Study to assess the
impacts of different
classification
approaches for
hazard property "H
14" on selected
waste streams
Interim report
February 2015
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
Interim report
PROJECT NAME
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for
hazard property "H 14" on selected waste streams
DATE
16 February 2015
PROJECT TEAM
BIO by Deloitte (BIO), INERIS
AUTHORS
Ms Arianna De Toni (BIO)
Ms Mariane Planchon (BIO)
Ms Nada Saïdi (BIO)
Mr Pascal Pandard (INERIS)
Mr Shailendra Mudgal (BIO)
KEY CONTACTS
Shailendra Mudgal
+33(0)1 55 61 63 03
shmudgal@deloitte.fr
Or
Mariane Planchon
+33 1 55 61 67 56
mplanchon@bio.deloitte.fr
DISCLAIMER
The project team does not accept any liability for any direct or indirect
damage resulting from the use of this report or its content. This report
contains the results of research by the authors and is not to be
perceived as the opinion of the European Commission.
Please cite this publication as:
BIO by Deloitte (2015). Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for
hazard property "H 14" on selected waste streams – Interim report prepared for the European
Commission (DG ENV), in collaboration with INERIS.
2
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Table of contents
1. INTRODUCTION ________________________________________________________ 7
1.1. Background ___________________________________________________________ 7
1.2. Objectives ____________________________________________________________ 10
2. PROJECT PROGRESS __________________________________________________ 11
3. METHODOLOGY ______________________________________________________ 13
3.1. Collecting data on how a sample of Member States perform the assessment of
HP 14 ________________________________________________________________ 13
3.1.1. Selection of countries and data collection by survey_______________________ 13
3.1.2. Data collection by desk study ________________________________________ 15
3.1.3. Reporting data in factsheets _________________________________________ 15
3.2. Selecting mirror pairs for the assessment __________________________________ 17
3.2.1. Selection process _________________________________________________ 17
3.2.2. Selection criteria __________________________________________________ 18
3.2.2.1. SC1: Preference of experts______________________________________________ 18
3.2.2.2. SC2: Availability and quality of data ______________________________________ 18
3.2.2.3. SC3: Tonnage of waste production _______________________________________ 20
3.2.2.4. SC4: Economic importance _____________________________________________ 22
3.2.2.5. SC5: Potential presence of hazardous substances ___________________________ 22
3.2.2.6. SC6: Criticality of waste classification _____________________________________ 23
3.2.3. Global score and selection of mirror pairs _______________________________ 23
3.3. Collecting experimental data on selected waste codes _______________________ 24
4. RESULTS: STRATEGIES OF SELECTED MEMBER STATES TO ASSESS HP 14 ___________ 27
4.1. Member States survey __________________________________________________ 27
4.2. Full country factsheets _________________________________________________ 28
4.3. Description of the approaches ___________________________________________ 28
4.3.1.
4.3.2.
4.3.3.
4.3.4.
General information _______________________________________________ 28
Approaches using chemical analysis __________________________________ 31
Approaches based on biotests _______________________________________ 34
Combined approaches _____________________________________________ 37
4.4. Costs associated with implementing HP 14 approaches ______________________ 39
4.5. Advantages and limits of the approaches __________________________________ 39
4.5.1. Approaches based on chemical analysis _______________________________ 39
4.5.2. Approaches based on biotests _______________________________________ 40
4.5.3. Combined approaches _____________________________________________ 40
5. RESULTS: SELECTION OF WASTE CODES FOR THE ASSESSMENT ___________________ 43
5.1. Scores obtained for the selection criteria __________________________________ 43
5.1.1. SC1: Preference of experts __________________________________________ 43
5.1.2. SC2: Availability and quality of data ___________________________________ 43
5.1.3. SC3: Quantity of produced waste _____________________________________ 44
3
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
5.1.4. SC4: Economic importance__________________________________________ 46
5.1.5. SC5: Potential presence of hazardous substances________________________ 46
5.1.6. SC6: Criticality of waste classification __________________________________ 49
5.2. Selected waste codes __________________________________________________ 49
6. NEXT STEPS _________________________________________________________ 58
6.1. Reporting experimental data for the calculations ____________________________ 58
6.2. Application of the four calculation methods ________________________________ 59
6.2.1. Calculating average concentrations ___________________________________ 59
6.2.2. Running HP 14 assessment methods and considering the final waste
classification _____________________________________________________ 59
6.3. Comparative assessment of the different methodologies _____________________ 60
6.4. Consultation of the stakeholders and organising a stakeholders' workshop _____ 61
7. ANNEXES 62
4
Annex 1.
First Questionnaire sent to Competent Authorities _____________________ 63
Annex 2.
Factsheets ______________________________________________________ 67
Annex 3.
Second questionnaire sent to Competent Authorities _________________ 111
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
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) ........................................................................................... 13
Table 2: Example of publications in the waste classification topic of selected Member States
(non-exhaustive).............................................................................................................................. 14
Table 3: Template for the country factsheets .................................................................................. 16
Table 4: Attribution of weights according to biases in data on quantity ........................................... 21
Table 5: Score per Member State and weighted average score for SC3 - waste code 06 03 16 .... 22
Table 6: Experts contacted and their contribution (in grey: Member States who did not
contribute) ....................................................................................................................................... 27
Table 7: National legislation or guidelines for the H14 assessment methods and protocols ........... 28
Table 8: Generic concentration limits for individual ecotoxic substances, according to their
classification .................................................................................................................................... 32
Table 9: Concentration thresholds for ecotoxic substances, according to their classification .......... 32
Table 10: Conditions rendering the waste hazardous by HP 14 during Step 4, per Member
State adapting the DPD for HP 14 assessment............................................................................... 33
Table 11: Standards for preparing waste samples .......................................................................... 34
Table 12: Batteries of tests used in Member States using biotests to assess HP 14 ...................... 35
Table 13: Tests on Daphnia magna, as used in Member States relying on biotests for the
assessment of HP 14 ...................................................................................................................... 37
Table 14: Comparison between Italy and Germany regarding conditions rendering the waste
hazardous by HP 14 during Step 4 of the chemical analyses method............................................. 38
Table 15: Batteries of tests used in Germany and Italy ................................................................... 38
Table 16: Most produced waste types in the studied Member States ............................................. 44
Table 17: Preliminary selected mirror pairs ..................................................................................... 49
Table 13: Experts contacted and their contribution (in green: Member States who have
already contributed, as of February 16th)......................................................................................... 58
Table 14: Example of table gathering the results of hazard classification for HP 14 for all the
waste streams and all the calculation methods ............................................................................... 60
5
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
List of Figures
Figure 1: Workplan .......................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 2: Waste quantities in Germany and attribution of scores .................................................... 20
Figure 3: Approaches for the assessment of HP 14 in the nine studied Member States ................. 30
Figure 4: Decision tree for the assessment of HP 14 using chemical analyses (based on the
DPD) ............................................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 5: Ranges of costs in Member States for which the information is available ........................ 39
Figure 6: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports results for SC1 .............................................. 43
Figure 7: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports results for SC2 .............................................. 44
Figure 8: 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) ........................................ 45
Figure 9: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports results for SC4 .............................................. 46
Figure 10: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports EC50 and NOEC values of potentially
ecotoxic substances ........................................................................................................................ 47
Figure 11: EC50 and NOEC of some of the most hazardous pesticides authorised in the EU ........ 48
Figure 12: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports results for SC5 ............................................ 48
Figure 13: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports results for SC6 ............................................ 49
Figure 14: Calculation/assessment methods for the classification of waste .................................... 60
6
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
1. Introduction
1.1.
Background
In the EU, classification of waste is based on two regulatory texts: Decision
2000/532/EC1 establishing the List of Waste (LoW) and Annex III to Directive
2008/98/EC2 on waste (Waste Framework Directive, or WFD), which defines 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.
According to Article 2 of Decision 2000/532/EC, 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 WFD3. Among them, H 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 entries”. Mirror
entries consist of pairs of entries of which one waste may be classified as hazardous or
non-hazardous according to the type and concentration of the pollutants it contains. The
unique basis for differentiating between hazardous and non-hazardous wastes in mirror
entries 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 entries
refer to the term “hazardous” or “dangerous” substances with no further description, while
some describe hazardous properties or possible triggered exposure threshold or the
specific hazardous waste component.
The legislation framework for classifying waste in the EU is closely linked to
chemical legislation, namely Directive 67/548/EEC4 (the Dangerous Substance
Directive, or DSD) and Directive 1999/45/EC 5 (the Dangerous Preparations Directive, or
DPD). Attribution of any of the hazardous properties listed in Annex III of the WFD (H1 to
H15) must be done in accordance with the criteria laid down by Annex VI to the DSD
regarding the terms ‘toxic’ (and ‘very toxic’), ‘harmful’, ‘corrosive’, ‘irritant’, ‘carcinogenic’,
‘toxic to reproduction’, ‘mutagenic’ and ‘eco-toxic’, used for the definition of the DSD Rphrases. If relevant, the limit values listed in Annex II and III to the DPD shall apply.
1
2000/532/EC: Commission Decision of 3 May 2000 replacing Decision 94/3/EC establishing a list of wastes
pursuant to Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste and Council Decision 94/904/EC establishing
a list of hazardous waste pursuant to Article 1(4) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste (notified
under
document
number
C(2000)
1147),
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32000D0532&from=EN
2
Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste,
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0098&from=EN
3
As regards H3 to H8, H10 and H11 of Annex III, one or more of a set of additional characteristics must be
displayed in order for the waste to be considered hazardous.
4
Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative
provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances, http://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31967L0548&from=en
5
Directive 1999/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 1999 concerning the
approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the
classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous preparations, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31999L0045&from=en
7
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
However, the DSD and the DPD are being progressively repealed by Regulation
1272/20086 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP)
and Regulation 1907/20067 on Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of
Chemicals (REACH). In particular, R-phrases will not exist under the CLP Regulation
anymore and are replaced by the naming of a hazard class and a signal word.
According to Annex III of the WFD, test methods for assessing the H1 to H15 properties
must be done following 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 is not 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 for a specific methodology for the assessment of H 14.
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 usually 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 regulation8. Some Member States evaluate eco-toxicity by biotest or
physicochemical analysis, although there is no standardized 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, in accordance with the methods recommended in the CLP and
REACH regulations.
Reflecting scientific and technical progress and ensuring coherence with chemical
legislation is the main driver for the launch, in 2008, of the review of the LoW and
of the WFD9. 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;
6
Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on
classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives
67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008R1272&from=en
7
Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006
concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a
European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No
793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission
Directives
91/155/EEC,
93/67/EEC,
93/105/EC
and
2000/21/EC,
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32006R1907&from=en
8
J. Römbke, R. Ketelhut& J. Wuttke (2013) Scientific Position Paper: For the European Commission
Ecotoxicological Classification of Wastes (Criterion HP 14)
9
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/pdf/Technical_proposal.pdf
8
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report

Problems concerning the classification of hazardous waste and the
application of mirror entries;

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”. 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 2011 10, the Working Group agreed that the HCriteria 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 is alignment with CLP, strict alignment,
including concentration limits, may not in all cases be appropriate for wastes and lead to
changes regarding 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 11, but rather that generic
concentration limits be provided directly in Article 2 of the LoW. However, in the specific
case of HP 14, France was not in favour of deleting the M-factors from the CLP
summation method and proposed keeping the M-factors but deleting the categories
chronic cat 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 12. Option 1 is based
on aquatic toxicity and does not include M-factors, while Option 2 relies on 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.
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.
10
Working Group For The Amendment Of The European Waste List, Summary Record Of The Meeting Held On
15 -16 June 2011
11
Working Group For The Amendment Of The European Waste List, Summary Record Of The Meeting Held On
28 -29 November 2011
12
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/pdf/Technical_proposal_tc.pdf
9
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
1.2.
Objectives
The objective of this study is to assist the Commission to assess the impacts of changing
the criteria for the definition of eco-toxicity for waste, and especially to assess the
implications for Member States and industry of the implementation of four different
options of calculation methods for HP 14 assessment and waste classification. The
following aspects will be studied:

The ability to apply the methodology as a function of the nature and amount
of analytical information available;

The degree of correlation with biotest results;

The workability of the methodology;

The cost of implementation of the methodology;

The impact of the classification method chosen for H 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.
10
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
2. Project progress
To date, progress has been made with regard to Tasks 1 and 2 (see Figure 1). The
methodology and results of the work under each task are presented in the next chapters
of the report.
11
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Figure 1: Workplan
Progress
12
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
3. 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. This interim report
covers Task 1 & 2.
3.1.
Collecting data on how a sample of Member States perform the
assessment of HP 14
The current strategies implemented in different Member States to assess HP 14,
including relevant legislation and details about the approaches, were reported in country
factsheets thanks to a survey of Member States and a desk study.
3.1.1. Selection of countries and data collection by survey
Ten Member States were contacted with the aim to gather data on their strategies to
assess HP 14:

Austria

Italy

United Kingdom

France

Finland

Spain

Belgium

Czech Republic

Poland

Germany
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)
Germany
Waste produced (t)
in 2012
368 022 172
Czech Republic
Waste produced (t)
in 2012
23 171 358
France
344 731 922
Estonia
21 992 343
United Kingdom
241 372 727
Ireland
19 807 586
Romania
219 309 676
Hungary
16 370 208
Member State
13
Member State
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Poland
Waste produced (t)
in 2012
163 377 949
Denmark
Waste produced (t)
in 2012
16 332 249
Italy
162 764 633
Portugal
14 184 456
Bulgaria
161 252 166
Slovakia
8 425 384
Sweden
156 366 579
Luxembourg
8 397 228
Netherlands
123 612 767
Lithuania
5 583 082
Spain
Member State
Member State
118 561 669
Slovenia
4 546 505
Finland
91 824 193
Croatia
3 378 638
Greece
72 328 280
Latvia
2 309 581
Belgium
66 932 665
Cyprus
2 086 469
Austria
34 047 465
Malta
1 496 464
Table 2: Example of publications in the waste classification topic of selected Member States
(non-exhaustive)
Member State
Example of publication
UK
University of Birmingham (2014) Health and Safety Guidance Hazardous
Waste: Guidance on Assessment GUIDANCE/11/HWGA/14
Hazardous waste Interpretation of the definition and classification of
hazardous waste (3rd Edition 2013)
Finland
Kati Vaajasaari (2005) Leaching and Biotests as Methods for
Classification and Assessment of Environmental Hazard of Solid Wastes.
Tempere University of Technology
France
Pascal Pandard and Jörg Römbke (2013) Proposal for a “Harmonized”
Strategy for the Assessment of the HP 14 Property; Integrated
Environmental Assessment and Management — Volume 9, Number 4—
pp. 665–672
Pandard P et al. (2006) Selecting a Battery of Biotests for
Ecotoxicological Characterization of Wastes. Science of the Total
Environment 363:114-125.
Germany
J. Römbke et al. (2009) Ecotoxicological characterisation of 12
incineration ashes using 6 laboratory tests; Waste Management 29
2475–2482
H. Moser et al. (2011) Evaluation of biological methods for a future
methodological implementation of the Hazard criterion H14 ‘ecotoxic’ in
the European waste list (2000/532/EC); Waste Management & Research,
29(2) 180–187
H. Moser and J. Römbke (2009) Ecotoxicological Characterization of
Waste- Results and Experiences of an International Ring Test.
UbA (2013) Recommendations for the Ecotoxicological Characterization
of Wastes
14
Austria
Participation in the Working Group for the amendment of the European
Waste List
Czech Republic
Vasahlova et al. (2012) The proposal for changes in evaluation of
ecotoxicity of wastes in the Czech legislation
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
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
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 to focus the impact assessment
on, in order to help in the selection of waste codes for in-depth data collection (see
section 3.1.2 and 3.3). The full questionnaire is reported in Annex 1.
A second questionnaire was sent to 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 3.2). 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 3.3 and 6.1).
3.1.2. Data collection by desk study
In parallel, the project team conducted a desk-based search and merged the results of
this search with the results of the consultation. The aim of the desk-based search was to
gather data on the approaches used in the 10 Member States to assess the ecotoxicity of
representative samples of waste streams.
In order to find data about tonnages of hazardous waste, research on websites of
Competent Authorities was performed. As such tonnages were often split into
categories/codes of waste that were based on the Eurostat EWC-Stat classification
system, research has been carried out to convert quantities registered under EWC-Stat
categories to LoW categories. Such estimation was used if the consultation does not
provide data on hazardous waste tonnage.
Research has also been carried out using keywords in the different national languages to
seek document about the approaches used to assess HP 14, and examples of results of
such assessments. Literature previously identified was used as primary source of
information but also was a starting point to identify new documents relevant for our study
(through the listed references). Competent Authorities and national agencies websites
have been consulted to find the official documentation on methodology for waste
classification (guidelines, pieces of legislation, etc.). Scientific databases – such as Web
of Knowledge, PubMed, Science Direct – have been explored using keywords rings to
gather scientific articles dealing with biotests on waste.
3.1.3. Reporting data in factsheets
The data collected on HP 14 assessment by Member States survey and by a desk study
was reported in country factsheets. The template for those factsheets is presented below
(Table 3).
15
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Table 3: Template for the country factsheets
NAME OF COUNTRY
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
Type of
approach(es) used
in the country to
assess H14
property of waste
Calculation method with limit value
Calculation method without limit value –
Biotests
Combined approach
Other (choose one or more, please specify)
Name of the method(s)
Variability in H14
assessment
methods depending
on the waste nature
Specify if some categories of waste are assessed with different approaches
Related legislation
and guidelines
Legislation
Name of national regulations, decree, etc.
Guidelines
Name of national guidance (if available)
Stakeholders
involved in the H14
assessment
Waste with highest
tonnage
Percentage of
waste considered
as hazardous by
H14
Name of the institution(s) + type of the institution+ role (funding/performing
assessment, etc.)
Waste with highest tonnage
Name or code of waste + tonnage + share
(%)
Hazardous waste with
highest tonnage
Name or code of waste + tonnage+ share
(%)
Chapter of List of waste with
the highest share of
hazardous waste
Name or code of waste + tonnage+ share
(%)
Share of waste assessed as positive for H14 (% of waste classified as
ecotoxic - globally and by category)
If biotests are applied (complete if relevant)
Prioritization 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
Test
duration
Expression
of results
Threshold
value
Protocol used
Leaching/extraction test used
Aquatic tests
Test
organism
16
Endpoint
Test
method
Threshold
value
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
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
Name of experts (if agree)
References
Name of documents used to elaborate the factsheet
Additional
information
Links to websites to have additional information, stakeholders websites, etc.
The full factsheets containing all information collected for each countries are reported in
section 4.2.
3.2.
Selecting mirror pairs for the assessment
The assessment of HP 14 according to the four classification methods chosen by the
Commission is to be performed on a restricted list of mirror pairs. The next sections
explain how those pairs were selected.
3.2.1. Selection process
The selection of mirror pairs is based on an extended list provided by the Commission
and containing 133 waste codes. Among them, 124 mirror pairs have been identified and
the selection process is performed on these 124 waste codes.
The selection process is based on six selection criteria (SC):

SC 1 - Preference of experts

SC 2 - Availability and quality of data

SC 3 - Tonnage of waste production

SC 4 - Economic importance

SC 5 - Potential presence of hazardous substances

SC 6 - Criticality of waste classification
For each SC, waste codes were assigned a qualitative or quantitative value (depending
on the criterion). For instance, under SC1, waste codes were assigned the number of
experts which expressed their preference. Under SC2, waste codes were assigned
sources and various information regarding calculations and biotests. Furthermore, values
17
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
for each SC were translated into scores from 0 to 3, according to different scoring
systems depending on the criterion. Details on the methodology for each criterion are
presented in section 3.2.2.
A global score is then calculated for each waste code by computing a weighted average
of all scores. The weight of each criterion in the global score, as well as the strategy
adopted to select codes with the global scores is presented in section 3.2.3.
Data reporting and computing was performed in an Excel file which is attached to this
report as a separate document.
3.2.2. Selection criteria
The rationale for the evaluation of some selection criteria is based on results from the
data collection on the strategies of Member States to assess HP 14.
3.2.2.1. SC1: Preference of experts
Experts from ten Member States were asked which waste codes they thought the study
should focus on. Each waste code was attributed the number of experts who chose it.
The scoring system is as follows:
Number of experts
Score
0
0
12
1
35
2
≥6
3
Results are presented in the Excel sheet named “SC1”.
3.2.2.2. SC2: Availability and quality of data
A desk study was performed in order to evaluate the availability and quality of data
related to waste streams classified under the extended list of waste codes:

