he pressure to decrease waste disposal into landfills and increase recycling activities is becoming

Transcription

1 globalgypsummagazine Henrik Lund-Nielsen Gypsum Recycling International A/S Recycling of plasterboard waste from nice to have to a necessity Plasterboard manufacturers are coming under increasing pressure to recycle their gypsum waste for a variety of reasons; the rising cost of sending waste to landfill, environmental concerns, the difficulty and expense of procuring virgin raw as well as the kudos attached to using recycled. In this wide-ranging paper, Henrik Lund-Nielsen of Gypsum Recycling International assesses each of these factors in turn and how they differ across continents and countries. T he pressure to decrease waste disposal into landfills and increase recycling activities is becoming stronger and stronger throughout the world. Although recycling activities that cover construction and demolition (C&D) waste have grown significantly in the past decade, gypsum plasterboard waste in virtually all countries was until recently one of the most important fractions from C&D, if not the most important fraction, that was not recycled. As a consequence, approximately 10Mt of plasterboard waste was landfilled in 2007 around the globe. If, instead, this waste was recycled the plasterboard industry would get access to 10Mt of high quality raw at prices much better than that of virgin. Gypsum Recycling International began operations in 2001, and was one of the first companies in Europe to supply plasterboard manufacturers with raw made from recycled plasterboard waste. At the time, this concept was perceived by the plasterboard industry as nice to have, since relatively small amounts of recycled gypsum were available and the pressure from legislation, customers and the market for the recycling of plasterboard waste was still limited. At no stage was recycled gypsum waste considered a necessity. Since then however, the pressure from the market and from legislation to have plasterboard waste recycled has increased tremendously. This, combined with a more scarce supply of other inexpensive gypsum raw, coupled with an increase in the availability and quantity of recycled has changed the rules 30 globalgypsum global gypsummagazineseptember 2008 of the game. This paper examines the underlying reasons behind this development. Gypsum Recycling International (GRI) When Gypsum Recycling International (GRI) first had the pleasure of presenting the idea of recycling plasterboard waste at the 3rd Global Gypsum Conference 2003 in Barcelona, plasterboard recycling in Europe had a relatively short life story. In Barcelona, GRI launched its win-win business model to the plasterboard industry internationally. Since then there has been rapid developments. The win-win business model, combined with GRI s ability to produce a recycled gypsum powder 99% as good as virgin gypsum raw has led to the growth of GRI. From being a Danish- and Scandinavianbased company, GRI is now involved with plasterboard recycling on three continents and in 10 countries. In the meantime, the volume of recycled gypsum available from GRI s recycling activities has more than doubled, and from operating one mobile recycling unit, GRI now has five recycling units worldwide. In addition, GRI now supplies recycled to all the leading plasterboard groups in the world, including USG, Knauf, BPB (Saint-Gobain), Lafarge and National Gypsum. For these customers, GRI takes care of all aspects of establishing a recycling system. The only thing the customers do is to use the recycled gypsum powder, which GRI will sell at a price well below that of virgin gypsum raw. Furthermore, these partners get

2 globalgypsummagazine Above: Sorting of gypsum waste. the benefit of an improved environmental image by becoming involved in recycling projects. Due to the proprietary technology embedded in GRI s recycling units, GRI can turn new construction gypsum waste and demolition gypsum waste into recycled gypsum powder. This means that GRI s customers can and do use up to 25% of recycled in their raw mix. The high quality of the recycled gypsum is assured by the recycling technology as well as the specialised collection and logistics system developed by GRI. The system consists of dedicated plasterboard recycling containers and specially developed grab trucks with trained drivers that can perform quality control of the waste prior to picking it up from the dedicated plasterboard waste containers. Three determining factors changing attitudes toward plasterboard recycling Three determining factors have emerged since the beginning of the millennium that makes participation in plasterboard recycling schemes a necessity: Legislation; Scarce supply of inexpensive raw ; Pressure from the customers and markets. The factors are obviously related, but for the sake of clarity each factor will be described separately. Legislation Europe Right: Collection of gypsum waste. 