EU Report Demolition Waste Management

Report to DGXI, European Commission
CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION

WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES,
AND THEIR ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Final Report
February 1999
Report by Symonds, in association with ARGUS,

COWI and PRC Bouwcentrum
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
• 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
2 TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE 7

• 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
3 ECONOMIC AND ADMINISTRATIVE FACTORS AFFECTING RE-USE AND

RECYCLING 17
• Introductory comments
• Economic considerations
• Administrative factors
4 PROCESSES AND BEST PRACTICE GUIDANCE: DEMOLITION,

RENOVATION AND RECYCLING SITES 25
• 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
5 PROCESSES AND BEST PRACTICE GUIDANCE: CONSTRUCTION SITES 35

• Processes commonly found on construction sites
• Best practice guidance on construction site management
6 PROCESSES AND BEST PRACTICE GUIDANCE: ROAD MAINTENANCE

AND CONSTRUCTION 39
• Road maintenance processes
• Road construction using other recycled materials
7 RECORDED QUANTITIES OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE

• C&DW arisings 43
• 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
8 MEASURES USED TO PROMOTE RE-USE AND RECYCLING OF

CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE 49
• The range of measures
• The effectiveness of the measures
Symonds Group Ltd 46967 Final Report February 1999 2

9 ECONOMICS OF THE RE-USE AND RECYCLING OF CONSTRUCTION AND
DEMOLITION WASTE: PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS 57
• Introductory remarks
• ‘Level 1’ technology
• Conclusions
10 SUMMARY OF MAIN CONCLUSIONS AND EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS 69

• 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
Annex 1 Annex 1 to Service Contract B4-3040/97/000659/MAR/E3 -

Study Brief - Programme of Work 77
Annex 2 Background to the Study 81
Annex 3 The European Construction Industry, 1991-98 87
Annex 4 ‘Core’ C&DW Arisings Compared to Primary Aggregate
Consumption 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 Economic and Population Data 195
Annex 12 Calculations and Assumptions Used to Estimate the Cost of
Crushing Inert C&DW 197
Annex 13 Acronyms, Definitions and Descriptions 203
© Symonds Group Ltd 1999
Symonds Group Ltd 46967 Final Report February 1999

1. INTRODUCTION
The provenance of this Report
1.1 This is the Final Report of the study into ‘Construction and Demolition Waste Management
Practices, and their Economic Impacts’ undertaken between January 1998 and March 1999
by The Symonds Group Ltd (from the UK) in association with ARGUS (from Germany),
COWI Consulting Engineers and Planners (from Denmark) and PRC Bouwcentrum (from the
Netherlands). The Terms of Reference (Technical Annex) for the study can be found in
Annex 1. Although the Commission will make copies of this report available to interested
parties, 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 and
data were prepared for circulation to the members of the Waste Management Committee
prior to their meeting in October 1998. Progress meetings with the Commission were held on
30 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, and
the relationships between its origins and characteristics. We also deal with the question of
hazardousness, and with other characteristics which make certain components of C&DW
suitable for separate collection.
1.5 Chapter 3 sets out the major economic and administrative considerations which drive
decisions 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 by
whom 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 each
Member State, and Chapter 8 summarises the measures which each Member State has
taken to influence the level of re-use and recycling. The details supporting the conclusions set
out 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 local
level) 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 many
of the technical terms used throughout this report, and explanations of the acronyms
employed.
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 establish
proposals for action at Community level, the Priority Waste Streams Programme was
initiated. C&DW was identified by the Member States as one such stream, even though at the
time 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 management
hierarchy, which prefers waste prevention or reduction to re-use, re-use to recycling or
recovery (including the use of waste as a source of energy), and all of these to final disposal
via landfill or incineration without energy recovery. Although not expressed in these terms in
any 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 same
landfills as were used to dispose of municipal solid waste (MSW). Furthermore, it became
clear 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 improved
environmental protection involved in modern landfill engineering and management, it was
obvious 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 waste
management practices set out in the Framework Directive on waste (75/442/EEC as
amended 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, and
EU-wide programmes such as LIFE were addressing the issues raised by the waste hierarchy
from the other end by looking for ways of designing structures in ways that reduce future
waste flows, and by encouraging the use of secondary and recycled materials in new
construction. Annex 10, Ref 11.1 provides an example of this work, which complements that
of the Priority Waste Streams Programme. Similar initiatives were taken at national levels in
several Member States.
1.15 As a direct result of the Priority Waste Streams Programme, a specially-convened project
group met to advise the Commission on matters related to C&DW management between
1992 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, the
construction materials supply industry and the waste management industry. The Symonds
Group and ARGUS acted as Technical Consultants to the project group. The project group’s
final report made recommendations for action on a range of issues, as discussed later in this
Report. Among these were recommendations designed to tackle the widespread lack of
reliable 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 current
study into a better overall context, and to explain why the Terms of Reference were drafted in
the way that they were, with a considerable emphasis on identifying better and more
consistent data.
1.17 We concentrate in this Report on what we have called ‘core’ C&DW. This is essentially the
mix of materials obtained when a building or piece of civil engineering infrastructure is
demolished, though we include under the heading those same materials when they arise as a
result of construction. ’Core’ C&DW excludes road planings, excavated soil (whether clean or
contaminated), external utility and service connections (drainage pipes, water, gas and
electricity) and surface vegetation.
1.18 Despite the factors which will affect the composition of ‘core’ C&DW in future (as discussed
later), it is extremely likely that the inert (or decontaminated) fraction which is suitable for
crushing and recycling as aggregate will continue to be the largest component. This can
include materials such as glass which, although not directly comparable to primary
aggregates, do not detract from the performance of the C&DW-derived aggregate if included
in reasonable proportions.
1.19 One of the keys to maximising the yield of C&DW-derived aggregates is separation of
materials at source, predominantly through selective demolition (see Chapter 4 and Annex 13
for 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 around
180 million tonnes each year (see Figure 1.1). This is over 480kg per person per year, and
only 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 new
landfill 10m deep and roughly 13 square km in surface area every year. To illustrate this, 13
square 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 roughly
1.3m every year. Adding construction waste, road planings and excavated soil and rock to
this figure more than doubles the total weight and volume of material to be managed. Five
Member States (Germany, the UK, France, Italy and Spain) account for around 80% of the
total of ‘core’ C&DW, which is broadly consistent with the share of the overall construction
market accounted for by these same countries. Data on the size and year-on-year changes in
construction 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 % Re-Used or % Incinerated or
Arisings Recycled Landfilled
(m tonnes, rounded)
Germany 59 17 83
UK 30 45 55
France 24 15 85
Italy 20 9 91
Spain 13 <5 >95
Netherlands 11 90 10
Belgium 7 87 13
Austria 5 41 59
Portugal 3 <5 >95
Denmark 3 81 19
Greece 2 <5 >95
Sweden 2 21 79
Finland 1 45 55
Ireland 1 <5 >95
Luxembourg 0 n/a n/a
EU-15 180 28 72
Source: Annex 5
1.21 A high proportion of conventional demolition waste, and particularly the fraction derived from
concrete, bricks and tiles, is well suited to being crushed and recycled as a substitute for
newly quarried (primary) aggregates in certain lower grade applications, most notably
engineering fill and road sub-base. This practice has been common (though not necessarily
widespread) in several Member States for many years. The use of such C&DW-derived
aggregates 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 primary
aggregates, 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 key
benefits of C&DW recycling. In some Member States the volume of C&DW going to landfill
exceeds that of household waste.
1.23 The only Member State where industry sources have expressed a concern that the supply of
C&DW-derived aggregates may one day match the construction industry’s capacity to
substitute them for primary aggregates is the Netherlands. In general the volume of primary
aggregates extracted and used in Member States is at least four times as great as the
potential upper limit for C&DW-derived aggregates, and well above existing levels of
production (see Annex 4). Nevertheless it must be acknowledged that, as things stand, by no
means all of this primary aggregate could be displaced by C&DW-derived aggregate of an
equivalent quality.
1.24 The largest single consumer of aggregates in most Member States is the road construction
industry (including roads and car parks on housing developments, business and retail parks
and 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 mine
tailings).
1.25 However, road builders (and other construction companies) generally choose their materials
on the basis of their suitability (sometimes referred to as their ‘fitness for purpose’, but also
taking into account any applicable standards) and their price. In areas where quarries and/or
sources of competing secondary aggregates are widespread and landfill costs are low, C&DW
can 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 worth
drawing 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 the
remainder is broken up and sold (or even given away) as primary aggregate. This can
substantially distort the market for aggregates in the local area around the quarries, though
the impact declines when more urban areas are considered. The case for choosing these
primary aggregates over C&DW-derived aggregates can be further boosted by the fact that
quarry wastes (‘scalpings’) are not always in practice subjected to the full provisions of the
Framework Directive on waste. The proportions (of primary material to waste) are different
with china clay, but the effect of a large reservoir of very cheap competing material is the
same.
1.27 Notwithstanding the above, there is evidence of a general trend for the price of both landfill
space and primary (natural) aggregates to rise relative to transport costs. In general, the more
valuable a product (in ECU/kg), the greater the distance over which it will be traded, and the
greater the choice of suppliers from which individual users can choose. If landfill costs and
primary aggregate prices continue to rise, both primary and C&DW-derived aggregates may
in future tend to travel further. There is already a substantial cross-border trade in primary
aggregates (see Annex 4), and this may well be emulated by C&DW-derived aggregates in
future, making internal market considerations a bigger issue than at present. There is at least
one instance (in the UK) of a former air base (the runways of which represent a very large
source of high quality concrete) being recycled adjacent to a railway siding. The normal time
pressures so often present on city centre demolition sites are also less severe under such
circumstances. This is close to being an artificial quarry with low-cost transport, and other
similar 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 of
primary aggregates involves the generation of obvious environmental and amenity impacts,
most of them limited to the local area surrounding the quarry. Transporting the aggregates to
their final point of use generates a separate and more widely dispersed set of impacts
common 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 to
some extent on the product being quarried. Digging sand is a much quieter, less dusty activity
than blasting and crushing hard rock, and marine dredging at a carefully selected location has
the potential to cause substantially fewer problems than land-based quarrying. The main
environmental 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 internal
combustion 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 plant
and machinery;
(v) visual and aesthetic impacts;

(vi) changes in land form (associated with both visual impacts and changes in surface
water 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 of
people, and can more correctly be termed amenity impacts. Quarries in remote areas cause
fewer 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 of
noise, vibration, dust and air pollution, and contributes to the visual and severance impacts
associated 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 its
application.
1.31 Where aggregates are supplied from quarries rather than from C&DW, the C&DW has to be
dealt with in another way, which generally means landfilling it. A secondary impact from
favouring primary aggregates is therefore additional landfilling. Although much C&DW is inert
and the environmental impacts are therefore relatively mild, there are nevertheless adverse
environmental impacts from the associated transport.
1.32 Changing from quarrying to C&DW recycling may avoid some of the above impacts, but it
could introduce others. Moreover, because both C&DW arisings and potential locations for
their re-use after processing are likely to occur in more urban settings, any impacts may well
have the potential to affect more people. It should be stressed that these additional impacts
do not include those associated with demolition itself, because the demolition process will
occur 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 to
generate:
(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 plant
and machinery;
(iv) visual and aesthetic impacts (particularly if the processing site is a green field or
urban site);
(v) changes to natural habitats and possible destruction of historical artefacts (if the
processing site is a green field site).
1.34 The transport and delivery impacts associated with C&DW recycling are essentially the same
as those associated with primary aggregates delivered by road, unless the C&DW can be
processed and used on the original site, in which case they are taken out of the equation
altogether. In general rail transport is far less likely to be a practical proposition for C&DW
recycling (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 far
between.
1.35 The above arguments concentrate on the inert fraction of C&DW which can be processed into
aggregates. 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 an
incinerator is clear, particularly in the case of the more hazardous fraction. However, despite
the benefits of avoiding landfilling or incineration, it should be acknowledged that processing
is not an impact-free activity.
1.36 More complex C&DW processing and sorting systems, such as are found at fixed C&DW
recycling centres, may well generate additional impacts. Some of these impacts (such as
noise) 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 the
water environment as a result of the washing of C&DW-derived aggregates to remove
unwanted fractions (such as wood and plastic). Such potential impacts can be mitigated, but
at 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 volume
of C&DW is less environmentally desirable than recycling the C&DW into C&DW-derived
aggregates.
The changing nature of C&DW
1.38 The nature of today’s demolition waste is directly influenced by the building techniques and
materials which were in vogue when the buildings, civil engineering structures and associated
infrastructure being demolished today were built. This is considered in greater depth in
Chapter 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 the
economy and investment (between housing, industry and the service sector) of previous
years. The nature and volume of today’s construction waste, by contrast, reflects today’s
building 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 to
highlight practical measures which can be taken to encourage the re-use and recycling of
C&DW. It does not seek to go into great detail on either a technical or an economic level, but
rather to strike a balance between these factors. It seeks to distinguish between those
measures which have been proven to be effective under one set of very particular national
circumstances but which will probably not travel successfully, and those which can probably
be applied widely and effectively.
1.41 Following the initial round of data collection, it was agreed with the Commission that more
effort should be spent on improving the consistency of these data. Any process of economic
modelling which relies on poor quality data has the potential to mislead more than it
illuminates, 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 obvious
categories are:
(i) waste arising from the total or partial demolition of buildings and/or civil
infrastructure;
(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 general
foundations;
(iv) road planings and associated materials arising from road maintenance activities.
2.2 Cross-contamination and general mixing of materials is frequently observed on construction

and 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 as
asbestos 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 the
end of this Chapter. In this context wastes which are suitable for separate collection include
those that are hazardous, those that are valuable when separated, those that by any objective
measure 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 its
recommendation number 2) that:
“Member States should be encouraged to adopt the following classifications (taken from the
European Waste Catalogue) as the framework within which future construction and demolition
waste management planning will be undertaken, and waste arisings data collected and
reported:
• 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 itself
would be reviewed, and an expert working group drawn from Member States, DGXI and
Eurostat is currently looking at this. We have been asked by the Commission, as part of this
study, to comment on the advisability and implications of amending the EWC to make C&DW
statistics more useful. We offer the following observations.
2.6 It has become apparent that different Member States interpret and record the EWC
categories in slightly different ways. Some evidently record consignments of mixed waste
according 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 and
disposal facilities required to manage the wastes.
2.7 A questionnaire was circulated by us to the members of an expert statistical working group to
seek clarification on how materials are classified, and how statistics are recorded (and/or
estimated) in different Member States. The findings from this survey are reported in Annex 8
to this Report. We have also drawn on the knowledge and experience of the study team
members.
2.8 There are some specific matters worthy of note and further consideration in the context of
EWC revision, particularly with regard to mixed concrete, bricks and other similar materials
which 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 with
comparatively small proportions of brick and gypsum mixed in with it would be
recorded 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 ‘top
down’ or ‘bottom up’. ‘Top down’ classification involves finding the most appropriate top level
classification and recording the waste there, whether or not it can be assigned to one of the
sub-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 practice
they seldom do.
2.10 In the specific context of C&DW classification, those who take the ‘top down’ approach
assume 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 followers
of 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 for
unmixed concrete (17 01 01), unmixed brick (17 01 02), unmixed tiles and ceramics (17 01
03), unmixed gypsum-based construction materials (17 01 04) and unmixed asbestos-based
construction materials (17 01 05). The last sub-category does not include asbestos-based
insulation materials, which are covered by 17 06 00. ‘Bottom up’ classifiers would place any
mixtures 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 to
both the introductory notes to the EWC which describe its purpose, and to the waste hierarchy
set out in the European Community policy document ‘A community strategy for waste
management (SEC/89/934(Final))’ and reaffirmed in Chapter 5.7 of the Fifth Environmental
Action Programme (COM(92)23).
2.12 Clause 5 of the introductory note to the EWC states “The EWC is to be a reference
nomenclature providing a common terminology throughout the Community with the purpose to
improve 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 waste
which cannot be re-used or recycled, in that order. In particular Article 3 of the Framework
Directive 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 waste
by means of recycling, re-use or reclamation or any other process with a view to extracting
secondary raw materials…”
2.14 We have therefore started from the premise that one of the primary purposes for collecting
C&DW statistics per se is to enable waste planners at all levels (local, national and EU) to
plan accurately to meet the objectives of the hierarchy. It would therefore be desirable that
the 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 or
disposal, thereby providing meaningful data which planners can use.
2.15 In suggesting redefinitions of the classifications we have also tried to remove ambiguities
which could lead to those recording the waste being faced with a choice of categories. Our
aim has therefore been to produce a list of mutually exclusive categories which will provide a
consistent 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 offers
significant potential for the recycling of materials as construction aggregates. Accordingly if
the statistics are to be as useful as possible to waste planners, then there is a reasonable
case to be made for removing from 17 01 00 those materials which might be best kept out of
C&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 also
be 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 ban
gypsum 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 to
record gypsum-based materials or mixed materials in which the gypsum content exceeds a
certain 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 and
insulation materials, and other insulation materials’.
2.19 At the same time it would be worth considering re-defining 17 01 00 as ‘predominantly inert
concrete, bricks, tiles and ceramic materials’ and revising the remaining sub-categories to
reflect more accurately their potential use as C&DW-derived aggregates. This would allow
Member States either to record a single figure for 17 01 00 or to opt to collect statistics at a
greater 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 17
01 02 02 broken or mixed bricks);
(iii) 17 01 03 tiles and ceramics (possibly further broken down into 17 01 03 01 whole tiles
and 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 a
Technical Adaptation Committee or by the Member States, reflecting national standards and
practices 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 those
materials (such as bricks and roof tiles) which can be re-used, as well as those materials
which 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 in
Figure A9.1 in Annex 9.
2.23 Recognising that there may be some opposition to adding a fourth level, it would be possible
to achieve most of the gains with limited loss of logic by using the alternative classification
set 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, including
uncontaminated wood, certain plastics, paper and cardboard. There is no obvious way in
which the EWC could be amended to facilitate this. The same conclusion applies to
hazardous waste fractions, which are identified only as hazardous wastes without reference to
their origin in C&DW. Only a wholesale re-working of the EWC, which would have to be
applied to all other wastes, not just C&DW, and which we do not recommend, would enable
such 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 2.1
below:
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 with structures or infrastructure to be demolished prior
sites to the erection of new ones.
‘Renovation’ sites Sites where the interior fittings (and possibly some
structural elements as well) are to be removed and
replaced.
‘Greenfield’ building sites Undeveloped sites on which new structures or infrastructure

are to be erected.
‘Road build’ sites Sites where a new road (or similar) is to be constructed on
a green field or rubble free base.
‘Road refurbishment’ sites Sites where an existing road (or similar) is to be resurfaced
or 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 their
sub-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 be
considered to be ‘best practice’, to the extent that ‘best practice’ is likely to involve greater
attention 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
ê
2 Demolish the balance of the structure(s), sort into waste streams as appropriate, and
treat each waste stream on- or off-site prior to recycling or final disposal
ê
3 Clear surrounding land surface(s) and any unwanted existing services/utility
connections, broken down into two sub-activities:
3a Remove (i) hard surface coverings 3b Clear and dispose of unwanted surface
and (ii) any unwanted existing vegetation
services and utility connections for
recycling/disposal, and/or
ê
4 Prepare site for sale or construction, broken down into two sub-activities:
4a Prepare levels and foundations for 4b Prepare to leave site clear and vacant
new structures, and/or
ê
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 show Lighter cells show optional
unavoidable activities activities
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 sent
and the final fate of the waste materials concerned. It is possible to define a range of possible
destinations/uses to which they may go once they have been collected on-site. These will
include 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 serious
problems in some Member States, and which was discussed at length but not resolved by the
Priority Waste Streams Programme C&DW Project Group. The issue is the interpretation of
the definition of waste.
2.31 Although we deal with this in greater detail in Chapter 3, an example concerns the treatment
of materials which the demolition contractor intends to re-use for their original purpose
without any form of treatment, and which he treats and stores like a commercial product
rather than a waste material. We believe that the Directive does not intend that these should
be treated as waste, or recorded as such. This will apply to some unused construction
materials (where new building is taking place) as well as to ‘architectural salvage’ and other
valuable items (such as fireplaces, wood panelling, doors, sealed double glazing units, certain
roof tiles etc) from demolition sites. Similar (but different) considerations apply to stockpiles
of inert materials, particularly crushed materials which are then unsold C&DW-derived
aggregates.
2.32 As far as the recycling options are concerned (see (iii) to (vi) above), it can be difficult in
practice to draw a clear distinction between them, though they range from sending scrap steel
to mini mills for processing into new steel to the breaking up (but not crushing) of concrete to
produce 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 aggregates
have been used to create ‘low value’ landscaping features and noise bunds that would not
otherwise have been built, but obtaining any meaningful data on the basis of such a
distinction 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 to
demolition 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, and
incineration only applies to a few wastes such as uncontaminated wood waste and some
plastics (including some packaging materials). In theory it may be possible to landfill C&DW
in dedicated landfills with a view to future processing and recovery when market conditions
are 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, with
wood much more widely used in Scandinavia than elsewhere in the EU;

(ii) the 1950s and 1960s apartment buildings which accommodated the flood of workers
to post-war urban industrial centres in most Member States were generally built of
reinforced concrete, with copper piping replacing lead;
(iii) by the 1980s plastics (especially PVC double glazing units) were becoming
widespread in pipes and window frames in all sorts of residential buildings;
(iv) many industrial and commercial buildings erected since the 1980s have benefited
from faster construction techniques based on steel frames, itself a reflection of lower
demand for steel from heavy industry;
(v) steel-framed structures lack the ‘natural’ fire resistance provided by concrete and
brick, requiring much more fire proofing of beams and columns (often involving
hydrocarbon-based materials) and fire fighting systems (often involving chemicals
which may themselves be hazardous);
(vi) the glass cladding which characterises many modern corporate headquarters
buildings and shopping centres will in turn affect the composition of future C&DW
arisings;
(vii) city centres with strong conservation laws often require developers to preserve the
original façades of buildings, re-building behind them;
(viii) some cities built on suitable soils require new buildings to have underground parking
facilities and/or civil defence shelters, greatly increasing the volumes of soil and rock
which must be excavated and removed;
(ix) irrespective of the primary materials from which they were constructed, older
buildings are more likely to contain hazardous material such as asbestos, CFCs and
PCBs, because controls on these materials have been tightened over time;
(x) similarly, as controls have been imposed on the use of hazardous materials in
commerce and industry, so the potential for contamination of the fabric of building
structures 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 from
components which are often flammable and/or toxic, and whose residues and
containers 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 as
associated infrastructure such as bridges and tunnels) affects the nature of recyclable
material arisings, and the demand for other C&DW-derived aggregates.
Issues related to hazardousness and separate collection
Preliminary considerations
2.37 Many of the issues raised under this heading are driven by the imperatives of the waste
hierarchy (see Chapter 1). This requires all materials to be moved up the hierarchy (from
disposal towards re-use if they must arise at all), which in turn introduces a need for
separation and separate handling, which we consider here. Issues related to recovery
processes 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 when
the hazardousness of wastes is being determined, and required the Commission to draw up a
list of hazardous wastes. This list was subsequently published as Council Decision
94/904/EEC (the hazardous waste list).

2.39 Very few materials which may be classified as C&DW are invariably hazardous as defined in
Directive 91/689/EEC or Decision 94/904/EEC. One of the most obvious examples of this
small group, and certainly the one which is most frequently cited, is asbestos-based
insulation. However, some other materials may be hazardous because they display one or
more of the characteristics used in the Directive’s Annex III to define hazardousness (such as
toxicity or flammability). These characteristics may only be revealed under specific
circumstances, and it may be possible to avoid those circumstances.
2.40 Furthermore, some other waste materials which are found in relatively small amounts in
C&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 from
the inert fraction if at all possible. If they are not, it may not be possible to treat the main bulk
of the materials as inert.
2.41 Finally, some inert materials (such as bricks and roof tiles) may be suitable for re-use, and
therefore require separate collection if this is to become a realistic option.
2.42 Our general conclusion is that selective demolition (which greatly assists separate collection
by 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 account
the availability of recycling and disposal facilities when encouraging or requiring selective
demolition, they should also recognise that the two issues are interrelated. While they should
not overwhelm local facilities by requiring them to deal with more materials than they can
sensibly handle, they can by their decisions stimulate recyclers to expand their capacity by
introducing 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 be
collected 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 their
control and of their choice). Economies of scale mean that organising and controlling
hazardous materials should be easier on large construction sites than on small ones. On
demolition 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 and
separate 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 may
be encountered as a result of construction and demolition activities, including the
refurbishment of existing buildings. It identifies those components which are potentially
hazardous, the properties that make them potentially hazardous, and some of the options
most 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 are Examples include asbestos, lead, tars, paint and
hazardous because the materials preservative residues, adhesives, bonding
originally used contained a high agents and sealants and certain plastics.
proportion of materials which were
themselves hazardous.
2 Some materials become hazardous An example would be a factory where surface
as a direct result of the reactions between the originally non-hazardous
environment in which they have building materials and chemicals carried in air
existed for many years. (or water) pollution associated with the
processes in or near the factory resulted in parts
of the building’s fabric becoming hazardous, and
requiring special handling or treatment.
3 Some C&DW streams become The classic example concerns lead-based paint
hazardous if hazardous materials tins thrown onto a pile of bricks and concrete,
are left in them and/or making the whole pile hazardous waste.
subsequently get mixed with them.
2.47 On construction sites, a small number of building materials, such as asbestos sheet or
insulation, may be hazardous in their own right. Others which are not themselves hazardous
in their final form (including some adhesives, coatings and sealants) are either made up on
site by a reaction between hazardous materials, or are supplied to site in solvent carriers. Any
surplus pre-cursor materials and/or ‘empty’ containers with residual quantities of product
which find their way into the C&DW stream are hazardous.
2.48 Specific hazardous and potentially-hazardous items that may occur on new construction sites
include:
(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 and
sodium/mercury vapour lamps) which are hazardous in their own right. Residues of
hazardous substances manufactured, used or stored at the site may remain. Where possible
these should be removed from the site prior to demolition activities commencing. If they have
become impregnated into the fabric of the building it may be possible to neutralise or treat
them in situ prior to demolition.

2.50 Some specific hazardous and potentially hazardous items that may be encountered on
demolition sites are listed below. These include some (the first three and the last) which also
occur 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 construction
and demolition sites. Since the main fabric of the building is likely to be substantially
untouched, the percentage of hazardous material is likely to be higher on refurbishment sites
than 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 the
total.
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 hazardous
depending on the disposal method. For example some treated or coated timber can give rise
to toxic fumes if incinerated. Untreated wood, while eminently suitable for incineration if it
cannot 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 that
aggregate. The same applies to many plastic and textile wastes which can be found on most
demolition sites.
2.53 Gypsum, when placed in a landfill can generate hydrogen sulphide, an acid gas. It can also
detract from the quality of an aggregate if present in excessive amounts. There is no widely
agreed figure for the maximum acceptable percentage of gypsum in C&DW-derived
aggregate, 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 of
their economic (resale) value. Examples include carved wood panelling, doors, sealed double
glazing 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 is
economic. Metals have a well-established resale value, and in some areas and at some times
materials such as bricks and tiles are in considerable demand. This is most likely to occur in
urban 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 recycling
of C&DW. As well as the obvious economic considerations which are central to this study, we
deal with three primarily administrative factors:
(i) the way in which recycling can be discouraged or even rendered impossible by an
unhelpful 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-derived
aggregates.
3.2 Some of these administrative issues in particular have occupied many other study teams
working on projects for DGXI, DGXII and Eurostat, and we have sought not to cover the same
ground again in inappropriate detail.
3.3 In dealing with economic costs we have limited our consideration to internalised costs which
can 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 is
mainly because such externalities are hard to quantify, and there is no evidence (that we
have found) of a broadly accepted position on their monetary valuation. This, we believe, is
largely because such impacts are essentially site-specific and their financial costs subjective
in nature, making generalisations potentially misleading.
Economic considerations
Economic modelling
3.4 Several years ago a macroeconomic model describing C&DW recycling was produced in the
Netherlands, and published in CUR Report No.125 (see Annex 10, Ref 10.1.3). This model
was 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 exercise
was carried out by experts now with PRC Bouwcentrum and COWI (both participants in the
present study), and the results were reported in the research report ‘Recyclability in concrete
of 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 determine
a material’s value. Taking a very similar (but not identical) approach, we consider that, in the
context 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-derived
aggregates; and
(ii) the demolition manager’s decision whether or not to separate the various C&DW
streams for individual treatment and/or use/disposal.
3.6 We consider these two decisions below. Although there is a case for following the flow of
materials, and dealing with choices on the recycling site before considering how the recycled
material may be used, in fact the whole process should be (and generally is) market-led. In
other 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 some
Member States it is now a legal requirement that C&DW be separated and treated rather than
landfilled, 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 construction
company or materials specifier to select C&DW-derived aggregates rather than primary or
secondary 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 two
materials are equally capable of meeting their needs), to choose C&DW-derived aggregates
whenever:
Qp + Tq > Er + RCp + Tr
where: Qp = Price of newly quarried product at the quarry gate

Tq = Cost of transport from quarry to site
Er = Any extra costs created by using C&DW-derived aggregates
RCp = Price of recycled product at the recycling centre gate
Tr = 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 majority
of 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 downward
pressure on aggregate prices.
3.10 Tq and Tr will largely depend on distance, because with bulk materials loading and unloading
costs are small. There is no obvious reason to assume that, in general, Tq will be significantly
different from Tr (unless the C&DW-derived aggregates are re-used on their original site, in
which 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 significant
distances. Although most urban areas are adequately served either by local landfills or by
locations where a fixed C&DW recycling facility could be installed, the trend is for wastes to
travel 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 the

price advantage which the user demands before buying C&DW-derived aggregates instead of
primary material. The objective component may be quite small, but is likely to include
additional storage and cleaning costs at the location where the aggregates are to be used, as
a result of needing to maintain separate stockpiles and to switch machines over between
batches. C&DW-derived aggregates sometimes also need to be wetted before mixing, unlike
primary aggregates. The rest of Er represents the ‘subjective component’, which is the value
which 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 the
recycled and primary materials are technically interchangeable. In fact, of course, this is often
not true. Recycled materials may well have slightly different mechanical, physical and
chemical 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 materials
to be compared, but this does not change the essential structure of the decision-making
process.
3.13 The same approach can also be applied to other choices between re-used or recycled and
new materials (such as used versus new bricks, or plaster board using recycled versus new
gypsum).
The economics of recycling versus disposal
3.14 The decisions which determine the style and detail of the demolition process may be taken by
the 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 environmental
costs. Adding these in would complicate the discussion of the decision making process, not
least because the costs and benefits fall on different persons, but it would not change the
principles.

