Options for an indicator on landfill of waste

Transcription

1 EUROPEAN COMMISSION EUROSTAT Directorate E: Sectoral and regional statistics Unit E-3: Environment and forestry Doc. WASTE WG 05(2012) Original in EN, available only in EN Point 5.3 of the agenda Options for an indicator on landfill of waste In-depth analysis of data on landfilling and other disposal operations Eurostat Unit E3 Environment and forestry Meeting of the Working Group "Statistics of the Environment" Sub-Group "Waste" Joint Eurostat/EFTA group Meeting of 29 and 30 March 2012 JMO Building M1

2 In-depth analysis of data on landfilling and other disposal operations and options for an indicator on landfill of waste Contents 1 Summary Objectives and scope of the analysis Overview on waste treatment in the EU Landfilling Composition of landfilled waste by waste categories Landfilling of non-mineral waste Landfilling of household and similar waste (HHSW) Discussion of indicator options Land treatment and release into water bodies Impact of WStatR Revision Annex

3 1 Summary Development of waste disposal Disposal operations excl. incineration (DSP) accounted in 2008 for billion tonnes or 49% of the treated waste in the EU billion tonnes or 47.3 % were landfilled (DSP_D). The amount disposed of otherwise (DSP_O) (by land treatment or release into water bodies) was much lower (37 million tonnes or 1.6% of the treated total) but might increase in future on account of the regrouping of disposal operations in the WStatR. 85.2% of the landfilled total are mineral wastes (EWC-Stat 12). A more detailed analysis and discussion of this waste stream will only be feasible once the revised waste categories of the WStatR take effect. The non-mineral part of the landfilled waste declined considerably by 32.4 million tonnes (16 %) from 204 million tonnes (2004) to 171 million tonnes (2008) due to lower amounts of household and similar waste (-19.4 million tonnes) and mixed and undifferentiated waste (-26,4 million tonnes). The decrease of household and similar waste seems reliable and is based on developments in several countries (e.g landfill ban for untreated municipal waste in Germany) whereas the strong decline of the mixed and undifferentiated waste may result to a significant extent from overestimations in 2004 on account of methodological deficits in the UK. Indicators on waste disposal / landfilling There are several good arguments to establish an indicator on landfilling: Such an indicator would allow to directly measuring success or failure of EU waste policies in diverting waste from landfills. The landfilling data are of reasonable quality (possible exception: storage of mining waste) and the impact of imports and exports are low so that the landfilled amount can directly be related to the waste generated in the country. The indicator should refer only to landfilling (DSP_D) and exclude other disposal operations (DSP_O) as the latter would rather limit the comparability and significance of the indicator. We propose to exclude mineral waste from such an indicator for the same reasons for which mineral waste is excluded from the indicator on waste generation. Two promising options were identified: - amount of non-mineral waste landfilled in kg/cap (preferred option) - amount of household and similar waste landfilled in kg/cap Pros and cons of the proposed indicators are discussed in chapter 5. Further proceeding: The non-mineral waste indicator shall be tested with the 2010 data set that is based on the revised WStatR. Depending on the outcome the decision on the indicator shall be taken. Impact of the WStatR revision The more detailed and harmonised breakdown by waste categories will improve the interpretability of the treatment data. Important improvements are in particular: - the more detailed data on the huge amount of mineral waste landfilled - the possibility to better relate data on generation and on treatment. The drawback of the revision is the possible impact on the time series for some categories: - Significant impacts on the time series are expected for the waste categories mixed and undifferentiated waste (10.2), sorting residues (10.3) and common sludges (11). - No or small effects on the time series are expected for the waste categories household and similar waste (10.1), chemical wastes (01-03) and animal and vegetal wastes (09). The regrouping of the treatment categories will lead to a shift of mineral wastes from landfilling to other disposal operations. The impact is expected to vary considerably across countries. 2