32 In Europe especially, legislation is a very dominant factor and is pushing plasterboard plants to participate in plasterboard recycling. The general attitude of the authorities in Europe, mainly expressed through the European Union (EU), is that recycling should be supported and that gypsum waste being sent to landfill should be avoided. This is due to the potential for generation of hydrogen sulphide gases in the landfills if the plasterboard/gypsum waste is mixed with organic waste. So far EU legislation has mainly driven plasterboard recycling via the new directives related to how gypsum waste may be landfilled in the EU. One directive and a Council decision in particular have proven significant in this respect: Directive 31/1999 the so-called landfill directive dictates that from July 2009 only three types of landfills are allowed to exist in the EU member states: Inert landfills; Non-inert, non-hazardous landfills; Hazardous landfills - for hazardous waste For each type of landfill there are certain requirements that must be met, such as the bar- globalgypsummagazineseptember 2008 rier for rain water to penetrate through the waste and into the ground water and with respect to collection of the gases that might develop from the landfilled waste. As a result, each landfill in the EU must live up to the requirements for its type of landfill in order to carry on its operations after July This legislation has forced the landfill industry to invest heavily over the last few years, and as a consequence it will cost each landfill between Euro100,000 to millions of Euros to comply with the new legislation. Those that cannot afford to accommodate the changes have decided to cease operation by As a follow up on the landfill directive, in 2002 the EU Council defined new criteria for deciding what waste could be taken to different types of landfills (EU Council Decision 33/2002). Due to the risk of sulphurcontaining leachate (coming from rain falling on gypsum waste) ending up in the groundwater, the EU decided that the common practise in Europe of landfilling gypsum waste in relatively speaking inexpensive inert landfills without leachate collection systems was no longer acceptable. Instead, the Council decided that gypsum waste should only enter into non-inert nonhazardous landfills, and only then in special cells where no organic waste is present to prevent liberation of hydrogen sulphide gas. The acceptance criteria should be valid from July 2009, but most member states are late in implementing the changes such that the first real effect will come later. The landfill industry has to a certain degree overlooked the legal requirement for the future safe disposal of gypsum waste and therefore only a very limited amount of landfills have actually invested in the necessary special cells for the continued legal disposal of gypsum waste. Consequently, the number of landfills that after July 2009 will be able to receive plasterboard/ gypsum waste for disposal will shrink dramatically beyond the consequence of the landfill directive itself. So, to sum up: Inexpensive landfilling in inert landfills will no longer be allowed; instead the gypsum waste must be landfilled in the more expensive non-hazardous landfills; The amount of non-hazardous landfills will decrease by approximately a third in 2009 due to the general requirements in the landfill directive; Only very few of these have invested in the special cells required for the safe disposal of gypsum waste.

3 Above: Processing of gypsum waste at a GRI facility. By 2009 there will be far fewer and definitely more expensive landfills left that are capable of legally receiving the gypsum waste for disposal, and the cost for disposal of gypsum waste in landfills is expected to double or triple in the years to come. The waste industry is obviously aware of these new rules and has started advising its customers about the increased cost associated with sending gypsum waste to landfill. This in turn has made the customers of the plasterboard industry demand that the industry should set up proper recycling systems in order to reduce the costs associated with sending gypsum waste to more expensive landfill sites. The EU is planning further legal steps to increase the rate of recycling, an issue which European plasterboard plants must seriously consider before becoming involved with recycling. One of these new initiatives can be found in the EU Parliament s feedback to the Commission on the required revision of the Waste Directive. Diverging from what the Commission suggested, the EU Parliament is actually keen to have set recycling rates that must be met by the member states by For C&D waste, which plasterboard waste belongs to, the required recycling rate has been set to 70% (only 50% for household waste). Additionally, the EU has not given up on charging the manufacturers with extended producer responsibility for the waste arising out of the use of its products. The proposed revision of the Waste Directive therefore also contains wording to this effect: In order to strengthen the prevention, recovery, re-use and recycling of waste, member states shall take legislative or non-legislative measures to ensure that any natural or legal person who professionally develops, manufactures, processes and treats or sells products (producer of the product) has extended producer responsibility. Such measures may include an acceptance of returned products and of the waste that remains after those products have been used, as well as the subsequent management of the waste and financial responsibility for such activities. These measures may include the obligation to provide publicly available information as to the extent to which the product is re-usable and recyclable. The effects with respect to producer responsibility are not clear presently, as the proposal leaves it up to the member states to take further action in this respect, but most noticeably they MUST take action. The member states are not allowed not to do anything with respect to producer responsibility. Finally, in most EU member states the use of landfill taxes to avoid waste entering into the landfills is increasing. Besides the fact that the EU is considering a minimum EU-wide landfill tax, many member states are currently increasing their landfill tax, with the UK as the most noticeable example. For example, from March 2008 to April 2011 the landfill tax will be increased from UK 24/t to UK 56/t. By that time the cost per ton of disposal of plasterboard waste in the UK