RECYCLED MATERIALS IN

EUROPEAN HIGHWAY ENVIRONMENTS

RECYCLED MATERIALS IN

EUROPEAN HIGHWAY ENVIRONMENTS

Uses, Technologies, and Policies


The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts

and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official

policy of the Department of Transportation.

The metric units reported are those used in common practice by the persons interviewed.

They have not been converted to pure SI units because in some cases, the level of precision

implied would have been changed.

The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or

manufacturers’ names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the

document.

The publication of this document was sponsored by the U.S. Federal Highway Administration

under contract number DTFH61-99-C00005. awarded to American Trade Initiatives, Inc. Any

opinions, options, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed herein are those of

the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Government, the authors’ parent

institutions, or American Trade Initiatives, Inc.

This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.

FHWA-PL-00-025

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

Recycled Materials in European Highway Environments: Uses, 

Technologies, and Policies

5. Report Date

October 2000

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) Vincent E. Schimmoller, Katherine Holtz, Dr. T. Taylor Eighmy, 

Carlton Wiles, Michael Smith, Gerald Malasheskie, Gerald J. Rohrbach, 

Shari Schaftlein, Greg Helms, Robert D. Campbell, Charles H. Van 

Deusen, Bob Ford, John A. Almborg

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

American Trade Initiatives

P.O. Box 8228

Alexandria, VA 22306-8228

10. Work Unit No.(TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-99-C-0005

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Office of International Programs

Office of Policy

Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

FHWA COTR: Donald W. Symmes, Office of International Programs

16. Abstract

The objective of this scanning tour was to review and document innovative policies, programs, and techniques 

that promote the use of recycled materials in the highway environment. The U.S. delegation met with more than 

100 representatives from transportation and environmental ministries, research organizations, and industries in 

Sweden, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and France. 

The European countries visited all had recycling policies promoting sustainability as well as a pervasive public 

culture about recycling. Many of the countries use an effective stakeholder process to develop engineering and 

environmental specifications. Generally, recycling occurs when it is economical to do so. Factors in the 

marketplace are dominant, but are supported by government policies and regulations such as bans on landfilling, 

landfill taxes, natural aggregate taxes, and, in some cases, subsidies to assist recycling efforts.

The U.S. delegation made a number of recommendations to encourage increased awareness of the benefits of 

using recycled materials in road construction, and the report includes specific actions for transferring findings 

from the scanning tour to various stakeholders. The delegation believes it is particularly important to adopt 

aspects of the Dutch sustainability model.

17. Key Words

Leaching test, waste-to-energy, municipal solid 

waste, coal fly ash, slag, valorization, construction 

and demolition, recycled asphalt pavement, subbase 

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available to the public 

from the 

Office of International Programs

FHWA-HPIP, Room 3325

US Dept. of Transportation

Washington, DC 20590

international@fhwa.dot.gov

www.international.fhwa.dot.gov

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages 

132

22. Price

Free

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
i

Recycled Materials

in European Highway

Environments:

Uses, Technologies, and Policies

American Trade Initiatives, Inc.

&

Avalon Integrated Services, Inc.

for the

Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

Washington, D.C. 20590

October 2000

Vincent E. Schimmoller

FHWA

(Co-chair)

Katherine Holtz

Texas DOT

(Co-chair)

Dr. T. Taylor Eighmy

University of New Hampshire

(Report Facilitator)

Carlton Wiles

University of New Hampshire

(Technical Writer)

Michael Smith

FHWA

Gerald Malasheskie

Pennsylvania DOT

Gerald J. Rohrbach

Minnesota DOT

Shari Schaftlein

Washington DOT

Greg Helms

U.S. EPA

Robert D. Campbell

American Public Works Association

Charles H. Van Deusen

National Asphalt Pavement Association

Bob Ford

FHWA

John A. Almborg

(Delegation Coordinator)
ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The trip described in this report would not have been successful without the

contributions of many individuals. Most of all, the team members thank the

officials, engineers, scientists, and other people in the countries that we visited.

These individuals and their organizations contributed significant time and

resources to prepare and make presentations, provide the team with the latest

information, and make us comfortable. There are too many to list here; please see

Appendix A for their names and affiliations. The delegation also wishes to

recognize all those who worked behind the scenes to make us comfortable during

our stay in their country.

Contributions from the staff of the American Trade Initiatives, Inc. (ATI) were

essential to the organization, start, and completion of the trip. This organization,

working as a contractor to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), managed

the pre-trip logistics, escorted the team throughout the trip, and provided support

to prepare and publish the report. Team members would like to recognize the

following ATI staff:

• Joe Conn for his guidance and assistance in organizing the trip.

• Jake Almborg for organizing pre-trip meetings and teleconference calls. His

guidance, counsel, and leadership as our escort enabled us to maintain a

hectic schedule in as comfortable a manner as possible.

• Alexandra Doumani for her assistance in making trip arrangements and in

other aspects of the trip.

In addition to coordinating arrangements in Paris, Ms. Marie-Dominique Gorrigan

acted as an interpreter in France and translated several papers for use in the final

report. We gratefully acknowledge her contributions.

The scanning trip was sponsored by the FHWA Office of International Programs,

the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

through the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)

administered by the National Academy of Sciences, and the Recycled Materials

Resource Center (RMRC) of the University of New Hampshire.
iii

FHWA INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY

EXCHANGE PROGRAMS

The FHWA’s international programs focus on meeting the growing demands of its

partners at the Federal, state, and local levels for access to information on state-of-theart technology and the best practices used worldwide. While the FHWA is considered a

world leader in highway transportation, the domestic highway community is very

interested in the advanced technologies being developed by other countries, as well as

innovative organizational and financing techniques used by the FHWA’s international

counterparts.

INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY SCANNING PROGRAM

The International Technology Scanning Program accesses and evaluates foreign

technologies and innovations that could significantly benefit U.S. highway

transportation systems. Access to foreign innovations is strengthened by U.S.

participation in the technical committees of international highway organizations

and through bilateral technical exchange agreements with selected nations. The

program has undertaken cooperatives with the American Association of State Highway

Transportation Officials and its Select Committee on International Activities, and the

Transportation Research Board’s National Highway Research Cooperative Program

(Panel 20-36), the private sector, and academia.

Priority topic areas are jointly determined by the FHWA and its partners. Teams of

specialists in the specific areas of expertise being investigated are formed and sent

to countries where significant advances and innovations have been made in

technology, management practices, organizational structure, program delivery, and

financing. Teams usually include Federal and state highway officials, private sector and

industry association representatives, as well as members of the academic community.

The FHWA has organized more than 35 of these reviews and disseminated results

nationwide. Topics have encompassed pavements, bridge construction and

maintenance, contracting, intermodal transport, organizational management,

winter road maintenance, safety, intelligent transportation systems, planning, and

policy. Findings are recommended for follow-up with further research and pilot or

demonstration projects to verify adaptability to the United States. Information

about the scan findings and results of pilot programs are then disseminated

nationally to state and local highway transportation officials and the private sector for

implementation.

This program has resulted in significant improvements and savings in road program

technologies and practices throughout the United States, particularly in the areas of

structures, pavements, safety, and winter road maintenance. Joint research and

technology-sharing projects have also been launched with international counterparts,

further conserving resources and advancing the state of the art.

For a complete list of International Technology Scanning topics, and to order free copies

of the reports, please see the last page of this publication.

Website: www.international.fhwa.dot.gov

Email: international@fhwa.dot.gov
iv

ACRONYMS

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ACEC American Consulting Engineers Council

ACPA American Concrete Paving Association

ALT-MAT Alternative Materials Program

APC air pollution control

APWA American Public Works Association

ARRA Asphalt Recycling and Reclamation Association

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

ASTSWMO Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials

ATI American Trade Initiatives, Inc.

BUD beneficial use determination

C&D construction and demolition

CERCLA Comprehensive Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980

(Superfund)

CMRA Construction Materials Recycling Association

DOT department of transportation

ECOS Environmental Councils of States

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EU European Union

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

GIS geographic information system

HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments

LCCA life-cycle cost analyses

LTAP Local Technical Assistance Program

MACT maximum achievable control technology

MSW municipal solid waste

NAA National Aggregates Association

NAPA National Asphalt Pavement Association

NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program

NGO non-governmental organization
v

NSA National Stone Association

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

PCA Portland Cement Association

PVC polyvinyl chloride

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control

RAP recycled asphalt pavement

RCRA Resource Recovery and Conservation Act of 1976

RMRC Recycled Materials Resource Center

SMA stone mastic asphalt

TAA tar amended asphalt

TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

TRB Transportation Research Board

UNH University of New Hampshire

WTE waste-to-energy
vi

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. ii

FHWA INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY EXCHANGE PROGRAMS ...................... iii

LIST OF ACRONYMS...................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... ix

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. x

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ xi

Background ................................................................................................................ xi

Objectives and Panel Composition............................................................................. xi

General Conclusions ................................................................................................. xii

Recycling for Sustainable Road Construction .................................................... xii

Economics ............................................................................................................ xii

Engineering ........................................................................................................ xiii

Environment....................................................................................................... xiv

Findings and Recommendations ............................................................................... xv

CHAPTER ONE – OVERVIEW........................................................................................ 1

Reason for Scanning Trip ............................................................................................ 1

U.S. Perspective ........................................................................................................... 1

Country Size and Population Density .................................................................. 1

Cultural Aspects .................................................................................................... 1

Political Process..................................................................................................... 2

Environment.......................................................................................................... 2

Engineering ........................................................................................................... 2

General Amplifying Questions ................................................................................... 3

Scanning Team Composition....................................................................................... 3

Planning and Meetings ............................................................................................... 3

General Itinerary ........................................................................................................ 3

CHAPTER TWO – OVERVIEW OF RECYCLING WITHIN THE HIGHWAY

ENVIRONMENT IN THE HOST COUNTRIES AND IN THE UNITED STATES ........ 5

Sweden......................................................................................................................... 5

Solid Waste Management ...................................................................................... 5

Recycling in the Highway Environment .............................................................. 6

Denmark ...................................................................................................................... 6

Solid Waste Management ...................................................................................... 6

Recycling in the Highway Environment .............................................................. 9

Germany .................................................................................................................... 10

Solid Waste Management .................................................................................... 10

Recycling in the Highway Environment ............................................................ 11

The Netherlands........................................................................................................ 12

Solid Waste Management .................................................................................... 12

Recycling in the Highway Environment ............................................................ 14

France ....................................................................................................................... 16

Solid Waste Management .................................................................................... 16

Recycling in the Highway Environment ............................................................ 17
vii

United States............................................................................................................. 18

Solid Waste Management.................................................................................... 18

Recycling in the Highway Environment ............................................................ 19

CHAPTER THREE – RECYCLING FOR SUSTAINABLE ROAD CONSTRUCTION .... 21

Introduction of Pertinent Topics ............................................................................... 21

Sweden....................................................................................................................... 21

Denmark .................................................................................................................... 25

Germany .................................................................................................................... 26

The Netherlands........................................................................................................ 28

France ........................................................................................................................ 35

Summary of Observations......................................................................................... 38

CHAPTER FOUR – ECONOMICS ................................................................................. 40

Introduction of Pertinent Topics ............................................................................... 40

Sweden....................................................................................................................... 40

Denmark .................................................................................................................... 41

Germany .................................................................................................................... 42

The Netherlands........................................................................................................ 44

France ........................................................................................................................ 45

Summary of Observations......................................................................................... 46

CHAPTER FIVE – ENGINEERING .............................................................................. 47

Introduction of Pertinent Topics ............................................................................... 47

Sweden....................................................................................................................... 47

Denmark .................................................................................................................... 51

Germany .................................................................................................................... 54

The Netherlands........................................................................................................ 59

France ........................................................................................................................ 65

Summary of Observations......................................................................................... 68

CHAPTER SIX – ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................... 70

Introduction of Pertinent Topics ............................................................................... 70

Sweden....................................................................................................................... 70

Denmark .................................................................................................................... 72

Germany .................................................................................................................... 75

The Netherlands........................................................................................................ 77

France ........................................................................................................................ 81

Summary of Observations......................................................................................... 83

CHAPTER SEVEN – RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 84

Conclusions and Primary Recommendations ........................................................... 84

Additional Recommendations ................................................................................... 85

Identified Research Needs ........................................................................................ 88

CHAPTER EIGHT – IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................... 89

CHAPTER NINE – LIST OF REFERENCES BY COUNTRY ...................................... 90

Sweden....................................................................................................................... 90

Denmark .................................................................................................................... 90

Germany .................................................................................................................... 91
viii

The Netherlands........................................................................................................ 92

France ........................................................................................................................ 93

United States............................................................................................................. 94

APPENDIX A – RECYCLE SCANNING TEAM MEMBERS ........................................ 95

APPENDIX B – DETAILED AMPLIFYING QUESTIONS ........................................... 98

APPENDIX C – CONTACT ADDRESSES BY COUNTRY ......................................... 103
ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Market elements for a sustainable recycling strategy cycle

in the Netherlands ....................................................................................... 30

Figure 2. The cyclical nature of a sustainable recyling market ................................ 31

Figure 3. Degree of success for use of recycled materials in the Netherlands........... 33

Figure 4. Different phases of development of recycled materials .............................. 34

Figure 5. The (a) Heavy Vehicle Simulator and (b) a fully instrumented

pavement test section in the pavement bay at VTI .................................... 48

Figure 6. Triaxial testing machine at VTI .................................................................. 49

Figure 7. Triaxial testing data .................................................................................... 49

Figure 8. Lysimeters used at SGI for field leaching of candidate

recycled materials ........................................................................................ 51

Figure 9. A highway bridge embankment constructed with coal fly

ash in Denmark ........................................................................................... 52

Figure 10. The C&D crushing process at the RGS 90 A/S materials

processing plant in Denmark ...................................................................... 53

Figure 11. Concrete jaw crusher at the RGS 90 A/S materials processing plant

in Denmark .................................................................................................. 54

Figure 12. Assembled reclaimers ready for shipping at the Wirtgen

fabrication facilities ..................................................................................... 56

Figure 13. RAP bins for use at the DEUTAG hot mix asphalt plant in Germany ...... 57

Figure 14. RAP containing tar at the DEUTAG asphalt plant in Germany.

The plant is experimenting with processing and use of different

recycled materials. The RAP containing tar will be tested in a

foamed bitumen application ........................................................................ 57

Figure 15. C&D wastes to be processed at the Remex C&D processing plant in

Germany ....................................................................................................... 58

Figure 16. The sorting conveyor at the Remex C&D processing plant.

Hand sorting is used to recover glass, metal, cardboard, and

plastic that is co-mingled with the C&D waste .......................................... 58

Figure 17. Aggregate crushing and sorting facilities at the Remex C&D

processing plant. The pile in the foreground is aggregate made

from crushed C&D waste. It will be used in highway base course ............. 59

Figure 18. The noise control embankment at Ypenburg in the Netherlands. The

barrier is made with lightly contaminated soils ......................................... 60

Figure 19. WTE bottom ash use in a road embankment in the Netherlands .............. 61

Figure 20. WTE bottom ash use in a road embankment in the Netherlands.

The embankment will be about 3 meters high ........................................... 62

Figure 21. The Swiss-designed Ammonn double drum hot recycling asphalt

plant in the Netherlands. The plant is co-owned by Vermeer. The

plant uses high quantities of RAP that is added to the lower

drum. Off-gases are used as fuel in the upper drum to dry natural

aggregate ...................................................................................................... 63

Figure 22. RAP is used at high substitution levels at the Swiss-designed

Ammonn double drum hot recycling asphalt plant in the

Netherlands.................................................................................................. 63

Figure 23. RAP is sorted before introduction into the lower drum at the

Swiss-designed Ammonn double drum hot recycling asphalt

plant in the Netherlands ............................................................................. 64
x

Figure 24. The double drums allow for high introduction of RAP at the

Swiss-designed double drum hot recycling asphalt plant in the

Netherlands. RAP is heated in the lower drum and natural

aggregates are heated in the upper drum ................................................... 64

Figure 25. The concrete crushing Jean LeFebvre C&D waste recycling plant

in France ...................................................................................................... 67

Figure 26. The WTE bottom ash crushing and sieving process at the

Jean LeFebvre MSW bottom ash recycling plant in France ...................... 67

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. U.S. delegation meetings ................................................................................. 4

Table 2. Countries and cities visited............................................................................. 4

Table 3. Use of recycled materials in roads in Sweden (million metric tons) ............. 7

Table 4. Solid waste generation in Denmark in 1997 .................................................. 8

Table 5. Production and utilization of waste in Danish roads

(million metric tons) ........................................................................................ 9

Table 6. Applications for non-road materials in Danish roads .................................. 10

Table 7. Quantities and utilization of industrial by-products and

recycled construction materials in Germany (million metric tons) ............. 11

Table 8. Materials used in German roads and their applications.............................. 12

Table 9. Profile of waste management in the Netherlands (million metric tons) ..... 14

Table 10. Recovered materials used in Dutch roads (million metric tons) .................. 15

Table 11. Waste generation and management in France in 1995

(million metric tons) ...................................................................................... 16

Table 12. Use of recycled materials in French roads (million metric tons) ................. 17

Table 13. Generation and disposal of municipal solid waste in the

United States, 1960 to1997 (in million metric tons and

percent of total generation) ........................................................................... 19

Table 14. Use of recycled materials in roads in the United States

(million metric tons) ...................................................................................... 20

Table 15. Danish model for classifying waste .............................................................. 73

Table 16. Environmental testing results for WTE bottom ash in Denmark ............... 74

Table 17. German limits for landfilling waste and for using bottom ash.................... 76

Table 18. Review of the regulations in the German Building Materials Decree ........ 80

Table 19. Categories of WTE bottom ash and leach test requirements in France ...... 81

Table 20. Summary of findings and recommendations ................................................ 85

Table 21. Immediate communication strategy ............................................................. 89
xi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

Use of recycled materials in the highway environment has been occurring with varying

degrees of success in the United States for the past 20 years, notably with recycled

asphalt pavement (RAP), reclaimed concrete pavement, coal fly ash, and blast furnace

slag. In the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), the U.S.

Congress established the Recycled Materials Resource Center (RMRC) at the

University of New Hampshire (UNH) to use research and outreach to reduce barriers to

recycling in the highway environment. Congress also stipulated research into recycled

materials to improve the durability of the surface transportation infrastructure. A

number of states (e.g., Pennsylvania) and local governments have passed legislation to

promote recycling in road construction. The private sector is developing innovations in

materials processing and in new applications, particularly in appurtenances. Some

states have beneficial use determination (BUD) processes to evaluate uses; however,

there is no uniformity among states. State departments of transportation (DOTs) and

state environmental protection agencies (State EPAs) are trying to balance the desire

for increased use of recycled materials with concerns about potential environmental

impacts. Interest is increasing within all levels of the highway community to learn

about advances in the use of recycled materials in the highway environment and how

they relate to sustainability initiatives within the transportation sector.

OBJECTIVES AND PANEL COMPOSITION

The objective of this scanning tour was to review and document innovative policies,

programs, and techniques in Europe. Recommendations would be made that would lead

to reduced barriers to recycled material use in the United States. Sweden, Denmark,

Germany, the Netherlands, and France were identified as nations that have active

research, policies, and programs promoting the use of recycled materials in the highway

environment. The U.S. delegation met with more than 100 representatives from

transportation and environmental ministries,

research organizations, contractors, and

producers involved with recycled materials in

the five countries.

The U.S. delegation was assembled under the

Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA)

International Technology Scanning Program.

The panel was sponsored by FHWA, the

American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials (AASHTO) through

the National Cooperative Highway Research

Program (NCHRP), and the Recycled Materials

Resource Center (RMRC) at the UNH. The

panel included members with expertise in materials, pavement engineering, pavement

construction and recycling, beneficial use determinations, and environmental

evaluation. Panel members represented FHWA, U.S. EPA, State DOTs, the American

Public Works Association (APWA), the National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA),

and academia.

Interest is increasing within all levels of

the highway community to learn about

advances in the use of recycled materials

in the highway environment and how

they relate to sustainability initiatives

within the transportation sector.
xii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

Recycling for Sustainable Road Construction

All the countries visited had recycling policies specifically or generally promoting

sustainability as well as a pervasive public culture about recycling and social

democracy that promotes national behavior change. Many of the countries use an

effective stakeholder consensus process to develop engineering and environmental

specifications. A wide variety of factors influence recycling success – from national

values to practical considerations at the regional level. Some of these drivers are a

lack of virgin material, public opposition to aggregate mining, high transportation

costs, opposition to landfilling, and high population densities. In areas of the

United States where similar drivers are present, European experiences may be

relevant and solutions transferred. In the Netherlands, for example, the Dutch

have a formal policy for sustainable development in highway construction that

embraces the use of recycled materials. There is public opposition to landfills and

the excavation of natural materials. The government has a policy that minimizes

the use of natural materials and promotes the use of recycled materials within a

market system. The government cooperates with industry by sharing risk and profit

and providing unambiguous technical and environmental standards. High degrees of

recycling are seen, especially for construction and demolition (C&D) aggregates, blast

furnace slags, recycled asphalt pavements (RAP), coal fly ashes, steel slags, and

municipal solid waste waste-to-energy bottom ash. The government has helped to start

companies specialized in the marketing of lightly contaminated soils for use in sound

barriers adjacent to highways, fills, and

embankments. The success seen in the

Netherlands is related to advances in all

aspects of the sustainability model: a robust

market, clear policy, economics, appropriate

technical and environmental standards, and

innovative technical processes that involve the

private sector. The Dutch sustainability model

has elements that should be considered in the

U.S. transportation community’s overall goals

for transportation sustainability.

Economics

Engineering and environmental life cycle costs and benefits are the basis for many of

the recycling initiatives in Europe. The free market generally plays a central role in all

aspects of the highway recycling industry. Where this is not the case, government acts

as a catalyst to establish a market. Tax structures (both incentives and disincentives)

have played a large role in promoting recycling in the highway environment in Sweden,

Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden. There are taxes on the use of natural

materials in Sweden and Denmark, and such taxes also are being considered in the

Netherlands. Restrictive landfill taxes and policies in the Netherlands, Denmark,

France, and Sweden also are promoting recycling; in these countries, the landfills are

frequently government owned. A pending European Union (EU) landfill directive for

2002, designed to limit the landfilling of inert materials, also is influencing recycled

The Dutch sustainability model has

elements that should be

considered in the U.S. transportation

community’s overall goals for

transportation sustainability.
xiii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

material flow; many contractors in the five countries are positioning themselves to use

more recycled materials. A number of materials like RAP, blast furnace slag, crushed

concrete, and high quality C&D aggregates are of high engineering and environmental

quality and compete favorably with natural materials. Demand for some of these

materials in the Netherlands is so high that shortages are anticipated. Engineering

and, in some cases, environmental warranties

that reduce government or owner liability are

widely used and provide flexibility for the

greater use of recycled materials. These

warranties also drive innovative public sector

research. Widespread sentiments were

expressed in many of the countries that

recycled materials should be evaluated on their

technical merits for their highest possible use

and not because of direct governmental

mandates.

Engineering

Recycling is generally encouraged at the national level by transportation ministries

that provide standardization, specialized testing, and performance evaluation. A

number of countries require that recycled materials meet the same specifications as

natural materials and provide equal performance. An approved product list is generally

not used in the host countries, but rather ultimate performance is more of a driver to

promote recycled materials use. There is a general sense that recycled materials should

be used in an application to return the highest possible value. As in the United States,

there is still concern that many engineering test methods used for traditional materials

do not predict true field performance of recycled materials. Research in Germany,

Sweden, and the Netherlands is addressing this issue using equipment that simulates

the loaded wheel test on site. In Europe, priority is given to performance-related tests

such as cyclic load triaxial and gyratory compaction. In Germany, the team visited an

accelerated testing facility using an impulse loader. Road test sections can be placed

and subjected to variable water table levels and freeze-thaw cycling. The impulse loader

permits 25 years of vehicle loading over short time frames. The Netherlands uses

performance-related test methods, both in the laboratory and in accelerated loading

tests. Researchers then examine the price-performance ratio of the investigated

materials to determine a market-oriented application. In the Netherlands, an

innovative, Swiss-designed double drum hot-mix plant capable of recycling up to 70

percent RAP was observed. This Ammonn Plant operates with two drums, one installed

above the other. The bottom drum is a parallel flow drum that operates as a dryer and

heats the RAP. Exhaust air from this drum is used as burner air for the counter flow top

drum, which dries and heats the virgin aggregate. Output from both drums is mixed

with asphalt cement in a mixing chamber. The mixed product is conveyed to silos. The

stack from this plant had very little visual emissions. In Denmark, Tarco Construction

operates a traveling combination drum mixer and paver. A cross section of existing

asphalt is placed in windrows after cold milling. This material is picked up by the

travel plant and transferred to a drum mixer where asphalt cement is added. The new

asphalt mix is then transferred to the screed section of the plant. The newly placed mix

is compacted using conventional rollers. Traffic can use the pavement when it is cool.

As in the United States, there is still

concern that many engineering test

methods used for traditional materials do

not predict true field performance of

recycled materials.
xiv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Companies that supply natural materials also supply recycled materials. Many

countries utilize technical and environmental quality assurance/quality control (QA/

QC) programs so that recycled materials have the same level of quality as natural

materials. Frequently, the material processor or supplier is the certifying organization.

Environment

Recycling at the national level is accomplished by environmental ministries that

develop laws and compliance structure. National environmental research laboratories

are developing test methods and approaches to evaluate environmental performance

and assist in setting standards. Implementation and regulation are occurring at the

regional and local level. There is consistent agreement to move from laboratory work to

performance modeling based on field validation. An EU 4th Framework Program project

called Alternative Materials (ALT-MAT) illustrates this approach and is a model for

U.S. consideration. The Dutch use mechanistic leaching tests for specific utilization

applications (e.g., road base, embankments, etc.) in the environmental approval process.

They use this approach to determine adverse environmental impacts to background

soils and ground waters, and will permit a small incremental impact over a 100-year

period. A large leaching database is also maintained at the Energieonderzoek Centrum

Nederland (Netherlands Energy Research Foundation - ECN). Within the EU, efforts

are under way to standardize an approach for evaluating the environmental

performance of products, including highway materials. Lessons also have been learned

from isolated examples of environmental problems created from storage, processing,

transport, or use of some materials. In some cases, public awareness and education

efforts have been needed to overcome perceived environmental risks.

The countries that were visited publish annual reports that are either devoted entirely

to environmental issues or contain information concerning environmental issues. These

reports include information on the country’s environmental goals, strategies, and

programs to meet their goals. Progress toward meeting the goals is presented. An

example is the Annual Environmental Report published by the Swedish National Road

Administration (Vägverket - SRA). This report

details the goals for air emissions, impacts on

health from air emissions, noise, material

recycling, consumption of natural aggregate

and other materials, and similar topics

associated with the environment as it relates

to the road transportation sector. The

Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke

Ordening en Milieubeheer (Dutch Ministry of

Housing, Spatial Planning and the

Environment - VROM) published a report,

Environmental Policy of the Netherlands (April 1999), that provides an excellent

summary of the main elements of the Dutch environmental policy. This report

summarizes improvements made in the environment (e.g., climate change, waste

disposal, etc.) from 1980 to 1997 and lists the objectives for year 2000.

Within the EU, efforts are under way to

standardize an approach for evaluating

the environmental performance of

products, including highway materials.
xv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In the European countries visited, recycling occurs when it is economical to do so.

Factors in the marketplace are dominant, but are generally supported by government

policies and regulations such as bans on landfilling, landfill taxes, natural aggregate

taxes and, in some cases, subsidies to assist recycling efforts. Generally, clear and

unambiguous engineering and environmental test methods and performance standards

help to reduce uncertainty and allow recycled materials to compete with natural

materials. Where tests and standards do not exist, governments often support recycling

by sharing risk. Informing and educating the public about government policies and

programs to promote recycling is a key element in each country’s efforts to implement

successful recycling and sustainable development programs. Public information

transfer campaigns are used by the governments and industry to inform the public

about their respective programs and products.

The European situation is in some contrast to the U.S. situation. Some recycled

materials such as RAP, coal fly ash, and blast furnace slag are widely used in a true

free market situation because of their excellent performance and competitive costs.

Other materials (e.g., foundry sands, steel slags) are used more locally in response

to specific local market forces. There is little Federal government involvement, except

for construction procurement guidelines that require use of materials such as coal fly

ash when federal funds support road construction. Rather, the situation is driven at the

state level. For example, the State of Pennsylvania has adopted legislation to promote

recycling in the highway environment. However, there is a wide range of engineering

and environmental approaches to BUDs, the process used by the states to evaluate and

permit materials utilization. California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and

Pennsylvania are working to standardize the BUD process and create reciprocity. There

are widespread needs for clear engineering and environmental test methods and

performance standards. The owner or contractor generally assumes risk. The states,

academia, and the private sector are conducting significant research.

The U.S. delegation made a number of recommendations to encourage increased

awareness of the benefits of using recycling in the construction of roads in the

United States. These recommendations include establishing a recycling strategy in

the FWHA’s sustainability strategic plans, creating a framework for state DOTs to

consider using recycled materials, taking actions to involve private contractors in

promoting the use of recycled materials, conducting demonstrations of various

recycling technologies, and engaging in follow-up activities with the countries that

were visited. The delegation believes it is particularly important to adopt aspects

of the Dutch sustainability model as a means to promote recycling in the highway

environment. Recommendations also included actions for transferring findings

from the scanning tour to various stakeholders in the United States. Specific

findings and recommendations are detailed in Chapter 7.
xvi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1

Chapter One

OVERVIEW

REASON FOR SCANNING TRIP

The main objectives for the scanning tour were to review and document innovative

policies, programs, and techniques used in several European countries to promote

recycling in sustainable road construction. The team also wanted to identify barriers to,

and the roles that non-governmental organizations and private entities played in,

implementing the policies and programs, and the degree of government support and

cooperation in assisting industry. Using this and other information gathered, the U.S.

delegation would make recommendations that, if implemented, would reduce barriers to

increased use of recycled materials in the highway environment in the United States.

Sweden, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and France were identified as nations

that have active research and development programs, policies, and other activities that

promote recycling in general, and the use of recycled materials in road environments.

In the five countries visited, the U.S. delegation met with more than 100

representatives from transportation and environmental ministries, research

organizations, private contractors, and producers involved with recycled materials.

U.S. PERSPECTIVE

The delegation noted several differences between the United States and the countries

visited. Differences noted include country size and population density, cultural attitudes

and behavior of the public, the political process, environmental practices, and

engineering and technical factors such as the industrial base, the types and quantities

of waste generated, and others. These differences have influenced the degree of

recycling for sustainable road construction observed in these countries.

Country Size and Population Density

The countries visited are much smaller than the United States and population densities

are generally high. Thus, conservation of land space and other resources are critical and

help drive development of polices to conserve, reuse, and recycle energy and materials

and other resources. As an example, there is plenty of land in the United States for

landfills (except in areas such as New York City), but landfill space in these countries is

very scarce, with Sweden perhaps being an exception. Hence, they have restrictions and

taxes on landfilling of waste. In some cases, there are taxes on mining of natural

aggregates.

