Introduction
Government Policy
Supporting the Use of Secondary and Recycled
Aggregates
Local
Authorities
Materials
Available
Practices in the
Construction Industry
Reuse and Recycling in
Europe
Summary
References
The present land-use planning system has allowed, and continues to allow, massive over production of primary aggregates. This has caused the depression of primary aggregate prices which has led to the serious under-utilisation of secondary and recycled aggregates - valuable resources which are largely being wasted. Meanwhile the primary aggregates industry continues to destroy hills and rip out fields to extract over two hundred million tonnes of non-renewable resources each year in Britain. The amount of land consumed by primary aggregate extraction in 1994 in England alone is some 29,000 ha (or 111 square miles) with a further 17,000 ha classified as permitted in 2100 sites. This represents 5-6 tonnes per person as compared to 1/16th of a tonne at the turn of the century (DoE 1996). According to the Department of the Environment's (DoE) Survey of Land for Mineral Workings in England 1994 approximately 65,000 ha of land is permitted for aggregate extraction.
This report looks into various aspects affecting the utilisation of secondary and recycled aggregates. It will look at the role of Government policy, Local Authorities, materials available, practices of the construction industry and European examples of good practice.
Government Policy Supporting the Use of Secondary and Recycled Aggregates
The use of secondary and recycled aggregates is a valid means of reducing the negative environmental effects caused by primary aggregate extraction. Central Government supports this. The DoE has set up the Aggregates Advisory Service (AAS) whose objective is to promote the efficient use of aggregates from whatever source - primary, secondary, or recycled, and to promote the greater use of secondary and recycled materials. Steve Bland of DoE Minerals and Waste Planning Division, spoke of the Governments support for the greater use of secondary and recycled aggregates at the AAS's first seminar on 13th May 1997. The DoE's AAS intends as it's philosophical aim to de-emphasise the source of aggregate materials due to unwarranted prejudice against secondary and recycled aggregates. They wish to emphasise the performance rather than the source of the material.
Government Mineral Policy Guidance's (MPG's) now increasingly feature concepts of sustainable development and emphasise the use of secondary materials and the recycling of aggregates. Some examples:
Nevertheless, the Government can do much more to promote their aim to encourage the use of secondary and recycled aggregates. In the conclusion to the DoE commissioned report 'Occurrence and Utilisation of Mineral and Construction Wastes' (the Arup report) (Arup Economics and Planning, HMSO, 1991), it is stated that there should be "measures to cause a shift in the relative prices of primary and secondary materials" and that there should be "a range of other policy measures aimed at increasing the use of secondary materials" and that a "tax or levy on primary materials most directly addresses the question of materials choice". Earlier in the report, concerning the potential for Government use of economic instruments, such as a tax on primary aggregates, "the objective, or justification [of the use of economic instruments], would be to capture the environmental costs in the direct cost of the material".
In the DoE's report 'Managing Demolition and Construction Wastes in the UK' (Howard Humphreys and Partners, HMSO, 1994) recommendation 9 states
"Government should take a lead through a positive attitude to the incorporation of waste and recycled materials in public sector contracts, and establish a notional target for the desirable percentage of recycled materials to be incorporated within major public works".
Some further quotes from the same report:
"It is Government policy , though MPG6 , to encourage the use of demolition and construction wastes and recycled materials in construction" (p.8).
"Clearly , recycling of materials on the site of demolition can be of benefit as it eliminates the cost associated with the transport and landfill disposal. It could also reduce or eliminate the requirement for primary aggregates" (p.10).
"The technology for processing demolition waste for reuse is proven and available" (p.10).
"It was found that a market exists for almost all the processed material irrespective of quality and type" . (p.41).
In Denmark "It is understood that despite the high level of control and segregation required there has been little impact on overall costs and the environmental benefits have been substantial. (p.50).
By Hugh Mallet, of Aspinwall & Co. at the DoE AAS's seminar in May 1997 from a list of options for Government policy :
3. The use of positive discrimination to encourage the use of reclaimed aggregates or discourage the use of primary aggregates by:
i) the introduction of a primary aggregates tax
ii) the introduction of quotas and enforced targets.Also:
1. Provide fiscal support for the supply of reclaimed aggregates , for example by exemption from VAT for reclaimed aggregates sold for recycling , by favourable corporation tax treatment of revenues from the sale of reclaimed aggregates, or by capital allowance on the development of recycling facilities.
