from production to recycling: a circular economy for the...

DA1-Inventory of Current Practices

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SEPTEMBER 2013

GtoG Project

From production to recycling: a circular economy for the

European gypsum Industry with the demolition and

recycling Industry

LIFE PROGRAMME

LIFE11 ENV/BE/001039

2

DA1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GtoG Project

Introduction

Gypsum – an exceptional construction

material

Gypsum is a rock-like mineral used in

construction in different applications such as

plasterboard, building plaster and gypsum blocks,

among others.

The GtoG project focuses on lightweight

gypsum components also known as

plasterboard products that mainly consist of

gypsum whose surface and longitudinal edges

are covered with paper and used for partitions

and the lining of walls, ceilings, roofs and floors.

Other generic terms used for this product are:

gypsum board, drywall and wallboard.

In Europe the first plasterboard plant was built in

Liverpool in 1917.

Figure 1. Plasterboard product used for partitions. Source:

Technical Manual Plasterboard systems, Knauf 2012.

The main properties of gypsum products are:

Fire protective.

A good thermal insulator when combined

with insulation materials.

Sound regulator.

Impact resistant

The problem

In the 8 EU target countries (Belgium, France,

Germany, Greece, Poland, Spain, the

Netherlands and the UK), it is estimated that

around 1,150,000 tonnes of plasterboard waste

were generated in 2012. In most of the European

countries where it is produced a low recycling rate

of this gypsum waste is observed.

The aim of the GtoG project is to obtain up to

30% of reincorporation of the recycled gypsum,

from both production and Construction and

Demolition (C&D) waste, into the plasterboard

manufacturing process.

Main types of gypsum

Until mid-1980s most of the gypsum used in the

European Union was natural gypsum extracted

from quarries. Since then, FGD gypsum (a by-

product from the Electricity Industry) became an

important supply for the Gypsum Industry. This

raw material is also known as synthetic gypsum

and it is largely used in Belgium, Germany, the

Netherlands and Nordic Countries.

The origin of the main types of gypsum is

summarized in Table 1.

RESOURCE ORIGIN

Natural gypsum Formed geologically

FGD gypsum By product from the desulphurisation of gases in coal-fired power stations.

Recycled gypsum

From the processing of gypsum waste in accordance with determined specifications.

Table 1. Origin of the main types of gypsum.

3


Reasons for recycling plasterboard products

1. Gypsum is fully and eternally

recyclable. Gypsum products can be

recycled because their chemical

composition remains unchanged.

2. Article 4 of the Directive 2008/98/EC on

Waste (also known as the Waste

Framework Directive, hereinafter WFD)

drafts the waste hierarchy that should be

applied as a priority in all the EU Member

States.

Waste prevention leads this hierarchy,

followed by preparing for re-use and

material recycling that should always be

preferred to recovery and landfill disposal.

Figure 2. Waste hierarchy scheme according to the

Article 4 of the Directive 2008/98/EC on Waste.

3. Article 11 of the WFD establishes that, by

2020, the preparing for re-use,

recycling and other material recovery of

most of the categories defined in the

European List of Waste (ELW) shall be

increased to a minimum of 70% by

weight. This target applies to non-

hazardous Construction and Demolition

(C&D) waste (where gypsum waste is

included) and excluding soil and stones

other that those containing dangerous

substances.

4. If gypsum waste products are accepted at

normal cells in non-hazardous landfills, its

sulphate would break down, amongst

other substances into Hydrogen

Sulphide (H2S), a hazardous flammable

gas with environmental and health

effects when inhaled, that even in very

small concentrations creates odour

problems. Council Decision 2003/33/EC

established that “Non-hazardous gypsum-

based material 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 section 2.3.2 and 2.3.1 shall

apply to wastes landfilled together with

gypsum based materials”.

5. By recycling plasterboard waste, primary

mineral resource depletion is avoided

and landscape is preserved.

Figure 3.Gypsum quarry. Source: Geoprah.ie

Types of plasterboard waste

Two main types of plasterboard waste can be

defined according to its source:

Production waste: arises from the

plasterboard manufacturing process

4


(rejection) and recycling of this material is

part of the waste avoidance policy of the

companies. An example is the out-of-

specification boards.

