DA.1: Inventory of current practices
GtoG: From production to recycling: a circular economy for the European Gypsum Industry with the Demolition and Recycling Industry
Start date of the project: 2013/01/01 Duration: 36 months
LIFE PROGRAMME LIFE11 ENV/BE/001039
Identifier: DA.1: Report Inventory of current practices
Number of the associated action: A.1
Date: September 2013
Class: Deliverable
Responsible partner: UPM
Distribution: PU: Public
Title: Inventory of current practices
1
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Contact Information
Lead Contact giSCI, Technical University of Madrid (UPM)
Phone Number +34 913365863
Email [email protected]
Document Contact giSCI, Technical University of Madrid (UPM) Deliverable DA.1 report: inventory of current practices Action A1-Value chain analysis in terms of deconstruction methodologies, economics of logistics and recycling Phone Number +34 913365863
Email [email protected]
Participants Cantillon Ltd (Cantillon), Eurogypsum,Gypsum Recycling Internatinal (GRI),New West Gypsum Recycling (NWGR),Knauf Gips (KNAUFKG), KS Engineering GmbH (KSE), Occamat (OCC), Placoplâtre (SG1), Pinaul&Gapaix (PIN),Recovering Sarl (REC), Recycling Assistance BVBA (RECASS), Saint Gobain Construction Products Belgium NV (SG2), Siniat FR (L1), Siniat Ltd UK (L2), National Technical University of Athens (NTUA), Technical University of Madrid (UPM).
GtoG Project Management Bureau
Name Title Phone Email
Christine Marlet Secretary 32 2 227 11 30 [email protected] general
Pauline Project 32 2 227 11 62 [email protected] Chancellée Manager
Thierry Pichon ERMC Chair [email protected]
2
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
DOCUMENTS HISTORY
A1: CONSOLIDATION OF A1.1, A1.2 AND NEW SECTIONS RELATED TO THE MARKET ANALYSIS (Coord. UPM)
Version Date Author(s)
00 18/06/2013 UPM Team
Comments Peer review committee: on the 00 03/07/2013 Jean-Yves Burgy, Silvia Nougarol, Tom Rommens, structure TierryPichon, Nicole Linsenmeier and Christine Marlet
01 17/07//2013 UPM Team
Comments on the 01 18/07/2013 NTUA (Maria Founti) version
25/07/2013 REC (Jean-Yves Burgy and Silvia Nougarol)
Christine Marlet and Eurogypsum Recycling WG 25/07/2013
25/07/2013 NTUA (Maria Founti)
25/07/2013 Eurogypsum (Christine Marlet)
01/08/2013 REC (Jean-Yves Burgy and Silvia Nougarol)
06/08/2013 UPM Team
31/07/2013 UPM (Ana Jiménez)
07/08/2013 Siniat UK (sent by Richard Hildersley)
14/08/2013 Gyproc (Tom Rommens)
Recycling WG (Jörg Demmich, Hans-Jörg Kersten and 14/08/2013 Heidi Barnard)
14/08/2013 REC (Jean-Yves Burgy and Silvia Nougarol)
15/08/2013 Siniat UK (sent by Richard Hildersley)
15/08/2013 GRI (Andreas Heinz and Martine Meijering)
GRI (Henrik Lund-Nielsen, Claus Woldbye and Andreas 15/08/2013 Heinz)
29/08/2013 Eurogypsum (Christine Marlet)
Maarten Hendriks (NWGR) From Martin Bonaime (Siniat FR) 01/08/2013 to Martine Meijering and Henrik Lund-Nielsen (GRI) 02/09/2013 Richard Hildersley (Siniat UK) Tom Rommens (SG - Gyproc)
3
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
02 02/09/2013 UPM Team
Comments on the 02 09/09/2013 Eurogypsum (Christine Marlet) version
11/09/2013 NTUA (Helen P. Grigoropoulou)
11/09/2013 NWGR (Maarten Hendriks)
11/09/2013 GRI (HenrikLund-Nielsen)
12/09/2013 Eurogypsum (Christine Marlet & Jorg Demich)
12/09/2013 REC (Silvia Nougarol)
Peer review committee: 12/09/2013 Jean-Yves Burgy, Silvia Nougarol, Tom Rommens, Tierry Pichon, Nicole Linsenmeier and Christine Marlet
12/09/2013 SG2 - Gyproc (Tom Rommens)
13/09/2013 GRI (Andreas Heinz)
17/09/2013 UPM (Ana Jiménez)
17/09/2013 NWGR (Maarten Hendriks)
18/09/2013 GRI (Andreas Heinz)
03 18/09/2013 UPM Team
20/09/2013 Richard Hildersley (Siniat UK)
22/09/2013 Jean-Yves Burgy (REC)
23/09/2013 GRI (HenrikLund-Nielsen)
23/09/2013 PLACOPLATRE (Philippe Marivin)
24/09/2013 Eurogypsum Recycling WG (Jorg Demich)
04 25/09/2013 UPM Team
4
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
A1.1: DECONSTRUCTION CURENT PRACTICES IN DECONSTRUCTION (Coord. RECOVERING)
Version Date Author(s)
00 21/05/2013 REC (Jean-Yves Burgy and Silvia Nougarol)
Comments 21/05/2013 RECASS (Johan D’Hooghe) on the 00 version
21/05/2013 Hans-Jörg Kersten (as a member of the Eurogypsum Recycling Working Group)
23/05/2013 Martin Bonaimé (as a member of the Eurogypsum Recycling Working Group)
24/05/2013 Jörg Demmich (as a member of the Eurogypsum Recycling Working Group)
27/05/2013 UPM (sent by Ana Jiménez)
29/05/2013 KS Engineering (sent by Franziska Dobler)
31/05/2013 Gwenaelle Croizer (OCC)
05 and Richard Hildersley (SINIAT UK) and John Rimmer 07/06/2013 (Cantillon)
05/06/2013 NTUA (sent by Natassa Papailiopoulou)
05/06/2013 KS Engineering (sent by Franziska Dobler)
06/06/2013 Cantillon (sent by Johan Rimmer)
06/06/2013 Gwenaelle Croizer (OCC)
07/06/2013 RECASS (Johan D’Hooghe)
11/06/2013 NTUA (sent by Natassa Papailiopoulou)
01 12/06/2013 REC
Comments 13/06/2013 Cantillon (sent by John Rimmer) on the version 01
02 14/06/2013 REC
Comments 05/07/2013 Knauf (sent by Nicole Linsenmeier) on the version 02
5
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
A1.2: CURRENT PRACTICES IN RECYCLING AND MANUFACTURING (Coord. UPM)
Version Date Author(s)
01 06/05/2013 UPM team
Comments 24/05/2013 Christine Marlet and Eurogypsum Recycling WG on the version 01
02 14/06/2013 UPM team
Comments 26/06/2013 Romuald Lassagne (Saint Gobain Gypsum) on the version 02
28/06/2013 Richard Hildersley (Siniat UK)
01/07/2013 Christine Marlet and Eurogypsum Recycling WG
04/07/2013 Peer Review Committee
08/07/2013 Martin Bonaime (Siniat France)
10/07/2013 Maarten Hendrick (NWGR)
10/07/2013 Christine Marlet (Eurogypsum)
15/07/2013 Jean-Yves Burgy (Recovering)
17/07/2013 Stephane Biehler (Ritleng Revalorisations)
6
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
TABLE OF CONTENTS: ...... 7 I. AIM AND SCOPE ...... 13 II. SUMMARY OF THE DA.1 REPORT (Guidelines for the reading) ...... 14 III. PROJECT STRUCTURE ...... 19 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 20 1.1. GYPSUM AS A RESOURCE ...... 20 1.1.1. Resource description ...... 21 1.1.2. Natural gypsum ...... 22 1.1.3. FGD Gypsum ...... 23 1.1.4. Other synthetic gypsum ...... 25 1.1.5. Recyclable gypsum waste ...... 25 1.2. GYPRUM PRODUCTS AND SOLUTIONS ...... 30 1.2.1. Properties of gypsum products ...... 31 1.2.2. Applications ...... 31 1.3. RECYCLING GYPSUM PRODUCTS: TOWARDS GREEN BUILDINGS ...... 35 1.4. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GYPSUM INDUSTRY ...... 43 1.4.1. Market shares ...... 44 1.4.2. The current construction market crisis ...... 44 1.4.3. The current profit margins ...... 45 1.4.4. Key figures ...... 45 1.4.5. Industry fixed costs ...... 46 1.4.6. Competition with other construction products...... 47 1.5. RECYCLING OF GYPSUM PRODUCTS: TOWARDS RESOURCE EFFICIENT BUILDINGS...... 48 1.5.1. Industrial approach to closing the loop ...... 48 1.5.2. Innovations for a resource efficient construction sector ...... 49 1.5.3. Sustainable construction: what does it mean? ...... 50 1.5.4. Environmental tools ...... 51 1.5.4.1. Life Cycle Analysis: the European Approach ...... 51 1.5.4.2. Life Cycle Analysis: the WRAP LCA ...... 52 1.5.4.3. Comparison between the two LCA ...... 53 1.5.4.4. Use of environmental products declarations (EPD) in the Gypsum Industry ...... 55
7
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
1.5.5. Recycling gypsum products in evaluation systems ...... 58 1.5.5.1. BREEAM ...... 59 1.5.5.2. DGNB ...... 64 1.5.5.3. LEED ...... 65 1.5.5.4. VERDE ...... 67 1.5.5.5. HQE ...... 68 1.6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 72 2. RECYCLING GYPSUM TODAY ...... 76 2.1. GYPSUM WASTE IN THE EUROPEAN GYPSUM INDUSTRY ...... 76 2.1.1. Gypsum waste Management: an analysis by the gypsum manufacturers ...... 76 2.1.2. Review of the current recycling practices ...... 81 2.1.2.1. Setting the scene ...... 81 2.1.2.2. Scandinavia ...... 81 2.1.2.3. The UK ...... 82 2.1.2.3.1. Environmental Permit ...... 82 2.1.2.3.2. The Ashdown Agreement ...... 83 2.1.2.3.3. The Environment Agency Quality Protocol ...... 85 2.1.2.3.4. The Plasterboard Sustainability Partnership ...... 86 2.1.2.4. France ...... 86 2.1.2.5. Germany ...... 88 2.1.2.6. Belgium ...... 90 2.1.2.7. The Netherlands ...... 91 2.1.3. Gypsum recyclers ...... 93 2.1.3.1. The pure players ...... 93 2.1.3.1.1. Gypsum Recycling International A/S ...... 93 2.1.3.1.2. New West Gypsum Recycling ...... 94 2.1.3.1.3. The French recyclers ...... 95 2.1.3.1.4. The UK recyclers ...... 97 2.1.3.2. The European plasterboard manufacturers offering solutions for recycling C&D plasterboard waste ...... 103 2.1.3.3. Comparison of recycling systems ...... 107 2.1.3.4. Consolidated results of the recyclers questionnaire ...... 114 2.1.4. Specifications for recyclable gypsum waste ...... 116 2.1.4.1. GRI ...... 116 2.1.4.2. NWGR ...... 118 2.1.4.3. British Gypsum ...... 119
8
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
2.1.4.4. CountryStyle ...... 119 2.1.4.5. Comparison of the different specifications for recyclable gypsum waste ...... 120 2.1.5. Recycled gypsum quality criteria once reprocessed...... 122 2.1.5.1. Gypsum Draft quality criteria developed by BV Gips ...... 122 2.1.5.2. Gypsum quality criteria developed by Wrap: UK PAS 2009 ...... 124 2.1.5.3. Comparison of recycled gypsum criteria among Eurogypsum member associations...... 129 2.1.5.4. GRI quality criteria ...... 133 2.1.5.5. Comparison between the quality criteria ...... 134 2.1.6. Conclusions and recommendations ...... 138 2.2. REINCORPORATION OF RECYCLED GYPSUM IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS ...... 147 2.2.1. Plasterboard plants ...... 148 2.2.1.1. Plasters manufacturing ...... 148 2.2.1.2. Plasterboard Manufacturing ...... 150 2.2.1.3. Recycled gypsum as raw material ...... 153 2.2.2. Current technical difficulties ...... 156 2.2.2.1. When using FGD gypsum ...... 156 2.2.2.2. Potential impurities in gypsum waste ...... 157 2.2.2.3. Potential contaminants and trace components in recycled gypsum ...... 157 2.2.2.4. Consistency of gypsum ...... 158 2.2.2.5. Gypsum particle size ...... 159 2.2.2.6. Impacts in the process ...... 159 2.2.3. Consolidated results from the questionnaire received ...... 159 2.2.3.1. Austria and Germany ...... 160 2.2.3.2. Belgium and the Netherlands ...... 162 2.2.3.3. France ...... 164 2.2.3.4. Greece, Italy and Spain ...... 166 2.2.3.5. Poland ...... 168 2.2.3.6. The UK ...... 170 2.2.4. Conclusions and recommendations ...... 172 3. DECONSTRUCTION: ESSENTIAL COMPONENT OF SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION ...... 175 3.1. MAIN STAKEHOLDERS OF A DECONSTRUCTION PROJECT ...... 177 3.1.1. Usual stakeholder and general organization ...... 178 3.1.2. Countries specificities ...... 179
9
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
3.1.3. Detailed example of Greece ...... 180 3.2. PRACTICES AND WASTE MANAGEMENT DURING A DECONSTRUCTION AND A REFURBISHMENT PROJECT ...... 181 3.2.1. Organisation of waste ...... 181 3.2.1.1. Waste treatment criteria to award a contract ...... 181 3.2.1.2. Recycling objectives and specific requirements ...... 181 3.2.2. Waste management during the works ...... 182 3.2.2.1. Organisation of the waste management on site ...... 182 3.2.2.2. Main deconstruction practices and logistics ...... 183 3.2.2.2.1. Stripping out of gypsum-based waste ...... 183 3.2.2.2.2. Storage and removal of gypsum-based waste from the site ...... 187 3.2.3. Logistics schemes and traceability ...... 189 3.2.3.1. Logistic scheme ...... 189 3.2.3.2. Waste traceability ...... 190 3.2.4. Conclusions and recommendations ...... 191 4. DRIVERS AND BARRIERS FOR RECYCLING GYPSUM WASTE ...... 193 4.1. PRACTICES: PERCEPTION OF THE DEMOLITION AND OF THE DECONSTRUCTION IN EACH COUNTRY ...... 193 4.1.1. Perception and practices ...... 193 4.1.2. Drivers for “deconstruction” versus “demolition” ...... 195 4.1.2.1. Environmental driver ...... 196 4.1.2.2. Image of the stakeholder ...... 196 4.1.2.3. Economical driver ...... 196 4.1.2.4. Regulation ...... 197 4.1.2.5. Proper Management of C&D construction waste (17 09 04 according to Commission Decision 2001/17/EC) containing Gypsum ...... 197 4.1.2.6. Other drivers for deconstruction ...... 199 4.1.2.7. Detailed example of France ...... 199 4.1.3. Conclusions ...... 200 4.2. DRIVERS STEMMING FROM PLASTERBOARD PRODUCT BUSINESS . 201 4.2.1. Cost reduction ...... 201 4.2.2. Customer request ...... 201 4.2.3. Green Public Procurement (GPP) ...... 201 4.2.4. Industry Voluntary Agreement with government ...... 202 4.2.5. Product marketing ...... 203 4.2.6. Resource efficiency ...... 203 4.2.7. Sustainability commitment ...... 203
10
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
4.2.8. Conclusions and recommendations ...... 204 4.3. ECONOMICAL BARRIERS ...... 206 4.3.1. Case study: refurbishment of an office building in Paris ...... 206 4.3.1.1. Practices of deconstruction and management wastes ...... 207 4.3.1.2. Economical comparison ...... 208 4.3.1.2.1. Assumptions ...... 208 4.3.1.2.2. Comparison selective demolition versus demolition ...... 211 4.3.2. Guidelines for an in-depth economical assessment ...... 211 4.3.2.1. Precise description of the deconstruction and demolition processes ...... 211 4.3.2.2. Precise assessment of waste quality and quantity ...... 214 4.3.3. Conclusions and recommendations ...... 220 4.4. LEGISLATION RELATED TO GYPSUM BASED WASTE MANAGEMENT 221 4.4.1. European law applicable to gypsum based waste ...... 221 4.4.1.1. The landfill directive and its impact on the Gypsum Industry ...... 221 4.4.1.2. Calcium sulphate waste categories in relevant European and international waste list ...... 223 4.4.1.3. The resource efficiency roadmap ...... 225 4.4.1.4. The construction products regulation ...... 226 4.4.1.5. IED directive ...... 226 4.4.1.6. The waste framework directive ...... 228 4.4.2. The waste hierarchy applicable to gypsum products ...... 229 4.4.2.1. Waste prevention: design for construction in the Gypsum Industry230 4.4.2.2. Waste reduction measures: design for deconstruction ...... 231 4.4.2.3. Prevention of waste during manufacturing ...... 231 4.4.2.4. Re-use ...... 232 4.4.2.5. Recycling from new construction site ...... 232 4.4.2.6. Recycling of demolition gypsum waste ...... 234 4.4.2.7. Other recovery, e.g. energy recovery ...... 236 4.4.2.7.1. Incineration ...... 236 4.4.2.7.2. Soil improve and fertiliser ...... 236 4.4.2.8. Gypsum waste hierarchy graph ...... 240 4.4.3. National regulation specific go gypsum based waste ...... 241 4.4.3.1. Transposition of the European regulation ...... 241 4.4.3.1.1. Legal acts to be considered ...... 241 4.4.3.2. Transposition of Directive 1999/31/EC in national regulation framework ...... 242
11
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
4.4.3.2.1. Transposition of Decision 2003/33/EC in national regulation framework ...... 242 4.4.3.3. Specific national regulation related to gypsum waste ...... 245 4.4.4. National general regulation impacting Gypsum-based Waste ...... 246 4.4.4.1. Transposition of the European regulation ...... 246 4.4.4.1.1. Legal acts to be considered ...... 246 4.4.4.1.2. Transposition of Directive 2008/98/EC in national regulation framework ...... 247 4.4.4.2. Specific national regulation and taxes impacting gypsum wastes . 248 4.4.4.2.1. Specific national regulation ...... 249 4.4.4.2.2. Environmental taxes ...... 252 4.4.5. Effectiveness and awareness of the gypsum based waste regulation and practices ...... 254 4.4.5.1. Effectiveness of the regulation ...... 254 4.4.5.2. Awareness about the incorporation of the European directives within national requirements...... 257 4.4.5.3. Awareness of the regulatory audits and diagnostics by the stakeholders ...... 259 4.4.6. CAPABILITY OF THE MANUFACTURERS TO RECYCLE ...... 259 4.4.7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 260 5. RECYCLING ROUTE VERSUS LANDFILL ROUTE: MARKET ANALYSIS AND CRUCIAL PARAMETERS FOR AN EFFICIENT VALUE CHAIN...... 262 5.1. MARKETS FOR RECYCLED GYPSUM ...... 262 5.2. DESCRIPTION OF THE BUSINESS MODEL (COLLECTION-PROCESSING- SELLING-REINCORPORATION) ...... 265 5.3. CASE STUDY FOR THE PROCESSING STAGE, BASED ON TWO DIFFERENT SCENARIOS ...... 276 5.4. THE CRUCIAL ECONOMIC PARAMETERS OF THE RECYCLING ROUTE VERSUS THE LANDFILLING ROUTE ...... 283 5.5. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS...... 288 5.6. ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA ...... 291 5.7. CRUCIAL FACTORS FOR THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE RECYCLING ROUTE ...... 298 5.8. COUNTRY-BY-COUNTRY GYPSUM WASTE MARKET OVERVIEW ...... 312 6. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 320 FIGURE INDEX ...... 326 TABLE INDEX ...... 329
12
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
I. AIM AND SCOPE
This first report of the GtoG project analyses and evaluates the current practices in deconstruction – demolition, C&D waste characterization, processing of the gypsum waste for the production of recycled gypsum and its reincorporation into the manufacturing process.
This study concerns the following European countries target of the project:
Belgium
France
Germany
Greece
Poland
Spain
The Netherlands
The United Kingdom
A technical, economic, environmental and legislative analysis was carried for deconstruction, recycling and manufacturing of plasterboard waste. This analysis will be reviewed after the pilot project on deconstruction, processing of gypsum waste and reincorporation of the recycled gypsum into the manufacturing process. The end results will be a report on best practices to recycle plasterboard waste throughout the value chain.
13
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
II. SUMMARY OF THE DA.1 REPORT (GUIDELINES FOR THE READING)
Chapter 1 focuses on gypsum description, properties, applications, Gypsum Industry’s main characteristics and principles of sustainable construction.
The description of the three types of gypsum used in plasterboard manufacturing (natural, synthetic and recycled gypsum) is presented in section 1.1, giving a good overview of several terms widely used throughout the whole report: recyclable plasterboard waste, open loop recycling, closed loop recycling, production waste and recycled gypsum from Construction and Demolition (C&D) plasterboard waste.
Gypsum properties and its range of applications are drafted in section 1.2.
A modellisation of the amount of plasterboard waste generated between 2000 and 2005 is presented in section 1.3. The latter has been updated with published statistics by Eurostat, using The Prodcom database for this purpose and can be consulted in table 1-3, where the estimation of total gypsum based waste (23621050 and 23621090 NACE codes) generated in 2012 is presented. The results from this model have been widely used throughout the report (table 2-33, table 5-26, and gypsum waste market overview for Belgium, France, the Netherlands and the UK -in pages 316-319-).
Current market characteristics of the Gypsum Industry are described in section 1.4., analyzing market shares, the current construction market crisis, profit margins, fixed costs and competition with other construction products.
The principles of sustainable construction and the industrial approach for closing the loop are presented in section 1.5. Related to the latter, the use of environmental tools such as Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) and Environmental Products Declarations (EPDs) are also analyzed.
Closely linked to sustainable construction, how recycling gypsum products can be rewarded in several evaluation systems (BREEAM, DGNB, LEED, VERDE and HQE) and their evaluation criteria have been studied.
Chapter 2 covers the current gypsum recycling practices in Europe. From the detailed description of the gypsum waste, going through the review of the identified EU gypsum recyclers and plasterboard manufacturers offering solutions for recycling C&D plasterboard waste, the specifications for recyclable gypsum waste and the recycled gypsum criteria once reprocessed, to the reincorporation of recycled gypsum in the manufacturing process.
An analysis about gypsum waste management by the gypsum manufacturers shows the consolidated data of a survey carried out by Eurogypsum in October 2012.
14
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Under this first Action A of the project, questionnaires have been sent to EU gypsum recyclers and the results have been consolidated in table 2-20.
A comparison between the specifications for recyclable gypsum waste of GRI and NWGR can be consulted in tables 2-21, 2-22 and 2-23. Not enough information has been gathered for including the rest of EU recyclers in this comparison.
Different recycled gypsum quality criteria from BV Gips, WRAP, Eurogypsum member associations and GRI are analyzed in sections 2.1.5.1 – 2.1.5.5. The comparison among them for both technical and toxicological parameters is shown in table 2-29 and table 2-30.
A relevant conclusion arising from this chapter is the observed focus on closed loop recycling practices in Belgium, France and the Netherlands. All the recyclers operating in these countries seem to be working only for closing the loop of the plasterboard waste.
However, in the UK, only 4 out of the 11 identified gypsum recyclers have been confirmed as suppliers of recycled gypsum by the plasterboard plants. This is due to the high amount of recycled gypsum used for agriculture purposes and in cement manufacture.
It can be concluded that open loop practices for recyclable gypsum waste are widespread in the UK, but they are not observed in the rest of European countries where a market for gypsum recycling exists.
Germany, Greece, Spain and Poland have not yet established a market for recycled gypsum.
A detailed description of the plasters and plasterboard manufacturing is given in sections 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.1.2, followed by several remarks about the use of recycled gypsum as raw material (drafted as a result of the consolidated information sent by the 5 manufacturing plants partners of the project).
Section 2.2.3 shows the consolidated results of the answers received from the questionnaires received by 35 European gypsum manufacturers from February to March 2013.
Only countries with a minimum of 3 questionnaires from 3 different companies have been consolidated as a separate country. Although being out of the scope of the project, Austria and Italy have also been included, due to the great amount of answers received from these countries. However, Scandinavia has been left out of the consolidation because of the low amount of answers received (only 3 answers from 3 different countries coming from the same gypsum manufacturer), but it is known that Scandinavia has higher recycling rates for gypsum waste than most of the rest of the European countries.
15
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Table 2-42 summarized the main findings, and the whole section 2.2.4 draft overall conclusions and recommendations.
Chapter 3 analyzes the current deconstruction practices, drafted with the help of the interviews carried out to the different stakeholders involved in a deconstruction work. It covers the organization of waste, waste management during the works, logistics schemes and traceability.
Among others, it is concluded that deconstruction is sometimes chosen in the UK, France, Belgium and the Netherlands, where gypsum-based wastes are generally segregated from the rest of wastes.
However, in countries where these practices are not usual (Greece, Spain and Poland) plasterboards and gypsum blocks (if they are used) are generally mixed with other construction and demolition wastes.
In Chapter 4, drivers and barriers for recycling gypsum waste, and legislation related to gypsum based waste management are investigated.
Based on the consolidation of 32 questionnaires from demolishers, project owners, project managers and consultants, section 4.1.2 presents the drivers for choosing deconstruction instead of demolition.
Main drivers identified are:
- Environmentally friendly approaches like BREEAM or HQE.
- Image of the stakeholder
- Regulation
- Proper Management of C&D waste containing Gypsum (17 09 04 according to Commission Decision 2001/17/EC)
From the results of the 35 questionnaires gathered from EU plasterboard manufacturers, 7 main listed drivers are described in section 4.2.
The drivers identified are:
- Cost saving / cost reduction
- Customer request
- Green Public Procurement (GPP)
- Industry Voluntary Agreement with government
- Product Marketing
16
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
- Resource efficiency
- Sustainability commitment
It is expected that, after the development of the GtoG project, drivers such as the Green Public Procurement and Industry Voluntary Approaches will become main drivers to recycle gypsum products.
An economical case study has been developed for the deconstruction - demolition stage in section 4.3, in order to assess if deconstruction is more cost effective than demolition.
A complete economic analysis covering all the necessary stages impacting closed loop recycling can be found in section 5.5.
Section 4.4 investigates legislation related to gypsum based waste management, from the European law and its transposition to the different EU countries under study to the specific national regulation related to gypsum based waste.
Point 4.4.4.2.2 deals with environmental taxes, composed by the landfill tax and the gate fee charged by the landfill operators. Landfill tax, typically set such that is intended to encourage recycling, is one of the crucial economic parameters identified under section 5.4 and it is deeply analyzed under the overall market share model for gypsum recycling in section 5.7.
It should be noted that table 4-17 has been taken as a reference in section 5.
Chapter 5 is a key section and encompasses:
The description of the current general business model (collection-processing- selling-reincorporation) for gypsum recycling.
The crucial economic parameters of the recycling route versus the landfilling route
An economic analysis that aims to provide both an insight of the different stages and an easy to fill table for calculating the potential savings derived from the closed loop recycling of the material.
An environmental analysis that aims to provide the basis for the proper development of sub action C1.1 in which the carbon footprint of the modified and optimized value chain will be assessed
Overall market share model for gypsum recycling:
This model can help recyclers, plasterboard manufacturers, national authorities and the EU commission to identify the causes that limit the recycling rate of
17
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
gypsum waste in a country and what can be done in order to improve the current situation.
6 crucial factors have been identified, grouped under four categories combined into a mathematical model.
A country-by-country gypsum waste market overview.
A separate document compiles the ANNEXES to the report.
A description of the identified European gypsum recyclers, in some cases provided but also collected from their websites, can be found in ANNEX 1.
ANNEX 2 describes the role of the different stakeholders for 7 of the 8 countries (note that Greek stakeholders are described in section 3.1.3 Detailed example of Greece).
Regulation tables for each of the 8 countries under study are compiled in ANNEX 3.
The information about the samples interviewed under sub-action A1.1 can be found in ANNEX 4.
Questionnaires sent to demolition/deconstruction companies, building owners, project managers, architects, gypsum manufacturers and gypsum recyclers are presented in ANNEXES 5, 6 and 7.
The LCI inventory of the European Gypsum Industry, the LCA from WRAP and the GPP criteria for wall panels have been partially or completely included as a reference and can be found as the ANNEXES 8 to 10 respectively.
ANNEX 11 drafts a glossary of waste terms, aiming to compile and unify most terms used und the GtoG project.
ANNEX 12 summarizes the compliance of the DA.1 Report with the requirements of the Grant Agreement of the GtoG project.
Finally, ANNEX 13 includes a detailed History of the DA.1 Report, with the contributions of the different partners during the period of developing.
18
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
III. PROJECT STRUCTURE
Figure I- 1. PROJECT STRUCTURE.
19
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. GYPSUM AS A RESOURCE
SUMMARY
Gypsum is a rock-like mineral commonly found in the earth’s crust, extracted, processed and used by man in construction or decoration in the form of plaster and alabaster since 9000 B.C. Plaster was discovered in Catal-Huyuk in Asia in an underground fresco, and in Israel Gypsum floor screeds were found from 7000 B.C. During the time of the Pharaohs, Gypsum was used as mortar in the construction of the Cheops Pyramid (3000 B.C.). In the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, decorations and artistic creations were made of plaster. Since then, the range of construction-related uses has continued to multiply.
Until the mid 1980s, most of the gypsum used in the EU was natural, i.e., extracted. The combustion of sulphurous fossil fuels such as hard coal, lignite (and fuel oil) produces sulphur dioxide (SO2) which, if it is not removed in a flue gas desulphurisation plant, escapes into the atmosphere with the flue gases. In 1983, the German authorities enacted a law to protect the quality of the air making it compulsory for fossil-fuel power plants to be fitted with flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) facilities. From that year on, a partnership between the Gypsum Industry and the Electricity Industry has been formed to develop the best available techniques to convert the sulphur dioxide present in the flue gases into gypsum (CaSO4) via the use of limestone (CaCO3). This form is called FGD gypsum.
In Europe, FGD gypsum use varies depending on the coal intensity of the local energy mix and availability of natural gypsum near installations. FGD gypsum is produced in most Western European countries, but output is concentrated in Germany (60%). FGD gypsum production in the EU 15 countries amounted to 10,608 million tonnes in 2009. The total utilization amounted 8,910 million tonnes (83.9%, Gypsum Industry: 70%)1.
Other minor secondary raw materials are gypsum from chemical processes like phosphor gypsum, titano gypsum or citro gypsum.
A promising resource is recycled gypsum, since gypsum can be recycled indefinitely.
The main market constraints to the product’s spread are the uncertain quality of recycled gypsum (i.e. if the recycling procedure is not conducted correctly, a significant amount of paper will be left in the gypsum rendering it therefore unusable) combined with the fact that buildings are currently demolished and not
1European Coal Combustion Products Association e.V. www.ecoba.com
20
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
dismantled in the majority of the Member States.
1.1.1. Resource description
There are three types of gypsum:
Natural gypsum which is processed gypsum from quarries or mines.
Synthetic gypsum. The main source of synthetic gypsum is FGD (Flue-Gas- Desulphurisation) gypsum, a by-product of industrial process, i.e; the desulphurisation of gases in coal-fired power stations.
The combustion of sulphurous fossil fuels such as hard coal, lignite (and fuel
oil) produces Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) which, if it is not removed in a FGD plant, escapes into the atmosphere with the flue gases.
Recycled gypsum: whose use in industrial processes should be enhanced and this is the objective of this project. Gypsum raw material is not threatened by intensive extraction yet but the available amount is finite which is calling for saving measures such as recycling.
A scheme for Natural, Synthetic and Recycled gypsum steps to get a product ready for use is shown in figure 1-1.
Figure 1-1. Gypsum: processes to be a product ready for use.
21
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
1.1.2. Natural gypsum
Natural Gypsum is a rock-like mineral commonly found in the earth’s crust and produced from open-cast or underground mines. In Europe, the principal gypsum deposits are located in France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Russia, Spain, the UK, Romania, and Ukraine. In figure 1-2 the Gypsum World Mine Production and reserves by country is shown.
Gypsum is generally screened to remove ‘fines’ (mainly mudstones), then crushed and finely ground.
Natural gypsum is formed geologically from the evaporation of seawater. It is composed of calcium sulphate (calcium, sulphur and oxygen) with two molecules of
water, CaSO4 x 2H2O. Gypsum is usually white, colourless or gray, but can also be shades of red, brown and yellow. When calcined, it is partially dehydrated and becomes a white fine powder called Anhydrite or more commonly “plaster of Paris”.
Calcium Sulphate (CaSO4) resources were deposited in large sedimentary basins up to 230 million years ago. The formation of Gypsum deposits usually involved the deposition of the Calcium Sulphate mineral Anhydrite, which was then hydrated to form gypsum. The depth of hydration can range from the surface of the deposit down to three hundred metres, depending on climate, topography and the structure of the deposit. Anhydrite is often mined in conjunction with Gypsum, but is comparatively limited in its technical applications. The content of Gypsum in the sedimentary rock varies from 75% to 95%, the rest being clay and chalk.
Figure 1-2. World Mine Production and Reserves.Data in thousand metric tonnes. The mine production in 2012 has been estimated (e)2.
2 SCIENCE FOR A CHANGING WORLD - USGS, 2013-last update, Minerals Information. Available: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/ [05/29, 2013].
22
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
China, Iran and Spain cover almost 50% of natural gypsum production, with China being by far the largest producer (>30%).
Top 5 Western Europe countries and top 5 North & South America countries cover each 15% of natural gypsum production.3
1.1.3. FGD Gypsum
Of the flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) processes available, limestone-based scrubbing processes have proved the most popular. The desulphurisation process takes place in scrubbing towers in which the flue gases are brought into contact with an aqueous suspension containing powdered limestone or slaked quicklime as its
alkaline component. The Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) in the flue gas reacts with the alkaline component in the aqueous solution finally to calcium sulphate dehydrate
(CaSO4 x 2H2O), gypsum. The gypsum crystals are separated out of the suspension as a moist, fine crystalline material powder with the aid of centrifuges or filters.
Figure 1-3. Flue Gas Desulphurisation.Presentation to the European Commission on 22 September 2012, Jörg Demmich.
FGD gypsum is produced in most Western European countries, but output is concentrated in Germany where around half of the production is located. The large
3PWC-Plaster and Plasterboard industry-qualitative assessment of the risk of carbon leakage-2012 page 20- s.
23
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
area of use for FGD gypsum is the production of plasterboards, wall plasters, gypsum blocks and floor screeds.
Around 7 million tonnes of FGD gypsum was used by the Gypsum Industry in 2011.4
Figure 1-4. Use of FGD Gypsum in Europe.Presentation to the European Commission on 22 September 2012, Jörg Demmich.
FGD gypsum basically changed the scene in the European Gypsum Industry. Indeed, the electricity industry became an important supplier of raw material and an essential partner in the technological development of the FGD production and establishment of quality criteria for FGD gypsum. Financial investment on both sides has been significant to bring this product (manufactured within the fence of the power plant stations) to its maturity.
Figure 1-5. Use of FGD Gypsum in the Gypsum Industry. Presentation to the European Commission on 22 September 2012, Jörg Demmich.
4ADVANCING THE MANAGEMENT & USE OF COAL COMBUSTION PRODUCTS - ACAA, 2011-last update, 2011 Coal Combustion Product (CCP) Production & Use Survey Report. Available: http://www.acaa-usa.org/associations/8003/files/Final2011CCPSurvey.pdf [05/29, 2013].
24
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
In the past, plasterboards production facilities were located close to natural gypsum deposits and the market for building materials. An increasing number of production facilities are now being established across Europe in close proximity of large power plant stations. New gypsum markets also opened up as FGD gypsum can be easily transported by barges and trains due to continuous output and loading facilities at big power stations. Belgium, the Netherlands, and Nordic Countries with no natural gypsum deposits, import FGD gypsum by logistics from coal power plant stations first of all in Germany. According to the electricity industry, the production of FGD gypsum is expected to be stable in all Europe within the next years.
However, there are currently EU and national political debates about sustainable energy (EU commitment to reduction of CO2 emissions); about secure energy supply (with the need to rebalance the energy mix); about the growing need to use renewable energy sources and the existence of new efficient technologies of power stations. These elements will reduce the production of FGD gypsum within the next 20 to 30 years particularly in Germany and other Western EU member states. In contrast, in the Eastern European countries the amount of generated FGD gypsum will increase due to the new desulphurisation plants for coal fired power plants.
1.1.4. Other synthetic gypsum
Additionally, most of chemical processes in wich Sulphuric Acid is used are potential Gypsum producers (like phosphor-, titano- or citrogypsum). Neutralisation of acidic effluents with lime or limestone yields Gypsum, for which the potential usage depends on different frame conditions like financial or quality issues. Since the quantities of these “Synthetic Gypsum” used are low compared with FGD Gypsum, these materials are outside the scope of this report.
1.1.5. Recyclable gypsum waste
The GtoG Project focuses on the efficiency of the value chain - the dismantling of plasterboard on the demolition site, the reprocessing of the recyclable plasterboard waste and the reincorporation of the recycled gypsum in the manufacturing process- rather than on the quantified output and on the scale.
Deconstruction enables the quantity and quality of valuable materials to be optimized, thereby increasing the potential for their future use. This, in turn, creates economic value and establishes markets for these former waste streams.
Current practices in the EU (in France it is assessed that only 5% of the total demolitions are really dismantled), however, serve to minimize this potential by demolishing materials into co-mingled streams that can only be recycled according to
25
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
the lowest common quality denominator i.e., aggregates for road, filling material. Current practices therefore prevent closed loop recycling.
Gypsum products can be counted amongst the very few construction materials where “closed loop” recycling is possible, i.e. where the waste is used to make the same product again. Gypsum as such is 100% and eternally recyclable. You can always re-use Gypsum because the chemical composition of the raw material in plasterboards and blocks always remains the same.
Once plasterboard from construction and demolition waste is separated on site, the plasterboard waste is usually collected by a third party and received by the recycler (also named reprocessor and supplier), i.e. the individual or company that processes plasterboard waste to produce recycled gypsum.
The latter assesses against its acceptance criteria (see 2.1.4. of the report) the plasterboard waste load to ascertain if they will accept it for processing or reject it. If the plasterboard waste is not accepted, there are two solutions: it can be sent to landfill with or without monocell, or to a transfer station which may sort the contaminants so as to make the load recycled.
Plasterboard waste from construction works is usually a clean waste whilst plasterboard waste from demolition works present greater physical contamination that can difficult, to those recyclers taking waste from this source, its reprocessing into a high quality recycled gypsum product.
If the load is accepted, it becomes recyclable plasterboard waste.
If it is not accepted, it goes to monocell landfill for plasterboard (see 4.4.1.1 of the report for more details), which is an engineered cell in a non-hazardous landfill site solely for the deposit of high-sulphate waste, which ensures that waste is physically separated from other wastes and in particular biodegradable wastes.
In current practices in Europe, monocell landfills for plasterboard are lacking and not all plasterboard waste is recyclable.
When the load is accepted by the recycler, it undergoes a process, by which plasterboard waste is separated into its constituent parts of gypsum and paper, and contaminants are removed.
The end result of this process is the recycled gypsum.
There is ongoing debate regarding the appropriate name for gypsum obtained from the processing of waste gypsum products, taking into account definitions in Standards, legal interpretation with regard to waste materials, and commonly used and understood terms.
For the GtoG project, ‘recycled gypsum’ is used to mean gypsum resulting from the controlled processing of plasterboard waste to separate the gypsum, paper lining,
26
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
and any contaminants, such that it can be used in lieu of natural or synthetic gypsum.
Recycled gypsum is usually in the form of a fine or sandy powder, or a small aggregate-type material. Requirements for producing recycled gypsum are defined in Specifications (see 2.1.5.). The latter are however today not European but rather national and commercial specifications. The GtoG project will examine and re-asses those existing specifications during the pilot projects on recycling and reincorporation into the manufacturing process. At the end of the project agreed specifications for EU and/or national level will be determined. The opportunity to ask for the end-of-waste status at EU or national level as per article 6 of the Waste Framework Directive will also be decided upon at the end of the project.
In dependence on the quality criteria defined between the recycler and the client, recycled gypsum can be used for:
Open loop recycling: Processing plasterboard waste into recycled gypsum, and using the recycled gypsum as a material in products and applications other than the manufacture of new plasterboard, for example its application to soils for agricultural benefit.
Closed loop recycling: Production system in which the waste or by product of one process or product is used as a secondary raw material in making another product. The closed loop gypsum recycling should be the end goal of the recycling industry in order to maximize the usefulness of virgin materials and minimize the necessity to extract them (saving primary raw material).
Specifications are adopted by recyclers for producing defined grades of recycled gypsum from plasterboard waste so that potential customers will be assured that they are procuring a material of consistent and verifiable quality.
The specifications cover the sampling and test methods required to verify compliance with the specifications. It also states requirements for quality management, using the concept of Factory Production Control, encompassing: organizational requirements, supply and handling of plasterboard waste for recycling, processing, product verification, handling, storage and dispatch (see recycling processes in Annex 1).
The GtoG project focuses on closed loop recycling. The current recycling practices show that the path towards closed loop recycling needs to be strengthen, this based on the results of the questionnaire for recyclers (2.1.3.4) and manufacturers (see 2.2.3).
ISO 14021 distinguishes between:
Pre-consumer material: Material diverted from the waste stream during a manufacturing process.
27
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Post-consumer material: Material generated by households or by commercial, industrial and institutional facilities in their role as end-users of the product, which can no longer be used for its intended purpose. This includes returns of material from the distribution chain.
For Plasterboard Gypsum waste, we have:
Production waste derived recycled gypsum
Recycled gypsum derived from plasterboard waste arising from the plasterboard manufacturing process. An example would be out-of- specification boards.
Post-consumer recycled gypsum
Recycled gypsum derived from plasterboard waste arising from the installation or removal of plasterboard in its product application. Examples include damaged boards and off cuts from its installation in construction projects, and stripped-out plasterboard in demolition projects
The GtoG project covers both recycled gypsum for the reincorporation into the manufacturing process in the pilot project, i.e.:
Production waste
Construction waste
Demolition waste
In addition to the demolition waste received from the demolisher pilot project site, the recyclers already operating in the plants of the project industrial partners will provide construction and demolition waste from other sources to the partner’s plants with the aim of obtaining 30% reincorporation of the recycled gypsum into the manufacturing process.
The percentage of recycled gypsum reincorporated becomes a recycled content according to ISO 14021 as “the proportion, by mass, of recycled material in a product or packaging”.
Currently the industrial partners involved in the project have the following profiles in terms of reincorporation of the recycled gypsum into the manufacturing process:
Saint-Gobain Gyproc Belgium has contracted NWGR for processing production, construction and demolition recyclable plasterboard waste. Saint Gobain Gyproc Belgium is reincorporating those wastes in the manufacturing process.
The amount processed is currently around:
28
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
o 1,500 tonnes/month for construction and demolition waste,
o 2,500 tonnes/month production waste from the gypsum producers in Belgium and the Netherlands
Reincorporation into the manufacturing process:
o Around 10% of recycled gypsum is reincorporated in the total amount of plasterboard production.
Placoplatre recycles recyclable construction and demolition plasterboard waste and contracted NWGR for the processing of recyclable plasterboard waste.
The amount processed is:
o 2.650 tonnes /month covering production and demolition waste
o 1.200 tonnes /month for construction waste ( construction sites)
o The reincorporation into the manufacturing process is around 15% in the total amount of plasterboard production.
Siniat France recycles production waste and from 2011 they also receive construction and demolition waste in the plant in Auneuil, in the north of Paris, being currently the recycling capacity around 12%.
As an average, production waste amount up to 5% per board weight. Current recycled content in plasterboards varies between 10 to 15%.
Siniat UK recycles production, construction and demolition waste and contracted NWGR. Siniat UK processes directly the production waste.
The amount for construction and demolition waste is: 3,000 tonnes/month. The reincorporation into the manufacturing process is around 15% in the total amount of plasterboard production.
Knauf GipsKG recycles production waste. As an average, production waste amount up to 5% per board weight.
The situation of those 5 plants is different and reflects the situation of the plasterboard industry in Europe. We see that improvement is necessary. The GtoG project will serve to boost the plasterboard plants to choose the closed loop recycling route whenever possible.
In the pilot trials, technical and economic challenges for reincorporation into the manufacturing process will be analysed (see 2.2.).
29
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
1.2. GYPRUM PRODUCTS AND SOLUTIONS
SUMMARY
The modern use of Gypsum as a building material was discovered in 1888 when the American Augustine Sackett invented a machine for producing plasterboards (also known as wallboards and dry-walls) composed of several layers of paper with Gypsum in-between.
In Europe, the first plasterboard plant was built in Liverpool in 1917 and the second one in London in 1926. In continental Europe, the first factory was completed in Riga in 1938.
Gypsum provides a uniquely positive answer to complex environmental equations of this century; be it in relation to the sourcing of raw materials, to the use of gypsum products in buildings and to their recycling at the end of their useful life. Gypsum further provides safe, low cost, comfortable and convenient solutions to the built environment.
Gypsum is a healthy resource:
Gypsum is a sustainable material;
Gypsum cannot burn;
Gypsum does not contain any hazardous substances and is thus non-toxic;
Gypsum is eternally recyclable.
Gypsum based products and solutions have numerous outstanding and unique qualities in construction:
Gypsum is fire protective;
Gypsum acts as a thermal insulator when combined with insulation materials;
Gypsum regulates sound;
Gypsum is impact resistant.
Thus Gypsum is multifaceted, multipurpose, supple and aesthetic.
A richness of forms can be created in plasterboard or stucco. For architects, building with gypsum products allows them to unleash their creativity thus allowing them to answer, even more dramatically, to the demands of their customer while
30
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
remaining within an affordable budget. In short, gypsum allows the creation of stunning interiors in any and all styles, from the Classical to the Modern.
1.2.1. Properties of gypsum products
Gypsum is non-combustible and able to delay a fire’s spread by up to 4 hours through acting as a fire barrier. It acts as a sound regulator by providing a physical barrier to sound and as a thermal insulator for the inside of buildings when combined with insulating materials, thanks to its low thermal conductivity. It is also an impact resistant thanks to its high degree of hardness equivalent to a denser masonry construction.
1.2.2. Applications5
Gypsum is used mainly in the manufacture of non-load-bearing building elements for setting the ceiling on and dividing the interior space.
The Gypsum Industry is therefore principally driven by the construction activity and the demand for new and refurbished housing.
Gypsum based applications range from complex high-tech systems to easy to install products:
Plasterboard / drywall: used for partitions and the lining of walls, ceilings, roofs and floors. The properties of plasterboard can be modified to meet specific requirements, such as fire resistance, humidity resistance, shock resistance, etc.6
Other generic terms used for plasterboard products include “gypsum board,” “drywall” and “wallboard.” Plasterboard is the most complex type of gypsum product, requiring the highest level of processing and fabrication. Drywall also differs from other gypsum products in that industry output and demand are usually measured in terms of surface rather than weight.7
5 Living with Gypsum-2008 and Biointelligence-service contact on management of construction and demolition waste- SR1- final repot task 2-February 2011 page 98-111. 6 EUROPEAN COMMISSION (DG ENV), 2011.Service contract on management of construction and demolition waste - SR1.Final Report Task 2. 7PwC- plaster and plasterboard industry-Qualitative assessment of the risk of carbon leakage-page 18- 2012.
31
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Figure 1-6. Plasterboard / drywall.
Gypsum plasterboards are factory-made building boards mainly consisting of gypsum whose surfaces and longitudinal edges are paper-covered and profiled to suit the application. The paper-covered gypsum core can be produced with different porosities and contain additives to achieve certain qualities. Essential board properties result from the composite effect of plaster core and paper encasement with the paper serving as reinforcement of the zone subject to tensile forces and provides in combination with the plaster core the necessary strength and flexural strength.8
Decorative Plaster: Plaster powder, mixed with water, manually or through the use of silo-supplied spray systems, are used to create an effective and aesthetically-pleasing lining for brick and block walls, and for ceilings.
Gypsum’s adaptability in application lends itself to moulding and shaping. Since time immemorial, gypsum has been used by skilled craftsmen to create decorative plaster mouldings.
Building plaster: this term is used to refer to the entire range of dried powders obtained from calcining of gypsum material. Those products can be mixed with water and dried off to form any hardened plaster product (cf. plasterboard, drywall and plaster products for construction purposes). Building plaster properties depend on the quality of raw material and on the calcining process, leading to different proportions of hemihydrate and anhydrite.9
Gypsum plaster is used for walls and ceilings.
8BV Gips-GipsDatenbuch 2013. 9PWC-PLASTER AND PLASTERBOARD INDUSTRY, 2012.Qualitative assessment of the risk of carbon leakage.
32
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Figure 1-7. Building plaster.10
Gypsum blocks: gypsum blocks are used for partitions and gypsum tiles for ceilings.
Figure 1-8. Gypsum wall block.10
Gypsum-based self-levelling screeds: anhydrite or Alpha-Hemihydrates are used in the production of self-levelling floor screeds.
Figure 1-9. Anhydrite floor.10
10 PROF. DR.-ING. HABIL. ANETTE MÜLLER, 2010. Gypsum in C&D aggregates – Origin, Effects, [Separation] and Utilization, Bauhaus-Universität Weimar.
33
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Gypsum Fibreboards: gypsum fibreboard is a reinforced material consisting of gypsum and cellulose fibres.
These two raw materials are mixed and after the addition of water - no other binding agents - they are pressed under high pressure to form panel sheets. Subsequent to drying, the panels are impregnated with a hydrophobic agent and cut into the desired sizes. Gypsum fibre boards can be used in all areas of dry wall and timber construction - with the exception of exterior applications - as panelling and lining in walls, ceilings, vaulted ceilings, floors.
Standard gypsum fibreboard offers good performance when it comes to shock resistance, sound insulation and humidity resistance.
Numerous products cover the user’s necessities in the different countries. Building plaster and plasterboard products are largely used in most of the European countries: those with the strongest plasterboard use (linked to drywall constructions) are usually the lowest plaster products consumers (mainly used in traditional masonry construction).
Traditional masonry construction
Industrialised construction
Figure 1-10. Use of plasterboard varies with the construction systems used in each country.
34
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
1.3. RECYCLING GYPSUM PRODUCTS: TOWARDS GREEN BUILDINGS
SUMMARY
“Closed loop” recycling is possible for plasterboard, being gypsum 100% and eternally recyclable. Gypsum cans always being re-used because the chemical composition of the raw material in plasterboards always remains the same.
The plasterboard usage varies significantly among the different EU countries, for example in Poland its use is very low and thus also its recycling. A modelling of the average supposed plasterboard consumption per capita between 2000 and 2005 in 29 countries is shown within this section, as well as an update table following this model, for the 8 selected countries, using the published Eurostat statics for gypsum based waste.
The European Gypsum Industry has started to recycle demolition waste in Scandinavia, the UK, Belgium, France and the Netherlands.
The term recycling describes a process in which raw materials achieve an endless useful life.
Gypsum products can indeed be counted amongst the very few construction materials where “closed loop” recycling is possible, i.e. where the waste is used to make the same product again. Gypsum in plasterboards and blocks is 100% eternally recyclable because the chemical composition of the raw material always remains the same.
The closed loop material system implies:
Cradle-to-Cradle (C2C) approach
Design for deconstruction
Products disassembled into their constituent materials
Materials must have value, be reusable and recyclable
Extraction, production, and use of materials should be harmless throughout the entire process
The application of plasterboard splits into the three traditional sectors is approximately distributed as follows:
35
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
30% House building 40% Commercial industrial
Repair, mantenance, improvement
30%
Figure 1-11. Use of plasterboard distribution. Source: Eurogypsum.
The demolition gypsum waste market is complex and no reliable statistics exist despite the efforts conducted to improve on current data. Furthermore, plasterboard usage only gained widespread acceptance, at least in Continental Europe, in the 1970s-1980s. Even now in Eastern and Southern Europe traditional construction systems of partitioning and interior finishing still prevail. This means that many buildings over 40 years old contain little or no plasterboard. Gypsum demolition waste is yet a Research and Development (R&D) field.
In 2011, it was estimated a generation of 5 million tonnes of plasterboard waste in EU construction sites.11
The proportion varies significantly among the EU countries, i.e. in Poland; the plasterboard usage is very low and thus its waste amount.
The environmental preference goes to reducing waste at source, i.e. at the design stage. But as some waste will inevitably be generated, due to different construction elements, construction sites need to establish the discipline of segregation.
The European Gypsum Industry is taking measures to reduce, re-use and recycle gypsum waste.
One of such measures is the availability of cut-to-length plasterboard, delivered in the exact quantities required on building sites. This helps to minimize the amount of off-cuts. Supplying plasters and screeds throughout on-site silo systems has also helped to reduce wastage. The unused amounts can either be used on another construction site, or returned to the producer. Silo systems have the added advantage of avoiding packaging waste such as paper sacks.
The national Gypsum Industry associations also provide advice on how to reduce wastage from inappropriate storage, delivery, handling and installing of gypsum
11 FROST & SULLIVAN, 2011.Strategic Analysis of the European Recycled Materials and Chemicals Market in Construction Industry.M579-39.
36
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
products. In addition, effective calculation tools are offered by the gypsum product producers as an effective means for planning constructions.
The demolition and the recycling industry have the expertise, independently or in collaboration with plasterboard manufacturers, to provide an appropriate service to the construction industry for the necessary collection, logistics system and waste processing.
Thanks to this project, greater focus on recycling will encourage further development and opportunity within the business sector. The Gypsum Industry is currently providing routes, for segregated and clean plasterboard waste, to be delivered to reprocessing stations.
The goal is placed on turning recycled gypsum into a business opportunity, although still much need to be done to reach an economic maturity at least in the field of demolition gypsum waste.
Today, buildings reaching the end of their life are still predominantly constructed with brick and plaster walls (not plasterboard), however this situation is rapidly changing. The use of plasterboard started in the 1960s and 1970s and such buildings are also reaching their end of life today.
