Implementation Report of Directive 2006/21/Ec on the Management of Waste from Extractive Industries”

An initiative

of the

PROVISION AND ELABORATION OF INFORMATION FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE "IMPLEMENTATION REPORT OF DIRECTIVE 2006/21/EC ON THE MANAGEMENT OF WASTE FROM EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES”

Service Request under the Multiple Framework Contract with re-opening of competition “Assistance to the Commission on the assessment of Waste Management Plans and on compliance monitoring and support of the implementation of the Waste Framework Directive“

Reference: ENV.C.2/FRA/2013/0023

FINAL REPORT

12 April 2016

in cooperation with

ENV.C.2/FRA/2013/0023 ii

CONTENT

List of Tables ...... vii

List of Figures ...... vii

Executive Summary ...... ix

Introduction to EWD ...... ix

General reporting requirements ...... x

Identification and analysis of the main provisions ...... xi

Compilation and assessment of additional information ...... xiii

Validity of the results of the assessment ...... xiii

1 Background ...... 15

1.1 Definition, subject matter and scope of the Extractive Waste Directive ...... 15 1.2 Extractive Waste within the EU...... 16 1.3 Reporting under the Extractive Waste Directive ...... 21 1.4 About this report ...... 23 2 The Extractive Waste Directive and its main provisions ...... 24

2.1 Elements of the Extractive Waste Directive ...... 24 2.2 Identification of main provisions ...... 27 2.2.1 Starting point: All provisions addressed by questions of the Questionnaire ...... 27

2.2.2 Main provisions focusing on Category A facilities ...... 42

3 Summary of the information for each Member State ...... 43

3.1 Main provisions implementation related to Category A facilities ...... 43 3.1.1 Main provision 1: Measures in relation to waste management plans and major-accident prevention and information ...... 48

3.1.2 Main provision 2: Practical arrangements ensuring transmission of information to competent authorities and public ...... 54

3.1.3 Main provision 3: Number of Category A facilities with potential transboundary impact ...... 59

3.1.4 Main provision 4: Number of missing waste management plans for Category A facilities ...... 60

3.1.5 Main provision 5: Number of inspections for Category A facilities ...... 62

3.1.6 Overview table on figures regarding Category A facilities ...... 64

3.2 Key conclusions for each Member State ...... 65

3.2.1 Austria ...... 65

3.2.2 Belgium ...... 65

3.2.3 Bulgaria ...... 65

3.2.4 Cyprus ...... 66

3.2.5 Czech Republic ...... 66

3.2.6 Germany ...... 66

3.2.7 Greece ...... 67

3.2.8 Denmark ...... 67

3.2.9 Estonia ...... 68

3.2.10 Spain ...... 68

3.2.11 Finland ...... 68

3.2.12 France ...... 69

3.2.13 Croatia ...... 69

3.2.14 Hungary ...... 69

3.2.15 Ireland ...... 70

3.2.16 Italy ...... 70

3.2.17 Latvia ...... 71

3.2.18 Lithuania ...... 71

3.2.19 Luxembourg ...... 71

3.2.20 Malta ...... 71

3.2.21 The Netherlands ...... 71

3.2.22 Poland ...... 71

3.2.23 Portugal ...... 72

3.2.24 Romania ...... 72

3.2.25 Slovakia ...... 72

3.2.26 Slovenia ...... 73

3.2.27 Sweden ...... 73

3.2.28 United Kingdom ...... 73

3.3 Implementation of other provisions of the EWD ...... 74 3.3.1 Overview figures on other categories of facilities ...... 74

3.3.2 Approval / rejection of Waste Management Plans (Article 5 EWD), and main reasons for rejection ...... 76

3.3.3 List of inert waste ...... 77

3.3.4 Non-compliance with the Directive ...... 77

3.3.5 Main difficulties encountered in implementing the EWD and means to overcome them ...... 77

3.3.6 Additional comments, suggestions or information in relation with the implementation of the Directive 79

4 Conclusions and recommendations ...... 80

4.1 General conclusions regarding the main provisions ...... 80 4.2 Further general conclusions and recommendations ...... 81 5 Annexes ...... 86

5.1 Annex 1: Assessment of the completeness of reporting ...... 87 5.1.1 National implementation reports not considered for this report ...... 87

5.1.2 Methodology and assessment ...... 87

5.1.3 Result of the final completeness check ...... 90

5.1.4 Justification for the final assessment as “not complete” ...... 91

5.1.5 Results per Member State (including comparison with first reporting period) ...... 91

5.2 Annex 2: Compilation and assessment of additional information ...... 96 5.2.1 Background ...... 96

5.2.2 Indicators of consistency between Questionnaire results and other sources of information ...... 97

5.2.3 Search of other supplementary ‘maintained’ sources for information of relevance to MS reporting under Articles of the Directive ...... 103

5.2.4 Search of other supplementary ‘un-maintained’ sources for information of relevance to MS reporting under Articles of the Directive ...... 108

5.2.5 Search of projects having potential for future revision of the Directive or of MS implementation practice110

5.2.6 Conclusion ...... 111

5.2.7 Specific Annex I: List of keywords used for supplementary search ...... 113

5.2.8 Specific Annex II: Maintained sites (EU and Non-EU) of potential relevance to MS reporting under the Directive ...... 114

5.2.9 Specific Annex III: Un-maintained sites of completed major projects ...... 121

5.2.10 Specific Annex IV: Completed and ongoing FP7 and H2020 projects of relevance to future revisions of the Directive...... 124

CLIENT European Commission Directorate-General Environment Report title Final Report Date 12 April 2016 PROJECT Provision and elaboration of information for the preparation of the "Implementation report of Directive 2006/21/EC on the management of waste from extractive industries” (070201/2015/711399/Env.A.2) Service Request under the Multiple Framework Contract with re-opening of competition “Assistance to the Commission on the assessment of Waste Management Plans and on compliance monitoring and support of the implementation of the Waste Framework Directive“ (ENV.C.2/FRA/2013/0023) Project team BiPRO GmbH and Oakdene Hollins Authors Edward Sims (Oakdene Hollins) Ferdinand Zotz (BiPRO) Marie Dollhofer (BiPRO) David Parker (Oakdene Hollins) Harry Symington (Oakdene Hollins) KEY CONTACTS BiPRO GmbH Oakdene Hollins, Munich, Germany Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, UK Ferdinand Zotz Edward Sims [email protected] [email protected] http://www.bipro.de www.oakdenehollins.co.uk Disclaimer This report is the final report including the results of all project tasks. This report has been prepared for the European Commission in accordance with the associated contract. The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. Please refer to this report as: BiPRO/Oakdene Hollins, Provision and elaboration of information for the preparation of the "Implementation report of Directive 2006/21/EC on the management of waste from extractive industries”

List of Tables

Table 1: Total mining waste and share and percentage of hazardous waste per MS (Eurostat 2012) ...... 19

Table 2: The Directive’s substantial basic requirements ...... 25

Table 3: Correlation of EWD’s provision and reporting obligation as per the Questionnaire ...... 28

Table 4: Classification criteria for main provisions implementation ...... 43

Table 5: Information provided by the Member States on the number of Category A facilities on their territory in Annex I of the Questionnaire ...... 45

Table 6: Completeness check of implementation on the first main provision of the EWD ...... 48

Table 7: Completeness check of implementation on the second main provision of the EWD ...... 55

Table 8: Completeness check of implementation on the third main provision of the EWD ...... 59

Table 9: Completeness check of implementation on the fourth main provision of the EWD ...... 60

Table 10: Summary of Member States’ answers regarding the fourth main provision ...... 61

Table 11: Completeness check of implementation on the fifth main provision of the EWD ...... 62

Table 12: Summary of Member States’ answers regarding the fifth main provision ...... 63

Table 13: Overview table on figures provided by selected MS in terms of Category A facilities ..... 64

Table 14: Non-compliance with the Directive ...... 77

Table 15: Result of the completeness check ...... 90

Table 16: Assessment of hazardous material production in the EU ...... 102

Table 17: Numbers of search hits and most relevant datasets under INSPIRE per MS ...... 105

List of Figures

Figure 1: Generation of mining waste within the EU (Eurostat2006-2012) (NACE_r2) ...... 16

Figure 2: Percentages of waste by sector per MS (Eurostat 2012 data) ...... 18

Figure 3: Total mining waste (hazardous and non-hazardous) per MS (Eurostat 2012) ...... 19

Figure 4: Total waste and percentage of hazardous waste in 2012 per MS (Eurostat 2012) ...... 21

Figure 5: Completeness check of the EWD main provisions in the EU 28 for the 2nd reporting period ...... 44

Figure 6: Hazardous wastes arising in each MS form mining and quarrying ...... 99

Figure 7: Hazardous mining and quarry wastes and Category A facilities by MS ...... 101

Executive Summary

Introduction to EWD

In the EU, wastes deriving from the extraction and refining industries are regulated under the Extractive Waste Directive 2006/21/EC (“the Directive” or “EWD”). In the Directive, extractive waste is defined as

“Waste resulting from the prospecting, extraction, treatment and storage of mineral resources and the working of quarries”; in terms of what is “waste”, the EWD makes reference to the definition as provided by the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC

“any substance or object which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard”.

The Directive provides for measures, procedures and guidance to prevent or reduce as far as possible any adverse effects on the environment, in particular water, air, soil, fauna and flora and landscape, and any resultant risks to human health, brought about as a result of the management of waste from the extractive industries. To this end, the Directive contains a number of different elements which are presented within section 2.1 of this report.

The scope of the Directive covers extractive waste as defined above, including waste rock (unused extraction product), and mine tailings which are defined in the Extractive Waste Directive as:

“waste solids or slurries that remain after the treatment of minerals by separation processes (e.g. crushing, grinding, size-sorting, flotation and other physico-chemical techniques) to remove the valuable minerals from the less valuable rock”.

However, according to its Article 2(1), the following is excluded from the scope of the Directive:

“waste which is generated by the prospecting, extraction and treatment of mineral resources and the working of quarries, but which does not directly result from those operations;

waste resulting from the offshore prospecting, extraction and treatment of mineral resources;

injection of water and re-injection of pumped groundwater as defined in the first and second indents of Article 11(3)(j) of Directive 2000/60/EC, to the extent authorised by that Article.”

Further, it is important to note that a number of the EWD’s requirements, namely on permitting, do not apply for

“Inert waste and unpolluted soil resulting from the prospecting, extraction, treatment and storage of mineral resources and the working of quarries and waste resulting from the extraction, treatment and storage of peat”, unless deposited in a Category A waste facility.

In addition, the competent authority may reduce or waive EWD’s requirements for the deposit of

“non-hazardous waste generated from the prospecting of mineral resources, except oil and evaporites other than gypsum and anhydrite, as well as for the deposit of unpolluted soil and of waste resulting from the extraction, treatment and storage of peat” as long as it is satisfied that the general requirements of Article 4 of the Directive are met. Finally, Member States may decide to reduce or waive certain requirements for non-hazardous non-inert waste, unless deposited in a Category A waste facility.

General reporting requirements

Member States have to report

 to the Commission on the implementation of the Directive for a three years period, on the basis of a Questionnaire adopted by the Commission (Article 18(1) EWD)

 to the Commission on particular events and accidents every year (Article 18(2) EWD), and

 to the Commission, where requested for statistical purposes, information contained in permits granted under Article 7 EWD (Article 7(5)).

In addition, Member States have to establish a publicly available inventory regarding closed and abandoned waste facilities.

In particular, as regards the said Questionnaire, the relevant Commission Decision 2009/358/EC (Annex III) contains two Parts

 for Part A, answers had to be provided during the first reporting period; subsequently, submission of information is only necessary in case the current state deviates from the information provided earlier); and

 for Part B, submission of information is necessary for each reporting period.

The main purpose of analysing Member States’ reporting is thereby a “vertical” rather than a “horizontal” one, with the focus being on the status of implementation of the Directive – rather than the focus being on the status of implementation within one Member State. In this sense, the assessment of national implementation reports is important to identify the challenges that may exist in the implementation of the Extractive Waste Directive and to determine whether and/or how these challenges have been addressed by the Member States. In turn, the assessment of reporting also may reveal where the Directive’s provisions are differently understood and applied by the Member States. There have been two reporting periods (1st May 2009-30th April 2011, and 1st May 2012-30th April 2014). The result of the assessment of the first period (as prepared within the 2012 report of Ecologic Institute1, Final Report prepared for. DG Environment – European Commission) has shown the shortcomings of the current reporting system and the need to introduce changes. In particular, the report emphasised doubts that the main provisions (as understood in that report) were fully

1Ecologic Institute (2012), Study on “Implementation report for Directive 2006/21/EC on the management of waste from extractive industries (Mining Waste Directive)”, Final Report prepared for DG Environment – European Commission.

European Commission Final report Provision and elaboration of information for the preparation of the “Implementation Report of Directive 2006/21/EC on the management of waste from extractive industries” ENV.C.2/FRA/2013/0023 xi implemented by Member States. This report covers the assessment of the reports for the second reporting period.

Assessment of completeness of Member States’ reports

The Commission has received implementation reports from the 28 Member States of the Union. 22 of these reports were provided to the project team (all except Bulgaria, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxemburg and Sweden).

These national implementation reports were assessed in terms of their completeness with respect to the requirements of the Directive and the Commission decision on reporting. To this end, tables were established indicating missing data and information. Member States were then asked to comment and to confirm certain cases of doubt. As a result of the exchanges, for each Member States conclusions were drawn as regards the completeness of the information submitted, including a comparison of the results between the two reporting exercises. The reports of most Member States were rated complete; however, for different reasons – mostly for inconsistency of provided figures – the reports of the following Member States were assessed as incomplete: Belgium, Czech Republic, Spain, France, and Portugal.

In addition, the Commission Services have assessed the completeness of the remaining six Member States, and has rated the reports of the following Member States as incomplete: Bulgaria, Greece, Ireland, Italy, and Sweden.

The completeness of Member States’ reports has overall improved in comparison with the first reporting period.

Identification and analysis of the main provisions Out of the 28 Member States that reported, six report not to have any extractive waste facility covered by the Directive within their territory.2 Such statements have been accepted as working hypothesis, even if there are information on extractive activities that, in some cases, could contradict them.

Member States’ answers in terms of implementation of main provisions have been summarised and analysed. Regarding the so-called main provisions, for reasons of consistency and comparability, the same approach as within the report covering the first reporting exercise was chosen, thus leading to five main provisions to be assessed:

 Main provision 1: Measures in relation to waste management plans and major-accident prevention and information

 Main provision 2: Practical arrangements ensuring information transmission

2 Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta and the Netherlands.

 Main provision 3: Number of Category A facilities with potential transboundary impact

 Main provision 4: Number of missing external emergency management plans for Category A facilities

 Main provision 5: Number of inspections for Category A facilities.

Further, additional figures provided by the Member States in terms of Category A facilities were compiled and analyzed. The results show that overall the Member States have completed the process of transposition of the Directive, and thus generally having set in place means for implementation of main provisions 1 and 2. In terms of the picture regarding the development of main provisions 3 to 5, the figures presented on section 3.1.6 comprise the figures for these main provisions, plus some further information deemed to be of interest.

Generally, for the 22 countries assessed by the authors of the report, the figures on Category A facilities show a very varied picture, with huge discrepancies between the Member States. Overall, figures seem to be certainly lower than one could expect taking into account the dimension of mining activities, the industry practice of waste management and the generation of waste, including hazardous waste, connected to it. Firstly, only 11 Member States of the 22 assessed confirm that there are Category A facilities in operation at all. These 11 Member States report a total of only 58 Category A facilities in operation. The number of Category A facilities with potential transboundary impact is very low. The number of missing waste management plans for Category A facilities is around 18 (without considering the case of Spain where no concrete figures for the 25 Category A facilities on its territory are provided). The number of inspection varies greatly between the Member States; in some Member States, none or very few inspections have been conducted in the three- years-period of the reporting, in other Member States, both the total figures and the ratio between facilities and inspections is significantly higher. Then again, since no definition is provided in the EWD or in the Questionnaire what an inspection is and how to count it, these figures have to be seen as merely an indicative factor.

Analysis of further figures regarding the other categories of facilities under the scope of Directive shows that similar issues with the data of Member States exist. The overall picture is, even when taking into account obvious different understandings by the Member States, very varied and overall not very clear. There are huge discrepancies between the Member States and no visible pattern regarding the figures, e.g. in terms of which is the most frequent category of installation. Certainly, the figures overall seem to be surprisingly low.

Assessment of information safety measures taken and on the action required in the event of accidents or events, as requested by Articles 11(3) and 12(6) of the Directive

Member States have to provide the Commission with information on events that may affect the stability of waste management facilities or that, in general, might increase the risk of damages. The project team received a copy of all information submitted by Member States and registered by the Commission since the adoption of the Directive. The information was compiled, the main elements (e.g. location, activity concerned, mineral/extractive processes at the origin of waste, environmental

European Commission Final report Provision and elaboration of information for the preparation of the “Implementation Report of Directive 2006/21/EC on the management of waste from extractive industries” ENV.C.2/FRA/2013/0023 xiii impact, etc) were identified and it was assessed whether the response of the authorities met the requirements laid down by the Directive. The results show that questions remain to what extent the procedures are applied as foreseen by the Directive. On the basis of investigation of the information provided to the Commission, and additional events researched, we recommend to further investigate at least one case where information has not been provided to the Commission) although the circumstances of the event seem to suggest that this should have been the case. Going beyond the required procedural processes, repeated incidents at one same facility give reason to concern to what extent lessons have been learnt at the relevant levels.

Compilation and assessment of additional information

Additional sources of information were consulted to supplement the information submitted by Member States. Correlating the information of the Member States’ reports with external sources of information has been shown to be a delicate task. Both EU level official statistical sources (i.e. Eurostat) and EC initiatives (i.e. Euromines, eMARS, proMines) and project outcomes from FP7 and H2020 Science & Technology research frameworks have been investigated. Very little administrative data was found on mining waste per se, with regards to the subject of permitting, procedure improvement or waste facility management. Several EC initiative and some FP7 projects focus on reporting mining activities locations together with some level of detail on the type of mined ores (i.e. proMines). On the other hand, research projects assessed for the purpose of this study tend to focus on innovations or new strategies designed to deal with mining waste more effectively, either closer to the mined ore or when trying to lower the environmental impact of new types of mining sites (i.e. lower purity ores sites or deep sea mining). This is probably the result of a number of funded projects having a “zero waste” component embedded in to them, as part of the proposed work program. As a result, the term „mining waste“ is mainly found in the context of EU funded research projects examining innovations to limit the production of mining waste, not its treatment above ground. The additional information analysed provides little insight into how the coverage or the harmonisation of the reporting for the EWD can be improved. Most notably, no update schedule or maintenance plan is planned for most of the database created as a result of EU initiatives or projects, rendering any future plans for their use as a complement for future projects very difficult, even for databases created which include mining waste as part of their metadata (i.e. Mining waste bio/weathering, eMARS, Minerals4EU, Eurostat, Minventory). In this context, the MINERALS4EU, Minventory and the eMARS projects represent the most interesting sources of information which could be used to help collate further information with the aim of increasing the transparency of the mining sector within the EU with regards to mining waste management and incidents.

Validity of the results of the assessment

The assessment of the information from Member States has allowed identifying differences in their understanding of both basic concepts of the Directive and other broader concepts related to waste and hazardous waste. In other words, even if the National Reports are intended to provide the

European Commission Final report Provision and elaboration of information for the preparation of the “Implementation Report of Directive 2006/21/EC on the management of waste from extractive industries” ENV.C.2/FRA/2013/0023 xiv answers to the same questions, it is not sure that this was actually the case. That is why the findings of this assessment should be read and presented as trends rather than as individual, comparable national situations.

1 Background

1.1 Definition, subject matter and scope of the Extractive Waste Directive

In the EU, wastes deriving from the extraction and refining industries are regulated under the Extractive Waste Directive 2006/21/EC (“the Directive” or “EWD”) 3. In the Directive, extractive waste is defined as

“any substance or object which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard”.

The scope of the Directive covers extractive waste as defined above including, waste rock (unused extraction product) and mine tailings, which are defined in the Extractive Waste Directive as:

However, according to its Article 2(1), the following is excluded from the scope of the Directive:

“waste which is generated by the prospecting, extraction and treatment of mineral resources and the working of quarries, but which does not directly result from those operations;

waste resulting from the offshore prospecting, extraction and treatment of mineral resources;

injection of water and re-injection of pumped groundwater as defined in the first and second indents of Article 11(3)(j) of Directive 2000/60/EC, to the extent authorised by that Article.”

Further, it is important to note that a number of the EWD’s requirements do not apply for

“Inert waste and unpolluted soil resulting from the prospecting, extraction, treatment and

3 Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC - Statement by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission (OJ L 102, 11.4.2006, p. 15), as amended. 4 Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, p. 3), as amended.

storage of mineral resources and the working of quarries and waste resulting from the extraction, treatment and storage of peat”, unless deposited in a Category A waste facility.

In addition, the competent authority may reduce or waive EWD’s requirements for the deposit of

1.2 Extractive Waste within the EU

According to Eurostat statistics, the mining and quarrying industry produced 671,810,000 tonnes of waste in 2010, in the EU-275. This is equivalent to around 30% of the total waste generated in the same countries.

According to Eurostat statistics, the EU-28 produced over 730 million tonnes of mining waste in 2012, a volume which is growing broadly in line with economic upturn since 2008 (see Figure 1).

All Mining & Quarrying Waste 800000000

700000000

600000000

500000000

400000000 Tonnes 300000000

200000000

100000000

0 2006 2008 2010 2012 EU-15 215340000 222880000 276090000 291330000 EU-25 261220000 264900000 344910000 369600000 EU-27 606070000 554680000 672530000 733970000 EU-28 606420000 554720000 672560000 733980000

Figure 1: Generation of mining waste within the EU (Eurostat2006-2012) (NACE_r2)

5 Accessed via Eurostat Mining & Quarrying Waste landing page http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/waste/waste_generation_and_management/generation/mining_qua rrying

In mass terms, this accounts for around 30% of all waste generated by these MS. However, there is a large variation in the fraction of total waste by MS that is attributable to mining waste. Referring to Figure 2, it is possible to see that Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Poland and Sweden have extremely high percentages of mining waste out of their totals. This is attributable in part to the importance of the sector to their economies, but as can also be seen from Figure 3, absolute values of waste are extraordinarily high in Bulgaria, Romania and Sweden. As will be shown later in Annex 2, Bulgaria in particular dominates the hazardous waste arisings at over 13 million tonnes per year.

These indications provide a focus for where attention might be directed in planning for the treatment of wastes, the consequences of mis-handling and where engagement with the public on mining operations may need particularly careful management.

Figure 2: Percentages of waste by sector per MS (Eurostat 2012 data)

Figure 3: Total mining waste (hazardous and non-hazardous) per MS (Eurostat 2012)

Further insight is gained if one considers the relation of hazardous waste from the total Mining and Quarrying waste, and the calculated percentage of hazardous waste, based on the figures provided by Eurostat for the year 2012.

Table 1: Total mining waste and share and percentage of hazardous waste per MS (Eurostat 2012)

The following Figure graphically depicts this aspect:

Figure 4: Total waste and percentage of hazardous waste in 2012 per MS (Eurostat 2012)

1.3 Reporting under the Extractive Waste Directive

General reporting requirements

Member States have to report

 to the Commission on the implementation of the Directive for a three years period, on the basis of a Questionnaire adopted by the Commission (Article 18(1) EWD)

 to the Commission on particular events and accidents every year (Article 18(2) EWD), and

 to Community statistical authorities, where requested for statistical purposes, information contained in permits granted under Article 7 EWD (Article 7(5)).

In addition, Member States have to establish a publicly available inventory regarding closed and abandoned waste facilities.

Replies to Questionnaire (Article 18(1) EWD)

In particular as regards the said Questionnaire, the relevant Commission Decision 2009/358/EC6 in its Annex III contains two Parts

 for Part B, submission of information is necessary for each reporting period.

The assessment of national implementation reports may assist in identifying the challenges that exist in the implementation of the Extractive Waste Directive and at determining whether and/or how these challenges have been addressed by the Member States. In turn, the assessment of reporting also may reveal where the Directive’s provisions are differently understood and applied by the Member States.

There have been two reporting periods (1st May 2009-30th April 2011, and 1st May 2012-30th April 2014).

The result of the assessment of the first period prepared by Ecologic Institute7 has shown the shortcomings of the current reporting system and the need to introduce changes. In particular, the report emphasised doubts that the main provisions (as understood in that report) were fully implemented in practice by Member States. Even where reports were considered to be submitted complete, cross-checking with further additional relevant information indicated that the actual practical implementation was incomplete. This was demonstrated for instance in the case of Hungary with a view on the dramatic mining accident at Ajka Timfoldgyar alumina plant (Ajka) in October 2010 with losses of human life and widespread environmental damage, which seem to suggest that existing waste management and emergency plans were insufficient to contain the accident; or in the case of Poland, where the Commission has issued reasoned opinions (the second stage of infringement procedures) urging the Member State to comply in particular with the provisions on the objectives and content of the waste management plans.

