End of waste for just a small fraction of scrap iron.

Scrap metal first to cease being waste


The EU is working on rules to turn scrap iron into a product. Aluminium, copper, waste paper and glass will follow. Product status cuts out much bureaucracy, but does it bring the recycling society any closer? The strict rules mean that just a small percentage of the waste stream is eligible. Moreover, product status brings with it a new hurdle: REACH.

By Harry Perrée

The first consignment of scrap iron from the European Union to achieve ‘end-of-waste’ status next year will not suddenly follow a different route to the market. Whether it is classified as waste or not, the first port of call for scrap metal is the steel-melting furnace. What will change is the administrative rigmarole. At the moment, the metal industry has to comply with strict waste regulations. That will no longer be necessary when scrap metal is the first category of waste to secure end-of-waste status. From next year the same will apply to scrap aluminium.

The amount of iron and aluminium scrap that will be eligible for end-of-waste status is still shrouded in mystery. According to the current proposals by the European Commission, the contaminant content of scrap iron may not exceed two per cent and of scrap aluminium five per cent. Moreover, the scrap must be free of oil and hazardous substances, and must not be radioactive. ‘That will have to be determined by the waste companies’ quality management systems,’ explains Andreas Versmann, a policy officer at the European Commission. The Dutch Waste Management Association fears that these stringent criteria will mean that no more than ten per cent of scrap iron will make the ‘end-of-waste’ category. This falls short of generating the desired recycling boost, the aim of the new legislation. If the permissible level of contamination were to be raised from two to five per cent, the end-of-waste fraction would increase to thirty to forty per cent. Versmann estimates that under the current contamination percentage limit the eligible fraction would be higher. He expects that a third of all scrap iron will meet the quality criteria for end-of-waste, but adds that it is uncertain whether that percentage will actually be achieved. ‘It depends on whether traders accept and apply the criteria. Only then will end-of-waste become a reality.’ The EU civil servant is convinced that companies will embrace the criteria. ‘The criteria have been developed in consultation with recyclers and the metal industry that uses the scrap. Our goal was to develop workable proposals. Over the next few years we will be monitoring how much scrap achieves end-of-waste status.’ The European waste companies, represented by FEAD, have not yet decided whether or not they are satisfied with the Commission’s proposals. ‘We have to hold internal discussions on the matter,’ says FEAD policy officer René Schroeder.

Harmonisation
Waste company Shanks is adopting a wait and see attitude. ‘As a recycling company we are not involved in the metal trade. As far as we are concerned, nothing has changed,’ concludes Jan Thewissen, occupational health, safety and environment coordinator at Shanks. However, he does anticipate a freer trade as a result of the elimination of the waste regulations. ‘That will have a positive effect on the price, making it easier to recover the costs of acquiring and processing the scrap.’

Ferrous metal and aluminium are the first on the list of waste streams to break free of the waste legislation straitjacket in the coming years. From this summer, the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre will be issuing reports on possible end-of-waste criteria for paper, copper and glass. The plan is for these reports to be translated into legislation six to eight months later. The next in line will then be plastic and compost. Thewissen: ‘Once the criteria have been drawn up, we will look into what we have to do to secure end-of-waste status. If it turns out to be worth the effort, that’s what we’ll do.’

Until European regulations have been adopted, the member states are free to designate end-of-waste streams in their own countries. National governments have to notify these to the Commission, which will assess whether the decision complies with European legislation. Such initiatives have a disruptive effect on the European recycling market. Versmann: ‘In one country compost is classified as a waste, but in another it can be used as an end-of-waste product, whereas an important goal of end-of-waste is to ensure harmonisation and a level playing field.’ That is Thewissen’s fervent hope. To illustrate, he gives a concrete example. Shanks exports waste wood chips for use in the chipboard industry. The Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment has designated this waste stream as end-of-waste. But not all countries agree with this. ‘The same wood chips go to Germany as a product, but to Belgium as waste,’ says Thewissen. In his opinion the regulatory regime could be relaxed somewhat. For instance, he has heard that scrap metal must not contain any plastic waste. ‘This could lead to harmful emissions from PVC during the smelting process. I understand this, but you do wonder whether it is possible to remove all the plastic fragments. We carry out many quality controls to ensure we obtain a good quality final product that we can sell. It would be regrettable if market entry was blocked by the legislation.’

REACH
Once the hurdle of end-of-waste has been successfully negotiated, a second hurdle awaits: REACH. As soon as end-of-waste status relieves a waste stream of the burden of the waste regulation regime, it can become subject to REACH. This obliges companies that market products and substances in Europe to register them and declare their chemical properties in detail. This can be an onerous task for waste companies; waste streams are almost by definition mixed, impure and sometimes of uncertain provenance. How is Shanks going to deal with this? ‘A new guidance document has just come out,’ says Thewissen. ‘We have to see whether we can demonstrate ‘sameness’ with the primary products.’ This is because REACH contains a get-out clause: you do not have to register a product stream if it has already been registered by another party. And because most end-of-waste streams are similar to raw materials from primary production processes, waste companies simply have to wait until the primary producers have registered their substances. A lucky break for waste companies. Or is it? ‘The problem is, REACH sets a whole range of deadlines, but for several streams we still know little of relevance for end-of-waste. This can put us in an awkward position,’ concludes Thewissen. ‘Some aspects of REACH remain unclear,’ agrees FEAD’s Schroeder. ‘The burden on recyclers should be limited. If you can demonstrate sameness, you do not have to register the substance. But to establish sameness, you need access to the data on products manufactured in the primary process. It is important that access to these data is guaranteed.’ This will become clear only after November, when the next REACH registration deadline expires. FEAD fears that if REACH throws up new obstacles, it will make things difficult and very expensive for waste companies.

Market potential

End-of-waste streams and there percentage of total volume.
Scrap metal = 10%,
Scrap metal with 5% contamination instead of 2% = 30–40%
Aluminium scrap (if other metals are not included as contaminants)= 40%
Copper = 14–40%
Paper = 60%
Glass (based on separately collected material)= 90%

Estimates by European experts of the percentage of waste streams that are eligible for end-of-waste. The estimates were made on the basis of the current proposal by the European Commission.