4. Develop the landfill tax to increase the cost of disposal of reclaimable aggregate material.
It seems clear then that in the near future Government policy will favour the use of secondary and recycled aggregates over primary aggregates through the use of taxes and regulations. Mineral Planning Authorities will bear the burden of this.
We recommend that these authorities should act on the proposals before they become law thus giving them an 'edge'.
The Mineral Planning Authorities (MPAs), of which there are about 78, have an opportunity to challenge their Regional Guidline figures, as did the Royal County of Berkshire in 1993. The County decided to reduce their production of aggregates to below their allocation in their Draft Replacement Minerals Local Plan. The following public enquiry, resulting from objections from the aggregates industry, found against the County. However, at the same time that the Inspectors Report was published, in 1994, the revised MPG6 reduced the amount of aggregate Berkshire was allocated to provide so the County took no further action as they got the result they wanted anyway. Also, when considering sites the County had chosen to protect from aggregate extraction, the Inspector rejected nearly all the objections to these from the aggregates industry. Furthermore he recommended against inclusion of the single biggest area allocated to mineral extraction in the plan on grounds of its landscape sensitivity. So in terms of their regional allocation of aggregates to provide, and the site-specific considerations, the County achieved almost all of its objectives.
This opportunity for MPA's is supported by current MPG6 which "stresses from the outset that aggregate projections provide an "indication" of the long term trend in demand , and reiterates the point that they do not represent targets MPG6(DoE, para 7)" and "the apportionment figures should not be regarded as inflexible" (from CPRE, Rocks and Hard Places 1996).
In the DoE's report Managing Demolition and Construction Wastes in the UK (Howard Humphreys and Partners 1994 ) Recommendation 6 says
"Local Planning Authorities ... Officers should be prepared to question or reject applications which do not demonstrate that they have shown due consideration to recycling possibilities"
In 1993 Mendip District Council, based in Shepton Mallet, Somerset , took a lead in regard to recycling . To quote from their press release:
"Mendip District Council's Policy and Finance Committee has come out firmly in favour of quarry head levies. The resolution passed at last night's (15/11/93) meeting recommended:
- a quarry head levy as national policy
- approaches to be made to other councils in areas of production and consumption of aggregates for their support for the policy more investment to be made in research into the use of secondary materials for a range of uses including high specification operations such as road building
- urging the Association of District Councils to support and promote the policy
- that the Council provides greater information to residents and business in the Mendip area on the availability of secondary aggregates and their potential use.
It was emphasised in the discussion by Cllr Gloria Cawood that this policy is one that is designed to foster recycling in line with current thinking and to provide new employment in the district as a result. Councillors were concerned that the falling number of jobs available in the quarry industry in Mendip should be balanced by an increase in employment opportunity".
As MPA's are now learning, from their own experiences as local representatives, people are becoming more and more conscious of their responsibilities to the environment and the planet. The MPA's are in a position and have a responsibility to ensure the efficient use of any primary aggregate extracted and the maximum use of secondary and recycled materials - and there is Central Government support for this.
We recommend that all local authorities take on similar policies to Mendip District Council.
The following is a brief list of the major
sources of secondary and recyclable aggregates, with a more in-depth
look at construction and demolition (C&D) wastes. Also I shall
refer to these materials as "by-products" rather than "wastes" as
these are valuable resources not just rubbish.
Minerals Planing Authorities could help themselves by initiating audits to ascertain the level of secondary and recyclable aggregates occurring in their areas. If done in a thorough and careful manner this would inform the Authorities of the potential for reuse and recycling in their areas, and the Government may well require this of them in the near future anyway.
Practices in the Construction Industry
Clearly as the major consumer of aggregates the construction industry, whether building houses, roads, civil projects such as the second Severn crossing etc., has to be examined if the Governments policy to increase the quantities of secondary and recycled materials used is to be achieved. There are difficulties at present with this - the construction industry tends to be very conservative in its outlook, which manifests in forms of contract and specifications a distrust of the unknown, in this case secondary and recycled materials.
"There is little if any incentive for any of the key players to take any unnecessary risk i.e. by using innovative or unusual materials (such as reclaimed aggregate materials). This conservatism is increasingly encouraged by banks, insurers, owners etc. inevitably affecting the attitude of designers and builders. In addition current forms of contract place all the risk with one party (usually the contractor ) thus further encouraging conservatism" (Hugh Mallett, Aspinwall & Co. at DoE AAS seminar 1997).
Also;
"it is generally concluded that recipe specifications mitigate against their [reclaimed aggregates] use and this situation could be remedied by both the wider adoption of performance specifications and an increased awareness of existing specifications for reclaimed materials".