6 2009/358/EC: Commission Decision of 29 April 2009 on the harmonisation, the regular transmission of the information and the questionnaire referred to in Articles 22(1)(a) and 18 of Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the management of waste from extractive industries (notified under document number C(2009) 3011) OJ L 110, 1.5.2009, p. 39. 7 Ecologic Institute (2012), Study on “Implementation report for Directive 2006/21/EC on the management of waste from extractive industries (Mining Waste Directive)”, Final Report prepared for DG Environment - European Commission, in the following referred to as [Ecologic 2012].

1.4 About this report

This report contains an assessment and conclusions on the state of implementation of the Directive, based on

 an analysis of the responses by Member States (in the following referred to as “national implementation reports”) to the relevant Questionnaire pursuant to Commission Decision 2009/258/EC covering the period 2011-2014. The responses have been assessed in terms of their completeness (the methodology and the assessment is presented in detail within Annex 1)

 an assessment of the substance of the replies of the Member States, with a focus on the key provisions explained in detail in chapter 2.2

 an assessment of information safety measures taken and on the action required in the event of accidents or events, as requested by Articles 11(3) and 12(6) of the Directive (note that in this report, only the findings are considered for confidentiality reasons)

 an assessment of additional information supplementing the information submitted by Member States (the methodology and the assessment is presented in detail within Annex 2).

2 The Extractive Waste Directive and its main provisions

2.1 Elements of the Extractive Waste Directive

In broad terms, the EWD consists of the following elements:

 Description of subject matter; Scope; Key definitions (Articles 1-3 of the Directive, described in section 1.1 of this report); Classification system of waste facilities (see below in this section)

 Obligation for MS to report to the EU Commission; Exchange of information; Procedure and subject of Comitology Committee; Transitional periods; Transposition; Entry into force (Articles 18, 21 to 26 of the Directive)

 The actual measures and requirements of the Directive

o In the table below, the key elements of each relevant Article are depicted.

o The addresses of the Directive are the Member States (Article 27 EWD), which have not only to implement the respective provisions into national law, but also ensure that the standards described in the Directive are met, via decisions on permits reflecting the EWD’s requirements, and through enforcement measures (such as inspections, Article 17 EWD), both to be taken by competent authorities. The Directive introduces the “operator” as a main actor, who has (within Member States’ legislation) to be held responsible for key obligations the EWD mentions. “Operator” is in the EWD defined as “the natural or legal person responsible for the management of extractive waste, in accordance with the national la w of the Member State in which waste management takes place, including in respect of temporary storage of extractive waste as well as the operational and the after- closure phases”.

o Important to note that the EWD distinguishes between certain categories of facilities, as follows:

 Category A waste facilities;  Waste facilities for non-hazardous non-inert waste;  Waste facilities for unpolluted soil, non-hazardous prospecting waste, waste resulting from the extraction, treatment and storage of peat and inert waste;  Waste facilities not meeting one of the criteria described above (i.e. for instance facilities where hazardous waste is stored but below the threshold of meeting the Category A facility definition, see directly below).

Of particular importance are the Category A facilities. A waste facility shall be classified as Category A in line with Annex III of the EWD and Commission Decision 2009/337/EC8, if  a failure or incorrect operation, e.g., the collapse of a heap or the bursting of a dam, could give rise to a major accident, on the basis of a risk assessment taking into account factors such as the present or future size, the location and the environmental impact of the waste facility if the predicted consequences in the short or the long term could lead to o non-negligible potential for loss of life; o serious danger to human health; o serious danger to the environment; or  it contains waste classified as hazardous under Directive 91/689/EEC9 (now: Directive 2008/98/EC) above a certain threshold; or  it contains substances or preparations classified as dangerous under Directives 67/548/EEC10 or 1999/45/EC11

Article 2(3) EWD stipulates that some of its requirements should only apply to Category A facilities, or in other cases allows Member States or Competent Authorities respectively to reduce or waive requirements for some categories. Thus, the table below depicts in the last column to which category of facility the obligation applies in principle.

Table 2: The Directive’s substantial basic requirements EWD substantial basic requirements Article applies to … Develop a waste management plan for the minimisation, 5 All facilities treatment, recovery and disposal of extractive waste Develop a major-accident prevention policy, including a 6 Category A facilities safety management system and internal emergency plan;

8 2009/337/EC: Commission Decision of 20 April 2009 on the definition of the criteria for the classification of waste facilities in accordance with Annex III of Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the management of waste from extractive industries (notified under document number C(2009) 2856) (OJ L 102, 22.4.2009, p. 7). 9 Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 20), as amended. Note that the Directive has been repealed by Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC with effect from 12 December 2010. References to the repealed Directive shall be according to Article 41 of Waste Framework Directive construed as references to this Directive, and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table set out in Annex V. 10 Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ 196, 16.8.1967, p. 1), as amended. 11 Directive 1999/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 1999 concerning the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous preparations (OJ L 200, 30.7.1999, p. 1), as amended.

Allow no extractive industry waste facility to operate 7 In principle all facilities, but without a permit issued by the competent authority; see (1) Ensure public participation by providing information and 8 In principle all facilities, but allowing the public to prepare and participate effectively see (1) Requirements for placing extractive waste back into the 10 All facilities excavation voids for rehabilitation and construction purposes Member States have to ensure that waste facilities are 11 In principle all facilities, but managed by a competent person and that technical see (1) and (2) development and training of staff are provided Closure and after-closure procedures of a waste facility 12 In principle all facilities, but and monitoring are to be organised by Member States see (1) and (2) pursuant to the requirements of the Directive Preventive measures must be taken against water and soil 13 In principle all facilities, but contamination, including from cyanide-containing waste see (1) and (2) tailings Waste facility operators must provide a financial 14 In principle all facilities, but guarantee before the beginning of waste processing see (1) and (2) operations In accordance with Directive 2004/35/EC12, operators of 15 All facilities waste facilities are subject to a presumed liability in respect of environmental damage caused by their operation Provision of information to other Member States and the 16 Category A facilities public in the case of transboundary effects

(1) Cf Article 2(3) first para: “Inert waste and unpolluted soil resulting from the prospecting, extraction, treatment and storage of mineral resources and the working of quarries and waste resulting from the extraction, treatment and storage of peat shall not be subject to Articles 7, 8, 11(1) and (3), 12, 13(6), 14 and 16, unless deposited in a Category A waste facility”

(2) Cf Article 2(3) third para: “Member States may reduce or waive the requirements of Articles 11(3), 12(5) and (6), 13(6), 14 and 16 for non-hazardous non-inert waste, unless deposited in a Category A waste facility”

12 Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (OJ L 143, 30.4.2004, p. 56).

2.2 Identification of main provisions

2.2.1 Starting point: All provisions addressed by questions of the Questionnaire

In terms of what are main provisions of the Directive, we assume as a starting point that all questions of Part A and Part B of the Questionnaire are addressing main provisions. This is not to be understood in a way that provisions of the Directive which are not addressed by questions of the Questionnaire may not be main provisions (which is obviously e.g. the case for Article 4 of the Directive, defining the standard of operation).

Thus, the following table depicts

 The content of the provision of the Directive (to which a question of the Questionnaire is related);

 The reference to the Article of the Directive;

 The citation from the relevant legal text of the Directive;

 The reference to the Questionnaire, and

 The text of the Questionnaire.

Table 3: Correlation of EWD’s provision and reporting obligation as per the Questionnaire Substantial Reference to Text of the Directive Reference to Obligations as per Questionnaire provision of EWD EWD the Questionnaire Scope and Article 2(1), 9 Article 2 B.1. (b) If possible, using the table provided in Annex, categories of (1) Subject to paragraphs 2 and 3, this Directive covers the please provide an estimate of the number of facilities management of waste resulting from the prospecting, extraction, extractive waste treatment and storage of mineral resources and the working of facilities on the territory of the Member State quarries, hereinafter ‘extractive waste’.

Article 9 For the purposes of this Directive, the competent authorities shall classify a waste facility as Category A in accordance with the criteria set out in Annex III. Scope and Article 2(1), 9 Article 2 B.1.(c) Please indicate the number of cases of waste categories of (1) Subject to paragraphs 2 and 3, this Directive covers the facilities of Category A in operation on your facilities management of waste resulting from the prospecting, extraction, territory having a treatment and storage of mineral resources and the working of potential environmental or human health quarries, hereinafter ‘extractive waste’. impact on another Member State

Article 9 For the purposes of this Directive, the competent authorities shall classify a waste facility as Category A in accordance with the criteria set out in Annex III. Member States may Article 2(3) Member States may reduce or waive the requirements of Articles A.3. (c) Please indicate whether the possibility referred reduce or waive the 11(3), 12(5) and (6), 13(6), 14 and 16 for non-hazardous non-inert to in Article 2(3) of the Directive of reducing or requirements of waste, unless deposited in a Category A waste facility. waiving the Articles 11(3), requirements for the deposit of non hazardous 12(5) and (6), 13(6), waste – inert or not, unpolluted soil or peat has 14 and 16 for non- been used? hazardous non-inert waste, unless deposited in a Category A waste

Substantial Reference to Text of the Directive Reference to Obligations as per Questionnaire provision of EWD EWD the Questionnaire facility. Waste Management Article 5(6) The competent authority shall approve the waste management A.1. (a) Indicate CA for verifying / approving Waste Plan plan on the basis of procedures to be decided by the Member Management Plans proposed by operators States and shall monitor its implementation. Waste Management Article 5(6) The competent authority shall approve the waste management A.2. (a) Describe procedure for approval fo Waste Plan plan on the basis of procedures to be decided by the Member Management Plans set in place by MS States and shall monitor its implementation.

Waste Management Article 5(6) The competent authority shall approve the waste management B.2. (a) Please describe in brief: Plans plan on the basis of procedures to be decided by the Member — the number of waste management plans States and shall monitor its implementation. approved or rejected temporarily or definitively during the reporting period and, — if relevant, and if possible, the main reasons for having definitively refused a waste management plan,

Substantial Reference to Text of the Directive Reference to Obligations as per Questionnaire provision of EWD EWD the Questionnaire Major-accident Article 6(2) Without prejudice to other Community legislation, and in A.2. (b) For the category A installations not falling prevention and particular Directives 92/91/EEC and 92/104/EEC, Member States within the scope Seveso Directive, describe the information shall ensure that major-accident hazards are identified and that measures taken to: the necessary features are incorporated into the design, - identify major-accident hazards, construction, operation and maintenance, closure and after- - incorporate the necessary features into the closure of the waste facility in order to prevent such accidents design, operation and closure of the and to limit their adverse consequences for human health and/or installation, and, the environment, including any transboundary impacts. - limit the adverse consequences for human health and/or the environment

Major-accident Article 6(3) The competent authority shall draw up an external emergency A. 1. (b) Indicate CA for establishing external emergency prevention and plan specifying the measures to be taken off‐site in the event of plans for category A facilities information / an accident. As part of the application for a permit the operator Drawing up external shall provide the competent authority with the information emergency plan by necessary to enable the latter to draw up that plan. competent authorities

Major-accident Article 6(3) The competent authority shall draw up an external emergency B.2. (b) Please provide a list of the external emergency prevention and Article 3(3) plan specifying the measures to be taken off‐site in the event of plans referred to in Article 6(3) of the Directive. information / EWD; Article an accident. As part of the application for a permit the operator If all Category A Drawing up external 2(3) of shall provide the competent authority with the information installations are not yet covered by an emergency plan by Commission necessary to enable the latter to draw up that plan. emergency plan, please indicate the number of competent Decision missing plans and the authorities 2009/359/EC planning for establishing these plans.

Substantial Reference to Text of the Directive Reference to Obligations as per Questionnaire provision of EWD EWD the Questionnaire

(c) If a list of inert waste as referred to in Article 2(3) of Commission Decision 2009/359/EC of 30 April 2009 completing the definition of “inert waste” in implementation of Article 22(1)(f) of Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the management of waste from extractive industries has been established in your country, please provide a copy of that list including a brief description of the information and data used to determine whether the listed waste could be defined as inert.

Substantial Reference to Text of the Directive Reference to Obligations as per Questionnaire provision of EWD EWD the Questionnaire Submission of Article 6(4) Member States shall ensure that, in the event of a major A.4. (c) For Category A installations, and in case of information in case accident, the operator immediately provides the competent major accident, what are the practical of major accidents of authority with all the information required to help minimise its arrangements taken to ensure that: - required Category A facilities consequences for human health and to assess and minimise the information is transmitted immediately by the extent, actual or potential, of the environmental damage. operator to the competent authority, - information on safety measures and on action Article 6(6) Member States shall ensure that information on safety measures required is provided to the public? and, and on the action required in the event of an accident, containing - information provided by the operator is at least the elements listed in Section 2 of Annex I, is provided, forwarded to the other Member State in case of free of charge and as a matter of course, to the public concerned. installation with a potential transboundary impact? Member States shall ensure that, in the event of an accident Article 16(3) involving a waste facility as referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, information provided by the operator to the competent authority pursuant to Article 6(4) is immediately forwarded to the other Member State in order to help minimise the consequences of the accident for human health and to assess and minimise the extent of the actual or potential environmental damage.

Substantial Reference to Text of the Directive Reference to Obligations as per Questionnaire provision of EWD EWD the Questionnaire Permits Article 7 No waste facility shall be allowed to operate without a permit B.3. If possible using the table in Annex, please granted by the competent authority. The permit shall contain the indicate the number of installation for which a elements specified in paragraph 2 of this Article and shall clearly permit has been issued in indicate the category of the waste facility in accordance with the conformity with the provision of the Directive. criteria referred to in Article 9.

Permits Article 7(1) No waste facility shall be allowed to operate without a permit A.3. (a), (b), (d) (a) Please indicate the measures taken to Article 7(4) in granted by the competent authority. ensure that all facilities in operation will be conjunction covered by a permit in with Article conformity with the Directive before 1 May 4(2), (3) 2012 (b) Please briefly describe the actions taken to make the best available techniques knowledgeable to the authorities in charge of establishing and controlling the permits.

(d) Please explain the measures taken to ensure that permits are regularly updated as foreseen in Article 7(4) of the Directive.

Substantial Reference to Text of the Directive Reference to Obligations as per Questionnaire provision of EWD EWD the Questionnaire Permits (Issuing and Article 7(1), 7(4) Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that A.1.(c) Indicate CA for issuing and updating permits updating permits by competent authorities periodically reconsider and, where competent necessary, update permit conditions: authorities) —where there are substantial changes in the operation of the waste facility or the waste deposited; —on the basis of monitoring results reported by the operator pursuant to Article 11(3) or inspections carried out pursuant to Article 17; —in the light of information exchange on substantial changes in best available techniques under Article 21(3).

Public participation Article 8(5) The results of the consultations held pursuant to this Article shall A.4. (a) Please explain how the public opinion and be duly taken into account in the taking of a decision. comments is analysed and taken into account before the taking of a decision on permits and for the preparation of the external emergency plans.

Substantial Reference to Text of the Directive Reference to Obligations as per Questionnaire provision of EWD EWD the Questionnaire Construction and Article 11(1), (3) Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that A.5. (a) - (c) (a) Please detail the measures taken in order to management of the management of a waste facility is in the hands of a ensure that the management of the waste waste facilities competent person and that technical development and training facilities is achieved by a of staff are provided. “competent person” as referred to in Article 11(1) of the Directive and that staff is The operator shall, without undue delay and in any event not appropriately trained. later than 48 hours thereafter, notify the competent authority of any events likely to affect the stability of the waste facility and (b) Please describe in brief the procedure set any significant adverse environmental effects revealed by the out for the notification to the authority in the control and monitoring procedures of the waste facility. The 48 hours of any event operator shall implement the internal emergency plan, where likely to affect the stability of the facility and applicable, and follow any other instruction from the competent any significant environmental effects revealed authority as to the corrective measures to be taken. by the monitoring.

At a frequency to be determined by the competent authority, and (c) Please describe how, in accordance with in any event at least once a year, the operator shall report, on the Article 11, the competent authority is verifying basis of aggregated data, all monitoring results to the competent that regular reports on authorities for the purposes of demonstrating compliance with monitoring results are: permit conditions and increasing knowledge of waste and waste — transmitted by the operator to the authority, facility behaviour. On the basis of this report the competent — demonstrating compliance with the permit authority may decide that validation by an independent expert is conditions. necessary.

Substantial Reference to Text of the Directive Reference to Obligations as per Questionnaire provision of EWD EWD the Questionnaire Closure and after Article 12(5) When considered necessary by the competent authority, in order A.6. (a) Please explain in brief the procedure set out to closure procedures to fulfil relevant environmental requirements set out in ensure that after the closure of the facilities Community legislation, in particular those in Directives and when considered necessary by the 76/464/EEC, 80/68/EEC and 2000/60/EC, following closure of a authority, regular controls of the stability are waste facility, the operator shall, inter alia, control the physical achieved as well as measure to reduce and chemical stability of the facility and minimise any negative environmental effect are taken. environmental effect, in particular with respect to surface and groundwater, by ensuring that: (a) all the structures pertaining to the facility are monitored and conserved, with control and measuring apparatus always ready for use; (b) where applicable, overflow channels and spillways are kept clean and free. Closure and after Article 12(3) A waste facility may be considered as finally closed only after the B.4. (a) Please indicate how many closure closure procedures competent authority has, without undue delay, carried out a final procedures as detailed in Article 12 of the on-site inspection, assessed all the reports submitted by the Directive, were undertaken and/or approved operator, certified that the land affected by a waste facility has during the reporting period. been rehabilitated and communicated to the operator its (b) How many installations are closed and approval of the closure. regularly monitored in your country?

Substantial Reference to Text of the Directive Reference to Obligations as per Questionnaire provision of EWD EWD the Questionnaire Financial Guarantee Article 14 1. The competent authority shall, prior to the commencement of A.1.(c) Indicate CA for establishing and updating the (Establishing and any operations involving the accumulation or deposit of financial guarantee updating the extractive waste in a waste facility, require a financial guarantee financial guarantee (e.g. in the form of a financial deposit, including industry- by competent sponsored mutual guarantee funds) or equivalent, in accordance authorities) with procedures to be decided by the Member States, so that: (a) all obligations under the permit issued pursuant to this Directive, including after-closure provisions, are discharged; (b) there are funds readily available at any given time for the rehabilitation of the land affected by the waste facility, as described in the waste management plan prepared pursuant to Article 5 and required by the Article 7 permit. Financial Guarantee Article 14 1. The competent authority shall, prior to the commencement of A.3. (e) Please detail the procedure referred to in any operations involving the accumulation or deposit of Article 14(1) of the Directive and set up for the extractive waste in a waste facility, require a financial guarantee establishment of the financial guarantee and its (e.g. in the form of a financial deposit, including industry- periodical adjustment. How many installations sponsored mutual guarantee funds) or equivalent, in accordance are already covered by a guarantee in with procedures to be decided by the Member States, so that: accordance with the provisions of the (a) all obligations under the permit issued pursuant to this Directive? How will it be ensured that all Directive, including after-closure provisions, are discharged; installations will be covered by a guarantee (b) there are funds readily available at any given time for the before the 1 May 2014? rehabilitation of the land affected by the waste facility, as described in the waste management plan prepared pursuant to Article 5 and required by the Article 7 permit.

Substantial Reference to Text of the Directive Reference to Obligations as per Questionnaire provision of EWD EWD the Questionnaire Transboundary Article 16(1) Where a Member State in which a waste facility is situated is A.4. (b) For installations having a potential effects aware that the operation of a Category A waste facility is likely to transboundary impact, how is it ensured that have significant adverse effects on the environment of, and any required information is made resultant risks to human health in, another Member State, or available for an appropriate period of time to where a Member State likely to be thus affected so requests, the the other Member State and to the public Member State in whose territory the application for a permit concerned? pursuant to Article 7 was submitted shall forward the information provided pursuant to that Article to the other Member State at the same time as it makes it available to its own nationals. Inspections by Article 17(1) Prior to the commencement of deposit operations and at regular A.1. (d) Indicate CA for inspections competent intervals thereafter, including the after-closure phase, to be authorities decided by the Member State concerned, the competent authority shall inspect any waste facility covered by Article 7 in order to ensure that it complies with the relevant conditions of the permit. An affirmative finding shall in no way reduce the responsibility of the operator under the conditions of the permit.

Substantial Reference to Text of the Directive Reference to Obligations as per Questionnaire provision of EWD EWD the Questionnaire Inspections by Article 17 1. Prior to the commencement of deposit operations and at A.7. (a)-(d) (a) Please briefly explain whether and if yes, competent regular intervals thereafter, including the after-closure phase, to how the minimum criteria for environmental authorities be decided by the Member State concerned, the competent inspection ( 1 ) are taken into account for the authority shall inspect any waste facility covered by Article 7 in control of the facilities falling under the scope ordeo ensure that it complies with the relevant conditions of the of the Directive. permit. An affirmative finding shall in no way reduce the (b) Please briefly describe how inspection responsibility of the operator under the conditions of the permit. activities are planned. Are the priority installations for inspection identified and 2. Member States shall require the operator to keep up-to-date according to which criteria? Are the frequency records of all waste management operations and make them and the type of inspection adapted to the risks available for inspection by the competent authority and to ensure associated with the installation and its that, in the event of a change of operator during the environment? management of a waste facility, there is an appropriate transfer (c) Please explain what inspection actions are of relevant up-to-date information and records relating to the carried out such as on site visit routine or not, waste facility. sampling, control of self monitoring data, control of the “up to date” records of waste management operations. (d) Please explain the actions taken to ensure that the approved waste management plans are regularly updated and monitored.

Inspections by Article 17 Prior to the commencement of deposit operations and at regular B.5. (a) Please indicate the number of inspections competent intervals thereafter, including the after-closure phase, to be achieved for the reporting period with, if authorities decided by the Member State concerned, the competent possible, distinguishing inspections achieved in: authority shall inspect any waste facility covered by Article 7 in — Category A and the other installations,

Substantial Reference to Text of the Directive Reference to Obligations as per Questionnaire provision of EWD EWD the Questionnaire order to ensure that it complies with the relevant conditions of — Inert waste installations, and, the permit. An affirmative finding shall in no way reduce the — Non inert, non hazardous installations, responsibility of the operator under the conditions of the permit. If a programme of inspection has been drawn up at the appropriate geographical level (national/regional/local), please provide a copy of this (these) programme(s) in annex to the report. (b) How many cases of non compliance with the provisions of the Directive were identified? Please indicate the main reasons for non compliance and the actions taken in order to ensure compliance with the Directive? Penalties Article 19 The Member States shall lay down rules on penalties for A.7. (e) What are the rules on penalties applicable to infringement of the provisions of national law adopted pursuant infringement of the national provisions to this Directive and shall take all measures necessary to ensure pursuant to Article 19 of the that they are implemented. The penalties provided for shall be Directive? effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Inventory of closed Article 20 Member States shall ensure that an inventory of closed waste A.6. (b) Please detail the measure taken to ensure that waste facilities facilities, including abandoned waste facilities, located on their the inventory of closed facilities as foreseen in territory which cause serious negative environmental impacts or Article 20 of the have the potential of becoming in the medium or short term a Directive will be achieved by 1 May 2012. serious threat to human health or the environment is drawn up and periodically updated. Such an inventory, to be made available to the public, shall be carried out by 1 May 2012, taking into account the methodologies as referred to in Article 21, if available.

Substantial Reference to Text of the Directive Reference to Obligations as per Questionnaire provision of EWD EWD the Questionnaire General B.6. (a) Please summarise the main difficulties encountered in implementing the Directive. How were these possible problems overcome? (b) Please provide any additional comments, suggestions or information in relation with the implementation of the Directive.

2.2.2 Main provisions focusing on Category A facilities

For the purpose of this report, and with a particular view to ensure consistency and comparability with [Ecologic 2012] covering the first reporting period, it has been decided to use an approach identical to the one used in that report for identifying main provisions of the EWD. There for, the following five main provisions have been identified:

 Main provision 1: Measures in relation to waste management plans and major-accident prevention and information

 Main provision 2: Practical arrangements ensuring information transmission

 Main provision 3: Number of Category A facilities with potential transboundary impact

 Main provision 4: Number of missing external emergency management plans for Category A facilities

 Main provision 5: Number of inspections for Category A facilities.

Findings in relation with other provisions from the Member States’ replies are presented in section 3.3.

3 Summary of the information for each Member State

3.1 Main provisions implementation related to Category A facilities The following table summarises the criteria on completeness of the information provided by the 28 EU Member States regarding the main provisions’ implementation. The following categories were used, taken into consideration the criteria introduced by [Ecologic 2012] for ensuring comparability: Table 4: Classification criteria for main provisions implementation

Classification criteria per Criteria used for classification question

The MS’s response gives reference to national legislation implementing this provision. The textual description responds to all terms used in the questions and provides either in-depth detail of the procedures and/or measures Complete (sufficient detail) (1) required under the Questionnaire items or largely refers to the national legislation for further details. The complete (very detailed) Category is included to show “good practice” examples for reporting.