Exact 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:
18
Subchapter
Keywords
03 01 (03 01 05)
Sawdust + ecotoxic + waste
04 02, 06 05, 07 01, 07 02, 07 03, 07 05,
07 06, 08 01, 10 03, 10 08, 11 01, 12 01,
19 08
Sludge + ecotoxic + waste
06 03
Metallic oxides + ecotoxic + waste
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Subchapter
Keywords
08 03
Ink + ecotoxic + waste
08 04
Adhesive + ecotoxic + waste
10 01
Bottom ash + ecotoxic + waste
Fly ash + ecotoxic + waste
Gas cleaning + ecotoxic + waste
10 02
Filter cakes + ecotoxic + waste
cooling water treatment + ecotoxic +
waste
10 03
Flue gas dust + ecotoxic + waste
Slag + ecotoxic + waste
10 05
Dross + ecotoxic + waste
10 06, 10 08
cooling water treatment + ecotoxic +
waste
10 08, 10 10, 10 11
10 09, 10 10
Flue gas dust + ecotoxic + waste
10 11, 10 12, 10 13
Moulds + ecotoxic + waste
16 11
Gas treatment + ecotoxic + waste
Lining + ecotoxic + waste
Refractories + ecotoxic + waste
17 01
17 03
Concrete + ecotoxic + waste
17 05
Bituminous + ecotoxic + waste
Soil + ecotoxic + waste
Spoil + ecotoxic + waste
17 06
17 08
Insulation + ecotoxic + waste
19 01
Gypsum + ecotoxic + waste
19 07
Bottom ash + ecotoxic + waste
Fly ash + ecotoxic + waste
Boiler dust + ecotoxic + waste
19 10
19 13
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 reported in the Excel file.
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:
19
Number of publications
Score
0
0
1
1
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Number of publications
Score
23
2
≥4
3
The detailed references of the sources are reported in the Excel sheet named “Source
index” and the data on availability and quality is reported in the Excel sheet named “SC2”.
3.2.2.3. SC3: Tonnage of waste production
The quantities of waste produced per Member States and per waste code were retrieved
in official documents.
For Member States for which data was available (Germany, UK, Spain, Finland,
Belgium), a score was attributed to each waste code according to the logarithmic
distribution of the tonnages throughout the set of waste codes (Figure 2). Waste codes
for which no stream was produced in the Member State of interest (0 tons) were
attributed a score of zero. Those for which no data was available (Czech Republic and
Austria) were not given any score (noted “n/a”). This scoring system is illustrated below
for Germany:
Figure 2: Waste quantities in Germany and attribution of scores
1,0E+09
1,0E+08
Score: 3
Quantity of waste (tons)
1,0E+07
1,0E+06
Score: 2
1,0E+05
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
For some Member States (Italy and Poland), quantities were reported under other
classifications than the LoW: an extrapolation was therefore necessary:
20
Country
Type of raw data
Method of extrapolation
Italy
Total quantities of waste
generated
(with
a
distinction
between
hazardous
and
nonhazardous
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 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
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Country
Type of raw data
Method of extrapolation
of the value for total non-hazardous
waste of this category with the number of
non-hazardous waste codes in this
category
Poland
Total
quantities
of
hazardous
and
nonhazardous
waste
generated; and share of
categories of the LoW
within the tonnages of the
hazardous
and
nonhazardous waste
Disaggregation of the total quantity of waste
into the different category codes for 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
Weight
Data from selected companies
1 if the selection is representative
0.5 if not
Data from a specific region of the
Member State
1
Data for some codes only
1
Data extrapolated from quantities
reported under another classification
than the LoW
0.5
Old data (< 2009)
0.5
If more than one bias was identified for a Member States, the weights were multiplied.
An example is provided below for waste code 06 03 16. Italy has a bias of extrapolation
and data from Poland dates from 2005 and is extrapolated.
21
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Table 5: Score per Member State and weighted average score for SC3 - waste code 06 03 16
Country
FR
DE
UK
ES
IT
PL
FI
BE
AT
Weight
1
1
1
1
0.5
0.25
1
1
1
Score
n/a
2
n/a
n/a
2
3
n/a
2
n/a
Score for SC3
2,07
Results are presented in the Excel sheet named “SC3”.
3.2.2.4. SC4: Economic importance
The economic importance was evaluated by the volumes of transboundary shipments
and by the inputs of the Competent Authorities 13.
The scoring system is as follows:
Data
Score
Identified as one of the most exported
OR
Identified by Italy AND Finland
3
Identified by Italy or Finland only
2
Belongs to one of the main categories of waste
which are shipped
1
No data available
n/a
Results are presented in the Excel sheet named “SC4”.
3.2.2.5. SC5: Potential presence of hazardous substances
The identification of hazardous substances potentially contaminating waste, was done
thanks to a desk-based search and to the Competent Authorities’ experience with
hazardous waste.
Scores were attributed with regards to the level of hazard linked to the identified
substances. The level of hazard was evaluated thanks to EC50 and NOEC values, which
were
retrieved
through
the
INERIS
portal
of
hazardous
substances
(http://www.ineris.fr/substances/fr/homepage/search), or the USEPA ECOTOX portal
(http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/quick_query.htm)14 if the substance is not in the INERIS
inventory. When more than one value of EC50 or NOEC 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 bees15) of the PAN International List of
Highly
Hazardous
Pesticides
June
2014
(http://www.panna.org/sites/default/files/PAN_HHP_List_2014.pdf)
13
In practice, only Italy and Finland provided inputs on this matter.
The USEPA portal was used if the INERIS portal did not provide the requested information.
15
Bees are not an exposed species when pesticides are in waste
14
22
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report

Step
2:
Selecting
only
pesticides
authorised
in
the
EU
(http://ec.europa.eu/sanco_pesticides/public/?event=activesubstance.selectio
n&language=EN)

Step 3: Reporting EC50 and NOEC 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
and NOEC values for metals, inorganics (except metals), pesticides and organics (except
pesticides).
The scoring system is as follows:
Order of magnitude of EC50 and NOEC of substances
Score
10-4 / 10-3 (e.g. metals, pesticides)
3
10-2 / 10-1 (e.g. tars)
2
1 or more
1
No data available
n/a
Results are presented in the Excel sheet named “SC5”.
3.2.2.6. SC6: Criticality of waste classification
This was evaluated according to a VITO study16 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. The inputs from Member States were also considered.
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”.
Results are presented in the Excel sheet named “SC6”.
3.2.3. Global score and selection of mirror pairs
The global score is calculated for each waste code by computing a weighted average of
all scores obtained for SC1 to SC6. The weights are the following:
16
23
Impact of the new List of Waste on the Flemish waste policy
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Selection criteria
Weight
SC1
3
SC2
3
SC3
2
SC4
1
SC5
1
SC6
2
For each waste code:
𝐺𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 =
∑𝑖 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 (𝑆𝐶𝑖). 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡(𝑆𝐶𝑖)
𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑖 𝑠𝑢𝑐ℎ 𝑎𝑠 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒(𝑆𝐶𝑖) ≠ 𝑛/𝑎
∑𝑖 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡(𝑆𝐶𝑖)
Since a weighted average pulls all indicator values toward the mean, the global score is
rescaled to extend through the full range of values (0–3):
For each waste code:
𝑁𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 = 3. (
𝐺𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 (𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑑𝑒) − min(𝐺𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒)
)
max(𝐺𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒) − min(𝐺𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒)
All waste codes with a normalised global score higher than 1.5 are selected. If the mirror
entry of a selected code is not included in the list, the mirror pair is nonetheless chosen.
3.2.4. Taking into account the Commission and Member States’
inputs
The Commission and Member States’ experience with the LoW lead to their suggesting
additional codes to the selection performed with the process detailed in the previous
sections. It was taken into account as described below:
Member States’ contribution
Some Member States (Austria, Belgium and the UK) shared a list of waste streams
relevant, in their experience, for assessing ecotoxicity. A list of mirror pairs was attributed
to the proposed waste streams, except for those which referred to absolute entries. Then,
only mirror pairs appearing in the original extended list of the Commission were kept. Of
those, the pairs chosen with the selection process described in section 3.2.1 were
removed.
The resulting list was further trimmed:

Only pairs from the most mentioned streams were kept (gas cleaning,
sludge, C&D waste); and then

Only pairs in which both entries have a score above 1 made the final cut.
European Commission’s contribution
Pairs proposed by the Commission were included.
3.3.
Collecting experimental data on selected waste codes
The team collected the data necessary to perform the calculations required to apply the
four different methodologies for waste classification, along with all ecotoxicology test
results about the previously selected mirror pairs. The data collection was done by a new
24
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
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 3.1.2).
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);

Exact composition of the waste:


o
Nature of each component;
o
Hazard statement codes according to CLP of each component (ex:
H420, H400, H410, H411, H412, H413, etc.);
o
Exact concentration and M factor of each component that are
classified H420 or H400, H410, H411, H412, H413;
Results of ecotoxicity tests:
o
Test strategy (number of tests, prioritisation, etc.);
o
Way of expressing results (ECx, LID, etc.);
o
Threshold values for classifying wastes as hazardous;
Protocols of sampling, preparation of samples, analyses and test:
o
o
25
For composition:

Specify whether chemical analysis was performed on solid
material or on 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.
For ecotoxicity tests:

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 ;

Organism [e.g. Daphnia magnamagna]

Time of conservation before performing test :

Preparation of waste eluates (including pH adjustment if
appropriate)
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report

Storage of waste eluates (including time and conditions)

Test method

Control/dilution medium
The Member States were sent a blank Excel database for them to fill in with the
requested data (separate document to this report).
26
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
4. Results: strategies of selected
Member States to assess HP
14
4.1.
Member States survey
Ten Member States were sent a questionnaire via email (see Annex 1), in 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 reported in Table 6 below.
Table 6: Experts contacted and their contribution (in grey: Member States who did not
contribute)
Member State
Experts contacted
Expert(s) who contributed
Austria
Franz Mochty, Lebensministerium
Sonja Loew
Sonja Loew, Lebensministerium
Belgium
Inge van Engeland, Leefmilieu
Evi Rossi
Evi Rossi, OVAM
Didier Gohy, SPW
Czech Republic
Alena Marasova, MZP
Jaromir Manhart
Gabriela Bulkova, MZP
Jan Marsak, MZP
Jaromir Manhart, MZP
Finland
Eevaleena Häkkinen, Ympäristöministeriö
Eevaleena Häkkinen
Germany
Joachim Wuttke, UBA
Joachim Wuttke
Martin Kaimer, UM Baden-Württemberg
Walter Adebahr
Walter Adebahr, UM Baden-Württemberg
Susanne Hempen, BMUB
Spain
Fabrellas Begona
José Delgado Alfaro
Margarita
colleagues)
Ruiz
Sáiz-Aja
(and
Margarita Ruiz Sáiz-Aja
UK
Chris Hall
Robert McIntyre
Robert McIntyre
France
Pauline Ardaine Langeron
Pauline Ardaine Langeron
Christine Cros
27
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Member State
Experts contacted
Expert(s) who contributed
Poland
Krystyna Panek-Gondek
None
Magdalena PERLIŃSKA
Andrzej Jagusiewicz
Roman Jaworski
Italy
Daniela Conti
Daniela Conti
Andrea Paina
Andrea Paina
Stefania Balzamo
Stefania Balzamo
Maria Belli
Loredana Musmeci
As a result, factsheets were drafted for the following countries:

Austria

Germany

Czech Republic

France

Italy

United Kingdom

Belgium

Finland

Spain
The next sections detail and analyse the information reported in those factsheets.
4.2.
Full country factsheets
The factsheets are available in Annex 2.
4.3.
Description of the approaches
4.3.1. General information
The nine Member States have either national legislation, guidelines or both, describing
methods to assess HP 14 in their jurisdictions (Table 7). Italy and Austria passed laws
introducing the criteria assigning HP 14 to waste but did not issue guidelines17. 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 instrument exist, guidelines are however available.
Table 7: National legislation or guidelines for the H14 assessment methods and protocols
Member State
Legal instrument
Austria
Fed. Law Gaz No. 522/1973 as
amended by Fed Law Gaz III No.
36/2001
Belgium
Guidelines
OVAM
(2004)
Europese
afvalstoffenlijst EURAL Handleiding
17
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)
28
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Member State
Legal instrument
Guidelines
Czech Republic
Decree No 376/2001 Coll. on
evaluation of hazardous properties of
waste
Instructions for waste ecotoxicity
evaluation (Bulletin of Ministry of
Environment (No.4, 2007)
Finland
Dahlbo, H. 2002. Jätteen luokittelu
ongelmajätteeksi
–
arvioinnin
perusteet
ja
menetelmät
(Classification of waste as hazardous
waste – the basis and methods for
evaluation). Environment Guide 98.
Finnish
Environment
Institute.
Helsinki. Finland. 160 pp. (In Finnish)
Ympäristöministeriö, Tilastokeskus,
Suomen
ympäristökeskus.
Jäteluokitusopas
2005
(Waset
Classification
Guide
2005).
Tilastokeskus,
Käsikirjoja
37.
Helsinki 2005. (In Finnish)
France
FNADE (2003) Methodological Guide
- Waste Classification for a good
direction of waste to appropriate
storage centres – Appendix 3
INERIS (2013) Guide de classement
des déchets selon leur dangerosité
suivant le Code de l’Environnement
et la réglementation SEVESO II
(partie applicable aux déchets).
Rapport d’étude N°INERIS- DRC-12125740-06310A, 66 pp.
Germany
German
(Abfallverzeichnisverordnung)
(technical guide)
AVV
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)
29
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
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 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
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”)
UK
Environment Agency (2013) WM2:
Hazardous waste Interpretation of
the definition and classification of
hazardous waste (3rd Edition 2013),
147 pp.
University of Birmingham (2014)
Health and Safety Guidance Hazardous Waste: Guidance on
Assessment
GUIDANCE/11/HWGA/14, 32 pp
The assessment approaches adopted in the nine Member States can be qualified as:

Based on chemical analysis; or

Based on biotests; or

Based on chemical analysis and biotests (so-called combined approaches).
The following map (Figure 3) shows the types of approaches adopted by the nine
Member States.
Figure 3: Approaches for the assessment of HP 14 in the nine studied Member States
Type of approach
Biotests
Chemical analysis
Combined
Not included in the sample
Austria, Belgium, 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
30
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
in some cases, but discourage the use of such methods. Their position is discussed in
section 4.4. In Czech Republic, France and Spain, the assessment of HP 14 is performed
thanks to biotests only, while in Italy and Germany a tiered approach including chemical
analysis is in place.
The following sections (4.3.2 and 4.3.3) 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 4.3.3 focuses on the analysis of combined approaches.
4.3.2. Approaches using chemical analysis
Belgium, Finland, Germany, Italy and the UK base their approach on the DPD, but did not
adapt it identically. In Austria, another strategy is used, based on classification according
to the European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods
by Road (ADR)18 and on the presence of ozone-depleting substances.
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.
Figure 4: Decision tree for the assessment of HP 14 using chemical analyses (based on the
DPD)
Step 1
Does the waste contain
ecotoxic substances
assigned R50 to R53, R5053, R51-53 or R52-53?
Yes
No
Step 2’
Yes
Does the waste contain ecotoxic
substances at a concentration at
or above the substance specific
threshold limits?
No
Does the waste contain
ecotoxic substances at a
concentration at or above the
generic
concentration limits?
Step 3
No
Does the waste contain two
or more ecotoxic substances
above the concentration
thresholds?
Step 4
Yes
Italics
Yes
No
Not hazardous by HP 14
Hazardous by HP 14
Step 2
No
Yes
Is the waste ecotoxic
according to additivity rules
applied in the Member
State?
No
In dashes and italics: a UK-specific step.
In green: Concentrations and equations detailed
below the diagram.
18
31
http://www.unece.org/trans/danger/publi/adr/adr_e.html
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
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 named “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).
Table 8: Generic concentration limits for individual ecotoxic substances, according to their
classification
Classification of the
substance (DSD)
Generic concentration
limits (w/w %)
R50
25
R50-53
0.25
R51-53
2.5
R52-53
25
R52
25
R53
25
R59
0.1
If at least one ecotoxic substance is present in the waste at a concentration at or
exceeding the relevant threshold limit, then the waste is hazardous by HP 14. Otherwise
the assessment process must continue.
In the next step (Step 3), one must compare the concentrations of ecotoxic substances to
concentration thresholds above which they must be taken into account for the
assessment (Table 9).
Table 9: Concentration thresholds for ecotoxic substances, according to their classification
32
Classification of the
substance (DSD)
Concentration,
thresholds (w/w %)
R50
0.1
R50-53
0.1
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Classification of the
substance (DSD)
Concentration,
thresholds (w/w %)
R51-53
0.1
R52-53
1
R52
1
R53
1
R59
0.1
If no ecotoxic substances is present at a concentration at or above the relevant threshold,
then the waste is non-hazardous by HP 14. Otherwise, additivity rules must be applied
to the ecotoxic substances having concentrations above thresholds (Step 4). These rules
differ depending on the Member States (Table 10).
Table 10: Conditions rendering the waste hazardous by HP 14 during Step 4, per Member
State adapting the DPD for HP 14 assessment
Member State(s)
Conditions
Finland, UK and Italy
PR50-53 PR51-53 PR52-53
∑(
+
+
)≥1
0.25
2.5
25
Or
∑(PR50 +PR50-53 ) ≥ 25
Or
∑ PR52 ≥ 25
Or
∑ (PR53 +PR50-53 +PR51-53 +PR52-53 ) ≥ 25
Belgium
∑(PR50-53 ) ≥ 2.5
Or
∑(PR51-53 ) ≥ 25
Or
∑(PR50 ) ≥ 25
Or
∑(PR59 ) ≥ 0.1
33
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Member State(s)
Conditions
Germany19
∑(PR50-53 ) ≥ 0.25
Or
∑(PR51-53 ) ≥ 2.5
Or
∑(PR52-53 ) ≥ 25
Or
∑(PR59 ) ≥ 0.1
Where PRX is the total concentration of substances classified as RX, expressed in w/w %.
The British approach adds one step to the process (Step 2’), which considers specific
concentration limits reported in Table 3.2 of the CLP regulation. In the UK, where an
individual dangerous substance has been assigned a substance specific concentration
limit for any ecotoxic R-phrase, which is lower than the generic limit (see Table 8), then
the lowest substance specific threshold must be considered for attribution of HP 14.
The Austrian approach
In 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 it contains:

Environmental hazardous substances due to Class 9, M6 and M7 of the
ADR; or

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.
4.3.3. Approaches based on biotests
Czech Republic, France, Spain, Germany and Italy use biotests for the assessment of
HP 14; Czech Republic, France and Spain rely exclusively on them for the assessment,
while Germany and Italy use them in a combined approach with chemical analyses.
Approaches based on biotests involve assays on aquatic and soil organisms in order to
evaluate 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 11).
Table 11: Standards for preparing waste samples
Member State
Standard
Scope
Description
Czech
Republic
EN 14735
raw wastes
or
water
extracts
Necessary steps to be performed
before carrying out ecotoxicity tests
on wastes: taking of the sample,
transport, storage of wastes and to
define preparation.
19
34
As implemented in Baden-Württemberg. Other Länder may have different methods.
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Member State
Standard
Scope
Description
France
EN 12457 - 2
water
extracts
Leaching - Compliance test for
leaching
of
granular
waste
materials and sludge. One stage
batch test at a liquid to solid ratio of
10 l/kg for materials with particle
size below 4 mm (without or with
size reduction)
Germany
EN 12457 – 2
water
extracts
See France
DIN 19528
water
extracts
Leaching of solid materials Percolation method for the joint
examination
of
the
leaching
behaviour of inorganic and organic
substances
Italy
EN 14735
raw wastes
or
water
extracts
See Czech Republic
Spain
EN 12457 - 2
water
extracts
See France
While Italy and the Czech Republic have adopted a standard encompassing raw waste
and water extracts, the other Member States have opted for a specific standard on
leaching solid materials.
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 12).
Table 12: Batteries of tests used in Member States using biotests to assess HP 14
Aquatic tests
35
Terrestrial tests
Member State
Organism
Standard
Organism
Czech Republic
Daphnia magna
ISO 6341
None
Sinapis alba
Czech
guidelines
Desmodesmus
subspicatus
ISO 8692
Poecilia reticulata
ISO 7346-2
Standard
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Aquatic tests
Terrestrial tests
Member State
Organism
Standard
Organism
Standard
France (initial
strategy)20
Daphnia magna
(acute)
ISO 6341
E. fetida (acute)
ISO 11 268-1
Lactuca sativa
ISO 11269-2
Vibrio fischeri
ISO 11348-3
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata
NF EN ISO
8692
Ceriodaphnia dubia
NF ISO 20665
Brachionus
calyciflorus
NF ISO 20666
France (hybrid
strategy
combining
initial strategy
and German
strategy)
Daphnia magna
(acute)
ISO 6341
E. fetida
(avoidance)
ISO 17512-1
Avena sativa /
Brassica rapa
ISO 11269-2
Arthrobacter
globiformis
ISO/DIS 18187
Spain
Vibrio fischeri
ISO 11348
Daphnia magna
ISO 6341
Daphnia magna
(acute)
ISO 6341
Daphnia magna
(chronic)
ISO 10706
Vibrio fischeri
ISO 113481/2/3
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata /
Desmodesmus
subspicatus
NF EN ISO
8692
Lemna minor
ISO 20079
Daphnia magna
(acute)
ISO 6341
Vibrio fischeri
ISO 11348
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata and
Desmodesmus
subspicatus
ISO 8692
Germany
Italy
Vibrio fischeri
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata
ISO 11348-3
NF EN ISO
8692
None
E. fetida
ISO 17512-1
E. fetida (chronic)
ISO 12 268-1
Brassica rapa
ISO 11269-2
Arthrobacter
globiformis
ISO/DIS 18187
Folsomia candida
(chronic)
ISO 11267
France and Germany consider both aquatic and terrestrial organisms for assessing waste
ecotoxicity. In those countries, a tiered approach is used, where aquatic tests are
prioritised and terrestrial tests are performed only if aquatic tests are inconclusive. In
Spain, Italy and the Czech Republic, only aquatic tests are performed. Nevertheless, in
20
36
According to the FNADE guidance, which is not regulatory-sanctioned
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Italy and the Czech Republic, members of the scientific community recommend the use
of terrestrial tests in the assessment of HP 1421.
Among all biotests summarised in Table 12, 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 13).
Table 13: Tests on Daphnia magna, as used in Member States relying on biotests for the
assessment of HP 14
Standard
Test duration
Expression of results
France
Threshold value
10% (v/v)
24h or 48h
750 mg/L22
Spain
Germany
Italy
ISO 6341
EC50
48h
Czech
Republic
10% (v/v)
10% (v/v)
10mL/L22 (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); furthermore, Italy chose a higher threshold than France and Germany for
Daphnia magna.
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.
4.3.4. Combined approaches
In Germany and Italy, 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 method described in section
4.5.1 (see Figure 3 and Table 10). 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 4.3.3 (see Table 12 and Table 13).
Germany and Italy adopted the same strategy for assessing HP 14 with chemical
analysis, although the equations and limit values for a combination of ecotoxic
components are different (Table 14).
21
Italy: Balzamo S., Finocchiaro G., Frizza G., Conti D., Martone C., Cadoni F: Proposta di una batteria minima
di biosaggi per valutazioni di ecotossicità ambientale mediante analisi statistica multivariata. Comunicazione
orale prensentata an Convegno: “Ricerca e applicazione di metodologie ecotossicologiche in ambienti
acquatici” (20-22 ottobre 2010)
Czech republic : D. Sirotková, M. Kulovaná, S. Vosáhlová, J. Hofman, V. Kočí, M. Záleská, Novelization of
czech approaches to ecotoxicity evaluation of hazardous wastes
22
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
37
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Table 14: Comparison between Italy and Germany regarding conditions rendering the waste
hazardous by HP 14 during Step 4 of the chemical analyses method
Italy
Germany19
PR50-53 PR51-53 PR52-53
∑(
+
+
)≥1
0.25
2.5
25
∑(PR50-53 ) ≥ 0.25
Or
Or
∑(PR50 +PR50-53 ) ≥ 25
∑(PR51-53 ) ≥ 2.5
Or
Or
∑ PR52 ≥ 25
∑(PR52-53 ) ≥ 25
Or
Or
∑ (PR53 +PR50-53 +PR51-53 +PR52-53 ) ≥ 25
∑(PR59 ) ≥ 0.1
Where PRX is the total concentration of substances classified as RX, expressed in w/w %.
Furthermore, the German battery of biotests is more comprehensive than the Italian one,
with more organisms being tested before concluding on waste ecotoxicity (Table 15).
Table 15: Batteries of tests used in Germany and Italy
Aquatic tests
Terrestrial tests
Member State
Organism
Standard
Organism
Standard
Germany
Daphnia
magna(acute)
ISO 6341
E. fetida (acute)
ISO 17512-1
ISO 10706
E. fetida (chronic)
ISO 12 268-1
ISO 113481/2/3
Brassica rapa
ISO 11269-2
Arthrobacter
globiformis
ISO 10187
Folsomia candida
ISO 11267
Daphnia
magna(chronic)
Vibrio fischeri
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata and
Desmodesmus
subspicatus
NF EN ISO
8692
ISO 200795
Lemna minor
Italy
Daphnia magna
(acute)
ISO 6341
Heterocypris
incongruens
Ostracodotoxkit
F method
Vibrio fischeri
ISO 11348
Folsomia candida
ISO 267
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata and
Desmodesmus
subspicatus
NF EN ISO
8692
Cucumis
sativium,
Lepidium sativus,
Sorgum
saccaratum
UNICHIM 1961
However, Italy’s tiered approach follows the strategy described in the ADR for the
determination of ecotoxicity of waste.
38
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
4.4.
Costs associated with implementing HP 14 approaches
Costs associated with chemical analyses and biotests vary depending on the country and
the amount of tests necessary to reach a conclusion regarding the hazardous nature 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. Combined approaches do not seem to cost more than individual
approaches, based on data from Italy (where chemical analyses cost from 100€ to 1,000€
and the biotests battery 800€). Ranges per country are shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Ranges of costs in Member States for which the information is available
Range of costs (€) – Biotests
100 – 500
500 – 1,000
1,000 – 3,000
3,000 – 5,000
Range of costs (€) – Chemical analyses
100 – 500
500 – 1,000
1,000 – 3,000
3,000 – 5,000
Not included in the sample, or no
information
France is the Member State in which assessing HP 14 is the most expensive if the whole
test battery is performed, followed by Belgium (Flanders) where chemical analyses using
AFNOR XP X30-489 are 1,900 € per sample. The Member States where assessing
HP 14 is the least expensive are Austria and the UK. In Austria, no specific costs are
associated with assessing HP 14 because tests are performed for transportation of waste
anyway.
4.5.
Advantages and limits of the approaches
4.5.1. Approaches based on chemical analysis
Approaches based on chemical analyses are easy and satisfactory for well-defined waste
samples. In particular, strategies based on the DPD are clear and align directly with
chemical risk phrase classification systems. Non-inclusion of M-factors makes it possible
to apply concentration thresholds 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 the classification according to the
ADR is required anyway if the waste is transported. 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
39
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
classification with chemical analysis. An additional advantage of approaches based on
chemical analysis is their lower cost compared to approaches based on biotests.
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 includes the assessment of mixtures with unknown
composition, has not been evaluated. In particular, the heterogeneity of waste samples,
with high content of anions, alkaline earth metals and silica, can make determination of
composition difficult. Furthermore, suitable methods to identify organic substances in
waste are lacking and approaches based on chemical analysis often underestimate the
share of potentially ecotoxic organic components. Additionally, the application of worstcase scenarios when the composition of waste is not sufficiently known leads to an
overestimation of the waste hazard. Thus, assessments using chemical analyses may not
reflect the actual ecotoxicity of waste.
4.5.2. Approaches based on biotests
Biotests mirror well the effects of all bioavailable contaminants, including their potential
interactions (additive, synergistic and antagonistic), as well as pollutants in complex
matrices, which cannot be determined by chemical analysis. Furthermore, aquatic
ecotoxicity tests are sensitive to many water soluble substances, thus being relevant to
the assessment of wastes and addressing the main limit of ecotoxicity assessment with
chemical analysis.
The lack of legally-fixed and harmonised threshold values is 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 proposed threshold values.
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
has 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, with the exception of fish (Poecilia reticulata used in Czech Republic).
Another limit exist when the battery of biotests only includes aquatic tests (Spain and the
Czech Republic): toxicity on soil ecosystems is not evaluated when assessing HP 14.
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.
4.5.3. Combined approaches
Combined approaches address some limits of the two individual approaches (chemical
analysis and biotests) and have then 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 for its composition to be well-defined, the use of biotests can
nevertheless allow the assessment of ecotoxicity. Furthermore, combined approaches
40
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
have recently been investigated by researchers as a promising alternative to the status
quo regarding the assessment of HP 14 in the EU23.
However, some disadvantages remain. There are no harmonised threshold or limit values
and no harmonised test batteries, as shown in Table 14 and Table 15 in section 4.3.4.
Furthermore, it has been noticed in the UK that the results of the two approaches
(chemical analysis and biotests) are often different and lead to different classification of
the waste.
Pascal Pandard and Jörg Römbke (2013) Proposal for a “Harmonized” Strategy for the Assessment of the
HP 14 Property, Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management — Volume 9, Number 4—pp. 665–
672
23
41
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
This page was left intentionally blank
42
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
5. Results: selection of waste
codes for the assessment
5.1.
Scores obtained for the selection criteria
5.1.1. SC1: Preference of experts
Experts mainly supported the selection of construction and demolition waste, in particular
soil, stones and dredging spoils as well as bituminous mixtures, coal tar and tarred
products. Wastes from incineration and pyrolysis of waste were also favoured.
Figure 6: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports results for SC1
Waste code
17 05 03*
17 05 04
17 01 06*
17 01 07
17 05 05*
17 05 06
19 01 11*
19 01 12
19 01 13*
19 01 14
Waste description
Number of experts
who expressed their
preference
soil and stones containing hazardous
substances
soil and stones other than those mentioned
in 17 05 03
mixtures of, or separate fractions of
concrete, bricks, tiles and ceramics
containing hazardous substances
mixtures of concrete, bricks, tiles and
ceramics other than those mentioned in 17
01 06
dredging spoil containing hazardous
substances
dredging spoil other than those mentioned in
17 05 05
bottom ash and slag containing hazardous
substances
bottom ash and slag other than those
mentioned in 19 01 11
fly ash containing hazardous substances
fly ash other than those mentioned in 19 01
13
Member State(s)
Score
6 AT, UK, IT, DE, ES, BE
3
6 AT, UK, IT, DE, ES, BE
3
5 AT, FI, UK, DE, BE
2
5 AT, FI, UK, DE, BE
2
4 AT, UK, DE, BE
2
4 AT, UK, DE, BE
2
4 FI, UK, IT, BE
2
4 FI, UK, IT, BE
4 FI, UK, IT, BE
2
2
4 FI, UK, IT, BE
2
The full results can be found in sheet “SC1” of the separate Excel file.
5.1.2. SC2: Availability and quality of data
The types of waste for which the most data on ecotoxicity is available are soil from
demolition waste and ashes from incineration of waste. Furthermore, collected literature
was mainly related to biotests and few occurrences of work on chemical analysis was
found.
Figure 7 below shows an example of how information is reported.
43
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Figure 7: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports results for SC2
Waste code
Waste description
Results of ecotoxicological tests
Waste code
Waste description
Data
03 01 04*
sawdust, shavings,
cuttings, wood,
particle board and
veneer containing
hazardous
substances
03 01 05
sawdust, shavings,
cuttings, wood,
particle board and
veneer other than
those mentioned in
03 01 04
Source
EC50(Eisenia fetida)
EC50(lactuca)
EC50(vibrio fisheri)
[10]
EC50(daphnia)
EC50(ceriodaphnia)
EC50(peudokirchneriella)
EC50(Brassica)
EC50(enchytraeus)
EC50(arthrobacter)
EC50(lemna minor)
EC50(pseudomonas putida)
[3] [2]
EC50(salmonella)
EC50(brachionus)
[12]
Protocols of sampling, preparation of
samples, analyses and test
Quality
Data
AVAILABLE
IN [10]
High quality:
repeatability
and
AVAILABLE
reproducibility
IN [2]
assessed under
ISO standard
5725‐1
ISO and ASTM
procedure
when possible;
AVAILABLE
otherwise
IN [12]
protocols tested
in previous
publications
Source
Quality
[10]
water extract
= according
to CEN
standards
test =
according to
ISO and
AFNOR
standards
[2]
all
procedures
according to
ISO
standards
[12]
leaching
protocol
established
in the
Spanish
legislation
(MOPU,
1989).
The full results can be found in sheet “SC2” of the separate Excel file.
5.1.3. SC3: Quantity of produced waste
Data was collected for Germany, UK, Italy, Austria, the Belgian region Flanders, the
Spanish region Catalonia and Finland. It was not possible to attribute French waste
quantities to waste codes, because available data was reported according to a
classification which did not allow for an extrapolation of data, as could be done in Italy
and Poland. Moreover, thanks to a desk study, Polish tonnages of waste were collected
and used in assessing SC3 even if Poland was not initially chosen in 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 16). 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.
Table 16: Most produced waste types in the studied Member States
Member State
Reporting year
Highest tonnage
Potential bias
Germany
2011
17 05 04
-
106,015,300 t
UK
2012
17 05 03*
-
284,915 t
Spain
(Catalonia)
44
2013
17 01 07
Data for industrial waste only
47,806 t
Data for a region and not the
whole Member State
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Member State
Reporting year
Highest tonnage
Potential bias
Italy
2013
17 01 07
Extrapolation based on data
not reported by waste code
2,346,782 t
Poland
2005
03 01 05
Extrapolation based on data
not reported by waste code
1,215,150 t
Not recent data
Finland
2012
06 05 03
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.
153,959 t
Belgium
(Flanders)
2012
17 05 04
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.
960,826 t
Data for a region and not the
whole Member State
Austria
2009
17 05 04
-
23,500,000 t
The biases highlighted in Table 16 were taken into account when scoring, as shown in
Table 4.
Figure 8 below shows an example of how information is reported in the Excel file:
Figure 8: 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)
Tonnage in Finland
Waste code
04 02 19*
04 02 20
06 03 15*
06 03 16
06 05 02*
06 05 03
07 01 11*
07 01 12
Waste description
sludges from on-site effluent treatment
containing hazardous substances
sludges from on-site effluent treatment other
than those mentioned in 04 02 19
metallic oxides containing heavy metals
metallic oxides other than those mentioned in
06 03 15
sludges from on-site effluent treatment
containing hazardous substances
sludges from on-site effluent treatment other
than those mentioned in 06 05 02
sludges from on-site effluent treatment
containing hazardous substances
sludges from on-site effluent treatment other
than those mentioned in 07 01 11
Quantity (t) or
qualitative indication
Percentage of
waste
104,80
0,000584007
990,59
0,005520145
153958,60
20,64
158,30
0,85794706
0,000115018
0,00088214
Source
Score
[34)
2
[34)
2
[34)
3
[34)
1
[34)
2
The full results can be found in sheet “SC3” of the separate Excel file.
45
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
5.1.4. SC4: Economic importance
Waste types identified as the most economically important with the methodology
presented in section 3.2.2.4 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 9 below shows an example of how information is reported in the Excel file:
Figure 9: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports results for SC4
Waste code
19 01 11*
19 01 12
10 02 07*
17 05 03*
19 01 13*
03 01 04*
Waste description
bottom ash and slag containing hazardous
substances
bottom ash and slag other than those
mentioned in 19 01 11
solid wastes from gas treatment containing
hazardous substances
soil and stones containing hazardous
substances
fly ash containing hazardous substances
Info
Economically important
in IT
Economically important
in IT
Second most exported
hazardous waste in the
EU (282 098 tonnes)
First most exported
hazardous waste in the
EU (686 640 tonnes)
Economically important
in IT
Fifth most exported
hazardous waste in the
EU (207 736 tonnes)
Economically important
in IT
Source
Score
Q-IT
1
Q-IT
1
[9] p.19
3
[9] p.19
Q-IT
3
[9] p.19
Q-IT
3
sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood, particle
board and veneer containing hazardous
substances
n/a
The full results can be found in sheet “SC4” of the separate Excel file.
5.1.5. SC5: Potential presence of hazardous substances
Appendix B of the UK EA report “Hazardous Waste: Interpretation of the definition and
classification of hazardous waste” (2nd edition v2.1) 24 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 to
have 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, are reported in the sheet “Hazard of
various substances”.
24
UK Environment Agency (2006) Appendix B of Hazardous Waste: Interpretation of the definition and
classification of hazardous waste (2nd edition v2.1)
46
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Figure 10: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports EC50 and NOEC values of potentially
ecotoxic substances25
Metals
Element
Hg
Cd
Cu
As
Pb
Cr(VI)
Zn
Ni
Ti
U
Be
Sb
Ba
Mo
PbO2
EC50min (mg/L)
0,0007
0,0034
0,011
0,011
0,026
0,03
0,032
0,06
0,01
0,04
0,1
1,77
14,5
29
0,01
Source
INERIS
INERIS
INERIS
INERIS
INERIS
INERIS
INERIS
INERIS
INERIS
INERIS
INERIS
INERIS
INERIS
INERIS
INERIS
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 3.2.2.5). The results of the
step-by-step process is 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 201426
Amisulbrom
DDT
Pirimicarb
Azocyclotin
Dimoxystrobin
Propargite
Bromethalin
Etofenprox; Ethofenprox
Prothiofos
Bromoxynil heptanoate
Fenbutatin-oxide
Pyridalyl *
Bromoxynil octanoate
Fluazolate
Quinoxyfen
Cadusafos
Flufenoxuron
Tebupirimifos
Chlorantraniliprole
Flumetralin
Tolfenpyrad
Chlorfluazuron
Halfenprox
Tri-allate
Copper (II) hydroxide
Isopyrazam
Cyhexatin
Lufenuron*
Step 2: Selecting only pesticides authorised in the EU27
Amisulbrom
Dimoxystrobin
Pirimicarb
Bromoxynil heptanoate
Etofenprox; Ethofenprox
Pyridalyl
Bromoxynil octanoate
Isopyrazam
Quinoxyfen
25
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.
26
http://www.panna.org/sites/default/files/PAN_HHP_List_2014.pdf
27
http://ec.europa.eu/sanco_pesticides/public/?event=activesubstance.selection&language=EN
47
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Chlorantraniliprole
Lufenuron
Tri-allate
Copper (II) hydroxide
Step 3: Reporting EC50 and NOEC 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 11).
Figure 11: EC50 and NOEC of some of the most hazardous pesticides authorised in the EU
Substance
Bromoxynil heptanoate
Bromoxynil octanoate
Chlorantraniliprole
Etofenprox
Pirimicarb
Pyridalyl
Quinoxyfen
Tri-allate
EC50min (mg/L)
0,031
0,0042
0,0071
0,00012
0,0065
0,0042
0,028
0,0062
Source
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
INERIS
USEPA
Substance
NOECmin (mg/L) Source
Copper (II) hydroxide
0,00003 INERIS
Etofenprox
0,0037 USEPA
Pyridalyl
0,208 USEPA
Quinoxyfen
0,00636 INERIS
Tri-allate
0,01 USEPA
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 12 below shows an example of how information on the presence of hazardous
substances is reported in the Excel file:
Figure 12: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports results for SC5
Waste code
Waste description
List of potentially hazardous substances
03 01 04*
sawdust, shavings, cuttings,
wood, particle board and
veneer containing hazardous
substances
oil, varnishes and glues
Pb, As, Cd, Cr, Hg, Cu, Zn, formaldehyde,
boric acid, PCP, PCB, PAH (creosotes), oilborne preservatives; Lindane (γ-HCH);
quaternary ammonium compounds, Cu-azoles, [6]
fluorides
Q-AT
04 02 19*
06 03 15*
06 05 02*
Chemical products used during the cloth
sludges from on-site effluent
finishing, dyeing and washing processes:
treatment containing hazardous perchloroethylene, acids and alkalis (including
substances
metallic complexes), organic solvents
Heavy metals (esp. Cr III), azo-dies, tensides
(alcyl aryl sulfonates), hydrocarbons/oils,
Naphthalene/chlorophenols, Glutaraldehyde
Source
[6]
Q-AT
metallic oxides containing heavy nickel; copper; zinc; arsenic; cadmium;
metals
antimony; tellurium; mercury; thorium; lead; Sb, [6]
Be or their compounds (e.g. As oxide)
Q-AT
sludges from on-site effluent
treatment containing hazardous Heavy metals, Ni, Pb, Cu, Cd, Cr, Zn, etc.,
substances
maybe CaO
Q-AT
Score
3
2
3
3
The full results can be found in sheet “SC5” of the separate Excel file.
48
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
5.1.6. SC6: Criticality of waste classification
The VITO study allowed to have information on the criticality of 11 waste codes. The
Italian28, Finnish29 and Austrian30 representatives gave inputs on 2, 4 and 64 waste codes
respectively.
Information on criticality was reported in sheet “SC6” of the separate Excel file (example
in Figure 13).
Figure 13: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports results for SC6
Countries performing
calculation methods in
which waste streams
classified under one code
Rationale
of a mirror entry are
likely to shift to being
classified under the other
code
Waste code Waste description
03 01 04*
03 01 05
04 02 19*
04 02 20
Source
sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood,
particle board and veneer containing
hazardous substances
Score
n/a
Data collection on waste
composition and assessment
with calculation methods
sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood,
particle board and veneer other than
those mentioned in 03 01 04
BE-Yes
AT-Maybe
Presence of traces of heavy
metals especiallyCu-salts H410, formaldehyde,
fluorides Lindane -H410
AT-Maybe
Maybe
Glutaraldehyde -H400
Naphthalene H410Hydrocarbons - water
pollutant
[31]
Q-AT
sludges from on-site effluent treatment
containing hazardous substances
3
n/a
sludges from on-site effluent treatment
other than those mentioned in 04 02 19
Q-AT
1,5
The most “critical” codes were from chapter 19 (wastes from waste management
facilities) and chapter 7 (wastes from organic chemical processes). Only one code was
attributed the score of 0 (no change foreseen): 17 08 02 (“gypsum-based construction
materials”)
5.2.
Selected waste codes
Pairs selected thanks to the process described in section 3.2.1 are the following 14 (see
also sheet “Selected pairs”):
Table 17: Preliminary selected mirror pairs
03 Wastes from wood processing and the production of panels and furniture, pulp, paper
and cardboard
03 01 wastes from wood processing and the production of panels and furniture
03 01 04*
03 01 05
sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood, particle board and veneer
07 Wastes from organic chemical processes
07 01 wastes from the manufacture, formulation, supply and use (MFSU) of basic organic
chemicals
28
Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale (ISPRA): Stefania Balzamo, Andrea Paina,
Daniela Conti, Cristina Martone, Elisa Raso, Andrea Lanz
29
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd, Margareta Wahlström
30
Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management, Sonja Löw
49
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
07 01 11*
07 01 12
sludge from on-site effluent treatment
08 Wastes from the manufacture, formulation, supply and use (MFSU) of coatings (paints,
varnishes and vitreous enamels), sealants and printing inks
08 01 wastes from MFSU and removal of paint and varnish
08 01 13*
08 01 14
sludges from paint or varnish
10 Wastes from thermal processes
10 01 wastes from power stations and other combustion plants (except 19)
10 01 14*
10 01 15
Bottom ash, slag and boiler dust from co-incineration
10 01 16*
10 01 17
fly ash from co-incineration
10 02 wastes from the iron and steel industry
10 02 07*
10 02 08
solid wastes from gas treatment
10 02 13*
10 02 14
sludges and filter cakes from gas treatment
17 Construction and demolition wastes (including excavated soil from contaminated sites)
17 03 bituminous mixtures, coal tar and tarred products
17 03 01*
17 03 02
bituminous mixtures
17 05 soil (including excavated soil from contaminated sites), stones and dredging spoil
17 05 03*
17 05 04
soil and stones
17 05 05*
17 05 06
dredging spoil
19 Wastes from waste management facilities, off-site waste water treatment plants and the
preparation of water intended for human consumption and water for industrial use
19 01 wastes from incineration or pyrolysis of waste
19 01 11*
19 01 12
bottom ash and slag
19 01 13*
19 01 14
fly ash
19 08 wastes from waste water treatment plants not otherwise specified
19 08 11*
19 08 12
sludges from biological treatment of industrial waste water
19 08 13*
19 08 14
sludges from other treatment of industrial waste water
Waste streams suggested by the Member States and their correspondence are
presented in Table 18 below:
50
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Table 18: Wastes suggested by Member States and the corresponding mirror pairs
Waste stream
Mirror pair, identified by its
hazardous entry
Most wastes, having hazardous mirror
entries - General toxicity of heavy metals : Hg
> Ag > Cu > Zn > Ni > Pb > Cd > As > Cr(III)
Not specific enough for pairs
to be attributed
Sewage sludge, non-hazardous industrial
sludges, having hazardous mirror entries (e.g.
sludges from textile industry, tanning industry,
metal industry etc.)
04 02 19*
06 05 02*
07 01 11*
07 02 11*
07 03 11*
07 04 11*
07 05 11*
07 06 11*
07 07 11*
08 01 13*
08 01 15*
08 03 14*
08 04 11*
08 04 13*
10 01 20*
10 01 22*
10 02 13*
10 03 25*
10 08 17*
10 11 13*
10 11 17*
11 01 09*
11 02 02*
12 01 14*
19 08 11*
19 08 13*
51
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Waste stream
Mirror pair, identified by its
hazardous entry
Wastes from gas cleaning (filter dusts from
metal industries, where there are mirror
entries)
10 01 18*
10 03 19*
10 05 03*
10 06 03*
10 08 15*
10 08 17*
10 09 09*
10 10 09*
10 11 17*
All other batteries than those already classified
as hazardous – it is likely that they all will fulfil
HP14 (they will also fulfil the hazardous
property HP15 – new definition: explosive if
heated under confinement)
16 06 03*
Wastes containing zinc oxide (Zinc oxide is
classified as aquatoxic !!!) such as zinc ashes,
zinc skimmings
10 05 10*
Tanning liquor not containing chromium VI (but
containing glutaraldehyde, salts, chromium III
etc.) – will fulfil HP14 in our view
No mirror pairs
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
10 03 04*
(Mineral) construction and demolition waste
(heavy metals, PAH in bituminous wastes)
17 03 01*
20 01 33*
10 05 03*
10 03 29*
17 05 03*
17 05 05*
17 05 07*
17 06 03*
17 08 01*
17 09 01*
17 09 03*
52
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Waste stream
Mirror pair, identified by its
hazardous entry
filter cake from tank cleaning (paint, food,
textile) and gas cleaning
10 02 13*
10 03 25*
10 08 17*
10 11 17*
11 01 09*
Gas cleaning, see above
sludge (sewage, domestic, Cu, Co, food)
See above, and additionally:
Municipal: 19 02 05*
Food: no mirror entry with
sludge
Refuse derived fuel
No mirror entry
Car shredder (fluff, light fraction)
19 10 03*
soil and residues from soil cleaning
17 05 03*
17 05 05*
17 05 07*
19 13 01*
19 13 03*
19 13 05*
fly ash (wood, sludge)
10 01 16*
19 01 13*
53
waste blasting material
12 01 16*
kettel ashes
Not found in the LoW
construction & demolition waste (asphalt, with
and wihout tar, concrete, bitumen, minerals)
See above
digestate
No mirror entries
biodegradable (kitchen, garden) waste
No mirror entries
sand (from C&D waste)
No mirror entries
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Waste stream
Mirror pair, identified by its
hazardous entry
solvent
04 01 03*
04 02 14*
08 01 11*
08 01 13*
08 01 17*
08 01 19*
08 04 09*
08 04 11*
08 04 13*
08 04 15*
bottom ashes (waste incineration, electricity
production)
19 01 11*
dredging spoil
17 05 05*
wood
19 12 06*
20 01 37*
03 01 04*
Metal-containing wastes such as metal
treatment sludges and incinerator bottom
ashes (from a variety of incinerators)
See above
The list of Member States-suggested mirror pairs which are in the original list of the
Commission, and different from the 14 pairs selected earlier, are presented in Table 19.
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 19: Pre-selected pairs which are in the original list of the Commission, and different
from the 14 pairs selected earlier
Mirror pair, identified by its
hazardous entry
04 02 19*
Gas cleaning, sludge or
C&D waste? (x=yes)
x
06 05 02*
x
07 02 11*
x
07 03 11*
x
07 05 11*
x
07 06 11*
x
08 03 14*
x
08 04 11*
x
10 01 18*
x
10 03 19*
x
10 03 25*
x
10 03 29*
54
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Mirror pair, identified by its
hazardous entry
10 05 10*
Gas cleaning, sludge or
C&D waste? (x=yes)
10 08 15*
x
10 08 17*
x
10 10 09*
x
11 01 09*
x
12 01 14*
x
12 01 16*
17 06 03*
x
17 08 01*
x
19 10 03*
19 13 01*
As described in section 3.2.4, only pairs in which both entries have a score above 1 make
the final cut (Table 20).
Table 20: Final selection of Member States-suggested waste streams
Mirror pair, identified by its
hazardous entry
04 02 19*
Score of
hazardous entry
0,97
Score of nonhazardous entry
1,19
Final
selection
06 05 02*
1,35
1,30
x
07 02 11*
0,78
1,19
07 03 11*
0,75
1,14
07 05 11*
0,87
1,23
07 06 11*
0,70
1,14
08 03 14*
0,86
0,74
08 04 11*
0,73
0,74
10 01 18*
0,93
0,86
10 03 19*
1,28
1,47
10 03 25*
0,74
1,03
10 08 15*
0,85
0,78
10 08 17*
0,92
1,03
10 10 09*
0,78
0,70
11 01 09*
1,36
1,21
x
12 01 14*
1,31
1,19
x
17 06 03*
1,31
1,25
x
17 08 01*
0,93
0,97
x
The 10 selected codes are completed with the following entries proposed by the
Commission:

The pair 19 10 03* / 19 10 04

The pair 19 12 11* / 19 12 12

The triplet 15 01 10* / 15 01 01 / 15 01 02
Therefore, the final list of selected codes is the following (45 codes):
55
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Table 21: Final list of selected codes
03 Wastes from wood processing and the production of panels and furniture, pulp, paper
and cardboard
03 01 wastes from wood processing and the production of panels and furniture
03 01 04*
03 01 05
sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood, particle board and veneer
06 Wastes from inorganic chemical processes
06 05 sludges from on-site effluent treatment
06 05 02*
06 05 03
sludges from on-site effluent treatment
07 Wastes from organic chemical processes
07 01 wastes from the manufacture, formulation, supply and use (MFSU) of basic organic
chemicals
07 01 11*
07 01 12
sludge from on-site effluent treatment
08 Wastes from the manufacture, formulation, supply and use (MFSU) of coatings (paints,
varnishes and vitreous enamels), sealants and printing inks
08 01 wastes from MFSU and removal of paint and varnish
08 01 13*
08 01 14
sludges from paint or varnish
10 Wastes from thermal processes
10 01 wastes from power stations and other combustion plants (except 19)
10 01 14*
10 01 15
Bottom ash, slag and boiler dust from co-incineration
10 01 16*
10 01 17
fly ash from co-incineration
10 02 wastes from the iron and steel industry
10 02 07*
10 02 08
solid wastes from gas treatment
10 02 13*
10 02 14
sludges and filter cakes from gas treatment
10 03 wastes from aluminium thermal metallurgy
10 03 19*
10 03 20
flue-gas dust
11 Wastes from chemical surface treatment and coating of metals and other materials;
non-ferrous hydro-metallurgy
11 01 wastes from chemical surface treatment and coating of metals and other materials
11 01 09*
11 01 10
sludges and filter cakes
12 Wastes from shaping and physical and mechanical surface treatment of metals and
plastics
12 01 wastes from shaping and physical and mechanical surface treatment of metals and
plastics
56
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
12 01 14*
12 01 15
machining sludges
15 Waste packaging; absorbents, wiping cloths, filter materials and protective clothing
not otherwise specified
15 01 packaging (including separately collected municipal packaging waste)
15 01 10*
15 01 01
15 01 02
paper and cardboard packaging, plastic packaging
17 Construction and demolition wastes (including excavated soil from contaminated sites)
17 03 bituminous mixtures, coal tar and tarred products
17 03 01*
17 03 02
bituminous mixtures
17 05 soil (including excavated soil from contaminated sites), stones and dredging spoil
17 05 03*
17 05 04
soil and stones
17 05 05*
17 05 06
dredging spoil
17 06 insulation materials and asbestos-containing construction materials
17 06 03*
17 06 04
insulation materials not containing asbestos
19 Wastes from waste management facilities, off-site waste water treatment plants and the
preparation of water intended for human consumption and water for industrial use
19 01 wastes from incineration or pyrolysis of waste
19 01 11*
19 01 12
bottom ash and slag
19 01 13*
19 01 14
fly ash
19 08 wastes from waste water treatment plants not otherwise specified
19 08 11*
19 08 12
sludges from biological treatment of industrial waste water
19 08 13*
19 08 14
sludges from other treatment of industrial waste water
19 10 wastes from shredding of metal-containing wastes
19 10 03*
19 10 04
fluff-light fraction and dust
19 12 wastes from the mechanical treatment of waste (for example sorting, crushing,
compacting, pelletising) not otherwise specified
19 12 11*
19 12 12
other wastes (including mixtures of materials) from mechanical
treatment of waste
It should be mentioned that construction and demolition wastes (Chapter 17) can be very
complex to characterise, both chemically and via biotests, due to their heterogeneity and
often rather massive form. High variability in any analytical data collected in following
work (see Next Steps), is to be expected.
57
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
6. Next steps
6.1.
Reporting experimental data for the calculations
The process for collecting experimental data was launched.
The nine Member States who answered the first questionnaire were sent a database via
email for them to fill with data on composition of waste and biotests results. The list of
experts contacted and their contribution is reported in Error! Reference source not
found.Table 22 below. Sweden was added to the list as Finnish representatives
transferred our request to them.
Table 22: Experts contacted and their contribution (in green: Member States who have
already contributed, as of February 16th)
Member
State
Experts contacted
Expert(s) who
contributed
Contribution
Austria
Sonja Loew,
Lebensministerium
Sonja Loew
Austria does not have data on chemical
analyses or on biotests results
Belgium
Reinhilde Weltens,
VITO
Reinhilde
Data from a previous project16 where
VITO collected chemical analyses from
companies
Czech
Republic
Weltens
Dagmar Sirotková,
Centre for Waste
Management, VUV
Katerina Polakova,
Dagmar Sirotková,
Centre for Waste
Management, VUV
Finland
Eevaleena
Häkkinen,
Ympäristöministeriö
Margareta
Wahlström
Analyses
Sweden
-
Sara
Stiernström
Analyses performed during her PhD
Germany
Joachim Wuttke,
UBA
Joachim Wuttke
Sent a link to a ‘hidden’ website where
data collected during the German-led
ring test on HP 14 are available
(http://ecotoxwasteringtest.uba.de/h14/)
Daniel Laux on
behalf of Walter
Adebahr
Sent two studies on HP 14 containing
spreadsheets of data
Walter Adebahr, UM
Baden-Württemberg
58
Spain
Margarita Ruiz SáizAja
UK
Robert McIntyre
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Member
State
Experts contacted
France
Edouard van
Heeswyck31
Italy
Daniela Conti
Expert(s) who
contributed
Contribution
Andrea Paina
Stefania Balzamo
The answers from Member States are being processed as soon as they are received. For
France, INERIS will provide a large amount of data, in addition to any data potentially
received from the Environment Ministry.
6.2.
Application of the four calculation methods
6.2.1. Calculating average concentrations
The objective will be to establish the average concentration (and the range of minimum
and maximum values) for each relevant chemical and eco-toxicological parameters
needed to run equation for each waste type.
For each hazardous component32 of each selected waste mirror code, the average
concentration for each relevant chemical and eco-toxicological parameters will be
determined by the team using the values of concentration reported in the database during
the data collection. The different values, coming from different samples of the same
waste type – for example from different MS, will constitute the value range delimited by
the maximum and minimum values.
The calculation of the average is quite straightforward but the project team will make sure
that only reliable and comparable analytical data enters the calculation. To do so, data of
highest quality (from chemical analysis and toxicity test results both generated from the
same waste sample and within a similar timeframe, with the less artefacts of analysis or
alterations from sample preparation or extended conservation times for example) will be
preferred by the team; and outliers will be discarded from the average calculation.
The calculation of the average concentration will be duly documented by the team and
presented in an Excel spreadsheet.
6.2.2. Running HP 14 assessment methods and considering the
final waste classification
The objective will be to run the four calculation methodologies proposed by the
Commission to classify the waste, on the basis of the average chemical concentration
determined above for each waste type.
The Commission provided four different assessment/calculation methods to determine
the classification of the waste (see Figure 14), based on the comparison of the
concentration of hazardous components (exhibiting acute or chronic aquatic toxicity, or
ozone depleting properties) with limit concentrations. If the concentration of the
hazardous component (individually or in summation with the other hazardous
components of the same nature) exceeds the concentration limit, the waste is classified
as hazardous the HP 14, if not it is classified not hazardous for HP 14.
31
Edouard van Heeswyck is the successor of Pauline Adriane Langeron, who was contacted for the first
questionnaire
32
i.e. a component classified as ‘ozone depleting’ or ‘acute aquatic toxic’ or ‘chronic aquatic toxic 1,2,3,or 4’
59
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Figure 14: Calculation/assessment methods for the classification of waste
Using the average concentrations of each relevant chemical and eco-toxicological
parameters determined in the previous subtask, the team will apply the four calculation
methods in an Excel spreadsheet. Using the conditional formatting and the IF formulas,
the software will automatically determine if the waste if hazardous by HP 14 or not.
The results of hazard classification for HP 14 for each waste code according to each of
the 4 calculation methods will be summed up in a table (see Table 23).
Table 23: Example of table gathering the results of hazard classification for HP 14 for all the
waste streams and all the calculation methods
Waste
Baseline
Countries
where
hazardous
Result for
Method 1
Result for
Method 2
Result for
Method 3
Result for
Method 4
Countries
where nonhazardous
Waste
1
Non
hazardous
Non
hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Waste
2
Non
hazardous
Non
hazardous
Non
hazardous
Non
hazardous
The waste streams will be classified according to the different HP 14 classification
methods, gathered in a table, along with a calculation Excel spreadsheet. These results
will feed the sensitivity analysis (comparative assessment of the different methodologies)
to be performed next.
6.3.
Comparative assessment of the different methodologies
The four calculation methods allow for possible classifications of the selected waste
types, as hazardous or non-hazardous, based on the chemical composition of the waste.
The choice of a final approach requires a comparative assessment of the different
calculation methods. To this aim, the purpose of this phase is twofold: on one hand, it
intends to provide a critical assessment of each methodology and on the other hand, to
60
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
compare the different methodologies with each other and with the results of
ecotoxicological experiments.
The team proposes to conduct the assessment of the calculation methods on three
aspects:

Feasibility of the different methods (depending on the complexity of the waste,
the available data, etc.)

