Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14" on selected waste streams Final report

Transcription

1 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14" on selected waste streams Final report October 2015

2 Document information 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. 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 mplanchon@bio.deloitte.fr 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". Prepared for the European Commission (DG ENV), in collaboration with INERIS. 2 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

3 Table of contents ABSTRACT 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Background Objectives METHODOLOGY Collecting data on how a sample of Member States perform the assessment of HP Selection of countries and data collection by survey Data collection by desk study Reporting data in factsheets Selecting mirror pairs for the assessment Selection process Selection criteria Global score and selection of mirror pairs Taking into account the Commission and Member States inputs Collecting experimental data on selected waste codes Running the calculation methods Reporting collected data Worst-case selection Calculation tool Impact assessment Scope of the impact assessment Assessment steps Workshops and conferences RESULTS: STRATEGIES OF SELECTED MEMBER STATES TO ASSESS HP Member States survey Full country factsheets Description of the approaches General information Approaches using chemical analysis Approaches using biotests Combined approaches Costs associated with implementing HP 14 approaches Advantages and limits of the approaches Approaches based on chemical analysis 60 3 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

4 Approaches based on biotests Combined approaches RESULTS: SELECTION OF WASTE CODES FOR THE ASSESSMENT Scores obtained for the selection criteria SC1: Preference of experts SC2: Availability and quality of data SC3: Quantity of produced waste SC4: Economic importance SC5: Potential presence of hazardous substances SC6: Criticality of waste classification Selected waste codes CALCULATION METHODS: RESULTS AND COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT Presentation of the calculation methods Introduction to the calculation methods Theoretical consideration of the four calculation methods Comparison of concentration limit values of the four calculation methods, M-factor and generic cut-off values consideration Data collected on the selected waste codes Overview Chemical analyses Biotests Determination of the classification of waste types according to the different methodologies proposed Classification of wastes types according to the calculation methods Classification of wastes types based on ecotoxicological data Limitations Limitations due to characterisation data available Limitations of calculation methods Limitations related to ecotoxicological data available Comparative assessment of the different methodologies Comparison of the four calculation methods Comparison between calculation methods and ecotoxicological data Feasability of the different methods Conclusion and potential orientations for a combined approach IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE CHANGE OF CLASSIFICATION Principles Indicators for the baseline scenario and the impact assessment Current situation and trends Soil and stones waste ( */ ) Incinerator bottom ash ( */ ) Fly ash from incinerators ( * / ) Fluff-light fraction and dust from shredding of metal-containing waste ( */ ) Other types of waste Potential impacts of a change of classification Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

5 Overview Soil and stones waste ( */ ) Incinerator bottom ash ( */ ) Fly ash from incinerators ( * / ) Fluff-light fraction and dust from shredding of metal-containing waste ( */ ) Conclusion CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Lack of harmonisation of current approaches for assessing HP Conclusion on the most relevant calculation method for the assessment of HP14: Method 1 seems to be the most relevant for waste classification Recommendations on next steps 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 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

6 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) Table 2: Example of publications in the waste classification topic of selected Member States (non-exhaustive) Table 3: Template for the country factsheets Table 4: Attribution of weights according to biases in data on quantity Table 5: Score per Member State and weighted average score for SC3 - waste code Table 6: Example of input in the calculation tool (Ref: sample 1, pair */ ) Table 7: National legislation or guidelines for the H14 assessment methods and protocols Table 8: Generic concentration limits for individual ecotoxic substances, according to their classification (DPD-based approaches) Table 9: Concentration thresholds for ecotoxic substances, according to their classification ((DPD-based approaches) Table 10: Conditions rendering the waste hazardous by HP 14 during Step 4, per Member State adapting the DPD for HP 14 assessment Table 11: Hazard classes considered in the Italian HP 14 assessment Table 12: Hydrocarbon fractions to be considered as substances in the assessment of HP Table 13: Concentration thresholds for ecotoxic substances, according to their classification (ADR-based approach) Table 14: Conditions rendering the waste hazardous by HP 14 in Italy Table 15: French additivity rules Table 16: Standards for preparing waste samples Table 17: Batteries of tests used in Member States using biotests to assess HP Table 18: Tests on Daphnia magna, as used in Member States relying on biotests for the assessment of HP Table 19: Comparison between France and Germany regarding calculation methods Table 20: Batteries of tests used in Germany and Italy Table 21: Most produced waste types in the studied Member States Table 22: Preliminary selected mirror pairs Table 23: Wastes suggested by Member States and the corresponding mirror pairs Table 24: Pre-selected pairs which are in the original list of the Commission, and different from the 14 pairs selected earlier Table 25: Final selection of Member States-suggested waste streams Table 26: Final list of selected codes Table 27: Hazard classes and statements considered for HP 14 assessment Table 28: Comparison of the different concentration limit values (assuming all M-factors are equal to 1) Table 29: Amount of data collected per mirror pair Table 30: Biotests used to assess ecotoxicological hazard in the collected samples Table 31: Harmonised approach for hazard assessment with biotests Table 32: Concordance of results with current classifications Table 33: False positives defined by taking the baseline classification as a reference, i.e. nonhazardous according to the baseline, assessed as hazardous by the calculation method 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 Table 35: Concordance of results with biotests results 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 Table 38: Costs per sample ( ) for assessing HP 14 with the proposed methods on some mirror pairs Table 39: The studied mirror pairs, classified by nature and by source Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

7 Table 40: Hazard of */ waste streams Table 41: Costs of managing soil & stones waste in a few Member States Table 42: Hazard of * / waste streams 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 * / waste streams Table 45: Hazard of */ waste streams Table 46: Shifts of classification caused by the four calculation methods Table 47: */ Shifts of classification caused by the four calculation methods Table 48: */ Status quo and impacts of the four calculation methods Table 49: */ Shifts of classification caused by the four calculation methods Table 50: */ Impacts of the four calculation methods Table 51: * / Shifts of classification caused by the four calculation methods Table 52: * / Impacts of the four calculation methods Table 53: */ Shifts of classification caused by the four calculation methods Table 54: Experts who contributed (in grey: Member States who did not contribute) Table 55: Mirror pairs selected in the study (in bold: priority) Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

