotest results – with a proposed threshold of

10% for EC50s102;

o Aligned with the CLP;

o Reasonable environmental, social and economic impacts of its

implementation.

7.3. Recommendations on next steps

In compliance with the Terms of Reference, this study focused on calculation

methods; however, a combined approach has been recommended by several

experts to optimise the accuracy of hazard classification and offset limitations

of both calculation and biotests methods alone. Nevertheless, there will be a

need to derive a harmonised threshold value for use biotests in waste

classification for code HP 14, as well as the definition of a minimum test

battery. Further to this, political agreement on the proposal would have to be

sought. Some work is currently performed in some MS to propose threshold

values using test results obtained on non-hazardous absolute entries as a

benchmark.

In compliance with the Terms of Reference, this study was focussed on mirror

pair entries to carry out the comparison of the 4 calculation methods. However,

some similar work has been carried out in parallel by the French Ministry of

Ecology, but included also absolutes entries. This additional study is

interesting and complementary to our study, as absolute entries could be used

in support of a model (and more especially non-hazardous absolute entries103).

The French study, presented in Annex 6, used the same 4 calculation

methods, plus an additional one: “Method 2 with extended M-factors”, using

not only M-factors from the Table 3.1 of Annex VI of the CLP regulation, but

also those calculated by Hennebert and Rebischung (2013)104. The results of

both studies are consistent, with Method 1 having the best results of the 4

proposed calculation methods.

The potential use of M-factors not listed in the Table 3.1 of Annex VI of the

CLP regulation has triggered a lot of debates during the workshops. Pros and

cons have been expressed and particular emphasis was placed on the lack of

harmonised methods to calculate new M-factors.

102 Please note that this threshold is not agreed yet at European level. 103 Absolute hazardous entries could have been classified as hazardous because of other HP criterion, and not necessarily for HP 14. 104 Hennebert P, Rebischung F. 2013. Waste Hazardousness Assessment - Proposition of methods. Report INERIS- DRC-13-136159-04172A- 69 pp. http://www.ineris.fr/centredoc/drc-13-136159-04172ahazardous- waste-assessment-f3-1379929842.pdf



8. Annexes

ANNEX 1. FIRST QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO COMPETENT AUTHORITIES __________ 132

1.1. List of contacts ____________________________________________________ 132

1.2. The Questionnaire _________________________________________________ 132

ANNEX 2. FACTSHEETS ____________________________________________ 136

ANNEX 3. SECOND QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO COMPETENT AUTHORITIES ________ 175

ANNEX 4. QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO INDUSTRIAL STAKEHOLDERS FOR THE IMPACT

ASSESSMENT 187

ANNEX 5. APPLICATION OF THE CALCULATION METHODS ____________________ 195

ANNEX 6. STUDY FROM THE FRENCH MINISTRY OF ECOLOGY ________________ 196

132 Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire

Annex 1. First Questionnaire

sent to Competent Authorities

1.1. List of contacts

Table 54: Experts who contributed (in grey: Member States who did not contribute)

Member State Expert(s) who contributed

Austria Sonja Loew

Belgium Evi Rossi

Czech Republic Jaromir Manhart

Finland Eevaleena Häkkinen

Germany Joachim Wuttke

Walter Adebahr

Spain Margarita Ruiz Sáiz-Aja (and colleagues)

UK Robert McIntyre

France Pauline Ardaine Langeron

Italy Daniela Conti

Andrea Paina

Stefania Balzamo

1.2.The Questionnaire

1. General information

1.1 Your full name and your email address:

_______________________________________________________________________

1.2 Please provide the name of the organisation to which you belong:

______________________________________________________________________

And its type (bold the right answer):

o National authority

o Research institute

o Industry

o Other (please specify):

________________________________________________________________

1.3 Your country (bold the right answer):

o AT – Austria

o BE – Belgium

o CZ – Czech Republic

o FI – Finland

o FR – France

o IT - Italy


o DE – Germany

o ES – Spain

o PL - Poland

o UK - United Kingdom

1.4 Type of waste your expertise covers (bold the right answer):

o All

o Specific

Provide a general description of waste categories you cover or waste codes

when relevant:

_____________________________________________________________

2. Approaches for assessing the H14 property of waste in your country

2.1 Type of approach (bold the right answer):

o Calculation method

Approach based on limit values (based on CLP or DPD limits)

Specify protocol details and applicable limit values:

__________________________________________________________

Approach not based on limit values

Specify details of the protocol:

___________________________________________________________

o Approach based on biotesting

Specify protocol details for the approach based on biotesting and

applicable limit values:

___________________________________________________________

Type of test

Test organism

Endpoint Test method Test duration


Threshold value

Terrestrial

Aquatic

o Combined approach

Specify protocol details and applicable limit values (e.g. priority given to

calculation method or experimental approach? Systematic or partial

implementation of biotests? Ecotoxicity based approach applied to all type

of waste or to some of them?):

___________________________________________________________

o Other

Specify protocol details:

________________________________________________________


2.2. Please provide sources of information (for example guidelines) for the H14

assessment methods and protocols (a preliminary list – to be reviewed and completed - is

available in the attached document named Attachment 1 - Preliminary list of relevant

legislation and guidelines):

______________________________________________________________________

2.3. Please provide examples of application of your H14 assessment method on 1 or 2

waste types / waste codes (to be chosen from the list available in the attached document

named Attachment 2 - List of waste codes):

______________________________________________________________________

2.4 According to your knowledge, what are the limits and uncertainties of the approach?

______________________________________________________________________

2.5. What are the advantages?

______________________________________________________________________

2.6. Please provide relevant national legislation or guidelines for the H14 assessment

methods and protocols (a preliminary list – to be reviewed and completed - is available in

the attached document named Attachment 1 - Preliminary list of relevant legislation and

guidelines):

______________________________________________________________________

2.7. Please indicate the stakeholders involved in the assessment:

Stakeholder role Name of stakeholder Type of stakeholder (national authority, research institute, etc.)

Funding Performing the test(s), Providing waste samples Other (please specify in comments)

2.8. Please provide examples of costs linked to the H14 assessment methods used in your

country:

______________________________________________________________________

3. Proposal for the selection of waste streams

The project team will test four calculation options on a set of 50 pairs of mirror waste codes

(mirror pairs), to be selected from the list in the attached document. The following questions

aim at prioritising the waste streams to select.

3.1 On which specific waste streams do you think the present study comparing assessing

methods for H14 should focus on?

_______________________________________________________________________

3.2 Why? Choose one or more reasons below (bold the right answer):

o Availability and quality of existing data


o Criticality of the classification stability (i.e. waste types that are likely to change

their classification (from hazardous to non-hazardous or vice-versa) if the limit

values evolve)

o High quantities of waste production

o Economic importance (trade and recycling)

o Potential presence of hazardous substances

o Other (please specify):

________________________________________________________________

3.3. Could you please provide us sources of information where we could find the following

data?

o Information on quantities produced by specific waste codes: ____________

o Hazard classifications assigned: _____________________________

o Composition data of specific wastes:_________________________________

o Results of ecotoxicological tests: ______________________________________

o Protocols of sampling, preparation of samples, analyses and test: ____________

4. General information about waste streams in your country

4.1. What is the share of waste assessed positive for the H14 criteria in your country,

globally, and by category of waste if relevant?

_______________________________________________________________________

4.2. What type of waste has the highest tonnage in your country?

Type or category or code of waste

Annual tonnage (metric tonnes)

Share (%)

Among hazardous waste

Among total waste

5. Additional information

5.1 If you have additional comments, please share them below:

_______________________________________________________________________

5.2 Please provide relevant contacts (for example in regional administrations or research

centres) and references of documents for an in-depth analysis:

______________________________________________________________________


Annex 2. Factsheets

AUSTRIA


Type of approach(es)

used in the country to

assess H14 property of

waste

Combined approach

Refer to the ADR (UN classification of dangerous goods for road transport) for

ecotoxic substances class 9 : M6 and M7, AND have a limit for ozone depleting

substances (2000 mg/kg in total)

Variability in H14

assessment methods

depending on the waste

nature

-

Related legislation and

guidelines

Legislation Fed. Law Gaz No. 522/1973 as amended by Fed

Law Gaz III No. 36/2

Annex 3 of Abfallverzeichnisverordnung BGBl II

(Austrian Ordinance of Waste Classification)

2003/570 idgF

Guidelines None

Stakeholders involved

in the H14 assessment

Waste with highest

tonnage

Waste with highest tonnage 17 05 04 excav. Soil 23,5 Mio t

17 09 04 C&D waste 6,6 Mio t

19 01 14 filter dust -

10 02 08 gas cleaning(Fe) –

Approx. 53,6 million tons of waste are generated in

Austria, thereof approx. 1 million ton of hazardous

waste (Data 2009)

From Eurostat:

Waste from construction : 57%, 19.5 Mt

Hazardous waste with

highest tonnage

17 05 03*excav, soil haz. 128.260 t

10 02 07 gas cleaning(Fe) 82.823 t

19 01 13* filter dust haz 48.141 t

17 09 03* C&D waste haz -

From Eurostat:

10-11-12 : Inorganic wastes from thermal

processes + Inorganic metal-containing wastes

from metal treatment and the coating of metals, and

non-ferrous hydrometallurgy + Wastes from

shaping and surface treatment of metals and

plastics (32%, 272.7 kt)

19 : Waste from waste treatment facilities, off-site

waste water treatment plants and the water

industry (23%, 200.7 kt)


AUSTRIA


Chapter of List of waste with

the highest share of

hazardous waste

05 : Wastes from petroleum refining, natural gas

purification and pyrolytic treatment of coal (73%,

2.9 kt)

Percentage of waste

considered as

hazardous by H14

Protocol used

no ecotoxicity tests are applied

Calculation methods are used

Chemical analyses are sufficient for the attribution of H14. H 14 applies for:

environmental hazardous substances due to Class 9, M6 and M7 of the European

Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road

(ADR) (Annex 3 of Austrian Ordinance of Waste Classification2003/570)

wastes with a total yield of hydrocarbons (CFHCs, HCFCs, HFHCs, FHCs, Halons)

over 2000 mg/kg DM (see below)

Calculation methods

Combination of hazardous components

concentration

Threshold value

ozone depleting substances (hydrocarbons:

CFCs, CFHCs, HCFCs, HFHCs, FHCs, Halons)

2000 mg in total /kg DM


Qualitative assessment

of the method(s)

Advantages classification according to the UN- Regulation on

Transport of Dangerous Goods is required anyway

if the waste is transported

Limits and uncertainties

Approximate cost of the

method(s)

In most cases no additional costs as classification

according to the UN- Regulation on Transport of

Dangerous Goods is required anyway if the waste

is transported

Other MS using the

same approach (if

known)

-

Additional comments -

Expert contacted to

elaborate this factsheet

Sonja Loew (Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water

Management)

References Ökopol GmbH (2008) Review of the European List of Waste, 532 pp.

