eu report demolition waste management

Report to DGXI, European Commission

CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITIONWASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES,AND THEIR ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Final ReportFebruary 1999

Report by Symonds, in association with ARGUS,COWI and PRC Bouwcentrum

Symonds Group Ltd 46967 Final Report February 1999 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION• The provenance of this Report• The structure of this Report• Construction and demolition waste: how big an issue is it?• The environmental and amenity justification for C&DW recycling• The changing nature of C&DW• The objective of this Report

1

2 TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE• Classification and recording of C&DW• The different types of sites which generate C&DW• Destinations and uses to which C&DW may be put• Changes in material types over time• Issues related to hazardousness and separate collection

7

3 ECONOMIC AND ADMINISTRATIVE FACTORS AFFECTING RE-USE ANDRECYCLING• Introductory comments• Economic considerations• Administrative factors

17

4 PROCESSES AND BEST PRACTICE GUIDANCE: DEMOLITION,RENOVATION AND RECYCLING SITES• Processes commonly found on demolition and renovation sites• The choice between on- and off-site processing• ‘State of the art’ C&DW processing equipment• Best practice guidance on demolition and renovation site management

25

5 PROCESSES AND BEST PRACTICE GUIDANCE: CONSTRUCTION SITES• Processes commonly found on construction sites• Best practice guidance on construction site management

35

6 PROCESSES AND BEST PRACTICE GUIDANCE: ROAD MAINTENANCEAND CONSTRUCTION• Road maintenance processes• Road construction using other recycled materials

39

7 RECORDED QUANTITIES OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE• C&DW arisings• Recording of hazardous C&DW and other C&DW suitable for separate

collection• Destinations and uses of C&DW• Recycling facilities in each Member State

43

8 MEASURES USED TO PROMOTE RE-USE AND RECYCLING OFCONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE• The range of measures• The effectiveness of the measures

49

Symonds Group Ltd 46967 Final Report February 1999

9 ECONOMICS OF THE RE-USE AND RECYCLING OF CONSTRUCTION ANDDEMOLITION WASTE: PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS• Introductory remarks• ‘Level 1’ technology• ‘Level 2’ technology• ‘Level 3’ technology• Conclusions

57

10 SUMMARY OF MAIN CONCLUSIONS AND EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS• Introductory comments• Main conclusions• Interventions at the level of the EU-15• Interventions at the level of individual Member States• Interventions at the regional or local level• Interventions by the construction and demolition industries

69

Annex 1 Annex 1 to Service Contract B4-3040/97/000659/MAR/E3 -Study Brief - Programme of Work 77

Annex 2 Backgr ound to the Study 81

Annex 3 The European Construction Industry, 1991-98 87

Annex 4 ‘Core’ C&DW Arisings Compared to Primary AggregateConsumption 93

Annex 5 C&DW Arisings and their Uses and Destinations 97

Annex 6 Measures Which Influence the Management of C&DW 121

Annex 7 Some Potentially Hazardous Elements in C&DW 169

Annex 8 Collection Methodology for C&DW Statistics 173

Annex 9 Two Options for Amending the European Waste Catalogue 177

Annex 10 Bibliography, Sources and Selected Key References 181

Annex 11 Reference Ec onomic and Population Data 195

Annex 12 Calculations and Assumptions Used to Estimate the Cost ofCrushing Inert C&DW 197

Annex 13 Acronyms, Definitions and Descriptions 203

© Symonds Group Ltd 1999


1. INTRODUCTION

The provenance of this Report

1.1 This is the Final Report of the study into ‘Construction and Demolition Waste ManagementPractices, and their Economic Impacts’ undertaken between January 1998 and March 1999by The Symonds Group Ltd (from the UK) in association with ARGUS (from Germany),COWI Consulting Engineers and Planners (from Denmark) and PRC Bouwcentrum (from theNetherlands). The Terms of Reference (Technical Annex) for the study can be found inAnnex 1. Although the Commission will make copies of this report available to interestedparties, it does not necessarily endorse every opinion or conclusion as stated.

1.2 An Interim Report was delivered to the Commission in July 1998, and selected findings anddata were prepared for circulation to the members of the Waste Management Committeeprior to their meeting in October 1998. Progress meetings with the Commission were held on30 January, 27 April, 19 August and 14/15 December 1998.

The structure of this Report

1.3 This introductory chapter seeks to put the issue of construction and demolition waste (C&DW)into some sort of context, as well as explaining the principal objectives of the study.

1.4 In Chapter 2 we address in much greater depth the typology and classification of C&DW, andthe relationships between its origins and characteristics. We also deal with the question ofhazardousness, and with other characteristics which make certain components of C&DWsuitable for separate collection.

1.5 Chapter 3 sets out the major economic and administrative considerations which drivedecisions on re-use and recycling of C&DW.

1.6 Chapters 4-6 deal with processes and best practice guidance related to different site types.We do not seek to reproduce details of best practice as such, but to identify where and bywhom it has been documented, and thereby to provide a practical overview of the subject.

1.7 Chapter 7 presents our findings on the best available estimates of C&DW arisings in eachMember State, and Chapter 8 summarises the measures which each Member State hastaken to influence the level of re-use and recycling. The details supporting the conclusions setout in these two Chapters will be found in Annexes 5 and 6.

1.8 Chapter 9 presents practical findings and conclusions related to the economics of C&DW re-use and recycling.

1.9 Chapter 10 summarises our conclusions as to which interventions (at EU, national and locallevel) are most likely to result in predictable and positive outcomes.

1.10 There are 13 Annexes in total, the last of which provides definitions and descriptions of manyof the technical terms used throughout this report, and explanations of the acronymsemployed.

Construction and demolition waste: how big an issue is it?

1.11 Following the Council Resolution of 7 May 1990, which invited the Commission to establishproposals for action at Community level, the Priority Waste Streams Programme wasinitiated. C&DW was identified by the Member States as one such stream, even though at thetime relatively little was known about the nature or volumes of the flows concerned.

1.12 The objectives of the Priority Waste Streams Programme respond to the waste managementhierarchy, which prefers waste prevention or reduction to re-use, re-use to recycling orrecovery (including the use of waste as a source of energy), and all of these to final disposalvia landfill or incineration without energy recovery. Although not expressed in these terms inany of the key documents, the hierarchy is generally summarised as:


(i) prevention or reduction (sometimes termed avoidance or minimisation);

(ii) re-use;

(iii) recycling or materials recovery;

(iv) energy recovery;

(v) disposal in a safe manner.

1.13 It was known that most C&DW had traditionally been landfilled, frequently in the samelandfills as were used to dispose of municipal solid waste (MSW). Furthermore, it becameclear that the volume of C&DW, most of which is inert, was roughly equal to that of MSW.Given the increasing scarcity of landfill space, and the increasing costs of improvedenvironmental protection involved in modern landfill engineering and management, it wasobvious that action to re-use or recycle C&DW would reduce the proportion going to landfill,thereby relieving the pressures on MSW disposal as well as respecting the hierarchy of wastemanagement practices set out in the Framework Directive on waste (75/442/EEC asamended by 91/156/EEC) and the Fifth Environmental Action Programme.

1.14 At the same time some Member States were taking actions to relieve these pressures, andEU-wide programmes such as LIFE were addressing the issues raised by the waste hierarchyfrom the other end by looking for ways of designing structures in ways that reduce futurewaste flows, and by encouraging the use of secondary and recycled materials in newconstruction. Annex 10, Ref 11.1 provides an example of this work, which complements thatof the Priority Waste Streams Programme. Similar initiatives were taken at national levels inseveral Member States.

1.15 As a direct result of the Priority Waste Streams Programme, a specially-convened projectgroup met to advise the Commission on matters related to C&DW management between1992 and 1995. The members of this 60-strong group included representatives from national,regional and local governments and agencies as well as the construction industry, theconstruction materials supply industry and the waste management industry. The SymondsGroup and ARGUS acted as Technical Consultants to the project group. The project group’sfinal report made recommendations for action on a range of issues, as discussed later in thisReport. Among these were recommendations designed to tackle the widespread lack ofreliable statistical data on C&DW arisings and practices noted by the working group.

1.16 Annex 2 provides additional information on the C&DW Priority Waste Streams Programme,in the form of Chapter 1 from the project group’s final report. This helps to set this currentstudy into a better overall context, and to explain why the Terms of Reference were drafted inthe way that they were, with a considerable emphasis on identifying better and moreconsistent data.

1.17 We concentrate in this Report on what we have called ‘core’ C&DW. This is essentially themix of materials obtained when a building or piece of civil engineering infrastructure isdemolished, though we include under the heading those same materials when they arise as aresult of construction. ’Core’ C&DW excludes road planings, excavated soil (whether clean orcontaminated), external utility and service connections (drainage pipes, water, gas andelectricity) and surface vegetation.

1.18 Despite the factors which will affect the composition of ‘core’ C&DW in future (as discussedlater), it is extremely likely that the inert (or decontaminated) fraction which is suitable forcrushing and recycling as aggregate will continue to be the largest component. This caninclude materials such as glass which, although not directly comparable to primaryaggregates, do not detract from the performance of the C&DW-derived aggregate if includedin reasonable proportions.

1.19 One of the keys to maximising the yield of C&DW-derived aggregates is separation ofmaterials at source, predominantly through selective demolition (see Chapter 4 and Annex 13for a description of this activity) and good management of construction sites.


1.20 This study shows that, in the EU as a whole, arisings of ’core’ C&DW alone amount to around180 million tonnes each year (see Figure 1.1). This is over 480kg per person per year, andonly about 28% across the EU-15 as a whole is re-used or recycled. Landfilling the other 72%(some 130 million tonnes a year) at a density of 1.0 requires the equivalent of a brand newlandfill 10m deep and roughly 13 square km in surface area every year. To illustrate this, 13square km is a circle with a diameter of just over 4km. Put another way, if central Paris(within the Boulevard Périphérique) were to be used, the level of waste would rise by roughly1.3m every year. Adding construction waste, road planings and excavated soil and rock tothis figure more than doubles the total weight and volume of material to be managed. FiveMember States (Germany, the UK, France, Italy and Spain) account for around 80% of thetotal of ‘core’ C&DW, which is broadly consistent with the share of the overall constructionmarket accounted for by these same countries. Data on the size and year-on-year changes inconstruction sector turnover and employment over the past decade can be found in Annex 3.

Figure 1.1: C&DW Arisings and Recycling (Summary Table)Member State ‘Core’ C&DW

Arisings(m tonnes, rounded)

% Re-Used orRecycled

% Incinerated orLandfilled

Germany 59 17 83UK 30 45 55France 24 15 85Italy 20 9 91Spain 13 <5 >95Netherlands 11 90 10Belgium 7 87 13Austria 5 41 59Portugal 3 <5 >95Denmark 3 81 19Greece 2 <5 >95Sweden 2 21 79Finland 1 45 55Ireland 1 <5 >95Luxembourg 0 n/a n/aEU-15 180 28 72

Source: Annex 5

1.21 A high proportion of conventional demolition waste, and particularly the fraction derived fromconcrete, bricks and tiles, is well suited to being crushed and recycled as a substitute fornewly quarried (primary) aggregates in certain lower grade applications, most notablyengineering fill and road sub-base. This practice has been common (though not necessarilywidespread) in several Member States for many years. The use of such C&DW-derivedaggregates in new concrete is much less common, and technically much more demanding.

1.22 These materials therefore have the potential to displace equivalent volumes of primaryaggregates, thus preserving non-renewable resources, with minimal need for landfill space.Reducing pressure on increasingly scarce landfill space is widely seen as one of the keybenefits of C&DW recycling. In some Member States the volume of C&DW going to landfillexceeds that of household waste.

1.23 The only Member State where industry sources have expressed a concern that the supply ofC&DW-derived aggregates may one day match the construction industry’s capacity tosubstitute them for primary aggregates is the Netherlands. In general the volume of primaryaggregates extracted and used in Member States is at least four times as great as thepotential upper limit for C&DW-derived aggregates, and well above existing levels ofproduction (see Annex 4). Nevertheless it must be acknowledged that, as things stand, by nomeans all of this primary aggregate could be displaced by C&DW-derived aggregate of anequivalent quality.

1.24 The largest single consumer of aggregates in most Member States is the road constructionindustry (including roads and car parks on housing developments, business and retail parksand industrial estates). This sector has generally led the way in accepting and using C&DW-


derived aggregates (as well as secondary aggregates such as pulverised fly ash and minetailings).

1.25 However, road builders (and other construction companies) generally choose their materialson the basis of their suitability (sometimes referred to as their ‘fitness for purpose’, but alsotaking into account any applicable standards) and their price. In areas where quarries and/orsources of competing secondary aggregates are widespread and landfill costs are low, C&DWcan find it impossible to compete on price.

1.26 These issues are considered in more detail in Chapters 3 and 9, but at this point it is worthdrawing particular attention to the impact of marble (and other cut stone and china clay)quarries. Only about 10% of the material quarried is usually sold as marble blocks, and theremainder is broken up and sold (or even given away) as primary aggregate. This cansubstantially distort the market for aggregates in the local area around the quarries, thoughthe impact declines when more urban areas are considered. The case for choosing theseprimary aggregates over C&DW-derived aggregates can be further boosted by the fact thatquarry wastes (‘scalpings’) are not always in practice subjected to the full provisions of theFramework Directive on waste. The proportions (of primary material to waste) are differentwith china clay, but the effect of a large reservoir of very cheap competing material is thesame.

1.27 Notwithstanding the above, there is evidence of a general trend for the price of both landfillspace and primary (natural) aggregates to rise relative to transport costs. In general, the morevaluable a product (in ECU/kg), the greater the distance over which it will be traded, and thegreater the choice of suppliers from which individual users can choose. If landfill costs andprimary aggregate prices continue to rise, both primary and C&DW-derived aggregates mayin future tend to travel further. There is already a substantial cross-border trade in primaryaggregates (see Annex 4), and this may well be emulated by C&DW-derived aggregates infuture, making internal market considerations a bigger issue than at present. There is at leastone instance (in the UK) of a former air base (the runways of which represent a very largesource of high quality concrete) being recycled adjacent to a railway siding. The normal timepressures so often present on city centre demolition sites are also less severe under suchcircumstances. This is close to being an artificial quarry with low-cost transport, and othersimilar ventures could be developed in several Member States in future.

The environmental and amenity justification for C&DW recycling

1.28 Quite apart from depleting the stock of natural resources, the quarrying and processing ofprimary aggregates involves the generation of obvious environmental and amenity impacts,most of them limited to the local area surrounding the quarry. Transporting the aggregates totheir final point of use generates a separate and more widely dispersed set of impactscommon to those associated with bulk transport in general. Depots and bulk storage facilities(at railheads, for example) have their own associated impacts.

1.29 Considering first the impacts from quarrying, the scale and detail of the impacts depends tosome extent on the product being quarried. Digging sand is a much quieter, less dusty activitythan blasting and crushing hard rock, and marine dredging at a carefully selected location hasthe potential to cause substantially fewer problems than land-based quarrying. The mainenvironmental impacts from terrestrial quarries are likely to include:

(i) noise and dust;

(ii) some air pollution (from blasting, but more generally from the use of internalcombustion engines);

(iii) vibration (from blasting, which can in turn open up fissures in the underlying rock,changing drainage patterns and allowing pollution to reach groundwater);

(iv) potential for pollution of surface and groundwater by fuels and lubricants used in plantand machinery;

(v) visual and aesthetic impacts;


(vi) changes in land form (associated with both visual impacts and changes in surfacewater drainage);

(vii) changes to natural habitats and possible destruction of historical artefacts.

1.30 Some of these impacts are primarily environmental, but others depend on the presence ofpeople, and can more correctly be termed amenity impacts. Quarries in remote areas causefewer and less severe amenity impacts than those in urban or suburban settings. By contrast,remote quarries rely on transport links to deliver their aggregates to the final user.Transporting aggregates, whether by road or rail, generates further impacts in the form ofnoise, vibration, dust and air pollution, and contributes to the visual and severance impactsassociated with existing infrastructure. It also uses up non-renewable energy resources.Delivery by boat or barge is generally less damaging, but is obviously limited in itsapplication.

1.31 Where aggregates are supplied from quarries rather than from C&DW, the C&DW has to bedealt with in another way, which generally means landfilling it. A secondary impact fromfavouring primary aggregates is therefore additional landfilling. Although much C&DW is inertand the environmental impacts are therefore relatively mild, there are nevertheless adverseenvironmental impacts from the associated transport.

1.32 Changing from quarrying to C&DW recycling may avoid some of the above impacts, but itcould introduce others. Moreover, because both C&DW arisings and potential locations fortheir re-use after processing are likely to occur in more urban settings, any impacts may wellhave the potential to affect more people. It should be stressed that these additional impactsdo not include those associated with demolition itself, because the demolition process willoccur whether or not the resultant waste materials are recycled.

1.33 The breaking up, crushing, sorting and stockpiling of C&DW-derived aggregates is likely togenerate:

(i) noise and dust;

(ii) some air pollution (from the use of internal combustion engines);

(iii) potential for pollution of surface and groundwater by fuels and lubricants used in plantand machinery;

(iv) visual and aesthetic impacts (particularly if the processing site is a green field orurban site);

(v) changes to natural habitats and possible destruction of historical artefacts (if theprocessing site is a green field site).

1.34 The transport and delivery impacts associated with C&DW recycling are essentially the sameas those associated with primary aggregates delivered by road, unless the C&DW can beprocessed and used on the original site, in which case they are taken out of the equationaltogether. In general rail transport is far less likely to be a practical proposition for C&DWrecycling (which moves from site to site) than it is for quarrying (which stays in one place).There are exceptions to this statement (such as the city of Berlin), but they are few and farbetween.

1.35 The above arguments concentrate on the inert fraction of C&DW which can be processed intoaggregates. However, C&DW includes non-inert materials, and the environmental case for re-using or recycling these rather than sending them for final disposal to either a landill or anincinerator is clear, particularly in the case of the more hazardous fraction. However, despitethe benefits of avoiding landfilling or incineration, it should be acknowledged that processingis not an impact-free activity.

1.36 More complex C&DW processing and sorting systems, such as are found at fixed C&DWrecycling centres, may well generate additional impacts. Some of these impacts (such asnoise) will be similar in nature but different in intensity to those listed above. Others will go


beyond those listed above, of which the most serious is likely to be potential pollution to thewater environment as a result of the washing of C&DW-derived aggregates to removeunwanted fractions (such as wood and plastic). Such potential impacts can be mitigated, butat a cost which will be reflected in the recycling centre’s gate price (defined in Annex 13).

1.37 We would suggest, therefore, that for a specific volume of aggregates used in construction(including landscaping), quarrying primary aggregates and landfilling the equivalent volumeof C&DW is less environmentally desirable than recycling the C&DW into C&DW-derivedaggregates.

The changing nature of C&DW

1.38 The nature of today’s demolition waste is directly influenced by the building techniques andmaterials which were in vogue when the buildings, civil engineering structures and associatedinfrastructure being demolished today were built. This is considered in greater depth inChapter 2.

1.39 The nature and volumes of demolition waste arisings also reflect the solidity and flexibility(and therefore the life expectation) of the structures themselves, and the balance in theeconomy and investment (between housing, industry and the service sector) of previousyears. The nature and volume of today’s construction waste, by contrast, reflects today’sbuilding materials and activity levels.

The objective of this Report

1.40 By agreement with the Commission, this Report is designed to be ‘action-oriented’. It seeks tohighlight practical measures which can be taken to encourage the re-use and recycling ofC&DW. It does not seek to go into great detail on either a technical or an economic level, butrather to strike a balance between these factors. It seeks to distinguish between thosemeasures which have been proven to be effective under one set of very particular nationalcircumstances but which will probably not travel successfully, and those which can probablybe applied widely and effectively.

1.41 Following the initial round of data collection, it was agreed with the Commission that moreeffort should be spent on improving the consistency of these data. Any process of economicmodelling which relies on poor quality data has the potential to mislead more than itilluminates, so a more robust approach was agreed to be appropriate.


2. TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE

Classification and recording of C&DW

The origins and nature of C&DW

2.1 The ‘umbrella’ term C&DW can cover a very wide range of materials. The most obviouscategories are:

(i) waste arising from the total or partial demolition of buildings and/or civilinfrastructure;

(ii) waste arising from the construction of buildings and/or civil infrastructure;

(iii) soil, rocks and vegetation arising from land levelling, civil works and/or generalfoundations;

(iv) road planings and associated materials arising from road maintenance activities.

2.2 Cross-contamination and general mixing of materials is frequently observed on constructionand demolition sites. This is of greatest concern if the mixing involves hazardous materials(using the term as defined in Directive 91/689/EEC). This applies to materials such asasbestos and to certain heavy metals (such as lead), solvents and adhesives.

2.3 Questions related to hazardousness and suitability for separate collection are dealt with at theend of this Chapter. In this context wastes which are suitable for separate collection includethose that are hazardous, those that are valuable when separated, those that by any objectivemeasure would be better separated, and those that are deleterious to the inert (or any other)fraction if mixed with it.

The current position on C&DW classification

2.4 The report of the C&DW Priority Waste Streams Project recommended (in itsrecommendation number 2) that:

“Member States should be encouraged to adopt the following classifications (taken from theEuropean Waste Catalogue) as the framework within which future construction and demolitionwaste management planning will be undertaken, and waste arisings data collected andreported:• concrete, bricks, tiles, ceramics, and gypsum based materials (EWC code 17 01 00);• wood (EWC code 17 02 01);• glass (EWC code 17 02 02);• plastic (EWC code 17 02 03);• asphalt, tar and tarred products (EWC code 17 03 00);• metals (including their alloys) (EWC code 17 04 00);• soil and dredged spoil (EWC code 17 05 00);• insulation materials (EWC code 17 06 00);• mixed construction and demolition waste (EWC code 17 07 00)Hazardous components of construction and demolition wastes should also be identified.”

2.5 Since that recommendation was made (in 1995) it has been decided that the EWC itselfwould be reviewed, and an expert working group drawn from Member States, DGXI andEurostat is currently looking at this. We have been asked by the Commission, as part of thisstudy, to comment on the advisability and implications of amending the EWC to make C&DWstatistics more useful. We offer the following observations.

2.6 It has become apparent that different Member States interpret and record the EWCcategories in slightly different ways. Some evidently record consignments of mixed wasteaccording to their component elements, where these are known: for example 35% brick, 45%concrete, 15% timber and 5% plastic rather than 100% mixed waste. The former classification(by component) has the merit that it identifies those materials which may have potential for


re-use or recycling, though the latter may more accurately reflect the nature of treatment anddisposal facilities required to manage the wastes.

2.7 A questionnaire was circulated by us to the members of an expert statistical working group toseek clarification on how materials are classified, and how statistics are recorded (and/orestimated) in different Member States. The findings from this survey are reported in Annex 8to this Report. We have also drawn on the knowledge and experience of the study teammembers.

2.8 There are some specific matters worthy of note and further consideration in the context ofEWC revision, particularly with regard to mixed concrete, bricks and other similar materialswhich can be crushed and used as C&DW-derived aggregates. It appears that:

(i) in Germany and the Netherlands, for instance, a pile of concrete waste withcomparatively small proportions of brick and gypsum mixed in with it would berecorded under 17 01 00;

(ii) in the UK, by contrast, the same material would probably be recorded as 17 07 00.

2.9 This difference in approach depends on whether the interpretation is what we have called ‘topdown’ or ‘bottom up’. ‘Top down’ classification involves finding the most appropriate top levelclassification and recording the waste there, whether or not it can be assigned to one of thesub-categories. ‘Bottom up’ classification involves finding the most appropriate sub-category,and calculating the totals of the top level classifications by adding the values for each sub-category. In an ideal world, of course, both approaches lead to a common result; in practicethey seldom do.

2.10 In the specific context of C&DW classification, those who take the ‘top down’ approachassume that 17 01 00 includes any waste which only includes concrete, bricks, tiles,ceramics, and gypsum-based materials, whether mixed up together or not, whereas followersof the ‘bottom up’ approach treat 17 01 00 as being strictly the sum of its sub-categories.‘Bottom up’ classifiers would assemble the total for 17 01 00 by adding the sub-totals forunmixed concrete (17 01 01), unmixed brick (17 01 02), unmixed tiles and ceramics (17 0103), unmixed gypsum-based construction materials (17 01 04) and unmixed asbestos-basedconstruction materials (17 01 05). The last sub-category does not include asbestos-basedinsulation materials, which are covered by 17 06 00. ‘Bottom up’ classifiers would place anymixtures of these (and other) materials into 17 07 00 (mixed C&DW).

Two alternative proposals for change

2.11 In developing the following proposals for changes to the EWC we have made reference toboth the introductory notes to the EWC which describe its purpose, and to the waste hierarchyset out in the European Community policy document ‘A community strategy for wastemanagement (SEC/89/934(Final))’ and reaffirmed in Chapter 5.7 of the Fifth EnvironmentalAction Programme (COM(92)23).

2.12 Clause 5 of the introductory note to the EWC states “The EWC is to be a referencenomenclature providing a common terminology throughout the Community with the purpose toimprove the efficiency of waste management activities.”

2.13 We have already summarised the waste management hierarchy (in Chapter 1) as prevention,re-use, recycling or recovery of materials, energy recovery and the safe disposal of wastewhich cannot be re-used or recycled, in that order. In particular Article 3 of the FrameworkDirective on waste (Directive 75/442/EEC as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC)requires Member States to “take appropriate measures to encourage … the recovery of wasteby means of recycling, re-use or reclamation or any other process with a view to extractingsecondary raw materials…”

2.14 We have therefore started from the premise that one of the primary purposes for collectingC&DW statistics per se is to enable waste planners at all levels (local, national and EU) toplan accurately to meet the objectives of the hierarchy. It would therefore be desirable thatthe categories in the EWC should reflect as accurately as possible the potential for re-use


and/or recycling of the materials concerned, and identify the requirement for treatment ordisposal, thereby providing meaningful data which planners can use.

2.15 In suggesting redefinitions of the classifications we have also tried to remove ambiguitieswhich could lead to those recording the waste being faced with a choice of categories. Ouraim has therefore been to produce a list of mutually exclusive categories which will provide aconsistent approach and avoid potential ‘double counting’.

2.16 EWC category 17 01 00 represents one of the major C&DW streams and is one which offerssignificant potential for the recycling of materials as construction aggregates. Accordingly ifthe statistics are to be as useful as possible to waste planners, then there is a reasonablecase to be made for removing from 17 01 00 those materials which might be best kept out ofC&DW-derived aggregates. This certainly applies to asbestos-based construction materials(17 01 05) which will release hazardous fibres to the atmosphere if crushed, and might alsobe considered to apply to gypsum-based materials, for two reasons:

(i) gypsum adversely affects the quality of C&DW-derived aggregates;

(ii) some Member States, including Germany and the Netherlands, propose to bangypsum from most landfills.

2.17 Category 17 02 00 contains three specific but unrelated materials (wood, glass and plastic),and it would be possible to argue that a further sub-category (17 02 04) might be added torecord gypsum-based materials or mixed materials in which the gypsum content exceeds acertain level (which would have to be set by appropriate technical experts).

2.18 In a similar way, asbestos-based construction materials might be added as a new sub-category to 17 06 00, re-naming the main category as ‘asbestos-based construction andinsulation materials, and other insulation materials’.

2.19 At the same time it would be worth considering re-defining 17 01 00 as ‘predominantly inertconcrete, bricks, tiles and ceramic materials’ and revising the remaining sub-categories toreflect more accurately their potential use as C&DW-derived aggregates. This would allowMember States either to record a single figure for 17 01 00 or to opt to collect statistics at agreater level of detail according to eventual destination. One proposal would be as follows:

(i) 17 01 01 concrete (including reinforced concrete);

(ii) 17 01 02 bricks (possibly further broken down into 17 01 02 01 whole bricks and 1701 02 02 broken or mixed bricks);

(iii) 17 01 03 tiles and ceramics (possibly further broken down into 17 01 03 01 whole tilesand 17 01 03 02 broken or mixed tiles and ceramics);

(iv) 17 01 04 any mixture of the above, plus an acceptably low level of other materials(contraries).

2.20 For each of the above sub-categories, guidance would have to be given (either by aTechnical Adaptation Committee or by the Member States, reflecting national standards andpractices governing the use of aggregates) on the maximum acceptable levels of:

(i) gypsum;

(ii) other inert materials (including reinforcing metal and glass);

(iii) wood, plastic and other non-inert demolition wastes; and/or

(iv) hazardous wastes.

2.21 If followed to the fullest extent, this system would show waste planners the volumes of thosematerials (such as bricks and roof tiles) which can be re-used, as well as those materialswhich are suitable for crushing to produce good quality aggregates.


2.22 Taking up all of the above proposals would produce a 4-level classification as set out inFigure A9.1 in Annex 9.

2.23 Recognising that there may be some opposition to adding a fourth level, it would be possibleto achieve most of the gains with limited loss of logic by using the alternative classificationset out in Figure A9.2, which can also be found in Annex 9.

2.24 Some waste planners also need to estimate future flows of combustible C&DW, includinguncontaminated wood, certain plastics, paper and cardboard. There is no obvious way inwhich the EWC could be amended to facilitate this. The same conclusion applies tohazardous waste fractions, which are identified only as hazardous wastes without reference totheir origin in C&DW. Only a wholesale re-working of the EWC, which would have to beapplied to all other wastes, not just C&DW, and which we do not recommend, would enablesuch fractions of the C&DW stream to be separately identified.

The different types of sites which generate C&DW

2.25 C&DW can arise from a range of different origins, or site types, as defined in Figure 2.1below:

Figure 2.1: Site Types‘Demolish and clear’ sites Sites with structures or infrastructure to be demolished, but

on which no new construction is planned in the short term.

‘Demolish, clear and build’sites

Sites with structures or infrastructure to be demolished priorto the erection of new ones.

‘Renovation’ sites Sites where the interior fittings (and possibly somestructural elements as well) are to be removed andreplaced.

‘Greenfield’ building sites Undeveloped sites on which new structures or infrastructureare to be erected.

‘Road build’ sites Sites where a new road (or similar) is to be constructed ona green field or rubble free base.

‘Road refurbishment’ sites Sites where an existing road (or similar) is to be resurfacedor substantially rebuilt.

2.26 There are five basic activities, some or all of which may occur on all of the above site types.In their simplest form these activities can be described as shown in Figure 2.2.

2.27 The linkages between the site types identified in Figure 2.1 and the five activities (and theirsub-activities) identified in Figure 2.2 are then shown in Figure 2.3.

2.28 Some of the activities shown there as ‘optional’ (and particularly numbers 1 and 3a) might beconsidered to be ‘best practice’, to the extent that ‘best practice’ is likely to involve greaterattention being given to these activities.


Figure 2.2: Basic Activities Found on Demolition and Construction Sites

1 Remove selected materials from existing structure(s), possibly after in situ treatment

�

2 Demolish the balance of the structure(s), sort into waste streams as appropriate, andtreat each waste stream on- or off-site prior to recycling or final disposal

�

3 Clear surrounding land surface(s) and any unwanted existing services/utilityconnections, broken down into two sub-activities:

3a Remove (i) hard surface coveringsand (ii) any unwanted existingservices and utility connections forrecycling/disposal, and/or

3b Clear and dispose of unwanted surfacevegetation

�

4 Prepare site for sale or construction, broken down into two sub-activities:

4a Prepare levels and foundations fornew structures, and/or

4b Prepare to leave site clear and vacant

�

5 Erect new structure(s), then treat/dispose of construction waste materials

Figure 2.3: Linkages Between Site Types and Site Activities

1 2 3a 3b 4a 4b 5

Demolish and clear

Demolish, clear and build

Renovation

Greenfield

Road build

Road refurbishment

Key: Darker cells showunavoidable activities

Lighter cells show optionalactivities

Destinations and uses to which C&DW may be put

2.29 There is a clear relationship between the possible destinations to which C&DW may be sentand the final fate of the waste materials concerned. It is possible to define a range of possibledestinations/uses to which they may go once they have been collected on-site. These willinclude one or more of the following:

Re-use options

(i) re-use on-site for the original intended purpose;

(ii) re-use off-site for the original intended purpose;

Recycling options

(iii) on-site processing to recover high value saleable materials;

(iv) off-site processing to recover high value saleable materials;

(v) recycling on-site for a low-value purpose (including non-essential land raising);

(vi) recycling off-site for a low-value purpose (including non-essential land raising);


Incineration options

(vii) off-site incineration with energy recovery;

(viii) off-site incineration without energy recovery;

Landfilling options

(ix) off-site landfilling of segregated waste materials;

(x) off-site landfilling of unsegregated waste.

2.30 There is a general issue related to re-use (options (i) and (ii) above) which causes seriousproblems in some Member States, and which was discussed at length but not resolved by thePriority Waste Streams Programme C&DW Project Group. The issue is the interpretation ofthe definition of waste.

2.31 Although we deal with this in greater detail in Chapter 3, an example concerns the treatmentof materials which the demolition contractor intends to re-use for their original purposewithout any form of treatment, and which he treats and stores like a commercial productrather than a waste material. We believe that the Directive does not intend that these shouldbe treated as waste, or recorded as such. This will apply to some unused constructionmaterials (where new building is taking place) as well as to ‘architectural salvage’ and othervaluable items (such as fireplaces, wood panelling, doors, sealed double glazing units, certainroof tiles etc) from demolition sites. Similar (but different) considerations apply to stockpilesof inert materials, particularly crushed materials which are then unsold C&DW-derivedaggregates.

2.32 As far as the recycling options are concerned (see (iii) to (vi) above), it can be difficult inpractice to draw a clear distinction between them, though they range from sending scrap steelto mini mills for processing into new steel to the breaking up (but not crushing) of concrete toproduce material suitable for filling holes or creating noise bunds on the original site.

2.33 During the course of this study we found the distinction between ‘high value’ and ‘low value’materials and uses to be confusing and unhelpful. This distinction was therefore abandoned.The main test which we used was whether the recycled product was saving a new material.There are certainly cases where excavated soil and poor quality C&DW-derived aggregateshave been used to create ‘low value’ landscaping features and noise bunds that would nototherwise have been built, but obtaining any meaningful data on the basis of such adistinction is virtually impossible.

2.34 There is a whole range of techniques, and a great deal of research and technical literature,applicable to the recycling of road materials, and particularly the bituminous and asphalt-bound materials. In general these have nothing in common with those applicable todemolition waste from buildings and civil structures. This report is primarily concerned with‘core’ C&DW, but Chapter 6 deals specifically with road maintenance and construction issues.

2.35 The incineration and landfilling options (see (vii) to (x) above) are self explanatory, andincineration only applies to a few wastes such as uncontaminated wood waste and someplastics (including some packaging materials). In theory it may be possible to landfill C&DWin dedicated landfills with a view to future processing and recovery when market conditionsare more favourable. In practice this option has seldom been used to date.

Changes in material types over time

2.36 This issue was briefly raised in Chapter 1 under the heading ‘The changing nature of C&DW’.The sort of considerations which affect the nature and volume of C&DW include the following:

(i) individual family dwellings are predominantly built of blocks, brick and wood, withwood much more widely used in Scandinavia than elsewhere in the EU;


(ii) the 1950s and 1960s apartment buildings which accommodated the flood of workersto post-war urban industrial centres in most Member States were generally built ofreinforced concrete, with copper piping replacing lead;

(iii) by the 1980s plastics (especially PVC double glazing units) were becomingwidespread in pipes and window frames in all sorts of residential buildings;

(iv) many industrial and commercial buildings erected since the 1980s have benefitedfrom faster construction techniques based on steel frames, itself a reflection of lowerdemand for steel from heavy industry;

(v) steel-framed structures lack the ‘natural’ fire resistance provided by concrete andbrick, requiring much more fire proofing of beams and columns (often involvinghydrocarbon-based materials) and fire fighting systems (often involving chemicalswhich may themselves be hazardous);

(vi) the glass cladding which characterises many modern corporate headquartersbuildings and shopping centres will in turn affect the composition of future C&DWarisings;

(vii) city centres with strong conservation laws often require developers to preserve theoriginal façades of buildings, re-building behind them;

(viii) some cities built on suitable soils require new buildings to have underground parkingfacilities and/or civil defence shelters, greatly increasing the volumes of soil and rockwhich must be excavated and removed;

(ix) irrespective of the primary materials from which they were constructed, olderbuildings are more likely to contain hazardous material such as asbestos, CFCs andPCBs, because controls on these materials have been tightened over time;

(x) similarly, as controls have been imposed on the use of hazardous materials incommerce and industry, so the potential for contamination of the fabric of buildingstructures from the products used or made in them, and from the wider environment,has decreased;

(xi) the trend in fixatives, fillers and coatings has moved from nails, screws, plaster,mortar and emulsion paints to organic resins and solvent-based products which,although inert or at least non-hazardous in their final form, are made up on site fromcomponents which are often flammable and/or toxic, and whose residues andcontainers are therefore also potentially hazardous;

(xii) bonding also makes full separation of waste streams more difficult;

(xiii) the changing balance between road construction and maintenance (as well asassociated infrastructure such as bridges and tunnels) affects the nature of recyclablematerial arisings, and the demand for other C&DW-derived aggregates.

Issues related to hazardousness and sep arate collection

Preliminary considerations

2.37 Many of the issues raised under this heading are driven by the imperatives of the wastehierarchy (see Chapter 1). This requires all materials to be moved up the hierarchy (fromdisposal towards re-use if they must arise at all), which in turn introduces a need forseparation and separate handling, which we consider here. Issues related to recoveryprocesses are dealt with in Chapter 4 and 5.

2.38 Council Directive 91/689/EEC establishes a list of criteria (in its Annex III) to be used whenthe hazardousness of wastes is being determined, and required the Commission to draw up alist of hazardous wastes. This list was subsequently published as Council Decision94/904/EEC (the hazardous waste list).


2.39 Very few materials which may be classified as C&DW are invariably hazardous as defined inDirective 91/689/EEC or Decision 94/904/EEC. One of the most obvious examples of thissmall group, and certainly the one which is most frequently cited, is asbestos-basedinsulation. However, some other materials may be hazardous because they display one ormore of the characteristics used in the Directive’s Annex III to define hazardousness (such astoxicity or flammability). These characteristics may only be revealed under specificcircumstances, and it may be possible to avoid those circumstances.

2.40 Furthermore, some other waste materials which are found in relatively small amounts inC&DW (such as paint and plastics), although not necessarily hazardous, are not inert either.For the sake of the much larger inert fraction, such materials should be kept separate fromthe inert fraction if at all possible. If they are not, it may not be possible to treat the main bulkof the materials as inert.

2.41 Finally, some inert materials (such as bricks and roof tiles) may be suitable for re-use, andtherefore require separate collection if this is to become a realistic option.

2.42 Our general conclusion is that selective demolition (which greatly assists separate collectionby separating materials at source) is a very desirable activity which should be encouraged,and possibly even required. Although local planners and regulators should take into accountthe availability of recycling and disposal facilities when encouraging or requiring selectivedemolition, they should also recognise that the two issues are interrelated. While they shouldnot overwhelm local facilities by requiring them to deal with more materials than they cansensibly handle, they can by their decisions stimulate recyclers to expand their capacity byintroducing a clear and consistent policy on selective demolition.

2.43 As a general point it is fair to say that control of hazardous wastes and others which should becollected separately ought to be easier on construction sites than on demolition sites(because the management’s knowledge of the materials should be better, being under theircontrol and of their choice). Economies of scale mean that organising and controllinghazardous materials should be easier on large construction sites than on small ones. Ondemolition sites, matters can be greatly helped if a proper pre-demolition survey is organised.

2.44 We deal in the remainder of this Section with matters relating to hazardousness, sorting andseparate collection under the following sub-headings:

(i) hazardous and potentially hazardous C&DW;

(ii) non-inert C&DW justifying sorting and separate collection;

(iii) inert C&DW justifying sorting and separate collection.

Hazardous and potentially hazardous C&DW

2.45 The key considerations related to hazardousness are summarised in Figure 2.4 below.

2.46 Annex 7 comprises a more detailed table of some potentially hazardous materials that maybe encountered as a result of construction and demolition activities, including therefurbishment of existing buildings. It identifies those components which are potentiallyhazardous, the properties that make them potentially hazardous, and some of the optionsmost likely to be considered for their treatment and/or disposal.


Figure 2.4: Types of Hazardousness in C&DW

Waste Streams Examples

1 Some C&DW streams arehazardous because the materialsoriginally used contained a highproportion of materials which werethemselves hazardous.

Examples include asbestos, lead, tars, paint andpreservative residues, adhesives, bondingagents and sealants and certain plastics.

2 Some materials become hazardousas a direct result of theenvironment in which they haveexisted for many years.

An example would be a factory where surfacereactions between the originally non-hazardousbuilding materials and chemicals carried in air(or water) pollution associated with theprocesses in or near the factory resulted in partsof the building’s fabric becoming hazardous, andrequiring special handling or treatment.

3 Some C&DW streams becomehazardous if hazardous materialsare left in them and/orsubsequently get mixed with them.

The classic example concerns lead-based painttins thrown onto a pile of bricks and concrete,making the whole pile hazardous waste.

2.47 On construction sites, a small number of building materials, such as asbestos sheet orinsulation, may be hazardous in their own right. Others which are not themselves hazardousin their final form (including some adhesives, coatings and sealants) are either made up onsite by a reaction between hazardous materials, or are supplied to site in solvent carriers. Anysurplus pre-cursor materials and/or ‘empty’ containers with residual quantities of productwhich find their way into the C&DW stream are hazardous.

2.48 Specific hazardous and potentially-hazardous items that may occur on new construction sitesinclude:

(i) solvent-based concrete additives;

(ii) damp proofing chemicals;

(iii) adhesives;

(iv) tar-based emulsions;

(v) asbestos-based materials;

(vi) mineral fibres (insulation);

(vii) some paints and coatings;

(viii) treated timber;

(ix) resins;

(x) plasterboard;

(xi) empty or part empty gas bottles (from cutting, welding etc).

2.49 On demolition sites there are always likely to be some materials (such as asbestos andsodium/mercury vapour lamps) which are hazardous in their own right. Residues ofhazardous substances manufactured, used or stored at the site may remain. Where possiblethese should be removed from the site prior to demolition activities commencing. If they havebecome impregnated into the fabric of the building it may be possible to neutralise or treatthem in situ prior to demolition.


2.50 Some specific hazardous and potentially hazardous items that may be encountered ondemolition sites are listed below. These include some (the first three and the last) which alsooccur on the construction materials list provided above:

(i) asbestos-based materials;

(ii) treated timber;

(iii) mineral fibres (insulation);

(iv) electrical equipment containing toxic components;

(v) CFC-based refrigerants;

(vi) CFC-based fire fighting systems;

(vii) radionuclides;

(viii) biohazards;

(ix) empty or part empty gas bottles (from cutting, welding etc).

2.51 Refurbishment works are likely to produce a mixture of materials typical of both constructionand demolition sites. Since the main fabric of the building is likely to be substantiallyuntouched, the percentage of hazardous material is likely to be higher on refurbishment sitesthan on mainstream demolition or construction sites. Even so, experience (as reported by -among others - ADEME, see Annex 10, Ref 7.1) shows that it is unlikely to exceed 10% of thetotal.

Non-inert C&DW justifying sorting and separate collection

2.52 Some materials may be inert or relatively non-hazardous in situ, but could become hazardousdepending on the disposal method. For example some treated or coated timber can give riseto toxic fumes if incinerated. Untreated wood, while eminently suitable for incineration if itcannot be re-used or recycled, should be removed from the inert fraction if at all possible,because its presence in a crushed aggregate material will detract from the value of thataggregate. The same applies to many plastic and textile wastes which can be found on mostdemolition sites.

2.53 Gypsum, when placed in a landfill can generate hydrogen sulphide, an acid gas. It can alsodetract from the quality of an aggregate if present in excessive amounts. There is no widelyagreed figure for the maximum acceptable percentage of gypsum in C&DW-derivedaggregate, nor are there widely agreed limit values for landfilling gypsum.

2.54 Other non-inert materials and products justify sorting and separate collection as a result oftheir economic (resale) value. Examples include carved wood panelling, doors, sealed doubleglazing units (especially those with hard wood or PVC frames).

Inert C&DW justifying sorting and separate collection

2.55 The main justification for sorting inert materials from the stream which will be crushed iseconomic. Metals have a well-established resale value, and in some areas and at some timesmaterials such as bricks and tiles are in considerable demand. This is most likely to occur inurban areas with an established historical architectural and buildings materials style.


3. ECONOMIC AND ADMINISTRATIVE FACTORS AFFECTING RE-USE AND RECYCLING

Introductory comments

3.1 In this Chapter we look at the primarily non-technical barriers to greater re-use and recyclingof C&DW. As well as the obvious economic considerations which are central to this study, wedeal with three primarily administrative factors:

(i) the way in which recycling can be discouraged or even rendered impossible by anunhelpful interpretation of the term ‘waste’;

(ii) land use planning and/or environmental controls on processing activities; and

(iii) questions related to those standards and norms which are applied to C&DW-derivedaggregates.

3.2 Some of these administrative issues in particular have occupied many other study teamsworking on projects for DGXI, DGXII and Eurostat, and we have sought not to cover the sameground again in inappropriate detail.

3.3 In dealing with economic costs we have limited our consideration to internalised costs whichcan be expressed in monetary terms, and not sought to take environmental externalities(including issues related to the non-renewability of certain resources) into account. This ismainly because such externalities are hard to quantify, and there is no evidence (that wehave found) of a broadly accepted position on their monetary valuation. This, we believe, islargely because such impacts are essentially site-specific and their financial costs subjectivein nature, making generalisations potentially misleading.

Economic consid erations

Economic modelling

3.4 Several years ago a macroeconomic model describing C&DW recycling was produced in theNetherlands, and published in CUR Report No.125 (see Annex 10, Ref 10.1.3). This modelwas subsequently used in a quantified assessment of the costs of selective demolition and re-use of secondary aggregates versus landfilling of unsegregated C&DW. This latter exercisewas carried out by experts now with PRC Bouwcentrum and COWI (both participants in thepresent study), and the results were reported in the research report ‘Recyclability in concreteof demolition refuses containing materials non-compatible to the traditional cement matrix’(see Annex 10, Ref 2.3).

3.5 The CUR model deals with the factors which drive decisions, and the factors which determinea material’s value. Taking a very similar (but not identical) approach, we consider that, in thecontext of this project, there are two key decisions to be considered:

(i) the potential user’s decision whether to use primary aggregates or C&DW-derivedaggregates; and

(ii) the demolition manager’s decision whether or not to separate the various C&DWstreams for individual treatment and/or use/disposal.

3.6 We consider these two decisions below. Although there is a case for following the flow ofmaterials, and dealing with choices on the recycling site before considering how the recycledmaterial may be used, in fact the whole process should be (and generally is) market-led. Inother words, nobody willingly separates recyclable materials as a prelude to landfilling them,and the market demand for C&DW-derived aggregates, the largest recoverable component,largely determines the nature of the recycling process. We recognise, of course, that in someMember States it is now a legal requirement that C&DW be separated and treated rather thanlandfilled, so this option is not open to all.

The economics of construction


3.7 We are concerned here with the economic considerations which might lead a constructioncompany or materials specifier to select C&DW-derived aggregates rather than primary orsecondary materials (i.e. quarried materials, or waste materials such as pulverised fly ash).

3.8 Although some potential users of aggregates do choose recycled materials to enhance their‘green credentials’, most can be assumed to act dispassionately, and (assuming that the twomaterials are equally capable of meeting their needs), to choose C&DW-derived aggregateswhenever:

Qp + Tq > Er + RCp + Tr

where: Qp = Price of newly quarried product at the quarry gateTq = Cost of transport from quarry to siteEr = Any extra costs created by using C&DW-derived aggregatesRCp = Price of recycled product at the recycling centre gateTr = Cost of transport from recycling centre to site

3.9 Qp can be assumed to be fixed by market forces. In the short term, and for the vast majorityof users, Qp will hardly be affected by individual choices whether or not to use C&DW-derived aggregates, though with greater market penetration there will be a general downwardpressure on aggregate prices.

3.10 Tq and Tr will largely depend on distance, because with bulk materials loading and unloadingcosts are small. There is no obvious reason to assume that, in general, Tq will be significantlydifferent from Tr (unless the C&DW-derived aggregates are re-used on their original site, inwhich case Tr = 0). Most primary aggregates are either quarried close to where they are used,or must find a low cost mode of transport (rail or water) if they are to travel significantdistances. Although most urban areas are adequately served either by local landfills or bylocations where a fixed C&DW recycling facility could be installed, the trend is for wastes totravel longer distances to disposal facilities, particularly in more densely populated areas.

3.11 Er is made up of an ‘objective component’ and a ‘subjective component’, representing theprice advantage which the user demands before buying C&DW-derived aggregates instead ofprimary material. The objective component may be quite small, but is likely to includeadditional storage and cleaning costs at the location where the aggregates are to be used, asa result of needing to maintain separate stockpiles and to switch machines over betweenbatches. C&DW-derived aggregates sometimes also need to be wetted before mixing, unlikeprimary aggregates. The rest of Er represents the ‘subjective component’, which is the valuewhich the user places on the intangible benefits of using primary materials.

3.12 We assumed at the outset that the potential user makes his choice on the basis that therecycled and primary materials are technically interchangeable. In fact, of course, this is oftennot true. Recycled materials may well have slightly different mechanical, physical andchemical properties (which makes crushed concrete more cementitious than quarried gravel,for example). In such cases the decision maker may have to adjust the quantities of materialsto be compared, but this does not change the essential structure of the decision-makingprocess.

3.13 The same approach can also be applied to other choices between re-used or recycled andnew materials (such as used versus new bricks, or plaster board using recycled versus newgypsum).