The MS’s response may or may not give reference to national legislation implementing this. The textual description is lacking or incomplete in that no Incomplete (2) or only some of the terms used in the questions are addressed or information is missing for some regions of a MS.

Textual response indicates that the main provision has been implemented nationally, but that no Category A facilities exist/existed during this reporting complete, but indicating no period. Category A waste facilities (3) The Category “indicating lacking Category A waste facilities” is included because some Member State do not report several questions, but only due to the non-existence of Category A facilities in these countries. complete, but indicating no Textual response indicates that the main provision has been implemented waste facilities falling under this nationally, but that no waste facilities exist/existed during this reporting Directive (4) period that fall under this Directive.

The authors of this report did not have access to the information for the second reporting period for six Member States (Bulgaria, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxemburg, Portugal, and Sweden), this is indicated with an “n.a.” in the following figures tables.

Figure 5: Completeness check of the EWD main provisions in the EU 28 for the 2nd reporting period

As visible from Figure 5, the reply regarding implementation of the five main provisions of the EWD has been rated incomplete for one Member States (France) based on the information provided within the second reporting period of the Directive. Compared to the first reporting period this represents a significant decrease (10 Member States were assessed incomplete in the first reporting period); however, France’s answer was rated complete during the first reporting period.

In terms of the Member States which were rated as complete for all main provisions, a differentiation has to be made between Member States that have reported: a) having a Category A facility on their territory: Cyprus, Germany, Estonia, Spain, Finland, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom (11 Member States, indicated in green in the Figure 5 above), b) having no Category A facility but other waste facilities falling under the scope of the Directive: Austria, Belgium, and the Czech Republic (3 Member States, indicated in pink in the Figure 5 above), and c) having no facility at all falling under the scope of the Directive: Denmark, Croatia, Lithuania, Latvia, Malta, Netherlands, and Slovenia (7 Member States, indicated in blue in the Figure 5 above).

The following Table shows an overview on all Member States’ responses regarding the number of Category A facilities including in brackets the respective data from the first reporting period; a more detailed investigation focusing on those Member States which have confirmed having Category A facilities is provided within section 4.1.

Table 5: Information provided by the Member States on the number of Category A facilities on their territory in Annex I of the Questionnaire

Member In operation with Closed or Type of facility In operation In closure phase State permit abandoned Category A - total 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) AT Category A of which 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) “Seveso Installations” Category A - total 0 (n.a.) 0 (n.a.) 0 (n.a.) 0 (n.a.) BE Category A of which 0 (n.a.) 0 (n.a.) 0 (n.a.) 0 (n.a.) “Seveso Installations”

Category A - total 2 (n.a.) 2 (n.a.) n.a. (n.a.) n.a. (n.a.) BG Category A of which n.a. (n.a.) n.a. (n.a.) n.a. (n.a.) n.a. (n.a.) “Seveso Installations” Category A - total 1 (5) 0 (0) 0 (2) 0 (35) CY Category A of which 0 0 0 0 “Seveso Installations” CZ Category A - total 0 (n.a.) 0 (n.a.) 0 (n.a.) 0 (n.a.)

Category A of which 0 (n.a.) 0 (n.a.) 0 (n.a.) 0 (n.a.) “Seveso Installations” Category A - total 3 (3) 0 (0) 2 (2) 0 (0) DE Category A of which 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) “Seveso Installations” Category A - total 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) DK Category A of which 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) “Seveso Installations” Category A - total 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (11) EE Category A of which 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) “Seveso Installations” Category A - total 25 (n.a.) 25 (n.a.) 1 (n.a.) 78 (n.a.) ES Category A of which 0 (n.a.) 0 (n.a.) 0 (n.a.) 0 (n.a.) “Seveso Installations” Category A - total 9 (0) 9 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) FI Category A of which 7 (1) 7 (7) 0 (0) 0 (0) “Seveso Installations” Category A - total 1 (3) 1 (3) 0 (0) 0 (24) FR Category A of which 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) “Seveso Installations” Category A - total 1 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) GR Category A of which 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) “Seveso Installations” Category A - total 0 0 0 0 HR Category A of which 0 0 0 0 “Seveso Installations” Category A - total 6 (2) 6 (1) 23 (2) 1 (0) HU Category A of which 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) “Seveso Installations” Category A - total 2 (2) 4 (0) 2 (2) 0 (0) IE Category A of which 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) “Seveso Installations” Category A - total n.a. (4) 4 (n.a.) n.a. (n.a.) 219 (622) IT Category A of which 126 (n.a.) n.a. (n.a.) n.a. (n.a) n.a. (n.a.) “Seveso Installations” Category A - total 0 (0 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) LT Category A of which 0 (0 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) “Seveso Installations” Category A - total 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) LU Category A of which 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) “Seveso Installations” Category A - total 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) LV Category A of which 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) “Seveso Installations” MT Category A - total 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Category A of which 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) “Seveso Installations” Category A - total 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) NL Category A of which 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) “Seveso Installations” Category A - total 1 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) PL Category A of which 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) “Seveso Installations” Category A - total 3 (3) 3 (3) 0 (1) 1 (0) PT Category A of which 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) “Seveso Installations” Category A - total 2 (n.a.) 2 (n.a.) 0 (n.a.) 0 (n.a.) RO Category A of which 1 (n.a.) 1 (n.a.) 0 (n.a.) 0 (n.a.) “Seveso Installations” 15 minig companies Category A - total (may have n.a. (n.a.) 2 (n.a.) 300 (n.a.) SE more than 1 facility) (n.a.) Category A of which 3 (n.a.) n.a. (n.a.) n.a. (n.a.) n.a. (n.a.) “Seveso Installations” Category A - total 0 (n.a.) 0 (n.a.) 0 (n.a.) 0 (n.a.) SI Category A of which 0 (n.a.) 0 (n.a.) 0 (n.a.) 0 (n.a.) “Seveso Installations” Category A - total 3 (4) 2 (0) 0 (0) 0 (3) SK Category A of which 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) “Seveso Installations” Category A - total 4 (n.a.) 4 (n.a.) 0 (n.a.) 278 (n.a.) UK Category A of which 1 (n.a.) 1 (n.a.) 0 (n.a.) 0 (n.a.) “Seveso Installations”

Note: Numbers in brackets indicate the numbers of Category A facilities reported within the first reporting period. N.a. indicates that no information was provided. The replies of the following Member States have been assessed by the Commission Services: BG, IE, IT, GR, LU, SE.

 In some cases, a comparison with the first reporting period is not possible since no figures where provided then (BE, ES, SI) or the figures provided then were explicitly marked as being preliminary (RO).  Interestingly, a number of Member States has modified the numbers of Category A facilities (CY, FI, FR, HU, PL, SK, UK). This is partly (e.g. in the case of the UK) due to systematic assessment and following re-classification of facilities during the reporting period, in line with the criteria set by Annex III to EWD and Commission Decision 2009/337.

3.1.1 Main provision 1: Measures in relation to waste management plans and major-accident prevention and information

Part A, question 2, letter b) requires Member States to describe the measures taken to identify major-accident hazards; to incorporate necessary features into facility’s design, operation and closure; and to limit the adverse consequences for human health and/or the environment.

The table below summarises the assessment of the information provided by the Member States regarding the completeness of implementation for this first main provision.

Table 6: Completeness check of implementation on the first main provision of the EWD Response overview Part A Question 2, letter (b) measures taken to: Member identify major accident incorporate into design, limit the adverse State hazards operation and closure consequences AT BE * BG n.a. n.a. n.a. CY CZ DE DK* EE ES* FI* FR GR n.a. n.a. n.a. HR HU IE n.a. n.a. n.a. IT n.a. n.a. n.a. LT* LU n.a. n.a. n.a. LV MT* NL PL PT RO* SE n.a. n.a. n.a. SI* SK UK* * Changed answers in Part A in the 2nd reporting period; n.a.: Did not provide an implementation report for the 2nd reporting period

Member States that did not provide new information on the first main provision

Altogether, 12 Member States did not modify the information provided for question 2, letter b) provided within the first implementation report: Austria, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Germany, Estonia, France, Hungary, Latvia, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, and Slovakia. Thus, it can be assumed that implementation within the Member State has not changed and the evaluation of completeness remains as in the first assessment done by [Ecologic 2012].

Member States that provided new information on the first main provision

In the following, the Member States’ answers are summarized:

 For Belgium it has to be distinguished between the three regions Brussels, Flanders, and Wallonia which all have different legislation. In the following the answers are summarised for each of the regions respectively.

As regards the Category A installations not falling within the scope of the Seveso Directive, to incorporate the necessary features into the design, operation and closure of the installation, and to limit the adverse consequences for human health and/or the environment have all been laid down by the Article 5.2.6.3.2 of the VLAREM II law for the Flemish region.

In the Walloon region the classification of a waste mining facilities is proposed by the mining/quarrying operators based on the recommendations of the Commission Decision of 20 April 2009 and on a risk assessment study which is controlled by the competent officer aided by independent experts. In addition, guidelines for identifying major-accidents and assessing risks are supplied to the operators. The AGW 27 May 2009 “Sectional and general conditions of the mining waste management facilities” includes recommendations on the building and management of the mining waste facilities and on closure and post-closure control. On the basis of these recommendations, the mining/quarrying operators propose management plans which incorporate the description of the design, the exploitation method and the closure measures of the mining waste management facilities. The final design, exploitation and closure requirements are included by the competent authority in the issued permit. Also the measures to limit the adverse consequences for human health and/or the environment are implemented by the AGW 27 May 2009. Recommendations are described in the Chapter VII “Prevention of the water, air and soil pollution”, on this basis the mining/quarrying operators propose management measures which prevent the water, air and soil pollution. This is controlled by the competent officers of the DPA who’s aided by external experts and the final requirements are included by the competent authority in the issued permit.

For the Brussels region the measures to identify major accidents are taken via the environmental permit delivered to the operator, which imposes all necessary measures aiming at preventing and reducing the adverse consequences for human health or the environment and includes recommendations for the prevention of major-accident hazards. In addition, paragraph 2 of Article 4 § 3 of the Order of 28 May 2009 on the management of mining waste from extractive industries states that the best available techniques have to be applied for the exploitation operation. However, specific techniques or technology are not prescribed but the technical

characteristics of the waste management facility - geographical location, local environmental conditions - have to be taken into account. The measures to limit the adverse consequences for human health and/or the environment are included in Article 4 of Order of 28 May 2009.

 Although there are no installations in Denmark that fall within the scope of this main provision, Section 4(3) of the Extractive Waste Order includes required measures. Accordingly, the operator must develop a strategy aimed at preventing major accidents linked to managing extractive waste that must include the operator's general objectives and principles concerning measures for the control of major accident hazards, as well as information on ‘organisation and staff’, ‘identifying and assessing major hazards’, ‘operational control’, ‘managing change’, ‘contingency planning’, ‘monitoring effectiveness’ and ‘monitoring and analysis’. Furthermore, the design, the exploitation method and the closure measures of the mining waste management facilities and the measures to limit the adverse consequences for human health and/or the environment must be set out in the permit conditions. The relevant requirement for environmental permits are set in the Act on environmental protection, cf. Consolidated Act No 879 of 26 June 2010, as amended, and Order No 669 of 18 June 2014 on the approval of listed activities, as well as in Section 5 of the Extractive Waste Order, cf. the requirements laid down in the Extractive Waste Order, and in Annex 2 to Order No 719 of 24 June 2011, as amended.

 Spain reports to have implemented the requirements through Article 37 of Royal Decree 975/2009 following which the operator shall prepare a major-accident prevention policy which shall apply in its management of mining waste, for which it shall institute a safety management system pursuant to Article 38, and shall also implement an internal emergency plan, specifying the measures that must be taken on the mining site in the event of an accident. The major- accident prevention policy document should cover the objectives and general operating principles established by the operator in relation to the control of major-accident hazards.

 In Finland there is a different legal implementation for the mainland of Finland and the Åland Islands, therefore in the following both will be summarised accordingly.

In the mainland, the classification of a waste facility as a major-accident hazard facility is made according to the criteria specified in Annex 2 of the Government Decree on Extractive wastes (190/2013) that sets procedures and limit values for the classification of a waste facility based on the hazards related to the structural stability or mismanagement of the facility, and the amount of hazardous waste and/or hazardous chemicals to be deposited into the facility. Annex 4 stipulates the principles and requirements for drawing up and putting into effect a major- accident prevention policy document, safety management system - covering the identification of major accident hazards - and an internal emergency plan. Also, the safety management system has to establish procedures that systematically recognise major accident hazards during regular and irregular facility operations and must evaluate the likelihood and severity of such accidents. The same measures have been applied for the Åland Islands, they are set in the Environmental Protection Act (2008:124 Section 53j) and the Government Decree on Extractive wastes (2008:108, Section 1).

The measures taken to incorporate the necessary features into the design, operation and closure of the installation are included the Environmental Protection Act of mainland Finland, Section 113, requires that the environmental permit authority (AVI Agency) gives in its permit decision necessary stipulations concerning the construction, management, closure and after-care of the waste facility, as well as stipulations on internal emergency plan if the waste facility can cause major-accident hazard. Also according to Section 115 the risk for major-accident hazard has to be taken into account when establishing major-accident prevention policy document, safety- management system and internal emergency plan. The internal emergency plan has to be re- evaluated at least within every three years, and the supervising regional ELY Centre has to be notified of the revision. The Åland Islands within the Environmental Protection Act (2008:124, Section 53h) state that the environmental permit authority shall submit conditions about design, operations and closure of the installation.

In mainland Finland the measures to limit the adverse consequences for human health and the environment are included in the internal and external safety plans and the permit of the facility. The external emergency plan, which is drawn up in cooperation by the local rescue department and the plant operator, defines the measures to limit and manage with maximum efficiency the accidents and their consequences (Rescue Act 379/2011, Section 48). Each operator must establish an internal emergency plan that has to take into account the accident hazard studies and other studies performed in accordance with the Dam Safety Act (494/2009) in order to obtain an environmental permit. The environmental permit, which includes the internal emergency plan, also stipulates when it has to be updated and how these updates have to be delivered to the supervising authority (regional ELY Centre). Afterwards, the environmental permit authority (AVI Agency) has to request an expert evaluation of the internal emergency plan from the rescue and dam safety authorities before taking its decision on the permit application. In addition, so to limit the adverse effects to human health and the environment the permit authority has to give necessary stipulations in the environmental permit on e.g. emissions, emission limit values, the prevention and limitation of emissions and the location of the site of emission; prevention of soil and groundwater contamination; amount of wastes and reduction of their quantity and harmfulness etc. Permit regulations concerning emission limit values and the prevention and limitation of emissions must be based on the best available technology. If a major-hazard accident occurs the operator has the legal obligation to give immediately the supervising authority and rescue authorities all information that is necessary for minimising the hazards to human health and evaluating and minimising the extent of the already occurred or potential environmental damages. As regards the Åland Islands according to the Government Decree on Extractive wastes (2008:108, Section 3) and the Environmental Protection Act (2008:124 Chapter 12), the waste facility operator should have safety and emergency plans as well as a safety management system to prevent consequences for human health and/or the environment.

 Lithuania’s response to all three elements of this main provision implies that during the reporting period there were no category A installations at Lithuania's mining industry plants.

 Although no category A installations exist in Malta, regulation 8 of The Waste Management (Management of waste from extractive industries and backfilling) Regulations (LN22/09, as amended) provides measures to be followed in the eventuality of a major-accident by category A installations. Furthermore, regulations 11 and 12 provides measures to be followed in the construction and management of a category A installation and closure and after closure procedures respectively. And regulation 13 provides measures to limit the adverse consequences for human health and/or the environment.

 Portugal makes reference to the relevant provisions of national legislation, without describing in further detail the measures taken.

 In Romania both, new (Chapter II of Order No 135/76/84/1284 of 2010) and existing (Government Emergency Ordinance No 244/2000) installations are subject to waste facility hazard classification. In compliance with the provisions of Chapter 4 (Major-accident prevention and information) of GD No 856/2008, mine operators holding a category A waste installation, but not falling under Government Decision No 804/2007 must perform the following actions before starting operation:

- prepare a major-accident prevention plan for the management of extractive waste; - implement a safety management system for the application of the major-accident prevention plan for the management of extractive waste, which has to be achieved in accordance with the provisions of Annex I to GD No 856/2008; - implement an internal emergency plan which should include the measures to be taken on site in case of accident. In addition, the county inspectorates for emergency situations shall prepare an external emergency plan based on the information provided by the operator seeking to obtain the non- IPPC/ integrated environmental permit, indicating the measures to be taken off-site in case of an accident.

As regards the incorporation of the necessary features into the design, operation and closure of the installation, pursuant to Article 35 of Government Decision No 856/2008, in building a new waste facility or modifying an existing waste facility, the operator must ensure several requirements. These requirements have not changed from the ones provided in the response of the first reporting period, that have been summarised in [Ecologic 2012].

For the measures to limit the impact on the environment and human health chapter XI (Prevention of water status deterioration, air and soil pollution) of Government Decision No 856/2008 lays down the conditions to be met by the operator of a waste installation. Thus, the Ministry of the Environment, Water and Forests (MEWF), on the basis of the territorial permits for environmental protection, and the environmental/integrated environmental permit, shall ensure that:

- the operator has taken the necessary measures to prevent water deterioration (Article 44) and to prevent or reduce dust and gas emissions (Article 45);

- the disposal of extractive waste, whether in solid, slurry or liquid form, shall not be made into any receiving body of water other than one constructed for disposing extractive waste; - when placing extractive waste back into excavation voids, whether created through surface or underground extraction, which will be allowed to flood after closure, the operator shall take the necessary measures to prevent or minimise water contamination and soil pollution, in accordance with Articles 44 and 46, and is required to submit to MEWF, through the territorial authorities for environmental protection, the information necessary for ensuring compliance with environmental requirements and, in particular, with Article 48 of Law No 107/1996 on waters. Since solely the wording of the response for the second reporting period regarding other measures limiting the impact on the environment and human health has been changed by Romania, it is not again summarised within this report. The summary of the response provided by Romania within the first reporting period is included in [Ecologic 2012].

 An installation operator shall have a protection and relief plan in place in Slovenia in order to identify major accidents. The necessary features for the design, operation and closure of the installation, shall be verified at the time of issuing an environmental permit. In addition, the measures to limit the adverse consequences for human health and/or the environment must be identified in the respective waste management plan.

 The response to question 2, letter b) of Part A from the United Kingdom has only slightly substantially changed its response for the relevant elements of this main provision compared to the first reporting period. Therefore, only those parts which have been changed are summarised for each of the four regions (England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland) respectively in this report.

Concerning the measures to identify major accidents Scotland has published a guidance on these issues. The preliminary design should be developed to minimise hazards, where this is not possible, the whole design should still have iteratively minimised risks to prevent accidents and limit the consequence of any accidents that do occur. Design and assessment work undertaken by the operator for compliance with the Quarries Regulations 1999 and/or Mines and Quarries Tips Act, should identify major accident hazards of any type with respect to human beings. Under these Regulations, a hazard should be considered significant if such a failure would, directly or indirectly, be:

- liable to endanger premises, roadways or other places where people are likely to be found off-site; or - likely to kill or seriously injure anyone. Also, in relation to the environment, operators should firstly identify any tips or lagoons which are classed under the Quarries Regulations as significant hazards and where loss of structural integrity or incorrect operation could result in solid waste or slurry leaving the site. Where there is such scope, the operator should state whether he considers there is potential for serious

danger to the environment in accordance with Decision 2009/337/EC. Wales has adopted a new guidance document related to measures to identify major accidents.13

Regarding the second item of this main provision in Wales, applicants are required to identify how the facility will be designed, operated and closed, within their waste management plan as part of their permit application. These will be assessed by the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales, in determination of the environmental permit. In Scotland, the Quarries Regulations 1999 require that structures, including tips and ponds, at all quarries and surface coal mining sites, are designed and operated to be safe and stable and, on closure, they must be left in a safe condition. A key aspect of these Regulations is an operator obligation that tips (including lagoons) are designed, constructed, operated and maintained to ensure that instability or movement which is likely to give rise to a risk to the health and safety of any person is avoided. This objective is achieved through general duties on operators to ensure safety of excavations and tips and rules that should be applied.

Additionally, measures to limit the adverse consequences for human health and/or the environment are implemented in England, Wales, and Scotland. In England, for all Category A installations applicants are required to identify all major accident hazards in their permit application. Pathways to environmental receptors must be identified and assessed. The Waste Management Plan includes mitigation for all identified risks to human health and the environment; conditions within the permit require that these measures are put into operation. Since Wales has not issued permits for Category A sites no examples of actual measures to be employed technical guidance are available to assist preparation of permit applications. However, technical guidance is available to assist preparation of permit applications (see Link above). In Scotland when applying for a permit, operators should explicitly describe how major accident hazards (i.e. the susceptibilities which might give rise to a major accident) have been identified and addressed in the final proposal. This should include relocation or redesign and incorporation of safety factors and other mitigation. When considering the application, the local authority planning department will consider any risk to the environment as part of the decision making process. If it is not satisfied that adequate steps have been taken to limit adverse consequences for human health and/or the environment then the permit will be refused.

3.1.2 Main provision 2: Practical arrangements ensuring transmission of information to competent authorities and public

Within the Questionnaire for the report by Member States on the implementation of the EWD, Part A question 4 requires Member States to describe the situation regarding public participation and transboundary effects. Letter (c) of this question is related to the practical arrangements taken by the operators to ensure that required information is transmitted immediately to the competent authority; to ensure that information on safety measures and on action required is provided to the public; and to ensure that information is forwarded to the other Member State in case of installation

13 available under: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/296493/LIT_8451_eb68e4.pdf

European Commission Final report Provision and elaboration of information for the preparation of the “Implementation Report of Directive 2006/21/EC on the management of waste from extractive industries” ENV.C.2/FRA/2013/0023 55 with a potential transboundary impact. The table below provides the assessment of completeness based on the responses provided by the Member States for the second main provision of the EWD.

Table 7: Completeness check of implementation on the second main provision of the EWD Response overview Part A Question 4, letter (c) practical arrangements taken to ensure that information is: Member transmitted to competent on safety measures/action forwarded to the other State authority provided to the public? Member State AT BE * BG n.a. n.a. n.a. CY CZ DE DK* EE ES* FI* FR GR n.a. n.a. n.a. HR HU IE n.a. n.a. n.a. IT n.a. n.a. n.a. LT* LU n.a. n.a. n.a. LV MT* NL PL PT RO* SE n.a. n.a. n.a. SI* SK UK* * Changed answers in Part A in the 2nd reporting period; n.a.: Did not provide an implementation report for the 2nd reporting period

Member States that did not provide new information on the first main provision

Altogether, 12 Member States did not change the information provided for question 2, letter b) provided within the first implementation report, these are Austria, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Germany, Estonia, France, Hungary, Latvia, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, and Slovakia. Thus, it can be assumed that implementation within the Member State has not changed and the evaluation of completeness remains as in the first assessment made by [Ecologic 2012].

Member States that provided new information on the first main provision

 In Belgium the practical arrangements taken to ensure that required information is transmitted immediately by the operator to the competent authority case of major accident are implemented in all three regions separately. The Flemish region has set practical arrangements in Article 5.2.6.3, §4 of VLAREM II, the Brussels region in Annex I of the order 28 May 2009 relating to the management of waste from the extractive industry. Finally, the Walloon region in Article 10 of the AGW 27 May 2009 states that in case of major accident the operator has to supply the competent authority with all the information which allows to prevent or to minimise the damages for the human health and the environment. Moreover, Article 21 of the “Cooperation agreement relating to the management of the hazards due to major accidents” rules that in case of accidents, the operator has to inform immediately the centre of coordination and crisis which has in charge to inform the federal competent Ministry and the regional environment Ministry and the competent coordination and inspection departments.

In relation to practical arrangements taken to ensure that information on safety measures and on action required is provided to the public the Flemish region has included this as requirement in Article 2.12.0.3.§2 of VLAREM II and the Brussels region in Annex I of the Order 28 May 2009 relating to the management of waste from the extractive industry. In case of a major accidents Article 21 of the “Cooperation agreement relating to the management of the hazards due to major accidents”, charges the centre of coordination and crisis to inform the competent authority of the regions where potential transboundary impacts are expected, this applicable for all three regions.

The third item of the second main provision asks the Member States for practical arrangements taken to ensure that information provided by the operator is forwarded to the other Member State in case of installation with a potential transboundary impact. In the Flemish region, this requirement is implemented in Article 2.12.03., § 1, Vlarem II stating: “The Environment, Nature and Energy Department immediately forwards the information provided to it under Article 5.2.6.3.2 of the present Order to any other region or other Member State which may experience significantly adverse environmental effects through the operation of a category A waste facility and an accident at said facility. This shall be done to reduce to a minimum the effects of the accident on human health and to assess the extent of actual and potential environmental damage and limit this to a minimum”. Article 14 of the Order of 28 May 2009 on the management of waste from extractive industry (transboundary impact) sets this requirement in the Brussels region. In addition as described above, Article 21 of the “Cooperation agreement relating to the management of the hazards due to major accidents” is applicable for all three regions.