RECORD., 2008, Suivi des travaux européens pour la caractérisation et la

classification des déchets par le critère H14 (écotoxicité)

Additional information -


BELGIUM (Flanders)




assess H14 property of

waste

Calculation method with limit value

Method based on the DPD (older version, no M-factors)

Variability in H14

assessment methods

depending on the waste

nature

The Flemish guidelines refer to the responsibility and common sense of the waste

producer as concerns test methods. No specific tests for HP14 are mentioned! So

Flemish guidelines and legislation focus on the former chemical legislation and its

limit values, as concerns HP14.


guidelines

Legislation The Flemish legislation (Vlarema) refers to the test

method regulation 440/2008 in general (for those

hazardous properties that are defined at European

level, so not for HP14).

Guidelines OVAM (2004) Europese afvalstoffenlijst EURAL

Handleiding



Name of the institution(s) + type of the institution+ role (funding/performing

assessment, etc.)

Waste with highest

tonnage

Waste with highest tonnage Construction & demolition waste (3,891,996tons,

15.7%


highest tonnage

No data regarding the amount of hazardous waste

per waste code is available. Per sector: Secondary

waste has the highest tonnage among hazardous

waste (737,888 tons)



hazardous waste

No available data

Percentage of waste

considered as

hazardous by H14

-

Protocol used

Ecotoxic tests are not applied.

Calculation methods:


BELGIUM (Flanders)


Individual substances

Classification Concentration limits

R50 25

R50-53 0.25

R51-53 2.5

R52-53 25

R52 25

R53 25

R59 0.1

Combination of substances

Classification Concentration

threshold to be taken

into account

Conditions rendering

waste hazardous

R50 0.1 •Sum of R50-53

substances >2.5%

•Sum of R51-53>25%

•Sum of R50

substances>25%

•Sum of R59

substances >0.1%

R50-53 0.1

R51-53 0.1

R52-53 1

R52 1

R53 1

R59 0.1

Illustrative examples -

Advantages Easy to perform on well-defined samples


BELGIUM (Flanders)


Qualitative assessment

of the method(s)

Limits and uncertainties The real toxicity is not taken into account.

Waste is a mixture of dangerous and non-

dangerous substances, but with the very important

difference that the composition of mixtures of

chemical substances100 % is known while this is

almost never the case for waste. Inorganic

analyses provide only element concentrations, but

the speciation of the metal is unknown and applying

M-factors based on worst-case scenarios lead to

overestimating the intrinsic toxicity of metals in the

waste.

For complex waste in addition, it is not possible to

identify any organic substances, which are not

passed on to the ecotoxicity assessment These

uncertainties and shortcomings in the knowledge of

the composition of waste can easily lead to wrong

classification (overestimation of the metal toxicity,

underestimation of the share of the organic

components).


method(s)

Variability depending on

waste types (%)

AFNOR XP X30-489 is 1900 € per sample.

Ecotox-testing (microtox) : 1000 €, per sample

Other MS using the

same approach (if

known)

None

Additional comments -

Expert contacted to

elaborate this factsheet

Evi Rossi (OVAM)

References OVAM (2004) Europese afvalstoffenlijst EURAL Handleiding

Overzicht bedrijfsafvalstoffen en nieuwe grondstoffen 2004-2012 (statistics on

waste quantities in Flanders, provided by OVAM)

Impact study Flemish LoW (OVAM)

Additional information .


CZECH REPUBLIC




assess H14 property

of waste

Ecotoxicity tests

Variability in H14

assessment methods

depending on the

waste nature

No


guidelines

Legislation Act on Waste No 185/2001 Coll. on waste

Decree No 376/2001 Coll. on evaluation of

hazardous properties of waste

Guidelines



Funding/ owner of the waste (government or private)

Performing the tests: accredited laboratory (private)

Providing waste samples: national authority, owner, laboratory (government or

private)

Waste with highest

tonnage



highest tonnage

In 2012: 17 05 03*: 406471,6000 t (24,8% of total

hazardous waste)

In 2013: 308491,4077t (21,4% of total hazardous

waste)



hazardous waste

Percentage of waste

considered as

hazardous by H14

Protocol used

Ecotoxic tests

Leaching: EN 14735

No terrestrial tests


CZECH REPUBLIC


Aquatic tests

Test

organism

Endpoi

nt

Test

method

Test

duration

Expres

sion of

results

Thresh

old

value

Sinapis

alba

root

length

Instructio

ns

(Bulletin

of

Ministry

of

Environm

ent CR)

3 days EC50 10 ml/l

Desmode

smus

subspicat

us

growth EN ISO

8692

3 days EC50 10 ml/l

Daphnia

magna

mobilit

y

EN ISO

6341

2 days EC50 10 ml/l

Poecilia

reticulata

lethal

effect

EN ISO

7346-2

4 days EC50 10 ml/l

No calculation methods


CZECH REPUBLIC



Waste

Decree No. 376/2001 Coll.

Chemical

limits Ecotoxicity

Exceeded

limit

Exceeded

limit

Contaminated soil from wood preservation plant

No Yes - algea

Contaminated soil (metals, PAHs, sludge from wastewater treatment plant)

No No

sludge from mechanical industrial wastewater treatment plant

No No

ash from thermal electric power station

No No

Contaminated soil No No

sludge No No

ash Yes - pH No

stabilized waste No No

Qualitative

assessment of the

method(s)

Advantages Aquatic ecotoxicity tests are sensitive to many

water soluble substances. Wastes are usually

materials of heterogenic composition. Ecotoxicity

tests integrate the effects of all contaminants

including additive, synergistic and antagonistic

effects. Waste can be evaluated in a relatively short

time (within 2 weeks).

Limits and uncertainties All tests are carried out only with water extract

(leachate). The results are relevant only for water

ecosystems but the hazard for soil ecosystem has

not been included. To improve the current state,

introduction of terrestrial tests from the EC would

be helpful.


method(s)


waste types (%)

Approx. CZK 11000,- (EUR 410,-)

Other MS using the

same approach (if

known)

Similar to Spain (only aquatic tests)


Additional comments The Centre for Waste Management, VUV, TGM Praha, conducted research for the

Ministry of the Environment aimed at the proposal of a new tests for waste

ecotoxicity evaluation from 2005 to 2010. In the research participated national

authorities, private organisations and universities.

Real wastes samples were used for research. They were selected partly on the

basis of the production volume and also on the basis of their contamination. These

wastes were used:

•contaminated soil from staining and impregnation of wood

•contaminated soil – mixed contamination by metal (Zn), traces of PAHs

(polyaromatic hydrocarbons) and sewage sludge from wastewater treatment plant

•sludge from mechanical industrial wastewater treatment plant

•fly ash from thermal electric power station (two different samples)

•blast furnace slag

•soil contaminated with trinitrotoluene (two different samples)

•compost for recultivation (two different samples)

•PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) contaminated soil

•slag from incinerator

•contaminated sediment

•construction waste

•construction waste fine

•soil contaminated with organic substances

•sludge from the production of organic substances

•stabilised fly ash from coal combustion

•unpolluted soil

The results of research served for the proposal of a new approach for ecotoxicity

evaluation for amendment of the Czech Decree No. 376/2001 Coll. on the

evaluation of hazardous properties of waste.

New proposal :

Evaluation of ecotoxicity as hazardous property H14 Ecotoxic includes aquatic and

terrestrial test sets aiming on complex evaluation of waste ecotoxicity.

Waste is classified as hazardous with hazardous property H14 Ecotoxic, if the

observed effect of waste eluate in concentration 100 ml/l or the observed effect of

waste in concentration 100 g/kg for at least one of testing organisms exceeds

following limits:

aquatic tests with waste eluate in concentration 100 ml/l:

•20 % inhibition of the mobility of water flea Daphnia magna, ISO 6341

•25 % inhibition of the growth of fresh water algae Desmodesmus subspicatus, ISO

8692

•25 % inhibition of the light emission of luminescent bacteria Vibrio fischeri, ISO

11348-2

terrestrial tests with waste in concentration 100 g/kg:

•50 % inhibition of reproduction of collembola Folsomia candida, ISO 11267

•50 % inhibition of reproduction of enchytraeid Enchytraeus crypticus, ISO 16387

•50 % inhibition of root elongation of dicotyledonous plant Lactuca sativa, ISO

11269-1


CZECH REPUBLIC


Expert contacted to

elaborate this

factsheet

Mr. Jaromír Manhart, [email protected]

Ms. Eva Kubova, [email protected]

References Ministerstvo životního prostředí české republiky (2007) Metodický pokyn odboru

odpadů ke stanovení ekotoxicity odpadů



FINLAND




assess H14 property

of waste


Based on recommended limit value for hazardous components (General limit values

of DPD Directive without M-factors)

Variability in H14

assessment methods

depending on the

waste nature

In cases where a substance is classified as ecotoxic in the Chemicals Legislation,

the limit values of Chemicals Legislation are used also for evaluation of ecotoxicity

of the waste. According to guidance given in 2002, if there isn´t sufficient information

available on the chemical composition of the waste, criterion H14 could also be

assessed by using ecotoxicity tests. It is recommended to use a combination of

several tests. However, no limit values have been set for ecotoxicity tests in relation

to H14 evaluation so their usability for classification is very limited. Hence they are

not applied in practice for evaluation if H14.

Related legislation

and guidelines

Legislation Waste decree of the Finnish Ministry of the

Environment 1128/2001

The Finnish waste legislation does not yet refer to

any specific test methods or limit values to

determine the ecotoxic property of wastes

Guidelines Dahlbo, H. 2002. Jätteen luokittelu

ongelmajätteeksi – arvioinnin perusteet ja

menetelmät (Classification of waste as hazardous

waste – the basis and methods for evaluation).

Environment Guide 98. Finnish Environment

Institute. Helsinki. Finland. 160 pp. (In Finnish)

Ympäristöministeriö, Tilastokeskus, Suomen

ympäristökeskus. Jäteluokitusopas 2005 (Waset

Classification Guide 2005). Tilastokeskus,

Käsikirjoja 37. Helsinki 2005. (In Finnish)



The Finnish Environment Institute, VTT

Waste with highest

tonnage

Waste with highest tonnage Mineral waste from mining and quarrying: 52 880

000 t (59%)

Mineral waste from construction: 15 682 000 (17%)

From Eurostat

Waste from Mining and quarrying (58%, 53 Mt)


highest tonnage

Mineral waste 561 000 tonnes (53%)

From Eurostat:






plastics (62%, 1Mt)



hazardous waste


purification and pyrolytic treatment of coal (69%, 22

kt)


FINLAND


Percentage of waste

considered as

hazardous by H14

Protocol used

Ecotoxic tests can be applied

According to guidance given in 2002, if there isn´t sufficient information available on

the chemical composition of the waste, criterion H14 could also be assessed by

using ecotoxicity tests (such as: Vibrio fischerii test SFS-EN ISO 11348-3; Daphnia

magna test in EC Directive 67/548/ETY annex V method C2; algae test in EC

Directive 67/548/ETY annex V method C3, various plant tests etc.). It is

recommended to use a combination of several tests.

