Executive Summary

GtoG Project

From production to recycling: a circular economy for the European gypsum Industry with the demolition and recycling Industry

LIFE PROGRAMME LIFE11 ENV/BE/001039

DA1-Inventory of Current Practices EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SEPTEMBER 2013

DA1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GtoG Project

Introduction

Gypsum – an exceptional construction The problem material In the 8 EU target countries (Belgium, France, Gypsum is a rock-like mineral used in Germany, Greece, Poland, Spain, the construction in different applications such as Netherlands and the UK), it is estimated that plasterboard, building plaster and gypsum blocks, around 1,150,000 tonnes of plasterboard waste among others. were generated in 2012. In most of the European countries where it is produced a low recycling rate The GtoG project focuses on lightweight of this gypsum waste is observed. gypsum components also known as plasterboard products that mainly consist of The aim of the GtoG project is to obtain up to gypsum whose surface and longitudinal edges 30% of reincorporation of the recycled gypsum, are covered with paper and used for partitions from both production and Construction and and the lining of walls, ceilings, roofs and floors. Demolition (C&D) waste, into the plasterboard Other generic terms used for this product are: manufacturing process. gypsum board, drywall and wallboard. Main types of gypsum In Europe the first plasterboard plant was built in Until mid-1980s most of the gypsum used in the Liverpool in 1917. European Union was natural gypsum extracted from quarries. Since then, FGD gypsum (a by- product from the Electricity Industry) became an important supply for the Gypsum Industry. This raw material is also known as synthetic gypsum and it is largely used in Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and Nordic Countries.

The origin of the main types of gypsum is summarized in Table 1.

RESOURCE ORIGIN Figure 1. Plasterboard product used for partitions. Source: Technical Manual Plasterboard systems, Knauf 2012. Natural gypsum Formed geologically

FGD gypsum By product from the desulphurisation of gases in The main properties of gypsum products are: coal-fired power stations.  Fire protective. Recycled From the processing of  A good thermal insulator when combined gypsum gypsum waste in accordance with determined with insulation materials. specifications.  Sound regulator.

 Impact resistant Table 1. Origin of the main types of gypsum.

DA1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GtoG Project

Reasons for recycling plasterboard products other that those containing dangerous substances. 1. Gypsum is fully and eternally recyclable. Gypsum products can be 4. If gypsum waste products are accepted at recycled because their chemical normal cells in non-hazardous landfills, its composition remains unchanged. sulphate would break down, amongst other substances into Hydrogen 2. Article 4 of the Directive 2008/98/EC on Sulphide (H2S), a hazardous flammable Waste (also known as the Waste gas with environmental and health Framework Directive, hereinafter WFD) effects when inhaled, that even in very drafts the waste hierarchy that should be small concentrations creates odour applied as a priority in all the EU Member problems. Council Decision 2003/33/EC States. established that “Non-hazardous gypsum- Waste prevention leads this hierarchy, based material should be disposed of only followed by preparing for re-use and in landfills for non-hazardous waste in cells where no biodegradable waste is material recycling that should always be accepted. The limit values for TOC and preferred to recovery and landfill disposal. DOC given in section 2.3.2 and 2.3.1 shall apply to wastes landfilled together with gypsum based materials”.

5. By recycling plasterboard waste, primary mineral resource depletion is avoided and landscape is preserved.

Figure 2. Waste hierarchy scheme according to the Article 4 of the Directive 2008/98/EC on Waste.

3. Article 11 of the WFD establishes that, by 2020, the preparing for re-use, Figure 3.Gypsum quarry. Source: Geoprah.ie recycling and other material recovery of most of the categories defined in the European List of Waste (ELW) shall be Types of plasterboard waste increased to a minimum of 70% by Two main types of plasterboard waste can be weight. This target applies to non- defined according to its source: hazardous Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste (where gypsum waste is  Production waste: arises from the included) and excluding soil and stones plasterboard manufacturing process

DA1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GtoG Project

(rejection) and recycling of this material is quality criteria during the pilot projects where the part of the waste avoidance policy of the recycling process and reincorporation of the companies. An example is the out-of- recycled gypsum into the manufacturing process specification boards. will be carried out.

 Construction and Demolition (C&D) plasterboard waste: comes from the The End of Waste criteria installation or removal of plasterboard. It includes damaged boards and off cuts from End-of-waste criteria specify when certain waste its installation in construction works, and ceases to be waste and obtain a product status or stripped-out plasterboard in demolition works. become a secondary raw material.

