Ref. Ares(2019)497054 - 29/01/2019
Ref. Ares(2020)2498329 - 12/05/2020
October 2018
Options to address the interface between chemical, product and
waste legislation
EuRIC position on the Communication and Commission Staff Working Document
Introduction
EuRIC welcomes the publication of the Communication and Staff Working Document proposing different
options to address the interface between chemical, product and waste legislation.
These documents rightly frame the main issues hindering the transition to a circular economy.
However, some of the solutions - proposed in the form of options - to those issues are not ambitious enough
to foster circular material flows.
Executive summary
As previously expressed in our
response to the targeted stakeholder consultation in July 2017, the
Commission has rightly identified the main issues on this interface between the chemical, product and waste
legislations. Some of the solutions proposed however fall short of solving the issues or run against the very
objective to move towards a more circular economy since they would hamper circular material flows.
On the issue of tracking substances, there is a need for a deeper analysis of what would each proposal for a
definition of ‘substances of concern’ entail, as there will be consequences to defining certain substances as
‘substances of concern’, a term with no regulatory meaning or value. This definition, which is too narrow,
cannot be limited to SVHCs, but widening the scope also carries some drawbacks. We regret however that
the reflection on substance tracking, with a feasibility study announced in the Communication, has been
bypassed by the development of the ECHA database on SVHCs in articles.
The Communication and Staff Working Document set two main objectives which are: i) to increase recycling
and ii) to promote “non-toxic material cycles”. Beyond the need to further qualify what “non-toxic” means
in recycling and use phases, the proposal is clearly insufficiently ambitious in tackling legacy issues, which is
a pre-requisite to achieve these objectives. Proposed solutions to avoid that in the future “waste contains
substances that are no longer allowed in products” are weak. When restricting the use of a substance,
especially when it is widely used in articles, a strategy to phase it out should be introduced systematically.
That issue can also not be solved solely through the Ecodesign Directive, whose scope only covers energy
related products. In addition, for product specific Ecodesign Regulations, measures encouraging design for
circularity should be much more ambitious than what is currently witnessed. We are therefore very much
looking forward to the introduction of an integrated EU Product Policy. We also consider that the rules on
primary materials should be derogated for secondary materials, under strictly defined conditions and for a
fixed period of time. We consider it essential to ensure that substances are phased out smoothly, and this
has to be integrated much more consistently in the future REACH restriction proposals or POP listings (under
the Stockholm Convention).
Improving the harmonization of end-of-waste provisions is needed at EU level and as a fallback option
decided by the operators on the basis of clear criteria and recognized by competent authorities throughout
the EU.
October 2018
Concerning the classification of waste, the alignment between rules applicable to waste and rules applicable
to chemicals is important but should not be the only priority. The absolute priority should be to reduce and
ultimately annul the different interpretations of waste classification rules throughout the EU, leading to
different classifications of the same waste stream between Member States (MS), and sometimes within a MS.
Different waste classification have far-reaching impacts including for example on applicable waste shipment
procedures.
Overall, certainty, workable rules to operate efficiently in an industrial manner and leveling the playing field
are equally important as streamlining the interface between waste and chemical legislations.
Even though, conceptually, it makes sense to align the rules for waste and products in a circular economy, it
is not necessarily needed. Even in a circular economy, materials go through a waste phase, where they are
processed according to clear operational rules in facilities permitted to treat them. There can be an efficient
protection of the human health and environment across the EU without a full alignment of the rules to classify
waste and chemicals.
Bioavailability and bio-accessibility need to be taken into account when classifying waste. Waste is usually a
complex blend, and chemical analysis is not suited to fully characterize its properties. Our view is that tests,
notably on the ecotoxicity, give a more accurate evaluation of the risks.
Concerning the challenges laid out in the Staff Working Document, we would favor the following proposed
options:
Challenge 1
Option 1B
The preferred option is 1B, but a larger reflection needs
Defining substances of concern
to be carried out.
Challenge 2
Option 2B
Only sector specific tracking solutions can be useful to
Tracking substances of concern
recyclers. Tracking all substances is unrealistic, and
voluntary tracking will not help.
Challenge 3
Option 3B
The rules for primary materials should be derogated for
Level playing field between 1ary and
secondary materials, under strict conditions, and on the
2ndary material
basis of a sound cost-benefit analysis.
Challenge 4
Options 4A Promoting the use of restrictions, especially to level the
Level playing field between EU-
& 4B
playing field between EU produced and imported
produced and imported articles.
articles, is crucial, and so it is the enforcement of the
chemicals and products legislation at EU borders.