3.15 Under the simpler, more traditional model (in which the original owner employs the demolition
contractor), the demolition contractor can advise the owner on the best way of organising the
work, including options for selective demolition and materials recovery and recycling.
Increasingly, though, site owners are tending to employ lead contractors who are responsible
for managing the whole construction process from clearing the site right through to erecting
and fitting out the new building. These contractors usually have strong financial incentives
built into their contracts to complete the job as quickly as possible, which they will seek to
pass on to their chosen demolition contractor.
3.16 Under this second model, although the demolition contractor may acquire the right to sell any
materials derived from the site, unless the values are high enough to offset any time
penalties set in his contract, he will inevitably seek to propose a methodology which goes no
further than complying with all regulatory (or other) requirements regarding separation of
waste streams.
3.17 We refer to whoever is driving the process (whether the owner, contractor or consultant) as
the 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&DW

Tm = Cost of transporting unsorted waste to disposal site
Dm = Cost of disposing of unsorted waste
V1 = Volume of inert waste
T1 = Cost of transporting inert waste to recycling or disposal site
R/D1 = Cost of recycling or disposing of inert waste (including quality
control costs)
SV1 = Sale value of recycled product (if relevant)
2 ...n = Other sorted waste streams
Es = 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 is
proposed.
3.20 Although it is highly unlikely to be structured in this very formal way (and our discussions with
contractors 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 fraction
which can be converted into aggregate. This is one way in which our approach differs from
the CUR model, which only considers the aggregate fraction.
3.21 The additional costs associated with separate demolition and materials sorting (Es) will
include any additional costs created by time and/or space constraints. On all sites they will be
affected by the cost of labour, but more particularly by the costs of machinery. In order to try
to compare the decision making process on different site types and in different Member
States, the labour cost component needs to be expressed as an ECU wage rate and time and
productivity factors. The same thing needs to be done for fixed and variable machinery costs
to 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 returns
from recycling (SV1 or RCp). Recycling will generally occur if these returns exceed the costs
of recycling. Taking the relatively simple case of the demolition contractor with his own
recycling 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 materials
Tri = 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 which
machinery can be used to demolish the structures there. Where the recycling process relies
on 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 a
demolition contractor who had to pay an access fee to a recycling centre rather than using his
own.
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, or
on 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 are
being actively closed down as waste management practices improve (see Annex 10, Ref
11.3), 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 landfill
charges are high. Observation of real life does not support this view, suggesting that, where
landfill charges are stable (whether high or low), the main determining factor is the
expectation and consequences of being caught ‘fly tipping’. Poor policing and limited
sanctions appear to be more likely than high landfill charges to encourage higher absolute
levels of ‘fly tipping’. However, any sudden rise in landfill charges (as a result, for instance, of
the introduction of a landfill tax) will inevitably produce increases in the level of ‘fly tipping’. In
the UK the Environment Agency has reported increases in general ‘fly tipping’ since the
landfill 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 once
the industry has adjusted to higher charges, ‘fly tipping’ will revert to something like its
previous level.
Administrative factors
The interpretation of ‘waste’
3.28 The Framework Directive on waste (75/442/EEC as amended by 91/156/EEC) defines waste
as “... any substance or object in the categories set out in Annex I which the holder discards
or intends or is required to discard ...” (our emphasis). Annex I to the Directive contains 15
specific categories of waste (none of which refers to anything remotely like the inert fraction
of C&DW, or to most other fractions either) plus a catch-all of “... any materials, substances
or 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 its
“The Commission should review the definition of waste in Council Directive 75/442/EEC on
waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC, with the objective of developing a
proposal whereby products and materials destined for re-use and recycling are not defined as
waste.”
3.30 We were made aware during the course of our researches for this study that the demolition
and recycling industries regularly experience cases where inert (and some non-inert)
materials which neither the building’s owner nor the demolition contractor nor the recycling
centre ever intend to discard (and which require no processing before they are re-used) are
being 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 as
C&DW-derived aggregates. These materials are waste before they are processed, but cease
to 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 some
officials (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 contain
very small proportions of wood, plastics or similar ‘contraries’, even though the materials
meet the technical requirements of the aggregate specification. The potentially serious
consequences of losing a legal challenge have so far discouraged any recyclers from testing
this point through the courts.
3.33 It would therefore be desirable, in our view, if a detailed guidance note on the interpretation of
waste in the specific context of C&DW management could be issued at EU level. It is
recognised that any change must provide adequate safeguards against abuse by those who
simply 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 of
wastes destined for recovery operations, it provides some helpful pointers relevant to a
discussion of when C&DW is and is not a waste, and when it becomes a non-waste product
as a result of processing.
3.35 The OECD definition of waste is “...materials other than radioactive materials intended for
disposal for reasons specified in Table 1.” (Table 1 specifies 16 reasons why materials are
intended for disposal by virtue of their condition. These reasons only differ in trivial ways from
the 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 recovery
operations. (These two tables, 2.A and 2.B, are very nearly identical to Annexes IIA and IIB to
the Framework Directive on waste).
3.36 The guidance document observes that “... the intended destination of a material is the
decisive factor in the OECD definition. However, it is not the decisive factor in many of the
definitions enacted by many OECD Member countries.” The Framework Directive definition of
waste, by contrast, hinges on the concept of discarding. The guidance document observes
that “... whilst the notion of discarding may differ from the OECD notion of disposing, both
notions encompass the consignment of a material/waste to a recovery/recycling/reclamation
process.”
3.37 It is pointed out that “... when a waste material is subjected to a recovery process more than
one material can be produced at the end of the process. It is likely that at least one of the
materials ... could be a waste. The fact that a material meets a recognised
national/international standard/specification when it is derived from an environmentally sound
recovery operation may provide evidence that it has ceased to be a waste. However, the
existence of a specification is not in itself sufficient.” It is also stated that “... the simple
sorting of a waste to meet an industrial specification is not considered, by many Member
countries, 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 a
recovery, or another comparable, process eliminates or sufficiently diminishes the threat
posed to the environment by the original material (waste) and yields a material of sufficient
beneficial 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 way
as 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 and
environmental requirements”, it appears to us that a guidance document based on these
principles would meet most if not all of the objections that we have identified in the specific
context of C&DW. The potential problems to which we allude relate to requirements that are
relevant to a recycled material but not to its primary ‘competitor’ (or vice versa). An example
concerns leachates which may be produced by C&DW-derived aggregates but not primary
materials.
Land use planning and environmental controls
3.40 One of the key challenges facing many would-be recyclers, and particularly those interested
in establishing a fixed recycling centre, is identifying and securing a suitable site. The ideal
site would be close to an urban area (where C&DW will both arise and be re-used, thereby
keeping transport costs and associated environmental impacts down), but sufficiently
removed from both non-human environmental receptors and housing to keep adverse
environmental 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 go
from the city through the green belt to a processing centre, and then back across the green
belt in the form of C&DW-derived aggregate to a user in the city may well make recycling
uneconomic. The attitude of the land use planning system to recycling can therefore be
important, and local authorities can assist by identifying enough areas suitable for C&DW
processing 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 various
recommendations (notably numbers 14-19) which remain relevant in the context of waste
planning, 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-site
processing. 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 as
compared 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 the
aim of controlling the quality of materials, their production and use. It allows a contract to take
place and gives confidence to the parties to the contract by controlling the risks. National and
international specifications have been produced to assist designers and specifiers by defining
parameters considered to be acceptable to all parties to a contract. The standardisation of
specifications therefore removes the need for their individual preparation for each
construction project.
3.44 However, specifications depend on accepted practice, and their widespread use reflects the
generally conservative nature of designers and specifiers. Using an existing specification
saves time (and possibly money) at the design stage, but can inhibit innovation, simply
because specifications will not include new or untried materials.
3.45 While national and international specifications are routinely used in construction for
convenience, they are not a prerequisite. Alternative mechanisms for controlling risk, such as
bespoke specifications and externally verified quality certification, can be used provided they
are acceptable to both parties to the contract. The requirement on designers and specifiers is
to 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 recycled
C&DW and there is a universal acceptance in the construction industry that properly
formulated performance specifications can safely permit the use of products derived from
secondary and recycled materials.

3.47 This whole subject area, and the role played by RILEM (the Réunion Internationale des
Laboratoires d’Essais et de recherches sur les Matériaux et les constructions) and CEN (the
European 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, Ref
2.1).
3.48 In practice most national bodies are waiting for CEN Technical Committee 154 (‘an ad hoc
group for recycled aggregates’), whose remit in respect of construction materials requires the
development of performance specifications that permit the use of products derived from
recycled materials. Inevitably this is a lengthy process, and the conclusion of most experts
who have dealt with this issue in any depth is that the industry cannot wait the many years
which it will take for formal standards to be adopted, and that interim measures are required
to fill the gap in the meanwhile.
3.49 While there is agreement on the need for appropriate specifications, there is a difference of
opinion in the industry as to whether such specifications need to be developed specifically for
secondary and recycled materials, or whether specifications should permit the use of all
materials irrespective of their source. This debate stems primarily from the need for particular
issues 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 a
material 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 the
various Member States (as reported in Annex 6). Austria, Denmark, Germany and the
Netherlands have all developed some standards specifically for secondary and recycled
materials with the Netherlands also adopting performance specifications. The UK and Ireland
make limited provision for the use of some secondary and recycled materials in road
construction. The UK also has one national standard ‘BS 6543: 1985 British Standard Guide
to 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 secondary
and recycled materials. In the UK, Italy, Spain and Belgium, externally verified quality
certification systems covering both materials and recycling plants have been adopted to
facilitate the use of recycled materials. If such national systems diverge and become
entrenched, it is almost inevitable that they will create market barriers to cross-border trade in
recycled aggregates.
3.51 The demand for materials for particular uses also needs to be given careful consideration. In
general, even if all C&DW was re-used or recycled, the quantities are such that they would
only meet a comparatively small proportion of the demand for construction materials (see
Annex 4). Primary materials will therefore continue to have to meet the bulk of the demand
for the foreseeable future.
3.52 C&DW-derived aggregates provide a good illustration of the appropriate use of recycled
materials. Road and car park construction is an activity where properly quality controlled
C&DW-derived aggregates can meet the technical and environmental requirements for this
comparatively low grade use. Structural concrete on the other hand requires higher strengths
and a greater degree of consistency. Given that a high level of demand for road construction
materials is likely to be sustained it must be questioned whether the effort required to produce
concrete-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 the
use of secondary and recycled materials for high grade use is therefore cost effective, unless
there is a very significant downturn in the demand for new infrastructure, it is not considered
that this will become widespread.
3.54 In view of the attention being given to this topic in other fora, it seems unlikely that a further
initiative on standards and norms would be appropriate or even helpful. However, to avoid the
continuing uncertainties surrounding technical specifications, pressure should be applied to
the participants in the RILEM and CEN working groups to resolve the issues as soon as
possible.

4. PROCESSES AND BEST PRACTICE GUIDANCE: DEMOLITION, RENOVATION AND
RECYCLING 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 (see
Figure 2.2). Most of these (such as demolition of the main structure, clearance of the site and
disposal of the residual materials) are unavoidable, because if they are not carried out, then
demolition cannot be considered to have occurred. The one more ‘optional’ activity, and the
one which has the greatest influence on the extent to which materials are re-used and/or
recycled is, by common consent, selective demolition (Activity 1).
4.2 Selective demolition (which also applies to sites which are being renovated) can be
considered to comprise a series of sub-activities, as set out below in Figure 4.1. Although
these sub-activities can take place in any sequence (or even concurrently), they will generally
be organised in roughly the order shown.
Figure 4.1: Component Elements of Selective Demolition

Sub-Activity Materials Comment
1a Selective removal of Valuable architectural salvage If the owners of the site
accessible materials (such as fireplaces, stained do not manage this
with obvious sales glass, carved doors and wall process, ‘informal
value. panelling, some decorative recyclers’ (i.e. thieves)
wrought iron and tiles), some may do it for them.
sorts of roof tiles, some sealed
double glazed window and door
units, some electrical fittings,
some metals (such as lead off
the roof and easily accessible
items such as copper pipes and
wiring).
1b Selective removal of Asbestos and other hazardous This will reduce the
accessible materials materials (see final Section of proportion of C&DW that
which, if not Chapter 2). has to go to hazardous
removed, will cause landfill.
the C&DW to be
treated as
hazardous.
1c Selective removal of Other accessible wooden items, This will raise the value of
materials which, if other accessible plastic items, the C&DW-derived
not removed, will excessive volumes of glass. aggregates subsequently
depress the value of Even plaster (gypsum) may be produced.
the remaining C&DW removed for this reason.
when crushed.
1d Chemical treatment Surface materials (roofing, This is a relatively new
in situ of those walls, floors) which have concept/ activity. It is only
exposed parts of the undergone chemical changes. likely to be appropriate in
building fabric which the case of industrial
have become structures.
contaminated during
the life of the
building, followed by
removal if
appropriate.

Figure 4.2: Activity Flow on Construction Sites Figure 4.3: Arisings of Waste Materials Related to
the Activities in Figure 4.2
Architectural salvage, roof tiles, electrical fittings,

metals, asbestos and other insulation materials,
Remove selected materials from existing
wood, plastics, glass, plaster
structure(s), possibly after in situ treatment
Concrete, tarmac, stone, top soil, pipework

Demolish the balance of the structure(s). Strip Tree trunks, scrub,
Clear and dispose (drains, water, gas etc.), electrical and telecoms
hard surface coverings and remove any unwanted some top soil
of unwanted wiring, sub-stations
existing services and utility connections for
surface vegetation
recycling or disposal
Separate selected
Crush and sort
materials (such as
rubble to produce and
embedded beams
and C&DW-derived /or
and reinforcing
/or aggregates plus
rods) by hand or
some further
by using “scissor”
waste
crushers
Store or ship Concrete, bricks

Treat and/or Steel, wood,
C&DW-derived etc. (crushed or
dispose of non- plastics, glass
aggregates and/or not)
rubble C&DW
mixed C&DW
stream(s)
stream
Landfill, incinerate, compost or recycle each waste stream individually
Prepare levels and Prepare to leave and

and
foundations for site clear and /or
/or
new structure(s) vacant
Packaging (including empty containers for welding gases and other contaminated
Erect new structure(s), then treat or dispose of construction-related waste materials), broken and surplus building materials (bricks, blocks, beams, frames,
materials aggregates, paint, varnish etc.), waste oil

4.3 In all cases, the decision whether or not to undertake any or all of these sub-activities will be
driven by a combination of regulation (of demolition and waste management activities) and
market forces.
4.4 After whatever selective demolition is decided on has taken place, and after the resultant
shell of the structure has been demolished (whether by controlled explosion, mechanically or
manually), there are further stages/sub-activities to be considered, particularly within Activity
2 (which covers the demolition of structures and the treatment and disposal of rubble and
other wastes). The latter stages of Activity 2 are similar in nature to the latter stages of
Activity 3 (the clearing of surrounding land surfaces and utility connections), in that they both
potentially involve the sorting and manipulation of materials which have become unavoidably
mixed.
4.5 In fact, Figure 2.2 can be presented in a more complex way, with a rather more detailed set
of sub-activities, which we have done in Figure 4.2. It should be stressed that Figure 4.2
represents the flow of activities, not of materials. The equivalent material flows (i.e. the
arisings of C&DW streams) are shown in Figure 4.3. Comparing Figures 4.2 and 4.3 shows
which 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 policy
initiatives, 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 greatest
attention should be focused.
4.7 After the structure has been demolished it is normally possible to remove further steel (or
possibly wooden) beams which were part of the basic structure (and therefore could not be
removed previously). By using heavy duty mechanical ‘scissor’ crushers (described in Annex
13) to break open reinforced concrete members, some of the steel reinforcing bars can also
be 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 is
predominantly made up of concrete, bricks, some ceramic materials and (possibly) gypsum. If
this is not required on site for engineering fill or landscaping (thereby avoiding transporting
onto the site primary aggregates or other clean soil), then it can be mechanically crushed and
sorted.
4.9 This waste stream can be further treated using a mechanical (‘jaw’ or impact) crusher and
sorter. 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 or
recycling centres) and larger fixed machines (which are more likely to incorporate more
sophisticated sorting technology which can remove further remaining traces of other wastes
through a variety of techniques, including air sorting and washing). We describe a ‘state of
the 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, and
depends 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 and
other treatment and disposal sites.
4.11 In practice, the answer will tend to reflect national and local practice and licensing (including
land 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 likely
that 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-site
crushing and sorting facilities. These factors have been brought to our attention and/or
confirmed on the basis of existing knowledge during discussions with operators of C&DW
recycling facilities.
Figure 4.4: Pros and Cons of On- and Off-Site Crushing and Sorting
Advantages of on-site crushing and Disadvantages of on-site crushing and sorting:
sorting: • conflicts between site operations and space
• lower materials handling and demands for materials and machinery
transport costs • higher machinery operating costs per tonne
• lower machinery capital costs of C&DW
• less transport disruption to • more local noise and dust nuisance
surrounding areas (if recycled • less flexibility about where/when recycled
materials can be used on-site) materials can be used
• construction may be delayed
Advantages of off-site crushing and Disadvantages of off-site crushing and sorting:
sorting: • proper control of demolition process
• easier to reduce and/or mitigate essential (to avoid arrival of unknown quality
adverse environmental impacts on materials)
surrounding areas • higher materials handling and transport costs
• more practical to use a wider range • higher machinery capital costs
of higher capacity equipment
• fixed costs of recycling the site (land etc)
• lower machinery operating costs per
tonne of C&DW
• easier to control quality of recycled
materials
• possible to hold stocks, thereby
making positive marketing of
recycled materials easier
4.13 The point about quality control (in the lower left hand cell of Figure 4.4) appears to be very
important. Even in those Member States where C&DW-derived aggregates are already
relatively widely used, the main barrier to greater market acceptance appears to be potential
buyers’ doubts about their quality and consistency rather than a lack of formal standards for
recycled materials. In some countries there is now a move among C&DW-derived aggregates
producers to institute external quality verification procedures (typically involving cooperation
with an independent materials testing laboratory), thereby allowing their products to benefit
from a quality mark.
4.14 The International Recycling Federation (FIR) has recently compared some existing national
quality systems for recycled materials (including those of Germany, France, the Netherlands
and Austria), and made recommendations as to the structure which such systems should
follow. Their recommendations are summarised in Figure 4.5. In general, better product
management tends to lead to a better final product which can be used in a wider range of
applications.

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

1 - Resources • Determination of sources of • Sources might include unbound C&DW, hydraulically bound C&DW,
input materials bituminously bound C&DW, industrial by-products or incinerator bottom ash
• Avoidance of contamination/ • To be attained by selective demolition and collection of mineral and other
purity C&DW
2 - Storage • Pre-treatment storage • Raw materials should be stored separately to achieve good product quality
• Post-treatment storage • Treated materials should be stored separately according to quality classes
3 - Preparation • Achieving the required • Preparation should be carried out in such a way as to ensure that the material(s)
properties fit specified quality classes
4 - Type (quality classes) • Classification according to the • Recycled materials should be classified according to their intended use(s)
envisaged end use
5 - Engineering tests • Particle size distribution • These and any other tests should (for the time being) be conducted according to
• Frost resistance national standards
• Stiffness
• Compactability
6 - Composition • Percentage of other minerals • Other minerals would be those which differ from the main product (i.e. concrete
• Mixing ratio in asphalt granulate)
• Detrimental components • Mixing ratio gives the variability of percentages of different mineral products in
• Dangerous components the granulate mix
• Detrimental components are materials which adversely affect the mechanical
behaviour of the material
• Dangerous components are organic or inorganic contaminants which create a
risk for the environment
7 - Environmental • Leachability • For recycled materials the parameters and limit values should be defined
acceptability according to the quality class
8 - External monitoring • Determination of parameters • To be conducted by a laboratory or testing organisation licensed or recognised
and frequency of testing by the Government
9 - Internal monitoring • Determination of parameters • To be conducted by either an in-house laboratory or an external organisation
and frequency related to
volume of production and
quality classes
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 conventional
aggregates quarries, building up stocks of different specification materials which enable them
to supply larger contracts without delay. Some operators blend primary and C&DW-derived
aggregates, and there is increasing evidence of primary aggregates operators now entering
the 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 of
wood, plastic wastes and other contaminants getting into the final products are kept to an
acceptable minimum. Operators of on-site crushers are often under pressure to treat
whatever materials are placed in front of them, and to make the resultant C&DW-derived
aggregates 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 a
problem with irregular and unpredictable raw materials (which may or may not contain
hazardous or at least non-inert fractions as a result of the professionalism with which the
structure 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 third
parties) through close on-site liaison with the demolition contractor. Others rely mainly on
careful, and sometimes multiple, inspections of the incoming materials prior to and during
processing. Others simply use a central facility to deal with the waste from all their own local
demolition sites, rather than operating mobile plants at each, and do not accept any C&DW
from 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 (the
1997 AAS Seminar, May 1997, London) by representatives of Deutag Remex (now just
known as Remex), the leading German operator of C&DW recycling centres, and on technical
information 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 proxy
for ‘state of the art’ technology. Remex do not act as demolition contractors, but accept
C&DW from many such contractors.
4.20 The incoming inert fraction is weighed and inspected, and placed onto one of a series of
separate 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 a
pre-sieving process to remove the 0-45mm fraction (divided into 0-4mm and 4-45mm). The
remaining material then goes to an impact crusher (see below). Material coming out of the
impact crusher passes through a magnetic separator to remove ferrous metals before being
sieved to divide it into 0-45mm and >45mm. The >45mm fraction is placed onto a temporary
stockpile 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 mixes
defined 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 more
consistent and predictable aggregate, with sharper edges on the individual granules. Impact
crushers use a high speed rotor inside a container into which the material to be crushed is
fed. There are typically four or six ‘hammer plates’ mounted on the rotor which break the
material against ‘face plates’ set at operator-determined positions on the inner surface of the
container (see Annex 13 for an illustration). The ‘cutting’ action is very like that on a
conventional 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 of
wear 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 to
the others, producing a ‘chewing’ action which grinds the material into progressively smaller
pieces as it passes towards the narrow end. Material is fed in at the wide end (the top), and
falls out at the narrow end (see Annex 13 for an illustration). The narrow end can be set to a
range 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 much
depends on the use to which the crushed material will be put. Impact crushers produce an
aggregate with a smaller range of sizes, and although they are substantially cheaper to buy
on a size-for-size basis, their running costs are much higher, particularly with very hard
materials like some reinforced concretes. In general impact crushers tend to be designed for
higher 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 higher
processing capacities, and to be provided with hydraulic legs rather than crawler tracks or
wheels.
4.26 The throughput achieved with recycled aggregates can be as low as half of that achieved with
primary materials, and seldom exceeds three quarters of the nominal output. Performance is
better 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 described
above, the 0-45mm fraction can be passed through an air classifier, washed, passed through
a 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 oversize
materials (which are more common with ‘jaw’ crushers than with impact crushers) can be sent
back to the crusher for re-processing.
4.28 In the Remex system, mixed C&DW is generally subjected to hand sorting even before it is
screened and passed through a magnetic separator for the first time. This is followed by
further manual (or in some cases automated) sorting to remove plastics, paper, wood and
other non-ferrous metal wastes.
4.29 The mixed C&DW is then passed through a ‘jaw’ crusher and magnetic separator before
being passed through an air separator which removes light materials (small pieces of paper
and plastics which escaped the earlier sorting processes and the 0-4mm fraction of the inert
material. The 4-45mm fraction can then be sieved or screened, as with the brick, tile and
concrete waste (see above).
4.30 Some recycling centres also have wood processing plants or composting facilities. Even
without these facilities, the equipment plus necessary infrastructure described above costs
roughly 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 to
invest in noise and dust controls, including buildings to contain some of the equipment. This
will 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 Chassis with Associated Equipment
Key: 1 1a
1 Feed hopper, with
extension (1a)
and ‘grizzly’ feeder (1b)
3
2 By-pass chute 6 8 7 7a
3 ‘Jaw’ crusher
4 Belt protection plate
5 Main conveyor, with hydraulic
controls (5a) and reinforced belt (5b)
6 Magnetic separator
7 Engine unit, with generator (7a)
8 Fuel and oil tanks
9 Tracks
5
5b
9 4 5a 2 1b
Acknowledgement: The illustration above is
reproduced by kind permission of Nordberg

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 will
find 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 uncertainty
is inevitably associated with processes such as controlled explosions, but computer controlled
systems 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 governments
to encourage C&DW re-use and recycling. These have included research, development, pilot
and demonstration projects on selective demolition and written guidance (including training
materials) 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 this
regard are Germany, the UK, France, the Netherlands, Belgium and the Scandinavian
countries.
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 speakers
of several other Member States) have recently been published by ADEME and CIRIA
respectively. Both of these references can be found in Annex 10, along with many other
technical references.
4.36 Although many of the references in Annex 10 are in English, we have included some others
on topics of particular interest (such as selective demolition) in other languages (such as
Catalan).
4.37 Given the complexity of the selective demolition process it is not well suited to regulation by
conventional legislation. It is notable that several Member States (including Germany, the
Netherlands, 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 insulation
foams, 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. This
information 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’ sites
are dealt with above in Chapter 4.
5.2 One major difference between construction waste and demolition waste is that the
construction 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 plan
with some confidence for the management of all waste flows. Only ground conditions
represent an area of potential surprise.
5.3 The construction manager needs to maintain sufficient stocks of materials to enable work to
go 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 is
still dependent on the weather, because when one site can boost its work rate and therefore
wants extra supplies, so can all others in the area.
5.4 Building sites are also messy places with difficult working conditions, particularly at the early
stages of construction. Some damage to building materials (as well as some mixing and/or
contamination) inevitably occurs, which both generates some waste and reinforces the need
for 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 site
management practices, in that efficient storage facilities, good stock control, proper training
of the labour force and effective control of sub-contractors can reduce damage and reduce
over-ordering. Having an internal accounting systems which enables undamaged surplus
materials to be returned to the supplier or transferred to another site would also help. A
surprisingly large volume of good quality construction materials goes to landfill as mixed
waste.
5.7 Part-used gas bottles (from welding and cutting gear), sealants, paints and other similar items
also 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 a
material on site. ‘Intermediate’ wastes would also include products like waste oil which are
generated 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 France
and reported in a study for ADEME (see Annex 10, Ref 7.1) estimated that the volume of
packaging waste which arises on construction sites represents about 2% of the total waste
arising from construction and rehabilitation sites, and much more when the inert fraction of
C&DW is excluded.
5.10 Of the 296,000 tonnes of packaging waste in the ADEME survey, 42% was wood, 24% was
metal, 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) has
resulted 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 to
handling) is consistent across the different documents, the details and the style varies
considerably.
5.13 Similar best practice guidelines have been published in most other Member States, and
details 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 just
construction 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 practice
on 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 collected
through questionnaires issued to Project Group members in 1993 and 1995. Where
appropriate, this was supplemented by published data. Inclusion of these materials in the
Project Group’s report was stated not to imply “... any judgement as to their significance but
was determined by the replies to the questionnaires ...”. It was included in that report as
Appendix 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 and
federations that had contributed to that report to identify any new material or research. A
considerable amount of new information has been produced on gypsum recycling. This is
brought together in the proceedings from Eurogypsum’s XXII Congress in the Hague in May
1998 (see Annex 10, Ref 3.2). An important finding of that work is that recycling can only
work 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 collection
points which can attract enough material to make regular collection worthwhile, and distances
between collection points and the processing centre which are short enough to keep transport
costs down).
5.18 A third source of information on a very wide range of secondary and recycled materials will
become available in mid-1999 when CIRIA publish ‘The Reclaimed and Recycled
Construction 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 the
approach of the UK construction industry to using reclaimed and recycled materials and on
the available materials (including products) themselves.


6. PROCESSES AND BEST PRACTICE GUIDANCE: ROAD MAINTENANCE AND
CONSTRUCTION
Road maintenance processes
Introductory remarks
6.1 Road reconstruction has conventionally consisted of the excavation of existing materials, and
their 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 for
disposal. There are therefore two sets of transport-related environmental impacts. The
recycling of existing materials can result in both cost savings and reduced environmental
impacts compared to conventional techniques.
6.2 Although the recycling of road by-products shares many overlapping theoretical
considerations with more mainstream C&DW re-use and recycling, the context within which it
occurs, the processes used, and the very particular nature of the bituminous surfacing used
on most roads, are so specific and individual that road recycling should be considered
separately from other C&DW recycling and from new road construction using recycled
materials.
6.3 The two principal techniques are known as in situ and ex situ recycling. These are briefly
discussed below, but any interested reader should refer to a 1997 report (see Annex 10, Ref
1.2.1) from the OECD entitled ‘Recycling strategies for road works’ which reviews the
techniques 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 (see
Annex 10, Ref 3.3, which show just how much material is currently used on Europe’s roads
and 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 Cold Bituminous Bitumen Consumption
Production 1997 Mixes 1997 in the Road Industry
1997
Germany 65,000 n/a 2,680
UK 27,500 n/a 1,810
France 38,600 1,500 2,900
Italy 39,800 n/a 1,950
Spain 23,900 1,450 1,320
Netherlands 7,900 26 330
Belgium 4,600 0 220
Austria 6,100 50 320
Portugal 8,100 240 580
Denmark 3,500 24 180
Greece 5,200 2 370
Sweden 5,300 700 320
Finland 3,800 1,000 250
Ireland 2,400 120 210
Luxembourg n/a n/a n/a
EU-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 tonnes)
Member State Material Available % Used in Warm % of New Production
for Recycling Recycling Containing Reclaimed
Materials
Germany 15,000 80 18
UK ≈5,000 n/a 10
France >1,000 ≈25 <3
Italy 1,200 50 5
(1)
Spain 700 n/a n/a
Netherlands 3,000 50 20
Belgium ≈1,500 10-40 15
Austria 500 25 5
Portugal 67 n/a n/a
Denmark 160 67 37
Greece 600 n/a n/a
Sweden 900 8 2
Finland 300 50 5-10
Ireland n/a n/a n/a
EU-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 the
reprocessing of the existing road construction materials and the incorporation of a binder
material. This requires several passes of specialised machinery. The technique has been
used extensively in the Scandinavian countries. A 50km stretch of the main highway between
Zaragoza and Lérida (in Spain) was renovated in this way as a trial. In some other Member
States (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 course
and 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 using
conventional equipment;
(iv) the surface is sealed with bitumen and grit as preparation for the laying of a new
wearing course.
6.7 Before the process begins, core samples are taken from the existing road pavement to
enable the depth of treatment and type and percentage of binder to be determined. Following
the first pass of the rotary pulveriser, material often has be removed in order to allow a new
wearing course to be put into place without adversely affecting the final level of the road
surface.
6.8 The binders used in the process are generally cement, mixes of cement and lime, fly ash or
foamed 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 raised
again.
6.11 The time saving benefits were quantified on one trial project in the UK where the existing
road surface was badly degraded. Using conventional methods it was estimated that the road
would have to be closed for a month, whereas using in situ recycling it was closed to the
majority of traffic for just five days, and buses and essential local traffic were able to continue
using the road throughout. The total duration of the works, including lowering and reinstating
manhole covers, was approximately eight days.
Ex situ recycling
6.12 Ex situ recycling involves the excavation and removal of existing road construction materials
to a stockpile, from where it is processed by grading and mixing with appropriate binders prior
to being re-compacted to form the new road.
6.13 The ex situ approach allows greater control over material quality than in situ recycling (see
above), and more engineering control during the construction operation. It more easily
provides a consistent construction material which experience has shown to be suitable for
heavily 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 in
a 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 impacts
and 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, crushed
concrete 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 production
of 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 conventional
plant and equipment;
(xi) secondary aggregates (such as fly ash) can be incorporated into the new road, further
reducing the need for primary aggregates.
6.15 Where indigenous aggregates are of poor quality, a specialist proprietary binder can be used
in the recycling process. Such an approach has been widely used for a number of years in
Canada.
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 be
stated with some confidence that where C&DW-derived aggregates are not accepted by the
relevant highway authorities (as is the case with both JAE and BRISA, the major highway
authority and toll motorway operator respectively in Portugal) there will be little or no C&DW
recycling.
6.17 The same OECD report as was mentioned above (see Annex 10, Ref 1.2.1) deals with the
use of a wide range of waste and recycled materials, including C&DW-derived aggregates. As
it points out they are used primarily as sub-base material and in embankments and as general
engineering fill. Although a relatively low grade use, this nevertheless avoids the need to
quarry significant volumes of primary materials.
6.18 Annex 10 contains a large number of references related to road reconstruction and
construction using recycled materials.

