Contacts BIO Intelligence Service Mathieu Hestin mathieu.hestin@biois.com Véronique Monier veronique.monier@biois.com

TEL + 33 (0) 1 53 90 11 80 

## A project under the Framework contract ENV.G.4/FRA/2008/0112



# SERVICE CONTRACT ON MANAGEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION

WASTE – SR1
Final Report

February 2011 

# European Commission (DG ENV)

In association with

# Project Team

 Bio Intelligence Service Véronique Monier Shailendra Mudgal
Mathieu Hestin
Manuel Trarieux
Sihame Mimid

Lena Domröse

 Arcadis Mike Van Acoleyen

 IEEP Peter Hjerp

Suggested citation: Véronique Monier, Mathieu Hestin, Manuel Trarieux, Sihame Mimid, Lena Domröse, Mike Van Acoleyen, Peter Hjerp and Shailendra Mudgal, 20 11, Study on the management of construction and demolition waste in the EU. Contra ct 07.0307/2009/540863/SER/G2, Final report for the European Commission (DG Environment)

.

Disclaimer The views expressed in this report are the sole res ponsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commi ssion. The recommendations given by the authors should not be interpreted as p olitical or legal signal that the Commission intends to take a given action.

# Table of contents

1. CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVES ............................

................................................... 6
2. METHODOLOGY .......................................

................................................... ..... 7
3. OVERVIEW OF C&D WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS IN THE EU ........................ 9

3.1. Definitions .......................................

................................................... ................................................... 9
3.2. Quantities and nature of C&D waste arising in the E U ................................................. ...................... 10
3.3. Recovery and recycling of C&D waste in the EU .....

................................................... ......................... 19
3.4. Current policies and standards ....................

................................................... .................................... 23
3.5. Towards the 70% target ............................

................................................... ....................................... 28
3.6. Annex: Data tables ................................

................................................... ........................................... 36 4. Material focus: CONCRETE ..........................

................................................... . 37

4.1. Product description and applications ..............

................................................... ................................ 38
4.2. Quantitative analysis .............................

................................................... .......................................... 40
4.3. Recovery techniques ...............................

................................................... ......................................... 44
4.4. Environmental and economic impacts of concrete wast e management ...................................... ...... 46
4.5. Towards the 70% target: Drivers and barriers ......

................................................... ........................... 53 5. Material focus: BRICKS, TILES AND CERAMIC ......... .......................................... 55

5.1. Product description and applications ..............

................................................... ................................ 56
5.2. Quantitative analysis .............................

................................................... .......................................... 56
5.3. Recovery techniques ...............................

................................................... ......................................... 57
5.4. Environmental, economic and social impacts of brick s, tiles and ceramics waste management ....... 59
5.5. Towards the 70% target: drivers and barriers ......

................................................... ........................... 64 6. Material focus: ASPHALT ...........................

................................................... .. 65

6.1. Product description and applications ..............

................................................... ................................ 66
6.2. Quantitative analysis .............................

................................................... .......................................... 67
6.3. Recovery options ..................................

................................................... ........................................... 73
6.4. Environmental and economic impacts of asphalt waste management ....................................... ....... 79
6.5. Towards the 70% target: Drivers and barriers ......

................................................... ........................... 83 7. Material focus: WOOD ..............................

................................................... .. 85

7.1. Product description and applications ..............

................................................... ................................ 86
7.2. Quantitative analysis .............................

................................................... .......................................... 86
7.3. Recovery options ..................................

................................................... ........................................... 89
7.4. Environmental, economic and social impacts of wood waste management .................................. .... 91
7.5. Scenario towards the 70% target: Drivers and barrie rs ................................................ ...................... 94 8. Material focus: GYPSUM ............................

................................................... . 96

8.1. Product description and applications ..............

................................................... ................................ 97
8.2. Quantitative analysis .............................

................................................... .......................................... 99
8.3. Recovery techniques ...............................

................................................... ....................................... 1028.4. Environmental and economic impacts of gypsum waste management ........................................ .... 104

8.5. Towards the 70% target: Drivers and barriers ......

................................................... .......................... 107 9. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................

................................................... 111 10. CONTACT LIST ......................................

................................................... ..... 117
11. Annex I: OZONE DEPLETING SUBSTANCES ............... ...................................... 121

11.1. Product description and applications ..............

................................................... ............................... 122
11.2. Quantitative analysis .............................

................................................... ......................................... 122
11.3. Recovery techniques ...............................

................................................... ....................................... 125
11.4. Environmental and economic impacts ...............

................................................... ........................... 127
11.5. Relevance to the 70% target .......................

................................................... ................................... 129 12. APPENDIX I: HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES PRESENT IN C&D WAS TE .................. 130

12.1. Asbestos ..........................................

................................................... ............................................... 130
12.2. Phenols ...........................................

................................................... ................................................ 13 8
12.3. PCB (Polychlorinated Biphenyls)....................

................................................... ................................. 140
12.4. PAH (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) ............

................................................... ........................... 142
12.5. General conclusion and recommendations ............

................................................... ........................ 143 13. APPENDIX II: CASE STUDY GERMANY ................... ......................................... 144

13.1. Sources of information ............................

................................................... ....................................... 145
13.2. Contacts ..........................................

................................................... ................................................ 14 6
13.3. Context ...........................................

................................................... ................................................ 14 6
13.4. Policy and standards overview .....................

................................................... .................................. 148
13.5. Quantitative data .................................

................................................... .......................................... 152
13.6. Practices in C&D waste management .................

................................................... ............................ 156
13.7. Past and future trends of C&D waste, drivers and ba rriers ............................................ ................... 157 14. APPENDIX III: CASE STUDY FLANDERS ................. .......................................... 160

14.1. Sources of information ............................

................................................... ....................................... 162
14.2. Contacts ..........................................

................................................... ................................................ 16 3
14.3. Context ...........................................

................................................... ................................................ 16 3
14.4. Policy and standards overview .....................

................................................... .................................. 164
14.5. Quantitative data .................................

................................................... .......................................... 168
14.6. Practices in C&D waste management .................

................................................... ............................ 170
14.7. Past and future trends of C&D waste, drivers and ba rriers ............................................ ................... 176 15. APPENDIX IV: CASE STUDY SPAIN ..................... ............................................. 181

15.1. Sources of information ............................

................................................... ....................................... 182
15.2. Contacts ..........................................

................................................... ................................................ 18 3
15.3. Context ...........................................

................................................... ................................................ 18 3
15.4. Policy and standards overview .....................

................................................... .................................. 185
15.5. Quantitative data .................................

................................................... .......................................... 191
15.6. Practices in C&D waste management .................

................................................... ............................ 197
15.7. Past and future trends of C&D waste, drivers and ba rriers ............................................ ................... 19816. APPENDIX V: CASE STUDY FINLAND .................... .......................................... 202

16.1. Sources of information ............................

................................................... ...................................... 203
16.2. Contacts ..........................................

................................................... ............................................... 204
16.3. Context ...........................................

................................................... ............................................... 204
16.4. Policy and standards overview .....................

................................................... ................................. 204
16.5. Quantitative data .................................

................................................... .......................................... 207
16.6. Practices in C&D management .......................

................................................... ............................... 211
16.7. Past and future trends of C&D waste, drivers and ba rriers ............................................ .................. 212 17. APPENDIX VI: CASE STUDY HUNGARY ................... ........................................ 214

17.1. Sources of information ............................

................................................... ...................................... 214
17.2. Contacts ..........................................

................................................... ............................................... 214
17.3. Context ...........................................

................................................... ............................................... 215
17.4. Policy and standards overview .....................

................................................... ................................. 215
17.5. Quantitative data .................................

................................................... .......................................... 220
17.6. Practices in C&D waste management .................

................................................... ........................... 222
17.7. Towards 70% re-use, recycling and recovery ........

................................................... ......................... 222 18. APPENDIX VII: WORSHOP MINUTES ..................... ......................................... 224

18.1. PREAMBLE ..........................................

................................................... ........................................... 224
18.2. .GENERAL PRESENTATION OF THE PROJECT ..............

................................................... .................... 224
18.3. THE CONCRETE FRACTION .............................

................................................... ................................ 227
18.4. THE CERAMIC FRACTION...............................

................................................... ................................. 227
18.5. THE ASPHALT FRACTION ..............................

................................................... .................................. 228
18.6. THE GYPSUM FRACTION ...............................

................................................... ................................. 229
18.7. THE UK EXAMPLE: THE CONSTRUCTION RESOURCES AND WAST E ROADMAP ................................. 230
18.8. CONCLUSION ........................................

................................................... ......................................... 231 19. APPENDIX VIII : Stakeholders comments on the draft final report .................. 2326 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 

# 1. CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVES

In the context of the Framework Contract on the Sus tainable Management of Resources 1
, the European Commission (EC) is supporting studies for the definition of necessary knowledge regarding the current use of natural reso urces. This will be the basis for the development of future European policies in the area of sustainable resource management. Construction and demolition (C&D) waste has been id entified by the EC as a priority stream because of the large amounts that are generated and the high potential for re-use and recycling embodied in these materials. Indeed, a pr oper management would lead to an effective and efficient use of natural resources an d the mitigation of the environmental impacts to the planet. For this reason, the Waste Framework Directive 2 (WFD) requires Member States (MS) to take any necessary measures to achieve a minimum ta rget of 70% (by weight) of C&D waste by 2020 for preparation for re-use, recycling and other material recovery, including backfilling operations using non hazardous C&D wast e to substitute other materials. The first step towards the implementation of this D irective is the assessment of the current situation within the EU-27. Indeed, C&D waste manag ement practices are assumed to vary greatly from a MS to another. The European Commissi on entrusted BIO Intelligence Service and its partners, ARCADIS and IEEP (Institute for E uropean Environmental Policy), with the present on C&D waste with two major goals. On the o ne hand, the study is aimed at providing precise orders of magnitude regarding the amounts that are generated, already re-used or recycled and the potential for improveme nt. On the other hand, study should identify major concerns that arise regarding the ma nagement of C&D waste within the EU27 and potential drivers towards the improvement of re-use and recycling rates of this specific waste stream. As a consequence, this study on C&D waste represent s a useful tool for the definition of the future steps and trends regarding the management of this waste stream in Europe.

1 www.eu-smr.eu/intro/ 2 Directive 2006/12/EC revised by Directive 2008/98/ ECFebruary 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 7 

# 2. METHODOLOGY

BIO Intelligence Service developed efficient twofol d methodology to collect the quantitative and qualitative data necessary for the assessment of the current situation regarding the management of C&D waste within the EU -27.

 Focus on the materials On the one hand, the focus was made on different fr actions that are most likely found in the C&D stream. The aim here was to describe for ea ch identified fraction the applications that are made in the construction sector (buildings and civil engineering), the amounts of waste that are generated, the composition of the wa ste stream, the treatment options in place, the current re-use and recycling rates alrea dy achieved, and the emerging techniques. Finally, the study for each fraction wa s completed with an assessment on whether the fraction can possibly contribute to the 70% target. Whenever it was possible, a breakdown per MS was realised based on available da ta.
The criteria for the choice of the fractions to be further studied in details depended either on the importance of the fraction in the total C&D waste stream and therefore on the potential contribution the material could bring to the 70% target or on the hazards that can be associated to it. The identified fractions are the following:

• Asphalt

• Bricks, tiles and ceramic

• Concrete

• Gypsum

• Ozone depleting substances (ODS)

• Wood

• Dangerous substances: asbestos, lead based paints ( LBP), phenols, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) and Polycyclic Arom atic Hydrocarbons (PAH) For the analysis of each fraction, a list of contac ts was developed. The experts (as they are referred to further in this report) for each fracti on represent European associations and federations or the Industry (in the producers side as well as waste management side). It was assumed that they would be able to give the mos t precise data at the EU-27 level for a proper assessment of the situation. The process for the collection of the data was the following:

• The preparation of an interview guide: relevant que stions and issues to be tackled with the expert.8 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 • A series of emails were sent to the contacts explai ning the context of the study, asking for availability for the organisation of an interview, inviting to review the interview guide, asking for other relevant contacts

.

• Interviews were then organised. During the intervie w, the expert was asked to give quantitative data as far as possible (producti on, waste generation, waste treatment rates), to express his/her point of view regarding the current management of the waste fraction and the drivers an d barriers towards the 70% target. Finally, the expert was invited to share an y document or source that could provide reliable and relevant data. In total 30 organisations have been contacted, 17 persons answered (more or less concer ned by the study) and 12 interviews were realised. The list of the contacts is given page 117.

• Data obtained from the interviewed experts were cro sschecked with data from other sources when available, and a large stakehold er consultation was realised on the draft final report, during which different p oints of view could be confronted, providing a more reliable, objective as sessment.

 Focus on 5 Member States On the other hand, the accent was laid on five MS t o describe the current situation regarding the management of C&D waste. The goal was to gather more precise information about the management of this waste stream in variou s national situations that can occur within the EU-27 and identify best practices. The targeted MS were chosen after consultation with project partners and the Commission and were estimated to represent the wide variety of the practices in the construction sector and the management of waste. The targeted MS are the following: Finland, Belgium (Region of Flanders), Germany, Hungary and Spain. T hey are presented as case studies. For this purpose, a similar methodology as the one used for the study on material fractions was adopted and aimed at getting reliable informati on for the experts of the sector in each MS. As for the interview per MS, a case study template was defined to ease the collection of quantitative and qualitative data. This was sent to the relevant contacts before an interview was planned. The list of the contacts is given page 117. Thanks to the interviews organised with the experts for the fractions or case studies, we had access to reliable sources of information that are summarised in the literature review chapter, page 111.February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 9 

# 3. OVERVIEW OF C&D WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS IN THE EU

3.1. D EFINITIONS



### 3.1.1. C&D WASTE
The Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC explicitly defines the term ‘waste’ as any substance or object which the holder discards or in tends or is required to discard. Construction and demolition waste is further specif ied in the Waste Framework Directive in reference to the European List of Waste (Chapter 17 ). The ‘definition’ is based on the nature of the waste (type of material) as illustrat ed in the table below. Task 1 report concludes that this nature-oriented d efinition is not sufficient to clearly identify a given waste stream as C&D waste. The recommended theoretical approach to define C&D waste is to take into account both its nature (materials used in buildings) and the ac tivities that originate it (construction and demolition activities), regardless of who performs these activities. However, current reporting does not allow quantifying C&D waste acco rding to this definition, and the available data used as a proxy for the purpose of t his report is “all waste generated under NACE code F (construction sector)”, as reported by Member States to EUROSTAT. The two main problems associated to this definition are:

• It includes non-C&D waste generated by the construc tion sector (e.g. packaging waste, food waste, etc.), that is not included in t he definition of the WFD.

• It excludes C&D waste generated by other economic s ectors (e.g. other industries, households, etc.), that is included in the definition of the WFD. However, the quantities related to the two aforemen tioned waste streams are likely to be relatively small compared to the total amount of C& D waste generated, and will therefore be neglected in the following estimations.


### 3.1.2. C&D WASTE RECYCLING
The quantitative target set by the Waste Framework Directive is the following: **“by 2020, the preparing for reuse, recycling and other materi**  **al recovery, including backfilling operations using waste to substitute other material**  **s, of non-hazardous construction and demolition waste excluding naturally occurring mate**  **rial defined in category 17 05 04 in the list of waste shall be increased to a minimum of 70**  **% by weight.”** In particular, energy recovery is excluded from this scope. It is importa nt to stress that category 17 05 04 (excavated material) is not included in the calcula tion of the target. It was therefore10 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 excluded (when available data made this exclusion p ossible) from the following estimations.



## 3.2. Q UANTITIES AND NATURE OF 

## C&D WASTE ARISING IN THE 

## EU

3.2.1. T OTAL 

### C&D WASTE ARISING

 Available estimates Several recent sources provide with estimates of C& D waste arising in Europe.

Source Total C&D waste arising (million tonnes) C&D waste per capita 3 [WBCSD 2009] (2002 data) 510 1.1 [ETC/RWM 2009](2004 data) 866 1.8 [EUROSTAT 2010] (2006 data) 970 2.0 Various estimates by experts in the sector are also available. Umweltbundesamt, in its 2008 Aggregates Case study, refers to amounts of “more t han 200 million tonnes of these wastes produced every year, excavated materials not includ ed, according to FIR 4 ” [UBA 2008] (i.e. more than 0.5 tonnes per capita). The FEAD estimate s this amount to “1.5 to 2 tons per capita per year, excluding excavation material” [FE AD 2010]. Available estimates are therefore highly variable. These differences are analysed in the following sections in order to identify the sources of discrepancies and correct them so as to estimate these quantities more accurately.

 Analysis of geographic variations ETC/SCP working paper – Present recycling levels of Municipal Waste and C&D Waste in the EU, published in April 2009 [ETC/RWM 2009], gives e stimates of per capita generation levels in all MS, with the exception of Romania and Slovenia. These figures are based on EUROSTAT data, completed by national reporting. The reference year is 2004. Table 1 - C&D waste arising per capita and added va lue of the construction sector [ETC/SRC 2009]

Country C&D Waste arising

(tonnes/capita) Waste factor (1000

t / million € added value) Austria 0.81 0.46 Belgium 1.06 0.955 Bulgaria 0.39 4.53 Cyprus 0.58 0.545 Czech Republic 1.44 4.037 Denmark 3.99 0.578 Estonia 1.12 4.144

3 Population data from EUROSTAT (accessed April 2010 ) for the corresponding years 4 FIR: Fédération Internationale du Recyclage (Europ ean Recycling Industry of C&D waste)February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 11 Country C&D Waste arising

(tonnes/capita) Waste factor (1000

t / million € added value) Finland 3.99 3.239 France 5.5 5.016 Germany 2.33 2.406 Greece 0.37 0.344 Hungary 0.43 1.629 Ireland 2.74 1.312 Italy 0.8 0.778 Latvia 0.04 0.118 Lithuania 0.1 0.343 Luxembourg 5.9 N/A Malta 1.95 N/A Netherlands 1.47 1.264 Norway 0.7 0.194 Poland 0.11 0.41 Portugal 1.09 1.574 Romania N/A 0.02 Slovakia 0.26 1.047 Slovenia N/A 1.261 Spain 0.74 0.525 Sweden 1.14 1.029 United Kingdom 1.66 1.14 EU 27 1.74 **NB: Reported quantities that highly differ from the average are highlighted in orange**  These data show important differences between MS: g eneration per capita ranges from 0.04 tonnes per capita (Latvia) to 5.9 tonnes per c apita (Luxembourg). A cross-analysis with an economic indicator (waste generated per € added value in the construction sector) also results in important diff erences (0.02 to 5.02 thousand tonnes of C&D waste per million Euros added value in the cons truction sector). Six countries (Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, I reland and Luxembourg) report high quantities of C&D waste generation (over 2 tonnes p er year per capita). Seven countries (Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia) report very low levels of C&D waste generation (below 500 kg per year per capita). These high geographical variations cannot be assume d to reflect actual arising of C&D waste. According to the experts interviewed during the course of this study, the main reasons for these discrepancies are the unequal lev els of control and reporting of C&D waste in MS, as well as differences in definitions and reporting mechanisms. The quality of the available data is therefore the main issue in e stimating the quantities of C&D waste generated.12 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 Other explanations for geographical variation inclu de economic reasons (the quantities of C&D waste generated is highly dependent on the rate of new constructions, and the economic growth of the country), architectural habi ts (the types of materials used in construction shows great regional variation, e.g. i n some regions brick is the main construction material, whereas in others concrete r epresents the majority; wood is a major construction material in northern countries like Fi nland or Sweden, etc.), cultural issues (e.g. demolition is seen as a failure in countries such as France, whereas it is regarded in a more positive way in other countries), or technical issues (the quality of the materials used in old construction influences the rate of demoliti on, e.g. more demolition is expected in new MS because of the low quality of the concrete u sed in old constructions). However, an accurate analysis of geographical variations would require reliable data, which is not the case with the current reporting system. The estimations presented below were performed base d on the available data by:

• Excluding excavation waste from the reported quanti ties in order to homogenise the perimeter

• Filling in data gaps/making assumptions for MS wher e no data is available

 Exclusion of excavated material Naturally occurring soil and stones, generated duri ng construction activities (mostly in public works activities) are not to be included in the calculation of the recycling rates. The six countries with high generation per capita g enerate close to 70% of the total C&D waste reported in the EU-27, while hosting only 32% of the population and representing 42% of the GDP 5

. An analysis of national reports for the above count ries shows that the quantities reported in the ETC/SRC working document include high amount s of excavated material, which is not included in the definition of C&D waste for the pur pose of the 70% target set by the WFD.
The inclusion of excavated material does not seem t o be systematic in national reporting. As this flow represents up to 80% (e.g. in France) of the total amount of construction, demolition and excavation waste, uncertainty about their inclusion in national C&D waste statistics is a major source of uncertainty in data on C&D waste. In order to get a better estimate of C&D waste in E urope, data for these six countries were corrected using national reporting excluding excava tion material. Data were also corrected for the UK, where the reported quantities include a round 45% of excavation material. For Finland, no complementary data could be found to co rrect the total amount, although the case study on Finland suggests that excavation mate rials represent an important part of the reported C&D waste. It was therefore assumed, based on the fraction of excavation materials reported in other countries, that 75% of the total C&D waste reported in Finland is excavation material.

5 EUROSTAT GDP figures for 2009, last accessed May 2 010February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 13 For these six countries, the following results are obtained:

Table 2 - Exclusion of excavation waste for countri es with high generation per capita

Country Reported quantities

(tonnes per capita) 6 Quantities (tonnes per capita), excluding excavation material Denmark 3.99 0.83 7
Finland 3.99 1.00 8

France 5.50 0.99 9
Germany 2.33 0.88 10
Ireland 2.74 0.63 11 Luxembourg 5.90 1.42 12
The resulting ranges of quantities of C&D waste ari sing are the following:

• C&D waste (excluding excavation material): 0.63 to 1.42 tonnes per capita per year

• C&D waste + excavation waste: 2.3 to 5.9 tonnes per capita per year

 Incomplete reporting Very low levels of generation reported in some Memb ers States probably reflects a lack of control by public authorities and therefore a very incomplete reporting of C&D waste arising. As a result, these quantities were assumed to be underestimated and the average generation rate per capita for other countries was applied 13 (0.94 tonne per capita per year). Countries to which this correction was applied are the following: Table 3 - Filling of data gaps for countries with l ow reporting (“low data” assumption)

Country Reported quantities

(tonnes per capita) 6 "Low data" assumption (tonnes per capita) Bulgaria 0.39 0.94 Cyprus 0.58 0.94

6 ETC/RWM 2009 7 Danish Environmental Protection Agency (DEPA), Was te Statistics 2004: 4.50 million tonnes of C&D waste 8 Assumption of 75% excavation material 9 ADEME&FNTP (Public works waste) and ADEME&FFB (Bui lding C&D waste): 82% excavation material 10 See Annex, Case Study Germany: 72.4 million tonnes of C&D waste excl. excavation material 11 Irish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Natio nal Waste Report 2008: 77% excavation material 12 ENECO S.a., Stand und Perspektiven bei der Entsorg ung von unbelasteten mineralischen Inertabfällen im Grossherzogtum Luxemburg, 2003: 76 % excavation material (2002 estimation)14 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011

Country Reported quantities

(tonnes per capita) 6 "Low data" assumption (tonnes per capita) Greece 0.37 0.94 Hungary 0.43 0.94
Latvia 0.04 0.94
Lithuania 0.10 0.94
Poland 0.11 0.94
Romania 0.00 0.94
Slovakia 0.26 0.94
Slovenia 0.00 0.94

 New estimation of total C&D waste arising in EU-27 Building on the most recent consolidated data [ETC/ RWM 2009], and applying the corrections mentioned above (exclusion of excavated materials when possible and data filling when data was assumed to be incomplete), an estimate of 0.94 tonnes per capita of C&D waste (excluding excavation material) is made. This would amount to a total of approximately 461 million tonnes in 2005. Table 4 shows the new estimations per Member States (Table 1, corrected with the new estimations presented in Table 2 and Table 3Table 3 ). Table 4 - Generation of C&D waste in EU-27 (ETC/RWM 2009 data, with new assumptions made by BIO)

Country Generation

of C&D waste (tonnes per capita) (a) Pop. 2004

(million inhab.) (b) Total

generation in million tonnes (2004) (a*b) Pop. 2005

(million inhab.) (c ) Total

generation in million tonnes (2005) (a*c)
Austria 0,81 8,2 6,6 8,3 6,7 Belgium 1,06 10,4 11,1 10,5 11,1 Bulgaria 0,94 7,8 7,3 7,7 7,3 Cyprus 0,94 0,7 0,7 0,8 0,7 Czech Republic 1,44 10,2 14,7 10,3 14,8 Denmark 0,83 5,4 4,5 5,4 4,5 Estonia 1,12 1,3 1,5 1,3 1,5 Finland 1,00 5,2 5,2 5,3 5,2 France 0,99 62,8 62,1 63,2 62,6 Germany 0,88 82,5 72,4 82,4 72,3 Greece 0,94 11,1 10,4 11,1 10,5 Hungary 0,94 10,1 9,5 10,1 9,5 Ireland 0,63 4,0 2,5 4,1 2,6 Italy 0,80 58,5 46,8 58,8 47,0 Latvia 0,94 2,3 2,2 2,3 2,2February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 15 Country Generation

of C&D waste (tonnes per capita) (a) Pop. 2004

(million inhab.) (b) Total

generation in million tonnes (2004) (a*b) Pop. 2005

(million inhab.) (c ) Total

generation in million tonnes (2005) (a*c)
Lithuania 0,94 3,4 3,2 3,4 3,2 Luxembourg 1,42 0,5 0,7 0,5 0,7 Malta 1,95 0,4 0,8 0,4 0,8 Netherlands 1,47 16,3 24,0 16,3 24,0 Poland 1,00 38,2 38,2 38,2 38,2 Portugal 1,09 10,5 11,5 10,6 11,5 Romania 0,94 21,7 20,4 21,6 20,3 Slovakia 0,94 5,4 5,1 5,4 5,1 Slovenia 0,94 2,0 1,9 2,0 1,9 Spain 0,74 42,3 31,3 43,0 31,8 Sweden 1,14 9,0 10,3 9,0 10,3 United Kingdom 0,91 60,1 54,8 60,4 55,2

EU 27 1,09 490,38 459,60 492,41 461,37 This estimate will be used for the purpose of this study, however it must be stressed that the uncertainty is extremely high. This chapter tries to assess the possible ranges of quantities of C&D waste in Europe. To this end, quantities of C&D waste reported for the 6 countries which have reported the highest ratios per capita are presented. It is assu med that these countries are likely to have the most comprehensive data, and therefore represen t the most reliable and representative sources. The following ranges were extrapolated from the abo ve assumptions. Table 5 - Estimated ranges for the average generati on of C&D waste in the EU, based on the above assumptions
Low estimate High estimate Generation of C&D waste per capita (tonnes, Table 2 ) 0.63 1.42 Generation of CD&E waste per capita (tonnes, Table 2 ) 2.74 5.9 Total generation of C&D waste (million tonnes) – 20 05 309 697 Total generation of CD&E waste (million tonnes) - 2 005 1,346 2,898
C&D waste quantities are therefore likely to range between a total of 310 and 700 million tonnes per year in the EU-27 (0.63 to 1.42 tonnes p er capita per year). The systematic inclusion of excavation waste would significantly i ncrease these amounts, ranging from a total of 1 350 to 2 900 million tonnes of waste per year (2.74 to 5.9 tonnes per capita per year). The quality and reliability of the data curr ently available do not allow for a more precise range to be identified.16 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011  Construction waste and demolition waste
Construction waste on one hand, and demolition wast e on the other are for the purpose of this study, considered as a whole. Current data doe s not allow a global distinction of these two categories. However, they have quite different characteristics, both in terms of quantities, composition and potential for recovery.
Construction waste (originating from new constructi ons) is usually less mixed, less contaminated, and its recovery potential is higher than demolition waste because of these characteristics. Its share in the total quantities of C&D waste is generally low (e.g. 16 % in Finland).
On the other hand, demolition (and rehabilitation) waste, which represents the highest amounts of C&D waste, tends to be more contaminated and mixed, and therefore is more difficult to recover.

 Conclusions Current data on C&D waste does not allow for a good estimate of the total quantities generated in Europe. A harmonisation of reporting mechanisms and definit ions clearly needs to be undertaken, and, in particular, excavation material needs to be systematically distinguished from the “core” C&D waste. Reporting and calculation methods are currently bei ng discussed, and a Technical Adaptation Committee (TAC) has met at several occas ions in 2009 and 2010 to discuss the issues related to the targets set by the Waste Fram ework Directive (including the target on C&D waste). The process will lead to a Commission D ecision clarifying the reporting obligations of each Member State, with the objectiv e of harmonising data used to estimate the total amounts of C&D waste and the recycling ra tes. This should result in more reliable and comparable data among MS.


### 3.2.2. C ONTRIBUTION OF KEY MATERIAL AND SUBSTANCES TO 

### C&D WASTE
This section aims at estimating the average materia l composition of C&D waste, based on characterisation data available in some MS, and cro ss checking this data with EU experts estimates.

 Characterisation of C&D waste: available data at th e national level Some Members States have reported results of materi al characterisation of the C&D waste stream. However, this reporting is not systematic, and is frequently based on surveys limited in time and in geographical scope. The following table presents the available characte risation data in 9 MS. The composition of C&D waste varies significantly between those Member s States.February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 17 Table 6 - Material composition of C&D waste for som e European countries (UBA, 2008) 14

Country Netherlands Flanders Denmark Estonia Finland Czech Republic Ireland Spain Germany

Year 2001 2000 2003 2006 2006 2006 1996 2005 2007 Concrete 40% 41% 25% 8% 33% 33% 39% 12% 70% Masonry 25% 43% 6% 35% 54% Other mineral waste 2% - 22% 53% - - 51% 9% -
Total mineral waste 67% 84% 53% 61% 33% 68% 90% 75% 70% Asphalt 26% 12% 19% 4% - - 2% 5% 27% Wood 2% 2% - - 41% - - 4% - Metal 1% 0% - 19% 14% - 2% 3% - Gypsum - 0% - - - - - 0% 0% Plastics - 0% - - - - - 2% - Miscellaneous 7% 2% 28% 16% 12% 32% 6% 12% 3%
As is the case for the estimation of the total amou nt of C&D waste generated, the inclusion of excavated material represent an important bias. In order to obtain more comparable data, the above compositions were corrected in the following table by excluding this particular fraction for Denmark, Estonia and Irelan d. Table 7 - Material composition of C&D waste for som e European countries (UBA 2008, after the exclusion of excavation material) 15

Country Netherlands Flanders Denmark Estonia Finland Czech Republic Ireland Spain Germany

Year 2001 2000 2003 2006 2006 2006 1996 2005 2007 Concrete 40% 41% 32% 17% 33% 33% 80% 12% 70% Masonry 25% 43% 8% 35% 54% Other mineral waste 2% - 0% 0% - - 0% 9% -
Total mineral waste 67% 84% 40% 17% 33% 68% 80% 75% 70% Asphalt 26% 12% 24% 9% - - 4% 5% 27% Wood 2% 2% - - 41% - - 4% - Metal 1% 0,20% - 40% 14% - 4% 3% - Gypsum - 0,30% - - - - - 0,2% 0,4% Plastics - 0,10% - - - - - 2% - Miscellaneous 7% 2% 36% 34% 12% 32% 12% 12% 3%

14 Highlighted cells show fractions that were identif ied as including large amounts of excavation waste 15 Green cells highlight data that were corrected18 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 The table below summarises the ranges in compositio n of C&D waste observed for those MS (except Estonia and Finland 16 ), as well as the quantities resulting from this co mposition (based on the estimation performed in 3.2.1. for t otal C&D waste, i.e. 461 million tonnes). Table 8 – Ranges of composition of C&D waste for th e aforementioned MS (except Estonia and Finland)

Ranges % - Min % - Max Million tonnes - Min Million

tonnes -
max Concrete and Masonry - total 40,0% 84,0% 184 387 Concrete 12,0% 40,0% 55 184 Masonry 8,0% 54,0% 37 249 Asphalt 4,0% 26,0% 18 120 Other mineral waste 2,0% 9,0% 9 41 Wood 2,0% 4,0% 9 18 Metal 0,2% 4,0% 1 18 Gypsum 0,2% 0,4% 1 2 Plastics 0,1% 2,0% 0 9 Miscellaneous 2,0% 36,0% 9 166

 Material composing C&D waste: EU-27 estimates
Each material fraction within C&D waste was studied in detail in the course of this project, and the results of this analysis are presented in t he following chapters. Estimates of the amounts of waste generated were requested from the main producers’ federations and waste organisations at the European level. These es timates are summarised in the following table. Table 9 - Experts estimates of waste quantities ari sing for some of the main materials composing C&D waste at the EU level

Material Range

(Million tonnes) Source of estimates

Concrete 320-380 60-70% of C&D waste according to ECP 17 Masonry N/A Asphalt 47 EAPA 18 Wood 10 - 20 [JRC 2009]; [WRAP 2009] Gypsum >4 These are order of magnitudes, as no precise and av ailable data is available at the EU level, and there is still a high uncertainty on these resu lts. However, both sources show comparable orders of magnitude (confirming, in part icular, the preponderance of concrete,

16 Estonia and Finland are excluded because they show very specific composition (with a respectively high part of metal and wood) 17 European Concrete Platform 18 European Asphalt Producers AssociationFebruary 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 19 followed by masonry and asphalt), with the exceptio n of gypsum waste, which seems to be underestimated by the characterisation method. It must be noted that the material composition esti mates are based on individual characterisations of the C&D waste stream, and cann ot be considered as perfectly reliable. In practice, C&D waste (and particularly the minera l fraction) is not systematically separately collected in many MS, and therefore is m anaged as mixed C&D waste. For instance, the most usual way of processing C&D wast e is by crushing the mixed inert fraction to produce recycled aggregates.



## 3.3. R ECOVERY AND RECYCLING OF 

## C&D WASTE IN THE 

## EU

There is currently no reliable data on recovery and recycling rates of C&D waste in the EU. Data on C&D waste treatment suffers from the same g aps and inconsistencies as generation data. Please note that hereafter, “recycling rates” will be refer to the rates of “preparation for reuse, recycling and other form of material recover y 19 ”, as defined by the Waste Framework Directive.
Let’s first have a look at available data. Two recent sources (UBA 2009 & ETC/RWM 2009) provid e recycling and recovery rates of C&D waste in some MS. Both sources are based on nat ional reporting, through either EUROSTAT or individual questionnaires sent to MS. T here are important differences between these two sources, both on quantities of C& D waste arising and reported recycling rates. These differences are again due to several i nconsistencies in the perimeter and definition of C&D waste. Some figures include excav ated material while some others do not (for example, Germany generates 73 million tonnes o f C&D waste without excavation soil [UBA 2008] and 192 million tonnes with excavation s oil [ETC/RWM 2009]). Likewise, some figures include waste from public works, while some others do not (for example, France generated 47.9 million tonnes of C&D waste from bui ldings, and this figure amounts to 343 million tonnes when waste from public work – which also includes a large part of excavation material – is included ([UBA 2008]).

19 It must be stressed that the definition of recycli ng itself is not yet homogeneous between MS. However, given the lack of information on the actua l final destination of the waste, it will be assumed that reported “re-use and recycling rates” in each MS matches the definitions of the Waste Framework Directive.20 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 Table 10 - Comparison of reported recycling rates f or C&D waste from two recent sources (UBA 2008 & ETC/RWM 2009)

Source UBA 2009 ETC/RWM 2009

Country Year Arising (million tonnes) % re-used

or recycled Year Arising (million tonnes) % re-used

or recycled

Austria 2004 6,6 76% 2006 6,7 60% Belgium 12,3 86% 2004 11 68% **Belgium - Brussels** 2000 1,2 59% - - - **Belgium - Flanders** 2006 9 92% - - - **Belgium - Wallonia** 1995 2,1 74% - - - Bulgaria - - - 2004 3 - Cyprus - - - 2004 0,4 1% Czech Republic 2006 8,4 30% 2006 11,8 23% Denmark 2003 3,8 93% 2004 21,7 94% Estonia 2006 2,4 73% 2006 0,7 92% Finland 2004 1,6 54% 2004 20,8 26% France 2004 47,9 25% 2004 342,6 62% Germany 2002 73 91% 2006 192,3 86% Greece 1999 2 5% 2004 4,1 - Hungary - - - 2006 5,4 16% Ireland 2005 2,3 43% 2006 16,6 80% Italy 2004 46,5 - 2004 46,3 - Latvia - - - 2006 0,1 46% Lithuania 2006 0,6 - 2006 0,6 60% Luxembourg 2005 7,8 46% 2004 2,7 - Malta - - - 2004 0,8 - Netherlands 2005 25,8 95% 2005 25,8 98% Poland 2000 2,2 75% 2006 16,8 28% Portugal 1999 3 5% 2004 11,4 - Romania - - - 2005 0,4 - Slovak Republic - - - 2004 1,4 - Slovenia 2005 1,1 53% - - - Spain 2005 35 - 2006 38,5 14% Sweden 2006 11 - 2004 10,2 UK 100,4 82% 2006 114,2 65%

**UK - England** 2005 89,6 80% - - - **UK - Scotland** 2003 10,8 96% - - -
Average for x countries with available data 86% 66%
Total amount of C&D waste on which the estimation is based 252,7 820,2February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 21 In view of these fragmentary data, what could be sa id at the EU-27 level? Overall, it seems very difficult to calculate recyc ling rates for C&D waste in Europe. UBA 2009 reports recycling rates for 16 countries, representing 64% of the total amount of C&D waste generation they report. ETC/RWM 2009 repo rts recycling rates for 17 countries, representing 90% of the total amount of C&D waste g eneration they report. Based on these two samples, average recycling rates for countries where recycling data is available is respectively 86% and 66%. But these two values are very likely to give overes timated indications of the recycling rate at the EU level. In the 86% calculated for 16 MS from UBA 2008, coun tries with high recycling rates are overrepresented in the sample, and countries such a s Italy or Spain, who reportedly generated high amounts of C&D waste with relatively low recycling rates, are not accounted for. In the 66% calculated for 17 MS from ETC/RWM, relat ively high recycling rates in Germany (86%) and Denmark (94%) are overweighed by the incl usion of high amounts of excavation soil. Countries with low recycling rates such as Po land (28%), or countries with no data available are also underrepresented, and would make the figure drop significantly. The following table shows an attempt at correcting these different biases by:

• Considering the corrected quantities arising (see 1 .1.1.): to avoid the overweighting of countries that include excavation waste in their reporting, and to correct the probable underestimations of quantit ies in countries with incomplete reporting

• Using the most recent recycling rates reported in E TC/RWM by default, and UBA 2009 when missing: although these rates may or may not be including excavated material, it is assumed that the overall recycling rates reflect in any case the situation in a given country

• Assuming a worst case scenario for countries where data is missing in both studies (i.e. 0% recycling rates): countries with l ow reporting are assumed to also have low control, and therefore low recycling rates, for C&D waste Table 11 - Calculation of the average recycling rat e of C&D waste (BIOIS, based on own assumption

and data reported by ETC/RWM 2009 and UBA 2008, or individual estimations)

Country Arising (million

tonnes) % Re-used or

recycled
Austria 6,60 60% Belgium 11,02 68% Bulgaria 7,80 0% Cyprus 0,73 1% Czech Republic 14,70 23%22 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011

Country Arising (million

tonnes) % Re-used or

recycled

Denmark 5,27 94% Estonia 1,51 92% Finland 5,21 26% France 85,65 45% 20 Germany 72,40 86% Greece 11,04 5% Hungary 10,12 16% Ireland 2,54 80% Italy 46,31 0% Latvia 2,32 46% Lithuania 3,45 60% Luxembourg 0,67 46% Malta 0,8 0% Netherlands 23,9 98% Poland 38,19 28% Portugal 11,42 5% Romania 21,71 0% Slovak Republic 5,38 0% Slovenia 2,00 53% Spain 31,34 14% Sweden 10,23 0% UK 99,10 75% 21

EU 27 531,38 46%

UBA 2009 No data available: worst case scenario assumed Reminder: data from ETC/RWM 2009 corrected to exclude excavated material and fill data gaps This average of 46% recycling rate for EU-27 is a broad estimation with a high uncertainty. However, it looks rather plausible, and within the range of estimates proposed by experts and literature: 30 22 to 60% 23

. At a national level, the current situation is as fo llows:

20 Corrected with the exclusion of excavated material (source : Laurent Chateau, ADEME) 21 Corrected with the exclusion of excavated material (source : Survey of Arisings and Use of Alternatives to Primary Aggregates in England, 2005 ) 22 [UBA, 2008] 23 European Concrete Platform, 2010February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 23 • 6 countries report recycling rates that already ful fil the Directive’s target (Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Ireland, the UK and the Netherlands) 24

• 3 countries report recycling rates between 60% and 70% (Austria, Belgium, and Lithuania)

• 4 countries (France, Latvia, Luxembourg and Sloveni a) report recycling rates between 40% and 60%

• 8 countries report recycling rates lower than 40% ( Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Portugal and Spai n)

• For 6 countries, no data was available to estimate the recycling rates (Bulgaria, Italy, Malta, Romania, Slovakia and Sweden)



## 3.4. C URRENT POLICIES AND STANDARDS

Five case studies were performed on European MS: Ge rmany, Finland, Spain, Hungary and Belgium (Flanders). These case studies particularly focused on policy d rivers and regulations influencing the management of C&D waste.


### 3.4.1. E UROPEAN POLICY DRIVERS
The revised Waste Framework Directive, with its obj ective to reach 70% of preparation for re-use, recycling and other forms of material recov ery of C&D waste, is likely to represent the main European policy driver towards better recy cling of C&D waste in the coming years. However, MS are still in the process of integrating the 70% target into their national legislation, and it is currently difficult to asses s how this will be implemented. The actual impact of this target also depends on th e current recycling rates achieved by different MS. For example, in Flanders, the Europea n policy instruments have only played a secondary role, as Flanders was early in adopting m ore stringent waste legislation (e.g. landfill prohibition for unsorted waste, waste coll ected for recovery, homogeneous waste fractions fit for recovery, like C&D waste). As a r esult, the 70% target was already reached in the year 2000. Germany is revising its **Act for Promoting Closed Substance Cycle Waste Management**  , with a target even higher that the WFD (80% in th e draft). On the other hand, for countries with currently low recycling ra tes for C&D waste, reaching the target might represent a significant challenge, and theref ore will need to adapt their current policy framework to achieve it. For example, Spain (with current recycling rates below 15%) is currently revising its national plan on C&D wast e, developing measures and setting intermediary targets. In Finland, European legislat ion has been taken into account but cannot be seen as a major driver behind national st rategy towards C&D waste. The current target set in Finland (70% by 2016) includes energy recovery; high amounts of waste wood

24 At the regional level, Flanders also largely reach ed this target with a recycling rate over 90%.24 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 in C&D waste (up to 40% when excavated soils are ex cluded) indeed represent a serious obstacle towards reaching the target. Directive 99/31/EC on landfill has also represented an important driver towards better management of C&D waste. In Spain for example, wher e most C&D waste is landfilled (and approximately half of this amount entering unauthor ised landfills), it has contributed to a better control of C&D waste, the emergence of a new recycling infrastructure, and a better control of unauthorised landfills.


### 3.4.2. I DENTIFIED NATIONAL POLICIES AND STANDARDS
Current policies and standards influencing the mana gement of C&D waste can be classified into 5 main categories:

• Waste framework policies: National policies or regu lation on waste, usually at least transposing concepts, targets, and obligation s set in the European WFD

• Landfill regulations: as stated above, stricter con trol of landfilling of certain types of waste represents a major driver towards be tter management of C&D waste.

• C&D waste policies: when specific obligations regar ding the management of C&D waste are not directly included in the waste fr amework policies, specific policy or legal documents may have been developed, specifically addressing the issue of C&D waste.

• Secondary raw material regulation and standards, e. g. standards on the quality of secondary materials from C&D waste

• C&D sites regulations and standards, e.g. requireme nts for buildings specifically addressing C&D waste

 Waste framework policies Waste framework policies and regulations developed in MS set the general framework for the management of waste material. They are the main tools for the transposition of the Waste Framework Directive. Most of the MS studied do not integrate specific pr ovisions (other than general objectives) for C&D waste in these waste framework policies, an d this waste is most of the time subject to specific strategies or legal documents, as prese nted below.

 C&D Waste policies and legislation Most of the studied countries also have policies an d regulation specifically targeting C&D Waste. Among the five selected countries and regions, Flanders (Belgium) was the first to implement its **Executing plan C&D waste** in 1995. This first plan already set quantitative targets for the recycling and material recovery of C&D waste (75% by 2000, which has beenFebruary 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 25 exceeded as over 85% of C&D waste were recovered or recycled in 2000). The oldest data available (1992) report that 66% of C&D waste was a lready recycled or reused. This plan also set prevention targets for C&D, but these provisions have not been efficient as the C&D waste amounts have kept increasing. The new **environmentally responsible material use and waste management in the constructi**  **on sector, sectorial executing plan,** aims at achieving this objective, particularly thro ugh:

• Material bound environmental profile of constructio ns, in order to allow the Flemish Government to develop and impose material u se prescriptions after 2009.

• Promoting selective demolition with standardised sp ecifications

• A global management system for rubble granulates

• Promoting further reuse of the stony fractions of C &D waste

• Promoting recycling of specific waste fractions cel lular concrete, gypsum, plastics, flat glass, mineral insulation materials and roofing bitumen.

In Germany , the construction industry itself took the initiat ive in 1996 through a voluntary commitment to cut in half the amounts of C&D waste landfilled (as the reference year was 1995, this was equivalent to reaching 70% of recycl ing and recovery of C&D waste). The construction industry monitors itself C&S waste and has issued 5 bi-annual reports to the authorities, showing over accomplishment of the tar gets. However; some experts interviewed warn that the high amounts of C&D waste landfilled in 1995 (60%) might not reflect reality as these quantities might not have been properly documented at the time, and recycled quantities might already have been hig her. Today, no formal continuation of this initiative is planned at the moment, but highe r targets for C&D waste should be included into national waste regulation as mentione d above.
Finland has adopted a **Government Decision on Construction Waste** in 1997, setting an indicative target of 50% of recycling and recovery (including energy recovery) of C&D waste by 2000. Spain has developed its first national plan on C&D waste in 2001 (PNRCD 2001-2006). There is already a second PNRCD 2007-2015, which is Annex 6 to the national integrated waste management plan (Plan Nacional Integrado de Residuo s, PNIR). It is currently being revised to integrate the new targets set by the WFD. Due to a lack of enforcement and supporting regulation, the first plan has not been successful in diverting C&D waste from landfills. The **Royal Decree 105/2008** , regulating the production and management of C&D w aste, establishes the responsibilities of the waste produ cers, holders, and managers, without setting any quantitative targets. However, this dec ree requires that construction and demolition waste plans have to be established for e very construction project; in addition information on hazardous wastes has to be included in demolition projects. A deposit will have to be paid to the authorities, which will be r eturned when proof of lawful26 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 disposal/recycling of C&D wastes is provided (deta ils hereof are regulated at regional level).

 Landfill legislation All MS have transposed the provisions of the Landfi ll Directive. However, there is still a lack of enforcement in some MS, where some non-compliant landfills have not been closed. The most drastic measures to prevent landfilling of C&D waste were adopted in Flanders , with straightforward landfill bans for recyclable f ractions of C&D waste. The efficiency of this measure was stresses by most experts interview ed. However, its applicability might depend on the local context: in Flanders, low histo rical landfill rates of C&D waste, high density of population and scarcity of landfill spac e available may have contributed to the efficiency of this measure. In addition to landfill bans, high landfill taxes ( e. g. in the Netherlands) have also proven to be a useful instrument to divert C&D waste from lan dfills.

In Germany , high recycling rates were achieved although there is no national ban on landfilling of C&D waste material.

In Spain , however, the lack of control of unauthorised land fills and the high differences in landfill taxes between regions were identified as o ne of the main barrier to the recovery of C&D waste. The very large quantities of C&D waste generated ca n explain that landfill bans and taxes prove remarkably efficient in improving recycling r ates. The Flemish experience shows that landfill bans and high levies on landfilling are a key towards higher recycling rates of C&D waste. These instruments are easy to implement. How ever, their effectiveness depends on appropriate enforcement and control, as well as on the existence of a network of alternative treatment plants.

 Secondary raw material legislation and standards The promotion of recycled material from C&D waste w as also identified as a key driver towards higher recycling rates for C&D waste. Some of the countries studied have used this approach, along with the aforementioned policies an d regulation, to drive the recovery of C&D waste. The examples of such regulations and standards list ed below do not represent an exhaustive list, and only the most relevant were se lected.

In Flanders , the implementation order of the waste framework p olicy (VLAREA) specifically assesses the conditions of use of secondary raw mat erial in construction, particularly on the nature of the waste used and the concentrations of heavy metals and aromatic hydrocarbons. These requirements are mandatory. Oth er standards on construction products, and particularly secondary raw materials, such as COPRO or QUAREA, are generally voluntary but are requested when using se condary raw materials.February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 27 Likewise, in Germany , a draft **Ordinance on substitute construction material** (implementation date not known), will determine the conditions for harmless used of recovered excavation material and mineral waste. It is complemented by mandatory standards on construction material such as the Tech nical delivery conditions for mineral materials in road construction, and multiple DIN 25 standards in the construction sector. The Federal Union of Recycling Building Material (Bunde svereinigung Recycling-Baustoffe e.V. – BRB) has also published guidelines aiming at ensuri ng the quality of recycled material used in construction.

In Finland , the Government Decree on the Recovery of certain wastes in earth construction (591/2006) promotes the recycling of waste in some constructions activities such as public roads, parking areas, sports grounds, etc., by remo ving the obligation of obtaining an environmental permit for the recovery of concrete w aste and fly ashes in these applications. Technical requirements for the use of C&D mineral w aste in the production of aggregates are also addressed by the individual CEN Aggregate Product Standards, which set clear quality requirements for the different types of app lications (e.g. aggregates for concrete, aggregates for mortar, aggregates for unbound and h ydraulically bound materials for use in civil engineering work and road construction, etc.) , and ensure that the end-products are durable and meet their technical specifications. Th ese standards were developed in 2004 and clearly address “aggregates from natural, recyc led and manufactured materials”.

 C&D sites legislation and standards Finally, regulation and standards on environmental performances of buildings and construction sites have been identified. In princip le, these standards could include criteria influencing the management of C&D waste, for exampl e the use of recycled materials in the building, specific requirements for waste managemen t on new buildings construction sites, or during the dismantling and demolition of the bui lding. However, few building standards presenting these types of criteria have been identi fied.

 Building standards Historically, these types of standards have focused on the energy efficiency of buildings, which can explain why C&D waste prevention and recy cling has not been a key target for the criteria they impose. However, some standards or certification schemes ha ve been developed taking into account these issues. For example, the **German Sustainable Building Certificate,** a voluntary scheme run by the German Sustainable Building Counc il (DGNB 26 ) sets different criteria to ensure the sustainability of buildings, and in part icular two criteria regarding C&D waste:

• Within the technical quality criteria, “Ease of dis mantling and recycling”

25 Deutsches Institut für Normung 26 http://www.dgnb.de28 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 • Within the process quality criteria, “Construction site/construction process”, establishing that the waste produced on-site should be prevented or recycled, and, if not recyclable, disposed of in a way that p revents harm to the environment. Other existing building standards (e.g. HQE – Haute qualité environnementale in France, BREAM in the UK) could also encourage th ese practices.

 Other policies Public authorities, as the owner of public infrastr ucture, have an important role to play in the definition of requirements on C&D waste prevent ion and management for the buildings and infrastructure they purchase or control. Europe an GPP (Green Public Procurement) sets a range of recommendations for the procurement of c onstruction works. It addresses the design, construction, use and disposal phase of bui ldings such as public services buildings and office buildings. In particular, the core GPP c riteria require the contractor to put appropriate measures in place to reduce and recover (reuse or recycle) waste that is produced during the demolition and construction pro cess. It is required to have a recovery rate of at least 60% related to weight percentage segregation 27 . Criteria were also set for specific building materials such as windows, therma l insulation, hard floor-coverings and wall panels 28

. 

## 3.5. T OWARDS THE 

## 70% TARGET



### 3.5.1. T RENDS IN THE EVOLUTION OF 

### C&D WASTE ARISING
As presented above, it is very difficult to assess the present situation in Europe, due to lack of homogeneous data and reporting between MS. In th is context, without a precise quantitative assessment of the current situation, i t is not easy to predict trends in the future. However, it is likely that the quantities of C&D wa ste arising will keep increasing, at least as fast as the economy. The case of Flanders, although achieving high recycling rates, shows that there might even be a negative decoupling, mea ning that the amounts of C&D waste grow faster than the economy. However, the uncertai nty of the decoupling studies does not permit the definition of a clear trend for the next few years. The priority given to waste prevention in European and national policy, as well as more and more voluntary initiatives of the industry towards material efficiency, could set the conditions for a decrease in the amounts of C&D waste generated according to some ex perts, but concrete measures are only starting to be implemented (e.g. WRAP cases st udies on C&D waste prevention 29 ) and it seems unlikely that a decrease (independently of the economic situation) will be observed before 2015.

27 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/pdf/toolkit/con struction_GPP_product_sheet.pdf 28 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/second_set_en.h tm 29 http://www.wrap.org.uk/construction/tools_and_guida nce/designing_out_waste/case_studies.htmlFebruary 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 29 Considering these difficulties in addressing the qu estion of the evolution of the amounts of C&D waste generation, great care must be taken with the following estimat es

. Two approaches were taken to forecast the quantitie s of C&D waste, each with its own limits:

Forecast #1 : based on the production index of the construction sector (EUROSTAT data series from 2005 to 2009, industry estimates from 2 009 to 2013, and gross BAU estimates for the period 2014-2020)

Forecast #2 : based on assumptions on the new constructions, re novation and demolition rates from 2005 to 2020. For this forecast, the fol lowing assumptions were made:

• Stable demolition rate at 0.1% per year over the co nsidered period

• BAU new construction waste of 1% per year, with a s light decrease in 2008, 2009 and 2010 due to the economic crisis

• BAU renovation rate of 1.2% per year, with an incre ase in the period 2009 to 2011, due to stricter energy efficiency targets

• C&D waste arise from demolition (25%), renovation ( 60%) and new construction (15%) The results obtained with these two forecasts are p resented in the table below.

Table 12: Future trends in the generation of C&D wa ste

Year Forecast #1 (million tonnes) Forecast #2

(million tonnes) 2005 461 461 2006 477 466 2007 487 470 2008 469 454 2009 427 514 2010 413 531 2011 413 535 2012 423 539 2013 434 491 2014 445 496 2015 456 501 2016 467 506 2017 479 511 2018 491 516 2019 503 521 2020 516 52630 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 Both estimates reflect the effect of the economic c risis, with decreases in the amounts generated between 2007 and 2008. Whereas forecast # 1 shows a continuous decrease until 2011(due to the economic crisis) and then a progres sive increase, forecast #2 suggests that amounts of C&D waste generated start increasing aga in in 2009 (mainly due to more important renovation activities linked to stricter environmental criteria for buildings. On the long term, these effects cancel out and both forecasts show similar patterns, with a total generation of C&D waste in 2020 around 520 million tonnes. **Reminder: these figures exclude excavated material. If this fraction taken into account, the**  **amounts of C&D waste generated are likely to be 4 t imes higher; the total production would**  **therefore amount to approximately 2 100 million ton nes in 2020.**  As far as the composition of C&D waste is concerned , it is likely to be similar in the coming years: the mineral fraction (concrete and masonry i n particular) represents the large majority of C&D waste (up to 85%), and, with the ex ception of countries where wood is a major building material, will represent the main co ntribution to the 70% target.