Challenge 5
Options 5A All four options are complementary and should be
Design for circularity
& 5B & 5C
pursued, even though these fall short of meeting the
& 5D
challenge posed by legacy substances. We welcome the
larger reflection brought by the EU Product Policy
Framework Roadmap.
Challenge 6
Options
EU wide harmonisation is preferable (Options 6Ai&6Aiii)
Improving certainty in implementation
6Ai&6Aiii -
and should be favored. If no EU-wide criteria exist, the
of end-of-waste provisions
Option 6Bii operator should make the assessment (Option 6Bii).
Challenge 7
Option 7B
Waste classification rules should not be fully aligned with
Approximating the rules for
the rules of the CLP. The rules of the CLP are tailored to
classification of chemicals and waste
products, and waste has very different characteristics.
Challenge 8
Option 8A
Waste should be classified taking into account the
Classifying waste taking into account
bioavailability of substances it contains. If only the
the form in which it is generated
concentrations are taken into account, the risk to
human health and the environment is overestimated.
October 2018
Issue 1: Information on presence of substances of concern is not readily available to
those who handle waste and prepare it for recovery
Questions:
o
What would be the added value of introducing a compulsory information system in the Union
that informs waste management and recovery operators of the presence of substances of
concern?
o
How should we manage goods imported to the Union?
The fact that recyclers currently do not get information on the substances of concern contained in the waste
they treat is indeed a problem. However, we must be very careful to implement the right solutions, because
some could be very burdensome for producers and will not bring any added value for recyclers. A key priority
in this respect is to ensure that any compulsory information system is designed in a way which is practical
both for stakeholders in charge of providing information (manufacturers) and for end users (recyclers). Hence
the way information is provided very much depends of its objectives and end use. The feasibility study on the
“use of different information systems, innovative tracing technologies and strategies which could enable
relevant information to flow along article supply chains and reach recyclers” announced in the
Communication is a positive step and it should have been carried out before the introduction of a mandatory
requirement for ECHA to set up a database on Candidate List substances in articles.
Recyclers (end users) treat tons of waste per day. Any information system needs to provide practical
information in a format which can be used by operators in every day treatment operations. This information
should also be used to separate the items containing hazardous substances at the point of disposal.
Harmonized labelling for products or components containing the highest amount of hazardous substances
(e.g. batteries) is also a practical and direct way to provide information on the presence of substances of
concern. Such simple solutions can be more effective in conveying the information than a complex database,
and this should not be forgotten.
Tracking is especially important for substances that should not be perpetuated into waste streams but are
very difficult to analyze (e.g. surface agents), and especially if there is no detection technology allowing the
separation at industrial scale. The substances that should be tracked in priority are those that do not need to
be removed at depollution stage, but for which the concentration should remain under a certain threshold
in recovered materials.
Challenge 1: Defining substances of concern
Option 1A: substances of concern are all substances identified under REACH as substances of very
high concern (‘candidate list substances’) or listed in Annex VI to the CLP Regulation for classification
of a chronic effect.
Option 1B: substances of concern are those identified under REACH as substances of very high
concern, substances prohibited under the Stockholm Convention (POPs), specific substances
restricted in articles listed in Annex XVII to REACH as well as specific substances regulated under
specific sectorial/product legislation.
It is difficult to make a choice between these two options not having the full grasp of what concrete
consequences the definition of “substances of concern” would entail, as this definition will likely not be used
only to set the scope of the substances to be tracked. What would be interesting for recyclers is to be aware
of the presence of the substances that have regulated concentrations in products (e.g. SVHCs, restricted
substances [Annex XVII of REACH], POPs, substances that would classify the material as hazardous as a
product). In this context, it could also be interesting to envisage tracking some of the substances included in
the Annex VI of the CLP. We therefore favor the option 1B but call for a deeper reflection on this definition.
October 2018
Challenge 2: Tracking substances of concern
Option 2A:
all substances of concern should be tracked by a set date, for example 2030.
Option 2B: sector-specific tracking solutions: information on relevant substances of concern should
be available to recyclers in a form commensurate to what is required.
Option 2C: tracking of substances of concern should remain voluntary.
Option 2D: tracking of substances of concern is not necessary or suitable because information on
chemicals is obtained directly by analytical means (incoming waste batches, including imported waste,
and outgoing recycled or recovered materials).
