Study to assess the impacts of different classification approaches for hazard property "HP 14" on selected waste streams" : final report.
Date: 2015-12-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment
Subjects: classification, comparative study, ecology, economic consequence, environmental impact, hazardous waste, social impact, toxic substance, toxicology, waste management

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

Final report 

October – 2015 

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers 
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you).

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015 

ISBN 978-92-79-53463-8 
doi:10.2779/494561 

© European Union, 2015 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

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

October 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 

Final report 

PROJECT NAME 

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

DATE 

16 October 2015 

PROJECT TEAM 

BIO by Deloitte (BIO), INERIS 

AUTHORS 

Ms Mariane Planchon (BIO) 
Ms Nada Saïdi (BIO) 

Mr Pascal Pandard (INERIS) 
Mr Adrien Troise (INERIS) 

KEY CONTACTS 

Mariane Planchon 
+33 1 55 61 67 56 
mplanchon@bio.deloitte.fr 

DISCLAIMER 

The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) 
and  do  not  necessarily  reflect  the  official  opinion  of  the  Commission. 
The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included 
in  this  study.  Neither  the  Commission  nor  any  person  acting  on  the 
Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be 
made of the information contained therein. 

Please cite this publication as: 

BIO  by  Deloitte  (2015).  Study  to  assess  the  impacts  of  different  classification  approaches  for 
hazard property "HP 14" on selected waste streams – Final 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 "HP 14" 
on selected waste streams – Final report 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of contents 

ABSTRACT 

9 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY __________________________________________________ 11 

1.  INTRODUCTION _____________________________________________________ 23 

1.1.  Background  _______________________________________________________ 23 

1.2.  Objectives _________________________________________________________ 26 

2.  METHODOLOGY ____________________________________________________ 27 

2.1.  Collecting  data  on  how  a  sample  of  Member  States  perform  the  assessment  of 
HP 14 _____________________________________________________________ 27 
2.1.1.  Selection of countries and data collection by survey ____________________ 27 
2.1.2.  Data collection by desk study _____________________________________ 29 
2.1.3.  Reporting data in factsheets ______________________________________ 29 

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

2.3.  Collecting experimental data on selected waste codes ____________________ 38 

2.4.  Running the calculation methods ______________________________________ 39 
2.4.1.  Reporting collected data _________________________________________ 39 
2.4.2.  Worst-case selection ____________________________________________ 40 
2.4.3.  Calculation tool ________________________________________________ 40 

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

2.6.  Workshops and conferences  _________________________________________ 44 

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

3.1.  Member States survey _______________________________________________ 45 

3.2.  Full country factsheets  ______________________________________________ 45 

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

3.4.  Costs associated with implementing HP 14 approaches ___________________ 59 

3.5.  Advantages and limits of the approaches _______________________________ 60 
3.5.1.  Approaches based on chemical analysis  ____________________________ 60 

3 

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

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

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

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

4.2.  Selected waste codes  _______________________________________________ 71 

5.  CALCULATION METHODS: RESULTS AND COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT _____________ 85 

5.1.  Presentation of the calculation methods ________________________________ 85 
5.1.1.  Introduction to the calculation methods ______________________________ 85 
5.1.2.  Theoretical consideration of the four calculation methods  _______________ 86 
5.1.3.  Comparison of concentration limit values of the four calculation methods, M-factor 
and generic cut-off values consideration _____________________________ 87 

5.2.  Data collected on the selected waste codes _____________________________ 88 
5.2.1.  Overview _____________________________________________________ 88 
5.2.1.  Chemical analyses _____________________________________________ 89 
5.2.2.  Biotests ______________________________________________________ 89 

5.3.  Determination  of  the  classification  of  waste  types  according  to  the  different 
methodologies proposed  ____________________________________________ 90 
5.3.1.  Classification of wastes types according to the calculation methods  _______ 90 
5.3.2.  Classification of wastes types based on ecotoxicological data ____________ 91 

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

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

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

6.  IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE CHANGE OF CLASSIFICATION ____________________ 103 

6.1.  Principles  ________________________________________________________ 103 

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

6.3.  Current situation and trends _________________________________________ 104 
6.3.1.  Soil and stones waste (17 05 03*/17 05 04) _________________________ 105 
6.3.2.  Incinerator bottom ash (19 01 11*/19 01 12) _________________________ 109 
6.3.3.  Fly ash from incinerators (19 01 13* / 19 01 14) ______________________ 113 
6.3.4.  Fluff-light  fraction  and  dust  from  shredding  of  metal-containing  waste  (19  10 
03*/19 10 04)  ________________________________________________ 115 
6.3.5.  Other types of waste ___________________________________________ 117 

6.4.  Potential impacts of a change of classification __________________________ 117 

4 

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

 
 
 
 
6.4.1.  Overview ____________________________________________________ 117 
6.4.2.  Soil and stones waste (17 05 03*/17 05 04) _________________________ 119 
6.4.3.  Incinerator bottom ash (19 01 11*/19 01 12) _________________________ 121 
6.4.4.  Fly ash from incinerators (19 01 13* / 19 01 14) ______________________ 124 
6.4.5.  Fluff-light  fraction  and  dust  from  shredding  of  metal-containing  waste  (19  10 
03*/19 10 04)  ________________________________________________ 125 

6.5.  Conclusion _______________________________________________________ 126 

7.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS _________________________________ 129 

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

7.2.  Conclusion on the most relevant calculation method for the assessment of HP14: 
Method 1 seems to be the most relevant for waste classification ___________ 129 

7.3.  Recommendations on next steps _____________________________________ 130 

8.  ANNEXES  131 

Annex 1.  First Questionnaire sent to Competent Authorities _________________ 132 

Annex 2.  Factsheets __________________________________________________ 136 

Annex 3.  Second questionnaire sent to Competent Authorities  ______________ 175 

Annex 4.  Questionnaire  sent 

impact 
assessment _______________________________________________________ 187 

industrial  stakeholders 

the 

for 

to 

Annex 5.  Application of the calculation methods  __________________________ 195 

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

5 

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

6 

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

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

7 

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
List of Figures 

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

8 

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

 
 
 
 
  
 
Abstract 

No guidelines or recommendations currently exist at EU level for a specific methodology 
for the assessment of the ecotoxic property of waste HP 14. As a result, HP 14 assessment 
is  performed  in  different  ways  throughout  EU  Member  States.  The  revised  waste 
legislation, which entered into force in June 2015, did not include amendments to the HP 
14  property  because  no  satisfactory  methodology  could  be  developed  and  assessed  in 
time.  This  study  aimed  to  assess  the  impacts  for  Member  States  and  industry  of  the 
implementation of four different options of calculation methods for assessing HP 14. The 
comparative assessment of the four calculation methods on a selected sample of mirror 
pairs  was  restricted  by  limitations  in  data  availability  and  quality.  Nevertheless,  results 
suggest  that  the  method  based  on  the  CLP  regulation  and  considering  all  relevant  H-
phrases, but including neither M-factors nor generic cut-off values, was the most suitable 
for assessing HP 14. This method showed good concordance  with current classification 
(baseline) and classification based on biotest results, as well as reasonable environmental, 
social and economic impacts of its implementation. 

Il  n’existe  actuellement  pas  de  lignes  directrices  ou  de  recommandations  au  niveau 
européen  concernant  une  méthodologie  spécifique  pour  évaluer  la  propriété  écotoxique 
des déchets HP 14. Par conséquent, HP 14 est actuellement évaluée différemment selon 
les Etats Membres. Néanmoins, les provisions sur HP 14 de la législation européenne sur 
les déchets n’ont pas été amendées lors de la révision récente de cette législation, car il 
n’a  pas  été  possible  de  développer  une  méthodologie  faisant  consensus.  Dans  ce 
contexte, cette étude visait à évaluer les impacts sur les Etats Membres et l’industrie, de 
l’application  de  quatre  options  de  calculs  pour  la  détermination  de  HP  14.  Cette  étude 
comparative, effectuée sur un échantillon de paires-miroir, a été limitée par un manque de 
disponibilité et de qualité des données. Cependant, les résultats obtenus suggèrent que la 
méthode basée sur le CLP et considérant toutes les phrases de danger pertinentes, mais 
pas  de  facteurs  M  ni  de  valeurs  seuil,  était  la  plus  adaptée  pour  évaluer  HP  14.  Cette 
méthode a montré une bonne concordance avec la classification actuelle et celle obtenue 
avec  des  biotests,  ainsi  que  des  impacts  environnementaux,  économiques  et  sociaux 
modérés. 

9 

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
This page was left intentionally blank 

10 

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

 
 
 
 
Executive Summary 

Background  

The  European  List  of  Waste1  (LoW)  is  meant  to  be  a  reference  nomenclature  for 
classification of waste, providing a common terminology throughout the European Union, 
with the purpose to improve the efficiency of waste management activities. The assignment 
of waste codes and hazardous/non-hazardous classification have a major impact on the 
transport of waste, installation permits and decisions about recyclability of the waste.  

The  LoW  comprises  839  waste  codes,  split  into  20  waste  chapters  including  about  200 
wastes in so-called “mirror pairs”. A mirror pair consists of a pair of entries of which one 
waste may be classified either as hazardous or non-hazardous according to the type and 
concentration  of  the  pollutants  it  contains.  The  unique  basis  for  differentiating  between 
hazardous and non-hazardous wastes in mirror pairs is Annex III to the WFD2, which lists 
the  15 properties (HP 1 to  HP 15)  which, if displayed  by  a  waste, renders it hazardous. 
Among  them,  HP 14  describes  the  ecotoxicological  potential  of  waste,  by  indicating 
whether the waste presents or may present immediate or delayed hazard for one or more 
sectors of the environment.  

No  guidelines  or  recommendations  currently  exist  at  EU-wide  level  for  a  specific 
methodology for the assessment of HP 14. As a result, assessment of HP 14 is performed 
in different ways throughout EU Member States. The lack of harmonisation of methods for 
assessing hazardous properties in Member States, including HP 14, is one aspect calling 
for  a  revision  of  the  legislation  relevant  to  those  hazardous  properties.  In  particular,  it 
seems necessary to provide, in the legislation, a specific methodology for assessing the 
ecotoxicity of waste, coherent with the methods recommended in the CLP3 and REACH 
4regulations. 

The revised waste legislation, which entered into force on June 1st 20155, did not include 
amendments  to  the  HP 14  property  because  no  satisfactory  methodology  could  be 
developed and assessed in time. 

Objectives 

The  study  aimed  to  assess  the  impacts  of  changing  the  criteria  for  the  definition  of 
ecotoxicity  for  waste,  and  especially  to  assess  the  implications  for  Member  States  and 
industry of the implementation of four different options of calculation methods for HP 14 
assessment and waste classification.  

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

11 

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

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

A diversity of approaches in Member States  

The  assessment  of  HP 14  is  currently  performed  in  different  ways  throughout  Member 
States.  When  the  composition  of  the  waste  is  known,  the  attribution  of  the  “ecotoxic” 
property is often made on the basis of the criteria of the CLP or DPD6 using the summation 
method,  thanks  to  which  the  classification  of  a  mixture  can  be  derived  from  the 
classification  of  its  components.  However,  it  is  difficult  to  implement  this  approach  for 
complex mixtures of mainly unknown composition, which is a common situation for wastes: 
the  analytical  determination  of  the  composition  of  waste  could  be  both  expensive  and 
technically  difficult.  In  this  case,  the  performance  of  biotests  on  the  mixture  itself  is 
generally considered as a relevant approach because it allows integrating the effects of all 
contaminants  including  additive,  synergistic  and  antagonistic  toxic  effects.  In  addition, 
reference  data  (i.e.  EC50,  LC50,  M-factors)  are  only  available  for  a  limited  number  of 
chemicals, which can significantly impede using the calculation method described in the 
CLP regulation. Some Member States evaluate ecotoxicity by biotest or physicochemical 
analysis, although there is no standardised battery of biotests for waste at EU level. Other 
Member  States  use  formulae  or  criteria  adapted  from  other  assessment  methods,  for 
instance  described  in  their  national  regulations,  in  order  to  determine  HP 14.  As  an 
example  of  diversity  of  HP14  assessment  methods  actually  implemented  in  EU  MS, 
descriptive factsheets have been elaborated for a sample of 9 MS. 

Application of the four calculation methods 

The assessment of HP 14 according to the four classification methods under study was 
performed on a restricted list of mirror pairs selected from an extended list provided by the 
Commission and according to the following criteria: 

  Preference of experts  

  Availability and quality of data 

  Tonnage of waste production 

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

12 

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

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
  Economic importance 

  Potential presence of hazardous substances 

  Criticality of waste classification  

However, limited data availability lead to the different mirror entries originally selected for 
the  study  to  not  be  well  represented.  After  collection  of  the  necessary  data  (waste 
composition,  etc.),  the  calculations  using  the  4  classification  methods  were  run  on  the 
following pairs: 

Mirror pair 

Description 

06 05 02* 

06 05 03 

sludges from on-site effluent treatment (inorganic chemical processes) 

08 01 13* 

08 01 14 

sludges from paint or varnish (manufacture, formulation, supply and use) 

10 01 14*  

10 01 15  

Bottom ash, slag and boiler dust from co-incineration wastes from power stations 
and other combustion plants (except 19) 

10 03 19*  

10 03 20  

flue-gas dust (from aluminium thermal metallurgy) 

11 01 09* 

11 01 10 

sludges and filter cakes (from chemical surface treatment and coating of metals 
and other materials) 

12 01 14* 

12 01 15 

machining sludges from shaping and physical and mechanical surface treatment 
of metals and plastics 

15 01 10* 

15 01 01 15 
01 02 

paper  and  cardboard  packaging,  plastic  packaging  (including  separately 
collected municipal packaging waste) 

17 05 03*  

17 05 04  

soil  and  stones  (construction  and  demolition  waste,  including  excavated  soil 
from contaminated sites) 

17 05 05*  

17 05 06  

dredging spoil (construction and demolition waste) 

19 01 11*  

19 01 12  

bottom ash and slag (from incineration or pyrolysis of waste) 

19 01 13*  

19 01 14  

fly ash (from incineration or pyrolysis of waste) 

19 08 11* 

19 08 12  

sludges from biological treatment of industrial waste water 

19 08 13*  

19 08 14  

sludges from other treatment of industrial waste water 

19 10 03* 

19 10 04 

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

19 12 11* 

19 12 12 

other  wastes  (including  mixtures  of  materials)  from  mechanical  treatment  of 
waste 

Results 

According  to  the  comparative  assessment  of  the  different  calculation  methods  with  the 
current  classification  or  the  classification  based  on  biotest  results7,  there  are  some 
indications  that  suggest  that  Methods  1  and  3  could  be  the  most  relevant  for  waste 
classification based on characterisation data. Indeed, even if these methods are associated 
to a potential overestimation of waste classification (13% of sample for method 1 and 18% 
for method 3), that lead to a good concordance with current classification or classification 
based on biotest results, and the false negative rate is very low.  

In addition to these observations, Method 1 seems to be more relevant because the same 
criteria  as  those  defined  in  the  Regulation  1272/2008  for  classification  of  mixture  are 
applied (whereas Method 3 is based on the old classification system of mixture, directive 
1994/45/EC, that is very different to the concept of CLP regulation because summation of 

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

13 

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

 
 
 
 
                                                      
components  classified  for  different  hazard  categories  is  not  considered).  The  only  two 
differences of Method 1 with CLP are the non-consideration of M-factors and generic cut-
off values. The non-consideration of M-factor has a lesser impact on calculation because 
this  factor  is  available  only  on  very  few  compounds  with  a  harmonised  classification. 
Regarding the non-consideration of generic cut-off values, this is relevant because some 
compounds  could  be  present  in  waste  and  could  contribute  to  its  toxicity  even  at  low 
concentration due to additivity of hazards. This means that the application of this method 
could then be consistent with the CLP regulation and allows industrials not to apply other 
additional methods. 

In the context of a combined approach, an alternative two-step strategy could be envisaged 
for waste classification  in relation to HP 14. The first  step  would consist  into  applying  a 
summation method (the one ultimately selected for HP 14 assessment). In a second step, 
if the waste cannot be adequately classified according to step 1 (e.g. due to very limited 
information on its composition), an experimental approach using one or several biotests 
(perhaps also in a tiered approach) could be applied. 

An experimental approach could also be directly considered if the composition of the waste 
is unknown or complex. 

Limitations 

Several limitations are associated to available data:  

 

In  most  cases,  characterisation  data  only  report  elemental  compound 
concentrations, presence of organic compounds is rarely reported at all; 

  a significant fraction of the waste is not identified;  

  worst-case  assumptions  (based  on  highest  toxicity  values)  are  made  in  the 
selection of the identity compounds used for subsequent classification of the 
waste; and  

 

the  applicability  of  the  calculation  methods  is  limited  by  the  availability  of 
harmonised classifications for the substances.  

Impact assessment 

The implementation of any of the four calculation methods is likely to lead to changes in 
the  classification  of  some  waste,  and  thus  affect  the  quantities  of  waste  classified  as 
hazardous and non-hazardous for each individual mirror pair. This, in turn, would lead to 
environmental, economic and social impacts. 

The  impact  assessment  conducted  in  this  study  aims  at  roughly  estimating  the 
consequences of the implementation of each of the four methods on the waste streams 
corresponding  to  the  selected  mirror  pairs  against  a  baseline  scenario  (i.e.  the  current 
situation,  and  further  development  excluding  the  implementation  of  the  4  calculation 
methods). The baseline scenario was determined at EU level, with no distinction between 
Member States. This distinction would have been relevant (different Member States apply 
different  criteria),  but  lack  of  data  prevents  such  a  detailed  assessment  (not  enough 
collected samples). 

The environmental, social and economic impacts of this implementation were investigated, 
with the following indicators: 

  Environmental aspects: 

o  Recovery  schemes  (includes  percentages  of  waste  recycled  vs 

landfilled) 

o  Benefits of recovering the waste 

14 

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

 
 
 
 
o  Pollution due to contaminated fractions of the waste 

  Economic aspects 

o  Costs of disposal 
o  Costs of recycling 

  Social aspects 

o  Employment 

o  Public Health 

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

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

 

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

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

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

03*/19 10 04) 

The impacts are qualitatively summarised below (lack of data prevented conclusions on 
fluff-light fraction and dust from shredding of metal-containing waste): 

Environmental 

Economic 

Social 

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

Status quo 

Method 1 

Method 2 

Method 3 

Method 4 

/ 

- 

- - - 

- 

- - - 

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

Status quo 

Method 1 

Method 2 

Method 3 

Method 4 

- 

++ 

- - - 

++ 

- - - 

/ 

+ + 

+ + + 

- - - 

+ + + 

- 

- 

+ + + 

- 

+ + + 

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

Status quo 

Method 1 

Method 2 

Method 3 

Method 4 

+ 

+ 

- - - 

+ 

- - - 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

/ 

- 

- - - 

- 

- - - 

/ 

- 

- - - 

- 

- - - 

/ 

/ 

- - - 

/ 

- - - 

This preliminary and semi-qualitative  impact assessment highlights that, for the  3 mirror 
pairs assessed, the Methods 1 & 3 are the most relevant methods. Method 1 was preferred 
for the soil & stones waste stream. 

15 

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

 
 
 
 
 
Apart  from  the  benefits  provided  by  a  harmonised  approach  across  Member  States, 
positive impacts from Methods 1  &  3 are mainly environmental  and economic, although 
they are likely to have minor negative economic impacts on some operators.  

Conclusions 

The  comparative  assessment  of  the  four  calculation  methods  on  a  selected  sample  of 
mirror  pairs  was  restricted  by  limitations  in  data  availability  and  quality.  Nevertheless, 
results  of  the  comparison  between  the  4  calculation  methods  give  some  indication  that 
Method 1 is the most relevant: 

  Good  concordance  with  current  classification  (baseline)  and  classification 

based on biotest results; 

  Aligned with the CLP regulation; 

  Reasonable  environmental,  social  and  economic 

impacts  of 

its 

implementation.  

Although  this  study  focused  on  calculation  methods,  a  combined  approach  has  been 
recommended  by  several  experts  to  optimise  the  accuracy  of  hazard  classification  and 
offset limitations of both calculation and biotests methods alone. Nevertheless, there will 
be a need to derive a harmonised threshold value for use biotests in waste classification 
for code HP 14, as well as the definition of a minimum test battery. Further to this, political 
agreement on the proposal would have to be sought. Some work is currently performed in 
some MS to build threshold values using non-hazardous absolute entries. 

Although  this  study  focused  on  calculation  methods,  a  combined  approach  has  been 
recommended  by  several  experts  to  optimise  the  accuracy  of  hazard  classification  and 
offset limitations of both calculation and biotests methods alone. Nevertheless, there will 
be a need to derive a harmonised threshold value for use biotests in waste classification 
for code HP 14, as well as the definition of a minimum test battery. Further to this, political 
agreement on the proposal would have to be sought. Some work is currently performed in 
some MS to build threshold values using non-hazardous absolute entries. 

16 

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
Contexte 

La  liste  européenne  des  déchets  (List  of  Waste  ou  « LoW »)8  est  destinée  à  servir  de 
nomenclature de référence pour la classification des déchets, fournissant une terminologie 
commune dans toute l'Union européenne, dans le but d'améliorer l'efficacité des activités 
de gestion des déchets. L’attribution de codes de déchets dangereux et la classification en 
dangereux / non dangereux ont un impact majeur sur le transport des déchets, les permis 
d’installation et les décisions relatives au recyclage. 

La LoW comprend 839 codes de déchets, répartis en 20 chapitres  incluant environ 200 
déchets caractérisés par des « paires-miroir ». Un déchet caractérisé par une paire-miroir 
peut être classé soit comme dangereux (selon une entrée de la paire) ou non dangereux 
(selon l’autre entrée) selon le type et la concentration des polluants qu'il contient. L'annexe 
III de  la Directive Cadre sur les Déchets9 est la référence unique  pour déterminer si un 
déchet caractérisé par une paire-miroir est dangereux ou non. L’attribution à un déchet de 
une  ou  plusieurs  des  propriétés  (HP 1  à  15)  énumérées  dans  cette  annexe  entraîne  la 
classification  de  ce  déchet  sous  l’entrée  « dangereuse »  de  la  paire-miroir.  Parmi  ces 
propriétés, HP 14 décrit le potentiel écotoxique des déchets, en indiquant s’ils présentent 
ou peuvent présenter un danger à court ou long terme pour un ou plusieurs compartiments 
environnementaux. 

Il  n’existe  actuellement  pas  de  lignes  directrices  ou  de  recommandations  au  niveau 
européen  concernant  une  méthodologie  spécifique  pour  évaluer  la  propriété  écotoxique 
des déchets HP 14. Par conséquent, HP 14 est actuellement évaluée différemment selon 
les Etats Membres. Ce manque d'harmonisation des méthodes d'évaluation des propriétés 
dangereuses HP dans les États membres,  y compris HP 14, est  l’un des aspects ayant 
appelé à une révision de la législation relative à ces propriétés. En particulier, il semble 
nécessaire de prévoir, dans la loi, une méthodologie spécifique pour évaluer l'écotoxicité 
des  déchets,  cohérente  avec  les  méthodes  recommandées  dans  les  réglementations 
CLP10 et REACH11. 

Néanmoins, les provisions de la législation européenne sur les déchets concernant HP 14, 
n’ont pas été amendées lors de la révision récente de cette législation12, car il n’a pas été 
possible de développer une méthodologie faisant consensus.  

Objectifs 

L'étude  vise  à  évaluer  les  impacts  de  la  modification  des  critères  de  la  définition  de 
l'écotoxicité des déchets, et en particulier à évaluer les implications pour les Etats Membres 
et l'industrie de la mise en œuvre de quatre options différentes de méthodes de calcul pour 
HP 14. 

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

17 

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

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure : les quatre méthodes de calcul évaluées dans cette étude 

Une diversité des approches dans les Etats Membres 

L'évaluation de HP 14 est actuellement réalisée de différentes façons à travers les États 
membres.  Lorsque  la  composition  des  déchets  est  connu,  l'attribution  de  la  propriété 
"écotoxique" est souvent effectuée sur la base des critères de la CLP ou DPD13 en utilisant 
les méthodes de sommation, grâce auxquelles la classification d’un mélange peuvent être 
dérivée  de  la  classification  de  ses  composants.  Cependant,  il  est  difficile  de  mettre  en 
œuvre  cette  approche  pour  des  mélanges  complexes  de  composition  essentiellement 
inconnue, ce qui est une situation courante pour les déchets: la détermination analytique 
de la composition des déchets pourrait être à la fois coûteuse et techniquement difficile. 
Dans ce cas, la mise en œuvre de bio-essais sur le mélange lui-même est généralement 
considérée comme une approche pertinente, car elle permet d'intégrer les effets de tous 
les contaminants, y compris additifs, synergiques et antagonistes. En outre, des données 
de  référence  (par  exemple  CE50,  CL50,  facteurs  M)  ne  sont  disponibles  que  pour  un 
nombre  limité  de  produits  chimiques,  ce  qui  peut  entraver  de  manière  significative 
l'utilisation de la méthode de calcul décrite dans le règlement CLP. Certains États membres 
évaluent  l'écotoxicité  par  biotest,  bien  qu'il  n'y  ait  pas  de  batterie  standardisée  de  tests 
biologiques  pour  les  déchets  au  niveau  de  l'UE.  D'autres  États  membres  utilisent  des 
formules  ou  des  critères  adaptés  à  partir  d'autres  méthodes  d'évaluation,  par  exemple 
décrit dans leurs réglementations nationales, afin de déterminer HP 14. A titre d'exemple 
de la diversité des méthodes d'évaluation effectivement mises en œuvre dans d’UE, des 
fiches descriptives ont été élaborées pour un échantillon de 9 Etats Membres. 

Calculs avec les quatre méthodes proposées  

L'évaluation de HP 14 selon les quatre méthodes de classification étudiée a été réalisée 
sur  une  liste  restreinte  de  paires-miroir  sélectionnées  à  partir  d'une  liste  fournie  par  la 
Commission et selon les critères suivants: 

  La préférence des experts 

  Disponibilité et qualité des données 

  Le tonnage de la production de déchets 

 

Importance économique 

  Présence possible de substances dangereuses 

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

18 

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

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
  Criticité de la classification des déchets 

Cependant, les paires-miroir ainsi sélectionnés n’ont pas pu être bien représentés par la 
disponibilité effective des données. Après collecte des données nécessaires (composition 
des  déchets,  etc.),  les  calculs  correspondant  aux  quatre  méthodes  de  classification  à 
l’étude ont été effectués sur les paires suivantes : 

Paire-miroir 

Description 

06 05 02* 

06 05 03 

boues provenant du traitement in situ des effluents (procédés de la chimie 
minérale ) 

08 01 13* 

08 01 14 

boues provenant de peintures ou vernis (fabrication, formulation, distribution et 
utilisation) 

10 01 14*  

10 01 15  

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

10 03 19*  

10 03 20  

poussières de filtration des fumées (pyrométallurgie de l'aluminium) 

11 01 09* 

11 01 10 

boues et gâteaux de filtration (du traitement chimique de surface et du 
revêtement des métaux et autres matériaux) 

12 01 14* 

12 01 15 

boues d'usinage de la mise en forme et du traitement physique et mécanique 
de surface des métaux et matières plastiques  

15 01 10* 

15 01 01 15 
01 02 

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

17 05 03*  

17 05 04  

terres et cailloux (déchets de construction et de démolition, y compris déblais 
provenant de sites contaminés) 

17 05 05*  

17 05 06  

boues de dragage (déchets de construction et de démolition, construction and 
demolition waste) 

19 01 11*  

19 01 12  

mâchefers (provenant des installations de gestion des déchets) 

19 01 13*  

19 01 14  

cendres volantes (provenant des installations de gestion des déchets) 

19 08 11* 

19 08 12  

boues provenant du traitement biologique des eaux usées industrielles 

19 08 13*  

19 08 14  

boues provenant d'autres traitements des eaux usées industrielles 

19 10 03* 

19 10 04 

fraction légère des résidus de broyage et poussières (provenant du broyage de 
déchets contenant des métaux  

19 12 11* 

19 12 12 

autres déchets (y compris mélanges) provenant du traitement mécanique des 
déchets  

Résultats 

L'étude comparative des différentes méthodes de calcul avec la classification actuelle et 
celle basée sur les résultats de biotests suggèrent que les méthodes 1 et 3 pourrait être 
les  plus  pertinentes  pour  la  classification  des  déchets  sur  la  base  de  données  de 
caractérisation.  En  effet,  même  si  ces  méthodes  sont  associées  à  une  surestimation 
potentielle de la classification des déchets (13% de l'échantillon pour la méthode 1 et 18% 
pour la méthode 3), elles mènent à une bonne concordance avec la classification actuelle 
et celle basé sur les résultats de biotests. De plus, le taux de faux négatif est très faible. 

Par ailleurs, la méthode 1 semble être plus pertinente car elle intègre les mêmes critères 
que ceux définis  dans le règlement CLP pour  la classification du mélange (alors que la 
méthode 3 est basé sur l'ancien système de classification du mélange DPD, dont l’esprit 
est différent de celui du règlement CLP, car la somme des composants classés pour les 
différentes catégories de danger ne sont pas considérés). Les deux seules différences de 
la méthode 1 avec le CLP sont la non-considération des facteurs M et l’inclusion de valeurs 
seuils  génériques.  La  non  prise  en  compte  des  facteurs  M  a  un  impact  moindre  sur  le 
calcul,  car  ce  facteur  est  disponible  uniquement  sur  très  peu  de  composés  ayant  une 
classification  harmonisée.  Il  aurait  cependant  été  pertinent  d’inclure  des  valeurs  seuils 

19 

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

 
 
 
 
génériques, car certains composés pourraient être présents dans les déchets et pourraient 
contribuer à sa toxicité, même à faible concentration, en raison de l'additivité des risques. 

Ainsi, la méthode 1 pourrait alors être compatible avec le règlement CLP et permettrait aux 
industriels de ne pas appliquer des méthodes supplémentaires. 

Dans  le  contexte  d'une  approche  combinée,  une  stratégie  alternative  en  deux  étapes 
pourrait être envisagée pour la classification des déchets selon HP 14. La première étape 
consisterait en l'application d'une méthode de sommation (celle finalement retenue pour 
l’évaluation de HP 14). Dans un deuxième temps, si les déchets ne peuvent être classés 
de manière adéquate selon l'étape 1 (par exemple en raison de très peu d'informations sur 
sa composition), une approche expérimentale en utilisant un ou plusieurs tests biologiques 
(peut-être aussi dans une approche à plusieurs niveaux) pourrait être appliquée. 

Une  approche  expérimentale  pourrait  également  être  directement  envisagée  si  la 
composition des déchets est inconnue ou complexe. 

Limites 

Plusieurs limites sont associées aux données disponibles: 

  Dans la plupart des cas, les données de caractérisation ne rapportent que les 
concentrations  de  composés  élémentaires,  la  présence  de  composés 
organiques sont rarement signalés du tout; 

  Une fraction importante des déchets n’est pas identifiée ; 

  Des hypothèses pire-cas (basées sur les valeurs de toxicité les plus élevés) 
sont  réalisées  dans  la  sélection  des  composés  utilisés  pour  la  classification 
des déchets; et 

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

classifications harmonisées pour les substances. 

Etude d’impact 

La mise en œuvre de l'une des quatre méthodes de calcul est susceptible de conduire à 
des changements dans la classification de certains déchets, et donc affecter les quantités 
de déchets classés comme dangereux et non dangereux pour chaque paire-miroir. Ceci, 
à son tour, conduirait à des impacts environnementaux, économiques et sociaux. 

L'évaluation d'impact réalisée dans cette étude vise à estimer les conséquences de la mise 
en  œuvre  de  chacune  des  quatre  méthodes  sur  les  flux  de  déchets  correspondant  aux 
paires-miroir  sélectionnées  par  rapport  à  un  scénario  de  référence  (c’est-à-dire  de 
développement de la situation actuelle excluant l'application de l’une des 4 méthodes de 
calcul). Le scénario de référence a été déterminé au niveau de l'UE, sans distinction entre 
les  États  membres.  Cette  distinction  aurait  été  pertinent  (différents  États  membres 
appliquent  des  critères  différents),  mais  le  manque  de  données  empêche  une  telle 
évaluation détaillée. 

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

  Les aspects environnementaux: 

o  systèmes de récupération  des déchets (y compris les pourcentages 

de déchets recyclés vs enfouis) 

les avantages de la récupération des déchets 

la pollution due à des fractions des déchets contaminés 

o 

o 

  Les aspects économiques 

20 

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

 
 
 
 
o  Les coûts d'élimination des déchets 

o  Les coûts du recyclage 

  Les aspects sociaux 

o  Emploi 

o  Santé publique 

Pour des raisons de disponibilité des données, l'évaluation complète de l'impact n’a pu être 
réalisée que sur quatre paires-miroir: 

 

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

  mâchefers (19 01 11 * / 19 01 12) 

 

 

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

fraction légère et poussière provenant du broyage de déchets contenant des 
métaux (19 10 03 * / 19 10 04) 

Les impacts sont résumées qualitativement ci-dessous (le manque de données a limité les 
conclusions sur la fraction légère provenant du broyage de déchets contenant des métaux): 

Environmental 

Economique 

Social 

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

Status quo 

Méthode 1 

Méthode 2 

Méthode 3 

Méthode 4 

/ 

- 

- - - 

- 

- - - 

Mâchefers (19 01 11*/19 01 12) 

Status quo 

Méthode 1 

Méthode 2 

Méthode 3 

Méthode 4 

- 

++ 

- - - 

++ 

- - - 

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

Status quo 

Méthode 1 

Méthode 2 

Méthode 3 

Méthode 4 

+ 

+ 

- - - 

+ 

- - - 

/ 

+ + 

+ + + 

- - - 

+ + + 

- 

- 

+ + + 

- 

+ + + 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

/ 

- 

- - - 

- 

- - - 

/ 

- 

- - - 

- 

- - - 

/ 

/ 

- - - 

/ 

- - - 

Cette  évaluation  préliminaire  et  semi-qualitative  souligne  que,  pour  les  3  paires-miroir 
évaluées, les méthodes 1 et 3 sont les plus pertinentes. La méthode 1 donne de meilleurs 
résultats pour le flux de déchets de construction « sol et pierres ». 

Outre les avantages offerts par une approche harmonisée dans tous les États Membres, 
les  impacts  positifs  des  méthodes  1  et  3  sont  principalement  environnementaux  et 
économiques,  même  si  elles  sont  susceptibles  d'avoir  des  répercussions  économiques 
négatives mineures sur certains opérateurs.Bien que cette étude ait porté sur 4 méthodes 
de  calcul  proposées,  une  approche  combinée  calcul  /  biotests  a  été  recommandée  par 
plusieurs experts pour optimiser la précision de la classification des dangers et compenser 

21 

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

 
 
 
 
 
à  la  fois  les  limites  des  méthodes  de  calcul  et  celles  des  méthodes  biotests  seules. 
Néanmoins, il faudrait définir une valeur seuil harmonisée pour pouvoir utiliser les biotests 
dans la classification des déchets selon HP 14, ainsi que la définition d'une batterie d'essai 
minimale. Suite à cela, il faudrait trouver un accord politique sur la proposition. A noter que 
certains travaux sont actuellement en cours dans certains États Membres pour construire 
des valeurs de seuil. 

22 

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

 
 
 
 
 
1.  Introduction 

1.1.  Background 

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

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

and establishing the List of Waste (LoW); and  

  Regulation  1357/201416,  repealing  Annex  III  to  Directive  2008/98/EC17  on 
waste – Waste Framework Directive, or WFD, and defining the properties that 
render waste hazardous.  

The  LoW  is  meant  to  be  a  reference  nomenclature  providing  a  common  terminology 
throughout  the  European  Union,  with  the  purpose  to  improve  the  efficiency  of  waste 
management activities. Assignment of waste codes has a major impact on the transport of 
waste, installation permits (which are usually granted for the processing of specific waste 
codes) or decisions about recyclability of the waste. The LoW thus serves as a common 
encoding of waste characteristics in a broad variety of purposes, including classification of 
hazardous wastes.  

Wastes  classified  as  hazardous  are  those  considered  to  display  one  or  more  of  the  15 
properties (H1 to H15) listed in Annex III to the WFD (now named HP 1 to HP 15 in 
Regulation  1357/2014).  Among  them,  HP 14  describes  the  ecotoxicological  potential  or 
environmental hazards, as an intrinsic property of waste, by indicating whether the waste 
presents  or  may  present  immediate  or  delayed  risks  for  one  or  more  sectors  of  the 
environment.  

The LoW comprises 839 waste codes in 20 waste chapters including 405 wastes marked 
as hazardous (absolute entries) and about 200 wastes in so-called “mirror pairs”. Mirror 
pairs consist of pairs of entries of which one waste may be classified as hazardous or non-
hazardous according to the type and concentration of the pollutants it contains. The unique 
basis for differentiating between hazardous and non-hazardous wastes in mirror pairs is 
Annex  III  to  the  WFD  (i.e.  the  list  of  15  hazardous  properties).  Wastes  classified  as 
hazardous are marked with an asterisk “*” in the LoW. The majority of mirror pairs refer to 
the  term  “hazardous”  substances  with  no  further  description,  while  some  describe 
hazardous properties or the specific hazardous waste component.  

The  legislation  framework  for  classifying  waste  in  the  EU  is  closely  linked  to 
chemicals  legislation.  Prior  to  June  2015,  the  attribution  of  any  of  the  hazardous 
properties listed in Annex III of the WFD were to be done in accordance with the criteria 
laid down by Annex VI to Directive 67/548/EEC18 (the Dangerous Substance Directive, or 
DSD)  regarding  the  terms  ‘toxic’  (and  ‘very  toxic’),  ‘harmful’,  ‘corrosive’,  ‘irritant’, 

document 

the  European  Parliament  and  of 

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

number 

1147), 

23 

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

 
 
 
 
                                                      
‘carcinogenic’, ‘toxic to reproduction’, ‘mutagenic’ and ‘eco-toxic’, used for the definition of 
the  DSD  R-phrases.  If  relevant,  the  limit  values  listed  in  Annex  II  and  III  to  Directive 
1999/45/EC (the Dangerous Preparations Directive, or DPD) were to apply. However, the 
DSD  and  the  DPD  were  repealed  on  1  June  2015  by  Regulation  1272/200819  on 
classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP) and Regulation 
1907/200620  on  Registration,  Evaluation,  Authorisation  and  Restriction  of  Chemicals 
(REACH). In particular, R-phrases do not exist under the CLP Regulation and are replaced 
by the naming of a hazard class and a signal word. 

According to Annex III of the WFD (repealed on June 2015 by Regulation 1357/2014), tests 
for assessing the H1 to H15 properties must be done following the methods in Annex V to 
the DSD and in other relevant CEN-notes. However, the REACH Regulation refers to Test 
Method Regulation (EC) 440/2008, which has taken over all test methods from the Annex 
V to the DSD. In practice, assessing some of the hazardous properties listed in Annex III 
has not been straightforward. This is particularly true for H 14: although Part C of Annex V 
to the DSD and Part C of Regulation (EC) No 440/2008 lay down the test methods for the 
determination of ecotoxicity, no guidelines or recommendations exist at EU-wide level for 
a  specific  methodology  for  the  assessment  of  H 14.  This  is  can  be  explained  –  at  least 
partly – by the fact that it is only relatively recently that the relevant pieces of legislation 
have considered ecotoxic properties: in 1999 for the DPD and in 2008 for the WFD.  

As a result, assessment of H 14 is performed in different ways throughout Member 
States.  When  the  composition  of  the  waste  is  known,  the  attribution  of  the  “ecotoxic” 
property is often made on the basis of the criteria of the CLP using the summation method, 
thanks to which the classification of a mixture can be derived from the classification of its 
components.  However,  it  is  difficult  to  implement  this  approach  for  complex  mixtures  of 
mainly  unknown  composition,  which  is  a  common  situation  for  wastes:  the  analytical 
determination of the composition of waste could be both expensive and technically difficult. 
In this case, the performance of bio-tests on the mixture itself is generally considered as a 
relevant approach  because it allows integrating  the  effects of all contaminants including 
additive, synergistic and antagonistic toxic effects. In addition, reference data (i.e. EC50, 
LC50,  M-factors)  are  only  available  for  a  limited  number  of  chemicals,  which  can 
significantly impede using the summation method described in the CLP regulation21. Some 
Member States evaluate eco-toxicity by biotest or physicochemical analysis, although there 
is  no  standardised  battery  of  biotests  for  waste  at  EU  level.  Other  Member  States  use 
formulae or criteria adapted from other assessment methods, for instance described in their 
national  regulations,  in  order  to  determine  H  14  properties  of  waste.  The  lack  of 
harmonisation of methods for assessing hazardous properties in Member States, including 
H  14,  is  one  aspect  calling  for  a  revision  of  the  legislation  relevant  to  those  hazardous 
properties.  In  particular,  it  seems  necessary  to  provide,  in  the  legislation,  a  specific 
methodology  for  assessing  the  ecotoxicity  of  waste,  coherent  with  the  methods 
recommended in the CLP and REACH regulations. 

Reflecting scientific and technical progress and ensuring coherence with chemical 
legislation was the main driver for the launch, in 2008, of the review of the LoW and 
of the WFD22, which led to the amendment of Decision 2000/532/EC and of Annex III 
to  the  WFD,  by  –  respectively  –  Decision  2014/955/EU  and  Regulation  1357/2014. 

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

2000/21/EC, 

93/67/EEC, 

93/105/EC 

24 

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

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Indeed,  a Member State stakeholders’ consultation performed by the  EU Committee for 
the Adaptation to Scientific and Technical Progress and Implementation (TAC), identified 
the following issues:  

  Problems  resulting  from  the  structure  of  the  LoW  and  the  classification 

procedure; 

  Problems concerning the classification of hazardous waste and the application 

of mirror pairs; 

  Problems resulting from the lack of suitable waste codes; 

  Ambiguous classification on account of two or more possible codes; 

  Problems resulting from unclear or imprecise definitions. 

The Commission constituted a dedicated Working Group in order to address these issues, 
“the Working Group for the amendment of the European waste list” (WG). Work conducted 
by the WG relates to the review of the hazardous properties listed in Annex III to the WSD 
(including  H  14)  and  the  definition  to  be  included  in  Article  2  of  Decision  2000/532/EC. 
During their meeting of June 201123, the Working Group agreed that the H-Criteria shall be 
renamed  HP1  to  15  in  order  to  avoid  confusions  with  the  H-statements  of  the  CLP 
Regulation. Therefore, “H 14” will be named “HP 14” from this line on. 

Although the governing principle of the review was an alignment with CLP, it was agreed 
that a strict alignment, including concentration limits, may not in all cases be appropriate 
for  wastes  and  could  lead  to  unpredictable  changes  in  the  amount  of  wastes  being 
classified  as  hazardous.  This  issue  concerns  HPs  4,  6,  8  13  and  14  and  caused 
disagreements within the Working Group.  

In November 2011, it was proposed that specific concentration limits/M-factors according 
to  CLP  Annex  VI  should  not  be  used  for  waste  classification24,  but  rather  that  generic 
concentration limits be provided directly in Article 2 of the LoW. However, in the specific 
case of HP 14, some Member States were not in favour of deleting the M-factors from the 
CLP summation method and proposed keeping the M-factors but deleting the categories 
chronic categories 3 and 4 in the summation. 

As no agreement was reached, two options for the assessment of HP 14 were proposed 
in the Technical Proposal on the review of the Hazardous Properties25. Option 1 is based 
on aquatic toxicity and does not include M-factors, while Option 2 also relies on aquatic 
toxicity but includes M-factors. The proposal was submitted for consultation and triggered 
reactions from the industry, notably regarding the issue of the change of classification of 
some types of waste.  

Scientific  and  technical  work  is  ongoing  to  refine  and  analyse  the  options  for 
assessing HP 14 under a revised legislation. In 2013, four options were designed on 
the basis of the work conducted by the Working Group for the amendment of the European 
waste list. These options take into account proposals from the Commission, France and 
Austria and aim at fulfilling four criteria for the assessment of HP 14: 

  Smooth transition to CLP possible; 

  User-friendly; 

  Changes compared to status quo; and 

  Sufficient environmental protection level. 

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

25 

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

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Based  on  these  options,  the  Commission  designed  four  calculation  methods  for  further 
evaluation  of  the  impact  of  a  revision  of  the  assessment  of  HP  14,  with  regards  to  the 
technical feasibility of such a revision, as well as its economic, social and environmental 
impacts. The potential use of biotests in combination with those methods is also an issue 
to  be  addressed  for  the  assessment  of  HP  14.  However,  there  was  a  consensus  in  the 
working group that further work was needed to formulate a definition of ‘ecotoxicity’.  

Therefore, it was decided to amend the waste classification legislation without changing 
the  definition  of  ecotoxicity.  The  amendment  of  this  hazardous  property  should  be 
postponed until a satisfactory proposal could be developed and assessed.  

Based on the proposals developed by the working group, legislative proposals to amend 
Decision 2000/532/EC and Annex III to Directive 2008/98/EC were drafted and adopted, 
being published in the OJ in December 2014 as Decision 2014/955/EU and Regulation 
1357/2014, respectively. They entered into force on 1 June 2015. 

1.2.  Objectives 

The objective of this study is to assist the Commission to assess the impacts of changing 
the  criteria  for  the  definition  of  eco-toxicity  for  waste,  and  especially  to  assess  the 
implications for Member States and industry of the implementation of four different options 
of  calculation  methods  for  HP  14  assessment  and  waste  classification.  The  following 
aspects will be studied: 

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

analytical information available; 

  The degree of correlation with biotest results; 

  The workability of the methodology; 

  The cost of implementation of the methodology; 

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

other methods and with respect to the current baseline; 

  The nature and estimation of costs of possible waste management options for 
high  volume  waste  streams  for  which  a  significant  change  in  the  fraction  of 
waste classified as hazardous is to be expected based on the application of 
the different methods.   

The identification of the potential limits of the proposed methodologies is another objective 
of this study. 

26 

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
2.  Methodology 

The impact assessment of changing the criteria for the definition of ecotoxicity for waste 
involves the following tasks: 

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

HP 14 in practice; 

  Task 2: Identification and data-collection relative to waste codes to be selected for 

the assessment; 

  Task  3:  Determining  the  classification  of  waste  types  according  to  the  different 

methodologies proposed; 

  Task  4:  Comparative  assessment  of  the  technical,  economical  and  practical 

impacts of the different methodologies; 

  Task 5: A stakeholder consultation and a workshop. 

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

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

assessment of HP 14  

The current strategies implemented in different Member States to assess HP 14, including 
relevant legislation and details about the approaches, were reported in country factsheets 
thanks to a survey of Member States and a desk study.  

2.1.1.  Selection of countries and data collection by survey 

Ten Member States were contacted with the aim to gather data on their strategies to assess 
HP 14: 

  Austria 

  France  

  Belgium 

  Germany 

 

Italy 

  Finland 

  Czech 

Republic 

  United 

Kingdom 

  Spain 

  Poland 

The relevance of this sample is based on the volume of waste generated and managed in 
those countries, which belong to the biggest producers of waste in EU-28 (see Table 1); 
and  also  based  on  the  involvement  of  national  authorities,  researchers  or  industrial 
stakeholders  from  those  countries  in  the  topic  of  hazardous  waste  classification  or 
ecotoxicological characterisation of waste. The publication of articles and reports regarding 
ecotoxicity  of waste  was  used as an indicator of the involvement of Member States (for 
examples, see Table 2). 

Table 1: Waste production of the EU-28 Member States in 2012, extracted from Eurostat 
(Generation of waste [env_wasgen], WASTE: Total Waste, HAZARD: Total, Last update: 
26/11/2014, Extracted on: 14/01/2015) 

Member State 

Germany 

France 

Waste produced (t) 
in 2012 
368 022 172 

344 731 922 

United Kingdom 

241 372 727 

Romania 

Poland 

219 309 676 

163 377 949 

Member State 

Czech Republic 

Waste produced (t) 
in 2012 
23 171 358 

Estonia 

Ireland 

Hungary 

Denmark 

21 992 343 

19 807 586 

16 370 208 

16 332 249 

27 

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member State 

Italy 

Bulgaria 

Sweden 

Waste produced (t) 
in 2012 
162 764 633 

161 252 166 

156 366 579 

Netherlands 

123 612 767 

Spain 

Finland 

Greece 

Belgium 

Austria 

118 561 669 

91 824 193 

72 328 280 

66 932 665 

34 047 465 

Member State 

Portugal 

Slovakia 

Waste produced (t) 
in 2012 
14 184 456 

8 425 384 

Luxembourg 

8 397 228 

Lithuania 

Slovenia 

Croatia 

Latvia 

Cyprus 

Malta 

5 583 082 

4 546 505 

3 378 638 

2 309 581 

2 086 469 

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 

Finland 

France 

Hazardous  waste  Interpretation  of  the  definition  and  classification  of 
hazardous waste (3rd Edition 2013) 

Kati Vaajasaari (2005) Leaching and Biotests as Methods for Classification 
and  Assessment  of  Environmental  Hazard  of  Solid  Wastes.  Tempere 
University of Technology 

Pascal  Pandard  and  Jörg  Römbke  (2013)  Proposal  for  a  “Harmonized” 
Strategy  for  the  Assessment  of  the  HP  14  Property;  Integrated 
Environmental Assessment and Management — Volume 9, Number 4—
pp. 665–672 

Pandard P et al. (2006) Selecting a Battery of Biotests for Ecotoxicological 
Characterization  of Wastes.  Science  of  the  Total  Environment  363:114-
125. 

Germany 

J. Römbke et al. (2009) Ecotoxicological characterisation of 12 incineration 
ashes using 6 laboratory tests; Waste Management 29 2475–2482 

H.  Moser  et  al.  (2011)  Evaluation  of  biological  methods  for  a  future 
methodological  implementation  of  the  Hazard  criterion  H14  ‘ecotoxic’  in 
the European waste list (2000/532/EC); Waste Management & Research, 
29(2) 180–187 

H.  Moser  and  J.  Römbke  (2009)  Ecotoxicological  Characterization  of 
Waste- Results and Experiences of an International Ring Test. 

UbA  (2013)  Recommendations  for  the  Ecotoxicological  Characterization 
of Wastes 

Austria 

Participation  in  the Working  Group  for  the  amendment  of  the  European 
Waste List 

Czech Republic 

Vasahlova  et  al.  (2012)  The  proposal  for  changes  in  evaluation  of 
ecotoxicity of wastes in the Czech legislation 

28 

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member State 

Example of publication 

Italy 

Belgium 

Spain 

Participation  in  the Working  Group  for  the  amendment  of  the  European 
Waste List 

Participation  in  the Working  Group  for  the  amendment  of  the  European 
Waste List 

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

The contact points in the relevant Competent Authorities of the ten selected Member States 
were provided by the Commission. They were sent a cover letter from the Commission and 
a  questionnaire  aiming  at  gathering  the  approaches  used  in  their  country  to  assess  the 
ecotoxicity  of  representative  samples  of  waste  streams.  The  questionnaire  asked  the 
stakeholders to describe the HP 14 approaches implemented in their country, provide some 
case  studies  (i.e.  examples  of  application  of  their  method  on  1-2  waste  streams)  and 
indicate  the  relevant  national  legislation  about  waste  hazard  classification  and  HP  14 
ecotoxicology  assessment.  The  experts  were  also  asked  to  provide  their  preference(s) 
concerning the  waste codes  of the LoW to focus the  impact assessment on, in order to 
help in the selection of waste codes for in-depth data collection (see section 2.1.2 and 2.3). 
The full questionnaire is reported in Annex 1. 

A second questionnaire was sent to those Member States in order to address data gaps 
identified during the selection of mirror pairs for further assessment (the selection process 
and  criteria  are  detailed  in  section  2.2).  This  questionnaire,  available  in  Annex  3,  also 
included  a section on the  collection  of experimental  data for the next steps of the study 
(see section 2.3 and 5.2). 

2.1.2.  Data collection by desk study  

In parallel, the project team conducted a desk-based search and merged the results of this 
search with the results of the consultation. The aim of the desk-based search was to gather 
data  on  the  approaches  used  in  the  10  Member  States  to  assess  the  ecotoxicity  of 
representative samples of waste streams. 

In  order  to  find  data  about  tonnages  of  hazardous  waste,  research  on  websites  of 
Competent  Authorities  was  performed.  As  such  tonnages  were  often  split  into 
categories/codes of waste that were based on the Eurostat EWC-Stat classification system, 
research has been carried out to convert quantities registered under EWC-Stat categories 
to LoW categories. Such estimation was used if the consultation does not provide data on 
hazardous waste tonnage. 

Research has also been carried out using keywords in the different national languages to 
seek document about the approaches used to assess HP 14, and examples of results of 
such  assessments.  Literature  previously  identified  was  used  as  primary  source  of 
information but also was a starting point to identify new documents relevant for our study 
(through  the  listed  references).  Competent  Authorities  and  national  agencies  websites 
have  been  consulted  to  find  the  official  documentation  on  methodology  for  waste 
classification (guidelines, pieces of legislation, etc.). Scientific databases – such as Web of 
Knowledge, PubMed, Science Direct – have been explored using keywords rings to gather 
scientific articles dealing with biotests on waste. 

2.1.3.  Reporting data in factsheets 

The data collected on HP 14 assessment by Member States survey and by a desk study 
was reported in country factsheets. The template for those factsheets is presented below 
(Table 3). 

