EWC-Stat versus new List of Waste Kees Wielenga - FFact. Session II. Joint meeting of ETC/WMF and EUROSTAT 6-8 November 2002, Athens

Transcription

1 EWC-Stat versus new List of Waste Kees Wielenga - FFact Session II Joint meeting of ETC/WMF and EUROSTAT 6-8 November 2002, Athens

2 1 INTRODUCTION EUROSTAT is preparing a Regulation on waste statistics. Adoption of this Regulation is foreseen by the end of this year. The objective of this Regulation is to establish a framework for the production of Community statistics on the generation, recovery and disposal of waste. The Member States will acquire the data and transmit these to the Commission in view of compiling Community wide waste statistics. The Regulation lays down the details of the type of information the Member States should transmit as well as a number of definitions and classifications that must be observed. One of these classifications is EWCSTAT, a (mainly) substance-oriented statistical classification of the different types of waste. This classification is laid down in Annex III of the Regulation and both Annex I (on the generation of waste) and II (on recovery and disposal of waste) use this Annex to indicate for which waste types the different statistical data need to be compiled by Member States. EWCSTAT itself is an aggregation of the European List of Waste (LoW) 1 for statistical purposes. The transposition table linking the 839 entries in the LoW to the aggregation of EWCSTAT is included in Annex III. The original Proposal for the Regulation was prepared when the LoW was not yet adopted. The transposition table, which has been discussed intensively in the working group on waste statistics as well as in the task force established by the Council was still based on the old European Waste Catalogue (EWC) 2. However, when the LoW entered into force on 1 January 2002 it was clear that the Annex III would require a revision at short notice to adapt it to the new EU legislation in force at that moment. Eurostat asked FFact Management Consultants to prepare a revised Annex which is currently included in the consolidated compromise version for the second reading in the European Parliament. This does not mean that the Annex in its current form may not be modified anymore. The Annex is a tool to facilitate the application of the Regulation when implemented. Therefore the opinion of those who will play a role in this implementation on a national level is important. For this reason a discussion on this subject was put in the program of the joint meeting of the ETC/WMF and Eurostat. The objectives of the discussion are: o to explain how the current version of the Annex was made to representatives in the Member States and Candidate Countries that will be most involved in the application of the Regulation in the future; and o to present some of the problems that were encountered when adapting the Annex. It is an occasion to ask experts if they have detected mistakes in the current version of the Annex and to discuss possible solutions for problems. This working document will serve as a basis for this exchange of views. First a short description of the review process of the Annex will be given in section 2. The main problems that were encountered during the review will be described in section 3. The document will conclude with a suggestion for a possible way forward in section 4. 1 Commission Decision 2001/118/EC (OJ L 47, ,p.1) 2 Commission Decision 94/3/EC EWC-Stat versus new List of Waste Page 2

3 2 REVISION OF ANNEX III, METHODOLOGY AND MAIN RESULTS The EWC contained 646 waste types, of which 409 were non-hazardous and 236 were hazardous wastes. All these entries had been linked to a corresponding entry in the EWCSTAT. The LoW contains 839 entries of which 433 are non-hazardous and 406 are hazardous. The preparation of the new Annex was done in two steps. As a first step only those entries in the LoW that had undergone a change compared to the EWC were assessed and those that remained unchanged were not considered for reattribution to a EWCSTAT category. Two types of changes between the EWC and the LoW were distinguished. Some entries were deleted from the EWC. In nearly all cases these deletions were reclassified under a new number in the LoW and/or split up into several positions, e.g. to reflect the fact that the waste was sometimes hazardous and sometimes non-hazardous. These wastes in principle kept the same classification within the EWCSTAT as the deleted entry, since these waste only got new numbers and the dominant material did not change. There were also new waste types which were previously not included in the EWC. These had to be attributed to the corresponding EWCSTAT entry for the first time. As a second step a check on the overall consistency of the Annex was done. During this consistency check several problematic attributions of wastes from the EWC in the original Annex III were identified and alternatives were proposed. This resulted in the version of Annex III included in the consolidated compromise version for second reading of the Regulation that was distributed prior to the meeting. Annex III is the basis for the correspondence Member States should observe when transmitting data that were collected following the LoW. However, the Annex is also used to determine the breakdown of categories that should be observed in Annex I and II. Both sections refer to the classification in Annex III and also to the need to distinguish hazardous waste and non-hazardous waste in certain of these categories. Since most of the modifications of the EWC involved additional hazardous wastes, some modifications in these sections were necessary to reflect the split between hazardous and nonhazardous wastes from the revised Annex III. These modifications have been included in the consolidated compromise version of the Regulation. EWC-Stat versus new List of Waste Page 3