Construction and Demolition (C&D)

plasterboard waste: comes from the

installation or removal of plasterboard. It

includes damaged boards and off cuts from

its installation in construction works, and

stripped-out plasterboard in demolition works.

The GtoG project covers the recycling of both

types of plasterboard waste for its reincorporation

as recycled gypsum into the manufacturing

process.

The recycling process (also known as

reprocessing or processing) of plasterboard

waste

Several mechanical processing steps, such as

grinding and sieving, are carried out in recycling

facilities before the final recycled gypsum is

obtained.

The main output stream from the recycling

process is the recycled gypsum (around 92% by

weight of the total output), followed by paper

waste (8%) and metal (less than 1%).

The recycled gypsum

Under the GtoG project, the term “recycled

gypsum” is used to refer to gypsum resulting from

the controlled processing of plasterboard waste

where the gypsum is separated from the paper

and any contaminant that could be present.

It is usually found in the form of a fine or sandy

powder, or a small aggregate-type material.

Today, different national and commercial

specifications for producing quality recycled

gypsum are followed. One of the aims of the

GtoG project is to examine and re-assess the

quality criteria during the pilot projects where the

recycling process and reincorporation of the

recycled gypsum into the manufacturing process

will be carried out.

The End of Waste criteria

End-of-waste criteria specify when certain waste

ceases to be waste and obtain a product status or

become a secondary raw material.

According to Article 6 of the WFD, specified

wastes shall cease to be waste when it has

undergone a recovery (including recycling)

operation and complies with specific criteria to be

developed in line with certain legal conditions. In

particular:

The substance or object is commonly used

for specific purposes;

There is an existing market or demand for the

substance or object;

The use is lawful (substance or object fulfils

the technical requirements for the specific

purposes and meets the existing legislation

and standards applicable to products);

The use will not lead to overall adverse

environmental or human health impacts.

The End of Waste status for gypsum based waste

is only a reality in the UK, enabling recycled

gypsum to be classified as a raw material.

The opportunity to ask for the end-of-waste status

at EU or national level as per article 6 of the WFD

will be decided at the end of the GtoG project.

Open and closed loop recycling of

plasterboard products

In open loop recycling, the recycled

gypsum is used as a material in products

and applications other than the

5


manufacture of new plasterboard, for

example cement manufacture or for

agricultural benefit.

Closed loop recycling means using the

recycled gypsum as a secondary raw

material in making new plasterboard

products.

Plasterboard is one of the very few

construction materials where closed loop

recycling is possible.

The GtoG project focuses on

promoting closed loop recycling

practices for plasterboard.

By choosing closed loop recycling, saving of

natural gypsum resources is achieved.

What does closed loop recycling involve?

It involves a close collaboration among all the

stakeholders throughout the entire value chain:

from the dismantling and collection of

plasterboard waste in buildings, via the recycling

of this waste and culminating with the

reincorporation of the recycled gypsum by the

plasterboard manufacturing plants, in order to

create a highly efficient reverse logistics.

It will also require the correct implementation of

the EU regulation as well as its enforcement.

The GtoG project will serve to boost the

closed loop recycling route whenever

possible.

Description of an efficient value chain for

closing the loop of the plasterboard products

Deconstruction: dismantling of

plasterboard on the demolition site.

Deconstruction enables the quantity and

quality optimization of valuable materials,

thereby increasing the potential for their

future recycling.

It results in different waste fractions with

minimal damage, due to the time and care

taken for separating the waste, in order to

achieve the minimal negative effect of its

generation.

The reprocessing of the recyclable

plasterboard waste.

Once plasterboard waste from

construction and demolition waste is

separated on site it is usually collected by

a third party and transported to a gypsum

recycler (also named re-processor and

supplier) that reprocesses it.

The reincorporation of the recycled

gypsum in the manufacturing process.

Figure 4. Scheme of the efficient value chain

assessed under the GtoG project.

