Validation of waste treatment data Jrgen Gonser Volker

Validation of waste treatment data Jürgen Gonser, Volker Küchen ARGUS, Berlin ESTP – Training on waste statistics, 11 th/12 th September 2014 1

Agreed validation rules 1. Comparison over time a) (total /hazardous) waste generation by NACE b) hazardous share by NACE c) treatment by operation (WST_OPER) d) generation & treatment by waste category (WASTE) e) relation treatment / generation by waste category f) generation & treatment: largest differences for inner cells 2. Relation treatment / generation (totals) 3. Implausible combinations treatment operation / waste categories 4. Treated amounts vs. treatment capacities (incineration) ESTP – Training on waste statistics, 11 th/12 th September 2014 2

1 c) Total waste treatment by operation § Assumption: Total & hazardous waste by treatment operation is stable over time. § Data level: Analysis carried out for 6 treatment operations (WST_OPER) and total treatment. § Calculations: o Calculation of the ratio of the amounts treated of the current year and those of the previous reference year: § Thresholds: o lower threshold: ratio current/previous < 0. 8 o upper threshold: ratio current/previous > 1. 2 ESTP – Training on waste statistics, 11 th/12 th September 2014 3

1 c) Total waste treatment by operation Cells that are targeted by validation check 1 c (green cells) 1 Item 1 2 3 4 … … 48 49 50 51 Total Waste W 011 W 012 W 013 … … W 127 W 128_13 Type of recovery and disposal operations (item, description) 2 3 a 3 b 4 Other Hazard Incineration / recovery (excl. Backfilling energy disposal recovery and recovery (R 1) (D 10) backfilling) (R 2 - R 11) 5 Land treatment Deposit onto and release or into land into water (D 1, D 5, D 12) bodies (D 2, D 3, D 4, D 6, D 7) Total nhaz haz … … nhaz haz nhaz total ESTP – Training on waste statistics, 11 th/12 th September 2014 4

1 c) Total waste treatment by operation Spain ES, Landfilling (DSP_D), Total waste § Repeated decrease of the total waste landfilled by more than 20%: - 2006 – 2008: -33% - 2008 – 2010: -23% § Presumed reasons: - Construction activities are low due to economic crisis - Increase of recycling and backfilling - Methodological reasons? ESTP – Training on waste statistics, 11 th/12 th September 2014 100 80 million tonnes § Decrease mainly due to lower amounts of mineral wastes landfilled 120 2004 2006 60 2008 2010 40 20 0 Total waste landfilled 5

1 c) Total waste treatment by operation Slovenia § Presumed reason: Intensive development of separate waste collection and subsequent recovery § Development of recovery corresponds with the decrease of the landfilled waste by 23% from 2008 to 2010 ESTP – Training on waste statistics, 11 th/12 th September 2014 4, 5 4, 0 3, 5 3, 0 million tonnes § Repeated increase of the total waste recovered (excluding energy recovery) by more than 20%: - 2006 – 2008: +51% - 2008 – 2010: +28% SI, Recovery (RCV_NE), Total waste 2006 2, 5 2008 2, 0 2010 1, 5 1, 0 0, 5 0, 0 Total waste recovered 6

1 c) Total waste treatment by operation § Disposal operations have been regrouped in the course of the WStat. R validation as follows: Item Treatment category 4 Deposit into or onto land (DSP_D) 5 Land treatment and release into water bodies (DSP_O) D-codes covered 2004 – 2008 as of 2010 D 1, D 3, D 4, D 5, D 12 D 1, D 5, D 12 D 2, D 6, D 7 D 2, D 3, D 4, D 6, D 7 o D 3 Deep injection (e. g. injection of pumpable discards into wells, salt domes or naturally occurring repositories etc. ) o D 4 Surface impoundment (e. g. placement of liquid or sludge discards into pits, pounds or lagoons etc. ) § Impact: Considerable amounts of mineral mining waste are shifted from ‚landfilling‘ to ‚land treatment and release into water bodies‘ ESTP – Training on waste statistics, 11 th/12 th September 2014 7