The GtoG project covers the recycling of both According to Article 6 of the WFD, specified types of plasterboard waste for its reincorporation wastes shall cease to be waste when it has as recycled gypsum into the manufacturing undergone a recovery (including recycling) process. operation and complies with specific criteria to be developed in line with certain legal conditions. In particular: The recycling process (also known as reprocessing or processing) of plasterboard  The substance or object is commonly used waste for specific purposes;

Several mechanical processing steps, such as  There is an existing market or demand for the grinding and sieving, are carried out in recycling substance or object; facilities before the final recycled gypsum is  The use is lawful (substance or object fulfils obtained. the technical requirements for the specific The main output stream from the recycling purposes and meets the existing legislation process is the recycled gypsum (around 92% by and standards applicable to products); weight of the total output), followed by paper  The use will not lead to overall adverse waste (8%) and metal (less than 1%). environmental or human health impacts.

The End of Waste status for gypsum based waste The recycled gypsum is only a reality in the UK, enabling recycled gypsum to be classified as a raw material. Under the GtoG project, the term “recycled gypsum” is used to refer to gypsum resulting from The opportunity to ask for the end-of-waste status the controlled processing of plasterboard waste at EU or national level as per article 6 of the WFD where the gypsum is separated from the paper will be decided at the end of the GtoG project. and any contaminant that could be present.

It is usually found in the form of a fine or sandy Open and closed loop recycling of powder, or a small aggregate-type material. plasterboard products Today, different national and commercial  In open loop recycling, the recycled specifications for producing quality recycled gypsum is used as a material in products gypsum are followed. One of the aims of the and applications other than the GtoG project is to examine and re-assess the

DA1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GtoG Project

manufacture of new plasterboard, for thereby increasing the potential for their example cement manufacture or for future recycling. agricultural benefit. It results in different waste fractions with  Closed loop recycling means using the minimal damage, due to the time and care recycled gypsum as a secondary raw taken for separating the waste, in order to material in making new plasterboard achieve the minimal negative effect of its products. generation.

Plasterboard is one of the very few  The reprocessing of the recyclable construction materials where closed loop plasterboard waste. recycling is possible. Once plasterboard waste from The GtoG project focuses on construction and demolition waste is promoting closed loop recycling separated on site it is usually collected by practices for plasterboard. a third party and transported to a gypsum recycler (also named re-processor and By choosing closed loop recycling, saving of supplier) that reprocesses it. natural gypsum resources is achieved.  The reincorporation of the recycled gypsum in the manufacturing process.

What does closed loop recycling involve? It involves a close collaboration among all the stakeholders throughout the entire value chain: from the dismantling and collection of plasterboard waste in buildings, via the recycling of this waste and culminating with the reincorporation of the recycled gypsum by the plasterboard manufacturing plants, in order to create a highly efficient reverse logistics.

It will also require the correct implementation of the EU regulation as well as its enforcement.

The GtoG project will serve to boost the closed loop recycling route whenever possible.

Figure 4. Scheme of the efficient value chain

assessed under the GtoG project.

Description of an efficient value chain for closing the loop of the plasterboard products

 Deconstruction: dismantling of plasterboard on the demolition site.

Deconstruction enables the quantity and quality optimization of valuable materials,

DA1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GtoG Project

Target stakeholders covering the whole value environmental analysis with the collected chain information.

 Project owners, project managers, project manager’s representatives, consultants and architects or GtoG project overall objective technicians. The overall aim of this project is to transform the As decision makers, by choosing gypsum demolition waste market to achieve deconstruction practices the recycling of higher recycling rates of gypsum waste, thereby plasterboard products is promoted from helping to achieve a resource efficient economy. the beginning of the chain.  Demolition companies

Demolishers’ role is essential by effectively carrying out deconstruction practices and source segregation of plasterboard waste.

 Gypsum recyclers

By producing quality recycled gypsum and supplying it to plasterboard manufacturing plants, these companies also help in leading to closed loop recycling of plasterboard products.

 Plasterboard manufacturing plants

Through agreements with gypsum recyclers and wining confidence in this secondary raw material it is expected that the use of recycled gypsum will experience a growth across Europe.