The economics of recycling versus disposal

3.14 The decisions which determine the style and detail of the demolition process may be taken bythe original owner of the site, or by a new owner who is planning to erect a new structure on it,or by a contractor or consultant working directly or indirectly for either of these two parties.The discussion below deals with financial costs and benefits but excludes the environmentalcosts. Adding these in would complicate the discussion of the decision making process, notleast because the costs and benefits fall on different persons, but it would not change theprinciples.


3.15 Under the simpler, more traditional model (in which the original owner employs the demolitioncontractor), the demolition contractor can advise the owner on the best way of organising thework, including options for selective demolition and materials recovery and recycling.Increasingly, though, site owners are tending to employ lead contractors who are responsiblefor managing the whole construction process from clearing the site right through to erectingand fitting out the new building. These contractors usually have strong financial incentivesbuilt into their contracts to complete the job as quickly as possible, which they will seek topass on to their chosen demolition contractor.

3.16 Under this second model, although the demolition contractor may acquire the right to sell anymaterials derived from the site, unless the values are high enough to offset any timepenalties set in his contract, he will inevitably seek to propose a methodology which goes nofurther than complying with all regulatory (or other) requirements regarding separation ofwaste streams.

3.17 We refer to whoever is driving the process (whether the owner, contractor or consultant) asthe demolition manager. His decision can also be expressed as an equation. At its simplest,he can be assumed to choose selective demolition and separate handling whenever:

Vm(Tm + Dm) > V1(T1 + R/D1 - SV1) + V2(T2 + R/D2 - SV2) ... Vn(Tn + R/Dn - SVn) + Es

where: Vm = Volume of unsorted C&DWTm = Cost of transporting unsorted waste to disposal siteDm = Cost of disposing of unsorted wasteV1 = Volume of inert wasteT1 = Cost of transporting inert waste to recycling or disposal siteR/D1 = Cost of recycling or disposing of inert waste (including qualitycontrol costs)SV1 = Sale value of recycled product (if relevant)2 ...n = Other sorted waste streamsEs = Additional costs of separate demolition and materials sorting

3.18 SV1 as defined above is equal to RCp from the first equation.

3.19 In general terms these expressions should be self explanatory. The complexity of the right-hand half of the equation will depend on the site and the extent to which separate handling isproposed.

3.20 Although it is highly unlikely to be structured in this very formal way (and our discussions withcontractors confirm that it is not), the decision will take into account the costs of handling,transporting, processing and disposing of all the separated fractions, not just the inert fractionwhich can be converted into aggregate. This is one way in which our approach differs fromthe CUR model, which only considers the aggregate fraction.

3.21 The additional costs associated with separate demolition and materials sorting (Es) willinclude any additional costs created by time and/or space constraints. On all sites they will beaffected by the cost of labour, but more particularly by the costs of machinery. In order to tryto compare the decision making process on different site types and in different MemberStates, the labour cost component needs to be expressed as an ECU wage rate and time andproductivity factors. The same thing needs to be done for fixed and variable machinery coststo facilitate the asking of a series of different ‘what if?’ questions.

3.22 The results of this process are presented in Chapter 9.

3.23 The link between the two equations specified so far has already been identified as the returnsfrom recycling (SV1 or RCp). Recycling will generally occur if these returns exceed the costsof recycling. Taking the relatively simple case of the demolition contractor with his ownrecycling centre, this means where:

SV1 (or RCp) > Dc - Df + T1 + R/D1 + LFri + Tri + recycler’s profit margin

where: Dc = Full on-site demolition costs not paid direct by the site owner,


including Es (previously defined)Df = Demolition fee (paid by site owner to demolition contractor)T1 = Transport costs (previously defined)R/D1 = Costs of crushing & sorting inert wastes (previously defined)LFri = Costs of landfilling residual (post-crushing) inert materialsTri = Costs of transporting residual inert materials to landfill

3.24 Dc will be heavily affected by the specific characteristics of the site, and the extent to whichmachinery can be used to demolish the structures there. Where the recycling process relieson a mobile crusher on the original site T1 will be zero. In general LFri and Tri will be small.

3.25 Some adaptation would be necessary to simulate the (rather simpler) decision facing ademolition contractor who had to pay an access fee to a recycling centre rather than using hisown.

The economics of landfilling versus ‘fly tipping’

3.26 ‘Fly tipping’ is the practice of illegally dumping waste. This is usually done beside a road, oron open land, or in a wood. However, in some Member States (notably Spain and Portugal)there is a long tradition of unregulated but acknowledged waste dumps. Although these arebeing actively closed down as waste management practices improve (see Annex 10, Ref11.3), some of these still receive MSW and C&DW with the local authorities’ tacit approval.

3.27 Economic theory suggests that ‘fly tipping’ is likely to be more of a problem where landfillcharges are high. Observation of real life does not support this view, suggesting that, wherelandfill charges are stable (whether high or low), the main determining factor is theexpectation and consequences of being caught ‘fly tipping’. Poor policing and limitedsanctions appear to be more likely than high landfill charges to encourage higher absolutelevels of ‘fly tipping’. However, any sudden rise in landfill charges (as a result, for instance, ofthe introduction of a landfill tax) will inevitably produce increases in the level of ‘fly tipping’. Inthe UK the Environment Agency has reported increases in general ‘fly tipping’ since thelandfill tax was introduced in 1996, including many incidents of illegally-tipped builders’ waste(according to the ‘Surveyor’, 13 August 1998). However, experience would suggest that oncethe industry has adjusted to higher charges, ‘fly tipping’ will revert to something like itsprevious level.

Administrative factors

The interpretation of ‘waste’

3.28 The Framework Directive on waste (75/442/EEC as amended by 91/156/EEC) defines wasteas “... any substance or object in the categories set out in Annex I which the holder discardsor intends or is required to discard ...” (our emphasis). Annex I to the Directive contains 15specific categories of waste (none of which refers to anything remotely like the inert fractionof C&DW, or to most other fractions either) plus a catch-all of “... any materials, substancesor products which are not contained in the above categories.”

3.29 In 1995 the report of the C&DW Priority Waste Streams Project recommended (in itsrecommendation number 6) that:

“The Commission should review the definition of waste in Council Directive 75/442/EEC onwaste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC, with the objective of developing aproposal whereby products and materials destined for re-use and recycling are not defined aswaste.”

3.30 We were made aware during the course of our researches for this study that the demolitionand recycling industries regularly experience cases where inert (and some non-inert)materials which neither the building’s owner nor the demolition contractor nor the recyclingcentre ever intend to discard (and which require no processing before they are re-used) arebeing treated by waste regulators as waste.


3.31 The demolition and recycling industries’ concerns (and desire for further detailed clarification)are also focused on those inert wastes which are destined to be crushed and recycled asC&DW-derived aggregates. These materials are waste before they are processed, but ceaseto be waste on successful completion of the recycling process.

3.32 By way of illustrating why there is concern, we would simply note that it is alleged that someofficials (in the UK and possibly elsewhere) have threatened to prosecute users of C&DW-derived aggregates for illegal waste disposal because the aggregates they have used containvery small proportions of wood, plastics or similar ‘contraries’, even though the materialsmeet the technical requirements of the aggregate specification. The potentially seriousconsequences of losing a legal challenge have so far discouraged any recyclers from testingthis point through the courts.

3.33 It would therefore be desirable, in our view, if a detailed guidance note on the interpretation ofwaste in the specific context of C&DW management could be issued at EU level. It isrecognised that any change must provide adequate safeguards against abuse by those whosimply wish to evade the provisions of waste regulation.

OECD guidance on deciding when a waste is no longer a waste

3.34 The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has recently issued a‘Final guidance document for distinguishing waste from non-waste’ (see Annex 10, Ref 1.2.2).Although this guidance has been developed within the context of transfrontier movements ofwastes destined for recovery operations, it provides some helpful pointers relevant to adiscussion of when C&DW is and is not a waste, and when it becomes a non-waste productas a result of processing.

3.35 The OECD definition of waste is “...materials other than radioactive materials intended fordisposal for reasons specified in Table 1.” (Table 1 specifies 16 reasons why materials areintended for disposal by virtue of their condition. These reasons only differ in trivial ways fromthe 16 categories of waste listed in Annex I to the Framework Directive on waste). Disposal(in the sense used by the OECD) means any of the operations specified in their Table 2,which in turn is split into two tables dealing with final disposal operations and recoveryoperations. (These two tables, 2.A and 2.B, are very nearly identical to Annexes IIA and IIB tothe Framework Directive on waste).

3.36 The guidance document observes that “... the intended destination of a material is thedecisive factor in the OECD definition. However, it is not the decisive factor in many of thedefinitions enacted by many OECD Member countries.” The Framework Directive definition ofwaste, by contrast, hinges on the concept of discarding. The guidance document observesthat “... whilst the notion of discarding may differ from the OECD notion of disposing, bothnotions encompass the consignment of a material/waste to a recovery/recycling/reclamationprocess.”

3.37 It is pointed out that “... when a waste material is subjected to a recovery process more thanone material can be produced at the end of the process. It is likely that at least one of thematerials ... could be a waste. The fact that a material meets a recognisednational/international standard/specification when it is derived from an environmentally soundrecovery operation may provide evidence that it has ceased to be a waste. However, theexistence of a specification is not in itself sufficient.” It is also stated that “... the simplesorting of a waste to meet an industrial specification is not considered, by many Membercountries, to constitute an adequate means of recovery/recycling/reclamation.”

3.38 The document concludes by suggesting that “... a waste ceases to be a waste when arecovery, or another comparable, process eliminates or sufficiently diminishes the threatposed to the environment by the original material (waste) and yields a material of sufficientbeneficial use. In general the recovery of a material (waste) will have taken place when:

(a) it requires no further processing by a Table 2.B operation;AND

(b) the recovered material can and will be used in the same wayas a material which has not been defined as waste;


AND(c) the recovered material meets all relevant

health and environmental requirements.”

3.39 While recognising the potential problems embodied in the phrase “... all relevant health andenvironmental requirements”, it appears to us that a guidance document based on theseprinciples would meet most if not all of the objections that we have identified in the specificcontext of C&DW. The potential problems to which we allude relate to requirements that arerelevant to a recycled material but not to its primary ‘competitor’ (or vice versa). An exampleconcerns leachates which may be produced by C&DW-derived aggregates but not primarymaterials.

Land use planning and environmental controls

3.40 One of the key challenges facing many would-be recyclers, and particularly those interestedin establishing a fixed recycling centre, is identifying and securing a suitable site. The idealsite would be close to an urban area (where C&DW will both arise and be re-used, therebykeeping transport costs and associated environmental impacts down), but sufficientlyremoved from both non-human environmental receptors and housing to keep adverseenvironmental and amenity impacts (as discussed in Chapter 1) to an acceptable minimum.

3.41 Some large cities have official ‘green belts’ established around them. Requiring C&DW to gofrom the city through the green belt to a processing centre, and then back across the greenbelt in the form of C&DW-derived aggregate to a user in the city may well make recyclinguneconomic. The attitude of the land use planning system to recycling can therefore beimportant, and local authorities can assist by identifying enough areas suitable for C&DWprocessing in their published plans, in the same way that they do other potential land uses.The Priority Waste Steams Project report (see Annex 10, Ref 1.1) makes variousrecommendations (notably numbers 14-19) which remain relevant in the context of wasteplanning, and which we endorse. Several are also pertinent to land use planning.

3.42 Environmental controls (primarily related to noise and dust) affect both on-site and off-siteprocessing. Emphasising the temporary nature of impacts may favour on-site processing.This is comparable to the more lenient conditions often imposed on a construction site ascompared to the process which will subsequently occupy the site.

Standards and norms for secondary and recycled materials

3.43 A specification is primarily a description of something to be made or done, produced with theaim of controlling the quality of materials, their production and use. It allows a contract to takeplace and gives confidence to the parties to the contract by controlling the risks. National andinternational specifications have been produced to assist designers and specifiers by definingparameters considered to be acceptable to all parties to a contract. The standardisation ofspecifications therefore removes the need for their individual preparation for eachconstruction project.

3.44 However, specifications depend on accepted practice, and their widespread use reflects thegenerally conservative nature of designers and specifiers. Using an existing specificationsaves time (and possibly money) at the design stage, but can inhibit innovation, simplybecause specifications will not include new or untried materials.

3.45 While national and international specifications are routinely used in construction forconvenience, they are not a prerequisite. Alternative mechanisms for controlling risk, such asbespoke specifications and externally verified quality certification, can be used provided theyare acceptable to both parties to the contract. The requirement on designers and specifiers isto identify the properties and qualities required of materials appropriate to their proposed use,and to satisfy themselves and their clients that the materials proposed will meet these.

3.46 Much attention has been paid to the need for technical standards applicable to recycledC&DW and there is a universal acceptance in the construction industry that properlyformulated performance specifications can safely permit the use of products derived fromsecondary and recycled materials.


3.47 This whole subject area, and the role played by RILEM (the Réunion Internationale desLaboratoires d’Essais et de recherches sur les Matériaux et les constructions) and CEN (theEuropean standards body) was reviewed in a 1997 report on a Brite-EuRam project entitled‘Use of Recycled Materials as Aggregates in the Construction Industry’ (see Annex 10, Ref2.1).

3.48 In practice most national bodies are waiting for CEN Technical Committee 154 (‘an ad hocgroup for recycled aggregates’), whose remit in respect of construction materials requires thedevelopment of performance specifications that permit the use of products derived fromrecycled materials. Inevitably this is a lengthy process, and the conclusion of most expertswho have dealt with this issue in any depth is that the industry cannot wait the many yearswhich it will take for formal standards to be adopted, and that interim measures are requiredto fill the gap in the meanwhile.

3.49 While there is agreement on the need for appropriate specifications, there is a difference ofopinion in the industry as to whether such specifications need to be developed specifically forsecondary and recycled materials, or whether specifications should permit the use of allmaterials irrespective of their source. This debate stems primarily from the need for particularissues to be addressed which relate solely to secondary and recycled materials. For example,the potential for leaching of contaminants is an issue not addressed by traditional ‘recipe’based specifications. ‘Recipe’ based specifications define the physical constituents of amaterial rather than setting performance criteria which it must meet.

3.50 The unresolved nature of this debate is reflected in the differing approaches adopted by thevarious Member States (as reported in Annex 6). Austria, Denmark, Germany and theNetherlands have all developed some standards specifically for secondary and recycledmaterials with the Netherlands also adopting performance specifications. The UK and Irelandmake limited provision for the use of some secondary and recycled materials in roadconstruction. The UK also has one national standard ‘BS 6543: 1985 British Standard Guideto the Use of Industrial By-products and Waste Materials in Building and Civil Engineering’.France, Italy, Portugal and Finland do not make specific provision for the use of secondaryand recycled materials. In the UK, Italy, Spain and Belgium, externally verified qualitycertification systems covering both materials and recycling plants have been adopted tofacilitate the use of recycled materials. If such national systems diverge and becomeentrenched, it is almost inevitable that they will create market barriers to cross-border trade inrecycled aggregates.

3.51 The demand for materials for particular uses also needs to be given careful consideration. Ingeneral, even if all C&DW was re-used or recycled, the quantities are such that they wouldonly meet a comparatively small proportion of the demand for construction materials (seeAnnex 4). Primary materials will therefore continue to have to meet the bulk of the demandfor the foreseeable future.

3.52 C&DW-derived aggregates provide a good illustration of the appropriate use of recycledmaterials. Road and car park construction is an activity where properly quality controlledC&DW-derived aggregates can meet the technical and environmental requirements for thiscomparatively low grade use. Structural concrete on the other hand requires higher strengthsand a greater degree of consistency. Given that a high level of demand for road constructionmaterials is likely to be sustained it must be questioned whether the effort required to produceconcrete-quality recycled aggregates can be justified other than in exceptional circumstances.

3.53 While there may be local circumstances where access to primary materials is limited, and theuse of secondary and recycled materials for high grade use is therefore cost effective, unlessthere is a very significant downturn in the demand for new infrastructure, it is not consideredthat this will become widespread.

3.54 In view of the attention being given to this topic in other fora, it seems unlikely that a furtherinitiative on standards and norms would be appropriate or even helpful. However, to avoid thecontinuing uncertainties surrounding technical specifications, pressure should be applied tothe participants in the RILEM and CEN working groups to resolve the issues as soon aspossible.


4. PROCESSES AND BEST PRACTICE GUIDANCE: DEMOLITION, RENOVATION ANDRECYCLING SITES

Processes commonly found on demolition and renovation sites

4.1 In Chapter 2 we identified a series of activities likely to be found on any demolition site (seeFigure 2.2). Most of these (such as demolition of the main structure, clearance of the site anddisposal of the residual materials) are unavoidable, because if they are not carried out, thendemolition cannot be considered to have occurred. The one more ‘optional’ activity, and theone which has the greatest influence on the extent to which materials are re-used and/orrecycled is, by common consent, selective demolition (Activity 1).

4.2 Selective demolition (which also applies to sites which are being renovated) can beconsidered to comprise a series of sub-activities, as set out below in Figure 4.1. Althoughthese sub-activities can take place in any sequence (or even concurrently), they will generallybe organised in roughly the order shown.

Figure 4.1: Component Elements of Selective Demolition

Sub-Activity Materials Comment

1a Selective removal ofaccessible materialswith obvious salesvalue.

Valuable architectural salvage(such as fireplaces, stainedglass, carved doors and wallpanelling, some decorativewrought iron and tiles), somesorts of roof tiles, some sealeddouble glazed window and doorunits, some electrical fittings,some metals (such as lead offthe roof and easily accessibleitems such as copper pipes andwiring).

If the owners of the sitedo not manage thisprocess, ‘informalrecyclers’ (i.e. thieves)may do it for them.

1b Selective removal ofaccessible materialswhich, if notremoved, will causethe C&DW to betreated ashazardous.

Asbestos and other hazardousmaterials (see final Section ofChapter 2).

This will reduce theproportion of C&DW thathas to go to hazardouslandfill.

1c Selective removal ofmaterials which, ifnot removed, willdepress the value ofthe remaining C&DWwhen crushed.

Other accessible wooden items,other accessible plastic items,excessive volumes of glass.Even plaster (gypsum) may beremoved for this reason.

This will raise the value ofthe C&DW-derivedaggregates subsequentlyproduced.

1d Chemical treatmentin situ of thoseexposed parts of thebuilding fabric whichhave becomecontaminated duringthe life of thebuilding, followed byremoval ifappropriate.

Surface materials (roofing,walls, floors) which haveundergone chemical changes.

This is a relatively newconcept/ activity. It is onlylikely to be appropriate inthe case of industrialstructures.


Figure 4.2: Activity Flow on Construction Sites Figure 4.3: Arisings of Waste Materials Related tothe Activities in Figure 4.2

Architectural salvage, roof tiles, electrical fittings,metals, asbestos and other insulation materials,

wood, plastics, glass, plaster

Concrete, tarmac, stone, top soil, pipework(drains, water, gas etc.), electrical and telecoms

wiring, sub-stations

Tree trunks, scrub,some top soil

Concrete, bricksetc. (crushed or

not)

Packaging (including empty containers for welding gases and other contaminatedmaterials), broken and surplus building materials (bricks, blocks, beams, frames,

aggregates, paint, varnish etc.), waste oil

Steel, wood,plastics, glass

and/or

and/or

Remove selected materials from existingstructure(s), possibly after in situ treatment

Demolish the balance of the structure(s). Striphard surface coverings and remove any unwanted

existing services and utility connections forrecycling or disposal

Clear and disposeof unwanted

surface vegetation

Separate selectedmaterials (such asembedded beams

and reinforcingrods) by hand orby using “scissor”

crushers

Crush and sortrubble to produce

C&DW-derivedaggregates plus

some furtherwaste

Store or shipC&DW-derived

aggregates and/ormixed C&DW

stream

Prepare levels andfoundations for

new structure(s)

Prepare to leavesite clear and

vacant

Erect new structure(s), then treat or dispose of construction-related wastematerials

Landfill, incinerate, compost or recycle each waste stream individually

Treat and/ordispose of non-rubble C&DW

stream(s)

and/or

and/or


4.3 In all cases, the decision whether or not to undertake any or all of these sub-activities will bedriven by a combination of regulation (of demolition and waste management activities) andmarket forces.

4.4 After whatever selective demolition is decided on has taken place, and after the resultantshell of the structure has been demolished (whether by controlled explosion, mechanically ormanually), there are further stages/sub-activities to be considered, particularly within Activity2 (which covers the demolition of structures and the treatment and disposal of rubble andother wastes). The latter stages of Activity 2 are similar in nature to the latter stages ofActivity 3 (the clearing of surrounding land surfaces and utility connections), in that they bothpotentially involve the sorting and manipulation of materials which have become unavoidablymixed.

4.5 In fact, Figure 2.2 can be presented in a more complex way, with a rather more detailed setof sub-activities, which we have done in Figure 4.2. It should be stressed that Figure 4.2represents the flow of activities, not of materials. The equivalent material flows (i.e. thearisings of C&DW streams) are shown in Figure 4.3. Comparing Figures 4.2 and 4.3 showswhich waste streams are associated with each of the site activities.

4.6 Demolition and its related activities (which appear in the upper half of Figures 4.2 and 4.3)result in the greatest volumes of C&DW (other than soil), and this is the point where policyinitiatives, whether relating to demolition, recycling or disposal, can have the greatest impact.This is therefore the stage on which it has been agreed with the Commission that greatestattention should be focused.

4.7 After the structure has been demolished it is normally possible to remove further steel (orpossibly wooden) beams which were part of the basic structure (and therefore could not beremoved previously). By using heavy duty mechanical ‘scissor’ crushers (described in Annex13) to break open reinforced concrete members, some of the steel reinforcing bars can alsobe removed. Some insulation materials which were inside walls can also be removed by hand(or, possibly more accurately, by non-automated processes).

4.8 If all of these actions have been taken, there will now be a largely inert waste stream which ispredominantly made up of concrete, bricks, some ceramic materials and (possibly) gypsum. Ifthis is not required on site for engineering fill or landscaping (thereby avoiding transportingonto the site primary aggregates or other clean soil), then it can be mechanically crushed andsorted.

4.9 This waste stream can be further treated using a mechanical (‘jaw’ or impact) crusher andsorter. Such crushers and sorters fall into one of two categories: smaller mobile machines(primarily intended for on-site use, but sometimes used off-site at waste transfer stations orrecycling centres) and larger fixed machines (which are more likely to incorporate moresophisticated sorting technology which can remove further remaining traces of other wastesthrough a variety of techniques, including air sorting and washing). We describe a ‘state ofthe art’ recycling centre below.

The choice between on- and off-site processing

4.10 The choice as to whether crushing and sorting should be done on- or off-site is complex, anddepends on many factors including:

(i) the availability (and ownership) of different machines;

(ii) the quality of aggregate required on the demolition site itself;

(iii) the space and time available on the demolition site;

(iv) the haul distances between the site, the nearest available fixed processing site andother treatment and disposal sites.

4.11 In practice, the answer will tend to reflect national and local practice and licensing (includingland use planning and environmental controls), and market forces (which we consider in


greater detail in Chapter 9). Once the rubble goes off-site for crushing, it becomes less likelythat it will be re-used on the original site.

4.12 Figure 4.4 summarises the key factors associated with a choice between on- and off-sitecrushing and sorting facilities. These factors have been brought to our attention and/orconfirmed on the basis of existing knowledge during discussions with operators of C&DWrecycling facilities.

Figure 4.4: Pros and Cons of On- and Off-Site Crushing and Sorting

Advantages of on-site crushing andsorting:

• lower materials handling andtransport costs

• lower machinery capital costs

• less transport disruption tosurrounding areas (if recycledmaterials can be used on-site)

Disadvantages of on-site crushing and sorting:

• conflicts between site operations and spacedemands for materials and machinery

• higher machinery operating costs per tonneof C&DW

• more local noise and dust nuisance

• less flexibility about where/when recycledmaterials can be used

• construction may be delayed

Advantages of off-site crushing andsorting:

• easier to reduce and/or mitigateadverse environmental impacts onsurrounding areas

• more practical to use a wider rangeof higher capacity equipment

• lower machinery operating costs pertonne of C&DW

• easier to control quality of recycledmaterials

• possible to hold stocks, therebymaking positive marketing ofrecycled materials easier

Disadvantages of off-site crushing and sorting:

• proper control of demolition processessential (to avoid arrival of unknown qualitymaterials)

• higher materials handling and transport costs

• higher machinery capital costs

• fixed costs of recycling the site (land etc)

4.13 The point about quality control (in the lower left hand cell of Figure 4.4) appears to be veryimportant. Even in those Member States where C&DW-derived aggregates are alreadyrelatively widely used, the main barrier to greater market acceptance appears to be potentialbuyers’ doubts about their quality and consistency rather than a lack of formal standards forrecycled materials. In some countries there is now a move among C&DW-derived aggregatesproducers to institute external quality verification procedures (typically involving cooperationwith an independent materials testing laboratory), thereby allowing their products to benefitfrom a quality mark.

4.14 The International Recycling Federation (FIR) has recently compared some existing nationalquality systems for recycled materials (including those of Germany, France, the Netherlandsand Austria), and made recommendations as to the structure which such systems shouldfollow. Their recommendations are summarised in Figure 4.5. In general, better productmanagement tends to lead to a better final product which can be used in a wider range ofapplications.


Figure 4.5: Quality Systems for Recycled C&DW (Based on the FIR Recommendation)

Heading Sub-Heading Notes1 - Resources • Determination of sources of

input materials• Avoidance of contamination/

purity

• Sources might include unbound C&DW, hydraulically bound C&DW,bituminously bound C&DW, industrial by-products or incinerator bottom ash

• To be attained by selective demolition and collection of mineral and otherC&DW

2 - Storage • Pre-treatment storage• Post-treatment storage

• Raw materials should be stored separately to achieve good product quality• Treated materials should be stored separately according to quality classes

3 - Preparation • Achieving the requiredproperties

• Preparation should be carried out in such a way as to ensure that the material(s)fit specified quality classes

4 - Type (quality classes) • Classification according to theenvisaged end use

• Recycled materials should be classified according to their intended use(s)

5 - Engineering tests • Particle size distribution• Frost resistance• Stiffness• Compactability

• These and any other tests should (for the time being) be conducted according tonational standards

6 - Composition • Percentage of other minerals• Mixing ratio• Detrimental components• Dangerous components

• Other minerals would be those which differ from the main product (i.e. concretein asphalt granulate)

• Mixing ratio gives the variability of percentages of different mineral products inthe granulate mix

• Detrimental components are materials which adversely affect the mechanicalbehaviour of the material

• Dangerous components are organic or inorganic contaminants which create arisk for the environment

7 - Environmentalacceptability

• Leachability • For recycled materials the parameters and limit values should be definedaccording to the quality class

8 - External monitoring • Determination of parametersand frequency of testing

• To be conducted by a laboratory or testing organisation licensed or recognisedby the Government

9 - Internal monitoring • Determination of parametersand frequency related tovolume of production andquality classes

• To be conducted by either an in-house laboratory or an external organisation

Source: Based on the study team’s own unofficial translation of an FIR document


4.15 Larger off-site crushing and sorting facilities can operate much more like conventionalaggregates quarries, building up stocks of different specification materials which enable themto supply larger contracts without delay. Some operators blend primary and C&DW-derivedaggregates, and there is increasing evidence of primary aggregates operators now enteringthe C&DW recycling sector in the UK, in Italy and in Spain.

4.16 Off-site facilities can also take long enough over the processing to ensure that the amounts ofwood, plastic wastes and other contaminants getting into the final products are kept to anacceptable minimum. Operators of on-site crushers are often under pressure to treatwhatever materials are placed in front of them, and to make the resultant C&DW-derivedaggregates available for the construction process as quickly as possible.

4.17 Off-site crushing and sorting plants which accept C&DW from third parties may well have aproblem with irregular and unpredictable raw materials (which may or may not containhazardous or at least non-inert fractions as a result of the professionalism with which thestructure was demolished, irrespective of the nature and content of the original building).Some plant owners overcome this by controlling the demolition process (if it is done by thirdparties) through close on-site liaison with the demolition contractor. Others rely mainly oncareful, and sometimes multiple, inspections of the incoming materials prior to and duringprocessing. Others simply use a central facility to deal with the waste from all their own localdemolition sites, rather than operating mobile plants at each, and do not accept any C&DWfrom third parties.

‘State of the art’ C&DW processing equipment

4.18 The following description draws heavily on a paper presented to a meeting in the UK (the1997 AAS Seminar, May 1997, London) by representatives of Deutag Remex (now justknown as Remex), the leading German operator of C&DW recycling centres, and on technicalinformation provided by manufacturers of C&DW crushing and sorting equipment.

4.19 There is a general acceptance that German C&DW recycling centres provide a good proxyfor ‘state of the art’ technology. Remex do not act as demolition contractors, but acceptC&DW from many such contractors.

4.20 The incoming inert fraction is weighed and inspected, and placed onto one of a series ofseparate stockpiles for:

(i) broken bricks and tiles;

(ii) reinforced concrete;

(iii) non-reinforced concrete;

(iv) mixed C&DW.

4.21 Broken bricks, tiles, reinforced concrete and non-reinforced concrete are screened through apre-sieving process to remove the 0-45mm fraction (divided into 0-4mm and 4-45mm). Theremaining material then goes to an impact crusher (see below). Material coming out of theimpact crusher passes through a magnetic separator to remove ferrous metals before beingsieved to divide it into 0-45mm and >45mm. The >45mm fraction is placed onto a temporarystockpile for re-crushing, while the 0-45mm fraction is sieved into sub-fractions of 0-4mm, 4-8mm, 8-16mm, 16-32mm and 32-45mm. These sub-fractions can be re-combined into mixesdefined by the end user, or into proprietary (branded) mixes.

4.22 The choice of an impact crusher over a ‘jaw’ crusher reflects the fact that it produces a moreconsistent and predictable aggregate, with sharper edges on the individual granules. Impactcrushers use a high speed rotor inside a container into which the material to be crushed isfed. There are typically four or six ‘hammer plates’ mounted on the rotor which break thematerial against ‘face plates’ set at operator-determined positions on the inner surface of thecontainer (see Annex 13 for an illustration). The ‘cutting’ action is very like that on aconventional cylinder lawnmower (for cutting grass). The throughput is greatly affected by the


clearance between the rotating ‘hammer plates’ and the fixed ‘face plates’, and the rate ofwear on the plates varies greatly according to the hardness of the material being processed.

4.23 ‘Jaw’ crushers are typically shaped like a wedge, in which one of the faces moves relative tothe others, producing a ‘chewing’ action which grinds the material into progressively smallerpieces as it passes towards the narrow end. Material is fed in at the wide end (the top), andfalls out at the narrow end (see Annex 13 for an illustration). The narrow end can be set to arange of openings to determine the nature of the resultant material.

4.24 The choice between an impact crusher and a ‘jaw’ crusher is the operator’s, and very muchdepends on the use to which the crushed material will be put. Impact crushers produce anaggregate with a smaller range of sizes, and although they are substantially cheaper to buyon a size-for-size basis, their running costs are much higher, particularly with very hardmaterials like some reinforced concretes. In general impact crushers tend to be designed forhigher throughputs than ‘jaw’ crushers.

4.25 Figure 4.6 is a drawing of a relatively sophisticated mobile plant fitted with a ‘jaw’ crusher.Although very similar to this in most respects, fixed plants are likely to have higherprocessing capacities, and to be provided with hydraulic legs rather than crawler tracks orwheels.

4.26 The throughput achieved with recycled aggregates can be as low as half of that achieved withprimary materials, and seldom exceeds three quarters of the nominal output. Performance isbetter with asphalt, but still not as high as for primary materials.

4.27 On emerging from the crusher, instead of being sieved into the sub-fractions describedabove, the 0-45mm fraction can be passed through an air classifier, washed, passed througha further metal separator and screened through either a vibrating screen or a free-fall screen.This produces a range of washed, sorted and quality-graded materials. Any oversizematerials (which are more common with ‘jaw’ crushers than with impact crushers) can be sentback to the crusher for re-processing.

4.28 In the Remex system, mixed C&DW is generally subjected to hand sorting even before it isscreened and passed through a magnetic separator for the first time. This is followed byfurther manual (or in some cases automated) sorting to remove plastics, paper, wood andother non-ferrous metal wastes.

4.29 The mixed C&DW is then passed through a ‘jaw’ crusher and magnetic separator beforebeing passed through an air separator which removes light materials (small pieces of paperand plastics which escaped the earlier sorting processes and the 0-4mm fraction of the inertmaterial. The 4-45mm fraction can then be sieved or screened, as with the brick, tile andconcrete waste (see above).

4.30 Some recycling centres also have wood processing plants or composting facilities. Evenwithout these facilities, the equipment plus necessary infrastructure described above costsroughly ten times as much as a good quality mobile crusher.

4.31 The closer a recycling centre is to neighbouring properties, the more likely it is to have toinvest in noise and dust controls, including buildings to contain some of the equipment. Thiswill make it harder for the recycled materials produced to compete in the market.


Figure 4.6: Cross Section of a ‘Jaw’ Crusher Mounted on a Mobile Ch assis with Associated Equipment

Key:

1

2345

6789

Feed hopper, withextension (1a)and ‘grizzly’ feeder (1b)By-pass chute‘Jaw’ crusherBelt protection plateMain conveyor, with hydrauliccontrols (5a) and reinforced belt (5b)Magnetic separatorEngine unit, with generator (7a)Fuel and oil tanksTracks

Acknowledgement: The illustration above isreproduced by kind permission of Nordberg

9

37a786

55b

4 5a 2 1b

1 1a


Best practice guidance on demolition and renovation site management

General guidance

4.32 Although the manager of a demolition site never knows with absolute certainty what he willfind as structures are broken open, much uncertainty can be removed by carrying out a pre-demolition survey to identify materials and select appropriate techniques. Further uncertaintyis inevitably associated with processes such as controlled explosions, but computer controlledsystems have significantly increased the predictability of such demolition methods.

4.33 In Annex 6 we provide details on measures taken by the various Member State governmentsto encourage C&DW re-use and recycling. These have included research, development, pilotand demonstration projects on selective demolition and written guidance (including trainingmaterials) on best practice for officials, building owners and demolition contractors.

4.34 By reference to Annex 6 it can be seen that the Member States which have done most in thisregard are Germany, the UK, France, the Netherlands, Belgium and the Scandinaviancountries.

4.35 When it comes to identifying best (or at least good) practice, two reports of particular interest(because they are in French and English, and therefore widely accessible to native speakersof several other Member States) have recently been published by ADEME and CIRIArespectively. Both of these references can be found in Annex 10, along with many othertechnical references.

4.36 Although many of the references in Annex 10 are in English, we have included some otherson topics of particular interest (such as selective demolition) in other languages (such asCatalan).

4.37 Given the complexity of the selective demolition process it is not well suited to regulation byconventional legislation. It is notable that several Member States (including Germany, theNetherlands, Belgium, Austria and Denmark) have turned instead to Voluntary Agreements(VAs) to promote best practice. The UK has established two VAs related to the use of HCFCs(hydrofluorocarbons, which are greenhouse gases) in fire fighting systems and insulationfoams, both of which may in future show up in C&DW.

Material-specific guidance

4.38 To avoid repetition, we deal with guidance linked to specific waste streams once only. Thisinformation will be found at the end of Chapter 5 below.


(This page is intentionally blank)


5. PROCESSES AND BEST PRACTICE GUIDANCE: CONSTRUCTION SITES

Processes commonly found on construction sites

5.1 This Chapter is limited to matters which are specific to construction (and re-construction)sites. Demolition-related issues relevant to ‘demolish, clear and build’ and ‘renovation’ sitesare dealt with above in Chapter 4.

5.2 One major difference between construction waste and demolition waste is that theconstruction manager knows (or should know) exactly what materials are brought onto a site,and has some control over both the stocks and flows of such materials. He can therefore planwith some confidence for the management of all waste flows. Only ground conditionsrepresent an area of potential surprise.

5.3 The construction manager needs to maintain sufficient stocks of materials to enable work togo ahead without undue delays, which means that he must carry some stocks at all times.Relying too heavily on ‘just in time’ deliveries carries risks of delays in an industry which isstill dependent on the weather, because when one site can boost its work rate and thereforewants extra supplies, so can all others in the area.

5.4 Building sites are also messy places with difficult working conditions, particularly at the earlystages of construction. Some damage to building materials (as well as some mixing and/orcontamination) inevitably occurs, which both generates some waste and reinforces the needfor the site manager to order more materials than are actually required.

5.5 Construction waste therefore falls into four main categories:

(i) damaged materials;

(ii) excess materials left over at the end of the job;

(iii) ‘intermediate’ and ‘pre-cursor’ waste products; and

(iv) packaging waste.

5.6 The first two of these categories are self-explanatory. Both are susceptible to good sitemanagement practices, in that efficient storage facilities, good stock control, proper trainingof the labour force and effective control of sub-contractors can reduce damage and reduceover-ordering. Having an internal accounting systems which enables undamaged surplusmaterials to be returned to the supplier or transferred to another site would also help. Asurprisingly large volume of good quality construction materials goes to landfill as mixedwaste.

5.7 Part-used gas bottles (from welding and cutting gear), sealants, paints and other similar itemsalso fall under the heading of excess materials left over at the end of the job.

5.8 In the final Section of Chapter 2 we dealt with hazardous and potentially hazardous C&DW.This included several ‘intermediate’ and ‘pre-cursor’ materials, which are used to make up amaterial on site. ‘Intermediate’ wastes would also include products like waste oil which aregenerated by the construction plant and equipment found on a typical site.

5.9 There will also be a considerable volume of packaging waste. A survey carried out in Franceand reported in a study for ADEME (see Annex 10, Ref 7.1) estimated that the volume ofpackaging waste which arises on construction sites represents about 2% of the total wastearising from construction and rehabilitation sites, and much more when the inert fraction ofC&DW is excluded.

5.10 Of the 296,000 tonnes of packaging waste in the ADEME survey, 42% was wood, 24% wasmetal, 22% was cardboard, 10% was polypropylene and polyethylene, and 4% was ‘other’.


Best practice guidance on construction site management

General guidance

5.11 A major recent research project carried out in the UK for CIRIA (see Annex 10, Ref 12.9) hasresulted in a series of best practice guidance publications aimed at:

(i) site owners;

(ii) construction managers;

(iii) site labourers.

5.12 Although the message (which concerns waste avoidance and best practice related tohandling) is consistent across the different documents, the details and the style variesconsiderably.

5.13 Similar best practice guidelines have been published in most other Member States, anddetails can be found in Annex 10.

Material-specific guidance

5.14 This Section deals with recycling process applicable to all types of C&DW, not justconstruction waste. The information has been gathered into one place to avoid repetition.

5.15 The same ADEME report referred to above includes an overview of recommended practiceon how to deal with the major C&DW fractions, namely:

(i) wood;

(ii) paint;

(iii) asbestos;

(iv) plaster;

(v) the inert fraction; and

(vi) plastics.

5.16 In 1995 similar information was also collected for the C&DW Priority Waste Streams Project.This information came from European associations and federations, and was collectedthrough questionnaires issued to Project Group members in 1993 and 1995. Whereappropriate, this was supplemented by published data. Inclusion of these materials in theProject Group’s report was stated not to imply “... any judgement as to their significance butwas determined by the replies to the questionnaires ...”. It was included in that report asAppendix 6 under sub-headings dealing with:

(i) aluminium products;

(ii) asbestos products;

(iii) asphalt;

(iv) clay bricks and tiles;

(v) concrete;

(vi) glass;

(vii) glasswool, stonewool and slag wool;


(viii) gypsum-based construction materials;

(ix) iron and steel;

(x) plastics;

(xi) plastic foam insulation; and

(xii) textiles.

5.17 During the course of this project we re-contacted the same European associations andfederations that had contributed to that report to identify any new material or research. Aconsiderable amount of new information has been produced on gypsum recycling. This isbrought together in the proceedings from Eurogypsum’s XXII Congress in the Hague in May1998 (see Annex 10, Ref 3.2). An important finding of that work is that recycling can onlywork in relatively densely populated areas, where the collection costs are not too high.Collection costs are heavily influenced by economies of scale (which means having collectionpoints which can attract enough material to make regular collection worthwhile, and distancesbetween collection points and the processing centre which are short enough to keep transportcosts down).

5.18 A third source of information on a very wide range of secondary and recycled materials willbecome available in mid-1999 when CIRIA publish ‘The Reclaimed and RecycledConstruction Materials Handbook (see Annex 10, Ref 12.9.3). This substantial handbook,running to some 200 pages, is intended to provide guidance and information on both theapproach of the UK construction industry to using reclaimed and recycled materials and onthe available materials (including products) themselves.


6. PROCESSES AND BEST PRACTICE GUIDANCE: ROAD MAINTENANCE ANDCONSTRUCTION

Road maintenance processes

Introductory remarks

6.1 Road reconstruction has conventionally consisted of the excavation of existing materials, andtheir replacement by new. This requires significant quantities of materials to be brought in,traditionally from primary sources. It also requires the existing material to be taken away fordisposal. There are therefore two sets of transport-related environmental impacts. Therecycling of existing materials can result in both cost savings and reduced environmentalimpacts compared to conventional techniques.

6.2 Although the recycling of road by-products shares many overlapping theoreticalconsiderations with more mainstream C&DW re-use and recycling, the context within which itoccurs, the processes used, and the very particular nature of the bituminous surfacing usedon most roads, are so specific and individual that road recycling should be consideredseparately from other C&DW recycling and from new road construction using recycledmaterials.

6.3 The two principal techniques are known as in situ and ex situ recycling. These are brieflydiscussed below, but any interested reader should refer to a 1997 report (see Annex 10, Ref1.2.1) from the OECD entitled ‘Recycling strategies for road works’ which reviews thetechniques and the experience of 14 OECD Member countries including Austria, Belgium,Denmark, Finland, France, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK.

6.4 Before that, we reproduce some data from the European Asphalt Pavement Association (seeAnnex 10, Ref 3.3, which show just how much material is currently used on Europe’s roadsand motorways (Figure 6.1), and how much recycling is currently going on (Figure 6.2).

Figure 6.1: Statistics on Road Construction Materials (‘000 tonnes)Member State Hot Mix Asphalt

Production 1997Cold Bituminous

Mixes 1997Bitumen Consumption

in the Road Industry1997

Germany 65,000 n/a 2,680UK 27,500 n/a 1,810France 38,600 1,500 2,900Italy 39,800 n/a 1,950Spain 23,900 1,450 1,320Netherlands 7,900 26 330Belgium 4,600 0 220Austria 6,100 50 320Portugal 8,100 240 580Denmark 3,500 24 180Greece 5,200 2 370Sweden 5,300 700 320Finland 3,800 1,000 250Ireland 2,400 120 210Luxembourg n/a n/a n/aEU-15 241,700(1) 5,112(1) 13,440(1)

Source: Asphalt in Figures, 1997 (European Asphalt Pavement Association)Notes: n/a = not available

(1) excluding n/a


Figure 6.2: Statistics on the Recycling of Road Construction Materials (‘000 t onnes)Member State Material Available

for Recycling% Used in Warm

Recycling% of New Production

Containing ReclaimedMaterials

Germany 15,000 80 18UK ≈5,000 n/a 10France >1,000 ≈25 <3Italy 1,200 50 5Spain 700(1) n/a n/aNetherlands 3,000 50 20Belgium ≈1,500 10-40 15Austria 500 25 5Portugal 67 n/a n/aDenmark 160 67 37Greece 600 n/a n/aSweden 900 8 2Finland 300 50 5-10Ireland n/a n/a n/aLuxembourg n/a n/a n/aEU-15 29,927(2) n/a n/a

Source: Asphalt in Figures, 1997 (European Asphalt Pavement Association)Notes: n/a = not available

(1) all used in cold recycling(2) excluding n/a and treating >, < and ≈ as actual numbers

In situ recycling

6.5 In situ recycling of roads generally involves the remediation of worn carriageways by thereprocessing of the existing road construction materials and the incorporation of a bindermaterial. This requires several passes of specialised machinery. The technique has beenused extensively in the Scandinavian countries. A 50km stretch of the main highway betweenZaragoza and Lérida (in Spain) was renovated in this way as a trial. In some other MemberStates (such as the UK) its use has generally been restricted to minor urban and rural roads.

6.6 The process normally follows the following sequence:

(i) the existing road construction materials (including the wearing course, base courseand sub-base) are broken out and mixed by one pass of a rotary pulveriser;

(ii) a binder is mixed into the pulverised material with a further pass of the machine(where cementitious binders are used, water is also added);

(iii) the resultant mix is graded (levelled) as necessary and compacted usingconventional equipment;

(iv) the surface is sealed with bitumen and grit as preparation for the laying of a newwearing course.

6.7 Before the process begins, core samples are taken from the existing road pavement toenable the depth of treatment and type and percentage of binder to be determined. Followingthe first pass of the rotary pulveriser, material often has be removed in order to allow a newwearing course to be put into place without adversely affecting the final level of the roadsurface.

6.8 The binders used in the process are generally cement, mixes of cement and lime, fly ash orfoamed bitumen.


6.9 The advantages of the process compared to traditional methods are as follows:

(i) the existing road material is reclaimed, thus reducing the demand for brought-in(normally primary) aggregate;

(ii) fewer lorry movements are required;

(iii) the process is quicker, thereby reducing disruption to traffic;

(iv) costs are usually lower than for traditional construction methods.

6.10 The disadvantages of the process are:

(i) services (gas, water, telephones etc) close to the surface can be disrupted;

(ii) manhole covers have to be lowered and sealed prior to the process, and then raisedagain.

6.11 The time saving benefits were quantified on one trial project in the UK where the existingroad surface was badly degraded. Using conventional methods it was estimated that the roadwould have to be closed for a month, whereas using in situ recycling it was closed to themajority of traffic for just five days, and buses and essential local traffic were able to continueusing the road throughout. The total duration of the works, including lowering and reinstatingmanhole covers, was approximately eight days.

Ex situ recycling

6.12 Ex situ recycling involves the excavation and removal of existing road construction materialsto a stockpile, from where it is processed by grading and mixing with appropriate binders priorto being re-compacted to form the new road.

6.13 The ex situ approach allows greater control over material quality than in situ recycling (seeabove), and more engineering control during the construction operation. It more easilyprovides a consistent construction material which experience has shown to be suitable forheavily trafficked road surfaces.

6.14 Ex situ recycling has the following characteristics:

(i) the recycling plant is easily transported and can be established on the chosen site ina few hours;

(ii) the plant itself is comparatively smokeless, odourless and quiet;

(iii) the location for the recycling plant can be chosen to reduce environmental impactsand to enable them to be mitigated;

(iv) environmental impacts at the reconstruction site itself can be reduced to a minimum;

(v) a wide range of materials can be processed including road planings, crushedconcrete and masonry;

(vi) the materials can be crushed and screened to fit a predetermined grading ‘envelope’,before being mixed with a binder;

(vii) all materials are processed in a controllable environment, resulting in the productionof a quality controlled product;

(viii) graded materials can be stockpiled until they are needed;

(ix) bound materials, if correctly stored, can be used for up to four weeks after production;


(x) the excavation of the road and its replacement can be undertaken using conventionalplant and equipment;

(xi) secondary aggregates (such as fly ash) can be incorporated into the new road, furtherreducing the need for primary aggregates.

6.15 Where indigenous aggregates are of poor quality, a specialist proprietary binder can be usedin the recycling process. Such an approach has been widely used for a number of years inCanada.

Road construction using other recycled materials

6.16 Road construction (as well as the construction of car parks and similar areas of hard standing)offers by far the main outlet for C&DW-derived aggregates throughout the EU. It can bestated with some confidence that where C&DW-derived aggregates are not accepted by therelevant highway authorities (as is the case with both JAE and BRISA, the major highwayauthority and toll motorway operator respectively in Portugal) there will be little or no C&DWrecycling.

6.17 The same OECD report as was mentioned above (see Annex 10, Ref 1.2.1) deals with theuse of a wide range of waste and recycled materials, including C&DW-derived aggregates. Asit points out they are used primarily as sub-base material and in embankments and as generalengineering fill. Although a relatively low grade use, this nevertheless avoids the need toquarry significant volumes of primary materials.

6.18 Annex 10 contains a large number of references related to road reconstruction andconstruction using recycled materials.


7.

7.1

Report to DGXI, European Commission

CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTEMANAGEMENT PRACTICES,AND THEIR ECONOMIC IMPACTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE

3. ECONOMIC AND ADMINISTRATIVE FACTORS AFFECTING RE-USE AND RECYCLING

4. PROCESSES AND BEST PRACTICE GUIDANCE: DEMOLITION, RENOVATION ANDRECYCLING SITES

5. PROCESSES AND BEST PRACTICE GUIDANCE: CONSTRUCTION SITES

6. PROCESSES AND BEST PRACTICE GUIDANCE: ROAD MAINTENANCE ANDCONSTRUCTION


7. RECORDED QUANTITIES OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE

C&DW arisings

7.1 The best available estimates for C&DW arisings that we have been able to collect are givenin Annex 5, together with explanatory notes where relevant. It is anticipated that better datafor Germany in particular will be made available during 1999. Figure 7.1 summarises themain figures from Annex 5.

7.2 What we have sought to do in Figure 7.1 is to concentrate attention on ‘core’ C&DW (asdefined in Annex 13), keeping the estimates for soil and road planings separate from theprincipal waste streams more generally associated with demolition and construction projects.The following brief comments follow the order in which the Member States are listed, which isin declining order of estimated ‘core’ C&DW arisings.

7.3 The German figures are very much broad order estimates, and pre-date the more recentmeasures introduced by the government to stimulate the recycling of C&DW (as described inChapter 8 and Annex 6).