29 

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

Related legislation 
and guidelines 

Stakeholders 
involved in the H14 
assessment 

Specify if some categories of waste are assessed with different approaches 

Legislation 

Guidelines 

Name of national regulations, decree, etc. 

Name of national guidance (if available) 

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 
(%) 

Waste with highest 
tonnage  

Hazardous waste with 
highest tonnage 

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

Percentage of 
waste considered 
as hazardous by 
H14 

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) 

Prioritisation of tests (aquatic 
vs terrestrial) 

Terrestrial tests 

What kind of tests are used in your country 

Test 
organism 

Endpoint  Test 

method 

Test 
duration 

Expression 
of results 

Threshold 
value 

Protocol used 

Leaching/extraction test used 

Aquatic tests 

Test 
organism 

Endpoint  Test 

method 

Test 
duration 

Expression 
of results 

Threshold 
value 

30 

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

Qualitative 
assessment of the 
method(s) 

Other MS using the 
same approach (if 
known) 

Additional 
comments 

Expert contacted to 
elaborate this 
factsheet 

References 

Additional 
information 

Advantages 

Limits and uncertainties 

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

Name of experts (if agree) 

Name of documents used to elaborate the factsheet 

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

The  full  factsheets  containing  all  information  collected  for  each  country  are  reported  in 
Annex 2. 

2.2.  Selecting mirror pairs for the assessment 

The  assessment  of  HP  14  according  to  the  four  classification  methods  chosen  by  the 
Commission is to be performed on a restricted list of mirror pairs (not on absolute entries). 
The next sections explain how those mirror pairs were selected. 

2.2.1.  Selection process 

The selection of mirror pairs is based on an extended list provided by the Commission and 
containing 133 waste codes. Among them, 124 mirror pairs have been identified and the 
selection process is performed on these 124 waste codes. 

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

 

 SC 1 - Preference of experts  

  SC 2 - Availability and quality of data 

  SC 3 - Tonnage of waste production 

  SC 4 - Economic importance 

 

 SC 5 - Potential presence of hazardous substances 

  SC 6 - Criticality of waste classification  

For each SC, waste codes were assigned a qualitative or quantitative value (depending on 
the criterion). For instance, under SC1, waste codes were assigned the number of experts 
which expressed their preference. Under SC2, waste codes were assigned sources and 
various information regarding calculations and biotests. Furthermore, values for each SC 

31 

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
were translated into scores from 0 to 3, according to different scoring systems depending 
on  the  criterion.  Details  on  the  methodology  for  each  criterion  are  presented  in  section 
2.2.2. 

A global score is then calculated for each waste code by computing a weighted average of 
all scores. The weight of each criterion in the global score, as well as the strategy adopted 
to select codes with the global scores is presented in section 2.2.3. 

2.2.2.  Selection criteria 

The rationale for the evaluation of some selection criteria is based on results from the data 
collection on the strategies of Member States to assess HP 14.  

2.2.2.1.  SC1: Preference of experts 

Experts from ten Member States were asked  which waste codes they thought the study 
should focus on. Each waste code was attributed the number of experts who chose it. 

The scoring system is as follows: 

Number of experts 

Score 

0 

1  2 

3  5 

≥ 6 

0 

1 

2 

3 

2.2.2.2.  SC2: Availability and quality of data 

A desk study was performed in order to evaluate the availability and quality of data related 
to waste streams classified under the extended list of waste codes: 

  Composition of waste; 

  Results of biotests; 

  Protocols. 

Generic  keywords  were  used  (“ecotoxic  +  waste  +  assessment”,  “H14  +  waste  + 
assessment”, “H14 + waste + classification”) in Google and Google Scholar. The resulting 
publications and pieces of grey literature were classified according to the waste codes they 
studied. Publications and reports provided by the Competent Authorities were also included 
in the sample. A more in-depth study was then performed by using keywords specific to 
the subchapters of the LoW: 

Subchapter 

03 01 (03 01 05) 

04 02, 06 05, 07 01, 07 02, 07 03, 07 05, 
07 06, 08 01, 10 03, 10 08, 11 01, 12 01, 
19 08 

Keywords 

Sawdust + ecotoxic + waste 

Sludge + ecotoxic + waste 

06 03 

08 03 

08 04 

Metallic oxides + ecotoxic + waste 

Ink + ecotoxic + waste 

Adhesive + ecotoxic + waste 

32 

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
Subchapter 

10 01 

10 02 

10 03 

10 05 

10 06, 10 08 

10 08, 10 10, 10 11 

10 09, 10 10 

10 11, 10 12, 10 13 

16 11 

17 01 

17 03 

17 05 

17 06 

17 08 

19 01 

19 07 

19 10 

19 13 

Keywords 

Bottom ash + ecotoxic + waste 
Fly ash + ecotoxic + waste 
Gas cleaning + ecotoxic + waste 

Filter cakes + ecotoxic + waste 
cooling water treatment + ecotoxic + waste 

Flue gas dust + ecotoxic + waste 
Slag + ecotoxic + waste  

Dross + ecotoxic + waste 

cooling water treatment + ecotoxic + waste 

Flue gas dust + ecotoxic + waste 

Moulds + ecotoxic + waste 

Gas treatment + ecotoxic + waste 

Lining + ecotoxic + waste 
Refractories + ecotoxic + waste 

Concrete + ecotoxic + waste 

Bituminous + ecotoxic + waste 

Soil + ecotoxic + waste 
Spoil + ecotoxic + waste 

Insulation + ecotoxic + waste 

Gypsum + ecotoxic + waste 

Bottom ash + ecotoxic + waste 
Fly ash + ecotoxic + waste 
Boiler dust + ecotoxic + waste 

Landfill leachate + ecotoxic + waste 

Dust + ecotoxic + waste 

Soil + ecotoxic + waste 

The collected documents were attributed one or more waste codes depending on the waste 
samples analysed. A few pieces of information (for instance, the name of the samples of 
interest, or the fact that the protocols were performed according to ISO standards) were 
also collected. 

Although the desk study was not a formal systematic search, it should be representative of 
the amount of literature (scientific and grey) publically available on the waste codes of the 
list. 

The scoring system is as follows: 

Number of publications 

Score 

0 

1 

2  3 

≥ 4 

0 

1 

2 

3 

33 

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2.2.3.  SC3: Tonnage of waste production 

The quantities of waste produced per Member States and per waste code were retrieved 
in official documents. 

For Member States for which data was available (Germany, UK, Spain, Finland, Belgium), 
a score was attributed to each waste code according to the logarithmic distribution of the 
tonnages throughout the set of waste codes (Figure 2). Waste codes for which no stream 
was  produced  in  the  Member  State  of  interest  (0  tons)  were  attributed  a  score  of  zero. 
Those for which no data was available (Czech Republic and Austria) were not given any 
score (noted “n/a”). This scoring system is illustrated in the figure below for Germany. 

Figure 2: Waste quantities in Germany and attribution of scores 

For  some  Member  States  (Italy  and  Poland),  quantities  were  reported  under  other 
classifications  than  the  LoW:  an  extrapolation  was  therefore  necessary  to  attribute 
tonnages for LoW codes: 

Country  Type of raw data 

Method of extrapolation 

Italy 

Total  quantities  of  waste 
generated (with a distinction 
between  hazardous  and 
non-hazardous  waste)  per 
general  categories  of  the 
LoW (01, 02, 03, etc.) 

Disaggregation  of  the  quantity  registered 
under  a  category  into  the  different  category 
codes: 

-  For hazardous waste codes: division26 of 
the value for total hazardous waste of this 
category  with  the  number  of  hazardous 
waste codes in this category 

-  For non-hazardous waste codes: division 
of the value for total non-hazardous waste 
of  this  category  with  the  number  of  non-
hazardous waste codes in this category 

Poland 

Total 
hazardous 

quantities 

and 

of 
non-

Disaggregation of the total quantity of waste 
into the different category codes for waste: 

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

34 

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

1,0E+001,0E+011,0E+021,0E+031,0E+041,0E+051,0E+061,0E+071,0E+081,0E+09Quantity of waste (tons)Waste codes ranked from the highest to the lowest tonnageScore: 3Score: 2Score: 1 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Country  Type of raw data 

Method of extrapolation 

waste 
hazardous 
generated;  and  share  of 
categories  of 
the  LoW 
within  the  tonnages  of  the 
non-
hazardous 
hazardous waste 

and 

-  For 

codes 

hazardous  waste 

: 
Multiplication  of 
total  quantity  of 
the 
hazardous  waste  by  the  share  of  each 
LoW category; and division by the number 
of hazardous waste code in this category  
codes: 
Multiplication of the total quantity of non-
hazardous  waste  by  the  share  of  each 
LoW category; and division by the number 
of  non-hazardous  waste  code  in  this 
category  

non-hazardous  waste 

-  For 

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 

Data  extrapolated 
from  quantities 
reported  under  another  classification 
than the LoW 

Old data (< 2009) 

1  

0.5 

0.5 

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

An example is provided below for waste code 06 03 16. Italy has a bias of extrapolation 
and data from Poland dates from 2005 and is extrapolated.  

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

Country 

FR 

DE 

UK 

ES 

IT 

PL 

FI 

BE 

AT 

Weight 

1 

Score 

n/a 

1 

2 

1 

1 

0.5 

0.25 

1 

n/a 

n/a 

2 

3 

n/a 

Score for SC3 

1 

2 

1 

n/a 

2,07 

35 

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2.2.4.  SC4: Economic importance 

The economic importance was evaluated by the volumes of transboundary shipments and 
by the inputs of the Competent Authorities27 estimating economic importance according to 
a  set  of  criteria  (high  generated  volumes,  percentage  of  waste-to-energy  recovery, 
percentage of waste-to-material recovery).  

The scoring system is as follows: 

Data 

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

Identified by Italy or Finland only 

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

No data available 

Score 

3 

2 

1 

n/a 

2.2.2.5.  SC5: Potential presence of hazardous substances 

The  identification  of  hazardous  substances  potentially  contaminating  waste,  was  done 
thanks  to  a  desk-based  search  and  to  the  Competent  Authorities’  experience  with 
hazardous waste.  

Scores  were  attributed  with  regards  to  the  level  of  hazard  linked  to  the  identified 
substances. The  level of hazard  was evaluated  based on the  EC50  values,  which  were 
retrieved 
substances 
(http://www.ineris.fr/substances/fr/homepage/search),  or  the  USEPA  ECOTOX  portal 
(http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/quick_query.htm)28  if  the  substance  is  not  in  the  INERIS 
inventory. When more than one value of EC50 was available, the lowest one was chosen. 

hazardous 

through 

INERIS 

portal 

the 

of 

For some waste codes, the potential presence of pesticides was reported, without naming 
specific active ingredients. Therefore, a desk-based search was conducted to determine 
the  level  of  hazard  of  the  most  dangerous  pesticides  for  the  environment  (worst-case 
approach): 

  Step  1:  Selection  of  pesticides  having  at  least  two  "1"  in  Group  3 
"Environmental toxicity" (except bees29) of the PAN International List of Highly 
Hazardous 
2014 
(http://www.panna.org/sites/default/files/PAN_HHP_List_2014.pdf) 

Pesticides 

June 

- 

  Step 

2:  Selecting 

the  EU 
pesticides 
(http://ec.europa.eu/sanco_pesticides/public/?event=activesubstance.selectio
n&language=EN) 

authorised 

only 

in 

  Step  3:  Reporting  EC50  values,  for  selected  pesticides  for  which  such 
information is available. The values are presented in sheet “Hazard of various 
substances”, tables under the name “pesticides”. 

The  sheet  “Hazard  of  various  substances”  of  the  Excel  file  also  reports  available  EC50 
values for metals, inorganics (except metals), pesticides and organics (except pesticides). 

The scoring system is as follows: 

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

36 

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

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Order of magnitude of EC50 of substances  

Score 

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

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

1 or more 

No data available 

3 

2 

1 

n/a 

2.2.2.6.  SC6: Criticality of waste classification 

This was evaluated according to: 

  a VITO study30 which identified a few  waste codes for which  waste streams 
classified under one code of a mirror entry are likely to shift to being classified 
under the other code.  

 

Inputs from Member States assessing qualitatively and from expert judgement, 
the likeliness of a change of classification.  

The scoring system is as follows: 

Change of classification  

Score 

No 

Maybe  

Yes 

No data available 

0 

1.5 

3 

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”. 

2.2.3.  Global score and selection of mirror pairs 

The global score is calculated for each waste code by computing a weighted average of all 
scores obtained for SC1 to SC6. The weights are the following: 

Selection criteria 

Weight 

SC1 

SC2 

SC3 

SC4 

SC5 

SC6 

3 

3 

2 

1 

1 

2 

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

37 

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

 
 
 
 
                                                      
For each waste code: 

𝐺𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 =

𝑖

∑ 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 (𝑆𝐶𝑖). 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡(𝑆𝐶𝑖)
∑ 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡(𝑆𝐶𝑖)

𝑖

 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑖 𝑠𝑢𝑐ℎ 𝑎𝑠 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒(𝑆𝐶𝑖) ≠ 𝑛/𝑎 

Since a weighted average pulls all indicator values toward the mean, the global  score  is 
rescaled to extend through the full range of values (0–3): 

For each waste code: 

𝑁𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 = 3. (

𝐺𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 (𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑑𝑒) − min (𝐺𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒)
max(𝐺𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒) − min (𝐺𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒)

) 

All waste codes with a normalised global score higher than 1.5 are selected. If the mirror 
entry of a selected code is not included in the list, the mirror pair is nonetheless chosen. 

2.2.4.  Taking into account the Commission and Member States’ 

inputs 

The Commission and Member States’ experience with the LoW lead to their suggesting 
additional  codes  to  the  selection  performed  with  the  process  detailed  in  the  previous 
sections. It was taken into account as described below: 

Member States’ contribution 

Some  Member  States  (Austria,  Belgium  and  the  UK)  shared  a  list  of  waste  streams 
relevant, in their experience, for assessing ecotoxicity. A list of mirror pairs was attributed 
to the proposed waste streams, except for those which referred to absolute entries. Then, 
only mirror pairs appearing in the original extended list of the Commission were kept. Of 
those,  the  pairs  chosen  with  the  selection  process  described  in  section  2.2.1  were 
removed. 

The resulting list was further trimmed: 

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

C&D waste); and then 

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

European Commission’s contribution 

Pairs proposed by the Commission were included. 

2.3.  Collecting experimental data on selected waste codes 

The team collected the data necessary to perform the calculations required  to apply the 
four  different  methodologies  for  waste  classification,  along  with  all  ecotoxicology  test 
results about the previously selected mirror pairs. The data collection was done by a new 
consultation in the sample of Member States (see the questionnaire in Annex 3), and by 
analysing the publications found during the desk study (see section 2.1.2). 

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

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

baseline against which to determine impacts); 

  Composition of the waste: 

o  Nature of each component; 

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

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

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

or H400, H410, H411, H412, H413; 

  Results of ecotoxicity tests: 

38 

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

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

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

o  Threshold values for classifying wastes as hazardous; 

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

o  For composition: 

  Specify whether chemical analysis was performed on the solid 

material itself or on its leachates; 

  Sampling time; 

  Sample preservation ; 

  Transport  and  storage  of  samples  (including 

time  of 

conservation); 

  Pre-treatment of samples; 

  Preparation  of  waste  eluates  (including  pH  adjustment  if 

performed); 

  Storage of waste eluates ; 

  Leachant; 

  Analytical methods. 

o  For ecotoxicity tests: 

  Sampling date; 

  Sample preservation ; 

  Transport  and  storage  of  samples  (including  Time  of 

conservation); 

  Pre-treatment of samples ; 

  Preparation  of  waste  eluates  (including  pH  adjustment  if 

performed); 

  Storage of waste eluates ; 

  Organism [e.g. Daphnia magna]; 

  Time of conservation before performing test; 

  Preparation  of  waste  eluates  (including  pH  adjustment  if 

appropriate); 

  Storage of waste eluates (including time and conditions); 

  Test method; 

  Control/dilution medium. 

2.4.  Running the calculation methods 

2.4.1.  Reporting collected data 

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

 

 The current hazard classification of each waste mirror sample (to establish the 
baseline against which to determine impacts), 

  The known composition of the waste, 

 

 The results of ecotoxicity tests, and, 

39 

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

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

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

2.4.2.  Worst-case selection 

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

To perform the calculations, the specific compounds present in the sample must be known. 
However,  an  important  difficulty  was  identified:  to  perform  the  calculations,  the  specific 
compounds present in the sample must be known. Indeed, in order to classify the waste, it 
is necessary to identify the hazard properties of each constituent and the mass percentage 
concentration  associated.  However,  collected  information  only  reports  concentrations  of 
elemental  constituents.  Therefore,  plausible  worst  case  compounds  were  selected 
according to the relevance of their presence in waste and reported in the table “Worst case 
compounds selected for calculation” in Annex 5. In the absence of any other information, 
the  preference  was  given  to  simple  compounds  like  oxides  or  chlorides,  for  which  the 
presence in the waste seems to be more relevant. As specified by Note 1 of Section 1.1.3.2 
of  Annex  VI  of  the  CLP  regulation31,  the  molar  mass  of  metallic  compounds  was  not 
considered  for  worst  case  selection.  In  case  of  presence  of  generic  entries  in  the 
harmonised  classification  (as  for  example,  for  lead  compounds),  this  classification  is 
considered. Among simple compounds, those  which have the most severe classification 
according to the harmonised classification of the Regulation 1272/2008/EC (CLP) are used 
for calculation.  

For each worst case compound selected, the following information  is extracted from the 
harmonised classification for environmental hazards and reported in the table in Annex 5: 
index number, EC number, CAS number, hazard class and categories, hazard statement 
and  M-factor.  In  this  table,  compounds  underlined  in  green  do  not  have  a  harmonised 
classification for environmental hazard properties according to Regulation 1272/2008/EC 
(CLP). 

Tools for selecting worst case compounds are currently in development but not validated 
and not yet review by a group of experts. For example, France has developed a tool that 
allows the consideration of speciation and different parameters of the waste like the pH, 
the stoichiometric ratio and the molar mass of compounds32. The tool was published as a 
French  standard:  AFNOR  FD  X30-494  “Characterization  of  waste  -  Specification  of 
elements  present  in  waste  (May  2015)”  and  is  currently  being  considered  for  a  CEN 
standard. As this tool was not yet fully finalised at the time of redaction, the simple default 
approach described above is applied.  

2.4.3.  Calculation tool 

An Excel file was created for the classification of waste samples from the selected mirror 
pairs (see example in Table 6). Input data is the following: the element (to be selected in a 
drop-down  list)  and  the  concentration  in  mg/kg  of  this  element.  In  case  of  specific 
substances like organic compounds, the most frequently detected ones present in wastes 
are included in the drop-down list. Information regarding the classification of compounds 
not appearing in the tool must be entered manually. For each hazard statement, the value 
“1”  corresponds  to  the  classification  of  the  compound  for  this  hazard  otherwise,  the  “0” 
value  corresponds  to  the  non-classification.  It  is  also  necessary  to  fill  the  columns 
corresponding to the M-factor (if no M-factor is available, the value “1” has to be filled).  

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

40 

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

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

41 

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

H420H400H410H411H412H413M factor (acute)M factor (chronic)As11arsenic acid and its salts with the exception of those specified elsewhere in this Annex1-74.921674.92160.0011%1100011Pb21lead compounds with the exception of those specified elsewhere in this Annex1-207.2207.20.0021%1100011Cd0.29cadmium oxide (non-pyrophoric)11306-19-0112.411112.4140.0000%1100011Cr11chromium (VI) trioxide11333-82-051.996199.90.0021%1100011Cu114dicopper oxidecopper (I) oxide21317-39-163.546143.090.0128%1100011Ni190nickel sulfate17786-81-458.6934154.750.0501%1100011Hg0.09mercury17439-97-6200.59200.590.0000%1100011Zn1000zinc oxide11314-13-265.3981.4080.1245%1100011_Benzene0.01Benzene171-43-2#N/A78.110.0000%0000011Worst case classificationCompoundConcentration (mg/kg)Compound worst caseMM element (g/mol)MM compound (g/mol)Concentration (% w/w)CASNumber of element in worst case (e.g. dicopper oxide = 2)(default value = 1)Element/Specific Compounds(drop-down list) 
 
 
 
 
 
2.5. 

Impact assessment 

The implementation of any of the four calculation methods is likely to lead to changes in 
the  classification  of  some  waste,  and  thus  affect  the  quantities  of  waste  classified  as 
hazardous and non-hazardous for each individual mirror pair. This, in turn, would lead to 
environmental, economic and social impacts. 

The impact assessment conducted in this study aims at estimating the consequences of 
the implementation of each of the four methods on the waste streams corresponding to the 
selected  mirror  pairs  against  a  baseline  scenario  (i.e.  the  current  situation,  and  further 
development  excluding  the  implementation  of  the  4  calculation  methods).  The  baseline 
scenario was determined using EU-level data on the environmental, economic and social 
aspects,  with  no  distinction  between  Member  States.  This  distinction  would  have  been 
relevant (different Member States apply different criteria), but lack of data prevents such a 
detailed assessment (not enough collected samples). 

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

2.5.1.  Scope of the impact assessment 

The  ideal  scope  would  have  been  the  whole  list  of  selected  mirror  pairs.  However,  the 
impact assessment can only be performed on pairs whose samples had both: 

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

and 

  Their current classification (baseline) available. 

This necessary requirement restricted the list of mirror pairs (see section 6.3) on which the 
socio-economic  impact  was  performed..  However,  in  order  to  maximise  the  number  of 
samples  considered  for  each  pair,  the  current  classification  of  some  samples  was 
determined “manually” by the project team, by applying the HP 14 assessment methods of 
the  Member  State  from  which  the  sample  originated.  This  determination  was  done  for 
samples which: 

  Were not assigned a current classification (samples extracted from scientific 
publications or from other documents which did not mention the classification 
for example); and 

  Originated from countries  implementing  a chemical approach (otherwise the 

classification cannot be deducted from characterisation data). 

2.5.2.  Assessment steps 

The impact assessment was conducted according to the following steps: 

  Setting indicators describing key factors of impact assessment, the variation of 
which may affect the management of waste, the environment, public health, 
recycling companies, etc.; 

  Evaluating the current “value” of those indicators (baseline), i.e. documenting 
the current situation and trends of the generation and management of waste 
streams classified under the codes included in the scope; 

 

 Estimating the likely “value” of those indicators linked to the implementation of 
either one of the four methods of calculation, i.e. assessing the environmental 
and  socio-economic  impacts  of  each  of  the  four  methods,  considering  the 
proportion  of  waste  that  would  change  classification  due  to  new  HP 14 
assessment. 

42 

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

 
 
 
 
 
2.5.2.1.  Indicators 

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

  Environmental aspects: 

o  Recovery  schemes  (includes  percentages  of  waste  recycled  vs 

landfilled) 

o  Benefits of recovering the waste 

o 

 Pollution due to contaminated fractions of the waste 

 

 Economic aspects 

o  Costs of disposal 

o  Costs of recycling 

 

 Social aspects 

o 

 Employment 

o  Public Health 

2.5.2.2.  Data collection on the current situation and potential 

impacts 

Information on the environmental, economic and social aspects of managing the selected 
waste  streams  was  collected  thanks  to  a  desk  study  and  a  dedicated  stakeholder 
consultation. 

The desk study involved an Internet search in grey and scientific literature. For each waste 
stream, key words including the name of the stream and of the indicator of interest were 
used in Google and Google Scholar. Searches in specific websites were also performed: 
Eurostat33, the ADEME website34, the Defra35 and WRAP36 websites. 

As  the  desk  study  was  not  expected  to  yield  sufficient  results,  a  consultation  targeting 
industrial stakeholders was launched in parallel. Participants of the workshops in which the 
study was presented in April and May 2015 (see section  2.6) were sent a questionnaire 
aiming at gathering their inputs on the potential impacts of a change of classification for 
their industry. The respondents were surveyed on the expected economic feasibility of the 
four methods and were prompted to fill in one or more case studies on the potential impacts 
of the changes of classification for one or more mirror pairs. The questionnaire is available 
in Annex 4. 

2.5.2.3.  Establishment of the baseline  

The  current  situation  of  waste  management  for  the  studied  waste  streams  is  described 
based upon the chosen indicators and the data collection.  

For each studied waste stream, the current situation in the EU according to environmental, 
economic and social aspects are described. The baseline was not established per Member 
States, because the determination of impacts (relying on calculation on collected samples) 
cannot be done per Member State (lack of data). 

2.5.2.4.  Determination of impacts 

The  proportion  of  waste  changing  classification  (for  each  mirror  pair)  was  estimated 
considering the samples collected for the purpose of running the calculation methods.  

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

43 

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

 
 
 
 
                                                      
For each pair: 

𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 ℎ𝑎𝑧𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑛𝑜𝑛 ℎ𝑎𝑧𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑑𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑀𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑑 𝑖 =

𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑛𝑜𝑛 ℎ𝑎𝑧𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑡𝑜 ℎ𝑎𝑧𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑑𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑀𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑑 𝑖 =

𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 (𝐻 → 𝑁𝐻)𝑀𝑖 
𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 (𝐻)𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑙𝑦

𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 (𝑁𝐻 → 𝐻)𝑀𝑖 
𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 (𝑁𝐻)𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑙𝑦

With: 

𝐻 = 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑠 ℎ𝑎𝑧𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑜𝑢𝑠 

𝑁𝐻 = 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑛 ℎ𝑎𝑧𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑜𝑢𝑠 

 (𝐻 → 𝑁𝐻)𝑀𝑖 , 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑦  (𝑁𝐻 → 𝐻)𝑀𝑖
=  𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑓𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 ℎ𝑎𝑧𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑛𝑜𝑛 ℎ𝑎𝑧𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑜𝑢𝑠 (𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑦 𝑛𝑜𝑛 ℎ𝑎𝑧𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑡𝑜 ℎ𝑎𝑧𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑜𝑢𝑠) 𝑑𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑀𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑑 𝑖 

(𝐻)𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑙𝑦  ,

𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑦 (𝑁𝐻)𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑙𝑦

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

The impacts of these changes are estimated by considering the baseline and determining 
how the indicators have changed due to the shift in proportion. For instance, environmental 
impacts include the proportion of waste which would not be recycled anymore,  following 
the implementation of any of the four methods.  

A brief description of the impacts of the status quo (i.e. the way the baseline situation would 
evolve if none of the 4 calculation methods was implemented) is also provided. 

2.6.  Workshops and conferences 

Interim results were presented in a workshop organised by the European Commission in 
April  2015.  The  workshop  was  the  opportunity  to  further  clarify  some  points  in  the 
factsheets and to gather the participants’ opinions on the four calculation methods and on 
the relevance of an experimental approach based on biotests. 

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

The study was presented during the Technical Adaptation Committee (TAC meeting) held 
in June 2015 in Brussels. 

44 

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

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
3.  Results: strategies of selected 
Member States to assess HP 
14 

3.1.  Member States survey 

Ten Member States (Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland,  France,  Germany, 
Italy,  Poland,  Spain  and  the  United  Kingdom)  were  sent  a  questionnaire  via  email  (see 
Annex 1), with the aim to document the approaches used in their country to assess the 
ecotoxicity of waste streams. The list of contacts and their contribution is also reported in 
Annex 1. 

3.2.  Full country factsheets 

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

Austria 

France  

Belgium 

Germany 

Italy 

Finland 

Czech Republic 

United Kingdom 

Spain 

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

3.3.  Description of the approaches 

3.3.1.  General information  

The  nine  Member  States  have  either  national  legislation,  guidelines  or  both,  describing 
methods  to  assess  HP  14  in  their  jurisdictions  (Table  7).  Italy  and  Austria  passed  laws 
introducing the criteria assigning HP 14 to waste but did not issue guidelines37. In Spain, 
the  Ordinance  determining  the  methods  for  assessing  HP  14  is  accompanied  by 
appendices providing guidance. In the other countries (France, Germany, Finland, UK and 
Belgium), where no legislative instruments exist, guidelines are however available.  

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

Member State 

Legal instrument 

Guidelines 

Austria 

Belgium 

Fed.  Law  Gaz  No.  522/1973  as 
amended  by  Fed  Law  Gaz  III  No. 
36/2001 

OVAM 
(2004) 
afvalstoffenlijst EURAL Handleiding 

Europese 

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

45 

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Member State 

Legal instrument 

Guidelines 

Czech 
Republic 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

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) 

– 

ja 

Dahlbo,  H.  2002.  Jätteen  luokittelu 
ongelmajätteeksi 
arvioinnin 
perusteet 
menetelmät 
(Classification of waste as hazardous 
waste  –  the  basis  and  methods  for 
evaluation).  Environment  Guide  98. 
Finnish 
Institute. 
Environment 
Helsinki. Finland. 160 pp. (In Finnish) 

Ympäristöministeriö,  Tilastokeskus, 
ympäristökeskus. 
Suomen 
(Waset 
Jäteluokitusopas 
2005). 
Classification 
Tilastokeskus, 
37. 
Helsinki 2005. (In Finnish) 

2005 
Guide 
Käsikirjoja 

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 
II 
la  réglementation  SEVESO 
(partie  applicable  aux  déchets). 
Rapport d’étude N°INERIS- DRC-12-
125740-06310A, 66 pp. 

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.  

the  criteria 

-  Law  28/2012.This 
introduced 
assessment 
into 
decree  152/2006 
Annex D part IV) 

law  has 
for  H14 
the 
legislative 
(see  point  5, 

46 

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member State 

Legal instrument 

Guidelines 

Spain 

UK 

ORDEN  de  13  de  octubre  de  1989 
por 
los 
la  que  se  determinan 
métodos  de  caracterización  de  los 
residuos tóxicos y peligrosos 

ORDEN  MAM/304/2002,  de  8  de 
febrero - Anejo 2 (“no contiene en la 
actualidad disposiciones respecto a 
las características H1, H2, H9 y H12 
a H14”) 

ORDEN  de  13  de  octubre  de  1989 
por la que se determinan los métodos 
de  caracterización  de  los  residuos 
tóxicos  y  peligrosos  –Appendice  IV 
and A 

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

Environment  Agency  (2013)  WM2: 
Hazardous  waste  Interpretation  of 
the  definition  and  classification  of 
hazardous waste (3rd Edition 2013), 
147 pp. 

(2014) 
University  of  Birmingham 
Health  and  Safety  Guidance 
- 
Hazardous  Waste:  Guidance  on 
Assessment 
GUIDANCE/11/HWGA/14, 32 pp 

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

  Based on chemical analysis; or 

  Based on biotests; or 

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

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

47 

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

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

Austria, Belgium, Italy, Finland and the UK rely solely on chemical analysis to determine 
the ecotoxic property of waste. It is worth mentioning that Finland and the UK allow biotests 
in  some  cases,  but  discourage  the  use  of  such  methods.  Their  position  is  discussed  in 
section 3.4. In Czech Republic and Spain, the assessment of HP 14 is performed thanks 
to  biotests  only,  while  in  France  and  Germany  a  tiered  approach  including  chemical 
analysis is in place. 

The following sections (3.3.2 and 3.3.3) describe and compare the approaches based on 
chemical analysis (whether used alone or in combination with  biotests) and those based 
on biotests (whether used alone or in combination with chemical analysis), respectively. 
Section 3.3.3 focuses on the analysis of combined approaches. 

3.3.2.  Approaches using chemical analysis 

Belgium, Finland, Germany, and the UK base their approach on the DPD, but did not adapt 
it the same way. In Austria and Italy, the HP14 strategy is based on classification according 
to the European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by 
Road (ADR)38, while France adapts the CLP regulation. 

3.3.2.1.  Approaches based on the DPD 

The process for assessing HP 14 is common to all Member States adapting the DPD for 
this purpose and is described in the decision tree below (Figure 4). These Member States 
rely on the first versions of the DPD, which do not include M-factors.  

38 http://www.unece.org/trans/danger/publi/adr/adr_e.html  

48 

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

Type of approachNot included in the sampleBiotestsChemical analysisCombined 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 4: Decision tree for the assessment of HP 14 using chemical analyses (based on the 
DPD) 

Wastes  which  do  not  contain  substances  classified  as  dangerous  for  the  aquatic 
environment or for the ozone layer according to the DSD R-phrases are not hazardous by 
HP 14 (Step 1). The relevant R-phrases are the following: 

  R50: very toxic to aquatic organisms; 

  R50-53: very toxic to aquatic organisms and may  cause long-term effects in 

the aquatic environment; 

  R51-53:  toxic  to  aquatic  organisms  and  may  cause  long-term  effects  in  the 

aquatic environment; 

  R52-53: harmful to aquatic organisms and may cause long-term effects in the 

aquatic environment; 

  R52: harmful to aquatic organisms;  

  R53: may cause long-term effects in the aquatic environment; and 

  R59: dangerous for the ozone layer. 

Substances  classified  as  either  one  of  these  R-phrases  will  be  considered  “ecotoxic 
substances”.  If  the  chemical  analysis  of  the  waste  shows  that  ecotoxic  substances  are 
present, one must first determine whether the concentrations of the individual substances 
are above the generic concentration limits set by the DPD, as presented in Table 8 (Step 
2). 

49 

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

Doesthe wastecontainecotoxicsubstances assigned R50 to R53, R50-53, R51-53 or R52-53? Does the waste contain ecotoxic substances at a concentration at or above the genericconcentration limits? Does the waste contain two or more ecotoxicsubstances above the concentration thresholds? Is the waste ecotoxicaccording to additivity rules applied in the Member State? Does the waste contain ecotoxic substances at a concentration at or above the substance specificthreshold limits? Hazardous by HP 14Not hazardous by HP 14NoYesNoYesNoNoYesYesNoNoYesIn dashes and italics: a UK-specific step.Italics In green: Concentrations and equations detailed below the diagram.Step 1Step 2Step 4Step 3Step 2’ 
 
 
 
 
Table 8: Generic concentration limits for individual ecotoxic substances, according to their 
classification (DPD-based approaches) 

Classification of the 
substance (DSD) 

Generic concentration 
limits (w/w %) 

R50 

R50-53 

R51-53 

R52-53 

R52 

R53 

R59 

25 

0.25 

2.5 

25 

25 

25 

0.1 

If at least one ecotoxic substance is present in the waste at a concentration at or exceeding 
the  relevant  threshold  limit,  then  the  waste  is  hazardous  by  HP  14.  Otherwise  the 
assessment process must continue. 

In the next step (Step 3), one must compare the concentrations of ecotoxic substances to 
concentration  thresholds  above  which  they  must  be  taken  into  account  for  the 
assessment (Table 9).  

Table 9: Concentration thresholds for ecotoxic substances, according to their classification 
((DPD-based approaches) 

Classification of the 
substance (DSD) 

Concentration, 
thresholds (w/w %)  

R50 

R50-53 

R51-53 

R52-53 

R52 

R53 

R59 

0.1 

0.1 

0.1 

1 

1 

1 

0.1 

If no ecotoxic substance is present at a concentration at or above the relevant threshold, 
then the waste is non-hazardous by HP 14. Otherwise, additivity rules must be applied to 
the  ecotoxic  substances  having  concentrations  above  thresholds  (Step  4).  These  rules 
differ depending on the Member States (Table 10). 

50 

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

 
 
 
 
Table 10: Conditions rendering the waste hazardous by HP 14 during Step 4, per Member 
State adapting the DPD for HP 14 assessment 

Member State(s) 

Conditions 

Finland and UK  

Belgium 

Germany39 

∑ (

PR50-53
0.25

+

PR51-53
2.5

+

PR52-53
25

) ≥ 1 

Or 

∑(PR50+PR50-53) ≥ 25 

Or 

∑ PR52 ≥ 25 

Or 

∑ (PR53+PR50-53+PR51-53+PR52-53) ≥ 25 

∑(PR50-53) ≥ 2.5 

Or 

∑(PR51-53) ≥ 25 

Or 

∑(PR50) ≥ 25 

Or 

∑(PR59) ≥ 0.1 

∑(PR50-53) ≥ 0.25 

Or 

∑(PR51-53) ≥ 2.5 

Or 

∑(PR52-53) ≥ 25 

Or 

∑(PR59) ≥ 0.1 

Where PRX is the total concentration of substances classified as RX, expressed in w/w %. 

The  British  approach  adds  one  step  to  the  process  (Step  2’),  which  considers  specific 
concentration  limits  reported  in  Table  3.2  of  the  CLP  regulation.  In  the  UK,  where  an 
individual dangerous substance has been assigned a substance specific concentration limit 
for  any  ecotoxic  R-phrase,  which  is  lower  than  the  generic  limit  (see  Table  8),  then  the 
lowest substance specific threshold must be considered for attribution of HP 14. 

39 As implemented in Baden-Württemberg. Other Länder may have different methods. 

51 

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

 
 
 
 
                                                      
3.3.2.2.  Approaches based on the ADR 

The ADR is applied differently  by the two Member States (Italy and  Austria) taking it as 
reference. 

Austria 

Ecotoxic classification of waste is performed with reference to the ADR for aquatoxicity and 
on the content of some hydrocarbons and halons for ozone depletion. A waste is classified 
as hazardous by HP 14 if: 

  The waste in an environmental hazardous material according to Class 9, M6 

and M7 of the ADR; or 

 

It contains CFCs, CFHCs, HCFCs, HFHCs, FHCs, or halons in amount of more 
than 2000 mg/kg dry matter. 

The approach adopted in Austria does not rely on calculations. In the first case, it relies on 
the  conclusions  of  the  assessment  performed  for  ADR  classification  and  in  the  second 
case, a chemical analysis is enough. 

Italy 

HP 14 is attributed to the waste according to the processes of the ADR for Class 9, M6 and 
M7, under Italian law 28/2012. This law adapts to waste classification the procedures for 
the classification of mixtures. It calls for HP 14 to be attributed by applying “conventional” 
ADR calculation methods, which are coherent with the limit values laid out in the CLP & 
the DPD.  

The process for assessing HP 14 in Italy is described in the decision tree below (Figure 5), 
which follows a similar procedure as done in DPD-based approach (see Figure 4). 

52 

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

 
 
 
 
Figure 5: Decision tree for the assessment of HP 14 in Italy 

Substances considered in the Italian assessment are those classified as Acute 1, Chronic 
1 and Chronic 2 according to the GHS (Table 11). 

Table 11: Hazard classes considered in the Italian HP 14 assessment 

Hazard category 

DSD phrase 

CLP phrase 

Acute 1 

Chronic 1 

Chronic 2 

R50 

R50-53 

R51-53 

H400 

H410 

H411 

The Chronic 3 & 4 categories are not taken into account, as they are not considered in the 
ADR. Therefore, ADR-based approaches encompass a narrower range of toxic properties 
than DPD-based approaches.  

In addition to classified substances, the Italian ISS (Higher Institute of Health) identified 
four  groups  of  hydrocarbons  (listed  in  Table  12)  which  are  to  be  considered  just  like 
substances, that is to say, like individual components that participate in the calculation in a 
cumulative way with the other ecotoxic substances present. 

53 

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

Is the waste ecotoxic according to additivity rule 2 regarding R50-53 (H410)? Doesthe wastecontainecotoxicsubstances assigned R50 (H400), R50-53 (H410), or R51-53 (H411)? Does the waste contain two or more ecotoxicsubstances above the concentration thresholds? Is the waste ecotoxic according to additivity rule 1 regarding R50 (H400)? Hazardous by HP 14Not hazardous by HP 14NoYesYesNoIn green: Concentrations and equations detailed below the diagramStep 1Step 4Step 3NoIs the waste ecotoxic according to the additivity rule 3 regarding R50-53 (H410) and R52-53 (H411)? NoStep 2Step 5YesYesYesNo 
 
 
 
 
Table 12: Hydrocarbon fractions to be considered as substances in the assessment of HP 14 

Hydrocarbon fractions 
C5 C8 (sum)  

Aromatic hydrocarbons 

C9 – cumene 

C10 – dipentene, naftalene 

C>10 (C10 – C40) (sum) 

PAH (total sum) 

Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene 
(DBahA) 

Benzo[a]anthracene (BaA) 

R_H phrases 

Notes 

R50/53 
H410 

R51/53 
H411 

R50/53 
H410 

R51/53 
H411 

R50/53 
H410 

R50/53 
H410 

As a fraction: R50/53; if the 
various  hydrocarbons  are 
expressed  singularly, 
the 
specific  CLP  classification 
applies.  

individually 

Defined 
(see 
Specific  Limit  Values  of 
each substance). Naftalene 
can be determined with the 
PAHs.  

Specific limits (SL) apply to 
DBahA and BaA 

Specific limits 

The concentration thresholds above which substances classified as Acute 1, Chronic 1 or 
Chronic 2 must be taken into account for the assessment are presented in Table 13. 

Table 13: Concentration thresholds for ecotoxic substances, according to their 
classification (ADR-based approach) 

Classification of the 
substance (DSD) 

Classification of the 
substance (CLP) 

Concentration, thresholds (w/w %)  

R50 

R50-53 

R51-53 

H400 

H410 

H411 

0.1 

0.1 

1 

The additivity rules are detailed below (Table 14): 

Table 14: Conditions rendering the waste hazardous by HP 14 in Italy 

Name 

Formula 

Additivity rule 1 

∑(PR50 ∗ 𝑀) ≥ 25 or ∑(PH400 ∗ 𝑀) ≥ 25 

Additivity rule 2 

∑(PR50-53 ∗ 𝑀) ≥ 25 or ∑(PH410 ∗ 𝑀) ≥ 25 

Additivity rule 3 

∑ (PR50-53 ∗ 10𝑀+ PR51-53+) ≥ 25 or  
∑ (PH410 ∗ 10𝑀+ PH411+) ≥ 25  

Where PX is the total concentration of substances classified as X, expressed in w/w %. 

The Italian calculation methods include M-factors. 

54 

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

 
 
 
 
 
3.3.2.3.  Approach based on the CLP regulation 

The French approach is based on a proposal that was formulated to the TAC in 2012. The 
French additivity rules consider only the Acute 1, Chronic 1 and Chronic 2 categories (but 
not the categories Chronic 3 and Chronic 4) for assessing HP 14 and include M-factors.  
Table 15: French additivity rules 

∑(PH400 ∗ 𝑀) ≥ 25 

∑ (PH410 ∗ 10𝑀+ PH411+) ≥ 25 

The restricted list of hazard classes compared to DPD-based approaches, as well as the 
inclusion of M-factors and the structure of the formulas, makes the French approach quite 
similar to the Italian one. 

The M-factors used in the calculations are those mentioned in the CLP and additional ones 
are used as required, calculated from EC50s and NOECs. The calculated M-factors are 
not harmonised at EU-level. 

3.3.3.  Approaches using biotests  

Czech Republic, France, Spain and Germany use biotests for the assessment of HP 14; 
the Czech Republic and Spain rely exclusively on them for the assessment, while Germany 
and France use them in a combined approach with chemical analyses.  

Approaches based on biotests involve assays on aquatic  and soil  organisms in order to 
directly evaluate the ecotoxicity of waste. Preparing waste samples is a key step for the 
assessment of ecotoxicity, as test results can be highly variable depending on the protocol. 
All studied Member States follow standardised protocols (Table 16). 

Table 16: Standards for preparing waste samples 

Member State  Standard 

Scope 

Description 

Czech 
Republic 

EN 14735 

raw  wastes 
or 
water 
extracts 

Necessary  steps  to  be  performed 
before carrying out ecotoxicity tests 
on  wastes:  taking  of  the  sample, 
transport, storage of wastes and to 
define preparation. 

France 

EN 12457 - 2  water 

extracts 

Germany  

EN 12457 – 2 

DIN 19528 

water 
extracts 

water 
extracts 

of 

Leaching  -  Compliance  test  for 
leaching 
granular  waste 
materials  and  sludge.  One  stage 
batch test at a liquid to solid ratio of 
10  l/kg  for  materials  with  particle 
size  below  4  mm  (without  or  with 
size reduction) 

See France 

Leaching  of  solid  materials 
- 
Percolation  method  for  the  joint 
examination 
leaching 
behaviour of inorganic and organic 
substances 

the 

of 

Spain 

EN 12457 - 2  water 

See France 

extracts 

55 

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

 
 
 
 
 
While  the  Czech  Republic  has  adopted  a  standard  encompassing  raw  waste  and  water 
extracts,  the  other  Member  States  have  opted  for  a  specific  standard  on  leaching  solid 
materials and sludges. The scope of the latter standard is narrower than the scope of the 
first one. 

Biotests  performed  to  assess  HP 14  aim  at  evaluating  acute  or  chronic  toxicity; 
furthermore, threshold values were established to determine which conditions made waste 
hazardous. The batteries of tests differ among Member States (Table 17).  

Table 17: Batteries of tests used in Member States using biotests to assess HP 14 

Aquatic tests 

Terrestrial tests 

Member State 

Organism 

Standard 

Organism 

Standard 

Czech Republic  Daphnia magna 

ISO 6341 

None 

Sinapis alba 

Desmodesmus 
subspicatus 

Czech 
guidelines 

ISO 8692 

Poecilia reticulata 

ISO 7346-2 

France (initial 
strategy)40 

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) 

Vibrio fischeri 

Pseudokirchneriella 
subcapitata 

ISO 6341 

ISO 11348-3 

NF EN ISO 
8692 

E. fetida 
(avoidance)  

Avena sativa / 
Brassica rapa  

Arthrobacter 
globiformis  

ISO 17512-1 

ISO 11269-2 

ISO/DIS 18187  

Spain 

Vibrio fischeri  
OR41 

ISO 11348 

None 

Daphnia magna  

ISO 6341 

40 According to the FNADE guidance, which is not regulatory-sanctioned  
41 One or the other can be performed. There is no requirement to perform both, so there is not battery in Spain 
per se.  

56 

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Aquatic tests 

Terrestrial tests 

Member State 

Organism 

Standard 

Organism 

Standard 

ISO 6341 

First version 

Germany 

Daphnia magna 
(acute) 

Daphnia magna 
(chronic) 

Vibrio fischeri  

Pseudokirchneriella 
subcapitata / 
Desmodesmus 
subspicatus 

ISO 10706 

ISO 11348-
1/2/3 

NF EN ISO 
8692 

Lemna minor 

ISO 20079 

E. fetida (chronic) 

ISO 12 268-1 

Brassica rapa  

ISO 11269-2 

ISO/DIS 18187  

Arthrobacter 
globiformis  

Second version 

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 and the 
Czech Republic, only aquatic tests are performed. Nevertheless, in the Czech Republic, 
members  of  the  scientific  community  recommend  the  use  of  terrestrial  tests  in  the 
assessment of HP 1442. 

Among all biotests summarised in Table 17, standardised test on Daphnia magna (acute) 
is the  only  test  which  is performed in all Member States. Nevertheless, others tests are 
used by more than two Members States such as: the inhibition of light emission of Vibrio 
fischeri and the algal growth inhibition test. Regarding Daphnia magna, threshold values 
differ among Member States (as shown in Table 18). 

Table 18: Tests on Daphnia magna, as used in Member States relying on biotests for the 
assessment of HP 14 

Standard 

Test duration   Expression of results 

Threshold value 

France 

Spain 

Germany 

Czech 
Republic 

24h or 48h 

ISO 6341 

EC50 

48h 

10% (v/v) 

750 mg/L43 

10% (v/v) 

10mL/L43  (i.e.  1% 
v/v) 

Spain set values in mg/L and the Czech Republic in mL/L, while the other countries prefer 
% (v/v).  

42 D. Sirotková, M. Kulovaná, S. Vosáhlová, J. Hofman, V. Kočí, M. Záleská, Novelization of Czech approaches 
to ecotoxicity evaluation of hazardous wastes 
43 Thresholds set in mg/L and mL/L are inseparable from the waste preparation protocols. They are associated to 
the L/S ratio of the leaching procedure and have only a meaning expressed in terms of the leachate itself 

57 

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
The overall description of strategies using biotests, as well as the focus on the one test the 
studied  countries  have  in  common  (Daphnia  magna),  clearly  show  the  heterogeneity  of 
approaches based on biotests.  

3.3.4.  Combined approaches 

In Germany and France, assessment of HP 14 follows a tiered approach and is dependent 
upon the  type  of information available for the  waste itself and for its components. If the 
composition of the waste sample can be sufficiently known through chemical analysis, then 
classification according to HP 14 is done following the methods described in section 3.3.2 
(see  Figure  3,  Table  10  and  Table  15).  If  the  composition  of  the  waste  is  unknown  or 
complex, biotests are applied. The testing strategy includes a test battery with terrestrial 
and aquatic tests, as described in section 3.3.3 (see Table 17 and Table 18). 

Germany  and  France  adopted  different  strategies  for  assessing  HP 14  with  chemical 
analysis. Germany follows the DPD, while France developed methods consistent with the 
CLP regulation. The methods are reported in Table 19.  

Table 19: Comparison between France and Germany regarding calculation methods 

France 

Germany39 

∑(PH400 ∗ 𝑴) ≥ 25 

∑(PR50-53) ≥ 0.25 

∑ (P𝐇𝟒𝟏𝟎 ∗ 𝟏𝟎𝑴+ PH411+) ≥ 25 

Or 

∑(PR51-53) ≥ 2.5 

Or 

∑(PR52-53) ≥ 25 

Or 

∑(PR59) ≥ 0.1 

Where PRX is the total concentration of substances classified as RX, expressed in w/w %. 

However, the German and French batteries of biotests are very similar (Table 20).  

Table 20: Batteries of tests used in Germany and Italy 

Aquatic tests 

Terrestrial tests 

Member State 

Organism 

Standard 

Organism 

Standard 

France (initial 
strategy)44 

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 

44 According to the FNADE guidance, which is not regulatory-sanctioned  

58 

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Aquatic tests 

Terrestrial tests 

Member State 

Organism 

Standard 

Organism 

Standard 

France (hybrid 
strategy 
combining 
initial strategy 
and German 
strategy) 

Daphnia magna 
(acute) 

Vibrio fischeri 

Pseudokirchneriella 
subcapitata 

ISO 6341 

ISO 11348-3 

NF EN ISO 
8692 

E. fetida 
(avoidance)  

Avena sativa / 
Brassica rapa  

Arthrobacter 
globiformis  

ISO 17512-1 

ISO 11269-2 

ISO/DIS 18187  

ISO 6341 

First version 

Germany 

Daphnia magna 
(acute) 

Daphnia magna 
(chronic) 

Vibrio fischeri  

Pseudokirchneriella 
subcapitata / 
Desmodesmus 
subspicatus 

ISO 10706 

ISO 11348-
1/2/3 

NF EN ISO 
8692 

Lemna minor 

ISO 20079 

E. fetida (chronic) 

ISO 12 268-1 

Brassica rapa  

ISO 11269-2 

ISO/DIS 18187  

Arthrobacter 
globiformis  

Second version 

E. fetida (chronic) 

ISO 12 268-1 

Brassica rapa  

ISO 11269-2 

Arthrobacter 
globiformis  

ISO/DIS 18187 

Folsomia candida 
(chronic) 

ISO 11267 

3.4.  Costs associated with implementing HP 14 approaches 

Costs associated with chemical analyses and biotests vary depending on the country and 
the amount of tests necessary to reach a conclusion regarding the hazardous nature (due 
to HP 14) of the waste. Thus, costs related to chemical analyses range from 100 € to 2,000 
€ per sample and costs related to biotests range from 400 € to 5,000 €.  

Strategies using only chemical analyses are globally less expensive than those using only 
biotests. Ranges per country are shown in Figure 6. 

59 

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6: Ranges of costs in Member States for which the information is available 

France is the Member State in which assessing HP 14 is the most expensive if the whole 
test battery is performed, followed by Belgium (Flanders) where chemical analyses using 
AFNOR XP X30-489 are 1,900 € per sample. The Member States where assessing HP 14 
is the least expensive are Austria and the UK. In Austria, no specific costs are associated 
with assessing HP 14 because it relies on conclusions from assessments conducted for 
transportation of waste (and on identification of ozone depleting substances in the waste). 

3.5.  Advantages and limits of the approaches 

3.5.1.  Approaches based on chemical analysis 

Approaches based on chemical analyses are easy and satisfactory for well-defined waste 
samples.  In  particular,  strategies  based  on  the  DPD  are  clear  and  align  directly  with 
chemical risk phrase classification systems. Non-inclusion of M-factors makes it possible 
to apply concentration  threshold cut-off values of 0.1% and 1% and thus  exclude minor 
concentrations  of  substances  from  the  assessment:  if  M-factors  are  applied,  thresholds 
would be of 0.1%/M or 1%/M and would be exceeded by a lot of substances, then raising 
concerns  that  it  might  be  impossible  to  prove  that  a  waste  is  not  ecotoxic  using  this 
approach. The Austrian strategy, partly based on classification according to the ADR, is 
easier  to  apply  than  DPD-based  approaches  and  costs  less  because  it  relies  on 
conclusions  from  assessments  conducted  for  transportation  of  waste.  Among  Member 
States which base their approaches on chemical analysis only, the British strategy is the 
most  complete.  It  extends  concentration  limits  to  specific  values  reported  in  the  CLP 
regulation,  thus  including  more  recent  legislation  and  providing  a  more  finely  tuned 
approach  to  waste  classification  with  chemical  analysis.  An  additional  advantage  of 
approaches based on chemical analysis is their lower cost compared to approaches based 
on biotests, which may involve batteries with several tests. 