However, no limit values have been set for ecotoxicity tests in relation to H14

evaluation so their usability for classification is very limited. Hence they are not

applied in practice for evaluation if H14.


Limit values for hazardous properties in wastes (waste decree 1128/2001): none,

recommended limit value in Finland 0.25 % (N and R51-53 or R50 or R53). This

proposed limit value is set on the basis of the classification of chemicals with an

ecotoxic property

Combination of hazardous

components concentration

Limit value Cut-off value

R51-53 2.5 % 0.1 %

R50, R52 25 % 0.1 %

R50-53 0.25 % 0.1 %

R59 0.1 % 0.1 %

R53, R52-53 25 % 1 %

Additivity according to the DPD formulas (without M-factors)


Qualitative

assessment of the

method(s)

Advantages When M-factors are not included it is possible to

apply cut-off values 0,1 % / 1 %. Hence minor

concentrations of elements/substances can be

excluded from the evaluation.

(If cut-off would be defined by 0,1% /M for Aquatic

Chronic 1, the number of possible hazardous

substances present in the waste increases

substantially, based on low concentrations of

elements and high M-factors, and it may become

impossible to prove that a waste is not ecotoxic; the


FINLAND


highest M-factor in the CLP at the moment is 1 000

000.)

Limits and uncertainties Since the Chemicals legislation limit values are

based on compounds it would be necessary to

know the exact composition of the waste. Often

there is only limited information on the waste

composition, such as concentration of elements. It

can be difficult to determine in which form the

elements are in the waste.

The current procedures/methodology in CLP are

meant for chemicals with known constant

composition. The applicability of CLP methods has

not been evaluated for waste streams, typically

heterogeneous with high content of anions, alkaline

earth metals and silica. Also suitable methods for

organic substances are often lacking.

Limit values are difficult to apply to non-

homogeneous materials and waste articles.

We think that M-factors should not be used in HP

14 evaluation. Today, only a few M-factors given,

but it is very likely that new M-factors will be

introduced in future. This means that the

consequences of M-factors on waste classification

are almost impossible to evaluate


method(s)


waste types (%)

Other MS using the

same approach (if

known)

Additional comments One goal of this Commission study is to determine the influence of M-factors to the

amounts and types of waste to be classified as hazardous. However, at the moment,

the M-factors have been defined only to a limited number of substances in Annex

VI of the CLP Regulation (mainly for pesticides and nickel compounds).

The work for determining M-factors will continue for several years under Chemicals

legislation, based on scientific evidence. Thus the influence of M-factors to waste

management will be severely under-estimated, if the study is solely based on the

already existing M-factors in Annex VI. The study should also estimate which

substances are likely to have M-factors within the next years and evaluate their

influence to classification of wastes as ecotoxic, to give a more truthful picture on

the consequences to waste management. For example the future M-factors of

metals/metal ions would very likely have a significant influence to the waste

classification, and should be included into the study. There is already quite much

scientific information available on the LC50-values of metals and metal ions, to give

an estimation of the possible M-factors for these substances.

The test methods have a significant influence to the outcome of the tests. It should

be specified if CLP test methods or waste specific CEN tests are to be used. For

example, solubility of metals could be evaluated by CEN two stage batch test

developed for wastes or by transformation/dissolution test developed for Chemicals


FINLAND


classification. Also pre-treatment of samples has influence on the outcome of the

results and should be specified.

Expert contacted to

elaborate this

factsheet

Eevaleena Häkkinen (Finnish Environmental Institute)

References Dahlbo, H. 2002. Jätteen luokittelu ongelmajätteeksi – arvioinnin perusteet ja

menetelmät

(Classification of waste as hazardous waste – the basis and methods for

evaluation). Environment Guide 98. Finnish Environment Institute. Helsinki. Finland.

160 pp. (In Finnish)

Ökopol GmbH (2008) Review of the European List of Waste, 532 pp.



FRANCE



Combined approach (Chemical + Ecotoxicity)


In the absence of legislation, two different approaches can be used in parallel, with no special predominance of one on the other :

-Initial “French” approach : documentation analysis of ecotoxic character of chemical substances in the waste, then (if negative) complementary toxicity tests (2 acute toxicity tests and 2 chronic toxicity tests)

-Hybrid “French and German” approach

Managers of waste treatment centres use the initial “French” approach from the FNADE guidance, whereas DREAL agencies (regional directions for environment, territory planning and housing) recommend since 2013 to use the hybrid approach.


Related legislation and guidelines

Legislation No specific legislation for H14 assessment

(Decree n°2002-540 of 2002, April 18th on Waste Classification – but no inputs concerning H14, only H3-H8, H10 and H11)

Decree of April 20th, 1994 transcripts the guideline Modified directive 67/548 on classification, packaging, stamping of hazardous components

Guidelines French proposal 07/11/2012 “TAC 2012” for calculation methods

FNADE (2003) Methodological Guide - Waste Classification for a good direction of waste to appropriate storage centres – Appendix 3

MATE. Critères et méthodes d'évaluation de l'écotoxicité des déchets. Paris: Ministère de l'Aménagement du Territoire et de l'Environnement; 1998 [19 pp.].


INERIS, ADEME, MEDDE (funding tests)

Laboratories performing ecotoxicity tests (the list is not exhaustive):

•INERIS (Institut National de l’environnement industriel et des risques)

•CARSO (Laboratoire Santé Environnement Hygiène de LYON)

•LIEBE (université de Lorraine

•Centre Technique du bois et de l’ameublement

•POLDEN Insavalor

•Eurofins

•SGS


Waste with highest tonnage Waste from construction : 71%, 246 Mt

Hazardous waste with highest tonnage

19: Waste from waste treatment facilities, off-site waste water treatment plants and the water industry (41%, 4 Mt)

17 : Construction and demolition wastes (including road construction) (24%, 2.4 Mt)

Chapter of List of waste with the highest share of hazardous waste

07 : Wastes from organic chemical processes (51%, 1.2 Mt)

05 : Wastes from petroleum refining, natural gas purification and pyrolytic treatment of coal (46%, 51.6 kt)


Protocol used

ecotoxic tests are applied

Prioritisation of tests: aquatic vs terrestrial)

First step: aquatic tests, then terrestrial tests

Terrestrial tests on solid wastes

(1): “French” approach

(2): “Combined” approach

Test

organism

Endpo

int

Test

method

Test

duration

Expre

ssion

Thres

hold

value


of

results

E. fetida (2) Avoida

nce

ISO

17512-1 48 hours EC 50 10%

E. fetida (1) Mortalit

y

ISO 12

268-1 14 days EC 50 10%

Lactuca

sativa (1) or

Avena

sativa /

Brassica

rapa (2)

Emerg

ence

and

growth

ISO

11269-2

14 to 21

days

EC 50 10%

Arthrobacter

globiformis

(2)

Dehydr

ogenas

e

activity

ISO/DIS

18187

11267

2 hours EC 50 10%

Leaching/extraction test used NF EN 12457-2

Aquatic tests

(1): “French” approach

(2): “Combined” approach

(3) alternative to the C. dubia reproduction test (FNADE 2003)

Test

organism

Endpo

int

Test

method

Test

duration

Expre

ssion

of

results

Thres

hold

value

D. magna

(1)(2)

Mobilit

y

ISO 6341 24, 48

hours

EC 50 10%

Vibrio

fischeri

(Microtox)

(1)(2)

Lumine

scence

ISO

11348-3

30

minutes

EC 50 10%

Pseudokirch

neriella

subcapitata

(1)(2)

Growth NF EN

ISO 8692

3 days EC 20

EC 50

1%

10%

Ceriodaphni

a dubia (1)

Reprod

uction

NF ISO

20665

7 days EC 20 1%

Brachionus

calyciflorus

(1)

Popula

tion

growth

NF ISO

20666

48 hours EC 20 1%

Calculation methods

The French proposal to the 2012 TAC is used for classifying waste according to HP14, if the composition of the waste is sufficiently known. If not, biotests are applied (see above).

The French additivity rules consider the Acute 1, Chronic 1 and Chronic 2 categories for assessing HP 14. They include M-factors.




Threshold value

Σ(PH400 * M) ≥ 25%

Σ(PH410 * 10M+ PH411) ≥ 25%

The M-factors used in the calculations are those mentioned in the CLP and additional ones, calculated from EC50s and NOECs. The calculated M-factors are not harmonised at EU-level.


Examples of results of ecotoxicological tests performed on waste eluates

Nature

of

waste

Code pH or

dilution

for

pH9.5

Microto

x test

Daphni

a EC50

48h

test

Algae

EC20

test

Ceriod

aphnia

EC20

test

Brachi

onus

EC20

test

Mineral

chemist

ry

WWTP

sludge

06 05

02* or

06 05

03

7.9 No

inhibitio

n

42.7 0.7 2 0.7

Hydroxy

-metal

chemist

ry

sludge

06 05

02* or

06 05

03

9 >90 56.5 7 7.6 >80%

Fine

chemist

ry

sludge

07 07

11* or

07 07

12

8 3.3 51.9 1.5 0.5 0.6

Organic

chemist

ry

sludge

07 01

11* or

07 01

12

7.9 0.09 0.05 0.02 0.006 0.007

Organic

chemist

ry

sludge

07 01

11* or

07 01

12

8.2 0.038 0.061 0.058 0.061 0.063

MIDI 19 01

11* or

19 01

12

4.5% 15.2 59.5 2.6 5.1 3.55

Fine

particul

ate

matter

10 09

09* or

10 09

10

0.18% 0.4 0.95 0.2 0.08 0.3

Fine

particul

ate

matter

10 09

09* or

10 09

10

7.1 15 22.2 8.5 12.9 48.9

Foundry

particul

ate

matter

10 02

07* or

10 02

08

11.7 45.7 0.7 2.08 0.84 3.19

Foundry

particul

ate

matter

10 02

07* or

10 02

08

5.6% - 100%

immobili

sation

- - -

Filtratio

n

particul

ate

matter

10 03

19* or

10 03

20

0.18% 0.3 1.5 2.5 0.062 0.4


(alumini

um)

Soil

polluted

with

lead

and

lindane

17 05

03* or

17 05

04

13.1 >90 >90 4.96 8.21 42.7

Soil

polluted

with

lead

and

lindane

17 05

03* or

17 05

04

17.5% - 5%

immobili

sation

- - -

Soil

polluted

with

lead

and

lindane

17 05

03* or

17 05

04

15% 11%

inhibitio

n

- - - -

MIOM 19 01

11* or

19 01

12

11.5 29.2 91.2 0.8 0.41 1.95

MIOM 19 01

11* or

19 01

12

3.4% - 90%

immobili

sation

- - -

MIOM 19 01

11* or

19 01

12

0.37% 4%

inhibitio

n

- - - -


Advantages The experimental approach allows integrating the effects of all contaminants including additive, synergistic, and antagonistic effects of the components of the waste.