7.4 The UK figure is based on a survey of treatment and disposal facilities in selected areas ofthe country, and therefore involves some interpretation and estimation, as explained in Annex5. The recycling rate would have been boosted, perhaps significantly, if estimates of on-sitere-use and recycling had also been included in the estimated arisings.

7.5 The French figures are based on a detailed and very recent report (‘Guide des Déchets deChantiers de Bâtiments’, see Annex 10, Ref 7.1) from Government and official sources.However this report deals only with building demolition (as opposed to civil engineeringstructures), and the data provided are therefore an underestimate of the total. It is alsounderstood that the estimate for building demolition waste will be revised upwards by almost8 million tonnes to 32 million tonnes: an increase of 36%. If this figure was raised by a further33%-50% (as a broad order estimate for the contribution of civil engineering waste), it wouldproduce a per capita figure very similar to those reported in much of the rest of northernEurope (excluding Scandinavia).

7.6 The Italian data come from a recent consultant’s report (‘Il mercato delle demolizione in Italia’prepared by CRESME for the May 1998 Fiera di Genova, see Annex 10, Ref 9.2). Both thisand the French report throw some interesting light onto the subject of per capita arisings.

7.7 The French report contains region-by-region per capita estimates of building C&DW arisings,which range from 680 kg/person/year in Ile de France (Greater Paris) down to 240kg/person/year in Haute Normandie and Limousin. Details can be found in Annex 5. Aseparate report arising from a Brite-EuRam project (see Annex 10, Ref 2.1) notes that 22 ofFrance’s roughly 50 fixed C&DW recycling plants are in Ile de France, with the rest located inNord-Pas de Calais (around Lille), Alsace (around Strasbourg) and Rhône-Alpes (to the southeast of Lyon).

7.8 Although the pattern is not entirely consistent, the general finding - for France - is thatarisings are highest (or at least more likely to be recorded) in more densely populated urbanareas.

7.9 A similar pattern can be seen in Italy, though in this case arisings appear to be more closelycorrelated with income levels, varying between 500 kg/person/year in Piemonte Val D’Aosta(which includes the city of Torino) and 220 kg/person/year in Sicilia and Campania. The mainexception to this ‘rule’ is the Lazio region (including Roma), where arisings are surprisinglymodest, at 260 kg/person/year.


Figure 7.1: Best Estimates for C&DW Arisings (m illion tonnes)

Country Year ofstatistics

(orestimate)

Concrete,brick, tilesetc (inert)

Other‘Core’C&DW

Sub-total(‘Core’C&DW)

Population -millions(1997)

‘Core’C&DW (kg/person/yr)

Country’s‘Core’ C&DWas % of EU-15

Cumulative% of EU-15

‘Core’C&DW

Soil,stones etc.

Road planings(mainlyasphalt)

Total

Germany 1994-96 45.0 14.0 59.0 82.0 720 32.8 32.8 215.0 26.0 300.0

UK 1996 n/a n/a 30.0 58.9 509 16.7 49.5 29.5 7.5 (**) 67.0

France 1990-92 15.6 8.0 23.6 (***) 58.4 404 (***) 13.2 62.7 n/a n/a (**) n/a

Italy 1995-97 n/a n/a 20.0 57.5 348 11.1 73.8 n/a n/a n/a

Spain 1997 n/a n/a 12.8 (*) 39.3 325 7.1 80.9 n/a n/a n/a

Netherlands 1996 10.5 0.7 11.2 15.6 718 6.2 87.1 6.3 2.7 (**) 20.2

Belgium 1990-92 6.4 0.3 6.8 10.2 666 3.8 90.9 27.0 0.9 (**) 34.7

Austria 1997 3.6 1.1 4.7 8.1 580 2.6 93.5 20.0 1.7 (**) 26.4

Portugal 1997 n/a n/a 3.2 (*) 9.9 325 1.8 95.3 n/a n/a n/a

Denmark 1996 1.8 0.8 2.7 5.3 509 1.5 96.8 7.7 0.4 (**) 10.7

Greece 1997 1.8 n/a 1.8 10.5 172 1.0 97.8 n/a n/a n/a

Sweden 1996 1.1 0.6 1.7 8.8 193 1.0 98.8 1.5 2.7 (**) 5.9

Finland 1997 0.5 0.8 1.3 5.1 255 0.7 99.5 8.0 0.1 (**) 9.4

Ireland 1995-97 0.4 0.2 0.6 3.7 162 0.3 99.8 1.3 0.0 1.9

Luxembourg 1997 n/a n/a 0.3 (*) 0.4 700 0.2 100.0 n/a n/a n/a

EU-15 - - - 179.7 373.7 481 100.0 100.0 - - >450

Source: Estimates from Member States, OECD and Study Team. Reference should be made to Annex 5 for full details.

Notes: n/a not available from our main source (in the final column, n/a means not applicable, because estimates for soil, stones etc. - the largest single stream - are not available)

(*) calculated from population x assumed per capita arisings

(**) alternative estimates available from OECD report (page 28) as follows: UK 8.0, France 7.0, Netherlands 3.0, Belgium 0.5, Austria 1.5, Denmark 0.7, Sweden 0.8, Finland 0.2.

(***) it is understood that the figure for total C&DW arisings in France will be corrected to rise by approximately 8 million tonnes to about 32 million tonnes. As a result French per capita arisings willrise to about 548kg/year. EU-15 arisings will rise to about 188 million tonnes, and average arisings to 502kg/year.


7.10 The Italian figures are arguably very low at present when compared to historical trends, beingalmost entirely accounted for by waste from renovation sites. This reflects the downturn inboth construction and demolition in Italy in recent years (see Annexes 3-6), this downturnhaving a strong political component (in that politicians have become increasingly unwilling toauthorise public works in response to the corruption scandals and prosecutions of recentyears). The French industry has also gone through a period of painful retrenchment since1990, so the current levels of arisings for both countries may well be lower than their long-term averages.

7.11 This is important as far as the Spanish data are concerned, because in the absence ofnational data, we have used an estimated average per capita arising of 325 kg/person/year togenerate a figure of 12.8 million tonnes of ‘core’ C&DW arisings per year. The figure of 325kg was obtained by averaging 375 and 275 kg which the Catalan government reckons are theper capita arisings of C&DW in urban and rural areas of Catalonia respectively. These figuresappear in ‘Decret 201/1994’ which regulates C&DW in Catalonia.

7.12 Although population densities and construction methods are broadly similar in Spain andFrance, controls on C&DW disposal are significantly less stringent in Spain, and none of theSpanish cities can rival Paris in terms of size. As mentioned above, French per capitaarisings are expected to be revised upwards by 36% later in 1998, to 555kg/year.

7.13 When taken together, the estimated arisings from these five Member States account for over80% of total ‘core’ C&DW arisings.

7.14 The Dutch figures are derived from relatively reliable surveys and records, and have beenwidely quoted for several years. By contrast the Belgian data rely heavily on expert opinionand estimates. The Austrian data are very similar to their German counterparts.

7.15 Like Spain, Portugal has no official national estimate for C&DW arisings, and we have usedthe same per capita estimate (325 kg/person/year) as in Spain, and applied it to thePortuguese population. The population data (see Annex 11) are from Eurostat, and refer to1997. Portugal’s construction industry, like Spain’s, has been extremely active in recentyears, especially in the redevelopment of the more densely populated areas of Lisbon andPorto.

7.16 The Danish data are based on a very reliable survey, albeit one that uses transport notes asits main source, thereby possibly under-recording arisings which are re-used on the originalsite. The Greek figure comes from official sources.

7.17 The main comment to be made about Sweden and Finland concerns the extremely low levelsof per capita arisings. The massive difference between Sweden and Finland on the one hand(205 and 255 kg/person/year respectively) and Denmark (519 kg/capita/year) on the otherreflects their very different population densities, the relative buoyancy of their constructionindustries (see Annex 3) and the much greater use of wood in Sweden and Finland.

7.18 Of the final two Member States, the Irish figure (which only amounts to 171kg/person/year) isbased on official statistics and best estimates, while the total for Luxembourg has beenderived in exactly the same way as the estimates for Spain and Portugal (see above), butusing an estimate of 700kg for per capita arisings (which is very similar to the German, Dutchand Belgian figures).

7.19 Annex 5 includes information (where this is available) on the types of sites from which theC&DW originates.


Recording of hazardous C&DW and other C&DW suitable for separate collection

7.20 Member State governments were all parties to the recommendations of the 1995 C&DWPriority Waste Streams Project report regarding classification of C&DW waste streams andthe need for hazardous components of C&DW to be identified. However, no guidance wasgiven there on the classification of hazardous wastes within C&DW or hazardous C&DWwithin the general hazardous waste stream, or how these might be recorded.

7.21 Of the Member States for which data have been received, only Denmark, Sweden andFinland collect data on hazardous C&DW, though several others (including the Netherlands,Austria and Ireland) identify the volume of asbestos waste.

7.22 Our general conclusions on the issue of C&DW classification have been given above inChapter 2.

Destinations and uses of C&DW

7.23 In Chapter 2 we identified a wide range of destinations to which C&DW might be sent, anduses to which it might be put. When collecting data on C&DW arisings we also attempted tofind out where that C&DW was going next, and for what purpose(s), using the breakdownshown in paragraph 2.29. Although some detailed estimates (notably from the Netherlands,Belgium, Denmark, Sweden and Finland) were provided, we eventually opted to group thedestinations/uses under four categories (re-use, recycling, incineration and landfilling). Theresults which we obtained are also presented in Annex 5.

7.24 Our main reason for simplifying our approach was that there is considerable scope for overlapbetween our original 10 categories, and confusion over, for example, what constitutes highand low value uses. A case in point would be landscaping: is this recycling or merelydisposal? The answer very much depends on the point of view of the person making thedistinction, and whether they consider that the landscaping (or noise bunding) is necessary orfortuitous.

7.25 As a general rider it should be made clear that many of the C&DW statistics which areavailable are approximations and/or estimates. There is often some uncertainty as to what isincluded in the totals and what is not, and the collection methods vary from Member State toMember State. As reported in Chapter 2, a joint Member State, DGXI and Eurostat statisticalexpert working group is currently investigating this very topic. Feedback from that workinggroup can be found in Annex 8.

7.26 The five most important shortcomings which we identified relative to the idealised target forbreakdown which we set ourselves, and our comments on the significance of thoseshortcomings, are summarised in Figure 7.2.

Recycling fac ilities in each Member State

7.27 Figure 7.3 brings together our best available estimates of the numbers of fixed C&DWrecycling centres and mobile C&DW crushing and sorting plants. Fixed C&DW recyclingcentres in this context means places where bulky demolition waste, and particularly concretewaste, is received, crushed, stored and sold. It does not include centres which deal with otherindividual waste streams such as municipal wastes, or road recycling activities.

7.28 While the available data on crushing plant are not complete, certain wide variations inpractice are apparent. Portugal and Greece have virtually no crushers, while the numbers ofcrushers operating in Spain, Sweden, Finland and Ireland are very limited.


Figure 7.2: Data Shortcomings and Comments on Those Shortcomings

Shortcomings Comments

1 There is an almostuniversal lack ofknowledge concerningthe breakdown ofarisings betweendifferent site types.

The lack of distinction between different site types - other than thedistinction between building sites and road construction/renovationsites - is not critical. It falls under the heading of information whichwould be useful to know (because it distinguishes betweendemolition and renovation waste), but is not essential. Therelationships between different site types and the activities involvedin demolition and construction are illustrated in Chapter 2, Figure2.3.

2 There is virtually noinformation on theuses to which C&DWis put.

This may be very difficult to remedy, because it should not benecessary for a purchaser to declare the use to which he intends toput a product when completing a straightforward commercialtransaction. However, this lack of data makes an informed dialoguedifficult.

3 Demolition materialswhich are crushed onsite and re-used theremay well not berecorded at all.

The lack (in some cases) of data on materials which are crushedand re-used on the original site is of some concern, because thiscan amount to a significant proportion of the most voluminoussingle material flow: crushed concrete, bricks, tiles, ceramics andgypsum-based materials. Records based on transport movementsor on disposal at licensed landfill sites will tend to under-record thiselement of C&DW.

4 There areconsiderableuncertainties overhow soil is dealt within the statistics.

On some sites very large volumes of contaminated soil are movedaround with or without some form of treatment. If recorded thesevolumes can easily distort the overall C&DW figures, so our generalrule has been to seek to include contaminated soils which arisedirectly as a result of construction or demolition activities, but toignore soils contaminated by industrial (or mining etc.) activitieswhich are being cleaned up as part of a wider urban regenerationprocess. We also ignore uncontaminated soil and rocks displacedas a result of civil engineering works (such as tunnelling).

5 Very little attentionhas been paid so farto the collection ofstatistics onconstruction waste.

The lack of information on construction (as opposed to demolition)waste is not critical. The waste flows concerned are believed to besmall in comparison with demolition wastes, and are susceptible toconsiderable reductions simply through the application of good sitemanagement practices, which have been identified and documentedin various instances.

(Figure 7.3 follows on the next page)


Figure 7.3: Fixed and Mobile C&DW Crushing & Sorting Plants

MemberState

Total no.(est)

Comments

Germany Up to1,000

Better data expected in 1999. This estimate (from the Bundesverbandder Deutschen Recycling-Baustoff-Industrie) appears high. Thequantity of C&DW recycled is estimated at 8x106 t/year, but the Brite-EuRam report estimates a typical crushing plant to have a capacity ofabout 120,000 t/year but an actual throughput of only 40,000 t/year.

UK Perhaps50-100

This estimate is the study team’s own. A total of >360 crushers arelicensed, but this includes all quarry crushers. On this basis, typicalC&DW crushers have a throughput of 40-80,000 t/year.

France About 50 50 refers to fixed centres. The total capacity is estimated at 5x106

t/year, producing an average of 100,000 t/year per crusher.

Italy Probably60-110

The number of specialist C&DW recyclers with fixed plants isestimated not to exceed 10. The other 50-100 are small mobilecrushers.

Spain About 6 These are mobile crushers at fixed sites. Capacity not known.

Netherlands 120 Roughly 20 are on construction sites with the other 100 on fixed C&DWrecycling centres. Total capacity 16.25x106 t/year (i.e. averagecapacity around 135,000 t/year).

Belgium 92 80 crushers/recyclers with a capacity of 5x106 t/year & 40 sortingfacilities in Flanders. None in Brussels. 12 recycling plants in Walloniawith a capacity of 0.9x106 t/year.

Austria 150 Total capacity 5x106 t/year, typical throughput 20,000 t/year, so plantsare operating at around 60% capacity. Crushers roughly 2:1fixed:mobile.

Portugal n/a Few if any crushers.

Denmark About 30 Total crushing capacity estimated at about 3x106 t/year, with a typicalthroughput of 100,000 t/year. Crushers roughly 1:1 fixed:mobile.

Greece n/a Almost certainly no crushers.

Sweden 10 8 mobile, 2 fixed - capacity not known, but typical throughput about25,000 t/year.

Finland 10 Refers to concrete/masonry collection facilities, number of fixed/mobilecrushers not known.

Ireland <8 <6 mobile, 2 fixed in preparation.

Luxembourg n/a No data were received from Luxembourg.

EU-15 About1,500

Typical capacity 100,000 t/year per crusher, but most machinesoperating well below this level.

Source: Estimates from Member States, study team and Brite-EuRam report (see Annex 10,Ref 2.1).See also Annex 6.

Note: n/a = not available


8. MEASURES USED TO PROMOTE RE-USE AND RECYCLING OF CONSTRUCTION ANDDEMOLITION WASTE

The range of measures

8.1 The report of the C&DW Priority Waste Streams Project recommended (in itsrecommendation number 11) that:

“Member States and their ‘competent authorities’ for waste management planning shouldconsider the following options when assessing the measures necessary to improve themanagement of construction and demolition wastes. The measures adopted should avoiddistorting the market and lead to demonstrable environmental benefit. The options availableinclude, for example:• selective restrictions or bans on the disposal of recoverable materials;• total bans on the disposal of certain materials;• the mono-landfill of certain materials for possible future recovery;• tightening environmental and planning controls on disposal;• the imposition of local, regional or national taxes or levies on the disposal of recoverable

materials.”

8.2 We have sought to identify all significant initiatives undertaken by the various Member States(and, where possible, other bodies) to promote the re-use and recovery of C&DW. We usedthe following headings, which cover both positive incentives as well as restrictions:

(i) restrictions or bans on the disposal of any elements of C&DW;

(ii) the use of mono landfills for any fractions of C&DW (including storage to permitfuture treatment and recovery);

(iii) the use of other environmental or planning controls;

(iv) the use of ‘punitive’ fiscal measures (such as landfill or quarrying taxes);

(v) the use of ‘positive’ fiscal measures (subsidies);

(vi) the use of positive waste management planning measures;

(vii) financial support to research and development projects;

(viii) financial support to pilot and demonstration schemes;

(ix) the use of Voluntary Agreements (for example between demolition waste contractorsand national administrations);

(x) the provision of education and training support geared specifically to C&DW;

(xi) the availability of advisory services geared to C&DW;

(xii) the existence of ‘waste exchanges’ (particularly Internet-based schemes);

(xiii) the availability of standards and norms applicable to recycled materials;

(xiv) the availability of C&DW recycling facilities (our findings on this topic were reportedat the end of the previous Chapter) and any public sector initiatives to provide them;

(xv) any other measures not covered by the above.


8.3 Figure 8.1 (which extends to four pages, and can be found at the end of this Chapter)provides a summary of our key findings regarding the mechanisms employed by MemberState governments, agencies and local authorities. Annex 6 provides a Member State-by-Member State commentary on the contents of Figure 8.1.

8.4 Inevitably there is some overlap between the categories set out in paragraph 8.2, and wehave attempted to avoid repetition in the way our findings are reported in both Figure 8.1 andAnnex 6. We have also attempted to summarise which of the various measures areconsidered by the Member States to have been most effective.

The effectiveness of the measures

8.5 Although no formal assessment has been made by any Member State government on thecost-effectiveness of the various measures, some themes do emerge on the subject of theirmore general relative effectiveness.

8.6 The main theme to emerge is that no single measure can work in isolation (and the fact thatmost Member States have several measures operating in parallel makes it effectivelyimpossible for us - or them - to estimate or measure the cost-effectiveness of any singlemeasure).

8.7 Before C&DW recycling can be expected to reach significant levels there appear to be fourconditions which must be met, as follows:

(i) landfills must be well managed, and ‘fly tipping’ of waste must be uncommon andsubject to sanctions;

(ii) the holder of the C&DW must face a significant financial cost for landfilling waste,with hazardous or mixed waste facing significantly higher costs (to avoidcontamination and to discourage mixing);

(iii) the opportunity must exist for the main bulky inert fraction of the C&DW to be treated(crushed and sorted) prior to re-use or recycling;

(iv) there must be at least a tacit acceptance (by users, specifiers and other similarlyinterested ‘actors’) that suitably prepared C&DW-derived aggregates may be used todisplace primary aggregates. Positive action to draw up technical standards is notessential, but C&DW-derived aggregates should not be discriminated against on thebasis of their origins alone.

8.8 We conclude that if any of these four conditions is not met, then that Member State or regionwill find it effectively impossible to progress beyond the simplest level of recycling of inertC&DW, because even basic crushing and sorting technology will be hard to justify in parts ofthe territory concerned. More complex technology capable of dealing with mixed andcontaminated C&DW is likely to follow as soon as all four conditions are met.

8.9 However, we believe that widespread and consistently high levels of recycling (by which wemean 75% or above of ‘core’ C&DW being recycled in most regions) is likely to be achievedonly if some form of ban on landfilling C&DW is imposed and enforced, or if a requirement isput in place that all C&DW must be separated with each stream being directed to some formof re-use or recovery operation. Doing this would effectively remove the second conditionfrom the list in paragraph 8.7 above.

8.10 By contrast, we believe that relying on a mechanism such as a tax on landfill or a tax onprimary aggregates would not on its own achieve high recycling rates under allcircumstances, because the tax would have to be set at politically unacceptable levels beforeit changed the behaviour of engineers and demolition contractors in areas with easy access tolandfills (or quarries). Varying the tax rate to match local conditions would create considerabledistortions to trade, and would therefore probably be equally unacceptable.

8.11 It is clear that the financial costs of landfilling can exert considerable influence on the choicewhether or not to recycle C&DW. How these costs are expressed, whether by access charges


alone or by charges supplemented by taxes, is not particularly important. What matters is thatdemolition contractors receive clear price signals that encourage them to separate thedifferent waste streams, and then to recycle as many fractions as possible. It appears highlyunlikely to us that those Member States with a less well-established tradition of technicalwaste management would succeed in boosting recycling rates simply by raising landfillcharges significantly. This would be more likely to divert waste away from managed disposaltowards totally unregulated ‘fly tipping’.

8.12 Those Member States which have achieved most by way of C&DW recycling have also runextensive research, pilot and demonstration projects in the past. It is not so obvious that (withthe possible exception of demonstration projects) other Member States need to repeat thisprocess, because the accumulated experience is extensive and overlapping. Exceptions tothis statement would include research into:

(i) selective demolition and processing of those construction materials (such as glassand plastics) which are becoming significantly more widely used; and

(ii) designing for deconstruction, and finding alternatives to materials and techniques(such as the widespread use of bonding agents) which are economically driven at themanufacturing and construction stages, but which create problems at the point ofdemolition where direct re-use is not an option.

8.13 This latter point is also an area in which the use of highly specific Voluntary Agreements(VAs) to phase out particular materials or techniques may offer an effective means of tacklingotherwise intractable problems.

8.14 A study for DGIII and DGXI in 1995 (see Annex 10, Ref 2.4) found that, in general, theNetherlands, the Scandinavian countries, Germany and Austria have made the greatest useof VAs. Where complying with a code of good practice (or similar) involves the companiesconcerned in additional costs, most other Member States have found that problems with ‘freeriders’ have undermined the VAs, and they have often opted for conventional legislationinstead. Exceptions to this rule, where VAs have worked even in Member States where thereis no great tradition of such measures, are where there is a clear objective, a few companiesof a similar size, and a forum to encourage compliance (such as a fully representative andmotivated trade association).

8.15 Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Denmark and Sweden have also done most to requireseparation of C&DW streams and to discourage ‘inappropriate’ landfilling. All have done soby ‘command and control’ regulations rather than by using price signals alone, though theirlandfill charges (including landfill taxes where they apply) are generally higher than in otherMember States. Actual numbers to illustrate this point can be found in Chapter 9.

8.16 One relatively simple administrative measure that appears to have positive impacts and few(if any) negative side effects is a requirement for demolition and C&DW management plans.If developers are required to provide a demolition plan with an associated C&DWmanagement plan to the local authority before they are given permission to demolish abuilding or structure, they have to weigh up the cost and benefit factors associated with re-use and recycling of C&DW before committing to a timetable in which the need for speedprecludes any serious attempt at selective demolition. Because circumstances vary so muchfrom place to place, we believe that any requirement for such plans should be administeredlocally rather than nationally, though within a national policy framework which acknowledgesthe value of such plans.

8.17 A number of Member States are using EU funding to encourage wider provision of C&DWprocessing and recycling centres, and to operate demonstration projects. This is likely tocontinue to be a valuable method of encouraging best practice in Member States with little orno tradition of C&DW recycling.


Figure 8.1 (page 1 of 4): Summary of Measures Used to Influence the Management of C&DW in the EU-15 as a Whole, and in Germany, the UK andFrance

Measure EU-15 Germany UK France1. Restrictions or bans ondisposal

Restrictions on the disposal of mixedC&DW increasing.

Mixed or recoverable C&DW may not belandfilled.

None specific to C&DW. No C&DW specific restriction or bansFrom 1st July 2002, installations for theelimination of wastes by storage will not beauthorised to receive other than ultimatewastes.

2. Mono landfill (forpossible future recovery)

Very limited. Some, for inert waste and/or soils. None specific to C&DW. No requirements for C&DW.

3. Other environmental orplanning controls

No common theme. Landfill Directive willraise disposal costs and encourage re-useand recycling.

Disposal sites tightly controlled, re-usesites less so. Destination of C&DW has tobe documented from 1.1.1999. Systemdiffers for inert/hazardous wastes.

Disposal sites tightly controlled, re-usesites less so. Conditions can be attachedto planning consents. C&DW crushersneed licences or process authorisations

None relating to C&DW.

4. Taxes (landfill and others) Landfill taxes becoming more widely used. No federal tax or levy. 5 Länder tried toimpose levies on waste incineration anddisposal generally but this power wasoverturned in the courts. There aredifferent prices for landfilling according tothe hazardousness of the waste.

Landfill tax since 10/96. Lower rate forinert wastes. Volume landfilled hasdeclined. An aggregates tax is presentlybeing considered by the government.

Non-inert wastes are taxed (ADEME tax)on disposal.

5. Subsidies Few direct subsidies. No direct subsidies. Regional assistance grants can be usedtowards the purchase of C&DW crushers.

None.

6. Positive waste planningmeasures

Waste management planning widespread,targets for increasing re-use and recyclingand reducing disposal increasinglycommon.

There is an obligation to draw up wastemanagement plans. The 1996 ClosedCycle & Waste Act requires recyclingwhere possible and economic.

General waste management planning isrequired.National Government encourages localauthorities to take a positive stance.

National guidance and encouragement isbecoming more evident.

7. R&D support Widely used. Various programmes for contaminatedsoils, use of recycled materials andselective demolition.

Various R&D programmes. Extensive R&D programmes.

8. Pilot and demonstrationschemes

Much accumulated knowledge available. Some projects including selectivedemolition projects.

A few specific projects. Mainly restricted to road construction, butsome housing.

9. Voluntary Agreements Patchy use. National and local VAs to encourageseparation, re-use and recycling.

None. None.

10. Education and training Widely provided, but generally not specificto C&DW.

Part of VA. Part of general waste managementtraining. Handbook of best practiceavailable. Handbook encouraging re-useand recycling in construction imminent

Training for contractors and individualsavailable.

11. Advisory services Patchy availability. Part of VA. Part of the trial Aggregates AdvisoryService. Information only.

Commercial and not-for-profit services.

12. Waste exchanges Limited at present but increasing in use -particularly Internet-based systems.

National and regional Internet-basedexchange schemes for inert materials.

National Internet-based exchange. None.

13. Other measures Few identified. Return systems for PVC products. Policy advocacy.Some local authorities give preference torecycled C&DW.

None.

Most effective measure(s) Combination of measures, particularlyrestrictions on disposal and high disposalcosts.

Combination of measures. Combination of measures, but landfill taxmost significant.


Figure 8.1 (page 2 of 4): Summary of Measures used to Influence the Management of C&DW in Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and Belgium

Measure Italy Spain Netherlands Belgium1. Restrictions or bans ondisposal

Few restrictions on any wastes. MuchC&DW is ‘fly tipped’.

None specific to C&DW. Much C&DWgoes to small, unregulated landfills.

National ban on landfilling of reusableC&DW since 1/97.

In Brussels, only contaminated C&DWmay be landfilled (but there are no landfillsin Brussels). In Flanders a ban on mixedwaste landfilling started in 07/98. InWallonia restrictions are less.


No requirements for C&DW. No requirements for C&DW. No requirements regarding C&DW butcontaminated sludge must go to monolandfill.

No requirements for C&DW.


Controls are exercised by the Regional,Provincial and Municipal authorities.

Controls are exercised by the Regional,Provincial and Municipal authorities. Muchselective demolition and C&DW recyclingis informal.

Demolition contractors need licences andare required to separate C&DW streams.

None relating to C&DW.

4. Taxes (landfill and others) There is a landfill tax of 20 Lire/kg(approximately ECU10/tonne).

None. Levies vary by region rather than bymaterial.

Landfill taxes higher in Flanders (9.5ECU/t) than in Wallonia (3.75 ECU/t). InFlanders a lower rate can apply to residualfractions of processed C&DW.

5. Subsidies None. The EU’s LIFE programme has been usedto susidise initiatives on C&DW recycling.

Public projects offer bonuses for usingC&DW-derived aggregates.

Walloon government has invested inpublic/private C&DW recycling centres.


Some municipalities have started to takepositive initiatives to encourage C&DWrecycling.

Waste planning is a Regionalresponsibility. Catalonia, Madrid and theBasque Country have taken steps todevelop C&DW planning.

National Government encouragesrecycling schemes and provides guidancefor local policy makers and regulators onbest practice.

Regional plans with quantified targets arein place.

7. R&D support Some limited R&D programmes have beenmounted.

R&D has been mainly concerned with road(re)construction. CEDEX is the keyorganization.

Various R&D programmes. Various R&D projects.


[To be checked] A few road projects. Madrid’s C&DWrecycling centre will be a demonstrationproject.

Several substantial projects. Several substantial projects over anextended period.

9. Voluntary Agreements None. There are no national VA’s relating toC&DW.

National VAs involve demolitioncontractors, aluminium and glassindustries.

Regional VAs in Flanders and Walloniainvolve contractors and recyclers.

10. Education and training None specific to C&DW. None specific to C&DW. No national programmes specific toC&DW.

All regions run educational programmes.

11. Advisory services To be checked. None. Many non-government services. A public/private service ran from 1994-97.A road recycling advisory service is stillactive.

12. Waste exchanges To be checked. None. None. Internet-based service in Flanders andnational (non-Internet) service - both forgeneral wastes, not C&DW specific.

13. Other measures None. None. None. None.Most effective measure(s) - - Ban on disposal of reusable C&DW. Encouragement and concensus.


Figure 8.1 (page 3 of 4): Summary of Measures used to Influence the Management of C&DW in Austria, Portugal, Denmark and Greece

Measure Austria Portugal Denmark Greece1. Restrictions or bans ondisposal

There is an obligation to sort and recycleC&DW above specified thresholds.

Few restrictions on any wastes. MuchC&DW is ‘fly tipped’.

No explicit ban, but municipalities areobliged by law to assign C&DW whichcannot be recycled, but which can beburned, to incineration.

None.


Some C&DW-specific landfills. No mono landfills available to C&DW. For limited waste streams. No mono landfills available to C&DW.


Disposal sites tightly controlled, re-usesites less so.

Effectively none. Any C&DW recycling thattakes place is unregulated.

C&DW centres need licences. Few, if any.

4. Taxes (landfill and others) No tax, but rates for disposal of C&DWfixed nationally.

None. Landfill and incineration tax since 1987.Lower rates for incineration. The extractionof gravel is taxed.

None.

5. Subsidies None. None. No direct subsidies. None.6. Positive waste planningmeasures

National waste plan is periodically updated. No specific planning for C&DW has beendeveloped so far.

National targets must be acted on by localauthorities.Municipalities are responsible for ensuringthat sufficient treatment capacity isavailable.

Only preliminary plans have so far beendeveloped for C&DW.

7. R&D support Some R&D projects. Research under way to establish levels ofC&DW arisings.Technical R&D has included road(re)construction using secondaryaggregates, excluding C&DW.

Large number of projects. Not known.


Some projects. A demonstration project to recycleconcrete on the Expo’98 site wasproposed, but was abandoned due toconcerns about its hazardous content.

Several substantial projects. Not known.

9. Voluntary Agreements National VA to increase recovery ofC&DW.

None. National VA on selective demolitioninvolving demolition contractors.

None.

10. Education and training Training schemes available. None specific to C&DW. Specific C&DW management trainingcourses are offered.

Not known.

11. Advisory services Recycling Federation provides advisoryservice.

None. Two main national private sector services. Not known.

12. Waste exchanges National Internet-based scheme recentlyestablished.

None. Conventional market for C&DW products. Limited conventional market for C&DW.

13. Other measures None. None. Some local authorities give preference torecycled C&DW.

None known.

Most effective measure(s) Combination of measures. - Combination of measures, but landfill/incineration tax most significant.

-


Figure 8.1 (page 4 of 4): Summary of Measures used to Influence the Management of C&D Waste in Sweden, Finland, Ireland and Luxem bourg

Measure Sweden Finland Ireland Luxembourg1. Restrictions or bans ondisposal

Combustible wastes will be banned fromlandfills from 2002, and organic wastesfrom 2005.

None specific to C&DW. Generally the same as other wastes.However, landfills may only accept C&DWif their licence specifies it as an allowablewaste stream.

Not known.


Yes. None specific to C&DW. Emphasis onwaste soils.

There are no mono landfills available toC&DW in Ireland.

Not known.


A demolition plan must be lodged beforebuildings are demolished. This mustaddress hazardous waste streams inparticular.Demolition must be supervised by asuitably qualified person.Counties and Municipalities issue wasteplans.

All landfills, recycling centres andtransporters are licensed and checked.Many local authorities set chargesspecifically to encourage recycling.

Disposal sites are increasingly tightlycontrolled.

Not known.

4. Taxes (landfill and others) A tax on aggregates (gravel) already exists.A landfill tax is expected to be introducedin 1999.

Since 01/98 C&DW landfilled withmunicipal waste is subject to a tax of 90FIM/tonne + VAT (ECU19/t).

None. Not known.

5. Subsidies None. None. The EU’s ERDF is being used to supportIreland’s first two C&DW recycling centresat Ballyeally and Ballyfermot.

Not known.


The National Road Authority has a targetof 90% for recycling road materials by2000.

Since 01/98 C&DW is supposed to besorted.National plan (with targets) and regionalplans exist.Landfills and treatment centres are gettinglarger.

Local Authority waste plans are required toconsider C&DW recycling. Dublin hasalready done so.

Not known.

7. R&D support A large number of projects. A large number of projects. See “Subsidies” above. Not known.8. Pilot and demonstrationschemes

Several substantial projects. Several projects, notably since 1996. A 1996 pilot project at Ballyeally (seeabove) demonstrated that C&DW-derivedaggregates can meet National RoadSpecifications.

Not known.

9. Voluntary Agreements National VA covers better practice,reduced landfilling, certification of C&DWspecialists.

No C&DW-specific VA, but packaging VAincludes construction materials packaging.

None. Not known.

10. Education and training Specific C&DW-related courses are widelyavailable.

Emphasis is on construction sitemanagement and general wastemanagement.

A training scheme including C&DW hasrecently been launched (June 1998).

Not known.

11. Advisory services Two services available. Public and private services available. None. Not known.12. Waste exchanges Internet-based exchange available.

Local Authorities will advise on upcomingdemolition projects.

Conventional market for C&DW,particularly wood and metals.

None. Not known.

13. Other measures Some producers operate return systems. None. None. Not known.Most effective measure(s) Combination of measures. Combination of measures. Demonstration. -


9. ECONOMICS OF THE RE-USE AND RECYCLING OF CONSTRUCTION ANDDEMOLITION WASTE: PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Introductory rem arks

9.1 There is a wide range of possible technical solutions which can be applied to C&DWrecycling, from simple mobile crushers for the inert fraction of C&DW right through to fullyintegrated fixed C&DW recycling centres capable of dealing with the full range of C&DWstreams. None of these technical solutions are ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, though some may beinappropriate to the circumstances they face and the mix of waste requiring to be processed.Figure 9.1 should help to illustrate this point.

Figure 9.1: Matching Recycling Techniques to Circumstances

A = Mobile crusherand sieving plant ‘Level 1’

Inadequatequality

control

B = A plus metalremoval and morecomplexsorting/sieving

‘Level 2’

C = B plus handsorting, washingplant and facilitiesfor other C&DWstreams (wood etc)

Excessivelyexpensive

‘Level 3’

Inert C&DW Mixed (mainly inert)C&DW

All types of C&DW

9.2 It should be stressed that, however sophisticated the technology and techniques available,selective demolition and the avoidance of mixing on the original site is always likely to be farpreferable to sorting wastes at a C&DW recycling centre. The justification for this statementlies in a parallel with the waste hierarchy: just as avoidance of waste in general is preferableto its proper management, so avoidance of mixing is preferable to its effective separation. Itis also worth noting that where we use the term ‘recycling centre’ in this Chapter, we meanthe sort of ‘state of the art’ centre described in Chapter 4 that sorts and separates as well asprocessing C&DW prior to recycling. In other words, a successful C&DW recycling centreactually recycles only those fractions that cannot be re-used without any form of processing.

9.3 We deal with the practical economics of C&DW re-use and recycling by considering threebasic combinations of technologies and waste types, shown in Figure 9.1 as ‘Levels 1, 2 and3’. These levels refer to technologies, not Member States, and in many Member Statesdifferent mixes of two or three of the levels are employed. Having said that, the illustrationshave to be drawn from real life, so different levels have to be represented by different groupsof broadly representative Member States.

9.4 First we consider the group of Member States where only ‘Level 1’ technology is in use,taking Spain as our main example. Next we look at a larger group of Member States where amixture of ‘Level 1’ and ‘Level 2’ technologies are used. The main assessment for this groupis drawn from the UK, but we also draw on examples and information from France, northernItaly and Belgium. Finally we consider those Member States (including Germany, theNetherlands and Denmark) where all three levels are employed.

9.5 It would be too crude to say that this spectrum simply runs from south to north, or that everyMember State can be fitted neatly into one of the three categories. Italy and Belgium providegood examples of countries where different regions are at different technical levels, andwhich might have been dealt with under ‘Level 1’ and ‘Level 3’ respectively.


‘Level 1’ tec hnology

General

9.6 Most of the comments and figures that follow were obtained through discussions with Spanishcompanies, but we believe they can be broadly applied to Portugal, Greece and southern Italyas well. Among the key characteristics which typify countries and regions with predominantly‘Level 1’ technology are the following:

(i) landfill prices are low, and penalties for infractions are uncommon and (whenimposed) generally low;

(ii) primary aggregate materials are cheap;

(iii) as a consequence very few crushers are available to produce C&DW-derivedaggregates (as opposed to uncrushed engineering fill).

Spain

9.7 At present the only crushers operating in Spain are mobile ones, though some are more orless permanently installed at fixed sites (landfills).

9.8 The most detailed studies of C&DW recycling options in Spain, including the economics ofthe various processes involved, have been undertaken in Catalonia, led by the Junta deResidus (Waste Management Board, part of the Catalan regional government). Catalonia isthe Autonomous Region of which Barcelona is the Capital. Many of the figures given belowcome from their studies (see in particular Annex 10, Ref 11.2.3).

9.9 The Junta de Residus has generated a cost model for inert C&DW recycling which has beenused to compare the costs per tonne for different combinations of plant sizes and capacityutilisation. Figure 9.2 presents the key findings from their study.

Figure 9.2: Total Processing Costs (in ECU/t onne) Using a Mobile Crushing PlantPlant annual

capacity30% utilisation 60% utilisation 100% ut ilisation

50,000 tonnes/yr 10.25 5.50 3.60100,000 tonnes/yr 6.40 3.40 2.40200,000 tonnes/yr 4.95 2.75 1.90

Source: Programa de Residus de la Construcció a Catalunya, 1996

9.10 Annex 12 contains our own calculations for crushing costs. Although evidently quite differentfrom each other, the two models produce a very similar result for a well-used 200,000 tonnesa year plant. The Catalan model also illustrates very clearly the importance (in economicterms) of matching the capacity of any crusher to the demands it faces. No business thatcharged (or paid) 10 ECU/tonne to crush C&DW would survive very long.

9.11 The same report also considers fixed plants with higher capacities (200,000 up to 600,000tonnes/year), even though no such plants yet exist in Spain. It calculates that these plantswould be substantially more expensive than mobile crushers, with a fully utilised plant with acapacity of 600,000 tonnes a year generating a cost of 3.20 ECU/tonne.

9.12 Transport costs around Barcelona are calculated using a formula of (1.25 + 0.075/km)ECU/tonne, which means 2.75 ECU for a typical 20km journey. Delivering unsubsidisedC&DW-derived aggregates for less than the 4-5 ECU/tonne that primary aggregates cost istherefore almost impossible, unless the haul distance is very short.

9.13 In Catalonia (where a special company called Gestora de Runes has been established, withthe backing of the Junta de Residus, to operate special C&DW landfills and eventually torecycle C&DW) the landfill gate price for inert C&DW depends on the density of the materialas delivered. Material with a density of <0.8 tonnes/m3 faces a gate price of 4.82 ECU/tonne.The equivalent gate price for material denser than 1.1 is 1.80-2.10 ECU/tonne, and for 0.8-


1.1 it is 3.00 ECU/tonne. The specific objective of this range of prices is to encourage betteron-site sorting. During 1999 Gestora de Runes plans to acquire C&DW crushers to be locatedat the larger C&DW landfills or at waste transfer stations serving Barcelona.

9.14 Significant volumes of C&DW and clean soil are currently being used to reclaim land in theBarcelona harbour area. Large volumes of generally clean soil are characteristic of manySpanish construction and redevelopment sites, due to an obligation which is placed ondevelopers to provide underground parking garages for new apartment and office buildings.

9.15 Madrid has for 2-3 years had a pilot C&DW recycling plant (belonging to a company calledNAC-3) operating at a landfill site close to the city. In late 1998 it was being moved to anothersite.

9.16 In Madrid the lorries that transport C&DW to landfill are typically owned and operated byhaulage contractors rather than by demolition companies, and the stiff competition whichprevails between them helps to keep transport costs relatively low. Nevertheless, given thelow price of primary aggregates and the low gate prices charged by landfills, transport costsstill comprise an important part of most equations. The typical haul distance betweendemolition site and landfill in Madrid is 20km, for which haulage contractors charge about3.00-4.00 ECU/tonne. This is a bit higher than the figure generated by the Catalan model, andvery similar to typical UK costs (see below).

9.17 Around Bilbao, where interest in C&DW recycling is also growing, landfill prices are believedto be significantly higher (possibly as much as 9.00 ECU/tonne).

9.18 Primary aggregate prices vary from place to place, but most cities are well served byquarries. In the region around Madrid prices at the quarry gate are around 4.30 ECU/tonne formaterials which would compete with C&DW-derived aggregates.

9.19 In practice, the consequence of the figures quoted above is that those few crushers that dooperate can only obtain a price of around 3.00 ECU/tonne (excluding delivery) for sub-basequality C&DW-derived aggregates. At prices as low as these recyclers cannot afford to payany rent at all for land (let alone invest in more sophisticated equipment), which means theymust either get free space at a landfill (or similar) location, or operate a mobile crusher.


General

9.20 In those Member States where the recycling of inert C&DW is primarily a combination of‘Level 1’ and ‘Level 2’ technologies, the business has generally been driven by considerationsof resource efficiency: that is to say it has been promoted as a way of reducing the need toquarry so much primary aggregate material and as a way of reducing the need for landfillspace rather than as a way of meeting a regulatory ban on landfilling of mixed C&DW.Material that cannot be economically re-used or recycled may still be landfilled, and often is.

9.21 Most of the Member States considered below do have other facilities (such as compostingcentres and some materials recovery facilities), but their geographical coverage is distinctlyuneven.

The UK

9.22 In the case of the UK the principal C&DW-derived aggregates sold are described as 1A (wellgraded granular material; typically used for general fill), 6F1 (selected granular material - finegrading; typically used for capping), 6F2 (selected granular material - coarse grading;typically used for capping), 6N (selected well graded granular material; typically used for fill tostructures) and 6P (uniformly graded granular material; typically used for fill to structures).These specifications are defined in ‘The Specifications for Highway Works Prepared by theHighways Agency of the Department of Transport’ (see Annex 10, Ref 12.6.1).

9.23 As a general rule, in the densely populated area of southern England the maximum distancewhich C&DW can be transported economically is reckoned to be around 25km, at a cost of


3.60 ECU/tonne. This is derived from a formula of (1.35 + 0.09/km) ECU/tonne, which is verysimilar to the Catalan cost model (see above).

9.24 For typical sub-base materials in central-southern England the delivered cost of primaryaggregate (in mid-1998) is generally around 13.75 ECU/tonne (10.15 ECU/tonne for the rawmaterial and 3.60 ECU/tonne for delivery), against 12.30 ECU/tonne for C&DW-derivedaggregate (8.70 and 3.60 ECU/tonne for delivery). As will be seen as prices from otherMember States are reported below, these are among the highest aggregate costs in the EU-15.

9.25 Since in the case of sub-base material the additional costs associated with using C&DW-derived aggregates are actually close to zero, we can conclude that 1.45 ECU/tonne (i.e.10.15 - 8.70) is the price premium which aggregate users are prepared to pay for primaryaggregates.

9.26 Quite separately from the Catalan cost model (see above), we have estimated the cost ofcrushing C&DW-derived aggregates at around 2.00 ECU/tonne (see Annex 12 for details ofthe calculations on which this estimate is based), leaving the recycler to cover all pre-processing transport costs, all other demolition costs and a commercial return onmanagement skills and capital employed from 6.70 ECU/tonne (i.e. 8.70 ECU/tonne salevalue minus 2.00 ECU/tonne processing cost).

9.27 About 150km further west from where the above figures were assembled, there are severalstone quarries and therefore large volumes of stone off-cuts (‘scalpings’) available. As aconsequence aggregate prices based on these materials are lower, and C&DW-derivedaggregates cannot compete, even in the sub-base market.

9.28 As the Catalan cost model and Annex 12 both show, the key to profitability and low unit costsin C&DW processing is to work all of the machinery involved as hard as possible. Industrysources indicated to us that each crusher should aim to earn 1% of its capital cost per day for4-5 years, at which point it is likely to need to be replaced.

9.29 Other on-site machinery and lorries also need to be worked as hard as possible. Calculatingcharges on the basis of average costs is not practical: all machinery (and labour) needs tomake the highest possible contribution to overheads, which means working as much aspossible for returns that are as high as possible, and certainly higher than the marginal(variable) cost. Calculating charges for demolishing structures and processing C&DW istherefore not generally done by reference to a ‘menu’ of fees, but based on experience ofwhat the market will bear.

9.30 In the absence of a statutory requirement to sort and manage different C&DW streamsseparately, the price of C&DW-derived aggregates is entirely market-driven. It is thereforeconsiderably more profitable for a demolition contractor to supply crushed concrete directfrom a demolition site to a construction site (taking advantage of potentially lower crushingcosts - see Annex 12 - and just one lorry journey) than to use a fixed crusher at a specialistrecycling centre, assuming that the quality of the aggregate processed at the demolition siteis high enough.

9.31 What fixed crushers and their associated storage facilities provide to those demolitioncontractors who have them is the security of knowing that if a direct site-to-site sale is notpossible, the company has somewhere to take the material other than landfill.

9.32 However, since the price of C&DW-derived aggregate is market driven, the premium which arecycling centre can obtain for a standard sub-base or fill material relative to the sameproduct from a mobile crusher is very modest. The impact which this fact has on theeconomics of fixed C&DW recycling sites is to make them rather sensitive to the cost of land.The opinion of recyclers in the UK suggests that the level of rent normally associated withindustrial land cannot be supported, even close to an urban centre. The calculations in Annex12 suggest that concern may be overstated (because the influence of land costs is modestcompared to other operating costs), though it is undoubtedly true that in a highly competitivemarket one recycler could not afford to pay significantly more than his competitors.


9.33 Fixed crushers are more expensive partly because they are operationally more flexible.However, no crusher can simply be set to obtain a specific final material. In the UK (bycontrast with the Netherlands) it is reckoned to be economically better to aim for a high rateof material throughput, accepting that some material may have to go through twice. Inpractice this means that with a mobile (‘jaw’) crusher it is generally better to set the jawsfurther apart than the target specification would suggest (100mm rather than 75mm), andthen to re-crush the over-sized fraction. The cost of sieving is very small.

9.34 By comparison with the costs of machinery and land, the cost of labour is not so critical, butthe quality is. Most demolition contractors operate their own lorry fleets, and each driver costs22-30,000 ECU/year plus overheads, or around 43,000 ECU/year in total, excluding all lorry-related costs. In a highly competitive sector, at least some of the profitability of C&DWrecycling businesses in the UK depends on having drivers who are flexible andentrepreneurial (i.e. who make a real effort to maximise the proportion of time that their lorryis fully loaded).

9.35 Landfill charges vary quite widely within the UK, but in central southern England (where thefigures above were collected) typical charges are 16 ECU/tonne for soil or similar materialswhen consolidated. Contaminated soil costs around 44 ECU/tonne to dispose of whenconsolidated, and ‘special’ waste costs 95-100 ECU/tonne. Waste oil is the only materialwhich often goes for incineration. Despite regulations to the contrary, it is clear that small butsignificant volumes of wood, plastics and packaging are burned on construction anddemolition sites.

9.36 For other materials prices can change quite rapidly. During the second and third quarters of1998, scrap steel prices fell from almost 90 ECU/tonne to 30 ECU/tonne.

France

9.37 The following information is drawn from the ADEME report (see Annex 10, Ref 7.1) and a1997 Brite-EuRam report (see Annex 10, Ref 2.1). It refers primarily to the area around Paris,where C&DW recycling is well established. In most other regions C&DW-derived aggregatescannot compete with primary materials.

9.38 Fixed recycling centres charge up to 5.50 ECU/tonne (including tax) to receive the inertfraction of C&DW, compared with inert landfills which charge around 12-13 ECU/tonne todispose of inert C&DW.

9.39 The price charged by recyclers for C&DW-derived aggregates is roughly 6 ECU/tonne,compared to 4 ECU/tonne for primary material, so the competitiveness of recycled materialsdepends almost entirely on lower transport costs for C&DW in the Paris area compared tobringing primary materials from well outside the region.

9.40 The ADEME report contains a very arresting statistic: the costs of dealing with C&DW canamount to 6% of the value of a building project.

Italy

9.41 There are about 10 relatively large fixed C&DW recycling centres in Italy, predominantly inthe north, including sites at Castellarano (near Reggio Emilia), Spilamberto (near Modena,operated by Camer), Corbetta (near Milano, operated by Ecoter) and Villaguardia (nearComo, north of Milano and very near the Swiss border, operated by Consorzio ComenseInerti).