Cultural Aspects

From a cultural and human behavior perspective, the European public generally has a

long history of recycling. They strongly support waste prevention, reuse, and recycling

of energy and material resources, far more so than in the United States. What might

seem inconvenient to many Americans is accepted by the public in these countries as

necessary to maintain a high level of recycling. Contrast the recycling rate of more

than 70 percent in the Netherlands with one that is less than 30 percent in the United

States. Such cultural attitudes and behavior make it much easier for the national

governments to implement regulatory and economic policies to promote recycling for

sustainable road construction.
2

CHAPTER 1

Political Process

The pervasive public culture about recycling is also directly related to a form of social

democracy that promotes national behavior change. In many of the countries, an

effective stakeholder consensus process is used by regional and national governments

for developing engineering and environmental specifications. In the Netherlands, the

Dutch political process has resulted in a formal policy for sustainable development in

highway construction that embraces the use of recycled materials. The government has

a policy that minimizes the use of natural materials and promotes the use of recycled

materials within a market system. The government also cooperates with industry by

sharing risk and profit and providing unambiguous technical and environmental

standards. The government also helps to start companies specialized in the collection,

processing, marketing, and sales of recycled materials.

Environment

All the countries visited have strong environmental protection rules and regulations, as

does the United States. There are differences, however, in the approaches used to

determine what materials can be recycled and how they are used. A notable example is

that for some materials, several countries are not concerned about the concentrations of

constituents in a material, but rather the total amount that will be emitted over the life

of its use. An example is municipal solid waste waste-to-energy bottom ash, which is

used extensively in Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and France. One specific

difference was the Dutch approach to permit a small increase in the environmental

burden to soil and water over a 100-year time frame. There are also differences in the

approaches to evaluate the environmental

behavior of materials. The United States

generally relies on a single regulatory leaching

test; the countries visited usually use several

leaching tests and other factors to evaluate

potential utilization options and best

management requirements for residuals and

other materials.

Engineering

The team members were very impressed with

the level of technical talent, experience, and

professionalism of each of the host country’s

representatives. A large amount of quality

research is being conducted on the mechanical properties, functional requirements, and

environmental characteristics of recycled materials. Some of the research is in

conjunction with the European Union’s 4th Framework Alternative Materials Program

(ALT-MAT), but a large amount is conducted within each country. The degree of

cooperation between government organizations and industry to conduct research on

recycled materials and develop consensus specifications for their use is probably

unique.

The degree of cooperation between

government organizations and industry

to conduct research on recycled

materials and develop consensus

specifications for their use

is probably unique.
3

CHAPTER 1

Waste-to-energy (WTE) is used as a major technology to recover energy from municipal

solid waste (MSW), as landfilling is being phased out. The use of this technology is

increasing in these European countries. In the United States, the use of this technology

has decreased and the majority (60 percent) of our waste is landfilled. A large amount of

landfilled material in the United States is either biodegradable or can be incinerated

for energy recovery. Most of the countries would use the residues generated from this

process.

GENERAL AMPLIFYING QUESTIONS

To assist our European hosts in understanding the topics of interest to the U.S. team

and to help them prepare for discussions, the team prepared a series of amplifying

questions, which focused on eight major topics:

• Engineering practices for recycled materials in the highway environment.

• Environmental practices for recycled materials use in the highway

environment.

• Emerging technologies.

• Policies, market forces, and interest groups that drive recycled materials use.

• Barriers to recycled materials use and means to overcome them.

• Long-term monitoring and performance measures.

• Perspectives of materials suppliers and contractors.

• Other topics.

Each topic included specific questions intended to provide the U.S. delegation with a

better understanding of each country’s activities concerned with recycling for

sustainable road construction. The amplifying questions are listed in Appendix B.

SCANNING TEAM COMPOSITION

U.S. delegation members had expertise in materials engineering; pavement design,

construction, and recycling; BUDs; and environmental evaluations. They represented

FHWA, U.S. EPA, state DOTs, the APWA, and academia.

PLANNING AND MEETINGS

Team members met several times during the course of trip planning and actual travel.

These meetings are listed in Table 1. In addition to these meetings, several group

meetings were held during train and bus rides to discuss various aspects of the

summary report.

GENERAL ITINERARY

The scanning tour took place from September 10 through September 26, 1999, including

travel dates. Table 2 lists the countries and cities visited during the trip. Appendix C

lists the officials visited, their affiliations, and contact information.
4

CHAPTER 1

Table 1. U.S. delegation meetings.

Location Date Purpose

 National Academy of Sciences/ May 6, 1999 Scanning trip organization.

 Transportation Research Board;

 Washington, D.C.

 Team member local sites September 6, 1999 Teleconference; final trip itinerary, review

report outline, amplifying questions, etc.

 Stockholm, Sweden September 12, 1999 Review any travel changes; finalize trip

(Beginning of tour) actions and areas for emphasis.

 The Hague, The Netherlands September 22, 1999 Comments for organization and content of

(Mid-tour) summary report and review findings to date.

 Paris, France September 25, 1999 Review and modify summary report; discuss

(End of tour) implementation issues and further team

actions.

Table 2. Countries and cities visited.

Dates Country Cities

 September 12-13, 1999 Sweden Stockholm, Linköping, and vicinity

 September 14-16, 1999 Denmark Copenhagen, Hörsholm, and vicinity

 September 16-17, 1999 Germany Cologne, Gladbach Bergisch, Marl, and vicinity

 September 18-22, 1999 The Netherlands The Hague, Hoofddorp, and Amsterdam vicinity

 September 23-26, 1999 France Paris and suburbs
5

Chapter Two

OVERVIEW OF RECYCLING WITHIN THE

HIGHWAY ENVIRONMENT IN THE HOST

COUNTRIES AND IN THE UNITED STATES

SWEDEN

Solid Waste Management

In Sweden, waste is generally classified into three categories: domestic or household

waste, industrial waste, and hazardous waste. Some categories of waste fall under

special regulations or require special planning. Municipalities are responsible for

developing comprehensive waste management plans, including waste that is treated

elsewhere. Under Swedish law, waste from industries, shops, and public services that is

comparable to household waste is included in that category. This also includes bulky

waste and yard waste generated by these sources.

The Swedish Public Cleansing Law and the Public Cleansing Regulations make

municipalities responsible for collection and ultimate disposal of their waste. Although

more than two thirds of Sweden’s municipalities use private contractors, 50 percent of

Sweden’s domestic waste is collected by the municipalities. Domestic waste

management is supervised at the local level by the Environmental and Health Board,

regionally by the County Council and, nationally, by the Swedish National

Environmental Protection Board (Naturvårdsverket - NV).

Sweden refers to industrial waste as branch specific-waste, e.g., forestry waste. Each

company is responsible for treating its own waste. Environmental requirements are

regulated by the Environmental Protection Act and applicable regulations. Permits are

issued by the National Franchise Board for Environmental Protection. Industrial

wastes that have general characteristics (e.g., different types of packaging waste) can

occur in any industry. These are referred to as non-branch specific industrial waste.

Building and demolition waste is also classified as non-branch specific industrial waste.

Hazardous waste is the responsibility of the industrial generator, which must be

permitted according to provisions of the Environmental Protection Act. Handling of

hazardous waste is regulated under the authority of the Ordinance on Hazardous

Waste.

Sweden requires that producers be responsible for managing their waste. Producers’

responsibility for packaging materials came into force in October 1994 under the

Swedish Code of Statutes (SFS 1994:1235). The objective was to have all packaging in

Sweden recycled or reused by January 1997. The producers’ responsibility is to ensure

that this objective is implemented for waste they generate. For newspapers, magazines,

and similar materials, the goal is to reuse 75 percent by weight of this material by the

year 2000 (SFS 1994:1236). For waste tires, the goal was disposal by environmentally

responsible methods after September 1996. By December 31, 1998, the goal was to have

60 percent of waste tires managed by methods other than landfilling. After December

31, 1998, the goal was 80 percent (SFS 1994:1236). Most waste tires in Sweden are

incinerated; none are used in asphalt pavements.
6

CHAPTER 2

For discarded nickel-cadmium batteries, there is a voluntary agreement among the

importers and manufacturers (the Foundation for the Collection of Hazardous

Batteries) and the government. Under this agreement, 90 percent of discarded batteries

were to be collected during the second year of the agreement.

Sweden generates about 3.2 million metric tons of domestic waste each year. Of this

amount, approximately 1.3 million metric tons are landfilled, including ash and slag

from WTE plants. The remaining waste has been separated out and consists of white

goods, paper and glass, compost and fuel from composting plants, and waste that is

converted to energy at WTE plants.

WTE and landfilling are Sweden’s two predominant methods for waste disposal.

Twenty-one WTE plants process approximately 1.7 million metric tons of waste. Five of

these plants process 70 percent of this amount. The plants generate energy equivalent

to 500,000 metric tons of oil each year. Landfills in Sweden receive about 5.5 million

metric tons of waste each year. Of this, domestic waste amounts to about 1.3 million

metric tons. Landfill gas is sometimes recovered and used as an energy source.

Sweden’s landfill regulations will be modified where needed to meet pending EU

requirements.

Composting plants process only about 0.13 metric tons of domestic waste annually.

About 0.06 million metric tons of compost are produced. About 0.02 million metric tons

of this compost are sold and the remaining is used as landfill cover.

Recycling in the Highway Environment

Information on the use of recycled materials in road construction in Sweden was

provided by two sources. Data in Table 3 are from the Swedish National Road and

Transport Research Institute (Statens väg-och transportforskningsinstitut - VTI);

additional information was provided by research personnel from the Swedish

Geotechnical Institute (Statens Geotekniska Institut - SGI). SGI reported that about

0.15 million metric tons of ferrochrome slag is produced and sold annually (after

crushing) in fractions between 0 and 100 mm. Almost all of the 250,000 m3 of copper

slag produced each year is used in road construction. Under a general permit, coal

bottom ash has been used in the Norköping area since 1982. About 525,000 m3 have

been used since that time.

DENMARK

Solid Waste Management

Waste management in Denmark is regulated by the Environmental Protection Act. The

Act emphasizes protection of the environment in ways that will permit sustainable

development. The Act establishes the legal framework, but Danish waste legislation

and policy are contained in various statutory orders. EU waste management directives

will be implemented as they are adopted by the Council of Ministers and the European

Parliament.
7

CHAPTER 2

Table 3. Use of recycled materials in roads in Sweden (million metric tons).

Annual

Material Production Amount Used Applications

 Old asphalt pavement 0.8 0.76 In new asphalt (cold or hot recycling)

(1999)

 Blast furnace slag 1.0 0.7 As aggregate in unbound layers

(1999) (crushed, air-cooled)

 Mining waste (rock without 27.0 0.1-0.3 Crushed aggregate in unbound layers

 usable metals) (1994)

 Unsorted building and road 1.5-2.0 Small quantities As fill material; some test sections/

 demolition waste subbase

 Steel slag 0.2 0.2 Some in demonstrations/research

 WTE bottom ash 0.34 0.34 Subbase and base in roads within facility

boundary; some in demonstrations

The Government Action Plan on Waste and Recycling (1993-1997) established a

preferred hierarchy of waste management alternatives. These are in order of preference:

• The minimization of waste production and energy consumption through

substitution and cleaner technologies.

• The recycling or utilization of materials.

• The use of WTE technology to produce electricity and energy for district heating.

• The controlled landfilling of waste.

By the year 2000, the goal is to recycle 54 percent, incinerate 25 percent, and landfill 21

percent of the waste.

Administrative and economic tools are used in Denmark to implement waste

management objectives. These include the following:

• Local authorities must conduct waste surveys and design and implement

appropriate plans to manage their waste.

• Regional authorities are responsible for locating landfill sites, cleaning

contaminated soils, and similar activities. They also must ensure that necessary

capacity is in place and that the waste actually reaches these facilities.

• The Miljø-og Energiministeriet (The Danish Ministry of the Environment and

Energy) in the Miljøstyrelsen (The Danish Environmental Protection Agency -

MS) enters into voluntary agreements with industry for specific waste

management actions [e.g., reducing use of PVC (polyvinyl chloride), taking back

nickel/cadmium batteries]. The Minister also may order producers to take back

their products and assume responsibility for their disposal.

• The Danes also use financial incentives to implement waste management

strategies and goals. These include taxes, fees, and subsidies. As an example, a

waste tax is levied in different amounts to support the chosen waste
8

CHAPTER 2

management method. The waste taxes are discussed in Chapter 4. Grants,

provided in the Finance Act, are used to promote the use of cleaner technologies

or the recycling of products, materials, or waste residues.

Municipalities are responsible for collection and disposal of household and commercial

wastes. Some collect their waste and others use private contractors for this service.

Most commercial waste is collected by private contractors. Municipalities also are

responsible for collecting paper and cardboard from wholesalers and retailers, and

industrial food waste, and oil and chemical wastes. Although some existing landfills are

privately operated, future landfills in Denmark will be owned and operated by local

authorities. All municipal solid waste incinerators are publicly owned and operated.

However, Danish society’s preference for recycling rather than disposal has resulted in

the establishment, with government aid, of private sector facilities to process waste

materials into usable products.

Waste generated in Denmark in 1997 is shown in Table 4. About 0.4 million metric tons

of bottom ash and 0.06 million metric tons of air pollution control residues are produced

from the combustion of MSW and similar waste. The bottom ash is processed to remove

metals and prepare it for use. About 80 percent is used in civil engineering applications,

while metals recovered for recycling account for 10 percent, and 10 percent is landfilled.

Table 4. Solid waste generation in Denmark in 1997.

Type of Waste Amount Produced

(million metric tons)

 Household waste 2.8

 Waste from manufacturing industries, trade, and offices 2.6

 Construction waste (building rubble) 3.4

 Sewage sludge 1.2

 Residues from energy production (primarily from coal-fired power plants) 1.8

 Total amount 11.8

Approximately 23 to 26 percent (2.8 million metric tons) of the waste is landfilled.

Denmark’s goal is to reduce this to 21 percent by the year 2000. Denmark has three

types of landfills: inert landfills, controlled landfills, and mono-landfills. Inert landfills

receive unpolluted waste (e.g., plastics, timber, etc.) and unpolluted soil. They are not

lined and leachate is permitted to seep into the ground water below the site. Controlled

landfills receive municipal solid waste, sewage sludge, and non-hazardous waste. These

landfills are lined with synthetic, clay, or composite liners and have leachate collection

systems. Mono-landfills receive incinerator ash and similar types of waste. New

guidelines in Denmark require that landfills be designed and operated to reach a

steady state (i.e., when biological activity and leachate generation have ceased or are

no longer a threat to the environment) in 30 to 50 years. These guidelines will result in

new types of landfills.
9

CHAPTER 2

Recycling in the Highway Environment

Tables 5 and 6 provide an overview of the production of non-road wastes in Denmark

and their application in Danish roads.

Table 5. Production and utilization of waste in Danish roads (million metric tons).

Unbound Material Material to Paving

Material Total Production Recycled Industry (Asphalt and Landfilled

Portland Cement)

 Steel slag 0.058 0 0.058 0

 Rolling mill 0.013 0 0 0.013

 Casting sand 0.045 0 0.005 0.040

 Blasting materials 0.035 0 0.009 0.026

 Crushed concrete 1.060 0.763 0.096 0.157

 Waste-to-energy 0.420 0.380 0 0.040

 bottom ash

 Rockwool slag 0.010 0 0.007 0.003

 Coal bottom ash 0.184 0.184 0 0

 Coal fly ash 1.060 0.556 0.504 0

 Crushed asphalt 0.824 0.509 0.315 0

 Crushed bricks 0.484 0.322 0.005 0.157

 Road cleaning waste 0.113 0 0 0.113

 Total 4.262 3.772 0.941 0.549
10

CHAPTER 2

GERMANY

Solid Waste Management

The Law on the Prevention and Disposal of Waste (AbfG) is the basis for German

regulations on waste management. Waste prevention and recycling are given

preference in the law. It also grants authority to the Federal government to issue

directives that encourage prevention and recycling of special waste types, such as waste

oil, batteries, and similar wastes. The Technical Directive of Waste (TA Abfall) defines

waste that requires special handling and supervision. The second directive is the

Technical Directive Residential Waste (TA Siedlungsabfall), which regulates municipal

and similar wastes.

Table 6. Applications for non-road materials in Danish roads.

Applications

Materials

PCC HMA CM/ST GB EMB FILL STR APP LS

 Steel slag 2 4 2 2 0 0000

 Coal fly ash 2 3 2 0 4 2330

 Coal bottom ash 0 0 0 0 4 0004

 Casting sand 2 2 2 0 1 1 2 2 1

 Cement kiln dust 2 2 2 0 2 1 0 0 2

 Blasting product 2 3 2 3 2 2 1 1 2

 MSWI ash 0 2 2 4 3 3 1 1 1

 Concrete 1 1 1 4 2 2220

 Tile/bricks 0 1 1 0 0 4 1 1 0

 Tile/concrete 0 0 0 2 3 4003

 Harbor dredged

 material 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 0 2

 PCC = portland cement concrete pavement (wearing surface), HMA = hot mix asphalt pavement, CM/ST = cold mix

 or surface treatment, GB = granular unbound base, EMB = embankment, FILL = fill (e.g., backfill, subgrade, flowable

 fill), STR = structures (e.g., bridges, culverts, drain inlets, pipes), APP = safety-related items (e.g., guardrails, light

 post), APP = appurtenances (e.g., curbs, gutters, sidewalks), LS = landscaping (e.g., mulch, picnic benches, etc).

 MSWI = municipal solid waste incinerator. 4 = occurs generally, 3 = limited use, 2 = does not occur, but is

 considered possible, 1 = does not occur, but might be possible, and 0 = considered impossible to use. MSW WTE

 bottom ash can only be used as a subbase in roads.

All the regulations have the objective to generate closed cycles of materials to establish

a society where the environment and a sustainable economy are compatible. In 1997, a

new law was enacted that makes producers responsible for the disposal of their

products. The Law on Prevention, Utilization and Disposal of Waste is also referred to

as the Closed Cycle Economy Law (KrW-/AbfG). Under this law, the management of

waste materials must follow a strict hierarchy:

• First, to prevent wastes, especially by reducing the amounts and their toxicity.
11

CHAPTER 2

• Second, to recover the material or energy value in the waste generated.

This hierarchy essentially places materials recovery and energy recovery on an equal

basis and will permit energy recovery where it makes technical and economic sense.

MSW in Germany includes residential waste, bulky waste, commercial waste, light

industrial waste, and yard and garden waste. In 1993, approximately 44 million metric

tons of MSW were generated. Approximately 11 million metric tons were collected and

separated for sorting and recycling. Only about 3 million metric tons were composted.

In 1995, Germany had 52 incinerators and one pyrolysis plant. These plants processed

about 11 million metric tons of waste for energy recovery. About 60 percent (1.8 million

metric tons) of the bottom ash produced from WTE facilities is used after aging for 3

months. The air pollution control residues are disposed into mined cavities to help

prevent subsidence. All materials designated for landfilling must be made inert and

cannot contain substantial amounts of salt. By the year 2006, at the latest, Germany

will have only two classes of landfills. Concentrations of heavy metals in the waste, as

determined by the German DEV S4 leaching test, will be limited, as well as other

characteristics. This information is presented in Chapter 6. These limits were

established by the Technical Directive Residential Waste. The requirements to make

waste inert prior to landfilling will probably result in an increase in WTE facilities

because biological processes (e.g., composting) cannot meet these requirements.

Recycling in the Highway Environment

Tables 7 and 8 summarize the production of residues and their application in

Germany’s roads. The tables are adopted from Roads in Germany by the

Bundesministerium für Verker (German Federal Ministry of Transport - BMV).

Table 7. Quantities and utilization of industrial by-products and recycled

construction materials in Germany (million metric tons).

Type of Residue Production Use in Roads Percent Used

 Slag

 - Blast furnace slag 8.3 8.3 100.0

 - Steel slag 4.8 4.4 92.0

 Coal mining spoils 64.8 13.6 21.0

 Power plant residues

 - Boiler slag 2.8 2.7 98.0

 - Coarse ash 0.4 0.3 74.0

 - Coal fly ash 3.1 2.7 86.0

 - Brown coal fly ash 6.1 0.0 0.0

 - Gypsum (coal furnace) 1.8 1.8 100.0

 Refuse waste-to-energy ash 2.6 1.8 68.0

 Construction materials (estimated

 recycling rate)

 - Recovered asphalt 12.0 6.0 50.0

 - Crushed road materials 20.0 11.0 55.0

 - Rubble 23.0 4.0 17.0

 - Mixed construction waste 10.0 0.0 0.0

 Total (rounded) 160.0 57.0 35.0
12

CHAPTER 2

Table 8. Materials used in German roads and their applications.

Applications

Materials

A B C1 C2 D1 D3 E F G1 G2 H

 Asphalt 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1

 Concrete, concrete blocks 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1

 Other hydraulically bound materials 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1

 (e.g., blast-furnace slag)

 Natural stone, crushed and 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

 uncrushed materials, ballast

 Gravel, sand 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1

 Other mineral materials 1 2 1 2 2 2

 Bricks, masonry, stoneware 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2

 A = acoustical barriers, B = unbound traffic areas and roads, C1 = embankments, C2 = backfilling and covering,

 D1 = backfilling and trenches, D2 = soil stabilization and subsoil improvement, E = bases without binders, F = bases

 with hydraulic binders, G1 = bases with bitumen binders, G2 = bituminous wearing and binder courses, and H =

 concrete bases. 1 = feasible, 2 = feasible under certain conditions.

THE NETHERLANDS

Solid Waste Management

In 1989, the Netherlands implemented a comprehensive National Environmental Plan.

Waste management is covered in the Ordinance of Waste Prevention and Recycling. The

ordinance established strict goals that must be met for a variety of waste streams,

which resulted in significant participation by the public and industry to recover and

reuse materials, and the source separation of glass, paper, putrescibles, and household

and similar small quantities of chemicals.

The Dutch strictly regulate air emissions from WTE plants. The Air Emissions from

Incinerators Regulation includes provisions on waste that may be accepted, as well as

guidelines for emissions of metals, dioxins, and acid gases (NOx

). For landfilling, the

Disposal Regulation applies and regulates the conditions for disposing waste into three

different categories of landfills. These are: landfills for non-hazardous waste with and

without leachate recovery, and landfills for hazardous waste. A column leaching test is

used to determine in which landfill a waste may be disposed. As of 1997, no organic

waste may be landfilled; the intent is to restrict landfills to only inorganic waste and to

force increased composting. The ban encompasses any waste that can be recycled,

including WTE residues. Demolition and construction waste also is included in the ban

to encourage beneficial use of this material.

The Dutch government’s objective is to decrease waste generation and increase

recycling and utilization. The environmental aspects of this policy are covered in the

Regulation for Construction Materials. This regulation permits a marginal impact to

soil quality over a 100-year period. There are criteria that must be met under this
13

CHAPTER 2

scheme. WTE bottom ash does not meet all of these criteria, but the Dutch desire to

promote use of this material has resulted in the ash being placed in a special category.

It may be used in embankments and in road base provided measures are implemented

to minimize rain water infiltration.

The Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (Ministerie van

Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer - VROM) issued an action

plan for the reuse, treatment, and disposal of the different residue streams generated by

WTE plants. The plan provides management guidelines for bottom ash, fly ash, and flue

gas cleaning residues. The criteria for the controlled use of bottom ash come under the

Regulation for Construction Materials. As of January 1998, fly ash cannot be landfilled

without prior treatment. Investigations are ongoing to develop methods for valorizing

air pollution control (APC) residues. They are currently being temporarily stored.

Hazardous wastes in the Netherlands are covered under the Hazardous Waste

Designation Decree, which contains provisions for classifying waste as hazardous or

non-hazardous. Provinces have the primary

responsibility for the permitting of both

hazardous and non-hazardous waste facilities.

The central government, however, maintains a

coordinating role for these activities.

Contaminated soil is regulated under the Soil

Protection Act and its Ordinance for Soil

Clean-up. Soil is classified into three categories

depending on the level of contamination. In the

case where soils are used as construction

materials, they come under the Regulation for

Construction Materials.

The Dutch Ministery of Transports, Public

Works and Water Management (Ministerie van

Verkeer en Waterstaat - V&W) is responsible for the policy on mineral aggregates. One

of the policy lines is to promote the use of secondary materials to diminish the use of

natural aggregates. The Public Works Department (Rijkswaterstaat, RWS) within the

Ministry is also the biggest client for infrastructure work. This means that

implementation of policy can be done within the same ministry. This approach and the

fact that recycling is a main topic within the two ministries (VROM, V&W) account for

the success of recycling in the Netherlands.

In 1995, the Dutch recycled or reused 73 percent of their generated waste; about 8

percent was incinerated, about 16 percent was landfilled, and about 3 percent was

discharged to the ocean by industry. In 1999, the recycling rate was still 73 percent.

As shown in Table 9, in 1996, 0.895 metric tons of bottom ash were produced by WTE

plants. In 1999, this reached about 1.0 million metric tons. Almost 100 percent of the

ash was used.

In 1995, the Dutch recycled or reused

73 percent of their generated waste;

about 8 percent was incinerated, about

16 percent was landfilled, and about 3

percent was discharged to the ocean by

industry. In 1999, the recycling rate was

still 73 percent.
14

CHAPTER 2

Table 9. Profile of waste management in the Netherlands (million metric tons).

Recycled Prevention

Year Generation* Landfill WTE (percent) (percent)

1996 N/A** 7+ 5 73++ N/A

2000 51 4*** 6 76 15

2010 56 2*** 9 N/A N/A

 * Does not include dredge spoils, contaminated soils, manure, and radioactive waste. ** N/A: not available. + An additional 0.48 million metric tons went to private disposal. ++ The target was 67 percent. *** Amounts stipulated by the Environmental Policy Plan.

Fly ash production was 0.054 million metric tons; 40 percent was recycled as an asphalt

filler. Before this material can be landfilled, it must be treated. Residues from flue gas

cleaning amounted to 0.032 million metric tons; none is recycled. Recycling options are

being investigated. Projected figures for 2000 and 2010 also are shown.

Recycling in the Highway Environment

Table 10 summarizes the production and applications of recovered materials used in

road construction in the Netherlands. The Dutch also noted that about 0.4 million

metric tons of sand are produced from processing plants. They were uncertain as to the

fate of this material, but believe that some is being used without meeting

environmental requirements. The market for phosphorous slag is decreasing; its

radioactivity prevents its use in buildings and surrounding environments. Also, the

Dutch noted that investigations are ongoing to find more uses of steel slag in concrete

and asphalt applications. Some tar amended asphalt (TAA) has been recycled in the

past under strict environmental and occupational health conditions only in cold bound

asphalt pavement applications. After January 1, 2001, this will not be allowed. New

thermal techniques are being investigated to combust recycled asphalt that contains tar.
15

CHAPTER 2

Table 10. Recovered materials used in Dutch roads (million metric tons).

Material Produced Used Applications

 Asphalt concrete 7.7 7.7 Hot mix asphalt

 Asphalt rubble 3.0 3.0 1.8 in hot mix asphalt; 1,200 mostly in cement

bound

 Municipal waste bottom ash 0.8 0.8 Unbound base course and embankments

 Municipal waste incinerator 0.08 0.02-0.03 Concrete filler

 fly ash

 Blast furnace slag 1.2 1.2 All used in cement production; about 1 million

tons imported for road base

 Steel slag 0.5 0.5 Used in hydraulic works and base course;

some as sand

 Electric coal fly ash 0.85 0.85 Used in cement, concrete and asphalt filler,

and as aggregate

 Electric coal bottom ash 0.08 0.08 Lightweight aggregate; some exported to

Belgium for use in concrete blocks

 Soil and contaminated soil Est. 0.016 0.157 7.0 of clean soil; 7.0 slightly contaminated

soils; 1.7 of heavily contaminated soil after

cleaning; 1 million tons dumped at sea.

 Dredge spoils 0.023 Small Highly contaminated spoils stored;

amounts by 2000, 20 percent cleaned and used.

 Phosphorous slag 0.6 0.6 Base courses and asphalt

 Building and demolition waste 9.2 9.2 9.0 concrete and masonry granulates used

in base course; 2.0 in concrete

 Concrete crusher sand 0.3 0.3 Used as sand in subbase layers
16

CHAPTER 2

FRANCE

Solid Waste Management

In 1992, an older law about waste disposal was amended to include materials recovery.

The main objective of the modification was to promote valorization (increase its value)

of waste through reuse, recycling, or treatment by methods that would permit their use

as materials or as an energy source. The amended law specifies that waste disposal also

means (in addition to collection, transport, and storage) the necessary operations

required for recovery of usable elements and materials. The law delegated the

responsibility for domestic waste disposal to local authorities. After July 1, 2002, waste

disposal facilities will only be able to receive waste that cannot be technically and

economically treated for recycling. The law created increasing taxes on the landfilling

and WTE of municipal solid waste, until the 2002 landfill ban takes affect. The types

and amounts of waste generated and the methods used to manage them in 1995 are

listed in Table 11.

Table 11. Waste generation and management in France in 1995 (million metric tons).

Waste Category Produced Recycled (%) Incinerated (%) Composted (%) Landfilled (%)

(million metric tons)

 Municipal waste 46 6.2 47.7 6.5 39.6

 Industrial waste 148

 - Ordinary 30 10 15 10 65

 - Hazardous 16 0 40 0 60

 - Inert waste 100* 30 5 5 60

 Agricultural waste 388 20 5 40 35

 * Good estimates not available; could range from 100 to 600 million metric tons.
17

CHAPTER 2

Recycling in the Highway Environment

Table 12 lists the materials used in highway construction in France. Chapter 6 provides

additional information about the use of some of these materials.

Table 12. Use of recycled materials in French roads (million metric tons).

Material Production Amounts Used Use Application

 Blast furnace slag 5.0 1.1 Aggregates; remaining used as hydraulic

binders

 - crystalized form 0.5

 - granulated form 0.6

 Steel slag 1.3 0.2 Bituminous mixes, surface dressings

 Coal fly ash 1.0 0.25 Hydraulic binders, concrete filler,

 (silico-aluminius) embankments

 Coal mining wastes 50* 3.0 Black shale in embankments; red shale in

pavements

 Demolition materials 5.0 Not provided Aggregates; used primarily near cities

 Old pavements Not provided 1-2 Wearing courses and base, depending on

source

 MSWI bottom ash 1.5 1.0 Aggregates

 Foundry sands Not provided Small amount Aggregates

 Tires Not provided Not provided Earthworks (e.g., embankments)

 Plastics Not provided Not provided Asphalt binders, lightweight fill, etc.

 * Estimated 50 million metric tons available in pits around France.
18

CHAPTER 2

UNITED STATES

Solid Waste Management

U.S. waste laws and regulations classify waste into two broad categories: hazardous and

non-hazardous. There also are a number of smaller categories of special wastes. The

principal law that regulates these wastes is the Resource Recovery and Conservation

Act of 1976 (RCRA). RCRA was amended by the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1980 and

the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) in 1984.

Subtitle D of RCRA deals with non-hazardous waste and require states to develop

comprehensive solid waste management plans. Once approved, the U.S. EPA delegates

the implementation and enforcement of the plans to the states. The Federal regulations

provide minimum standards for the treatment and disposal of non-hazardous waste.

Many states, however, have enacted more stringent standards and regulations.

In 1989, the U.S. EPA published The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action. This

document promoted a preferred hierarchy for municipal solid waste management:

source reduction, recycling (including composting), waste combustion (with energy

recovery), and landfilling.

Hazardous wastes are regulated under RCRA Subtitle C, which contains provisions for

characterizing, testing, treating, storing, and disposing of these waste materials. RCRA

also requires that these wastes be supervised (manifested) from “cradle to grave” (i.e.,

from generation until ultimate disposal). The Comprehensive Response, Compensation

and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) or “Superfund” and its amendments deal with the

remediation of abandoned contaminated sites that pose hazards to the public and the

environment. The Act provides for the assignment of liability for the contamination at

the site and the costs to clean it up.

In 1990, the U.S. Congress enacted the Pollution Prevention Act to encourage waste

minimization through input substitution, product reformulation, industrial process

redesign, and similar actions to reduce the quantity and toxicity of waste.