It is more relevant to implement the experimental approach than the summation method when the composition of the waste is known only partially (which is a common situation for wastes). In addition, toxicity values are only available for a limited number of chemicals, which can significantly impede the use of the summation method.

It is the simplest way to assess HP14 because for calculation method we need to have a common protocol to find all the substances in a waste.

Ecotoxic testing is the best way to assess the ecotoxic hazard. Using calculation method without M-factors is not relevant for this criterion since M-factors are the factors for ecotox.

Limits and uncertainties There is a need to establish a link with regulators that address the management and disposal of hazardous wastes to estimate the impact of the implementation of this experimental approach on the outcome of the wastes classified as


hazardous. Therefore, it would seem appropriate to propose a transitional period for the application of these threshold values in order to collect sufficient experimental data at a European level to conclude definitely on the suitability of the proposed threshold values.

The analytical method AFNOR XP X30-489 gives the exhaustive composition of the mineral elements and the organic substances. (Mineral) Elements must be speciated to mineral (and organomineral) substances. This speciation requires expert knowledge.

In most of the case “worst case” classification (with knowledge of the chelistry of the waste, but without speciation) gives evidence for reliable classification.

There is a need to have consistency between results from testing and results from the calculation method on which Commission works.


3000 – 5000 euros


Germany

Additional comments


Pascal Pandard (INERIS)

References - French Ministry of the Environment (2015) Note provisoire sur la comparaison des méthodes d’attribution de la propriété de danger H14

- Pandard P, Römbke J. 2013. Proposal for a “Harmonized” Strategy for the Assessment of the HP 14 Property. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 9(4): 665–672

- Pandard P, Devillers J, Charissou AM, Poulsen V, Jourdain MJ, Férard J‐F. Grand C, Bispo A. 2006. Selecting a battery of bioassays for

ecotoxicological characterization of wastes. Sci Total Environ 363:114–125.

- FNADE (2003) Methodological Guide - Waste Classification for a good direction of waste to appropriate storage centres – Appendix 3

- Eurostat Data Centre on Waste


INERIS (2013) Guide de classement des déchets selon leur dangerosité suivant le Code de l’Environnement et la réglementation SEVESO II (partie applicable aux déchets). Rapport d’étude N°INERIS- DRC-12-125740-06310A, 66 pp.


GERMANY




assess H14 property

of waste

Combined method

Combination of solid-phase tests and aquatic tests performed on water extracts from

wastes, if insufficient ecotoxicity data on individual components of the waste.

Variability in H14

assessment methods

depending on the

waste nature

The assessment of wastes is aligned on assessment under hazardous-substances

legislation (CPD). Waste can thus be classified based on sufficient knowledge of its

composition in terms of hazardous substances. Every waste which, based on its

(known) composition, is to be classified and labelled in accordance with hazardous-

substances law (H1 to H13) is considered hazardous waste.

In addition, if the composition of the waste is unknown or complex, biological test

methods may be applied. The testing strategy includes a test battery with terrestrial

and aquatic tests, but the proposed limit values have not been discussed in detail

and no decision has been made to fix limit values.

Related legislation

and guidelines

Legislation No specific legislation for H14 assessment : due to the

Federal constitution the Federal States are the responsible

authorities to enforce the regulations, if there is no legal

instrument in place on national level - what is the case for

H14

Closed Substance Cycle and Waste Management Act

Guidelines UbA (2013) Recommendations for the Ecotoxicological

Characterization of Wastes

Moser, H. (2008) Handlungsempfehlungen zur

ökotoxikologischen Charakterisierung von Abfällen.

Entwurf.

German AVV (Abfallverzeichnisverordnung) (guide

technique)

Guidelines on the Application of the Waste Catalogue

Ordinance



Federal Environment Agency Umweltbundesamt UbA (funding, organising, testing,

communication)

ECT Oekotoxikologie GmbH (testing)

Waste with highest

tonnage

Waste with highest

tonnage

Waste from construction : 54%, 197 Mt

Hazardous waste

with highest tonnage

19: Waste from waste treatment facilities, off-site waste

water treatment plants and the water industry (34%, 6.9 Mt)

17 : Construction and demolition wastes (including road

construction) (34%, 6.9 Mt)

Chapter of List of

waste with the

highest share of

hazardous waste

05 : Wastes from petroleum refining, natural gas purification

and pyrolytic treatment of coal (59%, 146 kt)

Percentage of waste

considered as

hazardous by H14

No data available on Federal level.


GERMANY


Protocol used

ecotoxic tests are applied

Prioritisation of

tests: aquatic vs

terrestrial)

First step: aquatic tests, then terrestrial tests

Terrestrial tests on solid wastes

Test

organism

Endpoint Test

method

Test

duration

Expressi

on of

results

Thresh

old

value

E. fetida Avoidance ISO 17512-

1

48 hours EC 50 10%

E. fetida Avoidance ISO 12

268-1

14 days EC 50 10%

Brassica

rapa

Emergenc

e and

growth

ISO 11269-

2

14 days EC 50 10%

Arthrobact

er

globiformis

dehydroge

nase

activity

ISO 10187 6 hours EC 50 10%

Folsomia

candida

Reproducti

on

ISO 11267 EC 50 10%

Leaching/extraction

test used

DIN 12457-2, DIN 19528

Aquatic tests on eluates

Test organism Endpoint Test

method

Test

duration

Expression

of results

Thres

hold

value

D. magna Mobility ISO 6341 48 hours EC 50 10%

D. magna Mobility ISO 10706 21 days EC 50 10%

Vibrio fischeri

(Microtox)

Luminesc

ence

inhibition

ISO 11348-

1/2/3

30 minutes EC 50 10%

Pseudokirchne

riella

subcapitata

and

Desmodesmus

subspicatus

Growth ISO 8692 72 h EC 50 10%

Lemna minor Growth ISO 20079 EC 50 10%



GERMANY



substance

Generic

concentration limits

(w/w %)

Concentration

thresholds (for

taking into account

the substances in

the combination

equations)

R50 25 0,1

R50-53 0.25 0,1

R51-53 2.5 0,1

R52-53 25 1

R52 25 1

R53 25 1

R59 0.1 0,1

Combination equations

∑(PR50-53) ≥ 0.25

Or

∑(PR51-53) ≥ 2.5

Or

∑(PR52-53) ≥ 25

Or

∑(PR59) ≥ 0.1


Qualitative

assessment of the

method(s)

Advantages The most complete battery of ecotoxic tests.

A combination of chemical and biological test methods

should be used for the ecotoxicological characterisation of

wastes, since a comparison of the results of chemical

analyses with existing threshold values is insufficient to

derive the hazards posed by waste. Instead, an evaluation

of the environmental hazards of waste is possible only by

the use of biological test methods, as only these can mirror

the effects of all bioavailable contaminants including their

potential interactions as well as pollutants in waste which

cannot be determined by chemical analysis.

Limits and

uncertainties

Limit values are proposed but not legally fixed.


GERMANY


Approximate cost of

the method(s)

Variability

depending on waste

types (%)

Other MS using the

same approach (if

known)

France

Additional comments

Expert contacted to

elaborate this

factsheet

Dr. Joachim Wuttke (UbA)

Mr Daniel Laux (Um BWL)

References - UbA (2013) Recommendations for the Ecotoxicological Characterization of Wastes

- UbA (2014) Weiterentwicklung der UBA-Handlungsempfehlung zur

ökotoxikologischen Charakterisierung von Abfällen, 170 pp.

- Ministerium für Umwelt und Verkehr Baden-Württemberg (2002) Zuordnung von

Abfällen zu Abfallarten aus Spiegeleinträgen - Vorläufige Vollzugshinweise, 48 pp.


Additional information Römbke J, Moser T, Moser H (2009) Ecotoxicological characterisation of 12

incineration ashes using 6 laboratory tests, Waste Management 29:2475–2482

Wuttke J (2013) Einstufung von HMV-Schlacken im europäischen Abfallverzeichnis.

Wissensforum, 20 pp.



ITALY



Chemical approach based on the “European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road” (ADR) for class 9 (Miscellaneous dangerous substances and articles), M6 and M7 (pollutant to the aquatic environment, liquid and solid).


none

FormuRelated legislation and guidelines

Legislation - Legislative decree 152/2006 (part IV). It replaces the legislative decree 22/97.

- Law 28/2012 .This law has introduced the criteria for H14 assessment into the legislative decree 152/2006 (see point 5, Annex D part IV)

- ADR agreement (European Agreement Concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road)

Guidelines CLASSIFICAZIONE DEI RIFIUTI - D.Lgs. n. 152/2006 e s.i.m. Revisione sostanziale PROCEDURA GESTIONALE ARPAV approvata in data 30/03/2011


National and regional environment/health agencies: ISPRA, APPA, ARPA in 2 working groups.

Stakeholder role Name of stakeholder

Type of stakeholder (national authority, research institute, etc.)

Funding Producers Control Authorities

Private Organisations National/Regional Authorities

Performing the test(s),

Laboratories Private and Regional EPA

Providing waste samples

Producers Control Authorities

Private organisation National Authority


Type or category or code of waste

Annual tonnage (metric tonnes)

Share (%)

Among hazardous waste

Wastes from waste management facilities, off-site waste water treatment plants and the preparation of water (chapter 19 of European LoW)

2,96 Mtonnes in 2012

31,7 of hazardous waste generated from economic activities

Among total waste

Construction and demolition wastes (chapter 17 of European LoW)

52,48 Mtonnes in 2012

39,1 of total waste generated from economic activities


Share of waste assessed positive for the H14 criteria, globally and by category: information not available at country level

Protocol used No biotests are currently applied in Italy (although recommendations exist).

Calculation methods adapted from the ADR are used


The substances considered in the calculation methods are those classified as:

Hazard category DPD phrase CLP phrase

Acute 1 R50 H400



Threshold values below which the substances are not taken into account:

Hazard category Threshold value

Acute 1 0.1

Chronic 1 0.1

Chronic 2 1

The summation methods used in Italy are taken from the ADR and include M-factors. They are organised in a tiered-approach where the first hazard considered is the acute one (formula 1). If this leads to the attribution of the HP14 criterion to the waste, then the assessment stops there. If not, formula 2 is applied, and then formula 3 if HP14 is still not attributed by formula 2.

*P= percentage of weight



Threshold value

Formula 1 Σ(PR50 * M) ≥ 25%

Formula 2 Σ(PR50- 53 * M) ≥ 25%

Formula 3 Σ(PR50- 53 * 10M+ PR51- 53) ≥ 25%

The case of wastes containing hydrocarbons:

The Higher Institute for Health with opinion protocol 0035653 on 06/08/2010, second integration to the ISS (Higher Institute of Health) opinion no 36565 on 05/07/2006, assigned specific risk phrases to the different hydrocarbon fractions.