9.42 Consorzio Comense Inerti belongs to a group of over 100 construction companies, and aswell as crushing inert C&DW the operating company runs a green waste composting plantand is landfilling/restoring an old quarry site using incoming materials unsuited to crushingand grading. Graded materials are sold as 0-150mm and 0-30mm, or occasionally 30-70mm.

9.43 Primary aggregates suitable for industrial paving or road construction sell for around 4.15-5.20 ECU/tonne, but contractors are only prepared to pay around 2.50 ECU/tonne for C&DW-derived aggregates.


9.44 The charge for landfilling inert C&DW is about 2.25 ECU/tonne, including a landfill tax of 1.00ECU/tonne.

Belgium

9.45 The prices in Figures 9.3 and 9.4 (for Belgium) come from a Brite EuRam report on C&DW(see Annex 10, Ref 2.1), and although they are unlikely to have changed by much, are notquite as recent as most of the others cited in this report. Landfill charges in Flanders arearound 16 ECU/tonne, which gives operators of C&DW recycling centres there (as in France)some scope for charging a higher gate price than in the UK or Italy.

Figure 9.3: Gate Prices for Incoming C&DW at Belgian Recycling PlantsMaterial ECU/tonne

Concrete (not reinforced) free of chargeReinforced concrete 1.25-2.50Heavily reinforced concrete 6.25-12.50Masonry 2.50-6.25Mixed C&DW (including wood and plastics) 2.50-12.50

Figure 9.4: Prices for C&DW-Derived Aggregates in BelgiumMaterial / use / application ECU/tonne

Crushed mixed masonry and concrete for use as a sub-base or base material

5.25

Crushed concrete sieved to a size range of 4-32mm, foruse in concrete

5.75-6.50 (2.50 less thanprimary aggregates)

Crushed masonry (0-56mm) for engineering fill andcarparks

3.75

Sieved and crushed sand, for pavement sub-base orembankments

1.25-2.50

Recycled asphalt aggregates for roads and carparks 3.75-5.75Source: Brite EuRam (Figures 9.3 and 9.4)


General

9.46 In those Member States where ‘Level 3’ technology is applied it is probably fair to say thatC&DW management has always been viewed primarily as a waste management issue, andthat economic instruments (such as higher waste disposal charges) have followed moretraditional command and control regulation. Annex 6 gives details of the full range ofmeasures used in all Member States to encourage C&DW recycling.

9.47 However, it appears that when economic instruments have been introduced, they haveprovided a powerful reinforcement to the more traditional approaches.

9.48 Nevertheless, according to the information provided in Annex 6, the gate prices paid at inertwaste landfills in this group of Member States vary very widely. Landfill tax rates (i.e.excluding the main charges) are 45 ECU/tonne in Denmark, 30 ECU/tonne in Sweden (notyet in place), 19 ECU/tonne in Finland and 13.60 ECU/tonne in the Netherlands. The totalgate price in Germany is typically 7-10 ECU/tonne, and in Austria it is 4.5-7 ECU/tonne. Thecorrelation between these landfill charges and the level of recycling activity appears to berelatively weak.

Germany

9.49 In Germany, quite apart from the ban on landfilling mineral demolition waste and unsortedC&DW, high landfill charges applicable to non-inert wastes provide a strong economicincentive to separate the various C&DW streams (see Annex 6 for details). However, many of


the essential characteristics of the C&DW recycling industry are very similar to thosedescribed above for the UK. Specifically:

(i) not much C&DW travels over 20km to be processed, and virtually none goes over30km;

(ii) this is because transport costs are an important element in the cost:benefitcalculations, with a cost formula very like those in Spain and the UK, orapproximately (1.25 + 0.075/km) ECU/tonne, or 2.75 ECU for a 20km haul distance;

(iii) the profitability of C&DW processing is heavily dependent on maintaining a highthroughput: 75-85% of a crusher’s design capacity;

(iv) the economics of fixed recycling centres are sensitive to land prices and theinvestments (such as hard standings and noise bunds) required to protect the localenvironment;

(v) C&DW recyclers are having to become more and more flexible and entrepreneurial,and must understand the complete supply chain from demolition to new construction.

9.50 However, the C&DW recycling industry is structured very differently in Germany from the UK,where small and medium enterprises are the dominant players. The largest German C&DWrecycler, Remex (formerly Deutag Remex), operates around 40 processing centres formineral C&DW, 10 sorting plants and four processing plants which can accept and processboth mixed and mineral C&DW.

9.51 Some of these centres were established, with the approval of the local authorities concerned,as local monopoly service providers (i.e. with an exclusive franchise area, not unlike thoseawarded to many car dealerships). These monopolies have subsequently been broken, andwith increasing competition the industry appears to be moving back towards a greateremphasis on ‘Level 2’ technology.

9.52 The C&DW-derived aggregates which are produced are used in road sub-base, car parks,sports fields, ‘green’ roofing surfaces (incorporating crushed bricks and soil, to slow downrainwater run-off as an aid to flood control), soil improvement, landfill engineering (gascollection ducts etc) and similar applications. Although there is ongoing technical interest inrecycling crushed concrete into new concrete, it is a very marginal issue for commercialrecyclers.

9.53 Local conditions placed on C&DW-derived aggregates vary, with the result that a roadspecification that is acceptable on one side of a local authority border may cease to beacceptable on the other. Provided that a material’s engineering performance is acceptable,the focus of its acceptability is its environmental impacts, particularly with regard to leaching.

9.54 A technical difference between Germany and the UK (and which Germany shares withseveral other Member States where ‘Level 3’ technology is widespread) is an emphasis onremoving ‘fines’ (particles of 0-5mm) from C&DW-derived aggregates. Although such finescan generally be sold as recycled sand, it is considered preferable to avoid them in the firstplace, possibly by using a different type of crusher.

9.55 Prices of all aggregates have fallen in recent years in Germany, partly as a result ofcompetition from the central European countries, as have the prices of other recycledmaterials (like steel). This has driven down the prices which recyclers can charge end usersfor C&DW-derived aggregates at the same time that increasing competition has pushed downthe gate prices which they can charge to demolition contractors. The prices in Figures 9.5 and9.6 refer to the densely populated areas of western Germany (the valleys of the Ruhr and theRhein). There is some evidence that higher gate prices are charged in areas such asMecklenburg-Vorpommern (to the north of Berlin), and that higher prices can be achieved forC&DW-derived aggregates. In general the regional variations that can be observed depend,as in the UK, on the availability and prices of local primary materials.

Figure 9.5: Gate Prices for Incoming C&DW at German Recycling Plants


Material ECU/tonneClean mineral C&DW 3.00-5.00Masonry 7.50-10.00Mixed C&DW (less than 20% mineral content) 50.00-75.00

Figure 9.6: Prices for C&DW-Derived Aggregates in GermanyMaterial / use / application ECU/tonne

Pre-sieved, non-crushed sub-base material (0-45mm) 1.00-1.50Pre-sieved, non-crushed material (5-45mm) 2.50Sieved and crushed sand, for pavement sub-base orembankments

1.50-2.50

Crushed branded aggregate (0-45mm or 5-45mm), foruse as base material

3.00-5.00

Crushed branded aggregate (>45mm) 4.00Source: Brite EuRam (Figures 9.5 and 9.6), updated in 1998 by industry sources

9.56 Crushing costs are broadly comparable to the estimates in Annex 12, and sieving costs areestimated at around 0.50 ECU/tonne. As the prices above show, sieving the 0-5mm fractionout of sub-base material raises the value of both the sand and the remainder of theaggregate.

9.57 Any actions which rely on labour, including quality control and hand picking are veryexpensive in Germany, and the gate price levied on mixed C&DW (see Figure 9.5) providesa strong incentive to selective demolition and good site management practices. This gateprice is much higher than the equivalent in Belgium (see Figure 9.3).

The Netherlands

9.58 Landfill gate prices (i.e. including the landfill tax) in the Netherlands vary considerably fromarea to area, from 40 to 127 ECU/tonne, with a ‘typical’ level of 80. The only C&DW which ispermitted to be landfilled is material which cannot be recycled (see Annex 6).

9.59 C&DW-derived aggregates go mainly for use as road sub-base, a market from which primaryaggregates have been largely excluded by market forces. The main competition comes fromblast furnace slag, which can be bought for around 6.80-7.70 ECU/tonne, excluding transportcosts. Prices of C&DW-derived aggregates are around 4.50-5.40 ECU/tonne.

9.60 C&DW-derived aggregates seldom travel much more than 25km by road, but water-bornetransport is also widely available in the Netherlands. Since delivered prices for C&DW-derived aggregates are reported to be typically 6.80-8.35 ECU/tonne, this means thattransport (at around 2.50 ECU/tonne for a typical journey) is cheaper than in the UK, by about30%.

9.61 A study published in 1991 (see Annex 10, Ref 2.3) estimated the cost of crushing, sieving andwashing concrete in the Netherlands at 5-10 ECU/tonne, plus further costs for sludge andsand tipping. This is significantly higher than the crushing costs estimated in Annex 12, andthe sieving costs reported above for Germany.

Denmark

9.62 Roughly 25% of all Danish C&DW is processed at the Copenhagen Recycling Centre, whichhas an area of 7.5ha allocated to C&DW (as well as similar areas for green waste compostingand contaminated soil processing). The C&DW centre employs around 40 persons, and in1996 it processed 700,000 tonnes, representing a capacity utilisation of over 85%.

9.63 Landfill charges are very high in Denmark: 65-95 ECU/tonne for the inert fraction of C&DW,including a landfill tax of 45 ECU/tonne. Despite this, and despite the fact that holders ofC&DW are obliged by law to sort and recycle their waste, C&DW recycling centres onlycharge around 9.00 ECU/tonne for receiving concrete. Crushed concrete suitable for road


sub-base can then be bought from the recycling centre gate as cheaply as 5.00 ECU/tonne(against an ‘official’ list price of 7.00 ECU/tonne, and down from around 8.00 ECU/tonne in1996). The quarried primary material with which it competes costs roughly 4.00 ECU/tonne(against a list price of 5.50 ECU/tonne) at the quarry gate, or 7.00-8.00 ECU/tonne after atypical haul distance of 50km. From this we can conclude that haulage in Denmark issurprisingly cheap.

9.64 On the basis of the figures above we can see that the recycling centre has ‘captured’ around14.00 ECU/tonne in added sales value for a basic crushed C&DW-derived aggregate (i.e.5.00 ECU/tonne in income, minus -9.00 ECU/tonne in input costs). The same report whichestimated Dutch costs for crushing, sieving and washing concrete in 1991 (see Annex 10, Ref2.3) put the equivalent costs in Denmark at 7.5-10 ECU/tonne. Even at these relatively highcost levels, it would appear that the main recovery process as applied to ‘core’ C&DW shouldbe profitable in Denmark.

Conclusions

9.65 The commercial realities described above largely confirm what economic theory (see Chapter3 and the conclusions of Chapter 8) tell us we ought to expect. Those regions where ‘Level 1’technology is used are meeting some (but not all four) of the preconditions set out inparagraph 8.7, while those where ‘Level 2’ is the norm are meeting the pre-conditions but notgoing much further. ‘Level 3’ is typical of countries which have used administrative controls torequire more C&DW recycling than market forces alone would deliver, and in particular torequire (or at least encourage) the recycling of wood and plastic wastes. Some of the maintheoretical points are summarised in Figure 9.7.

9.66 In practice, where landfill gate prices are low, the gate prices charged by recyclers to theholders of C&DW tend to be very similar (but seldom if ever higher). Where landfill gateprices are higher, this link has generally been broken, either by competition or by regulation.

9.67 Although there appears to be a link between the levels of landfill costs and the extent ofC&DW recycling when the various Member States are compared, the statistical correlationdoes not appear to be very strong. This suggests that (as one would expect) other differencesbetween Member States are significant. However, there is some circumstantial evidence thatwhen such differences are removed, the link is stronger. This evidence comes from the UK,where there is widespread agreement that the introduction of a landfill tax in 1996 (at a rate of2.90 ECU/tonne for inert waste) triggered a major shift away from landfilling of C&DW andinto recycling.

9.68 So long as the link between recycling centre and landfill gate prices persists, and in MemberStates where there is a landfill tax, holders of waste (in this case owners of buildings whichare to be demolished) therefore pay what amounts to a levy to the recycling centre at thesame level as the landfill tax. The big difference is that whereas the landfill tax goes to theGovernment, the full value of the higher recycling centre gate charge is ‘captured’ by theoperator of the centre. Ultimately the users of new buildings built on demolition sites (i.e. thewider community) pay this higher price in return for a more expensive treatment process (orhigher profits to the operator of the recycling centre).

Figure 9.7: Relationships Between Disposal, Processing and RecyclingDisposal of

C&DWValue ofRecycledProduct

Outcome

Cheap andlegal

Low Processing costs must be low enough to compete with landfillif any recycling is to occur. Transport costs are very important.(For inert C&DW, this is typified by ‘Level 1’ technology).

Higherthandisposalcosts

Processing costs can rise above those of ‘Level 1’ technology.Competition among processors becomes more important as away of containing costs for holders of waste.

Expensivebut legal

Low Processing costs (but not the prices received for recycledproducts) can rise above those of ‘Level 1’ technology, andthese rises can be passed on to holders of waste (i.e. owners


of buildings), thereby allowing more sophisticated recycling.Competition between demolition contractors and betweenprocessors becomes more important as a way of containingdemolition and recycling costs.

Illegal Notimportant

Since prices for recycled materials are largely governed bynon-recycled alternatives, competition between processors isessential to keep gate prices for recyclable products low. Anytemptation to award processors monopolistic concessions willprobably lead to cost-plus charging and generally higher gateprices. Only competition between processors or sophisticatedand well informed regulation will keep costs to holders ofwaste down.

9.69 With around 180 million tonnes of ‘core’ C&DW spread among the Member States, anytendency to add further processing costs to C&DW could amount to a substantial transfer offinancial resources in return for the benefits of an improved rate of recycling.

9.70 Where ‘Level 3’ technology is in use and demolition contractors are obliged to separate andtreat C&DW (as in Germany and the Netherlands, for example), the evidence reported in theearlier sections of this Chapter shows that both landfill and C&DW processing charges aregenerally higher than where ‘Level 2’ technology predominates. Although no causal linkbetween these two observations can be established, it is clear that the cost of landfilling suchmaterial is irrelevant, and the demolition contractors have little option but to pay the feesdemanded by the recycling centre. It is by no means impossible that recycling centres whichoperate under such favourable circumstances (irrespective of who they may be operated by)may tend to lose touch with demand-led market forces because their incoming flow ofmaterials is effectively guaranteed. This would allow them to operate on the basis of cost-plusprices. The tighter the local monopoly which a recycling centre may have (as was formerlythe case in Germany), the stronger this trend will be in the absence of strong regulation.

9.71 Under these circumstances, the demolition contractor and/or the recycling centre will betweenthem ‘capture’ at least part of the value of the relevant landfill charges, which they then eitherspend adding value to the raw material (through recycling), or retain as ‘excess’ profits.Theory tells us that ‘excess’ profits attract new competitors. Given that the barrier costs whicha new entrant to the demolition business would have to pay are not very great, the scope for‘excess’ profits in demolition is equally modest. By contrast the entry costs, and therefore thescope for ‘excess’ profits, in recycling are considerable, and in areas where the local authorityhas a share in the existing recycling centre and both the means and the motivation to preventa competitor from becoming established, virtually infinite.

9.72 A measure of the value being ‘captured’ by recycling centres is the difference between theirgate price and their sale price (for comparable materials). As can be seen above, if we looksimply at products like crushed concrete, the differences in Member States where ‘Level 3’technology can be found are generally larger than in those where ‘Level 1’ and ‘Level 2’technology is the norm. This suggests that the marginal technical benefits of ‘Level 3’technology over its ‘Level 2’ equivalents may be being subsidised by materials which couldperfectly well be produced by ‘Level 2’ techniques.

9.73 The technical and cost differences between ‘Level 1’ and ‘Level 2’ technology are not verygreat, and in reality very few recycling industries would consciously stop at ‘Level 1’. Howeverthis is not so where the leap from ‘Level 2’ to ‘Level 3’ is concerned, because a ‘Level 3’recycling centre has been reported from Germany to require a level of investment of up tofive times that of a ‘Level 2’ centre. We also recognise that the choice between ‘Level 2’ and‘Level 3’ technology is essentially a political one directly equivalent to the one over BATversus BATNEEC (best available technology versus best available technology not entailingexcessive costs). One of the purposes of this report is simply to point out some of theeconomic costs entailed in ignoring the NEEC element, and by whom they would mostprobably be paid.

9.74 To date no Member State has achieved a significant rate of utilisation of C&DW-derivedaggregates in new concrete, irrespective of the level of sophistication of the processing


technology used. Based on the data in Annex 4 no Member State (with the exception of theNetherlands) faces a situation where C&DW-derived (and secondary) aggregates are likely torepresent a significant share of total aggregates market. Under the circumstances it is veryhard to see that more expensive processing can be economically justified where reasonableat-source separation of C&DW (and soil) is being achieved.


10. SUMMARY OF MAIN CONCLUSIONS AND EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS

Introductory comments

10.1 This Chapter draws together the findings from elsewhere in this Report in a series ofproposals for interventions which, in the view of the study team, are more likely than most tobe effective in boosting C&DW prevention, re-use and/or recycling without imposingunexpected costs on government, industry or society. These proposals are grouped under aset of headings which refer to possible interventions at the level of the EU-15, the MemberStates, regional or local government and the construction and demolition industries. Giventhe considerable differences that exist between the administrative structures of the 15Member States, we regard these headings as helpful pointers rather than definitivecategories, and we would urge readers to study the text that appears under each heading inorder to get the full picture.

10.2 We should also say quite clearly that we have not sought to re-state (either selectively or infull) the 54 detailed recommendations and accompanying discussion contained in the thirdvolume of the C&DW Priority Waste Streams Project report (see Annex 10, Ref 1.1). It wasthe view of the project group that drew up that report that their recommendations should betreated as a package, and that all had roughly equal weight and significance. Reproducingthem here would therefore be inappropriate for two quite separate reasons: firstly theyrepresent the collective views of others rather than the conclusions of this study, andsecondly they cover about 30 pages (which would unbalance this report if inserted here).However, we consider that all 54 recommendations remain relevant, even though the majorityhave still to be implemented.

10.3 Over the course of this study we found no clear evidence to suggest that any of the individualrecommendations (which we refer to below as PWSP recommendations, with their individualnumbers where relevant) have become inappropriate, and in general we endorse them. Therecommendations cover:

(i) waste management (29 recommendations);

(ii) pre- and post-construction activities (9 recommendations);

(iii) construction and demolition site management (9 recommendations);

(iv) implementation of the strategy (3 recommendations); and

(v) monitoring of, and follow up to, the strategy (4 recommendations).

10.4 We would therefore encourage all readers of this Report with responsibility for policy makingto refer back to the C&DW Priority Waste Streams Project report as an essential complementto this document.

Main conclusions

10.5 In Chapter 9 we describe three broad levels of recycling technologies and their applications:

(i) ‘Level 1’, which comprises mobile crushing and sorting plant, and is only really suitedto the processing of inert C&DW;

(ii) ‘Level 2’, which also has metal removal and more complex sorting and sievingfacilities, and is therefore capable of dealing with mixed (mainly inert) C&DW; and

(iii) ‘Level 3’, which adds hand sorting, washing plant and facilities for other C&DWstreams (such as wood) to ‘Level 2’ plant, and can deal with any (mixed andcontaminated) C&DW if required.

10.6 As we point out in Chapter 9, these levels may all be present in a single Member State due toregional differences, not least as regards the availability and pricing of primary aggregates.These regional differences are an important characteristic of the C&DW sector, since they


can render a recycling technique which is fully justified in one place completely uneconomicless than 100km away, and with no change in regulatory framework. However, as a generalobservation it is fair to say that ‘Level 1’ technology is mainly associated with low levels ofrecycling, ‘Level 3’ with high levels, and ‘Level 2’ with an intermediate position.

10.7 We conclude (in Chapter 8) that no single policy intervention can bring about a transformationin C&DW recycling practice on its own, and that before C&DW recycling can be expected toreach a significant level at which it will be sustained and economically viable, there appear tobe four conditions which must be met, as follows:

(i) landfills must be well managed, and ‘fly tipping’ of waste must be uncommon andsubject to sanctions;

(ii) the holder of the C&DW must face a significant financial cost for landfilling waste,with hazardous or mixed wastes facing significantly higher costs (to avoidcontamination and to discourage mixing);

(iii) the opportunity must exist for the main bulky inert fraction of the C&DW to be treated(crushed and sorted) prior to re-use or recycling;

(iv) there must be at least a tacit acceptance (by users, specifiers and other similarlyinterested ‘actors’) that suitably prepared C&DW-derived aggregates may be used todisplace primary aggregates. Positive action to draw up technical standards is notessential, but C&DW-derived aggregates should not be discriminated against on thebasis of their origins alone.

10.8 We conclude that if any of these four conditions is not met, then that Member State or regionwill find it effectively impossible to progress beyond ‘Level 1’, and even that level oftechnology will be hard to justify in parts of the territory concerned. By contrast, ‘Level 2’ andpossibly even ‘Level 3’ technology is likely to follow as soon as all four conditions are met.

10.9 However, we believe that widespread and consistently high levels of recycling (by which wemean 75% or above of ‘core’ C&DW being recycled in most regions) is likely to be achievedonly if some form of ban on landfilling C&DW is imposed and enforced, or if a requirement isput in place that all C&DW must be separated with each stream being directed to some formof re-use or recovery operation. Doing this would effectively remove the second conditionfrom the list in paragraph 10.7 above.

10.10 By contrast, we believe that relying on a mechanism such as a tax on landfill or a tax onprimary aggregates would not on its own achieve high recycling rates under allcircumstances, because the tax would have to be set at politically unacceptable levels beforeit changed the behaviour of engineers and demolition contractors in areas with easy access tolandfills (or quarries). Varying the tax rate to match local conditions would create considerabledistortions to trade, and would therefore probably be equally unacceptable.

10.11 In Chapter 9 we conclude that the economic costs of banning landfilling and/or requiringseparation (which have to be set alongside the undoubted environmental and resource-savinggains) are not trivial. Although there are too many imponderables to make it possible toestimate with real confidence how large the extra costs are, we note that C&DW processingcharges (but particularly those applied to mixed materials) are generally higher in thoseMember States which have ‘Level 3’ technology. In effect such additional costs are almostcertainly borne in the first instance by the construction industry, and passed on to the owners,occupants and users of new buildings and infrastructure through higher construction costs.

Interventions at the level of the EU-15

10.12 It would be desirable if a guidance note on the interpretation of waste in the specific contextof C&DW management could be issued. Any such guidance needs to address how thosematerials which the holder intends to re-use without further processing should be dealt with.We conclude that adopting the principles set out in the OECD’s ‘Final guidance document fordistinguishing waste from non-waste’ (as discussed in Chapter 3) would meet most if not all of


the objections which we have identified in the specific context of C&DW, and we believe thatequivalent guidance from the Commission on C&DW management would be helpful.

10.13 Attention should urgently be given to addressing inconsistencies in the way in which C&DWstatistics are recorded by completing the current reviews of the EWC and the hazardouswaste list, and the specific classifications applicable to C&DW (see Chapter 2 and Annex 9).When this has been done, written guidance should be provided by the Commission toMember States on the new system. This could (but need not) be combined with the guidanceon interpreting the definition of waste which is called for in the previous paragraph.

10.14 We also recommend in Chapter 3 that the Commission should apply appropriate pressure tothe participants in working groups convened by CEN and RILEM to consider issues related tospecifications. In the interim, we consider that the Commission might issue a guidance notedrawing attention to the fact that formal specifications, however convenient, are not actuallynecessary, and discouraging the citing of their absence as a reason to hold back on usingC&DW-derived aggregates.

10.15 The remaining proposals are not necessarily all directed at the Commission. Some of themcould equally well be implemented by a trade association or fully commercial organisation(such as a technical publisher).

10.16 Valuable work has been done in several Member States in implementing research,development, pilot and demonstration projects, and in documenting best practice in fieldssuch as selective demolition, the operation of recycling centres, and material-by-materialprocesses.

10.17 Most research and development projects and best practice recommendations are as relevantto other Member States as they are to their ‘host’ countries. Although pilot and demonstrationprojects are by their nature tied to a particular time and place, they can nevertheless be ofreal help to other interested parties if properly recorded and made more widely available.

10.18 We would therefore propose that a more detailed appraisal be made of these topic areas,building on the outlines provided in Chapters 4-6 and Annex 6 of this Report.

10.19 Ideally such an appraisal should result in the production of a best practice synthesisdocument (or documents) which could then be translated into two or more of the officiallanguages of the EU, with the material made available as printed documents and/or via theInternet.

10.20 The Internet also offers scope for establishing ‘bulletin boards’ for government officials,regulators, researchers, commercial recyclers and others to exchange information and views.This facility could be linked to the various Internet-based waste exchanges which arespringing up in several Member States.

Interventions at the level of individual Member States

10.21 Member State governments should ensure that there are no particular barriers to the use ofC&DW-derived aggregates in road construction and for general engineering fill in civil works,including unintentional barriers created by the widespread use of specifications which wereoriginally based on the characteristics of primary materials. Adopting performance-basedspecifications can help to remove such barriers.

10.22 They may wish to go further and adopt specifications which actively include C&DW-derivedaggregates. Such specifications are now widely available, and the effort required to put themin place need not be duplicated.

10.23 Any barriers to the holding of reasonable stocks of C&DW-derived aggregates (which may betreated by regulators as waste materials) should be removed prior to any EU-level guidanceon the interpretation of waste being given. For example, we believe that levels of non-inert‘contraries’ (such as wood, plastic, rags and paper) which are acceptable in primaryaggregates should also be acceptable in C&DW-derived aggregates, enabling them to avoid


classification as waste. At present some regulators treat crushed C&DW-derived aggregatesas waste even when they are fit for use and intended for use.

10.24 Where landfill charges are very low (less than 10 ECU/tonne for inert waste) and resourcesdedicated to the enforcement of good landfill management practices are scarce,consideration should be given to raising charges (possibly but not necessarily through theintroduction of a landfill tax), and a high priority should be given to reinforcing enforcementmeasures before C&DW-specific initiatives are put in place. One of the advantages of alandfill tax is that it generates the necessary resources to pay for improved enforcement.

10.25 As a quite separate measure, we consider that Member States should adopt policies whichcommit them to encourage and promote (or even to require) selective demolition, certainlywhere larger structures are concerned. We recognise that the actions necessary to put such apolicy into effect will largely be taken at local level, but we believe the signal which a nationalpolicy can send would be beneficial.

10.26 Voluntary agreements (VAs) can be used to raise the awareness of developers, demolitioncontractors and civil engineering contractors alike to the potential for C&DW recycling andthe extent of existing knowledge about best practice. Although unlikely to be very effective ontheir own, VAs can usefully supplement other policy measures and interventions by signallingclearly a preferred approach to complex issues such as selective demolition and on-site useof C&DW-derived aggregates.

10.27 VAs may also be effective in encouraging best recycling practice in sectors where there areonly a few suppliers, such as gypsum, plastics and glass. They could also be used todiscourage excessive use of bonding materials which make separation of C&DW moredifficult than it need be.

10.28 Efforts should be stepped up into the collection and dissemination of statistics on C&DWarisings, treatment and end use using a common basis agreed at EU level (see the discussionabove on the EWC and PWSP recommendations 2, 4 and 5 taken as a set).

10.29 Those Member States which have achieved most by way of C&DW recycling have also runextensive research, pilot and demonstration projects in the past. It is not so obvious that (withthe possible exception of demonstration projects) other Member States need to repeat thisprocess, because the accumulated experience is extensive and overlapping. Exceptions tothis statement would include research into:

(i) selective demolition and processing of those construction materials (such as glassand plastics) which are becoming significantly more widely used; and

(ii) designing for deconstruction, and finding alternatives to materials and techniques(such as the widespread use of bonding agents) which are economically driven at themanufacturing and construction stages, but which create problems at the point ofdemolition where direct re-use is not an option.

10.30 A number of Member States are using EU funding to encourage wider provision of C&DWprocessing and recycling centres, and to operate demonstration projects. This is likely tocontinue to be a valuable method of encouraging best practice in Member States with little orno tradition of C&DW recycling.

Interventions at the regional or local level

10.31 Land use and/or waste plans (whether at the local, regional or even national level) shouldspecifically deal with C&DW. Among other things, at the level where zoning is dealt with theyshould identify zones and/or locations where C&DW recycling can be considered to beacceptable on a temporary or medium-term basis. Cities which have ‘green belts’ aroundthem should seek to identify locations on the city side of the belt. Where the private sectorhas shown no interest in developing C&DW processing and recycling centres it may beappropriate for the local authority (or a group of local authorities) to consider establishing acentre on their own or in association with the private sector. In all cases sufficient locations


should be identified to facilitate competition (or the threat of competition) between recyclingcentres as a means of containing processing charges.

10.32 PWSP recommendations 14-19 (and the accompanying discussion) are particularly relevantin the context of waste planning. PWSP recommendation 17, which we endorse, deals withthe difficult question of recycling targets, and calls for detailed targets to be set at the locallevel, “... where the issues affecting recovery from, and disposal of, the wastes can beidentified”. Targets set at the regional, national and EU level were viewed by the PWSP assuitable only for providing encouragement to the general process of improvement. Theevidence which we have found (and which is reported above and in Annex 5) is that regionalfactors have a great influence on rates of C&DW recycling.

10.33 There is some evidence to suggest that by requiring a demolition plan and a C&DWmanagement plan to be submitted before a demolition permit is issued (thereby enabling asite to be re-developed), selective demolition and C&DW recycling is encouraged. In ourview, introducing such a requirement (which would be consistent with PWSPrecommendations 26 and 27) would be likely to have positive consequences, and unlikely tohave significant negative ones, since the larger property developers already produce suchplans, making the marginal cost of submitting them to the local authorities relatively minor. Itis noticeable that in those Member States where demolition plans are required, C&DWrecycling rates tend to be higher.

10.34 As purchasers of aggregates in their own right, and/or as major clients for civil engineeringworks, regional and local authorities have considerable scope for ‘green procurement’ (byspecifying that C&DW-derived aggregates and other re-used or recycled C&DW will either betreated as equivalent to, or even given preference over, primary materials, subject to generalsingle market principles and obligations). This is generally consistent with PWSPrecommendation 38.

Interventions by the construction and demolition i ndustries

10.35 Chapter 4 deals in some detail with selective demolition, and concludes that it is a pre-requisite for widespread economic C&DW recycling, Separating materials prior to demolition(which is at the heart of selective demolition) is greatly preferable to sorting of mixed C&DWat a recycling centre. Such a procedure is very expensive, with hand sorting being unpleasantand potentially dangerous for the personnel involved. PWSP recommendation 40 called forgreater selective demolition, and we endorse that call.

10.36 As we discuss in Chapter 3 (and briefly above) specifications have historically been the keymechanism used to manage the risks associated with the performance of materials used inconstruction contracts. The construction industry is traditionally ‘conservative’ in nature, andhas a tendency only to use specifications that have been tried and tested over considerableperiods of time. The majority of these specifications are ‘recipe’ based rather than‘performance’ based. We recommend that, independent of any initiatives which may be takenby the EU or national governments, designers and specifiers should be encouraged to useperformance based specifications, placing the emphasis on the identification of the propertiesand qualities required of materials appropriate to the intended use.

10.37 However, as is also pointed out in Chapter 3, specifications are not strictly necessary to gooddesign. In practice several alternative mechanisms are available, and may be used tomanage material performance risks provided they are acceptable to all parties to the contract.There is no reason why the present absence of national and international standards shouldstand in the way of the increased use of C&DW-derived aggregates, or any other potentiallyre-usable or recycleable C&DW.

10.38 The construction industry should therefore be encouraged to use alternative methods ofmanaging material performance risks, including contract- or sector-specific specifications, orby the external verification of quality certification of C&DW-derived materials. It should not benecessary to wait for nationally or internationally agreed specifications.

10.39 Construction site managers should seek to implement best practices as regards the provisionof efficient storage facilities, good stock control, proper training of the labour force and


efficient control of sub-contractors. This should help to reduce damage and reduce over-ordering. Having an internal accounting systems which enables undamaged surplus materialsto be returned to the supplier or transferred to another site would also help to reduce thesurprisingly large volume of good quality construction materials which goes to landfill asmixed waste. While we do not consider that a VA is a suitable mechanism to achieve this inmany cases, we do recommend that the relevant professional bodies should give thought tohow best a code of conduct might be more widely applied.

10.40 Developers play a key role in deciding how quickly the sites in their portfolio are cleared andredeveloped, and this in turn strongly influences the extent to which selective demolition ispractical. A sector-wide VA to encourage selective demolition on large sites could provide aworthwhile stimulus to greater recycling, particularly if backed up by the threat of regulation ifignored, and we recommend that the relevant industry bodies give this serious consideration.


ANNEXES

76 Symonds Group Ltd 46967 Final Report February 1999



Annex 1

Annex 1 to Service Contract

B4-3040/97/000659/MAR/E3

Study Brief - Programme of Work


ANNEX 1 TO SERVICE CONTRACT - STUDY BRIEF - PROGRAMME OF WORK

The following is the text of the Study Brief (Technical Annex) from the original Call for Tenders.

The text has been re-formatted, but not changed in any other way, from the original version.

* * * * * * *

1. Objectives of the study:

The study which is to cover the fifteen Member States of the European Union aims at:

a) identifying the origin and destination of construction and demolition waste;

b) identifying the quantities of hazardous waste and other waste parts for which a separatecollection would be appropriate;

c) identifying methods and ways which are used within Member States to promotereutilisation/recovery of construction and demolition waste, (in particular within those localauthorities, regions or Member States which have already addressed this issue);

d) examine the economic implications if construction and demolition waste is sorted in order toseparate hazardous and other materials;

e) examine possibilities and practical measures used to prevent construction and demolitionwaste going to landfills;

in the context of the European Community Environmental Policy and the Community Strategy forWaste Management.

2. Contractor’s tasks:

In the context of 1a), the contractor shall make an inventory of construction and demolition waste,which originates in Member States, bearing in mind that these are not yet a commonly agreedterminology.He shall in particular identify the overall quantity of this waste type and the quantities andpercentages of such wastes, being landfilled, being reused or otherwise recovered.

In the context of 1b), the contractor shall assemble information on hazardous parts of constructionand demolition waste, as well as other parts for which separate collection seems appropriate, takinginto consideration economic implications and possibilities to better use dispose of the remaining partsof construction and demolition waste.

In the context of 1c), the contractor shall describe methods which are used within Member States inorder to promote the reutilisation and or the recovery of construction and demolition waste. Examplesof practical experience in Member States are to be added. The economic implications of thesemethods shall be considered.

In the context of 1d) the contractor shall examine the economic implications of separate collection ofhazardous and other parts (for instance plastic) of construction and demolition waste.

In the context of 1e), the contractor shall list examples of other means to prevent construction anddemolition waste from going to landfills and examine their economic implications.


3. Schedule of work

The study must be completed within twelve months from the date of signature of the contract.

An outline of the work shall be submitted within three weeks of the date of signature of the contract.

An interim report shall be submitted not later than six months from the date of signature of thecontract.

A draft final report shall be submitted not later than eleven months from the date of signature of thecontract.

A final report shall be submitted not later than fifteen months from the date of the contract.


Annex 2

Background to the Study

Full text of Chapter 1 from the C&DW Priority Waste Streams Project Report (1995)


BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

The following is the text of Chapter 1 from Part 1 (Information Document) of the Final Report of theProject Group to the European Commission on the C&DW project which was completed in October1995 within the framework of the Priority Waste Streams Programme (PWSP).

The text has been re-formatted, but not changed in any other way, from the original version.

Section 1.1 describes the full PWSP report, and therefore refers to further text which is not availablehere. Information on how to obtain a copy of the full report can be found in Annex 10 (see Ref 1.1).

* * * * * * *

1. CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.1 Introduction

This document is one of three documents representing the output from the Priority Waste StreamProgramme - Construction and Demolition Waste.

Chapter 1 introduces the Construction and Demolition Waste project and sets out the background toit.

Chapter 2 describes the European and international regulatory framework for Construction andDemolition Waste management.

Chapter 3 describes the characteristics of Construction and Demolition Waste.

Chapter 4 sets out the estimates for Construction and Demolition waste arisings in the EuropeanUnion.

Chapter 5 summarises the treatment, recovery and recycling practices adopted in the EuropeanUnion.

Further details on the composition of the Project Group, the definitions adopted in the development ofthe strategy for the management of Construction and Demolition Wastes, and more detailedinformation on legislation and arisings in the Member States is given in the Appendices.

More detail on particular components of the Construction and Demolition Waste stream, and on thepublished data available is also given in the Appendices.

1.2 The legal backgr ound to the priority waste st reams programme

The promotion of sustainable growth respecting the Environment is one of the primary objectives ofthe Treaty on European Union.

Article 130r(2) of the Treaty lays down that action by the Community relating to the Environment shallbe based on the precautionary principle, and on the principles of preventive action, rectification ofenvironment damage at source, and that the polluter should pay.

Accordingly, the European Community must first address itself to preventing waste before consideringits recovery, recycling and how it is to be ultimately disposed of. In any event, the basic principle ofaction by the Community must be to avoid waste and reduce its harmfulness.

Furthermore, Article 130r(2) lays down that environmental protection requirements (and hence wastemanagement) must be integrated into the definition and implementation of other Community policies.

The Fifth Action Programme on the Environment (Towards Sustainability) reflects the objectives andprinciples of sustainable development, preventative and precautionary action and sharedresponsibility.


In its resolution of 1st February 1993 approving the Fifth Action Programme, the Council advocated,particularly in relation to waste management, the elaboration of the concept of life-cycle managementof products and processes in the most cost effective way

It also endorsed a strengthening of dialogue with the main actors in the sectors identified in theprogramme, and re-affirmed the importance of ensuring that environmental concerns are taken intoaccount in the development and implementation of all Community policies.

As regards industry, the programme's approach reflects the growing realisation in industry and in thebusiness world that, not only is industry a significant part of the environmental problem, but it mustalso be part of the solution.

The Community action will avoid distortions in conditions of competition and preserve the integrity ofthe internal market.

The Council Resolution of 7th May 1990 on Waste Policy considers that it is desirable, from the pointof view of prevention, recycling and re-use, as well as final disposal, to establish action programmesfor particular types of waste and therefore invites the Commission to establish proposals for action atCommunity level.

As a result, the Commission has initiated the Priority Waste Streams Programme within whoseframework specific projects started from early 1991.

References:Council Resolution of 7th May 1990 on WASTE POLICY (O.J. C 122/2, 18.05.1990)Treaty on EUROPEAN UNION (O.J. C 224/1, 31.08.1992)Fifth Action Programme on the ENVIRONMENT - Towards Sustainability(O.J. C 138/1, 17.05.1993)

1.3 The selection of construction and demolition waste as a priority waste

Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC, sets out thefollowing objectives for waste management which Member States should adopt:- Increased prevention and reduction of waste through the development of clean technologies

as well as of products that can be re-used or recycled;- Recycling and recovery of waste as secondary raw material;- Recovery and disposal of waste without endangering human health or the environment;- Drawing up of waste management plans by competent authorities;- Aim at self-sufficiency in waste disposal by the Member States;- Establishment of an integrated and adequate network of disposal installations, taking into

account the best available technology and enabling the Community as a whole to becomeself-sufficient;

- Use of waste as a source of energy.

In the context of this waste management policy, and in order to accelerate the achievement of theseobjectives in the Member States and in the Community as a whole, Directorate-General XI of theCommission, Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection, has initiated an action programme forspecific waste types.

In order to identify those wastes considered to be a priority, questionnaires were sent by theCommission to all Member States. On the basis of the responses to this questionnaire the followingPriority Waste Stream projects were initiated:- Used Tyres;- End-of-Life Vehicles;- Chlorinated Solvents;- Healthcare Waste;- Construction and Demolition Waste; and,- Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment.

1.4 The approach chosen by the European Commission to develop a strategy


The Priority Waste Streams Programme represents a new approach to the development ofCommunity policy. This new approach is based on the involvement of representatives of all 'actors' ina waste stream in the development of the strategy for its future management.

In the case of the Construction and Demolition Waste Project, this involvement was achieved throughthe Construction and Demolition Project Group. This Group, set up in 1992, comprised some 80members invited to participate by the Commission, and included representatives drawn from thefollowing organisations and groups:- the building industry;- material producers;- wholesale and trade organisations;- architects;- consumers;- recycling and recovery organisations;- waste management organisations;- environmental protection agencies;- local and regional authorities;- Member States;- EFTA; and,- the European Commission;

The Project Leader for this work was Germany. The Project Group was assisted in its work byTechnical Consultants appointed by DGXI.C.7 of the European Commission. The Members of theProject Group are listed in Appendix 1.

The working method for the Project Group developed by the Commission was based on interactionbetween its members with the strategy for the management of the wastes being developed throughdiscussion and co-operation between the representatives of the Member States, and the participatingEuropean associations and federations.

All members of the Project Group were invited to contribute information, analyses and strategies, andto come to agreed decisions in an interactive, iterative process of discussion.

1.5 The formulation of the Strategy

The Strategy set out in the Project Documents has been derived from the various discussions of theProject Group, and the written representations of Project Group members.

A total of 5 formal Project Group Meetings were held between August 1992 and June 1995.Simultaneous interpretation facilities were provided for these formal Group Meetings. These weresupplemented by a further 4 Informal Project Group Meetings where the working language wasEnglish.

A further 7 Task Group meetings were held where specific areas of particular interest were discussedin greater detail by small groups of Project Group members. As with the Informal Project GroupMeetings, the working language for the Task Group Meetings was English. These Groups were asfollows:Task Group 1 - Standards and Quality;Task Group 2 - Licensing and Permits;Task Group 3 - Participants in the C&D waste stream;Task Group 4 - Targets for C&D waste management.

1.6 The output from the Project Group

The final output developed from the work of the Project Group comprises 3 Project Documents.These documents are:- Part 1 - Information Document;- Part 2 - Strategy Document;- Part 3 - Recommendations of the Project Group.

This document, the Information Document:- introduces and provides the background to the Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste

Priority Waste Stream Project;


- sets out the process by which the Strategy for the management of C&D wastes has beendeveloped;

- summarises the legislative, regulatory and management systems presently in place in theEuropean Union and the Member States; and,

- summarises the existing data on C&D waste arisings and their treatment.

The Strategy Document:- sets out the definitions adopted by the Project Group;- sets out the discussions and summarise the findings of the Project Group;- identifies the actions required to improve C&D waste management;- identifies the key issues and the roles of the participants in C&D waste management; and,- proposes a strategy to achieve improvements in C&D waste management.

The Recommendations Document has been derived from, and follows on from, the Information andStrategy Documents, and presents a concise and detailed summary of the specific recommendationsmade by the Project Group.


Annex 3

The European Construction Industry, 1991-98

Based on information abstracted from Report Nr.41 from the

European Construction Industry Federation (FIEC)


THE EUROPEAN CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY, 1991-98

Although not identified in our proposal as a topic on which information would be assembled, we havecollected some useful data on the European construction and primary aggregates industries. Theseare the sectors which generate C&DW and against which C&DW-derived aggregates have tocompete, respectively.

The construction industry data include comparisons of financial turnover and employment by MemberState, which helps to throw light on the probable scale and geographical distribution of the C&DWsector. Whilst we do not wish to suggest that C&DW generation is directly proportionate to either theturnover of or the employment in the construction sector, it is nevertheless highly probable that thereis a general relationship between these indices.

Our source is a statistical report dated December 1997 from the European Construction IndustryFederation (FIEC). This provides the best available overview of the size and distribution of theEuropean construction industry, and was used by the European Commission in its paper entitled ‘TheCompetitiveness of the Construction Industry’. It is updated and published twice a year by FIEC. TheDecember 1997 report values the total European construction market (civil construction and buildingconstruction) at 754 billion ECU and total employment at around 10 million. The table below showshow these figures were broken down, with the countries arranged in declining order of C&DWarisings. The numbers in brackets in the ‘% share’ columns show the actual order for the measureconcerned.

Figure A3.1: Turnover and Employment in the EU Construction Industry% share of EU-15 by turnover: % share of EU-15 by employment:

(Order) Actual%

Cumulative (Order) Actual % Cumulative

Germany (1) 37.0 37.0 (1) 24.8 24.8United Kingdom (2) 12.5 49.5 (4) 13.7 38.5France (3) 11.4 60.9 (3) 14.2 52.7Italy (4) 11.4 72.3 (2) 16.0 68.7Spain (5) 8.4 80.7 (5) 11.7 80.4The Netherlands (6) 4.7 85.4 (6) 4.1 84.5Belgium (8) 2.8 88.2 (10) 2.2 86.7Austria (11) 1.3 89.5 (12) 1.3 88.0Portugal (10) 1.8 91.3 (7) 3.4 91.4Denmark (9) 2.2 93.5 (11) 1.7 93.1Greece (13) 1.1 94.6 (8) 2.5 95.6Sweden (7) 3.1 97.8 (9) 2.2 97.8Finland (12) 1.2 99.0 (13) 1.2 99.0Ireland (14) 1.0 99.9 (14) 0.9 99.9Luxembourg (15) 0.1 100.0 (15) 0.1 100.0Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0Source: FIEC, 1997Note: The employment figures for Greece and Luxembourg are Symonds’ own estimates

Using a value-based measure to compare the different Member States gives greater emphasis thanmight otherwise be the case to Member States with higher per capita incomes in general, and to theGerman construction industry in particular. However, the general conclusion is clear: Germany, theUK, France, Italy and Spain between them contribute over 80% of the European total in value terms.This conclusion is reinforced if the measure used is employment in the construction sector(employees plus self employed workers) instead of market value. It is probably safe to conclude that,whatever the measure used, the same five Member States would between them account for well overtwo thirds of the European construction industry.

A key point to come out of FIEC’s regular reports concerns the magnitude of the changes in theconstruction sector over time. It is well known that the construction industry is much more sensitive tochanges in the strength of the economy than most other major industrial sectors, but many readerswill be surprised to see just how great the changes can be from year to year in some countries.


Taking 1991 as the base year (i.e. 1991=100), by 1998 the turnover of the construction industry forEU-15 had shrunk by 0.4% (to 99.6). Ignoring those Member States for which 1998 or 1997 data werenot available (namely Finland, where the drop had been very steep up to 1995, Ireland, Greece andLuxembourg), it is clear that France, Italy and Sweden had all experienced clear falls over the 7-yearperiod, whereas Germany had expanded to 117.9 (largely thanks to the building boom of the early1990s) and Portugal had reached a spectacular 142.6. By 1998 the other Member States fell into acentral band between 95 and 115. Fuller details are given in Figure A3.2, and Figure A3.3 providescomparable data for employment changes between 1991 and 1997.

The point which should be taken from this is that, with year-on-year growth rates frequently as high as+6.0% (or -6.0%), the volume of C&DW may vary by a similar amount from year to year. Compoundgrowth of 6% a year for 5 years turns 100 into 134, and after a decade it will have reached 179.

The FIEC report also provides some data on construction industry wage rates in the majority of theMember States (namely Germany, France, Spain, the Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark,Portugal, Austria and Finland).


Figure A3.2: Changes in the Construction Industry’s Turnover, 1991-1998 (1991 = 100)

Country 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Germany 100.0 110.4 115.1 124.2 125.5 122.2 119.5 117.9

United Kingdom 100.0 96.1 94.3 97.4 96.5 97.7 101.4 104.4

France 100.0 97.2 92.2 90.9 89.6 86.3 85.1 -

Italy 100.0 97.6 91.5 86.1 86.6 87.5 87.9 89.7

Spain 100.0 94.0 87.0 88.0 92.5 91.8 93.2 96.0

Netherlands 100.0 99.9 97.6 99.1 100.8 102.5 107.0 109.7

Sweden 100.0 91.9 81.4 77.7 76.4 77.2 75.2 77.9

Belgium 100.0 104.6 103.4 105.5 107.3 103.0 107.2 109.0

Denmark 100.0 99.9 93.4 95.4 101.3 109.3 112.7 110.7

Portugal 100.0 102.5 109.3 110.0 116.5 121.5 136.8 142.6

Austria 100.0 104.5 103.6 107.8 104.2 102.5 100.9 101.6

Finland 100.0 82.8 68.6 65.6 69.1 - - -

Greece 100.0 88.8 84.1 80.7 - - - -

Ireland 100.0 97.7 93.0 101.5 110.3 114.9 - -

Luxembourg 100.0 - - - - - - -

EU-15 100.0 99.4 97.3 99.2 99.9 98.9 99.0 99.6Source: FIECNote: The Member States are listed in declining order of their share of EU-15 construction industry turnover in 1997 (or latest available data)


Figure A3.3: Changes in Construction Industry Employment L evels, 1991-1998 (1991 = 100)

Country 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Germany 100.0 126.6 128.9 134.7 135.5 125.2 125.2 -

Italy 100.0 101.1 102.6 98.4 95.9 95.1 - -

France 100.0 96.7 91.9 89.1 89.2 86.3 83.9 -

United Kingdom 100.0 89.5 83.1 81.6 81.0 80.7 81.6 82.5

Spain 100.0 93.9 85.4 83.1 89.1 92.3 - -

Netherlands 100.0 99.7 100.2 99.2 100.7 103.2 106.0 107.5

Portugal 100.0 95.2 93.6 91.0 93.6 94.3 105.7 106.7

Greece 100.0 99.9 96.5 96.3 - - - -

Sweden 100.0 87.5 73.8 68.6 72.0 70.6 67.1 67.7

Belgium 100.0 100.9 98.4 99.1 97.1 95.3 95.7 94.0

Denmark 100.0 101.5 100.0 103.2 107.3 106.9 109.1 108.0

Austria 100.0 101.5 100.8 102.3 100.1 99.4 99.4 99.4

Finland 100.0 83.2 69.8 65.3 65.3 - - -

Ireland 100.0 94.9 103.5 99.3 104.9 110.9 119.0 123.6

Luxembourg 100.0 - - - - - - -

EU-15 100.0 101.5 98.6 97.7 98.4 96.2 - -Source: FIECNote: The Member States are listed in declining order of their share of EU-15 construction industry employment in 1996 (1994 in the case of Greece)


Annex 4

‘Core’ C&DW Arisings Compared to

Primary Aggregate Consumption


‘CORE’ C&DW ARISINGS COMPARED TO PRIMARY AGGREGATE CONSUMPTION

The purpose of this Annex is to set ‘core’ C&DW in each Member State into the wider context ofaggregate use. Any reader wanting to gain a deeper understanding of the primary aggregates sectoras a whole can consult Chapter 2-18 from Volume I of the Eurostat publication ‘Panorama of EUIndustry’ (see Annex 10, Ref 1.5). For the purposes of this Annex we have also drawn on Eurostatdata on trade flows for 1996.