8 List of Figures Figure 1 : the 4 calculation methods for HP 14 assessment which have been assessed in this study Figure 2: Waste quantities in Germany and attribution of scores Figure 3: Approaches for the assessment of HP 14 in the nine studied Member States Figure 4: Decision tree for the assessment of HP 14 using chemical analyses (based on the DPD) Figure 5: Decision tree for the assessment of HP 14 in Italy Figure 6: Ranges of costs in Member States for which the information is available Figure 7: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports results for SC Figure 8: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports results for SC 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) Figure 10: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports results for SC Figure 11: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports EC50 values of potentially ecotoxic substances Figure 12: EC50 of some of the most hazardous pesticides authorised in the EU Figure 13: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports results for SC Figure 14: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports results for SC Figure 15: Proposed calculation methods Figure 16: Source of samples with current classification available (a) per Member States; (b) per type of approach Figure 17: Fate of soil & stones waste in Germany in Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

9 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. 9 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

10 This page was left intentionally blank 10 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

11 Executive Summary Background The European List of Waste 1 (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 WFD 2, 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 CLP 3 and REACH 4 regulations. The revised waste legislation, which entered into force on June 1 st , 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, 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. 11 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

12 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 DPD 6 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) 12 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

13 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 * sludges from on-site effluent treatment (inorganic chemical processes) * sludges from paint or varnish (manufacture, formulation, supply and use) * Bottom ash, slag and boiler dust from co-incineration wastes from power stations and other combustion plants (except 19) * flue-gas dust (from aluminium thermal metallurgy) * sludges and filter cakes (from chemical surface treatment and coating of metals and other materials) * machining sludges from shaping and physical and mechanical surface treatment of metals and plastics * paper and cardboard packaging, plastic packaging (including separately collected municipal packaging waste) * soil and stones (construction and demolition waste, including excavated soil from contaminated sites) * dredging spoil (construction and demolition waste) * bottom ash and slag (from incineration or pyrolysis of waste) * fly ash (from incineration or pyrolysis of waste) * sludges from biological treatment of industrial waste water * sludges from other treatment of industrial waste water * fluff-light fraction and dust (from shredding of metal-containing waste) * 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 results 7, 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 13 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

14 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 cutoff 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 o Recovery schemes (includes percentages of waste recycled vs landfilled) Benefits of recovering the waste 14 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

15 o Pollution due to contaminated fractions of the waste Economic aspects o Costs of disposal o Costs of recycling Social aspects o o Employment Public Health For data availability reasons, the full impact assessment could only be performed on four mirror pairs: Soil and stones waste ( */ ) Incinerator bottom ash ( */ ) Fly ash from incinerators ( * / ) Fluff-light fraction and dust from shredding of metal-containing waste ( */ ) The impacts are qualitatively summarised below (lack of data prevented conclusions on fluff-light fraction and dust from shredding of metal-containing waste): Soil and stones waste ( */ ) Environmental Economic Social Status quo / / / Method Method Method Method Incinerator bottom ash ( */ ) Status quo - - / Method Method Method Method Fly ash from incinerators ( * / ) Status quo + NA / Method 1 + NA / Method NA Method 3 + NA / Method 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. 15 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

16 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. 16 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

17 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 Déchets 9 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 CLP 10 et REACH 11. 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 législation 12, 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 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, 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 17 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

18 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 DPD 13 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) 18 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

19 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 * boues provenant du traitement in situ des effluents (procédés de la chimie minérale ) * boues provenant de peintures ou vernis (fabrication, formulation, distribution et utilisation) * mâchefers, scories et cendres sous chaudière provenant de la co-incinération (déchets provenant de centrales électriques et autres installations de combustion (sauf chapitre 19)) * poussières de filtration des fumées (pyrométallurgie de l'aluminium) * boues et gâteaux de filtration (du traitement chimique de surface et du revêtement des métaux et autres matériaux) * boues d'usinage de la mise en forme et du traitement physique et mécanique de surface des métaux et matières plastiques * emballages en papier/carton et emballages en matière plastique (y compris les déchets d'emballages municipaux collectés séparément) * terres et cailloux (déchets de construction et de démolition, y compris déblais provenant de sites contaminés) * boues de dragage (déchets de construction et de démolition, construction and demolition waste) * mâchefers (provenant des installations de gestion des déchets) * cendres volantes (provenant des installations de gestion des déchets) * boues provenant du traitement biologique des eaux usées industrielles * boues provenant d'autres traitements des eaux usées industrielles * fraction légère des résidus de broyage et poussières (provenant du broyage de déchets contenant des métaux * 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 19 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

20 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 o o systèmes de récupération des déchets (y compris les pourcentages de déchets recyclés vs enfouis) les avantages de la récupération des déchets la pollution due à des fractions des déchets contaminés Les aspects économiques 20 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

21 o o Les coûts d'élimination des déchets Les coûts du recyclage Les aspects sociaux o o Emploi 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 ( * / ) mâchefers ( * / ) cendres volantes provenant d'incinérateurs ( * / ) fraction légère et poussière provenant du broyage de déchets contenant des métaux ( * / ) 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): Pierres et cailloux ( */ ) Environmental Economique Social Status quo / / / Méthode Méthode Méthode Méthode Mâchefers ( */ ) Status quo - - / Méthode Méthode Méthode Méthode Cendres volantes ( * / ) Status quo + NA / Méthode 1 + NA / Méthode NA Méthode 3 + NA / Méthode 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 21 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

22 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. 22 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

23 1. Introduction 1.1. Background In the EU, classification of waste is based on two regulatory texts: Decision 2014/955/EU 14, repealing Decision 2000/532/EC 15 from 1 June 2015 and establishing the List of Waste (LoW); and Regulation 1357/ , repealing Annex III to Directive 2008/98/EC 17 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 nonhazardous 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/EEC 18 (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, /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), 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, 17 Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste, 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, 23 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

24 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/ on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP) and Regulation 1907/ 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 regulation 21. 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 WFD 22, 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/ 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, 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, 21 J. Römbke, R. Ketelhut& J. Wuttke (2013) Scientific Position Paper: For the European Commission Ecotoxicological Classification of Wastes (Criterion HP 14) Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

25 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 , 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 classification 24, 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 Properties 25. 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 June Working Group For The Amendment Of The European Waste List, Summary Record Of The Meeting Held On November Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

