ECN publication
Technical principles underlying limit values for release of substances for the percolation test TS3: comparison DE and NL
Published by: Publication date:
ECN Environment & Energy Engineering 4-11-2013
ECN report number: Document type:
ECN-E--13-059 ECN publication
Number of pages: Full text:
37 Download PDF  

1. Introduction and inducement Within CEN TC 351 WG 1, standardized, horizontal test methods are developed to assess the release (leaching) of dangerous substances from construction as defined in ER3 of the CPD. For granular materials TS 3, a horizontal up-flow percolation test, was further developed by CEN TC 351 WG1 and will enter the validation phase in 2013. In CEN TC 351 WG1, there are still discussions regarding the sample preparation and some test conditions. Currently, two options for sample preparation and test conditions are specified: Sample preparation Option A: For granular construction products to be tested under option A, at least 90 % by mass of the test sample shall have a particle size < 4 mm, and 100 % by mass shall have a particle size < 10 mm. Any oversize fraction shall be size reduced by crushing and recombined with the non-crushed fraction to fulfill the particle size requirements. Under this option, the test shall be carried out in columns with an inner diameter d from 50 mm to 100 mm with a packing height h of 300 mm ± 50 mm. Option B: For granular construction products to be tested under option B, sieve the product applying a sieve with a mesh width of 22,4 mm. Size reduce the fraction = 22,4 mm to < 22,4 mm by mildly crushing and sieve out the 16/22,4 mm fraction. Add the 16/22,4 mm fraction to the sieved 0/22,4 mm fraction in the amount in which the fraction > 22,4 mm existed in the original construction product. Test the combined fractions in columns with an inner diameter d of at least 3 times the maximum diameter of the grain size of the product (dmax = 100 mm) with a packing height h of 300 mm ± 50 mm. Test conditions Furthermore after the equilibration period, the flow rate is such that the linear velocity is 150 ± 20 mm/d for option A and 450 ± 50 mm/d for option B. Controversy between DE and NL regarding sample preparation and test conditions and the need for two separate options in the TS 3 percolation test are possibly for a part caused by different approaches for risk assessment in the Netherlands and in Germany and the resulting regulatory concepts. One important reason for this is, that in soil and groundwater regulations the test method and the impact assessment method are systematically linked together but the impact assessment methods and lab methods in both countries are different. The discussions in CEN TC 351 WG 1 show that there is a need to have a better mutual understanding of the relation between test method and impact assessment on the one hand and a clear overview of differences in impact assessment approaches of each country on the other hand. The aim of this project is to explain and compare the assumptions, boundary conditions and conventions of the impact assessment approach that are implemented in the upcoming German Recycling Degree and in the Soil Quality Degree of the Netherlands. Ultimately, a better understanding of the impact assessment approaches provides a basis for further discussion in WG1 to agree on only one option for the percolation test conditions. The following report is prepared by the contractors of Germany and Netherlands together to compare the two country-specific concepts. This report summarizes and explains the presentation given on the 25th of April at TC 351 WG1 in Berlin, and the extensive discussions afterwards. Detailed information about the German impact assessment are given in Grathwohl & Susset, 2011) Some important notes TC 351 does not cover “impact assessment” which is up to MS regulators. However, sometimes we have to look at what “impact assessment” asks from us, i.e. in relation to boundary conditions to the test methods. The issue is studied exemplary for the risk assessment concepts in the Netherlands and in Germany and makes no claim to be complete regarding requirements from other member states. Although the authors have been involved in the actual calculations that underlie the “impact assessments” and resulting release limits for percolation tests for the German recycling decree (B. Susset) and the Dutch Soil Quality decree (J. Dijkstra, A. van Zomeren), views and conclusions in this report are not necessarily shared by the Dutch and/or German Government.

Back to List