4 Cross-checks and correlations with other data The cross-check of data on the treatment of household and similar waste with municipal waste data seems a promising approach to improve the coherence and the quality of both data sets and the interpretation of the data. This cross-check should be established as a routine in the validation of the WStatR data. 2 Objectives and scope of the analysis The main objectives of the in-depth analysis are: - to improve the understanding and the interpretation of the data; - to identify methodological problems and quality deficits; - to develop proposals for meaningful indicators on waste disposal, - to carry out cross-checks with data from other sources, - to build a basis for publications, - to identify the expected impacts of the revised WStatR. The analysis refers to the treatment categories deposit into or onto land and land treatment and release into waste bodies. The disposal operations (D-codes) covered by these treatment categories, according to Annex II, section 8(2) are listed in Table 1. The description of the individual disposal operations is included in the Annex to this document. For better readability the treatment categories are referred to as landfilling and as other disposal operations. The definition of both treatment categories changes as of reference year 2010 when the revised WStatR comes into effect (see shaded codes in Table 1). The possible impacts of the WStatR revision will be described in more detail in section 7 Table 1: Treatment categories according to Annex II, section 8(2), WStatR Item Treatment category D-codes covered * Eurobase label (code) Wording in the text as of Deposit into or onto land (DSP_D) Landfilling D1, D3, D4, D5, D12 D1, D5, D12 5 Land treatment and release into water bodies (DSP_O) Other disposal operations D2, D6, D7 D2, D3, D4, D6, D7 * Changes of treatment categories due to WStatR revision are marked by grey shading 3 Overview on waste treatment in the EU-27 In 2008, a total amount of 2.39 billion tonnes of waste were treated in the EU-27. Fig. 1 shows the destination of the treated total grouped by the five treatment categories of the WStatR. Landfilling is the predominant treatment category with million tonnes or 47.3 % of the treated total. This treatment category covers landfilling in the meaning of the Landfill Directive (incl. underground landfills) together with disposal operations that are typically applied by extractive industries, like storage of waste-rocks and tailings on heaps (included in D1) or in ponds (included in D4). Other disposal operations, i.e. land treatment (D2) and release into waster bodies (D6, D7) account for 37 million tonnes or 1.6% of the treated total. Thus, disposal operations (excluding incineration) accounted together for billion tonnes or 49% of the treated waste in the EU-27. 3

5 Recovery other than energy recovery amounted in 2008 to million tonnes or 45.7% of the treated waste. 129 million tonnes or 5.4% of the treated waste were incinerated with or without energy recovery. Deposit onto or into land million t 47.3% Recovery (excl. energy recovery) million t 45.7% Land treatment / release into water bodies 37 million t 1.6% Incineration without energy recovery 48 million t 2.0% Energy recovery 82 million t 3.4% Fig. 1: Total waste treated in the EU-27 by treatment categories, 2008 The following chapter 4 will focus on the analysis of the landfilling of waste. The disposal by other disposal operation is described in chapter 5. 4 Landfilling 4.1 Composition of landfilled waste by waste categories Fig. 2 specifies the composition of the landfilled waste (DSP_D) by waste categories. The graph illustrates that the landfilled total is dominated by the category mineral wastes (EWC-Stat 12) which originates mainly from construction and demolition activities and from the mining and quarrying sector (extractive industries). In the whole EU-27, mineral wastes accounted in 2008 for 85% or 964 million tonnes of the total amount landfilled, of which 936 million tonnes were non-hazardous waste and 28 million tonnes were hazardous waste. 4

6 Chemical wastes (01-03) 0,8% Animal / vegetal wastes (09) 0,3% Mineral wastes (12) 85,2% Non-mineral wastes 15% Total waste landfilled 1.1 billion tonnes Household and similar wastes (10.1) 8,3% Mixed and undifferentiated wastes (10.2) 1,1% Sorting residues (10.3) 2,4% Common sludges (11) 0,5% Other non-hazardous wastes (DSP_OTH) 0,9% Hazardous waste (excl.12) 0,5% Fig. 2: Landfilled waste amounts in the EU-27 by waste category for 2008 (%) Other waste categories that are landfilled in significant amounts are: - household and similar waste (10.1): 94.3 million tonnes (8.3% of the treated total) - sorting residues (10.3): 27.0 million tonnes (2.4%) - mixed and undifferentiated wastes (10.2): 11.9 million tonnes (1.1%) All other waste categories fall below 1 % respectively of the treated total. NOTE: The category mineral wastes used in the context of waste treatment covers the whole EWC- Stat 12 section and is not identical with the category mineral wastes the in the context of waste generation, as complement to the indicator non-mineral waste. Different from the generation-related definition, the mineral wastes treated include combustion waste (12.4) and exclude dredging spoils (11.3). So far, it is not possible to build for waste treatment the same aggregate as for waste generation because the breakdown by waste categories for the treatment data is not detailed enough. This will change with the introduction of the revised waste categories as of reference year 2010 (see also section 7) 5