26 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 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. 26 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

27 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 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 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) Waste produced (t) Waste produced (t) Member State Member State in 2012 in 2012 Germany Czech Republic France Estonia United Kingdom Ireland Romania Hungary Poland Denmark Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

28 Waste produced (t) Waste produced (t) Member State Member State in 2012 in 2012 Italy Portugal Bulgaria Slovakia Sweden Luxembourg Netherlands Lithuania Spain Slovenia Finland Croatia Greece Latvia Belgium Cyprus Austria Malta Table 2: Example of publications in the waste classification topic of selected Member States (non-exhaustive) Member State UK Example of publication 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 France Kati Vaajasaari (2005) Leaching and Biotests as Methods for Classification and Assessment of Environmental Hazard of Solid Wastes. Tempere University of Technology 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 Pandard P et al. (2006) Selecting a Battery of Biotests for Ecotoxicological Characterization of Wastes. Science of the Total Environment 363: Germany J. Römbke et al. (2009) Ecotoxicological characterisation of 12 incineration ashes using 6 laboratory tests; Waste Management 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) 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 Czech Republic Participation in the Working Group for the amendment of the European Waste List Vasahlova et al. (2012) The proposal for changes in evaluation of ecotoxicity of wastes in the Czech legislation 28 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

29 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 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) 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 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). 29 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

30 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 Guidelines Name of national regulations, decree, etc. 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 Hazardous waste with highest tonnage Chapter of List of waste with the highest share of hazardous waste Name or code of waste + tonnage + share (%) Name or code of waste + tonnage+ share (%) 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) 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 Protocol used Leaching/extraction test used Aquatic tests Test organism Endpoint Test method Test duration Expression of results Threshold value 30 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

31 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) Advantages Qualitative assessment of the method(s) 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 References Additional information Name of experts (if agree) Name of documents used to elaborate the factsheet Links to websites to have additional information, stakeholders websites, etc. The full factsheets containing all information collected for each country are reported in Annex 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 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 31 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

32 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 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 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 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 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 ( ) 04 02, 06 05, 07 01, 07 02, 07 03, 07 05, 07 06, 08 01, 10 03, 10 08, 11 01, 12 01, Keywords Sawdust + ecotoxic + waste Sludge + ecotoxic + waste Metallic oxides + ecotoxic + waste Ink + ecotoxic + waste Adhesive + ecotoxic + waste 32 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

33 Subchapter , , 10 10, , , 10 12, Keywords 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. The scoring system is as follows: Number of publications Score Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

34 Quantity of waste (tons) 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. 1,0E+09 1,0E+08 1,0E+07 Score: 3 1,0E+06 1,0E+05 Score: 2 1,0E+04 1,0E+03 Score: 1 1,0E+02 1,0E+01 1,0E+00 Waste codes ranked from the highest to the lowest tonnage 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: division 26 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 nonhazardous 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. 34 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

35 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 nonhazardous 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 nonhazardous 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 Data from selected companies Data from a specific region of the Member State Weight 1 if the selection is representative 0.5 if not 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 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 Country FR DE UK ES IT PL FI BE AT Weight Score for SC3 Score n/a 2 n/a n/a 2 3 n/a 2 n/a 2,07 35 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

36 SC4: Economic importance The economic importance was evaluated by the volumes of transboundary shipments and by the inputs of the Competent Authorities 27 estimating economic importance according to a set of criteria (high generated volumes, percentage of waste-to-energy recovery, percentage of waste-to-material recovery). The scoring system is as follows: Data Identified as one of the most exported OR Identified by Italy AND Finland Score 3 Identified by Italy or Finland only 2 Belongs to one of the main categories of waste which are shipped No data available 1 n/a 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 ( or the USEPA ECOTOX portal ( 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 bees 29 ) of the PAN International List of Highly Hazardous Pesticides - June 2014 ( Step 2: Selecting only pesticides authorised in the EU ( 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). The scoring system is as follows: 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 36 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

37 Order of magnitude of EC50 of substances Score 10-4 / 10-3 (e.g. metals, pesticides) / 10-1 (e.g. tars) 2 1 or more 1 No data available n/a SC6: Criticality of waste classification This was evaluated according to: a VITO study 30 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. The scoring system is as follows: Change of classification Score No 0 Maybe 1.5 Yes 3 No data available n/a 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 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 SC Impact of the new List of Waste on the Flemish waste policy 37 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

38 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: Global score (waste code) min (Global score) Normalised global score = 3. ( ) 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 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 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 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 o o Nature of each component; Hazard statement codes according to CLP of each component (ex: H420, H400, H410, H411, H412, H413, etc.); Exact concentration and M-factor of each component classified H420 or H400, H410, H411, H412, H413; Results of ecotoxicity tests: 38 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

39 o o o Test strategy (number of tests, prioritisation, etc.); Way of expressing results (ECx, LID, etc.); 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 ; Preparation of waste eluates (including ph adjustment if performed); Storage of waste eluates ; Organism [e.g. Daphnia magna]; Time of conservation before performing test; Preparation of waste eluates (including ph adjustment if appropriate); Storage of waste eluates (including time and conditions); Test method; Control/dilution medium Running the calculation methods 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, 39 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

40 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 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 of Annex VI of the CLP regulation 31, 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 compounds 32. The tool was published as a French standard: AFNOR FD X 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 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 A) - Tool still under development 40 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

41 Table 6: Example of input in the calculation tool (Ref: sample 1, pair */ ) Compound Element/ Specific Compoun ds (dropdown list) Concentration (mg/kg) Compound worst case Number of element in worst case (e.g. dicopper oxide = 2) (default value = 1) CAS MM element (g/mol) MM compound (g/mol) Concentration (% w/w) Worst case classification H420 H400 H410 H411 H412 H413 M factor (acute) M factor (chronic) As 11 arsenic acid and its salts with the exception of those specified elsewhere in this Annex % Pb lead compounds with the exception of those specified 21 elsewhere in this Annex % Cd cadmium oxide (nonpyrophoric) % Cr 11 chromium (VI) trioxide % Cu dicopper oxide 114 copper (I) oxide % Ni 190 nickel sulfate % Hg 0.09 mercury % Zn 1000 zinc oxide % _Benzene 0.01 Benzene #N/A % Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

42 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 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) 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. 42 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