7.
7.1

Report to DGXI, European Commission
CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE

MANAGEMENT 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 AND

RECYCLING SITES
5. PROCESSES AND BEST PRACTICE GUIDANCE: CONSTRUCTION SITES
6. PROCESSES AND BEST PRACTICE GUIDANCE: ROAD MAINTENANCE AND

CONSTRUCTION
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 given
in Annex 5, together with explanatory notes where relevant. It is anticipated that better data
for Germany in particular will be made available during 1999. Figure 7.1 summarises the
main figures from Annex 5.
7.2 What we have sought to do in Figure 7.1 is to concentrate attention on ‘core’ C&DW (as
defined in Annex 13), keeping the estimates for soil and road planings separate from the
principal 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 is
in declining order of estimated ‘core’ C&DW arisings.
7.3 The German figures are very much broad order estimates, and pre-date the more recent
measures introduced by the government to stimulate the recycling of C&DW (as described in
Chapter 8 and Annex 6).
7.4 The UK figure is based on a survey of treatment and disposal facilities in selected areas of
the country, and therefore involves some interpretation and estimation, as explained in Annex
5. The recycling rate would have been boosted, perhaps significantly, if estimates of on-site
re-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 de
Chantiers 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 engineering
structures), and the data provided are therefore an underestimate of the total. It is also
understood that the estimate for building demolition waste will be revised upwards by almost
8 million tonnes to 32 million tonnes: an increase of 36%. If this figure was raised by a further
33%-50% (as a broad order estimate for the contribution of civil engineering waste), it would
produce a per capita figure very similar to those reported in much of the rest of northern
Europe (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 this
and 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 240
kg/person/year in Haute Normandie and Limousin. Details can be found in Annex 5. A
separate report arising from a Brite-EuRam project (see Annex 10, Ref 2.1) notes that 22 of
France’s roughly 50 fixed C&DW recycling plants are in Ile de France, with the rest located in
Nord-Pas de Calais (around Lille), Alsace (around Strasbourg) and Rhône-Alpes (to the south
east of Lyon).
7.8 Although the pattern is not entirely consistent, the general finding - for France - is that
arisings are highest (or at least more likely to be recorded) in more densely populated urban
areas.
7.9 A similar pattern can be seen in Italy, though in this case arisings appear to be more closely
correlated 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 main
exception to this ‘rule’ is the Lazio region (including Roma), where arisings are surprisingly
modest, at 260 kg/person/year.

Figure 7.1: Best Estimates for C&DW Arisings (million tonnes)
Country Year of Concrete, Other Sub-total Population - ‘Core’ Country’s Cumulative Soil, Road planings Total
statistics brick, tiles ‘Core’ (‘Core’ millions C&DW (kg/ ‘Core’ C&DW % of EU-15 stones etc. (mainly
(or etc (inert) C&DW C&DW) (1997) person/yr) as % of EU-15 ‘Core’ asphalt)
estimate) C&DW
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 will
rise 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, being
almost entirely accounted for by waste from renovation sites. This reflects the downturn in
both construction and demolition in Italy in recent years (see Annexes 3-6), this downturn
having a strong political component (in that politicians have become increasingly unwilling to
authorise public works in response to the corruption scandals and prosecutions of recent
years). The French industry has also gone through a period of painful retrenchment since
1990, 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 of
national data, we have used an estimated average per capita arising of 325 kg/person/year to
generate a figure of 12.8 million tonnes of ‘core’ C&DW arisings per year. The figure of 325
kg was obtained by averaging 375 and 275 kg which the Catalan government reckons are the
per capita arisings of C&DW in urban and rural areas of Catalonia respectively. These figures
appear in ‘Decret 201/1994’ which regulates C&DW in Catalonia.
7.12 Although population densities and construction methods are broadly similar in Spain and
France, controls on C&DW disposal are significantly less stringent in Spain, and none of the
Spanish cities can rival Paris in terms of size. As mentioned above, French per capita
arisings 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 over
80% of total ‘core’ C&DW arisings.
7.14 The Dutch figures are derived from relatively reliable surveys and records, and have been
widely quoted for several years. By contrast the Belgian data rely heavily on expert opinion
and 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 used
the same per capita estimate (325 kg/person/year) as in Spain, and applied it to the
Portuguese population. The population data (see Annex 11) are from Eurostat, and refer to
1997. Portugal’s construction industry, like Spain’s, has been extremely active in recent
years, especially in the redevelopment of the more densely populated areas of Lisbon and
Porto.
7.16 The Danish data are based on a very reliable survey, albeit one that uses transport notes as
its main source, thereby possibly under-recording arisings which are re-used on the original
site. The Greek figure comes from official sources.
7.17 The main comment to be made about Sweden and Finland concerns the extremely low levels
of 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 other
reflects their very different population densities, the relative buoyancy of their construction
industries (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) is
based on official statistics and best estimates, while the total for Luxembourg has been
derived in exactly the same way as the estimates for Spain and Portugal (see above), but
using an estimate of 700kg for per capita arisings (which is very similar to the German, Dutch
and Belgian figures).
7.19 Annex 5 includes information (where this is available) on the types of sites from which the
C&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&DW
Priority Waste Streams Project report regarding classification of C&DW waste streams and
the need for hazardous components of C&DW to be identified. However, no guidance was
given there on the classification of hazardous wastes within C&DW or hazardous C&DW
within 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 and
Finland 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 in
Chapter 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, and
uses to which it might be put. When collecting data on C&DW arisings we also attempted to
find out where that C&DW was going next, and for what purpose(s), using the breakdown
shown in paragraph 2.29. Although some detailed estimates (notably from the Netherlands,
Belgium, Denmark, Sweden and Finland) were provided, we eventually opted to group the
destinations/uses under four categories (re-use, recycling, incineration and landfilling). The
results 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 overlap
between our original 10 categories, and confusion over, for example, what constitutes high
and low value uses. A case in point would be landscaping: is this recycling or merely
disposal? The answer very much depends on the point of view of the person making the
distinction, and whether they consider that the landscaping (or noise bunding) is necessary or
fortuitous.
7.25 As a general rider it should be made clear that many of the C&DW statistics which are
available are approximations and/or estimates. There is often some uncertainty as to what is
included in the totals and what is not, and the collection methods vary from Member State to
Member State. As reported in Chapter 2, a joint Member State, DGXI and Eurostat statistical
expert working group is currently investigating this very topic. Feedback from that working
group can be found in Annex 8.
7.26 The five most important shortcomings which we identified relative to the idealised target for
breakdown which we set ourselves, and our comments on the significance of those
shortcomings, are summarised in Figure 7.2.
Recycling facilities in each Member State
7.27 Figure 7.3 brings together our best available estimates of the numbers of fixed C&DW
recycling centres and mobile C&DW crushing and sorting plants. Fixed C&DW recycling
centres in this context means places where bulky demolition waste, and particularly concrete
waste, is received, crushed, stored and sold. It does not include centres which deal with other
individual 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 in
practice are apparent. Portugal and Greece have virtually no crushers, while the numbers of
crushers 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 almost The lack of distinction between different site types - other than the
universal lack of distinction between building sites and road construction/renovation
knowledge concerning sites - is not critical. It falls under the heading of information which
the breakdown of would be useful to know (because it distinguishes between
arisings between demolition and renovation waste), but is not essential. The
different site types. relationships between different site types and the activities involved
in demolition and construction are illustrated in Chapter 2, Figure
2.3.
2 There is virtually no This may be very difficult to remedy, because it should not be
information on the necessary for a purchaser to declare the use to which he intends to
uses to which C&DW put a product when completing a straightforward commercial
is put. transaction. However, this lack of data makes an informed dialogue
difficult.
3 Demolition materials The lack (in some cases) of data on materials which are crushed
which are crushed on and re-used on the original site is of some concern, because this
site and re-used there can amount to a significant proportion of the most voluminous
may well not be single material flow: crushed concrete, bricks, tiles, ceramics and
recorded at all. gypsum-based materials. Records based on transport movements
or on disposal at licensed landfill sites will tend to under-record this
element of C&DW.
4 There are On some sites very large volumes of contaminated soil are moved
considerable around with or without some form of treatment. If recorded these
uncertainties over volumes can easily distort the overall C&DW figures, so our general
how soil is dealt with rule has been to seek to include contaminated soils which arise
in the statistics. directly as a result of construction or demolition activities, but to
ignore soils contaminated by industrial (or mining etc.) activities
which are being cleaned up as part of a wider urban regeneration
process. We also ignore uncontaminated soil and rocks displaced
as a result of civil engineering works (such as tunnelling).
5 Very little attention The lack of information on construction (as opposed to demolition)
has been paid so far waste is not critical. The waste flows concerned are believed to be
to the collection of small in comparison with demolition wastes, and are susceptible to
statistics on considerable reductions simply through the application of good site
construction waste. management practices, which have been identified and documented
in various instances.
(Figure 7.3 follows on the next page)

Figure 7.3: Fixed and Mobile C&DW Crushing & Sorting Plants
Member Total no. Comments
State (est)
Germany Up to Better data expected in 1999. This estimate (from the Bundesverband
1,000 der Deutschen Recycling-Baustoff-Industrie) appears high. The
6
quantity of C&DW recycled is estimated at 8x10 t/year, but the Brite-
EuRam report estimates a typical crushing plant to have a capacity of
about 120,000 t/year but an actual throughput of only 40,000 t/year.
UK Perhaps This estimate is the study team’s own. A total of >360 crushers are
50-100 licensed, but this includes all quarry crushers. On this basis, typical
C&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 Probably The number of specialist C&DW recyclers with fixed plants is
60-110 estimated not to exceed 10. The other 50-100 are small mobile
crushers.
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&DW
6
recycling centres. Total capacity 16.25x10 t/year (i.e. average
capacity around 135,000 t/year).
Belgium 92 80 crushers/recyclers with a capacity of 5x106 t/year & 40 sorting
facilities in Flanders. None in Brussels. 12 recycling plants in Wallonia
6
with a capacity of 0.9x10 t/year.
Austria 150 Total capacity 5x106 t/year, typical throughput 20,000 t/year, so plants
are operating at around 60% capacity. Crushers roughly 2:1
fixed:mobile.
Portugal n/a Few if any crushers.
Denmark About 30 Total crushing capacity estimated at about 3x106 t/year, with a typical
throughput 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 about
25,000 t/year.
Finland 10 Refers to concrete/masonry collection facilities, number of fixed/mobile
crushers not known.
Ireland <8 <6 mobile, 2 fixed in preparation.
Luxembourg n/a No data were received from Luxembourg.
EU-15 About Typical capacity 100,000 t/year per crusher, but most machines
1,500 operating 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 AND
DEMOLITION WASTE
The range of measures
8.1 The report of the C&DW Priority Waste Streams Project recommended (in its
“Member States and their ‘competent authorities’ for waste management planning should
consider the following options when assessing the measures necessary to improve the
management of construction and demolition wastes. The measures adopted should avoid
distorting the market and lead to demonstrable environmental benefit. The options available
include, 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 used
the 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 permit
future 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 contractors
and 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 reported
at 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 Member
State 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 we
have attempted to avoid repetition in the way our findings are reported in both Figure 8.1 and
Annex 6. We have also attempted to summarise which of the various measures are
considered 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 the
cost-effectiveness of the various measures, some themes do emerge on the subject of their
more general relative effectiveness.
8.6 The main theme to emerge is that no single measure can work in isolation (and the fact that
most Member States have several measures operating in parallel makes it effectively
impossible for us - or them - to estimate or measure the cost-effectiveness of any single
measure).
8.7 Before C&DW recycling can be expected to reach significant levels there appear to be four
conditions which must be met, as follows:
(i) landfills must be well managed, and ‘fly tipping’ of waste must be uncommon and
subject 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 avoid
contamination 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 similarly
interested ‘actors’) that suitably prepared C&DW-derived aggregates may be used to
displace primary aggregates. Positive action to draw up technical standards is not
essential, but C&DW-derived aggregates should not be discriminated against on the
basis of their origins alone.
8.8 We conclude that if any of these four conditions is not met, then that Member State or region
will find it effectively impossible to progress beyond the simplest level of recycling of inert
C&DW, because even basic crushing and sorting technology will be hard to justify in parts of
the territory concerned. More complex technology capable of dealing with mixed and
contaminated 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 we
mean 75% or above of ‘core’ C&DW being recycled in most regions) is likely to be achieved
only if some form of ban on landfilling C&DW is imposed and enforced, or if a requirement is
put in place that all C&DW must be separated with each stream being directed to some form
of re-use or recovery operation. Doing this would effectively remove the second condition
from 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 on
primary aggregates would not on its own achieve high recycling rates under all
circumstances, because the tax would have to be set at politically unacceptable levels before
it changed the behaviour of engineers and demolition contractors in areas with easy access to
landfills (or quarries). Varying the tax rate to match local conditions would create considerable
distortions 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 choice
whether 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 that
demolition contractors receive clear price signals that encourage them to separate the
different waste streams, and then to recycle as many fractions as possible. It appears highly
unlikely to us that those Member States with a less well-established tradition of technical
waste management would succeed in boosting recycling rates simply by raising landfill
charges significantly. This would be more likely to divert waste away from managed disposal
towards totally unregulated ‘fly tipping’.
8.12 Those Member States which have achieved most by way of C&DW recycling have also run
extensive research, pilot and demonstration projects in the past. It is not so obvious that (with
the possible exception of demonstration projects) other Member States need to repeat this
process, because the accumulated experience is extensive and overlapping. Exceptions to
this statement would include research into:
(i) selective demolition and processing of those construction materials (such as glass
and 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 the
manufacturing and construction stages, but which create problems at the point of
demolition 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 tackling
otherwise intractable problems.
8.14 A study for DGIII and DGXI in 1995 (see Annex 10, Ref 2.4) found that, in general, the
Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries, Germany and Austria have made the greatest use
of VAs. Where complying with a code of good practice (or similar) involves the companies
concerned in additional costs, most other Member States have found that problems with ‘free
riders’ have undermined the VAs, and they have often opted for conventional legislation
instead. Exceptions to this rule, where VAs have worked even in Member States where there
is no great tradition of such measures, are where there is a clear objective, a few companies
of a similar size, and a forum to encourage compliance (such as a fully representative and
motivated trade association).
8.15 Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Denmark and Sweden have also done most to require
separation of C&DW streams and to discourage ‘inappropriate’ landfilling. All have done so
by ‘command and control’ regulations rather than by using price signals alone, though their
landfill charges (including landfill taxes where they apply) are generally higher than in other
Member 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&DW
management plan to the local authority before they are given permission to demolish a
building 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 speed
precludes any serious attempt at selective demolition. Because circumstances vary so much
from place to place, we believe that any requirement for such plans should be administered
locally rather than nationally, though within a national policy framework which acknowledges
the value of such plans.
8.17 A number of Member States are using EU funding to encourage wider provision of C&DW
processing and recycling centres, and to operate demonstration projects. This is likely to
continue to be a valuable method of encouraging best practice in Member States with little or
no 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 and
France
Measure EU-15 Germany UK France

1. Restrictions or bans on Restrictions on the disposal of mixed Mixed or recoverable C&DW may not be None specific to C&DW. No C&DW specific restriction or bans
disposal C&DW increasing. landfilled. From 1st July 2002, installations for the
elimination of wastes by storage will not be
authorised to receive other than ultimate
wastes.
2. Mono landfill (for Very limited. Some, for inert waste and/or soils. None specific to C&DW. No requirements for C&DW.
possible future recovery)
3. Other environmental or No common theme. Landfill Directive will Disposal sites tightly controlled, re-use Disposal sites tightly controlled, re-use None relating to C&DW.
planning controls raise disposal costs and encourage re-use sites less so. Destination of C&DW has to sites less so. Conditions can be attached
and recycling. be documented from 1.1.1999. System to planning consents. C&DW crushers
differs for inert/hazardous wastes. need licences or process authorisations
4. Taxes (landfill and others) Landfill taxes becoming more widely used. No federal tax or levy. 5 Länder tried to Landfill tax since 10/96. Lower rate for Non-inert wastes are taxed (ADEME tax)
impose levies on waste incineration and inert wastes. Volume landfilled has on disposal.
disposal generally but this power was declined. An aggregates tax is presently
overturned in the courts. There are being considered by the government.
different prices for landfilling according to
the hazardousness of the waste.
5. Subsidies Few direct subsidies. No direct subsidies. Regional assistance grants can be used None.
towards the purchase of C&DW crushers.
6. Positive waste planning Waste management planning widespread, There is an obligation to draw up waste General waste management planning is National guidance and encouragement is
measures targets for increasing re-use and recycling management plans. The 1996 Closed required. becoming more evident.
and reducing disposal increasingly Cycle & Waste Act requires recycling National Government encourages local
common. where possible and economic. authorities to take a positive stance.
7. R&D support Widely used. Various programmes for contaminated Various R&D programmes. Extensive R&D programmes.
soils, use of recycled materials and
selective demolition.
8. Pilot and demonstration Much accumulated knowledge available. Some projects including selective A few specific projects. Mainly restricted to road construction, but
schemes demolition projects. some housing.
9. Voluntary Agreements Patchy use. National and local VAs to encourage None. None.
separation, re-use and recycling.
10. Education and training Widely provided, but generally not specific Part of VA. Part of general waste management Training for contractors and individuals
to C&DW. training. Handbook of best practice available.
available. Handbook encouraging re-use
and recycling in construction imminent
11. Advisory services Patchy availability. Part of VA. Part of the trial Aggregates Advisory Commercial and not-for-profit services.
Service. Information only.
12. Waste exchanges Limited at present but increasing in use - National and regional Internet-based National Internet-based exchange. None.
particularly Internet-based systems. exchange schemes for inert materials.
13. Other measures Few identified. Return systems for PVC products. Policy advocacy. None.
Some local authorities give preference to
recycled C&DW.
Most effective measure(s) Combination of measures, particularly Combination of measures. Combination of measures, but landfill tax
restrictions on disposal and high disposal most significant.
costs.

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 Belgium

1. Restrictions or bans on Few restrictions on any wastes. Much None specific to C&DW. Much C&DW National ban on landfilling of reusable In Brussels, only contaminated C&DW
disposal C&DW is ‘fly tipped’. goes to small, unregulated landfills. C&DW since 1/97. may be landfilled (but there are no landfills
in Brussels). In Flanders a ban on mixed
waste landfilling started in 07/98. In
Wallonia restrictions are less.
2. Mono landfill (for No requirements for C&DW. No requirements for C&DW. No requirements regarding C&DW but No requirements for C&DW.
possible future recovery) contaminated sludge must go to mono
landfill.
3. Other environmental or Controls are exercised by the Regional, Controls are exercised by the Regional, Demolition contractors need licences and None relating to C&DW.
planning controls Provincial and Municipal authorities. Provincial and Municipal authorities. Much are required to separate C&DW streams.
selective demolition and C&DW recycling
is informal.
4. Taxes (landfill and others) There is a landfill tax of 20 Lire/kg None. Levies vary by region rather than by Landfill taxes higher in Flanders (9.5
(approximately ECU10/tonne). material. ECU/t) than in Wallonia (3.75 ECU/t). In
Flanders a lower rate can apply to residual
fractions of processed C&DW.
5. Subsidies None. The EU’s LIFE programme has been used Public projects offer bonuses for using Walloon government has invested in
to susidise initiatives on C&DW recycling. C&DW-derived aggregates. public/private C&DW recycling centres.
6. Positive waste planning Some municipalities have started to take Waste planning is a Regional National Government encourages Regional plans with quantified targets are
measures positive initiatives to encourage C&DW responsibility. Catalonia, Madrid and the recycling schemes and provides guidance in place.
recycling. Basque Country have taken steps to for local policy makers and regulators on
develop C&DW planning. best practice.
7. R&D support Some limited R&D programmes have been R&D has been mainly concerned with road Various R&D programmes. Various R&D projects.
mounted. (re)construction. CEDEX is the key
organization.
8. Pilot and demonstration [To be checked] A few road projects. Madrid’s C&DW Several substantial projects. Several substantial projects over an
schemes recycling centre will be a demonstration extended period.
project.
9. Voluntary Agreements None. There are no national VA’s relating to National VAs involve demolition Regional VAs in Flanders and Wallonia
C&DW. contractors, aluminium and glass involve contractors and recyclers.
industries.
10. Education and training None specific to C&DW. None specific to C&DW. No national programmes specific to All regions run educational programmes.
C&DW.
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 still
active.
12. Waste exchanges To be checked. None. None. Internet-based service in Flanders and
national (non-Internet) service - both for
general 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 Greece

1. Restrictions or bans on There is an obligation to sort and recycle Few restrictions on any wastes. Much No explicit ban, but municipalities are None.
disposal C&DW above specified thresholds. C&DW is ‘fly tipped’. obliged by law to assign C&DW which
cannot be recycled, but which can be
burned, to incineration.
2. Mono landfill (for Some C&DW-specific landfills. No mono landfills available to C&DW. For limited waste streams. No mono landfills available to C&DW.
possible future recovery)
3. Other environmental or Disposal sites tightly controlled, re-use Effectively none. Any C&DW recycling that C&DW centres need licences. Few, if any.
planning controls sites less so. takes place is unregulated.
4. Taxes (landfill and others) No tax, but rates for disposal of C&DW None. Landfill and incineration tax since 1987. None.
fixed nationally. Lower rates for incineration. The extraction
of gravel is taxed.
5. Subsidies None. None. No direct subsidies. None.
6. Positive waste planning National waste plan is periodically updated. No specific planning for C&DW has been National targets must be acted on by local Only preliminary plans have so far been
measures developed so far. authorities. developed for C&DW.
Municipalities are responsible for ensuring
that sufficient treatment capacity is
available.
7. R&D support Some R&D projects. Research under way to establish levels of Large number of projects. Not known.
C&DW arisings.
Technical R&D has included road
(re)construction using secondary
aggregates, excluding C&DW.
8. Pilot and demonstration Some projects. A demonstration project to recycle Several substantial projects. Not known.
schemes concrete on the Expo’98 site was
proposed, but was abandoned due to
concerns about its hazardous content.
9. Voluntary Agreements National VA to increase recovery of None. National VA on selective demolition None.
C&DW. involving demolition contractors.
10. Education and training Training schemes available. None specific to C&DW. Specific C&DW management training Not known.
courses are offered.
11. Advisory services Recycling Federation provides advisory None. Two main national private sector services. Not known.
service.
12. Waste exchanges National Internet-based scheme recently None. Conventional market for C&DW products. Limited conventional market for C&DW.
established.
13. Other measures None. None. Some local authorities give preference to None known.
recycled C&DW.
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 Luxembourg
Measure Sweden Finland Ireland Luxembourg

1. Restrictions or bans on Combustible wastes will be banned from None specific to C&DW. Generally the same as other wastes. Not known.
disposal landfills from 2002, and organic wastes However, landfills may only accept C&DW
from 2005. if their licence specifies it as an allowable
waste stream.
2. Mono landfill (for Yes. None specific to C&DW. Emphasis on There are no mono landfills available to Not known.
possible future recovery) waste soils. C&DW in Ireland.
3. Other environmental or A demolition plan must be lodged before All landfills, recycling centres and Disposal sites are increasingly tightly Not known.
planning controls buildings are demolished. This must transporters are licensed and checked. controlled.
address hazardous waste streams in Many local authorities set charges
particular. specifically to encourage recycling.
Demolition must be supervised by a
suitably qualified person.
Counties and Municipalities issue waste
plans.
4. Taxes (landfill and others) A tax on aggregates (gravel) already exists. Since 01/98 C&DW landfilled with None. Not known.
A landfill tax is expected to be introduced municipal waste is subject to a tax of 90
in 1999. FIM/tonne + VAT (ECU19/t).
5. Subsidies None. None. The EU’s ERDF is being used to support Not known.
Ireland’s first two C&DW recycling centres
at Ballyeally and Ballyfermot.
6. Positive waste planning The National Road Authority has a target Since 01/98 C&DW is supposed to be Local Authority waste plans are required to Not known.
measures of 90% for recycling road materials by sorted. consider C&DW recycling. Dublin has
2000. National plan (with targets) and regional already done so.
plans exist.
Landfills and treatment centres are getting
larger.
7. R&D support A large number of projects. A large number of projects. See “Subsidies” above. Not known.
8. Pilot and demonstration Several substantial projects. Several projects, notably since 1996. A 1996 pilot project at Ballyeally (see Not known.
schemes above) demonstrated that C&DW-derived
aggregates can meet National Road
Specifications.
9. Voluntary Agreements National VA covers better practice, No C&DW-specific VA, but packaging VA None. Not known.
reduced landfilling, certification of C&DW includes construction materials packaging.
specialists.
10. Education and training Specific C&DW-related courses are widely Emphasis is on construction site A training scheme including C&DW has Not known.
available. management and general waste recently been launched (June 1998).
management.
11. Advisory services Two services available. Public and private services available. None. Not known.
12. Waste exchanges Internet-based exchange available. Conventional market for C&DW, None. Not known.
Local Authorities will advise on upcoming particularly wood and metals.
demolition projects.
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 AND
DEMOLITION WASTE: PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Introductory remarks
9.1 There is a wide range of possible technical solutions which can be applied to C&DW
recycling, from simple mobile crushers for the inert fraction of C&DW right through to fully
integrated fixed C&DW recycling centres capable of dealing with the full range of C&DW
streams. None of these technical solutions are ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, though some may be
inappropriate 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 crusher Inadequate

and sieving plant ‘Level 1’ quality
control
B = A plus metal
removal and more
complex ‘Level 2’
sorting/sieving
C = B plus hand Excessively

sorting, washing expensive
plant and facilities ‘Level 3’
for other C&DW
streams (wood etc)
Inert C&DW Mixed (mainly inert) All types of C&DW
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 far
preferable to sorting wastes at a C&DW recycling centre. The justification for this statement
lies in a parallel with the waste hierarchy: just as avoidance of waste in general is preferable
to its proper management, so avoidance of mixing is preferable to its effective separation. It
is also worth noting that where we use the term ‘recycling centre’ in this Chapter, we mean
the sort of ‘state of the art’ centre described in Chapter 4 that sorts and separates as well as
processing C&DW prior to recycling. In other words, a successful C&DW recycling centre
actually 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 three
basic combinations of technologies and waste types, shown in Figure 9.1 as ‘Levels 1, 2 and
3’. These levels refer to technologies, not Member States, and in many Member States
different mixes of two or three of the levels are employed. Having said that, the illustrations
have to be drawn from real life, so different levels have to be represented by different groups
of 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 a
mixture of ‘Level 1’ and ‘Level 2’ technologies are used. The main assessment for this group
is drawn from the UK, but we also draw on examples and information from France, northern
Italy and Belgium. Finally we consider those Member States (including Germany, the
Netherlands 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 every
Member State can be fitted neatly into one of the three categories. Italy and Belgium provide
good examples of countries where different regions are at different technical levels, and
which might have been dealt with under ‘Level 1’ and ‘Level 3’ respectively.