### 3.5.2. B ARRIERS AND DRIVERS TOWARDS THE 

### 70% TARGET
Without any dramatic economic event, it seems that the amounts and composition of C&D waste will follow the trends that have been observe d to this day. Existing barriers, and drivers to overcome them, will therefore still be r elevant in the near future.

 Economic barriers: High availability and low cost o f raw materials The largest share of C&D waste is usually composed of concrete, masonry, asphalt and other mineral waste such as stones, sand, or gravel . The main barrier to recycling of this mineral fraction is that virgin material that would be substituted by the recycled fraction (such as natural aggregates) are often easily and l ocally available, and can be produced at low costs. As a result, the economic attractiveness of secondary raw materials from mineral C&D waste can be low compared to virgin raw materia ls; recycling of the mineral fraction of C&D waste has been mostly successful in high-densit y area, where virgin raw materials extracted from quarries are less available 30

. The main corresponding policy option to overcome th is is making landfilling of waste unattractive, by introducing a ban or high levies o n landfilling of C&D waste has proven to be a driver towards higher recycling rates; it lead s to an increase in the supply of secondary material from mineral C&D waste, which in turn tend s to make them more economically attractive (higher availability and lower prices). Alternatively, taxes on resource extraction could c ontribute to increase the price of primary raw materials and make recycling more competitive.

30 For instance, the choice of resources used to prod uce aggregates is directly related to comparative processing costs, market price and distance to mark et. WRAP carried out two detailed assessments of this relationship, one for England [WRAP 2006] a nd the other for Scotland [WRAP 2007].February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 31 Cross-border effects can also hinder the recycling of C&D waste; in particular, local or regional differences in legislation and landfill pr ices can contribute to the export of C&D waste to countries where landfilling is authorised and/or cheaper (e.g. exports of gypsum waste from Denmark and the Netherlands to Germany). A harmonisation of landfill regulations and prices among Member States would co ntribute to overcome this problem. The example of the deposit system in Spain (compani es must pay a deposit to the local authority, which is paid back when proof of appropr iate treatment of the waste is given) is another example of an economic incentive. Regarding C&D waste generated in smaller amounts by other economic sector, and in particular by households, experiences of take-back centres in countries such as Denmark or France (where C&D waste can be brought free of char ge by residents) has been reported to be efficient.

 Cultural barriers: Misconception of the quality of recycled products Recycled aggregated from the mineral fraction of C& D waste still suffer from misconception about their quality by consumers, especially for th eir use in structural application (e.g. use of secondary aggregates in the production of struct ural concrete). The main corresponding drivers to overcome this are :

• Turning waste into a valuable raw material: this ca n be achieved through quality certification of secondary raw material from C&D wa ste.

• Communicating on the benefits of secondary raw mate rial: it has been proven that up to 20% of recycled aggregates can be used i n structural concrete, without changing the quality of the product. In cer tain applications, such as road works, recycled aggregates present better propertie s than virgin aggregates. Knowledge transfer from MS with a long experience i n recycling C&D waste can be crucial and facilitate a fast adoption of new te chnologies and procedures in MS which are setting up now schemes for recycling o f C&D wastes. Partnership projects between MS or regions and activities of Eu ropean industrial federations could help bridge this knowledge and experience gap

.

• Development of end-of-waste criteria for materials as foreseen in the Waste Framework Directive could also contribute to improv e the image of the recyclates and reduce uncertainty of the markets.

• Further research on applications of recycled C&D wa ste and particularly on longterm behaviour could contribute to reduce uncertain ty linked to the use of recycled products.

• Green Public Procurement (GPP): given the significa nt share of public funded construction, GPP can play a major role to promote recyclates and the use of recyclable materials. This voluntary instrument can help stimulate a critical mass of demand for more sustainable construction materia ls which otherwise would32 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 be difficult to get onto the market. A number of re gions and municipalities are applying GPP criteria but further use should be enc ouraged.

 Technical barriers: ineffective sorting and contami nation of the waste flow The key to the successful recycling of the mineral fraction of C&D is that the waste collected is “clean”, i.e. free of contaminants and other mat erials. The main drivers to overcome this are the following :

• Encourage the sorting of C&D waste “at source”: eff orts should be made to sort out the different materials composing C&D waste; cl ear identification of materials and potential contaminants should be perf ormed in order to avoid contamination of the inert fraction and ensure high quality of recycled material. This will also drive the separation and collection of “smaller”, but valuable fractions such as glass, metals, plastics, gypsum, etc., and the appropriate management of hazardous materials such as ODS conta ining foams.

• Selective demolition / controlled deconstruction: p ractices of “controlled deconstruction”, consisting in the systematic remov al of contaminants prior to demolition, as well as the sorting of different bui lding materials, should be encouraged and generalised.


### 3.5.3. I S THE 

### 70% TARGET ACHIEVABLE 

### ?
As 5 MS already achieve recycling rates of 70% or m ore, some of them very comfortably (with recycling rates over 80%), it would seem that this objective is feasible. However, countries with very low recycling rates (less than 40%) will certainly face a challenge in reaching this target, as it will be necessary to de velop the appropriate infrastructure, as well as markets for the recycled products. For exam ple, Spain, with a current reported recycling rate below 15% will need to put significa nt efforts into controlling the enforcement of existing regulation at the national level; however, some experts are optimistic as local case studies in Spain have show n that recycling rates over 90% are feasible. The mineral fraction of C&D waste should easily fin d applications as aggregates in road construction and in structural concrete for example , as long as the quality of the secondary materials is ensured, through early decontamination of the waste and quality certification. Focussing on this stony fraction should be, in most cases, sufficient to guarantee a recycling rate close to, if not higher than 70%. Moreover, as the recovery of mineral waste requires selective demolition and the appropriate sorting of C&D waste, this is likely to drive the recycling of the smaller fractions and contribute a lso to a separation and better management of fractions of hazardous C&D waste.February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 33 However, it must be stressed that some countries su ch as Finland report relatively low shares of mineral waste compared to wood waste 31 . These countries might face more difficulties in reaching the target, as energy reco very of wood waste, which is encouraged by European and national policies as a renewable so urce of energy, is not included in the 70% target set by the Directive, and re-use and rec ycling options are limited. It might be relevant to consider an amendment to the 70 % targe t in the case of wood waste, with a prior assessment of whether energy recovery from wo od waste presents equal, or higher, environmental benefits than recycling or material r ecovery. Last but not least, achievability of the 70% target will also depend on the capacity of the market to absorb recyclates. This can be especially relevant during economic downturns: construction activities can decline because of econ omic or sectorial crisis, rendering absorption of recyclates temporarily difficult.


### 3.5.4. B EYOND THE CURRENT 

### D IRECTIVE 

### ’ S TARGETS
The WFD sets a target of 70% of preparation for re- use, recycling, and other forms of material recovery of C&D waste, including backfilli ng. The findings of this study suggest that this objective should be achievable for most MS. Th is therefore raises the question of how to go beyond this objective. Four main directions c an be considered.

1- Increasing the target First, from a quantitative point of view, the best practices in Europe show that – depending on the context – recycling rates over 80% or 90% ar e feasible. For those countries which are already achieving higher re-use, recycling and reco very rates, the WFD does not provide an incentive to achieve higher targets. In principle, differentiated targets for these MS could be set in the WFD or alternatively, in their nation al legislation (some MS have already set or are setting more ambitious targets in their nationa l legislation).

2- Setting a hierarchy within the different options pe rmitted to reach the target Secondly, the treatment options that can be used to reach the target do not provide equal environmental benefits. For instance, the brief env ironmental assessments performed in this study suggest that, at least for the mineral f raction (particularly concrete and masonry), environmental benefits of preparation for re-use ar e significantly higher than those of recycling. This is mainly due to the fact that the processing of aggregates from C&D waste is similar to the processing of virgin aggregates (sim ilar energy consumption and dust emissions during the crushing steps, similar fuel c onsumption for transportation, etc.). On the other hand, the production of building material s like concrete and bricks is energy intensive, and the avoidance of this production thr ough preparation for re-use would represent high environmental benefits. Moreover, some of the experts interviewed warn that the definition of “backfilling” should be strictly clarified in order to avoid “hiding” la ndfilling operations in this definition.

31 See Table 634 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 Moreover, backfilling operations should be register ed and notified to authorities, as this is the case for recycling operations. Specific environ mental concerns related to backfilling have been raised: for example, there is a need to c ontrol hazardous substances in backfilling to avoid the leaching of hazardous subs tances in the environment. The suspicion of asbestos contamination of road pavements, built 20 to 25 years ago in the Netherlands, illustrates this problem. It is difficult to assess how backfilling can contr ibute to reaching the target, as there is no specific reporting on this type of material recover y. Available data and interviews with experts suggest that this practice is quite limited in countries like Flanders or Germany, which achieve high recycling rates. Clearer definitions are therefore required, and it would likely be interesting to address the relevance of setting individual targets for prepara tion for re-use and recycling on one hand and other forms of material recovery (including bac kfilling and other forms of “downcycling”) within the overall target of the Dir ective. This would ensure higher overall environmental benefits of reaching the target.
3- Addressing “small” fractions of C&D waste more speci fically The 70% target itself does not directly represent a n incentive for the appropriate treatment of the smaller fractions of C&D waste 32 , which can be nonetheless valuable as secondary material (glass, plastics, metals, etc.) To some ex tent, fractions that can be easily separated and have a high market value (e.g. metals) are alre ady re-used, recycled or recovered. For other fractions, single targets or other incentives could be envisaged. In addition, some C&D waste fractions represent a s ignificant environmental challenge (ODS containing insulating foams, asbestos, and oth er hazardous substances). In principle, separation of the fractions falling which are class ified as hazardous wastes and implementation of legal provisions regarding manage ment of hazardous waste would allow avoiding negative impacts on health and the environ ment. However, these fractions could also be addressed more specifically (e.g. ODS conta ining foams through ODS regulations) in order to ensure that the best environmental options are adopted. In that case, better implementation of European legislation on hazardous waste (and particularly the obligation to sort out this waste) is required, and would in t urn increase the recyclability of the nonhazardous C&D waste, as it would lower the contamin ation of the recyclable materials. Moreover, demolition companies should also take EU legislation regarding health and safety aspects at work into account when dealing th ese hazardous wastes and ensure the workers take preventive measures.

4- Setting quantitative targets for the prevention of C&D waste Waste prevention being at the top of the hierarchy, the reduction and re-use of building materials should be also addressed more specificall y, through the promotion of increased

32 In most cases, it seems that the target can be ach ieved by recycling the most important fractions that are concrete, masonry and asphaltFebruary 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 35 material efficiency, eco-design of buildings (parti cularly design to reduce the need for deconstruction), and re-use of building parts. Give n the huge amounts of materials concerned, and the potentially high environmental s avings, C&D waste prevention should be specifically addressed when setting waste preven tion targets (to be developed by 2014 by the Commission). Methodological and practical gu idance on designing out waste in construction has been developed by WRAP, both for b uildings 33 and in civil engineering 34

. This guidance is supported by a Net Waste Tool 35 for assessing the cost benefits of a range of waste reduction and re-use options. Such options include design optimisation (reducing the amounts of material needed for the construction ), design that allows re-use of components or life-time extension for refurbishment , etc.
5- Avoiding distortions Different conditions in neighbouring regions and/or MS can lead to distortions in the management of C&D waste and hinder recycling. Some co-ordination of policies (especially between regions) would be helpful since low landfil l fees in a given region can divert C&D waste from recycling schemes in a neighbouring regi on, even within the same country. In addition, the example of gypsum wastes (which are b een e. g. applied in Germany for rehabilitation of decommissioned potash mines) show s that backfilling operations can undermine existing recycling schemes.
6- Developing End-of-Waste criteria The End-of-Waste (EoW) concept in EU legislation wa s introduced in 2005 by the Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste, and was later adopted by the European Parliament and the Council in the revised Waste Fra mework Directive in 2008. Setting EoW criteria for certain types of C&D waste could contr ibute to increasing the market for secondary raw materials obtained from C&D waste. In this respect, the recent ECHA decision stipulating recycled aggregates as “Articl es” under REACH 36 was welcomed by the industry.

33 http://www.wrap.org.uk/construction/tools_and_guida nce/designing_out_waste/dow_buildings.html 34 http://www.wrap.org.uk/construction/tools_and_guida nce/designing_out_waste/dow_civil_eng.html 35 http://www.wrap.org.uk/construction/tools_and_guida nce/net_waste_tool/index.html 36 ECHA, Guidance on waste and recovered substances, may 201036 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 

## 3.6. A NNEX 

## : D ATA TABLES

Table 13 - C&D waste generation per capita (raw dat a from ETC/RWM 2009)

Waste generation (tonnes per capita) 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Waste factor (1000t / million € added value) Austria 0,81 0,81 0,46 Belgium 0,84 0,95 0,81 0,8 1,11 1,06 1,22 1,18 0,95 5 Bulgaria 0,39 4,53 Cyprus 0,58 0,545 Czech Republic 0,78 0,91 0,85 0,85 1 1,44 1,2 1,15 4,037 Denmark 3,99 0,578 Estonia 0,57 0,74 0,64 0,94 0,93 1,12 1,61 0,54 4,1 44 Finland 3,99 3,239 France 5,5 5,016 Germany 3,15 3,17 3,05 2,92 2,71 2,33 2,24 2,406 Greece 0,17 0,19 0,41 0,38 0,37 0,37 0,344 Hungary 0,29 0,49 0,59 0,51 0,43 0,49 0,54 1,629 Ireland 1,7 2,74 3,6 3,95 1,312 Italy 0,48 0,54 0,65 0,74 0,8 0,78 0,778 Latvia 0,06 0,03 0,04 0,07 0,05 0,118 Lithuania 0,1 0,18 0,343 Luxembourg 5,9 Malta 1,95 Netherlands 1,14 1,49 1,48 1,47 1,467 1,47 1,58 1,264 Norway 0,24 0,25 0,27 0,28 0,27 0,7 0,32 0,194 Poland 0,11 0,14 0,44 0,41 Portugal 1,09 1,574 Romania 0,02 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,01 0,02 0,02 Slovakia 0,07 0,26 1,047 Slovenia 1,261 Spain 0,59 0,58 0,66 0,74 0,8 0,88 0,525 Sweden 1,14 1,029 United Kingdom 1,74 0,74 0,75 1,66 1,9 1,89 1,14February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report – Management of construction and demol ition waste 37 

# 4. Material focus: CONCRETE

**Applications in the construction sector**  Buildings, roads, infrastructure

**Production in the EU-27**  Total: about 1,350 Mt 37 (2008)

- Ready-mixed concrete: 900 Mt

- Precast concrete: between 200 and 250 Mt

**Waste generation in**

**the EU-27** No specific data available; estimated average: 60-7 0% of total C&D waste (i.e. about 320-380

Mt 38 ), with high geographical variations (20-80% accord ing to MS)

**Treatment options** Landfill Recycling into aggregates for road construction or backfilling Recycling into aggregates for concrete production Re-use of precast elements (concrete blocks)

**Current rates** N/A N/A N/A N/A

**Potential rates** Experts foresee

that 0% landfill can be achieved Could absorb up to 75%

of waste concrete Could absorb up to 135 Mt of recycled aggregates 39 (i.e. 40-50% of waste concrete) N/A

**Environmental impacts**  Land-use, transportation Low to medium net

benefits (as only the preparation of virgin aggregates is avoided) Potential energy and local pollution savings in dense areas (shorter transportation) Land use and biodiversity issues related to extraction Resource consumption Low to medium net benefits (as only the preparation of virgin aggregates is avoided) Potential energy and local pollution savings in dense areas (shorter transportation) High potential net benefits (due to the avoidance of cement production)

**Barriers to re-use and recycling of the** 

**waste** - High availability and low cost of raw material

- Uncertainty on the supply of secondary material

- Misconception of the quality of recycled products c ompared to new materials

**Existing and potential drivers to**  **re-use and recycling of the waste**  - High demand for aggregates in road construction, co upled with a higher quality of

recycled concrete aggregates compared to virgin agg regates

- Design for deconstruction to drive to re-use of con crete blocks

- Sorting at source to increase the quality

- Landfill taxes or landfill bans to promote alternat ives

- Inclusion of requirements for the use of re-use or recycled materials into building standards

- Quality certification for recycled materials

38 Based on about 540 million tons of C&D generated i n EU-27 in 2008 (see chapter 4.1 above) 39 Up to 20% of coarse aggregates used for the produc tion of structural concrete can be made of recycled aggregates. This would represent approxima tely 10% of the concrete mix. 10% x 1,350 Mt = 135 Mt38 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 

## 4.1. P RODUCT DESCRIPTION AND APPLICATIONS

Concrete is a man-made construction material that i s widely used around the world for any type of building or infrastructure due to its physi cal and aesthetic properties. Concrete is made from coarse aggregates (gravel or crushed stone), fine aggregates (sand), water, cement and admixtures. Cement is a hydraulic binder that hardens when water is added and represents between 6 and 15% of the concr ete mix depending on the application while aggregates represent 80% in mass and water 8%. Structural concrete takes almost completely the for m of reinforced concrete which is a composite material consisting of concrete and steel . While concrete provides the material’s compressive strength, steel provides its tensile st rength in the form of embodied reinforcing bars and mesh. Steel reinforcement plays a key role in reinforced concrete structures as it ensures ductile behaviour in earthquakes for example. Reinforcing b ars are usually formed from ridged carbon steel, the ridges giving frictional adhesion to the concrete. The amount of steel used in reinforced products is relatively small. It vari es from 1% in small beams and slabs to 6% for some columns, according to purpose and design c onditions 40

. The steel used in reinforced concrete utilises 100% recycled scrap steel as feedstock 41 and at the end of its life, all reinforcing steel can b e recovered, recycled and used again in a closed-loop system. Steel reinforced concrete can be used for any type of structure (bridges, highways, and runways) and buildings but it is generally used for applications carrying heavy loads such as footings, foundation walls and columns. The different applications of concrete are illustra ted in the following figure.

40 [Mehta] 41 http://www.sustainableconcrete.org.uk/main.asp?page =53February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 39 Figure 1 – Concrete various applications [WBCSD, 20 09]

As shown previously, buildings and civil engineerin g infrastructures are the two main applications of concrete and are developed in the f ollowing sub-sections. A special focus is also laid on reinforced concrete as it is a very sp ecific application with precise composition, properties and uses.


### 4.1.1. B UILDINGS

Concrete is a well established construction materia l that is widely used across Europe for all types of buildings: residential (individual, apartm ent) and non residential (public, commercial, industrial and agricultural). Each of t hese applications represents approximately 30% of the total use of concrete alth ough differences appear between MS 42

. For example, residential applications are likely to represent a more important share in southern European countries (Spain for instance) du e to wide residential construction campaigns. The most common uses of concrete in the building co nstruction sector are:

• Foundations

• Floors for ground or upper floor levels

• Structural frames (e.g. beams, columns, slabs)

• External and internal walls, including panels, bloc ks or decorative elements with a whole selection of colours and finishes

42 Interview with Alessio Rimoldi, Secretary General, European Concrete Platform40 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 • Roof tiles

• Garden paving (concrete slabs or blocks, which are virtually everlasting in that type of use). Two types of concrete are distinguished: “Dense concrete” which is invariably used in the co nstruction of industrial and commercial buildings and all infrastructural projects, is stro ng and durable, resists fire, and has good sound insulation, vibration absorption and thermal properties. “Lightweight concrete”, in the form of concrete mas onry blocks, is used mainly in the construction of individual dwelling. Because of the ir inherent properties, concrete blocks used as partition walls typically do not require ad ditional sound or fire protection.


### 4.1.2. C IVIL ENGINEERING
Concrete is well suited for civil engineering const ruction since it is able to resist moisture and weather variations, mechanical constraints, and high temperatures. Concrete also absorbs sound, reduces temperature swings and provi des protection against different types of radiation and rising sea levels. Its inherent durability and strength make it especi ally suitable for the construction of dams; other concrete applications for infrastructures als o include:

• Roads (especially under tunnels for fire prevention , bridges, increasingly road central safety barriers).

• Power plants, many of which use and store potential ly dangerous nuclear fuels, are constructed almost entirely of concrete for saf ety and security reasons.

• Other common industrial applications such as silos, storage tanks, water treatment and run-off catchment systems.



## 4.2. Q UANTITATIVE ANALYSIS



### 4.2.1. P RODUCTION DATA
With a 2006 worldwide consumption estimated between 21 and 31 billion tonnes 43
, concrete is the second most consumed substance in t he world after water.
Concrete is manufactured and delivered to the end-u ser in two main forms: ready-mixed concrete and precast concrete. In terms of volume, at EU-27 level, the total ready -mixed concrete production reached 900 million tonnes 44 in 2008 with a generated turnover of 18.7 billion Euros 45 . An interesting

43 [WBCSD, 2009] 44 Calculated based on the data presented in the foll owing table, assuming an average density for concrete between 2.4 and 2.6February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 41 fact is that the ready-mixed concrete production an d the workforce diminished of 8.5% and 14.7% respectively between 2006 and 2008 while the turnover increased of 10.2% during the same period. The production of precast concrete, on the other ha nd, although smaller in terms of volume (it is estimated that the production of precast con crete represents between one fourth and one third of the production of ready-mixed concrete ), generates a higher turnover 46

. As concrete is generally locally produced, it can b e assumed that the produced quantities of ready-mixed and precast concrete match the quantiti es used in buildings and infrastructure. The following table gives a precise overview of the quantities of ready mixed concrete produced between 2006 and 2008 in some MS, as well as the cement consumption for the same time period.

45 Italy, Spain, France, Austria and Germany account for more than 70% of the total 2008 turnover. 46 Interview with Alessio Rimoldi,42 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 Table 14 - Quantitative data of the ready mixed con crete industry between 2006 and 2008 [ERMCO, 2008] Concrete production (million m 3 ) Growth

rate 2006/20 08 Population

(million inhabitants) Production per

capita Cement

consumption (million tonnes) Growth rate

2006/2008 Country 2006 2008 2006 2008 2006 2008 2006 2008 Austria 11,0 11,5 4,55% 8,27 8,33 1,33 1,38 5,6 5,7 1,79% Belgium 12,2 11,8 -3,28% 10,51 10,60 1,16 1,11 6,3 7,1 12,70% Bulgaria N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Cyprus N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Czech Republic 8,0 9,6 20,00% 10,20 10,38 0,78 0,92 4,8 5,1 6,25% Denmark 2,8 2,7 -3,57% 5,43 5,48 0,52 0,49 1,8 1,9 5,56% Estonia N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Finland 2,7 2,8 3,70% 5,20 5,48 0,52 0,51 1,9 1,9 0 ,00% France 43,3 44,1 1,85% 63,00 63,75 0,69 0,69 23,9 2 4,1 0,84% Germany 43,4 41,0 -5,53% 82,44 82,22 0,53 0,50 28,6 27,3 -4,55% Greece 24,0 22,0 -8,33% 11,13 11,21 2,16 1,96 11,5 10,3 -10,43% Hungary N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Ireland 9,2 10,0 8,70% 4,21 4,40 2,19 2,27 4,7 3,4 -27,66% Italy 77,5 73,2 -5,55% 58,75 59,62 1,32 1,23 45,9 4 1,8 -8,93% Latvia N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Lithuania N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Luxembourg N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Malta N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Netherlands 8,5 10,5 23,53% 16,33 16,41 0,52 0,64 5 ,6 6,3 12,50% Poland 14,2 15,8 11,27% 38,16 38,12 0,37 0,41 14,5 16,8 15,86% Portugal 11,0 11,0 0,00% 10,57 10,62 1,04 1,04 7,8 7,2 -7,69% Romania N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Slovakia 2,9 3,7 27,59% 5,39 5,40 0,54 0,69 2,3 2,6 13,04% Slovenia N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Spain 97,8 69,0 -29,45% 43,76 45,28 2,23 1,52 55,9 42 -24,87% Sweden 3,0 3,5 16,67% 9,05 9,18 0,33 0,38 2,1 2,5 19,05% United Kingdom 25,1 20,5 -18,33% 60,39 61,19 0,42 0,34 13,8 10,2 -26,09% Total/average EU-27 396,6 362,7 -8,55% 442,79 447,67 0,90 0,81 237,0 21 6,2 -8,78%

The concrete production growth rate shows that some countries have known a dramatic decrease reaching almost 30% for Spain and 28% for Slovakia between 2006 and 2008, whereas the Netherlands have on the contrary known a growth of more than 23% and the Czech Republic, 20%. The average evolution scheme w as an increase of the concrete production until 2008 followed by a decline due to the global economic situation 3 . The production of the concrete industry is closely rela ted to the economic situation and the building and infrastructure needs. The per capita production figures show that some co untries have a concrete production largely above the European average of 0.80m 3 per capita: Ireland, Greece and Spain in theFebruary 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 43 first places produce between 1.52 and 2.27m 3 per capita. This again reflects the specific economic and demographic situation in each individu al country. Concrete production is a driver for cement consumpt ion. The ready-mixed concrete industry alone consumed 216.2 million tonnes of cem ent in 2008, i.e. about 75% of the EU27 cement production 47

. 

### 4.2.2. W ASTE GENERATION AND TREATMENT DATA

Concrete waste can arise from different sources: re turned concrete which is fresh (wet) from ready-mix trucks, production waste at a pre-ca st production facility (which are not within the scope of this study) and C&D waste, whic h is the most significant source. Several issues are raised when trying to estimate t he quantities of concrete waste produced and treated. First, available data on concrete waste management and recovery is not always available at the national level as the reporting beyond general C&D waste generation in not systematic. The comparison is also often meaningless due to the discrepancies between MS regarding the definitions and measurement methods, as noted b y the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) 48 . For instance, some countries include excavated so il in their calculation others account for it separately from other C&D waste. Moreover, the concrete C&D fraction is estimated fl uctuating between 20 and 80% of the total C&D waste arising depending on the European c ountry considered. Differences in building traditions, as well as the aforementioned discrepancies in statistical data, can explain the width of this range. A European average of 60% to 70% of the concrete fraction in C&D waste can however be roughly estimated 42

. Moreover, re-use, recycling and recovery rates are also a source of discrepancies between MS. Indeed, the national specific legislation does sometimes encourage such practices (the Netherlands and Germany for example) but does not p rovide incentives in others. For the reasons above, it is currently not possible to estimate a specific recycling rate for concrete. Data produced in the CSI reports presents recycling rates between from 10% to 100%, but these data are not specific to concrete a nd suffer from the non-homogeneous definitions and data reporting presented above.

47 Estimated at 283 million tonnes in 2007 <www.researchandmarkets.com/reportinfo.asp?report_i d=651928> 48 [WBCSD, 2009]44 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 

## 4.3. R ECOVERY TECHNIQUES



### 4.3.1. E XISTING OPTIONS
Although an important fraction of concrete waste is still landfilled within the EU, this practice is being increasingly discouraged. The mai n options for re-use, recycling and other material recovery of concrete waste are described b elow.

 Re-use Concrete can be re-used in various ways in its orig inal form. An example is to leave the concrete structure in place while modernising the i nside space or façade/curtain wall of the building. Another option is the re-use of specific concrete e lements with little processing: pre fabricated elements and concrete blocks are cut in smaller elements and cleaned of mortar. This requires the careful and therefore time-consum ing dismantling of the building to avoid damaging the elements and the transportation to the other construction site.

 Recycling and other material recovery Concrete can be reprocessed into coarse or fine agg regates. The first step is to remove all impurities such as insulation and steel reinforcement before crushing and grading. As a consequence, an effectiv e sorting out at the construction site or at the treatment facility is essential to maximise the recycling potential. Mobile sorters and crushers are often installed on construction sites to allow on-site processing. In other situations, specific processing sites are establish ed. Sometimes machines incorporate air knives to remove lighter materials such as wood, jo int sealants and plastics. Magnet and mechanical processes are used to extract steel, whi ch is then recycled. Once sorted and processed, these aggregates can be used as such in road works, or reintroduced into the manufacturing of concrete. Th ese different possible applications are described below. Coarse aggregates can be used for road base, sub-ba se and civil engineering applications. Finnish research 49 has found that recycled concrete specified to an a greed quality and composition in the sub-base and base layers can all ow the thickness of these layers to be reduced due to the good bearing properties of the m aterial. Indeed, for such an application the unbound cementitious material present in recycl ed aggregates has proved superior behaviour than virgin aggregates such that the stre ngth is improved providing a very good construction base for new pavements. Therefore, the use road construction sector represe nts one of the main applications for recycled concrete aggregates and can significantly contribute to reaching the 70% target

49 [Rudus, 2000]February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 45 (the demand of recycled aggregates for road constru ction could already buffer up to 75% of the concrete waste generated). Coarse aggregates can also be used as a filling mat erial in quarries (referred to as backfilling) which is in practice especially in Eas tern Europe whereas in Western Europe quarries are rehabilitated into leisure spaces. Cru shed concrete can also be used in earthwork constructions, to build streets, yards an d parking areas, as backfilling for pipe excavations, environmental construction, foundation s for buildings, etc. Fine aggregates can also be obtained from concrete waste and used in place of natural sand in mortars. However, the use of recycled concrete f ine aggregates could affect directly the mortar content and therefore its workability, stren gth and can cause shrinkage due to high water absorption. This could increase the risk of s ettlement and dry shrinkage cracking. For these reasons, recycled fine aggregates are not use d in the production of structural concrete. Moreover, the contamination of concrete w ith gypsum may hinder the recyclability of the material, as cleaning represen ts important additional costs, both economical and environmental. The above applications are often referred to as “d own-cycling” 50 as opposed to reintroducing recycled concrete directly into concr ete production, where it can be used as a substitute to natural aggregates. Both coarse and f ine recycled aggregates can be used in concrete production. However, as cement is not recy clable, this option still requires the consumption of virgin cement. Technically, the use of recycled aggregated in the production of concrete is limited for structural re asons. A study by the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA) in the US has co ncluded that up to 10% recycled concrete aggregate is suitable as a substitute for virgin aggregates for most concrete applications. UK research indicates that up to 20% of total aggregates 51 may be replaced by good quality crushed concrete. Under these conditi ons, recycled concrete can be used for most common concrete applications. Actual practices vary greatly; for example, countries like the UK and the Netherlands already achieve a r ecycled concrete content of 20% 52
, whereas this application is almost non-existing in other countries such as Spain 46

.



### 4.3.2. E MERGING TECHNIQUES
Although not commercially feasible at present, some emerging technologies include 53 :

• To replace the fossil fuel reliance of the recyclin g into aggregates process: closed-cycle construction using mechanical and ther mal energy. The University of Delft, together with TNO, is working on a novel closed-cycle construction concept whereby concrete waste and masonry debris a re separated back into

52 Figures for the UK are subject to uncertainty, and some experts estimate they are in fact lower. 53 [WBCSD, 2009]46 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 coarse and fine aggregates and cement stone using m echanical and thermal energy supplied by the combustible fraction of C&D waste. This technique is assumed to encourage the recycling into aggregates while moving away from fossil fuels reliance and the associated environmen tal impacts.

• To improve the efficiency of the crushing process f or the recycling into aggregates option: electrical decomposition of conc rete. To break down concrete (or rocks), high shear stress is needed by way of a shock wave. Conventional technology uses mechanical force. Alte rnatively heat (see above) or electrical energy can be used. Electrical energy can be used to create pulsed power. At the present time, high initial outlay cos ts are a barrier to use; however, niche applications can benefit from this t echnology where high repetition actions are needed. The environmental im pacts of using electricity also need to be considered. This technique is expec ted to encourage recycling into aggregates through possible costs reductions.



## 4.4. E NVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF CONCRETE WASTE

MANAGEMENT

This section describes the environmental and econom ic impacts of concrete by focusing on the impacts of the various treatment options, inclu ding the benefits of re-use and recycling of concrete C&D waste.


### 4.4.1. E NVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH IMPACTS
The following table summarised the impacts and bene fits of the different end of life options for concrete, which are further detailed below. Table 15 – Impacts and benefits for each option for the management of concrete

LANDFILL
Direct impacts Avoided Impacts Net benefits
Transportation of waste to the landfill No significant release of pollutants to water. Use of land space -February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 47 RECYCLING AS AGGREGATES FOR DIRECT RE-USE (E.G. ROA D WORKS) WITH NO FURTHER PROCESSING Substituted material (in the same proportion): aggr egates from rocks and gravel extracted from quarrie s

Direct impacts Avoided Impacts Net benefits

Transportation of waste concrete

Processing of waste concrete into aggregates: dust production and noise during crushing and sieving steps Transportation of recycled aggregates Extraction of raw materials (rocks and gravel for aggregates): land-use for quarries, production of dust, use of natural

resources Transportation of raw materials Quarrying (land use , biodiversity)
Use of Resources

Processing of raw materials into aggregates: dust production and noise

Transportation of aggregates o/+48 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 RECYCLING AS AGGREGATES FOR STRUCTURAL CONCRETE Substituted material (the proportion to which virgi n aggregates are substituted by recycled aggregates is unknown): aggregates from rocks and gravel extract ed from quarries

Direct impacts Avoided Impacts Net benefits

Transportation of waste concrete

Processing of waste concrete into aggregates: dust production and noise during crushing and sieving steps Transportation of recycled aggregates Production of cement: energy consumption, greenhouse gases and pollutants emissions Transportation of cement Concrete production Extraction of raw materials (rocks and gravel for aggregates): land-use for quarries, production of dust, use of natural resources Transportation of raw materials

Quarrying (land use , biodiversity)
Use of Resources

Processing of raw materials into aggregates: dust production and noise

Transportation of aggregates
Production of cement

Transportation of cement Concrete production o/+February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 49 RE-USE OF CONCRETE BLOCKS Substituted material (in the same proportion): manu factured concrete

Direct impacts Avoided Impacts Net benefits

Transportation of waste concrete Processing of concrete blocks: energy for cleaning and decontamination Transportation of concrete to the new construction site Extraction of raw materials (rocks and gravel for aggregates): land-use for quarries, production of dust, use of natural resources, biodiversity Transportation of raw materials Processing of raw materials into aggregates: dust production and noise
Production of cement Transportation of cement Concrete production

Transportation of concrete ++

 Direct impacts of landfilling When landfilling concrete, the release of constitue nts into groundwater is low. The chemical analysis of water samples show dissolved s ubstances at levels much lower than the very stringent limits set by the World Health O rganisation for drinking water 54 . Only the sulphate ion (S04 2- ) is regularly found at high concentrations, but al ways much lower than the levels found in many popular brands of mineral waters 55

. The major environmental impact of landfilling comes from the use of space for the storage of inert C&D waste. This is particularly relevant i n countries where land is scarce and disposal costs are expensive.

 Direct impacts of reprocessing into aggregates As presented in the previous section, recycling of concrete involves processing into coarse or fine aggregates, through processes that are simi lar to those used with natural aggregates (screening, crushing and transportation). The emissions of dust and particles produced during the crushing step of concrete but also during the storage phase before re-using, are proba bly the most important environmental impact during the treatment of concrete C&D waste 56 and can cause serious health problem for workers. The activities that can genera te dust are the following:

54 [WHO, 2006] < http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/gdwq 0506.pdf > 55 [ECP, 2009] 56 [VITO, 2006]50 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 • Loading of aggregate onto storage piles (batch or c ontinuous drop operations).

• Wind erosion of pile surfaces and ground areas arou nd piles.

• Load-out of aggregate for shipment or for return to the process stream (batch or continuous drop operations). The emissions from the sorting processes can be con trolled by spraying water on the piles of crushed concrete to avoid dust dispersion into t he air. The noise from the machines at the crushing step of aggregates, both virgin and recycled, for the production of concrete is one of the major health concerns. Indeed, at some work stations it can reach 85dB 57 during the production process. Efforts have been made to mitigate the effects on w orkers thanks to quieter machines and the use of hearing protection inside concrete plant s which is compulsory. When concrete is being placed, it is usually compac ted by vibration which can damage workers’ hands and can be avoided through the re-us e of concrete.

 Net benefits of re-use and recycling The benefits of re-use and recycling of concrete de pend on the material that recycled concrete substitutes. Substitution to coarse or fine aggregates After recycling into coarse or fine aggregates, was te concrete simply replaces virgin aggregates (crushed rocks, gravel, sand) that would otherwise have been extracted from quarries and processed. Recycling therefore avoids the use of natural resou rces and land space in quarries. Quarrying activities might also generate biodiversi ty issues, which are avoided through recycling. On the other hand, avoided impacts related to trans portation and processing of virgin aggregates are not significantly different from tho se generated to prepare recycled aggregates. In some cases, however, recycled aggreg ates can be locally available, reducing the transportation distances. This would result in positive net benefits, particularly in fuel consumption and greenhouse gases emissions 58

. Overall, the environmental benefits of recycling of concrete into coarse or fine aggregates are probably moderate.

57 [ECP, 2009] 85dB is equivalent to the noise create d by a dense freeway traffic; as a comparison, a pneumatic drill generates between 100 and 110DB and a plane taking off 120dB. 58 A case study presented in the report of the WBCSD, estimating the outcome of recycling 85% C&D waste (mostly concrete) into aggregates for road wo rks, showed a potential reduction of 77% of the energy consumption, mainly due to reduced transport ation (of waste to landfills and of raw materials from quarries to construction sites).February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 51 Re-use – Substitution to manufactured concrete The direct re-use of concrete blocks avoids the pro duction of concrete, and therefore the associated impacts of cement production. Indeed, most environmental impacts of concrete prod uction originate from the production of the cement composing it (at least 80% of the imp acts during the production process 59 ). The following table illustrates these results for t he energy consumption indicator (cement production accounts for 82% of the total energy con sumption necessary for the production of all the concrete components).

Table 16 – Energy consumption associated with each concrete constituent 60

Other significant impacts of cement production are the release of carbon dioxide during the decarbonation of limestone (about 60% 61 of the total CO 2 emissions generated during the cement production 62 ) in the cement kiln at a very high temperature, bu t also nitrous oxide (NO x ), sulphur dioxide (SO 2 ), small quantities of chlorides, fluorides, carbon monoxide, heavy metals, organic compounds and dust. The typical greenhouse gases emissions for the manu facturing of cement are estimated at 0.6 tonne of CO 2 per tonne of cement thanks to the efforts to increa se the efficiency of the firing process in the cement kiln 8 . Moreover, the use of CO 2 -neutral fuels (30% of the total fuel used during the production process) and the us e of alternative materials have lead to substantial CO 2 savings. Experiments carried out in Northern Europe have shown that the level can even be lowered to 0.35 tonne of CO 2 per tonne of cement by implementing even further these measures. Taking into consideration the avoided production of cement when reusing concrete, the following table illustrates the potential savings a t the EU-27 level.

59 [Habert, 2008] **The following indicators were studied: energy consu mption, global warming**  **potential, acidification, eutrophication, ozone dep letion, human toxicity among others**  60 [Struble, 2004] 61 [ECP, 2009] 62 The remaining 40% CO2 emissions are generated thro ugh fuel combustion and the use of electrical power.52 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 Table 17 – Re-use of concrete: CO 2 savings through avoidance of cement production

Greenhouse gases emissions: t eq. CO 2 /t cement Greenhouse gases emissions 63 : t eq. CO 2 /t concrete Greenhouse

emissions at the EU27 level 64 : in million tonnes eq. CO 2 Potential savings

(hyp: 10% re-used concrete): in million tonnes eq. CO 2

Current situation 0.6 0.07 64.8 6.48 Scenario 1: optimal efficiency of cement production (based on best available techniques observed in Europe) 0.35 0.04 37.8 3.78

The re-use of concrete blocks can therefore have si gnificant environmental benefits, mostly through the avoidance of cement production.


### 4.4.2. E CONOMIC IMPACTS
Despite the environmental benefits of recycling con crete, its limited production costs do not encourage re-use and recycling. Nevertheless, using recycled concrete can also show economical advantages, depending on the local situa tion. The identified factors include:

• Proximity and quantity of available natural aggrega tes

• Reliability of supply, quality and quantity of C&D waste (availability of materials and capacity of recycling facility)

• Government procurement incentives

• Standards and regulations requiring different treat ment for recycled aggregate compared to primary material

• Taxes and levies on natural aggregates and on landf ill Recycled concrete aggregates in Europe can sell for 3 to 12 € per tonne with a production cost of 2.5 to 10 € per tonne. The higher selling p rices are obtained on sites where all C&D waste is reclaimed and maximum sorting is achieved, there is strong consumer demand, lack of natural alternatives and supportive regulat ory regimes. The following figure illustrates the geographic var iation in the comparable profit margin. In Paris there is a lack of natural aggregates making recycled aggregates an attractive alternative and the recycling market is driven main ly by civil works companies. In Rotterdam, higher production costs for recycled mat erials compared to virgin materials are compensated by high tipping fees. In Brussels the l ack of landfill space pushes C&D companies to drop market prices to find solutions f or their waste, while in Lille the

63 Calculation based on an average 12% cement content in concrete 64 900 million tonnes as shown in 4.2.1.February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 53 abundance of quarries makes the higher production c osts a limiting factor (as raw materials have lower costs). Figure 2 – Comparison of the market prices for natu ral and recycled materials in some European cities [WBCSD, 2009]



## 4.5. T OWARDS THE 

## 70% TARGET 

## : D RIVERS AND BARRIERS

As developed in the above sections, concrete C&D wa ste shows high potential improvement for re-use, recycling and other forms o f material recovery. The barriers and drivers identified by the experts interviewed are s ummarised below.

 Use of recycled concrete aggregates in road works: a high potential in the short and mid-term Nowadays, concrete is mainly recycled into aggregat es for road construction and the potential for improvement is still wide but conside ring that the need for such infrastructures will reach its maximum at some poin t 65 and that the demand for aggregates will be sustained mainly through the maintenance an d the replacement of roads, research has to be encouraged to find alternatives that will allow to achieve the 70% target and more in the long term.

 Sorting at source: separation for an improved mater ial quality An effective sorting out of mixed C&D waste is nece ssary to produce a higher noncontaminated concrete C&D waste fraction, to make e asier the further recycling of this specific waste stream and improve the overall recyc ling rates 66

.

65 Interview with Alessio Rimoldi, Secretary General, European Concrete Platform 66 Interview with Alessio Rimoldi, Secretary General, European Concrete Platform54 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011  Landfilling ban: a driver towards the development o f alternatives The landfilling ban at the European level following the example set by the Netherlands would incentivise concrete waste producers into mor e re-use and recycling 67

. This goes hand in hand with the funding of research for the development of new options and for the improvement of the existing options (in terms of energy consumption, efficiency and costs). Moreover, the ban of disposi ng of concrete waste in landfills is likely to ensure a more regular waste supply for recycling industries. According to the European Ready Mixed Concrete Orga nization, the goal of “zero landfill” of concrete can be achieved if the structure of a b uilding is carefully planned and designed, and if the building undergoes successful renovation and deconstruction.

 Quality certification for recycled materials: a sec ure framework for the re-use and recycling of concrete waste Quality certification of secondary materials (obtai ned after concrete waste has been processed) is expected to act as a proof that these materials can meet high security standards and achieve the same properties as virgin materials. Therefore, it is one of the solutions to promote the use of recycled aggregates and concrete blocks by contractors and manufacturers. CEN standards for aggregates already establish such requirements for aggregates used in concrete, mortar, and other appl ications.

 Building conception: designing for the end of life Acting at the design phase of a building is another way of tackling the issue of C&D waste. Indeed, a careful design of the buildings and infra structures would allow the dismantling and maximise the potential for re-use and recycling . Such an approach is also likely to lengthen the service life of buildings, decreasing the amount of concrete waste produced and therefore improving the current re-use and recy cling rates.

 Green building systems: promoting the use of former concrete waste Green building systems (e.g. German Sustainable Bui lding Certificate, HQE – Haute Qualité Environnementale in France, BREEAM - BRE Environmen tal Assessment Method in the UK) can encourage the re-use of concrete elements and t he use of structural concrete made of increasing recycled aggregates by integrating such criteria in their rating charts. This would influence public perception regarding the quality o f recycled concrete and promote large possibilities for its use, by specifically addressi ng the recycled concrete issue in the system.

67 Ibid.February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 55 

# 5. Material focus: BRICKS, TILES AND CERAMIC

**Applications in the construction sector**  Brick: masonry construction especially for building and

Tile: covering of roofs, floors and walls These ceramic products are made of fired clay

**Production in the EU-27**  6.8 billion Euros sales in 2003 (for 23 European co untries)

No data available on quantities

**Waste generation in the EU-27**  N/A

**Treatment options** Landfill Recycling (replaces sand, gravel, stones, rocks e.g. to fill roads, to produce tennis sand, to serve as aggregate in concrete) Re-use

**Current rates** N/A N/A N/A

**Potential rates** N/A N/A N/A

**Environmental impacts**  Land-use, transportation Few significant net benefits when crushing is needed (as only the preparation of virgin aggregates is avoided) or some net benefits when crushing is not necessary
Potential energy and local pollution savings in dense areas (shorter transportation) Higher potential net benefits (due to the avoidance of bricks, tiles and ceramics energy intensive production)

**Barriers to re-use and recycling of**  **the waste** - Reduced costs of bricks, tiles and ceramics produce d from raw materials
**Existing and potential drivers to**  **re-use and recycling of the**  **waste** - Design for the end-of-life (design for deconstructi on to drive to re-use of

bricks and tiles)

- Increase the life span of buildings (>100 years) to reduce the amounts of waste generated.

- Landfill taxes or landfill bans to promote alternat ives56 European Commission DG ENV

Draft Final Report – Management of construction and demolition waste May 2010 

## 5.1. P RODUCT DESCRIPTION AND APPLICATIONS

A ceramic is an inorganic, non-metallic solid prepa red by the action of heat and subsequent cooling. Ceramic materials may have a crystalline o r partly crystalline structure, or may be amorphous. Because most common ceramics are crystal line, its definition is often restricted to inorganic crystalline materials. Ceramics are us ed in buildings as structural products including blocks but also used for external and int ernal walls, for external wall cladding, as pavers, water/sewage pipes, floors and roof tiles. Facing bricks and blocks are ceramic materials that are usually laid using mortar or glues. In many European MS including France, Germany, the UK, bricks have been used in construction for centuries as a part of the archite ctural heritage. A tile is a manufactured piece of hard-wearing mate rial such as ceramic with a hard glaze finish used for covering roofs, floors and walls. M ost ceramic construction products are traditionally made from locally available materials such as clay. The advantage of clay construction products is to b e found in the energy saving during the use phase. Indeed, their density leads to lower var iation in temperature and moisture, i.e. cooler in summer and warmer in winter.



## 5.2. Q UANTITATIVE ANALYSIS



### 5.2.1. P RODUCTION DATA
The European Ceramic Industry is characterised by m ostly small and local producers as well as some global leaders, such as Wienerberger 68 for bricks, roof tiles, blocks and pavers (based in Austria) and Monier 69 for roofing materials for pitched roofs, roof and chimney systems (headquarters in Germany 70 ). The main bricks producing countries are Spain and I taly while France has a very strong roofing tile industry 71

. Data regarding the production of tiles, bricks and ceramic in general at the national level for EU-27 MS is lacking, the reporting not being system atic. The only available data at the European level is an indication of the sales volume for bricks and roof tiles in Europe (limited to 23 countries 72 ), which was estimated at 6.8 billion Euros sales in 2003 (with a 50,000 workforce). As interna tional trade is assumed to be of limited

68 www.wienerberger.com 69 www.monier.fr 70 Interview with expert Christophe Sykes, CERAME-UNI E 71 www.cerameunie.eu/industry.html 72 Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denm ark, Finland, France, Germany, UK, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, P oland, Portugal, Sweden, Spain, and 4 other European countries not members of the European Unio nFebruary 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 57 importance for the ceramic Industry because it reli es on the availability of local materials, this sales volume gives a good idea of the consumpt ion volume of these products in Europe.


### 5.2.2. W ASTE GENERATION AND TREATMENT DATA
Despite the potential long life of ceramic-based pr oducts that can easily exceed 100 years, clay brick buildings are most of the time demolishe d well before the end of their useful life, exception made of Scandinavian countries where clay brick buildings are usually used throughout their life-time. Bricks and tiles being highly durable materials, they can be reused after a building has been demolished. Neverthe less, deconstruction allowing for the re-use of this type of materials is not common outs ide Denmark. In 2006 approximately 318,000 tonnes of clay produc ts from the building sector were recycled in Denmark. Clay products (bricks & roofin g tiles with some mortar) have shown a higher increase in recycling rates compared to othe r building waste such as concrete & asphalt. Indeed, in 1996 approximately 93,000 tonne s of clay products was recycled. Therefore, an increase of recycling of 240% has tak en place for clay products in ten years. Recycled clay products are mainly used as a filler material in concrete production 73

. Nonetheless, the amounts of bricks and tiles waste, the associated recycling and re-use rates are not available at the EU-27 level due to t he absence of a systematic European reporting system. Recycling and re-use rates are estimated to vary gr eatly across the EU depending on the construction standards, the life span of buildings and national legislation despite the huge recycling potential of bricks, tiles and ceramics. Indeed, the reclaim of bricks and roof tiles has been in place traditionally in many countries a mong which Belgium, France and Germany to give an old style to new buildings (The Netherlands and the UK to a smaller degree 74 ).. Recycling and re-use practices among other MS a re less developed though the bricks and tiles waste amounts are assumed to be mo re important, especially in Southern European MS such as Spain, Italy and Greece. This i s due to the demolition practices not allowing for the recovery of these building element s.


## 5.3. R ECOVERY TECHNIQUES



### 5.3.1. E XISTING OPTIONS
Recycling and re-use are detailed in this section.

 Recycling A high proportion of ceramic C&D waste is well suit ed to being crushed and recycled as a substitute for newly quarried (primary) aggregates in certain lower grade applications such

73 Interview with Christophe Sykes, CERAME-UNIE 74 Ibid.58 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 as engineering fill and road sub-base. This practic e has been common (though not necessarily widespread) in several MS for many year s 75

. For instance, in the Netherlands where strong measu res are taken for the protection of the environment, the recycling of this fraction is well established while it is under development in other MS such as Greece 76

. Using bricks, tiles and ceramics waste from demolit ion sites raises however some issues. Indeed, if the technical criteria for the use of gr anulated ceramic material are few, it needs to be absolutely free of contaminating elements suc h as mineral wool, concrete, heavy metals and PAHs 77 (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) that may leach and cause ground water pollution. This often mixed and contaminated fraction needs therefore to go through cleaning, crushing and sieving processes before fur ther recycling. The different recycling options promoted by the Eur opean Tiles and Bricks Association 78 are described below:

• To fill and stabilise minor roads, especially in we t areas such as woods and fields. The practice is common in countries that lack adequ ate stone supplies such as Denmark. The material is generally used uncrushed.

• Crushed clay bricks, roof tiles and other masonry c an be used on larger road building projects, especially as unbound base mater ial. It is used to build roads in countries such as Germany, Denmark, the Netherla nds, Switzerland and UK. In Germany, the maximum brick content for such use is 30%, due to quality requirements for frost attacks and impact resistanc e. The material replaces natural materials, such as sand and gravel, which a re normally used in large amounts for this purpose.

• Aggregates for in-situ. Crushed clay bricks and oth er masonry can also be used to level and fill pipe trenches. The fine crushed m aterial will replace natural materials such as sand.

• Crushed clay bricks, tiles and other masonry can al so be used as aggregate in concrete. The crushed material replaces other raw m aterials such as sand. This is commonly practiced in Austria, Denmark, Switzerland and especially the Netherlands 79

.

• Tennis sand produced by crushing red bricks and roo f tiles. The fine surface layer is laid over courser-grained layers that can compri se crushed clay brick matter. The process is most efficient when it occurs at bri ck or tile factories where there is an abundance of scrap material.

75 [Symonds, 1999] 76 Interview with Christophe Sykes, CERAME-UNIE 77 www.staywithclay.com/downloads/en-StayWithClay-Part 5-DemolitionAndRecycling.pdf 78 TBE AISBL, www.tiles-bricks.eu 79 www.tiles-bricks.eu •

•February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 59 • Crushed bricks and tiles can also be used as plant substrates. The material may be mixed with composted organic materials and is es pecially suited for green roofs: the porosity of the material allowing retain ing water plants can rely on during dry periods.

 Re-use Extracting roof tiles and storing them for re-use i s not difficult and bricks that are left over from building projects can also be diverted to other uses among which the incorporation into new buildings : for example, a n ew architectural trend in Berlin is to reuse facing bricks in new buildings. To do that, b uilding deconstruction is imperatively required. However, these materials are often contam inated which raises several issues:

• Cleaning bricks is time consuming, difficult and du sty work that, if mechanised, is apparently rarely successful.

• Cement rich mortars are difficult to remove. In cou ntries like Greece, where mortar from ancient constructions is a full ceramic material, it does not need to be removed.

• Excess mortar dust can inhibit the adhesion between mortar and bricks and lead to weaker masonry, depending on the mortar composit ion.

• Bricks may vary in quality. It is therefore difficu lt to assess the strength and loadbearing capacity of masonry made from recycled bric ks. European and national standards are very strict and it is extremely diffi cult to be sure that re-used bricks used in new structures will be durable.

• Due to the difficult nature and high labour costs a ssociated with the process, the use of re-used bricks may be more expensive than th e use of new bricks.


### 5.3.2. E MERGING TECHNIQUES
An increasing amount of scientific research is carr ied out to improve the techniques to separate and clean bricks from other mixed C&D wast e and especially from contaminants but at the present time, no emerging techniques hav e been identified 80

. 

## 5.4. E NVIRONMENTAL 

## , ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPACTS OF BRICKS 

## , TILES AND

CERAMICS WASTE MANAGEMENT



### 5.4.1. E NVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH IMPACTS
The following table summarises the impacts and bene fits of the recycling and recovery options of bricks, tiles and ceramics, which are fu rther described below.

80 Interview with Christophe Sykes, CERAME-UNIE60 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 Table 18 – Impacts and benefits for each option for the management of bricks, tiles and ceramics waste

LANDFILL
Direct impacts Avoided Impacts Net benefits Transportation of waste to the landfill No release of pollutants to water if the fraction i s not contaminated (bricks, tiles and ceramics are made of clay, a natural material). Use of land space -

RECYCLING IN MINOR ROAD WORKS WITH NO FURTHER PROCE SSING (E.G. UNCRUSHED) Substituted material (in the same proportion): aggr egates from rocks and gravel extracted from quarrie s

Direct impacts Avoided Impacts Net benefits

Transportation of bricks, tiles and ceramics waste

Transportation of recycled material Use of recycled aggregates: dust production when loading, unloading the trucks and spreading the material on the roads Extraction of raw materials (rocks and gravel for aggregates): land-use for quarries, production of dust, use of natural

resources Transportation of raw materials

Biodiversity impacts
Use of resources Production of aggregates from virgin materials: dust production and noise during crushing, sieving steps Transportation of aggregates Use of virgin aggregates: dust production +February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 61 RECYCLING IN HEAVY ROADS WORKS WITH FURTHER PROCESS ING Substituted material (in the same proportion): aggr egates from rocks and gravel extracted from quarrie s

Direct impacts Avoided Impacts Net benefits

Transportation of bricks, tiles and ceramics waste

Production of aggregates from bricks, tiles and ceramics C&D waste: dust production and noise during crushing and sieving steps Transportation of recycled material Use of recycled aggregates: dust production when loading, unloading the trucks and spreading the material on the roads Extraction of raw materials (rocks and gravel for aggregates): land-use for quarries, production of dust, use of natural resources Transportation of raw materials

Biodiversity
Use of resources Production of aggregates from virgin materials: dust production and noise

Transportation of aggregates Use of virgin aggregates: dust production o

RE-USE OF BRICKS, TILES AND CERAMICS C&D WASTE Substituted material (in the same proportion): manu factured bricks and tiles

Direct impacts Avoided Impacts Net benefits

Transportation of bricks, tiles and ceramics waste Processing of bricks, tiles and ceramics waste: energy for cleaning and decontamination

Transportation of bricks, tiles and ceramics to the new construction site Extraction of raw materials (clay material): land-use for quarries, use of natural resources Biodiversity Transportation of raw materials Bricks, tiles and ceramic production: important initial energy consumption (energy intensive industry), associated greenhouse gases emissions Transportation of bricks, tiles and ceramics to the construction site ++62 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011  Direct impacts of landfilling Landfilling bricks, tiles and ceramics does not rai se serious environmental issues especially for the release of pollutants into water except whe n these materials are coming from C&D activities and therefore often contaminated with po tentially dangerous fractions: insulation wool, mortar, concrete 81

. The major environmental impact of landfilling comes from the use of space for the storage of inert C&D waste, particularly in countries where land is scarce.

