Picture: FROM E 2 - OpenAI

The Nordic region's largest rock material test

Rocks with high totals are

useful in the right place
A report fromThe network of end-of-waste and circular construction industry.
Video from the presentation 2022-12-09
The Nordic region's largest rock material test

Mapping of the environmental impact when using rock

products according to the upcoming EU standard
Some of Sweden's and Norway's leading rock material suppliers, Region Stockholm
and the Swedish Transport Administration has tested 38 different rock materials with
the aim of examining their respective rock materials according to the new upcoming
European standard for environmental testing.
●​ The mapping provides a basis for the relationship between total content,
leach content with shaking tests and leachability with percolation according to
the new European standard and confirms that rocks have very low
leachability, which also previous studies from SGU1 and Energy Research2
shown.
●​ The participating companies will get a powerful tool to prove the materials'
environmental impact and assure regulatory authorities and customers that
the products can be used in a way that protects people and the environment.

The project has active support from SGU and takes place under the scientific
guidance of
●​ Jonas Östgren, ecotoxicologist at Trapezia,
●​ Mark Elert, senior environmental consultant at Kemakta and
●​ Martijn van Praagh, environmental consultant Ensucon and researcher Lund
University.

The environmental testing is financed by the respective participating companies.

Through a strong discount from ALS, the participants have been able to test their
materials extensively at a favorable price. Project manager for the project and author
of this report is Carl Zide who you can reach on 0707943609 when it suits orbook an
appointment in his calendar. The conclusions of this report are those of the author
and there are guaranteed to be many areas that could be improved. Get in touch if
you want to join in and help. They can also write a comment directly in the report
below. The report will be updated continuously.

Work materials can be found here:Notes from the conversations, a short

presentation, video from a call on April 8, 2022 andthe project plan.

Thanks to the many experts who helped during the course of the project:
●​ Mårten Sohlman, SBMI
●​ Martin Tengsved, SBMI
●​ Linus Brander, RISE
●​ Peter Martinsson, Swerock
●​ Eva Lidman, ALS
●​ Lena Alakangas, Luleå Technical University
●​ We have also received help and advice from both the Swedish Environmental
Protection Agency and SGU.

This is the largest single environmental testing of rock crushing products in Sweden
and Norway, but despite the scope, the investigation cannot claim to be
comprehensive, even though the samples very likely give a representative picture of
the rock products in Sweden and Norway. This report provides a first insight into the
results of the survey, but there are many aspects and connections not addressed in
this report that we and others will study in the coming years. A unique aspect of this
project is that ALS has offered storage space for the rock materials. A rock sample
library is thus established which can be used to make supplementary tests
afterwards.
1
2018-06 Minbas SGU Critical properties of rock materials and alternative materials
2
2006-02 Thermal research Sheet properties for natural ballast and moraines

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 2 (60)
A new standard forenvironmental impact can clear mountains​ 4
The material producer establishes the limit values ​for safe use​ 4
Ignorance threatens good resource management​ 5
Conclusion 1: Rock leaches very little when used appropriately​ 7
Conclusion 2: Rocks must be assessed for environmental risk as products​ 11
Conclusion 3: Lactate test is better than total content test for estimationenvironmental risk​ 12
Conclusion 4: Arsenic is a substance that should be reviewed​ 16
Conclusion 5: Total concentration test can be used for low concentrations​ 19
Conclusion 6: The size of the fraction determines the potential environmental risk​ 21
Conclusion 7: The leachate content decreases "rapidly"​ 25
Conclusion 8: Recycled rock and virgin rock have similar properties​ 27
Conclusion 9: Shaking test and column test give comparable measurement values​ 31
Conclusion 10: The amount of uranium in the rock samples is small​ 33
Conclusion 11: Laboratory tests, semi-field tests and field tests should be combined​ 36
Conclusion 12: The TAC model probably better than the benchmark model​ 37
Conclusion 13: The rock type is less important for this selection of rock types​ 41
Conclusion 14: The difference between aqua regia and triple acid is small​ 46
Conclusion 15: Measurement uncertainty and error exist but are not decisive​ 47
Expert review of the study​ 49
2022-11-17 Trapezia - Review of the rock material test - Jonas Östgren​ 49
2022-11-15 Kemakta - Rock material test review - Mark Elert​ 49
2022-11-14 Ensucon - Review of the rock material test - Martijn van Praagh​ 50
Background: Choice of environmental tests in the project​ 52
Choice of faction​ 53
Comparison between 14405 and 16637​ 54
Sampling is anonymous and traceable​ 55
Limitations: Sulfideberg is not the focus​ 55
Participating experts from the rock material industry and clients​ 55
Participating companies and organizations​ 56
Advisors and experts who contributed to the project​ 57
Appendix 1: Simplifications spread faster than knowledge - "Poison scandal in Örebro"​ 58
Appendix 2: Overview of common environmental tests​ 59
The network for end-of-waste and circular construction industry​ 60

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 3 (60)
A new standard forenvironmental impact can clear mountains
A new European standard for leachingCEN EN 16637-33 (leaching of 0-4 granules
respectively macadam/level) will be established in the coming year which will be the
best available method for determining environmental risk. The standard measures the
mobility of various substances, which is related to the material's environmental
impact.

EN 16637 consists of the following parts.

●​ Del 1: Guidance for the determination of leaching tests and additional testing
steps.
●​ Part 2: Horizontal dynamic surface leaching test (possibly relevant for water
building stone and railway ballast)
●​ Part 3: Horizontal upflow percolation test (if applicable for other ballast)

Part 1 provides guidance on how to test aggregate according to Part 3. Products that
are not permeable or have low permeability will be tested according to Part 2.
Examples are macadam aggregate for railways and water building stone. The
manufacturer will need to refer to part 2 and/or 3 when creating their Product Safety
Regulatory Data Sheets RDS to the Declaration of Performance.

Material suppliers, clients and regulatory authorities will need to have knowledge of
the leachability of different materials according to this standard. This does not mean
that all material must be environmentally tested against this standard if the
environmental risk can be determined in another way, for example through smaller
tests that exclude that the limit values ​for safe use are violated. This study can be
used to exempt low total content materials from further testing as there is no risk of
low total content material spreading.

The material producer establishes the limit values ​for safe use
The limit values ​for concentrations will be determined by the material producers and
the Chemicals Inspectorate is responsible for the supervision of products. The
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has clarified this responsibility in a couple
of different letters:
●​ The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's response in the end-of-waste investigation:
"The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency believes that industry organizations and
individual companies should work actively to produce data for the assessment of when waste
ceases to be waste according to the general criteria in ch. 15. Section 9 a of the Environmental
Code, because the main responsibility for the assessment lies with the product manufacturer."4
●​ The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency excavated mass investigation: "Special
provisions on materials that arise in construction and civil engineering activities and that are not
waste: Anyone who leaves soil, rock, natural gravel or other types of soil according to the first
paragraph must also provide information that these are technically and environmentally and
health-appropriate for the intended purpose.”5
●​ Another positive message from the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency is that it has now
been clearly stated that the operators are responsible for developing the end-of-waste criteria:
"Since the main responsibility for the assessment of when waste ceases to be waste rests with
the business operator, industry organizations and business operators can work to produce
evidence for the assessment according to the general criteria in ch. 15. Section 9 a of the
Environmental Code.”

3
EN 16637-3 Construction products: Assessment of release of dangerous substances - Part 3: Horizontal
up-flow percolation test
4
2021-11-25 Environmental Protection Agency Waste as a resource NV-00196-21.pdf
5
2022-05-31 Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Handling of excavated material and other naturally
occurring material that can be used for construction purposes

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 4 (60)
Ignorance threatens good resource management
How to measure environmental risk for different types of materials, in different
constructions in different places is an area of ​research that is fairly well explored.
Some examples include the EU's development of end-of-waste criteria for aggregate
materials in 20086, but in Sweden environmental risk models have also been
developed by a number of different organizations such as Avfall Sweden7, Swedish
Transport Agency8 and SBUF/SBMI9. Common to all different environmental risk
models is that the environmental risk is taken into account through a combination of
total content tests and lactate tests.

Although the knowledge about leachability is well known, total concentrations are
used in most environmental assessments in Sweden, even if these lack scientific
support (if one does not have detailed knowledge of the leachability of the material in
question).10 11

In recent years, regulatory authorities have denied mining permits due to the total
content in the rock exceeding the MRR (less than minor risk)12 or KM (sensitive land
use)13. Instead of focusing on evaluating the industry's environmental risk models for
appropriate rock product use, the supervisory authority has chosen to use
benchmarks that are completely unrelated to environmental risk.

Even when it comes to the reuse and recycling of rock material, supervisory
authorities often condition reception, storage and processing to a total content of
MRR, KM or MKM (less sensitive soil)14. In practice, you often see between your
6
2008 EU End of waste criteria Final Report
7
2019-14 Waste Sweden Updated decision support for recycling crushed stone in specific asphalt-covered
constructions
8
2015_0491 Trafikverket Council Sampling and handling
9
2020-06-22 SBUF 13768 Final report Decision support for environmental risk assessment in recycling
10
2008 EU End of waste criteria Final Report: “The focus of the CPD and in particular the third essential
requirement is on the release of dangerous substances from the construction product, and not on the total
content. Substances behave differently in some cases when bound in a matrix, with no risk of releasing
dangerous substances… “In the case that the use of the material consists in introducing it in the
environment and the material is considered relatively inert (e.g. use of aggregates for construction works),
the leaching values of pollutants in the product, combined with the quantity of product used, can be used
directly as proxy indicators for the difference of the environmental impacts of product use.”
11
2014 EU Study on methodological aspects regarding limit values for pollutants in aggregates in the
context of the possible development of end-of-waste criteria under the EU Waste Framework Directive: “In
general, leaching tests rather than analysis of total composition (content) should be used to assess the
release or potential release of substances from aggregates to groundwater, surface water and soil,
because the leaching properties of an aggregate are directly related to risk of such impacts. There is
seldom a direct relationship between the content of a substance in an aggregate and the leaching
behaviour of that substance, because elements may be incorporated into the aggregate matrix and may
not become accessible upon contact with water, and because solubility limitations by minerals and sorption
processes may prevent the elements from leaching at levels proportional to their content. The fraction of a
substance that is available for leaching may thus be a very minor portion of its total content, even under the
most extreme conditions (acidic conditions and size-reduced to a fine granular material). If under such
conditions leachability is still very limited, then a constituent may often be regarded as non-critical with
respect to release.”
12
MRR stands for Less than slight risk and is a guideline for "free" use according to2010-02 The Swedish
Environmental Protection Agency Handbook for recycling waste in construction works. Halters are based
on experimental distributions
for the sensitivity of species and is based on the level that protects 95% of the species. The background
content is then added to this content.​
13
KM stands for Sensitive land use and constitutes a guideline for the clean-up of land for use for housing,
schools, kindergartens, etc. according to2009 Environmental Protection Agency Guideline values ​for
contaminated land - model description and guidance and2009-12 Swedish Environmental Protection
Agency Risk assessment of contaminated areas - a guide from simplified to in-depth risk assessment. KM
means land use where pollution levels do not normally limit land use and where groundwater and surface
water adjacent to the area are protected. The land can be used for housing, agriculture, schools and the
like. Available predefined as a given scenario
in the Environmental Protection Agency's benchmark model for contaminated land.
14
MKM stands for Less sensitive land use and is a guideline for the clean-up of land for use in offices,
trading places and industry etc according to2009 Environmental Protection Agency Guideline values ​for
contaminated land - model description and guidance and2009-12 Swedish Environmental Protection
Agency Risk assessment of contaminated areas - a guide from simplified to in-depth risk assessment.Land
use where pollution levels limit land use and where the protection of health and soil environment in the