‘Level 1’ technology
General
9.6 Most of the comments and figures that follow were obtained through discussions with Spanish
companies, but we believe they can be broadly applied to Portugal, Greece and southern Italy
as 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 (when
imposed) generally low;
(ii) primary aggregate materials are cheap;
(iii) as a consequence very few crushers are available to produce C&DW-derived

aggregates (as opposed to uncrushed engineering fill).
Spain
9.7 At present the only crushers operating in Spain are mobile ones, though some are more or
less permanently installed at fixed sites (landfills).
9.8 The most detailed studies of C&DW recycling options in Spain, including the economics of
the various processes involved, have been undertaken in Catalonia, led by the Junta de
Residus (Waste Management Board, part of the Catalan regional government). Catalonia is
the Autonomous Region of which Barcelona is the Capital. Many of the figures given below
come 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 been
used to compare the costs per tonne for different combinations of plant sizes and capacity
utilisation. Figure 9.2 presents the key findings from their study.
Figure 9.2: Total Processing Costs (in ECU/tonne) Using a Mobile Crushing Plant
Plant annual 30% utilisation 60% utilisation 100% utilisation
capacity
50,000 tonnes/yr 10.25 5.50 3.60
100,000 tonnes/yr 6.40 3.40 2.40
200,000 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 different
from each other, the two models produce a very similar result for a well-used 200,000 tonnes
a year plant. The Catalan model also illustrates very clearly the importance (in economic
terms) of matching the capacity of any crusher to the demands it faces. No business that
charged (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 600,000
tonnes/year), even though no such plants yet exist in Spain. It calculates that these plants
would be substantially more expensive than mobile crushers, with a fully utilised plant with a
capacity 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 unsubsidised
C&DW-derived aggregates for less than the 4-5 ECU/tonne that primary aggregates cost is
therefore almost impossible, unless the haul distance is very short.
9.13 In Catalonia (where a special company called Gestora de Runes has been established, with
the backing of the Junta de Residus, to operate special C&DW landfills and eventually to
recycle C&DW) the landfill gate price for inert C&DW depends on the density of the material
3
as delivered. Material with a density of <0.8 tonnes/m 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 better
on-site sorting. During 1999 Gestora de Runes plans to acquire C&DW crushers to be located
at 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 the
Barcelona harbour area. Large volumes of generally clean soil are characteristic of many
Spanish construction and redevelopment sites, due to an obligation which is placed on
developers 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 called
NAC-3) operating at a landfill site close to the city. In late 1998 it was being moved to another
site.
9.16 In Madrid the lorries that transport C&DW to landfill are typically owned and operated by
haulage contractors rather than by demolition companies, and the stiff competition which
prevails between them helps to keep transport costs relatively low. Nevertheless, given the
low price of primary aggregates and the low gate prices charged by landfills, transport costs
still comprise an important part of most equations. The typical haul distance between
demolition site and landfill in Madrid is 20km, for which haulage contractors charge about
3.00-4.00 ECU/tonne. This is a bit higher than the figure generated by the Catalan model, and
very similar to typical UK costs (see below).
9.17 Around Bilbao, where interest in C&DW recycling is also growing, landfill prices are believed
to 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 by
quarries. In the region around Madrid prices at the quarry gate are around 4.30 ECU/tonne for
materials 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 do
operate can only obtain a price of around 3.00 ECU/tonne (excluding delivery) for sub-base
quality C&DW-derived aggregates. At prices as low as these recyclers cannot afford to pay
any rent at all for land (let alone invest in more sophisticated equipment), which means they
must 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 considerations
of resource efficiency: that is to say it has been promoted as a way of reducing the need to
quarry so much primary aggregate material and as a way of reducing the need for landfill
space 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 composting
centres and some materials recovery facilities), but their geographical coverage is distinctly
uneven.
The UK
9.22 In the case of the UK the principal C&DW-derived aggregates sold are described as 1A (well
graded granular material; typically used for general fill), 6F1 (selected granular material - fine
grading; typically used for capping), 6F2 (selected granular material - coarse grading;
typically used for capping), 6N (selected well graded granular material; typically used for fill to
structures) and 6P (uniformly graded granular material; typically used for fill to structures).
These specifications are defined in ‘The Specifications for Highway Works Prepared by the
Highways 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 distance
which 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 very
similar to the Catalan cost model (see above).
9.24 For typical sub-base materials in central-southern England the delivered cost of primary
aggregate (in mid-1998) is generally around 13.75 ECU/tonne (10.15 ECU/tonne for the raw
material and 3.60 ECU/tonne for delivery), against 12.30 ECU/tonne for C&DW-derived
aggregate (8.70 and 3.60 ECU/tonne for delivery). As will be seen as prices from other
Member 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 primary
aggregates.
9.26 Quite separately from the Catalan cost model (see above), we have estimated the cost of
crushing C&DW-derived aggregates at around 2.00 ECU/tonne (see Annex 12 for details of
the 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 on
management skills and capital employed from 6.70 ECU/tonne (i.e. 8.70 ECU/tonne sale
value minus 2.00 ECU/tonne processing cost).
9.27 About 150km further west from where the above figures were assembled, there are several
stone quarries and therefore large volumes of stone off-cuts (‘scalpings’) available. As a
consequence aggregate prices based on these materials are lower, and C&DW-derived
aggregates 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 costs
in C&DW processing is to work all of the machinery involved as hard as possible. Industry
sources indicated to us that each crusher should aim to earn 1% of its capital cost per day for
4-5 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. Calculating
charges on the basis of average costs is not practical: all machinery (and labour) needs to
make the highest possible contribution to overheads, which means working as much as
possible 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 is
therefore not generally done by reference to a ‘menu’ of fees, but based on experience of
what the market will bear.
9.30 In the absence of a statutory requirement to sort and manage different C&DW streams
separately, the price of C&DW-derived aggregates is entirely market-driven. It is therefore
considerably more profitable for a demolition contractor to supply crushed concrete direct
from a demolition site to a construction site (taking advantage of potentially lower crushing
costs - see Annex 12 - and just one lorry journey) than to use a fixed crusher at a specialist
recycling centre, assuming that the quality of the aggregate processed at the demolition site
is high enough.
9.31 What fixed crushers and their associated storage facilities provide to those demolition
contractors who have them is the security of knowing that if a direct site-to-site sale is not
possible, 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 a
recycling centre can obtain for a standard sub-base or fill material relative to the same
product from a mobile crusher is very modest. The impact which this fact has on the
economics 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 with
industrial land cannot be supported, even close to an urban centre. The calculations in Annex
12 suggest that concern may be overstated (because the influence of land costs is modest
compared to other operating costs), though it is undoubtedly true that in a highly competitive
market 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 (by
contrast with the Netherlands) it is reckoned to be economically better to aim for a high rate
of material throughput, accepting that some material may have to go through twice. In
practice this means that with a mobile (‘jaw’) crusher it is generally better to set the jaws
further apart than the target specification would suggest (100mm rather than 75mm), and
then 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, but
the quality is. Most demolition contractors operate their own lorry fleets, and each driver costs
22-30,000 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&DW
recycling businesses in the UK depends on having drivers who are flexible and
entrepreneurial (i.e. who make a real effort to maximise the proportion of time that their lorry
is fully loaded).
9.35 Landfill charges vary quite widely within the UK, but in central southern England (where the
figures above were collected) typical charges are 16 ECU/tonne for soil or similar materials
when consolidated. Contaminated soil costs around 44 ECU/tonne to dispose of when
consolidated, and ‘special’ waste costs 95-100 ECU/tonne. Waste oil is the only material
which often goes for incineration. Despite regulations to the contrary, it is clear that small but
significant volumes of wood, plastics and packaging are burned on construction and
demolition sites.
9.36 For other materials prices can change quite rapidly. During the second and third quarters of
1998, 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 a
1997 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 aggregates
cannot compete with primary materials.
9.38 Fixed recycling centres charge up to 5.50 ECU/tonne (including tax) to receive the inert
fraction of C&DW, compared with inert landfills which charge around 12-13 ECU/tonne to
dispose 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 materials
depends almost entirely on lower transport costs for C&DW in the Paris area compared to
bringing primary materials from well outside the region.
9.40 The ADEME report contains a very arresting statistic: the costs of dealing with C&DW can
amount 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 in
the north, including sites at Castellarano (near Reggio Emilia), Spilamberto (near Modena,
operated by Camer), Corbetta (near Milano, operated by Ecoter) and Villaguardia (near
Como, north of Milano and very near the Swiss border, operated by Consorzio Comense
Inerti).
9.42 Consorzio Comense Inerti belongs to a group of over 100 construction companies, and as
well as crushing inert C&DW the operating company runs a green waste composting plant
and is landfilling/restoring an old quarry site using incoming materials unsuited to crushing
and 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 1.00
ECU/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 not
quite as recent as most of the others cited in this report. Landfill charges in Flanders are
around 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 Plants
Material ECU/tonne
Concrete (not reinforced) free of charge
Reinforced concrete 1.25-2.50
Heavily reinforced concrete 6.25-12.50
Masonry 2.50-6.25
Mixed C&DW (including wood and plastics) 2.50-12.50
Figure 9.4: Prices for C&DW-Derived Aggregates in Belgium

Material / use / application ECU/tonne
Crushed mixed masonry and concrete for use as a sub- 5.25
base or base material
Crushed concrete sieved to a size range of 4-32mm, for 5.75-6.50 (2.50 less than
use in concrete primary aggregates)
Crushed masonry (0-56mm) for engineering fill and 3.75
carparks
Sieved and crushed sand, for pavement sub-base or 1.25-2.50
embankments
Recycled asphalt aggregates for roads and carparks 3.75-5.75
Source: 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 that
C&DW management has always been viewed primarily as a waste management issue, and
that economic instruments (such as higher waste disposal charges) have followed more
traditional command and control regulation. Annex 6 gives details of the full range of
measures used in all Member States to encourage C&DW recycling.
9.47 However, it appears that when economic instruments have been introduced, they have
provided a powerful reinforcement to the more traditional approaches.
9.48 Nevertheless, according to the information provided in Annex 6, the gate prices paid at inert
waste 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 (not
yet in place), 19 ECU/tonne in Finland and 13.60 ECU/tonne in the Netherlands. The total
gate price in Germany is typically 7-10 ECU/tonne, and in Austria it is 4.5-7 ECU/tonne. The
correlation between these landfill charges and the level of recycling activity appears to be
relatively weak.
Germany
9.49 In Germany, quite apart from the ban on landfilling mineral demolition waste and unsorted
C&DW, high landfill charges applicable to non-inert wastes provide a strong economic
incentive 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 those
described above for the UK. Specifically:
(i) not much C&DW travels over 20km to be processed, and virtually none goes over
30km;
(ii) this is because transport costs are an important element in the cost:benefit
calculations, with a cost formula very like those in Spain and the UK, or
approximately (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 high

throughput: 75-85% of a crusher’s design capacity;
(iv) the economics of fixed recycling centres are sensitive to land prices and the
investments (such as hard standings and noise bunds) required to protect the local
environment;
(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&DW
recycler, Remex (formerly Deutag Remex), operates around 40 processing centres for
mineral C&DW, 10 sorting plants and four processing plants which can accept and process
both 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 those
awarded to many car dealerships). These monopolies have subsequently been broken, and
with increasing competition the industry appears to be moving back towards a greater
emphasis 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 down
rainwater run-off as an aid to flood control), soil improvement, landfill engineering (gas
collection ducts etc) and similar applications. Although there is ongoing technical interest in
recycling crushed concrete into new concrete, it is a very marginal issue for commercial
recyclers.
9.53 Local conditions placed on C&DW-derived aggregates vary, with the result that a road
specification that is acceptable on one side of a local authority border may cease to be
acceptable 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 with
several other Member States where ‘Level 3’ technology is widespread) is an emphasis on
removing ‘fines’ (particles of 0-5mm) from C&DW-derived aggregates. Although such fines
can generally be sold as recycled sand, it is considered preferable to avoid them in the first
place, 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 of
competition from the central European countries, as have the prices of other recycled
materials (like steel). This has driven down the prices which recyclers can charge end users
for C&DW-derived aggregates at the same time that increasing competition has pushed down
the gate prices which they can charge to demolition contractors. The prices in Figures 9.5 and
9.6 refer to the densely populated areas of western Germany (the valleys of the Ruhr and the
Rhein). There is some evidence that higher gate prices are charged in areas such as
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (to the north of Berlin), and that higher prices can be achieved for
C&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/tonne
Clean mineral C&DW 3.00-5.00
Masonry 7.50-10.00
Mixed C&DW (less than 20% mineral content) 50.00-75.00
Figure 9.6: Prices for C&DW-Derived Aggregates in Germany

Material / use / application ECU/tonne
Pre-sieved, non-crushed sub-base material (0-45mm) 1.00-1.50
Pre-sieved, non-crushed material (5-45mm) 2.50
Sieved and crushed sand, for pavement sub-base or 1.50-2.50
embankments
Crushed branded aggregate (0-45mm or 5-45mm), for 3.00-5.00
use as base material
Crushed branded aggregate (>45mm) 4.00
Source: 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 are
estimated at around 0.50 ECU/tonne. As the prices above show, sieving the 0-5mm fraction
out of sub-base material raises the value of both the sand and the remainder of the
aggregate.
9.57 Any actions which rely on labour, including quality control and hand picking are very
expensive in Germany, and the gate price levied on mixed C&DW (see Figure 9.5) provides
a strong incentive to selective demolition and good site management practices. This gate
price 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 from
area to area, from 40 to 127 ECU/tonne, with a ‘typical’ level of 80. The only C&DW which is
permitted 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 primary
aggregates have been largely excluded by market forces. The main competition comes from
blast furnace slag, which can be bought for around 6.80-7.70 ECU/tonne, excluding transport
costs. 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-borne
transport 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 that
transport (at around 2.50 ECU/tonne for a typical journey) is cheaper than in the UK, by about
30%.
9.61 A study published in 1991 (see Annex 10, Ref 2.3) estimated the cost of crushing, sieving and
washing concrete in the Netherlands at 5-10 ECU/tonne, plus further costs for sludge and
sand tipping. This is significantly higher than the crushing costs estimated in Annex 12, and
the sieving costs reported above for Germany.
Denmark
9.62 Roughly 25% of all Danish C&DW is processed at the Copenhagen Recycling Centre, which
has an area of 7.5ha allocated to C&DW (as well as similar areas for green waste composting
and contaminated soil processing). The C&DW centre employs around 40 persons, and in
1996 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 of
C&DW are obliged by law to sort and recycle their waste, C&DW recycling centres only
charge 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 in
1996). 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 a
typical haul distance of 50km. From this we can conclude that haulage in Denmark is
surprisingly cheap.
9.64 On the basis of the figures above we can see that the recycling centre has ‘captured’ around
14.00 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 which
estimated Dutch costs for crushing, sieving and washing concrete in 1991 (see Annex 10, Ref
2.3) put the equivalent costs in Denmark at 7.5-10 ECU/tonne. Even at these relatively high
cost levels, it would appear that the main recovery process as applied to ‘core’ C&DW should
be profitable in Denmark.
Conclusions
9.65 The commercial realities described above largely confirm what economic theory (see Chapter
3 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 in
paragraph 8.7, while those where ‘Level 2’ is the norm are meeting the pre-conditions but not
going much further. ‘Level 3’ is typical of countries which have used administrative controls to
require more C&DW recycling than market forces alone would deliver, and in particular to
require (or at least encourage) the recycling of wood and plastic wastes. Some of the main
theoretical points are summarised in Figure 9.7.
9.66 In practice, where landfill gate prices are low, the gate prices charged by recyclers to the
holders of C&DW tend to be very similar (but seldom if ever higher). Where landfill gate
prices 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 of
C&DW recycling when the various Member States are compared, the statistical correlation
does not appear to be very strong. This suggests that (as one would expect) other differences
between Member States are significant. However, there is some circumstantial evidence that
when 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 of
2.90 ECU/tonne for inert waste) triggered a major shift away from landfilling of C&DW and
into recycling.
9.68 So long as the link between recycling centre and landfill gate prices persists, and in Member
States where there is a landfill tax, holders of waste (in this case owners of buildings which
are to be demolished) therefore pay what amounts to a levy to the recycling centre at the
same level as the landfill tax. The big difference is that whereas the landfill tax goes to the
Government, the full value of the higher recycling centre gate charge is ‘captured’ by the
operator of the centre. Ultimately the users of new buildings built on demolition sites (i.e. the
wider community) pay this higher price in return for a more expensive treatment process (or
higher profits to the operator of the recycling centre).
Figure 9.7: Relationships Between Disposal, Processing and Recycling

Disposal of Value of Outcome
C&DW Recycled
Product
Cheap and Low Processing costs must be low enough to compete with landfill
legal if any recycling is to occur. Transport costs are very important.
(For inert C&DW, this is typified by ‘Level 1’ technology).
Higher Processing costs can rise above those of ‘Level 1’ technology.
than Competition among processors becomes more important as a
disposal way of containing costs for holders of waste.
costs
Expensive Low Processing costs (but not the prices received for recycled
but legal products) can rise above those of ‘Level 1’ technology, and
these rises can be passed on to holders of waste (i.e. owners

of buildings), thereby allowing more sophisticated recycling.
Competition between demolition contractors and between
processors becomes more important as a way of containing
demolition and recycling costs.
Illegal Not Since prices for recycled materials are largely governed by
important non-recycled alternatives, competition between processors is
essential to keep gate prices for recyclable products low. Any
temptation to award processors monopolistic concessions will
probably lead to cost-plus charging and generally higher gate
prices. Only competition between processors or sophisticated
and well informed regulation will keep costs to holders of
waste down.
9.69 With around 180 million tonnes of ‘core’ C&DW spread among the Member States, any
tendency to add further processing costs to C&DW could amount to a substantial transfer of
financial 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 and
treat C&DW (as in Germany and the Netherlands, for example), the evidence reported in the
earlier sections of this Chapter shows that both landfill and C&DW processing charges are
generally higher than where ‘Level 2’ technology predominates. Although no causal link
between these two observations can be established, it is clear that the cost of landfilling such
material is irrelevant, and the demolition contractors have little option but to pay the fees
demanded by the recycling centre. It is by no means impossible that recycling centres which
operate 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 of
materials is effectively guaranteed. This would allow them to operate on the basis of cost-plus
prices. The tighter the local monopoly which a recycling centre may have (as was formerly
the 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 between
them ‘capture’ at least part of the value of the relevant landfill charges, which they then either
spend 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 which
a 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 the
scope for ‘excess’ profits, in recycling are considerable, and in areas where the local authority
has a share in the existing recycling centre and both the means and the motivation to prevent
a competitor from becoming established, virtually infinite.
9.72 A measure of the value being ‘captured’ by recycling centres is the difference between their
gate price and their sale price (for comparable materials). As can be seen above, if we look
simply 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 could
perfectly well be produced by ‘Level 2’ techniques.
9.73 The technical and cost differences between ‘Level 1’ and ‘Level 2’ technology are not very
great, and in reality very few recycling industries would consciously stop at ‘Level 1’. However
this 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 to
five 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 BAT
versus BATNEEC (best available technology versus best available technology not entailing
excessive costs). One of the purposes of this report is simply to point out some of the
economic costs entailed in ignoring the NEEC element, and by whom they would most
probably be paid.
9.74 To date no Member State has achieved a significant rate of utilisation of C&DW-derived
aggregates 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 the
Netherlands) faces a situation where C&DW-derived (and secondary) aggregates are likely to
represent a significant share of total aggregates market. Under the circumstances it is very
hard to see that more expensive processing can be economically justified where reasonable
at-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 of
proposals for interventions which, in the view of the study team, are more likely than most to
be effective in boosting C&DW prevention, re-use and/or recycling without imposing
unexpected costs on government, industry or society. These proposals are grouped under a
set of headings which refer to possible interventions at the level of the EU-15, the Member
States, regional or local government and the construction and demolition industries. Given
the considerable differences that exist between the administrative structures of the 15
Member States, we regard these headings as helpful pointers rather than definitive
categories, and we would urge readers to study the text that appears under each heading in
order to get the full picture.
10.2 We should also say quite clearly that we have not sought to re-state (either selectively or in
full) the 54 detailed recommendations and accompanying discussion contained in the third
volume of the C&DW Priority Waste Streams Project report (see Annex 10, Ref 1.1). It was
the view of the project group that drew up that report that their recommendations should be
treated as a package, and that all had roughly equal weight and significance. Reproducing
them here would therefore be inappropriate for two quite separate reasons: firstly they
represent the collective views of others rather than the conclusions of this study, and
secondly 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 majority
have still to be implemented.
10.3 Over the course of this study we found no clear evidence to suggest that any of the individual
recommendations (which we refer to below as PWSP recommendations, with their individual
numbers where relevant) have become inappropriate, and in general we endorse them. The
recommendations 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 making
to refer back to the C&DW Priority Waste Streams Project report as an essential complement
to 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 suited
to the processing of inert C&DW;
(ii) ‘Level 2’, which also has metal removal and more complex sorting and sieving
facilities, 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&DW
streams (such as wood) to ‘Level 2’ plant, and can deal with any (mixed and
contaminated) 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 to
regional 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 uneconomic
less than 100km away, and with no change in regulatory framework. However, as a general
observation it is fair to say that ‘Level 1’ technology is mainly associated with low levels of
recycling, ‘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 transformation
in C&DW recycling practice on its own, and that before C&DW recycling can be expected to
reach a significant level at which it will be sustained and economically viable, there appear to
be four conditions which must be met, as follows:
(i) landfills must be well managed, and ‘fly tipping’ of waste must be uncommon and
subject 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 avoid
contamination 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 similarly
interested ‘actors’) that suitably prepared C&DW-derived aggregates may be used to
displace primary aggregates. Positive action to draw up technical standards is not
essential, but C&DW-derived aggregates should not be discriminated against on the
basis of their origins alone.
10.8 We conclude that if any of these four conditions is not met, then that Member State or region
will find it effectively impossible to progress beyond ‘Level 1’, and even that level of
technology will be hard to justify in parts of the territory concerned. By contrast, ‘Level 2’ and
possibly 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 we
mean 75% or above of ‘core’ C&DW being recycled in most regions) is likely to be achieved
only if some form of ban on landfilling C&DW is imposed and enforced, or if a requirement is
put in place that all C&DW must be separated with each stream being directed to some form
of re-use or recovery operation. Doing this would effectively remove the second condition
from 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 on
primary aggregates would not on its own achieve high recycling rates under all
circumstances, because the tax would have to be set at politically unacceptable levels before
it changed the behaviour of engineers and demolition contractors in areas with easy access to
landfills (or quarries). Varying the tax rate to match local conditions would create considerable
distortions 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 requiring
separation (which have to be set alongside the undoubted environmental and resource-saving
gains) are not trivial. Although there are too many imponderables to make it possible to
estimate with real confidence how large the extra costs are, we note that C&DW processing
charges (but particularly those applied to mixed materials) are generally higher in those
Member States which have ‘Level 3’ technology. In effect such additional costs are almost
certainly 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 context
of C&DW management could be issued. Any such guidance needs to address how those
materials 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 for
distinguishing 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 that
equivalent 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&DW
statistics are recorded by completing the current reviews of the EWC and the hazardous
waste 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 to
Member States on the new system. This could (but need not) be combined with the guidance
on 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 to
the participants in working groups convened by CEN and RILEM to consider issues related to
specifications. In the interim, we consider that the Commission might issue a guidance note
drawing attention to the fact that formal specifications, however convenient, are not actually
necessary, and discouraging the citing of their absence as a reason to hold back on using
C&DW-derived aggregates.
10.15 The remaining proposals are not necessarily all directed at the Commission. Some of them
could 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 fields
such as selective demolition, the operation of recycling centres, and material-by-material
processes.
10.17 Most research and development projects and best practice recommendations are as relevant
to other Member States as they are to their ‘host’ countries. Although pilot and demonstration
projects are by their nature tied to a particular time and place, they can nevertheless be of
real 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 synthesis
document (or documents) which could then be translated into two or more of the official
languages of the EU, with the material made available as printed documents and/or via the
Internet.
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 are
springing 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 of
C&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 were
originally based on the characteristics of primary materials. Adopting performance-based
specifications can help to remove such barriers.
10.22 They may wish to go further and adopt specifications which actively include C&DW-derived
aggregates. Such specifications are now widely available, and the effort required to put them
in place need not be duplicated.
10.23 Any barriers to the holding of reasonable stocks of C&DW-derived aggregates (which may be
treated by regulators as waste materials) should be removed prior to any EU-level guidance
on 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 primary
aggregates 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 aggregates
as 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 resources
dedicated to the enforcement of good landfill management practices are scarce,
consideration should be given to raising charges (possibly but not necessarily through the
introduction of a landfill tax), and a high priority should be given to reinforcing enforcement
measures before C&DW-specific initiatives are put in place. One of the advantages of a
landfill 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 which
commit them to encourage and promote (or even to require) selective demolition, certainly
where larger structures are concerned. We recognise that the actions necessary to put such a
policy into effect will largely be taken at local level, but we believe the signal which a national
policy can send would be beneficial.
10.26 Voluntary agreements (VAs) can be used to raise the awareness of developers, demolition
contractors and civil engineering contractors alike to the potential for C&DW recycling and
the extent of existing knowledge about best practice. Although unlikely to be very effective on
their own, VAs can usefully supplement other policy measures and interventions by signalling
clearly a preferred approach to complex issues such as selective demolition and on-site use
of C&DW-derived aggregates.
10.27 VAs may also be effective in encouraging best recycling practice in sectors where there are
only a few suppliers, such as gypsum, plastics and glass. They could also be used to
discourage excessive use of bonding materials which make separation of C&DW more
difficult than it need be.
10.28 Efforts should be stepped up into the collection and dissemination of statistics on C&DW
arisings, treatment and end use using a common basis agreed at EU level (see the discussion
above 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 run
extensive research, pilot and demonstration projects in the past. It is not so obvious that (with
the possible exception of demonstration projects) other Member States need to repeat this
process, because the accumulated experience is extensive and overlapping. Exceptions to
this statement would include research into:
(i) selective demolition and processing of those construction materials (such as glass
and 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 the
manufacturing and construction stages, but which create problems at the point of
demolition 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&DW
processing and recycling centres, and to operate demonstration projects. This is likely to
continue to be a valuable method of encouraging best practice in Member States with little or
no 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) should
specifically deal with C&DW. Among other things, at the level where zoning is dealt with they
should identify zones and/or locations where C&DW recycling can be considered to be
acceptable on a temporary or medium-term basis. Cities which have ‘green belts’ around
them should seek to identify locations on the city side of the belt. Where the private sector
has shown no interest in developing C&DW processing and recycling centres it may be
appropriate for the local authority (or a group of local authorities) to consider establishing a
centre 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 recycling
centres as a means of containing processing charges.
10.32 PWSP recommendations 14-19 (and the accompanying discussion) are particularly relevant
in the context of waste planning. PWSP recommendation 17, which we endorse, deals with
the difficult question of recycling targets, and calls for detailed targets to be set at the local
level, “... where the issues affecting recovery from, and disposal of, the wastes can be
identified”. Targets set at the regional, national and EU level were viewed by the PWSP as
suitable only for providing encouragement to the general process of improvement. The
evidence which we have found (and which is reported above and in Annex 5) is that regional
factors 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&DW
management plan to be submitted before a demolition permit is issued (thereby enabling a
site to be re-developed), selective demolition and C&DW recycling is encouraged. In our
view, introducing such a requirement (which would be consistent with PWSP
recommendations 26 and 27) would be likely to have positive consequences, and unlikely to
have significant negative ones, since the larger property developers already produce such
plans, making the marginal cost of submitting them to the local authorities relatively minor. It
is noticeable that in those Member States where demolition plans are required, C&DW
recycling rates tend to be higher.
10.34 As purchasers of aggregates in their own right, and/or as major clients for civil engineering
works, regional and local authorities have considerable scope for ‘green procurement’ (by
specifying that C&DW-derived aggregates and other re-used or recycled C&DW will either be
treated as equivalent to, or even given preference over, primary materials, subject to general
single market principles and obligations). This is generally consistent with PWSP
recommendation 38.
Interventions by the construction and demolition industries
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&DW
at a recycling centre. Such a procedure is very expensive, with hand sorting being unpleasant
and potentially dangerous for the personnel involved. PWSP recommendation 40 called for
greater selective demolition, and we endorse that call.
10.36 As we discuss in Chapter 3 (and briefly above) specifications have historically been the key
mechanism used to manage the risks associated with the performance of materials used in
construction contracts. The construction industry is traditionally ‘conservative’ in nature, and
has a tendency only to use specifications that have been tried and tested over considerable
periods of time. The majority of these specifications are ‘recipe’ based rather than
‘performance’ based. We recommend that, independent of any initiatives which may be taken
by the EU or national governments, designers and specifiers should be encouraged to use
performance based specifications, placing the emphasis on the identification of the properties
and 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 good
design. In practice several alternative mechanisms are available, and may be used to
manage 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 should
stand in the way of the increased use of C&DW-derived aggregates, or any other potentially
re-usable or recycleable C&DW.
10.38 The construction industry should therefore be encouraged to use alternative methods of
managing material performance risks, including contract- or sector-specific specifications, or
by the external verification of quality certification of C&DW-derived materials. It should not be
necessary to wait for nationally or internationally agreed specifications.
10.39 Construction site managers should seek to implement best practices as regards the provision
of 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 materials
to be returned to the supplier or transferred to another site would also help to reduce the
surprisingly large volume of good quality construction materials which goes to landfill as
mixed waste. While we do not consider that a VA is a suitable mechanism to achieve this in
many cases, we do recommend that the relevant professional bodies should give thought to
how 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 and
redeveloped, and this in turn strongly influences the extent to which selective demolition is
practical. A sector-wide VA to encourage selective demolition on large sites could provide a
worthwhile stimulus to greater recycling, particularly if backed up by the threat of regulation if
ignored, 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 separate
collection would be appropriate;
c) identifying methods and ways which are used within Member States to promote
reutilisation/recovery of construction and demolition waste, (in particular within those local
authorities, regions or Member States which have already addressed this issue);
d) examine the economic implications if construction and demolition waste is sorted in order to
separate hazardous and other materials;
e) examine possibilities and practical measures used to prevent construction and demolition
waste going to landfills;
in the context of the European Community Environmental Policy and the Community Strategy for
Waste 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 agreed
terminology.
He shall in particular identify the overall quantity of this waste type and the quantities and
percentages of such wastes, being landfilled, being reused or otherwise recovered.
In the context of 1b), the contractor shall assemble information on hazardous parts of construction
and demolition waste, as well as other parts for which separate collection seems appropriate, taking
into consideration economic implications and possibilities to better use dispose of the remaining parts
of construction and demolition waste.
In the context of 1c), the contractor shall describe methods which are used within Member States in
order to promote the reutilisation and or the recovery of construction and demolition waste. Examples
of practical experience in Member States are to be added. The economic implications of these
methods shall be considered.
In the context of 1d) the contractor shall examine the economic implications of separate collection of
hazardous 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 and
demolition 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 the
contract.
A draft final report shall be submitted not later than eleven months from the date of signature of the
contract.
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 the
Project Group to the European Commission on the C&DW project which was completed in October
1995 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 available
here. 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 Stream
Programme - Construction and Demolition Waste.
Chapter 1 introduces the Construction and Demolition Waste project and sets out the background to
it.
Chapter 2 describes the European and international regulatory framework for Construction and
Demolition 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 European
Union.
Chapter 5 summarises the treatment, recovery and recycling practices adopted in the European
Union.
Further details on the composition of the Project Group, the definitions adopted in the development of
the strategy for the management of Construction and Demolition Wastes, and more detailed
information 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 the
published data available is also given in the Appendices.
1.2 The legal background to the priority waste streams programme
The promotion of sustainable growth respecting the Environment is one of the primary objectives of
the Treaty on European Union.
Article 130r(2) of the Treaty lays down that action by the Community relating to the Environment shall
be based on the precautionary principle, and on the principles of preventive action, rectification of
environment damage at source, and that the polluter should pay.
Accordingly, the European Community must first address itself to preventing waste before considering
its recovery, recycling and how it is to be ultimately disposed of. In any event, the basic principle of
action by the Community must be to avoid waste and reduce its harmfulness.
Furthermore, Article 130r(2) lays down that environmental protection requirements (and hence waste
management) must be integrated into the definition and implementation of other Community policies.
The Fifth Action Programme on the Environment (Towards Sustainability) reflects the objectives and
principles of sustainable development, preventative and precautionary action and shared
responsibility.