 Direct impacts of recycling as a road works materia l As presented in the above sections, the recycling o f bricks, tiles and ceramics involves processing steps (crushing, sieving, transportation ) in almost all cases, except for the use for minor roads where crushing is not necessary. Th ese processes are therefore similar to the processing of natural materials which balances the environmental effects. The production of dust and particles during the cru shing, sieving, transportation and storage steps is avoided , for example by spraying water on the crushed materials, by covering the conveyor belts and machineries, by enc losing dust producing processes and maintaining cleanliness of the industrial vehicles used for loading and transporting recycled bricks, tiles and ceramics 82

. The noise from the aforementioned processes is a se rious concern for the workers health and can be mitigated through appropriate personal t raining and equipment and through the use of quieter machines.

 Net benefits of re-use and recycling Substitution to coarse and fine aggregates The use of recycled bricks, tiles and ceramics in t he form of coarse and fine aggregates in the different recycling options developed in the ab ove sections replaces virgin materials that would have been extracted and processed, which thus saves the use of raw aggregates and land space used for quarries. However, the use of raw materials is not really the issue since it is largely available locally in Europe and the extraction of clay for construction products represents only 5% 83 of the total mineral extraction. Such a material i s therefore not threatened by intensive exploitation. Finally, the impact of transportation of raw materials that is avoided through the use of recycl ed coarse and fine aggregates is limited since clay brick and tile plants are often situated alongside clay deposits or sand quarries, minimising the energy spent on transportation.

81 These materials contain chemicals used as additive s and that may have serious environmental impacts. 82 www.tiles-bricks.eu 83 Ibid.February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 63 Re-use – Substitution to bricks, tiles and ceramics produced from virgin materials
The direct re-use of reclaimed bricks and tiles avo ids the manufacturing processes, the associated energy consumption and gaseous emissions . Indeed, the Ceramic Industry is very energy intensive with an energy share of up to 30% of production costs 84

. As an example, the specific energy consumption for the brick and roof-tile industry varied in 2001 between 1.4 and 2.42 GJ per tonne 85 which represents between 80 and 138 CO 2 equivalents per tonne considering that the most com monly fuel used in this industry is natural gas 86 . This amount of CO 2 equivalent is avoided thanks to the re-use of bric ks and roof-tiles. However, it must be noted that the specific energy consumption for the production of 1 m 2 brick wall was reduced by 40% from the 1990s to 200 7, as the initially required 190 kWh were reduced to 115 kWh.
The re-use of bricks and roof tiles also allows avo iding gaseous emissions to the atmosphere that normally occur during the manufactu ring process. They are mainly of three kinds:

• Emissions coming from ceramic conversion of the ra w material in the kiln. The emissions are HCl (hydrochloric acid), HF (hydroflu oric acid), SOx (sulphuric acid) and C02.

• Exhaust gas emissions from combustion processes (fr om drying and firing plants). The emissions are CO (carbon monoxide), CO 2, NOx (nitrogen oxides) and particles.

• Emissions of VOC’s (Volatile Organic Compounds) due to the use of organic substances (additives).


### 5.4.2. E CONOMIC IMPACTS
The harnessed extraction of clay and the developmen t of new manufacturing techniques maintain clay bricks and tiles as competitive build ing materials that have good quality, long life, minimal maintenance requirements and provide energy efficient solution during the use phase. The reduced costs of bricks, tiles and c eramics produced from raw materials are therefore not encouraging the development of recycl ing 87 . The above mentioned number of SMEs would also decrease the chances for develop ments in recycling (heavy financial burden to SMEs while relatively small financial gai ns - if any -) except with the development of specific recycling facilities covering larger ar eas in a MS.

84 www.cerameunie.eu/bricks.html 85 www.staywithclay.com 86 The emission factor used for the calculation is eq ual to 57 kg eq CO 2 /GJ 87 www.tiles-bricks.eu64 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 

## 5.5. T OWARDS THE 

## 70% TARGET 

## : DRIVERS AND BARRIERS

If the recycling and re-use is well established in countries such as the Netherlands and Germany, the effort required in order to increase r ecycling and re-use rates and help reach the 70% target is assumed to be important in other countries. Recycling techniques already exist but measures have to be taken to promote thei r development. Some potential drivers and barriers are summarised below.

 Landfilling ban: a promotion for existing and devel oping recycling options The landfilling ban at the European level following the example set by the Netherlands would greatly encourage bricks and tiles waste prod ucers to process their waste stream through the existing recycling chains and even fund research for the development of more efficient and highly demanding recycling techniques

. Moreover, the ban of disposing of bricks, tiles and ceramics waste in landfills (or the increase of landfill taxes) is likely to ensure a m ore regular waste supply for recycling industries.

 Building conception: designing for the end of life Designing for the deconstruction of buildings would make easier the reclamation of bricks and tiles, improve the quality of the waste stream and therefore increase the re-use of these elements for new construction projects. From another point of view, projects could be desig ned for longer life span, leading to the reduction of the waste stream.February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 65 

# 6. Material focus: ASPHALT

**Applications in the construction sector**  Pavement for road construction and maintenance

**Production in the EU-27**  Total: almost 300 Mt (2008)

- 291 Mt of hot mix asphalt

- 2.8 Mt of cold mix asphalt

- 2.1 Mt of warm mix asphalt
**Waste generation in the EU-27**  47 Mt of reclaimed asphalt (2008)

**Treatment options** Landfill Recycling in a stationary plant In-situ Recycling Material recovery

**Current rates** N/A N/A(up to 83% already achieved by some MS, e.g. Germany) N/A(up to 41% achieved by some MS, e.g. Hungary)

**Potential rates** Could absorb between 30 and 80% of reclaimed asphalt Estimated at almost

100% N/A

**Environmental impacts**  Potential emissions of PAH when asphalt is contaminatedwith tar, landuse, transportation Positive potential net

benefits as the preparation of virgin aggregates is avoided, reducing the carbon footprint Positive potential net benefits (the preparation of virgin aggregates and the transportation of both reclaimed and newly produced asphalt are avoided) Positive potential net

benefits as the preparation of virgin aggregates is avoided

**Barriers to material recovery**  **and recycling of the waste**  - Availability and cost of raw material

- The actual scientific knowledge for the improvement of the manufacturing process
**Existing and potential drivers to**  **material recovery and recycling of**  **the waste** - Increase virgin materials costs to create a new dem and for reclaimed asphalt

- Landfilling ban to encourage recycling practices

- Improve the communication to show the economic bene fit that would be associated with recycling practicesMay 2010 European Commission DG ENV Draft Final Report – Management of construction and demolition waste 66 

## 6.1. P RODUCT DESCRIPTION AND APPLICATIONS

Asphalt is a black viscous and elastic material mad e of bitumen acting as a binder composted of a mixture of aggregates, sand, filler and occasionally a number of additives. Three major types of asphalt are distinguished depe nding on the production temperature: hot 88 , warm 89 and cold 90 mix asphalt. The other asphalt materials are cutb ack, mastic and natural asphalt but they represent a minority which explains why they are not tackled in this chapter. To produce asphalt, a large panel of mix types exis t depending on the asphalt position in the road structure (base 91 , binder 92 or surface course 93 ), on its particular function, on climatic conditions and on the nature of raw materi als locally available 94

. The primary use of asphalt is in road infrastructur e construction and in airports for runways and therefore referred as asphalt pavement 95 . Over 90% of the total road network in Europe is made of asphalt. The following table summarises the uses that are ma de of asphalt in road structure. Table 19 - Application in surface, binder and base courses in % of total annual production [EAPA, 2008] Country Surface course Binder course Base course Austria 15 10 75 Belgium 47 N/A 53 Bulgaria N/A N/A N/A Cyprus N/A N/A N/A Czech Republic 59 19 22

88 Hot mix asphalt (HMA) is a mixture of aggregate an d bitumen, sometimes including modifiers, that is produced by mixing hot dried aggregate (150°C) w ith heated binder. Paving and compaction must be performed while the asphalt is sufficiently hot. HMA is commonly used for all kind of roads: hightraffic areas, low traffic areas, parking lots, air ports, etc. 89 Warm mix asphalt concrete (WMA) reduces the temper ature required for manufacture by adding asphalt emulsions, waxes, or zeolites. This process results in less fossil fuel consumption and reduce d emission of fumes. 90 Cold mix asphalt is produced by emulsifying the bi tumen in water with (essentially) soap prior to mixing with the aggregate. While in its emulsified state the asphalt is less viscous and the mixture i s easy to work and compact. It is commonly used as a patching material and on lesser trafficked service roads. 91 The sub-layer material of an asphalt roadway place d directly on top of the undisturbed soil so as to provide a foundation to support the top layer(s) of the pavement. 92 Coarse aggregate with a bituminous binder between the foundation course and the wearing course of the asphalt pavement 93 The top layer of the asphalt pavement 94 [EAPA, 2005] 95 A pavement consisting of a surface course of miner al aggregate coated and cemented together with asphalt cement on supporting course. It can be the result of hot, warm or cold mixtures depending on the characteristics of the road under construction or renovation (heavy or light traffic)

. Asphalt pavement is commonly composed of 5% asphalt cement and 95% aggregates (stone, sand, and gravel).February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 67 Country Surface course Binder course Base course Denmark 44 5 51 Estonia 68 29 3 Finland 87 N/A 13 France N/A N/A N/A Germany 30 19 51 Greece 40 35 25 Hungary 56 38 6 Ireland 40 20 40 Italy 50 30 20 Latvia N/A N/A N/A Lithuania 32 34 34 Luxembourg N/A N/A N/A Malta N/A N/A N/A Netherlands 32 4 60 Poland 80 10 10 Portugal 50 28 22 Romania 30 24 46 Slovakia N/A N/A N/A Slovenia 48 9 43 Spain 51 24 25 Sweden 40 20 40 United Kingdom N/A N/A N/A Average EU-27 47.3 21.1 33.6 The production of asphalt in a given country is hig hly dependent on the number of new roads built? For example, Poland presents a high pr oduction of asphalt for surface course, likely because major road construction works are un dergone because of the preparation of the Football European Championship of 2010. In average, the most common use of asphalt in road works is for surface course (47% in EU27). Large discrepancies between countries can howe ver be noted: as an example, Finland shows the higher use of asphalt for the surface of the pavement with 87% of the total use of asphalt, while in Austria only 15% is used for t his same application.



## 6.2. Q UANTITATIVE ANALYSIS



### 6.2.1. P RODUCTION DATA
Approximately 291 million tonnes of hot mix asphalt , 2.8 million tonnes of cold mix asphalt and 2.1 million tonnes of warm mix asphalt were pro duced in 2008 96 in Europe. Since 1973,

96 [EAPA, 2008]68 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 the asphalt production has been decreasing but seem s to have reached a more or less stable level, because of the volume of the maintena nce works related to road construction. Production takes place in a fixed or mobile mixing plant with two main processes namely in batch plants and in continuous mixing or drum mixer s. In Europe there are at the moment approximately 4,500 mixing plants. The production r ate of these installations may vary between 25 and 800 tonnes per hour. Raw materials may be transported over long distance s. The finished product however is normally applied within 30-50 km of the mixing plan t. Distances up to 100 km may however be observed. The following table gives production data for hot m ixed asphalt for 2005 and 2008 for most MS at the EU-27 level.February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 69 Table 20 – Total production of hot mixed asphalt in 2005 – 2008 in million tonnes [EAPA, 2008]

Country 2005 2008 Population in 2008 Production per

capita (tonnes/capita) Share to the

total EU-27 production in 2008 (%) Growth rate

2005/2008

Austria 10.0 9.5 8,318,592 1.1 3.3% -5.0% Belgium 5.2 4.9 10,666,866 0.5 1.7% -5.8% Bulgaria N/A N/A 7,640,238 N/A N/A N/A Cyprus N/A N/A 789,269 N/A N/A N/A Czech Republic 5.6 7.3 10,381,130 0.7 2.5% 30.4% Denmark 3.2 3.1 5,475,791 0.6 1.1% -3.1% Estonia 1.2 1.5 1,340,935 1.1 0.5% 25.0% Finland 6.2 6.0 5,300,484 1.1 2.1% -3.2% France 40.1 41.8 63,982,881 0.7 14.4% 4.2% Germany 57.0 51.0 82,217,837 0.6 17.5% -10.5% Greece 7.0 8.1 11,213,785 0.7 2.8% 15.7% Hungary 3.8 2.5 10,045,401 0.2 0.9% -34.2% Ireland 3.4 2.8 4,401,335 0.6 1.0% -17.6% Italy 40.1 31.6 59,619,290 0.5 10.9% -21.2% Latvia 0.6 0.6 2,270,894 0.3 0.2% 0.0% Lithuania N/A 2.2 3,366,357 0.7 0.8% N/A Luxembourg N/A 0.6 483,799 1.2 0.2% N/A Malta N/A N/A 410,290 N/A N/A N/A Netherlands 8.6 9.3 16,405,399 0.6 3.2% 8.1% Poland 15.0 15.0 38,115,641 0.4 5.2% 0.0% Portugal 11.1 9.0 10,617,575 0.8 3.1% -18.9% Romania 2.8 3.3 21,528,627 0.2 1.1% 17.9% Slovakia 1.8 2.2 5,400,998 0.4 0.8% 22.2% Slovenia 1.5 2.6 2,010,269 1.3 0.9% 73.3% Spain 41.5 42.3 45,283,259 0.9 14.5% 1.9% Sweden 7.2 8.7 9,182,927 0.9 3.0% 20.8% United Kingdom 27.9 25.0 61,179,256 0.4 8.6% -10.4% Total/average EU-27 300.8 290.9 497,649,125 0.6 100.0% -3.3%

France, Germany, Italy and Spain produce 166.7 mill ion tonnes of hot mix asphalt accounting for around 60% of the total production a t the EU level. When considering the production in tonnes per capita, it ranges from 0.2 (Hungary and Romania) to 1.3 (Slovenia), the average at the EU-27 level being at 0.6 tonne p er capita. For some countries, data are not available for the moment (Bulgaria, Cyprus, and Malta).70 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 

### 6.2.2. W ASTE GENERATION AND TREATMENT DATA
Asphalt waste is generated during the demolition of existing infrastructures, when the existing asphalt layer is removed 97 . Asphalt waste generated through these steps is referred as reclaimed asphalt 98 and can be 100% recycled depending on the recyclin g technique as shown in 6.3.1. The following table summarises the available data o n quantities of reclaimed asphalt for most countries at the EU-27 level, and the total re cycling rates achieved. The percentage of reclaimed asphalt available for each recycling tech nique, i.e. hot, cold and unbound layers, refer to the recycling rates currently achieved by the Asphalt Industry 99

.

97 According to EAPA experts, no asphalt waste is gen erated during the construction of new roads as surplus material is usually taken back by the produ cer. 98 Reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) is the term given to removed and/or reprocessed pavement materials containing asphalt. These materials are g enerated when asphalt pavements are removed for reconstruction, resurfacing, or to obtain acces s to buried utilities. When properly crushed and screened, RAP consists of high-quality, well-graded aggregates coated by bitumen. 99 Interview with Mr Egbert Beuving, Director of the EAPA71European Commission DG ENVFinal Report Task 2 – Management of C&D wasteFebruary 2011Table 21 - Recycling and incorporation rates of reclaimed asphalt. Adapted from [EAPA, 2008]CountryAvailable reclaimedasphalt (tonnes)100Population in2008101Available reclaimedasphalt per capita(kg/capita)% of availablereclaimedasphalt used inhot and warmrecycling% of availablereclaimed asphaltused in coldrecycling% of availablereclaimed asphaltused in unboundlayers102Total recyclingand recoveryrates (%)Incorporationrate103(%)[a][b][a]/[b][c][d][e][c]+[d]+[e][f]Austria350,000 8,318,592 42,1 N/A N/A N/A N/AN/ABelgium1,500,000 10,666,866 140,6 55 0?1040? 55?44.0BulgariaN/A 7,640,238 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AN/ACyprusN/A 789,269 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AN/ACzech Republic1,500,000 10,381,130 144,5 25 30 30 8510.0Denmark414,000 5,475,791 75,6 59 0 41 10052.0EstoniaN/A 1,340,935 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AN/AFinland500,000 5,300,484 94,3 N/A N/A N/A N/AN/AFrance6,500,000 63,982,881 101,6 23 <2 >40 65?10.0Germany14,000,000 82,217,837 170,3 82 0 18 10060.0Greece0 11,213,785 0,0 0 0 0 00.0Hungary27,560 10,045,401 2,7 26 18 41 855.0Ireland80,000 4,401,335 18,2 15 N/A N/A 151.5Italy13,000,000 59,619,290 218,1 N/A N/A N/A N/A30.0LatviaN/A 2,270,894 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AN/A100[a], [c], [d], [e], [f] were taken from [EAPA, 2008]101Source: Eurostat102Unbound layers refer to reclaimed asphalt in the base course which are not bound with bitumen contrary to the top layers103Refers to the percentage of the new hot and warm mix production that contains reclaimed material104Everywhere in this table, “0?” is an assumption made by BIO in the absence of data suggesting that the expected quantity might be 0 considering the already relativelyhigh percentage of at least one other recovery option.72European Commission DG ENVFinal Report Task 2 – Management of C&D wasteFebruary 2011CountryAvailable reclaimedasphalt (tonnes)100Population in2008101Available reclaimedasphalt per capita(kg/capita)% of availablereclaimedasphalt used inhot and warmrecycling% of availablereclaimed asphaltused in coldrecycling% of availablereclaimed asphaltused in unboundlayers102Total recyclingand recoveryrates (%)Incorporationrate103(%)LithuaniaN/A 3,366,357 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AN/ALuxembourgN/A 483,799 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AN/AMaltaN/A 410,290 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AN/ANetherlands3,500,000 16,405,399 213,3 83 0.50 0? 83.5?66.0Poland1,100,000 38,115,641 28,9 4 N/A N/A >40105PortugalN/A 10,617,575 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AN/ARomania18,000 21,528,627 0,8 60 10 5 7515.0SlovakiaN/A 5,400,998 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AN/ASlovenia25,600 2,010,269 12,7 51 49 0 100N/ASpain1,150,000 45,283,259 25,4 48 18 30 968.0Sweden1,000,000 9,182,927 108,9 65 0? 0? 65?50.0United Kingdom4,000,000 61,179,256 65,4 N/A N/A N/A N/AN/ATotal for the 14 MS forwhich recycling rate isavailable30,815,160 330,911,148 93.1 60.482.9Total for the 18 MS forwhich reclaimedasphalt data isavailable48,665,160 465,328,770 104.6105Rate indicated by EAPA but seems contradictory with the 4% of available reclaimed asphalt used in hotand warm recycling73 European Commission DG ENV Draft Final Report – Management of construction and demolition waste February 2011 As for the production of asphalt waste, the quantit ies of reclaimed asphalt vary greatly from a MS to another. Romania generates the least a mount with only 18,000 tonnes while Germany produces 14 million tonnes of reclaimed asp halt. Germany, France, Great Britain and Italy generated 37.5 million tonnes of reclaime d asphalt in 2008 which represents almost 80% of the total amount generated throughout the EU (around 47 million tonnes). Those figures are more easily comparable when relat ed to the total population. The available reclaimed asphalt per capita ranges from 0.8 (Romania) to 218.1 kg per capita (Italy), with an average of 104.6 kg per capita for EU-27. The reclaimed asphalt incorporation rates (content of reclaimed asphalt in the new asphalt produced) at the EU-27 level range from 0 to 66%. T he highest reclaimed asphalt contents are found in the Netherlands with 66%, then in Germ any with 60% and finally Denmark with 52%. In average, Western European countries ha ve higher reclaimed asphalt content rates in hot and warm asphalt mix (41% 106 in average) than Eastern European ones (6% 107 in average). There is thus clearly some potential to r ecycle more asphalt. When looking at the total recycling rates, taking i nto account hot and cold recycling and the material recovery of reclaimed asphalt as unbound l ayers, a large variability exist between MS when the information is available. Indeed, the r ecycling rates vary between 0 and 100%, with an average of 82.9% for the 14 countries for w hich recycling rates are available 108

. Countries such as the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germ any, Hungary, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovenia and Spain are already achieving r ecycling rates superior to 70%. On the other hand, Greece and Poland show the smallest rec ycling rates with respectively 0 and 4%. The lack of information for other MS does not a llow for a complete analysis of the current situation.



## 6.3. R ECOVERY OPTIONS



### 6.3.1. E XISTING OPTIONS
Landfilling and energy recovery not being recognise d as interesting options by the Asphalt Industry because of the associated costs and the lo ss of a “secondary raw material”, the recovery and recycling of reclaimed asphalt have be come more widespread in the last decades. If reclaimed asphalt is free of contaminat ion, it can be guaranteed that the total amount of this reclaimed asphalt can be recovered o r recycled as a construction material. Strict guidelines on the nature of the reclaimed ma terial (size distribution, bitumen content, filler content, bitumen viscosity or hardness, etc. ) are enforced in the asphalt industry to guarantee good quality end materials.

106 Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland , Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden were taken into account. The average was weighted b y the amount of reclaimed asphalt available in each country. 107 Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Romania were c onsidered for this calculation. The average was weighted by the amount of reclaimed asphalt ava ilable in each country. 108 The average was weighted by the amount of reclaime d asphalt available in each country.74 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 A distinction is made in the following subsection b etween recycling, where the reclaimed asphalt is reprocessed into new mixes, and other fo rms of material recovery.

 Recycling Recycling means adding the reclaimed asphalt to new asphalt mixes, with the aggregates and the old bitumen performing the same function as in their original application. Therefore, reclaimed asphalt replaces virgin aggreg ates and part of the binder. If asphalt is known as 100% recyclable material, the recycling ra te depends on the applied technique. The recycling processes can be divided into two maj or methods: hot or cold mix recycling techniques. These can be further sub-divided into s tationary plant or in-situ recycling. Stationary plant recycling (or “Offsite recycling”) consists in removing the material from the site to a plant located elsewhere which recycles th e reclaimed asphalt in order to reintroduce it either on the original project or on o ther projects. In-situ recycling allows the reclaimed material to be incorporated directly back into the new asphalt pavement under construction or maintenance. The recycling options that are further described in this chapter are available since 1975 and are considered at the point of being able to deal w ith the current amount of recycled asphalt. Within both the cold and hot recycling process, scr eening and crushing of the reclaimed asphalt could be needed and special storage facilit ies at the mixing plant may be necessary. Modern plants are engineered to facilitate the addi tion of reclaimed material. The maximum amount of recycled material that can be incorporated in the new mix is determined by the mixing equipment but also by some parameters related to the old asphalt like consistency of material, moisture cont ent, etc. To achieve the highest levels of recycling it is necessary to either confirm the lac k of variability in the feedstock or to have precise data on its range of properties. The requir ements for reclaimed asphalt are formulated in the European Standard EN 13108-8 “Rec laimed asphalt”. The difference between the cold and hot recycling m ethods only relies on the process to heat reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP).

 Hot mix recycling in a stationary plant In the case of the “hot method” in a hot mix recycl ing stationary plant, the reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) taken from demolished or ren ovated roads in general is transported to the asphalt plant. After being crush ed and sieved (if needed), the RAP is directly preheated which requires an extra dryer (a dryer being already used to heat the virgin aggregates that are then incorporated into t he asphalt mix). Incorporation rates for the hot method are typically 30-80% , the upper limit being determined by the quality requirements of the mix specification in relation t o the properties of the old asphalt.February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of construction an d demolition waste 75 Figure 3 - Batch mixing plant for the hot RAP metho d [EAPA, 2005]

A variation of the hot recycling is feeding the RAP into the same dryer as for virgin aggregates (method called recycling ring). The heat ing of the RAP takes place behind the flame, ensuring that it is not overheated. This met hod allows up to 35% incorporation rate. It is possible to use a recycling ring in combinati on with a rotary drum dryer achieving incorporation rates up to 50%.

Figure 4 - Batch mixing plant: recycling via a recy cling ring [EAPA, 2005]

 Cold method in hot mix recycling in a stationary pl ant As for hot method, reclaimed asphalt is crushed and screened (if needed) so as to produce a consistent feedstock. The difference between hot and cold methods in hot mix recycling relies on the process to heat RAP: in the first cas e a specific dryer is needed while in the other case reclaimed asphalt is heated through the contact with heated virgin aggregates. In both cases, the reclaimed asphalt is used to pro duce new hot mix asphalt. The appropriate amount of new bitumen is then added in the mixing unit according to desired end properties.76 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 Figure 5 - Batch mixing plant for the cold RAP meth od [EAPA, 2005]

Cold methods in hot mix recycling achieve incorpora tion rates between 10 and 40% , depending on the RAP moisture content and quality, the type of the plant’s vapour extraction system and the technical process limitat ions regarding maximum permitted temperatures. Modifications to the plant are needed if quantities of more than approximately 10% of old asphalt are to be added to the mixing process. Though tar is not used anymore in road construction , amounts of asphalt containing tar 109 can still be reclaimed when renovating old roads. I n this case, the waste is considered hazardous and the hot recycling is not allowed. In some countries however, it is allowed to rely on cold techniques with or without binders.

 Cold mix recycling technologies in a stationary pla nt The cold mix technology is a recent development tha t had been used for several years already. Reclaimed asphalt is returned to off-site plants wi th the same controlled crushing and screening process as for hot mix recycling. The sim ilar requirements of the feedstock for hot and cold mix plants make it feasible to operate both processes on the same location. Two types of binder, foamed bitumen and bitumen emu lsion, have been used combined with the recycled asphalt. Both methods are able to produce materials with 90% recycled asphalt content. It is important to notice that the final engineerin g properties may in some cases be inferior to that of hot mix, but in others cases when using end-product specifications it can be at least equal.

109 The definition of “asphalt containing tar” can dif fer from a country to another

because there are different limits among MS dependi ng on the national legislation. The definition in the EURAL waste list classifies r eclaimed asphalt containing more than 0.1 % coal tar as hazardous waste.February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of construction an d demolition waste 77 The smaller number of components and less complex n ature of cold mix plants has led to their successful adoption when needed in remote loc ations for short-term reconstruction programs.

 Hot mix in-situ recycling In some cases, the location of a given project does not make it feasible to return reclaimed material to a plant for recycling. Therefore, in-si tu recycling techniques have been developed to address this issue. Nevertheless, the use of this technique throughout the EU is mostly limited as a maintenance tool of road wor ks. This technique involves the same process as for the hot mix recycling in a stationary plant while avoiding the transportation step. The existin g pavement is partly removed to a controlled depth (not to disturb the sub-course), t hen the RAP is heated and mixed before bitumen and/or virgin aggregates could be added. Fi nally, the reclaimed mixture is laid back at its original place, creating a new asphalt surfa ce course. Among other advantages there is the reduction in RA P transportation to an off-site recycling facility and the rapid re-opening of a ne w road surface.

Figure 6 - Asphalt recycling travel plant [EAPA, 20 05]

 Cold mix in-situ recycling The cold mix in-situ system is comparable to the ho t one except to the way bitumen is added. Indeed, bitumen is foamed thanks to an impr oved milling machine. The existing pavement is sprayed in a chamber in which the bitum en is foamed and mixing takes place. The recycled pavement is then spread ready for comp action and the application of a new running surface. Figure 7 - Cold-mix recycling [EAPA, 2005]78 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 It should be noted that the cold in-situ recycling is a method of recycling where no newly produced asphalt is used. The following table summarises data regarding the n umber of stationary and mobile plants available throughout the EU and the number that are able to deal with reclaimed asphalt for the hot recycling method. Stationary plants rep resent the majority with more than 3,720 (almost 90% of the total 4,142 recycling plan ts) while only 422 mobile plants exist. Considering the facts that not all production sites are able to re-introduce reclaimed asphalt in the manufacturing process and that both hot and cold recycling methods can be operated in the same plants, these figures show a g reat potential adaptation of existing plants through investments. Table 22 - Number of production sites and number fi t for hot recycling [EAPA, 2008]
Country Stationary plants Mobile plants Number fit for hot recycling

Austria 116 1 40 Belgium 40 0 23 Bulgaria N/A N/A N/A Cyprus N/A N/A N/A Czech Republic 110 3 70 Denmark 42 2 46 Estonia 10 15 6 Finland 64 25 44 France 434 79 150 Germany 665 N/A 620
Greece 240 10 0 Hungary 68 11 42 Ireland 58 15 15 Italy 650 10 280 Latvia 18 1 N/A Lithuania 39 1 21 Luxembourg 4 0 2 Malta N/A N/A N/A Netherlands 45 0 45 Poland 280 20 2 Portugal 15 110 20 Romania N/A N/A N/A Slovakia 41 0 9 Slovenia 19 2 N/A Spain 379 104 29 Sweden 83 13 65 United Kingdom 300 N/A N/A Total/average EU-27 3,720 422 1,529February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of construction an d demolition waste 79  Other forms of material recovery Material recovery refers to the utilisation of recl aimed asphalt as road base course material, with the recovered aggregate and bitumen performing a lesser function than in the original application. To this end, reclaimed asphalt has to be crushed a nd sieved into different fractions for more accurate mix designs.


### 6.3.2. E MERGING TECHNIQUES
Further research to develop new techniques or to im prove the efficiency of the existing processes by using for example less energy and redu cing the operating costs could contribute to increasing recycling rates. For instance, some current internationally coordina ted research projects are aiming for further improvement of the technology cold mixing i n-situ recycling 110

. 

## 6.4. E NVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF ASPHALT WASTE

MANAGEMENT



### 6.4.1. E NVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH IMPACTS
The following table summarises the impacts and bene fits of the different end of life options for asphalt, which are further detailed below. Table 23 – Impacts and benefits for each option for the management of asphalt

LANDFILL
Direct impacts Avoided Impacts Net benefits
Transportation of waste to the landfill Potential PAH releases to water (when contaminated with tar) Use of land space -

110 [EAPA, 2005]80 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 RECYCLING IN A STATIONARY PLANT TO MAKE NEW ASPHALT Substituted material (in the same proportion): aggr egates from sand, stone and gravel extracted from quarries
Direct impacts Avoided Impacts Net benefits

Transportation of waste asphalt

Processing of waste asphalt into aggregates: particles generation and noise during crushing and screening steps Production of new asphalt from reclaimed asphalt: fuel consumption for heating and associated greenhouse gases emissions (the energy consumption may be lower for the cold mix recycling method as the fuel consumption associated with the extra dryer of the hot mix recycling method is avoided) Transportation of recycled asphalt Extraction of raw materials (sand, stone and gravel): land-use for quarries, production of dust, use of natural resources, biodiversity Transportation of raw materials

Processing of raw materials into aggregates: dust production and noise

Production of asphalt from raw materials: fuel consumption for heating and bitumen production, and associated greenhouse gases emissions (the energy consumption may be lower for the cold mix method as the required temperature is lower that for the hot one, avoiding an extra fuel consumption) Transportation of asphalt made from virgin materials +February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of construction an d demolition waste 81 IN-SITU RECYCLING TO MAKE NEW ASPHALT Substituted material (in the same proportion): aggr egates from sand, stone and gravel extracted from quarries
Direct impacts Avoided Impacts Net benefits

Processing of waste asphalt into aggregates: particles generation and noise during crushing and screening steps Production of new asphalt from reclaimed asphalt: fuel consumption for heating and associated greenhouse gases emissions Use of binders for fluxed asphalt in cold recycling processes Extraction of raw materials (sand, stone and gravel): land-use for quarries, production of dust, use of natural resources, biodiversity Transportation of raw materials Processing of raw materials into aggregates: dust production and noise

Production of asphalt from raw materials: fuel consumption for heating and associated greenhouse gases emissions Transportation of asphalt made from virgin materials +

RECOVERY OF RECLAIMED ASPHALT AS A ROAD BASE COURSE IN THE FORM OF AGGREGATES Substituted material (in the same proportion): aggr egates from sand, stone and gravel extracted from quarries
Direct impacts Avoided Impacts Net benefits

Transportation of reclaimed asphalt

Processing of waste asphalt into aggregates: dust production and noise during crushing and sieving steps (not relevant when the material is resulting from milling operations, therefore meeting the size requirements) Transportation of recycled aggregates Extraction of raw materials (sand, stone and gravel): land-use for quarries, production of dust, use of natural resources, biodiversity Transportation of raw materials

Processing of raw materials (rocks, stone, gravel, sand) into aggregates: dust production and noise

Transportation of virgin aggregates +82 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011  Direct impacts of landfilling According to the EAPA 111 , asphalt pavement (new or containing reclaimed asp halt) does not leach significantly. Therefore the major environmen tal impact is the use of land space, as for the other studied fractions. However, a potential complicating factor may be the presence of contaminants such as tar 112 , whose higher concentrations of PAH's (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) and/or phenol content and associated effects on human heal th (carcinogenic) led to the end of its use. Although it has been replaced entirely by bitu men for asphalt mixes in Europe, it may still be encountered in various proportions in some areas when old pavements are removed. In this case, RAP is classified as hazardo us waste and must be managed according to the European legislation.

 Direct impacts of recycling For both recycling in a stationary or mobile plant, reclaimed asphalt might have to go across the crushing and screening steps before being reint roduced into the manufacturing process. This is expected to produce particles and may raise health concerns if the machinery is not covered. However, these impacts ar e also related to the processing of raw materials. Moreover, when the reclaimed asphalt is obtained from milling operations (by a milling machine) the particle size might be the rig ht one and then no additional crushing is needed. The direct impacts of transportation are highlighte d only when RAP is being sent back to asphalt manufacturer (i.e. for recycling in station ary plants). Fuel consumption and greenhouse gases emissions are comparable to the on es associated with the transportation of raw materials.

 Direct impacts of material recovery They are similar to the ones developed in the above subsection: related to transportation of both reclaimed asphalt and recycled aggregates and the production of particles and noise. These impacts are estimated to be the same as for v irgin aggregates.

 Net benefits of recycling and material recovery Recycling of reclaimed asphalt allows saving natura l resources that would have been extracted in quarries and limiting the transportati on when they are located in remote places. Bitumen being also re-used, unnecessary bit umen production is also avoided. This reduces the fuel and energy consumption related to the extraction step and the production of bitumen, which therefore limits the emissions of greenhouse gases. Indeed, the carbon footprint for recycled asphalt i s lower than for asphalt made of virgin materials. The equivalent carbon dioxide indicator is 1.25 kg CO 2 equivalents per tonne of

111 Interview with Mr Egbert Beuving, Director of the EAPA 112 Tar is the result of the distillation of coal, whi le bitumen is the result of the distillation of crude oil.February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of construction an d demolition waste 83 asphalt per annum for a 40-year old asphalt pavemen t made of virgin materials while it is 0.7 kg CO 2 equivalents per tonne of asphalt containing reclai med asphalt (divided by almost 1.8). The net benefits for in-situ recycling could be ass umed higher than for a stationary plant or recovery as transportation to the recycling plant a nd to the construction site are avoided. However, this is of limited importance since transp ortation only represents 6% in the carbon footprint balance because both extracted mat erials and reclaimed asphalt are available locally. The benefits would therefore com e almost entirely from the extraction step that is assumed to be energy intensive and gen erate greenhouse gases.


### 6.4.2. E CONOMIC IMPACTS
The processes for the preparation of reclaimed aggr egates (crushing, sieving) being the same as virgin materials, the production costs are estimated to be identical. On the other hand, the availability of virgin aggregates explain s why the supply costs for these materials are limited which therefore does not encourage asph alt producers to turn to reclaimed asphalt as a substitution. However, landfilling and incineration for energy recovery are not considered as viable asphalt management options acc ording to the industry as asphalt is an added-value material that is easily recycled thanks to the existing techniques 113

. 

## 6.5. T OWARDS THE 

## 70% TARGET 

## : D RIVERS AND BARRIERS

As shown in the above sections, 8 MS are already ac hieving recycling rates over 70%, while 2 others (Belgium and France with respectively 55% and 65% recycling rates) are getting closer. Therefore, asphalt waste shows great potent ial for recycling for MS with low recycling rates (Poland and Greece) and those for w hich data is not available. In addition to the environmental benefits developed in the above s ection, asphalt producers can also find in developing recycling options economic benefits d ue to the avoidance of unnecessary landfill and energy recovery costs, as well as savi ng costs related to virgin aggregates purchase. The barriers and drivers identified by th e experts interviewed are further described below.

 Investments Asphalt recycling plants need to be modified to be able to introduce more reclaimed material in the manufacturing process. Moreover, th e improvement of the recycling rates and the efficiency of the process (reducing the ene rgy consumption would reduce the costs of recycled material) goes hand in hand with scient ific research. All these actions represent substantial investments that may require financial support.

113 Interview with Mr Egbert Beuving, Director of the EAPA84 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011  Increasing cost of virgin materials: a driver towar ds the systematic use of reclaimed asphalt Even if the availability of virgin materials is not yet the issue, the increasing cost of virgin materials would push asphalt producers to turn to r eclaimed asphalt as a secondary raw material. This would create a demand and economic o pportunities that would drive the improvement of recycling rates.

 Landfilling ban: a driver towards the systematic re cycling of reclaimed asphalt Though landfilling is not commonly practiced for as phalt waste, a landfilling ban (as already enforced in the Netherlands) or high landfill taxes would therefore lead to higher amounts to be managed by waste producers and asphalt manufa cturers. The expected direct effect is the shift towards the obligation of applying the existing recycling techniques that are readily available to deal with important amounts of reclaimed asphalt.

 Increasing the communication to asphalt producers t o promote recycling Even though asphalt producers are well aware of the economic benefits that can come from recycling RAP in certain parts of Europe, a be tter communication from national environmental agencies towards the Asphalt Industry would highlight such benefits in other countries. A way of delivering this message would b e the organisation of workshops and conferences where asphalt producers would measure t he benefits in practical and economic terms. Finally, it should be noted that the name “asphalt waste” does not stimulate the use of reclaimed asphalt. The word waste is mostly associa ted in a negative way. Indeed, using waste in the production of new products is often se en as a potential problem. Considering reclaimed asphalt as a product, as aggregates, woul d stimulate its re-use and recycling.

 Presence of contaminants preventing recycling Before the use of asbestos was prohibited, asbestos fibres were used in the production of asphalt. This was for example the case in France before 1997 , and this raises the issue of recycling asphalt that was produced before this date: difficulties li nked to the identification of asphalt containing asbestos were raised by some experts 114

.

114 Laurent Chateau, ADEME, comments on the draft fina l reportFebruary 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of construction an d demolition waste 85 

# 7. Material focus: WOOD

**Applications in the construction sector**  Roof structure, building framework, floors, doors, etc.

**Production in the EU-27**  Total production value: 268.4 billion Euros (2007)

- Furniture industry accounts for 48%

- Construction Sector accounts for 20% Estimated consumption of construction wood in EU-27 : 41.5 million tonnes 115
**Waste generation in the EU-27**  Total amount of waste generated within the EU-27: 70.5 million tonnes (2004)

Estimation for C&D wood waste: 10-20 million tonnes generated/year 116 in the EU-27

**Treatment options** Landfill Recycling into derived timber products Energy recovery

**Current rates** 35% 31% 34%

**Potential rates** N/A N/A N/A

**Environmental impacts**  Production of methane (CH 4 ) land use, transportation Positive net benefits due to the avoidance of logging and the release of CO 2 to the atmosphere (associated to fossil fuel consumption and the carbon sink) and the exploitation of natural
resources. Positive net benefits due to the avoidance of CO 2 , particulates, VOCs (volatile organic compounds), PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) release to the atmosphere.
The produced heat can be used in cogeneration (produce electricity and provide public buildings, plants or homes with heat)

**Barriers to re-use and recycling of**  **the waste** - Competition between energy recovery and material re covery

- Contamination with hazardous substances

**Existing and potential drivers to**  **re-use and recycling of the**  **waste** - Collection schemes for C&D wood waste

- Efficient sorting of the waste stream

115 Extrapolated from UK data (WRAP, 2009) 116 Based on various estimates provided by [JRC, 2009] and [WRAP, 2009]86 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report – Management of construction and demol ition waste February 2011 

## 7.1. P RODUCT DESCRIPTION AND APPLICATIONS

More that 50% of the worldwide supply of wood is us ed as firewood or for the production of charcoal (energy use). Only less that 50% is ava ilable for industrial use which includes 117 :

• Paper (printing, packaging, cardboard and newspaper )

• Sawn wood

• Panels and fibreboards

• Sawdust In the construction sector, wood is used in a wide variety of products:

• Roof structure

• Building framework

• Wooden floor and terrace

• Wood beams to sustain construction frameworks

• Kitchens, doors



## 7.2. Q UANTITATIVE ANALYSIS



### 7.2.1. P RODUCTION DATA
In 2007, overall production value in the EU woodwor king industries reached 268.4 billion Euros. Extra-EU imports and exports are relatively small (respectively 25.6 billion Euros and 22.6 billion Euros in 2007) [CEI, 2007]. This produ ction value has grown steadily over the past few years; as a result the apparent consumptio n within EU-27 is close to the production value of the sector.

117 [JRC, 2009]February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of construction an d demolition waste 87 Table 24 – Production of the woodworking industry i n the EU in million Euros between 2003 and 2007 (Source: The Woodworking Industry in the Europ ean Union in 2007, CEI Bois & European Panel Federation)

2003 2006 2007 Growth rate 2003/2007 Growth rate

2006/2007 Sawmilling of wood 27.550 34.200 37.522 36,2% 9,7%
Manufacture of wood-based panels 19.085 23.732 25.168 31,9% 6,1%

Manufacture of other builders' carpentry and joinery (construction elements) 41.813 47.500 53.050 26,9% 11,7%

Manufacture of wooden packaging 8.114 9.967 10.995 35,5% 10,3% Manufacture of other products of wood 12.219 11.386 12.142 -0,6% 6,6%

Subtotal 108.781 126.785 138.877 27,7% 9,5%
Manufacture of furniture 106.852 121.091 130.024 21 ,7% 7,4%

Total 215.633 247.876 268.901 24,7% 8,5% The following diagram illustrates the share of each subsector to the production of the woodworking industries in 2007: Figure 8 – Relative importance of the subsectors in the production of 2007 [CEI, 2007]

The share of the furniture industry accounted for 4 8% of the total woodworking industries production value in 2007. Within the other branches of the woodworking industry, the construction elements sector is a leading subsector , accounting for 20% of the total. No European statistics on the consumption of wood p roducts by the construction sector was identified. In the UK alone, WRAP estimated tha t the construction industry consumes approximately 5.1 million tonnes of wood per year. A population based extrapolation88 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 allows an estimation of construction wood consumpti on of about 41.5 million tonnes per year in EU-27 118

. 

### 7.2.2. W ASTE GENERATION AND TREATMENT DATA
The total amount of waste wood generated at the EU- 27 level is estimated at 70.5 million tonnes in 2004, among which 45.7 million tonnes wer e recycled directly or in energy recovery processes (65% recycling) 119 Among this stream, the JRC recognises that current statistical data do not allow for a precise allocation of this waste flow to C&D waste. Indeed, wood separately collected from C&D waste (category 17 02 01 of EWC) is reported to EUROSTAT along with other wood waste, making the allocation impossible due to the aggregated data basis. The JRC therefore proposes an estimation of 9,757,000 tonnes of C&D waste wood (14% of the total waste wood generated). However, these figures are probably underestimated. A market survey performed in 2008 by WRAP in the UK indicates that the wood waste ari sing from the C&D sector accounted for 2,321,900 tonnes per year, representing over 50 % of the total wood waste generated 120

. A (population-based) extrapolation of these figures to the EU-27 would give an estimated 18,887,000 tonnes of C&D wood waste.
Best available data therefore leads to an estimatio n of C&D wood waste generation ranging from 10 to 20 million tonnes per year in the EU-27

. Even though we are considering C&D waste as one and only stream, the C&D activities produce quite different types of waste. Constructio n generates off cuts from structural timbers, timber packaging, scaffolding, and wooden hoardings while demolition produces used structural timbers, e.g. floorboards, joists, beams staircases and doors 121

. The destination of the waste is presented in the fo llowing table. Table 25 – Treatment of wood waste (incl. C&D wood waste) in the EU-27 in 2004 (Source: JRC 2009) Treatment option % of wood waste generated Recycling 31% Energy recovery 34% Disposal (landfill or incineration w/out energy recovery) 35% 65% of the wood waste generated in Europe was there fore estimated to be recovered (as material or energy).

118 EUROSTAT population data was used to perform this extrapolation. 119 [JRC, 2009] 120 [WRAP, 2009] 121 [WRAP, 2005]February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of construction an d demolition waste 89 As waste from the wood sorting process is relativel y low (5% of the amount entering sorting facilities), there is a certain potential of improv ement through a more systematic source separation and collection of wood waste. Extrapolat ing from the above figures, if all wood waste was correctly sorted, respectively up to 45% and 50% of wood waste would be recycled and incinerated with energy recovery. The suitability of wood waste for recycling depends on its level of contamination. The following categories are usually distinguished:

• Untreated lumbers

• Coated lumbers with surface coating not containing organohalogen compounds

• Coated lumbers with surface coating containing orga nohalogen compounds

• Lumbers treated with timber preservative Recycling is suitable only for the first two catego ries; the only option for the other types of wood is energy recovery in specialised plants meeti ng high standards for emission control. In 2004, around 15% of the waste wood generated in the EU-27 was classified as hazardous waste.


## 7.3. R ECOVERY OPTIONS



### 7.3.1. E XISTING OPTIONS
The main existing options for recovery are the foll owing:

• Energy recovery

• Recycling in the production of derived timber produ cts

• Other forms of material recovery: landscaping, anim al bedding, equestrian surfaces, composting, etc. Before the recovery of wood waste, pre-treatment st eps are usually required.

 Pre-treatment The pre-treatment applied to bulk C&D wood waste ar e the following 1 :

• Manual sorting to remove contaminants

• Single-stage, two-stage or three-stage crushing

• Segregation of ferrous and non-ferrous materials (b y magnets or cyclones)

• Segregation of minerals like concrete through sievi ng

• Segregation of light-weight elements like plastics through single-stage or multistage air sieving90 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011  Energy recovery Ways to obtain energy from wood waste can be:

• In small heating systems

• In heating systems requiring authorisation

• In facilities for gasification

• In facilities for the production of cement and ceme nt clinker

• In municipal waste incinerators Energy recovery is, most of the time, the only opti on available for wood waste contaminated with hazardous substances. Moreover, it is encouraged by European (Directive on the production of electricity from re newable energy sources) and national policies on renewable energies.

 Recycling into derived timber products In the past few years, the wood recycling has known improvements along with the development of companies dedicated to this activity . C&D wood waste can be remanufactured into high added-value products such as medium density particle boards or fibreboards or even wooden plastic that can contain a high proportion of recycled materials. This application is by far the main application for recycled wood. Latest UK data (2007) show that wood panel manufacturers use 58% of the w ood waste in the UK. The particle board production in the EU-27 is estim ated 122 to be around 30 million m 3 . 1m 3 of particle boards necessitating 0.65 tonnes of woo d on average, 19.5 million tonnes of wood are needed each year to sustain the European p roduction of particle boards. The share of post-consumer recycled wood input into thi s production shows high geographical differences (from 20% in France to 80% in Italy), a nd is estimated to reach 24% on average 122 (5 million tonnes). This represents 25% to 50% of the C&D waste wood generated in Europe. This estimation is in line wit h the average EU-27 recycling rate of 31% proposed by the JRC (see 7.2.2.

 Other forms of material recovery Other forms of recovery of non-contaminated wood wa ste include:

• Landscaping, where recycled wood can be used as dec orative mulches, surface material for pathways, or impact absorbing playgrou nd surfaces

• Equestrian surfaces, for both indoor and outdoor ar enas

• Animal bedding products

122 [EPF, 2010]February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of construction an d demolition waste 91 The extent of such applications in the EU is curren tly unknown. However, WRAP’s study shows that the production of animal bedding and equ ines surfaces is the third most important end user industry of recycled wood.


### 7.3.2. E MERGING TECHNIQUES

 Colour indicator techniques to detect contamination of wood waste The potential contamination of wood waste with haza rdous substances is a key factor to determine whether this waste is suitable for recycl ing or other forms or material recovery, or has to be incinerated in specialised plants. Res earch has been done in order to facilitate the detection of contaminated wood waste and the ef fective sorting of the waste stream. An example of this is the set of methods published by WRAP on colour indicator techniques to detect contamination of wood waste with wood pre servatives or copper.

 Re-use Wood from buildings reaching their end of life can be directly re-used when proper deconstruction methods have been implemented. This could be encouraged by the increasing market demand for large dimensions build ing pieces. Nevertheless, these practices seem very marginal at the moment.



## 7.4. E NVIRONMENTAL 

## , ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPACTS OF WOOD WASTE

MANAGEMENT



### 7.4.1. E NVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The following table summarises the impacts and bene fits of the recycling and recovery options of waste wood, which are further described below. Table 26 – Impacts and benefits for each option for the management of wood waste

LANDFILL
Direct impacts Avoided Impacts Net benefits
Transportation of wood waste to the landfilling site Release of methane to the atmosphere (except when burnt in flare for its complete combustion, therefore replaced by CO 2 ) Use of land space 

### --92 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 ENERGY RECOVERY Substituted material: fossil fuels or any other sou rce of energy (depending on the country)

Direct impacts Avoided Impacts Net benefits

Transportation of wood waste to the incineration plant

No release of pollutants the air thanks to appropriate air control equipment and dust filters Energy consumption based on fossil fuels resources (energy recovery from wood waste is encouraged and considered as a renewable energy) as the heat produced can be used to heat surrounding buildings or to produce electricity.
Release of CO 2 , particulates, VOCs (volatile organic compounds), PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) compared to other material incineration. +

RECYCLING INTO DERIVED TIMBER PRODUCTS Substituted material (in the same proportion): aggr egates from rocks and gravel extracted from quarrie s

Direct impacts Avoided Impacts Net benefits

Transportation of waste wood to wood manufacturers

Production of timber products from waste wood: energy consumption for the cleaning, cutting, crushing steps, noise production Exploitation of forests: energy consumption for logging and associated greenhouse gases emissions (or release considering that trees act as carbon sinks) Transportation of virgin wood to the manufacturing plant (may be substantial when considering tropical wood from South America or South East Asia)

Production of timber products from wood: energy consumption for the cleaning, cutting, crushing steps, noise production +

 Impacts of landfilling As for other organic materials, landfilling of C&D wood waste leads to emissions of methane which is a greenhouse gas showing a global warming potential of 72 over 20 years, while carbon dioxide’s is 1. Moreover, landf ill of wood is associated with the unnecessary use of land and may lead to the contami nation of the water table in the case the contaminated fractions has not been properly re moved or isolated from theFebruary 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of construction an d demolition waste 93 environment. The sources of contamination come from the surface chemicals that are used as glue, varnish, coating or wood preservatives to increase the material durability.

 Impacts of energy recovery Both Directive 2001/77/EC on the production of elec tricity from renewable energy sources and the Renewable Energy Directive favour the recyc ling market of waste wood and in particular C&D waste wood.

 Impacts of recycling into derived timber products Compared to incineration, recycling of C&D wood was te allows avoiding the production of particulates, carbon monoxide and various volatile organic compounds, i.e. PAHs, from the inefficient burning of wood. These hazards should h owever be limited when incineration takes place in a plant compliant with the Waste Inc ineration Directive. To ensure good quality products made from secondary wood, the standard limits for toxic elements in recycled wood are the same as for raw m aterials. The limit values of chemical contamination in supplied material have to comply w ith existing regulations and are summarised in the following table.

Table 27 - Chemical contamination limits for recycl ed wood use [EPF, 2002]

Elements/Compounds Limit values (mg/kg recycled) Arsenic (As) 25 Cadmium (Cd) 50 Chromium (Cr) 25 Copper (Cu) 40 Lead (Pb) 90 Mercury (Hg) 25 Fluorine (F) 100 Chlorine (Cl) 1000 Pentachlorophenol (PCP) 5 Creosote (Benzo(a)pyrene) 0.5
For C&D wood waste that show contamination rates be low the standards, surface treatments have to be realised to scrap the contami nated surface and to be able to use it as a secondary material. The recovery of C&D wood waste allows saving natura l resources even if nowadays wood is considered as renewable resource and that forestry is supervised within European countries where cut trees are replaced for a sustai nable exploitation. Unfortunately, that is not always the case for tropical woods that are imp orted on the European market.94 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 

### 7.4.2. E CONOMIC IMPACTS
Due to the competition of utilisation and the limit ed supplies, the market price for recycled wood is going up. The margin of the market price is influenced by the following elements:

• The regionally available amount of waste wood

• The intensity of the competition between material a nd energy recovery

• Seasonal variations (winter stock etc.) In Germany for example, prices for waste wood diffe r not only depending on the type of wood but also between regions. Therefore, average p rices only give some orientations. For highly contaminated waste wood, the distributor eve n has to face additional costs for proper disposal and/or special treatment (negative values in the following table). Table 28 – Average prices range for selected waste wood fractions in Germany [JRC, 2009]

Waste wood categories Average prices in €/tonne between July 2002 and July 2007 Non treated waste wood – wood chips 22 to 28 Pre-treated waste wood – prefolding (0-

300 mm) - 4 to +4

Non-treated waste wood – prefolding (0-

300 mm) 14 to 18

Contaminated waste wood – wood chips

(0-150 mm) -20 to +9

Pre-treated waste wood – wood chips (0-

150 mm) 5 to 13

Contaminated waste wood – prefolding

(0-300 mm) -34 to -2
In general, the prices for sorting, storage and tre atment of specific waste wood fractions are not an incentive to the development of waste wo od recovery.