 Denmark’s response indicates that there are no Category A installations on their territory, and that therefore no practical arrangements have been made for the case of major accidents.

 The Croatian Ordinance OG 1 No. 128/2008 states in the chapter ‘Prevention of major accidents and public information’ -Article 14 the necessary requirements in for major accidents prevention and intervention in case of such accidents and ensures that required information is transmitted

immediately by the operator to the competent authority. Pursuant to Article 16 of this Ordinance in the case of a major accidents, the operator must provide all information necessary to the National Protection and Rescue Directorate in order to reduce the impacts on human health and to avoid potential environmental pollution. Also, in accordance with Article 37 of the Law on Protection and Rescue14 the operational and communication centre (NPRD) receives calls related to major accidents and promptly informs all competent authorities and coordinates communication amongst the operational forces. The operator has the obligation to inform within 48 hours, the Ministry for environmental protection (MENP) and the National Protection and Rescue Directorate of any event likely to have an effect on the stability of the facility/installation as well as of any undesirable environmental effect. Additionally, the operator must follow all the instructions given by the MENP so that measures may be taken to redress regular operation conditions and must bear all costs of such measures. If the operator is further a Seveso operator, according to Ordinance OG No. 113/08, all necessary data should be sent to CEA within 30 days to include information on the major accident in the “Registry of installations with dangerous substances” (RPOT) and the “Register of reported major accidents” (OPVN).

Regarding the practical arrangements taken to ensure that information on safety measures and on action required is provided to the public, requirements are described in Article 29a of the Law on Protection and Rescue14 and Article 20 (2) of Ordinance OG No. 128/2008 states that the public concerned has to be informed, if:

- a permit application has been submitted, - another country has been notified of the permit application due to potential transboundary effects caused by the facility/installation, - in accordance with a special environmental protection regulation which, in the opinion of the competent authority, is relevant for the issuance or amendment of the permit concerned. Moreover, Article 27 of Ordinance OG No. 128/2008 establishes the obligation for the competent authority to inform the competent authority from another State in case of installation with a potential transboundary impact. In addition, the same information has to be provided upon request by another State for installations with a potential transboundary impact. Exchange of such information on international level is the obligation of the NPRD according to Chapter III of the Regulation on Standard operating procedures.

 In Lithuania, the practical arrangements taken to ensure that required information is transmitted immediately by the operator to the competent authority are laid down in Annex 1 “Major accident prevention policy requirements” to the Procedure for the management of waste from mining industries approved by Order No D1-922 of the Minister for the Environment of 16 November 2010. To ensure that information on safety measures and on action required is provided to the public Annex 2 'List of information to be provided to the public' to the Procedure for the management of waste from mining industries approved by Order No D1-922 of the Minister for the Environment of 16 November 2010 sets all necessary measures. Finally, measures to ensure that information provided by the operator is forwarded to the other

14 OG No.174/2004, 79/2007, 38/2009 and 127/2010

Member State in case of installation with a potential transboundary impact are set in the subsurface resources exploitation plan approved by the Lithuanian Geological Survey.

 Portugal makes reference to the relevant provisions of national legislation, without describing in further detail the measures taken.

 The Romanian response to Part A, question 4 letter c) has only been slightly adapted in comparison to the first reporting period that was summarised in detail in [Ecologic 2012], thus only relevant changes of implementation regarding this main provision are summarised within this report. As regards the practical arrangements taken to ensure that required information is transmitted immediately by the operator to the competent authority, the competent authority for major-accident prevention is the General Inspectorate for Emergency Situations (GIES) which controls the County Inspectorates for Emergency Situations. Also, the operator shall notify, within 3 hours from the time of the event, the county inspectorates for emergency situations, the territorial authorities for environmental protection and the territorial structures of NAMR of any event likely to affect the stability of the waste installation or any significant adverse environmental effects revealed by the control and monitoring procedures of the waste installation. Under these circumstances, the operator shall implement the internal emergency plan and follow any other instruction of the county inspectorates for emergency situations, NAMR and MEWF, through territorial authorities for environmental protection, as to the corrective measures. State-owned operators shall also notify the Ministry of the Economy, Commerce and Tourism (MECT) of these events and shall also follow its instructions for taking the corrective measures.

The county inspectorates for emergency situations (IES) ensures that information on safety measures and the action required in the event of an accident, containing at least the elements regarding the safety management system (as part of the general management system), which includes the organisational structure, responsibilities, practices, procedures, processes and resources for determining and implementing the major-accident prevention plan, is provided, free of charge and as a matter of course, to the public concerned.

In the event of an accident involving a category A waste installation, the information provided by the operator to GIES, through county inspectorates for emergency situations, is readily transmitted by GIES to the other Member State’s competent authority, in order to minimise the consequences of the accident on the public health and evaluate and minimise the actual or potential environmental damage (Article 56 of GD No 856/2008).

 Like Romania, the United Kingdom did also not change all of the answers provided for the first reporting period regarding this second main provision. Solely the implementation in Scotland has been modified, and is summarised hereafter. The Scottish transposing regulations requires that, in the event of a major accident, the operator must immediately provide the emergency planning authority with all the information required to help minimise the consequences of the accident and to allow the assessment and minimisation of actual and potential extent of the environment damage. Moreover, the safety measures will be set out in external emergency plans that are prepared to meet the requirements of Annex 1 of Directive 2006/21/EC. This will be tailored to

the specific circumstances of individual sites and will specify the measures to be taken in the event of a major accident. If the accident is likely to have a significant effect on another Member State the local authority must also notify the Scottish Government who will then forward the information to the Member State.

3.1.3 Main provision 3: Number of Category A facilities with potential transboundary impact

The result of the completeness check regarding this main provision is depicted in the table below.

Table 8: Completeness check of implementation on the third main provision of the EWD Response Overview Part B Member Number of State Question 1, letter (c) Category A facilities with potential transboundary impact AT BE * BG n.a. CY CZ DE DK* EE ES* FI* FR GR n.a. HR HU IE n.a. IT n.a. LT* LU n.a. LV MT* NL PL PT RO*

SE n.a. SI* SK UK*

The only Member State that has indicated having a Category A facility which a possible impact on another Member State is Spain which reports two relevant sites:

 An uranium mine “Retortillo-Santidad”, in the municipalities of Retortillo and Villavieja de Yeltes (province of Salamanca), which could affect the Duero in Portugal, and

 A prospecting permit for a gold mine, although an operating permit has not yet been issued. The name is 'San Antonio, No 12 801', and the location is in the municipalities of La Codosera and Alburquerque, in Badajoz, 6 km from the Portuguese border. Tributaries of the River Guadiana in Portugal could be affected.

3.1.4 Main provision 4: Number of missing waste management plans for Category A facilities

The result of the completeness check regarding this main provision is depicted in the table below.

Table 9: Completeness check of implementation on the fourth main provision of the EWD Response Overview Part B Member Number of State Question 2, letter (b) (missing) external emergency plans AT BE * BG n.a. CY CZ DE DK* EE ES* FI* FR GR n.a. HR HU IE n.a. IT n.a. LT* LU n.a. LV MT* NL PL PT n.a. RO* SE n.a. SI* SK UK*

The following table depicts the indicated figures for external emergency plans in place, missing external emergency plans, and remarks as applicable.

Table 10: Summary of Member States’ answers regarding the fourth main provision Missing Remarks External external emergency emergency plans plans CY 1 0 Germany reports all necessary external emergency plans as missing, obviously requiring such a plan for all five Category A facilities (i.e. not only the three sites in operation, but also including the reported two sites in closure phase). In detail: - for one facility the plan is currently elaborated (presumably finalized end DE 0 5 of 2016); - for four others, emergency plans are existing which are currently assessed whether they formally need to be reviewed in the light of the EWD's requirements. For two of these four facilities, it is further assessed whether there are possible impacts outside the facility at all; further, one of these four facilities is in the final phase of closure. In contrast to Germany’s approach, Estonia does not require an external emergency plan for the (one) Category A facility since it is in “the first EE 0 0* stage of closing” (in the Table, this facility is counted as “closed or abandoned”) No figures indicated. Information is given that every Category A facility (assumed: the 25 in operation, and one in closure phase) is legally ES 26* 0 supposed to be inspected at least once a year, but no data are provided in terms of whether this national law is complied with by the competent authorities at regional level. The figures for Finland have slightly increased in comparison to first reporting period. In terms of missing reports, the following information is provided: • For one facility, according to the local rescue department, the preparation of the external emergency plan started in 2013 and is currently being finalized (should be ready in January-February 2015) FI 4 5 • For one Category A facility, the process is under way. According to the rescue department, the operator has already made the internal emergency plan as well hazard analysis for the dam. • Two mines are Seveso II facilities and hence Article 6 of the Directive 2006/21/EC does not apply to them. One of these mines has two Category A waste facilities. FR / / No answer provided The figures for Hungary have slightly increased in comparison to first HU 3 3 reporting period, in line with the re-classification of facilities as Category A PL 1 0 In terms of the three missing external emergency plans, the report states PT 0 3 that they “are in progress” RO 2 0 Information has been provided that operator of one Category A installation is in insolvency proceedings and has not complied with SK 2* 1* obligations of national law. It is not entirely clear from the answer, to what extent the requirements of Article 6(3) EWD have been

implemented into domestic legislation The figures for the UK have increased in comparison to first reporting UK 2 2 period, in line with the re-classification of facilities as Category A

black = identical figure as during previous reporting period red = decrease of figure in comparison with previous reporting period green = increase of figure in comparison with previous reporting period / = No answer for second reporting period * = No comparison possible with first reporting period, or estimation (please consult the respective chapter as applicable)

The missing external emergency plans sum up to 19, which equals to around one third of all Category A facilities.

3.1.5 Main provision 5: Number of inspections for Category A facilities

The result of the completeness check is depicted in the table below.

Table 11: Completeness check of implementation on the fifth main provision of the EWD Response Overview Part B Member Number of State Question 5, letter (a) inspections achieved for Category A and the other installations AT BE * BG n.a. CY CZ DE DK* EE ES* FI* FR GR n.a. HR HU

IE n.a. IT n.a. LT* LU n.a. LV MT* NL PL PT n.a. RO*

Response Overview Part B Member Number of State Question 5, letter (a) inspections achieved for Category A and the other installations SE n.a. SI* SK UK*

The following table depicts the indicated figures for inspections in Category A and other facilities, and remarks as applicable. Note that neither the EWD nor the Questionnaire define what an inspection is and how to count it.

Table 12: Summary of Member States’ answers regarding the fifth main provision

Number of Remark (Category A and "other") inspections CY 1 DE 46 Figure has strongly increased in comparison with first reporting period. EE 0 ES No figures indicated. Information is given that every Category A facility (assumed: the 25 in operation, and one in closure phase) is according to domestic legislation 78* supposed to be inspected at least once a year. No data are provided in terms of whether this national law is complied with by the competent authorities at regional level. FI 41 FR 1 HU 115 Figure has strongly increased in comparison with first reporting period. PL 1 PT 18 RO 17 SK 15 UK Whereas for England, a figure is indicated (4), this is not the case for Scotland where, 7* similar to the answer given by Spain, only the legally foreseen frequency is indicated (which is once per year). No inspections at all for Wales and Northern Ireland,

3.1.6 Overview table on figures regarding Category A facilities

The following table is based on estimations provided by Member States as part of their reply. The table also includes those Member States which reports have not been assessed by the project team but by the Commission Services (Bulgaria, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, and Sweden,). Regarding a comparison of figures with those provided during the first reporting period, please consult Table 5: Information provided by the Member States on the number of Category A facilities on their territory in Annex I of the Questionnaire (chapter 3.1).

Table 13: Overview table on figures provided by selected MS in terms of Category A facilities

/ = No answer for second reporting period; * = No comparison possible with first reporting period, or estimation made by the project team (please consult the respective chapter as applicable)

3.2 Key conclusions for each Member State

The following section contains key conclusions for each Member State based on their reply to the questionnaire. The Commission Services have assessed the reports of Bulgaria, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, and Sweden, and have elaborated the respective sub-chapters for those Member States which are integrated in this section for the ease of reading.

3.2.1 Austria

As one of three Member States, Austria has extractive waste facilities on its territory, however, none of these is classified as Category A facility. Altogether there are 33 extractive waste facilities in operation (an increase of the number of facilities falling under the scope of the Directive from 24 to 34 due to incomplete data in the first report; three of these installations have now been closed). Out of the facilities 4 have a permit, two of which were granted during the second reporting period. The number of inspections has slightly increased; WMPs have not rejected during first or second reporting period.

The implementation of the main provisions that are all related to Category A facilities is not relevant. Austria has provided answers to Part B of the Questionnaire, all of which were evaluated as complete.

3.2.2 Belgium

In Belgium, the situation is similar as in Austria – there are no Category A extractive waste facilities. The answer now includes full replies regarding the Brussels region. Further, the answer for the Walloon Region which apparently had not fully implemented the EWD's provisions during the first reporting period is now complete and figures not provided during the first reporting period are fully provided now.

In total, Belgium has three non-hazardous non inert waste facilities in operation, all of them are situated in the Walloon region.

3.2.3 Bulgaria

Bulgaria provided a response to Part B of the Questionnaire for the second reporting period and four answers were assessed as incomplete. According to the provided information Bulgaria has 2 Category A Waste facilities in operation, both of which have permits granted during the reporting period. In neither case were there any indications that the facilities may have a potential environmental or human health impact on another Member State.

302 extractive waste management plans were received for review and approval by the competent body (the Ministry of Economy, Energy and Tourism) during the reporting period (1 May 2011 – 30 April 2014). 116 plans were approved and the others were rejected temporarily until deficiencies were resolved or additional information provided. The facility operators were given instructions and time-limits for resolving the irregularities. This shows a big increase in comparison with the first reporting period when 59 plans have been submitted and only 9 have been approved.

No procedures for the closure of Category ‘A’ installations were commenced and the competent body did not grant any clearances for the commencement of such procedures during the reporting period. According to the information provided in respect to the previous reporting period, the closed facilities which are regularly monitored are 15 tailings ponds and sludge ponds.

The main difficulty encountered in implementing the Directive, including its transposition into Bulgarian law, was the definition of ‘waste facility’ pursuant to Article 3(15) of the Directive, in particular the interpretation of the term ‘waste’. The alignment of the national provisions on major accidents with the requirements of the Directive posed another difficulty.

3.2.4 Cyprus

Cyprus provided a response to Part B of the Questionnaire and all answers to the main provisions were assessed as complete. The situation in Cyprus regarding extractive waste facilities falling under the scope of the EWD can be summarised as follows: there is one Category A facility in operation which stopped the waste discharge in the tailing pond since the operator intends to recycle the waste in order to extract the remaining amounts of copper. The application for the respective permit has been revised and is under examination.

15 facilities were declassified from being waste facilities, the main reason for the declassification being that the waste was deposited in the excavation voids. 12 facilities that now considered as not Category A. It is assumed that the implementation of the first and second main provision has not changed due to the fact that Part A of the Questionnaire was not answered in the second reporting period (for status of implementation see [Ecologic 2012]). The only extractive waste facilities of Category A in operation has no potential environmental or human health impact on another Member State (main provision 3). Moreover, this Category A facility, Hellenic Copper Mines, is already covered by an emergency plan (main provision 4); during the reporting period, one inspection was conducted in this facility (main provision 5).

3.2.5 Czech Republic

The Czech Republic provided for the second reporting period answers to Part B of the Questionnaire; all of the responses were evaluated as complete. The replies regarding the five main provisions were evaluated as complete which is an improvement compared to the first reporting period where the answers provided for third, fourth, and fifth main provision were assessed as incomplete (see [Ecologic 2012]).

There are no Category A facilities on the territory of the Czech Republic but there are seven not category A extractive waste facilities in operation, five in closure phase and four are already closed or abandoned. Overall, the reply is being rated incomplete (see Annex 1, section 5.1.4).

3.2.6 Germany

The assessment of implementation for the first two main provisions did not change from the first to the second reporting period due to the fact that Germany did not change its response provided during the first period. Both main provisions are evaluated as complete in line with [Ecologic 2012].

Also, all three main provisions included in Part B of the Questionnaire were assessed as complete for the second reporting period.

Germany has 3 Category A facilities in operation, 2 are currently in closure phase. For those, external emergency plans are drawn up by the civil protection authorities in accordance with the legislation of the Land in question. In accordance with Section 22a(5) of the Federal Mines Regulation, operators must provide the authority with the necessary information for external emergency planning. Currently, none of the Category A installations is covered by an emergency plan, 5 plans are missing out of which one plan is currently elaborated (presumably finalised end of 2016) and for the four other existing emergency plans it has to be assessed whether they formally need to be reviewed in the light of the EWD's requirements (main provision 4). During the second reporting period 1073 inspections were achieved (nearly twice as during the first reporting period) out of which 46 were conducted in Category A and the other installations (main provision 5).

3.2.7 Greece

Greece provided responses to Part B of the Questionnaire for the reference period 1 May 2011 - 30 April 2014. In Greece only one Category A facility has been approved during the reporting period with the adoption of a decision approving the environmental conditions (DAEC) for mining activity which also includes extractive waste management. The facility in question is unlikely to have any impact on human health or the environment in other Member States. The total number of facilities in operation in Greece is 233. During the period 2011-15 no waste facility has been closed within the meaning of Article 12 of the Directive.

According to the responses, checks/inspections are carried out in compliance with the environmental terms and/or the provisions of the Mining and Quarrying Code. The exact number of checks carried out is not available.

A difficulty pointed out by Greece is that, given that a list of inert extractive waste has not yet been established, the extractive waste management plans submitted and assessed are currently examined on the basis of the criteria laid down in Decision 2009/359/EC. The criterion in point (d) of Decision 2009/359/EC states that in order for waste from extractive industries to be considered as inert, its content of heavy metals and metalloids must be sufficiently low and must not ‘exceed national threshold values for sites identified as not contaminated or relevant national natural background levels’. In Greece, there are currently no threshold values for sites considered as not contaminated.

3.2.8 Denmark

During the first reporting period, from Denmark’s reply it was apparent that the legal implementation of the EWD’s requirements into national legislation had yet to be completed; now, whereas the framework is in place and thus the reply is rated complete, the essence of Denmark’s reply is that there is no facility falling under the scope of the Directive. Thus, within this report, an in- depth assessment of the implementation of the main provisions related to Category A facilities is not done.

3.2.9 Estonia

Estonia reported for the first reporting period that the results of an inventory on the facilities under its jurisdiction would not have been fully available. Now, this exercise has been completed, leading to the number of Category A facilities being reduced to one facility (from estimated 11 during the first reporting period), bringing this figure into congruence with the figure in the Annex to the Questionnaire. Altogether, Estonia has one Category A facility on its territory but none in operation; for this facility, it is reported that“ the first stage of closing is in process”, yet the facility is within the Table to the Questionnaire not presented as in “closure phase”, but as “closed/abandoned”. This extractive waste does not have an emergency plan (main provision 4) and no inspection was conducted for this facility (main provision 5). Additionally three not Category A extractive waste facilities are in operation and 36 closed or abandoned facilities. Estonia did not respond to Part A of the Questionnaire but only replied to Part B. Based on the answers of Part B, all three main provisions were evaluated as complete.

3.2.10 Spain

Spain did fill both Part A and Part B of the Questionnaire in the second reporting period but did not change the response content for main provisions one and two. Spain’s answer was rated as incomplete, but not on grounds of incomplete answers to the main provisions.

Spain has indicated the highest number of Category A facilities of all Member States, plus further number of extractive waste facilities falling under the scope of the EWD. In total, Spain has 25 Category A facilities in operation with a permit and one in closure phase, and 78 closed or abandoned facilities. In terms of not Category A facilities 1558 are in operation, 73 in closure phase. At the moment two Category A facilities (one of which not yet operational) may have transboundary impacts on another Member State. All Category A installations in Spain are required to have an external emergency plan, under Article 40, and also an internal plan under Article 39. National legislation stipulates that the mining authority is required to conduct an annual inspection of all waste facilities, all Category A facilities therefore should be inspected at least once year by competent authorities in mining. Figures are neither indicated for main provision 4 nor for main provision 5.

3.2.11 Finland

For the second reporting period on the implementation of the EWD, Finland provided a response for both Part A and Part B of the Questionnaire. However, the implementation of main provision one and two did not change, the marginal changes that were made in the answer are the addition of missing complete citation legislation, e.g. Government Decree on Extractive Wastes (190/2013). The response in terms if main provisions was assessed as complete.

As regards Part B of the Questionnaire, the figure Finland reports on is Category A facilities in operation is the second highest in the EU with nine. In terms of not Category A facilities 36 inert waste facilities and 38 non-hazardous non inert facilities are in operation. All of the Category A facilities are situated in Mainland Finland (none on the Aland Islands): Finland reports two approved

European Commission Final report Provision and elaboration of information for the preparation of the “Implementation Report of Directive 2006/21/EC on the management of waste from extractive industries” ENV.C.2/FRA/2013/0023 69 external emergency plans for Category A waste facilities at the end 2014, these are Yara Suomi Oy, apatite mine in Siilinjärvi, North Savo, and Agnico-Eagle Finland Oy, Kittilä gold mine in Kittilä, Lapland (covers three separate Category A waste facilities in the area). According to the report, these facilities fall under the scope of Seveso Directive. Further, there are 5 Category A waste facilities for which separate external emergency plans have not yet been approved, the elaboration of two of which were under way at the time of provision of the report; three facilities fall under the scope of Seveso Directive. 41 inspections are reported made in Category A waste facilities during the reporting period (main provision 5).

3.2.12 France

Like most Member States, France did not change the answers in Part A for the second reporting period hence, the evaluation of main provision one and two is not changed compared to the first period [Ecologic 2012].

France has submitted a rather concise reply which is rated incomplete due to the fact that the request for the number of “Category A in operation having a potential environmental or human health impact on another Member State (B.1. (c)) has apparently been misunderstood and that a reply to the question to existing and/or missing external emergency plans as well as the planning for establishing these plans was missing (main provision 4). The figure for Category A has been decreasing in comparison to the first reporting period (from 3 to 1), whereas the number for inert waste facilities has risen from 800 to more than 4,000.

For the fifth main provision a complete answer was submitted stating that in total 3.400 inspections were carried out during the reporting period out of which one was related to a Category A installation. Also, a programme of inspection has been drawn up at the appropriate geographical level.

3.2.13 Croatia

Croatia has submitted one of the most elaborated and extensive replies to Part A. of the Questionnaire. Having joined in the EU in 2013, the current reporting period is the first one for Croatia. However, in terms of Part B., Croatia indicates that there are no facilities falling under the scope of the Directive. Thus, within this report, an in-depth assessment of the implementation of the main provisions related to Category A facilities is not done.

3.2.14 Hungary

For the second reporting period on the implementation of the EWD Hungary only provided a response for Part B of the Questionnaire. It can be deduced that the implementation of the two first main provisions has not changed and is complete in line with the assessment of [Ecologic 2012].

Hungary has indicated a substantially higher figure for Category A facilities (6 instead of 2) as during the first reporting period, as well as deviating figures for all other categories (significantly higher for facilities in operation and for facilities in closure phase). Also, the number of rejected Waste Management Plans has considerably increased (from 4 to 19)

The main provision three, four and five were assessed to be complete within the second reporting period. Hungary considers that none of its Category A facilities has an impact on another Member State (see in this respect the doubts of [Ecologic 2012]). The external emergency plans in force for Category A installations are AL Kolontár - Ajka red sludge pond, Répcelak II. - carbon dioxide extraction plant and Mihályi II. carbon dioxide extraction plant (main provision 4). The number of inspections undertaken for the reporting period in Category A and the other installations is 115. As regards a programme of inspection there was no specific review program on national scale a priori, but subsequent to the red sludge disaster at the Ajka plant there were exceptional prompt inspections for all tailing ponds. Moreover, the Mining Authority carried out inspection on mining waste management facilities on compliance with several regulatory requirements (main provision 5).

3.2.15 Ireland

Ireland provided a response to Part B of the Questionnaire for the second reporting period and only one answer was assessed as incomplete.

The estimate of the number of extractive waste facilities in Ireland including Environmental Protection Agency and Local Authority is 1147, of which 25 come within the remit of the Environmental Protection Agency. It has been reported that there are 4 category A waste facilities in operation with permit on the territory of Ireland, 2 of which are in operation and 2 in closure phase. According to the provided information there are 20 not Category A Inert waste treatment facilities in operation and 17 in operation with permit. The number of cases of waste facilities of Category A in operation having a potential environmental or human health impact on another Member State has increased from 0 to 4.

No waste management plans have been approved or rejected during the first reporting period, whereas during the second period the provided number is 14 (not specified in the response whether approved or rejected).

According to the reply provided by Ireland, a difficulty encountered in implementing the Directive is that some provisions are difficult to understand and/or interpret.