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 5 (60)
fingers and the number of cases where you stopped mountains with elevated total
levels is rare.

A corollary effect is also that regulatory authorities deny product status even if the
producer complies with end-of-waste legislation. Even the use of waste-classified
materials during recycling in construction projects is denied with reference to total
levels despite low leachate levels.

area is less extensive than for sensitive land use. Groundwater is protected at a certain distance from the
area. The land can be used for offices, trade, industry, traffic facilities and the like. Available predefined as
a given scenario in the Environmental Protection Agency's benchmark model for contaminated land.

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 6 (60)
Conclusion 1: Rock leaches very little when used appropriately
In many cases, rocks have higher levels of many substances compared to virgin soil
material, but the risk of spreading via leaching is very low. Using total content criteria
for determining environmental risk is incorrect.15

Total concentration tests of rock material are not comparable to background

concentrations derived from analyzes of fine-grained material, which are used in the
guideline model, for example.16

Lake tests should be used for environmental risk assessment of rock material in a
similar way to the EU's acceptance criteria for inert waste in landfill if one wants to
measure the risk of spreading to surface and groundwater.17

Total levels are relatively low, the leachability of most investigated substances is low
compared to, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency's maximum levels for
recycling waste in construction work ("free use"), only 5 out of 38 samples exceed the
MRR18 and all samples fall below the requirements for inert and non-hazardous
material.

The study confirms that all rock samples included in this study are useful as rock
crushing products for appropriate applications.

15
2022-11-17 Trapezia - Review of the rock material test - Jonas Östgren ecotoxicologist
16
2022-11-15 Kemakta - Rock material test review - Mark Elert
17
2022-11-15 Kemakta - Rock material test review - Mark Elert
18
2022-11-14 Ensucon - Review of the rock material test - Martijn van Praagh

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 7 (60)
Table : Total content test mg/kg. The tests are done with aqua regia, except for 53 and 53 d (first) which are done with triple acid

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 8 (60)
Table: Lakhalt L/S-10 mg/kg. Chess test, faction 0-4.

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 9 (60)
Table: Lake content L/S-10 mg/kg. Small column with fraction 0-4 is used, except for 53-large and 53d-large which is large column with fraction 0-10.

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 10 (60)
Conclusion 2: Rocks must be assessed for environmental risk as products
Sweden lacks both an environmental risk model for recycling and guide and limit
values ​for rock material. Using KM/MKM/MRR for a rock material, which often
happens today, is a poor way to describe the risks of a rock material.19

Products must be risk-assessed based on intended use and possibly

handled/restricted in use in order to be called safe. According to Article 3 of the
Product Safety Directive (2001/95/EC), manufacturers are obliged to release only
safe products on the market. According to Article 2 of the same directive, "safe
product" refers to a product which, under normal or reasonably foreseeable
conditions of use, poses no risk or only a low risk which is compatible with the use of
the product and which can be considered acceptable and compatible with a high level
of protection when it concerns people's safety and health.20

When it comes to products, the intended use is central to the risk analysis. When
using the Norwegian Environmental Protection Agency's guideline model, the
conceptual model and its modifications become important for the risk analysis. For
lactate tests, it is important that they reflect reality and were performed under realistic
conditions. Whichever method or model, or various combinations thereof, is used, it is
important that they are adapted/parameterized according to the intended use. As well
as that as robust, realistic and as close to true values ​as possible are used as
parameters to reduce the uncertainties in the result.21

The so-called TAC model used by the Technical Adaptation Committee (TAC) to
develop acceptance criteria for landfills should also be used, in a modified form, to
determine the corresponding acceptance criteria for a rock material.22

A general problem with risk analyzes with limited data is that "worst-case"
assumptions are stacked on top of each other, as are uncertainties. The result is very
conservative guidelines that make the assessment useless.23 This study has
produced data that should be able to constitute comparative values ​and show the
relationship between total content and leachate content.

Recycling something that has first been classified as waste is called end-of-waste
(when waste ceases to be waste). It may be about processing the material, but in
other cases it involves relatively simple processes such as taking a sample that
shows that the waste has the same properties as other products on the market. This
assessment is made by the operator and, generally speaking, this is not a task for the
supervisory authority.24 However, the responsibility for the operator is great.25 A
detailed and adapted methodology for end-of-waste can be found here.

19
2022-11-17 Trapezia - Review of the rock material test - Jonas Östgren ecotoxicologist
20
2001-12-03 EU European Parliament and Council Directive 2001-95-EC on general product safety
21
2022-11-17 Trapezia - Review of the rock material test - Jonas Östgren ecotoxicologist
22
2022-11-17 Trapezia - Review of the rock material test - Jonas Östgren ecotoxicologist
23
2022-11-17 Trapezia - Review of the rock material test - Jonas Östgren ecotoxicologist
24
2022 The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency When waste ceases to be waste
25
2022 The end-of-waste network - Methodology for risk analysis and EoW criteria

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 11 (60)
Conclusion 3: Lactate test is better than total content test for
estimationenvironmental risk
Lake tests provide more information about the environmental risk for ground and
surface water compared to total content tests.26 The leachability Kd is significantly
smaller than those used in the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's risk
assessment model (guideline model).27

The guideline model is based on having a clear connection between eluate content
and total content. This relationship exists, but it is often weak, which gives a large
spread in calculated Kd values. In addition to a weak relationship, carefully selected
Kd values ​have also been used in the target value model. Among the soil materials,
80 – 95% of the evaluated tests show lower leachability compared to the benchmark
model.28

Diagram: Eluate content of arsenic vs total content in various soil materials that was used as a basis for the
Environmental Protection Agency's guideline model.29 Normal soil has a total arsenic content of about 2-8
mg/kg.30 31

26
2022-11-14 Ensucon - Review of the rock material test - Martijn van Praagh
27
2022-11-14 Ensucon - Review of the rock material test - Martijn van Praagh
28
2006-03-30 Kemakta Gabriella Fanger Lactose tests for risk assessment of contaminated areas
29
2006-06 Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Lactose tests for risk assessment of contaminated
areas part 3
30
2019 Svevia Example of values ​from urban land during excavation medium-sized Swedish city
31
2015-01 Geosigma Overview environmental engineering land survey of park lands in Stockholm
Appendix 1

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 12 (60)
Diagram: Eluate content of arsenic vs total content from 36 rock samples.

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 13 (60)
Table: Comparison of Kd values. The Kd value from the survey that is closest to the Kd values ​in the
guideline model (KM model) is arsenic. The most relevant comparative value is shake test L/S-10 where
the leachability is almost double for rock compared to the guideline model (KM model). Mercury Hg and
cadmium Cd are below the detection level. All substances besides arsenic As have leachability at least 10
times higher than the Kd value in the guideline model.

The Kd value is one of a couple of central input values ​in many environmental risk
models to calculate the potential leaching from different materials.

The formula above is an example of many that describe the content of groundwater
due to leaching from a soil contaminated with an inorganic or organic substance,
which includes Kd but also many more parameters. If you don't want to do the math
yourself, you can use the Environmental Protection Agency's benchmark model (KM
model):32

32
2022 Environmental Protection Agency Guidance Guideline values ​for contaminated land

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 14 (60)
Image: In the Environmental Protection Agency's guideline model, you can add your own materials and, for
example, adjust the Kd value.33

If you want to learn more about the benchmark model, you can go and participateand
workshop on February 28, 2023 where you learn to count with the tool and other
similar models.

Within the research, there is quite a consensus that the lactase test is a significantly
better way to assess environmental risk:
●​ "In general, leaching tests rather than analysis of total composition (content) should be used to
assess the release or potential release of substances from aggregates to groundwater, surface
water and soil, because the leaching properties of an aggregate are directly related to risk of
such impacts."34
●​ “The construction products should be tested for specified intended conditions of use. The
producer cannot be held responsible if a product is used in accordance with the conditions
declared by the producer. The focus of the CPD and in particular the third essential requirement
is on the release of dangerous substances from the construction product, and not on the total
content. Substances behave differently in some cases when bound in a matrix, with no risk of
releasing dangerous substances.” 35
●​ “In this context, the main emphasis will be on evaluation of relevant combinations of sources,
pathways and receptors associated with the release of substances from aggregate applications
by leaching, direct contact with or transport through soil and aquifers or surface water bodies to
points of evaluation or compliance in soil, surface water or groundwater (primary receptor).”36

33
2022 Environmental Protection Agency Guidance Guideline values ​for contaminated land
34
2014 EU JRC Study on methodological aspects regarding limit values for pollutants in aggregates
35
2009 EU JRC End-of-Waste Criteria
36
2013-12 ResearchGate EoW Criteria for Waste-Derived Aggregates

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 15 (60)
Conclusion 4: Arsenic is a substance that should be reviewed
Rocks usually have lower total arsenic levels (0.1-1 mg/kg) compared to soil (1-8
mg/kg), but also lower leachability at higher total levels.