## 7.5. S CENARIO TOWARDS THE 

## 70% TARGET 

## : D RIVERS AND BARRIERS

Recycling could be improved by measures by the MS t o promote efficient sorting of C&D wood waste to avoid contamination, to make greater amounts of wood waste available for the industry and as a consequence achieve better re covery rates from C&D wood waste. As a result of the European strategy of security an d sustainable energy and the Landfill Directive, the use of waste wood for either materia l or energy recycling are expected to play a dominant role in wood waste management and stimul ate the competition between material recycling and energy recovery. However, in centives to use waste wood as a renewable energy source might hinder the 70% recycl ing target, as energy recovery is notFebruary 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of construction an d demolition waste 95 included in the target. This issue is amplified in countries where wood represents an important fraction of the C&D waste stream (e.g. no rthern European countries).96 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 

# 8. Material focus: GYPSUM

**Applications in the construction**  **sector** Buildings

**Production in the EU-27**  Total: about 44 Mt

- Natural gypsum (extracted): about 28,878 Mt (2008)

- Synthetic gypsum: 15,200 Mt (2005 forecast for EU-2 5) **Waste generation in the EU-27**  A minimum of 4 Mt

**Treatment options** Landfill Recycling into new plasterboards In substitution of natural gypsum In substitution of

synthetic gypsum

**Current rates** Gypsum demolition waste: 100%

Gypsum construction waste: N/A Gypsum demolition waste: n/a 123 Gypsum construction waste: estimation of 3 to 10% of waste gypsum from plasterboards **Potential rates** N/A 25 to 30% of waste gypsum from plasterboards

**Environmental impacts**  Production of the toxic gas H 2 S if plasterboards are landfilled in inert landfills (EU legislation requires specific cells in inert landfills to avoid H 2 S emissions but implementation is not always correct) Land-use, transportation Few significant net benefits Potential energy and local pollution savings in dense areas (shorter transportation) Resource use Avoiding extraction activities (land use and biodiversity) Higher net benefits (a higher energy consumption is associated to the manufacturing of plasterboards from synthetic gypsum due to its higher moisture content)

**Barriers to re-use and recycling of**  **the waste** - High availability and low cost of raw material

- Selective deconstruction techniques are already des igned but are not implemented because too costly

- In most countries, landfill taxes are too low to en courage the development of recycling

- Export of gypsum wastes for backfilling (e.g. forme r salt mines in DE)

- The manufacturing processes currently do not allow the re-introduction of a higher recycled gypsum powder content

**Existing and potential drivers**  **to re-use and recycling of the**  **waste** - Sorting at the construction site and at the demolit ion phase of a building to increase

the quantity of C&D waste to be recycled. At the de molition phase, deconstruction should be encouraged (also financially) instead of demolition

- Characterisation of gypsum waste: specifications fo r recycled gypsum

- Collection systems to collect a higher amount of gy psum waste

- R&D to adapt the manufacturing processes in order t o allow the re-introduction of a higher recycled gypsum powder content

- Higher and harmonised landfill taxes across the EU to push for other alternatives

- Availability of public amenity sites/public waste r ecycling centres

123 Current deconstructed buildings contain plaster bu t not plasterboard (as many buildings over 40 years old in Europe contain littl e plasterboard). Plaster is uneasy to recycle due to the fact that it sticks to the brick s. It then goes to mixed C&D waste inert landfills. Therefore, current recycling rates are low.February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 97 

## 8.1. P RODUCT DESCRIPTION AND APPLICATIONS

There are two types of gypsum: natural gypsum (whic h is directly extracted) and synthetic gypsum. Gypsum 124 is a rock-like mineral commonly found in the earth ’s crust and produced from open-cast or underground mines. In Europe, the prin cipal gypsum deposits are located in France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Russia, Spain, the UK and Ukraine 125 . Gypsum is generally screened to remove ‘fines’ (mainly mudstones), then crushed and finely ground. Gypsum is used mainly in the manufacture of non loa d-bearing building elements for setting the ceiling on and dividing the interior sp ace. The gypsum industry is therefore principally driven by the construction activity and the demand for new and refurbished housing. Gypsum based applications range from complex high-t ech systems to easy to install products:

• Plasterboard: used for partitions and the lining of walls, ceilings, roofs and floors. The properties of plasterboard can be modif ied to meet specific requirements, such as fire resistance, humidity res istance, shock resistance, etc. More than 1.6 million m 2 of European interior surfaces are covered with plasterboards every year.

• Decorative plaster: plaster powder, mixed with wate r, manually or through the use of silo-supplied spray systems, is used to crea te lining for brick, block walls and for ceilings. More than 5 million tons of plast er is used in Europe for interior lining.

• Building plaster: used for walls and ceilings.

• Plaster blocks: used for partitions and gypsum tile s for ceilings. More than 20 million m 2 of European interior walls are separated using pla ster blocks.

• Gypsum based self levelling screeds: anhydrite or a lpha-Hemihydrates are used in the production of self-levelling floor screeds.

• Gypsum fibreboards: used for partitions and the lin ing of walls, ceilings, roofs and floors. Standard gypsum fibreboard offers good performance when it comes to shock resistance, sound insulation and hum idity resistance.

124 Natural gypsum is formed geologically from the eva poration of seawater. It is composed of calcium sulphate (calcium, sulphur, and oxygen) wit h two molecules of water, CaSO4.2H2O. Gypsum is usually white, colourless or gray, but can also be shades of red, brown and yellow. When calcined, it is partially dehydrated and becomes a white fine powder called Anhydrite or more commonly “plaster of Paris”

125 www.eurogypsum.org98 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 Gypsum is used in all construction types (residenti al, non-residential, new or refurbished). For instance, the applications of plasterboard spli t into the three traditional sectors approximately as follows:

• House building: 30%

• Commercial and industrial building: 30%

• Repair, Maintenance, Improvement: 40% Plasterboard usage and market only gained widesprea d acceptance in Europe in the 1970s1980s. Even now in Southern Europe more traditional ways of partitioning and finishing interior space still prevail. This means that many buildings over 40 years old contain little plasterboard. One of the main substitutes to natural gypsum is FG D gypsum (Flue Gas Desulphurisation Gypsum) which is generated by coal-fired power stat ions during the process designed to clean sulphur from the exhaust gases. FGD gypsum is produced in most Western European cou ntries, but output is concentrated in Germany where around half of the production is l ocated. The large area of use for FGD gypsum is the production of plasterboards, gypsum b locks and floor screeds. FGD gypsum basically changed the scene in the Europ ean gypsum industry. Indeed, the electricity industry became an important supplier o f raw material and an essential partner in the technological development of the FGD product ion and establishment of quality criteria for FGD gypsum. Financial investment on bo th sides has been significant to bring this product (manufactured within the fence of the power plant stations) to its maturity. In the past, plasterboards production facilities we re located close to natural gypsum deposits and the market for building materials. An increasing number of production facilities are now being established across Europe in close proximity of large power plant stations. New gypsum markets also opened up as FGD gypsum can be more easily transported by barges and trains across Europe than natural gypsum. Belgium and the Netherlands, with no natural gypsum deposits, impor t FGD gypsum by inland waterways from coal power plant stations in Germany. Accordin g to the electricity industry, the production of FGD gypsum is expected to increase in all the European countries. However, there are currently EU and national politi cal debates about sustainable energy (EU commitment to reduction of CO 2 emissions); about secure energy supply (with the ne ed to rebalance the energy mix); about the growing nee d to use renewable energy sources and the existence of new efficient technologies of powe r stations. These elements might change the scene for the production of FGD gypsum a nd also make it difficult to give a long term reliable prognosis on the future production of future FGD gypsum. As already mentioned above, gypsum-based products a nd solutions have numerous qualities in construction such as:February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 99 • Gypsum is non-combustible and able to delay a fire’ s spread up to 4 hours by acting as a fire barrier.

• Gypsum acts as a sound regulator by providing a phy sical barrier to sound. These solutions are applied for the interiors of ho mes, offices, schools, shops, cinemas, airports, etc.

• Gypsum acts as a thermal insulator for the inside o f buildings when combined with insulating materials thanks to its low thermal conductivity.

• Gypsum equilibrates humidity and heat peaks.

• Gypsum is impact resistant thanks to its high degree of ha rdness equivalent to a thick wall heavy masonry construction.



## 8.2. Q UANTITATIVE ANALYSIS



### 8.2.1. P RODUCTION DATA

With a turnover of over 10 billion Euros , the European Gypsum and Anhydrite Industries operate 160 quarries and some 200 factories

. The European gypsum industry generates employment directly to 28,000 people and indirectly to 85,000 people (plasterers and plasterboard erecters) through the whole life-cycle of the product: from the extraction of mineral gypsum to the manufacture of added-value pr oducts used mainly in construction 126

. Thirty years ago, the gypsum industry was made up o f many SMEs mainly producing building plaster and stucco for local markets. The emergence and growth of the plasterboard market in the 1980s, therefore requiri ng high capital investments, equipment and R&D, led to the emergence of three main operato rs who cover 80% of the gypsum product market. In Spain, the most important produc er of natural gypsum, SMEs are very active, with a direct employment of more than 2,300 employees, operating 26 quarries and 33 plants (powder plant, plaster blocks and ceiling tiles). There are also SMEs active in plaster block and plaster powder markets in other E uropean countries. The available production quantities of natural gyps um at the national level within the EU-27 are summarised in the following table.

126 www.eurogypsum.org100 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011

Table 29 – Production of natural gypsum for 2005 an d 2008 in tonnes [BGS, 2008] 127

Country 2005 2008 Production per capita in 2008 % share Growth rate 2005/2008
Austria 911,162 1,022,983 0.1228 3.5% 12.3% Belgium N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Bulgaria 187,700 234,300 0.0307 0.8% 24.8% Cyprus 21,5500 412,000 0.4791 1.4% 91.2% Czech Republic 24,000 35,000 0.0034 0.1% 45.8% Denmark N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Estonia N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Finland N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A France 4,902,498 2,339,380 0.0367 8.1% -52.3% Germany 1,644,000 2,112,000 0.0257 7.3% 28.5% Greece 865,216 830,000 0.0738 2.9% -4.1% Hungary 19,000 15,940 0.0016 0.1% -16.1% Ireland 700,000 600,000 0.1364 2.1% -14.3% Italy 1,600,000 1,600,000 0.0267 5.5% 0.0% Latvia 220,000 230,000 0.1018 0.8% 4.5% Lithuania N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Luxembourg N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Malta N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Netherlands N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Poland 1,048,000 1,499,901 0.0393 5.2% 43.1% Portugal 389,180 400,000 0.0377 1.4% 2.8% Romania 532,867 832,248 0.0387 2.9% 56.2% Slovakia 107,500 152,000 0.0281 0.5% 41.4% Slovenia N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Spain 14,453,053 15,000,000 0.3313 51.9% 3,8% Sweden N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A United Kingdom 1,700,000 1,700,000 0.0278 5.9% 0.0% Total/average EU-27 29,519,676 28,878,952 0.0583 100.0% -1.7 World total 145,000,000 N/A N/A With a total production of at least 29.5 million to nnes of natural gypsum in 2005 (considering the lacking data for some MS), the Eur opean production represents more than 20.3% of the world total production (145 million to nnes). The major producers of natural gypsum are Spain (52%), France (8.1%), Germany (7.3 %), the United Kingdom (6%), Italy (5.5%) and Poland (5.2%) with 24 million tonnes pro duced in 2008 accounting for 84% of the EU-27 total production.

127 US Geological Survey ( http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/ ), N/A : no reported gypsum productionFebruary 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 101 These figures show a slight decrease on the EU-27 s cale (-1.7%) with large discrepancies between countries. Moreover, the fact that gypsum is a globally traded natural resource needs to be highlighted. Indeed, the amounts that are exchanged on the market vary greatly depending on several factors such as the demand of the constr uction sector and the actual production capacity added to the availability of the material in the natural resources of the MS. At last, data about the overall trade situation wit h gypsum are lacking as large quantities of synthetic gypsum compete with natural gypsum. In 20 05, 15.2 million tonnes of synthetic gypsum where estimated to be produced at the EU lev el 128

. 

### 8.2.2. W ASTE GENERATION AND TREATMENT DATA
Gypsum waste statistics are available neither at th e European level nor at the national one because they are not identified within the amount o f C&D waste that is generated. By now, in most cases they are mixed to other C&D waste suc h as inert materials, paper, cardboard etc. In this context, recycling rates cannot be cal culated and are therefore lacking at the EU27 level 129

. Three sources of gypsum waste exist: production was te, construction waste and demolition waste. Even though gypsum is considered to be “fully and e ternally recyclable” 130 by the gypsum industry, only production and construction gypsum w aste is currently recycled (without further information on the rate). The recycling rate for demolition gypsum waste is l ow in many MS given that selective deconstruction is required. Recycling of gypsum pro ducts that are collected from demolition and renovation projects can be contamina ted with other materials, such as paint, fastenings, screws, wood and insulation mate rials among others, which can render recycling difficult. This is a result of the prevai ling demolition processes that are in place nowadays when a building reaches its end of life an d the mixing of all fractions which does not allow further recycling of gypsum. Indeed, it i s not always possible for the gypsum plasterboard producers to rely on their recycling f acilities that are only suited for uncontaminated production and construction waste 131

. Approximately 10 million tons 132 of plasterboard waste was landfilled around the gl obe in 2007 133 and about 4 million tonnes of gypsum waste are landfilled in Europe annually

128 [Roskill, 2004] 129 Interview with Christine Marlet, Secretary General , Eurogypsum (European federation of national associations of gypsum products manufacturers) 130 [Eurogypsum, 2007] 131 [Eurogypsum] 132 [Lund, 2008] 133 No figure is available at the EU-27 level.102 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 (excluding waste arising at production plants, whic h amounts to 0.6 to 1.2 million tonnes) 134

. 

## 8.3. R ECOVERY TECHNIQUES



### 8.3.1. E XISTING OPTIONS
This sub-section will focus only on gypsum construc tion waste due to the aforementioned reasons. Gypsum construction waste consists in piec es of plaster and fibreboards that had to be cut off to fit special arrangements in the bu ilding, of damaged boards during transportation or because of the weather when they are stored outside. Such waste represents around 5% 135 of plasterboard used on construction sites and is considered to be clean (free of paints and nails) and recyclable int o the manufacturing process for the production of new plasterboards as described below.

 Recycling The collected plasterboard stream has to undergo se veral steps in the recycling process. First, paper layers of the plasterboards are remove d as much as possible, then gypsum is crushed into powder and eventually this powder is s ent back to plasterboard manufacturers so that they can make new plasterboar ds from it. The gypsum powder is estimated to represent 94% of the total plasterboard waste collected 136 . The remaining 6% refer to paper and cardboard (an d the related contaminants) composing plasterboards and can be re -used in various ways such as composting (as very little gypsum is left on the pa per) or heat generation. There is always a residual paper fraction that rema ins in the powder and which hinders the improvement of the introduction rates of recycled p owder into the processes that are currently in place. The associated risks are the da mage of the manufacture machinery and an effect on the acoustic or thermal quality of the final product. According to Eurogypsum, between 5 and 10% of gypsu m powder resulting from construction plasterboard waste is re-integrated in the closed-loop system. This figure is a European average and huge differences exist between MS. Indeed, recycling practices exist in Denmark, Germany and other Northern European cou ntries while recycling is limited in Greece and Spain or is not applied at all in Easter n Europe countries. In some MS where comprehensive gypsum recycling schemes have been es tablished (e.g. Denmark) overall recycling rates of 65% can be achieved.

134 [VITO, 2007] 135 [Eurogypsum] 136 http://www.gypsumrecycling.biz/6688-1_Why+recycle%3 F#Header0February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 103 This discrepancy is due to specific national legisl ation, to mentality aspects and especially to the existence of a market that would encourage the economic activity associated to recycling 137

. 

### 8.3.2. E MERGING TECHNIQUES
Only a small quantity of gypsum demolition waste is currently recycled due to challenges surrounding contamination with other materials. Thi s is therefore an area of continuing research and development to improve the manufacturi ng process by making possible the re-introduction of gypsum with a higher residual pa per fraction (therefore a gypsum powder with a higher impurity rate) or enhancing th e techniques for the removal of paper from plasterboards. Other options are considered to partially or fully replace virgin gypsum that is usually used for cement manufacture and for agriculture 138 . They are described below.

 Recycling as a raw material in the manufacture of c ement A small percentage of gypsum is usually incorporate d into cement in order to modify its setting characteristics and traditionally the gypsu m additive was obtained by mining. Gypsum waste could substitute virgin gypsum though WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme) has identified significant actual and pe rceived barriers to the incorporation of recycled gypsum from plasterboard waste into cement mixtures 139

. A study was then undertaken for WRAP to determine h ow the barriers could be overcome and how the cement industry could maximise the amou nt of gypsum waste utilised in its products and hence diverted from landfill. The study has demonstrated through desk studies and practical trials that recycled gypsum, of the quality currently available, can substitute technically for mined gypsum in the production of bagged cements, but that it remains t o be proven acceptable to the ready mix market.

 Recycling as a soil treatment for agricultural bene fit Gypsum is traditionally added to agricultural arabl e soils to improve soil condition. For this purpose, gypsum is usually mined or quarried, which depletes natural resources among other impacts. A study was undertaken by WRAP to ev aluate whether recycled gypsum produced from waste plasterboard is effective as a soil treatment in commercial potato production 140 . A parallel study with winter wheat was carried ou t in early 2008. Both studies were undertaken by the research and develop ment department of Velcourt Ltd.

137 Interview with Christine Marlet, Secretary General , Eurogypsum 138 Other applications include agricultural fertiliser , sub-soil amendment on new residential construction site and admixture for concrete. 139 [WRAP, 2008] 140 [WRAP, 2007]104 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 The main effect on soil condition by adding gypsum are considered to be improved structure, leading to improved drainage, water-hold ing capacity, aid restoration of calcium and sulphur deficiencies and improve the efficiency of a plant’s uptake of inorganic nitrogen fertiliser.
Trials were realised and led to the conclusion that applying recycled gypsum to land used for potato production was beneficial in its effects on the soil and the quality of the crop. The farmer involved in the trial was convinced of t he benefits of recycled gypsum and intends to continue its use on his fields when requ ired. However, farmers have indicated that the complicati ons of applying for an environmental permit for the use of gypsum waste deter them from using cheaper, but equally beneficial gypsum from waste plasterboard 141

. However, this recovery technique might have importa nt impacts on ground water sulphides concentration.



## 8.4. E NVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF GYPSUM WASTE

MANAGEMENT



### 8.4.1. E NVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH IMPACTS
The following table summarises the impacts and bene fits of the different end of life options for gypsum waste, which are further detailed below.

Table 30 – Impacts and benefits for each option for the management of gypsum

LANDFILL
Direct impacts Avoided Impacts Net benefits
Transportation of waste to the landfill
Production of H 2 S (bad smell and toxic to human health) when mixed with biodegradable waste (the European legislation requires specific cells i n inert landfills to avoid H 2 S emissions) Use of land space - -

141 www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/waste /114435.aspxFebruary 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 105 RECYCLING OF PLASTERBOARDS FOR RE-INTRODUCTION OF T HE GYPSUM POWDER INTO THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS Substitute material (in the same proportion): gypsu m powder processed from gypsum minerals extracted from quarries

Direct impacts Avoided Impacts Net benefits

Transportation of construction plasterboard waste from the construction site to waste processors

Processing of plasterboard waste into gypsum powder: dust production and noise during crushing and sieving steps, additional energy consumption for the removal of paper Transportation of recycled gypsum to plasterboards manufacturers Extraction of raw materials (mineral gypsum): land-use for quarries, production of dust, use of natural resources, energy consumption Transportation of raw materials Consumption of resources Land use and biodiversity issues due to gypsum extraction

Processing of raw materials into powder: dust production and noise o/+

In the previous table, the substitution of natural gypsum by recycling gypsum has been analysed. However, recycled gypsum can also replace synthetic gypsum (FGD). In this case, the net benefits are assumed to be higher due to a more energy intensive manufacturing process to produce gypsum based products from synth etic gypsum compared to natural gypsum (because of a higher moisture content of FGD ).

 Direct impacts of landfilling The main environmental issue associated with gypsum waste management is the production of the dangerous hydrogen sulphide (H 2 S) gas when plasterboard waste is disposed of in landfills. H 2 S gas is a dangerous gas that is lethal in high con centrations and releases odours in low concentrations. The plasterb oard waste itself is not dangerous, but when mixed with organic waste, and exposed to rain in an anaerobic environment, H 2 S gas can be released. For this reason, the EU has decide d that plasterboard waste and other gypsum-based products can no longer be disposed of in simple inert landfills but in controlled cells where no organic waste is accepted . However, this would require gypsum waste to be collected separately or sorted afterwar ds, which is not always the case. Therefore, in many cases gypsum waste is landfilled under improper conditions thus posing an environmental risk. Moreover, landfills use can also be a problem in some areas (around highly populated urban centres) due to use of land space. At last, transportation of waste to the landfill implies environmental impacts.106 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011  Direct impact of reprocessing plasterboards waste c ollected from construction sites As developed in section 8.3.1. , the processing of plasterboards waste collected from construction sites need energy-relying steps before further re-introduction into the manufacturing process. Other related impacts includ e dust and noise production, as well as transportation of construction plasterboard waste f rom the construction site to waste processors, and of recycled gypsum to plasterboards manufacturers.

 Net benefits of recycling gypsum powder resulting f rom plasterboard waste collected from construction sites Net benefits are low to medium as the production of plasterboards from recycled gypsum or from virgin material mainly are likely to have s imilar environmental impacts. The benefits are to avoid the use of natural resources, that is to say virgin mineral gypsum extracted from quarries, avoiding quarrying activities (thus reducing land use and avoiding potential biodiversity losses). Despite gypsum is estimated i n good supply presently, there is only a limited amount available within the EU, so steps to preserve the natural gypsum resources should be encouraged.


### 8.4.2. E CONOMIC IMPACTS
Two main economic factors push towards gypsum recyc ling: raw material price and landfilling costs increase. Both are specified belo w. As developed in the above section, gypsum raw mater ial is not threatened by intensive extraction yet but the available amount is finite w hich is calling for saving measures such as recycling. The first effect is the increasing price of raw gypsum material as observed in some plants where it has gone up with more than 50% the last 3 years 142

. The other economic aspect linked to gypsum waste ma nagement is the cost associated with landfilling. The following table is an example in t he UK of the increasing landfill taxes for plasterboards waste over the last few years within some EU countries. Table 31 - Estimated increase in the cost (Euros/to nne 143 ) of disposing of plasterboard waste to landfill in the UK [Hollins, 2006] Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Landfill Tax 17 21 24 27 31 Landfill Tipping fee 31 86 91 91 91 Transport 19 21 22 23 24 Total 67 127 137 141 146 Between 2004 and 2008 the total landfilling cost in creased by 117% from 67 Euros per tonne of gypsum landfilled in 2004 to 146 Euros in 2008. Landfill taxes in other European countries are also increasing fast and are expected to reach more than 70 Euro per tonne in both the Netherlands and the UK in 2011.

142 [Lund, 2008] 143 Used conversion rate: 1£ = 1.1401€ (April 2010)February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 107 The effect of the increasing landfill costs is assu med to be the development of recycling practices among gypsum waste producers and gypsum m anufacturers. Indeed, in 2007 approximately 7 million Euros were invested in Euro pe in containers and recycling equipment 144 . Compared to the 10 billion Euros turnover of the gypsum industry, this represent only 0.07% but it is the first step towar ds a recycling Industry.



## 8.5. T OWARDS THE 

## 70% TARGET 

## : D RIVERS AND BARRIERS

As developed in the above sections, gypsum C&D wast e recycling faces several barriers and the only recycling opportunity accounts for 5 to 10 % of gypsum waste from plasterboards. Therefore, to achieve the 70% target, signification actions must be undertaken.
The main barriers are:

• The high availability and the low costs of raw gyps um material

• The low availability of gypsum waste due to unadapt ed C&D processes. Indeed, though the techniques exist, they are not implement ed because they would represent a financial burden to the C&D sectors.

• The lack of knowledge on recycling or other materia l recovery options. Indeed, manufacturing processes currently in place do not a llow the re-introduction of a higher recycled gypsum powder content. In order to overcome those barriers several options should be considered, the following paragraphs describe potential actions.

 Sorting at source: separation for an improved mater ial quality The recyclability of gypsum-based products and espe cially plasterboards could be enhanced thanks to deconstruction which would therefore make the sorting process easier. Indeed, gypsum based interior partition elements are easily dismantled and a further effective sorting would produce a higher non-contaminated gyp sum C&D waste fraction, make easier the further recycling of this specific waste stream and improve the overall recycling rates. Therefore, the characterisation of gypsum waste, i. e. the identification of gypsum waste material from other elements is the key point to in crease the amount of potentially recycled gypsum.

 Gypsum waste collection: increasing the potential f or recycling Actions to ease the gypsum waste collection could a lso be considered to increase the amounts of C&D waste. As an example, the UK has dev eloped collection systems that are expected to increase the recycling rates. Examples of collection systems 145 are described below:

144 [GRI, 2007] < www.ciwm.co.uk/mediastore/FILES/14609.pdf > 145 [Hollins, 2006]108 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 • The bulk bag system has been developed by the Briti sh gypsum industry so that gypsum waste is collected by its producer in a clos ed-loop system. The costs of the collection of plasterboards through this system lays between 49 and 203 Euros per tonne for medium sized bags (able to coll ect 0.35 tonne and accept a contamination rate up to 30%). The large range of c osts depends on the quality of the collected plasterboard and the distance to t he manufacturing plant.

• The Skip system is operated through waste contracto rs and involves the use of skips of various sizes. The waste contractor collec ts the gypsum waste and stores it until the amount is sufficient to be sent to the closest plasterboard reprocessor.

 Building conception: designing for the end of life Nevertheless, it requires that future buildings wil l be designed for disassembly, the development of tools for the deconstruction of exis ting buildings and the training of deconstruction workers. In almost all scenarios, th e cost of deconstruction is higher than that of demolition due to the labour intensive natu re of deconstruction. Public grants may therefore be necessary to trigger the momentum towa rds the implementation of the EC Directive and face these additional costs 146

. Some European countries are already leading the way as described below 147 :

• A Dutch scheme, encouraged by stringent recycling l egislation, provides for onsite separate storage of gypsum in a special contai ner. The waste, once collected and taken off-site, is stored at a centra l depot until enough gypsum has been accumulated for transportation to a recycl ing facility.

• A similar programme was set up in Dublin (Ireland) in spring 2005. The system has been inspected by the Irish Minister of the Env ironment with great satisfaction. Most customers are from the greater D ublin area, but the coverage of the system is expanding.

• In the UK, plasterboard producers are recycling “cl ean” building site scrap from some house builders.

 Green building systems: promoting the use of former gypsum waste As for concrete waste, green building systems (e.g. HQE – Haute Qualité Environnementale in France, BREEAM - BRE Environmental Assessment Me thod in the UK, German Sustainable Building Certificate) can encourage the recycling o f plaster elements and the use of plasterboards made of increasing recycled gypsum po wder by integrating such criteria in their rating charts. This would influence public pe rception regarding the quality of recycled plaster elements and promote large possibilities fo r their use, by specifically addressing the

146 Interview with Christine Marlet, Secretary General , Eurogypsum 147 [Eurogypsum]February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 109 recycled plaster issue in the system. Recommendatio ns on gypsum products are also provided by the Commission in its GPP background re port on wall panels. In England and Wales, a Quality Protocol has been a dopted in January 2010 to raise market confidence in recycled gypsum and increase demand f or waste plasterboard. It sets out the end of waste criteria for the production and use of recycled gypsum from waste plasterboard. If these criteria are met, the result ing outputs will normally be regarded as having been fully recovered and to have ceased to b e waste 148 . Though producers and users are not obliged to comply with the Quality Pr otocol, it will potentially boost sales by an estimated £10 million (11.4 million Euros), and could save industries that generate waste plasterboard in excess of £8 million (9.2 million E uros) a year in disposal costs 149 while also saving 46,800 tonnes of virgin raw material 150 by re-introducing gypsum waste into the manufacturing process.
Such measure could be extended to the whole EU to r educe the amount of gypsum waste disposed of in landfills and encourage recycling pr actices.

 Increasing landfilling costs: a driver towards the development of alternatives Nowadays, the operation of landfills is regulated a t the EU level by Decision 2003/33/EC 151 on Waste Acceptance Criteria, which was adopted to strengthen the waste regulations established by Directive 1999/31/EC 152 . This directive requires the implementation of the Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) for high Sulphate c ontent products by July 2005 which states that gypsum-based and other high sulphate-be aring materials having more than 10% sulphate in any one load 153 is considered as waste and is therefore accepted i n landfills. Moreover, “non-hazardous gypsum-based materials sho uld only be disposed of in landfills for non-hazardous waste in cells where no biodegrad able waste is accepted 154 . The limit values for Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and Dissolved Organic Carbon at pH 7 (DOC7) given in section 2.3.2 shall apply to wastes landfilled toge ther with gypsum-based materials 155 .” As a direct effect, the inexpensive storage of gypsum wa ste in inert landfills is no longer allowed. In the UK for example, there are only one or two la ndfills currently in operation able to receive high sulphate non hazardous waste such as g ypsum and store it in mono-cells, with gate fees ranging from £90 to £135 per tonne (betwe en 100 and 155 Euros). According to the Waste Management Industry, other mono-cells for plasterboards are unlikely to be set up since asbestos is seen as a more lucrative marke t requiring such facilities 156

.

148 [WRAP, 2010] 149 www.wrap.org.uk/recycling_industry/recycling_indust ry_2.html 150 www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/waste /114435.aspx 151 [EC, 2002] 152 [EC, 1999] 153 Specific sampling and testing methods are describe d in the Council Directive. 154 Also called ”mono-cells” which refer to the separa te storage of gypsum waste in specific landfill cells to avoid any contact with biodegradable waste

. 155 [EC, 2002] 156 [Hollins, 2006]110 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 Increasing landfilling costs would encourage the de velopment of new recycling techniques as waste producers would only be able to sustain su ch costs to a certain point. In the same way, it will improve the sorting out of gypsum cons truction waste and produce a higher feedstock for existing options. The recycling of gy psum waste would turn into a business opportunity as the demand for gypsum products is li kely to increase with the population and the need for new houses, schools, hospitals, of fices and shops. However, to optimise the effect of such driver, the se costs should be harmonised all across the EU. Indeed, in the Netherlands for instance, la ndfilling in special cells is expensive while it is not in Germany, leading therefore to the ship ment of waste to the adjacent country.

 Promoting R&D initiatives to explore new recycling options Concerning construction waste, it is estimated that up to 25% of gypsum virgin material can be replaced by recycled gypsum powder for the produ ction of plasterboards 157 . Therefore the target set at 30% by the European gypsum indust ry as the percentage of recycled material being re-introduced into the manufacturing process seem to be achievable. To achieve the 70% target, promoting R&D on product ion techniques and investments in gypsum facility to increase the amounts of waste gy psum that can be used in the production of new gypsum seem essential in order to improve current processes and allow the re-introduction of a larger part of recycled gy psum in building elements.

.

157 [Lund, 2008]February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 111 

# 9. LITERATURE REVIEW

 Sources of information

• General information

[ETC/RWM, 2009] European Topic Centre on Resource and Waste Managem ent, 2009, **EU as a**

**Recycling Society - Present Recycling Levels of Mun icipal Waste and C&D Waste in**  **the EU** [EUROSTAT, 2010] EUROSTAT Statistics, accessed betw een February and April 2010

[FEAD, 2010] Personal Communication with Mr. SCHROEDER René, Eur opean Federation of

Waste Management and Environmental Services

[FIR, 2010] Personal Communication with Mr. CUPERUS Geert, Bure au of International

Recycling (FIR)

[FFB, 2010] Personal Communication with Mrs. LINE Véronique, Fé dération Française du

Bâtiment (FFB)

[SNED, 2010] Personal Communication with Mr. DUVAL, Syndicat Nat ional des Entreprises de

Démolition (SNED)

[UEPG, 2010] Personal Communication with Mr. O’BRIEN Jim, Europe an Aggregates Association

(UEPG) [UBA 2008] Umweltbundesamt, 2008, **Aggregates Case Study - Final Report**

[WRAP 2006] WRAP, 2006, **The sustainable use of resources for the production of aggregates in** 

**England**

[WRAP 2007] WRAP, 2007, **The sustainable Use of resources for the production of aggregates in** 

**Scotland**

• Bricks, tiles and ceramics

[Symonds, 1999] Symonds, ARGUS, COWI and PRC Bouwcentrum, February 1999, **C&D Waste**

**Management Practices, And Their Economic Impacts,** Report to DGXI, European Commission

• Concrete

[Mehta] P.K. Mehta, P.J.M. Monteiro, **Concrete: Microstructure, Properties, and Materials ,**  **Concrete and the environment**

[WBCSD, 2009] WBCSD (Word Business Council for Sustainable Develo pment ), June 2009, **The**

**Cement Sustainability Initiative, Recycling concret e**  [ERMCO, 2008] ERMCO , (European Ready Mixed Concret e), **Industry Statistics based on the**112 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011

**Y2008 production data**

[Rudus, 2000] L. Rudus, 2000, **Use of Reclaimed Concrete in Pavement Structures, D esign** 

**Manual and Construction Specification, p** 7

[WHO, 2006] WHO (World Health Organization), 2006, **Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality** ,

First Addendum to Third Edition, Volume 1, Recommen dation

[ECP, 2009] European Concrete Platform ASBL, February 2009, **Sustainable benefits of**

**Concrete Structures**

[VITO, 2006] VITO and BIO Intelligence Service, 2006, **Data gathering and impact assessment**

**for a review and possible widening of the scope of the IPPC Directive in relation to**  **waste treatment activities, Fact sheet E3, Sorting of C&D waste** 

[Habert, 2008] G. Habert, N. Roussel, Juin 2008, **Comment concevoir un béton ayant un faible**

**impact environemental?** , Université Paris-Est, Laboratoire Central des Pon ts et Chaussées

[Struble, 2004] L. Struble, K. Godfrey, 2004, **How Sustainable is Concrete? International**

**Workshop on Sustainable Development and Concrete Te chnology** 

• Gypsum [Eurogypsum, 2007] Eurogypsum, July 2007, **Gypsum factsheet on “What is gypsum?”** [BGS, 2008] British Geological Survey, **European mineral statistics 2004-08** , p.234

[Roskill, 2004] Roskill Information Services, 2004 , **“The economics of gypsum & anhydrite –**

**ninth edition”** [Eurogypsum] Eurogypsum, Living with Gypsum: From R aw Material to Finished Products

[Lund, 2008] H. Lund-Nielsen, May 2008, **Recycling of plasterboard waste – from “nice to**

**have” to necessity** , Gypsum Recycling International (GRI), Global Gyps um Conference in Dubai

[VITO, 2007] VITO and BIO Intelligence Service, 2007, **Data gathering and impact assessment**

**for a review and possible widening of the scope of the IPPC Directive in relation to**  **waste treatment activities** , EC ENV

[WRAP, 2008] WRAP, November 2008, Final Report, **Trials for the use of recycled gypsum in**

**cement manufacture**

[WRAP, 2007] WRAP, June 2007, Plasterboard technical report, **Recycled gypsum as a soil**

**treatment in potato production**

[GRI, 2007] Gypsum Recycling International, May 2007, **Solutions for gypsum / plasterboard**

**waste** , Annual General Meeting and Spring Open Meeting [WRAP, 2010] WRAP, January 2010, **Quality Protocol, Recycled gypsum from waste**February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 113 **pla sterboard, End of waste criteria for the production**  **and use of recycled gypsum from waste plasterboard** 

[EC, 2002] Council Decision 2003/33/EC of 19 December 2002 est ablishing criteria and

procedures for the acceptance of waste at landfills pursuant to Article 16 of and Annex II to Directive 1999/31/EC

[EC, 1999] Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on th e landfill of waste (the

Landfill Directive)

[Hollins, 2006] O. Hollins, June 2006, **Diverting plasterboards waste from landfill in the UK,** 

**Federation of Plastering and Drywall Contractors**

• Asphalt

[EAPA, 2005] EAPA (European Asphalt and Pavement Association), J uly 2005, **Industry**

**Statement on the recycling of asphalt mixes and use of waste of asphalt**  **pavements** [EAPA, 2008] EAPA, 2008, **Asphalt in figures**

• Wood

[JRC, 2009] Joint Research Centre, 2009, **Study on the selection of waste streams for the End**

**of Waste assessment, Final Report** , p 123

[CEI, 2007] CEI Bois & European Panel Federation, **The Woodworking Industry in the**

**European Union in 2007** [WRAP, 2009] WRAP, 2009, **Wood Waste Market in the UK**

[WRAP, 2005] WRAP, June 2005, **Reference document on the status of wood waste aris ing and** 

**management in the UK**

[EPF, 2010] EPF 2010, **Post-consumer recycled wood as a valuable resource for particle board** 

**production** [EPF, 2002] EPF 2002, **Standard for delivery of recycled wood, European Pa nel Federation**  [EC, 1999] Council Directive 99/31/EC of 26 April 1 999 on the landfill of waste

• ODS

[USEPA, 2004] USEPA and ADEME, 2004, **Determination of comparative HCFC and HFC emission**

**profiles for the foam and refrigeration sector unti l 2015** 

[ICF, 2010] ICF International, Mars 2010, **Identifying and Assessing Policy Options for**

**Promoting the Recovery and Destruction of Ozone Dep leting Substances (ODS)**  **and Certain Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases (F-Gases) Banked In Products and** 114 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011

**Equipment**

[EC, 2008] Commission Of The European Communities, 2008, Revie wing Regulation (EC) N°

2037/2000 on substances that deplete the ozone laye r, **"Better regulation building on 20 years of success" Impact Assessment**  , Accompanying the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and Cou ncil on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Recast), [COM(2008) 505 fi nal], [SEC (2008) 2367]

[EC, 2000] Commission Decision of 3 May 2000 replacing Decisio n 94/3/EC establishing a list

of wastes pursuant to Article 1(a) of Council Direc tive 75/442/EEC on waste and Council Decision 94/904/EC establishing a list of h azardous waste pursuant to Article 1(4) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC on haz ardous waste [EC, 2009] Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 o f The European Parliament And Of The Council of

16 September 2009 on substances that deplete the oz one layer [Vehlow] J. Vehlow, Co- combustion of insulation fo ams with municipal solid waste [Jones, 2010] P. Jones, March 2010, Management Prac tices of C&D waste in Europe – ODS

• Asbestos

[EC, 1999] Commission Directive 1999/77/EC of July 26, 1999 ad apting to technical progress

for the sixth time Annex I to Council Directive 76/ 769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisi ons of the MS relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain da ngerous substances and preparations (asbestos)

[Brondeau, 2009] M.-T. Brondeau & al., 2009, Fiche toxicologique Ami ante, Institut Nationale de

Recherche et de Sécurité [Salvatori] L. Salvatori & al., **Asbestos: The current situation in Europe** [BGS, 2008] British Geological Survey, 2008, **World Mineral Production 2002–2006**

[EC, 1967] Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of the laws,

regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances

[EC, 2002] COUNCIL DECISION of 19 December 2002 establishing c riteria and procedures for

the acceptance of waste at landfills pursuant to Ar ticle 16 of and Annex II to Directive 1999/31/EC (2003/33/EC)

[EC DG, 2006] European Commission, Employment - Social Affairs an d Equal Opportunities DG,

**Asbestos - European Campaign 2006**

• Dangerous fractions

[EPA] EPA (European Phenolic Association), **Phenolic Foam Insulation, The ultimate**

**insulation system for the Construction & Building S ervices Industry** February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 115 [EC, 2006] Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 of 19 Decem ber 2006 setting

maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuf fs

[EC, 2007] Commission Regulation (EC) No 333/2007 of 28 March 2007 laying down the

methods of sampling and analysis for the official c ontrol of the levels of lead, cadmium, mercury, inorganic tin, 3-MCPD and benzo(a )pyrene in foodstuffs

[EC, 1989] Council Directive 89/677/EEC of 21 December 1989 am ending for the eighth time

Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the la ws, regulations and administrative provisions of the MS relating to res trictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparation s

[EC, 1998] Council Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April 1998 on the p rotection of the health and

safety of workers from the risks related to chemica l agents at work

[EC, 1996] Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of

polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terph enyls (PCB/PCT)

 Websites

• Bricks, tiles and ceramics www.cerameunie.eu/industry.html www.staywithclay.com

• Concrete http://www.sustainableconcrete.org.uk/main.asp?page =53 www.researchandmarkets.com/reportinfo.asp?report_id =651928 http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/gdwq 0506.pdf

• Gypsum

www.eurogypsum.org http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/ www.wrap.org.uk www.gypsumrecycling.biz/6688-1_Why+recycle%3F#Heade r0 www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/waste /114435.aspx www.ciwm.co.uk/mediastore/FILES/14609.pdf www.wrap.org.uk/recycling_industry/recycling_indust ry_2.html

• Asphalt

www.eapa.org

• ODS116 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 www.puren.com www.rampf-ecosystems.de

• Asbestos www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/recentpast/asbestosarti cle.htm www.ibasecretariat.org/chron_ban_list.php www.euro.who.int/document/aiq/6_2_asbestos.pdf www.freepatentsonline.com/EP0145350.html

• Dangerous fractions cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18791329 www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/wastemin/minimize/factshts/p ahs.pdf www.parlament.ch/f/suche/pages/geschaefte.aspx?gesc h_id=20083926 www.bag.admin.ch/themen/chemikalien/00228/00512/ind ex.html?lang=fr www.icis.com/V2/Chemicals/9076136/phenol/uses.html www.petrochemistry.net/phenol.htmlFebruary 2011European Commission DG ENVFinal Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste11710.CONTACT LISTTable 32 - Contacts targeted for the study per fractionof C&D wasteNameOrganisationPositionLocationFractionContactedby emailFeedbackobtainedBEUVING EgbertEuropean Asphalt Pavement Association(EAPA)Director Brussels Asphalt xXCORNTHWAITE AnthonyEuropean Asbestos Services Business contact UK Asbestos xCUPERUS GeertFédération Internationale du Recyclage (FIR) BrusselsGeneralinformationxXDE GREEF NadineEuropean Federation of Waste Managementand Environmental Services (FEAD)Secretary General BrusselsGeneralinformationxDUVALSyndicat National des entreprises deDémolition (SNED)ParisGeneralinformationXETIENNE AliceEuropean Builders Confederation (EBC) Policy Officer BrusselsGeneralinformationxJONES PeterIndependent Consultant UK ODS xXLINE VéroniqueTechnical AffairsFédération Française duBâtiment (FFB)ParisGeneralinformationXLOBEL OliverPU Europe Secretary General Brussels ODS xxMARLET ChristineEurogypsum (European federation ofnational associations of gypsum productsmanufacturers)Secretary General Brussels Gypsum xX118European Commission DG ENVDraft Final Report – Management of C&D wasteFebruary 2011NameOrganisationPositionLocationFractionContactedby emailFeedbackobtainedMATHIS PamelaICF International Project Manager San Francisco ODSxRIMOLDI AlessioEuropean concrete platform Secretary General Brussels Concrete xXO’BRIEN JimEuropean Aggregates Association (UEPG) President Dublin Aggregates xXSCHROEDER RenéEuropean Federation of Waste Managementand Environmental Services (FEAD)Policy co-ordinator BrusselsGeneralinformationxXSYKES ChristopheTBE (Tiles and bricks of Europe) & Cerame-Unie (The European Ceramics Industries)Secretary General BrusselsBricks, tiles andceramicsxXVERVOORT WardEuropean Confederation of woodworkingindustries (CEI-Bois)Senior Environment andResearch AdvisorBrussels Wood xXTHUEN HenrietteEuropean Demolition Association (EDA) General Manager CopenhagenGeneralinformationx119European Commission DG ENVFinal Report Task 2 – Management of C&D wasteFebruary 2011Table 33 - Contacts targeted for the case studiesMSNameOrganisationPositionFinlandJorma Kaloinen Finnish Environment Institute Experton C&D wasteJuha Espo Statistics Finland Waste statisticianAnna-Leena Perälä Technical Research Centre of Finland Senior Research ScientistFlandersKoen Smeets OVAM (Public Flemish Waste Agency)Head of the Department of WasteStatistics ADCJanna Vandecruys OVAM (Public Flemish Waste Agency)Expert of the Department of WasteStatistics ADCGermanyW. Sodermanns-Peschel Deutscher Abbruchverband e.V.Head ofEnvironment and TechnologyMichael HeideBundesgütegemeinschaftRecycling-Baustoffe e.V.(& European Quality Associationfor Recycling EQAR)Managing DirectorGerhard PahlBundesvereinigungRecycling-Baustoffe e.V. (BRB)Director of the departmentBerthold SchäferDeutscher Beton- und Betontechnik-VereinE.V.Director of thedepartment for environment engineeringHungaryKatalin FeketeMinistry of Environment and Water,Department of Waste Management, WasteTreatment UnitN/A120European Commission DG ENVFinal Report Task 2 – Management of C&D wasteFebruary 2011MSNameOrganisationPositionTibor LaszloMinistry of Environment and Water,Department of Waste Management, WasteTreatment UnitN/AIstvan VarkonyiBaurec Construction Waste TreatmentCoordination Non Profit Ltd.N/AJudit RatzHuMuSz (Hulladék Munkaszövetség), WasteReduction AllianceN/ASpainCarlos Martinez Bertrand VIAS Y CONSTRUCCIONES, S.AChief of Quality, EnvironmentalManagement and TechnologicalInnovationJose Blanco AEDED – Spanish Association DemolitionSecretarialPablo GonzalezGERD – Spanish association of C&D wastemanagers.Waste and Environment ManagerFebruary 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 121 

# 11. Annex I: OZONE DEPLETING SUBSTANCES

**Applications in the construction sector**  Blowing agent for plastic insulating material in bu ildings

**Production in the EU-27**  Ban on CFC and HCFC (phase out respectively in 1994 and 2004).

However, important banks in pre-2004 buildings: 536,000 to 683,000 tonnes in 2010 (50% to 80% of the total ODS bank in EU-27)

**Waste generation in the EU-27**  Rough estimations of 130,000 to 250,000 tonnes of waste insulating material containing

11,500 tonnes of ODS.

**Treatment options** Landfill Incineration Removal of ODS and recycling or re-use of other materials

**Current rates** N/A

High differences between MS. N/A Ibid. Up to 95 % in municipal incinerators in Germany, the Netherlands, Austria and Denmark 158 . Low rates in most MS. Low

**Potential rates** N/A N/A N/A

**Environmental impacts**  Emission of greenhouse gases. Appropriate removal o f ODS could save up to 15,406,000 t. CO 2 eq emissions per year (2010). This outweighs any benefits that could be obtained through recycling of foam plastics (potential avoided emissions amounting to 1 million t. CO 2 eq) Release of substances depleting the ozone layer

**Barriers to re-use and recycling of**  **the waste** - Costs of ODS removal from insulating foams (approxi mately 83 € per kg of ODS

for collection, recovery and destruction, or 8 € pe r kg of foam)

- Possibly limited technical feasibility, depending o n the specific type of product

- Low quantities within the C&D waste flow
**Existing and potential drivers to**  **re-use and recycling of the**  **waste** - High environmental impacts associated to the releas e of ODS in the atmosphere

- Most of the EU-27 ODS bank is in insulation foams

- 70% target triggering better management of C&D wast e in general, involving better characterisation and sorting of demolition w aste

- Development of alternative recycling techniques

158 According to Oliver Loebel, Secretary General, PU Europe122 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 

## 11.1. P RODUCT DESCRIPTION AND APPLICATIONS

Ozone depleting substances (ODS) are synthetic chem icals, including in particular CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons), HCFCs (hydrofluorocarbons) a nd halons. The production of CFCs began in the 1930s for refrigeration applications. Since then, they have been extensively utilised in air conditioning, as propellants in aer osols, and as blowing agents in plastic insulating foam manufacture. They were phased out i n the early 80’s and replaced by HCFC for most applications. As regards insulation materi al, CFCs and HCFCs were mostly used in polyurethane foam (for sandwich panels, boardstock or spray foam) and in extruded polystyrene (XPS) foam 159 . These materials find many applications in the co nstruction sector, for the thermal insulation of roofs, indoor or outd oor walls, foundations, etc. In 2004, HCFCs have been banned and replaced by HFC s, which have in turn being replaced when possible by other blowing agents, among which mainly pentane and hydrocarbon mixes. Nowadays, over 90% of PU foam is blown with pentane, and less than 10% with HFC. However, HFC is still used in spray foam (pentane c annot be used for this application for safety reasons), and some small producers still use HFCs as they cannot afford the investment in pentane-using equipment.



## 11.2. Q UANTITATIVE ANALYSIS



### 11.2.1. C URRENT AND FORECASTED 

### ODS BANKS

The use of CFCs and HCFCs in insulation foams and o ther applications is banned; however, large quantities are banked in products and equipme nt, and particularly in insulating materials used in buildings constructed before the phase-out of these substances (respectively 1994 and 2004 for CFCs and HCFCs). A study prepared by ICF International for the Europ ean Commission 160 proposes estimations and projections of the ODS bank in EU-27. The appli cations of ODS in buildings insulation foams covered by this study are:

• PU sandwich panels (continuous)

• PU sandwich panels (discontinuous)

• PU and PIR boardstock

• PU spray foam

• XPS foam boards Estimated ODS and HFC banks in EU-27 in 2010 are pr esented in the table below. Differences between the bottom-up 161 and top-down 162 approach are mostly due to a reallocation of

159 [USEPA, 2004] 160 [ICF, 2010] 161 The Bottom up approach projects HFC growth assumin g an increasing push to climate-friendly alternatives [ICF, 2010].February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 123 some of the above foam applications to sectors othe r than construction, based on confidential data. However, both approaches give si milar results when taking into account all sectors where insulating foams are used. Table 34: Estimated ODS and HFCs building insulatio n foam banks in EU-27 in 2010 [ICF, 2010]

Blowing agents Bottom-up estimation Top-down estimation
CFC 456,829 tonnes 370,083 tonnes
HCFC 226,570 tonnes 165,464 tonnes
HFC 84,112 tonnes 55,092 tonnes The bottom-up estimates proposed by ICF will be use d as the reference data for the purpose of this report. The ODS banks in building insulation foams are ther efore estimated between 536,000 tonnes and 683,000 tonnes in 2010 , which represents between 50% and 80% of the total ODS banks in EU-27.


### 11.2.2. W ASTE GENERATION AND TREATMENT DATA
The amounts of ODS contained in insulating foams re aching their end-of life is projected to be around 5,300 tonnes in 2010, and 4,300 tonnes in 2020 163

. These estimations consider an average life-time of 50 years for these products. This assumption is subject to discussion, as most of ODS containing insulating foams is in nonresidential buildings, that usually have shorter li fespan 164 . Indeed, research by the Building Research Establishment [BRE] in the UK and similar European studies suggest that over 80% of the bank of ODS building foams is in industrial and commercial buildings and this type of building is likely to have a shorter life span 165 . The above quantities might therefore be underestimated. Not the entire blowing agent content remains in the insulating foam over time. Depending on the type of product, the losses account for to 5% t o 15% during year 1, and then 0.25% to 1.5% per year. The average amounts of ODS remaining in foams at the end-of-life are presented in the following table.

162 The Top down model projects future HFC growth base d on historical trends [ICF, 2010]. 163 Calculation BIOIS, based on quantities technically recoverable estimated by ICF 2010. 164 Interview with Peter Jones, 2010 165 Ibid.124 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011

Table 35: Blowing agent remaining in different type s of construction foams at their EOL [ICF, 2010] Application Blowing agent remaining at EOL PU Rigid: Sandwich Panels - Continuous 71% PU Rigid: Sandwich Panels - Discontinuous 67% PU & PIR Rigid: Boardstocks 57% PU Rigid: Spray foam 31%
XPS Foam Boards 13% There is some uncertainty linked to these values. T here are some concerns that the percentage of blowing agent remaining at end of lif e in sprayed foam could be underestimated, though test results are not availab le for a comparison. Based on the losses factors described above, and on the estimate that the amounts of ODS in building foams reaching their EOL will be 5,300 ton nes in 2010, it can be estimated that the amounts of ODS reaching their end of life in 2010 c orrespond to an original amount of 13,800 tonnes of ODS (at the time the time the foams were produc ed). With amounts of blowing agents per weight of foam estimated at 12% for CFCs and 10% for HCFCs 166 , this corresponds to a total amount of ODS-containing waste of approx imately 113,800 tonnes . This amount is a rough estimate, and is likely to be an underestim ation, as this does not take into account the metal or other elements, apart from foam, prese nt in insulation material. An upper estimate can be obtained by considering 5% blowing agent per weight for both CFCs and HCFCs; with this hypothesis, the amount of waste in sulating material containing ODS reaches almost 220,000 tonnes. Several elements would be necessary to model such a waste flow with more precision: the types of products that use d CFC or HCFC, the loss rate during the life time and the life span of the products among others . Such a study has not been done to any degree of accuracy, the figures are therefore uncer tain. According to Regulation 1005/2009, ODS in construct ion foams “shall, if technically and economically feasible, be recovered for destruction , recycling or reclamation, or shall be destroyed without prior recovery”. Regulation 1005/2009 allows two options for the des truction of foams (classified as dilute sources in Annex VII): rotary kiln incineration or municipal solid waste incineration. If ODS are present in concentrations above 0.1% 167 , the waste is classified as hazardous and treatmen t options are restricted to facilities that have a pe rmit to accept this category of hazardous waste. As a consequence, they have to respect stri cter environmental standards. Moreover, the Waste Incineration Directive sets specific requ irements for facilities treating hazardous waste with a content of more than 1 % of halogenate d substances (Art. 6.1).

166 The foam Industry estimates that the blowing agent content varies between 5 and 15% depending on the application. 167 [EC, 2000]February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 125 There is currently no data on treatment of ODS cont aining insulating foams, but experts indicate that actual recovery of foams is not gener ally practiced, with the exception of some reported cases in Germany[ICF, 2010]. As a result, it might be landfilled (i.e. not complying with legislation) or incinerated in a municipal was te incinerator (which is compliant if the facility has the required permit and complies with the provisions of the Waste Incineration Directive, see above). Although the respective shar es of landfilling and incineration with or without energy recovery are unknown, the current re cycling rate (after removal of blowing agents) can be assumed to be very low.



## 11.3. R ECOVERY TECHNIQUES



### 11.3.1. E XISTING OPTIONS
Foam is not typically separated from other material s and recovered at end of life. In some countries, the lack of enforcement and control proc edures results in few or no actual separation and controlled treatment of this waste. In countries and regions where a ban on landfilling of recoverable or mixed C&D waste has b een enacted (e.g. Germany, Flanders, the Netherlands or Austria), ODS-containing insulation foams are typically incinerated in municipal solid waste (MSW) or hazardous waste inci nerator. As a result, landfilling and incineration in municipal waste treatment plants ar e still the main destinations for ODS containing insulation material. It is important to note that landfilling is not an option permitted by regulation 1005/2009. Classifying ODS containing substances as hazardous or prohibiting landfill or such materials has not efficiently triggered the recovery of ODS f rom foam prior to the recycling of other material, as thermal destruction often remains the most cost-effective technique. If not properly managed, separation of ODS entrapped in th e foam matrix before destroying them may result in their release to the atmosphere and r equire more energy (greater combustion temperature) than when directly incinerated with mi xed MSW. Indeed, the co-combustion of building insulation fo ams with MSW 168 would ensure the safe destruction of CFCs by using the embodied energy of the plastic material, while avoiding crushing to reduce the density of the material prio r to its disposal in landfills and the associated release of ODS to the atmosphere. Experi ments carried out showed the efficiency of the co-combustion on the destruction of CFCs: mo re than 99.9% at 900°C for CFC-12 while CFC-11 is destroyed at low temperature. Moreover, n o significant increase in dioxins and furans’ levels are detected when foams containing f lame retardants are incinerated. Finally, acid gas removal is operated through scrubbers reac hing concentration far below the German Emission Directive 169 . However, incineration with MSW might raise other issues, and the comparison between these two options is not yet feasible, and would require a complete comparative life-cycle analysis.

168 [Vehlow] 169 Directive 17 BimSchV: HCl < 10 mg/m 3 , HF < 1.0 mg/m 3126 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 As demonstrated by ICF 2010, the percentage of ODS technically recovered at the EOL of insulation products varies greatly depending on the type of product. Table 36: ODS potentially recovered at the end of l ife of insulating foams [ICF, 2010]
Application ODS potentially recovered PU Rigid: Sandwich Panels - Continuous 64% PU Rigid: Sandwich Panels - Discontinuous 63% PU & PIR Rigid: Boardstocks 32% PU Rigid: Spray foam 6% XPS Foam Boards 8% The low levels of potentially recovered ODS from XP S foam boards and PU spray foam can make the recovery of ODS from these products less o f a priority. However, there is a high recovery potential from sandwich panels, and to a l esser extent from boardstocks which therefore represent the best opportunity for ODS re covery, in terms of technical feasibility.