3.2.16 Italy

All replies provided by Italy to Part B of the Questionnaire for the second reporting period were assessed as complete. According to the responses the number of extractive waste facilities on the territory of Italy is 456, 126 of which are extractive waste facilities of Category A in operation. The number of extractive waste facilities of Category A in operation in Italy having a potential environmental or human health impact on another Member State is 2. It has been also reported that 4 Category A installations are covered by an emergency plan and the number of installations for which a permit has been issued in conformity with the provision of the Directive is 49. In relation to achieved inspection for the respective period, it is visible from the replies that no inspections of Category A facilities and Non inert, non hazardous installations and 349 inspections of Inert waste installations have been achieved.

3.2.17 Latvia

Latvia has provided answers to Part B of the Questionnaire. However, based on this information Latvia has no extractive waste facilities at all on its territory falling under the scope of this Directive. For this reason, within this report, an in depth assessment of the implementation of the main provisions related to Category A facilities is not done.

3.2.18 Lithuania

Lithuania has provided answers to Part B of the Questionnaire. However, based on this information Lithuania has no extractive waste facilities at all on its territory falling under the scope of this Directive. For this reason, within this report, an in depth assessment of the implementation of the main provisions related to Category A facilities is not done.

3.2.19 Luxembourg

Luxembourg provided a response to Part B of the Questionnaire for the second reporting period. Luxembourg has currently no waste management facilities subject to the provisions of Directive 2006/21/ EC. For this reason, within this report, an in depth assessment of the implementation of the main provisions related to Category A facilities is not done.

3.2.20 Malta

Malta has provided answers to Part B of the Questionnaire. However, based on this information Malta has no extractive waste facilities at all on its territory falling under the scope of this Directive. For this reason, within this report, an in depth assessment of the implementation of the main provisions related to Category A facilities is not done.

3.2.21 The Netherlands

The Netherlands provided answers to Part B of the Questionnaire. However, based on this information the Netherlands have no extractive waste facilities at all on its territory falling under the scope of this Directive. For this reason, within this report, an in depth assessment of the implementation of the main provisions related to Category A facilities is not done.

3.2.22 Poland

The assessment of implementation for the first two main provisions did not change from the first to the second reporting period due to the fact that Poland did not change its response provided during the first period. Both main provisions are evaluated as complete [Ecologic 2012].

Poland has one Category A facility in operation with a permit The only Category A facility in operation is by an external emergency plan (main provision 4). Also, in 2011 one inspection was carried out at the Category A facility (main provision 5). Further, 99 not Category A waste facilities (in comparison with zero sites reported during the first reporting period) are reported.

3.2.23 Portugal

Portugal has submitted replies to both Part A and B of the Questionnaire for the second reporting period; however, Part A is to a large extent identical with the one submitted during the first reporting period, not going beyond the reference to national legislation in response to the request for measures.

Portugal has three Category A facilities in operation with permit, for none of which the external emergency plan has yet been completed.

3.2.24 Romania

Romania has submitted a comparably extensive reply, which was rated complete. Whereas for the first reporting period, the answer was given that all figures were intended to be updated and thus had a somewhat preliminary character, no such statement is made with respect to the information provided during the second reporting period. In terms of the first two main provisions, substantial changes are restricted to responsibilities of authorities.

Romania has only two Category A waste facility in operation with a permit and none in closure, transition phase or closed, one of them is a Seveso. In addition, there are 60 inert waste installations in operation, 38 in closure phase and 226 not Category A are closed or abandoned. The two extractive waste facilities of Category A in operation have no potential environmental or human health impact on another Member State (main provision 3). Moreover, this Category A installations identified through extractive waste management plans, endorsed and approved, have an internal emergency plan, as well as an external emergency plan in place according to Article 16(2) of GD No 856/2008 (main provision 4) and during the reporting period 17 inspections were conducted in the Category A facilities (main provision 5).

3.2.25 Slovakia

Slovakia indicates in comparison with the first reporting period that all facilities (the number of which has decreased from 4 to 3 for Category A facilities, and from 142 to 119 for Inert Waste / Non- hazardous non-inert waste) safe one Category facility obtains a permit in compliance with the Directive’s requirements. The assessment of implementation for the first two main provisions did not change from the first to the second reporting period due to the fact that Slovakia did not change its response provided during the first period. The implementation of the two main provisions included in the questions of Part A of the Questionnaire are assessed as complete, see [Ecologic 2012]. The three main provisions included in Part B of the Questionnaire were assessed as complete for the second reporting period.

Slovakia reports that waste management authorities do not have the authority to control the establishment of external emergency plans, they would only have the possibility to check the provision of information by operators to produce these plans. Two operators of Category A installations provided all the information required to produce external emergency plans and one operator is in insolvency proceedings and has not complied with any of the legal obligations.

3.2.26 Slovenia

Slovenia has provided answers to the “Questionnaire for the report by Member States on the implementation of Directive 2006/21/EC” for both Part A and Part B. Slovenia states it has currently no waste management facilities subject to the provisions of Directive 2006/21/ EC. For this reason, within this report, an in depth assessment of the implementation of the main provisions related to Category A facilities is not done.

3.2.27 Sweden

According to the provided by Sweden replies to Part B of the Questionnaire, in Sweden there are 44 facilities in operation (five of the facilities in operation handle inert waste). 15 mining companies have risk facilities for extractive waste, but some sites may have more than one risk facility. In accordance with the provided information two of the facilities currently in closure phase are risk facilities. Three of the sites with risk facilities on the territory of Sweden have been classified as Seveso plants. The supervisory authorities have identified 300 sites with closed or abandoned waste facilities that pose or may pose serious risks to human health or the environment. There may be more than one waste facility on a site.

During the reporting period, seven waste management plans were approved by the supervisory authorities. The supervisory authorities report that the municipalities of Kiruna, Gällivare, Hedemora and Storuman have external emergency plans. There are no such plans for 11 facilities. One plan will be drawn up in the course of 2015, and work has begun on two further plans.

3.2.28 United Kingdom

The United Kingdom did provide a response for Part A and B of the Questionnaire. The main change in comparison with the first reporting period is the inclusion of relevant information for Scotland to describe the measures taken to identify major-accident hazards, incorporate the necessary features into the design, operation and closure, and to limit the adverse consequences (main provision 1). As regards the second main provision information on the practical arrangements taken to ensure that required information is transmitted immediately to the competent authority, information on safety measures and on action required is provided to the public and information is forwarded to the other Member State have been added. The answer of the UK to all main provisions is assessed as being complete.

The United Kingdom has four Category A installations in operation out of which one is a Seveso and altogether 278 facilities of such type are closed or abandoned. In addition on the territory there are 225 inert waste facilities and 57 non-hazardous non inert facilities in operation with a permit and no not Category A facility is closed/abandoned, in transition or closure phase. There were no cases, where the Category A facility in operation had a potential environmental or human health impact on another Member State (main provision 3). In England, three Category A installations are covered by an external emergency plan; one Category A mining waste facility does not yet have an external emergency plan. This new installation that has yet to start production and the tailings dam to which

European Commission Final report Provision and elaboration of information for the preparation of the “Implementation Report of Directive 2006/21/EC on the management of waste from extractive industries” ENV.C.2/FRA/2013/0023 74 the emergency plan will relate has not yet been built. An appropriate emergency plan will be in place by the time the facility commences receiving extractive waste.

In Scotland one Category A waste facility is mentioned on several occasions which has not yet started operation (and thus is not listed in the Table). Its operation has been approved subject to condition that the waste facility must not commence operation until an emergency plan is in place, which is not the case (main provision 4).

As regards inspections of Category A facilities, England conducted four inspections where Scotland reports that local authorities are required to inspect waste facilities prior to commencement of operation and annually thereafter. In Northern Ireland no inspections have been carried out to date, however a programme is being devised to ensure this work is carried out.

3.3 Implementation of other provisions of the EWD

3.3.1 Overview figures on other categories of facilities

As described in section 2.1, the EWD distinguishes the following categories of facilities besides Category A waste facilities:

 Extractive waste facilities for unpolluted soil, non-hazardous prospecting waste, waste resulting from the extraction, treatment and storage of peat and inert waste;  Extractive waste facilities for non-hazardous non-inert waste;  Extractive waste facilities not meeting one of the criteria described above (i.e. for instance facilities where hazardous waste is stored but below the threshold of meeting the Category A facility definition, see directly below), in this report referred to as “other”.

The Member States are requested to provide estimates on figures for each category of facilities as part of their response to the Questionnaire

 Firstly, it has to be stressed again that seven Member States report that there are no facilities falling under the scope of the Directive on their territory at all (DK, HR, LT, LV, MT, NL, SI ).

 For those Member States that did provide figures, the picture is diverse. This is to some extent certainly due to different understandings, or misunderstanding, of the entries of Table of the Annex to the Questionnaire – on some occasions, it seems that Member States have understood the category “other” as covering “all but Category A facilities”, thus providing in this row the sum of the entries for “inert” and “non-hazardous non-inert” (this is the case e.g. for Germany, Hungary, or Romania). Similarly, for other Member States (such as Austria or Spain), a significant entry is provided for the category “other” (Austria: 33, Spain: 1,558) only, but “0” is indicated for the categories “inert” or “non-hazardous non- inert”. A possible explanation would be that the entry “other” was intended covering a total

comprising the two other categories. Member States have been approached and asked for confirming the figures; yet, doubts remain about the robustness of the figures provided.

With all reservations, the figures provided suggest a picture where the portfolio of facilities varies greatly in the Member States, ranging from multiple cases where Member States have indicated having very low figures on all categories of facilities in operation. Examples for the cases where the above described uncertainties do not exist and which may serve at illustrating the diversity of figures provided for facilities in operation comprise

o The Czech Republic (no inert, 7 non-hazardous non-inert, no “other”),

o Estonia (no inert, no non-hazardous non-inert, 3 “other”),

o France (4,100 inert, 51 non-hazardous non-inert, no “other”),

o Poland (99 inert, no non-hazardous non-inert, no “other”);

o Slovakia (116 inert, no non-hazardous non-inert, no “other”),

o the UK (36 inert, 5 non-hazardous non-inert, no “other”).

 Also very diverse is the coverage of the facilities in operation with permits. This may partly again due to different understanding of the Questionnaire, in particular to what extent a facility falling under the exception of Article 2(3) EWD should be counted as a “facility without a permit”, or to what extent waste facilities that operate with a permit granted under other legislation (as foreseen by Article 7(2) EWD), are to be considered as “having a permit meeting the requirements of the Directive”. Whereas for instance Germany reports that all inert and on-hazardous non-inert waste facilities in operation have obtained a permit, the UK reports 36 inert facilities and 5 non-hazardous non-inert facilities without a permit.

 No Member State reports any facilities in transition.

 The figures for facilities in closure phase vary greatly as well, with Germany (98 non- hazardous non-inert), Spain (73 “other”), Hungary (12 inert and 18 non-hazardous non- inert), and Romania (38 non-hazardous non-inert) being the only Member States which provide double-digit figures.

 Figures for inspections range from very low or low figures (Cyprus: indication of 12 “other” facilities in operation, no inspection during the reporting period) to significant numbers (Germany: 718 inspections for 41 non-hazardous non-inert facilities in operation). Again to emphasize that the EWD does not contain what an inspection is and how to count this, thus these figures have to be seen as merely an indicative factor.

 Similarly, estimations for closed and abandoned facilities greatly vary between the Member States. Most Member States report zero closed/abandoned facilities for inert waste (with HU and PL the only MS reporting more than two, with 38 and 17 respectively). For non-

hazardous non-inert waste facilities, Belgium stands out with an estimation of 11,000 relevant facilities, followed by Romania with 226; all other Member States report double- digit figures as a maximum. For the “other” category, Hungary reports 115 facilities whereas again, most MS indicate not having a one closed/abandoned facility.

Overall, the figures provided are on many occasions surprisingly low, for instance if comparing the numbers of (total) installations in operation with the statistical figures provided by the Member States in the context of waste generated by the Mining and Quarrying sector (see Figure 3). Not all figures seem to be plausible, for instance the very few number of inert facilities in operation for which – even if taking into consideration possible misunderstandings – more than ten Member States reporting having not a single one, whereas on the other hand, other Member States (France and Hungary) report figures of 4,100 and 604 respectively.

3.3.2 Approval / rejection of Waste Management Plans (Article 5 EWD), and main reasons for rejection

Out of the 22 replies subject to analysis, seven Member States have reported not having any facility in the scope of the Directive on their territory (DK, HR, LT, LV, MT, NL, SI), thus 15 Member States reported replies to this question.

Ten Member States (AT, BE, CY, DE, EE, FI, PL, PT, SK, UK) have stated that they have not rejected any Waste Management Plan during the reporting period.

Rejected WMPs were reported by five Member States. For the case of Waste Management Plans which were definitively refused, the following reasons were indicated:

 The Czech Republic reported one case of rejection with the reason being “incomplete application, procedure interrupted”.  Spain reported one case where “adverse effects that mining waste could have on the waters, both surface and groundwater” led to the refusal.  France reported ten Waste Management Plans definitely refused with “the main reasons” being “failure to characterise certain inert waste, incorrect classification of overburden and failure to justify the acrylamide content of flocculants”.  Hungary reported 19 cases if refused Waste Management Plans for non-compliance with domestic requirements (not further specified); the wording of the reply seem to suggest that these were not cases of definitive refusals.  Romania reported two cases of definitive refusal of two Waste Management Plans because of either non-conformity between the submitted documentation and the situation found during the on-site visit by territorial authorities for environmental protection and the representative of the National Agency for Mineral resources, or failure to submit the requested supplements regarding: waste characterisation, facility classification, site location and risk of flooding, control and monitoring procedures, as well as the closure plan.

3.3.3 List of inert waste

The Member States may draw up lists of waste materials to be regarded as inert in accordance with the criteria defined in Commission Decision 2009/359/EC. The following MS have confirmed having such a list: CZ, ES, FI, FR, LT, PT, SK, UK.

3.3.4 Non-compliance with the Directive

Most of the Member States did reply that no cases of non-compliance were detected during the reporting period (which again is somewhat surprising). The following table summarizes the answers of the five Member States which have reported respective cases:

Table 14: Non-compliance with the Directive

3.3.5 Main difficulties encountered in implementing the EWD and means to overcome them

Answers indicating problems in implementation of the Directive where provided by eight Member States (EE, ES, FI, HR, HU, RO, SK, UK). Examples of answers provided comprise:

 Estonia mentioned three problems in implementation to which discussions are ongoing on how to best address them: requirements for low environmental risk waste facilities; requirements for overburden; regulation for financial guarantee which in their view is rather complicated and difficult to implement.

 Spain reports that difficulties arise from the complexity of the work involved in creating the inventory of closed and abandoned installations due to the large number of installations, as well as their geographical distribution, and the high costs of the work. To address this, the Spanish Geological and Mining Institute (IGME) has produced and implemented two manuals specifically for these issues.

 Finland reports difficulties with practical aspects of licensing and operating the mining areas. For example the level of expertise available in the mining companies in the planning of the new operation and in the evaluation of emissions and their effects has not been in all cases sufficient enough. The administrative resources for licensing and supervision of the facilities should also be strengthened. Many of the new mining operations use new techniques which makes it is difficult to evaluate their effects in the licensing phase. The Ministry of the Environment set in the beginning of 2013 a working group of authorities to discuss the environmental safety of mining operations. Its proposals, e.g. for developing the cooperation between various authorities, identification of environmental effects related to mining life cycle and how to improve the safety of mine dams and pond structure, are currently being implemented.

 Croatia and Hungary report overlap of competencies between different ministries. Hungary additionally indicates challenges in the process of interaction with operators.

 Romania reports a lack of specialised staff assigned to these activities, as well as limited financial resources.

 Slovakia reports a case of a company being in insolvency proceedings, and the difficulties for addressing necessary measures to responsible persons in this context.

 England and Wales, as part of the UK report, have provided inter alia the following comment that “Waste management plans are considered a useful tool and have mostly been produced in other guises for both land use and health and safety purposes as part of agreeing to mine or quarry operation. The Directive requires the competent authority to approve all waste management plans (except those operations within the terms of the derogations). Approval by an authority could only be undertaken through a permitting process. In addition there is no specifies de minimis. The implications are the permitting of mining waste operations with very little environmental impact, such as inert waste settlement ponds located within quarry voids, or small operations such as cottage industry ceramics.”

3.3.6 Additional comments, suggestions or information in relation with the implementation of the Directive

Four Member States have taken the opportunity to provide additional comments:

 The Czech Republic commented that there is currently no categorisation of storage locations after the extraction and processing of uranium ore.

 Hungary states that it would be satisfactory in the course of reporting to provide information only on mining waste facilities with valid permit for operation.

 Lithuania emphasized that an assessment of the status of mining work being undertaken in Lithuania's mining industry plants shows that during the reporting period there were no mining waste facilities at these plants that met the criteria set out in the annex to this Questionnaire and in the corresponding Articles of the Directive. Only the fractionation and flushing of inert materials is carried out at mining plants, and the resulting mining waste is stored in cavities that are no longer being exploited or in ponds located hypsometrically lower than the natural surface of the ground.

 The Scottish Government as part of the reply provided by UK pointed out that against the limited requirements for inert waste, so far there have not been set in place arrangements for collecting statistics for these sites which is however to be done soon.

4 Conclusions and recommendations

4.1 General conclusions regarding the main provisions

As visible from the high share of answers left unchanged in comparison with the first reporting period concerning Part A of the Questionnaire, the general framework for application of the EWD seem to be now established in most Member States. Where the answers have been modified in this respect, this has been due to completion of legislation (such as Denmark), reporting coverage of the entire territory (such as Belgium), new administrative arrangements (such as Romania), or more in- depth information (such as for the UK). Overall, the impression is that the Member States have completed the process of transposition of the Directive, and thus generally having set in place means for implementation of main provisions 1 and 2.

In terms of the picture regarding the development of main provisions 3 to 5, the figures presented on section 3.1.6 comprise the figures for these main provisions.

Generally, the figures on Category A facilities show a very varied picture, with huge discrepancies between the Member States. Overall, figures seem to be lower than one could expect taking into account the dimension of mining activities, the industry practice of waste management and the generation of waste, including hazardous waste, connected to it. Firstly, only 12 Member States of the 22 which have been assessed by us confirm that there are Category A facilities in operation at all. These 11 Member States report a total of only 58 Category A facilities in operation. Most of the concerned 11 Member States report very low figures on Category A facilities for their territory – only Hungary (6), Finland (9), and Spain (25) indicate a number higher than five facilities in operation, where Spain counts for nearly 50 % of the total Category A facilities in operation reported for that period by the 22 Member States which replies have been assessed.

Further findings are:

 Most of the Category A facilities in operation (53 of 58) do obtain a permit in line with the requirements of the EWD.

 The share of facilities falling under the scope of Seveso regime is rather low (9 out of 58).

 External emergency plans, in accordance with Article 6 EWD, are missing for around one third of the facilities. In these cases, it is in the majority of cases added that these plans are currently elaborated.

 The number of facilities have a potential impact on another Member State is very low (from the 22 reports assessed and the 58 reported facilities in total, there are only two with such an impact, both located in Spain).

 The number of inspection varies greatly between the Member States; in some Member States, none (EE) or only one (PL) inspections have been conducted in the three-years-period of the reporting, in other Member States, both the total figures and the ratio between facilities and inspections is significantly higher (e.g. HU: 6 Category A facilities, 115

inspections). Then again, since no definition is provided in the EWD or in the Questionnaire what an inspection is and how to count it, these figures have to be seen as merely an indicative factor.

4.2 Further general conclusions and recommendations

 Completeness of reporting The completeness of Member States’ reports has been improved in comparison with the first reporting period.

 Transposition of the Directive The process of legal transposition seems to be completed in all Member States for which information is available, in contrast to the first reporting period. Further, since a high share of answers have entirely or largely left their reply to Part A of the Questionnaire unchanged, one can derive that the framework for application of the EWD is now somewhat established in most Member States.

 Provided figures on number of installations (in operation, transition, closure), permits, inspections, and closed/abandoned facilities The statement made in the section above on figures regarding Category A facilities provided by the Member States has to be emphasized regarding the other categories of facilities under the scope of Directive as well. The overall picture is, even when taking into account obvious different understandings by the Member States, very varied and overall not very clear – there are huge discrepancies between the Member States, and there is no visible pattern regarding the figures, e.g. in terms of which is the most frequent category of installation. Certainly, the figures overall seem to be surprisingly low. As pointed out in section 3.3.1, some figures, and the relation between figures, appear to be hardly plausible, for instance the very few number of inert facilities in operation for which – even if taking into consideration possible misunderstandings – more than ten Member States reporting having not a single one, whereas on the other hand, other Member States (France and Hungary) report figures of 4,100 and 604 facilities respectively. Figures for inspections of the non-Category A facilities range from in most cases very low or low figures to significant. Then again, the fact that only five Member States reported having detected cases of non-compliance with the EWD’s provisions is much lower than one would expect.

 Information safety measures taken and on the action required in the event of accidents or events The mechanisms of information safety measures taken and on the action required in the event of accidents or events, as requested by Articles 11(3) and 12(6) of the Directive have been according to the replies to the Questionnaire transposed in the national legislation of the

Member States, However questions remain to what extent the procedures are applied as foreseen by the Directive. On the basis of investigation of the files provided to the Commission, and additional events researched, we recommend to further investigate at least one case where information has not been provided to the Commission, although the circumstances of the event seem to suggest that this should have been the case. Going beyond the required procedural processes, repeated incidents at one same facility give reason to concern to what extent lessons have been learnt at the relevant levels.

 General remark of the comparability of information Comparability of information provided by Member States within their implementation reports is obviously hampered by the fact that there are differences how the Directive is applied which lead to distortion of the figures. o This is for instance quite obviously the case for the question what is “waste” in the context of extractive activities. Given that any treatment of material considered non-waste is not subject to the EWD’s provision, uncertainties and different understandings regarding the term “waste” stemming from the definition of Article 3(1) of Waste Framework Directive (plus the respective definitions of by-products and end-of-waste-status as per Article 5 and 6 Waste Framework Directive) have an immediate impact on the applicability of the EWD for operators and national authorities. o Similarly, the divergence in terms of figures for the different types of facilities seem to suggest that the definitions of the EWD are differently understood and applied in the Member States. o Another source of uncertainty is the question to what facilities which have been granted a permit under other legislation, or facilities falling under the clauses of Article 2(3) EWD, should be counted for the purpose of reporting as facilities of the EWD regime (irrespective whether the permit meets the substantial requirements of the Directive). o Further, as not least the famous Ajka disaster seem to suggest, cases may occur where the terms of the Directive (or the national legislation) are not correctly applied, or where the impact of a facility is miscalculated. Thus, a very low figure of Category A facilities (or total facilities) reported by a Member State does not necessarily mean that the problems the EWD seeks to address does not exist in that Member State. o A similar aspect is the number of inspection, which varies greatly between the Member States – since no definition is provided what is an inspection and how to count this, these figures have to be seen as merely an indicative factor. o We understand that some Member States base the identification of relevant facilities, and thus their estimation on overall figures, on feed-back from the competent authorities (which are usually not at central level), for other Member

States, the input source for the estimations is not obvious.

 General remark on the usefulness of the reporting scheme Although problems with data comparability exist, and the assessment of the reports alone hardly allows for robust statements on the real state of implementation of the Directive in the Member States, the reporting exercise nonetheless allows for some useful insights in terms of the measures applied by Member States and the overall state of implementation; at least if used in conjunction with other sources.

 Proposals for further development of the Questionnaire Against the impressions of our analysis, we recommend the following proposals for further developing the reporting: o A general question is whether the current format of reporting is appropriate. Proposals of the Commission for different legal acts in the field of waste management as part of the Circular Economy Package (of December 2015) conclude that implementation reports prepared by Member States every three years would not have proven to be an effective tool for verifying compliance and ensuring correct implementation, and are generating unnecessary administrative burden. It is thus part of the proposals to repeal provisions obliging Member States to produce such reports. If the COM shares this perception also for the case of the EWD, a respective initiative should follow.

o Irrespective of the question whether the current format is generally deemed appropriate, there are several sources of misunderstandings in the current Questionnaire. The most important one is in our opinion the structure and content of table of the Annex, requesting the Member States to provide figures on different categories of installations. Both the potential overlaps between the columns “In Operation” and “In Operation with permit” seem to be a source of confusion and the structure of the rows (e.g. the row “of which Seveso installations”, here the figures would often be not consistent with the logic of the table; further see the remarks in terms of what has to be counted as facilities under the EWD). We recommend proposing a review of the text of the instructions below the table, or to provide guidance, in order to diminish the potential for misunderstandings.

o Another issue is that Member States often refer to what is supposed to happen according to national legislation where the Questionnaire asks for providing measures executed and for providing figures. This is for instance the case for Spain’s report. We recommend proposing a review of the text of the Questionnaire, e.g. clarifying without any ambiguity that “figures on inspections” provided should not reflect what the number required by law (such as “once per year”), but the actual number.

o In terms of inventories of closed and abandoned facilities, it is apparent that some of the links provided by Member States are not regularly maintained. We recommend proposing a review of the respective question, asking Member States to provide a link to the current version of the inventory. Further, information on best practice on such inventories (such as the UK’s ‘BritPits’) should be shared between the Member States. Several projects and initiatives aim at cataloguing permitted mine facilities (but not waste facilities) at a local or regional level; This practice could usefully be replicated and extended to waste facilities, with tagging for Category A, inert etc. and state of operation.

o Regarding further expanding the information, one interesting field would certainly be how Member States integrate the requirements of Water Law regarding extractive waste facilities.