In the case of high arsenic levels, precautions must be taken at the discharge site to
protect surface water and groundwater. In the case of very high arsenic levels in
rocks, certain precautions and restrictions on the use of the material can be taken:
1.​ Place rock crusher with elevated levels above the natural water table.
2.​ Protect rock crusher with elevated levels with protective road slopes of earth
masses.
3.​ Avoid crushing to a fine fraction to avoid unnecessary dusting and increased
leachability of the fine fraction.37

Diagram above: Lake content vs. total content in various soil materials that were used as a basis for the
Environmental Protection Agency's guideline model.38 Normal soil has a total arsenic content of about 2-8
mg/kg.39 40

37
2014-03-25 KTH Encountering natural arsenic during production and its impact
38
2006-06 Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Lactose tests for risk assessment of contaminated
areas part 3
39
2019 Svevia Example of values ​from urban land during excavation medium-sized Swedish city
40
2015-01 Geosigma Overview environmental engineering land survey of park lands in Stockholm
Appendix 1

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 16 (60)
Diagram above: Lac content vs total content in 38 rock samples from the survey. Rocks usually have lower
levels of arsenic compared to soil and lower leachability.

Some samples have higher arsenic contents and these materials should be studied
more carefully.41

Arsenic often occurs in higher concentrations in certain sedimentary rocks, especially

in shales with a high organic content. Arsenic pyrite is one of the most common
arsenic minerals FeAsS, but pyrite FeS2 can also contain arsenic.42

Arsenic occurs naturally in the bedrock as a trace element, and for soil and rock types
the content varies between 1 - 40 mg/kg. The earth's crust contains on average 1.5 –

41
2022-11-15 Kemakta - Rock material test review - Mark Elert
42
2009-06 SGU MinBaS II Hildebrand Positive List for Residual Material - Inventory of existing material

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 17 (60)
2 mg/kg and for soil 6 mg/kg.43

The site of use may allow higher levels

When the Swedish Transport Administration built a traffic area in Rosersberg in
Märsta, it was quickly established that there were elevated background levels. Unlike
the soil masses, where everything over MKM (>25 mg/kg) was sent to landfill,
blasting stone was used as filling material, reinforcement layer and carrier layer with
concentrations up to 100 mg/kg without any protective measures. This method is
considered a good way to handle lots, environmentally and a good alternative to
landfill.44

Protection of surface water and groundwater

At normal arsenic levels, protection of surface water and groundwater is the most
important measure when handling and using large amounts of material. The
Norwegian Sea and Water Authority (HaV, 2015) specifies an annual average value
for arsenic in surface water of 0.5 µg/l (dissolved concentration) as the assessment
basis for Good status. The average content in Swedish lakes and watercourses is
0.37, the median 0.30 and the 90th percentile is 0.70 µg/l. The concentration criterion
for surface water in the guideline model applies to the total concentration in surface
water (dissolved and particulate) and is therefore not comparable to HaV's criterion.45
Arsenic is generally present in very low concentrations and the monitoring shows
stable results over time.46

43
2014-03-25 KTH Encountering natural arsenic during production and its impact
44
2013-03-06 KTH Occurrence of natural arsenic during production and its handling
45
2011 Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Kemakta Data sheet for arsenic
46
2022 Swedish Environmental Protection Agency - Arsenic in groundwater

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 18 (60)
Conclusion 5: Total concentration test can be used for low concentrations
Conclusion 3 that the leach test is better than the total content test due to the fact that
the total content test cannot predict the environmental impact (without having
knowledge of the material's leachability) does not mean that the total content test is
always bad. Total content testing is cheap and fast and can be used to categorize
materials prior to leach testing or for environmental assessment if the leachability of
the material is known (for example rock of a certain type).

Since leaching tests are costly and time-consuming, there is reason to find a limit for
total content where the leaching can reasonably be assumed to be negligible. In this
way, unnecessary leaching tests on materials with very low total contents can be
avoided. The mapping of rock in this survey shows that the largest proportion of the
rock samples do not need to be tested for lactate.4748 Only four of the samples show
higher leachability than the MRR in both shake and column tests and only one is on
the border of what can be considered non-inert.

Total levels below 10 mg/kg arsenic usually fall below the MRR level for leachability of
0.1 mg/kg arsenic, and any rock below the total MKM of 25 mg/kg falls well below the
leachability level for inert material of 0.5 mg/kg. With a 95% confidence interval, the
maximum leachate level is 0.12 mg per kg with a total content of 25 mg/kg with a
simple regression analysis of the shake tests (0.29 mg/kg for the column tests). Total
levels above 25 mg/kg are also lactated to ensure that the inert criterion of 0.5 is not
exceeded.

In the decision support for recycling of materials in road construction49 then the limit is
0.89 mg/kg in leachate content (L/S-10) of arsenic for little risk.

47
2022-11-15 Kemakta - Rock material test review - Mark Elert
48
2022-11-17 Trapezia - Review of the rock material test - Jonas Östgren ecotoxicologist
49
2020-06-22 SBUF 13768 Final report Decision support for environmental risk assessment in recycling

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 19 (60)
Diagram: Relationship between total content and leachate content of arsenic. All rock material in the study
can be used in a suitable way and rock with higher than MKM level should be lactate tested before
production and the use should probably be adjusted. Blue points are shake test and purple points are
column test.

The need for simple rapid total content tests exists and a couple of different reports
have highlighted what these could contain. A report from SGU suggests cleaning up
the list of substances when testing rock and soil because rock and soil do not leach
all substances. One such example that also finds support in this investigation is
chromium, which is very tightly bound to both rock and soil50, while chrome in
concrete can in some cases be leachable (although it is not always dangerous just
because it is leachable)51.

50
2009-06-24 SGU Material characterization – Positive List for residual material - Part 2
51
2021-09-20 Remedy 234567 Pinecone Spreading of chrome from concrete

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 20 (60)
Conclusion 6: The size of the fraction determines the potential environmental
risk
The lac tests used do not reflect the grain size distribution that the materials typically
exhibit in use.52

Leaching from rocks can only occur where they are exposed to water, i.e. on the
surfaces of the rock material or cracks in the rock. Leachability of coarser fractions
includes large amounts of the potentially leachable substances which are thus not
available for leaching. This means in practice that crushed products in coarse
fractions leach to a very limited extent due to their very large mass in relation to their
surface area. By calculating the specific surface area, the leachability of crushed
materials of different grain sizes can be estimated.53

Table: The relationship between the surface area and volume of the crushed particle.54

When comparing the fraction 0-4 with an average particle diameter of 1 mm with rock
crusher 0-150 with an average particle size of 90, the calculated leachability
(0.214/0.00143=149.65) is about 150 times greater for the fine fraction. Calculating
the surface area of ​smaller particles is difficult and there are uncertainties. This
comparison is conservatively calculated: The surface area of ​a 0-4 product is found
mainly in the fractions < 63 µm.

Since rocks weather over the long term and also contain microcracks depending on
the rock type, the real difference is less than 150 times. If the rock is reactive or of a
brittle nature, which increases the risk of weathering, surface calculation is not as
relevant. Brittle rock generally does not occur in roofs, as its use is severely limited
for performance reasons.

If the rock is hard and in block form (shot), the environmental impact is very small
even if the total content of a hazardous substance is very large. And making stone
flour 0-2 from rock with elevated levels of certain substances is unsuitable for many
uses.

In addition to the fact that the smaller fraction has a larger surface and thus
leachability, it is easier for the smaller fraction to break down further through a larger

52
2022-11-14 Ensucon - Review of the rock material test - Martijn van Praagh
53
2022-01-21 Envix Trafikverket R41912_00-04 Development of efficient and relevant methods for
assessment of rock material containing metal-bearing sulphide minerals
54
2022-01-21 Envix Trafikverket R41912_00-04 Development of efficient and relevant methods for
assessment of rock material containing metal-bearing sulphide minerals

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 21 (60)
attack surface and thus faster degradation.55

How is the environmental impact of inert large fractions measured

The environmental impact of a fine-grained fraction compared to a large fraction
differs dramatically. If a material has high total contents of a substance that can
potentially harm people and the environment, this material should not be crushed but
used in as large a fraction as possible. To test material in large fractions 40 mm +,
you can use the monolith test EN 15864 or the new standard EN 16637-2:2021. This
method is not advocated by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency:
"As stated in the Environmental Protection Agency's handbook on acceptance criteria for waste
to landfill (see link library), we do not consider it appropriate to use other methods to test
leaching from monolithic waste, for example through so-called diffusion tests. This is because
testing methods based on diffusion tests are not deemed to correspond to the conditions
prevailing in a landfill, and therefore not for a facility purpose either.56

The report that the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency refers to as support for
this conclusion is a report on acceptance criteria for landfills where various toxic
waste fractions such as batteries cast into low-quality concrete were investigated with
the aim of this being classified and handled as inert waste instead of hazardous
waste .57 The author of the report is Ole Hjelmar and he does not believe that this
report can be used to describe circumstances outside the scope of the report
(acceptance criteria for landfills and the materials described in the report). Ole is also
chairman of the technical committee that developed the new standard for monolith
coating EN 16637-2:2021, the purpose of which is to use monolith tests to
environmentally assess monolithic materials.58

The strength of monolith testing where you don't break down the fraction to 0-4 is that
you measure leachability of fractions that reflect reality. The disadvantage of monolith
leaching is that it is expensive, slow and that there are not yet many laboratories that
can carry out the examination. The main benefit of monolith leaching is to assess the
difference in environmental impact between large and small fractions that can be
used as reference values ​without having to do monolith testing on each material with
an elevated content. There are already today several supervisory authorities that
have approved monolith testing as a basis for environmental risk assessments.

55
2009-06 SGU MinBaS II Hildebrand Positive List for Residual Material - Inventory of existing material -
Final report
56
2020-04-28 Referral - Swedish Environmental Protection Agency - Handbook part 1 of 4: Examination of
the content and characteristics of the waste
57
2006 Norden Development of criteria for acceptance of monolithic waste at landfills
58
2022-12-01 Telephone conversation with Ole Hjelmar by Carl Zide

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 22 (60)
Lac content at fraction 0-4 compared to 8-16

Diagram: The difference in eluate content from shake test between sample 13 in crushed to fraction 0-4
(blue) compared to sample 13 in fraction 8-16 (green). These are two shake tests where one was done
according to the standard with a fraction of 0-4 while the other used fraction 8-16 which is a deviation from
the standard. A description of different sampling methods can be found inappendix 2.