### 11.3.2. E MERGING TECHNIQUES
The demolition industry is facing the challenge of developing methodologies that can safely and effectively disassemble insulating panels and s eparate ODS foam insulation. An alternative option to incineration is the recove ry of ODS from foams (for destruction), prior to the recycling or recovery of the other mat erials composing the panels. The provisions of EC Regulation 1005/2009, stating that such recov ery is an option “if technically and economically” feasible, has led to a discussion on whether this was actually an option from a technical and economical point of view.

 Removal of ODS blowing agents from sandwich panels at refrigerator recycling facilities Sandwich panels can be manually removed from buildi ngs and treated in facilities that handle refrigeration equipment. One current limitat ion of this treatment option is the size of the panels that can be processed and therefore the size of the existing machinery. Indeed, it often exceeds the typical sizes for household appli ances. The cutting process introduces risks of releasing some of the blowing agent; therefore t his step has to be conducted carefully. Installations capable of handling such waste do exi st, for example recycling plants that have installed a band saw to cut panels operating in low pressure conditions. This allows the recovery of ODS releases during the cutting process . Plants handling large appliances such as commercial refrigerators and freezers might also be suited for most sandwich panels. Otherwise, existing plants should be modified to be able to treat panels and ODS foam insulation. This application requires to take precautionary mea sures as the ODS contents of refrigerators are much lower than insulation panels used in the c onstruction sector. Modifications to the process may therefore be necessary. Moreover, it ma y be difficult to ensure a continuous flow of waste insulation panels to the refrigerator recycling plant.February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 127  On site “vacuum” technologies According to the US National Demolition Association 170 , a potential technology to recover ODS from insulation materials are “vacuum” technolo gies, typically used to recover asbestos from buildings. However, this would require a signi ficant investment in research and development to adapt the process and the recovered material would need to be incinerated.

 Recycling or re-use of material composing insulatio n panels Although it is not current practice, the recycling of PS and metals after recovery and destruction of ODS blowing agents is a feasible opt ion. The recycling of PU foam is less feasible as PU ca nnot be melted or reprocessed. However, other options such as the use of shredded foam 171 in replacement material for wood, or chemical recycling (thermal glycolysis of PU 172 ) represent promising technological developments.

 Closed loop recycling A company, Kingspan Insulated Panels, has developed a process which will potentially allow for a totally closed loop for their products once t hey have reached the end of their useful life. The company says this means that all insulated pane l waste from Kingspan’s manufacturing process will be completely recycled. However, the a im is for the company to be able to recycle panels from deconstructed buildings in the future, allowing a truly ‘closed loop’ scenario where all material is recovered and recycl ed at end of life. The company has a similar process for boardstock 173

. 

## 11.4. E NVIRONMENTAL 

## AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS



### 11.4.1. E NVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The major environmental issue related to the end-of -life of ODS-containing insulation material is the potential release of these substanc es into the atmosphere, as they significantly contribute to the destruction of the ozone layer and to global warming. As mentioned above, building insulating foams may c ontain 50 to 80% (some sources estimate this share up to 90%) of the total ODS ban k in Europe. Therefore, systematic destruction of ODS contained in foams(with or with out prior recovery) at their end of life represents high environmental benefits, both in ter ms of ozone layer depletion and greenhouse gases emissions, but with also potential significant costs [ICF 2010].

170 Personal communication with Mike Taylor on behalf of the National Demolition Association, reported in ICF 2010 171 www.puren.com 172 www.rampf-ecosystems.de 173 Interview with Peter Jones, 2010128 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 This issue remains with non-ODS substances that are still widely used as blowing agents such as pentane and HFC to a lower degree, which are als o greenhouse gases as well as a VOC (Volatile Organic Compound) for pentane. The comparison of environmental costs and benefits related to the two options allowed in Regulation 1005/2009 (recovery or destruction witho ut recovery) was not performed in the context of this study, and would require a complete life-cycle analysis, taking into account the current recovery and/or destruction rates in ex isting facilities, transportation distances to recovery/destruction facilities, treatment of botto m ashes in MSWI, potential environmental benefits of recycling other materials contained in foams, etc. The potential environmental savings, in terms of GH G emissions, associated with the full destruction (and thus the avoidance of release into the atmosphere) of the fraction of ODS and HFC present in insulating foams at the end of t heir life, is presented in the following table. Table 37: Emission savings potential (in ktonnes CO 2 eq.) through the destruction (with or without

prior recovery) of CFCs, HCFCs and HFCs in building insulating foam [ICF, 2010]

Application CFC HCFC HFC PU Rigid: Sandwich Panels - Continuous 3 992 827 135 PU Rigid: Sandwich Panels - Discontinuous 1 937 207 180 PU & PIR Rigid: Boardstocks 4 541 350 10 PU Rigid: Spray foam 489 54 124
XPS Foam Boards 2 710 299 26
Total 13 669 1 737 475
The total destruction of ODS contained in insulatio n foams at the end of their life in 2010 would represent a total of 15,406,000 tonnes CO 2 eq . This amount reaches 15,881,000 t. eq. CO2 when HFC is accounted for. IPCC and TEAP predict that total direct emissions o f emitted from banks could erase all of the reductions in global warming gas emissions achieved under the Kyoto Protocol. Therefore, the treatment of ODS banks are considered of major importance by the United Nations and the EU. As a comparison, the emissions associated to the pr oduction of PU rigid foam are 4.3 t. CO 2 eq. per tonne of PU. With the high estimate of 250, 000 tonnes of waste foam per year, this would be equivalent to a potential of 1,075,00 0 t. eq. CO2 avoided impacts through recycling or re-use.


### 11.4.2. E CONOMIC IMPACTS
As previously stated, according to EC regulation 10 05/2009, the recovery of ODS from insulation foam prior to appropriate treatment of o ther materials is mandatory “if technicallyFebruary 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 129 and economically feasible”. The question of treatme nt costs of ODS contained in insulation foam has therefore been raised and evaluation of th ese costs are available and presented in the following table. Tableau 38: Average costs for EOL treatment of ODS contained in sandwich panels
Activity Costs per kg of

ODS 174 Segregation/collection 55 € Transport 5 € Recovery processing 20 € Destruction 3 € Total 83 € The cost of destruction of ODS with prior recovery from sandwich panels (possibly the most feasible type of construction foam to recover) is estimated at €83/kg of ODS, around 8€ per kg of foam with the assumption that the ODS content is 10%. Costs without prior recovery of the blowing agent are likely to be significantly lo wer (at least by 20€ per kg of ODS). Costs for recovery of ODS from boardstocks, spray foam or XPS foam are likely to be much higher, as this material is not easily identified and sorted o ut during demolition. However, given the limited field experience to date at recovering cons truction foam, it is difficult to assess the economic feasibility with certainty.



## 11.5. R ELEVANCE TO THE 

## 70% TARGET

As shown previously, ODS containing foam represent a relatively small fractions of C&D waste (less than 0.05%). Although few specific data is available on this fraction in the studied MS, this is confirmed by data from Germany, where a ll insulation materials are estimated to represent 0.1% of the total weight C&D waste enteri ng waste management facilities. Technical and economical analysis shows that the re cycling of plastics and metals from insulation materials is likely to be very costly, b ecause of the necessity to remove and destroy ODS prior to any further treatment. In many cases, incineration is the most cost-effective treatment. However, this analysis is based on very limited experience of insulation foam recycling, as this practice is currently almost non -existent. Given the relatively small amount of ODS when compa red with other CDW streams, the reuse, recycling and recovery target established in t he Waste Framework Directive is not the main driver for a secure disposal of ODS. However, the 70% target could indirectly influence ODS recovery and foam recycling, as it can act as a trigger to incentivise selective demolition or deconstruction, better reporting and characteris ation of the C&D waste flow, which are keys to the appropriate sorting of C&D waste fracti ons

174 [ICF, 2010], based on TEAP 2009130 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 

# 12. APPENDIX I: HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES PRESENT IN C&D WASTE

In this appendix, five main hazardous substances we re identified as possible contaminants of C&D waste fractions and hinder their recovery: asbe stos, lead based paints, phenols, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) and polycyclic arom atic hydrocarbons (PAH). These substances are presented in appendix contrary to th e other fractions that can be found in the C&D waste stream because of the general lack of inf ormation. Indeed, even if organisations have been initially identified and contacted, they turned out to be either not concerned by the issue or did not answer.



## 12.1. A SBESTOS



### 12.1.1. D EFINITION
Asbestos refer to six fibrous minerals that are par t of two major mineral groups:

• Chrysotile, known as white asbestos, is part of the serpentine mineral group. It represents approximately 90% of worldwide asbestos usage (even 95% in the USA).

• Amosite, crocidolite, anthophyllite, tremolite and actinolite, known as brown or blue asbestos, are part of the amphibole mineral gr oup. Amosite is the second most likely type of asbestos to be found in buildin gs. These minerals have extraordinary tensile strength, conduct heat poorly and are relatively resistant to chemical attack. Natural sources are i mportant, because asbestos minerals are widely spread throughout the earth’s crust and are not restricted to the few mineable deposits.


### 12.1.2. A PPLICATIONS
At the beginning of the 20 th century, the process for combining asbestos fibres with cement to produce asbestos-cement was invented. Asbestos-c ement is a material which had excellent technical properties and could be used fo r a wide range of applications which took advantage of its durability, fire resistance, and e ase in processing, forming, installing, and overall economic benefits. These special chemical a nd physical properties, which make it virtually indestructible, accounted for its popular ity in the building industry. Asbestos was widely used in Europe between the 1940 s and 1980s in thermal insulation, fire protection and a whole array of building materials such as: siding shingles, flat sheets, roofing shingles, and corrugated sheets 175

. These asbestos-cement products lent themselves to r apid

175 www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/recentpast/asbestosarti cle.htmFebruary 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 131 construction techniques and, therefore, were partic ularly useful for lightweight housing and industrial buildings. The following table summarise s the very large array of products that are made of asbestos in the construction sector. Table 39 – Asbestos containing building materials Acoustical plaster Adhesives Asphalt floor tile Base Flashing Blown-in insulation Boiler Insulation Breaching insulation Caulking/putties Ceiling Tiles and Lay-in Panels Cement pipes Cement siding Cement wallboard Chalkboards Construction Mastics/ Adhesives Decorative Plaster Ductwork Electric wiring insulation Electric panel partitions Elevator brake shoes Elevator equipment Panels Fire blankets Fire curtains Fire doors Fireproofing materials Flexible fabric connections Flooring backing Heating and electrical ducts High temperature gaskets HVAC duct insulation Joint compounds Laboratory gloves Laboratory hoods Table tops Packing materials Pipe insulation Roofing felt Roofing shingles Spackling compounds Spray-applied Insulation Taping compounds (thermal) Textured paints/ coatings Thermal paper Products Vinyl floor tile Vinyl sheet flooring Cooling towers Vinyl wall coverings Wallboard



### 12.1.3. L EGAL ASPECTS
Since January 1 st 2005, the use of asbestos is banned within the ent ire EU 176

. Asbestos is restricted in the EU through specific l egislation and the new chemical policy for the European Union, known as REACH (Registration, E valuation and Authorisation of Chemicals). The following table summarises the ban years at the national level for the EU-27. Most MS (16 in total) have acted before the decisio n was taken at the European level to ban chrysolite 177 with the effective deadline set for January 1 st , 2005. The use of asbestos has been banned ever since for the construction of new projects.

176 Substitute materials include: fibreglass insulatio n (the most common insulation material, which may have a similar toxicity as asbestos), stone and glass wool, polybenzimidazole fibre (often used by fire departments and space agencies). Asbestos-ceme nt is replaced by organic fibres reinforced
concrete.
177 It was already illegal to place on the market and use all types of asbestos fibres other than chrysotile, including 14 categories of chrysotile-c ontaining products within the EU.132 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011

Table 40 – Chronology of national asbestos bans (Source: International Ban Asbestos Secretariat 178 ) Country Asbestos ban year Comments Austria 1990 on chrysolite Belgium 1998 on chrysolite Bulgaria January 1st 2005 on imports, production an d use of all asbestos fibres
Cyprus January 1st 2005 on chrysolite under EU deadline 179 , other forms of asbestos having been banned previously Czech Republic January 1st 2005 Ibid. Denmark 1985 all forms of asbestos
Estonia January 1st 2005 on chrysolite under EU deadline, other forms of asbestos having been banned previously Finland 1992 on chrysolite with exceptions France January 1st 1997 on all types of asbestos Germany 1993 on chrysolite with minor exceptions
Greece January 1st 2005 on chrysolite under EU deadline, other forms of asbestos having been banned previously Hungary January 1st 2005 Ibid. Ireland 2000 on chrysolite with exceptions Italy 1992 on chrysolite with some exceptions until 1994

Latvia 2001 on asbestos with exemption for asbestos products already installed that must be labelled
Lithuania January 1st 2005 on chrysolite under EU deadline, other forms of asbestos having been banned previously
Luxembourg 2002 on chrysolite, crocidolite and amosite having been banned under earlier EU directives
Malta January 1st 2005 on chrysolite under EU deadline, other forms of asbestos having been banned previously

Netherlands 1991 the first of a series of bans (with exceptions) on various uses of chrysotile Poland 1997 on asbestos
Portugal January 1st 2005 on chrysolite under EU deadline, other forms of asbestos having been banned previously Romania January 1st 2005 Ibid. Slovakia January 1st 2005 Ibid. Slovenia 1996 on asbestos-cement products
Spain 2002 on chrysolite, crocidolite and amosite having been banned under earlier EU directives

Sweden 1986 the first of a series of bans (with exceptions) on various uses of chrysotile United Kingdom 1999 on chrysolite with minor excep tions

178 www.ibasecretariat.org/chron_ban_list.php 179 Commission Directive 1999/77/EC [EC, 1999]sets the deadline for the prohibition of chrysotile use, with one minor derogation, as January 1, 2005February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 133 As a consequence of the ban, there is no more produ ction and consumption in Europe today. The decrease of the European consumption was progre ssive. In 1983, the asbestos consumption in Europe was of 4 million tonnes 180 , mainly chrysolite (only 5% of the total asbestos production was in the form of amphibole as bestos 181 ). In 1999, following the bans in many MS anticipating the European decision, the sam e consumption decreased to 60,000 tonnes, which represented 3.2% of the total worldwi de consumption (1.849 million tonnes) 182 (Greece itself was producing 83% of this amount wi th 50,000 tonnes). This consumption reached 13,000 in 2003, 4,000 tonnes in 2004 and 0 in 2005. All industrial use of asbestos have ceased ever since within the EU. In many industrialised countries most asbestos was used in the building sector. In most Western European countries, the building sector rep resented between 70 to 90% of the total usage of asbestos. Though asbestos is banned at the European level, it is still used in other parts of the world such as developing countries. In 2006, 2.3 million tons of asbestos were mined worldwide, in 11 or 12 countries. Russia was the largest producer with about 40.2% world share followed by China (19.9%), Kazakhstan (13.0%), Canada (10.3% ), and Brazil (9.9%) 183

. 

### 12.1.4. W ASTE GENERATION AND TREATMENT OPTIONS
No statistics about demolition asbestos waste (quan tities and destinations) are available at the EU-27 level.
Asbestos waste from construction activities is not generated anymore as asbestos has been banned since January 2005. However, asbestos has be en widely used in the past for the construction of all kinds of buildings which are gr adually reaching their end of life. As a consequence, modification, repair, maintenance and demolition activities are generating asbestos waste that raises major concerns and have to be handled and managed according to stringent specifications.
Asbestos is classified as hazardous waste. Accordin g to the List of Waste, a waste is classified as hazardous if one or more substances classified 184 as very toxic at a total concentration superior or equal to 0.1 % is present. Asbestos con taining waste is therefore classified as hazardous if it contains more than 0.1% asbestos. Demolition asbestos waste is mainly disposed of in landfills or treated through thermal destruction.

180 www.euro.who.int/document/aiq/6_2_asbestos.pdf 181 [Brondeau, 2009] <www.inrs.fr/inrs-pub/inrs01.nsf/ IntranetObject-accesParReference/FT 145/$File/ft145.pdf> 182 [Salvatori]< www.actuaries.org/ASTIN/Colloquia/Berlin/Salvatori_ Santoni_Michaels.pdf > 183 [BGS, 2008] 184 Referring to [EC, 1967]134 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 Though asbestos is classified as hazardous waste, i t may be landfilled in non-hazardous landfills as stated in Council Decision 2003/33/EC 185 . The recent implementation of section 2 on establishing criteria and procedures for the acc eptance of waste at landfills has permitted (from 16 th July 2005) the landfilling of construction materia ls containing asbestos and other suitable asbestos waste in landfills for non-hazard ous waste. The following requirements must be fulfilled by those landfills:

• the waste contains no other hazardous substances th an bound asbestos, including fibres bound by a binding agent or packed in plastic,

• the landfill accepts only construction material con taining asbestos and other suitable asbestos waste. These wastes may also be l andfilled in a separate cell of a landfill for non-hazardous waste, if the cell is sufficiently self-contained,

• in order to avoid dispersion of fibres, the zone of deposit is covered daily and before each compacting operation with appropriate m aterial and, if the waste is not packed, it is regularly sprinkled,

• a final top cover is put on the landfill/cell in or der to avoid the dispersion of fibres,

• no works are carried out on the landfill/cell that could lead to a release of fibres (e.g. drilling of holes),

• after closure a plan is kept of the location of the landfill/cell indicating that asbestos wastes have been deposited,

• appropriate measures are taken to limit the possibl e uses of the land after closure of the landfill in order to avoid human con tact with the waste. No limits are specified regarding the amount of thi s waste type that can be disposed of. No information of the actual implementation of these r equirements could be gathered for this report. Recycling through thermal destruction (also referre d as vitrification of asbestos waste 186 ) seems to be the only recycling technique currently available and is described below. Asbestos can be recycled by transforming it into harmless si licate glass. A process of thermal decomposition at 1000–1250 °C produces a mixture of non-hazardous silicate phases, and at temperatures above 1250 °C it produces silicate gla ss (asbestos is supplied to the furnace and withdrawing molten glass is withdrawn). The furnace is advantageously operated at a pressure less than atmospheric pressure. No quantit ative data on the importance of recycling was identified.
Microwave thermal treatment can be used in an indus trial manufacturing process to transform asbestos and asbestos-containing waste in to porcelain stoneware tiles, porous single-fired wall tiles, and ceramic bricks.

185 [EC, 2002] 186 www.freepatentsonline.com/EP0145350.htmlFebruary 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 135 

### 12.1.5. E NVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ISSUES

The main concerns linked to asbestos contaminated C &D waste treatment are linked to human health.

 In general Asbestos started to be recognised as a cause of occ upational disease in the 1920s, but it was only in 1960 that a Welsh researcher studying mesot helioma 187 cases among workers of an asbestos mine in South Africa, finally proved the d irect link between asbestos and mesothelioma, now known to be a “signature disease” of asbestos (i.e., it is presumed to occur only after exposure to asbestos).
All six forms of asbestos are classified as class 1 carcinogens, namely substances that can lead to cancer. Inhaling asbestos fibres can result in a sbestosis 188 , which is scarring of the lung tissue, lung cancer and mesothelioma, which is canc er of both the membrane sacs housing the lungs and the membrane lining of the abdominal cavity. With lung cancer, 95 % of patients are incurable, and no treatment is availab le for mesothelioma. According to the association of asbestos exposure a nd malignant mesothelioma, approximately 80% of mesothelioma patients have a l ong history of asbestos exposure. Health risks were shown to be greater during mining and production processes, but minimal during installation and use of asbestos-cement prod ucts. The following table estimates the risk of developing lung cancer linked to asbestos r elated activities.

Figure 9 - Increase in the relative risk of lung ca ncer depending on the type of activity

(Source: www.euro.who.int/document/aiq/6_2_asbestos .pdf )

The risk of exposure depends on both the concentrat ion of fibres in a product and how ‘firmly bound’ the material is. The bound being rel eased when breaking the asbestos based products during the demolition process.

187 Rare form of cancer that develops from the protect ive lining that covers many of the body's internal organs, the mesothelium. It is usually cau sed by exposure to asbestos 188 Slowly developing form of lung cancer by the inhal ation of asbestos dust and/or long exposure136 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 According to the International Labour Organisation (ILO), around 100,000 people 189 worldwide still die from exposure to asbestos every year and projections estimate to up to 250,000 asbestos-related deaths in Europe in the ne xt 25 to 30 years 190

. The EU has passed several pieces of legislation foc using on the issue of exposure when working with asbestos:

• Directive 83/477/EEC on the protection of workers f rom the risks related to exposure to asbestos at work, passed in September 1 983, stated that the ‘limit values pertaining to in-air concentrates are. For c hrysotile: 0.60 fibres per cm 3 for an eight-hour reference period; for all other forms of asbestos: 0.30 fibres per

cm 3 for an eight-hour reference period’.

• In 1991, Directive 91/382/EEC amended the earlier d irective to make the limit values more stringent.

• In 2003, Directive 2003/18/EC prohibited the extrac tion of asbestos as well as its manufacture and processing from April 2003.

 In particular in the demolition sector A high risk of exposure is present for workers in t he demolition sector in the course of demolition, maintenance, renovation work and waste disposal 191

. Indoor asbestos dust originates from insulation mat erial sprayed on steelwork or ceilings, asbestos plasters and low-weight insulation plates. In the case of asbestos-cement, the release of fibres to the environment is limited sin ce the fibres are essentially “locked” in the cement matrix. For demolition workers, it is important to follow r ecommended safety precautions by wearing approved facemasks and breathing instrument s that filter out the asbestos fibres, by being certain that all areas of the body are covere d and that extra care is taken to minimise contact with the outside of the clothes when workin g with asbestos. Identification of asbestos containing constructions is crucial in order to avoid spreading asbestos into recycled products. Asbestos can be pr esent in some asphalt materials, at least in asphalt products before its ban. This makes recy cling of this asphalt impossible, with the additional difficulty that asbestos-containing asph alt cannot be easily identified. LBP (lead based paints)


### 12.1.6. D EFINITION
LBP contain lead, a heavy metal, which is used as p igment. Lead (II) chromate (PbCrO4, "chrome yellow") and lead (II) carbonate (PbCO3, "w hite lead") are both utilised but the last one being the most common.

189 [EC DG, 2006] 190 [Salvatori] 191 [EC DG, 2006]February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 137 

### 12.1.7. A PPLICATIONS
Lead was added to paint as pigment but also added t o speed drying, increase durability, retain a fresh appearance and resist moisture that causes corrosion. For the vast majority of uses, lead pigments have b een replaced with titanium dioxide (which is also used in food colourings as well as in sunsc reen).


### 12.1.8. L EGAL ASPECTS
The use of LBPs in residential applications was off icially banned under EU Council Directive 89/677/EEC 192 amending Council Directive 76/769/EEC 193

. Council Directive 98/24/EC 194 on the protection of the health and safety of work ers from the risks related to chemical agents at work sets bindi ng occupational exposure limits for lead and its ionic compounds in blood. Prior to this, le ad-based paints were banned years before by national legislation in some MS.


### 12.1.9. W ASTE GENERATION AND TREATMENT OPTIONS
As LBPs were commonly applied on walls, C&D waste c ontaminated with lead based paints is mostly mixed with the inert fraction during the dem olition process.
The treatment of LBP waste is associated to the man agement options for inert waste such as concrete. This waste stream is disposed of in lined landfills to prevent the potential release of pollutants to the environment. Prior to demolition, existing techniques to remove LBP include thermal, chemical or mechanical scouring.


### 12.1.10. E NVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ISSUES
Lead causes nervous system damage, stunted growth, and delayed development. It can cause kidney damage and affects every organ system of the body. It also is dangerous to adults and can cause reproductive problems for both men and wo men and even be lethal. Lead contamination has been spread throughout the w orld by industrial emissions, gasoline and paints. This means that everybody on earth alre ady has some level of lead contamination from environmental exposure. Construction workers exposed to lead and their families are at risk of lead poisoning. T he long-term effects of lead exposure are irreversible and are much more damaging to children than to adults.

192 [EC, 1989] 193 This Directive prohibits the use of lead carbonate s and lead sulphates in paints except for the restoration of works of art and historic buildings. 194 [EC, 1998]138 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 Lead dust or fumes are created when lead-based pain t is dry scraped, dry-sanded, or heated during renovation or maintenance. Dust also forms w hen painted surfaces bump or rub together through normal use. Lead chips and dust ca n get on surfaces and objects that people touch. Settled dust can re-enter the air whe n people vacuum, sweep, or walk through it. Some MS have drafted guidelines explaining the meas ures to be taken in order to protect health of construction workers dealing with lead co ntaminated materials 195 . Potentially contaminated buildings can be identified based on t he construction date or using XRF technology. The uses of appropriate decontamination techniques, as well as wearing protective equipment, are crucial in order to avoid risks.



## 12.2. P HENOLS



### 12.2.1. D EFINITION

Phenol is both a natural and man-made chemical in t he form of a white crystalline solid which dissolves to form a corrosive solution. The main chemical derivatives of phenol are bisphen ol-A (BPA) (used to make polycarbonate PC) and epoxy resins (phenolic resins, caprolactam, alkylphenols, aniline and adipic acid).


### 12.2.2. A PPLICATIONS
The largest market for phenol is BPA which accounts for around 45% of demand 196 . The BPA market has been driven by the strong growth in poly carbonate resins, accounting for twothirds of BPA demand. BPA’s other main application is epoxy resins which are used in high performance coatings, electrical-electronic laminates, adhesives, floorin g and paving applications, and composites. In the long term the growth is expected to be 3% pe r year at the global scale. The second largest outlet for phenol, accounting fo r 28% of demand, is phenolic resins which are largely used as durable binders and adhesives i n structural wood panels and as binders in mineral wool insulation in the construction industr y. A long term global growth of 3%/year is expected despite the economic decline in the constr uction sector.
Phenol is also used in foam insulation for its fire and thermal performance, its resistance to moisture, its strength while being light 197 . It is used for a large range a building applicati ons such as roofing, cavity board, external wall board, plasterboard dry lining, systems, wall insulation, floor insulation and as a sarking board , therefore having a growing market share.

195 http://www.oppbtp.fr/content/download/13475/87842 196 www.icis.com/V2/Chemicals/9076136/phenol/uses.html 197 [EPA] < www.epfa.org.uk/Pdfs/eng.pdf >February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 139 

### 12.2.3. L EGAL ASPECTS
Regulation (EC) 1488/94 sets out the risk assessmen t on substances of the European Priority lists among which phenol by assessing in priority t he risks posed by the priority chemical to

man. The European producers of phenol have launched a co nsortium to register phenol and derivative substances under the REACH Regulation by December 2010 198 . Substances covered targeted are phenol, acetone, cumene, alpha-methyl styrene, acetophenone, di-isopropyl benzene, CHP and 'high-boiler'.


### 12.2.4. W ASTE GENERATION AND TREATMENT OPTIONS
Major releases of phenol are from industrial proces ses using or manufacturing phenol, as a component in certain industrial wastes, for example , coal tar products, and from the use of phenol-containing preparations. Treated wood and insulation panels containing pheno l can be treated by removing the contaminated surface area and then recycled by rein troducing them in the manufacturing process as developed in the dedicated chapter for e ach fraction. Other phenol contaminated C&D waste is disposed of in landfills. Phenol is found occasionally in landfill leachate w hich may affect the groundwater quality through percolation. If e.g. phenolic foam is landf illed there will be some un-reacted phenols and acid that can be leached. Incineration of pheno lic foam can also form toxic smoke.


### 12.2.5. E NVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ISSUES
Phenol occurs naturally at low concentrations in th e environment. Phenol is rapidly broken down in air (half is destroyed in under a day) and soil (usually completely destroyed in 2-5 days), but it can persist in water for longer than 9 days. Elevated concentrations of phenol may be found in air or water after releases from in dustry or the use of phenolic products. Water contaminated by landfill leachate may contain high concentrations of phenol. Typical concentrations for waters is below 100 parts per bi llion (ppb), but less than 1 ppb may be found in unpolluted surface and ground waters. Phenol is toxic to aquatic animals and in general f ish appear to be the most sensitive. Contamination of water by phenol could therefore ha rm aquatic organisms and ecosystems. Phenol does not appear to bio accumulate, i.e. ther e is little if any evidence that its concentration increases up the food chain. As a VOC it can be involved in reactions with other air pollutants that form ground-level ozone, which can cause damage to crops and materials as well as having potential effects on hu man health. Phenol may cause genetic damage. Excessive exposure may affect the brain, digestive system, eye, heart, kidney, liver, lung, peripheral nerve, skin and the unborn child. The

198 www.petrochemistry.net/phenol.html140 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 inhalation, ingestion, or skin contact with phenol may cause severe injury or death. It is combustible and produces irritating, corrosive and/ or toxic gases when burning.



## 12.3. PCB (P OLYCHLORINATED 

## B IPHENYLS 

## )

12.3.1. D EFINITION
PCBs are a group of synthetic organic chemicals kno wn as chlorinated hydrocarbons which include any chemical substance of the biphenyl mole cule that has been chlorinated to varying degrees. PCBs show extraordinary chemical stability and heat resistance.


### 12.3.2. A PPLICATIONS
PCBs were commercially produced world-wide on a lar ge scale between the 1930s and 1980s (the end of the production of PCBs in industrialise d Western countries). It is estimated that approximately 1.5 million tonnes of PCBs have been produced worldwide 199 . It is difficult to provide consistent quantitative data as uncertainti es prevail regarding the imported amounts, the quantities still contained in equipmen ts, buildings and other appliances. Applications of PCBs are classified into two catego ries:

• Closed uses: dielectric fluids in electrical equipm ent such as transducers, capacitors (big industrial capacitors, but also sma ll capacitors in household electrical appliances), heat transfer, hydraulic sy stems and power supply blocks of fluorescent lamps.

• Open uses: sealant industrial oils, plasticiser in paints and cements, stabilising adhesives, plastics, flame retardants and de-dustin g agent. Among all these applications, the major concerns fo r the construction sector are sealants used in a large variety of concrete buildings betwe en 1955 and 1975: schools, gymnasium, swimming pools, hospitals, public and individual dw elling buildings, shopping malls and other business and industrial buildings 200

. Another important issue is related to PBCs as retar dant in building foam. Brominated flame retardants (BFRs) are a group of chemicals which ar e added to many plastic products for the purpose of fire prevention. There are also additive flame retardants such as tris[1,3-dichloro2-propyl] phosphate [TDCPP] and triphenyl phosphate [TPP], which are not chemically bonded to the products they are intended to protect

.

199 www.parlament.ch/f/suche/pages/geschaefte.aspx?gesc h_id=20083926 200 www.bag.admin.ch/themen/chemikalien/00228/00512/ind ex.html?lang=frFebruary 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 141 

### 12.3.3. L EGAL ASPECTS
In the 1970s, several countries limited the use of PCBs. In 1985, the use and marketing of PCBs in the European Community were very heavily re stricted. Directive 96/59/EC 201 requires the environmentally sound disposal of equ ipment containing PCBs before the 31st of December 2010 (with the exc eption of transducers with liquids containing between 50 and 500 parts per million of PCBs in mass). MS have to make an inventory of equipments containing PCBs and to adop t a disposal and decontamination plan for inventoried and non inventoried equipments. The Commission has adopted a Community Strategy on Dioxins, Furans and PCBs to reduce their release to the environment and their introduc tion in the food chains.


### 12.3.4. W ASTE GENERATION AND TREATMENT OPTIONS
No sound and systematic data is available regarding the amounts of PCBs that are decontaminated and disposed of within the EU. Disposal of waste products containing PCBs include:

• Decontamination i.e. decolouration, which is the tr eatment for the chemical decomposition of chlorine molecules

• C&D waste contaminated with PCBs can also be incine rated (with special flue gas treatment)

• Storage The owners of equipment containing PCB have to trea t them accordingly to the MS legal obligations.


### 12.3.5. E NVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ISSUES
Incorrect disposal of equipment containing PCBs can result in continued release to the environment due to leakage and spills (for instance from landfill), therefore adding to the existing levels which are the consequence of past r eleases. Also incineration could create toxic flue gases. Once released, PCBs can be transported over long di stances through the atmosphere, persist in the environment and is able to concentrate throu gh the food chain as they are liposoluble (accumulation in the fat) and resistant chemicals. PCBs have been detected in all environmental media (indoor and outdoor, surface an d ground water, soil and food). PCBs are classified as probable human carcinogens a nd produce a wide spectrum of adverse effects in animals and humans, including reproducti ve toxicity, teratogenicity and immunotoxicity. PCBs are toxic to fish and other aq uatic organisms. Reproductive and developmental problems have been observed in fish a t low PCB concentrations.

201 [EC, 1996]142 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 

## 12.4. PAH (P OLYCYCLIC 

## A ROMATIC 

## H YDROCARBONS 

## )

12.4.1. D EFINITION
PAHs are a group of organic chemicals comprising tw o or more fused benzene rings. They are ubiquitous environmental contaminants formed mainly by the incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels such as wood, coal, diesel, and oil. Only anthracene and naphthalene are intentionally produced.


### 12.4.2. A PPLICATIONS

In the construction sector PAHs are included in wid e array of products:

• concrete additives

• celluloid (plastic)

• solvents

• wood preservatives

• lacquers

• specialist paints

• coal tar epoxy paints

• coal tar polyurethane sealers

• damp-proofing materials

• waterproof membranes
For instance 202 , in waste coming from insulation boards or sandwic h panels for roof construction, PAHs can be found in bitumen, tar and asphalt that have been used as a waterproof layer in the production of those product s. PAHs can also be found in chimneys or other smoke evacuation conducts, and contaminate th e building materials.


### 12.4.3. L EGAL ASPECTS
Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 203 sets the maximum levels at EU level for PAH and in particular for benzo(a)pyrene. Regulation (EC) No 333/2007 204 gives provisions for sampling and analysis methods for the official control of benzo(a)pyrene levels.

202 Interview with expert Peter Jones, Independent con sultant 203 [EC, 2006] 204 [EC, 2007]February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 143 

### 12.4.4. W ASTE GENERATION AND TREATMENT OPTIONS
Such waste are generally mixed with other products during the demolition step and landfilled. PAH contaminated C&D waste are disposed of in hazar dous waste landfills. Leachate from landfills may contain PAH and are treated to avoid contamination.
C&D waste contaminated with PAH can also be inciner ated (with special flue gas treatment).


### 12.4.5. E NVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ISSUES
PAH are strongly adsorbed on the particulate matter s of soils, sludge or sediments because of their strong hydrophobicity which makes them les s bioavailable, thus limiting their bioremediation 205

. PAHs are known to be carcinogenic 206 , mutagenic 207 , and teratogenic 208 . Humans can be affected by breathing fumes from a hazardous landfi ll where PAH are disposed of, by eating contaminated food, or through skin contact 209

. 

## 12.5. G ENERAL CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The amounts and nature of dangerous substances cont aminating C&D waste are not well known at the present time, and an estimation of the total quantities and the related potential hazards is not possible. It is however cl ear that action is needed, as these substances might not only represent a threat to the environment and human health, but also, as a contaminant of C&D waste, hinder its rec yclability. The 70% target itself might itself trigger better identification of these contaminants , as clean material is needed for most application of recycled C&D waste. Separation of wa ste streams at source could thus indirectly contribute to a better management of haz ardous substances. These effects could be improved by addressing individually some of thes e contaminants and by improving controls by the authorities.

205 cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18791329 206 Quality of an agent that is likely to cause cancer 207 Quality of an agent that can induce or increase th e frequency of mutation in an organism 208 Quality of an agent able to disturb the growth and development of an embryo or foetus 209 www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/wastemin/minimize/factshts/p ahs.pdf144 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 

# 13. APPENDIX II: CASE STUDY GERMANY

**Amounts of C&D**

**waste** 72.4 million tonnes of mineral waste in 2004 (883 k g per capita) Source: based on the monitoring reports of the cons truction industry (ARGE KWTB) that are derived from the general federal statistics and are said to be a reliable source.
**Waste factors** m3 of C&D Waste per m2 of dwelling/usable space 1,1 7 m3/m2

Gross density of C&D waste 2,0 t/m

**Material composition of the**  **C&D waste stream** Building demolition waste including concrete, brick s, tiles or mixtures

thereof 69.8% Road way rubble 27.2% Construction site waste (including wood, glass, pla stics, metals, insulation materials, mixtures of materials) 2.6% Gypsum based waste 0.4% Total 100% Source: based on the monitoring reports of the cons truction industry (ARGE KWTB)

**End of life options** Recycling Other forms of material recovery (including backfil ling – reported as “reuse” in German statistics) Disposal

**Rates** 68.5% 22.9% Landfill: 8.6%

Source: based on the monitoring reports of the cons truction industry (ARGE KWTB)

**Past trends** Act for Promoting Closed Substance Cycle Waste Mana gement and Ensuring

Environmentally Compatible Waste Disposal (1994) wa s crucial for the beginning of harmonised waste reporting and collection of data. Since then recycling and re-use rates have been high. **Analysis of the current state**  High recycling and re-use rates. Low landfill rates . However, monitoring of re-use of

C&D waste on landfills difficult. Material that is reported as being re-used could also be landfilled.

**Towards the 70%**

**target** The 70 % target is even exceeded by 10 % by the Ger man draft for a new Act for Promoting Closed Substance Cycle Waste Management. Main challenges towards reaching the target:

• Regulations (strict limits for concentration of cer tain substances in groundwater>limiting reusability of materials)

• Lack of market demand for recycling material and l ow prizesFebruary 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 145 

## 13.1. S OURCES OF INFORMATION

• Reports and articles Arbeitsgemeinschaft Kreislaufwirtschaftsträger Bau (ARGE KWTB), 2007. 5. Monitoring-Bericht Bauabfälle Bernd Kirschbaum, 2008. Protokoll des Fachgesprächs , Geringfügigkeitsschwellenwert Vanadium“ BRB, 2006. Richtlinien Recycling-Baustoffe Dr. Rolf Bracke, 1999. Arbeitshilfe zur Entwicklung von Rückbaukonzepten im Zuge des Flächenrecyclings BayLfU, 2003. Kontaminierte Bausubstanz Erkundung, Bewertung, Entsorgung TuTech Innovation, 2006. C&D Waste Management in Ge rmany Senatsverwaltung für Gesundheit, Umwelt und Verbrau cherschutz, 2009. Abfallwirtschaftskonzept für Siedlungs- und Bauabfä lle sowie Klärschlämme Planungszeitraum bis 2020. Statistisches Bundesamt, 2007. Abfallentsorgung Statistisches Bundesamt, 2005. Abfallentsorgung

• Websites Arbeitsgemeinschaft Kreislaufwirtschaftsträger Bau, www.arge-kwtb.de/ Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conser vation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), www.bmu.de/english/waste_management/aktuell/3865.ph p and www.bmu.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/krw g_eckpunkte_bf.pdf Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR), www.bioenergie.de/gesetzeslage/altholzverordnung.html Umweltbundesamt, www.umweltbundesamt.de/abfallwirtschafte/abfallstatistik/index.htm Umweltkolleg, www.umweltkolleg.de/indexateien/umweltkollegErsatzbaustoffV.htm146 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 

## 13.2. C ONTACTS

Table 41 – Identified contacts for the case study o n Germany
Full name Name of organisation Type of organisation Function

W. Sodermanns-Peschel Deutscher Abbruchverband e.V

. Federation for demolition waste Head of

Environment and Technology

Michael Heide Bundesgütegemeinschaft Recycling-Baustoffe e.V. (& European Quality Association for Recycling EQAR) Federation for recycling of building material Managing Director

Gerhard Pahl Bundesvereinigung Recycling-Baustoffe e.V. (BRB) Federal Union of Recycling Building Materials Director of the department

Berthold Schäfer Deutscher Beton- und BetontechnikVerein E.V. German Concrete Union Director of the department for environment engineering


## 13.3. C ONTEXT

The territory of Germany covers 357,021 km 2 and houses a population of around 82 million people. It consists of 16 states (Bundesländer). Figure 10 – Germany and the Länders (Source: http:/ /www.th-o.de/bundeslaender/)February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 147  Construction Sector Product stewardship is the basis of waste managemen t policy in Germany. Thus, producers and distributors must design their products in such a way as to reduce waste occurrence and allow environmentally sound recovery and disposal ( cf. BMU). In order to collect all waste separately and to reintroduce it into the economic cycle the Closed Substance Cycle and Waste Management Act was enforced in the mid-90s. As the end of 2007, 250,000 people in Germany worke d in waste management, the annual turnover of that sector exceeding 50 billion Euros (cf. BMU). There is a clear shift in waste volumes with regard to disposal and recovery. The recovery rate of C&D Waste is very high and makes up for a h uge share in the total volume of waste which is recovered (BMU). This is partly due to Ger many’s high material, energy and labour, and waste disposal costs but also to its regulation s, that focus on the complete material cycle, working towards a closed loop substance cycl e in C&D, known as “Kreislaufwirtschaft” (cf. TuTech Innovation). Furthermore, everybody inv olved in designing and constructing buildings is obliged to consider the entire life cy cle of materials. In Germany, the primary responsibility for ensuring the proper treatment of C&D waste is in the hands of local authorities. Meanwhile, the Länd er are responsible for the implementation and enforcement of regulations meant to achieve C&D waste goals set by higher levels of government, particularly the Federal government of Germany and the EU. Germany’s Ministry of the Environment, Nature Conse rvation and Nuclear Safety in cooperation with the Federal Environmental Agency, is responsible for le gislation on C&D waste at the national level. This includes the prov ision of technical instructions regarding the disposal of waste, the setting of targets and goals and transposition of EU Directives. In case of conflicts, all federal level legislation overrul es regional and local legislation (cf. TuTech Innovation). The states or “Länder” are responsible for the impl ementation and specifications of federal legislation at their level. They are also in charge of the enforcement of regulations on C&D waste and of supervising the proper operation of wa ste treatment and disposal facilities. At the local level, the municipalities take care of administration and issue demolition and construction permits. Those sometimes include detai led deconstruction plans and recycling specifications of the building’s materials. While h ousehold waste and its collection, recycling and the provision of the disposal infrastructure fa lls under the local authorities’ responsibility, commercial waste such as C&D waste is solely the responsibility of the waste’s owners. The local authority ensures this task is pe rformed according to federal and state legislation and is responsible for initiating prose cution against offenders (cf. TuTech Innovation).148 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 

## 13.4. P OLICY AND STANDARDS OVERVIEW



### 13.4.1. K EY 

### E UROPEAN POLICY DRIVERS
For Germany, the Directive 2008/98/EC can be consid ered a driver on national waste policies. The European directive triggered the draft for a ne w Act for Promoting Closed Substance Cycle Waste Management, which is still under discus sion. This draft transposes the European Directive on Waste into German law and harmonises t he definitions of waste terminology between the EU and Germany. It can be considered an overhaul of a similar law from 1994. The European target set by Directive 2008/98/EC of recycling at least 70% of C&D waste generated for 2020, is even exceeded by 10% in the draft.


### 13.4.2. K EY NATIONAL AND REGIONAL POLICY DRIVERS
In a voluntary commitment of 1996, the German const ruction industry, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Kreislaufwirtschaftsträger Bau (ARGE KWTB) promised the Federal Environment Ministry that it would cut in half the amount of landfilled yet r ecyclable construction waste by the year 2005. The reference year was 1995, when the recycla ble construction waste that was landfilled accounted for 60 % of the total mineral waste (excluding excavation material). That means that only 40 % of the total amount (51 millio n tonnes) was re-used or recycled in 1995. In the following ten years, ARGE KWTB produced 5 bi annual monitoring reports in which the development of mineral C&D Waste was documented. Th e last report was published in 2007 and is based on figures from 2004. It also provides a summary of the whole project. The report stated an over-accomplishment of the obj ectives. In other words: to comply with the commitment, it would have been sufficient to re duce the landfilled recyclable material to 30 % of the total 78.6 million tonnes mineral waste and recycle 70 %. However, the average recycling rate was slightly higher than 70 % and it was complemented by another 18.6 % reuse rate for the material. Thus, on average only 11 .3 % (i.e. 8.9 million tonnes) of mineral waste were landfilled during the project phase. As such, the recovery ratios promised in the volunt ary commitment can be considered to have been met. This seems to be a remarkable accomplishment in the sector. It still needs to be underlined that the landfilled material could also potentially be recycled and that this achievements excludes excavation material (139.4 million tonnes per year on average) and any other nonmineral construction material such as glass, metal etc. Moreover, the evolution that took place has to be put in perspective with the lack of high quality data until 1995 (cf. Schäfer). In fact, a serious collection of data according to a c oding system started only after 1995 when the Act for Promoting Closed Substance Cycle Waste Management and Ensuring Environmentally Compatible Waste Disposal had been enforced. Before that, a proper compilation of data was not possible. The relativel y high amount of landfilled material mightFebruary 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 149 not have reflected reality. It might have been the case that even before 1995 much more material was re-used or recycled, but that this was not properly documented (cf. Schäfer). A formal continuation of this initiative is not pla nned at the moment.


### 13.4.3. L EGAL DOCUMENTS

Table 42 – Legal documents dealing with waste manag ement
Legislation Year of

implementation Legal requirements

Kreislaufwirtschaftsund Abfallgesetz (Act for Promoting Closed Substance Cycle Waste Management and Ensuring Environmentally Compatible Waste Disposal) 1994 The law set principles for the development of wast e management towards a closed loop economy (Kreislaufwirtschaft). It established a new hierarc hy for waste treatment where the avoidance of waste is bet ter than the recycling of waste, but recycling is more preferable to the disposal of waste. The disposal of waste is only permitted when recycling is much more expensive or impossible and the waste is unavoidable. Environmen tally compatible disposal of waste shall be assured. Besi des, this Act also established the responsibility of the prod ucers for the waste arising from their products. Untergesetzliches Regelwerk zum Kreislaufwirtschafts- und Abfallgesetz (Legislative Provisions that Implement the Closed Substance Cycle and Waste Management Act) 1996 This provision complete the above mentioned law fro m 1994 and includes 1) Ordinance on the European Waste Catalogue 2) Ordinance on the Furnishing of Proof 3) Ordinance on Transport Licences 4) Ordinance on Specialised Waste Management Compan ies Gewerbeabfallverordnung - Verordnung über die Entsorgung von gewerblichen Siedlungsabfällen und von bestimmten Bau- und Abbruchabfällen (Commercial Wastes Ordinance - CWO) 2003 Regulates the separation of certain waste types fro m commercial enterprises that is suitable for recycli ng and the construction waste sector.

Verordnung zur Vereinfachung des Deponierechts (Ordinance Simplifying Landfill Law ) 2009 The Ordinance aimed at simplifying existing legisla tion and transposing of the corresponding European requireme nts into national law, by respecting the principle to l andfill only biologically in-active waste. The Ordinance regulat es the construction, operation, closure and aftercare of l andfill sites. Thus, only specific kinds of (non-hazardous) types of waste can be land filled. In the Ordinance the resp onsibility of the waste producer was strengthened significantl y, compared to older requirements. The operator of the landfill site therefore assumes the role of controlling the declaration made by the waste producer. The Ordinance also roug hly prescribes ways of required sealing and closure tec hniques aiming at preventing harmful emissions into the environment, particularly ground water.150 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 Legislation Year of

implementation Legal requirements
Entwurf der Verordnung über den Einbau von mineralischen Ersatzbaustoffen in technischen Bauwerken - Ersatzbaustoffverordnung (Draft Ordinance on substitute construction materials) second draft 2010 (implementation date not yet determined) This Ordinance will determine the harmless re-use of

excavation material, mineral waste and recycling ma terial.

Entwurf des KreislaufwirtschaftsGesetzes (Draft for a new Act for Promoting Closed Substance Cycle Waste Management) draft 2010 (implementation date not yet determined) The general idea of the new legislation is to:

1) keep the established structures and elements of the Act of 1994 2) transpose the European Directive on Waste into G erman law and harmonise the definitions of waste terminol ogy between the EU and Germany 3) to improve resource efficiency of the Closed Sub stance Cycle Waste Management The last point is of vital importance and under dis cussion between politicians and stakeholders. In order to i mprove resource efficiency, it is intended to increase rec ycling rates. Until 2020 the re-use quota (excluding energetic re -use) should be 80 % (instead of 70 % required by the EU) . Policy makers argue that the highly developed structures o f waste disposal in Germany allow for this ambitious goal (cf. http://www.bmu.de/files/pdfs/allgemein /application/pdf/krwg_eckpunkte_bf.pdf) The industry, however, is concerned because for the m high recycling quotas stand in contradiction to environm entally strict rules for recycling; exclusion of certain su bstances in recyclable material, for instance (cf. interview So dermanns).February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 151 

### 13.4.4. S TANDARDS

Table 43 – Standards in place in the construction s ector
Standard Legally binding Requirements Source

Das deutsche Gütesiegel nachhaltiges Bauen (German Sustainable Building Certificate) Voluntary It rates the ecological and economicsustainability but also the sociocultural and process quality of a building design. Criterion 42 has particular relevance for C&D Waste. It focuses on prevention, dismantling and recycling of (waste) materials in buildings. The certificate also considers including criteria for the building site (such as reduction of noise and dust in criterion 48). Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen e.V German Sustainable Building Council: http://www.dgnb.de /fileadmin/downloads/DGNB_ Handbuch_44S_20090423_on line_DE.pdf

Technische Lieferbedingungen für Mineralstoffe im Straßenbau (Gesteinskörnungen und Werksteine im Straßenbau) - TL Min–StB 2000 (Technical delivery conditions for mineral materials in road construction) Mandatory The “Technischen Lieferbedingungen für Mineralstoffe im Straßenbau“ (TL Min–StB) contains construction related requirements for natural and artificial aggregates and stones used for the constructions of roads. They also contain information for water quality management and control. FGSV-Verlag: http://www.strassenbaudigita l.de /inhalt/beispiele/docs/2413/2 413.html

BRB-Richtlinien (Recycling Building Materials guidelines) Voluntary The guidelines aim at assuring the quality of the recycling material so that it can fulfil the required functions. They also document the technical applications of these products while considering environmental and constructional rules. Bundesvereinigung Recycling-Baustoffe e.V. -BRB (Office Federal Union of Recycling Building Materials):http://www.recycli ngbaustoffe.de/pdf/BRBRichtl inien-neu.pdf

Multiple DIN standards in the construction sector Mandatory Establishing prestandards and/or standards for construction materials and components including standards for methods of test, planning and design (e. g. Eurocodes for structural engineering). Building and Civil Engineering Standards Committee - NABau (a division of the DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e. V.): http://www.nabau.din.de/cm d?workflowname=committeeDinSpecSearch&level=tplspec&committeeid=54738847 &search_grem_akt=54738847 &search_level=d|i&searchDis play=-tabelle&languageid=en152 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 

## 13.5. Q UANTITATIVE DATA



### 13.5.1. T OTAL 

### C&D W ASTE ARISING AND CHARACTERISATION

Table 44 - C&D waste input for waste management pla nts – 2005 & 2007(Source: Statistisches Bundesamt) C&D waste fractions (in 1000 t) 2005 2007 Total C&D Waste arising 38,940 42,656 Total non-hazardous C&D waste 31,634 36,746 Bricks, tiles and ceramics 4,705 4,380 Concrete 607 619 Other mineral waste (stone, sand, gravel and other aggregates) 3,012 2735
Bituminous mixtures, without coal tar 351 316
Wood 2,514 2,798 Plastics 64 64 Metal 4,367 6,179 Glass 101 203 Gypsum 103 218 Excavation material 15,755 19,169 Insulation materials 56 66 others N/A N/A Total hazardous C&D waste 6,638 5,909 Contaminated excavation material 4,539 3,664 Mixtures of, or separate fractions of concrete, bricks, tiles and ceramics containing dangerous substances 1,003 919

Glass, plastic and wood containing or contaminated with dangerous substances 537 578 Coal tar and tarred products 143 176 cables containing oil, coal tar and other dangerous substances 2 4 metal waste contaminated with dangerous substances 2 4 Gypsum-based construction materials contaminated with dangerous substances 413 566 Hg containing waste N/A N/A Other N/A N/A In Germany, gathering of data on waste is managed i n a decentralised way, by the Länder. The processing and publication of data is then done in cooperation between the federal and the states statistical offices.February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 153 Regularly, operators of waste management plants are asked about the origin, the nature and the disposition of the waste treated. The yearly in put of the C&D Waste into these plants for 2005 and 2007 is displayed in the table above. The table displays only one fraction of the annual C&D waste. It excludes material used for landfill construction, material that is used in min ing, and it also excludes material going to asphalt production plants, for instance. The relatively high amounts of wood and metal in th e table might seem surprising. One explanation for this phenomenon is that the operato rs of waste management plants do sometimes not strictly adhere to coding the treated waste according to the origin, but only look at the material itself. As a result, the stati stics for wood and metals can include waste coming from other industrial sectors, as well. The aforementioned construction industry group, ARG E KWTB, is issuing regular monitoring reports in which very reliable statistics on the ge neration and the recycling of construction waste can be found. In this report ARGE KWTB make r eference to non-hazardous C&D Waste splitting it up into the following categories:

Table 45 – Waste categories included in the C&D was te stream Waste category Codes included Debris (building demolition waste including concrete, bricks, tiles or mixtures thereof) 17 01 01 17 01 03 17 01 02 17 01 07 Road way rubble 17 03 02

Excavation* 17 05 04 17 05 06 17 05 08

Construction site waste 17 02 01 17 02 02 17 02 03 17 04 17 06 04 17 09 04 Gypsum based waste 17 08 02

* Excavation material is included in the table for th e definition of waste, but excluded from the pie charts below. For Germany, no uniformly used definition on C&D wa ste could be found. However, one possible definition for C&D waste is b ased on the establishment of the 5 waste categories mentioned. It includes mostly mineral wa ste – the main component of C&D waste (cf. Bracke).154 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 Figure 11 - Origin of total C&D waste in Germany fo r 2004, excluding excavation material (Source: Monitoring-Bericht Bauabfälle) 

### Mineral Waste 2006 (without excavation) 82,7 mill. tonnes (100 %)

Roadway rubble 14,3 mill. tonnes = 17,3% Debris 57,1 mill.tonnes 69,0% Construction site waste 10,9 mill. tonnes 13,2% Gypsum based

waste 0.40 mill. Tonnes, 0,5%

Source: Federal Statistical Office, Bonn Figure 11 shows the repartition of mineral C&D Wast e by origin and it becomes clear that debris and roadway rubble represent the major part of this waste. How they are recovered (recycled, re-used) can be seen below.


### 13.5.2. R ECYCLING AND RECOVERY OF 

### C&D W ASTE
Figure 12 - Recovery of total C&D waste in Germany for 2006, excluding excavation material (Source: Monitoring-Bericht Bauabfälle)



### Recovery of Mineral Waste (without excavation)

82,7 mill. Tonnes (100%)

Recycling 55,9 mill. tonnes (67,6%) Reuse 22,2 mill. Tonnes (26,8%) Landfill 4,6 mill. Tonnes (5,6%)

Source: BRB, Duisburg
As it can be observed in the above figure, more tha n 90% of the mineral waste are recovered, i.e. either re-used or recycled, whereby recycling means that the mineral waste undergoes a treatment in special plants (sorting, washing, crus hing etc.) so that it can be re-usedFebruary 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 155 afterwards. Figure 4 and 5 show which amounts and p ercentage of the biggest components of the mineral waste, i.e. debris and roadway rubbl e, are re-used for mining, for landfills and by public authorities. It also shows the amount lan dfilled and recycled. Public authorities often use debris for the construction of infrastruc ture such as roads, for the construction of landfills and for landscaping. The re-use of materi al in landfills refers to building operations done on landfills, for example: construction of roa ds and trails or dams. Backfilled material is accounted for in the category “re-used” in the fram ework of restoration measures. Figure 13 - Re-use and Disposal of Debris in German y for 2004 (Source: Monitoring-Bericht Bauabfälle)


### Reuse and Disposal of Debris* 2006 57,1 mill. tonnes (100%)

Landfill 3,4 mill. tonnes (5,9%)

Recycling 41,9 mill. tonnes (73,4%) Reuse 11,8 mill. tonnes (20,7%)

Source: Federal Statistical Office, Bonn; BRB, Duis burg; Fachserie 19, Reihe 1, Seiten 42; 50; 140; 14 5; 146
* European Waste Catalogue Nr. : 170101; 170102; 17 0103; 170107156 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 Figure 14 - Re-use and Disposal of Roadway Rubble i n Germany for 2004 (Source: Monitoring-Bericht Bauabfälle)
Reuse and Disposal of Roadway Rubble* 2006

14,3 mill. tonnes (100%)

Landfill 0,4 mill. tonnes (2,8%)

Recycling 13,5 mill. tonnes (94,4%) Reuse 0,4 mill. tonnes (2,8%)

Source: BRB, Duisburg; Federal Statistical Office, Bonn * European Waste Cataloque Nr. 170302

The detailed repartition between re-use and disposa l of construction site waste and gypsum based waste are not shown here since they only repr esent very small fractions of the total mineral waste.