Limited information and uncertainties regarding the composition of waste is the main limit 
of approaches based on chemical analysis. Methodologies provided in the DPD and the 
CLP  are  meant  for  mixtures  with  known  composition  and  their  applicability  for  the 
assessment of waste, which generally requires the assessment of a mixture with partially 
unknown  composition  (to  variable  extents),  is  therefore  limited.  In  particular,  the 
heterogeneity  of  waste  samples,  with  high  content  of  anions,  alkaline  earth  metals  and 
silica, can make determination of composition difficult. Furthermore, there are only a few 
suitable  methods  to  identify  many  organic  substances  in  waste  (which  are  not  widely 
applied); as a result, approaches based on chemical analysis often do not take into account 

60 

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

Range of costs (€) –BiotestsNot included in the sample, or no information100 –500 Range of costs (€) –Chemical analyses500 –1,000 1,000 –3,000 3,000 –5,000 100 –500 500 –1,000 1,000 –3,000 3,000 –5,000  
 
 
 
 
the organic share of waste (as organic substances are not identified), thus underestimating 
the share of potentially ecotoxic organic components. Additionally, the application of worst-
case  scenarios  when  the  composition  of  waste  is  not  sufficiently  known  can  lead  to  an 
overestimation of the waste hazard. Thus, assessments using chemical analyses may not 
reflect the actual ecotoxicity of waste. 

3.5.2.  Approaches based on biotests 

Biotests are used to directly measure the effects of the bioavailable constituents, including 
their  potential  interactions  (additive,  synergistic  and  antagonistic),  and  are  useful  in 
assessing  very  complex  matrices,  having  many  constituents,  which  are  very  difficult  or 
impossible to be determined by chemical analysis. Furthermore, aquatic ecotoxicity tests 
are known to be sensitive to many water soluble substances, thus being relevant to the 
assessment of wastes and addressing the main limitation of ecotoxicity assessment with 
chemical analysis, i.e. uncertainties regarding the composition of waste.  

The lack of legally-fixed and harmonised threshold values is perhaps the main drawback 
and  barrier  to  assessing  HP 14  using  biotests.  There  is  a  need  to  collect  sufficient 
experimental  data  to  conclude  definitely  on  the  suitability  of  the  different  proposed 
threshold  values 
to  discriminate  between  “ecotoxic”  and  non-classified  wastes. 
Furthermore,  threshold  values  set  in  mg/L  or  mL/L  can  lead  to  confusion  in  the 
interpretation, as it can be unclear whether concentrations are expressed in terms of the 
amount of residue of departure or in terms of the leachate (an order of magnitude difference 
between  the  two  interpretations  [x  10]).  Finland,  which  allows  biotests  as  a  means  for 
assessing HP  14  if information  on the chemical composition of the  waste  is insufficient, 
highlights that they are not applied in practice because no threshold values have been set. 
In  the  UK,  the  scope  for  assessing  waste  with  biotests  is  also  very  limited,  for  another 
reason: UK holds the view that animal testing of solid wastes is of little or no scientific value 
and raises ethical concerns. Those concerns are also stressed by Italy as a limit to biotests. 
Nevertheless, it should be highlighted that test species are not in the scope of the Directive 
2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes45, with the exception 
of fish (Poecilia reticulata, used in Czech Republic). 

Another limit exists when the battery of biotests only includes aquatic tests (Spain and the 
Czech  Republic):  toxicity  on  soil  ecosystems  is  not  evaluated  when  assessing  HP 1446. 
There is a number of reasons legitimating the use of terrestrial tests42, the main one being 
that  using  only  aquatic  tests  means  that  toxic  effects  of  substances  (poorly  or  totally) 
insoluble in water might be underestimated.  

One last limit is the high cost of the most complete test batteries: for instance, costs are of 
3,000  –  5,000  €  in  France.  However,  it  should  be  stressed  that  these  costs  could  be 
significantly reduced by performing limit tests at the threshold concentration. 

3.5.3.  Combined approaches 

Combined  approaches  address  some  limitations  of  the  two  individual  approaches 
(chemical analysis and biotests) and have a good complementarity. When determining the 
composition  of  the  waste  is  possible,  conclusions  on  ecotoxicity  can  be  drawn  from 
chemical analysis, so that testing on biological organisms is not necessary. If the waste 
sample is too complex, or the preliminary process related information is not available, for 
its  relevant  constituents´composition  to  be  well-defined  ,  the  use  of  biotests  can 
nevertheless allow the assessment of its ecotoxicity. Furthermore, combined approaches 
have recently been investigated by researchers as a promising alternative to the status quo 
(i.e. no official requirement or guidance) regarding the assessment of HP 14 in the EU47. 

45 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32010L0063&from=EN 
46 This is also the case for chemical approaches 
47  Pascal Pandard  and  Jörg  Römbke  (2013)  Proposal  for  a  “Harmonized”  Strategy  for the  Assessment  of the 
HP 14 Property, Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management — Volume 9, Number 4—pp. 665–672 

61 

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

 
 
 
 
                                                      
However,  as  indicated  above,  some  disadvantages  remain.  There  are  no  harmonised 
threshold  or  limit  values  to  define  the  border  between  an  “ecotoxic”  and  a  non-ecotoxic 
waste (for the purposes of classification) and there is no agreement on the minimum test 
battery,  as  shown  in  Table  19  and  Table  20  in  section  3.3.4.  Furthermore,  it  has  been 
noticed that the results of the two approaches (chemical analysis and biotests) are often 
different  (mainly  because  they  do  not  apply  on  the  same  fraction  of  waste,  i.e.  biotests 
apply on the whole sample whereas chemical analyses account for only the analysed mass 
fraction of the sample, which is usually less than 15% of the sample weight) and therefore 
can lead to different classification of the waste. 

62 

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
4.  Results: selection of waste 
codes for the assessment 

4.1.  Scores obtained for the selection criteria 

4.1.1.  SC1: Preference of experts 

Experts mainly supported the selection of construction and demolition waste, in particular 
soil,  stones  and  dredging  spoils  as  well  as  bituminous  mixtures,  coal  tar  and  tarred 
products. Wastes from incineration and pyrolysis of waste were also favoured. 

Figure 7: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports results for SC1 

4.1.2.  SC2: Availability and quality of data 

The  types  of  waste  for  which  the  most  data  on  ecotoxicity  is  available  are  soil  from 
construction  &  demolition  waste  and  ashes  from  incineration  of  waste.  Furthermore, 
collected literature was mainly related to biotests and few occurrences of work on chemical 
analysis were found. 

Figure 8 below shows an example of how information is reported. 

63 

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

Waste codeWaste descriptionNumber of experts who expressed their preferenceMember State(s)Score17 05 03* soil and stones containing hazardous substances 6AT, UK, IT, DE, ES, BE317 05 04 soil and stones other than those mentioned in 17 05 03 6AT, UK, IT, DE, ES, BE317 01 06* mixtures of, or separate fractions of concrete, bricks, tiles and ceramics containing hazardous substances 5AT, FI, UK, DE, BE217 01 07 mixtures of concrete, bricks, tiles and ceramics other than those mentioned in 17 01 06 5AT, FI, UK, DE, BE217 05 05* dredging spoil containing hazardous substances 4AT, UK, DE, BE217 05 06 dredging spoil other than those mentioned in 17 05 05 4AT, UK, DE, BE219 01 11* bottom ash and slag containing hazardous substances 4FI, UK, IT, BE219 01 12 bottom ash and slag other than those mentioned in 19 01 11 4FI, UK, IT, BE219 01 13* fly ash containing hazardous substances 4FI, UK, IT, BE219 01 14 fly ash other than those mentioned in 19 01 13 4FI, UK, IT, BE2 
 
 
 
 
Figure 8: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports results for SC2 

4.1.3.  SC3: Quantity of produced waste 

Data  was  collected  for  Germany,  UK,  Italy,  Austria,  the  Belgian  region  Flanders,  the 
Spanish  region  Catalonia  and  Finland.  It  was  not  possible  to  attribute  French  waste 
quantities  to  waste  codes,  because  available  data  was  reported  according  to  a 
classification which did not allow for an extrapolation of data, as could be done for Italy and 
Poland. Moreover, thanks to a desk study, information on Polish tonnages of waste was 
collected and used in assessing SC3 even if Poland was not initially part of the Member 
States sample. 

The highest tonnages were reached for construction and demolition waste, specifically soil 
and stones as well as concrete and bricks (Table 21). For some Member States, there are 
biases in the determination of the highest tonnages, for instance when data could only be 
collected for a specific region or only for some types of waste. 

64 

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

Waste codeWaste descriptionWaste codeWaste descriptionDataSource QualityDataSource Quality[10]AVAILABLE IN [10][10]water extract = according to CEN standardstest = according to ISO and AFNOR standards[3] [2] High quality: repeatability and reproducibility assessed under ISO standard5725‐1AVAILABLE IN [2][2] all procedures according to ISO standards[12]ISO and ASTM procedure when possible; otherwise protocols tested in previous publicationsAVAILABLE IN [12][12]leaching protocol established in the Spanish legislation (MOPU, 1989).Results of ecotoxicological testsProtocols of sampling, preparation of samples, analyses and testEC50(Eisenia fetida)EC50(lactuca)EC50(vibrio fisheri)EC50(daphnia)EC50(ceriodaphnia)EC50(peudokirchneriella)EC50(Brassica)EC50(enchytraeus)EC50(arthrobacter)EC50(lemna minor)EC50(pseudomonas putida)EC50(salmonella)EC50(brachionus)03 01 04*03 01 05  sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood, particle board and veneer containing hazardous substances sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood, particle board and veneer other than those mentioned in 03 01 04  
 
 
 
 
Member State 

Reporting year 

LoW entry with highest tonnage 

Amount (t) 

Potential bias 

Table 21: Most produced waste types in the studied Member States 

Germany 

2011 

UK 

2012 

Spain (Catalonia) 

2013 

Italy 

2013 

Poland 

2005 

Finland 

2012 

17 05 04 
soil and stones other than those mentioned in 
17 05 03 

106,015,300 

- 

17 05 03* 
soil and stones containing hazardous 
substances 

17 01 07 
mixtures of concrete, bricks, tiles and ceramics 
other than those mentioned in 17 01 06 

17 01 07  
mixtures of concrete, bricks, tiles and ceramics 
other than those mentioned in 17 01 06 

03 01 05 
sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood, particle 
board and veneer other than those mentioned 
in 03 01 04 

284,915  

Only data for hazardous entries was reported 

47,806 t 

Data for industrial waste only 

Data for a region and not the whole Member State 

2,346,782 t 

Extrapolation based on data not reported by waste 
code 

1,215,150 t 

Extrapolation based on data not reported by waste 
code 

Not recent data 

06 05 03 
sludges from on-site effluent treatment other 
than those mentioned in 06 05 02 

153,959 t 

Only data for operations that are licensed by state 
authorities.  Hence  data  is  not  available  by  waste 
code on wastes that are produced by facilities that 
are authorized and supervised by municipalities. 

65 

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

 
 
 
 
Member State 

Reporting year 

LoW entry with highest tonnage 

Amount (t) 

Potential bias 

Belgium 
(Flanders) 

2012 

17 05 04  
soil and stones other than those mentioned in 
17 05 03 

960,826 t 

Data per waste code of selected companies: every 
two  years,  OVAM  selects  about  8000  companies 
(statistically relevant selection per economic sector 
and  dimension)  who  are  obliged  to  report  the 
amount and type of waste produced. 

Data for a region and not the whole Member State 

Austria 

2009 

17 05 04  
soil and stones other than those mentioned in 
17 05 03 

23,500,000 t 

- 

66 

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

 
 
 
 
The biases highlighted in Table 21 were taken into account when scoring: this is explained 
in section 2.2.2.3, Table 4. 

Figure 9 below shows an example of how information is reported in the Excel file: 

Figure 9: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports results for SC3 (the percentage of 
waste is indicated as compared to total waste produced in the Member State) 

4.1.4.  SC4: Economic importance 

Waste types identified as the most economically important with the methodology presented 
in section 2.2.2.4 (taking into account volumes of transboundary shipments, inputs of the 
Competent Authorities regarding high generated volumes, percentage of waste-to-energy 
recovery, percentage of waste-to-material recovery). are soil and stones from construction 
or demolition activities, as well as solid waste resulting from the iron and steel industry, and 
fly ashes from incineration or pyrolysis of waste. 

Figure 10 below shows an example of how information is reported in the Excel file: 

Figure 10: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports results for SC4 

4.1.5.  SC5: Potential presence of hazardous substances 

Appendix B “Wastes and Potential Hazards for Absolute and Mirror Entries in the European 
Waste Catalogue” of the UK EA report “Hazardous Waste: Interpretation of the definition 

67 

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

Waste codeWaste descriptionQuantity (t) or qualitative indicationPercentage of wasteSourceScore04 02 19* sludges from on-site effluent treatment containing hazardous substances 04 02 20 sludges from on-site effluent treatment other than those mentioned in 04 02 19 104,800,000584007[34)206 03 15* metallic oxides containing heavy metals 06 03 16 metallic oxides other than those mentioned in 06 03 15 06 05 02* sludges from on-site effluent treatment containing hazardous substances 990,590,005520145[34)206 05 03 sludges from on-site effluent treatment other than those mentioned in 06 05 02 153958,600,85794706[34)307 01 11* sludges from on-site effluent treatment containing hazardous substances 20,640,000115018[34)107 01 12 sludges from on-site effluent treatment other than those mentioned in 07 01 11 158,300,00088214[34)2Tonnage in FinlandWaste codeWaste descriptionInfoSourceScore19 01 11* bottom ash and slag containing hazardous substances Economically important in ITQ-IT119 01 12 bottom ash and slag other than those mentioned in 19 01 11 Economically important in ITQ-IT110 02 07* solid wastes from gas treatment containing hazardous substances Second most exported hazardous waste in the EU (282 098 tonnes) [9] p.19317 05 03* soil and stones containing hazardous substances First most exported hazardous waste in the EU (686 640 tonnes)Economically important in IT[9] p.19Q-IT319 01 13* fly ash containing hazardous substances Fifth most exported hazardous waste in the EU (207 736 tonnes)Economically important in IT[9] p.19Q-IT303 01 04* sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood, particle board and veneer containing hazardous substances n/a 
 
 
 
 
 
and classification of hazardous waste” (2nd edition v2.1)48 and Finnish inputs gave insight 
into the dangerous substances that may be associated with a particular hazardous waste 
entry.  The  Austrian  Competent  Authority  provided,  per  hazardous  waste  code,  a  list  of 
possible  pollutants  which  could  trigger  the  criterion  HP 14.  The  Austrian  inputs  allowed 
having a more detailed knowledge of potential pollutants.  

through 

The  EC50  and  NOEC  values  of  these  individual  hazardous  substances  (or  categories), 
portals 
retrieved 
(http://www.ineris.fr/substances/fr/homepage/search 
and 
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/quick_query.htm) are reported in the sheet “Hazard of various 
substances”.  

INERIS 

EPA 

US 

the 

or 

Figure 11: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports EC50 values of potentially ecotoxic 
substances49 

For the waste codes for which the potential presence of pesticides was reported,  as the 
specific active ingredients were not specified,  the level of hazard of the most dangerous 
pesticides for the environment was searched (see section 2.2.2.5). The results of the step-
by-step process are described below: 

Step 1: Selection of pesticides having at least two "1" in Group 3 "Environmental toxicity" 
(except bees) of the PAN International List of Highly Hazardous Pesticides - June 201450  

Amisulbrom  

Azocyclotin  

Bromethalin 

DDT 

Dimoxystrobin  

Pirimicarb  

Propargite  

Etofenprox; Ethofenprox  

Prothiofos 

Bromoxynil heptanoate  

Fenbutatin-oxide 

Bromoxynil octanoate 

Fluazolate  

Cadusafos  

Flufenoxuron  

Chlorantraniliprole 

Flumetralin  

Pyridalyl * 

Quinoxyfen 

Tebupirimifos 

Tolfenpyrad  

48  UK  Environment  Agency  (2006)  Appendix  B  of  Hazardous  Waste:  Interpretation  of  the  definition  and 
classification 
v2.1) 
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/staffnet/documents/WM2_appB_2006.pdf  
49 The values reported in the table were obtained testing soluble compounds of these elements. They may not 
reflect the true toxicity of the waste, as availability and solubility of these compounds can depend on the waste. 
50 http://www.panna.org/sites/default/files/PAN_HHP_List_2014.pdf 

hazardous 

edition 

waste 

(2nd 

of 

68 

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

MetalsElementEC50min (mg/L)SourceHg0,0007INERISCd0,0034INERISCu0,011INERISAs0,011INERISPb0,026INERISCr(VI)0,03INERISZn0,032INERISNi0,06INERISTi0,01INERISU0,04INERISBe0,1INERISSb1,77INERISBa14,5INERISMo29INERISPbO20,01INERIS 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Chlorfluazuron  

Halfenprox 

Tri-allate 

Copper (II) hydroxide 

Isopyrazam 

Cyhexatin 

Lufenuron* 

Step 2: Selecting only pesticides authorised in the EU51 (this is a simplification: waste can 
arise from uses in a time when a lot more pesticides were authorised): 

Amisulbrom  

Dimoxystrobin  

Pirimicarb  

Bromoxynil heptanoate  

Etofenprox; Ethofenprox  

Pyridalyl  

Bromoxynil octanoate  

Isopyrazam 

Chlorantraniliprole 

Lufenuron 

Quinoxyfen 

Tri-allate 

Copper (II) hydroxide 

Step  3:  Reporting  EC50  values,  for  selected  pesticides  for  which  such  information  is 
available.  

The values are presented in sheet “Hazard of various substances”, tables under the name 
“pesticides” (Figure 12). 

Figure 12: EC50 of some of the most hazardous pesticides authorised in the EU 

The most hazardous pesticides have EC50 and NOEC of 10-4 / 10-3 mg/L, which is why 
wastes containing pesticides were given a score of 3 (following a worst-case approach). 

Figure 13 shows an example of information on the presence of hazardous substances: 

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

69 

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

SubstanceEC50min (mg/L)SourceBromoxynil heptanoate 0,031USEPABromoxynil octanoate 0,0042USEPAChlorantraniliprole0,0071USEPAEtofenprox0,00012USEPAPirimicarb0,0065USEPAPyridalyl0,0042USEPAQuinoxyfen0,028INERISTri-allate0,0062USEPA 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 13: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports results for SC5 

4.1.6.  SC6: Criticality of waste classification 

The  VITO  study  allowed  to  have  information  on  the  criticality  of  11  waste  codes.  The 
Italian52, Finnish53 and Austrian54 representatives gave inputs on 2, 4 and 64 waste codes 
respectively. 

Examples of information on criticality are shown in Figure 14 below. 

Figure 14: Extract from the Excel sheet which reports results for SC6 

The most “critical” codes were from chapter 19 (wastes from waste management facilities) 
and chapter 7 (wastes from organic chemical processes). Only one code was attributed 
the score of 0 (no change foreseen): 17 08 02 (“gypsum-based construction materials”). 

52 Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale (ISPRA): Stefania Balzamo, Andrea Paina, Daniela 
Conti, Cristina Martone, Elisa Raso, Andrea Lanz 
53 VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd, Margareta Wahlström 
54 Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management, Sonja Löw 

70 

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

Waste codeWaste descriptionList of potentially hazardous substancesSourceScore03 01 04* sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood, particle board and veneer containing hazardous substances oil, varnishes and gluesPb, As, Cd, Cr, Hg, Cu, Zn, formaldehyde, boric acid, PCP, PCB, PAH (creosotes), oil-borne preservatives; Lindane (γ-HCH); quaternary ammonium compounds, Cu-azoles, fluorides[6]Q-AT304 02 19* sludges from on-site effluent treatment containing hazardous substances Chemical products used during the cloth finishing, dyeing and washing processes:perchloroethylene, acids and alkalis (including metallic complexes), organic solventsHeavy metals (esp. Cr III), azo-dies,  tensides (alcyl aryl sulfonates), hydrocarbons/oils, Naphthalene/chlorophenols, Glutaraldehyde[6]Q-AT206 03 15* metallic oxides containing heavy metals nickel; copper; zinc; arsenic; cadmium; antimony; tellurium; mercury; thorium; lead; Sb, Be or their compounds (e.g. As oxide)[6]Q-AT306 05 02* sludges from on-site effluent treatment containing hazardous substances Heavy metals, Ni, Pb, Cu, Cd, Cr, Zn,  etc., maybe CaOQ-AT3Waste codeWaste descriptionCountries performing calculation methods in which waste streams classified under one code of a mirror entry are likely to shift to being classified under the other codeRationaleSourceScore03 01 04* sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood, particle board and veneer containing hazardous substances n/a03 01 05 sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood, particle board and veneer other than those mentioned in 03 01 04 BE-YesAT-MaybeData collection on waste composition and assessment with calculation methodsPresence of traces of heavy metals especiallyCu-salts - H410, formaldehyde, fluorides Lindane -H410[31]Q-AT304 02 19* sludges from on-site effluent treatment containing hazardous substances n/a04 02 20 sludges from on-site effluent treatment other than those mentioned in 04 02 19 AT-MaybeMaybeGlutaraldehyde -H400 Naphthalene - H410Hydrocarbons - water pollutantQ-AT1,5 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
These  scores  were  attributed  based  on  Member  States’  experts’  opinions  (see  section 
2.2.2.6).  

4.2.  Selected waste codes 

Mirror pairs selected implementing the process described in section 2.2.1 are the following 
14 (see also sheet “Selected pairs”):  

Table 22: Preliminary selected mirror pairs  

03 Wastes from wood processing and the production of panels and furniture, pulp, paper 
and cardboard 

03 01 wastes from wood processing and the production of panels and furniture 

03 01 04*  

03 01 05  

sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood, particle board and veneer 

07 Wastes from organic chemical processes 

07 01 wastes from the manufacture, formulation, supply and use (MFSU) of basic organic 

Chemicals 

07 01 11* 

07 01 12 

sludge from on-site effluent treatment 

08 Wastes from the manufacture, formulation, supply and use (MFSU) of coatings (paints, 

varnishes and vitreous enamels), sealants and printing inks 

08 01 wastes from MFSU and removal of paint and varnish 

08 01 13* 

08 01 14 

sludges from paint or varnish 

10 Wastes from thermal processes 

10 01 wastes from power stations and other combustion plants (except 19) 

10 01 14*  

10 01 15   Bottom ash, slag and boiler dust from co-incineration  

10 01 16*  

10 01 17  

fly ash from co-incineration 

10 02 wastes from the iron and steel industry 

10 02 07*  

10 02 08  

solid wastes from gas treatment 

10 02 13*  

10 02 14  

sludges and filter cakes from gas treatment 

17 Construction and demolition wastes (including excavated soil from contaminated sites) 

17 03 bituminous mixtures, coal tar and tarred products 

17 03 01*  

17 03 02 

bituminous mixtures 

17 05 soil (including excavated soil from contaminated sites), stones and dredging spoil 

17 05 03*  

17 05 04  

soil and stones 

17 05 05*  

17 05 06  

dredging spoil 

19 Wastes from waste management facilities, off-site waste water treatment plants and the 

preparation of water intended for human consumption and water for industrial use 

71 

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

 
 
 
 
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 23 below: 

72 

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

 
 
 
 
Table 23: Wastes suggested by Member States and the corresponding mirror pairs 

Waste stream 

pair, 
Mirror 
identified  by  its 
hazardous entry 

Waste type 

sludges, 

Sewage sludge, non-hazardous 
industrial 
having 
hazardous  mirror  pairs  (e.g. 
sludges  from  textile  industry, 
tanning industry, metal industry 
etc.) 

04 02 19*  

sludges from on-site effluent treatment (leather, fur, textile industries) 

06 05 02* 

07 01 11* 

07 02 11* 

07 03 11* 

07 04 11* 

07 05 11* 

07 06 11* 

07 07 11* 

08 01 13* 

08 01 15* 

08 03 14* 

08 04 11* 

08 04 13* 

10 01 20* 

10 01 22* 

10 02 13* 

sludges from on-site effluent treatment (inorganic chemical process) 

sludges from on-site effluent treatment (organic chemical processes) 

sludges from on-site effluent treatment (organic chemical processes) 

sludges from on-site effluent treatment (organic chemical processes) 

sludges from on-site effluent treatment (organic chemical processes) 

sludges from on-site effluent treatment (organic chemical processes) 

sludges from on-site effluent treatment (organic chemical processes) 

sludges from on-site effluent treatment (organic chemical processes) 

sludges from paint or varnish 

aqueous sludge containing paint or varnish 

ink sludges 

adhesive and sealant sludges 

aqueous sludge containing adhesive and sealant sludges 

sludges from on-site effluent treatment (thermal processes) 

aqueous sludge from boiler cleansing 

sludges and filter cakes from gas treatment (thermal processes, iron & steel) 

73 

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

 
 
 
 
 
Waste stream 

Mirror 
pair, 
identified  by  its 
hazardous entry 

Waste type 

Sewage sludge, non-hazardous 
having 
industrial 
pairs, 
hazardous 
continued 

sludges, 
mirror 

Wastes from gas cleaning (filter 
dusts  from  metal 
industries, 
where there are mirror pairs) 

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* 

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* 

sludges and filter cakes from gas treatment (thermal processes, aluminium) 

sludges and filter cakes from flue-gas treatment (non-ferrous thermal) 

glass-polishing and –grinding sludge 

sludges and filter cakes from gas treatment (glass manufacture) 

sludges and filter cakes (chemical surface treatement) 

sludges from zinc hydrometallurgy 

machining sludges  

sludges from biological treatment of industrial waste water 

sludges from other treatment of industrial waste water 

wastes from gas cleaning (thermal processes) 

flue-gas dust (thermal processes, aluminium) 

flue-gas dust (thermal processes, zinc) 

flue-gas dust (thermal processes, copper) 

flue-gas dust (non-ferrous thermal) 

sludges and filter cakes from flue-gas treatment (non-ferrous thermal) 

flue-gas dust (casting of ferrous pieces) 

flue-gas dust (casting of non-ferrous pieces) 

sludges and filter cakes from flue-gas treatment (glass manufacture) 

74 

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

 
 
 
 
Waste stream 

Mirror 
pair, 
identified  by  its 
hazardous entry 

Waste type 

All  other  batteries  than  those 
already classified as hazardous 
– it is likely that they all will fulfil 
HP14  (they  will  also  fulfil  the 
hazardous property HP15 – new 
definition:  explosive  if  heated 
under confinement) 

16 06 03* 

20 01 33* 

Mercury-containing batteries 

Batteries and accumulators (separately collected fractions) 

Wastes containing zinc oxide 
such as zinc ashes, zinc 
skimmings 

10 05 10* 

10 05 03* 

dross and skimmings (thermal processes, zinc) 

flue-gas dust (thermal processes, zinc) 

Tanning  liquor  not  containing 
chromium  VI  (but  containing 
salts, 
glutaraldehyde, 
chromium III etc.)  

No mirror pair 

-  

containing 

Wastes 
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 
salt 
concentration  if  ph-moderation 
is performed 

effects 

of 

03 01 04* 

10 03 04* 

10 03 29* 

sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood, particle board and veneer 

primary production slags, waste alumina 

wastes from treatment of salt slags and black drosses 

(ferrous metal slags are not described by mirror entries) 

75 

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

 
 
 
 
Waste stream 

Mirror 
pair, 
identified  by  its 
hazardous entry 

Waste type 

(Mineral) 
demolition 
metals,  PAH 
wastes) 

construction 
waste 

and 
(heavy 
in  bituminous 

filter  cake  from  tank  cleaning 
(paint,  food,  textile)  and  gas 
cleaning  

17 03 01* 

17 05 03* 

17 05 05* 

17 05 07* 

17 06 03* 

17 08 01* 

17 09 03* 

10 02 13* 

10 03 25* 

10 08 17* 

10 11 17* 

11 01 09* 

Gas  cleaning,  see 
above 

bituminous mixtures 

soil and stones 

dredging spoil 

track ballast 

insulation materials (other than asbestos) 

gypsum-based construction materials 

other construction materials, not containing mercury or PCBs 

sludges and filter cakes from gas treatment (iron & steel industry) 

sludges and filter cakes from gas treatment (aluminium thermal metallurgy) 

sludges and filter cakes from gas treatment (non-ferrous thermal metallurgy) 

sludges and filter cakes from gas treatment (glass manufacture) 

sludges and filter cakes (chemical surface treatment) 

76 

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

 
 
 
 
 
Waste stream 

Mirror 
pair, 
identified  by  its 
hazardous entry 

Waste type 

sludge  (sewage,  domestic,  Cu, 
Co, food) 

See  above,  and 
additionally: 

Sludges from physico/chemical treatment 

Municipal:  19  02 
05* 

Food:  no  mirror 
entry with sludge 

Refuse derived fuel 

No mirror entry 

shredder 

Car 
fraction)  

(fluff, 

light 

19 10 03* 

fluff-light fraction and dust (from shredding of metal containing wastes) 

Soil  and  residues  from  soil 
cleaning   

fly ash (wood, sludge)   

17 05 03* 

17 05 05* 

17 05 07* 

19 13 01* 

19 13 03* 

19 13 05* 

10 01 16* 

19 01 13* 

soil and stones 

dredging spoil 

track ballast 

solid wastes from soil remediation 

sludges from soil remediation 

sludges from groundwater remediation 

fly ash from co-incineration 

fly ash (from incineration or pyrolysis of waste) 

waste blasting material   

12 01 16* 

waste blasting material 

77 

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
Waste stream 

kettel ashes   

construction  & 
demolition 
waste (asphalt, with and wihout 
tar, 
bitumen, 
minerals)   

concrete, 

Mirror 
pair, 
identified  by  its 
hazardous entry 

Not  found  in  the 
LoW 

See above 

Digestate 

No mirror pairs 

biodegradable (kitchen, garden) 
waste 

No mirror pairs 

sand (from C&D waste) 

No mirror pairs 

Most wastes, having hazardous 
mirror pairs - General toxicity of 
heavy metals :  Hg >  Ag  > Cu  > 
Zn > Ni > Pb > Cd > As > Cr(III) 

Not 
specific 
enough for pairs to 
be attributed 

Waste type 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

78 

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

 
 
 
 
 
Waste stream 

Solvent 

Mirror 
pair, 
identified  by  its 
hazardous entry 

Waste type 

04 01 03* 

04 02 14* 

08 01 11* 

08 01 13* 

08 01 17* 

08 01 19* 

08 04 09* 

08 04 11* 

08 04 13* 

08 04 15* 

degreasing wastes containing solvents without a liguid phase 

wastes from finishing (from the textile industry, potentially containing organic solvents 

waste paint and varnish, potentially containing organic solvents 

sludges from paint and varnish, potentially containing organic solvents 

wastes from paint and varnish removal, potentially containing organic solvents 

aqueous suspensions containing paint or varnish, potentially containing organic solvents 

wastes adhesives and sealants, potentially containing organic solvents 

adhesives and sealant sludges, potentially containing organic solvents 

aqueous sludges containing adhesives and sealants, potentially containing organic solvents 

aqueous liquid waste containing adhesives and sealants, potentially containing organic solvents 

bottom 
incineration, 
production) 

ashes 

(waste 
electricity 

19 01 11* 

bottom ash and slag (from incineration or pyrolysis of waste) 

dredging spoil   

17 05 05* 

dredging spoil 

wood 

19 12 06* 

20 01 37* 

03 01 04* 

wood (from the mechanical treatment of waste) 

wood (separately collected fractions) 

sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood, particle board and veneer 

79 

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

 
 
 
 
Waste stream 

Metal-containing  wastes  such 
as metal treatment sludges and 
incinerator bottom ashes (from 
a variety of incinerators)  

Mirror 
pair, 
identified  by  its 
hazardous entry 

Waste type 

See above 

- 

80 

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

 
 
 
 
The  list  of  Member  States-suggested  mirror  pairs  which  are  in  the  original  list  of  the 
Commission, and different from the 14 pairs selected earlier, are presented in  Table 24. 
The second column shows which pairs belong to the three main categories proposed by 
the Member States: gas cleaning, sludge and C&D waste. 

Table 24: Pre-selected pairs which are in the original list of the Commission, and different 
from the 14 pairs selected earlier 

Mirror pair, 
identified by its 
hazardous 
entry  
04 02 19* 

06 05 02* 

07 02 11* 

07 03 11* 

07 05 11* 

07 06 11* 

08 03 14* 

08 04 11* 

10 01 18* 

10 03 19* 

10 03 25* 

10 03 29* 

10 05 10* 

10 08 15* 

10 08 17* 

10 10 09* 

11 01 09* 

12 01 14* 

12 01 16* 

17 06 03* 

17 08 01* 

19 10 03* 

19 13 01* 

Waste type 

Gas cleaning, 
sludge or C&D 
waste? (x=yes) 

sludges from on-site effluent treatment 
(leather, fur, textile industries) 
sludges from on-site effluent treatment 
(inorganic chemical process) 
sludges from on-site effluent treatment 
(organic chemical processes) 
sludges from on-site effluent treatment 
(organic chemical processes) 
sludges from on-site effluent treatment 
(organic chemical processes) 
sludges from on-site effluent treatment 
(organic chemical processes) 
ink sludges 

adhesive and sealant sludges 

wastes from gas cleaning (thermal processes) 

flue-gas dust (thermal processes, aluminium) 

sludges and filter cakes from gas treatment 
(thermal processes, aluminium) 
wastes from treatment of salt slags and black 
drosses 
dross and skimmings (thermal processes, 
zinc) 
flue-gas dust (non-ferrous thermal) 

sludges and filter cakes from flue-gas 
treatment (non-ferrous thermal) 
flue-gas dust (casting of non-ferrous pieces) 

sludges and filter cakes (chemical surface 
treatement) 
machining sludges 

waste blasting material 

insulation materials (other than asbestos)  

gypsum-based construction materials 

fluff-light fraction and dust (from shredding of 
metal containing wastes) 
solid wastes from soil remediation 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

As described in section 2.2.4, only pairs in which both entries have a score above 1 make 
the final cut (Table 25). 

Table 25: Final selection of Member States-suggested waste streams 

Mirror pair, identified by its 
hazardous entry 
04 02 19* 

Score of 
hazardous entry 
0,97 

06 05 02* 

1,35 

Score of non-
hazardous entry 

Final 
selection 

1,19 

1,30 

X 

81 

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mirror pair, identified by its 
hazardous entry 
07 02 11* 

Score of 
hazardous entry 
0,78 

07 03 11* 

07 05 11* 

07 06 11* 

08 03 14* 

08 04 11* 

10 01 18* 

10 03 19* 

10 03 25* 

10 08 15* 

10 08 17* 

10 10 09* 

11 01 09* 

12 01 14* 

17 06 03* 

17 08 01* 

0,75 

0,87 

0,70 

0,86 

0,73 

0,93 

1,28 

0,74 

0,85 

0,92 

0,78 

1,36 

1,31 

1,31 

0,93 

Score of non-
hazardous entry 

Final 
selection 

1,19 

1,14 

1,23 

1,14 

0,74 

0,74 

0,86 

1,47 

1,03 

0,78 

1,03 

0,70 

1,21 

1,19 

1,25 

0,97 

X 

X 

X 

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): 

Table 26: 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 

82 

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

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 

83 

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

 
 
 
 
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) and entries 
such as 19 08 11*/12 can be very complex to characterise, both chemically and via biotests, 
due to their heterogeneity (and often rather massive form, for C&D waste). High variability 
in any analytical data collected in following work (see sections 5 and 0), is to be expected. 

84 

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

 
 
 
 
5.  Calculation methods: results 
and comparative assessment 

5.1.  Presentation of the calculation methods 

5.1.1.  Introduction to the calculation methods 

four  different  calculation  methods 

The  Commission  proposed 
the 
classification  of  waste,  based  on  the  comparison  of  the  concentration  of  hazardous 
components  with  limit  concentrations.  If  the  concentration  of  the  hazardous  component 
(individually or in summation with other hazardous components) exceeds the concentration 
limit, the waste has to be classified as hazardous for the H14 criterion, if not, there is no 
need for classification. 

to  determine 

According  to  the  CLP  Regulation  and  its  adaptations  to  technical  progress,  the  hazard 
classes/categories  and  hazard  statements  considered  for  HP 14  assessment  are 
presented in Table 27. 

Table 27: Hazard classes and statements considered for HP 14 assessment 

Hazard 

Category 

Hazard statement 

Acute (short-term) 
aquatic hazard 

Acute 
Category 1 

H400: Very toxic to aquatic life 

Chronic (long term) 
aquatic hazard 

Chronic 
Category 1 

H410: Very toxic to aquatic life with 
long lasting effects 

Chronic 
Category 2 

H411: Toxic to aquatic life with long 
lasting effects 

Chronic 
Category 3 

H412: Harmful to aquatic life with 
long lasting effects 

Chronic 
Category 4 

H413: May cause long lasting harmful 
effects to aquatic life 

Hazardous to the 
ozone layer 

Ozone 
Category 1 

H420: Harms public health and the 
environment by destroying ozone in 
the upper atmosphere 

85 

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

 
 
 
 
 
 The  four  different  calculation  methods  identified  in  the  tender  specifications  are 
summarized in the following figure: 

Figure 15: Proposed calculation methods 

5.1.2.  Theoretical consideration of the four calculation methods 

5.1.2.1.  Method 1 

This  calculation  method  is  based  on  Regulation  1272/2008  (CLP)  for  classification  of 
mixture based on summation of classified components. This calculation method allows for 
the consideration of each class/category of hazard previously mentioned.  

The same criteria as those defined in the Regulation 1272/2008 for classification of mixture 
are applied, however, two differences could be observed. Firstly, this method does not take 
into  account  multiplying  factors  (M-factors)  of  highly  toxic  compounds  for  calculation. 
Secondly, no generic cut-off values that defined the relevant components that should be 
taken  into  account  for  the  purpose  of  classification  are  considered  in  this  calculation 
method. Therefore, all components are taken into account for calculation with the method 
1.  

5.1.2.2.  Method 2 

This calculation method is also based on Regulation 1272/2008 for classification of mixture 
based on summation of classified components. The generic cut-off values reported in the 
Regulation 1272/2008 are  applied as  well  as the consideration of  M-factor. The generic 
cut-off values of “0.1/M %” and “1 %” are respectively applied for hazard statements H410 
and H411. However, contrary to Regulation 1272/2008, the chronic hazard category 3 and 
4 are not considered in this calculation method. 

In addition, another calculation rule of Regulation 1272/2008 that uses higher multiplying 
factor for category 1 and 2, and is then more strict, is not applied in method 2. The CLP 
rule not taken into account is the following one: ∑ (M x 100 x c H410) + ∑ (10 x c H411) + 
∑ (c H412) ≥ 25%. 

In the third part of the algorithm of Figure 15, it should be noted that the values “0.1/M %” 
and “1 %” are cut-off values that define the relevant components that should be taken into 
account for the purpose of classification. The other values correspond to the concentration 
limit values which are used for classification. 

86 

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

 
 
 
 
 
With  this  respect,  this  method  is  in  line  with  the  directive  2012/18/EU  (SEVESO  III) 
principles. 

5.1.2.3.  Method 3 

This calculation method is adapted from the old classification system of mixtures: Directive 
1999/45/EC (Dangerous Preparations Directive). This method did not allow the summation 
of  components  classified  for  different  hazard  categories.  This  is  very  different  to  the 
concept of classification criteria of Regulation 1272/2008 based on summation of classified 
components. Moreover, this calculation method does not take into account acute hazard 
category  1,  multiplying  factor  (M-factor)  of  highly  toxic  components  and  generic  cut-off 
values as reported in the Regulation 1272/2008. 

5.1.2.4.  Method 4 

The hazard classes/categories considered in this calculation method are very limited. The 
only hazards considered are the hazard to the ozone layer and the chronic hazard category 
1 and 2. As in methods 1 and 3, this calculation method does not take into account generic 
cut-off  values  reported  in  the  Regulation  1272/2008.  However,  M-factors  are  taken  into 
account for calculation for chronic category 1 compounds. 

5.1.3.  Comparison of concentration limit values of the four 

calculation methods, M-factor and generic cut-off values 
consideration 

As presented above, according to the four calculation methods, different concentration limit 
values are used. The following table shows the comparison of the different concentration 
limit values with the assumption that M-factors are equal to 1. 

Table 28: Comparison of the different concentration limit values (assuming all M-factors are 
equal to 1) 

This table shows that Method 2 and 4 have higher concentration limit values for chronic 1 
and 2 categories (2.5% and 25%) as compared to the others calculation methods. Indeed, 
the concentration limit values associated to chronic 1 and 2 categories are more than 10 
fold higher than for Method 1 and 3. Then, this is an important point that could lead to an 
underestimation of waste classification. On the contrary, the  Method 3 shows the lowest 
concentration limit values for chronic 1 category of 0.1%.  

87 

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

 
 
 
 
 
Based  on  this  observation,  if  M-factor  is  equal  to  1,  Methods  1  and  3  seem  to  be  the 
methods  leading  to  the  most  severe  classification  whereas  Methods  2  and  4  are  less 
conservative. 

5.2. 

 Data collected on the selected waste codes 

5.2.1.  Overview 

Data was collected from 21 documents from survey or provided by Member States and 42 
bibliographic sources identified by the project team. The following countries have provided 
data:  Belgium,  Denmark,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Italy,  Sweden  and  the  United 
Kingdom. The list of all sources identified and the associated mirror pair are presented in 
Annex 5. 

The following table shows the number of samples for each mirror entry and available data 
(characterisation data, biotests, or both of them). 

Table 29: Amount of data collected per mirror pair 

As shown in Table 29, data was available for 15 of the 22 selected mirror pairs. The most 
represented entries are soil and stones (17 05 03* / 17 05 04), bottom ash and slag (19 01 
11* / 19 01 12), fly ash (19 01 13* / 19 01 14) and fluff-light fraction and dust (19 10 03* / 
19 10 04): they represent 83% of available data.  

A total of 169 samples were collected for mirror pairs of interest. Among this data, 29% of 
samples contain both characterisation data and results of biotests; these samples are the 
most  useful  for  comparing  the  four  calculation  methods.  60%  of  samples  contain  only 
characterisation data and 11% only biotest results. For the latter, the calculation methods 
could then not be applied and therefore, these data are not considered in this project.  
Thus, the assessment of H14 by the 4 calculation methods has been carried out on 
149 samples. 

Among sources identified, several data could not be taken into account because the waste 
code was not mentioned. However, in some cases, it has been possible to identify the most 

88 

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
probable  waste  code  according  to  waste  characteristic  and  origin  (these  sources  are 
underlined in yellow in tables given in Annex 5). 

5.2.1.  Chemical analyses 

Chemical  analyses  were  available  for  149  different  samples.  The  characterisation  data 
were obtained for solid matrices, except for some samples for which both solid matrices 
and leachates are considered.  

In  almost  every  case,  characterisation  data  only  report  concentrations  of  inorganic 
compounds, mostly as elements in mg/kg of waste: neither chemical speciation nor specific 
compounds or salts are identified. In most cases, no information on organic compounds 
was available. As a result the mass balance of the sample composition is often incomplete, 
with a significant fraction of the waste not identified. For 80% of the samples, the unknown 
fraction is greater than 85%. 

All these shortcomings could lead to a potential underestimation of the waste classification. 
This will be discussed thereafter in the section dedicated to the limitations. 

It should also be highlighted that current hazard classifications (baseline) for each waste 
sample were not always mentioned in the source of data. This will be discussed thereafter 
and could be a limitation for calculation methods comparison, and also impact assessment. 

The protocols and methods followed for chemical analyses are reported in the Excel file for 
data collection. This information was not always mentioned or only briefly described, which 
did not allow for a consistent comparison. 

5.2.2.  Biotests 

Biotest  results  were  available  for  66  samples.  However,  as  discussed  previously,  only 
samples  which  report  both  characterisation  data  and  biotest  results  can  be  taken  into 
account. A total of 47 samples is therefore considered. 

Ecotoxicological tests are usually performed on a set of selected species and according to 
standardised protocols. The main tests performed on aquatic and terrestrial organisms and 
the protocols associated are indicated in Table 30. 

89 

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

 
 
 
 
Table 30: Biotests used to assess ecotoxicological hazard in the collected samples 

Aquatic tests 

Terrestrial tests 

Organism 

Vibrio fischeri 

(Salmonella 

Umu 
tes 
typhimurium55) 
Pseudokirchneriella 
subcapitata 
subspicatus 
Brachionus calyciflorus 

/  Desmodesmus 

Standard 

Organism 

Standard 

ISO 11348-3 

ISO 13829 

Arthrobacter 
globiformis 
Lactuca 
Brassica rapa 

sativa 

ISO/DIS 18187 

/ 

ISO 11269-2 

ISO 8692 

Sinapis alba 

ISO 11269-1 

NF ISO 20666 

E. fetida (acute) 

ISO 11268-1 

Lemna minor 

ISO 20079 

E. fetida (avoidance) 

ISO 17512-1 

Daphnia magna (acute) 

Daphnia magna (chronic) 

ISO 6341 

ISO 10706 

Ceriodaphnia dubia 

NF ISO 20665 

Poecilia reticulata 

Danio rerio 

ISO 7346-2 

OECD 212 

Some studies also included marine species (i.e. Nitocra spinipes and Vibrio fischeri).  

Some differences in the dataset could be identified especially regarding: 

  The test battery (combination of terrestrial tests and aquatic tests performed 

on waste eluates; aquatic tests only...); 

  The conditions of the leaching test; 

  The pH adjustment, or not, of the eluate when pH is not compatible with the 

survival of the organisms; 

  The exposure duration which induces difficulties in the overall comparison of 
the available data. For example, the results of a Daphnia magna immobilisation 
test after a 24-hour exposure period cannot be readily compared  with those 
obtained after an exposure of 48 hours. 

5.3.  Determination of the classification of waste types according to 

the different methodologies proposed 

5.3.1.  Classification of wastes types according to the calculation 

methods 

For  each  sample,  calculation  results  using  the  four  methods  are  presented  in  a  table 
available  in  Annex  5.  The  table  also  specifies  the  mass  balance,  if  compounds  with  M-
factor are considered for the calculation for Methods 2 and 4, as well as the classification 
identified in the source (current classification, i.e. baseline). For some sources like those 
issued by the United Kingdom or Belgium, the current (baseline) waste classification was 
not  always mentioned. Therefore, these classifications  were calculated according to the 
rules of HP 14 assessment each Member States carries out, as identified in the factsheets. 
Observations and discussions according to these results will be presented in the section 
dedicated to the comparative assessment of the different methodologies (section 5.5). 

55 Assesses the genotoxic potential of an environmental sample. Was considered in the CEN draft (2002) for the 
description of the H14 criterion 

90 

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
5.3.2.  Classification of wastes types based on ecotoxicological data 

As  presented  in  section  5.2.2,  for  almost  50  samples,  both  biotest  results  and 
characterisation  data  are  available,  that  will  allows  comparison  between  these  two 
approaches. A similar methodology (see below) was applied to classify waste according to 
ecotoxicological test results: 

  The threshold values presented in Table 31 were used. These values reﬂect 
unequivocal adverse effects on selected organisms and end-points. They have 
partly  been  established  from  experience  gained  on  wastes  in  France  and 
Germany47; 

  One positive result was considered to be sufficient to classify a waste; and 

  Regarding  the  leaching  tests,  only  results  with  an  L/S  ratio  of  10  were 

considered.  

Table 31: Harmonised approach for hazard assessment with biotests 

Test  

Proposal of 
threshold 
values  

Duration   Standard  

Inhibition of the mobility of Daphnia 
magna (Dap)  

EC50 ≤ 10%  

48 h  

ISO 6341  

Inhibition of the light emission of Vibrio 
fischeri (Luminescent bacteria test) 
(Vib)  
Fresh water algal growth inhibition test 
with unicellular green algae (Alg)  

Solid contact test using the 
dehydrogenase activity of Arthrobacter 
globiformis (Art)  
Effects on the emergence and early 
growth of higher plants (Avena sativa, 
Brassica napus) (Ave, Bra)  
Avoidance test with earthworms  
(Eisenia andrei/fetida) (Ear)  

EC50 ≤ 10%  

30 min  

ISO 11348-3  

EC50 ≤ 10%  

72 h  

ISO 8692  

EC50 ≤ 10%  

2 h  

ISO/DIS 
18187  

EC50 ≤ 10%  

14 d  

ISO 11269-2  

EC50 ≤ 10%  

48 h  

ISO 17512-1  

For each sample, results according to the harmonised approach (Table 31) are presented 
in the table in Annex 5. A waste is considered hazardous if the EC50 of at least one test is 
greater than  or equal  to 10% (see above for details on the choice  of this threshold. For 
some samples, ecotoxicological data is incomplete or ambiguous and does not allow waste 
classification.  These  samples  were  identified  in  the  table  in  Annex  5  with  the  mention 
“further information needed”. The samples for which no data is available  were  identified 
with the mention “No Data (ND)”. 

Observations and discussions on these results are presented in section 5.5. 

5.4.  Limitations 

5.4.1.  Limitations due to characterisation data available 

The  lack  of  availability  of  characterisation  data  from  chemical  analyses  can  lead  to 
underestimation or overestimation of the waste classification: 

As  characterisation  data,  most  of  the  time,  only  reported  concentrations  of  elemental 
compounds  (mainly  metallic  compounds)  and  specific  compounds  or  salts  were  not 
identified, a worst case selection was performed as described previously. This worst case 
selection is based the most severe classification (and on the most relevant compounds). 
Therefore, the worst-case approach can lead to an overestimation of the classification. 

91 

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

 
 
 
 
However, the molar mass of compounds was not considered in the worst-case approach, 
and this could have an impact in the mass concentration percentage used for calculation 
(see section 2.4.2), thus leading to an underestimation of waste classification. 

Moreover,  in  most  cases  no  information  on  organic  compounds  was  available  and  a 
significant fraction of the  waste  was not  identified (for 80% of the sample,  the unknown 
fraction is greater than 85%). This means that hazardous compounds at potentially relevant 
concentrations were left out of calculations. This would lead to an underestimation of the 
waste classification. 

5.4.2.  Limitations of calculation methods 

The applicability of the calculation methods is limited by the  availability of harmonised 
classifications. Regarding the worst case selection, all compounds were associated to a 
harmonised classification. However, other specific compounds that could be analysed in 
the  waste  could  not  have  harmonised  classification  available  and  then  could  lead  to  a 
potential underestimation of the waste classification.  

Another  limitation  is  linked  to  the  availability  of  M-factors.  Only  13%  of  the  1,232 
compounds classified in category 1 for acute and chronic hazard are assigned an M-factor, 
70% of which are pesticides – making their presence in waste unlikely. Therefore, only a 
few relevant substances had available M-factors; thus calculation methods relying on M-
factors (namely methods 2 & 4) were unsuitable for determining HP 14. This point will be 
further  discussed  thereafter  during  the  comparative  assessment  of  the  different 
methodologies.  

The  lack  of  available  M-factors  is  mainly  due  to  the  fact  that  they  were  not  determined 
during the transposition to CLP regulation. Nevertheless, a few M-factors will be updated 
progressively with the publication of new Adaptations to Technical Progress (ATP). In the 
meantime, M-factoran alternative approach proposed by some Member States is to realise 
a self-determination of M-factor from ecotoxicological data. This approach is very complex 
because the selection of M-factor needs an assessment of the quality of the value/study 
and could imply different expert judgments and also a harmonisation among the different 
countries  (which  is  done  in  harmonised  classification).  Moreover,  the  assessment  and 
validation  of  M-factors  is  done  at  European  level.  Therefore,  only  M-factors  identified  in 
harmonised classification are considered. For the worst case compounds identified in the 
table in Annex 5, only two compounds have an M-factor (cobalt oxide and sodium cyanide). 

Lack of information regarding  the current hazard classification (baseline) for each waste 
sample is another limitation. It must be noted that results for different samples originate 
from  multiple  sources,  sometimes  in  different  Member  States,  and  where  the  baseline 
classification may be different as a function of the different national methodologies applied 
to  determine  the  HP 14  classification.  In  almost  35%  of  the  cases,  the  source  did  not 
indicate what the current classifications for the samples were (and a fortiori not for property 
HP 14). This is a limitation for comparing the methods because no baseline is available to 
provide a reference. 

5.4.3.  Limitations related to ecotoxicological data available 

A main limitation on the use of experimental data is the availability of biotest results. Indeed, 
among all samples identified, only 40% of them include ecotoxicological data (29% include 
both  characterisation  and  ecotoxicological  data  and  11%  include  only  ecotoxicological 
data). Therefore, comparing classifications obtained  with calculations  and classifications 
obtained with biotests can only be considered for 29% of samples (47 samples).  

Moreover, comparison of results is further limited by, for some samples: 

 

the  heterogeneity  of  the  test  battery  applied  and  the  protocol  of  eluate 
preparation; and 

92 

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

 
 
 
 
  The incompleteness of some results: for 4 samples, essential parameters like 
the units in which the toxicity values are expressed or exposure duration were 
not reported. 

These samples were therefore not considered for comparing results. The full comparison 
is presented in section 5.5.2. 

It should also be stressed that, although the limit threshold value for waste classification is 
fixed at 10% in the proposed approach described above, there is currently no regulatory 
acceptance  in  this  regard.  This  could  then  be  inducing  a  bias  for  the  comparison  of 
calculation  and  experimental  approaches,  as  presented  in  section  5.5.2.  Indeed,  a 
sensitivity analysis would be necessary to determine how the concordance (or lack thereof) 
between  calculations  and  ecotoxicological  results,  shown  in  section  5.5.2,  would  be 
impacted by different thresholds.  