ISS (Higher Institute of Health) identified four groups of hydrocarbons (listed in the following table) with the relative ADR limits, in order to assign hazard property “ecotoxic” to waste containing hydrocarbons of unknown origin or whose origin is no longer attributable to a specific class of compounds.

Hydrocarbon

fractions

R_H phrases Specific ADR Limit

Values

Notes

C5 C8 (sum) R50/53

H410

25.000 mg/kg As a fraction:

R50/53; if the

various

hydrocarbons are

expressed

singularly, the

specific CLP

classification

applies.

Aromatic

hydrocarbons

C9 – cumene

C10 – dipentene,

naftalene

R51/53

H411

R50/53

H410

250.000 mg/kg

25.000 mg/kg

Defined individually

(see Specific Limit

Values of each

substance).

Naftalene can be

determined with

the PAHs.

C>10 (C10 –

C40) (sum)

R51/53

H411

250.000 mg/kg


ITALY


IPA (total sum) R50/53

H410

25.000 mg/kg Specific limits (SL)

apply to DBahA

and BaA

Dibenzo[a,h]anth

racene (DBahA)

Benzo[a]anthrac

ene (BaA)

R50/53

H410

250 mg/kg Specific limits

To define the final classification of a waste, the four hydrocarbon groups are considered just like substances, that is to say, like individual components that participate in the calculation in a cumulative way with the other ecotoxic substances present.


-

Advantages none as declared by CA



Limits and uncertainties ISS and ISPRA work on the potential integration of biotests in the assessment of HP14 identified the following limits to the application of biotests:

1) The limit values are expressed in mg/L. The previous standards EN 14735 and 12457-2 are not applicable. Waste samples for ecotoxicity testing should be prepared as independent WAFs (OECD n° 23, 2000 Guidance Document on aquatic toxicity testing of difficult substances and mixtures, paragraph 3.11, pp 36-37)

2) A WAF with loading rate of 100 mg/L has a 10.000:1 L/S ratio.

3) According to ADR, waste samples need to be tested for ecotoxicity have a very small mass (100 mg or less). The problem of waste sample representativeness was studied using Pierre Gy sampling equation:

p )(

p) - (1 g d

2d

3

CVs

6

1 = m

s= particles shape; r= particles mean density; d= particles diameter

This equation correlates the mass (m) of (sub)sample with the variability (coefficient of variation, CV) of subsampling. The equation is used to calculate the minimum amount of sample (m) with a specific granulometry (g) keeping the uncertainty within a CV value of 20% (table below).

Granulometry (µm) Waste mass (mg)

250 80-100

125 10

As shown in the table, a particle size

take a sample of 80-100 mg (CV= 20%).

Nevertheless, a collaborative study organised by ISPRA with 23 Italian laboratories demonstrated that our approach does not provide acceptable repeatability and reproducibility values (Sr% and SR%) with algal test (See: D. Conti, P. De Zorzi, S. Balzamo, S. Barbizzi, S. Rosamilia, C. Martone, A. Pati, T. Guagnini, A. Paina, E. Raso, V. Bellaria (2014) Studio collaborativo ecotossicologico su lisciviato di rifiuto mediante saggi con P. subcapitata e D. magna. In press).

4) Waste often have low economic value. Evaluation of H14 property should be performed with rapid, easy to perform, convenient and inexpensive tests. Toxicity testing with fish do not have these


ITALY


characteristics. Moreover, the tests with vertebrates raise ethical and economic concerns and many regulatory frameworks (e.g. REACH) principally encourage the use of alternative approaches

5) Chemical analysis and biological tests: the results of the two approaches often are different and lead to different classification of the waste.

The same limits and uncertainties can be also highlighted in case of CLP application.


Chemical analysis 100-1000 € (depending on number and type of analysis)

Biological methods 800 € (test battery: alga, crustacean and fish)


The Austrian approach is also based on the ADR, although the way it is applied is different.

Additional comments


Stefania Balzamo – [email protected]; Andrea Paina – [email protected]; Daniela Conti – [email protected]; Cristina Martone – [email protected]; Elisa Raso – [email protected]; Andrea Lanz – [email protected];


ITALY


References Application of ADR approach:

Waste Observatory Service: Waste Classification - Legislative Decree no. 152/2006 and subsequent integrations and modifications. Substantial revision ARPAV MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE approved 30/03/2011

Information on quantities produced by specific waste codes:

Annual publications of ISPRA on production and management of municipal waste and waste from economic activities. Publications are available on ISPRA website at:

http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/it/pubblicazioni/rapporti (available only in Italian language)

Composition data of specific wastes:

Study on fluff-light fraction from crushing of vehicles:

Report ISPRA 2002 http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/contentfiles/00003800/3897-rapporti-02-16.pdf/view (available only in Italian language)

Report ISPRA 2006 http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/contentfiles/00004100/4158-rapporto-veicoli-2007-marzo-2008.pdf/view (available only in Italian language)

Procedures and results of ecotoxicological tests:

S. Balzamo, D. Conti, M. Belli et al. (2008) Caratterizzazione ecotossicologica dei rifiuti: risultati italiani del circuito d’interconfronto europeo organizzato dall’Agenzia tedesca per la Protezione dell’Ambiente. Rapporti ISPRA 81/2008.

D. Conti, P. De Zorzi, S. Balzamo, S. Barbizzi, S. Rosamilia, C. Martone, A. Pati, T. Guagnini, A. Paina, E. Raso, V. Bellaria (2014) Studio collaborativo ecotossicologico su lisciviato di rifiuto mediante saggi con P. subcapitata e D. magna. Final Report ISPRA (in press).

Batterie di test per la caratterizzazzione ecotossicologica dei rifiuti: Stato dell’arte ; Parere ISPRA/ISS sulla classificazione dei rifiuti ai fini dell'attribuzione della caratteristica di pericolo H14 "Ecotossico" Available at : http://www.iss.it/binary/ampp/cont/Ecotx_rf.pdf

A. Paina, D. Conti, S. Balzamo, A. Pati, C. Martone (2013) I rifiuti e la pericolosità per l’ambiente (H14): evoluzione normativa e quadro di riferimento. Atti di Giornate di Studio Livorno 5a edizione, “Ricerca e applicazione di metodologie eco tossicologiche in ambienti acquatici e matrici contaminate” Livorno 7-9 novembre 2013 pp. 194-200.

D. Conti, S. Balzamo, A. Paina, A. Pati, C. Martone, V. Bellaria (2013) Valutazione della pericolosità per l’ambiente dei rifiuti (H14): definizione della procedura analitica. Atti di Giornate di Studio Livorno 5a edizione, “Ricerca e applicazione di metodologie ecotossicologiche in ambienti acquatici e matrici contaminate” Livorno 7-9 novembre 2013 pp. 201-207.

D. Conti, P. De Zorzi, S. Balzamo, S. Barbizzi, S. Rosamilia, C. Martone, A. Pati, T. Guagnini, A. Paina, E. Raso, V. Bellaria (2014) Studio collaborativo ecotossicologico su lisciviato di rifiuto mediante saggi con P. subcapitata e D. magna. Rapporto finale ISPRA (in press)

A. Paina, D. Conti, C. Martone, A. Pati, E. Raso e S. Balzamo (2014) La determinazione della pericolosità per l’ambiente acquatico dei rifiuti (H14): definizione della procedura analitica per l’esecuzione di test biologici in accordo con il Regolamento CE 1272/2008. Ecomondo 2014, Rimini 5-8 November 2014, pp. 194-198



SPAIN




assess H14 property

of waste

Ecotoxicity tests

Two bioassays of luminescence and inhibition on leaching extracts

Variability in H14

assessment methods

depending on the

waste nature

Waste from veterinary products follow a different law.

Related legislation

and guidelines

Legislation Ley 22/2011, de 28 de julio, de residuos y suelos

contaminados

ORDEN de 13 de octubre de 1989 por la que se

determinan los métodos de caracterización de los

residuos tóxicos y peligrosos

ORDEN MAM/304/2002, de 8 de febrero - Anejo 2

(“no contiene en la actualidad disposiciones

respecto a las características H1, H2, H9 y H12 a

H14”)

Guidelines ORDEN de 13 de octubre de 1989 por la que se

determinan los métodos de caracterización de los

residuos tóxicos y peligrosos –Appendice IV and A



ATEGRUS (Asociación Técnica para la Gestión de Residuos, Aseo Urbano y Medio

Ambiente

INTERLAB

Waste with highest

tonnage

Waste with highest tonnage Waste from construction : 22%, 26.1 Mt

Waste from mining and quarrying : 19%, 22.5 Mt


highest tonnage

Manufacture industry : 97.7% of hazardous waste

generated in Spain (1 345 kt on 1 376 kt), and

among them:

- Waste from metal and non-metal industry :

57.8%, 795 kt

- Waste from organic chemistry : 38.3%, 527.34 kt

- Acidic, alkaline and salt waste : 23%, 316.3 kt

From Eurostat data:






plastics (36%, 751.6 kt)

19 : Waste from waste treatment facilities, off-site

waste water treatment plants and the water

industry (26%, 530.7 kt)



hazardous waste


purification and pyrolytic treatment of coal (49%,

66.8 kt)


SPAIN


07 : Wastes from organic chemical processes

(40%, 414 kt)

Percentage of waste

considered as

hazardous by H14

Approximately 20%

Protocol used

Ecotoxicity tests are applied

Prioritisation of tests (aquatic

vs terrestrial)

Only aquatic tests on leaching extracts

Leaching/extraction test used UNE 12457-2

Aquatic tests

Test

organism

Endpoi

nt

Test

method

Test

duration

Expres

sion of

results

Thresh

old

value

Vibrio

fischeri105

lumine

scence

UNE

11348

15’-30’ EC50 3000

mg/l

Daphnia

magna

mobilit

y

OECD-

202

UNE

6341

24-48H CL50/

EC50

750

mg/l

No calculation methods are used


Qualitative

assessment of the

method(s)

Advantages Spain highlights that there are often problems due

to the fact that wastes are complex matrices

(coloured, oily, particulates, precipitates, etc.).

Considering that often the ecotoxicity test is the

only real bioassay performed on waste, as it is by

far the cheapest, it seems reasonable to use a test

battery. The applied toxicity tests (Daphnia magna,

Vibrio fischeri) are relatively economic and simple.

The Daphnia test is in general considered to be

more ecologically relevant.

Limits and uncertainties Confusion in the interpretation: concentrations

expressed in terms of the amount of residue of

departure or in terms of the leachate (an order of

magnitude difference between the two

105 Named Photobacterium phosphoreum in the Order of 13/10/1989


SPAIN


interpretations [x 10]). Lack of clarity in relation to

the scientific support of limits.


method(s)


waste types (%)

Unknown

Other MS using the

same approach (if

known)

None.

Similar: France – Uses only Ecotoxicity tests to assess H 14. However, France

includes terrestrial tests in its test battery while Spain does not.