Despite this
"Respondents identified that the majority of schemes using reclaimed materials or recycling processes were successful. This is significant in that the risk of failure is often cited as a reason for not using reclaimed materials and recycling processes " (Hugh Mallett again).
Concerning specifications of materials for use in construction, David Rockliff, Quality and Technical Manager, Tilcon (North) Ltd said at the DoE AAS seminar,
"Soil classification tests [for use in earthworks] became rigidly applied specification requirements for granular materials before the background to their use was properly explained".
In his conclusion he said:
"As a consequence of the current specification .... suppliers take the easy option - they deliver a higher grade product in exchange for a less onerous testing regime....and an opportunity for appropriate use is lost".
So higher quality materials are being wasted where lower quality materials would be suitable.
Rod Dengate, of Kvaerner Technology, also at the DoE AAS seminar 1997 quotes from a recent major Public Finance Initiative (PFI) contract "save as otherwise specified the Works comprise or will comprise only materials and goods which are new". He goes on to say:
"Why are such potentially restrictive and onerous conditions imposed and why do those responsible for drawing up conditions of contract and specifications feel so threatened, when there is the safeguard of modern materials technology, quality management systems, end-performance specifications and the high risk involved to contractors who fail to perform".
Peter Guthrie of Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick at the DoE's AAS seminar 1997 in his presentation on the Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) research project on Waste Minimisation and Recycling in Construction spoke of the massive quantities of materials regularly wasted on construction sites. He said that he had witnessed considerable waste of materials at every construction site he had visited - he stated that there is materials wasted on construction sites enough to build 13,000 extra homes every year in Britain! On economic advantages of waste reduction, reuse and recycling:
"The construction industry can make savings in material purchasing and waste disposal costs through an increased emphasis on waste reduction, reuse and recycling. All too often, the real cost of waste is underestimated because it is assessed only in terms of the cost of disposal rather than in terms of the cost arising in its entire lifecycle. These costs include :
- the original purchase price and transportation costs of the materials which are wasted,
- the cost of storing, transporting and disposing of the waste to authorised sites,
- the loss of revenue from not reclaiming waste materials."
- Also "Savings from waste minimisation should be welcomed in view of a recent survey, which highlighted that UK construction practices can be made more efficient to the extent that project costs could be reduced by 30% by the year 2000." ( Latham 1994)
Of course, waste minimisation, reuse and recycling also has the major environmental benefit that it at least reduces and could even eliminate the 'need' to irreversibly destroy land for primary aggregate extraction.
Mr Guthrie made a number of interesting and pertinent observations in his talk, including - "Infrastructure is waste in transit" i.e. the built environment will become 'waste' upon demolition, so "delay in wasting materials is beneficial to the environment" by, amongst other things, constructing buildings to last rather than with built-in obselecence. He also made the very important point that a zero value is placed on primary aggregates i.e. 'how do we pay God for these resources'. It is pleasing that someone 'in the business' is prepared to question a fundamental assumption that many seem to take for granted that natural resources are just there for us to exploit without any regard for deeper considerations. Contrast this with Mrs Doreen Earle, a quarry owner, who said in a recent BBC TV programme "When you've got a quarry it's like owning your own bank" - you just dig the money out"!
As mentioned before, many countries in Europe are a long way ahead of Britain in this field.
Some examples stated in the Arup report 1991 :
"In Germany a federal Government waste law exists which requires all reusable or recyclable construction waste to be separated prior to tipping. Further legislation gives specific targets including the requirement that by the end of 1991, 90% of all reusable materials must actually be reused in some way rather than simply tipped". (p.31).
"A waste law which exists in Germany prohibits the disposal of certain mineral wastes which are capable of being recycled".
From Howard Humphreys & Partners 1994 report :
"It is the policy of the Dutch Government that 90% of the available suitable C&D industry waste will be recycled by the year 2000".(p.48).
"Dutch Government is prepared to intervene in the market place " e.g. by "specifying the use of recycled materials in public works and providing financial support to the trade associations representing operators working in recycling".(p.48).
In Denmark "changes in waste management have been brought about by :
- restricting the type of waste which is allowed to be disposed of to landfill,
- directing much of the arisings to recycling,
- restricting the number of landfill sites available by strict controls,
- levies on landfill". (p.49).
"This has led to a reduction in the number of available landfill sites from approximately 30 to 3 and the number of waste carriers from about 2000 to 30 , since the 1980's". (p.49).
"A significant element of the Danish practice is the encouragement of segregation of wastes at source". (p.49).