Sample 13 reduced the eluate content by 9 times when comparing fraction 0-4 (blue)
to fraction 8-16 (green) for L/S-2 and the measured value for L/S-10 went to a
non-measurable value (<0.5ug/ ml) in common with many other materials with
significantly higher total content.

In order to establish a robust relationship between different fraction sizes, significantly

more measurements are required. This first comparison indicating 9 times less
leaching when increasing fraction size from estimated average fraction of 1 to 11 mm
agrees well with the table above which predicts 11 times less leaching.

Chart: The leach content of arsenic in sample 13 drops from one of the higher (light blue) to a
non-measurable level (dark blue) when testing the material in fraction 0-4 with fraction 8-16. More tests are
needed to be able to establish a general conclusion about exactly how much the fraction affects. This test
is a modified shake test that did not take place in accordance with the standard. New tests that are carried
out should primarily be carried out according to the standard, for example monolith tests can be carried out
according to EN 15864 or the new standard EN 16637-2:2021.

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 23 (60)
Diagram: Eluate arsenic content in sample 13 (P13) increases from a Kd value at L/S-10 of 3000 (pink) to
more than 18,000 (leach content was not measurable, neon green) and at L/S-2 from 1000 ( light pink) to
9000 l/kg (light green). Larger stones thus leach less than small ones in relation to their weight.

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 24 (60)
Conclusion 7: The leachate content decreases "rapidly"
The leaching tests generally show a decrease in leaching over time. The leakability is
significantly lower compared to the assumptions of the benchmark model.59 Many
leach tests show slowly decreasing leaching (in some cases increasing), which are
important parameters for dispersion models.60

The decreasing value of the leach content is based on the amount of water to which
the material is exposed. At the beginning of the leach test (for example L/S-0.2 or
L/S-2) which reflects the first time leaching in reality, the leach content is higher
compared to the end of the leach test (L/S-10) which reflects the long-term leach
content from a material . However, it may happen that the leachate content increases
due to, for example, the disappearance of certain substances or through changes in
pH due to, for example, carbonation (applies, for example, to crushed concrete).61
The time it takes to reach L/S-10 depends on the amount of water per year, the
density of the material, the thickness of the material, etc.62

In cases where the leachability increases (7, 12, 9 and 5) between L/S-2 and L/S-10,
supplementary investigations should be carried out, to confirm that the outcome
remains and to try to identify if the material has any deviant contents of substances or
minerals that can explain the behavior. This may indicate that the material is
heterogeneous, reactive or non-inert. In the deviating cases above, we can see that
the pH of sample 7 is slightly lower.

Chart: Eluate content of arsenic rock L/S-0.2 vs L/S-2 vs L/S-10. This comparison consists of 37 samples,
which means that the lines shown in addition to the mean and median consist of the samples that deviate.
In practice, we cannot completely distinguish L/S-2 from L/S-10 because there is always water left over
from L/S-2 that transfers to L/S 8, which can affect the µg/ml results in L /S 8. This is taken into account
when converting to mg/kg. Our main focus in the analysis should be on mg/kg, although eluate content is
also interesting. A description of different sampling methods can be found inappendix 2.

59
2022-11-17 Trapezia - Review of the rock material test - Jonas Östgren ecotoxicologist
60
2006-03-30 Kemakta Gabriella Fanger Lactose tests for risk assessment of contaminated areas
61
2016 Norden End-of-Waste Criteria for Construction and Demolition Waste
62
L/S stands for Liquid/Solid (l/kg or m3/ton) and can be described by the equation t = t0 + (L/S) d H/I. t
(time) = t0 (the time it takes for water to penetrate the material the first time) + L/S (water flow through/the
amount of material l/kg) * d (the dry density of the material) * H (the height of the construction) / l (the
infiltration of water through the material m/yr). So if we have a construction of 2 m with the density 2 t/m3,
an infiltration of 200 mm/year then it takes 1.5ton/m3*2m/0.2m/year = 15 years to reach L/S = 1 l/kg and
L/S-10 is reached after 150 years. This is a simplified model. Read more in2011 Solid Waste Technology &
Management - DHI Landfilling - Mineral Waste Landfills - Ole Hjelmar

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 25 (60)
The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 26 (60)
Conclusion 8: Recycled rock and virgin rock have similar properties
The survey includes 3 rock samples of tunnel rock. This tunnel rock is of good quality
and equivalent to the source rock in all the environmental tests that have been done.

The assessment of how tunnel rock should be used should be done in the same way
as virgin täktberg if quality and environmental testing is done in a similar way. If
tunnel rock is arbitrarily classified as waste, the creation of non-toxic circular material
flows is prevented. Discrimination depending on the origin of the material risks
creating both financial costs and unnecessary environmental and climate impacts.

Tunnelberg's nitrogen content is comparable

In addition to what is found in the rock, substances can also be added to the material
during processing. One such is nitrogen. Most explosives are based on nitrogen
compounds such as nitrate, ammonia or ammonium. In Sweden​ about 50,000 tons of
explosives are used per year and almost all explosives are nitrite-based. For blasting
of rock above ground, approx. 0.5-0.7 kg of explosive per m3 is required, while
blasting in underground tunnels with confined rock requires approx. 1.5-2 kg/m3.63

During detonation, nitrogen oxide is released which, when detonated above ground,
is spread into the air. Underground, a little more of the nitrogen oxide probably sticks
to the blasting stone. Therefore, tunnel rock is assumed to have higher levels of
nitrogen compared to rock that is loosely held above rock. The three rock samples
from tunnel work included in this study had a lower nitrogen content in total content
but a higher content in leach content, which supports the idea that the tunnel rock
was exposed to more superficial nitrogen during the unloading.64

Rocks contain a natural nitrogen content that varies depending on the rock type. In
granite you can find 3–180 mg/kg (average 45 mg/kg), sedimentary rocks contain
100–2800 mg/kg, metamorphic rocks (e.g. gneiss) are 30–900 mg/kg. In the total
content table below, many rock samples have <50 mg/kg.65

According to several reports, the amount of nitrogen that is dispersed is largely

dependent on the handling of the explosive.66 Older investigations have shown that a
smaller part (4–8%) of explosive gases formed is found in the explosive masses.67 In
other words, nitrogen is primarily a matter of blasting technology and management of
leachate from the blasting/processing site.

63
2018 LTU Storage of blasting stone in Rotebro - The influence of water on the nitrogen content of a
crushing pile
64
2018 LTU Storage of blasting stone in Rotebro - The influence of water on the nitrogen content of a
crushing pile
65
2016-01 Sweco SKB Nitrogen levels in rocks - Compilation of knowledge background levels - Case study
and water sampling TASS Äspö
66
2018 LTU Storage of blasting stone in Rotebro - The influence of water on the nitrogen content of a
crushing pile
67
2016-01 Sweco SKB Nitrogen levels in rocks - Compilation of knowledge background levels - Case study
and water sampling TASS Äspö

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 27 (60)
Table: Total content of all rock samples and average of all rock samples, average of the tunnel rock and the difference between these.

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 28 (60)
Table: Lakhalt L/S-10 from shake test of all rock samples and average of all rock samples, average of the tunnel rock and the difference between these.

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 29 (60)
Table: Lakhalt L/S-10 from column test of all rock samples and average of all rock samples, average of the tunnel rock and the difference between these.

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 30 (60)
Conclusion 9: Shaking test and column test give comparable measurement
values
The investigation shows that shake tests are comparable to column tests. Using
shake tests in comparison with column tests does not mean any deviations
frommeasurement uncertainty.68 There is good agreement between shaking and
percolation tests for some metals (Ni and Zn). For As and Cr, percolation tests
(column tests) give higher leaching. L/S-0.2 usually gives the highest concentration in
eluate, but not always.69 A description of different sampling methods can be found
inappendix 2.

Table: Comparison of leaching LS level and shake vs column. Shaking tests show slightly higher levels
compared to column tests. All substances decrease in leachability on average from L/S-0.2 to L/S-2 and

68
2022-11-14 Ensucon - Review of the rock material test - Martijn van Praagh
69
2006-03-30 Kemakta Gabriella Fanger Lactose tests for risk assessment of contaminated areas

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 31 (60)
between L/S-2 and L/S-10. However, the levels are low and the measurement uncertainty in the leachate is
about 15-40% depending on the element.

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 32 (60)
Conclusion 10: The amount of uranium in the rock samples is small
The amount of uranium U and other potentially radioactive substances such as
thorium Th and potassium K is relatively small in the examined rock samples. All but
one of the rock samples fall below the EU and Sweden's limit of an activity index of
less than 1 for building materials in houses (for example, rock crusher in concrete).70
The risk in an outdoor construction is small. On the other hand, the leachate content
in surface water should be measured when crushing large quantities of material with
elevated levels.

In Sweden, it is mainly certain granites and pegmatites that may have elevated
uranium content. However, high levels of uranium can be found in alum shale in
Skåne, Västergötland, Östergötland, Öland, Närke and along the Swedish mountain
range. This alum schist has uranium contents of 50–400 mg/kg, compared to usual
contents in uranium-rich granites of 15–40 mg/kg. Soils in Europe have a uranium
content of about 0.5–5 mg/kg, the earth's crust has a uranium content of 2–3 mg/kg.71
One of the highest uranium concentrations in Sweden is found in Ranstad (between
Skövde and Falköping) in a type of alum shale called kol, with up to 80% organic
matter and up to 4000 mg uranium/kg. Between 1960 and 1984, around 250 tons of
uranium were extracted from a total of about 1.5 million tons of shale, most of which
was mined during the late 1960s.72

Normal background radiation in Sweden is around 0.1 µSv/h. The background

radiation can be higher if you live in an area with residential granite 0.2–0.4 μSv/h or
alum slate 0.15–1 μSv/h. According to the Housing Authority's building regulations,
the gamma radiation level must not exceed 0.3 µSv/h in rooms where people stay
more than temporarily.73

In order to relatively easily estimate how much radiation is emitted from a building
material, an activity index (AI) has been constructed. The theory behind it states that
if a material has an activity index of 1, the level measured as an effective dose must
not exceed 1 mSv per year to humans. Among other things, it has been taken into
account that you have been staying in the home for a certain amount of time, that the
material has a certain density and that you have used the same material for the floor,
walls and ceiling.74 75

70
See table on page 25 for more details.
71
2022 SGU - Uranium
72
2010-03 Kemakta Naturvårdsverket State of knowledge on environmental consequences of exploration,
extraction and processing of mineral resources of uranium
73
2015-12 SGU Radiation from rock materials p1534
74
CEN TR 17113:2017
75
1995-11 STUK Radiation Dose Assessments for Materials with Elevated Natural Radioactvity

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 33 (60)
Table: Uranium U is measured, but it is actually radium Ra that is the isotope that is relevant from a
radiation point of view. In the table above, we assume that all uranium-238 decays to radium-226.76 We did
not measure radium separately in the survey.