Emissions from WTE plants are regulated under the Clean Air Act. In 1995, the U.S.

EPA issued new rules covering these plants. These rules are referred to as the

Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for

Existing Sources: Municipal Waste Combustors. Also known as the maximum achievable

control technology (MACT), they impose strict new limits on emissions of metals and

dioxin.

The design, construction, operation, maintenance, and post-closure care of landfills are

regulated under RCRA. The requirements for liner and cover designs using clay,

geotextiles, flexible membranes (plastic), combinations of clay and plastic, and similar

materials vary depending on location and the waste (hazardous or non-hazardous).

There are also requirements for leachate collection and treatment and ground water

monitoring. The Federal requirements are more stringent for hazardous waste landfills

than for non-hazardous landfills. As noted earlier, some states have implemented more

strict requirements than the minimum technology standards required at the Federal

level.
19

CHAPTER 2

MSW includes wastes such as durable goods, non-durable goods, containers and

packaging, food scraps, yard trimmings, and miscellaneous inorganic waste from

residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial sources. Examples include

appliances, automobile tires, newspapers, clothing, boxes, office and classroom paper,

cafeteria waste, wood pallets and similar waste. MSW does not include waste from

construction and demolition activities, combustion ash, automobile bodies, municipal

sludges, and some industrial process waste that might also be landfilled or combusted

in municipal solid waste landfills and incinerators. In 1997, 197 million metric tons of

MSW were generated in the United States. This was an increase of 7.3 million metric

tons over 1996. Recycling (including composting) recovered 28 percent (55 million

metric tons) of the waste, 17 percent (34 million metric tons) were combusted mostly for

energy recovery, and 55 percent (109 million metric tons) were landfilled. Table 13

summarizes the MSW generation, recovery, composting, combustion, and discards to

landfills in the United States for years 1960 through 1997.

Table 13. Generation and disposal of municipal solid waste in the United States, 1960 to 1997 (in

million metric tons and percent of total generation).

1960 1970 1980 1990 1995 1996 1997

 Generation 79.9 109.8 137.5 186.1 191.7 189.7 196.8

 Recovery for recycling 5.1 7.3 13.2 26.3 41.1 42.1 44.1

6.4% 6.6% 9.6% 14.2% 21.5% 22.2% 22.4%

 Recovery for composting neg. neg. neg. 3.8 8.7 9.6 10.9

2.0% 4.5% 5.2% 5.6%

 Total materials recovery 5.1 7.3 13.2 30.1 49.8 52.0 55.1

6.4% 6.6% 9.6% 16.2% 26.0% 27.4% 28.0%

 Discards after recovery 74.8 102.5 124.3 156.0 141.9 137.8 141.8

93.6% 93.4% 90.4% 83.8% 74.% 72.6% 72.0%

 Combustion 24.5 22.8 12.4 28.9 32.2 32.7 33.3

30.6% 20.7% 9.0% 15.5% 16.8% 17.3% 16.9%

 Discards to landfills and 50.3 79.7 111.9 127.1 109.7 105.0 141.8

 other disposal 63.0% 72.6% 81.4% 58.3% 57.3% 55.4% 55.1%

Recycling in the Highway Environment

The FHWA published a document in April 1998 entitled User Guidelines for Waste and

By-product Materials in Pavement Construction (Publication No. FHWA-RD-97-148).

Table 14 presents some of the data extracted from that report; unfortunately, complete

data on the quantities produced and used each year are not available. The document

listed 19 materials and 6 major application categories for a total of 55 potential

applications for using the recycled materials. Table 14 discusses some of these

materials.
20

CHAPTER 2

Table 14. Use of recycled materials in roads in the United States (million metric tons).

Material Production Used (million

(million metric tons) metric tons) Applications

 Blast furnace slag 14 12.6 Aggregate in concrete

 Coal bottom ash 14.5 4.4 Asphalt aggregate, granular base, etc.

 Boiler slag 2.3 2.1

 Coal fly ash 53.5 14.6 Cement production, structural fills, etc.

 Foundry sands 9 to 13.6 - Most reclaimed and used in process

 Cement kiln dust 12.9 8.3 Most used on site; some use as

 Lime kiln dust 1.8 to 13.6 stabilizer; estimated 90 million metric

tons stockpiled

 Mineral waste 1.6 billion N/A 34 states reported use in roads

 WTE ash 8.0 Small amounts Some in asphalt, most on landfill roads

and landfill cover

 Non-ferrous slags 8.1 Not available Granular base, hot mix asphalt, etc.

 Steel slag Not available 7.0 to 7.5 Aggregate, granular base

 RAP 41.0 33.0 Aggregate in hot and cold mix asphalt,

asphalt cement binder, etc.

 Reclaimed concrete Not available Not available Aggregate for cement-treated or lean

concrete; aggregate for flowable fill, etc.
21

Chapter Three

RECYCLING FOR SUSTAINABLE

ROAD CONSTRUCTION

INTRODUCTION OF PERTINENT TOPICS

Protecting the environment, limiting waste generation, and recycling and reusing

materials are all key elements needed for sustainable development. As is the case in the

countries visited, these elements must be properly integrated with government policies,

regulations, economics, and cultural aspects for sustainable development to be

successful. This is also true for sustainable road construction. The U.S. delegation

observed that recycling of materials and the reuse of by-products, waste, and other nonvirgin materials are critical elements in successful sustainable road construction in

several of the countries visited, particularly in the Netherlands and Denmark. In these

countries, governmental policies and specific sustainability initiatives support recycling

in road construction. The consensus of stakeholders and each country’s cultural

attitudes toward recycling also are extremely important.

SWEDEN

Sweden is progressing toward using recycled materials for sustainable road

construction, but the country has not advanced as far as some of the other countries in

actual implementation. Swedish road contractors want to use more recycled materials;

however, use of many potentially candidate materials is not widespread. As examples,

general use of WTE bottom ash and steel slag is limited to applications within the

boundaries of the production facilities. These materials have only been used in

Sweden’s roads in demonstration projects. On the other hand, air-cooled blast furnace

slag has been used in several road constructions and even as subbase in highway

construction.

Sweden’s Road 94 contains specifications for constructing roads. Road 94 permits the

use of recycled materials. The Executive Summary states that:

• “Residual products such as slag may be used if they are accepted by the client

and:

– Are acceptable from an environmental point of view.

– Do not cause problems during reuse, landfill or destruction.

– Can be shown to possess at least as good bearing capacity, stability, and

durability properties as the materials they replace.

• Residual products shall be analyzed as regards chemical composition and the

risk of leaching. Requirements on disposition and any safety measures shall be

investigated. Consultations shall be held with the nature conservancy unit of

the county administrative board.”

These provisions have not been a driver for increased use of recycled materials in road

construction. Barriers cited for this circumstance include the following:
22

CHAPTER 3

• The fact that Sweden has plentiful supplies of gravel and sand, as well as

bedrock that can be crushed and used.

• Sweden has sufficient land for disposal of waste materials in comparison with

several of the other countries visited.

• Lack of clear guidelines at the national level for using recycled materials.

• Swedish legislation that directs that each candidate project must abide by sitespecific permitting requirements.

• Length of time for obtaining permit approval.

• Lack of knowledge about recycled materials engineering and environmental

characteristics.

• Lack of knowledge by the general public about the use of recycled materials in

road construction.

Swedish codes require that contractors document why they are not using recycled

materials. At this time, however, this requirement does not appear to be a strong

driving force for using recycled materials. Until very recently, the contractor was

required to have a recycled material tested to show that it was at least as good as the

traditional material. Since no such preapproval process exists for natural aggregates, it

is easier for the contractors to use them. The Vägverket (Swedish Road Administration -

SNRA) does not require that aggregate producers be ISO 9000 certified. Most, however,

are certified. ISO 9000 concerns data quality issues; therefore, certification does not

guarantee that the aggregate produced by certified producers will be quality material

on the basis of mechanical properties and performance.

NV does not issue permits; this is the responsibility of the local government authorities.

NV does, however, require that site-specific factors be considered in the permitting

process. Information on the exact location of the project, material engineering and

environmental properties, environmental protection methods to be used, and similar

factors are required. There is a general lack of

knowledge about the engineering and

environmental properties of recycled materials

and how to implement the legislation.

Consequently, regional and local governments

want national guidelines to support

implementation. The local authorities often do

not have the technical and other resources

needed to evaluate the permit application.

Producers of recycled materials also want

guidelines. These factors result in long delays

in getting permits. Complicating the process is the right of non-governmental

organizations (NGOs) to provide significant input into the permitting process. They can

appeal decisions by local authorities to award a permit. The appeal to an environmental

court can lead to reversal of the local authorities’ approval. The possibility that a

permit approval will be reversed by the environmental court is an added deterrent to

contractors attempting to use recycled materials.

The possibility that a permit approval will

be reversed by the environmental court

is an added deterrent to contractors

attempting to use recycled materials.
23

CHAPTER 3

NV has issued guidelines in other areas, but is not doing so for the use of recycled

materials in road construction. Although it would like to shorten the time for permit

approvals, it maintains that the users of recycled materials have the responsibility and

need to take the lead in doing so.

Since 1995, Sweden has employed a tax on virgin materials of 5 Swedish kroner (Sk)

(~US$0.57) for each metric ton used. Starting January 2000 there is a tax on waste of

Sk 250 (~US$28.53) for each metric ton disposed into landfills. This may help to

increase the use of recycled materials in road construction, though many believe the

lack of national guidelines and other factors will need to be addressed first. A project

being supported by the Swedish National Sand, Gravel and Crushed Stone Association

is the development of guidelines for using crushed concrete from construction

demolition and debris in road construction. The guidelines will cover aggregate

producers, contractors, and commissioners. In developing these guidelines, the

aggregate producers believe they are positioning themselves to process recycled

materials. These guidelines will probably be approved by the SNRA.

Research being conducted by VTI and SGI in conjunction with the EU 4th Framework

Alternative Materials (ALT-MAT) program should help increase the use of recycled

materials in road construction. The ALT-MAT program is a very large, comprehensive

research program involving Great Britain, Denmark, Sweden, France, Finland, Austria,

and Switzerland. This research is addressing issues that will remove and reduce

uncertainties associated with using recycled materials. The ultimate objective is to

define methods by which the suitability of alternative materials for use in road

construction can be evaluated under appropriate climatic conditions. Methods being

investigated cover mechanical properties, functional requirements, leaching

characteristics, and long-term stability. Secondary objectives include determining the

mechanisms and rates of release of contaminants from selected alternative materials,

including use of climate control chambers and lysimeter tests. Also included are

inspections of existing roads, preparation of specifications for conducting full-scale

trials on embankments, and comparison of the pollution potential with that from

sources such as road traffic. The program also will develop recommendations for

mitigation measures that can be used to enable the use of alternative materials. Better

correlation of laboratory test results to performance in the field is an important goal.

Sweden’s role in ALT-MAT includes investigation of leaching behavior of the recycled

materials and also evaluating a 15-year-old motorway and a 5-year-old highway

constructed with air-cooled blast furnace slag. Two test sections with crushed concrete

in the subbase have been investigated too. Information about ALT-MAT can be obtained

at http://www.trl.co.uk/altmat/index.htm.

Dr. Jan Hartlén of Lund University reported on the project Utilization of Secondary

Materials in Infrastructure Projects – A Regional Approach. The project report, due

soon, contains information on:

• Methodology for investigating and characterizing materials.

• Crushing and sampling materials on site.

• Crushed concrete as granular base and subbase.

• Crushed concrete, bricks, and WTE ash as subbase material.
24

CHAPTER 3

• Environmental impacts from concrete, bricks, and MSWI ash compared with

natural aggregates.

• Reuse of cold asphalt, gypsum, and excavated soils after stabilization.

The report will, among other topics, discuss risk assessments and markets for these

materials. A major point that Dr. Hartlén made was that under new rules, natural rock

may exceed leaching requirements. He also made the point that, when proposing the

use of recycled materials, one must educate officials and provide them data. He stated

that it is very important to show officials that some processing (treatment), even if only

a small amount, has taken place.

While at VTI, the U.S. team also heard a presentation from Dr. Andrew Dawson, from

the University of Nottingham, Nottingham, England, about some experiences in the

United Kingdom (U.K.). He reported on an EU project (under the 4th Framework

Transport RTD Programme) called Construction with Unbound Road Aggregates in

Europe (COURAGE). The program is being managed in the U.K.

COURAGE involves participants from the U.K., Portugal, Finland, France, Iceland,

Germany, and Greece. The project is investigating the mechanical characterization of a

range of crushed rock materials, measuring and monitoring the variability of in-situ

moisture conditions in granular materials in road pavements, and modeling of the

elastic and plastic behavior of unbound materials.

Dr. Dawson reported that the U.K. formerly widely used alternative materials for

pavement construction. The use, however, has been significantly reduced principally

because of engineering quality assurance difficulties and requirements for

accountability and warranties. Contractors now bid the road project and own it for 30

years for a fee. The government will pay the contractor to build, operate, and maintain

the road over its design life, but requires adherence to performance measures. Most

road construction projects in the U.K. are for widening and upgrading purposes.

Specifications are being driven by performance requirements rather than the

characteristics of the materials. Contractors will bid the road project using natural

materials and then substitute recycled materials if they believe the materials will

perform satisfactorily. There are site-specific environmental requirements; the

contractor is responsible for these. The project cannot affect the ground water.

Research by the U.K. and others has shown that recycled materials can be made to

work. Economics, however, may be affected by the processing and management

required. The U.K. now has a landfill tax (equivalent to US$3 to $4 per ton for clean

industrial waste and $10 per ton for hazardous waste) that will help this situation. Dr.

Dawson also reported studies at the University of Nottingham that indicate that

contaminates in most recycled materials are not an issue, although pH may be

important for some. In this regard, natural limestone is sometimes worse than the

recycled material. University of Nottingham researchers as well as Swedish

researchers are moving toward using triaxial testing to develop methods for comparing

strength with stiffness. Crushed concrete is being investigated in both the ALT-MAT

program and the COURAGE studies. Information about the studies at The University

of Nottingham and COURAGE can be obtained at www.nottingham.ac.uk/p&g.
25

CHAPTER 3

DENMARK

Waste management in Denmark is governed by rules and regulations ensuring that

waste is collected and managed in ways that are protective of the environment and

natural resources. One of the most important measures for facilitating good

management is the tax on waste that is landfilled and incinerated. Local authorities

have overall administrative authority for waste management and are responsible for

ensuring that sufficient waste treatment capacity exists. Therefore, except in a few

special cases, the local authorities determine how wastes will be disposed. Traditionally,

the public sector assumed the responsibility for

treating the waste. This was done by one or

more local authorities establishing

corporations to treat the waste. The local

authorities maintained control over waste

management planning and ensured the

adequate flow of waste to the treatment

facilities. However, Danish society’s strong

preference for recycling has resulted in the

establishment of private sector facilities for

processing waste. Most of these have been

established since 1990.

The Danish government plays a key role in driving recycling in Denmark. This was

also a conclusion of the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development

(OECD) 1997 report titled Recycling Strategies for Road Works (OECD study), which

gave Denmark very high marks for its influence in promoting the use of recyclables in

road construction. The Danish government has created an atmosphere where road

contractors, producers of waste materials, and suppliers are motivated to work together

to assist the use of recycled materials. This effort is achieved by supporting research

investigations and demonstrations, tax policies on waste disposal, and issuing

recommendations, guidance, and requirements for recycling. The government’s general

policy is that recycling should be done at the highest level that is technically and

economically feasible. An example of this is the reuse of old asphalt concrete in new

asphaltic pavements. If this is not technically feasible or economic, then use as fill or

road base is acceptable. The government has provided grants to assist in the startup of

private sector companies to process recyclable materials. Its efforts to educate the

public about using recycled materials and the general public’s very positive attitude

about recycling are strong drivers for using recycled materials in road construction. In

1999, the tax for using a cubic meter (M3) of virgin materials was 5 Danish kroner

(Dkr) (~US$0.65). The tax for landfilling was Dkr 375 (~US$49). Incinerating waste to

recover energy for heat and power was Dkr 280 (~US$36); for energy recovery for heat

only, it was Dkr 330 (~US$43). These taxes are per metric ton of material and are in

addition to the operating and other costs associated with the facilities.

The Danish government also supports research for the use of recycled materials in road

construction. The Vejteknisk Institut (Danish Road Institute - DRI) involves all the

partners concerned with construction to develop specifications, standards, and

guidelines for using recycled materials in road construction. Specifications are

developed using the consensus approach similar to that used by the American Society

The Danish government has created an

atmosphere where road contractors,

producers of waste materials, and

suppliers are motivated to work together

to assist the use of recycled materials.
26

CHAPTER 3

for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Participants include the material suppliers,

environmental authorities, the Vejdirektorafet (the Danish Road Directorate - VD) (for

engineering aspects), the owner agency, and the contractors. An overall committee

determines the need for new standards and then establishes working groups to begin

the process. All interested parties are invited to participate. All participants must agree

before a standard can be adopted. The process is administered by the Secretariat under

the VD. This consensus approach essentially guarantees that the standards will be

implemented. While the ASTM consensus approach can take many years for a standard

to pass, the process in Denmark is usually completed in 3 to 4 years. The U.S. delegation

considered this consensus approach a unique method for developing standards for using

recycled materials in road construction.

The Danish Agency for the Development of Trade and Industry established in 1999 the

Center for Restproduckter (C-RES). The C-RES’s overall objective is to develop

environmentally acceptable and economically sustainable methods, concepts, and

technologies for characterizing and treating industrial residues, waste materials, and

other by-products for better recycling and utilization. For materials that cannot be

recycled, C-RES also evaluates methods to

ensure that waste is landfilled properly.

Cooperating and supporting partners in the

Center include industry, research

organizations, academia, and others concerned

with the processing and utilization of waste

materials. The Center is also involved in

developing methods and techniques for the safe

landfilling of residues. Research findings from

the Center will be used to assist in the

development of standards as well as to better

understand the environmental and engineering behavior of recycled materials.

Denmark participates in the ALT-MAT program and is investigating an existing road

subbase containing WTE bottom ash, as discussed in Chapter 5. The ALT-MAT program

primary objective for Denmark is to define methods by which the suitability of using

alternative materials can be evaluated under appropriate climatic conditions. Methods

will cover the mechanical properties of the materials, their functional requirements,

their leaching potential and their long-term stability. The program is also determining

the mechanisms and rates of release of constituents from the materials. This includes

lysimeter studies, evaluations of existing road construction, development of

specifications for full-scale demonstrations, and development of methods to control

contaminate release that could be used to enable the use of recycled materials.

GERMANY

Since 1972, Germany has passed several laws dealing with waste management. As is

the case in some other countries, the Federal government enacts the legislation, but

delegates implementation and enforcement to the individual states. The Waste

Management Act of 1972 established standards for the collection, treatment, and

disposal of waste. The act did not address waste prevention or recycling. As improved

technologies emerged, the act was amended. In 1975, the Waste Management Program

While the ASTM consensus approach

can take many years for a standard to

pass, the process in Denmark is usually

completed in 3 to 4 years.
27

CHAPTER 3

was initiated and evaluated specific waste types to determine the amounts of waste

materials that could be recycled and what methods were available for recycling them.

Then in 1986, Germany defined a preferred order of priorities for managing waste:

avoidance, recycling, and disposal. The law

established a 90 percent recycling rate as a

target for road construction. This Law on Waste

Disposal also stated that recycled materials

must meet all the requirements placed on

traditional aggregates and mixes.

The Closed Substance Cycle and Waste

Management Act (1996) established the

fundamental philosophy that producers have

responsibility for the entire life cycle of the

products they manufacture. This only ends with

the recycling or disposal of the product. As far

as possible all residues generated during this

life cycle must be fed back into the closed substance cycle. Only waste that cannot be

recovered and recycled may be disposed of using methods protective of human health

and the environment. In 1999, companies larger than a certain size must submit waste

life-cycle plans. The objective of these requirements is to help increase recycling within

and among companies.

Today, Germany’s waste management polices are also being affected by actions of the

EU. Some of these may act as a deterrent to increased recycling in road construction in

Germany and other countries. As an example, the EU classifies 8 to 10 materials from

construction demolition as “waste.” Germany considers these “secondary materials.” The

EU classifies scrap tires as waste for energy recovery, while Germany refers to them as

raw materials to be used in production. As in the United States and other countries, the

terms “raw materials” and “secondary materials” are perceived more favorably than

“waste.” The EU terminology is considered problematic.

The Industry Association for Recycling (Bundeaverband der Deutschen RecyclingBastoff-Industrie e.V.) was established in 1983 to encourage increased use of recycled

materials. The association works with end users to improve the quality of recycled

materials and to eliminate all environmental effects from their use. It now has more

than 200 company members. More than 55,000 jobs and an estimated 35 billion Euros

(~US$35 billion) have been created by its activities.

Although Germany strongly encourages industry to recycle in-house, the 1996

legislation has not resulted in large increases in the use of recycled materials in road

construction. Only selected materials such as asphalt and concrete are enjoying

economic success. The government does not play a strong role in the marketing of

recycled materials and leaves this primarily to industry.

Factors for increased recycling in roads and other sectors include the lack of landfill

space and the concern for drinking water protection. Germany has placed strict

requirements on what waste can be landfilled on the basis of concentrations of selected

constituents and organic content. Also, before generators of construction demolition

Germany’s Closed Substance Cycle

and Waste Management Act (1996)

established the fundamental philosophy

that producers have responsibility for

the entire life cycle of the products they

manufacture.
28

CHAPTER 3

waste can dispose of it into a landfill, they must first get a written specification from a

recycling processing facility that the waste cannot be recycled.

Economics is another major factor in the use of recycled materials in road construction.

No provisions in the contract bidding process give prospective contractors credit for

using recycled materials. Consequently,

recycled materials will only be used if they are

cheaper and will perform equally as well as

natural materials. Some Germans noted that

because virgin materials in Germany are

cheap, it is difficult for secondary materials to

compete with virgin materials in the free

market system. Other Germans expressed the

opinion that the Federal government will need

to participate in marketing and education

(which it does not currently do) to help spur

increased use of recycled materials. In addition,

even though landfill space is limited and there are strict requirements, land disposal

costs of 20 deutschemarks (DM)/metric ton (~US$9) are still low compared with some of

the other countries. This fact would tend to discourage expenditures that might be

required to process materials that currently are not judged to be recyclable.

Standards govern the general requirement for materials (e.g., cement, sand, bitumen)

used in Germany’s roads. There are requirements for special applications and these

explicitly permit the use of recycled materials and industrial by-products. Recycled

materials must, however, fulfill the same requirements as natural materials. Special

conditions for using recycled materials include proving that they are environmentally

acceptable. The lack of specifications and guidelines for using recycled materials was

seen as a barrier.

THE NETHERLANDS

The Netherlands is far advanced as far as developing and integrating policies, economic

tools, regulations, and other factors needed for increased recycling and the use of

recyclables for sustainable road construction. Along with Denmark, the OECD study

gave the Netherlands very high marks for increased use of recycled materials. To put

this into proper perspective, it is necessary to review Dutch policy concerned with

economic growth and the environment. This policy was formalized in a 1997 document

issued by the Dutch government. Based on the concept that economic policy, spatial

planning policy, and environmental policy must be developed together, the underlying

principle is that economic growth should occur only if pollution declines at the same

time. This principle, referred to as “absolute delinking,” requires that significant

changes be made in production, prices, taxes, and government policy. It involves a longterm process that must involve all segments of society, and called for new, sustainable

forms of economic activities such as:

• Manufacturing of environmentally friendly products and services that meet the

needs of consumers, who place great importance on environmental quality.

Because virgin materials

in Germany are cheap, it is

difficult for secondary materials

to compete with virgin materials

in the free market system.
29

CHAPTER 3

• Attainment of sustainability in all business sectors.

• Use of environmentally efficient technologies.

• Efficient use of space, spatial quality, and investments in the infrastructure to

aid sustainable economic development.

• Incorporation of environmental factors in prices of goods and services.

From an environmental perspective, sustainable development involves three main

policies: the Waste Materials Policy, the Soil Protection Policy, and the Surface Mineral

Policy. The Waste Materials Policy is based on the “Lansink Ladder” for waste

management: prevention, recycling, burning, and dumping. Among the provisions of the

Soil Protection Policy is the concept of permitting a marginal environmental burdening

of soil when using secondary materials. This policy permits an increase (up to 1 percent)

of contamination above background levels in the top layer of soil over a 100-year period.

Objectives of the Surface Mineral Policy are to encourage the conservation of raw

materials, stimulate the use of secondary materials as much as possible, support the use

of renewable raw materials, and ensure that adequate supplies of raw materials are

available for construction.

Consistent with the Lansink Ladder, the Netherlands has a hierarchy of preferred

options for managing waste. In the Environmental Management Act, in the chapter on

waste (Jan. 1994), the order of preferences is: prevention, reuse and recycling, waste-toenergy, and landfilling. The Act also established rules and regulations for preventing

waste; discarding and collecting waste; and treating, processing, destroying, and

landfilling waste. Several instruments have been effective in making the Netherlands a

leader in recycling and reuse of materials. In addition to the Environmental

Management Act, and the subsequent chapter on waste, the taxes on waste disposal,

voluntary agreements with industry, public campaigns, and support of research,

demonstrations, and implementation by the government have all played major roles.

The Dutch embraced a market philosophy for promoting the concept of using recycled

materials in sustainable highway construction. As shown in Figure 1, the market

philosophy involves numerous interactive components:

• The government provides clear and unequivocal standards for all recycled

materials. The standards are usually developed through governmental research

and public or industry working groups.

• Recycled materials producers treat their materials like a “product,” using

certified QA/QC programs so it can compete against natural materials.

• There is clear policy planning and implementation, which allows producers and

contractors to prepare for this new market.

• There are incentives from the government (e.g., substantial landfill disposal

taxes on materials that can be recycled and modest taxes on the use of natural

aggregates) that act as stimulants.

• When these initiatives, as well as others shown in Figure 1, are combined, a

mature recycling market can develop over time.
30

CHAPTER 3

Figure 1. Market elements for a sustainable recycling strategy cycle in the Netherlands.

The Dutch sustainability model emphasizes that products should be manufactured for

future recycling. This and other concepts are depicted in Figure 2. The supply of

primary and recycled materials and their engineering and environmental behavior in

products are critical factors. Construction should consider future maintenance and

demolition requirements. Furthermore, demolition should be done using methods that

enhance recovery and utilization of the materials (e.g., dismantling a building rather

than using a wrecking ball). As depicted in the figure, some materials enter the closed

cycled of use and maintenance; others do not. However, some materials that do not enter

this closed cycle may still be utilized. Waste and emissions leave the chain and must be

properly managed. An objective of following this philosophy is to avoid designing a

recycling scheme for a by-product material without evaluating all the potential options

and future consequences, including its engineering and environmental behavior. One

must consider the future reuse of the same product, or how it can be recycled into a

different product or use. An example is that the use of tar in Dutch roads appeared to be

a good recycling strategy at one time. It now causes considerable problems for recycling

old asphalt pavements.

policy client

profit/risk economy

market

private industry

profit/risk

technical process

technical/environmental

parameters and standards

(quality assurance)

Courtesy of Jan van der Zwan
31

CHAPTER 3

Figure 2. The cyclical nature of a sustainable recycling market.

The Dutch government determined that more space would be needed for residential

housing, agriculture, industrial development, and similar uses; therefore, space for

landfills is being strictly controlled and mining for natural aggregates is being

curtailed. Protecting the environment is a high national priority. Imposing high taxes

on landfilling and the high cost for waste-to-energy because of flue gas cleaning

requirements are examples of actions being used to implement environmental policies

and help increase recycling. Landfill fees range from 80 to 800 Dutch guilders (f.)

(~US$35 to $352) per metric ton depending on the type of waste being landfilled. These

fees will increase in 2000. In 1995, the Dutch began a phased ban on landfilling of 32

wastes; construction and demolition wastes were included in 1997. This ban has helped

to increase recycling of these materials.

In 1972, the Standard Specification System for Works of Civil Engineering Construction

(RAW Systematiek) was established by the Dutch Ministry of Transport and Water

Management (Nederlandse Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat - V&W) and the

Dutch Road Building Association (Nederlandse Vereniging van Wegenbouwers -

NVWB) with the objective of developing standard civil engineering specifications. The

Information and Technology Center for Transport and Infrastructure (Stichting

Centrum voor Regelgeving en Onderzoek in de Grond-, Water- en Wegenbouw en de

Verkeerstechniek - CROW) was formed in 1987 to consolidate overlapping research and

standardization activities. The RAW Systematiek was also incorporated into CROW.

CROW acts as a knowledge broker. Its main objectives are to develop guidelines,

specifications, and research on civil engineering, traffic and transport, and technology

transfer. It is a non-profit organization through which the national government,

provinces, municipalities, contractors, consulting organizations, public transport, and

educational institutions cooperate in the design, construction, and management of road

and traffic transport facilities. Research is funded by all parties and knowledge is

provided by all parties involved in the specification development process. CROW has a

Board of Directors with members from these groups. CROW does not conduct research

Courtesy of Jan van der Zwan

Primary raw materials

Recycling waste

materials

Supply of raw

materials

Re-use

materials

Demolition

Use and

maintenance

Production

Construction

Useful

application

waste/

emission

energy

use and

maintenance

materials

information
32

CHAPTER 3

directly but does formulate and supervise needed research. In this role, it is responsible

for research and standards development involved in all phases of the construction

process, including maintenance and demolition.

CROW publishes the civil engineering specifications referred to as the “RAW

Systematiek.” The RAW Systematiek is determined by the partners involved in the

construction process. CROW serves in a planning and supervisory role and ensures

coherence among the various parts of the standard specifications. Parties participating

in the CROW standardization work include:

• V&W.

• NVWB.

• Provincial Transport and Environmental Services (Provinciale Waterstaat).

• Dutch Association of Municipalities (Vereniging van Nederlandse gemeenten -

VNG).

• Government Service for Land and Water Management (Dienst Landelijk Gebied

- DLG).

• Civil Engineering Contractors Association (Vereniging Aannemers Grond-,

Water- en Wegenbouw - VAGWW).

• Dutch Central Dredges Association (Vereniging Centraal Baggerbedrijf - CB).

• Dutch Association of National Building Contractors (Vereniging Grootbedrijf

Bouw - VGBouw).

• Dutch Association of Consulting Engineers (Orde van Nederlandse Raadgevende

Ingenieurs - ONRI).

• The Association for the Promotion of Asphalt Works (de Vereniging tot

Bevordering van Werken in Asfalt - VBW Asfalt).

Work is carried out in working groups and committees with all parties equally

represented. The results of the work are included in the civil engineering standard

specifications and are made available to the users of the RAW Systematiek. Because of

the selection procedures and requirements of the process used to develop the

specifications, there is a high level of quality and acceptance of the specifications.

Because of the Dutch economic and environmental policies, and the strong desire of the

partners involved in the RAW Systematiek, the use of recycled materials is included.

This helps stimulate their use in construction. There are standard environmental

specifications that do not distinguish secondary materials from natural materials. As

long as they meet the specifications, they can be used.