The ‘Panorama of EU Industry’ defines construction raw materials as including:• crushed stone, sand and gravel for construction and road aggregate;• limestone and chalk for cement and lime;• gypsum for plaster and cement;• dimension stone (including marble and granite, sanstone and slate).

Trade flow statistics are broken down into various headings which include:• 2515 - marble and alabaster;• 2516 - cut or trimmed granite, basalt, sandstone and monumental/building stone;• 2517 - pebbles, gravel and crushed stone for aggregate or ballast.

As the ‘Panorama of EU Industry’ chapter points out with respect to construction raw materials, theEU is “theoretically self-sufficient for virtually all mainstream products and external trade tends to be inmaterial chosen on aesthetic grounds”. Imports of construction materials amount to roughly 6% oftotal consumption, and exports amount to 3%. The main imports in the mid-1990s to the countrieswhich now comprise the EU-15 were accounted for by dimension stone from Norway, South Africa,Brazil and India, and aggregates from Norway. Exports included substantial volumes of aggregates toSwitzerland, and dimension stone to Japan, the USA and the Middle East.

The EU aggregates industry employs some 140,000 persons (compared with 186,000 in the woodenbuilding components sector). In 1994 European output was half as big again as that of the USA, andthree times that of Japan. The total economic value of production in 1994 was 15.25 million ECU,mainly split between sand and gravel (40%), limestone (30%), other stone (25%) and gypsum, slateand silica sand (5%). Volume production data (from a different source) are given in Figure A4.1.

Figure A4.1: Primary Aggregate Production (million tonnes)1992 1994 1996

Germany 569 644 549UK 233 259 215France 370 367 337Italy 201 270 270Spain 220 212 225Netherlands 27 27 25Belgium 42 52 50Austria 84 85 84Portugal 73 73 80Denmark 43 42 45Greece n/a n/a n/aSweden 80 83 83Finland 68 68 64Ireland 26 32 36Luxembourg n/a n/a n/aEU-13/15 2,036 2,214 2,063Source: Quarry Products Association (UK)

Figure A4.2 takes the 1996 production data from Figure A4.1, and adds Eurostat data on trade flowsin agregates coming from other EU Member States (ie category 2517 as described above) to derive afigure for apparent consumption of primary aggregates. Although this estimate omits imports comingfrom outside the EU-15, these are likely to be relatively small. Unlike the production estimates, theimport and export flows are given to one decimal point. The final column rounds the total to the


nearest whole number. As can be seen, the only Member States for which apparent consumptiondiffers by more than 2 million tonnes are the UK, the Netherlands and Belgium.

Figure A4.2: Apparent Consumption of Primary Aggregates, 1996 (m illion tonnes)Production [A] Imports [B] Exports [C] Apparent

consumption[A + B - C]

Germany 549 9.5 11.1 547UK 215 0.2 7.6 208France 337 5.4 5.3 337Italy 270 0.0 0.6 269Spain 225 0.0 0.2 225Netherlands 25 15.9 2.1 39Belgium 50 5.6 8.3 47Austria 84 0.4 0.7 84Portugal 80 0.1 0.0 80Denmark 45 0.9 0.7 45Greece n/a 0.0 0.0 n/aSweden 83 0.1 1.7 81Finland 64 0.0 0.0 64Ireland 36 0.6 0.3 36Luxembourg n/a n/a n/a n/aEU-13/15 2,063 39.1(1) 39.1(1) 2,063Notes: (1) This is the actual total, not the sum of the rounded figures above.Sources: Figure A4.1, Eurostat

Figure A4.3: ‘Core’ C&DW Arisings as a Pr oportion of App arent Consumption of PrimaryAggregates

Apparent consumptionof primary aggregates,

m tonnes [A]

Estimated ‘core’C&DW arisings [B]

[B] as % of [A]

Germany 547 59 10.8%UK 208 28 13.5%France 337 24 7.1%Italy 269 20 7.4%Spain 225 13 5.8%Netherlands 39 11 28.2%Belgium 47 7 14.9%Austria 84 5 6.0%Portugal 80 3 3.8%Denmark 45 3 6.7%Greece n/a 2 n/aSweden 81 2 2.5%Finland 64 1 1.6%Ireland 36 1 2.8%Luxembourg n/a 0 n/aEU-13/15 2,063 178 8.6%Sources: Figure A4.2, Annex 5

Figure A4.3 then compares the level of apparent consumption of primary aggregates from FigureA4.2 with our estimates of ‘core’ C&DW production from Annex 5. Although no account is taken of theuse of secondary aggregates (such as steel slag, fly ash, colliery spoil etc), the final columnnevertheless provides a general indication of the potential contribution which C&DW-derivedaggregates could make to overall aggregates usage. It should also be noted that the ‘core’ C&DWestimates refer to arisings, and not to the proportion currently recycled.


With the exception of the Netherlands (see below), information collected from other sources tends toconfirm the general accuracy of the above. For example, the German Construction MaterialsRecycling Association (Bundesverband der Deutshen Recycling-Baustoff-Industrie) estimates that 7%of aggregates usage comes from recycled materials, and that the potential is estimated to be 10-15%(short term-long term) according to the same organisation and the Bundesverband Naturstein-Industrie eV respectively. Most other similar ‘check calculations’ made using independent estimatesof primary aggregates production support the general accuracy of the above estimates.

However, official statistics from the Netherlands (from Structuurschema Oppervlakte Delftstoffen, orSOD) give a figure which is significantly higher than 27 million tonnes for all surface minerals. TheSOD total includes some minor materials (such as limestone for cement and clay for ceramics anddyke construction) which have been eliminated from the data in the table above. It also includes avery high number (over 40 million cubic metres) for ‘sand for raising purposes’, which was almostcertainly taken out when the EU-15 data on which Figure A4.1 is based were being assembled. SOD’sestimates for 1990-94 include 19.4 million tonnes of concrete and masonry sand, 9.9 million tonnes ofgravel and no crushed rock. Even on this basis, the figure in the final column would be significantlyhigher for the Netherlands than for any other Member State. This may go some way to explaining whysuch attention has been focused on C&DW recycling in the Netherlands.

Finally, as a complement to the import and export data given in Figure A4.2, Figure A4.4 shows, in astylised fashion, the nine most significant intra-EU trade flows involving primary aggregates in 1996.These nine flows, the only ones to exceed 1 million tonnes, accounted for 30.2 million tonnes out ofthe total of 39.1 million tonnes, or over 75% of the total.

Figure A4.4: Major Trade Flows of Primary Aggregates, 1996 (m illion tonnes)

��2.2�� Germany

UK

(most UK exports arefrom coastal quarries

in Scotland)

��2.4��

Netherlands

� ��

� �1.4 4.0

9.0��

��2.3��

� ��

��Belgium �

�

1.0��

4.1��

3.9��

Source: Eurostat

France

Flows of marble and granite involve smaller tonnages, but higher values per tonne. There were fourflows of marble greater than 25,000 tonnes in 1996, accounting between them for half of all intra-EUtrade. They were (in descending tonnage order) from Italy to Spain, Spain to Italy, Portugal to Italyand Portugal to Spain. There were four flows of granite greater than 100,000 tonnes, accountingbetween them for almost 60% of all intra-EU trade. They were (in descending tonnage order)Germany to the Netherlands, Spain to Italy, France to Belgium and Sweden to Denmark.


Annex 5

C&DW Arisings and their Uses and Destinations

Presented in descending order of ‘Core’ C&DW arisings

1 Germany

2 UK

3 France

4 Italy

5 Spain

6 The Netherlands

7 Belgium

8 Austria

9 Portugal

10 Denmark

11 Greece

12 Sweden

13 Finland

14 Ireland

15 Luxembourg

All of the information was collected in mid-1998.


C&DW ARISINGS AND THEIR USES AND DESTINATIONS

Explanatory Notes

The 15 sections that follow present the data collected on C&DW arisings in each Member State.Where such data are not available from official sources we have used expert opinion (including theopinions of government policy makers, consultants and companies active in the C&DW industry) as asubstitute. As a last resort, we have based our estimates on per capita arisings. Clarification on thesources used, and any additional commentary on specific numbers, can be found in the notes whichfollow the tables.

In all cases 0.00 means ‘less than 0.005’, but nevertheless a measurable number (even if that numberis zero). A blank cell means that no estimate for that number is available.

We also sought information from the Member States regarding the types of sites on which the C&DWconcerned was originating. Where this information was available, it is also reported in the notes whichfollow the tables.

It is clear that there are inconsistencies between the coverage of data from Member State to MemberState. The data do, however, give a broad overview of the current situation as regards the scale andnature of C&DW arisings, and present the best available estimates for the following headings ofmaterials:

Classification of C&DWHeadings in the Tables Materials (and EWC Categories)Concrete, brick, tiles etc. (inert) Concrete, bricks, tiles, ceramics and gypsum based materials

(17 01 00)Wood Wood (17 02 01)Glass Glass (17 02 02)Plastic Plastic (17 02 03)Metals Metals, including their alloys (17 04 00)Insulation Insulation materials (17 06 00)Mixed and other C&DW Mixed C&DW (17 07 00) and compostable/non-compostable site

wastes (20 02 01 + 20 02 02)‘Core’ C&DW The sum of the above categories (17 01 00 + 17 02 00 + 17 04 00

+ 17 06 00 + 17 07 00 + 20 02 01 + 20 02 02)Soil, stones etc. Soil and dredging spoil (17 05 00)Road planings (mainly asphalt) Asphalt, tar and tarred products (17 03 00)Total The sum of all of the above categories (17 00 00 + 20 02 01 +

20 02 02)

We have also sought to identify the end use of each type of C&DW, and in the tables we have brokenthe end uses down into:• re-use for the original intended purpose;• recycling (irrespective of where the processing may occur, and the final value of the recycled

material, which may include landraising which would otherwise have to be done using primaryaggregates);

• incineration (with or without energy recovery); and• landfilling (excluding landraising which forms part of a scheme’s design).

The table below sets out the abbreviations used (where applicable) in the accompanying notes todescribe sites where C&DW may be arising.


Sources of C&DW

Site Type ClarificationDemolish and clear sites with structures to be demolished, but on which no new construction

is planned in the short termDemolish, clear and build sites with structures to be demolished prior to the erection of new onesRenovation sites where the interior fittings (and possibly some structural elements

as well) are to be removed and replacedGreenfield building undeveloped sites on which new structures are to be erectedRoad build sites where a new road (or similar) is to be constructed on a green field

or rubble free baseRoad refurbishment sites where an existing road (or similar) is to be resurfaced or

substantially rebuilt


1. GERMANY

Arisings and Uses/Destinations of C&DWArisings

(m tonnes)Re-used

(%)Recycled

(%)Inciner-ated (%)

Landfilled(%)

Concrete, brick, tiles etc. (inert) 45.00 18 82WoodGlassPlasticMetalsInsulationMixed and other C&DW 14.00 14 86‘Core’ C&DW 59.00 17 83Soil, stones etc. 215.00Road planings (mainly asphalt) 26.00 80 20Total 300.00

1.1 Source of Data

The source for the levels of arisings was Kohler (1994), Recyclingpraxis Baustoffe, including newdata from the recycling industry. The estimates for recycling relate to 1996, and come from ZBV(Zentralverband des Deutschen Baugewerbes) and VBR (Verband Deutscher Baustoff-RecyclingUnternehmen, the German Recycling Federation). The assumption that the non-recycled fraction islandfilled is ours.

1.2 Comments

The national waste catalogue (LAGA) is still in use in Germany, and the listed waste types are notcompatible with the categories in the EWC. On 1 January 1999 the EWC system will be introduced,and will then be used for the compilation of waste statistics. The first data collected (in 1997) on thenew basis (see below) are in the course of preparation, and are expected to be available late in 1998.

With the amendment of the Environmental Statistics Act of 21 September 1994, the compilation ofwaste statistics will concentrate on collection and disposal of waste, on treatment and recycling ofselected waste types, and on arisings and disposal of hazardous waste. The statistics will be based onreturns from treatment facilities and consignment notes (for hazardous wastes), and will identify theuse to which any recycled waste is put. Data will therefore no longer be collected from wasteproducers and reported by industry sector.

Data on C&DW will be compiled to provide information on the destination of these wastes (includingtreatment and recycling, use in construction and recultivation activities and disposal). The sourcesand intervals of data collection of C&DW will in future be as follows:

Site Type Reporting Cycledisposal and treatment sites, including soiltreatment sites

annually

treatment/recycling sites for C&DW (mobile andstationary crushers/sorters)

every 2 years - first data will be available in 1998,and will refer to 1996

disposal of waste (including C&DW) in deepand open cast mines


use of C&DW for public construction, includinglandscaping


Any direct re-use of C&DW on the original site is excluded from the reporting obligation under theEnvironmental Statistics Act by reference to the Waste Avoidance, Recycling and Disposal Act of 27September 1994, where such an action is considered to fall under the heading of ‘closed-cyclemanagement within plants’.


2. UNITED KINGDOM


(m tonnes)Re-used

(%)Recycled

(%)Inciner-ated (%)

Landfilled(%)

Concrete, brick, tiles etc. (inert)WoodGlassPlasticMetalsInsulationMixed and other C&DW‘Core’ C&DW 30.00 45 55Soil, stones etc. 29.50 41 59Road planings (mainly asphalt) 7.50 80 20Total 67.00 18 29 53

2.1 Source of Data

The figures given above draw on various reports on C&DW management and semi-official estimates,including published reports by Arup Economics & Planning (1991) and Howard Humphreys & Partners(1994), and later survey work by Arup Economics & Planning. The estimates are therefore not limitedto a single year, but are broadly representative of the mid 1990s. Howard Humphreys’ 1994 estimateof 70 million tonnes for total C&DW was generally accepted by the Department of the Environment,Transport and the Regions (DETR) as the best available estimate at the time. The derivation of theslightly lower figure which we have used is explained in more detail below.

2.2 Comments

The Howard Humphreys report (see above) gave estimates as follows:• the estimated total for C&DW including soil and asphalt planings was 70 million tonnes a year;• the re-used/recycled fraction amounted to 44 million tonnes, or 63% of the total. It included 2.8

million tonnes of concrete quality aggregates and recovered metals, with the remainder split 50/50between land raising and landfill engineering;

• just under 20% of the landfilled fraction was reckoned to comprise concrete and bricks.

During 1997 a pilot survey of C&DW crushers in three English regions was carried out by ArupEconomics & Planning for the DETR. During 1998 an attempt was made to ‘gross up’ the resultantdata to generate a better estimate of C&DW arisings and destinations for England and Wales. Thefull results of the ‘grossing up’ process have not been published, but extracts have been madeavailable to us by the Environment Agency.

The consultants who carried out the ‘grossing up’ process acknowledge that the multipliers that theyused were relatively crude, and that considerable uncertainties surround the final outcome. Theestimate which they considered to be best available for England and Wales was 53.2 million tonnes,excluding road planings but including a significant proportion of soil and rock. We have added anallowance of 12-13% (based on relative populations) to this to account for arisings in Scotland andNorthern Ireland, producing a total figure of around 59.5 million tonnes. Finally, we have added thewidely accepted figure of 7.5 million tonnes of road planings for a total of 67 million tonnes. This is 4-5% lower than Howard Humphreys’ earlier estimate of 70 million tonnes.

The Arup pilot survey recorded clean and contaminated soil as well as ‘core’ C&DW. The balancebetween soil and ‘core’ C&DW varied considerably, particularly between London and the two otherregions surveyed, and from type to type of crusher operator. We have assumed a ratio close to 50:50,but using round numbers to avoid giving a spurious sense of accuracy to the resultant figures. This isgenerally consistent with the overall figures which we would expect the Arup survey to produce for theUK as a whole.

The ‘grossed up’ estimates for England and Wales prepared for the Environment Agency provideoverall rates which can be applied to ‘core’ C&DW and soil and stones. These are 20.5% (10.9 milliontonnes) for re-use, 22.5% (11.9 million tonnes) for recycling and 57% (30.3 million tonnes) forlandfilling. The DETR’s Mineral Planning Guidance Note 6 reports that 80% of road planings (6


million tonnes) are recycled and 20% (1.5 million tonnes) are landfilled. When combined, theseproduce an overall estimate of 18% for re-use, 29% for recycling and 53% for landfilling. However, itmust be taken into account when using these estimates that they are heavily dependent on crusheroperators’ own interpretations of the terms re-use and recycling, which may vary from region toregion, and may be different from the interpretations used by officials and by the Commission.

The figures for ‘core’ C&DW re-use and recycling and for soil and stone re-use and recycling arecalculated on the basis that the re-used material is all soil and stone, and the balance of the recycledmaterial is ‘core’ C&DW. This is a crude assumption, but it has the benefit of simplicity. The recyclingrate estimated for ‘core’ C&DW (45%) is lower than Howard Humphreys’ 1994 estimate of 63%.

There are many reasons why statistical reporting of C&DW is inconsistent. These include:• the difficulty of getting information where the arisings occur, these sites being of necessity

temporary installations;• the different ways in which C&DW which is re-used or recycled on the original site is dealt with;

and• different approaches at off-site processing, recovery and disposal sites.

Because the C&DW recycling industry is highly competitive and rapidly changing, there is also someresistance to devoting what are perceived as disproportionate resources to statistical reporting.Although much processing and recycling goes on using modern and expensive equipment, andprimary aggregates producers have recently begun entering the market, the industry still suffers fromthe ‘marginal’ image which it inherited from scrap merchants and demolition contractors of 20 yearsago.


3. FRANCE


(m tonnes)Re-used

(%)Recycled

(%)Inciner-ated (%)

Landfilled(%)

Concrete, brick, tiles etc. (inert) 15.60Wood 1.45GlassPlasticMetals 0.35Insulation 2.56Mixed and other C&DW 3.59‘Core’ C&DW 23.60 15 85Soil, stones etc.Road planings (mainly asphalt)Total

3.1 Source of Data

The primary source for the figures reported above is a 1998 report (‘Guide des Déchets de Chantiersde Bâtiment’) from a study which was overseen by FNB (the ‘Fédération Nationale du Bâtiment’) andADEME (the ‘Agence de l’Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l’Energie’) and carried out by CEBTP(the ‘Centre Expérimental de Recherches et d’Etudes du Bâtiment et des Travaux Publics’) andDEMAIN (a private sector company). We have re-worked some of the data to fit our C&DWcategories better. The data were collected between 1994 and 1996, but mostly refer to arisingsbetween 1990 and 1992.

3.2 Comments

The ADEME report (see above) covers the building and renovation sector in great detail, but thefigures which it provides do not extend to civil engineering. Based on the findings in other MemberStates, including civil engineering C&DW might raise the total by roughly one third. This is givenfurther credence by comments in the report’s text (paragraph V.5.5.1) that in 1995 roughly 5 milliontonnes of recycled aggregates were produced, primarily from demolition materials from public works(i.e. civil structures), and that the total potential production of mineral wastes from demolition of allstructures is estimated at 20-25 million tonnes.

We have also been advised that the estimate for concrete, bricks, tiles and ceramics is now known tobe too low, and is likely to be revised upwards by 7.8 million tonnes, when the data are re-published.In addition it is reckoned that general packaging waste from construction sites amounts to 296,000tonnes, with a further 40-50,000 tonnes related to paint.

It is reckoned that 47.6% of the above C&DW comes from renovation sites, 42.7% from demolitionsites, and 9.7% from new construction sites.

There is considerable additional information in the ADEME report, including a much more detailedbreakdown of C&DW types, and some regional data (see next page).

The report provides only limited information on the use/destination of C&DW. It states that over 80%of all C&DW goes to landfill in France, and that less than 15% is recycled. For the purposes of thetable above we have used an 85/15 split, conscious that this is only an approximation.


Map of Regional Differences in C&DW Arisings in France

Note: The national total for C&DW arisings (excluding packaging waste) is 23.6 million tonnes

(Source: ADEME)

Nord-Pas-de-Calais

PicardieHaute-Normandie

Basse-Normandie

Bretagne

Pays de la Loire Centre

Poitou-Charentes

Limousin

BourgogneFranche-Comté

Champagne-Ardenne

Lorraine

B

A

A = Total arisings (‘000 tonnes)B = Arisings (kg/head)

<450 kg/head300-450 kg/head

<300 kg/head

405

1143

285

876

266

418295

701

673

7210

235

402

284

401

295

541

276

1090

306

416

306

695

504

819

326

519

386

423

406

540

237

171

325

916

355

865

456

960

425

1794

494

2643

256

63

Corse

Midi-PyrénéesProvence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur

Auvergne

Aquitaine

Languedoc-Roussillon

Rhône-Alpes

Ile de France

Als

ace


4. ITALY


(m tonnes)Re-used

(%)Recycled

(%)Inciner-ated (%)

Landfilled(%)

Concrete, brick, tiles etc. (inert)WoodGlassPlasticMetalsInsulationMixed and other C&DW‘Core’ C&DW 20.00 6 3 91Soil, stones etc.Road planings (mainly asphalt)Total

4.1 Source of Data

The source for the figures reported above is a report (‘Il Mercato delle Demolizione in Italia’) by acommercial consultancy (CRESME) for the organizers of the 1998 Fiera di Gerona ‘Riabitat’exhibition.

4.2 Comments

The CRESME report identifies 8.8% of C&DW as being either re-used or recycled, but does notindicate the materials involved, the mechanisms for recycling, or the uses to which the materials areput. We have arbitrarily allocated the re-used/recycled fraction 2:1 re-used: recycled, mainly becausewe know that much of the C&DW comes from renovation rather than demolition.

An alternative source (the 1997 ‘Report on the State of the Environment’ prepared by the Ministry forthe Environment) provides data on the quantity of waste production for the year 1993/94. Data arecollected by the regions and then aggregated by the Ministry for the Environment. The report admitsthat the standard of the data produced by the 20 regions varies considerably. In future, responsibilityfor the collection and management of these data will pass to ANPA (the ‘Autorita’ Nazionale perl’Ambiente’, or National Environment Authority). The most relevant category is that of inert wastes(which include not only C&DW, but also waste from extractive industries, for example). The reportmentions that the total quantity of inert material waste declined from 46 million tonnes in 1992 to 14.3million tonnes in 1993/94, of which roughly two thirds was landfilled and one third recovered. Thisdramatic decline is attributed in part to a change in the definition of inert waste.

The CRESME report excludes road waste and soil/rock arisings. It states that most C&DW originatesfrom renovating old residential buildings. This was not always the case, but due to the corruptionscandals of recent years there has been a steep downturn in new construction and public works.Renovation-linked waste abstraction is referred to in Italy as ‘microdemolition’. Of the 20 milliontonnes of C&DW reckoned to have been generated in 1997:• 10,425,000 tonnes came from residential ‘microdemolition’;• 7,920,000 tonnes came from non-residential ‘microdemolition’; and• 1,600,000 tonnes came from the demolition of entire buildings.

The national average rate of C&DW re-use and recovery (8.8%) hides wide regional differences,estimated to range between 22% in Veneto and 0.1% in Sardegna (see map on next page for details).

The estimates for the numbers of buildings demolished in 1998 are as follows:

Residential Non-residential TotalNo of bldgs ‘000 cu m No of bldgs ‘000 cu m No of bldgs ‘000 cu m

1,400 1,600 600 2,400 2,000 4,000

Although there is no breakdown of C&DW using the headings we had established, the origin ofC&DW in Italy is estimated (by CRESME) to be the following:


Origin Residential‘microdemolition’

Non-residential‘microdemolition’

Floors and coverings 5,802,000 4,689,000Walls and plaster 2,203,000 871,000Roof and supporting structure 1,486,000 1,730,000“Technical elements” (see note) 799,000 517,000Other 204,000 110,000Total 10,425,000 7,920,000Note: includes plumbing, wiring, ducting etc.

Map of Regional Differences in C&DW Re-Use and Recovery Rates in Italy

Note: The national total for C&DW re-use and recovery is 1.6 million tonnes

(Source: CRESME/Il Sole - 24 Ore (Special edition on C&DW, number 20, 1998)

80

20.421.5

112

22.0

3583.3

108

Fruili-Venezia Giulia

Lombardia

2.6

57

Piemonte-Valle d’Aosta

Liguria

19.9

110

21.7

358

Toscana

8.3

88

14.4

33

0.7

3

0.5

7

Abruzzi

Lazio

Marche

0.5

2 2.3

2

2.2

28

Molise

Campania

Puglia

1.3

12

10.9

18

0.1

1

Calabria

20.4

234

0.1

1

Sardegna

B

A

A = C&DW re-use/recovery (‘000 tonnes)B = Regional % re-use/recovery rate

<20% re-use/recovery

10-20% re-use/recovery

<10% re-use/recovery

Basilicata

Umbria

Trentino-Alto Adige

Veneto

Emilia-Romagna

Sicilia


5. SPAIN


(m tonnes)Re-used

(%)Recycled

(%)Inciner-ated (%)

Landfilled(%)

Concrete, brick, tiles etc. (inert)WoodGlassPlasticMetalsInsulationMixed and other C&DW‘Core’ C&DW 12.8Soil, stones etc.Road planings (mainly asphalt)Total

5.1 Source of Data

No official statistics are available, though several widely differing estimates are in circulation. Wehave based the above estimate of ‘core’ C&DW arisings on a per capita rate of 325kg/year. This inturn is derived from the average of 375kg and 275kg, which are the best estimates available throughthe Catalan government for per capita arisings in the metropolitan area of Barcelona and other partsof Catalonia respectively. There is no obvious reason to think that Catalonia is not broadly typical ofSpain.

5.2 Comments

Although no reliable estimates of the national shares of C&DW being recovered and landfilled areavailable, most bulky C&DW is known to be either landfilled or fly tipped. However, there is an active‘informal’ recycling industry which is based on removing all items with economic value from buildingsbefore they are demolished for direct re-use or recycling.

A survey of material being sent to landfills around Madrid (generally as mixed C&DW) gave thefollowing breakdown of the composition of C&DW (excluding soil, but otherwise using headings asclose as possible to those in our standard table):• 75% inert ‘core’ C&DW (54% bricks, tiles and ceramics; 12% concrete; 5% stone; 4% sand, gravel

and other aggregates);• 3% wood;• 0.5% glass;• 1% plastic;• 2% metals;• 13.5% mixed and other C&DW (0.2% gypsum, 0.3% paper and cardboard, 9% trash and 4%

other);• 5% asphalt.


6. THE NETHERLANDS


(m tonnes)Re-used

(%)Recycled

(%)Inciner-ated (%)

Landfilled(%)

Concrete, brick, tiles etc. (inert) 10.48 0 93 1 6Wood 0.26 0 50 10 40GlassPlastic 0.21 0 5 12 83Metals 0.18 0 100 0 0InsulationMixed and other C&DW 0.04 0 0 0 100‘Core’ C&DW 11.17 0 90 1 9Soil, stones etc. 6.20 0 40 0 60Road planings (mainly asphalt) 2.72 72 28 0 0Total 20.09 10 66 1 23

6.1 Source of Data

The volume of C&DW is monitored by the National Institute of Public Health and Environment(RIVM), by order of the Directorate of Waste Management Policy of the Ministry of Housing, SpatialPlanning and Environmental Protection . The results are reported annually, and the figures givenabove are for 1996.

Mixed C&DW is included in the specified waste streams, and ‘other’ C&DW consists of other non-compostable wastes such as asbestos.

6.2 Comments

The annual volume of C&DW in The Netherlands is estimated to have been between 12 and 14million tonnes a year in the 1990s. For 1996 the volume was 13.9 million tonnes, of which 11.6 milliontonnes were collected separately and 2.3 million tonnes were not. The total volume of 13.9 milliontonnes can be divided as follows by destination or processing method:• re-use after processing: 12.35;• other re-use: 0.35;• incineration: 0.15;• landfill: 1.05.

‘Re-use after processing’ consists of the quantity that is put on the market after on-site or off-siteprocessing. ‘Other re-use’ includes C&DW that is used without further processing, either directly onthe building site in foundations, or to cover landfills.

RIVM’s data provides a more detailed breakdown of the inert fraction. The 10.48 million tonnesreported above (in the main table) is made up of:• 5.70 million tonnes of concrete;• 3.99 million tonnes of bricks;• 0.04 million tonnes of roof tiles;• 0.43 million tonnes of other tiles and gypsum; and• 0.32 million tonnes of gravel.


RIVM’s data (covering ‘core’ C&DW plus road planings) also provides the basis for the followingbreakdown (in millions of tonnes, calculated by PRC Bouwcentrum):

Residential Non-residential CivilEngineering

Total

Building 650 975 425 2,050Renovation & modernisation 1,825 425 3,025 5,275Demolition 975 4,425 1,175 6,575Total 3,450 5,825 4,625 13,900

Of the 10.48 million tonnes of inert C&DW, the main products sold by C&DW processing and sortingcompanies are crushed concrete aggregates, crushed rubble aggregates, mixed concrete and rubbleaggregates and recycled crusher sand. The total volume of these products comes up to 9.1 milliontonnes, of which 430.000 tonnes are processed on the construction site in mobile crushers. The mainapplication for these materials is as sub-base material for road construction. Aggregates for use inconcrete account for just 178,000 tonnes. That leaves 101,000 tonnes which is incinerated and661,000 tonnes sent to landfill. This includes those parts of C&DW that cannot separated further orused, such as sludge and sieve-sand.

No specific data are available on the volumes of glass within the C&DW stream. Glass which ispresent in C&DW is not collected separately, and generally ends up being crushed and used inC&DW-derived aggregates.

In the regeneration of asphalt a distinction must be made between cold and warm regenerationtechniques. Asphalt containing tar can only be regenerated in cold form, and is generally used as asub-base material for road constructions. Warm regeneration implies re-use for the original intendedpurpose. 1.7 million tonnes regenerated in cold form is used on the spot in the processing of newasphalt. 223,000 tonnes for warm re-use comes from C&DW processing companies. The volume ofcrushed asphalt which contains tar and which is also used as an aggregate comes to a total of751,000 tonnes, of which 145,000 tonnes are processed on the site.

Soil and dredged spoil are two entirely different waste streams in the Netherlands. Soil refers to lightlycontaminated soil that has to be removed from a building site before construction starts. Thecontaminated soil can be cleaned or dumped. The total volume of this lightly contaminated soil wasbetween 2.7 and 3.7 million tonnes in 1996, and we have taken the mid-point of the range, 3.2 milliontonnes. Some 2.3 million tonnes were re-used after being cleaned or mixed with clean soil, and therest was landfilled. The volume of dredged soil was estimated at 3 million tonnes in 1994/95. Becausedredged soil is dredged from rivers and waterways it is generally contaminated with heavy metals andchemicals. A small volume (200,000 tonnes) is used for coastal works, but no beneficial use hasbeen found for the rest.


7. BELGIUM


(m tonnes)Re-used

(%)Recycled

(%)Inciner-ated (%)

Landfilled(%)

Concrete, brick, tiles etc.(inert)*

6.41 1/1/2 97/91/82 0 2/8/16

Wood 0.11 5 0 55 40GlassPlastic 0.01 0 10 60 30Metals 0.01 0 90 0 10InsulationMixed and other C&DW 0.21 0 0 0 100‘Core’ C&DW* 6.75 1/1/2 94/85/81 1/3/0 4/11/17Soil, stones etc. 27.00Road planings (mainly asphalt) 0.91 0 100 0 0Total 34.66Note: * See the comments below for an explanation of figures in the format X/Y/Z.

7.1 Source of Data

The figures reported above are based on estimates for the early 1990s made by OVAM (Flanders),IBGE/BIM (Brussels) and OWD (Wallonia). The total is broadly accepted by (among others) theBelgian Building Research Institute.

7.2 Comments

Where there are three numbers in the table for the uses/destinations of C&DW (eg 1/1/2 or 97/91/82),these are the best available estimates for Flanders, Brussels and Wallonia respectively. Where thereis a single figure, there is not believed to be any significant difference between the percentages in thedifferent regions.

The following table provides an alternative presentation of the arisings estimates, broken downbetween the three regions:

Regional Break down of C&DW Arisings (m t onnes)Total Flanders Brussels Wallonia

Concrete, brick, tiles etc. (inert) 6.41 3.93 0.74 1.74Wood 0.11 0.09 0.02GlassPlastic 0.01 0.00 0.00Metals 0.01 0.01 0.00InsulationMixed and other C&DW 0.21 0.08 0.05 0.08‘Core’ C&DW 6.75 4.11 0.81 1.82Soil, stones etc. 27.00 20.00 1.00 6.00Road planings (mainly asphalt) 0.91 0.55 0.09 0.27Total 34.66 24.66 1.90 8.09


The best estimates for the origins of C&DW (excluding soil and stones) in Belgium is as follows. Dueto rounding the numbers do not all add up to 100%.

Flanders Brussels WalloniaDemolition sites 47% 78% 52%Renovation sites 24% 4% 6%Building sites 8% 1.5% 6%Road sites 18% 16.5% 37%Other sites 3% - -

It should be stressed that there is a significant element of estimation in most of the above data.Therefore when improved data become available, which is expected to be relatively soon, they maydiffer significantly from the above.


8. AUSTRIA


(m tonnes)Re-used

(%)Recycled

(%)Inciner-ated (%)

Landfilled(%)

Concrete, brick, tiles etc. (inert) 3.60 50 50WoodGlassPlasticMetalsInsulationMixed and other C&DW 1.10 15 85‘Core’ C&DW 4.70 41 59Soil, stones etc. 20.00Road planings (mainly asphalt) 1.70 65 35Total 26.40

8.1 Source of Data

The above figures come from official Austrian statistics.

8.2 Comments

The EWC codes will be used to collect statistics from 1 July 2000. Until then the compilation of wastedata relies on the original Austrian Waste Catalogue (ÖNORM S 2100) which uses the same codes asGermany’s LAGA catalogue. The German methodology for transforming data from one catalogue tothe other is therefore used.

The estimates for recycling come from the amounts which are reported to be ‘treated’. Thepercentages shown for landfilling represent the untreated fraction, though it is possible that some ofthe untreated waste may actually be incinerated.

The volume of asbestos-based construction materials is reported to be 3,000 tonnes.


9. PORTUGAL


(m tonnes)Re-used

(%)Recycled

(%)Inciner-ated (%)

Landfilled(%)


9.1 Source of Data

No official statistics are available. We have based the above estimate on a per capita arising rate of325kg/year. This is the same rate which we estimated for both Spain and Greece (see above).

9.2 Comments

As in Spain, no reliable estimates of the shares of C&DW being recovered and landfilled areavailable. Although most bulky C&DW is either landfilled or fly tipped, there is an active ‘informal’recycling industry which is based on removing all items with economic value from buildings beforethey are demolished for direct re-use or recycling.


10. DENMARK


(m tonnes)Re-used

(%)Recycled

(%)Inciner-ated (%)

Landfilled(%)

Concrete, brick, tiles etc. (inert) 1.80 1 97 0 2Wood 0.20 30 30 15 25Glass 0.05 15 40 0 45Plastic 0.01 0 20 30 50Metals 0.16 38 60 0 2Insulation 0.05 40 30 0 30Mixed and other C&DW 0.37 0 0 10 90‘Core’ C&DW 2.64 6 75 3 16Soil, stones etc.* 7.70 16 6 0 0Road planings (mainly asphalt) 0.37 74 26 0 0Total 10.71 36 54 1 9Note: * See the comments below.

10.1 Source of Data

Most of the above figures come from official sources, primarily the Ministry of Environment andEnergy (MEE). In putting them into our standard format, various references were consulted andindividuals interviewed, as indicated below:

Waste Stream Sources of Data and CommentsConcrete, brick,tiles etc. (inert)

MEE: Orientering fra Miljøstyrelsen nr. 13. Affaldsstatistik. 1997.MEE: Miljøprojekt nr. 150. Prognose for bygge- og anlægsafffald -hovedrapport.RENDAN A/S: Bygge- og anlægsaffaldsstatistik 1996, Draft Dec 1997.

Wood and metals MEE: Environmental Review No. 6. Recycling of Construction and DemolitionWaste 1986-1995. 1997.

Glass Expert opinion.Plastic MEE: Arbejdsrapport fra Miljøstyrelsen nr.79. Kortlægning af PVC i bygge- og

anlægsaffald fra nedbrydning og renovering. 1997.Insulation andMixed and otherC&DW

MEE: Orientering fra Miljøstyrelsen nr. 13. Affaldsstatistik. 1997.

Soil, stones etc. MEE: Miljøprojekt nr. 150. Prognose for bygge- og anlægsafffald -hovedrapport.DAEP.

Road planings(mainly asphalt)

RENDAN A/S: Bygge- og anlægsaffaldsstatistik 1996, Draft Dec 1997.

10.2 Comments

The figure for soil and stones is split between 1.7 million tonnes of soil and stones from constructionsites and 6 million tonnes of dredging spoil. All of the dredging spoil is dumped at sea, while 75% ofthe construction site waste is re-used and 25% recycled. Roughly one quarter of the 1.7 million tonnesof construction site waste is reckoned to be re-used on the original sites, half on other sites, and onequarter processed off-site for subsequent sale.


11. GREECE


(m tonnes)Re-used

(%)Recycled

(%)Inciner-ated (%)

Landfilled(%)


11.1 Source of Data

The above estimate comes from the National Plan for the integration and alternative management ofwaste and refuse.

11.2 Comments

Slightly more than one third of the arisings of C&DW are understood to come from the region ofAttica, which includes Athens. A further 15% comes from the city of Thessaloniki and the surroundingregion of central Macedonia.

We are unaware of any significant levels of selective demolition, sorting or recycling of C&DW inGreece.


12. SWEDEN


(m tonnes)Re-used

(%)Recycled

(%)Inciner-ated (%)

Landfilled(%)

Concrete, brick, tiles etc. (inert) 1.12 0 20 0 80Wood 0.39 0 5 75 20Glass 0.01 25 10 0 65Plastic 0.00 0 0 20 80Metals 0.15 0 70 0 30Insulation 0.02 0 0 0 100Mixed and other C&DW‘Core’ C&DW 1.69 1 20 17 62Soil, stones etc. 1.50 0 80 0 20Road planings (mainly asphalt) 2.70 60 0 0 40Total 5.89 28 26 5 41

12.1 Source of Data

The source for the above figures is a report (‘Kartlägging avmaterialflöden inom bygg- ochanlåggningssektoren’) prepared by AB Jacobsen & Widmark for Naturvårdsverket (The SwedishNational Environmental Protection Agency) in 1996.

12.2 Comments

The source document does not contain any information on soil and stones per se. The 1.5 milliontonnes recorded above under this heading derives from EWC category 20 02 03 (other non-compostable waste).


13. FINLAND


(m tonnes)Re-used

(%)Recycled

(%)Inciner-ated (%)

Landfilled(%)

Concrete, brick, tiles etc. (inert) 0.52 4 76 0 20Wood 0.44 2 7 69 22Glass 0.00 1 29 0 70Plastic 0.00 5 5 0 90Metals 0.17 6 75 0 19Insulation 0.02 10 45 0 45Mixed and other C&DW 0.20 0 0 8 92‘Core’ C&DW 1.35 3 42 24 31Soil, stones etc. 8.00 40 55 0 5Road planings (mainly asphalt) 0.10 95 5 0 0Total 9.45 35 53 3 9

13.1 Source of Data

The figures reported above were assembled for us by VTT Building Technology of Helsinki using1997 data.

13.2 Comments

The data above confirm the importance of wood to the Finnish construction industry.

The figure for road planings excludes asphalt which is recycled in situ.

In the Spring of 1999 a more detailed picture is expected to be available, when the report of anational construction waste statistics project becomes available.


14. IRELAND


(m tonnes)Re-used

(%)Recycled

(%)Inciner-ated (%)

Landfilled(%)

Concrete, brick, tiles etc. (inert) 0.39 0 5 0 95Wood 0.01 0 0 0 100Glass 0.01 0 0 0 100Plastic 0.00 0 0 0 100Metals 0.01 0 0 0 100Insulation 0.00 0 0 0 100Mixed and other C&DW 0.15 0 0 0 100‘Core’ C&DW 0.57 1 0 0 99Soil, stones etc. 1.31 0 50 0 50Road planings (mainly asphalt) 0.01 0 0 0 100Total 1.89 0 35 0 65

14.1 Source of Data

The figures reported above were assembled for us by M C O’Sullivan & Co Ltd of Dublin, based onthe 1995 National Waste Database Report.

14.2 Comments

The 1995 National Waste Database Report notes that 35% of C&DW was recycled, 34% accountedfor by soil and stones, and 1% by ‘other’ C&DW (assumed to be concrete). 34% of the total C&DW (ie34% of 1.89 million tonnes) is 642,600 tonnes of soil and stones, which is half of the total for soil andstones. 1% is 18,900 tonnes, representing 5% of the concrete, brick and tile stream.

Arisings of asbestos were estimated at 1,277 tonnes.


15. LUXEMBOURG


(m tonnes)Re-used

(%)Recycled

(%)Inciner-ated (%)

Landfilled(%)


15.1 Source of Data

No official figures were received from Luxembourg. In their absence, the above estimate wascalculated on the basis of an assumed per capita arising rate of 700kg/year. This is similar to thelevels found in Germany and the Netherlands.

15.2 Comments

No information was received on uses and destinations of C&DW in Luxembourg.


Annex 6

Measures Which Influence the Management of C&DW

Presented in descending order of ‘Core’ C&DW arisings

1 Germany

2 UK

3 France

4 Italy

5 Spain

6 The Netherlands

7 Belgium

8 Austria

9 Portugal

10 Denmark

11 Greece

12 Sweden

13 Finland

14 Ireland

15 Luxembourg

All of the information was collected in mid-1998.


1. GERMANY

1.1 Restrictions or bans on disposal

In general, mineral demolition waste and unsorted C&DW may not be disposed to landfill - seesections 1.3 and 1.4 below. The landfilling of other C&DW is strongly affected by the Closed-Cycleand Waste Act, and by the implementation of environmentally sound waste disposal practices (seebelow).

1.2 Mono landfill

According to ‘Daten zur Umwelt, Umweltbundesamt, 1997’ (page 451) there were 1,616 landfills forC&DW and 694 landfills for excavated soil in use in 1993.

1.3 Other environmental or planning controls

Since 1996 the Closed-Cycle and Waste Act has been in force. This gives waste recycling priorityover waste disposal. According to §5(4) the obligation to recycle waste should be met to the extentthat this is technically possible and economically reasonable, especially when a market exists, or canbe created. Waste recycling is considered to be economically reasonable if the costs it entails are notdisproportionate to the costs which disposal would entail.

With effect from 1 January 1999 the destination of C&DW (whether for recycling or disposal) has tobe documented. There will be different notification systems for hazardous and non-hazardous wastes.More detailed background on the workings of the new system are given in a footnote at the end of thisSection.

With a separate technical instruction for municipal waste (the ‘Technische Anleitung Siedlungsabfall,1993’) coming into force in stages (in 2001 for C&DW and in 2005 for municipal waste),environmentally sound requirements are being set out for landfills and the waste materials to beaccepted by them. The general objective is to landfill only those wastes which are by nature or afterpretreatment actually or almost inert. This will particularly affect mixed C&DW, which will have to beseparated before being landfilled. Those fractions which do not meet the requirements set out in the‘Technische Anleitung Siedlungsabfall’ will not be allowed to be landfilled, and will have to be treatedfurther.

1.4 Taxes (landfill and others)

There are no federal taxes or levies applied to the disposal of C&DW or other wastes. Some Länderhad imposed their own levies on waste incineration and disposal, but on 7 May 1998 this power wasoverturned in the courts. There are different prices for landfilling according to the nature andcomposition (eg hazardousness - see below for examples). Mixed C&DW is not considered to behazardous.

Apart from the obligation in respect of recovery, an incentive to sort C&DW is given through landfilltariffs, which differ considerably depending on the composition of the waste.

Between 1990 and 1996 the tariffs for mixed C&DW increased from approximately 75 DM/tonne toover 270 DM/tonne (38 to 138 ECU/tonne), while tariffs for (mineral) demolition waste have remainedconstant at approximately 15-20 DM/tonne (7.70-10.20 ECU/tonne). In 1996 tariffs for mixed C&DWranged between 100 and 800 DM/tonne (51-408 ECU/tonne). The source for these data isGallenkamper B et al, ‘Verstärkte Erschließung des Verwertungspotentials von Baustellenabfällendurch organisatorische und technische Maßnahmen, Hrsg.: Umweltbundesamt 1997’.

Tariffs for the treatment or disposal of selected C&DW streams are as follows:

PVC:according to Arbeitsgemeinschaft PVC und Umwelt e.V. tariffs vary widely, as follows:

disposal to landfill 60-450 DM/t (31-230 ECU/tonne)incineration 250-600 DM/t (128-306 ECU/tonne)(with locally reduced prices from about 200 DM/t (102 ECU/tonne))


Gypsum containing wastes:Currently the arisings of C&DW containing gypsum amount to 1 million tonnes (approximately 2.5%of the mineral fraction of C&DW). A study by Bundesverband der Gips- und Gipsplattenindustrie e.V.on the current and future recycling and disposal possibilities for waste containing gypsum providesthe following 1997 prices for different recycling and disposal options:

disposal to Class I landfill (until 2001) 10-20 DM/t (5.10-10.20 ECU/ tonne)disposal to Class II landfill 100-600 DM/t (51-306 ECU/tonne)disposal to C&DW landfill 10-20 DM/t (5.10-10.20 ECU/ tonne)(problems may occur because of eluate criteria)landscaping 100-200 DM/t (51-102 ECU/tonne)disposal in mines 100-200 DM/t (51-102 ECU/tonne)thermal treatment and recovery 120-140 DM/t (61-71 ECU/tonne)(limited capacity)recycling (only clean materials) 200 DM/t (102 ECU/tonne)(limited capacity)

Disposal costs for non recoverable C&DW:Tariffs for disposal to landfill and incineration vary widely between regions. The tariffs shown below,(from a report on selective demolition and recycling - Renz O et al ‘Demontage und Recycling vonGebäuden, 1997’) can only give an idea of disposal costs for these wastes:

used oil 2,200 DM/t (1,122 ECU/tonne)waste containing PCPs 4,000 DM/t (2,041 ECU/tonne)paints 750 DM/t (383 ECU/tonne)waste which contains lead and mercury 1,000 DM/t (510 ECU/tonne)oil which contains metals 1,700 DM/t (867 ECU/tonne)plastics / mineral wool 180 DM/t (92 ECU/tonne)asbestos 300 DM/t (153 ECU/tonne)

1.5 Subsidies

There are no direct subsidies on C&DW recycling or re-use.

1.6 Positive waste planning measures

Waste planning measures are taken at a regional level, and the regional authorities issue guidanceand information on how to deal with C&DW in order to increase recovery and to reduce landfilling. Insome Länder (such as Hamburg and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern) recovery levels have reached 80-90%.

In 1992 a statutory ordinance was drafted with national targets for recovery. This ordinance has notyet come into force, but a VA with reduction targets was signed (see below). From 31 December 1999onwards, waste management planning will be required under the terms of §29 KrW-AbfG, whichtransposes the planning obligations contained in the EU’s ‘framework’ waste directive.

1.7 Research and development s upport

There are various programmes concerned with the use of contaminated soil, recycled materials andselective demolition. See also comments on Voluntary agreements (below).

1.8 Pilot and demonstration schemes

Demonstration schemes have been carried out on selective demolition and the general logistics ofC&DW site management.


1.9 Voluntary agreements

VAs exist at both the national and regional levels. As an example of a regional VA, the agreementbetween the environmental authorities of Berlin and Brandenburg and their respective industrial andrecycling organisations contains the following objectives:• only re-use or recycling of C&DW to be allowed - disposal only possible for the non-recyclable

fractions;• proper separation of hazardous materials to be achieved;• C&DW to be sorted on site, or if not possible, separation to be ensured at an adequate

sorting/treatment plant;• comparable quality standards for recycling and disposal of C&DW, particularly through

implementation of the requirements and standards set in ‘technical requirements for recycling ofmineral waste’;

• provide/ensure transparency of the C&DW-stream from source to re-use (after recyclingoperations) or disposal.

A national VA contains the following targets and measures (among others):• a 50% reduction (from 1995 levels) in the disposal of recyclable C&DW by 2005;• information and advisory services to be made available to construction and demolition companies;• R&D into the avoidance of C&DW arisings, separation and sorting of wastes and recovery

measures; quality assurance for recycled materials; and promotion of applications for recycledmaterials.