43 Indicators The aspects of interest for the impact assessment are described by the following indicators: Environmental aspects: o o o Recovery schemes (includes percentages of waste recycled vs landfilled) Benefits of recovering the waste Pollution due to contaminated fractions of the waste Economic aspects o o Costs of disposal Costs of recycling Social aspects o Employment o Public Health 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: Eurostat 33, the ADEME website 34, the Defra 35 and WRAP 36 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 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) 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 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

44 For each pair: Proportion of change from hazardous to non hazardous due to Method i = Number (H NH) M i Number (H) Currently Proportion of change from non hazardous to hazardous due to Method i = Number (NH H) M i 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 Workshops and conferences Interim results were presented in a workshop organised by the European Commission in April 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. 44 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

45 3. Results: strategies of selected Member States to assess HP 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 (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 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 Description of the approaches 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 guidelines 37. 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) 45 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

46 Member State Legal instrument Guidelines Czech Republic Finland France 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) Dahlbo, H 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 (In Finnish) 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 A, 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) 46 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

47 Member State Legal instrument Guidelines 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. 47 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

48 Type of approach Biotests Chemical analysis Combined Not included in the sample 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 focuses on the analysis of combined approaches 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 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 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

49 Hazardous by HP 14 Not hazardous by HP 14 Step 1 Does the waste contain ecotoxic substances assigned R50 to R53, R50-53, R51-53 or R52-53? No Step 2 Yes Step 2 Yes No Does the waste contain ecotoxic substances at a concentration at or above the generic concentration limits? Yes Does the waste contain ecotoxic substances at a concentration at or above the substance specific threshold limits? No Step 3 No Does the waste contain two or more ecotoxic substances above the concentration thresholds? No Step 4 Yes Yes Is the waste ecotoxic according to additivity rules applied in the Member State? No Italics In dashes and italics: a UK-specific step. In green: Concentrations and equations detailed below the diagram. 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). 49 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

50 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 R R R R52 25 R53 25 R 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) Classification of the substance (DSD) Concentration, thresholds (w/w %) R R R R R52 1 R53 1 R 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). 50 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

51 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 ( P R P R P R ) 1 Or (P R50 +P R50-53 ) 25 Or P R52 25 Or (P R53 +P R P R P R52-53 ) 25 Belgium (P R50-53 ) 2.5 Or (P R51-53 ) 25 Or (P R50 ) 25 Or (P R59 ) 0.1 Germany 39 (P R50-53 ) 0.25 Or (P R51-53 ) 2.5 Or (P R52-53 ) 25 Or (P R59 ) 0.1 Where P RX 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 As implemented in Baden-Württemberg. Other Länder may have different methods. 51 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

52 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). 52 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

53 Hazardous by HP 14 Not hazardous by HP 14 Step 1 Does the waste contain ecotoxic substances assigned R50 (H400), R50-53 (H410), or R51-53 (H411)? No Step 2 Yes Does the waste contain two or more ecotoxic substances above the concentration thresholds? No Step 3 Yes Yes Is the waste ecotoxic according to additivity rule 1 regarding R50 (H400)? Step 4 No Yes Is the waste ecotoxic according to additivity rule 2 regarding R50-53 (H410)? Step 5 No Yes Is the waste ecotoxic according to the additivity rule 3 regarding R50-53 (H410) and R52-53 (H411)? No In green: Concentrations and equations detailed below the diagram 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 Chronic 2 R51-53 H411 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. 53 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

54 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) Classification of the substance (DSD) Classification of the substance (CLP) Concentration, thresholds (w/w %) R50 H R50-53 H 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 (P R50 M) 25 or (P H400 M) 25 Additivity rule 2 (P R50-53 M) 25 or (P H410 M) 25 Additivity rule 3 (P R M+ P R ) 25 or (P H410 10M+ P H411 +) 25 Where P X is the total concentration of substances classified as X, expressed in w/w %. The Italian calculation methods include M-factors. 54 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

55 Approach based on the CLP regulation The French approach is based on a proposal that was formulated to the TAC in 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. (P H400 M) 25 Table 15: French additivity rules (P H410 10M+ P H411 +) 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 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 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 water extracts Germany EN 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) See France DIN water extracts Leaching of solid materials - Percolation method for the joint examination of the leaching behaviour of inorganic and organic substances Spain EN water extracts See France 55 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

56 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 ISO 6341 None Sinapis alba Czech guidelines Desmodesmus subspicatus ISO 8692 Poecilia reticulata ISO France (initial strategy) 40 Daphnia magna (acute) Vibrio fischeri ISO 6341 ISO E. fetida (acute) Lactuca sativa ISO ISO Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata NF EN ISO 8692 Ceriodaphnia dubia NF ISO Brachionus calyciflorus NF ISO France (hybrid strategy combining initial strategy and German strategy) Daphnia magna (acute) Vibrio fischeri Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata ISO 6341 ISO NF EN ISO 8692 E. fetida (avoidance) Avena sativa / Brassica rapa Arthrobacter globiformis ISO ISO ISO/DIS Spain Vibrio fischeri OR 41 ISO None Daphnia magna ISO 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. 56 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

57 Aquatic tests Terrestrial tests Member State Organism Standard Organism Standard Germany Daphnia magna (acute) Daphnia magna (chronic) Vibrio fischeri Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata / Desmodesmus subspicatus Lemna minor ISO 6341 ISO ISO /2/3 NF EN ISO 8692 ISO First version E. fetida (chronic) Brassica rapa Arthrobacter globiformis Second version E. fetida (chronic) Brassica rapa Arthrobacter globiformis ISO ISO ISO/DIS ISO ISO ISO/DIS Folsomia candida (chronic) ISO 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 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 10% (v/v) 24h or 48h Spain 750 mg/l 43 Germany ISO 6341 EC50 10% (v/v) Czech Republic 48h 10mL/L 43 (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 57 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

58 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 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 (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 (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 Germany 39 (P H400 M) 25 (P H410 10M+ P H411 +) 25 (P R50-53 ) 0.25 Or (P R51-53 ) 2.5 Or (P R52-53 ) 25 Or (P R59 ) 0.1 Where P RX 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 Aquatic tests Terrestrial tests Member State Organism Standard Organism Standard France (initial strategy) 44 Daphnia magna (acute) Vibrio fischeri ISO 6341 ISO E. fetida (acute) Lactuca sativa ISO ISO Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata NF EN ISO 8692 Ceriodaphnia dubia NF ISO Brachionus calyciflorus NF ISO According to the FNADE guidance, which is not regulatory-sanctioned 58 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