Headline objectives of the DA1 report

This report aims to be a background document for the future Actions that will be developed within the GtoG project, presenting and analysing the current practices all over the 8 EU target countries: Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Poland, Spain, the Netherlands and the UK, establishing the crucial technical-economic- legislative and environmental factors for estimating the market share of gypsum recycling in a given country and drafting an economic and

DA1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GtoG Project

Methodology

The activities of the first Action A1 of the GtoG - Poland project have been conducted between January - The UK 2013 and September 2013, throughout a variety of strategies described below:

Telephone consultations and exchanged emails with the different partners within the Questionnaires to the target stakeholders GtoG project

 Questionnaires sent to the European The GtoG project has gathered and consolidated gypsum manufacturers, through their confidential information from the 5 manufacturing National Associations, related to gypsum plants and the 2 gypsum recyclers which are waste management and quality criteria. 35 partners of the GtoG project. answers were received from Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Due to compliance with competition law and Norway, Poland, Scandinavia, Spain, confidential data among the different industrial Sweden, the Netherlands and the UK. partners, it has been a great challenge to draft sensitive information such as the overall  Questionnaires distributed among economic analysis. architects, demolishers, project owners, project managers and consultants, related to deconstruction Literature review current practices and gypsum waste management of non-residential demolition In order to provide the most detailed and updated and renovation building market. current picture, around 100 different documents and sources have been consulted and are listed In total 32 answers were received from the throughout the DA1 report. 8 target countries.

 Questionnaires sent to the European gypsum recyclers. Answers received from 5 different companies operating in Belgium, Denmark, France, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands and the UK.

The results to the questionnaires have been consolidated and are presented in the DA1 report through the following countries or group of countries:

- Austria and Germany - Belgium and the Netherlands - France - Greece, Italy and Spain

DA1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GtoG Project

Main findings

The different findings and results obtained during Council Decision 2003/33/EC is not correctly the development of Action A1 have been grouped implemented in 5 out of the 8 target countries, relating to: due to the inexistence of specific monocells for the disposal of gypsum waste in landfills.  EU regulation Only in Belgium, France and the UK specific  Deconstruction practices monocells for the disposal of gypsum based  Recycling practices waste have been created.

 Reincorporation of recycled gypsum into Ideally, only non-recyclable gypsum waste (due to the plasterboard manufacturing process contamination or non-appropriate dismantling practices) should be disposed in these monocells.

Countries such as Germany (although in a Related to EU regulation different way), Greece and Poland have implemented this Council Decision but no Plasterboard recycling is far away from enforcement is observed. contributing to the 70% target (that also includes preparing for re-use and recovery operations) established in the EU Waste Framework Directive. Country Council Existence Decision of 2003/33/EC monocell Germany, Greece, Spain and Poland don’t transposition landfills recycle C&D plasterboard waste. The average Belgium Complete yes amount of this waste recycled in the rest of the (Brussels) target countries can be estimated to 25.8%. Belgium Complete yes However, when considering the 8 target (Flanders) countries, this ratio decreases to 11%. The UK Complete yes

C&D gypsum Belgium Complete yes based waste (Walloon) recycled (%) The Not yet no Germany 0.0 Netherlands transposed Greece 0.0 France Different yes Spain 0.0 transposition France 15.2 Germany Different no transposition The Benelux* 40.4 Greece Complete no Poland 0.0 The UK 21.7 Poland Complete no

*The Benelux: Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. Spain Not yet no Only data from Belgium and the Netherlands have been transposed taken into account. These two countries are presented together for confidential issues among the GtoG partners. Table 3. Council Decision transposition and its implementation. Table 2. Estimated percentage of gypsum recycled in the 8 target countries.

DA1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Drivers towards deconstructionGtoG Project per country 120%

100% Other 80% Technique Related to deconstruction practices Security 60% Image Environmental drivers Buildings are currently demolished and not 40% dismantled in 3 of the 8 Member States under Regulation study. 20% Economic