The industrial organisations that signed the agreement will set up an advisory committee or boardresponsible for monitoring progress and for reporting annually to the Ministry of Environment.

1.10 Education and training

See under Voluntary agreements (above).

1.11 Advisory services

See under Voluntary agreements (above).

1.12 Waste exchanges

National and regional Internet-based waste exchanges have been organised, offering the followinguncontaminated materials:• 31410 - Straßenaufbruch (road construction waste);• 31409 - Bauschutt (concrete, bricks, natural stone, crushed and uncrushed);• 31411 - Bodenaushub (soil and stones);• 17202 - Bau- und Abbruchholz (uncontaminated wood).

1.13 Standards and norms for recycled materials

The ‘technical requirements for recycling of mineral waste’ (Anforderungen an die stofflicheVerwertung von mineralischen Restoffen/Abfällen - Technische Regeln LAGA Länder-arbeitsgemeinschaft Abfall, 5 September 1995) have set out requirements for the use of recycledC&DW. C&DW-derived aggregates and recycled soil (for which there are quality standards set by theQuality Association of Construction Material Recyclers: RAL 501-1 Recycling-Baustoffe für denStraßenbau - recycled materials for road construction - and RAL 501-2 Kontaminierte Böden -contaminated soil) are mainly used for road construction. The use of recycled materials in roadconstruction is regulated through technical terms of delivery for recycling products (TechnischeLieferbedingungen für Recycling-Baustoffe in Tragschichten ohne Bindemittel - TL RC-ToB 95;Forschungsgesellschaft für Straßen- und Verkehrswesen, Arbeitsgruppe Mineralstoffe imStraßenbau). Generally, secondary and recycled materials have to comply with the samerequirements as raw materials.

There is a new standard for recycled materials as aggregates in concrete and the use in buildingconstruction (Deutscher Ausschuß für Stahlbeton - Richtlinie als Ergänzung zu DIN 1045, August1998).


1.14 C&DW processing fac ilities

Processing facilities are operated by the private sector. According to information from the GermanBuilding Materials Recycling Federation (Bundesverband der Deutschen Recycling-Baustoff-Industrie)there are approximately 650 companies operating around 1,040 crushers, including mobile, semi-mobile and fixed machines, the latter group being mainly operated at fixed C&DW management sites.

Since 1991 there have been some separate collection and recycling systems for window frames,pipes, floor-covering and other items made of PVC. In 1997 around 25,000 tonnes of PVC waste fromwindow frame manufacturing was collected, along with approximately 3,000 tonnes from end-of-lifewindow frames, approximately 1,000 tonnes from flooring, approximately 1,000 tonnes from roofingmaterials, and approximately 500 tonnes from pipes.

1.15 Other measures

All demolition activities need approval from the relevant authorities (Landesbauverordnungen).

A new standard is presently under development describing demolition works (E DIN 18007Abbrucharbeiten). The objective of this standard is to specify definitions and to describe differentdemolition activities. Primarily it should facilitate the understanding of different actors in relation todemolition activities, and it is seen as a starting point for further development, e.g. as a reference andto determine demolition works.

According to the German Waste Management Act, federal authorities and many other public agenciesunder federal supervision are obliged to contribute through their behaviour to the attainment of theaims of the Act. In the context of construction projects they are required to consider whether, and towhat extent, products can be used that are either particularly durable; or that result in less or less-polluting waste, or that are made from recycled materials.

The Federal Ministry for Regional Planning, Building and Urban Development has published guidanceon implementing these requirements for construction, renovation and demolition activities undertakenas public works on behalf of federal authorities and the Ministry of Defence (Arbeitshilfen Recycling:Vermeidung, Verwertung und Beseitigung von Bauabfällen bei Planung und Ausführung vonbaulichen Anlagen, 1998).

Guidance for public works with information about the ecological impact of construction products andenvironmentally friendly products is given through ‘Planungshilfen Umweltschutz im Bauwesen;Fachkommission Standardisierung und Rationalisierung des Hochbauausschusses (LAG) derARGEBAU’.

Closing Comment on the Relative Effectiveness of the Different Measures

High disposal costs combined with the prospect of future changes to landfill management practices(see section 1.3 above) drive most decisions. The recycling industry considers the ‘obligation torecycle’ to be unclear and open to conflicting interpretations.

* * * * * * *

(See next page for footnote)


Footnote: More detailed d escription of the new German Waste legislation as it applies toC&DW

Introduction

The supplementary subsidiary regulations of the Closed Substance Cycle and Waste ManagementAct consist of various ordinances that restructure supervision under waste management law and alignit with EU law. These include:• Waste Classification Ordinances (the Ordinances on the Classification of Waste Requiring Special

Supervision and of Waste for Recovery that Requires Supervision;• the Ordinance on Furnishing of Proof; and• the Ordinance on Licensing of Transport.

The subsidiary regulations also include ordinances that create a basis for further deregulation ofsupervision. Holders of waste are largely exempted from supervision in cases in which environmentalcompatibility of waste management has been documented, by means of concepts and waste life-cycle analyses, or in which waste management is carried out by specially qualified wastemanagement companies. The formal basis for these changes is provided by:• the Ordinance on Waste Management Concepts and Waste Life Cycle Analysis;• the Ordinance on Specialised Waste Management Companies; and• the Directive on Waste Management Partnerships.

The new supervision regulations will be phased in gradually in order to help waste holders andauthorities to make the transition to the new laws. Full compliance will not be required until 1 January1999.

1. Waste Classification Ordinances

The Closed Substance Cycle and Waste Management Act applies criteria of hazardousness todifferentiate between waste requiring supervision and waste requiring special supervision. Whiledocumentation procedures are already mandated by law for waste requiring special supervision,authorities must mandate such documentation procedures, in individual cases, for waste requiringsupervision.

(a) The Ordinance on the Classification of Waste requiring Special Supervision (Verordnung zurBestimmung von besonders überwachungsbedürftigen Abfällen) transposes the EU's catalogue ofhazardous wastes. In addition, it contains regulations for wastes that require special supervision, as aresult of hazardous characteristics listed in the Closed Substance Cycle and Waste Management Act.

(b) The Ordinance on the Classification of Waste for Recovery that Requires Supervision(Verordnung zur Bestimmung von überwachungsbedürftigen Abfällen zur Verwertung) applies towastes that, while less hazardous, tend to fall into a grey area between recovery and disposal. In thepast this uncertainty often encouraged illegal disposal of the waste covered by this ordinance.Authorities now have better options for supervision of the waste types mentioned in this ordinance.Waste producers are required to keep documents on file relative to the disposal of such waste. Allrelevant fractions of C&DW are listed in this Ordinance.

2. Ordinance on the Furnishing of Proof

The heart of the subsidiary regulations is the Ordinance on the Furnishing of Proof(Nachweisverordnung). It governs the supervision procedure set forth by the Closed Substance Cycleand Waste Management Act for waste for disposal and waste for recovery. The Ordinance on theFurnishing of Proof replaces the old Ordinance on Supervision of Waste and Residual Materials(Abfall- und Reststoffüberwachungsverordnung).

The new Ordinance makes the supervision procedure simpler and less bureaucratic, for both wasteholders and the authorities. The authorities are no longer required expressly to approve disposalprocedures. Pursuant to the new Ordinance on Furnishing of Proof, a waste producer's disposalprocedures are considered officially approved if the authorities do not reject the relevant applicationwithin 30 days. In addition, authorities are not required to apply any proof procedures in cases inwhich disposal is handled by specialised, certified waste management companies, and that takes


place in facilities that meet strict environmental standards for waste management. These changes willfacilitate and accelerate procedures.

3. Ordinance on Licensing of Transport

The Ordinance on Licensing of Transport (Verordnung zur Transportgenehmigung) replaces therelevant approval regulations contained in the old Ordinance on the Supervision of Waste andResidual Materials.

The Ordinance sets forth requirements for the technical expertise, know-how and reliability of wastecollectors and transporters. It considerably simplifies transport licensing legislation. Transportlicences, which in future are also required for transport of wastes for recovery that require specialsupervision, are to be issued independently of specific instances of transport, and will have indefinitevalidity in relevant areas throughout all of Germany.

4. Ordinance on Waste Management Concepts and Waste Life Cycle Analysis

Pursuant to the Closed Substance Cycle and Waste Management Act, the Ordinance on WasteManagement Concepts and Waste Life Cycle Analysis (Verordnung über Abfallwirtschaftskonzepteund Abfallbilanzen) requires waste producers to prepare waste-management concepts and waste lifecycle analyses when their waste production exceeds a certain volume threshold. Such concepts andanalyses contain information about the type, amount and final whereabouts of the waste-producer'swaste, and about measures planned or taken to prevent, recover and dispose of this waste.Consequently, they are tools for internal company planning and supervision that enable companies tooptimise their waste management.

Companies that properly prepare and submit waste-management concepts and life cycle analyses, ifthey dispose of their waste in their own facilities, are exempted from procedures for furnishing proof.Waste producers are rewarded for responsible conduct and initiative. The Ordinance governs therequirements relative to the content and form of these concepts and life cycle analyses.

5. Ordinance on Specialised Waste Management Companies, andthe Directive on the Activities and Approval of Waste Management Partnerships

Pursuant to the Closed Substance Cycle and Waste Management Act, a specialised wastemanagement company is a waste management company that is entitled to advertise a qualitycertification received from a recognised waste management association, or that has concluded asupervision contract with a technical supervision organisation. The law mandates that certified wastemanagement companies, because they supervise themselves, require neither transport licences norlicences to carry out agency transactions. The Ordinance on the Furnishing of Proof also considerablyeases the proof procedures for such companies. Proof procedures are not required in cases in whichwaste management is handled by specialised waste management companies. The Ordinance onSpecialised Waste Management Companies (Entsorgungsfachbetriebeverordnung) and the Directiveon the Activities and Approval of Waste Management Partnerships(Entsorgergemeinschaftenrichtlinie) set forth the requirements for the organisation and activities ofsuch companies, as well as the requirements relative to the reliability and technical expertise ofrelevant persons within such companies.

The specialised waste management company certification - like an eco audit - is completelyvoluntary. As a result of the privileges and competitive advantages such certification can provide withrespect to statutory procedures, large numbers of waste management companies can be expected toapply for certification.


2. UNITED KINGDOM


No such measures exist in the UK other than particular requirements relating to controls on thedisposal of hazardous components of C&DW.

2.2 Mono landfill

There are no requirements that particular C&DW streams must be sent to mono landfills in the UK.


There are no specific measures within UK Town and Country Planning legislation which requiredevelopers to deal with particular C&DW streams in a specified manner. However, guidance issuedby the UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) does allow LocalPlanning Authorities to consider a developer’s proposals on waste management measures when theyare deciding on any planning applications, and the new ‘British Standards Code of Practice forDemolition (BS6187)’ is due to be published in the spring of 1999. Furthermore, Local PlanningAuthorities are empowered to attach conditions to planning consents, and these can include controlson waste management practices. Such controls may be challenged if they are considered byapplicants to go beyond the scope of the relevant law (ultra vires).

The UK Environment Agency has responsibility for licensing waste management site operations inrespect of the potential impacts of emissions and discharges on soils, air quality, ground and surfacewater quality. Authorisation from the Environment Agency is also required for the operation ofcrushers on sites which are otherwise exempt from waste management licensing. Controls imposedunder these regulations will affect waste management practices at waste management sites.


Wastes going to licensed landfills in the UK have, since October 1996, been subject to a landfill tax.There are two tax bands, applied to ‘active’ and ‘inactive’ (inert) wastes. The applicable rates are£7/tonne and £2/tonne (10.10 and 2.90 ECU/tonne) respectively. C&DW used for daily cover atlandfills, or for preparing access roads within the landfill, or for engineering waste cells, is subject tothe landfill tax.

C&DW used for landfilling or land raising on the site of origin (provided it is a site which has beenregistered as exempt) is not liable to the landfill tax. Nor is waste used for ‘environmentally beneficialpurposes’ elsewhere, such as land restoration, bunding and farm roads.

Changes announced in the 1998 Budget will see the active waste tax rate rise from £7/tonne to£10/tonne (10.10 to 14.50 ECU/tonne) in April 1999 with the inactive tax rate being frozen at £2/tonne(2.90 ECU/tonne). A new exemption will be introduced in October 1999 which will apply to inactivewaste used for the restoration of landfills and quarries.

In addition to the current landfill tax the UK Government is in consultation regarding a possibleaggregates tax, which would be payable where natural (non-waste) materials are won from quarriesand pits.

2.5 Subsidies

The Department of Trade & Industry provides grants to companies in Assisted Areas (these beingareas which qualify for financial aid primarily as a result of the decline of local industry or agriculture).These grants can be used to finance the purchase of crushing plant, among many other things.



The UK Government’s strategy for sustainable waste management is set out in ‘Making Waste Work’,published in 1995. This includes specific reference to C&DW. A new National Strategy for WasteManagement is in the course of preparation and is expected to be published in 1999.

Government guidance on waste planning, in particular relating to the allocation of responsibilitiesbetween the Environment Agency, Local Planning Authorities and Environmental Health Officers, isprovided through Planning Policy Guidance No.23 (PPG23, entitled ‘Planning and Pollution Control’),issued in July 1994. A new guidance note (PPG10, entitled ‘Waste Disposal and Management’) isundergoing consultation and is expected to be issued later in 1998.

Responsibility for waste management planning is divided between the Environment Agency (inEngland and Wales) or the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (in Scotland) or the Departmentof the Environment (NI) (in Northern Ireland) and Local Planning Authorities.

The Environment Agency and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency have responsibility foridentifying the nature and volume of waste arisings and the facilities required for their management.Responsibility for identifying land suitable for waste management facilities lies with the Local PlanningAuthorities. However, around London and certain other large cities there are statutory ‘Green Belts’ inwhich there is a general presumption against locating waste management facilities. In general theTown and Country Planning system requires Local Authorities to designate land within their area fordifferent uses, including waste management and waste disposal. It focuses on whether thedevelopment itself is an acceptable use of the land, rather than on the control of the processes orsubstances themselves. Pollution control and licensing is the responsibility of the EnvironmentAgency and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (see 2.3 above).


The DETR supports a range of research projects. These have included several projects in recentyears concerned with the re-use and recycling of C&DW as a means of reducing reliance on virginaggregates.

The DETR also contributes money to research projects managed by other bodies, such as theBuilding Research Establishment (BRE, an executive agency of the DETR) and the private sectorConstruction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA). Both the BRE and CIRIA haverun research projects into C&DW-related topics. CIRIA has recently completed a study entitled ‘WasteMinimisation and Recycling in Construction’ which included the development of good practice guidesfor designers and construction personnel.

The Highways Agency and the Transport Research Laboratory are also involved in research into theuse of C&DW in road construction, particularly regarding specification issues.


The BRE has undertaken a demonstration programme called Phoenix, which involved theconstruction of a new office building primarily from recovered and recycled C&DW.

Somerset County Council, the Highways Agency, the County Surveyors Society, the TransportResearch Laboratory and Colas Ltd have recently completed the Linear Quarry Project (thereconstruction of part of the A3088 trunk road using in-situ recycling techniques) to test draftspecifications.


There are no formal VAs (using the term in the sense in which it is used by DGXI) relating to C&DWin the UK, though a national VA between the Department of the Environment (now the DETR) and theBritish Rigid Urethane Foam Manufacturers’ Association was signed in 1996 with the objective ofreducing adverse environmental impacts as the insulation sector switches from HCFCs to CFCs. Thisshould reduce the hazardousness of some future C&DW.



The Government does not operate any formal educational or training programmes specifically gearedto C&DW management in the UK, though it provides financial support to bodies such as CIRIA (seeabove) which do. A CIRIA research project (see 2.7 above) led to the production of a set of goodpractice guides for construction sites. A further handbook to encourage wider use of reclaimed andrecycled materials in construction projects is to be published shortly by CIRIA.

The Environmental Services Association (which represents waste management companies) runstraining courses on waste management in general, which include aspects of C&DW management.


The DETR has been funding a pilot information service, the Aggregates Advisory Service (AAS),since March 1996. The project is programmed to run until March 1999, and alternative methods ofproviding a similar service after March 1999 are being studied at present. The AAS collects andcollates information from other bodies and advises the construction industry and others free of chargeof the information available. A specific aim of the AAS is to assist the Government to achieve itsobjective of reducing reliance on virgin aggregates by increasing the contribution from secondary andrecycled materials, including C&DW.


There is an active market for C&DW in the UK. Recoverable items are sold by demolition contractors,and there is a well established demand for recycled materials, including C&DW-derived aggregates.

The DETR and the BRE operate the Internet-based Construction and Demolition MaterialsInformation Exchange. A similar scheme is run for the County of Berkshire.


Historically UK standards and norms have been ‘recipe’ based rather than ‘performance’ based. As aresult the use of secondary and recycled aggregates has often been discouraged because they arenot specifically mentioned.

One standard which applies to both new and recycled materials, and which sets an upper limit on thepercentage of recycled materials is the ‘Specification for Highway Works (1993)’, prepared by theHighways Agency for the Department of Transport.

The only key standard which relates specifically and solely to the use of recycled materials is‘BS6543: 1985 British Standard Guide to the Use of Industrial By-products and Waste Materials inBuilding and Civil Engineering’.


All C&DW processing centres in the UK are operated by the private sector. It can be assumed that allsuch centres operate at least one concrete crusher. Research recently published by the AASidentified 383 companies in England and Wales as holding process authorisations or wastemanagement licences in 1997 in respect of mobile and fixed C&DW management operations orprimary aggregates crushing in quarries. No comparable data are presently available for Scotland orNorthern Ireland.

2.15 Other measures

As mentioned above (see Section 2.3) a new ‘British Standards Code of Practice for Demolition(BS6187)’ is due to be published in the spring of 1999.

The DETR considers that the broad public educational role described as ‘policy advocacy’ is one ofthe most important measures available to Government in promoting a greater awareness of issuesrelated to C&DW management, and specifically to recycling.

According to the DETR, some Local Authorities give preference to recycled C&DW for their ownconstruction projects.



The DETR considers that the greatest single impact on C&DW management practices has comeabout as a result of the introduction of the Landfill Tax. However, this followed a gradual trendtowards the commercialisation of waste management, and the impacts of all the other measuresdescribed above.


3. FRANCE


There is no restriction on disposal of C&DW, other than disposal of packaging. Non-householdpackaging management is regulated by Decret n°94-609 (13 July 1994), which only allows re-use,recycling or energy recovery. Landfilling and incineration without energy recovery are forbidden.

The disposal of asbestos cement products (which is mainly a problem because of emissions ofasbestos fibres to the atmosphere) is covered by Circulaire n°97-15 (9 January 1997). This definesthe conditions for processing, transport and final disposal. Only specific landfills can receive this kindof waste, and they must have specific cells, must prevent any crushing, and must be covered. About15 landfills have been approved to accept asbestos cement waste.

Disposal of embodied asbestos products is governed by Circulaire n°97-0320 (12 March 1997), whichcomplements two earlier Circulaires (n°96-60 and n°97-15). It sets out the elimination process foreach type of product. In all cases the enterprise responsible has to provide information on thecharacteristics of their asbestos waste, in order to determine the appropriate disposal route.

There are restrictions on the disposal of gypsum waste designed to protect groundwater. Landfillswhich receive gypsum waste must have specific (and covered) cells. Although plaster mixed withinert construction materials (such as bricks and concrete) can go to a ‘Class 3’ (inert waste) landfill,gypsum which has been mixed with other wastes (such as wood, cardboard or polystyrene) can onlybe disposed of in a ‘Class 2’ landfill. The classification of landfills is as follows:• ‘Class 1’ landfills (one per region) are for special industrial wastes;• ‘Class 2’ landfills are for household and similar wastes;• ‘Class 3’ landfills are for inert wastes.

3.2 Mono landfill

There are no specific requirements other than those described above for asbestos products.


There are no other specific measures to report yet.

Regulations are fixed at the national level, and neither the communes nor the regions can vary them.However, if they collect ‘craftsmen’s waste’ with household waste, they can impose a special charge(assuming that the main final destination is landfill).


There is a nationally-applicable waste tax set by ADEME. Until 2002 the level of tax will be 40FF/tonne (6 ECU/tonne) for all ‘Class 1’ and ‘Class 2’ landfills and for all other destinations other thanrecovery. There is no ADEME tax on ‘Class 3’ (inert) landfills.

Tariffs vary from region to region, and they are set by the landfill owners/operators. Typical tariffs(including the ADEME tax where applicable) are up to 80 FF/tonne (12 ECU/tonne) for inert wastes(‘Class 3’ landfills), and 200-500 FF/tonne (30-76 ECU/tonne) for ‘Class 2’ landfills.

Tariffs for ‘Class 1’ landfills depend heavily on the type of waste concerned. In a guide published byADEME, the tariff given for hazardous C&DW is 900 FF/tonne (136 ECU/tonne) except for asbestoswaste, for which it is between 2,200 and 2,800 FF/tonne (333-424 ECU/tonne).

3.5 Subsidies

There are no direct subsidies.



There is no target for re-use, but the French Housing Ministry and ADEME have taken several actionsto discourage the generation of C&DW and to promote its re-use, including:• the ‘Chantiers Verts’ programme started in 1993, covering new housing construction and

renovation : 12 experimental sites;• several calls for tender since 1993 to support research programmes dealing with C&DW recovery;• a current call for tender dealing with selective demolition;• publication of many information documents for architects, building contractors, industrialists etc;• the introduction of a new specific qualification (QUALIBAT) for demolition contractors.


Several government programmes and departments (such as the ‘Plan Urbanisme Construction etArchitecture’ and the ‘Direction Générale de l’Urbanisme, de l’Habitat et de la Construction’ from theHousing Ministry), local authorities and other public sector organisations (including CSTB, CEBTP,LCPC and ADEME) run their own R&D programmes in the field of prevention, re-use and recycling ofC&DW, as well as providing financial and management support for feasibility studies, researchprojects etc. carried out by others. Such studies and investigations are often carried out by industrialcompanies, consultancy firms, universities, contractors and laboratories.


The following are the only pilot and demonstration schemes in France:

Application Secondary raw material ProjectRoad sub-base material Concrete, masonry, mixed

aggregatesNo specific projects : manyexamples

District heating Wood REX Voglans (Savoie)Sports ground (tennis court) Terracotta products REX Demolition Mulhouse

REX is the ‘Réalisation Expérimentale (Chantiers Verts)’ programme.


There are no VAs relating to prevention and re-use of C&DW.


Two organisations representing the construction industry, the Fédération Nationale du Bâtiment (FNB)and the Confédération de l’Artisanat et des Petites Entreprises du Bâtiment (CAPEB), have set upsome training sessions at a national level for contractors.

Some local authorities (such as the Conseil Régional Languedoc Roussillon) also finance someinitiatives in education and training, including courses provided by ADATIRE in professional schools.


Both commercial and not-for-profit organisations such as ADEME, CSTB (Centre Scientifique etTechnique du Bâtiment) and ADATIRE provide advisory services in the field of prevention and re-useof C&DW.


No waste exchanges relevant to the construction sector are yet active.


There are no specific standards and norms for recycled materials. All new products, includingrecycled materials, have to get an ‘Avis Technique’ (technical agreement).



There are approximately 50 fixed crushers operating in France with a joint capacity of 5 milliontonnes. Most of them are operated by members of SNPGR (the Syndicat National des Producteurs deGranulats Recyclés).

3.15 Other measures

There are no other measures to report.


C&DW recycling is felt to be at a very early stage in France, with considerable scope for developmentin several geographical areas. This was implicitly acknowledged in a letter sent in mid-1998 by theMinistry of the Environment to all Prefects which asks them to use their influence to encouragerecovery and recycling activities in their areas.


4. ITALY


No such measures exist in Italy, where regulation of landfills in general has been much more of afocus than regulation of specific waste streams. Much C&DW is understood to be dumped onunregulated sites or simply fly tipped.

4.2 Mono landfill

There are no formal requirements that particular C&DW streams must be sent to mono landfills inItaly.


Controls on demolition and recycling activities may be exercised by Regional, Provincial andMunicipal authorities, depending on the activity concerned. There are no specific measures whichrequire developers to deal with particular C&DW streams in a specified manner, and in practice veryfew controls on the disposal of C&DW. Demolition is tightly controlled, and in recent years outrightdemolition has become less common. Most C&DW comes from renovation sites.


There is a tax of 2 Lire/kg (1.00 ECU/tonne) on inert wastes going to landfill. For other wastes, therate can rise to 10 ECU/tonne.

4.5 Subsidies

We are unaware of any subsidies being granted to C&DW recycling activities.


There is a national waste strategy for Italy, which raises the basic issues related to C&DW recycling.Some municipalities have taken initiatives to put these objectives into local practice. For example aconsortium of local authorities and construction companies in the north of the country established aC&DW recycling centre near Como several years ago, which is one of the largest in the country.


The Italian government has a limited research programme.


Further information on this subject is being requested.


There are not believed to be any national or local VAs in Italy related to C&DW.


No formal educational or training programmes specifically geared to C&DW management are offeredin Italy.


There is not believed to be an advisory service available to C&DW recyclers in Italy.



There is a conventional market for high value materials (metals, architectural salvage etc), but wearea unaware of any formal waste exchange.


There is not believed to be any formal standard for recycled materials in Italy, though laboratories asthe University of Milano’s geotechnical laboratory can test recycled materials against the standardsfor acceptance for highways work (ANAS). However, in a significant move which facilitates thedevelopment of a market for C&DW-derived aggregates, the highway and railway authorities recentlydecided to accept C&DW on their schemes.


There are believed to be roughly 10 C&DW recycling centres in northern Italy, including someoperated by local authorities (see 4.6 above). The largest ones are near Reggio Emilia, Modena,Milano and Como, each with a processing capacity of around 200,000 tonnes a year. There are afurther 50-100 mobile crushers, but there is not believed to be a central register of mobile crushingand sorting machines.

4.15 Other measures

We are unaware of any other measures in Italy.


C&DW is generally treated as an inert waste in Italy, and its re-use is affected by the widespreadavailability of marble quarries’ waste materials. None of the measures listed above appear to havehad a clear impact on C&DW management practice, though opening the way for C&DW-derivedaggregates in road and railway construction (see 4.13 above) can only be positive.


5. SPAIN


No such measures exist in Spain, where regulation of landfills in general has been much more of afocus than regulation of specific waste streams. The government is in the middle of a programmeunder which a large numbers of unregulated (but acknowledged) local landfills are being closed downand landscaped, with waste going instead to larger, formally managed facilities (see Annex 10, Ref11.3).

5.2 Mono landfill

There are no formal requirements that particular C&DW streams must be sent to mono landfills inmost regions of Spain, though in Catalonia a network of specialist C&DW landfills has beenestablished to which C&DW is increasingly being directed.


Controls on demolition and recycling activities may be exercised by Regional, Provincial or Municipalauthorities, depending on the activity concerned. In most parts of Spain there are no specificmeasures which require developers to deal with particular C&DW streams in a specified manner(though see 5.6 below).


There are no taxes on waste or aggregates in Spain, nor are any planned at present. The SpanishTreasury dislikes hypothecation (allocation of tax revenues to a specific activity), which wouldprobably be the only way in which such taxes could be ‘sold’ to industry and the public.

5.5 Subsidies

A new C&DW recycling centre is being developed on the outskirts of Madrid, for which LIFE fundshave been used.

A C&DW recycling centre in Barcelona (see 5.6 below) was established with a major shareholdingprovided by a company in which the Area Metropolitana de Barcelona (a consortium of localauthorities) holds a 25% share, and with a representative of the AMB acting as company president.


Waste planning is primarily a regional matter in Spain. In 1994 the Catalan government published adecree related specifically to C&DW management (Decret 201/1994). This imposes obligations on theowners of buildings and sites and on contractors, including the obligation that contractors be licensedto handle C&DW. It also requires a demolition plan to be lodged before a building can be demolished,and this plan has to show how much of the resultant C&DW is to be recovered or recycled, and bywhom. An accompanying guide to the application of the decree has also been published by the WasteBoard (Junta de Residus).

The Madrid provincial government has made allowance for recycling, and a centre is being developedon the outskirts of Madrid. The Basque government has issued a consultation document on C&DWrecycling, and at least one quarry operator is believed to be seeking to identify a site close to Bilbaowhere a recycling centre could be developed.

Other C&DW recycling initiatives have been pursued around Valencia and Pamplona, but the scale ofthese has been relatively modest.



The Spanish government’s road research agency (CEDEX) has an active research programmecovering road construction, the recycling of road materials and the use of other waste materials(including C&DW) in road construction.

Various universities and research institutes have R&D projects which touch on C&DW, butcoordinated information is not available.


Both CEDEX and some provincial authorities have treated road recycling R&D projects asdemonstration projects.

The Madrid C&DW recycling centre (see above) will act as a demonstration project when it iscomplete.


There are no national VAs in Spain related to C&DW.


No formal educational or training programmes specifically geared to C&DW management are offeredin Spain.


There is no advisory service available to C&DW recyclers in most of Spain, but considerableguidance is available through the Waste Board (Junta de Residus) in Catalonia.


In most of Spain there is a conventional market for high value materials (metals, architectural salvageetc), but no formal waste exchange. In Barcelona the ‘Borsa de Subproductes’ operates a, Internet-based waste exchange which includes C&DW.


Although there is no formal standard for recycled materials in Spain, it is being considered by CEDEX(see above), AENOR (the Spanish standards agency) and ANEFA (the body that represents quarryowners).

In the meanwhile, the C&DW recycling centre which is being developed near Madrid offers materialsto a standard which is certified by an independent research centre (the Instituto de Ciencias de laConstrucción ‘Eduardo Torroja’).


There are believed to be three recycling centres in Spain, two near Barcelona and a second (underdevelopment) near Madrid. A fourth is being considered for Bilbao. There is no central register ofmobile crushing and sorting machines, or road recycling equipment.

The centres near Barcelona are at Granollers and Terrassa, both with relatively small crushing andgrading machinery. The main initiative in this region is coordinated by Gestora de Runes de laConstrucció SA (GRC) a company established in 1994 with a brief to establish and manage C&DWlandfills throughout Catalonia. The shares in GRG are held by the Junta de Residus (45%), 90-oddconstruction companies (45%) and the Catalan Construction Federation (10%). GRC in turn holdshares (between 25% and 100%) in the companies that operate 15 C&DW landfills, two transferstations and the Granollers recycling plant (see above). Plans are in hand to create a further ninelandfills.


One of GRC’s major ventures is Gestora Metropolitana de Runes SA (GMR), in which it holds 10% ofthe shares, with 45% being held by a public company (TERSA) and 45% by 67 constructioncompanies. GMR operates three landfills/land reclamation schemes in Barcelona, and has plans toestablish two or three waste transfer stations with mobile crushers. It is intended that other mobilecrushers will go round GRC’s C&DW landfills on a rotational basis, crushing inert material andgenerating C&DW-derived aggregates.

Prior to the Barcelona Olympics there was a substantial C&DW recycling plant in Barcelona, and thepersonnel who are primarily responsible for GRC and GMR were involved with that venture. Thereason why the plant is hardly used now is that landfilling is still too cheap to justify crushing andtransporting C&DW. GRC/GMR plan to install a new C&DW crushing, sorting, separation andwashing plant in the port area in 1999 which will be able to handle clean soil as well as C&DW.

Fourteen of the largest demolition contractors are represented by the Asociación Española deEmpresarios de Demolición (AEDED). Some of these are starting to purchase mobile crushers for on-site processing.

5.15 Other measures

We are unaware of any other measures in Spain.


In most regions it is fair to say that none of the measures listed above have yet had a clear impact onpractice. The specific C&DW-related decree in Catalonia and the supporting initiatives taken by theregional government and other local entities has made a considerable difference there.


6. THE NETHERLANDS


As from 1 January 1997 there has been a total national ban on the disposal of re-usable C&DW(through the ‘Besluit stortverbod afvalstoffen’). As a result only certified C&DW crushers and sortersare allowed to dispose of non-re-usable C&DW. It is expected that in the near future the samepermission will be granted to certified demolition waste contractors. Guidance on which materials fallinto which category is as follows:

Re-usable C&DW Non-re-usable C&DWMasonry and concrete rubbleMetalsNon-impregnated woodPaper and cardboardPE-sheetPVC

contaminated rubble(coal)tar

6.2 Mono landfill

With the exception of contaminated sludge, there are no requirements with respect to sendingmaterials to mono landfills in the Netherlands.


The ‘Soil Protection Decree’ provides the legislative basis for the use of primary as well as secondaryraw materials. The aim of this decree is to protect the soil and surface water, and to promote re-use ofmaterials.

Demolition waste contractors are also subject to several other laws and regulations. A regionalenvironmental by-law (Provinciale Milieu Verordening) came into force on 1 January 1996. This by-law forces demolition waste contractors to segregate certain waste materials (which should alreadyhave been separately removed) when storing them. It covers:• asbestos;• wood;• masonry and concrete rubble.

In the second part of this by-law (which comes into force during 1998) these measures will betightened. Furthermore, waste materials that have not been removed separately will have to beseparated on the demolition site by the demolition waste contractors. This covers the followingmaterials:• compostable wastes;• cardboard and paper;• wood;• glass;• textiles.

So far this regional by-law has not achieved its intended effect. Many demolition waste contractorsremain poorly informed about its provisions, and there is little or no checking (control) by the regionalauthorities on the effectiveness of the actual separation. At present the regional authorities areconcentrating on disseminating information on the by-law.

Local Authorities were previously empowered to require C&DW to be separated on site. According tothe local building regulations C&DW has to be separated into at least:• hazardous waste;• metals;• masonry and concrete rubble;• non-impregnated wood.


Local Authorities have the power to extend this list to include:• sheet glass;• paper and cardboard;• PVC and PE tubes;• PVC wall cladding;• mineral wool.


A levy system is applied to landfills in the Netherlands. Tariffs differ from region (province) to region,and they range from NFL 50 to 200/tonne (23-90 ECU/tonne). The Government wishes to see thesetariffs harmonised.

6.5 Subsidies

The Dutch Government offers contractors the opportunity to earn bonuses if they use secondary(C&DW-derived) aggregates instead of natural gravel in public works which come under thesupervision of the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management.


In order to reach its target of 90% re-use of C&DW by the year 2000, the Dutch Government hastaken several actions to discourage the generation of C&DW and to promote its re-use. Since 1996there has been a government program aimed at the promotion of environmentally friendly products inthe building sector. This scheme includes a number of measures in the field of prevention and re-useof C&DW. Some basic measures, including requirements or recommendations that certain C&DWstreams be separated (see 6.3 above), and that crushed rubble be used as a secondary raw material,can be applied to all building projects, whereas other (recommended) measures could only be appliedto a more limited group of projects.

In order to assist national, regional and local government organisations, the Ministry of EnvironmentalPlanning has published a handbook which provides a number of practical measures and instrumentson the use of secondary raw materials. The main issues covered by the handbook concern:• the design of long-range plans;• policy development;• advisory services, such as checklists with information on secondary raw materials;• the creation of (temporary) incentives;• improving the balance between primary and secondary raw materials;• building specifications and the use of secondary raw materials;• selection of participants (building contractors, architects, developers, etc.) with experience and

knowledge in the field of secondary raw materials.

For many years Local Authorities have had several instruments available to them to stimulate the useof secondary raw materials. They can include specific regulations into development plans, they canattach conditions to building permits when they are issued, and they can impose conditions whichaffect the sale of building land. It is also within the competence of local government to makeappointments with building contractors and housing associations on sustainable building in generaland in particular on the use of secondary raw materials.

Not only governmental bodies have taken initiatives in this field. The two largest employers’organisations in the Netherlands (VNO and NCW) have also developed special programmes aimed atencouraging the use of environment-friendly products.

In order to promote separate collection of C&DW, the Dutch association of demolition wastecontractors (BABEX) has set up a system of certification for its members. The certificate prescribesseparate removal of C&DW as well as separate supply to recycling units. A similar system ofcertification has been set up by the equivalent body for crushers and sorters (BRBS).



Governmental and other public sector organisations (such as RIVM, CUR, CROW, NOVEM and SBR)run their own R&D programmes in the field of prevention, re-use and recycling of C&DW as well asproviding financial and management support for feasibility studies, research projects etc. carried outby others. Such studies and investigations are often carried out by consultancy firms, universities,contractors and laboratories.

The R&D programme has investigated the use of C&DW-derived aggregates as a coarse material inconcrete. Partial replacement (up to 20%) of natural aggregates (gravel) in concrete is becomingmore and more common. Studies have also been established into the recycling of wood, aiming atthe use of chipped processed wood in composite board materials.


The following are among the most important pilot and demonstration schemes in the Netherlands:

Application Secondary raw material(processed C&DW s ubwastestream)

Project

Landraising Soil and dredging spoil Coverage of dikes in Streefkerk andHoek van Holland

Sub-base material Concrete, masonry, mixedaggregates

No specific projects: many examples

Sieve sand Stabilisation layer RotterdamSurface Asphalt granulates No specific projectsSurface Masonry, mixed granulates No specific projectsCoarse aggregatesin concrete

Concrete, masonry, mixedaggregates

Police station at HoogvlietDwellings in Amersfoort, Delft,Amsterdam and RotterdamMinistry of Housing Spatial Planningand the EnvironmentSluices in HelmondOffice and production halls in Nijkerk


In 1995 the Dutch Government and approximately 20 industry organisations, including BABEX (thedemolition waste contractors’ organisation), agreed on measures to prevent and re-use C&DW. ThisVA has been incorporated into a policy declaration.

Several participants in the building process have already entered into VAs on the prevention and re-use of C&DW. Others intend to do so in the near future.

In 1996 demolition waste contractors and suppliers of aluminium building materials agreed on a jointeffort to promote a ‘closed cycle/closed life cycle’ approach to aluminium building products. In thesame year demolition waste contractors and a glass recycling company agreed on the separatecollection of glass from demolition sites.


The Dutch government does not operate any educational or training programmes specifically gearedto C&DW management.


Advisory services in the field of prevention and re-use of C&DW are provided by commercial as wellas not-for-profit organisations.



We are unaware of any officially-supported waste exchange programmes in the Netherlands.


Standard performance specifications (RAW 1995) are available where recycled and mixedaggregates are to be used as a sub-base material.

The main standards and norms applicable to recycled aggregates are as follows:

Material Application Standards, normsConcrete aggregates Coarse aggregate in concrete CUR recommendation 4

NEN 5905: 1988NEN 5950: VBT

Masonry aggregates Coarse aggregate in concrete CUR recommendation 5NEN: see above

Crusher sand Fine aggregate in concrete NEN 5905


There are approximately 120 crushers operating in the Netherlands with a joint capacity of 16.25million tonnes. Roughly 15% of these crushers (around 20) operate on construction sites, with theothers (around 100) located on fixed recycling centres. Some 55% of the companies active in thisfield are members of the BRBS.

Whereas old glass- and rockwool insulation materials from demolition sites are collected separatelyfor landfilling, some unused new materials from construction sites are recycled. Rockwool Lapinushas its own recycling-system to collect clean unused materials for use in manufacturing new product.For Glasswool the costs of re-use in the manufacturing process are still too high.

A small part of the C&DW insulation stream consists of PUR insulation plates. PUR is incinerated withenergy recovery.

6.15 Other measures



The most effective single measure has been the ban on the disposal of re-usable C&DW.

Despite all of the actions described above, it is acknowledged that the overall effect on the moreminor C&DW streams (such as wood, metals, plastics and glass) is disappointing, and the targetswhich have been set are far from being met. Consequently the Dutch Government is continuing itsactivities in the field of public/industry education.


7. BELGIUM


FlandersThere are no legal restrictions or bans on disposal affecting C&DW in Flanders. However, the newVLAREA legislation (‘Vlaams reglement inzake afvalvoorkoming en –beheer’ of January 1998) statesthat unsorted industrial waste, the category to which most C&DW belongs, may not be landfilled from1 July 1998. Indirectly, this means that C&DW should pass through some kind of sorting process. It isnot yet clear if selective demolition and sorting in situ will suffice.

BrusselsThe order of 16 March 1995 regarding obligatory recycling of certain types of non-contaminatedC&DW in both private and public works created an indirect ban on disposal. Contaminated C&DWcan still be landfilled. Contractors without recycling or recovery facilities are required to deliver theuncontaminated C&DW to a recycling or sorting company. This obligation could in theory be waived ifthe contractor could show that no company within a range of 60km accepts this type of waste.However, many recycling and sorting companies are established within 60km of Brussels, so thisorder has proved to be an effective way to restrict landfilling of C&DW. Most of Brussels’ C&DW hastraditionally gone to landfills in Wallonia.

WalloniaIn Wallonia there are no restrictions or bans on disposal. The Walloon government is currentlyrunning a public inquiry to approve controlled landfills (‘Centres d'Enfouissement Techniques’ orCETs). It is expected that for inert waste, which covers most C&DW, 33 such landfills will beavailable.

7.2. Mono landfill

None of the three Belgian regions have requirements governing the sending of materials to monolandfills for possible future recovery. In Flanders, however, there are mono landfills for, among otherthings, the disposal of environmentally sound dredging sludge originating from public waterways.


None of the regions have public environmental or planning controls which directly affect the disposalof C&DW.

However the VVS, an association representing most Flemish C&DW recycling plants, has recentlytaken action by filing complaints with the authorities whenever apparently illegal practices wereidentified, or C&DW materials appeared to be wrongly used. These actions only achieved limitedsuccess, due to the absence of a proper legal framework. However, the VLAREA legislation (seeabove) is expected to change this situation.


The average cost to a demolition contractor for sending C&DW to a Class III landfill (of which thereare none in Brussels) varies from about 5.75 to 16 ECU/tonne, excluding transportation costs.Regional variations (in 1994/95) were as follows:

Flanders WalloniaClass III landfill chargeEnvironmental tax

6.50 ECU/tonne9.50 ECU/tonne

2.00-7.50 ECU/tonne3.75 ECU/tonne

Total (excluding transport) 16.00 ECU/tonne 5.75-11.25 ECU/tonne

7.5 Subsidies

One Flemish fiscal measure designed specifically to promote the prevention of C&DW arisings isdescribed in section 7.10 below. In addition, the government of Flanders levies a lower rate of tax onthe disposal of the final waste fraction after C&DW has been processed. This effectively encouragesthe sorting and recycling of C&DW.


In Wallonia the government plays quite an active part in the management, and more particularly, inthe organisation of the processing, of C&DW. Besides its active control of both publicly and privatelyoperated controlled landfills, the Walloon government is a shareholder in SPAQUE (‘Société Publiqued'Aide à la Qualité de l'Environnement’), which in turn invests in the creation of recycling plants byTradecowall. Indeed the Walloon government decided on 7 July 1994 to invest 140 million BEF in a25,1% share of the capital of these recycling companies.


FlandersThe legal basis for waste policy in Flanders is set down in the Waste Decree of 2 July 1981, whichwas considerably modified by the new Decree of 20 April 1994. Issues of particular relevance toC&DW management are described below.

Article 11 explicitly opens the way to using waste materials as secondary raw materials or products.Subsequently an application order on the prevention and management of waste (the VLAREAlegislation mentioned in 7.1 above) was approved by the Flemish government on 17 December 1997and published officially on 16 April 1998. This defines the rules and conditions in some detail inChapter 4 (‘The Use of Waste Materials as Secondary Raw Materials’).

Of greatest relevance to the construction industry is §4.2.2., in which the conditions for the use ofwaste in or as construction material are defined. Considerable scope is identified for C&DW-derivedaggregates, provided certain requirements regarding composition, leachability and conditions of useare respected. C&DW crushers and processors require a permit to process waste, and a certifiedQuality Assurance system. Thus, not only do the products have to fulfil certain environmentalconditions, but the processing company or unit is also subject to specific conditions. As well asC&DW-derived aggregates, the VLAREA legislation considers other wastes which can be re-used assecondary raw materials in the construction industry, such as slags, ashes and sludges.

Articles 35 and 36 authorise the waste authorities (OVAM) to develop implementation plans directedat specific industrial sectors. Since this opportunity was already provided in the Flemish StrategicWaste Action Plan for 1991-1995, OVAM (together with the construction industry) developed anImplementation Plan for C&DW in 1995 (‘Het Uitvoeringsplan Bouw- en Sloopafval’). The mainobjective of this plan is to achieve a level of 75% recycling of C&DW by the year 2000. A maximumof 25% will then need to be disposed of using effective and environmentally sound techniques.Another key objective is to reduce the quantities of C&DW produced through qualitative andquantitative prevention measures.

BrusselsIn the Brussels Capital Region environmental issues in general fall under the competence of theIBGE/BIM (Institut Bruxellois pour la Gestion de l'Environnement/Brussels Instituut voorMilieubeheer), which was created in 1989. Waste management is mainly based on the Order of 7March 1991 on the prevention and management of waste. This order obliges the Brusselsgovernment to develop a waste management plan every 5 years. The first such plan (1992-1995)included a 70% target (by 1996) for C&DW recycling. Apparently this objective was achieved by1995, since at that time it was estimated that some 75% of C&DW was recycled or recovered.

Therefore, a new objective of 95% re-use or recycling of C&DW by 2002 was proposed in the draftWaste Management Plan for 1998-2002, which was under public inquiry from 19 January to 18 March1998. Tools to realise this ambitious objective are the incorporation of specific clauses allowing theuse of recycled C&DW in public works and the organisation of major awareness-raising campaignsdirected at the construction and demolition industry in order to stimulate on-site sorting. With regardto the first of these two tools, it is interesting to note that a Ministerial Circular of 9 May 1995 alreadyallows the re-use of certain C&DW in public road and infrastructure works.

WalloniaUntil recently the legal basis for waste policy in Wallonia was defined in the Waste Decree of 5 July1985. However, a new Waste Decree was adopted on 27 June 1996. One of the key provisions of thisdecree is the encouragement which it provides to the re-use and recycling of waste materials (definedin French as ‘l'utilisation de matières assimilables à des produits’). A draft application order on theestablishment of a list of recyclable waste materials fit for use in certain applications is currentlyunder discussion.


Waste management plans also play an important role in implementing waste management policy.The first one (for 1991-1995) did not specify a clear recycling target for C&DW. Information andawareness raising campaigns aimed at both the public and private sectors on ways to prevent wastearising, and directing C&DW towards controlled landfills and recycling plants, were given a highpriority. However, according to ‘Horizon 2010’ (the new Walloon waste management plan), some 1.1million tonnes were still disposed of in an uncontrolled way in 1997.

‘Horizon 2010’ was published on 29 April 1998, following a public inquiry in June 1997. Risingrecycling targets are proposed: 74% by 2000, 81% by 2005 and 87% by 2010. At the same timelandfilling of C&DW should be reduced, reaching a level of 10% by 2010.


All three regions run separate and joint R&D programmes and feasibility studies in the field ofprevention, re-use and recycling of C&DW. Consultancy firms, universities and/or constructionresearch centres carry out studies financed partly or completely by the authorities to collectinformation, to develop action programmes and to execute market and technical research.

Specific R&D programmes concerning the use of recycled aggregates in concrete and the productionof better quality recycled aggregates (in terms of less impurities and contamination) were and are stillfinanced by the construction industry and the regional authorities of all three regions. Research intothe environmental quality of recycled products in terms of possible heavy metal and othercontamination, which is used as a basis for the legal framework for the recognition of secondary rawmaterials, is financed by the authorities.


In the early 1980s some big demonstration projects were established, including the use of recycledcrushed concrete aggregates in new concrete for use in the Berendrecht lock in Antwerp harbour.

Currently the regional authorities consider that public works offer an ideal opportunity to demonstratethe rational use of recycled materials. In recent years the relevant regional government organisations(Departement Leefmilieu en Infrastructuur in Flanders, Ministère d'Equipement et Transport inWallonia and IBGE-BIM in Brussels) have established technical specifications which permit the use ofrecycled materials in a whole range of applications. In order to encourage a more consistentapproach, an inter-regional committee established uniform definitions for C&DW-derived aggregates.As a result of all this, the use of recycled aggregates as sub-base and base materials has becomequite common.

However, in response to the Implementation Plan for C&DW (see 7.6 above), the Flemish authoritiesrecently felt the need for new demonstration projects to show new and higher grade applications. Itwas decided to develop at least one such project in each of the Flemish provinces. Special technicalspecifications, which would become obligatory for specific public works, were established by atechnical committee on which the construction industry as well as the authorities were represented.The use of crushed concrete aggregates in concrete used for cycle ways is one of the high grade usesto be demonstrated.

Another important demonstration project, financed by the Walloon authorities, concerned the use ofrecycled aggregates in road construction and in concrete products, such as blocks and tiles. This wasset up in 1995, and the results were presented at a conference held in Namur in November 1996.


The Flemish Implementation Plan for C&DW (see 7.6 above) and the Walloon voluntary collaborationagreement (‘Accord de branche’) of 14 July 1994 between government and the construction anddemolition industries are both considered to be excellent examples of fruitful voluntary collaborationaimed at less waste and better recovery. Wherever possible, the regions prefer voluntary agreementsand consensus objectives to far-reaching regulation.

In 1997 the Flemish Federation of Contractors (VCB) and the Flemish Organisation of SortingCompanies (VSO) agreed that contractors who sort waste on site should be guaranteed a better pricefor their waste. A new voluntary initiative which is expected in Flanders in the near future concernsthe voluntary use of technical specifications for demolition works in which selective demolition and


on-site sorting are promoted. Such technical specifications are being developed by a working groupactive in the context of the Implementation Plan for C&DW.