6


Target stakeholders covering the whole value

chain

Project owners, project managers,

project manager’s representatives,

consultants and architects or

technicians.

As decision makers, by choosing

deconstruction practices the recycling of

plasterboard products is promoted from

the beginning of the chain.

Demolition companies

Demolishers’ role is essential by

effectively carrying out deconstruction

practices and source segregation of

plasterboard waste.

Gypsum recyclers

By producing quality recycled gypsum and

supplying it to plasterboard manufacturing

plants, these companies also help in

leading to closed loop recycling of

plasterboard products.

Plasterboard manufacturing plants

Through agreements with gypsum

recyclers and wining confidence in this

secondary raw material it is expected that

the use of recycled gypsum will

experience a growth across Europe.

Headline objectives of the DA1 report

This report aims to be a background document for

the future Actions that will be developed within

the GtoG project, presenting and analysing the

current practices all over the 8 EU target

countries: Belgium, France, Germany, Greece,

Poland, Spain, the Netherlands and the UK,

establishing the crucial technical-economic-

legislative and environmental factors for

estimating the market share of gypsum recycling

in a given country and drafting an economic and

environmental analysis with the collected

information.

GtoG project overall objective

The overall aim of this project is to transform the

gypsum demolition waste market to achieve

higher recycling rates of gypsum waste, thereby

helping to achieve a resource efficient economy.

7


Methodology

The activities of the first Action A1 of the GtoG

project have been conducted between January

2013 and September 2013, throughout a variety

of strategies described below:

Questionnaires to the target stakeholders

Questionnaires sent to the European

gypsum manufacturers, through their

National Associations, related to gypsum

waste management and quality criteria. 35

answers were received from Austria,

Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy,

Norway, Poland, Scandinavia, Spain,

Sweden, the Netherlands and the UK.

Questionnaires distributed among

architects, demolishers, project

owners, project managers and

consultants, related to deconstruction

current practices and gypsum waste

management of non-residential demolition

and renovation building market.

In total 32 answers were received from the

8 target countries.

Questionnaires sent to the European

gypsum recyclers. Answers received

from 5 different companies operating in

Belgium, Denmark, France, Norway,

Sweden, the Netherlands and the UK.

The results to the questionnaires have been

consolidated and are presented in the DA1 report

through the following countries or group of

countries:

- Austria and Germany

- Belgium and the Netherlands

- France

- Greece, Italy and Spain

- Poland

- The UK

Telephone consultations and exchanged

emails with the different partners within the

GtoG project

The GtoG project has gathered and consolidated

confidential information from the 5 manufacturing

plants and the 2 gypsum recyclers which are

partners of the GtoG project.

Due to compliance with competition law and

confidential data among the different industrial

partners, it has been a great challenge to draft

sensitive information such as the overall

economic analysis.

Literature review

In order to provide the most detailed and updated

current picture, around 100 different documents

and sources have been consulted and are listed

throughout the DA1 report.

8


Main findings

The different findings and results obtained during

the development of Action A1 have been grouped

relating to:

EU regulation

Deconstruction practices

Recycling practices

Reincorporation of recycled gypsum into

the plasterboard manufacturing process

Related to EU regulation

Plasterboard recycling is far away from

contributing to the 70% target (that also

includes preparing for re-use and recovery

operations) established in the EU Waste

Framework Directive.

Germany, Greece, Spain and Poland don’t

recycle C&D plasterboard waste. The average

amount of this waste recycled in the rest of the

target countries can be estimated to 25.8%.

However, when considering the 8 target

countries, this ratio decreases to 11%.

C&D gypsum based waste recycled (%)

Germany 0.0

Greece 0.0

Spain 0.0

France 15.2

The Benelux* 40.4

Poland 0.0

The UK 21.7

*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. Estimated percentage of gypsum recycled in the 8 target countries.

Council Decision 2003/33/EC is not correctly

implemented in 5 out of the 8 target countries,

due to the inexistence of specific monocells

for the disposal of gypsum waste in landfills.

Only in Belgium, France and the UK specific

monocells for the disposal of gypsum based

waste have been created.