 External sources of information Corrobating the information of the Member States’ reports with external sources of information has been shown to be a delicate task. o Both EU level official statistical sources (i.e. Eurostat) and EC initiatives (i.e. Euromines, eMARS, proMines) and project outcomes from FP7 and H2020 Science & Technology research frameworks have been investigated. Very little administrative data was found on mining waste per se, with regards to the subject of permitting, procedure improvement or waste facility management. Several EC initiative and some FP7 projects focus on reporting mining activities locations together with some level of detail on the type of mined ores (i.e. proMines). On the other hand, research projects assessed for the purpose of this study tend to focus on innovations or new strategies designed to deal with mining waste more effectively, either closer to the mined ore or when trying to lower the environmental impact of new types of mining sites (i.e. lower purity ores sites or deep sea mining). This is probably the result of a number of funded projects having a “zero waste” component embedded in to them, as part of the proposed work program. As a result, the term „mining waste“ is mainly found in the context of EU funded research projects examining innovations to limit the production of mining waste, not its treatment above ground. o The additional information analysed provides little insight into how the coverage or the harmonisation of the reporting for the Mining Waste Directive 2006/21/EC can be improved. Most notably, no update schedule or maintenance plan is planned for most of the database created as a result of EU initiatives or projects, rendering any future plans for their use as a complement for future projects very difficult, evven for databases created which include mining waste as part of their metadata (i.e. Mining waste bio/weathering, eMARS, Minerals4EU, Eurostat, Minventory). In this context, the MINERALS4EU, Minventory and the eMARS projects represent the most interesting sources of information which could be used to help collate further information with the aim of increasing the transparency of the mining sector within the EU with regards to mining waste management and incidents.

5 Annexes

5.1 Annex 1: Assessment of the completeness of reporting

5.1.1 National implementation reports not considered for this report

The national implementation reports of Bulgaria, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, and Sweden have not been provided to the project team within the foreseen time frame. These reports are only considered in the following where explicitly indicated.

5.1.2 Methodology and assessment

Classification and Overview sheet

The heading of Part A to the Questionnaire reads “QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED ONCE FOR THE FIRST REPORTING PERIOD” (see in detail section 1.3), and the heading to Part B “QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED FOR ALL REPORTING PERIODS”. Given the different character of the two Parts, and consequently the different approach for assessing completeness, we developed two Excel files, one for Part A and one for Part B to the Questionnaire.

Part A of the Questionnaire

The common understanding of the EU Commission and Member States is that if a Member State has not provided a reply to a particular “Part A” question (or no reply at all), this is to be understood in a way that the information provided during the first reporting period is still valid. Thus, regarding Part A, we have basically assessed whether the Member State has provided an answer at all, and if yes, whether the reply is different from the one given in the first reporting period, applying a simple “yes / no” scheme.

Subsequently, we rated all missing replies and/or blank entries as “complete”, and have assessed only the cases in detail where the Member States have made substantially new replies, leading to a rating as incomplete in cases only where the reply was not complete / not fully clear against the requirements of the respective question.

Part B of the Questionnaire

For assessing the replies to the questions of Part B, the following categories were used (taken into consideration the criteria introduced by the report on the first reporting exercise for ensuring comparability):

Classification criteria per Criteria used for classification question

The MS’s response gives reference to national legislation implementing this Complete (sufficient detail) (1) provision. The textual description responds to all terms used in the questions and provides either in-depth detail of the procedures and/or measures

Classification criteria per Criteria used for classification question required under the Questionnaire items or largely refers to the national legislation for further details. The complete (very detailed) Category is included to show “good practice” examples for reporting.

The Excel file has an “overview” sheet, providing the complete picture of our rating in this respect for all Member States and all questions.

Assessment of formal completeness and overall rating of each MS reply

In a next step, a particular focus was taken on the question of the formal completeness of the reply. All answers of the categories (1), (2), and (3) above were all rated with the same scoring (“complete”) whereas cases of “incomplete” answers cases were further sub-divided into cases were an answer was given, but the information was not complete or not fully clear (“incomplete”), and cases were no information was provided at all (“missing”).

Overall completness of replies to Questionnaire Complete information available compliant to reporting requirements  Information provided, but not complete or not fully clear  No information provided at all 

The ranking ““ or “” was always justified in a separate entry.

For each Member State, a conclusive rating (pertaining to the overall completeness of their reply) was awarded

 In case all elements of the Member State implementation report were rated as “complete information available compliant to reporting requirements information”, the overall rating would be complete ()  If not all elements of the Member State implementation report were rated as “complete information available compliant to reporting requirements information”, the overall rating would be “incomplete” ()  In case no information was provided at all, the overall rating would be “missing” ()

Assessment of original Member States’ replies

The assessment of the original replies is enclosed as separate Annex to this report (not published). In essence, the result of the assessment was as follows:

 No reply to Questionnaire received by and thus overall rating as “missing” BG, GR, IE, IT, LU, SE (6)

 Overall rating of the reply to Questionnaire as complete AT, DK, HR, LT, LV, NL, RO, SI (8)

 Overall rating of the reply to Questionnaire as not complete / not fully clear BE, CY, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FI, FR, HU, MT, PL, PT, SK, UK (14)

In all cases except one, the replies to Part A of the Questionnaire were rated as complete. This was the case of Spain, were a not fully clear (new) reply was given with respect to the questions of Competent Authorities in charge. Spain has corrected its reply during the commenting period (see below), leading to a rating of Part A of their reply as complete.

Commenting period

In a second step, Member States whose replies were rated as not complete / not fully clear were approached individually and invited for commenting and clarifying the answers which all Member States (except France) have made use of.

5.1.3 Result of the final completeness check

After including their reactions in the frame of the commenting period, the result of the assessment for most of the Member State was changed from “incomplete” to “complete”. The table below shows the overall (final) rating after considering the reaction of the Member States. It also contains the result of the assessment for those Member States for which the Commission Services have assessed the reports (Bulgaria, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, and Sweden)

Table 15: Result of the completeness check

Overall rating AT  BE  BG  CY  CZ  DE  DK  EE  ES  FI  FR  GR  HR  HU  IE  IT  LT  LU  LV  MT  NL  PL  PT  RO  SE  SI  SK  UK 

5.1.4 Justification for the final assessment as “not complete”

Six Member States’ replies have been rated as incomplete, all on grounds of incomplete answers regarding questions of Part B. to the Questionnaire, for the following reasons:

 Belgium – The total for facilities “in operation” is not congruent with the sum of the single entries. The reaction of the Member State has not fully explained the lack of congruency.  Cyprus – The total for “closed and abandoned” facilities is not congruent with the sum of the single entries. The reaction of the Member State has not fully explained the lack of congruency.  Czech Republic – The figure (“4”) provided as answer to Question B.4.(b) is not congruent with the figure provided in the entry “closed and abandoned facilities” (“2”). The reaction of the Member State (“There are in the Czech Republic 2 total closed mining waste facilities in the reporting period. We have other 4 mining waste facilities in the after-closure phase in the reporting period”) has not fully explained the lack of congruency.  France – The total for facilities “in operation” and for “in operation with permit” is not congruent with the sum of the single entries. The request for the number of “Category A in operation having a potential environmental or human health impact on another Member State (B.1.(c)) has apparently been misunderstood. A reply to the question B.2.(b) is missing. The reply to question B.5.(b) does not indicate how many cases of non-compliance were identified. The Member State has not reacted to an inquiry for explaining these matters.  Portugal – The total for “closed and abandoned” facilities is not congruent with the sum of the single entries. The reaction of the Member State has not fully explained the lack of congruency.  Spain – Regarding Question B.5.(b), Spain stated that the information is not available yet.

5.1.5 Results per Member State (including comparison with first reporting period)

Part A of the Questionnaire

Part A is intended to give MS the possibility to explain the measures taken to ensure the proper implementation of the Directive. ‘Completeness’ here means that when a given MS fills in the Questionnaire, the measure (at least in theory) has been taken. Most of the Member States have not re-submitted a reply to Part A of the Questionnaire, or have left the reply unchanged. For these cases, the rating of completeness followed the assessment as done by [Ecologic 2012].

The following Member States have modified their replies to Part A of the Questionnaire in comparison with the first reporting period: BE, DK, ES, FI, LT, MT, RO, SI, UK.

 Belgium did not provide answers regarding the Brussels Region during the first reporting period. Further, from the Walloon Region’s answers, it was apparent that substantial parts of the EWD were not applied in that region. For the second reporting period, Belgium has

provided answers for all three regions to all questions of Part A to the Questionnaire thus improving the completeness of the report.  Denmark has provided answers to all questions of Part A to the Questionnaire. During the first reporting period, from Denmark’s reply it was apparent that the legal implementation of the EWD’s requirements into national legislation had yet to be completed, a process which is now finalized.  Spain has expanded its answer considerably in comparison with the answers provided during the first reporting period, and indicated competent authorities (at least the level of competent authorities which is the one of the Autonomous Regions).  Finland, Lithuania and Romania, which all did submit a complete reply during the first reporting period, have expanded their answer and submitted broadened information, without an impact on the completeness rating.  Malta has expanded its answer and broadened information whereas the general statement remains unchanged that there are no Category A facilities in Malta. For many of the questions, Malta had in the first reporting period explained the legal means mirroring the EWD’s requirements, whereas during their replies for the second reporting period, they repeatedly report “not applicable” (e.g. on questions A.7.a. to d.).  The few modifications in Slovenia’s answer are editorial amendments without impact on the substance of their reply.  The UK’s answers has considerably been expanded, in particular in terms of the answers concerning Scotland where the reply has entirely new drafted, reflecting legislative amendments of 2011.

Part B of the Questionnaire

Part B is intended to give an overview on how the Directive is applied and what developments have been taken during the reporting period. For the 22 Member States assessed, the following findings could be observed:

Austria has reported an increase of the number of facilities falling under the scope of the Directive from 24 to 34 due to incomplete data in the first report. Three of these installations have now been closed. Permits were issued for two further installations during the second reporting period. The number of inspections has slightly increased; WMPs have not rejected during first or second reporting period.

Belgium’s answer is now also including replies regarding the Brussels region. Further, the answer for the Walloon Region which apparently had not fully implemented the EWD's provisions during the first reporting period is now complete and figures not provided during the first reporting period are fully provided now.

Cyprus reports that the only Category A installation has recently informed that they stopped the waste discharge in the tailing pond since the operator intends to recycle the waste in order to

European Commission Final report Provision and elaboration of information for the preparation of the “Implementation Report of Directive 2006/21/EC on the management of waste from extractive industries” ENV.C.2/FRA/2013/0023 93 extract the remaining amounts of copper. The application for the respective permit has been revised and is under examination. Further, Cyprus has re-assessed the figures of installations within a survey. 15 facilities were declassified from being waste facilities, the main reason for the declassification being that the waste was deposited in the excavation voids. Therefore the number of waste facilities has decreased to thirteen (13) from twenty eight (28). Further, the two facilities that were previously reported as being in the closure phase now are considered closed.

The Czech Republic did not report any figures on installations for the first reporting period, however now a complete answer in this respect is provided. Yet, still the reply is being rated incomplete since the figure (“4”) provided as answer to Question B.4.(b) is not congruent with the figure provided in the entry “closed and abandoned facilities” (“2”). The reaction of the Member State (“There are in the Czech Republic 2 total closed mining waste facilities in the reporting period. We have other 4 mining waste facilities in the after-closure phase in the reporting period”) has not fully explained the lack of congruency.

Germany reports significantly higher figures for all relevant entries in comparison with the first reporting period except for the case of Category A facilities which is unchanged. Also, the inspections have nearly doubled to 1,073 cases. No change in terms of the completeness of the report.

Estonia reported for the first reporting period that the results of an inventory on the facilities under its jurisdiction would not have been fully available. Now, this exercise has been completed, leading to the number of Category A facilities being reduced to one facility (from estimated 11 during the first reporting period), bringing this figure into congruence with the figure in the Annex to the Questionnaire. The closure phase of this facility has started during the current reporting period. Interestingly, Estonia is one of the few Member States providing comments in terms of difficulties in implementation, informing e.g. about difficulties regarding requirements for low environmental risk waste facilities, and about the regulations for financial guarantee which are deemed to be complex. Just as during the first reporting exercise, Estonia reports that these problems are still under discussion.

Spain had not submitted replies on certain figures during the first reporting period most of which are provided now. This concerns for instance the number of facilities, which is now provided in contrast to the first reporting exercise. However, no figures were provided in terms of number of inspections during the first reporting period, and Spain’s answer for the second reporting period is now rated an incomplete since this information is again not available (yet).

Finland reports higher figures for all entries of the table in comparison with the first reporting period. Whereas the number of Category A facilities increasing moderately from 8 to 9, the figures for inert and non-hazardous waste have increased by the factor three (even if taking into account possible inconsistencies due to different understandings of how to fill the Questionnaire), from a total of 27 to a total of 81. Another new aspect is that reference is made now to the study establishing the inventory of closed and abandoned facilities. No change could be observed in terms of the completeness of the report.

France has submitted a rather concise reply which is rated incomplete (see section 5.1.4) whereas during first reporting period, the reply was rated as complete. The figure for Category A has been decreasing in comparison to the first reporting period (from 3 to 1), whereas the number for inert waste facilities has risen from 800 to more than 4,000.

Croatia has submitted one of the most elaborated and extensive replies to Part A. of the Questionnaire. However, in terms of Part B., Croatia indicates that there are no facilities falling under the scope of the Directive. Having joined in the EU in 2013, the current reporting period is the first one for Croatia.

Regarding Lithuania, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands, and Slovenia, their reports do not reflect any significant development, indicating that there have been no facilities falling under the scope of the Directive and thus restricting the answer to the confirmation that appropriate legislative implementing measures have been set in place.

Poland reports an unchanged figure in terms of Category A facilities (one), but has identified 99 Inert Waste facilities in comparison with zero sites reported during the first reporting period. Also, the figure of closed/abandoned facilities has significantly increased – from 7 closed, plus 9 in closure phase during the first reporting period, to 22 in total now with the separate information given that during the reporting period, a total of 7 extractive waste facilities were closed and are regularly monitored.

Portugal reports an identical number in terms of facilities (except for closed/abandoned facilities), and apart from that few – yet complete – information.

The UK has submitted for the second reporting period a reply which consists of four separate answers for England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. The consolidated reply delivers complete figures for the number of installations within the Annex to the Questionnaire (in contrast to the first reporting period), yet in the case of Scotland based on estimations. These number are higher than those reported for the first reporting period. Despite the answer being rated as complete, it is apparent that in some cases (concerning mainly the replies for Scotland and Northern Ireland), information is scarcely shared so that the level in charge with responding to the Questionnaire can only conclude that “the information is not collected centrally” (answer to B.5. (c)); however, improvements are envisaged.

5.2 Annex 2: Compilation and assessment of additional information

5.2.1 Background

This section of the report undertakes a compilation, review and where appropriate, analysis of additional sources of information that could be used to supplement the status reports issued by the Member States in relation to the Mining Waste Directive 2006/21/EC. The aim of the work package is to assess whether the information sources identified can be linked to the implementation Questionnaire (Annex III of Commission Decision 2009/358/EC), for which the main provisions to be considered for this study will be the ones requiring action in the context of Category A waste facilities.

The immediate purpose of this activity is to identify information that might refute or corroborate statements made by MS in the Questionnaires they have returned. It should be noted that, usually, those who have completed and returned the surveys represent the same agencies which generate the underlying data regarding, for example, numbers of facilities, permits issued, inspection regimes etc. Hence, other sources of data are likely to be derivative of these. Nevertheless, a review of non- MS sources has been conducted related to themes addressed within the Questionnaires.

On the other hand, proxy data may provide an indication of whether the Directive has been interpreted and implemented correctly. For example, the generation of hazardous waste in an MS implies that a corresponding waste facility should be present. If there is none, questions may be asked. This forms the subject of our first cross-check.

A secondary aspect of this task (see Section 5.2.5) has been to scan ‘forward looking’ projects – such as under FP7 and Horizon 2020 – again using keywords related to the themes of the Directive. We sought to identify resources that might be used to capture data or define best practice in relevant aspects:

 mining waste facility data, such as location, size, type of facility;  administrative data on permits, procedures, plans etc.;  possible emerging best practice technologies; and  other management processes and practices relevant to mining waste management.

5.2.2 Indicators of consistency between Questionnaire results and other sources of information

The responses by MS represent official information submitted to the Commission regarding the implementation of the Directive. Much of the information provided is a matter of indisputable fact, for example the legal transposition of the Directive into national legislation and the responsibilities placed upon various agencies which enact and police that. Other parts of the information, whilst factually correct, might still indicate that the Directive has not been implemented as expected. At least two classes of information fall into this area.

The first of these concerns measures revealing an incorrect interpretation of the scope and application of the Directive. For example, MS are obliged to identify Category A waste facilities according to criteria provided in the Directive. Such facilities would be associated with hazardous waste generation, so a relatively simple consistency check is one where we check for this generation, with a high expectation that Category A facilities would follow. If this is not the case, all other factors being equal, we could query whether such facilities have been correctly identified by an MS.

Another example would be where an MS has identified that its operations (or a major incident at them) would have no impact on a neighbouring MS. If facility location data is available, a map-based search of facilities and their proximity to borders and vectors of material flow – rivers, lakes… - crossing or straddling borders would indicate a risk of trans-border incidents which ought to be reflected in the MS returns and any emergency plans required.

The second area concerns the operation of monitoring and regulatory regimes put in place by a MS, and how these compare to the performance of other MS. For example, a simple activity measure could be the number of facility inspections compared to the number of facilities; the rate of non- compliances; or the rate of rejection of permits or withdrawal of permits. Whilst these are crude and perhaps open to misinterpretation without knowing underlying detail, they may prompt further questioning in an attempt to harmonise European practice. These metrics, however, do not require any external cross-checks as they should be obtainable from MS Questionnaire responses.

In the following sections, we consider insights available from (a) information from non-MS sources which corroborates key elements of the responses submitted by MS and (b) sources of information and projects which in future might have the potential to augment the practices of MS in implementing the Directive, or provide mechanisms to provide harmonised data collation on key aspects across the EU.

Eurostat data on generation of all/hazardous waste from the extractive sector

This section considers background knowledge regarding the generation of non-hazardous and hazardous wastes within MS. This provides context for assessing MS reports of what types of extractive waste facilities are present.

Section 1.2, Figure 3 presented a summary plot of the total mining waste generated by MS. Below, we have further queried Eurostat data under the NACE_r2 code related to mining and quarrying and under the sub-category of hazardous waste (it offers no breakdown to inert waste under the code).

Figure 6 shows the breakdown by hazardous waste type per country. Note that this sub- categorisation has been employed as it impacts directly on the presence or otherwise of Category A waste facilities, a prime topic of this review. There are indeed substantial volumes of non-hazardous waste implicated in Figure 3, which require appropriate handling, but which do not have the potential for harm, the reduction of which is the objective of the Directive.

It should also be noted that the wastes for Bulgaria, Romania and the UK exceed the scale of this chart since it has been expanded to make smaller MS flows visible. However, UK and Romanian flows do not exceed 150 kt/yr, whereas Bulgarian wastes dwarf the rest of the EU at over 1.3 Mt/yr.

The overall picture is that, for the majority of MS, chemical and mineral/solidified wastes dominate the overall hazardous waste picture. Of notable exception are Luxembourg, where the waste is almost entirely mixed ordinary waste (which would be sent to a non-mining waste facility); and Belgium and Portugal where there is too a good deal of contaminated equipment, although the nature of this and its treatment is unknown.

Figure 6: Hazardous wastes arising in each MS form mining and quarrying

Correlation of hazardous waste and hazardous material production with Category A declarations

Out of the 28 Member States that reported, six report not to have any extractive waste facility covered by the Directive within their territory.15 Such statements have been accepted as working hypothesis, even if there are information on extractive activities that, in some cases, could contradict them.

This section considers whether there are sources of information regarding hazardous waste or hazardous material production which indicate whether a particular MS is likely to be handling such wastes as a result of extractive operations. If such wastes are produced in country, it is likely that Category A facilities will be present in that MS.

Two sources of information have been considered, queried, and their findings amalgamated. These are the Eurostat data for hazardous waste production; and an assessment of minerals extraction processes that could cause significant safety or environmental risks. Eurostat mentions mining waste and identifies volumes arising in each country. However, nothing is mentioned about mining waste facility location, current or future permits regarding mining waste facilities.

Regarding the latter, we identified these from “Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for Management of Tailings and Waste-Rock in Mining Activities” (European Commission, 2009). The summary tables (pp94-95) of the document report types of mineral, tailings management and safety and accident prevention techniques. The mineral wastes that had safety and accident prevention techniques identified in these tables were chosen as the most likely minerals to be reported upon under the Extractive Wastes Directive.

Using the most recent statistics from “World Mineral Production” (British Geological Survey, 2015), the mine production of each of these metals or minerals was identified. This data is presented in Table 16. The main conclusions from the information are:

 Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Luxembourg, Lithuania, Malta have no mine production of these minerals and metals  Netherlands produces less than 1,000 tonnes per year of all the metals and minerals identified from mine production  Cyprus produces less than 5,000 tonnes per year of all of the metals and minerals identified from mine production

These countries have a low probability of possessing Category A mining waste facilities or of significant environmental or societal risk from mining waste. This information is correlated against MS responses of whether they regulate Category A extractive waste facilities.

That Cyprus does have a Category A facility could be because demand for such a facility has arisen since 2009, or perhaps because even though there is no hazardous mineral production, some by- product of processing does give rise to hazardous wastes but has not been adequately documented.

15 Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta and the Netherlands.

This should be further investigated. However, declaration of such a facility errs on the side of caution.

Returning to the question of hazardous wastes arising from quarrying and mining, we queried the Eurostat statistics regarding the generation of hazardous wastes by the MS, under the activity Mining and Quarrying (again the NACE_r2 code). The most recent available data is for 2012. If such wastes were indicated in significant volumes, there is a strong possibility that one or more hazardous waste facilities would be required next to the generating mine. Of particular interest are the two sub-categories, chemical wastes and mineral/solid wastes. This data was already retrieved for the diagram of Figure 6 (above); it was re-plotted against the number of operating Category A waste facilities declared to be in operation according to each MS in the Questionnaire for the 2nd period of implementation. The results are shown in Figure 7 below.

Figure 7: Hazardous mining and quarry wastes and Category A facilities by MS

Source: Eurostat (2012 data) and MS Questionnaire returns Note: Where no marker is present for a Catgeory A site, the MS did not supply an answer. Note: Due to compressed scale, values for Bulgaria, Romania and UK are truncated.

Table 16: Assessment of hazardous material production in the EU

TOTAL (kg

Precious

metals +

ore

Talc

Rock

Kaolin

Potash

Ironore Coal*** Alumina

Feldspar tonnes

Tungsten

Fluorspar

Strontium

Limestone

Chromium Phosphate

Base Metals* Base others) Gold and Silver** and Gold Austria 2,323,323 850 13,000 134,814 2,471,987

Belgium 300,000 300,000

Bulgaria 146,325 62,385 80,000 82,500 22,600 2,301,500 2,695,310

Croatia 0

Cyprus 3,631 3,631

Czech 411,000 609,000 49,195,000 50,215,000

Denmark 0

Estonia 0

Finland 94,041 981,752 110,871 47,636 877,189 361,840 2,473,329

France 430,000 550,000 300,000 400,000 1,680,000

Germany 1,000,000 400 413,404 200,000 48,744 4,348,562 3,075,201 190,956,000 200,042,311

Greece 527,500 57,400 40,582 5,786 200 631,468

Hungary 130,000 749,000 879,000

Ireland 1,264,689 369,650 7,822 1,642,161

Italy 4,700,000 180,000 110,000 4,990,000

Latvia 0

Luxembourg 0

Lithuania 0

Malta 0

Netherlands 560 560

Poland 578,539 1,100,431 483,000 166,000 77,016,910 79,344,880

Portugal 132,198 40,621 692 138,715 246,308 11,348 569,882

Romania 391,000 9,100 18,500 7,060 32,722 2,000,000 2,458,382

Slovakia 508 6,000 10,000 2,009,000 2,025,508

Slovenia 50,744 50,744

Spain 1,530,000 143,149 33,053 702 128,512 393,427 90,972 8,000 961,865 5,883,586 9,173,266

Sweden 319,042 37,411,000 347,876 30,000 38,107,918

United 36 124 30,000 1,110,000 540,000 12,839,000 14,519,160 Kingdom Source: “World Mineral Production”, 2013 (BGS, 2015), “Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for Management of Tailings and Waste-Rock in Mining Activities” (European Commission, 2009)

It should be noted that the wastes for Bulgaria, Romania and the UK exceed the scale of this chart since it has been expanded to make smaller MS flows visible. However, UK and Romanian flows do not exceed 150 kt/yr, whereas Bulgarian wastes dwarf the rest of the EU at over 1.3 Mt/yr.

Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Netherlands and Austria declared no Category A sites in operation, but did generate hazardous wastes. There may be good reasons for this, such as Luxembourg perhaps exporting immediately its waste (which is in fact mixed general waste) for treatment in another MS. However, it should be queried further as to the treatment of hazardous wastes within these MS.

5.2.3 Search of other supplementary ‘maintained’ sources for information of relevance to MS reporting under Articles of the Directive

In this section we describe the results of a wider search of supplementary materials in order to find any systematic data associated with the topic matter of the Articles of the Directive reported on by MS. Specifically, we looked to locate information associated with permitting, inspections and closed and abandoned mine waste operations. The aim was to identify sources susceptible to provide an additional information which could be used to supplement compliance reports Member states are required to fill-in following an incident.

The search concerned interrogation of known aggregated sources of data which may have relevance to extractive wastes, knowing that the MS agency websites were already queried. (The search excluded Eurostat, which has already been covered above in respect of waste statistics, above.) Key amongst the sources were the European Environment Agency, EuroMines, eMARS, the INSPIRE database, and large projects for the Commission, either direct contracts such as Minventory, as well as the specific EC initiatives, EIP and EIONET. These ‘sites’ are listed, described and characterised in Specific Annex II: Maintained sites (EU and Non-EU) of potential relevance to MS reporting under the Directive. It includes an overview of the purpose and update schedule for the sources as well as a listing of the types of metadata they contain.

The supplementary sources were queried using a list of keywords (see Specific Annex I, 5.2.7).

Findings related to the search of the INSPIRE portal

Directive 2007/12/EC “INSPIRE” obliges MS to publish publicly available geo-located data according to template formats with the aim of creating a commonly accessible data resource. Data is characterised thematically, the main themes of relevance to the current work being: Annex III.8. Production and industrial facilities; Annex III.11. Area management/restriction/regulation zones and reporting units; and Annex III.21. Minerals resources. Each of these themes can be used as a filter to start a search.

Using the Mineral Resources filter yields 154 data records. (These are not the data themselves, but meta-data – descriptors of and pointers to the data source, which may be on INSPIRE, or on a

European Commission Final report Provision and elaboration of information for the preparation of the “Implementation Report of Directive 2006/21/EC on the management of waste from extractive industries” ENV.C.2/FRA/2013/0023 10 4 website of the relevant MS agency. In addition, it is impossible to read the data itself without an ‘App’ or software viewer than can extract the information.) There is a large variation between MS in contributing as is shown in the table below.

Table 17: Numbers of search hits and most relevant datasets under INSPIRE per MS

Country (potentially relevant Most relevant datasets INSPIRE datasets) Austria (of 1) No data of interest Belgium (of 3) No data of interest Denmark (of 1) No data of interest Estonia (of 2) No data of interest Finland (of 1) No data of interest France (of 22) (At least) 3 sets related to regional quarry locations Germany (of 36) (At least) 4 sets related to regional mining permissions Greece (of 1) No data of interest Hungary (of 1) No data of interest Netherlands (of 1) 1 set related to the location of salt brine cavities in production. Poland (of 1) No data of interest Portugal (of 32) 7 sets related to the permitted mining developments on its territorial islands. Romania (of 2) No data of interest Slovenia (of 1) No data of interest Spain (of 11) 1 set related to an inventory of deposits of sludge left from extractive operations in Andalusia 1 set related to inventory of mines, quarries and gravel pits and their environmental impact 1 set related to inventory of abandoned and closed mines in Huelva 1 set related to inventory of abandoned and closed mines in Andalusia 1 set related to inventory of closed mines (location?) UK (of 35) 8 sets related to definition of sites where permits to extract minerals have been granted in various counties of England. Some include locations of inactive and restored permissions as well as active ones. BritPits - database of 180,000 closed and abandoned mine features (possibly including waste facilities, or more likely spoils and dumps).

In summary, little was found of direct relevance to the issues of extractive waste facilities. There were no lists of Category A facilities or – systematically – lists of closed and abandoned mines, historic or new; and certainly no MS-level data related to permits and permitting. Whatever is available is generally fragmentary, and submitted through the diligence of local or regional authorities. For example, there are many instances of datasets which define geographic areas with permits to survey, or to define zones reserved for extraction or conservation.

The most relevant aspects fell into the following categories:

 From the UK, there is a good example of a collation of metadata related to a directory of closed abandoned and inactive mines and related facilities (BritPits16). This is a substantial index of 180,000 features available on a commercial basis for the most detailed level.

Findings related to the search of the EEA site

16 http://www.bgs.ac.uk/products/minerals/britpits.html

The EEA funded a project entitled “European Topic Centre on Waste and Materials in a Green Economy” which has for objective to create a database to help waste management and waste prevention within the EU between 2014 and 2018. The keywords and phrases highlighted in Specific Annex I (chapter 5.2.7) were used to assess whether the EEA website could be used as a complement of information to the MS reports and enhance reporting performance with regards to permit rejections, mine closures or list of Category A facilities.

No matches were obtained during the searches. However, this is not unusual given that the project and its consortium are in their infancy and no updates are available. There is very little to nothing in relation to mining waste treatment and management yet, let alone future plans in this area. Furthermore, after analysis of the information provided by the website, no relevance was observed to requirements of the Directive Annexe III of Commission Decision 2009/358/EC.

Another EEA initiative, the publication of the study “Mapping the impacts of natural hazards and technological accidents in Europe” in 2011, offers a better fit with the purpose of the present study. This 2011 report has the objective to assess the occurrence and impact of disasters including technological accidents in Europe between 1999 and 2008. Again, Specific Annex I (chapter 5.2.7) keywords were used to assess whether it could be used as to complement the MS reports with regards to permit rejections, mine closures or list of Category A facilities.

No relevant matches were obtained. There is very little available in this report in relation to mining waste treatment and management, nor on future plans in this area apart from a reference to the Mining Waste Directive itself. The most relevant section of this report to this present study focuses on the impact of toxic spills within the mining sector within the industrial accident section of the report.

Findings related to the search of the Euromines site

Keywords were used to assess whether the Euromines website could be used as a complement of information to the MS reports and enhance reporting performance with regards to permit rejections, mine closures or list of Category A facilities. The website focuses on Standard information reporting on mining activities and mining waste occurrence. The keywords and phrases highlighted in Specific Annex I (chapter 5.2.7) were used.

For the Euromines website, some matches to general interest articles were obtained following the searches made using the above keywords. They mainly comprised wide-ranging updates and news articles about the state of a particular sector of the industry. This isn’t surprising given the aim of the latter organisation, which is focusing on representing European metals and minerals mining industry. Few operationally relevant articles were found in relation to mining waste treatment and management, let alone future plans available in this area as part of this source of information. However, events in this area were publicised, which are relevant to the objectives of sharing practices. Furthermore, after analysis of the information provided by the website, no match was observed to requirements of the Directive Annexe III of Commission Decision 2009/358/EC.

Findings related to the search of the eMARS site

Keywords were used to assess whether the Major Accident Reporting System, the eMARS database, could be used as a complement of information to the MS reports and enhance reporting performance with regards to permit rejections, mine closures or list of Category A facilities. The keywords and phrases highlighted in Specific Annex II (chapter 5.2.7) were used.

No matches were obtained during the searches. This isn‘t surprising given the aim of the latter organisation, which is focusing on facilitating the exchange of lessons learnt from accidents and near-misses within the EU community. No matches were found in relation to mining waste treatment and management, let alone future plans available in this area as part of this source of information. Furthermore after analysis of the information provided by the database, no match was observed to requirements of the Directive Annexe III of Commission Decision 2009/358/EC.

Findings related to the search of the Minventory site

Keywords were used to assess whether the EC DG GROWTH “Study on structured information on the quality and quantity of EU Raw Materials Deposits”, the Minventory project, could be used as a complement of information to the MS reports and enhance reporting performance with regards to permit rejections, mine closures or list of Category A facilities. The Minventory project is a database covering all EU28 countries on mineral reserves and resources. The keywords and phrases highlighted in Specific Annex I (chapter 5.2.7) were used.

Minventory offered some broad matches following the searches made using the above keywords. Mining activity is referenced by country and region and the relevant national authority responsible for operational, closed or abandoned extractive waste facilities. The site contains no actual data, no mention of the number or the location of hazardous waste sites, mining waste facility or mining waste facilities. The information provided by the portal was therefore somewhat relevant to the articles A2(b), A4(c) and B1(c) of Directive Annexe III of the Commission Decision 2009/358/EC which respectively relate to “adverse consequences for human health and/or the environment” of part A2(b); the practical arrangements taken by an operator to ensure the required information is transmitted immediately to the relevant authority; and how waste facilities of category A can have an impact on environmental and human health.

More particularly, Minventory examined the availability of certain types of mineral data including that related to closed and abandoned mines. A key finding of that work was that, beyond any analysis conducted by MS to categorise high hazard waste facilities in relation to the initial implementation of the Directive, no systematic, pan-European public directory of closed and abandoned mines (or mining waste facilities) exists. Any information on recently closed mines will already be incorporated into MS statistics and will be superseded by the latest information emerging

Findings related to the search of EC initiatives online (EIP, EIONET)

Two EC initiatives have been selected as potential sources of supplementary information. The Member state geological surveys via the “European Innovation Partnership (EIP) on Raw Materials” project and the “European Environment Information and Observation Network” or the EIONET project. The former is an interest group on EU Raw Material criticality aimed at tracking progress on the EIP’s Raw Material Commitments. The latter is an online community aimed at sharing scientific data within a number of interest groups relating to pre-selected open questions/themes. Both are on-going.

Keywords were used to assess whether those two EC initiatives could be used as a complement of information to the MS reports and enhance reporting performance with regards to permit rejections, mine closures or list of Category A facilities. The keywords and phrases highlighted in Specific Annex I (5.2.7) were used.

No matches were obtained and no mention of the number or the location of hazardous waste sites, mining waste facility or mining waste facilities were found. Analysis of the information provided by the database showed no match with the requirements of the Annexe III of the Commission Decision 2009/358/EC.

5.2.4 Search of other supplementary ‘un-maintained’ sources for information of relevance to MS reporting under Articles of the Directive

Specific Annex III (chapter 5.2.9) contains sources of information representing unmaintained sites and past projects of potential relevance to MS reporting under the Directive. In short, these ‘major’ projects comprise Minerals4EU, ProMines and EuroGeoSource. These sites aim to aggregate dispersed information into convenient portals relevant to varying aspects of minerals discovery and exploitation. They have been searched using the keywords of Annex I, for materials relevant to the topic matter of the Articles of the Directive, or its implementation within MS.

Findings related to the search of the MINERALS4EU site

Keywords were used to assess whether the Minerals Knowledge Data Platform, the MINERALS4EU database, could be used as a complement of information to the MS reports and enhance reporting performance with regards to permit rejections, mine closures or list of Category A facilities. This portal focuses on Reporting on mining activities and mining waste occurrence, including geo-located data and is a product of the implementation of the INSPIRE Directive integrated with other sources

European Commission Final report Provision and elaboration of information for the preparation of the “Implementation Report of Directive 2006/21/EC on the management of waste from extractive industries” ENV.C.2/FRA/2013/0023 10 9 of mineral flow and inventory data Such as the British Geological Survey’s minerals yearbook; and as identified by the Minventory meta-data links. The keywords and phrases highlighted in Specific Annex I (chapter 5.2.7) were used.

MINERALS4EU offers some matches using the keywords, since abandoned and upon approval mines, and mining waste labels exist as part of its metadata. However, there is no mention of hazardous waste sites, mining waste facility or facilities.

The information provided by the portal is somewhat relevant to the Directive Annexe III of the Commission Decision 2009/358/EC due to the inclusion of the limitation “of adverse consequences for human health and/or the environment” of part A2(b).

A useful aspect of the portal is its graphical mapping of closed, abandoned and operating mines across a limited number of MS. The introduction to this section postulated that this information might be used to visually identify facilities located on a border which might impact a neighbouring MS in the event of an incident. Unfortunately, the graphical data is vast, does not identify high risk (Category A) facilities and gives little indication of the geographical situation which might impact risk of transgression. In this exercise, therefore, it is not fit for purpose in validating the need or otherwise for a particular MS to take account of its impact on its neighbours.

Findings related to the search of the proMines site

Keywords were used to assess whether the European Technology Platform on Sustainable Mineral Resources, the proMines FP7 project, could be used as a complement of information to the MS reports and enhance reporting performance with regards to permit rejections, mine closures or list of Category A facilities. The keywords and phrases highlighted in Specific Annex I (chapter 5.2.7) were used.

No matches were obtained during the searches. This is because the database focuses on the characterisation of mineral deposits with the aim of identifying deposits presenting properties fit for their exploitation for the production of nanomaterials. No mention of hazardous waste sites, mining waste facility or mining waste facilities are included. Analysis of the information provided by the database showed no match with the requirements of the Annexe III of the Commission Decision 2009/358/EC.

Findings related to the search of the EuroGeoSource site

Keywords were used to assess whether the European Technology Platform on Sustainable Mineral Resources, the EuroGeoSource portal, could be used as a complement of information to the MS reports and enhance reporting performance with regards to permit rejections, mine closures or list of Category A facilities. The keywords and phrases highlighted in Specific Annex I (chapter 5.2.7) were used.

No matches were obtained during the searches. This is because it focuses on displaying existing geo- energy and mineral resource data sets for twelve EU countries. No mention of hazardous waste sites, mining waste facility or mining waste facilities are included. Analysis of the information provided by the database showed no match with the requirements of the Annexe III of the Commission Decision 2009/358/EC.

5.2.5 Search of projects having potential for future revision of the Directive or of MS implementation practice

This section considers the use of on-going EU funded research projects as an additional source of information on the topic matter of the Articles of the Directive reported on by MS. Specifically, we looked to locate information associated with permitting, inspections and closed and abandoned mine waste operations in order to see if the topics addressed by EU funded Science & Technology research projects could provide additional information to supplement compliance reports MS, or future revisions of the Directive.

For the purpose of this study, the frameworks considered are the FP7 (2007-2013) and the H2020 or FP8 (2014-2020). The relevant projects were identified using the key words highlighted in Specific Annex I (chapter 5.2.7) using the search tool on the EC CORDIS dissemination website. A comprehensive list of the projects identified can be found in Specific Annex IV (chapter 5.2.10) together with a short description of each project.

Applying a broad interpretation of the requirements of Annex III of Commission Decision 200/358/EC, it appears that all the on-going and past FP7 and H2020 projects relate to Article A2(b) of the Directive. This is due to the inclusion of the limitation “of adverse consequences for human health and/or the environment” of part A2(b) which is relevant to most initiatives sponsored or funded by the EU today, especially with regard to Science & Technology research projects. Most of the research projects funded by the EU (either closed ones or on-going ones) under the FP7 or the H2020 frameworks consider the development of best practices and improved technologies; these include the recovery of metal and metal by-products within mines containing lower quality ores or which present accessibility difficulties (i.e. Intellimine, Minpollcontrol, STOICISM). A few focus on improving waste management plans such as MIDAS (which includes an element of incident prevention) or Minpollcontrol.

However, it should be added that two more recent projects, recently funded, will focus on policy issues within the mining sector. These are EO-MINERS and MINARURA. The first one will assess required future legislation within the mining sector at both a micro and macro scale. The latter will focus on designing a policy framework needed to ensure key mineral deposits are exploited in the best/most efficient manner, adhering to strong sustainability commitments. Both of these may have utility in either the evolution of the Directive or recommendations for practice in implementation.

A different match was found with the Annex III of the Directive: the BioMORE project, has been found to be relevant to Article A4(a) of the Annex III to a very limited extent. This Article relates to how the public opinion and comments are analysed; and the practical arrangements taken by an operator to ensure the required information is transmitted immediately to the relevant authority. This could have relevance to best practice in future planning and permitting procedures.

5.2.6 Conclusion

Several types of sources have been taken into account to assess whether they could be used to supplement reports under the Directive. Both EU level official statistical sources (i.e. Eurostat) and EC initiatives (i.e. Euromines, eMARS, proMines) and project outcomes from FP7 and H2020 Science & Technology research frameworks have been investigated. Very little administrative data was found on mining waste per se, with regards to the subject of permitting, procedure improvement or waste facility management. Several EC initiative and some FP7 projects focus on reporting mining activities locations together with some level of detail on the type of mined ores (i.e. proMines). On the other hand, research projects assessed for the purpose of this study tend to focus on innovations or new strategies designed to deal with mining waste more effectively, either closer to the mined ore or when trying to lower the environmental impact of new types of mining sites (i.e. lower purity ores sites or deep sea mining). This is probably the result of a number of funded projects having a “zero waste” component embedded in to them, as part of the proposed work program. As a result, the term “mining waste” is mainly found in the context of EU funded research projects examining innovations to limit the production of mining waste, not its treatment above ground.

Overall, the key word search yielded little encouraging results. The general consensus is that there is a lack of publically available information on mining waste facilities, their authorisation, management and even location. The INSPIRE portal yielded some results to the key word search. However, the information is highly fragmented, usually relating to local or regional planning activities and does not in general address the issue of mining waste facilities, only the mines. The information provided is also only partial, covering single aspects of relevance to the Directive, typically only location data.

The Minventory project within which mining waste is reported by country and region as well as the relevant authority responsible for operational, closed or abandoned extractive waste facilities, yields a good match to keyword searches. Even so, within the scope of this project, it cannot be deemed usable as a complement to the MS reports since no mention of the number or the location of hazardous waste sites, mining waste facility or mining waste facilities are included for example. This is unsurprising as Minventory is designed as a meta-data register and a link to other relevant sites described elsewhere in this section.

The key words search for the other databases mentioned above did not yield any other significant results with regards to the key word search.

Generally, the source of information analysed for this task provides little insight into how the coverage or the harmonisation of the reporting for the Mining Waste Directive 2006/21/EC can be improved. Most notably, no update schedule or maintenance plan is planned for most of the

European Commission Final report Provision and elaboration of information for the preparation of the “Implementation Report of Directive 2006/21/EC on the management of waste from extractive industries” ENV.C.2/FRA/2013/0023 11 2 database created as a result of EU initiatives or projects, rendering any future plans for their use as a complement for future projects very difficult. Even for databases created which include mining waste as part of their metadata (i.e. Mining waste bio/weathering, eMARS, Minerals4EU, Eurostat, Minventory). Those initiatives look at the flow of mining waste and its volumes but no information can be found on their detailed operations or installations for example. In this context, the MINERALS4EU, Minventory and the eMARS projects represent the most interesting sources of information which could be used to help collate further information with the aim of increasing the transparency of the mining sector within the EU with regards to mining waste management and incidents.

The MINERALS4EU portal is a substantive project commissioned by the EC in the raw materials field. It addresses availability of data on minerals reserves and resources, production flows and societal stocks; it also graphically provides a view of the location of mines and deposits throughout Europe. While knowing that technical platform for this data is the INSPIRE Directive, which obliges the publication of public geo-located data, this portal could be upgraded to provide geo-location data for mining waste facilities, with suitable categorisation (e.g. Category A, Closed, Abandoned, Operating). This would form – as a minimum – an index of facilities that could be updated as required by the MS’s competent authority. Such an action also partly fulfils the roadmap actions identified in the Minventory project related to creating an index of closed and abandoned mines and incorporating characterising data. It should therefore be considered whether the Directive could be appended with an obligation on MS to produce such an INSPIRE-compliant dataset, at least embracing the Category A facilities, but potentially extending to other known facilities.

With regards to the issue of closed and abandoned mines, comprehensive national registers are hard to locate. The best example, and one which might be replicated elsewhere is that of the UK’s ‘BritPits’ database of 180,000 mine-related artefacts, available on-line which can be interrogated (for a fee). (It is registered on INSPIRE.)

Also within INSPIRE, certain MS have done a good job of cataloguing permitted mine facilities (but not waste facilities) at a local or regional level. A good example of this is Portugal. This practice could usefully be replicated and extended to waste facilities, with tagging for Category A, inert etc. and state of operation.

5.2.7 Specific Annex I: List of keywords used for supplementary search

“permits”, “denied permits”, “permits refused”, “waste management plans”, “inspection rate” and rejection rate”, “closed”, “abandoned”. Furthermore, “category A permit”, “category A facility”, “extractive waste permit”, “mining waste permit”, “mining waste treatment”, “waste facility permit”, “mining waste category A”, “extractive waste category A”.

5.2.8 Specific Annex II: Maintained sites (EU and Non-EU) of potential relevance to MS reporting under the Directive

Source Source description & main characteristics Relevance to Information requirements category of the Directive Annexe III of Commission Decision 2009/358/EC

EUROSTAT Funding and timeline: A2(b), B1(c) Statistical data Description: Eurostat is the statistical office of the European reporting on mining Union situated. Its task is to provide the European Union with production and statistics at European level to enable comparisons between mining waste countries and regions. occurrence. Location: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat Aim: leading provider of high quality statistics on Europe. Audience: EU and national geo-energy and mining authorities, oil, gas and mining companies, investment companies, geological surveys, research institutes, universities and the general public. Maintenance: yearly Update schedule: yearly Metadata: Mining and carrying statistics (structural indicators for the extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas, other mining and quarrying, mining of coal and lignite, mining support service activities, mining of metal ores - number of enterprises, number of persons employed, turnover, purchase of goods and services, personnel costs, value added, gross operating surplus, number of enterprises, apparent labour productivity, average personnel costs, wage-adjusted labour productivity, gross operating rate; extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas, other mining and quarrying, mining of coal and lignite, mining support service activities, mining of metal ores) all classified also by country, company size-class and EU regions).

Mining of coal and lignite (structural indicators for the extraction of hard coal and lignite - number of enterprises, number of persons employed, turnover, purchase of goods and services, personnel costs, value added, gross operating surplus, number of enterprises, apparent labour productivity, average personnel costs, wage-adjusted labour productivity, gross operating rate; extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas, other mining and quarrying, mining of coal and lignite, mining support service activities, mining of metal ores) all classified also by country and company size-class).

Mining of metal ores (structural indicators for mining of other non-ferrous metal ores, mining of iron ores, non-ferrous metal ores, uranium and thorium ores - number of enterprises,

number of persons employed, turnover, purchase of goods and services, personnel costs, value added, gross operating surplus, number of enterprises, apparent labour productivity, average personnel costs, wage-adjusted labour productivity, gross operating rate; extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas, other mining and quarrying, mining of coal and lignite, mining support service activities, mining of metal ores) all classified also by country.

Other mining and carrying statistics (structural indicators for the quarrying of stone, sand and clay- number of enterprises, number of persons employed, turnover, purchase of goods and services, personnel costs, value added, gross operating surplus, number of enterprises, apparent labour productivity, average personnel costs, wage-adjusted labour productivity, gross operating rate; extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas, other mining and quarrying, mining of coal and lignite, mining support service activities, mining of metal ores) all classified also by country and company size-class.

Environment waste statistics (waste generation by economic activity and households- by EU country, mining and quarrying, manufacturing, energy, construction and demolition, other economic activities, households; waste generation by economy activity and households- agriculture, forestry and fishing, mining and quarrying, manufacturing, electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply, water supply, sewage, waste management and remediation activities, construction, services, wholesale of waste and households; waste generation- by country, waste excluding mineral waste, mineral waste including comparison by year in 2004 and 2012, hazardous waste, non-hazardous waste in 2010 and 2012, hazardous waste generation by country in 2004 and 2012; waste treatment by country, recycling, energy recovery, backfilling, incineration, disposal including for hazardous waste treatment)

INSPIRE Funding and timeline: start- 15 May 2007 and full A2(b), Standard Directive implementation by 2019 information Description: “Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the reporting on mining European Community” Directive 2007/2/EC of the European activities and mining Parliament and of the Council waste occurrence Location: http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/index.cfm Aim: create an EU-wide spatial data infrastructure enabling the sharing of environmental spatial information among public sector organisations to better facilitate public access to spatial information across Europe that may impact on the environment. A European Spatial Data Infrastructure will assist in policy-making across boundaries. The purpose of the INSPIRE Directive is to ensure that the spatial data infrastructures of the Member States are compatible and usable in a community and transboundary context. INSPIRE has been implemented in various EC projects such as MINERALS4EU (below). Audience: public environmental and policy-making sector

Maintenance: N/A Update schedule: N/A Metadata: Annex III.8. Production and industrial facilities; Annex III.11. Area management/restriction/regulation zones and reporting units; Annex III.21. Minerals resources.