Tracking all substances of concern is not realistic and would not bring any added value to recyclers, especially
since the list of “substances of concern” is growing every year and technological progress allows to detect
ever lower concentration of substances.
What could be useful are the sector-specific tracking solutions envisaged by Option 2B, provided these would
be developed in close collaboration with recyclers, so as to ensure that the information is displayed in a
format that can – and will - be used in practice. The fact that only “relevant” substances of concern should
be tracked is also important, and a prioritization work will also be needed.
Concerning the database on Candidate List substances that ECHA has to set up according to a new
requirement from Article 9 of the revised Waste Framework Directive, we refer to
our position. In a nutshell,
while we welcome the initiative, which will allow to centralize the information on substances in articles in
just one database and will potentially improve the safety of workers in recycling plants, we have a certain
number of reservations:
-
The database will not be retroactive and recyclers will not get information on articles containing the
substance and put on the market before the substance was included on the Candidate List.
-
No information on the concentration of the substances will be available in the database.
-
Information on substances could be detailed at the level of the components of complex articles,
which is likely to become overwhelming.
-
The database will be designed to inform both the consumers and waste treatment operators, but
the ultimate use of the information for these two categories is fundamentally different.
Issue 2: Waste may contain substances that are no longer allowed in new products
Questions:
o
How do we reconcile the idea that waste is a resource that we should recycle and, at the same
time, ensure that waste that contains substances of concern is only recovered into materials
which can be safely used?
o
Should we allow recycled materials to contain chemicals that are no longer allowed in
primary materials? If so, under what conditions?
The fact that ‘waste may contain substances that are no longer allowed in new products’ is the biggest issue
hindering the transition towards a circular economy. In clearer words, legacy issues are one of the problems
- if not the biggest one –to be tackled in the context of this initiative.
October 2018
Recyclers are fully aware of the reputational damages that could arise should a major concern for human
health or the environment be linked with recycled materials. Our position on the matter of legacy issues is
very clear:
1. Ambitious measures are urgently needed to avoid legacy issues in the future: lessons need to be
drawn from the mistakes that have been made in the past (how fast and efficiently have
substances been finally phased out? What else could have been done?).
2. Phasing out substances of concern while preserving a sound recycling industry within the EU and
ensuring an optimal level of protection of the human health and the environment is possible. The
rules for secondary materials should be, for a definite timeframe and within strict conditions,
different from the rules for primary materials. It can be ensured that recycled materials
containing chemicals no longer allowed in primary materials are only used in safe applications.
Sensitive applications (food contact materials, toys, medical devices) are strictly regulated with
specific sectorial legislation, and the use of recycled materials for these applications is subject to
strict, specific rules. For instance, for recycled plastics used in contact with food, the recycling
process must be assessed for safety by the EFSA and authorized by the European Commission.
However, there are other, less sensitive applications, for which the presence of legacy substances
in the material do not pose a risk for the human health or the environment.
The conditions under which it is acceptable to allow a higher concentration of regulated
chemicals in recycled materials than in primary materials should be the following:
-
Said recycled material is used in specific applications where the substance it contains
does not pose a risk for the human health or the environment (limited/absence of
exposure). The absence of risk should be assessed by scientific committees, such as the
Committee for Risk Assessment of ECHA.
-
Traceability is ensured, and the articles/products in which this recycled material is
included are properly disposed of at end-of-life.
It is unrealistic to expect a transition to a Circular Economy and a simultaneous
elimination of all the legacy substances that have been widely used in products for
decades. Recycling is a key element in this transition, but large investments are needed
and these cannot happen in the current context, where new rules can suddenly disrupt
the entire value chain. This is the case with the proposal to set an “unintentional trace
contaminant” concentration limit of 10ppm for the brominated flame retardant decaBDE
in plastics, within the Annex I of the EU POP Regulation (EC/850/2004). As explained in
our
position paper, this limit automatically excludes recycled plastics. Eliminating POPs
from material streams is obviously an important goal to achieve, but for the sake of
coherence and consistency, it cannot be achieved at the expense of the goal to achieve
a Circular Economy for plastics.
3. Circular Economy must not remain a concept, but its principles have to be embedded in product
design in order to tackle legacy issues at source. We understand the need for exemptions for
manufacturers when some substances are restricted, in order to be able to find suitable
alternatives and adapt to the new rules. However, every time an exemption is granted for a
substance, the time needed to phase out this substance is increased.