## 13.6. P RACTICES IN 

## C&D WASTE MANAGEMENT



### 13.6.1. C URRENT PRACTICES IN 

### C&D WASTE MANAGEMENT
One of the most frequently used waste management pr actices in Germany, is the so called

“ controlled deconstruction ” (kontrollierter Rückbau), sometimes also referred to as systematic, selective or recyclable demolition. No financial incentives for deconstruction were identified. This treatment requires the removal of contaminated material before demolition. The goal is the re-use of a high percentage of the material. Th erefore windows, doors, heating systems etc. are taken out of the building and can sometime s be re-used as such. Furthermore, the building materials are correctly sorted by material (bricks, concrete, wood etc.) on site. Before controlled demolition is carried out, a deta iled planning including a concept for controlled demolition and disposal or recovery has to be performed.February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 157 Figure 15 - Controlled deconstruction (Source: Kont rollierter Rückbau / BayLfU 2003)

This practice that replaced the traditional wreckin g ball is very common in Germany and other German speaking countries, such as Austria, S witzerland or in parts of northern Italy. Those countries and particularly Germany have very high quotas in this technique (although no quantitative data is available).



## 13.7. P AST AND FUTURE TRENDS OF 

## C&D WASTE 

## , DRIVERS AND BARRIERS



### 13.7.1. T RENDS IN 

### C&D WASTE GENERATION AND COMPOSITION
No quantitative statement on the future waste gener ation and composition for Germany as a whole can be made at this point. However, a report from the Senate of Berlin allows for a summary of the past and a tentative outlook on the future and states that the capital g enerally reflects the country as a whole. A strong trend in the past was the decrease of mate rial that ended up in landfills. Since 1996, the percentage of Berlin’s C&D waste that was re-us ed in some way has continually grown and maintains a 98% level since 2000. The total generation of C&D waste was and is depend ent of the economic activity in the construction sector. The percentage of landfilled w aste will depend on the market demand for recycling material and the development of techn iques for (better) waste separation and waste treatment. (It will also depend on specific r egulations, which are described in 1.7.2.) The report forecasts that in 2020 the C&D waste occ urring in Berlin will be around 5 million tonnes, i.e. approximately 1.5.tonnes per capita. P otential for development for the capital is seen in the way material is re-used, for example, u sing material in buildings rather than for land restoration or backfilling.158 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 

### 13.7.2. B ARRIERS TO THE 

### 70% GOAL
With over 90% of preparation for reuse, recycling a nd other forms of material recovery, Germany is one of the countries that have already a chieved the targets set by the WFD.

 Contradictory Regulations According to the draft for the new Act for Promotin g Closed Substance Cycle Waste Management (cf. section 1.4.3.) recycling rates of C&D Waste will increase in the future. From the current 70 % approximately, they will have to go up to 80 %, if the requirements of the law should be fulfilled. However, there are some concerns that the new “Grun dwasserverordnung” (Ordinance on ground water) and the draft for the “Ersatzstoffver ordnung” (Ordinance of substitute construction material) stand in contradiction to th ese ambitious recycling goals (cf. Heide and Sodermanns). The Ordinance on ground water transposes the corres ponding EC Directive into Germany law, but requests stricter limits for certain subst ances in Germany than requested by EU legislation. The Ordinance on substitute constructi on material builds upon the Ordinance on ground water and has very severe limits, as well. C ertain material that could currently be recycled would be excluded from recycling if those ordinances were enforced. One example is bricks or brick chippings that often contain van adium. Vanadium can have harmful toxic effects if occurring in an increased concentration, for example in ground water. It is however questionable that vanadium from recycling material would find its way into the ground water because depending on the soil type much of it could be absorbed. Furthermore, vanadium is a ubiquitous substance and therefore present in nat ure anyway. There are also debates about the concentration that needs to be reached fo r vanadium to become harmful (cf. Kirschbaum). For the recycling industry, a threshold value of th is substance would cause substantial problems. As explained above, vanadium occurs in br icks and brick breakings. If those products were downgraded from category I recycling material to category II recycling material because of their vanadium content, this wo uld affect the market demand for recycled brick products negatively. Furthermore, if bricks or parts of bricks cannot be used in recycled material anymore, serious problems concern ing the storage of the huge amounts of bricks from the C&D sector would occur (cf. Heide).

 Market demand and prizes Another barrier for the increase of recycling rates is the general market demand – even for category I recycling material. Often, public author ities, who are the main costumer of construction material, do not specifically ask for recycling material in their call for tenders. This can be due to negative experiences with non-ce rtified low-quality material (cf. Heide). At the same time, prices for not-recycled material do not yet reflect the environmental disadvantages (use of resources) that occur during their production. Therefore they are oftenFebruary 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 159 less expensive than recycled material which have to undergo complex processes to become qualitatively valuable.


### 13.7.3. C ONCLUSION
Germany presents one of the highest recycling rates for C&D waste in Europe, and has already achieved the target set by the WFD directiv e. As a result, the 70% target itself does not drive towards higher recycling rates, and natio nal targets set by the draft for the new Act for Promoting Closed Substance Cycle Waste Manageme nt already exceed 70%. However, important amounts of C&D waste are backfil led in mines in Germany (including imports from other EU countries, such as Denmark an d the Netherlands), which shows the importance of a clearer definition of this option, and raises the question of whether a hierarchy between management options within the tar get is possible. In the case of Germany, the quality of recycling applications (and their respective environmental impacts) represents the main challenge. There are some concerns that the 70 % target, which is even exceeded by 10 % by the German draft for a new Act for Promoting Closed Sub stance Cycle Waste Management, could be endangered because current environmental require ments (under the Ordinance of substitute construction material, for example) coul d lead to the downgrading of half of all recycled material and to a restriction of its use t o specific construction projects only. Until now 90 % of the recycling material is classed category I which corresponds to unrestricted use (cf. Kirschbaum). If downgraded to restricted use, market demand would drop remarkably and the production of recycling mat erial would not be profitable anymore. A balanced solution between appropriate environment al protection and recycling targets will need to be found in the future. Public authorities play an important role in the system since they have the power to decide which material to buy

.160 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 

# 14. APPENDIX III: CASE STUDY FLANDERS

**Amounts of C&D**

**waste** From 9.6 million tonnes in 2005 (1.583 kg per inhab itant) to 8.5 million tonnes in 2007 (1.385 kg per inhabitant). C&D waste peaked in 2006 with 1.772 kg per inhabitant. It is expected that C&D waste generation may continue to grow at a moderate step, together with the growth of the total waste generation in Fl anders. Source: OVAM, 2009, overzicht bedrijfsafval 2004-20 07.xls, on www.ovam.be , future projections are uncertain.
**Waste factors** Waste factors are not applicable, as the Flemish st atistics on C&D waste are not based

upon estimates or modelling, but on direct reportin g by the waste generating companies, and for secondary waste by the waste col lecting and treating companies.

**Material composition of the**  **C&D waste stream** Fraction 2000 Recent estimates

Concrete rubble 41% +/- 80% Masonry rubble 40% Ceramic (tiles) 3% Asphalt 12% +/- 15% Wood 1,8%

+/- 5% Gypsum 0,3% Metal 0,2% Plastics 0,1% Bituminous materials 0,1% Other (not specified) 1,6% Source: the figures for the year 2000 are based on reporting on the results of the sector plan C&D waste 1995. The recent estimates for aggre gate fractions are published on www.ovam.be

**End of life options** Preparation for re-use, recycling and

material recovery Disposal

**Rates** 89,2% (all but final disposal) Landfill: 10,8% Incineration (energy recovery) is negligible Source: Recycling rate calculated based on C&D wast e generation and treatment figures 2007, assuming a conservative average of 10 % resid ue from recycling operations.

**Historical waste management**  Flemish waste policy started with the Flemish waste Decree of 1981, which includes C&D

waste as a special waste requiring specific follow up and policy measures. These were covered from the start of the environmental plannin g. Waste treatment data from 1992: recycling: 48% pre-treatment (crushing, sorting etc.. usually lead ing to recycling):18% landfill: 33% incineration negligible

**Analysis of the current state**  The current state of high recycling rates in the Fl emish region results from the growing

environmental awareness and various policy actions. Final disposal -landfill- of C&D waste has been made unattractive (landfill levies a nd scarcity, i.e. fewer limited permits for landfills) or impossible (landfill ban for recy clable fractions). Waste can easily be applied as secondary raw material. Existing quality standards (e.g. Copro) ascertain the quality of the material creating a competitive posi tion and market for this secondary raw material (scarce primary raw materials).February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 161 **Towards the 70%**

**target** In Flanders the 70% re-use has been reached before the year 2000. Key drivers: - Implementation of some (then) innovative policy i nstruments and a specific C&D waste action plan - Making final disposal (landfill) unattractive - Turning waste into valuable raw material. The lat ter can only happen with proven quality, as far as concerns both environmental and construction technical properties. - Key objectives for further improvement: - Sorting at source, broadening the scope to the sm aller (non-stony) fractions - Selective demolition of (larger) buildings - Closed material loops for smaller fractions, e.g. gypsum, cellular concrete, roofing bitumen and rock wool.162 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 

## 14.1. S OURCES OF INFORMATION

• Reports and articles OVAM, December 2008, Bedrijfsafvalstoffen. Cijfers en trends voor productie, verwerking OVAM, February 2008, Bedrijfsafvalstoffen. Cijfers en trends voor productie, verwerking, invoer en uitvoer. OVAM, March 2005, Bedrijfsafvalstoffen. Cijfers en trends voor productie, verwerking, invoer en uitvoer – including decouplin g indicators OVAM, 2009, overzicht bedrijfsafval 2004-2007.xls, op www.ovam.be OVAM, 2009, Inventarisatie huishoudelijke afvalstof fen 2008 OVAM, 2009, Bedrijfsafvalstoffen productiejaar 2007 (uitgave juli 2009) OVAM, 2007, Milieuverantwoord materiaalgebruik en a fvalbeheer in de bouw, Sectoraal Uitvoeringsplan OVAM, 2003, Positionering van het Vlaams beleid inz ake bouw- en sloopafval t.o.v. de omringende afvalmarkten OVAM, 2003, Bedrijfsafvalstoffen. Cijfers en trends voor productie, verwerking, invoer en uitvoer – including figures down to 1992. OVAM, 1995, uitvoeringsplan bouw- en sloopafval OVAM, 2008, Presentation Nico Vanaken, workshop ODE , Mogelijkheden van houtstromen en wettelijke klassering OVAM, 2009, Voortgangsrapport Uitvoeringsplan Houta fval 2008 MIRA, 2007, Milieurapport Vlaanderen, achtergronddo cument thema beheer afvalstoffen VITO, BBT Kenniscentrum 2001. Voorbehandeling, sort eren van bouw- en sloopafval VITO (in Milieudirect): Hernieuwbare warmte uit bio massa in Vlaanderen?

• Websites Public Flemish waste agency, www.ovam.be Webservice consolidated Flemish environmental legis lation navigator.emis.vito.be VAL-I-PAC site for collection of packaging foil at construction wharfs http://www.cleansitesystem.be/_htmnl/how.htmFebruary 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 163 

## 14.2. C ONTACTS

Tableau 46 - Identified contacts for the case study on Flanders
Full name Name of organisation Function
Koen Smeets OVAM (Public Flemish Waste agency) Head of department waste statistics ADC Janna Vandecruys OVAM (Public Flemish Waste agency) Expert department waste statistics ADC


## 14.3. C ONTEXT



### 14.3.1. I NSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT
Belgium is a largely federalised country, where a m ajority of competences have been attributed to its different autonomous regions; the Flemish and Walloon region and the Brussels capital Region. The northern part of Belgium is the Region of Fland ers, the southern part is the Region of Wallonia, and the city of Brussels has a specific s tatute as Capital Region. Belgium knows a, in a European context rather exceptional, far reaching division of competences on environmental issues. All three regions are fully c ompetent on environment and therefore also on waste. They can and do create their own leg islation, which is not coordinated or harmonised. Every region can follow its own policy options when applying European Directives. Some large differences in approach exis t on environmental permits and on internal waste transport. One of the few residual c ompetences for the Belgian level is transit of waste. For some environmental issues the three r egions search for cooperation and harmonisation on a voluntary basis. All regions are of course largely implementing the same European Directives and therefore often but not always use comparable strategies. In any case they serve the same goals that are defined at a European level. Flanders was chose n as a case study to illustrate how high recycling rates for C&D waste can be achieved.


### 14.3.2. F LEMISH WASTE LEGISLATION
Main instruments in the Flemish legislative framewo rk are:

• The Flemish waste decree and its implementation ord er VLAREA

• The Flemish decree on the environmental permit and its implementation orders VLAREM I and VLAREM II

• Specific legal instruments on e.g. polluted soil, a nimal waste, packaging waste (interregional cooperation protocol), toxic waste o bjective liability, ... and directly applicable European Regulations on e.g. trans-borde r movement of waste, ...164 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 

### 14.3.3. F LEMISH WASTE ADMINISTRATION
The main competent authorities on waste are:

• OVAM, the public Flemish waste agency, for all wast e topics except permits for installations

• LNE, department on environment, nature and energy, for permits for installations and inspection

• VLM, the Flemish land agency, for manure

• VREG, the Flemish Regulation Entity for the Electri city and Gas market, for green certificates for renewable energy from waste

• The provinces (Flemish Brabant, Antwerp, Eastern Fl anders, Western Flanders, Limburg) for first line environmental permits.

• The 308 municipalities for local issues (e.g. colle ction and treatment of household waste) and first line environmental permi ts for small installations.



## 14.4. P OLICY AND STANDARDS OVERVIEW



### 14.4.1. K EY 

### E UROPEAN POLICY DRIVERS
For the Flemish region, the European policy instrum ents and the European directives have only played a secondary role as a policy driver for the development of the specific Flemish regional policy instruments for C&D waste.

• The policy instrument on secondary raw material has been introduced in the Flemish legal framework from 1997 onwards, while th e end-of-life policy is newly introduced in the European legal frame in the new W aste framework directive of 19 November 2008.

• The landfill prohibition for waste materials separa tely collected for recovery and for waste materials coming into consideration for r ecovery for reasons including their nature, quantity and homogeneity was introduc ed in 01.07.2000. The 70% recycling target of C&D waste is introduced at a la ter data. The recycling target of 70% has in practice been reached even before the ye ar 2000.

• The general concept of the waste treatment hierarch y (Lansinks Ladder), as first introduced in European policy documents and later f ully deployed in the Waste Framework Directive, has inspired Flemish legislati on and has been included in the Waste Decree since 29-04-1994.February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 165 

### 14.4.2. K EY NATIONAL AND REGIONAL POLICY DRIVERS

 Executing plan C&D waste of 1995 This first policy plan for C&D waste introduced pol icy targets for the period 1995-2000. The major aspects were:

• Recovery of 75% of all C&D waste generated in 2000 . This target has been reached as in 2000 85% of all C&D waste was recover ed or recycled.

• Prevent the generation of C&D waste for a medium lo ng period with 25%. This target has not been reached as the generation of C& D waste keeps increasing.

• Sort in 2000 at least 85% of all generated C&D was te in recyclable waste, recycling residue and hazardous waste. This target has been reached.

• Treat in 2000 at least 85% of all generated C&D was te to allow recovery or recycling, generating 10% or less recycling residue

.

• Generate sufficient market demand for the recycled C&D waste.

 Environmentally responsible material use and waste management in the construction sector, sector executing plan. Although the previous plan was very successful in d iverting C&D waste from landfill and in reaching a high level of recycling of C&D waste, it did not succeed in preventing the generation the waste or in influencing its composit ion. The new plan focused on:

• Material specific environmental profile of construc tion materials, in order to allow the Flemish Government to develop and impose material use prescriptions.

• Promoting selective demolition with standardised sp ecifications

• A global management system for rubble granulates (n o additional information on this management system was provided)

• Promote further re-use of the stony fractions of C& D waste (no concrete initiative was identified)

• Promote recycling of specific waste fractions cellu lar concrete, gypsum, plastics, flat glass, mineral insulation materials and roofin g bitumen.166 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 

### 14.4.3. L EGAL DOCUMENTS

Tableau 47 - Legal documents dealing with waste man agement
Legislation Year of implementation Legal requirements

Decree concerning the Prevention and Management of Waste-materials 2 July 1981 Basic legislation of waste prevention and waste management, establishing the frame for a.o.

• The legal destinations of household and industrial waste

• The end-of-waste provisions for secondary raw materials

• The provisions on the transportation of waste

• The provisions on separate collection of wastes

• The provisions on environmental levies. Order of the Flemish Government for the establishment of the Flemish regulations relating to waste prevention and management (VLAREA) 5 December 2003 Regulation implementing the Flemish waste Decree.

Decree of the Flemish Council concerning Environmental Licences 28 June 1985 Basic legislation on permitting procedures and exploitation conditions of installations considered as a nuisance to man and the environment VLAREM I Order of the Flemish Government concerning Environmental Licences 6 February 1991 Regulation implementing permitting procedures and classification of installations considered as a nui sance to man and the environment

VLAREM II Order of the Flemish Government concerning General and Sectorial provisions relating to Environmental Safety 1 June 1995 Regulation implementing exploitation conditions of installations considered as a nuisance to man and t he environmentFebruary 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 167 

### 14.4.4. S TANDARDS

Tableau 48 - Standards in place in the construction sector
Standard Legally binding Requirements Source

Use conditions for a secondary raw materials used as a construction material Mandatory • Specific use conditions for the use of a secondary raw material as construction material

• Limited list of nature of waste, source, and specific use conditions

• Concentration limits for 8 heavy metals, 5 monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, 10 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, 6 other parameters for organic substances

• Supplementary leachate conditions for non formed 210 construction materials

• Emission limits of heavy metals for soils • VLAREA art 4.2.2.1 to 4.2.2.4

• VLAREA annex 4.1 part 2

• VLAREA annex 4.2.2A

• VLAREA annex 4.2.2B

• VLAREA annex 4.2.2C

COPRO standards Voluntary Mandatory if requested for use as secondary raw material The main objective of COPRO is to

organize, coordinate, harmonize and encourage quality in the construction sector. Concretely, this objective can be realized by means of controls of quality on construction products as on their integration on sites. According to the Belgian decree on general building conditions the task to control quality is delegated to the impartial organism COPRO. COPRO documents, on http://www.copro.eu/3_30_0.aspx

QUAREA standards Voluntary Mandatory if requested for use as secondary raw material Quarea offers an alternative control

system to COPRO to be applied in judging the quality of secondary raw materials CERTIPRO certification system managed by VITO, on www.vito.be Ministerial Decision (MB) 2 December 2005 declaring the Quarea control system equivalent to the COPRO system.

210 Where pollutants are not strongly bound in a matri x168 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 

## 14.5. Q UANTITATIVE DATA



### 14.5.1. T OTAL 

### C&D W ASTE ARISING AND CHARACTERISATION
Table 49 - Waste amounts arising for 2006 and 2007 (Source: OVAM 2009 , overzicht bedrijfsafval 2004-2007.xls, www.ovam.be )

C&D waste fractions 2005 (tonnes) 2007 (tonnes)
Total C&D Waste arising 211 9,622,258 8,536,636 Total non-hazardous C&D waste 9,159,227 8,494,505
Primary C&D waste 8,265,836 7,211,957 Secondary C&D waste 1,356,422 1,324,679 Municipal C&D waste 475,299 (2006) 502,205 Wood 212 1,268,524 1,523,403 Plastics 213 348,769 388,195 Metal 214 1,902,894 3,855,782 Glass 215 156,509 160,934 Gypsum 216 439,342 285,429 Excavation material 217 2,359,648 2,550,702 Total hazardous C&D waste 463,031 42,132 Asbestos containing waste 218 31,719 68,690

• C&D waste is defined as the group of following EWL codes: 101310, 101311, 101314, 170101, 170102, 170106, 170107, 170302, 170 507, 170508, 170603, 170604, 170901, 170902, 170903, 170904

• Soil is defined as: 170503, 170504, 191301, 191302, 200202

• Secondary C&D waste is waste defined as C&D waste, but originating from waste treatment operations, in accordance with the defini tion of the OECD/EUROSTAT joint questionnaire: Waste from secondary sources, i.e. waste generated in a process that is known as a waste treatment operatio n. It includes residual

211 Excl C&D waste from municipal or household origin 212 All wood waste except packaging waste. This fracti on is larger than wood waste from C&D sector. No detailed information is availab le on the wood of other fractions in C&D waste, but separate fractions from the C&D sect or are usually reported as wood, plastics... waste. No detailed data on wood from C&SD sector is available in the public domain. 213 All waste reported as plastic waste, see also foot note 212 214 All waste reported as metal waste, see also footno te 212 215 All glass waste except packaging waste, see also f ootnote 212 216 Reported gypsum partially is C&D waste, but the ma jor sources are phosphoric acid preparation and flue gas desulphuration. 217 Soil reported as waste 218 Includes C&D waste but also other asbestos contain ing equipment or waste streamsFebruary 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 169 materials originating from recovery and disposal op erations, such as incineration and composting residues. OVAM uses waste generated by following NACEBELcodes as a proxy for secondary waste: 37.000, 37.20 0, 51.570, 90.002, 90.003, 90.004, 90.005. In 2007 11% of the secondary waste is C&D waste. This is waste that has gone through a further step of sorting, as simply crushed waste is included in the primary waste (see second question part 2). The waste treatment sector remains one of the largest sources on indust rial C&D waste. The construction sector is responsible for 37% of all p rimary industrial waste. Secondary C&D waste is mainly broken inert waste fo r use as secondary raw material. Other sorted out fractions are usually re ported under their specific material name.


### 14.5.2. R ECYCLING AND RECOVERY OF 

### C&D W ASTE

Table 50 - Waste production and amounts that are tr eated through the different options

C&D waste fractions Preparatory

activities (tonnes) Preparation

for re-use (tonnes) Recycling

(tonnes) Other material

recovery (tonnes) Backfilling

(tonnes) Energy

recovery (tonnes) Disposal

(tonnes)

Total C&D Waste arising 6,251,170 2,177,864 1,152,727 - 0 990 39,507
Wood 507,903 23,980 447,161 - 0 289,137 342 Plastics 160,525 2,975 119,825 - 0 12,844 52,600 Metal 959,641 691 933,325 - 0 174 9,064 Glass 77,964 4 76,890 - 0 155 1,496 Gypsum 14,160 0 1,265 - 0 0 423,917 Excavation material 2,092,764 229,878 16,821 - 0 61 6 18,627 Asbestos containing waste 219 7,925 0 2 - 0 3 23,789

In addition to the waste treatment activities as in cluded in the waste treatment hierarchy and the waste Framework Directive, a category with ‘preparatory activities’ is included. This contains all activities transforming a waste in ano ther waste, with different properties and possibly no longer a C&D waste, e.g. sorting, physi cochemical pre-treatment activities. Waste being pre-treated will end up in one or more of the other mentioned waste treatment categories, but possibly not under the denominator C&D waste, but as plastics, wood, RDF and often mixed up with waste with the same nature but a different origin (packaging, mixed industrial waste, municipal waste fractions, etc.) For this reason the total of pre-treated C&D waste can be larger than the total of finally treat ed C&D waste. The same phenomenon occurs with different waste streams, like household waste or mixed waste. EUROSTAT has conducted pilot studies in line with annex II secti on 8 point 3 of the Waste Statistics Regulation 2150/2002/EC. OVAM anticipated on the re sults and the implementation of the results of these pilot studies and has introduced s ince 2002 a comprehensive waste statistics

219 Includes C&D waste but also other asbestos contain ing equipment or waste streams170 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 approach taking consideration of the issue of pre-t reatment and consequent change in nature and composition of waste streams during thei r treatment chain. The category preparation for re-use includes all wa ste reported as re-uses and used as a secondary raw material. All incineration is energy recovery, all disposal activities is landfilling. Recycling includes composting.



## 14.6. P RACTICES IN 

## C&D WASTE MANAGEMENT

In the Flemish region, legislative requirements and (planned) targets concerning C&D waste management have been approached in the consecutive (sectorial) executing plans. The main objectives of these plans have already been listed in section 14.4.2. on national and regional policy drivers. The 1995 C&D waste executing plan proved successful in reaching a high level of recycling. The new sectorial executing plan of 2007 on environ mentally responsible material use and waste management in the construction sector determi nes the policy for the period 2007- 2010 and principally aims to address the opportunit ies identified in the evaluation of the first plan:

• Quantitative and qualitative prevention (e.g. compo sition) of C&D waste

• High end re-use of C&D waste Section 14.6.1. further clarifies current practices and operations in the Flemish region while paragraph 14.6.2. provides a brief ove rview of the opportunities and the possible evolution in C&D waste management practices in Flanders.


### 14.6.1. C URRENT PRACTICES IN 

### C&D WASTE MANAGEMENT

Over 90 % of the C&D waste in Flanders consists of stony material. The non-stony or residual fraction is often referred to as mixed C&D waste or container waste. This waste contains e.g. glass, wood, metals, plastics, etc. C&D waste is minimally sorted (at source) in a haza rdous and a non-hazardous component. Non-hazardous waste is usually further sorted in st ony waste, glass, metals and a residual mixed fraction.

 Stone fraction The dominant stony fraction in the C&D waste stream can be subdivided in an inert fraction (concrete and masonry rubble, ceramics, natural sto ne, etc) and a smaller fraction of asphalt rubble. Asphalt is not classified as inert waste as it contains hydrocarbons. The inert fraction and asphalt rubble (not contamin ated with other wastes) goes to permitted crushers. Over 75% of the inert fraction is actually granulated. The remainder can be used e.g in hydraulic works, on condition that t he non-granulated rubble has a COPRO or QUAREA-certificate. The waste arriving at crushers generally originates from large demolition works or road construction and the composition is r ather homogeneous, especiallyFebruary 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 171 compared to waste destined for sorting installation s. Crushing installations can range from simple crushers with sieve to fully equipped instal lations with pre- and post-sorting devices, magnets. Contaminated stony waste must go through a physical -chemical treatment process before it can be further recycled. Acceptance criteria in lan dfills for inert waste create incentives for re-use when economically and technically feasible. The new sectorial executing plan of 2007 on environmentally responsible material use and was te management in the construction sector has set up the objective to landfill maximum 5 % of C&D waste. Use of inert granulates These granulates can only be used as construction m aterial. Use as a construction material requires functional application e.g. as a foundatio n or base (layer) in new works. The use of these granulates as soil is not permitted. All iner t stony fractions and granulates of asphalt must be certified by COPRO or QUAREA and be classif ied as secondary raw materials. To obtain these certifications, certain conditions for the material and the treatment process must be met. This quality guarantee must build up c onfidence in the secondary materials and create incentives for re-use:

• The origin of granulates is known: permitted crushe rs, treatment and sorting installations, usually certified by COPRO or QUAREA

.

• The rubble can contain only up to 1% (mass and volu me) non-stony and nonhazardous other materials like gypsum, rubber, plas tics, isolation, roofing, ...

• The rubble can contain only up to 1% (mass and volu me) organic wastes (wood, plants, ...)

• The rubble is not contaminated with free asbestos f ibres or dust (with a target value of <1000 mg/kg dry material)

• The rubble is at least yearly inspected by a labora tory certified by OVAM on possible pollutants (heavy metals, PAH, mineral oil , ...) Granulates are generally re-used as foundation for (road) construction. Concrete granulates can also be re-used in new lean mixed concrete. Use of asphalt granulates Like inert granulates, asphalt rubble granulates ca n only be re-used as construction material. Asphalt granulates are tested on the presence of ta r by a simple spray test. The use of the different types, tar-containing or not, is defined in VLAREA. The use of tar-containing granulates is limited to cold applications in a fou ndation of asphalt granulate cement in larger works > 1500 m3 (with made up inventory). Warm trea tment has to be avoided. Sieve sand and sand from crushing Sieve sand is a by-product from the sorting and cru shing of (stony) C&D waste. Distinction is made between sieve sand (before crushing) and sand from crushing.172 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 Sieve sand can be used as construction material (CO PRO or QUAREA certificate) and as soil (use certificate as a secondary raw material issued by OVAM). The use as soil is rare as the supply of soil in the Flemish region surpasses dema nd. Sand from crushers is only permitted to be used as construction material. The grain size of this type of sand is larger with higher technical quality. VLAREA aims at a high quality re -use of the material.
Sieve sand can also be further differentiated wheth er it originates from crushers or sorting installations. Sand from sorting installation is us ually more polluted as their input flux (mixed fractions) is highly heterogeneous. When analysing samples from container and sorting companies, following issues were raised: Masonry rubble, by far the largest input fraction f or these installations, is usually more contaminated than concrete rubble.

• The quality of the resulting granulates is merely i nfluenced by the type and equipment of the sorting installation. The quality of the recycled material is mainly depending on the input material.

• Sand and granulates from sorting installations cont ain more heavy metals (e.g. zinc and lead from paints, gutters, piping, etc). T hey also have higher concentrations of mineral oil.

• 60 % of the controlled samples have a too high perc entage of paper, plastics and wood. 75% of the samples show traces of asbestos (c ement).

• Sulphate concentrations are higher than for crusher s, due to the presence of gypsum and cellular concrete. This presence limits the technical capacity of the recycled material, e.g. the ability for re-use in ( recycled) concrete. In the Flemish region, there are currently no sorti ng installations with operational further cleaning or separation of these impurities.

 Mixed fraction The mixed fraction (less than 10 %) of C&D waste is destined to permitted sorting installation. The majority of the mixed waste going to sorting installations is masonry / brickwork rubble from small works and households (e .g. through the municipal waste collection points). The composition of fluxes arriv ing at sorting installations is therefore highly heterogeneous. Sorting processes in the different companies in the Flemish region follow a similar pattern. Storage of the input waste requires dry conditions to increase the sorting performance of the installation. Large pieces of waste (wood, large br icks) are pre-sorted before the waste is fed to the installation. The installation first sieves the finest sand particles. In a next step, the ferrous metals are removed by means of a magnet. Wi nd-sifting further separates the lightest fractions of the waste (paper, foils, poly styrene...). The remainder of the waste stream is manually sorted on one or several belt co nveyors (particle size). In this final step, wood, plastics, gypsum and non-ferrous metals are f urther separated.February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 173 Sorting installations target to obtain “uncontamina ted” new fractions of stony inert material, plastics, metals, wood, etc. that are further treat ed in specified recycling facilities. No specific information was obtained regarding the management o f possible hazardous contaminants present in C&D waste.

 Wood Re-use and recycling depends on the type of wood. W ood waste classification counts three classes: type A (large pieces of untreated wood, e. g. pallets, plates, raw wood), B (doors, (old) furniture), and C (heavily treated wood). Type A can possibly be recycled to plywood sheets. Type B mixed wood from doors, furniture and fibreboard will be recycled to split-wood or ch ipboards. Heavily treated wood is considered hazardous waste and must be separated at the source. Due to the high caloric value, wood waste serves as biomass for energy reco very. In 2002, nearly 80% of heat production from biomass came from wood waste. Aroun d 30% of the Flemish green energy originates from wood waste. Wood waste is also freq uently exported to trans-border treatment installations. Today, major drawbacks for wood recycling and valor isation are:

• The supply of wood waste is highly variable, e.g. d ue to fluctuations in the economic climate. Today’s supply is not sufficient for all installed and permitted facilities (recycling and energy recovery)

• Wood waste as biomass potentially conflicts with re cycling and composting objectives. Furthermore, it also makes it more diff icult to comply with the NECdirective.


### 14.6.2. E MERGING MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
One of the key aspects in the Flemish policy on C&D waste, next to prevention, is the high end re-use / valorisation of recycled waste. Possib le bottlenecks in the re-use of wastes are mainly assigned to problems with:

• the purity or homogeneity of input wastes; the qual ity of recycled materials

• the installation and management of collection syste m

• the technical and economical feasibility of the rec ycling process Possible ways of overcoming these barriers are unde r discussion in the Flemish region.

 Sorting at source
The most effective manner to obtain clean waste fra ctions is sorting at source. The Flemish region has integrated specifications fo r selective demolition in the building permit for works of a certain size (see paragraph 0 ). This obligation will increase the practise of sorting at the source, but also allow a better m onitoring of the waste streams in order to avoid illegal disposal and improve the possibilitie s for environmentally friendly recycling.174 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011  Quality of secondary raw material The use of recycled material in new applications is beneficial for the environment as the need for primary resources is lowered. On the other hand , the secondary raw material must possess the required technical properties and must be fit for its intended use. Waste as secondary raw material must be able to compete with primary raw materials in order to create sufficient demand. The global management system and COPRO or QUAREA-ce rtification for granulates has already been established for a long time and obtain ed good results: the use of secondary (recycled and certified / approved) instead of prim ary raw material yearly amounts to over 11 million tonnes. OVAM is currently investigating the possibility to consider purified glass cullet as a product fulfilling end-of-waste criteria. A similar managem ent system and minimum requirements could contribute to high end valorisation of glass waste.

 Recycling technology The problem of pollution in sieve sand, mainly in s orting installations is mentioned above. In the Netherlands, cleaning or washing of these pollu ted sands is already operational. The current standard equipment of wind-sifters, magnets and sieves must be expanded with e.g. washing drums, flotation basins and spiral separato rs. These techniques are operational in Flanders for soil recycling in specialised companie s. Roofing bitumen is currently incinerated or landfil led. According to VLAREA, the waste could be re-used in new roofing or as a construction prod uct (roofing bitumen free of tar). Recycling in Flanders is however very limited as th e quality of the input waste is highly variable. A project is now running on the use of gr anulated roofing bitumen together with asphalt rubble granulates to produce new asphalt. A dditional research for the technical and economical feasibility for re-use is needed.

 Closed loop material A principal objective of the Flemish executing plan of 2007 on environmentally responsible material use and waste management in the constructi on sector is the high end valorisation of recycled waste. This was described previously for t he largest fraction (granulates) but is equally valid for the smaller fractions (gypsum, me tal, glass...). Focus on these fractions can increase the quality of the stony waste fraction an d create opportunities for recycling. Some specific actions have been set up to install t he cradle-to-cradle principle for some of these smaller fractions. Key aspects to be approach ed in these systems are centralized collection systems and the recycling and treatment potential (with the producer). The usefulness of producer responsibility is also evalu ated.February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 175  Gypsum The use of gypsum products in the construction sect or is on the rise. Recycling of gypsum waste has only very recently been operational in Fl anders (since 2009), with one operational recycling facility in the port of Antwerp. The recycling process treats gypsum waste to a clea n gypsum powder that can be re-used in the production of new gypsum board. Gypsum from C&D waste can be recycled in this installation as long as the contamination with othe r materials is limited. The gypsum sector is now investigating opportunities and the economic fe asibility to cooperate with a Danish enterprise that already operates a process to purif y all kinds of gypsum fractions. Collection of the gypsum waste is mainly executed t hrough waste sorting companies and the municipal collection points. The collection and recycling of gypsum is a key exa mple of global chain management in order to close the material loop for gypsum. At the end o f 2009, all enterprises actively involved have signed a cooperation agreement with the Flemis h ministry of the environment and OVAM, the Flemish waste Agency:

• Producers design their products more environmentall y friendly and easy recyclable. They also commit to use recycled gypsum (powder) in new gypsum board.

• Dismantling and demolition companies commit to sort at source while collection and sorting companies increase their efforts to sep arate the gypsum from C&D waste.

• Recycling companies provide sufficient treatment ca pacity

• OVAM takes up the coordination of the agreement In 2010, the Flemish region targets to recycle 25.0 00 tonnes gypsum waste or 40 % of the total gypsum waste. By 2015, 80% of all gypsum wast e should be recycled and re-used as input material in new gypsum boards.

 Cellular concrete and roofing bitumen Currently the Flemish region is investigating simil ar cooperation initiatives as for gypsum. For cellular concrete 100 % recycling is feasible p rovided that the collected waste is uncontaminated. One recycling option is milling the cellular concrete to powder that can replace sand in the production of new cellular conc rete products. At the moment, around 8% of recycled material is used in the production of n ew concrete blocks. It is technically feasible to increase that fraction to about 20%. A collection system has been set up and tested at r egional scale. Uncontaminated cellular concrete waste is collected through the network of construction product dealers in numbered big bags. The bags are numbered to trace t he source of the waste, as the treatment costs for contaminated cellular concrete waste will be invoiced to the “polluter”.176 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 In the future it is planned to integrate contaminat ed waste from C&D as fractions of plasterwork or glue are not expected to cause probl ems for the recycling process nor the quality of the recycled product.

 Rock wool Rockwool is equally collected through a system of p ayable bags or containers (large quantities). The collection system is not free but competitive with traditional ways to dispose of the waste. In the latter case, the rock wool was te is likely to end up in landfills. Cutting residues and used rock wool qualify for rec ycling, if the waste is dry, chemically clean and free of other wastes (packaging material, plast er, etc). The recycled material is transformed to new products through heat treatment in furnaces. This process can be repeated without loss of quality of the end-product s.


## 14.7. P AST AND FUTURE TRENDS OF 

## C&D WASTE 

## , DRIVERS AND BARRIERS



### 14.7.1. T RENDS IN 

### C&D WASTE GENERATION AND COMPOSITION

 Generation
In 2007 28% of all Flemish non-household waste is C &D waste, and a supplementary 10% is soil. C&D waste is the largest waste fraction, soil is the second largest fraction, and mineral waste 220 (often comparable with C&D waste) is the fourth la rgest fraction (6%). In 2007 11% of the secondary waste is C&D waste. Th is is waste that has gone through a further step of sorting, as simply crushed waste is included in the primary waste (see second question part 2). The waste treatment sector remain s one of the largest sources on industrial C&D waste. The construction sector is responsible for 37% of a ll primary industrial waste. Major sectors generating C&D waste are, based on da ta for 2006:

• construction sector 79% of 8130 ktonnes = 6,422.7 k tonnes

• waste treatment industry; 25% of 12.863 ktonnes = 3 ,215.8 ktonnes

• shipment of goods on land; 67% of 328 ktonnes = 219 .8 ktonnes 221

• agriculture; 39% of 297 ktonnes = 115.8 ktonnes

220 Mineral waste is defined as: 010101, 010102, 01030 4, 010305, 010306, 010307, 010308, 010309, 010407, 010408, 010409, 010410, 010 411, 010412, 010413, 010504, 010506, 010507, 010508, 020401, 020402, 030309, 080 202, 080203, 100125, 100321, 100322, 100905, 100906, 100907, 100908, 100911, 100 912, 101005, 101006, 101007, 101008, 101011, 101012, 101103, 101109, 101110, 101 113, 101114, 101201, 101208, 101211, 101212, 101301, 101304, 101306, 161101, 161 102, 161103, 161104, 161105, 161106, 170103, 190802, 190901, 191209 221 A large fraction of secondary C&D waste is reporte d by container companies, which are often registered as transport companies.February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 177 Total generated in 2006 222 is 10,839 ktonnes spread over 37 of the 61 economi c sectors defined by OVAM.

Figure 16 – Evolution of C&D waste amounts between 1995 and 2007

generation of construction and demolition waste

0 2.000.000 4.000.000 6.000.000 8.000.000 10.000.000 12.000.000tonnes

C&D 1.504.110 6.952.630 6.220.741 9.622.258 11.247.816 8.536.636 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 200 7

The fraction C&D waste has strongly risen since 199 5, due to better collection and separation/treatment infrastructure. No further gro wth can be expected from ameliorated collection, as the maximum seems to be reached. The fraction of C&D waste will remain at 28% of the total non municipal waste generated in F landers. Together with the expected growth of the total waste generation in Flanders, C &D waste generation may continue to grow at a moderate step. In 2005 OVAM published a decoupling indicator 223 for C&D waste. A negative value shows negative decoupling, meaning that waste grows even faster than the economy. A negative decoupling of C&D waste has been observed for the p eriod 1995 to 1999. Ever since, although negative decoupling tends to decrease, it cannot be expected that positive decoupling, where waste with statistical surety gro ws less fast than the economy, can be expected in the near future. This supports the abov e mentioned assumption that the generation of C&D waste will continue to rise.

 Composition The collection coverage for C&D waste will hardly g row in the coming years because a large coverage has already been reached. However, the qua lity of the collected waste still can improve due to source separated collection or throu gh ameliorated sorting techniques. The new sectorial plan for waste in the construction se ctor foresees selective demolition techniques ensuring higher quality and more homogen eous C&D waste. VLAREA has been amended with article 5.2.2.1 § 4 st ating:

222 Although 2007 is the year for which the most recen t data are available, the level of detail requested for, this paragraph is only availa ble for the year 2006. 223 Waste generated by the construction sector (NACE 4 5.1 and 45.2) compared with GVA of the construction sector: 1995-1999, 2006-200 0, 1997-2001 and 1998-2002178 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 “The holder of an urban planning licence will have an architect or an expert appointed by the principal write up a waste materials demolition inv entory when demolishing or dismantling industrial buildings and buildings of which all or part had a function other than residential and a construction volume in excess of 1000 m 3 , and when allocating demolition or dismantling work. The holder of the urban planning licence is responsible for choosing an architect or expert who has sufficient knowledge of the waste materials that will be released during selective demolition or dismantling and who is able to estimate the quantities of these waste materials. The waste materials demolition inventory will ident ify the site and the waste materials expected to be produced. It will give the name of e ach waste material, as well as the relevant code found in Appendix 1.2.1.B, the expected quanti ty in cubic metres, in tonnes, the place in the building at which the waste material is found, and its form. A template of the waste materials demolition inventory relating to the demo lition and dismantling work will be made available to OVAM. Before demolition or dismantling work is assigned, the completed waste materials demolition inventory will be handed to the executor of the demolition and dismantling work and the safety officer. The architect, or the expert appointed by the princ ipal, will monitor the waste shipments, adjust them where necessary, and keep a copy of the transport documents. Copies of the transport documents and acceptance slips relating t o waste materials removed will be handed to the holder of the urban planning licence before completion of the demolition or dismantling works. The holder of the urban planning licence will file the transport documents and acceptance slips for a period of five years”. This demolition register will become an instrument that enhances selective demolition and the generation of more homogeneous and high quality C&D waste fractions.February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 179 

### 14.7.2. T RENDS IN 

### C&D WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES

Figure 17 – C&D waste management options and rates achieved between 2005 and 2007


### treatment of C&D waste

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

landfill incineration recycling
reuse other pretreatment sorting

landfill 0,41 0,40 0,59 incineration 0,01 0,01 0,01 recycling 11,98 0,10 1,56

reuse 22,63 40,32 23,44 other pretreatment 51,62 48,39 64,20 sorting 13,35 10,77 10,21 2005 2006 2007

The Flemish figures on treatment of C&D waste displ ay a clear view:

• C&D waste is either re-used or recycled.

• By far the largest fraction has to go through a pri or pre-treatment activity before it can be recycled or re-used.

• Sorting before recycling is slowly diminishing due to better sorting at source not requesting sorting further on in the treatment chai n.

• Other pre-treatment phases like crushing, condition ing, washing, cleaning remain indispensible for a high quality further treatment or recycling. It becomes increasingly important throughout the years, which proves that the treatment chain with successive pre-treatment steps becomes l onger before a waste reaches its final recycling step.

• Pre-treatment leads to recycling, but often under t he denominator of wood, plastics, glass, metals....or other waste streams mor e defined than C&D waste.

• Pre-treatment also leads to use as a secondary mate rial, which is not always included in the reported statistics. For both reaso ns the percentage for sorting and pre-treatment can be higher than the sum of the final treatment options (recycling, re-use, energy recovery or landfill) of C&D waste.

• Re-use includes the application of the Flemish end- of-waste criteria for the application of a secondary raw material.180 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 • Landfill and incineration, as well as direct recycl ing, are rather marginal treatment options for C&D waste. Main drivers for the evolution away from final trea tment haven been and still

are:

• The easy application of the waste as a secondary ra w material

• The ascertained certified quality and the competiti ve position of this secondary raw material compared to increasingly more scarce p rimary raw materials.

• The high costs for landfilling, based on the high l andfill levies and the created scarcity of landfill capacity for inert waste.


### 14.7.3. T OWARDS 

### 70% RE 

### - USE 

### , RECYCLING AND RECOVERY

In Flanders the 70% re-use has been reached before the year 2000 based on the successful implementation of a rather straightforward action p lan and some (then) innovative policy instruments. The Flemish case learns that some keys towards a high level of recycling and reuse at European level can be found in:

• Straightforward landfill bans for recyclable fracti ons of C&D waste

• High levies on landfilling C&D waste, generating an economic driver for alternative treatment options

• Application of end-of-waste criteria to facilitate the use of the material as a secondary raw material, but taking into account its environmental and its construction technical properties.

• Actively limiting the treatment capacity for dispos al of C&D waste The Flemish experience also learns that these measu res are not sufficient to generate a decoupling of the C&D waste generation from the eco nomic growth, and that other measures are needed for a successful quantitative a nd qualitative prevention. It still has to be proved that the measures included in its second C&D executing plan are as successful as the primary plan.February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 181 

# 15. APPENDIX IV: CASE STUDY SPAIN

**Amounts of C&D**

**waste** 35 Mt in 2005(810 kg per capita), Projected 40 Mt (850 kg per capita) in 2010. Source: based on regional reporting; according to S panish experts, unreliable because of the lack of standardised methodology

**Waste factors** Works on new buildings 120.0 kg/m 2 built

Rehabilitation works 338.7 kg/ m 2 rehabilitated Demolition works 1,129,0 kg/ m 2 demolished Partial demolition works 903.2 kg/ m 2 demolished

**Material composition of the**  **C&D waste stream** Ceramics 54%

Concrete 12% Mineral waste (stone) 5% Mineral waste (sand, gravel and other aggregates) 4%
Wood 4% Glass 0.5% Plastics 1.5% Metal 2.5% Asphalt 5% Gypsum 0.2% Paper 0.3% Others (Garbage) 7% Others (Non specified) 4% Source: based on a waste characterisation campaign performed in Madrid in 2005: no national data available.

**End of life options** Recycling Disposal

**Rates** 7.5% Controlled landfill: Uncontrolled landfill: Source: based on a limited survey on waste treatmen t plants; partial, unreliable data.

**Analysis of the current state**  Lack of enforcement of existing policies (uncontrol led landfills), low prices of landfill

disposal and high local variations of landfill taxe s, low capacity and geographical coverage of C&D waste treatment plants have hindere d recycling.

**Towards the 70%**

**target** National C&D waste management plan being revised, s etting intermediate targets towards the WFD 70% target. Recycling: 10% by 2012, 20% by 2015 Other forms of material recovery: 25% by 2012, 40% by 2015
Main challenges towards reaching the target:

• Better enforcement of existing regulation (stricter control of unauthorised landfills)

• Harmonisation of landfill taxes between regions

• Development of recycling market (e.g. promotion of recycled aggregates through the introduction of standards on recycled m aterials for use in construction)182 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011

• Harmonisation of reporting mechanisms and methodolo gies among regions


## 15.1. S OURCES OF INFORMATION

• Reports and articles M. del Río et al. 2010. La regulation Juridica de l os residuos de construcción demolición (C&D waste) en España. Caso Comunidad de Madrid,
Carlos Martinez Bertrand. Gestión de residuos de co nstrucción y demolición (RCDS): importancia de la recogida para optimizar s u posterior valorización Toni Floriach Puig. La Problemática de la Gestión d e los Residuos de Construcción: Una aproximación al estado actual de la cuestión. Ministerio de Fomento, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente , Centro de Estudios y experimentación de obras públicas, 2009. Ficha Técn ica de Residuos de Construcción y Demolición. Ministerio de la Presidencia España, 2008. Decreto Real 105 2008. Andrés Macho, 2009. Ppt document: Aplicación del RD 105/2008 y nuevo PNIR. Adolfo García Alonso, 2009. Ppt document: El proyec to de demolición Gobierno de España, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, 2 008. Plan Nacional Integrado de Residuos (PNIR). ITeC- Instituto de Tecnología de la Construcción de Catalunya, 2000. Proyecto Life. Situación actual y perspectivas de futuro de los residuos de la construcción. Consejería del Medio Ambiente y Ordenación del Terr itorio, Comunidad de Madrid, 2006 – 2016. Estrategia de residuos de la C omunidad de Madrid 2006 – 2016.

• Websites Magazine on line “Waste Ideal”, waste.ideal.es/inertes.htm Ministerio del Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marin o, www.marm.es Instituto de Tecnología de la Construcción de Catal unya, www.itec.es AEDT - Asociación Española de Demolición Técnica Co te y Perforación, www.aedt.es Asociación Española De Empresas de Demolición, www.aeded.org Instituto nacional de Estadística, www.ine.es ISR - Instituto para la sostenibilidad de los recur sos, www.isrcer.org GERD - Gremio de Entidades del Reciclaje de Derribo s, www.gerd.esFebruary 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 183 

## 15.2. C ONTACTS

Table 51 - Identified contacts for the case study o n Spain
Full name Name of organisation Type of organisation Function

Carlos Martinez Bertrand VIAS Y CONSTRUCCIONES, S.A Construction Company Chief of Quality, Environmental Management and Technological

Innovation
Jose Blanco AEDED – Spanish Association Demolition Association Secretarial

Pablo Gonzalez GERD – Spanish association of C&D waste managers. Association Waste and Environment Manager



## 15.3. C ONTEXT

The Territory of Spain has an area of 504,645 km 2 and houses a population of 46,745,807 inhabitants. The Territory is divided into 17 Auton omous Communities (CCAA) and 2 autonomous cities, each of which has executive comp etency and legislative autonomy, as well as the capacity for self-administration by its own representatives.

Figure 18 - Map of Regions in Spain (Source: www.aspariegos.com/comunidades_autonomas.html )184 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 The construction sector has a remarkable social and economic relevance in Spain, which has been growing in the beginning of the century. The c onstruction activity has reached remarkably levels of production, until the emergenc e of the economic crisis, which has led to a phase of depression. However, this recent trend towards a building boom has generated significant growth in the volume of waste. According to the PNIR (Integrated National Plan of Waste) 2008-2015, it has not been possible to define the exact amount of C&D waste pr oduced in Spain. However, the plan estimates that C&D waste production in 2005 reached around 35 million tonnes . This figure does not include the landfilling surplus of land an d clean rock, which although usually exploited in the same work sites, in many occasions does not find a secondary use and is therefore destined for disposal in landfills. It is important to keep in mind that this number is based on several sources (Autonomous communities, Ministry of Environment indicators...) u sually considered not reliable because of the difficulty of data collection and consolidat ion. It is estimated that the production of C&D waste in Spain has grown over the period from 2001 to 2006 at an average rate of 8.7% per year 224 . This trend was reversed in 2007, with negative waste growth rates after 2008 as a result of the reduction in the construction activity, which is particularly pronounced in resid ential construction. Besides the intense production of C&D waste there i s also a high percentage (about 62.5%) of C&D waste that has been subject to uncontrolled di scharge without previous treatment. 12 million tonnes (about 30%) of C&D waste is sent to authorised landfills directly, with only 3 million tonnes per year treated as recycled aggrega te (7.5%) 225

. All these factors, coupled with the low prices of C &D waste admission in landfills, have hampered the sustainable and profitable operation o f C&D waste treatment plants, which have been experiencing difficulties in their operat ions, especially since the amount of C&D waste generated began to decrease significantly. This is why the administration has been supporting the implementation of new infrastructure dedicated to the treatment of such waste, as well a s controlled landfills. Indeed, motivated in part by expectations that caus ed the adoption of new policies, there is now a wide range of C&D waste treatment plants, alt hough their distribution is not homogeneous on the Spanish territory or within each region, with, in particular, a lack of infrastructure in those areas with a greater disper sion of population. These stationary plants are often lacking treatment capacity and sometimes have problems with the disposal of recycled products (recycled aggregates and other ma terials). In contrast, other regions experience an excess of treatment capacity.

224 PNIR (Integrated National Plan of Wastes 2008 – 20 15), Annex 6 II PNRCD. 225 Teresa Martínez Flores, CARRIGUES Medio Ambiente.February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 185 Regarding landfill capacity, there is a general lac k of adequate facilities that meet the requirements of current legislation (RD 1481/2001). To solve this situation, the Autonomous Communities (CCAA) in Spain have developed proactive C&D waste policies, including the applica tion of landfill taxes. The result of these policies from the point of view of environmental pe rformance has been unparalleled. One can highlight the case of certain regions as Catalo nia, which has achieved a good control of the C&D waste flow and experienced the virtual disa ppearance of uncontrolled discharges into its territory, as a result of the implementati on of C&D waste policies since 1994.



## 15.4. P OLICY AND STANDARDS OVERVIEW



### 15.4.1. K EY 

### E UROPEAN POLICY DRIVERS
In Spain, two factors have been the precursors to t he development of national policies regarding the management of C&D waste (C&D waste). First, the extraordinary increase in waste generati on from the construction sector and secondly, European policies such as Directive 99/31 /EC on landfill, the old waste framework Directive 2006/12/EC and the revised waste framewor k Directive 2008/98/EC. The combination of these two factors has generated a be tter control of C&D waste, the emergence of a new recycling infrastructure and a b etter control of unauthorised landfills. However, prior to the adoption of Directive 2006/12 /EC, Spain had already become aware of the importance of C&D waste management and had deve loped the National Plan for C&D Waste (PNRCD) 2001 -2006, which set out the objecti ves and mechanisms for C&D waste management. This Plan was updated and incorporated into the Integrated National Waste Plan (PNIR) 2008-2015. There is currently a second draft version of the C&D waste Plan (II PNRCD). Likewise, the target set by Directive 2008/98/EC of recycling at least 70% of C&D waste generated by 2020, has induced Spain, like other MS , to set targets for recycling C&D waste. Thus, the PNRCD sets qualitative and quantit ative targets for C&D waste recycling for 2015 (see 15.4.2. ).



### 15.4.2. K EY NATIONAL AND REGIONAL POLICY DRIVERS

 PNIR - Integrated National Waste Plan 2008-2015 This Plan sets out the objectives of reduction, re- use, recycling, other forms of recovery, and disposal, as well as outlines the means to achieve these objectives, including the financing system and the revision procedure. It also provides the possibility for local authorit ies to develop their own plans for urban waste management in accordance with the relevant legislat ion and the plans of each of the Autonomous Communities.186 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 This plan has been developed to improve the managem ent of all types of waste generated in Spain, to encourage the different authorities and o fficers involved in achieving ambitious environmental goals, and to comply with the laws ci ted below. The plan is divided into categories of waste, including C&D waste.

