Changes to Hazardous Waste Classification (due to the move

from CHIP to CLP)

Humber Environmental Managers Network

21st May 2015, Jotun PaintsJanet Greenwood

2

Contents

• Background to changes• Changes from WM2 to WM3• What changes mean for the “hazardous

waste disposal chain”• How hazardous waste producers can help

waste industry and protect themselves

3

BACKGROUND TO CHANGES

4

Why is TT Environmental involved in this?

• Our clients are affected:– Many chemical industry clients– A few waste industry clients

• We are affected too:– We generate hazardous waste when carrying

out site remediation; and from residues of field tests, eg soil pH probe chemicals etc

• A colleague who works in waste involved us in commenting on WM3, because we train people in CLP classification

5

Acronyms:

• CHIP: existing chemical classification system

• CLP: Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulation 2009 as amended (now on 7th ATP to CLP)

• WM2: Waste Management guidance until 31st May 2015, based on CHIP

• WM3: new Waste Management guidance, from 1st June 2015, based on CLP

6

Legal background to changes

• CHIP is completely replaced as a method of classification on 1st June 2015, when mixtures must be classified to CLP

• CLP regulations, http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/regulations/clp/legislation

• Through CLP phase in from 2010 to 2015, CHIP has been the basis for waste classification

• Waste Framework Directive, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/legislation/a.htm

7

Comparison: CLP and CHIP

Parameter CHIP CLP

Symbols/ pictograms

Orange square with picture of hazard

White diamond with red border with picture of hazard (3 new ones)

Text with symbol

“indication of danger”, e.g. F, T+; usually one per symbol

“signal word”, either “danger” or “warning”, or no signal word; one per label

Detailed hazard info:

Risk Phrases Hazard Statements (H200s, H300s, H400s)

Extra hazard info:

n/a EUH Statements (EUH number, same as R phrase number)

Detailed safety info:

Safety Phrases Precautionary Statements (P100s up to P500s)

8

Label comparison, CHIP and CLP

CHIP label CLP label

9

CLP is not as “easy” as CHIP

• CLP is NOT a 1:1 mapping with CHIP, changes in flammables, and especially toxics (threshold changes, definition changes)

• CLP classification is more complex than CHIP, requires more “expert judgment” than before

• Approved Supply List replaced by Harmonised Classifications, but are not as straightforward

• Official Harmonised Classifications may be superseded by REACH registration info

• These can all affect hazardous waste classification

10

CHANGES FROM WM2 TO WM3

11

Changes from WM2 to WM3

• What isn’t changing about Waste• Link to WM3• Major changes from WM2 to WM3• H codes to HP codes• Some CHIP hazards no longer

identified

12

Not everything to do with hazardous waste changes in WM3

• List of Wastes only has minor changes, basically the same

• Transport of hazardous waste is still the same as it was before, i.e. under ADR (but remember that if supply classifications change, this can mean transport classifications have changed too)

13

New version WM3

• Issued on 14th May 2015, see https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/427077/LIT_10121.pdf

• Publication delayed due to General Election

• Important: always use the issued version, not a draft, as they can change greatly

14

Overall layout identical to WM2 but there are major changes:

• All references to CHIP have been superseded by CLP, and CHIP is no longer mentioned in the guidance

• Waste H codes are replaced by HP codes, and at the same time some of the definitions have changed, so it’s not a straightforward replacement

15

CLP replacing CHIP

• All references to CHIP and chemical classification for supply now reference CLP alone

• This is because WM3 is based on the new European Waste Directive, which does not mention CHIP

• The government’s “anti-gold plating” stance means that regulations have to be adopted exactly as within Europe

16

Some changes to CLP information

• Table 2.1 (pp 14 -18) contains “read across” information from hazard classifications to waste HP codes (previously H codes) (CHIP information has been removed)

• CLP Table 2.2 shows hazard groups with HP codes, may be better starting point to understanding changes