5.5.  Comparative assessment of the different methodologies 

5.5.1.  Comparison of the four calculation methods 

The different calculation methods are based on harmonised classification and worst case 
selection as discussed above. However, calculation Methods 2 and 4, which consider M-
factors, seems to be inadequate for waste classification: 

  As presented in section 5.1.3, Methods 2 and 4 have higher concentration limit 
values if M-factor is equal to 1 (which is the default value of M-factors when 
they are not available), thus leading to an unforeseen underestimation of waste 
ecotoxicity,  compared  to  what  it  would  have  been,  if  the  method  could  be 
applied properly; 

  These two methods do not take into account chronic 3 and 4 compounds. 

The comparison of each calculation methods with the current hazard classification for each 
waste sample identified in the different sources is presented in the following tables (Table 
32, Table 33 and Table 34). For each mirror entry and calculation method, the percentage 
of  samples  having  the  same  classification  as  the  baseline  is  reported,  as  well  as  the 
number of sources for which the current (baseline) hazard classification is available. The 
percentage  represent  the  concordance  of  results  with  current  classifications.  This  is  an 
important  element  to  take  into  account  when  considering  new  classification  methods; 
nevertheless it should be kept in mind that a change in classification can be necessary if 
new scientific evidence suggests so.  

The values highlighted in green represent, for each mirror entry, methods that lead to a 
good prediction (percentage upper than 90%) of waste classification as compared to the 
current  classification.  The  methods  that  induce  a  percentage  lower  than  50%  are 
highlighted in red. 

93 

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

 
 
 
 
Table 32: Concordance of results with current classifications 

Table 33: False positives defined by taking the baseline classification as a reference, i.e. 
non-hazardous according to the baseline, assessed as hazardous by the calculation method 

94 

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

Concordance for Method 1Concordance for Method 2Concordance for Method 3Concordance for Method 4Baseline available (number of sources)06 05 02* / 06 05 030.0%0.0%100.0%0.0%1/108 01 13* / 08 01 14100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%2/410 03 19* / 10 03 200/211 01 09* / 11 01 1075.0%100.0%50.0%100.0%4/512 01 14* / 12 01 15100.0%50.0%100.0%50.0%2/215 01 10* / 15 01 01 / 15 01 02100.0%33.3%100.0%33.3%3/317 05 03* / 17 05 0492.3%61.5%69.2%69.2%13/2119 01 11* / 19 01 1296.7%23.3%93.3%23.3%30/5719 01 13* / 19 01 1471.0%32.3%71.0%32.3%31/3219 08 11* / 19 08 120/319 08 13* / 19 08 140.0%0.0%100.0%0.0%1/319 10 03* / 19 10 0490.9%81.8%90.9%81.8%11/1119 12 11* / 19 12 120/5False positive for Method 1False positive for Method 2False positive for Method 3False positive for Method 4Baseline available (number of sources)06 05 02* / 06 05 030.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%1/108 01 13* / 08 01 140.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%2/410 03 19* / 10 03 200/211 01 09* / 11 01 1025.0%0.0%50.0%0.0%4/512 01 14* / 12 01 150.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%2/215 01 10* / 15 01 01 / 15 01 020.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%3/317 05 03* / 17 05 040.0%0.0%30.8%0.0%13/2219 01 11* / 19 01 123.3%0.0%6.7%0.0%30/5719 01 13* / 19 01 1429.0%0.0%29.0%0.0%31/3219 08 11* / 19 08 1219 08 13* / 19 08 140.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%1/319 10 03* / 19 10 049.1%0.0%9.1%9.1%11/1119 12 11* / 19 12 120/5 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 34: False negatives defined by taking the baseline classification as a reference, i.e. 
hazardous according to the baseline, assessed as non-hazardous by the calculation method 

As shown in these tables, no current classification was mentioned in the source of samples 
concerning  the  following  mirror  entries:  flue-gas  dust  (10  03  19*  /  10  03  20),  sludges 
containing dangerous substances from biological treatment of industrial waste water (19 
08  11*  /  19  08  12)  and  other  wastes  (including  mixtures  of  materials)  from  mechanical 
treatment of waste (19 12 11* / 19 12 12). However, the impact on results remained limited 
because  the  number  of  sources  for  these  mirror  entries  was  very  limited.  The  most 
represented are fly ash (19 01 13* / 19 01 14), bottom ash and slag (19 01 11* / 19 01 12) 
and soil and stones (17 05 03* / 17 05 04). 

Samples for which the current classification was available56 are mainly from Member States 
implementing chemical approaches based on the DPD (Figure 16). This means that we 
are  mainly  comparing  the  results  of  the  proposed  methods  with  results  of  DPD-
based  methods.  As  shown  in  section  3.3.2.1,  DPD-based  approaches  involve  different 
additivity  rules  depending  on  the  Member  States  and  are  therefore  not  identical  among 
Member States. Therefore, the proposed methods are not being compared to one single 
approach, but to a variety of approaches implemented in five different Member States.  

56 Or could be calculated on the basis of the approaches applied in the Member States they originated from – see 
section 2.4 

95 

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

False negative for Method 1False negative for Method 2False negative for Method 3False negative for Method 4Baseline available (number of sources)06 05 02* / 06 05 03100.0%100.0%0.0%100.0%1/108 01 13* / 08 01 140.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%2/410 03 19* / 10 03 200/211 01 09* / 11 01 100.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%4/512 01 14* / 12 01 150.0%50.0%0.0%50.0%2/215 01 10* / 15 01 01 / 15 01 020.0%66.6%0.0%66.6%3/317 05 03* / 17 05 047.7%38.5%0.0%30.8%13/2219 01 11* / 19 01 120.0%76.7%0.0%76.7%30/5719 01 13* / 19 01 140.0%67.7%0.0%67.7%31/3219 08 11* / 19 08 1219 08 13* / 19 08 14100.0%100.0%0.0%100.0%1/319 10 03* / 19 10 040.0%27.3%0.0%9.1%11/1119 12 11* / 19 12 120/5 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 16: Source of samples with current classification available – (a) per Member States; (b) 
per type of approach 

It appears clearly from Table 32 that Method 1 and 3 lead to a high level of concordance 
with the current classification identified in the source (or calculated according to the rules 
of  each  Member  States  as  identified  in  Annex  5).  The  level  of  confidence  of  these 
approaches is upper than 90%, except for some mirror entries (06 05 02* / 06 05 03, 11 01 
09* / 11 01 10, 19 08 13* / 19 08 14) for which very few sample is available. For the mirror 
entry “19 01 13* / 19 01 14” (fly ash, UK data), a correspondence of 71% is observed for 
these two methods. This difference is mainly due to fact that these methods  have lower 
cut-off  values  than  the  UK  calculation  method.  Furthermore,  the  relevance  of  these  two 
methods is enhanced by the observation of false positive/negative rate. The very low rate 
of false negative shows that these methods are conservative and usually do not lead to an 
underestimation of waste classification. However, the false positive rate shows that these 
methods could lead to on overestimation of waste classification and especially for Method 
3.  Indeed,  as  it  is  presented  in  the  table  thereafter,  almost  30%  of  overestimation  is 
observed for Method 1 for fly ashes and almost 30% for Method 3 for fly ashes and soil 
and  stones.  Therefore,  according  to  the  concordance  of  results  with  the  current 
classification and the false positive rate, Method 1 seems to be the most relevant. Although 
the false negative rate is equal to zero, the Method 3 could lead to an over estimation of 
waste classification, the concentration limit for chronic 1 category being probably too low. 

Regarding Methods 2 and 4, the level of concordance is very low, around to 20% to 30%. 
Moreover, according to the false negative rate, this misclassification is mostly due to an 
underestimation of waste classification. This means that around 25% to 75% of the wastes 
are  not  considered  as  hazardous  whereas  there  are  currently  classified  as  hazardous. 
Based on these observations, these methods do not seem reliable for waste classification. 

The overall concordance (Methods 1 & 3) and discrepancies (Methods 2 & 4) with current 
classification can be explained by two factors: 

  Although  the  proposed  methods  differ  from  the  DPD-based  approaches  in 
many ways – no generic concentration limits other than for H420 (also H100 
for  Methods  1  &  2  and  H411  for  Method  2),  cut-off  values  only  applied  in 
Methods 2 & 4 (and different from the ones applied in DPD-based approaches) 
and different additivity rules – Method 1 (and 3, to a lesser extent) are still quite 
similar to the DPD approaches.  

  Higher concentration limit values for Methods 2 & 4 (when M-factors are not 
available – which is frequent) than those generally applied in DPD approaches 
leads to an underestimation of waste classification for these methods. 

96 

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
5.5.2.  Comparison between calculation methods and 

ecotoxicological data 

The  comparison  of  each  calculation  methods  with 
the  classification  based  on 
ecotoxicological data (biotests) according to the proposed threshold values of the approach 
(thresholds of 10% for EC50s) is presented in the following tables (Table 35, Table 36 and 
Table 37). For each mirror entry and calculation method, the percentage of sample which 
shows the same classification as the one based on biotest results is reported, as well as 
the  number of sources for which  ecotoxicological  data  is  available. The  values  in green 
represent, for each mirror entry, methods that lead to a good prediction (percentage upper 
than 90%) of waste classification as compared to classification based on biotest results. 
The methods that induce a percentage lower than 50% are in red. 

Table 35: Concordance of results with biotests results 

97 

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

Concordance for Method 1Concordance for Method 2Concordance for Method 3Concordance for Method 4Biotests available (number of sources)06 05 02* / 06 05 030.0%0.0%100.0%0.0%1/108 01 13* / 08 01 14100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%2/410 03 19* / 10 03 200/211 01 09* / 11 01 1075.0%100.0%50.0%100.0%4/512 01 14* / 12 01 15100.0%50.0%100.0%50.0%2/215 01 10* / 15 01 01 / 15 01 020/317 05 03* / 17 05 04100.0%50.0%100.0%50.0%2/2219 01 11* / 19 01 1240.7%44.4%44.4%44.4%27/5719 01 13* / 19 01 1420.0%80.0%20.0%80.0%5/3219 08 11* / 19 08 1219 08 13* / 19 08 140.0%0.0%100.0%0.0%1/319 10 03* / 19 10 04100.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%1/1119 12 11* / 19 12 12100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%1/5 
 
 
 
 
Table 36: False positives (determined with regards to biotest results), i.e. non-hazardous 
according to the biotests, assessed as hazardous by the calculation method 

Table 37: False negatives (determined with regards to biotest results), i.e. hazardous 
according to the biotests, assessed as non-hazardous by the calculation method 

As can be observed from the tables, only few ecotoxicological data were available for each 
mirror entry. The most represented are bottom ash and slag, fly ash; soil and stones. No 
ecotoxicological data was available concerning the following mirror entries: flue-gas dust, 
sludges and filter cakes and paper and cardboard packaging, plastic packaging. However, 
the  impact  on  results  remained  limited  because  the  number  of  sources  for  these  mirror 
entries was very low. 

The  concordance  of  the  different  calculation  methods  with  the  classification  based  on 
biotest results is quite similar. The number of sample in concordance between these two 

98 

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

False positive for Method 1False positive for Method 2False positive for Method 3False positive for Method 4Classification available (number of sources)06 05 02* / 06 05 030.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%1/108 01 13* / 08 01 140.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%2/410 03 19* / 10 03 200/211 01 09* / 11 01 1025.0%0.0%50.0%0.0%4/512 01 14* / 12 01 150.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%2/215 01 10* / 15 01 01 / 15 01 020/317 05 03* / 17 05 040.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%3/2219 01 11* / 19 01 1240.7%7.4%40.7%7.4%27/5719 01 13* / 19 01 1480.0%0.0%80.0%0.0%5/3219 08 11* / 19 08 1219 08 13* / 19 08 140.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%1/319 10 03* / 19 10 040.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%1/1119 12 11* / 19 12 120.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%1/5False negative for Method 1False negative for Method 2False negative for Method 3False negative for Method 4Biotests available (number of sources)06 05 02* / 06 05 03100.0%100.0%0.0%100.0%1/108 01 13* / 08 01 140.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%2/410 03 19* / 10 03 200/211 01 09* / 11 01 100.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%4/512 01 14* / 12 01 150.0%50.0%0.0%50.0%2/215 01 10* / 15 01 01 / 15 01 020/317 05 03* / 17 05 040.0%50.0%0.0%50.0%3/2219 01 11* / 19 01 1218.5%48.2%14.8%48.2%27/5719 01 13* / 19 01 140.0%20.0%0.0%20.0%5/3219 08 11* / 19 08 1219 08 13* / 19 08 14100.0%100.0%0.0%100.0%1/319 10 03* / 19 10 040.0%100.0%0.0%0.0%1/1119 12 11* / 19 12 120.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%1/5 
 
 
 
 
 
approaches  for  each  calculation  method  is,  out  of  47  samples:  10  for  Method  1,  12  for 
Method 2, 12 for Method 3 and 12 for Method 4. Furthermore, there is an overall higher 
number  of  false  negatives  than  false  positives,  which  means  biotests  are  more  likely  to 
classify  wastes  as  hazardous  than  calculation  methods.  This  is  an  indication  that  some 
hazardous substances are not taken into account (because not detected or not analysed) 
in calculation approaches. 

However,  regarding  false  negative/positive  rate,  a  significant  difference  is  observed.  As 
seen  for  comparison  with  current  waste  classification  (section  5.5.1),  Methods  1  and  3 
show a very low rate of false negative. These methods are then conservative and do not 
lead to an underestimation of waste classification, when considering thresholds of 10% for 
EC50s.  However,  the  false  positive  rate  shows  that  these  methods  could  lead  to  an 
overestimation  of  waste  classification.  These  results  indicate  that  the  proposed  biotest 
approach has a similar level of stringency compared to Methods 1 & 3 (the false positive 
rate indicating it is slightly less strict). 

Regarding  Methods  2  and  4,  according  to  the  false  negative  rate,  the  misclassification 
observed  is  mostly  due  to  an  underestimation  of  waste  classification.  This  means  that 
around  10%  to  50%  of  the  wastes  are  not  considered  hazardous  whereas  they  are 
classified  as  hazardous  according  to  biotests.  Based  on  these  observations,  and 
considering the proposed thresholds,  these two methods do not seem reliable for waste 
classification.  

The  modification  of  the  classification  rules  (i.e.  the  selection  of  two  positive  results  to 
classify a waste), increased the correlation between test results and calculation methods 2 
and 4 (66.7% for both methods) for the most representative mirror pair (i.e.19 01 11*/19 01 
12). Nevertheless, these correlations should be interpreted cautiously due to the limitations 
detailed above.  

5.5.3.  Feasability of the different methods 

Industrial stakeholders were consulted on the technical and economic feasibility of the four 
methods (see questionnaire in Annex 4). This section is a synthesis of their inputs. 

5.5.3.1.  Technical feasability 

Individuals performing the calculations with Methods 1 or 3 must have a good knowledge 
of chemicals, but a high level of specialist training is not necessary. However, Methods 2 
& 4 can be challenging because of the inclusion of M-factors in the formulae. It was reported 
by industry that one must be trained in order to know how to choose the relevant M-factors, 
if they were to be self-derived. Required skills would include modelling for assessing the 
speciation of inorganic substances. 

Furthermore,  it  appears  that  consultancy  work  may  be  necessary,  especially  for  SMEs 
which lack specific skills for the interpretation of results. The need for consultancy would 
be all the more important for Methods 2 & 4, as help would be required with M-factors. 

5.5.3.2.  Economic feasability 

The costs for assessing HP 14 would be similar with any of the four methods, as it depends 
on  the  type  of  waste.  Indeed,  the  costs  for  sample  preparation  and  chemical  analysis 
depend on the level of heterogeneity of the waste and on its complexity: 

 

If  the  waste  is  rather  homogeneous,  a  limited  number  of  samples  will  be 
needed to get a representative classification. The sampling costs would then 
be low compared to an heterogeneous waste; 

99 

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

If the waste is complex (i.e. its composition is not well-known – this can affect 
homogeneous  and  heterogeneous  waste  alike),  large  sets  of  analytical 
determinations will be necessary, which makes analytical costs higher. 

Costs for analysing a homogeneous and rather simple waste (i.e. one sample with only a 
few  analytical  determinations  needed)  will  be  on  the  lower  end  of  the  spectrum  (a  few 
hundred  euros).  If  the  composition  of  the  waste  is  not  well-known  and  the  waste  is 
heterogeneous, then chemical analyses can cost a few thousand euros.  

Furthermore,  additional  costs  must  be  expected  for  the  interpretation  of  analyses  on  a 
heterogeneous  waste.  Higher  costs  might  arise  for  Methods  2  &  4,  as  the  choice  of  M-
factors  might  need  consultancy  work  or  training  sessions.  Thus,  costs  for  consultancy 
purposes can reach tens of thousands of euros in some cases. 

Table 38 summarises the  data collected from industry. The order  of magnitude  of costs 
linked to the assessment of HP 14 with the four methods is around 1,000-10,000 €. 

Table 38: Costs per sample (€) for assessing HP 14 with the proposed methods on some 
mirror pairs 

Mirror pair 

General 

Sample 
preparation57 

Chemical 
analysis 

1,000-1,500 

Application of 
methods 
N/A 

19 01 11* / 19 01 12 

> 100 

100-1,000 

1,000-10,000 

15 01 10* / 15 01 01 
/ 15 01 02 

> 300 

>>200 

17 05 03* / 17 05 04 

1,000 

2,000 

17 05 05* / 17 05 06 
17 09 03* / 17 09 
0458 

10 01 14* / 10 01 15 

N/A 

250-2,500 

1,500 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

5.6.  Conclusion and potential orientations for a combined 

approach  

Before  drawing  any  conclusions,  it  is  important  to  remind  that  several  limitations  are 
associated to available data:  

 

In  most  cases,  characterisation  data  only  report  elemental  compound 
concentrations, presence of organic compounds is rarely reported at all; 

 

 a significant fraction of the waste is not identified;  

  worst-case  assumptions  (based  on  highest  toxicity  values)  are  made  in  the 
selection of the identity compounds used for subsequent classification of the 
waste; and  

 

 the  applicability  of  the  calculation  methods  is  limited  by  the  availability  of 
harmonised classifications for the substances.  

Moreover,  the  number  of  sources  identified  is  limited  and  therefore  the  different  mirror 
entries originally selected for the study have not been well represented. 

However, according to the comparative assessment of the different calculation  methods 
with the current classification or the classification based on biotest results, there are some 
indications  that  suggest  that  Methods  1  and  3  could  be  the  most  relevant  for  waste 

57 Costs linked to efforts for a representative sample are not taken into account, but can be substantial 
58 This is potentially the most heterogeneous of all and where size reduction and sample preparation would be 
more difficult. 

100 

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

 
 
 
 
                                                      
classification based on characterisation data. Indeed, even if these methods are associated 
to a potential overestimation of waste classification (13% of sample for method 1 and 18% 
for method 3), that lead to a good concordance with current classification or classification 
based on biotest results, and the false negative rate is very low.  

In  addition  to  these  observations,  as  discussed  in  the  presentation  of  the  calculation 
methods, Method 1 seems to be more relevant because the same criteria as those defined 
in the Regulation 1272/2008 for classification of mixture are applied (whereas Method 3 is 
based  on  the  old  classification  system  of  mixture,  directive  1994/45/EC,  that  is  very 
different to the concept of CLP regulation because summation of components classified for 
different hazard categories is not considered). The only two differences of Method 1 with 
CLP  are  the  non-consideration  of  M-factors  and  generic  cut-off  values59.  The  non-
consideration of M-factor has a lesser impact on calculation because this factor is available 
only  on  very  few  compounds  with  a  harmonised  classification.  Regarding  the  non-
consideration of generic cut-off values, this is relevant because some compounds could be 
present  in  waste  and  could  contribute  to  its  toxicity  even  at  low  concentration  due  to 
additivity  of  hazards.  This  means  that  the  application  of  this  method  could  then  be 
consistent  with  the  CLP  regulation  and  allows  industrials  not  to  apply  other  additional 
methods. 

In the context of a combined approach, an alternative two-step strategy could be envisaged 
for waste classification in relation to HP 14.. The first step would consist into applying a 
summation method (the one ultimately selected for HP 14 assessment). In a second step, 
if the waste cannot be adequately classified according to step 1 (e.g. due to very limited 
information on its composition), an experimental approach using one or several biotests 
(perhaps also in a tiered approach) could be applied. 

An experimental approach could also be directly considered if the composition of the waste 
is unknown or complex. 

59 These could nevertheless  be considered in a methodology to make calculations somewhat easier for those 
classifying waste. The drawback would be that some very toxic substances may be excluded. 

101 

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
This page was left intentionally blank 

102 

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

 
 
 
 
6.  Impact assessment of the 
change of classification 

6.1.  Principles 

In this chapter, the terms “studied mirror pairs” (respectively “studied (waste) codes”) refer 
to the selected mirror pairs (respectively “selected (waste) codes”) on which the calculation 
methods were applied. Table 39 below reports and classifies those pairs. The codes having 
the most robust calculation results (see Chapter 6) are highlighted in bold. 

Table 39: The studied mirror pairs, classified by nature and by source 

Nature 

Sludge 

Dust 

Ash 

10 03 19*/ 
10 03 20 

06  05  02*/ 
06 05 03 

08  01  13*/ 
08 01 14 

11  01  09*/ 
11 01 10 

12  01  14*/ 
12 01 15 

Source 

Inorganic 
chemical 
processes 

MFSU 
removal 
paint 
varnish 

and 
of 
and 

Thermal 
processes 

Chemical 
surface 
treatment  of 
materials 

Shaping, 
physical  and 
mechanical 
treatment  of 
materials 

Construction 
and 
demolition 

Incineration 
or  pyrolysis 
of waste 

19  08  11*/ 
19 08 12 

19 10 03*/ 
19 10 04 

19 01 11*/ 
19 01 12 

19  08  13*/ 
19 08 14 

19 01 13*/ 
19 01 14 

Other 

Spoil, Soil 
& stones 

Packaging  Other 

17  05  03*/ 
17 05 04 

17  05  05*/ 
17 05 06 

15  01  10*/ 
15  01  01/ 
15 01 02 

19  12  11*/ 
19 12 12 

103 

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
There  are  only  four  pairs  for  which  calculations  were  robust:  the  following  impact 
assessment is therefore impeded by lack of data regarding other pairs.  

As  mentioned  in  section  2.5,  the  impact  assessment  was  conducted  according  to  the 
following steps: 

  Setting  indicators  describing  key  factors  of  the  impact  assessment,  the 
variation  of  which  may  affect  the  management  of  waste,  the  environment, 
public health, recycling companies, etc.; 

  Evaluating the current “value” of those indicators (baseline), i.e. documenting 
the current situation and trends of the generation and management of waste 
streams classified under the studied codes. 

o  a more detailed description was drafted for the codes having the most 
robust calculation results: 17 05 03*/17 05 04, 19 01 11*/19 01 12, 19 
01 13*/19 01 14 and 19 10 03*/19 10 04; 

  Estimating the likely “value” of those indicators linked to the implementation of 
either  one  of  the  four  methods,  i.e.  assessing  the  environmental  and  socio-
economic impacts of each of the four methods, considering the proportion of 
waste that would change classification (as determined in Chapter 5). 

More details on these steps can be found in the methodology chapter, section 2.5.  

6.2. 

Indicators for the baseline scenario and the impact 
assessment 

The aspects of interest are described by the following indicators (see also section 2.5.2.1): 

  Environmental aspects: 

o  Recovery  schemes  (includes  percentages  of  waste  recycled  vs 

landfilled) 

o  Benefits of recovering the waste (including saving of raw materials) 

o  Pollution  due  to  contaminated  fractions  of  the  waste  (in  case  of 

improper management) 

  Economic aspects 

o  Costs of disposal 

o  Costs  of  recycling  (for  hazardous  and  non-hazardous  waste,  and 

including revenues for recyclers) 

  Social aspects 

o  Employment 

o  Public Health  

6.3.  Current situation and trends 

This  section  documents  the  economic,  social  and  environmental  aspects  of  the  current 
waste generation and management practices, for waste streams classified under either of 
the entries of the studied mirror pairs (Table 22).  

104 

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
Note on the quantities of waste reported for the studied waste streams: 

The  next  sections  report  the  percentage  of  waste  classified  as  hazardous  and  non-
hazardous for each waste stream, according to two sources: 

  Quantities  reported  by  Member  States  surveyed  for  the  benchmark  (see 

section 3); and 

  The  current  classification  of  the  samples  collected  for  the  calculation 

exercise (see section 5).  

Discrepancies between both estimations are to be expected, if only because collected 
samples are not necessary representative of all generated waste. 

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

This waste stream refers to excavated soil and stones from construction and demolition 
work. Although it is referenced in the LoW under the heading “waste from construction and 
demolition”, experts’ opinions vary on whether to include it in the definition of Construction 
&  Demolition  (C&D)  waste60.  Therefore,  studies  on  excavated  soil  and  stones  are  often 
limited by aggregation of data at C&D waste level and lack of information on the specific 
stream. 

Soil and stones represent a large part of C&D waste (if one chooses to include it in the 
definition): for instance, it makes up to 74% of all waste in Austria, 66% of C&D waste in 
France and Ireland, and 57% in Germany61. 

A  large majority (97% when considering quantities reported in the Member States 
studied in this project) of excavated soil and stones streams are  considered non-
hazardous in their country of origin. 

The baseline classifications of the collected experimental samples for the mirror pair 17 05 
03* / 17 05 04, although they also show a majority of non-hazardous fractions among the 
soil & stones stream, do not exactly reflect the volume proportion in the studied Member 
States (Table 40).  

Table 40: Hazard of 17 05 03*/17 05 04 waste streams 

              Hazard 
Source 

Non-hazardous 

Hazardous 

Not determined 

Quantities 
reported  by 
surveyed Member States  

97% 

3% 

n/a 

Current  classification  of 
the samples collected for 
the calculation exercise 

38% 

24% 

38% 

(8 samples) 

(5 samples) 

(8 samples) 

6.3.1.1.  Environmental aspects 

Current recovery schemes 

Because  soil  &  stones  are  mainly  non-hazardous  (97%  when  considering  quantities 
reported in the Member States studied in this project), environmental challenges focus on 
the recovery of this waste in order to preserve virgin materials (aggregates extracted from 
quarries and metals embedded in construction materials). Furthermore, seeing that landfills 

60 Simon Magnusson, Kristina Lundberg, Bo Svedberg, Sven Knutsson, Sustainable management of excavated 
soil and rock in urban areas, A literature review Journal of Cleaner Production 93 (2015) 18 e 25 
61 BIO by Deloitte (2015) Resource efficient use of mixed waste (to be published) 

105 

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

 
 
 
 
                                                      
are attaining full capacity in the EU and that the European strategy is to divert waste from 
landfills62, there is a need to foster the recovery of soil & stone waste.  

In terms of recovery, soil & stones can be either recycled after going through a dedicated 
facility, or used as backfilling. Some also consider the use of soil  & stones as cover for 
landfills  as a method  of recovery; however,  as the European strategy  is focused on the 
closing of landﬁlls62, it could be questioned if the accumulation of excavated soil and rock 
at  landﬁll  due  to  covering  purposes  should  be  labelled  as  recovery60.  The main  product 
generated  from  the  recycling  of  soil  &  stones  is  recycled  aggregate  (used  in  the 
construction of roads, for instance)  

In Austria and France, around half of soil & stones waste is sent to landfills (53% in Austria 
and 44% in France)61, and only 13.2% in Germany.  Recovered soil & stones are mainly 
using in backfilling activities, as illustrated for Germany below: 

Figure 17: Fate of soil & stones waste in Germany in 201263 

Few data exist regarding the recycling of soil & stones. Figure 17 shows that 10% of soil & 
stones are recycled in Germany and research  work undertaken by Hiete et  al  in 201164 
showed that 8.5%  of soil & stones are recycled  in Baden-Württemberg. Based on these 
few numbers, one can say that recycling activities do not account for a big part in the way 
soil & stones waste is managed. Nevertheless, seeing the high volumes generated, this 
could still account for a substantial amount of waste.  

Benefits of recycling soil & stones waste 

A  2015  literature  review  conducted  by  Magnusson  et  al60  outlined  the  various 
environmental benefits of reusing and recycling soil and stones. In the paper, the authors 
divide reuse and recycling activities as follows: 

  Reuse on-site: Several studies describe the environmental gains with reusing 
excavated soil and rock at the construction site656667. Eras et al.66 showed that 
by  planning  for  mass  balance  of  earthworks  in  an  industrial  construction 
project, it was possible to relocate and reuse 44% of the excavated materials, 
i.e. about 700 000 m3, and hence reduce earthwork and transports to landﬁll 
as  well  as  the  production  and  use  of  quarry  materials.  However,  it  is  very 

62 European  Environment Agency, 2009.  Diverting Waste from  Landﬁll  e  Effectiveness  of Waste-management 
Policies in the European Union. 
63 Kreislaufwirtschaft Bau, 2012 Monitoring Report: http://www.kreislaufwirtschaft-bau.de/daten.html  
64 Hiete, M., Stengel, J., Ludwig, J., Schultmann, F., 2011. Matching construction and demolition waste supply to 
recycling demand: a regional management chain model. Build. Res. Inf. 39, 333 e 351. 
65  Chittoori,  B.,  Puppala,  A.J.,  Reddy,  R.,  Marshall,  M.,  2012.  Sustainable  reutilization  of  excavated  trench 
material. GeoCongress 2012, 4280 e 4289. 
66 Eras, C.J.J., Gutierrez, A.S., Capote, D.H., Hens, L., Vandecasteele, C., 2013.  Improving the environmental 
performance of an earthwork project using cleaner production strategies. J. Clean. Prod. 47, 368 e 376. 
67 Kenley, R., Harﬁeld, T., 2011. Greening procurement: a research agenda for optimizing mass-haul during linear 
infrastructure construction. In: Sixth International Conference on Construction in the 21st Century (CITC-VI), pp. 
235 e 240. 

106 

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

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
difficult to estimate the quantity of excavated material reused on site, because 
there is no reporting on it. It is supposed to be a low figure because there is 
often not enough space on building sites to enable reuse. 

  Reuse  on  other  projects:  Reuse  of  excavated  soil  and  rock  directly  in  other 
projects  means  that  materials  are  transported  between  construction  sites. 
Such reuse is possible when there are several construction projects going on 
in the same region and when cooperation has previously been achieved. The 
authors found no data regarding this uptake of this type of reuse. 

  Recycling through a recycling facility: The environmental potential for recycling 
excavated  soil  and  stones  waste  in  such  way  has  been  studied  by  some 
authors.  For  example,  for  13  out  of  14  environmental  aspects  studied  by 
Blengini  and  Garbarino68,  there  were  environmental  gains.  Indeed,  the  CO2 
emissions  were  reduced  by  about  14  kg  CO2  equivalents  per  ton  when 
recycling C&D waste, compared to using quarry primary materials. Simion et 
al69studied  the  climate  effects  of  producing  natural  aggregates  compared  to 
recycling C&D waste. Climate impact from natural aggregate production was 
about 103 kg CO2 per ton, compared to about 16 kg per ton for recycled C&D 
waste. 

The first reuse activities can be included in the backfilling category. It is clear that reusing 
soil  &  stones  on  site  in  more  environmentally  beneficial  than  using  it  in  other  projects, 
because no emissions from transport are involved. The only recovery method the benefits 
of which were quantified is recycling through dedicated channels.  

Drivers and barriers to an increase of soil & stones recycling 

A survey in a few Member States conducted for the a study on C&D waste61 showed that 
the main driver for higher recycling rates of soil & stones – and C&D waste in general – is 
a  high  landfill  tax  coupled  with  an  exemption  for  the  use  of  C&D  material  for  recovery 
purposes. For instance, the main Austrian incentive that drives recycling of CDW is the law 
for  Remediation  of  Contaminated  Sites  (Altlastensanierungsgesetz  (ALSAG)),  which 
charges 9.20 € for every ton that is not recovered in proper and structurally  engineered 
way. In Flanders, the combination of stimulating both practical and technical solutions (use 
of granulates in road construction) with economic benefits (landfill taxes) drove the stony-
fraction recycling rate at 90%. 

Conversely, low taxes regarding landfills and virgin materials is a barrier to fostering the 
recycling of C&D waste, including soil & stones. In France, the low General Tax on Polluting 
Activities (0.2 € per ton) does not encourage building firms to favour recycling and recovery 
over landfill. Furthermore, a few Member States stressed a strong competition coming from 
low prices of primary raw material, making secondary building materials unattractive (e.g. 
Austria, Germany and Finland)61. For instance, primary raw materials are abundant in most 
of  the  regions  in  Germany  and  therefore  cheap  when  compared  to  recycled  materials, 
which  can  sometimes  be  even  more  expensive.  Since  no  subsidies  or  other  economic 
incentives exist that could drive the use of secondary materials, the choice to opt for primary 
materials is most of the time price related. Another barrier to the recycling of soil & stones 
waste is the illegal disposal of waste, which is a problem mainly for countries like Spain or 
Portugal70. 

Pollution due to contaminated soil & stones waste 

68 Blengini, G.A., Garbarino, Elena, 2010. Resources and waste management in Turin (Italy): the role of recycled 
aggregates in the sustainable supply mix. J. Clean.Prod. 18, 1021 e 1030. 
69 Simion, I.M., Fortuna, M.E., Bonoli, A., Gavrilescu, M., 2013. Comparing environmental impacts of natural inert 
and recycled construction and demolition waste processing using LCA. J. Environ. Eng. Landsc. Manag. 21, 273 
e 287. 
70 BIO Intelligence Service, Arcadis & IEEP (2011) Management of Construction and Demolition Waste in Europe 
– Final Report  

107 

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

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Hazardous soil & stones waste represent around 3% of the total amount of soil & stones 
waste, considering quantities reported in the Member States studied in this project (24% 
when considering collected experimental samples). They mostly arise from contaminated 
sites and have to undergo treatment (bioremediation, stabilisation, screening and complex 
sorting,  etc.)  before  disposal  or  recycling.  The  share  of  hazardous  waste  which  can  be 
recycled depends on the batch of waste. 

To  our  knowledge,  no  case  of  pollution  arising  from  the  disposal  or  the  recycling  of 
hazardous soil and stones waste has been reported. 

Trends in soil & stones waste management 

The  quantity  of  soil  &  stones  waste  arising  is  directly  linked  to  the  level  of  construction 
activity.  According  to  the  2014  Euroconstruct  report71,  the  construction  industry  will 
experience an average growth of 1.8 % a year, in real terms, from 2014 to 2016. After a 
handful of hard and turbulent years, the European construction market is reaching firmer 
ground and is likely to grow in the next years. 

Therefore, the quantity of soil & stones will certainly increase in the future. High costs linked 
to the opening of new landfills will lead to a decrease in the quantity of soil & stones used 
as landfill cover. However, if virgin material continues to be cheaper than recycled material 
in  some  Member  States,  then  the  share  of  recycled  waste  in  the  quantity  of  recovered 
material is not likely to grow.  

6.3.1.2.  Economic aspects 

Costs of management (disposal and recovery) 

The costs of soil & stones waste management (including recycling) and trade vary widely 
depending on the Member State and on the level of hazard. 

In  most  Member  States,  C&D  waste  is  divided  into  at  least  three  categories  for 
management:  

 

Inert waste (non-hazardous) 

  Non-inert non-hazardous waste 

  Hazardous waste 

Soil & stones waste belongs to either the “inert waste” category or the “hazardous waste” 
category.  Inputs  from  EURELECTRIC  indicate  an  estimated  total  cost  of  450  €/t  for 
disposing of contaminated soil & stones waste in hazardous waste landfills and less 
than 100 €/t for the recycling of non-hazardous soil & stones waste (without taking 
into account the revenue generated from selling the recycled material). 

Table 41 below reports costs linked to the disposal or recovery of C&D waste (including 
soil & stones72) in a few Member States. 

Table 41: Costs of managing soil & stones waste in a few Member States  

Inert waste 

Hazardous waste 

Recovery/recycling 

FR: a few euros per tonne 

BE (Wallonia): 5.40€ / 6.40€ 
(Soils with max 5% of stones) 

FR: between 200 € and 
1,200 € per tonne 

NL: from 30 € per tonne 

Storage (landfill) 

FR: between 1 € and 8 € per 
tonne 

FR: between 200 € and 500 
€ per tonne 

71 http://www.uepg.eu/statistics/construction-activity-in-europe  
72 The Member States/regions considered in the table all include soil and stones in their C&D waste definition 

108 

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

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Logistics 

BE (Wallonia): 7.23 € (soils) 

FR: Renting costs of a truck is around 90 €/hour. Skips can 
be charged up to 50 € per month if the number of rotations is 
not high enough. 

NL: As an indication, the cost of the rental of a 9M2 CDW 
container (including transport and treatment of the waste) is 
329 €. 

NB: France and Netherlands: total costs (excluding logistics); Wallonia: landfill tax excluding VAT 

France is admittedly at the low end of the landfill costs compared to other Member States. 
Therefore, in other countries (for which data was not readily available), costs for landfilling 
soil & stones waste are likely to be higher. The costs of managing hazardous waste, based 
on French data, are estimated at being in the order of magnitude of 200 – 500 €.  

Table 41 shows that managing hazardous soil & stones can be as high as a hundred times 
more  expensive  than  managing  non-hazardous  waste.  Because  high  volumes  of  soil  & 
stones  waste  are  generated  each  year,  mostly  of  a  non-hazardous  nature,  a  change  of 
classification from non-hazardous to hazardous would lead to soaring costs. 

Trade 

Value of the recovered material varies greatly depending on the regions. As mentioned in 
the previous section, recycled soil & stones can sometimes be more expensive than virgin 
materials if those are  abundant.  In other cases, the price of recycled soil  & stones is  at 
least 20% lower compared to the price of natural aggregates73. 

The exports/imports of CDW (including soil and stones waste) are marginal in France. In 
Austria, less than 2% of CDW and soil & stones waste are exported. 

6.3.1.3.  Social aspects 

Public health 

No issues regarding public health have been reported regarding the management of soils 
& stones waste.  

Employment 

No quantitative data estimating the number of jobs generated by the management of soil 
& stones (landfill, backfill, recycling) was found.  

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

Incinerator bottom ash (IBA) is the ash that is left over after waste is burnt in an incinerator. 
Municipal energy from waste plants that use incineration burn a wide range of municipal 
wastes and therefore the term ‘ash’ is slightly misleading because it is not all powdery but 
contains glass, brick, rubble, sand, grit, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, stone, concrete, 
ceramics and fused clinker as well as combusted products such as ash and slag. Bottom 
ash is generated at a rate of approximately 200-300 kg/t of waste incinerated. In the EU, 
20 million tons of IBA is produced annually (2013)74, with France producing 3 million tons 
per year and Germany 5 million75. 

A  large majority (92% when considering quantities reported in the Member States 
studied  in  this  project)  of  IBA  streams  are  classified  as  non-hazardous  in  their 
country of origin.  

73 SARMa (2011) The Production of Recycled Aggregates from Inert Waste 
74 https://resourcesandrecycling.wordpress.com/incinerator-bottom-ash/  
75 Communication from CEWEP 

109 

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

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
The baseline classifications of the collected experimental samples for the mirror pair 19 01 
11*/19 01 12 do not show the same trend (Table 42). 

Table 42: Hazard of 19 01 11* / 19 01 12 waste streams 

              Hazard 
Source 

Non-hazardous 

Hazardous 

Not determined 

Quantities 
reported  by 
surveyed Member States  

92% 

8% 

n/a 

Current  classification  of 
the samples collected for 
the calculation exercise 

12% 

40% 

48% 

(7 samples) 

(23 samples) 

(27 samples) 

6.3.2.1.  Environmental aspects 

Non-hazardous IBA can be disposed of at a non-hazardous landfill site or processed for 
reuse  (as  a  secondary  aggregate  in  a  variety  of  construction  applications,  see  below). 
Around 10%-20% of non-hazardous IBA gets sent to landfills (10% in Germany, 18% in 
France and 20% in Ireland)75.  

Hazardous IBA must either be disposed of at a hazardous waste landfill site or go for further 
treatment.  

Current recovery schemes 

First, the raw bottom ash is collected from the Waste-to-Energy plant and taken to a special 
reprocessing  facility.  Ferrous  (iron,  steel)  and  non-ferrous  metals  (such  as  aluminium, 
copper and zinc) are separated, and all particles above a certain size are broken down in 
a crushing facility. The remaining combustible material is also removed. Then, bottom ash 
is stored for ageing in order to improve its quality as a construction material.  

In the reprocessing plant, ferrous metals are extracted magnetically. Non-ferrous metals 
are  sorted  using  the  eddy  current  technique,  which  is  based  on  the  phenomenon  that 
changing magnetic fields create small currents in metal objects. The ferrous metals, which 
on average make up 6 to 10% of the total amount of bottom ash, are sold to iron producers. 
Non-ferrous  metals  (1-2%)  are  further  refined  and  put  back  onto  the  market.  All  the 
remaining not burnt-out material (about 1%) is returned to the Waste-to-Energy plant76. 

Treated IBA is then recycled as a secondary aggregate (incinerator bottom ash aggregate, 
or IBAA) which can be used in two major applications: unbound, it can be used for bulk fill 
and sub bases or, when bound, it is ideal for road paving, cement and construction blocks. 
It can also be used for landfill engineering and brownfield remediation. In the UK, 86% of 
generated IBA was recycled as IBAA, an increase from 40% in 200077. Moreover, repairing 
roads and producing asphalt concrete, permeable pavement, and bricks is now a practice 
commonly seen in Denmark, Belgium, France (where it is the only way one can reuse IBA) 
and the Netherlands. The reuse of bottom ash in road paving has reached 81% in France75 
and 100%75 in the Netherlands78.  

Benefits of recycling IBA 

Recycling of IBA presents many environmental benefits, including:  

76 CEWEP – Note: Environmentally sound use of bottom ash 
77 Devon Waste Plan - Waste Topic Paper 7: Addendum on Incinerator Bottom Ash, Version 2, June 2014 
78  J.  Abbott,  P.  Coleman,  L.  Howlett,  P.  Wheeler,  Environmental  and  Health  Risk  Associated  With  Use  of 
Processed Incinerator Bottom Ash in Road Construction, BREWEB, 2003. And O. Hjelmar, J. Holm, K. Crillesen, 
Utilisation  of  MSWI  bottom  ash  as  sub-base  in  road  construction:  ﬁrst  results  from  a  large-scale  test  site,  J. 
Hazard. Mater. A 139 (2007) 471–480. 

110 

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

 
 
 
 
                                                      
 

 

it  avoids  landfilling,  therefore  leaving  void  space  available  for  other  wastes 
which cannot be treated further up the waste hierarchy;  

It reduces the carbon footprint of the production of cement, metals, etc. through 
recycling:  

o  Metals: Recovering fine non-ferrous metals from 1 ton of IBA saves 40 
kg  of  CO2  emission.  Furthermore,  in  order  to  produce  1  ton  of 
aluminium,  the  primary  process  generates  10.6  t  CO2  while  the 
recycling process generates only 0.73 t CO2

79.  

o  Cement:  reusing  IBA  in  the  production  of  cements  allows  for  a 
reduction  of  the  impact  on  global  warming.  As  a  large  amount  of 
energy is  used in the cement production  process to  decompose the 
calcium carbonate (CaCO3) into lime (CaO), a huge amount of carbon 
dioxide  is  emitted  during  the  process.  Due  to  the  fact  that  IBA  is 
composed  of  lime  instead  of  calcium  carbonate,  it  can  reduce  the 
carbon dioxide emission80.  

 

It reduces the use of natural resources such as quarried aggregates.  

o 

It is possible to use IBA as concrete aggregate. The results show that 
treated (immersion in sodium hydroxide for 15 days) bottom ash can 
replace up to 50% of gravel in concrete without affecting the durability. 

o  A  possible  way  to  reuse  IBA  is  to  replace  the  materials  in  the  base 
course and sub-base of road pavement. This provides a simple and 
direct  method  for  reuse  of  the  incineration  ash  and  several  road 
sections have utilised IBA in road construction80. 

It must be mentioned that  some raise concerns over  supporting the recycling  of IBA. In 
France,  the  National  Centre  for  Independent  Information  on  Waste  (Centre  national 
d'information indépendante sur les déchets, or Cniid) fears that encouraging IBA recycling 
can be seen as supporting incineration and thus going against waste prevention actions81. 

Drivers and barriers to an increase of IBA recycling 

The  main  motivation  for  recycling  IBA  is  an  increasing  shortage  of  suitable  natural 
aggregate and lack of available landfill space82. The fact that IBA can be used directly as 
a replacement of gravel for road pavement is also a plus.  

However, ISWA reports that the different legislations regarding IBA across Member States 
(limit values of leaching tests, for instance) hinders trade of bottom ash and that there is a 
need of a level-playing field. Furthermore, a general barrier in most countries is that people 
worry due to the fact that IBA originates from waste.  

In France, it appeared that the economic model of companies recycling IBA is fragile, as 
they strongly depend on the quantities of waste being incinerated. The success of waste 
prevention campaigns lead to a stagnation and even a decrease of waste quantities, thus 
locally producing less IBA in some cases81. 

Pollution due to contaminated IBA 

No case of pollution due to the utilisation or disposal of IBA seems to be reported. Notably, 
a  three-year  study  on  the  utilisation  of  IBA  in  road  pavement  in  France,  showed  the 
concentrations of heavy metals, fluorides and pH values in the leachate were below the 

79 TU Delft (2013) Recycling of Incinerator Bottom Ash, Resources & Recycling (Presentation) 
80 Charles H. K. Lam, Alvin W. M. Ip, John Patrick Barford and Gordon McKay, Use of Incineration MSW Ash: A 
Review, Sustainability 2010, 2, 1943-1968 
81 http://mondeacplanete.blog.lemonde.fr/2014/04/21/le-machefer-des-ordures-incinerees-sous-le-bitume/  
82 ISWA (2006) Management of Bottom Ash from WTE Plants: An overview of management options and treatment 
methods 

111 

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

 
 
 
 
                                                      
limits  authorised  for  potable  water83.  Nevertheless,  a  more  recent  environmental 
assessment of IBA utilisation performed with the Life Cycle Assessment method84 found 
that, although the utilisation of IBA saves natural resources and energy, the consequences 
on  the  trace  element  leaching  are  more  uncertain  and  may  depend  on  the  speciﬁc 
materials. The study modelled leaching in a time perspective of 100 years with scenarios 
involving different amounts of infiltrated water and showed a potential for toxic effects due 
to leaching of trace elements (copper, in particular).  

However, local environmental NGOs stress the scarce independent literature on the toxicity 
of recycled IBA and are advocating the use of the precautionary principle. 

Trends in IBA management 

Innovative techniques are currently being developed for a better recovery of IBA and IBA 
components:  deep  metal  recovery85,  steel  scrap  upgrading,  more  effective  recycling  for 
concrete and cement production79.  

6.3.2.2.  Economic aspects 

By reducing landfill and saving primary aggregate, recycling IBA reduces costs both to the 
incinerator operator and to the user (assuming proper market values).  For instance, the 
cost  of  disposal  is  at  least  twice  (generally  more)  greater  than  recovery  in  France.  In 
Germany,  it  costs  less  than  5  €/ton  to  recover  IBA  and  around  25-50  €/ton  to  landfill 
hazardous IBA. 

The UK Environment Agency estimates that using 469,000 tonnes of IBA each year can 
save businesses over £47,350,000 each year, largely due to landfill charges, and creates 
markets worth over £5.8 million a year. 

There  are  numerous  case  studies  of  companies  reducing  their  costs  by  using  recycled 
IBA86. For instance, a UK Infrastructure team used a mix of 30% IBA and recycled asphalt 
containing  IBA  to  surface  4,000  car  park  spaces  at  a  new  long  stay  facility  at  Stansted 
Airport (UK). Approximately 54,000 tonnes of primary aggregate were replaced and cost 
savings of £20,000 achieved. Another example is the use of processed IBA as a protection 
liner at Burnhills landfill site in 2000, which allowed to avoid the Landfill Tax at £2 per tonne 
for  the  suppliers  of  the  IBA  (the  tax  is  the  same  today)  totalling  £12,000  of  savings. 
Furthermore,  this  project  took  place  before  the  implementation  of  the  Aggregates  Levy: 
had  it  been  in  place,  a  further  £12,800  would  have  been  saved  by  using  secondary 
aggregates87.  

However,  the  market  for  utilising  IBA  in  construction  business  is  difficult  due  to 
environmental  demands  and  is  becoming  increasingly  crowded,  with  more  and  more 
recycled demolition waste and cleaned (former polluted) soil coming into the market82. 

6.3.2.3.  Social aspects 

Public health 

Recycling  IBA  in  road  construction  can  pose  a  risk  due  to  the  potential  leaching  of 
hazardous  substances  such  as  dioxins,  after  percolation  of  storm  water88.  However, 
recently-generated IBA contain fewer hazardous substances than in the past, and undergo 

83 Bruder-Hubscher, C.; Lagarde, F.; Leroy, M.J.F.; Couganowr, C.; Enguehard, F. Utilisation of bottom ash in 
road construction: Evaluation of the environmental impact. Waste Manag. Res. 2001, 19, 545-556. 
84  S.  Toller,  E.  Kärrman,  J.P.  Gustafsson,  Y.  Magnusson,  Environmental  assessment  of  incinerator  residue 
utilization, Waste Manage. 29 (2009) 2071–2077. 
85 For instance, the ADR process: dry removal of fines from the IBA in a jet stream, for a high recovery of non-
ferrous metals 
86 See for instance http://www2.wrap.org.uk/applications/aggregain/casestudysearch/index.rm  
87 WRAP, Factsheet AggRegain: The use of processed Incinerator bottom ash as a protection liner at Burnhills 
landfill site 
88 Badreddine R, Bartet B, Francois D, Pepin G. Impact sur les sols des dioxines de MIOM utilisés en technique 
routière. Déchets Sci. Tech., 2003, 29, 16 21 

112 

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

 
 
 
 
                                                      
severe treatment before being reused. Furthermore, the use of appropriate materials (e.g. 
geotextile  liner)  and  soils  (e.g.  silt-clayey  soil)  allows  for  retention  of  those  hazardous 
substances, thus avoiding water contamination and potential adverse effects for humans89. 
Therefore, the use of IBA in road construction, which is common in many countries such 
as France or the Netherlands, does not seem to lead to public health issues.  

Employment 

According to CEWEP, 8-10 jobs are needed to produce 100kt/y of IBAA and to operate a 
400kt/y quarry of natural aggregate. Managing 100kt/y of IBA in landfills requires less than 
8-10 jobs. The current number of jobs for landfilling and recovery in France and Germany90 
can be estimated thanks to CEWEP inputs (Table 43): 

Table 43: Estimation of the number of workers needed for managing IBA in landfills and for 
recovery, considering the amounts of IBA generated in France and in Germany (per year) 

Landfill  

Recovery  

France  

Max 43 jobs 

195 – 243 jobs 

Germany 

Max 44 jobs 

396 – 495 jobs 

Recovering IBA generates much more jobs than landfilling, as the number of workers for 
landfilling is lower per ton and the quantities of non-hazardous IBA landfilled are lower. 

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

Fly  ash  is  the  lightest,  finest  and  thermo-labile  waste  from  municipal  waste  incineration 
collected by a filtration system and it represents more than 1% by weight of the total waste. 
The characteristics of fly ash are very variable, because they depend on the burnt material, 
the combustion type and the temperature. Generally, fly ash is a highly soluble and reactive 
material that contains significant quantities of heavy metals (Zn, Pb, Cd, Cr, etc.). Often 
the  heavy  metals  are  present  as  anionic  salts  (chlorides  and  sulphates),  and  alkaline 
anionic salts represent one of the main components of this waste (up to 25% of Cl in some 
samples). In this inorganic fraction, which is very variable in composition, we find an organic 
fraction  relatively  rich  in  unburnt  elements,  aromatic  compounds  and  often  also  rich  in 
dioxins and furans91. 

A large part (66% when considering quantities reported in the Member States studied 
in this project) of MSWI fly ash streams are classified as hazardous. 

The baseline classifications of the collected samples for the mirror pair 19 01 13* / 19 01 
14 also show a majority of hazardous fractions among the fly ash stream (Table 44).  

Table 44: Hazard of 19 01 13* / 19 01 14 waste streams 

              Hazard 
Source 

Non-hazardous 

Hazardous 

Not determined 

Quantities 
reported  by 
surveyed Member States  

44% 

Current  classification  of 
the samples collected for 
the calculation exercise 

31% 

66% 

66% 

n/a 

3% 

(10 samples) 

(21 samples) 

(1 samples) 

89 RECORD (2007) Risques sanitaires engendrés par la valorisation des déchets (recyclage et réutilisation) 
90 Member States for which data was provided by CEWEP 
91 Ebook on LIFE + projects regarding fly ash disposal, 
http://cosmos.csmt.eu/newsite/cosmos.csmt.eu/files_up/ebook_Fly%20ash%20disposal.pdf  

113 

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

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
6.3.3.1.  Environmental aspects 

Current recovery schemes 

Recovery  of  MSWI fly  ash  as  a  second-hand  raw  material,  for  example  in  cement  or  in 
other building materials, is not widespread in Europe. A scientific and grey literature search 
showed no evidence of recovery of the non-hazardous streams, as available information 
mainly focuses on the management of hazardous MSWI fly ash and deals with treatment 
previous to landfilling or potential recovery. Indeed, a large part of available documentation 
describes  research  on  the  technical  and  environment  feasibility  of  fly  ash  reuse: 
stabilisation for reuse in construction (buildings and roads), investigation of leaching from 
the product using pre-treated (or “washed”) fly ash, mechanical properties of the materials 
built from fly ash, etc. However, no evidence of large-scale industrial projects using reused 
fly ash was found. 