Appraisal of the scientific relevance of the different methods (reliability,
coherence with ecotoxicity tests, etc.); and

Impact assessment of the change of classification of some waste types, due to
the different methods (costs, impacts on waste management practices, etc.).
On the basis of the assessment per dimension, the team will provide a global assessment
of each calculation method, in terms of advantages and drawbacks. Likewise, the
comparison of the methods will be done according to the three dimensions and then
globally to provide general conclusions and possible alternative methods. The results of
the comparative assessment will be discussed during a workshop.
The conclusions will integrate the results of the workshop’s discussion and feedback. The
development of alternative methods should integrate ecotoxicity tests, which address
some of the limitations of the calculation methods and receive general acceptance from
the scientific community.
6.4.
Consultation of the stakeholders and organising a
stakeholders' workshop
The goal is to identify and consult experts and stakeholders to provide feedback to the
work conducted in this project. Experts and stakeholders’ inputs will be essential for
ensuring that the results of the analysis are reliable and the recommendation for an
harmonised HP 14 assessment methodology are set up appropriately for its purposes as
well as for filling the gaps of missing data. The team will assist the Commission with the
preparation of the consultation document.
The workshop has been scheduled on 20 April 2015 in the Commission premises. The
steps detailed previously in this section will have been finished at his time.
61
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
7. Annexes
62
ANNEX 1.
FIRST QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO COMPETENT AUTHORITIES _____________ 63
ANNEX 2.
FACTSHEETS _______________________________________________ 67
ANNEX 3.
SECOND QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO COMPETENT AUTHORITIES __________ 111
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Annex 1. First
Questionnaire
sent to Competent Authorities
1. General information
1.1 Your full name and your email address:
_______________________________________________________________________
1.2 Please provide the name of the organisation to which you belong:
______________________________________________________________________
And its type (bold the right answer):
o
o
o
o
National authority
Research institute
Industry
Other (please specify):
________________________________________________________________
1.3 Your country (bold the right answer):
AT – Austria
BE – Belgium
CZ – Czech Republic
DE – Germany
ES – Spain
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
FI – Finland
FR – France
IT - Italy
PL - Poland
UK - United Kingdom
1.4 Type of waste your expertise covers (bold the right answer):
o
o
All
Specific
 Provide a general description of waste categories you cover or waste codes
when relevant:
_____________________________________________________________
2. Approaches for assessing the H14 property of waste in your country
2.1 Type of approach (bold the right answer):
o
Calculation method

Approach based on limit values (based on CLP or DPD limits)


Approach not based on limit values

o
63
Specify protocol details and applicable limit values:
__________________________________________________________
Specify details of the protocol:
___________________________________________________________
Approach based on biotesting
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report

Type
test
of
Specify protocol details for the approach based on biotesting and
applicable limit values:
___________________________________________________________
Test
organism
Endpoint
Test method
Test
duration
Expression
of results
Threshold
value
Terrestrial
Aquatic
o
Combined approach

o
Specify protocol details and applicable limit values (e.g. priority given to
calculation method or experimental approach? Systematic or partial
implementation of biotests? Ecotoxicity based approach applied to all type
of waste or to some of them?):
___________________________________________________________
Other