59 Aquatic tests Terrestrial tests Member State Organism Standard Organism Standard France (hybrid strategy combining initial strategy and German strategy) Daphnia magna (acute) Vibrio fischeri Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata ISO 6341 ISO NF EN ISO 8692 E. fetida (avoidance) Avena sativa / Brassica rapa Arthrobacter globiformis ISO ISO ISO/DIS Germany Daphnia magna (acute) Daphnia magna (chronic) Vibrio fischeri Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata / Desmodesmus subspicatus Lemna minor ISO 6341 ISO ISO /2/3 NF EN ISO 8692 ISO First version E. fetida (chronic) Brassica rapa Arthrobacter globiformis Second version E. fetida (chronic) Brassica rapa Arthrobacter globiformis ISO ISO ISO/DIS ISO ISO ISO/DIS Folsomia candida (chronic) ISO 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 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

60 Range of costs ( ) Biotests ,000 1,000 3,000 3,000 5,000 Range of costs ( ) Chemical analyses ,000 1,000 3,000 3,000 5,000 Not included in the sample, or no information 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 X 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) Advantages and limits of the approaches 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 60 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

61 the organic share of waste (as organic substances are not identified), thus underestimating the share of potentially ecotoxic organic components. Additionally, the application of worstcase 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 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 purposes 45, 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 There is a number of reasons legitimating the use of terrestrial tests 42, 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 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 EU 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 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

62 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 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. 62 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

63 4. Results: selection of waste codes for the assessment 4.1. Scores obtained for the selection criteria 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. Waste code Waste description Number of experts who expressed their preference Member State(s) Score * soil and stones containing hazardous substances 6 AT, UK, IT, DE, ES, BE soil and stones other than those mentioned in AT, UK, IT, DE, ES, BE 3 mixtures of, or separate fractions of * concrete, bricks, tiles and ceramics containing hazardous substances 5 AT, FI, UK, DE, BE 2 mixtures of concrete, bricks, tiles and ceramics other than those mentioned in AT, FI, UK, DE, BE * dredging spoil containing hazardous substances 4 AT, UK, DE, BE dredging spoil other than those mentioned in AT, UK, DE, BE * bottom ash and slag containing hazardous substances 4 FI, UK, IT, BE bottom ash and slag other than those mentioned in FI, UK, IT, BE * fly ash containing hazardous substances 4 FI, UK, IT, BE fly ash other than those mentioned in FI, UK, IT, BE 2 Figure 7: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports results for SC 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. 63 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

64 Waste code Waste description Results of ecotoxicological tests Protocols of sampling, preparation of samples, analyses and test Waste code Waste description Data Source Quality Data Source Quality * sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood, particle board and veneer containing hazardous substances sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood, particle board and veneer other than those mentioned in 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) [10] [3] [2] AVAILABLE IN [10] High quality: repeatability and AVAILABLE reproducibility IN [2] assessed under ISO standard [10] [2] water extract = according to CEN standards test = according to ISO and AFNOR standards all procedures according to ISO standards [12] ISO and ASTM procedure when possible; AVAILABLE otherwise IN [12] protocols tested in previous publications [12] leaching protocol established in the Spanish legislation (MOPU, 1989). Figure 8: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports results for SC 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. 64 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

65 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 soil and stones other than those mentioned in ,015,300 - UK * soil and stones containing hazardous substances 284,915 Only data for hazardous entries was reported Spain (Catalonia) mixtures of concrete, bricks, tiles and ceramics other than those mentioned in ,806 t Data for industrial waste only Data for a region and not the whole Member State Italy mixtures of concrete, bricks, tiles and ceramics other than those mentioned in ,346,782 t Extrapolation based on data not reported by waste code Poland sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood, particle board and veneer other than those mentioned in ,215,150 t Extrapolation based on data not reported by waste code Not recent data Finland sludges from on-site effluent treatment other than those mentioned in ,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. 65 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

66 Member State Reporting year LoW entry with highest tonnage Amount (t) Potential bias Belgium (Flanders) soil and stones other than those mentioned in ,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 soil and stones other than those mentioned in ,500,000 t - 66 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

67 The biases highlighted in Table 21 were taken into account when scoring: this is explained in section , Table 4. Figure 9 below shows an example of how information is reported in the Excel file: Waste code Waste description Quantity (t) or qualitative indication 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) SC4: Economic importance Tonnage in Finland Percentage of waste Source * sludges from on-site effluent treatment containing hazardous substances sludges from on-site effluent treatment other 104,80 0, than those mentioned in [34) * metallic oxides containing heavy metals metallic oxides other than those mentioned in * sludges from on-site effluent treatment 990,59 0, containing hazardous substances [34) sludges from on-site effluent treatment other 0, than those mentioned in ,60 [34) * sludges from on-site effluent treatment 0, containing hazardous substances 20,64 [34) sludges from on-site effluent treatment other 0, than those mentioned in ,30 [34) 2 Waste types identified as the most economically important with the methodology presented in section (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: Score Waste code Waste description Info Source Score * * * bottom ash and slag containing hazardous substances bottom ash and slag other than those mentioned in solid wastes from gas treatment containing hazardous substances soil and stones containing hazardous substances * fly ash containing hazardous substances * sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood, particle board and veneer containing hazardous substances Economically important in IT Q-IT 1 Economically important in IT Q-IT 1 Second most exported hazardous waste in the EU ( tonnes) [9] p.19 3 First most exported hazardous waste in the EU ( tonnes) Economically important [9] p.19 in IT Q-IT 3 Fifth most exported hazardous waste in the EU ( tonnes) Economically important in IT Figure 10: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports results for SC SC5: Potential presence of hazardous substances [9] p.19 Q-IT 3 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 n/a 67 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

68 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 ( and are reported in the sheet Hazard of various substances. 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 Figure 11: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports EC50 values of potentially ecotoxic substances 49 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 ). The results of the stepby-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 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 48 UK Environment Agency (2006) Appendix B of Hazardous Waste: Interpretation of the definition and classification of hazardous waste (2nd edition v2.1) 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 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