Benefits of recycling MSWI fly ash 

Developing MSWI fly ash recycling and therefore treatment of fly ash for recycling, allows 
to avoid sending it in hazardous and non-hazardous waste landfills. Thus, it diminishes the 
need for virgin materials in construction and reduces  

Furthermore, some studies highlight the interesting mechanical properties given by fly ash 
to cement or other building materials. 

Drivers and barriers to an increase of fly ash recycling 

The main barrier to reusing or recycling fly ash is finding a suitable way to manage risks 
linked  to  the  hazardous  properties  of  this  waste.  Although  effective  washing  processes 
have been developed to treat fly ash prior to reuse, it seems that the high costs of such 
treatments, along with a negative perception of ashes, have prevented an uptake of fly ash 
recycling  in  Europe.  Another  factor  hindering  reuse  of  fly  ash  is  the  highly  variable 
composition  of  this  waste,  which  makes  a  burden  of  the  need  for  characterisation  and 
regular analysis for the purpose of recovery. 

The amount of research work on the optimal conditions and on the impact of reusing ash 
– some of it funded by the EU under FPs or LIFE(+) projects – drives the development of 
economical and environmentally-sound ways to reuse or recycle MSWI fly ash. 

Pollution due to contaminated MSWI fly ash 

The main risk of pollution from MSWI fly ash is the leaching of hazardous substances such 
as heavy metals. Leaching can occur in landfills and in reuse applications. 

One of the most common stabilisation process prior to landfilling has been the solidification 
of  fly  ash  using  a  hydraulic  binder,  most  of  the  times  Portland  cement  (for  instance  in 
France and Italy92)91. The Belgian LIFE + project “REFIOM – Assessment of the long term 
behaviour  of  the  fine  residues  of  municipal  waste  incineration  process  treated  with 
hydraulic  binders”  studied  the  fate  of  this  material  after  a  long  period.  The  samples 
analysed are the raw fly ash from MSWI, blocs of stabilised fly ash in cement and naturally 
aged in their stocking sites and fresh solidified fly ash. The conclusions of this project are 
clear and important: 

  The  solidification  process  with  hydraulic  binder  for  fly  ash  from  MSWI  isn’t 

effective, as on long term period, not all the pollutants are immobilised. 

  Analysis on test-bars do not always give information on the behaviour of the 
material at long term, a multidisciplinary approach is necessary to understand 
the evolution of this material, including, for instance, mineralogy. 

92 Knut Jøssang, Michael Becidan (2013) Aske fra avfallsforbrenning: fra et problem til en ressurs? (Presentation)  

114 

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

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Although  the  use  of  cement-solidified  MSWI  fly  ash  has  been  proved  to  be  suitable  for 
safety reuse as artificial aggregate in Portland cement mortars93, it has also been reported 
that  the  use  of  fly  ash  stabilised  by  cement,  which  would  be  used  as  a  road  base 
construction  material,  did  not  meet  the  leaching  standards  for  construction  material80. 
Therefore, it appears that there is not enough proof of the safety of using cement-solidified 
MSWI  fly  ash,  although  a  lot  of  effort  has  been  devoted  in  last  years  to  develop  new 
stabilisation and washing processes. 

Trends in MSWI fly ash management 

Seeing the amount of research regarding safe ways to reuse fly ash and avoid landfilling, 
it seems that fly ash management in going towards the applications processes allowing fly 
ashes to be reused or at least landfilled as inert waste at a low cost. 

6.3.3.2.  Economic aspects 

6.3.3.3.  Fly ash disposal costs vary in Europe from 150 to 500 

€/ton92 (when sent to hazardous landfills) and the cost of 
pre-processing, before disposal in standard landfills, is 
also very high.Social aspects 

Public health 

No issues regarding public health have been reported regarding the management of soils 
& stones waste.  

Employment 

No quantitative data estimating the number of jobs generated by the management of soil 
& stones (landfill, backfill, recycling) was found. 

6.3.4.  Fluff-light fraction and dust from shredding of metal-

containing waste (19 10 03*/19 10 04) 

End-of-life  vehicles  and  household  appliances,  as  well  as  mixed  scrap,  undergo  a 
shredding process, carried out by a hammer mill pulverising the waste, followed by a step 
separating a heavy and a light fraction. The heavy fraction includes steel scrap and a non-
magnetic shredder fraction, while the light fraction is constituted of fluff and dust. This light 
fraction,  classified  under  the  mirror  pair  “19  10  03*/19  10  04”,  constitutes  25%  (w/w)  of 
output  waste  streams  of  the  shredding  process.  It  is  a  complex  mixture  of  non-ferrous 
materials including plastics, foam, textiles, rubber, glass, sand and dust, as well as other 
organic compounds and metals in varying proportions.  

A majority (68% when considering quantities reported in the Member States studied 
in  this  project)  of  the  light  fraction  from  shredding  of  metal-containing  waste  are 
classified as non-hazardous in their country of origin.  

The baseline classifications of the collected experimental samples for the mirror pair 19 10 
03*/19 10 04 do not show the same trend (Table 45). 

Table 45: Hazard of 19 10 03*/19 10 04 waste streams 

              Hazard 
Source 

Non-hazardous 

Hazardous 

Not determined 

Quantities 
reported  by 
surveyed Member States  

68% 

32% 

n/a 

93  Cinquepalmi,  M.A.;  Mangialardi,  T.;  Panei,  L.;  Paolini,  A.E.;  Piga,  L.  Reuse  of  cement-solidified  municipal 
incinerator fly ash in cement mortars: Physico-mechanical and leaching characteristics. J. Hazard. Mater. 2008, 
151, 585-593 

115 

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

 
 
 
 
                                                      
              Hazard 
Source 

Non-hazardous 

Hazardous 

Not determined 

Current  classification  of 
the samples collected for 
the calculation exercise 

9% 

91% 

0% 

(7 samples) 

(10 samples) 

(0 samples) 

6.3.4.1.  Environmental aspects 

The  light  fraction  from  shredding  of  metal-containing  waste  is  mainly  non-hazardous 
because  European  legislation  (for  instance  the  End-of-Life  Vehicles  (ELV)  Directive) 
requires the depollution of end-of-life products prior to shredding. 

Hazardous  fractions  include  foam  fluff  contaminated  with  organic  compounds  (such  as 
polybrominated diphenyl ethers used as flame retardant and classified as POPs)94.  

Current recovery schemes 

The light fraction (fluff and dust) is currently not well recovered. For instance, in France, no 
more than 18% of fluff from car-shredding is recovered, from which less than 1% is recycled 
(the remaining being used for energy recovery)95. Plastics are the fluff fraction which is the 
most recycled. Fine fractions benefit from recycling in construction work, as they are mostly 
constituted of minerals. 

Thus, the large majority of fluff and dust is being landfilled.  

Drivers and barriers to an increase of fluff and dust recycling 

With 2015 set to see the tightening of EU legislation governing recycling quotas for end-of-
life  vehicles,  it  is  becoming  important  to  recycle  fractions  that  have  previously  been 
discarded96. The Landﬁll Directive also contributes to the pressure to minimise this waste 
through recycling and recovery. Therefore, techniques are under development in order to 
increase recycling rates of fluff and dust (see the “Trends” section below) 

The main barrier to fluff and dust recycling is the variability of its composition, which differs 
depending on the input material and the separation technique. For instance, the proportion 
of  ELV  treated  by  shredder  companies  typically  ranges  between  27%  and  85%. 
Furthermore, the composition of passenger cars is changing over the time96. This hinders 
the development of consistent and widely-applicable recycling techniques. 

Pollution due to contaminated fluff and dust 

There is no evidence of pollution with contaminated fluff and dust.  

Trends in fluff & dust management 

In  an  effort  to  achieve  better  fuel  economy  and  reduce  emissions,  automobile 
manufacturers  are  using  lighter  weight,  non-metallic  materials.  Newer  automobiles  are 
manufactured using less metal, while the use of plastics and other non-ferrous components 
is increasing. The net effect leaves shredders with lower volumes of recyclable metal and 
greater volumes of auto fluff for disposal or recycling97. 

There is potential for improving the recycling rate of the fluff fraction. Since this material 
contains a significant portion of fibres, further usage of the material should be considered. 
Indeed, fibres exhibit specific properties such as high surface area at low  mass, and are 

94 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pops/pdf/Interim_POP_Waste_2010.pdf  
95 ADEME (2013) Rapport annuel de la mise en œuvre des dispositions réglementaires relatives aux véhicules 
hors d'usage : situation en 2012 
96 
economic-solution.html  
97 http://autorecyclers.blogspot.fr/2007/07/auto-fluff-what-to-do-with-remaining-25_16.html  

http://www.waste-management-world.com/articles/print/volume-12/issue-2/features/from-fluff-to-stuff-an-

116 

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

 
 
 
 
                                                      
thus frequently used as a viscosity modifier or reinforcement agent for several construction 
materials96.  

6.3.4.2.  Economic aspects 

No recent data on costs linked to fluff and dust management was found. 

6.3.4.3.  Social aspects 

No data on employment was found. 

No public health issue was reported. 

6.3.5.  Other types of waste 

The current classification (baseline) of more than 4 samples of the remaining studied waste 
codes could not be determined. These codes are the following: 06 05 02* / 06 05 03, 08 
01 13* / 08 01 14, 10 03 19* / 10 03 20, 11 01 09* / 11 01 10, 12 01 14* / 12 01 15, 15 01 
10* / 15 01 01 / 15 01 02, 19 08 11* / 19 08 12, 19 08 13* / 19 08 14, 19 12 11* / 19 12 12 
(see also Table 46, grey, orange and red cells). This means that the impact assessment 
cannot  be  performed  on  those  codes.  There  is  then  no  need  to  describe  the  current 
situation. 

6.4.  Potential impacts of a change of classification 

6.4.1.  Overview 

The impacts of the different methods depend on three factors: 

  The percentages of samples changing classification, either from hazardous to 
non-hazardous  or  from  non-hazardous  to  hazardous,  among  the  samples 
currently classified under one or the other entry; 

  The quantities of waste involved in the change of classification; 

  The environmental, economic and social importance of the waste. 

The  proportion  of  samples  changing  classification  was  calculated  with  the  number  of 
samples classified under the source classification as a reference. For instance, a 50% shift 
from  hazardous  to  non-hazardous  means  that  50%  of  hazardous  waste  changed  their 
original classification to  non-hazardous  with our calculations. This  is more relevant than 
taking the total number of samples as a reference, because hazardous and non-hazardous 
waste are managed in very different ways and would undergo very different impacts98. 

Table 46 shows the shifts of classification for the mirror pairs for which data was available 
(ten pairs). The most robust results are highlighted in green and are obtained for the four 
pairs studied in detail in the previous section. Less robust results include pairs for which 
only 2 to 3 samples were available with source classification (in orange) and pairs for which 
only 1 sample was available with source classification (in red).  

The  pair  19  10  03*  /  19  10  04  has  several  samples  with  a  baseline  classification,  the 
majority of them being hazardous. Only one sample of this pair had a baseline classification 
as non-hazardous so the shift results corresponding to this sample are highlighted in red 
in the table as they are less reliable because of low representativeness. 

98 See also the Methodology section. 

117 

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

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Table 46: Shifts of classification caused by the four calculation methods 

Pair 

Number of 
samples 

Number of samples 
with baseline 
classification 

06 05 02* / 06 05 03 
08 01 13* / 08 01 14 
10 03 19* / 10 03 20 
11 01 09* / 11 01 10 
12 01 14* / 12 01 15 
15 01 10* / 15 01 01 / 15 01 02 
17 05 03* / 17 05 04 
19 01 11* / 19 01 12 
19 01 13* / 19 01 14 
19 08 11* / 19 08 12 
19 08 13* / 19 08 14 
19 10 03* / 19 10 04 
19 12 11* / 19 12 12 

Legend 

1 
4 
2 
5 
2 
3 
21 
57 
32 
3 
3 
11 
4 

1 
2 
0 
4 
2 
3 
13 
30 
31 
0 
1 
11 
0 

Non-
haz to 
haz 

Method 1 
Haz 
to 
non-
haz 
100% 
0% 
ND 
0% 
0% 
0% 
20.0% 
0% 
0% 
ND 
100% 
0% 
ND 

0% 
0% 
ND 
50.0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
14.3% 
90.0% 
ND 
0% 
100.0% 
ND 

Method 2 

Non-
haz to 
haz 

0% 
0% 
ND 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
ND 
0% 
0% 
ND 

Haz to 
non-
haz 
100% 
0% 
ND 
0% 
50.0% 
66.7% 
100.0% 
100.0% 
100.0% 
ND 
100% 
20.0% 
ND 

Method 3 
Haz 
to 
non-
haz 

Non-
haz to 
haz 

0% 
0% 
ND 
100.0% 
0% 
0% 
50.0% 
14.3% 
90.0% 
ND 
0% 
100.0% 
ND 

0% 
0% 
ND 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
ND 
0% 
0% 
ND 

Method 4 

Non-
haz to 
haz 

0% 
0% 
ND 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
ND 
0% 
100.0% 
ND 

Haz to 
non-
haz 
100% 
0% 
ND 
0% 
50.0% 
66.7% 
80.0% 
87.0% 
100.0% 
ND 
100% 
10.0% 
ND 

No samples with baseline classification  
Only 1 sample with baseline classification  
2-4 samples with baseline classification  
> 10 samples with baseline classification 

Changes calculated on 1 sample only 
Changes calculated on 2-3 sample only 
Changes calculated on more than 5 samples 

118 

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Based  on  the  most  robust  results,  it  appears  that  Methods  2  &  4  cause  changes  of 
classification  from  hazardous  to  non-hazardous  only  (false  negative),  and  for  almost  all 
pairs studied. A large proportion of waste samples are impacted by these changes, which 
are more important with Method 2. 

Methods  1  &  3  have  generally  less  impact  on  waste  classification  and  cause  mainly 
changes from non-hazardous to hazardous (false positive).  

The next sections analyse in more detail the changes for specific mirror pairs and describe 
the impacts of those changes (6.4.2, 6.4.3, 6.4.4 and 6.4.5).  

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

Table  47  reports  the  changes  of  classification  due  to  each  method.  The  changes  were 
calculated  on  13  samples:  5  with  a  hazardous  baseline  classification  and  8  with  a  non-
hazardous baseline classification. 

Table 47: 17 05 03*/17 05 04 – Shifts of classification caused by the four calculation methods 

Non-hazardous to 
hazardous 
Hazardous to non-
hazardous 

Method 1  Method 2  Method 3  Method 4 

0% 

0% 

50.0% 

0% 

20.0% 

100.0% 

0% 

80.0% 

Methods 1, 2 and 4 cause a shift from hazardous to non-hazardous, with Methods 2 and 4 
reclassifying  most  of  the  waste.  Nevertheless,  the  impact  on  the  total  quantity  of  soil  & 
stones waste remains low, as hazardous waste represents 3% of the total tonnage. 

Method 3 reclassifies half of non-hazardous waste as hazardous, meaning that 48.5% of 
the total quantities of waste would change classification. 

6.4.2.1.  Environmental impacts 

Status quo 

Current  management  of  soil  &  stones  waste  does  not  lead  to  direct  pollution  of  the 
environment. This is not expected to change. 

The uptake of recovery (and especially recycling) is strongly dependent on the regulatory 
changes  regarding  taxes  and  incentives.  If  they  do  not  change,  virgin  materials  would 
continue being cheaper and recovery will not increase. 

Method 2 & 4 

The implementation of these methods would increase the quantity of non-hazardous soil & 
stones (thus suitable for recovery) by 2.5% to 3.1%. Nevertheless, there is no evidence 
that it would lead to a higher uptake of waste recovery, if drivers such as landfill taxes are 
not modified. Therefore, the impact on the recycling/backfilling rates would be rather low. 

It is likely that the implementation of Methods 2 & 4 would lead to the misclassification of 
contaminated  soil  &  stones  as  non-hazardous.  This  would  pose  a  great  threat  to  the 
environment, as non-hazardous landfills would receive contaminated waste which, without 
proper management, would pollute soil and water compartments. 

The risks for the environment outweigh largely the benefits brought by a potential higher 
uptake of recycling; therefore Methods 2 & 4 would lead to negative environmental impacts. 

Method 3 

Shifting from non-hazardous to hazardous would lead to a lower risk of contamination of 
the environment by potentially hazardous soil & stones waste. The extent of this benefit 
would be low, as there is no evidence of current pollution from soil & stones waste, which 
may indicate that current risk management of this waste is adequate.  

Furthermore, under implementation of Method 3, up to half of soil & stones waste which is 
currently  recovered,  would  have  to  be  sent  to  hazardous  landfills  or  to  undergo  severe 

119 

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

 
 
 
 
 
treatment. A UK project investigated the feasibility of recycling contaminated soil99: under 
the optimal conditions of the project, 19,500 t out of 49,500 t could be reused (representing 
39%),  the  rest  being  not  suitable  for  reuse.  It  seems  then  that  widespread  recovery  of 
hazardous soil & stones waste would be limited. This would lead to a necessity to open 
new  landfills  and  would  impede  recovery.  The  use  of  virgin  materials  would  increase, 
including for low-value purposes like backfilling. 

Therefore, negative impacts outweigh the benefits. 

Method 1 

Method  1  causes  a  shift  of  0.6%  of  the  total  waste  volume  from  hazardous  to  non-
hazardous. Although this seems to be very low, soil & stones waste represent high volumes 
of waste (e.g. around 110 million tonnes in Germany100), which means that a large quantity 
of waste may change classification. This would pose a threat to the environment. 

Moreover, as stated for Methods 2 & 4, the impact on the recycling/backfilling rates would 
be low. 

Benefits of Method 1 are limited and its implementation could threaten the environment. 

6.4.2.2.  Economic impacts 

Status quo 

No change unless taxes are modified by regulation. 

Method 2 & 4 

Costs of managing soil & stones waste would sharply decrease, as hazardous landfill taxes 
are much higher than the cost of recovering non-hazardous waste. There would be fewer 
landfills, meaning that costs to society would decrease. 

Furthermore,  economic  activities  linked  to  backfilling/recycling  of  waste  would  intensify. 
However, this could lead to a saturated market. 

Economic impacts of Methods 2 & 4 are mostly positive. 

Method 3 

A shift of half of waste tonnage from non-hazardous to hazardous would lead to increase 
costs for companies, as they would have to pay high landfill taxes / severe treatment, and 
they  would  lose  recovery  activities.  The  costs  to  society  would  also  be  higher,  as  new 
landfills will have to be created. 

Economic impacts of Method 3 are negative. 

Method 1 

For the same reasons as stated for Methods 2 & 4, economic impacts of Methods 1 would 
be positive. The impact would be lower than for Methods 2 & 4, as fewer waste quantities 
would be classified as non-hazardous. 

6.4.2.3.  Social impacts 

Status quo 

No change expected in public health or employment. 

Method 2 & 4 

The implementation of these methods would increase the quantity of non-hazardous soil & 
stones (thus suitable for recovery) by 2.5% to 3.1%. In general, more jobs are created in 

99 CL:AIRE case study bulletin (2013) Remediation of four sites in Northwest England: A successfully completed 
multi-site, multi-consultant cluster project 
100 See section 4.1.3 

120 

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

 
 
 
 
                                                      
recovery than in landfill, thus the implementation of those methods would have a positive 
impact  on  employment.  Nevertheless, 
low,  as 
recycling/backfilling rates would not experience a sharp increase. 

impact  would  be 

rather 

this 

It is likely that the implementation of Methods 2 & 4 would lead to the misclassification of 
contaminated  soil  &  stones  as  non-hazardous.  This  would  pose  a  great  threat  to  public 
health:  workers  would  be  directly  exposed  and  the  general  public  could  be  affected  by 
potentially contaminated water from leaching of hazardous soil. 

The negative impacts to public health largely outweigh the benefits on employment. 

Method 3 

Under  implementation  of  Method  3,  up  to  half  of  soil  &  stones  waste  which  is  currently 
recovered, would have to be sent to hazardous landfills. This means that the number of 
jobs in recovery would decrease. As fewer jobs are needed in landfills than in recovery, 
implementation of Method 3 would lead to a loss in employment. 

There is no evidence that  Method 3 would lead to  positive or negative effects for public 
health, as there are currently no health issue linked to soil & stones waste.  

Therefore, social impacts of Method 3 are overall negative. 

Method 1 

As stated for Methods 2 & 4, Method 1 would lead to benefits for employment, albeit limited. 
However, it would pose risks to public health. 

6.4.2.4.  Conclusion 

Table 48 below summarises the impacts of the four calculation methods on soil & stones 
waste.  It  appears  that  none  of  the  methods  have  an  overall  positive  impact.  The  least 
negatively impacting method (overall neutral impact) is Method 1. 

Table 48: 17 05 03*/17 05 04 – Status quo and impacts of the four calculation methods 

Environmental 

Economic 

Social 

Status quo 

Method 1 

Method 2 

Method 3 

Method 4 

/ 

- 

- - - 

- 

- - - 

/ 

+ + 

+ + + 

- - - 

+ + + 

/ 

- 

- - - 

- 

- - - 

The potential implementation of Method 1 would require further assessment on the type of 
currently  hazardous  waste  which  shifts  from  hazardous  to  non-hazardous  (nature  of 
hazardous substances, etc.), in order to propose a proper way to manage potential risks to 
health  and  the  environment.  A  first  screen  of  hazardous  substances  shows  that  those 
classified as H410 are mainly responsible for the change of classification: compounds of 
(Benzo[a]pyrene,  benzo[def]chrysene, 
metals 
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene, etc.). 

(Cu,  Cd,  Ni,  etc.)  and  HAPs 

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

Table  49  reports  the  changes  of  classification  due  to  each  method.  The  changes  were 
calculated on 30 samples: 23 with a hazardous baseline classification and 7 with a non-
hazardous baseline classification. 

121 

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

 
 
 
 
 
Table 49: 19 01 11*/19 01 12 – Shifts of classification caused by the four calculation methods 

Method 1  Method 2  Method 3  Method 4 

Non-hazardous 
to hazardous 
Hazardous to 
non-hazardous 

14.3% 

0% 

14.3% 

0% 

0% 

100.0% 

0% 

87.0% 

Methods  2  and  4  cause  a  shift  from  hazardous  to  non-hazardous,  reclassifying  most  of 
hazardous waste. Nevertheless, the impact on the total quantity of IBA remains quite low, 
as hazardous waste represents 8% of the total. 

Method 1 and 3 reclassifies 14.3% of non-hazardous waste as hazardous, meaning that 
around 13% of the total quantities of waste would change classification. 

6.4.3.1.  Environmental impacts 

Status quo 

The lack of harmonisation of Member State regulations and the expected stagnation of the 
production of IBA  would lead to  a  decrease in the  use of recovered IBA in construction 
purposes. 

Method 2 & 4 

The implementation of these methods would increase the quantity of non-hazardous IBA 
(thus suitable for recovery) by 7.6% to 8.7%. As IBA currently experiences high rates of 
recovery, Methods 2 & 4 would allow for an increase of around 5% of recovered material. 
The benefits would then remain limited. 

Furthermore, the implementation of Methods 2 & 4 would lead to the misclassification of 
contaminated IBA as non-hazardous (as compared to the baseline). This would increase 
the risk of leaching of trace elements from IBA used as aggregate in road construction. 

The risks for the environment outweigh largely the benefits brought by a potential higher 
uptake of recycling; therefore Methods 2 & 4 would lead to negative environmental impacts. 

Method 1 & 3 

Shifting from non-hazardous to hazardous would lead to a lower risk of contamination of 
the environment by potentially hazardous IBA. The extent of this benefit would be low, as 
there  is  no  evidence  of  current  pollution  from  IBA,  which  may  indicate  that  current  risk 
management  of  this  waste  is  adequate.  However,  Methods  1  &  3  would  allow  for  a 
preservation of the current satisfactory state. 

Furthermore, under implementation of Methods 1 & 3, around 14% of IBA which is currently 
recovered, would have to be sent to hazardous landfills or undergo further treatment. The 
low  percentage  of  IBA  changing  classification  would  lead  to  a  limited  impact  on  IBA 
recovery and landfilling. 

Therefore, environmental impacts of Methods 1 & 3 are limited. 

6.4.3.2.  Economic impacts 

Status quo 

Trade would continue being hindered by the lack of harmonisation of regulations across 
Member  States  and  by  the  stagnation  of  quantities  of  IBA.  Furthermore,  the  fragile 
economic models of companies recycling IBA and the reluctance of some Member States 
to encourage this activity would likely lead to a decrease of economic activities linked to 
IBA recovery. 

Method 2 & 4 

Costs of managing soil & stones waste would sharply decrease, as IBA disposal costs are 
more than twice as much high as recovery costs. There would be fewer landfills, meaning 
that costs to society would decrease. 

122 

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

 
 
 
 
 
Furthermore, economic activities linked to recovery of IBA (mainly production of IBAA for 
road construction) would intensify. However, this could lead to a saturated market. 

Economic impacts of Methods 2 & 4 are positive. 

Method 1 & 3 

A shift of around 14% of waste tonnage from non-hazardous to hazardous would lead to 
increase  costs  for  companies,  as  they  would  have  to  pay  high  landfill  taxes  /  severe 
treatment, and they would lose part of recovery activities. The costs to society would also 
be higher, as new landfills will have to be created. 

Economic impacts of Method 1 & 3 are negative, although rather limited because of the 
low percentage of waste involved. 

6.4.3.3.  Social impacts 

Status quo 

No significant changes expected 

Method 2 & 4 

The  implementation  of  Methods  2  &  4  would  allow  for  an  increase  of  around  5%  of 
recovered material. In general, more jobs are created in recovery than in landfill, thus the 
implementation  of  those  methods  would  have  a  positive  impact  on  employment. 
Nevertheless, this impact would be remain limited, seeing the low percentage of recovered 
material. 

Furthermore, the implementation of Methods 2 & 4 would lead to the misclassification of 
contaminated  IBA  as  non-hazardous.  This  would  pose  a  great  threat  to  public  health: 
workers would be directly exposed and the general public could be affected by potentially 
contaminated water from hazardous soil. 

The negative impacts to public health largely outweigh the benefits on employment. 

Method 1 & 3 

Under implementation of Methods 1 or 3, around 14% of IBA which is currently recovered, 
would  have  to  be  sent  to  hazardous  landfills.  This  means  that  the  number  of  jobs  in 
recovery would slightly decrease. As fewer jobs are needed in landfills than in recovery, 
implementation of Method 1 or 3 would lead to a loss in employment, albeit limited. 

There is no evidence that Method 1 or 3 would lead to benefits for public health, as there 
are currently no health issue linked to IBA.  

Therefore, social impacts of Methods 1 & 3 are slightly negative. 

6.4.3.4.  Conclusion 

Table  50  below  summarises  the  impacts  of  the  four  calculation  methods  on  IBA101.  It 
appears that none of the methods have an overall positive impact; however, Methods 1 & 
3 have better impacts than the status quo. 

Table 50: 19 01 11*/19 01 12 – Impacts of the four calculation methods 

Environmental 

Economic 

Social 

Status quo 

Method 1 

- 

++ 

- 

- 

/ 

- 

101 Positive impacts of methods 1 & 3 have been heightened by one cross in the limit of three, in order to take into 
account the benefits of harmonising classification (as this was identified as a driver in section 6.3.2. 

123 

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

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Environmental 

Economic 

Social 

Method 2 

Method 3 

Method 4 

- - - 

++ 

- - - 

+ + + 

- 

+ + + 

- - - 

- 

- - - 

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

Table  51  reports  the  changes  of  classification  due  to  each  method.  The  changes  were 
calculated on 31 samples: 21 with a hazardous baseline classification and 10 with a non-
hazardous  baseline  classification  (baseline  coming  mainly  from  the  UK  –  22  out  of  32 
samples). 

Table 51: 19 01 13* / 19 01 14 – Shifts of classification caused by the four calculation 
methods 

Method 1  Method 2  Method 3  Method 4 

Non-hazardous 
to hazardous 
Hazardous to 
non-hazardous 

90.0% 

0% 

90.0% 

0% 

0% 

100.0% 

0% 

100.0% 

All methods shift a large proportion of waste towards the opposite classification. The most 
important impact is caused by Methods 2 and 4, which reclassify all hazardous waste as 
non-hazardous (false negative).  

6.4.4.1.  Environmental impacts 

Status quo 

R&D work conducted the past few  years, on treatment and risk management of fly ash, 
may lead to the development of projects involving fly ash reuse. 

Enhanced knowledge on the leaching processes leading to environmental risk will allow for 
a better management of those risks. 

Method 2 & 4 

These methods would be equivalent to redefining fly ash mirror pair as a non-hazardous 
absolute entry. This would have adverse effects on the environment, as more than half of 
fly ash are currently considered hazardous. 

Method 1 & 3 

Shifting from non-hazardous to hazardous would lead to a lower risk of contamination of 
the environment by potentially hazardous fly ashes. The extent of this benefit would be low, 
as  there  is  no  evidence  of  current  pollution  from  fly  ash  disposal,  which  indicates  that 
current  risk  management  of  this  waste  is  adequate  (and  also  already  for  those  being 
classified as non-hazardous). 

Although Methods 1 & 3 “divert” currently non-hazardous fly ash from potential reuse, the 
actual impacts on fostering reuse would be low, because almost no large-scale project is 
currently  run.  However,  Methods  1  &  3  would  lead  to  the  creation  of  new  hazardous 
landfills.  

6.4.4.2.  Economic impacts 

Status quo 

Very high costs – no significant changes expected. 

All Methods 

124 

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
Costs for treating fly ash and costs for sending them to hazardous landfills are both very 
high. The cost for treating hazardous ashes being higher, Methods 1 & 3 would surely lead 
to a great increase of costs.  

6.4.4.3.  Social impacts 

Status quo 

No change expected in public health or employment. 

Method 2 & 4 

The implementation of these methods would increase the quantity of fly ash (thus suitable 
for recovery) by 150%. However, as recovery of fly ash is not developed, the impact on 
recovery jobs would be very low. 

The implementation of Methods 2 & 4 would lead to the misclassification of contaminated 
fly ash as non-hazardous. This could potentially increase the risks for public health: workers 
would  be  directly  exposed  and  the  general  public  could  be  affected  by  potentially 
contaminated water by leaching of ill-managed fly ash. 

The negative impacts to public health largely outweigh the benefits on employment. 

Method 1 & 3 

Under  implementation  of  Method  1  or  3,  a  large  majority  of  fly  ash  which  is  currently 
disposed  in  non-hazardous  landfills,  would  have  to  be  sent  to  hazardous  landfills.  This 
would not have any significant impact of employment. 

There is no evidence that Methods 1 or 3 would lead to benefits for public health, but they 
would preserve the current situation. 

6.4.4.4.  Conclusion 

Table 52 below summarises the impacts of the four calculation methods on fly ash. In light 
of the few data available, it appears that all would be detrimental compared to the status 
quo. Nevertheless, Methods 1 & 3 would be the methods with the most beneficial impacts. 

Table 52: 19 01 13* / 19 01 14 – Impacts of the four calculation methods 

Environmental 

Economic 

Social 

Status quo 

Method 1 

Method 2 

Method 3 

Method 4 

+ 

+ 

- - - 

+ 

- - - 

/ 

- - - 

- 

- - - 

- 

/ 

/ 

- - - 

/ 

- - - 

6.4.5.  Fluff-light fraction and dust from shredding of metal-

containing waste (19 10 03*/19 10 04) 

Table  53  reports  the  changes  of  classification  due  to  each  method.  The  changes  were 
calculated on 11 samples: 10 with a hazardous baseline classification and  only 1 with a 
non-hazardous baseline classification. Therefore, no valid assessment can be conducted 
for changes from non-hazardous to hazardous. 

125 

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

 
 
 
 
 
Table 53: 19 10 03*/19 10 04 – Shifts of classification caused by the four calculation methods 

Method 1  Method 2  Method 3  Method 4 

Non-hazardous 
to hazardous 
Hazardous to 
non-hazardous 

n/a 

0% 

n/a 

20.0% 

n/a 

0% 

n/a 

10.0% 

Method 1 and 3 do not impact the classification of hazardous streams: thus, their impact 
cannot be assessed (see above). Methods 2 and 4 lead to a reclassification of 20% and 
10% (respectively) of waste from hazardous to non-hazardous. 

Status quo 

With the relevant EU directives setting targets for recycling, the uptake of recovery of fluff 
and dust is expected to increase. This will reduce the amount of this waste being sent to 
landfills and thus benefit the environment. 

Method 2 & 4 

The implementation of those methods would likely increase the quantities of waste to be 
recycled by a few percent. However, it would pose a risk for the environment and public 
health (potentially hazardous substances could contaminate soil & water). 

No conclusion can be reached regarding the impacts of the four calculations methods on 
fluff and dust; mainly because of lack of data on non-hazardous samples and lack of data 
on economic and social aspects. 

6.5.  Conclusion  

This semi-qualitative, preliminary impact assessment, highlights that, for the 3 mirror pairs 
assessed,  the  same  relevant  methods  were  identified:  Methods  1  &  3.  Method  1  was 
preferred for the soil & stones waste stream. 

Environmental 

Economic 

Social 

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

Status quo 

Method 1 

Method 2 

Method 3 

Method 4 

/ 

- 

- - - 

- 

- - - 

/ 

+ + 

+ + + 

- - - 

+ + + 

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

Status quo 

Method 1 

Method 2 

Method 3 

Method 4 

- 

++ 

- - - 

++ 

- - - 

- 

- 

+ + + 

- 

+ + + 

/ 

- 

- - - 

- 

- - - 

/ 

- 

- - - 

- 

- - - 

126 

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Environmental 

Economic 

Social 

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

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

Status quo 

Method 1 

Method 2 

Method 3 

Method 4 

+ 

+ 

- - - 

+ 

- - - 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

/ 

/ 

- - - 

/ 

- - - 

Apart  from  the  benefits  provided  by  a  harmonised  approach  across  Member  States, 
positive impacts from Methods 1 & 3 are mainly environmental and economic., although 
they are likely to have negative economic impacts on some operators.  

127 

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This page was left intentionally blank 

128 

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

 
 
 
 
7.  Conclusions and 
recommendations 

7.1.  Lack of harmonisation of current approaches for assessing 

HP 14 

  The  study  of  a  sample  of  nine  Member  States  showed  the  lack  of 
harmonisation in the EU regarding the methods for assessment of HP 14. 

o  Even within Member States that apply calculation methods, calculation 
approaches vary and are based on different regulatory texts (based on 
the DPD, the ADR or the CLP); 

o  Similarly, biotest protocols differ within Member States that carry out 
this approach: different batteries of tests  are applied (some are only 
aquatic,  other  both  aquatic  and  terrestrial,  test  organisms  vary)  and 
different thresholds are used; 

o  2  Member  States  carry  out  combined  approaches,  using  calculation 
methods when the composition of the waste is known and biotests if 
not. 

  Based  on  declarations  of  competent  authorities  and  stakeholders,  Member 

States seem to be committed to their approaches. 

 

 Therefore  it  would  seem  that  the  use  of  very  different  approaches  to  waste 
classification  leads,  for  mirror  entries  where  an  investigation  is  required  to 
discriminate  between  hazardous  and  non-hazardous  waste,  to  a  situation 
where  wastes  may  be  classified  differently  depending  on  the  Member  State 
where  the  waste  is  produced.  This  has  negative  consequences  upon  the 
transfrontier movement of waste and creates a distortion of the internal market, 
not only as regards the trading in waste itself, but also as regards the waste 
management  costs  associated  to  the  industrial  activities  associated  (and 
therefore potentially affecting the competitiveness of the affected sectors).  

7.2.  Conclusion on the most relevant calculation method for the 

assessment of HP14: Method 1 seems to be the most relevant 
for waste classification 

  Four calculation methods were proposed by the European Commission to be 

compared in terms of changes of classifications and impacts: 

o  2 calculation methods including M-factors (Methods 2 & 4) 

o  2 calculation methods based on the CLP regulation (Methods 1 & 4) 

  The  comparative  assessment  of  the  four  calculation  methods  on  a  selected 
sample of mirror pairs was limited by limitations in data availability and quality. 

  Nevertheless,  results  of  the  comparison  between  the  4  calculation  methods 

give some indication that Method 1 is the most relevant: 

129 

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

 
 
 
 
o  Good  concordance  with  current  classification 

(baseline)  and 
classification based on biotest results – with a proposed threshold of 
10% for EC50s102; 

o  Aligned with the CLP; 

o  Reasonable  environmental,  social  and  economic  impacts  of  its 

implementation.  

7.3.  Recommendations on next steps 

 

 

In compliance with the Terms of Reference, this study focused on calculation 
methods; however, a combined approach has been recommended by several 
experts to optimise the accuracy of hazard classification and offset limitations 
of both calculation and biotests methods alone. Nevertheless, there will be a 
need  to  derive  a  harmonised  threshold  value  for  use  biotests  in  waste 
classification  for  code  HP  14,  as  well  as  the  definition  of  a  minimum  test 
battery. Further to this, political agreement on the proposal would have to be 
sought. Some work is currently performed in some MS to  propose threshold 
values  using  test  results  obtained  on  non-hazardous  absolute  entries  as  a 
benchmark. 

In compliance with the Terms of Reference, this study was focussed on mirror 
pair entries to carry out the comparison of the 4 calculation methods. However, 
some similar work has been carried out in parallel by the French Ministry of 
Ecology,  but  included  also  absolutes  entries.  This  additional  study  is 
interesting and complementary to our study, as absolute entries could be used 
in support of a model (and more especially non-hazardous absolute entries103). 
The  French  study,  presented  in  Annex  6,  used  the  same  4  calculation 
methods, plus  an  additional one: “Method  2  with extended  M-factors”, using 
not only M-factors from the Table 3.1 of Annex VI of the CLP regulation, but 
also those calculated by Hennebert and Rebischung (2013)104. The results of 
both  studies  are  consistent,  with  Method  1  having  the  best  results  of  the  4 
proposed calculation methods. 

  The potential use of  M-factors not listed in the  Table 3.1 of Annex VI of the 
CLP regulation has triggered a lot of debates during the workshops. Pros and 
cons have been expressed and particular emphasis was placed on the lack of 
harmonised methods to calculate new M-factors. 

102 Please note that this threshold is not agreed yet at European level. 
103 Absolute hazardous entries could have been classified as hazardous because of other HP criterion, and not 
necessarily for HP 14. 
104 Hennebert P, Rebischung F. 2013. Waste Hazardousness Assessment - Proposition of methods. Report 
INERIS- DRC-13-136159-04172A- 69 pp. http://www.ineris.fr/centredoc/drc-13-136159-04172ahazardous- 
waste-assessment-f3-1379929842.pdf 

130 

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

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
8.  Annexes 

ANNEX 1. 

FIRST QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO COMPETENT AUTHORITIES __________ 132 

1.1.  List of contacts ____________________________________________________ 132 

1.2.  The Questionnaire _________________________________________________ 132 

ANNEX 2. 

FACTSHEETS ____________________________________________ 136 

ANNEX 3. 

SECOND QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO COMPETENT AUTHORITIES ________ 175 

ANNEX 4. 
ASSESSMENT  187 

QUESTIONNAIRE  SENT  TO  INDUSTRIAL  STAKEHOLDERS  FOR  THE  IMPACT 

ANNEX 5. 

APPLICATION OF THE CALCULATION METHODS ____________________ 195 

ANNEX 6. 

STUDY FROM THE FRENCH MINISTRY OF ECOLOGY  ________________ 196 

131 

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

 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 1. First 
sent to Competent Authorities 

Questionnaire 

1.1. List of contacts 

Table 54: Experts who contributed (in grey: Member States who did not 
contribute) 

Member State 

Expert(s) who contributed 

Austria 

Sonja Loew 

Belgium 

Evi Rossi 

Czech Republic 

Jaromir Manhart 

Finland 

Eevaleena Häkkinen 

Germany 

Joachim Wuttke 

Walter Adebahr 

Spain 

UK 

Margarita Ruiz Sáiz-Aja (and colleagues) 

Robert McIntyre 

France 

Pauline Ardaine Langeron 

Italy 

Daniela Conti 

Andrea Paina 

Stefania Balzamo 

1.2.The Questionnaire 

1. General information 

1.1 Your full name and your email address: 

_______________________________________________________________________ 

1.2 Please provide the name of the organisation to which you belong: 

______________________________________________________________________ 

And its type (bold the right answer): 

o  National authority 
o  Research institute 
o 
o  Other (please specify): 

Industry 

________________________________________________________________ 

1.3 Your country (bold the right answer): 

o  AT – Austria  
o  BE – Belgium  
o  CZ – Czech Republic 

o  FI – Finland 
o  FR – France 
o 
IT - Italy 

132  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
o  DE – Germany 
o  ES – Spain 

o  PL - Poland 
o  UK - United Kingdom 

1.4 Type of waste your expertise covers (bold the right answer): 

o  All 
o  Specific 

  Provide a general description of waste categories you cover or waste codes 

when relevant: 
_____________________________________________________________ 

2. Approaches for assessing the H14 property of waste in your country 

2.1 Type of approach (bold the right answer): 

o  Calculation method 

  Approach based on limit values (based on CLP or DPD limits)  

  Specify protocol details and applicable limit values: 

__________________________________________________________ 

  Approach not based on limit values 

  Specify details of the protocol: 

___________________________________________________________ 

o  Approach based on biotesting  

  Specify protocol details for the approach based on biotesting and 

applicable limit values: 
___________________________________________________________ 

Type 
test 

of 

Test 
organism 

Endpoint 

Test method 

Test 
duration 

Expression 
of results 

Threshold 
value 

Terrestrial 

Aquatic 

o  Combined approach 

  Specify protocol details and applicable limit values (e.g. priority given to 
calculation method or experimental approach? Systematic or partial 
implementation of biotests? Ecotoxicity based approach applied to all type 
of waste or to some of them?): 
___________________________________________________________ 

o  Other 

  Specify protocol details: 

________________________________________________________ 

133  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2. Please provide sources of information (for example guidelines) for the H14 
assessment methods and protocols (a preliminary list – to be reviewed and completed - is 
available in the attached document named Attachment 1 - Preliminary list of relevant 
legislation and guidelines): 
______________________________________________________________________ 

2.3.  Please  provide  examples  of  application  of  your  H14  assessment method  on  1  or  2 
waste types / waste codes (to be chosen from the list available in the attached document 
named Attachment 2 - List of waste codes): 

______________________________________________________________________ 

2.4 According to your knowledge, what are the limits and uncertainties of the approach? 

______________________________________________________________________ 

2.5. What are the advantages? 

______________________________________________________________________ 

2.6.  Please  provide  relevant  national  legislation  or  guidelines  for  the  H14  assessment 
methods and protocols (a preliminary list – to be reviewed and completed - is available in 
the attached document named Attachment 1 - Preliminary list of relevant legislation and 
guidelines): 

______________________________________________________________________ 

2.7. Please indicate the stakeholders involved in the assessment: 

Stakeholder role  

Name of stakeholder 

Type  of  stakeholder 
(national 
authority, 
research institute, etc.) 

Funding  
Performing the test(s),  
Providing waste samples 
Other (please specify in 
comments) 

2.8. Please provide examples of costs linked to the H14 assessment methods used in your 
country: 

______________________________________________________________________ 

3. Proposal for the selection of waste streams 

The project team will test four calculation options on a set of 50 pairs of mirror waste codes 
(mirror pairs), to be selected from the list in the attached document. The following questions 
aim at prioritising the waste streams to select. 

3.1 On which specific waste streams do you think the present study comparing assessing 
methods for H14 should focus on?  

_______________________________________________________________________ 

3.2 Why? Choose one or more reasons below (bold the right answer): 

o  Availability and quality of existing data 

134  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
o  Criticality of the classification stability (i.e. waste types that are likely to change 
their classification (from hazardous to non-hazardous or vice-versa) if the limit 
values evolve) 

o  High quantities of waste production 
o  Economic importance (trade and recycling) 
o  Potential presence of hazardous substances 
o  Other (please specify): 

________________________________________________________________ 

3.3. Could you please provide us sources of information where we could find the following 
data? 

Information on quantities produced by specific waste codes: ____________ 

o 
o  Hazard classifications assigned: _____________________________ 
o  Composition data of specific wastes:_________________________________ 
o  Results of ecotoxicological tests: ______________________________________ 
o  Protocols of sampling, preparation of samples, analyses and test: ____________ 

4. General information about waste streams in your country 

4.1.  What  is  the  share  of  waste  assessed  positive  for  the  H14  criteria  in  your  country, 
globally, and by category of waste if relevant? 

_______________________________________________________________________ 

4.2. What type of waste has the highest tonnage in your country? 

Type  or  category  or 
code of waste 

Annual 
(metric tonnes) 

tonnage 

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: 

______________________________________________________________________ 

135  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

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) 

- 

in 

Variability 
H14 
assessment  methods 
depending on the waste 
nature 

Related  legislation  and 
guidelines 

Legislation 

Fed. Law Gaz No. 522/1973 as amended by Fed 
Law Gaz III No. 36/2 

Annex  3  of  Abfallverzeichnisverordnung  BGBl  II 
(Austrian  Ordinance  of  Waste  Classification) 
2003/570 idgF 

Guidelines 

None 

Stakeholders 
involved 
in the H14 assessment 

Waste with highest tonnage 

17 05 04 excav. Soil 23,5 Mio t 

17 09 04 C&D waste   6,6 Mio t 

19 01 14 filter dust -  

10 02 08 gas cleaning(Fe) –  

Approx. 53,6 million tons of waste are generated in 
Austria, thereof approx. 1 million ton of hazardous 
waste (Data 2009) 

From Eurostat: 

Waste from construction : 57%, 19.5 Mt 

highest 

Hazardous 
highest tonnage 

waste 

Waste  with 
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: 

: 

from 

Inorganic  wastes 

thermal 
10-11-12 
processes  +  Inorganic  metal-containing  wastes 
from metal treatment and the coating of metals, and 
non-ferrous  hydrometallurgy  +  Wastes 
from 
shaping  and  surface  treatment  of  metals  and 
plastics (32%, 272.7 kt) 

19 : Waste from waste treatment facilities, off-site 
waste  water  treatment  plants  and  the  water 
industry (23%, 200.7 kt) 

136  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
AUSTRIA 

National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes 

Chapter of List of waste with 
the 
of 
hazardous waste 

highest 

share 

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 

Threshold value 

ozone  depleting  substances  (hydrocarbons: 
CFCs, CFHCs, HCFCs, HFHCs, FHCs, Halons) 

2000 mg in total /kg DM  

Illustrative examples 

Advantages 

classification  according  to  the  UN-  Regulation  on 
Transport of Dangerous Goods is required anyway 
if the waste is transported 

Qualitative  assessment 
of the method(s) 

Limits and uncertainties 

Approximate  cost  of 
method(s)  

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 

Other  MS  using 
same 
approach 
known) 

- 

the 
(if 

Additional comments 

- 

Expert 
to 
elaborate this factsheet 

contacted 

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 

- 

137  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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) 

in 

Variability 
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 

involved 
Stakeholders 
in the H14 assessment 

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

Waste with highest tonnage 

Construction & demolition waste (3,891,996tons, 
15.7% 

Waste  with 
tonnage  

highest 

Hazardous 
highest tonnage 

waste 

with 

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) 

Chapter of List of waste with 
the 
of 
hazardous waste 

highest 

share 

No available data 

Percentage  of  waste 
considered 
as 
hazardous by H14 

- 

Protocol used 

Ecotoxic tests are not applied. 

Calculation methods: 

138  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
BELGIUM (Flanders) 

National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes 

Individual substances 

Classification 

Concentration limits  

R50 

R50-53 

R51-53 

R52-53 

R52 

R53 

R59 

25 

0.25 

2.5 

25 

25 

25 

0.1 

Combination of substances 

Classification 

Concentration 
threshold  to  be  taken 
into account  

Conditions 
waste hazardous 

rendering 

R50 

R50-53 

R51-53 

R52-53 

R52 

R53 

R59 

0.1 

0.1 

0.1 

1 

1 

1 

0.1 

•Sum 
substances >2.5% 

of 

R50-53 

•Sum of R51-53>25% 

•Sum 
substances>25% 

of 

R50 

•Sum 
substances >0.1% 

of 

R59 

Illustrative examples 

- 

Advantages 

Easy to perform on well-defined samples 

139  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
BELGIUM (Flanders) 

National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes 

Qualitative  assessment 
of the method(s) 

Limits and uncertainties 

The real toxicity is not taken into account. 

Waste  is  a  mixture  of  dangerous  and  non-
dangerous substances, but with the very important 
difference  that  the  composition  of  mixtures  of 
chemical  substances100  %  is  known  while  this  is 
almost  never 
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  waste. 

the  case 

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  organic 
components). 

the  share  of 

Approximate  cost  of 
method(s)  
Variability 
waste types (%) 

depending 

the 

AFNOR XP X30-489 is 1900 € per sample. 

Ecotox-testing (microtox) : 1000 €, per sample 

on 

Other  MS  using 
approach 
same 
known) 

the 
(if 

None 

Additional comments 

- 

Expert 
to 
elaborate this factsheet 

contacted 

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 

. 

140  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
 
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 
the 
waste nature 

on 

No  

Related legislation and 
guidelines 

Legislation 

Guidelines 

Act on Waste No 185/2001 Coll. on waste 

Decree  No  376/2001  Coll.  on  evaluation  of 
hazardous properties of waste 

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 
highest tonnage 

waste 

with 

In 2012: 17 05 03*: 406471,6000 t (24,8% of total 
hazardous waste) 

Waste  with  highest 
tonnage  

In  2013:  308491,4077t  (21,4%  of  total  hazardous 
waste) 

Chapter of List of waste with 
of 
the 
hazardous waste 

highest 

share 

Percentage  of  waste 
as 
considered 
hazardous by H14 

Ecotoxic tests  

Leaching: EN 14735 

Protocol used 

No terrestrial tests 

141  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

3 days 

EC50 

10 ml/l 

Sinapis 
alba 

root 
length 

Instructio
ns 
(Bulletin 
of 
Ministry 
of 
Environm
ent CR) 

growth  EN 

ISO 

3 days 

EC50 

10 ml/l 

8692 

Desmode
smus 
subspicat
us 

Daphnia 
magna 

mobilit
y 

EN 
6341 

ISO 

2 days 

EC50 

10 ml/l 

Poecilia 
reticulata 

lethal 
effect 

ISO 

EN 
7346-2 

4 days 

EC50 

10 ml/l 

No calculation methods  

142  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
CZECH REPUBLIC 

National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes 

Illustrative examples 

Waste 

Decree No. 376/2001 Coll. 

Chemical 
limits 

Ecotoxicity 

Exceeded 
limit  

Exceeded 
limit  

Contaminated  soil  from  wood 
preservation plant 

No 

Yes - algea 

Contaminated 
(metals, 
PAHs,  sludge  from  wastewater 
treatment plant) 

soil 

from 

sludge 
mechanical 
industrial  wastewater  treatment 
plant 

ash from thermal electric power 
station 

Contaminated soil 

sludge 

ash 

stabilized waste 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes - pH 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Advantages 

Qualitative 
assessment  of 
method(s) 

the 

Limits and uncertainties 

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). 

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. 

Approximate  cost  of 
method(s)  
Variability 
waste types (%) 

depending 

the 

Approx. CZK 11000,- (EUR 410,-) 

on 

Other  MS  using  the 
same  approach 
(if 
known) 

Similar to Spain (only aquatic tests) 

143  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
Additional comments 

The Centre for Waste Management, VUV, TGM Praha, conducted research for the 
Ministry  of  the  Environment  aimed  at  the  proposal  of  a  new  tests  for  waste 
ecotoxicity  evaluation  from  2005  to  2010.  In  the  research  participated  national 
authorities, private organisations and universities. 

Real  wastes  samples  were  used  for  research.  They  were  selected  partly  on  the 
basis of the production volume and also on the basis of their contamination. These 
wastes were used: 

•contaminated soil from staining and impregnation of wood 

•contaminated  soil  –  mixed  contamination  by  metal  (Zn),  traces  of  PAHs 
(polyaromatic hydrocarbons) and sewage sludge from wastewater treatment plant  

•sludge from mechanical industrial wastewater treatment plant 

•fly ash from thermal electric power station (two different samples) 

•blast furnace slag 

•soil contaminated with trinitrotoluene (two different samples) 

•compost for recultivation (two different samples) 

•PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) contaminated soil 

•slag from incinerator 

•contaminated sediment 

•construction waste 

•construction waste fine 

•soil contaminated with organic substances 

•sludge from the production of organic substances  

•stabilised fly ash from coal combustion 

•unpolluted soil 

The results of research served for the proposal of a new approach for ecotoxicity 
evaluation  for  amendment  of  the  Czech  Decree  No.  376/2001  Coll.  on  the 
evaluation of hazardous properties of waste. 

New proposal : 

Evaluation of ecotoxicity as hazardous property H14 Ecotoxic includes aquatic and 
terrestrial test sets aiming on complex evaluation of waste ecotoxicity.  