Article 75 EU Council Directive 2013/59/EURATOM establishes that "gamma

exposure indoors from building materials, in addition to external exposure outdoors,
shall be
1 mSv per year.”77

Previously, a maximum activity index of 6 was prescribed for materials that are used
in small quantities (for example facade tiles/floor tiles/bricks).78 In the latter directive,
however, the writing is more vague:
“The index value 1 for activity concentration can be used as a conservative assessment tool to
identify materials that may lead to the reference level in Article 75.1 being exceeded [1 mSv per
year]. When calculating the dose, other factors must be taken into account, such as density, the
thickness of the material and factors associated with the type of building and intended use of the
material (such as bulk material or surface material).”79

The EU's regulatory framework (the Euroatom Directive) was established in Sweden
in 2018, a regulation (2018:506) regarding ionizing radiation in the environment. The
regulation was implemented in line with new radiation safety regulations from the
Norwegian Radiation Safety Authority (SSM) regarding radiation from naturally
occurring radioactive material and building materials (SSMFS 2018:4) where, among
other things, the requirement for radiation dose for the indoor environment is
specifically mentioned.

According to the section “Building materials”,§ 14-16 (SSMFS 2018:4) the calculation
model appears with reference to the appendix.

CRa226, CTh232 and CK40 are the activity concentrations in becquerels per kilogram of dry matter for the
corresponding radionuclides in the building material.

76
2015-12 SGU Radiation from rock materials p1534
77
2013-12-05 EU Council Directive 2013/59/EURATOM on establishing basic safety standards for
protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionizing radiation
78
1999 EU Radiological Protection Principles concerning the Natural Radioactivity of Building Materials
79
2013-12-05 EU Council Directive 2013/59/EURATOM on establishing basic safety standards for
protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionizing radiation

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 34 (60)
In cases where the activity index is >1, the regulation states the following,
§ 16 Anyone who must use a building material with an activity index that exceeds 1 must plan
the use so that the reference level in ch. 3. Section 7 of the Radiation Protection Ordinance
(2018:506) does not risk being exceeded.".

According to the Radiation Protection Ordinance (2018:506) ch. 3 Section 7 states

the requirement that
"The reference level for external exposure to gamma radiation from building materials is 1
millisievert annual effective dose to people staying in the building."

This must be interpreted as meaning that the dose must not be exceeded with regard
to the building materials' contribution in radiation dose to humans. How this
calculation is to be performed is up to the supplier or producer to report. Some
guidance for calculation basis in case the activity index is >1 is given in report CEN
TR 17113:2017, where basis for calculation of final effective dose is described.

The regulation also states that both measurement and declaration of radiation/activity
index is mandatory. In ch. 3 Section 13. 80
"If the recommended upper limit is exceeded, an estimate of the material's contribution to the
indoor gamma radiation level should be made".

Materials with an elevated activity index must limit their use so that the material
cannot be used in building materials for houses or constructions where the indoor
environment for people is negatively affected.

Regarding radon in the indoor environment, indicators the radionuclide radium-226

can be used where the radium index can give a good indication of the conditions for
the materials regarding its potential contribution to radon gas in the indoor
environment.

Surface water and sea water

In surface water, the uranium content is between 0.01–4 mg/l.81 The Swedish
Maritime and Water Authority's regulations for particularly hazardous substances
(SHA) in inland surface water, coastal water and water in the transition zone have a
maximum annual average value of 0.17 μg/l and a maximum permitted concentration
of 8.6 μg/kg uranium.82

Drinking water
In 2022, the Swedish Food Agency will establish new drinking water regulations that
will include new limit values ​for bisphenol A, halogenated acetic acids, chlorate,
chlorite, microcystin-LR, PFAS 4, PFAS 21 and uranium as well as adjusted limit
values ​for arsenic, lead, cadmium and chromium that will apply from 2026. The
Swedish Food Agency's guideline value for uranium for drinking water is a maximum
of 30 μg/l.83

80
Radiation Protection Ordinance (2018:506)
81
2022 SGU - Uranium
82
2019-12-17 HVMFS The Norwegian Maritime and Water Authority's regulations on classification and
environmental quality standards regarding surface water
83
2022-11-01 Norwegian Food Authority Analysis parameters and target values

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 35 (60)
Conclusion 11: Laboratory tests, semi-field tests and field tests should be
combined
Further developing a methodology for fields/semi-fields could probably provide further
improved knowledge about the leaching.84

One way to risk assess rock material as a product today is to modify the
Environmental Protection Agency's calculation model with, among other things,
relevant Kd values ​to simulate rock material. As the model is relatively simple and
based on a set of distribution equations how substances are distributed and spread
between different matrices (soil/water/air) these can be used, with modification, to
assess risk also
other matrices (such as mountains). The calculated Kd values ​could thus be used in
this way. However, this procedure possibly means an increased model uncertainty,
which is less good. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's model is less
relevant for anything other than spreading to surface and groundwater.85

However, the relevance of the method itself canr L/S 10, SS-EN 12457-3, is
discussed, thenit is a purely laboratory result and not representative of the majority of
the products (that which is not a 0/4 mm material). In this case, the model probably
overestimates the leaching from rock material.86 The reference method for most
aggregate products will likely be percolation EN 16637-3 (similar to EN 17516 for
waste). These reference methods will then be supplemented by more practical
methods in the same way that we CE mark with reference method (type testing) and
use practical methods for ongoing manufacturing control.

Purely laboratory experiments that say little about the actual field conditions.
Laboratory trials are what is called lower tier, they have higher uncertainty regarding
relevance to actual conditions, while semi-field and field trials are higher tier with
lower uncertainty regarding relevance to actual conditions.87

A natural development after large laboratory experiments is to link these to reality in a

more relevant way. This could consist of further developing a methodology for
fields/semi-fields that can provide improved knowledge about the leaching. One such
way could be the use of lysimeters (percolation lysimeters).

The advantage of simplified standard leak tests is that there is such a large database
of leak tests to fall back on and precisely that they are standard. Special tests such as
lysimeter tests can involve discussions about relevance and interpretation and can be
difficult for a regulatory authority to decide on. Therefore, it is important to combine
the lysimeter test (semi-field test) with the total content test and the lac test to gain an
understanding of the relationship between the models.

84
2022-11-17 Trapezia - Review of the rock material test - Jonas Östgren ecotoxicologist
85
2022-11-17 Trapezia - Review of the rock material test - Jonas Östgren ecotoxicologist
86
2022-11-17 Trapezia - Review of the rock material test - Jonas Östgren ecotoxicologist
87
2022-11-17 Trapezia - Review of the rock material test - Jonas Östgren ecotoxicologist

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 36 (60)
Conclusion 12: The TAC model probably better than the benchmark model
The TAC model is probably more suitable compared to the benchmark model for
evaluating the environmental risk of the use of rock crushers in different areas of use.
This study has sufficient basis of data points for such benchmarks to be established.88

A couple of reports in the field state that if you use a step-by-step methodology to
establish environmental risk criteria for aggregate materials for construction
purposes, these will end up roughly on the EU's criteria for inert waste:
●​ “Calculations using the stepwise methodology with various conditions imposed on the use have
shown that for e.g., use of aggregates as road sub-base or base, the calculated limit values for
several substances are of the same order of magnitude as the EU WAC for inert waste
landfills.”89

Decisive for the environmental risk assessment will be the spread risk from the
construction to the surrounding environment and human health.
●​ “In this context, the main emphasis will be on evaluation of relevant combinations of sources,
pathways and receptors associated with the release of substances from aggregate applications
by leaching, direct contact with or transport through soil and aquifers or surface water bodies to
points of evaluation or compliance in soil, surface water or groundwater (primary receptor).”90

In addition to leachate levels, total levels should also be taken into account in
environmental risk assessments when the level exceeds levels for hazardous waste:
●​ “Exposure routes such as inhalation, ingestion, direct contact and occupational exposure will not
be addressed in this context. They can largely be based on existing national legislation on
maximum content of (dangerous) substances in materials (e.g., waste aggregates and soil) that
can be used without restrictions and which sufficiently reflect and protect against the risks
associated with these exposure routes. Typically such criteria could be the maximum acceptable
concentrations in the groundwater or surface water at the POC. The primary quality criteria are
totally independent of the nature of the source, and in principle also of the pathway.” 91

However, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has expressed that they do
not think that the EU's criteria for inert material would be a suitable criterion for
end-of-waste. The reason is that a condition for an inert landfill is that you have a
geological barrier and that inert landfills are placed in suitable locations compared to
the locations where products will be used. And even if these opinions lack support in
any study or calculation, it is also believed that the EU's criteria for inert waste was a
political decision that differs from the scientific basis.92 This is correct, the levels in the
EU criteria were higher than the calculated levels obtained through the TAC model:

88
2022-11-15 Kemakta - Rock material test review - Mark Elert
89
2013-12 ResearchGate EoW Criteria for Waste-Derived Aggregates
90
2013-12 ResearchGate EoW Criteria for Waste-Derived Aggregates
91
2006 Norden Development of criteria for acceptance of monolithic waste at landfills
92
2016 Norden End-of-Waste Criteria for Construction and Demolition Waste

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 37 (60)
Table: The difference between calculated guideline values ​according to the TAC model and the established
criteria for inert material.93

When it comes to rocks, it is mainly arsenic that should be taken into account. If the
lack of scientific evidence is the reason for the Environmental Protection Agency's
hesitation, this report should help.