Few studies have considered gypsum waste. In North America plasterboard wastes represent up to 15% of construction and demolition waste, again in a mature market. 12 Western Europe is a consolidating market, and Eastern Europe is a developing market and as such only the amount of gypsum waste has been estimated at approximately 3 million tonnes landfilled annually.
However, Construction & Demolition (C&D) waste is not a European market at all. Presenting a strong regional orientation that makes it difficult to obtain solid statistics to predict a forecast of developments of C&D waste in Europe and moreover so for gypsum waste.
There is very limited data available on plasterboard waste generation beyond anecdotal evidence and ad hoc projects. Figures from different sectors of the industry are being quoted with little evidence base, even the above-mentioned. However, based on assumptions of the square meter used per capita in the Member States, table 1-1 shows a modellisation for the year range 2000-2005, developed by NWGR, on plasterboard waste generation by countries.
Moreover, under the GtoG project, and using the Eurostat statistics on the production of manufactured goods in 2012, a new estimation has been calculated and it is presented in table 1-3.
12 ENVIRONMENTAL CANADA'S ENVIRONMENTAL CHOICE PROGRAM, Certification Criteria Document for gypsum wallboard.Available: http://www.ecologo.org/common/assets/criterias/CCD-020.pdf [06/02, 2013].
37
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Consumption of Total Total New Population PB from C&D Total Country plasterboard Consumption Consumption Construction Waste (x103) (m2 per capita) (m2) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) Figure range between year 2000 and year 2005
10% of total 50% of New
consumption construction waste Belgium 10,445 2.7 28,201,500 239,713 23,971 11,986 35,957 Denmark 5,411 3.6 19,479,600 165,577 16,558 8,279 24,836 Germany 82,500 2.3 189,750,000 1,612,875 161,288 80,644 241,931 Greece 11,075 1.1 12,182,500 103,551 10,355 5,178 15,533 Spain 43,038 2 86,076,000 731,646 73,165 36,582 109,747 France 60,561 4.7 284,636,700 2,419,412 241,941 120,971 362,912 Ireland 4,109 4.6 18,901,400 160,662 16,066 8,033 24,099 Italy 58,462 1.1 64,308,200 546,620 54,662 27,331 81,993 Luxembourg 455 2.5 1,137,500 9,669 967 483 1,450 Netherlands 16,305 2.2 35,871,000 304,904 30,490 15,245 45,736 Austria 8,206 3.3 27,079,800 230,178 23,018 11,509 34,527 Finland 5,236 4.8 25,132,800 213,629 21,363 10,681 32,044 Sweden 9,011 3.9 35,142,900 298,715 29,871 14,936 44,807 United Kingdom 60,034 4.6 276,156,400 2,347,329 234,733 117,366 352,099 Portugal 10,529 2 21,058,000 178,993 17,899 8,950 26,849 Norway 4,606 3.7 17,042,200 144,859 14,486 7,243 21,729 Switzerland 7,415 1.4 10,381,000 88,239 8,824 4,412 13,236 Poland 38,173 1.9 72,528,700 616,494 61,649 30,825 92,474 Totals: 435,571 1,225,066,200 10,413,063 1,041,306 520,653 1,561,959
Table 1-1. The figures shown come from a modellisation of New West Gypsum Recycling on the basis of population and average estimated plasterboard consumption per capita, per country. The figures are based on the bidefense of SG when the latter wished to buy BPB.
38
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
SOLD VOLUME OF GYPSUM BASED PRODUCTS (m2)
Country/year 2000 2005 2011 2012
Belgium Confidential Confidential Confidential Confidential
Germany* 263,540,580 Confidential 276,331,584 264,956,532
Greece Confidential Confidential Confidential Confidential
Spain 110,420,000 149,558,000 118,289,000 100,504,000
France* Confidential Confidential 172,536,028 292,711,321
The Confidential Confidential 47,831,000 Confidential Netherlands
Poland** Confidential 115,649,000 112,136,000 105,272,000
The UK* 247,982,990 310,545,659 226,617,770 221,100,410
The Prodcom database establishes different NACE codes: Data until 2007 is collected under the revision 1.1, specifying 26621050 and 26621090 as the codes for gypsum plasterboards, blocks and tiles used for partitions and lining of walls, ceilings, roofs and floors. After 2008, revision 2 renamed these products, using the NACE code 23621050 and 23621090 to refer to these materials. For the case of these elements, only the codifying number has changed whilst the description remains the same: boards, sheets, panels, tiles and similar articles of plaster or of compositions based on plaster, faced / not faced or reinforced with paper or paperboard.
* Code 23621090 confidential in Prodcom database ** Code 23621050 confidential in Prodcom database
Table 1-2. Sold volume of plasterboard, blocks and tile products (hereinafter: gypsum based products) according to the published statistics by Eurostat.
Figure 1-12 shows the estimated evolution from 2005 to 2012 of the sold volume of gypsum based products in countries with available data.
39
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
350000000
300000000
250000000 Germany
200000000 Spain France 150000000 The Netherlands 100000000 Poland 50000000 UK
0 2005 2011 2012
Figure 1-12. Evolution of the sold volume of gypsum based products in the 6 countries with available data from Eurostat.
Spain and the UK sold volume have decreased in the last 7 years. For the case of the UK this recession is remarkable.
Germany and Poland keep the 2005 levels of volume sold.
France and the Netherlands seem to have experienced a slightly growth during the last years.
Belgium and Greece have no available data about sold volume of gypsum based products.
Spain and the UK are the only countries publishing information in a yearly basis. The rest of the countries present confidential or no information in any of the years studied.
Germany, France, Poland and the UK sold volume data can be slightly higher than the figures presented, as one of the two NACE codes is considered confidential information.
Taking into account the data for the year 2012 as well as the population of each country and considering the same assumptions than those considered by NWGR in its study, table 1-3 has been developed.
40
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
ESTIMATION OF TOTAL PLASTERBOARD WASTE GENERATED IN 2012 (IN TONNES)
New Demolition and Estimation of Estimated construction Estimated Estimated renovation the Sold volume of consumption waste consumption of consumption of waste (tonnes) plasterboard Country gypsum based Population of (tonnes) 2 plasterboard* plasterboard* waste products (m ) 2 2 plasterboard* 50% of new (m per capita) (m ) 10% of total generated (tonnes) construction consumption (tonnes) waste
Belgium Confidential 11,094,850 2.54 28,201,500 239,727 23,973 11,986 35,959
Germany 264,956,532 81,843,743 2.33 190,769,490 1,621,638 162,164 81,082 243,246
Greece Confidential 11,290,067 1.08 12,182,500 103,557 10,356 5,178 15,534
Spain 100,504,000 46,196,276 1.44 66,551,649 565,723 56,572 28,286 84,858
France 292,711,321 63,409,191 4.49 284,636,700 2,419,557 241,956 120,978 362,934
The Netherlands Confidential 16,730,348 2.14 35,871,000 304,922 30,492 15,246 45,738
Poland 105,272,000 38,538,447 1.71 66,020,816 561,211 56,121 28,061 84,182
The UK 221,100,410 63,256,141 3.46 218,639,790 1,858,550 185,855 92,927 278,782
TOTAL 984,544,263 - - 902,873,444 7,674,885 767,488 383,744 1,151,233
* estimation based on the comparison between the plasterboard consumption estimated for the period 2000-2005 in the NWGR’s model and the sold volume of gypsum based products collected from the Eurostat database for the same period.
Table 1-3. Estimation of the total gypsum based waste generated in the target countries of the GtoG project for the year 2012.
41
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Conclusions:
France and the UK show the higher rates of plasterboard consumption per capita.
Greece, Spain and Poland present the lower rates of plasterboard consumption per capita.
For estimating the consumption of plasterboard in tonnes, it has been considered that 1 tonne of plasterboard is equivalent to 117.65 m2.
This equivalence has to be checked under Actions B1 and C1 of the GtoG project.
42
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
1.4. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GYPSUM INDUSTRY
SUMMARY
Plasterboard industry’s health is directly connected with the construction market. A high percentage of their costs are given by the price of energy and raw materials used.
Being a capital intensive industry, plasterboard production requires economic equilibrium in the long-run. Profitability analysis stresses that investment capacities have been reduced by the construction crisis.
In this section market shares, the current construction market crisis, the current profit margins, key figures, industry fixed costs and competition with other construction products are analyzed.
The plaster and plasterboard sector is a fixed cost, highly capitalistic industry, sensitive to input prices and to capacity utilization rates.
Market prices are not driven by any differentiation in the products. Plaster is a very ancient and standard product. Plasterboard, which appeared in Europe only after the Second World War, has to meet very specific norms that standardise the products13.
Plaster and plasterboard are both commodities produced using standard technologies across the industry.
- Players compete in capacities under a Cournot oligopoly model 14 , which results in a concentrated and integrated market structure. The three main worldwide players -Siniat International, Saint-Gobain Gypsum and Knauf- account for 85% of the European market.
- The second implication of competition by capacities is that market prices are driven by the utilization rates of the plants: if demand falls significantly the operators are decreasing their prices to recover their fixed costs.
13PwC- plaster and plasterboard industry-Qualitative assessment of the risk of carbon leakage-page 18- 2012. 14Cournot competition is an economic model used in literature to describe the situation in which firms independently establish the quantity to produce by taking as given the quantity of their rivals. As mentioned in the OECD Glossary of Statistical terms1, “the Cournot model of oligopoly assumes that rival firms produce a homogeneous product, and each attempts to maximize profits by choosing how much to produce”. PWC idem-complementary information to the commission 26 July 2012.
43
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
- The plaster and plasterboard industry is very sensitive to energy and raw material price fluctuations that represent a large part of their total costs (~48%).
Nonetheless, historically, the operators could not pass through all their cost increase. From 2005 to 2010, natural gas and electricity prices increased by respectively 5.4% and 6.6% per year and plaster and plasterboard prices by only 1.2% and 0.2% per year.
1.4.1. Market shares
Market shares plaster and plasterboard development can vary significantly from one country to another:
- The plaster and plasterboard industry is characterized by high transport costs; therefore competition and price behaviour are inherently local, depending on the density of the park of production.
- The construction market is also marked with local specificities that translate into product preferences and construction market maturity. Then the production park of substitutes varies locally and impacts the market prices. The highest penetration rate15 of plasterboard in the EU is 43% in the UK.
1.4.2. The current construction market crisis
The plaster and plasterboard industry’s health is directly connected with the construction market, with new build construction on the one hand and refurbishment on the other hand.
The plaster and plasterboard industry started to be shocked by the crisis in 2008. The current crisis is still lasting: house starts current figures represent less than 2/3 of the 2007 level. The refurbishment market had been less impacted at the beginning of the crisis, but has slowed down similarly. Construction output in 2013 is not expected to be higher than the 2009 level and -13% lower than the 2007 level. The long-lasting characteristics of the current crisis do not fit with the cyclical rhythm of the industry.
As internal European demand is still very low, prices have been significantly reduced. The construction market no longer follows GDP growth: the recovery of the industry is expected to be slow, and prices will not rise over the period 2013-2014.
15Penetration rate is a measure of the extent of a product's sales volume relative to the total sales volume of all competing products, expressed as a percentage. Formula: Sales volume of a product x 100 ÷ Total sales volume of all competing products. http://www.businessdictionary.com/
44
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
1.4.3. The current profit margins
Assessing the profitability of the plaster and plasterboard industry requires a medium-long term view and requires anchoring the analysis in the global construction market being a capital intensive industry, plaster and plasterboard production requires economic equilibrium in the long-run. The demand for plaster and plasterboard follows the construction market trends and currently is far from the peak of the cycle: capacity utilization fell since 2007 and is currently running below the minimum long term break even rate.
Profitability analysis stresses that investment capacities have been reduced by the Construction crisis.
Margins dropped drastically: the decrease captured by Eurostat in 2008 accelerated.
In particular, the global capacity to create value, i.e. to foster long term investments has been destroyed since 2009: no rational operator would further invest in the European park of production except for maintenance.
Since 2008, the new built residential market is stagnating and the demand for plasterboard fell by 3% a year, with low growth perspective for the construction market.
1.4.4. Key figures
Production Park: around 160 installations throughout Europe.
Turn over: In 2011 turnover (mining activities excluded) was around € 3.7 Billion according to Prodcom.16 See figure 1-13.
Geography: Top three producers are Germany (~21% of the European market), France (~18%) and the UK (18%). 80% of the European market is concentrated in the five largest countries (including Spain and Italy).
Products: Building plaster represents ~35% of total sales, plasterboard ~65% in Europe. The share of plasterboard is increasing regularly in Europe. As an illustration, the share of plasterboard is 90% in North America. Plaster use is decreasing with the adoption of modern building systems within the building sector.
16EUROPEAN COMMISSION - EUROSTAT, Prodcom - Statistics by Product.Available: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/prodcom/introduction [06/02, 2013].
45
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
4000000
3000000
) €
2000000 Gypsum Industry turnover Euro( 1000000
0
Figure 1-13. Statistics on the production of manufactured goods Value ANNUAL 2011. NACE 23.52 and 23.62.Prodcom code: 23522000, 23621050 and 23621090. All values are expressed in thousands.
1.4.5. Industry fixed costs17
Initial investment: The operating capital requirement is high: at least €50 million for a fully equipped 30 million square meters capacity plant.
Raw material availability: The cost of sourcing is important because of the vertical integration of the industry: a firm must own or lease a deposit of gypsum, carry out extensive testing, and use heavy machines for extraction (except for FGD Gypsum).
Technology: Access to the best available technology is easy, as there is an open market of machines manufacturers since the 70s. However, process optimization requires broad experience.
Energy sources availability: The availability of energy sources is a key driver, e.g. proximity of a natural gas pipeline.
Competitors: substitute to gypsum products
Most of the Gypsum Industry products and solutions (80%) are designed for the construction market that can be understood in three ways
New built versus renovation Residential versus non residential Masonry versus drywall
17PwC - plaster and plasterboard industry. Qualitative assessment of the risk of carbon leakage, page 32- 2012.
46
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
1.4.6. Competition with other construction products
Plasterboard competes with a very wide range of construction products:
Fibre-cement board Cement-wood board Calcium silicate board Particle board Plastic/ PVC sheet Steel flat & corrugated sheet Paper corrugated/ honey comb board Bricks
Traditional construction is very important in Europe still and the market penetration of plasterboard is lower than in the US:
The markets with the strongest plasterboard penetration usually have the lowest plaster penetration: they are negatively correlated, plaster being mainly used in the traditional masonry constructions, while plasterboard is used mainly in drywall constructions.
There is still room for improvement in Europe regarding plasterboard use vs. traditional building solutions. The European market mostly lags behind the US in the shift towards modern building solutions incorporating plasterboard. For every 1000$ of building expenditures, 23.4kg of plasterboard are used in the US versus only 12.6 in Western Europe.
Even in the UK, the European country with the highest penetration rate for plasterboard (43% in the EU), the latter is but one product among others.
Partitioning is the only undisputed application for plasterboard in the UK.
Globally, energy and raw materials price represents a high percentage of the cost in the plasterboard industry. Being its growth directly linked with the new build construction and refurbishment market.
Competition among companies, price behaviour and product preferences vary at a local level.
47
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
1.5. RECYCLING OF GYPSUM PRODUCTS: TOWARDS RESOURCE EFFICIENT BUILDINGS
SUMMARY
The shift of the construction industry towards a path parallel to the overarching sustainable development movement is what we call sustainable construction. This effort addresses the entire life cycle of buildings: their planning, design, construction, operation, modifications, renovation, retrofit, and ultimate disposal.
The principles of sustainable construction should be fully enhanced:
Reduce, re-use and recycle resources (design for recycling);
Protect nature in all activities;
Apply life-cycle economics in decision making;
Create a quality built environment (aesthetics, durability, maintainability, comfort, to name a few quality aspects).
In this section not only the industrial approach to closing the loop is presented, also innovations to greening the construction sector and the meaning of sustainable construction are shown. Related to the latter, the use of environmental tools such as Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) to assess the ecological burdens and impacts connected with products and systems and Environmental Products Declarations (EPDs) providing relevant, verified and comparable information about the environmental impacts of gypsum products are also analyzed.
Closely related to sustainable construction, how recycling gypsum products can be rewarded in several evaluation systems and their evaluation criteria are studied.
1.5.1. Industrial approach to closing the loop
The pressure of our industrial society onto the natural environment has been perceived for decades mainly as effects of emissions into the environment. Today, with the sustainability criteria in mind, pressure of our society onto the Planet in the 3P-concept (People, Profit and Planet) is going beyond the waste issue. Indeed, the growing world population with a growing demand per capita and the awareness of the limited availability of certain natural resources make that the Planet concern is a double one: Planet as a resource stock and Planet as a sink for emissions.
48
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
At the same time, we can achieve better energy and materials management through re-use, recycling, waste-to-energy strategies etc. resulting simultaneously in reduced resource extraction and emission generation.
These principles seem to be obvious but quantitative information for underpinning statements like "it is better to recycle than...” are not that obviously available.
The building sector is certainly a sector where there are opportunities for a smart resource management. It makes sense to focus on this sector given its substantial economic impact with about 10% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in western economics, and the fact that the building sector uses more raw materials than any other sector. Moreover, unlike other sectors like transport where amounts of fossil energy resources are immediately dissipated through carbon dioxide emissions, the building sector leaves amounts of materials after the use phase. It makes that the demolition phase is a perfect opportunity for seeking markets and applications of the waste material giving rise to both waste disposal reduction and virgin resource savings.
The partners to the project wish therefore to mobilize efforts in order to optimize the recycling of gypsum demolition waste for society as a whole and quantify, if feasible, how gypsum demolition waste can contribute to avoiding consumption of virgin resources.
1.5.2. Innovations for a resource efficient construction sector
It would be good to remind ourselves that our economy and our thinking is beginning to adjust to a new wave of innovation in which greening is the key factor. Since the Industrial Revolution, six waves of innovation have been identified. The first wave was marked by the advent of water power and mechanization; the second by steel and steam power; the third by electricity and the internal combustion engine, the fourth by electronics, aviation, and space; the fifth by information and digital technologies.
These waves were postulated by these generational cycles of invention, expansion, and depression are called “Kondratiev waves” in honour of Nikolai Kondratiev, the Russian economist who first postulated their existence. It is interesting to note that the waves are also becoming sharper as time goes on with time spans starting at 60 for the 1st wave and just 30 years for the 5th wave.
The 6th wave, the present wave of innovation is marked by green building, regeneration of natural systems, sustainability, and other innovations that will set humanity on the road to sustainability. Radical green buildings are a logical next step
49
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
in the 6th wave of innovation that rapidly advances the state of the art of green building18 (see figure 1-14).
Figure 1-14. Waves of Innovation. Source: Kibert, C.J., 2012.
1.5.3. Sustainable construction: what does it mean?
The shift of the construction industry towards a path parallel to the overarching sustainable development movement is what we call sustainable construction. This effort addresses the entire life cycle of buildings: their planning, design, construction, operation, modifications, renovation, retrofit, and ultimate disposal. According to the International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB), sustainable construction could be defined as: “the creation and operation of a healthy built environment based on resource efficiency and ecological principles”.
The basic resources needed for construction are raw materials, energy, water, land, and ecological systems.
The principles of Sustainable Construction include: reduce, re-use, and recycle resources; protect nature in all activities; eliminate toxic substances from
18 KIBERT, C.J., 2012. Rethinking Sustainable Construction and Renovation for a Healthy Built Environemnt, Sustainable Construction and Renovation in the Route for a Low Carbon Economy 2012.
50
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
construction; apply life cycle economics in decision making; and create a quality built environment (aesthetics, durability, maintainability) to name a few quality aspects.19
The above-mentioned can be summarized as follows:
Figure 1-15. Sustainable Construction: Life Cycle Stages, Principles and Resources. Source: Kibert, C.J., 2013.
As a consequence of this shift, we have seen the last decade the emergence of building assessment for measuring the performance of a building in terms of environment, economic and social criteria.
1.5.4. Environmental tools
1.5.4.1. Life Cycle Analysis: the European Approach
In 2009 Eurogypsum carried out a life cycle inventory for plasterboard with PE International within the Joint Research center work on ELCD (European Reference Life cycle database 3.0).20
The Cradle to gate inventory includes the impacts related to raw material extraction, transport of raw materials and production but not the End-of-life recycling stage.
Some assumptions were made, like the transportation of all the raw materials are included in the model, the gypsum used for plasterboard production is originated
19 KIBERT, C.J., 2003. Sustainable Construction at the Start of the 21st Century. The Future of Sustainable Construction. 20 EUROGYPSUM, 2009.European Life Cycle Assessment on Plasterboard: European Environmental Declaration – Explanatory Note.
51
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
either from mined gypsum, FGD gypsum or other synthetic gypsum or recycled gypsum, and that the used cardboard in the model is made from recovered paper.
The electricity, thermal energy and refinery products used where modelled according to the individual country-specific situation. Coal, crude oil, natural gas and uranium are modelled according to the specific import situation. All relevant and known transport processes used are included in the inventory.
The inventory is mainly based on industry data and is completed by secondary data. End-of-life recycling stage is not included in the cradle-to-gate inventory. The recycled content of the products used in this dataset is 35.9% taking into account recovered paper as well as post-consumer recycling of plasterboard and FGD gypsum both replacing natural gypsum stone.
For the calculations, the functional unit has been 1 m2 of plasterboard and the data used comes from three different countries, the UK, France and Germany. These three countries cover more than 53% of market volume in the EU-27 region.
1.5.4.2. Life Cycle Analysis: the WRAP LCA
In January 2007, WRAP commissioned Environmental Resources Management Ltd. (ERM) to carry out a life cycle assessment (LCA) of plasterboard21.
This study investigated the life cycle of one standard sheet of Type A plasterboard and encompassed all life cycle stages from raw material production to end-of-life management. The study was focused on plasterboard Type A; 12.5 mm thick; 1200 x 2400 mm, because it is the most common type of plasterboard currently produced in the UK.
Three alternative systems were assessed: Baseline, based on the current (2007) mix of gypsum used in Type A plasterboard production; 15% recycled, based on increased levels of post-consumer recycled gypsum; and 25% recycled, based on increased levels of post-consumer recycled gypsum.
Even though the impact profiles suggest that there are environmental benefits associated with increasing the recycled gypsum content in Type A plasterboard, these benefits are to small to conclude a categorical benefit of increasing the content of recycled gypsum in Type A plasterboard production.
The benefits of using post-consumer gypsum in plasterboard production are a function of both, avoiding the need to landfill plasterboard waste; and the need to produce an equivalent quantity of gypsum from conventional sources (mined or synthetic gypsum).
21 WRAP, 2008. Technical Report: Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard. Waste&Resources Action Programme.
52
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
The greatest emissions of greenhouse gas emissions across the life cycle of one sheet of Type A plasterboard occur in plasterboard manufacturing stages. Using more post-consumer recycled gypsum reduces emissions associated with the production of conventional gypsum and with plasterboard disposal. However, these reductions are small in comparison with the emissions resulting from plasterboard manufacture.
The results of the assessment suggest that efforts to reduce the environmental impact of Type A plasterboard production might be best targeted at minimising wastage (and thereby reducing production efforts for the equivalent amount of plasterboard that performs its function insitu).
Comparing options for plasterboard disposal shows the greater potential impact of landfilling plasterboard in monocell, in comparison with mixed waste landfill, across a number of impact categories (including human toxicity). This is a surprising outcome in light of the drive to reduce the amount of wasteplasterboard disposed in mixed
waste landfill, and avoid hydrogen sulphide (H2S) emissions.
A notable limitation of this study was its restricted scope. The study focuses on the closed loop recycling of gypsum from post-consumer sources back into plasterboard production. There are a number of other end uses for the gypsum recovered from plasterboard waste, and an assessment of the market potential for and barriers to the use of post-consumer recycled gypsum in alternative end uses has been carried out by WRAP.22
The assessment reported here has shown some environmental benefit associated with gypsum recycling in comparison with landfill. This benefit is not seen across all categories of impact, as recycling processing impacts (energy consumption) are currently higher than those for mixed waste landfill. It is also highly sensitive to the distance plasterboard waste is transported.
It is recommended to further work in the investigation of the potential benefits of using post-consumer recycled gypsum in local open loop systems; and in the potential scale of energy savings that might be achieved through increased economies of scale as greater tonnages of plasterboards are recycled.
1.5.4.3. Comparison between the two LCA
Different gypsum plasterboard - LCA studies have been carried out to date, providing different approaches and contributing to achieve better understanding of the process. The LCA developed by WRAP in 2008 and the European approach developed by EUROGYPSUM in 2009 are compared in this section.
22 WRAP, 2008. Technical Report: Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard. Waste&Resources Action Programme.
53
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Table 1-2 summarises their main characteristics.
The European Approach. The WRAP LCA EUROGYPSUM
Year 2008 2009 Type A: 12.5 mm thick Type of plasterboard 1200x2400 mm - square edge profile Software SimaPro GaBi4
One sheet of Type A 2 Functional unit 1 m plasterboard manufacture Cradle-to-grave assessment System boundaries Focus on the closed loop Cradle to gate recycling Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) The study leads to LCI results Gabi Modelling Principles23 Database used Baseline 15% recyclate (low and high Comparison among different transport) - scenarios 25% reciclate (low and high transport) Data comes from the UK, France and Germany - Representativity of data The UK representatives for the EU-27 region
Table 1-4. Plasterboard Life Cycle Studies.
Figure 1-16. Scheme system boundaries.
23 Gabi Modellling Principles: http://elcd.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ELCD3/resource/sources/10466572-0cfd-428e- 8b10-ae74255e6e83.xml
54
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
1.5.4.4. Use of environmental products declarations (EPD) in the Gypsum Industry
During the last few years several rating systems have been created in order to mitigate the life cycle impacts of buildings in the environment, to enable buildings to be recognized according to their environmental benefits, to provide a credible environmental label for buildings and to stimulate demand for sustainable buildings.
These environmental labels are one instrument that aims to have an influence in the patterns of demand for products in order to reduce their environmental impact, aiming to provide information to consumers and users about the environmental performance of a product.
Environmental Products Declarations (EPDs) are not disconnected from the LCA. EPDs are a communication tools for LCAs.
EPDs schemes have been developed in order to provide credible information on the environmental impact of Business to Business products. There is however a wide variety of EPD schemes. In order to avoid misleading the market, it is urgent they be harmonised. EPDs in the construction field are an essential tool in the process of determining integrated environmental building performance and widely used by the gypsum manufacturers in their daily business. In the future EPDs will need to comply with EN 15804.
EN 15804 is a standard providing the core rules for the production of Environmental Product Declarations (EPD) for construction products. It establishes the common rules for type III environmental declarations which can be used by EPD schemes across Europe as a consistent method for providing the core environmental information on construction products which can then be used with data for other products to evaluate the building. This new standard will ensure that comparable environmental information is generated wherever a product is manufactured or used and it is hoped that this core information can be transferred from scheme to scheme across Europe, minimising barriers to trade.
EN 15804 has been developed by CEN’s Technical Committee 350 (CEN/TC 350), set up under a mandate given by the European Commission to CEN to “provide a method for the voluntary delivery of environmental information” for construction. The mandate addresses the “mounting costs for industry” and “non-acceptance of environmental product information” arising from the conflicting EPD schemes in Europe, with the mandate stating that “to ensure that comparable environmental information is generated and used, without creating barriers to trade, national schemes need to be based on a common European programme founded upon European or International standards for Environmental labels and declarations – type III environmental declarations”. Since the Committee started work in 2004, CEN/TC 350 has initiated the development of a suite of European Standards covering the
55
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
assessment of sustainability for construction products, buildings and the wider built environment.
The EPDs schemes that the gypsum manufactures follow are according to their needs and are listed in the following table:
EPDS SCHEMES FOLLOWED BY THE GYPSUM MANUFACTURERS IN EUROPE
EPD Country
Fiches de déclaration environnementales et sanitaire pour les produits de France construction http://www.inies.fr/
Milieu relevant productsinformatie – Holland The Netherlands http://www.mrpi.nl/
RT Environmental information - buidling information foundation-Finland Finland http://www.rts.fi/ymparistoseloste/validity_distribution.htm
Environdec-Sweden Sweden http://www.environdec.com/en/
ökoBau dat. Germany http://www.rts.fi/ymparistoseloste/validity_distribution.htm
InstitutBau und Umwelt (IBU) Germany http://bau-umwelt.de/hp481/Environmental-Product-Declarations-EPD.htm
The Norwegian EPD Foundation Norway http://www.epd-norge.no/?lang=en_GB
Table 1-5. Environmental Products Declarations in the Gypsum Industry.
Each scheme is different and makes the comparison between the same products across Europe impossible. You can compare products from the same countries using the same scheme.
In 2003, the French Gypsum Association developed with ECOBILAN life cycle inventories (LCI) on generic gypsum products (plasterboard, partitions and gypsum blocks) within the HQE framework. The result of this work lead to the production of technical documents. On this basis, the French Gypsum Association was able to
56
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
prepare abridged data sheets to be used for communication purposes and characterising the various environmental impacts, as well as the contribution products make to controlling health risks in a building. Surprisingly enough, the most notable environmental impact is the production of waste.
In Germany, the Gypsum Association has made the following:24
- For walls and partition with plasterboard or fibreboard we have a cradle to grave EPD with two scenarios (0% / 10% recycled gypsum) published.
- In an EPD overview concerning all gypsum products we have a separate recycling module with LCA data published.
Figure 1-17. Calculation on the ADPE savings (ADPE = Abiotic depletion potential for non-fossil resources) for the use of 0% versus 10% recycled gypsum in single layer and double layer plasterboard wall constructions.
24http://www.gips.de/service/download/umwelt/umwelt-produktdeklarationen/
57
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
1.5.5. Recycling gypsum products in evaluation systems
The increased awareness of sustainability has resulted in the development of various means of predicting performance and rating sustainability. The sustainable building assessment rating systems are largely market-driven since they rely on market recognition of the value of sustainable buildings.25 Table 1-4 presents some of the existing evaluation tools. BREEAM, DGNB, LEED and VERDE are analysed in the following sections.
EVALUATION COUNTRYOF INSTITUTION WEB PAGE SYSTEM ORIGIN
BREEAM BRE Trust United Kingdom http:/www.breeam.org
http://www.lbec.or.jp/CASBEE/en CASBEE Japan Green Building Council Japan glish/index.htm
German Sustainable Building DGNB Germany http://www.dgnb.de/_de/ Council
Norwegian Building Research Ecoprofile Norway http://www.sintef.no/home/ Institute Taiwan Green Building EEWH Taiwan http://www.taiwangbc.org.tw/en/ Council. Building Owners and Green Globes Managers Association of Canada http://www.greenglobes.com Canada (BOMA) Singapore Building and http://www.bca.gov.sg/GreenMar Green Mark Singapore Construction Authority (BCA) k/green_mark_buildings.html
Australia Green Building Green Star Australia http://www.gbca.org.au/ Council
HK BEAM HK BEAM Society Hong Kong http://www.beamsociety.org.hk
Association pour la Haute HQE Qualité Environmentale des France http:/www.assohqe.org/hqe bátiments
LEED US Green Building Council USA http://www.usgbc.org/LEED/
Departamento de Engenharia LIDERA Civil e Arquitectura do Instituto Portugal http://www.lidera.info Superior Técnico MINERGIE Minergie Building Agency Sweden http://www.minergie.ch/
NSW (New South NABERS Australia http://www.nabers.com.au WhalesGoverment)
Nordic Swan Nordic Council of Ministers Nordic countries http://www.svanen.se/
Green Building Council PromisE Finland http://www.promiseweb.net/ Findland
25SCHWARTZ Y., R.R., 2013. Variations in results of building energy simulation tools, and their impact on BREEAM and LEED ratings: A case study. Energy and Buildings, 62, pp. 350-359.
58
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Instituto per L´Innovazione e Protocolo ITACA Trasparenta degli Appalti e la Italy http://www.itaca.org/ Compatibilitá Ambientale Council for Scientific and SBAT South Africa http://www.csir.co.za/ Industrial Research (CSIR) Internacional Initiative for SBTool International http://www.iisbe.org/sbmethod Sustainable Building http://www.gbce.es/herramientas/ Verde GBC España Spain informacion-general
Table 1-6. Sustainable evaluation systems.
1.5.5.1. BREEAM
BREEAM (Building Research Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Method) is a voluntary scheme that works by awarding credits for meeting different environmental targets.The system considers the importance of being aware of the environmental cost to manufacture and dispose of materials (code Mat 03), giving the following example in the web page:
What it takes to build 100 homes:
- 1,200 m2 Spoil - 156,842 Blocks - 694,500 Bricks - 12,811 m2 plaster board - 300m2 mortar - 5,200 m Roadway - 2,600 m Reinforced beam - 576 m2 timber - 2,700 m2 Glass - 7,500 ltrs paint
BREEAM credits can be obtained by:
Using "A" rated green guide materials
Reducing Material use:
o Re-use of structure/façade
o Recycled materials
59
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Reducing the impact of material
o Timber
o Key building elements
It also promotes resource efficiency via the effective management and reduction of construction waste (code - Wst 01).
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Wst 01: Construction waste management.
Figure 1-18. Credits and minimum standards for Wst 01.26
These criteria are split into two parts:
Construction resource efficiency (3 credits)
1. Non-hazardous construction waste (excluding demolition and excavation waste) generated by the building’s design and construction meets or exceeds the following resource efficiency benchmarks:
Amount of waste generated per 100 m2 (gross BREEAM credits internal floor area)
m3 tonnes
One credit ≤ 13.3 ≤ 11.1
Two credits ≤ 7.5 ≤ 6.5
Three credits ≤ 3.4 ≤ 3.2
Exemplary level ≤ 1.6 ≤ 1.9
Table 1-7. BREEAM credits by amount of non-hazardous waste generated.
26BREEAM, a-last update, BREEAM - Construction waste management. Available: http://www.breeam.org/BREEAM2011SchemeDocument/Content/10_waste/wst01.htm [06/03, 2013].
60
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Note: Volume (m3) is actual volume of waste (not bulk volume)
2. There is a compliant Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP).
3. Where existing buildings on the site will be demolished a pre-demolition audit of any existing buildings, structures or hard surfaces is completed to determine if, in the case of demolition, refurbishment/re-use is feasible and, if not, to maximise the recovery of material from demolition for subsequent high-grade/value applications. The audit must be referenced in the SWMP and cover:
a. Identification of the key refurbishment/demolition materials. b. Potential applications and any related issues for the re-use and recycling of the key refurbishment and demolition materials.
Diversion of resources from landfill (1 credit)
4. The following percentages of non-hazardous construction and demolition waste (where applicable) generated by the project have been diverted from landfill:
BREEAM credits Type of waste Volume Tonnage
Non demolition 70% 80% One credit Demolition 80% 90%
Non demolition 85% 90% Exemplary level Demolition 85% 95%
Table 1-8. BREEAM credits by type of waste diverted from landfill.
5. There is a compliant Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP).
6. Waste materials will be sorted into separate key waste groups (according to the waste streams generated by the scope of the works, considering the European List of Waste, see table 1-9) either onsite or offsite through a licensed contractor for recovery.
European List Chapter Examples of Waste Gypsum-based construction materials other than 1708 gypsum- those mentioned in 17 08 01” (i.e. not contaminated 170802 based construction with dangerous substances), like plasterboard, material plaster, or mortar.
Table 1-9. Plasterboard in the European List of Waste.
61
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Exemplary level criteria
The following outlines the exemplary level criteria to achieve an innovation credit for this BREEAM issue:
7. Non-hazardous construction waste generated by the building’s design and construction is no greater than the exemplary level resource efficiency benchmark (outlined in the above table).
8. The percentage of non-hazardous construction and demolition waste (if relevant) diverted from landfill meets or exceeds the exemplary level percentage benchmark (outlined in the above table)
9. All key waste groups are identified for diversion from landfill in the pre- construction stage SWMP.
For compliance notes, the Schedule of Evidence, Additional Information, Checklists and Tables and Other information are detailed, see de website of BREEAM.
Mat 03: Responsible sourcing of materials.
Figure 1-19. Credits and minimum standards for Mat 03.27
The aim is to recognise and encourage the specification of responsibly sourced materials for key building elements.
The following is required to demonstrate compliance:
1. Each of the applicable specified materials comprising the main building elements are assigned a responsible sourcing tier level and points awarded as follows:
Tier level Points
2 3.5 3 3.0
27BREEAM, b-last update, Mat 03.Responsible of sourcing materials - BREEAM.Available: http://www.breeam.org/BREEAM2011SchemeDocument/Content/09_material/mat03.htm#Applicable_build ing_elements_and_materials [06/03, 2013].
62
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
4 2.5 5 2.0 6 1.5 7 1.0 8 0
Table 1-10. Tier level and points awarded.
Note: a. Plasterboard is included in the list of applicable materials and main building elements. b. The tier rank is determined based on the rigour of responsible sourcing demonstrated by the supplier(s)/manufacturer(s) of that material/element (through responsible sourcing certification schemes). c. Refer to the list of responsible sourcing certification schemes, their scope and corresponding tier level.
2. The number of BREEAM credits achieved is determined as follows:
BREEAM credits Points
3 ≥54%
2 ≥36%
1 ≥18%
Table 1-11. BREEAM credits – points.
Note: a. The BREEAM Mat 03 calculator must be used to determine the points and credits achieved for this issue. b. To achieve points for any given building element, at least 80% of the materials that make-up that element must be responsibly sourced i.e. classified in tier 1-7. c. The number of building elements present and therefore applicable determines the maximum number of points available e.g. if nine elements are present and assessed the maximum number of available points will be 36. d. Potential variance in tier levels achieved for materials within any one element will require a pro-rata calculation of the points total for any given element. e. Refer to the Calculation procedures in the Additional Information section for a description of how the number of points and credits are determined.
63
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
f. Confirmation that all timber used on the project is sourced in accordance with the UK Government’s Timber Procurement Policy.
Note:
a. It is a minimum requirement of BREEAM certification (for any rating level) that compliance with criterion 3 is confirmed (see Compliance note for further information). b. In meeting this requirement, there is no minimum number of BREEAM credits that need to be achieved for this assessment issue (the BREEAM credit benchmarks for responsible sourcing are calibrated on the basis of assessing all major building materials and not for any single material).
Exemplary level criteria
The following outlines the exemplary level criteria to achieve an innovation credit for this BREEAM issue:
4. Where 70% of the available responsible sourcing points have been achieved.
For compliance notes, the Schedule of Evidence, Additional Information, Checklists and Tables and Other information are detailed.
1.5.5.2. DGNB
DGNB is based on the interdisciplinary expertise of DGNB members and covers all relevant fields in the planning, optimization, and assessment processes. Its flexibility has allowed it to be adapted to a wide range of building types, which now make up a comprehensive portfolio.
Figure 1-20. DGNB Certification over the complete building life-cycle with a unified approach.28
28GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL DENMARK, An introduction to DGNB.
64
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Within the Environmental quality criteria, the following aspects are related with closing the loop of gypsum products:
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Technical quality.
40. Ease of dismantling and recycling
1.5.5.3. LEED
LEED was designed through a multi-year process to address a broad array of environmental, economic, and practical implementation issues. As such, it was designed to stimulate market-based changes in building practices and has successfully been adopted by a wide array of public and private sector leaders.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Materials & resources (MR)
MR 2: Construction Waste Management
The credit focuses on diverting waste from landfills by finding multiple alternatives for end use of the waste, namely recycling, re-use on site, donation for re-use on another site, or resale. All of these diversion methods count towards credit compliance:
MRc2.1 with a 50% construction waste diverted for one point
MRc2.2. with a 75& diversion rate for two points
Look for opportunities to prevent the generation of waste on construction sites because the less waste you generate, the less you have to recycle or re-use to earn the credit.
There are two different approaches to recycling C&D waste: separating materials at the source (on site), or commingling them and sending them to an off-site waste sorting facility. Either approach can work well. Your choice will depend on whether there is room for sorting on site, whether the contractor is willing to take that on, and if there are good sorting facilities nearby.29
29 LEED USER, 2013-last update, Construction Waste Management. Available: http://www.leeduser.com/credit/NC-v2.2/MRc2 [06/10, 2013].
65
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Figure 1-21. MRc2 scheme.29
MR4: Recycled materials
To achieve this credit a certain fraction of the materials used in the project have to be made from recycled-content materials, which can be either pre-consumer or post- consumer.
66
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Figure 1-22. MRc2 scheme.29
1.5.5.4. VERDE
The evaluation system is based on a feature evaluating method, in accordance with the CTE (Código Técnico de la Edificación, Technical Building Code) and European Guidelines. At its core are bio-architecture principles: the building’s respect for the environment, whether it is compatible with its surroundings and the high comfort and quality of life levels required for the users.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
C. Natural Resources
Design measures to reduce use of potable water for occupancy needs
Rainwater storage for later re-use
Design features for a split grey/potable water system for later re-use
Natural impact and hazardous waste generated by building materials used 67
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Demolition, dismantling, re-use and recycling strategies
Natural impact and hazardous waste generated in the construction process.
1.5.5.5. HQE
HQE (“Haute Qualité Environnementale”), in English High Quality Environmental Standard, is a global approach designed to improve the environmental quality of buildings, in other words to control their impact on the outdoors environment and create a healthy and comfortable indoors environment. It is applicable to all types of new and existing buildings in the residential, tertiary and industrial sectors.
A French standard now covers HQE for tertiary buildings, with the "NF Tertiary buildings – HQE approach" certification in order to terminate abusive use of the HQE building qualification. For the moment this certification for tertiary buildings is applicable to new construction and major renovation operations for office and teaching purposes. It applies to all persons involved in the work (from the client to the main contractor) and is issued after three audits carried out during key periods (programming, design and construction) in the construction period.30
The HQE Aménagement™ certification
The process is certified by Certivéa and has been in operation since November 2, 2011.
This certification can be used by a developer, a development project or a community and attests to the fact that the parties involved took an approach that integrates sustainable development for a development project, whatever the type.
The Project Management System (SMO) characterizes the requirements associated with different stages of a development project, in order to address the challenges related to sustainable development. It mainly emphasizes the role of each party regarding each of the six key phases of a project.
With the HQE Aménagement™ certification, developers and local authorities now have clear benchmarks and a process recognised by a third party. This enables them to promote and clearly differentiate their projects.31
A fourteen target evaluation system
14 targets must be reached to obtain HQE certification, related to: eco-construction, eco-management, comfort and health.
30Eurogypsum. Briefing note on: Inventory of Existing Initiatives on Sustainable Construction including Labelling Schemes. 31Certivea web page http://www.certivea.com/news_HQE/view
68
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Ecoconstruction Targets
C1. Harmonious link between the building & its immediate environment
C2. Integrated choice of products, systems, construction methods
C3. Building site which creates low levels of nuisance
Eco-management Targets
C4. Energy management
C5. Water management
C6. Waste activity management
C7. Maintenance and repair management
Comfort Targets
C8. Hygrothermal comfort
C9. Acoustic Comfort
C10. Visual Comfort
C11. Olfactory Comfort
Health Targets
C12. Sanitary quality of the environment
C13. Air quality
C14. Sanitary quality of the water
To comply with the HQE approach a building must fulfil as a minimum:
- 3 targets at a high performance level
- 4 targets at a performance level
- 7 targets at a basic level32
32http://assohqe.org/hqe/
69
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
EVALUATION CRITERIA
C3. Construction site with small environmental impacts
Example of a building dedicated to health care (table 1-12).
Critère Préoccupation Caractéristique Intitulé Niveau En construction: Dispositions prises pour réduire la production de déchets à la source. En déconstruction préalable : 3.2.1. Optimiser la Dispositions prises pour optimiser le degré de déconstruction. Dispositions justifiées production de (1) (2) B et satisfaisantes déchets de chantier En déconstruction/réhabilitation : Identification des déchets à risques (DD et Déchets des zones à risques infectieux) et dispositions prise pour assurer leur élimination dans le respect de la réglementation. 100% pour les déchets réglementés (6) (7) ≥ 10% pour les P 3.2.2. S’assurer de la Traçabilité á travers le % minimum de déchets non destination de tous (6) bordereaux de suivi récupérés réglementés les déchets ≥ 50% pour les déchets non TP réglementés 50% minimum de déchets de chantier valorisés B Dispositions justifiées et satisfaisantes (5) 3.2.3. Valoriser au % minimum de déchets valorisés – ne 60% minimum de mieux les déchets en sont comptabilisés que les déchets pour déchets de chantier adéquation avec les lesquels des filières locales de valorisés P filières locales valorisation sont existantes (par rapport à Dispositions justifiées (3) (4) existantes la masse totale des déchets générés) et satisfaisantes (5) 75% minimum de déchets de chantier valorisés TP Dispositions justifiées et satisfaisantes (5)
Table 1-12. Example of a building dedicated to health care.
Different level can be reached depending on the weight of Target n°3 in the course of the certification.
- HQE is used for construction and not for demolition project.
70
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
- Nowadays, Target n°3 “Construction site with small environmental impacts” is not often high rated. This implies that the requested recycling /recovering rate is rather low.
- When the Target 3 is selected in the course of a certification, there is poor follow-up. The reasons are the cost of the follow up and the reluctance from the waste management companies to give information regarding the routes they use.
C6. Waste activity management
71
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
1.6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Main types of gypsum are summarized below:
RESOURCE ORIGIN CURRENT SITUATION
Formed China, Iran and Spain cover almost 50% Natural gypsum geologically of natural gypsum production
By product from Produced in most Western European the countries. desulphurisation FGD gypsum Belgium, the Netherlands, and Nordic of gases in coal- Countries with no natural gypsum fired power deposits, import FGD gypsum from stations. Germany.
From the At the European level, The Benelux and processing of Denmark are on the front line when it gypsum waste in comes to recycling gypsum practices. Recycled gypsum accordance with The UK, France, Belgium and the determined Netherlands have also a gypsum specifications. recycling system implemented.
Table 1-13. Main types of gypsum used in the production of plasterboards and gypsum blocks.
The most important potential of other synthetic gypsums than FGD gypsum lies in the use of purified Phosphogypsum. Next to that is some potential in the use of purified Titanogypsum. In the past, both the Phosphoric Acid and the Titanium Dioxide industries have shown a systematic close down of production facilities in Europe. Investments in either the purification of the produced gypsums, or in finding applications for the gypsums produced, may be essential for the future viability of these sites.
Gypsum Industry started to experiment about 40 years ago different changes in the production equipment to adapt to FGD gypsum. This new resource has changed the scene in Europe. In 2011, around 7 million tonnes of FGD gypsum was used by the Gypsum Industry.
The industry started to adapt to FGD Gypsum, following the table 1-14:
72
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Gypsum plants The importance of FGD Changes to the production behaviour gypsum equipment
Additional source of First movers + Marginal changes to accommodate gypsum – main source early adopters the new type of raw materials natural gypsum
Use of dedicated production lines Parallel source of gypsum Widespread only using FGD gypsum and (as important as rock adoption fundamental changes to existing gypsum) lines to use FGD gypsum
Whole plants designed for ONLY Dedicated Unique source of gypsum using FGD gypsum – no ability to plants (no rock gypsum used) use mineral gypsum
Table 1-14. Changes in the Gypsum Industry to the use of synthetic gyspum. Source: Model developed by Henrik Lund-Nielsen, Board of Management of Gypsum Recycling International.
Figure 1-23 explains in a graphical way these adaptations over the last few decades:
Figure 1-23. Usage of gypsum over time and FGD's share of total consumption of gypsum in the European plasterboard industry. Source: Model developed by Henrik Lund-Nielsen, Board of Management of Gypsum Recycling International.
Following the need of reducing the volume of C&DW sent to landfill and the efficient use of resources, use of recycled gypsum will follow a similar growth in the next years, being one of the construction materials that can effectively close the loop, being fully and eternally recyclable. In fact, gypsum waste recycling is a reality in several
73
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
European countries, helping not only to minimize C&D waste streams to landfills but also to mitigate primary mineral resource depletion.
Currently, recycling processes are geared for two different categories: open loop and closed loop recycling.
For materials recycled in an open-loop, the products of the recycling process (secondary product) are not the same as the inputs (primary product). Open loop recycling does not account for avoided emissions from manufacturing the primary material, since using the recycled material does not displace manufacturing of the primary material.
Recycled gypsum is used for a variety of agricultural purposes, especially in the UK, although it could be easily be recycled back into new gypsum products.
In a closed loop manufacture, the secondary product is the same as the primary product.
An example of a closed loop recycling process is recycling gypsum waste into another gypsum product.
The European Gypsum Industry is taking steps towards sustainable manufacture, contributing to the sustainability of the building industry, aiming to create a better, safer, healthier and more secure environment. Throughout the use of recycled gypsum, the reduction of environmental impact will be achieved by reducing materials consumption and waste production.
The Cradle-to-grave assessment (by WRAP) and the Cradle-to-gate assessment (by EUROGYPSUM) will be the starting point for assessing the carbon footprint of the modified and optimized value chain in the coming Action C1, taking 1 m2 as functional unit and focusing on the closed loop recycling.
According to the LCA developed by WRAP, the following is concluded:
Gypsum pre-processing incurs relatively little burden across the plasterboard life cycle.
Plasterboard disposal in mixed waste landfill is a key contributor to the global warming potential, photochemical oxidation and acidification potential of plasterboard.
Life cycle stages associated with recycling (collection, transport, gypsum production and pre-processing) contribute relatively little to the overall impact profiles for plasterboard systems.
The European Gypsum Industry aims to provide information on the environmental impacts of their products through Environmental Product Declarations.
74
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
France, the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Germany and Norway follow different EPDs schemes and there is a need of harmonisation.
A harmonisation of PCRs on the EU level is recommended.
ISO 14025 states that harmonisation of the Product Category Rules should be strengthened between different programmes to meet the principle of comparability.
In relation to the evaluation system, examples of criteria currently promoting the plasterboard separation and recycling:
Construction resource efficiency.
Up to 3 credits (BREEAM)
Diversion of resources from landfill.
1 credit (BREEAM)
1-2 points+ (LEED)
Responsible sourcing of materials.
Up to 3 credits (BREEAM)
Use of recycled materials. Can be either pre-consumer or post-consumer.
1-2 points+ (LEED)
Construction site with small environmental impacts
Variable rate (HQE)
To conclude, the aim of the GtoG project is to convert recycled gypsum into a business opportunity but there is a long way to go towards the maturity, at least, in the field of demolition gypsum waste. The direct link between improving sustainable performance and business performance will help to reach this target.
75
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
2. RECYCLING GYPSUM TODAY
SUMMARY
This section drafts the consolidated results from a survey related to gypsum waste management and quality criteria, based on the answers received from the gypsum manufacturers operating in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, the Netherlands and the UK.
Of these countries, only Belgium, Denmark, France, the Netherlands and the UK currently have a market for gypsum recycling. However, some experiences (such as research activities) reincorporating construction and demolition waste seems to be carried out in some of the other countries.
Two main gypsum recyclers – GRI and NWGR – have been operating in Belgium, Denmark, France, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands and the UK in recent years. Other recyclers are now starting their activity, such as Nantet Locabennes and Ritleng Revalorisations in France. All of them are only working for closed loop recycling. In the UK, three gypsum recyclers are identified as suppliers by the gypsum manufacturers - Roy Hatfield Ltd, Arrow Gypsum Recycling and Countrystyle, however some of them are also working for open loop recycling.
In general, Construction and Demolition (C&D) plasterboard waste is currently processed by the gypsum recyclers who sell the recycled gypsum to the manufacturers.
2.1. GYPSUM WASTE IN THE EUROPEAN GYPSUM INDUSTRY
2.1.1. Gypsum waste Management: an analysis by the gypsum manufacturers
In October 2012, Eurogypsum carried out a survey on:
The origin of the recycled gypsum (production waste, construction, demolition).
The type of recycled gypsum (from plasterboard and other gypsum waste).
The collection/intermediate storage by the producer or by a third party.
The recycling plants: manufacturers reincorporate recycled gypsum previously recycled internally or by a third party (like GRI or NWGR, GtoG project partners).
76
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
The results were consolidated by Eurogypsum on the 17th of January of 2013 and are summarized below:
Replies were received from the following countries:
Austria (AU)
Belgium (BE)
Denmark (DK)
France (FR)
Germany (DE)
Italy (IT)
Poland (PL)
Spain (SP)
The Netherlands (NL)
The United Kingdom (UK)
Origin of the gypsum waste
Manufacturers in Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands and the UK, produced plasterboard with recycled gypsum coming from production waste, from new construction works and from demolition.
Austrian, Polish and Spanish manufacturers used recycled gypsum from production waste and new construction waste (the later only on rare occasions), but do not use recycled gypsum from demolition.
Manufacturers in Germany do not reincorporate in their process recycled gypsum from new construction or from demolition works and in France not all the manufacturers reincorporate recycled gypsum from demolition waste.
Production New build Demolition waste construction
FR, UK, NL, BE, IT, DK x x X
AU, SP, PL x x
DE x
Table 2-1. Origin of gypsum waste in 2012 for different European countries.
77
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Although Austria, Poland and Spain confirmed the reincorporation of recycled gypsum from construction waste, it might be derived from rare experiences or research projects because no evidences have been found apart from this answer. However, it can be understood as a wish for starting the reincorporation of recycled gypsum in their process. The same applies for the case of Italy and the reincorporation of recycled gypsum from construction and demolition waste.
Construction and Demolition waste reincorporation should be therefore promoted in Austria, Italy, Spain and Poland.
Type of gypsum waste
Table 2-2 summarises the results according to the type of gypsum waste recycled:
Gypsum Plasterboard Plaster Other type of gypsum waste blocks
DE x X Fibreboard
AU x
Partitioning, ceilings, compounds, powder and FR x X moulds Gypsum based ceiling tiles, duplex boards and x thermal laminate boards, artex products and excluding UK x coving, all thistle plaster except Dri-Coat and X- base Ray, specialist board products and drywall coats adhesive.
NL x x x
BE x x
SP x
Fibrous gypsum, laminated, light gypsum and IT x x residual plasters.
PL x x
DK x
Table 2-2. Type of gypsum waste recycled in the different countries interviewed.