 National Plan of C&D waste - PNRCD (Plan Nacional d e Residuos de Construcción y Demolición 2008 – 2015) The objective of the Second National Plan on C&D Wa ste is to establish objectives of prevention, re-use, recycling, other forms of recov ery and disposal of C&D waste in Spain, and outline measures to achieve these objectives, i ncluding the financing system and the revision procedure. The Second PNRCD benefited from the development and implementation experience of the first PNRCD 2001-2006. The new plan is based on the major plans of the Autonomous Communities and local authorities on C&D waste, and the results of the "Study on the generation and management of C&D waste in Spain" (M inistry of Environment, 2006). Among the qualitative targets are: the reduction of waste at the source, the correct management of all hazardous waste and the closure o f landfills which do not meet the requirements of current legislation (RD 1481).
Regarding the quantitative targets, there are sligh t differences between the first (I PNRCD) and the second draft version of the C&D Waste Natio nal Plan; the second one (II PNRCD) sets more realistic goals with regard to C&D waste recyc ling:

Table 52 - Quantitative objectives for 2015 (Source : I PNRCD National Plan of C&D Waste)

I PNRCD 2006 – 2015 (Current) 2010 2012 2015 Separation and environmentally correct management o f Hazardous C&D Waste (HW) (%) 100 100 100
C&D waste: Recycling (%) 15 25 35 C&D waste: Other methods of C&D waste recovery incl uding Backfilling (%) 10 15 20 Disposal – Landfill (%) 75 60 45February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 187 Table 53 - Quantitative objectives for 2015 (Source : II PNRCD National Plan of C&D Waste)

II PNRCD 2008 – 2015 (Draft) 2010 2012 2015 Separation and environmentally correct management o f Hazardous C&D Waste (HW) (%) 80 95 100
C&D waste; Recycling (%) - 10 20 C&D waste: Other methods of C&D waste recovery incl uding backfilling (%) - 25 40 C&D Packaging Waste Recovery (%) - 40 70

 Environmental Sustainability Report (ISA) This report presents the background on waste planni ng which was analysed and taken into account in the development of the PNIR (Integrated National Waste Plan).

 Catalogue of recycled waste used in construction The aim of this paper is to contribute to public aw areness of waste that can be used in construction. It describes the volume of C&D waste generated their physical and chemical characteristics as well as includes case studies on the usage of recycled waste used in construction.

 Project: Spanish Guide on Recycled Aggregates from C&D Waste, "GEAR" This ongoing project's objective is to develop stan dardised guidelines for recycled aggregates from C&D waste, and their use in public and private works. The guide includes, beyond regulatory requirements, a set of specific technica l requirements for the main applications of recycled aggregates, particularly in roads, with th e intention of ensuring the environmental safety and quality of recycled aggregates employed in these applications.

 Project: Life 98/351 This Project aims to promote separate collection, u sage of recovery techniques, and achieve a minimisation of waste generated in C&D sector.188 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 

### 15.4.3. L EGAL DOCUMENTS

Table 54 - Legal national documents dealing with wa ste management Legislation Year of

implementation Legal requirements
Law 10/98 April 21, 1998 General scheme on waste. Royal-Decree 952/1997. June 20, 1997 General scheme on hazardous waste. Royal-Decree 1481/2001 December 27,

2001 Regulates the disposal of waste by landfilling.

Law 34/2007 November 15 th

,

2007 Law regarding air quality and protection of the atm osphere.

The First Disposition: Empowers the Government to r egulate the terms and conditions related to the obligation of t he owner of C&D waste to separate them by type of material.

Royal-Decree 105/2008 February 1 st , 2008 Decree regulating the production and management of C&D waste (C&D waste):



### - Does not set any quantitative targets for preventio n, recycling or disposal of C&D waste



### - Applies the principles of producer responsibility, waste prevention and shared responsibility between all actors involv ed in the production chain and the process of management of C &D waste.



### - The Decree establishes three types of actors that h ave different obligations according to their responsibility in C& D waste generation and management: the C&D waste producer , being the owner of the property where the construction or dem olition activity will take place (who makes the decision of performing a construction or demolition activity), the C&D waste holder , being the performer of the construction or demolition act ivity and who has the physical control of the C&D waste; and the C&D waste manager , who is responsible for the final waste treatment or disposal. The obligations for each of the actors in volved in the production and management of the C&D waste are:



### - For the C&D waste producer : To develop a waste management study prior to the construction or demol ition activity, containing an estimation of the amount of C&D waste that will be generated on site, a set of prev ention measures and an expected final destination for the C&D waste. If there are any previsions of hazardous was te they should be accounted for (through an inventory), so rted and finally disposed of with an authorized body.



### - For the C&D waste holder : To present a waste management plan that complies with the findings in the study a nd other obligations such as the sorting and proper disposal or delivery of C&D waste to a waste manager.



### - For the C&D waste manager : To keep a record of the amount of waste handled in weight (tonnes) and volume (m3) , the type of waste according to the list of categories p ublished in the “Orden MAM/304/2002”, the C&D waste producer an dFebruary 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 189 Legislation Year of

implementation Legal requirements holder information, the type of treatment and the destination of products or residues resulting from the treatment. This record must be kept for 5 years but there is no obligation to report it unless required by the p ublic administration. In the case of HW, if the waste man ager does not have authorisation to treat it, a handling trea tment should be in place to ensure that all HW will be pr operly stored and delivered to an authorised body.

Order MAM/304/2002 February 8 th , 2002 Contains the definitions of recovery and disposal o perations of waste and the European Waste List.190 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 Table 55 - Legal regional documents dealing with wa ste management (Source: Beatriz Hernandez Cembellin, 2008. Los residuos de la construcción) Region Legislation Legal requirements

Andalucía Decree 218/1999)

(Approved by the Decree 218/1999.) There is no specific legislation. C&D waste is governed by: Territorial

Management Plan (Municipal Waste) of Andalucía (199 9-2008). There are a number of Provincial Management Plans: Cordoba, Seville, Malaga, Granada.
Aragón Decree 262/2006. Approves the national Regulations on the production , storage and management of C&D waste in the Autonomous Community of Aragon.

Islas Baleares Decree 10/2000. Dictates the mandatory selective collection and dis posal of C&D waste. Order of the Ministry of Environment, 2000. Transitional measures for authorising C&D waste rec overy and

disposal plants.

Cataluña Decree 201/1994.

(Modified by Decree 161/2001). Regulation on debris and other construction waste.

Decree 21/2006, Regulates the adoption of environmental criteria an d eco-efficiency

for buildings. Law 16/2003. Regards the financing of waste treatment infrastruc ture and fees on

waste landfilling. Islas Canarias Decree 161/2001 Integrated Waste Pla n of Canarias (2000-2006). Cantabria Decree 22/2007 Waste Plan Cantabria 2006-2010 Castilla y La Mancha Decree 189/2005. C&D Waste Management Plan of de Castilla y La Manch a (2006- 2015). Castilla y Leon Decree 74/2002. Regional Waste Stra tegy of Castilla y Leon 2000-2010.
Extremadura Order, 2001. Master Plan for Integrated Waste Management from C. A Extremadura. Ministry of Agriculture and Environmen t.
Galicia Decree 174/2005 Regulates the legal regime of production and waste management and the General Register of producers and waste manager s of Galicia.

Madrid Law 5/2003 Chapter V: Special rules applying to C&D waste.

Law 6/2003 Landfill tax. Order 2690/2006, of July 28. Administration of the C&D waste in the Community of Madrid. Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning.

Murcia Decree 48/2003 Urban Waste and Non Hazardous waste Plan of Murcia (2001-2006), in Title II of the Law 9 / 2005, has introduced a t ax for the disposal of hazardous waste or inert waste in landfills. Comunidad Valenciana Decree 200/2004 Regulate the suitable use of inert waste for restor ation works, backfilling, or construction purposes. País Vasco Decree 423/1994 Decree on inert waste. La Rioja BOR no 153, of

December 9, 2000 Waste Plan de La Rioja 2007-2015.February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 191 

### 15.4.4. S TANDARDS

Table 56 - Standards in place in the construction s ector
Standard Legally binding Requirements Source

Declaration ApTO (Apitud Técnica a la Obra) - Itec Voluntary Practical and essential requirements: - UNE-EN-ISO 9001 Quality management system. - ISO14001 Environmental system. - OHSAS 18001. This certification of technical and operational cap acity of a given company includes a revision of its environmental management system. There is no explicit reference to C&D Waste, but the revision includes compliance with legislation. It can be ass umed that if the company is granted the ApTO, all the requirements by law from environmental legislation are fulfilled, including compliance with targets fo r C&D waste. www.itec.es



## 15.5. Q UANTITATIVE DATA



### 15.5.1. T OTAL 

### C&D W ASTE ARISING AND CHARACTERISATION
Spanish law qualifies as C&D Waste any substance or object generated in a C&D activity, which meets the definition of waste set out in the Law 10/1998 of 21 April. Therefore, the concept of C&D includes activities involving the co nstruction, repair, alteration or demolition of a property, such as a building, road, port, airp ort, rail, channel, dam, or recreational sports facility, or another similar facility. The following types of waste are excluded from the National Management Plan of C&D Waste (II PNRCD):

• Land and stones not contaminated by hazardous subst ances

• Any waste generated during construction and / or de molition regulated by specific legislation, when not mixed with other C&D waste. This applies, for example to industrial used oil waste, hazardous was te in general, packaging waste, used tires, batteries, electrical and electr onic waste.

• Waste covered by Directive 2006/21/EC of the Europe an Parliament and Council of 15 March on the management of waste from extract ive industries. In the case of land and stones not contaminated by hazardous su bstances generated by onsite excavation activities, the reason for exclusio n is that these materials can and should be re-used in the same or in other working s ites, or in a renovation or backfilling activity, to thereby avoid the potentia l negative environmental impact of such waste through proper work planning. Hazardo us waste is also excluded, because it is subject to a specific regulation.192 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 The types of waste subject to PNRCD II are codifie d in the European Waste List, approved by Order MAM/304/2002 (BOE No. 43 of 19.02.2002), basi cally in Chapter 17 (Waste from C&D). This chapter is divided into the following ca tegories.

Table 57 - C&D Waste categories
Code Waste category

17 01 Concrete, bricks, tiles and ceramics 17 02 Wood, glass and plastic 17 03 Bituminous mixtures, coal tar and tarred products 17 04 Metals (including alloys)

17 05 Soil (including excavated soil from contaminated si tes), stones

and dredging spoil

17 06 Insulation materials and building materials contain ing

asbestos 17 08 Building materials from gypsum
17 09 Other C&D waste As indicated in the Integrated National Waste Plan, given the lack of reliable statistics, it is not possible to determine the exact amount of the a nnual production of C&D waste in Spain. Below are the statistics compiled by the PNIR 2008- 2015.

Table 58 - Annual non hazardous C&D waste Generatio n in Spain – 2005 Year (Source: II PNRCD 2008 – 2015)

Region Million

population Amount of

waste generated in the year 2005 (tonnes) Estimation of the

amount of waste generated in the year 2010 (tonnes)* Andalucia 7,849,799 5,676,631 6,401,873 Aragon 1,269,027 1,243,264 1,402,733
Asturias 1,076,635 507,449 569,313 Baleares 983,131 624,919 702,828
Canarias 1,968,280 987,077 1,112,694 Cantabria 562,309 523,735 588,602 Castilla-La Mancha 1,894,667 3,152,178 3,556,632 Castilla y Leon 2,510,849 1,151,025 1,295,727 Cataluña 6,995,206 6,696,756 7,538,472
Ceuta 75,276 10,885 12,301 Comunidad Valenciana 4,692,449 4,695,185 5,294,541 Extremadura 1,083,879 575,564 648,403 Galicia 2,762,198 2,141,376 2,409,733 La Rioja 301,084 418,787 472,511 Madrid 5,964,143 3,439,181 3,879,799 Melilla 65,488 26,017 29,400February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 193 Region Million

population Amount of

waste generated in the year 2005 (tonnes) Estimation of the

amount of waste generated in the year 2010 (tonnes)*
Murcia 1,335,792 1,465,630 1,623,020
Navarra 593,472 321,721 334,727
Pais Vasco 2,124,846 1,187,941 1,340,832 Total non-hazardous C&D waste 44,108,530 34,845,320 39,272,885 Total hazardous C&D waste 20,667 N/A

* Amount estimated from the waste generated in the year 2005; this number is predicted to increase by 1.62% from the volume of w aste generated in 2005. The average production of C&D waste per inhabitant and per year, according to 2005 data, can be estimated at 790 kg, with a maximum of 1664 kg/ inhabitant/year in Castilla-La Mancha and a minimum of 145 kg/ inhabitant/year in the city of Ceuta. In Castilla-La Mancha, La Rioja, Murcia and Valencia C&D waste qua ntities produced for 2005 were over 1000 kg/ inhabitant/year.

It has been noted that this information is not reli able, first of all, because not all C&D waste is captured and secondly because there is not a standa rdised methodology in place for calculating and predicting quantities of C&D waste generated. Several methodologies (IteC or SIDMONS) are applied, using different indicators, w hich generate unreliable information 226

. Due to the lack of information and the low reliabil ity of the information collected from the different regions, the data presented in the previo us table is based on assumptions made in the II PNRCD 2008 – 2015 (National Plan of C&D wast e) document and is derived from the following data:

• Rates of C&D waste generation per m 2 , used by The Institute of Construction Technology of Catalonia and the Technical Colleges of Architects for the management of works and edification projects.

• Statistics from the Public Works Ministry on Certif icates of works in Construction, specifying the following parameters: area to build, area to rehabilitate, area to demolish. According to this information, the following indica tors were established in order to calculate C&D waste generated by each type of construction re quiring a construction license:

226 Carlos Martínez Bertrand, VIAS&CONSTRUCCIONES.194 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 Table 59 - Indicators for the calculation of C&D wa ste generated (Source: II PNRCD 2008 – 20015)
Construction Type Amount of C&D waste generated per m 2 Works on new buildings 120.0 kg/m 2 built Rehabilitation works 338.7 kg/ m 2 rehabilitated Demolition works 1,129.0 kg/ m 2 demolished Partial demolition works 903.2 kg/ m 2 demolished
It was assumed in these calculations that the amoun t of C&D waste generated by construction projects not requiring a construction permit was about 5% of the C&D waste generated by works requiring a construction license . For civil works this ratio is approximately 28% 227

. Given the lack of precise information about the com position of C&D waste in Spain, the figures below present the average composition of th e C&D waste in the Community of Madrid, the only data currently available.

Figure 19 – The average composition of C&D waste in Madrid Community (Source: Integrated Management Plan of C&D waste of the Community of Ma drid (2002 – 2011))

54%

12% 5% 4% 4% 0,5% 1,5% 2,5%

5% 0,2% 0,3% 7% 4%

227 II PNRCD (National of C&D waste) 2008 – 2015. Ceramics (54%) Concrete (12%) Mineral waste (stone) (5%) Mineral waste (sand, gravel and other aggregates) (4%) Wood (4%) Glass (0.5%) Plastics (1.5%)February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 195 

### 15.5.2. R ECYCLING AND RECOVERY OF 

### C&D W ASTE
Similar to the limited existence of quantitative da ta about C&D waste generation in Spain, it also was not possible to find quantitative data on the amount of C&D waste re-used, recycled, used in backfilling or landfilled in Spai n. According to estimations furnished by respondents for this study, it appears that only 7. 2% of C&D waste is currently recycled and that around 60% of C&D waste is landfilled.
Below are listed the data available in the PNIR 200 8-2015. It should be noted that these data have not been collected systematically but compiled through a survey of certain treatment plants, therefore explaining the lack of informatio n for several regions.

Table 60 - C&D waste treatment in Spain in 2005 (So urce: Second National Plan of C&D waste (II PNRCD)) Treatment of Non- hazardous waste in C&D sector Region Recycling (tonnes) Disposal (tonnes) Andalucía 83.070 N/A Aragon 15.383 N/A
Asturias N/A 250.439 Baleares N/A N/A
Canarias N/A N/A Cantabria 7.579 104.533 Castilla-La Mancha N/A N/A Castilla Y Leon 194.120 N/A Cataluña 465.124 7.248.881 Ceuta N/A 19.762 Comunidad Valenciana 353.874 N/A Extremadura 3.750 868.730 Galicia 12.285 N/A La Rioja 2.390 52.233 Madrid 436.616 N/A Melilla N/A N/A
Murcia N/A N/A
Navarra N/A N/A
Pais Vasco 195.645 N/A Total Non-Hazardous C&D Waste 1.769.836 8.544.578 Metal (2.5%) Asphalt (5%) Gypsum (0.2%) Paper (0.3%) Others (Garbage) (7%) Others (Non specified) (4%)196 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 Table 61 - Treatment of Hazardous waste in the C&D sector (Source: Integrated National Plan of

Waste (PNIR 2008 – 2015), Annex 2 – II National Pl an of Hazardous Waste)

Treatment of Hazardous waste in C&D sector Total Non-hazardous C&D waste (tonnes) RI

blending R3* R4* D5 - Landfill D9 -Physical-chemical

treatment* D10- Incineration without energy recovery 20.667 562 561 3 18.479 503 560

***** Definitions according to the Order MAM/304/2002 of February 8, in which are published the waste recovery and disposal opera tions and the European list of
waste:

• R1: Principal use as a fuel or other means to generate energy.

• R3: Recycling or recovery of organic substances not us ed as solvents (including composting operations and other transformations bio logical).

• R4: Recycling or recovery of metals and metal compound s.

• Physical-chemical treatment : Sanitary waste sterilization.
The calculations used to determine the amount of C& D waste recycled, recovered or landfilled, are based on the following indicators:

 % of C&D waste recycled

• Tonnes of C&D waste subject to recycling operations : data measured at C&D waste treatment plants and recycling facilities for materials originating from C&D waste. Only the weight of materials actually recycl ed are counted, meaning that those products leaving the treatment plant are not included in this calculation

• Tonnes of C&D waste generated: data estimated from surveys performed with builders and through an analysis of other sources ( building plans, estimations based on sector activity indicators or other indica tors).

 % of C&D waste object of recovery operation, includ ing backfilling

• Tonnes of C&D waste which are subject to recovery o perations other than recycling but including backfilling: data measured where the recovery operation % of C&D waste recycled = Tonnes of C&D waste subject to recycling operations /

Tonnes of C&D waste generated (annual calculation)

% of C&D subject to recovery operation, including b ackfilling = Tonnes of C&D waste subject to a recovery operation other than recyclin g but including Backfilling / Tonnes

of C&D waste generated (annual calculation)February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 197 of the pre-treated final waste occurs, excluding re cycling but including backfilling operations.

• Tonnes of C&D waste generated (annual calculation): data estimated from surveys of builders and other sources (building pla ns, estimates based on the sector activity indicators or other indicators).

 % Tons of C&D waste landfilled (Authorised landfill ing)

This indicator can be obtained from the two previou s indicators or alternatively as a means of verification; it can also be calculat ed by dividing the tonnes of incoming C&D waste to landfill by the total tonnes of C&D waste generated.



## 15.6. P RACTICES IN 

## C&D WASTE MANAGEMENT



### 15.6.1. C URRENT PRACTICES IN 

### C&D WASTE MANAGEMENT

 Re-use Among the treatment alternatives for waste generate d at construction sites, the most desirable option is the re-use of products obtained in new constructions. There are two re-use options:

• Direct re-use in the same working site.

• Re-use in another working site. The direct re-use in the same working site involves two phases

• Pre-selection of removed material.

• Cleaning of the material. Once selected and cleaned, the construction residue material is in ideal condition to be reused. With this approach, the form or the propertie s of the original products are not altered. Re-use in other working site In this secondary option, the situation is very sim ilar to the above solution (with the difference that it is necessary to transport materi als to the other working site). However, the situation is very different from an economic point of view, since in this case, the decision on the new destination of the materials to be re-used is linked to the existence of markets for waste products.

% Tonnes of C&D waste landfilled (Authorized landfi lling) = 100 – (% C&D waste recycled) – (%C&D waste subject to recovery operati ons, including backfilling) (annual calculation)198 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 While situations vary greatly by location, these se condary markets, are generally scarce. The most common markets are for steel, wood and some sp ecific products such as shingles.

 Recycling This option is the conversion of waste into a new r aw material that can be used in the manufacture of new products for use in new construc tions.
The recycling activity in Spain, as cited above, is marginal. One factor that has discouraged the recycling of C&D waste has been the low cost of disposal and the lack of control of illegal disposal; however, the current legislation seeks pr ecisely to prohibit uncontrolled landfilling.
The fraction of waste that is currently subject to special attention as a material to be recycled is called “debris” in the National Plan of C&D Wast e; these materials represent approximately 75-80% of the C&D waste.

Treatment process The C&D waste input to the treatment plant is usual ly mixed, and must be manually screened even before being passed through a sieve and a magn etic separator. These steps are followed by manual separation to eliminate plastics , wood, paper and other non-metallic residue.
The C&D waste mixture is then subjected to a crushi ng and magnetic separation before being passed through an air separator which removes the l ight fraction (small pieces of paper or plastics, which slip through the first round of sep aration).
Some recycling centres also have wood processing an d composting plants.
Besides the use of centralised recycling plants, is very common to use mobile plants for the production of secondary aggregates from demolition aggregates. These plants typically complete the process of crushing and screening.



## 15.7. P AST AND FUTURE TRENDS OF 

## C&D WASTE 

## , DRIVERS AND BARRIERS



### 15.7.1. T RENDS IN 

### C&D WASTE GENERATION AND COMPOSITION
In the beginning of the century and until 2007-2008 , the construction sector has reached very high activity levels, making it a key sector f or the growth of the Spanish economy. This situation resulted in an unusual increase in waste generation. Although a decrease in the amounts of C&D waste has been observed during the e conomic crisis, it can be anticipated that, once the crisis has been surmounted, C&D wast e generation will again rise.
However, C&D waste generation is highly variable an d more complex to quantify than other types of waste. One of the reasons is the important amount of C&D waste that is disposed of in uncontrolled landfills, therefore, making it dif ficult to obtain reliable statistics. Because ofFebruary 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 199 this lack of precise information for Spain, the for ecasts made by the Community of Madrid can provide an indication of the future trend:

Note: these data are estimations and therefore must be u sed with caution 228

. Figure 20 - Forecast of Waste generation for the co mmunity of Madrid. Source: Waste strategy of the community of Madrid 2006 – 2016

0,8 0,85 0,9 0,95 1 1,05 1,1 1,15 1,2

4000000 4500000 5000000 5500000 6000000 6500000 7000000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Tons / Inhabitants.yerTons / Year Forecast of C&D waste generation In the Comunity of Madrid.

Population C&D generation Generation rate

These statistics have been calculated from official estimates of population trends completed by the Statistics Institute of the Community of Mad rid, using the assumptions of an initial rate of 1 tonne per capita per year, and a subseque nt moderate decrease. The forecasted decline in the rate of generation is 0.5% per year during the period of 2005-2016; this decrease in the rate of waste generation is assumed in the light of the forecasted decrease in aggregate consumption and the slowdown of the const ruction sector.
Regarding the composition of C&D waste, an increase in the amount of hazardous waste is expected, since progress in scientific research has uncovered toxic and carcinogenic properties of materials that were not previously co nsidered as hazardous 229

.


### 15.7.2. T RENDS IN 

### C&D WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES
The increased generation of C&D waste, the low pric e for the disposal of C&D waste compared to the price of waste treatment and the la ck of adequate infrastructure for the treatment of C&D waste have so far discouraged the recycling of C&D waste in Spain. However, the current status of the construction sec tor could easily absorb the C&D waste currently produced and it is hoped that recycling a nd re-use operations will increase due to pressure from the administration, the changed attit ude of the sector and the closure of unauthorised landfills.

228 Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning of th e Community of Madrid, Waste Strategy for the Madrid from 2006 to 2016 229 Jose Blanco, AEDED Association.200 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 Some of the major difficulties impeding the proper management of C&D waste are:

• Lack of awareness and involvement of different stak eholders in the sector.

• Lack of enforcement of existing legislation: ineffe ctive control and prosecution of abusive practices (illegal landfilling, no source s eparation of materials, etc.).

• Difficulties in the recovery process due to the het erogeneity of the waste.

• Competition with extractive activities; natural agg regates are easily accessible at low costs.

• Current costs of transport and landfilling are too low compared to the cost of treatment operations. Since landfills are under mun icipal jurisdiction, landfill taxes can vary greatly: from 1 Euro per tonne (Pam plona) to 25.20 Euros per tonne (Madrid)230. Moreover, if we compare the pric es of natural aggregate with recycled aggregates, the former may vary betwe en 10 and 20 Euros per tonne, while prices of recycled aggregates are gene rally lower.


### 15.7.3. T OWARDS 

### 70% RE 

### - USE 

### , RECYCLING AND RECOVERY

There are some doubts whether the current measures will allow reaching the 70% objective stipulated by the Directive. Despite some projects in Spain where up to 95% of C&D waste 231 have been recycled, significant differences persist between the regions and significant efforts to deploy recycling infrastructure and to control t he enforcement of existing regulations will be required in the future 232

. Nevertheless, there is a general consensus on some key points to improve, such as law transposition at the regional and municipal level, better policy enforcement, and the promotion of C&D recycled markets. To overcome the difficulties faced by the C&D waste recycling sector, it is important to take measures in both the construction and recycling sec tors and at the political level (National and European level):

• To promote the development of specific technical re gulations for the use of recycled products in construction, in order to over come the barrier to entry for such products in the construction sector.

• To promote and intensify the training of staff invo lved in waste management at all levels.

• To promote strategies for buying and selling of C&D waste (markets), thereby increasing C&D waste demand.

230 Ministry of Development, Ministry of Environment, C entre for Studies and Experimentation of Public Works, 2009, Technical do cument on C&D waste 231 Jose Blanco, AEDED Association. 232 Pablo Gonzalez, GERD Association.February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 201 • To promote the demand of products from C&D waste re cycling, especially recycled aggregates. This will be achieved through the development of technical and environmental regulations specifying the charac teristics of the C&D waste recycled materials which could be used in construct ion.

• Eradication of illegal landfills of C&D waste and t he regulation of landfilling taxes.

• Transposition of the national regulation to all Aut onomous Communities.

• Harmonisation of calculation methods to determine t he fraction of C&D waste generated which is recycled. The achievement of the objectives established in Sp anish policies should be accompanied by a joint effort between government actors, builders and waste operators.202 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 

# 16. APPENDIX V: CASE STUDY FINLAND

**Amounts of C&D**

**waste** Approximately 23 million tonnes (including excavati on waste) to which must be added 410,000 tonnes of hazardous waste (Statistics of th e Technical Research Centre of Finland, 2006) 1.6 Mt from house building sites (2007): renovation (57%), demolition (27%), and new building sites (16%)

**Waste factors** New construction 1 to 17 kg/r-m 3

Small renovation 5 to 15 kg/r- m 3 Middle Size renovations 50 kg/r- m 3 Full-size renovation 200 kg/r- m 3 Hazardous waste 2 g/ kg/r- m 3

**Material composition of the**  **C&D waste stream** Wood 40%

Mineral 31% Metal 14% Others 15%

**And of life options and rates**  Construction waste

- Material recovery - Energy recovery - Landfilling 33% 27% 40% Recovery from demolition waste 50%

**Analysis of the current state**  Low material recovery rate; high energy recovery du e to the important share of wood

waste.

**Towards the 70%**

**target** The National Waste Plan for 2016 sets a 70% target for recycling, re-use and recovery of C&D waste, including energy recovery. Aim for 2016: replace 5% of all gravel and crushed stone used in earthworks (3 to 4 Mt) by C&D waste. By 2016, new construction will probably be replaced by renovation activities.
Main challenges towards reaching the target : - the calculation of the statistics on re-use and r ecovery of C&D waste is not currently reliable, the update of building coefficient not be ing frequent enough - the number of wooden buildings in Finland and the difficulty of recovery and re-use of construction wood wasteFebruary 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 203 

## 16.1. S OURCES OF INFORMATION

SYKE (2009), Towards a Recycling Society, the Natio nal Waste Plan for 2016, 14/2009, www.miljo.fi/download.asp?contentid=102639&lan=en Kauppila, Hannu (2007). Purku- ja raivausmateriaali en käsittely ja uusiokäytön luvanvaraisuus tienrakentamisessa (permitting requi rements for recycling C&D waste in road constructions). Vaasa 2007. Tiehallin to, Vaasan tiepiiri. Tiehallinnon sisäisiä julkaisuja 51/2007. 66 s. + l iitt. 6 s. ISSN 1459-1561, TIEH 4000594-v: alk.tiehallinto.fi/julkaisut/pdf2/4000594-vpurku_ja

raivausmat_kasitt_uusio.pdf Finnish Waste Act (1390/1993): www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/1993/19931390 Environmental Protection Decree (169/2000): www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2000/20000169 Act on Construction Waste (295/1997): www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/1997/19970295 Kiertokapula (2009), Rakentamisen Jatteet (building waste). May 2009: www.kiertokapula.fi/attachments/kk_rakentamisen_jat teet_nettiin.pdf Imatran kaupunki (2008), Jateopas Rakentajille (Was te Guide for Constructors), May 2008: 194.251.35.222/LiiteTiedostoNayta.asb?DokumenttiID= 14707&TauluNimi=Tied oteKappale&NakymaID SYKE (2006), Jätevirrat ja jäteintensiteetin muutos Suomen taloudessa 1997– 2003, (Waste flows and the change in waste intensit y in the Finnish economy in 1997–2003), 44/2006: www.ymparisto.fi/download.asp?contentid=60176&lan=F I Pohjois-Savon Ymparistokeskus (2009), Ita-Suomen Ja tesuunnitelma, nykytilan kuvaus, (Waste Plan of East Finland, Description of the current situation) July 2009: www.ymparisto.fi/download.asp?contentid=105821&lan= FI
C&D waste website of the Finnish Environment Instit ute: www.ymparisto.fi/default.asp?node=8478&lan=fi Amounts of building waste from the website of the F innish Environment Institute: www.ymparisto.fi/default.asp?contentid=171851&lan=f i204 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 Confederation of Finnish Construction Industries: www.rakennusteollisuus.fi/en/ Waste management Company Ekorosk: www.ekorosk.fi/en/default.html



## 16.2. C ONTACTS

Table 62 - Identified contacts for the case study o n Finland
Full name Name of organisation Type of organisation Function

Jorma Kaloinen Finnish Environment Institute National Authority Expert on C&D waste

Juha Espo Statistics Finland National Authority W aste statistics

Anna-Leena Perälä Technical Research Centre of

Finland National Authority Senior Research Scientist, MScTech Built Assets and Business Intelligence VTT Expert Services


## 16.3. C ONTEXT

The great distances between building sites and trea tment facilities explain the low profitability in recovering C&D waste in Finland. T his is the case especially in Northern Finland, where the treatment facilities are rare, a s they also tend to benefit from the wastes from the house manufacturing industries. Another fe ature, typical to Nordic countries, is the high proportion of wooden houses and the difficulti es in recovering wooden materials.



## 16.4. P OLICY AND STANDARDS OVERVIEW



### 16.4.1. K EY 

### E UROPEAN POLICY DRIVERS
The EU waste legislation has been transposed and in fluences the national waste legislation accordingly but it cannot be seen as a major driver behind the approach taken towards C&D waste.


### 16.4.2. K EY NATIONAL AND REGIONAL POLICY DRIVERS
Considering non-legal approaches, the most importan t driver is the National Waste Plan for 2016 233 , as it sets actions and targets for reducing C&D w aste. The target set for 2016 is that at least 70% of all construction waste will be reco vered as material or energy. Therefore, this includes energy recovery which does not necessarily mean that Finland will meet the 2020 target in advance. By 2016, construction practices will probably shift from new construction

233 Ministry of the Environment (2009), **Towards a Recycling Society, The National Waste Plan for 2016,**  The Finnish Environment 14/2009February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 205 to renovation, which would also mean that most of t he construction waste would be generated in connection to renovation. The aim set for 2016 is that approximately 5% (i.e., 3 to 4 million tonnes) of gravel and crushed stone us ed in earthworks will be replaced by waste generated by industry and mineral extraction. The two main drivers for recycling and re-use are l egal acts: the Environmental Tax Act and the Government Decision on Construction Waste. According to Jorma Kaloinen 234 , they both work in synergy and had a profound impact in moving C&D waste away from landfills. They will be described in the next section with more det ails.


### 16.4.3. L EGAL DOCUMENTS

Table 63 - Legal documents dealing with waste manag ement
Legislation Year of

implementation Legal requirements

Waste Act (1072/1993), as amended 1993 Main instrument for the transposition of WFD.

Government Decision on Construction Waste (294/1997) 1997 The purpose of this Decision is to reduce the quant ity and harmfulness of construction waste and increase its recovery. The indicative target to be aimed at is that an average of at least 50% of all construction waste, except for soil, rock, and dredging waste, t o be recovered by 2000. This Decision applies to construction planning and to waste deriving from it. This Decision does not apply to construction sites where the quantity of resulting waste other than so il, rock and dredging waste is not more than 5 tonnes, or where the quantity of soil, rock and dredging waste deriving from it is not more than 800 tonnes.

Environmental Protection Act 83/2000 2000 States the types of C&D waste and the conditions fo r which an environmental permit is not required for the treatment.

Government Decree on the Recovery of certain wastes in earth construction (591/2006) 2006 The objective of this Decree is to promote the recovery of waste by determining the preconditions as the result of which, if met, no environmental permit in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act (86/2000) will be needed for use in earth construction from waste referred to in this Decree.

234 C&D expert from the Ministry of the Environment206 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 Legislation Year of

implementation Legal requirements

Environmental Tax Act (495/1996) 1996 Sets a tax on waste taken to landfills. From 01/01/2005 this tax reaches €30 per tonne of waste.
The Finnish Waste Act from 1993 is the main waste l egislation with its latest amendment in June 2007. It has evolved as the main instrument fo r the transposition of the Waste Framework Directive. There are a number of other de crees that specify aspects of the Waste Act, such as the Government Decision on Constructio n Waste (294/1997) and the Government Decree on the Recovery of certain waste in earth construct ion (591/2006). Even if recycling or re-use does not require an env ironmental permit, it does require a declaration, using forms available on the website o f environmental authorities, which are then submitted to the regional environment centre. The intention of the database is to ensure that activities such as backfilling would no t be hidden as recycling or re-use.


### 16.4.4. S TANDARDS

Table 64 - Standards in place for the waste managem ent and buildings
Standard Legally binding Requirements Source

Government Decree on the Recovery of certain waste in earth construction (591/2006) Lists several standard Mandatory Sets several standards for the analysis and testing of waste, determining when an environmental permit is or is not required. Government Decree on the Recovery of certain waste in earth construction (591/2006)

Promise, environmental classification system Voluntary The environmental classification system for buildings is a tool based on environmental criteria jointly agreed by the authorities and the operators of the sector. It is used to assess the environmental qualities of buildings. Ministry of the Environment (2009), **Towards a Recycling Society, The National Waste Plan**  **for 2016,** The Finnish Environment, 14/2009.February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 207 

## 16.5. Q UANTITATIVE DATA



### 16.5.1. T OTAL 

### C&D W ASTE ARISING AND CHARACTERISATION

Table 65 - Waste arising in 2005 and 2006
C&D waste fractions 2005 (ktonnes) 2006 (ktonnes) Total C&D Waste arising 21,870.4 23,145.7 Bricks, tiles and ceramics N/A N/A Concrete N/A N/A Other mineral waste (stone, sand, gravel and other aggregates) 20,700.2 21,866.6
Asphalt N/A N/A Wood 631.0 737.4 Plastics N/A 0.0 Metal 212,8 251.8 Glass 35.0 37.8 Gypsum N/A N/A Excavation material N/A N/A Other (please precise) miscellaneous 290.2 251.9
Electric waste 0.1 0.0 Other (please precise)sludge N/A 0.1 “Vegetation” waste 1.0 0.0 Total hazardous C&D waste 343.6 409.1 (not specified)
Chemicals 0.1 0.1 Asbestos containing waste N/A N/A PCB containing waste N/A N/A ODS containing waste N/A N/A Phenol containing waste N/A N/A Lead containing waste N/A N/A PAH containing waste N/A N/A Contaminated excavation material N/A N/A
In 2005, 343.6 ktonnes of hazardous waste were gene rated in addition to 21,870.4 ktonnes of C&D waste. In 2006, this amounts reached respect ively 409.1 and 23,145.7 ktonnes. Data gathered in the previous table was adapted fro m Statistics Finland, where the amounts of waste have been summarised for all types (includ ing cars etc.). The previous table only includes relevant fractions that can be encountered in the C&D stream (among which “vegetation” waste).208 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 Excavated soil accounts for the largest part of C&D waste reported in Finland. When no use is found due to its composition, location, or the s tumps and other building waste it contains, it is regarded as waste soil. Most construction was te is made of this fraction, i.e. soil mass of mineral origin. House C&D sites generated 1.6 million tonnes waste in 2007. Wood waste represented 40%, mineral waste 31% and metal waste 14% of the total construction waste. Renovation building accounts for the largest propor tion, i.e. 57% or 1.0 million tonnes, and demolitions sites for 27% of the total amount of wa ste. The remaining 16% came from new building sites.
Anna-Leena Perala from the Technical Research Centr e of Finland was allowed by Statistics Finland to submit to us the unpublished report 235 on the most recent expert analysis on the building waste statistics based on year 2004 but pr epared in 2006. Most of the below findings are based on this. The amount of building waste is classified into th ree categories: new construction, renovation (residential and other) and demolished b uildings. Figure 21 shows the proportion of waste arising from demolition (gray), renovation (divided into residential (orange) and other (red)) and new construction (green).

Note that the analysis and calculations by Technica l Research Centre of Finland do not include excavated soil. The estimates of building waste are developed in di fferent ways for demolition, renovation and new construction. These estimates have been dev eloped for the following materials: stone, wood, metal and other wastes.

235 Perala, A, Rinatnen, R. Nuuttila, H. and Maensivu, S.(2006), **Vuoden 2004 rakennusjatetilastoa tukeva VTT;n asiantuntijatyo,**  VTT, Luottamuksellinen Figure 21 - Building waste per type of categoryFebruary 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 209  New Constructions Waste arising from new constructions are categorise d based on house types. The analysis looked at 197 building sites. Waste leaving the bui lding site was estimated as kg per building cubic metre. It was also possible to estimate the w aste to be recovered from the sorted stream leaving the building sites. However, some bu ilding sites pointed out that mixed waste could be later recovered in waste treatment facilit ies. About 70 % of the waste was composed of mixed fract ions: wood waste representing 25%, stone waste 10 %, metals 1 % and other wastes 7 %. The amount of hazardous waste represents approximately 0.002 kg per building cubi c metre.

 Renovation In the estimation of renovation waste, estimates fr om 2000 were used. The amount of waste was defined based on waste from demolished and from new building materials. Hence the changes in renovation waste amounts were only based on the increased numbers of renovations. Renovation waste was made up of 80% of mixed waste, 16% of wood based waste, 1% metal and the rest of waste classified as “other”. The am ount of hazardous substances represented around 1 %.

 Demolition In 2004, 4,000 sites representing a total surface o f 590 000 m 2 were demolished. These were categorised based on the structure material (concre te, brick, steel, wood and others) of the demolished buildings: about 48 % are stone based, 2 0 % wood based, 10 % bricks, 2 % metal and other materials about 10 %. The amount of waste from demolished buildings was 10 % higher in 2004 than in 2000.


### 16.5.2. R ECYCLING AND RECOVERY OF 

### C&D W ASTE
The system to estimate re-use and recovery rates fo r C&D waste in Finland is based on a specific categorisation of buildings’ types (detach ed, apartment blocks etc.) and if they are newly built or buildings to be renovated. These est imates are based on coefficients developed through analysis and surveys by the Techn ical Research Centre. The coefficients have been created based on actual cases (field data ). As this system is difficult to put in place, coefficients are only updated every 3 to 4 years. The most recent study was conducted in 2004, based on the categorisation of new constructi ons, renovations and demolitions, as described earlier. The recovery rates for these are described below.

 New Construction The recovery rate of residential building sites was 34 % (in mass) but a huge variation exists from a construction site to another.
Of the wastes from new construction sites 26 % were wood based, 63 % stone waste, 9 % metal waste and 2 % other wastes. The recovery rate of building waste arising from all new210 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 constructions was approximately 44%, while it was o nly 30% in 2000. The most significant aspect of this increase is the better recovery of s tone waste. However, according to AnnaLeena Perälä (Technical Research Centre of Finland) this is not based on any new technologies but on an increase of the number of wa ste treatment facilities.

 Renovation The recovered material from renovations was mostly concrete. As no building site assessment was done, it is not possible to illustra te with any field data the amounts that are recovered.

 Demolitions It is estimated that the recovery of waste from dem olished buildings has increased from 25 % to 50 %. Coefficients were developed based on the most recen t analysis of the Technical Centre of Finland while the recovery rates were estimated by the Statistics Finland. The changes in the recovery rates for wood (puu), stone (kivi), metal (metalli), glass (lasi), other (muu), hazardous (ongelma) and combined (yhteensa), are sh own in the following figure 236



### .

Figure 22 - Recovery rates for specific building wa ste materials

Excavated soil accounts for almost 95 % of the construction waste. In 2005, about 38 % of all construction waste was recovered. Of the waste generated during housing construction (about 1.7 million tonnes, excluding excavated soil) about 33 % was re covered as a material. At the same time, about 27 % was used through energy recovery, while the remaining 40 % ended up at landfills. The accumulation of waste (including con struction waste), its recovery and

236 Perala, A, Rinatnen, R. Nuuttila, H. and Maensivu, S.(2006), **Vuoden 2004 rakennusjatetilastoa tukeva VTT;n asiantuntijatyo,**  VTT, LuottamuksellinenFebruary 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 211 treatment in Finland is shown in the following figu re Erreur ! Source du renvoi introuvable. 237

.

Figure 23 - Accumulation of waste, its recovery and treatment in Finland 2005



## 16.6. P RACTICES IN 

## C&D MANAGEMENT



### 16.6.1. C URRENT PRACTICES IN 

### C&D WASTE MANAGEMENT
In general the distances between treatment faciliti es and building wastes are one of the main issues in determining the level to which building w aste is sorted. Consequently it is not financially viable to sort building wastes in North ern Finland as all the main treatment facilities are in Southern Finland. Below are some examples of treatment options for bu ilding waste.

• Concrete: Concrete structures are normally used as such or after their shape being re-adapted. Concrete can also be crushed for other uses, such as in road construction 238 . The use of crushed concrete for new concrete is l imited because small particles need to be sieved away and this is technically difficult to achieve 239

.

237 Ministry of the Environment (2009), **Towards a Recycling Society, The National Waste Plan for 2016,**  The Finnish Environment 14/2009 238 Kiertokapula {2009}, **Raknetamisen jatteet,** 2009. 239 Juntunen, A {2007}, Rakennusjatteiden lajittelu ja sen kehitystoimenpiteet rkl Halonen OY:ssa, Kajaanin Ammattikokrakoulu, Spring 2007212 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 • Bricks: Undamaged bricks are re-used and damaged on es are crushed for recycling.

• Plasterboard: Clean plasterboard is used as a raw m aterial for the production of new plasterboards. Contaminated plasterboards are s ent to landfills 240 . Many treatment facilities do not accept any nails or any contaminant. Therefore, plasterboard manufacturers tend to use plasterboard waste from the production line rather than from building sites 241

.

• Wood: Large amounts of wood waste are generated dur ing the demolition process of old buildings. Treated woods cannot be c lassified as hazardous waste. The most common way of recycling wood waste is comp osting or burning. According to Jorma Kaloinen, the recovery and re-us e of construction wood waste is extremely difficult, as it is easily contaminated w ith other material. Indeed, this is one of the main barriers to achieving the 70% target. However, the treatment of wood has increased as a consequence of landfill taxes. This has increased the viability of longer transportation distances for wood fuel, which were not financially profitable in the past. Of course one can argue that the reduction in this type of waste from landfills, from a life cycle analysis point of view, will increase the negative environmental impa ct as a consequence of longer transport routes.


### 16.6.2. E MERGING MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Eko-Expert KH Oy has developed a method to re-use i nsulation materials with the help of a high power suction machine. Then they can be crushe d and used again as part of other insulation materials after a treatment that removes all contaminants. In the future, the delivering and renewal of enviro nmental permits for industries will be more efficient, paying attention to the recycling o f large waste flows ending up traditionally in landfills. If necessary, examination obligations will also be imposed. When permits are renewed, the interpretations concerning the classif ication of secondary industrial flows as by-products or waste will be harmonised 242

. 

## 16.7. P AST AND FUTURE TRENDS OF 

## C&D WASTE 

## , DRIVERS AND BARRIERS



### 16.7.1. T RENDS IN 

### C&D WASTE GENERATION AND COMPOSITION

Based on the statistics from 2005 to 2006 the amoun ts of C&D waste were increasing. However, according to Jorma Kaloinen there has been , during the last years, as a

240 Kiertokapula {2009}, Raknetamisen jatteet, 2009. 241 Juntunen, A {2007}, Rakennusjatteiden lajittelu ja sen kehitystoimenpiteet rkl Halonen OY:ssa, Kajaanin Ammattikokrakoulu, Spring 2007 242 Ministry of the Environment (2009), **Towards a Recycling Society, The National Waste Plan for 2016,**  The Finnish Environment, 14/2009.February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 213 consequence of the recession, a move from new const ructions to renovation activities. This resulted in considerably reduced amounts of C&D was te, especially when bearing in mind the way re-use and recovery rates of C&D waste are calc ulated. Both Jorma Kaloinen and Juha Espo pointed out that several studies are now carried out to develop measures on how to decrease the amount of c onstruction waste and how to increase recycling and re-use of this waste stream.


### 16.7.2. T RENDS IN 

### C&D WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES

The Waste Act is to be reviewed in 2010 and it aims to review the definition of waste and product. This is especially important, as it has be en in some cases easier to use virgin materials instead of secondary materials which migh t require the application of an environmental permit and be time-consuming. In addition, the Waste Management Plan for 2016 sug gests that municipalities should undertake the supervision of building demolition mo re efficiently so that the amount of recyclable waste ending up at landfills could be re duced.


### 16.7.3. T OWARDS 

### 70% RE 

### - USE 

### , RECYCLING AND RECOVERY
The aim is that in 2016, at least 70 % of all const ruction waste will be recovered as material or energy. By 2016, the focus of construction will probably shift from new construction to renovation, which would also mean that most of the construction waste would be generated in connection with renovation. However, based on th e available evidence it is difficult to see anything that would support these aspirations, espe cially as the statistics on re-use and recovery of C&D waste are difficult to calculate an d the changes are slowly identified due to the way coefficients are estimated. According to Jorma Kaloinen there will be a greater shift towards proactive material efficiency as the main driver for reducing C&D wast e.214 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 

# 17. APPENDIX VI: CASE STUDY HUNGARY

17.1. S OURCES OF INFORMATION

• Reports and articles Fiknerné Sulcz Ágnes, 2 nd February 2010. Akad még teendő az építési-bontási hulladékok hasznosítása területé Available at: http://www.muszakiforum.hu/cikk/71391/akad-meg-teen do-az-epitesibontasi-hulladekok-hasznositasa-teruleten...?area=160 Standard-Team Kft., www.standard-team.com/cikkek/inert.php

• Websites Ministry of Environment and Water Management, Waste Information System (HIR), http://okir.kvvm.hu/hir/
Baurec Construction Waste Treatment Coordination No n Profit Ltd. http://baurec.hu/site/



## 17.2. C ONTACTS

Table 66 – Identified contacts for the case study o n Hungary
Full name Name of organisation Type of organisation

Katalin Fekete Ministry of Environment and Water/

Department of Waste Management/ Waste Treatment Unit Ministry

Tibor Laszlo Ministry of Environment and Water/

Department of Waste Management/ Waste Treatment Unit Ministry

Istvan Varkonyi Baurec Construction Waste Treatment Coordination Non Profit Ltd. Non Profit Ltd.

Judit Ratz HuMuSz (Hulladék

Munkaszövetség) Waste Reduction

Alliance Association of Environmental NGOsFebruary 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 215 

## 17.3. C ONTEXT

The territory of Hungary covers 93,000 km 2 with a population of approximately 10 million people. One fifth of the population is concentrated around the capital of Hungary, Budapest, in the central region of the territory. Figure 24 - Map of Hungary in the European Union

More than 240 million tons of solid waste is produc ed per year in Hungary. 33% of the solid waste is produced in rural areas and 67% in urban a reas. The domestic construction industry is still primari ly using primary raw materials, rather than prioritising secondary materials. In order to boost the utilisation of waste the willingness of investors and constructors towards the use of these materials has to be enhanced in addition to updating relevant legislation.



## 17.4. P OLICY AND STANDARDS OVERVIEW

Hungary faces the challenge of transposing the new EU waste framework directive (2008/98/EC) into national law. The relevant legisl ation shall be put in place before December 12 th 2010. To that end, Hungary has started to prepare amendments to legislation. In order to achieve the 70% reuse, recycling and re covery rate, the regulation 45/2004. (VII.26.) BM 243 -KvVM 244 , currently in force, is being fundamentally change d under the authority of the Waste Management Act. By the e nd of 2010, the ministerial regulation will be raised to the level of a governmental order

.

243 BM: Belügyminisztérium (Ministry of the Interior, now Ministry of Local Government) 244 KvVM: Kôrnyezetvédelmi és Vízügyi Minisztérium (Ministry of Environment and Water)216 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 

### 17.4.1. K EY NATIONAL AND REGIONAL POLICY DRIVERS
According to the National Waste Management Plan the Regional Environmental Inspectorates have prepared the Regional Waste Mana gement Plans for the 7 statistical planning regions. The deadline was 270 days after t he National Plan came into force. The Regional Plans were published by ministerial or der of the Minister of the Environment and Water. The certification system and the guide documents fo r C&D wastes are under construction and will be put in place by the end of 2010 togethe r with the regulation relevant to C&D waste management. The following priority areas have been identified w here action is necessary to achieve the recovery rate.

• Creation of new regulation,

• Development of a system of economic incentives,

• Creation of a guide describing possible uses of C&D waste

• Adoption of dual rating system

• Adoption of the procedure of selective dismantling

• Assessment and optimization of the spatial distribu tion of available inert waste landfills, taking into account the major sites wher e C&D waste is generated and possibilities of salvage,

• Development and regular update of an accurate infor mation system on data concerning C&D waste Wide ranging professional discussions have been goi ng on with the participation of processing sector, and certification institutes to ensure the achievement of the recovery rate with realistic applicability of the new regulation in practice. The development of the new version of the Waste Man agement Act backing up the regulation on C&D waste management is also under wa y, and will be finalized by the end of 2010. The first step towards the production of good quali ty secondary raw materials is selective demolition which allows for on-site separation of m aterials as opposed to the previously generally practiced demolition techniques which res ulted in mixed debris. As a prerequisite to selective demolition, a standa rdized regulatory framework, based on the specificities of the Hungarian construction and was te sector, should be set up in order to allow the classification and thus the presence of t he secondary raw materials on the market. The preference towards material separation, re-use and recovery, as well as the detailed regulation of usage are to be incorporated in const ruction related legislation. In addition, the construction, road construction standards, technica l guidelines, testing and certificationFebruary 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 217 methodologies, are being reviewed. Further, a unifo rm system is to be set up to regulate the conditions of use of secondary raw materials. Along with the modification of the current regulati on 45/2004-es BM KvVM on the scope of C&D wastes some further related legislations will a lso be updated as well by the end of 2010. The 20/2006. (IV. 5) KvVM regulation regarding "cer tain rules and conditions of landfilling and landfills" will as well be updated with the inc orporation of restrictions of disposal on landfills.


### 17.4.2. L EGAL DOCUMENTS

Tableau 67 - Legal documents dealing with waste man agement Legislation Year of implementation Legal requirements

BM-KvVM decree 45/2004. (VII.

26.) 2004 The purpose of the decree is the detailed regulatio n of C&D waste management:

• Registration of wastes as for source and treatment,

• Mandating waste quantity planning as part of the official construction permission procedure

• Mandating the reporting of generated construction waste quantity Certain requirements of the regulation are often no t respected in practice, and the way of some waste remains undetectable. Waste Management Act 2000/

XLIII. 2000 National Waste Management Plan 2003-2008 2002 Targeted 50 % recovery rate by 2008 for C&D Wastes. National Waste Management

Plan 2010 Basic rules on C&D waste management. Government decree 290/2007.

(X. 31.) 2007 On documentation of construction activity, content of the building and the construction diary.


### 17.4.3. S TANDARDS

Tableau 68 - Standards in place in the construction sector (Source: KvVM)

Standard Requirements

MSZ EN 196-1:1996 Cement testing methods. Determina tion of strength

MSZ EN 196-3:1996 Cement testing methods. Determination of the settin g time and the

constancy of volume. MSZ EN 197-1:2000 Cement. Composition of cements of general use.

MSZ EN 206-1:2002 Concrete. Part I: criteria, perfo rmance, and preparation and conformity

MSZ EN 771-3:2003 Specification for masonry Part III: Aggregate concr ete masonry units

(Dense and light-weight aggregates)218 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 Standard Requirements

MSZ EN 772-1:2000 Methods of test for masonry units Part I: definition of strength

MSZ EN 932-1:1998 General properties of aggregates. Part I: Sampling methods

MSZ EN 933-1:1998 Geometric properties of aggregates. Part I: Determi nation of particle

distribution. Sieve test.

MSZ EN 933-4:2000 Geometric properties of aggregates. Part IV: defini tion of granule

shape. Granule shape factor.

MSZ EN 933-6:2003 Geometric properties of aggregates. Part VI: Determ ination of surface

characteristics. The stone sets, discharge coeffici ent

MSZ EN 934-2:2002 Admixtures for concrete, mortar and grout. Part II: Concrete. Definitions,

requirements, conformity, marking and labelling

MSZ EN 934-6:2002 Admixtures for concrete, mortar and grout. Part IV: Sampling, conformity

control and compliance reviews

MSZ EN 998-1:2003 Specification for mortar. Part I: Rendering and plastering mortar
MSZ EN 998-2:2003 Specification for mortar. Part II :. Masonry

MSZ EN 1097-3:2001 Examination of aggregates for mechanical and physic al properties. Part III:

determination of density and gap volume

MSZ EN 1097-5:2001 Examination of mechanical and physical properties o f aggregates. Part IV:

Determination of water content

MSZ EN 1097-6:2001 Examination of mechanical and physical properties o f aggregates. Part VI:

Determination of density and water absorption.

MSZ EN 1338:2003 Concrete paving blocks. Requiremen ts and test methods

MSZ EN 1339:2003 Concrete paving flags. Requirement s and test methods
MSZ EN 1340:2003 Concrete berms requirements and te st methods

MSZ EN 1367-1:2000 Test methods of stone sets' resistance and thermal properties. Part I:

Determination of frost resistance.

MSZ EN 1367-2:1999 Test methods of stone sets' resistance and thermal properties. Part II:

Magnesium sulphate process
MSZ EN 1744-1:2001 Chemical properties of stone clu sters. Part I: Chemical analysis

MSZ EN 1992-1-1:2005 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures. Part I-I : General rules and rules for buildings
MSZ 4719:1982 ConcretesFebruary 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 219 Standard Requirements

MSZ EN 45014:2000 General criteria for manufacturer s certificate of conformity
MSZ 4737-1:2002 Special cements. Part I: sulphate r esistant cement MSZ 4755-1:1990 Concrete pavement slab. Quality con trol MSZ 4755-2:1990 Concrete pavement slab. Standard sl abs. MSZ 11405-1:1992 Leier-building elements. General s pecifications

MSZ 11405-4:1992 Leier-building elements. Examination of cellar maso nry Items, granule

distribution calculation. MSZ EN 12350-1:2000 Examination of the fresh concre te. Part I:Sampling

MSZ EN 12350-2:2000 Examination of the fresh concre te. Part II: Examination of collapsing

MSZ EN 12350-4:2000 Examination of the fresh concrete. Part IV: Compact ion factor (read

compression rate)

MSZ EN 12350-5:2000 Examination of the fresh concre te. Part V: Flow table test

MSZ EN 12350-6:2000 Examination of the fresh concre te. Part VI: II: Density

MSZ EN 12350-7:2000 Examination of the fresh concre te. Part VII: Air content. Pressing methods.