Waste  is  classified  as  hazardous  with  hazardous  property  H14  Ecotoxic,  if  the 
observed effect of waste eluate in concentration 100 ml/l or the observed effect of 
waste  in  concentration  100  g/kg  for  at  least  one  of  testing  organisms  exceeds 
following limits:  

aquatic tests with waste eluate in concentration 100 ml/l: 

•20 % inhibition of the mobility of water flea Daphnia magna, ISO 6341 

•25 % inhibition of the growth of fresh water algae Desmodesmus subspicatus, ISO 
8692 

•25  %  inhibition  of  the  light  emission  of  luminescent  bacteria  Vibrio  fischeri,  ISO 
11348-2 

terrestrial tests with waste in concentration 100 g/kg: 

•50 % inhibition of reproduction of collembola Folsomia candida, ISO 11267 

•50 % inhibition of reproduction of enchytraeid Enchytraeus crypticus, ISO 16387 

•50  %  inhibition  of  root  elongation  of  dicotyledonous  plant  Lactuca  sativa,  ISO 
11269-1 

144  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
CZECH REPUBLIC 

National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes 

Expert  contacted 
elaborate 
factsheet 

to 
this 

Mr. Jaromír Manhart, jaromir.manhart@mzp.cz 

Ms. Eva Kubova, eva.kubova@mzp.cz 

References 

Ministerstvo  životního  prostředí  české  republiky  (2007)  Metodický  pokyn  odboru 
odpadů ke stanovení ekotoxicity odpadů 

Additional information 

145  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

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. 

Related 
and guidelines 

legislation 

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 

H. 

Jätteen 

luokittelu 
Dahlbo, 
2002. 
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) 

Tilastokeskus, 

Suomen 
Ympäristöministeriö, 
ympäristökeskus.  Jäteluokitusopas  2005  (Waset 
Classification  Guide 
Tilastokeskus, 
Käsikirjoja 37. Helsinki 2005. (In Finnish) 

2005). 

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 from Mining and quarrying (58%, 53 Mt) 

Hazardous 
highest tonnage 

waste 

with 

Mineral waste 561 000 tonnes (53%) 

From Eurostat: 

: 

from 

Inorganic  wastes 

10-11-12 
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 (62%, 1Mt) 

Waste  with  highest 
tonnage  

Chapter of List of waste with 
the 
of 
hazardous waste 

highest 

share 

05  :  Wastes  from  petroleum  refining,  natural  gas 
purification and pyrolytic treatment of coal (69%, 22 
kt) 

146  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
FINLAND 

National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes 

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  

Protocol 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  

Combination  of  hazardous 
components concentration 

Limit value 

Cut-off value 

R51-53 

R50, R52 

R50-53 

R59 

R53, R52-53 

2.5 % 

25 % 

0.25 % 

0.1 % 

25 % 

0.1 % 

0.1 % 

0.1 % 

0.1 % 

1 % 

Additivity according to the DPD formulas (without M-factors) 

Illustrative examples 

Advantages 

Qualitative 
assessment  of 
method(s) 

the 

When  M-factors  are  not  included  it  is  possible  to 
apply  cut-off  values  0,1  %  /  1  %.  Hence  minor 
concentrations  of  elements/substances  can  be 
excluded from the evaluation.  

(If cut-off would be defined by 0,1% /M for Aquatic 
Chronic  1,  the  number  of  possible  hazardous 
increases 
in 
substances  present 
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 

the  waste 

147  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FINLAND 

National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes 

Limits and uncertainties 

highest M-factor in the CLP at the moment is 1 000 
000.) 

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 
homogeneous materials and waste articles. 

to  apply 

to  non-

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 
the 
introduced 
consequences of M-factors on waste classification 
are almost impossible to evaluate 

future.  This  means 

that 

in 

Approximate  cost  of 
method(s)  
Variability 
waste types (%) 

depending 

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 M-factors to waste 
management will be severely under-estimated, if the study is solely based on the 
already  existing  M-factors  in  Annex  VI.  The  study  should  also  estimate  which 
substances  are  likely  to  have  M-factors  within  the  next  years  and  evaluate  their 
influence to classification of wastes as ecotoxic, to give a more truthful picture on 
the  consequences  to  waste  management.  For  example  the  future  M-factors  of 
metals/metal  ions  would  very  likely  have  a  significant  influence  to  the  waste 
classification, and should be included into the study. There is already quite much 
scientific information available on the LC50-values of metals and metal ions, to give 
an estimation of the possible M-factors for these substances. 

The test methods have a significant influence to the outcome of the tests. It should 
be specified if CLP test methods or waste specific CEN tests are to be used. For 
example,  solubility  of  metals  could  be  evaluated  by  CEN  two  stage  batch  test 
developed for wastes or by transformation/dissolution test developed for Chemicals 

148  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
FINLAND 

National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes 

classification. Also pre-treatment of samples has influence on the outcome of the 
results and should be specified. 

Expert  contacted 
elaborate 
factsheet 

to 
this 

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 

149  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
 
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes  

FRANCE 

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

Variability in H14 
assessment 
methods depending 
on the waste nature 

Combined approach (Chemical + Ecotoxicity) 

In the absence of legislation, two different approaches can be used in parallel, 
with no special predominance of one on the other : 

-Initial “French” approach : documentation analysis of ecotoxic character of 
chemical substances in the waste, then (if negative) complementary toxicity 
tests (2 acute toxicity tests and 2 chronic toxicity tests) 

-Hybrid “French and German” approach 

Managers of waste treatment centres use the initial “French” approach from 
the FNADE guidance, whereas DREAL agencies (regional directions for 
environment, territory planning and housing) recommend since 2013 to use 
the hybrid approach. 

150  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
Related legislation 
and guidelines 

Legislation 

No specific legislation for H14 
assessment  

Guidelines 

(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 

French proposal 07/11/2012 “TAC 2012” 
for calculation methods 

FNADE (2003) Methodological Guide - 
Waste Classification for a good direction 
of waste to appropriate storage centres – 
Appendix 3 

MATE. Critères et méthodes d'évaluation 
de l'écotoxicité des déchets. Paris: 
Ministère de l'Aménagement du Territoire 
et de l'Environnement; 1998 [19 pp.]. 

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 highest tonnage  Waste from construction : 71%, 246 Mt 

Hazardous waste with 
highest tonnage 

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

19: Waste from waste treatment facilities, 
off-site waste water treatment plants and 
the water industry (41%, 4 Mt) 

17 : Construction and demolition wastes 
(including road construction) (24%, 2.4 
Mt) 

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) 

Waste with highest 
tonnage  

Percentage of 
waste considered 
as hazardous by 
H14 

ecotoxic tests are applied  

Prioritisation of tests: aquatic 
vs terrestrial) 

First step: aquatic tests, then terrestrial tests 

Protocol used 

Terrestrial tests on solid wastes 

(1): “French” approach   

(2): “Combined” approach 

Test 
organism 

Endpo
int 

Test 
method 

Test 
duration 

Expre
ssion 

Thres
hold 
value 

151  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
E. fetida (2)  Avoida

nce 

E. fetida (1)  Mortalit

y 

Emerg
ence 
and 
growth  

Lactuca 
sativa  (1)  or 
Avena 
sativa 
Brassica 
rapa (2)  

/ 

Arthrobacter 
globiformis 
(2) 

of 
results 

ISO 
17512-1 

ISO 12 
268-1 

48 hours 

EC 50 

10% 

14 days 

EC 50 

10% 

ISO 
11269-2 

14  to  21 
days 

EC 50 

10% 

2 hours 

EC 50 

10% 

Dehydr
ogenas
e 
activity 

ISO/DIS 
18187 
11267 

Leaching/extraction test used  NF EN 12457-2 

Aquatic tests 

(1): “French” approach 

(2): “Combined” approach 

(3) alternative to the C. dubia reproduction test (FNADE 2003) 

Test 
organism 

Endpo
int 

Test 
method 

Test 
duration 

Expre
ssion 
of 
results 

Thres
hold 
value 

D.  magna 
(1)(2) 

Mobilit
y 

ISO 6341  24, 

48 

EC 50 

10% 

hours 

Vibrio 
fischeri 
(Microtox) 
(1)(2) 

Pseudokirch
neriella 
subcapitata 
(1)(2) 

Lumine
scence  

ISO 
11348-3 

30 
minutes 

EC 50 

10% 

Growth   NF  EN 
ISO 8692 

3 days 

EC 20 

1% 

EC 50 

10% 

Ceriodaphni
a dubia (1) 

Reprod
uction  

ISO 

NF 
20665 

Brachionus 
calyciflorus 
(1) 

Popula
tion 
growth 

ISO 

NF 
20666 

7 days 

EC 20 

1% 

48 hours 

EC 20 

1% 

Calculation methods  

The  French proposal  to  the  2012  TAC  is  used  for  classifying  waste  according to 
HP14,  if  the  composition  of  the  waste  is  sufficiently  known.  If  not,  biotests  are 
applied (see above). 

The French additivity rules consider the Acute 1, Chronic 1 and Chronic 2 categories 
for assessing HP 14. They include M-factors. 

152  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Combination 
components concentration 

of 

hazardous 

Threshold value 

Illustrative 
examples 

Σ(PH400 * M) 

Σ(PH410 * 10M+ PH411) 

≥ 25% 

≥ 25% 

The  M-factors  used  in  the  calculations  are  those  mentioned  in  the  CLP  and 
additional ones, calculated from EC50s and NOECs. The calculated M-factors are 
not harmonised at EU-level. 

Examples of results of ecotoxicological tests performed on waste eluates 

pH  or 
dilution 
for 
pH9.5 

7.9 

Microto
x test 

No 
inhibitio
n 

Daphni
a  EC50 
48h 
test 

Algae 
EC20 
test 

Ceriod
aphnia 
EC20 
test 

Brachi
onus 
EC20 
test 

42.7 

0.7 

2 

0.7 

9 

>90 

56.5 

7 

7.6 

>80% 

8 

3.3 

51.9 

1.5 

0.5 

0.6 

7.9 

0.09 

0.05 

0.02 

0.006 

0.007 

8.2 

0.038 

0.061 

0.058 

0.061 

0.063 

4.5% 

15.2 

59.5 

2.6 

5.1 

3.55 

0.18% 

0.4 

0.95 

0.2 

0.08 

0.3 

7.1 

15 

22.2 

8.5 

12.9 

48.9 

11.7 

45.7 

0.7 

2.08 

0.84 

3.19 

5.6% 

- 

100% 
immobili
sation 

- 

- 

- 

0.18% 

0.3 

1.5 

2.5 

0.062 

0.4 

Nature 
of 
waste 

Mineral 
chemist
ry 
WWTP 
sludge 

Hydroxy
-metal 
chemist
ry 
sludge 

Fine 
chemist
ry 
sludge 

Organic 
chemist
ry 
sludge 

Organic 
chemist
ry 
sludge 

MIDI 

Fine 
particul
ate 
matter 

Fine 
particul
ate 
matter 

Foundry 
particul
ate 
matter 

Foundry 
particul
ate 
matter 

Filtratio
n 
particul
ate 
matter 

Code 

05 
06 
02*  or 
06 
05 
03 

05 
06 
02*  or 
06 
05 
03 

07 
07 
11*  or 
07 
07 
12 

07 
01 
11*  or 
07 
01 
12 

07 
01 
11*  or 
07 
01 
12 

19 
01 
11*  or 
19 
01 
12 

10 
09 
09*  or 
10 
09 
10 

10 
09 
09*  or 
10 
09 
10 

10 
02 
07*  or 
10 
02 
08 

10 
02 
07*  or 
10 
02 
08 

03 
10 
19*  or 
10 
03 
20 

153  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
13.1 

>90 

>90 

4.96 

8.21 

42.7 

17.5% 

- 

5% 
immobili
sation 

- 

- 

- 

15% 

11% 
inhibitio
n 

- 

- 

- 

- 

11.5 

29.2 

91.2 

0.8 

0.41 

1.95 

3.4% 

- 

0.37% 

4% 
inhibitio
n 

90% 
immobili
sation 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

(alumini
um) 

Soil 
polluted 
with 
lead 
and 
lindane 

Soil 
polluted 
with 
lead 
and 
lindane 

Soil 
polluted 
with 
lead 
and 
lindane 

MIOM 

MIOM 

MIOM 

05 
17 
03*  or 
17 
05 
04 

17 
05 
03*  or 
17 
05 
04 

17 
05 
03*  or 
17 
05 
04 

19 
01 
11*  or 
19 
01 
12 

19 
01 
11*  or 
19 
01 
12 

19 
01 
11*  or 
19 
01 
12 

Advantages 

The experimental approach allows 
integrating the effects of all contaminants 
including additive, synergistic, and 
antagonistic effects of the components of 
the waste. 

It is more relevant to implement the 
experimental approach than the 
summation method when the composition 
of the waste is known only partially (which 
is a common situation for wastes). In 
addition, toxicity values are only available 
for a limited number of chemicals, which 
can significantly impede the use of the 
summation method. 

It is the simplest way to assess HP14 
because for calculation method we need 
to have a common protocol to find all the 
substances in a waste.  

Ecotoxic testing is the best way to assess 
the ecotoxic hazard. Using calculation 
method without M-factors is not relevant 
for this criterion since M-factors are the 
factors for ecotox. 

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 

Qualitative 
assessment of the 
method(s) 

Limits and uncertainties 

154  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
hazardous. Therefore, it would seem 
appropriate to propose a transitional 
period for the application of these 
threshold values in order to collect 
sufficient experimental data at a European 
level to conclude definitely on the 
suitability of the proposed threshold 
values. 

The analytical method AFNOR XP X30-
489 gives the exhaustive composition of 
the mineral elements and the organic 
substances. (Mineral) Elements must be 
speciated to mineral (and organomineral) 
substances. This speciation requires 
expert knowledge. 

In most of the case “worst case” 
classification (with knowledge of the 
chelistry of the waste, but without 
speciation) gives evidence for reliable 
classification. 

There is a need to have consistency 
between results from testing and results 
from the calculation method on which 
Commission works. 

3000 – 5000 euros 

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

Germany 

Pascal Pandard (INERIS) 

- French Ministry of the Environment (2015) Note provisoire sur la comparaison des 
méthodes d’attribution de la propriété de danger H14 

- Pandard P, Römbke J. 2013. Proposal for a “Harmonized” Strategy for 
the Assessment of the HP 14 Property. Integrated Environmental 
Assessment and Management 9(4): 665–672 

- Pandard P, Devillers J, Charissou AM, Poulsen V, Jourdain MJ, Férard 
J‐F. Grand C, Bispo A. 2006. Selecting a battery of bioassays for 
ecotoxicological characterization of wastes. Sci Total Environ 363:114–
125. 

- FNADE (2003) Methodological Guide - Waste Classification for a good 
direction of waste to appropriate storage centres – Appendix 3 

- Eurostat Data Centre on Waste 

Other MS using the 
same approach (if 
known) 

Additional 
comments 

Expert contacted to 
elaborate this 
factsheet 

References 

Additional 
information 

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. 

155  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

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. 

Related 
and guidelines 

legislation 

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 

(2008)  Handlungsempfehlungen 

Moser,  H. 
ökotoxikologischen  Charakterisierung 
Entwurf. 

zur 
von  Abfällen. 

German  AVV 
technique) 

(Abfallverzeichnisverordnung) 

(guide 

Guidelines  on  the  Application  of  the  Waste  Catalogue 
Ordinance 

Stakeholders involved 
in the H14 assessment 

Federal Environment Agency Umweltbundesamt UbA (funding, organising, testing, 
communication) 

ECT Oekotoxikologie GmbH (testing) 

Waste  with  highest 
tonnage 

Waste from construction : 54%, 197 Mt 

Hazardous  waste 
with highest tonnage 

19:  Waste  from  waste  treatment  facilities,  off-site  waste 
water treatment plants and the water industry (34%, 6.9 Mt) 

Waste  with  highest 
tonnage  

17  :  Construction  and  demolition  wastes  (including  road 
construction) (34%, 6.9 Mt) 

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

05 : Wastes from petroleum refining, natural gas purification 
and pyrolytic treatment of coal (59%, 146 kt) 

Percentage  of  waste 
considered 
as 
hazardous by H14 

No data available on Federal level. 

156  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
GERMANY 

National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes 

ecotoxic tests are applied  

of 
Prioritisation 
tests:  aquatic  vs 
terrestrial) 

First step: aquatic tests, then terrestrial tests 

Terrestrial tests on solid wastes 

Test 
organism 

Endpoint 

Test 
method 

Test 
duration 

Expressi
on 
results 

of 

Thresh
old 
value 

E. fetida 

Avoidance 

ISO 17512-
1 

48 hours 

EC 50 

10%  

E. fetida 

Avoidance 

ISO 
268-1 

12 

14 days 

EC 50 

10% 

Brassica 
rapa 

Emergenc
e 
growth  

and 

ISO 11269-
2 

14 days 

EC 50 

10%  

Arthrobact
er 
globiformis 

dehydroge
nase 
activity 

Folsomia 
candida 

Reproducti
on 

ISO 10187 

6 hours 

EC 50 

10%  

ISO 11267 

EC 50 

10% 

Leaching/extraction 
test used 

DIN 12457-2, DIN 19528 

Aquatic tests on eluates 

Test organism 

Endpoint 

Test 
method 

Test 
duration 

Expression 
of results 

Thres
hold 
value 

D. magna 

Mobility 

ISO 6341 

 48 hours 

EC 50 

10% 

D. magna 

Mobility 

ISO 10706 

21 days 

EC 50 

10% 

fischeri 

Vibrio 
(Microtox) 

Luminesc
ence 
inhibition 

ISO 11348-
1/2/3 

30 minutes  EC 50 

10% 

Growth  

ISO 8692 

72 h 

EC 50 

10%  

Pseudokirchne
riella 
subcapitata 
and 
Desmodesmus 
subspicatus 

Lemna minor 

Growth 

ISO 20079 

EC 50 

10% 

Calculation methods are used  

Protocol used 

157  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
GERMANY 

National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes 

Classification  of  the 
substance  

Generic 
concentration  limits 
(w/w %) 

Concentration 
thresholds 
(for 
taking  into  account 
in 
the  substances 
combination 
the 
equations)  

0,1 

0,1 

0,1 

1 

1 

1 

0,1 

R50 

R50-53 

R51-53 

R52-53 

R52 

R53 

R59 

25 

0.25 

2.5 

25 

25 

25 

0.1 

Combination equations 

∑(PR50-53) ≥ 0.25 

Or 

∑(PR51-53) ≥ 2.5 

Or 

∑(PR52-53) ≥ 25 

Or 

∑(PR59) ≥ 0.1 

Illustrative examples 

- 

Advantages 

The most complete battery of ecotoxic tests. 

Qualitative 
assessment  of 
method(s) 

the 

A  combination  of  chemical  and  biological  test  methods 
should be used for the ecotoxicological characterisation of 
wastes,  since  a  comparison  of  the  results  of  chemical 
analyses  with  existing  threshold  values  is  insufficient  to 
derive the hazards posed by waste. Instead, an evaluation 
of  the environmental hazards of  waste  is  possible only  by 
the use of biological test methods, as only these can mirror 
the  effects  of  all  bioavailable  contaminants  including  their 
potential  interactions  as  well  as  pollutants  in  waste  which 
cannot be determined by chemical analysis. 

Limits 
uncertainties 

and 

Limit values are proposed but not legally fixed. 

158  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
GERMANY 

National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes 

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

Other  MS  using  the 
same  approach 
(if 
known) 

France 

Additional comments 

Expert  contacted 
elaborate 
factsheet 

to 
this 

Dr. Joachim Wuttke (UbA) 

Mr Daniel Laux (Um BWL) 

References 

- UbA (2013) Recommendations for the Ecotoxicological Characterization of Wastes 

-  UbA 
ökotoxikologischen Charakterisierung von Abfällen, 170 pp. 

(2014)  Weiterentwicklung  der  UBA-Handlungsempfehlung 

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 HMV-Schlacken im europäischen Abfallverzeichnis. 
Wissensforum, 20 pp.  

Ökopol GmbH (2008) Review of the European List of Waste, 532 pp. 

159  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
 
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes  

ITALY 

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

Variability in H14 
assessment 
methods depending 
on the waste nature 

FormuRelated 
legislation and 
guidelines 

Stakeholders 
involved in the H14 
assessment 

Waste with highest 
tonnage  

Percentage of 
waste considered 
as hazardous by 
H14 

Protocol used 

Chemical approach based on the “European Agreement concerning the 
International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road” (ADR) for class 9 
(Miscellaneous dangerous substances and articles), M6 and M7 (pollutant to the 
aquatic environment, liquid and solid).  

none 

Legislation 

Guidelines 

- 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) 

CLASSIFICAZIONE DEI RIFIUTI - D.Lgs. 
n. 152/2006 e s.i.m. 
Revisione sostanziale PROCEDURA 
GESTIONALE ARPAV approvata in data 
30/03/2011 

National and regional environment/health agencies: ISPRA, APPA, ARPA in 2 
working groups. 

Stakeholder role  

Name 
stakeholder 

of 

Type  of  stakeholder  (national 
authority, 
institute, 
research 
etc.) 
Private Organisations 
National/Regional Authorities 
Private and Regional EPA 

Producers 
Control Authorities 
Laboratories 

Funding  

Performing the 
test(s),  
Providing waste 
samples 

Among 
hazardous waste  

Among total 
waste  

Producers 
Control Authorities 

Private organisation 
National Authority 

Type  or  category 
or code of waste 
Wastes from 
waste 
management 
facilities, off-site 
waste water 
treatment 
plants and the 
preparation of 
water (chapter 19 
of European 
LoW) 
Construction and 
demolition 
wastes 
(chapter 17 of 
European LoW) 

tonnage 

Annual 
(metric tonnes) 
2,96  Mtonnes  in 
2012 

Share (%) 

31,7 of 
hazardous waste 
generated from 
economic 
activities 

52,48  Mtonnes  in 
2012 

39,1 of total 
waste generated 
from economic 
activities 

Share of waste assessed positive for the H14 criteria, globally and by 
category: information not available at country level 

No biotests are currently applied in Italy (although recommendations exist). 

Calculation methods adapted from the ADR are used  

160  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The substances considered in the calculation methods are those classified as: 

Hazard category 

DPD phrase 

CLP phrase 

Acute 1 

Chronic 1 

Chronic 2 

R50 

R50-53 

R51-53 

H400 

H410 

H411 

Threshold values below which the substances are not taken into account: 

Hazard category 

Threshold value 

Acute 1 

Chronic 1 

Chronic 2 

0.1 

0.1 

1 

The summation methods used in Italy are taken from the ADR and include M-
factors. They are organised in a tiered-approach where the first hazard considered 
is the acute one (formula 1). If this leads to the attribution of the HP14 criterion to 
the waste, then the assessment stops there. If not, formula 2 is applied, and then 
formula 3 if HP14 is still not attributed by formula 2. 

*P= percentage of weight 

Combination 
components concentration 

of 

hazardous 

Formula 1 

Σ(PR50 * M) 

Formula 2 

Σ(PR50- 53 * M) 

Formula 3 

Σ(PR50- 53 * 10M+ PR51- 53) 

The case of wastes containing hydrocarbons:  

Threshold value 

≥ 25% 

≥ 25% 

≥ 25% 

The Higher Institute for Health with opinion protocol 0035653 on 06/08/2010, second 
integration to the ISS (Higher Institute of Health) opinion no 36565 on 05/07/2006, 
assigned specific risk phrases to the different hydrocarbon fractions. 

ISS (Higher Institute of Health) identified four groups of hydrocarbons (listed in the 
following  table)  with  the  relative  ADR  limits,  in  order  to  assign  hazard  property 
“ecotoxic” to waste containing hydrocarbons of unknown origin or whose origin is no 
longer attributable to a specific class of compounds. 

Hydrocarbon 
fractions 
C5 C8 (sum)  

R_H phrases 

Specific  ADR  Limit 
Values 

Notes 

R50/53 
H410 

25.000 mg/kg 

fraction: 
the 
if 

As 
a 
R50/53; 
various 
hydrocarbons  are 
expressed 
singularly, 
specific 
classification 
applies.  

the 
CLP 

Aromatic 
hydrocarbons 

C9 – cumene 

C10 – dipentene, 
naftalene 

R51/53 
H411 

R50/53 
H410 

250.000 mg/kg 

25.000 mg/kg 

Defined individually 
(see  Specific  Limit 
Values  of  each 
substance). 
Naftalene  can  be 
determined 
with 
the PAHs.  

(C10  – 

C>10 
C40) (sum) 

R51/53 
H411 

250.000 mg/kg 

161  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes  

ITALY 

IPA (total sum) 

R50/53 
H410 

25.000 mg/kg 

Specific  limits  (SL) 
apply 
to  DBahA 
and BaA 

Dibenzo[a,h]anth
racene (DBahA) 

R50/53 
H410 

Benzo[a]anthrac
ene (BaA) 

250 mg/kg 

Specific limits 

To  define  the  final  classification  of  a  waste,  the  four  hydrocarbon  groups  are 
considered  just  like  substances,  that  is  to  say,  like  individual  components  that 
participate in the calculation in a cumulative way with the other ecotoxic substances 
present. 

Illustrative 
examples 

- 

Advantages 

none as declared by CA 

162  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
Qualitative 
assessment of the 
method(s) 

Limits and uncertainties 

ISS and ISPRA work on the potential 
integration of biotests in the assessment 
of HP14 identified the following limits to 
the application of biotests: 

1) The limit values are expressed in mg/L. 
The previous standards EN 14735 and 
12457-2 are not applicable. Waste 
samples for ecotoxicity testing should be 
prepared as independent WAFs (OECD 
n° 23, 2000 Guidance Document on 
aquatic toxicity testing of difficult 
substances and mixtures, paragraph 3.11, 
pp 36-37)  

2) A WAF with loading rate of 100 mg/L 
has a 10.000:1 L/S ratio.  

3) According to ADR, waste samples 
need to be tested for ecotoxicity have a 
very small mass (100 mg or less). The 
problem of waste sample 
representativeness was studied using 
Pierre Gy sampling equation:  

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) 
250 
125 

Waste mass (mg) 
80-100 
10 

As shown in the table, a particle size 

take a sample of 80-100 mg (CV= 20%). 

Nevertheless, a collaborative study 
organised by ISPRA with 23 Italian 
laboratories demonstrated that our 
approach does not provide acceptable 
repeatability and reproducibility values 
(Sr% and SR%) with algal test (See: D. 
Conti, P. De Zorzi, S. Balzamo, S. 
Barbizzi, S. Rosamilia, C. Martone, A. 
Pati, T. Guagnini, A. Paina, E. Raso, V. 
Bellaria (2014) Studio collaborativo 
ecotossicologico su lisciviato di rifiuto 
mediante saggi con P. subcapitata e D. 
magna. In press).  

4) Waste often have low economic value. 
Evaluation of H14 property should be 
performed with rapid, easy to perform, 
convenient and inexpensive tests. Toxicity 
testing with fish do not have these 

163  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

p )(p) - (1 g  d 2d3CVs61 = m 
 
 
 
 
 
 
National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes  

ITALY 

characteristics. Moreover, the tests with 
vertebrates raise ethical and economic 
concerns and many regulatory 
frameworks (e.g. REACH) principally 
encourage the use of alternative 
approaches  

5) Chemical analysis and biological tests: 
the results of the two approaches often 
are different and lead to different 
classification of the waste. 

The same limits and uncertainties can be 
also highlighted in case of CLP 
application. 

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

Chemical analysis         100-1000 € 
(depending on number and type of 
analysis) 

Biological methods          800 € (test 
battery: alga, crustacean and fish) 

The Austrian approach is also based on the ADR, although the way it is 
applied is different. 

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; 

Other MS using the 
same approach (if 
known) 

Additional 
comments 

Expert contacted to 
elaborate this 
factsheet 

164  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
References 

National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes  

  Application of ADR approach:  

ITALY 

Waste Observatory Service: Waste Classification - Legislative Decree no. 152/2006 
and  subsequent  integrations  and  modifications.  Substantial  revision  ARPAV 
MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE approved 30/03/2011 

 

Information on quantities produced by specific waste codes:  

Annual publications of ISPRA on production and management of 
municipal waste and waste from economic activities. Publications are 
available on ISPRA website at:  

http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/it/pubblicazioni/rapporti (available only in 
Italian language) 

  Composition data of specific wastes: 

Study on fluff-light fraction from crushing of vehicles: 

 Report ISPRA 2002 
http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/contentfiles/00003800/3897-rapporti-02-
16.pdf/view (available only in Italian language) 

Report ISPRA 2006 
http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/contentfiles/00004100/4158-rapporto-
veicoli-2007-marzo-2008.pdf/view (available only in Italian language) 

  Procedures and results of ecotoxicological tests:  

S. Balzamo, D. Conti, M. Belli et al. (2008) Caratterizzazione 
ecotossicologica dei rifiuti: risultati italiani del circuito d’interconfronto 
europeo organizzato dall’Agenzia tedesca per la Protezione dell’Ambiente. 
Rapporti ISPRA 81/2008.  

D. Conti, P. De Zorzi, S. Balzamo, S. Barbizzi, S. Rosamilia, C. Martone, 
A. Pati, T. Guagnini, A. Paina, E. Raso, V. Bellaria (2014) Studio 
collaborativo ecotossicologico su lisciviato di rifiuto mediante saggi con P. 
subcapitata e D. magna. Final Report ISPRA (in press). 

Batterie di test per la caratterizzazzione ecotossicologica dei rifiuti: Stato 
dell’arte ; Parere ISPRA/ISS sulla classificazione dei rifiuti ai fini 
dell'attribuzione della caratteristica di pericolo H14 "Ecotossico" Available 
at : http://www.iss.it/binary/ampp/cont/Ecotx_rf.pdf  

A. Paina, D. Conti, S. Balzamo, A. Pati, C. Martone (2013) I rifiuti e la 
pericolosità per l’ambiente (H14): evoluzione normativa e quadro di 
riferimento. Atti di Giornate di Studio Livorno 5a edizione, “Ricerca e 
applicazione di metodologie eco tossicologiche in ambienti acquatici e 
matrici contaminate” Livorno 7-9 novembre 2013 pp. 194-200. 

D. Conti, S. Balzamo, A. Paina, A. Pati, C. Martone, V. Bellaria (2013) 
Valutazione della pericolosità per l’ambiente dei rifiuti (H14): definizione 
della procedura analitica. Atti di Giornate di Studio Livorno 5a edizione, 
“Ricerca e applicazione di metodologie ecotossicologiche in ambienti 
acquatici e matrici contaminate” Livorno 7-9 novembre 2013 pp. 201-207.  

D. Conti, P. De Zorzi, S. Balzamo, S. Barbizzi, S. Rosamilia, C. Martone, 
A. Pati, T. Guagnini, A. Paina, E. Raso, V. Bellaria (2014) Studio 
collaborativo ecotossicologico su lisciviato di rifiuto mediante saggi con P. 
subcapitata e D. magna. Rapporto finale ISPRA (in press) 

A. Paina, D. Conti, C. Martone, A. Pati, E. Raso e S. Balzamo (2014) La 
determinazione della pericolosità per l’ambiente acquatico dei rifiuti (H14): 
definizione della procedura analitica per l’esecuzione di test biologici in 
accordo con il Regolamento CE 1272/2008. Ecomondo 2014, Rimini 5-8 
November 2014, pp. 194-198 

Additional 
information 

165  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SPAIN 

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 

Ecotoxicity tests 

Two bioassays of luminescence and inhibition on leaching extracts 

Waste from veterinary products follow a different law. 

Related 
and guidelines 

legislation 

Legislation 

Guidelines 

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”) 

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 

Stakeholders involved 
in the H14 assessment 

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 
highest tonnage 

waste 

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 from organic chemistry : 38.3%, 527.34 kt 

   - Acidic, alkaline and salt waste : 23%, 316.3 kt 

From Eurostat data: 

: 

from 

Inorganic  wastes 

thermal 
10-11-12 
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) 

Waste  with  highest 
tonnage  

19 : Waste from waste treatment facilities,  off-site 
waste  water  treatment  plants  and  the  water 
industry (26%, 530.7 kt) 

05  :  Wastes  from  petroleum  refining,  natural  gas 
purification  and  pyrolytic  treatment  of  coal  (49%, 
66.8 kt) 

Chapter of List of waste with 
the 
of 
hazardous waste 

highest 

share 

166  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
SPAIN 

National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes 

07  :  Wastes  from  organic  chemical  processes 
(40%, 414 kt) 

Percentage  of  waste 
considered 
as 
hazardous by H14 

Approximately 20% 

Protocol used 

Ecotoxicity tests are applied 

Prioritisation of tests (aquatic 
vs terrestrial) 

Only aquatic tests on leaching extracts 

Leaching/extraction test used  UNE 12457-2 

Aquatic tests 

Test 
organism 

Endpoi
nt 

Test 
method 

Test 
duration 

Expres
sion  of 
results 

Thresh
old 
value 

Vibrio 
fischeri105 

lumine
scence 

UNE 
11348 

15’-30’ 

EC50 

3000 
mg/l 

Daphnia 
magna 

mobilit
y 

OECD-
202 

24-48H 

CL50/ 
EC50 

750 
mg/l 

UNE 
6341 

No calculation methods are used  

Illustrative examples 

- 

Advantages 

Qualitative 
assessment  of 
method(s) 

the 

Limits and uncertainties 

Spain highlights that there are often problems due 
to  the  fact  that  wastes  are  complex  matrices 
(coloured,  oily,  particulates,  precipitates,  etc.). 
Considering  that  often  the  ecotoxicity  test  is  the 
only real bioassay performed on waste, as it is by 
far the cheapest, it seems reasonable to use a test 
battery. The applied toxicity tests (Daphnia magna, 
Vibrio fischeri) are relatively economic and simple. 
The  Daphnia  test  is  in  general  considered  to  be 
more ecologically relevant. 

Confusion  in  the  interpretation:  concentrations 
expressed  in  terms  of  the  amount  of  residue  of 
departure or in terms of the leachate (an order of 
two 
magnitude 

difference 

between 

the 

105 Named Photobacterium phosphoreum in the Order of 13/10/1989 

167  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
SPAIN 

National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes 

interpretations [x 10]). Lack of clarity in relation to 
the scientific support of limits. 

Approximate  cost  of 
method(s)  
Variability 
waste types (%) 

depending 

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. 

Joan Parés Gómez, TECNOAMBIANTE SL 

Other  MS  using  the 
same  approach 
(if 
known) 

Additional comments 

Expert  contacted 
elaborate 
factsheet 

to 
this 

References 

-  Jaureguízar  J,  Dueñas  L,  John  E  (2007)  Evaluación  de  metodologías  para  la 
caracterización de residuos como peligrosos o no peligrosos, Residuos 101, 18-26. 

-  ORDEN  de  13  de  octubre  de  1989  por  la  que  se  determinan  los  métodos  de 
caracterización de los residuos tóxicos y peligrosos –Appendice IV and A 

- Residuos Industriales en España INE, 2003 (2000) 

- Eurostat Data Centre on Waste 

Additional information  Ökopol GmbH (2008) Review of the European List of Waste, 532 pp. 

168  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED KINGDOM 

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 

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. 

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). 

169  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
Related legislation 
and guidelines 

UNITED KINGDOM 

National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes  

Legislation 

No specific legislation for H14 assessment  

Guidelines 

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. 

University of Birmingham (2014) Health and 
Safety Guidance - Hazardous Waste: 
Guidance on Assessment 
GUIDANCE/11/HWGA/14, 32 pp. 

Stakeholders 
involved in the H14 
assessment 

Environmental Service Association ESA, Defra (funding) 

Producers of waste (performing the assessment) 

WRc (performing the assessment) 

Waste with highest 
tonnage  

Waste with highest 
tonnage 

Waste from construction : 41%, 99 Mt  

Hazardous waste with 
highest tonnage 

19: Waste from waste treatment facilities, off-
site waste water treatment plants and the 
water industry (30%, 1.9 Mt) 

20: Municipal wastes and commercial, 
industrial and institutional wastes including 
separately collected fractions (21%, 1.3Mt) 

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

05 : Wastes from petroleum refining, natural 
gas purification and pyrolytic treatment of 
coal (82%, 154 kt) 

Percentage of waste 
considered as 
hazardous by H14 

Unknown 

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 

Classification  of  the 
substance  

Generic 
concentration  limits 
(w/w %) 

Concentration 
thresholds 
(for 
taking  into  account 
in 
the  substances 
the 
combination 
equations)  

R50 

R50-53 

R51-53 

R52-53 

25 

0.25 

2.5 

25 

0,1 

0,1 

0,1 

1 

170  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
UNITED KINGDOM 

National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes  

R52 

R53 

R59 

25 

25 

0.1 

Combination equations 

1 

1 

0,1 

∑(

𝑅50−53
0.25

+

𝑅51−53
2.5

+

𝑅52−53
25

) 

≥ 100% (=1) 

∑(𝑅50 + 𝑅50−53) 

∑ 𝑅52 

≥ 25% 

≥ 25% 

∑(𝑅53 + 𝑅50−53 + 𝑅51−53 + 𝑅52−53) 

≥ 25% 

Illustrative examples 

Example 1: A waste contains 2 substances given R50-53. Substance A = 0.2%, 
Substance B = 0.9%. Neither substance is given a specific threshold in Annex VI 
table 3.2. Both substances exceed the generic cut-off values (0.1%).  
Using Equation 1:  
∑(
+
hazardous by H14 

) +0 + 0 = 4.4 ≥ 1 → this waste is 

) ≥ 1    (  0.2
0.25

𝑅52−53
25

𝑅50−53
0.25

𝑅51−53
2.5

+  

0.25

+

0.9

Example 2: A waste contains 2 substances. Substance C = 18% is given R50; 
substance D = 12% is given R53. Neither substance is given a specific 
threshold in Annex VI table 3.2. Both substances exceed the generic cut-off 
values (0.1% for R50 and 1% for R53). 

Using Equation 2: 

∑(𝑅50 + 𝑅50−53)  (18%) + 0% = 18% ≤ 25% → this waste is not hazardous by H14 

Using Equation 4: 

∑(𝑅53 + 𝑅50−53 + 𝑅51−53 + 𝑅52−53) (12%) + 0% + 0% + 0% = 12%≤ 25% → this 
waste is not hazardous by H14 

Example 3: A waste contains 4 substances. Substance F = 0.09% is given R50-
53, substance G = 

0.08% is given R51-53, Substances H = 17%, I = 14% are given R53. None of the 
substances is given a specific threshold in Annex VI table 3.2. Substance F and G 
are below the generic cut-off values (0.1% for both) so are not included in the 
calculations. Substances H and I exceed the cut-off values (1%). 

Using Equation 4: 

∑(𝑅53 + 𝑅50−53 + 𝑅51−53 + 𝑅52−53) (17% + 14%) + 0% + 0% + 0% = 31% ≥25% →  
this waste is hazardous by H14. 

Advantages 

Qualitative 
assessment of the 
method(s) 

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 

171  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
UNITED KINGDOM 

National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes  

•It is similar to that used for products, so the 
classification of a product under the DPD as 
Ecotoxic can normally be relied upon by 
small businesses to indicate that H14 is likely 
to apply when that product becomes a waste. 
One stakeholder has advocated that the 
method selected should be as close to the 
CLP as possible to maximise the 
simplification this last point provides for 
customers. As indicated previously, the use 
of direct testing is limited by the legislative 
regime and limitations of test methods with 
respect to difficult materials. However in 
certain circumstances (particularly for 
simpler, soluble wastes, or for pure 
substances) it may have some advantages. 

UK points out that the calculation 
methodology set forth in the national 
Chemical Regulations (CHIP) and the 
Dangerous Preparations Directive (DPD) 
supported by chemical analysis is clear and 
highly satisfactory. It aligns directly with 
chemical risk phrase classification systems 
and therefore with other hazardous 
properties. UK holds the view that animal 
testing of solid wastes is of little or no 
scientific value and generates results of 
debatable significance. Testing is described 
as of often poor quality, overlooks key criteria 
in relevant guidance, and results often 
suggest that the waste is non-hazardous 
where that is clearly not the case. UK 
assumes that in more than one case the 
analysis appears to have been undertaken 
principally because chemical analysis would 
show the waste to be hazardous, so 
ecotoxicity testing is being used (badly) in an 
attempt to obtain a different result. 

Limits and uncertainties 

Our approach has similar limits and 
uncertainties to the DPD. 

The omission of SCL’s for all R50-53 
substances means that the calculation 
method will underestimate the ecotoxicity of a 
waste (relative to the DPD) when very 
ecotoxic substances are present. 

The reliability of the calculation method is 
dependent on 

•Appropriate sampling in accordance with 
CEN 14899 and supporting technical reports,  

•Determination of the chemical composition 
of the components (to a level sufficient to 
assess H14) by analysis, and 

•Correctly identifying the classification of the 
components using Table 3.2 of the CLP, the 
REACH registered substances database, and 
other appropriate datasources.  

172  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
UNITED KINGDOM 

National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes  

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

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. 

The sampling and chemical analysis of the 
waste is used to support the assessment of 
several hazardous properties. The use of the 
calculation method for H14 would not 
normally generate a separate (additional) 
cost. 

One stakeholder has advised UK EA that 
ecotoxicity tests range from £650 to £2000 
per test, depending on the OECD test 
method. 

Another has indicated that analysis of 
chemical compositions is approximately £150 
per sample, with the calculation taking about 
30 minutes for a competent person. They 
indicate that ecotoxicity testing is more 
expensive. 

Again, where the method is very close the 
product legislation – sampling, analysis and 
calculation may be not be necessary, if the 
safety data sheet for that product has already 
completed the assessment. This may reduce 
cost. 

Other MS using the 
same approach (if 
known) 

Additional comments 

Finland 

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 

173  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
UNITED KINGDOM 

National approach to assess H14 (ecotoxicity) of wastes  

performance of the Ecotoxicity method on difficult substances is an 
important consideration. 

Bob McIntyre, UK EA 

- 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 

Expert contacted to 
elaborate this 
factsheet 

References 

Additional 
information 

WRc (2012) Assessment of Hazard Classification of UK IBA, 69 pp. 

Ökopol GmbH (2008) Review of the European List of Waste, 532 pp. 

174  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 3. Second  questionnaire 
sent to Competent Authorities106 

Information for consolidation of waste codes selection 

Please provide your answers directly in the table included in the next pages (pp4  – 11). 
The first line of the table shows an example on how to include available data. 

1.  Economic importance of waste codes 

Please  specify  which  waste  codes  you  consider  important,  regarding  the  following 
parameters: 

Please report the letter a, b or c in column 3 of the table. 

a.  Waste to energy recovery (please specify the percentage) 
b.  Waste to material recovery (please specify the percentage) 
c.  High generated volumes (please specify the tons) 

2.  Potential presence of hazardous substances 

Please  specify  the  nature  and  indicative  concentrations  of  hazardous  substances 
contained in waste streams falling under the listed waste codes. 

Please fill in column 4 of the table. 

3.  Criticality of the waste classification 

The  new  classification  methods  for  HP  14  shall  be  based  on  calculations  using  the 
presence  and  the  quantities  of  intrinsically  ecotoxic  substances  in  the  waste,  i.e.  those 
classified under the following CLP H-codes: H420 (ozone depleting), H400 (aquatic acute), 
H410 (aquatic chronic 1),  H411 (aquatic chronic 2),  H412 (aquatic chronic 3) and H413 
(aquatic chronic 4). 

For  which  mirror  pairs  do  you  think  that  waste  streams  currently  classified  as  non-
hazardous  are  likely  to  shift  to  being  classified  as  hazardous  (due  to  a  change  of 
classification methods)? 

Please write, per code, “Yes” in column 5 in you think the shift as likely and “No” otherwise. 
Please  indicate  in  column  6  which  substances  (along  with  their  CLP  H-codes)  are 
responsible for this potential shift. 

Your opinion on the selected mirror pairs 

1.  Background: the selection process 

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

  SC 1 - Preference of experts  

  SC 2 - Availability and quality of data 

  SC 3 - Tonnage of waste production 

  SC 4 - Economic importance 

106 The list of selected pairs presented in the questionnaire is slightly different from the list reported in section 4.2 
of this report. This is because data received in the wake of the consultation with the second questionnaire changed 
the scores for some waste codes. 

175  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
  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  Weight 
SC4 
SC5 
SC6 

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 

03 01 04*  

sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood, particle board and 
veneer 
10 Wastes from thermal processes 

03 01 05  

10 01 wastes from power stations and other combustion plants (except 19) 

10 01 17  

10 02 08  
10 02 14  

fly ash from co-incineration 

10 01 16*  
10 02 wastes from the iron and steel industry 
10 02 07*  
10 02 13*  
10 03 wastes from aluminium thermal metallurgy 
10 03 19*  
17 Construction and demolition wastes (including excavated soil from 
contaminated sites) 

solid wastes from gas treatment 
sludges and filter cakes from gas treatment 

flue-gas dust 

10 03 20  

17 03 bituminous mixtures, coal tar and tarred products 

17 03 02 

bituminous mixtures 

17 05 04  
17 05 06  

soil and stones 
dredging spoil 

17 03 01*  
17 05 soil (including excavated soil from contaminated sites), stones and 
dredging spoil 
17 05 03*  
17 05 05*  
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 13*  
19 08 wastes from waste water treatment plants not otherwise specified 

bottom ash and slag 
fly ash 

19 01 12  
19 01 14  

19 08 11* 
19 08 13*  

19 08 12  
19 08 14  

sludges from biological treatment of industrial waste water 
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 

… 

… 

… 

… 

176  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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: ____________________________________________________________ 

177  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
Waste code 

Waste description 

Economic 
importance 

Potential presence 
of hazardous 
substances 

Criticality of waste classification 

Likely to shift to 
dangerous? 

Rationale for the 
shift 

XX XX XX 

Example 

a. (35%) 

Zinc hydroxide 
(0.2%) 
Lead (0.05%) 

Yes 

Presence of As 
(H410) 

03 01 04*  

03 01 05  

04 02 19*  

04 02 20  

06 03 15*  

06 03 16  

06 05 02*  

06 05 03  

07 01 11*  

07 01 12  

07 02 11*  

07 02 12  

07 03 11*  

07 03 12  

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  

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  
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  
sludges from on-site 
effluent treatment other 
than those mentioned 
in 07 03 11  

178  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Waste code 

Waste description 

Economic 
importance 

Potential presence 
of hazardous 
substances 

Criticality of waste classification 

Likely to shift to 
dangerous? 

Rationale for the 
shift 

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*  

10 01 17  

10 01 18*  

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 co-
incineration containing 
hazardous substances  
bottom ash, slag and 
boiler dust from co-
incineration other than 
those mentioned in 10 
01 14  
fly ash from co-
incineration containing 
hazardous substances  
fly ash from co-
incineration other than 
those mentioned in 10 
01 16  
wastes from gas 
cleaning containing 
hazardous substances  

179  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Waste code 

Waste description 

Economic 
importance 

Potential presence 
of hazardous 
substances 

Criticality of waste classification 

Likely to shift to 
dangerous? 

Rationale for the 
shift 

10 01 19  

10 02 07*  

10 02 08  

10 02 11*  

10 02 12  

wastes from gas 
cleaning other than 
those mentioned in 10 
01 05, 10 01 07 and 10 
01 18  

solid wastes from gas 
treatment containing 
hazardous substances  

solid wastes from gas 
treatment other than 
those mentioned in 10 
02 07  
wastes from cooling-
water treatment 
containing oil  
wastes from cooling-
water treatment other 
than those mentioned 
in 10 02 11  

10 02 13*  

sludges and filter 
cakes from gas 
treatment containing 
hazardous substances  

10 02 14  

sludges and filter 
cakes from gas 
treatment other than 
those mentioned in 10 
02 13  

10 03 19*  

flue-gas dust 
containing hazardous 
substances  

10 03 20  

10 03 23*  

10 03 24  

10 03 25*  

10 03 26  

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  
sludges and filter 
cakes from gas 
treatment other than 
those mentioned in 10 
03 25  

180  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Waste code 

Waste description 

Economic 
importance 

Potential presence 
of hazardous 
substances 

Criticality of waste classification 

Likely to shift to 
dangerous? 

Rationale for the 
shift 

10 03 29*  

10 03 30  

10 05 10*  

10 05 11  

10 06 09*  

10 06 10  

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 cooling-
water treatment 
containing oil  
wastes from cooling-
water 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*  

10 08 18  

10 08 19*  

10 08 20  

10 09 05*  

sludges and filter 
cakes from flue-gas 
treatment containing 
hazardous substances  

sludges and filter 
cakes from flue-gas 
treatment other than 
those mentioned in 10 
08 17  

wastes from cooling-
water treatment 
containing oil  

wastes from cooling-
water treatment other 
than those mentioned 
in 10 08 19  
casting cores and 
moulds which have not 
undergone pouring 
containing hazardous 
substances  

181  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Waste code 

Waste description 

Economic 
importance 

Potential presence 
of hazardous 
substances 

Criticality of waste classification 

Likely to shift to 
dangerous? 

Rationale for the 
shift 

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  

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  

10 10 11*  

10 10 12  

flue-gas dust other 
than those mentioned 
in 10 10 09  
other particulates 
containing hazardous 
substances  
other particulates other 
than those mentioned 
in 10 10 11  

182  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Waste code 

Waste description 

Economic 
importance 

Potential presence 
of hazardous 
substances 

Criticality of waste classification 

Likely to shift to 
dangerous? 

Rationale for the 
shift 

10 10 13*  

10 10 14  

10 11 09*  

10 11 10  

10 11 15*  

10 11 16  

10 12 09*  

10 12 10  

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  

solid wastes from flue-
gas treatment 
containing hazardous 
substances  

solid wastes from flue-
gas 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  

10 13 12*  

solid wastes from gas 
treatment containing 
hazardous substances  

10 13 13  

11 01 09*  

11 01 10  

12 01 14*  

12 01 15  

12 01 16*  

12 01 17  

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  
waste blasting material 
containing hazardous 
substances  
waste blasting material 
other than those 
mentioned in 12 01 16  

183  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Waste code 

Waste description 

Economic 
importance 

Potential presence 
of hazardous 
substances 

Criticality of waste classification 

Likely to shift to 
dangerous? 

Rationale for the 
shift 

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  

17 05 03*  

17 05 04  

17 05 05*  

17 05 06  

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  

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  

soil and stones 
containing hazardous 
substances  

soil and stones other 
than those mentioned 
in 17 05 03  
dredging spoil 
containing hazardous 
substances  
dredging spoil other 
than those mentioned 
in 17 05 05  

184  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Waste code 

Waste description 

Economic 
importance 

Potential presence 
of hazardous 
substances 

Criticality of waste classification 

Likely to shift to 
dangerous? 

Rationale for the 
shift 

17 06 03*  

17 06 04  

17 08 01*  

17 08 02  

19 01 11*  

19 01 12  

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  

19 01 13*  

fly ash containing 
hazardous substances  

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  

19 08 13*  

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  
sludges containing 
hazardous substances 
from other treatment of 
industrial waste water  

185  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Economic 
importance 

Potential presence 
of hazardous 
substances 

Criticality of waste classification 

Likely to shift to 
dangerous? 

Rationale for the 
shift 

Waste code 

Waste description 

19 08 14  

19 10 03*  

19 10 04  

19 13 01*  

19 13 02  

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  

186  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 4. Questionnaire  sent  to 
industrial  stakeholders  for  the 
impact assessment 

1. General information 

1.1 Your full name and your email address (please specify your country): 

_______________________________________________________________________ 

1.2 Please provide the name of the organisation to which you belong: 

______________________________________________________________________ 

1.3 Type of waste your expertise covers (bold the right answer): 

All 
Specific 

  Provide a general description of waste categories you cover (or waste codes 

when relevant): 
_____________________________________________________________ 

2. Economic feasibility of the classification methods 

2.1. Please assess the feasibility of the classification methods, according to the following 
criteria (the methods are described in the Annex to this questionnaire)? Please fill in the 
table below including justifications for your choices. 

Please  measure  feasibility  with  the  symbols  +/++/+++  (“+”  is  low  feasibility  and  “+++”  is 
high feasibility) 

Criteria 

Feasibility (measured by + /++ /+++) 

Comments  

Level of specialised 
knowledge required to 
apply the method  

Affordability of the 
sampling of waste 

Affordability of 
analytical 
determination 

Need for consultancy 
work 

Method 1: ________________________ 
Method 2: ________________________ 
Method 3: ________________________ 
Method 4: ________________________ 

Method 1: ________________________ 
Method 2: ________________________ 
Method 3: ________________________ 
Method 4: ________________________ 

Method 1: ________________________ 
Method 2: ________________________ 
Method 3: ________________________ 
Method 4: ________________________ 

Method 1: ________________________ 
Method 2: ________________________ 
Method 3: ________________________ 
Method 4: ________________________ 

2.2 For each method, could you provide us with an estimate of the costs related to:  

The preparation of waste sample for chemical analysis: _______________ 
Chemical analysis of the samples: ________________________________ 

187  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The application of the different methodology (incl. consultancy work if needed): 
___________________________________________________________ 

3.  Environmental,  social  and  economic  impacts  of  a  potential  change  in 

classification  

The  implementation  of  any  of  the  four  proposed  classification  methods  may  lead  to  a 
change  in  the  classification  of  some  waste,  from  non-hazardous  to  hazardous,  or  from 
hazardous to non-hazardous. For mirror pairs (waste codes), this means that some waste 
streams currently classified under one entry could end up being classified under the other 
entry of the pair.  