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 management
of 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 the
programme, and re-affirmed the importance of ensuring that environmental concerns are taken into
account in the development and implementation of all Community policies.
As regards industry, the programme's approach reflects the growing realisation in industry and in the
business world that, not only is industry a significant part of the environmental problem, but it must
also be part of the solution.
The Community action will avoid distortions in conditions of competition and preserve the integrity of
the internal market.
The Council Resolution of 7th May 1990 on Waste Policy considers that it is desirable, from the point
of view of prevention, recycling and re-use, as well as final disposal, to establish action programmes
for particular types of waste and therefore invites the Commission to establish proposals for action at
Community level.
As a result, the Commission has initiated the Priority Waste Streams Programme within whose
framework 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 the
following 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 become
self-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 these
objectives in the Member States and in the Community as a whole, Directorate-General XI of the
Commission, Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection, has initiated an action programme for
specific waste types.
In order to identify those wastes considered to be a priority, questionnaires were sent by the
Commission to all Member States. On the basis of the responses to this questionnaire the following
Priority 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 of
Community policy. This new approach is based on the involvement of representatives of all 'actors' in
a 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 through
the Construction and Demolition Project Group. This Group, set up in 1992, comprised some 80
members invited to participate by the Commission, and included representatives drawn from the
following 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 by
Technical Consultants appointed by DGXI.C.7 of the European Commission. The Members of the
Project Group are listed in Appendix 1.
The working method for the Project Group developed by the Commission was based on interaction
between its members with the strategy for the management of the wastes being developed through
discussion and co-operation between the representatives of the Member States, and the participating
European associations and federations.
All members of the Project Group were invited to contribute information, analyses and strategies, and
to 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 the
Project 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 were
supplemented by a further 4 Informal Project Group Meetings where the working language was
English.
A further 7 Task Group meetings were held where specific areas of particular interest were discussed
in greater detail by small groups of Project Group members. As with the Informal Project Group
Meetings, the working language for the Task Group Meetings was English. These Groups were as
follows:
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 been
developed;
- summarises the legislative, regulatory and management systems presently in place in the
European 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 and
Strategy Documents, and presents a concise and detailed summary of the specific recommendations
made 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 have
collected some useful data on the European construction and primary aggregates industries. These
are the sectors which generate C&DW and against which C&DW-derived aggregates have to
compete, respectively.
The construction industry data include comparisons of financial turnover and employment by Member
State, which helps to throw light on the probable scale and geographical distribution of the C&DW
sector. Whilst we do not wish to suggest that C&DW generation is directly proportionate to either the
turnover of or the employment in the construction sector, it is nevertheless highly probable that there
is a general relationship between these indices.
Our source is a statistical report dated December 1997 from the European Construction Industry
Federation (FIEC). This provides the best available overview of the size and distribution of the
European construction industry, and was used by the European Commission in its paper entitled ‘The
Competitiveness of the Construction Industry’. It is updated and published twice a year by FIEC. The
December 1997 report values the total European construction market (civil construction and building
construction) at 754 billion ECU and total employment at around 10 million. The table below shows
how these figures were broken down, with the countries arranged in declining order of C&DW
arisings. The numbers in brackets in the ‘% share’ columns show the actual order for the measure
concerned.
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 24.8
United Kingdom (2) 12.5 49.5 (4) 13.7 38.5
France (3) 11.4 60.9 (3) 14.2 52.7
Italy (4) 11.4 72.3 (2) 16.0 68.7
Spain (5) 8.4 80.7 (5) 11.7 80.4
The Netherlands (6) 4.7 85.4 (6) 4.1 84.5
Belgium (8) 2.8 88.2 (10) 2.2 86.7
Austria (11) 1.3 89.5 (12) 1.3 88.0
Portugal (10) 1.8 91.3 (7) 3.4 91.4
Denmark (9) 2.2 93.5 (11) 1.7 93.1
Greece (13) 1.1 94.6 (8) 2.5 95.6
Sweden (7) 3.1 97.8 (9) 2.2 97.8
Finland (12) 1.2 99.0 (13) 1.2 99.0
Ireland (14) 1.0 99.9 (14) 0.9 99.9
Luxembourg (15) 0.1 100.0 (15) 0.1 100.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: FIEC, 1997
Note: 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 than
might otherwise be the case to Member States with higher per capita incomes in general, and to the
German construction industry in particular. However, the general conclusion is clear: Germany, the
UK, 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 over
two thirds of the European construction industry.
A key point to come out of FIEC’s regular reports concerns the magnitude of the changes in the
construction sector over time. It is well known that the construction industry is much more sensitive to
changes in the strength of the economy than most other major industrial sectors, but many readers
will 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 for
EU-15 had shrunk by 0.4% (to 99.6). Ignoring those Member States for which 1998 or 1997 data were
not available (namely Finland, where the drop had been very steep up to 1995, Ireland, Greece and
Luxembourg), it is clear that France, Italy and Sweden had all experienced clear falls over the 7-year
period, whereas Germany had expanded to 117.9 (largely thanks to the building boom of the early
1990s) and Portugal had reached a spectacular 142.6. By 1998 the other Member States fell into a
central band between 95 and 115. Fuller details are given in Figure A3.2, and Figure A3.3 provides
comparable 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. Compound
growth 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 the
Member 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 99.6
Source: FIEC
Note: 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 Levels, 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: FIEC
Note: 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 of
aggregate use. Any reader wanting to gain a deeper understanding of the primary aggregates sector
as a whole can consult Chapter 2-18 from Volume I of the Eurostat publication ‘Panorama of EU
Industry’ (see Annex 10, Ref 1.5). For the purposes of this Annex we have also drawn on Eurostat
data 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, the
EU is “theoretically self-sufficient for virtually all mainstream products and external trade tends to be in
material chosen on aesthetic grounds”. Imports of construction materials amount to roughly 6% of
total consumption, and exports amount to 3%. The main imports in the mid-1990s to the countries
which 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 to
Switzerland, 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 wooden
building components sector). In 1994 European output was half as big again as that of the USA, and
three 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, slate
and 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 569 644 549
UK 233 259 215
France 370 367 337
Italy 201 270 270
Spain 220 212 225
Netherlands 27 27 25
Belgium 42 52 50
Austria 84 85 84
Portugal 73 73 80
Denmark 43 42 45
Greece n/a n/a n/a
Sweden 80 83 83
Finland 68 68 64
Ireland 26 32 36
EU-13/15 2,036 2,214 2,063
Source: Quarry Products Association (UK)
Figure A4.2 takes the 1996 production data from Figure A4.1, and adds Eurostat data on trade flows
in agregates coming from other EU Member States (ie category 2517 as described above) to derive a
figure for apparent consumption of primary aggregates. Although this estimate omits imports coming
from outside the EU-15, these are likely to be relatively small. Unlike the production estimates, the
import 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 consumption
differs by more than 2 million tonnes are the UK, the Netherlands and Belgium.
Figure A4.2: Apparent Consumption of Primary Aggregates, 1996 (million tonnes)

Production [A] Imports [B] Exports [C] Apparent
consumption
[A + B - C]
Germany 549 9.5 11.1 547
UK 215 0.2 7.6 208
France 337 5.4 5.3 337
Italy 270 0.0 0.6 269
Spain 225 0.0 0.2 225
Netherlands 25 15.9 2.1 39
Belgium 50 5.6 8.3 47
Austria 84 0.4 0.7 84
Portugal 80 0.1 0.0 80
Denmark 45 0.9 0.7 45
Greece n/a 0.0 0.0 n/a
Sweden 83 0.1 1.7 81
Finland 64 0.0 0.0 64
Ireland 36 0.6 0.3 36
Luxembourg n/a n/a n/a n/a
EU-13/15 2,063 39.1(1) 39.1(1) 2,063
Notes: (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 Proportion of Apparent Consumption of Primary

Aggregates
Apparent consumption Estimated ‘core’ [B] as % of [A]
of primary aggregates, C&DW arisings [B]
m tonnes [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/a
Sweden 81 2 2.5%
Finland 64 1 1.6%
Ireland 36 1 2.8%
Luxembourg n/a 0 n/a
EU-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 Figure
A4.2 with our estimates of ‘core’ C&DW production from Annex 5. Although no account is taken of the
use of secondary aggregates (such as steel slag, fly ash, colliery spoil etc), the final column
nevertheless provides a general indication of the potential contribution which C&DW-derived
aggregates could make to overall aggregates usage. It should also be noted that the ‘core’ C&DW
estimates refer to arisings, and not to the proportion currently recycled.

With the exception of the Netherlands (see below), information collected from other sources tends to
confirm the general accuracy of the above. For example, the German Construction Materials
Recycling 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 estimates
of primary aggregates production support the general accuracy of the above estimates.
However, official statistics from the Netherlands (from Structuurschema Oppervlakte Delftstoffen, or
SOD) give a figure which is significantly higher than 27 million tonnes for all surface minerals. The
SOD total includes some minor materials (such as limestone for cement and clay for ceramics and
dyke construction) which have been eliminated from the data in the table above. It also includes a
very high number (over 40 million cubic metres) for ‘sand for raising purposes’, which was almost
certainly taken out when the EU-15 data on which Figure A4.1 is based were being assembled. SOD’s
estimates for 1990-94 include 19.4 million tonnes of concrete and masonry sand, 9.9 million tonnes of
gravel and no crushed rock. Even on this basis, the figure in the final column would be significantly
higher for the Netherlands than for any other Member State. This may go some way to explaining why
such 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 a
stylised 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 of
the total of 39.1 million tonnes, or over 75% of the total.
Figure A4.4: Major Trade Flows of Primary Aggregates, 1996 (million tonnes)
èèèè2.2èèèè Germany
UK Netherlands
(most UK exports are èèèè2.4èèèè çç ê é 9.0 çç

from coastal quarries
in Scotland) ê é
ê é
1.4 4.0
ê é
èèèè2.3èèèè Belgium ê çç çç
é
1.0
ê é
ê é
4.1 3.9
ê é
France
Source: Eurostat
Flows of marble and granite involve smaller tonnages, but higher values per tonne. There were four
flows of marble greater than 25,000 tonnes in 1996, accounting between them for half of all intra-EU
trade. They were (in descending tonnage order) from Italy to Spain, Spain to Italy, Portugal to Italy
and Portugal to Spain. There were four flows of granite greater than 100,000 tonnes, accounting
between 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 the
opinions of government policy makers, consultants and companies active in the C&DW industry) as a
substitute. As a last resort, we have based our estimates on per capita arisings. Clarification on the
sources used, and any additional commentary on specific numbers, can be found in the notes which
follow the tables.
In all cases 0.00 means ‘less than 0.005’, but nevertheless a measurable number (even if that number
is 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&DW
concerned was originating. Where this information was available, it is also reported in the notes which
follow the tables.
It is clear that there are inconsistencies between the coverage of data from Member State to Member
State. The data do, however, give a broad overview of the current situation as regards the scale and
nature of C&DW arisings, and present the best available estimates for the following headings of
materials:
Classification of C&DW
Headings 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 broken
the 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 primary
aggregates);
• 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 to
describe sites where C&DW may be arising.

Sources of C&DW
Site Type Clarification

Demolish and clear sites with structures to be demolished, but on which no new construction
is planned in the short term
Demolish, clear and build sites with structures to be demolished prior to the erection of new ones
Renovation sites where the interior fittings (and possibly some structural elements
as well) are to be removed and replaced
Greenfield building undeveloped sites on which new structures are to be erected
Road build sites where a new road (or similar) is to be constructed on a green field
or rubble free base
Road refurbishment sites where an existing road (or similar) is to be resurfaced or
substantially rebuilt

1. GERMANY
Arisings and Uses/Destinations of C&DW

Arisings Re-used Recycled Inciner- Landfilled
(m tonnes) (%) (%) ated (%) (%)
Concrete, brick, tiles etc. (inert) 45.00 18 82
Wood
Glass
Plastic
Metals
Insulation
Mixed and other C&DW 14.00 14 86
‘Core’ C&DW 59.00 17 83
Soil, stones etc. 215.00
Road planings (mainly asphalt) 26.00 80 20
Total 300.00
1.1 Source of Data
The source for the levels of arisings was Kohler (1994), Recyclingpraxis Baustoffe, including new
data from the recycling industry. The estimates for recycling relate to 1996, and come from ZBV
(Zentralverband des Deutschen Baugewerbes) and VBR (Verband Deutscher Baustoff-Recycling
Unternehmen, the German Recycling Federation). The assumption that the non-recycled fraction is
landfilled is ours.
1.2 Comments
The national waste catalogue (LAGA) is still in use in Germany, and the listed waste types are not
compatible 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 the
new 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 of
waste statistics will concentrate on collection and disposal of waste, on treatment and recycling of
selected waste types, and on arisings and disposal of hazardous waste. The statistics will be based on
returns from treatment facilities and consignment notes (for hazardous wastes), and will identify the
use to which any recycled waste is put. Data will therefore no longer be collected from waste
producers and reported by industry sector.
Data on C&DW will be compiled to provide information on the destination of these wastes (including
treatment and recycling, use in construction and recultivation activities and disposal). The sources
and intervals of data collection of C&DW will in future be as follows:
Site Type Reporting Cycle

disposal and treatment sites, including soil annually
treatment sites
treatment/recycling sites for C&DW (mobile and every 2 years - first data will be available in 1998,
stationary crushers/sorters) and will refer to 1996
disposal of waste (including C&DW) in deep every 2 years - first data will be available in 1999,
and open cast mines and will refer to 1997
use of C&DW for public construction, including every 2 years - first data will be available in 1999,
landscaping and will refer to 1997
Any direct re-use of C&DW on the original site is excluded from the reporting obligation under the
Environmental Statistics Act by reference to the Waste Avoidance, Recycling and Disposal Act of 27
September 1994, where such an action is considered to fall under the heading of ‘closed-cycle
management within plants’.

2. UNITED KINGDOM

(m tonnes) (%) (%) ated (%) (%)
Concrete, brick, tiles etc. (inert)
Wood
Glass
Plastic
Metals
Insulation
Mixed and other C&DW
‘Core’ C&DW 30.00 45 55
Soil, stones etc. 29.50 41 59
Total 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 limited
to a single year, but are broadly representative of the mid 1990s. Howard Humphreys’ 1994 estimate
of 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 the
slightly 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 50/50
between 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 Arup
Economics & Planning for the DETR. During 1998 an attempt was made to ‘gross up’ the resultant
data to generate a better estimate of C&DW arisings and destinations for England and Wales. The
full results of the ‘grossing up’ process have not been published, but extracts have been made
available to us by the Environment Agency.
The consultants who carried out the ‘grossing up’ process acknowledge that the multipliers that they
used were relatively crude, and that considerable uncertainties surround the final outcome. The
estimate 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 an
allowance of 12-13% (based on relative populations) to this to account for arisings in Scotland and
Northern Ireland, producing a total figure of around 59.5 million tonnes. Finally, we have added the
widely 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 balance
between soil and ‘core’ C&DW varied considerably, particularly between London and the two other
regions 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 is
generally consistent with the overall figures which we would expect the Arup survey to produce for the
UK as a whole.
The ‘grossed up’ estimates for England and Wales prepared for the Environment Agency provide
overall rates which can be applied to ‘core’ C&DW and soil and stones. These are 20.5% (10.9 million
tonnes) for re-use, 22.5% (11.9 million tonnes) for recycling and 57% (30.3 million tonnes) for
landfilling. 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, these
produce an overall estimate of 18% for re-use, 29% for recycling and 53% for landfilling. However, it
must be taken into account when using these estimates that they are heavily dependent on crusher
operators’ own interpretations of the terms re-use and recycling, which may vary from region to
region, 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 are
calculated on the basis that the re-used material is all soil and stone, and the balance of the recycled
material is ‘core’ C&DW. This is a crude assumption, but it has the benefit of simplicity. The recycling
rate 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 some
resistance to devoting what are perceived as disproportionate resources to statistical reporting.
Although much processing and recycling goes on using modern and expensive equipment, and
primary aggregates producers have recently begun entering the market, the industry still suffers from
the ‘marginal’ image which it inherited from scrap merchants and demolition contractors of 20 years
ago.

3. FRANCE

(m tonnes) (%) (%) ated (%) (%)
Concrete, brick, tiles etc. (inert) 15.60
Wood 1.45
Glass
Plastic
Metals 0.35
Insulation 2.56
Mixed and other C&DW 3.59
‘Core’ C&DW 23.60 15 85
Soil, 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 Chantiers
de Bâtiment’) from a study which was overseen by FNB (the ‘Fédération Nationale du Bâtiment’) and
ADEME (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’) and
DEMAIN (a private sector company). We have re-worked some of the data to fit our C&DW
categories better. The data were collected between 1994 and 1996, but mostly refer to arisings
between 1990 and 1992.
3.2 Comments
The ADEME report (see above) covers the building and renovation sector in great detail, but the
figures which it provides do not extend to civil engineering. Based on the findings in other Member
States, including civil engineering C&DW might raise the total by roughly one third. This is given
further credence by comments in the report’s text (paragraph V.5.5.1) that in 1995 roughly 5 million
tonnes 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 all
structures is estimated at 20-25 million tonnes.
We have also been advised that the estimate for concrete, bricks, tiles and ceramics is now known to
be 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 296,000
tonnes, 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 demolition
sites, and 9.7% from new construction sites.
There is considerable additional information in the ADEME report, including a much more detailed
breakdown 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 the
table 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
A
B
A = Total arisings (‘000 tonnes)
B = Arisings (kg/head)
<450 kg/head
300-450 kg/head
<300 kg/head
Nord-Pas-
de-Calais 1090
276
Picardie
Haute-
541
Normandie
295
402 416
Basse- 401 235
Ile de France 306 Lorraine
Normandie
284
e
7210 695
Champagne-
Alsac
1143 673 Ardenne 306 819
Bretagne
405 504
Pays de la Loire Centre Franche-

Bourgogne Comté
876 701
519
285 295 423
418 326
386
266
Poitou-Charentes
540
Limousin
406
171 Rhône-Alpes
237
Auvergne 2643
494
Aquitaine 1794
Languedoc- 425
916 Midi-Pyrénées Roussillon
Provence-Alpes-
325
865 Côte d’Azur
355
960
456 63
256
Corse
Note: The national total for C&DW arisings (excluding packaging waste) is 23.6 million tonnes
(Source: ADEME)

4. ITALY

(m tonnes) (%) (%) ated (%) (%)
Wood
Glass
Plastic
Metals
Insulation
‘Core’ C&DW 20.00 6 3 91
Soil, stones etc.
Total
4.1 Source of Data
The source for the figures reported above is a report (‘Il Mercato delle Demolizione in Italia’) by a
commercial 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 not
indicate the materials involved, the mechanisms for recycling, or the uses to which the materials are
put. We have arbitrarily allocated the re-used/recycled fraction 2:1 re-used: recycled, mainly because
we 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 for
the Environment) provides data on the quantity of waste production for the year 1993/94. Data are
collected by the regions and then aggregated by the Ministry for the Environment. The report admits
that the standard of the data produced by the 20 regions varies considerably. In future, responsibility
for the collection and management of these data will pass to ANPA (the ‘Autorita’ Nazionale per
l’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 report
mentions that the total quantity of inert material waste declined from 46 million tonnes in 1992 to 14.3
million tonnes in 1993/94, of which roughly two thirds was landfilled and one third recovered. This
dramatic 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 originates
from renovating old residential buildings. This was not always the case, but due to the corruption
scandals 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 million
tonnes 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 Total

No 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 of
C&DW in Italy is estimated (by CRESME) to be the following:

Origin Residential Non-residential
‘microdemolition’ ‘microdemolition’
Floors and coverings 5,802,000 4,689,000
Walls and plaster 2,203,000 871,000
Roof and supporting structure 1,486,000 1,730,000
“Technical elements” (see note) 799,000 517,000
Other 204,000 110,000
Total 10,425,000 7,920,000
Note: includes plumbing, wiring, ducting etc.
Map of Regional Differences in C&DW Re-Use and Recovery Rates in Italy
Trentino-
Alto Adige
112
80 Fruili-
21.5
20.4 Venezia Giulia
Lombardia Veneto
57 108
358
2.6 3.3
A
22.0
B
Piemonte-
Valle d’Aosta A = C&DW re-use/recovery (‘000 tonnes)
Emilia-Romagna B = Regional % re-use/recovery rate
358
Liguria 21.7 <20% re-use/recovery

110
10-20% re-use/recovery
<10% re-use/recovery
19.9 Toscana
Marche
88
3
8.3
Umbria 0.7
33
14.4
Abruzzi 2
Lazio 2 2.3
0.5
7
Puglia
0.5 Molise
Campania
28 12
2.2 1.3
Basilicata
Sardegna 18
10.9
1
0.1
Calabria
0.1
Sicilia
234
20.4
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)

5. SPAIN

(m tonnes) (%) (%) ated (%) (%)
Wood
Glass
Plastic
Metals
Insulation
‘Core’ C&DW 12.8
Soil, stones etc.
Total
5.1 Source of Data
No official statistics are available, though several widely differing estimates are in circulation. We
have based the above estimate of ‘core’ C&DW arisings on a per capita rate of 325kg/year. This in
turn is derived from the average of 375kg and 275kg, which are the best estimates available through
the Catalan government for per capita arisings in the metropolitan area of Barcelona and other parts
of Catalonia respectively. There is no obvious reason to think that Catalonia is not broadly typical of
Spain.
5.2 Comments
Although no reliable estimates of the national shares of C&DW being recovered and landfilled are
available, 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 buildings
before 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 the
following breakdown of the composition of C&DW (excluding soil, but otherwise using headings as
close 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) (%) (%) ated (%) (%)
Concrete, brick, tiles etc. (inert) 10.48 0 93 1 6
Wood 0.26 0 50 10 40
Glass
Plastic 0.21 0 5 12 83
Metals 0.18 0 100 0 0
Insulation
Mixed and other C&DW 0.04 0 0 0 100
‘Core’ C&DW 11.17 0 90 1 9
Soil, stones etc. 6.20 0 40 0 60
Road planings (mainly asphalt) 2.72 72 28 0 0
Total 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, Spatial
Planning and Environmental Protection . The results are reported annually, and the figures given
above 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 14
million tonnes a year in the 1990s. For 1996 the volume was 13.9 million tonnes, of which 11.6 million
tonnes were collected separately and 2.3 million tonnes were not. The total volume of 13.9 million
tonnes 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-site
processing. ‘Other re-use’ includes C&DW that is used without further processing, either directly on
the building site in foundations, or to cover landfills.
RIVM’s data provides a more detailed breakdown of the inert fraction. The 10.48 million tonnes
reported 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 following
breakdown (in millions of tonnes, calculated by PRC Bouwcentrum):
Residential Non-residential Civil Total

Engineering
Building 650 975 425 2,050
Renovation & modernisation 1,825 425 3,025 5,275
Demolition 975 4,425 1,175 6,575
Total 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 sorting
companies are crushed concrete aggregates, crushed rubble aggregates, mixed concrete and rubble
aggregates and recycled crusher sand. The total volume of these products comes up to 9.1 million
tonnes, of which 430.000 tonnes are processed on the construction site in mobile crushers. The main
application for these materials is as sub-base material for road construction. Aggregates for use in
concrete account for just 178,000 tonnes. That leaves 101,000 tonnes which is incinerated and
661,000 tonnes sent to landfill. This includes those parts of C&DW that cannot separated further or
used, such as sludge and sieve-sand.
No specific data are available on the volumes of glass within the C&DW stream. Glass which is
present in C&DW is not collected separately, and generally ends up being crushed and used in
C&DW-derived aggregates.
In the regeneration of asphalt a distinction must be made between cold and warm regeneration
techniques. Asphalt containing tar can only be regenerated in cold form, and is generally used as a
sub-base material for road constructions. Warm regeneration implies re-use for the original intended
purpose. 1.7 million tonnes regenerated in cold form is used on the spot in the processing of new
asphalt. 223,000 tonnes for warm re-use comes from C&DW processing companies. The volume of
crushed asphalt which contains tar and which is also used as an aggregate comes to a total of
751,000 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 lightly
contaminated soil that has to be removed from a building site before construction starts. The
contaminated soil can be cleaned or dumped. The total volume of this lightly contaminated soil was
between 2.7 and 3.7 million tonnes in 1996, and we have taken the mid-point of the range, 3.2 million
tonnes. Some 2.3 million tonnes were re-used after being cleaned or mixed with clean soil, and the
rest was landfilled. The volume of dredged soil was estimated at 3 million tonnes in 1994/95. Because
dredged soil is dredged from rivers and waterways it is generally contaminated with heavy metals and
chemicals. A small volume (200,000 tonnes) is used for coastal works, but no beneficial use has
been found for the rest.

7. BELGIUM

(m tonnes) (%) (%) ated (%) (%)
Concrete, brick, tiles etc. 6.41 1/1/2 97/91/82 0 2/8/16
(inert)*
Wood 0.11 5 0 55 40
Glass
Plastic 0.01 0 10 60 30
Metals 0.01 0 90 0 10
Insulation
‘Core’ C&DW* 6.75 1/1/2 94/85/81 1/3/0 4/11/17
Total 34.66
Note: * 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) the
Belgian 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 there
is a single figure, there is not believed to be any significant difference between the percentages in the
different regions.
The following table provides an alternative presentation of the arisings estimates, broken down
between the three regions:
Regional Breakdown of C&DW Arisings (m tonnes)

Total Flanders Brussels Wallonia
Concrete, brick, tiles etc. (inert) 6.41 3.93 0.74 1.74
Wood 0.11 0.09 0.02
Glass
Plastic 0.01 0.00 0.00
Metals 0.01 0.01 0.00
Insulation
Mixed and other C&DW 0.21 0.08 0.05 0.08
‘Core’ C&DW 6.75 4.11 0.81 1.82
Soil, stones etc. 27.00 20.00 1.00 6.00
Road planings (mainly asphalt) 0.91 0.55 0.09 0.27
Total 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. Due
to rounding the numbers do not all add up to 100%.
Flanders Brussels Wallonia

Demolition 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 may
differ significantly from the above.

8. AUSTRIA

(m tonnes) (%) (%) ated (%) (%)
Concrete, brick, tiles etc. (inert) 3.60 50 50
Wood
Glass
Plastic
Metals
Insulation
Mixed and other C&DW 1.10 15 85
‘Core’ C&DW 4.70 41 59
Total 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 waste
data relies on the original Austrian Waste Catalogue (ÖNORM S 2100) which uses the same codes as
Germany’s LAGA catalogue. The German methodology for transforming data from one catalogue to
the other is therefore used.
The estimates for recycling come from the amounts which are reported to be ‘treated’. The
percentages shown for landfilling represent the untreated fraction, though it is possible that some of
the untreated waste may actually be incinerated.
The volume of asbestos-based construction materials is reported to be 3,000 tonnes.

9. PORTUGAL

(m tonnes) (%) (%) ated (%) (%)
Wood
Glass
Plastic
Metals
Insulation
Soil, stones etc.
Total
9.1 Source of Data
No official statistics are available. We have based the above estimate on a per capita arising rate of
325kg/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 are
available. 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 before
they are demolished for direct re-use or recycling.

10. DENMARK

(m tonnes) (%) (%) ated (%) (%)
Wood 0.20 30 30 15 25
Glass 0.05 15 40 0 45
Plastic 0.01 0 20 30 50
Metals 0.16 38 60 0 2
Insulation 0.05 40 30 0 30
‘Core’ C&DW 2.64 6 75 3 16
Soil, stones etc.* 7.70 16 6 0 0
Total 10.71 36 54 1 9
Note: * See the comments below.
10.1 Source of Data
Most of the above figures come from official sources, primarily the Ministry of Environment and
Energy (MEE). In putting them into our standard format, various references were consulted and
individuals interviewed, as indicated below:
Waste Stream Sources of Data and Comments

Concrete, brick, MEE: Orientering fra Miljøstyrelsen nr. 13. Affaldsstatistik. 1997.
tiles etc. (inert) 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 Demolition
Waste 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 and MEE: Orientering fra Miljøstyrelsen nr. 13. Affaldsstatistik. 1997.
Mixed and other
C&DW
Soil, stones etc. MEE: Miljøprojekt nr. 150. Prognose for bygge- og anlægsafffald -
hovedrapport.
DAEP.
Road planings RENDAN A/S: Bygge- og anlægsaffaldsstatistik 1996, Draft Dec 1997.
(mainly asphalt)
10.2 Comments
The figure for soil and stones is split between 1.7 million tonnes of soil and stones from construction
sites and 6 million tonnes of dredging spoil. All of the dredging spoil is dumped at sea, while 75% of
the construction site waste is re-used and 25% recycled. Roughly one quarter of the 1.7 million tonnes
of construction site waste is reckoned to be re-used on the original sites, half on other sites, and one
quarter processed off-site for subsequent sale.

11. GREECE

(m tonnes) (%) (%) ated (%) (%)
Wood
Glass
Plastic
Metals
Insulation
Soil, stones etc.
Total
11.1 Source of Data
The above estimate comes from the National Plan for the integration and alternative management of
waste and refuse.
11.2 Comments
Slightly more than one third of the arisings of C&DW are understood to come from the region of
Attica, which includes Athens. A further 15% comes from the city of Thessaloniki and the surrounding
region of central Macedonia.
We are unaware of any significant levels of selective demolition, sorting or recycling of C&DW in
Greece.