Ideally, only non-recyclable gypsum waste (due to

contamination or non-appropriate dismantling

practices) should be disposed in these monocells.

Countries such as Germany (although in a

different way), Greece and Poland have

implemented this Council Decision but no

enforcement is observed.

Country Council Decision 2003/33/EC transposition

Existence of monocell landfills

Belgium (Brussels)

Complete yes

Belgium (Flanders)

Complete yes

The UK Complete yes

Belgium (Walloon)

Complete yes

The Netherlands

Not yet transposed

no

France Different transposition

yes

Germany Different transposition

no

Greece Complete no

Poland Complete no

Spain Not yet transposed

no

Table 3. Council Decision transposition and its implementation.

9


Related to deconstruction practices

Buildings are currently demolished and not

dismantled in 3 of the 8 Member States under

study.

In the countries where deconstruction is a usual

practice (Belgium, France, the Netherlands and

the UK) gypsum-based wastes are generally

segregated from the other C&D waste, but in

countries where these practices are not usual

(Greece, Poland and Spain), plasterboards are

generally mixed with other C&D wastes.

The obstacles identified for deconstruction

practices today are:

Most of the architects and construction

companies do not foresee the dismantling

at the end of the useful life of the building.

In countries where demolition is a usual

practice, deconstruction is generally

perceived as more costly.

However, in countries where

deconstruction is the common practice, it

is generally perceived as a way of

optimizing the costs.

Six main drivers have been identified towards

deconstruction practices

The impact of the identified drivers in Belgium

and The Netherlands, France and the UK is

shown in figure 5.

Figure 5. Drivers towards deconstruction in Belgium and The

Netherlands, France and the UK listed by project owners and

demolition companies.

Environmental driver

If an evaluation system is followed

environmentally friendly practices are usually

carried out. BREEAM has been identified as the

most used system in the countries under study.

Image of the stakeholder

This driver is closely related with the

environmental driver, due to the fact that many

companies adopt an environmental approach to

spread a good image among the population.

Economical driver

Deconstruction is a way of optimizing costs in

countries where the end route for mixed waste is

more expensive than for segregated waste.

Some interviewees admitted that, if

deconstruction is not the most favourable option

from an economical point of view, they will not opt

for this choice.

Regulation

There is no regulatory requirement when

choosing to demolish or to deconstruct buildings

in the 8 target countries.

However, some national schemes are starting to

promote on site segregation, such as the Royal

Decree 105/2008 in Spain that introduced the

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Belgium and the Netherlands

France UK

Other

Technique

Security

Image

Environmental drivers

Regulation

Economic

Drivers towards deconstruction per country

10


waste holder obligation of segregate on site

different C&D waste fractions if a certain tonnage

is exceeded. However, plasterboard waste is not

listed and only very large buildings will exceed the

specified amount of waste.

The regulatory audit of the materials prior to

demolition in France is another example of

regulatory requirement which encourage buildings

deconstruction.

Proper management of C&D waste

containing gypsum

Most countries have gypsum content limits for the

use of C&D waste to produce secondary

aggregates or in recovery operations such as

backfilling in quarrying or mining.

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.

Other drivers

For example the technical driver, being the

demolition of a building not always feasible.

Related to recycling practices

In Europe, there is only a market for recycled

gypsum in Belgium, France, Scandinavia and

the UK

Open loop practices for recyclable gypsum waste

are widespread in the UK, but they are not

observed in the rest of the European countries.

Most of the UK recyclers supply farmers and

several of the operators are recognised

composters. A few also supply cement plants.

7 out of the 14 European existing gypsum

recyclers have been identified as suppliers of

recycled gypsum by the plasterboard

manufacturing plants

Figure 6.Verified closed loop recyclers within EU recyclers.

Arrow Gypsum Recycling, Countrystyle

Group and Roy Hatfield Ltd are located in the

UK.

Roy Hatfield Ltd.’s main activity seems to be

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.

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.