4 3 PROBLEMATIC ISSUES RELATED TO ATTRIBUTION The basic principles of the classification system used in the LoW and EWCSTAT are different. The LoW takes the waste generating process as a starting point to define the different waste types. Particular emphasis is put on the distinction between hazardous and non-hazardous waste, since the LoW provides for the legal definition of hazardous waste in the Community. EWCSTAT takes the main materials of the waste as a starting point because this main material is of importance when statistics are to be compiled on waste flows. In most cases the different basis of the classification poses no particular problems for the links between entries in the two systems. However, there are some exceptions. Wastes not otherwise specified The LoW contains a number of catch-alls with codes ending with 99: waste not otherwise specified. These create a specific problem when they have to be linked to a corresponding class in EWCSTAT. For some of these codes the chapter heading or sub-chapter heading of the LoW provides indications on the type of material that could be classified under this code. This is the case in Chapter 14 of the LoW which only contains solvents. In some other cases the type of material was identified on the basis of surveys on industrial wastes in Member States, where the waste types that were reported under these 99 codes were identified. However, in a number of cases it is not possible to get an indication of the main material. In most of these cases the EWCSTAT class (mixed and undifferentiated materials) was used. If significant amounts of wastes are reported in this class this is a signal that significant amounts of waste are not represented in the LoW or are difficult to classify in other parts of EWCSTAT. This is therefore an indication of weaknesses in the classification system. Such weaknesses should be studied in view of possible modifications of the classification systems. This implies that both the 99 codes in the LoW and code in EWCSTAT provide for a possible mechanism to identify need for improvement of the classification. Relevant contaminants In the majority of cases the main material is the most relevant aspect for compilation of statistics and for management of waste stream. Examples are paper, glass, plastic, metals etc. where statistics on generation and management of these wastes provide relevant data for monitoring progress and identifying needs for further development of waste management policy. In some cases, however, it is not the main material which is the most important aspect for the management of the waste, but the fact that the materials contain a specific contaminant. This may be the case for asbestos, PCBs, mineral oils, heavy metals, dioxins and organic solvents. For wastes that contain even low percentages of these contaminants the main material becomes irrelevant for the subsequent waste management. Waste management should address the environmental risk of the contaminants. A classification for the compilation of waste management statistics should address this issue. This problem was addressed in EWCSTAT for several waste types by creating specific categories, not respecting the main rule of attribution according to the main type of material. Examples are asbestos wastes in 12.2, contaminated packaging in 2.33 and to a certain extent contaminated soils in For some other contaminants exceptions to the main material rule in EWCSTAT might be appropriate as well. It might be appropriate e.g. to create a specific category in EWCSTAT including the wastes that are subject to the European PCB Directive. EWC-Stat versus new List of Waste Page 4

5 Waste oils In some cases it was not clear if the classification of waste oils and wastes contaminated with mineral oils are classified in a way that corresponds with the needs of information required by the European directive on waste oils. In particular the distinction between waste oils suitable for regeneration and the other waste oils and oil-containing wastes might be useful. This issue might need some further assessment. Sludges EWCSTAT distinguishes two main types of sludges. Sludges from industrial effluent treatment are classified in Common sludges are classified in 11. This last chapter also includes the biological sludges from industrial effluent treatment. The original idea was that in Chapter 3 the hazardous sludges should be grouped and that the non-hazardous sludges from urban waste water and similar sludges from industry would be grouped. With the change of the LoW and the large number of new entries for sludges from on-site effluent treatment in this list the relevance of distinction between the sludges in 3.2 and 11 has become less clear. A revision of these parts of EWCSTAT following the lines of the distinction linked to the potential use of the sludge in agriculture, according to the relevant European Directive, might be appropriate. Gypsum from construction and demolition waste In the EWC gypsum waste was classified together with other mineral construction and demolition waste. In its original version EWCSTAT had made a distinction between these two categories of waste. To accommodate for the problems in the transposition table it was decided to modify EWCSTAT and gypsum was put in the same class as the other mineral construction materials. The LoW has created a separate section for this gypsum to reflect the fact that gypsum poses problems for the recycling of construction and demolition waste. Therefore it would be better to re-introduce a category of gypsum-based waste in 12.1 of EWCSTAT. EWCSTAT is sometimes very detailed EWCSTAT was developed because it was considered at that time that the EWC was too detailed to serve as a basis for the compilation of statistics. EWCSTAT should aggregate the wastes from the EWC according to their main material. In several places the classification of EWCSTAT is so detailed that only a very limited number of wastes from the LoW are included and some classes of EWCSTAT are completely empty. Sometimes this level of detail is useful, in particular when a class in EWCSTAT contains a waste stream that is large in volume or of particular policy relevance as may be the case for dredging spoil and manure. In other cases this is less obvious. The classes 2.2 (explosives), 5 (healthcare waste) and 6.2 contain very little number of wastes from the LoW. For classes 1.23 (saline solutions), 4 (radio-active waste), 6.22 (aluminium packaging), 7.22 (composite packaging carton), 7.32 (other rubber wastes), 8.11 (discarded private cars), 8.22 (discarded minor household equipment), 8.3 (bulky household equipment), 8.42 (spent catalytic equipment) and (vehicle shredder wastes) no corresponding wastes are included in the LoW. These classes may be considered for revision to provide for a less detailed breakdown. EWC-Stat versus new List of Waste Page 5

6 4 WAY FORWARD Large modifications of EWCSTAT will probably be difficult to include at this stage, due to the limited time and margin of manoeuvre in the current stage of the decision-making process. But there may be still some possibilities to modify certain elements in the Annex in particular to correct clear mistakes in the linking of wastes in the LoW to classes in the EWCSTAT. Also other modifications of a purely technical nature aiming to improve the applicability of the Annex might still be included in the text before its final adoption. Suggestions for such modifications would be welcomed. On the other hand it could be envisaged to refrain from substantial modification now and wait for the results of the first round of reporting. Several Member States have conducted pilot studies. In several countries there is experience with the transposition. If problems occur when applying the Regulation, it would become clear what the nature of the problems is and on the basis of that knowledge tailormade solutions could be proposed. It is of great importance that the experience from practical application and the problems that Member States encounter be reported to the Commission. This could not only be relevant for the finalisation of the Annex prior to the adoption of the Regulation, but could also constitute background material for a future review of the classification to adapt it to new insight and information requirements. CENTRAL QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION DURING THE MEETING: Countries are asked to bring forward their experiences, if any, and suggest modifications to ANNEX III EWC-Stat versus new List of Waste Page 6