• Appendix B, Data sources has been updated by EA following HSE advice

17

H codes to HP codes pt 1H code, CHIP

Description HP code, CLP

Description

H1 Explosive HP 1 Explosive

H2 Oxidising HP 2 Oxidising

H3A & H3B Flammable HP 3 Flammable

H4 & H8 Irritant and Corrosive

HP 4 Irritant

H5 & H6 Harmful and Toxic HP 5 Specific Target Organ Toxicity and Aspiration Toxicity

H6 Toxic (see H5 & H6) HP 6 Acute Toxicity

H7 Carcinogenic HP 7 Carcinogenic

H8 Corrosive (see H4 & H8)

HP 8 Corrosive

18

H codes to HP codes pt 2H code, CHIP

Description HP code, CLP

Description

H9 Infectious HP 9 Infectious

H10 Toxic for reproduction HP 10 Toxic for reproduction

H11 Mutagenic HP 11 Mutagenic

H12 Produces toxic gases in contact with water, air or acid

HP 12 Produces toxic gases in contact with water, air or acid

H13 Sensitising HP 13 Sensitising

H14 Ecotoxic HP 14 Ecotoxic

H15 Can the substance produce another hazardous substance after disposal

HP 15 Capable of exhibiting a hazardous property listed above not directly displayed by the original waste

19

Major changes – toxics

• HP 5 – Specific Target Organ Toxicity and Aspiration Toxicity

• HP 6 – Acute Toxicity• Important – HP 6 acute toxicity now

includes “harmful if” materials• And HP 5 can include “fatal if”

materials

20

What this means in practice:

• HP 5 is no longer the “less hazardous” version of HP 6

• They’re now being used for different types of toxicity hazard, which can range in effect from “harmful” up to “fatal”

• Personal opinion – this may cause problems for waste industry/ people at the sharp end

21

Why didn’t they keep HP5 and HP6 the same as H5 and H6?

• Would have been very simple to map across CLP H statements to match

• Would have kept things much more simple for waste classification during the already complex move from CHIP to CLP

• Would have prevented confusion among people handling hazardous waste – are accidents likely because of this change?

• Probably because written at European level by people too remote from risks

22

Some CHIP hazards “no longer exist” as waste hazards

• EUH014 (R14), reacts violently with water

• EUH018 (R18), in use, may form flammable/ explosive mixture with air

• EUH070 (R70), toxic by eye contact• Also R51, R52, R54- R58

(environmental hazards)

23

Inconsistencies in WM3

• In table C.6.1, there is a discrepancy on the inhalation threshold for Cat 2 H330, which is 0.5%

Table C.6.1 Inhalation % Oral % Dermal %

Cat 1

H3300.1%

H3000.1%

H3100.25%

Cat 2

H3300.5%

H3000.25%

H3102.5%

Cat 3

H3313.5%

H3015%

H31115%

Cat 4

H33222.5%

H30225%

H31255%

24

Change to sensitisers

• New cut-off limit of 10% for both skin and respiratory sensitisers

• In WM2, cut-off limit was 1% for skin sensitisers, and 0.2% for respiratory sensitisers (gaseous materials)

• Inhalation risks to workers in waste industry seem to be less important than previously – EU decision, not UK

25

There will also be changes because of CHIP to CLP

• e.g. irritant/ corrosive (especially for eyes)

• Toxics are not a 1:1 translation – some materials may be classified more severely, many the same, and some less severely

26

Toxics changes from CHIP to CLP

CHIP

CHIP

27

Question – will change from H5 to HP6 affect disposal?

• Don’t know, it might• Should check with disposal company• If it does alter disposal route, it may

be sensible to dispose of your H5 wastes now, before they become more expensive on 1st June.