The Dutch Poldermodel is a model for cooperation between the government and

industry and has been instrumental in implementation of the Dutch Building Materials

Decree (DBMD), which in turn has promoted the use of waste materials in road

construction. This model resulted from 15 years of many changes, developments, and

rule making. Industry found it difficult to move quickly enough to adjust to the new

developments and rules. The DBMD was cited as an example of a complex rule that was

difficult to implement (see Chapter 6). A working group was formed to address this

issue. A result was the Dutch Poldermodel, which is basically a model for democratic
33

CHAPTER 3

consensus building to find solutions to complex problems of regulations development,

implementation, and associated factors. In this case, the goal was to find ways to

implement the DBMD so that it would meet the needs of the secondary materials

industry, and at the same time meet the needs for environmental protection. The

objective was to not destroy the industry in order to protect the environment. There was

a need for functional regulations with detailed standards, open communication and

transfer of information, environmental quality, and operational recycling systems. The

government agreed that it would not change the rules or formulate new rules to replace

ones already in force during the Poldermodel development. Industry agreed that, in

order to meet the conditions for environmental protection and increased recycling, it

was necessary to improve the quality of secondary materials. These actions led to the

development of a process used to approve materials, certify companies, and ensure

quality control. A statistical approach is used for quality control to reduce costs

associated with analysis of samples. Also important to the industry is that approved

materials are no longer considered “waste,” which helps to establish markets for the

recycled products. There are provisions for taking actions against companies that do not

comply with the agreement. An interesting note was that for several years, producers of

natural materials were against this move to assist the establishment of a secondary

materials industry, but they now are producing them in addition to their core business.

At present, discussions are being held to determine necessary actions to maintain the

viability of small companies that will have financial difficulties implementing

certification steps related to the DBMD.

The market concept mentioned earlier, as applied to sustainable recycling initiatives,

has matured to the point that there are now concrete examples of products that can

compete in the marketplace while promoting sustainability. The Dutch Water Works

Department (Rijkswaterstaat - RWS) has used two product life-cycle models to

illustrate the degree of market success and the development phases for using recycled

materials, which are shown in Figures 3 and 4.

Figure 3. Degree of success for use of recycled materials in the Netherlands.

Courtesy of Jan van der Zwan

dredge

spoil

cleaned

ground

waste

incineration

bottom ash

concrete

and

brickwork

blast

furnace

slag

no acceptation

no application

market

acceptation market

appreciation

DEGREE OF SUCCESS
34

CHAPTER 3

Figure 4. Different phases of development of recycled materials.

The Dutch cited several reasons for the high level of recycling in the Netherlands:

• Space requirements in a small country with a high population density.

• Need for long-term care of landfills and the desire to minimize this burden.

• Avoidance of WTE where feasible.

• Use of financial incentives (e.g., high landfill costs, subsidies, etc.) to promote

recycling. One example is that certified companies receive a fee for dismantling

cars for recycling.

• A ban on landfilling of recyclable waste (e.g., C&D).

Dutch industry identified five factors for the success in recycling:

• Development of recycling technology.

• A well-defined technical program.

• A clear and unambiguous policy regarding engineering and environmental

requirements.

• Government policies that restrict landfilling.

• The fact that the owner of the construction project is the responsible party if

problems occur.

Dutch industry also identified the following factors for successfully creating private

markets for recycled materials:

• Industry has an active selling policy.

• Industry invests in facilities for processing waste into useful materials.

• Industry improves the quality of recycled materials and uses high volumes of

materials.

Courtesy of Jan van der Zwan

Product Life Cycle:

Different phases of development

amount

time

no interest development growth maturity decrease
35

CHAPTER 3

• Government acts to solve any social problems that arise.

As an independent verification of the success of the Dutch sustainability model, an

official of a WTE bottom ash processing plant attributed the high level of recycling of

the bottom ash to the following factors:

• Having clear, concise regulations that everyone understands.

• Establishing and maintaining a high level of quality control over the process.

• Having a high level of cooperation between government and industry.

Based on these discussions, there is no doubt that the Dutch government’s policies and

actions have significantly affected recycling in the Netherlands and led to their

impressive recycling rates.

FRANCE

The team noted that France has very similar barriers to the use of recycled materials to

those in the United States. These barriers, which include economics, public relations, an

undefined role of the Federal government, and a lack of strong incentives, affect the

degree of recycling for sustainable road construction. The U.S. delegation did, however,

observe some programs and initiatives in France that may be transferable to the

United States.

French delegates indicated that there are increasing environmental pressures to use

recycled materials, and they expect expanded efforts in the year 2002. They also stated

that France has a long history of using waste materials, especially during the period of

heavy infrastructure building. During this period (1955-1975), blast furnace slag, coal

fly ash, coal mining wastes, and other industrial wastes were recycled into construction.

Since 1975 to the present, the responsibility to eliminate waste is that of the producer.

When wastes are produced, they are expected to be used within their own industry. This

method was intended to encourage industry to find better solutions for reducing and

using waste.

A 1992 law requires a landfill ban in place as of 2002 that will restrict landfilling to

only those wastes that cannot be recycled. Other parts of the policy involve the need to

increase the quantities and quality of secondary materials and to improve the quality of

household waste.

As in other countries, France has standards, specifications, guidance documents, and

technical references for use in road construction; however, there are no standards that

are specific to recycled materials. If one wishes to use a recycled material as an

aggregate, for example, then one must go to the standards that deal with natural

aggregates. Also, the same testing procedures used for traditional materials are used for

recycled materials. Some view this situation as a barrier against use of recycled

materials, particularly since research has shown that, in some cases, the traditional

tests do not apply; that is, the tests do not adequately evaluate the properties of

recycled materials in specific applications.

French policy promoting use of recycled materials in roads is only a few years old, and

has concentrated on the use of WTE bottom ash and construction demolition waste. In
36

CHAPTER 3

only a few cases have other materials been used. The policy to use recycled materials

was the result of the strong political will of the Environmental Ministers. Others,

however, also supported the policy. The Ministère de Equipment, du Logement, des

Transport et du Tourisme (Ministry for Public Works, Housing, Transportation and

Tourism) was faced with shortages of natural materials in some areas of France,

particularly in Paris. In these areas, the road construction industry also supported the

policy. Concurrently, a portion of the public with strong environmental ethics helped

push the policy.

The French use two main ways to implement increased use of recyclables in road

construction:

• The Directorate for the national road network and the local authorities

responsible for their roads can use the technical references for a construction

project to permit the use of recycled materials.

• The contractor can develop bids in response to contract proposal requests that

include the use of recycled materials in place of traditional materials, even if the

contract request does not include this provision.

It is unclear how effective these methods are in encouraging use of recyclables in road

construction, particularly in areas where natural materials are plentiful.

The Ministry of Public Works facilitates

research to encourage increased use of recycled

materials in the industry. The research is

conducted by public technical research

organizations such as Service d’Etudes

Techniques des Route et Autoroutes (SETRA)

and Laboratoire Central des Ponts et

Chaussées (Central Bridge and Road

Laboratory - LCPC). Research generated by

these organizations is used to develop

regulations, specifications, and codes of

practices for using recycled materials. A major

objective for supporting this research is to help assure road authorities, consulting

engineers, and others that the candidate recycled materials will meet performance

requirements.

With respect to NGOs, the role has been to advocate reuse and recycling. Although the

informed public strongly supports recycling, the general public has not participated in

pushing for the increased use of recycled materials in roads.

The French discussed several barriers, including:

• The added cost of processing recycled materials makes them more expensive to

use. Construction demolition waste is a good example.

• The low cost of landfilling inert waste. Some concern was expressed about how

well the 2002 landfill ban will be enforced.

Although the informed public strongly

supports recycling, the general

public has not participated in

pushing for the increased use of

recycled materials in roads.
37

CHAPTER 3

• Concerns about who will pay the added cost of using recycled materials.

Although taxes on using virgin materials are being considered, no one likes

taxes.

• Although grants have been used to help start recycling companies, these grants

are being reduced.

• The lack of standard regulations on the national level and the differences that

exist among the various regions and local states. Desires were expressed for a

stronger Federal role.

• Questions and concerns remain about the long-term performance and

containment of recycled materials used in the road environment. There is an

interest in obtaining such data.

• The fact that there are large quantities of natural materials available in most of

France. Natural aggregate shortages exist in only a few areas.

The French delegates also identified initiatives and programs that are being

implemented or that are needed to overcome some of these barriers:

• Development of technical engineering and environmental guidelines to assist

local and regional stakeholders in using recycled materials.

• Development of technical requirements for public works professionals and

consultants.

• Availability of assistance to aid innovation in the processing and use of recycled

materials.

• Support to conduct pilot and demonstration projects and testing of procedures for

selective deconstruction and demolition.

• Development of quality control procedures for processing recycled materials.

• Proper characterization of new products.

• Placement of production restrictions on quarry authorities.

• Establishment of requirements that a minimum percentage of recycled

materials be used in selected construction activities.

• Resurgence of the 1975 law that mandates no discrimination against recycled

materials.

• France is obligated under EU provisions to use recyclable materials in

construction applications.

• An increase, rather than decrease, in grants and investments in recycling

facilities.

• Development of methods for better communication and exchange of information

among professionals and with the public to help alleviate fears about the use of

recycled materials in the highway infrastructure.

Uncertainties were expressed about the ultimate responsibility for recycled materials

in the event of problems, (e.g., mechanical failure, environmental, etc.), that the

definition of waste is too broad, and about the necessity for specific and precise
38

CHAPTER 3

contracts and controls. As was the case in Germany, France also has concerns about the

EU’s definition that a recyclable material is still a waste, which has resulted in an

unclear definition of a material that has been processed through a recycling facility. Is

this material a “product” or a “waste”?

Suppliers and contractors emphasized several points about the use of recycled materials

in their construction projects. Twenty million metric tons per year of recycled materials

are used, the market for which was developed purely on economics. Industry did not

rely on government support or intervention in developing the market. Working groups

were formed to exchange knowledge and establish rules. Performance standards and

environmental guidelines were developed on the basis of the concentrations of sulfate,

phenols, and heavy metals. These activities resulted in published guidelines and rules

for using recycled materials. Quality assurance plans are important, and adopted use

must not compromise quality of the final product. The overriding theme is that in using

recycled materials, there can be no compromise regarding quality. The recycled

aggregate has to be at least the same quality as the virgin material.

Industry representatives stated that, in their opinion, there were differences between

the government’s talk about increasing the use of recycled materials and the reality

industry experiences. Examples of this disconnect included the fact that companies are

expected to use any waste they generate within their own company, which creates a

barrier for one industry to use the waste from another. Industry representatives also

cited the problem of the low bid process. Because using recycled materials usually costs

more, it results in higher bids. Another example cited was that contractors have been

given permission to use only 10 percent of old asphalt in new mixes. France produces

about 5 to 6 million metric tons of RAP each year. Contractors want to use greater

amounts of RAP in the mixes because they believe it can be done easily. They stated

that if they were permitted to use 15 to 20 percent in the mixes, they would consume all

that is produced.

The Technical Road Committee in France is working with the highway industry to

develop protocols for valorizing new products. Based on data gathered, it has published

a document providing a “Charter for Innovation.” It offers a framework for companies to

valorize their own products. Each company agrees to a protocol specific to its product.

To date, more than 100 companies have done so, and it has resulted in the use of

recycled materials in new projects. It was noted that even though recycled materials

often cost more, some users are willing to pay the added cost because of increased

performance. However, French representatives also stated that some government

subsidies may be needed for significant increases in the use of recycled materials to

take place.

SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS

All the countries that were visited had recycling policies specifically or generally

promoting sustainability. There also is a pervasive public culture about recycling and

social democracy that allows national behavior change. Many of the countries have an

effective stakeholder consensus process that is used for developing engineering and

environmental specifications. A wide variety of drivers influence recycling success, from

national values to practical considerations at the regional level, many of which are
39

CHAPTER 3

common to the United States. For instance, in the Netherlands, the Dutch have a

formal policy for sustainable development in highway and other construction that

embraces the use of recycled materials. There is public opposition to the landfilling of

waste materials and to the excavation of natural materials. The government has a

policy that minimizes the use of natural materials and promotes the use of recycled

materials within a market system supported by government policies. The government

cooperates with industry by sharing risk and profit and providing unambiguous

technical and environmental standards. High degrees of recycling are seen, especially

for construction and demolition aggregates, blast furnace slags, asphalt pavements, coal

fly ashes, and steel slags. The government has helped to start companies specialized in

the brokering of lightly contaminated soils for use in sound barriers adjacent to

highways. The successes seen in the Netherlands are related to advances in all aspects

of the sustainability model: a robust market, clear policy, economics, appropriate

technical and environmental standards, and innovative technical processes. The Dutch

sustainability model has recycling elements that should be included in the U.S.

transportation community’s overall goals for transportation sustainability.
40

Chapter Four

ECONOMICS

INTRODUCTION OF PERTINENT TOPICS

Economics plays a critical role in the use of recycled materials in road construction in

all the countries visited. Economics affects all aspects of recycling for sustainable road

building: engineering, environmental issues, testing regimes, markets, specifications,

and all the other factors necessary for success in using recycled materials for

sustainable road building. Because recycled materials can often be more expensive than

traditional materials, government policies and incentives to develop favorable

economics and markets for using recycled materials are critical to increased use of

recycled materials. Key elements relating to the economic forces affecting the use of

recycled products in road construction in the countries visited include the use of lifecycle analyses, free market systems, national and local governments policies,

regulations, taxes, and EU directives regarding the free flow of materials. The degree to

which each of these applies varies from country to country. As an example, the Dutch

government’s involvement and support are playing a significant role in establishing

markets and the infrastructure needed for successful increased use of recycled

materials in road construction. In Sweden, this is not yet the case. This difference is

evident when one compares the level of recycling in road construction taking place in

the Netherlands compared with that in Sweden.

This chapter describes prevalent economic factors in each of the countries visited.

SWEDEN

As noted earlier, Sweden is not as advanced as some other countries in their use of

recycled materials in roads. For some materials (e.g., WTE bottom ash) Sweden’s

experience is limited to experimental demonstration projects. However, because of the

year 2000 legislation requiring a tax of Sk 250 (~US$28) per metric ton for landfilling,

plus an Sk 5 (~US$0.57) per metric ton tax on virgin materials, contractors want to use

recycled materials. They believe that secondary materials can work or be engineered to

work. On the other hand, contractors also realize that processing these materials will

make them more expensive to use. Other factors exacerbating the economics include

the lack of national engineering and environmental guidelines for these materials, the

permitting process at local levels, Sweden’s plentiful supply of natural materials, and

concern about the environment.

Permitting for projects is done at the local level, and the process usually requires many

resources from both the local government and the contractor. Although the Swedish

EPA has developed national environmental regulations and policies, it has not

developed guidance on how to apply these to the use of recycled materials. Local

governments, contractors, and others want these guidelines, but the Swedish EPA has

not yet shown an active interest in developing them. Furthermore, the Swedish Road

Administration has no economic interest in developing guidelines, since its general

attitude is that roads should not be a dumping place for waste. Having local decision

authority without national guidance prevents the implementation of many projects.
41

CHAPTER 4

Sweden interacts with the NORDIC and the Council, European Commissions of

Transportation Ministries. It has working agreements with the U.S. FHWA and the

Minnesota Department of Transportation. Sweden is participating in the ALT-MAT

program, conducting research on candidate recycled materials. VTI and SGI are

cooperating in doing the ALT-MAT research. Drivers for this research include the EU

directives and polices concerned with the environment and increased recycling goals, as

well as Sweden’s geographical position in relation to other countries. The Swedes

believe they need to be much more active in order to remain competitive. They hope

that ongoing research will help remove some barriers impeding the use of recycled

materials and will provide information to valorize some of the materials and help

reduce the permitting costs, to make recycled materials more competitive in the

marketplace.

Sweden acknowledges in the OECD study that

it has been out-distanced by many countries

with respect to having strategies for increasing

the use of recycled materials in road

construction. The OECD noted that, in order

for Sweden to reach the goals established by

several other countries, the Swedish

government will have to be a major influence

in establishing markets. To date this has not

happened, and the key to future success will be the price for conventional primary

materials compared with candidate recycled materials. The upcoming taxes on

landfilling and virgin materials may begin to support increased recycling; however, the

Swedish government does not yet have programs in place to help establish markets for

recycled materials or for educating the public about the benefits of increased recycling

in road construction. Even though the new environmental law requires contractors to

document why they are not using recycled materials, it is not seen as a strong market

driver because the added cost of using recycled materials can be a valid reason for not

using them.

DENMARK

Perhaps the key observation that the U.S. delegation made in Denmark was the strong

influence of the Danish government in the establishment of market forces favorable to

the use of recycled materials in road construction. Taxes are an example. Presently, the

tax for landfilling each metric ton of waste is Dkr 375 (~US$49). Virgin materials are

taxed at Dkr 5 (~US$0.66) for each cubic meter used. The high cost of WTE, which

ranges from Dkr 280 (~US$36) per metric ton to Dkr 330 (~US$43) per metric ton,

depending on how the energy produced is used, also is an inducement for industry to

recycle as much as it possibly can.

The implementation of taxes has been gradual, but proactive. In 1987, a tax of Dkr 40

(~US$5) per metric ton was placed on incineration and landfilling. In 1990, it was

increased to Dkr 130 (~US$17) per metric ton. In 1993, the taxes were raised to Dkr 160

(~US$20) per metric ton for incineration and 195 (~US$25) per metric ton for

landfilling. In 1997, the taxes were raised to Dkr 210 (~US$27) per metric ton for

incineration with energy recovery, Dkr 260 (~US$34) per metric ton for incineration

... the key to future success

will be the price for conventional

primary materials compared with

candidate recycled materials.
42

CHAPTER 4

without energy recovery, and Dkr 335 (~US$43) per metric ton for landfilling. In 1999,

the taxes were raised to Dkr 280 (~US$36) per metric ton for incineration with energy

recovery, Dkr 330 (~US$43) per metric ton for incineration without energy recovery,

and Dkr 375 (~US$49) per metric ton for landfilling. Limited landfill space and the

need to conserve natural resources are also reasons for the taxes. The combination of

these factors is a compelling reason for the increased recycling in Denmark.

Government-private partnerships have been used to help private companies establish

facilities for processing and producing higher value recycled materials. A good example

of this is the Råstof og Genanvendelse (RGS 90) facility visited by the team (see

Chapter 5). This plant was started 8 years ago in partnership with the Copenhagen

municipal government. Facility personnel gave the Danish government (federal and

municipal) high marks for their involvement and their programs for educating and

selling the concept to the public. There are a large number of similar facilities in

Denmark, and competition among them has led to innovation and the production of

high-quality materials that are attractive to contractors. Producers pay for the waste to

be delivered to the processing facilities. Because transportation costs are high, location

is a key factor in the success of these companies. RGS 90 provides an added incentive by

having supplies of virgin materials available to clients who need them; this allows a

truck to transport a load in both directions, thus saving transportation costs.

The production of high-quality secondary materials is as important as the Danish

philosophy to recycle to the highest use possible. Implementing this philosophy also

affects the economics of recycling since processing and producing the secondary

materials are more costly than traditional materials. In some cases, this added cost is

justified by the improved material performance alone. Electric arc slags were shown to

produce a high-quality product for use in wearing courses. While initial cost to use this

material is higher, it was justified based on a longer service life. Using the results from

test trials, a life-cycle cost analysis was used to document the added value of the longer

life, which was then built into the bidding process for the contract. Because of its longer

life, the contractor offered a 12-year warranty instead of the usual 5 years. The Road

Directorate shared in the risk associated with the longer warranty, demonstrating its

commitment and support for using recycled products.

GERMANY

The importance of economics in furthering the use of recycling for sustainable road

construction is equally important in Germany. The 1996 Closed Substance Cycle and

Waste Management Act has not resulted in significant increases in recycling. Even

though the act requires that only waste that cannot be recycled may be landfilled.

Under the act, companies larger than a certain size will be required to perform lifecycle analyses on their waste. This effort is expected to increase recycling within a

company, but may not be very effective for increasing use of recycled products in road

construction. Since no provisions in the contract bidding process provide credit or other

incentives for using recycled materials, contractors will only use them if they are

cheaper. The materials also must perform at least as well or better than traditional

materials.
43

CHAPTER 4

Germany has a free market system, and secondary materials have a difficult time

competing with virgin materials. Virgin materials in Germany are cheap and

landfilling costs are low, even though Germany has strict requirements on landfilling.

German legislation requires that companies perform life-cycle analyses and develop

waste economy plans. The EU also requires that member countries develop waste

management plans. It is not clear how successful these plans will be in increasing

recycling. Industry representatives and others expressed the opinion that the Federal

government must play a major role in educating the public about recycling and in

developing markets for their use.

The German Federal Association for Construction Recycling (Verband Deutscher

Baustoff-Recycling-Unternehmen e.V.), consisting of contractors and suppliers, believes

that there are market opportunities for recycled materials; however, there are no strong

German programs to take advantages of these opportunities. The association also

believes that the quality of recycled materials is the critical issue, but does not believe

that establishing an artificial economy for comparing these materials with natural ones

is the answer. To create ecobalance, each stage of the recycling scheme must be

evaluated in comparison with the disposal options and these then are compared with

virgin materials. Economics should not be considered in the ecobalance process.

Although political forces in Germany have often demanded more recycling, economies

of the free market system have clearly been a deterrent.

In the case of C&D waste, a processing company indicated that it must sell its product

at a price lower than that for virgin materials. It operates on a very small margin, even

though it gets paid for taking the waste materials. Processing this type of waste is

expensive, and the economics of the situation make it difficult for these type of

companies to remain competitive in Germany. A positive influence, however, is the

requirement that producers of this waste get a certification from a processing facility

that the waste is not recyclable before they can

dispose of it in a landfill. Because of this

requirement, the processing facility carefully

inspects the waste before accepting it, which

has resulted in cleaner C&D waste coming into

the facilities, which in turn helps processing

costs and the production of higher value

products. Any waste left after the processing is

the responsibility of processing company.

Because of cheap landfill costs in nearby

France, some of the waste is transported there.

Warranties for roads made with recycled materials in Germany are usually for 5 years,

the same as for virgin materials. After the warranty period, the owner of the road is

responsible for problems. This is another impediment to using recycled materials

without a history of actual use. Contractors or the industry are also required to monitor

roads made with recycled materials. This requirement involves frequent reporting to

local and regional authorities, which can be burdensome and costly to the contractor.

Although political forces in Germany

have often demanded more recycling,

economies of the free market system

have clearly been a deterrent.
44

CHAPTER 4

Another factor pointed out as adversely affecting the increased use of recycled

materials in roads is the high cost associated with German reunification and its

associated economic stress.

In 1989, DEUTAG founded DEUTAG Gesellschaft remex für Baustoffaufbereitung mblt

(Remex construction company). The company was founded on the basis of its

engineering and marketing experiences in recycling industrial mining waste, and the

expectation that the Federal government would take actions to increase recycling. The

objective was for Remex to become a leader in the processing and marketing of quality

materials from construction demolition waste. Today, Remex and associate companies

are working in nearly all German states with more than 60 plants. They are expanding

to other European countries. Remex attributes this success partly to the establishment

of a working group of building industry stakeholders to voluntarily begin development

of guidelines and standards in the absence of clear legislative guidelines from the

Federal government. Since Remex is apparently successful, some might argue that

there is no need for the Federal government to interfere with the free market system to

aid the increased use of recycled materials in roads.

THE NETHERLANDS

There is no question that the Dutch government has been instrumental in creating a

market for using recycled materials in road construction, and is considered a leader in

Europe in this area, as was discussed in Chapter 3.

Key economic instruments that are driving recycling in the Netherlands include:

• The very active role the Dutch government takes in supporting research,

demonstrations, and development of specifications and guidelines for using

recycled materials.

• Federal policies regarding land use and the restrictions on mining of natural

materials.

• High taxes on landfilling and the high cost of WTE.

• The ban on landfilling of construction demolition waste.

• The “delinking” of economic growth with pollution and the resulting Dutch

programs and economic assistance to implement this policy.

• The requirement that producers assume the responsibility to internalize

recycling and disposal costs, which means the polluter pays. This creates an

economic incentive to recycle because of the high cost of disposal.

• The use of life-cycle analysis to give credit and added value to products made

with recycled materials on the basis of improved environmental performance.

• The leadership role of the Dutch government, which has provided a large share

of the costs associated with developing standards, guidelines, and specifications

for using recycled materials.

Some consider that the Dutch have created an “artificial market” for recycled materials,

but they consider this a positive action that was necessary. Quality is not compromised

in this system and recycled materials must meet performance requirements. In some
45

CHAPTER 4

cases, longer life cycles help offset the higher

initial cost of using recycled materials. The

Dutch policy of allowing a marginal impact to

the soil over a long period of time also has been

a positive force for using some materials, such

as slightly contaminated soil, that might

normally be landfilled. The Netherlands does

not permit dilution (e.g., mixing contaminated

soil with clean soil), but one can mix such

materials if there is a well-defined functional

use and environmental performance is not

compromised. WTE waste bottom ash is

normally used in large quantities to make it

more economical.

Industry has responded positively to the partnership role of the government in

recycling, which has allowed the industry to be more innovative in developing markets

for recycled materials.

FRANCE

Factors affecting the economics of recycling in France are similar to those of the other

countries. Factors specific to France include the following:

• Some areas in France have shortages of virgin materials for construction. In

these areas, the use of recycled materials is economical for road construction.

However, in many parts of France supplies of virgin materials are abundant,

which means that recycled materials will only be used if there are strong

incentives to do so. Contractors stated that they want to use more recycled

materials but the government has not done enough to influence the markets for

these materials.

• Land disposal fees for inert waste in France are generally low, which acts as an

economic deterrent to increased recycling and the use of recycled materials in

roads. Costs are high for processing waste into quality secondary materials.

Some expressed hope that the year 2002 landfill ban will improve this situation.

• France has provided grants for starting recycling processing facilities. These

grants, however, are being reduced at a time when industry believes they should

be increased.

• According to several French delegation members, France has recognized the

need for taxes to support increased recycling. Among those discussed are taxes

on virgin materials. No one likes taxes so this idea has not gone beyond the

discussion stage. Placing restrictions on mining of virgin materials is also being

considered.

• The law of supply and demand has prevented the use of more baled light plastic

bottles for use as fill. Although demonstrations have proved this a good use, the

rate of production requires that they be stored for several years to generate

enough quantities needed for a road construction project. This is not economical

for either the producer or the road contractor.

Dutch industry has responded positively

to the partnership role of the government

in recycling, which has allowed the

industry to be more innovative in

developing markets for recycled materials.
46

CHAPTER 4

• Several large demonstration projects using waste tires, crumb rubber, and

plastic bottles emphasized the need to adjust the economics, the importance of

participation by the authorities, and the approval of the public. In one of the

construction projects, the bid procedures were modified so that contractors could

take economic credit for the environmental benefits from using the recycled

material. The authorities were instrumental in persuading the public to accept

the 5 percent cost differential for using recycled materials. In another project,

the partnership between the contractor and the state and local authorities

proved critical in getting the project approved and done.

SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS

Engineering and environmental life-cycle cost and benefits are a basis for many of the

recycling initiatives in Europe. The free market generally plays a central role in all

aspects of the processing and utilization of recycled materials in the highway

construction industry. In some cases, the governments have acted to implement polices

and other mechanisms, including subsidies, to establish markets. Tax policies and

structures play a significant role in promoting recycling in the highway environment.

This is especially true in Denmark and the Netherlands, and to a lesser extent in

Sweden and France. High landfilling taxes and policies that ban or restrict waste in

landfills are promoting recycling in Denmark and the Netherlands. Although landfill

costs in Germany are low compared with other countries, Germany’s restrictions on

landfilling promote recycling. Similar instruments also are expected to increase

recycling in France and Sweden. Like Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands also

place taxes or other restrictions on the mining of natural materials. Germany is

considering such a tax.

A pending EU directive aimed at limiting the land disposal of inert waste in 2002 will

influence the flow of recycled materials; companies are positioning themselves to

process more recycled materials and contractors are doing the same to use more. The

quality of recycled materials is a key issue for their successful marketing. The

processing industries in several countries (e.g., Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany)

are producing high-quality materials (reclaimed asphalt pavement, bast furnace slag,

crushed concrete, construction and demolition aggregates) that meet strict engineering

and environmental standards. They compete favorably with natural materials. Demand

in the Netherlands has resulted in shortages of some recycled materials. The policy in

many of the countries is that recycled materials should be used at their highest value

based on technical considerations, rather than on government directives. Engineering

and environmental warranties for roads constructed with recycled materials reduce the

concern of responsible owners for future liabilities. Innovative public research, often in

cooperation with government, has improved the quality of recycled materials and the

applications for their use. In several cases, this resulted in warranties two times longer

than normal. Although it will take political will and innovative approaches both in the

public and private sectors, many of these market models may be applicable within state

or regional economies in the United States.
47

Chapter Five

ENGINEERING

INTRODUCTION OF PERTINENT TOPICS

All of the countries visited use established standard engineering practices in building

their roads. These practices do not change dramatically when constructing roads with

recycled materials. The U.S. delegation, however, did observe several strategies and

technologies relating to or affecting the engineering aspects of using recycled materials

in each country’s road construction operations. These include specifications for recycled

materials, engineering and environmental performance characteristics, the concept of

equal quality for recycled and virgin materials, testing procedures to predict long-term

performance, and the use of life-cycle analyses. Although many of these subjects are not

engineering issues, they do affect the final engineering parameters for a project. One of

the main problems noted by several countries appears to be how to better evaluate the

engineering and environmental performance over the design life of a road. Existing

procedures used for virgin materials may be inadequate for recycled materials in many

cases. The engineering practices of interest to the U.S. delegation are noted in the

discussions that follow.

SWEDEN

Most of the innovations occurring in Sweden concern the research being jointly

conducted by VTI and SGI in conjunction with the ALT-MAT program. The ALT-MAT

program is concentrating on the relationship between laboratory testing and actual

field performance. One of the objectives is to develop more functional tests that better

relate to actual performance and thus decrease the reliance on empirical measurements

that may not be satisfactory for recycled materials. Another objective is to better

characterize the engineering and environmental properties of recycled materials. The

link between engineering properties and environmental performance of a product is

important, and not often considered in the United States. In addition to this research,

SGI has proposed a procedure to conduct risk assessments for using recycled materials

that it believes is better than what is currently being used in Sweden (see Chapter 6).

VTI’s testing facilities include a road simulator, an advanced wheel-tracking machine, a

Heavy Vehicle Simulator (constructed in South Africa and jointly owned by the Finnish

VTT), a falling weight deflectometer, a rolling vehicle deflectometer, road surface tester

using a laser technique, and other equipment. VTI has used these facilities to conduct

laboratory and full-scale research on various aspects of road materials engineering and

performance. The Heavy Vehicle Simulator permits full-scale testing under wellcontrolled climatic conditions. Figure 5 shows the Heavy Vehicle Simulator and the

fully instrumented pavement test section. The simulator can be placed in one of VTI’s

indoor pavement bays where climatic conditions are controlled, including the alteration

of the ground water table below the pavement and the influence of freezing and

thawing cycles on pavement performance. The pavement layers are instrumented to

measure strains, stresses, and other parameters. The heavy load simulator will be used

to test pavement structures made with recycled materials. The test system is expensive

to operate. There are apparently three in the United States: two in California and one

at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Research and Engineering

Laboratory in New Hampshire.
48

CHAPTER 5

Figure 5. The (a) Heavy Vehicle Simulator and (b) a fully instrumented

pavement test section in the pavement bay at VTI.

Bearing capacity is measured using a falling weight deflectometer. A rolling vehicle

deflectometer permits measuring bearing capacities at normal traffic speeds. VTI uses a

test it refers to as “osmotic action” using sodium chloride solutions in conjunction with

freeze-thaw tests to evaluate durability of asphalt mixes under severe winter

conditions. Base and binder mixes known to have poor field performance also perform

poorly in this test. The test is not used for porous mixes. VTI facilities also enable

testing of shear modulus and phase angle of asphalt mixes, parameters needed in a

visco-elastic design system. It has conducted extensive fatigue testing using direct

tensile strength tests and has developed relationships for both laboratory and field

testing of typical Swedish base mixes. These efforts will help them better predict

performance of recycled materials.