Specify protocol details:
________________________________________________________
2.2. Please provide sources of information (for example guidelines) for the H14
assessment methods and protocols (a preliminary list – to be reviewed and completed - is
available in the attached document named Attachment 1 - Preliminary list of relevant
legislation and guidelines):
______________________________________________________________________
2.3. Please provide examples of application of your H14 assessment method on 1 or 2
waste types / waste codes (to be chosen from the list available in the attached document
named Attachment 2 - List of waste codes):
______________________________________________________________________
2.4 According to your knowledge, what are the limits and uncertainties of the approach?
______________________________________________________________________
2.5. What are the advantages?
______________________________________________________________________
64
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
2.6. Please provide relevant national legislation or guidelines for the H14 assessment
methods and protocols (a preliminary list – to be reviewed and completed - is available in
the attached document named Attachment 1 - Preliminary list of relevant legislation and
guidelines):
______________________________________________________________________
2.7. Please indicate the stakeholders involved in the assessment:
Stakeholder role
Name of stakeholder
Type of stakeholder
(national
authority,
research institute, etc.)
Funding
Performing the test(s),
Providing waste samples
Other (please specify in
comments)
2.8. Please provide examples of costs linked to the H14 assessment methods used in
your country:
______________________________________________________________________
3. Proposal for the selection of waste streams
The project team will test four calculation options on a set of 50 pairs of mirror waste
codes (mirror entries), to be selected from the list in the attached document. The
following questions aim at prioritising the waste streams to select.
3.1 On which specific waste streams do you think the present study comparing assessing
methods for H14 should focus on?
_______________________________________________________________________
3.2 Why? Choose one or more reasons below (bold the right answer):
o
o
o
o
o
o
Availability and quality of existing data
Criticality of the classification stability (i.e. waste types that are likely to change
their classification (from hazardous to non-hazardous or vice-versa) if the limit
values evolve)
High quantities of waste production
Economic importance (trade and recycling)
Potential presence of hazardous substances
Other (please specify):
________________________________________________________________
3.3. Could you please provide us sources of information where we could find the following
data?
o
o
o
o
o
Information on quantities produced by specific waste codes: ____________
Hazard classifications assigned: _____________________________
Composition data of specific wastes:_________________________________
Results of ecotoxicological tests: ______________________________________
Protocols of sampling, preparation of samples, analyses and test: ____________
4. General information about waste streams in your country
65
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
4.1. What is the share of waste assessed positive for the H14 criteria in your country,
globally, and by category of waste if relevant?
_______________________________________________________________________
4.2. What type of waste has the highest tonnage in your country?
Type or category or
code of waste
Annual tonnage
(metric tonnes)
Share (%)
Among hazardous
waste
Among total waste
5. Additional information
5.1 If you have additional comments, please share them below:
_______________________________________________________________________
5.2 Please provide relevant contacts (for example in regional administrations or research
centres) and references of documents for an in-depth analysis:
______________________________________________________________________
66
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Annex 2. Factsheets
AUSTRIA
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
Type of approach(es)
used in the country to
assess H14 property of
waste
Combined approach
Variability
in
H14
assessment
methods
depending on the waste
nature
-
Related legislation and
guidelines
Legislation
Refer to the ADR (UN classification of dangerous goods for road transport) for
ecotoxic substances class 9 : M6 and M7, AND have a limit for ozone depleting
substances (2000 mg/kg in total)
Fed. Law Gaz No. 522/1973 as amended by Fed
Law Gaz III No. 36/2
Annex 3 of Abfallverzeichnisverordnung BGBl II
(Austrian Ordinance of Waste Classification)
2003/570 idgF
Guidelines
None
Waste with highest tonnage
17 05 04 excav. Soil 23,5 Mio t
Stakeholders involved
in the H14 assessment
17 09 04 C&D waste
6,6 Mio t
19 01 14 filter dust 10 02 08 gas cleaning(Fe) –
Approx. 53,6 million tons of waste are generated
in Austria, thereof approx. 1 million ton of
hazardous waste (Data 2009)
From Eurostat:
Waste with
tonnage
Waste from construction : 57%, 19.5 Mt
highest
Hazardous
waste
highest tonnage
with
17 05 03*excav, soil haz. 128.260 t
10 02 07 gas cleaning(Fe) 82.823 t
19 01 13* filter dust haz 48.141 t
17 09 03* C&D waste haz From Eurostat:
10-11-12 : Inorganic wastes from thermal
processes + Inorganic metal-containing wastes
from metal treatment and the coating of metals,
and non-ferrous hydrometallurgy + Wastes from
shaping and surface treatment of metals and
67
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
AUSTRIA
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
plastics (32%, 272.7 kt)
19 : Waste from waste treatment facilities, off-site
waste water treatment plants and the water
industry (23%, 200.7 kt)
Chapter of List of waste with
the
highest
share
of
hazardous waste
05 : Wastes from petroleum refining, natural gas
purification and pyrolytic treatment of coal (73%,
2.9 kt)
Percentage of waste
considered
as
hazardous by H14
no ecotoxicity tests are applied
Calculation methods are used
Chemical analyses are sufficient for the attribution of H14. H 14 applies for:
environmental hazardous substances due to Class 9, M6 and M7 of the European
Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road
(ADR) (Annex 3 of Austrian Ordinance of Waste Classification2003/570)
Protocol used
wastes with a total yield of hydrocarbons (CFHCs, HCFCs, HFHCs, FHCs,
Halons) over 2000 mg/kg DM (see below)
Calculation methods
Combination
concentration
of
hazardous
components
ozone depleting substances (hydrocarbons:
CFCs, CFHCs, HCFCs, HFHCs, FHCs,
Halons)
Threshold value
2000 mg in total /kg DM
Illustrative examples
Advantages
Qualitative assessment
of the method(s)
Limits and uncertainties
Approximate
method(s)
68
classification according to the UN- Regulation on
Transport of Dangerous Goods is required
anyway if the waste is transported
Other MS using the
same
approach
(if
known)
-
Additional comments
-
cost
of
the
In most cases no additional costs as classification
according to the UN- Regulation on Transport of
Dangerous Goods is required anyway if the waste
is transported
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
AUSTRIA
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
Expert contacted to
elaborate this factsheet
Sonja Loew (Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water
Management)
References
Ökopol GmbH (2008) Review of the European List of Waste, 532 pp.
RECORD., 2008, Suivi des travaux européens pour la caractérisation et la
classification des déchets par le critère H14 (écotoxicité)
Additional information
69
-
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
BELGIUM (Flanders)
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
Method based on the DPD (older version, no M-factors)
Variability
in
H14
assessment
methods
depending on the waste
nature
The Flemish guidelines refer to the responsibility and common sense of the waste
producer as concerns test methods. No specific tests for HP14 are mentioned! So
Flemish guidelines and legislation focus on the former chemical legislation and its
limit values, as concerns HP14.
Related legislation and
guidelines
Legislation
The Flemish legislation (Vlarema) refers to the
test method regulation 440/2008 in general (for
those hazardous properties that are defined at
European level, so not for HP14)..
Guidelines
OVAM (2004) Europese afvalstoffenlijst EURAL
Handleiding
Stakeholders involved
in the H14 assessment
Waste with
tonnage
highest
Name of the institution(s) + type of the institution+ role (funding/performing
assessment, etc.)
Waste with highest tonnage
Construction & demolition waste (3891996
15.7%
Hazardous
waste
highest tonnage
No data regarding the amount of hazardous waste
per waste code is available. Per sector:
Secondary waste has the highest tonnage among
hazardous waste (737,888 tons)
with
Chapter of List of waste with
the
highest
share
of
hazardous waste
Percentage of waste
considered
as
hazardous by H14
ton,
No available data
-
Ecotoxic tests are not applied.
Protocol used
Calculation methods:
70
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
BELGIUM (Flanders)
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
Individual substances
Classification
Concentration limits
R50
25
R50-53
0.25
R51-53
2.5
R52-53
25
R52
25
R53
25
R59
0.1
Combination of substances
71
Classification
Concentration
threshold to be taken
into account
Conditions rendering
waste hazardous
R50
0.1
•Sum
of
R50-53
substances >2.5%
R50-53
0.1
•Sum of R51-53>25%
R51-53
0.1
•Sum
of
R50
substances>25%
R52-53
1
R52
1
•Sum
of
R59
substances >0.1%
R53
1
R59
0.1
Illustrative examples
-
Qualitative assessment
Advantages
Easy to perform on well-defined samples
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
BELGIUM (Flanders)
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
of the method(s)
Limits and uncertainties
The real toxicity is not taken into account.
Waste is a mixture of dangerous and nondangerous substances, but with the very important
difference that the composition of mixtures of
chemical substances100 % is known while this is
almost never the case for waste. Inorganic
analyses provide only element concentrations, but
the speciation of the metal is unknown and
applying M-factors based on worst-case scenarios
lead to overestimating the intrinsic toxicity of
metals in the waste.
For complex waste in addition, it is not possible to
identify any organic substances, which are not
passed on to the ecotoxicity assessment These
uncertainties and shortcomings in the knowledge
of the composition of waste can easily lead to
wrong classification (overestimation of the metal
toxicity, underestimation of the share of the
organic components).
Approximate cost of
method(s)
Variability depending
waste types (%)
the
on
AFNOR XP X30-489 is 1900 € per sample.
Ecotox-testing (microtox) : 1000,- per sample
Other MS using the
same
approach
(if
known)
None
Additional comments
-
Expert contacted to
elaborate this factsheet
Evi Rossi (OVAM)
References
OVAM (2004) Europese afvalstoffenlijst EURAL Handleiding
Overzicht bedrijfsafvalstoffen en nieuwe grondstoffen 2004-2012 (statistics on
waste quantities in Flanders, provided by OVAM)
Impact study Flemish LoW (OVAM)
Additional information
72
.
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
CZECH REPUBLIC
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
Type of approach(es)
used in the country to
assess H14 property
of waste
Ecotoxicity tests
Variability
in
H14
assessment methods
depending
on the
waste nature
No
Related
legislation
and guidelines
Legislation
Act on Waste No 185/2001 Coll. on waste
Decree No 376/2001 Coll. on evaluation of
hazardous properties of waste
Guidelines
Stakeholders involved
in the H14 assessment
Funding/ owner of the waste (government or private)
Performing the tests: accredited laboratory (private)
Providing waste samples: national authority, owner, laboratory (government or
private)
Waste with highest tonnage
Hazardous
waste
highest tonnage
Waste with
tonnage
with
highest
In 2012: 17 05 03*: 406471,6000 t (24,8% of total
hazardous waste)
In 2013: 308491,4077t (21,4% of total hazardous
waste)
Chapter of List of waste with
the
highest
share
of
hazardous waste
Percentage of waste
considered
as
hazardous by H14
Ecotoxic tests
Leaching: EN 14735
Protocol used
73
No terrestrial tests
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
CZECH REPUBLIC
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
Aquatic tests
Test
organism
Endpoi
nt
Test
method
Test
duration
Expres
sion of
results
Thresh
old
value
Sinapis
alba
root
length
Instructio
ns
(Bulletin
of
Ministry
of
Environm
ent CR)
3 days
EC50
10 ml/l
Desmode
smus
subspicat
us
growth
EN ISO
8692
3 days
EC50
10 ml/l
Daphnia
magna
mobilit
y
EN ISO
6341
2 days
EC50
10 ml/l
Poecilia
reticulata
lethal
effect
EN ISO
7346-2
4 days
EC50
10 ml/l
No calculation methods
74
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
CZECH REPUBLIC
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
Illustrative examples
Decree No. 376/2001 Coll.
Chemical
limits
Ecotoxicity
Exceeded
limit
Exceeded
limit
Contaminated soil from wood
preservation plant
No
Yes - algea
Contaminated soil (metals,
PAHs, sludge from wastewater
treatment plant)
No
No
sludge from
mechanical
industrial wastewater treatment
plant
No
No
ash from thermal electric power
station
No
No
Contaminated soil
No
No
sludge
No
No
ash
Yes - pH
No
stabilized waste
No
No
Waste
Qualitative
assessment
method(s)
75
of
Advantages
Aquatic ecotoxicity tests are sensitive to many
water soluble substances. Wastes are usually
materials of heterogenic composition. Ecotoxicity
tests integrate the effects of all contaminants
including additive, synergistic and antagonistic
effects. Waste can be evaluated in a relatively
short time (within 2 weeks).
Limits and uncertainties
All tests are carried out only with water extract
(leachate). The results are relevant only for water
ecosystems but the hazard for soil ecosystem has
not been included. To improve the current state,
introduction of terrestrial tests from the EC would
be helpful.
the
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
CZECH REPUBLIC
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
Approximate cost of
method(s)
Variability depending
waste types (%)
Other MS using the
same approach (if
known)
76
the
Approx. CZK 11000,- (EUR 410,-)
on
Similar to Spain (only aquatic tests)
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
CZECH REPUBLIC
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
Additional comments
The Centre for Waste Management, VUV, TGM Praha, conducted research for the
Ministry of the Environment aimed at the proposal of a new tests for waste
ecotoxicity evaluation from 2005 to 2010. In the research participated national
authorities, private organisations and universities.
Real wastes samples were used for research. They were selected partly on the
basis of the production volume and also on the basis of their contamination. These
wastes were used:
•contaminated soil from staining and impregnation of wood
•contaminated soil – mixed contamination by metal (Zn), traces of PAHs
(polyaromatic hydrocarbons) and sewage sludge from wastewater treatment plant
•sludge from mechanical industrial wastewater treatment plant
•fly ash from thermal electric power station (two different samples)
•blast furnace slag
•soil contaminated with trinitrotoluene (two different samples)
•compost for recultivation (two different samples)
•PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) contaminated soil
•slag from incinerator
•contaminated sediment
•construction waste
•construction waste fine
•soil contaminated with organic substances
•sludge from the production of organic substances
•stabilized fly ash from coal combustion
•unpolluted soil
The results of research served for the proposal of a new approach for ecotoxicity
evaluation for amendment of the Czech Decree No. 376/2001 Coll. on the
evaluation of hazardous properties of waste.
New proposal :
Evaluation of ecotoxicity as hazardous property H14 Ecotoxic includes aquatic
and terrestrial test sets aiming on complex evaluation of waste ecotoxicity.
Waste is classified as hazardous with hazardous property H14 Ecotoxic, if the
observed effect of waste eluate in concentration 100 ml/l or the observed effect of
waste in concentration 100 g/kg for at least one of testing organisms exceeds
following limits:
aquatic tests with waste eluate in concentration 100 ml/l:
•20 % inhibition of the mobility of water flea Daphnia magna, ISO 6341
•25 % inhibition of the growth of fresh water algae Desmodesmus subspicatus,
ISO 8692
•25 % inhibition of the light emission of luminescent bacteria Vibrio fischeri, ISO
11348-2
terrestrial tests with waste in concentration 100 g/kg:
77
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
•50 % inhibition of reproduction of collembola Folsomia candida, ISO 11267
streams – Interim report
•50 % inhibition of reproduction of enchytraeid Enchytraeus crypticus, ISO 16387
•50 % inhibition of root elongation of dicotyledonous plant Lactuca sativa, ISO
11269-1
CZECH REPUBLIC
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
Expert contacted to
elaborate
this
factsheet
Mr. Jaromír Manhart, jaromir.manhart@mzp.cz
References
Ministerstvo životního prostředí české republiky (2007) Metodický pokyn odboru
odpadů ke stanovení ekotoxicity odpadů
Ms. Eva Kubova, eva.kubova@mzp.cz
Additional information
78
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
FINLAND
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
Type of approach(es)
used in the country to
assess H14 property
of waste
Variability
in
H14
assessment methods
depending on the
waste nature
Related
legislation
and guidelines
Calculation method with limit value
Based on recommended limit value for hazardous components (General limit
values of DPD Directive without M-factors)
In cases where a substance is classified as ecotoxic in the Chemicals Legislation,
the limit values of Chemicals Legislation are used also for evaluation of ecotoxicity
of the waste. According to guidance given in 2002, if there isn´t sufficient
information available on the chemical composition of the waste, criterion H14
could also be assessed by using ecotoxicity tests. It is recommended to use a
combination of several tests. However, no limit values have been set for
ecotoxicity tests in relation to H14 evaluation so their usability for classification is
very limited. Hence they are not applied in practice for evaluation if H14.
Legislation
Waste decree of the Finnish Ministry of the
Environment 1128/2001
The Finnish waste legislation does not yet refer to
any specific test methods or limit values to
determine the ecotoxic property of wastes
Guidelines
Dahlbo,
H.
2002.
Jätteen
luokittelu
ongelmajätteeksi – arvioinnin perusteet ja
menetelmät (Classification of waste as hazardous
waste – the basis and methods for evaluation).
Environment Guide 98. Finnish Environment
Institute. Helsinki. Finland. 160 pp. (In Finnish)
Ympäristöministeriö,
Tilastokeskus,
Suomen
ympäristökeskus. Jäteluokitusopas 2005 (Waset
Classification
Guide
2005).
Tilastokeskus,
Käsikirjoja 37. Helsinki 2005. (In Finnish)
Stakeholders involved
in
the
H14
assessment
The Finnish Environment Institute, VTT
Waste with highest tonnage
Mineral waste from mining and quarrying: 52 880
000 t (59%)
Mineral waste from construction: 15 682 000
(17%)
From Eurostat
Waste with
tonnage
Waste from Mining and quarrying (58%, 53 Mt)
highest
Hazardous
waste
highest tonnage
with
Mineral waste 561 000 tonnes (53%)
From Eurostat:
10-11-12 : Inorganic wastes from thermal
processes + Inorganic metal-containing wastes
from metal treatment and the coating of metals,
and non-ferrous hydrometallurgy + Wastes from
shaping and surface treatment of metals and
79
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
FINLAND
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
plastics (62%, 1Mt)
Chapter of List of waste with
the
highest
share
of
hazardous waste
05 : Wastes from petroleum refining, natural gas
purification and pyrolytic treatment of coal (69%,
22 kt)
Percentage of waste
considered
as
hazardous by H14
Ecotoxic tests can be applied
According to guidance given in 2002, if there isn´t sufficient information available
on the chemical composition of the waste, criterion H14 could also be assessed by
using ecotoxicity tests (such as: Vibrio fischerii test SFS-EN ISO 11348-3;
Daphnia magna test in EC Directive 67/548/ETY annex V method C2; algae test in
EC Directive 67/548/ETY annex V method C3, various plant tests etc.). It is
recommended to use a combination of several tests.
However, no limit values have been set for ecotoxicity tests in relation to H14
evaluation so their usability for classification is very limited. Hence they are not
applied in practice for evaluation if H14.
Calculation methods are used
Limit values for hazardous properties in wastes (waste decree 1128/2001): none,
recommended limit value in Finland 0.25 % (N and R51-53 or R50 or R53). This
proposed limit value is set on the basis of the classification of chemicals with an
ecotoxic property
Protocol used
Combination of hazardous
components concentration
Limit value
Cut-off value
R51-53
2.5 %
0.1 %
R50, R52
25 %
0.1 %
R50-53
0.25 %
0.1 %
R59
0.1 %
0.1 %
R53, R52-53
25 %
1%
Additivity according to the DPD formulas (without M-factors)
Illustrative examples
Qualitative
assessment
80
Advantages
of
the
When M-factors are not included it is possible to
apply cut-off values 0,1 % / 1 %. Hence minor
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
FINLAND
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
method(s)
concentrations of elements/substances can be
excluded from the evaluation.
(If cut-off would be defined by 0,1% /M for Aquatic
Chronic 1, the number of possible hazardous
substances present in the waste increases
substantially, based on low concentrations of
elements and high M-factors, and it may become
impossible to prove that a waste is not ecotoxic;
the highest M-factor in the CLP at the moment is 1
000 000.)
Limits and uncertainties
Since the Chemicals legislation limit values are
based on compounds it would be necessary to
know the exact composition of the waste. Often
there is only limited information on the waste
composition, such as concentration of elements. It
can be difficult to determine in which form the
elements are in the waste.
The current procedures/methodology in CLP are
meant for chemicals with known constant
composition. The applicability of CLP methods
has not been evaluated for waste streams,
typically heterogeneous with high content of
anions, alkaline earth metals and silica. Also
suitable methods for organic substances are often
lacking.
Limit values are difficult to apply to nonhomogeneous materials and waste articles.
We think that M-factors should not be used in HP
14 evaluation. Today, only a few M-factors given,
but it is very likely that new M-factors will be
introduced in future. This means that the
consequences of M-factors on waste classification
are almost impossible to evaluate
Approximate cost of
method(s)
Variability depending
waste types (%)
the
on
Other MS using the
same approach (if
known)
Additional comments
One goal of this Commission study is to determine the influence of M-factors to the
amounts and types of waste to be classified as hazardous. However, at the
moment, the M-factors have been defined only to a limited number of substances
in Annex VI of the CLP Regulation (mainly for pesticides and nickel compounds).
The work for determining M-factors will continue for several years under
Chemicals legislation, based on scientific evidence. Thus the influence of Mfactors to waste management will be severely under-estimated, if the study is
81
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
FINLAND
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
solely based on the already existing M-factors in Annex VI. The study should also
estimate which substances are likely to have M-factors within the next years and
evaluate their influence to classification of wastes as ecotoxic, to give a more
truthful picture on the consequences to waste management. For example the
future M-factors of metals/metal ions would very likely have a significant influence
to the waste classification, and should be included into the study. There is already
quite much scientific information available on the LC50-values of metals and metal
ions, to give an estimation of the possible M-factors for these substances.
The test methods have a significant influence to the outcome of the tests. It should
be specified if CLP test methods or waste specific CEN tests are to be used. For
example, solubility of metals could be evaluated by CEN two stage batch test
developed for wastes or by transformation/dissolution test developed for
Chemicals classification. Also pre-treatment of samples has influence on the
outcome of the results and should be specified.
Expert contacted to
elaborate
this
factsheet
Eevaleena Häkkinen (Finnish Environmental Institute)
References
Dahlbo, H. 2002. Jätteen luokittelu ongelmajätteeksi – arvioinnin perusteet ja
menetelmät
(Classification of waste as hazardous waste – the basis and methods for
evaluation). Environment Guide 98. Finnish Environment Institute. Helsinki.
Finland. 160 pp. (In Finnish)
Ökopol GmbH (2008) Review of the European List of Waste, 532 pp.
Additional information
82
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
FRANCE
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
Type of approach(es)
used in the country to
assess H14 property of
waste
Ecotoxicity testing –based approach
Combination of solid-phase tests and aquatic tests performed on water extracts
from wastes.
In the absence of legislation, two different approaches can be used in parallel, with
no special predominance of one on the other :
Variability
in
H14
assessment
methods
depending on the waste
nature
Related legislation and
guidelines
-Initial “French” approach : documentation analysis of ecotoxic character of
chemical substances in the waste, then (if negative) complementary toxicity tests
(2 acute toxicity tests and 2 chronic toxicity tests)
-Combined “French and German” approach
Managers of waste treatment centres use the initial “French” approach from the
FNADE guidance, whereas DREAL agencies (regional directions for environment,
territory planning and housing) recommend since 2013 to use the combined
approach.
Legislation
No specific legislation for H14 assessment
(Decree n°2002-540 of 2002, April 18th on Waste
Classification – but no inputs concerning H14,
only H3-H8, H10 and H11)
Decree of April 20th, 1994 transcripts the
guideline
Modified
directive
67/548
on
classification, packaging, stamping of hazardous
components
Guidelines
FNADE (2003) Methodological Guide - Waste
Classification for a good direction of waste to
appropriate storage centres – Appendix 3
MATE. Critères et méthodes d'évaluation de
l'écotoxicité des déchets. Paris: Ministère de
l'Aménagement
du
Territoire
et
de
l'Environnement; 1998 [19 pp.].
Stakeholders involved
in the H14 assessment
INERIS, ADEME, MEDDE (funding tests)
Laboratories performing ecotoxicity tests (the list is not exhaustive):
•INERIS (Institut National de l’environnement industriel et des risques)
•CARSO (Laboratoire Santé Environnement Hygiène de LYON)
•LIEBE (université de Lorraine
•Centre Technique du bois et de l’ameublement
•POLDEN Insavalor
•Eurofins
•SGS
Waste with
tonnage
83
highest
Waste with highest tonnage
Waste from construction : 71%, 246 Mt
Hazardous
19: Waste from waste treatment facilities, off-site
waste
with
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
FRANCE
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
highest tonnage
waste water treatment plants and the water
industry (41%, 4 Mt)
17 : Construction and demolition wastes (including
road construction) (24%, 2.4 Mt)
Chapter of List of waste with
the
highest
share
of
hazardous waste
07 : Wastes from organic chemical processes
(51%, 1.2 Mt)
05 : Wastes from petroleum refining, natural gas
purification and pyrolytic treatment of coal (46%,
51.6 kt)
Percentage of waste
considered
as
hazardous by H14
ecotoxic tests are applied
Prioritization of tests: aquatic
vs terrestrial)
First step: aquatic tests, then terrestrial tests
Terrestrial tests on solid wastes
(1): “French” approach
(2): “Combined” approach
Test
organism
Endpoi
nt
Test
method
Test
duration
Expres
sion of
results
Thresh
old
value
E. fetida (2)
Avoida
nce
ISO
17512-1
48 hours
EC 50
10%
E. fetida (1)
Mortalit
y
ISO 12
268-1
14 days
EC 50
10%
Lactuca
sativa (1) or
Avena
sativa
/
Brassica
rapa (2)
Emerg
ence
and
growth
ISO
11269-2
14 to 21
days
EC 50
10%
Arthrobacter
globiformis
(2)
Dehydr
ogenas
e
activity
ISO/DIS
18187
11267
2 hours
EC 50
10%
Protocol used
84
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
FRANCE
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
Leaching/extraction test used
NF EN 12457-2
Aquatic tests
(1): “French” approach
(2): “Combined” approach
(3) alternative to the C. dubia reproduction test (FNADE 2003)
Test
organism
Endpoi
nt
Test
method
Test
duration
Expres
sion of
results
Thresh
old
value
D.
magna
(1)(2)
Mobilit
y
ISO 6341
24,
48
hours
EC 50
10%
Vibrio
fischeri
Lumine
scence
ISO
11348-3
30
minutes
EC 50
10%
Pseudokirch
neriella
subcapitata
(1)(2)
Growth
NF
EN
ISO 8692
3 days
EC 20
1%
EC 50
10%
Ceriodaphni
a dubia (1)
Reprod
uction
NF ISO
20665
7 days
EC 20
1%
Brachionus
calyciflorus
(1)
Popula
tion
growth
NF ISO
20666
48 hours
EC 20
1%
(Microtox)
(1)(2)
No calculation methods are used
Illustrative examples
85
Examples of results of ecotoxicological tests performed on waste eluates (unit: %
eluate)
Nature
of
waste
Code
Mineral
chemist
ry
WWTP
06
02*
06
03
05
or
05
pH or
dilution
for
pH9.5
Microto
x test
Daphni
a EC50
48h test
Algae
EC20
test
Cerioda
phnia
EC20
test
Brachio
nus
EC20
test
7.9
No
inhibitio
n
42.7
0.7
2
0.7
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
FRANCE
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
sludge
86
Hydroxy
-metal
chemist
ry
sludge
06
02*
06
03
05
or
05
9
>90
56.5
7
7.6
>80%
Fine
chemist
ry
sludge
07
11*
07
12
07
or
07
8
3.3
51.9
1.5
0.5
0.6
Organic
chemist
ry
sludge
07
11*
07
12
01
or
01
7.9
0.09
0.05
0.02
0.006
0.007
Organic
chemist
ry
sludge
07
11*
07
12
01
or
01
8.2
0.038
0.061
0.058
0.061
0.063
MIDI
19
11*
19
12
01
or
01
4.5%
15.2
59.5
2.6
5.1
3.55
Fine
particul
ate
matter
10
09*
10
10
09
or
09
0.18%
0.4
0.95
0.2
0.08
0.3
Fine
particul
ate
matter
10
09*
10
10
09
or
09
7.1
15
22.2
8.5
12.9
48.9
Foundry
particul
ate
matter
10
07*
10
08
02
or
02
11.7
45.7
0.7
2.08
0.84
3.19
Foundry
particul
ate
matter
10
07*
10
08
02
or
02
5.6%
-
100%
immobili
sation
-
-
-
Filtratio
n
particul
ate
matter
10
19*
10
20
03
or
03
0.18%
0.3
1.5
2.5
0.062
0.4
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
FRANCE
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
(alumini
um)
Soil
polluted
with
lead
and
lindane
17
03*
17
04
05
or
05
13.1
>90
>90
4.96
8.21
42.7
Soil
polluted
with
lead
and
lindane
17
03*
17
04
05
or
05
17.5%
-
5%
immobili
sation
-
-
-
Soil
polluted
with
lead
and
lindane
17
03*
17
04
05
or
05
15%
11%
inhibitio
n
-
-
-
-
MIOM
19
11*
19
12
01
or
01
11.5
29.2
91.2
0.8
0.41
1.95
MIOM
19
11*
19
12
01
or
01
3.4%
-
90%
immobili
sation
-
-
-
MIOM
19
11*
19
12
01
or
01
0.37%
4%
inhibitio
n
-
-
-
-
Advantages
Qualitative
assessment
method(s)
87
of
the
The experimental approach allows integrating the
effects of all contaminants including additive,
synergistic, and antagonistic effects of the
components of the waste.
It is more relevant to implement the experimental
approach than the summation method when the
composition of the waste is known only partially
(which is a common situation for wastes). In
addition, toxicity values are only available for a
limited number of chemicals, which can
significantly impede the use of the summation
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
FRANCE
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
method.
It is the simplest way to assess HP14 because for
calculation method we need to have a common
protocol to find all the substances in a waste.
Ecotoxic testing is the best way to assess the
ecotoxic hazard. Using calculation method without
M-factors is not relevant for this criterion since Mfactors are the factors for ecotox.
Limits and uncertainties
There is a need to establish a link with regulators
that address the management and disposal of
hazardous wastes to estimate the impact of the
implementation of this experimental approach on
the outcome of the wastes classified as
hazardous. Therefore, it would seem appropriate
to propose a transitional period for the application
of these threshold values in order to collect
sufficient experimental data at a European level to
conclude definitely on the suitability of the
proposed threshold values.
The analytical method AFNOR XP X30-489 gives
the exhaustive composition of the mineral
elements and the organic substances. (Mineral)
Elements must be speciated to mineral (and
organomineral) substances. This speciation
requires expert knowledge.
In most of the case “worst case” classification
(with knowledge of the chelistry of the waste, but
without speciation) gives evidence for reliable
classification.
There is a need to have consistency between
results from testing and results from the
calculation method on which Commission works.
Approximate cost of
method(s)
Variability depending
waste types (%)
Other MS using the
same approach (if
known)
the
3000 – 5000 euros
on
Germany
Additional comments
88
Expert contacted to
elaborate
this
factsheet
Pascal Pandard (INERIS)
References
- Pandard P, Römbke J. 2013. Proposal for a “Harmonized” Strategy for the
Assessment of the HP 14 Property. Integrated Environmental Assessment and
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
FRANCE
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
Management 9(4): 665–672
- Pandard P, Devillers J, Charissou AM, Poulsen V, Jourdain MJ, Férard J‐F.
Grand C, Bispo A. 2006. Selecting a battery of bioassays for ecotoxicological
characterization of wastes. Sci Total Environ 363:114–125.
- FNADE (2003) Methodological Guide - Waste Classification for a good direction
of waste to appropriate storage centres – Appendix 3
- Eurostat Data Centre on Waste
Additional information
89
INERIS (2013) Guide de classement des déchets selon leur dangerosité suivant le
Code de l’Environnement et la réglementation SEVESO II (partie applicable aux
déchets). Rapport d’étude N°INERIS- DRC-12-125740-06310A, 66 pp.
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
GERMANY
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
Type of approach(es)
used in the country to
assess H14 property
of waste
Variability
in
H14
assessment methods
depending on the
waste nature
Related
legislation
and guidelines
Combined method
Combination of solid-phase tests and aquatic tests performed on water extracts
from wastes, if insufficient ecotoxicity data on individual components of the waste.
The assessment of wastes is aligned on assessment under hazardous-substances
legislation (CPD). Waste can thus be classified based on sufficient knowledge of
its composition in terms of hazardous substances. Every waste which, based on
its (known) composition, is to be classified and labelled in accordance with
hazardous-substances law (H1 to H13) is considered hazardous waste.
In addition, if the composition of the waste is unknown or complex, biological test
methods may be applied. The testing strategy includes a test battery with
terrestrial and aquatic tests, but the proposed limit values have not been