93
2016 Norden End-of-Waste Criteria for Construction and Demolition Waste

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 38 (60)
Table: Leachability assumptions according to Kd differ between the two models and in both models the Kd
value can be adjusted depending on the type of material used. The Kd value used for the design of the
WAC (inert landfill guide values) can be found in the table above, which can be compared with the Kd value
for the rock samples.94 The Kd values ​for Cadmium and Mercury in the four columns on the right are gray
because the leachate values ​were below the measurable level.

The reason why the models' Kd values ​are so much smaller than the calculated values ​in this study is that
the 10th percentile (the soil materials that leach the most) of the experimental values ​in the benchmark
model was used. The theory behind this assumption is that materials can weather and that contaminated
soil often pollutes more.95 If a material does not have a tendency to weather or comes from contaminated
soil, the Kd values ​of the guideline model are therefore conservatively chosen.

In several letters, the Environmental Protection Agency has put forward a third
objection which, in short, is about all products being able to be used completely freely
in any place:
●​ “It is the opinion of Naturvårdsverket that the waste that ceases to be waste should not entail any
environmental problems and conditions should not be necessary.” 96

This position has been adjusted by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency in
recent years, and in the excavated mass investigation it is written:
●​ "In a situation where an operator can demonstrate the above [that the material is environmentally
and healthily suitable for the intended use] and a product is placed on the market, it may still
have limitations, that is to say thatthe product may be suitable for use, but only within a certain
given area of ​use. Such information needs to accompany the product to the end user. In the
event that an end user then uses the product in an incorrect way, or in an inappropriate place,
this means that he is responsible for the inappropriate or illegal use.”97

94
2016 Norden End-of-Waste Criteria for Construction and Demolition Waste
95
2011 Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Kemakta Data sheet for arsenic
96
2016 Norden End-of-Waste Criteria for Construction and Demolition Waste
97
2022-05-31 Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Handling of excavated material and other
naturally occurring material that can be used for construction purposes

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 39 (60)
The third objection is based on the idea that rock and earth products require an
environmental risk assessment that is different from all other products on the market.
This idea is supported by the fact that rock and soil products are used in large
quantities, but can be questioned because rock and soil products have no or low risks
compared to many other products (fuels, cleaning agents, vehicles, etc.). The
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency is the supervisory authority for waste,
while the Chemicals Inspectorate is the supervisory authority for products. This is
confirmed by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency in the end-of-waste
investigation:
●​ "Since the main responsibility for the assessment of when waste ceases to be waste lies with the
operator,can industry organizations and business practitioners work to produce data for the
assessment according to the general criteria in ch. 15. Section 9 a of the Environmental Code.”98
99

TAC models are used in Denmark, for example100 to calculate leaching from concrete
and brick waste and in Finland101 to calculate leaching and spreading from road
bodies. These methods are well known and there are well developed tools based on
research and they can be set up relatively easily.102

98
2021-11-25 Environmental Protection Agency Waste as a resource NV-00196-21.pdf
99
2022-05-31 Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Handling of excavated material and other
naturally occurring material that can be used for construction purposes
100
2018 DK Danish Environmental Protection Agency Modeling of leaching of problematic substances from
concrete and brick Environmental project no 2055
101
2016-11-11 FI Environment MASA and MARA regulations Background report on the preparation of
regulations on the utilization of construction soil waste and certain other waste
102
2022-11-15 Kemakta - Rock material test review - Mark Elert

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 40 (60)
Conclusion 13: The rock type is less important for this selection of rock types
Rock is by no means a uniform material and the number of variants is very large. This
study is focused on rock material from 35 of the largest quarries in Sweden and
Norway as well as three rock samples from contractor rock and one rock sample
fromgray rock from Boliden Aitik.

The literature describes how different rock types can have widely different properties
both in terms of performance and environmental aspects, because the various
constituent minerals have widely different properties in terms of, for example,
chemical stability and leachability.103 104 According to previous studies, it has been
shown that the silica content can be correlated to leachability105, as this content
largely controls which minerals are found in the rock, but this relationship cannot be
confirmed in this investigation. Due to financial limitations, no modal analyzes of the
rock samples are included, since such analyzes are generally based on the
identification and quantification of minerals in thin-slice preparations under a
microscope and sometimes X-ray diffraction, which are methods that are costly due
to both sample preparation and execution time.

The study instead uses a normative method, where theoretical mineral content and
levels of the mineral are modeled based on a geochemical analysis of the rock
material. The advantage is that analysis of main elements in rock samples is
relatively cheap. In this study, the geochemical data have been processed and
classified using the GCD Kit.106 You simply paste the data (text file or excel) and can
then calculate CIPW norm (one of the usual models for normative mineralogy) and
make other types of rock classification based on geochemical total content analyses.
A weakness of the CIPW norm, however, is that the model is based on typical
minerals in magmatic systems, i.e. intrusive and eruptive rocks such as granite,
tonalite, rhyolite and diabase, and thus works poorly for metamorphic and
sedimentary rocks. In addition, it does not take into account crystalline water, so for
example biotite (mica mineral) or amphibole is not calculated. Typically, the modal
mineralogy is also assessed in hand stuff and/or microscope, to verify the plausibility
of the normatively modeled minerals.

Normative mineralogy is therefore not the easiest path to follow, until the correlation
between it and modal mineralogy has been investigated in a large number of rock
samples from the same and different rock types. Instead, there are more readily
available parameters to start from if you want to reflect, for example, leachability
against a rock type. An example is, for example, TAS, Total Alkali plus Silica, which is
also based on chemical analysis of main elements but where you do not get
entangled in hypothetical minerals. In a TAS diagram, the rock is plotted by silica
content against total potassium and sodium oxide content, and an example is shown
in the figure below. The TAS diagram is usually used on very fine-grained rocks (eg
volcanic rocks) where it can be difficult to identify and quantify mineral content under
a microscope.

From an environmental risk perspective, there are diagrams below that show that
there is no clear connection between the total content or leachate content and silica
in the rock samples.

103
2022-04-28 SGU The effect of metamorphism on the aggregate properties of gabbroic rocks
104
2021-11 SGU Variation in technical properties of granitic rocks with metamorphic conditions
105
2009-06 SGU MinBaS II Hildebrand Positive List for Residual Material - Inventory of existing material -
Final report
106
2022-07-08 GCDkit GeoChemical Data toolkit v 6.1

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 41 (60)
Chart: Categorization of rock type and rock species. There are no differences among the rock types tested. The red dots are tunnel mountains, the rest are täktbergs. When
comparing rock sample 53 with its duplicate 53d, a certain uncertainty (possible measurement error) is illustrated. In modal rock analyses, a larger amount of samples should
probably be analyzed to ensure the variation within the material and its location.

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 42 (60)
The table below lists various igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rock types. The
rock types that are most prone to weathering are mainly on the left, although with
some important exceptions! Limestone and marble are easily weathered in relation to
most other rock types but are on the right, as the main division in the table is by dark
and light minerals. Gneiss is not included in the table because its mineralogical
composition can vary widely depending on whether it is of sedimentary or igneous
origin.107

Table: Classification of rock types according to weathering tendency on the far left and the most persistent
rock types on the right. Most of the rock types used in the rock materials industry can be found on the
right.108

107
2009-06 SGU MinBaS II Hildebrand Positive List for Residual Material - Inventory of existing material -
Final report
108
2009-06 SGU MinBaS II Hildebrand Positive List for Residual Material - Inventory of existing material -
Final report

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 43 (60)
Diagram: Leach content vs total arsenic content. All samples are well below the guidelines for inert
leachability.

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 44 (60)
Diagram: There is no clear relationship between the total content and silica in the rock samples. The model
reliability Adjusted R Square -0.029 in a regression analysis, it is therefore non-existent.

Diagram: There is no clear relationship between the leachate content L/S-10 and silica in the rock samples.
Model safety Adjusted R Square0.014 in a regression analysis, it is therefore non-existent.

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 45 (60)
Conclusion 14: The difference between aqua regia and triple acid is small
The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency advocates the use of aqua regia
when measuring total content (in environmental risk assessment for recycling). King's
water consists of nitric acid and hydrochloric acid and provides a partial dissolution of
the rock's contents. Many rock crusher manufacturers today use triple acid in their
tests, which canexaggerate the total levels. Triple acid consists of hydrochloric acid
HCI, nitric acid HNO3 and hydrofluoric acid (HF) which gives a total dissolution. It is
also possible to achieve total rutting by melting analysis (melting).

Table: The comparison above between total content test based duplicate tests with aqua regia and triple
acid duplicate tests. This is therefore only an indication that needs to be verified. Unfortunately, the
detection level for arsenic is too low, but the value for triple acid is assumed to be higher compared to aqua
regia.

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 46 (60)
Conclusion 15: Measurement uncertainty and error exist but are not decisive
Error in a survey is the difference between the observed and the true often unknown
value. Some errors are random which can for example be due to heterogeneity, too
small sample amounts or the sample location. Other errors are systematic where, for
example, you have contaminated samples or miscalibrated measuring instruments.
The average error in a number of different samplings is called uncertainty.109

Errors occur in all parts of an investigation: from planning, sampling, handling,

laboratory testing and analysis. In this investigation, large sample volumes are used
from a very large amount of homogeneous material collected in a batch sample of 25
increments, and the processing to fine fraction has been done in the laboratory to
remove as much as possible of possible errors and uncertainties.

The survey includes a series of duplicate samples in order to estimate the

measurement uncertainty. However, some materials can be heterogeneous and in
these cases the random errors increase, even if the laboratory test is performed
without error.

Table: Differences in measurement results from duplicate tests of shake test and total content test with
triple acid and aqua regia respectively. So this is just two values ​being compared so this should only be
considered as an indication.

Show difference in mg/kg

109
2019 SGF Quality control for sampling of contaminated areas

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 47 (60)
Many measurement results fall below the detection level in the duplicate tests. Lead
and cobalt are the two most uncertain substances to measure, but when it comes to
rock, the leachable levels are very low, which means that even a small difference
becomes big. When it comes to aqua regia, which the Swedish Environmental
Protection Agency advocates when measuring total content, the biggest possible
errors are copper, selenium and sulphur. These three metals all have low leach levels
among the 39 samples tested.