7 Mineral wastes (EWC-Stat 12) Non-mineral waste (all other categories) kg/cap BG LU EE FI RO SE GR MT UK FR ES CY IE AT LT PT HU SI DE SK PL TR HR IT NO CZ NL LV BE DK IS EU Fig. 3: Landfilling (DSP_D) of mineral and non-mineral waste by country, 2008 Fig. 3 shows the amounts of mineral and non-mineral waste landfilled for 2008 by country. The variation of mineral waste landfilled across countries is huge, ranging from 13 kg/cap in Latvia to more than kg/cap in Bulgaria. The reported amounts of mineral waste landfilled are largely consistent with the data on mineral waste generation. The six countries with the highest amounts of mineral waste landfilled are the same that report the highest waste generation for this waste category (although in a different order). In Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Romania and Sweden the reported amounts reflect mainly the high level of waste generation in the mining sector. In Luxembourg, the landfilled amount of 12.5 t/cap of mineral waste landfilled per inhabitant corresponds to the considerable amount of 17 t/cap of mineral waste generated in the construction sector. In the following sections the analysis will focus on the non-mineral part of the landfilled waste, mainly for the following reasons: - It is known from the analysis of the waste generation data that the high variation of the mineral waste amounts reported by Member States partly result from differences in data coverage which limits the comparability and reliability of the data. - An analysis of the mineral waste data is hampered by the aggregation level of the data; the possibilities of data analyses will improve with the more detailed data to be delivered as of reference year We suggest to have a deeper look into the data on mineral waste treatment once the data for 2010 are available and once the ongoing efforts for data harmonisation in the sectors mining / quarrying and construction / demolition are more advanced. 4.2 Landfilling of non-mineral waste Fig. 4 shows the development of the landfilled non-mineral waste in the EU-27 in recent years. The main observations in brief: The landfilling of non-mineral waste decreased considerably by 32.4 million tonnes (16 %) from 204 million tonnes (2004) to 171 million tonnes (2008). The decrease was strongest for non-hazardous mixed and undifferentiated waste (EWC-Stat 10.2) ( million tonnes) and for household and similar waste (10.1) ( million tonnes). The decrease of mixed and undifferentiated wastes on the EU-27 level is predominantly an impact of the data from UK, where more than 24 million tonnes of this waste category basically vanished from 2004 to This sudden fall of landfilled amounts in the UK corresponds with the generation of mixed and undifferentiated waste over time. In the course of data validation, UK explained the fall with methodological changes / improvements. This issue should be discussed in 6