Strengths and weaknesses of the gypsum

recyclers

Table 4 summarizes the main strengths and

weaknesses identified.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Europeanrecyclers

Verified closeloop recyclers

11


STRENGTH WEAKNESS

Recycling machines can process up to 30 t/h of gypsum waste

The processing of Fermacell® boards, cement bound boards and hardened boards.

Up to 94% of gypsum powder output

Some recyclers limit the free moisture of the gypsum waste, because it decreases the quality of the recycled gypsum.

However, occasional wet loads can be solved by mixing the wet waste with a dryer fraction.

Less than 1.0% amount of paper fraction in the recycled gypsum

The amount of dust emission from the gypsum waste recycling machines.

Table 4. Main strengths and weaknesses identified among

gypsum recyclers.

The location of the recyclers’ warehouses in each

country is described in table 5.

Country Location Suppliers of recycled gypsum

BE NWGR recycling warehouse is co-located in the SG manufacturing plant in Källo (Flemish region)

NWGR

FR NWGR recycling warehouse is co-located in the SG manufacturing plant (Vaujours, París)

A plasterboard manufacturer (Siniat FR) has its own recycling warehouse for C&D waste

Nantet Locabennes supply recycled gypsum to SG Placoplatre in Chambéry

Ritleng Revalorisations supplies recycled gypsum to Siniat FR in Alsace

Nantet

RR

NWGR

NL GRI's mobile truck collects plasterboard waste on the construction sites

Also two GRI's fixed recycling warehouses are located in Werkendam and Delfzijl

GRI

UK A plasterboard manufacturer (British Gypsum) is also collector and recycler, re-incorporating the recycled gypsum in its process

NWGR’s recycling warehouse in Avonmouth

NWGR, Roy Hatfields, Arrow and

Countrystyle

Table 5. Recyclers supplying plasterboard manufacturing

plants in the different countries.

Related to its re-incorporation

Seven main drivers have been identified by

the plasterboard manufacturers for the

reincorporation of recycled gypsum

Their level of impact is presented in figure 7.

Figure 7. Drivers identified from the answers received to

the plasterboard manufacturer’s questionnaire.

Cost reduction

Recycled gypsum is available at a lower price

than natural gypsum.

Cost reduction

Customer request

Green Public Procurement(GPP)Industry VoluntaryAgreement (VAs)Product marketing

Resource efficiency

Sustainability commitment

12


In some instances the savings can also come

from lower transportation cost due to the proximity

of the supplier and reduced costs of storage.

Customer request

It is usually due to the influence of the Green

Public Procurement (GPP) and the evaluation

systems such as BREEAM, DGNG, LEED,

VERDE and HQE.

Green Public Procurement (GPP)

GPP is a voluntary instrument whereby public

authorities seek to 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.

In 2010, the Gypsum Industry developed with the

European Commission the Green Public

Procurement Criteria for wall panels. The GtoG

project is an opportunity to reassess the criteria,

particularly those related to the percentage of

recycled gypsum in the board which is set

currently at 2% for core criteria and 5% for

comprehensive criteria1.

Industry Voluntary Agreement with government (Va)

They are used as a policy tool to achieve different

measures. Examples of voluntary agreements are

the “covenant” in The Netherlands, “la Charte sur

le Gestion des déchets” in France and “The

Ashdown Agreement” in the UK.

Also in Belgium, the commitment of stakeholders

with The Belgian Gypsum Association (BLGV) is

leading some companies to improve the recycling

of gypsum waste.

Product marketing

Plasterboard products with a certain amount of

recycled gypsum provide a new competitive edge

among the different companies.

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

Resource efficiency

The reincorporation of recycled gypsum reduces

the amount of natural gypsum extracted from the

Earth’s crust.

Sustainability commitment

This commitment involves minimising waste

generation and maximizing the use of recycled

materials in new production among others.

Table 6 presents the most listed drivers for

gypsum waste recycling in each target country.