0% In the countries where deconstruction is a usual Belgium and France UK the Netherlands practice (Belgium, France, the Netherlands and the UK) gypsum-based wastes are generally Figure 5. Drivers towards deconstruction in Belgium and The segregated from the other C&D waste, but in Netherlands, France and the UK listed by project owners and countries where these practices are not usual demolition companies. (Greece, Poland and Spain), plasterboards are generally mixed with other C&D wastes.  Environmental driver The obstacles identified for deconstruction practices today are: If an evaluation system is followed environmentally friendly practices are usually  Most of the architects and construction carried out. BREEAM has been identified as the companies do not foresee the dismantling most used system in the countries under study. at the end of the useful life of the building.  Image of the stakeholder  In countries where demolition is a usual practice, deconstruction is generally This driver is closely related with the perceived as more costly. environmental driver, due to the fact that many companies adopt an environmental approach to However, in countries where spread a good image among the population. deconstruction is the common practice, it is generally perceived as a way of  Economical driver optimizing the costs. Deconstruction is a way of optimizing costs in countries where the end route for mixed waste is more expensive than for segregated waste. Six main drivers have been identified towards deconstruction practices Some interviewees admitted that, if deconstruction is not the most favourable option The impact of the identified drivers in Belgium from an economical point of view, they will not opt and The Netherlands, France and the UK is for this choice. shown in figure 5.  Regulation

There is no regulatory requirement when

choosing to demolish or to deconstruct buildings in the 8 target countries.

However, some national schemes are starting to

promote on site segregation, such as the Royal Decree 105/2008 in Spain that introduced the

DA1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GtoG Project

waste holder obligation of segregate on site different C&D waste fractions if a certain tonnage 100% is exceeded. However, plasterboard waste is not 80% listed and only very large buildings will exceed the European specified amount of waste. 60% recyclers 40% Verified close The regulatory audit of the materials prior to loop recyclers demolition in France is another example of 20% regulatory requirement which encourage buildings 0% deconstruction.

 Proper management of C&D waste containing gypsum Figure 6.Verified closed loop recyclers within EU recyclers.

Most countries have gypsum content limits for the use of C&D waste to produce secondary  Arrow Gypsum Recycling, Countrystyle aggregates or in recovery operations such as Group and Roy Hatfield Ltd are located in the backfilling in quarrying or mining. UK. When gypsum is mixed with other types of C&D Roy Hatfield Ltd.’s main activity seems to be waste, no use - either for the C&D aggregates nor the use of recycled gypsum in its own for the gypsum- is possible. concrete manufacturing process.

 Other drivers No information has been found about the For example the technical driver, being the main activity of Arrow Gypsum Recycling and demolition of a building not always feasible. Countrystyle Group.

 Gypsum Recycling International A/S is located in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Related to recycling practices the Netherlands and is only working for closed loop recycling. In Europe, there is only a market for recycled gypsum in Belgium, France, Scandinavia and  Nantet Locabennes and Ritleng the UK Revalorisations are located in France.

Open loop practices for recyclable gypsum waste They work for closed loop recycling. are widespread in the UK, but they are not  New West Gypsum Recycling is located in observed in the rest of the European countries. Belgium, France and the UK and is only Most of the UK recyclers supply farmers and working for closed loop recycling. several of the operators are recognised composters. A few also supply cement plants.

Strengths and weaknesses of the gypsum recyclers 7 out of the 14 European existing gypsum recyclers have been identified as suppliers of Table 4 summarizes the main strengths and recycled gypsum by the plasterboard weaknesses identified. manufacturing plants

DA1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GtoG Project

NL GRI's mobile truck collects GRI STRENGTH WEAKNESS plasterboard waste on the construction sites Recycling machines The processing of Also two GRI's fixed can process up to 30 Fermacell® boards, recycling warehouses are t/h of gypsum waste cement bound boards and located in Werkendam and hardened boards. Delfzijl UK A plasterboard NWGR, Roy Up to 94% of gypsum Some recyclers limit the manufacturer (British Hatfields, powder output free moisture of the Gypsum) is also collector Arrow and gypsum waste, because it and recycler, re- Countrystyle decreases the quality of incorporating the recycled the recycled gypsum. gypsum in its process However, occasional wet NWGR’s recycling loads can be solved by warehouse in Avonmouth mixing the wet waste with a dryer fraction. Table 5. Recyclers supplying plasterboard manufacturing plants in the different countries. Less than 1.0% The amount of dust amount of paper emission from the gypsum fraction in the waste recycling machines. recycled gypsum Related to its re-incorporation Table 4. Main strengths and weaknesses identified among gypsum recyclers. Seven main drivers have been identified by the plasterboard manufacturers for the reincorporation of recycled gypsum The location of the recyclers’ warehouses in each country is described in table 5. Their level of impact is presented in figure 7.