78
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Manufacturers in Denmark, France, the UK and Italy are now reincorporating recycled gypsum from specific types of gypsum based waste
Recycled gypsum from plasterboard waste was reincorporated by all the countries, followed by recycled gypsum from gypsum blocks and plaster.
Collection and intermediate storage
The following table shows in which countries the gypsum waste is collected and stored by the plasterboard manufacturers and in which ones it is done by a third party or by both.
By the plasterboard By third party manufacturer
DE x* AU x FR x UK x x
NL x x BE x x SP x* x IT x* x
PL x* DK x *own production waste Table 2-3. Collection and storage carried out by the plasterboard manufacturer or by a third party.
Plants only recycling production waste store the gypsum waste by their own, i.e. Germany and Poland.
Collection and intermediate storage of gypsum waste in Austria, France and Denmark is usually carried out by a third party.
79
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Recycling Plants
Internal recycling plant External recycling plant (part of plasterboard (third party) manufacturing plant) DE x - AU x - FR x x UK x x NL x x BE - x SP x - IT x x PL x - DK x x
Table 2-4. Recycling Plants.
Recycling facility part of gypsum plant External recycling plant
Both
Figure 2-1. Recycling plants.
From the answers received it can be concluded that plants only recycling production waste carry out the gypsum waste processing in their own recycling plant i.e. Germany, Poland and Spain.
In Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands and the UK, several plants recycled internally the production waste and Construction and Demolition waste is usually processed by recyclers who sell the recycled gypsum to the manufacturers.
80
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
2.1.2. Review of the current recycling practices
2.1.2.1. Setting the scene
The Plasterboard Industry closes the loop when it reincorporates the recycled gypsum in the manufacturing of new plasterboard. To do so, the industrial process should be adapted and this needs investments. Closing the loop involves the activities summarised in figure 2-2:
Figure 2-2. Closed loop recycling of gypsum.33
Using the recycled gypsum for other applications, such as manufacture of Portland cement, improvement of soil or as compost, do not close the loop of the gypsum based waste, and is known as open loop recycling.
Benelux (covering Belgium and the Netherlands), France and the UK have a gypsum recycling system implemented.
2.1.2.2. Scandinavia34
In Scandinavia, overall responsibility for waste management is with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), being waste management and recycling a key priority. This is driven by legislation, economic incentives and other mechanisms, including:
33ENVIRONMENT AGENCY & WRAP, 2010. Quality Protocol.Recycled gypsum from waste plasterboard. The United Kingdom. 34 WRAP: Plasterboard case study: International practice in plasterboard recycling: Denmark Gypsum Recycling International.
81
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
- The waste tax in all three Scandinavian countries is relatively high which makes it expensive to landfill material but recycling material is exempt;
- Agreements: for example between the EPA and the Danish Contractors' Association on selective demolition of building materials.
It is estimated that 55,000 tonnes of gypsum waste in generated per annum, primarily from construction, demolition and manufacturing activity. Up until the late 1990s, the traditional approach to management of gypsum waste was to dispose of it to landfill. Then, it was considered uneconomic to dispose of a potential source of gypsum when the country was a net importer of gypsum.
The drivers described above were pushing towards the development of alternative approaches. The organisation of waste management in the responsibility of the Danish municipalities and, in addition, there are private waste management companies established for certain waste sources, streams and recycling.
2.1.2.3. The UK
The UK Plasterboard manufacturers are subject to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations SI 2010/675, or Local Authority Permit Control. There are also a number of voluntary agreements, standards and schemes in which the manufacturers partake, such as The Ashdown Agreement, The Environment Agency Quality Protocol for Recycled gypsum from plasterboard waste, PAS 109 and the Plasterboard Sustainability Partnership.
2.1.2.3.1. Environmental Permit
Plasterboard manufacturing plants in the UK need a permit to receive waste from external sources.
It is regulated by the Environment Agency and is a legal requirement. The document consists of the following points:
Introductory note.
It does not form part of the permit. In this point the main features of the installation are given.
Permit
In this point the permit number, the company registration number and the authorization to operate in the specified installation are specified. It is signed by the Regulatory Team Leader, on behalf of the Agency.
82
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Conditions for waste operations
This section covers general measures that are important for operators running relevant waste operations: general management, operations, emissions, monitoring and information.35
Schedules
Containing the descriptions of activities and its limits, site plan, waste types (listed with the EWC code), emissions and monitoring, reporting (parameters from which reports shall be made), notification (information that the operator must provide) and interpretation of the permit.
2.1.2.3.2. The Ashdown Agreement
The Ashdown Agreement on Plasterboard Recycling between the Gypsum Products Development Association (GPDA) and Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP) took effect from 1 April 2007. It sets out shared objectives for the diversion of plasterboard waste from landfill. The progress achieved regarding the agreed targets are reviewed and updated annually.
The aim of this agreement is “to engage with all stakeholders, interfacing with other voluntary agreements and activities, to reduce the amount of plasterboard waste to landfill and increase recovery of all plasterboard waste.”
Over the course of the Agreement the targets have been revised as old targets where met, specifically on reducing plasterboard waste to landfill by the Plasterboard Manufacturers.
The current targets are:
Target 1 UK Economy zero plasterboard waste sent to landfill by 2025.
Target 2 UK plasterboard manufacturing operators zero plasterboard waste to landfill by 2015.
Target 3 UK Economy increase recycling of new construction plasterboard waste to 50% by 2015.
ASHDOWN AGREEMENT RESULTS 2012
Target 2 - Zero production waste to landfill
35ENVIRONMENT AGENCY, How to comply with your environmental permit. The United Kingdom.
83
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
The 2012 generic data was zero tonnes, so they continue to achieve the 2015 target.
Target 3 - Target 50% of construction waste recycled by 2015 to environmentally acceptable uses (plasterboard, cement or for agricultural use) based on annual production of 210,000 t.
Recycled by Manufacturers
Quantity recycled by manufacturers reached 68,988 t or 32.9% in 2012 (62,750 t or 29.9% in 2011) so a 3% improvement.
Recycled for all uses
- The Mineral Products Association data was 25,000 t of recycled gypsum used annually in cement manufacture.
- The UK Environment Agency estimate 80,000 t of recycled waste used for agricultural land improvement.
The total for non-new plasterboard use of recycled gypsum is therefore (25,000 t cement + 80,000 t agriculture) = 105,000 t. Of this GPDA/GRAUKI/WRAP estimate 25% is likely to be new construction waste, which brings the total recycled new construction waste for all uses (Ashdown target) to (68,988 t plasterboard + 6,250 t cement + 20,000 t agriculture) 95,238 t or 45.4%of new construction waste against the target by 2015 of 50%.36
Table 2.5 summarized the information related to 2012.
Annual production 210,000 t 100%
Reincorporated in the 68,988 t 32.9% manufacturing process Used in cement 6,250 t 3% manufacture Used for agricultural land 20,000 t 9,5 % improvement
TARGET = 50 % 45,4 %
Table 2-5. Annual production of plasterboard products and amount of recyclable gypsum waste from new construction following different acceptable uses, according to the Ashdown Agreeement. Source: Plasterboard Sustainability Action Plan. 2nd Annual Report 2013.
36Plasterboard Sustainability Action Plan.2nd Annual Report 2013.Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs – DEFRA &The Plasterboard Sustainability Partnership – PSP.
84
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
2.1.2.3.3. The Environment Agency Quality Protocol
End-of-waste (hereinafter, EoW) status can be achieved in the UK by means of the Environment Agency’s “Quality Protocol for Recycled Gypsum from Waste Plasterboard”. It supports the use of recycled gypsum in plasterboard (i.e. closed loop), cement manufacture and agricultural soil conditioning and identifies the point at which gypsum waste may be regarded as a non-waste product that can be either re-used by industry, or supplied into other markets.37
In each application the material has to meet the PAS 109 Specification.
A Quality Protocol sets out end-of-waste criteria for the production and use of a product from a specific waste type. Compliance with these criteria is considered sufficient to ensure that the fully recovered product may be used without undermining the effectiveness of the Waste Framework Directive and therefore without the need for waste management controls.
In addition, the Quality Protocol indicates how compliance may be demonstrated and points to good practice for the use of the fully recovered product. The Quality Protocol further aims to provide increased market confidence in the quality of products made from waste and so encourage greater recovery and recycling.38
The Quality Protocol of Recycled Gypsum from Waste Plasterboard39was issued in 2008 and it was funded by Defra, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) as a business resource efficiency activity. It was developed by the Environment Agency and WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme) in consultation with Defra, the Welsh Government, NIEA, industry and other regulatory stakeholders. The Quality Protocol is applicable in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It sets out end-of-waste criteria for the production and use of recycled gypsum from plasterboard waste.
In 2013 the Quality Protocol has been reviewed. The validation is due to be returned by the end of Q3 2013, available in Q4 2013.
The cement industry also does not require end-of-waste status as most plants as they are permitted under the same regime as the Plasterboard Manufacturers and already receive many waste and by-product materials.
End-of-waste is useful to the agricultural sector as it avoids the need for each farm and farmer having to apply for permits to use the material.
37 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY & WRAP, 2010.Quality Protocol. Recycled gypsum from waste plasterboard.TheUnited Kingdom. 38 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY, 2012.An investigation into the disposal and recovery of gypsum waste.HOOP000153/R. Bristol. 39Quality Protocol.Recycled gypsum from waste plasterboard. End-of-waste criteria for the production and use of recycled gypsum from waste plasterboard, March 2011, WRAP.
85
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
2.1.2.3.4. The Plasterboard Sustainability Partnership
The Plasterboard Sustainability Partnership (PSP) came into existence in 2009 as an output of a DEFRA programme to develop a Plasterboard Roadmap identifying the environmental impacts of plasterboard throughout its lifecycle. The PSP is made up of the broad range of stakeholders involved in the production, installation and disposal of plasterboard as well as the relevant government departments and regulatory agencies.
The intent of the PSP is to enable greater awareness and understanding amongst all stakeholders of existing knowledge about the role plasterboard plays in construction and of the sustainability issues throughout the supply chain, and to use this knowledge to develop practical and coordinated strategies for sustainability. This includes economic and social as well as environmental impacts.
Considerable knowledge already exists on the use, impacts and recyclability of plasterboard in the UK and the PSP website collates key reports in its Library.
Also, a range of actions and initiatives already exist to improve collaboration in the supply chain, such as the Ashdown Agreement, As well as the PSP’s own action plan, again details of these are reported publicly through the PSP website.40
2.1.2.4. France
The gypsum manufacturers through their industrial association “Les Industries du Plâtre” signed in 2008 a voluntary agreement, “La Charte sur la Gestion des déchets”, for promoting the proper management of gypsum construction and demolition waste41. By signing this agreement, they committed to develop a proactive approach to manage the issue of post-consumer waste. The main drivers are to divert the tonnage from landfills – which is still the main outlet – for Non Hazardous Non Inert Waste Landfill in France and to better manage the use of natural gypsum resources which is an issue of primary importance in France. Indeed natural gypsum constitutes more than 95% of raw material to produce plaster based products in France.
In 2008 10,000 tonnes of gypsum based waste were recycled. Since then, recycling efforts have continued, and in 2012 Gypsum Industry reported a recycling of 50,000 tonnes of construction waste. Despite the crisis, the trend is steady and the tonnage should continue to increase at an important yearly rate for the upcoming years.
40 PLASTERBOARD SUSTAINABILITY PARTNERSHIP (PSP), Plasterboard Sustainability Partnership (PSP). Available: http://www.plasterboardpartnership.org/ [05/23, 2013]. 41http://www.lesindustriesduplatre.org/mediatheque-documentation.html Charte de gestion des déchets de plâtre.
86
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
French Gypsum Industry estimates that the potential tonnage of recyclable gypsum based waste is approximately around of 350,000 tonnes but this figure may vary from one year to another. This amount stems from two different origins: pre-consumer gypsum based waste and post-consumer gypsum based waste. Nowadays, only plasterboard and plaster block wastes from new construction are recycled. It is effectively difficult to calculate the waste generated due the varied sources (production, construction and selective demolition waste).
According to the French Industrial Association, the above mentioned 50,000 tonnes exclusively comes from construction waste. Plasterboard waste from deconstruction works are not yet recycled42.
According to the French consulting agency Recovering, the tonnage may be approached with the ratio of 7 to 8 kg per inhabitant per year of gypsum based waste, half coming from construction sites and half from selective demolition sites. The calculated tonnage is then above of to 400,000 tonnes, which represent 5% of the non hazardous C&D waste in France43.
2012 figures reinforce the ambition of the Gypsum Industry. The new goal is to recycle up to 70% of recyclable gypsum based waste in 2020, corresponding to 245,000 tonnes.
To reach the target, the plasterboard manufacturers developed their capabilities to recycle gypsum based waste. All the 8 plants have a recycling facility or a partnership with a recycler close to their operations. Those recycling facilities all recycle plasterboard and plaster block waste but 2 out of them recycle also laminates (thermal insulation board stuck to plasterboard). Indeed since 2012, Rietleng Revalorisation and Nantet Locabennes have been operating such a unit. The recycled gypsum or more commonly named recyclate is delivered to the manufacturers.
In terms of business model, plasterboards manufacturers followed a similar approach which is quite different from what we may observe in the other European countries. To collect the gypsum based waste, each plasterboard manufacturer has signed up some contracts with some waste management companies (transfer stations). Some agreements are local, others are national. It is assessed that the number of waste management companies involved in the gypsum based waste collection is roughly between 200 and 250. The number of collection points is not identified. Indeed the number of civic amenity centres is around 4,500 in France and a growing number is equipped with a gypsum based waste skip. This point leads to think that not only construction wastes are recycled but probably also an important part wastes coming from refurbishment operations. Once the different gypsum based waste mixed altogether it is not possible to separate at ease the construction from the demolition part.
42Recyclage des déchets record pour les Industries du Plâtre. Le Moniteur. 43La valorisation des déchets de plâtre: en exemple d’économie circulaire à suivre- Jean-Yves Burgy, gérant recovering- Pôle expertise janvier 2013.
87
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
The recycling route is particularly well developed in the Rhône Alpes area. The local context is strongly favorable to the recycling route: landfill fees are at a high level, contractors are sensitive to the environmental issue, and there is a lack of landfill in some areas, a strong development of gypsum based waste collection within civic amenity centres, and the presence of plasterboard manufacturer with a state of the art recycling plant partnership.
Typically, the Savoie area (sub part of Rhône Alpes) is in this favorable situation. From 2007 to 2010 the tonnages collected in transfer stations are presented in table 2-6. However, these figures, compared to the volume of recycled gypsum in Scandinavian countries and Benelux, are still very low.
Gypsum waste Year collection (t)
2007 1,234
2008 1,394
2009 1,297
2010 1,291
Table 2-6. Gypsum waste collection in Savoie since 2007 to 2010.
Based on the ratio given by Recovering, the total recyclable tonnage for Savoie is close to 3,000 tonnes. It may be assumed that almost half of the Savoie recyclable gypsum based waste is effectively recycled.
On the opposite, the central region has the worst context and almost no gypsum based waste is collected.
The recycling route development is on the right tracks in France and the recycled gypsum used in plasterboard manufacture should increase steadily in the next 5 years but compared to the more successful countries like in Scandinavia and Benelux they still have a long way to go.
2.1.2.5. Germany
The German Federal Ministry for the Environment is currently preparing an ordinance for the utilization of mineral waste and industrial by-products, gypsum waste included. The prevailing state of discussion suggests that the limits of a multitude of parameters to be kept will be considerably tightened. First of all the sulphate content in recycled building materials will be limited, therefore deconstruction and recycling of plasterboards will be necessary.
88
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
The German Gypsum Association (BV-Gips) therefore decided to develop a reasonably priced processing of plasterboard waste, in co-operation with the company GFR (Gesellschaft für die Aufbereitung und Verwertung von Reststoffen mbh, Würzburg) with the objective to feed the separated gypsum fraction back again into the production cycle. The project was carried out from 2008 to 2009 with the objective to feed the separated gypsum fraction back again into the production cycle. None of the German manufacturers claim to process any powder from construction- and/or demolition waste (until the powder has reached End-of-waste) so the objective was not met and until today, no area-wide collection and recycling system exists.
The project was divided into two phases:
Two years’ pilot phase: processing of approximately 5,000 tonnes of plasterboard waste per annum – optimization of the processing technology as well as the upstream/downstream logistics concept,
Creation of an area-wide collection and recycling system for plasterboard wastes and enhancement of the processing technology which is suitable for other gypsum waste as well.
The core of the process is a mobile processing plant, consisting of the key components, impact crusher including dust-suppressing and a downstream, multistage compact sieving plant.
Based on these experiences, BV Gips has developed a concept for the re-integration of recycled gypsum for its members. The concept was published in the second quarter of 2012 (see section 2.1.5.1). The core of this concept is to define framework conditions, which allow the use of this recycled gypsum as secondary raw material. The collection, possible necessary temporary storage, and the processing of plasterboard waste, as well as the delivery of recycled gypsum to the designated gypsum product plant is task of the Waste Management Company. The concept consists of the following main elements:
- Determination of a standardized specification with technical parameters and parameters for trace elements (especially heavy metals). The quality of the recycled gypsum has to be on a level that allows the production of gypsum products corresponding to products made of natural gypsum. Deviations from the requirements concerning technical parameters can be agreed by delivery contracts.
- Designation of gypsum plants, which can accept and process recycled gypsum that meets the specifications.
- Determination of an overall acceptance capacity for recycled gypsum for the determined gypsum plants of initially around 150,000 t/a.
89
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Requirement for the use of recycled gypsum is that it has reached its end-of-waste status according to § 5 of the German Waste Law (Kreislaufwirtschaftsgesetz – KrWG). However, the later has been clarified after issued a letter about this concern to the German Federal Ministry for the Environment and receiving their reply last 12th of August 2013: the compliment of the provisions of § 5 subsection 1 KrWG has to be checked and decided by the producer and a official decision about the end-of-waste status of the recycled gypsum is not required for reincorporating it into the process.
Then, there is no need for waiting for an official decision about the end-of-waste status or recycled gypsum and even the gypsum waste could be processed by the gypsum plants.
Furthermore, corresponding investments have to be undertaken in the gypsum plants to be able to accept, temporarily store, and insert recycled gypsum.
The implementation of the recycling concept can take place as long as the recyclers meet the requirements of the BV Gips members and the market conditions are feasible in comparison with other alternative destinations (recovery operations).
GRI has recently proven that is technically possible to recycle plasterboard waste from German construction- and demolition waste. GRI did a test in 2012 where GRI’s partner, DBW Recycling located in Wiesbaden, collected up to 1,000 tonnes of plasterboard waste from construction, renovation and demolition waste. One of GRI’s mobile recycling units processed the waste at DBW’s facility and all recycled powder was accepted and used by a cement manufacturer nearby.
2.1.2.6. Belgium
The Belgian Luxembourg Gypsum Association (BLGV), the Flemish Waste Agency (OVAM) and other stakeholders in the recycling process (Federation of Demolishers, Federation of Environmental Sector and Flemish Building sector Federation) committed in 2009 to recycle 25,000 tonnes of gypsum waste yearly, from 2010 onwards.
The main objectives of this covenant are:
To become the European leader in gypsum recycling by the year 2015;
To develop clear quality specifications for recyclable gypsum waste, in order to promote gypsum recycling;
The different actors in the value chain endorse the importance of this agreement and promote gypsum as a positive example of how companies in a material chain actively take their responsibility. The gypsum waste recyclers keep records of the quantities of processed gypsum. These data are reported annually to the OVAM. The manufacturers accept recycled gypsum from construction and demolition waste, if it meets their quality criteria. They also ensure the complete recycling of their own production waste,
90
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
whether or not through an external gypsum recycler. The demolition and dismantling industry, together with the waste collectors, promote as much as possible the separation of gypsum at its source and the separate removal of gypsum waste from construction and demolition sites.
No special containers are necessary since gypsum and cellular concrete are already collected separately.
No special logistic scheme was put in place but the possibility of recycling instead of land filling was offered at a competitive price. In 2010, around 21,000 tonnes of C&D gypsum waste was recycled. Belgium has an average Plasterboard consumption rate of 3 m²/head/year and generates 4 kg gypsum C&D waste/head/year.
2.1.2.7. The Netherlands
In 2008, an agreement (also named as covenant) has been signed between the Ministry for housing (VROM) and business companies.
The companies involved can be separated into:
Producers of plasterboard, gypsum blocks and the Dutch association for Producers of plasterboard, etc.
Demolition companies and Dutch association for demolition companies.
Waste management and Recycling companies.
Recyclers of gypsum waste (including NWGR and GRI).
Target:
- The Netherlands to be leader of Europe in gypsum recycling.
- Double the percentage of recycling of gypsum waste from construction and demo waste from 20% in 2008 to 40% in 2010.
Then there are several lists of activities that each sector has to carry out. For example: cooperation, working on an efficient collection method, doing investments to segregate waste at the source etc.
The covenant ends at 31st December 2014.
The collection and recycling is done as follows:
The recyclers are collecting the gypsum coming out of the construction area and the demolition area.
91
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Recyclers crush this gypsum with their fixed or mobile equipment.
A contract for delivering and receiving recycled gypsum exists since 2004 and so there is an experience of almost 10 years.
In this contract quantities and quality has been agreed.
The gypsum recycling systems in the Netherlands have been less successful than in Belgium due to the fact that a vast amount of Dutch gypsum based waste is exported to cheap recovery operations. Such exports for recovery are not allowed in Belgium.
92
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
2.1.3. Gypsum recyclers
2.1.3.1. The pure players44
In 2013, Gypsum Recycling International (GRI) and New West Gypsum Recycling (NWGR) are the key actors in gypsum recycling, i.e. reprocessing, and recuperating the gypsum core. Some small operators are active in the UK where they have created an association and also in France.
The strategic growth can be achieved through an exhaustive identification and thorough analysis of the critical success factors.
The major competitive factors for the industry are:
Formulation and technology innovation
Cost effectiveness and pricing
Technical support and service
Alliances with distributors and key end users
2.1.3.1.1. Gypsum Recycling International A/S
KEY INFORMATION
Name Gypsum Recycling International A/S
Acronym GRI
Date established 2001
Location Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands and USA.
Closed loop recycling (Recycling plasterboard waste Activity and gypsum for use in new plasterboard production) Waste gypsum and plasterboard from recycling centres, waste management companies, waste Feedstock materials transport companies, waste sorting and transfer stations, construction and demolition companies and plastering contractors.
44Strategic Analysis of the European recycled Materials and Chemicals Market in Construction Industry- 2011-page 72.
93
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Annual input More than 100,000 tonnes in Europe In Europe: Knauf and Gyproc A/S in Denmark, Sweden, Norway Siniat in the Netherlands Present customers for end product Outside Europe: USG and National Gypsum in the USA Yoshino Gypsum in Japan Plasterboard manufacturers name this recycler as a Yes supplier in the questionnaires
Claimed amount of paper Approx. 1% fraction in recycled gypsum Documented amount of 0.84% of Total Organic Carbon (TOC) verified by paper in the recycled Analytech. gypsum
Table 2-7. Key information of GRI.
More information can be found in Annex 1.1.
2.1.3.1.2. New West Gypsum Recycling
KEY INFORMATION
Name New West Gypsum Recycling
Acronym NWGR Europe: 2004 Date established Worldwide: 1985 Location Canada, USA, the UK, France and Belgium
Closed loop recycling (Recycling plasterboard waste Activity and gypsum for use in new plasterboard production) Waste gypsum and plasterboard from construction, renovation, demolition activities (demolition companies, Feedstock materials sorting lines and public sorting stations) and plasterboard manufacturers Worldwide: Approx. 650,000 tonnes Annual input In Europe: confidential
94
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
In Europe: Saint Gobain, Siniat and small producers Present customers for end product Outside Europe: Georgia Pacific, Saint Gobain and small producers Plasterboard manufacturers name this recycler as a Yes supplier in the questionnaires
Claimed amount of paper Less tan 1.0% fraction in recycled gypsum Documented amount of paper in the recycled 0.85% of paper fiber verified by Econotech gypsum
Table 2-8. Key information of NWGR.
More information can be found in Annex 1.2.
2.1.3.1.3. The French recyclers
In France, three gypsum recyclers process gypsum waste:
New West Gypsum Recycling SARL (main data previously described in section 2.1.3.1.2.)
Recycling warehouse in Vaujours, France.
Nantet Locabennes
Recycling warehouse in Francin, France.
Ritleng Revalorisations
Recycling warehouse in Rohr, France.
95
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Below a description of them is detailed:
Nantet Locabennes
KEY INFORMATION
Name Nantet Locabennes
Acronym N/A
Date established 2012
Location France
Closed loop recycling (Recycling plasterboard waste and Activity gypsum for use in new plasterboard production) Gypsum based waste from waste management companies, Feedstock materials its own demolition activity, transfer stations and other customers. Annual input Confidential
Present customers for end Saint-Gobain Placoplatre product Claimed amount of paper Confidential fraction in recycled gypsum
Table 2-9. Key information of Nantet Locabennes
Ritleng Revalorisations
KEY INFORMATION
Name Ritleng Revalorisations
Acronym RR
Date established 2012
Location France
Closed loop recycling (Recycling plasterboard waste and Activity gypsum for use in new plasterboard production) Gypsum based waste from waste management companies, Feedstock materials construction companies, transfer stations and production waste from plasterboard manufacturers. Annual input Confidential
96
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Present customers for end Siniat FR product Claimed amount of paper Confidential fraction in recycled gypsum
Table 2-10. Key information of Ritleng Revalorisations.
More information about the French recyclers can be found in Annex 1.3.
2.1.3.1.4. The UK recyclers
The Gypsum Re-processors Association UK & Ireland (GRAUKI) 45 is an unincorporated body set up by 5 founder members from the industry. It has become clear that there is a need for the industry to come together to form a cohesive body which can speak with a single voice on issues that directly affect the successful and sustainable operation of the gypsum recycling industry and to promote the responsible treatment of gypsum waste.
The activities fall into a range from contributing to future Legislation decisions through membership of steering and/or action groups through to seeking out alternative sustainable solutions for gypsum waste which can broaden the scope of activity, capture greater volumes of otherwise wasted gypsum, help to preserve raw materials and discourage irresponsible disposal by rogue traders.
The members of GRAUKI currently are:
2G Environmental
4Recycling Ltd
Arrow Gypsum Recycling
Baron Recycling (Ireland)
Countrystyle Recycling Ltd
New West Gypsum Recycling Ltd
PRS Recycling
Roy Hatfield Ltd
Tradebe Recycling
45http://membe43.wix.com/grauki#
97
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Other recyclers from the UK:
Mc Grath Bros (Waste Control) Ltd
Mid UK Recycling Ltd
Nutramulch Yorkshire Ltd
Wastecycle Ltd
A description of the available information from several members of GRAUKI is given bellow:
Baron recycling Ltd (Ireland)46
KEY INFORMATION
Name Baron Recycling Ltd
Acronym N/A
Date established 2004
Location UK
Activity Open loop (agriculture) and closed loop.
Feedstock materials Plasterboard from construction and demolition waste.
Annual input 800 tonnes a month, in 2006
Present customers for end Unknown product Plasterboard manufacturers name this recycler as a No supplier in the questionnaires Claimed amount of paper Unknown fraction in recycled gypsum
Table 2-11. Key information of Baron Recycling Ltd.
46http://www.brl-ireland.com/
98
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Countrystyle Recycling Ltd47
KEY INFORMATION
Name Countrystyle
Acronym N/A
Date established Unknown
Location UK
Activity Unknown
Feedstock materials Plasterboard waste
Annual input Unknown
Present customers for end Unknown product Plasterboard manufacturers name this recycler as a Yes supplier in the questionnaires Claimed amount of paper Unknown fraction in recycled gypsum
Table 2-12. Key information of Countrystyle Recycling Ltd.
New West Gypsum Recycling Ltd
(table presented in section 2.1.3.1.2)
Roy Hatfield Ltd
KEY INFORMATION
Name Roy Hatfield Ltd
Acronym N/A
Date established 2003
Location UK
47http://www.countrystylegroup.co.uk/recycling/materials-we-recycle/plasterboard-recycling.aspx
99
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Closed loop recycling (Recycling plasterboard waste and gypsum for use in new plasterboard production) Activity and open loop (recycled gypsum used in its own concrete admixture manufacturing process) Feedstock materials Waste gypsum moulds from the pottery industry
Annual input Confidential
Present customers for end Unknown product
Plasterboard manufacturers name this recycler as a Yes supplier in the questionnaires
Claimed amount of paper Confidential fraction in recycled gypsum
Table 2-13. Key information of Roy Hatfield Ltd.
Other recyclers from the UK, not currently members of GRAUKI:
McGrath Bros (Waste Control) Ltd48
KEY INFORMATION
Name McGrath Bros (Waste Control) Ltd
Acronym N/A
Date established 1972
Location UK
Activity Unknown
Feedstock materials Plasterboard and gypsum materials
Annual input Unknown
Present customers for end Unknown product
48http://www.mcgrathgroup.co.uk/recycling/construction/plasterboard-recycling.html
100
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Plasterboard manufacturers name this recycler as a No supplier in the questionnaires
Claimed amount of paper Unknown fraction in recycled gypsum
Table 2-14. Key information of McGrath Bros (Waste Control) Ltd.
Mid UK Recycling Ltd49
KEY INFORMATION
Name Mid UK Recycling Ltd
Acronym N/A
Date established Over 10 years
Location UK
Activity Unknown
Feedstock materials Plasterboard waste
Annual input Unknown
Present customers for end Unknown product Plasterboard manufacturers name this recycler as a No supplier in the questionnaires Claimed amount of paper Unknown fraction in recycled gypsum
Table 2-15. Key information of Mid UK Recycling Ltd.
49http://www.midukrecycling.co.uk/waste-type/plasterboard-gypsum-recycling.aspx
101
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Nutramulch Yorkshire Ltd50
KEY INFORMATION
Name Nutramulch Yorkshire Ltd
Acronym N/A
Date established Unknown
Location UK
Open loop (process gypsum waste for agricultural and Activity soil conditional purposes)
Feedstock materials Unknown
Annual input Unknown
Present customers for end Unknown product Plasterboard manufacturers name this recycler as a No supplier in the questionnaires Claimed amount of paper Unknown fraction in recycled gypsum
Table 2-16. Key information of Nutramulch Yorkshire Ltd.
Wastecycle Ltd51
KEY INFORMATION
Name Wastecycle Ltd
Acronym N/A
Date established Unknown
Location UK
Activity Unknown
Feedstock materials Unknown
50http://www.nutramulch.com/aboutus.phtml 51http://www.wastecycle.co.uk/about-us.html
102
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Annual input Unknown
Present customers for end Unknown product Plasterboard manufacturers name this recycler as a No supplier in the questionnaires Claimed amount of paper Unknown fraction in recycled gypsum
Table 2-17. Key information of Wastecycle Ltd.
More information about the UK recyclers can be found in Annex 1.4.
2.1.3.2. The European plasterboard manufacturers offering solutions for recycling C&D plasterboard waste
Siniat FR
SINIAT SA (France) is part of Etex, a Belgian industrial group that is specialised in the manufacturing and marketing of high quality materials and systems. The company has 1500 employees and generates an annual turnover of 450 M€.
The plasterboard plant in Auneuil is one of our largest recycling centres. This plant is located in the north of Paris. The gypsum is supplied by road from a quarry and amounts to about 400,000 t/year. The recycling capacity is currently 12%. Siniat has yet to reach maximum capacity.
The recycling work flow is as follows:
1. Quality control
2. Off-loading
3. Second quality control
4. Stock
5. Loading
6. Crushing
7. Stock
103
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
8. Secondary crushing and paper segregation
9. Quality control
10. Production of new plasterboard
The paper separated from the gypsum is also recycled by another company.
Figure 2-3. Pre and post-consumer plasterboard waste.
Figure 2-4. Loading of waste.
104
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
.
Figure 2-5. Recycled paper.
Figure 2-6. Separated contaminants.
British Gypsum52
British Gypsum (BPB) which is part of Saint-Gobain Gypsum Group operates a closed loop take-back scheme for plasterboard waste.
BPB take back scheme53
Their recycling process has been designed to help reduce the time employees on construction sites need to spend handling plasterboard.
52BPB brochure on plasterboard recycling services - Effective waste management. Simple solutions to minimize waste. 53Plasterboard Case Study: British gypsum take-back scheme at Battersea Reach, London and Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead-2005.
105
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Figure 2-7. BPB take back scheme.
1. Plasterboard waste produced on the construction site is stored in dedicated waste bags, dump bins or skips supplied by British Gypsum.
Following the manufacture of plasterboard, the plasterboard is supplied to the site. British Gypsum offer a service to their customers, whereby suitable containers e.g. 1m3 bags or skips (typically 40 yd skips) are supplied to the site, and then subsequently collected via a third party, taken to a Waste partner for sorting before being taken back to a British Gypsum production facility.
2. Although many companies try to minimise waste, there is invariably some plasterboard waste created, predominantly from off-cuts but also boards damaged on site. As part of the take-back scheme, British Gypsum helps companies monitor their waste by providing a data management system. This system records the total tonnage of waste for a project, average weight per bag or skip and percentage contamination, and therefore allows them to record their preventative waste efforts.
3. Third parties collect the plasterboard waste directly from the building site on behalf of British Gypsum.
4. The material is taken back to a Waste Partner, Bywaters, who cover London and the South East or Wastecycle, who cover the rest of the country. On delivery to the Waste Partners site the contents of the bags and Skips are emptied and any foreign material removed. The plasterboard is passed through magnets to remove any further metal (such as nails) and any remaining timber or other contaminants are hand-picked out.
5. This material –still is plasterboard form- is then delivered to the British Gypsum sites capable of processing this waste.
106
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
The material is crushed and the resulting granular recycled gypsum product is fed back into the British Gypsum plasterboard manufacturing plants, with paper separation being undertaken by the British Gypsum production operation.
6. The gypsum core is blended with natural gypsum or DSG gypsum and is used to make a variety of products at British Gypsum plants.
7. British Gypsum also provides a detailed analysis of the waste produced at construction sites, allowing customers to assess the performance of their sites.
The plasterboard paper is collected by third parties who have a number of outlets for the material including a number of agricultural applications.
2.1.3.3. Comparison of recycling systems
A comparison between the two recycler’s partners of the GtoG project is shown in this section.
New West Gypsum Recycling Gypsum Recycling International (GRI) (NWGR)
Mobile and Fixed (can be made static of Recycling unit Fixed mobile on one trailer)
Different models of unit: Static unit - up to 100,000 t/ p.a.; up to 20 t /h. Each unit: Scandinavian version, mobile - up to Up to 100,000 t/p.a. and 25 t/h Capacity 100,000 t/p.a. and 20 t/h XL version, mobile - up to 150,000 t/p.a. Combining all recycling facilities: and 30 t/h Up to 1,000,000 t/p.a. XL version USA, mobile - up to 150,000 t/p.a. and 30 t/h SM model: maximum 24 meters long and 3 meters wide heigh: static version: 3.5 meters / mobile version 4 meters 12 meters wide by 40 meters long by Dimensions XL model: recycling unit on two trailers 7.5 meters high dimensions trailer 1: 17 meters long and 2.5 meters wide dimensions trailer 2: 16 meters long and 2.5 meters wide height: 4 meters
SM model: Static version 40 tonnes. Mobile version Weight 47 tonnes. 35 tonnes XL model: Trailer 1: 48 tonnes. Trailer 2: 30 tonnes.
107
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Gypsum powder (>90%), paper fraction Gypsum powder (94%), paper fraction Output (<10%) and metal (<1%) (6%) and metal (<1%) SM model - driven by own diesel Power generator, 380 kva 300 amps, 400 volts, 50 hrz. consumption XL model - driven by own diesel generator, 500 kva
Paper fraction 0.84% of Total Organic Carbon (TOC) 0.85% of paper fiber verified by in the end verified by Analytech. Econotech product
Table 2-18. Comparison NWGR – GRI (partners of the GtoG project).
108
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS
GRI NWGR
They are not a problem. The patented recycling technology of GRI was originally developed by a They are not a severe problem, as the recycling unit demolition company, handling 1 million tonnes of waste automatically can handle all the typical kinds of Impurities in the gypsum waste and their per year. Hence, all typical forms of contaminations contamination. A permanent quality control engineer recycling effects were already known and identified prior to the design will handpick out any impurities which the machine and invention of the technology to assured that the will not pick out automatically. technology automatically could remove such contamination. The system does not crush such materials. When the Plastics, foils, and insulation materials (stone and Plastics, foils and waste is picked up by the designed grab trucks, glass wool) are found quite commonly in the gypsum insulation materials contaminants are removed. Therefore, any remaining waste fraction. These impurities are not a risk factor (stone/glass wool) contaminants are removed by the machine prior to for the machine itself as the quality control engineer crushing. will remove these impurities. The collection system is controlled from the site of the The machine handles metal-based materials in the generation of the waste until treatment in the recycling input fraction (metal fraction less than 0.3% by weight plant. Therefore, big metal parts such as steel rails and of the whole input). Steel rails and bars bars that can block the machine are sorted out prior to A second metal separator on the output side the processing. Other metals are removed guarantees a constant feedstock for the automatically by the application of several metal Common manufacturer. impurities and separators. their effects Common impurity, which for the minor sized Wood will be taken out by the quality control Wood contaminants will end up in the paper fraction. As with engineer, as it might pollute either the gypsum end metal, bigger pieces are sorted out prior to crushing. product or the paper end product. Calcium Sulphate Anhydrite (CaSO ) can mostly be Calcium Sulphate Anhydrite (CaSO4) can mostly be 4 found in some granulates from floor screeds blocks or found in some granulates from floor screeds blocks or moulds. Different than gypsum (CaSO4·2H O), moulds. Different than gypsum (CaSO4·2H O), calcium 2 2 calcium sulphate has no crystal water and cannot be Anhydrite sulphate has no crystal water and cannot be turned into turned into an active material that can be calcined. an active material that can be calcined. Therefore these Therefore these materials should be avoided in order materials should be avoided in order to keep the quality to keep the quality of the recycled gypsum powder of the recycled gypsum powder high. high.
109
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) can if crushed and Autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) in plasterboard mixed up with gypsum materials not visually be waste is however problematic as the pulverized AAC detected from gypsum based materials, and should will be part of the gypsum powder fraction and therefore be blocked from entering into the machine, considerately decrease its quality. As part of the Other impurities this is done by controlling the quality of the sorting from collecting and pre-sorting it has to be made sure that collection at the site of generation of the waste until the AAC is not present in the plasterboard waste fraction. waste is fed into the recycling machine. Once entered into the equipment, the quality control engineer will remove the last impurities. When plasterboard waste is recycled one of the most critical processes is the segregation of the organic paper fraction from the gypsum material itself. The The patented crushing and paper separation system works with a patented technology that Paper fraction segregation techniques allow removing the smallest paper effectively pulverizes the gypsum material without fraction, even from 100% pure wet waste. pulverizing the paper, so that the paper and the gypsum can be easily separated according to size afterwards. Maximum sieve fraction of 13 mm. This maximum size Maximum sieve fraction of the materials was chosen by the Scandinavian Maximum sieve fraction of 1.6 mm. plasterboard plants. 0.84% of Total Organic Carbon (TOC) verified by Paper Fraction in the recycled gypsum 0.85% of paper fiber verified by Econotech Analytech. According to GRI’s output specification, free moisture of the gypsum powder must be under 10% in weight. This specification is a requirement from the receiving plasterboard plants as any moisture in the powder will The patented process is capable of running extremely have to be taken out by the plasterboard plants, which wet waste if needed. Pure wet waste, containers full Gypsum waste with humidity requires costly energy. with water is not a problem. Equipment is designed to In order to assure that the gypsum waste is delivered to handle wet waste, and wet demolition waste. the recycling plant as dry as possible GRI’s collection system includes the usage of closed top containers and transport of the waste in special closed top trucks.
110
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Noise emission of the recycling unit is not considered a problematic issue as the recycling machine is operated inside the warehouse and in general is operating on a very low noise level. Operating personnel is equipped Sound levels are below the minimum values to use Noise emission with adequate noise protection equipment, if needed noise protection equipment. and required by local regulations. The Diesel generator of the mobile GRI Gypsum Recycling machine is placed outside of the warehouse. The GRI gypsum recycling machine does in itself not emit any dust as it is fully encapsulated and equipped with an internal suction unit. The handling of the plasterboard waste and of the output materials with the As dust is inherent to the recycling/breaking process front-end loader however can naturally release dust. and the “dusty” material, the system: Dust emission The smaller the particle size of the gypsum powder, the - sets up a filter system in the production line itself, dustier is the handling however, GRI operates with a - puts the production hall in a under-pressure. fairly large maximum particle size. Safety equipment (breathing protection) for the personnel can be used if needed and required.
111
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
The recycling of composites is possible but will contaminate the end product and should therefore be avoided: The recycling of composites can be regarded as • Fermacell® board problematic and has to be avoided if possible. Fermacell® boards are accepted by GRI as part of a plasterboard waste fraction. The acceptance of these • Fermacell® board boards is however limited to small amounts as the high Fermacell® boards are accepted by NWGR as part of organic content can reduce the quality of the recycled a plasterboard waste fraction. gypsum powder when the recycled plasterboard waste consists to a substantial amount of such boards. • EPS thermal insulation board Expanded polystyrene (EPS) is a rigid, closed-cell • EPS thermal insulation board foam. Boards covered with this material for insulation Expanded polystyrene (EPS) is a rigid, closed-cell purposes are accepted for the recycling at NWGR foam. Boards covered with this material for insulation gypsum recycling facilities and treated separately. purposes cannot be accepted for the recycling at GRI (technology not available in all plants yet) Processing of composites gypsum recycling facilities, as the EPS will contaminate the recycled gypsum as well as the paper fraction. • Hardened boards (e.g. Rigidur®, Ladura®) Hardened boards such as Rigudur® and Ladura® are • Hardened boards (e.g. Rigidur®, Ladura®) accepted for the recycling at NWGR gypsum Hardened boards such as Rigudur® and Ladura® recycling facilities, as we guarantee a mixture which cannot be accepted for the recycling at GRI gypsum meets the specifications of the manufacturer. recycling facilities due to the hardener in the boards that reduces the quality of the recycled gypsum • Cement bound boards (e.g. Promatec®) powder. These hardeners are not acceptable as part of Cement bound boards such as Promatec® cannot be the recycled gypsum for the receiving plasterboard accepted for the recycling at NWGR gypsum plants, and hence GRI will not accept such boards for recycling facilities due to the cement in the boards recycling. that reduces the quality of the recycled gypsum powder. • Cement bound boards (e.g. Promatec®) Same as hardened boards. The cement in such boards contaminates the recycled gypsum.
112
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Challenges with the handling of gypsum blocks arise due to the chemical content of some of these blocks, which many are not aware of. Therefore certain block types are not accepted for recycling, as the calcium NWGR has facilities where up to 2000 tonnes of Handling of gypsum blocks sulphate content is too low. blocks are handled per month. The equipment is designed to handle blocks and moulds. Blocks can be recycled if they are not contaminated and consist of a significant amount of calcium sulphate dihydrate. The continuity of supply has not been an issue for Continuity of supply The continuity of supply has not been an issue for GRI. NWGR.
Table 2-19. Technical characteristics: comparison between GRI and NWGR.
113
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
2.1.3.4. Consolidated results of the recyclers questionnaire
Gypsum recyclers’ filled questionnaire (see Annex 7) was received from companies operating in France, Denmark and Belgium. The answers been consolidated in the table shown below:
GYPSUM RECYCLERS IN EUROPE - CURRENT PRACTICES
It varies mainly with the Annual total quantity of From around 2,000 t to years of experience and gypsum waste from the 100,000 t the stock of waste market processed per year available New building (30%): Plasterers & installers
Renovation (35%): Contractors and installers via collectors
Suppliers of the gypsum Demolition (22%): waste & sources New building Demolition companies / Waste collectors / Public Renovation waste sorting amenities. Demolition For the case of France, Other sources demolition sources arise to 50% Plasterboard manufacturers Private waste management companies Private waste transporters Customers Public recycling stations Demolition companies Plasterboard installers via collectors The three types of customers identified (waste suppliers, plasterboard manufacturers and others) mainly pay for: - Transport What do customers pay for? - Recycled gypsum quality
However, in some cases transport is always responsibility of customers so they don’t pay for it.
114
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
What is the distance you From site to recycling From recycling facilities to travel by truck from the facilities gypsum factories: construction/demolition site the average distance 5-20 km to your facilities and from travel by truck: 0 km when the recycling your facilities to the gypsum facilities are located in the factories? 100 - 200 km gypsum factories’ terrain
Due to the market potential and the How many years experience European policies on do you have in gypsum From 1 year to 12 waste, new gypsum recycling in Europe? recycling companies are emerging.
Financial: Market need (viable business) Proximity to plasterboard Main drivers to process manufacturing plant gypsum waste Could you give figure? Environmental Environmental: Resource efficiency Financial Carbon footprint minimization
Recycler’s core business is producing valuable material to answer to the Quality Management (QM) technical needs of System implementation customers. Therefore, control of quality is Yes important. No Average amount of residual paper in recycled gypsum < 1% (%) It depends on the country. It is not only paper but paper with some gypsum and contaminants. The measurement methods Average amount of paper for this value may be output (%) 7,5 % different and the impact isn't the same. All of the paper is sent to be re-used in the manufacturing of paper rolls or as compost.
115
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Natural gypsum requires lower specifications; Specifications for recycled FGD gypsum’s are gypsum stricter and demand smaller gypsum particle Yes sizes. No
Manpower 2-3 employees
Hours operating 7-24 hours/day Not enough information Power consumption Processing equipment achieved. Not enough information Carbon footprint achieved. L25-35m x W3m x H4-6m Dimension of unit Weight30-40 t
Table 2-20. Consolidated results of questionnaires received from gypsum recyclers: Current practices.
2.1.4. Specifications for recyclable gypsum waste
2.1.4.1. GRI
The following materials are accepted for recycling:
Calcium based reaction waste from flue gas desulphurization or gypsum mining waste
Virgin gypsum board cut-offs
Gypsum board underlayers/dunnage
Gypsum blocks
Complete boards or broken parts
Gypsum ceilings, floors, walls, stucco etc.
Boards with tinfoil and polystyrene
The gypsum waste may contain nails and screws, wallpaper, glass tissue and other wall coverings
According to GRI’s output specification, free moisture of the gypsum powder must be under 10 per cent in weight. The receiving plasterboard plants refuse to take in any recycled
116
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
gypsum with more than 10% moisture, as the plants must drive out this moisture, which is costly. The 10% moisture limit value is therefore also a requirement of the receiving plasterboard plants.
The problem of plasterboard waste with high humidity is not only that the receiving plasterboard plants will not take it, but also that leakage at customers’ sites can occur and it requires an increased use of fuel in the processing. It also becomes increasingly difficult to achieve the required quality of the output when recycling waste with a higher humidity, as the separation of the materials becomes more challenging. Additionally, humid waste can also jam the sorting sieves. Processing wet/humid waste is therefore technically possible with GRI’s patented technology, but not desirable.
Hence GRI has developed a collection and transport system that assures that the plasterboard waste is kept dry. The system operates with closed top containers, closed transport trucks and covered warehouses, where the waste is never exposed to rain anywhere in the chain. This is to assure that the receiving plants receive the driest material possible.
However, if a gypsum waste fraction is particular humid, it can be mixed with a dryer fraction to keep the average down.
Fermacell® board
Fermcacell® boards are accepted by GRI as part of a plasterboard waste fraction. The acceptance of these boards is however limited to small amounts as the high organic content can reduce the quality of the recycled gypsum powder when the recycled plasterboard waste consists to a substantial amount of such boards.
EPS thermal insulation board
Expanded polystyrene (EPS) is a rigid, closed-cell foam. Boards covered with this material for insulation purposes cannot be accepted for the recycling at GRI gypsum recycling facilities as there is too much risk of contamination of the recycled gypsum.
Hardened boards (e.g. Rigidur®, Ladura®)
Hardened boards such as Rigudur® and Ladura® will not be accepted for the recycling at GRI gypsum recycling facilities due to the hardener in the boards that destroys the quality of the recycled gypsum powder.
Cement bound boards (e.g. Promatec®)
Cement bound boards such as Promatec® will not be accepted for the recycling at GRI gypsum recycling facilities due to the cement in the boards that destroys the quality of the recycled gypsum powder.
117
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Not acceptable:
GRI accepts up to 2-3 percent impurities in weight in its waste. Particularly, the following materials are not accepted in the gypsum waste fraction and count as impurities:
Insulation material
Wood, especially solidified wood and fiberboards
Metal
Plastic
The following materials are not accepted at all:
Autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC)
(Plasterboards with) tiles
Hardened plasterboards such as Rigidur® and Ladura®, cement bound plasterboards such as Promatec®, and EPS thermal insulation boards
Asbestos
2.1.4.2. NWGR
Acceptable:
- Gypsum blocks
- Painted board
- board with vinyl, wallpaper, tile
- Wet or dry
- Gypsum ceilings, floors, walls, stucco etc.
- Boards with tinfoil and polystyrene
- The gypsum waste may contain nails and screws, wallpaper, glass tissue and other wall coverings
- Coving
- Gypsum based ceiling tiles
118
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
- Glass Reinforced Gypsum (GRG) products
- Rigidur
- Moulds
- Plaster in bags
Remark: NWGR does not limit the amount of free moisture in the above mentioned gypsum waste. NWGR‘s patented equipment has no difficulties with the moisture content, able to process wet material that was kept stored outside for long periods.
Not Acceptable:
- Max 2% non-gypsum waste
- Of course no hazardous materials e.g. asbestos is accepted
2.1.4.3. British Gypsum
Acceptable:
All plasterboard including, thermal laminate and duplex grade board
Cove
Gypsum based ceiling tiles
Glass Reinforced Gypsum (GRG) products
Rigidur
Artex decorative plaster mouldings
2.1.4.4. CountryStyle
Plasterboard must be loose and not in bags.
Waste must not be contaminated with plastics, metal, glass or wood other than fixings and must not contain asbestos or other forms of insulation.Countrystyle reserve the right to reject such loads that are contaminated.
Waste must be dry. Countrystyle reserve the right to reject such loads that are not dry.
119
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Foil backdated plasterboard will be accepted with normal plasterboard loads as long as it does not exceed 10% of the load.
For plasterboard with integral insulation this will need to be segregated and kept separate. It can be recycled via Countrystyle’s plasterboard recycling operation, but will attract an increased gate fee to cover the increased processing costs. Prices will be provided to Customers as required.
Countrystyle applies the following 3 stage hierarchy to manage the quality of incoming materials. Regardless, all contaminated loads will be photographed and the Customer informed.
Stage 1 – Applies to loads that contain minor contamination, digital images will be taken and these will be emailed to the Customer. A three strike system will be applied here. Namely, after the third warning Countrystyle reserve the right to review the price in light of persistent contamination.
Stage 2 – Applies to loads that need to be resorted, thus enabling them to be reprocessed. When a load is identified that needs resorting Countrystyle will contact the Customer and agree a price for resorting. This has to be done on a case by case basis due to the differing types and amounts of contamination. However, there is a minimum charge of £50 per container.
Stage 3 – Applicable to loads that are so contaminated, or so wet that they cannot be handpicked on site, thus enabling the material to be processed. These will be rejected and either be returned to the Customer at their expense or be sent to an appropriate disposal point with the Customer being recharged in full.
2.1.4.5. Comparison of the different specifications for recyclable gypsum waste
After analyzing the specifications for recyclable gypsum waste of GRI and NWGR, partners of the GtoG project, the following can be concluded:
Not enough information has been found about the acceptance criteria of Countrystyle. Therefore, it has been excluded of the comparison carried out.
Gypsum blocks, gypsum ceilings, floors, walls, stucco, boards with polystyrene, wall coverings, coving and glass reinforced gypsum products are accepted by most of the recyclers under study (see table 2-22).
Hazardous waste is always avoided in the load.
NWGR does not limit the amount of free moisture in the gypsum waste. However, GRI limits it to 10 percent in weight as the receiving plasterboard plants have the
120
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
same requirement for the recycled gypsum. No information has been found about British Gypsum free moisture acceptance (see table 2-23).
Recyclers accept up to 3 percent impurities in weight in its waste (see table 2-24).
GRI NWGR
Gypsum blocks Gypsum ceilings, floors, walls,
stucco… Boards with tinfoil and polystyrene Gypsum waste with nails and screws, wallpaper, glass tissue and other wall coverings Autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) Hazardous materials, e.g. Asbestos Cove
Gypsum based ceiling tiles Glass reinforced (GRG) gypsum
products Limited to Fermacell® board small amounts Hardened boards (e.g. Rigidur®,
Ladura®) After Moulds approval Cement bound boards (e.g.
Promatec®) Plaster in bags
Table 2-21. Acceptable and non-acceptable materials.Green = yes / Red = no.
GRI NWGR
<10% in Free moisture weight
Table 2-22. Gypsum waste free moisture.
121
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
GRI NWGR
Max percentage of non gypsum waste (insulation material, wood, 2-3% 2% metal, plastic…)
Table 2-23. Maximum percentage of non gypsum waste.
2.1.5. Recycled gypsum quality criteria once reprocessed
2.1.5.1. Gypsum Draft quality criteria developed by BV Gips
The German Gypsum Association recycling standard is a draft quality criteria for gypsum received from recycling plants. It was published in April 2012.
Gypsum Draft Quality criteria developed by BV Gips
Values Technical Expressed
Parameters as Proposal Remarks BV Gips BV Gips Higher values are acceptable after 1. Particle Size ≤ 1 mm plant specific agreement.
≤ 5 % by 2. Free moisture H O 2 weight Calcium CaSO x > 85 % by 3. sulphate 4 2H O weight dehydrate 2 Total organic < 0,5 % by Deviation up to 1 % by weight is only 4. carbon TOC weight possible after special agreement. Exclusion of Residues of laminated boards or visual 5. visible coating materials of sandwich panels assessment contaminants count for impurities, too.