Countries under study

Most listed driver for recycling

TA

RG

ET

S C

OU

NT

RIE

S I

N T

HE

GT

OG

PR

OJ

EC

T

Belgium Resource efficiency, customer's request and GPP requirements

France Cost reduction

Germany Resource efficiency

Greece Customer's request and cost savings

Poland Improvement of raw material quality

Spain Resource efficiency

The Netherlands

Resource efficiency

The UK Industry voluntary agreement with government

OT

HE

RS

Austria Cost reduction and sustainability

Italy Customer's request and cost savings

Table 6. Country-by-country most listed drivers for gypsum

recycling.

It is expected that, after the end of the GtoG

project, drivers such as the GPP and the Industry

Voluntary Approaches became main drivers to

recycle gypsum products.

13


Main valuable outputs for the coming Actions

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

Throughout the different stages of the two routes presented in figure 8, different key economic parameters

have been identified (table 7).

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

STAGES CRUCIAL ECONOMIC PARAMETERS

DECONSTRUCTION (DC)

Deconstruction (DC) = Dismantling (D) + sorting

and storage (S₁) + Loading (L₁)

Dismantling (D)

Sorting and storage operation on-site (S₁)

Loading of the skips for each type waste (L₁)

DEMOLITION (DM)

Demolition (DM) = Crushing, collapsing (C) +

storage (S₂) + Loading (L₂)

Crushing, collapsing (C)

Storage operation on-site (S₂)

Loading of the skips for mixed waste (L₂)

GYPSUM WASTE TRANSPORTATION (T)

Transportation (T) = variable cost (depending on V,N and D) + Hired hauler (H)

Waste volume (V)

Volume per roundtrip (N)

Distance travelled (D)

Hired hauler (H)

RECYCLING WAREHOUSE

Income per tonne needed by the recycler (€/t) = Gate fee (G) + Sales price (S) -Transport of the recycled gypsum (TM)

Gate fee of the recycling warehouse (G)

Sales price of the recycled gypsum (S)

Cost for transport of the recycled gypsum (TM)

Cost of the processing (P)

LANDFILL

ST (€/t) = landfill tax (LT) + gate fee (G)

Landfill tax (LT)

Gate fee (G)

14


REINCORPORATION OF THE RECYCLED GYPSUM

Re (€/t) = quality check (Q) + crushing & sieving (CS) + storage of recycled gypsum (ST)

Quality check costs (Q)

Cost of the crushing & sieving (CS)

Storage costs of recycled gypsum (ST)

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

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

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

Overall cost route 1* (€/t) = DC+T+ I

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

Overall cost route 2 (€/t) = DM+T+ST

Table 8 shows the results obtained by applying the overall cost equations with data from case studies

provided by the partners of the GtoG project:

ROUTE 1 ROUTE 2

Deconstruction (DC) 335.93 335.93 Demolition (DM)

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

Income per tonne needed by the recycler (I)

I: gate fee (G) + sales price(S) - cost for transport of the

recycled gypsum (TM)

49 60 Standard cost (ST): gate fee +

landfill tax

427.79 €/t 439.32 €/t

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

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

15


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

A proper environmental study provides a breakdown of the embodied energy of each of the process,

enabling to see where the differences arise and identifying the determined key contributors to the

environmental impact.

In Action A1, the basis for a proper environmental assessment has been laid down. This assessment will

be carried out in the future Action C.

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

ROUTE 1

GWP Global warming potential (kg CO₂-

Eq./m²) = DC+T+R+TM +RP

DC: Demolition/Deconstruction

T: Transportation

R: Recycling process

TM: Transportation to the manufacturing

plant

RP: Re-incorporation

ROUTE 2

GWP Global warming potential (kg CO₂-

Eq./m²) = DM+T+L

H₂S emissions (kg H₂S Eq./m²) = LM H₂s

DC: Demolition

T: Transportation

L: Landfill

LM H₂s: Landfill H₂S emissions

By applying the overall environmental equations, results about the environmental impact of each of the

routes will be obtained in the coming Action C.

ROUTE 1 ROUTE 2

Deconstruction (DC) Demolition (DM)

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

Recycling Landfill (L)

Recycled gypsum transport (TM)

Reincorporation (RP)

CO₂/m² CO₂+ H₂S/m²

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

16


Overall market share model for gypsum recycling

A model for estimating the market share for gypsum recycling systems in any country has been developed.