Suppliers Cost reduction Country Location of recycled gypsum Customer request

BE NWGR recycling NWGR Green Public Procurement warehouse is co-located in (GPP) the SG manufacturing Industry Voluntary plant in Källo (Flemish Agreement (VAs) region) Product marketing FR NWGR recycling Nantet Resource efficiency warehouse is co-located in RR the SG manufacturing NWGR plant (Vaujours, París) Sustainability commitment A plasterboard manufacturer (Siniat FR) Figure 7. Drivers identified from the answers received to has its own recycling warehouse for C&D waste the plasterboard manufacturer’s questionnaire. Nantet Locabennes supply recycled gypsum to SG Placoplatre in Chambéry  Cost reduction Ritleng Revalorisations supplies recycled gypsum to Siniat FR in Alsace Recycled gypsum is available at a lower price than natural gypsum.

DA1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GtoG Project

In some instances the savings can also come  Resource efficiency from lower transportation cost due to the proximity The reincorporation of recycled gypsum reduces of the supplier and reduced costs of storage. the amount of natural gypsum extracted from the  Customer request Earth’s crust.

It is usually due to the influence of the Green  Sustainability commitment Public Procurement (GPP) and the evaluation systems such as BREEAM, DGNG, LEED, This commitment involves minimising waste VERDE and HQE. generation and maximizing the use of recycled materials in new production among others.  Green Public Procurement (GPP) Table 6 presents the most listed drivers for GPP is a voluntary instrument whereby public gypsum waste recycling in each target country. authorities seek to procure goods, services and works with a reduced environmental impact throughout their life cycle when compared to Countries Most listed driver for recycling goods, services and works with the same primary under study

function that would otherwise be procured. Resource efficiency, customer's Belgium request and GPP requirements In 2010, the Gypsum Industry developed with the European Commission the Green Public France Cost reduction Procurement Criteria for wall panels. The GtoG project is an opportunity to reassess the criteria, Germany Resource efficiency particularly those related to the percentage of Customer's request and cost

THE GTOG PROJECT GTOG THE Greece recycled gypsum in the board which is set savings currently at 2% for core criteria and 5% for Improvement of raw material 1 Poland comprehensive criteria . quality

 Industry Voluntary Agreement with Spain Resource efficiency government (Va) The Resource efficiency They are used as a policy tool to achieve different Netherlands measures. Examples of voluntary agreements are Industry voluntary agreement with

TARGETS COUNTRIES IN COUNTRIES TARGETS The UK

the “covenant” in The Netherlands, “la Charte sur government le Gestion des déchets” in France and “The Austria Cost reduction and sustainability Ashdown Agreement” in the UK. Customer's request and cost

OTHERS Italy Also in Belgium, the commitment of stakeholders savings with The Belgian Gypsum Association (BLGV) is leading some companies to improve the recycling Table 6. Country-by-country most listed drivers for gypsum recycling. of gypsum waste.

 Product marketing It is expected that, after the end of the GtoG Plasterboard products with a certain amount of project, drivers such as the GPP and the Industry recycled gypsum provide a new competitive edge Voluntary Approaches became main drivers to among the different companies. recycle gypsum products.

1Wall Panels – Green Public Procurement Product Sheet. 2010.

DA1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GtoG Project

Main valuable outputs for the coming Actions

The crucial economic parameters of the recycling route versus the landfilling route

Throughout the different stages of the two routes presented in figure 8, different key economic parameters have been identified (table 7).

Figure 8. Stages of the two routes: Recycling vs Landfilling.

STAGES CRUCIAL ECONOMIC PARAMETERS

DECONSTRUCTION (DC) Dismantling (D) Deconstruction (DC) = Dismantling (D) + sorting Sorting and storage operation on-site (S₁) and storage (S₁) + Loading (L₁) Loading of the skips for each type waste (L₁) DEMOLITION (DM) Crushing, collapsing (C) Demolition (DM) = Crushing, collapsing (C) + Storage operation on-site (S₂) storage (S₂) + Loading (L₂) Loading of the skips for mixed waste (L₂) Waste volume (V) GYPSUM WASTE TRANSPORTATION (T) Volume per roundtrip (N) Transportation (T) = variable cost (depending on V,N and D) + Hired hauler (H) Distance travelled (D) Hired hauler (H) Gate fee of the recycling warehouse (G) RECYCLING WAREHOUSE Sales price of the recycled gypsum (S) Income per tonne needed by the recycler (€/t) = Gate fee (G) + Sales price (S) -Transport of the Cost for transport of the recycled gypsum (TM) recycled gypsum (TM) Cost of the processing (P) LANDFILL Landfill tax (LT) ST (€/t) = landfill tax (LT) + gate fee (G) Gate fee (G)