6. Odour neutral
Magnesium < 0,02 % by Deviation up to 0.1 % by weight MgO is 7. salts, water MgO weight only possible after special agreement. soluble Deviation up to 0.06 % by weight Na O Sodium salts, < 0,02 % by 2 8. Na O is only possible after special water soluble 2 weight agreement. Potassium salts, < 0,02 % by 9. K O water soluble 2 weight
122
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
< 0,01 % by 10. Chloride Cl weight
11. pH --- 5 – 9
< 0,02 % by 12. Fluoride F weight Radioactivity 13. according to RP Index < 0,5 112 The material has 14. to be free of asbestos.
Table 2-24. Gypsum Draft Quality criteria developed by BV Gips – Technical parameters.
Gypsum Draft Quality criteria developed by BV Gips
Values Toxicological Expressed Proposal BV Parameters as Remarks BV Gips Gips As < 4 mg/kg
Be < 0,7 mg/kg
Pb < 22 mg/kg
Cd < 0,5 mg/kg
Cr < 25 mg/kg Trace element Co < 4 mg/kg Values can be adjusted to new human content 15. toxicological evaluations and threshold according to 54 Cu < 14 mg/kg values Beckert Study Mn < 200 mg/kg
Ni < 13 mg/kg
Hg < 1,3 mg/kg
Se < 16 mg/kg
Te < 0,3 mg/kg
54BECKERT J., 1990. Comparison of natural gypsum and FGD gypsum: studies for a comparative assessment of the health impact of natural gypsum and FGD gypsum from coal-fired power plants with a view to their use in the manufacture of building materials. VGB technical scientific reports "Thermal power plants", 707.
123
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Tl < 0,4 mg/kg
V < 26 mg/kg
Zn < 50 mg/kg
PAH (EPA) < 0,2 mg/kg
Sulphur 16. S < 35 mg/kg (elemental)
Table 2-25. Gypsum Draft Quality criteria developed by BV Gips – Toxicological parameters.
2.1.5.2. Gypsum quality criteria developed by Wrap: UK PAS 2009
The Publicly Available Specification (PAS) has been developed by WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme) in collaboration with The British Standards Institution (BSI) in 2008.55
This PAS:
Specifies minimum requirements for the production of recycled gypsum from plasterboard waste intended for a range of applications in existing and emerging end markets.
Covers the selection, receipt and handling of input materials, the specifications of product grades, and the storage, labelling, dispatch and traceability of the products. It also specifies requirements for a quality management system for the production of grades of recycled gypsum to ensure they are consistently fit for their intended uses.
Is for recycled gypsum produced from plasterboard waste that has been separately collected, or sorted and segregated from, other wastes, productsor materials.
Likely sources of plasterboard waste include:
- Plasterboard manufacturing waste;
- Over-ordering on construction sites;
- Boards damaged during transportation, handling or storage;
- Off-cuts during installation; and
- Plasterboard stripped-out during refurbishment and demolition works.
55PAS 109:2008 Specification for the production of recycled gypsum from waste plasterboard-Wrap and BSI August 2008.
124
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
The requirements for the recycled gypsum grades specify particle size distribution, residual paper content, purity, physical contamination and chemical composition limits, and acceptability of colour and smell.
The end markets to which this PAS applies include, but are not limited to, the following applications:
- Plasterboard manufacture;
- Cement manufacture;
- Manufacture of construction products;
- Soil treatment in agriculture and horticulture;
- Manufacture of growing media;
- Soil stabilization and binding;
- Clarifying aquatic environments; and
- Absorbent for liquid spills.
In order to accommodate the widening range of end user requirements for recycled gypsum variations or additions to an end user specification may be required.
However, in all instances, the standard set by this PAS shall be the minimum requirement.
The recycler is responsible for consistently fulfilling any additional quality needs, such that the products are safe and consistently fit for their intended purposes.
125
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Figure 2-8. Specification for PAS109 recycled gypsum.56
56PAS 109:2008 Specification for the production of recycled gypsum from waste plasterboard-Wrap and BSI August 2008.
126
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Figure 2-9. Minimum samples and test frequencies, and relevant procedures.57
57PAS 109:2008 Specification for the production of recycled gypsum from waste plasterboard-Wrap and BSI August 2008.
127
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Figure 2-10. Limits of particle size distribution, Fine grade recycled gypsum.58
Figure 2-11. Limits of particle size distribution, Coarse grade recycled gypsum.59
58PAS 109:2008 Specification for the production of recycled gypsum from waste plasterboard-Wrap and BSI August 2008. 59PAS 109:2008 Specification for the production of recycled gypsum from waste plasterboard-Wrap and BSI August 2008.
128
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
2.1.5.3. Comparison of recycled gypsum criteria among Eurogypsum member associations.
In October 2012, Eurogypsum has carried out a survey among its member on the gypsum quality criteria they were using; Results were made available to the GTOG project on 17 January 2013. The results can be found in the following tables.
Comparison of recycled gypsum quality criteria among EUROGYPSUM members Associations
Technical Expressed as Values parameters UK (PAS Proposal UK (PAS NL Remarks BV Gips NL BE IT 109:2008) BV Gips 109:2008) Fine/ Particle size Coarse/ Higher values are ≥ 13 mm, ≤ 1 mm distribution (% w/w Custom Custom 1. Particle Size ≤ 1 mm acceptable after plant 5 % > 10 0-120 mm Sieve retained on BS grade grade: specific agreement. mm sieve individually) values see PAS 109 ≤ 5 % by < 5 % by 2. Free moisture H O < 10 % not defined 2 weight weight
Calcium sulphate CaSO > 85 % by > 75 % by 3. 4 % w/w > 90 % > 85 % dihydrate x 2H2O weight weight
Deviation up to 1 % by Total organic carbon % w/w residual < 0,5 % by weight is only possible < 1,0 % by 4. < 1,5 % < 1 % TOC paper/fibres weight after special weight agreement.
129
DA.1: Inventory of current practices
Residues of laminated boards or coating Exclusion of visible physical visual Proposal 5. materials of sandwich trace contaminants contaminants assessment OK panels count for impurities, too.
Proposal odourless/ 6. Odour neutral OK neutral
Deviation up to 0.1 % Magnesium salts, < 0,02 % by weight MgO is only < 0,1 % by 7. MgO MgO < 0,10 % < 0,1 % water soluble by weight possible after special weight agreement.
Deviation up to 0.06 % Sodium salts, water < 0,02 % by weight Na O is only < 0,05 % by 8. Na O Na O 2 < 0,05 % < 0,06 % soluble 2 2 by weight possible after special weight agreement. Potassium salts, < 0,02 % < 0,05 % by 9. K O < 0,05 % not defined water soluble 2 by weight weight < 0,01 % > 0,01 % by 10. Chloride Cl Cl < 0,02 % < 0,01 % by weight weight Proposal 11. pH --- 5 – 9 not defined 5 Other Parameters? The material has to 14. proposal OK not defined yes be free of asbestos Table 2-26. Comparison of recycled gypsum quality criteria – Technical Parameters among Belgium, the Netherlands, the UK and Italy. 130 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Comparison of recycled gypsum quality criteria among EUROGYPSUM members Associations Toxicological Expressed Values parameters as Proposal BV Remarks BV UK (Quality NL BE IT Gips Gips Protocol) As < 4 mg/kg Values can be to discuss < 5.23 mg/kg < 4 mg/kg adjusted to Be < 0.7 mg/kg new human to discuss not defined < 0.7 mg/kg Pb < 22 mg/kg toxicological to discuss < 31.9 mg/kg < 22 mg/kg evaluations Cd < 0.5 mg/kg and threshold to discuss < 0.3 mg/kg < 0.5 mg/kg values Cr < 25 mg/kg to discuss < 17.9 mg/kg < 25 mg/kg Co < 4 mg/kg to discuss not defined < 4 mg/kg Cu < 14 mg/kg to discuss < 32.8 mg/kg < 14 mg/kg Trace element Mn < 200 mg/kg to discuss not defined < 200 mg/kg content according 15. to “Beckert- Ni < 13 mg/kg to discuss < 7.31 mg/kg < 13 mg/kg Study”60 Hg < 1.3 mg/kg to discuss < 2 mg/kg < 1.3 mg/kg Se < 16 mg/kg to discuss < 7.37 mg/kg < 16 mg/kg Te < 0.3 mg/kg to discuss not defined < 0.3 mg/kg Tl < 0.4 mg/kg to discuss not defined < 0.4 mg/kg V < 26 mg/kg to discuss not defined < 26 mg/kg Zn < 50 mg/kg to discuss < 40.3 mg/kg < 50 mg/kg PAH10< PAH (EPA) < 0.2 mg/kg not defined < 0.2 mg/kg 0.50/PAH16< 0.8 60BECKERT J., 1990. Comparison of natural gypsum and FGD gypsum: studies for a comparative assessment of the health impact of natural gypsum and FGD gypsum from coal-fired power plants with a view to their use in the manufacture of building materials. VGB technical scientific reports "Thermal power plants", 707. 131 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 16. Magnesium2 < 2.412 mg/kg 17. Molybdenum < 7.68 mg/kg 18. Phosphorous < 87 mg/kg 19. Potassium3 < 1.992 mg/kg Sulphur < 209.200 20. S < 35 mg/kg to discuss 4 < 35 mg/kg (elemental) mg/kg 2 Magnesium, to be proven 3 Potassium, to be proven 4 Value correct? < 209 g/kg in EA Quality Protocol Appendix B1 Table 2-27. Comparison of recycled gypsum quality criteria – Toxicological Parameters among Belgium, the Netherlands, the UK and Italy. 132 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 2.1.5.4. GRI quality criteria GRI has developed specific requirements for the produced gypsum powder, which are depicted in the following table: Criteria Demand Cl (chlorid content) < 0,02% weight pH 7 < pH < 9 Free moisture < 10% weight Purity (content of CaSO4 x Max. 5% points (weight) less than what the gypsum plants 2H2O) have supplied to the market during the last 20 years. Max. 5% points (weight) less than what the gypsum plants Rehydration have supplied to the market during the last 20 years. Particle size 13 mm Smell Odourless/neutral MgO < 0,10% weight Na2O < 0,06% weight Table 2-28. GRI' s specific requirements for the produced gypsum powder. The particle size of the powder is distributed in the following way (see picture). It has to be noted that the rather big standard particle size (50% of the particles are bigger than 0.5 mm) is chosen deliberately to make sure that the handling of the powder is possible at the receiving plasterboard plants, does not require any special handling equipment (like silo or blower trucks) and is not too dusty. GRI has previously operated with a max particle size of 4 mm, but the receiving plasterboard plants requested a bigger particle size, as the small particle size made handling of the powder difficult and the handling of the more fine recycled gypsum powder was relatively dusty due to the fine particles. 133 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 %distribution 10 0 0,063 0,125 0,25 0,5 1 2 4 13 Particle size, mm Figure 2-12. Standard Particle size of recycled powder. 2.1.5.5. Comparison between the quality criteria Technical parameters Particle size: BV Gips specifies lowest values, PAS 109 distinguished between fine and course grade and GRI deliberately choose to leave 50% of the particles bigger than 0.5 mm to make sure that the handling of the powder is possible at the receiving plasterboard plants, does not require any special handling equipment (like silo or blower trucks) and is not too dusty. Both BV Gips and the Italian Gypsum Association (Assogesso) limit the free moisture to 5% w/w. However, the Belgian Gypsum Association (ABLG) and GRI limit it to 10 % w/w. Purity of the recycled gypsum varies from 75% to 90%. Total organic carbon TOC is in all the cases under 1.5% w/w, being BV Gips more restrictive than the rest, limiting to 0.5% w/w. For the different salts (MgO, Na2O, K2O) the limit is similar and the biggest different is related to K2O content. BV Gips limit it to 0.02 % w/w whereas the rest limit it to 0.05 % w/w. Toxicological parameters BV Gips and IT Member Association follow the same criteria. PAS 109 differs from the above mentioned values, defining more restrictive values for Cd, Cr, Ni, Se and Zn and less restrictive for the rest of parameters. The following tables 2-29 and 2-30 summarizes the information collected in the previous sections about different technical and toxicological quality criteria. 134 DA.1: Inventory of current practices IT BE Eurogypsum BV Gips PAS 109 Eurogypsum GRI Member Member Association Association fine grade ≤ 1 mm ≤ 13 mm ≤ 1 mm coarse grade ≤ 16 mm 50% of the particles Particle size higher values if 0-120 mm Custom grade (see particle size are bigger than 0.5 agreement distribution figure 2-29) mm Free moisture ≤ 5 % w/w not defined < 5 % w/w < 10 % w/w < 10 % w/w Max. 5% points (weight) less than Purity (content of calcium what the gypsum > 85 % w/w > 85 % w/w > 75 % w/w > 90 % w/w sulphate dihydrate) plants have supplied to the market during the last 20 years. Total organic carbon TOC < 0.5 % w/w Content of residual paper / up to 1% if < 1% w/w < 1 % w/w < 1.5 % w/w < 1 % w/w fibres agreement Exclusion of visible visual assessment trace not defined OK not defined contaminants Odour neutral odourless / neutral not defined neutral Odourless/neutral < 0.02 % w/w Magnesium salts, water soluble up to 0.1% if < 0.1 % w/w < 0.1 % w/w < 0.1 % w/w < 0.1 % w/w (MgO) agreement < 0.02 % w/w Sodium salts, water soluble up to 0.06 if < 0.06 % w/w < 0.05 % w/w < 0.05 % w/w < 0.06 % w/w (Na2O) agreement 135 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Potassium salts, water soluble < 0.02 % w/w not defined < 0.05 % w/w < 0.05 % w/w not defined (K2O) Soluble Chloride (Cl) < 0.01 % w/w < 0,01 % w/w < 0,01 % w/w < 0.02 % w/w < 0.02 % w/w Ph 5 – 9 not defined 5 – 9 5 – 9 7 - 9 Fluoride (F) < 0.02 % w/w not defined not defined < 0.02 % w/w not defined Radioactivity according to RP Index < 0.5 not defined Index < 0,5 Index < 0,5 not defined 112 The material has to be free of OK not defined OK OK OK asbestos. Max. 10 mm largest Size of paper pieces not defined not defined not defined not defined dimension White, light grey or light Colour not defined beige, with no coloured not defined not defined not defined particles Max. 5% points (weight) less than what the gypsum Rehydration not defined not defined not defined not defined plants have supplied to the market during the last 20 years. Table 2-29. Comparison of rcycled gypsum quality criteria – Technical parameters. 136 DA.1: Inventory of current practices IT BE BV Gips PAS 109 Eurogypsum Eurogypsum Member Association Member Association As < 4 mg/kg < 5.23 mg/kg < 4 mg/kg to discuss Be < 0,7 mg/kg not defined < 0.7 mg/kg to discuss Pb < 22 mg/kg < 31.9 mg/kg < 22 mg/kg to discuss Cd < 0,5 mg/kg < 0.3 mg/kg < 0.5 mg/kg to discuss Cr < 25 mg/kg < 17.9 mg/kg < 25 mg/kg to discuss Co < 4 mg/kg not defined < 4 mg/kg to discuss Cu < 14 mg/kg < 32.8 mg/kg < 14 mg/kg to discuss Mn < 200 mg/kg not defined < 200 mg/kg to discuss Ni < 13 mg/kg < 7.31 mg/kg < 13 mg/kg to discuss Hg < 1,3 mg/kg < 2 mg/kg < 1.3 mg/kg to discuss Se < 16 mg/kg < 7.37 mg/kg < 16 mg/kg to discuss Te < 0,3 mg/kg not defined < 0.3 mg/kg to discuss Tl < 0,4 mg/kg not defined < 0.4 mg/kg to discuss V < 26 mg/kg not defined < 26 mg/kg to discuss Zn < 50 mg/kg < 40.3 mg/kg < 50 mg/kg to discuss PAH10< PAH (EPA) < 0,2 mg/kg not defined < 0.2 mg/kg 0.50/PAH16< 0.8 Magnesium < 2.412 mg/kg Molybdenum < 7.68 mg/kg Phosphorous < 87 mg/kg Potassium < 1.992 mg/kg < 209.200 S < 35 mg/kg < 35 mg/kg to discuss mg/kg Table 2-30. Comparison of recycled gypsum quality criteria – Toxicological parameters. 137 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 2.1.6. Conclusions and recommendations The above-mentioned analysis shows: 15 European gypsum recyclers have been identified. - 11 European gypsum recyclers are described in section 2.1.3. Not information about the rest could be gathered under this first stage of the GtoG project. - Arrow Gypsum Recycling, Countrystyle Group and Roy Hatfield Ltd have been mentioned as suppliers by the UK gypsum manufacturers. They are located in The UK. Roy Hatfield Ltd’s main activity is the use of recycled gypsum in its own concrete manufacturing process. No information has been found about the main activity of Arrow Gypsum Recycling and Countrystyle Group. - Gypsum Recycling International A/S is located in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and The Netherlands and is only working for closed loop recycling in the 8 target countries. - Nantet Locabennes and Ritleng Revalorisations are located in France. They work for closed loop recycling. - New West Gypsum Recycling is located in Belgium, France and the UK and is only working for closed loop recycling. Table 2-31 summarizes basic information from the identified EU recyclers. Location (in Only closed Described Mentioned Gypsum recyclers the EU loop in section as identified target recycling 2.1.3 suppliers countries) practices Denmark, Gypsum Recycling Norway, International (GRI) Sweden, the Netherlands Nantet Locabennes France Belgium, New West Gypsum France and Recycling (NWGR) the UK 138 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Ritleng Revalorisations France (RR) Siniat FR France British Gypsum The UK Unknown (BPB UK) Arrow Gypsum The UK Unknown Recycling Countrystyle The UK Unknown Recycling Ltd Roy Hatfield Ltd The UK 4Recycling Ltd The UK Baron Recycling The UK Mc Grath Bros The UK (Waste Control) Ltd Mid UK Recycling The UK Ltd Nutramulch The UK Yorkshire Ltd PRS Recycling The UK Tradebe Recycling The UK Wastecycle Ltd The UK *Green = YES; Red = NO Table 2-31. European gypsum recyclers identified under the GtoG project. Two European plasterboard manufacturers are offering solutions for recycling C&D plasterboard waste. UPM received only 5 questionnaires back from the recyclers Further fine tuning of the gypsum recycling will be carried out during the pilot project in action B2, B3 and C1. 139 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 100% 80% European recyclers 60% 40% Verified close loop recyclers 20% 0% Figure 2-13. % of recyclers that are working for closed loop. There is no register about the extent of open loop practices, and if all of them have the purpose of obtaining an improvement in the soil’s conditions. An estimated amount of 80,000 tonnes a year is used for agricultural purposes. It seems that open loop practices are increasing in the UK while this is not observed in the other European countries. By promoting closed loop recycling and the use of FGD Gypsum, the European plasterboard industry spares natural resources by quarrying less. Reliable substitutes for natural gypsum are extremely important for the industry. The number of years of experience of the closed loop recyclers identified under the GtoG project varies from 1 to 28 and a summary is presented in Figure 2-14. 14 12 10 8 6 4 Years Years of experience 2 0 Figure 2-14. Years of experience in gypsum recycling. 140 DA.1: Inventory of current practices It should be recalled that the two experienced recyclers GRI and NWGR are collecting most of the gypsum waste used in closed loop recycling (see figure 2-15). 11,4% Recycled gypsum GRI and NWGR Recycled gypsum rest of European recyclers 88,6% Figure 2-15. Breakdown between the recycled gypsum supplied by GRI and NWGR and the rest of European gypsum recyclers When a recycler has an agreement for the supply of recycled gypsum, the following specifications are usually agreed: - Maximum allowable size in any one dimension. - Maximum allowable paper content. - The maximum allowable free moisture content. - Maximum purity of waste - Maximum content of the different possible trace components. Then, it can be expected that recyclers having an agreement with a manufacturer are providing a quality recycled gypsum. However, this data has only been available for the cases of NWGR and GRI, providing laboratory tests verified by a third party. Most of the UK recyclers supply farmers and several of the operators are recognized composters. A few also supply cement plants. Around 25,000 tonnes per year of recycled gypsum is sent to the cement manufacturing industry. 61 Before the economic downturn, 600,000 tonnesper year (from all sources) were used.62 61Mineral Products Association, 2011 data. 62Waste plasterboard Market Scoping Study.WRAP, 2008. 141 DA.1: Inventory of current practices No data about how much recycled gypsum is currently being used in agriculture as a soil improver and in animal bedding (un-permitted), but an estimation of 80,000 tonnes per year can be given. Current gypsum waste origin in the different European countries, according to the information gathered from the recyclers questionnaire, follow the below distribution: Demolition Renovation Gypsum waste origin New building 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Figure 2-16. Gypsum waste origin. In 2013, renovation and demolition markets are covering most of the gypsum waste origin, mainly due to the economic downturn. For that reason, it is the perfect time to improve the specifications for closing the loop of the plasterboard. The strength and the weakness of the recyclers are summarized in the following table 2-32: STRENGTH WEAKNESS Difficulties for processing Fermacell® Recycling machines can process up to 30 boards, cement bound boards and t/h of gypsum waste hardened boards. Some recyclers limit the free moisture of the gypsum waste, because it decreases the quality of the recycled gypsum. Up to 94% of gypsum powder output However, occasional wet loads can be solved by mixing the wet waste with a dryer fraction. Less than 1.0% amount of paper fraction Dust emission from the gypsum waste in the recycled gypsum recycling machines. Table 2-32. Strength and weakness of the European gypsum recyclers identified under the GtoG project. 142 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Recommendations for unifying the Quality Criteria for recycled gypsum Unified quality criteria at the European level needs to be developed. A good starting point is the different criteria followed by BV Gips, PAS 109 and the Italian and Belgium Eurogypsum Member Association (see comparison in section 2.1.5.5). A detailed description about the reasons to choose the above collected parameters and the given value for each of the companies / associations has to be investigated in Action B of the GtoG project, in order to analyse the possible variations of the parameter and its impact in the process. After the comparison carried out for different technical and toxicological parameters of the quality criteria (see section 2.1.5.5) we recommend: Particle size: depending on the plant the requirements can vary. For example a plant using FGD gypsum will need a fine grade of recycled gypsum for reincorporating it into the manufacturing process. Recyclers are normally providing the required size by the plasterboard manufacturer. The customer sometimes can choose the size and later crush the recycled gypsum with its own equipment. Free moisture optimal value seems to be somewhere between 5 and 10 % w/w, according to the different criteria collected. Around 7% could be a good starting point to be tested under the pilot projects. The pre-drying of the recycled gypsum, storing the recycled gypsum during a given amount of time before its reincorporation, is currently an usual practice. Higher values of free moisture would mean an extra environmental and financial unnecessary cost, because in some cases it could lead to mechanical drying practices. Purity also varies for plants operating with FGD or natural gypsum. The approach of GRI seems to be sensible, considering that the recycled gypsum shouldn’t be less than 5% points (weight) less of what the gypsum plants have supplied to the market during the last 20 years The Total Organic Carbon (TOC) should be between 0.5 and 1% w/w. For chemical components such as MgO, Na2O, K2O, Cl, F conclusions cannot be drafted without a laboratory research study. Also the toxicological parameters have to be deeply analyzed in Action B, studying how a slight variation can affect the quality of the plasterboards. The specifications for the production of recycled gypsum from plasterboard waste (PAS 109) developed by WRAP and BSI take into account both closed loop and open loop market. 143 DA.1: Inventory of current practices However, after collecting information from the UK manufacturers, it is a current practice to ask the recycler for an analysis in accordance with this document (see section 2.1.5.2). Therefore, it cannot be concluded that stricter specifications are a necessity for promoting closed loop recycling. In depth analysis shows that we need to better collect data for identifying the sources of gypsum based waste. Eurostat collects information about C&D waste generation, without specifying the different streams. Therefore, no estimation about the amount of gypsum based waste generated is available Publications estimating the different percentages of the different streams have been analyzed. The different findings are summarized below: Data compiled by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), using data from one Master’s Thesis at the University of Florida and from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) concludes that plasterboard equals about 5 to 15 percent of the building related C&D waste stream. DSM Environmental Services, Inc. studies, 63 carried out in the US, estimated a generation of: - 6% of clean plasterboard waste by weight of the total C&D waste - 4% of dirty plasterboard waste by weight of the total C&D waste In Spain, The National C&D Waste Plan estimates the gypsum waste in 0.2% of the total C&D waste generated.64 Gypsum based waste volume/weight depends on the national building regulations and varies much from country to country. Moreover the statistics at European level are not harmonised which slows down the incentives to recycle effectively. We thus recommend including the breakdown of the different streams in the Eurostat database, differentiating at least among: plastics, metals, concrete and rubble, drywall, roofing and wood. This could be easily done for countries where deconstruction is a common practice, such as Belgium, France, The Netherlands and The UK. Under the GtoG project, an estimation of the different end routes for plasterboard waste has been developed in Table 2-33; using the estimated gypsum based waste amount in section 1.7, table 1.3, and completing the information with consolidated confidential data from the partners in the project: 632007 Massachusetts construction and demolition debris study.Final Report, 2008.DSM Environmental. 64Plan Nacional de Residuos de Construcción y Demolición (PNRCD) 2001-2006. BOE num. 166. 12 de julio de 2001. España. 144 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Others (t) Others (%) Estimated Estimated Recycled Recycled platerboard platerboard gypsum Recovery, Recovery, gypsum waste waste based Agriculture, Agriculture, based generated landfilled waste Cement Cement waste (t) (t) (%) (%) manufacture, manufacture, etc. etc. Germany 243,246 23.7 0 0.0 0 76.3 Greece* 15,534 - 0 0.0 - - Spain* 84,858 - 0 0.0 - - France 362,934 - 55,000 15.2 - - The 81,697 - 33,000 40.4 - - Benelux** Poland* 84,182 - 0 0.0 - - The UK 278,782 22.7 60,500 21.7 155,000 55.6 * In Greece, Spain and Poland, plasterboards and gypsum blocks are generally mixed with other construction and demolition wastes, usually ending up in landfill. However, it is impossible to assess the percentages of gypsum based waste that ends up landfilled or reused due to complete lack of data. Further details can be found in section 3.2.2.2.2. *The Benelux: Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. Only data from Belgium and the Netherlands have been taken into account. These two countries are presented together for confidential issues among the GtoG partners. Table 2-33. Estimated distribution of the gypsum based waste end routes. As conclusions: 1. Due to the crucial lack of reliable and differentiable statistics, it is difficult to assess the percentage of gypsum based waste recovered in relation to the 70% recovery target of the Waste Framework Directive. It should also be noted that the current C&D waste target is a recovery target covering recycling, recovery operation and backfilling. Therefore, the concept of the target should be reviewed to go for a recycling target excluding recovery operations and backfilling. 2. It is a fact that the recycling of construction and demolition waste throughout the value chain (deconstruction-recycling-reincorporation in the manufacturing process) is just starting. Much still needs to be improved across Europe. The GtoG project has been launched to boost the recyclability of gypsum based waste and remedy the difficulties to make it work. In order to improve the gypsum based waste recycled, it is recommended to implement and enforce correctly the Council Decision 2003/33/EC which could then lead to a lower disposal of gypsum based waste. 145 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Table 2-34 shows the recycling ratio for gypsum based waste in the 8 target countries and identifies those countries where the Council Decision 2003/33/EC has been transposed. Recycled Council Existence of gypsum based Decision monocell landfills waste (%) 2003/33/EC Germany 0,0 x Greece 0,0 x Spain 0,0 x x France 15.2 Belgium The Benelux* 40.4 x NL Poland 0,0 x The UK 21.7 *The Benelux: Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. Table 2-34. Gypsum based waste recycling rate and transposition of the Council Decision 2003/33/EC. For further details about this information, see table 5-21. 146 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 2.2. REINCORPORATION OF RECYCLED GYPSUM IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS SUMMARY Plasterboard plants Plaster – calcinated gypsum – is the input material for manufacturing of plasterboards. The gypsum sources for producing plaster can be natural gypsum, FGD gypsum or recycled gypsum. As these kinds of gypsum (calcium sulphate dihydrate) are not able to set in a calcination process a part of the crystal water has to be separated at higher temperatures (de-hydration). The result of this process is plaster, which is able to set by adding water (re- hydrating). This gypsum slurry will set as a gypsum core between two layers of paper (like a sandwich) in a plasterboard sheet. A distinction between two main streams of recycled gypsum should be made: internal recycled gypsum, resulting from technical faults within the manufacturing process or off specification products (production waste); and external gypsum waste from Construction & Demolition (C&D) waste from construction, demolition and renovation / refurbishment projects, which is managed by waste processing business’s. Different plants can be distinguished depending on the source of the gypsum and on the way of recycling. Depending on the way of dealing with recycled gypsum, manufacturing plants can: Have an own recycling system. Most of the plasterboard plants have simple equipment to crush production waste for its reincorporation into the manufacturing process. In some instances this equipment does not separate effectively the paper from the production waste and is even less suited to managing C&D gypsum waste. However, several manufacturing plants’ equipment only crushes the plasterboard production waste, and all the paper ends up in the obtained recycled gypsum. The recycled gypsum thus obtained have a high percentage of paper waste and only a small amount (3-4%) can be reincorporated to the process. Have an annex recycling facility, operated by other company. In France and Belgium some manufacturing plants have an agreement with a gypsum recycler, who receives C&D waste from different sources and also the production waste from the plasterboard manufacturer. The recycler builds the processing plant as an annex to the manufacturing plant. Receive the recycled gypsum from an external gypsum recycler. In the Netherlands and the UK is more common to have an agreement with a supplier of recycled gypsum. The recycler‘s recycling warehouse can be located 147 DA.1: Inventory of current practices close to the manufacturing plants (case of fix recycling equipment, see section 2.1.3) but not necessarily for the case of mobile units (case of Gypsum Recycling International, see 2.1.3.1.1). Current technical difficulties This section also deals with the potential impurities, contaminants and trace components in the gypsum waste as well as in recycled gypsum such as paper and additives. The consistency of gypsum, its particle size, the impact in the process and the supply rates are also analyzed. 2.2.1. Plasterboard plants 2.2.1.1. Plasters manufacturing Gypsum (calcium sulphate dihydrate) is extracted from quarries as natural gypsum, is obtained from synthetic Flue Gas Desulfurised gypsum (FGD Gypsum), or is sourced from recycled gypsum. It subsequently undergoes several preparatory and production phases including calcination to produce plaster, a partically dehydrated form of gypsum. Only this kind of gypsum is able to set re-hydrating by adding water. By directly controlling and finely tuning the production process, the structure and properties of the obtained plaster formulation are closely matched with the needs of a variety of highly technical industries. Main processes Extraction, Crushing After extraction of natural gypsum it has to be crushed. As FGD gypsum and recycled gypsum generally are fine materials, there is no need for crushing. Sifting It is necessary to separate and control gypsum particle size in order to obtain the exact product properties required for the plaster being manufactured. Calcination Calcium sulphate hemihydrate (CaSO4 x 0.5H2O) or plaster is obtained through the partial or total dehydration of gypsum at a temperature ranging from 120° to 400° C. The gypsum input can consist only of natural or FGD gypsum or a mixture of both, and in some plants including a part of recycled gypsum. The structure and properties of the final product are directly dependent on the chosen calcination conditions (temperature, pressure, rapidity): CaSO4 x 2H2O CaSO4 x 0.5H2O + 1.5H2O 148 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Depending on the method of calcination of calcium sulphate dihydrate, specific hemihydrates are sometimes distinguished: alpha-hemihydrate and beta-hemihydrate They appear to differ only in crystal size and shape. Alpha-hemihydrate crystals are more prismatic than beta-hemihydrate crystals and, when mixed with water, form a much stronger and harder superstructure. Alpha Process Alpha type plaster is used mainly in industrial plaster formulations for its high mechanical strength. This plaster type is a compact crystal with a low specific surface and low water demands to produce hard, low porosity casts. Alpha plaster can be formed through 2 different production procedures: o Dry process that involves injection of steam vapour during calcination. The plaster is dried and then treated in the regular manner. o Wet process that involves calcination of a gypsum slurry under pressure. The plaster is then spun and dried. Beta Process During the calcination process, under regular environmental pressure, dehydration water evaporates and a micro-porous structure is formed. Beta plaster crystals have a high specific surface and high water demands. Beta plasters casts have high porosity, but low mechanical properties and are therefore used for example in lightweight building applications or moulds in ceramic applications for their absorbent properties. Often a mixture of both Alpha & Beta type plasters will be used to combine the properties of both and optimise product solutions to suit market requirements. Grinding Following the calcination process, the plaster is ground to obtain a powder. Particle size distribution is an important factor in the product properties. Mixing With the plaster now in finely ground form, the final mixing stage is possible. A choice of additives will finely tune the products properties to match the customer’s needs, in terms of setting time, viscosity, porosity, colour, and mechanical strength…. The plaster can be used as wall plaster for direct usage or as input material to produce plasterboards. 149 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Plaster Production Figure 2-17. Scheme of plaster production. 2.2.1.2. Plasterboard Manufacturing The quick setting properties of plaster make it ideal for the production, by a continuous process, of a plasterboard sheet which is essentially a sandwich of set plaster between two sheets of special paper, known as plasterboard liner. Blending of additives Plaster received from the plaster mill is accurately metered and mixed with other additives: o Depending on the variety of wallboard being produced, certain additives are blended with the plaster that will form the core of the drywall. Starch is added to help the paper facings adhere to the core, and paper pulp or glass fibre is added to increase the core's tensile strength (resistance to lengthwise pressure) and the impact resistance of the board. Unexpanded vermiculite is added when producing fire-resistant grades of gypsum board; in some cases clay is also added. o Water is added to the plaster mixture to form a slurry of the proper consistency. An asphalt emulsion and/or a wax emulsion can be added to achieve the desired level of moisture resistance in the final product. A foaming agent such as a detergent is included, and during the mixing process air is entrained into the material. The finished gypsum panel will be over 40% air; this minimizes the board's weight and makes it easier to cut, fit, and nail or 150 DA.1: Inventory of current practices screw to the framing. Glass fibers are added to the wet core material when making fire rated gypsum board. Making the sandwich The gypsum slurry is poured onto a layer of paper that is unrolling onto a conveyor. Another layer of paper unrolls on top of the slurry. The sandwich then passes through a system of rollers that compact the gypsum core to the proper thickness. Finishing the edges Automated assembly lines in gypsum board plants range from 93 to 247 m long. As the drywall continues along the conveyor belt, the edges are formed. Various shapes of edges are possible, depending on the final use of the panel. Options include the traditional square edge, a tongue and groove type, tapered and/or beveled edges, and even rounded edges. The face paper is wrapped snugly around each edge and sealed to the back paper. Cutting the panels By the time the edges have been shaped, the plaster core has set sufficiently for a knife to slice the continuous strip into panel sizes. The drying process The panels are transferred to a conveyor line that feeds them through a long, drying oven. At one plant, for example, the gas-fired oven is 143 m long. Panels enter the oven at 260°C and are exposed to gradually decreasing levels of heat during the 35-40 minutes they travel through the system. Humidity and temperature are carefully controlled in the dryer. The drying process consists of a two- to four-stage process: . in Stage 1 (“Zone 1”, counter current air flow) the plasterboard is heated to 100 deg C, . finished by 95 deg C in Last Stage (co-current air flow). The plaster drying process must be carefully controlled to ensure uniform standard of product quality. The finished product The dry cut boards emerging from the drying oven are all brought to one level whence, by a series of conveyors, they are fed to a machine which trims their ends to produce accurate lengths, and passes them to a stacking unit where stacks of up to two tonnes in weight are removed by a fork truck to the warehouse or to waiting delivery vehicles 151 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Product evolution - In mid 19th century, gypsum was used in mortars and floor screeds. Plaster binders was utilized for casting and molding and for stucco work; - 1888: the American Augustine Sackett invented a machine for producing plasterboards (also known as wallboards and dry-walls) composed of several layers of paper with gypsum in-between; - 1901: the first plasterboard plant was built in the USA; - 1908: the plasterboard technique was improved by the American Stephen Kelly who patented plasterboard with a gypsum core and one layer of paper on the front and back side. The modern plasterboard was born. Since then plasterboard technologies have developed to include new properties (acoustic and fire resistance) maintaining, however, the basic technique invented by Stephen Kelly; - 1917: the first plasterboard plant was built in Liverpool; - 1926: the second plasterboard plant was built in London; - After 1945: expansion of the plasterboard for reconstruction in Europe; - 1950: perforated acoustic plasterboard; - 1958: alveolar partitions; - 1965: partition with plasterboard and metal support; - 1983: water-repellent plasterboard and fire-resistant plasteboards; - 1950ies: perforated acoustic plasterboard; - 1995: pre- painted plasterboard; - 2004: On-line produced plasterboards with four tapered edges; - 2008: High performance plasterboards for wet areas; 152 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Plasterboard Manufacturing Figure 2-18. Scheme of plasterboard manufacturing. 2.2.1.3. Recycled gypsum as raw material A distinction between two main streams of gypsum waste should be made: Internal recycled gypsum The reincorporation or the production waste generated during the manufacturing process in plasterboard manufacturing by avoiding waste generation becomes an important stream, as waste prevention is the priority within the waste hierarchy. It can be simply crushed and mechanically sieved for inclusion with natural gypsum sources directly in the manufacturing plant. As the quantity of production waste is small compared to the entire input of raw material (natural and/or FGD gypsum) in many cases it is not necessary to separate paper from the gypsum core. Some manufacturers also receive production waste from other companies like: decorative elements, gypsum blocks... External gypsum waste from New Construction & Demolition waste The external gypsum waste comes from: . Waste management companies / Waste Contractors: this waste is collected on new build construction or demolition jobsites. 153 DA.1: Inventory of current practices . Plasterboard installers: waste is collected and sorted on jobsites. It is usually composed of: . Plasterboards (most part in all countries except France) . Gypsum blocks. In France, most of the demolition gypsum based waste is composed of gypsum blocks because this material was intensively used in France in the 70's- 80's. . Gypsum moulds. Reincorporation of pre- Reincorporation of consumer recycled post-consumer gypsum recycled gypsum Austria, Germany, Greece, Italy, x Spain, Poland. Belgium, the Netherlands, France, x x the UK. Table 2-35. Reincorporation of recycled gypsum in different European countries The C&D waste is usually processed in the recycling warehouses of gypsum recyclers that collect and recycle the gypsum waste received, supplying the resultant recycled gypsum to the manufacturer. These recycling companies are also named the "supplier". Key aspects: The recycling plant can be located in the manufacturing plant site. In these warehouses both C&D waste and production waste are combined before its processing.However, this can be limited for more technical plasterboard products where very pure input Stucco is required. For a manufacturer it is difficult to estimate the distribution among the origin of the gypsum waste (new build construction, refurbishment and demolition), so most of the figures given in the answers to the questionnaire come from the supplier's estimation (see section 2.1.6). Depending on how manufacturing plants include recycled gypsum with existing natural / FGD gypsum sources, recycled gypsum might need further grinding. Generally plants are looking for specific grading. 154 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Plants built exclusively to operate with FGD gypsum normally don’t have mills, not having the possibility of crushing it, unless they have a recycling system for their production waste. Manufacturing plants without mills usually send their production waste to other manufacturing plants, recycling facilities or to the annex recycling company. Sometimes not all the production waste is recycled internally. Some manufacturers dispose to landfill sites or recycle via a third party. Different gypsum manufacturing plants, depending on the way of recycling, can be distinguished: - Plants with own recycling system. They can recycle their production waste from production, the production waste from other companies and external waste. - Plants without a recycling system. They send their production waste to other manufacturing plant or recycling company. - Plants with an annex recycling facility, operated by other company. Production waste can be sent to this facility or can be internally recycled by their own recycling system. When purchasing recycled gypsum, procurement contracts are used to specify the supply quality and to determinate price. This can vary cost, grading and quality which is internally inspected by the manufacturers. Inspections vary from basic visual/physical tests to technical laboratory particle and chemical analysis to determine potential contaminants. To ensure a high quality of recycled gypsum the supplier should implement a quality management system. For each production batch, targets are set in terms of weight percentage of recycled material that should be attained. In order to meet these targets, a certain amount of material from construction and demolition waste can be added to the internal manufacturing waste. Where production waste is not undertaken on site and recycled gypsum is provided by recyclers; significant dry storage facilities for storage of the recycled gypsum are required to control moisture content and prevent the risk of any external contamination. 155 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Figure 2-19. Plasterboard Industry supply chain scheme. 2.2.2. Current technical difficulties 2.2.2.1. When using FGD gypsum Flue gas desulphurisation of power station emissions is the largest industrial by-product used in plasterboard manufacturing. The emission stacks of fossil fuel power stations incorporate ‘scrubbers’ which remove much of the sulphur from the waste gas, so reducing emissions of sulphur dioxide. The by-product of this process is gypsum. This gypsum is also sometimes referred to as desulphogypsum (DSG). The volume of by-product has expanded with the growth in use of FGD technology; this has increased the availability for use in gypsum markets creating favourable supply-side economics for manufacturers with its use as a feedstock material for plasterboard production. Some plants using FGD gypsum do not use recycled gypsum due to the variation in supply and particle diameter. 156 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Higher recycling standards are needed. For example, intensive sieving is required to obtain a good grain size comparable to FGD gypsum. In case of manufacturing plants operating with FGD gypsum without a recycling system, production waste is collected and processed by a third party (recycler). 2.2.2.2. Potential impurities in gypsum waste Nails and screws. Removed manually or by magnets. The use of magnets can increase electrical costs. Note that deconstruction practices with a proper construction and demolition waste segregation at source reduce the risk of gypsum waste contamination (see section 3.2.2.2). A screw left by inadvertently in the recycled gypsum would block the manufacturer equipment (conveyor and mill blockages). Plastics, bricks, mortar and other mineral/non-mineral impurities. Can cause conveyor and mill blockages therefore, they have to be separated. 2.2.2.3. Potential contaminants and trace components in recycled gypsum Contaminants and trace components usually found are paper, impurities of the used gypsum sources and additives. The Framework Agreement for the supply of processed plasterboard waste between the gypsum recycler (also named supplier) and the plasterboard manufacturer usually specified the quality requirements, in order to ensure the required specifications. Manufacturers usually carry out sample checking for assurance that the recycler is meeting contractual conditions. Trace components usually reported by plasterboard manufacturers are paper and additives (see section 2.2.3). However, these trace components, among other technical and toxicological parameters, are limited by the different gypsum quality criteria developed (see section 2.1.5). The most important technical parameters are purity of the recycled gypsum, moisture, salts (chlorides) and paper content. All these parameters influence the plasterboard manufacturing process. 157 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Trace components first of all heavy metals are important in terms of the impact of human health and eco-toxicological issues. As gypsum products (plasterboards) generally are used in indoor locations the limitation of trace elements like heavy metals in recycled gypsum and other gypsum raw materials ensure that the human health is not restrained. The maximum inclusion of waste paper has to be controlled: higher paper content requires higher water demand for producing plaster slurry for plasterboard manufacturing combined with higher energy demand within the dryer, slowing the production rate and increasing costs. Besides, the higher the fibers content the shorter the setting time, because paper incorporates water. For all the above, the general practice is to control the paper content amount in the recycled gypsum generally below 1%. Other potential contaminants reported by the manufacturers and recyclers within the GtoG project are listed below: Asbestos. Some countries require an extensive analysis before any demolition or renovation work (see section 4.4.4.2). This analysis can be requested by the gypsum recycler. Vinyl based wall linings have to be separated beforethe processing, because the elasticity of the material makes difficult the crushing and tearing. Glass fibre mesh has to be separated from gypsum waste before the processing. Lead based paints.The gypsum waste received can require an analysis report confirming that the waste does not contain any lead based paint. Laminates and insulation material. They have to be processed by a specialist recycler at a higher cost. 2.2.2.4. Consistency of gypsum Consistency is closely related to both the supply volumes over time and the quality of recycled gypsum (type, grading, paper content, moisture...) Consistent volume and quality enables a uniform reincorporation of recycled content in the final board product, effectively promoting an increase in the recycled content without damaging the manufacturing process. Some manufacturers are not concerned with this variation in the supply, however,the recycled content input is calculated based on the amount of recycled gypsum available and the plasterboard produced. Furthermore, the amount of recycled gypsum available depends on the amount of gypsum waste generated.So a consistent volume of gypsum waste has to 158 DA.1: Inventory of current practices be assured to recyclers and recyclers need to assure a consistent volume of recycled gypsum to the manufacturing plants. When quality of the recycled gypsum varies, separate storage areas might be required. 2.2.2.5. Gypsum particle size When a manufacturer uses recycled gypsum delivered from a recycling company sometimes the recycled gypsum received isn't as fine as needed for its incorporation to the process. The particle size needed is regulated in the grinding process. 2.2.2.6. Impacts in the process The inclusion of recycled gypsum has a variable impact on gypsum stucco setting time and water demand, depending on the input. The European manufacturers experienced in this field with the result that it is easy to include recycled gypsum in a standard board provided that the quality requirements are fulfilled, but not in a specific plasterboard. 2.2.3. Consolidated results from the questionnaire received From February to March 2013, 35 filled questionnaires (see Annex 6) have been received by the European gypsum manufacturers. Only countries with a minimum of 3 questionnaires from 3 different companies have been consolidated as a separate country. The following countries/groups or countries have been studied: - Austria and Germany - Belgium and the Netherlands - France - Greece, Italy and Spain - Poland - The UK Tables 2-36 to 2-41 show the consolidated results of the answers received. 159 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 2.2.3.1. Austria and Germany AUSTRIA AND GERMANY Type of 2% recyclable plasterboard Production waste waste - Production 98% waste Construction and - Construction demolition waste and demolition plasterboard waste Companies process the plasterboard production waste without third parties and reincorporate it in the manufacturing process. Paper separation 40% from the core 60% Yes No gypsum of the production waste, before reincorporation in the Most of the manufacturers do not require separating the paper from manufacturing the gypsum core as the recycled gypsum reincorporated in the process process is so low that the paper remaining does not affect the manufacturing process This separation of the paper from the core gypsum is done by the producer. Average recycled gypsum 5%. reincorporated in the plasterboard This corresponds to the industry estimates for reincorporation of manufacturing production waste in the manufacturing process process Origin of recycled Plasterboard production waste, i.e Recycled gypsum derived from gypsum plasterboard waste arising from the plasterboard manufacturing process. An example would be out-of-specification boards. Approach to the GERMANY: the German Gypsum Industry (BV Gips) is starting to End-of-Waste implement a new recycling concept. Moreover, it has been confirmed status (EoW) that there is no need for waiting for an official end-of-waste status for according to starting to reincorporate recycled gypsum into the manufacturing article 6 of the process (for further details, see section 2.1.2.5) Waste Framework AUSTRIA: The government is working on new legal requirements, Directive which should become valid by 2017. 160 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Austria Cost reduction Sustainability Main drivers to recycle recyclable Germany plasterboard waste Resource efficiency Customer's request Green Public Procurement requirements Cost reduction Waste prevention Sustainability Main trace components Paper and additives like silicon, wax… found in the recycled gypsum Open loop or closed loop Close –loop recycling for production waste purposes Table 2-36. Consolidated results of Austrian and German manufacturers. In view of the above-mentioned, the way forward for those two countries would be: 1. Address the EoW status. As KNAUF Gips KG is a partner in the GtoG project, the German and Austrian gypsum market will benefit from the assessment of the end-of- waste status to be carried out during the pilot trials with the recyclers; 2. The study of the dismantling market in Germany and the pilot trial to be carried out in action B1, B2 and B3 will demonstrate the feasibility of reincorporating recyclable demolition plasterboard waste into the manufacturing process. 3. The study of the fiscal and environmentally legal regime in Germany for landfilling (see Annex 3) shows that in Germany recycling of post-consumer plasterboard waste is not yet established. First of all because of the lack of recycling activities and because of lower costs of legal alternative cheaper destinations of gypsum based waste (backfilling of open-cast mines) or disposal in landfilling sites without an imposed waste tax for such activity. 161 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 2.2.3.2. Belgium and the Netherlands BELGIUM AND THE NETHERLANDS 28% Production waste 72% Type of recyclable Construction and demolition plasterboard waste plasterboard waste - Production waste - Construction and demolition A higher proportion of construction and demolition plasterboard plasterboard waste waste is reincorporated in the manufacturing process. In Belgium, NWGR receive production, construction and demolition waste. NWGR knows the amount of production waste (received separately) but do not distinguish between construction and demolition waste received from collectors in a bulk. 40% Paper separation from the core 60% Yes No gypsum of the production waste, before reincorporation in the manufacturing process In the Netherlands not all the manufacturers separate the paper from the core. In Belgium the paper is separated before its reincorporation to the process. Average recycled gypsum reincorporated in 4.5% the plasterboard Up to 10% of reincorporation in Belgium. manufacturing process Plasterboard production waste Origin of recycled Plasterboard construction waste gypsum Plasterboard demolition waste Gypsum block waste 162 DA.1: Inventory of current practices BELGIUM: manufacturers have the possibility to apply for a regional “grondstofverklaring” (resource statement) with the Approach to the Public Waste Agency of Flanders (OVAM) to be used as End-of-Waste status secondary raw material. The use of recycled gypsum can also be (EoW) according to covered by the Environmental Permit. article 6 of the Waste Framework THE NETHERLANDS: No approach to the EoW status is Directive observed. Each company that wants to use recycled gypsum powder, can apply for a permit to do so at the local authorities (the county). Belgium Resource efficiency Customer's request Green Public Procurement requirements Main drivers to Product Marketing recycle recyclable plasterboard waste The Netherlands Resource efficiency Cost reduction Technical advantaje Main trace components found Paper coming from the plaster bags and wood pallets for the in the recycled gypsum blocks gypsum Open loop or closed Close loop loop purposes Table 2-37. Consolidated results of Belgian and Dutch manufacturers. In view of the above-mentioned, the way forward for those two countries would be: 1. Address the Eow more specifically. As Saint-Gobain Gyproc Belgium is a partner in the GtoG project, the Belgian and Austrian gypsum market will benefit from the assessment of the end-of-waste status to be carried out during the pilot trials with the recyclers in B2 and B3. 2. The landfill tax regime of Belgium and the Netherlands is appropriate for favouring the recycling route rather than the landfill route. However, further analysis should be carried on the export of recyclable plasterboard waste to Germany where the cost of recovery operations are far lower than in Belgium and the Netherlands making the recycling route less viable in practice. 3. Those two countries focus on closed loop recycling of construction and demolition waste. 163 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 2.2.3.3. France FRANCE Production waste 21% Type of recyclable plasterboard waste 79% - Production waste Construction and demolition plasterboard - Construction and demolition waste plasterboard waste A higher proportion of construction and demolition plasterboard waste is reincorporated in the manufacturing process. France is a countrry which very active in the reycling of recyclable plasterboard waste on a voluntary basis Paper separation from the core gypsum of the production waste, All the manufacturers separate the paper from the gypsum core before in their recycling facilities for production waste. reincorporation in the manufacturing process Average recycled gypsum 8% reincorporated in the plasterboard In this country, apart from NWGR, recyclers like Nantet manufacturing Locabennes and Ritleng Revalorisations are emerging. process Production Plasterboard waste Origin of recycled Construction and Demolition plasterboard waste gypsum Gypsum block waste Plaster moulds In France, there are discussion on the need-of-waste status Approach to the End- However plants are authorised to recycle recyclable of-Waste status (EoW) construction and demolition plasterboard waste thought he according to article 6 quantity of waste that they can treat depends on the permit of the Waste delivered for the plant. In france, ether is currently no specific Framework Directive need to achieve the EoW status. 164 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Resource efficiency Main drivers to Cost reduction recycle recyclable plasterboard waste GPP Requirements (HQE programs) Main trace components found in Silicon the recycled gypsum Open loop or closed Close loop loop purposes Table 2-38. Consolidated results of French manufacturers. In view of the above-mentioned, the way forward for France would be: 1. France is one of the benchmark countries in terms of recycling production, construction and demolition waste on a voluntary basis. In 2008, The French gypsum association committed to have a voluntary approach on this subject as the recycled gypsum will be the resource of 2050. This has led to an industry-wide effort in the plasterboard industry to increase recycling rates, which also partially has been successful. France is now between the best countries of the 8 investigated, but still far from the levels found in Belgium and Scandinavia. 2. Address the EoW status in order to assess the added value of this status. As Placoplatre and SINIAT France are partners in the GtoG project, the assessment of the end-of-waste status to be carried out during the pilot trials with the recyclers in B2 and B3 could maybe bring new elements of reflection to go or not towards an EoW status 3. Closed loop recycling is a characteristic of the French gypsum producers. 165 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 2.2.3.4. Greece, Italy and Spain GREECE, ITALY &SPAIN 0,003 Type of recyclable Production waste plasterboard waste - Production waste - Construction and 0,997 Construction and demolition demolition plasterboard plasterboard waste waste 44% Paper separation 56% from the core Yes No gypsum of the production waste, before reincorporation in the manufacturing Some of the manufacturers do not require to separate the paper process from the gypsum core as the recycled gypsum reincorporated in the process is so low that the paper remaining does not affect the manufacturing process This separation of the paper from the core gypsum is done by the producer Average recycled gypsum 4.5% reincorporated in the plasterboard This corresponds to the industry estimates for reincorporation of manufacturing production waste in the manufacturing process process Origin of recycled Production plasterboard waste gypsum GREECE and SPAIN: no approach to the EoW status for recycled gypsum. Approach to the ITALY: manufacturers are trying to achieve the EoW status End-of-Waste status Currently each recycling manager has to demonstrate to their (EoW) according to national authority upon request that the recycled gypsum has the same properties as the raw material and that the recycled article 6 of the gypsum is sold (to market) so that there is a market for the Waste Framework recycled gypsum. Manufacturers have difficulties to obtain Directive licences for waste collection due to regulations rules and administration procedures. Local authorities checking the recycling plants do not rely on specific guidance to do a proper checking according of legislation. 166 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Greece and Italy Resource efficiency Customer's request Cost savings Product Marketing Sustainability commitment Main drivers to recycle gypsum waste Spain Resource efficiency Customer request Product marketing Prevent waste disposal in landfill Corporate environmental responsability Main trace components found in Paper and additives the recycled gypsum Open loop or closed Most of the manufacturers interviewed recycle into new loop purposes plasterboard. Close loop Table 2-39. Consolidated results of Greek, Italian and Spanish manufacturers. In view of the above-mentioned, the way forward for those three countries would be: 1. Address the EoW status. There is no concrete pilot project in those countries. But the results of B2 (valorisation of gypsum waste) and B3 (reincorporation into the manufacturing process) will be transferred to the manufacturers. Those results will boost their activities in terms of recycling recyclable plasterboard waste and help them to take the regulatory actions at national level to make the value chain effective 2. The study of the dismantling market in Europe (see 3 and 4.3) and the pilot trial to be carried out in action B1 (deconstruction), B2 (valorisation of gypsum waste) and B3 (reincorporation into the manufacturing process) will demonstrate the feasibility of reincorporating recyclable demolition plasterboard waste into the manufacturing process.The project will thus enhance the refection of those countries to go for dismantling and thus towards a recycling route rather than a landfill one, which is currently the case. 3. On the basis of point 5.2 (regulation tables) of this report, the countries should assess how the landfill tax regime in their country could be enhanced to divert C&D waste from landfill. Higher landfill taxes are necessary to divert C&D waste from landfill. 167 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 2.2.3.5. Poland POLAND Type of recyclable 1% plasterboard waste Production waste - Production waste - Construction and 99% Construction and demolition demolition plasterboard waste plasterboard waste Paper separation from the core No manufacturer separates the paper from gypsum at internal gypsum of the sources. Manufacturers do not require to separate the paper from production waste, the gypsum core as the recycled gypsum reincorporated in the before process is so low that the paper remaining does not affect the reincorporation in manufacturing process This separation of the paper from the core the manufacturing gypsum is done by the producer. process Average recycled gypsum 4% reincorporated in the plasterboard This corresponds to the industry estimates for reincorporation of manufacturing production waste in the manufacturing process process Origin of recycled Mainly plasterboard. Production plasterboard waste gypsum Approach to the End-of-Waste status (EoW) according to No approach to the EoW status article 6 of the Waste Framework Directive Resource efficiency Cost reduction Prevent waste disposal in landfill Main drivers to Improvement of raw material quality recycle gypsum waste Customer request Product marketing Cost savings Main trace components found in No trace components are named the recycled gypsum 168 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Open loop or closed Close loop loop purposes Table 2-40. Consolidated results of Polish manufacturers. In view of the above-mentioned, the way forward for Poland would be: 1. Address the EoW status. There is no concrete pilot project in those countries. But the results of B2 (valorisation of gypsum waste) and B3 (reincorporation into the manufacturing process) will be transferred to the manufacturers. Those results will boost their activities in terms of recycling recyclable plasterboard waste and help them to take the regulatory actions at national level to make the value chain effective 2. The study of the dismantling market in Europe (see 3 and 4.3) and the pilot trial to be carried out in action B1, B2 and B3 will demonstrate the feasibility of reincorporating recyclable demolition plasterboard waste into the manufacturing process. The project will thus enhance the refection of those countries to go for dismantling and thus towards a recycling route rather than a landfill one, which is currently the case. In Poland, there is currently a strong culture of demolition and not separation of gypsum based waste at source. 