Dynamic triaxial testing is being done to compare secondary materials with natural

materials. Figure 6 shows the triaxial test machine. Resilient modulus is plotted
49

CHAPTER 5

against measurements of stress (kPa) to compare the stiffness of one material with

another. Figure 7 is an example of results from using repeated load triaxial tests to

compare secondary materials with natural materials at VTI.

Figure 6. Triaxial testing machine at VTI.

Figure 7. Triaxial testing data.

Courtesy of Maria Arm

Resilient

modulus

(MPa)

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Comparison of stiffness (example)

Mean normal stress (kPa)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

crushed

concrete

crushed

sand granite

MSWI
50

CHAPTER 5

The U.S. delegation identified the following engineering practices in Sweden as also

being important:

• The finding that slags used in the wearing course imparted very good skid

resistance and anti-polishing characteristics.

• Engineering properties of recycled materials must meet or exceed that of virgin

materials.

• Development of specifications for the use of blast furnace slag as a subbase for

roads and guidelines for the use of crushed concrete in heavy load areas (e.g.,

parking lots, bus stops).

• An innovative triaxial test, used at VTI, in addition to the grain size distribution

and durability testing of secondary materials. Sweden uses thick, unbound

layers in its roads, and the testing of materials concentrated on this use.

• The fact that most of the contractors in Sweden are ISO 9000 certified.

• Development of draft guidelines for using crushed concrete in road pavements.

The crushed concrete is placed into four classes based on its properties. The

guidelines specify the class to use for each potential application.

Sweden’s ROAD 94 provides the general technical specifications for road construction.

Although recycled materials can be used if accepted by the client, they must be at least

as good as the virgin materials. These specifications are not based on performance, and

the researchers and others believe that the standard tests do not apply to recycled

materials. This is seen as a big barrier to the use of recycled materials in road works.

Therefore, the testing program at SGI and VTI were considered very important by the

U.S. delegation. VTI uses repeated load triaxial tests (60 to 120 kPa pressure depending

on the material) to evaluate the engineering properties and is using the test to compare

recycled materials with virgin materials. The test is not a standard one, but it is a

functional test similar to the SHRP method. The test evaluates deformation as a

function of repeated load (similar to the ASTM T-292 method) and gives information

about the resilient modulus and permanent deformation. The U.S. test looks at

continuous loads only. In plots comparing resilient modulus with mean stress, 250 kPa

is the highest stress that is observed in unbound courses. Based on this comprehensive

research, VTI and SGI hope that Sweden will begin to use more functional-based tests

to evaluate recycled materials for road construction. In this case, the triaxial test would

measure bearing capacity and stability, freeze-thaw tests would evaluate frost heaving

properties and durability under different climatic conditions, and some test other than

the LA abrasion test would evaluate mechanical durability characteristics.

The SGI research facilities include several large lysimeters currently being used to

evaluate several different materials in the EU ALT-MAT program. These are shown in

Figure 8. Although these are environmental tests, they are included here because of

their relation to the ALT-MAT program and the joint research on engineering and

environmental properties of materials. SGI’s research includes investigations of

leaching protocols for characterizing and predicting environmental behavior over the

long term under field conditions. Tests being done in the ALT-MAT program include

total constituent analysis, TOC, two-stage serial batch leaching test, pH static at L/S 10,

availability leaching test at pH 7 and pH 4, and column leaching tests. Leachates are
51

CHAPTER 5

analyzed for alkalinity, Cl, sulfates, major constituents, trace elements, and others

including non-volatile organic compounds.

Figure 8. Lysimeters used at SGI for field leaching of candidate recycled materials.

Based on these leaching studies and the engineering research, SGI and VTI hope

Sweden will begin using lysimeter leaching tests and more functional tests to evaluate

the environmental and engineering characteristics of recycled and traditional

materials.

DENMARK

In Denmark, the U.S. delegation noted the following engineering practices:

• Denmark has abandoned the use of recycled tires because of technical and

environmental problems. One host reported that crumb rubber pulled out the

light oils, causing the asphaltic concrete to age prematurely. Most waste tires in

Denmark are burned for energy.

• The routine use of electric arc slag in the wearing surfaces.

• The warranties on roads are normally 5 years. Some, however, are as long as 12

years. An example is for high-quality asphalt produced using electric arc furnace

steel slags.

• The consensus process for developing guidelines and specifications for using

recycled materials is important to the engineering of road works in Denmark

(see Chapter 3). The process considers both engineering and environmental

properties, again emphasizing the importance of the inter-relationship.

• The re-mixing of asphalt in hot-in-place recycling on partial or full lane

applications was of interest. Selection of roadways, layer thicknesses, and mix

designs appear to be subject to engineering judgment and practical experience.
52

CHAPTER 5

• The mini-in-place travel plant for in-situ asphalt recycling may have some

applications for maintenance operations in metropolitan areas in the United

States. However, it only scarifies to about 1 to 1 1⁄2 cm, which may not be

sufficient for many applications. It may, however, have good application for

preserving pavements over a longer life by arresting deterioration from load and

environmental stresses before it becomes significant. The large asphalt traveling

plant can scarify to about 12 cm.

• The U.S. delegation visited a road embankment that contained 212,000 metric

tons of coal fly ash with a density of 1.1 to 1.2 metric tons/m3

. It was constructed

around 1984. Figure 9 shows portions of the embankment. The U.S. delegation

noted several interesting aspects about the embankment. This project was a

demonstration, and the design was based on experiences in the UK. Although

the ash contained 25 to 45 percent moisture, compaction was not a problem. The

asphalt bicycle and pedestrian paths constructed on the site have shown no

signs of cracking over the 15 years, indicating little if any settlement has

occurred. Because of the highwater table at the site, a sand layer was used to

break the capillary action. The site was covered with clay soil to prevent water

infiltration and potentially contaminated water runoff.

Figure 9. A highway bridge embankment constructed with coal fly ash in Denmark.

• The use of field tests and trials to establish performance characteristics of

candidate materials was considered by the U.S. delegation as an important

factor in Denmark’s successful use of recycled materials in road works. The U.S.

team concluded that Denmark’s continued evaluation of environmental

performance is more advanced than that in the United States.

• The Danes indicated that they have had no problems with asphaltic recycling

pavements. Asphalt recycling was a standard practice in Denmark even before

taxes were imposed on disposal. There is a network of asphalt plants that receive

and reuse old asphalt. Specifications are the same for new pavements and for

those containing recycled asphalt products, since the performance is the same.

Pavement design is based on the Marshall method. Different plants use RAP to

produce the mixes; the parallel drum system prepares mixes with 50 percent

RAP for base courses and 30 percent RAP for wearing courses. The batch plant,
53

CHAPTER 5

which can recycle 15 percent RAP, is not widely used anymore. Up to 80 percent

RAP mixes are produced using the Marini traveling drum system, which is a

combination drum mixer and paver that cold mills the asphalt in situ and places

it into windrows. The material is then transferred to a drum mixer and mixed

with asphalt cement. The new mix is transferred to the paver. The newly placed

material is compacted using conventional rolling equipment. Recycling in cold

mixes also takes place. Emulsion stabilizers, foam bitumen, and rejuvenators

are not used in Denmark.

The RGS 90 A/S plant processes 95 percent of the incoming recovered waste materials

to higher value products. In 1998, the plant received 660,000 metric tons of construction

waste, 120,000 metric tons of industrial residues and sewage sludge, and 35,000 metric

tons of garden and park waste. C&D materials processed at the plant include asphalt,

concrete, tile, and mixtures of these materials. Products produced include screened soil,

screened top soil, crushed concrete (0/30 mm), crushed concrete-tile mixture (0/32 mm),

crushed tile (0/32 mm), and metals. Prices received for these materials range from Dkr

56 (~US$7) per metric ton of crushed concrete to Dkr 28 (~US$3) for a metric ton of

crushed tile-concrete mix. The plant also produces several compost products. The 5

percent of incoming material that cannot be recycled is either incinerated or landfilled.

The plant maintains supplies of virgin aggregates so that clients can transport

materials in both directions, thus saving transportation costs. The facility processing

equipment includes an electronic weighing station, automatic and manual sorting,

crushing machines, screening equipment, magnetic separator, storage facilities, and

other materials handling equipment. Environmental protection measures and strict

quality control are used throughout the facility. Figures 10 and11 show various

operations of the plant.

Figure 10. The C&D crushing process at the RGS 90 A/S materials

processing plant in Denmark.
54

CHAPTER 5

Figure 11. Concrete jaw crusher at the RGS 90 A/S materials processing plant in Denmark.

As part of the EU’s ALT-MAT program to investigate existing sites containing recycled

materials, Denmark is evaluating a 5-year-old road with a municipal waste incinerator

bottom ash subbase. The road handles heavy traffic loads. The overall objective of this

portion of the ALT-MAT program is to obtain information about the functional and

environmental behavior of recycled materials during actual use. This involves in-situ

observations in trial pits, in addition to engineering and environmental testing of

samples in the laboratory. In-situ observations include visual inspections, falling weight

deflectometry, and similar testing. Intrusive testing includes digging trial pits,

obtaining laboratory samples, plate bearing tests, and in-situ density tests.

GERMANY

As in the other countries, recycled products in Germany must meet all the engineering

properties of virgin materials. They must also be environmentally acceptable. It

appears that Germany is not implementing new techniques for recycling materials into

road construction. It does, however, have a very active research program that includes

monitoring and evaluation of field demonstrations to verify and support the laboratory

work.

The U.S. delegation concluded that the research being conducted at the Bundesanstalt

für Straßenwesen (the German Federal Highway Research Institute - BASt), which

includes laboratory investigations, accelerated loading, and freeze-thaw testing, is well

planned and well executed. The results of this research may have significant effects on

the use of recycled materials in German road works. One significant observation was

that BASt indicated that a plate bearing test can be used instead of the triaxial Proctor

method as a measure of performance. This may have value and application in the

United States. However, unlike Denmark, Germany appears to test mix designs that

may not be representative of a uniform product from a processing plant.
55

CHAPTER 5

In research, BASt uses a pavement testing facility that employs impulse loading to test

and evaluate the suitability of recycled materials. Test sections containing different

recycled materials have been constructed. Ground water can be injected and

temperature varied to evaluate effects of freeze-thaw cycles. Using special equipment to

simulate traffic action, pulse loading at 5.75 metric tons per m3 is used rather than a

wheel. The equipment permits 25 years of loading in six weeks. Recycled materials in

two sections met current specifications; four did not. Building rubble used was mostly

concrete. Density is not used as an acceptance criterion because of the variability of the

materials. Stiffness measurements from the plate bearing test give reliable results

compared with performance. All test sections meet these requirements. Results also

showed that under certain freeze-thaw conditions, building rubble needs to be

restricted. Additional evaluation is required to determine if this type testing would be

useful in the United States.

The U.S. team toured the Wirtgen GmbH equipment manufacturing facilities located in

Windhagen, Germany. Wirtgen GmbH is one of the largest manufacturers of road

construction equipment. Wirtgen’s hot recycling machine with a capability for in-situ

recycling and overlaying top courses was impressive to several team members.

However, some expressed concern about the potential for adverse air emissions from

using this machine. Wirtgen’s foamed bitumen equipment and process was considered

impressive and environmentally neutral. The foamed bitumen process is a stabilization

technique used in Europe. The European process is relatively new in the United States.

The scanning team noted significant advances in the construction equipment used to

apply the foamed asphalt. These advances allow for deep road base stabilization at low

cost compared with other stabilization techniques. The European foamed asphalt

process involves following:

• Pulverization of the existing road surface.

• Shaping of the surface to near final grade.

• Mixing and injection of foamed asphalt cement.

• Compaction to the final grade.

The preferred method is to pulverize the existing road bed without injection of asphalt

cement. This allows the contractor the opportunity to adjust the grade to its near final

profile prior to mixing and injection. During the mixing and injection, hot paving grade

asphalt cement is “foamed” or expanded and injected into the chamber of the remixing

unit.

Foamed asphalt can also be manufactured using a portable plant. The resultant

material can be stockpiled for up to 30 days before use as a base course provided it is

not compacted. This has allowed for some recycled materials to be stabilized prior to

use.

Foamed asphalt depends on the forceful expansion of asphalt cement. Expansion of the

asphalt is obtained by the addition of a small amount of water. Air may be used if

working with harder paving grade asphalts. The hot reaction is similar to the addition

of water to hot oil, but is controlled in the foamed process. In the expansion process,

small droplets of asphalt are forced into the pulverized materials. As opposed to

conventional paving techniques, the purpose is not to coat the particles but to bind the
56

CHAPTER 5

pulverized materials together. The process has been compared with spot welding. The

foamed asphalt has an attraction to the fines because of the high surface area. This

creates a mortar-like paste that provides strength and cohesion of the mix after

compaction. It is important to use the correct amount of water to achieve optimum

expansion into the pulverized material. Expansion of the asphalt occurs in specially

designed spray nozzles.

Following the mixing process, a rubber-tired roller may be used as the breakdown roller

followed by a steel wheel roller as the finish roller. The result is a cost-effective, deep

strength road base.

Some of the benefits of foamed asphalt over more traditional stabilization techniques

include:

• Ability to stockpile material for longer periods when a portable plant is used.

• Ability to achieve deeper road stabilization during in-place recycling (up to 14

inches).

• Permits opening of roads to traffic sooner when in-place recycling is used.

Three manufacturers have been identified that produce foamed asphalt equipment:

CMI, Caterpillar Paving, and Wirtgen. Wirtgen has manufactured 147 machines in the

past 5 years.

Wirtgens’s mobile chip spreader may also be of interest in the United States. Figure 12

shows some Wirtgen recycling equipment.

Figure 12. Assembled reclaimers ready for shipping at the Wirtgen fabrication facilities.

Based on German work, European countries use a minimum 45 mega newtons per m2

(MN/m2 ) plate load for each lift of subgrade. Germany also uses a frost prevention layer,

depending on the location of the construction project. In some mix designs, Germany

uses up to 50 percent RAP. Germany is also evaluating ways to recycle coal tar roads

using both cold emulsion plant mix and foamed asphalt mix. This is being done on a

regional project-by-project basis.
57

CHAPTER 5

The team toured the DEUTAG asphalt plant and its subsidiary, the Remex recycling

plant. DEUTAG produces about 100,000 metric tons of asphalt each year. The plant

routinely uses recycled bitumen and crushed concrete to produce asphalt products. It is

currently investigating the use of foundry sand and MSWI bottom ash. Figures 13 and

14 show several operations of the plant.

Figure 13. RAP bins for use at DEUTAG hot mix asphalt plant in Germany.

Figure 14. RAP containing tar at the DEUTAG asphalt plant in Germany. The plant is experimenting

with processing and use of different recycled matreials.

The RAP containing tar will be tested in a foamed bitumen application.

Remex Baustoffrecycling AG processes C&D waste and industrial residues into

marketable material. The variety of material processed (e.g., excavated soils, road

demolition waste, rubble containing reinforced concrete, brickwork, road demolition

waste, and similar non-homogeneous materials) requires a wide range of processing

equipment. The equipment includes crushers, sieving and screening equipment,

magnetic separators, air classifiers, manual and mechanical sorting, and other
58

CHAPTER 5

materials handling processes. This particular plant, one of nine in the area, processes

about 60,000 metric tons annually of waste materials; 25 percent is either incinerated

or landfilled. The manual sorting line separates out paper, plastics, selected wood

products, and some other materials. The company is paid DM 15 (~US$7) to DM 150

(~US$74) for each metric ton of material received from the waste generators. The cost of

disposing waste remaining after processing is the responsibility of Remex. Because of

this and other factors, Remex exercises good quality control over material coming into

the plant. Figures 15, 16, and 17 show several operations of the plant.

Figure 15. C&D wastes to be processed at the Remex C&D processing plant in Germany.

Figure 16. The sorting conveyor at the Remex C&D processing plant. Hand sorting is used to

recover glass, metal, wood, cardboard, and plastic that is co-mingled with the C&D waste.
59

CHAPTER 5

Figure 17. Aggregate crushing and sorting facilities at the Remex C&D processing

plant. The pile in the foreground is aggregate made from crushed

C&D waste. It will be used in highway base course.

THE NETHERLANDS

The U.S. delegation was impressed with the amount of recycled materials the Dutch use

in road works. Chapter 4 discusses the research being supported by the Dutch. The U.S.

delegation was especially impressed with the process used to develop specifications and

guidelines because it requires the participation of all interested stakeholders. The

process has been very successful in establishing a sound basis for the use of recycled

materials in Dutch road construction projects. The Dutch investigate the fundamental

properties of materials and use this information to help determine expected

performance. Traditionally, specifications have been based on the basic properties of the

materials used. This information is also used to develop the quality control and quality

assurance plans needed to ensure performance is as expected. As in Sweden and

Denmark, the Dutch also think that the traditional tests used to evaluate virgin

materials may not be appropriate for many recycled materials and products made with

them. As an example, the use of Marshall testing is not good for determining the

functional properties of an asphalt mix. Although it is used to design mixes using

bitumen, it is inappropriate for use with recycled asphalt. The bitumen changes and the

viscosity and other properties may also be different. In some cases, performance of a

recycled material has been better than that indicated by standard testing. Tests are

needed to measure the functionality of a mix using recycled materials. Therefore, one

objective of the research is to determine which tests are appropriate and to develop new

tests where needed. The Dutch use of porous asphalt surface mix to reduce noise was a

significant finding. This is an example of the integration of engineering and

environmental awareness into the overall design philosophy. The Dutch strongly

endorse the use of full-scale field testing to verify laboratory findings and to determine

the risks of using recycled materials. Field testing is done with the participation of the

material producers.
60

CHAPTER 5

The Dutch classify recycled materials into three categories based on their potential for

causing contamination. The process does not rely solely on concentrations of

constituents in the material, but also considers the amount of harmful constituents that

might be released under a specific use situation. The classifications and requirements

for using soil are controlled by the Soils Policy and Building Materials Decree (see

Chapter 6). Contaminated soil is cleaned and used anywhere. Slightly contaminated

soils may be used, depending on the location. This use is based on results of testing and

the allowance of a marginal burdening above background to the soil over a long time

period. A minimum of 10,000 metric tons must be used in a given project.

The team visited a residential housing development planned for 12,000 homes by the

year 2006. Located at Ypenburg, a former airport, the site is surrounded by three busy

highways. The requirement to reduce traffic noise to 55 decibels (dBA) resulted in the

design of two embankments approximately 12 meters high requiring large quantities

(more than 1,000,000 m3

) of fill materials. Because of this and the Dutch policy

permitting a marginal impact to soil and water over a 100-year period, slightly

contaminated soils are being used as fill material to construct the embankments. The

soil is delivered by truck mainly from Rotterdam, Delf, and the Hague. Each delivery is

inspected and samples analyzed to determine contamination levels prior to final

placement. If the contamination levels do not meet requirements, the soil is moved to a

soil cleaning facility or is landfilled. The location of each batch used in the embankment

is being mapped. The contaminated soil is being covered with a half-meter-thick layer

of clean soil. Figure 18 shows the embankment.

Figure 18. The noise control embankment at Ypenburg in the Netherlands.

The barrier is made with lightly contaminated soils.

The production, certification, and utilization of WTE bottom ash in the Netherlands

involves the participation of the Waste Processing Association, Association of Road

Contractors, the environmental authorities, and the agreement with the Certifying
61

CHAPTER 5

Institute. The ash must meet specific physical and environmental requirements for

certification and use. It must be free of any fly ash, be stored 6 weeks prior to use,

contain less than 5 percent scrap metal, and loss on ignition cannot exceed 5.5 percent.

Processed ash with a grain size distribution of 0/20 mm is used for road base; 0/40 mm

is used as fill material. Ash producers must be certified and are required to perform

quality control over the physical and environmental properties of their ash product.

Certification provides a tool for quality control and a nationwide identification of the

WTE bottom ash as a useful construction material. The ash is routinely used to

construct road embankments. Because the water table is high and the embankments

are raised, the bottom ash is usually encapsulated with bentonite clay soil. Regulations

require that a minimum of 10,000 metric tons of ash be used in a given project.

Contractors generally use much larger quantities to make it more economical. The

owner of the embankment, most often a government agency, monitors the site.

The scanning team visited the Insulinde Recycling BV WTE bottom ash recycling

project. Figures 19 and 20 show the bottom ash product being used in a road

embankment located in the vicinity of Amsterdam. The project consists of two sections

of road connecting highways A9 and A7. The embankment is being constructed with a

bottom layer of sand and a 4-meter-thick layer of the bottom ash placed at least 1 meter

above ground water, which is then covered with a layer of bentonite clay soil and a

high-density polyethylene liner. The bottom ash is placed in lifts one-half-meter thick .

Figure 19. WTE bottom ash use in a road embankment in the Netherlands.
62

CHAPTER 5

Figure 20. WTE bottom ash use in a road embankment in

the Netherlands. The embankment will be about 3 meters high.

Other engineering and related functions of interest that the U.S. delegation observed in

the Netherlands are:

• Recycled asphalt pavement is used in all mixes for roads excluding porous

asphalt and stone mastic asphalt (SMA).

• The Dutch are not in favor of using modified asphalt in mixes because there is

no good quality system that controls asphalt recycling with modified binders.

• Crumb rubber is not used in asphalt.

• Cellulose fibers are used in SMA.

• The Dutch are just beginning to use foamed asphalt.

The U.S. delegation was very impressed with the new double parallel drum asphalt

plant, its equipment, and the overall process. The plant is of Swiss design (Ammonn)

and is owned by a number of Dutch road contractors. The plant and some of its features

are depicted in Figures 21, 22, 23, and 24. The plant is innovative and effective in

maximizing the amount of recycled asphalt that can be used in mixes. The drum system

is used in the batch plant to prepare mixes with 50 percent RAP for base courses and 30

percent RAP for wearing courses. Up to 70 percent RAP mixes are produced.
63

CHAPTER 5

Figure 21. The Swiss-designed Ammonn double drum hot recycling asphalt

plant in the Netherlands. The plant is co-owned by Vermeer. The plant

uses high quantities of RAP that is added to the lower drum. The exhaust

gas from the RAP drum is used as burner air for the virgin aggregate drum.

Figure 22. RAP is used at high substitution levels at the Swiss-designed Ammonn

double drum hot recycling asphalt plant in the Netherlands.
64

CHAPTER 5

Figure 23. RAP is sorted before introduction into the lower drum at the Swiss-designed Ammonn

double drum asphalt plant in the Netherlands.

Figure 24. The double drums allow for high introduction of RAP at the Swiss-designed Ammonn

double drum hot recycling asphalt plant in the Netherlands. RAP is heated in the lower drum and

virgin aggregates are heated in the upper drum.
65

CHAPTER 5

FRANCE

As noted in Chapter 3, France has a long history of using recycled industrial waste in

construction. This history has revealed several engineering aspects of using different

materials. The first recycled materials used in France were blast furnace slags, coal fly

ash, and coal mining wastes. Blast furnace slag was initially used primarily as an

aggregate, but now is granulated and used more as a hydraulic binder. France produces

about 5 million metric tons of blast furnace slag annually. Of the 3 million metric tons

granulated, 20 percent is used as aggregate in roads. The remaining 80 percent is used

as a hydraulic binder. Gravel and sand slag (ground granulated blast furnace slag) are

produced using 15 percent by weight of the granulated blast furnace slag. The ground

granulated blast furnace slag increases the reactivity of the mix. The use of ground

granulated blast furnace slag is controlled by economics. Cement producers are not

willing to pay the added cost; therefore, some is used in road construction. The French

delegation noted that they were behind in using granulated slags in cement production,

which is considered the highest value use, when compared with other countries in

Europe. In the past, steel slag was also routinely used after aging in hot water pits, but

because calcium oxide hydrates and expands in wearing courses, only about 20,000

metric tons are now used each year. The steel slag is used in base courses.

Coal fly ash, at levels of 8 to 12 percent by weight, is used as a hydraulic binder to help

stabilize the sand. The CaO content activates the binder. It is also used to modify the

grain size distribution characteristics of the mix. Also, about 1 million metric tons of

high aluminosilicate coal fly ash is produced annually; about 25 percent is used. As a

binder, it can be transported long distances and is used all over France. This improves

the economics of using the material.

The French have also found that they can use coal fly ash that was deposited in piles in

the northern part of the country 25 to 30 years ago. Much of this fly ash has not lost its

hydraulic properties. They also use hydraulic sulfur fly ash containing higher amounts

of quicklime. The quicklime is used to fix the sulfites during the combustion process.

The material can be used like cement, but only at about 4 to 4.5 percent by weight. If

higher amounts are used, swelling becomes a problem.

Coal mining waste (colliery shales) shales have been used in both forms. The black

shales, initially used as aggregates and in earthworks, are not as good as the red shales

produced by burning the black shales. The red shales have better frost resistance

properties and are used as subbase. Because the amount of red shales is diminishing,

producers are trying to improve black shales. An estimated 50 million metric tons of

black shales are in 20 heaps located around France. About 3 million metric tons are

valorized each year. After 1975, phosphate gypsum was used in earth works,

embankments, and in binders to accelerate setting of gravel slag mixes. There were

several problems with phosphate gypsum and it is not being used today. Where it was

used, embankment stability was compromised because of cracking and variable water

contents from top to bottom layers. Using the material to accelerate setting of gravel

slag mixes resulted in swelling of the materials. The phosphate gypsum had been used

at levels up to 20 percent by weight. The French now think that it can be successfully

used in some applications at about the 1 percent level. They are also investigating the
66

CHAPTER 5

use of sulfates generated during titanium oxide processing. Today, this material is not

used in road works.

France has a few locations where approximately 5 million metric tons of C&D waste

are processed to make quality aggregates. France has the potential to generate and use

25 million metric tons annually of these materials. Therefore, there is great interest in

increasing the amount used. Using these aggregates can cause a few problems that

must be considered in design and construction. The cement binder stuck to the

aggregate can break loose and increase fines. This can increase surface porosity,

increase the amount of water needed in the mix, and retard setting. The variability of

the material coming into the facilities for processing can result in variability in the

products, creating a need for close monitoring of quality. The cost of these aggregates is

higher than virgin materials. However, the French indicated that one needs to consider

all aspects, such as transportation costs, in determining the real cost of using the

recycled aggregates compared with the natural ones.

Recycling of asphalt is an ongoing process. Not as much is recycled as the producers and

contractors would like. In a Paris suburb, using 10 percent RAP in base courses is

permitted. In some limited cases, up to 40 percent can be used if the local authorities

determine that the material is of the highest quality. As stated in Chapter 3, contractors

believe they can routinely use 15 to 20 percent, and should not be restricted to 10

percent. They indicated that such levels would consume all of France’s yearly

production. Today about 1 to 2 million square meters of asphalt pavements are recycled.

Because they are processed to meet engineering and environmental specifications, the

French use WTE bottom ash as aggregates, particularly in the Paris area. In 1997, 60

percent (about 1.3 million metric tons) of the production was used. The ashes can be

mechanically processed and aged to meet engineering specifications. Therefore, the key

to using the ashes is to ensure that they will not pose any environmental problems.

French legislation requires that the ash be classified into three categories based on

their leaching characteristics and other properties (see Chapter 6).

The U.S. delegation toured the Jean LeFebvre recycling facilities processing C&D

waste, concrete and WTE bottom ash. The C&D plant processes only concrete from

construction demolition operations (approximately 250,000 to 300,000 metric tons

annually). The facility does not process reclaimed asphalt pavements, bricks, and

similar materials. For primary crushing, a front end loader is used to mix the concrete

(pieces larger than 60 cm3 are removed to prevent clogging) with gravel and sand. The

plant uses a primary crusher, a secondary crusher, several screening devices, magnetic

separators, and other materials handling equipment to produce its recycled aggregates.

The recovered ferrous metals are sold to a recycler in Paris. Figure 25 shows various

plant operations. The plant was conducting some experiments of mixing reclaimed

asphalt with recycled concrete and processing with a foamed bitumen to provide

material for base construction.
67

CHAPTER 5

Figure 25. The concrete crushing Jean LeFebvre C&D waste recycling plant in France.

The WTE bottom ash processing plant processes about 200,000 metric tons annually of

MSW incinerator bottom ash delivered from a local incinerator. The ash is aged for

varying periods of time, usually around 3 months, until the pH drops from 11 down

below 9. The plant uses several screening devices, air classifiers, a magnetic separator

to recover ferrous metal, an eddy current separator to recover non-ferrous metals,

conveyors, crushers, and similar equipment to produce several sizes (0-6 mm, 6-12 mm,

and 12-30 mm) that are then mixed and stored to dry. The plant has a system to collect

water runoff, which is transferred to a treatment facility. Figure 26 shows the plant.

Figure 26. The WTE bottom ash crushing and sieving process at the Jean LeFebvre MSW bottom

ash recycling plant in France.

France has used scrap tires for 20 years in appurtenances, slope stabilization, and

embankments. Approximately 370,000 waste tires are produced each year. Of these, 5 to
68

CHAPTER 5

10 percent are used in road noise barriers and embankments, 5 to 10 percent are used

as crumb rubber, 10 percent are used as fuels in cement kilns, 10 percent are landfilled,

and 20 percent are retread. There are no good records as to what happens to the

remaining 40 to 50 percent; some are exported to countries were tread depth is not

important and others are probably disposed of illegally.

France has some experience with using vitrification technologies for treating hazardous

waste and to produce quality products. Although it might be worthwhile for the United

States to follow the progress in this area, vitrification is an expensive process that has

not had success in the United States. The main use of this technology in the United

States has been to treat sites contaminated with radioactivity. France is supporting

research on coal tar asphalt to find methods to use it. One option being investigated is

using cement and water to make an aggregate base material.

France has a comprehensive set of technical references, specifications, and standards for

materials used in road construction. Since recycled materials are processed to meet

these specifications and standards, they can be classified using the aggregate

classification procedures. These documents have all the necessary principles and

guidelines for designing mixes for pavements, embankments, and similar engineering

applications used in road works. Designs using recycled materials must follow these

guidelines. These standards, specifications, and guidelines are used by administrators,

contractors, universities, and others involved in the industry.

Three French firms are using crumb rubber in porous asphalt for low temperature

applications in wearing surfaces. The use of crumb rubber provides good ductile

properties and may help reduce noise. The French reported that when the crumb rubber

is introduced at different stages of the process, the noise reduction properties of the mix

are improved. A maximum 1.55-mm size is used for noise reduction. Crumb rubber is

also used for sealing cracks. Overall, however, the use of crumb rubber is not

economically viable.

LCPC is France’s representative in the ALT-MAT program. Its role involves testing fly

ash, slags, and MSWI bottom ash. Laboratory testing includes evaluation of physical

properties and environmental behavior using leaching tests. France is also evaluating a

20-year-old road subbase of WTE bottom ash and an 8-year-old road with a crushed

concrete base.

France also routinely evaluates the mechanical properties of recycled materials in the

laboratory and in the field. An objective is to standardize specifications for mix designs

using recycled materials, at least on a regional basis. However, there are no specific

provisions for recycled materials, and the French believe that quality must not be

compromised in order to use them. Chapter 3 discusses these issues as they relate to

sustainable road construction in France.

SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS

As expected, the countries toured use standard engineering practices for constructing

roads. Some variations do exist, however, because of locations and policies. A high

degree of recycling and use of recycled materials in roads are present in most of the

countries. Blast furnace slag, asphalt pavements, coal fly ash, C&D aggregates, and
69

CHAPTER 5

steel slags are routinely used. The Netherlands and Denmark also use most of the

municipal waste incinerator bottom ash that they produce; Germany uses about 68

percent and France also uses this material in some areas. Generally, as in the United

States, recycled materials must meet the same engineering specifications and

performance as natural materials and must be environmentally acceptable. The desire

to use materials at their highest value may influence the final application; however, if

the material cannot be used in this manner, a lower value use is acceptable. There was

general agreement among the countries that many standard engineering and

mechanical test methods used to characterize and measure the performance of recycled

materials and their products are inadequate. They believe that more functional tests

that better predict performance are needed. Also, as in the United States, many believe

that current laboratory tests alone cannot adequately predict performance of materials

in actual applications. All the countries are addressing these issues in cooperation with

the EU ALT-MAT program and in their own research programs. There appear to be

opportunities for the United States to participate in these efforts and use the

information to help better evaluate recycled materials for use in U.S. roads.

In several countries, particularly Denmark and the Netherlands, companies producing

natural materials also produce recycled materials. Some recycled material processing

companies also supply natural materials as a service to their clients. Several countries

have strong QA/QC programs to ensure that recycled materials meet specifications and

quality requirements. In the Netherlands, contractors are certified once their materials

are approved. This certification process is instrumental in marketing and use of the

recycled materials for road construction. Some other countries have similar

certifications. Regionally, in the United States, similar activities are being developed

that mirror these approaches.
70

Chapter Six

ENVIRONMENT

INTRODUCTION OF PERTINENT TOPICS

One overriding theme in the countries visited was that all recycled materials used for

sustainable road construction must be environmentally acceptable. Also, the importance

of National environmental policies specific to recycled materials use was emphasized.

These policies must be supported with clear implementation guidelines. Test methods

for evaluating environmental characteristics varied among the countries, but there was

agreement that field testing is critical to verify laboratory results and to determine the

validity of using laboratory tests to predict performance in the field. The EU 4th

Framework ALT-MAT project emphasizes this approach. The environmental ministries

or national environmental agencies in each country generally develop the policies and

regulations. These policies are, however, implemented at the regional and local levels,

often creating variability in their application among local and regional jurisdictions.

National agencies support research at national environmental laboratories to develop

test methods, define approaches for evaluating environmental performance (including

risk assessments), and assist in developing standards, specifications, and guidelines for

using recycled materials in road works.

Approvals and permitting for using recycled materials in roads are normally done at

the local level. In some cases this process can be very time consuming, adversely

affecting the implementation of projects. In some cases (e.g., Denmark) there are broad

categorical approvals for using selected materials in specific applications. More

frequently case-by-case approvals are used for specific materials on the basis of

conditions at a specific utilization site. The EU is attempting to develop a standard

approach to evaluate environmental performance of recycled products, including those

used in road construction projects.

The following information concentrates on environmental issues such as testing,

applicable laboratory and field research, approaches for predicting environmental

behavior, and other important environmental issues for each country.

SWEDEN

In Sweden, environmental assessments for projects are completed and permits are

approved on a site-specific basis using risk classification guidelines established for soils.

These values were developed by considering the mobility or immobilization of

constituents; dilution in pore water, surface water, and ground water; means of

exposure; and the toxicological effects on humans and the environment. Working

backwards from what was considered an acceptable dose to a receptor, Sweden

established the levels deemed acceptable for soils. Guideline values have been

established for a number of elements and substances. For use, soils have been classified

into three categories: sensitive uses of soils (KM), less sensitive uses of soils with

ground water extraction (MKMGV), and less sensitive uses of soils (MKM). These are

the only guidelines available for permitting the use of recycled materials in road
71

CHAPTER 6

construction. As mentioned earlier, there are no provisions in Sweden’s ROAD 94

standards that deal with the environmental evaluations.

The need for national environmental standards and guidelines regarding the use of

recycled materials is emphasized in SGI’s program, Environmental Friendly Use of

Secondary (Recycled) Materials. The program goal is to achieve a major breakthrough

in 5 years for use of recycled materials in road construction. The program is designed to

help alleviate problems caused by:

• Lack of knowledge about environmental behavior, mechanical properties, and

legislation dealing with recycled materials.

• The fact that there are few established test methods to evaluate these materials.

• Lack of guidelines for using these materials.

• Lack of communication between producers and users of recycled materials.

SGI hopes that this program will help reduce the impediments to using recycled

materials now caused by the site-specific environmental assessments required by

Swedish legislation.

SGI researchers have proposed to the NV what they believe is a better approach to

evaluate the risk associated with using recycled materials. To develop their approach,

they (i) surveyed principles used to evaluate the risks of using civil engineering

materials, (ii) reviewed international leaching protocols, and (iii) reviewed related

procedures used in Sweden. For the leaching protocols, they focused on the Dutch and

Danish systems. The approach provides structure and guidance for establishing criteria

needed for the assessment. It includes formulation of the risk assessment problem and

exposure assessment, risk evaluation, and completion of the risk assessment. This

approach results in the listing of substances, identification and establishment of

guidelines for the specific use scenario, and establishment of technical and

administrative measures required for the project. Also important is the establishment of

procedures for QA/QC.

SGI is using assessment values from other established systems (e.g., ground water,

surface water, agricultural soils, contaminated soils, forest soils). It has provided

information on where and how these values should be used for conducting risk

assessments. SGI believes that the approach now in use to evaluate exposures is

unsuitable. It believes that determining the source term under different conditions

needs work and that decisions should be made based on an evaluation using

concentrations closer to the source term (i.e., at the source of the contamination and not

at the receptor). This change would reduce problems associated with using transport

and fate modeling.

Sweden is conducting comprehensive research as part of the EU ALT-MAT program in

an effort to increase the use of recycled materials in roads. Objectives of this research

include defining the properties (environmental and engineering) of materials,

establishing the relationship between laboratory testing and field behavior, developing

an improved approach for assessing the risks of using recycled materials, and

developing protocols for leach testing to evaluate environmental behavior of recycled

materials when placed in the field. A key objective is to develop tests for characterizing
72

CHAPTER 6

the functional behavior of products made with recycled materials rather than relying

strictly on standard empirical tests most often used with virgin materials.

The ALT-MAT program includes investigations using climate chambers, lysimeter

leaching studies, and field testing of leaching and other characteristics of actual roads

used in demonstration projects. Field studies include repeated column leaching,

lysimeter leaching evaluations, and sampling and analysis of ground water beneath

test roads with installed leachate collection systems. Sweden’s activities also include

evaluating the leaching properties of natural materials and of new roads constructed

with crushed concrete at southern and northern locations.

SGI is the lead organization for leach testing. Its strategies for investigating the

leaching properties of a waste (and also natural materials) include the following:

• Analyzing the total composition of the materials.

• Determining the fraction of each constituent of concern that is available for

leaching. The leaching test used is NT-ENVIR 003. (NT refers to NORDTEST or

Nordic Countries Standard Test)

• Applying the oxidized availability test (NT ENVIR 006).

• Using pH static leaching tests.

• Determining the relationship of a two-step compliance test (pr EN 12457-3) to

column leaching tests.

DENMARK

Three factors are essential to the Danish integrated system for successful recycling:

laws, technology, and economics. Laws are needed to protect human health and the

environment. Denmark’s overall environmental policy is to develop cleaner technology,

increase recycling, use WTE for energy (electricity and heat) where appropriate, and

landfill waste that cannot be used.

The three main objectives of its environmental regulations are protection of water

resources, prevention of conflicts with respect to use of sensitive lands, and

harmonization of environmental regulations with other laws and regulations. The

Danes must also consider EU directives regarding environmental matters.

The MS develops national regulations. The 16 counties are responsible for developing

county environmental plans and issuing permits. The 275 Danish municipalities must

develop waste management plans, implement and enforce regulations, and are

responsible for collecting and disposing of waste. In an application to use a waste

material, the producer has the responsibility to declare to the environmental

authorities and the end user, the following:

• Place of production and type of waste being used.

• Method used to treat the waste.

• Sampling methodology used to collect the waste.

• Leaching test used and the results of the analyses to evaluate the waste.

• Laboratory used for testing and analyses.
73

CHAPTER 6

• Designation of the material into category 1, 2, or 3.

The user of recycled materials must notify the county and the municipality 4 weeks in

advance of the project. The notification must include the start and end dates; the

amount and type of waste; engineering drawings of the project with locations of

drinking water wells, fresh water, sea water; and any direct discharge points. The

county and municipality are responsible for ensuring the producer handles the material

according to all rules. The municipality also conducts field inspections during the

project. Environmental evaluation with respect to ground water, fresh water, and sea

water is also the responsibility of the county.

Denmark’s model for classifying waste materials into three categories is depicted in

Table 15. A leaching test (CEN prEN 12457) is used to determine in which category a

waste is placed. This test involves a 6-hour contact of the waste sample with 0.0001

molar CaCl2 or HNO3 leachate at a liquid to solids ratio of two.

Table 15. Danish model for classifying waste.

 Greater excess by leaching Category 3, specific evaluation Category 3, specific evaluation

required required

 Smaller excess by leaching Category 2b, statutory order Category 2b, statutory order

 No excess by leaching Category 1, no regulation Category 2a, statutory order

Below the soil quality criteria Exceeds the soil quality criteria

Category 1 materials cannot exceed established limits for concentrations of arsenic,

barium, lead, cadmium, total chromium, chromium VI, copper, mercury, manganese,

nickel, and zinc in the leachate in the material. Category 2 materials cannot exceed the

concentration limits of these same substances in the leachates.

The following are additional requirements for category 2a and 2b:

• They are not hazardous.

• They are not contaminated with other materials.

• They cannot be used (or disposed of) in a gravel pit.

• They must be placed above the highest water table level.

• They cannot be used above specified amounts for the specific project.

Category 1 materials do not need permits. Category 2 materials require permits except

for those that have statutory approval, including asphalt, crushed concrete and tile, coal

fly ash and bottom ash, and WTE bottom ash. Category 2 materials do, however, require

site-specific use permits and must meet minimum requirements. As an example, the

requirements for WTE bottom ash and coal fly/bottom ash are:

• pH (1% slurry) > 9.0

• Alkalinity > 1.5 eqv/kg

• Lead < 3000 mg/kg
74

CHAPTER 6

• Cadmium < 10 mg/kg

• Mercury < 0.5 mg/kg

In addition, Category 2 materials cannot be placed closer than 20 meters to drinking

water wells and cannot be used in layers thicker than 0.3 meters for unpaved

applications, or thicker than 1 to 2 meters under paved surfaces.

Category 3 materials must go through a complex permitting process, which involves

application, review and permitting based on guidelines, and public notification. If the

public complains, the Danish EPA reviews the application. If the public appeals the

EPA’s decision, it goes to a complaint board for review. If the board’s decision is

appealed, the courts decide. Some question the economics of a Category 3 waste permit

application.

Mobile hot mix asphalt plants must also be permitted. A temporary permit is given for

operations of 2 months or less. The plant must get a permanent permit for longer

operations. Because permitting is difficult, and a separate one is needed for each new

site, mobile hot mix plants are not widely used.

Denmark participates in the EU ALT-MAT program. A part of this program is

investigating old sites that used recycled materials. Denmark is evaluating a 5-year-old

road with a subbase of MSWI bottom ash. The overall objective is to obtain information

about the functional and environmental behavior of recycled materials under use

conditions. The investigations involve destructive and non-destructive testing both in

the field and in the laboratory. Denmark’s environmental testing results for the WTE

bottom ash and several other materials are presented in Table 16.

Table 16. Environmental testing results for WTE bottom ash in Denmark.

Material Environmental Results

 Crushed concrete subbase High pH and calcium in leachates; chromium and lead levels higher

than natural sand

 MSWI bottom ash subbase Some migration of salts into subgrade; all samples comply with

Danish water quality criteria

 Natural sand subbase (reference) Very low leachability; little or no migration into subgrade

These and similar results from other participating countries led to an overall

conclusion that, although leaching of the alternative materials may affect the

concentrations of certain constituents in the subgrade, they are far below national

pollution limits.

C-RES’s (see Chapter 3) research will further characterize the environmental behavior

of a wide range of materials, including C&D wastes, slags, bottom ash, fly ash, mining

wastes, and a number of organic waste materials. Participants in the Center’s research

include industry partners and others involved in the treatment, utilization, and

disposal of waste materials; academia; and other research organizations. These

participants, in addition to the steering committee, are adding credibility to the results,

and should help to provide a better understanding of the environmental behavior of
75

CHAPTER 6

secondary materials. Rapid dissemination of information, a Center goal, will increase

utilization of these materials in road and other construction.

GERMANY

The German Federal government establishes regulations for recycling and waste

management. Under these regulations the producer of the waste is responsible for

ensuring that the waste is used or disposed of properly. Verification of this requirement

is covered under the Law on Waste Disposal. Industry is required to develop waste

economy plans that include descriptions of how a waste will be managed, with emphasis

on recycling. Waste must be analyzed before any management decisions can be made.

Enforcement of Federal environmental regulations is the responsibility of regional and

state governments. This has resulted in non-uniformity in application of the

regulations.

Germany stresses the protection of ground water. Depending on the material, materials

used are placed in a manner to ensure that ground water is protected and that

infiltration of moisture to the recycled material is kept to a minimum.

The environmental aspects of using recycled materials involve the following process:

• Determining the quantity and quality of the material under consideration.

• Determining the recycling scheme or application to be used and the appropriate

disposal method if the material is not used.

• Determining and comparing the emissions from the recycling scheme and

disposal method.

This involves a time- and energy-intensive process, and for some materials (e.g.,

concrete), data are not available. In such cases, a theoretical analysis is done based on

what could be inaccurate information. A working group of Federal and state officials is

evaluating the use of a leaching test (DIN 38414 - S4 Batch Extraction test) to

determine emissions data (concentrations of constituents in leachates) for recycled

materials. Certified laboratories are doing the testing in cooperation with private

companies that also have been certified. Natural materials are not being included,

although some officials expressed a wish to have them in the program. Some German

officials expressed the opinion that certain natural materials would not perform as well

as recycled materials with respect to the environment, an opinion shared by officials in

some other countries.

With respect to long-term monitoring of recycled materials in field applications, the

degree of monitoring depends on the specific situation. One must evaluate the material

and the use application. Test sections containing the new recycled material are

evaluated with respect to engineering and environmental behavior. Ground water

quality is a major concern. If, for example, a waste is potentially dangerous (e.g.,

containing dioxin, heavy metals, etc.), then constant monitoring is required. Because of

heavy metals (e.g., lead, zinc, etc.), field monitoring of land spreading of MSW compost

has been required since 1981. This is to minimize any potential soil contamination. For

less sensitive situations, monitoring is left to industry with oversight by state officials.

If there is a drainage layer (e.g., rubber, concrete, etc.) under the site and application,
76

CHAPTER 6

industry is required to analyze drainage water and keep the data in files for inspection

on demand by state officials.

Continuous process and emission monitoring via telephone data transmission hookups

with local officials is required for hazardous waste incinerators. Companies receiving

waste for recycling must complete forms to document waste origin, characteristics, and

processing history.

Petroleum contaminated soils are considered hazardous and must be disposed of under

strict environmental controls. Contaminated soils removed from old gas stations are

disposed of into salt mines. These soils can be processed to produce clean sand, but this

material does not have good grain size distribution characteristics. Using contaminated

soil requires that there be no connection to ground water, and that the material be

placed over clay and under pavement or other engineering measures to prevent

migration of contaminants.

Table 17 presents the concentrations of heavy metals and other constituents permitted

in waste for disposal in landfills and in WTE bottom ash for use. The limits for wastes

were established by the Technical Directive Residential Waste; the bottom ash limits

were established by a memorandum of the Board of German States

(Landerarbeitagemeinschaft Abfall - LAGA.) These are determined by applying the

German DEV S4 leaching test.

Table 17. German limits for landfilling waste and for using bottom ash.

Parameter Class 1 Landfill Class 2 Landfill Bottom Ash Use

 Loss on ignition (wt%) 3 5

 Total organic carbon (wt%) 1 3 1

 DEV S4 Leach Test

Total dissolved matter (wt%) 1 6

Electric conductivity (mS/m) 1000 5000 600

Cl (mg/l) 250

Cu (mg/l) 1 5 0.30

Zn (mg/l) 2 5 0.30

Cd (mg/l) 0.05 0.10

0.00

0.30

Pb (mg/l) 0.20 1 0.05

NGOs in Germany have in the past caused considerable problems regarding

environmental concerns, primarily because, according to one official, they were not

knowledgeable about the issues. However, they have been credited with causing change,

and the German EPA believes these NGOs are now very competent and are needed to

promote and push implementation of environmental initiatives.
77

CHAPTER 6

THE NETHERLANDS

Dutch overall environmental policy and practice are stated in the 1989 National

Environmental Policy Plan, its predecessors, and a number of ordinances and

regulations that have emerged as a result of the policy. The policy focuses on

environmental issues, including climate change, acidification, eutrophication, toxic and

hazardous pollution, soil contamination, waste disposal, ground water depletion, and

resource dissipation. The Directorate-General for Environmental Protection, part of the

Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) has 11 policy

directors who focus on these issues. To develop its policies and regulations, this

organization works with other government organizations (e.g., V&W), educational

institutions, environmental protection organizations, industry, and trade unions.

The various ordinances and regulations determine how waste in the Netherlands will

be managed. Strict environmental engineering controls are imposed on landfills and

incinerators and the wastes that can be disposed of by these technologies. Wastes are

classified as hazardous or non-hazardous based on the concentration of selected

constituents (e.g., Cu, Hg, Cd) in the waste (e.g., Cu > 5000 mg/kg). If the concentration

of any of the constituents exceeds the limit, then the waste must be classified as a

hazardous waste. However, even if classified as hazardous, the waste still falls under

the hierarchy of preferred treatments. There are three classes of landfills in the

Netherlands, 80 percent of which are owned by local governments. These landfills are

for industrial waste, for non-hazardous waste with and without leachate recovery, and

for hazardous waste. Starting in October 1995, to facilitate recycling the Netherlands

initiated a ban on landfilling of 32 types of waste over several years. Banned wastes

include household waste, cleanable contaminated soils, packaging, tires, wrecked

automobiles, and similar wastes. As of January 1, 1997, the ban also includes reusable

C&D waste, wood waste, and horticulture waste.

The Decree on Waste Disposal at Landfills (under the Soils Protection Act) requires

strict environmental engineering and other controls for landfills in operation after

March 1995. These controls include the installation of liners and caps, leachate

collection and treatment, a system for monitoring soil and ground water, maintenance

and repair of facilities, and financial security for placing the final covers. The

requirements for long-term post closure care went into effect in April 1998. In a

separate rule, hazardous waste is divided into categories to determine in which landfill

it can be deposited.

Costs of landfills in the Netherlands range from about f. 175 (~US$75) per metric ton

for non-incinerable waste to f. 800 (~US$352) per metric ton for waste disposed into the

country’s only category 2 landfill. Other hazardous waste landfill costs range between

f. 200 (~US$88) and f. 300 (~US$132) per metric ton.

Incinerators are regulated under the Waste-to-Energy Decree (1993), which established

requirements for air emissions, plant construction, the WTE process, measurement and

record keeping, and calculations and actions to take when emissions standards are

exceeded. For hazardous waste incinerators, the regulations were enforced starting in

April 1998. There are strict emissions limits for HCl, HF, SO2

, NOx, heavy metals, (Cd,

Hg, Sb, Pb, Cr, Cu, Mn, V, Sn, Co, As, Ni, Se, and Te), dioxins/furans, CO, and organic

carbon.
78

CHAPTER 6

Costs for WTE range from f. 220 (~US$96) per metric ton for non-hazardous waste to as

much as f. 10,000 (~US$4,400) per metric ton for hazardous waste. Some specific

hospital waste costs f. 1000 (~US$440) per metric ton to incinerate.

The use of recycled materials in road construction is controlled by the DBMD. This

decree classifies materials into two categories on the basis of emissions and the

composition of selected constituents in the material. Emissions values are established

based on the maximum quantity of selected inorganic constituents that may disperse

into soil and surface water without increasing unacceptable burdening. Acceptable

burdening has been established as 1 percent over background levels over a 100-year

period. For example, in a period of 100 years, not more than 540 mg of copper from

building materials used in construction works may dispense over 1 m2

 of soil. These

values are calculated using results from leaching studies considering the form of the

material (e.g., granular, monolithic, etc.), and how it will be used. No suitable leaching

tests have been identified for organic compounds in building material. For organic

compounds, total composition values are determined. As an example, a building

material may not contain more than 0.5 mg PCB/kg. This information is used to

determine the conditions for using recycled materials in construction, the need for and

types of native soils in construction, and need for surface water protection.

Category 1 materials are those that do not exceed any of the established limits. These

materials may be used without additional environmental protection measures.

Category 2 materials are those that do not exceed any of the organic composition limits,

but have calculated inorganic constituent emissions that would exceed the limits

without additional environmental protection measures. Category 2 materials may be

used, however, if engineering methods are used to isolate them, and the resulting

emissions limits are acceptable. Materials that exceed these limits may be treated to

fall into one of these categories. If treatment fails, they must be disposed. These

materials must be removed at the end of their useful life.

There are exceptions for some materials that do not fall into these two categories. WTE

bottom ash is permitted to exceed the limits, but only if special isolation measures are

used. TAA, produced from older, macadam roads, exceeds the limits for polycyclic

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). Building materials containing asphalt aggregates may

be used with special isolation measures if they do not exceed any limits other than for

PAH.

“Earth” is defined in the Netherlands as loose materials that can be excavated by hand

or land tool from the solid soil on which one stands. In addition to the above categories,

earth is also classified as “clean earth.” In classifying earth, an additional compositional

value (Ce

) was established. The earth is considered clean when its composition values

(organic and inorganic) are less than Ce

1. In this case only portions of the DBMD apply

to clean earth. If the value falls between Ce

1 and Ce2, then it is required that the

emission values (inorganic) be determined. Earth that exceeds organic and inorganic

values greater than Ce

2 may not be used as a building material. The Building Material

Decree also stipulates the minimum quantities of category 1 earth, category 2 material,

WTE bottom ash, and TAA that may be used in a project. It also specifies the

engineering and other requirements required for isolating these materials. Table 18

summarizes the regulations for building materials in the Building Materials Decree.
79

CHAPTER 6

ECN has conducted comprehensive research on the leaching properties of materials. In

cooperation with the EU, the Committee European de Normalization’s (CEN’s) program

on the harmonization of leaching and extraction tests involves the Netherlands, the

U.K., Denmark, France, and Spain. The main objective of these activities is to develop a

standard approach to evaluate the leaching behavior of materials. The program was

started because of the many different approaches being used, the failure of researchers

and others to properly document conditions of the tests (e.g., pH), and the very limited

use of the large amount of data available. The work is being conducted by technical

group CEN/TC 292, which consists of seven working and three ad hoc groups. These

groups are concentrating on sampling, leach test procedures, terminology, analysis,

basic characterization, ecotoxicological properties, biodegradation, characterization of

household waste, and validation procedures. Materials include contaminated soils,

sediments, compost, sewage sludge, waste (e.g., WTE ashes, stabilized ashes),

construction materials (e.g., concrete, bricks), preserved wood, and others. Data are

available for more than 30 different materials.

Work also includes evaluating relationships between laboratory and field data and field

validation of models used to predict behavior in field conditions. As an example, this

work compared the release of copper from WTE bottom ash used as a subbase in

Rotterdam. Modeling, based on laboratory test results, predicted a release of 1530 mg

per m2

; the measured release was 1386 mg per m2.

The leach testing hierarchy adopted by TC 292 is:

• Use of characterization or leaching behavior test that takes a few days to

several weeks.

• Use of a compliance test that takes a maximum of 2 to 3 days.

• Verification of laboratory characterization/leaching behavior tests by on-site

monitoring.

TC 292 concluded that the pH static test can be useful for:

• Comparing leaching tests within a specific class of materials.

• Modeling of geochemical phases that control leaching.

• Evaluating long-term behavior and effects of external stresses on material

leaching behavior.

• Comparing data and information among different classes of materials.

The committee also indicated that the characterization test can provide the input data

needed to predict long-term environmental behavior, and concluded that an

understanding of the leaching behavior of materials can be used to develop protocols for

quality control and regulatory compliance tests. Results from the extensive leaching

tests have shown that most constituents leached contaminates at levels lower than

expected.

Additional work is needed to fully document findings and generate the additional data

needed for inorganic contaminants. Leaching tests for organic contaminants lag far

behind, and significant work is needed to resolve this issue. Establishing a European or

worldwide database on the leaching behavior of materials is considered an important

need and would help prevent duplication of efforts and lead to much needed

standardization of leach testing.
80

Table 18. Review of the regulations in the German Building Materials Decree.

Removal Reporting to the Competent Authority

Material of Building Minimum Before Use Su

Material Quantity Soils Surface Water Autho

 Clean earth No No No Yes, > 2 days before use Yes, until  Cat 1 building material Yes No No Yes, > 2 days before use Yes, until  (excl. earth) Cat 1 earth Yes 50 m3 Yes, > 2 days before use Yes, > 2 days before use No, done 

 Cat 2 building material Yes 10,000 metric tons Yes, >1 month before use Permit based on Pollution of No, done  (including earth) (1,000 in road base) Surface Waters Act WTE bottom ash Yes 10,000 metric tons Yes, > 1 month before use Permit based on Pollution of No, done 

Surface Waters Act

 TAA Yes 10,000 metric tons Yes, > 1 month before use Permit based on Pollution of No, done 

(1,000 in road base) Surface Waters Act
81

CHAPTER 6

FRANCE

For the use of by-products in roads, France’s current environmental regulations

concentrate on two types of waste materials: WTE bottom ashes (Circulaire

Miniistéielle du 09/05/1994) and foundry sands (Arrêté du 16/07/1994). There are no

regulations dealing with recycled materials, though there are requirements for the

element contents (e.g., sulfates) because of technical requirements for use. There are no

environmental regulations for natural materials.

For environmental purposes, WTE bottom ashes are placed into three categories (V, M,

and S) based on results of a leaching test (French standard X31-210) that uses three

successive leaching extractions of the ash sample. The leachate is analyzed for heavy

metals, total organic carbon, and total dissolved solids. The requirements are provided

in Table 19. Category V ashes can be used in road construction and for embankments.

Category M ashes must be treated before use either by stabilization or by maturation.

If treatment is not successful, these ashes must be disposed of into a non-hazardous

waste landfill. Category S ashes must be landfilled.

Table 19. Categories of WTE bottom ash and leach test requirements in France.

V MS

 Loss on ignition <5 % <5 % <5 %

 Mercury <0.2 mg/kg <0.4 mg/kg >0.4 mg/kg

 Lead <10 mg/kg <50 mg/kg >50 mg/kg

 Cadmium <1 mg/kg <2 mg/kg >2 mg/kg

 Arsenic <2 mg/kg <4 mg/kg >4 mg/kg

 Chromium VI <1.5 mg/kg <3 mg/kg >3 mg/kg

 Sulfates <10,000 mg/kg <15,000 mg/kg >15,000 mg/kg

 TOC <1500 mg/kg <2000 mg/kg >2000 mg/kg

 Total dissolved solids <5 % <10 % >10 %

Facilities processing the bottom ash for use must have a quality assurance plan in place

for the environmental inspector assigned to regulated facilities. For approval, facilities

must take into account all environmental issues such as effluents, noise, dust, traffic,

etc. At the time of receipt, the client receiving the ash must be provided a data sheet

with information about the physical and environmental characteristics of the ash. The

form also must stipulate lot number, truck volume, and similar data to facilitate

tracking. Documentation is required that leachates from the residue meet applicable

French requirements for use. Results of France’s ALT-MAT program testing showed

that WTE bottom ash used as base and subbase in roads leached at levels far below

national standards.

The utilization application for foundry sands with organic binders depends on their

leachate phenol content. They may be used in embankments if the phenol content is
82

CHAPTER 6

less than 1 mg/kg of dry sand. If the phenol content is less than 5 mg/kg dry sand, the

sands are used in the manufacture of hydraulic binders. Regardless of the phenol

content, these sands may be used for manufacturing cement, bricks, tiles, and similar

products.

The Ministry of the Environment is working to improve environmental regulations and

is concentrating on residues from thermal processes (e.g., coal fly ash, MSW bottom ash,

slags). Efforts are evaluating the behavior of the materials under different utilization

and disposal scenarios. This testing will be based on the environmental behavior of the

materials and the transfer of pollutants to ground waters. Threshold values will be

selected using different factors, including comparison with the environmental

characteristics of natural materials, pollutant concentrations in soils, drinking water

threshold values, and negotiations with the public. Any new rules will need to be

consistent with EU directives concerning construction products.

Environmental rules will be determined by the Ministry of Land Use and the

Environment (MATE), administrators, construction and public works professionals, and

eventually representative associations. France is using the advice of specialized

national councils (e.g., public welfare, classified industry, etc.). The Council for Waste

Reuse, for example, is a participant. The development of waste plans in geographical

areas also is an important component of the overall project. The plan involves informal

agreements for accepting a waste family for use. The only formal agreement thus far is

for WTE bottom ash. Local agreements are possible for using a single waste in a specific

application. Conditions for this type of application involve a control system designed to

determine potential adverse effects on the environment. Generally, an authorization is

required for conducting an experimental demonstration project on a controlled site to

determine these effects.

The following principles are being applied in this process:

• The waste cannot be used in a wearing surface.

• The waste cannot be used in or under drinking water sources.

• Hazardous waste is prohibited unless it has been stabilized or otherwise treated.

• Large quantities of the waste should be used to assist in future tracking.

• The waste must have a clear functional use in the product; dilution is not

permitted.

The MATE is the controlling authority and is assisted by the Agence de

l’Environnement et de la Maitrise de l’Energie (Agency for Environmental and Energy

Management - ADEME). There are at least two levels of controls: internal and external.

These include the classical geotechnical engineering test and environmental tests.

Quality assurance procedures are an important part of the control process. The MATE

local administration is the decision-making body regarding using waste materials

within its jurisdiction. It may seek the advice of other public agencies, but there is no

systematic approach or control regarding the decision-making process. The waste

material should have the same functional properties and use as the natural road

materials; if not, any new use application must be evaluated to ensure that the waste

does have a legitimate function in the new use application.
83

CHAPTER 6

SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS

Environmental ministries develop the regulations governing the use of recycled

materials in highway construction. All have a similar hierarchy for waste management:

prevention, reuse, recycling, WTE, and disposal. In some cases, particularly in the

Netherlands and Denmark, guidelines for implementing these rules also are developed

at the national level. The Swedish EPA, however, has not developed such guidelines

although the secondary materials industry believes this step is necessary for

establishing widespread use of recycled materials in roads. Implementation and

compliance are usually left to the regional and local governments. In some cases, as in

the United States, this has resulted in non-uniformity in application of the rules, which

has impeded the use of recycled materials. Environmental standards vary somewhat

among the countries, although EU programs and directives will tend to make minimum

requirements the same among member countries. Some countries have or are

implementing very strict requirements on landfilling of waste materials, limiting

landfills to only very hazardous waste and inert waste that cannot be recycled or

incinerated. Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands are good examples of countries

whose environmental policies are assisting the use of recycled materials in roads. Dutch

environmental rules permit slight burdening of soils and waters above background

levels over a 100-year time frame. This policy, and similar ones in Denmark and other

countries, permits the use under specific conditions of some materials (e.g., slightly

contaminated soils, WTE bottom ash) that would not meet all of the other standards.