8 more detail with UK with regard to the interpretation of the data or the need of retrospective changes. The reduction of household and similar waste results mainly from the developments in Germany (- 8 million tonnes due to the landfill ban for untreated municipal waste as of 2005), in the UK (- 6 million tonnes) and Poland (- 3.5 million tonnes). In 2008, still about 94 million tonnes of household and similar waste were landfilled which accounts for 55% of the entire non-mineral waste landfilled. Significant increases are observed for sorting residues (10.3) (+ 7.7 million tonnes) and for other disposed waste (DSP_OTH) (+ 4.3 million tonnes). Landfilled amounts of common sludges (11) and animal and vegetal wastes (09) remained about stable on a comparably low level. 225, tonnes 200, , , , ,000 75,000 7,360 6,340 9,970 8,760 8,740 38,350 8,670 12,400 19,400 20,450 9,560 10,650 8,630 11,920 27,050 Hazardous wastes (all categories excl. mineral waste) Other disposed wastes, nhz (DSP_OTH) Common sludges, nhz (W11) Animal / vegetal wastes, nhz (09) Chemical wastes, nhz (01-03) Mixed / undifferentiated waste, nhz (10.2) 50, , ,730 94,310 Sorting residues, nhz (103) 25,000 Household and similar waste, hnz (10.1) Fig. 4: Non-mineral waste landfilled in the EU-27 from 2004 to 2008 by waste categories Fig. 5 shows the amounts of non-mineral waste landfilled by country for The countries are sorted by descending landfilled total. The landfilled totals vary between 47 kg/cap in Germany and kg/cap in Lithuania. In the whole EU-27, at average 336 kg/cap of non-mineral waste were landfilled in The graph shows that not only the amounts but also the patterns of non-mineral waste landfilled are rather different across countries, depending on a variety of factors like economic structure (i.e. different production specific wastes), geographical conditions (e.g. dredging spoils from waterways), and on the waste management system (i.e. availability of treatment alternatives to landfilling). The high amounts of non-mineral waste landfilled in Lithuania and Estonia are mainly due to national specifics, i.e. the waste-intensive use of oil shale in Estonia and the huge amounts of non-hazardous chemical waste (phosphogypsum) from fertiliser production. The high landfilled total in Cyprus is caused by an implausible high amount of other disposed wastes which should definitely be further investigated. In 17 of the 27 EU-Member States, household and similar waste accounts for more than 50% the landfilled non-mineral waste. The differences across countries will be discussed in more detail in chapter 4.3). Significant amounts of landfilled sorting residues (10.3) are reported from UK, Belgium, Spain, Sweden, France, Luxembourg, Poland, Finland, Austria and Italy. 7

9 Comparably high amounts of mixed and undifferentiated wastes (10.2) ending up on landfills are reported from France, Denmark, Cyprus, Spain and Slovenia. Those countries should be asked for explanations of these amounts. The deposit of common sludges (11) (including dredging spoils) accounts for a considerable share of the landfilled waste in the Netherlands, in Slovenia, in the Slovak Republic and in Bulgaria. 1,200 kg/cap 1, Hazardous waste (excl. W12) Other non-hazardous waste (DSP_OTH) Common sludges (W11) Animal and vegetal wastes (09) Chemical wastes (W01-03) Mixed and undiff. waste (W10.2) Sorting residues (W103) Household and similar waste (W101) LT EE CY BG PT MT SI UK GR FI ES IE SK HR FR HU IT TR CZ NO LV PL NL RO BE SE DK LU AT DE EU Fig. 5: Non-mineral waste landfilled (DSP_D) by waste categories 4.3 Landfilling of household and similar waste (HHSW) Household and similar waste is a key waste stream that represents the mixed consumption waste that is usually destined for disposal. The amount of household and similar waste generated reflects the level of consumption on the one hand and the achievements of separate collection and recycling on the other hand. As displayed in 8

10 Table 2, the waste category household and similar waste (EWC-Stat 10.1) comprises four waste types of the Chapter 20 Municipal wastes 1 of the List of Waste (LoW). The main constituents in terms of quantity are the mixed municipal waste ( ) and the bulky waste ( ). A fifth waste type ( waste from markets) will be included in this category as of reference year The main waste amounts reported under this category come from private households, but waste from all other economic sectors classified under the respective LoW-codes is included. Category 10.1 excludes separately collected waste fractions like paper (07.2), glass (07.1), plastics (07.4), metals (0.6) or bio-waste (09). The amount of household and similar waste landfilled can be seen as proxy for the landfilling of untreated mixed waste because the pre-treatment of the HHSW leads to a change of the LoW-code. HHSW treated will thus appear under a different waste category (e.g. sorting residues). 1 Full naming of chapter 20 LoW: Municipal wastes (household waste and similar commercial, industrial and institutional wastes) including separately collected fractions 9