Additional comments

Expert contacted to

elaborate this

factsheet

Joan Parés Gómez, TECNOAMBIANTE SL

References - Jaureguízar J, Dueñas L, John E (2007) Evaluación de metodologías para la

caracterización de residuos como peligrosos o no peligrosos, Residuos 101, 18-26.

- ORDEN de 13 de octubre de 1989 por la que se determinan los métodos de

caracterización de los residuos tóxicos y peligrosos –Appendice IV and A

- Residuos Industriales en España INE, 2003 (2000)


Additional information Ökopol GmbH (2008) Review of the European List of Waste, 532 pp.


UNITED KINGDOM




assess H14 property

of waste


Assessment of H14 based on the composition of the waste with regards to

hazardous substances. The UK approach considers only the hazards to

the aquatic environment (R50 to R53) and to the ozone layer (R59)

In practice, this is a calculation method based on the Dangerous Preparations Directive. It could also be presented as a combined approach.

UK differs from the DPD in that they do not assign substance specific concentration limits (SCL’s) to all R50-53 substance as set out in Part B of Annex III. They apply only those SCL’s listed in Table 3.2 of the CLP.

Ecotoxicity testing is legally permitted in accordance with Annex VI of the

Dangerous Substances Directive. This approach would normally be

applied to substances (rather than preparations), can only modify the

result of the calculation method for a preparation, and is limited by the

need for vertebrate testing. So in practice, ecotoxicity testing of most

wastes would not be appropriate where the calculation method can be

used instead.

Variability in H14

assessment methods

depending on the

waste nature

WM2 emphasises the use of compositional data to assess ecotoxicity (as used

for the assessment of other hazardous properties) and discourages direct

ecotoxicity testing on organisms wherever possible: “A H14 assessment

should normally be done by reference to concentration limits of the substances

in the waste. There will be a few cases when this is not possible, for example

the substances in particularly complex wastes may be difficult to determine

exactly. It is then possible to test these wastes for H14”. In those specific

cases (when the chemical composition of the waste is unknown or when the

waste contains substances whose toxicity is not already known), bioassays

can be used and the approach consists of an eluate testing without dilution

coupled to an inhibition essay on Daphnia magna’ s mobility (48h) and on

algal growth (72h).


UNITED KINGDOM


Related legislation

and guidelines

Legislation No specific legislation for H14 assessment

The Hazardous Waste (England and Wales)

Regulations 2005

Guidelines Environment Agency (2013) WM2: Hazardous waste Interpretation of the definition and classification of hazardous waste (3rd Edition 2013), 147 pp.

University of Birmingham (2014) Health and

Safety Guidance - Hazardous Waste:

Guidance on Assessment

GUIDANCE/11/HWGA/14, 32 pp.

Stakeholders

involved in the H14

assessment

Environmental Service Association ESA, Defra (funding)

Producers of waste (performing the assessment)

WRc (performing the assessment)

Waste with highest

tonnage

Waste with highest

tonnage

Waste from construction : 41%, 99 Mt


highest tonnage

19: Waste from waste treatment facilities, off-site waste water treatment plants and the water industry (30%, 1.9 Mt)

20: Municipal wastes and commercial,

industrial and institutional wastes including

separately collected fractions (21%, 1.3Mt)

Chapter of List of waste

with the highest share of

hazardous waste

05 : Wastes from petroleum refining, natural

gas purification and pyrolytic treatment of

coal (82%, 154 kt)

Percentage of waste

considered as

hazardous by H14

Unknown

Protocol used

No ecotoxicity tests are applied (the practice is possible in theory, when

calculation methods cannot be applied, but is highly discouraged)



substance

Generic

concentration limits

(w/w %)

Concentration

thresholds (for

taking into account

the substances in

the combination

equations)

R50 25 0,1

R50-53 0.25 0,1

R51-53 2.5 0,1

R52-53 25 1


UNITED KINGDOM


R52 25 1

R53 25 1

R59 0.1 0,1

Combination equations

∑(𝑅50−53

0.25+

𝑅51−53

2.5+

𝑅52−53

25) ≥ 100% (=1)

∑(𝑅50 + 𝑅50−53) ≥ 25%

∑ 𝑅52 ≥ 25%

∑(𝑅53 + 𝑅50−53 + 𝑅51−53 + 𝑅52−53) ≥ 25%

Illustrative examples Example 1: A waste contains 2 substances given R50-53. Substance A = 0.2%, Substance B = 0.9%. Neither substance is given a specific threshold in Annex VI table 3.2. Both substances exceed the generic cut-off values (0.1%). Using Equation 1:

∑(𝑅50−53

0.25+

𝑅51−53

2.5+

𝑅52−53

25) ≥ 1 (

0.2

0.25+

0.9

0.25) +0 + 0 = 4.4 ≥ 1 → this waste is

hazardous by H14

Example 2: A waste contains 2 substances. Substance C = 18% is given R50;

substance D = 12% is given R53. Neither substance is given a specific

threshold in Annex VI table 3.2. Both substances exceed the generic cut-off

values (0.1% for R50 and 1% for R53).

Using Equation 2:

∑(𝑅50 + 𝑅50−53) (18%) + 0% = 18% ≤ 25% → this waste is not hazardous by H14

Using Equation 4:

∑(𝑅53 + 𝑅50−53 + 𝑅51−53 + 𝑅52−53) (12%) + 0% + 0% + 0% = 12%≤ 25% → this

waste is not hazardous by H14

Example 3: A waste contains 4 substances. Substance F = 0.09% is given R50-

53, substance G =

0.08% is given R51-53, Substances H = 17%, I = 14% are given R53. None of the

substances is given a specific threshold in Annex VI table 3.2. Substance F and G

are below the generic cut-off values (0.1% for both) so are not included in the

calculations. Substances H and I exceed the cut-off values (1%).

Using Equation 4:

∑(𝑅53 + 𝑅50−53 + 𝑅51−53 + 𝑅52−53) (17% + 14%) + 0% + 0% + 0% = 31% ≥25% →

this waste is hazardous by H14.

Qualitative

assessment of the

method(s)

Advantages The advantages are that as a calculation method

•It can normally be performed using the same sampling and chemical analysis used for other hazardous properties (no additional analysis)

•It does not involve testing on living animals


UNITED KINGDOM


•It is similar to that used for products, so the

classification of a product under the DPD as

Ecotoxic can normally be relied upon by

small businesses to indicate that H14 is likely

to apply when that product becomes a waste.

One stakeholder has advocated that the

method selected should be as close to the

CLP as possible to maximise the

simplification this last point provides for

customers. As indicated previously, the use

of direct testing is limited by the legislative

regime and limitations of test methods with

respect to difficult materials. However in

certain circumstances (particularly for

simpler, soluble wastes, or for pure

substances) it may have some advantages.

UK points out that the calculation

methodology set forth in the national

Chemical Regulations (CHIP) and the

Dangerous Preparations Directive (DPD)

supported by chemical analysis is clear and

highly satisfactory. It aligns directly with

chemical risk phrase classification systems

and therefore with other hazardous

properties. UK holds the view that animal

testing of solid wastes is of little or no

scientific value and generates results of

debatable significance. Testing is described

as of often poor quality, overlooks key criteria

in relevant guidance, and results often

suggest that the waste is non-hazardous

where that is clearly not the case. UK

assumes that in more than one case the

analysis appears to have been undertaken

principally because chemical analysis would

show the waste to be hazardous, so

ecotoxicity testing is being used (badly) in an

attempt to obtain a different result.

Limits and uncertainties Our approach has similar limits and uncertainties to the DPD.

The omission of SCL’s for all R50-53 substances means that the calculation method will underestimate the ecotoxicity of a waste (relative to the DPD) when very ecotoxic substances are present.

The reliability of the calculation method is dependent on

•Appropriate sampling in accordance with CEN 14899 and supporting technical reports,

•Determination of the chemical composition of the components (to a level sufficient to assess H14) by analysis, and

•Correctly identifying the classification of the components using Table 3.2 of the CLP, the REACH registered substances database, and other appropriate datasources.


UNITED KINGDOM


Appropriate sampling of materials, particularly from processes producing variable and heterogenous batches over time, can be the key factor. This can be a significant part of the cost.

Analysis can be more challenging in complex

matrices, and the analytical uncertainties

need to be understood before results are

interpreted. The balance often has to be

found between determining the speciation of

the chemical OR using a worst case

compound.


method(s)


waste types (%)

The sampling and chemical analysis of the waste is used to support the assessment of several hazardous properties. The use of the calculation method for H14 would not normally generate a separate (additional) cost.

One stakeholder has advised UK EA that ecotoxicity tests range from £650 to £2000 per test, depending on the OECD test method.

Another has indicated that analysis of chemical compositions is approximately £150 per sample, with the calculation taking about 30 minutes for a competent person. They indicate that ecotoxicity testing is more expensive.

Again, where the method is very close the

product legislation – sampling, analysis and

calculation may be not be necessary, if the

safety data sheet for that product has already

completed the assessment. This may reduce

cost.

Other MS using the

same approach (if

known)

Finland

Additional comments The successful assessment of a waste to determine its classification is highly dependent on the reliable and representative sampling of the material. The application of CEN 14899 on waste characterisation and its supporting technical reports is central to this.

One of our stakeholders has made us aware of the CONCAWE aquatic toxicity test procedure in ‘Hazardous classification and labelling of petroleum substances in the European Economic Area -2014’. We would recommend seeking advice from ECHA on the relevance of this to CLP classification of oils (and therefore oil contaminated waste)

When evaluating waste streams for this study we recommend you

-Determine their full composition, and

-Assess all hazardous properties

To determine the impact of H14.

Although a calculation method is most appropriate, this should be

supported by ecotoxicity testing where appropriate. This would need to be

performed in accordance with the CLP and supporting ECHA guidance on

its application. Use of a calculation method similar to that of the CLP

would be needed to enable CLP test methods to be used in parallel. The


UNITED KINGDOM


performance of the Ecotoxicity method on difficult substances is an

important consideration.

Expert contacted to

elaborate this

factsheet

Bob McIntyre, UK EA

References - Environment Agency (2013) WM2: Hazardous waste Interpretation of the definition and classification of hazardous waste (3rd Edition 2013), 147 pp.


Additional

information

WRc (2012) Assessment of Hazard Classification of UK IBA, 69 pp.



Annex 3. Second questionnaire

sent to Competent Authorities106

Information for consolidation of waste codes selection

Please provide your answers directly in the table included in the next pages (pp4 – 11).

The first line of the table shows an example on how to include available data.

1. Economic importance of waste codes

Please specify which waste codes you consider important, regarding the following

parameters:

Please report the letter a, b or c in column 3 of the table.

a. Waste to energy recovery (please specify the percentage)

b. Waste to material recovery (please specify the percentage)

c. High generated volumes (please specify the tons)

2. Potential presence of hazardous substances

Please specify the nature and indicative concentrations of hazardous substances

contained in waste streams falling under the listed waste codes.