There is consistent agreement among the countries that moving from laboratory testing

to performance modeling requires field validation. All the countries are conducting

research and most are participating in the EU 4th Framework ALT-MAT project to

address these issues. Within the EU, there are efforts to standardize an approach for

evaluating the environmental behavior of recycled materials. Various approaches are

being used in the countries for obtaining environmental approval and permits. There

are broad categorical approvals, specific recycled materials approval in specific uses,

and site-specific approvals. EU efforts also are addressing this issue. The EU 4th

Framework ALT-MAT project may be a model for U.S. consideration.
84

Chapter Seven

RECOMMENDATIONS

CONCLUSIONS AND PRIMARY RECOMMENDATIONS

In the European countries that were visited, recycling occurs when it is economical to

do so. Factors in the marketplace are dominant, but are generally supported by

government policies and regulations such as bans on landfilling, landfill taxes, and

natural aggregate taxes. Generally, clear and unambiguous engineering and

environmental test methods and performance standards help to reduce uncertainty and

allow recycled materials to compete with natural materials. Where tests and standards

do not exist, governments often support recycling by sharing risk.

This is in some contrast to the U.S. situation. In the United States, some recycled

materials such as RAP, coal fly ash, and blast furnace slag are widely used in a true free

market situation because of their excellent performance and competitive costs. Other

materials (e.g., foundry sands, steel slags) are used more locally in response to more

specific local market forces. There is little Federal government involvement, except for

comprehensive procurement guidelines for materials such as coal fly ash. Rather, the

situation is driven at the state level. For example, the State of Pennsylvania has

adopted legislation to promote recycling in the highway environment. However, there is

a wide range of engineering and environmental approaches to BUDs by different states.

California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania are working to

standardize the BUD process and create reciprocity. There is widespread need for clear

engineering and environmental test methods and performance standards. The owner or

contractor generally assumes risk. The states, academia, and the private sector are

conducting significant research.

Table 20 provides a summary of specific findings and corresponding recommendations

for the U.S. situation. The U.S. delegation will provide leadership in sharing these

recommendations at the national level with their various constituencies. Tentative

organization assignments to act on recommendations are listed in the table. The

delegation believes it is particularly important to adopt aspects of the Dutch

sustainability model as a means to promote recycling in the highway environment.

Further implementation strategies for the U.S. delegation will include electronic and

written distribution of the final report, presentations, published articles, and

development of a website.

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations were made by team members on their daily report

sheets:

• The U.K. concept of “privatization” of roads to 30-year ownership and

maintenance should be reviewed for application in the United States.

• The United States needs to change the negative image about using recycled

materials and provide incentives (or disincentives) for contractors to use

recycled materials and to work with contractors. A tax on landfilling usable

materials should be considered as one incentive.
85

Table 20. Summary of findings and recommendations.

Subject Findings Recommendations (Lead Organization fr

 To Act on Recommendat

 Recycling for sustainable The Dutch sustainability policy centers on a market system where - Include a recycling strategy in the sus

 road construction policy and economy influence the market. There are clear and and AASHTO’s strategic plans and lon

unambiguous technical and environmental standards. The (FHWA, AASHTO Standing Committee 

government promotes recycling by using taxes as incentives or - Create a framework for state DOTs to 

disincentives and by assisting startup companies. Technical materials in project planning, analysis 

processes are developed to assist production of quality material. mitigation analysis (AASHTO Standing 

Subcommittee on Materials).

A high degree of information and technology transfer was seen - Encourage state DOTs to conduct long

among various ministries and agencies in each country, and plans and recycled materials availabiamong countries. The EU 4th Framework Alternative Materials Subcommittee on Materials).

(ALT-MAT) project is one example of such cooperation and - Develop clear engineering and envirotechnology transfer. state and Federal level that are availa

decision-makers (RMRC).

There is a high degree of public awareness and participation in - Prepare a briefing document for the Urecycling in Europe. Federal and local governments have excellent legislatures (FHWA, RMRC).

informational compaigns. There can still be concern at the public - Prepare a briefing document for enviro

level. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are involved in (RMRC).policy development in the Netherlands. - With the new FHWA-EU partnership n

Framework Program, explore research transfer, and exchange of experts [FWof state and Territorial Solid Waste Ma(ASTSWMO), RMRC].

- Hold a special Transportation Researc

recycling in the highway environment NAPA).

- Develop a National Highway Institute - Conduct a public awareness program 

 Economics Recycling successes in the Netherlands, Denmark, and France - Encourage contractors to use their pr

are based in part on market opportunities for materials suppliers place to innovate and develop techno

and contractors. Life-cycle cost analyses (LCCA), some using - Adapt current FHWA LCCA procedure

environmental costs, are used. materials; it should address environm
86

Table 20. Summary of findings and recommendations (cont’d). Subject Findings Recommendations (Lead Organization fr

 To Act on Recommendat

 Engineering A number of countries are moving toward performance-based - Conduct recycling demonstration proj

design procedures and to accelerated testing to predict material hot recycling, C&D aggregate use (FHW

performance. However, there is still concern that test methods do - Encourage AASHTO and state DOTs to 

not predict true field performance. in committees establishing specificatio

 - Evaluate contractors with respect to u

 Environment The Netherlands uses a hierarchy of mechanistic leaching tests of environmental protection during cont

both recycled materials and their highway products to look at (AASHTO).cumulative release of constituents and their marginal impacts to - Develop and implement the use of wasoils and waters. This also is generally the basis for an EU based specifications.normalization activity to adopt this approach. - Make connections to the European eff

leaching database (RMRC).

Efforts are under way to create a European database on product - Hold an AASHTO and state EPA work

leaching. EU approach to evaluate product leac

(RMRC).

There is coordination between transportation and environmental - Include state DOT environmental staff 

ministries. Innovations and New Product Review

- Develop a model geographic informa

Many countries expressed a need to develop an approach to track recycled materials use and aid f

management decisions.

evaluate the environmental behavior of recycled and natural - Add an Excellence in Recycled Materi

materials by looking at source terms, the fate and transport of their the annual FHWA Environmental Excelconstituents, and their relation to human health and ecological risk. AASHTO Environmental Best Practices 

- Encourage the U.S. EPA to work more w

expand reciprocity (U.S. EPA).

- Encourage U.S. EPA to expand the Fe

guidelines to recycled materials in the EPA).

- Perform long-term monitoring (AASHT- Conduct a workshop on issues related 

fate and transport, and risk (RMRC).
87

CHAPTER 7

• Consider expanding Sweden’s approach or hierarchy of applications for recycled

materials to other transportation uses (e.g., slopes, embankments, storm water

controls, appurtenances, landscaping, etc.).

• U.S. regulatory agencies should use leaching tests to assist in determining what

and how recycled materials can be used.

• Develop a table of classes of materials and suggested uses similar to that

developed by VTI (Sweden) for crushed concrete.

• The United States should consider startup (demonstration) projects using

donated recycled materials as a means of introducing and evaluating recycled

materials in road construction. (Note: this has been done for MSW bottom ash.)

• Encourage U.S. state DOTs to have environmental staff participate in all

committee work for using alternative materials (similar to Denmark’s Road

Directorate). They can help advocate use of recycled materials.

• Encourage and introduce legislation that provides increased grants for research

and development for economical use of waste products. Increase the awareness of

politicians and the public regarding the benefits of using recycled materials.

• Invite Peter Miklos (Denmark) to share his knowledge at technical asphalt

training seminars in the United States.

• The United States needs to better market recycled materials that are the

equivalent of virgin materials in engineering applications.

• U.S. DOTs should adopt a philosophy and consensus approach to recycled

materials use similar to Denmark’s.

• Begin to establish a database similar to that in the Netherlands on the

environmental behavior of different materials.

• Develop cooperative/partnered research and standards development with

industry technical and financial input.

• The United States should participate in the ECN and CEN standardization

efforts in the Netherlands.

• The United States should consider using the Netherlands’ detailed specifications

on performance measures, tendering, and administration as a means of making

contractors more innovative in developing and using recycled materials.

• The RMRC should coordinate a TRB session on the use of recycled materials.

Speakers from Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, and France should

be invited to participate.

• The United States should identify and develop test methods that will predict

long-term mechanical (engineering) and environmental performance of recycled

materials.

• Adopt warranty and performance specifications similar to those used in several

of the countries visited.

• The U.S. team should follow France’s progress in using incentives to support the

waste plans being developed and the landfill ban.
88

CHAPTER 7

IDENTIFIED RESEARCH NEEDS

The U.S. team members identified a number of research needs on the basis of their

observations:

• Develop procedures for processing, QA/QC and routine use of C&D wastes and

municipal solid waste incinerator bottom ash in U.S. transportation applications.

• Formulate and conduct a multi-county shared project to demonstrate the use of

cost-benefit analysis so that all can communicate on a common basis.

• Investigate and develop methods to encourage railroads to participate and

identify opportunities where they could use recycled materials. The ability of the

highway sector to use recycled materials is dependent on the participation and

cooperation of all public works developers to create a demand for recycled

materials.

• Research how to establish an environmental evaluation system that is specific

to recycled materials in transportation construction. Look at each material to

determine which constituents leach and how much it leaches, rather than basing

decisions on the concentrations in the material.

• Investigate the use of the triaxial test (or wheel track) to develop “quality”

characteristics of a recycled material in various applications.

• Develop a database relating the performance characteristics of materials to

long-term performance in the field.

• Conduct research to define and develop specifications for using WTE ash in

embankments.

• Evaluate the use of a value-added performance system in the bidding process for

contracts in the United States.

• Investigate modeling using leaching results to evaluate environmental behavior

of recycled materials in construction applications.

• Develop any necessary safety and human health protection procedures for

handling recycled materials and any training and educational materials needed

to implement them.

• Investigate the use of foamed bitumen as a preventive maintenance tool.

• Evaluate the plate bearing test to determine if it gives a better correlation to

performance than the density test for non-homogeneous recycled materials.

• Investigate and determine values for the environmental behavior of natural

materials as a standard to compare with recycled materials.

• Investigate the applicability of using the pH stat and other tests used by the

Dutch for U.S. industries.

• Identify government and private sector successes in using recycled materials.

Evaluate the factors that contributed to the successes and develop models that

will help determine recycled product technical and economic feasibility in

various applications.

• Evaluate the Netherlands’ 5-year plans for materials usage to determine if they

would be feasible in the United States.
89

Chapter Eight

IMPLEMENTATION

Table 21 describes the immediate implementation strategy as a result of the scanning

tour. The U.S. delegation will work with their respective constituencies to promote

recommendations from this summary report. Specific implementation strategies include

electronic and written distribution of the final report, presentations, published articles,

and development of a website.

Table 21. Immediate communication strategy.

Implementation Item

Action on recommendations in Summary Report

Publication of the Final Report on the RMRC website at www.rmrc.unh.edu

Electronic announcement of Final Report availability (as downloadable pdf, Word, or WordPerfect files on

the RMRC website) to the following electronic distribution lists: (i) appropriate TRB committees and

subcommittees, (ii) the Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) list server, (iii) the Recycled Materials

Resource Center list server, (iv) the AASHTO Subcommittee on Materials, and (v) the AASHTO Standing

Committee on Environment.

Lists for Final Report distribution by FHWA International Programs/ATI to include: FHWA, TRB, FHWA ATLP

Centers, U.S. EPA, state DOTs, AASHTO, state EPAs, Environmental Councils of States (ECOS), ASTSWMO,

the NAPA, American Concrete Paving Association (ACPA), Asphalt Recycling and Reclamation

Association (ARRA), Construction Materials Recycling Association (CMRA), Portland Cement Association

(PCA), National Aggregates Association (NAA), National Stone Association (NSA), ASTM, the Asphalt

Institute, American Consulting Engineers Council (ACEC), Association of Environmental Professionals, etc.

Prepare magazine articles to be published in Better Roads, the Transporter, Hot Mix Asphalt

Construction, APWA Reporter, Environmental Technical Assistance Program (ETAP) Weekly, HMAT, NCAT,

etc.

Develop presentations for use by the team at workshops, conferences, special presentations, etc., at

the national, state, association, and local level. Provide Power Point presentation electronically or on

diskette and provide overheads.

These are some of the presentations by team members at national venues: (i) 1999 AASHTO Meeting in

Tulsa, Oklahoma, 10/99; (ii) Beneficial Use of By-Product Materials in Construction Applications

Conference in Albany, New York, 11/99; (iii) NAPA Annual Meeting, Hawaii, 2/00; (iv) AASHTO Standing

Committee on Environment in Gulf Shores, Alabama, 3/00; (v) PennDOT Transportation & the

Environment for the 21st Century, 5/00; (vi) AASHTO Subcommittee on Materials, 8/00; (vii) the ASTSWMO

Annual Meeting, 10/00; and (viii) 2001TRB Meeting in Washington, D.C., 1/01.

These are some of the intended presentations by team members at regional/state meetings: (i)

Association of Pennsylvania Contractors/PennDOT Fall Workshop, 11/99; (ii) MinnDOT, 11/99; (iii) Brown

Bag Lunch for Washington State Agencies, Legislators, Governor’s Staff, Fall 1999; (iv) TEA-21/EPA Region

10 Meeting, Fall 1999; (v) Washington Counties Regional Maintenance Supervisors, 12/99, (Campbell); (vi)

Pennsylvania Construction Industry Spring Conference, 2/00; (vii) Minnesota Transportation Conference,

2/00; (viii) Asphalt Recycling and Reclamation Association 24th Meeting, Cancun, Mexico; (ix) 2000

Southern Regional Quality Workshop for Materials and Construction, Birmingham, Alabama, 3/20; (x)

Georgia Department of Environmental Services Recycling Workshop, Atlanta, Georgia, 3/00; (xi)

Minnesota Transportation Conference, 5/00; (xii) Washington State University Road and Street School,

10/00 and 12/00; and (xiii) Michigan SEMCOG, MAPA, Michigan DOT Conferences, dates not provided.

Appropriate research recommendations and problem statements will be sent to the appropriate

AASHTO committees and to NCHRP to encourage additional research activity.
90

Chapter Nine

LIST OF REFERENCES BY COUNTRY

SWEDEN

1. Environmental Report 98. Publication 1999:34E. Swedish National Road

Administration, Butiken, 8F-178 87 Borlange, Sweden, 1998.

2. Hobeda, P. Short information about VTI’s research on road surfaces. Swedish

National Road and Transport Institute (VTI), Linköping, Sweden, September

1999. (Paper provided to U.S. Recycling Scanning Team).

3. Hobeda, P. Past experience in using by-products and waste materials in the

upper layers of the pavement. VTI, Linköping, Sweden, September, 1999. (Paper

presented to the U.S. Recycling Scanning Team).

4. Solid Waste, Granular Inorganic Material: Column Test (NT ENVIR 002, 1995);

Solid Waste, Granular Inorganic Material: Availability Test (NT ENVIR 004,

1996); Solid Waste, Particulate Materials: Sampling (NT ENVIR 006, 1999).

Published by NORDTEST, PO Box 116, FIN-02151, Finland.

5. Fällman, A.M., J. Hartlén. Quality assurance of sorted bottom ash from waste

waste-to-energy, a system for sampling and leaching tests. Swedish Geotechnical

Institute, Linköping, Sweden, November, 1996.

6. Fällman, A.M., B. Aurell. Leaching tests for environmental assessment of

inorganic substances in wastes, Sweden. The Science of the Total Environment

178, Elsevier Science BV, 1996, pp. 71-84.

7. Johansson, H.G., Nilsson, U. Increased usage of alternative materials in roads—

international research project. Nordic Road & Transport Research 3, 9-11, 1999.

8. Annual Report 98. Swedish Geotechnical Institute, Linköping, Sweden, 1998.

9. Annual Report 98. Swedish National Road Administration, Publication

1999:33E, SE-781 87, Borlange, Sweden. Internet: www.vv.se

10. Hartlén, J. Waste management in Sweden. Cycle and Stabilization Technologies

of MSW Waste-to-energy Residues, Waste Management, Vol. 16, Number 516,

1996, Editor: William A. Cauley, Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford, U.K. pp 385-388.

 DENMARK

1. State Road Network, 1999. Road Directorate, Ministry of Transport, Denmark.

2. Miklos, P. Recycling in the Danish asphalt industry. Presented at the FHWA

workshop, Copehagen, Denmark, September, 1999.

3. Ludvigsen, K. RGS90 A/S activities. Presentation to the FHWA Europe tour,

Copenhagen, Denmark, September, 1999.

4. Ludvigsen, K. Recycling of construction and demolition waste in Denmark -

State of the art. Second meeting of IWSA’s subgroup on construction and

demolition wastes. Copenhagen, Denmark, September 3-4, 1999.

5. European Commission DG VII, 4th Framework Programme, ALTernative

MATerials, Road Directorate, Ministry of Transport, Sweden.
91

CHAPTER 9

6. Hjelmar, O. C-RES project activities. Presentation to the U.S. Recycling Scanning

Team, Horsholm, Denmark, September, 1999.

7. Rasmussen, P. Environmental practices in Denmark. Ministry of Environment

and Energy, Danish EPA. Presentation to the U.S. Recycling Scanning Team,

Copenhagen, Denmark, September, 1999.

8. Hjelmar, O. Waste management in Denmark. Cycle and Stabilization

Technologies of MSW Waste-to-energy Residues, WASTE MANAGEMENT, Vol.

16, Number 516, 1996, Editor: William A. Cauley, Elsevier Science, Ltd., Oxford,

U.K.

GERMANY

1. Roads in Germany. Federal Ministry of Transport (BMV), D-53175 Bonn,

Germany. 1st Edition, 1994.

2. Towards Sustainable Development in Germany. Federal Ministry for the

Environment, Report to the Special Session of the United Nations General

Assembly on Environment and Development, New York, 1997.

3. Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt). Published by the Federal Highway

Research Institute, D-51427 Bergisch Gladbach, Germany, May, 1999.

4. Wirtgen. Presentation and company publications presented to the U.S. Recycling

Scanning Team, D-53578 Windhagen, Germany, September, 1999.

5. Remex Baustoffrecycling AG. Presentation and company information presented

to the U.S. Recycling Scanning Team, D-47269 Duisburg, Germany, September,

1999.

6. Kalisch, H., H. Werner. Recycling baustoffe im Straßenoberbau. German Federal

Roads Institute, D-51427 Bergisch Gladbach, Germany, September, 1999.

7. Heinrich, W. Recycled materials in bitumin pavements. Presentation to U.S.

Recycling Scanning Team, BASt, Bergisch Glabach, Germany. September, 1999.

8. Beer, F. Cyclic Economy and Waste Act, BASt, Bergisch Gladbach, Germany,

September, 1999.

9. Kurkowski, H. Processing of bitumen bound and tar bound reclaimed materials.

Remex Baustoffrecycling AG, Albert-Hahn-Straße 9-D-47269 Duisburg,

Presentation to the U.S. Recycling Scanning Team, September, 1999.

10. Dipl.-Geol. Ingo Schulz. The representation of the interest of the German and

international recycling sector - its tasks and aims. Federal Institute for

Highways, Bergisch Gladbach, Germany, September, 1999.

11. Vehlow, J. Municipal Solid Waste Management in Germany, Cycle and

Stabilization Technologies of MSW Waste-to-energy Residues, Waste

Management, Vol. 16, Number 516, 1996, Editor-in-Chief: William A. Cauley,

Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford, U.K. pp. 367-374.
92

CHAPTER 9

THE NETHERLANDS

1. New CROW manual for Application of Secondary Road Materials (Overview).

One page review of CROW manual to be published, November, 1999. CROW,

Ede, The Netherlands, September, 1999.

2. Henneveld, R. J. P., J. Th. Van der Zwan. I am not old. I am just recycled. CROW,

Information and Technology Centre for Transport and Infrastructure, Ede, The

Netherlands, September, 1999.

3. Eikelboom, J. Warm recycling of asphalt in the Netherlands. Ministry of

Transport, Public Works and Water Management, Road and Hydraulic

Engineering Division, Delft, The Netherlands, 1999.

4. Leeders, P. Intermediary activities on MSWI bottom ash. Insulinde Recycling

BV, Amsterdam, September, 1999.

5. Bottom ash in The Netherlands. Verenging van Afvalverwerkers, The

Netherlands, September, 1999.

6. Eikelboom, R. Waste in the Netherlands. Slides and published fact sheets,

Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, Directorate of

Waste Management Policy, The Hague, The Netherlands, September, 1999.

7. Wolde, J.G. ten. Waste Products and the Building Materials Decree. Printed

paper presented to the U. S. Recycling Scanning Team, The Hague, The

Netherlands, September, 1999.

8. Van der Sloot, H. European standardization activities, harmonization of leaching

tests, European leaching data base and research issues. Copy of slides presented

to the U. S. Recycling Scanning Team, The Hague, The Netherlands. September,

1999.

9. Van der Zwan, J. Engineering practice, market forces, emerging technologies,

research long time monitoring and performance measures. Road and Hydraulic

Engineering Division, Directorate-General for Public Works and Water

Management, Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management,

Delft, The Netherlands, undated.

10. Van der Zwan, J. Application of waste materials a success now, a success in the

future. See reference 9. Undated.

11. Van der Zwan, J. Th. R.J.P. Henneveld. Sustainable development and road

construction. International Road Federation World Meeting, Toronto, Canada,

16-20 June 1997.

12. Van der Zwan, J. Th. Dutch (environmental) policy concerning the use of

secondary materials (reuse and recycling of waste materials in The Netherlands.

Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, Delft, The

Netherlands. Undated.

13. Hoogweg, P.H.A. Cross-linking theme: KL1-Road infrastructure assets

management performance. National report of the Netherlands, XXIST World

Road Congress, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 3-9 October, 1999.
93

CHAPTER 9

FRANCE

1. Colombel, J. H. Atelier franco-americain sur l’utilization des materiaux recyclés.

Presentation and paper presented to the U.S. Recycling Scanning Team, Paris,

France, September, 1999.

2. Basuyau, V. Household refuse waste-to-energy slag in road engineering - The

French experience. Yprema, France. Paper presented to the U.S. Scanning Team,

Paris, France, September, 1999

3. Use of by-products and waste in road construction: French environmental

regulations. ADEME, Presentation and paper to the U.S. Recycling Scanning

Team, Paris, France, September, 1999.

4. Difficulties, Environmental Practices, Programs and other issues. CETE de

Lyon, Presentation and paper presented to the U.S. Recycling Scanning, Paris,

France, September, 1999.

5. CETE de Lyon, Environmental, appropriation, controls, difficulties, data and

other issues of recycling in French roads. Presentation and paper presented to

the U.S. Recycling Scanning Team, Paris, France, September, 1999.

6. Lac, C. Atelier franco-americain sur l’utilization de materiaux recyclés et

techniques routières, Theme 3: Technologies en émergence. LCPC. Paris, France,

September, 1999.

7. François, M.L. The L.P.C. network research programme on municipal solid waste

incinerator bottom ash. Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées-Centre de

Nantes, France. Paper and presentation to the U.S. Recycling Scanning Team,

Paris, France, September, 1999.

8. Corte, J.F., D. François. Methodologie pour la détermination du comportment a

long terme des déchets. Laboratorie Central des Ponts et Chaussées (LCPC)-

Centre de Nantes, Undated. Presented to the U.S. Recycling Scanning Team,

Paris, France, September, 1999.

9. CFTR (Comité français pour les techniques routières), The following fact sheets:

• The road in France.

• An organization at the service of a shared vision of road engineering.

• Mix design: an approach based on performance.

• Pavement design: a rational approach.

• Road innovation charters: An assurance of quality.

• Technical opinions: more than information, a reference.

• Surface dressing.

• Secretariat of the Charter Steering Committee, SETRA 46, avenue AristideBriend, BP 100 - 92225 Bagneux, France. (www.serta.fr)

10. Brret, Y-B. Que mettre sous la route? Environment Magazine, juillet-aout, 1999

33-39.
94

CHAPTER 9

11. Columbel, M., M. Berrebi, M. Lomerty. La valorization des dechets et des sous -

produits, 229-253. Manuscript publisher and date not noted.

12. Comité de liaison et es initiatives. Gestion des déchets, de construction et

d’exploitation lies a la route. Rapport d étude, realise par Lyden RICCI, maitre

de stage. Virines BERNARDON-BILLON, Mai 1999.

13. François, N. Laitiers de haut-furneau vitrifiés: definitions, caracteristiques et

specifications, editée et diffusée par l’association française de normalization

(AFNON), Tour Europe cedex 7, 92049, Paris la Défense, 1999.

UNITED STATES:

1. Franklin Associates, LTD. (1999). Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in

the United States: 1998 Update. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Solid Waste, U.S. EPA. Washington, D.C. (Available at www.epa.gov/epaoswer/

non-hw/muncpl/mswrpt98)

2. User Guidelines for Waste and By-Products in Pavement Construction.

Publication No. FHWA-RD-97-148. FHWA, July, 1998.
95

Appendix A

RECYCLE SCANNING TEAM MEMBERS

Vincent E. Schimmoller (Co-chair)

Program Manager

Office of Infrastructure (HIF)

Federal Highway Administration

400 Seventh Street, SW

Washington, DC 20590

Tel: (202) 366-0371

Fax: (202) 366-3043

Email: vincent.schimmoller@fhwa.dot.gov

Katherine Holtz (Co-chair)

Director, Materials Section

Construction Division

Texas DOT

125 East Eleventh Street

Austin, TX 78701-2483

Tel: (512) 465-7615

Fax: (512) 302-2215

Email: kholtz@dot.state.tx.us

Dr. T. Taylor Eighmy (Report Facilitator)

Director, Recycled Materials Resource Center

Director, Environmental Research Group

123 Nesmith Hall

University of New Hampshire

Durham, NH 03824-3591

Tel: (603) 862-1065

Fax: (603) 862-3957

Email: t.eighmy@rmrc.unh.edu

Carlton Wiles (Technical Writer)

Consultant

Recycled Materials Resource Center

University of New Hampshire

525 County Down Lane

Loveland, OH 45140

Tel: (513) 774-9974

Fax: (Not available at this time)

Email: c.c.wiles@worldnet.att.net

Michael Smith

Materials Engineer

Southern Resource Center

Federal Highway Administration

61 Forsyth Street, Suite 17T26

Atlanta, GA 30303

Tel: (404) 562-3694

Fax: (404) 562-3700

Email: smith1964@msn.com
96

APPENDIX A

Gerald Malasheskie

Chief, Engineering Technology and Information Division

Pennsylvania DOT

PO Box 2926

Harrisburg, PA 17105

Tel: (717) 787-7150

Fax: (717) 783-5955

Email: gmalasheskie@hotmail.com

Gerald J. Rohrbach

Director, Office of Materials and Road Research

Minnesota DOT

1400 Gervais Avenue

Maplewood, MN 55109-2044

Tel: (651) 779-5590

Fax: (651) 779-5616

Email: gerry.rohrbach@dot.state.mn.us

Shari Schaftlein

Deputy Director of Environmental Services

Washington DOT

310 Maple Park Avenue, SE

PO Box 47331

Olympia, WA 98504-7331

Tel: (360) 705-7446

Fax: (360) 705-6833

Email: sschaft@wsdot.wa.gov

Greg Helms

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste

401 M Street, SW (5304 W)

Washington, DC 20460

Tel: (703) 308-8845

Fax: (703) 308-0522

Email: helms.greg@epamail.epa.gov

Robert D. Campbell (American Public Works Association)

Operations Planning Specialist

Snohomish County Public Works

1201 Bonneville Avenue

Snohomish, WA 98290-2003

Tel: (360) 862-7513

Fax: (360) 862-7538

Email: bob.campbell@co.snohomish.wa.us

Charles H. Van Deusen (National Asphalt Pavement Association)

Consulting Engineer

Payne and Dolan, Inc.

21160 East Farm Lane

Northville, MI 48167

Tel: (248) 474-4417

Fax: (248) 442-2456

Email: chuckvan@mich.com
97

APPENDIX A

Bob Ford

Division Chief

Office of International Programs

Federal Highway Administration

400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, DC 20590

Tel: (202) 366-9632

Fax: (202) 366-9626

Email: bob.ford@fhwa.dot.gov

John A. Almborg (Delegation Coordinator)

American Trade Initiatives, Inc.

3 Fairfield Court

Stafford, VA 22554-1716

Tel: (540) 288-9700

Fax: (540) 288-9423

Email: j.almborg@gte.net
98

APPENDIX B Appendix B

DETAILED AMPLIFYING QUESTIONS

The following eight general categories of questions have been identified as important

areas of interest by the delegation. The specific questions are intended to serve as a

guide for the host agencies. There is some overlap between categories and some

questions could also be associated with other categories. Since the delegation members

are not aware of all aspects of recycling in the host agency’s country, the host agency

should feel free to identify other issues that the delegation should learn about.

To help clarify our perspectives, the delegation has defined recycled materials as

reclaimed highway paving materials, secondary materials, by-product materials, and

waste materials. These include recycled asphalt pavement, reclaimed concrete

pavement, coal fly ash, blast furnace slags, foundry sands, municipal wastewater sludge

compost, glass, tires, construction and demolition debris, etc. From our perspective, the

highway environment includes construction within the highway right of way (e.g.,

roads, shoulders, medians, bridges, culverts, swales, appurtenances), though activities

associated with highway construction can also result in use of recycled materials

outside the highway right of way. From our perspective, recycled materials are typically

used in such applications as bituminous pavements, portland cement concrete

pavements, road base, embankments and fills, flowable fills, landscaping, bike paths,

parking lots, and appurtenances (signs, fencing, barriers, traffic delineators, etc.).

While our focus is directed at recycling in the highway environment, transportation is

inter-modal. There can be obvious recycling connections with other transportation

modes so appropriate related recycling activities are also of interest.

1. Engineering Practices for Recycled Materials Use in the Highway Environment

1.1 What recycled materials are used in the highway environment and in what

applications? Can this information be quantified for the delegation? Have

some materials been used historically? Have some materials been used only

recently?

1.2 What specifications and standard engineering practices (design,

construction, maintenance) are in place for these uses? Are these more

stringent or less stringent than those used for natural materials?

1.3 How do you determine that the recycled material used in highway

environments equals or exceeds the engineering performance of standard or

traditional materials they replace?

2. Environmental Practices for Recycled Materials Use in the Highway

Environment

2.1 What standard environmental regulations, specifications, and practices are

in place for the uses and applications identified in question 1.1 above? Are

these more stringent or less stringent than those used for natural materials?

2.2 How do you determine that the recycled material used in highway

environments equals or exceeds the environmental performance of standard

or traditional materials they replace?
99

APPENDIX B

2.3 Does the public, the supplier, or the contractor get involved in environmental

regulation or specification development?

2.4 Are there different types of environmental approvals, such as general,

conditional, application-specific, or site-specific?

2.5 What environmental agency (e.g., Environmental Ministry) is responsible

for identifying and quantifying pollutant levels released from recycled

materials use and how are environmental controls established? Are there

databases available?

2.6 What methods are used to determine risks to human health and the

environment associated with using recycled materials in the highway

environment?

2.7 From the environmental standpoint, who provides data that the use of a

recycled product is not harmful to the workers and the public? Can

pavement with recycled materials be later reused in another application

with no adverse environmental effects?

2.8 Is tracking (documentation of application, amount used, location, etc.) of

recycled materials use by a regulatory agency required?

3. Emerging Technologies

3.1 What process or path is used to implement or introduce new recycled

materials (especially less traditional recycled materials) or new applications

(e.g., use of recycled materials like metal or plastic in appurtenances)?

3.2 Does cost, performance, or concern for the environment drive the process?

3.3 What outreach activities are used to encourage the use of recycled

materials?

3.4 Are demonstration or field trial projects crucial to new technology adoption?

3.5 Are there examples that can be highlighted of recycling successes?

3.6 Are there examples that can be highlighted of recycling failures?

3.7 What is your participation with the ALT-MAT project (under the European

Union’s Directorate General VII 4th Framework Program)? Can summary

information from your country be shared with the delegation?