12. SWEDEN

(m tonnes) (%) (%) ated (%) (%)
Wood 0.39 0 5 75 20
Glass 0.01 25 10 0 65
Plastic 0.00 0 0 20 80
Metals 0.15 0 70 0 30
Insulation 0.02 0 0 0 100
‘Core’ C&DW 1.69 1 20 17 62
Total 5.89 28 26 5 41
12.1 Source of Data
The source for the above figures is a report (‘Kartlägging avmaterialflöden inom bygg- och
anlåggningssektoren’) prepared by AB Jacobsen & Widmark for Naturvårdsverket (The Swedish
National 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 million
tonnes recorded above under this heading derives from EWC category 20 02 03 (other non-
compostable waste).

13. FINLAND

(m tonnes) (%) (%) ated (%) (%)
Wood 0.44 2 7 69 22
Glass 0.00 1 29 0 70
Plastic 0.00 5 5 0 90
Metals 0.17 6 75 0 19
Insulation 0.02 10 45 0 45
‘Core’ C&DW 1.35 3 42 24 31
Total 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 using
1997 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 a
national construction waste statistics project becomes available.

14. IRELAND

(m tonnes) (%) (%) ated (%) (%)
Wood 0.01 0 0 0 100
Glass 0.01 0 0 0 100
Plastic 0.00 0 0 0 100
Metals 0.01 0 0 0 100
Insulation 0.00 0 0 0 100
‘Core’ C&DW 0.57 1 0 0 99
Total 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 on
the 1995 National Waste Database Report.
14.2 Comments
The 1995 National Waste Database Report notes that 35% of C&DW was recycled, 34% accounted
for by soil and stones, and 1% by ‘other’ C&DW (assumed to be concrete). 34% of the total C&DW (ie
34% of 1.89 million tonnes) is 642,600 tonnes of soil and stones, which is half of the total for soil and
stones. 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) (%) (%) ated (%) (%)
Wood
Glass
Plastic
Metals
Insulation
Soil, stones etc.
Total
15.1 Source of Data
No official figures were received from Luxembourg. In their absence, the above estimate was
calculated on the basis of an assumed per capita arising rate of 700kg/year. This is similar to the
levels 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 - see
sections 1.3 and 1.4 below. The landfilling of other C&DW is strongly affected by the Closed-Cycle
and Waste Act, and by the implementation of environmentally sound waste disposal practices (see
below).
1.2 Mono landfill
According to ‘Daten zur Umwelt, Umweltbundesamt, 1997’ (page 451) there were 1,616 landfills for
C&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 priority
over waste disposal. According to §5(4) the obligation to recycle waste should be met to the extent
that this is technically possible and economically reasonable, especially when a market exists, or can
be created. Waste recycling is considered to be economically reasonable if the costs it entails are not
disproportionate to the costs which disposal would entail.
With effect from 1 January 1999 the destination of C&DW (whether for recycling or disposal) has to
be 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 this
Section.
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 be
accepted by them. The general objective is to landfill only those wastes which are by nature or after
pretreatment actually or almost inert. This will particularly affect mixed C&DW, which will have to be
separated 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 treated
further.
1.4 Taxes (landfill and others)
There are no federal taxes or levies applied to the disposal of C&DW or other wastes. Some Länder
had imposed their own levies on waste incineration and disposal, but on 7 May 1998 this power was
overturned in the courts. There are different prices for landfilling according to the nature and
composition (eg hazardousness - see below for examples). Mixed C&DW is not considered to be
hazardous.
Apart from the obligation in respect of recovery, an incentive to sort C&DW is given through landfill
tariffs, 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 to
over 270 DM/tonne (38 to 138 ECU/tonne), while tariffs for (mineral) demolition waste have remained
constant at approximately 15-20 DM/tonne (7.70-10.20 ECU/tonne). In 1996 tariffs for mixed C&DW
ranged between 100 and 800 DM/tonne (51-408 ECU/tonne). The source for these data is
Gallenkamper B et al, ‘Verstärkte Erschließung des Verwertungspotentials von Baustellenabfällen
durch 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 provides
the 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 von
Gebäuden, 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 guidance
and information on how to deal with C&DW in order to increase recovery and to reduce landfilling. In
some 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 not
yet come into force, but a VA with reduction targets was signed (see below). From 31 December 1999
onwards, waste management planning will be required under the terms of §29 KrW-AbfG, which
transposes the planning obligations contained in the EU’s ‘framework’ waste directive.
1.7 Research and development support
There are various programmes concerned with the use of contaminated soil, recycled materials and
selective 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 of
C&DW site management.

1.9 Voluntary agreements
VAs exist at both the national and regional levels. As an example of a regional VA, the agreement
between the environmental authorities of Berlin and Brandenburg and their respective industrial and
recycling 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 of
mineral waste’;
• provide/ensure transparency of the C&DW-stream from source to re-use (after recycling
operations) 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 recycled
materials.
The industrial organisations that signed the agreement will set up an advisory committee or board
responsible 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 following
uncontaminated 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 stoffliche
Verwertung von mineralischen Restoffen/Abfällen - Technische Regeln LAGA Länder-
arbeitsgemeinschaft Abfall, 5 September 1995) have set out requirements for the use of recycled
C&DW. C&DW-derived aggregates and recycled soil (for which there are quality standards set by the
Quality Association of Construction Material Recyclers: RAL 501-1 Recycling-Baustoffe für den
Straßenbau - 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 road
construction is regulated through technical terms of delivery for recycling products (Technische
Lieferbedingungen für Recycling-Baustoffe in Tragschichten ohne Bindemittel - TL RC-ToB 95;
Forschungsgesellschaft für Straßen- und Verkehrswesen, Arbeitsgruppe Mineralstoffe im
Straßenbau). Generally, secondary and recycled materials have to comply with the same
requirements as raw materials.
There is a new standard for recycled materials as aggregates in concrete and the use in building
construction (Deutscher Ausschuß für Stahlbeton - Richtlinie als Ergänzung zu DIN 1045, August
1998).

1.14 C&DW processing facilities
Processing facilities are operated by the private sector. According to information from the German
Building 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 from
window frame manufacturing was collected, along with approximately 3,000 tonnes from end-of-life
window frames, approximately 1,000 tonnes from flooring, approximately 1,000 tonnes from roofing
materials, 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 18007
Abbrucharbeiten). The objective of this standard is to specify definitions and to describe different
demolition activities. Primarily it should facilitate the understanding of different actors in relation to
demolition activities, and it is seen as a starting point for further development, e.g. as a reference and
to determine demolition works.
According to the German Waste Management Act, federal authorities and many other public agencies
under federal supervision are obliged to contribute through their behaviour to the attainment of the
aims of the Act. In the context of construction projects they are required to consider whether, and to
what 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 guidance
on implementing these requirements for construction, renovation and demolition activities undertaken
as public works on behalf of federal authorities and the Ministry of Defence (Arbeitshilfen Recycling:
Vermeidung, Verwertung und Beseitigung von Bauabfällen bei Planung und Ausführung von
baulichen Anlagen, 1998).
Guidance for public works with information about the ecological impact of construction products and
environmentally friendly products is given through ‘Planungshilfen Umweltschutz im Bauwesen;
Fachkommission Standardisierung und Rationalisierung des Hochbauausschusses (LAG) der
ARGEBAU’.
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 to
recycle’ to be unclear and open to conflicting interpretations.
* * * * * * *
(See next page for footnote)

Footnote: More detailed description of the new German Waste legislation as it applies to
C&DW
Introduction
The supplementary subsidiary regulations of the Closed Substance Cycle and Waste Management
Act consist of various ordinances that restructure supervision under waste management law and align
it 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 of
supervision. Holders of waste are largely exempted from supervision in cases in which environmental
compatibility 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 waste
management 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 and
authorities to make the transition to the new laws. Full compliance will not be required until 1 January
1999.
1. Waste Classification Ordinances
The Closed Substance Cycle and Waste Management Act applies criteria of hazardousness to
differentiate between waste requiring supervision and waste requiring special supervision. While
documentation procedures are already mandated by law for waste requiring special supervision,
authorities must mandate such documentation procedures, in individual cases, for waste requiring
supervision.
(a) The Ordinance on the Classification of Waste requiring Special Supervision (Verordnung zur
Bestimmung von besonders überwachungsbedürftigen Abfällen) transposes the EU's catalogue of
hazardous wastes. In addition, it contains regulations for wastes that require special supervision, as a
result 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 to
wastes that, while less hazardous, tend to fall into a grey area between recovery and disposal. In the
past 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. All
relevant 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 Cycle
and Waste Management Act for waste for disposal and waste for recovery. The Ordinance on the
Furnishing 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 waste
holders and the authorities. The authorities are no longer required expressly to approve disposal
procedures. Pursuant to the new Ordinance on Furnishing of Proof, a waste producer's disposal
procedures are considered officially approved if the authorities do not reject the relevant application
within 30 days. In addition, authorities are not required to apply any proof procedures in cases in
which 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 will
facilitate and accelerate procedures.
3. Ordinance on Licensing of Transport
The Ordinance on Licensing of Transport (Verordnung zur Transportgenehmigung) replaces the

relevant approval regulations contained in the old Ordinance on the Supervision of Waste and
Residual Materials.
The Ordinance sets forth requirements for the technical expertise, know-how and reliability of waste
collectors and transporters. It considerably simplifies transport licensing legislation. Transport
licences, which in future are also required for transport of wastes for recovery that require special
supervision, are to be issued independently of specific instances of transport, and will have indefinite
validity 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 Waste
Management Concepts and Waste Life Cycle Analysis (Verordnung über Abfallwirtschaftskonzepte
und Abfallbilanzen) requires waste producers to prepare waste-management concepts and waste life
cycle analyses when their waste production exceeds a certain volume threshold. Such concepts and
analyses contain information about the type, amount and final whereabouts of the waste-producer's
waste, 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 to
optimise their waste management.
Companies that properly prepare and submit waste-management concepts and life cycle analyses, if
they 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 the
requirements relative to the content and form of these concepts and life cycle analyses.
5. Ordinance on Specialised Waste Management Companies, and

the Directive on the Activities and Approval of Waste Management Partnerships
Pursuant to the Closed Substance Cycle and Waste Management Act, a specialised waste
management company is a waste management company that is entitled to advertise a quality
certification received from a recognised waste management association, or that has concluded a
supervision contract with a technical supervision organisation. The law mandates that certified waste
management companies, because they supervise themselves, require neither transport licences nor
licences to carry out agency transactions. The Ordinance on the Furnishing of Proof also considerably
eases the proof procedures for such companies. Proof procedures are not required in cases in which
waste management is handled by specialised waste management companies. The Ordinance on
Specialised Waste Management Companies (Entsorgungsfachbetriebeverordnung) and the Directive
on the Activities and Approval of Waste Management Partnerships
(Entsorgergemeinschaftenrichtlinie) set forth the requirements for the organisation and activities of
such companies, as well as the requirements relative to the reliability and technical expertise of
relevant persons within such companies.
The specialised waste management company certification - like an eco audit - is completely
voluntary. As a result of the privileges and competitive advantages such certification can provide with
respect to statutory procedures, large numbers of waste management companies can be expected to
apply for certification.

2. UNITED KINGDOM
No such measures exist in the UK other than particular requirements relating to controls on the
disposal 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 require
developers to deal with particular C&DW streams in a specified manner. However, guidance issued
by the UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) does allow Local
Planning Authorities to consider a developer’s proposals on waste management measures when they
are deciding on any planning applications, and the new ‘British Standards Code of Practice for
Demolition (BS6187)’ is due to be published in the spring of 1999. Furthermore, Local Planning
Authorities are empowered to attach conditions to planning consents, and these can include controls
on waste management practices. Such controls may be challenged if they are considered by
applicants to go beyond the scope of the relevant law (ultra vires).
The UK Environment Agency has responsibility for licensing waste management site operations in
respect of the potential impacts of emissions and discharges on soils, air quality, ground and surface
water quality. Authorisation from the Environment Agency is also required for the operation of
crushers on sites which are otherwise exempt from waste management licensing. Controls imposed
under 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 at
landfills, or for preparing access roads within the landfill, or for engineering waste cells, is subject to
the landfill tax.
C&DW used for landfilling or land raising on the site of origin (provided it is a site which has been
registered as exempt) is not liable to the landfill tax. Nor is waste used for ‘environmentally beneficial
purposes’ 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 inactive
waste used for the restoration of landfills and quarries.
In addition to the current landfill tax the UK Government is in consultation regarding a possible
aggregates tax, which would be payable where natural (non-waste) materials are won from quarries
and pits.
2.5 Subsidies
The Department of Trade & Industry provides grants to companies in Assisted Areas (these being
areas 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 Waste
Management 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 responsibilities

between the Environment Agency, Local Planning Authorities and Environmental Health Officers, is
provided 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’) is
undergoing consultation and is expected to be issued later in 1998.
Responsibility for waste management planning is divided between the Environment Agency (in
England and Wales) or the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (in Scotland) or the Department
of the Environment (NI) (in Northern Ireland) and Local Planning Authorities.
The Environment Agency and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency have responsibility for
identifying 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 Planning
Authorities. However, around London and certain other large cities there are statutory ‘Green Belts’ in
which there is a general presumption against locating waste management facilities. In general the
Town and Country Planning system requires Local Authorities to designate land within their area for
different uses, including waste management and waste disposal. It focuses on whether the
development itself is an acceptable use of the land, rather than on the control of the processes or
substances themselves. Pollution control and licensing is the responsibility of the Environment
Agency and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (see 2.3 above).
The DETR supports a range of research projects. These have included several projects in recent
years concerned with the re-use and recycling of C&DW as a means of reducing reliance on virgin
aggregates.
The DETR also contributes money to research projects managed by other bodies, such as the
Building Research Establishment (BRE, an executive agency of the DETR) and the private sector
Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA). Both the BRE and CIRIA have
run research projects into C&DW-related topics. CIRIA has recently completed a study entitled ‘Waste
Minimisation and Recycling in Construction’ which included the development of good practice guides
for designers and construction personnel.
The Highways Agency and the Transport Research Laboratory are also involved in research into the
use of C&DW in road construction, particularly regarding specification issues.
The BRE has undertaken a demonstration programme called Phoenix, which involved the
construction of a new office building primarily from recovered and recycled C&DW.
Somerset County Council, the Highways Agency, the County Surveyors Society, the Transport
Research Laboratory and Colas Ltd have recently completed the Linear Quarry Project (the
reconstruction of part of the A3088 trunk road using in-situ recycling techniques) to test draft
specifications.
There are no formal VAs (using the term in the sense in which it is used by DGXI) relating to C&DW
in the UK, though a national VA between the Department of the Environment (now the DETR) and the
British Rigid Urethane Foam Manufacturers’ Association was signed in 1996 with the objective of
reducing adverse environmental impacts as the insulation sector switches from HCFCs to CFCs. This
should reduce the hazardousness of some future C&DW.

The Government does not operate any formal educational or training programmes specifically geared
to C&DW management in the UK, though it provides financial support to bodies such as CIRIA (see
above) which do. A CIRIA research project (see 2.7 above) led to the production of a set of good
practice guides for construction sites. A further handbook to encourage wider use of reclaimed and
recycled materials in construction projects is to be published shortly by CIRIA.
The Environmental Services Association (which represents waste management companies) runs
training 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 of
providing a similar service after March 1999 are being studied at present. The AAS collects and
collates information from other bodies and advises the construction industry and others free of charge
of the information available. A specific aim of the AAS is to assist the Government to achieve its
objective of reducing reliance on virgin aggregates by increasing the contribution from secondary and
recycled 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 Materials
Information 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 a
result the use of secondary and recycled aggregates has often been discouraged because they are
not specifically mentioned.
One standard which applies to both new and recycled materials, and which sets an upper limit on the
percentage of recycled materials is the ‘Specification for Highway Works (1993)’, prepared by the
Highways 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 in
Building and Civil Engineering’.
All C&DW processing centres in the UK are operated by the private sector. It can be assumed that all
such centres operate at least one concrete crusher. Research recently published by the AAS
identified 383 companies in England and Wales as holding process authorisations or waste
management licences in 1997 in respect of mobile and fixed C&DW management operations or
primary aggregates crushing in quarries. No comparable data are presently available for Scotland or
Northern 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 of
the most important measures available to Government in promoting a greater awareness of issues
related to C&DW management, and specifically to recycling.
According to the DETR, some Local Authorities give preference to recycled C&DW for their own
construction projects.

The DETR considers that the greatest single impact on C&DW management practices has come
about as a result of the introduction of the Landfill Tax. However, this followed a gradual trend
towards the commercialisation of waste management, and the impacts of all the other measures
described above.

3. FRANCE
There is no restriction on disposal of C&DW, other than disposal of packaging. Non-household

packaging 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 of
asbestos fibres to the atmosphere) is covered by Circulaire n°97-15 (9 January 1997). This defines
the conditions for processing, transport and final disposal. Only specific landfills can receive this kind
of waste, and they must have specific cells, must prevent any crushing, and must be covered. About
15 landfills have been approved to accept asbestos cement waste.
Disposal of embodied asbestos products is governed by Circulaire n°97-0320 (12 March 1997), which
complements two earlier Circulaires (n°96-60 and n°97-15). It sets out the elimination process for
each type of product. In all cases the enterprise responsible has to provide information on the
characteristics 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. Landfills
which receive gypsum waste must have specific (and covered) cells. Although plaster mixed with
inert 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 only
be 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 40
FF/tonne (6 ECU/tonne) for all ‘Class 1’ and ‘Class 2’ landfills and for all other destinations other than
recovery. 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 by
ADEME, the tariff given for hazardous C&DW is 900 FF/tonne (136 ECU/tonne) except for asbestos
waste, 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 actions
to 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 et
Architecture’ and the ‘Direction Générale de l’Urbanisme, de l’Habitat et de la Construction’ from the
Housing 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 of
C&DW, as well as providing financial and management support for feasibility studies, research
projects etc. carried out by others. Such studies and investigations are often carried out by industrial
companies, consultancy firms, universities, contractors and laboratories.
The following are the only pilot and demonstration schemes in France:
Application Secondary raw material Project

Road sub-base material Concrete, masonry, mixed No specific projects : many
aggregates examples
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 up
some training sessions at a national level for contractors.
Some local authorities (such as the Conseil Régional Languedoc Roussillon) also finance some
initiatives 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 et
Technique du Bâtiment) and ADATIRE provide advisory services in the field of prevention and re-use
of 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, including
recycled materials, have to get an ‘Avis Technique’ (technical agreement).

There are approximately 50 fixed crushers operating in France with a joint capacity of 5 million
tonnes. Most of them are operated by members of SNPGR (the Syndicat National des Producteurs de
Granulats 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 development
in several geographical areas. This was implicitly acknowledged in a letter sent in mid-1998 by the
Ministry of the Environment to all Prefects which asks them to use their influence to encourage
recovery 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 a
focus than regulation of specific waste streams. Much C&DW is understood to be dumped on
unregulated 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 in
Italy.
Controls on demolition and recycling activities may be exercised by Regional, Provincial and
Municipal authorities, depending on the activity concerned. There are no specific measures which
require developers to deal with particular C&DW streams in a specified manner, and in practice very
few controls on the disposal of C&DW. Demolition is tightly controlled, and in recent years outright
demolition 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, the
rate 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 a
consortium of local authorities and construction companies in the north of the country established a
C&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 offered
in 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 we
area unaware of any formal waste exchange.
There is not believed to be any formal standard for recycled materials in Italy, though laboratories as
the University of Milano’s geotechnical laboratory can test recycled materials against the standards
for acceptance for highways work (ANAS). However, in a significant move which facilitates the
development of a market for C&DW-derived aggregates, the highway and railway authorities recently
decided to accept C&DW on their schemes.
There are believed to be roughly 10 C&DW recycling centres in northern Italy, including some
operated 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 a
further 50-100 mobile crushers, but there is not believed to be a central register of mobile crushing
and 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 widespread
availability of marble quarries’ waste materials. None of the measures listed above appear to have
had a clear impact on C&DW management practice, though opening the way for C&DW-derived
aggregates 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 a
focus than regulation of specific waste streams. The government is in the middle of a programme
under which a large numbers of unregulated (but acknowledged) local landfills are being closed down
and landscaped, with waste going instead to larger, formally managed facilities (see Annex 10, Ref
11.3).
5.2 Mono landfill
most regions of Spain, though in Catalonia a network of specialist C&DW landfills has been
established to which C&DW is increasingly being directed.
Controls on demolition and recycling activities may be exercised by Regional, Provincial or Municipal
authorities, depending on the activity concerned. In most parts of Spain there are no specific
measures 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 Spanish
Treasury dislikes hypothecation (allocation of tax revenues to a specific activity), which would
probably 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 funds
have been used.
A C&DW recycling centre in Barcelona (see 5.6 below) was established with a major shareholding
provided by a company in which the Area Metropolitana de Barcelona (a consortium of local
authorities) 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 a
decree related specifically to C&DW management (Decret 201/1994). This imposes obligations on the
owners of buildings and sites and on contractors, including the obligation that contractors be licensed
to 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 by
whom. An accompanying guide to the application of the decree has also been published by the Waste
Board (Junta de Residus).
The Madrid provincial government has made allowance for recycling, and a centre is being developed
on the outskirts of Madrid. The Basque government has issued a consultation document on C&DW
recycling, and at least one quarry operator is believed to be seeking to identify a site close to Bilbao
where a recycling centre could be developed.
Other C&DW recycling initiatives have been pursued around Valencia and Pamplona, but the scale of
these has been relatively modest.

The Spanish government’s road research agency (CEDEX) has an active research programme
covering 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, but
coordinated information is not available.
Both CEDEX and some provincial authorities have treated road recycling R&D projects as
demonstration projects.
The Madrid C&DW recycling centre (see above) will act as a demonstration project when it is
complete.
There are no national VAs in Spain related to C&DW.
in Spain.
There is no advisory service available to C&DW recyclers in most of Spain, but considerable
guidance 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 salvage
etc), 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 quarry
owners).
In the meanwhile, the C&DW recycling centre which is being developed near Madrid offers materials
to a standard which is certified by an independent research centre (the Instituto de Ciencias de la
Construcción ‘Eduardo Torroja’).
There are believed to be three recycling centres in Spain, two near Barcelona and a second (under
development) near Madrid. A fourth is being considered for Bilbao. There is no central register of
mobile crushing and sorting machines, or road recycling equipment.
The centres near Barcelona are at Granollers and Terrassa, both with relatively small crushing and
grading machinery. The main initiative in this region is coordinated by Gestora de Runes de la
Construcció SA (GRC) a company established in 1994 with a brief to establish and manage C&DW
landfills throughout Catalonia. The shares in GRG are held by the Junta de Residus (45%), 90-odd
construction companies (45%) and the Catalan Construction Federation (10%). GRC in turn hold
shares (between 25% and 100%) in the companies that operate 15 C&DW landfills, two transfer
stations and the Granollers recycling plant (see above). Plans are in hand to create a further nine
landfills.

One of GRC’s major ventures is Gestora Metropolitana de Runes SA (GMR), in which it holds 10% of
the shares, with 45% being held by a public company (TERSA) and 45% by 67 construction
companies. GMR operates three landfills/land reclamation schemes in Barcelona, and has plans to
establish two or three waste transfer stations with mobile crushers. It is intended that other mobile
crushers will go round GRC’s C&DW landfills on a rotational basis, crushing inert material and
generating C&DW-derived aggregates.
Prior to the Barcelona Olympics there was a substantial C&DW recycling plant in Barcelona, and the
personnel who are primarily responsible for GRC and GMR were involved with that venture. The
reason why the plant is hardly used now is that landfilling is still too cheap to justify crushing and
transporting C&DW. GRC/GMR plan to install a new C&DW crushing, sorting, separation and
washing 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 de
Empresarios 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 on
practice. The specific C&DW-related decree in Catalonia and the supporting initiatives taken by the
regional 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 sorters
are allowed to dispose of non-re-usable C&DW. It is expected that in the near future the same
permission will be granted to certified demolition waste contractors. Guidance on which materials fall
into which category is as follows:
Re-usable C&DW Non-re-usable C&DW

Masonry and concrete rubble contaminated rubble
Metals (coal)tar
Non-impregnated wood
Paper and cardboard
PE-sheet
PVC
6.2 Mono landfill
With the exception of contaminated sludge, there are no requirements with respect to sending
materials to mono landfills in the Netherlands.
The ‘Soil Protection Decree’ provides the legislative basis for the use of primary as well as secondary
raw materials. The aim of this decree is to protect the soil and surface water, and to promote re-use of
materials.
Demolition waste contractors are also subject to several other laws and regulations. A regional
environmental 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 already
have 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 be
tightened. Furthermore, waste materials that have not been removed separately will have to be
separated on the demolition site by the demolition waste contractors. This covers the following
materials:
• compostable wastes;
• cardboard and paper;
• wood;
• glass;
• textiles.
So far this regional by-law has not achieved its intended effect. Many demolition waste contractors
remain poorly informed about its provisions, and there is little or no checking (control) by the regional
authorities on the effectiveness of the actual separation. At present the regional authorities are
concentrating on disseminating information on the by-law.
Local Authorities were previously empowered to require C&DW to be separated on site. According to
the 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 these
tariffs 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 the
supervision 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 has
taken several actions to discourage the generation of C&DW and to promote its re-use. Since 1996
there has been a government program aimed at the promotion of environmentally friendly products in
the building sector. This scheme includes a number of measures in the field of prevention and re-use
of C&DW. Some basic measures, including requirements or recommendations that certain C&DW
streams 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 applied
to a more limited group of projects.
In order to assist national, regional and local government organisations, the Ministry of Environmental
Planning has published a handbook which provides a number of practical measures and instruments
on 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 use
of secondary raw materials. They can include specific regulations into development plans, they can
attach conditions to building permits when they are issued, and they can impose conditions which
affect the sale of building land. It is also within the competence of local government to make
appointments with building contractors and housing associations on sustainable building in general
and 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 at
encouraging the use of environment-friendly products.
In order to promote separate collection of C&DW, the Dutch association of demolition waste
contractors (BABEX) has set up a system of certification for its members. The certificate prescribes
separate removal of C&DW as well as separate supply to recycling units. A similar system of
certification 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 as
providing financial and management support for feasibility studies, research projects etc. carried out
by 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 in
concrete. Partial replacement (up to 20%) of natural aggregates (gravel) in concrete is becoming
more and more common. Studies have also been established into the recycling of wood, aiming at
the 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 Project

(processed C&DW subwaste
stream)
Landraising Soil and dredging spoil Coverage of dikes in Streefkerk and
Hoek van Holland
Sub-base material Concrete, masonry, mixed No specific projects: many examples
aggregates
Sieve sand Stabilisation layer Rotterdam
Surface Asphalt granulates No specific projects
Surface Masonry, mixed granulates No specific projects
Coarse aggregates Concrete, masonry, mixed Police station at Hoogvliet
in concrete aggregates Dwellings in Amersfoort, Delft,
Amsterdam and Rotterdam
Ministry of Housing Spatial Planning
and the Environment
Sluices in Helmond
Office and production halls in Nijkerk
In 1995 the Dutch Government and approximately 20 industry organisations, including BABEX (the
demolition waste contractors’ organisation), agreed on measures to prevent and re-use C&DW. This
VA 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 joint
effort to promote a ‘closed cycle/closed life cycle’ approach to aluminium building products. In the
same year demolition waste contractors and a glass recycling company agreed on the separate
collection of glass from demolition sites.
The Dutch government does not operate any educational or training programmes specifically geared
to C&DW management.
Advisory services in the field of prevention and re-use of C&DW are provided by commercial as well
as 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 mixed
aggregates are to be used as a sub-base material.
The main standards and norms applicable to recycled aggregates are as follows:
Material Application Standards, norms

Concrete aggregates Coarse aggregate in concrete CUR recommendation 4
NEN 5905: 1988
NEN 5950: VBT
Masonry aggregates Coarse aggregate in concrete CUR recommendation 5
NEN: see above
Crusher sand Fine aggregate in concrete NEN 5905
There are approximately 120 crushers operating in the Netherlands with a joint capacity of 16.25
million tonnes. Roughly 15% of these crushers (around 20) operate on construction sites, with the
others (around 100) located on fixed recycling centres. Some 55% of the companies active in this
field are members of the BRBS.
Whereas old glass- and rockwool insulation materials from demolition sites are collected separately
for landfilling, some unused new materials from construction sites are recycled. Rockwool Lapinus
has 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 with
energy 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 more
minor C&DW streams (such as wood, metals, plastics and glass) is disappointing, and the targets
which have been set are far from being met. Consequently the Dutch Government is continuing its
activities in the field of public/industry education.

7. BELGIUM
Flanders
There are no legal restrictions or bans on disposal affecting C&DW in Flanders. However, the new
VLAREA legislation (‘Vlaams reglement inzake afvalvoorkoming en –beheer’ of January 1998) states
that unsorted industrial waste, the category to which most C&DW belongs, may not be landfilled from
1 July 1998. Indirectly, this means that C&DW should pass through some kind of sorting process. It is
not yet clear if selective demolition and sorting in situ will suffice.
Brussels
The order of 16 March 1995 regarding obligatory recycling of certain types of non-contaminated
C&DW in both private and public works created an indirect ban on disposal. Contaminated C&DW
can still be landfilled. Contractors without recycling or recovery facilities are required to deliver the
uncontaminated C&DW to a recycling or sorting company. This obligation could in theory be waived if
the 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 this
order has proved to be an effective way to restrict landfilling of C&DW. Most of Brussels’ C&DW has
traditionally gone to landfills in Wallonia.
Wallonia
In Wallonia there are no restrictions or bans on disposal. The Walloon government is currently
running a public inquiry to approve controlled landfills (‘Centres d'Enfouissement Techniques’ or
CETs). It is expected that for inert waste, which covers most C&DW, 33 such landfills will be
available.
7.2. Mono landfill
None of the three Belgian regions have requirements governing the sending of materials to mono
landfills for possible future recovery. In Flanders, however, there are mono landfills for, among other
things, 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 disposal
of C&DW.
However the VVS, an association representing most Flemish C&DW recycling plants, has recently
taken action by filing complaints with the authorities whenever apparently illegal practices were
identified, or C&DW materials appeared to be wrongly used. These actions only achieved limited
success, due to the absence of a proper legal framework. However, the VLAREA legislation (see
above) is expected to change this situation.
The average cost to a demolition contractor for sending C&DW to a Class III landfill (of which there
are none in Brussels) varies from about 5.75 to 16 ECU/tonne, excluding transportation costs.
Regional variations (in 1994/95) were as follows:
Flanders Wallonia
Class III landfill charge 6.50 ECU/tonne 2.00-7.50 ECU/tonne
Environmental tax 9.50 ECU/tonne 3.75 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 is
described in section 7.10 below. In addition, the government of Flanders levies a lower rate of tax on
the disposal of the final waste fraction after C&DW has been processed. This effectively encourages
the sorting and recycling of C&DW.