Please fill in column 4 of the table.

3. Criticality of the waste classification

The new classification methods for HP 14 shall be based on calculations using the

presence and the quantities of intrinsically ecotoxic substances in the waste, i.e. those

classified under the following CLP H-codes: H420 (ozone depleting), H400 (aquatic acute),

H410 (aquatic chronic 1), H411 (aquatic chronic 2), H412 (aquatic chronic 3) and H413

(aquatic chronic 4).

For which mirror pairs do you think that waste streams currently classified as non-

hazardous are likely to shift to being classified as hazardous (due to a change of

classification methods)?

Please write, per code, “Yes” in column 5 in you think the shift as likely and “No” otherwise.

Please indicate in column 6 which substances (along with their CLP H-codes) are

responsible for this potential shift.

Your opinion on the selected mirror pairs

1. Background: the selection process

The selection process is based on six selection criteria (SC):

SC 1 - Preference of experts

SC 2 - Availability and quality of data

SC 3 - Tonnage of waste production

SC 4 - Economic importance

106 The list of selected pairs presented in the questionnaire is slightly different from the list reported in section 4.2 of this report. This is because data received in the wake of the consultation with the second questionnaire changed the scores for some waste codes.


SC 5 - Potential presence of hazardous substances

SC 6 - Criticality of waste classification

Waste codes are attributed scores for each SC (calculated from data from the first

questionnaire to stakeholders and from a desk study) and then a global score is calculated

for each waste code by computing a weighted average of all scores:

Selection criteria Weight Selection criteria Weight

SC1 3 SC4 1

SC2 3 SC5 1

SC3 2 SC6 2

After normalisation, all waste codes with a global score higher than 1.5 are selected. If one

code of the mirror pair is not included in the list, this mirror pair is nonetheless chosen.

2. Selected pairs

Please find below our first selection of waste pairs, as a categorised list.










10 03 wastes from aluminium thermal metallurgy

10 03 19* 10 03 20 flue-gas dust





17 05 03* 17 05 04 soil and stones

17 05 05* 17 05 06 dredging spoil

19 Wastes from waste management facilities, off-site waste water treatment plants and the preparation of water intended for human consumption and water for industrial use



19 01 13* 19 01 14 fly ash




Do you think other waste codes should be included in the list? If so, please provide the

codes and the reason why they should be included (mention the relevant selection criteria):

Codes to add Reason

…

…

…

…


Experimental data on selected waste pairs

We need experimental data (chemical composition and results of ecotoxicity tests) of waste

samples classified under one or the other code of the selected mirror pairs.

The attached Excel file presents and explains the data we need to perform the assessment.

Could you please fill in the tables or provide us with reports/databases containing the

requested information?

If you do not have the experimental data yourself, could you please redirect us to people

who do:

Contacts: ____________________________________________________________


Waste code Waste description Economic importance



Likely to shift to dangerous?

Rationale for the shift

XX XX XX Example a. (35%) Zinc hydroxide (0.2%) Lead (0.05%)

Yes Presence of As

(H410)

03 01 04*

sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood, particle board and veneer containing hazardous substances

03 01 05

sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood, particle board and veneer other than those mentioned in 03 01 04

04 02 19*

sludges from on-site effluent treatment containing hazardous substances

04 02 20

sludges from on-site effluent treatment other than those mentioned in 04 02 19

06 03 15* metallic oxides containing heavy metals

06 03 16 metallic oxides other than those mentioned in 06 03 15

06 05 02*


06 05 03


07 01 11*


07 01 12


07 02 11*


07 02 12


07 03 11*


07 03 12








07 05 11*


07 05 12


07 06 11*


07 06 12


08 01 13*

sludges from paint or varnish containing organic solvents or other hazardous substances

08 01 14

sludges from paint or varnish other than those mentioned in 08 01 13

08 03 12* waste ink containing hazardous substances

08 03 13 waste ink other than those mentioned in 08 03 12

08 03 14* ink sludges containing hazardous substances

08 03 15 ink sludges other than those mentioned in 08 03 14

08 04 11*

adhesive and sealant sludges containing organic solvents or other hazardous substances

08 04 12

adhesive and sealant sludges other than those mentioned in 08 04 11

10 01 14*

bottom ash, slag and boiler dust from co-incineration containing hazardous substances

10 01 15

bottom ash, slag and boiler dust from co-incineration other than those mentioned in 10 01 14

10 01 16* fly ash from co-incineration containing hazardous substances

10 01 17

fly ash from co-incineration other than those mentioned in 10 01 16

10 01 18* wastes from gas cleaning containing hazardous substances







10 01 19

wastes from gas cleaning other than those mentioned in 10 01 05, 10 01 07 and 10 01 18

10 02 07* solid wastes from gas treatment containing hazardous substances

10 02 08

solid wastes from gas treatment other than those mentioned in 10 02 07

10 02 11* wastes from cooling-water treatment containing oil

10 02 12

wastes from cooling-water treatment other than those mentioned in 10 02 11

10 02 13*

sludges and filter cakes from gas treatment containing hazardous substances

10 02 14

sludges and filter cakes from gas treatment other than those mentioned in 10 02 13

10 03 19* flue-gas dust containing hazardous substances

10 03 20 flue-gas dust other than those mentioned in 10 03 19


10 03 24


10 03 25*

sludges and filter cakes from gas treatment containing hazardous substances

10 03 26

sludges and filter cakes from gas treatment other than those mentioned in 10 03 25







10 03 29*

wastes from treatment of salt slags and black drosses containing hazardous substances

10 03 30

wastes from treatment of salt slags and black drosses other than those mentioned in 10 03 29

10 05 10*

dross and skimmings that are flammable or emit, upon contact with water, flammable gases in hazardous quantities

10 05 11 dross and skimmings other than those mentioned in 10 05 10


10 06 10




10 08 17*

sludges and filter cakes from flue-gas treatment containing hazardous substances

10 08 18

sludges and filter cakes from flue-gas treatment other than those mentioned in 10 08 17


10 08 20


10 09 05*

casting cores and moulds which have not undergone pouring containing hazardous substances







10 09 06

casting cores and moulds which have not undergone pouring other than those mentioned in 10 09 05

10 09 07*

casting cores and moulds which have undergone pouring containing hazardous substances

10 09 08

casting cores and moulds which have undergone pouring other than those mentioned in 10 09 07

10 09 11* other particulates containing hazardous substances

10 09 12 other particulates other than those mentioned in 10 09 11

10 09 13* waste binders containing hazardous substances

10 09 14 waste binders other than those mentioned in 10 09 13

10 10 05*

casting cores and moulds which have not undergone pouring, containing hazardous substances

10 10 06

casting cores and moulds which have not undergone pouring, other than those mentioned in 10 10 05

10 10 07*

casting cores and moulds which have undergone pouring, containing hazardous substances

10 10 08

casting cores and moulds which have undergone pouring, other than those mentioned in 10 10 07



10 10 11* other particulates containing hazardous substances

10 10 12 other particulates other than those mentioned in 10 10 11







10 10 13* waste binders containing hazardous substances

10 10 14 waste binders other than those mentioned in 10 10 13

10 11 09*

waste preparation mixture before thermal processing, containing hazardous substances

10 11 10

waste preparation mixture before thermal processing, other than those mentioned in 10 11 09

10 11 15*

solid wastes from flue-gas treatment containing hazardous substances

10 11 16

solid wastes from flue-gas treatment other than those mentioned in 10 11 15


10 12 10



10 13 13


11 01 09* sludges and filter cakes containing hazardous substances

11 01 10 sludges and filter cakes other than those mentioned in 11 01 09

12 01 14* machining sludges containing hazardous substances

12 01 15 machining sludges other than those mentioned in 12 01 14

12 01 16* waste blasting material containing hazardous substances

12 01 17 waste blasting material other than those mentioned in 12 01 16







16 11 01*

carbon-based linings and refractories from metallurgical processes containing hazardous substances

16 11 02

carbon-based linings and refractories from metallurgical processes others than those mentioned in 16 11 01

16 11 03*

other linings and refractories from metallurgical processes containing hazardous substances

16 11 04

other linings and refractories from metallurgical processes other than those mentioned in 16 11 03

16 11 05*

linings and refractories from non-metallurgical processes containing hazardous substances

16 11 06

linings and refractories from non-metallurgical processes others than those mentioned in 16 11 05

17 01 06*

mixtures of, or separate fractions of concrete, bricks, tiles and ceramics containing hazardous substances

17 01 07

mixtures of concrete, bricks, tiles and ceramics other than those mentioned in 17 01 06

17 03 01* bituminous mixtures containing coal tar

17 03 02 bituminous mixtures other than those mentioned in 17 03 01

17 05 03* soil and stones containing hazardous substances

17 05 04 soil and stones other than those mentioned in 17 05 03

17 05 05* dredging spoil containing hazardous substances

17 05 06 dredging spoil other than those mentioned in 17 05 05







17 06 03*

other insulation materials consisting of or containing hazardous substances

17 06 04

insulation materials other than those mentioned in 17 06 01 and 17 06 03

17 08 01*

gypsum-based construction materials contaminated with hazardous substances

17 08 02

gypsum-based construction materials other than those mentioned in 17 08 01

19 01 11* bottom ash and slag containing hazardous substances

19 01 12 bottom ash and slag other than those mentioned in 19 01 11

19 01 13* fly ash containing hazardous substances

19 01 14 fly ash other than those mentioned in 19 01 13

19 01 15* boiler dust containing hazardous substances

19 01 16 boiler dust other than those mentioned in 19 01 15

19 03 06* wastes marked as hazardous, solidified

19 03 07 solidified wastes other than those mentioned in 19 03 06

19 07 02* landfill leachate containing hazardous substances

19 07 03 landfill leachate other than those mentioned in 19 07 02

19 08 11*

sludges containing hazardous substances from biological treatment of industrial waste water

19 08 12

sludges from biological treatment of industrial waste water other than those mentioned in 19 08 11

19 08 13*

sludges containing hazardous substances from other treatment of industrial waste water







19 08 14

sludges from other treatment of industrial waste water other than those mentioned in 19 08 13

19 10 03* fluff-light fraction and dust containing hazardous substances

19 10 04 fluff-light fraction and dust other than those mentioned in 19 10 03

19 13 01* solid wastes from soil remediation containing hazardous substances

19 13 02

solid wastes from soil remediation other than those mentioned in 19 13 01


Annex 4. Questionnaire sent to

industrial stakeholders for the

impact assessment

1. General information

1.1 Your full name and your email address (please specify your country):

_______________________________________________________________________

1.2 Please provide the name of the organisation to which you belong:

______________________________________________________________________

1.3 Type of waste your expertise covers (bold the right answer):

All

Specific

Provide a general description of waste categories you cover (or waste codes

when relevant):

_____________________________________________________________

2. Economic feasibility of the classification methods

2.1. Please assess the feasibility of the classification methods, according to the following

criteria (the methods are described in the Annex to this questionnaire)? Please fill in the

table below including justifications for your choices.