3. On the basis of point 5 of this report, the countries should assess how the landfill tax regime in their country could be enhanced to divert C&D waste from landfill. Higher landfill taxes are necessary to divert C&D waste from landfill. 169 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 2.2.3.6. The UK UNITED KINGDOM Type of recyclable plasterboard waste Production waste - Production waste 47% 53% - Construction and Construction and demolition demolition plasterboard waste plasterboard waste Paper separation from the core 25% gypsum of the production waste, 75% Yes No before reincorporation in the manufacturing process Average recycled gypsum 4% reincorporated in the plasterboard Below average as normally the percentage for reincorporating in manufacturing the manufacturing process is already 5% process Plasterboard and plaster production wasteplasterboard and Origin of recycled plaster from new build construction sites. Mixed waste from gypsum construction, demolition and municipal sites. Approach to the End-of-Waste status (EoW) according to The EoW status is governed by the Environment Agency’s “Quality article 6 of the Protocol for Recycled Gypsum from Waste Plasterboard”. Waste Framework Directive Resource efficiency Cost savings Prevent waste disposal in landfill Main drivers to recycle recyclable Market advantage plasterboard Customer request waste Industry voluntary agreement with government Need to develop future sources of gypsum Government pressure 170 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Main trace components found The contaminants are wood, plastic, metal… in the recycled gypsum Open loop or closed Both closed loop and open loop loop purposes Table 2-41. Consolidated results of British manufacturers. In view of the above-mentioned, the way forward for the UK would be: 1. The UK is another example of good practices for recycling recyclable plasterboard waste on a voluntary basis. However, the percentage of reincorporation of the recycled gypsum into the manufacturing process is relatively low (4%) in comparison to France (8%). Perhaps, the fact that gypsum waste goes towards open recycling (105,000 tonnes in 2012) is one of the reason of that difference. As Siniat UK is a partner to the project, further assessments should be done to explain this discrepancy during the pilot trials in B2 (valorisation of gypsum waste) and B3 (reincorporation into the manufacturing process. 2. The EoW status has been obtained for recycled gypsum and specification carried out by WRAP in the Pas 109. The latter will be the basis for the GtoG partners assessment in action B2 (valorisation of gypsum waste) and B3 (reincorporation into the manufacturing process. 3. The Ashdown Agreement (see 2.1.2.3.2. of the report), on Plasterboard Recycling between the Gypsum Products Development Association (GPDA) and Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP) which took effect took effect from 1 April 2007, has increased the amount of plasterboard waste recycled and therefore diverted from landfill, but the main route for the waste still is not recycling but application on farm land. Demolition waste remains an issue that will find a potential solution during the pilot project B1. 171 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 2.2.4. Conclusions and recommendations The following table 2-42 summarizes the consolidated results from the questionnaires received from the European Gypsum Industry. Countries Closed loop Recycling practices EoW status Most listed driver for recycling under study versus open loop Production and C&D Resource efficiency, customer's Belgium Close loop Not an issue plasterboard waste request and GPP requirements Production and C&D France Close loop Not an issue Cost reduction plasterboard waste Germany Only production waste Close loop Strive to achieve this status Resource efficiency Greece Only production waste Close loop Not an issue Customer's request and cost savings Poland Only production waste Close loop Not an issue Improvement of raw material quality Spain Only production waste Close loop Not an issue Resource efficiency The Production and C&D Close loop Not an issue Resource efficiency Netherlands plasterboard waste Production and C&D Open and closed Obtained for recycled Industry voluntary agreement with TARGETS COUNTRIES IN THE GTOG PROJECT THE IN GTOG COUNTRIES TARGETS The UK plasterboard waste loop recycling gypsum government Austria Only production waste Close loop Strive to achieve this status Cost reduction and sustainability OTHERS Italy Only production waste Close loop Strive to achieve this status Customer's request and cost savings Table 2-42. Summary of the current situation concerning recycling practices and facing the European Gypsum Industry. 172 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Recycling practices: The European Plasterboard manufacturers in the countries analysed recycle production waste as part as their waste avoidance corporate policy. 4 countries (Belgium, France, the Netherland and the UK) out of the 8 target countries are currently recycling C&D waste. Belgium, France, the Netherlands and the UK have voluntary agreements in place with authorities to increase the recyclability of gypsum based waste. Closed – Open loop recycling: Closed loop always for production waste in all the countries interviewed. Only closed loop recycling for C&D recyclable plasterboard waste is conducted in Belgium, France and the Netherlands Open and closed loop recycling for C&D recyclable plasterboard waste in the UK. The following table summarizes the closed loop recycling and the activities that it involves: CLOSED LOOP RECYCLING Production Construction Demolition plasterboard waste plasterboard waste plasterboard waste Sorting, separation and transport Storage in the own manufacturing plant, other plant or by a third Collection in civic amenity centres or waste transfer party (recycler) station, by a recycler, by the plasterboard manufacturer Processing of the recyclable gypsum waste by the manufacturer or by a third party (recycler) Reincorporation of the recycled gypsum by the manufacturer Table 2-43. Closed loop recycling summary. By promoting closed loop recycling and the use of FGD Gypsum, the European plasterboard industry spare natural resources by quarrying less. Reliable substitutes for natural gypsum are extremely important for the industry. 173 DA.1: Inventory of current practices EoW status: The UK obtained the EoW status for recycled gypsum. Germany, Austria and Italy are striving for the EoW status. The rest of countries do not mention it as an issue. OVERALL RECOMMENDATION Landfill taxes should be harmonized for all EU countries. Currently the tax regime is promoting the landfill route rather than the recycling route (see section 5) and waste streams are being delivered from one country to another. 174 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 3. DECONSTRUCTION: ESSENTIAL COMPONENT OF SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY Main stakeholders of a deconstruction project The most common organization of the usual stakeholders in the different countries under study in the GtoG project have been identified throughout the progress of a demolition of a refurbishment project and also different specificities are listed. The detailed example of Greece is presented in this section. Rest of the countries can be found in section 5.2. Annexes – Stakeholders involved in a demolition project in the different countries. Practices and waste management during a deconstruction and a refurbishment project The organisation of waste management prior to the works, waste management during the work, logistics schemes and traceability and the economical approach of a refurbishment operation are deeply analyzed within this section. To properly manage C&D wastes in the construction works, a separation and selection of those recyclable wastes must be done "in situ". This practice is even more important when demolishing a building, as it is in the demolitions where more C&D wastes are generated. The main obstacle facing the selective demolition, today, is the fact that both architects and builders, saw their creations as permanent and did not for see the dismantling at the end of the useful life of the building. Designing a building in order to ease its assembly must also lead to ease of its disassembly, for future re-uses and recycling. Principles of design for ease of assembly, or ease of construction, should be adapted to become principles of designing for disassembly. The main difference between demolition and deconstruction is that the second one pays special attention not damage building materials so these can be re-used or recycled in the future. Designing a building for ease of assembly must also lead to ease of disassembly for future re-use and recycling. Principles of design for ease of assembly, or ease of construction, should be adapted to become principles of design for disassembly. Demolition results in a non-homogenous heap of damaged materials. The recyclability of these materials is thus reduced by the demolition process itself. Direct re-use and upcyling of building materials generally requires that they be recovered in good condition. Demolition frequently damages building materials to the point that their only usefulness lies in being downcycled to less valuable materials. This reduction of the recyclability of the materials serves to reduce their economic value, 175 DA.1: Inventory of current practices increase their future negative effect on the waste stream, and increase the future necessity of raw materials extraction to take their place.65 Deconstruction, on the other hand, serves to increase the recyclability of raw materials. Deconstruction results in numerous piles of homogenous building materials with minimal damage. This is because time and care are taken in recovering and sorting materials with as little negative effect on their quality as is humanly possible. The two factors unique to deconstruction that increase the recyclability of building materials are its organizational nature and the lack of damage incurred by the materials during the recovery process.66 65Deconstruction and material reuse in the US. Abdol R. Chini and Stuart F. Bruening, The Future of sustainable construction, 2003. 66 Deconstruction and material reuse in the US. Abdol R. Chini and Stuart F. Bruening, The Future of sustainable construction, 2003. 176 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 3.1. MAIN STAKEHOLDERS OF A DECONSTRUCTION PROJECT The identification of the main stakeholders involved throughout a demolition or a refurbishment project is essential to properly identify their role and the weight of their decision on the management of wastes. 177 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 3.1.1. Usual stakeholder and general organization The most common organization and the usual stakeholders in the countries of the study are presented below. Progress of the demolition or of Stakeholders involved Roles the refurbishment project - The project owner – also named the client in the UK – is the contracting Start of the project Project owner authority on behalf of whom the works are carried out. It may be a public body or a private company. - An entity or a person is generally appointed by the project owner (or its representative according to the country) to fulfil different tasks because of its technical expertise. He is named the project manager (Greece, the UK, France), the client’s agent (the UK), the architect in Belgium and the Netherlandsor the technician (Spain) and can be an architect (in the sense of designer of the building), a specialized consultant, a building engineer, an industrial engineer or a public organization according to the country. In Spain, Studies prior to the the technician drafts the demolition project. - The diagnosticians are privately owned companies in charge of the asbestos project: asbestos and Project Diagnosticians and lead assessment, audit and lead the assessment in terms of quantity and location. They need an manager or specialized authorization to practice this activity, excepted in Belgium where diagnostics can the materials, other technician consultants studies be done by any company. But the diagnosticians can’t be already implied in the project (as consultant, project manager or demolition company for instance). They must be neutral parties. In Poland, the project manager is in charge of the asbestos and lead assessments. In Spain, the hazardous waste assessment is foresaw by the technician; there is no diagnostician. - The specialized consultants are engineering consultants from private companies specialized in studies prior to the work (architectural and structural studies, plumbing, environmental issues etc.). Worksite Demolition company - The demolition company is responsible for all the aspects of the works during the demolition, ensuring security, structural and waste management, etc. on site. Table 3-1. Usual stakeholder and general organization. 178 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 3.1.2. Countries specificities According to the interviews carried out in the different countries, some other stakeholders are sometimes involved and are presented below. - In the UK, in France and in Germany a consultant is generally in charge of the assessment of the global cost of the project. He is named the economist in France the quantity surveyor in the UK and the engineering office of project management office in Germany. He is most of the time the first contact of the project owner. - In the UK, in Spain and in Germany, the first contact can also be the designer or the architect. He is a consultant who gives to the project owner a conceptual appreciation of the project and on the actual design. - In Greece, in France, in Germany and, more rarely, in Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands, the project owner can appoint a person to undertake the realization of the project. In Greece it is the role of the principal contractor, which is a private organization and most of the time a construction company. The principal contractor prepares and implements the realization of the project taking into account the studies of the specialized consultants. In France and in Germany, it is the role of the project owner representative, which will exercise all or a part of the project owner responsibilities. - In Greece, in the UK and in France, an assistant to the project on environmental issues is sometimes appointed. He is a consultant mainly responsible of the compliance with the environmental legislation. In the UK, it is most of the time the role of the principal contractor that is the demolition or the construction company, but only during the demolition phase. - In France and in the UK, a person/organization is appointed to advise the client on health and safety matters. He is the CDM Coordinator (Construction Design Management Coordinator). 179 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 3.1.3. Detailed example of Greece The detailed example of Greece is presented below. The detailed organization, respectively for Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Spain and the UK is presented in the annexes. Progress Stakeholders involved Roles Project owner The project owner assigns to specialized consultants whatever preliminary studies are needed for the project (architectural, static, Start of the plumbing, electromechanical studies etc). Based on these studies he project asks for technical and financial offers from construction companies and selects one to assign the project. Specialized consultants The construction company selected acts as the principal contractor that prepares and implements the realization of the project taking into Principal account the studies of the specialized consultants. It appoints the Studies prior to contractor project manager who organizes, coordinates and supervises the the project: realization of the project. The construction company is also responsible for audits and additional studies that may be needed for the project, asbestos which it either performs internally or assigns to other subcontractors. Big assessment, construction companies may have a consultant on environmental audit the issues responsible of the compliance with the environmental legislation. materials, other The demolition company is in charge of carrying out of the studies Consultant on demolition/deconstruction, ensuring security and waste management on Project manager environmental issues site. It is supervised on site by an engineer of the construction company. In many cases the demolition company acts as the ECDW manager for the project and removes the waste from the worksite and delivers it to an authorized collective alternative ECDW management system. Otherwise Worksite an ECDW collector is subcontracted by the construction company. In any case according to current national legislation the project’s ECDW Demolition manager has a contract with an approved alternative ECDW company management system. Table 3-2. Detailed example of Greece 180 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 3.2. PRACTICES AND WASTE MANAGEMENT DURING A DECONSTRUCTION AND A REFURBISHMENT PROJECT 3.2.1. Organisation of waste This part deals will the consideration of the wastes prior to the beginning of the works. 3.2.1.1. Waste treatment criteria to award a contract From the point of view of the demolition companies in Belgium, in the Netherlands and in France, it seems that although waste treatment cost is impacting the global cost of a project, it is rarely a criterion that enables a demolition company to differentiate from its competitors. But this is not true for big companies whom the activities are also asbestos removal or which have a transfer station, etc. In these cases, the companies succeed to have competitive prices. Nevertheless, in Greece, Germany, the UK and France, waste management is generally a criterion taken into account by the stakeholders in charge of the choice of the demolition company. This is especially the case in the scope of environmental approaches (BREEAM, HQE and LEED). If it is not the case, some project managers and consultants ask the project owner to take this criterion into account. This can be a specific criterion or a part of the environmental criterion. Its importance changes a lot from a project owner to another and from a project to another. Yet in France, some interviewees pointed out that this criterion has a really low impact on the choice. Indeed, most of the demolition companies submit the same basic waste management plans. As a result, they rarely differentiate from their competitors on that point. 3.2.1.2. Recycling objectives and specific requirements In the countries where principal contractors, project owner and project managers have been interviewed (Belgium, France, Germany and Greece), even if waste management is generally a criterion when awarding a contract to a demolition company, it is rare that the stakeholders have specific requirements about waste management. In France, when there are some requirements, it comes from consultants in environmental issues who sometimes recommend streaming the waste on site when it is possible. Some of them have their own chart that they add to the contractual file intended to the demolition companies. If this chart is not respected, there can be financial penalties. But resort to financial penalties for waste management is really rare. 181 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Some consultants directly search recycling outlets and try to develop partnerships with producers to recycle wastes. Even if it is really rare that the project owners have specific requirements, it is usual that the demolition companies have qualitative and quantitative objectives for the outlets of different types of waste. This is the case of France, the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany. But it is rather rare in Greece; although that amongst the demolishers interviewed a few of them appear to set quantitative or at least qualitative waste recycling objectives for some types of materials. As far as the English demolition companies are concerned, the objective aimed for plasterboards (no plaster block used in the UK), is most of the time to send 100% to a transfer station. In Belgium and in the Netherlands, some companies aim for high rate of recycling (80 to 95%) for plasterboards and gypsum blocks but some others systematically send it to landfill. In France, some demolition companies have also qualitative and quantitative waste recycling objectives but it is less systematic. These objectives generally target the recycling of 50% to 95% of plasterboards and gypsum blocks in weight. The recycling rate of plasterboards and gypsum blocks targeted sometimes vary from a project to another. It can also be rates to achieve for any project. If the project owner requires objectives, the company will try to reach them or will do its best to achieve these objectives. But some companies interviewed don’t have any recycling objective for gypsum-based waste and send it to landfill for non hazardous waste or to a transfer station without wondering whether these wastes will be recycled or sent to landfill. In Greece, some demolition companies authorized for waste management set quantitative or at least qualitative waste recycling objectives, mainly for scrap metal, wood and paper, but it seems that these objectives do not really concern gypsum-based waste. 3.2.2. Waste management during the works 3.2.2.1. Organisation of the waste management on site Regarding the organization of waste management on site, in the UK, France, Belgium and the Netherlands, this is most of the time one duty among others of the demolition project manager, or of the project manager in Germany. The appointment of a person specifically in charge of waste management on the works is rare. Indeed, from the point of view of most of the demolition companies interviewed, waste management and logistics are organized prior to the start of the work. Waste management plan is drawn up during the phase of the studies. Thus, there is generally no need of a specifically appointed person to manage waste on the jobsite, all the more since the staff from the demolition company is practically always trained in waste segregation. 182 DA.1: Inventory of current practices In some cases, a person is appointed specifically but this organization concerns especially large jobsites. He can be the project environmental manager. In France big companies which belong to a group sometimes call on the “waste branch” of the group.But it is rather rare that the companies work with an external company. When it happens, the latter will work especially on the outlets research. The case of Greece and Spain is slightly different because waste segregation usually does not take place on site. Both countries generally crush construction and demolition wastes not segregated in skips or sometimes on the ground (Greece). Then, it is sent by truck to transfer station or landfill. This type of organization doesn’t necessitate a specific organization on the jobsite. 3.2.2.2. Main deconstruction practices and logistics 3.2.2.2.1. Stripping out of gypsum-based waste In the countries usually practising deconstruction (the UK, France, Belgium, the Netherlands), plasterboard is often stripped out on site by hand. Most of the time the fixing (screws, nails) and undesirable materials (cables, various plastics) are removed on site and the channel is taken off. Wall covering (paper and painting) are left on. The pictures below show a manual strip out operation of plasterboards in France, using a shovel. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Figure 3-1. Manual strip out operation of plasterboards. 183 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Another manual tool can also be used: the sabre saw. The pictures below shows a strip out operation of plasterboard partition using a sabre saw, on a French work. The worker has to wear a personal protective equipment that covers almost 100% of his body, so as to avoid the dust that can trigger itching and breathing difficulties but without harmful consequences. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Figure 3-2. Manual strip out operation of plasterboards. Copyright Recovering Sarl. The pictures below show a dismantling operation using cutting chisels, on a German jobsite: Figure 3-3. Manual strip out operation of plasterboards. Copyright KS Engineering. 184 DA.1: Inventory of current practices The pictures below show wooden frames (used for sandwich panels) dismantling using a wrecking bar on a jobsite in the UK: Figure 3-4. Manual strip out operation of plasterboards. Copyright Cantillon. More rarely, small machines (hydraulic machines, compact excavators or other) can also be used when there is enough space on the site. For instance, in Belgium, sorting grab is sometimes used for plasterboards and gypsum blocks dismantling. Regarding gypsum blocks, they can be deconstructed with a sledgehammer after having removed other type of waste found on site. The pictures below show an example of gypsum blocks dismantling in France: 185 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Figure 3-5. Example of gypsum blocks dismantling in France. Copyright Recovering Sarl. In the UK, gypsum blocks are generally not used. 186 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 3.2.2.2.2. Storage and removal of gypsum-based waste from the site Regarding the storage and the removal of plasterboards and gypsum blocks, countries where deconstruction is common must be distinguished from countries where demolition is the standard practice. In the countries doing essentially deconstruction (the UK, the Netherlands, Belgium, France and Germany), after the strip out phase, gypsum-based wastes are generally segregated from the other waste. Plasterboards and gypsum blocks are generally mixed together whenever they are both used. Some demolishers segregate plasterboards from gypsum blocks, especially to save room in the skips (better tidying up). Then, regarding the storage, plasterboards – and blocks when these latter are used – are most of the time stored in separate waste skips before the removal. The skips are sometimes covered – especially in the UK – but also uncovered. In some rare cases, in France, Belgium and the Netherlands, plasterboards and blocks are stored covered or uncovered on the ground or in big bags but the latter is done only for low quantities or when there is not a lot of space and remains really marginal. The picture below shows plasterboards stored on the ground inside of the building before their removal on a French jobsite. Figure 3-6. Plasterboards stored on the ground inside of the building before their removal. Copyright Recovering Sarl. 187 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Regarding the removal, the gypsum-based wastes are often removed in separate skips, even if they are not intended to recycling. Two main reasons have been identified: - On the jobsites, certain materials as concrete, wood and metals, are systematically segregated to be recycled. Doing this segregation, the companies segregate also gypsum- based waste especially to avoid concrete contamination, which would make concrete unrecyclable. - Plus, one other main driver for gypsum-based waste sorting is that most of the time, whatever the outlet is, it is less expensive for segregated waste than for mixed ones. The pictures below show one skip for the removal of plasterboards and one other for the removal of gypsum blocks, in France. Figure 3-7. One skip for the removal of plasterboards and one other for the removal of gypsum blocks. Copyright Recovering Sarl. When there are small quantities of these wastes, when they are sent to transfer station or to landfills, it is usual that plasterboards and gypsum blocks are removed with other non- hazardous waste. The organization is noticeably different in countries usually practicing demolition. Thus, in Greece, Spain and Poland, plasterboards and gypsum blocks are generally mixed with other construction and demolition wastes. Then, they are stored on the ground or in skips, usually uncovered. They are generally removed not segregated from the site mixed with other non hazardous waste and inert wastes sometimes. They will be segregated, if ever, after removal from the site, usually at the transfer station. 188 DA.1: Inventory of current practices In Spain transfer stations generally do not work with segregated gypsum-based waste. If they accept it, it is a common practice to mix it with the rest of the C&D wastes. 3.2.3. Logistics schemes and traceability 3.2.3.1. Logistic scheme The figure below shows the different flows of gypsum-based waste from the jobsite to the different outlets in most of the countries. GBW segregated or mixed JOBSITE with other wastes Transport by the Transport by a demolition company third party PLATFORM Transfer station RECYCLER GBW recycling unit OUTLETS Plasterboard Agriculture/ Landfill plant Cement facilities Figure 3-8. Different flows of gypsum-based waste from the jobsite to the different outlets in most of the countries. It appears that the logistic schemes are complex. They depend in particular on the presence or not of a type of outlet in a certain area. The figure above represents the most common organization but there are specificities according to the country. More information would be necessary to study in details these specificities. In Germany and in France for instance, the principal outlets are landfill for non hazardous wastes and recycling. In the UK, the main outlet for the use of gypsum powder obtained from wastes is the agricultural market. 189 DA.1: Inventory of current practices In Spain and Greece, there is no recycling facility for gypsum-based waste. Thus, in Spain, landfilling is the common outlet. In Greece, since gypsum-based waste is not segregated from the C&D waste stream and is treated mixed with bulk inert waste, the common outlets are the market of inert materials for backfilling operations, concrete additives, landfilling and approved sites for inert materials’ disposal (such as inactive quarries). 3.2.3.2. Waste traceability In Germany, the UK, France, Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands, the demolition companies sometimes directly carry out waste collection going in the outlets (transport) and sometimes require a third party (waste transport company). This choice is often specific to the project – its size, its geographical location – and to the costs generated. The demolition companies which do not directly carry out waste collection and require a third party (waste transport company) rarely require other tracking records than the regulatory ones. The Waste Framework directive 2008/98/EC, in its article 35 requires for hazardous wastes “a chronological record of the quantity, nature and origin of the waste, and, where relevant, the destination, frequency of collection, mode of transport and treatment method foreseen in respect of the waste”. But regarding non hazardous waste, MS are free to have the same requirements than for hazardous waste or not. Thus, Greece legislation requires that the establishments or undertakings that transport non hazardous waste keep the records mentioned in the Waste Framework directive for at least two years. The situation is almost the same in France: tracking records are only regulatory for hazardous waste but since the 29 February 2012, any operator of transfer station or waste treatment plant has to draw up and update a chronological register of outgoing wastes, whatever the waste category is. In Germany, the demolition companies commonly use a consignment note and a weight note for non hazardous waste but it is not regulatory. For hazardous wastes, the companies use an “accompanying document”. The disposal of more than 20 tonnes per construction project requires the use of an electronic register (“eANV – electronic waste record procedure”). In the UK, a transfer note is produced for the transfer of “controlled waste”. Thus, the national regulations about waste traceability are not really restricting towards non inert non hazardous wastes as gypsum based waste. As a result, when wastes are sent to transfer station – which represents a large part of gypsum-based wastes –, most of the time the demolition companies don’t know where the 190 DA.1: Inventory of current practices wastes are finally sent (landfill for non hazardous waste or recycling generally). From the transfer station, it is not clear where the waste goes.For instance in Greece, the principal contractor of a demolition project has the regulatory obligation to have a contract with an approved alternative ECDW management system to which the waste must end up. According to some stakeholders interviewed this obligation is met. However it does not appear as common practice for construction or demolition companies to confirm the final outlets of the waste by keeping tracking records, with a few exceptions due to the company policy. In France, some companies require the weighing voucher of the transfer station, the haulage contractor approval or also the collecting company approval but this is really marginal. Thus, it appears that the traceability is really difficult to establish, especially when there is no document of traceability required by the legislation. However, the countries have to monitor qualitatively and quantitatively the rates of construction and demolition wastes to know if the European objectives of 70% is met. As a consequence, it is essential to follow waste flows not only form the jobsite to the transfer stations, but also and above all, from the transfer station to the final outlets. 3.2.4. Conclusions and recommendations In Belgium, in the Netherlands and in France, there are barely differences between Demolition Companies as most of the demolition companies submit the same basic waste management plans. Expect for companies whom the activities are also asbestos removal or which have a transfer station, etc. In these cases, the companies succeed to have competitive prices. In France, the UK, Belgium, and the Netherlands demolition companies have qualitative and quantitative objectives for the outlets of different types of waste, but by the other hand in Greece only a few of them appear to set quantitative or at least qualitative waste recycling objectives for some types of materials. Demolition companies from the UK aimed for plasterboards (no plaster block used in the UK), is most of the time to send 100% to a transfer station; in Belgium and the Netherlands the goal is to recycling (80 to 95%) for plasterboards and gypsum blocks. In France demolition companies have a similar goal, to recycle of 50% to 95% of plasterboards and gypsum blocks. By the other hand Greece demolition companies are not really concerned by these objectives. There are considerable differences between countries which usually practice demolition and countries which do not. In the countries where deconstruction is a usual practice (the UK, France, Belgium, the Netherlands) gypsum-based wastes are generally segregated from the other waste, but in countries where this practice is not usual (Greece, Spain, Poland) 191 DA.1: Inventory of current practices plasterboards and gypsum blocks are generally mixed with other construction and demolition wastes. Legislation does not require traceability documents; this makes it difficult to establish waste traceability. It is essential to follow waste flows not only form the jobsite to the transfer stations, but also and above all, from the transfer station to the final outlets. Thus it is recommended that legislation requires traceability documents, as the countries have to monitor qualitatively and quantitatively the rates of construction and demolition wastes in order to each European objectives of 70%. 192 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 4. DRIVERS AND BARRIERS FOR RECYCLING GYPSUM WASTE SUMMARY The main drivers for “deconstruction” versus “demolition” have been identified, covering the following: Environmental issues Image of the stakeholders involved Economic issues Regulation Proper management of Construction & Demolition (C&D) gypsum waste. In Belgium, France the Netherlands and the UK deconstruction is sometimes observed, whereas in Poland, Greece and Spain different reasons currently lead to demolition practices. Furthermore, the drivers leading the Gypsum Industry to reincorporate recycled gypsum into their process have been also collected: Cost reduction Customer request Green Public Procurement (GPP) Industry Voluntary Agreement (Vas) Product marketing Resource efficiency Sustainability commitment 4.1. PRACTICES: PERCEPTION OF THE DEMOLITION AND OF THE DECONSTRUCTION IN EACH COUNTRY 4.1.1. Perception and practices In this report, demolition and deconstruction are studied as operating procedures that can be carried out on two different types of operations: light or heavy refurbishment and complete elimination of the building. 193 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Regarding these two different operating procedures -demolition and deconstruction practices- the countries studied can be categorized as follow. On the one hand, there are countries which are mainly doing demolition and not deconstruction of buildings, with the exception of projects with particular requirements, specifications or conditions. This is the case of Poland, Greece and Spain. In these countries, there is a clear distinction between the terms “demolition” and “deconstruction” by the different stakeholders interviewed but demolition is perceived as more economically favourable versus deconstruction. However, it appears that this idea is not based on actual technical and economical assessment studies. Since such studies do not constitute a requirement, they are not elaborated by the majority of companies, with the possible exception of being indicated by company policy (this usually applies to big construction companies) or by the technical specifications of particular projects. Plus, the lack of trained and specialized personnel in certain countries (knowledge of deconstruction techniques), as well as the lack of market for most of the C&D materials in these countries and the considerably less time required for the demolition, are the reasons that lead to the demolition practice. But the most significant barrier in adopting and reassuring an environmentally friendly methodology that has been identified is the complete lack of inspection mechanisms. On the other hand, in the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands, France and Germany, it is usual to deconstruct buildings. It is rather rare that anyone would not strip out all of the internal fixtures and fittings before demolishing the structure when it is made of concrete or brick. But in Germany and the UK, this practice is called “demolition”, not “deconstruction”. Some others person interviewed in France consider that the deconstruction is an element of the demolition process in the meaning of “soft strip”. This last perception is also the one of Belgium and of the Netherlands. From the point of view of some other interviewees in France, the word “deconstruction” would supplant little by little the word “demolition”. In certain countries, some non-regulatory documents have been published about demolition, deconstruction or waste management. Thus, in Spain it exists a specific national non-regulatory document for demolition practices, published in 1975, where deconstruction and waste management are not contemplated (MINISTERIO DE VIVIENDA., 1975. Norma Tecnológica de la Edificación NTE-ADD/1975 "Acondicionamiento del terreno. Desmontes y Demoliciones". Norma Tecnológica de la Edificación. Madrid).The requirement to take place is a project approved by the Official College and developed by a qualified technician (architect, building engineer, engineer or similar). It is up to each demolisher the practice to follow. Another example is the one of France. The Agency for the Environment and Energy Management (ADEME) published to main guides: Reduce and manage demolition wastes: methodology and operational tools, in 2009 andBuildings deconstruction: a new job for sustainable development, in 2003. Plus, in 2009, David BLUTEAU published an article 194 DA.1: Inventory of current practices entitled: Towards a selective deconstruction, or how to preserve resources. In this article, the different techniques to demolish and the methodology to deconstruct a building are presented. These two practices are compared from different points of view and more especially on the economical and technical aspects. 4.1.2. Drivers for “deconstruction” versus “demolition” After having an idea of the usual practices (demolition or deconstruction) in the different countries of the study, the drivers leading to the deconstruction practice have been studied. The interviewees have been asked their point of view about the project owner or the project owner representative drivers towards deconstruction practices. Throughout the interviews, four main drivers that could lead to deconstruction versus demolition were identified. The Figure below shows the importance of the different drivers for the interviewees in the UK, France, Belgium and the Netherlands. As an example: Drivers towards deconstruction per country 120% 100% Other 80% Technique Security 60% Image Environmental drivers 40% Regulation 20% Economic 0% Belgium and France UK the Netherlands Figure 4-1. Importance of the drivers towards deconstruction practices for Belgium and the Netherlands, France and the UK. This Figure is based on the consolidation of 32 questionnaires from demolishers, project owners, project managers and consultants. The 4 main drivers named by the interviewees are developed below. 195 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 4.1.2.1. Environmental driver The environment is one of the main drivers identified in each country of the study. It can be the environmental consciousness but it is most of the time in the scope of an environmental certification. Moreover, the latter reason tallies with the image driver, which is developed later on. In the UK, France, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands, more and more project owners adopt environmentally friendly approaches like BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) for instance. BREEAM is the reference table the most used in the countries of the study but other environmental certifications exist and some are specific to a country. For instance, there is the HQE (High Environmental Quality) in France. These certifications generally measure the environmental performance of a building or a project and aim to improve the conception or the refurbishment of building, limiting as much as possible harmful impacts on the environment. 4.1.2.2. Image of the stakeholder The image of the stakeholders is closely linked with the environmental driver. Indeed, many project owners adopt an environmental approach so as to give a good image to the public. Indeed, deconstruction allows for instance to have a worksite cleaner than with demolition and will give a better image to the population. Plus, when a project owner adopts an environmental approach as BREEAM or other, he communicates a lot on this point to show its environmental consciousness. This positive image is also important for the other stakeholders involved and especially for the demolition company as a waste manager on the jobsite. 4.1.2.3. Economical driver As it was said before, in the countries where demolition practice is usual, deconstruction is generally perceived as more costly, which is a driver to choose demolition. On the contrary, in the countries where deconstruction is the common practice, it is generally perceived as a way to optimize the costs, which is a major driver for deconstruction. Indeed, for instance in most of the countries studied, the outlets are often more expensive for mixed waste than for segregated ones so the company have more interest in deconstruction and waste sorting on site when it is possible. 196 DA.1: Inventory of current practices So, although that these ideas are rarely based on economical studies comparing deconstruction and demolition, it appears that whatever the practice is, economical aspects are a major driver for one or the other practice. This economical aspect will be developed later. 4.1.2.4. Regulation In the 8 countries of the study, there is no statutory or regulatory requirement when choosing to demolish or deconstruct buildings. However, in most of the countries studied, national legislation makes reference on taking measures for selective demolition. For instance, in Spain, the Royal Decree requires to separate certain C&D wastes when the assessed quantities are over certain given tonnages (80 t of concrete, 2 t of metal, etc.), in order to facilitate further recovery. Although this requirement does not concern gypsum- based waste specifically, the segregation of the other C&D wastes can lead to gypsum- based wastes sorting. The regulatory audit of the materials prior to demolition in France is another example of regulatory requirement which encourage buildings deconstruction. 4.1.2.5. Proper Management of C&D construction waste (17 09 04 according to Commission Decision 2001/17/EC) containing Gypsum Gypsum is also used in other construction industries, mainly in the production of cement, in ceramics, in floor screeds, and thus needs to be treated at the end of life. Around 80% of demolition waste is inert rubble (largely concrete and masonry) which can be potentially recovered for recycling into aggregates for a variety of applications, mainly in civil engineering. This inert rubble is first sorted to remove as much non-inert material (like Gypsum) as possible. It can then either be used in low-grade applications (e.g. general bulk, landscaping, ground consolidation, mine infill, embankments, road sub-base, etc.) or undergo further processing for higher-grade applications (such as road construction). Only small volumes of C&D derived aggregates are used in concrete production. In Germany, mixed C&D Waste, which contains on average 5% gypsum in volume, is crushed, ground and sieved to produce the following grades of fines: 16-32 mm, with virtually no gypsum. Used in higher civil engineering applications, e.g. road bases; 8-16 mm, with very little gypsum. Used in lower-end applications, e.g. road sub- bases; 197 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 0-8 mm, with max 20% gypsum content. This is disposed to landfill. Gypsum and C&D Aggregates Most countries have gypsum content limits for the use of C&D waste derived secondary aggregates or used in recovery operations like backfilling in quarrying or mining. Country Mixed aggregates Concrete aggregates <1 % SO3 content Germany <1% SO3 content < 0,5 % gypsum content France <1% Virtually 0% The UK n/a <1% Belgium <1% <1% The Netherlands <1% <1% Italy <1% <1% Table 4-1. Permitted gypsum content in C&D waste derived secondary aggregates.67 The effects of gypsum waste in C&D Aggregates are: In unbound systems: Expansion and heaving Impairment of stability due to formations of holes by leaching Leaching and contamination of ground water In concrete: Impairment of setting behaviour Expansion Effects on C&D waste from demolition When gypsum is mixed with other types of C&D waste no use - either for the C&D aggregates nor for the gypsum- is possible. Unbound application is not possible because gypsum leaches out or reacts with lime containing materials resulting in expansion.Bound application in concrete is not possible because gypsum disturbs the setting and has a negative effect on durability. 67http://www.eurogypsum.org/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/101214calciumsulphate.pdf Calcium sulphate release into soil- Eurogypsum factsheet. 198 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 4.1.2.6. Other drivers for deconstruction Some other drivers leading to deconstruction practices have been named by some demolishers and stakeholders. Security was named as a driver to strip out hazardous waste taking specific measures. This generally implies that some non-hazardous wastes are also stripped out to allow the sorting of hazardous waste. Another driver is the technical one. Indeed, building’s demolition is not always feasible. For instance it depends on the plan of the building and of the distance between the surrounding buildings. It depends also on the structure of the building: when there are big complete walls of plaster they are generally removed first and not demolish because they are easily reachable. 4.1.2.7. Detailed example of France Regarding the significant number of answers obtained from the interviewees for France – and comparing with the answers from the other countries – the importance of the different drivers named before is presented for the French demolishers and the French project owners, project managers and consultants interviewed: Comparison of the importance 40% 35% 30% 25% Demolishers 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Project owners, project managers, consultants Figure 4-2. Comparison of the importance of the different drivers towards deconstruction practices for the two different types of interviewees in France. From the sample interviewed in France, it appears that the demolishers think that the project owners attach more importance to the regulation as a driver towards deconstruction than they actually do. 199 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Furthermore, some French demolishers think (see column “other” on the Figure 4-2) that the project owner is not a prime mover in this choice. It would come from the demolition company and since it is generally more interesting for the company to deconstruct, they will only offer this practice to the project owner. More generally, it would depend on the economic pressure of the sector. In some specific area of French, demolition is not economically viable. 4.1.3. Conclusions According to the different stakeholders interviewed in the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands and France, the environmental certifications as BREEAM are the main driver leading to deconstruction practices. Although some project owners may have a real environmental consciousness and that the stakeholders generally distinguished environmental and image reasons, the environmental driver is most of the time rather a communication driver. The adoption of this type of environmental approaches by the stakeholders gives a good image of the company or of the public structure to the population, which is essential for each. And this positive image can be sometimes even more important than the economic driver. Then, the regulation driver comes. Although it is an important driver, it is not the main. Finally, deconstruction practices would be encouraged by a mix of these drivers. Indeed, some interviewees admit that if recycling is not the most favourable option from an economical point of view, they will not opt for this choice. Plus, the regulation is considered as a frame to respect but still leave leeway for the choice of deconstruction towards demolition. 200 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 4.2. DRIVERS STEMMING FROM PLASTERBOARD PRODUCT BUSINESS From the results of the 35 questionnaires gathered from EU plasterboard manufacturers (see section 2.2.3), figure 4.3 shows the most listed drivers by the interviewees. The country by country listed drivers can be found in section 2.2.3. Cost saving / cost reduction Customer request Green Public Procurement (GPP) Industry Voluntary Agreement (VAs) Product marketing Resource efficiency Sustainability commitment Figure 4-3. Main drivers listed by the interviewees A description of the most listed drivers is drafted in the following subsections. 4.2.1. Cost reduction By using recycled gypsum plasterboard manufacturers usually achieve economic benefits, because recycled gypsum is available at a price lower than natural gypsum and the reincorporation of recycled gypsum reduces the amount of natural gypsum purchased. In some instances the savings can also come from lower transportation cost due to the proximity of the supplier and reduced costs of storage. 4.2.2. Customer request GPP and evaluation systems act as an incentive for recycling. 4.2.3. Green Public Procurement (GPP) Green Public Procurement (GPP) is defined in the Communication (COM (2008) 400) “Public procurement for a better environment” as “a process whereby public authorities seek to 201 DA.1: Inventory of current practices procure goods, services and works with a reduced environmental impact throughout their life cycle when compared to goods, services and works with the same primary function that would otherwise be procured.” GPP is a voluntary instrument, which means that Member States and public authorities can determine the extent to which they implement it. Public authorities are major consumers in Europe: they spend approximately 2 trillion euros annually, equivalent to some 19% of the EU’s gross domestic product. By using their purchasing power to choose goods and services with lower impacts on the environment, they can make an important contribution to sustainable consumption and production. Green purchasing is also about influencing the market. By promoting and using GPP, public authorities can provide industry with real incentives for developing green technologies and products. In some sectors, public purchasers command a large share of the market (e.g. public transport and construction, health services and education) and so their decisions have considerable impact.68 In 2010, the Gypsum Industry developed with the European Commission the Green public procurement criteria for wall panels. The current project will create an opportunity to reassess those criteria, particularly those relating to the percentage of recycled gypsum in the board which is set currently at 2 for core criteria and 5% for comprehensive criteria69. The complete document can be found in Annex 10. 4.2.4. Industry Voluntary Agreement with government Voluntary agreements (Vas) between government and industry have been increasingly used as a new policy tool to achieve different measures. Examples of Vas are the covenant in the Netherlands (see section 2.1.2.7), “la Charte sur le Gestion des déchets” in France (see section 2.1.2.4) and The Ashdown Agreement in the UK (see section 2.1.2.3.2). Also the commitment of stakeholders with The Belgian Gypsum Association (BLGV) in Belgium (see section 2.1.2.6) is leading some Belgian companies to improve the recycling of gypsum waste. 68 What is GPP. European Commission Environment. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/what_en.htm Last updated: 02/07/2013. 69Green Public Procurement.Wall Panels Technical Background Report. Report for the European Commission – DG Environment by EAE, Harwell, June 2010. 202 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 4.2.5. Product marketing Recycled content – as defined in ISO 14021 - in plasterboard products provide an incentive to increase recycled content from construction and demolition waste. 4.2.6. Resource efficiency Resource efficiency is a way to deliver more with less (natural resources). It increases aggregate economic value through more productive use of resources, taking their whole life cycle into account. Resource efficiency requires extracting and using natural resources in a sustainable way, within the planet’s long-term boundaries.70 It also includes minimizing impacts of the use of one resource on other natural resources.71 In that respect, the combination of the use of FGD gypsum and the increasing use of recycled gypsum in the manufacturing of plasterboard lead do an industry behaviour that use resources sparingly in a diverse way. 4.2.7. Sustainability commitment Industrial processes, from material extraction, product manufacturing through to product disposal, may have, in some cases –not always and certainly not as a principle-, an adverse impact upon the environment whilst efficiently contributing positively, in other cases, to the habitat and the built environment. The European Gypsum Industry knows this as it faces those challenges every day and resolved or is currently resolving them according to the life-cycle principles- from cradle to cradle. The sustainability of the Gypsum Industry lies in its capacity to create wealth in the indoor- built environment with a sustainable use of natural resources, energy efficient buildings and by reconceptualising waste as products. Industrial sustainability, which the Gypsum Industry is striving to achieve, is a logical extension of life-cycle thinking, moving from assessment to implementation. It involves “closing loops” by recycling, making maximum use of recycled materials in new production, optimising use of materials and embedded energy, minimising waste generation, and re- evaluating “wastes” as raw material for other processes. 70A Safe operating space for Humanity, Nature, Vol. 461, 472-475. 71Transatlantic Academy (2012): The Global resource Nexus. 203 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Progress in dematerialisation is currently occurring in the Gypsum Industry. Value is increasingly being added by emphasising product quality, product-related information to handle the product adequately, and embedded knowledge in providing solutions - i.e. acoustic and fire solutions for buildings - rather than products. One of the remaining concerns is the management of gypsum wastes at the end of their life-cycle. 4.2.8. Conclusions and recommendations The recycling of gypsum waste involves several benefits, among others: - Recycled gypsum is available at price lower tan natural gypsum, according to the information gathered from the gypsum recyclers and plasterboard manufacturers within the GtoG project. - Decrease the release of hydrogen sulphide gases, harmful and dangerous to the health. Figure 4-4. Benefits summary of gypsum recycling.72 Table 4-2 summarizes the drivers for gypsum recycling and establishes an estimation of their level of impact: 72FROST & SULLIVAN, 2011.Strategic Analysis of the European Recycled Materials and Chemicals Market in Construction Industry.M579-39. 204 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Level of After the GtoG Driver 2013 impact project 1 Resource efficiency High High 2 Cost reduction High High 3 Customer request High High 4 Product Marketing Medium Medium Green Public Procurement 5 Medium High (GPP) 6 Sustainability Commitment Medium Medium 7 Industry Voluntary Agreement Medium High Table 4-2. Drivers and level of impact. The first three drivers currently have a high level of impact among the Gypsum Industry. However, it can be expected that, after the end of the GtoG project drivers such as the GPP and Industry Voluntary Approaches will became main drivers to recycle gypsum products. Green Public Procurement (GPP) The GtoG project has the opportunity to reassess the Green Public Procurement (GPP) criteria related to the percentage of recycled gypsum in wall panels: the current core (2%) and comprehensive (5%) criteria. Industry Voluntary Approach Other European countries might follow the French, British, Belgian and Dutch model, establishing agreements and commitments to improve the amount of C&D waste annually recycled. 205 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 4.3. ECONOMICAL BARRIERS Some economical approach is necessary to assess if selective demolition is more cost effective than demolition. The following first economical situation, elaborated from a case study, will help to structure the economical analysis that will be performed on the five demolition projects. 4.3.1. Case study: refurbishment of an office building in Paris The localization is 120 rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré 75008 PARIS. The building concerned is a non residential building in a former « hôtel particulier » dating on the end of the 18th century. It was completely refurbished a first time in the late 1990’. The project owner DEKA Immobillien Investment GmbH decided to refurbish it as the renter decided to leave the place. Figure 4-5. The localization is 120 rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré 75008 PARIS. Copyright Pinault&Gapaix. The lead and asbestos diagnosis were made by BTP consultants Agence Paris Est. The audit prior to demolition was done internally by Pinault&Gapaix. As far as the gypsum based waste is concerned, it was forecasted a tonnage of 140 tonnes of plasterboards, 10 tonnes of gypsum blocks and 10 tonnes of laminates. The refurbishment operation concerned more or less 3000 m2. The operation took place from the 15th of March 2011 to the 15th of April 2011. The figures come from data collected on site by the company Pinault&Gapaix. 206 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 4.3.1.1. Practices of deconstruction and management wastes We can consider a 5-step operation. During each step all the means involved have to be analyzed. Step 1: Dismantling with a shovel Figure 4-6. Step 1: Dismantling with a shovel. Copyright Recovering Sarl. Step 2: Transportation of the waste to a first storage place and Step 3: Storage of the waste inside the building. Figure 4-7. Step 2: Transportation of the waste to a first storage place and Step 3: Storage of the waste inside the building. Copyright Recovering Sarl. 207 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Step 4: Transportation to the skip and Step 5: Transportation to the transfer station Figure 4-8. Step 4: Transportation to the skip and Step 5: Transportation to the transfer station. Copyright Recovering Sarl. 4.3.1.2. Economical comparison 4.3.1.2.1. Assumptions The simulation is related to a demolition of 6850 m2 of partition. Each square meter of partition is composed of: 3 meters of metal frames - 0,6 kg/m 1 m2 of insulation (5 cm of mineral wool) - 40kg/m3 2 m2 of plasterboard (13mm) -10,2kg/m2 Weight per square meter Kg % of weight Metal frames 1,8 7% Plasterboard BA 13 20,4 84% Insulation 2 8% Partition 24,2 100% Table 4-3. Weight per square meter in the simulation. 208 DA.1: Inventory of current practices The place taken in a skip is key. The following table gives the corresponding weight according to real observation and not theory. Volume for 1 Number of m2 Number of Volume in a skip Weight per square meter of 3 3 of partition per roundtrips for (m ) 20m skip (t) 3 partition 20m skip the operation Metal frames 0,08 0,45 250 27,4 Plasterboard BA 0,026 10,2 500 13,7 13 Insulation 0,05 2 1000 6,85 Partition (as a 0,138 3,5 145 47 whole) Table 4-4. Volume for 1 square meter in the simulation. By optimizing the room in the skip, it is possible to limit the number of roundtrips. The metal frames take an enormous place as it is not possible to compact or to shred on a jobsite. Consequently the number of skips is quite similar even if the space for gypsum based waste is maximized. As far as the organization is concerned, it is assumed that a demolition of partitions will take a similar time for a selective demolition. In this case, as the jobsite is in an urban area, the constraints are the same as it is requested to avoid noise and dust. Cost of the operation Cost per tonne Cost per m2 of Description of the (Deconstruction or demolition) of partition partition task per tonne 80 minutes are Dismantling with a shovel 32,00 € 0,77 € needed; cost per hour 24€ for a worker 240 minutes are Sorting and storage operations 96,00 € 2,32 € needed; cost per hour 24€ for a worker sub total 128,00 € 3,10 € Loading of the skip 16 workers need 2 Plasterboard (manual labour) 63,47 € 1,54 € hours to load a skip Cost of the lift per Lift or maniscopic 7,27 € 0,18 € tonne 12 workers need 2 Metal Frames (manual labour) 95,21 € 2,30 € hours to load a skip Cost of the lift per Lift or maniscopic 14,55 € 0,35 € tonne 209 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 12 workers need 2 Insulation(manual labour) 23,80 € 0,58 € hours to load a skip Cost of the lift per Lift or maniscopic 3,64 € 0,09 € tonne sub total 207,93 € 5,03 € TOTAL 335,93 € 8,13 € Table 4-5. Costs of the operation. The cost for dismantling, storing and loading the skip is 8,13 € per m2. The cost for transportation and outlets are in the table below. The cost transportation is 75€ per hour for a single skip truck and each trip takes approximately 2 hours. Cost of Cost of Cost of the Cost of the Total cost of tranport transport outlet option outlet option transport per tonne per m2 of 1 2 of partition partition Metal frames 4 110,00 € 3,23 € 0,08 € -3 082,50 € Plasterboard BA 13 2 055,00 € 36,58 € 0,89 € 7 685,70 € Insulation 1 027,50 € 3,59 € 0,09 € 1 507,00 € Total for sorted 7 192,50 € 43,39 € 1,05 € 6 110,20 € material Total for mixed waste (entire 7 104,43 € 42,86 € 1,04 € 18 234,70 € partition) Table 4-6. Other costs. The cost of the outlets charged by the waste management companies are the following: cost for metal frame: 250 €/t cost for plasterboard (recycling): 55 €/t cost for the mixed wastes or insulation (landfilled): 110 €/t The cost of non hazardous waste landfill is important. The “standard cost” within the Paris area was at this time around 80€/t. The recycling route was more cost effective. 