discussed in detail and no decision has been made to fix limit values.
Legislation
No specific legislation for H14 assessment : due to the
Federal constitution the Federal States are the responsible
authorities to enforce the regulations, if there is no legal
instrument in place on national level - what is the case for
H14
Closed Substance Cycle and Waste Management Act
Guidelines
UbA (2013) Recommendations for the Ecotoxicological
Characterization of Wastes
Moser,
H.
(2008)
Handlungsempfehlungen
zur
ökotoxikologischen Charakterisierung von Abfällen.
Entwurf.
German
AVV
technique)
(Abfallverzeichnisverordnung)
(guide
Guidelines on the Application of the Waste Catalogue
Ordinance
Stakeholders involved
in
the
H14
assessment
Waste with
tonnage
Federal Environment Agency Umweltbundesamt UbA (funding, organising, testing,
communication)
ECT Oekotoxikologie GmbH (testing)
Waste with highest
tonnage
Waste from construction : 54%, 197 Mt
Hazardous
with
tonnage
19: Waste from waste treatment facilities, off-site waste
water treatment plants and the water industry (34%, 6.9
Mt)
waste
highest
highest
17 : Construction and demolition wastes (including road
construction) (34%, 6.9 Mt)
Chapter of List of
waste
with
the
highest share of
hazardous waste
90
05 : Wastes from petroleum refining, natural gas
purification and pyrolytic treatment of coal (59%, 146 kt)
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
GERMANY
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
Percentage of waste
considered
as
hazardous by H14
No data available on Federal level.
ecotoxic tests are applied
Prioritization
tests: aquatic
terrestrial)
of
vs
First step: aquatic tests, then terrestrial tests
Terrestrial tests on solid wastes
Protocol used
Test
organism
Endpoint
Test
method
Test
duration
Expressi
on
of
results
Thresh
old
value
E. fetida
Avoidance
ISO
17512-1
48 hours
EC 50
10%
E. fetida
Avoidance
ISO
268-1
14 days
EC 50
10%
Brassica
rapa
Emergenc
e
and
growth
ISO
11269-2
14 days
EC 50
10%
Arthrobact
er
globiformis
dehydroge
nase
activity
ISO 10187
6 hours
EC 50
10%
Folsomia
candida
Reproducti
on
ISO 11267
EC 50
10%
Leaching/extraction
test used
12
DIN 12457-2, DIN 19528
Aquatic tests on eluates
91
Test organism
Endpoint
Test
method
Test
duration
Expression
of results
Thres
hold
value
D. magna
Mobility
ISO 6341
48 hours
EC 50
10%
D. magna
Mobility
ISO 10706
21 days
EC 50
10%
Vibrio fischeri
(Microtox)
Luminesc
ence
inhibition
ISO
113481/2/3
30 minutes
EC 50
10%
Pseudokirchne
riella
subcapitata
Growth
ISO 8692
72 h
EC 50
10%
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
GERMANY
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
and
Desmodesmus
subspicatus
Lemna minor
Growth
ISO 20079
EC 50
10%
Calculation methods are used
Classification of the
substance
Generic
concentration limits
(w/w %)
Concentration
thresholds
(for
taking into account
the substances in
the
combination
equations)
R50
25
0,1
R50-53
0.25
0,1
R51-53
2.5
0,1
R52-53
25
1
R52
25
1
R53
25
1
R59
0.1
0,1
Combination equations
∑(PR50-53 ) ≥ 0.25
Or
∑(PR51-53 ) ≥ 2.5
Or
∑(PR52-53 ) ≥ 25
Or
∑(PR59 ) ≥ 0.1
Illustrative examples
Qualitative
assessment
method(s)
92
Advantages
of
the
The most complete battery of ecotoxic tests.
A combination of chemical and biological test methods
should be used for the ecotoxicological characterisation of
wastes, since a comparison of the results of chemical
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
GERMANY
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
analyses with existing threshold values is insufficient to
derive the hazards posed by waste. Instead, an evaluation
of the environmental hazards of waste is possible only by
the use of biological test methods, as only these can mirror
the effects of all bioavailable contaminants including their
potential interactions as well as pollutants in waste which
cannot be determined by chemical analysis.
Limits
uncertainties
and
Limit values are proposed but not legally fixed.
Approximate cost of
the method(s)
Variability
depending on waste
types (%)
Other MS using the
same approach (if
known)
France
Additional comments
Expert contacted to
elaborate
this
factsheet
Dr. Joachim Wuttke (UbA)
References
- UbA (2013) Recommendations for the Ecotoxicological Characterization of
Wastes
Mr Daniel Laux (Um BWL)
- UbA (2014) Weiterentwicklung der UBA-Handlungsempfehlung
ökotoxikologischen Charakterisierung von Abfällen, 170 pp.
zur
- Ministerium für Umwelt und Verkehr Baden-Württemberg (2002) Zuordnung von
Abfällen zu Abfallarten aus Spiegeleinträgen - Vorläufige Vollzugshinweise, 48 pp.
- Eurostat Data Centre on Waste
Additional information
Römbke J, Moser T, Moser H (2009) Ecotoxicological characterisation of 12
incineration ashes using 6 laboratory tests, Waste Management 29:2475–2482
Wuttke J (2013) Einstufung von
Abfallverzeichnis. Wissensforum, 20 pp.
HMV-Schlacken
im
europäischen
Ökopol GmbH (2008) Review of the European List of Waste, 532 pp.
93
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
ITALY
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
Type of approach(es)
used in the country to
assess H14 property
of waste
Combined approach: chemical specific + toxicity based approach (notably for
complex mixtures.)
The approach is the one provided by the “European Agreement concerning the
International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road” (ADR) for class 9
(Miscellaneous dangerous substances and articles), M6 and M7 (pollutant to the
aquatic environment, liquid and solid).
The classification of aquatic environmental hazards is tiered, and is dependent
upon the type of information available for the waste itself and for its components.
The tiered approach considers the chemical analysis of waste with determination
of the chemical composition and application of the summation method.
When the chemical analysis does not permit to identify the individual chemical
species in the waste sample (chemical speciation) and/or to confirm the H14
classification with the biological approach, the following bioassays (Regulation
440/2008/EC) should be applied:
- Algal growth inhibition* (C3 method/OECD TG 201): 72 or 96 h ErC50
and/or
- Daphnia magna acute immobilization test (C2 method /OECD TG 202): 48 h
EC50
and/ or
- Fish Acute tests (C1 method/OECD TG 203): 96 h LC50.
The limit values are shown in the table below.
Endpoint
Limit
values
440/2008/EC)
(Regulation
72 or 96 h ErC50 for algae*
>1 but ≤ 10 mg/L and/or
48 h EC50 for crustacea
>1 but ≤ 10 mg/L and/or
96 h LC50 for fish
>1 but ≤ 10 mg/L and/or
* other aquatic plants can be used
To avoid performing complete tests (with at least 5 concentrations) in order to
calculate E(L)C50 with algae, daphnids or fish, our procedure provides for a
preliminary limit test (100 mg/L). In case of positive results, a full study is
conducted.
The waste (250 µm granulometry) sample is prepared as Water-Accomodated
Fraction (WAF) (OECD n° 23 2000 Guidance Document on aquatic toxicity testing
of difficult substances and mixtures) with a loading rate of 100 mg/L.
Variability
in
H14
assessment methods
depending on the
waste nature
94
When the composition of the waste is known, it is classified as ecotoxic if there are
one or several hazardous substances identified by R50, R50-53, R51-53, R52,
R52-53, R53 or R59 with concentrations equal or above the limit concentrations
fixed by the DPD. When more than one hazardous substance is present the sum
method is used to determine the final result. When the composition is unknown,
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
ITALY
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
bioassays are used..
Related
legislation
and guidelines
Legislation
- Legislative decree 152/2006 (part IV). It replaces
the legislative decree 22/97.
- Law 28/2012 .This law has introduced the criteria
for H14 assessment into the legislative decree
152/2006 (see point 5, Annex D part IV)
- ADR agreement (European Agreement
Concerning the International Carriage of
Dangerous Goods by Road)
Parere ISPRA33/ISS sulla classificazione dei rifiuti
ai fini dell'attribuzione della caratteristica di
pericolo H14 "Ecotossico" Available at :
http://www.iss.it/binary/ampp/cont/Ecotx_rf.pdf
Guidelines
Stakeholders involved
in
the
H14
assessment
National and regional environment/health agencies: ISPRA, APPA, ARPA in 2
working groups.
Stakeholder role
Name
stakeholder
Funding
Producers
Private Organizations
Control Authorities
National/Regional Authorities
Laboratories
Private and Regional EPA
Producers
Private organization
Control Authorities
National Authority
Performing
test(s),
Providing
samples
the
waste
of
Type of stakeholder (national
authority, research institute,
etc.)
33
ISPRA is a Public Institute which acts under the vigilance and policy guidance of the Italian Ministry for the
Environment and the Protection of Land and Sea (MATTM, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio
e del Mare). ISPRA belongs to a national network known as Environmental Agency System. Currently, in Italy
there are 21 Environmental Regional (ARPA) and Provincial (APPA) Agencies, which are coordinated by
ISPRA. One of the aim of the ISPRA Environmental Metrology Unit is the organization of interlaboratory
exercises in order to validate chemical and biological methods and technical procedures
(www.isprambiente.org).
95
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
ITALY
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
Among hazardous
waste
Type or category
or code of waste
Annual
tonnage
(metric tonnes)
Share (%)
Wastes from waste
management
facilities, off-site
waste
water
treatment
2,96 Mtonnes in
2012
31,7 of hazardous
waste generated
from
economic
activities
52,48 Mtonnes in
2012
39,1 of total waste
generated
from
economic activities
and the
Waste plants
with highest
preparation
of
tonnage
water (chapter 19
of European LoW)
Among total waste
Construction and
demolition wastes
(chapter 17 of
European LoW)
Percentage of waste
considered
as
hazardous by H14
Share of waste assessed positive for the H14 criteria, globally and by category:
information not available at country level
Ecotoxic tests are applied
Leaching tests : EN14735
Aquatic tests
Test organism
Protocol used
34
96
Endpoint
Test
method
Test
duration
Expressi
on
of
results
Threshol
d value34
V. Fischeri
UNI EN
ISO
11348
Acute (515-30
min)
EC50
<10%
P. subcapitata
;
D.
subspicatus
UNI EN
ISO 8692
Chronic
(72h)
EC20,
EC50
<20%
D. magna (C2)
UNI EN
ISO 6341
Acute
(48h)
EC50
<10%
10% and 20% when compared with an eluate prepared following the norm UNI EN 14735:2005:
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
ITALY
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
Calculation methods are used
When the composition of the waste is known, it is classified as ecotoxic if there are
one or several hazardous substances identified by R50, R50-53, R51-53, R52,
R52-53, R53 or R59 with concentrations equal or above the limit concentrations
fixed by the DPD
Classification of the
substance
Generic
concentration limits
(w/w %)
Concentration
thresholds
(for
taking into account
the substances in
the
combination
equations)
R50
25
0,1
R50-53
0.25
0,1
R51-53
2.5
0,1
R52-53
25
1
R52
25
1
R53
25
1
R59
0.1
0,1
*P= percentage of weight
97
Combination
of
hazardous
components concentration
Threshold value
1st step
Σ(PR50-53/0,25 + PR51PR52-53/25 )
≥1
2nd step
Σ(PR50+ PR50- 53)
≥ 25%
3rd step
Σ(PR52)
≥ 25%
4th step
Σ(PR50-53 + PR51PR53 )
53
53/2,5
+
+ PR52-53 +
≥ 25%
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
ITALY
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
Illustrative examples
Advantages
none as declared by CA
Limits and uncertainties
1) The limit values are expressed in mg/L. The
previous standards EN 14735 and 12457-2 are
not applicable. Waste samples for ecotoxicity
testing should be prepared as independent WAFs
(OECD n° 23, 2000 Guidance Document on
aquatic toxicity testing of difficult substances and
mixtures, paragraph 3.11, pp 36-37)
2) A WAF with loading rate of 100 mg/L has a
10.000:1 L/S ratio.
3) According to ADR, waste samples need to be
tested for ecotoxicity have a very small mass (100
mg or less). The problem of waste sample
representativeness was studied using Pierre Gy
sampling equation:
1
(1 - p)
m =   d3  s   d  g 
6
(CV ) 2  p
Qualitative
assessment
method(s)
of
the
s= particles shape; r= particles mean density; d=
particles diameter
This equation correlates the mass (m) of
(sub)sample with the variability (coefficient of
variation, CV) of subsampling. The equation is
used to calculate the minimum amount of sample
(m) with a specific granulometry (g) keeping the
uncertainty within a CV value of 20% (table
below).
Granulometry (µm)
Waste mass (mg)
250
80-100
125
10
As shown in the table, a particle size reduction to
100 mg (CV= 20%).
Nevertheless, a collaborative study organized by
ISPRA with 23 Italian laboratories demonstrated
that our approach does not provide acceptable
repeatability and reproducibility values (Sr% and
98
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
ITALY
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
SR%) with algal test (See: D. Conti, P. De Zorzi,
S. Balzamo, S. Barbizzi, S. Rosamilia, C.
Martone, A. Pati, T. Guagnini, A. Paina, E. Raso,
V.
Bellaria
(2014)
Studio
collaborativo
ecotossicologico su lisciviato di rifiuto mediante
saggi con P. subcapitata e D. magna. In press).
4) Waste often have low economic value.
Evaluation of H14 property should be performed
with rapid, easy to perform, convenient and
inexpensive tests. Toxicity testing with fish do not
have these characteristics. Moreover, the tests
with vertebrates raise ethical and economic
concerns and many regulatory frameworks (e.g.
REACH) principally encourage the use of
alternative approaches
5) Chemical analysis and biological tests: the
results of the two approaches often are different
and lead to different classification of the waste.
The same limits and uncertainties can be also
highlighted in case of CLP application.
Approximate cost of
method(s)
Variability depending
waste types (%)
the
Chemical analysis
100-1000 €
(depending on number and type of analysis)
on
Biological methods
alga, crustacean and fish)
800 € (test battery:
Other MS using the
same approach (if
known)
Additional comments
Expert contacted to
elaborate
this
factsheet
Stefania Balzamo – stefania.balzamo@isprambiente.it; Andrea Paina –
andrea.paina@isprambiente.it; Daniela Conti – daniela.conti@isprambiente.it;
Cristina
Martone
– cristina.martone@isprambiente.it;
Elisa
Raso
–
elisa.raso@isprambiente.it; Andrea Lanz – andrea.lanz@isprambiente.it;
References
There are no official guidelines or specific protocols for H14 property of waste, but
there are the following studies (only in Italian language) concerning the application
of ADR approach:
Information on quantities produced by specific waste codes:
Annual publications of ISPRA on production and management of municipal waste
and waste from economic activities. Publications are available on ISPRA website
at:
http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/it/pubblicazioni/rapporti (available only in Italian
language)
Composition data of specific wastes:
99
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
ITALY
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
Study on fluff-light fraction from crushing of vehicles:
Report ISPRA 2002 http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/contentfiles/00003800/3897rapporti-02-16.pdf/view (available only in Italian language)
Report ISPRA 2006 http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/contentfiles/00004100/4158rapporto-veicoli-2007-marzo-2008.pdf/view (available only in Italian language)
Procedures and results of ecotoxicological tests:
S. Balzamo, D. Conti, M. Belli et al. (2008) Caratterizzazione ecotossicologica dei
rifiuti: risultati italiani del circuito d’interconfronto europeo organizzato dall’Agenzia
tedesca per la Protezione dell’Ambiente. Rapporti ISPRA 81/2008.
D. Conti, P. De Zorzi, S. Balzamo, S. Barbizzi, S. Rosamilia, C. Martone, A. Pati,
T. Guagnini, A. Paina, E. Raso, V. Bellaria (2014)
Studio collaborativo
ecotossicologico su lisciviato di rifiuto mediante saggi con P. subcapitata e D.
magna. Final Report ISPRA (in press).
Batterie di test per la caratterizzazzione ecotossicologica dei rifiuti: Stato dell’arte ;
Parere ISPRA/ISS sulla classificazione dei rifiuti ai fini dell'attribuzione della
caratteristica
di
pericolo
H14
"Ecotossico"
Available
at
:
http://www.iss.it/binary/ampp/cont/Ecotx_rf.pdf
A. Paina, D. Conti, S. Balzamo, A. Pati, C. Martone (2013) I rifiuti e la pericolosità
per l’ambiente (H14): evoluzione normativa e quadro di riferimento. Atti di Giornate
di Studio Livorno 5a edizione, “Ricerca e applicazione di metodologie eco
tossicologiche in ambienti acquatici e matrici contaminate” Livorno 7-9 novembre
2013 pp. 194-200.
D. Conti, S. Balzamo, A. Paina, A. Pati, C. Martone, V. Bellaria (2013) Valutazione
della pericolosità per l’ambiente dei rifiuti (H14): definizione della procedura
analitica. Atti di Giornate di Studio Livorno 5a edizione, “Ricerca e applicazione di
metodologie ecotossicologiche in ambienti acquatici e matrici contaminate”
Livorno 7-9 novembre 2013 pp. 201-207.
D. Conti, P. De Zorzi, S. Balzamo, S. Barbizzi, S. Rosamilia, C. Martone, A. Pati,
T. Guagnini, A. Paina, E. Raso, V. Bellaria (2014)
Studio collaborativo
ecotossicologico su lisciviato di rifiuto mediante saggi con P. subcapitata e D.
magna. Rapporto finale ISPRA (in press)
A. Paina, D. Conti, C. Martone, A. Pati, E. Raso e S. Balzamo (2014) La
determinazione della pericolosità per l’ambiente acquatico dei rifiuti (H14):
definizione della procedura analitica per l’esecuzione di test biologici in accordo
con il Regolamento CE 1272/2008. Ecomondo 2014, Rimini 5-8 November 2014,
pp. 194-198
Additional information
100
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
SPAIN
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
Type of approach(es)
used in the country to
assess H14 property
of waste
Ecotoxicity tests
Variability
in
H14
assessment methods
depending on the
waste nature
Waste from veterinary products follow a different law.
Related
legislation
and guidelines
Legislation
Two bioassays of luminescence and inhibition on leaching extracts
Ley 22/2011, de 28 de julio, de residuos y suelos
contaminados
ORDEN de 13 de octubre de 1989 por la que se
determinan los métodos de caracterización de los
residuos tóxicos y peligrosos
ORDEN MAM/304/2002, de 8 de febrero - Anejo 2
(“no contiene en la actualidad disposiciones
respecto a las características H1, H2, H9 y H12 a
H14”)
Guidelines
Stakeholders involved
in
the
H14
assessment
ORDEN de 13 de octubre de 1989 por la que se
determinan los métodos de caracterización de los
residuos tóxicos y peligrosos –Appendice IV and
A
ATEGRUS (Asociación Técnica para la Gestión de Residuos, Aseo Urbano y
Medio Ambiente
INTERLAB
Waste with highest tonnage
Waste from construction : 22%, 26.1 Mt
Waste from mining and quarrying : 19%, 22.5 Mt
Hazardous
waste
highest tonnage
with
Manufacture industry : 97.7% of hazardous waste
generated in Spain (1 345 kt on 1 376 kt), and
among them:
- Waste from metal and non-metal industry :
57.8%, 795 kt
Waste with
tonnage
highest
- Waste from organic chemistry : 38.3%, 527.34
kt
- Acidic, alkaline and salt waste : 23%, 316.3 kt
From Eurostat data:
10-11-12 : Inorganic wastes from thermal
processes + Inorganic metal-containing wastes
from metal treatment and the coating of metals,
and non-ferrous hydrometallurgy + Wastes from
shaping and surface treatment of metals and
plastics (36%, 751.6 kt)
19 : Waste from waste treatment facilities, off-site
101
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
SPAIN
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
waste water treatment plants and the water
industry (26%, 530.7 kt)
Chapter of List of waste with
the
highest
share
of
hazardous waste
05 : Wastes from petroleum refining, natural gas
purification and pyrolytic treatment of coal (49%,
66.8 kt)
07 : Wastes from organic chemical processes
(40%, 414 kt)
Percentage of waste
considered
as
hazardous by H14
Approximately 20%
Ecotoxicity tests are applied
Prioritization of tests (aquatic
vs terrestrial)
Only aquatic tests on leaching extracts
Leaching/extraction test used
UNE 12457-2
Aquatic tests
Test
organism
Endpoi
nt
Test
method
Test
duration
Expres
sion of
results
Thresh
old
value
Vibrio
fischeri35
lumine
scence
UNE
11348
15’-30’
EC50
3000
mg/l
Daphnia
magna
mobilit
y
OECD202
24-48H
CL50/
EC50
750
mg/l
Protocol used
UNE
6341
No calculation methods are used
Illustrative examples
Advantages
Qualitative
assessment
method(s)
35
102
of
the
Spain highlights that there are often problems due
to the fact that wastes are complex matrices
(coloured, oily, particulates, precipitates, etc.).
Considering that often the ecotoxicity test is the
only real bioassay performed on waste, as it is by
Named Photobacterium phosphoreum in the Order of 13/10/1989
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
SPAIN
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
far the cheapest, it seems reasonable to use a
test battery. The applied toxicity tests (Daphnia
magna, Vibrio fischeri) are relatively economic
and simple. The Daphnia test is in general
considered to be more ecologically relevant.
Limits and uncertainties
Approximate cost of
method(s)
Variability depending
waste types (%)
Other MS using the
same approach (if
known)
Confusion in the interpretation: concentrations
expressed in terms of the amount of residue of
departure or in terms of the leachate (an order of
magnitude
difference
between
the
two
interpretations [x 10]). Lack of clarity in relation to
the scientific support of limits.
the
Unknown
on
None.
Similar: France – Uses only Ecotoxicity tests to assess H 14. However, France
includes terrestrial tests in its test battery while Spain does not.
Additional comments
Expert contacted to
elaborate
this
factsheet
Joan Parés Gómez, TECNOAMBIANTE SL
References
- Jaureguízar J, Dueñas L, John E (2007) Evaluación de metodologías para la
caracterización de residuos como peligrosos o no peligrosos, Residuos 101, 1826.
- ORDEN de 13 de octubre de 1989 por la que se determinan los métodos de
caracterización de los residuos tóxicos y peligrosos –Appendice IV and A
- Residuos Industriales en España INE, 2003 (2000)
- Eurostat Data Centre on Waste
Additional information
103
Ökopol GmbH (2008) Review of the European List of Waste, 532 pp.
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
UNITED KINGDOM
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
Assessment of H14 based on the composition of the waste with regards to
hazardous substances. The UK approach considers only the hazards to
the aquatic environment (R50 to R53) and to the ozone layer (R59)
In practice, this is a calculation method based on the Dangerous
Preparations Directive. It could also be presented as a combined
approach.
UK differs from the DPD in that they do not assign substance specific
concentration limits (SCL’s) to all R50-53 substance as set out in Part B of
Annex III. They apply only those SCL’s listed in Table 3.2 of the CLP.
Ecotoxicity testing is legally permitted in accordance with Annex VI of the
Dangerous Substances Directive. This approach would normally be
applied to substances (rather than preparations), can only modify the
result of the calculation method for a preparation, and is limited by the
need for vertebrate testing. So in practice, ecotoxicity testing of most
wastes would not be appropriate where the calculation method can be
used instead.
Variability in H14
assessment methods
depending on the
waste nature
104
WM2 emphasises the use of compositional data to assess ecotoxicity (as used
for the assessment of other hazardous properties) and discourages direct
ecotoxicity testing on organisms wherever possible: “A H14 assessment
should normally be done by reference to concentration limits of the substances
in the waste. There will be a few cases when this is not possible, for example
the substances in particularly complex wastes may be difficult to determine
exactly. It is then possible to test these wastes for H14”. In those specific
cases (when the chemical composition of the waste is unknown or when the
waste contains substances whose toxicity is not already known), bioassays
can be used and the approach consists of an eluate testing without dilution
coupled to an inhibition essay on Daphnia magna’ s mobility (48h) and on
algal growth (72h).
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
UNITED KINGDOM
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
Related legislation
and guidelines
No specific legislation for H14 assessment
Legislation
The Hazardous Waste (England and Wales)
Regulations 2005
Environment Agency (2013) WM2:
Hazardous waste Interpretation of the
definition and classification of hazardous
waste (3rd Edition 2013), 147 pp.
Guidelines
University of Birmingham (2014) Health and
Safety Guidance - Hazardous Waste:
Guidance on Assessment
GUIDANCE/11/HWGA/14, 32 pp.
Stakeholders
involved in the H14
assessment
Environmental Service Association ESA, Defra (funding)
Producers of waste (performing the assessment)
WRc (performing the assessment)
Waste with highest
tonnage
Waste from construction : 41%, 99 Mt
Hazardous waste with
highest tonnage
19: Waste from waste treatment facilities, offsite waste water treatment plants and the
water industry (30%, 1.9 Mt)
Waste with highest
tonnage
20: Municipal wastes and commercial,
industrial and institutional wastes including
separately collected fractions (21%, 1.3Mt)
Chapter of List of waste
with the highest share of
hazardous waste
Percentage of waste
considered as
hazardous by H14
05 : Wastes from petroleum refining, natural
gas purification and pyrolytic treatment of
coal (82%, 154 kt)
Unknown
No ecotoxicity tests are applied (the practice is possible in theory, when
calculation methods cannot be applied, but is highly discouraged)
Calculation methods are used
Protocol used
105
Classification of the
substance
Generic
concentration limits
(w/w %)
Concentration
thresholds
(for
taking into account
the substances in
the
combination
equations)
R50
25
0,1
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
UNITED KINGDOM
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
R50-53
0.25
0,1
R51-53
2.5
0,1
R52-53
25
1
R52
25
1
R53
25
1
R59
0.1
0,1
Combination equations
∑(
Illustrative examples
𝑅50−53 𝑅51−53 𝑅52−53
+
+
)
0.25
2.5
25
≥ 100% (=1)
∑(𝑅50 + 𝑅50−53 )
≥ 25%
∑ 𝑅52
≥ 25%
∑(𝑅53 + 𝑅50−53 + 𝑅51−53 + 𝑅52−53 )
≥ 25%
Example 1: A waste contains 2 substances given R50-53. Substance A = 0.2%,
Substance B = 0.9%. Neither substance is given a specific threshold in Annex VI
table 3.2. Both substances exceed the generic cut-off values (0.1%).
Using Equation 1:
𝑅
𝑅
𝑅
0.2
0.9
∑( 50−53 + 51−53 + 52−53) ≥ 1
(
+
) +0 + 0 = 4.4 ≥ 1 → this waste is
0.25
2.5
25
0.25
0.25
hazardous by H14
Example 2: A waste contains 2 substances. Substance C = 18% is given R50;
substance D = 12% is given R53. Neither substance is given a specific
threshold in Annex VI table 3.2. Both substances exceed the generic cut-off
values (0.1% for R50 and 1% for R53).
Using Equation 2:
∑(𝑅50 + 𝑅50−53 )
H14
(18%) + 0% = 18% ≤ 25% → this waste is not hazardous by
Using Equation 4:
∑(𝑅53 + 𝑅50−53 + 𝑅51−53 + 𝑅52−53 ) (12%) + 0% + 0% + 0% = 12%≤ 25% → this
waste is not hazardous by H14
Example 3: A waste contains 4 substances. Substance F = 0.09% is given R5053, substance G =
0.08% is given R51-53, Substances H = 17%, I = 14% are given R53. None of the
substances is given a specific threshold in Annex VI table 3.2. Substance F and G
are below the generic cut-off values (0.1% for both) so are not included in the
calculations. Substances H and I exceed the cut-off values (1%).
106
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
UNITED KINGDOM
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
Using Equation 4:
∑(𝑅53 + 𝑅50−53 + 𝑅51−53 + 𝑅52−53 ) (17% + 14%) + 0% + 0% + 0% = 31% ≥25% →
this waste is hazardous by H14.
Advantages
The advantages are that as a calculation
method
•It can normally be performed using the same
sampling and chemical analysis used for
other hazardous properties (no additional
analysis)
•It does not involve testing on living animals
•It is similar to that used for products, so the
classification of a product under the DPD as
Ecotoxic can normally be relied upon by
small businesses to indicate that H14 is likely
to apply when that product becomes a waste.
One stakeholder has advocated that the
method selected should be as close to the
CLP as possible to maximise the
simplification this last point provides for
customers. As indicated previously, the use
of direct testing is limited by the legislative
regime and limitations of test methods with
respect to difficult materials. However in
certain circumstances (particularly for
simpler, soluble wastes, or for pure
substances) it may have some advantages.
Qualitative
assessment of the
method(s)
UK points out that the calculation
methodology set forth in the national
Chemical Regulations (CHIP) and the
Dangerous Preparations Directive (DPD)
supported by chemical analysis is clear and
highly satisfactory. It aligns directly with
chemical risk phrase classification systems
and therefore with other hazardous
properties. UK holds the view that animal
testing of solid wastes is of little or no
scientific value and generates results of
debatable significance. Testing is described
as of often poor quality, overlooks key criteria
in relevant guidance, and results often
suggest that the waste is non-hazardous
where that is clearly not the case. UK
assumes that in more than one case the
analysis appears to have been undertaken
principally because chemical analysis would
show the waste to be hazardous, so
ecotoxicity testing is being used (badly) in an
attempt to obtain a different result.
Limits and uncertainties
107
Our approach has similar limits and
uncertainties to the DPD.
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
UNITED KINGDOM
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
The omission of SCL’s for all R50-53
substances means that the calculation
method will underestimate the ecotoxicity of a
waste (relative to the DPD) when very
ecotoxic substances are present.
The reliability of the calculation method is
dependent on
•Appropriate sampling in accordance with
CEN 14899 and supporting technical reports,
•Determination of the chemical composition
of the components (to a level sufficient to
assess H14) by analysis, and
•Correctly identifying the classification of the
components using Table 3.2 of the CLP, the
REACH registered substances database, and
other appropriate datasources.
Appropriate sampling of materials,
particularly from processes producing
variable and heterogenous batches over
time, can be the key factor. This can be a
significant part of the cost.
Analysis can be more challenging in complex
matrices, and the analytical uncertainties
need to be understood before results are
interpreted. The balance often has to be
found between determining the speciation of
the chemical OR using a worst case
compound.
Approximate cost of the
method(s)
Variability depending on
waste types (%)
The sampling and chemical analysis of the
waste is used to support the assessment of
several hazardous properties. The use of the
calculation method for H14 would not
normally generate a separate (additional)
cost.
One stakeholder has advised UK EA that
ecotoxicity tests range from £650 to £2000
per test, depending on the OECD test
method.
Another has indicated that analysis of
chemical compositions is approximately £150
per sample, with the calculation taking about
30 minutes for a competent person. They
indicate that ecotoxicity testing is more
expensive.
Again, where the method is very close the
product legislation – sampling, analysis and
calculation may be not be necessary, if the
safety data sheet for that product has already
completed the assessment. This may reduce
cost.
Other MS using the
same approach (if
108
Finland
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
UNITED KINGDOM
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes
known)
Additional comments
The successful assessment of a waste to determine its classification is
highly dependent on the reliable and representative sampling of the
material. The application of CEN 14899 on waste characterisation and its
supporting technical reports is central to this.
One of our stakeholders has made us aware of the CONCAWE aquatic
toxicity test procedure in ‘Hazardous classification and labelling of
petroleum substances in the European Economic Area -2014’. We would
recommend seeking advice from ECHA on the relevance of this to CLP
classification of oils (and therefore oil contaminated waste)
When evaluating waste streams for this study we recommend you
-Determine their full composition, and
-Assess all hazardous properties
To determine the impact of H14.
Although a calculation method is most appropriate, this should be
supported by ecotoxicity testing where appropriate. This would need to be
performed in accordance with the CLP and supporting ECHA guidance on
its application. Use of a calculation method similar to that of the CLP
would be needed to enable CLP test methods to be used in parallel. The
performance of the Ecotoxicity method on difficult substances is an
important consideration.
Expert contacted to
elaborate this
factsheet
Bob McIntyre, UK EA
References
- Environment Agency (2013) WM2: Hazardous waste Interpretation of the
definition and classification of hazardous waste (3rd Edition 2013), 147 pp.
- Eurostat Data Centre on Waste
Additional
information
109
WRc (2012) Assessment of Hazard Classification of UK IBA, 69 pp.
Ökopol GmbH (2008) Review of the European List of Waste, 532 pp.
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
110
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Annex 3. Second questionnaire
sent to Competent Authorities36
Information for consolidation of waste codes selection
Please provide your answers directly in the table included in the next pages (pp4 – 11).
The first line of the table shows an example on how to include available data.
1. Economic importance of waste codes
Please specify which waste codes you consider important, regarding the following
parameters:
Please report the letter a, b or c in column 3 of the table.
a. Waste to energy recovery (please specify the percentage)
b. Waste to material recovery (please specify the percentage)
c. High generated volumes (please specify the tons)
2. Potential presence of hazardous substances
Please specify the nature and indicative concentrations of hazardous substances
contained in waste streams falling under the listed waste codes.
Please fill in column 4 of the table.
3. Criticality of the waste classification
The new classification methods for HP 14 shall be based on calculations using the
presence and the quantities of intrinsically ecotoxic substances in the waste, i.e. those
classified under the following CLP H-codes: H420 (ozone depleting), H400 (aquatic
acute), H410 (aquatic chronic 1), H411 (aquatic chronic 2), H412 (aquatic chronic 3) and
H413 (aquatic chronic 4).
For which mirror entries do you think that waste streams currently classified as nonhazardous are likely to shift to being classified as hazardous (due to a change of
classification methods)?
Please write, per code, “Yes” in column 5 in you think the shift as likely and “No”
otherwise. Please indicate in column 6 which substances (along with their CLP H-codes)
are responsible for this potential shift.
Your opinion on the selected mirror pairs
1. Background: the selection process
The selection process is based on six selection criteria (SC):