It can be used as an analytical tool to identify the causes that get to a recycling rate in a market, helping

recyclers, plasterboard manufacturers, national authorities and the EU commission to identify the causes

that limit the recycling rate of gypsum waste in a country and what can be done in order to improve the

situation. A total of six factors have been defined and combined into a mathematical model to determine the

share of gypsum that is recycled, most of which neither the gypsum recyclers nor the European

Plasterboard Industry can influence directly.

The six factors defined have been grouped under 4 categories: technical, economic, legislative and

environmental, and are briefly summarized below.

TECHNICAL FACTORS

Reach of the recycling system (RRS)

RRS describes the share of the gypsum

waste market that can be “reached” by the

established recycling system in the

market.

Level of segregation of plasterboard

waste from other C&D waste (SS)

SS is the amount of plasterboard waste

that can be separated from the rest of

C&D waste generated.

ECONOMIC FACTOR

Competitiveness of the recycling

solution compared to local landfills

(CRS)

CRS is the relative competitiveness of the

gypsum recycling solution in a given

country, compared to landfill.

LEGISLATIVE FACTORS

Level of compliance with the existing

regulations (Co)

Co is the share of the total gypsum waste

market that follows the existing

regulations.

Legal alternative cheaper destinations

for the waste (AS)

ASis a determining factor that describes

the share of gypsum waste market for

which legal alternative solutions exist, that

are cheaper than landfills.

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR

Environmental focus (ES)

ES describes the share of the plasterboard

waste market, where environmental

factors rather that cost factors determine

the destination of the waste.

The model has been tested for each of the 8 countries under study, estimating each of the factors from an

academic point of view, and as a consequence of the data and information received from partners within

the GtoG project. In future Actions, and to further improve this estimation, a “Delphi” methodology should

be followed, through a representative panel of experts formed out of the partners of the GtoG project.

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

radar diagrams.

17


The Netherlands

Estimated recycling rate of gypsum waste: 40.4%

(The Benelux).

Main determining factor: existent of legal

alternative disposal routes for the gypsum waste

(AS), due to the high export rate to Germany.

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).

Figure 9. Radar diagram for the case of Netherlands.

Germany




(AS), due to the lower cost of backfilling of open-

cast mines.

A medium level of segregation of plasterboard on

site (SS) and compliance with the existing

regulations (CO) establishes a good starting point

for C&D plasterboard waste recycling in a near

future.

Figure 11. Radar diagram for the case of Germany.

18


The UK




(AS) due to the huge amount of recyclable

gypsum waste used for open-loop purposes,

mainly in the agricultural sector.

This country 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).

The national coverage (RRS) by the gypsum

recyclers and the level of segregation (SS) of

plasterboard waste on site are also above the

European average level.

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

France


It 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 12. Radar diagram for the case of France.

19


Belgium

Significant differences between Walloon and Flemish regions are observed. The principal end

route for plasterboard waste in Flanders is recycling, whereas in Wallonia most of this waste is

sent to landfill. No gypsum recycling company has been established in the Walloon region and

thus the reach in this area is estimated in a 20% (RRS). The segregation of plasterboard waste on

site (SS) is widely observed in Flanders whereas in Walloon is not a current practice, probably

mainly due to the high exported rate of gypsum based waste to Germany, only stopped in the

Flemish region (CO).

*Note that the competitiveness of the recycling solution has been estimated as 1 for the better graphical presentation of

the present radar diagram.

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

Figure 14. Radar diagram for the case of Walloon region.

Greece, Poland and Spain

In those three countries most of the factors are virtually zero due to the lack of gypsum recycling practices.

As a consequence, no segregation of plasterboard waste from other C&D waste on site is observed.

Their level of compliance with the existing EU regulations impacting gypsum waste is really low, not having

specific monocells for this kind of waste or even without having transposed the Council Decision in the case

of Spain.

20


Conclusions

Only 4 out of the 8 countries under study

are currently recycling construction and

demolition plasterboard waste: Belgium,

France, the Netherlands and the UK.