In Wallonia the government plays quite an active part in the management, and more particularly, in
the organisation of the processing, of C&DW. Besides its active control of both publicly and privately
operated controlled landfills, the Walloon government is a shareholder in SPAQUE (‘Société Publique
d'Aide à la Qualité de l'Environnement’), which in turn invests in the creation of recycling plants by
Tradecowall. Indeed the Walloon government decided on 7 July 1994 to invest 140 million BEF in a
25,1% share of the capital of these recycling companies.
Flanders
The legal basis for waste policy in Flanders is set down in the Waste Decree of 2 July 1981, which
was considerably modified by the new Decree of 20 April 1994. Issues of particular relevance to
C&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 VLAREA
legislation mentioned in 7.1 above) was approved by the Flemish government on 17 December 1997
and published officially on 16 April 1998. This defines the rules and conditions in some detail in
Chapter 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 of
waste in or as construction material are defined. Considerable scope is identified for C&DW-derived
aggregates, provided certain requirements regarding composition, leachability and conditions of use
are respected. C&DW crushers and processors require a permit to process waste, and a certified
Quality Assurance system. Thus, not only do the products have to fulfil certain environmental
conditions, but the processing company or unit is also subject to specific conditions. As well as
C&DW-derived aggregates, the VLAREA legislation considers other wastes which can be re-used as
secondary 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 directed
at specific industrial sectors. Since this opportunity was already provided in the Flemish Strategic
Waste Action Plan for 1991-1995, OVAM (together with the construction industry) developed an
Implementation Plan for C&DW in 1995 (‘Het Uitvoeringsplan Bouw- en Sloopafval’). The main
objective of this plan is to achieve a level of 75% recycling of C&DW by the year 2000. A maximum
of 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 and
quantitative prevention measures.
Brussels
In the Brussels Capital Region environmental issues in general fall under the competence of the
IBGE/BIM (Institut Bruxellois pour la Gestion de l'Environnement/Brussels Instituut voor
Milieubeheer), which was created in 1989. Waste management is mainly based on the Order of 7
March 1991 on the prevention and management of waste. This order obliges the Brussels
government 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 by
1995, 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 draft
Waste Management Plan for 1998-2002, which was under public inquiry from 19 January to 18 March
1998. Tools to realise this ambitious objective are the incorporation of specific clauses allowing the
use of recycled C&DW in public works and the organisation of major awareness-raising campaigns
directed at the construction and demolition industry in order to stimulate on-site sorting. With regard
to the first of these two tools, it is interesting to note that a Ministerial Circular of 9 May 1995 already
allows the re-use of certain C&DW in public road and infrastructure works.
Wallonia
Until recently the legal basis for waste policy in Wallonia was defined in the Waste Decree of 5 July
1985. However, a new Waste Decree was adopted on 27 June 1996. One of the key provisions of this
decree is the encouragement which it provides to the re-use and recycling of waste materials (defined
in French as ‘l'utilisation de matières assimilables à des produits’). A draft application order on the
establishment of a list of recyclable waste materials fit for use in certain applications is currently
under 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 and
awareness raising campaigns aimed at both the public and private sectors on ways to prevent waste
arising, and directing C&DW towards controlled landfills and recycling plants, were given a high
priority. However, according to ‘Horizon 2010’ (the new Walloon waste management plan), some 1.1
million 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. Rising
recycling targets are proposed: 74% by 2000, 81% by 2005 and 87% by 2010. At the same time
landfilling 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 of
prevention, re-use and recycling of C&DW. Consultancy firms, universities and/or construction
research centres carry out studies financed partly or completely by the authorities to collect
information, 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 production
of better quality recycled aggregates (in terms of less impurities and contamination) were and are still
financed by the construction industry and the regional authorities of all three regions. Research into
the environmental quality of recycled products in terms of possible heavy metal and other
contamination, which is used as a basis for the legal framework for the recognition of secondary raw
materials, is financed by the authorities.
In the early 1980s some big demonstration projects were established, including the use of recycled
crushed 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 demonstrate
the rational use of recycled materials. In recent years the relevant regional government organisations
(Departement Leefmilieu en Infrastructuur in Flanders, Ministère d'Equipement et Transport in
Wallonia and IBGE-BIM in Brussels) have established technical specifications which permit the use of
recycled materials in a whole range of applications. In order to encourage a more consistent
approach, 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 become
quite common.
However, in response to the Implementation Plan for C&DW (see 7.6 above), the Flemish authorities
recently felt the need for new demonstration projects to show new and higher grade applications. It
was decided to develop at least one such project in each of the Flemish provinces. Special technical
specifications, which would become obligatory for specific public works, were established by a
technical 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 uses
to be demonstrated.
Another important demonstration project, financed by the Walloon authorities, concerned the use of
recycled aggregates in road construction and in concrete products, such as blocks and tiles. This was
set 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 collaboration
agreement (‘Accord de branche’) of 14 July 1994 between government and the construction and
demolition industries are both considered to be excellent examples of fruitful voluntary collaboration
aimed at less waste and better recovery. Wherever possible, the regions prefer voluntary agreements
and consensus objectives to far-reaching regulation.
In 1997 the Flemish Federation of Contractors (VCB) and the Flemish Organisation of Sorting
Companies (VSO) agreed that contractors who sort waste on site should be guaranteed a better price
for their waste. A new voluntary initiative which is expected in Flanders in the near future concerns
the 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 group
active in the context of the Implementation Plan for C&DW.
Flanders
Two initiatives in Flanders merit special mention. The first, known as the PRESTI programme, had as
its main objective the raising of awareness in the construction and demolition industry of
environmental issues, including noise, energy and waste. It was quite successful, and several
information documents aimed at the different sub-sectors of the industry were published. These
contained legal as well as technical information. Two further PRESTI programmes have subsequently
been 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 the
government. Through these actions, the government wants to demonstrate the effectiveness of
prevention.
A second initiative, also financed by the government, was the production of a brochure directed at
architects. Through this short pamphlet, the authorities wish to educate architects about recent
developments in C&DW prevention and recycling. Experience has shown that many of them were
unaware of the potential for de-mountable construction, selective demolition and recycling. The fact
that architects have a major influence on the C&DW stream motivated the authorities to inform them.
Brussels
In 1995 IBGE-BIM published a guide to the management of C&DW which brought together all the
legal 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 and
information.
Wallonia
In Wallonia, the MARCO programme, which is directly comparable to the Flemish PRESTI
programme (see above), is currently running. The main difference is that MARCO is specifically
directed towards small and medium sized construction and demolition companies and construction
product manufacturers.
Another programme which also considers C&DW is the Ecoforma project. This is an Internet-based
educational 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 advisory
service called ‘Recycling in the construction industry’. A separate national advisory service covering
recycling in road construction, financed by the regional authorities and the road contractors, is
currently running.
There is a federal waste exchange office, but it appears to have little impact on the C&DW sector. On
a 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 are
studying 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’ technical
authorities, 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 responsible
for the certification of these aggregates. The basis for the certification scheme is provided by
technical specifications provided by the authorities, though the COPRO certification scheme also
includes a control of the QA systems at the recycling plants.
At the moment a technical prescription for recycled concrete, masonry and mixed aggregates is being
drafted 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 such
C&DW-derived aggregates. It is expected that the normative document will be ready by the end of
1998.
Flanders
About 80 C&DW recycling installations (crushing facilities) are in operation, with a combined annual
capacity estimated at 5 million tonnes. About 40 sorting facilities which process C&DW amongst other
wastes are also available.
It is expected that the new VLAREA legislation will lead to some rationalisation of the C&DW
recycling industry. The fact that only C&DW processed by plants with QA certification can be used as
a secondary product will probably result in the closure of some smaller, low quality recycling plants.
Brussels
As explained above (see section 7.1), Brussels depends on Flemish and Walloon facilities to process
and dispose of its C&DW. However, it is expected that in the near future one or more private
recycling plants will be installed in the Brussels territory. However, due to the high population density
environmental constraints with respect to noise and dust are quite severe.
Wallonia
In the Walloon region, 10 recycling plants with an annual capacity of 650,000 tonnes were being
operated by private companies and by Tradecowall in mid-1997. Since then Tradecowall, together
with the primary aggregates sector, has established two further recycling plants in Namur and
Tournai. 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, advisory
services and specifications has been introduced in combination.
Flanders has generally led the way in waste management within Belgium, including C&DW
management. Many of the initiatives in all three regions which are reported above are too recent for
any effect to have shown up yet in C&DW statistics, but one difference between Flanders and
Wallonia which has been evident for some time is the higher cost of landfilling in Flanders, reflecting
the differences in the geology of the two regions and the higher population density in Flanders. It
appears likely that this sub-set of factors has provided a major stimulus to the generally higher levels
of recycling found in Flanders.

8. AUSTRIA
§17 of the Waste Management Law enshrines the recovery and treatment principles for hazardous
and demolition wastes, and since 1993 different regulations have come into effect covering the
separation, recovery and disposal of C&DW. Currently there are approximately 400 C&DW landfills in
Austria. 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 the
economic circumstances, and non-recoverable wastes are to be treated before disposal. Recycling
costs which are 25% higher than the cost of landfilling are considered to be reasonable according to
the 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 different
materials 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 planning
measures.
There are no taxes for the disposal of C&DW, but according to the amended law (of 7 June 1989) to
finance the remediation of contaminated sites there are fixed ‘rates’ for the disposal of waste on
landfills. The rate differs depending on the landfill and on the type of waste, and the income is to be
used 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 are
as follows:
Date C&D Waste Landfills Excavated Soil Landfills

ÖS/tonne ECU/tonne ÖS/tonne ECU/tonne
1 January 1997 60 4.34
1 January 1998 80 5.79 80 5.79
1 January 2001 100 7.24 100 7.24
Note: There is an additional charge of 30 ÖS/tonne (2.17 ECU/tonne) if the landfill does not have
an
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 Landfills

ÖS/tonne ECU/t ÖS/tonne ECU/t ÖS/tonne ECU/t
1 January 1997 60 4.34
1 January 1998 150 10.85 200 14.47
1 January 2001 80 5.79
1 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 in

draft.
All landfills have to meet particular requirements regarding location (geological and hydrogeological
conditions etc.), general design, protection of soil and water (lining, water control and leachate
management), gas control, stability, landfill cover, documentation and quality control. Threshold
values for waste, waste analysis and control procedures are defined for waste to be accepted in the
different classes of landfill.
From 1 July 1999 landfills have to comply with requirements set out in an amendment (dated 19 June
1997) to the 1959 water law. This sets out specific regulations for landfills to be enforced in stages. By
1 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 for
excavated soil and C&DW landfills. Full enforcement of all provisions will be in place by 1 January
2004.
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. The
objective of the agreement is to increase recovery rates for C&DW in order to reduce the amount of
waste being landfilled and to conserve natural resources. A number of issues mentioned in the VA
have now been implemented, such as quality standards for recycled materials (though see section
8.13 below), a waste exchange scheme, and legal requirements.
It is understood that education and training in general waste management is available, but this is not
specific to C&DW.
There is no C&DW-specific organised advisory service. Information and advice is given through the
construction recycling federation, and there are other educational and training schemes.

There is an Internet-based waste exchange for excavated soil, mineral construction waste and
recycled materials.
There are standards for C&DW-derived aggregates for concrete, road construction and noise
protection walls, and for the treatment of contaminated soil. Standards for recycled materials are
generally performance-based, with different quality classes. The international recycling federation is
working on the harmonisation of quality standards for recycled materials.
There are approximately 150 treatment sites and 400 landfills for C&DW in Austria. The treatment
sites are mainly for the treatment of asphalt, concrete and mineral demolition waste, with an annual
capacity of more than 5 million tonnes. Roughly two thirds of all C&DW crushers are reckoned to be
located 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 activity
does not necessarily require additional treatment capacity, according to the national waste
management plan.
8.15 Other measures
Some regions of Austria require demolition permits to be approved by the authorities, others simply
require notification to the relevant authorities.
There is a national standard on demolition works (ÖNORM B2251 Abbrucharbeiten) which is used on
all public sector projects.
Austria has used a combination of measures to encourage C&DW recycling, with the main emphasis
on conventional regulation.

9. PORTUGAL
No such measures exist in Portugal, where regulation of landfills in general has been much more of a
focus than regulation of specific waste streams. The government is seeking to close down large
numbers of unregulated (but acknowledged) local landfills in favour of larger, formally managed
facilities.
9.2 Mono landfill
Portugal. 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 Municipal
authorities, depending on the activity concerned. There are no specific measures which require
developers to deal with particular C&DW streams in a specified manner, and in practice very few
controls 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&DW
recycling. 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 into
local practice (see 9.7 below).
There is a project to characterise the nature C&DW arisings and measures currently taking place in
Lisboa. This is designed to result in an action plan for C&DW management. The project arises from a
protocol 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 de
Ciência Aplicada e Tecnologia).
As a first stage, the processes involved in rehabilitation and demolition of selected buildings are being
studied. The sites which have been chosen are intended to be representative of the different types of
buildings 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 work
will be complemented through further studies in other regions of the country with different
characteristics, in order to generate a representative picture of the issues.
The Portuguese government’s civil engineering laboratory (LNEC) has a roads research programme
which includes issues related to the use of waste materials in road construction. So far this does not
extend to C&DW-derived aggregates.

A demonstration project on the site of Expo’98 was proposed. The original intention was to take
demolition waste from structures which previously occupied the site, and to use it as an aggregate in
concrete for the Expo development. Concerns about contamination caused the proposal to be
dropped. 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.
in 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 no
formal waste exchange.
There is no formal standard for recycled materials in Portugal. The highway authorities responsible for
motorways and major roads in Portugal (BRISA and JAE respectively) will not accept C&DW-derived
aggregates on their schemes.
Although some C&DW is separately collected in special containers located on construction and
demolition sites, most nevertheless ends up being landfilled.
It has recently been reported that a C&DW recycling centre has been established near Lisboa, but no
details of the capacity or throughput of this centre are known to us. The aim of this centre is stated to
be 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 as
being used in the landscaping of worked-out sand pits and stone quarries, and in drainage works. The
separated plastics, paper and cardboard, wood and metals (ferrous and non-ferrous) are sent to
appropriate 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 yet
had a clear impact on practice.

10. DENMARK
According to national waste management policy and related targets, landfilling and incineration of
C&DW should be minimised. Only waste which cannot be recovered in an environmentally safe way
is 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 which
cannot be recycled and which is suitable for incineration. There is, however, no explicit ban on
landfilling and incineration without energy recovery.
10.2 Mono landfill
In general, there are no active mono landfills in Denmark, though some landfills have cells for
specific waste streams (such as PVC waste, asbestos etc).
The Danish Environmental Protection Act requires waste treatment plants and landfills for C&DW to
hold licences from the county authorities, based on a process of environmental assessment. The
county authorities are then responsible for supervising the treatment plants, and have the authority to
take 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 is
covered by environmental regulations designed to protect neighbouring properties from unreasonable
nuisance. 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, provided
that 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 to
be separated.
There has been a national tax on landfilling and incineration since 1987. Since 1 January 1997 the
rates have been:
Disposal mechanism Rate of Tax/t

Landfilling 335 DKK 45 ECU/tonne
Incineration with <10% power production 260 DKK 35 ECU/tonne
Incineration with power production 210 DKK 28 ECU/tonne
Taxation, in combination with other legislation and planning measures, has been successful in
reducing to a minimum the landfilling of C&DW.
3
There is also a natural resources tax which applies to the quarrying of gravel of 6 DKK/m (0.8
3
ECU/m 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&DW
was 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 targets
generally follow the national targets.

As well as being required to assign all kinds of waste to specific treatment or recycling facilities (see 1
above), 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 the
mid-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 have
been 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 Environment
and 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 issues
are available. The Technical Universities and Civil Engineering Colleges provide courses on solid
waste 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 fractions
within C&DW, to educate them about selective demolition techniques and the influence which the
quality of the sorting process can have on the subsequent re-use of the various wastes, and to inform
them about the different treatment, recycling and disposal options. The course also deals with
occupational health aspects.
Two private sector institutions - RENDAN (Danish Centre for Knowledge on Waste Minimisation and
Recycling) and DTI (Danish Technological Institute) - are provided with financial support to enable
them to act as know-how centres for C&DW disposal and recycling. An annual status report on
C&DW recycling is prepared and published by RENDAN.
There is an active market for C&DW in Denmark. For many years demolition contractors have
marketed re-usable demolition materials from their own stock yards, and there are many examples of
C&DW which has been treated at crushing plants owned by the private sector or by groups of
municipalities being sold to interested customers.
The Danish Society of Civil Engineers has issued a standard for the use of crushed concrete and
masonry as an aggregate material in new concrete. There is also a specification governing the use of
crushed 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 privately
owned, others belong to groups of municipalities.
10.15 Other measures
Under the Danish Building Regulations (of the National Building and Housing Agency) a permit is
required from the local municipality before any building may be demolished.
The combination of legislation, taxation, national and local planning measures have between them
been 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 landfills
in 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 are
unaware of any plans to introduce such measures.
11.5 Subsidies
The ‘National plan for the integrated and alternative management of waste and refuse’ emphasises
the importance of closing down unsupervised dumps and creating modern landfills. It also encourages
the sorting of all wastes at source.
We were unable to obtain any information on research and development projects involving C&DW in
Greece.
We were unable to obtain any information on pilot and demonstration schemes involving C&DW in
Greece.
We are aware that VAs have hardly been used in Greece, and we believe that none have been
developed for C&DW.
We were unable to obtain any information on formal educational or training programmes specifically
geared 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 we
understand 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 materials
in Greece.
Such C&DW processing as does occur is organised on-site by the demolition/building contractor. No
register 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 yet
had a clear impact on practice.

12. SWEDEN
The Swedish Parliament decided in November 1997 to prohibit the landfilling of combustible waste
from 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 different
kind of wastes.
According to the Planning and Building Law (PBL), a waste plan/demolition plan must be appended to
the Notification of Demolition provided to the local authority. This should specify the intended disposal
route for the demolition products, focusing on the handling of hazardous substances. Furthermore, a
certain level of education and experience of selective demolition and waste treatment is demanded
for the responsible person at the demolition site.
There is currently a proposal for a landfill tax to encourage recycling and ‘waste to energy’ schemes in
preference to landfilling. The tax is expected to be set at approximately 30 ECU/tonne, and is
expected to come into force on 1 January 1999.
3
There is a natural resources tax applicable to quarried gravel. It has been set at a level of 5 SEK/m
(approximately 0.58 ECU/m 3, 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 has
previously been devolved to the regional and local level, with counties and municipalities obliged to
issue 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. The
Collection and Disposal Act (which regulates waste management) and its ordinances will be
incorporated in the code.
A new scheme for the authorisation and registration of waste handlers is currently being formulated in
accordance with the EC Directive on waste. Another new ordinance on hazardous waste which
implements the EC Directives on hazardous waste has recently been adopted. Waste products that
contain 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 building
materials by the year 2000.
Since the early 1990s there has been a large number of R&D projects which have been financed
partly or totally by Boverket (the National Board of Housing, Building and Planning),
Avfallsforskningrådet, (the Swedish Waste Research Council), Naturvårdsverket, (the Ministry of
Environment), Byggforskningsrådet, (the Building Research Council), municipalities, and/or different
actors 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 act
as a channel to the Swedish government for the views of businesses in the construction sector on
environmental issues. In December 1995 Byggsektorns Kretsloppsråd presented its action plan on
environmental 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 (the
Association of Demolition Contractors).
Boverket (the National Board of Housing, Building and Planning) has developed a range of
educational materials that are offered at discount prices.
Byggsektorns Kretsloppsråd (the Building Industry Environmental Council) provides an advisory

service 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 amount
of 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 building
materials and as aggregates in new concrete are being developed by Boverket. Vägverket and VTI (a
research 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 in
new 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 and
non combustible fractions.
No other measures were reported.
The Swedish government has supplemented traditional regulation with a significant number of R&D
projects, demonstration projects and cooperation with business. The proposed landfill tax will be set at
a 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 most
other Member States.

13. FINLAND
The Finnish Waste Act (1072/1993) reflects the waste hierarchy established in the Framework
Directive, 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 tariffs
should encourage waste prevention and utilisation. In the larger cities in particular the tariffs
applicable to C&DW suitable for re-use or recycling are considerably lower than landfill tariffs. Some
municipalities 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 larger
cities. Where exceptional arisings of such soils are expected, local land use plans may make special
provision for this.
Other than specific waste planning measures (see sections 13.1 and 13.6) there are no directly
relevant planning measures.
Since 1 January 1998 the Waste Tax Act (495/1996) has imposed a tax on C&DW which is landfilled
with 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 trend
towards increasing regional co-operation on waste management, including C&DW disposal. The
national 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 be
sorted 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 of
landfills, and (indirectly) promoting regional co-operation on improved C&DW management.
In local waste regulations some municipalities provide more specific guidance (and requirements) on
the sorting, collection and processing of C&DW. Incorrectly sorted or handled waste can be returned
to its last holder.
According to the Waste Act and Decree, organised (‘professional and factory-like’) waste treatment
and 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 action
to prevent further violations.
Firms which transport C&DW must at least be registered with the regional authorities before they are
permitted 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 aspects
related to C&DW. The Ministry of the Environment directly supports 2-3 R&D projects related to
C&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 programme
is about 100 million FIM (17 million ECU), about half of which is covered by the participating
companies. Nine R&D projects specifically concerned with C&DW were carried out between 1994 and
1997, 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. The
most 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 packaging
materials and packed goods covers packaging waste arising from construction sites. It supplements
the existing mandatory requirements on packaging and packaging waste.
Theoretical education in waste management is available through the technical universities and civil
engineering 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 for
unemployed technical officers and workers. Training courses run by adult education organisations last
up 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) on
environmentally sound construction for developers, designers and contractors.
The Confederation of the Finnish Construction Industries trains its member contractors through
seminars, 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 national
advisory 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 and
local waste advice and information.
Regional waste disposal firms have waste advisors to promote and improve the quality of their waste
operations.

The Confederation of the Finnish Construction Industries has improved its ability to give advice and
information 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 recycling
centres has increased in recent years;
• significant amounts of wood waste from demolition sites are sold or given direct to private
households. Wood waste represents a far higher proportion of C&DW in Finland than in most other
Member States.
There is no special official norm for recycled materials. The use of recycled material is generally
decided 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 standards
have improved. Reflecting this, there has been a rapid change in the processing and utilisation of
C&DW.
There are currently about 10 local collection sites for concrete and masonry wastes near the larger
cities. Collected material is then crushed using mobile or fixed plant. There are about 20 firms which
handle 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 to
cut arisings and increase the utilisation of C&DW. The Confederation of the Finnish Construction
Industries has stimulated and promoted this development.
Since 1997 contractors have had to provide a maintenance plan and instructions as a condition to
receiving state subsidies for dwelling production.
Rates of arisings of C&DW are very low in Finland compared to most other Member States, reflecting
in part the widespread use of wood, and the relative scarcity of high-rise buildings. The government
has used a wide range of policy instruments to reach this point, but has recently introduced a landfill
tax 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 by
Local 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 recently
announced for ‘fixed-site’ C&DW recycling facilities at Balleally landfill and Ballyfermot. The amounts
were IR£400,000 and IR£254,500 (533,000 and 339,000 ECU) respectively, to Fingal County Council
and 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 to
apply for a licence from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by certain specified dates to
continue operating. The Licence Application (and subsequent Licence if granted) specifies the
quantities and types of wastes to be accepted at the landfill. Thus C&DW must be specified as a
waste to be accepted. However there are no particular restrictions relating to the acceptance of such
waste unless it is contaminated. The EPA can specify certain limits on the level of contamination
acceptable at any landfill.
National recycling targets do not explicitly refer to C&DW, even though it has been confirmed as a
priority waste stream, and is being considered as such in Waste Management Strategy Studies and
Plans currently being prepared across the country. Specific measures are thus being recommended in
local and regional Waste Management Plans to deal with this waste stream.
The Dublin Waste Management Strategy Study Report (December 1997) for the Dublin Region, which
is the largest generator of C&DW (1.2 million tonnes per annum), sets a target for recycling of C&DW
of 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 at
Balleally landfill in 1996 produced a product which conformed to the National Road Specification and
formed the basis to proceed with the development of a fixed-site recycling facility at the landfill (see
under Subsidies above). Tenders have been invited for the development and operation of the facility
and 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 and
Competency Assessment Scheme on Waste Management in Ireland was launched in Dublin on 18
June 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 recovered
materials (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 earthworks
materials together with associated typical uses and permitted constituents. A number of classes are
likely 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 the
construction 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 measures
detailed 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 / Potentially Potentially Treatment and/or disposal options

material hazardous hazardous
component(s) properties
Concrete Hydrocarbon solvents Flammable Return to supplier, recycle, remove for specialist disposal.
additives
Damp proof Solvents, bitumens Flammable, Return to supplier, recycle, remove for specialist disposal.
materials toxic
Allow to cure prior to disposal.
Adhesives Solvents, isocyanates Flammable, Return to supplier, recycle, remove for specialist disposal.
toxic, irritant
Seek alternative less hazardous products.
Mastics / Solvents, bitumens Flammable, Return to supplier, recycle, remove for specialist disposal.
sealants toxic
Seek alternative less hazardous products.
Use water.
Road Tar-based emulsions Toxic Return to supplier, recycle, remove for specialist disposal.
surfacing
Asbestos Respiratable fibre Toxic, Remove under controlled conditions for specialist disposal.
carcinogenic
Mineral fibres Respiratable fibres Skin & lung Remove for separate disposal.
irritants
Treated timber Copper, arsenic, Toxic, Recycle.

chrome, tar, ecotoxic,
pesticides, fungicides flammable Hazardous components bound into timber, low impact on landfill.
Toxic fumes and residue produced on burning.
Fire resistant Halogenated Ecotoxic Possible low impact in landfill if bonded to substrate; high impact in
wastings compounds product form; possible toxic fumes on burning.
Paint and Lead, chromium, Toxic, Possible low impact in landfill if bonded to substrate; high impact in
coatings vanadium, solvents flammable product form; possible toxic fumes on burning.
Power transfer PCBs Ecotoxic Contaminated transformer oils to be removed under controlled
equipment conditions for specialist disposal.
Lighting Sodium, mercury, Toxic, ecotoxic Recycle, remove for specialist disposal.
PCBs
Air CFCs Ozone Remove for specialist recovery.

conditioning depleters
systems
Fire fighting CFCs Ozone Remove for specialist recovery.

systems depleters
Contaminated Radionuclides Toxic Specialist decontamination prior to demolition or refurbishment.

building fabric
(including Heavy metals including Toxic Specialist decontamination prior to demolition or refurbishment.
cont-amination cadmium and mercury
due to
previous use)
(1)
Biohazards (anthrax) Toxic Specialist decontamination prior to demolition or refurbishment.
(1)
Animal Biohazards (anthrax) Toxic Specialist decontamination prior to demolition or refurbishment.
(1)
products
Gas cylinders Propane, butane, Flammable Return to supplier.

acetylene

Product / Potentially Potentially Treatment and/or disposal options
material hazardous hazardous
component(s) properties
Resins/ fillers, Isocyanates, phothalic, Toxic, irritant Return to supplier, recycle, remove for specialist disposal.
Precursors anhydride
Oils and fuels Hydrocarbons Ecotoxic, Return to supplier, recycle, remove for specialist disposal.
flammable
Plasterboard Possible source of Flammable, Return to supplier, recycle, disperse within landfill.
hydrogen sulphide in toxic
landfill
Glass Recycle.
Possibly physically hazardous to handle.
Road planings Tar, asphalt, solvents Flammable, Recycle if ‘cured’ and low leachability. Separate for disposal if high
toxic leachability / solvent content.
Sub base (ash Heavy metals, Toxic Recycle if low leachability. Separate for disposal if high leachability.
/ clinker) including cadmium and
mercury
Note: (1) Horse hair was formerly used as a binder in plaster. Since the disease of anthrax was widespread up to the
19th Century, and the spores of anthrax are very robust and long-lived as well as being hazardous to
human health, walls which had been plastered in/before the 19th Century must be treated with great care
when 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 working
group dealing with waste statistics on behalf of the Member States, DGXI and Eurostat. Not all of
those contacted responded, so the information collected is consequently incomplete. That does not
detract 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 obtain
their statistics. Finland uses documentation or registration systems and applies standard estimates of
2
waste (in kg/m ) 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 facilities
and 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 considerable
differences between Member States. In response to the question “in the case of mixed inert
demolition waste (e.g. concrete and brick which requires no further separation in order to be suitable
for crushing), is this recorded under 17 01 00 or 17 07 00 (or elsewhere)?” Germany, Austria and
Finland 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 of
construction 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 in
Germany.
Only Finland currently uses the EWC categories precisely as they are defined to record C&DW. The
degree of correspondence between national waste catalogue codes used in other Member States and
the 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) ü ü ü ü ü ü ü
17 01 00 Concrete, bricks, tiles, ceramics and ü ü ü ü ü
gypsum-based materials
17 01 01 Concrete ü
17 01 03 Tiles and ceramics ü
17 01 05 Asbestos-based construction materials ü
17 02 01 Wood ü ü ü
17 02 02 Glass ü
17 02 03 Plastic ü ü
17 03 00 Asphalt, tar and tarred products ü ü ü ü
17 04 00 Metals (including their alloys) ü ü ü
17 05 01 Soils and stones ü ü ü
17 07 00 Mixed C&DW ü ü ü ü ü


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&DW

Level Code Categories, and materials to be Status
recorded (see below)
1 17 00 00 construction and demolition waste U
(including road construction)
2 17 01 00 predominantly inert concrete, bricks, tiles R
and ceramic materials
3 17 01 01 concrete (including reinforced concrete) R
3 17 01 02 bricks U
4 17 01 02 01 whole bricks N
4 17 01 02 02 broken or mixed bricks N
3 17 01 03 tiles and ceramics U
4 17 01 03 01 whole tiles N
4 17 01 03 02 broken or mixed tiles and ceramics N
3 17 01 04 any mixture of concrete, bricks, tiles and N
ceramics plus an acceptable level of other
materials (contraries)
2 17 02 00 wood, glass, plastics and gypsum-based R
construction materials
3 17 02 01 wood U
4 17 02 01 01 untreated/uncontaminated wood N
4 17 01 02 02 wood contaminated by preservatives or N
hazardous material
3 17 02 02 glass U
3 17 02 03 plastic U
4 17 02 03 01 PVC-based material N
4 17 02 03 02 other plastic N
3 17 02 04 gypsum-based construction material M
2 17 03 00 asphalt, tar and tarred products U
(sub-categories as before)
2 17 04 00 metals (including their alloys) U
2 17 05 00 soil and dredged spoil U
2 17 06 00 asbestos-based construction and insulation R
materials, and other insulation materials
3 17 06 01 asbestos-based construction materials M
3 17 06 02 insulation materials containing asbestos M
3 17 06 03 other insulation materials M
2 17 07 00 mixed construction and demolition waste U
3 17 07 01 mixed inert C&DW not included under 17 N
01 00
3 17 07 02 mixed C&DW containing hazardous N
materials
3 17 07 03 other mixed C&DW N
Status: U = unchanged classification, R = revised classification, M = moved classification, N = new

classification.