DA1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GtoG Project

REINCORPORATION OF THE RECYCLED Quality check costs (Q) GYPSUM Cost of the crushing & sieving (CS) Re (€/t) = quality check (Q) + crushing & sieving (CS) + storage of recycled gypsum (ST) Storage costs of recycled gypsum (ST)

Table 7.Summary of crucial economic parameters related to the two routes.

Economic analysis: equations for comparing the cost of recycling versus landfill

Route 1 and route 2 costs can be easily estimated through the following equations:

Overall cost route 1* (€/t) = DC+T+ I

*It does not include the reincorporation stage, in order to facilitate the comparison with route 2.

Overall cost route 2 (€/t) = DM+T+ST

Table 8 shows the results obtained by applying the overall cost equations with data from case studies provided by the partners of the GtoG project:

ROUTE 1 ROUTE 2

Deconstruction (DC) 335.93 335.93 Demolition (DM)

Gypsum waste transport (T) 42.86 43.39 Mixed waste transport (T)

Income per tonne needed by the recycler (I) Standard cost (ST): gate fee + I: gate fee (G) + sales price(S) 49 60 - cost for transport of the landfill tax recycled gypsum (TM)

427.79 €/t 439.32 €/t

Cost of recycling is, in this case study, 3% lower than the cost of disposal in landfill.

Table 8. Overall costs for the recycling and landfilling routes.

DA1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GtoG Project

Environmental study: emissions arising from the recycling and the landfill route

A proper environmental study provides a breakdown of the embodied energy of each of the process, enabling to see where the differences arise and identifying the determined key contributors to the environmental impact.

In Action A1, the basis for a proper environmental assessment has been laid down. This assessment will be carried out in the future Action C.

The identified emissions for each of the routes under study are listed below:

ROUTE 1 ROUTE 2

GWP Global warming potential (kg CO₂- GWP Global warming potential (kg CO₂-

Eq./m²) = DC+T+R+TM +RP Eq./m²) = DM+T+L

DC: Demolition/Deconstruction H₂S emissions (kg H₂S Eq./m²) = LM H₂s T: Transportation DC: Demolition R: Recycling process T: Transportation T : Transportation to the manufacturing M L: Landfill plant L ₂ : Landfill H₂S emissions RP: Re-incorporation M H s

By applying the overall environmental equations, results about the environmental impact of each of the routes will be obtained in the coming Action C.

ROUTE 1 ROUTE 2

Deconstruction (DC) Demolition (DM)

Gypsum waste transport (T) Mixed waste transport (T)

Recycling Landfill (L)

Recycled gypsum transport

(TM)

Reincorporation (RP)

CO₂/m² CO₂+ H₂S/m²

Table 9. Overall emissions for the recycling and landfilling routes.

DA1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GtoG Project

Overall market share model for gypsum recycling

A model for estimating the market share for gypsum recycling systems in any country has been developed. It can be used as an analytical tool to identify the causes that get to a recycling rate in a market, helping recyclers, plasterboard manufacturers, national authorities and the EU commission to identify the causes that limit the recycling rate of gypsum waste in a country and what can be done in order to improve the situation. A total of six factors have been defined and combined into a mathematical model to determine the share of gypsum that is recycled, most of which neither the gypsum recyclers nor the European Plasterboard Industry can influence directly.

The six factors defined have been grouped under 4 categories: technical, economic, legislative and environmental, and are briefly summarized below.

TECHNICAL FACTORS LEGISLATIVE FACTORS

 Reach of the recycling system (RRS)  Level of compliance with the existing regulations (Co) RRS describes the share of the gypsum waste market that can be “reached” by the Co is the share of the total gypsum waste established recycling system in the market that follows the existing market. regulations.