69 Chlorfluazuron Copper (II) hydroxide Cyhexatin Halfenprox Isopyrazam Lufenuron* Tri-allate Step 2: Selecting only pesticides authorised in the EU 51 (this is a simplification: waste can arise from uses in a time when a lot more pesticides were authorised): Amisulbrom Bromoxynil heptanoate Bromoxynil octanoate Chlorantraniliprole Copper (II) hydroxide Dimoxystrobin Etofenprox; Ethofenprox Isopyrazam Lufenuron Pirimicarb Pyridalyl Quinoxyfen Tri-allate 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). 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 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: Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

70 Waste code Waste description List of potentially hazardous substances Source Score * 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), oilborne preservatives; Lindane (γ-hch); quaternary ammonium compounds, Cu-azoles, fluorides [6] Q-AT * * * sludges from on-site effluent treatment containing hazardous substances metallic oxides containing heavy metals 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 nickel; copper; zinc; arsenic; cadmium; antimony; tellurium; mercury; thorium; lead; Sb, [6] Be or their compounds (e.g. As oxide) Q-AT 3 Heavy metals, Ni, Pb, Cu, Cd, Cr, Zn, etc., maybe CaO Q-AT 3 Figure 13: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports results for SC SC6: Criticality of waste classification The VITO study allowed to have information on the criticality of 11 waste codes. The Italian 52, Finnish 53 and Austrian 54 representatives gave inputs on 2, 4 and 64 waste codes respectively. Examples of information on criticality are shown in Figure 14 below. Waste code * * Figure 14: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports results for SC6 Waste description sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood, particle board and veneer containing hazardous substances sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood, particle board and veneer other than those mentioned in sludges from on-site effluent treatment containing hazardous substances sludges from on-site effluent treatment other than those mentioned in Countries performing calculation methods in which waste streams classified under one code Rationale of a mirror entry are Source Score likely to shift to being classified under the other code BE-Yes AT-Maybe 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 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): ( gypsum-based construction materials ). n/a [31] Q-AT 3 n/a Maybe Glutaraldehyde -H400 Naphthalene - H410Hydrocarbons - water pollutant Q-AT 1,5 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 70 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

71 These scores were attributed based on Member States experts opinions (see section ) Selected waste codes Mirror pairs selected implementing the process described in section 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 wastes from wood processing and the production of panels and furniture * sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood, particle board and veneer 07 Wastes from organic chemical processes wastes from the manufacture, formulation, supply and use (MFSU) of basic organic Chemicals * 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 wastes from MFSU and removal of paint and varnish * sludges from paint or varnish 10 Wastes from thermal processes wastes from power stations and other combustion plants (except 19) * Bottom ash, slag and boiler dust from co-incineration * fly ash from co-incineration wastes from the iron and steel industry * solid wastes from gas treatment * sludges and filter cakes from gas treatment 17 Construction and demolition wastes (including excavated soil from contaminated sites) bituminous mixtures, coal tar and tarred products * bituminous mixtures soil (including excavated soil from contaminated sites), stones and dredging spoil * soil and stones * 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 71 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

72 19 01 wastes from incineration or pyrolysis of waste * bottom ash and slag * fly ash wastes from waste water treatment plants not otherwise specified * sludges from biological treatment of industrial waste water * sludges from other treatment of industrial waste water Waste streams suggested by the Member States and their correspondence are presented in Table 23 below: 72 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

73 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.) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 on-site effluent treatment (organic chemical processes) sludges from on-site effluent treatment (organic chemical processes) sludges from on-site effluent treatment (organic chemical processes) sludges from on-site effluent treatment (organic chemical processes) sludges from on-site effluent treatment (organic chemical processes) 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) 73 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

74 Waste stream Mirror pair, identified by its hazardous entry Waste type Sewage sludge, non-hazardous industrial sludges, having hazardous mirror pairs, continued Wastes from gas cleaning (filter dusts from metal industries, where there are mirror pairs) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 (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) 74 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

75 Waste stream Mirror pair, 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) Wastes containing zinc oxide such as zinc ashes, zinc skimmings * * * * Mercury-containing batteries Batteries and accumulators (separately collected fractions) 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 * * * 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) 75 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

76 Waste stream Mirror pair, identified by its hazardous entry Waste type (Mineral) construction and demolition waste (heavy metals, PAH in bituminous wastes) filter cake from tank cleaning (paint, food, textile) and gas cleaning * * * * * * * * * * * * Gas cleaning, see above 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 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) 76 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

77 Waste stream Mirror pair, identified by its hazardous entry Waste type sludge (sewage, domestic, Cu, Co, food) See above, and additionally: Municipal: * Food: no mirror entry with sludge Sludges from physico/chemical treatment Refuse derived fuel No mirror entry Car shredder (fluff, light fraction) * fluff-light fraction and dust (from shredding of metal containing wastes) Soil and residues from soil cleaning * * * * * * soil and stones dredging spoil track ballast solid wastes from soil remediation sludges from soil remediation sludges from groundwater remediation fly ash (wood, sludge) * * fly ash from co-incineration fly ash (from incineration or pyrolysis of waste) waste blasting material * waste blasting material 77 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

78 Waste stream Mirror pair, 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 78 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

79 Waste stream Mirror pair, identified by its hazardous entry Solvent * * * * * * * * * * Waste type 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) * bottom ash and slag (from incineration or pyrolysis of waste) dredging spoil * dredging spoil wood * * * wood (from the mechanical treatment of waste) wood (separately collected fractions) sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood, particle board and veneer 79 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

80 Waste stream Mirror pair, 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 - 80 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