We wish to assess the environmental and socio-economic impacts of these potential 
changes of classification. The mirror pairs selected for assessment are reported in Table 
55 in Annex, at the end of this questionnaire. In bold are the priority pairs. 

Please share with us case studies of potential impacts, using the template provided on the 
next page. You can copy/paste the template in the following pages for drafting more than 
one case study.  You can  also  send us data relevant to the socio-economic impact 
assessment even if it does not fit to the template of case studies. 

188  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
Case study #1 

Mirror pair: ___________________________________ 

Impacts of a change of classification from (bold the right answer): 

Hazardous to non-hazardous  
Non-hazardous to hazardous  

Description of impacts (please fill in the last column) 

Category 

Indicators of impacts 

Description 

Environmental 
impacts 

Changes in percentage of recyclable 
waste 

Social 
impacts 

Changes in percentage of waste 
recovery vs landfill 

Changes in already established 
recycling schemes107 

Energy usage and associated 
contribution to global warming 

Pollution due to the disposal of 
hazardous waste 

Other (please specify) 

Job creation benefits waste 
management (persons involved in 
waste management related operations 
such as transport, storage, sorting, 
treatment, etc.) 

Number of jobs in the industry 

Estimated percentage of hazardous 
waste shipped to third countries 

Other (please precise) 

Economic 
impacts 

Costs of disposal/management 
(including transport, permits, storage, 
etc.)  

Costs of recycling 

Administrative costs for waste 
management 

Implications for incomes and income 
distribution 

Effects on trade, competitiveness and 
the single market 

Impact on waste management 
infrastructure availability  

Other (please precise) 

Additional comments:  

_______________________________________________________________________ 

107 For instance, the reuse of municipal solid waste incineration bottom ashes (MSWI BA) as aggregates in road 
construction in France 

189  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
ANNEX 

The calculation/assessment methods to be considered are: 

Method 1 

When  a  waste  contains  a  substance  classified  as  ozone  depleting  and  is  assigned  the 
hazard statement code(s) H420 according to the CLP rules and such individual substance 
equals or exceeds the concentration  limit of 0.1% (v/v), the  waste shall  be classified as 
hazardous by HP14. 

When a waste contains one or more substances classified as aquatic acute and is assigned 
to the hazard statement code(s) H400 according to the CLP rules and the sum substances 
equals or exceeds the concentration limit of 25% the waste shall be classified as hazardous 
by HP14. 

When a waste contains one or more substances classified as aquatic chronic 1, 2 or 3 and 
is assigned to the hazard statement code(s) H410, H411 or H412 according to the CLP 
rules and the sum of all substances classified aquatic chronic 1 (H410) multiplied by 100 
added to the sum of all substances classified  aquatic chronic 2 (H411) multiplied by  10 
added to the sum of all substances classified aquatic chronic 3 (H412) equals or exceeds 
the concentration limit of 25%, the waste shall be classified as hazardous by HP 14. 

(100 ×∑ Aquatic Chronic 1) + (10 × ∑Aquatic Chronic 2) + ∑Aquatic Chronic 3 ≥ 25 % 

When a waste contains one or more substances classified as aquatic chronic 1, 2, 3 or 4 
and is assigned to the hazard statement code(s) H410, H411, H412 or 413 according to 
the CLP rules and the sum of all substances classified aquatic chronic equals or exceeds 
the concentration limit of 25%, the waste shall be classified as hazardous by HP 14. 

Short version:  

c (H420) ≥ 0.1%  

∑ c H400 ≥ 25 % 

(100 x ∑c H410) + (10 x ∑c H411) + (∑c H412) ≥ 25% 

∑ c H410 + ∑ c H411 + ∑ c H412 + ∑ c H413 ≥ 25 % 

Method 2 

When  a  waste  contains  a  substance  classified  as  ozone  depleting  and  is  assigned  the 
hazard  statement  code  H420  and  such  an  individual  substance  equals  or  exceeds  the 
concentration limit of 0.1%, the waste shall be classified as hazardous by HP 14. 

When a waste contains one or more substances, at or above the cut-off value, that are 
classified as Short term (acute) Aquatic hazard and are assigned to the hazard statement 
code  H400  and  the  sum  of  the  concentrations  of  all  substances  multiplied  by  their 
respective multiplying factors (M-factors) equals or exceeds the concentration limit of 25%, 
the waste shall be classified as hazardous by HP 14. 

When a waste contains one or more substances, above the cut-off value, that are classified 
as  Long  term  Aquatic  hazard  Chronic  1  or  2  and  are  assigned  to  the  hazard  statement 
codes H410 or H411 and the sum of the concentrations of all substances classified Long 
term  Aquatic  hazard  Chronic  1  (H410)  multiplied  by  10,  multiplied  by  their  respective 
multiplying factors M, added to the sum of the concentrations of all substances classified 
Long term Aquatic hazard Chronic 2 (H411), equals or exceeds the concentration limit of 
25%, the waste shall be classified as hazardous by HP 14. 

Short version:  

c (H420) ≥ 0.1%  

∑ (c H400 × M) ≥ 25 % 

190  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
∑ (M × 10 × c H410) + ∑ c H411 ≥ 25% 

The  cut-off  value  for  consideration  in  an  assessment  for  Aquatic  Acute  1  and  Aquatic 
Chronic 1 is 0.1/M %; and for Aquatic Chronic 2 is 1%. 

The M-factors will be determined as follows: 

For substances for which M-factors have been established in Table 3.1, Annex VI of the 
CLP Regulation, those multiplying factors shall apply. 

For substances for which no M-factors have been established in Annex VI, a multiplying 
factor M = 1 shall apply. 

Method 3 

c (H420) ≥ 0.1%  

Hazard Class and Category 
Code(s) 

Hazard statement 
Code(s)  

Concentration 
limit 

Sum of Aquatic Chronic 1 

Sum of Aquatic chronic 2 

Sum of Aquatic chronic 3 

Sum of Aquatic chronic 4 

H410 

H411 

H412 

H413 

0.1% 

2.5% 

25% 

25% 

Method 4 

c (H420) ≥ 0.1%  

Hazard Class and Category 
Code(s) 

Hazard statement 
Code(s)  

Concentration 
limit 

Sum of Aquatic Chronic 1 

Sum of Aquatic chronic 2 

H410 

H411 

2.5/M% 

25% 

The M-factors will be determined as follows: 

For substances for which  M-factors have been established in Table 3.1,  Annex VI CLP, 
those multiplying factors shall apply. 

For substances for which no M-factors have been established in CLP, a multiplying factor 
M = 1 shall apply. 

191  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 55: Mirror pairs selected in the study (in bold: priority) 

Chapter 

Subchapter 

Mirror pair 

Description 

03  Wastes  from  wood  processing  and  the 
production  of  panels  and  furniture,  pulp,  paper 
and cardboard 

03  01  wastes  from  wood  processing  and 
the production of panels and furniture 

03 01 04* 

03 01 05  sawdust, 

shavings, 
cuttings,  wood,  particle 
board and veneer 

06 Wastes from inorganic chemical processes 

06  05  sludges 
treatment 

from  on-site  effluent 

06 05 02* 

06 05 03 

sludges 
effluent treatment 

from 

on-site 

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 
varnish 

from  paint  or 

10 Wastes from thermal processes 

10  01  wastes  from  power  stations  and 
other combustion plants (except 19) 

10  02  wastes  from  the  iron  and  steel 
industry 

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 07*  

10 02 08  

solid  wastes 
treatment 

from  gas 

10 02 13*  

10 02 14  

sludges  and 
from gas treatment 

filter  cakes 

192  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
Chapter 

Subchapter 

Mirror pair 

Description 

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 
treatment  of 
and  mechanical  surface 
metals and 

12 01 14* 

12 01 15 

machining sludges 

plastics 

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 

and 

paper 
packaging, 
packaging 

cardboard 
plastic 

17  03  bituminous  mixtures,  coal  tar  and 
tarred products 

17 03 01*  

17 03 02 

bituminous mixtures 

17 Construction and demolition wastes (including 
excavated soil from contaminated sites) 

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 01 11*  

19 01 12   bottom ash and slag 

193  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
Chapter 

Subchapter 

Mirror pair 

Description 

19 01 wastes from incineration or pyrolysis 
of waste 

19 01 13*  

19 01 14  

fly ash 

19 Wastes from waste management facilities, off-
the 
site  waste  water 
preparation  of  water 
for  human 
consumption and water for industrial use 

treatment  plants  and 

intended 

19 08 wastes from waste water treatment 
plants not otherwise specified 

19 08 11* 

19 08 12  

sludges  from  biological 
industrial 
treatment  of 
waste water 

19 08 13*  

19 08 14  

from 

sludges 
treatment  of 
waste water 

other 
industrial 

19  10  wastes  from  shredding  of  metal-
containing wastes 

19 10 03* 

19 10 04 

fluff-light 
dust 

fraction  and 

19  12  wastes 
the  mechanical 
from 
treatment  of  waste  (for  example  sorting, 
crushing,  compacting,  pelletising)  not 
otherwise specified 

19 12 11* 

19 12 12 

other  wastes  (including 
mixtures  of  materials) 
mechanical 
from 
treatment of waste 

194  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 5.Application of the calculation methods 

See attached Excel file. 

195  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
Annex 6. Study from the French 
Ministry of Ecology 

See attached PDF file. 

196  Study to assess different approaches for H14 | Questionnaire 

 
 
 
Deloitte refers to one  or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee (“DTTL”), its 

network of member firms, and their related  entities. DTTL and each of its member firms are legally separate and independent 

entities. DTTL (also referred to as “Deloitte Global”) does not provide services to clients. Please see www.deloitte.com/about for 

a more detailed description of DTTL and its member firms. 

© 2014 Deloitte SA. Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited

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

October 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 

Executive Summary 

PROJECT NAME 

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

DATE 

16 October 2015 

PROJECT TEAM 

BIO by Deloitte (BIO), INERIS 

AUTHORS 

Ms Mariane Planchon (BIO) 
Ms Nada Saïdi (BIO) 

Mr Pascal Pandard (INERIS) 
Mr Adrien Troise (INERIS) 

KEY CONTACTS 

Mariane Planchon 
+33 1 55 61 67 56 
mplanchon@bio.deloitte.fr 

DISCLAIMER 

The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) 
and  do  not  necessarily  reflect  the  official  opinion  of  the  Commission. 
The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included 
in  this  study.  Neither  the  Commission  nor  any  person  acting  on  the 
Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be 
made of the information contained therein. 

Please cite this publication as: 

BIO  by  Deloitte  (2015).  Study  to  assess  the  impacts  of  different  classification  approaches  for 
hazard  property  "HP  14"  on  selected  waste  streams  –  Executive  Summary.  Prepared  for  the 
European Commission (DG ENV), in collaboration with INERIS. 

2 

Study  to  assess  the  impacts  of  different  classification  approaches  for  hazard  property  "HP  14"  on  selected waste 
streams – Executive Summary 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Executive Summary 

Background  

The  European  List  of  Waste1  (LoW)  is  meant  to  be  a  reference  nomenclature  for 
classification of waste, providing a common terminology throughout the European Union, 
with the purpose to improve the efficiency of waste management activities. The assignment 
of waste codes and hazardous/non-hazardous classification have a major impact on the 
transport of waste, installation permits and decisions about recyclability of the waste.  

The  LoW  comprises  839  waste  codes,  split  into  20  waste  chapters  including  about  200 
wastes in so-called “mirror pairs”. A mirror pair consists of a pair of entries of which one 
waste may be classified either as hazardous or non-hazardous according to the type and 
concentration  of  the  pollutants  it  contains.  The  unique  basis  for  differentiating  between 
hazardous and non-hazardous wastes in mirror pairs is Annex III to the WFD2, which lists 
the 15 properties (HP 1 to HP 15) which, if displayed by a waste, renders it hazardous. 
Among  them,  HP  14  describes  the  ecotoxicological  potential  of  waste,  by  indicating 
whether the waste presents or may present immediate or delayed hazard for one or more 
sectors of the environment.  

No  guidelines  or  recommendations  currently  exist  at  EU-wide  level  for  a  specific 
methodology for the assessment of HP 14. As a result, assessment of HP 14 is performed 
in different ways throughout EU Member States. The lack of harmonisation of methods for 
assessing hazardous properties in Member States, including HP 14, is one aspect calling 
for  a  revision  of  the  legislation  relevant  to  those  hazardous  properties.  In  particular,  it 
seems necessary to provide, in the legislation, a specific methodology for assessing the 
ecotoxicity of waste, coherent with the methods recommended in the CLP3 and REACH 
4regulations. 

The revised waste legislation, which entered into force on June 1st 20155, did not include 
amendments  to  the  HP  14  property  because  no  satisfactory  methodology  could  be 
developed and assessed in time. 

Objectives 

The  study  aimed  to  assess  the  impacts  of  changing  the  criteria  for  the  definition  of 
ecotoxicity  for  waste,  and  especially  to  assess  the  implications  for  Member  States  and 
industry of the implementation of four different options of calculation methods for HP 14 
assessment and waste classification.  

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

3 

Study  to  assess  the  impacts  of  different  classification  approaches  for  hazard  property  "HP  14"  on  selected waste 
streams – Executive Summary 

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

A diversity of approaches in Member States  

The  assessment  of  HP  14  is  currently  performed  in  different  ways  throughout  Member 
States.  When  the  composition  of  the  waste  is  known,  the  attribution  of  the  “ecotoxic” 
property is often made on the basis of the criteria of the CLP or DPD6 using the summation 
method,  thanks  to  which  the  classification  of  a  mixture  can  be  derived  from  the 
classification  of  its  components.  However,  it  is  difficult  to  implement  this  approach  for 
complex mixtures of mainly unknown composition, which is a common situation for wastes: 
the  analytical  determination  of  the  composition  of  waste  could  be  both  expensive  and 
technically  difficult.  In  this  case,  the  performance  of  biotests  on  the  mixture  itself  is 
generally considered as a relevant approach because it allows integrating the effects of all 
contaminants  including  additive,  synergistic  and  antagonistic  toxic  effects.  In  addition, 
reference  data  (i.e.  EC50,  LC50,  M-factors)  are  only  available  for  a  limited  number  of 
chemicals, which can significantly impede using the calculation method described in the 
CLP regulation. Some Member States evaluate ecotoxicity by biotest or physicochemical 
analysis, although there is no standardised battery of biotests for waste at EU level. Other 
Member  States  use  formulae  or  criteria  adapted  from  other  assessment  methods,  for 
instance described in their national regulations, in order to determine HP 14. As an example 
of  diversity  of  HP14  assessment  methods  actually  implemented  in  EU  MS,  descriptive 
factsheets have been elaborated for a sample of 9 MS. 

Application of the four calculation methods 

The assessment of HP 14 according to the four classification methods under study was 
performed on a restricted list of mirror pairs selected from an extended list provided by the 
Commission and according to the following criteria: 

  Preference of experts  

  Availability and quality of data 

  Tonnage of waste production 

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

4 

Study  to  assess  the  impacts  of  different  classification  approaches  for  hazard  property  "HP  14"  on  selected waste 
streams – Executive Summary 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
  Economic importance 

  Potential presence of hazardous substances 

  Criticality of waste classification  

However, limited data availability lead to the different mirror entries originally selected for 
the  study  to  not  be  well  represented.  After  collection  of  the  necessary  data  (waste 
composition,  etc.),  the  calculations  using  the  4  classification  methods  were  run  on  the 
following pairs: 

Mirror pair 

Description 

06 05 02* 

06 05 03 

sludges from on-site effluent treatment (inorganic chemical processes) 

08 01 13* 

08 01 14 

sludges from paint or varnish (manufacture, formulation, supply and use) 

10 01 14*  

10 01 15  

Bottom ash, slag and boiler dust from co-incineration wastes from power stations 
and other combustion plants (except 19) 

10 03 19*  

10 03 20  

flue-gas dust (from aluminium thermal metallurgy) 

11 01 09* 

11 01 10 

sludges and filter cakes (from chemical surface treatment and coating of metals 
and other materials) 

12 01 14* 

12 01 15 

machining sludges from shaping and physical and mechanical surface treatment 
of metals and plastics 

15 01 10* 

15 01 01 15 
01 02 

paper  and  cardboard  packaging,  plastic  packaging  (including  separately 
collected municipal packaging waste) 

17 05 03*  

17 05 04  

soil  and  stones  (construction  and  demolition  waste,  including  excavated  soil 
from contaminated sites) 

17 05 05*  

17 05 06  

dredging spoil (construction and demolition waste) 

19 01 11*  

19 01 12  

bottom ash and slag (from incineration or pyrolysis of waste) 

19 01 13*  

19 01 14  

fly ash (from incineration or pyrolysis of waste) 

19 08 11* 

19 08 12  

sludges from biological treatment of industrial waste water 

19 08 13*  

19 08 14  

sludges from other treatment of industrial waste water 

19 10 03* 

19 10 04 

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

19 12 11* 

19 12 12 

other  wastes  (including  mixtures  of  materials)  from  mechanical  treatment  of 
waste 

Results 

According  to  the  comparative  assessment  of  the  different  calculation  methods  with  the 
current  classification  or  the  classification  based  on  biotest  results7,  there  are  some 
indications  that  suggest  that  Methods  1  and  3  could  be  the  most  relevant  for  waste 
classification based on characterisation data. Indeed, even if these methods are associated 
to a potential overestimation of waste classification (13% of sample for method 1 and 18% 
for method 3), that lead to a good concordance with current classification or classification 
based on biotest results, and the false negative rate is very low.  

In addition to these observations, Method 1 seems to be more relevant because the same 
criteria  as  those  defined  in  the  Regulation  1272/2008  for  classification  of  mixture  are 
applied (whereas Method 3 is based on the old classification system of mixture, directive 
1994/45/EC, that is very different to the concept of CLP regulation because summation of 
components  classified  for  different  hazard  categories  is  not  considered).  The  only  two 

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

5 

Study  to  assess  the  impacts  of  different  classification  approaches  for  hazard  property  "HP  14"  on  selected waste 
streams – Executive Summary 

 
 
 
                                                      
differences of Method 1 with CLP are the non-consideration of M-factors and generic cut-
off values. The non-consideration of M-factor has a lesser impact on calculation because 
this  factor  is  available  only  on  very  few  compounds  with  a  harmonised  classification. 
Regarding the non-consideration of generic cut-off values, this is relevant because some 
compounds  could  be  present  in  waste  and  could  contribute  to  its  toxicity  even  at  low 
concentration due to additivity of hazards. This means that the application of this method 
could then be consistent with the CLP regulation and allows industrials not to apply other 
additional methods. 

In the context of a combined approach, an alternative two-step strategy could be envisaged 
for waste classification  in relation to HP 14. The first  step  would consist  into  applying  a 
summation method (the one ultimately selected for HP 14 assessment). In a second step, 
if the waste cannot be adequately classified according to step 1 (e.g. due to very limited 
information on its composition), an experimental approach using one or several biotests 
(perhaps also in a tiered approach) could be applied. 

An experimental approach could also be directly considered if the composition of the waste 
is unknown or complex. 

Limitations 

Several limitations are associated to available data:  

 

In  most  cases,  characterisation  data  only  report  elemental  compound 
concentrations, presence of organic compounds is rarely reported at all; 

  a significant fraction of the waste is not identified;  

  worst-case  assumptions  (based  on  highest  toxicity  values)  are  made  in  the 
selection of the identity compounds used for subsequent classification of the 
waste; and  

 

the  applicability  of  the  calculation  methods  is  limited  by  the  availability  of 
harmonised classifications for the substances.  

Impact assessment 

The implementation of any of the four calculation methods is likely to lead to changes in 
the  classification  of  some  waste,  and  thus  affect  the  quantities  of  waste  classified  as 
hazardous and non-hazardous for each individual mirror pair. This, in turn, would lead to 
environmental, economic and social impacts. 

The  impact  assessment  conducted  in  this  study  aims  at  roughly  estimating  the 
consequences of the implementation of each of the four methods on the waste streams 
corresponding  to  the  selected  mirror  pairs  against  a  baseline  scenario  (i.e.  the  current 
situation,  and  further  development  excluding  the  implementation  of  the  4  calculation 
methods). The baseline scenario was determined at EU level, with no distinction between 
Member States. This distinction would have been relevant (different Member States apply 
different  criteria),  but  lack  of  data  prevents  such  a  detailed  assessment  (not  enough 
collected samples). 

The environmental, social and economic impacts of this implementation were investigated, 
with the following indicators: 

  Environmental aspects: 

o  Recovery  schemes  (includes  percentages  of  waste  recycled  vs 

landfilled) 

o  Benefits of recovering the waste 

o  Pollution due to contaminated fractions of the waste 

6 

Study  to  assess  the  impacts  of  different  classification  approaches  for  hazard  property  "HP  14"  on  selected waste 
streams – Executive Summary 

 
 
 
  Economic aspects 

o  Costs of disposal 
o  Costs of recycling 

  Social aspects 

o  Employment 

o  Public Health 

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

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

 

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

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

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

03*/19 10 04) 

The impacts are qualitatively summarised below (lack of data prevented conclusions on 
fluff-light fraction and dust from shredding of metal-containing waste): 

Environmental 

Economic 

Social 

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

Status quo 

Method 1 

Method 2 

Method 3 

Method 4 

/ 

- 

- - - 

- 

- - - 

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

Status quo 

Method 1 

Method 2 

Method 3 

Method 4 

- 

++ 

- - - 

++ 

- - - 

/ 

+ + 

+ + + 

- - - 

+ + + 

- 

- 

+ + + 

- 

+ + + 

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

Status quo 

Method 1 

Method 2 

Method 3 

Method 4 

+ 

+ 

- - - 

+ 

- - - 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

/ 

- 

- - - 

- 

- - - 

/ 

- 

- - - 

- 

- - - 

/ 

/ 

- - - 

/ 

- - - 

This preliminary and semi-qualitative  impact assessment highlights that, for the  3 mirror 
pairs assessed, the Methods 1 & 3 are the most relevant methods. Method 1 was preferred 
for the soil & stones waste stream. 

Apart  from  the  benefits  provided  by  a  harmonised  approach  across  Member  States, 
positive impacts from Methods 1  &  3 are mainly environmental  and economic, although 
they are likely to have minor negative economic impacts on some operators.  

7 

Study  to  assess  the  impacts  of  different  classification  approaches  for  hazard  property  "HP  14"  on  selected waste 
streams – Executive Summary 

 
 
 
 
Conclusions 

The  comparative  assessment  of  the  four  calculation  methods  on  a  selected  sample  of 
mirror  pairs  was  restricted  by  limitations  in  data  availability  and  quality.  Nevertheless, 
results  of  the  comparison  between  the  4  calculation  methods  give  some  indication  that 
Method 1 is the most relevant: 

  Good  concordance  with  current  classification  (baseline)  and  classification 

based on biotest results; 

  Aligned with the CLP regulation; 

  Reasonable  environmental,  social  and  economic 

impacts  of 

its 

implementation.  

Although  this  study  focused  on  calculation  methods,  a  combined  approach  has  been 
recommended  by  several  experts  to  optimise  the  accuracy  of  hazard  classification  and 
offset limitations of both calculation and biotests methods alone. Nevertheless, there will 
be a need to derive a harmonised threshold value for use biotests in waste classification 
for code HP 14, as well as the definition of a minimum test battery. Further to this, political 
agreement on the proposal would have to be sought. Some work is currently performed in 
some MS to build threshold values using non-hazardous absolute entries. 

Although  this  study  focused  on  calculation  methods,  a  combined  approach  has  been 
recommended  by  several  experts  to  optimise  the  accuracy  of  hazard  classification  and 
offset limitations of both calculation and biotests methods alone. Nevertheless, there will 
be a need to derive a harmonised threshold value for use biotests in waste classification 
for code HP 14, as well as the definition of a minimum test battery. Further to this, political 
agreement on the proposal would have to be sought. Some work is currently performed in 
some MS to build threshold values using non-hazardous absolute entries. 

8 

Study  to  assess  the  impacts  of  different  classification  approaches  for  hazard  property  "HP  14"  on  selected waste 
streams – Executive Summary 

 
 
 
 
 
Contexte 

La  liste  européenne  des  déchets  (List  of  Waste  ou  «  LoW  »)8  est  destinée  à  servir  de 
nomenclature de référence pour la classification des déchets, fournissant une terminologie 
commune dans toute l'Union européenne, dans le but d'améliorer l'efficacité des activités 
de gestion des déchets. L’attribution de codes de déchets dangereux et la classification en 
dangereux / non dangereux ont un impact majeur sur le transport des déchets, les permis 
d’installation et les décisions relatives au recyclage. 

La LoW comprend 839 codes de déchets, répartis en 20 chapitres incluant environ 200 
déchets caractérisés par des « paires-miroir ». Un déchet caractérisé par une paire-miroir 
peut être classé soit comme dangereux (selon une entrée de la paire) ou non dangereux 
(selon l’autre entrée) selon le type et la concentration des polluants qu'il contient. L'annexe 
III de  la Directive Cadre sur les Déchets9 est la référence unique  pour déterminer si un 
déchet caractérisé par une paire-miroir est dangereux ou non. L’attribution à un déchet de 
une  ou  plusieurs  des  propriétés  (HP  1  à  15)  énumérées  dans  cette  annexe  entraîne  la 
classification  de  ce  déchet  sous  l’entrée  «  dangereuse  »  de  la  paire-miroir.  Parmi  ces 
propriétés, HP 14 décrit le potentiel écotoxique des déchets, en indiquant s’ils présentent 
ou peuvent présenter un danger à court ou long terme pour un ou plusieurs compartiments 
environnementaux. 

Il  n’existe  actuellement  pas  de  lignes  directrices  ou  de  recommandations  au  niveau 
européen  concernant  une  méthodologie  spécifique  pour  évaluer  la  propriété  écotoxique 
des déchets HP 14. Par conséquent, HP 14 est actuellement évaluée différemment selon 
les Etats Membres. Ce manque d'harmonisation des méthodes d'évaluation des propriétés 
dangereuses HP dans les États membres, y compris HP 14, est l’un des aspects ayant 
appelé à une révision de la législation relative à ces propriétés. En particulier, il semble 
nécessaire de prévoir, dans la loi, une méthodologie spécifique pour évaluer l'écotoxicité 
des  déchets,  cohérente  avec  les  méthodes  recommandées  dans  les  réglementations 
CLP10 et REACH11. 

Néanmoins, les provisions de la législation européenne sur les déchets concernant HP 14, 
n’ont pas été amendées lors de la révision récente de cette législation12, car il n’a pas été 
possible de développer une méthodologie faisant consensus.  

Objectifs 

L'étude  vise  à  évaluer  les  impacts  de  la  modification  des  critères  de  la  définition  de 
l'écotoxicité des déchets, et en particulier à évaluer les implications pour les Etats Membres 
et l'industrie de la mise en œuvre de quatre options différentes de méthodes de calcul pour 
HP 14. 

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

9 

Study  to  assess  the  impacts  of  different  classification  approaches  for  hazard  property  "HP  14"  on  selected waste 
streams – Executive Summary 

 
 
 
                                                      
Figure : les quatre méthodes de calcul évaluées dans cette étude 

Une diversité des approches dans les Etats Membres 

L'évaluation de HP 14 est actuellement réalisée de différentes façons à travers les États 
membres.  Lorsque  la  composition  des  déchets  est  connu,  l'attribution  de  la  propriété 
"écotoxique" est souvent effectuée sur la base des critères de la CLP ou DPD13 en utilisant 
les méthodes de sommation, grâce auxquelles la classification d’un mélange peuvent être 
dérivée  de  la  classification  de  ses  composants.  Cependant,  il  est  difficile  de  mettre  en 
œuvre  cette  approche  pour  des  mélanges  complexes  de  composition  essentiellement 
inconnue, ce qui est une situation courante pour les déchets: la détermination analytique 
de la composition des déchets pourrait être à la fois coûteuse et techniquement difficile. 
Dans ce cas, la mise en œuvre de bio-essais sur le mélange lui-même est généralement 
considérée comme une approche pertinente, car elle permet d'intégrer les effets de tous 
les contaminants, y compris additifs, synergiques et antagonistes. En outre, des données 
de  référence  (par  exemple  CE50,  CL50,  facteurs  M)  ne  sont  disponibles  que  pour  un 
nombre  limité  de  produits  chimiques,  ce  qui  peut  entraver  de  manière  significative 
l'utilisation de la méthode de calcul décrite dans le règlement CLP. Certains États membres 
évaluent  l'écotoxicité  par  biotest,  bien  qu'il  n'y  ait  pas  de  batterie  standardisée  de  tests 
biologiques  pour  les  déchets  au  niveau  de  l'UE.  D'autres  États  membres  utilisent  des 
formules  ou  des  critères  adaptés  à  partir  d'autres  méthodes  d'évaluation,  par  exemple 
décrit dans leurs réglementations nationales, afin de déterminer HP 14. A titre d'exemple 
de la diversité des méthodes d'évaluation effectivement mises en œuvre dans d’UE, des 
fiches descriptives ont été élaborées pour un échantillon de 9 Etats Membres. 

Calculs avec les quatre méthodes proposées  

L'évaluation de HP 14 selon les quatre méthodes de classification étudiée a été réalisée 
sur  une  liste  restreinte  de  paires-miroir  sélectionnées  à  partir  d'une  liste  fournie  par  la 
Commission et selon les critères suivants: 

  La préférence des experts 

  Disponibilité et qualité des données 

  Le tonnage de la production de déchets 

 

Importance économique 

  Présence possible de substances dangereuses 

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

10 

Study  to  assess  the  impacts  of  different  classification  approaches  for  hazard  property  "HP  14"  on  selected waste 
streams – Executive Summary 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
  Criticité de la classification des déchets 

Cependant, les paires-miroir ainsi sélectionnés n’ont pas pu être bien représentés par la 
disponibilité effective des données. Après collecte des données nécessaires (composition 
des  déchets,  etc.),  les  calculs  correspondant  aux  quatre  méthodes  de  classification  à 
l’étude ont été effectués sur les paires suivantes : 

Paire-miroir 

Description 

06 05 02* 

06 05 03 

boues provenant du traitement in situ des effluents (procédés de la chimie 
minérale ) 

08 01 13* 

08 01 14 

boues provenant de peintures ou vernis (fabrication, formulation, distribution et 
utilisation) 

10 01 14*  

10 01 15  

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

10 03 19*  

10 03 20  

poussières de filtration des fumées (pyrométallurgie de l'aluminium) 

11 01 09* 

11 01 10 

boues et gâteaux de filtration (du traitement chimique de surface et du 
revêtement des métaux et autres matériaux) 

12 01 14* 

12 01 15 

boues d'usinage de la mise en forme et du traitement physique et mécanique 
de surface des métaux et matières plastiques  

15 01 10* 

15 01 01 15 
01 02 

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

17 05 03*  

17 05 04  

terres et cailloux (déchets de construction et de démolition, y compris déblais 
provenant de sites contaminés) 

17 05 05*  

17 05 06  

boues de dragage (déchets de construction et de démolition, construction and 
demolition waste) 

19 01 11*  

19 01 12  

mâchefers (provenant des installations de gestion des déchets) 

19 01 13*  

19 01 14  

cendres volantes (provenant des installations de gestion des déchets) 

19 08 11* 

19 08 12  

boues provenant du traitement biologique des eaux usées industrielles 

19 08 13*  

19 08 14  

boues provenant d'autres traitements des eaux usées industrielles 

19 10 03* 

19 10 04 

fraction légère des résidus de broyage et poussières (provenant du broyage de 
déchets contenant des métaux  

19 12 11* 

19 12 12 

autres déchets (y compris mélanges) provenant du traitement mécanique des 
déchets  

Résultats 

L'étude comparative des différentes méthodes de calcul avec la classification actuelle et 
celle basée sur les résultats de biotests suggèrent que les méthodes 1 et 3 pourrait être 
les  plus  pertinentes  pour  la  classification  des  déchets  sur  la  base  de  données  de 
caractérisation.  En  effet,  même  si  ces  méthodes  sont  associées  à  une  surestimation 
potentielle de la classification des déchets (13% de l'échantillon pour la méthode 1 et 18% 
pour la méthode 3), elles mènent à une bonne concordance avec la classification actuelle 
et celle basé sur les résultats de biotests. De plus, le taux de faux négatif est très faible. 

Par ailleurs, la méthode 1 semble être plus pertinente car elle intègre les mêmes critères 
que ceux définis  dans le règlement CLP pour  la classification du mélange (alors que la 
méthode 3 est basé sur l'ancien système de classification du mélange DPD, dont l’esprit 
est différent de celui du règlement CLP, car la somme des composants classés pour les 
différentes catégories de danger ne sont pas considérés). Les deux seules différences de 
la méthode 1 avec le CLP sont la non-considération des facteurs M et l’inclusion de valeurs 
seuils  génériques.  La  non  prise  en  compte  des  facteurs  M  a  un  impact  moindre  sur  le 
calcul,  car  ce  facteur  est  disponible  uniquement  sur  très  peu  de  composés  ayant  une 
classification  harmonisée.  Il  aurait  cependant  été  pertinent  d’inclure  des  valeurs  seuils 

11 

Study  to  assess  the  impacts  of  different  classification  approaches  for  hazard  property  "HP  14"  on  selected waste 
streams – Executive Summary 

 
 
 
génériques, car certains composés pourraient être présents dans les déchets et pourraient 
contribuer à sa toxicité, même à faible concentration, en raison de l'additivité des risques. 

Ainsi, la méthode 1 pourrait alors être compatible avec le règlement CLP et permettrait aux 
industriels de ne pas appliquer des méthodes supplémentaires. 

Dans  le  contexte  d'une  approche  combinée,  une  stratégie  alternative  en  deux  étapes 
pourrait être envisagée pour la classification des déchets selon HP 14. La première étape 
consisterait en l'application d'une méthode de sommation (celle finalement retenue pour 
l’évaluation de HP 14). Dans un deuxième temps, si les déchets ne peuvent être classés 
de manière adéquate selon l'étape 1 (par exemple en raison de très peu d'informations sur 
sa composition), une approche expérimentale en utilisant un ou plusieurs tests biologiques 
(peut-être aussi dans une approche à plusieurs niveaux) pourrait être appliquée. 

Une  approche  expérimentale  pourrait  également  être  directement  envisagée  si  la 
composition des déchets est inconnue ou complexe. 

Limites 

Plusieurs limites sont associées aux données disponibles: 

  Dans la plupart des cas, les données de caractérisation ne rapportent que les 
concentrations  de  composés  élémentaires,  la  présence  de  composés 
organiques sont rarement signalés du tout; 

  Une fraction importante des déchets n’est pas identifiée ; 

  Des hypothèses pire-cas (basées sur les valeurs de toxicité les plus élevés) 
sont  réalisées  dans  la  sélection  des  composés  utilisés  pour  la  classification 
des déchets; et 

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

classifications harmonisées pour les substances. 

Etude d’impact 

La mise en œuvre de l'une des quatre méthodes de calcul est susceptible de conduire à 
des changements dans la classification de certains déchets, et donc affecter les quantités 
de déchets classés comme dangereux et non dangereux pour chaque paire-miroir. Ceci, 
à son tour, conduirait à des impacts environnementaux, économiques et sociaux. 

L'évaluation d'impact réalisée dans cette étude vise à estimer les conséquences de la mise 
en  œuvre  de  chacune  des  quatre  méthodes  sur  les  flux  de  déchets  correspondant  aux 
paires-miroir  sélectionnées  par  rapport  à  un  scénario  de  référence  (c’est-à-dire  de 
développement de la situation actuelle excluant l'application de l’une des 4 méthodes de 
calcul). Le scénario de référence a été déterminé au niveau de l'UE, sans distinction entre 
les  États  membres.  Cette  distinction  aurait  été  pertinent  (différents  États  membres 
appliquent  des  critères  différents),  mais  le  manque  de  données  empêche  une  telle 
évaluation détaillée. 

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

  Les aspects environnementaux: 

o  systèmes de récupération  des déchets (y compris les pourcentages 

de déchets recyclés vs enfouis) 

les avantages de la récupération des déchets 

la pollution due à des fractions des déchets contaminés 

o 

o 

  Les aspects économiques 

12 

Study  to  assess  the  impacts  of  different  classification  approaches  for  hazard  property  "HP  14"  on  selected waste 
streams – Executive Summary 

 
 
 
o  Les coûts d'élimination des déchets 

o  Les coûts du recyclage 

  Les aspects sociaux 

o  Emploi 

o  Santé publique 

Pour des raisons de disponibilité des données, l'évaluation complète de l'impact n’a pu être 
réalisée que sur quatre paires-miroir: 

 

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

  mâchefers (19 01 11 * / 19 01 12) 

 

 

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

fraction légère et poussière provenant du broyage de déchets contenant des 
métaux (19 10 03 * / 19 10 04) 

Les impacts sont résumées qualitativement ci-dessous (le manque de données a limité les 
conclusions sur la fraction légère provenant du broyage de déchets contenant des métaux): 

Environmental 

Economique 

Social 

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

Status quo 

Méthode 1 

Méthode 2 

Méthode 3 

Méthode 4 

/ 

- 

- - - 

- 

- - - 

Mâchefers (19 01 11*/19 01 12) 

Status quo 

Méthode 1 

Méthode 2 

Méthode 3 

Méthode 4 

- 

++ 

- - - 

++ 

- - - 

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

Status quo 

Méthode 1 

Méthode 2 

Méthode 3 

Méthode 4 

+ 

+ 

- - - 

+ 

- - - 

/ 

+ + 

+ + + 

- - - 

+ + + 

- 

- 

+ + + 

- 

+ + + 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

/ 

- 

- - - 

- 

- - - 

/ 

- 

- - - 

- 

- - - 

/ 

/ 

- - - 

/ 

- - - 

Cette  évaluation  préliminaire  et  semi-qualitative  souligne  que,  pour  les  3  paires-miroir 
évaluées, les méthodes 1 et 3 sont les plus pertinentes. La méthode 1 donne de meilleurs 
résultats pour le flux de déchets de construction « sol et pierres ». 

Outre les avantages offerts par une approche harmonisée dans tous les États Membres, 
les  impacts  positifs  des  méthodes  1  et  3  sont  principalement  environnementaux  et 
économiques,  même  si  elles  sont  susceptibles  d'avoir  des  répercussions  économiques 
négatives mineures sur certains opérateurs.Bien que cette étude ait porté sur 4 méthodes 
de  calcul  proposées,  une  approche  combinée  calcul  /  biotests  a  été  recommandée  par 
plusieurs experts pour optimiser la précision de la classification des dangers et compenser 

13 

Study  to  assess  the  impacts  of  different  classification  approaches  for  hazard  property  "HP  14"  on  selected waste 
streams – Executive Summary 

 
 
 
 
à  la  fois  les  limites  des  méthodes  de  calcul  et  celles  des  méthodes  biotests  seules. 
Néanmoins, il faudrait définir une valeur seuil harmonisée pour pouvoir utiliser les biotests 
dans la classification des déchets selon HP 14, ainsi que la définition d'une batterie d'essai 
minimale. Suite à cela, il faudrait trouver un accord politique sur la proposition. A noter que 
certains travaux sont actuellement en cours dans certains États Membres pour construire 
des valeurs de seuil. 

14 

Study  to  assess  the  impacts  of  different  classification  approaches  for  hazard  property  "HP  14"  on  selected waste 
streams – Executive Summary 

 
 
 
 
 
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

Classification of wastes types according to calculation methods and ecotoxicological data

06 05 02* / 06 05 03

CALCULATION METHODS

Source of characterisation data

Result for Method 
1

Sample 1 - Data from germany (ecotoxicological_characterization_of_waste_bad_wurtemberg)

Non hazardous

08 01 13* / 08 01 14

CALCULATION METHODS

Source of characterisation data

Result for Method 
1

Sample 1 - Data from germany (ecotoxicological_characterization_of_waste_bad_wurtemberg)
Sample 2 - Data from germany (ecotoxicological_characterization_of_waste_bad_wurtemberg)
Sample 3 - Source 37 (Sample 9-SCO, ASCAL)
Sample 4 - Source 37 (Sample 9-SCO, SGS)

Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous

10 03 19* / 10 03 20

Source of characterisation data

Sample 1 - Source 37 (Sample 7, ASCAL)
Sample 2 - Source 37 (Sample 7, SGS)

11 01 09* / 11 01 10

Result for Method 
1

Hazardous
Non hazardous

Source of characterisation data

Result for Method 
1

Sample 1 - Source 36
Sample 2 - Data from germany (ecotoxicological_characterization_of_waste_bad_wurtemberg)
Sample 3 - Data from germany (ecotoxicological_characterization_of_waste_bad_wurtemberg)
Sample 4 - Data from germany (ecotoxicological_characterization_of_waste_bad_wurtemberg)
Sample 5 - Data from germany (ecotoxicological_characterization_of_waste_bad_wurtemberg)

Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Non hazardous

CALCULATION METHODS

CALCULATION METHODS

12 01 14* / 12 01 15

CALCULATION METHODS

Source of characterisation data

Result for Method 
1

Sample 1 - Data from germany (ecotoxicological_characterization_of_waste_bad_wurtemberg)
Sample 2 - Data from germany (ecotoxicological_characterization_of_waste_bad_wurtemberg)

Hazardous
Hazardous

15 01 10* / 15 01 01 / 15 01 02

CALCULATION METHODS

Source of characterisation data

Sample 1 - Packaging
Sample 2 - Source 37 (Sample 8-SCO, ASCAL)
Sample 3 - Source 37 (Sample 8-SCO, SGS)

Result for Method 
1

Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous

17 05 03* / 17 05 04

CALCULATION METHODS

Source of characterisation data

Result for Method 
1

Sample 1 - Source 2
Sample 3 - Source 6
Sample 4 - Source 14
Sample 5 - Source 18 (LMKW1 sample)
Sample 6 - Source 18 (SPMKW1 sample)
Sample 7 - Source 18 (HTNT1 sample)
Sample 8 - Source 18 (CTNT1a sample)
Sample 9 - Source 18 (SPAK1a sample)
Sample 10 - Source 18 (R1 sample)
Sample 11 - Source 19
Sample 12 - Source 40 (sample 1)
Sample 13 - Source 40 (sample 2)
Sample 14 - Source 40 (sample 3)
Sample 15 - Source 40 (sample 4)
Sample 16 - Source 41 (sample 1)
Sample 17 - Source 41 (sample 2)
Sample 18 - Source 41 (sample 3)
Sample 19 - Source 41 (sample 4)
Sample 20 - Source 41 (sample 5)
Sample 21 - Source 41 (sample 6)
Sample 22 - Source 42

19 01 11* / 19 01 12

Source of characterisation data

Sample 2 - Source 2
Sample 4 - Source 4
Sample 5 - Source 15
Sample 6 - Source 7
Sample 7 - Source 7
Sample 8 - Source 7
Sample 9 - Source 7
Sample 10 - Source 7
Sample 11 - Source 7
Sample 12 - Source 7
Sample 13 - Source 21
Sample 15 - Source 23 (MWI-1 sample)

Non hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Non hazardous
Hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Hazardous

Result for Method 
1

Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Non hazardous
Hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous

CALCULATION METHODS

Sample 16 - Source 23 (MWI-2 sample)
Sample 17 - Source 23 (MWI-3 sample)
Sample 18 - Source 23 (MWI-11 sample)
Sample 19 - Source 23 (MWI-5 sample)
Sample 20 - Source 23 (MWI-6 sample)
Sample 21 - Source 23 (MWI-7 sample)
Sample 22 - Source 23 (MWI-8 sample)
Sample 23 - Source 23 (MWI-9 sample)
Sample 24 - Source 23 (MWI-10 sample)
Sample 25 - Source 23 (MWI-12 sample)
Sample 26 - Source 23 (MWI-13 sample)
Sample 37 - Data from sweden (SE-database experimental data_vf1802)
Sample 38 - Data from sweden (SE-database experimental data_vf1802)
Sample 40 - Data from Belgium (Copy of bedrijfsgegevens bij OVAM 
rapport D_2013_5024_28 EN)
Sample 41 - Data from Belgium (databases for VITO report on 
construction and demolition waste)
Sample 42 - Data from Belgium (waste treatment plant)
Sample 43 - Data from germany 
(ecotoxicological_characterization_of_waste_bad_wurtemberg)
Sample 44 - Data from United Kingdom (2012 ISA IBA dataset)
Sample 45 - Data from United Kingdom (2012 ISA IBA dataset)
Sample 46 - Data from United Kingdom (2012 ISA IBA dataset)
Sample 47 - Data from United Kingdom (2012 ISA IBA dataset)
Sample 48 - Data from United Kingdom (2012 ISA IBA dataset)
Sample 49 - Data from United Kingdom (2012 ISA IBA dataset)
Sample 50 - Data from United Kingdom (2012 ISA IBA dataset)
Sample 51 - Data from United Kingdom (2012 ISA IBA dataset)
Sample 52 - Data from United Kingdom (2012 ISA IBA dataset)
Sample 53 - Data from United Kingdom (2012 ISA IBA dataset)
Sample 54 - Data from United Kingdom (2012 ISA IBA dataset)
Sample 55 - Data from United Kingdom (2012 ISA IBA dataset)
Sample 56 - Data from United Kingdom (2012 ISA IBA dataset)
Sample 57 - Data from United Kingdom (2012 ISA IBA dataset)
Sample 58 - Data from United Kingdom (2012 ISA IBA dataset)
Sample 59 - Data from United Kingdom (2012 ISA IBA dataset)
Sample 60 - Data from United Kingdom (2012 ISA IBA dataset)
Sample 61 - Data from United Kingdom (2012 ISA IBA dataset)
Sample 62 - Data from United Kingdom (2012 ISA IBA dataset)
Sample 63 - Data from United Kingdom (2012 ISA IBA dataset)
Sample 64 - Data from United Kingdom (HP of IBA - ExeSum 2013)
Sample 65 - Source 36
Sample 66 - Source 37 (Sample 6, ASCAL)
Sample 67 - Source 37 (Sample 6, SGS)

Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous

Non hazardous

Non hazardous

Hazardous

Hazardous

Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous

Sample 68 - Data from Denmark (Composition of MSWI BA in Denmark)

Hazardous

Sample 69 - Data from Sweden (klassning ekotox 150525.xlsx)
Source 38
Source 38

Hazardous
Hazardous
Non hazardous

19 01 13* / 19 01 14

CALCULATION METHODS

Source of characterisation data

Result for Method 
1

Sample 1 - Data from Finland (FI-database experimental data_vf1802)
Sample 4 - Data from sweden (SE-database experimental data_vf1802)
Sample 5 - Data from sweden (SE-database experimental data_vf1802)
Sample 6 - Data from sweden (SE-database experimental data_vf1802)
Sample 7 - Data from sweden (SE-database experimental data_vf1802)
Sample 8 - Data from Belgium (Copy of bedrijfsgegevens bij OVAM rapport D_2013_5024_28 EN)
Sample 9 - Data from Belgium (Copy of bedrijfsgegevens bij OVAM rapport D_2013_5024_28 EN)
Sample 10 - Data from Belgium (waste treatment plant)
Sample 11 - Data from Belgium (waste treatment plant)
Sample 12 - Data from germany (ecotoxicological_characterization_of_waste_bad_wurtemberg)
Sample 13 - Source 39 (sample 19)
Sample 14 - Source 39 (sample 14)
Sample 15 - Source 39 (sample 1)
Sample 16 - Source 39 (sample 10)
Sample 17 - Source 39 (sample 11)
Sample 18 - Source 39 (sample 12)
Sample 19 - Source 39 (sample 13)
Sample 20 - Source 39 (sample 15)
Sample 21 - Source 39 (sample 16)
Sample 22 - Source 39 (sample 17)
Sample 23 - Source 39 (sample 18)
Sample 24 - Source 39 (sample 2)
Sample 25 - Source 39 (sample 20)
Sample 26 - Source 39 (sample 21)
Sample 27 - Source 39 (sample 22)
Sample 28 - Source 39 (sample 3)
Sample 29 - Source 39 (sample 4)
Sample 30 - Source 39 (sample 5)
Sample 31 - Source 39 (sample 6)
Sample 32 - Source 39 (sample 7)
Sample 33 - Source 39 (sample 8)
Sample 34 - Source 39 (sample 9)

Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Non hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous

19 08 11* / 19 08 12

Source of characterisation data

Sample 1 - Source 17
Sample 2 - Source 17
Sample 3 - Source 19

19 08 13* / 19 08 14

Result for Method 
1

Non hazardous
Hazardous
Non hazardous

Source of characterisation data

Result for Method 
1

Sample 1 - Data from germany (ecotoxicological_characterization_of_waste_bad_wurtemberg)

Non hazardous

CALCULATION METHODS

CALCULATION METHODS

Sample 2 - Source 37 (Sample 9-GEO, ASCAL)
Sample 3 - Source 37 (Sample 9-GEO, SGS)

Non hazardous
Hazardous

19 10 03* / 19 10 04

CALCULATION METHODS

Source of characterisation data

Result for Method 
1

Sample 1 - Data from Belgium (waste treatment plant)
Sample 2 - Data from Belgium (waste treatment plant)
Sample 3 - Data from Belgium (waste treatment plant)
Sample 4 - Data from Belgium (waste treatment plant)
Sample 5 - Data from Belgium (waste treatment plant)
Sample 6 - Data from Belgium (waste treatment plant)
Sample 7 - Data from Belgium (waste treatment plant)
Sample 8 - Data from Belgium (waste treatment plant)
Sample 9 - Data from Belgium (waste treatment plant)
Sample 10 - Data from Belgium (waste treatment plant)
Sample 11 - Data from germany (ecotoxicological_characterization_of_waste_bad_wurtemberg)

Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous

19 12 11* / 19 12 12

Source of characterisation data

Sample 1 - Source 37 (Sample 8-GEO, ASCAL)
Sample 2 - Source 37 (Sample 8-GEO, SGS)
Sample 3 - Source 37 (Sample 8-SAR, ASCAL)
Sample 4 - Source 37 (Sample 8-SAR, SGS)
Source 38

Result for Method 
1

Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous

CALCULATION METHODS

Classification of wastes types according to calculation methods and ecotoxicological data

CALCULATION METHODS

Result for Method 
2

Result for Method 
3

Result for Method 
4

Classification in the 
source

Non hazardous

Hazardous

Non hazardous

Hazardous

CALCULATION METHODS

Result for Method 
2

Result for Method 
3

Result for Method 
4

Classification in the 
source

Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Non hazardous

Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous

Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Non hazardous

Hazardous
Hazardous
ND
ND

CALCULATION METHODS

Result for Method 
2

Result for Method 
3

Result for Method 
4

Classification in the 
source

Non hazardous
Non hazardous

Hazardous
Hazardous

Non hazardous
Non hazardous

ND
ND

CALCULATION METHODS

Result for Method 
2

Result for Method 
3

Result for Method 
4

Classification in the 
source

Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous

Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous

Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous

ND
Hazardous
Hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous

CALCULATION METHODS

Result for Method 
2

Result for Method 
3

Result for Method 
4

Classification in the 
source

Hazardous
Non hazardous

Hazardous
Hazardous

Hazardous
Non hazardous

Hazardous
Hazardous

CALCULATION METHODS

Result for Method 
2

Result for Method 
3

Result for Method 
4

Classification in the 
source

Hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous

Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous

Hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous

Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous

CALCULATION METHODS

Result for Method 
2

Result for Method 
3

Result for Method 
4

Classification in the 
source

Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous

Non hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Hazardous

Non hazardous
Hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous

ND
Hazardous
Hazardous
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Hazardous
Hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Hazardous

CALCULATION METHODS

Result for Method 
2

Result for Method 
3

Result for Method 
4

Classification in the 
source

Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous

Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Non hazardous
Hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous

Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous

ND
ND
Hazardous
Non hazardous
Hazardous
Non hazardous
ND
ND
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
ND
ND

Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous

Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous

Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

Non hazardous

Hazardous

Non hazardous

Non hazardous

Non hazardous

Non hazardous

Non hazardous

Non hazardous

Non hazardous

Hazardous

Non hazardous

Hazardous

Non hazardous

Hazardous

Non hazardous

ND

Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous

Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous

Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous

Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Non hazardous
ND
ND
ND

Non hazardous

Hazardous

Non hazardous

Non hazardous
Hazardous
Non hazardous

Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous

Non hazardous
Hazardous
Non hazardous

ND

ND
ND
ND

CALCULATION METHODS

Result for Method 
2

Result for Method 
3

Result for Method 
4

Classification in the 
source

Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous

Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Non hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous

Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous

Non Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
ND
Non Hazardous
Non Hazardous
Non Hazardous
Hazardous
Non Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Non Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Non Hazardous
Non Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Non Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Non Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous

CALCULATION METHODS

Result for Method 
2

Result for Method 
3

Result for Method 
4

Classification in the 
source

Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous

Non hazardous
Hazardous
Non hazardous

Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous

ND
ND
ND

CALCULATION METHODS

Result for Method 
2

Result for Method 
3

Result for Method 
4

Classification in the 
source

Non hazardous

Hazardous

Non hazardous

Hazardous

Non hazardous
Non hazardous

Hazardous
Hazardous

Non hazardous
Non hazardous

ND
ND

CALCULATION METHODS

Result for Method 
2

Result for Method 
3

Result for Method 
4

Classification in the 
source

Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Non hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Non hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Non hazardous

Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous

Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Non hazardous
Hazardous

Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Non Hazardous

CALCULATION METHODS

Result for Method 
2

Result for Method 
3

Result for Method 
4

Classification in the 
source

Hazardous
Non hazardous
Hazardous
Non hazardous
Hazardous

Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous

Hazardous
Non hazardous
Hazardous
Non hazardous
Hazardous

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

CALCULATION METHODS

CALCULATION METHODS

CALCULATION METHODS

CALCULATION METHODS

CALCULATION METHODS

Presence of compounds 
with M factor

Mass 
Balance

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

classification based on biotests

yes

0,2

Hazardous

Presence of compounds 
with M factor

Mass 
Balance

no
no
yes
yes

2,75
15,1
94,04
43,08

Presence of compounds 
with M factor

Mass 
Balance

yes
yes

41,39
56,17

Presence of compounds 
with M factor

Mass 
Balance

yes
no
no
no
no

78,95
16,5
27,5
0,75
0,23

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

classification based on biotests

Hazardous
Hazardous
ND
ND

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

classification based on biotests

ND
ND

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

classification based on biotests

ND
Hazardous
Hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous

Presence of compounds 
with M factor

Mass 
Balance

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

classification based on biotests

yes
yes

10,4
0,46

Hazardous
Hazardous

CALCULATION METHODS

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

Presence of compounds 
with M factor

Mass 
Balance

classification based on biotests

yes
yes
yes

0,31
9,86
6,64

ND
ND
ND

CALCULATION METHODS

Presence of compounds 
with M factor

Mass 
Balance

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

classification based on biotests

yes
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes

0,08
4,46
0,63
0,12
0,09
0,09
0,2
0,27
0,57
0,39
9,55
11,74
11,21
8,6
0,06
0,12
0,14
0,12
0,09
0,08
2,91

Non hazardous
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Hazardous
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

CALCULATION METHODS

Presence of compounds 
with M factor

Mass 
Balance

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

classification based on biotests

yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no

1,45
35,76
34,34
2,14
4,1
1,35
1,89
2,5
2,02
5,9
9,48
1,18

Hazardous 
Non hazardous
ND
Non hazardous
Hazardous 
Hazardous 
Hazardous
Hazardous 
Hazardous 
Non hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous 

no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes

yes

yes

yes

no

no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes

no

yes
-
-

1,14
0,66
1,79
3,02
2,72
2
1,15
2,29
1,21
1,61
1,25
2,36
2,15

0,25

10,14

53,9

0,35

5,44
3,12
5,96
2,45
0,58
4,65
5,73
0,54
5,84
0,57
0,56
5,31
5,93
5,52
2,38
2,58
2,92
2,91
4,99
2,9
80,84
60,92
74,25
71,24

0,86

2
-
-

Non hazardous
Hazardous 
Hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Hazardous
Hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous
Non hazardous

ND

ND

ND

Non hazardous

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND

ND
Hazardous 
Hazardous 

CALCULATION METHODS

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

Presence of compounds 
with M factor

Mass 
Balance

classification based on biotests

yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes

50,59
2,98
0,93
2,82
1,76
1,7
0,004
60,48
5,19
2,45
10,09
9,68
7,35
8,26
2,85
5,47
6,18
4,86
6,51
4,03
7,51
3,02
8,46
5,35
7,41
3,47
4,27
2,74
1,62
2,89
5,6
8,03

Non Hazardous
Non Hazardous
Hazardous
Non Hazardous
Non Hazardous
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

CALCULATION METHODS

CALCULATION METHODS

Presence of compounds 
with M factor

Mass 
Balance

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

classification based on biotests

no
no
yes

0,07
0,86
0,02

Further information needed
Further information needed
Further information needed

Presence of compounds 
with M factor

Mass 
Balance

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

classification based on biotests

no

0,24

Hazardous 

yes
yes

84,88
30,16

ND
ND

CALCULATION METHODS

Presence of compounds 
with M factor

Mass 
Balance

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

classification based on biotests

yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes

46,74
48,88
66,28
33,42
67,5
53,37
58,95
49,06
78,86
79,95
3,19

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Hazardous

CALCULATION METHODS

Presence of compounds 
with M factor

Mass 
Balance

yes
yes
yes
yes
-

99,1
27,51
58,96
23,92
-

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

classification based on biotests

ND
ND
ND
ND
Hazardous

Contribution of France to the « Study to asses the impacts of different classification 

approaches for hazard property « H14 » on selected waste streams » 

SUMMARY 

The  Member  States  of  the  European  Union  have  in  2014  updated  the  list  of  waste  and  defined  the  15 
hazard  properties  (HP)  of  wastes  except  for  HP14  ‘Ecotoxic’.  Four  calculation  methods  for  HP  14  are 
assessed till June 2015 in a Call for Tenders of the Directorate General of the Environment of the European 
Commission. The comparison of these 4 calculation methods uses only “mirror entries” of the European List 
of Waste (LoW). 