Council Decision 2003/33/EC has been

transposed in 6 out of the 8 countries under

study:

- Spain and the Netherlands are still

missing to transpose the Council Decision

2003/33/EC.

- Greece and Poland have transposed this

Council Decision, but no enforcement is

observed.

- France and Germany have transposed it

in a way that doesn’t lead to the disposal

of gypsum waste consisting in cells where

no organic waste is present.

- Only in Belgium and the UK gypsum

waste is mainly disposed of in landfills for

non-hazardous waste with specific cells

where no biodegradable waste is

accepted.

The existence of a market for recycled

gypsum is influenced by the 6 factors

identified under the model developed:

- 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)

- Level of compliance with the existing

regulations (Co)

- Legal alternative cheaper destinations for

the waste (AS)

- Environmental focus (ES)

The following have been identified as

determining factors:

- The existence of legal alternative

disposal and recovery routes (AS) for

the recyclable gypsum waste highly limits

or even disables plasterboard waste

recycling and/or the use of recycled

gypsum for closing the loop. The identified

alternative destinations are:

o Backfilling of open-cast mines

operations (i.e. Germany).

o Agricultural purposes (i.e. the UK).

- The level of compliance with the

existing regulations (Co), meaning

correct implementation and strict

enforcement of the WFD and the Council

Decision 2003/33/EC.

It is also observed that a high landfill tax (in

the UK) or a landfill ban for disposal unsorted

or recyclable gypsum waste (Belgium and the

Netherlands) helps to promote plasterboard

waste recycling.

In most of the target countries, the tax regime

is currently promoting the landfill route rather

than the recycling route and in some

instances waste streams are being delivered

from one country to another.

Plasterboard dismantling and segregation

from the rest of C&D wastes on site is

closely related with the existence of a

market for gypsum recycling in a given

country.

However in Germany a medium rate of

plasterboard source segregation is observed

whilst a market for recycled gypsum does not

exist.

21


Due to the lack of reliable and differentiable

statistics, it is difficult to assess the

percentage of gypsum based waste recovered

and recycled in the EU.

However an estimation has been developed

under this first stage of Action A1, concluding

that the amount of gypsum recycled in the 8

target countries can be estimated in 11%, far

away to contribute to the 70% target (that

includes the preparing for re-use, recycling

and other material recovery) established by

the WFD by 2020.

- In 4 of the countries (Germany, Greece,

Poland and Spain) the recycling rate of

gypsum waste is 0.0%

- In 3 of the countries (France, the UK and

the Netherlands) gypsum recycling

systems exist, but the success is limited

due to the above mentioned.

- Only in the Flemish region in Belgium the

recycling system handles the majority of

the gypsum waste, 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 can be taken as a model for

promoting gypsum recycling in the rest of

the EU countries.

Europe has a long way to go, as far as the

gypsum recycling practices are

concerned.

22


Recommendations

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).

A detailed report about the quantity,

quality and recyclability of the gypsum

based products should be a result of the

audit.

The segregation of the gypsum based

wastes from the rest of C&D waste

must be an obligation, distinguishing

between two categories: recyclable and

non-recyclable gypsum based waste.

The complete traceability document for

gypsum based waste and an obligation

to calculate and present the detailed

recycling and recovery rate should be

regulated at European level.

The 70% target established under the

Waste Framework Directive should be

reviewed to go for a recycling target

excluding recovery operations and

backfilling.

The Waste Hierarchy must be respected

provided that the order is consistent with a

number of parameters to be determined.

These parameters (as diverse as social,

technical, economic) must be considered

according to the local situation. A

methodology must be elaborated to weight

them so as to confirm the respect to the

hierarchy. It is necessary to demonstrate

for a simple reason of credibility and

reputation.

The current legislation regarding the

landfilling of gypsum based waste 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, non-recyclable gypsum

based waste should be systematically

sent to controlled cells in non-inert

non-hazardous waste landfills.

The statistics at European level are not

harmonised which slows down the

incentives to recycle effectively.

It is recommended to include 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.

from production to recycling: a circular economy for the...

Documents