 Level of segregation of plasterboard  Legal alternative cheaper destinations waste from other C&D waste (SS) for the waste (AS)

SS is the amount of plasterboard waste ASis a determining factor that describes that can be separated from the rest of the share of gypsum waste market for C&D waste generated. which legal alternative solutions exist, that are cheaper than landfills. ECONOMIC FACTOR ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR  Competitiveness of the recycling

solution compared to local landfills  Environmental focus (ES) (CRS)

ES describes the share of the plasterboard CRS is the relative competitiveness of the waste market, where environmental gypsum recycling solution in a given factors rather that cost factors determine country, compared to landfill. the destination of the waste.

The model has been tested for each of the 8 countries under study, estimating each of the factors from an academic point of view, and as a consequence of the data and information received from partners within the GtoG project. In future Actions, and to further improve this estimation, a “Delphi” methodology should be followed, through a representative panel of experts formed out of the partners of the GtoG project.

From figure 9 to figure 14 the results obtained through different countries are presented throughout their radar diagrams.

DA1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GtoG Project

The Netherlands Germany Estimated recycling rate of gypsum waste: 40.4% Estimated recycling rate of gypsum waste: 0.0% (The Benelux). Main determining factor: existent of legal Main determining factor: existent of legal alternative disposal routes for the gypsum waste alternative disposal routes for the gypsum waste (AS), due to the lower cost of backfilling of open- (AS), due to the high export rate to Germany. cast mines. All the country has been reached (R ) by RS A medium level of segregation of plasterboard on gypsum recycling companies and it is observed a site (S ) and compliance with the existing high level of segregation (S ) and compliance S S regulations (C ) establishes a good starting point with the existing regulations (C ). O O for C&D plasterboard waste recycling in a near future.

Figure 9. Radar diagram for the case of Netherlands. Figure 11. Radar diagram for the case of Germany.

DA1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GtoG Project

The UK France

Estimated recycling rate of gypsum waste: 21.7% Estimated recycling rate of gypsum waste: 15.2%

Main determining factor: existent of legal It is one of the countries where no alternative alternative disposal routes for the gypsum waste cheaper destinations are observed (AS). The main

(AS) due to the huge amount of recyclable reason for its medium compliance with the gypsum waste used for open-loop purposes, existing regulations (CO) is the incomplete mainly in the agricultural sector. transposition of the Council Decision 2003/33/EC. A high rate of plasterboard waste is segregated This country has the highest landfill tax compared on site but it is estimated that only 40% of the with the other 7 target countries, a correct country is covered by the gypsum recycling transposition of the regulations related to gypsum companies (RRS). based waste and existence of monocell landfills

(CO).

The national coverage (RRS) by the gypsum recyclers and the level of segregation (SS) of plasterboard waste on site are also above the

European average level.

Figure 10. Radar diagram for the case of the UK. Figure 12. Radar diagram for the case of France.

DA1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GtoG Project

Belgium

Significant differences between Walloon and Flemish regions are observed. The principal end route for plasterboard waste in Flanders is recycling, whereas in Wallonia most of this waste is sent to landfill. No gypsum recycling company has been established in the Walloon region and thus the reach in this area is estimated in a 20% (RRS). The segregation of plasterboard waste on site (SS) is widely observed in Flanders whereas in Walloon is not a current practice, probably mainly due to the high exported rate of gypsum based waste to Germany, only stopped in the

Flemish region (CO).

*Note that the competitiveness of the recycling solution has been estimated as 1 for the better graphical presentation of Figure 14. Radar diagram for the case of Walloon region. the present radar diagram.

Figure 13. Radar diagram for the case of Flemish region.

Greece, Poland and Spain

In those three countries most of the factors are virtually zero due to the lack of gypsum recycling practices. As a consequence, no segregation of plasterboard waste from other C&D waste on site is observed.

Their level of compliance with the existing EU regulations impacting gypsum waste is really low, not having specific monocells for this kind of waste or even without having transposed the Council Decision in the case of Spain.

DA1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GtoG Project

Conclusions

 Only 4 out of the 8 countries under study The following have been identified as are currently recycling construction and determining factors: demolition plasterboard waste: Belgium, - The existence of legal alternative France, the Netherlands and the UK. disposal and recovery routes (AS) for  Council Decision 2003/33/EC has been the recyclable gypsum waste highly limits transposed in 6 out of the 8 countries under or even disables plasterboard waste study: recycling and/or the use of recycled gypsum for closing the loop. The identified - Spain and the Netherlands are still alternative destinations are: missing to transpose the Council Decision 2003/33/EC. o Backfilling of open-cast mines operations (i.e. Germany). - Greece and Poland have transposed this Council Decision, but no enforcement is o Agricultural purposes (i.e. the UK). observed. - The level of compliance with the - France and Germany have transposed it existing regulations (Co), meaning in a way that doesn’t lead to the disposal correct implementation and strict of gypsum waste consisting in cells where enforcement of the WFD and the Council no organic waste is present. Decision 2003/33/EC.