11 Table 2: Definition of household and similar waste (EWC-Stat 10.1) according to Annex III of the WStatR (table of equivalence) 10.1 Household and similar wastes Household wastes mixed municipal waste waste from markets (will be included as of ref. year 2010) bulky waste municipal wastes not otherwise specified Street cleaning wastes street-cleaning residues As shown in the previous sections, about 94 million tonnes of household and similar waste were landfilled in the EU-27 in HHSW accounted thus for 8.3% of the landfilled total and for 55% of the non-mineral waste landfilled. The variance of HHSW across countries is shown already in Fig. 5. It ranges from 1 kg/cap in Germany up to 632 kg/cap in Malta. In Germany, the landfilling of untreated municipal waste is forbidden as of mid This means that household and similar waste has to be treated before being deposited and is classified differently after treatment. The break from 2004 to 2006 and the low values for 2006 onwards are therefore plausible and reflect that basically no untreated household and similar waste is being landfilled. In Malta, on the other end of the scale, the generation of HHSW is particularly high, partly due to the contribution of tourism, and basically the whole generated amounts are deposited on the Maltese landfill without prior treatment kg/cap MT PT BG IE GR LT SI HU HR UK TR LV CZ IT FI ES SK EE CY RO PL FR NO BE LU NL AT SE DK DE EU Fig. 6: Household and similar waste landfilled from 2004 to 2008 Fig. 6 shows the time series for the amounts of HHSW landfilled by countries. The time series provides an impression of the data quality. As HHSW is the main constituent of the non-mineral waste, all unexplained breaks of HHSW landfilled also affect the interpretation of the time series on nonmineral waste landfilled. Overall, the data on the landfilling for HHSW are assumed to be of reasonable quality. The constant overall decrease on the EU-27 level reflects the successful efforts of several countries to divert untreated waste from landfills by separate collection and by landfill bans for untreated wastes. This applies for instance to Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Austria, the Netherlands and Belgium. 10

12 On the other hand, the data of other countries show breaks that obviously reveal inconsistencies some of which have already been identified and mentioned above. This applies particularly to the time series of Slovakia (2004/2006) and Cyprus (2004/06). Further significant breaks the reasons for which should be clarified with the countries include the steep increase in Portugal from 2004 to 2008, the peak in UK in 2006, the drop in Poland form 2004 to 2006 and the drop in Luxembourg from 2006 to Here, further investigations seem appropriate in order to improve and / or explain the data Cross-check with municipal waste data The waste category household and similar waste is closely related to that part of the municipal waste (MW) stream that is not separately collected and has to be disposed of. HHSW is the main component of the municipal waste that remains to be disposed of by landfilling or otherwise. Apart from HHSW, there are usually only a few other municipal waste components that might be landfilled. Depending on the coverage of the municipal waste data with regard to waste from other sources than households, the amounts of HHSW landfilled can be higher or lower than the corresponding figures for MW. But the values should usually be in a similar range. Significant differences are likely to indicate inconsistencies that should be clarified with the countries. Fig. 7 compares for the year 2008 the amounts of municipal waste landfilled and household and similar waste landfilled for the EU-27 and for each country. For the whole EU-27 the amount of municipal waste (202 kg/cap) is slightly higher than that for HHSW (189 kg/cap). For most of the countries the figures are also very similar, as expected kg/cap MT PT BG IE GR LT SI HU HR UK TR LV CZ IT FI ES SK EE CY RO PL FR NO BE LU NL AT SE DK DE EU Muncipal waste landfilled Household and similar waste landfilled (EWC-Stat 10.1) Fig. 7: Comparison of data on MW landfilled and HHSW landfilled Significantly higher amounts for HHSW than for MW are reported by Portugal, Croatia, Czech Republic, Norway, Belgium and the Netherlands. The most likely reason is the landfilling of HHSW from economic sectors that are not covered by municipal waste collection. In Poland, Romania, France, Luxembourg and Denmark the relation is just the opposite. Here, the amount of municipal waste landfilled is clearly higher than the amount of HHSW landfilled. It would be interesting to know which waste types account for this difference. Obviously, the data for Cyprus require an explanation. The high difference is certainly related to the high amount of other disposed waste observed in Fig. 5. The reasons for the differences should be further investigated in the in-depth analysis of MW and HHSW. In any case, the cross-check of HHSW data with MW seems an efficient approach for data validation and better insight into both data sets and should be established as a routine check in the WStatR validation process. 11