might very well be higher than the cost of acquiring the plasterboards from the manufacturer! Legislation US/Canada In the US and Canada the influence from legislation is less obvious than in the EU, except for in a certain Canadian province. Thus, the Canadian province of British Columbia (BC), has had a ban on landfilling on gypsum waste in place for more than 20 years. This ban has proven effective and has forced the two local plasterboard manufacturers, BPB/CertainTeed and GP to actively become involved with recycling. In Ontario there is also a ban on landfilling gypsum waste from new construction projects above a certain size, but this ban has not been enforced properly, and therefore has had less effect than the ban in BC. It is noticeable that the use of landfill taxes to divert waste from the landfills is very limited both in the US and Canada. However, certain US states have indeed acted on the risk of hydrogen sulphide gas generation, and more of the same is likely to happen in the future. Today several states have bans on applying daily landfill cover if these contain gypsum. Landfill cover material is the residual matter left behind after the recycling processors have picked out the recyclables and processed the rest. As the disposal of daily landfill cover is much less expensive than disposing of the residuals as ordinary landfill waste, the processors are risking severe financial penalties if their daily landfill cover contains gypsum. These bans have led the processors to be in favour of an overall ban on the landfilling of all gypsum waste, as it is very difficult for the processors to ensure that they do not have gypsum in their daily landfill cover, and they believe a ban would mean that the gypsum waste would be source-segregated at the building sites and therefore not likely to enter into their facilities. As a consequence of the perceived risk of possible hydrogen sulphide gas generation in the landfills and from the support from the waste industry, certain US states, Massachusetts in particular, are considering banning gypsum waste from their landfills altogether. 34 globalgypsum MAGAZINE September 2008

4 Below: A GRI truck depositing waste gypsum. Legislation other countries Countries such as Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Korea, Norway and Switzerland have also used legislation to force waste away from landfill. All of them have landfill taxes, and some of them have special rules for the safe disposal of gypsum waste (for instance Japan and Korea). In these countries the legislation is also tightened each year, making it more costly to dispose of gypsum waste in landfills and increasing the pressure to get recycling activities started. In the Middle East on the other hand, very few legislative initiatives have been proposed towards reducing the dependency on landfills as the disposal route for construction waste. Thus, the Middle East seems to be the only area where legislation is not a major factor in efforts to reduce landfilled waste. Scarce supply of inexpensive raw The supply of inexpensive raw is obviously very dependant upon location. It is obviously more expensive to source gypsum in New Zealand, where there are no gypsum mines and no production of FGD gypsum, than in Germany where the many coal-fired power plants makes the supply of relatively inexpensive FGD gypsum common. This is why in New Zealand, as well as in Japan, Korea and eastern Australia, where inexpensive raw are relatively scarce, plasterboard manufacturers are much more interested in obtaining raw in the form of recycled gypsum. The supply and cost of normal gypsum raw will influence whether or not plasterboard plants become involved in recycling activities. Hence, everything else being equal the interest will always be higher in locations where there is a shortage of inexpensive gypsum raw, than in locations where there is excess supply. In some locations, for instance where there is a nearby mine or a local power plant making FGD gypsum, the interest from the plasterboard plants in participating in gypsum recycling is therefore not out of a desire to secure raw at a low cost, and everything else being equal it takes other drivers to get the plasterboard plants interested in such schemes. This is, for instance, the case in the midwest and south western part of the US, in Ireland and in some areas of continental Europe. However, recently the huge increase in the cost of making plasterboards has increased the general interest from plasterboard plants in participating in recycling activities. The increase in the cost of making plasterboards is a consequence of the price increase in the following two areas: Energy (due to the soaring energy prices); Gypsum raw While the increase in the energy cost is easily understood, the increase in the cost of raw needs further explanation. The local cost of gypsum raw has increased in many plants for one or more of the following three reasons: the raw to the plant (due to rising fuel costs); Lack of FGD/DSG supply; General increase in the demand for gypsum while the supply is stable at best. The increased interest in recycling from plasterboard plants is a result of the fact that while the plants cannot really influence the cost of energy, they can influence the cost of the raw they use. By being supplied with recycled, they not only can procure the cheaper, but they also avoid part of the increasing cost of raw, as the recycled typically will be delivered from a recycling plant close by. Thus, the general interest from participating in recycling has become even higher in many places due to the above developments, to the extent that the plants have started looking at participation in recycling as a necessity. Today, that roughly