FlandersTwo initiatives in Flanders merit special mention. The first, known as the PRESTI programme, had asits main objective the raising of awareness in the construction and demolition industry ofenvironmental issues, including noise, energy and waste. It was quite successful, and severalinformation documents aimed at the different sub-sectors of the industry were published. Thesecontained legal as well as technical information. Two further PRESTI programmes have subsequentlybeen started, both aimed at the prevention of waste and the protection of the environment.Companies which install prevention systems in their processes can get subsidies from thegovernment. Through these actions, the government wants to demonstrate the effectiveness ofprevention.

A second initiative, also financed by the government, was the production of a brochure directed atarchitects. Through this short pamphlet, the authorities wish to educate architects about recentdevelopments in C&DW prevention and recycling. Experience has shown that many of them wereunaware of the potential for de-mountable construction, selective demolition and recycling. The factthat architects have a major influence on the C&DW stream motivated the authorities to inform them.

BrusselsIn 1995 IBGE-BIM published a guide to the management of C&DW which brought together all thelegal and technical information concerning the treatment, sorting and processing of C&DW. IBGE-BIM is currently working at a new edition of this guide, containing all recent developments andinformation.

WalloniaIn Wallonia, the MARCO programme, which is directly comparable to the Flemish PRESTIprogramme (see above), is currently running. The main difference is that MARCO is specificallydirected towards small and medium sized construction and demolition companies and constructionproduct manufacturers.

Another programme which also considers C&DW is the Ecoforma project. This is an Internet-basededucational and training programme for the construction industry in both Wallonia and Brussels.


From 1994 to 1997 the regional authorities and the construction industry financed a national advisoryservice called ‘Recycling in the construction industry’. A separate national advisory service coveringrecycling in road construction, financed by the regional authorities and the road contractors, iscurrently running.


There is a federal waste exchange office, but it appears to have little impact on the C&DW sector. Ona regional scale, the Flemish waste agency OVAM is operating an Internet-based waste exchange,but little use is made of this service for C&DW so far. The authorities in Brussels and Wallonia arestudying the impact which a waste exchange might have on the construction industry.


On the initiative of the Flemish recycling association (VVS) and the regional governments’ technicalauthorities, a voluntary certification scheme for recycled aggregates for use in unbound applications,cement-treated sand and gravel and lean concrete was developed. COPRO is the body responsiblefor the certification of these aggregates. The basis for the certification scheme is provided bytechnical specifications provided by the authorities, though the COPRO certification scheme alsoincludes a control of the QA systems at the recycling plants.

At the moment a technical prescription for recycled concrete, masonry and mixed aggregates is beingdrafted by a working group reporting to the National Management Committee for the Certification of


Aggregates. This will enable BENOR, the national standards agency, to grant a quality label to suchC&DW-derived aggregates. It is expected that the normative document will be ready by the end of1998.


FlandersAbout 80 C&DW recycling installations (crushing facilities) are in operation, with a combined annualcapacity estimated at 5 million tonnes. About 40 sorting facilities which process C&DW amongst otherwastes are also available.

It is expected that the new VLAREA legislation will lead to some rationalisation of the C&DWrecycling industry. The fact that only C&DW processed by plants with QA certification can be used asa secondary product will probably result in the closure of some smaller, low quality recycling plants.

BrusselsAs explained above (see section 7.1), Brussels depends on Flemish and Walloon facilities to processand dispose of its C&DW. However, it is expected that in the near future one or more privaterecycling plants will be installed in the Brussels territory. However, due to the high population densityenvironmental constraints with respect to noise and dust are quite severe.

WalloniaIn the Walloon region, 10 recycling plants with an annual capacity of 650,000 tonnes were beingoperated by private companies and by Tradecowall in mid-1997. Since then Tradecowall, togetherwith the primary aggregates sector, has established two further recycling plants in Namur andTournai. There are 33 controlled landfills available for the disposal of C&DW.

7.15 Other measures



There is a clear preference in Belgium for consensus-based measures over traditional regulation.Having said that, a wide range of measures including taxes, subsidies, R&D projects, advisoryservices and specifications has been introduced in combination.

Flanders has generally led the way in waste management within Belgium, including C&DWmanagement. Many of the initiatives in all three regions which are reported above are too recent forany effect to have shown up yet in C&DW statistics, but one difference between Flanders andWallonia which has been evident for some time is the higher cost of landfilling in Flanders, reflectingthe differences in the geology of the two regions and the higher population density in Flanders. Itappears likely that this sub-set of factors has provided a major stimulus to the generally higher levelsof recycling found in Flanders.


8. AUSTRIA


§17 of the Waste Management Law enshrines the recovery and treatment principles for hazardousand demolition wastes, and since 1993 different regulations have come into effect covering theseparation, recovery and disposal of C&DW. Currently there are approximately 400 C&DW landfills inAustria. From 1 January 1997 landfills have been classified as follows:• landfills for excavated soil;• landfills for C&DW;• landfills for residues;• landfills for ‘mass-wastes’.

Recoverable materials from demolition waste are required to be recycled, if reasonable under theeconomic circumstances, and non-recoverable wastes are to be treated before disposal. Recyclingcosts which are 25% higher than the cost of landfilling are considered to be reasonable according tothe decree on C&DW dated 29 July 1993.

Subject to a minimum amount of waste being present, demolition waste has to be separated(according to the Ordinance on Separation / Trennungsverordnung BGBL Nr.259/1991) into differentmaterials and recycled. The minimum quantities are as follows:• excavated soil - 20 tonnes;• concrete - 20 tonnes;• asphalt - 5 tonnes;• wood - 5 tonnes;• metals - 2 tonnes;• plastics - 2 tonnes;• mixed C&D site waste - 10 tonnes;• mineral C&DW - 40 tonnes.

8.2 Mono landfill

See 8.1 above, which describes the classification of landfills.


Other than specific waste planning measures (see 8.1 and 8.6), there are no directly relevant planningmeasures.


There are no taxes for the disposal of C&DW, but according to the amended law (of 7 June 1989) tofinance the remediation of contaminated sites there are fixed ‘rates’ for the disposal of waste onlandfills. The rate differs depending on the landfill and on the type of waste, and the income is to beused exclusively for the remediation of contaminated industrial sites and old landfills.

Rates for disposal of waste on landfills which do not fulfil the requirements of available techniques areas follows:

Date C&D Waste Landfills E xcavated Soil Landf illsÖS/tonne ECU/tonne ÖS/tonne ECU/tonne

1 January 1997 60 4.341 January 1998 80 5.79 80 5.791 January 2001 100 7.24 100 7.24Note: There is an additional charge of 30 ÖS/tonne (2.17 ECU/tonne) if the landfill does not havean

adequate liner or vertical enclosure.


Rates for disposal of waste on landfill which fulfil the requirements of available techniques are:

Date C&D Waste Landfills Residue Landfills Mass Waste LandfillsÖS/tonne ECU/t ÖS/tonne ECU/t ÖS/tonne ECU/t

1 January 1997 60 4.341 January 1998 150 10.85 200 14.471 January 2001 80 5.791 January 2004 100 7.24 200 14.47 300 21.70

8.5 Subsidies

There are no direct subsidies.


There is a national waste management plan (‘Bundes-Abfallwirtschaftsplan’) which is currently indraft.

All landfills have to meet particular requirements regarding location (geological and hydrogeologicalconditions etc.), general design, protection of soil and water (lining, water control and leachatemanagement), gas control, stability, landfill cover, documentation and quality control. Thresholdvalues for waste, waste analysis and control procedures are defined for waste to be accepted in thedifferent classes of landfill.

From 1 July 1999 landfills have to comply with requirements set out in an amendment (dated 19 June1997) to the 1959 water law. This sets out specific regulations for landfills to be enforced in stages. By1 January 1998 the operator had to inform the relevant authorities about the future use of the landfill(landfill type, closure); from 1 July 1998 there have been tighter controls on the acceptance of waste;from 1 January 1999 there will be additional requirements regarding the acceptance of waste forexcavated soil and C&DW landfills. Full enforcement of all provisions will be in place by 1 January2004.


There are some research projects into recycling possibilities for construction wastes.


We have not identified any pilot or demonstration schemes in Austria.


A VA was signed in 1990 by the Ministry for Economics and the Construction Industry Federation. Theobjective of the agreement is to increase recovery rates for C&DW in order to reduce the amount ofwaste being landfilled and to conserve natural resources. A number of issues mentioned in the VAhave now been implemented, such as quality standards for recycled materials (though see section8.13 below), a waste exchange scheme, and legal requirements.


It is understood that education and training in general waste management is available, but this is notspecific to C&DW.


There is no C&DW-specific organised advisory service. Information and advice is given through theconstruction recycling federation, and there are other educational and training schemes.



There is an Internet-based waste exchange for excavated soil, mineral construction waste andrecycled materials.


There are standards for C&DW-derived aggregates for concrete, road construction and noiseprotection walls, and for the treatment of contaminated soil. Standards for recycled materials aregenerally performance-based, with different quality classes. The international recycling federation isworking on the harmonisation of quality standards for recycled materials.


There are approximately 150 treatment sites and 400 landfills for C&DW in Austria. The treatmentsites are mainly for the treatment of asphalt, concrete and mineral demolition waste, with an annualcapacity of more than 5 million tonnes. Roughly two thirds of all C&DW crushers are reckoned to belocated at recycling centres with the remaining one third being on-site mobile machines.

These treatment sites are presently not working to full capacity, so an increase in recycling activitydoes not necessarily require additional treatment capacity, according to the national wastemanagement plan.

8.15 Other measures

Some regions of Austria require demolition permits to be approved by the authorities, others simplyrequire notification to the relevant authorities.

There is a national standard on demolition works (ÖNORM B2251 Abbrucharbeiten) which is used onall public sector projects.


Austria has used a combination of measures to encourage C&DW recycling, with the main emphasison conventional regulation.


9. PORTUGAL


No such measures exist in Portugal, where regulation of landfills in general has been much more of afocus than regulation of specific waste streams. The government is seeking to close down largenumbers of unregulated (but acknowledged) local landfills in favour of larger, formally managedfacilities.

9.2 Mono landfill

There are no formal requirements that particular C&DW streams must be sent to mono landfills inPortugal. In any case, there are very few mono landfills in Portugal, and none dedicated to C&DW-type materials.


Controls on demolition and recycling activities may be exercised by Regional and Municipalauthorities, depending on the activity concerned. There are no specific measures which requiredevelopers to deal with particular C&DW streams in a specified manner, and in practice very fewcontrols on the disposal of C&DW.


There are no taxes on waste or aggregates in Portugal, nor are any planned at present.

9.5 Subsidies



There is a national waste strategy for Portugal, which raises the basic issues related to C&DWrecycling. So far this has not filtered through into local waste plans. The key municipalities (Lisboa,Porto and Faro) are all understood to be considering how best to translate national objectives intolocal practice (see 9.7 below).


There is a project to characterise the nature C&DW arisings and measures currently taking place inLisboa. This is designed to result in an action plan for C&DW management. The project arises from aprotocol signed by the National Waste Institute (Instituto Nacional dos Resíduos), Lisboa City Council(Câmara Municipal de Lisboa) and the Institute for Applied Science and Technology (Instituto deCiência Aplicada e Tecnologia).

As a first stage, the processes involved in rehabilitation and demolition of selected buildings are beingstudied. The sites which have been chosen are intended to be representative of the different types ofbuildings to be found in the city. The aim is to characterise and quantify the waste arisings.

There will be a second stage (starting in 1999) which will deal with construction sites. Later this workwill be complemented through further studies in other regions of the country with differentcharacteristics, in order to generate a representative picture of the issues.

The Portuguese government’s civil engineering laboratory (LNEC) has a roads research programmewhich includes issues related to the use of waste materials in road construction. So far this does notextend to C&DW-derived aggregates.



A demonstration project on the site of Expo’98 was proposed. The original intention was to takedemolition waste from structures which previously occupied the site, and to use it as an aggregate inconcrete for the Expo development. Concerns about contamination caused the proposal to bedropped. Parts of the site had previously been occupied by a slaughterhouse and a fuel tank farm.


There are no national or local VAs in Portugal related to C&DW.


No formal educational or training programmes specifically geared to C&DW management are offeredin Portugal.


There is no advisory service available to potential C&DW recyclers in Portugal.


There is a conventional market for high value materials (metals, architectural salvage etc), but noformal waste exchange.


There is no formal standard for recycled materials in Portugal. The highway authorities responsible formotorways and major roads in Portugal (BRISA and JAE respectively) will not accept C&DW-derivedaggregates on their schemes.


Although some C&DW is separately collected in special containers located on construction anddemolition sites, most nevertheless ends up being landfilled.

It has recently been reported that a C&DW recycling centre has been established near Lisboa, but nodetails of the capacity or throughput of this centre are known to us. The aim of this centre is stated tobe to facilitate greater re-use and recycling through sorting and crushing.

The inert fraction will be marketed under a proprietary brand name for road construction, as well asbeing used in the landscaping of worked-out sand pits and stone quarries, and in drainage works. Theseparated plastics, paper and cardboard, wood and metals (ferrous and non-ferrous) are sent toappropriate specialist recycling facilities.

There is no central register of mobile crushing and sorting machines.

9.15 Other measures

We are unaware of any other measures in Portugal.


C&DW recycling is at a very early stage in Portugal, and none of the measures listed above have yethad a clear impact on practice.


10. DENMARK


According to national waste management policy and related targets, landfilling and incineration ofC&DW should be minimised. Only waste which cannot be recovered in an environmentally safe wayis supposed to be landfilled, and in 1996 only 10% of C&DW was landfilled.

Since January 1997 municipalities have been obliged by law to assign to incineration all waste whichcannot be recycled and which is suitable for incineration. There is, however, no explicit ban onlandfilling and incineration without energy recovery.

10.2 Mono landfill

In general, there are no active mono landfills in Denmark, though some landfills have cells forspecific waste streams (such as PVC waste, asbestos etc).


The Danish Environmental Protection Act requires waste treatment plants and landfills for C&DW tohold licences from the county authorities, based on a process of environmental assessment. Thecounty authorities are then responsible for supervising the treatment plants, and have the authority totake action if they fail to comply with the applicable licensing conditions.

The temporary installation of a crusher on a demolition site does not require a permit, but its use iscovered by environmental regulations designed to protect neighbouring properties from unreasonablenuisance. The same machine located on any site other than the demolition site does require a permit.Temporary storage of demolished materials on the site of origin does not require a permit, providedthat no additional materials are brought onto the site from other locations.

Although there is no requirement that selective demolition techniques should be used, C&DW has tobe separated.


There has been a national tax on landfilling and incineration since 1987. Since 1 January 1997 therates have been:

Disposal mechanism Rate of Tax/tLandfillingIncineration with <10% power productionIncineration with power production

335 DKK260 DKK210 DKK

45 ECU/tonne35 ECU/tonne28 ECU/tonne

Taxation, in combination with other legislation and planning measures, has been successful inreducing to a minimum the landfilling of C&DW.

There is also a natural resources tax which applies to the quarrying of gravel of 6 DKK/m3 (0.8ECU/m3 or approximately 1.35 ECU/tonne).

10.5 Subsidies

No direct payments are made to subsidise C&DW use or recycling.


The recycling target for all waste in Denmark is 50% by the year 2000. The recycling target for C&DWwas set at 60% in 1993, and increased to 85% in 1996. This target was achieved that same year.Municipalities also set local targets in their own waste management plans. These local targetsgenerally follow the national targets.


As well as being required to assign all kinds of waste to specific treatment or recycling facilities (see 1above), municipalities are also responsible for securing sufficient local treatment capacity for C&DW.Where necessary this can involve the municipalities setting up and operating facilities themselves.


The Ministry of the Environment provides financial support (partial or total) to R&D projects. Since themid-1980s over 100 projects relevant to C&DW have been completed.


Since the mid 1980s approximately 60 pilot and demonstration projects on C&DW recycling havebeen carried out in Denmark. The following are among the most significant:• pilot demolition of industry and local recycling of crushed concrete and masonry (1986-88);• test using crushed masonry in car parks (1988-92);• demonstration project on selective demolition (1989-91);• construction of ‘recycled houses’ in Odense, Horsens and Copenhagen (1990-94).


There is a national VA on the topic of selective demolition between the Minister of the Environmentand Energy and the Association of Demolition Contractors. This was signed in 1996.


In Denmark both theoretical education and practical training courses on C&DW management issuesare available. The Technical Universities and Civil Engineering Colleges provide courses on solidwaste management, including the management and treatment of C&DW and the relevant legislation.For semi-skilled workers a one-week course in C&DW management has been set up by Danish ‘AMU-centres’. The purpose of these courses is to improve the workers’ knowledge of the waste fractionswithin C&DW, to educate them about selective demolition techniques and the influence which thequality of the sorting process can have on the subsequent re-use of the various wastes, and to informthem about the different treatment, recycling and disposal options. The course also deals withoccupational health aspects.


Two private sector institutions - RENDAN (Danish Centre for Knowledge on Waste Minimisation andRecycling) and DTI (Danish Technological Institute) - are provided with financial support to enablethem to act as know-how centres for C&DW disposal and recycling. An annual status report onC&DW recycling is prepared and published by RENDAN.


There is an active market for C&DW in Denmark. For many years demolition contractors havemarketed re-usable demolition materials from their own stock yards, and there are many examples ofC&DW which has been treated at crushing plants owned by the private sector or by groups ofmunicipalities being sold to interested customers.


The Danish Society of Civil Engineers has issued a standard for the use of crushed concrete andmasonry as an aggregate material in new concrete. There is also a specification governing the use ofcrushed concrete, asphalt and masonry as a substitute for gravel in road construction.



There are approximately 30 mobile and stationary crushing facilities in Denmark. Some are privatelyowned, others belong to groups of municipalities.

10.15 Other measures

Under the Danish Building Regulations (of the National Building and Housing Agency) a permit isrequired from the local municipality before any building may be demolished.


The combination of legislation, taxation, national and local planning measures have between thembeen successful in reducing to a minimum the volume of C&DW going to landfill.


11. GREECE


We are unaware of any bans on disposal in Greece.

11.2 Mono landfill

We are unaware of any formal requirements that particular C&DW streams be sent to mono landfillsin Greece. Most C&DW that is not re-used or recycled goes to XITAs (sanitary burial or refuse sites)or dumps for burial.


We are unaware of any other specific controls aimed at C&DW management.


There are understood to be no taxes on either waste or aggregates in Greece at present, and we areunaware of any plans to introduce such measures.

11.5 Subsidies



The ‘National plan for the integrated and alternative management of waste and refuse’ emphasisesthe importance of closing down unsupervised dumps and creating modern landfills. It also encouragesthe sorting of all wastes at source.


We were unable to obtain any information on research and development projects involving C&DW inGreece.


We were unable to obtain any information on pilot and demonstration schemes involving C&DW inGreece.


We are aware that VAs have hardly been used in Greece, and we believe that none have beendeveloped for C&DW.


We were unable to obtain any information on formal educational or training programmes specificallygeared to C&DW in Greece.


We understand that no advisory services related to C&DW management exist in Greece.


Some materials (such as cables, frames, glass and rubble) are re-used or recycled, but weunderstand that there is no formal waste exchange for C&DW.



There are not believed to be any standards and norms directly applicable to C&DW-derived materialsin Greece.


Such C&DW processing as does occur is organised on-site by the demolition/building contractor. Noregister of such facilities is believed to exist.


We are unaware of any other measures in Greece.


C&DW recycling is at a very early stage in Greece, and none of the measures listed above have yethad a clear impact on practice.


12. SWEDEN


The Swedish Parliament decided in November 1997 to prohibit the landfilling of combustible wastefrom the year 2002, and organic waste from 2005.

12.2 Mono landfill

Mono landfills are used to facilitate potential future efforts to separate, recycle and/or treat differentkind of wastes.


According to the Planning and Building Law (PBL), a waste plan/demolition plan must be appended tothe Notification of Demolition provided to the local authority. This should specify the intended disposalroute for the demolition products, focusing on the handling of hazardous substances. Furthermore, acertain level of education and experience of selective demolition and waste treatment is demandedfor the responsible person at the demolition site.


There is currently a proposal for a landfill tax to encourage recycling and ‘waste to energy’ schemes inpreference to landfilling. The tax is expected to be set at approximately 30 ECU/tonne, and isexpected to come into force on 1 January 1999.

There is a natural resources tax applicable to quarried gravel. It has been set at a level of 5 SEK/m3

(approximately 0.58 ECU/m3, or 1.00 ECU/tonne).

12.5 Subsidies

No direct payments are made to subsidise C&DW use or recycling.


A national waste management plan is at present being developed. Waste management planning haspreviously been devolved to the regional and local level, with counties and municipalities obliged toissue waste plans. The present option for municipalities to take responsibility for commercial waste(including C&DW) will disappear in a couple of years.

Central legislation for the environment will soon be contained in an environmental code. TheCollection and Disposal Act (which regulates waste management) and its ordinances will beincorporated in the code.

A new scheme for the authorisation and registration of waste handlers is currently being formulated inaccordance with the EC Directive on waste. Another new ordinance on hazardous waste whichimplements the EC Directives on hazardous waste has recently been adopted. Waste products thatcontain asbestos, PCB, mercury, cadmium or CFCs cannot be traded in Sweden.

Vägverket (the National Road Authority) has set a target of 90% for recycling of used road buildingmaterials by the year 2000.


Since the early 1990s there has been a large number of R&D projects which have been financedpartly or totally by Boverket (the National Board of Housing, Building and Planning),Avfallsforskningrådet, (the Swedish Waste Research Council), Naturvårdsverket, (the Ministry ofEnvironment), Byggforskningsrådet, (the Building Research Council), municipalities, and/or differentactors in the building and construction industry.



Since the early 1990s many pilot and demonstration projects have been mounted. Examples include:• several selective demolition demonstration projects;• construction of several small recycled houses;• construction of roads with recycled aggregates;• preparation of a handbook on selective demolition;• studies on recycling opportunities for specific materials such as wood, gypsum, concrete, bricks,

etc.;• an analysis of responsibilities for recycled products;• identification of hazardous waste in building materials and components;• methods for cleaning contaminated buildings.


Byggsektorns Kretsloppsråd (the Building Industry Environmental Council) was formed in 1994 to actas a channel to the Swedish government for the views of businesses in the construction sector onenvironmental issues. In December 1995 Byggsektorns Kretsloppsråd presented its action plan onenvironmental responsibilities for buildings and building products.

The building industry will work through its companies and organisations:• to increase knowledge of environmental issues and intensify education;• to modify standards and contract documents to focus on environmental issues (this has to some

extent been accomplished through a revised version of the national building standards AMA 97);• to separate materials at source in order to facilitate the work of the recycling industry;• to identify and separate hazardous waste at source and ensure proper handling of these

materials;• to reduce the quantities of waste going to landfill by 50% by the year 2000;• to work/aim for certification of companies competent to handle C&DW.


Nearly all of the technical universities offer courses in solid waste management, including treatment,handling and the relevant legislation.

Courses in legislation, selective demolition and recycling are also available through a range of‘schools for contractors’, such as SIFU (Education Institute) and Maskinentreprenörerna (theAssociation of Demolition Contractors).

Boverket (the National Board of Housing, Building and Planning) has developed a range ofeducational materials that are offered at discount prices.


Byggsektorns Kretsloppsråd (the Building Industry Environmental Council) provides an advisoryservice to its clients.


Demolition contractors offer products from their own stockyards.

An Internet-based marketing system for C&DW is offered by a group of contractors, and the amountof product sold is increasing.

Local authorities offer information on future demolition projects in their specific area.


Existing standards are used for materials. Special standards for concrete/bricks used as road buildingmaterials and as aggregates in new concrete are being developed by Boverket. Vägverket and VTI (aresearch institute) are also working on standards for road building materials using recycled concrete,bricks and asphalt.


Boverket is also planning to develop standards for wood, bricks, and iron components for re-use innew buildings.


Approximately 8 mobile and 2 stationary recycling plants for the rubble fraction are active in Sweden.Many producers of building products take back waste from their own products for reprocessing.Examples include producers of mineral wool, gypsum etc.

There are also many sorting plants where mixed waste is separated, primarily into combustible andnon combustible fractions.


No other measures were reported.


The Swedish government has supplemented traditional regulation with a significant number of R&Dprojects, demonstration projects and cooperation with business. The proposed landfill tax will be set ata relatively high level, suggesting that there is still ample scope for improving the recycling rate.However, it should be noted that levels of C&DW arisings in Sweden are very low compared to mostother Member States.


13. FINLAND


The Finnish Waste Act (1072/1993) reflects the waste hierarchy established in the FrameworkDirective, and includes the following priority list of duties for producers and holders of waste:• to carry out waste prevention measures as effectively as possible;• to utilise waste as a material;• to recover energy from waste;• to dispose of waste to landfill.

Waste tariffs are set locally by municipalities. According to the Waste Act the structure of waste tariffsshould encourage waste prevention and utilisation. In the larger cities in particular the tariffsapplicable to C&DW suitable for re-use or recycling are considerably lower than landfill tariffs. Somemunicipalities impose additional high penalty tariffs on incorrectly sorted C&DW.

13.2 Mono landfill

Landfills for waste soil which is unsuitable for construction purposes are common near the largercities. Where exceptional arisings of such soils are expected, local land use plans may make specialprovision for this.


Other than specific waste planning measures (see sections 13.1 and 13.6) there are no directlyrelevant planning measures.


Since 1 January 1998 the Waste Tax Act (495/1996) has imposed a tax on C&DW which is landfilledwith municipal solid waste. The tax is set at 90 FIM/tonne + VAT at 22% (19 ECU/tonne inclusive).

13.5 Subsidies

There are no direct subsidies for the re-use or recycling of C&DW.


The national waste plan and the regional waste plans based on it have strongly promoted the trendtowards increasing regional co-operation on waste management, including C&DW disposal. Thenational waste plan includes the following targets to be achieved by the year 2005:• actions carried out after 1995 should reduce the amount of C&DW by at least 15%;• the utilisation of C&DW should be at least 70%. As an interim target, the aim is to re-use or

recycle half of all C&DW by the end of the year 2000.

According to a decision of the Council of State (295/1997) from the beginning of 1998 C&DW must besorted on all but the smallest sites into at least the following fractions:• mineral based wastes;• unimpregnated timber wastes;• metallic wastes;• soil and dredging spoil.

Another decision of the Council of State (861/1997) is aimed at improving environmental protection oflandfills, and (indirectly) promoting regional co-operation on improved C&DW management.

In local waste regulations some municipalities provide more specific guidance (and requirements) onthe sorting, collection and processing of C&DW. Incorrectly sorted or handled waste can be returnedto its last holder.

According to the Waste Act and Decree, organised (‘professional and factory-like’) waste treatmentand disposal facilities (including landfills) shall be licensed and monitored by the relevant regional or


municipal authorities. If the license conditions are violated, the authorities are required to take actionto prevent further violations.

Firms which transport C&DW must at least be registered with the regional authorities before they arepermitted to move waste.


The Ministry of the Environment and the state-owned Technology Development Centre (TEKES)have partially or fully funded numerous projects on environmentally sound building, including aspectsrelated to C&DW. The Ministry of the Environment directly supports 2-3 R&D projects related toC&DW each year, with a budget of 0.2-0.4 million FIM (34-68,000 ECU).

However, the research programme was substantially expanded from 1994 onwards, when TEKES’Environmental Technology in Construction programme started. The total budget for this programmeis about 100 million FIM (17 million ECU), about half of which is covered by the participatingcompanies. Nine R&D projects specifically concerned with C&DW were carried out between 1994 and1997, with funding from TEKES of 4 million FIM (680,000 ECU).


As with R&D, demonstration projects related to C&DW have increased since the early 1990s. Themost important pilot and demonstration schemes in recent years have been:• a treatment plant for unsorted C&DW in the Helsinki metropolitan area at the start of the 1990s;• crushed concrete in street layers (1996-97);• crushed concrete in improving road structures (1996-97);• crushed bricks and tiles in light traffic and yard areas (1996-97).


There are no VAs specifically concerned with C&DW.

The VA between the Ministry of the Environment and the producers and importers of packagingmaterials and packed goods covers packaging waste arising from construction sites. It supplementsthe existing mandatory requirements on packaging and packaging waste.


Theoretical education in waste management is available through the technical universities and civilengineering colleges. These courses cover the management and treatment of solid wastes in general,but not C&DW in particular.

Matters related to C&DW are included in training courses provided by the building sector forunemployed technical officers and workers. Training courses run by adult education organisations lastup to 3 months, and are funded by the Ministry of Labour and the EU.

AEL, a centre for technical training, organises 3-5 training courses a year (lasting 1-2 days each) onenvironmentally sound construction for developers, designers and contractors.

The Confederation of the Finnish Construction Industries trains its member contractors throughseminars, and has produced and disseminated material on the proper management of C&DW.


According to the Waste Act, the Finnish Environment Institute is responsible for providing a nationaladvisory and information service as part of its drive to promote sustainable waste management.Waste authorities in regional environment centres and municipalities are responsible for regional andlocal waste advice and information.

Regional waste disposal firms have waste advisors to promote and improve the quality of their wasteoperations.


The Confederation of the Finnish Construction Industries has improved its ability to give advice andinformation to member contractors in problems concerning C&DW.


Conventional markets operate, thus:• demolition contractors have permanent connections to scrap yards, which handle the utilisation of

scrap metal;• contractors also sell demolished but still usable components and equipment directly from sites or

material stores. The amounts of re-useable materials sold from sites and through local recyclingcentres has increased in recent years;

• significant amounts of wood waste from demolition sites are sold or given direct to privatehouseholds. Wood waste represents a far higher proportion of C&DW in Finland than in most otherMember States.


There is no special official norm for recycled materials. The use of recycled material is generallydecided on a case-by-case basis. Firms receiving the material generally have standards of their own.


In recent years the size of waste treatment plants and landfills has increased, and technical standardshave improved. Reflecting this, there has been a rapid change in the processing and utilisation ofC&DW.

There are currently about 10 local collection sites for concrete and masonry wastes near the largercities. Collected material is then crushed using mobile or fixed plant. There are about 20 firms whichhandle separately collected wood and plastic waste suitable for incineration with energy recovery.

There are about 40 plants which can recycled asphalt. The amount of recycled asphalt is about 25%of the total amount of asphalt consumed annually.


The biggest construction companies have developed (or are developing) quality systems in order tocut arisings and increase the utilisation of C&DW. The Confederation of the Finnish ConstructionIndustries has stimulated and promoted this development.

Since 1997 contractors have had to provide a maintenance plan and instructions as a condition toreceiving state subsidies for dwelling production.


Rates of arisings of C&DW are very low in Finland compared to most other Member States, reflectingin part the widespread use of wood, and the relative scarcity of high-rise buildings. The governmenthas used a wide range of policy instruments to reach this point, but has recently introduced a landfilltax at a relatively high rate to encourage further progress.


14. IRELAND


There are currently no restrictions or bans on the disposal of C&DW.

14.2 Mono landfill

There are no mono landfills in Ireland.


The location of C&DW treatment and disposal facilities is controlled through the planning system byLocal Authorities.


There are no taxes on the disposal or recovery of C&DW.

14.5 Subsidies

ERDF funding (via the Department of the Environment and Local Government) was recentlyannounced for ‘fixed-site’ C&DW recycling facilities at Balleally landfill and Ballyfermot. The amountswere IR£400,000 and IR£254,500 (533,000 and 339,000 ECU) respectively, to Fingal County Counciland Thornton Waste Ltd.

Other than this no subsidies have been given to any other C&DW-related scheme to date.


Since the introduction of the Waste Management (Licensing) Regulations of 1997 all landfills have toapply for a licence from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by certain specified dates tocontinue operating. The Licence Application (and subsequent Licence if granted) specifies thequantities and types of wastes to be accepted at the landfill. Thus C&DW must be specified as awaste to be accepted. However there are no particular restrictions relating to the acceptance of suchwaste unless it is contaminated. The EPA can specify certain limits on the level of contaminationacceptable at any landfill.

National recycling targets do not explicitly refer to C&DW, even though it has been confirmed as apriority waste stream, and is being considered as such in Waste Management Strategy Studies andPlans currently being prepared across the country. Specific measures are thus being recommended inlocal and regional Waste Management Plans to deal with this waste stream.

The Dublin Waste Management Strategy Study Report (December 1997) for the Dublin Region, whichis the largest generator of C&DW (1.2 million tonnes per annum), sets a target for recycling of C&DWof 82% by 2004. This target includes soil excavated as part of construction activities.


No information on R&D support has been found.


There are no ‘fixed-site’ C&DW recycling facilities in operation at present in Ireland. Crushing trials atBalleally landfill in 1996 produced a product which conformed to the National Road Specification andformed the basis to proceed with the development of a fixed-site recycling facility at the landfill (seeunder Subsidies above). Tenders have been invited for the development and operation of the facilityand these are currently being assessed by the Local Authority.



No VAs specific to C&DW exist at present.


No C&DW-specific courses were available until mid-1998. However a Training Programme andCompetency Assessment Scheme on Waste Management in Ireland was launched in Dublin on 18June 1998. Modules of the course are likely to make reference to C&DW recycling.


No advisory services related to C&DW are believed to exist at present.


There is no formal waste exchange for C&DW, though there is an active market in recoveredmaterials (such as metals and architectural salvage).


The National Roads Authority (NRA) is shortly to produce a new National ‘Specification for Roads’based on the UK specification. This document will include a detailed list of classes of earthworksmaterials together with associated typical uses and permitted constituents. A number of classes arelikely to allow for the use of crushed concrete as granular material.


There are a limited number (estimated at fewer than 6) of mobile crushers in operation in Ireland.Some construction projects, mainly roads, use mobile plant to crush concrete for use in theconstruction works. At present there are no fixed crushing facilities (though see 14.8 above).




C&DW recycling is at a relatively early stage in Ireland, and most of the limited range of measuresdetailed above will take some time to change this situation.


15. LUXEMBOURG

No information on policy measures used in Luxembourg was received from the authorities there.


Annex 7

Some Potentially Hazardous Elements in C&DW

Table to accompany text in Chapter 2


SOME POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS ELEMENTS IN C&DW

Product /material

Potentiallyhazardouscomponent(s)

Potentiallyhazardousproperties

Treatment and/or disposal options

Concreteadditives

Hydrocarbon solvents Flammable Return to supplier, recycle, remove for specialist disposal.

Damp proofmaterials

Solvents, bitumens Flammable,toxic

Return to supplier, recycle, remove for specialist disposal.

Allow to cure prior to disposal.

Adhesives Solvents, isocyanates Flammable,toxic, irritant



Seek alternative less hazardous products.

Mastics /sealants

Solvents, bitumens Flammable,toxic



Seek alternative less hazardous products.

Use water.

Roadsurfacing

Tar-based emulsions Toxic Return to supplier, recycle, remove for specialist disposal.

Asbestos Respiratable fibre Toxic,carcinogenic

Remove under controlled conditions for specialist disposal.

Mineral fibres Respiratable fibres Skin & lungirritants

Remove for separate disposal.

Treated timber Copper, arsenic,chrome, tar,pesticides, fungicides

Toxic,ecotoxic,flammable

Recycle.

Hazardous components bound into timber, low impact on landfill.Toxic fumes and residue produced on burning.

Fire resistantwastings

Halogenatedcompounds

Ecotoxic Possible low impact in landfill if bonded to substrate; high impact inproduct form; possible toxic fumes on burning.

Paint andcoatings

Lead, chromium,vanadium, solvents

Toxic,flammable

Possible low impact in landfill if bonded to substrate; high impact inproduct form; possible toxic fumes on burning.

Power transferequipment

PCBs Ecotoxic Contaminated transformer oils to be removed under controlledconditions for specialist disposal.

Lighting Sodium, mercury,PCBs

Toxic, ecotoxic Recycle, remove for specialist disposal.

Airconditioningsystems

CFCs Ozonedepleters

Remove for specialist recovery.

Fire fightingsystems

CFCs Ozonedepleters

Remove for specialist recovery.

Contaminatedbuilding fabric

Radionuclides Toxic Specialist decontamination prior to demolition or refurbishment.

(includingcont-aminationdue toprevious use)

Heavy metals includingcadmium and mercury

Toxic Specialist decontamination prior to demolition or refurbishment.

Biohazards (anthrax)(1) Toxic Specialist decontamination prior to demolition or refurbishment.

Animalproducts(1)

Biohazards (anthrax)(1) Toxic Specialist decontamination prior to demolition or refurbishment.

Gas cylinders Propane, butane,acetylene

Flammable Return to supplier.


Product /material

Potentiallyhazardouscomponent(s)

Potentiallyhazardousproperties

Treatment and/or disposal options

Resins/ fillers,Precursors

Isocyanates, phothalic,anhydride

Toxic, irritant Return to supplier, recycle, remove for specialist disposal.

Oils and fuels Hydrocarbons Ecotoxic,flammable


Plasterboard Possible source ofhydrogen sulphide inlandfill

Flammable,toxic

Return to supplier, recycle, disperse within landfill.

Glass Recycle.

Possibly physically hazardous to handle.

Road planings Tar, asphalt, solvents Flammable,toxic

Recycle if ‘cured’ and low leachability. Separate for disposal if highleachability / solvent content.

Sub base (ash/ clinker)

Heavy metals,including cadmium andmercury

Toxic Recycle if low leachability. Separate for disposal if high leachability.

Note: (1) Horse hair was formerly used as a binder in plaster. Since the disease of anthrax was widespread up to the19th Century, and the spores of anthrax are very robust and long-lived as well as being hazardous tohuman health, walls which had been plastered in/before the 19th Century must be treated with great carewhen they are demolished.


Annex 8

Collection Methodology for C&DW Statistics


COLLECTION METHODOLOGY FOR C&DW STATISTICS

We sent a questionnaire during 1998 to selected statistical specialists who sit on an expert workinggroup dealing with waste statistics on behalf of the Member States, DGXI and Eurostat. Not all ofthose contacted responded, so the information collected is consequently incomplete. That does notdetract from the value of the information which was provided, which came from:

(i) Germany;

(ii) Belgium (Flanders);

(iii) Austria;

(iv) Denmark;

(v) Finland;

(vi) Ireland;

(vii) Luxembourg.

All of the above Member States, with the exception of Finland, rely on a full scale survey to obtaintheir statistics. Finland uses documentation or registration systems and applies standard estimates ofwaste (in kg/m2) to statistics for new construction and demolition.

Belgium and Ireland send questionnaires to the building and demolition industry, whereas Germany,Austria, Denmark and Luxembourg rely primarily on questionnaires sent to waste treatment facilitiesand landfills. Ireland also sends questionnaires to local authorities, landfills, recycling organisations,waste contractors and others.

Answers to questions about how different waste streams are classified revealed considerabledifferences between Member States. In response to the question “in the case of mixed inertdemolition waste (e.g. concrete and brick which requires no further separation in order to be suitablefor crushing), is this recorded under 17 01 00 or 17 07 00 (or elsewhere)?” Germany, Austria andFinland said 17 01 00, Denmark and Ireland said 17 07 00 and Belgium said “not applicable”.

Clean (uncontaminated) soil and stones which have to be removed and/or re-used as a result ofconstruction are recorded under 17 05 01 in Germany, but ignored everywhere else.

Waste which is re-used on the original site (as engineering fill, for example) is recorded in Belgium,Denmark and Finland. If it is crushed first or otherwise treated prior to use, then it is also recorded inGermany.

Only Finland currently uses the EWC categories precisely as they are defined to record C&DW. Thedegree of correspondence between national waste catalogue codes used in other Member States andthe closest equivalent EWC codes varies considerably.

The following table presents the results from asking the question “what level of breakdown/disaggregation is available for waste recorded under EWC waste group 17 00 00?”: Other materials(such as wood, glass and plastics) are likely to be recorded elsewhere in the national statistics,without reference to their origins on construction or demolition sites.


Codes Descriptors Member States

(EWC) (from EWC) D BE ÖS DK FI IR LX

17 00 00 C&DW (including road construction) � � � � � � �

17 01 00 Concrete, bricks, tiles, ceramics andgypsum-based materials

� � � � �

17 01 01 Concrete �

17 01 03 Tiles and ceramics �

17 01 05 Asbestos-based construction materials �

17 02 01 Wood � � �

17 02 02 Glass �

17 02 03 Plastic � �

17 03 00 Asphalt, tar and tarred products � � � �

17 04 00 Metals (including their alloys) � � �

17 05 01 Soils and stones � � �

17 07 00 Mixed C&DW � � � � �


Annex 9

Two Options for Amending the European Waste Catalogue

Two tables to illustrate the text in Chapter 2


TWO OPTIONS FOR AMENDING THE EUROPEAN WASTE CATALOGUE

Figure A9.1: Option 1 for Reorganising EWC Categories Applicable to C&DWLevel Code Categories, and materials to be

recordedStatus

(see below)1 17 00 00 construction and demolition waste

(including road construction)U

2 17 01 00 predominantly inert concrete, bricks, tilesand ceramic materials

R

3 17 01 01 concrete (including reinforced concrete) R344

17 01 0217 01 02 0117 01 02 02

brickswhole bricksbroken or mixed bricks

UNN

344

17 01 0317 01 03 0117 01 03 02

tiles and ceramicswhole tilesbroken or mixed tiles and ceramics

UNN

3 17 01 04 any mixture of concrete, bricks, tiles andceramics plus an acceptable level of othermaterials (contraries)

N

2 17 02 00 wood, glass, plastics and gypsum-basedconstruction materials

R

344

17 02 0117 02 01 0117 01 02 02

wooduntreated/uncontaminated woodwood contaminated by preservatives orhazardous material

UNN

3 17 02 02 glass U344

17 02 0317 02 03 0117 02 03 02

plasticPVC-based materialother plastic

UNN

3 17 02 04 gypsum-based construction material M2 17 03 00 asphalt, tar and tarred products

(sub-categories as before)U

2 17 04 00 metals (including their alloys)(sub-categories as before)

U

2 17 05 00 soil and dredged spoil(sub-categories as before)

U

2 17 06 00 asbestos-based construction and insulationmaterials, and other insulation materials

R

3 17 06 01 asbestos-based construction materials M3 17 06 02 insulation materials containing asbestos M3 17 06 03 other insulation materials M2 17 07 00 mixed construction and demolition waste U3 17 07 01 mixed inert C&DW not included under 17

01 00N

3 17 07 02 mixed C&DW containing hazardousmaterials

N

3 17 07 03 other mixed C&DW N

Status: U = unchanged classification, R = revised classification, M = moved classification, N = newclassification.


Figure A9.2: Option 2 for Reorganising EWC Categories Applicable to C&DWLevel Code Categories, and materials to be

recordedStatus

(see below)1 17 00 00 construction and demolition waste

(including road construction)U

2 17 01 00 predominantly inert concrete, bricks, tilesand ceramic materials

R

3 17 01 01 concrete (including reinforced concrete) R3 17 01 02 whole bricks N3 17 01 03 broken or mixed bricks N3 17 01 04 whole tiles N3 17 01 05 broken or mixed tiles and ceramics N3 17 01 06 any mixture of concrete, bricks, tiles and

ceramics plus an acceptable level of othermaterials (contraries)

N

2 17 02 00 wood, glass, plastics and gypsum-basedconstruction materials

R

3 17 02 01 untreated/uncontaminated wood N3 17 02 02 wood contaminated by preservatives or

hazardous materialN

3 17 02 03 glass U3 17 02 04 PVC-based material N3 17 02 05 other plastic N3 17 02 06 gypsum-based construction material M2 17 03 00 asphalt, tar and tarred products

(sub-categories as before)U

2 17 04 00 metals (including their alloys)(sub-categories as before)

U

2 17 05 00 soil and dredged spoil(sub-categories as before)

U

2 17 06 00 asbestos-based construction and insulationmaterials, and other insulation materials

R

3 17 06 01 asbestos-based construction materials M3 17 06 02 insulation materials containing asbestos M3 17 06 03 other insulation materials M2 17 07 00 mixed construction and demolition waste U3 17 07 01 mixed inert C&DW not included under 17

01 00N

3 17 07 02 mixed C&DW containing hazardousmaterials

N

3 17 07 03 other mixed C&DW N

Status: U = unchanged classification, R = revised classification, M = moved classification, N = newclassification.


Annex 10

Bibliography, Sources and Selected Key References


BIBLIOGRAPHY, SOURCES AND SELECTED KEY REFERENCES

The following list has been assembled to provide some guidance on technical issues and goodpractice related to C&DW recycling and the use of C&DW-derived aggregates. The Study Teamwhich has assembled this report cannot vouch for the technical excellence of all of these reports,but the majority are published by or for official bodies, and can be assumed to represent good if notbest practice. There is no significance whatsoever attached to the order in which the documents arelisted.

The list is dominated by English (and to a lesser extend German) language reports. Apart from thefact that the Project Team is predominantly English speaking, and that any reader of this report willhave to be able to read English, we decided that reports in Dutch and Danish (of which there aremany) are already known to native Dutch and Danish speakers, and will never be accessible to thevast majority of the rest of us. The same applies to the smaller number of reports in most otherMember State languages. We have, however, included a small number of such reports.

French speakers are encouraged to obtain Ref 7.1 (the ADEME report) which includes a detailedreference list of French language documents.

Many other references can be found in Appendix 7 to the C&DW Priority Waste StreamsProgramme report (Ref 1.1 below).

1 Publications from European and International Bodies:

1.1 Construction and Demolition Waste Project in the Framework of the Priority Waste StreamsProgramme of the European Commission (1995) Part I - Information Document, Part II - StrategyDocument, Part III - Recommendations of Project Group. Copies available in English, French andGerman. There is no charge for individual requests.By: Symonds Travers Morgan/Argus for Project Group to European CommissionFrom: European Commission, BU - 9, 2/128, DGXI.E.3, Rue de la Loi 200, Brussels, B-1049Belgium (Contact Mrs G Bossenmeyer)(Tel: +32 2 299 0367, Fax: 32 2 299 1068)

1.2 3 reports from the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development),Paris

1.2.1 Recycling Strategies for Road Works (1997)From: National representatives for OECD publicationsISBN 92-64-15461-2Reference: IRRD no. 887579

1.2.2 Final Guidance Document for Distinguishing Waste from Non-Waste (1998)Available through OECD’s website (http://www.oecd.org)Ref: ENV/EPOC/WMP(98)1/REV1

1.2.3 Environment Monograph No.96 on the OECD Control System for Transfrontier Movementsof Wastes Destined for Recovery Operations Guidance Manual (1995)Available through OECD’s website (http://www.oecd.org)Ref: OCDE/GD(95)26

1.3 6 reports linked to RILEM (Réunion Internationale des Laboratoires d’Essais et derecherches sur les Matériaux et les constructions). The first 4 are available through E&FN Spon,North Way, Andover, Hampshire

1.3.1 Demolition and Re-Use of Concrete and Masonry Volume 1 - Demolition Methods andPractice and Volume 2 - Re-Use of Demolition Waste (1998) (in Proceedings of the SecondInternational Symposiun held by RILEM in Tokyo, Japan, 7-11 November 1997)By: Kasai Y

1.3.2 Demolition and Re-Use of Concrete and Masonry, Guidelines for Demolition and Re-Use ofConcrete and Masonry (1994) (in Proceedings of the Third International Symposium held by RILEMin Odense, Denmark, 24-27 October 1993)


By: Lauritzen E K

1.3.3 Buildings as Reservoirs of Materials - Their Re-Use and Implications for FutureConstruction Design (1993) (in Proceedings 23)By: Brunner P H, Lahner T

1.3.4 RILEM Report No.6 - Recycling of Demolished Conrete and Masonry (1992)By: Hansen T C

1.3.5 Recommendation for Concrete with Recycled Aggregates (1994)By: RILEM Technical Committee TC-121, June 1994

1.3.6 121-DRG Guidance for Demolition and Re-Use of Concrete and Masonry: Specification forConcrete with Recycled Aggregates (1994) (Published in: ‘Materials and Structures’, 1994, 27,pp557-559)By: RILEM Technical Committee TC-121

1.4 Proposal for Harmonized Guidelines for Quality Control of Recycled Materials /Empfehlungen für harmonisierte Richtlinien zur Gütesicherung von Recycling-Baustoffen (in German)From: International Recycling Federation / Internationale Vereinigung Baustoff-Recycling,Kronenstraße 55-58, D-10118 Berlin (Contact Herr Sander or Herr Schulz)(Tel: 00-49-30-2031.4554, Fax:00-49-30-2031.4565)

1.5 Panorama of EU Industry 1996 (1997)Vol 1, Chapter 2-18 ‘Construction Raw Materials’ by B M Coope, Chapter 5 ‘Wooden BuildingComponents’ by Cei-BoisFrom: Eurostat Data Shop, 121 rue Joseph II, B-1049 Bruxelles, Belgium (or national distributors)(Tel: 00-32-2-299.6666, Fax 00-32-2-295.0125)ISBN 92-827-9304-4

2 Reports on EU-Supported R esearch Projects Covering More than One Member State:

2.1 Use of Recycled Materials as Aggregates in the Construction Industry - State-of-the-Art inEurope (1997) (Report on Brite EuRam III Industrial and Materials Technologies Contract BRRT-CT-0048)By: CUR, CSTC and Eerland RecyclingFrom: CUR, Postbus 420, AK-2800 Gouda, The Netherlands(Tel: 1820 39600, Fax: 1820 30046)(Other partners in most EU Member States)

2.2 Recycling Technologies for High Quality Cement and Concrete (1992) (Report on a BriteEuRam project)By: Urcelay CFrom: Lemona Industrial SA, Alameda de Urquijo 10, Bilbao (Bizkaia), Spain(Tel: 94 4872255, Fax: 94 4872210)Ref no.: BE-2145(Other partners included BRE in UK)

2.3 Recyclability in Concrete of Demolition Refuses Containing Materials Non-Compatible tothe Traditional Cement MatrixBy: Dansk Vejbeton A/S et alFrom: Dansk Vejbeton A/S, 21 Hellerup Lund Allee, DK-2900 Hellerup, Denmark(Part of the EC Research Action Programme on Materials, Secondary Raw Materials, EC ContractNo MA1D-0022-C, October 1991)


2.4 Study on Voluntary Agreements Concluded Between Industry and Public Authorities in theField of the EnvironmentBy: Enviroplan A/S (subsequently became COWI Consulting Engineers and Planners A/S) et alFrom: European Commission DG III.01 - IndustryContract No ETD/95/84043

3 Publications from European Trade Associations:

3.1 Demolition and Construction Debris Recyling in Europe (1992)From: EDA - European Demolition Association, PO Box 90606, LP-2509 Den Haag, TheNetherlands(Tel: 70 3286801, Fax: 70 3246147)ISBN 90-800376-4-8

3.2 Conference Proceedings from Eurogypsum’s XXII Congress, 13-15 May 1998, The Hague.From: Eurogypsum, 98 Rue Gulledelle, B-1200 Brussels, Belgium(Tel 00-32-2-775.8490, Fax: 00-32-2-771.3056)

3.3 Asphalt in Figures, 1997 (1998)From: European Asphalt Pavement Association, PO Box 175, 3620 AD Breukelen, TheNetherlands(Web site http://www.eapa.org)

4 Reports from Austria:

4.1 6 reports from the Ministry of the Environment / Umweltbundesamt, Bundesministerium fürUmwelt, Klagenfurt; Wien

4.1.1 Grundlagenstudie für die bundeseinheitliche Regelung der Entsorgung von Baustellenabfällen- d.s. Müll, Baustoff- und Rückstände aus der Baurestmassenaufbereitung (Recyclingreste) (1993)(Disposal of C&DW - residuals of C&DW treatment)By: Lahner T, Lechner P

4.1.2 Baurestmassen - Vermeidung, Verwertung, Behandlung - Bauschutt (keineBaustellenabfälle) (1993) (C&DW prevention, recovery and treatment)By: Lahner T, Mostbauer PRef: SLNr. 31409

4.1.3 Baurestmassen - Vermeidung, Verwertung, Behandlung - Baustellenabfälle (1994) (C&DWprevention, recovery and treatment - mixed C&DW)By: Lahner TRef: SLNr. 91206

4.1.4 Baurestmassen - Vermeidung, Verwertung, Behandlung: Bau- und Abbruchholz (1994)(C&DW prevention, recovery and treatment - concentrating on wood)By: Binner E, Mostbauer PRef: SLNr. 17202

4.1.5 Baurestmassen : Vermeidung, Verwertung, Behandlung (1995) (C&DW: prevention, recovery,treatment)By: Lechner PISBN 3-85457-214-X Report-Nr. UBA-95-110

4.1.6 Stoffflussanalyse und Vergleich zweier Aufbereitungstechniken für Baurestmassen (1998)(Analysis of material flows - comparison of two different treatment techniques)By: Schachermayer ERef: Monographien / Umweltbundesamt, Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Jugend und FamilieISBN 3-85457-437-1


4.2 4 sets of good practice guidelines from Österreichischer Güteschutzverband Recycling-Baustoffe

4.2.1 Richtlinie für Recycling-Baustoffe (1993) (Guidelines for the recycling of C&DW and range ofapplications)

4.2.2 Richtlinie für Recycling-Baustoffe aus Hochbaumassen. Anwendungsbereich:Zementgebundene Massen (1995) (Guidelines for the recycling of C&DW from buildings and itsapplication as an aggregate in cement and concrete)

4.2.3 Richtlinie für Recycling-Baustoffe aus Hochbaumassen. Anwendungsbereich: ungebundeneMassen (1995) (Guidelines for the recycling of C&DW from buildings and its application in acoustic-walls and road construction)

4.2.4 Richtlinie für die Aufbereitung kontaminierter Böden und Bauteile (1995) (Guidelines for thetreatment of contaminated soil and construction waste)

4.3 2 reports from the Austrian Building Industry Federation / Fachverband der BauindustrieÖsterreichs

4.3.1 Baurestmassen richtig behandeln : ein Leitfaden für die Baustelle (1995) (Guidelines forC&DW management)Korneuburg: Starmühler.