81 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, Waste type identified by its hazardous entry * 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 on-site effluent treatment (organic chemical processes) * sludges from on-site effluent treatment (organic chemical processes) * sludges from on-site effluent treatment (organic chemical processes) Gas cleaning, sludge or C&D waste? (x=yes) * ink sludges x * adhesive and sealant sludges x * wastes from gas cleaning (thermal processes) x * flue-gas dust (thermal processes, aluminium) x * sludges and filter cakes from gas treatment x (thermal processes, aluminium) * wastes from treatment of salt slags and black drosses * dross and skimmings (thermal processes, zinc) * flue-gas dust (non-ferrous thermal) x * sludges and filter cakes from flue-gas x treatment (non-ferrous thermal) * flue-gas dust (casting of non-ferrous pieces) x * sludges and filter cakes (chemical surface x treatement) * machining sludges x * waste blasting material * insulation materials (other than asbestos) x * gypsum-based construction materials x * fluff-light fraction and dust (from shredding of metal containing wastes) * 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 Mirror pair, identified by its Score of Score of nonhazardous hazardous entry hazardous entry entry * 0,97 1,19 x x x x x x Final selection * 1,35 1,30 X 81 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

82 Mirror pair, identified by its Score of Score of nonhazardous hazardous entry hazardous entry entry * 0,78 1, * 0,75 1, * 0,87 1, * 0,70 1, * 0,86 0, * 0,73 0, * 0,93 0,86 Final selection * 1,28 1,47 X * 0,74 1, * 0,85 0, * 0,92 1, * 0,78 0, * 1,36 1,21 X * 1,31 1,19 X * 1,31 1,25 X * 0,93 0,97 The 10 selected codes are completed with the following entries proposed by the Commission: The pair * / The pair * / The triplet * / / Therefore, the final list of selected codes is the following (45 codes): Table 26: Final list of selected codes 03 Wastes from wood processing and the production of panels and furniture, pulp, paper and cardboard wastes from wood processing and the production of panels and furniture * sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood, particle board and veneer 06 Wastes from inorganic chemical processes sludges from on-site effluent treatment * sludges from on-site effluent treatment 07 Wastes from organic chemical processes wastes from the manufacture, formulation, supply and use (MFSU) of basic organic Chemicals * 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 82 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

83 08 01 wastes from MFSU and removal of paint and varnish * sludges from paint or varnish 10 Wastes from thermal processes wastes from power stations and other combustion plants (except 19) * Bottom ash, slag and boiler dust from co-incineration * fly ash from co-incineration wastes from the iron and steel industry * solid wastes from gas treatment * sludges and filter cakes from gas treatment wastes from aluminium thermal metallurgy * flue-gas dust 11 Wastes from chemical surface treatment and coating of metals and other materials; non-ferrous hydro-metallurgy wastes from chemical surface treatment and coating of metals and other materials * sludges and filter cakes 12 Wastes from shaping and physical and mechanical surface treatment of metals and plastics wastes from shaping and physical and mechanical surface treatment of metals and Plastics * machining sludges 15 Waste packaging; absorbents, wiping cloths, filter materials and protective clothing not otherwise specified packaging (including separately collected municipal packaging waste) * paper and cardboard packaging, plastic packaging 17 Construction and demolition wastes (including excavated soil from contaminated sites) bituminous mixtures, coal tar and tarred products * bituminous mixtures soil (including excavated soil from contaminated sites), stones and dredging spoil * soil and stones * dredging spoil insulation materials and asbestos-containing construction materials * insulation materials not containing asbestos 83 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

84 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 wastes from incineration or pyrolysis of waste * bottom ash and slag * fly ash wastes from waste water treatment plants not otherwise specified * sludges from biological treatment of industrial waste water * sludges from other treatment of industrial waste water wastes from shredding of metal-containing wastes * fluff-light fraction and dust wastes from the mechanical treatment of waste (for example sorting, crushing, compacting, pelletising) not otherwise specified * 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 */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. 84 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

85 5. Calculation methods: results and comparative assessment 5.1. Presentation of the calculation methods 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 Chronic (long term) aquatic hazard Hazardous to the ozone layer Acute Category 1 Chronic Category 1 Chronic Category 2 Chronic Category 3 Chronic Category 4 Ozone Category 1 H400: Very toxic to aquatic life H410: Very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects H411: Toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects H412: Harmful to aquatic life with long lasting effects H413: May cause long lasting harmful effects to aquatic life H420: Harms public health and the environment by destroying ozone in the upper atmosphere 85 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

86 The four different calculation methods identified in the tender specifications are summarized in the following figure: Figure 15: Proposed calculation methods Theoretical consideration of the four calculation methods 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 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. 86 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

87 With this respect, this method is in line with the directive 2012/18/EU (SEVESO III) principles 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/ 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 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%. 87 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

88 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 Data collected on the selected waste codes 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 ( * / ), bottom ash and slag ( * / ), fly ash ( * / ) and fluff-light fraction and dust ( * / ): 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 88 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

89 probable waste code according to waste characteristic and origin (these sources are underlined in yellow in tables given in Annex 5) 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 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 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

90 Table 30: Biotests used to assess ecotoxicological hazard in the collected samples Aquatic tests Terrestrial tests Organism Standard Organism Standard Vibrio fischeri ISO Arthrobacter globiformis ISO/DIS Umu tes (Salmonella ISO Lactuca sativa / typhimurium 55 ) Brassica rapa ISO Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata / Desmodesmus ISO 8692 Sinapis alba ISO subspicatus Brachionus calyciflorus NF ISO E. fetida (acute) ISO Lemna minor ISO E. fetida (avoidance) ISO Daphnia magna (acute) ISO 6341 Daphnia magna (chronic) ISO Ceriodaphnia dubia NF ISO Poecilia reticulata ISO 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 Determination of the classification of waste types according to the different methodologies proposed 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 90 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

91 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: Test 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 Germany 47 ; 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 Inhibition of the mobility of Daphnia magna (Dap) Proposal of threshold values Duration Standard EC50 10% 48 h ISO 6341 Inhibition of the light emission of Vibrio fischeri (Luminescent bacteria test) (Vib) Fresh water algal growth inhibition test with unicellular green algae (Alg) Solid contact test using the dehydrogenase activity of Arthrobacter globiformis (Art) Effects on the emergence and early growth of higher plants (Avena sativa, Brassica napus) (Ave, Bra) Avoidance test with earthworms (Eisenia andrei/fetida) (Ear) EC50 10% 30 min ISO EC50 10% 72 h ISO 8692 EC50 10% 2 h ISO/DIS EC50 10% 14 d ISO EC50 10% 48 h ISO 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 Limitations 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. 91 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

92 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 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 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 92 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

93 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 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 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 Comparative assessment of the different methodologies 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. 93 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