13 Contribution of Member States to the landfilling of household and similar waste From the EU-27 perspective it is interesting to see which Member States contribute most to the landfilling of household and similar waste. Fig. 8 shows the breakdown of the 94.3 million tonnes of household and similar waste landfilled in 2008 by countries. As shown in graph, the five big countries UK, Italy, Spain, France and Poland accounted for 61 million tonnes or 65% of the landfilled total. They are followed by a number of smaller countries that rely on landfilling as main disposal option. The aggregate other countries summarises those Member States that contribute less than 1.5 million tonnes each. This category includes 15 countries that are either small or have established a strict regime to divert untreated waste from landfills, like Germany, Austria, Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands. Total amount landfilled: 94.3 million tonnes UK 18.6 Other countries 7.7 Ireland 1.9 Czech Republic 2.8 Hungary 3.3 Bulgaria 3.4 Greece 4.2 Italy 16.0 Romania 4.5 Portugal 5.5 Spain 11.4 France 9.3 Poland 5.8 Fig. 8: Household and similar waste landfilled in the EU-27 in 2008 by countries (in million tonnes) 5 Discussion of indicator options Reasons for an indicator on landfilling There are several good reasons to establish an indicator on landfilling: Disposal of waste is the last option of waste management in the hierarchy of EU waste legislation. Landfilling is the main disposal operation accounting for 93% of the disposed of waste in An indicator on landfilling would allow to directly measuring success or failure of EU waste policies in diverting waste from landfills. Data on landfilling are assumed to be of (increasingly) good quality because data coverage should generally be high (which might not apply to the mining sector!), waste classification is done by experienced staff; and the problem of under-/overestimations due to the lack of weigh-bridges looses importance. Landfilling usually takes place in the land where the waste is generated, i.e. the impact of imports and exports for landfilling of waste is assumed to be small. Landfilling of waste can therefore be related directly to the waste generated in the country and the performance of a country s waste management system. 12

14 An indicator on landfilling is immediately feasible and convincing alternatives for an indicator on waste treatment (e.g. a recycling indicator) are nor available. Coverage of the indicator with regard to waste categories As shown in chapter 4.1, the amount of landfilled waste is dominated by mineral waste (EWC-Stat 12) which accounts for about 85% of total waste landfilled. The respective wastes are generated mainly in the construction and in the mining/quarrying sector. We propose to exclude those amounts from the definition of the indicator basically for the same reasons that lead to the exclusion of the mineral mass wastes from the indicator on waste generation (SDI tsdpc210): - General trends in the management of waste may be overlaid by fluctuations in the construction and/or in the mining sector, the conduction of specific infrastructure measures or even by methodological changes in data collection in one or a few countries (especially in small countries). - Limited comparability across countries due to differences in data coverage. - Few knowledge on the mineral waste due to the lack of a detailed breakdown by waste categories. For this reasons we suggest to consider the following options for an indicator on landfilling: amount of non-mineral waste landfilled in kg/cap amount of household and similar waste landfilled in kg/cap The data for both options have been presented in the chapters 4.2 and 4.3. Further aspects are discussed in the following. Indicator on non-mineral waste landfilled Such an indicator would cover the landfilling of non-mineral production and consumption waste. It would be designed exactly in the same way as the generation indicator. The indicator would cover the waste that is landfilled on public landfills as well as on privately managed landfills. The main advantages are: The indicator would be complementary to the indicator non-mineral waste generated; the combination of both indicators could provide additional information. The indicator would cover, inter alia, all organic / biodegradable waste which is of special interest with regard to the emission of greenhouse gases. Household and similar waste is the main constituent of non-mineral waste and would thus be included in the indicator value (as a sort of sub-indicator). The main shortcomings are: The indicator covers only about 15% of the total waste landfilled. An indicator that matches exactly the definition / coverage of the indicator non-mineral waste generated can be built only as of 2010 (when the revised WStatR is applied); the period from 2004 to 2008 would be lost for the time series. The comparability of the indicator across countries is hampered by economical or geographical country specifics. Indicator on household and similar waste landfilled Such an indicator would reflect the amount of consumption waste originating mainly from households but also cover similar waste from all economic sectors. It would be limited to the landfilling of untreated waste, i.e. waste that is of particular environmental concern. The main advantages are: - The indicator would cover a well-defined key waste stream including particularly the mixed waste from households. 13