1 c) Total waste treatment by operation Sweden § Explanations: - High fluctuation of recovery of mining waste - Decrease of energy recovery due to re-classification of wood waste as by-products - Shift of huge amounts of mining waste from landfilling to land treatment because of WStat. R Revision 2006 2008 2010 70 60 Millions § Changes of more than 20% from 2008 to 2010 for four treatment operations 2004 50 40 30 20 10 0 Recovery Incineration Deposit Land other than / energy onto or into treatment energy recovery land release recovery (R 1) into water bodies ESTP – Training on waste statistics, 11 th/12 th September 2014 8

1 d) Waste treatment by waste category § Assumption: Waste generation and treatment by waste category is stable over time. § Data level: Comparison carried out for each waste item (51 items) and two SDI § Calculations: o Treatment: Calculation of the ratio of the amounts treated for all waste item & two SDIs of the current year and the corresponding values of the previous ref. year: § Thresholds: o lower threshold: ratio current/previous < 0. 5 o upper threshold: ratio current/previous > 2. 0 ESTP – Training on waste statistics, 11 th/12 th September 2014 9

1 d) Waste treatment by waste category Cells that are targeted by validation check 1 d (green cells) 1 Item 1 2 3 4 … … 48 49 50 51 Total Waste W 011 W 012 W 013 … … W 127 W 128_13 Type of recovery and disposal operations (item, description) 2 3 a 3 b 4 Other recovery (excl. Hazard Incineration / Backfilling energy disposal recovery and recovery (R 1) (D 10) backfilling) (R 2 - R 11) 5 Land treatment Deposit onto and release or into land into water (D 1, D 5, D 12) bodies (D 2, D 3, D 4, D 6, D 7) Total nhaz haz … … nhaz haz nhaz total ESTP – Training on waste statistics, 11 th/12 th September 2014 10

1 f) Treatment: largest differences at detailed level § Assumption: All cell values relatively stable over time & by waste category § Data level: Comparison carried out for all cells of datasets GENER and TREATM except ALL totals § Calculations: o Treatment: Calculation of the difference of the amounts treated for all waste items and treatment operations (WST_OPER) of the current year and the values of the previous ref. year: § Thresholds: None: It is proposed to make a list with the 20 -30 largest absolute differences. ESTP – Training on waste statistics, 11 th/12 th September 2014 11

1 f) Treatment: largest differences at detailed level Cells that are targeted by validation check 1 f (green cells) 1 Item 1 2 3 4 … … 48 49 50 51 Total Waste W 011 W 012 W 013 … … W 127 W 128_13 Type of recovery and disposal operations (item, description) 2 3 a 3 b 4 Other Hazard Incineration / recovery (excl. Backfilling energy disposal recovery and recovery (R 1) (D 10) backfilling) (R 2 - R 11) 5 Land treatment Deposit onto and release or into land into water (D 1, D 5, D 12) bodies (D 2, D 3, D 4, D 6, D 7) Total nhaz haz … … nhaz haz nhaz total ESTP – Training on waste statistics, 11 th/12 th September 2014 12

2. Relation treatment / generation (totals) ESTP – Training on waste statistics, 11 th/12 th September 2014 13

2. Relation treatment / generation (totals) Ratio „treatment / generation“ for the total waste by country (2010) ESTP – Training on waste statistics, 11 th/12 th September 2014 14

2. Relation treatment / generation (totals) Ratio „treatment / generation“ for hazardous waste by country (2010) ESTP – Training on waste statistics, 11 th/12 th September 2014 15