October 2018
Challenge 3: Level playing field between secondary and primary material
Option 3A: all primary and secondary raw materials should be subject to the same rules. For example, under
REACH, restrictions and authorisation conditions imposed on primary substances should apply equally to
recovered materials. Materials not meeting such requirements cannot be recycled and can only be destined
to energy recovery, final disposal or to destructive chemical recycling (feedstock recycling).
Option 3B: rules on primary materials could be derogated from for secondary materials, subject to conditions
and to review within a defined time period. Such decisions should be substance-specific and based on overall
costs and benefits to society according to an agreed methodology. The methodology includes considerations
of risk, socioeconomic factors and overall environmental outcome based on life cycle thinking. Such analysis
could lead to derogations resulting in closed-loop or controlled loop uses or other specific use restrictions.
This is also applicable to products containing legacy substances where, in some cases, a careful analysis will
have to be made, for example, on the trade-off between allowing reparability with spare parts containing
substances of concern versus early decommissioning or obsolescence of equipment.
As stated before, we are strongly in favor of having rules for secondary materials that are different from
those for primary materials, under strict, clearly defined conditions. We believe that there can be specific
applications for secondary materials containing higher amounts of substances of concern than primary
materials posing no risk to the environment or human health. The example of the REACH restriction proposal
for lead stabilisers in PVC articles1 shows that it is possible to define specific, safe applications for which a
higher concentration limit can be allowed in order to safeguard a recycling system.
These derogations are needed for a certain period after regulatory measures are taken for primary materials,
because the substances are not intentionally added in recycled materials, and because developing
technologies allowing to detect and separate the contaminated material at industrial scale takes time and
investments which have to be economically viable and industrially feasible.
In this context, we welcome the ongoing development of a decision-making methodology to support
decisions on the recyclability of waste containing substances of concern. We hope that this methodology will
increase predictability for recyclers and that finally this issue will be addressed in a consistent way in all pieces
of legislation, as it is the case for the preparation of restrictions under REACH. The guidelines to ensure that
the legacy issues are taken into account as early as possible when choosing risk management measures are
also a good development. In general, the communication towards recyclers, especially concerning risk
management measures for chemicals, should be improved.
Challenge 4: Level playing field between EU-produced and imported articles
Option 4A: promoting the timely use of restrictions. Ensure the timely use of restrictions in REACH and other
product legislation so that EU produced and imported products are subject to the same rules. In the case of
REACH, restrictions are the only means to address the favourable treatment that imported articles
(incorporation of substances of very high concern in imported articles is not subject to authorisation) have
vis-à-vis EU produced articles (subject to authorisation).
Option 4B: promoting enforcement of chemicals and product legislation at EU borders.
Both options need to be implemented. Without proper enforcement at EU borders, especially for REACH
restrictions, the issue of legacy substances will never be solved. Additionally, it is urgent to tackle the issue
of imported articles containing substances listed in Annex XIV of REACH. For each substance added on the
authorisation list, a restriction addressing the main uses of the substance in articles should enter into force
at the sunset date.
1 See RAC and SEAC opinio
n https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/86b00b9e-2852-d8d4-5fd7-be1e747ad7fa
October 2018
Challenge 5: Design for circularity
Option 5A: use of the Ecodesign Directive, or of other dedicated product specific legislation as appropriate
(for example, WEEE or ROHS), to introduce requirements for substances of concern with the purpose of
enabling recovery.
Option 5B: make use of the extended producer responsibility requirements under the Waste Framework
Directive to promote the circular design of products. This could be implemented through the guidelines
on the application of fees modulation.
Option 5C: make use of voluntary methods of environmental performance certification (e.g. national or
EU Ecolabel of green public procurement) to introduce rules for substances of concern.
Option 5D: promote voluntary approaches such as value chain platforms for exchange of good practice in
the substitution of materials in the design phase.
The options that are proposed are far from being up to the task of avoiding perpetuating legacy issues, and
much more ambitious measures should be explored.
The scope of the Ecodesign, WEEE and RoHS Directives is limited to electrical and electronic appliances, or
energy related products, which is far from covering the full range of articles placed on the market.
Moreover, design requirements can facilitate the mandatory depollution step, by imposing design features
helping recyclers to remove the components listed in the Annex VI of the WEEE Directive, or to clearly label
the products. But less convincing is the proposal to use the listed regulatory tools (Ecodesign Directive,
extended producer responsibility schemes…) to prevent the use of certain substances of concern. What we
observe in practice when discussing ecodesign regulations proposals during stakeholder consultation forums
is that the level of ambition of the proposals for basic material efficiency requirement is remarkably low,
which leaves little hope for this tool to be effective in preventing the use of substances of concern. The right
tool to address this issue of substances of concern for electronic equipment is the RoHS Directive, but the
amount of exemptions currently granted under that Directive contradicts this objective.