EUROMINES Funding and timeline: Monday, 10 February, 2014 to Tuesday, No match Standard 31 December, 2019 (for the Euromines Network for information implementation and exchange on Non-Technological Raw- reporting on mining Materials Innovation in the EU. activities and mining Description: recognised representative of the European metals waste occurrence. and minerals mining industry Location: http://www.euromines.org/ Aim: promote the industry and to maintain its relations with European institutions at all levels. Additionally, it provides a formal platform in which the members evaluate the impact of European and International policies and legislation on the industry and define common positions and actions. Audience: public environmental and policy-making sector Maintenance: N/A Update schedule: N/A Metadata: information can be found on mining practices in Europe (production by mineral, mineral production by country, main mineral deposits, mining techniques) eMARS Funding and timeline: No match Major-accident Description: the Major Accident Reporting System (MARS and prevention and later renamed eMARS) was first established by the EU’s Seveso information Directive 82/501/EEC in 1982 and has remained in place with subsequent revisions to the Seveso Directive in effect today. MARS contains reports of chemical accidents and near misses provided to the Major Accident and Hazards Bureau (MAHB) of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre from EU, OECD and UNECE countries (under the TEIA Convention). Reporting an event into eMARS is compulsory for EU Member States when a Seveso establishment is involved and the event meets the criteria of a “major accident” as defined by Annex VI of the Seveso III Directive (2012/18/EU). Location: https://emars.jrc.ec.europa.eu/?id=4 Aim: facilitate the exchange of lessons learned from accidents and near misses involving dangerous substances in order to improve chemical accident prevention and mitigation of potential consequences. Audience: EU, national, regional bodies, decision-makers, authorities managing and evaluating cohesion policy programs, work unions, NGOs, academics and the general public. Maintenance: new IT programming developments were to be introduced in 2014 Update schedule: last update- 06.09.2012 Metadata: National authority accidents by accident start date, legislation (EU SEVESO Directive I, EU SEVESO Directive II, EU SEVESO Directive II + OECD, EU SEVESO Directive II + UN/ECE),

event type (major accident, near miss, other event), industry type (building & works engineering construction; ceramics; chemical installation- ammonia; chemical installation- carbon oxides; chemical installation- chlorine; chemical installation- fluorine or hydrogen fluorine; chemical installation- hydrogen; chemical installation- industrial gases; chemical installation- inorganic acids; chemical installation- nitrogen oxides; chemical installation- other fine chemicals; chemical installation- sulphur oxides & oleum; electronics and electrical engineering; fuel storage (including heating, retail sale); general chemical manufacture (not included above); general engineering manufacturing & assembly; handling and transportation centres (ports, airports); leisure activities; LPG production, bottling and bulk production; manufacture of cement lime and plaster; manufacture of food products & beverages; manufacture of glass; Medical, research, education (including hospitals, universities); mining activities; not known/not applicable; other activity (not included above); petrochemical/oil refineries; plastic and rubber manufacture; power supply and distribution; processing of ferrous metals (foundries, smelting, etc.); processing of metals; processing of metals using electrolytic or chemical processes; processing of non-ferrous metals (foundries, smelting); production and manufacturing of pulp and paper; production and storage of explosives; production and storage of fertilizers, production and storage of fireworks; production and storage of pesticides, biocides, fungicides; production of basic organic chemicals; production of pharmaceuticals; shipbuilding, shipbreaking, ship repair; textile manufacturing and treatment; waste treatment disposal; water and sewage (collection, supply, treatment); wholesale and retail storage and distribution; wood treatment and furniture).

EC-DG GROW’s Funding and timeline: EC DG GROWTH, 2015- ongoing A2(b), A4(c), Standard “Study on Location: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools- B1(c), information structured reporting on mining databases/minventory/content/minventory information on activities and mining Description: directory of structured statistical data holders and the quality waste occurrence- their data set’s characteristics together with – where possible – and quantity including links to where the data may more easily be located. It covers of EU Raw geolocalisation data the EU28 as well as a number of neighbouring countries and Material information on mineral reserves and resources. Deposits” Aim: “one stop shop” for statistical geological data on (Minventory) resources and reserves on European level. Audience: EU, national, regional and local policy, decision- makers, authorities managing and evaluating cohesion policy programs together with projects, mining and mineral downstream industries, traders, financial institutions, European and national associations, NGOs and academics. Maintenance: email notification of errors and updates to site administrator. Update schedule: N/A Metadata: Country summaries; Primary raw materials (by countries, mineral, data type, domain, e-availability and

aggregation level); mining waste (by country, region, relevant authority for operational/closed or abandoned extractive waste facilities); landfill stocks (by country, region, landfill authority and landfill legislation); landfill waste flows (by country, region, waste authority, waste flow reporting legislation, waste flow reporting standard).

Member state Funding and timeline: EC DG GROWTH, 2014- on-going No match Standard geological Description: In the framework of the European Innovation information surveys via Partnership on Raw Materials, the European Commission has reporting on mining “European commissioned a study on Critical Raw Materials which aims to activities and mining Innovation revise, the list of Critical Raw Materials for the EU published in waste occurrence Partnership 2010 (EIP) on Raw Location: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools- Materials” databases/eip-raw- project materials/en/content/european-innovation- partnership-eip-raw-materials Aim: track progress on the EIP’s Raw Materials Commitments, action areas, targets and objectives and set-up a monitoring and evaluation scheme. Using a bottom-up approach, the monitoring exercise will therefore concentrate on gathering data on practical implementation aspects, which will then feed in the more macro-focussed 'evaluation' part. Audience: representatives from the mining industry, public services, academia and NGOs. Maintenance: No information found Update schedule: No information found

EIONET Funding and timeline: EEA, 2014- on-going No match Standard (European Description: central database populated by institutions across information Environment the EU on predefined environmental issues of common reporting on Information interest. Partnership network of the European environmental and issues Environment Agency (EEA) and its member and Observation cooperating countries. It consists of the EEA itself, six European Network) Topic Centres (ETCs) and a network of around 1000 experts from 39 countries in over 350 national environment agencies and other bodies dealing with environmental information. Location: http://www.eionet.europa.eu/ Aim: the website enables a community (e.g. committee, working group, project group etc.) geographically spread across Europe (and beyond) to have a private space on the Internet where they can share information, documents, participate in discussions and various other functionalities on a predefined theme (i.e. ECRINS - EEA hydrographic data set). It provides a timely and quality-assured data, information and expertise for assessing the state of the environment in Europe and the pressures acting upon it. Audience public services, policy makers, academia and NGOs. Maintenance: No information found, last update 18 June 2015. Update schedule: No information found

EU JRC initiatives

European Funding and timeline: EEA funding, July 2014 to December N/A Standard Topic Centre 2018 information on Waste and Description: consortium of European institutions, contracted reporting on mining Materials in a by the European Environment Agency (EEA) activities and mining Green Location: http://etc-wmge.vito.be/ waste occurrence Economy Aim: supply thematic expertise and carry out specific tasks identified in the EEA Multi-Annual Work Programme and specified in the EEA Annual Work Programmes within the areas of waste management, waste prevention, resource efficiency and materials, sectoral integration and green economy, production & consumption systems, chemicals and waste. Audience: EU, national, regional and local policy and decision- makers, authorities managing and evaluating cohesion policy programs and projects, industry stakeholders, European and national associations, NGOs and academics. Maintenance: research organisation VITO NV Update schedule: information hub under construction Metadata: information hub under construction

European Innovation Partnerships initiatives on Raw Materials

EUROASSET Location: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools- Standard databases/eip-raw-materials/en/content/3ds- information reporting on mining european-mineral-asset-definition-and-valuation- activities and mining system waste occurrence Aim: the project aims to facilitate the formation of a globally accepted unified data model for the storage and sharing of all spatial data related to raw materials. This would underpin a system we also propose to develop, of rapid deposit modelling and economic analysis tools, coupled with a rich visualisation client for visually engaging and effective communication of the results.

BioMOre Location: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools- A4(a) Development of databases/eip-raw-materials/en/content/biomore- best practice/technology alternative-mining-concept-raw-materials- commitment Aim: Turn into accessible commodities mineralizations at depths greater than 1km normally not accessible by standard mining practice. Avoid huge amount of in-situ mining wastes, tailings, and dirty ponds reducing the environmental impacts and improving chances for public acceptance. Possibility to extract metals such as Cu, Zn, Ni, Co by circulating solutions at depth. Decrease costs of extraction by lowering infrastructure investments. Develop solution mining socially more acceptable by the public.

5.2.9 Specific Annex III: Un-maintained sites of completed major projects

Source Source description & main characteristics Relevance to Information requirements category of the Directive Annexe III of Commission Decision 2009/358/EC

Minerals4EU Funding and timeline: FP7 project started in Sept 2013 A2(b) Reporting on Description: Minerala4EU Knowledge Data Platform with a free, mining activities public web-service and mining waste Location: http://minerals4eu.brgm-rec.fr/ occurrence- Aim: The Minerals Knowledge Data Platform follows the including implementing rules of the European INSPIRE Directive (2007) to geolocalisation data make data and services interoperable across Europe over a distributed infrastructure. The web portal will soon provide spatial data and related metadata on primary and secondary mineral resources, focusing on mining waste. It will combine ten years of production and trade statistics for primary minerals with new datasets for exploration, resources, reserves of primary minerals and available statistics for waste flows from which secondary minerals-based materials can be obtained. Audience: EU, national, regional and local policy, decision- makers, authorities managing and evaluating cohesion policy programs together with projects, mining and mineral downstream industries, traders, financial institutions, European and national associations, NGOs and academics. Maintenance: Minerals Intelligence Network Update schedule: Yearbook- every 10 years; map viewer- unknown Metadata: For the map viewer- mineral occurrences by mine (abandoned, care & maintenance, closed, under construction, technical economic study, historic, not operating, operating continuously or intermittently, pending approval, retention, under development), mine type (deposit, district, field, mineralized zone, occurrence, project, prospect, province).

For the European Minerals Yearbook- primary minerals (production, trade, resources, reserves); secondary materials (mineral-based waste generation, treatment, trade). All by country, commodity and by category. proMines- Funding and timeline: EC, 2009-2013 (FP7 project) No match Standard European Description: FP7 project with a consortium led by Geological information Technology Survey of Finland (GTK) which includes 27 partners from 11 EU reporting on Platform on member states. ProMine focuses on two parts of the production mineral Sustainable chain by targeting extractive and end-user industries. occurrences Mineral Location: http://promine.gtk.fi/index.php/ including Resources Aim: To develop the first pan-European GIS-based database geolocalisation data containing the known and predicted metalliferous and non-

metalliferous resources, which together define the EU strategic reserves (including secondary resources). The volumes of potentially strategic metals (e.g. cobalt, niobium, vanadium, antimony, platinum group elements and REE) and minerals that are currently not extracted in Europe will be calculated in order to develop five new, high value, mineral-based (nano) products. This will have for objective to enlarge the number of profitable potential targets in Europe in order to establish a new, cross- platform information group between the European Technology Platform on Sustainable Mineral Resources (ETP-SMR) and other platforms. Audience: industry stakeholders within the mining and nanotechnology sector, national geo-energy and mining authorities, investment companies, geological surveys, research institutes, universities, NGOs and the general public. Maintenance: GTK (ProMine Portal) and BRGM (Databases and web services) Update schedule: Metadata: Mineral deposits and layers (base metals, precious metals, iron and ferro-alloy metals, energy commodities, minerals for chemical use, ceramic and refractory minerals, fertilizer minerals, building raw materials speciality and other industrial rocks and minerals, precious and semi-precious stones, critical mineral raw materials); anthropogenic concentration layers (base metals, precious metals, iron and ferro-alloys metals, speciality and rare metals, energy commodities, critical mineral raw materials); district – province mineral potential maps (alkaline peralkaline, epithermal, igneous felsic, igneous intermediate, igneous replacement, IOCG (potential), mafic intrusion (potential), orogenic gold (potential), pegmatites (potential), carbonate hosted (potential), sandstone- and-shale-hosted (potential), sedimentary deposits (potential), VMS (potential), residual deposits (potential), base metals veins (potential); predictive maps (Cu (WofE), Fl (WofE), Sb (WofE), W (WofE), Zn-Carbonate-hosted (WofE), Co (database querying), Ga (database querying), Ge (database querying), In (database querying), Ta (database querying)); 3D-4D belts (3-D geological subsurface model areas); Geological layers (structures, lithostratigraphy); Geographic layers (DEM); Geophysical layers (Moho depth, heat flow, magnetic anomaly, gravity).

EuroGeoSource Funding and timeline: Competitiveness and Innovation No match Standard Framework Programme (CIP), under the Policy Support information Programme (PSP), Geographic Information Theme; 2010-2013 reporting on Description: EuroGeoSource system implementing content- mineral specific and user-oriented GIS map services online based on an occurrences and inventory and analysis of existing geo-energy and mineral extraction facilities resource data sets in 12 EU countries together with the user including needs regarding these data. geolocalisation data Location: http://www.eurogeosource.eu/ Aim: allows access by Internet to the aggregated geographical information on geo-energy (oil, gas, coal etc.) and mineral resources (metallic and non-metallic minerals, industrial

minerals and construction materials: gravel, sand, ornamental stone etc.), coming from 10 European countries. Audience: The European Commission and its institutions, EU and national geo-energy and mining authorities, oil, gas and mining companies, investment companies, geological surveys, research institutes, universities and the general public. Maintenance: not planned within the initial budget Update schedule: not planned within the initial budget Metadata:17 General data of the site (local ID, INSPIRE ID, name, type of resource, start and end of production, status, references, remarks); data of location (geometry, depth below surface, water depth, geographical location); data of extracted material (production, period of production, administrative data, type of licence, name of licence/operator, duration of licence); economic data (UNFC, in-situ ore/substance reserves); geological data (primary commodities/substances, secondary commodities/substances, ago of host rock/reservoir rock age, host rock type/reservoir rock type, geological characteristics regional/of field); attributes of mineral resources (dimension of the deposit, mining method); geological data (main ore mineral, secondary ore minerals/substance, morphology of the deposit, age of mineralisation); attributes of energy resources (number of oil producing wells, number of gas producing wells, number of gas injecting well. Number of oil/gas producing wells, number of water injecting wells, number of water/gas injecting wells,

number of CO2 injecting wells, number of producing/injecting wells, production strategy, installations, oil initially in place, gas initially in place, cumulative water production, cumulative gas injection, cumulative water injection, year of reporting).

European Environmental Agency publications

Mapping the Location: A2(b) Development of impacts of http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/mapping- best natural hazards practice/technology the-impacts-of-natural and Description: The report assesses the occurrence and impacts of technological disasters and the underlying hazards such as storms, extreme accidents in temperature events, forest fires, water scarcity and droughts, Europe floods, snow avalanches, landslides, earthquakes, volcanoes and technological accidents in Europe for the period 1998-2009.

17 http://www.eurogeosource.eu/docs/D4_1_EGSource_key_attributes_final.pdf

5.2.10 Specific Annex IV: Completed and ongoing FP7 and H2020 projects of relevance to future revisions of the Directive

Source Source description & main characteristics Relevance to Information requirement category s of the Directive Annexe III of Commission Decision 2009/358/EC

FP7 projects (completed) Mining waste Location: A2(b) Development of bio/weathering, http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/97492_en.htm best pollution control practice/technolog l and monitoring y Aim: Innovation and Technology transfer project focusing on the mineralogy, the chemical composition (including heavy metals and metalloids specification), the weathering and leachability of inorganic pollutants from mine waste and metal refinery wastes, soil pollution and mine drainage remediation. This study overviews various hydrometallurgical and bio- hydrometallurgical leaching processes for the extraction of metals from these wastes. Different recycling processes and strategies of metals recovery (solvent extraction, electrowinning, (bio)sorption and (microbial) precipitation) from the wastes generated by various ferrous and non-ferrous metallic industries were overviewed. Future prospects of using these metal bearing wastes as secondary resources for metal extraction for commercial beneficiaries were proposed.

Intellimine Location: A2(b) Development of http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/102170_en.ht best practice/technolog ml y & a waste Aim: Project looking at the development of innovative management plan methods, technologies, machines and equipment for the safe, eco-innovative, intelligent and economical exploitation of mineral raw materials in the EU, including maintenance issues, especially at greater depths. It will investigate autonomous, highly selective mineral extraction processes and machinery based on new sensor technologies as well as innovative concepts for mass flow management and transportation. Such investigations have to be accompanied by rock mechanics and ground control issues as well as health, safety and environmental issues. The project aims to render the concept of “invisible, zero-impact mining” a reality, generating waste closer to the mineralisation.

Minpollcontrol Location: A2(b) Development of http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/97492_en.htm best practice/technolog l

Aim: The project focused on an in-depth analysis of the y & a waste mineral content of and effects of weathering on sludge and management plan other zinc mine and refinery wastes. The project also reviewed a wide range of technologies to recycle or leach minerals from these waste sites, and proposed strategies for reuse with the aim of reducing pollution arising from zinc mining and processing activities in Minas Gerais, Brazil.

IMPACTMIN Location: A2(b) Development of http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/93903_en.htm best practice/technolog l y Aim: The project focuses on the use of remote sensing technologies to develop cost-effective, reliable and repeatable approaches for monitoring the impact of mining activities on the environment through time, in order to identify, predict and prevent potentially serious consequences for the natural and human environment. Technologies able to monitor relatively small changes through time and which offer sufficient flexible to operate under different circumstances at acceptable cost are going to be targeted.

EO-MINERS Location: A2(b) Policy assessment http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/93567_en.htm & development of best l practice/technolog Aim: the objectives of this project are to: assess policy y requirements at macro (public) and micro (mining companies) levels and define environmental, socio-economic, societal and sustainable development criteria and indicators to be possibly dealt using earth observation (EO); use existing EO knowledge and carry out new developments on demonstration sites to further demonstrate the capabilities of integrated EO-based methods and tools in monitoring, managing and contributing reducing the environmental and societal footprints of the extractive industry during all phases of a mining project, from the exploration to the exploitation and closure stages; contribute making available reliable and objective information about affected ecosystems, populations and societies, to serve as a basis for a sound “trialogue” between industrialists, governmental organisations and stakeholder

I2Mine Location: A2(b) Development of http://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/151159_en.htm best practice/technolog l y Aim: this project will encompass the development of new techniques for geological engineering methods and rock mechanics that will be demanded by deeper mines and the new technology for smart deep mining. The focus will be on selective exploitation by new sensor based systems for material recognition, boundary layer detection and sorting operations. Although the overall aim is to develop machinery as autonomous as possible, 100% remote operations will not be feasible. This means that health and safety issues and

questions related to the working environment will also be addressed. In addition, the environmental implications and impacts will be taken into account.

FP7 Projects (ongoing)

Managing Impacts Location: A2(b) Waste of Deep-seA http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/110856_en.ht management plan resource & Major accident ml exploitation prevention and Aim: the project addresses fundamental environmental issues (MIDAS) information relating to the exploitation of deep-sea mineral and energy resources (i.e. polymetallic sulphides, manganese nodules, cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts, methane hydrates and the potential mining of REEs). The project will focus on evaluating the environmental impact of those industries on deep-sea ecosystems, develop guidelines for industry ensuring wealth creation and Best Environmental Practice. MIDAS will assess the nature and scales of the potential impacts including 1) physical destruction of the seabed by mining, the creation of mine tailings and the potential for catastrophic slope failures from methane hydrate exploitation, 2) the potential effects of particle-laden plumes in the water column, and 3) the possible toxic chemicals that might be released by the mining process.

STOICISM Location: A2(b) Development of http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/106426_en.ht best practice/technolog ml y Aim: This project aims to enhance the competitiveness of the European industrial minerals industry by developing cleaner, more energy efficient extraction and processing technologies. This industry-led project focuses on calcined industrial minerals which are presently energy intensive to produce. Most calcining uses the direct combustion of fossil fuels, contributing to up to 85% of their carbon emissions. STOICISM is expected to impact significantly on the sustainability of the EU’s industrial minerals industry by decreasing the use of natural resources (both mineral deposits and energy resources) leading to the sustainable production of better and purer products with less waste and lower environmental impact.

Bioelectrochemica Location: A2(b) Development of l systems for http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/103149_en.ht best metal recovery practice/technolog ml y Aim: this project will focus on the development of bioelectrochemical technology applied to the extraction of base metals (i.e. copper, nickel, iron, zinc, cobalt and lead). The latter metals are ubiquitous in process- and waste streams from the mining and metallurgical industry and therefore application of bioelectrochemistry for these metals will have a high impact. Compared to traditional techniques, the use of Bioelectrochemical technology allows high recovery efficiencies, increased metal selectivity and reduced use of

energy with in some cases (e.g. copper reduction) electricity production."

H2020 Projects (ongoing) Flexible and Location: A2(b) Development of Mobile Economic http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/193843_en.ht best Processing practice/technolog ml Technologies y Aim: this project will focus on creating a more efficient exploitation European domestic mineral resources including previously undeveloped resources that have the potential to contribute to the securing of raw material supply by optimising the extraction and processing of ores that include raw materials critical to the economic development of the EU (“critical raw materials” or CRM) and which occur in widespread deposits across the EU. FAME will consider flexible and modular processing technology demonstrated in relevant operational environments (industrially relevant environments in the case of key enabling technologies).

REDMUD Location: A2(b) Development of http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/193432_en.ht best practice/technolog ml y Aim: creation of an European knowledge base to enable Zero- Waste Valorisation of Bauxite Residue (REDMUD) BR contains several critical metals, is associated with a substantial management cost, whereas spills have led to major environmental incidents, including the Ajka disaster in Hungary. To date, zero-waste valorisation of BR is not occurring yet. The creation of a zero-waste BR valorisation industry in Europe urgently requires skilled scientists and engineers, who can tackle the barriers to develop fully closed- loop environmentally-friendly recovery flow sheets. The project targets the recovery of Fe, Al, Ti and rare earths (incl. Sc) while valorising the residuals into building materials via intersectoral and interdisciplinary collaboration of EU-leading institutes and scientists has been established covering the full value chain, from BR to recovered metals and new building materials.

Real-time Mining Location: A2(b) Development of http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/193870_en.ht best practice/technolog ml y Aim: catalyse a change of paradigm towards continuous process and quality management system in highly selective mining operations. Real-Time Mining will develop a real-time process-feedback control loop linking online data acquired during extraction at the mining face rapidly with a sequentially up-datable resource model associated with real-time optimization of long-term planning, short-term sequencing and production control decisions. The impact of the project is

expected on the environment through a reduction in CO2-

emissions, increased energy efficiency and production of zero waste by maximizing process efficiency and resource utilisation. Currently economically marginal deposits or difficult to access deposits will be become industrial viable.

ProSUM Location: Standard http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/193869_en.ht information reporting on ml mining activities Aim: Collect secondary critical raw materials (CRM) data and and mining waste collate maps of stocks and flows for materials and products of occurrence- the “urban mine” and establish a European network of including expertise on secondary sources of CRMs. The project will geolocalisation construct a comprehensive inventory identifying, quantifying data and mapping CRM stocks and flows at national and regional levels across Europe. Via a user-friendly, open-access Urban Mine Knowledge Data Platform (EU-UMKDP), it will communicate the results online and combine them with primary raw materials data from the on-going Minerals4EU project. To maintain and expand the EU-UMKDP in the future, it will provide update protocols, standards and recommendations for additional statistics and improved reporting on CRM’s in waste flows required. The project will provide a factual basis for policy makers to design appropriate legislation, academia to define research priorities and to identify innovation opportunities in recovering CRMs for the recycling industry.

MINATURA Location: A2(b) Policy assessment http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/193887_en.ht ml Aim: The overall objective of MINATURA 2020 is to develop a concept and methodology (i.e. a harmonised European regulatory/guidance/policy framework) for the definition and subsequent protection of “mineral deposits of public importance” in order to ensure their “best use” in the future. Providing a policy planning framework that comprises the “sustainability principle” for mining is the key driving force behind MINATURA.

Mineral EYE Location: A2(b) Development of http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/196996_en.ht best practice/technolog ml y Aim: This project aims to develop technology allowing for in- situ real-time compositional analysis of minerals for underground mining operations allowing for reduced material flows outside of the mine, reducing the associated operational environmental and safety risks. By better, real time mineralogical determination, the mining can be done more selectively, reducing amount of transported and ground side rock and reducing the energy as well as the resources needed.

¡Viable and Location: A2(b) Development of Alternative Mine best

Operating http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/193919_en.ht practice/technolog System! y ml Aim: this project will provide a new Safe, Clean and Low Visibility Mining Technique and will prove its Economic Viability for extracting currently unreachable mineral deposits, thus encouraging investment and helping to put the EU back on a level playing field in terms of access to strategically important minerals. ¡VAMOS! will design and manufacture innovative automated excavation equipment and environmental impact monitoring tools

This is an activity for WP1.4 as it only uses Questionnaire data

Indicators of uniformity of approach by MS.

Waste Management Permits ratio Highlight differences in permitting quality approved WMPs rejected Closures ratio Highlight differences in monitoring regimes approved/undertaken Closures and monitored

Inspections Cat A ratio to no. Cat A facilities Highlight differences in inspection regimes Inspections Inert waste ratio to no. inert facilities Highlight differences in inspection regimes Inspections non-hazardous ratio to no. non-haz facilities Highlight differences in inspection regimes Non-compliances ratio to all facilities Highlight differences in operator attitudes

Contact details for the contractor of this FWC:

BiPRO GmbH Grauertstr. 12 81545 Munich, Germany Phone: +49-89-18979050 Fax: +49-89-18979052 URL: www.bipro.de