Figure A9.2: Option 2 for Reorganising EWC Categories Applicable to C&DW
Level Code Categories, and materials to be Status
recorded (see below)
1 17 00 00 construction and demolition waste U
(including road construction)
2 17 01 00 predominantly inert concrete, bricks, tiles R
and ceramic materials
3 17 01 01 concrete (including reinforced concrete) R
3 17 01 02 whole bricks N
3 17 01 03 broken or mixed bricks N
3 17 01 04 whole tiles N
3 17 01 05 broken or mixed tiles and ceramics N
3 17 01 06 any mixture of concrete, bricks, tiles and N
ceramics plus an acceptable level of other
materials (contraries)
2 17 02 00 wood, glass, plastics and gypsum-based R
construction materials
3 17 02 01 untreated/uncontaminated wood N
3 17 02 02 wood contaminated by preservatives or N
hazardous material
3 17 02 03 glass U
3 17 02 04 PVC-based material N
3 17 02 05 other plastic N
3 17 02 06 gypsum-based construction material M
2 17 03 00 asphalt, tar and tarred products U
2 17 04 00 metals (including their alloys) U
2 17 05 00 soil and dredged spoil U
2 17 06 00 asbestos-based construction and insulation R
materials, and other insulation materials
3 17 06 01 asbestos-based construction materials M
3 17 06 02 insulation materials containing asbestos M
3 17 06 03 other insulation materials M
2 17 07 00 mixed construction and demolition waste U
3 17 07 01 mixed inert C&DW not included under 17 N
01 00
3 17 07 02 mixed C&DW containing hazardous N
materials
3 17 07 03 other mixed C&DW N
Status: U = unchanged classification, R = revised classification, M = moved classification, N = new

classification.


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 good
practice related to C&DW recycling and the use of C&DW-derived aggregates. The Study Team
which 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 not
best practice. There is no significance whatsoever attached to the order in which the documents are
listed.
The list is dominated by English (and to a lesser extend German) language reports. Apart from the
fact that the Project Team is predominantly English speaking, and that any reader of this report will
have to be able to read English, we decided that reports in Dutch and Danish (of which there are
many) are already known to native Dutch and Danish speakers, and will never be accessible to the
vast majority of the rest of us. The same applies to the smaller number of reports in most other
Member 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 detailed
reference list of French language documents.
Many other references can be found in Appendix 7 to the C&DW Priority Waste Streams
Programme 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 Streams
Programme of the European Commission (1995) Part I - Information Document, Part II - Strategy
Document, Part III - Recommendations of Project Group. Copies available in English, French and
German. There is no charge for individual requests.
By: Symonds Travers Morgan/Argus for Project Group to European Commission
From: European Commission, BU - 9, 2/128, DGXI.E.3, Rue de la Loi 200, Brussels, B-1049
Belgium (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 publications
ISBN 92-64-15461-2
Reference: 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 Movements
of 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 de

recherches 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 and
Practice and Volume 2 - Re-Use of Demolition Waste (1998) (in Proceedings of the Second
International 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 of
Concrete and Masonry (1994) (in Proceedings of the Third International Symposium held by RILEM
in Odense, Denmark, 24-27 October 1993)

By: Lauritzen E K
1.3.3 Buildings as Reservoirs of Materials - Their Re-Use and Implications for Future
Construction 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 for
Concrete 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 Building
Components’ by Cei-Bois
From: 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 Research Projects Covering More than One Member State:
2.1 Use of Recycled Materials as Aggregates in the Construction Industry - State-of-the-Art in

Europe (1997) (Report on Brite EuRam III Industrial and Materials Technologies Contract BRRT-
CT-0048)
By: CUR, CSTC and Eerland Recycling
From: 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 Brite
EuRam project)
By: Urcelay C
From: 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 to

the Traditional Cement Matrix
By: Dansk Vejbeton A/S et al
From: 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 Contract
No MA1D-0022-C, October 1991)

2.4 Study on Voluntary Agreements Concluded Between Industry and Public Authorities in the
Field of the Environment
By: Enviroplan A/S (subsequently became COWI Consulting Engineers and Planners A/S) et al
From: European Commission DG III.01 - Industry
Contract 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, The
Netherlands
(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, The
Netherlands
(Web site http://www.eapa.org)
4 Reports from Austria:
4.1 6 reports from the Ministry of the Environment / Umweltbundesamt, Bundesministerium für
Umwelt, 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 (keine

Baustellenabfälle) (1993) (C&DW prevention, recovery and treatment)
By: Lahner T, Mostbauer P
Ref: SLNr. 31409
4.1.3 Baurestmassen - Vermeidung, Verwertung, Behandlung - Baustellenabfälle (1994) (C&DW

prevention, recovery and treatment - mixed C&DW)
By: Lahner T
Ref: 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 P
Ref: SLNr. 17202
4.1.5 Baurestmassen : Vermeidung, Verwertung, Behandlung (1995) (C&DW: prevention, recovery,

treatment)
By: Lechner P
ISBN 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 E
Ref: Monographien / Umweltbundesamt, Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Jugend und Familie
ISBN 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 of
applications)
4.2.2 Richtlinie für Recycling-Baustoffe aus Hochbaumassen. Anwendungsbereich:

Zementgebundene Massen (1995) (Guidelines for the recycling of C&DW from buildings and its
application as an aggregate in cement and concrete)
4.2.3 Richtlinie für Recycling-Baustoffe aus Hochbaumassen. Anwendungsbereich: ungebundene

Massen (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 the
treatment of contaminated soil and construction waste)
4.3 2 reports from the Austrian Building Industry Federation / Fachverband der Bauindustrie
Österreichs
4.3.1 Baurestmassen richtig behandeln : ein Leitfaden für die Baustelle (1995) (Guidelines for
C&DW management)
Korneuburg: Starmühler.
4.3.2 Baurestmassentrennung auf der Baustelle - ein Leitfaden für die Baustelle (1994) (Guidelines
for the separation of C&DW on construction sites)
4.4 2 reports from the Technical University of Vienna / TU Wien, Institut für Wassergüte und
Abfallwirtschaft
4.4.1 Baurestmassen in Oberösterreich, Stoffbilanzen der Bauwirtschaft (BRIO-S) (1997) (C&DW

in Austria)
By: Glenck E, Lahner T, Arendt M, Brunner P H
4.4.2 Güterbilanz der Bauwirtschaft -Baurestmassen in Oberösterreich (BRIO) (1996) (Materials

balance 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 of

concrete)
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 der
Steiermark und Project C&D in Auckland, Neuseeland) und der jeweiligen abfallwirtschaftlichen
Rahmenbedingungen (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 P
From: 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 Bases

Report A42
5.1.2 Plant Recycling of Bituminous Materials

Report A45
5.1.3 In Situ Recycling of Bituminous Materials

Report 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 Demolition
Waste (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 Energy
ISBN: 87-7810-820-9
Ref: 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: 87-90145-04-6
ISSN: 0909-1386
Ref: Report 75
(See also Report 63E/88 - Re-Use of Concrete Pavements)
6.3 Recommendations for the Use of Recycled Aggregates for Concrete in Passive
Environmental Class (1990)
From: Dansk Betonforening (Danish Concrete Association), c/o Dansk Ingeniorforening, Vester
Farimagsgade 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) (Selective
demolition study) (Franco-German collaborative research project / Forschungsbericht in
Zusammenarbeit 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 E
From: 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 Allee

99; 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 road
construction)
Ref: RAL-RG 501/1
8.1.4 Recycling, Rückbau und umweltgerechte Baustellenentsorgung, mit Checkliste und

Baustellenanleitung (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-orientated

construction)
By: Willkomm W
8.3 4 selected good practice guidelines (in addition to those above). These guidelines have been
prepared 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 are
usually included
8.3.1 Bauabfallmanagement (C&DW management for construction sites)

From: Neubaumaßnahmen Ingenieurbüro für Verfahrens-, Energie- und Umwelttechnik, RTB Umwelt
GmbH Entsorgung und Verwertung (a company which has received an award for best construction
site 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), Aachen
Ref: Ratgeber Nr.7
8.3.4 Umweltgerechter und kostensparender Umgang mit Bauabfällen (1997) (Environmentally

friendly 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 Städtebau
From: 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 Städtebau
und des Bundesministeriums der Verteidigung (Recycling guidelines)
8.8 Baustoffe unter ökologischen Gesichtspunkten - ökologische Grundsätze, Baustoffe,

Schadstoffe, Wiederverwendung und Recycling.- Landesinstitut für Bauwesen und angewandte
Bauschadensforschung / Fachkommission Standardisierung und Rationalisierung des
Hochbauausschusses (LAG) der Argebau, Aachen 1993 - enthalten in Planungshilfen Umweltschutz
der Bayerischen Finanzbauverwaltung, der Staatlichen Hochbauverwaltung des Landes Hessen und
weiterer Länder (ecological aspects, re-use and recycling)
8.9 Vermeidung und Verwertung von Reststoffen in der Bauwirtschaft.- Beihefte zu Müll und
Abfall (1995) (Prevention and recovery of C&DW)
By: Bilitewski B, Gewiese A, Härdtle G, Marek K
From: 30 Erich Schmidt Verlag, Berlin, Bielefeld, München.
8.10 Recycling bei Sanierungsmaßnahmen.- Bauforschungsberichte des Bundesministers für

Raumordnung, Bauwesen und Städtebau (1995) (Recycling, renovation)
By: Bredenbals B, Willkomm W
8.11 Recyclinggerechter Baustellenbetrieb-Strategien zur Vermeidung und Verwertung von

Abfällen aus Baustellen (1995) 8. Aachener Kolloqium Abfallwirtschaft „Bauabfallentsorgung-von der
Deponierung zur Verwertung und Vermarktung“, in: Schriftenreihe ISA Abfall-Recycling-Altlasten;
Institut für Siedlungswasserwirtschaft der RWTH Aachen (Hrsg.) (Waste management on construction
sites: strategies for waste prevention and recovery of C&DW)
By: Haeberlin N
ISSN 0940-4511
8.12 Baustoffe und Ökologie, Bewertungskriterien für Architekten und Bauherrn. Ernst Wasmuth
Verlag, 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) (In
Baustoff-Recycling, Heft 6, p. 17-20)
By: Kohler G
8.14 Leitfaden zur Erstellung einer Qualitäts- und Umweltmanagementdokumentation für die
Recycling-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 F
From: 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 von

Straßenbaustoffen (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 Th
From: Buchreihe / UmweltZentrum Dortmund
ISBN 3-9805292-0-7
8.20 Recycling bei Sanierungsmassnahmen (1994)

From: Institut für Industrialisierung des Bauens GmbH, Postfach NR 21 05 60, Universität
Hannover, D-30405 Hannover
Ref: Projekt B I 5 - 800192 - 8
8.21 From Down Cycling to Recycling of Used Building Materials in Complex Processing
Centres (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 1998
From: Fiera di Genova, Piazzale J F Kennedy 1, I - 16129 Genova
(Tel 00-39-10-53911, Fax: 00-39-10-539.1270, EMail fierage@fiera.ge.it)
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 Environment
CUR-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 Environment
CUR Rapport 94-9A. English summary available.
10.1 3 Concrete and Masonry Rubble as Coarse Aggregates in Concrete

CUR Rapport 125.
10.2 Standaard RAW Bepalingen (1990)

From: CROW (the Centre for Research and Contract Standardization in Civil and Traffic
Engineering), 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 Residus
From: 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 de
Residus, 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: ITeC
ISBN 84-393-3236-X
11.2.2 Aprofitament de Residus en la Construcció (1995) (Using C&DW in construction)

By: ITeC
ISBN 84-393-3597-0

11.2.3 Programa de Residus de la Construcció a Catalunya (1996) (C&DW programme in
Catalonia)
By: Junta de Residus with Gestora de Runes
ISBN 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, 28071
Madrid
(Tel: 00-34-91-597-6187, Fax: 00-34-91-597.6186, EMail: mfomento@tsai.es
ISBN 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 School
of Mines, Imperial College, London and Dr Clive Spash, Cambridge
From: 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, Publication
Sales 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, Royal
School of Mines, Imperial College, London and Dr Clive Spash, Cambridge
Cost: £95
ISBN: 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 B
From: Department of the Environment, Building Regulations Division, London
(Arising from a 2-year research project at the University of Dundee into recycled concrete
aggregate 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 Specifications
From: Highways Agency, Roads Engineering & Environmental Division, Room 4/27, St Christopher
House, 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 by
Specification for Highway Works and Notes for Guidance; (2) which materials may be used
according to the Design Manual for Roads and Bridgeworks (DMRB); (3) British Standards relating
to 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 SW8
5DT
(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 Summary
By: Department of the Environment
ISBN.011 752952 3
12.6.3 Managing Demolition and Construction Wastes (1994)

By: Howard Humphreys and Partners for the Department of the Environment
ISBN 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 Edwards
ISSN 0266-5247
Research Report 305
12.7.2 Alternative Materials in Road Construction - A Summary of EU RTD Project RO-97-

SC.2238
By: Reid M (TRL) - Project Coordinator
12.8 6 reports from the Building Research Establishment (BRE), Garston, Watford, Hertfordshire
WD2 7JR
(Tel: 01923 664444, Fax: 01923 664400)
12.8.1 Management of Construction and Demolition Waste (1996)

By: Hobbs G
Ref 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) (A
review 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 of
Specifications (1993)
ISBN 0-85125565-5
12.8.6 Efficient Use of Aggregates and Bulk Construction Materials Volume 2 - Technical Data
and Results of Surveys (1993)
ISBN 0-85125566-3
12.9 8 reports from the Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA), 6
Storey'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 H
ISBN: 0-86017-42-8X
CIRIA Special Publication 122
See 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 S
CIRIA Special Publication 133
ISBN: 0-86017-482-4
Price: £65 (£28 for CIRIA members)
See also SP134 Waste Minimisation in Construction - Design Manual, SP135 Waste Minimisation
in Construction - Boardroom Handbook, SP148 Waste Minimisation in Construction - Training Pack
and 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 S
ISBN: 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 R
From: The Chartered Institute of Building, Englemere, Kings Ride, Ascot, Berkshire SL5 7TB
ISBN 1-85380-067-8
12.12 Aggregate Recycling and Alternative Materials in Highway Construction

From: The Institution of Highways and Transportation, Royal Spa Centre, Leamington Spa,
Warwickshire
ISBN 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, Recycled
Materials and By-Products (1995)
By: Sherwood P T
ISBN 07-277201-8X
12.14 3 reports from Nottingham Trent University, Building and Environmental Health
Department, 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 for
Mankind 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 to
IABSE 15th Congress)
By: Speare P R S, Ben-Othman B
12.15.3 Recycled Concrete Coarse Aggregates and Their Influence on Durability (1993) (Presented
to Concrete 2000, Dundee)
By: Speare P R S, Ben-Othman B
12.16 Sustainable Road Maintenance - Reduce Re-Use Recycle (1997) (Papers from a
conference held at Leamington Spa by the Engineering Committee and the Soils and Materials
Design and Specification Group of the CSSO, November 1997)
From: Mr D C Harvey, County Surveyors Society Office, c/o Derbyshire CC, Planning & Highways
Office, Matlock, Derbyshire DE4 3AG
(Tel: 01629 580000)
12.17 Bulk ‘Inert’ Waste: An Opportunity for Use (1996) (These conference proceedings are a
special 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 AAS
Seminar in May 1997)
By: Dengate R
From: 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 Government
Policy (1997)
(Paper presented at AAS Seminar in May 1997)
By: Mallett S H; Woolveridge A; Tollitt B and Burnett J
From: 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 P
From: National Federation of Demolition Contractors, Resurgam House, 1A New Road, The
Causeway, Staines, Middlesex, TW18 3DH
(Tel: 01784 456799, Fax: 01784 461118)
12.21 Alternative and Marginal Aggregate Sources (1996) (from Proceedings of a conference
held at Dundee University in June 1996)
By: Brown B V
From: 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 Kasai
From: 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, Population (million)

1997 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 INERT
C&DW
This Annex shows how we arrived at a representative processing cost of 2.00 ECU/tonne for
demolition waste which is crushed at a fixed C&DW recycling centre and 1.50-2.00 ECU/tonne using
a 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 our
assumptions and formulae so that any reader can re-work the calculations with amended assumptions
to 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 ‘Mine
and Mill Equipment Costs’, a comprehensive costing guide based on extensive surveys in the USA
and 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 and
Mill Equipment Costs’ contains information on the costs of operating a range of different crusher
types (single-toggle ‘jaw’ crushers, double-toggle ‘jaw’ crushers and single-rotor impact crushers), the
most comprehensive data on the link between model types and processing capacity is limited to
single-toggle ‘jaw’ crushers. Since these are more widely used in demolition waste processing, we
have used this range of crushers as a proxy for all crushers. However, we recognize that (as
explained in Chapter 9) impact crushers have a rather different cost profile (in that their capital costs
are generally lower but, particularly with hard materials such as concrete, their operating costs can be
significantly higher).
The data in the first two tables have been extracted from similar but larger tables in ‘Mine and Mill
Equipment Costs’. All of the crushers featured are single-toggle ‘jaw’ crushers, and all units and costs
have 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 converting
costs from US$ to ECU was US$ 1.13 = 1 ECU (from the same source at the same time as the
exchange rates given in Annex 11). Some small rounding errors will have been introduced as a
consequence.
In ‘Mine and Mill Equipment Costs’ crushers are not identified by manufacturer, but by a generalised
type based on their power unit (in HP or horse power) and jaw size. Jaw size measurements comprise
two measurements (both in inches, 1 inch = 25.4mm), the first being the distance between the tops of
the crowns of the two plates and the second being the width between the side liners (see the line
drawing in Annex 13). The outlet settings given in Figure A12.1 refer to the nominal closed size
settings at the outlet of the crushers. There is a very strong correlation between this measure, the
maximum 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 the
nominal closed size setting, and half of the crushed material passing through a screen size of 75% of
the setting.
Figure A12.1 illustrates the general relationships between power, jaw size, outlet setting and hourly
processing capacity, but it should be stressed that these data are derived from mines and quarries
rather than recycling installations. Both the flows and the physical characteristics of the materials
being crushed can be assumed to be considerably more consistent in a mine or quarry than in a
recycling 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 cost
of lube oil was US$ 3.55 per US gallon.

Figure A12.1: Hourly Processing Capacities (in tonnes/hour) of Different Crusher Types at
Different Outlet Settings
Crusher Type Closed Size Setting (mm)
HP Jaw size 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 250 300
15 10x16 9 15
20 10x21 10 16
25 10x30 19 33
40 15x24 19 34 49 82
60 15x38 76 97
100 20x36 89 116 143
125 25x40 166 200 236 272 313
125 22x50 145 190 239 281 331
150 30x42 181 216 249 290 354
200 36x48 308 372 431 494 558
200 44x48 340 378 415 461 590 680
300 50x60 474 526 574 680 798
Figure A12.2: Capital Costs and Hourly Running Costs (in ECU) for Different Crusher Types
Crusher Type Capital Cost Hourly Costs
HP Jaw Size Total hourly Parts Maintenance Electricity Lubrication
costs labour
15 10x16 36,562 3.39 1.52 1.24 0.42 0.21
20 10x21 37,420 3.60 1.56 1.27 0.58 0.21
25 10x30 46,562 4.48 1.94 1.58 0.70 0.27
40 15x24 54,558 5.55 2.27 1.84 1.12 0.31
60 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 0.51
125 25x40 109,549 12.40 4.57 3.71 3.50 0.63
125 22x50 120,451 13.29 5.02 4.07 3.50 0.69
150 30x42 137,310 15.35 5.73 4.65 4.21 0.79
200 36x48 204,310 22.20 8.51 6.91 5.61 1.17
200 44x48 280,881 28.42 11.70 9.50 5.61 1.60
300 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 roughly
1/10,000 of the capital cost. Most of this is accounted for by wearing parts and the labour needed to
replace them. However, it is essential to remember that these costs relate simply to crushers, not to
integrated machines with screens, metal separators and conveyor systems built onto a common
chassis. As a rule of thumb, a commercial C&DW crusher requires roughly twice the power of a
stand-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 of
crushing C&DW in Europe, in the absence of better data we have attempted to do so. However, we
have assumed that the operating costs on C&DW will be double those for quarry stone (because
concrete is generally much harder and more abrasive), or 2/10,000 of the capital cost, and that the
hourly throughput of crushed materials will be slightly over half of the quoted figure (because this is
consistent with operators’ experience in real life).
We have based our calculation on a crusher broadly similar to the 150HP 30x42 crusher. As can be
seen above, this model has a nominal capacity of 181 tonnes/hour with its jaws set to a closed size
setting 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 with
a range of ancillary equipment costing 300,000 ECU.
The factors to be considered are the capital cost of machinery (including the cost of borrowing, spread
over a working life of an agreed length), the operating cost and the fixed cost of owning or renting a
site (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 m );
2
• 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 the
advantage that it substantially simplifies the formulae which follow, even though it is not entirely
realistic. However, as will be seen, the effect of this simplifcation is very small, since the financing
costs 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 at
approximately 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 Example

Output over working life WL x DY x HD x PC 5 x 220 x 8 x 100 = 880,000
tonnes
Crusher capital and CC+ [CC/2 x IR/100 x WL] 300,000 + [150,000 x 0.1 x 5] =
financing costs over working = CC x [1 + (IR x WL)/200] 375,000
life
Crusher operating costs over 2 x CC/10,000 x WL x DY x HD 2 x 30 x 5 x 220 x 8 = 528,000
working life
Total site equipment costs 2 x sum of two previous rows 2 x (375,000 + 528,000)
over working life
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 as
follows:
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 x

5
5 x 220 x 8 x 100
or
600,000[1 + 0.0025 + 1.76] + 4,000 = 600 x 2.7625 + 4 = 1657.5 + 4

880,000 880 880
= 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 on
the processing component of C&DW-derived aggregates. The crusher would therefore be earning
around 300 ECU/day, which is 1% of its purchase cost. This would be consistent with what operators
have 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 and
working 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 150
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 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 = 1,401.875

900,000 900 900
= 1.56 ECU/tonne
Changing the assumptions to match the characteristics of a smaller crusher will raise the costs per
tonne. Based on a capital cost of 175,000 ECU and a throughput of 50 tonnes/hour the total cost per
tonne rises to 2.18 ECU/tonne.
We have rounded these estimates to the nearest 0.50 ECU, which produces figures of 1.50
ECU/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. Other
definitions and descriptions have been expressed in plain English.
AAS Aggregates Advisory Service. An information exchange operated in the UK to

promote 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 and
communities. 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 by
DGXII.
C&DW Construction and demolition waste. Described at length in Chapter 2 of this
report and defined in EWC Chapter 17.
C&DW-derived Aggregates made by crushing and sorting the inert fraction of C&DW.
aggregates
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 research
body.
Contraries Materials other than those supposed to be in the product or mixture. An
example would be fragments of wood, plastic or paper in a C&DW-derived
aggregate.
‘Core’ C&DW Those types of materials which are obtained when an empty building or civil
engineering infrastructure is demolished (but not necessarily obtained as a
direct result of demolition). It excludes road planings, excavated soil, external
utility and service connections (drainage pipes, water, gas and electricity
connections) and surface vegetation, because the techniques for recovering and
recycling these are quite distinct from other demolition wastes.
CUR Civieltechnisch Centrum Uitvoering Research en Regelgeving, a Dutch civil
engineering research institute.
DGXI Directorate General XI of the European Commission, responsible for the
environment, 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 stable
foundation as part of the construction process.
Environmental Environmental impacts are the direct and indirect impacts of any development
impacts on 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 amending
Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of certain public and private projects
on 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/EEC
of 20 December 1993 published in OJ No.L 5/15 of 7 January 1994.
Fly ash The very fine ash produced in incineration processes.
Framework Directive 75/442/EEC on waste as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC
Directive on of March 18 1991, published in OJ No.L 78/32 of 26 March 1991.
waste
Gate price The charge paid by a holder of waste before it is accepted by a waste disposal
or recovery facility. The gate price excludes transport costs.
HCFCs Hydrochlorofluorocarbons. Important greenhouse gases used in foams and fire
fighting systems.
Hazardous waste Any waste defined by Article 1 of Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous
waste of 12 December 1991, published in OJ No.L 377/20 of 31 December
1991.
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 steel
plates fixed to a rotor. These crush the material as it is forced between the rotor
and the toughened steel face plates. The positions of the face plates are set by
the operator.
Inert waste Waste that does not undergo any significant physical, chemical or biological
transformations. Inert waste will not dissolve, burn or otherwise physically or
chemically react, biodegrade or adversely affect other matter with which it
comes into contact in a way likely to give rise to environmental pollution or harm
human health. The total leachability and pollutant content of the waste and the
ecotoxicity 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, symetrical
crushing chamber with no ‘dead zones’. One side is fixed while the other is
moved 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 the
operator.
LIFE programme A programme run by DGXI to fund demonstration projects, awareness
campaigns and other actions linked to (among other things) clean technologies.
See Council Regulation (EEC) No 1973/92 of 21 May 1992 establishing a
financial instrument for the environment, published in OJ No.L 206/1 of 22 July
1992.
Member States Members of the EU, i.e. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany,
Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden
and 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 is
similar to household waste.
OECD The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, based in Paris.
PCB Polychlorinated biphenyls. Hazardous chemicals typically found in old electrical
transformers. Regulated by Directive 91/273/EEC.
Primary Naturally occurring sand, gravel and (crushed) rock obtained by quarrying or
aggregates marine 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 Council
Resolution 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 dug
or blasted.

Re-use Re-use means the beneficial use of a material which might otherwise have to be
discarded. There is a general distinction between re-use (which does not require
any special processing before the material can be used) and recycling (which
does).
Recycled See C&DW-derived aggregates.
aggregates
Recycling The use of a formerly waste material after it has been processed so that it no
longer poses any significant threat to the environment.
RILEM Réunion Internationale des Laboratoires d'Essais et de Recherches sur les
Matériaux et les Constructions, which in English is the International Union of
Testing and Research Laboratories for Materials and Structures.
Road planings Bituminous and asphaltic-bound materials removed from the surface of a road
during 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.
Secondary Waste materials, including by-products from mining and quarrying activities,
aggregates which can be used as substitutes for primary aggregates. Examples include fly
ash, bottom ash, steel slag, mine tailings, stone scalpings and china clay waste.
Selective The organised treatment and/or removal of certain materials and components
demolition prior to the demolition of the main structure. Materials may be removed because
of their own economic value, or because a failure to treat and/or remove them
will 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 or
object which the holder discards or intends, or is required, to discard’. ‘Holder’ is
defined as ‘the producer of the waste or the natural or legal person who is in
possession of it’. Waste is defined by the OECD as ‘materials other than
radioactive 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
Wearing Course
Road Base
Sub-Base


EU Report Demolition Waste Management

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

EU Report Demolition Waste Management

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Report to DGXI, European Commission

CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION

Report by Symonds, in association with ARGUS,

2 TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE 7

3 ECONOMIC AND ADMINISTRATIVE FACTORS AFFECTING RE-USE AND

4 PROCESSES AND BEST PRACTICE GUIDANCE: DEMOLITION,

5 PROCESSES AND BEST PRACTICE GUIDANCE: CONSTRUCTION SITES 35

6 PROCESSES AND BEST PRACTICE GUIDANCE: ROAD MAINTENANCE

7 RECORDED QUANTITIES OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE

8 MEASURES USED TO PROMOTE RE-USE AND RECYCLING OF

Symonds Group Ltd 46967 Final Report February 1999 2

10 SUMMARY OF MAIN CONCLUSIONS AND EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS 69

Annex 1 Annex 1 to Service Contract B4-3040/97/000659/MAR/E3 -

© Symonds Group Ltd 1999

Symonds Group Ltd 46967 Final Report February 1999

The provenance of this Report

The structure of this Report

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

Symonds Group Ltd 46967 Final Report February 1999 1

(iii) recycling or materials recovery;

(iv) energy recovery;

(v) disposal in a safe manner.

Symonds Group Ltd 46967 Final Report February 1999 2

Figure 1.1: C&DW Arisings and Recycling (Summary Table)

Symonds Group Ltd 46967 Final Report February 1999 3

The environmental and amenity justification for C&DW recycling

(i) noise and dust;

(v) visual and aesthetic impacts;

Symonds Group Ltd 46967 Final Report February 1999 4

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

(i) noise and dust;

Symonds Group Ltd 46967 Final Report February 1999 5

The changing nature of C&DW

The objective of this Report

Symonds Group Ltd 46967 Final Report February 1999 6

Classification and recording of C&DW

The origins and nature of C&DW

2.2 Cross-contamination and general mixing of materials is frequently observed on construction

The current position on C&DW classification

Symonds Group Ltd 46967 Final Report February 1999 7

Two alternative proposals for change

Symonds Group Ltd 46967 Final Report February 1999 8

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

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

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

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

(iv) hazardous wastes.

Symonds Group Ltd 46967 Final Report February 1999 9

The different types of sites which generate C&DW

Figure 2.1: Site Types

‘Greenfield’ building sites Undeveloped sites on which new structures or infrastructure

Symonds Group Ltd 46967 Final Report February 1999 10

Figure 2.3: Linkages Between Site Types and Site Activities

Destinations and uses to which C&DW may be put

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

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

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

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

Symonds Group Ltd 46967 Final Report February 1999 11

(vii) off-site incineration with energy recovery;

(viii) off-site incineration without energy recovery;

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

(x) off-site landfilling of unsegregated waste.