describes the attitude of the plants in Nordic countries, and in large parts of continental Europe, Australia and New Zealand. In Europe the main driver has been the lack of FDG/DSG supply, while in Australia and New Zealand it has been the soaring cost of getting the normal gypsum raw, as they are transported from remote locations, that has been the main cause of the change in the attitude. It is outside the scope of this paper to analyse the reasons behind the inconsistent supply of FGD/DSG in continental Europe. It is sufficient to say that it is related to power plants moving away from coal firing and not running at full capacity possibly due to an excess of supply of energy from water power. Finally, it is worthwhile to note that while the supply of inexpensive FGD/DSG have decreased in the Nordic region, the supply of recycled partly due to the activities of firms such as GRI has increased. Consequently more plants now receive more than 20% of their raw from recycled sources. As the cost of the recycled is a fraction of the cost of obtaining gypsum rock from abroad, these plants are realising very significant savings as much as Euro1m/y by participating in recycling, increasing their profit margins as a result. GRI has moved from being a marginal nice to have supplier, into being a strategic and need to have supplier. Put in an even wider perspective it can be said that for these plants the continued supply of recycled have become a necessity for maintaining their competitiveness and profitability. 36 globalgypsum MAGAZINE September 2008

5 Above: A GRI truck moves recycling equipment to a new site. Pressure from customers and the markets In developed countries the plasterboard industry is facing increasing pressure from its customers to get involved with recycling of plasterboard waste. The customers wish for recycling of plasterboard waste is due to economic concerns about the cost of disposal of plasterboard waste, as well as environmental concerns about continued landfilling. Economic concerns have already been covered elsewhere in this paper, but on the issue of environmental concerns, it can be stated that the US and Canada are to a certain extent ahead of Europe and Japan. Thus, in the US especially, there is increasing demand from customers that construction projects adhere to the LEED system (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design). The LEED Green Building Rating System is a nationallyaccepted benchmark for the design, construction, and operation of high performance green buildings. It does this by providing the building industry with consistent and credible standards for what constitutes a green building and promotes a whole-building approach to sustainability by recognising performance in five key areas of human and environmental health: Sustainable site development; Water savings; Energy efficiency; Materials selection; Indoor environmental quality. The building projects are rated according to how many points they have achieved in the five areas, and points are given for recycling of building waste, including plasterboard waste. The rating system is developed and continuously refined via an open, consensus-based approach that has made LEED the green building standard of choice for federal agencies and state and local governments nationwide. The LEED system was not widely known about a few years ago, but now it is applied to approximately 5% of all new buildings in the US, and is increasing each month. In some US states more than 10% of all new buildings are now LEED certified. The customers desire to get LEED certification has forced several US plants to handle recycled plasterboard waste, in order to receive more LEED points for the project. For example, GRI s operations in Boston is contacted on a daily basis by companies more than 500km or even 1000km away, asking if GRI can help them earn LEED points by recycling of their plasterboard waste. Moreover, US companies participating in construction projects in the Middle East have contacted GRI about getting involved in plasterboard recycling for the explicit purpose of obtaining LEED recognition. Although there is strong awareness and a fear of global warming in the US and Canada, customers in general are still not connecting the landfilling of waste with global warming to the same extent as in Europe. This is even more remarkable based upon the fact that landfills in the US are responsible for 7% of the greenhouse gases emitted in the US. As a comparison, the US airline industry is only responsible for 2-3% of all the US-generated greenhouse gases, while in Europe the landfills are responsible for only 3% of the total greenhouse gases generated. Landfills are contributing to global warming through the creation of methane gases from the landfilled waste. In fact, in almost all developed countries landfills are the biggest producers of methane gas. As methane gas is 20 times more efficacious as a greenhouse gas than CO 2, the influence of landfills on global warming is highly significant. As more waste is landfilled in the US compared to Europe relatively, it is little wonder that US landfills also contribute more to greenhouse gas generation than in Europe where much more waste is recycled. A possible explanation could be that discussions relating to landfilling gypsum waste in the US and Canada tend to focus on the potential generation of hydrogen sulphide gas. Less attention however is given to the fact that landfill waste will generate methane gas. In Europe and to a certain extent Japan, the link between landfilling and greenhouse gases is much more recognised, and has been the reason for the large rises in UK landfill taxes that have occured in recent years. In such a scenario it is