How Does the European Recovery Target for Construction & Demolition Waste Affect Resource Management?

Abstract

The revised EU Waste Framework Directive (WFD) includes a 70 % target for recovery of construction and demolition (C&D) waste. In order to study the potential change in the resource management of the main C&D waste fractions, as a consequence of fulfilling the WFD target, a Nordic project (ENCORT-CDW) has been performed. Waste fractions studied included asphalt, concrete, bricks, track ballast, gypsum-based construction materials and wood. Recovery scenarios were identified and estimations were made regarding expected savings of primary materials, impact on transport, and pollution and emissions. For wood waste, the main differences between re-use, material recycling and energy recovery were evaluated in a carbon footprint screening based on life cycle assessment methodology. The study concluded that the EU recovery target does not ensure a resource efficient and environmentally sustainable waste recovery in its present form since:• It is very sensitive to how the legal definitions of waste and recovery are interpreted in the Member States. This means that certain construction material cycles might not count in the implementation reports while other, less efficient and environmentally safe, recovery processes of the same material will count.• It is weight-based and consequently favours large and heavy waste streams. The result is that smaller flows with equal or larger resource efficiency and environmental benefit will be insignificant for reaching the target.• It does not distinguish between the various recovery processes, meaning that resource efficient and environmentally safe recovery cannot be given priority.Improved knowledge on C&D waste generation and handling, as well as on content and emissions of dangerous substances, is required to achieve a sustainable recovery.

Introduction to advances in construction and demolition waste

“…Also, several authors have criticized the European Directive as being ineffective. Arm et al (2017) states that the Directive is very sensitive to how the legal definitions of waste and recovery are interpreted among the Member States. They also mention that the Directive does not distinguish between the various recovery processes and also that its weight-based approach favors large and heavy waste streams.…”

Can we go circular? : On the multifaceted challenges of facilitating shredder fines valorisation in the Swedish context

“…It would strip landfill covering from its current recovery status, thus necessitating opting for alternative recovery strategies for fines in order to fulfil the ELV directive targets. The measure has been advocated as necessary to initiate waste recovery strategies in general (Arm et al, 2017), and its implementation is likely given the increasing focus towards the value-added recovery of industrial residues on the EU level (European Commission, 2011). This measure would also strengthen the ELV directive's requirements for only thermal recovery other than recycling, thus prompting shredding companies to ponder valorisation strategies for fines instead of disposal-oriented ones.…”

Managerial Areas of Construction and Demolition Waste: A Scientometric Review

“…In the LCA approach, energy consumption and CO 2 emission are the two most evaluated impact categories [ 98 ]. Application of the LCA method can be classified into six aspects: environmental impacts of a building [ 44 , 99 , 100 ], environmental impacts of construction waste in the construction phase [ 101 , 102 ], environmental impacts of demolition waste in the end-of-life phase [ 103 , 104 ], environmental impacts of demolition waste in the refurbishment phase [ 105 ], environmental impacts of recycled aggregates [ 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 ], and environmental impacts under different CDW management strategies [ 14 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 ]. Results show that, compared with landfill, most of waste recycling and reuse methods bring net environmental benefits [ 14 , 101 , 106 , 110 ].…”