Hazard Classification of Waste: Review of Available Practical Methods and Tools

Abstract

The different steps for the classification of waste as hazardous are the collection of information, the use of the European list of waste, the sampling, the analysis, the tests, the hypothesis of speciation of elements into mineral substances, the collection of hazard statement codes of substances, and finally, the comparison of weighted sum or maxima of concentrations or tests results with given concentration limits for each hazard property, or possible use of now available internet sites. Practical methods are suggested: tables for generic classification of elements, for "worst case with information" speciation hypothesis of elements into mineral substances, tests for hazardous property HP 1, HP 2, HP 3, HP 12, HP 14, methods for HP 9 and HP 15. 1 000 mg/kg (= 0.1%). Subject to review by the Commission by 20.4.2019 Candidate POP: Dicofol 115-32-2 204-082-0 Candidate POP: Pentadecafluoroctanoic acid (perfluorooctanoic) (PFOA), its salts and derivatives 335-67-1 206-397-9 Candidate POP: Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), its salts and derivatives 355-46-4 206-587-1TABLE 5: Hazard property by POP substances (EC 2008 and updates).

Hazardous Waste Classification: Review of Worst Case to Less Worst Case Metal Species With a Worked Example for a Contaminated Soil

“…Assuming that the correct chemistry data have been collected for the classification step (Hennebert et al 2013, AFNOR XP X30-489 2013, some practitioners (Hennebert 2019, INERIS 2015, Norden 2016) discuss a tiered approach to assessing whether the waste, in particular mixtures, has any hazardous properties. The approach is essentially a manual methodology, aimed at paper or spreadsheet based assessment:…”

“…This is as far as the guidance documents go as neither WM3 (2018) or EU (2018) reference or publish a list of either worst case compounds, or less worst case compounds, nor describe how to deal with some of the exceptions encountered when trying to compile such lists. Some authors (INERIS 2015) have published lists of worst case compounds, by element and hazard property, or have proposed a "worst case with information" list (Hennebert 2019) but none have published a comprehensive list of less worst case compounds focusing on compounds, rather than just hazard properties. This is partly because these approaches assume a manual analysis, which if you were to add more variables, such as less worst case, makes the classification process even more onerous.…”

“…One practice is to go worst case and try and identify a worst case metal compound that is 1) not already listed in CLP Table 3 and 2) could be a reasonable source of contamination in the waste. Hennebert (2019) suggested the metal oxide where the oxide was not already a harmonised entry in CLP Table 3.…”

“…As many workers still classify their waste by hand, or in spreadsheets, earlier papers (Hennebert 2019, INERIS, 2015 published tables detailing just the worst case species for a given metal (they use the term element), along with the relevant thresholds for each hazard property that applied to that metal species, under the regulations in place at the time the paper was written.…”

Proposal of a Testing Program for the Hp14 (Ecotoxic) Classification of Automotive Shredder Residues (Asr) by a Battery of Ecotoxicological Bioassays

“…The choice of concentration limits triggering the HP14 classification of the tested samples were established according to the proposition of Hennebert (2018a and2018b). At the time of developing this approach, the proposed set of concentration limits were not applied in the national or international regulations.…”