Concerning the eco-modulation of fees that could be introduced by EPR schemes, we do not believe that
these could prevent the use of certain substances. However, when a substance of concern is banned and in
order to avoid legacy issues, EPR schemes could play an interesting role in closely following the average
concentrations of the substances in the waste streams to monitor if the substance is effectively phased out
and to set simplified, workable rules for recyclers.
The voluntary approaches, especially the EU Ecolabel, can set up a good example, drive responsible
consumption and in general reduce the amount of hazardous substances in material streams. However, at
the end-of-life stage, operators deal with all WEEE in the same way, regardless of the ecolabel, the brand or
the model.
Ambitious measures are needed, because legacy issues can last for decades, depending on the lifespan of
the articles in which the substances of concern are included and on the exemptions that are granted in
parallel.
A wider reflection on the interplay between the chemical legislation and the Ecodesign tools is needed, and
ambitious measures need to be taken to avoid creating legacy issues in the future and to limit their impacts
on recyclers and the Circular Economy as much as possible (i.e. managing the issue so it does not affect
recyclers for decades, while defining simplified rules for waste operators). We therefore welcome the
reflection recently initiated with the roadmap on an EU Product Policy Framework contributing to the Circular
Economy.
October 2018
Issue 3: EU's rules on end-of-waste are not fully harmonised, making it uncertain how
waste becomes a new material and product
Questions:
How and for which waste streams should we facilitate more harmonisation of end-of-waste
rules?
The rules on end-of-waste clearly need to be harmonized at EU level. We welcome the proposal for an online
EU repository for national and EU adopted end-of-waste and by product criteria, which is a very positive first
step. Removing the registration exemption for recovered substances under REACH is however clearly not a
solution.
Challenge 6: Improving certainty in the implementation of end-of-waste provisions
Option 6A: take measures at EU level to bring about more harmonization in the interpretation and
implementation by Member States of end-of-waste provisions laid down in the Waste Framework
Directive. This option could include:
i. radically stepping up work on the development of EU end-of-waste criteria. This would therefore
ensure that more waste streams are covered by clear EU-wide rules specifying which conditions need to
be met to exit the waste regime and introducing support measures that would enable Member States to
check compliance by recyclers with the exemption from REACH registration; or
ii. removing the registration exemption for recovered substances provided in REACH thus requiring that
all recovered substances should be registered under REACH and thereby achieving end-of-waste status;
or
iii. where other specific product legislation provides different instruments laying down conditions that
ensure the safe placing on the market of a substance or mixture, recognize these conditions as effective
end-of-waste criteria and, where justified, introduce a specific exemption from REACH registration.
Option 6B: take measures to ensure more consistency of practices at Member State level. This option
could include:
i. End-of-waste status can only be achieved following an ex-ante decision by a Member State competent
authority;
ii. A recovery operator can make the assessment of whether end-of-waste status is achieved (in
combination with an ex-post checking regime by competent authorities); or
iii. A combination of these approaches, e.g. distinguishing on the basis of the nature of specific waste
streams.
The preferred option is 6Ai. EuRIC is clearly in favour of EU wide end-of-waste criteria, which allow a level
playing field between operators and greatly facilitate the shipment of waste. Removing the REACH
registration exemption for recovered substances is however not a viable solution as it would create additional
administrative burden for recyclers and be counterproductive vis-à-vis the current effort to smoothen the
interface between the different pieces of legislation.
If no EU-wide end-of-waste criteria exist, the recovery operator should be entitled to make the assessment
(Option 6Bii). Recovery operators from different countries should be able to agree between each other, and
the burden of proof should be reversed: whoever challenges the compliance of a given waste stream with
end-of-waste criteria should prove that the assessment that was made is incorrect.
October 2018
In general, we believe that polymers could benefit from more harmonised end-of-waste rules. REACH rules
state that monomers and other components should be registered, not the polymers. This is an issue when
incorporating a recycled polymer in a new product, because it is impossible to detect from which monomer
and components the polymer was made from in the first place (the same polymer can be made using
different monomers and other components). The “sameness” is therefore almost impossible to prove.
Issue 4: Rules to decide which wastes and chemicals are hazardous are not well
aligned and this affects the uptake of secondary raw materials.