4. Policies, Market Forces, and Interest Groups That Drive Recycled Materials

Usage

4.1 What is the nature of the interaction between governmental authorities

(e.g., between a transportation ministry and an environmental ministry)

with jurisdiction over approvals of recycled materials use?

4.2 Who within the transportation sector (e.g., Transportation Ministry) takes

responsibility for advocating, leading, and responding to recycling issues?
100

APPENDIX B

4.3 Who generally drives recycled materials utilization? The people through

referendums? The government through legislation? The private sector

through market forces?

4.4 How do other local governmental agencies, research organizations,

universities, highway associations, and the general public participate in this

process?

4.5 What role do non-governmental organizations (NGOs) play in the process?

4.6 How active is the public in supporting or opposing recycled materials use?

4.7 After the design life of the principal reuse application is reached, how is

subsequent reuse or disposal managed? Are there mechanisms in place to

encourage continued reuse?

4.8 Are there taxes that drive recycling or financial incentives/disincentives

used to encourage recycling in the highway environment?

4.9 Are there other types of incentives provided to incorporate recycled

materials into construction products?

4.10 Have “recycling mitigation credits” been developed as a tradeoff for

unavoidable transportation environmental impacts?

4.11 Are there specific cost analysis studies (e.g., by recycled material type or

application) that look at planning costs, first costs, operation and

maintenance costs, life-cycle costs, etc.? Can a typical one be provided?

4.12 What level of governmental support is provided for research and

development in this area? Is the trend increasing or decreasing?

5. Barriers to Recycled Materials Use and Means to Overcome Such Barriers

5.1 What barriers to recycled material use in the highway environment have

been identified at the national, regional, or local level?

5.2 What initiatives, programs, or activities have been developed to reduce

barriers?

5.3 Are long-term legal liabilities a barrier? If these are an issue, how are they

addressed?

5.4 What protection is there for the potential of future liability if recycled

materials used in highways are found to be a health or pollution problem in

the future?

5.5 Does your agency share technical data and project results with other

organizations through databases, case study results, etc. using the Internet

or other informational services (e.g., web-based databases)? If so, can these

be identified?

5.6 Have centers of critical activity or expertise been established? If so, can

these be identified?
101

APPENDIX B

5.7 In the United States, the lack of reciprocity agreements between states is

seen as a significant barrier to uniform use of recycled materials in the

highway environment. Within a national context, or even within a European

Union context, is reciprocity for approval of recycled material use being

considered?

6. Long-Term Monitoring and Performance Measures

6.1 Are there specifications or goals that address long-term engineering or

environmental performance of an application using a recycled material?

6.2 Are field demonstrations considered to be the best way to look at long-term

performance?

6.3 Are there laboratory methods or models developed to predict long-term

performance from either a physical or environmental perspective? If so, can

they be provided? Are they being used in a regulatory sense?

6.4 What long-term physical or environmental monitoring is required at

utilization sites? Can examples be provided? Are there demonstration or fullscale use sites where long-term monitoring is occurring that the delegation

can visit? Is there typical data that can be presented to the delegation?

6.5 Are there special maintenance activities that are used in conjunction with

long-term monitoring? If so, can they be described?

7. The Perspective of Materials Suppliers and Contractors

7.1 Does the supplier or contractor get involved in engineering or environmental

specification development?

7.2 How is recycled materials processing handled—at central facilities or at the

job site?

7.3 Do traditional aggregate processing facilities handle recycled materials? If

so, are they segregated?

7.4 Does the supplier or contractor get involved in engineering or environmental

specification development?

7.5 Are there processing facilities that the delegation can visit?

7.6 Are ISO 9000 procedures used by suppliers during processing of recycled

materials?

7.7 Are the same processing controls required for recycled materials as they are

for natural materials?

7.8 What quality assurance/quality control procedures are used by the suppliers

working with recycled materials? Are these the same as those used for

natural materials?

7.9 Are ISO 9000 procedures used by contractors working with recycled

materials during construction?
102

APPENDIX B

7.10 What construction quality assurance/quality control procedures are used

by the contractors working with recycled materials? Are these the same as

those used for natural materials?

7.11 What issues do contractors face when maintenance operations or

procedures are conducted on infrastructure containing recycled materials?

7.12 How is the use of less-conventional recycled materials handled in the

contract process? Are they specified by the owner; is the contractor allowed

to be innovative in the use of these materials? If a warranty is involved,

how is it affected by the presence of a recycled material?

8. Other

8.1 Are bio-materials (municipal wastewater sludge compost, municipal solid

waste compost, street sweepings, storm drain wastes, wood chips, site

grubbing material, native plant salvage) used in highway construction

activities?

8.2 Are there any efforts to set up a bio-materials exchange for mitigation or

waste reduction purposes?

8.3 Some U.S. experiences with tire chip embankments suggests that

spontaneous combustion can occur. What has been your agency’s experience?

8.4 What are your agency’s experiences of using petroleum-contaminated soils

as aggregate substitutes in asphaltic pavements?

8.5 To what extent are recycled materials used in highway appurtenances?
103

Appendix C

CONTACTS/WEB ADDRESSES OF

PARTICIPANTS AND ORGANIZATIONS

Sweden

Maria Arm, M.Sc.

Senior Researcher

Swedish National Road and Transport

 Research Institute

S-581 95 Linköping, Sweden

Tel: 46 13 20 42 77

Fax: 46 13 14 14 36

Email: maria.arm@vti.se

Ann-Marie Fällman, Ph.D.

Research and Consulting Engineer

Dept of Environmental Technology

Swedish Geotechnical Institute

SE-581 93 Linköping, Sweden

Tel: 46 13 20 18 07

Fax: 46 13 20 19 09

Email: annmarie.fallman@swedgeo.se

Karsten Håkansson, Ph.D.

Senior Scientist

Dept of Analysis and Models

Swedish Geotechnical Institute

SE-581 93

Linköping, Sweden

Tele: 46 13 20 18 13

Fax: 46 13 20 19 14

Email: karsten.hakansson@swedgeo.se

Jan Hartlén, Ph.D., Adj. Professor

Dept of Geotechnology

Soils Mechanics and Foundation

 Engineering

Lund University

PO Box 118, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden

John Ericcsons väg 1

Tele: 46 (0) 708 390 365

Fax: 46 (0) 46 222 91 27

Email: jan.hartlen@tg.lth.se

Helena Helgesson, M.Sc.

Research and Consulting Engineer

Dept. of Environmental Technology

Swedish Geotechnical Institute

SE-581 93 Linköping, Sweden

Tel: 46 13 20 18 14, Fax: 46 13 20 19 09

Email: helena.helgesson@swedgeo.se

Torbjörn Jacobson

Research Engineer, Bituminous

 mixtures and aggregates

Swedish National Road and Transport

 Research Institute

S-581 95 Linköping, Sweden

Tel: 46 13 20 42 52

Fax: 46 13 14 14 36

Hans G. Johansson, Ph.L.

Senior Researcher

Swedish National Road and

 Transport Research Institute

SE-581 95 Linköping, Sweden

Tel: 46 13 14 42 79

Fax: 46 13 14 14 36

Email: hans.g.johansson@vti.se

Per Jödahl, Ambassador

Director of the International

 Secretariat

Swedish National Road

 Administration

S-781 87 Borlänge, Sweden

Tel: 46 243 759 27

Fax: 46 243 757 73

Email: per.jodahl@vv.se

Åsa Lindgren

Road Engineering Division

S-781 87 Borlänge, Sweden

Tel: 46 243 7754

Fax: 46 243 755 65

Email: asa.lindgren@w.se
104

APPENDIX C

Ingrid Södergren

M. Sc. Civil Engineering

Road Engineering Division

Swedish National Road

 Administration

S-781 87 Borlänge, Sweden

Tel: 46 243 758 70

Fax: 46 243 755 65

Email: ingrid.sodergren@vv.se

Börje Thunberg

Director General

Swedish National Road and

 Transport Research Institute

SE-581 95 Linköping, Sweden

Tel: 46 13 20 43 07

Fax: 46 13 20 40 82

Email: borje.thunberg@vti.se

Krister Ydrevik

Researcher, Mechanical properties

 of unbound aggregates

Highway Engineering

Swedish National Road and

 Transport Research Institute

SE-581 95 Linköping, Sweden

Tel: 46 13 20 42 95

Fax: 46 13 114 14 36

Email: krister.ydrevik@vti.se

Leif G. Winman, M.Sc.

Chief Engineer

Pavement Structural Design

Swedish Road and Transport Research

Institute

S-581 95 Linköping

Tel: 46 13 20 40 00

Fax: 46 13 14 14 36

Andrew Dawson

The University of Nottingham

School of Civil Engineering

University Park

Nottingham, NG7 2RD

England

Tel: 44 115 951 3902

Fax: 44 115 951 3898

Email:

andrew.dawson@nottingham.ac.uk

www.nottingham.ac.uk

Denmark

Magne Aasen

M.Sc. Civil Engineering

Head of Construction Unit East

Road Directorate

Denmark Ministry of Transport

Elisagaardsvej 5, DK-4000 Roskilde,

Denmark

Tel: 45 46 30 01 00

Fax: 45 46 30 01 05

Email: maa@vd.dk

Jørgen Christensen

M.Sc. Chem. Eng., M.S.O.R.

Director

Danish Road Institute

Elisagaardsvej 5, DK-4000 Roskilde,

Denmark

Tel: 45 46 30 70 00

Fax: 45 46 30 71 05

Email: ris@vd.dk

Thomas Højlund Christensen

Professor, Dr. Agro., Ph.D.

Dept. of Environmental Science and

 Engineering

Technical University of Denmark

Bygning 115, DK-2800

Lyngby, Denmark

Tel: 45 45 25 16 03

Fax: 45 45 93 28 50

Email: thc@imt.dtu.dk

Henning Grosell

Deputy Director, Construction Division

Road Directorate

Thomas Helsteds Vej 11, P.B. 529

DK-8660 Skanderborg, Denmark

Tel: 45 89 93 22 00

Fax: 45 86 52 20 13

Bernt T. Hansen

RGS 90

Miljø

Råstof og Genanvendelse

Selskabet af 1990 A/Selinevej 4

2300 København S, Denmark
105

APPENDIX C

Jette Bjerre Hansen, M.Sc., Ph.D.

Chemical Engineer

Dept. of Groundwater, Solid Waste &

 Microbiology

VKI

Agern Allé 11

DK-2970 Hørsholm, Denmark

Tel: 45 45 16 92 00

Fax: 45 45 16 92 92

Email: jbh@vki.dk

Ole Hjelmar, M.Sc. Chem. Eng.

Chief Engineer

Dept. of Groundwater, Solid Waste &

 Microbiology

VKI

Agern Allé 11

DK-2970 Hørsholm, Denmark

Tel: 45 45 16 92 00

Fax: 45 45 16 92 92

Email: oh@vki.dk

Karen Kruse Knudsen, Civil Engineer

Project Leader

I/S Amagerforbrænding

Kraftværksvej 31

DK 2300 København S, Denmark

Tel: 32 95 03 51

Fax: 32 96 05 13

Karsten Ludvigsen, Civil Engineer

RGS 90

Mijø

Råstof og Genanvendelse

Selskabet af 1990 A/S

Selinevej 4

2300 København S, Denmark

Tel: 32 48 90 90

Fax: 32 50 80 80

Peter Miklos

Deputy Managing Director

TARCO VEJ A/S

Ridderstien 38, Fjelsted

DK-5560 Aarup, Denmark

Tel: 6488 1717

Fax: 6488 1827

Email: pmi@tarco.dk

Jens Nejrup

Manager

City of Copenhagen

Environmental Protection Agency

Copenhagen Recycling Center

Selinevej 2

2300 København S, Denmark

Tel: +45 32 50 50 42

Fax: +45 32 50 32 04

Email: miljoe@miljoe.kk.dk

Jørn Pederson

Director, Environmental Affairs

Superfos

Frydenlundsvej 30

DK-2950 Vedbæk, Denmark

Tel: +45 45 67 00 00

Fax: +45 45 67 20 29

Knud A. Pihl, M.Sc. Civil Engineering

Danish Road Institute

Research and Testing Department

Road Environment and Pavement

 Materials

Elisagaardsveji 5, DK-4000 Roskilde

Denmark

Tel: 45 46 30 01 00

Fax: 45 46 30 01 05

Email: kap@vd.dk

Povl Olsbjerg Rasmussen, M.Sc.

Industrial Waste Division

Ministry of Environment and Energy

Danish Environmental Protection

 Agency

Strandgade 29, DK-1401

Copenhagen K, Denmark

Tel: 45 32 66 01 00

Fax: 45 32 66 04 79

Arne Holm

Director

NYFALT A/S

Postboks 166, Grønnemosen 9

DK-2860 Søborg, Sweden

Tel: +39 69 79 13

Fax: +31 67 73 77
106

APPENDIX C

Ole Milvang Jensen, M.Sc. Civil

Engineering

Danish Road Institute

Research and Testing Department

Road Environment and Pavement

 Materials

Elisagårdsvej 5, DK-4000 Roskilde

Denmark

Tel: +45 46 30 70 00

Fax: +45 46 30 71 05

Email: omj@vd.dk

Germany

Dr. Frank Beer

Federal Highway Research Institute

Brüderstrasse. 53

51427 Bergisch Gladbach

Federal Republic of Germany

Email: Beer@bast.de

Jan große Beilage, Dipl.-Ing

BASt

Federal Highway Research Institute

Brüderstraße 53

51427 Bergisch Gladbach

Federal Republic of Germany

Tel: 49 2204 43 311

Fax: 49 2204 43 148

Email: beilage@bast.de

Thorsten Fröbel, Dipl.-Ing.

Construction Materials and Process

 Engineer

Wirtgen GmbH

Hohner Straße 2

D-53578 Windhagen

Federal Republic of Germany

Tel: 49 26 45 /131 782

Fax: 49 26 45/131 313

Email: engineering@wirtgen.de

Rudolf Gnodtke, Geschäftsfüher

remex

Entsorgungsgesellschaft Borken mbh

Zur Dinkel 21-25 D-4839 Legden

Federal Republic of Germany

Tel: 0 25 66 9 63 44

Fax: 0 25 66 9 62 68

Harald Kurkowski, Dipl.-Ing Dipl.-Wirt.-

Ing

Leitung Produkt-/

Projecktmanagement

remex Baustoffrecycling AG

Albert-Hahn-Straße 9-D-47269

Duisburg

Federal Republic of Germany

Tel: 0203 76803-30

Fax: 0203 76803-42

Email: info@remex-ag.de

Walter Grüber, Product Manager

Recycling

Wirtgen GmbH

Hohner Straße 2

D-53578 Windhagen

Federal Republic of Germany

Tel: 2645/131-142

Fax: 2645/131-242

Hans Schmidt, Dipl.-Ing.

DEUTAG GmbH & Co. KG

albert-Hahn-Straße 5-7

47269 Duisburg

Federal Republic of Germany

Tel: 0203/7685-180

Fax: 0202/7685-232

Wolfgang Schulte, Dr.-Ing.

Section Leader, Bituminous Pavement

Federal Highway Research Institute

 (BASt)

Brüderstraße 53

51427 Bergisch Gladbach

Federal Republic of Germany

Tel: 49 2204 43 750

Fax: 49 2204 43 673

Internet: www.bast.de

Ingo Schulz, Dipl.-Geol.

Zentralverband Deutsches

Baugewerbe

Kronenstraße 55-58

D-10117 Berlin-Mitte

Federal Republic of Germany

Tel: 030 2 03 14 532

Fax: 030 2 03 14 565

Email: schulz@zdb.de
107

APPENDIX C

Heinrich Werner, Dipl.-Ing.

Section Head, Pavement Testing and

 Design

Federal Highway Research Institute

 (BASt)

Brüderstraße 53

51427 Bergisch Gladbach

Federal Republic of Germany

Tel: 49 2204 43 740

Fax: 49 2204 43 673

Eckhard Willing, Prof. Dr.

Director and Professor

Umwelt Bundes Amt

Berlin-Spandau

Seecktstraße 6- 10

1351 Berlin

Federal Republic of Germany

Tel: 030 8903-3284

Fax: 030 8903-3336

Email: willing@uba.de

Mr. Hillman

Head of Section

Earthworks, Mineral Aggregates

BASt

Federal Highway Research Institute

Brüderstraße 53

51427 Bergisch Gladbach

Federal Republic of Germany

Tel: 49 2204 43 720

Fax: 49 2204 43 148

Email: hillman@bast.de

Walter Winkelmann

Betriebsleiter

DEUTAG GmbH & Co. KG

WORK LEDGEN:

Zur Dinkel 15-17

48739 Ledgen

Federal Republic of Germany

Tel: 02566/3017

Fax: 02566/4085

VERWALTUNG:

Albert-Hahn-Straße 5-7

47269 Duisburg

Federal Republic of Germany

Tel: 0203/7685-0

Fax: 0203/7685-232

The Netherlands

A. Antoniadis

Hoofd Asfalttechnologie

APNH BV

ASFALTPRODUKTIE NOORD

 HOLLAND

Aziëhavenweg 20

1046 BK Amsterdam

Postadres: Postbus 272, 1940 AG

Beverwijk

The Netherlands

Tel: 020-6118435

Fax: 020-6149709

ir. L.A. Bosch, FRICS

Head, Infrastructure

Ministry of Transport PublicWorks

 and Water Management

Directorate-General of Public Works

 and Water Management

Road and Hydraulic Engineering

 Division

Van der Burghweg 1, P.O.Box 5044

2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands

Tel: 31 15 251 83 50

Fax: 31 15 251 85 55

Email: l.a.bosch@dww.rws.minvenw.nl

Henk Brons

Manager, Legal Affairs

Vereniging van Afvalverwerkers

Catharijnesingel 55v

Postbus 19300

3501 DH Utrecht

The Netherlands

Tel: 31 0 30 232 30 30

Fax: 31 0 30 233 21 22

Email: h.brons@vvav.nl

R. Buterman

Opzichter Weg-en Waterbouw

Province Noord-Holland

Zijlweg 245, Haarlem

Postbus 205, 2050 AE Oveereen

The Netherlands

Tel: 023 514 52 92/06

FAX:023 514 50 50

Email: B&upro@noord-holland.nl

Internet: www.noord-holland.nl
108

APPENDIX C

G.J. van Driel

Stafmedewerker

VERMEER Infrastructuur BV

Rayon Noord-Holland

Spaarneweg 31 Cruquius, Postbus 199

2130 AD Hoofddorp

The Netherlands

Tel: 023 548 72 60

Fax: 023 548 72 99

Email: g.j.van.driel@vermeer.nl

Internet: www.vermeer.nl

Rein T. Eikelboom

Directore-General for Environmental

 Protection

Ministry of Housing and Spatial

 Planning and the Environment

Department of Soil Protection/ICP 625

Soil Protection and Soil Quality

 Section

8, Rijnstraat, P.O. Box 30945

2500 The Hague, The Netherlands

Tel: 31 70 3394299

Fax: 31 70 3391290

rein.eikelboom@dbo.dgm.minvrom.nl

Rob J.P. Henneveld

Project Manager

CROW-Information and Technology

Centre for Transport and

 Infrastructure

P.O. Box 37, NL-6710 BA Ede

The Netherlands

Tel: 31 318 620410

Fax: 31 318 621112

Email: henneveld@crow.nl

Internet: www.crow.nl

ir. Roeland Heuff

Director

LCHG, Logistiek Centrum Hergebruik

 Grond

Postbus 270 AG Delft

Antonia Veerstraat 3

2614 HT Delft, The Netherlands

Tel: 015-256 47 72

Fax: 015-257 24 98

Peter Leender

Directielid

INSULINDE RECYCLING B.V.

Deccaweg 38

1042 Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Tel: 020-614 90 07

Fax: 020-611 96 85

Adrian J. van Leest, Msc

Project Manager

CROW

PO Box 37, NL-6710 BA Ede

The Netherlands

Tel: 31 318 620410

Fax: 31 318 621112

Email: vanleest@crow.nl

ir. S.M. Drillenburg Lelijveld

Standardization Consultant,

Environment

Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut

Industry Division

Kalfjeslaan 2, P.O. Box 5059, NL-2600

Delft, The Netherlands

Tel: 31 15 2 690 390

Fax: 31 15 2 690 190

Email:

Sven.Drillenburglelijveld@nni.nl

ir. Robert W.M. Naus

Hoofd Lwaliteisdienst en

Advies & Ontwikkeking

VERMEER Infrastructuur BV

Spaarneweg 31 Cruquius, Postbus 14

2130 AA Hoofddorp, The Netherlands

Tel: 023 548 29 74, Fax: 023 548 29 79

Email: r.naus@vermeer.nl

Internet: www.vermeer.nl

Kees Nije, Msc

Executive Director

CROW

P.O. Box 37, NL-6710 BA Ede

The Netherlands

Tel: 31 318 620410

Fax: 31 318 621112

Email: nije@crow.nl
109

APPENDIX C

J.H. Spaans, Director

APNH BV, ASFALTPRODUKTIE

 NOORD HOLLAND

Zuiderkade 14, 1948 NG Beverwijk

Postadres:

Postbus 272

1940 AG Beverwijk, The Netherlands

Tel: 0251-278110

Fax: 0251-278120

Robert-Jan van der Berg

Head RAW-users support group

CROW

P.O. Box 37, NL-6710 BA Ede

The Netherlands

Tel: 31 318 6220410, Fax: 31 318

621112

Email: vandenberg@crow.nl

Internet: www.crow.nl

W.J.F. van der Hulst

Bedrijsleider

VERMEER Infrastructuur BV

Rayon Noord-Holland

Spaarneweg 31 Cruquius

Postbus 199, The Netherlands

Tel: 023 548 72 67

Fax: 023 548 72 99

Internet : www.vermeer.nl

ir. J. Th. Van der Zwan

Research Coordinator

Infrastructure, Laboratorium

Ministry of Transport, Public Works

and Water Management

Road and Hydraulic Engineering

 Division

Tel: 31 15 251 83 91

Fax: 31 15 251 85 55

Email:

j.t.vdzwan@dww.rws.minvenw.nl

M.H.P. Venhuizen

Constructeur/Projectmedeweker

Provincie Noord-Holland

Zijlweg 245, Haarlem

Postbus 205

2050 AE Overveen

The Netherlands

Tel: 023 514 53 63

Fax: 023 514 50 50

ir. J. G. ten Wolde

Reststoffenunie Waterleidingbedrijven

B.V.

Groningenhaven 7

3430 PE Nieuwegein

Postbus 1072

3430 BB Neiuwegein

The Netherlands

Tel: 030-6069721

Fax: 030-6069720

Email: restoffenunie@compuserve.com

Dr. H.A. van der Sloot

Soil & Waste Research - Department

Fuel Cells, Conversion & Environment

ECN, P.O. Box 1, 1755 ZG

Petten, The Netherlands

Tel: +31-224 564249

Fax: +31-224 563163

Email: vandersloot@ecn.nl

Aart Dijkzeul

Directorate-General for

 Environmental Protection

Ministry for Housing, Spatial

 Planning and the Environment

Department of Waste Policy/ICP 645

8, Rijnstraat, PO Box 30945

2500 GX The Hague

The Netherlands

Tel: 31 70 3394191

Fax: 31 70 3391284

Email:

Aart.dijkzeul@da.dgm.minvrom.nl
110

APPENDIX C

France

Jacques Alain Bernard

DLB, Docks de Limeil-Brévannes

Recyclage de Béton

B.P. 1- Rue Albert Garry prolongée

94451 Limeil-Brévannes Cedex,

France

Tel: 01 43 82 57 55

Fax: 01 43 89 62 46

François Chaignon

Directeur Technique et Développment

Direction Générale Internationale

Ouest

COLAS

7, place René Clair

92653 Boulogne-Billancourt Cedex,

France

Tel: 01 47 61 75 12

Fax: 01 47 61 74 81

Email: fchaignon@compuserve.com

Katharina Charousset

Ingénieur

Caractérisation et Traitement des

Déchets et Sols Pollués

Institut National De L’Environnment

 Industriel et Des Risques (INERIS)

Parc Technologique ALATA-B.P.No 2

60550 Verneuil-en-Halatte, France

Tel: 03 44 55 61 51

Fax: 03 44 55 68 72

Email: ineris@ineris.fr

Jean-Hugues Colombel

Chef de la Section “Chaussées”

Centre d’Etudes Techniques de

L’Equipment

Normandie Centre (CETA)

10, Chemin de la poudrière, BP 245

76121 Le Grand Quevilly Cedex,

France

Tel: 02 35 68 81 73

Fax: 02 35 68 81 72

Jean-François Corté

Technical Manager Road Section

LCPC

Rout de Pornic, PB 19

44340 Bouquenais, France

Tel: 33 40 84/58 00 (Direct - 58 15)

Fax: 333 40 84/59 97

Ivan Drovadaine

Jean LeFebvre

5/7 rue Gustove Eiffel

91351 Grigny, France

Email: ivan.DROVADINE@JEL.com

Cristian Franck

Ingénieur Géotechnicien

Department Sol, Sous-Sol et

 Écosystèmes

INERIS

Parc technologique ALATA , B.P. No 2

60550 Verneuil-en-Halatte, France

Tel: 03 44 55 65 05

Fax: 03 44 55 67 00

Denis François

LCPC

58, bd Lefebvre

75732 Paris Cedex 15, France

Tel: 33(1)40 43 50 00

Fax: 33(1)40 43 54 98

Email: denis.francois@lcpc.Fr

Eric Giroult

Ministère de l’Equipment, des

 Transports et du Logement

Tour Pascal B

92055 La Défense Cedex, France

Tel: 33 (01) 40 81 68 38

Fax: 33 (01) 40 81 23 93

Anne Gobbey

Industry Environmental Impact and

 Technology Department

Waste Behavior Assessment

ADEME-Centre D’Angers

Agency for Environment and Energy

 Management

2, square La Fayette, B.P. 406

49004 ANGERS Cedex 01, France

Tel: 33 2 4191 4046

Email: anne.gobbey@ademe.fr
111

APPENDIX C

Georges Pilot

LCPC

58, bd Lefebvre

75732 Paris Cedex 15, France

Jean-Paul Van Hoove

Chargé de Mission

Ministère de l’Equipment, des

 Transports et du Logement

Tour Pascal B-92055 La Défense

Cedex, France

Tel: 01 40 81 29 51

Fax: 01 40 81 27 31

Email: jean-paul.vanhoove@equipment. gouv.fr

Christophe Jozon

Directeur Adjoint Ile-De-France

Jean LeFebvre

Direction Ile-De-France

76, Boulevard Robert Schuman

BP 100

93891 Livry-Gargan Cedex, France

Tel: 01 49 36 50 44

Fax: 01 49 36 51 04

Corine Lac

Chef de Projet

TRIVALOR sa

Ingwnierie Dechets Et Energies

367 avenue du Grand Ariétaz - Bissy

73000 Chambery, France

Tel: 04 79 69 89 69

Fax: 04 79 69 06 00

François de Larrard

Division Chief

Methods and Facilities for Road

 Construction and Maintenance

LCPC

Rout de Bouaye, BP 4129

44 341 Bouguenais Cedex, France

Tel:(33)2 4084 5638

Fax:(33)2 4084 5992

Email: larrard@lcpc.fr

Maurice Lefort

Chef du Groupe Chaussées

Laboratoire Régional De L’Ouest

Parisien

LCPC

12 Teisserenc-de-Bort

78190 Trappes, France

Tel: 01 34 82 12 25

Fax: 01 30 50 83 69

Email: lrof@wanadoo.fr

Jean Pierre Marchand

Technical Manager, Technical

 Department

EUROVIA

18 place de l’Europe

92565 Rueil-Mamaison, Cedex, France

Tel: 33 01 47 16 38 00

Fax: 33 01 47 16 38 01

Email: jpmarchand@eurovia.com

Jacques Méhu

C-director

INSA LYON

Polden-Pollution Waste &

 Environment

INSAVALOR s.a.- Division POLDEN

BP 2132, 69603 Villeurbanne Cedex,

France

Tel: 33 4 72 43 8386

Fax: 33 4 72 43 9866

Email: polden@insa-lyon.fr

François Miersman

Development and Technical Manager

Surschiste

299, rue Saint-Sulpice, B.P. 513

59500 Douai, France

Tel: 03 27 71 56 72

Fax: 03 27 71 56 79

Email: surschiste.siege@wanadoo.fr
112

APPENDIX C

Henri Molleron

President-Directeur Général

COLAS, Environnement et Recyclage

7, place René Clair

92653 Boulogne-Billancourt Cedex,

France

Tel: 01 47 61 74 49

Fax: 01 47 61 74 77

Email: molleron@siege.colas.fr

Jean-Pierre Nègre

Assistant Manager for Technical

 Engineering Departments and Local

 Agencies

Ministry for Public Works, Housing,

 Transportation and Tourism

Highways and Motorways Division

La Grande Arche, 92055 Paris

La Défense Cedex, France

Tel: 01 40 81 14 91

Fax: 01 40 81 19 30

Jacques Reynard

Directeur

Centre Technique et de Promotion des

 Laitiers Siderurgiques (C.T.P.L.)

Immeuble la Pacific - TSA 20002

92070 La Défense Cedex, France

Tel: 01 41 25 61 51

Fax: 01 41 25 93 55

Pierre Silvestre

Centre d’Études Techniques de

 l’Équipement

25, avenue François-Mitterrand

Case no1 - 69674 Bron Cedex, France

Tel: 04 72 14 31 90

Fax: 04 72 14 33 11

Email:

pierre.silvestre@equipement.gouv.fr

Jean-Claude Vautrin

Counseiller technique

Centre de la Sécurité et des

 Techniques Routières

46, avenue Aristide Briand-BP 100-

92225

Bagneux Cedex, France

Tel: 01 46 11 34 03

Fax: 01 46 11 36 80

Email: vautrin@setra.fr
113

FHWA INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY EXCHANGE REPORTS

Infrastructure

Geotechnical Engineering Practices in Canada and Europe

Geotechnology—Soil Nailing

International Contract Administration Techniques for Quality EnhancementCATQEST

Pavements

European Asphalt Technology

European Concrete Technology

South African Pavement Technology

Highway Information Management

Highway/Commercial Vehicle Interaction

Bridges

European Bridge Structures

Asian Bridge Structures

Bridge Maintenance Coatings

European Practices for Bridge Scour and Stream Instability Countermeasures

Advanced Composites in Bridges in Europe and Japan

Planning and Environment

European Intermodal Programs: Planning, Policy and Technology

National Travel Surveys

Safety

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety in England, Germany and the Netherlands

Speed Management and Enforcement Technology: Europe & Australia

Safety Management Practices in Japan, Australia, and New Zealand

Road Safety Audits—Final Report

Road Safety Audits—Case Studies

Innovative Traffic Control Technology & Practice in Europe

Commercial Vehicle Safety Technology & Practice in Europe

Operations

Advanced Transportation Technology

European Traffic Monitoring

Traffic Management and Traveler Information Systems

European Winter Service Technology

Snowbreak Forest Book – Highway Snowstorm Countermeasure Manual

(Translated from Japanese)

Policy & Information

Emerging Models for Delivering Transportation Programs and Services

Acquiring Highway Transportation Information from Abroad—Handbook

Acquiring Highway Transportation Information from Abroad—Final Report

International Guide to Highway Transportation Information

Also available on the internet

Only on the internet at www.international.fhwa.dot.gov



	


 
!
"#

$
 %

 &
 


&
!'
()

	* +,--+)-,-

* +,--+)--

	.
/010%

///0	0
/010%

2	30
+4++(

+5"56#