2. Relation treatment / generation (totals) Reasons for differences Direction of impact Gross generation (primary and secondary waste) versus final treatment GEN > TRT Treatment includes imported waste and excludes exported waste both directions Loss of weight between generation and final treatment GEN > TRT Time delay between generation and treatment both directions Methodological differences between generation and treatment data (e. g. different coverage) both directions ESTP – Training on waste statistics, 11 th/12 th September 2014 16

2. Relation treatment / generation (totals) Comments to test 2: § There exist several reasons why generation and treatment are not equal § Usually most important: - Import and export, particularly in small countries; - Pre-treatment of waste § BUT: Difference should be limited and explainable! § Relation between generation and treatment reflects whether the concepts of Annex I and Annex II are properly applied § Test may need refinement depending on national conditions and specificities ESTP – Training on waste statistics, 11 th/12 th September 2014 17

1 e) Relation treatment / generation by waste category § Assumption: Relation treatment / generation relatively stable over time and waste category § Data level: Comparison carried out for each waste item (51 items) § Calculations: o Step 1: Calculation of the indicator of the amount treated divided by the amount generated for each waste category for current and previous reference year: o Step 2: Calculation of ratios of the indicators calculated in step 1. § Thresholds: o lower threshold: ratio current/previous < 0. 5 o upper threshold: ratio current/previous > 2. 0 ESTP – Training on waste statistics, 11 th/12 th September 2014 18

1 e) Relation treatment / generation by waste category Distribution of ratio “treatment/generation“ by waste category for non-hazardous waste (based on data of all countries, 2010) ESTP – Training on waste statistics, 11 th/12 th September 2014 19

1 e) Relation treatment / generation by waste category Distribution of ratio “treatment/generation“ by waste category for hazardous waste (based on data of all countries, 2010) ESTP – Training on waste statistics, 11 th/12 th September 2014 20

1 e) Relation treatment / generation by waste category Comments to test 1 e § Test focusses on the time series of the ratio „treatment/generation“, but the ratio itself should also be plausible/explainable § The waste-specific relation between treatment and generation needs further investigation § Application of validation check on country level will provide useful information § Thresholds for validation check may not be narrow enough ESTP – Training on waste statistics, 11 th/12 th September 2014 21

3. Implausible combinations § Assumption: Some treatment operations are unlikely for certain waste materials. § Data level: Certain combinations of all waste item (51 items) and of all 6 treatment operations. § Calculations: None. § Thresholds: None. Combinations defined in the black shaded cells in Table on (next slide). Ø The table overleaf was a first approach and should be revised and approved by the countries based on their experience. ESTP – Training on waste statistics, 11 th/12 th September 2014 22

3. Implausible combinations ESTP – Training on waste statistics, 11 th/12 th September 2014 23

3. Implausible combinations Experience from WStat. R Validation 2010 § Matrix has been a good basis for validation of 2010 data § Some of the implausible combinations occurred but on a low level § Further implausible combinations should be added, e. g. : - other disposal of hazardous waste and or recyclables (06 -07. 6) - backfilling of recyclables (06– 07. 6) and of organic waste (09) - energy recovery and incineration of discarded equipment (08) § Matrix should be revised based on the results of the 2012 validation § Revised matrix could be made available as guidance for validation ESTP – Training on waste statistics, 11 th/12 th September 2014 24

4. Treated amounts vs. treatment capacities § Assumption: The total amount treated is equal to or lower than the available capacity § Data level: Test applied to total amount (NHAZ + HAZ) treated by: – Incineration with energy recovery (R 1) – Incineration without energy recovery (D 10) § Calculations: o Calculation of the ratio of the total amount treated by energy recovery and incineration divided by the capacities of the respective treatment operations: § Thresholds: o lower threshold: None o upper threshold: ratio treatment/capacity > 1. 0 ESTP – Training on waste statistics, 11 th/12 th September 2014 25

Outlook and questions Thank you for your attention! Contact: gonser@argus-statistik. de kuechen@argus-statistik. de ESTP – Training on waste statistics, 11 th/12 th September 2014 26