4.3.2 Baurestmassentrennung auf der Baustelle - ein Leitfaden für die Baustelle (1994) (Guidelinesfor the separation of C&DW on construction sites)

4.4 2 reports from the Technical University of Vienna / TU Wien, Institut für Wassergüte undAbfallwirtschaft

4.4.1 Baurestmassen in Oberösterreich, Stoffbilanzen der Bauwirtschaft (BRIO-S) (1997) (C&DWin Austria)By: Glenck E, Lahner T, Arendt M, Brunner P H

4.4.2 Güterbilanz der Bauwirtschaft -Baurestmassen in Oberösterreich (BRIO) (1996) (Materialsbalance in construction)By: Glenck E, Lauber W, Lahner T, Brunner P H

4.5 4 miscellaneous reports

4.5.1 Recycling von Baureststoffen, Herstellung hochwertiger Baustoffe aus Baurestmassen,Recyclingverfahren - Verarbeitungs- und Behandlungstechnik, Anwendung neuer Technologien(1996) (C&DW recycling - production of high value construction products)By: Deisl M

4.5.2 Recycling von Baurestmassen dargestellt am Beispiel Betonrecycling (1995) (Recycling ofconcrete)By: Huemer F S, Wirtschaftsuniv., Wien, Dipl.-Arb.ISBN 3-85053-301-3

4.5.3 Umgang mit Baurestmassen : eine vergleichende Analyse zweier Projekte (BASS in derSteiermark und Project C&D in Auckland, Neuseeland) und der jeweiligen abfallwirtschaftlichenRahmenbedingungen (1998) (C&DW handling in Steiermark, Austria and Auckland, New Zealand)By: Kasper J R

4.5.4 Verwertungsmöglichkeiten für Hochbaurestmassen (1995) (Use of recycled C&DW)By: Maydl PFrom: Österreichischer Baustoff-Recycling-Verband, Wien.


5 Reports from Belgium:

5.1 3 reports from the Centre de Recherches Routières (CRC), Brussels, Belgium

5.1.1 The use of Crushed Concrete in Road BasesReport A42

5.1.2 Plant Recycling of Bituminous MaterialsReport A45

5.1.3 In Situ Recycling of Bituminous MaterialsReport A48

6 Reports from Denmark:

6.1 Various reports from the Environmental Protection Agency, Strandgade 29,DK-1401, København K(Tel: 32 66 01 00, Fax: 32 66 04 79)

6.1.1 English Summaries of a Number of Research Projects Relating to Building and DemolitionWaste (1991-95)By: Ministry of the Environment and Energy

6.1.2 Recycling of Construction and Demolition Waste, 1989-95 (1997)By: Ministry of the Environment and EnergyISBN: 87-7810-820-9Ref: Environmental Review No6, 1997

6.2 Crushed Asphalt as Unbound Roadbase (1994)By: Berg F, Milvang-Jensen O, Moltved N (Ministry of Transport)From: Road Directorate, Danish Road Institute, Elisagaardsvej 5, DK-4000 Roskilde(Tel: +45 46 30 01 00, Fax: +45 46 30 01 05)ISBN: 87-90145-04-6ISSN: 0909-1386Ref: Report 75(See also Report 63E/88 - Re-Use of Concrete Pavements)

6.3 Recommendations for the Use of Recycled Aggregates for Concrete in PassiveEnvironmental Class (1990)From: Dansk Betonforening (Danish Concrete Association), c/o Dansk Ingeniorforening, VesterFarimagsgade 29, DK-1606 København V(Tel: 33 15 65 65, Fax: 33 93 71 71)Publication No. 34

7 Reports from France:

7.1 Guide des Déchets de Chantiers de Bâtiment (1997)From: ADEME, 27 rue Louis Vicat, 75015 Paris(Tel 01 47 65 20 00, Fax: 01 46 45 52 36)ISBN 2-86817-269-5(Includes a full bibliography of other French language documents)

7.2 Etude scientifique de la déconstruction sélective d’un immeuble à Mulhouse (1996) (Selectivedemolition study) (Franco-German collaborative research project / Forschungsbericht inZusammenarbeit mit dem Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtimont, Paris, Karlsruhe)By: Ruch M, Sindt V, Schultmann F, Zundel T, Rentz O, Charlot-Valdieu C, Vimond EFrom: CSTB, 290 route des Lucioles, BP 209, 06904 Sophia Antipolis Cedex(Tel: 04 93 95 67 08, Fax: 04 93 95 67 33)


8 Reports from Germany:

8.1 4 reports from Verband Deutscher Baustoff-Recycling-Unternehmer e.V., Godesberger Allee99; 53175 Bonn

8.1.1 Aufbereitung zur Wiederverwendung von kontaminierten Böden und Bauteilen (1994)(Treatment of contaminated soil and construction components)Ref: RAL-RG 501/2

8.1.2 Kontaminierte Bauteile im Hochbau (1993) (Contaminated construction components)

8.1.3 Recycling-Baustoffe für den Straßenbau (Quality criteria for recycling materials in roadconstruction)Ref: RAL-RG 501/1

8.1.4 Recycling, Rückbau und umweltgerechte Baustellenentsorgung, mit Checkliste undBaustellenanleitung (1993) (Recycling, selective demolition and waste management, checklist)

8.2 3 reports from Verlag TÜV Rheinland GmbH, Köln

8.2.1 Recyclingpraxis Baustoffe. 2. aktualisierte und erweiterte Auflage. Hrsg: Karl O. Tiltmann(1994) (Recycling practice)By: Kohler G

8.2.2 Abbruch und Recycling. RKW-Verlag (1990) (Demolition and recycling)By: Willkomm W

8.2.3 Recyclinggerechtes Konstruieren im Hochbau. RKW-Verlag (1990) (Recycling-orientatedconstruction)By: Willkomm W

8.3 4 selected good practice guidelines (in addition to those above). These guidelines have beenprepared by local/regional authorities and companies for use on construction and/or demolition sites.They provide information on how to separate C&DW, and details of treatment and disposal sites areusually included

8.3.1 Bauabfallmanagement (C&DW management for construction sites)From: Neubaumaßnahmen Ingenieurbüro für Verfahrens-, Energie- und Umwelttechnik, RTB UmweltGmbH Entsorgung und Verwertung (a company which has received an award for best constructionsite management)

8.3.2 Neue Wege auf dem Bau (Construction site management)From: Konsortium Baustellenlogistik Spreebogen

8.3.3 Wie vermeiden wir Abfälle beim Bauen (1994) (C&DW prevention)From: Landesinstitut für Bauwesen und angewandte Bauschadensforschung (LBB), AachenRef: Ratgeber Nr.7

8.3.4 Umweltgerechter und kostensparender Umgang mit Bauabfällen (1997) (Environmentallyfriendly and cost-saving waste management on construction sites)From: Zentralverbands des Deutschen Baugewerbes

8.4 Abbruch, Entsorgung von Bauschutt, Recycling, Deponien (1993) (Demolition, recycling,disposal of C&DW)From: Oberfinanzdirektion Kiel, 24096 Kiel.

8.5 Abfallvermeidung in der Bauproduktion (1994) (Waste prevention)By: Untersuchung im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Raumordnung, Bauwesen und StädtebauFrom: IRB-Verlag, Stuttgart

8.6 Baustoff-Recycling: Arten, Mengen und Qualitäten der im Hochbau eingesetzten Baustoffe;Lösungsansätze für einen Materialkreislauf. ecomed, Landsberg (1994) (C&DW recycling)By: Andrä H P; Schneider R; Wickold T


8.7 Arbeitshilfen Recycling des Bundesministeriums für Raumordnung, Bauwesen und Städtebauund des Bundesministeriums der Verteidigung (Recycling guidelines)

8.8 Baustoffe unter ökologischen Gesichtspunkten - ökologische Grundsätze, Baustoffe,Schadstoffe, Wiederverwendung und Recycling.- Landesinstitut für Bauwesen und angewandteBauschadensforschung / Fachkommission Standardisierung und Rationalisierung desHochbauausschusses (LAG) der Argebau, Aachen 1993 - enthalten in Planungshilfen Umweltschutzder Bayerischen Finanzbauverwaltung, der Staatlichen Hochbauverwaltung des Landes Hessen undweiterer Länder (ecological aspects, re-use and recycling)

8.9 Vermeidung und Verwertung von Reststoffen in der Bauwirtschaft.- Beihefte zu Müll undAbfall (1995) (Prevention and recovery of C&DW)By: Bilitewski B, Gewiese A, Härdtle G, Marek KFrom: 30 Erich Schmidt Verlag, Berlin, Bielefeld, München.

8.10 Recycling bei Sanierungsmaßnahmen.- Bauforschungsberichte des Bundesministers fürRaumordnung, Bauwesen und Städtebau (1995) (Recycling, renovation)By: Bredenbals B, Willkomm W

8.11 Recyclinggerechter Baustellenbetrieb-Strategien zur Vermeidung und Verwertung vonAbfällen aus Baustellen (1995) 8. Aachener Kolloqium Abfallwirtschaft „Bauabfallentsorgung-von derDeponierung zur Verwertung und Vermarktung“, in: Schriftenreihe ISA Abfall-Recycling-Altlasten;Institut für Siedlungswasserwirtschaft der RWTH Aachen (Hrsg.) (Waste management on constructionsites: strategies for waste prevention and recovery of C&DW)By: Haeberlin NISSN 0940-4511

8.12 Baustoffe und Ökologie, Bewertungskriterien für Architekten und Bauherrn. Ernst WasmuthVerlag, Tübingen (1996) (Construction materials and their ecological impact)By: Haifele G, Ed W, Sambeth B M

8.13 Recyclingzuschläge für Stahlbeton (1997) (Recycling materials as aggregates in concrete) (InBaustoff-Recycling, Heft 6, p. 17-20)By: Kohler G

8.14 Leitfaden zur Erstellung einer Qualitäts- und Umweltmanagementdokumentation für dieRecycling-Baustoff-Industrie, Duisburg 1995.(Guideline for quality and environmental management)

8.15 Recyclingbaustoffe im Wohnungsbau (Recycling materials in housing construction)From: Institut für Bauforschung e.V. Bericht F 757

8.16 Selektiver Rückbau und Recycling von Gebäuden - Dargestellt am Beispiel des Hotel Post(1994) (Selective demolition)By: Rentz O, Ruch M, Nicolai M, Spengler T, Schultmann FFrom: Ecomed Verlagsgesellschaft, Landsberg

8.17 Richtlinie für Recycling-Baustoffe (1996) (Guidelines for recycling materials)From: Bundesverband der Deutschen Recycling-Baustoff-Industrie e.V., Duisburg

8.18 Grundsätze für die umweltverträgliche Verwendung und Wiederverwendung vonStraßenbaustoffen (Environmentally sound use and re-use of road construction materials)From: Veröffentlichungen der Forschungsgesellschaft für Straßen und Verkehrswesen e.V. Alfred-Schütte-Allee 10; 50697 Köln

8.19 Vermeidung und Verwertung von Baurestmassen und Wiederverwendung von Bauteilen:Markt- und Technologiestudie (1997) (Prevention and recovery of C&DW)By: Weber J, Palinkas ThFrom: Buchreihe / UmweltZentrum DortmundISBN 3-9805292-0-7

8.20 Recycling bei Sanierungsmassnahmen (1994)


From: Institut für Industrialisierung des Bauens GmbH, Postfach NR 21 05 60, UniversitätHannover, D-30405 HannoverRef: Projekt B I 5 - 800192 - 8

8.21 From Down Cycling to Recycling of Used Building Materials in Complex ProcessingCentres (1994)From: Remex GmbH, Albert-Hahn-Strasse 9, D-47269 Duisburg(Tel: 02-03-768.030, Fax: 02-03-768.0340)

9 Reports from Italy:

9.1 La Gestione Dei Rifiuti Di Costruzione e Demolizione (1995)From: Instituto Per L'Ambiente, via Luigi Emanueli 15, PO Box 10077, I - 20110 Milano(Tel: 02.661301, Fax: 02.66102201)Ref: Rapporto 95/02

9.2 Il Mercato del Recupero in Italia, Dimensione e Dinamiche 1997-1998 (1998)By: CRESME for Fiera di Genova Riabitat Exhibition 21-24 May 1998From: Fiera di Genova, Piazzale J F Kennedy 1, I - 16129 Genova(Tel 00-39-10-53911, Fax: 00-39-10-539.1270, EMail [email protected])

10 Reports from the Netherlands:

10.1 3 reports available from Stichting CUR, Postbus 420, AK-2800 Gouda(Tel: 1820 39600, Fax: 1820 30046):

10.1.1 Re-Use of Asphalt with Regard to an Optimal Building Cycle (1994)By: Veerman C P, Dutch Directorate General for Environmental Protection, Ministry for Housing,Physical Planning and EnvironmentCUR-Report 94-10B. English summary available

10.1.2 Re-Use of Concrete and Brickwork with Regard to an Optimal Building Cycle (1994)By: Veerman C P, Dutch Directorate General for Environmental Protection, Ministry for Housing,Physical Planning and EnvironmentCUR Rapport 94-9A. English summary available.

10.1 3 Concrete and Masonry Rubble as Coarse Aggregates in ConcreteCUR Rapport 125.

10.2 Standaard RAW Bepalingen (1990)From: CROW (the Centre for Research and Contract Standardization in Civil and TrafficEngineering), 1 Galvanistraat, PO Box 37, 6710 BA Ede(Tel: 318 620410, Fax: 318 621112, Web site: http://rcn.wbinet.nl/crow)

11 Reports from Spain:

11.1 Architectural and Environmental Teaching (1997)By: COAC, ITeC, UPC, Junta de ResidusFrom: Colegio de Arquitectos de Catalunya, Plaça Nova 5, 08002 Barcelona, Spain(Tel: 93 301 5000, Fax 93 412 2395)ISBN 84-89698-37-6(Supported by DGXI through the LIFE Programme. Available in English and Catalan)

11.2 3 reports from the Generalitat de Catalunya, Departament de Medi Ambient, Junta deResidus, Provença 204-208, 08036 Barcelona (Tel 00-34-93-451.4135, Fax: 00-34-93-451.5954)

11.2.1 Manual de Deconstrucció (1995) (Selective demolition manual)By: ITeCISBN 84-393-3236-X

11.2.2 Aprofitament de Residus en la Construcció (1995) (Using C&DW in construction)By: ITeCISBN 84-393-3597-0


11.2.3 Programa de Residus de la Construcció a Catalunya (1996) (C&DW programme inCatalonia)By: Junta de Residus with Gestora de RunesISBN 84-393-3906-2

11.3 Actuaciones en Infraestructuras para la Gestión de Residuos Sólidos Urbanos (1996)(Actions to improve landfill management)From: Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Centro de Publicaciones, Paseo de la Castellana 67, 28071Madrid(Tel: 00-34-91-597-6187, Fax: 00-34-91-597.6186, EMail: [email protected] 84-498-0261-X

12 Reports from the United Kingdom:

12.1 The Environmental Costs and Benefits of the Supply of Aggregates - Executive Summary(1998)By: London Economics in association with Mining and Environment Research Group, Royal Schoolof Mines, Imperial College, London and Dr Clive Spash, CambridgeFrom: Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Free Publications, P.O Box 236,Wetherby, West Yorkshire LS23 7NB(Tel: 0870 1226236, Fax: 0870 1226237)(See below for details of the full report)

12.2 2 reports from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, PublicationSales Centre, Unit 8, Goldthorpe Industrial Estate, Goldthorpe, Rotherham S63 9BL(Tel: 01709 891318, Fax: 01709 881673)

12.2.1 The Environmental Costs and Benefits of the Supply of Aggregates (1998)By: London Economics in association with Mining and Environmental Research Group, RoyalSchool of Mines, Imperial College, London and Dr Clive Spash, CambridgeCost: £95ISBN: 1 85112 082 3(See also free publications above)

12.2.2 Aggregates in Construction - Current Practice, Scope for Substitution and Intensity of Use(1995)By: Ecotec Research and Consulting.

12.3 Feasibility of Using Crushed Concrete Aggregate in Structural Work (1997)By: Desai S BFrom: Department of the Environment, Building Regulations Division, London(Arising from a 2-year research project at the University of Dundee into recycled concreteaggregate for use in BS5328 designated mixes, which started in August 1995)

12.4 4 reports from the Energy Efficiency Office, ETSU (the Energy Technology Support Unit),Harwell, Oxfordshire OX11 0RA(Tel: 01235 436747, Fax: 01235 432923)


12.4.1 Cold-Mix Recycling for Road Construction - Bardon (England) Ltd (1997)Ref : NPFP 100

12.4.2 The Performance of Roads Reconstructed by Cold In Situ Recycling 1985-87 (1994)Ref no.: Rep 17

12.4.3 Monitoring of Cold Road Recycling Process on a Heavily Trafficked Road (1992)By: WS Atkins

12.4.4 Cold Road Recycling (Final Profile 60)Ref no.: NP60

12.5 Use of Primary and Secondary Aggregates in Road Consruction: Relevant SpecificationsFrom: Highways Agency, Roads Engineering & Environmental Division, Room 4/27, St ChristopherHouse, Southwark Street, London SE1 0TE(Tel: 0171 921 4762, Fax: 0171 921 4411)(This is an INFORMAL LISTING of (1) which materials types may be used in roadworks bySpecification for Highway Works and Notes for Guidance; (2) which materials may be usedaccording to the Design Manual for Roads and Bridgeworks (DMRB); (3) British Standards relatingto the use of Aggregates in Roads and Bridges; and (4) Extracts from BD42/94, BD12/95, HA35/95,(all referred to in (2))

12.6 3 official UK reports available through The Stationery Office, PO Box 276, London SW85DT(Tel: 0171 873 0011, Fax: 0171 873 8200)

12.6.1 Specifications for Highway Works - Notes For Guidance (1993)By: Department of Transport (Highways Agency)Reference: MCHW Vol1, Vol2

12.6.2 Use of Waste and Recycled Materials as Aggregates - Standards and Specifications.Executive SummaryBy: Department of the EnvironmentISBN.011 752952 3

12.6.3 Managing Demolition and Construction Wastes (1994)By: Howard Humphreys and Partners for the Department of the EnvironmentISBN 0-11-752972-9

12.7 2 reports from the Transport Research Laboratory, Old Wokingham Road, Crowthorne,Berkshire RG45 6AU(Tel: 01344 773131, Fax: 01344 770356)

12.7.1 Assessment of the Performance of Off-Site Recycled Bituminous Materials (1991)By: Cornelius and EdwardsISSN 0266-5247Research Report 305

12.7.2 Alternative Materials in Road Construction - A Summary of EU RTD Project RO-97-SC.2238By: Reid M (TRL) - Project Coordinator

12.8 6 reports from the Building Research Establishment (BRE), Garston, Watford, HertfordshireWD2 7JR(Tel: 01923 664444, Fax: 01923 664400)

12.8.1 Management of Construction and Demolition Waste (1996)By: Hobbs GRef no: IP1/96

12.8.2 Increasing the Use of Recycled Aggregates in Construction (1996)Ref no: PD56/96


12.8.3 A Comparison of Systems for Controlling the Quality of Recycled Aggregates (1995) (Areview of practice regarding quality control of recycled C&DW in The Netherlands)By: Hopton and Sym in conjunction with Collins R J (BRE)Ref no: Note N67/95

12.8.4 The Use of Recycled Aggregates in Concrete (1994)By: Collins R J (BRE)Ref no: IP5/94

12.8.5 Efficient Use of Aggregates and Bulk Construction Materials Volume 1 - The Role ofSpecifications (1993)ISBN 0-85125565-5

12.8.6 Efficient Use of Aggregates and Bulk Construction Materials Volume 2 - Technical Dataand Results of Surveys (1993)ISBN 0-85125566-3

12.9 8 reports from the Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA), 6Storey's Gate, Westminster, London SW1P 3AU(Tel: 0171 222 8891, Fax: 0171 222 1708)

12.9.1 Waste Minimisation and Recycling in Construction - A Review (1995)By: Guthrie P and Mallett HISBN: 0-86017-42-8XCIRIA Special Publication 122See also SP 508 Waste Minimisation and Recycling in Construction - Stage 2

12.9.2 Waste Minimisation in Construction - Site Guide (1997)By: Guthrie P M, Woolveridge A C and Patel V SCIRIA Special Publication 133ISBN: 0-86017-482-4Price: £65 (£28 for CIRIA members)See also SP134 Waste Minimisation in Construction - Design Manual, SP135 Waste Minimisationin Construction - Boardroom Handbook, SP148 Waste Minimisation in Construction - Training Packand PR28 Waste Minimisation in Construction - Technical Review.

12.9.3 The Reclaimed and Recycled Construction Materials Handbook (1999)By: Coventry S, Woolveridge C and Hillier SISBN: 0 86017-513-8

12.10 Good Practice Guide on Planning Conditions for Waste Management Facilities (1997)From: Jo Newman, County Planning Officers Society, c/o Dorset County Council, County Hall,Colliton Park, Dorchester DT1 1XJ(Tel: 01305 224243,Fax: 01305 224914)

12.11 Recycling Waste From The Construction Site (1995)By: Snook K, Turner A and Ridout RFrom: The Chartered Institute of Building, Englemere, Kings Ride, Ascot, Berkshire SL5 7TBISBN 1-85380-067-8

12.12 Aggregate Recycling and Alternative Materials in Highway ConstructionFrom: The Institution of Highways and Transportation, Royal Spa Centre, Leamington Spa,WarwickshireISBN 0 902 933 13 2

12.13 2 Institution of Civil Engineers reports from Thomas Telford Services Ltd., Publications,Thomas Telford House, 1 Heron Quay, London, E14 4JD(Tel: 0171 987 6999, Fax: 0171 538 4101)

12.13.1 Managing and Minimising Construction Waste - A Practical Guide (1995)By: Ferguson, Hermode, Nash, Sketch and Huxford (ICE)ISBN 0-72772023-6


12.13.2 Alternative Materials in Road Construction - A Guide to the Use of Waste, RecycledMaterials and By-Products (1995)By: Sherwood P TISBN 07-277201-8X

12.14 3 reports from Nottingham Trent University, Building and Environmental HealthDepartment, Burton Street, Nottingham NG1 4BU (Contact Mr Anthony Trevorrow)(Tel: 0115 941 8418, Fax: 0115 948 6438)

12.14.1 Construction Waste: A Planning Nightmare (1996) (Presented at the Concrete in Use forMankind Conference)By: Trevorrow A

12.14.2 Construction Waste: Opportunity for Profit (1996) (published following the CIB Conference)By Trevorrow A

12.14.3 Defining Standards for Recycled Aggregates (1990)By: Trevorrow A

12.15 3 reports from the Department of Civil Engineering, City University, Northampton Square,London EC1V OHB (Contact Dr P R S Speare)(Tel: 0171 477 8145, Fax: 0171 477 8570)

12.15.1 The Use of Crushed Brick Coarse Aggregate in Concrete (1996)By: Speare P R S, Kibriya T

12.15.2 Durability of Concrete Made Using Recycled Coarse Aggregates (1996) (Presented toIABSE 15th Congress)By: Speare P R S, Ben-Othman B

12.15.3 Recycled Concrete Coarse Aggregates and Their Influence on Durability (1993) (Presentedto Concrete 2000, Dundee)By: Speare P R S, Ben-Othman B

12.16 Sustainable Road Maintenance - Reduce Re-Use Recycle (1997) (Papers from aconference held at Leamington Spa by the Engineering Committee and the Soils and MaterialsDesign and Specification Group of the CSSO, November 1997)From: Mr D C Harvey, County Surveyors Society Office, c/o Derbyshire CC, Planning & HighwaysOffice, Matlock, Derbyshire DE4 3AG(Tel: 01629 580000)

12.17 Bulk ‘Inert’ Waste: An Opportunity for Use (1996) (These conference proceedings are aspecial issue of Waste Management)From: Elsevier Science Ltd, The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB(Tel: 01865 843192, Fax: 01865 843986)ISSN 0956-053X

12.18 Alternative Aggregate Sources - Risks to be Managed (1997) (Paper presented at AASSeminar in May 1997)By: Dengate RFrom: Kvaerner Technology, Research and Development, Maple Cross House, Denham Way,Maple Cross, Rickmansworth, Herts, WD3 2SW(Tel: 01923 776666, Fax: 01923 777668)


12.19 The use of reclaimed aggregate materials in Road Construction. Options for GovernmentPolicy (1997)(Paper presented at AAS Seminar in May 1997)By: Mallett S H; Woolveridge A; Tollitt B and Burnett JFrom: Aspinwall & Co., 16 Crucifix Lane, London Bridge, London SE1 3JW(Tel: 0171 940 5400, Fax: 0171 940 5414)

12.20 Recycling of Construction Materials (1990)By: Lindsell PFrom: National Federation of Demolition Contractors, Resurgam House, 1A New Road, TheCauseway, Staines, Middlesex, TW18 3DH(Tel: 01784 456799, Fax: 01784 461118)

12.21 Alternative and Marginal Aggregate Sources (1996) (from Proceedings of a conferenceheld at Dundee University in June 1996)By: Brown B VFrom: Readymix (UK) Ltd., RMC House, 53-55 High Street, Feltham, Middlesex, TW13 4HA(Tel: 01932 568833, Fax: 0171 851 0006)

12.22 Demolition and Re-Use of Concrete and Masonry Volume 2 - Re-Use of Demolition Waste(1988)Edited by Y KasaiFrom: Chapman and Hall, 2-6 Boundary Row, London SE1 8HN(Tel: 0171 865 0066, Fax: 0171 410 6600)ISBN 0 412 32110 6

12.23 2 reports from Colas Ltd, Rowfant, Crawley, West Sussex RH10 4NF(Tel: 01342 711143, Fax: 01342 711198)

12.23.1 Road Recycling - The Available Options (1996)By: Hicks B

12.23.2 Shallow Recycling, A Cold Mix Process (1992)By: Hicks B

12.24 Secondary and Recycled Aggregates: An Environmental and Economic Opportunity (1997)By: King S (FoE)From: Friends of the Earth, 10-12 Picton Street, Montpelier, Bristol BS6 5QA(Tel: 0117 942 0129, Fax: 0117 942 0164)


Annex 11

Reference Economic and Population Data

Exchange rates and population figures used throughout the Report


REFERENCE ECONOMIC AND POPULATION DATA

The following figures were taken from EUROSTAT’s on-line publications and statistical indicators(http://europa.eu.int/en/comm/eurostat/indic/...).

1 ECU = ... currency units,1997

Population (million)

on 1 January 1997)

Austria 13.824 Schillings 8.068

Belgium 40.5332 Francs 10.170

Denmark 7.48361 Crowns 5.275

Finland 5.88064 Markka 5.132

France 6.6126 Francs 58.492

Germany 1.96438 Marks 82.012

Greece 309.355 Drachma 10.487

Ireland 0.747516 Pounds 3.652

Italy 1929.3 Lira 57.461

Luxembourg see Belgium 0.418

The Netherlands 2.21081 Guilders 15.567

Portugal 198.589 Escudos 9.934

Spain 165.887 Pesetas 39.299

Sweden 8.65117 Crowns 8.844

United Kingdom 0.692304 Pounds 58.902

EU-15 - 373.713


Annex 12

Calculations and Assumptions Used to Estimate

the Cost of Crushing Inert C&DW


CALCULATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS USED TO ESTIMATE THE COST OF CRUSHING INERTC&DW

This Annex shows how we arrived at a representative processing cost of 2.00 ECU/tonne fordemolition waste which is crushed at a fixed C&DW recycling centre and 1.50-2.00 ECU/tonne usinga mobile crusher at the original demolition site. These figures exclude all transport costs.

Although intended to be broadly representative for all Member States, we have declared all of ourassumptions and formulae so that any reader can re-work the calculations with amended assumptionsto see how much difference this makes.

Raw data for C&DW processing cost estimation

The raw data came from a variety of sources. One of the main ones was the 1997 edition of ‘Mineand Mill Equipment Costs’, a comprehensive costing guide based on extensive surveys in the USAand published by Western Mine Engineering Inc. We have also drawn on a range of manufacturers’marketing and technical brochures for mineral and C&DW crushers and processing equipment.

The first issue addressed concerns the capital and operating costs of crushers. Although ‘Mine andMill Equipment Costs’ contains information on the costs of operating a range of different crushertypes (single-toggle ‘jaw’ crushers, double-toggle ‘jaw’ crushers and single-rotor impact crushers), themost comprehensive data on the link between model types and processing capacity is limited tosingle-toggle ‘jaw’ crushers. Since these are more widely used in demolition waste processing, wehave used this range of crushers as a proxy for all crushers. However, we recognize that (asexplained in Chapter 9) impact crushers have a rather different cost profile (in that their capital costsare generally lower but, particularly with hard materials such as concrete, their operating costs can besignificantly higher).

The data in the first two tables have been extracted from similar but larger tables in ‘Mine and MillEquipment Costs’. All of the crushers featured are single-toggle ‘jaw’ crushers, and all units and costshave been converted. The conversion from short tons (2,000 pounds) to metric tonnes (1,000kg)involves multiplying the US figures by a factor of 0.9072, and the exchange rate used for convertingcosts from US$ to ECU was US$ 1.13 = 1 ECU (from the same source at the same time as theexchange rates given in Annex 11). Some small rounding errors will have been introduced as aconsequence.

In ‘Mine and Mill Equipment Costs’ crushers are not identified by manufacturer, but by a generalisedtype based on their power unit (in HP or horse power) and jaw size. Jaw size measurements comprisetwo measurements (both in inches, 1 inch = 25.4mm), the first being the distance between the tops ofthe crowns of the two plates and the second being the width between the side liners (see the linedrawing in Annex 13). The outlet settings given in Figure A12.1 refer to the nominal closed sizesettings at the outlet of the crushers. There is a very strong correlation between this measure, themaximum size of crushed material which will be produced and the size of screen through which 50%of the crushed material will then pass. The ‘normal’ ratios are a maximum size of 160% of thenominal closed size setting, and half of the crushed material passing through a screen size of 75% ofthe setting.

Figure A12.1 illustrates the general relationships between power, jaw size, outlet setting and hourlyprocessing capacity, but it should be stressed that these data are derived from mines and quarriesrather than recycling installations. Both the flows and the physical characteristics of the materialsbeing crushed can be assumed to be considerably more consistent in a mine or quarry than in arecycling centre.

In Figure A12.2, the hourly wage rate used for calculating the maintenance labour cost was US$23.19 (20.52 ECU at the exchange rate used), the cost of electricity was US$ 0.05/kWh and the costof lube oil was US$ 3.55 per US gallon.


Figure A12.1: Hourly Processing Capacities (in t onnes/hour) of Diff erent Crusher Types atDifferent Outlet Settings

Crusher Type Closed Size Setting (mm)HP Jaw size 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 250 30015 10x16 9 1520 10x21 10 1625 10x30 19 3340 15x24 19 34 49 8260 15x38 76 97

100 20x36 89 116 143125 25x40 166 200 236 272 313125 22x50 145 190 239 281 331150 30x42 181 216 249 290 354200 36x48 308 372 431 494 558200 44x48 340 378 415 461 590 680300 50x60 474 526 574 680 798

Figure A12.2: Capital Costs and Hourly Running Costs (in ECU) for Diff erent Crusher TypesCrusher Type Capital Cost Hourly Costs

HP Jaw Size Total hourlycosts

Parts Maintenancelabour

Electricity Lubrication

15 10x16 36,562 3.39 1.52 1.24 0.42 0.2120 10x21 37,420 3.60 1.56 1.27 0.58 0.2125 10x30 46,562 4.48 1.94 1.58 0.70 0.2740 15x24 54,558 5.55 2.27 1.84 1.12 0.3160 15x38 73,416 7.65 3.06 2.49 1.68 0.42

100 20x36 89,088 10.04 3.71 3.01 2.81 0.51125 25x40 109,549 12.40 4.57 3.71 3.50 0.63125 22x50 120,451 13.29 5.02 4.07 3.50 0.69150 30x42 137,310 15.35 5.73 4.65 4.21 0.79200 36x48 204,310 22.20 8.51 6.91 5.61 1.17200 44x48 280,881 28.42 11.70 9.50 5.61 1.60300 50x60 413,721 42.01 17.24 13.99 8.42 2.36

The key finding is that, over a wide range of crushers, the hourly operating cost amounts to roughly1/10,000 of the capital cost. Most of this is accounted for by wearing parts and the labour needed toreplace them. However, it is essential to remember that these costs relate simply to crushers, not tointegrated machines with screens, metal separators and conveyor systems built onto a commonchassis. As a rule of thumb, a commercial C&DW crusher requires roughly twice the power of astand-alone crushing unit, and costs substantially more to buy and operate.

Although some caution is therefore essential when using these numbers to estimate the cost ofcrushing C&DW in Europe, in the absence of better data we have attempted to do so. However, wehave assumed that the operating costs on C&DW will be double those for quarry stone (becauseconcrete is generally much harder and more abrasive), or 2/10,000 of the capital cost, and that thehourly throughput of crushed materials will be slightly over half of the quoted figure (because this isconsistent with operators’ experience in real life).

We have based our calculation on a crusher broadly similar to the 150HP 30x42 crusher. As can beseen above, this model has a nominal capacity of 181 tonnes/hour with its jaws set to a closed sizesetting of 100mm, whereas we have assumed no more than 100 tonnes/hour of crushed C&DW.Instead of a simple crusher costing 137,310 ECU, we have assumed a chassis-mounted crusher witha range of ancillary equipment costing 300,000 ECU.

The factors to be considered are the capital cost of machinery (including the cost of borrowing, spreadover a working life of an agreed length), the operating cost and the fixed cost of owning or renting asite (applicable only in the case of a fixed recycling centre).


The assumptions in detail for a fixed C&DW recycling centre:

For a fixed C&DW recycling centre we have assumed:• a useful working life of 8,800 hours for a crusher, based on 5 years’ working life (WL) at 220

days/year (DY) and 8 hours/day (HD);• an interest rate (IR) of 10%;• a processing capacity (PC) of 100 tonnes/hour;• a capital cost (CC) of 300,000 ECU;• an hourly operating cost of 2/10,000 of the capital cost;• other capital and operating costs for other plant items equal to those of the main crusher;• a land area (LA) of 4ha (40,000 m2);• a nominal rent (R) of 200 ECU/ha/year.

We have asumed a residual value of zero at the end of the crusher’s working life. This has theadvantage that it substantially simplifies the formulae which follow, even though it is not entirelyrealistic. However, as will be seen, the effect of this simplifcation is very small, since the financingcosts only contribute a small fraction of the total costs.

The technical assumptions are all very ‘broad brush’ in nature, and could be considered to be +/-100%. By contrast, the cost of land could vary by significantly more. We have assumed cheap land atapproximately agricultural rent levels (or subsidised by the local authorities to a comparable level).However, paying a commercial rent on urban land (with consent for development for light industry,distribution or similar) would cost 20-30 times as much.

All of these assumptions can easily be varied to test ‘what-if’ queries.

First we present the key components of the calculation as follows:

Component Symbols ExampleOutput over working life WL x DY x HD x PC 5 x 220 x 8 x 100 = 880,000

tonnesCrusher capital andfinancing costs over workinglife

CC+ [CC/2 x IR/100 x WL]= CC x [1 + (IR x WL)/200]

300,000 + [150,000 x 0.1 x 5] =375,000

Crusher operating costs overworking life

2 x CC/10,000 x WL x DY x HD 2 x 30 x 5 x 220 x 8 = 528,000

Total site equipment costsover working life

2 x sum of two previous rows 2 x (375,000 + 528,000)

Land costs over working life LA x R x WL 4 x 200 x 5 = 4,000

The full formula for calculating the total costs over the working life of the crusher can be written asfollows:

Cost/tonne x WL x DY x HD x PC

equals

2 x CC x [1 + (IR x WL)/200 + 2 x (WL x DY x HD)/10,000]

plus

LA x R x WL

or as:

Cost/tonne = 2 x CC [1 + (IR x WL)/200 + 2 x (WL x DY x HD)/10,000] + [LA x R x WL]WL x DY x HD x PC


Solving this for the assumptions declared above produces an answer of:

2 x 300,000[1 + (0.1 x 5)/200 + 2 x (5 x 220 x 8)/10,000] + 4 x 200 x5

5 x 220 x 8 x 100

or

600,000[1 + 0.0025 + 1.76] + 4,000 = 600 x 2.7625 + 4 = 1657.5 + 4880,000 880 880

= 1.89 ECU/tonne

We have rounded this estimate to the nearest 0.50 ECU, which is 2.00 ECU/tonne.

Assuming a mark-up of 50% over direct costs, this would place a sales value of 3.00 ECU/tonne onthe processing component of C&DW-derived aggregates. The crusher would therefore be earningaround 300 ECU/day, which is 1% of its purchase cost. This would be consistent with what operatorshave told us is a prudent target.

The assumptions in detail for a mobile C&DW recycling plant:

Next we have re-run the calculation for a mobile plant costing slightly less than the fixed machine andworking fewer days per year (to facilitate frequent moves between sites). The actual assumptions are:

• a useful working life of 9,000 hours for a crusher, based on 7.5 years’ working life (WL) at 150days/year (DY) and 8 hours/day (HD);

• an interest rate (IR) of 10%;• a processing capacity (PC) of 100 tonnes/hour;• a capital cost (CC) of 250,000 ECU;• an hourly operating cost of 2/10,000 of the capital cost;• other capital and operating costs equal to those of the main crusher.

Solving the cost/tonne equation for these assumptions produces the following answer:

Cost/tonne = 2 x CC [1 + (IR x WL)/200 + 2 x (WL x DY x HD)/10,000]WL x DY x HD x PC

2 x 250,000[1 + (0.1 x 7.5)/200 + 2 x (7.5 x 150 x 8)/10,000]7.5 x 150 x 8 x 100

or

500,000[1 + 0.00375 + 1.8] = 500 x 2.80375 = 1,401.875900,000 900 900

= 1.56 ECU/tonne

Changing the assumptions to match the characteristics of a smaller crusher will raise the costs pertonne. Based on a capital cost of 175,000 ECU and a throughput of 50 tonnes/hour the total cost pertonne rises to 2.18 ECU/tonne.

We have rounded these estimates to the nearest 0.50 ECU, which produces figures of 1.50ECU/tonne for a large mobile crusher and 2.00 ECU/tonne for a smaller one.


Annex 13

Acronyms, Definitions and Descriptions

As used in this Report


ACRONYMS, DEFINITIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS

Where the definitions which follow are based on legal definitions, the sources are indicated. Otherdefinitions and descriptions have been expressed in plain English.

AAS Aggregates Advisory Service. An information exchange operated in the UK topromote aggregates efficiency, including C&DW recycling.

Aggregates Hard, granular, mainly inert construction materials. The sum of primary,secondary and C&DW-derived (recycled) aggregates.

Amenity impacts Similar to environmental impacts, but affecting the quality of life of people andcommunities. Examples include nuisance and severance.

Bottom ash Granular material (also called slag) from the bottom of an incinerator or similar.

Brite-EuRam A research programme covering industrial and materials technologies, run byDGXII.

C&DW Construction and demolition waste. Described at length in Chapter 2 of thisreport and defined in EWC Chapter 17.

C&DW-derivedaggregates

Aggregates made by crushing and sorting the inert fraction of C&DW.

Capping layer Part of the structure of roads. See road sub-base below.

CEN Comité Européen de Normalisation, the European standards institution.

CFCs Chlorofluorocarbons. Important greenhouse gases.

China clay Natural white clay used to manufacture ceramic products (sanitary ware etc).

CIRIA The Construction Industry Research and Information Association, a UK researchbody.

Contraries Materials other than those supposed to be in the product or mixture. Anexample would be fragments of wood, plastic or paper in a C&DW-derivedaggregate.

‘Core’ C&DW Those types of materials which are obtained when an empty building or civilengineering infrastructure is demolished (but not necessarily obtained as adirect result of demolition). It excludes road planings, excavated soil, externalutility and service connections (drainage pipes, water, gas and electricityconnections) and surface vegetation, because the techniques for recovering andrecycling these are quite distinct from other demolition wastes.

CUR Civieltechnisch Centrum Uitvoering Research en Regelgeving, a Dutch civilengineering research institute.

DGXI Directorate General XI of the European Commission, responsible for theenvironment, nuclear safety and civil protection.

DGXII Directorate General XII of the European Commission, responsible for science,research and development.

ECU European Currency Unit (see Annex 11).

Engineering fill Bulky inert materials used to fill holes, trenches etc or to form a stablefoundation as part of the construction process.

Environmentalimpacts

Environmental impacts are the direct and indirect impacts of any developmenton human beings, fauna and flora; soil, water, air, climate and the landscape;material assets and the cultural heritage; and interactions between the above.(Based on Article 1.5 of Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amendingDirective 85/337/EEC on the assessment of certain public and private projectson the environment, published in OJ No.L 73/5 of 14 March 1997).

EU The European Union.

EU-15 The 15 Member States of the EU.

Eurostat The statistical office of the EU.


EWC The European waste catalogue, established by Commission Decision 94/3/EECof 20 December 1993 published in OJ No.L 5/15 of 7 January 1994.

Fly ash The very fine ash produced in incineration processes.

FrameworkDirective onwaste

Directive 75/442/EEC on waste as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EECof March 18 1991, published in OJ No.L 78/32 of 26 March 1991.

Gate price The charge paid by a holder of waste before it is accepted by a waste disposalor recovery facility. The gate price excludes transport costs.

HCFCs Hydrochlorofluorocarbons. Important greenhouse gases used in foams and firefighting systems.

Hazardous waste Any waste defined by Article 1 of Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardouswaste of 12 December 1991, published in OJ No.L 377/20 of 31 December1991.

Impact crusher A mechanical device for crushing primary aggregates or C&DW. Figure A13.1(at the end of this Annex) provides an illustration showing four toughened steelplates fixed to a rotor. These crush the material as it is forced between the rotorand the toughened steel face plates. The positions of the face plates are set bythe operator.

Inert waste Waste that does not undergo any significant physical, chemical or biologicaltransformations. Inert waste will not dissolve, burn or otherwise physically orchemically react, biodegrade or adversely affect other matter with which itcomes into contact in a way likely to give rise to environmental pollution or harmhuman health. The total leachability and pollutant content of the waste and theecotoxicity of the leachate must be insignificant. (Taken from COM(97)105 final,a proposal for a Council Directive on the landfill of waste).

‘Jaw’ crusher A mechanical device for crushing primary aggregates or C&DW. Figure A13.2(at the end of this Annex) provides an illustration showing a deep, symetricalcrushing chamber with no ‘dead zones’. One side is fixed while the other ismoved by a cam on the rotating shaft. Both jaws are protected by thick,replaceable wearing plates. The size of the bottom opening can be set by theoperator.

LIFE programme A programme run by DGXI to fund demonstration projects, awarenesscampaigns and other actions linked to (among other things) clean technologies.See Council Regulation (EEC) No 1973/92 of 21 May 1992 establishing afinancial instrument for the environment, published in OJ No.L 206/1 of 22 July1992.

Member States Members of the EU, i.e. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany,Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Swedenand the United Kingdom (UK).

MSW Municipal solid waste, meaning household waste and commercial, industrial,institutional and other waste which, because of its nature or composition issimilar to household waste.

OECD The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, based in Paris.

PCB Polychlorinated biphenyls. Hazardous chemicals typically found in old electricaltransformers. Regulated by Directive 91/273/EEC.

Primaryaggregates

Naturally occurring sand, gravel and (crushed) rock obtained by quarrying ormarine dredging.

PVC Polyvinyl chloride. A plastic product used in the manufacture of window frames,pipes etc.

PWSP The Priority Waste Streams Programme set up in response to CouncilResolution of 7 May 1990 (see OJ No.C 122/2 of 18 May 1990).

Quarry A pit or rock face, usually open to the air, from which natural aggregates are dugor blasted.


Re-use Re-use means the beneficial use of a material which might otherwise have to bediscarded. There is a general distinction between re-use (which does not requireany special processing before the material can be used) and recycling (whichdoes).

Recycledaggregates

See C&DW-derived aggregates.

Recycling The use of a formerly waste material after it has been processed so that it nolonger poses any significant threat to the environment.

RILEM Réunion Internationale des Laboratoires d'Essais et de Recherches sur lesMatériaux et les Constructions, which in English is the International Union ofTesting and Research Laboratories for Materials and Structures.

Road planings Bituminous and asphaltic-bound materials removed from the surface of a roadduring repair/resurfacing.

Road sub-base One of the layers of a road or highway. Figure A13.3 (at the end of this Annex)provides an illustration.

‘Scissor’ crushers Large hydraulically operated shears for cutting steel and concrete beams,usually mounted on a mechanical digger or similar.

Secondaryaggregates

Waste materials, including by-products from mining and quarrying activities,which can be used as substitutes for primary aggregates. Examples include flyash, bottom ash, steel slag, mine tailings, stone scalpings and china clay waste.

Selectivedemolition

The organised treatment and/or removal of certain materials and componentsprior to the demolition of the main structure. Materials may be removed becauseof their own economic value, or because a failure to treat and/or remove themwill contaminate or otherwise subtract value from the resultant demolition waste.

Sub-base See road sub-base.

Waste Defined by the EU (in the Framework Directive on waste) as ‘any substance orobject which the holder discards or intends, or is required, to discard’. ‘Holder’ isdefined as ‘the producer of the waste or the natural or legal person who is inpossession of it’. Waste is defined by the OECD as ‘materials other thanradioactive materials intended for disposal’.


Figure A13.1: Impact Crusher

Illustration by kind permission of Svedala

Figure A13.2: ‘Jaw’ Crusher

Illustration by kind permission of Svedala

Figure A13.3: Different Road Layers

Sub-Base

Road Base

Wearing Course