Questions:
Should we further align the rules on hazard classification so that waste would be considered
hazardous according to the same rules as products?
The alignment of the rules for hazard classification of waste and products/articles makes sense in a Circular
Economy. The full alignment of these rules is however neither needed nor appropriate, for several reasons:
-
Even within a Circular Economy, the distinction between a product phase and a waste phase still
exists.
-
The rules for product classification and waste classification have the same purpose: protecting
the environment and the human health. Products are put in direct contact with the general
population and can potentially be discarded and/or disseminated in the environment. Waste
however is managed by professional operators, who have to comply with strict permitting rules,
set (for the facilities falling in its scope) in the Directive 2010/75/EU and the Waste Treatment
BREF, which aims at reducing the industrial emissions linked to their activities. Rules for workers’
health and safety are set in dedicated regulatory instruments. Moreover, waste is subject to
traceability requirements.
-
The rules of the CLP legislation are designed to be applied to substances or mixtures. Waste is
made up by a mix of discarded articles and the rules that can be applied to mixtures are not
workable when it comes to waste, which consists of a blend of solid elements of complex
composition (heterogeneous by nature).
We do not believe that the fact that the same material is classified as a non-hazardous waste but bears a
hazard classification as a product is necessarily a problem, as long as the obligations arising from the CLP
harmonized classification are fulfilled when the material returns to product stage.
Challenge 7: Approximating the rules for classification of chemicals and waste
Option 7A: the rules for classifying waste as hazardous or non-hazardous in Annex III of the Waste
Framework Directive should be fully aligned with those for the classification of substances and mixtures
under CLP. This should enable a smooth transition and placing on the market of secondary raw materials
in full knowledge of their intrinsic properties.
Option 7B: hazardousness of waste should be inspired by the classification of substances and mixtures
under CLP, but not fully aligned with it. Specific considerations of each waste stream and its management
may allow wastes to be considered as non-hazardous even if the recovered material will be hazardous
when placed on the market as secondary raw material.
Option 7A is profoundly unworkable. As previously expressed, the rules of the CLP Regulation are designed
to classify substances and mixtures. Waste however does not fit into any of these definitions. Depending on
October 2018
the stage of the process, it is a mix of discarded articles or a mix of polymers. The existing rules for waste
classification are currently based on the type of waste, its origin, how it has been processed, but usually not
on the chemical composition.
Additionally, waste operators need to operate under fixed, constant, predictable rules that do not change
too often, while the Annex VI to the CLP is amended several times each year with the publication of each
ATP. Recyclers should not need to follow the developments of the CLP legislation, which has secondary
impacts on their operations, that are difficult to grasp, anticipate and ultimately communicate to the
authorities. If there is a strong will to move towards a circular economy, a more integrated approach should
be taken, looking at the impacts of CLP classification for waste operators, while improving the certainty for
recyclers regarding the rules applying to them. We are therefore strongly in favor of option 7B.
Challenge 8: Classifying waste taking into account the form in which it is generated.
Option 8A: once the rules have been established under CLP, waste should also be classified taking into
account the form in which it is produced, taking account of the bioavailability/bio accessibility of the
substances it contains, subject to reliable scientific information to support claims for reduced hazard
classification.
Option 8B: under Annex III of the Waste Framework Directive, waste should be classified exclusively
based on the concentration of hazardous substances it contains, without further consideration of
bioavailability or bio accessibility.
Bioavailability of the substances of concern has to be taken into account for waste classification. A classification
purely relying on the concentrations of the substances present in the waste is very likely to lead to
misclassifications. Waste is usually a complex and heterogeneous blend for which the exact chemical
composition, including the speciation of the compounds, is very difficult to assess. Some assumptions have
to be made, usually exploring the “worst case scenario”, which can lead to the classification as hazardous of
a waste stream that should not necessarily been considered as such. We are therefore strongly in favor of
option 8A.
For further information please contact EuRIC Secretariat:
xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xx
Phone: +32 2 706 87 24
Through its Member Recycling Federations from 20 EU and EFTA countries, EuRIC represents today over:
✓ 5,500+ companies generating an aggregated annual turnover of about 95 billion €, including large companies and SMEs,
involved in the recycling and trade of various resource streams;
✓ 300,000 local jobs which cannot be outsourced to third EU countries;
✓ An average of 150 million tons of waste recycled per year (metals, paper, plastics, glass and beyond).
Recyclers play a key role in a circular economy. By turning wastes into resources, recycling is the link which reintroduces recycled
materials into the value chains again and again.