210 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 4.3.1.2.2. Comparison selective demolition versus demolition Option 1 Option 2 Total Per tonne Per m2 Total Per tonne Per m2 Cost of dismantling 55 688 € 335,93 € 8,13 € 55 687 € 335,93 € 8,13 € Cost of 7 104,43 € 42,86 € 1,04 € 7 192,5 € 43,39 € 1,05 € transportation Cost of the outlets 18 234,7 € 110,00 € 4,55 € 6 110,2 € 36,86 € 0,89 € Total 81 027 € 489 € 14 € 68 990 € 416 € 10,1 € Table 4-7. Comparsion between selective demolition and demolition. The difference is around 12000 € which is a significant amount for such a project. The total budget of the operation was 297000€. In terms of profitability for the whole project, it is expected a 10% rate. The impact of 12000 € is then very important (3%). The demolition company was in this case very motivated to dismantle properly the partitions and sort the wastes so as to comply with the recycling/recovering route specifications. Some provisions may be formulated: this is an example of a refurbishment on a non residential building in the downtown of Paris, France. It is representative of a certain type of work. Under other conditions – in terms of plaster-based waste products to dismantle, geographical location or jobsite constraints (space available for waste sorting) – selective demolition might not be economically more advantageous than demolition. 4.3.2. Guidelines for an in-depth economical assessment 4.3.2.1. Precise description of the deconstruction and demolition processes In our above case study we consider a 5-step operation. In fact this scheme may vary from one jobsite to another depending on the global complexity of the partition to be dismantled and the way it was designed. On a same jobsite several types of partitions (systems) may be present simultaneously. Some of them may be constituted with plasterboards, gypsum blocks or honeycomb sandwich panel. Weight per square meter of partition Kg % of weight type 1 Metal frames 1,8 7% 211 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Wooden frames 0 0% Plasterboard BA 13 20,4 84% Insulation 2 8% Partition (as a whole) 24,2 100% Table 4-8. Weight per square meter of partition type 1. Weight per square meter of partition Kg % of weight type 2 Metal frames 0 0% Wooden frames 0,5 2% Honeycomb sandwich panel 22 98% Insulation 0 0% Partition 22,5 100% Table 4-9. Weight per square meter of partition type 2. For each type, the deconstruction process must be analyzed precisely and so the costs related to each step. For the steps of deconstruction it may be easier to calculate in square meters (in red in the table) and then to convert in tonnes. For the step of loading phase, it is recommend to assess in tonnes (in green in the table) and then in square meters. Number of Description of the Wage rate Cost per Cost per Cost of the deconstruction hours task per m2 of of a m2 of tonne of phase (partition type 1) needed per partition worker partition partition square meter number of hours Step 1: Dismantling with a needed to dismantle 0 € 0,00 € 0,00 € shovel one square meter number of hours needed to properly Step 2: Sorting and storage isolate each type of 0 € 0,00 € 0,00 € operation on site waste and store temporarily Number of Hourly Description of the hours Cost per Cost per cost of a Cost of the loading phase task per tonne of needed per tonne of m2 of worker or partition tonne of partition partition equipment waste Step 3: Loading of the skips for each type of waste number of hours needed to load a Plasterboard (manual labour) 0 € 0,00 € 0,00 € skip with plasterboards 212 DA.1: Inventory of current practices number of hours of mechanical Equipment equipment to load a 0 € 0,00 € 0,00 € skip with ofplasterboards number of hours needed to load a Metal Frame (manual labour) 0 € 0,00 € 0,00 € skip with metal frames number of hours of mechanical Equipment equipment to load a 0 € 0,00 € 0,00 € skip with metal frames number of hours Insulation(manual labour) needed to load a 0 € 0,00 € 0,00 € skip with insulation number of hours of mechanical Equipment 0 € 0,00 € 0,00 € equipment to load a skip with insulation number of hours of mechanical Wooden frames (manual equipment to load a 0 € 0,00 € 0,00 € labour) skip with wooden frames number of hours of mechanical Equipment equipment to load a 0 € 0,00 € 0,00 € skip with wooden frames TOTAL (step1 +step2 +step 3) 0,00 € 0,00 € Table 4-10. Cost of the deconstruction phase (partition type 1). The sum of all the costs related to the dismantling operation is known at this stage. It may be checked by multiplying the cost per tonne by the number of tonnes in the tables in chapter 3.4.2.2. Let’s name it T1. In the case of demolition, the analysis is much easier. Even if we have the same number of steps, the fact that there is only one category of waste. Number of Description of the Wage rate Cost per Cost per Cost of the demolition hours task per m2 of of a m2 of ton of phase (partition type 1) needed per partition worker partition partition square meter number of hours Step 1: crushing, collapsing needed to demolish 0 € 0,00 € 0,00 € one square meter number of hours Step 2: Sorting and storage needed to store 0 € 0,00 € 0,00 € operation on site temporarily the waste 213 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Number of Hourly Description of the hours Cost per Cost per cost of a Cost of the loading phase task per tonne of needed per tonne of m2 of worker or partition tonne of partition partition equipment waste Step 3: Loading of the skips number of hours Mixed waste (manual labour) needed to load a skip 0 € 0,00 € 0,00 € with mixed waste number of hours of mechanical Equipment 0 € 0,00 € 0,00 € equipment to load a skip with mixed waste TOTAL (step1 +step2 +step 0,00 € 0,00 € 3) Table 4-11. Cost of the demolition phase (partition type 1). The cost of the demolition may be checked by multiplying the cost per tonne by the number of tonnes in the tables in chapter 3.4.2.2. Let’s name it T2. 4.3.2.2. Precise assessment of waste quality and quantity Prior the beginning of the operations, a state of the art audit of material enables the demolition company to have the most accurate evaluation of the quality and quantity of wastes. Nevertheless other data are needed to assess the corresponding volume per type of waste so as to facilitation the storage and transportation. The coefficient of expansion is an important parameter to be determined as precisely as possible. There is no existing theoretical table. By experience demolition companies have an idea of them. In the following tables we gather all the costs for a dismantling operation and for a demolition operation. The sum of the different totals per type of operation gives a reliable comparison. At the first stage, a precise table of all the type of wastes must be established. In the spreadsheet, all the green cells can be modified. For all gypsum based waste, metal waste, wooden waste and mixed wastes, the assessment is made in tonnes. For the insulation the volume is more convenient. The data needed stem from previous experiences. 214 DA.1: Inventory of current practices WASTE STREAMS FOLLOWING A DISMANTLING PROCESS Gypsum based waste Density of wastes Density of 3 Recyclable gypsum based waste Tonnages (with coefficient Volume m materials/wastes of expansion) Plasterboards type 1 - 1 0,3 - Plasterboards type 2 - 1 0,3 - Sandwich panels - 1 0,3 - Laminates (10 cm EPS) - 0,1 0,045 - Laminates (10 cm Mineral wool) - 0,17 0,075 - Plaster Ceilings - 0,8 0,25 - Plasterblocks - 1 0,6 - TOTAL - - Non recyclable gypsum based waste Laminates (EPS) - 0,1 0,045 - Laminates (Mineral wool) - 0,17 0,075 - Others - 0,5 0,3 - TOTAL - - Metal Recyclable metal frames 5 1,7 0,08 - Insulation Expanded Polystyrène - 0,015 0,007 0 Mineral wool - 0,05 0,1 50 Wood Wooden frames - 0,2 0,15 7 Remaining Mixed wastes - 0,25 8 TOTALS - - Table 4-12. Waste streams following a dismantling process. In the case without stripping out, it is supposed that the wastes are mixed altogether. The coefficient of expansion is known but the demolition company. WASTE STREAMS FOLLOWING A DEMOLITION PROCESS Density of wastes Density of Mixed wastes Tonnages (with coefficient of Volume m3 material expansion) Mixed wastes 173 N/A 0,25 - TOTALS - Table 4-13. Waste streams following a demolition process. 215 INVENTORY OF CURRENT PRACTICES Cost for storage and transportation (Dismantling process) Gypsum based waste Distance to the Storage Cost for Number of transfert Cost of the number of Total number of Hauling Recyclable gypsum based waste (type of rental per skips per station or haulier per skips cost roundtrips cost skips m3) month roundtrip recycling unit hour (in hour) Plasterboards type 1 Plasterboards type 2 Sandwich panels Laminates (10 cm EPS) Laminates (10 cm Mineral wool) Plaster Ceilings Plasterblocks TOTAL 20 50 2 - 2 - 2 80 - Non recyclable gypsum based waste Laminates (EPS) Laminates (Mineral wool) Others TOTAL 0 0 0 - 2 - 0,5 80 - Metal Recyclable metal frames 0 0 0 - 2 - 0,5 80 - Insulation EPS 0 0 0 - 2 - 0,5 80 - Mineral wool 20 0 0 - 2 - 0,5 80 - DA.1: Inventory of current practices Wood Wooden frames 10 40 2 - 2 - 1 80 - Remaining Mixed wastes 10 40 2 - 2 - 1 80 - TOTALS - T3 Cost for storage and transportation (demolition process) Storage Cost for Number of Distance to the Cost of the number of Total number of Hauling Mixed wastes (type of rental per skips per recycling unit haulier per skips cost roundtrips cost skips m3) month roundtrip (in hour) hour Mixed wastes 20 50 2 - 2 - 1 80 - TOTALS - T4 Table 4-14. Cost for storage and transportation. In the above table, different choices are possible. It is possible to choose the size of the skip which depends on the volume of the waste to be stored. The number of skips needed can also be chosen. Afterwards to optimize the cost of transportation it is possible to transport one or two skips at the same time. The hourly cost for the skip truck varies slightly but considering that each roundtrip two loads of waste are taken away, the cost per tonne decreased. In the following table the cost of treatment for a certain route is reported. The destination may be different. Most of the times, the waste goes to the transfer station. Demolition companies hardly go directly either to the recycling facility or to landfill. 217 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Cost for treatment (Dismantling process) Total Costs Gypsum based waste Final Route Destination (transfer (recovering, Recyclable gypsum based waste station, Recycling Cost per tonne Treatment cost recycling, landfilling, unit, Landfill) landfill monocell) Plasterboards type 1 Plasterboards type 2 Sandwich panels Laminates (10 cm EPS) Laminates (10 cm Mineral wool) Plaster Ceilings Plasterblocks TOTAL Transfer station Recycling 55 - - Non recyclable gypsum based waste Laminates (EPS) Laminates (Mineral wool) Others TOTAL Transfer station Landfilling monocell 110 - - Metal Recyclable metal frames Transfer station Recycling -250 - - Insulation EPS Transfer station Recycling 0 - - Mineral wool Transfer station Landfilling 110 - - Wood Wooden frames Transfer station Recovering 30 - - 218 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Remaining Mixed wastes Transfer station Landfilling 110 - - TOTALS T5 Cost for treatment (demolition process) Total Costs Final Route Destination (transfer (recovering, Cost per tonne Treatment cost Mixed wastes station, landfill) recycling, landfilling) Mixed wastes Transfer station Landfilling 110 - - TOTALS T6 Table 4-15. Cost for treatment. The sum of T1 + T3 + T5 represents the total cost for the dismantling operation and the related cost of logistics and treatment. The sum of T2 + T4 + T6 represents the total cost for the demolition operation and the related cost of logistics and treatment. The comparison between the two gives an indication of the cost efficiency of one solution compared to the other. Different schemes are possible. The entity in charge of the complete audit should present different possibilities to ease the decision between a deconstruction or a demolition. 219 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 4.3.3. Conclusions and recommendations It would be highly recommended to constitute a group of experts to deeply analyze the importance of each of the economic parameters. The most important parameters impacting the recycling route are: Cost of transport of the gypsum based waste from the jobsite to the outlet The distance (D) and the weight of the waste to be transported (W) influence the total cost of transport. Cost of transport of the gypsum based waste from the jobsite to the outlet / transportation to the landfill The distance (D) and the weight of the waste to be transported (W) influence the total cost of transport. Cost of waste acceptance / gate fee in the recycling facility (AR) It includes the cost of processing (total recycling costs) and the benefit of the recycler. Total recycling costs. As already mentioned, this cost is included in the gate fee of the recycling facility. Cost of transportation from the recycling facility to the customer (TM) We can generally state that the advantage of gypsum recycling is that the recycling facility is generally located next to the plasterboard factory that reduces the transport cost of the powder to a minimum. Cost of the recycled gypsum Raw material costs Main recommendation is to minimize the transport distances for optimizing the carbon footprint of the recycled product. 220 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 4.4. LEGISLATION RELATED TO GYPSUM BASED WASTE MANAGEMENT In the waste industry, regulatory framework plays a role of primary importance. In Europe there is a common basis for all the Member States (herein after MS). Different types of legal acts exist which apply differently. At the top of the hierarchy, the regulation is a binding legislative act. It must be applied in its entirety across the EU. A directive is a legislative act that gives an aim that all EU countries must achieve but each MS decides how within a given period of time. A decision is binding but it applies only to an EU country or an individual company and is directly applicable. Each MS must comply with these different European legal acts. However a country has the right to take more stringent or appropriate measures provided that it doesn’t constitute an obvious infringement or prejudice to obligations under other relevant European Community legislation. There are legal measures that can impact either directly or indirectly the management of gypsum based waste. These measures may stem from the European level or from the MS level. The aim of the following is to properly identify the different legal acts that can influence the gypsum based management throughout the value chain. The identification of the legal framework is key but to go further it is also important to assess how it is implemented on the ground. Eight countries are concerned by the Gypsum to Gypsum project: the UK, Spain, Greece, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Poland. The findings regarding both the implementation of EU legal acts and national laws are of primary importance to assess their relevancy towards the will to facilitate the recycling of gypsum based waste coming from the demolition sector. All details are in annex 5.3: Regulation tables. 4.4.1. European law applicable to gypsum based waste 4.4.1.1. The landfill directive and its impact on the Gypsum Industry On 19 December 2002 73 the Council took a decision to establish criteria and procedures for the acceptance of waste at landfills. The following paragraph of the legislation applies to gypsum products waste: Paragraph 2.2.3 “Non-hazardous Gypsum-based materials should be disposed of only in landfills for non-hazardous waste in cells where no biodegradable waste is accepted. The limit 73Council decision of 19 December 2002 establishing criteria and procedures for the acceptance of waste at landfills pursuant to Article 16 and Annex II to Directive 1999/31/EC. 221 DA.1: Inventory of current practices values for total organic carbon and dissolved organic carbon given in sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 shall apply to waste land-filled together with gypsum based materials”. The principal reason for excluding gypsum waste products from the list of waste acceptable at landfills for inert waste without testing is the inclusion of the parameter “Sulphate” which is inherent to all gypsum products. The sulphate content of gypsum mixed with biodegradable waste in a landfill may break down, amongst other substances, into Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S), a dangerous gas that in high concentrations is lethal and in low concentrations gives a rotten egg smell. As long as the sulphur is chemically bound in gypsum, no problem occurs. Before the Council Decision was established, the Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste has established the technical requirements for a safe disposal defined for different waste streams. The Landfill Directive and the following Decision follow the idea of a multi-barrier concept, taking not only the landfill site as such, but also the waste characteristics as a safety system into account. 1) When it rains, sulphate may dissolve and be present in the leachate. The European Directive 1999/31/EC requires in Annex I, No.2., (with the only exemption for disposal sites of inert waste, where gypsum waste should not be disposed), for all landfill sites an effective leachate water collection and treatment system, so that a potential contamination of the surroundings of landfill sites is effectively prohibited. Beside this, there is the requirement to avoid the entrance of ground- and/or surface water into the waste. During the active disposal phase, geological barriers as well as a bottom layer are required to protect soil and groundwater against contaminations (Annex I, number 3). After the closure a top liner is forseen to avoid rainwater entering the waste. Landfill sites for non-hazardous waste in line with the legal requirements of Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste are safe against any relevant contamination of soil or groundwater by sulphate from gypsum waste. 2) Gypsum waste mixed with organic waste under humid and anaerobic conditions at ambient pH (as it may be the case in landfills) will result in generation of hydrogen sulphite gas by bacterial reduction (and probably other sulphur carrying compounds). Even very small amounts of H2S gas create odour problems and the gas is lethal. When this situation occurs the only way to stop it is to raise the pH to alkaline by using burned lime or comparable substances and to avoid any further penetration of water into the waste For all the above, gypsum waste should not be landfilled in the same cell as organic/biodegradable waste: monocells for gypsum are required for safe landfilling, if organic content of other waste is not limited, as Council Decision 2003/33/EC allows it for non-hazardous waste. Strict separation of gypsum and organic waste is recommended to avoid H2S creation by this Council Decision. 222 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Therefore, gypsum waste should only be disposed of in landfills with proper leachate management systems, meaning landfills for non-hazardous, non-inert waste. The Consequences of this decision are: - Plasterboards and blocks need to be removed from demolition waste destined for disposal in inert landfills; - Waste landfill charges are considerably higher in non-hazardous landfill than inert landfill; - Dedicated cell costs are considerably higher than those for normal land-filling. - Disposal capacities may be more limited than for other waste streams as gypsum waste does not present as a high volume waste stream foreseen for this disposal class. - The economic interest of disposal site operators to provide solutions especially for gypsum waste is very limited, which may result in higher transport distances. The Decision took effect on 16 July 2004 and Member States had to implement it by 16 July 2005. This Commission Decision implied that the Gypsum Industry decided to improve recycling of construction waste. The costs related to landfill are definitely higher than before, depending however on the way the different EU Member States apply the decision. In France, plaster-based products are accepted in cells in inert landfills, but you need to manage the cells as if they were in landfills for non-dangerous waste. In the UK, there are currently only a few monocells in operation with gate fees ranging from 132 Euro to 198 Euro per tonne. In Germany, there is a more stringent implementation of general thresholds for organics (parameter TOC) in non-hazardous landfill, comparable to landfills for inert waste that creates the monocell conditions required in the whole landfill site, but keeping the conditions for the safe disposal of gypsum waste as foreseen in 2.2.3 of the Council Decision. However, as it is shown in Annex 3, many exemptions applied. 4.4.1.2. Calcium sulphate waste categories in relevant European and international waste list 1. European Waste Catalogue (EWC)74 74Commission Decision of 3 May 2000 replacing Decision 94/3/EC establishing a list of wastes pursuant to article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste and Council Decision 94/904/EC establishing a list 223 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Codes relevant to the project. General remarks - The EWC system offers several waste codes with or without the possibility to identify the gypsum content of the waste. - Broadly identical waste streams (like those based on a product description i.e. plasterboard) have to be diverted into different codes by their different origin, especially concerning production waste and construction / demolition waste. - This systematic approach has a strong influence on recycling plants and their permit procedure, as it has to be decided which waste stream processes should be permitted. - Difficulties may occur by public data bases on recovery operations, only addressing permitted waste codes without any further information on limitations in certain materials. - As a waste identification of recyclable gypsum waste is not possible by waste codes, all recycling plants have to introduce acceptance criteria, primarily by product descriptions and/or addressing impurities not foreseen to be processed. 10 13 Wastes from manufacture of cement, lime and plaster and articles and products made of them. - It is possible to take code 1013 for production and construction gypsum waste. However, gypsum is not the only component. The code itself therefore is not limited to gypsum waste and identification or reliable statistics on gypsum waste on this waste code is difficult and rather impossible. In contrast to 1708 it is obvious that only production waste or waste from new construction should be covered, as the demolition itself is not a production process. - As it cannot be fully excluded that this code is applied on gypsum products on building sites there might be a gap in analysis of the recycling target, because it is not foreseen to include this code in the assessment. 17 08 Gypsum based construction material. 17 08 01* gypsum-based construction materials contaminated with dangerous substances 17 08 02 gypsum-based construction materials other than those mentioned in 17 08 01 of hazardous waste pursuant to article 1(4) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste.Council decision of 23 July 2001 amending Commission decision 2000/532/EC as regards the list of wastes. 224 DA.1: Inventory of current practices - The differentiation between construction and demolition waste may be not clear cut, as in 17 08 02 all gypsum construction and demolition waste is covered. - It is also not clear which gypsum waste this code has to be applied to. The interpretations of member states cover a range from 5% gypsum up to waste consisting primarily of boards. Plaster or floor screeds may or may be not addressed by this code, as gypsum is not always the main component in demolition or construction processes on building sites. - As a consequence some other materials than boards like porous concrete or plaster/wall-mixtures may enter a recycling plant opened for 1708, and/or have influence on statistics. - Code 1708 is covered by the recovery target of 70% in the Waste Framework Directive. 2. OECD Waste List75 (i) Green Waste List GG 020: Waste gypsum wallboard or plasterboard arising from the demolition of buildings - The lists for transborder movement include wallboard and plasterboard waste for transports under green list (GG020), but with restrictions on demolition (whereas for “cleaner waste” from production or new construction, no waste code is foreseen (notification procedure) - This restriction may have an influence on the recycling market, as there are more complicated procedures to take cleaner waste over the border. 4.4.1.3. The resource efficiency roadmap This Roadmap aims at transforming the economy with the following vision: By 2050 the EU's economy has grown in a way that respects resource constraints and planetary boundaries, thus contributing to global economic transformation. Our economy is competitive, inclusive and provides a high standard of living with much lower environmental impacts. All resources are sustainably managed, from raw materials to energy, water, air, land and soil. Climate change milestones have been reached, while biodiversity and the ecosystem services it underpins have been protected, valued and substantially restored. In the field of waste, the Commission wishes to turn waste into a resource with the following milestone: 75 OECD Council Decision C(2001) 107 Final on transboundary movements of wastes destined for recovery operations. 225 DA.1: Inventory of current practices By 2020, waste is managed as a resource. Waste generated per capita is in absolute decline. Recycling and re-use of waste are economically attractive options for public and private actors due to widespread separate collection and the development of functional markets for secondary raw materials. More materials, including materials having a significant impact on the environment and critical raw materials, are recycled. Waste legislation is fully implemented. Illegal shipments of waste have been eradicated. Energy recovery is limited to non recyclable materials, landfilling is virtually eliminated and high quality recycling is ensured. 4.4.1.4. The construction products regulation The Construction products regulation foresees in its annex I (basic requirements for works) a basic requirement on the sustainable use of natural. It reads as follows: The construction works must be designed, built and demolished in such a way that the use of natural resources is sustainable and in particular ensure the following: (a) re-use or recyclability of the construction works, their materials and parts after demolition; (b) durability of the construction works; (c) use of environmentally compatible raw and secondary materials in the construction works. The requirements fall on the works, not on the singular products. For the basic requirements to become applicable to singular construction products, the Commission usually drafts an interpretative document for translating the basic work requirement into products characteristics. On the basis of this document, the Commission drafts CEN mandate for each construction product family products. The technical committee of the construction product then includes the mandated into the construction product standard. The construction product standard is mandatory. This job will require time and efforts but could bring an added value to the recyclability of the construction products and gypsum product in particular. 4.4.1.5. IED directive A summary of Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) is presented below: 226 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Industrial production processes account for a considerable share of the overall pollution in Europe (for emissions of greenhouse gases and acidifying substances, wastewater emissions and waste). In order to take further steps to reduce emissions from such installations, the Commission adopted its proposal for a Directive on industrial emissions on 21 December 2007 (for further information on the proposal, click here). This proposal was a recast of 7 existing pieces of legislation and its aim is to achieve significant benefits to the environment and human health by reducing harmful industrial emissions across the EU, in particular through better application of Best Available Techniques. The IED entered into force on 6 January 2011 and has to be transposed into national legislation by Member States by 7 January 2013. The IED is the successor of the IPPC Directive and in essence, it is about minimising pollution from various industrial sources throughout the European Union. Operators of industrial installations operating activities covered by Annex I of the IED are required to obtain an integrated permit from the authorities in the EU countries. About 50.000 installations were covered by the IPPC Directive and the IED will cover some new activities which could mean the number of installations rising slightly. The IED is based on several principles, namely (1) an integrated approach, (2) best available techniques, (3) flexibility, (4) inspections and (5) public participation. 1. The integrated approach means that the permits must take into account the whole environmental performance of the plant, covering e.g. emissions to air, water and land, generation of waste, use of raw materials, energy efficiency, noise, prevention of accidents, and restoration of the site upon closure. The purpose of the Directive is to ensure a high level of protection of the environment taken as a whole. Should the activity involve the use, production or release of relevant hazardous substances, the IED requires operators to prepare a baseline report before starting an operation of an installation or before a permit is updated having regard to the possibility of soil and groundwater contamination, ensuring the integrated approach. 2. The permit conditions including emission limit values (ELVs) must be based on the Best Available Techniques (BAT), as defined in the IPPC Directive. BAT conclusions (documents containing information on the emission levels associated with the best available techniques) shall be the reference for setting permit conditions. To assist the licensing authorities and companies to determine BAT, the Commission organises an exchange of information between experts from the EU Member States, industry and environmental organisations. This work is co-ordinated by the European IPPC Bureau of the Institute for Prospective Technology Studies at the EU Joint Research Centre in Seville (Spain). This results in the adoption and publication by the Commission of the BAT conclusions and BAT Reference Documents (the so-called BREFs). 227 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 3. The IED contains certain elements of flexibility by allowing the licensing authorities to set less strict emission limit values in specific cases. Such measures are only applicable where an assessment shows that the achievement of emission levels associated with BAT as described in the BAT conclusions would lead to disproportionately higher costs compared to the environmental benefits due to (a) geographical location or the local environmental conditions or (b) the technical characteristics of the installation. The competent authority shall always document the reasons for the application of the flexibility measures in the permit including the result of the cost-benefit assessment. Moreover, Chapter III on large combustion plants includes certain flexibility instruments (Transitional National Plan, limited lifetime derogation, etc.) 4. The IED contains mandatory requirements on environmental inspections. Member States shall set up a system of environmental inspections and draw up inspection plans accordingly. The IED requires a site visit shall take place at least every 1 to 3 years, using risk-based criteria. 5. The Directive ensures that the public has a right to participate in the decision- making process, and to be informed of its consequences, by having access to (a) permit applications in order to give opinions, (b) permits, (c) results of the monitoring of releases and (d) the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR). In E- PRTR, emission data reported by Member States are made accessible in a public register, which is intended to provide environmental information on major industrial activities. E-PRTR has replaced the previous EU-wide pollutant inventory, the so-called European Pollutant Emission Register (EPER). 4.4.1.6. The waste framework directive The Waste Framework Directive was adopted on 19 November 2008. Article 11 b on re-use and recycling reads as follows: (b) by 2020, the preparing for re-use, recycling and other material recovery, including backfilling operations using waste to substitute other materials, of non-hazardous construction and demolition waste excluding naturally occurring material defined in 228 DA.1: Inventory of current practices category 17 05 04 in the list of waste shall be increased to a minimum of 70 % by weight. The European Commission is currently reviewing this paragraph in view of a proposal to the European Parliament in 2014. 4.4.2. The waste hierarchy applicable to gypsum products Article 4 of the Waste framework directive reads as follows: 1. The following waste hierarchy shall apply as a priority order in waste prevention and management legislation and policy: (a) prevention; (b) preparing for re-use; (c) recycling; (d) other recovery, e.g. energy recovery; and (e) disposal. 2. When applying the waste hierarchy referred to in paragraph 1, Member States shall take measures to encourage the options that deliver the best overall environmental outcome. This may require specific waste streams departing from the hierarchy where this is justified by life-cycle thinking on the overall impacts of the generation and management of such waste. 3. Member States shall ensure that the development of waste legislation and policy is a fully transparent process, observing existing national rules about the consultation and involvement of citizens and stakeholders. Member States shall take into account the general environmental protection principles of precaution and sustainability, technical feasibility and economic viability, protection of resources as well as the overall environmental, human health, economic and social impacts, in accordance with Articles 1 (excluded waste) and 1376. 76Article 13 of the WFD Protection of human health and the environment Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure thatwaste management is carried out without endangering humanhealth, without harming the environment and, in particular: (a) without risk to water, air, soil, plants or animals; (b) without causing a nuisance through noise or odours; and (c) without adversely affecting the countryside or places ofspecial interest. 229 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 4.4.2.1. Waste prevention: design for construction in the Gypsum Industry The following principles should be followed for a sound environmental building construction: The Gypsum Industry produces materials in a large range of sizes and can produce bespoke sizes to special order where the volume is large enough, or to special order. All plasterboard materials can be delivered in the exact quantities required by building sites and are logistically better adapted to the demands of the building sites. These services, however, require more accurate management of ordering and logistics, and for a range of reasons are only likely to be effectively applied to fairly large building sites; The Gypsum Industry offers substitutes that are reusable, such as modular “demountable partitions” for commercial buildings; The Site Manager on the construction site should plan in advance suitable storage space to ensure security, safety and protection of plaster products, gypsum plasterboard and accessories. Those should be dry and protected from damp and extreme temperatures. Where possible, this should avoid the need to move materials to subsequent storage positions, as moving materials increases the risk of damage; Gypsum plasterboard should be stored on a dry level surface, stacked flat; The Site Manager should ensure that areas are weather tight and dry before installation begins. Other wet trades such as screeding should be completed and dried out before work begins; The workplace should be properly planned to avoid wastage from poor handling, fixing or spillage; Although plasterboard systems are designed for simplicity, they require knowledge and skill to be applied efficiently. Often incorrect handling, sequencing, fixing and finishing will result in work being condemned both during and after completion of the project. Operatives and subcontracting companies should be appropriately qualified to undertake the work. Avoiding trimming losses (5 to 7 %) Knowledge, experience, training, and the use of planning tools differ from project to project and between workers, performing drywall construction. Joint covering between smaller pieces, available from off-cuts, requires only little additional work, but more professionalism in construction. Therefore professional building contractors are recommended not only for quality reasons, but also for waste minimization in drywall construction. 230 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 4.4.2.2. Waste reduction measures: design for deconstruction The Gypsum Industry is striving for a built environment: That is readily deconstructable at the end of its useful life; Whose component (in our case, the gypsum panels) are decoupled from the building for easy replacement and to allow full identification; That comprise products designed for recycling; Whose bulk structural materials are recyclable; That promotes health for its human occupants; That comprise an asset register for projects which contain information on the materials used and instruction on how components can be dismantled. The above-mentioned means that the Gypsum Industry is committed to continued industry research and development in eco-design of gypsum products to ensure that recycling is maximised, i.e., that a higher percentage of recycled content is used in the manufacturing of new products. Life-cycle analysis can also be used to improve the recyclability and re-use of gypsum products. 4.4.2.3. Prevention of waste during manufacturing This specific waste comes from the transitional production stages: starting and stopping production and continual changes in quality. This internal flow of non- conforming product is nowadays treated in internal recycling facilities. The internal recycling facility is a part of the process of the plasterboard manufacturer. This so- called “production waste” is a source of secondary material after shredding and is therefore not considered as a waste. The process of reintegration or reintroduction of production waste into the manufacturing process is often referred to as “feedstock recycling”. In the case of plasterboard, clean scrap is either chopped into small pieces, or as much paper as possible is removed before reintegration. Improved manufacturing techniques mean that production scrap levels (at around 3-5% of total production) are constantly being reduced, leaving more capacity for recycling clean scrap from new construction sites. 231 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 4.4.2.4. Re-use Construction Site Re-use The container systems used for plaster allow further re-use of the remaining plaster and / or refilling with additional product. The material enclosed in silos normally should not be regarded as waste, whereas re-use of material in bags is time limited. Silos and bags should be ordered according to the amount of plaster expected and time-frame of the construction process. Drywall scraps can be placed in the interior wall cavities during new construction. This will eliminate the disposal and transportation costs. In recent years, the concept of recycling gypsum drywall at the construction site has been proposed. In this approach, scrap drywall from new construction is separated and processed using a mobile grinder and then size-reduced material is land applied (prior to placement of sod) as a soil amendment or a plant nutrient (refer to VII. Reducing for other End-Uses 1 and 2). This approach may be feasible when the soils and grass species show a benefit from the application of gypsum. This recycling technique offers a potential economic benefit when the cost to process and land application of the ground drywall at the construction site is less than the cost to store, haul and dispose of the drywall. Main contractors and subcontractors could re-use plasterboard off-cuts from new building sites on other projects, if an appropriate storage is set up. Gunite support Gunite is concrete sprayed on at high pressure. Cut-offs (pieces of new construction drywall) can be used as forms to support gunite as it is being sprayed. 4.4.2.5. Recycling from new construction site This section concern recycling of gypsum waste arising from new construction. This concerns sorted and clean waste only from new construction sites. In the UK, a recent study carried out by the Federation of Plastering and Drywall Contractors estimates that plasterboard wastage within the construction industry can beanything from 10% to 20%.77If the waste prevention measures are taken on the construction site, the Gypsum Industry estimates that plasterboard wastage can be reduced to 5%. 77Federation of Plastering and Drywall Contractors “Diverting Plasterboard Waste from Landfill in the UK, June 2006. 232 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Waste Flows on Construction Sites We distinguish between the following waste flows on the construction site78: (i) Direct waste Site storage and handling waste- Damage to plaster and wallboard products can result from exposure to moisture and water. Wastage also occurs due to physical damage - from incorrect storage, impact from dropping, collision, accidental damage from other site activities (especially movement of plant). Metal framing components can also suffer physical damage and corrosion if stored incorrectly. Excess materials at the workplace- Wastage is caused by over-mixing plaster which is then left to harden at the end of the day, and over provision of drywall products which are not returned to storage. Fixing waste - Wallboard products can be damaged by poor handling and fixing at the workplace. Waste due to the wrong specification / use- Incorrectly specified wallboard systems which do not meet the required performance can result in work needing to be redone during construction or as a result of later defects. This situation can also arise if the contractor uses a lower performance system, due to unclear project documentation or incorrect substitution (see also indirect waste). Learning waste- New systems and fixing methods can lead to wastage without the proper training/trials. Storage waste - Storage of bagged plaster products beyond their shelf life. (ii) Indirect Waste An example of indirect waste in relation to gypsum products would be where a lower specification would suffice. For example, if there had been an excess of acoustic boards ordered for one part of a building, which were then used in place of standard boards in another location, this would be considered as indirect waste. (iii) Repetition Waste Probably the largest risk of wastage results from work being condemned because it has been damaged after installation. The constant pressure for faster construction can mean that the work is often installed before there is proper protection from the elements. Any significant wetting of finished wallboard can result in the loss of structural integrity. Poor sequencing and co-ordination of trades can lead to following trades removing or damaging wallboard because there is still work to be completed behind the finished surface. 78GPDA-Healthier Building with Gypsum Products: n°4 Reduction of Waste-March 1997. 233 DA.1: Inventory of current practices According to the Federation of Plastering and Drywall Contractors, the financial benefits of waste minimisation would lead to a reduction in waste arisings (in the UK) of around 50,000 tonnes. This figure is considered realistic through increased designing out of waste, greater utilisation of the bespoke service offered by plasterboard manufacturers, improved on-site storage, and a reduction in over-ordering. It is estimated, based on an average purchase price of £1.20 per m2 and an average weight of 8.35kg per m2 that saving 50,000 tonnes of board represents a saving of £7.2 million on purchasing. In addition, based on a disposal cost of £50 per tonne, a further £2.5 million would be saved on direct disposal costs. Additional savings would arise from the reduction in material handling, storage etc.79 4.4.2.6. Recycling of demolition gypsum waste Demolition and renovation waste is a more complex problem with additional contamination to remove (paper, paint, screws, wood, nails, etc.). For the reincorporation of this type of recycled gypsum into the manufacturing process, the following technical difficulties should be considered: Difficulties in recycling gypsum demolition plasterboard that has been painted or contaminated (led, screws, wallpapers). Lower and unreliable quality of post-consumer waste (includes product quality impact and health and safety concerns e.g. asbestos). Lack of a recycled material quality standard and QA testing. Supply rates (and quality) would be required to be consistent to improve confidence that the material would not interrupt production. Recycling of laminates (sandwich panels: polystyrene glued to plasterboard) –separation of the polystyrene from the plasterboard. Segregation and identification of mixed plasterboard waste (production- construction and demolition) as those will need to undergo different reprocessing. However innovation is running and the recycling company Nantet (near Chambéry) is achieving the clean recycling of sandwich panels. Screws left by inadvertence in the recycled gypsum block the manufactured equipment. Heavy metals content of recycled gypsum in the gypsum demolition waste should also be considered and analysed. 79Federation of Plastering and Drywall Contractors “Diverting Plasterboard Waste from Landfill in the UK”, June 2006, page 21. 234 DA.1: Inventory of current practices At the reprocessing stage the segregation of all non-gypsum materials from the incoming deconstruction material stream needs to be studied. The scale of the contamination, its impact and optimal control methods all need to be determined. This includes (but is not limited to) the following: Removal of large contraries (eg bricks/ blocks) Removal of metallic elements, including fixings Removal of insulation materials, especially where bonded to gypsum materials (eg mineral wool, EPS, XPS, PIR/PUR, phenolic foam) Removal of wall coverings, vinyl facing, metallic foil Removal of paint Detection and removal of harmful substances, eg lead paint, asbestos Determination of an appropriate Quality Assurance specification for incoming materials Occupation Health & Safety of process operators Recycling or disposal of removed contraries Optimising the quality of the removed paper for recycling or composting Throughputmeasurement Impact on variable costs of production Conclusions Technically, plasterboard waste can be recycled for non-agricultural markets according to the above-mentioned techniques. Some gypsum producers are able to perform removal of metals (nails) from the demolished plasterboards in their internal recycling facilities. In any case, the competitiveness of gypsum recycling will depend on logistics, collection and recycling costs, compared to landfill costs. Over the next 20-30 years the economics for demolition waste are expected to change as the quantities begin to increase substantially, due to the strong increase in the use of plasterboards in construction which began in Europe in the 1960s and 1970s. Renovation and demolition work will see increasing volumes of gypsum waste. The increasing use of dismantling or deconstruction techniques will increasingly make possible demolition collection and recycling. Plasterboard recovery (collection and recycling) is more frequent on large construction sites but less frequent on demolition sites for the following reasons: 235 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Although plasterboard was invented in the USA in the late nineteenth century and was widely used there by the 1930s, it only gained widespread acceptance in Europe - at least in Continental Europe - in the 1970s-1980s. Even now in Eastern and Southern Europe, the more traditional ways of partitioning and interior finishing still prevail. This means that many buildings over 40 years old contain little or no plasterboard. In general, selective dismantling needs to be improved - notably in Southern European countries. 4.4.2.7. Other recovery, e.g. energy recovery 4.4.2.7.1. Incineration Municipal Waste Combustion Plants Plasterboard is rarely incinerated since Sulphate may be converted to Sulphur Dioxide gas. High Sulphur Dioxide concentrations in stack gases may reach the installed capacity of alkaline scrubbers installed on municipal incinerators to remove other acidic gases. Inclusion of gypsum waste in municipal waste for incineration will require sufficient desulphurisation capacity, as all waste incineration plants are regulated by the IED (Industrial Emissions Directive)80 and have to fulfil sulphur dioxide thresholds. If the municipal waste incineration plant is equipped with a wet desulphurisation process, FGD gypsum may be produced so that the gypsum decomposed by incineration would be recycled. Nevertheless, depending on the waste streams processed and the overall flue gas cleaning technology, gypsum from waste incineration sometimes fails to fulfil the FGD gypsum quality requirements, and consequently has to be disposed of as a waste. If semi-dry processes are installed, a spray adsorption product is the result of desulphurisation, which cannot be used as a substitute for gypsum. 4.4.2.7.2. Soil improve and fertiliser Land Treatment with Benefit to Agriculture and/or the Environment Clean production and construction gypsum waste can be used for: 80Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control). 236 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Soil enrichment for potatoes The application of crushed gypsum drywall waste was compared to commercial gypsum fertiliser on potatoes in 1997 and 1998 on two irrigated, sandy soils and an irrigated medium textured soil in Wisconsin (US). The application of drywall or commercial gypsum fertilisation did not significantly affect potato yield, grade, or grade- out of USA tubers, and showed increased storage life of potatoes and reduced diseases. Soil conditioner/amendment81: 1. Improves water penetration and workability of impermeable sodic ‘alkali’ soils 2. Softens soils with a high clay content 3. Helps neutralise soil acidity 4. Adds plant nutrient: Calcium and Sulphur It is used in: 1. General agriculture 2. Mushroom growing (additive to black earth) 3. Forestry and mine reclamation 4. City parks 5. Residential lawns (sod) 6. Golf courses 7. Compost additives Agricultural fertiliser Successful full-scale trials were carried out in 1995 and 1996, in Sweden and Denmark respectively. Garden and park waste was composted together with clean crushed plasterboard. The composting breaks down any paper and organic materials in the plasterboard waste. Care is needed to avoid anaerobic conditions and the whiter- coloured end-product may reduce its marketable value. In the US, the Clean Washington Centre established in 1997 that gypsum wallboard can be successfully incorporated into the composting process without hindering end- product quality. As with all composting operations, aerobic conditions must be 81 Gypsum waste as soil amendment - Hugh Riley, Planteforsk-2001. Norwegian. Gypsum waste in compost (Norwegian), Erik Norgaard, NorskJordforbedring, 2002. 237 DA.1: Inventory of current practices maintained (through aeration or mix porosity) in order to limit odours. Product end-use, process control, and grinding optimisation efforts are important factors affecting successful incorporation of gypsum wallboard into a compost operation82. Sub-Soil Amendment on New Residential Construction Sites In some states within the US, if a beneficial use can be demonstrated e.g. of sub-soil arising during the construction process, pulverised scrap plasterboard can be spread around family home construction sites. The US Gypsum Association recommends the following procedures of job-site new construction plasterboard waste on residential building lots based on information derived from scientific studies: Waste gypsum board to be disposed of on-site should be pulverised so that all pieces on the soil surface, including paper, will disintegrate in a reasonable period of time under local precipitation levels and other climatic conditions. This suggestion generally means that all pieces of waste gypsum board, including paper, placed on a residential building lot will be equal to, or smaller than, one-half- inch square or in diameter. Pulverised waste gypsum board may be placed on the soil surface or mixed with the top layer of the soil. Waste gypsum board should be spread evenly over the entire lot, where conditions of terrain and landscaping considerations permit. Application may be at rates up to the equivalent of 22 tonnes per acre. Pulverised waste gypsum board should be disposed of only on lots or in areas that have adequate drainage and aeration (i.e. no standing water or anaerobic conditions should exist until the waste gypsum board has completely disintegrated). State, local and Federal regulations and statutes should be considered so as to ensure compliance with all environmental and other governing ordinances and rules that allow these types of utilisation for waste gypsum board or, if special permission is necessary, to dispose of construction waste gypsum in this manner. Others Additive for cement production: however, the recycled gypsum paper content should not be more than 1%. If it is, then it needs to be mixed with virgin gypsum. However, possible risks to concrete performance from use of plasterboard waste have yet to be properly ascertained; Admixture for concrete; 82Evaluation of the potential for composting gypsum wallboard scraps (RETAP-US-1997). 238 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Agent for settling dirt and clay particles in turbid water; Additive to sludge for bulking and drying; For combination with wood shavings for animal bedding, as substitute for sawdust or sand to absorb moisture; Gypsum has moisture-absorbing characteristics and may be used for drying: eg. sludge from municipal and industrial wastewater treatment plants; Gypsum can be used to absorb grease spills: eg. grease absorbent for mechanic shop floors; Athletic field marker; Salty soil treatment: recycled gypsum can be used to facilitate the leaching-out of sodium salt in soil along roads where salt is placed during winter; Manure treatment: recycled gypsum can be mixed with animal waste to combine with Ammonia to reduce odour. Backfilling of excavated open-cast gypsum mines. 239 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 4.4.2.8. Gypsum waste hierarchy graph Resource optimisation - rethink design Source reduction-accurate estimating and ordering Prevention Reduce packaging-Reverse distribution to suppliers Prevention-efficient material savings construction techniques Deconstruction Preparation for re-use Re-use, in place of new components Recycling Closed loop recycling Soil improver Agricultural use of gypsum and fertiliser and others Reduction of organics, Other recovery desulphurization may produce FGD Gypsum Landfill cells for Landfill plasterboards Figure 4-9. Gypsum waste hierarchy graph. 240 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 4.4.3. National regulation specific go gypsum based waste 4.4.3.1. Transposition of the European regulation 4.4.3.1.1. Legal acts to be considered The Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of wastes is not a recent act. The objective was to harmonize the way the landfills were operated according different technical specifications closely linked with the type of wastes admitted. The Directive in its Article 4 defines a classification for landfill: Each shall be classified in one of the following classes: - Landfill for hazardous waste, - Landfill for non inert non-hazardous waste, - Landfill for inert waste. By nature gypsum based wastes must be sent to Non Inert Non Hazardous Waste landfill. The European legal act that applies directly to the gypsum based wastes is the Council Decision 2003/33/EC which defines the criteria and procedures for the acceptance of waste at landfills pursuant to Article 16 of Annex II to Directive 1999/31/EC. The article 2.2.3 specifies the conditions under which the gypsum based wastes must be stored in non inert non-hazardous waste landfills. Article 2.2.3. Gypsum waste Non-hazardous gypsum-based materials should be disposed of only in landfills for non-hazardous waste in cells where no biodegradable waste is accepted. The limit values for TOC and DOC given in sections 2.3.2 and 2.3.1 shall apply to wastes landfilled together with gypsum-based materials. Provided that the landfill directive 1999/31/EC is well implemented, it implies that any load of gypsum-based waste must only be landfilled in cells with no biodegradable material. This legislation entered into force for avoiding two risks. In non inert non- hazardous waste landfills or in inert landfills, sulfate leaks may happen due to the composition of gypsum. If simultaneously some bacteria are present, some H2S is produced and released. If effectively implemented as it is, there are two main consequences: - the gypsum-based waste segregated at the early stage must go to monocell. 241 DA.1: Inventory of current practices - the landfills without cells for gypsum based waste must not accept such a waste mixed with other wastes except if it conforms to the limits in terms of TOC or DOC. Consequently this article does not seem to be so restricting as it does not oblige to the upstream segregation of gypsum based waste. 4.4.3.2. Transposition of Directive 1999/31/EC in national regulation framework The transposition of the directive should have been done a long time ago. In fact in some countries it has happened quite recently and in other ones, it has not been transposed definitely. In France, the UK, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Greece and Belgium, the content is similar to the original legal text. There are some slight differences but the rule “a category of waste for a category of landfill” is respected. In some case different categories may be present on the same site. For instance as far as the gypsum based waste is concerned, they are still accepted in inert landfill in France up to a limited percentage and if this percentage is not obtained by dilution. Typically in the case of pure demolition (not selective one), the percentage of gypsum based waste is always below the limit, that it is possible to send the demolition waste to inert landfill. In Germany, there are four landfill classes. For non-hazardous waste there are two classes: DK II with limit values mostly identical with Decision 2003/33/EC (Annex 2.2.2) and DK I (e.g. for gypsum waste) with limit values half or less than DK II limit values. This example of Germany is important as it determines where a non hazardous waste can be buried according parameters to respect. In Greece, according to the Ministry of Environment there are no cells for gypsum- based waste operating in any landfill in Greece. Mixed inert C&D waste (including gypsum-based wastes) can only be disposed in inert-waste landfills according to the legislation and until such landfills start to operate in the country, they are currently disposed in other approved sites such as inactive quarries. 4.4.3.2.1. Transposition of Decision 2003/33/EC in national regulation framework Within the eight countries concerned, the decision was, or is to be, adopted. The majority of countries integrated it in their legal framework. However there are slight differences: 242 DA.1: Inventory of current practices In France, this article is transposed in Article 11 of Order of 19 January 2006 modifying the order of 9 September 1997 relating to landfills for non-hazardous waste: “Except for practical reasons, plaster-based wastes are stocked in cells where no biodegradable waste is accepted.” The first part of the sentence enables landfill operator almost always to justify that it is no possible to set up a specific cell. Some non hazardous non inert landfills don’t accept biodegradable wastes. Consequently their permit allows them to accept wastes with limits of TOC and DOC much more above than in the Decision 2003/33/EC. In Spain, the Decision has been integrated quite recently in the Draft Ministerial Order will modify annex I, II, and III of the Royal Decree 1481/2001, regulating waste disposal in landfills. For the time being this legislation has not entered into force. Moreover in Spain, national waste legislation is formulated by the Ministry of Environment, but it is implemented, enforced and monitored by each of the regional governments. Consequently in the future we may observe some differences among the 17 regions. Figure 4-10. Spain.Source: http://uwcm-geog.wikispaces.com The UK is made up of four nations, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Each has their own Environment Agency. In the past, the legislation was quite different from one part to another. Nowadays, there is a trend to standardize. In England and Wales (Environmental Agency), the disposal of gypsum waste with biodegradable waste in landfills has been prohibited in law since 2005. The original regulatory position was that up to a 10% content of gypsum wastes in loads of construction and demolition waste remained acceptable for disposal in landfills receiving biodegradable waste. This position was removed from the legislation in 2009. The reason was that no scientific evidence could prove the rationale of the 10% rule. The Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) revised its policy on gypsum waste going to landfill from 1 April 2009 so as to comply with the Decision. In September 243 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 2009, the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency issued the Technical Guidance Note for the Disposal in Landfills for Non-Hazardous Waste of Gypsum Wastes. In Greece, all Council Decisions issued apply automatically to Greek legislation framework. Therefore, no corresponding national legislation has been issued for the transposition of Council Decision 2003/33/EC, which applies as it is. In Germany, the complete implementation of the Decision came quite recently through a first ordinance of 27th April 2009. Within this legal framework it was possible to use wastes, including gypsum based waste, as a material for landfill construction, this operation being considered as recovery. Nevertheless some material may not be suitable for landfill construction operation. More recently a second ordinance modifying the Landfill was published on 19th April 2013, and comes into effect on 1st May 2013. It is determined in § 14 clause 2, in which the recovery of substitute material is regulated, that for production of these materials amongst others the following waste may not be used: “waste, where it is not assured due to their nature, composition or consistency that they are not suitable with regard to the function or structural engineering, as particularly gypsum waste, for whose use no suitability has been verified according to annex 1 no. 2.1.2 sentence 1.” Consequently gypsum based wastes as any wastes can only be used for landfilling construction with presentation of a special certificate of suitability in accordance to the national standards of quality. The 16 regions or “Länder” are responsible for the implementation of the federal laws. Figure 4-11. The 16 regions or “Länder”. In Poland, the Decision was integrated in the legal actDz.U.z. 2005 no 186. It seems that it has not come into force yet. 244 DA.1: Inventory of current practices In Belgium, there are three areas to be considered as they are under the responsibility of different local authorities. OVAM BrusselsM Institute for Environmental Management Environmental Department for the Walloon Region Figure 4-12. Belgium. Source: http://freedomandprosperity.org/ The Decision was adopted in the three regions. In the Netherlands, Landfill Directive; BSSA - Besluit Stortplaatsen en Stortverboden Afvalstoffen (new law per December 2012) integrates the content of the Decision. Paragraph I, Article I: It is not allowed to landfill non-treated waste with gypsum waste in a facility (as landfill) that is listed in part C of Annex 1 of the Dutch Environmental Law (a. o. landfills where hazardous waste is accepted). Consequently it is basically forbidden to landfill gypsum at common landfill sites, but local authorities may allow this with a special act - when the gypsum can’t be recycled for some reason. When non hazardous gypsum wastes are landfilled with other non-hazardous waste: the DOC and TOC has to be equal or lower than values given in tables 2.1 and 2.2 of Annex belonging to Article 11d and 11f from the BSSA. 4.4.3.3. Specific national regulation related to gypsum waste There are only a few national regulations related to gypsum based waste. We do not consider at this stage some specific measures which apply locally or to some facility. As an example, in the area of Allier in France, the landfills have an operating permit with a given limitation of gypsum based waste. As it is not possible to control each lorry, the landfill operator is compelled to sort out a given tonnage per year at the gate. 245 DA.1: Inventory of current practices In France, the UK, Greece, Poland, Spain, Belgium and Germany, no specific requirements could be identified. In the Netherlands, in the National Waste Management Plan (LAP) 2009 – 2021, gypsum wastes are targeted: • LAP, Plan 31: The minimum standard for gypsum waste is recovery by re-use of the material. • For gypsum that is not suitable for re-use (e.g. gypsum that is attached to asbestos, tiles), the minimum standard is landfilling in a suitable landfill. A new LAP is expected by the end of 2013 where the minimum standard will be recycling. CONCLUSION The way the European legal acts were adopted seems quite different from one area to another. It is difficult to have clear frontiers between some legal measures. As far as the criteria are concerned, it seems that some countries have different views and analysis of what complies with the Directive and the Decision. 4.4.4. National general regulation impacting Gypsum-based Waste 4.4.4.1. Transposition of the European regulation 4.4.4.1.1. Legal acts to be considered The recent Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) does not concern directly the gypsum based wastes but sets out a number of goals for MS to reach in the field of waste management. The three following articles have a strong impact on gypsum based waste: Article 1: the Directive introduces clearly a hierarchy of treatment routes: (a) prevention (b) preparing for re-use (c) recycling d) other recovery, e.g. energy recovery (e) disposal. 