This  paper  is  a  contribution  of  France  to  the  assessment  of  these  4  calculation  methods,  with  the 
presentation of results of a 5th one, which corresponds to method 2 using “extended M-factors”. A data set 
of 25 absolute samples1 from different origin (16 “absolute” hazardous (H) and 9 “absolute” non-hazardous
(NH)  by  LoW)  is  used  to  complete  the  comparison  based  on  “mirrors  entries”  of  the  LoW.  These  16 
hazardous wastes studied here are supposed to be hazardous especially for the hazardous property HP14.  

The result of the classification results allow to forward a relative ranking of the methods by the frequency 
of  classification  as  H.  The  ranking  is  method  3  >  method  1  >  method  2  with  extended  M-factors  > 
method  2  >  method  4.  The  same  ranking  can  be  obtained  by  a  simple  arithmetic  comparison  of 
concentrations limits when Mchronic = 10 (Table 1). 

Method 2 with extensive M-factors matches best with the European list of waste (80% concordant H 
and  non-H  by  LoW,  and  13%  discordant  for  H  waste  by  LoW).  It  classifies  safely  waste  containing 
substances  with  high  ecotoxicity.  Methods  1  and  3  have  nearly  as  good  matching  (76%  and  72%) 
concordant H and non-H by LoW, and 13% and 6% respectively discordant for H waste by LoW). Method 2 
with M-factors limited to the M-factors published in the CLP has insufficient concordance (64% concordant H 
and non-H by LoW, and 50% discordant for H waste by LoW). As the same method with extended M-factors 
gives  the  best  performance,  the  lower  performance  is  due  to  the  limitation  of  the  M-factor.  Method  4  is 
divergent (60% concordant H and non-H by LoW, and 56% discordant for H waste by LoW).  
Usually,  methods  2  and  4  don’t  classify  many  hazardous  wastes  by  the  LoW  in  the  data  set.  The 
experimental approach shows that calculation methods 1, 3, and 2 with extended M factors have a good 
concordance with biotest results.  

1. INTRODUCTION

The Member States of the European Union have in 2014 updated the list of waste (EC 2014a) and defined 
the 15 hazard properties (HP) of wastes (EC 2014b) except for HP14 ‘Ecotoxic’. This hazard property is the 
most  frequent  classifying  property  for  waste  (Hennebert  et  al  2014)  if  the  Classification,  Labelling  and 
Packaging  of  Preparation  and  Mixtures  calculation  method  (CLP  Regulation  2008),  limited  to  two  levels  of 
chronic ecotoxicity, but including extended M-factors, is used.  
Four calculation methods are assessed till June 2015 in a Call for Tenders of the Directorate General of the 
Environment of the European Commission (DG ENVIRONMENT 2014). They differ by the hazard statement 
codes,  the  concentration  limits,  and  the  use  of  M-factors.  The  assessment  is  focused  on  so-called  “mirror 
entries” in the European List of Waste (LoW), that is waste that can be either hazardous or non-hazardous, 
and that must be assessed for their hazard properties by chemical composition or by tests. 
This  paper  is  a  contribution  to  the  assessment  of  these  4  calculation  methods,  with  the  presentation  of 
results of a 5th one, using “extended M-factors”. 
M-factors calculated from reviewed EC50 and NOEC of a broader range of mineral and organic substances, 
including  substances  important  in  waste,  like  polycyclic  aromatic  carbons  (PAH).  Using  “absolute  entries” 
instead of “mirrors entries” of the LoW as a reference, the different classification methods by calculation can 
be ranked for matching with the LoW classification. 

1 It is not all absolute entries as listed in the LoW ; some mirrors entries have also been integrated, and a positioning in 
one of the entries was performed from knowledge of the waste. 

2. ISSUES OF THE CALCULATION METHODS  

2.1 Calculation methods considered for HP 14 

The different calculation methods (named Method 1 to 4) in the Call for Tenders are: 

-  Method 1 :  

Σ c H400 ≥ 25 %, or (100 x Σc H410) + (10 x Σc H411) + (Σc H412) ≥ 25 %, or 
Σ c H410 + Σ c H411 + Σ c H412 + Σ c H413 ≥ 25 %  

-  Method 2 : 

Σ (c H400 × M) ≥ 25 %, or Σ (M × 10 × c H410) + Σ c H411 ≥ 25 %  
The  cut-off  value  for  consideration  in  an  assessment  for  Aquatic  Acute  1  and  Aquatic  Chronic  1  is 
0.1/M %; and for Aquatic Chronic 2 is 1%. The M-factors will be determined as follows:  
For  substances  for  which  M-factors  have  been  established  in  Table  3.1,  Annex  VI  of  the  CLP 
Regulation,  those  multiplying  factors  shall  apply.  For  substances  for  which  no  M-factors  have  been 
established in Annex VI, a multiplying factor M = 1 shall apply. 

-  Method 3 : 

Σ c H410 ≥ 0.1 %, or Σ c H411 ≥ 2.5 %, or Σ c H412 ≥ 25 %, or Σ c H413 ≥ 25 %  

-  Method 4 : 

Σ (M × c H410) ≥ 2.5 %, or Σ c H411 ≥ 25 %  
The M-factors will be determined as Method 2. 

2.2 Speciation of mineral elements to mineral substances for calculation 

Classification  by  chemical  composition  depends  in  waste  on  hypothesis  of  speciation  of  elemental 
concentrations into mineral chemical substances. The chemical classification is hampered in routine by this 
question.  Where  the  CLP  regulation  is  mainly  focused  on  chemicals  and  formulations  consisting  of  pure 
substances and mixtures of pure substances, the  waste regulation covers a  wide range of materials which 
are poorly defined in terms of the chemical form of the substances they contain. Lack of information on the 
chemical form of substances (speciation) could lead to the use of “worst case” hypothesis, a poor surrogate 
for hazardousness, and a possible delisting as hazardous (Hennebert and Weltens 2014). A presentation of 
the different available methods with a step-wise method (depending on the concentration of the element) can 
be found in AFNOR FD X30-494 (2015) and in an Annex of Hennebert and Rebishung (2015). 
A  first  step  to  avoid  expensive  speciation  work  is  to  use  “worst  case  with  information”  calculations,  for 
instance to suppose that the element is in the most hazardous form in the waste, and that can realistically be 
present  in  the  waste.  “Simple”  substances  with  one  ecotoxic  element  are  used  rather  than  more  complex 
substances (for instance sodium chromate instead of lead chromate). List of such substances can be found 
for all HPs in Hennebert and Rebischung (2015).  

2.3 M-factors 

For  easier  comparison,  the  calculation  methods  are  presented  in  the  left  part  of  Table  4.  For  each 
method, each rule of classification is written as a column in the Table. To assess HP 14, each concentration 
of a substance with the hazard statement code must be divided by concentration limit specified in the table, 
and the ratios mut be summed. The sum of these ratios is a hazard index. If it is ≥ 1, the waste is hazardous 
for this rule of classification. If it is <1, the waste is considered as non-hazardous for that rule.  
We  have  used  also  a  fifth  method  (named  Method  2  with  extended  M-factors).  The  limitation  of  hazard 
assessment to chronic ecotoxicity of level 1 and 2 (not taking into account level 3 of CLP regulation – level 4 
is  presented  as  a  “safety  net”  in  the  CLP  regulation)  for  waste  is  argued  by  an  impact  assessment 
(Hennebert  and  Rebishung  2012).  Another  reason  is  that  there  is  only  one  final  level  of  hazard  for  waste 
(Hazardous)  but  there  are  4  levels  of  hazard  for  products  (Ecotoxic  acute,  Ecotoxic  chronic  level  1,  2,  3). 
This method is used in France since 2012.  

In the CLP regulation, multiplying factors of the concentrations of the substances that produce biological 
effects  in  tests  at  concentration  <  1  mg/L  are  used  to  calculate  the  hazard  for  aquatic  environment.  The 
Table  3.1  of  Annex  VI  of  the  CLP  regulation  has  a  (restricted)  list  of  M-factors.  The  M-factors  should  be 
calculated  for  each  substance  for  acute  toxicity  (depending  on  the  concentration  having  50%  of  biological 
effect  EC50  if  <  1  mg/L,  <  0.1  mg/L,  <  0.01  mg/L,  …)  and  for  chronic  ecotoxicity  (depending  on  the 
concentration with no observed effect NOEC if < 0.1 mg/L, < 0.01 mg/L, < 0.001 mg/L, …) (CLP regulation 
2008 ATP 02). Tables of extended M-factors can be found in Hennebert and Rebischung (2013, updated in 
2015). 

 
 
 
 
3.  ARITHMETIC COMPARISON OF THE CALCULATION METHODS FOR HP 14 

To give an insight about the proposition of DG Environment and the proposition of a fifth method, the five 
calculation methods can temptatively be classified by increasing concentration limit, taking into account the 
following observations: 

a.  A  waste  classified  for  acute  ecotoxicity  is  always  classified  for  chronic  ecotoxic  (empirical  results  not 
shown for this set of data, other data in Hennebert et al. 2014). The reverse is not true. That statement could 
not  be  verified  if  the  waste  contains  hazardous  degradable  substances  that  can  have  a  acute  M-factor 
greater than a chronic M-factor. This is for instance the case for some PAH: benzo[k]fluoranthene, Macute = 
100,  Mchronic  =  10;  anthracene,  100  and  10  respectively;  fluoranthene,  100  and  10;  pyrene,  10  and  10; 
phenanthrene, 10 and 1). Excepted for these cases, the comparison of methods may therefore be limited to 
chronic ecotoxicity; 

b.  References  to  hazard  statement  code  (HSC)  H412  and  H413  do  not  play  a  practical  role  in  the 
classification  of waste, because the cumulative concentrations must achieve 25% and such concentrations 
are  unlikely  to  be  present  in  the  waste.  The  substances  with  these  hazard  statements  codes  (H412:  431 
substances,  and  H431:  254  substances)  in  Table  3.1  of  Annex  VI  CLP  regulation  are  mainly  for  H412 
synthetic organic chemicals, and the minerals tin chloride and powdered nickel (excluding rare substances), 
and  for  H413  elements  and  substances  containing  Ni,  Co,  Se,  U,  Tl  and  cadmium  sulfide.  With  25% 
cumulative concentration, these materials will not be a priori material that the holder wishes to discard, but 
rather a resource which he will seek to use due to their technical or commercial value. Comparing methods 
can therefore be confined to the limits of concentration of H410 and H411 substances; 

c. The arithmetic ranking concentration limits of the 5 calculation methods for chronic ecotoxicity H410 and 
H411 depends on the value of chronic M-factor.  
If a mean chronic M is hypothetized, and if that M factor is in the CLP regulation Annex VI, a classification by 
increasing concentration limit can be set (Table 1). The exact classification will depend on the presence of 
substances with chronic M-factor > 10. The rank of Methods 2 and 4 can in that case move forward. 

Table 1: Arithmetic comparison of 5 classification methods for HP 14 by calculation, with hypothesis that 
mean chronic M-factor = 10 (concentration limits for H410 and H411 substances). 

Method 3 

Method 1 

0.1% 

0.25% + 2.5% 

Method 2 with ext. 
M-factors 
(Mchronic=10) 
2.5/M% + 25% 

Method 2 with CLP 
M-factors 
(Mchronic=10) 
2.5/M% + 25% 

Method 4 
(Mchronic=10) 

2.5/M% or 25% 

d.  For  hazardous  elements  and  substances,  the  Annex  VI  of  CLP  regulation  contains  only  M-factors  for 
pesticides and nickel substances. For other elements and substances, and mixtures of them, the producer 
must  provide  ecotoxicological  data  and  self-classification  (including  M-factors)  to  register  its  product  in  the 
REACH  repository.  Reviewed  tables  of  M-factors  are  given  in  this  paper.  A  comparison  of  concentration 
limits  for  heavy  metals  and  PAHs  (frequently  encountered  in  waste)  with  or  without  M-factors  is  given  in 
Table 2. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2: Comparison of 5 classification methods for HP 14 by calculation for hazardous elements and 
substances (heavy metals, PAHs, M ≥ 10, extended M-factors) 

Elements/substances 

Macute-factor 
(not in CLP 
Annex VI) 

Mchronic-factor 
(not in CLP 
Annex VI) 

Concentration limits (lowest sum of substances with H400 or sum of 
substances with H410 hazard statement code) 

Hg (worst case) 
Cd (worst case) 
As, Co, Cr(VI), Cu, Pb, Zn 
(worst case) 
Benzo[k]fluoranthene, 
anthracene, fluoranthene 
Pyrene 
Benz[a]anthracene 

1000 
100 

10 

100 

10 
100 

100 
100 

10 

10 

10 
1 

Method 3  Method 1  Method 2  Method 4 

0.1% 

0.25% 

2.5% 

2.5% 

Method 2 with 
extended M-factors 
0.025% 
0.025% 

0.25% 

0.25% 

0.25% 
0.25% 

If one waste contains As, Co, Cr(VI), Cu, Pb, Zn and PAHs, the ranking of the methods will be (from most 

severe to less severe): method 3 > method 1 = method 2 with extended M-factors > method 2 > method 4. 

If one waste contains in addition significant concentrations of Hg and Cd, the ranking of the methods will 

be: method 2 with extended M-factors > method 3 > method 1 > method 2 > method 4. 

4.  RESULTS  OF  THE  CLASSIFICATION  BY  THE  5  CALCULATION  METHODS  AND 
BIOTESTS 

The set of 25 samples studied comes from different origin was used (Table 3). Most of them have been 
analysed  according  to  AFNOR  XP  X30-489  “Determination  of  elements  and  substances  in  waste”.  That 
method is discussed as a European standardization Work Item submitted to formal vote (CEN/TC 292 2015). 
The method gives a full knowledge of the waste to be characterized and classified. The results can be used 
for  waste  hazard  classification,  Seveso  classification,  transport  regulation,  and  occupational  health  and 
safety  requirements.  Please  be  aware  that  hazard  classification  with  uncomplete  analytical  data  is 
misleading. 

The analytical mass balances (sum of all measured concentrations) were > 90%. Some of these wastes 
have been presented in Hennebert  et  al. (2013). When a concentration of a substance  is below its limit of 
quantification (LOQ), the LOQ has been used as the concentration. The concentrations are expressed on dry 
matter  for  solid  waste  and  on  raw  mass  (including  water)  for  liquid  waste.  The  hazard  indexes  can  be 
expressed on dry matter or on raw mass by simple conversion with the moisture content. 

The  LoW  is  taken  in  the  comparison methodology  as  a  reference  method.  This  implies  that  the  wastes 
used  here  are  classified  as  hazardous  for  HP  14  in  the  LoW.  However,  in  practice,  this  can  not  be 
established with absolute certainty but it is supposed considering of the typology of the 16 hazardous wastes 
studied.  
The  concordance  for  one  calculation  method  is  established  by  the  number  of  waste  with  identical 
classification  by  the  considered  calculation  method  and  the  LoW  (H/H,  NH/NH).  The  discordance  is 
established  as  well,  and  the  case  where  the  waste  is  classified  “H”  in  the  LoW  and  “NH”  by  calculation 
(under-estimation of the hazard) will be considered. 

The 25 results are presented at Table 3, ordered by method with decreasing matching with the Low. The 

correspondence score are presented at Table 4, and a synthesis at Table 5. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3: Classification of the classification of 25 wastes by assigned code of the LoW and by 5 calculation 
methods and biotests (H = hazardous, NH = non-Hazardous, noting = not evaluate) 

Industrial waste bottom ash 

N  Waste 
1  Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator (MSWI) fly ash 
2  Air Pollution Control (APC) residue industrial waste  
3 
4  Packages and materials  
5  Hydrocarbon  
6  Sulfidic acid mine residue Pb Zn Cd 
7  Solid wastes from gas treatment 
8  APC residue from animal meal incineration 

LoW code2 
19 01 05* 
19 01 07*  
19 01 11* 
19 12 11* 
13 07 03* 
01 03 04* 
19 01 07* 
19 01 07* 

9 

10 

Wastes from transport tank cleaning, mixed sludge of 
food and chemical transport 
MSWI  Air  pollution  control  residue,  bicarbonate 
process 

11  MSWI APC residue, lime process 

12 

APC  residue  from  municipal  waste  after  solid  fuel, 
metals and organic matter separation 

13  Treated wood containing hazardous substances 

14 

Acid-generating  tailings  from  processing  of  sulphide 
ore  

15  Metallic dust from aluminum industry 

16 07 09* 

19 01 07* 
19 01 07* 

19 01 07* 
17 02 04* 

01 03 04* 
10 03 19 * 

17 

16 

Waste  from  physical  and  chemical  processing  of 
metalliferous minerals Cu Zn 
Municipal  waste 
collected 
18  Bauxite residue 
19  Demolition concrete  

fraction  separately 

-  Organic 

20 

Compost  from  mixed  municipal  waste,  fraction  <  30 
mm after crushing 

21  Sludges from treatment of urban waste water  

22 

23 

Non-composted  organic  fraction  of  municipal  wastes 
< 30 mm after crushing,  
Mixed  municipal  waste,  fraction  >  30  mm  after 
crushing 

24  Ferrous metal dust and particles 
25  End-of-life tyres, crushed 4 mm 

01 03 07* 
20  01  08  or 
20 02 01 
01 03 09 
17 01 01 
19  05  01  or 
20 03 01 
19 08 05 

19 05 01 
19  05  01  or 
20 03 01 
12 01 02 
16 01 03 

LoW  M3  M1  M2 +ext. M  M2  M4 
H 
H 
H 
H 
H 
H 
H 
NH 

H 
H 
H 
H 
H 
H 
H 
H 

H 
H 
H 
H 
H 
H 
H 
H 

H 
H 
H 
H 
H 
H 
H 
H 

H 
H 
H 
H 
H 
H 
H 
H 

H 
H 
H 
H 
H 
H 
H 
H 

H 

H 
H 

H 
H 

H 
H 

H 

NH 
NH 
NH 

NH 
NH 

NH 

NH 
NH 
NH 

H 

H 
H 

H 
H 

H 
H 

H 

H 
H 

H 
H 

H 
NH 

NH  NH 

NH  NH 
NH  NH 
NH  NH 

H 
H 

H 

H 
H 
H 

NH 
NH 

H 

H 
H 
H 

H 

H 
H 

H 
H 

H 
NH 

NH 

NH 
NH 
NH 

NH 
NH 

NH 

H 
H 
H 

NH  NH 

NH  NH 
NH  NH 

NH  NH 
NH  NH 

NH  NH 
NH  NH 

NH  NH 

NH  NH 
NH  NH 
NH  NH 

NH  NH 
NH  NH 

NH  NH 

NH  NH 
NH  NH 
H 
H 

biotests3 

H 
H 
H 
H 
H 

H 

H 
H 

H 
H 

H 

H 
H 

H 
H 
H 

4.1 Comparison of calculation methods and the LoW 

Table 4: Comparison of the classification of 25 wastes by the European list of waste and by 5 calculation 
methods (H = hazardous, NH = non-Hazardous with assigned code) 

2 The waste codes which are mentioned in this column are those have been assigned within the European list of Waste 
(LoW) as defined in Decision 2014/955 and also according to the knowledge of the wastes concerned. So there may be 
some divergence of interpretation between this proposal to assign an “absolute entry” code and that is proposed in the 
guide  "Guidance  Document  on  the  definition  and  classification  of  hazardous  waste"  in  Annex  A.  This  “absolute  entry” 
waste code assignment within that Table 3 was carried out based on the nature of the waste and the expertise of Ineris. 

3 The biotests used and the results are described below at the section “Comparison of biotests and calculation methods”. 
Only 16 biotests could have been realised of the 25 samples of wastes studied. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
 
Method 3 
 ∑ 
H400 
H410 
H411 
H412 
H413 

Method 1 
 ∑ 
H400 
H410 
H411 
H412 
H413 

Method 2 
 ∑ 
H400 

H410 
H411 

H412 
H413 

Method 4 
 ∑ 
H400 

H410 
H411 
H412 
H413 

Method 

HP 14 Calculation Methods 

Hazardous  or  Non 
with 
Hazardous 
assigned code 

H  or  NH 
by 
method 

LoW \ Method 3 
H 
NH 

H  NH 
15  1 
3 
6 

Matching 
classificatio
n 
(25 
samples) 

Calculated 
NH  but  H 
with 
assigned 
code 
samples) 

(16 

18 
72% 

1 
6% 

LoW \ Method 1 
H 
NH 

H  NH 
2 
14 
5 
4 

19 
76% 

2 
13% 

LoW  \  M2  +  ext. 
M-factors 
H 
NH 

H  NH 

20 

2 

14 
3 

2 
6 

80% 

13% 

LoW  \  Method  2 
CLP 
H 
NH 

H  NH 

16 

8 

8 
1 

8 
8 

64% 

50% 

LoW \ Method 4 
H 
NH 

H  NH 
9 
7 
8 
1 

15 
60% 

9 
56% 

Acute 

Chronic 

0.10% 

2.50% 

25% 

25% 

Acute 
25% 

Chronic 

0.25% 
2.50% 
25% 

25% 
25% 
25% 
25% 

Acute 
25/Macute % 

Chronic 

2.5/MCLPchronic 
% 
25% 

Acute 

Chronic 

2.5/MCLPchronic 
% 

25% 

Table 5: Concordance of methods (synthesis) 

Method  2  with 
extended 
M-
factors 

Method 1 

Method 3 

Method 2  Method 4 

Matching with assigned code (H/H, NH/NH) 
Mismatching: H with assigned code and NH by 
calculation 

80% 

13% 

76% 

13% 

72% 

6% 

64% 

50% 

60% 

56% 

A relative ranking can be the decreasing number of samples classified as hazardous ; the order (Table 4) is : 

method 3 > method 1 > method 2 with extended M-factors > method 2 > method 4  

This  result  corresponds  to  the  arithmetic  ranking  by  concentration  limits  for  chronic  ecotoxicity  in  case  of 
mean M=10 (Table 1). 
A more complete approach is to look for “absolute” matching of both H and NH waste (Table 4, Table 5). 

Method 2 with extended M-factors is the most concordant with the LoW, and the second (with Method 1) in 
rank of mismatching. 

 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The other calculation methods then rank in the order of concentration limits set forth above, with decreasing 
performance. 
Methods 3 and 1 have a good agreement with the LoW. They have low concentration limits (method 3: 0.1%; 
Method  1:  0.25%)  but  do  not  classify  correctly  in  relation  to  the  LoW  waste  containing  substances 
with high chronic M-factors (> 10): 

- Mineral substances: compounds of Hg and Cd (chronic M = 100) 
- Organic substances: PAHs and pesticides (chronic M = 100 to > 1000). 
The wastes that may contain these substances are wastes of the chemical or metallurgical industry, 
petroleum  products  and  combustion  residues,  pesticides  packaging,  and  soils,  sludges  and 
contaminated sediments. Some tested wastes contain PAHs, which explains the differences in ranking. 

In  the  set  of  waste,  there  is  a  PAH,  benz(a)anthracene  in  sample  5,  and  a  pesticide,  chlorpyrifos,  in 

sample 4 (Table 3). 

Method 2 with M-factors of CLP regulation provides a lower ranking correspondence. As the same method 
with  extended  M-factors  gives  the  best  performance,  the  lower  performance  of  this  method  clearly  comes 
from the limitation of the M-factor. 

Method 4 is little concordant or even divergent with the LoW. 

4.2 Comparison of biotests and calculation methods 

The  “harmonized”  experimental  approach,  consisting  of  three  aquatic  ecotoxicity  tests  and  three  terrestrial 
ecotoxicity tests (Table 6) was applied to 16 of the 25 wastes selected in this study. 

Table 6 : Test battery and threshold values proposed to assess the HP 14 property 

Type of test 

Test 

Duration 

Standard  

Inhibition of the mobility of Daphnia magna 

48 h 

Aquatic 
Tests 

Inhibition  of  the  light  emission  of  Vibrio  fischeri 
(Luminescent bacteria test) 

30 min 

NF EN ISO 
6341 

NF EN ISO 
11348-3 

Proposal of 
Threshold value 

EC 50 < 10% 

EC 50 < 10% 

Fresh  water  algal  growth 
unicellular 
algae 
subcapitata) 

green 

inhibition 

test  with 
(Pseudokirchneriella 

72 h  

NF EN ISO 
8692 

EC 50 < 10% 

Solid contact test using the dehydrogenase activity of 
Arthrobacter globiformis 

Terrestrial 
Tests 

Effects  on  the  emergence  and  early  growth  of  higher 
plants (Avena sativa, Brassica rapa) 

Avoidance test with earthworms  
(Eisenia andrei/fetida) 

2 h 

18 j 

48 h 

ISO/DIS 
18187 

NF ISO 
11269-2  

NF ISO 
17512-1  

EC 50 < 10% 

EC 50 < 10% 

EC 50 < 10% 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 7 : described results of biotests and comparison with the calculation methods and the LoW 

Classification according to 
calculation methods 

Classification according to harmonized experimental approach  

Waste 

LoW 
Code  M2+e
xt. M 

Aquatic tests 

Terrestrial tests 

M1 

M2 

M3 

M4 

Daph 

Vib 

Alg 

Arthr. 

Oat 

Turnip 
rape 

Earthwo
rm 
avoidan
ce 

H 

H 

NH 

H 

NH 

NH 

NH 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

NH 

H 

H 

H 

NH 

NH 

NH 

NH 

H 

H 

NH 

NH 

NH 

NH 

NH  NH  NH 

NH 

NH 

NH 

H 

NH 

NH 

NH 

NH 

NH 

NH 

H 

NH 

H 

NH 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

NH 

NH 

NH 

NH 

H 

H 

NH 

H 

NH 

H 

NH 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

NH 

H 

H 

NH 

H 

NH 

NH 

H 

H 

H 

H 

NH 

H 

NH 

H 

H 

H 

NH 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

NH 

NH 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

NH 

NH 

NH 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

NH 

NH 

NH  NH  NH 

NH 

NH 

NH 

NH 

NH 

NH 

NH 

H 

NH 

NH 

NH 

H 

NH 

NH 

NH 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

H 

NH 

NH 

NH 

NH 

NH 

NH  NH  NH 

NH 

NH 

NH 

H 

H 

NH 

H 

NH 

NH 

H 

NH 

H 

H 

H 

NH 

NH 

NH 

NH 

NH 

H 

NH 

H 

NH 

Acid-generating 
tailings 
processing 
sulphide ore 

from 
of 

01 03 
04* 

Sulfidic  acid  mine 
residue Pb Zn Cd 

01 03 
04* 

Waste  from  physical 
chemical 
and 
processing 
of 
metalliferous 
minerals Cu Zn 

01 03 
07* 

Metallic  dust  from 
aluminium industry 

10 03 
19* 

Hydrocarbon 

Treated 
containing 
hazardous 
substances 

wood 

13 07 
03* 

17 02 
04* 

Solid  wastes  from 
gas treatment 

19 01 
07* 

from 
APC  residue 
waste 
municipal 
after 
fuel, 
solid 
metals  and  organic 
matter separation 

19 01 
07* 

MSWI  APC  residue, 
lime process 

19 01 
07* 

APC  residue 
animal 
incineration 

from 
meal 

Packages 
materials 

and 

Bauxite residue 

19 01 
07* 

19 12 
11* 

01 03 
09 

Ferrous  metal  dust 
and particles 

12 01 
02 

End-of-life 
crushed 4 mm 

tyres, 

Demolition concrete 

Mixed 
municipal 
waste,  fraction  >30 
mm after crushing 

16 01 
03 

17 01 
01 

19 05 
01 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The classification rule is as follows : only one positive result among the different tests4 that compose the test 
battery “harmonized” experimental approach rank a waste as “hazardous” for the Ecotoxic property. In view 
of  these  results5,  the  biotests  are  (with  the  limits  of  concentration  described  above),  more  stringent  than 
calculation methods. Biotests rank in fact all the 16 wastes which has been tested. 
These  results  also  show  that  the  reference  of  the  LoW  could  be  compared  with  the  reality  of  biotests, 
relevant to evaluate this property HP14  "Ecotoxic", hazardous for the  environment.  Moreover, for these  16 
wastes  which  results  are  available  by  biotests,  the  3  most  relevant  calculation  methods  M1,  M2  and  M3 
extended with M factors, lead to the same conclusion for 15 of the 16 wastes. For these 16 wastes, method 
3 is a little bit more ranking, but there is a good concordance between biotests and the 3 calculation methods 
(Methods  3,  1  and  2  with  extended  M  factors)  which  rank  respectively  13  and  12  samples  as  hazardous 
whereas  biotests  rank  the  16  samples.  However,  there  are  two  samples  which  are  not  classified  as 
“hazardous” neither by the LoW, nor any calculation method, but which are by biotest. Maybe, concentration 
limits  of  the  “harmonised”  battery  could  be  refined  with  wastes  which  are  sure  to  not  contain  hazardous 
substances and so which are sure to be not Ecotoxic. 

5. CONTRIBUTION OF ADDITIONNAL TABLES OF “EXTENDED” M-FACTORS 

In  Table  3.2  of  Annex  VI  of  CLP  regulation,  “harmonised”  Macute-factors  of  212  substances  are  supplied, 
mainly pesticides, nickel salts and substances, cobalt sulphate, oxide and carbonate, benz[a]anthracene and 
dibenz[a]anthracene  (PAHs),  other  rare  organic  or  mineral  substances.  There  are  63  substances  with 
Macute = 1 (62 nickel substances and one pesticide), 67 substances with M = 10, 46 substances with M = 
100, 29 substances with M = 1000, 6 substances with M = 10 000 and one substance with M = 1 000 000 
(deltamethrin).  

Tables  of  additional  “extended”  M-factors  are  proposed  here  for  mineral  elements  (“heavy  metals”, 
worst  case  hypothesis)  and  organic  substances,  covering  the  major  cases  in  waste  (from  Hennebert  and 
Rebishung 2015, Andres 2013), in addition to the M-factors in Table 3.2 of Annex VI of CLP REGULATION. 
Height “heavy metals” H400 elements have Macute-factors and nine H410 elements have Mchronic-factors 
(“worst case” hypothesis). They have been used in this study. About hundred organic substances that have 
been encountered in waste have M-factors, with taking into account the pesticides. 
These proposals could be a basis of reflexion for an harmonized list of extended M-factors for wastes in the 
EU. 

Table 8: M-factors and concentration limit per substance and per elements (realistic worst case approach) for 
HP 14 acute and chronic 

Elements (worst case) with hazard statement code H400 (other elements have no HSC H400) 

Element  Worst case substance, CAS# 

Formula 

Hg 
Cd 
As 
Co 
Cr(VI) 
Cu 
Pb 

(1) 
(1) 
(1) 
Cobalt oxide 1307-96-6 
(1) 
Copper chloride 
(1) 

CLP 
CLP 
CLP 
CoO 
CLP 
CuCl2 
CLP 

acute 

14 
HP 
Concentration 
limit /substance 
(Method  2  ext. 
M-factors) 

case 

Worst 
Concentration 
limit /element 
(Method  2  ext. 
M-factors) 

0.025% 
0.25% 
2.50% 
2.50% 
2.50% 
2.50% 
2.50% 

0.0204% 
0.1473% 
1.3297% 
1.9663% 
0.9066% 
1.1816% 
2.0703% 

Macute- 
factor 

1000 
100 (2) 
10 
10 
10 
10 (3) 
10 

4 Two species were used in the test on emergence and early growth of higher plants, leading to obtain 7 responses for 
each waste. 
5  For  these  results,  2  sampling  (“Solid  wastes  from  gas  treatment”  and  “MSWI  APC  residue,  lime  process”)  have  no 
adjustment of the pH of the eluate. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Zn 
Mn 
Ni 
Se 

Zinc chloride 
Potassium permanganate 7722-64-7  KMnO4 
Nickel chloride 
(1) / hyp. Lead selenate 

NiCl2 
PbSeO4 

ZnCl2 

10 
1 
1 
1 

2.50% 
25.00% 
25.00% 
25.00% 

1.1995% 
8.6911% 
8.8124% 
5.6374% 

HYP: HYPOTHESIS OF SUBSTANCE 

(1)  GENERIC  HAZARD  STATEMENT  CODE  OF  CLP.  CONVERSION  OF  ELEMENT  TO  SUBSTANCE  BASED  ON  ALL  THE 

SUBSTANCES WITH THAT ELEMENT IN THE CLP  

(2)  BASED ON EC50 = 0.0034 MG/L. LOWER EC50 VALUES (0.0009 MG/L, M= 1000) ARE ALSO REPORTED. 
(3)  Based on EC50 = 0.011 mg/l. A lower value of EC50 can be found in a European Commission - European Voluntary 

Risk Assessment Report (EU-VRAR) report but it is proposed to use this value instead 

Substances with hazard statement code H410 

Element  Worst case substance 

Formula 

Mchronic- 
factor 

Cd 
Hg 
As 
Co 
Cr(VI) 
Cu 
Pb 
Se 
Zn 
Ag 
Mn 
Ni 

CLP 
(1) 
CLP 
(1) 
CLP 
(1) 
CoO 
Cobalt oxide 1307-96-6  
CLP 
(1) 
CuCl2 
Copper chloride 
CLP 
(1) 
PbSeO4 
(1) / hyp. Lead selenate 
ZnCl2 
Zinc chloride 
Silver nitrate 7761-88-8 
AgNO3 
Potassium permanganate 7722-64-7  KMnO4 
Nickel chloride 

NiCl2 

100 
100 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
1 
1 
1 (2) 

14 

Min. 
limit 

HP 
Concentration 
/substance 
(Method  2  ext.  M-
factors) 

0.025% 
0.025% 
0.25% 
0.25% 
0.25% 
0.25% 
0.25% 
0.25% 
0.25% 
2.50% 
2.50% 
2.50% 

case 
limit 

Worst 
Concentration 
/element 
(Method  2  ext.  M-
factors)  

0.0147% 
0.0204% 
0.1330% 
0.1966% 
0.0907% 
0.1182% 
0.2070% 
0.0564% 
0.1199% 
1.5875% 
0.8691% 
0.8812% 

HYP: HYPOTHESIS OF SUBSTANCE 

(1)  GENERIC  HAZARD  STATEMENT  CODE  OF  CLP.  CONVERSION  OF  ELEMENT  TO  SUBSTANCE  BASED  ON  ALL  THE 

SUBSTANCES WITH THAT ELEMENT IN THE CLP 

(2)  BASED  ON  NOEC  =  0.011  MG/L.  A  LOWER  VALUE  OF  NOEC  CAN  BE  FOUND  IN  A  EUROPEAN  COMMISSION  - 
EUROPEAN  VOLUNTARY  RISK  ASSESSMENT  REPORT  (EU-VRAR)  REPORT  BUT  IT  IS  PROPOSED  TO  USE  THIS  VALUE 
INSTEAD 

Organic substances: Some EC50 and Macute factors  

CAS# 
191-24-2 
107-02-8 
110-30-5 
118-74-1 
120-12-7 
207-08-9 
298-04-4 
3194-55-6 
50-32-8 
608-73-1 
6742-54-7 
77-47-4 
85535-85-9 
106325-08-0 
106-47-8 
107-64-2 
1113-02-6 
121158-58-5 
123-31-9 
129-00-0 
140-66-9 
143390-89-0 
1643-20-5 
210555-94-5 

Substance 
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 
Acrolein 
N,N'-ethylenedi (stearamide) 
Hexachlorobenzene 
Anthracene 
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 
Disulfoton 
1,2,5,6,9,10 Hexabromocyclododecane 
Benzo(a)pyrene 
Hexachlorocyclohexane 
Undecylbenzene 
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 
Alcanes, C14-17 chloro 
Epoxyconazole 
4-Chloroaniline 
Dimethyldioctadecylammonium chloride 
Omethoate 
Dodecylphenol, mixed isomers (branched) 
Hydroquinone 
Pyrene 
para-tert-octylphenol 
Kresoxim methyl 
Dodecyldimethylamine oxide 
4-dodecylphenol, branched 

EC50 min mg/l 
0.0005 
0.007 
0.0023 
0.005 
0.0017 
0.0012 
0.0041 
0.0027 
0.005 
0.009 
0.01 
0.0035 
0.0061 
0.0147 
0.0563 
0.0563 
0.026 
0.018 
0.052 
0.027 
0.014 
0.0167 
0.0195 
0.017 

Macute 
1000 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CAS# 
25376-45-8 
301-12-2 
3926-62-3 
79-11-8 
84649-84-3 
85-01-8 
85535-84-8 
87-86-5 
88-85-7 
95-31-8 
Source: Portal of chemical substances, INERIS http://www.ineris.fr/substances/fr/  

Substance 
Diaminotoluene 
Oxydemeton-methyl 
Sodium chloroacetate 
Monochloroacetic acid 
C12-14, Alkyldimethylamines 
Phenanthrene 
Alkanes, C10-13, chloro 
Pentachlorophenol 
2-sec-butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol 
N-tert-butylbenzothiazole-2-sulphenamide 

EC50 min mg/l 
0.041 
0.026 
0.028 
0.027 
0.026 
0.0195 
0.015 
0.0122 
0.039 
0.091 

Macute 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 

Lowest 
EC50 
[mg/L] 

Macute-
factor  H400 

Lowest 
NOEC 
[mg/L] 

Degradable. 

Mchronic-
factor  H410  H411  H412 

0.00001  10000  H400  0.00006  no 

1 000 

0.00052  1000 

H400  0.00006  no 

1 000 

0.005 

0.012 

H400  0.00013  no 

H400  0.0003 

no 

100 

100 

H400  0.00027 

H400  0.0012 

H400  0.0012 

H400  0.0012 

H400  0.004 

H400  0.01 

0.003 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

1 

1 

1 

1 

CAS 

Substance 

2921-88-2 

Phosphorothioic  acid, 
diethyl 
(-trichloro- 
pyridinyl) ester 

34256-82-1  Acetamide,  2-chloro-
N-(ethoxymethyl)-  N-
(2-ethyl-6-
methylphenyl)- 
Benzene, hexachloro- 

118-74-1 

Trifluralin 

609-046-
00-1 
207-08-9 

Benzo[k]fluoranthene 

0.0011 

120-12-7 

Anthracene 

206-44-0 

Fluoranthene 

129-00-0 

Pyrene 

87-68-3 

608-93-5 

hexachloro-13-
butadiene 
Benzene, pentachloro- 

85509-19-9  Flusilazole 

0.0012 

0.009 

0.02 

0.06 

0.1 

1.2 

100 

10 

100 

100 

100 

10 

10 

10 

56-55-3 

85-01-8 

Benz[a]anthracene 

0.0018 

100 

H400  0.0012 

Phenanthrene 

0.02 

10 

H400  0.01 

112-41-4 

1-Dodecene 

872-05-9 

Decene 

112-18-5 

793-24-8 

1-Dodecanamine,  N,N-
dimethyl- 
Benzenediamine,(-
dimethylbutyl)- 
phenyl- 

22 

22 

0.014 

0.03 

81406-37-3  Fluroxypyr 

1-

0.04 

methylheptyl ester 

20020-02-4  Naphthalene,  1,2,3,4-

0.07 

tetrachloro- 

1928-43-4  Acetic 

acid, 
(2,4-
dichlorophenoxy)-,  2- 
ethylhexyl ester 
Chlorpropham 

123-trichlorobenzene 

Fluorene 

Acenaphthene 

acid, 

Hexanedioic 
bis(2-ethylhexyl) 
ester 
Triphenyl phosphate 

101-21-3 

87-61-6 

86-73-7 

83-32-9 

103-23-1 

115-86-6 

120-82-1 

124-trichlorobenzene 

15299-99-7  Napropamide 

0.23 

0.43 

0.33 

0.41 

0.12 

0.23 

0.4 

0.45 

0.68 

0.004 

0.01 

H400  0.02 

H400  0.02 

H400  0.02 

H400  0.1 

H400  0.02 

H400  0.02 

H400  0.03 

H400  0.03 

H400  0.04 

H400  0.04 

H400  0.04 

H400  0.04 

H400  0.05 

10 

10 

10 

10 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

H410 

H410 

H410 

H410 

H410 

H410 

H410 

H410 

H410 

H410 

H410 

H410 

H410 

H410 

H410 

H411 

H411 

H411 

H411 

H411 

H411 

H411 

H411 

H411 

H411 

H411 

H411 

H411 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Lowest 
EC50 
[mg/L] 

0.07 

Macute-
factor  H400 

Lowest 
NOEC 
[mg/L] 

H400  0.06 

CAS 

Substance 

103-24-2 

95-94-3 

128-37-0 

56-23-5 

85-68-7 

84-74-2 

acid, 

Nonanedioic 
bis(2-ethylhexyl) 
ester 
Benzene, 
tetrachloro- 
Butylated 
Hydroxytoluene 
Carbon Tetrachloride 

1,2,4,5-

benzyl butyl phtalate 

dibutyl phtalate 

100-44-7 

Benzyl chloride 

91-20-3 

92-52-4 

108-70-3 

106-46-7 

Naphtalene 

Biphenyl 

Benzene, 
trichloro- 
14-dichlorobenzene 

1,3,5-

106-43-4 

4-chlorotoluene 

119-47-1 

88-06-2 

95-50-1 

1 

Phenol, 
methylenebis[(-
dimethylethyl)- 
methyl- 
Phenol, 2,4,6-trichloro-  0.41 

12-dichlorobenzene 

112-53-8 

1-Dodecanol 

131-17-9 

1,2-
Benzenedicarboxylic 
acid,  di-2-  propenyl 
ester 

36653-82-4  1-Hexadecanol 

0.4 

Source: Andres 2013. 

0.32 

0.17 

0.25 

0.49 

0.35 

0.39 

0.8 

0.3 

0.4 

0.7 

0.96 

0.66 

0.97 

0.23 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

H400  0.06 

H400  0.07 

H400  0.07 

H400  0.08 

H400  0.1 

H400  0.1 

H400  0.12 

H400  0.17 

H400  0.2 

H400  0.2 

H400  0.32 

H400  0.34 

H400  0.5 

H400  0.63 

H400  0.73 

H400  1.16 

H400  100 

Degradable. 

Mchronic-
factor  H410  H411  H412 

H411 

H411 

H411 

H411 

H411 

H411 

H411 

H412 

H412 

H412 

H412 

H412 

H412 

H412 

H412 

H412 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6. CONCLUSIONS 

The  data  set  of  these  25  wastes  allow  a  relative  ranking  of  the  5  methods  challenged  (frequency  of 
classification from a set of composition).  
The ranking (decreasing number of calculated H waste) is method 3 > method 1 > method 2 with extended 
M-factors > method 2 > method 4. 

Additionnaly,  the  methods  can  be  ranked  by  concordance  with  the  assigned  codes  by  the  LoW.  In  the 
context of this methodology, method 2 with extensive M-factors: 

(cid:1)  matches best with the European list of waste (80% concordant H and non-H by LoW, and 13% 

discordant for H waste by LoW); 

(cid:1)  classifies  safely  waste  containing  cadmium,  mercury  (Mchronic  =  100),  polycyclic  aromatic 
hydrocarbons – PAHs (frequently Macute = 100, Mchronic = 10), pesticides (frequently Macute and 
Mchronic = 1000 or 100) and in general the substances with high ecotoxicity. 

Methods  1  and  3  have  nearly  as  good  matching  (76%  and  72%  respectively  concordant  H  and  non-H  by 
LoW, and 13% and 6% respectively discordant for H waste by LoW), but they will not classify safely waste 
containing substances with high ecotoxicity (in particular PAHs frequent in waste).  
Method  2  with  M-factors  limited  to  the  M-factors  published  in  the  CLP  has  insufficient  concordance  (64% 
concordant  H  and  non-H  by  LoW,  and  50%  discordant  for  H  waste  by  LoW).  As  the  same  method  with 
extended  M-factors  gives  the  best  performance,  the  lower  performance  is  due  to  the  limitation  of  the  M-
factor.  Method  4  is  divergent  (60%  concordant  H  and  non-H  by  LoW,  and  56%  discordant  for  H  waste  by 
LoW). 
The methods 2 and 4 don’t classify many hazardous wastes by the LoW in the 25 wastes studied. 

Moreover,  the  results  of  biotests  put  forward  that  there  is  a  good  concordance  between  the  3  calculation 
methods  3,  1  and  2  with  extended  M  factors.  Biotests  could  be  refined  but  it  seems  relevant  to  asses  the 
Ecotoxic property  with  biotest results too. Anyway, the experimental approach could be refined (number of 
tests, threshold values). 

In Conclusion, it seems that method 2 with extended M factors has a near performance than methods 1 and 
3  but  method  2  with  extended  M  factors  is  more  relevant  because  it  classifies  safely  waste  which 
contain substances with high ecotoxicity, associated with exhaustive M factors. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

This  research  is  financially  supported  by  the  Ministère  de  l’Ecologie  et  du  Développement  Durable, 

France. 

CONTRIBUTORS 

E. VAN HEESWYCK*, P. HENNEBERT**, F. REBISCHUNG**, P. PANDARD** 

* MEDDE (Ministère de l'Ecologie, du Développement Durable et de l'Energie), Tour Séquoia, F-92 055 La
Défense cedex ; 
** INERIS (National Institute for Industrial Environment and Risks), BP 2, F-60550 Verneuil-en Halatte, 
France. Pierre.hennebert@ineris.fr 

REFERENCES 

Andres S. 3013. Estimation of the M-factor according to CLP for a selection of relevant substances in waste, 

INERIS/DRC/VIVA/ETES DRC-13-133191-05639A, May 2013. 

AFNOR  2015.  FD  X30-494.  Fascicule  de  documentation.  Caractérisation  des  déchets  -  Speciation  des 

éléments dans les déchets. 18 p. www.afnor.org 
CLP 

version 

Annex 

3.1 

ATP02, 
http://ecb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/classificationlabelling/ clp/ghs/downanx6.php, Excel® file version). 

Research 

Centre 

Joint 

of 

of 

the 

EU, 

CEN/TC292. 2015. CEN/TC 292/WG 5 N 735 Determination of content of elements and substances in waste 

- experimental AFNOR Standard XP X30-489 (CEN/TC 292 N 1430) 

CLP  Regulation  2008.  Classification,  Labelling  and  Packaging  of  Substances  and  Mixtures  Regulation 

(CLP). 1350 pp. 

DG  ENV  2014.  “Call  for  tenders  ENV.A.2/ETU/2014/0023r  -  Study  to  assess  the  impacts  of  different 

classification approaches for hazard property “H 14” on selected waste streams”, May, 2014. 

EC  2014a.  Commission  Decision  2014/955/EU  of  18  December  2014  amending  Decision  2000/532/EC  on 
the  list  of  waste  pursuant  to  Directive  2008/98/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council. 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014D0955&rid=1 

EC  2014b.  Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No  1357/2014  of  18  December  2014  replacing  Annex  III  to 
Directive  2008/98/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  waste  and  repealing  certain 
Directives. Official Journal of the European Union. 19.12.2014. L 365/89. 

Hennebert  P, Rebischung  F. 2012. Classification of industrial  waste for hazard  properties HP4, HP6,  HP8, 
HP13 and HP14 criteria based on substance concentrations, and impact assessment of options for HP14 
on  classification  of  various  wastes,  composts,  sediments  and  soils.  Technical  Report  INERIS  DRC-12-
125740-03014A. 10/03/2012. 104 p. 

Hennebert  P,  Rebischung  F.  2013.  Waste  Hazardousness  Assessment  -  Proposition  of  methods.  Report 
http://www.ineris.fr/centredoc/drc-13-136159-04172a-

INERIS-  DRC-13-136159-04172A- 
pp. 
hazardous-waste-assessment-f3-1379929842.pdf 

69 

Hennebert P, Rebischung F. 2015. Waste Hazardousness Assessment - Proposition of methods version 2. 

Report INERIS- DRC-15-149793-04619A- 102 pp. Available upon request. 

Hennebert P, van der Sloot H, Rebischung F, Weltens R, Geert L, Jhelmar O. 2014. Classification of waste 
for  hazard  properties  according  to  the  recent  propositions  of  the  EC  using  different  methods.  Waste 
Management 34 (2014) 1739–1751. PII: S0956-053X(14)00247-5, DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05.021 
Hennebert  P,  Weltens  R.  2014.  Special  Session:  developments  in  hazard  property  classification  and 
methods. Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Industrial and hazardous Waste Management, 
Chania (Greece), 2-5/09/2014. 10 pp. 

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

•  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

•  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries 
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) 
or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

(*)  The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may 
charge you). 

Priced publications: 

•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). 

Priced subscriptions: 

•  via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union 

(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
K
H
-
0
4
-
1
5
-
8
6
0
-
E
N
-
N

[

C

a

t

a

l

o

g

u

e

n

u

m

b

e

r

]

doi:10.2779/494561