- Only in Belgium and the UK gypsum It is also observed that a high landfill tax (in waste is mainly disposed of in landfills for the UK) or a landfill ban for disposal unsorted non-hazardous waste with specific cells or recyclable gypsum waste (Belgium and the where no biodegradable waste is Netherlands) helps to promote plasterboard accepted. waste recycling.

 The existence of a market for recycled In most of the target countries, the tax regime gypsum is influenced by the 6 factors is currently promoting the landfill route rather identified under the model developed: than the recycling route and in some instances waste streams are being delivered - Reach of the recycling system (RRS) from one country to another.

- Level of segregation of plasterboard waste  Plasterboard dismantling and segregation from other C&D waste (SS) from the rest of C&D wastes on site is closely related with the existence of a - Competitiveness of the recycling solution market for gypsum recycling in a given compared to local landfills (CRS) country. - Level of compliance with the existing However in Germany a medium rate of regulations (Co) plasterboard source segregation is observed - Legal alternative cheaper destinations for whilst a market for recycled gypsum does not the waste (AS) exist.

- Environmental focus (ES)

DA1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GtoG Project

 Due to the lack of reliable and differentiable - Only in the Flemish region in Belgium the statistics, it is difficult to assess the recycling system handles the majority of percentage of gypsum based waste recovered the gypsum waste, being the and recycled in the EU. competitiveness of the recycling system compared with the price for disposal in However an estimation has been developed landfill the determining factor. How this under this first stage of Action A1, concluding region has managed to fully and correctly that the amount of gypsum recycled in the 8 implement the EU directives on waste and target countries can be estimated in 11%, far landfills can be taken as a model for away to contribute to the 70% target (that promoting gypsum recycling in the rest of includes the preparing for re-use, recycling the EU countries. and other material recovery) established by the WFD by 2020.

- In 4 of the countries (Germany, Greece, Europe has a long way to go, as far as the Poland and Spain) the recycling rate of gypsum recycling practices are gypsum waste is 0.0% concerned.

- In 3 of the countries (France, the UK and the Netherlands) gypsum recycling systems exist, but the success is limited due to the above mentioned.

DA1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GtoG Project

Recommendations

 An audit of gypsum based waste  The current legislation regarding the materials prior to demolition should be landfilling of gypsum based waste is not mandatory for any type of demolition work restrictive enough and should evolve. and refurbishment operation above a Each Member State should challenge the certain surface or a certain budget (the limit given in the Decision 2003/33/EC. No threshold has to be determined according scientific evidence could be elaborated to the type of the building, residential or non- show a rationale of the limits. residential). Consequently, non-recyclable gypsum A detailed report about the quantity, based waste should be systematically quality and recyclability of the gypsum sent to controlled cells in non-inert based products should be a result of the non-hazardous waste landfills. audit.  The statistics at European level are not  The segregation of the gypsum based harmonised which slows down the wastes from the rest of C&D waste incentives to recycle effectively. must be an obligation, distinguishing It is recommended to include the between two categories: recyclable and breakdown of the different streams in non-recyclable gypsum based waste. the Eurostat database, differentiating at  The complete traceability document for least among: plastics, metals, concrete gypsum based waste and an obligation and rubble, plasterboard, roofing and to calculate and present the detailed wood. This could be easily done for recycling and recovery rate should be countries where deconstruction is a regulated at European level. common practice, such as Belgium, France, the Netherlands and the UK.  The 70% target established under the Waste Framework Directive should be reviewed to go for a recycling target excluding recovery operations and backfilling.

 The Waste Hierarchy must be respected provided that the order is consistent with a number of parameters to be determined. These parameters (as diverse as social, technical, economic) must be considered according to the local situation. A methodology must be elaborated to weight them so as to confirm the respect to the hierarchy. It is necessary to demonstrate for a simple reason of credibility and reputation.