If you want to be sure to determine the sulfur content correctly, you should use triple
acid. Since sulfur content is primarily used to clear rocks from suspicion of potentially
acidifying properties, the total content will not determine the rock's environmental risk,
since rocks with elevated sulfur content are still tested with the NAGpH test, which is
a significantly better indicator of acidification risk compared to the total content test.

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 48 (60)
Expert review of the study
To provide guidance and expertise to the study, three experts have participated in a
series of conversations where the results of the laboratory tests have been reviewed.
Their comments and views are attached to this report.

2022-11-17 Trapezia - Review of the rock material test - Jonas Östgren

Summary of Jonas Östgren's comments and suggestions:
●​ Today, there are no guideline and limit values ​for rock material.
●​ Using KM/MKM/MRR for a rock material, which often happens in practice
today, is a rather poor way of describing the risks of a rock material.
●​ A general problem with risk analyzes is that, on the one hand, "worst-case"
assumptions are stacked on top of each other, as are uncertainties. The
result is very conservative guidelines that make the assessment useless.
●​ The leaching tests generally show a decrease in leaching over time. The
leakability is significantly lower compared to the assumptions of the
benchmark model.
●​ Materials with low total contents do not need to be tested for lactate.
●​ Further developing a methodology for fields/semi-fields could probably
provide further improved knowledge about the leaching.
●​ Products must be risk assessed based on intended use and eeventually
handled/restricted in use in order to be called safe.

Jonas Östgren is an ecotoxicologist and managing partner in the environmental

consulting company Trapezia. Jonas is a trained biologist from Uppsala University
and has studied environmental risk analysis at Kalmar University. He has worked at
the Chemicals Inspectorate and within the European Food Safety Authority EFSA.

Jonas Östgren has been active in the Network for end-of-waste and circular
construction industry and was the main author of the industry's joint methodology for
end-of-waste.110

Trapezia is a staff-owned environmental consulting company founded in 2006 with

many customers in rock material production, remediation and landfills. Trapezia is
focused on permit review of environmentally hazardous activities, land remediation &
contaminated land and chemicals.Read more about Trapezia here.

2022-11-15 Kemakta - Rock material test review - Mark Elert

Summary of Mark Elert's comments and suggestions:
●​ Total concentration tests of rock material are not comparable to background
concentrations derived from analyzes of fine-grained material, which are
used in the guideline model, for example.
●​ Leak tests should be used for environmental risk assessment of rock material
in a similar way to the EU's acceptance criteria for inert waste in landfill.
●​ Most rock samples in the study have low total contents and low leachate
contents, which means that total contents tests are sufficient when the
contents are low.
●​ Some samples deviate and for these materials the leaching process should
be studied more carefully.
●​ The TAC model is probably more suitable compared to the benchmark model
for evaluating the environmental risk of the use of rock crushers in different
areas of use.
●​ This study has sufficient basis for such guidelines to be established.

Mark Elert is a senior consultant at Kemakta. Mark is a mathematician from

Stockholm University. Mark has worked with environmental risk analyzes for over 40
years in a wide range of activities. At the end of the 70s, the focus was on safety
110
2022 The end-of-waste network - Methodology for risk analysis and EoW criteria

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 49 (60)
analyzes of final disposal, storage and transport of radioactive waste, which then
expanded to environmental risk assessments of the spread of other hazardous
substances in the environment, contaminated land, waste management and
protection of ground and surface water.

Mark Elert was the author of several of the investigations that form the basis of the
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's handbook for recycling.111

Kemakta is a staff-owned environmental consulting company founded in 1975 that

works with environmental and nuclear waste issues. Kemakta focuses on
contaminated areas and water protection as well as the disposal of radioactive waste
and other material that must be declassified, recycled or landfilled. During the 1990s,
Kemakta worked on behalf of the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency to
develop risk-based guidelines for contaminated areas as well as assessment bases
for the classification of contaminated masses, which among other things laid the
foundation for the handbook for recycling waste for construction purposes.Read more
about Kemakta here.

2022-11-14 Ensucon - Review of the rock material test - Martijn van Praagh
Summary of Martijn van Praagh's comments and suggestions:
●​ Total levels in agents are relatively low, the leachability of most of the
investigated substances is low compared to, for example, the Environmental
Protection Agency's maximum levels for recycling waste in construction work
("free use"), only 5 out of 38 samples exceed the MRR.
●​ Lactose tests provide more information about the environmental risk
compared to total content tests.
●​ The leachability expressed as a Kd value is considerably lesse than those
used in the Environmental Protection Agency's risk assessment model
(guideline model).
●​ Results from shake tests are comparable to column tests.
●​ The size fraction used in the lac tests does not reflect the grain size
distribution that the materials typically exhibit in use, or only a portion of it.

Martijn van Praagh works with research & development and environmental risk
investigations at Ensucon and is associate professor in environmental science at the
Center for Environmental and Climate Science at Lund University. Martijn is a doctor
in technical water resource studies at Lund University. He works with environmental
permit investigations, environmental risk assessments during recycling and
investigations of complex pollution.

Martijn van Praagh was the main author of SBMI's decision support112 in recycling,
but has also done similar bel emission tests for Waste Sweden113 and the Swedish
Transport Administration114.

Ensucon is an environmental consulting company founded in 2018 which, among

other things, works with strategic environmental services/management systems
(environmental management system, quality management system, environmental
certification), contaminated areas (exploitation investigations, remediation controls,
control sampling), waste (waste plan, control program, waste investigations) and
acoustics (building acoustics, wind power, quarries). .Read more about Ensucon
here.

The Center for Environmental and Climate Science (CEC) is a center formation at the
111
2010-02 The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Handbook for recycling waste in construction
works
112
2020-06-22 SBUF 13768 Final report Decision support for environmental risk assessment in recycling
113
2019-14 Waste Sweden Updated decision support for recycling crushed stone in specific
asphalt-covered constructions
114
2015_0491 Trafikverket Council Sampling and handling

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 50 (60)
Faculty of Science, Lund University. Undergraduate education, postgraduate
education, research and collaboration are conducted here in a number of different
areas related to the environment, climate and sustainable development. CEC has
around eighty employees and extensive collaborations with researchers at other
institutions.Read more about the Center for Environmental and Climate Science here.

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 51 (60)
Background: Choice of environmental tests in the project
After discussions with our three experts, SGU and the Swedish Environmental
Protection Agency, a sampling and laboratory test plan was established:

Subject Sampling Necessary and Total Shaking test LS2 +

desirable concentration LS10 + Small column
respectively test test LS2+LS10

Arsenic As MRR Necessary MRR-KM MRR

Bly Pb MRR Necessary MRR-KM MRR

Cadmium Cd MRR Necessary MRR-KM MRR

Copper Cu MRR Necessary MRR-KM MRR

Chrome Cr MRR Necessary MRR-KM MRR

Mercury Hg MRR Necessary MRR-KM MRR

Nickel Ni MRR Necessary MRR-KM MRR

Zink Zn MRR Necessary MRR-KM MRR

Kobolt Co MRR Necessary KM-AR WITH

Chloride, mg/l Cl MRR Necessary MRR+Finland

Sulfat, mg/l SO4 MRR Necessary MRR+Finland

Conductivity, mS/m MRR Necessary WITH

Flourid, mg/l F- MRR Necessary Finland+AR

antimony Sb KM Necessary KM-AR Finland+AR

Vanadin V KM Necessary KM Finland

Barium Ba KM Necessary KM Finland

Molybdenum Mon KM Necessary KM-AR Finland+AR

Selen Se Finland EOW Necessary Finland Finland

Manganese Mn Drinking water Desirable Drinking water Drinking water

Aluminium Al Drinking water Desirable Drinking water Drinking water

Potassium K Drinking water Desirable Drinking water Drinking water

Natrium Na Drinking water Desirable Drinking water Drinking water

Kalcium Ca Drinking water Desirable Drinking water Drinking water

Iron Fairy Drinking water Desirable Drinking water Drinking water

Magnesium Mg Drinking water Desirable Drinking water Drinking water

Uranus U Drinking water Desirable Drinking water Drinking water

The Swedish
Environmental The Swedish
Protection Environmental Protection
Phosphate PO4 Agency Desirable Agency
The Swedish
Environmental The Swedish
Protection Environmental Protection
Nitrogen Agency Desirable Agency
The Swedish The Swedish
Transport Transport
Sulfur S Administration Necessary Administration

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 52 (60)
Alkalinity MRR Necessary MRR

pH MRR Necessary MRR

CCP-PKG01 Rocks Necessary SGU

ME-MS41L Rocks Necessary SGU

PGM-ICP23 Rocks Necessary SGU

Compilation of all related limit values ​and target values.

Explanations​
MRR = Less than minor risk, u-operations, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's handbook for
recycling115
KM = Sensitive land, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's handbook for remediation
AR = The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's proposal for general rules
Drinking water = The Swedish Food Agency's guidelines for drinking water
Finland = Finland's EOW criteria

Contaminants that do not occur in rock but may be present in other materials (concrete, trenching
materials, etc.) are not included in this testing: pfas, oil (aliphatics, aromatics, pah, etc.), DOC, Chromium
(VI), etc.

Choice of faction
In order to be able to compare shake tests and column tests as simply as possible,
the fraction 0-4 is used:
●​ Shaking test EN 12457-3: Sample is sieved down to 4 mm and shaken with
deionized water in two stages for six and 18 hours respectively.
●​ Column test 14405/16637: Sample is sieved down to 4 or 10 mm. The
sample is leached into a column where the L/S ratio is continuously
increased by slowly pumping deionized water from the bottom up through the
column.

To understand the leachability of larger fractions, a fraction-modified (non-standard)

duplicate shake test is made from a sample in fraction 8-16.

115
2010-02 The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Handbook for recycling waste in construction
works

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 53 (60)
Comparison between 14405 and 16637
The former lac test standard for environmental risk assessment of waste is very
similar to the upcoming lac test standard for environmental risk assessment of
products.