"By imposing regulations on the processing and handling of wastes, Copenhagen has a system which maximises the recycling potential of all types of waste which arise....it is understood that despite the high level of control and segregation required there has been little impact on overall costs and the environmental benefits have been substantial". (p.50).
In the Netherlands : "It is interesting to note that a national policy to recycle 90% of demolition waste by the year 2000 was developed by a group including trade organisations for primary aggregate producers". (p.52).
In Denmark again "Despite such intervention , it is said that there has been little impact on overall costs. Even if this were significant in Denmark, the environmental gain would be considered to justify the costs". (p.52).
In European Community states "anecdotal information suggests that recycling operations are more acceptable for a variety of reasons and therefore face fewer difficulties in obtaining planning consent than in the UK". (p.52).
In Germany Deutag Remex GmbH have been recycling C&D by-products for several years. There are approximately 285 mtpa C&D "wastes" - more than the present tonnage of primary aggregates extracted each year in the UK. The Remex group in the FRG and neighbouring European states has more than 50 recycling plants "working exhaustively", which are adapted to market demands in their output (i.e. recycled material to the construction industry) and on the input side (i.e. from the sources of "wastes"). The processing of the so-called "waste" materials is very thorough, providing a range of high quality materials geared to the demands of the construction industry. By the use of thorough quality control at the three main stages of their operations i.e. input, processing and output they are able to manufacture customer-specific products. To quote Guntram Kohler of Deutag Remex, "Target of circulation management in the building sector as a common initiative of all participants concerned, organised in KWTB - working group of the building industry as supporting organisation of the circulation management - should be to develop a circulation management in which our globe is not severely charged by unnecessary exploitation of raw materials nor by dumping of waste".
Approximately 300,000 tonnes of the Berlin Wall has been recycled, and the main football stadium in Hannover was built from recycled aggregate.
These examples show that the provision of high quality aggregates to the construction industry is happening on a large scale elsewhere in Europe. It is overdue for the UK to catch up.
For a start Minerals Planing Authorities would be well advised to develop best practice policies to guide planning and business decisions based on these European examples.
It is clear that reuse of materials and use of secondary and recycled aggregates can make a significant contribution to reducing or even eliminating primary aggregate extraction with its inevitable environmental destruction and damage. Even so , this is only part of the solution - the whole issue of sustainable construction needs urgent attention also if we are to protect the life support systems of this planet for ourselves and for future generations.
Steve King, July 1997
Arup Economics and Planning, 1991, Occurrence and Utilisation of Mineral and Construction Wastes, HMSO
Howard Humphreys and Partners, 1994, Managing Demolition and Construction Wastes in the UK, HMSO
Owens S. and Cowell R., 1996, Rocks and Hard Places: Mineral Resource Planning and Sustainability, Council for the Protection of Rural England
Department of the Environment, 1994, Survey of Land for Mineral Workings in England, HMSO.
Symonds Travers Morgan, 1997, First Annual Report. Department of the Environment's Aggregate Advisory Service.
The Aggregates Advisory Service can be
contacted by :
freephone on 0800 374 279
The following references are papers which were presented at the DoE's AAS's first Seminar, 13th May 1997, Barbican, London.
The Use of Reclaimed Aggregate Materials in Road Construction [and
Maintenance]. Options for Government Policy (DoE Research Project).
S.H.Mallett (Aspinwall & Co.) ; A.C.Woolveridge (Scott Wilson
Kirkpatrick); B.Tollit (Coopers and Lybrand); J.S.Burnett (Impax
Capital). 1997.
The Appropriate Use of Low Grade Quarry Products , Reclaimed Aggregates and Inert Wastes as Highway Earthworks Materials. David Rockliff B.Sc., C.Eng. Quality and Technical Manager, Tilcon (North) Ltd., North Yorkshire.
Alternative Aggregate Sources - Risks to be Managed. Rod S. Dengate. Kvaerner Technology. 1997.
Waste Minimisation and Recycling in Construction and Demolition - A CIRIA (Construction Industry Research and Information Association) Project. Peter Guthrie. Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick. 1997.
Planning , Building and Management of Combi Plants for Processing of Building and Industrial Residuals. Guntram Kohler and Uwe Penzel. Deutag Remex GmbH. 1997.
Quality Management and Marketing of Recycled Mineral Aggregates. Andreas Hanemann. Deutag Remex GmbH. 1997.
Management of Material Streams for Building
Residuals. Guntram Kohler.
Deutag Remex GmbH. 1996.
Company Profile. Deutag Remex GmbH. Undated.