15 - The indicator would reflect the amount of untreated mixed waste going to landfills, i.e. waste that is of particular environmental concern. - Comparability across countries is considered as high as the coverage of the indicator is not dependant on the origin of waste (in opposite to the municipal waste indicator) and the impact of country specifics is low (compared to non-mineral waste indicator). - The impact of the WStatR revision on the time series of household and similar waste is assumed to be low. The main shortcomings are: The indicator would cover only about 8% of the total waste landfilled. The indicator would overlap / compete to large degree with the indicator on municipal waste landfilled without adding much additional information. The relation to the generated amount of household and similar waste is less meaningful than for municipal waste and for non-mineral waste. 6 Land treatment and release into water bodies As outlined already in chapter 3, the disposal operations other than landfilling and incineration, i.e. land treatment (D2) and release into waster bodies (D6, D7) account for 37 million tonnes or 1.6% of the treated waste total in the EU-27. Total amount disposed of 37.3 million tonnes Greece 2.7 million t Netherlands 16.1 million t France 0.6 million t Poland 0.3 million t Malta 0.3 million t UK 16.5 million t Other countries 0.9 million t Fig. 9: Amount disposed of otherwise in the EU-27 in 2008 by countries These operations are applied to a significant extent in the UK (16.5 million tonnes), in the Netherlands (16.1 million tonnes), Greece (2.7 million tonnes), France (0.6 million tonnes), Poland (0.3 million tonnes) and Malta (0.3 million tonnes). The remaining countries contribute together 0.9 million tonnes or 2.5% of the disposed of total (see Fig. 9) In the Netherlands, in UK and in France, the wastes disposed of by other disposal operations are nearly exclusively common sludges (11). In 2008, common sludges amounted to 88% of the waste reported under this treatment category (see Fig. 10). Dredging spoils, which are a sub-set of the common sludges, presumably account for a high share of this amount. For the year 2010, dredging spoils will be reported separately so that this assumption can be verified. The amounts reported by Greece and Malta are classified as mineral wastes. 14

16 45, tonnes 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,270 3, ,060 6,380 3,530 31,660 31,480 32,920 Other w astes Mineral w astes Common sludges (incl. dredging spoils) 5, Fig. 10: Waste disposed of otherwise (DSP_O) in the EU-27 from 2004 to 2008 by waste categories A closer look at the 0.88 million tonnes of other wastes that are disposed of by land treatment or release into water bodies gives rise to several questions, because some countries report waste categories that one would not expect under this treatment category. This includes for instance about 0.3 million tonnes of hazardous wastes of which 0.2 million tonnes were reported by the Netherlands. However, compared to the reported total the amounts of other wastes are rather small. The total amount of waste reported under other disposal operations has slightly decreased over recent years. We expect that the regrouping of the treatment categories in the course of the WStatR revision will lead to an increase of the waste amounts reported under this category as of Especially slurried tailings from extractive industries that are often stored in ponds are likely to show up here under the disposal operation D2 Impoundment of waste. 7 Impact of WStatR Revision Based on the experience from the first reporting rounds, the Annexes to the WStatR have been thoroughly revised. The revised version was published in September 2010 and will first be applied for the reference year The following table summarises the main changes that concern that data on landfilling and outlines the expected impacts. Restructuring of the waste categories in WStatR, Annex I, and harmonisation with the waste categories in Annex II: The harmonised and more detailed breakdown will enhance the possibilities for validation and analysis of the waste treatment data considerable. Particularly positive impacts: - the possibility to break down the huge black box of mineral waste landfilled into six different waste categories. - the improved relationship between generation and treatment data. The drawback of the revision is the possible impact on the time series of the landfilling data for some waste categories. The following effects are expected: - Household and similar waste (10.1): one additional code for waste from markets (LoW ) will be included; the impact is supposed to be very small. - Mixed and undifferentiated waste (10.2): a significant increase through inclusion of the 99- codes is likely. 15