246 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Prevention must be the preferred solution. This route is possible within the production and construction phase. It is not likely the case within a demolition or a refurbishment operation. Recycling is probably the best option for demolition gypsum based wastes. Article 6: a set of criteria is established to determine when a waste shall cease to be a waste (a) the substance or object is commonly used for specific purposes (b) a market or demand exists for such a substance or object (c) the substance or object fulfils the technical requirements for the specific purposes and meets the existing legislation and standards applicable to products (d) the use of the substance or object will not lead to overall adverse environmental or human health impacts. The end-of-waste status is supposed to boost the market of the use of wastes as a raw material. Indeed some potential end-users may be reluctant to incorporate some in their products pretending that it will affect negatively the behavior of their customers. On the one hand this article may also simplify the burden of administrative tasks linked to the waste business. On the other hand when a waste becomes a product, all the regulations should apply including REACH (Regulation on Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals) Article 11, 2: An objective of re-use, recycling is given for C&D waste (b) by 2020, the preparing for re-use, recycling and other material recovery, including backfilling operations using waste to substitute other materials, of non- hazardous construction and demolition waste excluding naturally occurring material defined in category 17 05 04 in the list of waste shall be increased to a minimum of 70 % by weight. This article does not specify whether the 70% objective article is a global objective or a target per material. As already mentioned, a directive is not binding. It gives only goals to MS which much take the appropriate measures to reach them. In Europe, there may be huge discrepancies among the different MS. 4.4.4.1.2. Transposition of Directive 2008/98/EC in national regulation framework The hierarchy of outlets is already introduced in the national regulation of the eight countries. 247 DA.1: Inventory of current practices In France, Spain, Greece, the Netherlands, Germany, Poland and Belgium the article is transposed more or less as it is. In the UK, as far as England and Wales are concerned, some precise provisions were added. The order may be not strictly respected if, through a life cycle thinking approach, it is proven that a route at a lower position in the pyramid has a better positive impact obviously on health, environment but also on business or social issue. The protection of resources is also considered. In Scotland and Northern Ireland, the hierarchy must be respected in a way which delivers the best overall environmental outcome. The end-of-waste status is also integrated in the national framework of France, Greece, the UK, Poland, Germany, Spain and Belgium. In the Netherlands, there are some cases when a waste loses its status but the criteria are not similar to the ones in the directive. This may be the fact in the next National Waste Management Plan. The 70% target for re-use, recycling operation has not been transposed as it is so far in some countries. This is typically the case in France where it does not appear in any legal document. In Belgium, for the Flemish and Brussels region, the 70% target was transposed into regional legal documents and waste management plans. Germany, the UK, Greece, Poland, Spain transposed the article as it is. Greece establishes a two-step target that seems to be relevant in terms of monitoring.In its recent Joined Ministerial Decision 36259/1757/Ε103/2010: Article 12: Quantitative targets for Excavation, Construction and Demolition Waste (ECDW) recovery Until 1/1/2015 the reuse, recycling, recovery of other waste materials and their utilization must come up to at least 50% by weight of total ECDW produced in the country. Until 1/1/2020 the reuse, recycling, recovery of other waste materials and their utilization must come up to at least 70% by weight of total ECDW produced in the country. The Netherlands which is a country where the rate of re-use, recycling is far beyond the 70% with a top at 95% maintains it whereas the tonnage of C&D will increase by more than 25%. 4.4.4.2. Specific national regulation and taxes impacting gypsum wastes The aim of this part is to identify legal acts decided by the national authorities that facilitate (or on the contrary impede) the recycling or recovering operation and divert 248 DA.1: Inventory of current practices tonnages from landfill. The taxes decided by each MS may give an economical efficiency to the recycling compared to landfill. 4.4.4.2.1. Specific national regulation Examples of specific national regulation “upstream of” the jobsite In France, the diagnosis of materials prior to demolition becomes mandatory for buildings with a surface higher than 1000 m² and buildings where there used to be an agricultural, industrial or commercial activity and where one or several hazardous substances used to be used, stocked, manufactured or distributed. This diagnosis is under the responsibility of the project owner of a building. The refurbishment of building is excluded which it does not seem to be relevant. The diagnosis is carrying out following the methodology below: 1. Detailed inventory, quantification and location of materials, construction products and equipments, 2. Information on the opportunity to re-use on site and, failing that, on the management channels of demolition waste, Qualification and quantification of materials that can be re-used on site and, failing that, of demolition waste. In the UK, the Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) Regulations were introduced in England in April 2008. On Construction and Demolition projects over £300,000 additional waste management controls affecting the duties of the Client and Principal Contractor, in order to improve the recycling rates of materials leaving site. In Greece, the recently issued Joined Ministerial Decision 36259/1757/Ε103/2010 sets the legal framework for the management of Excavation, Construction and Demolition Waste, referred to as ECDW. Although there is no specific reference to gypsum-based waste in the JMD, selected sections of its content that were considered important are presented below. Article 8: Terms and conditions for alternative ECDW management ECDW managers are obliged to organize individual or collective alternative ECDW management systems or to participate in collective alternative ECDW management systems according to the article 17 of Law 2939/2001. These systems aim in the collection of the ECDW from the worksites and the reuse or recovery and recycling of the collected materials. Moreover, concerning diagnosis of materials prior to soft stripping or demolition, JMD 36259/1757/Ε103/2010 states the following. 249 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Article 7: Obligations of ECDW managers Take into account and facilitate the dismantling, reuse, recovery and especially the recycling of construction materials in project planning Reduce the use of hazardous substances in construction materials in cooperation with suppliers and manufacturers in order to facilitate their recycling and prevent the need for hazardous waste disposal. Incorporate increasing quantities of recycled materials in construction works in cooperation with suppliers, manufacturers and project owners in order to develop markets for recycled materials Make agreements with construction material dealers to take back the surplus materials that were not used in the project. Before the start of construction activities ECDW managers must submit Waste Management Data (WMD). This WMD must be included in the documents submitted to obtain the permits of construction/demolition activities. Within 30 days from the completion of the waste management activities ECDW managers must submit to the competent authorities a delivery verification certificate of the ECDW to an approved alternative management system. Article 10: Terms and conditions for ECDW collection Measures must be taken for the selective dismantling of sections and materials that can be reused in site or in other similar works prior to demolition. In Spain, to regulate the production and management of C&DW and focused on establishing a legal frame for the C&DW production so as to encourage prevention, re- use and recycling, as well as other forms of valorisation, the Spanish Government issued the Royal Decree 105/2008 (Ministry of the Presidency, 2008). Royal Decree 105/2008 proposes a development of waste management systems for each construction project based on the drawing up of: - A Waste Management Report (WMR) developed during the design phase of the project. - A Waste Management Plan (WMP) developed during the planning of the construction work. The table below synthesizes what are the regulatory diagnostics and audits prior to demolition and or prior to refurbishment in each country of the study. 250 DA.1: Inventory of current practices ASBESTOS LEAD COUNTRY OTHER ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT Prior to demolition and Belgium Non regulatory ? prior to refurbishment Audit of the materials prior to demolition, for buildings with a surface Prior to Prior to higher than 1000 m² and buildings demolition and demolition and where there used to be an agricultural, France prior to prior to industrial or commercial activity and refurbishment refurbishment where one or several hazardous substances have been used, stocked, manufactured or distributed. Audit of the materials prior to Prior to demolition, especially in suspicious demolition and Germany Non regulatory cases. For mineral substances, after prior to demolishing, an analysis of bulk refurbishment materials is carried out Audit prior demolition for hazardous Prior to Greece Non regulatory construction materials that require demolition special measures during removal Prior to demolition and Poland Non regulatory No audit prior to refurbishment - Waste Management Report (WMR) Prior to developed during the design phase of demolition and the project Spain Non regulatory prior to - Waste Management Plan (WMP) refurbishment developed during the planning of the construction work Prior to The demolition and ? ? Netherlands prior to refurbishment Prior to Prior to - Site Waste Management Plan demolition and demolition and (Regulations 2008) when the cost of The UK prior to prior to the project is over £300 000 refurbishment refurbishment - Site Environmental Waste Number Table 4-16. Synthesizes what are the regulatory diagnostics and audits prior to demolition and or prior to refurbishment in each country of the study. Examples of specific national regulation “downstream of” the jobsite Normally in France, the non inert non-hazardous waste can only be landfilled if there are considered as being not economically and technically recyclable. This should be favorable to gypsum based waste as well as to any waste. 251 DA.1: Inventory of current practices To conform to article L.541-14-1 of the «environment code », each administrative region has to elaborate a planning document related to the prevention and management of C&D wastes. This should enable to facilitate the rate of recovery throughout the value chain while diminishing the tonnage and the toxicity of wastes. In Greece, the Joined Ministerial Decision 50910/2727/2003incorporates the previous Waste Framework Directive 91/156/EEC, but also includes the National Management Planning for Non Hazardous Waste in Annex II which is still in force. The National Management Planning for Non Hazardous Waste provides the utilization of waste-derived materials by maximizing recycling and recovering products and energy. It focuses on several categories of non hazardous solid waste, including “inert excavation, construction and demolition waste”. It aims to increase the percentage of material recovery by developing organized collection, segregation and recovery systems for excavation, construction and demolition waste. The goals will be achieved by the organization of alternative waste management, measures for encouraging recovery and recycling of these waste and measures for raising awareness of consumers and end-users. In the Netherlands, the new Landfill Directive per December 2012 (“BSSA: Besluit stortplaatsen en stortverboden afvalstoffen”) whereas it is basically forbidden to landfill gypsum at common landfill sites, gives the possibility to local authorities to allow it with a special act - when the gypsum can’t be recycled for some reason. It is forbidden to landfill rubble and most of mixed building waste, but it is allowed to landfill ytong. 4.4.4.2.2. Environmental taxes The total cost for the non-inert non-hazardous landfill route is composed potentially of tax, tipping fees (or gate fees) and VAT (Value Added Tax). - The landfill tax is a levy charged by public authorities for the disposal of waste. The goal is to give, even guarantees, an economical advantage to environmental friendly routes and consequently divert some tonnages from landfill. For the time being only 6 out of 8 countries of the project GtoG have a landfill tax. - Tipping fees (gate fees) are charged by the landfill operators for waste disposal. This fee is subject to variation according different parameters such as the economic situation of the country or the competitiveness within “the landfill industry”. In Greece, a special landfill tax was recently issued (article 43 of Law 4042/2012) at 35€/tn waste with an annual increase of 5€ up to 60€/tn waste. The tax applies as of 1/1/2014 only to a number of specific waste categories (EWC codes) that have not been subjected to one of the disposal/recovery operations D13, R3, R4, R5, R12. These categories include biodegradable municipal waste and several ECDW (17 01, 17 02, 17 03 02, 17 05 04, 17 05 06 and 17 09 04) but not gypsum waste. 252 DA.1: Inventory of current practices In Poland, there is supposedly a landfill tax that varies according to what type of waste is landfilled. For general waste (not otherwise described) the landfill tax is 60-65 eur/t (272 Zlothy). This tax seems to be very high. In France, the landfill tax is quite low among the lowest in Europe-17. However the typical cost is relatively high in some regions. The UK has had a policy to increase landfill Tax by £8 since April 2011 leading to an increase from £24 per tonne in 2007 to the current rate of £72 per tonne. (April 2013) It will rise again in April 2014 to £80 and is set to remain at this level or higher until at least 2020. There is no landfill tax for Germany and the Netherlands has just decided to delete the tax. In terms of cost related in the chart below, it must be considered as the money paid by the demolition companies or the waste management companies to dispose their waste directly. It does not reflect the market price for taking out wastes from a jobsite within an area which includes in addition all the logistic costs and the margin of the operators. The figures in red are the ones found in the Bio Intelligence Service study report83 and that were not updated to the lack of information or accuracy. Country/Cost for Standard* cost Gate fee per tonne non-hazardous Landfill tax per tonne per tonne (2013) (2013) landfilling France 80 € 40 to 95 € 17 to 30 € The UK 110 € 13-50 € 85 € (72 £) Germany 20-150 € 20-150 € 0 € 67,46 € (wal) - 46,29 € Belgium 105 € (wal) 50 € (Fl) The Netherlands 90 € 90 € 0 € as per 1/1/2013 Spain 80 € 50 - 110 € 3 € (inert) Poland ? € 20 to 35 € 65 € 35 €/t** as of 1/01/2014 Greece 25 to 31 € 10-72 € + 5 €/year up to 60 € * Standard cost is the result of the sum of the gate fee and landfill tax. Standard does not mean average. The latter is not possible to calculate. It is the cost usually observed. ** For some categories excluding gypsum based waste. Table 4-17. Environmental taxes. 83 Bio Intelligence Service for DG Environment.USE OF ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCES.Final Report, 10 April 2012, Contract ENV.G.4/FRA/2008/0112. 253 DA.1: Inventory of current practices In some countries the cost for segregated gypsum based waste in monocell is much higher. In the UK for instance, it is around 120€/t. In France, the price is lower around 85 to 90 €/t. 4.4.5. Effectiveness and awareness of the gypsum based waste regulation and practices 4.4.5.1. Effectiveness of the regulation The effective implementation of the regulation is important but it is quite difficult to assess accurately the impacts of the regulation as it is not only the sole parameter influencing the management of wastes. For instance, it is not possible to demonstrate that a proper implementation leads to the recycling of gypsum wastes or that a lack or a wrong implementation impedes to the development of the recycling route. - As far as the Directive 1999/31/EC and the Decision 2003/33/EC are concerned, we should observe whether no gypsum based waste is landfilled except in monocells in non hazardous waste landfill or when mixed with biodegradable waste that the load of waste complies with the acceptance criteria. In France, the Directive 1999/31/EC was more or less transposed as it is. Gypsum based wastes have been diverted from the inert landfills since 2006 and sent to non hazardous waste ones. This has been a trigger as the price went from a few euros per tonne up to 50 to 60€ at this time. When the 1999/33/EC and 2003/33/EC entered into force, there were inert landfills with monocell. It was, at this time, the adopted solution by the French authorities. To conform to the new legislation, these inert landfills should have stop to accept gypsum based waste. The operators obtained the right to continue their activity provided some slight enhancements of their facility. The counterpart was to keep a lower gate fee below 40€ which is not representative of the costs of a non hazardous landfill. 10 years later such an operation is still in place in the south of France. However, surprisingly the Decision 2003/33/EC has not been exactly written as it was previously mentioned. So in fact it is not mandatory to have a specific cell to accept gypsum based waste. There are only 15 monocells out of 100 non hazardous non inert landfills accepting wastes from companies. The segregation is consequently not a necessity. Within these conditions, it could be thought that the recycling route couldn’t be developed. Despite this unfavorable transposition, more than 50,000 tonnes coming from jobsites were recycled in 2012 in France. The reason is to be found in the competitiveness of the recycling route. Under French legislation, landfills can accept only non recyclable waste. The idea of recyclability in France is based on the possibility to use the recyclate at an acceptable 254 DA.1: Inventory of current practices and competitive cost. Nowadays the fact that thousands of tonnes keep on being landfill constitutes a real infringement from the landfill operators. In the UK, there are only less than two non hazardous non inert landfills equipped with monocell. However, contrary to France, the transposition didn’t modify the original article. This means that all the other landfills could not accept gypsum based waste except if complying with the 10% content rule. It was not respected and impossible for the authorities to control which decided to forbid the gypsum based waste mixed with other waste. The consequence was a bottleneck for gypsum based waste in terms of outlets. The number of monocells is not sufficient to address the demand and the cost is as high as 120€/t. Nowadays number of players propose to spread gypsum based waste on farmland after having crushed it probably without the same provisions and stringent specifications as within the recycling route. Nowadays the recycling route represents between 40,000 to 50,000 tonnes but it must be analyzed in the light of the worldwide crisis which slowed down the rapid development prior to 2007. In Germany, it seems that up to recently the possibility to use gypsum based waste to cover operation without standard specifications proven the suitability of the material and the backfilling of open cast mines have impeded a rapid development of the recycling route. - For the Directive 2008/98/EC, it might be too early to assess the impacts on gypsum based wastes management. As far as the hierarchy is concerned, it seems that there is no concrete example that shows the promotion of the Member States. Northern Ireland is an exception: guidance on applying the waste hierarchy was issued so as to enable operators to make relevant decisions. Detailed methodology is also available per type of waste. The end-of-waste status for gypsum based wastes is a reality only for United Kingdom. The Quality Protocol and accompanying PAS 109:2008 complies with the specification article 6c). It enables a material made in compliance with both documents to be classified as a raw material. This end-of-waste status is valid when gypsum based waste powder is used in agriculture, cement and plasterboard. The PAS 109 is under a procedure of revision. Some stakeholders would like to expand it to other applications. In the other countries some discussions have started. In France, a building waste recycler has launched the procedure for concrete waste. This initiative should open the door for the other materials. The French gypsum association should lead the action. As far as the 70% recovery rate is concerned, some countries claim to have already reached the target. The issue is to assess the relevancy of the calculation for the Gypsum Industry for instance. As the 70% is a global target for C&D, the pressure is on the inert waste as they represent 93 to 95% of the total tonnage. The Gypsum Industry may have an opportunity to fix its own target and why not 70% of the available tonnage of gypsum based waste in 2020. In France, a plasterboard manufacturer has already announced publicly that it will recycle 70% of the gypsum based waste proportionally to 255 DA.1: Inventory of current practices its market share. The objective should rapidly adopted by the whole French plasterboard industry. Demolishers and other stakeholders in the different countries of the study have been interviewed about the implementation of the regulatory audits and diagnostics. Regarding the asbestos assessment, it appears that it is actually carried out. As far as the lead assessment and the regulatory audits of the materials are concerned, these surveys are generally carried out in the scope of an environmental certification for big companies with a specific environmental and regulatory policy. But apart from these circumstances, it appears that they are rarely required. When the project owner does not require these surveys, some project owner representatives, project managers or architects sometimes advise him to require it but they can’t take the final decision. Several reasons have been given by the interviewees explaining why most of the lead assessment and audits of the materials are not carried out. Some of the interviewees consider that project owners would need more education about that. Indeed, the regulation is relatively new and is badly known, especially by the private project owners. Moreover, it appears that there are not enough controls by the authorities. Plus these audits are constraining and some stakeholders think that they are expensive. The cost of an audit of the materials represents generally about 1% of the global cost of the project. The global cost of the realization of the asbestos and lead assessment and of the audit is most of the time around 2% of the global cost of the project. It rarely goes over 5%. Some French demolishers and project managers gave more details about the audits of the buildings. First of all, these audits are concentrated on materials, not wastes. As a result, there is generally no expertise on treatment routes and the person in charge of the audit just list the possible outlets found on some organization websites. The existing and regulatory outlets are not always known by the consultants in charge of the audits. Sometimes, the consultants do not even check that the waste can be accepted in the outlet. For instance, in some cases, it is written on the list that gypsum based waste can be sent to landfill for inert waste. Plus, the qualitative and quantitative assessments of the materials are generally rough. This can be explained by the fact that the occupiers are often still in the building when the audits of materials are carried out. In this case, no “destructive” drilling can be carried out and as a result, some uncertainty on the type of materials and on the quantity remains. 256 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Moreover, except in the scope of asbestos and lead assessment, the materials are never analyzed. During the works, it sometimes happens that a waste described as an inert waste be actually a non hazardous waste or even a hazardous one. About the willingness of the consultants to carry out this audit, it was pointed out that some consultants are also project managers and could practice this auditing activity only for commercial reasons for the rest of the work. Finally, the audit is regulatory in France but is in not a contractual document. Consequently, it is not enforceable in case of a trade dispute. In addition to the regulatory audits, some demolition companies in France, and big construction companies (principal contractor) in Greece, generally carry out an audit internally to the company. It is generally the only non-regulatory audit carried out. These internal audits are sometimes succinct but enable the demolishers to assess the costs and to plan waste management. 4.4.5.2. Awareness about the incorporation of the European directives within national requirements. The stakeholders have been interviewed about their knowledge of the national requirements which incorporate the European Directive 1999/31/EC (landfill directive) and Decision 2003/33/EC (criteria for the acceptance of waste at landfills). It appears that the English and Scottish demolishers, and the some French consultants interviewed have a better knowledge of the regulation than the other stakeholders interviewed (demolishers from the other countries and project owners or project managers). Most of them were indeed aware that gypsum-based waste must be segregated from biodegradable waste into special cells when going to landfill. Plus, in the UK, the demolishers interviewed named: - Waste (Scotland) Regulations 2012 - Special Waste Regulations 1996 (Scotland) - European Waste Catalogue List of Waste (EWC 2002) - Waste Strategy 2007 (England) - Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003 (the UK) - Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 - Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 257 DA.1: Inventory of current practices - Hazardous (England and Wales) Regulations 2005 - List of Wastes (England) Regulations 2005. In France, some consultants and rare demolishers named the order of 28 October 2010 (inert landfill) and the order of 19 January 2006 (non hazardous non inert landfill). On the contrary, the demolishers interviewed in the Netherlands, in Belgium, in France and the interviewees in Germany (project owners, architect) know very few about that. Some of them have some knowledge about the content of their national regulation but they generally didn’t know how these texts had been incorporated and were not aware that gypsum-based waste must be segregated from biodegradable waste into special cells when going to landfill. Several reasons have been identified for the lack of knowledge of the demolishers and of the project owners in the UK and in France. When the demolition company belongs to a group – or in big demolition companies – this can be explained by the fact that a person of the group is sometimes specifically appointed to work on the regulation and is responsible for telling the demolishers what to do to respect the regulation and also when something is changing in the regulation. In this case, the demolisher doesn’t necessarily know the content of the texts, although he respects the regulation. It is almost the same situation for the project owner and for the project owner representative. Since they generally appoint a person to work on the environmental and regulatory aspects, they actually know a few about that and also think that the demolition companies are aware about the regulation. As already mentioned in the legislative part, the case of Spain is different since the Council Decision 2003/33/EC has not yet been transposed. In Poland, the Decision was integrated in the national legislation but apparently didn’t enter into force at this time. As a result, in Spain and Poland but also in Greece, the majority of the stakeholders interviewed were not familiar with the Council Decision 2003/33/EC. Plus, the interviewees knowing that gypsum-based waste must be segregated from biodegradable waste into special cells when going to landfill were rather rare. In Greece, the main reason that could explain the ignorance of the legislation is that, since ECDW is removed unsegregated from the site, the stakeholders interviewed consider that these facts are a concern of ECDW recyclers. As a result this legislation has no impact on their activity in demolition works. 258 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 4.4.5.3. Awareness of the regulatory audits and diagnostics by the stakeholders The interviewees have been asked about the regulatory audits and diagnosis in their county, prior to demolition and prior to refurbishment. Regarding the diagnosis, the asbestos assessment prior to demolition and refurbishment is known as a regulatory survey by nearly all the interviewees. The lead assessment is sometimes also considered as regulatory in Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK. These assessments are usually carried out by companies which have been authorized to practice this activity of diagnosticians, excepted in Belgium. Indeed, at this time in Belgium any company can carry out these diagnostics without any accreditation. Moreover, an audit of the materials is generally named as regulatory in some specific cases in the UK, Germany, France, Belgium and the Netherlands. 4.4.6. CAPABILITY OF THE MANUFACTURERS TO RECYCLE Germany For the reincorporation of the recycled gypsum the compliment of the provisions of § 5 subsection 1 KrWG has to be checked and decided by the producer and a official decision about the end-of-waste status of is not required for reincorporating the recycled gypsum into the manufacturing process (see section 2.1.2.5 for further details). Gypsum waste could be even processed by the German gypsum plants. Manufacturers in other countries currently reincorporating FGD gypsum reported no need to adaptations to reincorporate recycled material, because they don’t accept material that does not meet the necessary technical requirements. However, for doing the processing by them, they would need a high initial investment cost for the processing equipment. Greece, Poland and Spain The lack of sorting and segregation on site of the plasterboard waste limit the possibility of receiving gypsum waste that fulfills the specifications (see section 2.1.4). The waste management sector needs to mature until seeing C&D waste being separately collected on site. In this sense, the correct implementation and enforcement of the Council Decision 2003/33/EC and the creation of higher landfill taxes could force the needed change to achieve the goals or the WFD. 259 DA.1: Inventory of current practices It is also a need that local authorities set up plasterboard waste collection in the public recycling centres. Belgium, France, the Netherlands and the UK Most of the plasterboard plants in these countries are currently receiving recycled gypsum from a gypsum recycler. Only Siniat FR has its own recycling warehouse for receiving and processing C&D waste. For start processing gypsum waste by them, they would need a high initial investment cost for the processing equipment and most of them could not be interested in it, having agreements with gypsum recyclers and even annex recycling warehouses owned by a gypsum recycler. 4.4.7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Gypsum based wastes, are not considered hazardous wastes, but they cannot be acceptable at landfills for inert waste without testing its inclusion of “Sulphate” which is inherent to all gypsum products. The reason behind this is that the combination of gypsum and organic waste may break down Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S), which is a gas that in high concentrations is lethal. Thus Non-hazardous gypsum-based materials should be disposed of only in landfills for non-hazardous waste in cells where no biodegradable waste is accepted Plasterboard is rarely incinerated since Sulphate may be converted to Sulphur Dioxide Demolition and renovation waste is a more complex problem because of the additional contamination to remove (paper, paint, screws, wood, nails, etc.). Thus, the scale of the contamination, its impact and optimal control methods all need to be determined of all the demolition and renovation gypsum wastes. The competitiveness of the recycled gypsum depends on the logistics, collection and recycling costs, comparing them to the landfill costs. The economics for demolition waste are expected to change, as it is expected that over the next 20-30 years this quantities are going to grow due to the increase of plasterboards use the in construction. This will increase the use of dismantling or deconstruction techniques, making possible demolition collection and recycling. It seems that some countries have different views of gypsum waste regulation, as The Specific national regulations related to gypsum wastes¸ are quite different from one area to another, which makes it difficult to establish clear frontiers between some legal measures. It is recommended to standardize these Specific national regulations 260 DA.1: Inventory of current practices After interviewing stakeholders about their knowledge of the national requirements which incorporate the European Directive 1999/31/EC (landfill directive) and Decision 2003/33/EC (criteria for the acceptance of waste at landfills), the following conclusion where reached: English and Scottish demolishers consultants interviewed have a better knowledge of the regulation than the other stakeholders interviewed, like the demolishers interviewed in the Netherlands, in Belgium and in France, that generally were not aware that gypsum-based waste must be segregated from biodegradable waste into special cells when going to landfill. The main reason for this lack of knowledge of the demolishers and of the project owners, is that sometimes a person of the group is specifically appointed to work on the regulation and is responsible for telling the demolishers and to the project owners what to do to respect the regulation and also when something is changing in the regulation. In this case, the demolisher doesn’t necessarily know the content of the texts, although he respects the regulation. 261 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 5. RECYCLING ROUTE VERSUS LANDFILL ROUTE: MARKET ANALYSIS AND CRUCIAL PARAMETERS FOR AN EFFICIENT VALUE CHAIN SUMMARY This key section aims to provide the current picture of the plasterboard recycling market in the 8 target countries, covering the following aspects: Markets for recycled gypsum Description of the business models (collection-processing-selling- reincorporation) Case study for the processing stage, based on two different scenarios The crucial economic parameters Economic analysis Environmental criteria Crucial factors for the effectiveness of the recycling route Gypsum waste market overview for each country 5.1. MARKETS FOR RECYCLED GYPSUM The different markets for recycled gypsum are: MARKET USES Manufacture of new plasterboard Manufacturing Manufacture of Portland cement Processes Manufacture of new construction materials (blocks) Plant nutrients (calcium and sulphur) Improving soil structure (aids drainage in clayey soils) Reclamation of sodic soils Land Application Correction of subsoil acidity Markets Plant disease prevention Reducing phosphorous leaching from manure-loaded soils 262 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Animal bedding (from 2012 is not allowed in the UK ) Compost (please note that gypsum and plasterboard are not biodegradable and therefore are not suitable for composting ) Bulking and drying agent Others Settlement of dirt and clay particles in turbid water Absorbent for greases Material for road base construction Ingredient in flea powder and similar products Table 5-1. Recycling markets for gypsum. Source: Eurogypsum. All the different uses listed in table 5-1 mean a high variety of open loop uses that can be chosen. Only the manufacture of new plasterboard close the loop of the plasterboard waste and it is not always chosen because closed loop recycling demands higher quality materials and so extensive quality control and processing are required. Different contaminants, such as asbestos, would make closed loop recycling of plasterboard impossible (see section 2.1.4. Specifications for recyclable gypsum waste). Up to 2% of other materials (insulation, wood, metal…) can be accepted, but the technical and toxicological parameters (see section 2.1.5. Recycled gypsum quality criteria once reprocessed) have to comply with specific requirements developed by the different gypsum associations and companies. This quality criteria need to be unified and this task will be completed under Action B of the GtoG project. For all the above mentioned sorting and separation of the gypsum based waste in the construction site is essential for effectively closing the loop of the plasterboard waste. Figure 5-1. Scheme of the different routes for gypsum waste. 263 DA.1: Inventory of current practices One of the main goals of the GtoG project is to achieve an effective closed loop recycling throughout the deconstruction supply chain for gypsum products. To effectively close the loop of the plasterboard will require deep collaboration between stakeholders along the value chain to create highly efficient reverse logistics. It will also require the correct implementation of the EU regulation as well as its enforcement. A diagram of the current closed loop recycling of C&D plasterboard waste has been drawn in figure 5-2: Figure 5-2. General scheme of the different practices to closed loop recycling of plasterboard waste. Figure 5-2 presents the two main routes currently observed for the plasterboard waste when it is segregated in the construction site: ROUTE 1 This is the route followed in most of the cases: Plasterboard is segregated on the construction site. Gypsum waste is collected by a third party (waste management companies, waste sorting facilities…) and then to the gypsum recycler. Gypsum waste is processed by the recycler. Recycled gypsum is transported to the plasterboard plant. 264 DA.1: Inventory of current practices In the case of recyclers with annexed recycling warehouses to plasterboard manufacturing plants, no transport is needed. Recycled gypsum is reincorporated into the manufacturing process by the plasterboard manufacturer. ROUTE 2 In some cases, plasterboard manufacturers have built their own recycling warehouse and received directly the construction and demolition waste: Plasterboard is segregated on the construction site. Gypsum waste is transported to the plasterboard plant. Gypsum waste is processed by the gypsum manufacturer. Recycled gypsum is reincorporated into the manufacturing process by the plasterboard manufacturer. But, apart from these different routes, other specificities are observed among the 8 target countries of the GtoG project. The first remarkable one is that in Europe, gypsum recycling market is only a reality in Belgium, the UK, France, the Netherlands and Scandinavia. A detailed description of the current business models of these countries is described below. 5.2. DESCRIPTION OF THE BUSINESS MODEL (COLLECTION-PROCESSING- SELLING-REINCORPORATION) The business model differs from country to country according to the culture and regulation of that country. However there are main characteristics which are valid for any kind of C&D waste recycling. The C&D recycling systems always involves more than one operator. Each operator has its part of responsibility in the economic, technical and environmental efficiency of the recycling of the C&D waste stream: Demolishers or Waste Recyclers Contractors of a collectors Manufacturers new buildings 265 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Waste collectors can also be recyclers and recycler can also organize the waste collection. Manufacturers can also be recyclers (having internal recycling facilities) and they can also collect waste. In the UK, some gypsum manufacturers have put in place take back schemes for collecting construction waste. The efficiency of the recycling lies in the efficiency of the value chain. But the efficiency of the value chain also depends on the monetary value of the recycled C&D waste: metal has infinite value and is thus recycled. Plasterboard is a commodity and has little monetary value for the waste collectors, the demolishers or the contractor. The sorting at demolition and construction sites will happen for plasterboard if - National authorities push for dismantling and recuperation of the plasterboard waste; - Other types of waste of high monetary value are recovered at the same time; - Logistics are optimized. Otherwise, the landfill route will still be seen as the easiest and most economically viable route. The most often business model observed is described below for the complete value chain: Segregation on site Storage and collection scheme for gypsum construction waste and demolition waste Processing Selling Reincorporation A detailed overview in a country-per-country basis can be found in section 5.8. Segregation on site - Plasterboard waste is often stripped out on site by hand. Usual tools for this task are: sorting grabs, shovels, sabre saws, cutting chisels and wrecking bars. 266 DA.1: Inventory of current practices - Plasterboard waste is usually segregated from the rest of C&D waste at the building site. Other times it is mixed with other waste and lately separated in the transfer station. The sooner the gypsum waste is sorted out the better for its recycling. Storage and collection scheme for gypsum construction waste and demolition waste - Plasterboard and gypsum blocks (when the later are used) are most of the times stored in separate cover or uncovered waste skips before their removal. - Clean loads of gypsum waste are collected by waste management companies, transport companies or recyclers (case of the Netherlands, where trucks collect gypsum based waste at the source of generation). - Material brought to transfer stations that cannot be pre-sorted. Then the separation of the plasterboard waste is done in this point. Bulk bag system. This system is operated through the suppliers of the plasterboard using the conventional delivery vehicles. Figure 5-3 shows the bag system operated by Knauf. The system focus on the collection of wastes originated from Knauf boards leading to a closed loop system. Major account holders generating large quantities of waste are in principle less problematic to service and the service provision is more cost effective. In such cases provision of the service is included into plasterboard purchase agreements and hence the cost of providing the service represents an embedded cost. On the other hand, small contractors do not have the same purchasing power and have sites that are much more problematic to service, i.e. small volumes of waste generated in a confined area, and hence pay for the additional complexity. 267 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Figure 5-3. Bulk bag system. Skip system. This system is operated through waste management contractors and involves the use of skips of various sizes. Material is predominantly traded on the open market and the route the waste takes is dependent on the quantity of waste being generated and the proximity to a plasterboard reprocessor. The smaller the loads and the longer the distance to the reprocessor the more likely the use of a waste transfer station to bulk up the waste. Figure 5-4. Skip system. There are three skip systems in operation: - Segregated skip system. - Partly segregated. - Mixed. 268 DA.1: Inventory of current practices The Mosquito Fleet system The alternative collection system that could in the long run have the greatest potential is “the mosquito fleet”. The so called “mosquito fleet” system comprises small pick-up trucks of generally less than 1.5 tonnes capacity, which collect small quantities of waste board from multiple sites using a milk-round approach or medium quantities (less than 1.5 tonnes) from single sites through single pick-ups. The material is delivered either to a recycler or to a waste transfer station. New West Gypsum Recycling report that in North America 54% of the gypsum they recover is in loads of less than 1.5 tonnes, of which 46% is delivered direct to recyclers and 8% sent through waste transfer stations.84 The process is described below: 1. Collection. Single pick up or the milk-round. Loads of 1-1.5 tonnes are collected in a single pick-up. Small loads of less than 1 tonne are collected using a milk-round approach. Figure 5-5. Single pick-up. 84Wrap technical report: recycling of plasterboard from refurbishment site, September 2006 page 5. 269 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Figure 5-6. The milk-round. 2. Transfer. It can be sent directly to the recycler or via a waste transfer station. When a recycler is nearby, the pick-up transfers the plasterboard straight to the recycler. Transfer stations are used where there is no local recycler. Figure 5-7. Transfer to a gypsum recycler. NGWR. 30 yard skips (10 tonne capacity) are typically used to bulk-haul short distances to recyclers Articulated vehicles (30 tonne capacity) are used to bulk-haul long distances to recyclers 270 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Figure 5-8. Short haul transfer. NGWR. Figure 5-9. Long haul transfer. NGWR. 3. Processing. NWGR recycle the gypsum and paper. The plasterboard market is the main end-application for the recycled gypsum, though existing alternative markets. Waste collection centres in France (known in Denmark as Public Recycling Centres) In France, local public authorities have set up waste collection centres across the country. Only the general public, SMEs and craftsmen can bring their waste to those centres. Today, in France, there are 150 centres already equipped to receive gypsum plasterboard waste. The Institut Français de l’Environnement (IFEN) estimates that 55% of the gypsum plasterboard wastes go through that waste collection system. The latter is definitively efficient and less costly for SMEs and the general public.85 85Eurogypsum Waste Policy brochure: building value for society, 2007. 271 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Plasterboard Collection at Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRC) in the UK86 Since 2006 spring, and during 12 months, Gypsum Recycling UK Limited (GRUK) and N.T.F.W. Ltd carried out a project consisting in two sets of trials at a range of HWRC in southern England. The main aims of these trials were to: determine the amount of plasterboard waste that could be collected by HWRC, analyse the inherent quality of the collected wastes and demonstrate the effectiveness of equipment available to recycle this plasterboard waste. This project showed the importance of having site staff ‘on side’ because they are the experts at separation of collected plasterboard waste brought to the HWRC. If the methodology was rolled out on a national basis, the collection and recycling per year of tonnes of plasterboard waste which currently go to landfill would be possible. The project also showed that it is not difficult to collect free of contamination plasterboard waste and that the best cost-effective and environmentally sound processing method for the collected plasterboard waste are purpose-built recycling plants. During the process the contamination level fell as site staff became more attentive to the type of materials being placed in the containers. In general contamination was low and did not mean a major problem. The project demonstrated that when separating containers for plasterboard waste at HWRC, users are encouraged to recycle their plasterboard waste. The need to combine separation with processing in order to achieve acceptable recycled gypsum was also demonstrated. Figure 5-10. Plasterboard Collection. 86Wrap 2007 - Plasterboard collections trials at household waste recycling centre - plasterboard technical report. 272 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Case study 1: EJ Berry Plasterboard take-back scheme using reverse logistics87 Ernest J Berry & Son Ltd is a family owned business founded more than 50 years ago and operating in the South West of England and Wales. Their service includes the same to next day delivery on all stock items, using their own vehicle fleet. This case study outlines a system introduced by a plasterboard distributor, EJ Berry (EJB) with the support of the plasterboard manufacturer Siniat and New West Gypsum Recycling. Launched in June 2007, the system was collecting in 2007 over 30 tonnes of plasterboard waste per month and this is steadily growing as more of their client base switches over to the new system. The system involves the take-back of plasterboard waste as part of the outbound delivery service to construction sector clients. The reverse haul nature of the system keeps overhead costs to a minimum and hence provides a viable method of plasterboard waste collection for smaller dry lining contractors. The process is below described: 1. Delivery of new plasterboard and empty plasterboard waste bags to site by EJB Figure 5-11. New plasterboard and empty bags to construction site. 2. On-site recovery of segregated plasterboard waste Figure 5-12. Segregated plasterboard waste. 87 Wrap - Plasterboard take-back scheme using reverse logistics, 2007. 273 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 3. On-site consolidation of filled bags Figure 5-13. Filled bags. 4. Collection of filled bags by the vehicle delivering new plasterboard to site Figure 5-14. Collection by the vehicle. 5. Consolidation of filled bags at EJB distribution centre Figure 5-15. Bags at EJB distribution centre. 274 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 6. Recycling at New West Gypsum. Filled bags are delivered to NWGR en route to the collection of new board from Siniat. 7. New board is collected from Siniat. Processing - Before the processing, plasterboard waste is manually sorted for bigger pieces of contamination (metal, plastic and other debris). 2-3% of contamination is allowed in the plasterboard waste. - Waste gypsum is loaded into the recycler’s equipment. - Several mechanical processing steps separate the paper line from the gypsum core. - The recycling process has the following three output streams: o Gypsum powder. Around 90 – 94 per cent by weight of the output. o Paper fraction. Around 6 – 10 per cent by weight of the output. It is sent to recycle by a third party. o Metal. < 1% by weight of the output. It is sent to recycle Selling The recycled gypsum is conveyed to plasterboard manufacturers (in the case of recycling facility annex to a manufacturing plant) or transported by truck to the plasterboard manufacturing plant. Reincorporation Manufacturer and recycler usually have an agreement where different parameters are specified, such as: - Sizing - Paper content - Moisture content - Purity - Analysis of the technical and toxicological parameters (see section 2.1.5 Recycled gypsum quality criteria once reprocessed). 275 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Normally the manufacturer does the testing on a daily or weekly basis with their own methods. A table describing the particularities of each country is presented below: GtoG target countries Suppliers of recycled Transport from recycling warehouse to the with a gypsum gypsum identified by plasterboard plants recycling market PB manufacturers NWGR recycling warehouse is co-located in the Belgium SG manufacturing plant in Källo (Flemish region) NWGR NWGR recycling warehouse is co-located in the SG manufacturing plant (Vaujours, París) A plasterboard manufacturer (Siniat FR) has its Nantet Locabennes, own recycling warehouse for C&D waste Ritleng France NantetLocabennes supply recycled gypsum to Revalorisations, SG Placoplatre in Chambéry NWGR Ritleng Revalorisations supplies recycled gypsum to Siniat FR in Alsace GRI's mobile truck collects plasterboard waste on the construction sites The Netherlands Also two GRI's fix recycling warehouse, located GRI in Werkendam and Delfzijl A plasterboard manufacturer (British Gypsum) is also collector and recycler, reincorporating the NWGR, Roy Hatfields, The UK recycled gypsum in its process Arrow and Countrystyle NWGR’s recycling warehouse in Avonmouth Table 5-2. Description of the particularities of each of the countries recycling Construction and Demolition Plasterboard Waste. 5.3. CASE STUDY FOR THE PROCESSING STAGE, BASED ON TWO DIFFERENT SCENARIOS Evaluating volumes and recycling potential for gypsum waste recycling is still quite an imperfect science. However, there are ways to estimate how much waste the industry generates and it is then possible to evaluate the potential for reduction, re-use or recycling. In any case, evaluating the gypsum waste stream can be a challenge due to the various ways it can be measured - weight or volume. Both are acceptable methods, but the numbers could be deceiving.88 88Eurogypsum Waste Policy brochure: building value for society, 2007. 276 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Take for example, cardboard and plasterboard. A cubic meter of cardboard will only weigh about 13 kg while a cubic meter of drywall will weigh about 180 kg. Therefore, a "full" 27 meter container filled with cardboard will only weigh about 400 kg. A 27 meter container full of shingles or drywall will weigh 5 tonnes. In Europe, the gypsum plasterboard waste arising has not been monitored and hence the absolute trends in waste arising cannot be scientifically quantified today. The other factors influencing the economics of recycling include: Sorting and storage space; Contamination; Transportation; Regulations (processing, air, water, disposal, storage, etc.), and Market availability. Gypsum waste must be processed to market specifications. Specifications vary by market type but will typically include: separation from other wastes and removal of contaminants (nails, staples, plastic, shingles, etc.). Some markets will also require processing through grinding and chipping. New construction materials are more readily recycled than demolition or renovation wastes which are more difficult to separate, resulting in higher contamination levels. The amount of contamination is a key factor in determining market acceptance. Once it is clear that materials can be separated to maintain quality for a particular market, the transportation costs and regulations concerning storage or processing of those materials need to be weighed-up. But, partnerships built-up with designers, recyclers and others will help to overcome such obstacles and lay-out the necessary procedures for a successful recycling operation. In the end, assuming there are available end-uses for the recovered materials, the immediate recycling of gypsum debris makes economic sense if the total net financial cost of recovery is less than the cost of land filling. The implementation of the Commission decision on the waste acceptance criteria is still relatively recent, so as yet it is difficult to see if the cost of land filling gypsum waste has sharply increased or not as a direct result of the change in the waste acceptance criteria. To be able to have a viable economic model, we need reliable gypsum waste statistics which are currently failing as per the figure bellow. A first approach has been developed to estimate the cost effective of the recycling and landfilling route. 277 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Furthermore, the parameters involved in the use of recycled gypsum vs natural or FGD gypsum have also been considered for the recycling cost effective assessment. Recycling (R) vs Landfilling (L): We can consider a 3-step operation for the assessment of both routes: Step 1: Gypsum based waste (GBW) Transportation (T) The recycler might be the one in charge of the transportation of the GBW to the recycling facility. In any case, this cost will be charged to the waste supplier (the demolishing company or waste manager). Variables to be considered: Distance (km), Weight of waste to be transported (tonnes). Parameters: TR: Transportation of GBW from the deconstruction site or waste transfer station to the recycling warehouse (€/km t). TL: Transportation of GBW from the deconstruction site or waste transfer station to the landfilling (€/km t). Step 2: Gypsum based waste (GBW) Acceptance (A) Variables to be considered: Weight of acceptable GBW (tonnes). Parameters: AR: Acceptance of GBW by the recycling facility is the recycling warehouse gate fee (€/t). This parameter covers the cost of: Quality check, GBW storage and processing of GBW. AL: Acceptance of GBW in landfill. Landfill tax and gate fee (€/t) The four parameters (TR, TL, AR and AL) will vary with the country where the assessment is taking place. Recycling cost (€): R = TR x D x W + AR x W + P (1) Where, 278 DA.1: Inventory of current practices TR is the cost of transportation of GBW to the recycling facility (€/km t). D is the distance to transport GBW to the recycling facility (km). W is the weight of waste to be transported (t) AR is the gate fee of the recycling facility (€/t) Landfilling cost (€): L = TL x D x W + AL x W (2) Where, TL is the cost of transportation of GBW to the landfill (€/km t). D is the distance to transport GBW to the landfill (km). W is the weight of waste to be transported (t) AL is the total cost of the landfilling tax and gate fee (€/t) Recycled gypsum vs natural or FGD gypsum Once more, as a 2-step operation, the following parameters are considered: Step 3: Recycled Gypsum Transportation (TM) The recycler might be the one in charge of the transportation of the recycled gypsum to the plasterboard manufacturing plant. In any case, this cost will be charged to the manufacturer. Variables to be considered: Distance (km), Weight of recycled gypsum to be transported (tonnes). Parameter: TM: Transportation of recycled gypsum from the recycling facility to the manufacturing plant (€/km t). Step 4: Price of the recycled gypsum (P) Parameter: P: Price of recycled gypsum (€/t). 279 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Recycled gypsum cost (€): RG = TM x D x W + P x W (3) Where, TM is the cost of transportation of recycled gypsum to the manufacturing plant (€/km t). D is the distance to transport the recycled gypsum to the manufacturing plant (km). W is the weight of recycled gypsum to be transported (t) P is the price per tonne of recycled gypsum Case studies: different routes for GBW Two different case studies are analysed: CASE STUDY A: Recycled gypsum supplied to a manufacturing plant that uses FGD gypsum from an annexed recycling facility. Cost of FGD gypsum: 9 €/t CASE STUDY B: Recycled gypsum supplied from an external recycling facility. In this case the manufacturing plant uses natural gypsum. Cost of natural gypsum: 8 €/t Cost for the RECYCLING operation: Step 1: GBW Transportation (TR) + Step 2 GBW Acceptance (AR) Cost per tonne of GBW Cost of the operation RECYCLING A B TR 10 10 AR 30 45 TOTAL 40 55 Table 5-3. Cost of the operation RECYCLING. 280 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Using Equation 1 (calculation per tonne): Case Study A: R = TR + AR = 10+30 = 40 € Case Study B: R = TR + AR = 10+45 = 55 € Cost for the LANDFILLING operation: Step 1: GBW Transportation (TL) + Step 2 GBW Acceptance (AL) Cost per tonne of GBW Cost of the operation LANDFILLING A B TL 20 20 AL 20 35 TOTAL 40 55 Table 5-4. Cost of the operation LANDFILLING. Using Equation 2 (calculation per tonne): L = TL + AL Case Study A: L = TL + AL = 20+20 = 40 € Case Study B: L = TL + AL = 20+35 = 55 € Cost of Recycling = Cost of Landfilling Cost of recycled gypsum vs natural or FGD gypsum: Step 1: GBW Transportation (TR) + Step 2: GBW Acceptance (AR) + Step 3: Recycled Gypsum Transportation (TM) + Step 4: Price of the Recycled Gypsum (P) 281 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Cost per tonne of GBW Cost of the operation RECYCLING A B TR 10 10 AR 30 40 TM 0 5 P 1 -10 Table 5-5. Cost of the operation RECYCLING. Adding Equation 3 to Equation 1 we can assess the cost effective of using recycled gypsum vs natural or FGD gypsum: R + RG = TR + AR + TM + P Case Study A: R + RG = 10 + 30 + 0 + 1 = 41 € TM=0 the recycling facility is annexed to the manufacturing plant P =1 this is an agreed symbolic price for the recycled gypsum Case Study B: R + RG = 10 + 40 + 5 + (-10) = 45 € P = -10 the recycler pays to deliver the recycled gypsum to the manufacturer. Each tonne of recycled gypsum represents a savings of 18 euro per tonne, 8 euro of mining not paid, and 10 euro bonus from the recycler. 282 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 5.4. THE CRUCIAL ECONOMIC PARAMETERS OF THE RECYCLING ROUTE VERSUS THE LANDFILLING ROUTE The analysis evaluates the life-cycle cost of the different stages forming part of each alternative route, due to the influence on the final result and effectiveness in the gypsum waste stream. The principal activities having a relevant economic impact in the process are listed below: Deconstruction or Demolition Gypsum waste storage Gypsum waste transportation Recycling Warehouse or Landfill Recycled gypsum transportation Reincorporation of the recycled gypsum by the plasterboard manufacturer Figure 5-16 shows both routes. Route 1 usually starts with deconstruction, leading to the processing and reincorporation of the recycled gypsum. This is a common route if a market for the recycling of gypsum waste exists and no other alternative uses are a common practice. Route 2 is deeply impacted by demolition practices and the resulting mixed waste. A demolition work can only lead to effectively closing the loop if gypsum waste is separated in the waste transfer station from the rest of mixed C&D waste. However, the sooner the gypsum is separated the better, being highly recommended from the GtoG project to follow deconstruction practices. 283 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Figure 5-16. Different stages under study and routes considered. It is important to outline a range of variables impacting each stage, of crucial importance in determining markedly different results. These variables have been identified below. DECONSTRUCTION (DC) or DEMOLITION (DM) Deconstruction (DC) Main parameters impacting: Dismantling (D) The costs related to the dismantling phase will have an influence on the choice of its occurrence Sorting and storage operation on-site(S₁) Cost of sorting and temporarily storing the plasterboard waste. Loading of the skips for each type waste(L₁) Deconstruction (DC) = Dismantling (D) +sorting and storage (S₁) + Loading (L₁) Demolition (DM) Main parameters impacting: Crushing, collapsing (C) 284 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Costs related to the crushing or collapsing phase Storage operation on-site (S₂) Cost for temporarily storing the mixed waste. Loading of the skips for mixed waste(L₂) Demolition (DM) = Crushing, collapsing (C) +storage (S₂) + Loading (L₂) GYPSUM WASTE TRANSPORTATION (T) The gypsum waste stored is collected and transported to a waste transfer station, recycling warehouse, or to the landfill for disposal. It can be brought by a waste collector, a waste transport company or by the waste producer. Main parameters impacting: Waste volume (V) Volume per roundtrip(N) Distance travelled (D) Hired hauler (H) Transportation (T) = variable cost (depending on V, N and D) + Hired hauler (H) The maximum distance travelled is significantly different in each country, from 80 km to 300 km. RECYCLING WAREHOUSE or LANDFILL Main parameters impacting: - Gate fee of the recycling warehouse (G) - Sales price of the recycled gypsum (S) - Cost for transporting the recycled gypsum (TM) - Cost of processing gypsum waste (P) Note that this overall cost includes: - Labour for sorting, storage, receiving of waste… - Labour for the processing 285 DA.1: Inventory of current practices - Energy for the complete process - Repair and maintenance of recycling equipment - Cost/income for paper disposal - Cost of disposal of other contaminants - Amortized capital cost of processing equipment - Amortized capital cost of recycling facility For the gypsum recyclers within the GtoG project the income per tonne has been established as follows: RECYCLING = Income per tonne needed to run a market based gypsum recycled system (I) I (€/t) = gate fee (G) + sales price(S) - cost for transport of the recycled gypsum (TM) A fee will be applied for the acceptance of plasterboard waste in the recycling facility, according to the volume of waste and whether it has been previously separated or if further segregation is need. The fee applied varies depending on the rate marked by the country. AVERAGE GATE FEE (G) 50 €/t Source: gypsum recyclers within the GtoG project. Once the gypsum has been reprocessed, it is sent to the plasterboard manufacturer, being this cost assumed by the recycler. It is observed that in some cases recycled gypsum is sold to manufactures at a very low price or even the manufacturer is getting paid for its acceptance, as a commercial strategy in pursuance of encouraging manufacturers’ interest and increase the market demand. If this occurs, gate fee has to markedly increase to obtain the income per tonne needed. AVERAGE SALES PRICE (S) 0 €/t Source: gypsum recyclers within the GtoG project. 