only of marginal interest whether plasterboard waste in itself is actually producing greenhouse gases or not, since plasterboard waste is governed by the same initiatives and laws aimed at preventing any waste going to landfill at all. To summarise, the pressure from customers for the plasterboard industry to become involved in recycling is highest in Europe, followed by Japan and then the US, not just because the fear of global warming is high in Europe, but also as a direct result of the increasing disposal cost for plasterboard waste that the customers are facing. In certain European countries the pressure has become so strong that the plasterboard industry as a whole has felt the need to show commitment towards doing something about it. In the UK for instance, Knauf, Lafarge and British Gypsum formalised their committment to recycle more waste on 30 April 2007, by committing to recycle 50% of 38 globalgypsum MAGAZINE September 2008

6 Main drivers Europe US and Canada Legislation Scarce supply of inexpensive raw Customer pressure Table 1: Factors influencing plasterboard plants to become involved in recycling (the major drivers are in bold.) EU landfill directives increases disposal cost Landfill taxes Recycling targets for C&D waste Extended producer responsibility Lack of cheap sources nearby (for Nordic countries) Shrinking supply of FGD/DSG (in northern continental Europe) Increasing cost of disposal, general recycling mentality and a fear of global warming Industry agreements (UK, France, NL) to commit to help and develop recycling Ban on landfilling of waste (Canada) Ban on gypsum in daily landfill cover alternative gypsum raw (northern US) The LEED system Japan and Korea Special rules for landfilling of gypsum waste Lack of cheap sources nearby alternative gypsum raw High cost of disposal and fear of global warming Australia and New Zealand Landfill taxes Lack of cheap sources nearby alternative gypsum raw Rising cost of disposal and fear of global warming all plasterboard waste from new construction by Similarly, in January 2008 the French plasterboard association committed to develop plasterboard waste recycling initiatives in France. Finally, the Dutch Ministry of the Environment has announced that a similar committment is to be made by the Dutch plasterboard industry in cooperation with the waste/recycling industry and the construction sector. In Australia and New Zealand the pressure from customers on the manufacturers to become involved in recycling is also increasing. As the cost of sending waste for disposal in landfills is still relatively low (compared to Europe), the customers concern stems more from environmental rather than economic factors. Japan, and to a lesser degree Korea, are completely the other way around due to the very high cost of landfilling in these countries. Table 1 presents an overview of the factors influencing plasterboard plants to become involved in recycling activities. Closing remarks The model offered to the plasterboard manufacturers by GRI, together with GRI s complete and mobile system for plasterboard recycling has secured unprecedented expansion for GRI on three continents. At the same time the plasterboard industry is under pressure in virtually all developed countries to become involved in recycling of the waste that their products generate, by a combination of economic and environmental concerns. In Europe, legislation arising out of the fear of global warming and the problems connected with landfilling Middle East of gypsum waste is driving up the cost of landfilling gypsum waste dramatically. This has increased the pressure Small influence from customers to the point where the plasterboard industry has begun to participate in recycling schemes. For a large part of Europe recycling is no longer just nice to have but has become a necessity. In addition, officials in the EU continue to try to push the concept of producer responsibility. This idea will make it mandatory for plants to take care of the waste Lack of cheap sources their products produce. At the same nearby time, plants in the Nordic countries that have been involved in recycling for some years are now realising that alternative more than 20% of their supply of raw gypsum raw are coming from recycling activities. In some cases, companies US companies in these countries are benefiting from want LEED Euro1m improvements on the bottom projects line. In Canada, bans in certain areas have forced plasterboard plants to become involved with recycling. In the US the LEED system has achieved the same result, although only on a project-by-project basis. As the LEED system gains further ground and the ban on gypsum waste in the daily landfill cover spreads to more states, the pressure on the plasterboard industry will become stronger. This pressure will also be felt in Japan and Korea, partially as a result of the high cost of disposal caused by special rules for landfilling of gypsum. At the same time, as the cost of normal gypsum raw increases due to higher transportation fees, the pressure to source from recycling activities will also grow. Australia and New Zealand have been hit by the same cost increases. Customer pressure is mounting, making it very likely that several plants will soon have to become involved in recycling. In the Middle East, pressure on the plants to become involved in recycling is still limited, but as the cost of the gypsum raw increases and with more emphasis on the environment in the future, it is likely that plants in the Middle East will also realise what the industry in other parts of the world has been realising, namely, that plasterboard recycling is no longer just nice to have, it has become a necessity. 40 globalgypsum MAGAZINE September 2008