MSZ EN 12390-1:2001 Examination of hardened concrete. Part I: shape, si ze and other

requirements of the specimens

MSZ EN 12390-2:2001 Examination of hardened concrete. Part II: Strength test specimens

preparation and storage

MSZ EN 12390-3:2002 Examination of hardened concrete. Part III: of the specimens compressive

strength

MSZ EN 12390-4:2002 Examination of hardened concrete. Part IV: II: Comp ressive

strength. Standards for test

MSZ EN 12390-7:2001 Examination of hardened concrete. 7th Part II: A we ll-established bulk

density of concrete MSZ EN 12620:2003 Aggregates (additives) for concre te

MSZ EN 13043:2003 Aggregates (additives), roads, airports and mixture s and other trafficked

areas Surface

MSZ EN 13055-1:2003 Lightweight aggregates. Part I: Easy aggregates (a dditives) for concrete,

mortar and grout MSZ EN 13139:2003 Aggregates (additives) mortar MSZ EN 13369:2004 Precast concrete products of gene ral rules
MSZ ENV 13670- 1:2000 1st design of concrete structures Part. General spe cifications

MSZ 18288-2:1984 Granule structure building stone and impurity exami nation. Granule

structure sedimentation analysis

MSZ 18288-3:1978 Granule structure building stone and impurity exami nation. Granule

structure Examination220 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 Standard Requirements

MSZ 18288-4:1984 Granule structure building stone and impurity exami nation. The chemical

analysis of contamination

MSZ 18288-5:1981 Granule structure building stone and impurity exami nation. Granule

structure characteristics calculation
MSZ 18293:1979 Sand, sandy gravel and gravel

MSZ CR 13902:2000 Methods of test for fresh concrete water / cement f actor in the

determination. CEN Report



## 17.5. Q UANTITATIVE DATA

Every year about ten million tons of C&D waste is p roduced in Hungary. It includes seven million tons of earth, which - when pollution free - can be used without any problem, while the quantity of other C&D wastes is approximately t hree million tonnes. Although mandated by legislation, these quantities are only estimatio ns as the precise quantity of C&D wastes generated within Hungary cannot be calculated with the current practice of market actors who often do not comply with these obligations.


### 17.5.1. T OTAL 

### C&D W ASTE ARISING AND CHARACTERISATION

Table 69 – Waste amounts arising for 2005 and 2008 245
C&D waste fractions 2005 (tonnes) 2008 (tonnes) Total C&D Waste arising 4,987,084 6,788,241 Total non-hazardous C&D waste 4,129,992 6,569,932 Bricks, tiles and ceramics 570,777 1,025,627
Concrete 514,902 751,842 Other mineral waste (stone, sand, gravel and other aggregates) 1,274,261 1,216,290
Bituminous mixtures, without coal tar 229,783 131,5 13
Wood 13,679 4,009
Plastics 1,796 4,974
Metal 865,117 418,135
Glass 1,609 4,450 Gypsum 1,080 3,574
Excavation material 654,261 3,005,396
Insulation materials 2,728 4,121

245 Waste Information System (HIR – Hulladék Informàciò s Rendszer) http://okir.kvvm.hu/hir/February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 221 C&D waste fractions 2005 (tonnes) 2008 (tonnes) Total hazardous C&D waste 857,091 218,309 Asbestos containing waste 3,455 2,153 PCB containing waste 9 1 ODS containing waste N/A N/A Phenol containing waste N/A N/A Lead containing waste 122 155 PAH containing waste N/A N/A Contaminated excavation material 817,923 103,868 Mixtures of, or separate fractions of concrete, bri cks, tiles and ceramics containing dangerous substances 1,025 17,902
Glass, plastic and wood containing or contaminated with dangerous substances 1,326 2,649 Coal tar and tarred products 1,270 308 Cables containing oil, coal tar and other dangerous substances 14 59 Metal waste contaminated with dangerous substances 7,618 3,525 Gypsum-based construction materials contaminated with dangerous substances N/A 5
Hg containing waste 8,678 71,523


### 17.5.2. R ECYCLING AND RECOVERY OF 

### C&D W ASTE

Table 70 - Waste production and amounts that are tr eated through the different options (Source: Ministry of Environment and Water)

C&D waste fractions % Recycling & other material recovery Energy

recovery by incineration Disposal Overall recovered

Total C&D Waste arising N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total non-hazardous C&D waste 44,17% 2 156 186 284 2 725 220 2901939
Concrete, bricks, tiles and ceramics 36,79% N/A N/A N/A 377328
Bituminous mixtures, without coal tar 3,54% N/A N/A N/A 4656 Wood, glass and plastic 0,65% N/A N/A N/A 87 Metal 19,40% N/A N/A N/A 81118 Gypsum 0,01% N/A N/A N/A 0,36 Insulation materials 0,01% N/A N/A N/A 0,41 Other 16,94% N/A N/A N/A N/A222 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 

## 17.6. P RACTICES IN 

## C&D WASTE MANAGEMENT



### 17.6.1. C URRENT PRACTICES IN 

### C&D WASTE MANAGEMENT
As a general observation we can state that the majo rity of generated C&D waste ends up in landfills or in many cases illegally dumped althoug h there are more and more possibilities to their use. Some of the major characteristics of Hun garian C&D waste management practices are listed below.

• A part of the construction firms are not aware of t he construction-demolition waste obligations.

• The investor's acceptance to use demolition waste i s relatively low

• Construction permission procedures are not stringen t enough, and authorities rarely have the capacity to check for the way of C& D waste, thus the relevant sanctions are rarely taken

• Selective demolition is not frequently practiced, t hus the currently practiced demolition methods result in mixed debris

• The processing costs are higher than the dumping ch arges and in lack of appropriate incentives and controls will remain so. (Fiknerné, 2010)

• Secondary raw materials are kept in an unattractive position on the market as mining is taxed at a significantly lower level in H ungary as in other European countries. (2% in Hungary vs >10% in Europe in aver age) (Varkonyi)


### 17.6.2. E MERGING MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
No emerging treatment and management techniques hav e been identified through the interviews.



## 17.7. T OWARDS 

## 70% RE 

## - USE 

## , RECYCLING AND RECOVERY

It is estimated that the construction-demolition wa ste recovery rate is currently only around 30-35% (in addition to the quantity of excavated so il), thus, by 2020 the current rate should be at least doubled. The main needs in the field of C&D waste management where actions can serve the achievement of the 70% recovery rate by 2020 are listed below:

• Legislation has to be created to encourage the re-u se and recovery of separated materials, to regulate treatment modalities and to set up a harmonised system of classification of secondary materials

• Construction, road construction standards, technica l guidelines, testing and rating methodologies have to be reviewed, and a uni form system has to be set up to regulate the conditions of use of secondary m aterials. These will have to beFebruary 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 223 continuously developed in the future as new buildin g practices and new types of building materials keep appearing which will requir e more complex techniques than current building materials.

• An efficient awareness raising campaign has to be l aunched for the construction sector (Varkonyi)

• Precise definitions have to be accepted for the “en d of waste aspect” (Fiknerné, 2010) Considering the relatively low current recycling ra tes, the high amounts of C&D waste illegally disposed of (and therefore not accounted for in the statistics reported), and the recent policy development specifically targeting C& D waste, Hungary is representative of MS for which the targets set by the WFD represents an important driver. However, one of the main challenges is still the better enforcement of existing legislation, particularly through diverting C&D waste from illegal landfill. Combined implementation and enforcement of landfill regulations and C&D waste targeted actions listed above will lead, at first, to better reporting and monitoring, and is likely to drive si gnificant increases in recycling rates.224 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 

# 18. APPENDIX VII: WORSHOP MINUTES

18.1. PREAMBLE

These minutes describe the discussion arising from the workshop presentations given by BIO IS, the experts interviewed for the purpose of the material study (concrete, ceramics, asphalt and gypsum) and other stakeholders. All the speakers’ presentations are available onlin e: http://www.eusmr.eu/cdw/meetings.php Gunther Wolff welcomed participants to the workshop in his opening remarks and gave some background information on the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) and especially the 70% target for re-use, recycling and other material recovery of construction and demolition waste by 2020. C&D waste had not been specifically regulated until recently, though it represents an important waste stream. The EU aims at becoming a r ecycling society, therefore prevention, reuse and recycling have the priority, whereas inci neration and landfilling are the last options to consider for waste management. Currently, huge d ifferences exist between Member States (MS) regarding the recycling and re-use rate s, going from 10 to 90% where data is available. The study carried out by BIO IS for the DG ENV aims at describing the current situation, and identifying and promoting best practices regarding the management of C&D waste.



## 18.2. .GENERAL PRESENTATION OF THE PROJECT

18.2.1. BIO IS PRESENTATION
Mathieu Hestin of BIO Intelligence Service launched the day’s proceedings with an introduction to the project and a description of th e day’s agenda as shown in the following table.February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 225 Table 25 – C&D waste workshop, June 21 st , 2010, Brussels

Time Topic Speaker / Moderator

13:30

– 1 4 :00 Registration

1 4 :00

– 1 4 :1 5 Opening and welcome remarks Gunther Wolff , **European Commission, DG ENV** 

14 :1 5

– 1 4 : 45 Findings of the study on Construction

and Demolition Waste Mathieu Hestin, **BIO Intelligence Ser vice** 

1 4:45

– 1 6 : 30 Construction materials and recycling

options

• Concrete

• Masonry

• Asphalt

• Gypsum Mathieu Hestin, **BIO Intelligence Service** Alessio Rimoldi, **European Precast Concrete Manufacturers**  Christophe Sykes, **Tiles and Bricks Europe** Christine Marlet, **Eurogypsum** Egbert Beuving, **European Asphalt Pavement Association** 

16:30

– 1 6 : 45 Coffee Break

16 :45

– 17 : 15 Construction Waste and Resources

Roadmap Gillian Hobbs, **BRE**

17:15

– 17:30 Concluding remarks Gunther Wolff, **European Commission, DG ENV** 

17:30 End of the workshop

The objectives of the study on C&D waste were first to define the framework for the calculation of the re-use and recycling target and secondly to describe the current situation within the EU and identifying potential drivers and barriers for the further improvement of the rates. Mathieu Hestin described the C&D waste generation a nd recycling rates estimations made by BIO IS based on available data. He outlined the hig h uncertainty of the data and the important geographic variations due to different pr actices and differences in the definitions and reporting. He further described the two main po licy drivers at the EU level (the WFD and the Directive on landfill), some national policies and standards identified at the national level. Mathieu Hestin furthermore developed on the barrier s and drivers for the improvement of the re-use and recycling rates and the content of t he final report (material focuses and country case studies). Eventually, he delineated the next steps of the pro ject: the finalisation of the report thanks to the stakeholders’ comments that are to be sent b y mid-August.226 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 

### 18.2.2. S TAKEHOLDERS 

### ’ DISCUSSION

 Christophe Sykes, TBE aisbl Mr Sykes outlined the issue of excavated soil: is i t considered as a potential resource or as a waste? Mr Hestin explained that excavated soil had not been included within the scope of this study, as it was excluded from the recycling t arget. Mr Sykes further underlined the lack of analysis of the chemical composition of the waste stream. Indeed, if the largest volume is made of th e inert fraction, the remaining part is considered as toxic and the environmental impacts a re not clearly tackled in the report. Mr Wolff answered that the Directive requires the s orting out of the C&D waste stream; hazardous waste is not included in the 70 % target, however, it has to be separated at source and treated specifically and under proper managemen t options.

 Peter Jones Mr Jones outlined the high uncertainty of certain f igures on ODS presented in the report, which requires a clear warning and analysis. He str essed that if insulation panels do not represent an important stream in weight, they do in volume as they are light weight materials.

 UEPG The European Aggregates Association insisted on the fact that standards on the quality of secondary raw aggregates already exist. Therefore, some of the recommendations defined in the report do not bring anything new. This should b e further described in the report.

 FIR The Fédération Internationale du Recyclage asked fo r a clear definition of backfilling since the difference with landfilling seems very small in som e cases. For example, in Sweden, a limited fraction of waste is landfilled. The FIR confirmed the existence of standards for ag gregates.
Mathieu Hestin confirmed the need for clarification of certain definitions, especially on backfilling operations. Mr Wolff added that the EC has been working on the definitions for the calculation of the targets since the TAC meeting that took place on Ap ril 3 rd , 2010 and that a Commission Decision was being prepared.

 The European Aluminium Association
The association outlined the fact that the final re port does not tackle the aluminium fraction at all.
Mr Wolff underlined the fact that most of the metal construction and demolition waste is already recycled. Therefore, the EC is not worried by metals that can be found in the C&D waste stream.February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 227 

## 18.3. THE CONCRETE FRACTION

18.3.1. BIBM PRESENTATION
Alessio Rimoldi, Secretary General of the European Federation of Precast Concrete, described the use that are made of concrete in the constructi on sector and the properties that make it the most consumed material worldwide with 25 billio n tonnes and 2.5 billion tonnes at the EU level. It is estimated that between 40 to 60% of the C&D waste arising at the European level is made of concrete. Mr Rimoldi outlined the difficulties to have reliable data as the risks related to concrete are low because of its in ert properties; close monitoring and reporting is therefore not always encouraged. The o bjective set by the Industry is zero landfilling, through the promotion of prevention of waste on the one hand and re-use and recycling on the other hand, in accordance with the Waste hierarchy. When considering the re-use and recycling definitions in place in the co ncrete sector, it appears that recycling is not feasible as concrete cannot be recycled back into i ts original constituents. However, material recovery is an option, crushed concrete being used as aggregates for road sub-base or as a secondary raw material. As the availability of raw materials is not an issue and that the environmental impacts of crushing concrete and of e xtracting raw materials are almost the same, the potential drivers towards recycling depen d strongly on the local market conditions. Finally, Mr Rimoldi insisted on the fact that the I ndustry is calling for long term strategies to develop re-use and recovery of concrete and is read y to bear the investments that will be needed.


### 18.3.2. S TAKEHOLDERS 

### ’ DISCUSSION
Mathieu Hestin added to Mr Rimoldi presentation tha t the re-use of concrete blocks prevents the production and use of cement, which re presents the main environmental impacts of this material, particularly in terms of greenhouse gases emissions.



## 18.4. THE CERAMIC FRACTION

18.4.1. TBE AISBL PRESENTATION
Christophe Sykes, Secretary General of the Tiles and Bricks of Europe Association, described the Industry profile that has been greatly impacted by the economic crisis and the characteristics of the product that make it an extr emely durable material. Numerous options exist for the re-use and recovery of bricks and til es, among which the use as filling and stabilising material and re-use in the products ori ginal form. The Netherlands and Denmark achieve high recycling rates of this fraction with more than 95% but still are calling for more attractive recycling options. Finally, for the mini misation of the waste stream and the improvement of recycling practices, TBE promotes lo nger life-span building, economical attractiveness of secondary raw material and techni cal value of secondary aggregates.228 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 

### 18.4.2. S TAKEHOLDERS 

### ’ DISCUSSION
The representative of the Netherlands Ministry of t he Environment mentioned a study on the environmental benefits of adding waste ceramics pow der into virgin clay that proved this option to be very beneficial: the energy consumptio n and emissions of the process are lower than the production of virgin clay, and the quality of the brick is higher. It was stressed that the composition of the mortar was essential to allow the reuse of bricks; in Georgia, for example, mortar is made of material originating from seashells and allows an easy removal and reuse of bricks. Mr Sykes answered that the choice of materials, including mortar, was mostly driven by aesthetical and archit ectural considerations, which have to be taken into account. 

## 18.5. THE ASPHALT FRACTION

18.5.1. EAPA PRESENTATION
Egbert Beuving, Director of the European Asphalt Pa vement Association, described the missions of the EAPA among which calling for an eff ective and sustainable use of asphalt and the promotion of higher levels of asphalt recycling . Mr Beuving drew the emphasis on the recycling options which consist in adding reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) to new asphalt mixes by presenting the different methods (cold or warm RAP method) and the respective incorporation rates achieved. These options can be put in place in a central plant or directly in situ. The presentation consisted of different pictures sh owing asphalt plants, how reclaimed asphalt is removed from the road and the machinery that are used for this purpose. Mr Beuving states that reclaimed asphalt can obtain th e non waste status when it meets the specific European quality criteria, according to th e European Standard EN 13108-8. At the European level, almost 52 million tons of reclaimed asphalt is available and 86% is estimated to be re-used and recycled. Mr Beuving mentioned the issue related to old pavem ent containing tar that can only be recycled through the cold RAP method. Finally, the asphalt Industry strongly supports the reuse of RAP at the highest possible level and encour ages considering it as a product and not a waste. Indeed, asphalt is 100% recyclable material and recycling should be encouraged by the product (road) owner.


### 18.5.2. S TAKEHOLDERS 

### ’ DISCUSSION
The representative of the Netherlands Ministry of E nvironment asked Mr Beuving whether bitumen was expected to become scarce and the near future, and what consequences this scarcity would have on prices. Mr Beuving answered that he had no specific information on the evolution of prices, but that scarcity was not to be expected in the near future. Research on artificial binders (e.g. bio binders) is current ly undergone. A second question was raised on the use of rubber or plastic modified asphalt an d the possible barrier it can represent forFebruary 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 229 the future recycling of reclaimed asphalt. Mr Beuvi ng answered that plastic modified asphalt had been used for a long time and that it can be re cycled in any process described during the presentation.

 Christophe Sykes, TBE aisbl Mr Sykes outlined the fact that the banning and the taxing of some waste management options such as landfilling without the parallel de velopment of alternatives is not a solution, and can represent a risk that waste streams are di verted to illegal treatment operations.

 Swedish EPA Nanna Spett from the Swedish EPA asked whether high levels of tar in asphalt could prevent its recycling, and what the acceptable levels were. Mr Beuving answered that tar levels were usually low enough to allow recycling, but that the acceptable levels depended on the country.

 Gunther Wolff, EC, DG ENV Mr Wolff asked for the reasons explaining such high recycling rates: is it because it is economically beneficial or the reduction of the env ironmental impacts? According to Mr Beuving, it depends on several factors among which the local availability of raw materials.

 Peter Jones Mr Jones mentioned that a thin layer of bitumen is used for roofs; Mr Beuving confirmed that this bitumen could also be recycled into asphalt pa vement.



## 18.6. THE GYPSUM FRACTION

18.6.1. E UROGYPSUM PRESENTATION
Christine Marlet, Secretary General of the European Federation of national associations of gypsum products, described the gypsum industry in E urope. The focus of this presentation is laid on plasterbo ards since they are the only products that can be taken back to the plant at the construction stage (cut-off, damages plasterboards, etc.). Gypsum from plasterboard is considered to be 100% recyclable into new plasterboard in a closed loop system as the properties remain un changed when integrating recycled gypsum. Since decision 2003/33/EC establishing criteria and procedures for the acceptance of waste at landfills, gypsum is classified as a non-inert w aste, leading to increasing landfill costs and the development of recycling options, also encourag ed by the promotion of resource efficiency. Mrs Marlet insisted on the need to have access to gypsum products that can be found in demolition waste. For this purpose, works must be dismantled instead of being demolished in order to avoid any contamination (woo d, steel, plastic, etc.). Finally, Mrs230 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 Marlet outlined the part that the actors of the gyp sum industry can play in the development of the C&D gypsum waste recycling.


### 18.6.2. S TAKEHOLDERS 

### ’ DISCUSSION
The representative of the Netherlands Ministry of t he Environment mentioned that the management of gypsum waste in his country suffered from exports to Germany, where no landfill taxes are applied. The discussion then moved towards producer responsi bility for gypsum waste. Christine Marlet indicated that this was an industry-wide (an d not a company specific) issue, as the products are very similar. While recognising the re sponsibility of the gypsum industry, she stressed that the responsibility was shared along t he supply chain, and that C&D site managers for instance had a high responsibility; hi gh recycling rates will not be achieved if building are not correctly dismantled. Mr Sykes also mentioned the responsibility of the d istributors (in the case of B2C business), and that consumers needed the possibility to take b ack construction and demolition waste materials to public sorting facilities; this is wel l developed in France and in the Netherlands for example, and should be extended. 

## 18.7. THE UK EXAMPLE: THE CONSTRUCTION RESOURCES AND WASTE ROADMAP

18.7.1. BRE PRESENTATION
Mrs Gillian Hobbs, from the Building Research Estab lishment, described the concept of C&D resource efficiency. It is related to building effi ciency (BREEAM rating system, etc.), to low impact elements and products and to resource effici ent products (recycled and hazardous content, recyclability, etc.). England promotes the best environmental options for the management of C&D waste and especially the reductio n, the re-use and the recycling of this waste stream. The target set for 2012 by the Waste Strategy (2007) and the Sustainable Construction Strategy (2008) requires halving the a mount of construction, demolition and excavated waste sent to landfill (compared to the 2 008 baseline). The construction resources and waste roadmap was la unched in 2008 and promotes waste reduction through a voluntary commitment of the Ind ustry and a strategy defined in common with the Government. The Industry committed to develop resource efficie ncy plans (packaging, flooring and joinery), product roadmaps (plasterboard, windows) and site waste management planning. In parallel, the Government is increasing landfill tax and packaging recovery targets. Moreover, the Government could establish landfill r estriction and protocols for quality control and for the end of the waste status, as wel l as financially support businesses.February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 231 The priority areas being identified by the Industry are the landfill bans on recyclable and biodegradable waste and the design for deconstructi on and recycling. Finally, Mrs Hobbs presented the main recommendatio ns of the roadmap. 

## 18.8. CONCLUSION

Mr Wolff concluded the day by outlining the fact th at this workshop was part of the first study carried out on this subject since 1999 and co me up with new conclusions and very interesting findings thanks to the examples set by the federations. Several limiting factors affecting recycling have been identified such as th e cross-border movement of waste and the possible “diversion” of backfilling operations. MS that are lagging behind in this area can take ad vantage of the examples set by countries with a long recycling tradition and high recycling and recovery rates. In the case of the front runners, several legal mea sures have contributed to recycling, e.g. an increase of landfill taxes or landfill bans. Mr Wol ff also stressed that a number of “soft” measures, such as R&D, knowledge dissemination, net work development, involving actors along the value chain, voluntary schemes at the nat ional level, etc. could also contribute to a more sustainable use of resources. Moreover, the de velopment of recycling is closely linked to the development of standards and certification a t the EU and national level. Trust in the recycling products is needed for the increase of re cycling practices. Taking into account the importance of the State in the construction sector, the promotion of the use of recycled products through Green Public P rocurement by public administrations can be an additional and promising measure.232 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 

# 19. APPENDIX VIII: Stakeholders comments on the draft final report

Following the workshop held in Brussels, feedback a nd comments on the draft final report were asked to stakeholders. Many constructive comments were received and the in formation provided or the corrections proposed were integrated in the final r eport. The table below presents the comments sent by the following stakeholders 246 :

• Christian WADEY, DEFRA

• Eva MARAQUE, AFIPEB

• Laurent CHATEAU, ADEME

• Edmar MEUWISSEN; EUMEPS

• Geert CUPERUS, FIR

• Common comments from EPRA, UEPG & ECP

• Oliver Loebel, PU Europe

• Peter Jones, Independent consultant

• Dieter ROSEN, Bundesverband der Deutschen Ziegelind ustrie



### Stakeholder Comment General comments

Christian Wadey, DEFRA This report addresses the importance of having cons istent and reliable data on C&D waste and identifie s potential drivers for improving re-use and recovery of the wa ste stream in the context of the WFD 70% target. Both these objectives are sound but miss what shoul d be the primary objective of reducing the original arisings of C&D waste. The highest cost to the construction ind ustry is the creation of waste, reducing the creati on of waste is the most cost effective and sustainable option and is not addressed sufficiently within this report. Reducing the amount of C&D waste generated also im mediately reduces the quantity of waste required to achieve the 70% target of waste re-used or recovered. WRAP have extensive guidance on designing out wast e in construction, both for Buildings and in Civil Engineering. This guidance is supported by a Net Waste Tool for assessing the cost benefits of a range of waste red uction and re-use options. The use of Site Waste Management Plans is also an essential part of the measurement and management of C&D waste. **Response: These elements were taken into account wh en finalising the report** 

Christian Wadey, DEFRA On generation data: Why wasn’t the European Waste c atalogue used as a more reliable way of gathering evidence? **Response: EUROSTAT data was the main source used in this report; when available, it was completed with**  **national data** 

246 Responses are given to those comments which necess itated revision(s) of the information in the reportFebruary 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 233 Christian Wadey, DEFRA **On generation data:** The figures used for C&D waste arising in the UK i nclude ex cavation waste and this has not been taken into account in this analysis leading to inaccurate assumptions on the UK performance again st the WFD 70% target. **Response: Figures for the UK were corrected in the final report with national data** 

Christian Wadey, DEFRA The data in the report is massively unreliable. Fo r example the practice of adding 1m tonne per capit a per year to underreporting countries (under the sub- title ‘Incomplete Data’) is questionable. There i s also the proposed exclusion of excavat ion data from the six countries with the highest pe r capita generate, to the tune of 75%. **Response: for MS where data was clearly lacking, th e EU average generation was applied. The hypothesis**  **of 75% of excavated material was replaced in the final report**  **with national estimates when available**
Laurent Château, ADEME The part of excavated material in French C&D waste is higher than 75%. National data provide a better estimate R **esponse : this information was added to the final r eport** 

E. Maraque, AFIPEB In page 14, in the “New estimation of total C&D was te arising in EU- 27”, we feel that a table presenting the most recent and corrected data for each Member State wou ld be necessary (tables 2 and 3 together) in order to counterbalance the false impression given in the table 1 which is the only table listing all Members States in part 3.1. **Response: Tables were revised in the final report.**

Christian Wadey, DEFRA Detailed figures in a WRAP report for C&D arising a nd recovery in England for 2008[5] show recovery significantly ahead of the 70% target. (report produced by Capita Symonds.) The Bio report focuses on concrete, masonry, asphal t, metal, wood, gypsum, plastics and ‘miscellaneous ’. Detailed analyses on concrete, asphalt, masonry, wood and gy psum are provided later in the report sections 4 to 8. This focus on single waste streams misses the major issue of mixed C&D waste going to both treatment c entres and landfills. Figures for England in 2008 highligh ts this problem: When considered as percentages the sc ale of mixed wastes arising and then moving to land fill shows that the mixed waste stream merits special consideration and its management is more significant for meeting the 70 % target than the single streams in sections 4 to 8. **Response: UK data were replaced in the final report with the national estimated provided** 

Laurent Château, ADEME Recycling rates in France are estimated to be lower than presented in the draft final report. Based on available national data, it is approximately 45% **Response : data for France was updated in the final report** 

Christian Wadey, DEFRA On Secondary materials regulation and standards : F our member states, Germany, Flanders, Spain and Fin land are used as examples in this section but no reference i s made to the European Aggre gates Standards which apply to all member states and enable the use of a masonry, conc rete and asphalt as resources for the production of aggregates. They have applied to all MS since 2004 **Response : This information was added to the final report** 

Christian Wadey, DEFRA The choice of resources used to produce aggregates is directly related to comparative processing costs , market price and distance to market. WRAP carried out two detailed assessments of this relationship, one for England and the other for Scotland. **Response : This information was added to the final report** 

Geert Cuperus, FIR 1. FIR welcomes the study of Bio Intelligent Servic e and its partners on the Management of C&DW. It pr ovides for a lot of information concerning the current situation in Europe. Specifically we endorse the conclusions in the report that confirm the fact that 70% recycling of C&DW is feasible. We think that this is a major outcome of the study that cannot be highlighted enough. 2. We like to add that 70% recycling is very w ell feasible also in countries with currently low r ates of recycling. Experience has shown that if political willingness is there, recycling may well develop in just a few years. 3. The report clearly points out that the main mech anisms for recycling are landfill taxes and landfil l bans. Experience has shown that even small increases in l andfill taxes create opportunities for recycling. 4. Regarding point 2 and 3, it is a pity that the r eport does not go into too much detail on the econo mics of recycling. T his would have shown that recycling of C&DW is very well feasible when landfill taxes go up just a few Euro/ton. Paragraph 4.4.2 makes a comparison with p rimary aggregates. It is even more relevant to comp are the costs of recycling with the costs of other waste management options. The costs of waste manage ment options determine where the waste goes. We think the report will benefit from a clear analysis of the price me chanisms that actually manage the waste. 5. The most usual way of processing C&DW is by cr ushing a mixed inert fraction. This results in Mixe d Recycled Aggregates. Unfortunately, due to the approach per material, this main way of working is not reflected in the report. Other methods like crushing for tennis sand etc. are not to be considered as usual approaches. We think the report will benefit from a clear description ho w management of C&DW in practice actually works. It em 4 above relates to this: if the waste management chai n of C&DW is clearly described, the costs per step visualize the controlling mechanisms. **Response: it was not the purpose of this report to go into details in the economics and price mechanis**  **ms; however,**234 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011

**such considerations are taken into account in the a nalysis, e.g. in the concrete section** 

Geert Cuperus, FIR 6. In several chapters reference is made to “recycl ing as a filling material”. We need to stress that this is wrong way of presenting the situation. Recycled aggregates ar e not used as filling material. They are constructi on products in accordance with European standards from CEN/TC154, CEN/TC227 etc. “Filling” refers to a practice where it does not matter what kind of material is used and where no requirements apply. This is the case when for in stance C&DW as such is used. We call upon the authors to c hange texts wherever a relation is made between “re cycling” and “filling”. **Response: recycling is understood in a broader sens e in this report. However, it is clearly stated tha**  **t backfilling is not recycling, but a form of material recovery** 

Geert Cuperus, FIR 7. We welcome the fact that the issue of “backfilli ng” as a threat to recycling is mentioned in the re port (paragraph 3.4.4). It is also clearly stated that the contribu tion of backfilling to the target is hard to assess . Here, we think the authors should also explain why this is so. It is i mportant to understand that waste management can on ly exist when reliable data are in place. Recycling companie s have the obligation of registering all incoming w aste and make notification to the authorities. Backfilling o perations duck out of the control systems. FIR has therefore suggested that any party performing backfilling ope rations should have the obligation to register and make notification. Experience in Flanders, Germany and t he Netherlands has shown that management of C&DW is not that much of a problem. It is possible to develop a structure where almost full control of the C&DW wa ste stream is achieved. Further works of the Commission should focus on the best practices available in those (an d other) Member States. 8. Further to 7, we can imagine that you pay specif ic attention (specific chapter?!) to the impacts th at backfilling might have. With respect to that, we can refer to t he situation in the Netherlands some 20-25 years ag o, when C&DW was still used as such in road construction. A s there were no requirements in place, C&DW was use d as such. As a consequence of this, all Dutch roads bui lt before 1990 are suspected to contain asbestos in the foundations. If these roads are de-constructed, it is likely that asbestos containing material is foun d. The environmental impacts are evident. The economic cos ts for remediation will be huge. If C&DW is going t o be used in backfilling operations throughout Europe, the ch ances of the diffuse spreading of contaminants will be considerable. If there will be no requirements put on backfilling, this “waste management operation” w ill be in conflict with article 1 of the Waste Framework Dire ctive, which requests prevention and reduction of t he adverse impacts of waste management. **Response: Given the unclear definition of backfilli ng, it was difficult to assess the extent of this p**  **ractice in most MS, and the related impacts.** 

UEPG - ECP - EPRA 1. The report, at more than 200 pages, is too long and as a consequence will not be fully read and und erstood by stakeholders. The key points could be summarised in 20-30 pages. **Response: The first section presenting general data included the overarching analysis of the informati**  **on gathered in the report.** 

UEPG - ECP - EPRA 2. It is very important to give clear definitions o f the terminology used very early in the report to ensure that the reader can relate, without confusion, to other stud ies, reports and statistics produced by the Member States. The current draft admits to inconsistent data, which un fortunately reduces the value of the report itself. **Response: Some definitions were clarified, and data gaps filled, in the final version of the report** 

UEPG - ECP - EPRA 3. For the purposes of this report the term “recycl ed” is used in the widest sense and includes all re cycling and reuse options for C & D waste – both in-situ and in r ecycling plant situations. Construction waste inclu des materials surplus to site requirements, plus surplus or rejec ts materials arising for example in ready mixed con crete or precast unit production. Demolition materials inclu de all materials arising from the deconstruction of all structures. In the case of roads this includes both the foundation layers and the asphalt layers (incl uding the surface planning). Getting good data on the total q uantities of all such categories of recycled materi als is most important for this study to be valid.February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 235 UEPG - ECP - EPRA 4. It is important that practicable End-of- Waste Criteria are established as soon as possible. The recent ECHA decision stipulating recycled aggregates as “Articl es” under REACH was crucial in avoiding a completel y unnecessary registration process, which would have seriously damaged the industry. **Response: this driver was added to the final report**

UEPG - ECP - EPRA 5. The report should also refer to the individual CEN Aggr egate Product Standards that give particular and pr ecise definitions for “recycled” material in relation to the stated end use, for example as unbound material s for road bases, or as aggregates for concre te or aggregates for asphalt. These standards set c lear quality requirements for these applications to ensure that those end-product s are durable and meet their technical specificatio ns. Compliance with technical quality standards is cruc ial to responsible recycling.

UEPG - ECP - EPRA 6. It must be clearly stated that excavated materia l should not be included in the reported statistics so as to ensure a common basis for all measurements. Such inclusion may be incorrectly inflating some statistics. **Response : this is clearly stated in the final repo rt** 

UEPG - ECP - EPRA 7. It must be made clear that the target of 70% rec ycled materials relates to the percentage of the C & D waste that is actually available to be recycled. For exa mple, in the UK, which is cu rrently achieving the 70% target, this recycling level represents only about 25% of the to tal aggregate demand. This is also true for Belgium and the Netherlands, which also achieve the 70% target, but again represents only about 20% of their national aggr egates demands.

UEPG - ECP - EPRA 8. It is also very important to better establish th e total current European available C&DW. The report puts the best estimate at 535m tonnes. In 2008, UEPG data shows t hat 216m tonnes were recycled. This corresponds to ju 40% of total available C&DW, but in turn equates to only 6% of the total European aggregates demand of 3.5 billion tonnes for that year.

UEPG - ECP - EPRA 9. EPRA supports higher European recycling rates, t hough because these rates are so varied bet ween Member States, the challenges need to be addressed at nati onal level to determine what kind of political and regulatory measures would best work in each. Such national ini tiatives need to address the physical infrastructur e needed for recycling, as we ll as encouragement in the use of recycled material s, in parallel insisting that these meet the required technical standards.

UEPG - ECP - EPRA 10. Some financial incentives may also be needed, t hough any taxation in the absence of other measures of aggr egate production or landfilling may only have the a dverse effects of inducing illegal production or il legal dumping. The economics of recycling depend on sever al factors that are required to make recycled aggre gates competitive with natural aggregates. For instance, the WBCSD/CSI Report on Recycling Concrete, and in part icular the diagram on page 18, illustrates the economical factors needed to encourage high recycling rates.

UEPG - ECP - EPRA 11. It should also be realised that there are techn ical limits as to what proportion of recycled materials may be incorporated into new products. For example, recycl ed aggregates may be used to form up to 100% of roa d foundation layers, in fact the most common applicat ion of recycled aggregates. All asphalt is recycl able into new asphalt, but must comply with the relevant technica l requirements of the new use. Therefore the amount of reclaimed asphalt that can be used in very specific asphalt mixtures is limited. In ready mixed concre te, up to 30% recycled material is possible, but the practical limit in incorporating recycled coarse aggregates is unlikely to exceed 10%, as any further increase requires more c ement to ensure sufficient strength, thus offsettin g the environmental and cost advantages. In high-strength co ncrete applications the use of recycled aggregates is not appropriate due to the difficulty in meeting the hi gh technical specifications.

UEPG - ECP - EPRA 12. The ultimate aim must arguably be to achieve th e most efficient and sustainable use of resour ces. According to the waste reduction hierarchy, the first and highes t priority is optimal design, reducing the amount o f materials needed in the structure, and in cleverly designing buildings so that their use can be later changed wi thout demolition, or with only part-demolition.

UEPG - ECP - EPRA 13. Current design practice is to enhance the lifes pan of structures by means of refurbishment rather than demolition. This trend will lead to a progressive reduction in the available C & D material and conse qu ently the ability to recycle will be reduced. For example, s tructural frames that can be re- clad and/or have new internal layouts to suit a change of use. It must also be re cognised that more durable materials (such as concr ete) have potentially very long lifetimes (greater than 100 years), and therefore r ank high on overall sustainability. An initial rise in C&DW arising may occur though due to demoli tion of 60-ties and 70- ties dwellings in Member States.236 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 UEPG - ECP - EPRA 14. Finally, of course, waste generation should be minimised at the production, construction and demol ition stages. Such minimisation is in the direct economic interest of producers and contractors. Likewise, o ptimal sorting of waste streams during the demolition process will lead to the highest rates of recycling and best qu ality of recycled materials, also in the best commercial int erests of the responsible contractors involved. 

### Concrete

Christian Wadey, DEFRA This is a very long section on a waste that is alre ady fully recycled in a large number of member stat es and does not present a recovery problem of any significance. There are many case studies on the use of recycled aggregates produced with concrete at http://aggregain.wrap.org.uk/applications/aggregain /casestudysearch/index.rm

Geert Cuperus, FIR 11. Page 33. Mixed Recycled Aggregates can also be used for concrete production. 12. Page 40 and on: there are applications of Recyc led Aggregates in concrete of 50% and even of up to 100%. Fines can also be used in c oncrete (page 41). In the Netherlands 100% coarse and fines is used in concre te applications. Page 3, impacts: use of Recycled Aggregates makes t hat thinner layers of asphalt are necessary. 14. Page 45, impacts: according to measurements sto rage of Recycled Aggregates does not result in dust problems, even at high wind velo cities. 15. Page 50, 4th bullet: clients need to acknowledg e the good properties of Recycled Aggregates. They must be regarded as product and no t as waste. **Response: This information was added to the final r eport** 



### Bricks, tiles and ceramics

Christian Wadey, DEFRA The report recommends quality certification for agg regates produced from recycled concrete. Whilst pro moting quality recycled aggregates is good practice there should be some caution here because aggregates proc essed from concrete, brick and asphalt and produced in co mpliance with the harmonised European Standards for aggregates already have established procedures for factory production control in line with the Constru ction Products Directive. For aggregates for unbound appl ications there is no requirement for a third party certification scheme to demonstrate compliance to the standards a nd the imposition of a third party scheme on recycl ed aggregates by individual member states would be con trary to the CPD. Good practice in aggregate production and the demon stration of compliance to specifications and standa rds is essential for adding value to products and providin g confidence to purchasers. In the UK this is encou raged through compliance with the ‘Quality Protocol for t he production of aggregates from inert waste.’ Ther e have been over 30,000 copies of the Quality Protocol dow nloaded from WRAP’s web site between Nov 2004 and D ec 2009. **Response: This information was taken into considera tion when finalizing the report** 

Dieter Rosen, Bundesverband der Deutschen Ziegelindustrie The sentence „However it is not suitable for heavy roads due to the risk of deformation” should be mod ified Reason. The main part of demolished brick in German y is used as aggregate in road construction. Under German regulations, there is no limitation to the applicat ion of crushed clay bricks, roofing tiles or other because of the congestion of the road. Because of the quality requ irements for frost attack, and impact resistance th ere is a limitation of 30 Mass-% as the maximum brick conten t in the recycled building material. The remaining material is concrete or asphalt. **Response : The report was modified accordingly**

Dieter Rosen, Bundesverband der Deutschen Ziegelindustrie A new architectural trend for high-end buildings fo r example in Berlin is to rebuild used facing brick s. Reason: Facing bricks from demolished buildings are now used for example by David Chipperfield Archite cts for new administrative buildings or museums. **Response: This information was added to the report**

Dieter Rosen, Bundesverband der Deutschen Ziegelindustrie **About designing buildings to use less material** : No one uses more bricks, blocks or roof-tiles th an needed. Due to the national regulations the brick wall must have s pecial properties for example for strength or insul ation against heat or cold temperatures. The products have been i mproved a lot to fulfil all these requirements and more so to be produced with as little energy as possible. In o ur opinion there is no room for using less bricks o r roof-tiles, if the current regulations exist. R **esponse: the corresponding sentence was rephrased; however, we maintain optimal use of material as a p**  **otential driver for waste prevention** 

Geert Cuperus, FIR 16. Page 55, 1st bullet. Masonry derived aggregates are actually not so much used in building projects . A relation is made to heavy traffic situations. It is important t o note that Mixed recycled Aggregates are used in t he construction of airports. 

### AsphaltFebruary 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 237 Laurent Château, ADEME The asphalt section should mention two additional i ssues: 1. Asbestos can be present in some asphalt material s, at least in asphalt produces before its ban. Thi s makes recycling of this asphalt impossible, with the addi tional difficulty that asbestos- containing asphalt cannot be easily identified 2. Cold recycling techniques requires the use of ce rtain chemicals, which environmental impacts are no t well known. **Response : this information was added to the final report** 

Christian Wadey, DEFRA Section contains good information from EAPA and aga in shows high recovery of recycled asphalt across m ember states with limited opportunities for growth. Case studies are available from WRAP for the use o f recycled aggregates containing recycled asphalt.

Geert Cuperus, FIR 17. Page 62 and on: Tar containing asphalt is treat ed thermally to produce clean aggregates. These can be used in several new applications, for instance back in asph alt. 

### Wood

Laurent Château, ADEME Energy recovery is possible i n municipal waste incinerators, especially for cont aminated wood, which can only be burnt in an authorised facility. **Response: this recovery option was added to the fin al report**  

### Gypsum

Laurent Château, ADEME Decision 2003/33/CE bans the landfilling of gy psum waste in inert waste landfills, to avoid the p roduction of H2S. Arising of gypsum waste is theoretically important, but hard to collect, due t o their production in high density
areas.

Laurent Château, ADEME 5 to 10% of recycling for gy psum construction waste seems overestimated.

Laurent Château, ADEME Recycling of gypsum waste a soil treatment should n ot be promoted as a recovery option. Releases of sulphates groundwater and would have important negative impac ts

Laurent Château, ADEME Another driver for higher recycling of gypsum is that produ cers revise their admission criteria for gypsum was te in production plants. 

### ODS

Christian Wadey, DEFRA ODS section-All of the information from this sectio n seems to be centred on the advice of one UK c ontractor. The United Kingdom also seems to come in for quite stri dent criticism, when in comparison to many (perhaps the majority) of member states we are no worse than the y are.

Peter Jones 1. High cost of ODS treatment On page 111 the cost is quoted as almost €1,000 per kg of foam. In my view this is dramatic ally high and being highlighted on the first page of the chapter acts a s a clear call to dismiss treatment options under g rounds of cost. To support my argument I will look at actual costs of treatment of sandwich panels in the UK. Panels are currently treated via refrigerator recyc ling plants run by Europe wide companies such as Si ms, EMR and Viridor. The companies quote between €5 and €10 per m 2 of panel, depending on location, quantity and wha t customer is willing to pay. This cost includes cutt ing panel, shredding in plant, recovery and separat e destruction of ODS, transport and landfill cost of inert polyur ethane waste and recovery and sales of scrap steel. Cladding contractors will currently fix new sandwich panels to walls and roofs for €4 to €8 per m 2. This cost includes all labour and access equipment. Therefore I think it is not unreasonable to estimate that disassembly an d removal of panels would be €10 per m2. A refrigerator plant should not be more than 150km from a demolition sit e. In terms of transport costs sandwich panels can be shipped [ road and sea] from Finland to the UK for €3 per m2. Therefore an average cost would be about €20 per m2 to cover all costs. This is in line with the UK Na tional Federation of Demolition Contractors [NFDC] estimat es and also research by the BRE. The density of polyurethane foam used in sandwich p anels is 40kg/m3 so a 1m2 of 100mm thick panel would contain 4kg of foam. Based on the above figures thi s gives a total treatment cost of ODS foam as €5 per kg. As the figure you quote is larger by a factor of 200 you c an appreciate my view that the figure is dramatical ly high. **Response: Costs were indeed overestimated in the dr aft report, this has been corrected in the final re**  **port**238 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 Peter Jones 2. Barriers to reuse and recycling On page 111 you say “medium or low feasibility”. I think this is unjustifiably negative, especially a s the report states that there is large degree of uncertainty. I suggest it should be rephrased as “high, medium or low feasibility”. **Response: these conclusions were provided by the IC F study on ODS, and were updated with the final ver**  **sion of the report** 

Peter Jones 3. EOL costs for ODS contained in sandwich panels I am not clear as to what this table refers – is it just the ODS recovered from foam or the foam with ODS. The costs are clearly labelled as “Cost per kg of O DS”. In that case: • Transport cost of €5 per kg is amazingly high. Ei ther distance is measured in 10,000kms or costs are on level of transport of highly radioactive material. • What is recovery processing? • What is segregation/processing? • Destruction of ODS at €3/kg is reasonable and in line with TEAP estimates. However if one accepts the €83 per kg total the log ical conclusions are: - If this figure is in reference to the foam and OD S it contains 1m2 of panel containing 4kg of foam w ould cost €332 per m2 for treatment. This seems unlikely – see po int 1 above. - If this figure is in reference to the ODS extract ed from the foam one would need to process between 20kg [assume 5% ODS blowing agent] and 10kg [assume 10% blowing agent. This would equate to between 5 and 2 .5 m2 of typical panel. In this case you estimate cost of treatment as €33 and €16 per m2 - both figures see m economically feasible.

Peter Jones 4. Quantities in waste You quote a figure of 0.1% or 0.05% that on its ow n I think could be misleading, particularly as you accept there are few robust data sets on C&D waste. Including co ncrete and mineral waste [80%] in the total makes O DS insulation appear a minor issue. Quoting weight and not volume also downplays ODS insulation. For exam ple you quote 250,000 tonnes – that in volume would be 12.5 million m3 - equivalent to a reasonable mountain! **Response: To ensure comparability of results betwee n waste fraction, the quantities of waste are alway**  **s presented in weight** 

Peter Jones 5. Description of waste From page 115 it is reasonable to infer that ODS co ntaining waste is not being identified in consignme nt notes i.e. complying with legislation. As the Commission must be aware of this it is reasonable to ask: - What are the reasons for the Commission to allow continuing non-compliance? - What actions are being taken to ensure compliance ?

Peter Jones 6. Co -combustion with MSW Page 116. Incineration of steel faced sandwich pane ls is impractical as it would result in major probl ems with bottom ash and ash extraction

Peter Jones 7. Recycling On page 118 you quote me as saying PS foam recyclin g is anticipated to be very expensive compared to t he value of recycled material. That is not what I said and I was not referring to the cost of recycled PU raw m aterial. This will depend on developing technologies and market demand . My reference was to the likelihood that the embod ied energy in recycled PU raw material could be conside rably higher than that in ‘virgin’ raw material. He nce, it could be argued that recycled PU raw material is less sus tainable. **Response: this was corrected in the final report**

Peter Jones 8. Main driver On page 121 you quote PU Europe as saying the WFD i s not considered as the main driver and it looks to regulation by the ODS regulation. I find it diffic ult to accept that one sector of the industry can p ick and choose which regulations to follow. The WFD is directly co ncerned with landfill and hazardous waste and is se en by contractors, waste industry and enforcement authori ties as the major driver. ODS regulation is indirec tly concerned with landfill, contains the technical and commercial feasibility get out phrases and has fai led to control the release of ODS from foam insulation and allowed the plastics lobby to avoid addressing their respo nsibility for the ODS legacy from the products they manufactured. It is no surprise that PU Europe supports the cont inuing and ineffectual ODS regulations in contrast to the WFD. I think it is unacceptable that the report appears to give support, or at the very least condones this environmentally damaging position that is taken for obvious commercial benefit. I suggest that the act ual position and legal re **sponsibilities are made clear and PU Europe choosin g which legislation to follow is not an option.**  **Response: this section was revised in the final rep ort** February 2011 European Commission DG ENV Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste 239 Peter Jones 9. Current rates When it comes to current rates you quote 0%. I thin k t his is not true and as such too negative and pessim istic towards improving the rate of recovery. Material is being recycled and ODS recovered and destroyed – there is a raft of anecdotal evidence to demonstrate this. Rat es vary through the EU and in differ ent construction sectors. For example contractors involved in cold stores are very aware of ODS and panels recovered from demoli tion in this sector are recycled. For example the Internati onal Association of Cold Store Contractors [IACSC] has had a code of practice on this since 2005. The rate may b e low but it is certainly not 0%.

Peter Jones 10. Ways to reduce % of ODS going to landfill

- Enforcement of current regulations. In particular c orrect descriptions on waste consignment notes. Thi s would also support empirical research into waste flows -Guidance to enforcement authorities. -Guidance to construction and waste industry. -Education programme to clients, contractors, desig ners -Encourage use of building material with high perce ntage of recycled content -Encourage government and private sector to include requirements for recycling and recovery in contrac t conditions. -Fund research into demolition methods, recycling m aterials, ODS recovery methods. -Fund and publicise best practice examples of reduc ing demolition waste -Fund and co- ordinate work by EU demolition contractor organisat ions to develop new methods of working that will be to commercial advantage of the sector. Demo lition contractors to see themselves as material re covery treatment and recycling experts.

Oliver Loebel, PU Europe PU Europe had expected that the report would provid e a quantitative and qualitative analysis of different end-of-life options in terms of their env ironmental impact (ODS destruction rate), technical feasibility and cost implications. At present, the report seems to suggest that ODS destruction with prior recovery should be worked towards although th is is neither the best environmental nor economic solution. • The report contains a number of inaccuracies rega rding HCFC and HFC use and compliance with existing legislation, which we would ask to be corr ected. • Given the significant uncertainty regarding the n umbers used, it would be better to work with ranges instead of worst case figures. **Response: available ranges are presented in the fin al report** 

Oliver Loebel, PU Europe Table (section “Environmental impacts”) You should provide a CO2eq savings range instead of a number (18,473,000 t.CO2eq) by explaining the different estimations according to the “top-down” a nd “bottom-up” methods and include the real ODS average recovery rate from the foam at the end of t he product life (58% for fridges). **Response: available ranges are presented in the fin al report** 

Oliver Loebel, PU Europe Section 9.1 Product description and applications The second paragraph needs substantial corrections. HFC use in PU foam is today a niche application ma inly for spray foam and discontinuous sandwich panel product ion. Over 90% of PU foam is blown with pentane and less than 10% with HFC. Hence, the phras ing “more and more replaced” is not correct. Wherev er possible, HFCs have been replaced by pentane. HCFCs have been banned si nce 2004 and are not used today. The second phrase should refer to HFCs and not HCFCs. The last phrase refers to the question why c ertain producers still use HFCs. We had explained that, for reasons relating to the safety at work, spray foam cannot use pentane. Furthermore , some small producers (discontinuous sandwich panel produ ction) still use HFCs as they cannot afford the inv estme pentane-using equipment. **Response: this section was revised in the final rep ort** 

Oliver Loebel, PU Europe Section 9.2.1 Current and forecast ODS banks PU Europe fully understands the difficulties of the consultant to accurately quantify ODS banks. Th e numbers proposed are therefore not contested. However, as t he difference between 40% and 90% is so significant , PU Europe suggests that the consultant work with a ran ge or an upper and a lower estimate. **Response: available ranges are presented in the fin al report** 240 European Commission DG ENV

Final Report Task 2 – Management of C&D waste February 2011 Oliver Loebel, PU Europe PU Europe disagrees with the statement in paragraph 2 that, for construction foams, the obligation to remove ODS depends exclusively on its technical and economic f easibility. Article 22.4 of Regulation 1005/2009 st ates that “Controlled substances contained in products and eq uipment other than those mentioned in paragraph 1 s hall, if technically and economically feasible, be recovered for destruction, recycling or reclamation, or shal l be destroyed without prior recovery, applying the technologies r eferred to in paragraph 2.” It is true that hazardous waste facilities have to respect strict environmental standards. It is howev er incorrect to say that countries which allow the incineration of ODS containing foam in municipal solid waste incine rators (MSWI) do not comply with legislation. Regulation 1005/2009 (art. 22.2) refers to annex VI I of that Regulation (approved destruction technolo gies). For dilute sources (such as foam), the annex offers two options: municipal solid waste incineration or rot ary kiln incineration. This is also fully in line with the U NEP TEAP reports of 2005 and 2009. Furthermore, the Waste Incineration Directive (art. 6.1) stipulates the following: “Incineration plant s shall be designed, equipped, built and operated in such a wa y that the gas resulting from the process is raised , after the last injection of combustion air, in a controlled a nd homogeneous fashion and even under the most unfa vourable conditions, to a temperature of 850°C, as measured near the inner wall or at another representative point o f the combustion chamber as authorised by the compe tent authority, for two seconds. If hazardous wastes wit h a content of more than 1% of halogenated organic substances, expressed as chlorine, are incinerated, the temperature has to be raised to 1.100 °C for a t least two seconds.” As a worst case scenario, it could be assumed that 3% of the waste fed in the incinerator is ODS conta ining PU foam. If we estimate the content of ODS in the foam at 6%, the total share of ODS in the waste would a mount to 0.18 %. This is well below the 1% limit. For rotary kiln incineration, the share would be as low as 0. 01-0.03 %. In practice, the share of ODS (the concentration of halogens) will be lower as ODS containing foam is never delivered in pure form to an MSWI. Depending on the application in the building, the combination with other materials, the way the building was demolished / de constructed, the storage with other materials and t ransport and supply conditions, there will always be other m aterials attached to the PU foam, or the foam will be mixed with other materials. **Response: this section was revised in the final rep ort** 

Oliver Loebel, PU Europe Section 9.3.2 Emerging techniques As outlined above, Regulation 1005/2009 does not re quire recovery if this is “technically and economic ally” feasible. Rather it offers two options recovery or destruction without prior recovery.

Oliver Loebel, PU Europe Section 9.4.1 Environmental impacts Whilst it is true that ODS emissions must be minimi sed at the end of the product life, PU Europe disag rees with the conclusions of this section. Destruction with prior recovery does not offer the environmentally best s olution. The Deutsche Umwelthilfe estimates the ODS recovery rat e for household appliance at only 58%. This means t hat almost half of the ODS is released in the atmospher e in the recovery process. On the other hand, incin erating ODS foam in modern MSWI leads to a 99.9% destruction of the ODS. Comparing these two options is of fundamental impor tance when the report wants to draw sound conclusio ns. A complete analysis should also provide a holistic view on all environmental impacts. For example, the small number of ODS recovery facilities would entail high er environmental impacts due to longer transport di stances. MSWI are available at relatively short distances in most (but clearly not all) Member States. As regards table 34, it should be specified whether the numbers given assume a 100% recovery rate, alt hough this is not achieved in practice (see example above). If this was the case, the figures would be unrealisti c. In any case, they should be compared with the emission savings p otential for other end-of-life options, such as inc ineration in MSWI. **Response: this section was revised in the final rep ort** 



### Hazardous Substances Edmar Meuwissen, EUMEPS Could you let me know what the criteria were for in cluding those five hazardous substances? **Response: these substances were identified as poten tial contaminants of the C&D waste stream.** 

Laurent Château, ADEME Lead based paints were banned in France in 1949. So me guidelines on the management of this type of was te suggest that several options are available: http://www.oppbtp.fr/content/download/13475/87842

Laurent Château, ADEME PAHs can also be found in ch imneys or other smoke evacuation conducts, and cont aminate the building materials.