28

Learning curves around WM3

29

WHAT CHANGES MEAN FOR WASTE DISPOSAL

30

For chemical industry, hazardous waste classification:• Should be (comparatively!) easy for

substances using read-across table in WM3 (all substances placed on market since 2010 must be classified as CLP – only “old stock” still CHIP)

• For “old stock” or mixtures classified as CHIP, need to get them classified for CLP– Most chemical sites have in-house expertise,

(ask nicely!) or use a consultant• Should be fairly straightforward

31

Reminder:

• Hazardous waste producers should generally be sending individual wastes for consignment (unless you have something like a reaction which has gone wrong, which is in effect a mixture)

• Bulking hazardous wastes together requires an Environmental Permit in its own right, see https://www.gov.uk/hazardous-waste-segregation-and-mixing

32

For waste industry, hazardous waste classification:

• Is more tricky• May not have the information

available about materials on site• May not have the same in-depth

chemical expertise/ regularly classify• Bulk wastes together – creating new

mixtures

33

As I see it: hidden problem with WM3

• All references to CHIP have been removed, even though:– CHIP mixtures are still legally allowed to be

classified and labelled as such until 1st June 2017

– Existing CHIP materials do not need to be reclassified for CLP if you are using them up and not “placing on the market”

• Which means that CHIP-labelled waste will be around for years, probably decades

34

This is going to be a MASSIVE problem for waste industry

• They will be receiving “incorrectly labelled” wastes for years to come

• They don’t always keep up to date with changes in regulations or classifications (letter to CIWM from EA, 29th September 2014 )

• There is no read-across from CHIP to HP codes (and they don’t have the chemical industry’s recent experience in classifying for CLP)

35

Why haven’t the EA included a read-across table for both CHIP

and CLP to HP codes?• Reluctance go against “anti-gold

plating” ruling for civil service/ quangos, and include any reference to CHIP within WM3

• Concern about over-simple translations e.g. use of CLP Annex VII which may not be valid any more

36

There could be a read-across table for CHIP/CLP to HP codes

• Personal opinion – could be done simply, would be helpful where CHIP classifications exist, particularly for waste industry

• As long as “over-classify”, or specify where more detailed classification is required, either for CLP or under WM3 waste-specific methods

• This information may be available commercially – but would be better coming for free from the regulators, so that everyone is working from the same basis

37

You could argue that…

• … the EA have let the waste industry down, as waste people suddenly have to get up to speed with CLP and forget all about CHIP, even though it’s still legal to use it for classifying and labelling mixtures

• But it’s down to those “no gold plating” instructions from government

• And even the EA are having difficulty training their own Inspectors in the changes – tight deadline, lack of resources

38

HOW CHEMICAL INDUSTRY CAN HELP

39

The chemical industry can help the waste industry:

• Talk to your waste companies – what information do they need?

• Ensure you are classifying your wastes correctly using CLP as the basis

• If possible, provide your waste companies with full CLP information as well as CHIP information, in case they are going to bulk materials together – especially for CHIP labelled materials or wastes with names only (eg “distillates”)

40

Duty of Care

• Not just legal obligation – moral obligation as well. Society demands that we use hazardous substances as safely as possible, including wastes.

• Don’t assume your hazardous waste companies are on top of things yet – ask them; and help them as much as you can to deal accurately with your wastes

41

Wastes – Cinderella or Ugly Sister?

• Often ignored• Seen as a problem• Under-resourced within industry• Possibly under-resourced within

society as a whole• Out of sight – out of mind

42

Cinderella shall go to the ball

• WM3 means that the chemical industry needs to give almost the same amount of attention to classifying wastes as to saleable materials

• If only to protect your interests by ensuring that wastes are classified correctly and therefore disposed of in the right way

43

Summary (1)

• WM2 to WM3 is about move from classification for supply from CHIP (simple, logical) to CLP (less so)

• Move from WM2 to WM3 is not simple substitution – change in HP5 and HP6 codes for toxics adds extra complexity

• The combination will affect waste industry adversely

44

Summary (2)

• Hazardous waste producers in the chemical industry have more knowledge of CLP, should be comparatively easy to classify individual materials for waste

• Chemical industry can help waste industry by supplying information in CLP format as well as CHIP

45

Thank you very much

• Any questions?• Presentation available at

www.ttenvironmental.co.uk/downloads (but website being rewritten soon)

• Contact tel 01422 24 22 22• Email janet@ttenvironmental.co.uk

Linkedin: https://uk.linkedin.com/pub/janet-greenwood/7/166/700 Twitter: www.twitter.com/ttenvironmentalFacebook: www.facebook.com/ttenvironmental