94 Table 32: Concordance of results with current classifications Concordance for Method 1 Concordance for Method 2 Concordance for Method 3 Concordance for Method 4 Baseline available (number of sources) * / % 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 1/ * / % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 2/ * / / * / % 100.0% 50.0% 100.0% 4/ * / % 50.0% 100.0% 50.0% 2/ * / / % 33.3% 100.0% 33.3% 3/ * / % 61.5% 69.2% 69.2% 13/ * / % 23.3% 93.3% 23.3% 30/ * / % 32.3% 71.0% 32.3% 31/ * / / * / % 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 1/ * / % 81.8% 90.9% 81.8% 11/ * / /5 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 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) * / % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1/ * / % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2/ * / / * / % 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 4/ * / % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2/ * / / % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3/ * / % 0.0% 30.8% 0.0% 13/ * / % 0.0% 6.7% 0.0% 30/ * / % 0.0% 29.0% 0.0% 31/ * / * / % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1/ * / % 0.0% 9.1% 9.1% 11/ * / /5 94 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

95 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 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) * / % 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 1/ * / % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2/ * / / * / % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4/ * / % 50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 2/ * / / % 66.6% 0.0% 66.6% 3/ * / % 38.5% 0.0% 30.8% 13/ * / % 76.7% 0.0% 76.7% 30/ * / % 67.7% 0.0% 67.7% 31/ * / * / % 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 1/ * / % 27.3% 0.0% 9.1% 11/ * / /5 As shown in these tables, no current classification was mentioned in the source of samples concerning the following mirror entries: flue-gas dust ( * / ), sludges containing dangerous substances from biological treatment of industrial waste water ( * / ) and other wastes (including mixtures of materials) from mechanical treatment of waste ( * / ). 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 ( * / ), bottom ash and slag ( * / ) and soil and stones ( * / ). Samples for which the current classification was available 56 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 DPDbased methods. As shown in section , 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 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

96 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 ( * / , * / , * / ) for which very few sample is available. For the mirror entry * / (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. 96 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

97 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) * / % 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 1/ * / % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 2/ * / / * / % 100.0% 50.0% 100.0% 4/ * / % 50.0% 100.0% 50.0% 2/ * / / / * / % 50.0% 100.0% 50.0% 2/ * / % 44.4% 44.4% 44.4% 27/ * / % 80.0% 20.0% 80.0% 5/ * / * / % 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 1/ * / % 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1/ * / % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1/5 97 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

98 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 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) * / % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1/ * / % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2/ * / / * / % 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 4/ * / % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2/ * / / * / % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3/ * / % 7.4% 40.7% 7.4% 27/ * / % 0.0% 80.0% 0.0% 5/ * / * / % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1/ * / % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1/ * / % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1/5 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 False negative for Method 1 False negative for Method 2 False negative for Method 3 False negative for Method 4 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 0/3 Biotests available (number of sources) * / % 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 1/ * / % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2/ * / / * / % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4/ * / % 50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 2/ * / / * / % 50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 3/ * / % 48.2% 14.8% 48.2% 27/ * / % 20.0% 0.0% 20.0% 5/ * / * / % 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 1/ * / % 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1/ * / % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1/5 0/3 98 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

99 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 */ ). Nevertheless, these correlations should be interpreted cautiously due to the limitations detailed above 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 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 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; 99 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

100 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 preparation 57 Chemical analysis Application of methods General 1,000-1,500 N/A * / > ,000 1,000-10, * / / > 300 >>200 N/A * / ,000 2,000 N/A * / * / N/A 250-2,500 N/A * / , 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. 100 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

101 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 values 59. The nonconsideration 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 nonconsideration 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. 101 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

102 This page was left intentionally blank 102 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

103 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 Source Nature Sludge Dust Ash Spoil, Soil & stones Packaging Other Inorganic chemical processes */ MFSU removal paint varnish and of and */ Thermal processes */ Chemical surface treatment of materials Shaping, physical and mechanical treatment of materials */ */ Construction and demolition */ */ Incineration or pyrolysis of waste */ */ */ */ */ Other */ / */ Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

104 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: */ , */ , */ and */ ; Estimating the likely value of those indicators linked to the implementation of either one of the four methods, i.e. assessing the environmental and socioeconomic 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 Indicators for the baseline scenario and the impact assessment The aspects of interest are described by the following indicators (see also section ): Environmental aspects: o o o Recovery schemes (includes percentages of waste recycled vs landfilled) Benefits of recovering the waste (including saving of raw materials) Pollution due to contaminated fractions of the waste (in case of improper management) Economic aspects o o Costs of disposal Costs of recycling (for hazardous and non-hazardous waste, and including revenues for recyclers) Social aspects o o Employment 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). 104 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

105 Note on the quantities of waste reported for the studied waste streams: The next sections report the percentage of waste classified as hazardous and nonhazardous 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 Soil and stones waste ( */ ) 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) waste 60. 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 Germany 61. A large majority (97% when considering quantities reported in the Member States studied in this project) of excavated soil and stones streams are considered nonhazardous in their country of origin. The baseline classifications of the collected experimental samples for the mirror pair * / , 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 */ waste streams Source Hazard 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) 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 BIO by Deloitte (2015) Resource efficient use of mixed waste (to be published) 105 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"

106 are attaining full capacity in the EU and that the European strategy is to divert waste from landfills 62, 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 landfills 62, it could be questioned if the accumulation of excavated soil and rock at landfill due to covering purposes should be labelled as recovery 60. 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 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 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 al 60 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 site 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 m 3, 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, Diverting Waste from Landfill e Effectiveness of Waste-management Policies in the European Union. 63 Kreislaufwirtschaft Bau, 2012 Monitoring Report: 64 Hiete, M., Stengel, J., Ludwig, J., Schultmann, F., Matching construction and demolition waste supply to recycling demand: a regional management chain model. Build. Res. Inf. 39, 333 e Chittoori, B., Puppala, A.J., Reddy, R., Marshall, M., Sustainable reutilization of excavated trench material. GeoCongress 2012, 4280 e Eras, C.J.J., Gutierrez, A.S., Capote, D.H., Hens, L., Vandecasteele, C., Improving the environmental performance of an earthwork project using cleaner production strategies. J. Clean. Prod. 47, 368 e Kenley, R., Harfield, T., 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 Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14"