IN 14405:2017 EN 16637-3:2021

Description An up-flow percolation test to An up-flow percolation test (PT) which is

determine the leaching behaviour of applicable to determine the leaching behaviour
inorganic and non-volatile organic of inorganic and non-volatile organic substances
substances from granular waste from granular construction products. The test is
materials under standardized not suitable for substances that are volatile
percolation conditions. under ambient conditions.
Purpose Basic characterization constitutes a This up-flow percolation test is performed under
full characterization of the waste by specified test conditions for construction
gathering all the necessary products and does not necessarily produce
information for a safe management of results that mimic specific intended use
the waste in the short and long term. conditions.
Scope Determining the leaching behaviour of Determine the release of substances from a
inorganic and non-volatile organic construction product. The test results enable the
substances from granular waste. distinction between different leaching behaviour.
Leachent Distilled water, demineralized water, Demineralized water or deionized water
de-ionized water
Equipment Column made of glass or plastics (e.g. Column made of plastics or glass for inorganic
PMMA, PTFE) with an internal substances and glass with an inner diameter of
diameter of 5 cm to 10 cm and a filling larger than 50 mm and a length that can
height of about 30 cm ± 5 cm accommodate a filling height of 300 mm ± 50
mm.
Sieving/fraction Sieves of 4 mm and 10 mm Sieves 4 mm, 11,2 mm and 22,4 mm

Sample at least 2,5 kg of the material if a small

column (diameter 5 cm), at least 10
kg, if a wide column (diameter 10 cm)
Sampling IN 14899:2005 prEN 16637-1

Test At least two test portions shall be It is recommended to reserve a test portion to be
taken from the test sample. To fill the able to repeat the test in case of failure. It is
column completely, the quantity of one often considered good practice to perform the
of the test portions shall be such that test in duplicate or triplicate (which would require
its volume after compaction is 0,6 l (in additional test portions).
case a column with a diameter of 5 cm
is used), or 2,4 l (in case a column
with a diameter of 10 cm is used).
Repeatability limit, r 5%

Reproducibility limit, R 14%

Particle size As a rule of thumb, the largest particle

size should be at least 10 times
smaller than the diameter of the
column
Flow rate For this test, a linear leachant velocity
of 15 cm/day has been fixed. This
enables the test to be carried out to a
final L/S = 10 l/kg in approximately 30
days and to reach L/S = 2 l/kg within
approximately one week.

Sources:
●​ 2017-03 CEN en-14405-2017 Characterization of waste - Leaching behaviour

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 54 (60)
 test - Up flow percolation test (under specified conditions)
●​ 2021-02 CEN pren-16637-3 Construction products Assessment of release of
dangerous substances - Part 3 - Horizontal up-flow percolation test
●​ 2005-12 CEN EN 14899-2005 Characterization of waste - Sampling of waste
materials - Framework for the preparation and application of a Sampling Plan
●​ 2018-10 CEN TS 16637-1-2019 Construction products - Assessment of
release of dangerous substances - Part 1 Guidance for the determination of
leaching tests and additional testing steps

Sampling is anonymous and traceable

The companies that want to participate with the number of samples they consider
necessary. The participating companies were given a random ID that only the
company knows (a number between 1 and n), which enables you to know which
results you have but not who the other samples belong to or which facility they come
from. The random distribution of reference numbers that ensures anonymity is
described in that letter the participating companies get and here isa video from
December 10 where the envelope of the reference numbers.

Participating companies send in the amount required to a Massbalans account on

ALS only marked with the ID number. Massbalans invoices the participating
companies for the cost of ALS.

The advantage of participating is:

●​ that for the first time you can compare its material against a selection of other
mountains around Sweden and Norway. You get full knowledge of your own
material and at the same time get access to anonymous tests from other
participants.
●​ that you gain knowledge about the variation between different rock types and
variation within these.
●​ that the connection between total content, shaking test and column test is
established which may justify fewer expensive tests in the future and
declassification of materials known to have low mobility (in a survey like this).

Limitations: Sulfideberg is not the focus

Rocks with greatly elevated sulfur levels have not been included in this investigation
as these require special test methods. Investigation focuses on the large amounts of
material.

Participating experts from the rock material industry and clients

Name Organisation

Alex Grossmann Jehander

Maria Elofsson Skanska

Fredrik Jörnlind Swerock / Must

Åsa Lindgren The Swedish Transport

Administration

Hedda Garshol Jensen Franzefoss

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 55 (60)
 Thea Mathilde Forslund Franzefoss

Eirik Bache Stokmo Franzefoss

Aspen Rudberg Celebration

Gustav Wandell NCC

Steve Persson Region Stockholm

Linn Elmlund Region Stockholm

Anders Lindström Svevia

Lotta Liedberg Svevia

Eric Ronne The car

Emma Rönnblom Parson The car

Anders Edvardsson DKLBC

Allan Trenter Märsta United

Participating companies and organizations

Organisation Number of samples

Jehander 7

Skanska 7

Swerock / Must 5

The Swedish Transport 0

Administration

Franzefoss 4

Celebration 4

NCC 3

Region Stockholm 3

Svevia 2

DKLBC 1

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 56 (60)
 Märsta United 1

The car 1

38

12 companies/organizations participated in the project with a total of 38 different

tests.

Advisors and experts who contributed to the project

●​ Mårten Sohlman, SBMI
●​ Martin Tengsved, SBMI
●​ Linus Brander, RISE
●​ Peter Martinsson, Swerock
●​ Eva Lidman, ALS
●​ Lena Alakangas, Luleå Technical University
●​ Thanks also to employees at SGU and the Swedish Environmental Protection
Agency for help and advice.

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 57 (60)
Appendix 1: Simplifications spread faster than knowledge - "Poison scandal in
Örebro"
A 2014 regulatory report was quickly spread in both local and national media with the
headline that soil manufacturers are poisoning your carrots. Soil for cultivation must
be carefully controlled, but no requirements for environmental risk analyzes were
found in the media, but instead total content analyzes were used without linking it to
bioavailability or environmental risks.

Table: Laboratory test results from testing 10 bags of planting soil.

It would be better if soil manufacturers and regulatory authorities together create

common guidelines for how environmental risk models for cultivated soil and products
for other areas of use can be designed instead of using total levels as an
environmental risk model.

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 58 (60)
 Appendix 2: Overview of common environmental tests
The choice of which test to do is based on what purpose we have. Total content
testing is fast and cheap, but has the worst prerequisite for telling what potential
environmental impact a material has. But once we know that a known material does
not have elevated levels, we can assume that the leachate content and the
environmental impact are also small.

Shaking test (batch test) is probably the most effective test method for measuring
environmental impact. It is relatively fast and relatively cheap and the measurement
uncertainty is similar to the column test. Monolith test (tank test) is probably the test
that most closely resembles reality, however, it is not particularly common, which
makes it difficult to obtain comparative values ​and criteria.

Total content Batch test Column test Tank test Lysimeter test Field test
Content test Leaching test Leaching test Leaching test Semi-field Field test
Powder Shake test Perculation Diffusion Drainage Drainage
perculation perculation
IN 15934:2012 IN 12457-2 IN 14405:2017 IN 15864 No standards IN 15709
IN 12457-3 EN 16637-3:2021 IN 16637-2:2021 Many variants & many others
Granulate crushed 0-4 Granulate crushed Granulate crushed 0-4, Monolith minimum Product size in Product size in
and sieved to <0.25 mm 0-4 mm 0-10, 0-22 mm 40 mm construction construction

0.5 g 100-175 g 2500 or 10 000 g >200 g >1000 kg >1000 ton

Partial or complete Equilibrium-based Equilibrium-based Release-based Designed reality Reality

dissolution in acid Pillar in the river
1-3 days 5-15 days 25-50 days 25-50 days 30-300 days 5-300 days
1,600 SEK 4,000 - 6,000 SEK 11,000 SEK 15,000 SEK >30,000 SEK >30,000 SEK

Overview of the most common test for estimating environmental impact. The price is a very rough estimate
for one analysis of one sample. Often several analysis like L/S-0.2, L/S-2 and L/S-10 are done for each
sample which will increase the cost.

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 59 (60)
The network for end-of-waste and circular construction industry
The end-of-waste network consists of around 200 recycling experts from material
suppliers, builders, recyclers, clients, regulators and government agencies. The
purpose of the network is to collect and spread knowledge about how we can
increase the recycling of various materials in the construction industry with protection
for people and the environment. Read more atend-of-waste.org

Here are some past and upcoming conversations within the network:
2023-03-31 End-of-waste workshop 3.2: How to make a perfect notification for recycling including
environmental risk assessment
2023-02-24 End-of-waste workshop 2.2 Calculate environmental risk with different models
2023-01-20 End-of-waste workshop 1.4: How we create products from waste
2022-12-09 Presentation - The Nordic region's largest rock material test
2022-12-08 Conversation A mass handling and material supply plan for the northern Stockholm region
2022-11-11 End-of-waste workshop 3: How to make a perfect notification for recycling including
environmental risk assessment
2022-10-21 Climatic, environmental and economic benefits with short-lived stone
2022-10-13 End-of-waste workshop 1.2: How we create products from waste
2022-09-23 Conversation Referral on Gothenburg's proposal for a plan for mass management
2022-05-18 Asphalt recycling - talks within the industry
2022-05-12 Gothenburg - Investigation into mass handling - report
2022-02-25 End-of-waste workshop 2: Calculate environmental risk with the KM model
2022-02-21 Bulk handling in Gothenburg - Possible goals and measures + conversation about
principles/strategy
2022-01-28 / 2022-03-11 / 2022-06-03 The network for end-of-waste - This is how we build with sulphide
rock
2022-01-14 The network for end-of-waste - Use of crushed concrete in bearing layers and reinforcement
layers
2021-12-17 End-of-waste: The cost caused by lack of nodes in the aggregate market
2021-12-02 Sweden's largest survey Shaft piles 2021 - press release
2021-11-10 The network for end-of-waste - Environmental risk assessment of rock material
2021-09-16 The end-of-waste network - Notes - Is rock dangerous?
2021-02-24 The Environmental Protection Agency's consultation regarding handbook 2010:1
2021-02-01 - 2021-09-23 This is how we create products with end-of-waste
2020-12-30 The circular economy delegation: Report 1.1 from the expert group for Circular Construction
Industry
2020-06-22 SBUF 13768 Final report Decision support for environmental risk assessment in recycling

https://www.linkedin.com/company/end-of-waste/

https://www.facebook.com/natverketeow

https://www.youtube.com/@end-of-waste

The Nordic region's largest rock material test - The network for end-of-waste​ 60 (60)