286 DA.1: Inventory of current practices As for the transportation (TM), recyclers usually locate their facilities close to a plasterboard manufacturing plant, so that no more logistic expenses are needed due to the proximity. RECYCLED GYPSUM TRANSPORT (TM) €/t Recycler’s annexed recycling warehouse 0 No annex recycling warehouse (typically less than 8 km far from the 2 plasterboard plant) TOTAL AVERAGE 1€/t Table 5-6. Recycled gypsum transport (TM) €/t. Source: gypsum recyclers within the GtoG project. AVERAGE OF THE INCOME NEEDED (I) = 49 €/t Source: gypsum recyclers within the GtoG project. For the case of disposal in landfill: LANDFILL = Standard cost per tonne (ST) Standard cost (ST) is the sum of the gate fee and landfill tax. See section 4.4.4.2.2. ST (€/t) = landfill tax (LT) + gate fee (G) REINCORPORATION OF THE RECYCLED GYPSUM (Re)89 Main parameters impacting the recycled gypsum reincorporation process carried out by the plasterboard manufacturing plants: - Quality check costs - Cost of the crushing & sieving - Storage costs of recycled gypsum Some manufacturing plants require regular quality checks, storage, crushing and sieving practices, before finally reincorporating the recycled gypsum into their plasterboard’s production process, resulting in extra costs. 89For the reincorporation stages, 3 out of 4 partners of the GtoG project (manufacturers incorporating recycled gypsum in their process) have provided data for its consolidation. Therefore, due to confidential issues among partners, table cannot be filled unless the remaining partner provides the information. 287 DA.1: Inventory of current practices However, other companies do not require the above mentioned practices and do not identify as an extra cost the reincorporation of the recycled gypsum. The listed parameters are shown in table 5-7: STAGES CRUCIAL ECONOMIC PARAMETERS Dismantling (D) DECONSTRUCTION (DC) Deconstruction (DC) = Dismantling (D) + Sorting and storage operation on-site (S₁) sorting and storage (S₁) + Loading (L₁) Loading of the skips for each type waste (L₁) Crushing, collapsing (C) DEMOLITION (DM) 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) I (€/t) = Gate fee (G) + Sales price (S) - Transport of the recycled gypsum (TM) Cost for transport of the recycled gypsum (TM) Cost of the processing (P) LANDFILL Landfill tax (LT) ST (€/t) = landfill tax (LT) + gate fee (G) Gate fee (G) REINCORPORATION OF THE RECYCLED Quality check costs (Q) GYPSUM Re (€/t) = quality check (Q) + crushing & Cost of the crushing & sieving (CS) sieving (CS) + storage of recycled gypsum (ST) Storage costs of recycled gypsum (ST) Table 5-7. Summary of crucial economic parameters. 5.5. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS This section aims to evaluate the economic viability of waste management procedures for recycling of plasterboard waste, in contrast with the disposal in landfills. 288 DA.1: Inventory of current practices The model is expected to provide both an insight of the different stages and an easy to fill table for calculating the potential savings derived from the closed loop recycling of the material. As the recycled gypsum has other alternative uses, closed loop recycling highly depends on the economic feasibility. Due to compliance with competition law and confidential data among the different plasterboard manufacturers and gypsum recyclers within the GtoG project, it has been a great challenge to develop an economic analysis of the current picture. Data used for the study comes from the information provided by the gypsum recyclers within the GtoG project, from the case study developed in section 4.3.1 and from the published literature. This analysis consolidates overall economic data in the target European countries within the GtoG project where a market for recycled gypsum exists: Belgium, France, the Netherlands and the UK. For the rest of target countries (Greece, Poland and Spain) this economic analysis cannot be applied due to the lack of gypsum recycling practices. The calculation of the overall estimated costs is based in the volume of plasterboard waste collected. The cost also includes additional parameters regarding energy consumption, waste management, maintenance of equipments, quality check and personnel. DECONSTRUCTION (DC) or DEMOLITION (DM) DECONSTRUCTION DEMOLITION Deconstruction Phase (DC) Cost €/t Demolition Phase (DM) Cost €/t STEP 1: Dismantling 32 Step 1: Crushing, collapsing 32 STEP 2: Sorting and storage Step 2: Storage operations on 96 96 operation on site site STEP 3: Loading of the Step 3: Loading of the skips 207.93 207,93 skips for each type of waste mixed waste TOTAL 335,93 €/t TOTAL 335,93 €/t Table 5-8. Cost of deconstruction versus cost of demolition based on the case study in section 4.3.1. 289 DA.1: Inventory of current practices GYPSUM WASTE TRANSPORTATION (T) ROUTE 1 -RECYCLING ROUTE 2 - LANDFILL From Deconstruction From Demolition Transportation Phase €/t Transportation Phase €/t OVERALL COST* 42.86* TOTAL 43.39* Table 5-9. Cost of gypsum waste transportation. * Based on the case study in section 4.3.1. RECYCLING WAREHOUSE (I) or LANDFILL (G) RECYCLING WAREHOUSE Cost €/t LANDFILL Cost €/t Income per tonne needed *(I) 49 Standard cost per tonne (ST)** 60 Table 5-10. Recycling warehouse compared with disposal in landfill cost. *(I) €/t = gate fee (G) + sales price (S) - cost for transport of the recycled gypsum (TM). **See section 4.4.4.2.2 Environmental taxes, from the standard cost in France, the UK, Belgium and the Netherlands. REINCORPORATION (Re) EXTRA COST FOR INCORPORATING RECYCLED GYPSUM Cost* (compared with incorporating natural or FGD gypsum) (€/t) TOTAL * Only Siniat UK, Siniat FR and Saint-Gobain Gyproc have provided the required information. Therefore, this gap will be filled in future actions of the GtoG project and as a result of the pilot projects. Table 5-11. Extra cost for reincorporating recycled gypsum instead conventional raw material in the manufacturing process. OVERALL COST EQUATIONS TO COMPARE RECYCLING VERSUS LANDFILL ROUTE 1 Overall cost route 1* (€/t) = DC+T+ I *It does not include the reincorporation stage, in order to facilitate the comparison with the route 2 ROUTE 2 Overall cost route 2 (€/t) = DM+T+ST 290 DA.1: Inventory of current practices ROUTE 1 ROUTE 2 Deconstruction (DC) 335.93 335.93 Demolition (DM) Gypsum waste transport 42.86 43.39 Mixed waste transport (T) (T) Income per tonne needed Standard cost (ST): gate 49 60 by the recycler (I) fee + landfill tax 427.79 €/t 439.32 €/t Cost of recycling is around 3% lower than the cost of disposal in landfill. Table 5-12. Overall cost table to compare recycling versus landfill. 5.6. ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA This section aims to provide the basis for the proper development of sub action C1.1 in which the carbon footprint of the modified and optimized value chain will be assessed. This analysis focuses on the recycling of plasterboard waste, by comparing the differences between the total emissions associated with landfilling versus the processing and reincorporation of gypsum waste arising in construction and demolition works. The general purpose is to achieve a reduction in the amount of landfilled gypsum waste, increasing the demand for gypsum plasterboard that incorporates recycled content, thereby minimising the emissions related to extraction, transport and processing of mined gypsum, and avoiding landfill disposal resulting in hydrogen sulphide (H2S) emissions. SYSTEM BOUNDARIES The assumptions for the emission factor calculation regarding materials and energy used are described below. Plasterboard waste: Plasterboard waste generated in construction, renovation and demolition works. Processing of gypsum waste: The facing paper is separated from the gypsum core, and the gypsum is reduced to the required size. 291 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Recycled gypsum: is gypsum with the same original physical properties, resulting from the processing of gypsum waste. The different stages examined by this study are related to the routes defined in chapter 5.4. Either plasterboard waste processing or landfill disposal involves various impacting indicators identified with a significant environmental influence, as it is explained below: PLASTERBOARD RECYCLING Demolition- Deconstruction and sorting requirements Manually or mechanically operations from demolition and dismantling practices are considered, as well as sorting procedures in case there is a waste segregation on- site. The emissions are estimated from equipment fuel consumption and electricity required. Collection and transportation from construction site to the recycling facility Emissions are calculated from vehicles fuel consumption, depending on the distance travelled. o Waste transfer station In some instances, gypsum plasterboard waste can be taken to a transfer station for a temporary storage, prior to a recycling facility. Not applicable emission is applied but for the total transportation distance travelled. Waste management processes/ Recycling processing Plasterboard waste grounding and sieving process and transportation within the plant entails emissions in this stage. The resulted recycled gypsum ready to be reincorporated in the manufacturing process and a percentage of shredded paper are then obtained. Paper is not processed in the facility, not applicable emission is applied. Transportation from the recycling facility to the manufacturing plan Emissions are calculated from the fuel consumption depending on the distance travelled. 292 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Reincorporation activity Emissions from crushing and sieving procedures, if required before being reincorporated in the manufacturing process and relevant transportation within the plant are considered in this stage. LANDFILL Demolition Either manually or mechanically, emissions are calculated from equipment fuel consumption and electricity required. Collection and transportation to Landfill Emissions are calculated from vehicles fuel consumption, depending on the distance travelled. Landfill An important impact of plasterboard waste, is the hydrogen sulfide (H₂S) caused by the combination of gypsum waste with organic waste. It is a hazardous flammable gas with environmental and health effects when inhaled. Hydrogen sulfide (H₂S) emissions are evaluated, regarding the amount of gypsum based waste deposited. BACKGROUND SYSTEM To achieve an accurate calculation, it is needed to gather data for the indicators included in the boundary system previously defined. Besides, an energy emission conversion factor has to be applied to the parameters chosen by type of energy use. These factors differ widely in accordance with the patterns from each country. Parameters taken into account include: Gypsum waste processing and recycled gypsum reincorporation energy emissions, in CO₂: Gas is assumed to be the standard processing fuel, according to national specifications. Electricity consumptions for the equipment required, according to national grid. 293 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Transportation energy emissions, in CO₂: Refine products: Petrol, diesel or liquefied petroleum gas LPG, according to national rates. Landfill, in Hydrogen sulfide (H₂S) emissions. It should be note, that differences in the total potential emission are attributable to distinct energy consumption estimations, depending on processing profiles, and distinct conversion factors set by country- specific modelled. The total result is a quantified impact in CO₂ and H₂S equivalent/m², sum of all emissions derived from each stage of the recycling or landfill pathway, in order to account for a final global warming potential and H₂S emissions. The study has been conducted in accordance with the ISO 14040, a series of standards that set the process used as a framework for undertaking Life cycle assessments. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESMENT Provide a breakdown of the embodied emissions of each area of the process, enabling to see where the differences arise and identifying the determined key contributors to the environmental impact. DECONSTRUCTION (DC) or DEMOLITION (DM) CO₂ EMISSIONS ROUTE 1 -RECYCLING ROUTE 2 - LANDFILL UNIT FACTOR CO₂ UNIT FACTOR CO₂ ELECTRICY kW/h * kg kW/h * kg FUEL LPG l * kg l * kg PETROL l * kg l * kg DIESEL l * kg l * kg TOTAL kg/m² kg/m² Table 5-13. Environmental assessment - Deconstruction/Demolition (kW/h = kilowatt-hours, l = Litres). 294 DA.1: Inventory of current practices TRANSPORTATION CO₂ EMISSIONS (T) ROUTE 1 –RECYCLING ROUTE 2 - LANDFILL UNIT FACTOR CO₂ UNIT FACTOR CO₂ FUEL LPG l * kg l * kg PETROL l * kg l * kg DIESEL l * kg l * kg TOTAL kg/m² kg/m² Table 5-14. Environmental assessment –Transportation (l = Litres). RECYCLING FACILITY (RF) LANDFILL CO₂ EMISSIONS (L) and LANDFILL H₂S EMISSIONS (LH₂S) ROUTE 1 -RECYCLING ROUTE 2 - LANDFILL UNIT FACTOR CO₂ UNIT FACTOR CO₂ ELECTRICY kW/h * kg kW/h * kg GAS kW/h * kg kW/h * kg FUEL LPG l * kg l kg PETROL l * kg l * kg DIESEL l * kg l * kg TOTAL kg/m² kg/m² UNIT FACTOR H₂S kg * kg TOTAL kg/m² Table 5-15. Environmental assessment - Recycling facility/ Landfill (kW/h = kilowatt-hours, l = Litres). 295 DA.1: Inventory of current practices TRANSPORTATION CO₂ EMISSIONS (TM) ROUTE 1 -RECYCLING UNIT FACTOR (CO₂) FUEL LPG l * kg PETROL l * kg DIESEL l * kg TOTAL kg/m² Table 5-16. Environmental assessment –Transportation (l = Litres). REINCORPORATION CO₂ EMISSIONS (RP) ROUTE 1 -RECYCLING UNIT FACTOR CO₂ ELECTRICY kW/h * kg GAS kW/h * kg FUEL LPG l * kg PETROL l * kg DIESEL l * kg TOTAL kg/m² Table 5-17. Environmental assessment – Reincorporation (kW/h = kilowatt-hours, l = Litres). OVERALL EMISSIONS RECYCLIN ROUTE 1 GWP Global warming potential (kg CO₂-Eq./m²) = DC+T+R+TM +RP DC: Demolition/Deconstruction 296 DA.1: Inventory of current practices T: Transportation R: Recycling process TMTransportation to the manufacturing plant RP: Reincorporation LANDFILL ROUTE 2 GWP Global warming potential (kg CO₂-Eq./m²) = DM+T+L Total H₂S emissions (kg H₂S Eq./m²) = LM H₂s DC: Demolition T: Transportation L: Landfill LM H₂s: Landfill H₂S emissions ROUTE 1 ROUTE 2 Deconstruction (DC) Demolition (DM) Gypsum waste Mixed waste transportation transportation(T) (T) Recycling process Landfill Recycled gypsum transportation to the manufacturing plant Reincorporation CO₂/m² CO₂+ H₂S/m² Table 5-18. Overall environmental impact table to compare recycling versus landfill. Given the current lack of data provided by plasterboard manufacturers and gypsum recyclers, the environmental analysis is expected to be completed for future conclusions in the next action C of the GtoG project. 297 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 5.7. CRUCIAL FACTORS FOR THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE RECYCLING ROUTE Introduction The amount of gypsum waste that is recycled in each country varies significantly from the Northern EU countries to the Southern member states. As an average, the market share is limited to around 9.8 per cent in the 8 target countries (see table 2-33 in section 2.1.6). Compared to the Waste Framework Directive’s requirement: by 2020 the preparing for re-use, recycling and other material recovery (...) shall be increased to a minimum of 70 % by weight (requirement that includes all the C&D waste), still progress has to be done to reach such objective. The developed model can be used as an analytical tool that helps to identify the causes that get to a recycling rate in a market but not as a precise tool, as the value of certain factors can only be estimated. In particular, it will help recyclers, plasterboard manufacturers, national authorities and the EU commission to identify the causes that limitthe 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 todetermine the share of gypsum that is recycled, most of which neither the gypsum recyclers nor the European Plasterboard Industry can influence directly. Factors have been grouped under four categories: TECHNICAL FACTORS Reach of the recycling system (RRS) Level of segregation of plasterboard waste from other C&D waste (SS) ECONOMIC FACTOR Competitiveness of the recycling solution compared to local landfills (CRS) LEGISLATIVE FACTORS Level of compliance with the existing regulations (Co) Legal alternative cheaper destinations for the waste (AS) ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR Environmental focus (ES) 298 DA.1: Inventory of current practices TECHNICAL FACTORS Reach of the recycling system (RRS) This factor describes the share of the gypsum waste market that can be “reached” by the established recycling system in the market. If no recycling system has been established in a country, this factor will be 0. If a gypsum recycling system exists the factor will vary from 0 to 1. This will depend mainly on two factors: - The first factor is geographical coverage meaning how large a share of the gypsum waste that is within 200 km radius from where the recycling facility is. The more gypsum waste that is within this distance, the larger the “reach” share will be. - Another important factor is the Recycling Waste strategy of the receiving plasterboard plants. They may decide that the recycling system might only be opened for certain types of wastes or certain manufacturers’ waste, which will limit the “reach” of the system. Level of segregation of plasterboard waste from other C&D waste (SS) SS describes the share of plasterboard waste that can be separated from the rest of C&D waste generated. A 100% segregation ratio would require all plasterboard waste to be separated on site. In the majority of the cases, plasterboard waste is transported to the transfer station forming part of C&D mixed waste. As a consequence, part of this gypsum waste is disintegrated due to its fragile nature, into such small pieces that cannot be segregated later. Even in the best scenario it can be estimated that only 80% of the plasterboard waste can be segregated. This high percentage can be achieved when a significant part of the plasterboard waste is source segregated, including at public recycling centres where separate containers for gypsum waste are present. However, in markets where the gypsum waste generated in building sites form part of the mixed C&D waste that is sent to the transfer station, and where no special collection of gypsum waste is done at the public recycling centres (or such centres do not exist or are not available to all waste owners in the market) the percentage will be much lower. To assess the level of segregation of plasterboard waste from other C&D waste (Ss), four different values have been considered and are shown in table 5-19: 299 DA.1: Inventory of current practices LEVEL OF SEGREGATION OF PLASTERBOARD WASTE FROM OTHER C&D WASTE (SS) High 0.8 Medium 0.5 Low 0.1 No segregation 0 Table 5-19. Different levels of segregation of plasterboard waste considered under the model. ECONOMIC FACTORS Competitiveness of the recycling solution compared to local landfills (CRS) Overall the market share will depend heavily upon whether a recycling solution has been established in a given country and how competitive that solution is to the landfills in the market. CRS is the relative competitiveness of the gypsum recycling solution in a given country, compared to landfill This factor will be calculated taking into account the partial factors listed in table 5-20: COMPETITIVENESS (CRS) PARTIAL DETERMINED BY FACTORS Landfill tax (LT) Landfill price (L ) P Degree of implementation of the EU LANDFILL = Standard cost legislation and level of enforcement (L ) per tonne EU Landfill operating cost (LOC) Cost of transport Waste volume (V) BOTH LANDFILL per tonne of Volume per roundtrip (N) ANDRECYCLING gypsum waste Distance travelled (D) (LTC) Hired haulier (H) Income per tonne Recycler’s gate fee (G) needed to run a Recycled gypsum sales price(S) RECYCLING market based Cost for transport of the recycled gypsum gypsum recycled (T ) system (I) M Table 5-20. Sub-factors impacting the competitiveness of the recycling solution. 300 DA.1: Inventory of current practices According to the partial factors defined, the equation to determine the competitiveness can be written as follows: CRS = LP / I If there is no recycling system established in a market, this factor will be 0. It should also be noted that this factor is defined such that it can never be more than 100%. So even if the landfill price is twice as high as the income per tonne needed to run a recycling system, then in the formula for calculating the market share 1 will be used. Landfill price (LP) is determined by: - Landfill tax (LT) Landfill tax is the environmental tax paid, typically set such that it is intended to encourage recycling. In most cases it can be observed that there is a close relation between this cost and the recycling rate in a country where higher taxes mean higher recycling rates. However, a high tax can also lead to an increase in fly-tipping and the use of unlicensed waste disposal sites, so the relationship is not “one-to-one”. Figure 5-17 shows the landfill tax and gate fees in the different target countries for the year 2013 (for extended information see also Annex 3. Regulation tables). 140 120 100 80 60 Gate fee 40 Landfill tax 20 0 Figure 5-17. Landfill tax (€/t) and gate fee (€/t) in the different countries under study. 301 DA.1: Inventory of current practices - Degree of implementation of the EU legislation and level of enforcement (LEU) How the European directives are implemented can have direct consequences on the landfill prices. This will be illustrated in a later point below. Also the enforcement of EU legislation has a direct bearing on the cost of sending waste to disposal, as strict enforcement will limit loopholes in the system and will assure compliance. This factor plays a high influence on the success rate of a recycling market in a given country. Table 5-21 presents the different level of transposition of the European regulation in the 8 target countries. The detailed tables with the particularities for each of the countries can be found in Annex 3. Council Existence Waste Council Directive of Framework Decision 1999/31/EC on monocell Directive : 2003/33/EC the landfill of landfills 2008/98/EC waste Belgium C yes C C (Brussels) Belgium C yes C C (Flanders) The UK C yes C C Belgium C yes X C (Walloon) The X no C C Netherlands France D yes X X Germany D no C D Greece C no C C Poland C no X X Spain X no C C Complete C Under development or not transposed X Different transposition D Model of good practices On the right track On the right track but gypsum recycling practices have not yet started Gypsum recycling practices not yet started Table 5-21. Implementation of the EU legislation in the target countries. 302 DA.1: Inventory of current practices - Landfill operating cost (LOC) The cost of operating an inert waste landfill in Europe is typically around 10-15 €/t whereas operating non-hazardous wastes typically costs and additional 20€/t. In total the cost of operating a landfill for non-hazardous waste is typically around 30-35 €/t. The above mentioned degree of legislation implementation directly impacts the landfill operation cost with: - Additional cost for operating monocells, around 40-80 €/t - Additional cost of pretreatment prior to landfill / sorting, around 25-30 €/t The income per tonne needed to run market based gypsum recycled system (I) is determined by: I (€/t) = gate fee (G) + recycled gypsum sales price(S) - cost for transport of the recycled gypsum (TM) This needed income varies with the cost of labour, cost due to the recycling warehouse, distance to the plasterboard manufacturing plant, the quality specifications that recycled gypsum must comply with, the paper disposal cost and the effectiveness of the recycling production. The price that a gypsum manufacturer will pay for the recycled gypsum (S) is linked to the cost of sourcing other gypsum locally and has a direct consequence for the gate fee that the recyclers will charge. As it is mentioned in the economic analysis, in some countries manufacturers are even getting paid for receiving recycled gypsum and reincorporating it to their process and some of the gypsum manufacturers receive it for free. As an example, for presenting how the recycler’s gate fee can be influenced by the other two sub-factors, two hypothetical situations are presented below: Country A: price for recycled gypsum 0 €/t Country B: price for recycled gypsum 10 €/t It is assumed that both countries present the same recycler’s income needed (in this case 49 €/t) and the same cost for recycled gypsum transportation (in this case 1 €/t). Table 5-22 shows the two different hypothetical situations. 303 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Country A Country B Recycler’s average gate fee (€/t) 50 45 Price for recycled gypsum (€/t) 0 5 Recycled gypsum transportation (€/t) 1 1 Table 5-22. Sub-factors forming part of the income per tonne needed to run a market based gypsum recycled system. As can be seen from the table 4-39, if the recyclers need 49 €/t to run a recycling system, the gate fee will be set at 50 €/t if the recyclers do not get anything for the recycled gypsum. If, on the other hand, the recycler gets 5 euro for the recycled gypsum, the gate fee can be set to 45 €/t, still reaching the required 49 €/t to run the system. As a consequence, the more the plasterboard plants are paying for the recycled gypsum, the more competitive price the recycling will be. LEGISLATIVE FACTORS Level of compliance with the existing regulations (Co) Not all waste owners and waste operators work within the existing regulations. This factor describes the share of the total gypsum waste market that follows the existing regulations. The economic driver for not following the rules is to achieve lower cost for the waste disposal. This part of the market will not be accessible for the recyclers and will limit the market share for the recycling solution. Table 5-23 shows the different levels of compliance considered under this model. LEVEL OF COMPLIANCE OF THE EXISTING REGULATIONS (Co) High 0.9 Medium 0.5 Low 0.1 Table 5-23. Different levels of compliance of the existing regulations considered under the model. 304 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Legal alternative cheaper destinations for the waste (AS) This determining factor can be described as the share of gypsum waste market for which legal alternative solutions exist, that are cheaper than landfills. If such solutions exist the amount of waste disposed in landfills will be reduced. However, if they are more expensive than landfills they will not be established. The alternative solutions may be found all over a country or only in certain areas or regions, such that the share that are caught by this legal alternative destinations can also be limited this way. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR Environmental focus (ES) For a certain share of the plasterboard waste (it is assumed that, in the EU countries under study, in the best scenario only 15% of the gypsum waste follows the recycling route due to the influence of this factor), it will not be economic factors that determine where the waste ends up. Thus, there will be a certain share of the waste owners that will specify to the waste handlers that the waste must be treated in the most environmental friendly way no matter the cost, which generally will drive to the recycling solution. The waste owner may choose to disregard the cost and demand the recycling solution due to general environmental or climate concerns or to requirements from the building owner as a consequence of the wish to obtain certain environmental profile or fulfil the requirements in any existing environmental assessment tool (see section 1.5.5). Thus, ES describes the share of the plasterboard waste market, where environmental factors rather that cost factors determine the destination of the waste. Table 5-24 shows the different levels of environmental focus considered under this model. ENVIRONMENTAL FOCUS (ES) High 0.15 Medium 0.10 Low 0.05 Non-existent 0.00 Table 5-24. Different levels of environmental focus under the model. 305 DA.1: Inventory of current practices The model developed has been tested for each of the 8 countries under study, through an estimation of 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. This first estimation made by the UPM Team, as Coordinator of Action A1, based on the information gathered should be updated in future actions, following a “Delphi” methodology through a representative panel of experts formed out of the partners of the GtoG project. Each of the countries and the main factors impacting in their market are analyzed below: In 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 to 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 the present radar diagram. Figure 5-18. Radar diagram for the case of Flemish region 306 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Figure 5-19. Radar diagram for the case of Walloon region France is one of the countries where no alternative cheaper destinations are observed (AS). The main reason for its medium compliance with the existing regulations (Co) is the incomplete transposition of the Council Decision 2003/33/EC. A high rate of plasterboard waste is segregated on site but it is estimated that only 40% of the country is covered by the gypsum recycling companies (RRS). Figure 5-20. Radar diagram for the case of France 307 DA.1: Inventory of current practices In Germany the lack of recycling is mainly due to the lower cost of legal alternative cheaper destinations (AS) such as backfilling of open-cast mines. However, a medium level of segregation of plasterboard on site (SS) and compliance with the existing regulations (Co) establish a good starting point for C&D plasterboard waste recycling in a near future. Figure 5-21. Radar diagram for the case of Germany. In the Netherlands, a successful scheme to recycle construction gypsum waste is currently active. All the country has been reached (RRS) by gypsum recycling companies and it is observed a high level of segregation (SS) and compliance with the existing regulations (Co). However, it experiments a high export rate to Germany (AS), being the determining factor for the market share of the recycling system. Figure 5-22. Radar diagram for the case of Netherlands. 308 DA.1: Inventory of current practices The UK has the highest landfill tax compared with the other 7 target countries, a correct transposition of the regulations related to gypsum based waste and existence of monocell landfills (Co). However, a huge amount of recyclable gypsum waste is used for open loop purposes, mainly in the agricultural sector (AS). 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 5-23. Radar diagram for the case of the UK. Table 5-25 shows the estimated value for each of the factors, and how these factors have been combined for obtaining the market share of the recycling solution, following this equation: Market share of recycling solution = (Es + (1 - AS) x Co x CRS) x SS) x RRS * Pending patent BE Be FACTORS FR DE GR PL SP NL UK (Fl) (Wal) Reach of the R 1 0.2 0.4 0 0 0 0 1 0.7 recycling system RS Level of segregation of plasterboard waste SS 0.8 0.1 0.8 0.5 0 0 0 0.8 0.8 from other C&D waste 309 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Competitiveness of 0.4 - 0.5 – C ?* 1 1 ?* 1 1 1 the recycling solution RS 1 0.6 Level of compliance with the existing Co 0.9 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.9 regulations Legal alternative cheaper destinations AS 0 0 0 0.76 0 0 0 0.7 0.56 for the waste Environmental focus ES 0.15 0.05 0.10 0.10 0 0 0 0.15 0.10 Market share of ? 1.2 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.6 29.2 Recycling solution (%) MAIN DETERMINATING ? Co Co A Co Co Co A A FACTOR S S S Table 5-25. Estimated value for each of the factors defined into the model and final market share (%) for each of them. *Unknown Standard cost. A comparison between the final percentages estimated following this model with the values previously estimated in section 2.1.6 is shown in table 5-26. Be BE (Fl) FR DE GR PL SP NL UK (Wal) Market share of recycling ? 1.2 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.6 29.2 solution (%) Plasterboard Benelux Benelux Benelux waste recycled 15.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.7 = 40.4 = 40.4 = 40.4 (%)* Table 5-26. Comparison of the estimation based on the model and the estimation based on consolidated confidential data from partners (* previously estimated with confidential and thus consolidated data from partners, see section 2.1.6, table 2-33). This model will be further improved according to the results obtained within Actions B and C. 310 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Conclusions based on the application of the model A total of six factors that influence on the existence of a market for gypsum recycling practices have been identified, and they have been combined into a mathematical model that can help waste recyclers, the plasterboard industry, national authorities and the EU commission to identify the causes that limit the recycling rate of gypsum waste in a market and what can be done in order to improve the current situation. 9 different EU markets has been tested with the developed model, concluding that 6 of them (Walloon region, France, Germany, Greece, Poland and Spain) present low compliance with the existing regulations and a low landfill tax that unable to promote a high level of plasterboard recycling and in 3 of them (Germany, the Netherlands and the UK) is the existence of legal alternative disposal routes for the gypsum waste the main determining factor. Only the Flemish region in Belgium presents a very high market share, being the competitiveness of the recycling system compared with the price for disposal in landfill the determining factor. How this region has managed to fully and correctly implement the EU directives on waste and landfills should be followed as a model for promoting gypsum recycling in the rest of the EU countries. 311 DA.1: Inventory of current practices 5.8. COUNTRY-BY-COUNTRY GYPSUM WASTE MARKET OVERVIEW BELGIUM Both Flanders and Brussels region have correctly transposed the EU regulation related to gypsum based waste. Walloon region has not transposed Article 11.2 of the WFD, meaning a lack of targets by 2020. In 2006, Belgium implemented a landfill ban that impacts unsorted gypsum based waste. The later combined with the enforcement of the Council Decision 2003/33/EC has turned this country as one of the European leaders in gypsum recycling practices. However, Belgium has a high exported rate of gypsum based waste, and only the Flemish region has already stopped it. Landfill tax varies from 46 €/t (Flemish region) to 67 €/t (Walloon region). Voluntary approach: The Belgian Gypsum Association (BLVG) and stakeholders in the recycling process committed to recycle 25,000 tonnes of gypsum waste in 2009. Gypsum based waste recycled (%): 31.8 (see section 2.1.6) FRANCE France has transposed the Council Decision 2003/33/EC, but it can easily leads to cheating, due to the tag “except for practical reasons” (see Annex 3.2). This part of the sentence enables landfill operator almost always to justify that it is no possible to set up a specific cell. However, it seems to be a medium level of enforcement and, at least, some monocell landfills have been created. Landfill tax varies from 17 to 30 €/t. Voluntary approach: the gypsum manufacturers through their industrial association “Les Industries du Plâtre” signed in 2008 a voluntary agreement, “La Charte sur la Gestion des déchets” for promoting the proper management of gypsum from construction and demolition gypsum waste. Gypsum based waste recycled (%): 15.2 (see section 2.1.6) GERMANY Germany has a special regulation in terms of landfill classification and, in contrast to Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste, there are four landfill classes. 312 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Gypsum waste normally can be landfilled in landfill sites (Deponieklasse) 1 with very low TOC and DOC values. Therefore monocells are not usual. This landfill tax regime shows that the German authorities favour the landfill route rather than the landfilling route. For the reincorporation of the recycled gypsum the compliment of the provisions of § 5 subsection 1 KrWG has to be checked and decided by the producer and a official decision about the end-of-waste status of is not required for reincorporating the recycled gypsum into the manufacturing process (see section 2.1.2.5 for further details). According to WFD, the EoW is achieved if 4 points are achieved, being one of them: “d) the use of the substance or object will not lead to overall adverse environmental or human health impacts.” They consider that any heavy metal content in the recycled gypsum will lead to environmental and human health impact. And this is why German gypsum manufacturing plants don’t have implemented a gypsum recycling concept. No landfill tax. No voluntary approach. Gypsum based waste recycled (%): 0.0 (see section 2.1.6) GREECE Council Decision 2003/733/EC applies as it is and there are no corresponding Greek legislation issued. No monocell landfills and no deconstruction practices demonstrate the lack of enforcement of this EU regulation. No landfill tax for gypsum waste. Greece has recently issued a special landfill tax of 35 €/t as of 1/1/2014+ 5 €/year up to 60 € for some specific waste categories, but not for gypsum waste. No voluntary approach. Gypsum based waste recycled (%): 0.0 (see section 2.1.6) POLAND Council Decision 2003/733/EC has been implemented but when it comes to gypsum waste seems to have no significance, as according to the Polish Ministry of the Environment they are unware of any special requirements related to gypsum waste . No monocells landfills. 313 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Fly tipping seems to be a huge problem and the waste management sector seems to be very under-developed. Waste sorting at building sites seems to be very uncommon; everything is just sent to landfill as part of mixed waste Landfill tax varies from 60 to 65 €/t. No voluntary approach. Gypsum based waste recycled (%): 0.0 (see section 2.1.6) SPAIN The Council Decision 2003/33/EC has not yet been transposed and no monocell landfill. Landfill tax is 3 €/t. No voluntary approach Gypsum based waste recycled (%): 0.0 (see section 2.1.6) THE NETHERLANDS Council Decision 2003/33/EC has not been transposed and no monocells landfills have been created. However, it exists a ban for sending recyclable materials to landfill. It is observed a high exported rate of gypsum based waste to Germany. Landfill tax is 0 € as per 1/1/2013. But they have a ban for landfilling recyclable gypsum waste. Voluntary approach: Covenant to close gypsum cycle in building sector (Convenant voor sluiten van kringloop van gips in bouwsector). Objective: Doubling of the recycling of gypsum from building and demolition waste from 20% in 2008 to 40% in 2010, and making the Netherlands European leader in the field of gypsum recycling in 2015 Gypsum based waste recycled (%): 40.4 in The Benelux (see section 2.1.6) THE UK The UK has optimal conditions for recycling gypsum based waste: the higher landfill tax compared with the other 7 target countries, correct transposition of the regulation related to gypsum based waste and existence of monocell landfills. However a huge amount of recyclable gypsum waste is used for open loop purposes, mainly in the agricultural sector. 314 DA.1: Inventory of current practices Landfill tax per tonne is 85 €. Voluntary approach: arrangement between WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme) and the Gypsum Products Development Association (GPDA); comprising of British Gypsum, Knauf Drywall and Siniat UK (Ashdown agreement). The agreement began in April 2007 by identifying four targets it would pursue in order to reduce plasterboard waste and increase recycling. These targets have been reviewed by WRAP and GPDA annually to assess their progress and to ensure that they remain realistic and sufficiently ambitious. Gypsum based waste recycled (%): 21.7 (see section 2.1.6) 315 316 317 318 319 Inventory of current practices 6. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The conclusions and recommendations have been grouped in: - Overall conclusions - Recommendations for further improvement of the regulatory requirements impacting gypsum recycling - Other recommendations OVERALL CONCLUSIONS 1. Due to the crucial lack of reliable and differentiable statistics, it is difficult to assess the percentage of gypsum based waste recovered in relation to the 70% recovery target of the Waste Framework Directive. It should also be noted that the current C&D waste target is a recovery target covering recycling, recovery operation and backfilling. Therefore, the concept of the target should be reviewed to go for a recycling target excluding recovery operations and backfilling. 2. It is estimated that only 11% of the C&D gypsum based waste generated is being currently recycled in the 8 countries under study. This percentage is far away from the required for effectively contribute to achieve the 70% target (that includes the preparing for re-use, recycling and other material recovery) defined in the Waste Framework Directive. For increasing this rate, the GtoG project will work in the coming actions (B1, B2 and B3) for effectively incorporate up to 30% of recycled gypsum (from production, construction and demolition waste) in the plasterboard products. For achieving this objective the project aims to involve all major stakeholders in the process (architects, demolishers, project owners, project managers, consultants, gypsum recyclers, gypsum manufacturers) for the optimization of the entire value chain. 3. Under this first stage of the project, 6 factors have been identified as crucial for the existence of a market for recycling gypsum: Reach of the recycling system (RRS) Level of segregation of plasterboard waste from other C&D waste (SS) Competitiveness of the recycling solution compared to local landfills (CRS) 320 Inventory of current practices Level of compliance with the existing regulations (Co) Legal alternative cheaper destinations for the waste (AS) Environmental focus (ES) 4. Only countries that present a correct implementation, strict enforcement and compliance with the existing regulations impacting gypsum based waste, a significant share of the available waste can be recycled. 5. The barriers faced by the value chain to evolve towards a closed loop system are: - Low level of compliance with the existent regulations. Not all waste owners and waste operators work within the existing regulations. The economic driver for not following the rules is to achieve lower cost for the waste disposal. 5 out of the 8 target countries (France, Germany, Greece, Poland and Spain) present a medium or low level of compliance. - Low landfill tax in most of the EU countries. In general, it is observed that a high landfill tax or a ban for disposal unsorted or recyclable gypsum waste helps to promote a high level of plasterboard recycling. - Existence of legal alternative disposal routes for the gypsum waste in 3 out of the 8 target countries (Germany, the Netherlands and the UK). Germany presents a low costs for legal alternative cheaper destinations of gypsum based waste (backfilling of open-cast mines). In the Netherlands recyclable plasterboard waste tends to be exported to Germany to be used in recovery operations. In the UK a high amount of recycled gypsum is sent to open loop for a variety of agricultural purposes in an open loop system. 6. Six main drivers have been identified towards deconstruction practices. - Environmental driver - Image of the stakeholder - Economical driver - Regulation - Proper management of C&D waste containing gypsum 321 Inventory of current practices 7. Seven drivers have been identified for the reincorporation of recycled gypsum by the plasterboard manufacturing plants. - Cost reduction - Costumer request - Green Public Procurement (GPP) - Industry Voluntary Agreements (VAs) - Product marketing - Resource efficiency - Sustainability commitment RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER IMPROVEMENT OF THE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS IMPACTING GYPSUM RECYCLING The European legislation framework is not so restricting throughout the value chain to be consistent with the European Community objectives in terms of natural resources management and environmental policy. It can be concluded that, in order to achieve the 70% target (that includes the preparing for re-use, recycling and other material recovery) by 2020 established under the Waste Framework Directive, a number of legal dispositions should be issued and implemented together. 1. Recommendations for a legislation facilitating the recycling route from the jobsites To mitigate the adverse effects of a non proper waste management, no gypsum based wastes should be mixed with any type of wastes. To avoid this: - An audit of gypsum based waste materials prior to demolition should be mandatory for: Any type of demolition work and refurbishment operation above a certain surface or a certain budget (the threshold has to be determined according the type of the building-residential or non residential). The actual thresholds in the different target countries seem to be too high to develop the approach on a large scale. A detailed report about the quantity, quality and recyclability of the gypsum based products should be reported after the audit. 322 Inventory of current practices - The obligation to segregate the gypsum based wastes from the rest of C&D waste must be required, distinguishing between two categories: recyclable and non recyclable gypsum based waste. Nowadays most of the plasterboards are fully recyclable and the technology to take out the thermal layer of laminates has been in operation since February 2012. 2. Recommendations for the 70% objective within the WFD: measurement and traceability Nowadays the traceability documents are not mandatory for non hazardous wastes. When required by the project owner or the contractors, the record stops at the level of the transfer station or sorting facility. Consequently the following should be regulated at European level: - A complete traceability document for gypsum based waste should be issued by the demolisher and the shareholders, especially for the jobsites concerned by the previous recommendation. This document should trace the waste from the jobsite to the final destination. - An obligation to calculate and present the detailed recycling and recovery rate must be required to the transfer station. No matter how the objective of 70% will be adopted by the MS, globally or per type of wastes, it is important to know how much of the waste received by the transfer stations is sent to the recovering outlets. However an objective per waste would benefit to the different production industry. 3. Recommendations for the 70% objective within the WFD The concept of the target should be reviewed to go for a recycling target excluding preparing for re-use and recovery operations. 4. Recommendations for a justification of the compliance with the waste hierarchy. The 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. 5. Recommendations for a better way to landfill non recyclable gypsum based waste The current legislation regarding the gypsum based waste landfill is not restrictive enough and should evolve. - Each Member State should challenge the limit given in the Decision 2003/33/EC. No scientific evidence could be elaborated to show a rationale of the limits. Consequently, gypsum based waste should be systematically sent to non inert non hazardous waste landfill, obviously in controlled cells. 323 Inventory of current practices Other recommendations will be issued once the demolition pilot projects realized. The calculation of the costs must be reviewed and tested so as to confirm the assumptions. OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS 1. About the unification of the quality criteria for recycled gypsum Unified quality criteria at the European level needs to be developed and it is expected to be agreed under Action B3 of the GtoG project. A good starting point is the different criteria followed by BV Gips, PAS 109 and the Italian and Belgium Eurogypsum Member Association (see comparison in section 2.1.5.5). A detailed description about the reasons to choose the above collected parameters and the given value for each of the companies / associations has to be investigated in Action B of the GtoG project, in order to analyse the possible variations of the parameter and its impact in the process. After the comparison carried out for different technical and toxicological parameters of the quality criteria (see section 2.1.5.5) we recommend: Particle size: depending on the plant the requirements can vary. For example a plant using FGD gypsum will need a fine grade of recycled gypsum for reincorporating it into the manufacturing process. Recyclers are normally providing the required size by the plasterboard manufacturer. The customer sometimes can choose the size and later crush the recycled gypsum with its own equipment. Free moisture optimal value seems to be somewhere between 5 and 10 % w/w, according to the different criteria collected. Around 7% could be a good starting point to be tested under the pilot projects. The pre-drying of the recycled gypsum, storing the recycled gypsum during a given amount of time before its reincorporation, is currently an usual practice. Higher values of free moisture would mean an extra environmental and financial unnecessary cost, because in some cases it could lead to mechanical drying practices. Purity also varies for plants operating with FGD or natural gypsum. The approach of GRI seems to be sensible, considering that the recycled gypsum shouldn’t be less than 5% points (weight) less of what the gypsum plants have supplied to the market during the last 20 years The Total Organic Carbon (TOC) should be between 0.5 and 1% w/w. 324 Inventory of current practices For chemical components such as MgO, Na2O, K2O, Cl, F conclusions cannot be drafted without a laboratory research study. Also the toxicological parameters have to be deeply analyzed in Action B, studying how a slight variation can affect the quality of the plasterboards. 2. About the necessity of better collect statics about Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste Gypsum based waste volume/weight depends on the national building regulations and varies much from country to country. Moreover the statistics at European level are not harmonised which slows down the incentives to recycle effectively. We thus recommend including the breakdown of the different streams in the Eurostat database, differentiating at least among: plastics, metals, concrete and rubble, plasterboard, roofing and wood. This could be easily done for countries where deconstruction is a common practice, such as Belgium, France, The Netherlands and The UK. 325 Inventory of current practices FIGURE INDEX Figure 1-1. Gypsum: processes to be a product ready for use...... 21 Figure 1-2. World Mine Production and Reserves.Data in thousand metric tonnes. The mine production in 2012 has been estimated (e)...... 22 Figure 1-3. Flue Gas Desulphurisation.Presentation to the European Commission on 22 September 2012, Jörg Demmich...... 23 Figure 1-4. Use of FGD Gypsum in Europe.Presentation to the European Commission on 22 September 2012, Jörg Demmich...... 24 Figure 1-5. Use of FGD Gypsum in the Gypsum Industry. Presentation to the European Commission on 22 September 2012, Jörg Demmich...... 24 Figure 1-6. Plasterboard / drywall...... 32 Figure 1-7. Building plaster...... 33 Figure 1-8. Gypsum wall block.10 ...... 33 Figure 1-9. Anhydrite floor.10 ...... 33 Figure 1-10. Use of plasterboard varies with the construction systems used in each country...... 34 Figure 1-11. Use of plasterboard distribution. Source: Eurogypsum...... 36 Figure 1-12. Evolution of the sold volume of gypsum based products in the 6 countries with available data from Eurostat...... 40 Figure 1-13. Statistics on the production of manufactured goods Value ANNUAL 2011. NACE 23.52 and 23.62.Prodcom code: 23522000, 23621050 and 23621090. All values are expressed in thousands...... 46 Figure 1-14. Waves of Innovation. Source: Kibert, C.J., 2012...... 50 Figure 1-15. Sustainable Construction: Life Cycle Stages, Principles and Resources. Source: Kibert, C.J., 2013...... 51 Figure 1-16. Scheme system boundaries...... 54 Figure 1-17. Calculation on the ADPE savings (ADPE = Abiotic depletion potential for non- fossil resources) for the use of 0% versus 10% recycled gypsum in single layer and double layer plasterboard wall constructions...... 57 Figure 1-18. Credits and minimum standards for Wst 01...... 60 Figure 1-19. Credits and minimum standards for Mat 03...... 62 Figure 1-20. DGNB Certification over the complete building life-cycle with a unified approach...... 64 Figure 1-21. MRc2 scheme.29 ...... 66 Figure 1-22. MRc2 scheme.29 ...... 67 Figure 1-23. Usage of gypsum over time and FGD's share of total consumption of gypsum in the European plasterboard industry. Source: Model developed by Henrik Lund-Nielsen, Board of Management of Gypsum Recycling International...... 73 326 Inventory of current practices Figure 2-1. Recycling plants...... 80 Figure 2-2. Closed loop recycling of gypsum...... 81 Figure 2-3. Pre and post-consumer plasterboard waste...... 104 Figure 2-4. Loading of waste...... 104 Figure 2-5. Recycled paper...... 105 Figure 2-6. Separated contaminants...... 105 Figure 2-7. BPB take back scheme...... 106 Figure 2-8. Specification for PAS109 recycled gypsum...... 126 Figure 2-9. Minimum samples and test frequencies, and relevant procedures...... 127 Figure 2-10. Limits of particle size distribution, Fine grade recycled gypsum...... 128 Figure 2-11. Limits of particle size distribution, Coarse grade recycled gypsum...... 128 Figure 2-12. Standard Particle size of recycled powder...... 134 Figure 2-13. % of recyclers that are working for closed loop...... 140 Figure 2-14. Years of experience in gypsum recycling...... 140 Figure 2-15. Breakdown between the recycled gypsum supplied by GRI and NWGR and the rest of European gypsum recyclers ...... 141 Figure 2-16. Gypsum waste origin...... 142 Figure 2-17. Scheme of plaster production...... 150 Figure 2-18. Scheme of plasterboard manufacturing...... 153 Figure 2-19. Plasterboard Industry supply chain scheme...... 156 Figure 3-1. Manual strip out operation of plasterboards...... 183 Figure 3-2. Manual strip out operation of plasterboards. Copyright Recovering Sarl...... 184 Figure 3-3. Manual strip out operation of plasterboards. Copyright KS Engineering...... 184 Figure 3-4. Manual strip out operation of plasterboards. Copyright Cantillon...... 185 Figure 3-5. Example of gypsum blocks dismantling in France. Copyright Recovering Sarl. 186 Figure 3-6. Plasterboards stored on the ground inside of the building before their removal. Copyright Recovering Sarl...... 187 Figure 3-7. One skip for the removal of plasterboards and one other for the removal of gypsum blocks. Copyright Recovering Sarl...... 188 Figure 3-8. Different flows of gypsum-based waste from the jobsite to the different outlets in most of the countries...... 189 Figure 4-1. Importance of the drivers towards deconstruction practices for Belgium and the Netherlands, France and the UK...... 195 Figure 4-2. Comparison of the importance of the different drivers towards deconstruction practices for the two different types of interviewees in France...... 199 Figure 4-3. Main drivers listed by the interviewees ...... 201 Figure 4-4. Benefits summary of gypsum recycling...... 204 327 Inventory of current practices Figure 4-5. The localization is 120 rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré 75008 PARIS. Copyright Pinault&Gapaix...... 206 Figure 4-6. Step 1: Dismantling with a shovel. Copyright Recovering Sarl...... 207 Figure 4-7. Step 2: Transportation of the waste to a first storage place and Step 3: Storage of the waste inside the building. Copyright Recovering Sarl...... 207 Figure 4-8. Step 4: Transportation to the skip and Step 5: Transportation to the transfer station. Copyright Recovering Sarl...... 208 Figure 4-9. Gypsum waste hierarchy graph...... 240 Figure 4-10. Spain.Source: http://uwcm-geog.wikispaces.com ...... 243 Figure 4-11. The 16 regions or “Länder”...... 244 Figure 4-12. Belgium. Source: http://freedomandprosperity.org/ ...... 245 Figure 5-1. Scheme of the different routes for gypsum waste...... 263 Figure 5-2. General scheme of the different practices to closed loop recycling of plasterboard waste...... 264 Figure 5-3. Bulk bag system...... 268 Figure 5-4. Skip system...... 268 Figure 5-5. Single pick-up...... 269 Figure 5-6. The milk-round...... 270 Figure 5-7. Transfer to a gypsum recycler. NGWR...... 270 Figure 5-8. Short haul transfer. NGWR...... 271 Figure 5-9. Long haul transfer. NGWR...... 271 Figure 5-10. Plasterboard Collection...... 272 Figure 5-11. New plasterboard and empty bags to construction site...... 273 Figure 5-12. Segregated plasterboard waste...... 273 Figure 5-13. Filled bags...... 274 Figure 5-14. Collection by the vehicle...... 274 Figure 5-15. Bags at EJB distribution centre...... 274 Figure 5-16. Different stages under study and routes considered...... 284 Figure 5-17. Landfill tax (€/t) and gate fee (€/t) in the different countries under study...... 301 Figure 5-18. Radar diagram for the case of Flemish region...... 306 Figure 5-19. Radar diagram for the case of Walloon region ...... 307 Figure 5-20. Radar diagram for the case of France ...... 307 Figure 5-21. Radar diagram for the case of Germany...... 308 Figure 5-22. Radar diagram for the case of Netherlands...... 308 Figure 5-23. Radar diagram for the case of the UK...... 309 328 Inventory of current practices TABLE INDEX Table 1-1. The figures shown come from a modellisation of New West Gypsum Recycling on the basis of population and average estimated plasterboard consumption per capita, per country. The figures are based on the bidefense of SG when the latter wished to buy BPB. 38 Table 1-2. Sold volume of plasterboard, blocks and tile products (hereinafter: gypsum based products) according to the published statistics by Eurostat...... 39 Table 1-3. Estimation of the total gypsum based waste generated in the target countries of the GtoG project for the year 2012...... 41 Table 1-4. Plasterboard Life Cycle Studies...... 54 Table 1-5. Environmental Products Declarations in the Gypsum Industry...... 56 Table 1-6. Sustainable evaluation systems...... 59 Table 1-7. BREEAM credits by amount of non-hazardous waste generated...... 60 Table 1-8. BREEAM credits by type of waste diverted from landfill...... 61 Table 1-9. Plasterboard in the European List of Waste...... 61 Table 1-10. Tier level and points awarded...... 63 Table 1-11. BREEAM credits – points...... 63 Table 1-12. Example of a building dedicated to health care...... 70 Table 1-13. Main types of gypsum used in the production of plasterboards and gypsum blocks...... 72 Table 1-14. Changes in the Gypsum Industry to the use of synthetic gyspum. Source: Model developed by Henrik Lund-Nielsen, Board of Management of Gypsum Recycling International...... 73 Table 2-1. Origin of gypsum waste in 2012 for different European countries...... 77 Table 2-2. Type of gypsum waste recycled in the different countries interviewed...... 78 Table 2-3. Collection and storage carried out by the plasterboard manufacturer or by a third party...... 79 Table 2-4. Recycling Plants...... 80 Table 2-5. Annual production of plasterboard products and amount of recyclable gypsum waste from new construction following different acceptable uses, according to the Ashdown Agreeement. Source: Plasterboard Sustainability Action Plan. 2nd Annual Report 2013...... 84 Table 2-6. Gypsum waste collection in Savoie since 2007 to 2010...... 88 Table 2-7. Key information of GRI...... 94 Table 2-8. Key information of NWGR...... 95 Table 2-9. Key information of Nantet Locabennes ...... 96 Table 2-10. Key information of Ritleng Revalorisations...... 97 Table 2-11. Key information of Baron Recycling Ltd...... 98 Table 2-12. Key information of Countrystyle Recycling Ltd...... 99 329 Inventory of current practices Table 2-13. Key information of Roy Hatfield Ltd...... 100 Table 2-14. Key information of McGrath Bros (Waste Control) Ltd...... 101 Table 2-15. Key information of Mid UK Recycling Ltd...... 101 Table 2-16. Key information of Nutramulch Yorkshire Ltd...... 102 Table 2-17. Key information of Wastecycle Ltd...... 103 Table 2-18. Comparison NWGR – GRI (partners of the GtoG project)...... 108 Table 2-19. Technical characteristics: comparison between GRI and NWGR...... 113 Table 2-20. Consolidated results of questionnaires received from gypsum recyclers: Current practices...... 116 Table 2-21. Acceptable and non-acceptable materials.Green = yes / Red = no...... 121 Table 2-22. Gypsum waste free moisture...... 121 Table 2-23. Maximum percentage of non gypsum waste...... 122 Table 2-24. Gypsum Draft Quality criteria developed by BV Gips – Technical parameters. 123 Table 2-25. Gypsum Draft Quality criteria developed by BV Gips – Toxicological parameters...... 124 Table 2-26. Comparison of recycled gypsum quality criteria – Technical Parameters among Belgium, the Netherlands, the UK and Italy...... 130 Table 2-27. Comparison of recycled gypsum quality criteria – Toxicological Parameters among Belgium, the Netherlands, the UK and Italy...... 132 Table 2-28. GRI' s specific requirements for the produced gypsum powder...... 133 Table 2-29. Comparison of rcycled gypsum quality criteria – Technical parameters...... 136 Table 2-30. Comparison of recycled gypsum quality criteria – Toxicological parameters. .. 137 Table 2-31. European gypsum recyclers identified under the GtoG project...... 139 Table 2-32. Strength and weakness of the European gypsum recyclers identified under the GtoG project...... 142 Table 2-33. Estimated distribution of the gypsum based waste end routes...... 145 Table 2-34. Gypsum based waste recycling rate and transposition of the Council Decision 2003/33/EC. For further details about this information, see table 5-21...... 146 Table 2-35. Reincorporation of recycled gypsum in different European countries ...... 154 Table 2-36. Consolidated results of Austrian and German manufacturers...... 161 Table 2-37. Consolidated results of Belgian and Dutch manufacturers...... 163 Table 2-38. Consolidated results of French manufacturers...... 165 Table 2-39. Consolidated results of Greek, Italian and Spanish manufacturers...... 167 Table 2-40. Consolidated results of Polish manufacturers...... 169 Table 2-41. Consolidated results of British manufacturers...... 171 Table 2-42. Summary of the current situation concerning recycling practices and facing the European Gypsum Industry...... 172 Table 2-43. Closed loop recycling summary...... 173 330 Inventory of current practices Table 3-1. Usual stakeholder and general organization...... 178 Table 3-2. Detailed example of Greece ...... 180 Table 4-1. Permitted gypsum content in C&D waste derived secondary aggregates...... 198 Table 4-2. Drivers and level of impact...... 205 Table 4-3. Weight per square meter in the simulation...... 208 Table 4-4. Volume for 1 square meter in the simulation...... 209 Table 4-5. Costs of the operation...... 210 Table 4-6. Other costs...... 210 Table 4-7. Comparsion between selective demolition and demolition...... 211 Table 4-8. Weight per square meter of partition type 1...... 212 Table 4-9. Weight per square meter of partition type 2...... 212 Table 4-10. Cost of the deconstruction phase (partition type 1)...... 213 Table 4-11. Cost of the demolition phase (partition type 1)...... 214 Table 4-12. Waste streams following a dismantling process...... 215 Table 4-13. Waste streams following a demolition process...... 215 Table 4-14. Cost for storage and transportation...... 217 Table 4-15. Cost for treatment...... 219 Table 4-16. Synthesizes what are the regulatory diagnostics and audits prior to demolition and or prior to refurbishment in each country of the study...... 251 Table 4-17. Environmental taxes...... 253 Table 5-1. Recycling markets for gypsum. Source: Eurogypsum...... 263 Table 5-2. Description of the particularities of each of the countries recycling Construction and Demolition Plasterboard Waste...... 276 Table 5-3. Cost of the operation RECYCLING...... 280 Table 5-4. Cost of the operation LANDFILLING...... 281 Table 5-5. Cost of the operation RECYCLING...... 282 Table 5-6. Recycled gypsum transport (TM) €/t. Source: gypsum recyclers within the GtoG project...... 287 Table 5-7. Summary of crucial economic parameters...... 288 Table 5-8. Cost of deconstruction versus cost of demolition based on the case study in section 4.3.1...... 289 Table 5-9. Cost of gypsum waste transportation. * Based on the case study in section 4.3.1...... 290 Table 5-10. Recycling warehouse compared with disposal in landfill cost. *(I) €/t = gate fee (G) + sales price (S) - cost for transport of the recycled gypsum (TM). **See section 4.4.4.2.2 Environmental taxes, from the standard cost in France, the UK, Belgium and the Netherlands...... 290 331 Inventory of current practices Table 5-11. Extra cost for reincorporating recycled gypsum instead conventional raw material in the manufacturing process...... 290 Table 5-12. Overall cost table to compare recycling versus landfill...... 291 Table 5-13. Environmental assessment - Deconstruction/Demolition (kW/h = kilowatt-hours, l = Litres)...... 294 Table 5-14. Environmental assessment –Transportation (l = Litres)...... 295 Table 5-15. Environmental assessment - Recycling facility/ Landfill (kW/h = kilowatt-hours, l = Litres)...... 295 Table 5-16. Environmental assessment –Transportation (l = Litres)...... 296 Table 5-17. Environmental assessment – Reincorporation (kW/h = kilowatt-hours, l = Litres)...... 296 Table 5-18. Overall environmental impact table to compare recycling versus landfill...... 297 Table 5-19. Different levels of segregation of plasterboard waste considered under the model...... 300 Table 5-20. Sub-factors impacting the competitiveness of the recycling solution...... 300 Table 5-21. Implementation of the EU legislation in the target countries...... 302 Table 5-22. Sub-factors forming part of the income per tonne needed to run a market based gypsum recycled system...... 304 Table 5-23. Different levels of compliance of the existing regulations considered under the model...... 304 Table 5-24. Different levels of environmental focus under the model...... 305 Table 5-25. Estimated value for each of the factors defined into the model and final market share (%) for each of them. *Unknown Standard cost...... 310 Table 5-26. Comparison of the estimation based on the model and the estimation based on consolidated confidential data from partners (* previously estimated with confidential and thus consolidated data from partners, see section 2.1.6, table 2-33)...... 310 332