17 - Sorting residues (10.3): the impact of the revision is hard to predict because it depends on the waste management infrastructure (e.g. the extent of chemical-physical treatment of hazardous wastes, composting,..) - Chemical waste (01-03): no significant impact expected - Common sludges (11): decrease through separate reporting of dredging spoil under EWC- Stat 12.7; impact will presumably be high for other disposal and much lower for landfilling. - Animal and vegetal waste (09): slight decrease because a few codes were excluded. Regrouping of disposal operations: D3 and D4 are moved from landfilling to other disposal operations. D3 Deep injection (e.g. injection of pumpable discards into wells, salt domes): There will probably be no impact from the re-allocation of this treatment code because we assume that: 1.) the operation is rarely applied, and 2.) known applications (e.g. the discharge into deep wells of liquid tailings from potash mining) is presumable not reported D4 Surface impoundment (e.g. placement of liquid or sludge discards into pits, ponds or lagoons etc.): The management of slurried tailings in ponds is very common in the mining sector (coal mining; metal mining,.etc.); the re-allocation may lead to a significant shift of quantities from landfilling to other disposal operations. The reorganisation of treatment categories will have an impact mainly on the mineral waste part. For non-mineral waste the re-allocated treatment operations are most likely not applied. Specification of reporting on landfills: The distinction between landfills for hazardous, nonhazardous and inert waste will allow crosschecks of WStatR-data on the number and rest capacity of landfills with the corresponding data collected under the Landfill Directive 16

18 8 Annex Treatment categories according to WStatR, Annex II, section 8(2) (before and after revision) Item WStatR Item WStatR as of R1 1 R1 2 D10 2 D10 3 R2 R11 3a R2 R11 (excl. backfilling) 3b Backfilling 4 D1, D3, D4, D5, D12 4 D1, D5, D12 5 D2, D6, D7 5 D2, D3, D4, D6, D7 Disposal operations according to Annex I of Directive 2008/98/EC D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D10 D12 Deposit into or onto land (e.g. landfill etc.) Land treatment (e.g. biodegradation of liquid or sludgy discards in soils etc.) Deep injection (e.g. injection of pumpable discards into wells, salt domes) Surface impoundment (e.g. placement of liquid or sludge discards into pits, ponds or lagoons etc.) Special engineered landfill (e.g. placement into lined discrete cells which are capped and isolated from one another and the environment etc.) Release into a water body except seas/oceans Release into seas/oceans including sea-bed insertion Incineration on land Permanent storage (e.g. emplacement of containers in a mine etc.) Recovery operations according to Annex II of Directive 2008/98/EC R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 Use principally as a fuel or other means to generate energy Solvent reclamation/regeneration Recycling/reclamation of organic substances which are not used as solvents (including composting and other biological transformation processes) Recycling/reclamation of metals and metal compounds Recycling/reclamation of other inorganic materials Regeneration of acids or bases Recovery of components used for pollution abatement Recovery of components from catalysts Oil refining or other reuses of oil Land treatment resulting in benefit to agriculture or ecological improvement Use of wastes obtained from any of the operations numbered R1 to R10 17

19 Waste categories for landfilling according to WStatR, Annex II, section 2 Item Code Description (EWC-Stat Version 3) haz/nhz Used oils haz 4 09 excl , 09.3 Animal and vegetal wastes (excluding animal waste of food preparation and products; and animal faeces, urine and manure) Animal waste of food preparation and products nhz Animal faeces, urine and manure nhz Household and similar wastes nhz Mixed and undifferentiated materials nhz Mixed and undifferentiated materials haz Sorting residues nhz Sorting residues haz Common sludges nhz Mineral wastes nhz Mineral wastes haz Other wastes (Health care and biological wastes + Metallic wastes + Non-metallic wastes + Discarded equipment + Solidified, stabilised or vitrified wastes) Other wastes (Health care and biological wastes + Metallic wastes + Non-metallic wastes + Discarded equipment + Solidified, stabilised or vitrified wastes) nhz nhz haz 18