Please measure feasibility with the symbols +/++/+++ (“+” is low feasibility and “+++” is

high feasibility)

Criteria Feasibility (measured by + /++ /+++) Comments

Level of specialised knowledge required to apply the method

Method 1: ________________________

Method 2: ________________________

Method 3: ________________________

Method 4: ________________________

Affordability of the sampling of waste

Method 1: ________________________

Method 2: ________________________

Method 3: ________________________

Method 4: ________________________

Affordability of analytical determination

Method 1: ________________________

Method 2: ________________________

Method 3: ________________________

Method 4: ________________________

Need for consultancy work

Method 1: ________________________

Method 2: ________________________

Method 3: ________________________

Method 4: ________________________

2.2 For each method, could you provide us with an estimate of the costs related to:

The preparation of waste sample for chemical analysis: _______________

Chemical analysis of the samples: ________________________________


The application of the different methodology (incl. consultancy work if needed):

___________________________________________________________

3. Environmental, social and economic impacts of a potential change in

classification

The implementation of any of the four proposed classification methods may lead to a

change in the classification of some waste, from non-hazardous to hazardous, or from

hazardous to non-hazardous. For mirror pairs (waste codes), this means that some waste

streams currently classified under one entry could end up being classified under the other

entry of the pair.

We wish to assess the environmental and socio-economic impacts of these potential

changes of classification. The mirror pairs selected for assessment are reported in Table

55 in Annex, at the end of this questionnaire. In bold are the priority pairs.

Please share with us case studies of potential impacts, using the template provided on the

next page. You can copy/paste the template in the following pages for drafting more than

one case study. You can also send us data relevant to the socio-economic impact

assessment even if it does not fit to the template of case studies.


Case study #1

Mirror pair: ___________________________________

Impacts of a change of classification from (bold the right answer):

Hazardous to non-hazardous

Non-hazardous to hazardous

Description of impacts (please fill in the last column)

Category Indicators of impacts Description

Environmental impacts

Changes in percentage of recyclable waste

Changes in percentage of waste recovery vs landfill

Changes in already established recycling schemes107

Energy usage and associated contribution to global warming

Pollution due to the disposal of hazardous waste

Other (please specify)

Social impacts

Job creation benefits waste management (persons involved in waste management related operations such as transport, storage, sorting, treatment, etc.)

Number of jobs in the industry

Estimated percentage of hazardous waste shipped to third countries

Other (please precise)

Economic impacts

Costs of disposal/management (including transport, permits, storage, etc.)

Costs of recycling

Administrative costs for waste management

Implications for incomes and income distribution

Effects on trade, competitiveness and the single market

Impact on waste management infrastructure availability

Other (please precise)

Additional comments:

_______________________________________________________________________

107 For instance, the reuse of municipal solid waste incineration bottom ashes (MSWI BA) as aggregates in road construction in France


ANNEX

The calculation/assessment methods to be considered are:

Method 1

When a waste contains a substance classified as ozone depleting and is assigned the

hazard statement code(s) H420 according to the CLP rules and such individual substance

equals or exceeds the concentration limit of 0.1% (v/v), the waste shall be classified as

hazardous by HP14.

When a waste contains one or more substances classified as aquatic acute and is assigned

to the hazard statement code(s) H400 according to the CLP rules and the sum substances

equals or exceeds the concentration limit of 25% the waste shall be classified as hazardous

by HP14.

When a waste contains one or more substances classified as aquatic chronic 1, 2 or 3 and

is assigned to the hazard statement code(s) H410, H411 or H412 according to the CLP

rules and the sum of all substances classified aquatic chronic 1 (H410) multiplied by 100

added to the sum of all substances classified aquatic chronic 2 (H411) multiplied by 10

added to the sum of all substances classified aquatic chronic 3 (H412) equals or exceeds

the concentration limit of 25%, the waste shall be classified as hazardous by HP 14.

(100 ×∑ Aquatic Chronic 1) + (10 × ∑Aquatic Chronic 2) + ∑Aquatic Chronic 3 ≥ 25 %

When a waste contains one or more substances classified as aquatic chronic 1, 2, 3 or 4

and is assigned to the hazard statement code(s) H410, H411, H412 or 413 according to

the CLP rules and the sum of all substances classified aquatic chronic equals or exceeds

the concentration limit of 25%, the waste shall be classified as hazardous by HP 14.

Short version:

c (H420) ≥ 0.1%

∑ c H400 ≥ 25 %

(100 x ∑c H410) + (10 x ∑c H411) + (∑c H412) ≥ 25%

∑ c H410 + ∑ c H411 + ∑ c H412 + ∑ c H413 ≥ 25 %

Method 2

When a waste contains a substance classified as ozone depleting and is assigned the

hazard statement code H420 and such an individual substance equals or exceeds the

concentration limit of 0.1%, the waste shall be classified as hazardous by HP 14.

When a waste contains one or more substances, at or above the cut-off value, that are

classified as Short term (acute) Aquatic hazard and are assigned to the hazard statement

code H400 and the sum of the concentrations of all substances multiplied by their

respective multiplying factors (M-factors) equals or exceeds the concentration limit of 25%,

the waste shall be classified as hazardous by HP 14.

When a waste contains one or more substances, above the cut-off value, that are classified

as Long term Aquatic hazard Chronic 1 or 2 and are assigned to the hazard statement

codes H410 or H411 and the sum of the concentrations of all substances classified Long

term Aquatic hazard Chronic 1 (H410) multiplied by 10, multiplied by their respective

multiplying factors M, added to the sum of the concentrations of all substances classified

Long term Aquatic hazard Chronic 2 (H411), equals or exceeds the concentration limit of

25%, the waste shall be classified as hazardous by HP 14.

Short version:

c (H420) ≥ 0.1%

∑ (c H400 × M) ≥ 25 %


∑ (M × 10 × c H410) + ∑ c H411 ≥ 25%

The cut-off value for consideration in an assessment for Aquatic Acute 1 and Aquatic

Chronic 1 is 0.1/M %; and for Aquatic Chronic 2 is 1%.

The M-factors will be determined as follows:

For substances for which M-factors have been established in Table 3.1, Annex VI of the

CLP Regulation, those multiplying factors shall apply.

For substances for which no M-factors have been established in Annex VI, a multiplying

factor M = 1 shall apply.

Method 3

c (H420) ≥ 0.1%

Hazard Class and Category

Code(s)

Hazard statement

Code(s)

Concentration

limit

Sum of Aquatic Chronic 1

Sum of Aquatic chronic 2



H410

H411

H412

H413

0.1%

2.5%

25%

25%

Method 4

c (H420) ≥ 0.1%

Hazard Class and Category

Code(s)

Hazard statement

Code(s)

Concentration

limit

Sum of Aquatic Chronic 1


H410

H411

2.5/M%

25%

The M-factors will be determined as follows:

For substances for which M-factors have been established in Table 3.1, Annex VI CLP,

those multiplying factors shall apply.

For substances for which no M-factors have been established in CLP, a multiplying factor

M = 1 shall apply.


Table 55: Mirror pairs selected in the study (in bold: priority)

Chapter Subchapter Mirror pair Description

03 Wastes from wood processing and the

production of panels and furniture, pulp, paper

and cardboard

03 01 wastes from wood processing and

the production of panels and furniture

03 01 04* 03 01 05 sawdust, shavings,

cuttings, wood, particle

board and veneer

06 Wastes from inorganic chemical processes 06 05 sludges from on-site effluent

treatment 06 05 02* 06 05 03

sludges from on-site

effluent treatment


07 01 wastes from the manufacture,

formulation, supply and use (MFSU) of

basic organic chemicals

07 01 11* 07 01 12

sludge from on-site effluent

treatment

08 Wastes from the manufacture, formulation,

supply and use (MFSU) of coatings (paints,

varnishes and vitreous enamels), sealants and

printing inks

08 01 wastes from MFSU and removal of

paint and varnish 08 01 13* 08 01 14

sludges from paint or

varnish


10 01 wastes from power stations and

other combustion plants (except 19)

10 01 14* 10 01 15

Bottom ash, slag and

boiler dust from co-

incineration


10 02 wastes from the iron and steel

industry

10 02 07* 10 02 08 solid wastes from gas

treatment

10 02 13* 10 02 14 sludges and filter cakes

from gas treatment



10 03 wastes from aluminium thermal

metallurgy 10 03 19* 10 03 20

flue-gas dust

11 Wastes from chemical surface treatment and

coating of metals and other materials; non-ferrous

hydro-metallurgy

11 01 wastes from chemical surface

treatment and coating of metals and other

materials

11 01 09* 11 01 10

sludges and filter cakes

12 Wastes from shaping and physical and

mechanical surface treatment of metals and

plastics

12 01 wastes from shaping and physical

and mechanical surface treatment of

metals and

plastics

12 01 14* 12 01 15

machining sludges

15 Waste packaging; absorbents, wiping cloths,

filter materials and protective clothing not

otherwise specified

15 01 packaging (including separately

collected municipal packaging waste) 15 01 10* 15 01 01

15 01 02

paper and cardboard

packaging, plastic

packaging

17 Construction and demolition wastes (including

excavated soil from contaminated sites)

17 03 bituminous mixtures, coal tar and

tarred products 17 03 01* 17 03 02

bituminous mixtures

17 05 soil (including excavated soil from

contaminated sites), stones and dredging

spoil

17 05 03* 17 05 04 soil and stones

17 05 05* 17 05 06 dredging spoil

17 06 insulation materials and asbestos-

containing construction materials 17 06 03* 17 06 04

insulation materials not

containing asbestos




19 Wastes from waste management facilities, off-

site waste water treatment plants and the

preparation of water intended for human

consumption and water for industrial use

19 01 wastes from incineration or pyrolysis

of waste 19 01 13* 19 01 14

fly ash

19 08 wastes from waste water treatment

plants not otherwise specified

19 08 11* 19 08 12

sludges from biological

treatment of industrial

waste water

19 08 13* 19 08 14

sludges from other

treatment of industrial

waste water

19 10 wastes from shredding of metal-

containing wastes 19 10 03* 19 10 04

fluff-light fraction and

dust

19 12 wastes from the mechanical

treatment of waste (for example sorting,

crushing, compacting, pelletising) not

otherwise specified

19 12 11* 19 12 12

other wastes (including

mixtures of materials)

from mechanical

treatment of waste


Annex 5.Application of the calculation methods

See attached Excel file.


Annex 6. Study from the French

Ministry of Ecology

See attached PDF file.

Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee (“DTTL”), its

network of member firms, and their related entities. DTTL and each of its member firms are legally separate and independent

entities. DTTL (also referred to as “Deloitte Global”) does not provide services to clients. Please see www.deloitte.com/about for

a more detailed description of DTTL and its member firms.

© 2014 Deloitte SA. Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited

study to assess the impacts of different classification...

Documents