SC 1 - Preference of experts
36
The list of selected pairs presented in the questionnaire is slightly different from the list reported in section 5.2
of this report. This is because data received in the wake of the consultation with the second questionnaire
changed the scores for some waste codes.
111
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report

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
Waste codes are attributed scores for each SC (calculated from data from the first
questionnaire to stakeholders and from a desk study) and then a global score is
calculated for each waste code by computing a weighted average of all scores:
Selection criteria
SC1
SC2
SC3
Weight
3
3
2
Selection criteria
SC4
SC5
SC6
Weight
1
1
2
After normalisation, all waste codes with a global score higher than 1.5 are selected. If
one code of the mirror pair is not included in the list, this mirror pair is nonetheless
chosen.
2. Selected pairs
Please find below our first selection of waste pairs, as a categorised list.
03 Wastes from wood processing and the production of panels and furniture,
pulp, paper and cardboard
03 01 wastes from wood processing and the production of panels and furniture
sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood, particle board and
veneer
10 Wastes from thermal processes
03 01 04*
03 01 05
10 01 wastes from power stations and other combustion plants (except 19)
10 01 16*
10 01 17
fly ash from co-incineration
10 02 wastes from the iron and steel industry
10 02 07*
10 02 08
solid wastes from gas treatment
10 02 13*
10 02 14
sludges and filter cakes from gas treatment
10 03 wastes from aluminium thermal metallurgy
10 03 19*
10 03 20
flue-gas dust
17 Construction and demolition wastes (including excavated soil from
contaminated sites)
17 03 bituminous mixtures, coal tar and tarred products
17 03 01*
17 03 02
bituminous mixtures
17 05 soil (including excavated soil from contaminated sites), stones and
dredging spoil
17 05 03*
17 05 04
soil and stones
17 05 05*
17 05 06
dredging spoil
19 Wastes from waste management facilities, off-site waste water treatment
plants and the preparation of water intended for human consumption and water
for industrial use
19 01 wastes from incineration or pyrolysis of waste
19 01 11*
19 01 12
bottom ash and slag
19 01 13*
19 01 14
fly ash
19 08 wastes from waste water treatment plants not otherwise specified
19 08 11*
112
19 08 12
sludges from biological treatment of industrial waste water
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
19 08 13*
19 08 14
sludges from other treatment of industrial waste water
Do you think other waste codes should be included in the list? If so, please provide the
codes and the reason why they should be included (mention the relevant selection
criteria):
Codes to add
Reason
…
…
…
…
Experimental data on selected waste pairs
We need experimental data (chemical composition and results of ecotoxicity tests) of
waste samples classified under one or the other code of the selected mirror pairs.
The attached Excel file presents and explains the data we need to perform the
assessment. Could you please fill in the tables or provide us with reports/databases
containing the requested information?
If you do not have the experimental data yourself, could you please redirect us to people
who do:
Contacts: ____________________________________________________________
113
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Criticality of waste classification
Waste code
Waste description
Economic
importance
Potential presence
of hazardous
substances
XX XX XX
Example
a. (35%)
Zinc hydroxide
(0.2%)
Lead (0.05%)
03 01 04*
03 01 05
04 02 19*
04 02 20
sludges from on-site
effluent treatment other
than those mentioned
in 04 02 19
06 03 15*
metallic oxides
containing heavy
metals
06 05 02*
06 05 03
07 01 11*
07 01 12
07 02 11*
07 02 12
07 03 11*
114
Yes
Rationale for the
shift
Presence of As
(H410)
sawdust, shavings,
cuttings, wood, particle
board and veneer
containing hazardous
substances
sawdust, shavings,
cuttings, wood, particle
board and veneer
other than those
mentioned in 03 01 04
sludges from on-site
effluent treatment
containing hazardous
substances
06 03 16
Likely to shift to
dangerous?
metallic oxides other
than those mentioned
in 06 03 15
sludges from on-site
effluent treatment
containing hazardous
substances
sludges from on-site
effluent treatment other
than those mentioned
in 06 05 02
sludges from on-site
effluent treatment
containing hazardous
substances
sludges from on-site
effluent treatment other
than those mentioned
in 07 01 11
sludges from on-site
effluent treatment
containing hazardous
substances
sludges from on-site
effluent treatment other
than those mentioned
in 07 02 11
sludges from on-site
effluent treatment
containing hazardous
substances
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Waste code
07 03 12
07 05 11*
07 05 12
07 06 11*
07 06 12
08 01 13*
08 01 14
08 03 12*
08 03 13
08 03 14*
08 03 15
08 04 11*
08 04 12
10 01 14*
10 01 15
10 01 16*
115
Waste description
sludges from on-site
effluent treatment other
than those mentioned
in 07 03 11
sludges from on-site
effluent treatment
containing hazardous
substances
sludges from on-site
effluent treatment other
than those mentioned
in 07 05 11
sludges from on-site
effluent treatment
containing hazardous
substances
sludges from on-site
effluent treatment other
than those mentioned
in 07 06 11
sludges from paint or
varnish containing
organic solvents or
other hazardous
substances
sludges from paint or
varnish other than
those mentioned in 08
01 13
waste ink containing
hazardous substances
waste ink other than
those mentioned in 08
03 12
ink sludges containing
hazardous substances
ink sludges other than
those mentioned in 08
03 14
adhesive and sealant
sludges containing
organic solvents or
other hazardous
substances
adhesive and sealant
sludges other than
those mentioned in 08
04 11
bottom ash, slag and
boiler dust from coincineration containing
hazardous substances
bottom ash, slag and
boiler dust from coincineration other than
those mentioned in 10
01 14
fly ash from coincineration containing
hazardous substances
Economic
importance
Potential presence
of hazardous
substances
Criticality of waste classification
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Waste code
10 01 17
10 01 18*
10 01 19
10 02 07*
10 02 08
10 02 11*
10 02 12
Waste description
fly ash from coincineration other than
those mentioned in 10
01 16
wastes from gas
cleaning containing
hazardous substances
wastes from gas
cleaning other than
those mentioned in 10
01 05, 10 01 07 and 10
01 18
10 02 14
sludges and filter
cakes from gas
treatment other than
those mentioned in 10
02 13
10 03 19*
flue-gas dust
containing hazardous
substances
10 03 24
10 03 25*
116
Criticality of waste classification
solid wastes from gas
treatment other than
those mentioned in 10
02 07
wastes from coolingwater treatment
containing oil
wastes from coolingwater treatment other
than those mentioned
in 10 02 11
10 02 13*
10 03 23*
Potential presence
of hazardous
substances
solid wastes from gas
treatment containing
hazardous substances
sludges and filter
cakes from gas
treatment containing
hazardous substances
10 03 20
Economic
importance
flue-gas dust other
than those mentioned
in 10 03 19
solid wastes from gas
treatment containing
hazardous substances
solid wastes from gas
treatment other than
those mentioned in 10
03 23
sludges and filter
cakes from gas
treatment containing
hazardous substances
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Waste code
10 03 26
10 03 29*
10 03 30
10 05 10*
10 05 11
10 06 09*
10 06 10
Waste description
sludges and filter
cakes from gas
treatment other than
those mentioned in 10
03 25
wastes from treatment
of salt slags and black
drosses containing
hazardous substances
wastes from treatment
of salt slags and black
drosses other than
those mentioned in 10
03 29
dross and skimmings
that are flammable or
emit, upon contact with
water, flammable
gases in hazardous
quantities
dross and skimmings
other than those
mentioned in 10 05 10
wastes from coolingwater treatment
containing oil
wastes from coolingwater treatment other
than those mentioned
in 10 06 09
10 08 15*
flue-gas dust
containing hazardous
substances
10 08 16
flue-gas dust other
than those mentioned
in 10 08 15
10 08 17*
sludges and filter
cakes from flue-gas
treatment containing
hazardous substances
10 08 18
sludges and filter
cakes from flue-gas
treatment other than
those mentioned in 10
08 17
10 08 19*
wastes from coolingwater treatment
containing oil
10 08 20
wastes from coolingwater treatment other
than those mentioned
in 10 08 19
117
Economic
importance
Potential presence
of hazardous
substances
Criticality of waste classification
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Waste code
10 09 05*
10 09 06
10 09 07*
10 09 08
10 09 11*
10 09 12
10 09 13*
10 09 14
10 10 05*
10 10 06
10 10 07*
10 10 08
Waste description
casting cores and
moulds which have not
undergone pouring
containing hazardous
substances
casting cores and
moulds which have not
undergone pouring
other than those
mentioned in 10 09 05
casting cores and
moulds which have
undergone pouring
containing hazardous
substances
casting cores and
moulds which have
undergone pouring
other than those
mentioned in 10 09 07
other particulates
containing hazardous
substances
other particulates other
than those mentioned
in 10 09 11
waste binders
containing hazardous
substances
waste binders other
than those mentioned
in 10 09 13
casting cores and
moulds which have not
undergone pouring,
containing hazardous
substances
casting cores and
moulds which have not
undergone pouring,
other than those
mentioned in 10 10 05
casting cores and
moulds which have
undergone pouring,
containing hazardous
substances
casting cores and
moulds which have
undergone pouring,
other than those
mentioned in 10 10 07
10 10 09*
flue-gas dust
containing hazardous
substances
10 10 10
flue-gas dust other
than those mentioned
in 10 10 09
118
Economic
importance
Potential presence
of hazardous
substances
Criticality of waste classification
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Waste code
10 10 11*
10 10 12
10 10 13*
10 10 14
10 11 09*
10 11 10
10 11 15*
10 11 16
10 12 09*
10 12 10
10 13 12*
10 13 13
11 01 09*
11 01 10
12 01 14*
12 01 15
119
Waste description
other particulates
containing hazardous
substances
other particulates other
than those mentioned
in 10 10 11
waste binders
containing hazardous
substances
waste binders other
than those mentioned
in 10 10 13
waste preparation
mixture before thermal
processing, containing
hazardous substances
waste preparation
mixture before thermal
processing, other than
those mentioned in 10
11 09
Economic
importance
Potential presence
of hazardous
substances
Criticality of waste classification
solid wastes from fluegas treatment
containing hazardous
substances
solid wastes from fluegas treatment other
than those mentioned
in 10 11 15
solid wastes from gas
treatment containing
hazardous substances
solid wastes from gas
treatment other than
those mentioned in 10
12 09
solid wastes from gas
treatment containing
hazardous substances
solid wastes from gas
treatment other than
those mentioned in 10
13 12
sludges and filter
cakes containing
hazardous substances
sludges and filter
cakes other than those
mentioned in 11 01 09
machining sludges
containing hazardous
substances
machining sludges
other than those
mentioned in 12 01 14
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Waste code
12 01 16*
12 01 17
16 11 01*
16 11 02
16 11 03*
16 11 04
16 11 05*
16 11 06
17 01 06*
17 01 07
17 03 01*
17 03 02
Waste description
waste blasting material
containing hazardous
substances
waste blasting material
other than those
mentioned in 12 01 16
carbon-based linings
and refractories from
metallurgical
processes containing
hazardous substances
carbon-based linings
and refractories from
metallurgical
processes others than
those mentioned in 16
11 01
other linings and
refractories from
metallurgical
processes containing
hazardous substances
other linings and
refractories from
metallurgical
processes other than
those mentioned in 16
11 03
Potential presence
of hazardous
substances
Criticality of waste classification
linings and refractories
from non-metallurgical
processes containing
hazardous substances
linings and refractories
from non-metallurgical
processes others than
those mentioned in 16
11 05
mixtures of, or
separate fractions of
concrete, bricks, tiles
and ceramics
containing hazardous
substances
mixtures of concrete,
bricks, tiles and
ceramics other than
those mentioned in 17
01 06
bituminous mixtures
containing coal tar
bituminous mixtures
other than those
mentioned in 17 03 01
17 05 03*
soil and stones
containing hazardous
substances
17 05 04
soil and stones other
than those mentioned
in 17 05 03
120
Economic
importance
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Waste code
17 05 05*
17 05 06
17 06 03*
17 06 04
17 08 01*
17 08 02
19 01 11*
19 01 12
19 01 13*
19 01 14
19 01 15*
19 01 16
19 03 06*
19 03 07
19 07 02*
19 07 03
19 08 11*
19 08 12
121
Waste description
dredging spoil
containing hazardous
substances
dredging spoil other
than those mentioned
in 17 05 05
other insulation
materials consisting of
or containing
hazardous substances
insulation materials
other than those
mentioned in 17 06 01
and 17 06 03
gypsum-based
construction materials
contaminated with
hazardous substances
gypsum-based
construction materials
other than those
mentioned in 17 08 01
bottom ash and slag
containing hazardous
substances
bottom ash and slag
other than those
mentioned in 19 01 11
Economic
importance
Potential presence
of hazardous
substances
Criticality of waste classification
fly ash containing
hazardous substances
fly ash other than
those mentioned in 19
01 13
boiler dust containing
hazardous substances
boiler dust other than
those mentioned in 19
01 15
wastes marked as
hazardous, solidified
solidified wastes other
than those mentioned
in 19 03 06
landfill leachate
containing hazardous
substances
landfill leachate other
than those mentioned
in 19 07 02
sludges containing
hazardous substances
from biological
treatment of industrial
waste water
sludges from biological
treatment of industrial
waste water other than
those mentioned in 19
08 11
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Waste code
19 08 13*
19 08 14
19 10 03*
19 10 04
19 13 01*
19 13 02
122
Waste description
sludges containing
hazardous substances
from other treatment of
industrial waste water
sludges from other
treatment of industrial
waste water other than
those mentioned in 19
08 13
fluff-light fraction and
dust containing
hazardous substances
fluff-light fraction and
dust other than those
mentioned in 19 10 03
solid wastes from soil
remediation containing
hazardous substances
solid wastes from soil
remediation other than
those mentioned in 19
13 01
Economic
importance
Potential presence
of hazardous
substances
Criticality of waste classification
Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "H 14" on selected waste
streams – Interim report
Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee (“DTTL”), its
network of member firms, and their related entities. DTTL and each of its member firms are legally separate and independent
entities. DTTL (also referred to as “Deloitte Global”) does not provide services to clients. Please see www.deloitte.com/about for
a more detailed description of DTTL and its member firms.
© 2014 Deloitte SA. Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited