a supply chain analysis of construction and demolition ... · i declare that this thesis has been...

A supply chain analysis of Construction and Demolition waste streams in Perth, Western Australia

Chad Michael Trent Harris

Bachelor of Environmental Engineering (Honours)

School of Engineering and Information Technology

Murdoch University, 2017

Submitted to the School of Engineering and Information Technology, Murdoch University in partial

fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Engineering

i | P a g e Chad Harris, 2017

Declaration

I declare that this thesis has been composed solely by myself and that it has not been submitted for

any other previous application for a degree; Except where stated otherwise by reference or

acknowledgement.

Chad Harris

27th January 2017

ii | P a g e Chad Harris, 2017

Abstract Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste makes up 50% of the total waste stream in Perth, Western

Australia. This stream primarily consists of construction rubble, cement, bricks, and sand. The

current recovery of these materials is considerably low when compared to international and

interstate cases. These materials have a high recovery potential and can be a valuable resource to

the construction industry to increase sustainability outcomes for the businesses and state targets.

Savings for the use of recycled aggregates is primarily in a reduction of logistics costs along with

lower embodied energy and emissions.

A supply chain analysis was conducted to determine the current recycling practices, reporting

structure, legislative components, how legislation affects the supply chain, its drivers and market for

these recycled products. This study has found that the lack of reporting requirements, standards,

data recording methodology and guidance from government bodies has resulted in an unstable

market with little demand for these materials.

Due to insufficient data, an extensive understanding of illegal dumping and waste generation in

particular sectors were not possible. An estimated 3.3Mt of C&D waste is generated each year from

commercial and residential construction, and demolition. A 35% recovery rate was calculated, lower

than reported amounts and found that the waste stream is currently not large enough to allow the

use in high-value applications. Up to 76% (2.5Mt) of C&D waste stream can be easily diverted into

low value applications (e.g. road construction). To increase confidence in these products a new

reporting structure and licencing requirements are recommended to allow better tracking of the

materials throughout the supply chain.

iii | P a g e Chad Harris, 2017

Acknowledgements I would like the opportunity to acknowledge my supervisors: Dr. Martin Anda, Academic Chair of

Environmental Engineering, Michael Norriss at Master Builders Association and Alfred Tseng.

Without their support and time despite their busy schedules, this project would not have been

successful.

A special thank you to Michael Norriss the Smart Waste Consultant for his guidance on the topic and

technical information and support has been instrumental in acquiring the necessary industry

contacts and information to conduct the analysis.

Also, I would like to thank Mast Builders Association WA for their ongoing support in this project and

Kelly Dewar-Matusik the Partnerships and Marketing Manager for the opportunity to work on this

particular project.

I would also like to thank David Goodfield from Murdoch University for his time and photos taken

during the site visits. David Markham, general manager of Capitol Demolition. Steve Burnell owner

operator of Encore Recycling, Alan Nelson director of Earthcare Recycling, William Carter

environmental advisor of the Georgiou Group for their knowledge in their field of work.

Tess Boyes, and Julie Wyland from the Department of Environment Regulation; their expertise and

knowledge within their respective roles have provided me with the necessary data and information

to complete this project.

iv | P a g e Chad Harris, 2017

Contents Declaration ............................................................................................................................................... i

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... ii

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................ iii

Table of Figures ..................................................................................................................................... vii

Table of Tables ..................................................................................................................................... viii

Glossary of Terms................................................................................................................................... ix

1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Aims and Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Significance ................................................................................................................................... 2

1.4 Limitations ..................................................................................................................................... 2

2.0 Literature Review .............................................................................................................................. 2

2.1 Defining Supply Chains .................................................................................................................. 2

2.2 Interstate C&D Waste Management Practices ............................................................................. 6

2.2.1 New South Wales ................................................................................................................... 6

2.2.2 Victoria ................................................................................................................................... 6

2.2.3 South Australia ....................................................................................................................... 6

2.3 International Examples of C&D Waste Management ................................................................... 7

2.3.1 Netherlands ............................................................................................................................ 7

2.3.2 Japan ...................................................................................................................................... 7

2.3.3 Germany ................................................................................................................................. 8

2.3.4 San Francisco, United States .................................................................................................. 9

2.4 Reuse Opportunities ..................................................................................................................... 9

2.4.1 Waaltij Complex ................................................................................................................... 11

2.4.2 Alternate Technology ........................................................................................................... 11

2.4.3 Construction with recycled product .................................................................................... 12

2.5 Self-regulators ............................................................................................................................. 13

2.6 Waste Hierarchy .......................................................................................................................... 14

2.7 Specifications .............................................................................................................................. 14

2.7.1 Main Roads 501 Specification .............................................................................................. 15

2.7.2 Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia (IPWEA) .................................................... 15

2.7.3 Department of Environment Regulation - Waste-derived Materials .................................. 15

2.7.4 Waste Authority – Recycled Construction Products Program (RCPP) ................................. 15

v | P a g e Chad Harris, 2017

2.8 Waste Management in Western Australia.................................................................................. 15

2.8.1 Document Analysis of industry reports ............................................................................... 15

2.8.2 Illegal Dumping .................................................................................................................... 20

2.8.3 Western Australia Legislation .............................................................................................. 22

2.8.4 Builders survey ..................................................................................................................... 25

2.8.5 Construction and Demolition Infrastructure ....................................................................... 25

2.8.6 Housing Trends, Incentives Programs and Current Reuse ................................................... 28

3.0 Method and Model Development .................................................................................................. 30

3.1 Method ....................................................................................................................................... 30

3.1.1 Literature Review ................................................................................................................. 30

3.1.2 Document Analysis ............................................................................................................... 30

3.1.3 Site visits to confirm components of the industry processes .............................................. 30

3.1.4 Development of the Supply Chain Model ............................................................................ 31

3.1.5 Model Validation .................................................................................................................. 31

3.1.6 Waste stream breakdowns .................................................................................................. 31

3.2 Model Development ................................................................................................................... 31

3.2.1 Conceptual Supply Chain Model .......................................................................................... 31

3.3 Quantified Supply Chain ............................................................................................................. 34

3.3.1 Commercial C&D waste generation ..................................................................................... 34

3.3.2 Residential C&D waste calculation ...................................................................................... 34

3.3.3 Demolition activity C&D waste calculation .......................................................................... 35

3.3.4 C&D waste to landfill ........................................................................................................... 36

3.3.5 Calculated recovery rate ...................................................................................................... 36

4.0 Results ............................................................................................................................................. 38

4.1 Alkimos Beach - C&D waste in new housing developments ....................................................... 38

4.1.1 Source separation waste provider site visit ......................................................................... 39

4.2 C&D waste processing facility site visits ..................................................................................... 40

4.3 Commercial Builder ..................................................................................................................... 42

4.3.1 Composition of commercial construction C&D waste stream ............................................. 42

4.4 Perth C&D waste stream composition ........................................................................................ 44

4.4.1 Quantified SC model validation ........................................................................................... 44

4.4.2 Waste stream breakdowns .................................................................................................. 44

5.0 Discussion ........................................................................................................................................ 46

5.1 Legislation - Cross-jurisdictional analysis .................................................................................... 46

vi | P a g e Chad Harris, 2017

5.2 Quantified Supply Chain limitations ........................................................................................... 47

5.3 Influences on the Perth Supply Chain ......................................................................................... 48

5.3.1 Builders influences ............................................................................................................... 48

5.3.2 Collection and Processing .................................................................................................... 50

5.3.3 End Markets for recycled C&D products .............................................................................. 51

5.4 Barriers to better Waste practices .............................................................................................. 52

5.5 Supply Chain ................................................................................................................................ 52

5.5.1 Push-Pull .............................................................................................................................. 52

5.5.3 Data Recording ..................................................................................................................... 55

5.5.4 Illegal dumping precedence ................................................................................................. 56

5.6 Alternative Supply Chain ............................................................................................................. 57

6.0 Conclusion and Recommendations................................................................................................. 59

6.1 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 61

7.0 References ...................................................................................................................................... 62

8.0 Appendix ......................................................................................................................................... 69

8.1 C&D waste stream generation calculation ................................................................................. 69

8.2 Commercial Construction C&D waste total m2 calculation ....................................................... 71

8.3 C&D waste stream breakdowns .................................................................................................. 73

8.4 Data Comparisons for Figure 28 ................................................................................................. 74

8.5 Company ‘A’ Collected Data ....................................................................................................... 75

vii | P a g e Chad Harris, 2017

Table of Figures Figure 1: Basic concept of a supply chain ............................................................................................... 3

Figure 2: An organisational supply chain showing environmentally influential practices with RL [16] . 3

Figure 3: Barriers to implementing RL [12] ............................................................................................. 5

Figure 4: A life cycle model of Construction and Demolition waste recycling in Germany [28] ............ 8

Figure 5: View of the carpark of the Waaltij Complex [37]................................................................... 11

Figure 6: Relative Quality Method [35] ................................................................................................. 11

Figure 8: Wet grinding example [35] .................................................................................................... 12

Figure 8: Current material and information flows of Construction and Demolition waste. ................ 17

Figure 9: Estimation table for volume or weight [54]. .......................................................................... 19

Figure 10: Proposed changes to recording data from the WARR consultation document [53] ........... 20

Figure 11 illegally dumped waste found in various locations around the Perth metro area. .............. 22

Figure 12: Process Map of Influences, Regulators and Government on the CD waste SC in Perth [61,

79] ......................................................................................................................................................... 24

Figure 13: Locations of Crushing facilities and landfills in the Perth metro area ................................. 26

Figure 14: Drop-off facilities and MRF facilities in the Perth Metro area [61] ..................................... 27

Figure 15: Examples of different SC configurations .............................................................................. 28

Figure 16: HFIG dwelling commencement forecast [62] ...................................................................... 29

Figure 17: Conceptual Supply Chain Model developed from site visits and literature review............. 33

Figure 18: Quantified supply chain model on Perth C&D waste .......................................................... 37

Figure 19: Observed processes at Alkimos. .......................................................................................... 38

Figure 20: Alkimos site visit photos, source separation waste bins and single skip bin collection

methods. ............................................................................................................................................... 39

Figure 21: Average C&D waste generation from a source separation waste provider. ....................... 40

Figure 22: Site photos taken at Company 'C', taken July 19th, 2016 .................................................... 41

Figure 23: Company 'B' site photos, taken 2nd August 2016 ............................................................... 42

Figure 24: C&D waste stream breakdown of an office construction B ................................................. 43

Figure 25: C&D waste stream breakdown of a Warehouse construction ............................................ 43

Figure 26: C&D waste stream breakdown of an Urban Orchard construction ..................................... 43

Figure 27: C&D waste stream breakdown of an office construction A ................................................ 43

Figure 28: Comparison of three estimates of Perth C&D waste generation ........................................ 44

Figure 29: Influence on Builders in SC .................................................................................................. 48

Figure 30: Influence on Collection and Processors in SC ...................................................................... 50

Figure 31: Influences on end markets ................................................................................................... 51

Figure 32: Push-Pull Mechanics within SC. ........................................................................................... 53

Figure 33: Proposed changes to reporting structure and framework .................................................. 55

Figure 34: Levy avoidance example ...................................................................................................... 56

Figure 35: Alternative Supply Chain with high value application ......................................................... 58

viii | P a g e Chad Harris, 2017

Table of Tables Table 1: Applications for recycled concrete applications and suggested uses seen in [27, 11] ............. 8

Table 2: Requirements for waste handlers in San Francisco [31] ........................................................... 9

Table 3 Value applications for Construction and Demolition materials ............................................... 10

Table 4: Two points from the Material requirements for EnviroDevelopment certification [45] ........ 14

Table 5: Identified barriers and Market problems in previous Recycling Activity Reviews [7]. ........... 18

Table 6: Schedule of landfill levy rise [4] .............................................................................................. 21

Table 7: Waste diversion targets set in the WA Waste Strategy (Waste Authority, 2012) .................. 23

Table 8: list of current licence categories related to C&D waste, from Schedule 1 of the EP Act ........ 28

Table 9: Breakdown of Demolition Waste Stream ............................................................................... 44

Table 10: Breakdown of Commercial Construction C&D waste Stream ............................................... 45

Table 11: Breakdown of Residential Construction C&D waste Stream ................................................ 45

Table 12: Estimate total C&D waste stream Breakdown ...................................................................... 46

Table 13: WARR Account budget and expenditure for 2015-16 [77] ................................................... 54

ix | P a g e Chad Harris, 2017

Glossary of Terms C&D Construction and demolition

C&D waste Construction and demolition waste (Materials produced from the activity of

Construction and Demolition)

C&D materials A waste containing asphalt, bricks, concrete, plasterboard, sand, soil and

rubble (fragments of stone, brick, concrete etc.)

C&I Commercial & industrial

Clean Fill: Uncontaminated inert solid material, consisting of soil, rock and excavated

earth.

Construction Rubble: A waste containing bricks, render, tiles, concrete, sand and pavers.

DER WA Department of Environmental Regulation

EP Act Environmental Protection Act 1986

ESD Ecologically Sustainable Development

Fines: Crushed inert material ranging in particle sizes <5mm.

GHG Greenhouse Gas(ses)

HIA Housing Industry Association

Inert wastes Non-hazardous, non-biodegradable wastes

IPWEA Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia

LCA Life cycle analysis/assessment

MWAC Municipal Waste Advisory Council

MRF Material Recovery Facility

MRWA Main Roads Western Australia (under Department of Transport)

MSW Municipal solid waste

NA Natural aggregates

OAG Office of Auditor General of Western Australia

Putrescible component of the waste stream likely to become putrid

RA Recycled Aggregate (a product from the crushing of C&D waste, a coarse

material ranging in particle sizes of between 0 – 25mm)

x | P a g e Chad Harris, 2017

RCA Recycled Concrete Aggregate (the same as RA) with 80% or more cement or

concrete material

RCPP Recycled Construction Products Program

SC Supply Chain

Sequential Landfilling Inert waste that has been crushed, sifted, shredded or crushed and used as

‘clean fill’ without any testing.

WA Western Australia

WALGA Western Australia Local Government Association

WARR Act Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2007

WDM Waste-derived materials

WDM guidelines DER waste-derived material guidelines

1 | P a g e Chad Harris, 2017

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste makes up a significant portion of the solid waste streams

for most countries, making up around 65% of the total waste that is sent to landfill [1]. 20-30% of

waste disposed of in landfills in Australia can be classified as C&D waste. This waste stream can

account for 37.5% of the total waste generation in Australia in 2011 [2, 3]. In Western Australia (WA)

the typical construction of a household creates around 300 tonnes of C&D waste from the

demolition of the previous building and construction of a new house. The main components of

waste generated from the audited site were mixed rubble, concrete, sand, and broken bricks and

tiles [2].

To further reduce the amount of waste being landfilled in Western Australia (WA) the landfill levy

will rise to $70/tonne by 2019 [4]. Western Australia has one of the lowest recycling rates in the

country when compared to interstate [3, 5, 6]. Last year only 42% of the recorded waste was

diverted from landfills [7]. C&D waste has a high recovery potential between 40-85% of its total

volume when excluding soil excavation [8]. This stream makes up half of the total solid waste stream

in WA regardless of its potential reuse value.

The Australian Environmental Protection Agency of New South Wales conducted a 6-yearlong study

into what was disposed of at landfills and found that C&D waste was the third highest waste that is

sent to landfills each year [9]. Recycled Aggregates (RA) is the primary product that is produced from

recycling C&D waste. This recycled product has a lower cost to produce when compared to its

Natural Aggregate (NA), due to a reduction in transport costs as RA can be sourced within the

metropolitan area.

To produce quality products from C&D waste the collection, transport handling, screening and

processing methods need to be set at a high standard to enable the reuse of these aggregates in

high-value applications (Table 3). RA is seldom used for the construction of high traffic roads, low

traffic roads (e.g. residential roads), drainage rocks and hardstands. Currently, two specifications are

available for the supply of RA [10].

Previous studies have found that Australia has four main factors that inhibit the implementation of

the use of RA which are: 1) the initial capital required to implement effective recycling and high-

quality RA. 2) Awareness and limited experience with the use of RA. 3) lack of training and

management and 4) lack of support for its uses [11, 12].

When exploring the disposal costs of C&D waste in the metro area, a study found that recyclers are

the least cost option in most cases [13]. However, the recyclers are not always the chosen option. A

lack of awareness of alternative disposal options and market inertia may exist this would favour

more traditional methods of landfilling C&D. Other non-cost drivers may exist within the Perth C&D

waste market [13].

1.2 Aims and Objectives The aim of this study was to identify opportunities and barriers to increasing the recycling of C&D waste in the state. Several objectives were identified and are mentioned below:


Investigate the current C&D waste reporting and data recording processes.

Identify the current C&D waste collection methods.

Determine how these materials move through the Supply Chain (SC).

Develop a conceptual Supply Chain (SC) model of the C&D waste in the Perth Metro area.

Conduct site visits to gain insight into the C&D waste industry and to collect site specific data to determine efficiency.

Quantify C&D waste generation in the state and apply to the SC.

Describe behaviour of the system to determine possible barriers.

Determine opportunities for the reuse of these waste-derived products to increase the amount of recycling of C&D waste in the state.

1.3 Significance Currently the only available data that is up to date in WA on waste generation is reported by the

annual Recycling Activity Review (RAR) survey. The information in these reports consider the three

types of waste which are Commercial & Industrial (C&I), Construction & Demolition (C&D) and

Municipal Waste (MSW). This survey provides a basic breakdown of the waste generated and relies

on individual interpretations and definitions of the three waste streams.

The quantified SC that is developed in this study is unique to WA and provides estimates specific to

C&D waste generation from residential and commercial construction as well as demolition activity.

A previous study by Felmingham [2] has identified the waste streams from residential construction

and demolition activity. This studies approach considers the waste management and C&D waste

streams at the state level using a Supply Chain Management approach.

1.4 Limitations Due to lack of available information and waste tracking, quantification of illegal activities was not

possible. Significant assumptions were made for the data and waste stream breakdowns presented

in this study (e.g. every residential house built generates the same waste). Sources used to estimate

the generation of C&D waste calculations were made from international studies, this affects the

accuracy of generated data. The composition of waste generated from C&D activity can vary greatly

in reality. Therefore, the information presented in this study provides a generalised view of C&D

waste generation.

2.0 Literature Review

2.1 Defining Supply Chains A Supply Chain (SC) in its simplest form can be described as a group of companies who work

together to produce a product. The flow of materials is in a forward motion from supplier to the

customer, and the information flows backwards. This concept can be extended to the supplier's

supplier and the customer's customer, these are the ‘ultimate customer' and ‘ultimate supplier'. The

ultimate supplier provides the raw material to the supplier which creates the product. This product

is then sold to the customer (a shop) and the ultimate customer purchases the product. The

behaviour of the ultimate customer and ultimate supplier can have an impact on the whole supply

chain [14, 15]. Below shows a basic diagram of a supply chain that demonstrates the flow of

materials and information.


Figure 1: Basic concept of a supply chain

Recently in supply chains, an increased interest in reducing costs by reclaiming packaging or unused

by-products has become more common. This introduces a backwards flow of materials to the

supplier known as reverse logistics [14].

In relation to this study Reverse Logistics (RL) can be implemented to reduce the overall costs of

dealing with construction wastes due to an increase in landfill levy. The configuration of the RL

typically includes additional processes to the overall chain; the aim is to improve sustainability and

environmental performances of companies. C&D RL includes the collection, transport logistics,

crushing of building wastes, reselling of these recovered products and eventual use in other

construction projects such as pavements, and hardstands, etc. Below is a model showing an

organisational model of an SC with environmentally influenced practices and additional processes

that would be included with an SC with RL implemented (Figure 2) [16].

Figure 2: An organisational supply chain showing environmentally influential practices with RL [16]

In 2009, the Australasian Industrial Ecology Network was set up to enable different businesses to

work together to handle each other's waste products. One company could use the waste that

another company produces instead of being disposed of. This was accomplished through industry

events and workshops held in New South Wales and Melbourne [17].

A study conducted in South Australia determined the current perceptions to implementing RL within

the construction industry. Results show the current costs of salvaged materials from demolition

activity were perceived as higher when compared to virgin materials.


Significant barriers were identified within the C&D industry in South Australia. These were a lack of

incorporated salvage materials in construction designs, liability issues, regulation and restrictions on

the use of recycled materials, deconstruction time and higher costs [12]. A map showing the

impediments to implementing RL in SA is shown in Figure 3. Some of these barriers most likely exist

within the Western Australian C&D SC.

For RL to work efficiently, two markets need to exist for the system implementation to remain

profitable. Network design should to take certain considerations such as facility placements. Where

collection and distribution take place for the primary market, and ultimate collection of used

products from their former users to be remade into products for the secondary markets [18].

Push-Pull on a SC play an essential part in the behaviour and operations. Identifying where the ‘push'

and ‘pull' occur, and which one is lacking will show the stability of the chain. A significant variation in

either can result in a build-up, which may cause a bullwhip effect on the chain [15, 19]. Push

dynamics concerning this study will typically occur without market interaction, such as demolition

activity, transport to a recycler and processing these materials. The pull occurs when a builder or

contractor will request recycled materials for a construction project. If there isn't a sufficient pull in

the chain, it can cause stockpiling to occur at the recycling facility.


Figure 3: Barriers to implementing RL [12]


2.2 Interstate C&D Waste Management Practices

2.2.1 New South Wales

Recycled materials have been used in New South Wales (NSW) for some time. Current specifications

exist for recycled materials to be uses in pavements, earthworks and drainage systems [20]. This

enables the waste to be diverted into civil construction works. NSW has a recovery rate of 69%,

lower than previous years, which due to a slow in the construction market and a build-up of

aggregates along the supply chain.

The NSW government is implementing GPS tracking on vehicles that transport the wastes through

amendments in the Environment Operations Act 1977. This began in 2015 along with some other

policy changes. These changes aim to create fairness and stability within the waste sector, enabling

better tracking of waste movements and reducing illegal dumping. The introduction of the proximity

principle will reduce the unnecessary transport of waste over long distances [21].

2.2.2 Victoria

Recycling data is collected in Victoria from the reprocessing companies by annual survey. Only

companies that recover the material and sell the products are included in this survey, as opposed to

companies who deal with collection and transport. This allows a more accurate representation of

the recovery and recycling that occurs within this state [22].

With a high participation rate, the data collected for the reports allow a clear picture of the C&D

waste that occurs in Victoria. C&D waste that is currently stockpiled, sources, amounts sent to

landfills and what products are produced these waste streams can be found in the report [22].

Guidelines require of the issue of a receipt of disposal of waste, the waste generator is required to

prove where and how the waste was disposed. This allows for accurate tracking of waste

movements throughout the state. Transporters are responsible for knowing the types of wastes they

are carrying, and the drop-off location can lawfully accept those wastes [23].

A market analysis of Victoria's Brick, stone and concrete materials found most of the reprocessing

that takes place is basic screening, crushing and distribution of aggregate. These materials are used

for the use of road sub base and other low-value applications. Source separation is favoured by

these reprocessing companies as it reduces costs. Demand for crushed concrete is currently high as

repressors are paying for the supply of waste concrete to crush, making it an efficient method of

diversion from landfills. Stone and brick are competing on equal ground with their natural

counterparts. These recycled materials are regulated and treated the same as natural materials [5].

To ensure the safe practice of asbestos in Victoria, appropriate quality control and auditing

measures are set. These ensure C&D waste is correctly identified, any asbestos removed safely and

other processes that need to be conducted prior to transport. Competencies each person requires

for their role are also mentioned [24].

2.2.3 South Australia

Currently the best-performing state in terms of recycling has well-established market and consistent

demand for C&D reprocessed materials. Legislation enables the waste to meet set specifications

which at that point is no longer regulated as waste, and is treated and regulated as a product. The


supply chain of C&D waste in this state has set data collection in place with detailed information that

is reported annually to the EPA [25].

In the 2013-14 financial year 76% of all waste was diverted from landfill, for the C&D sector

specifically has a recovery rate estimated at 87% [6] .

An industry snapshot provided by Rawtec [6] lists multiple uses of C&D waste that occurs within the

state. C&D waste within SA is used for the use of road building, road base, soil amendments

(Gypsum from plasterboard) and clean fill.

2.3 International Examples of C&D Waste Management

2.3.1 Netherlands

Netherlands is a current global leader with consistently high diversion rates of C&D waste above 90%

for many years. Legislation and market conditions enable recycled C&D products that are cheaper

when compared to virgin materials. Recycling companies provide certification of the materials to

guarantee a quality product. Recently the landfill levy has been removed from landfilling and a flat

fee applied per tonne of waste to landfill or Incineration [26].

End of Waste guidelines have been released to enable the wastes to be regulated as a product. The

criteria provide information on quality assurance, requirements of stony wastes to be recycled,

declarations of conformity and production control [26]. This ensures a good standard of product for

construction companies to use these products in civil works.

2.3.2 Japan

Consistently high recovery rates of crushed concrete have been recorded in Japan due to the

recycling and advanced recovery processes implemented. Close to 100% of the C&D waste stream is

recovered, this is achieved through several different grades of recycled aggregates. These grades are

C1, C2 and C3 and fine aggregates F1 and F2 which can be used in non-structural applications.

Examples of the application of these grades can be seen in Table 1. Different standards exist for the

C and F aggregates depending on the intended reuse of the recycled aggregates. A separate set of

standards exist for their intended applications which are classes H L and M, these types describe the

specifications for the use of recycled aggregates in new concrete constructions [11].


Table 1: Applications for recycled concrete applications and suggested uses seen in [27, 11]

Civil works application

Type Coarse Aggregate Fine Aggregate Suggested Design strength (MPa)

Suggested use of recycled aggregate concrete

CI Recycled coarse aggregate type C1

Normal fine aggregate 18-24 Reinforced or standard concrete applications, retaining walls, footpaths

CII Recycled coarse aggregate type C2

Normal or recycled fine aggregate type F1

16-18 Gutters, gravity type retaining walls, road base, etc.

CIII Recycled coarse aggregate type C3


Less than 16 Sub-slab concrete foundations, levelling concrete, etc.

Building works applications

BI Recycled coarse aggregate type C1

Normal fine aggregate 18 or higher Reinforced Concrete for building construction

BII Recycled coarse aggregate type C2

Normal fine aggregate 18 or higher Concrete foundations, cast-in-place piles, concrete slabs

BIII Recycled coarse aggregate type C2


18 or higher Backfilling concrete, levelling concrete etc.

BIV Recycled coarse aggregate type C3


18 or higher Sub-slab concrete, levelling concrete etc.

2.3.3 Germany

A cradle-to-cradle approach is adopted in Germany to reduce the C&D waste, where all construction

wastes are required to be reused in construction projects. Culturally, construction sites use source

separation as the common collection method. Recycling companies specialise in only a couple of

waste streams (metal or aggregation). Other companies sort mixed waste before it is sent for

recycling. These recycled products are comparable to the savings incurred by these products and

directly relate to the amount of recycling observed. Recycled aggregates are sent to quarries for

rehabilitation projects and backfilling [28], Figure 5 shows a model of how this chain is setup.

Figure 4: A life cycle model of Construction and Demolition waste recycling in Germany [28]

Germany has managed to sustain a constant market growth without a notable increase in waste

volumes over the years. Current policy aims to move the industry to a closed cycle approach,

specifications for appropriate waste disposal, waste treatment, regulations of construction and

demolition works all tend towards minimal waste generation [29].


2.3.4 San Francisco, United States

C&D waste handling legislation extends to site management in San Francisco. Ordinance No.27-06

was put into effect on July 1, 2006 which affected all C&D waste projects in the state. It requires all

projects to complete a Demolition Debris Recovery Plan (DDRP) that demonstrates the project will

achieve a minimum of 65% diversion from landfill [30]. Sending C&D waste directly to landfill is

illegal and a DDRP approval is required prior to a demolition permit is issued. Vehicles are registered

to transport C&D waste from construction sites. Financial penalties and criminal charges apply if a

person or company violates these standards [30]. Key points in the requirements from ordinance are

listed in Table 2.

Table 2: Requirements for waste handlers in San Francisco [31]

Role Requirements

Transporter Required to be registered for the transport of mixed C&D waste, receipts are needed to provide proof of correct disposal

Recovery Facility

Annual reports are required to show material type and how it was diverted from landfill by Reuse, Recycling Market, Composting, ADC, Bio-Mass Conversion or Disposal. A Minimum of 65% diversion rates needs to be maintained at all times.

Unique receipts of disposal need to be issued to transporters and retained for a minimum of three years

Demolition Debris Recovery Plan

Any demolition works needs to show a plan of a minimum 65% diversion rate before a permit is issued, needs to show recovery rates for each type, transporters and recyclers that are used to handle the wastes.

2.4 Reuse Opportunities The reuse of C&D waste is essential to ensure materials are correctly reused and not found illegally dumped, or sent to landfill. Table 3 lists high and low value options for the reuse of RA based on literature review. Higher-value options for these materials exist outside of common practice of using RA as drainage rock and road base.


Table 3 Value applications for Construction and Demolition materials

Value Location Application/Method Comments

High China 4-story building, cast-in situ reinforced concrete

The Shanghai Ecological House built in 2010 utilised 100% RCA for its coarse aggregate in its construction. Tests during its construction prove that the strength, durability and construction meet the design requirements [32]. 388𝑚3 of RAC was used during construction [33]

High Australia Pixelcrete The Pixel building, located in Victoria used a Pixelcrete a product produced by Boral Concrete. Pixelcrete uses up to 92% of the weight consists of reclaimed or recycled materials and uses 60% less concrete during its construction [34]

High Japan Relative-value method An approach adapted to determine a concrete mix for RCA substitution based on the design requirements [35].

Medium Australia Filter media for permeable pavement systems

A study conducted in Victoria found substituting C&D materials as filter media in permeable pavement systems. This study found that they performed as well or better than quarried media [36].

Medium China Pavements RCA can be utilised as a coarse aggregate substitute for pavement construction, 50% substitution was used in this case. No difficulties or procedures differed from standard pavement building [33].

Medium Road base RCA is used for the sub base in the construction of roads.

Medium-low

Drainage Rock

Low Clean Fill A manufactured or recovered sand that is used for levelling ground or raising the ground level.


2.4.1 Waaltij Complex

Figure 5: View of the carpark of the Waaltij Complex [37]

This building is also known as the Environmental Technology Centre (ETC), located at Murdoch

University, Western Australia. This is an example of the potential of efficient building design. Natural

aggregates were reduced by the substitution of batch plant wastes, fly ash and spent Vanadium

Pentoxide catalyst [37].

Walls were made of brick rubble using rammed earth techniques. The primary barrier to this building

application is labour. Wall construction took four weeks opposed to 1 week using conventional

methods. 8-10% cement was used in the walls to ensure the longevity of the walls; this method of

construction offers a better alternative for owner-builders who can afford the time to build these

walls in their own time [37].

2.4.2 Alternate Technology

2.4.2.1 Advanced Crushing and processing technology

2.4.2.2.1 Relative quality method

𝑄𝐶𝑡 = 𝑄𝐶𝑣𝐺 𝑥 𝑎 + 𝑄𝐶𝑣𝑆 𝑥 𝑏 + 𝑄𝐶𝑟𝐺 𝑥 𝑐 + 𝑄𝐶𝑟𝑆 𝑥 𝑑

𝑎 + 𝑏 + 𝑐 + 𝑑

Where; 𝑄𝐶𝑡(%): Relative absorption rate; 𝑄𝐶𝑣𝐺(%): Absorption rate of the natural aggregates (gravel, limestone, and crushed stone) in recycled concrete 𝑄𝐶𝑣𝑆(%): Absorption rate of natural fine aggregates (yellow sand, crushed sand) in recycled concrete 𝑄𝐶𝑟𝐺(%): Absorption rate of recycled coarse aggregates in recycled aggregate concrete 𝑄𝐶𝑟𝑆(%): Absorption rate of recycled fine aggregates in recycled concrete

𝑎 + 𝑏 + 𝑐 + 𝑑 (𝐿

𝑚3): Absolute volume of natural aggregate, natural fines, recycled aggregate and

recycled fine aggregates in their respective order.

Figure 6: Relative Quality Method [35]


The relative quality method is an approach used to determine the proportion of RA:NA mix

depending on the concrete application being investigated. With known absorption rates the volumes

can be found by regression analysis [35].

2.4.2.2.2 Wet grinding method

Figure 8 shows a wet grinding process for improving the quality of

recycled fines. The aggregates are ground up by a rotor inside of a

rotating cylinder and remain in the rotor until it's small enough to

pass through a screen. In the next stage the material moves into a

high-velocity wet centrifuge which is known as a cyclone.

Impurities such as fine powder and mortar are removed in this

process and the recycled fines pass through the bottom of the

cyclone [35].

2.4.3 Construction with recycled product

2.4.3.1 Residential

Several different building strategies and methods exist to lower the environmental impacts and

greenhouse gas emissions from the construction and operation of residential housing. The method

by which a house is constructed can have a significant impact on the overall operational

requirements of the household.

Different methods of house constructions were investigated and found that in situ sandwich walls

with recycled materials used in its core can reduce the total GHG of the household between 7 and

20%. Several different options that are an alternative to the clay brick walls and single glazed

windows were explored and several options which were brick veneer, reverse brick veneer, timber

frame construction and cast in place sandwich walls all presented an economic and environmental

benefit compared to traditional construction methods [38, 39].

The core of the in-situ sandwich walls can be made of recycled polyethylene terephthalate (PET)

foam which is not a very large portion found in the C&D waste stream [2]. However, this can be

sourced from the MSW and C&I waste streams, which utilizing this material stream can increase

recycling of this product and reduce the overall GHG of the new construction [39].

Supplementing the concrete with RCA can have a significant impact on the transportation logistics

for the construction. The LCA conducted by Lawania [38] considered the logistics requirement for

each material component during the construction of a residential house. This includes 21 m3 of

virgin sand, 5.69m3 of bricklayers’ sand, and 32.65 m3 of ready mix concrete, together this totals

4812km of distance to transport these materials to site [38]. During the site visits to the Lend Lease

Alkimos Beach project (Section 4.1), the sand dug up from a clean site requires less processing and

can be reused easily on site. Substituting just the virgin sand for the recovered sand from the initial

stages of construction can reduce the total logistics by 37% [38].

Figure 7: Wet grinding example [35]


Increasing the purity of the recycled products for structural applications have been mentioned in the

previous section, with the use of cleaner aggregates from the resulting wet grinding methods can be

used for the substitution of RCA in the concrete foundations in residential construction. The key

savings are in the logistics networks as sources for recycled aggregates can be found within the

metro area. A majority of the facilities licensed to crush building material would also hold a license

to stockpile these aggregates which are shown in Figure 13.

Concerns about using this substitute in bricklayers’ sand may require more testing or standards and

premix concrete aggregates could be further substituted to increase the reduction in logistics for the

house construction.

2.4.3.2 Commercial

A way for RCA to be used in structural applications can be through pre-cast concrete. The Shanghai

Ecological House was constructed using this method and used 388m3 of RCA during its construction

[33]. In the Australian market with concerns for product consistency and testing which the concerns

were found from a survey of engineers [40] suggest that this would allow the materials and tests to

be carried out on the prefabricated walls and increase confidence in building with RCA products. A

standard to require consistency for the RCA to be used in structural applications would encourage

builders and engineers to use these products.

Modular construction methods using pre-cast concrete is a method of construction that can be seen

in Cockburn Central located south of Perth. The Adara Apartments (Stealla B17) was constructed in

11 months compared to the conventional method of 2 years. The development consists of 77

apartments and used offsite construction methods of 96 prefabricated modules and other elements

such as the ground floor and two main building cores [41].

Using this method of construction would allow the new concrete using RCA to be closely inspected

and tested before being built in situ and presents a unique opportunity for the use of RCA to be used

in high value construction products.

2.5 Self-regulators Several self-regulators exist in the Australian building market. These encourage best practice in

construction and waste management.

The Smart Waste Guide by MBA encourages builders to take an active approach to its recycling,

offering training programs and templates to develop site waste management plans and provide

information on different waste handling methods such as on-site source separation [42]. Another

program offered by MBA is The Green Living Program which offers builders information to build in a

more sustainable way; building approaches such as solar passive design, site management, framing

and structure materials, and water and energy conservation are also included [43].

The GreenSmart program offered by HIA offers accreditation to builders promoting more sustainable

homes; the course provides passive solar design, sustainable building, thermal performance, design

and options for energy efficiency and lighting [44].


EnviroDevelopment has published requirements that detail the use of recycled aggregates and other waste-derived materials within their materials section in their principles. They are mentioned in section 4 for each type of development listed on their website and require multiple points to be met before the Materials Certification is issued. Two of these requirements are listed below in Table 4.

Table 4: Two points from the Material requirements for EnviroDevelopment certification [45]

Criteria Documentation

4.1.5 Structure The structure of the built form use one or more of the following

a) Steel with recycled content ≥15% b) Pre-cast panels with ≥15% supplementary cement

materials c) Bricks containing a recycled content of at least 25% d) Reused materials for ≥30% of the structure

Statement from supplier and supporting technical information.

4.1.1 Roads 95% of constructed roads use one or more of the following

a) Concrete with ≥ 30% supplementary cement materials or ≥30% recycled aggregate

b) Recycled materials used for road base or sub-base c) Asphalt which contains at least 10% reclaimed asphalt

pavement (RAP)

Statement from supplier and supporting technical information

The Green Star rating system by GBCA also lists technical requirements. This includes sections on

managing construction and demolition waste, sustainable products, responsible building materials

and Lifecycle Analysis and reduction of Greenhouse Gases (GHG). The use of RA will have a possible

influence on all of these sections which amount to 24/100 points for the certification assessment

[46].

2.6 Waste Hierarchy The waste hierarchy set by the Waste Authority is based on the outcomes from the Waste Avoidance

and Resource Recovery Act 2007 (WARR Act). This hierarchy is used in the central decisions of policy

making along with other assessment tools to determine full environmental, economic and social

impacts of the waste policies that are implemented.

The most preferred option in the waste hierarchy is waste avoidance, options which lead to

improvements in packaging to enable re-use of packaging materials, or substituting natural materials

with recycled ones. Recovery choices are reuse (second-hand items, re-purposing), reprocessing

(using materials that would otherwise be a waste), recycling (converting items back to a valuable

resource) and energy recovery (Waste to energy). The least preferred option is disposal which is sent

to landfill or other disposal facilities [47].

2.7 Specifications Some specifications for the reuse of C&D materials have arisen over the years. Main Roads Western

Australia (MRWA), the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia (IPEWA), DER and the Waste

Authority have released specifications for the use of recycled aggregates for low-value applications

such as drainage rock and road base.


2.7.1 Main Roads 501 Specification

The 501 specification has sections which include the use of RCA to use as an alternative material for

road base. In 2012 concerns about Asbestos contamination [48] arose which lead to the removal of

RCA in its 501 Specification in August 2012. MRWA 501 specification is commonly accepted for the

applications of pavements and road works in WA. In response to asbestos concerns DER released

guidance on the procedure to handle asbestos contaminated loads [49].

2.7.2 Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia (IPWEA)

In May 2016 IPWEA published a specification document for the supply of recycled road base. The

document included testing requirements, storage, acceptable use of RA as a road base and other

technical requirements for the RA. However, this is no longer available from the IPWEA site and is

not known if the specifications are under review [50].

2.7.3 Department of Environment Regulation - Waste-derived Materials

DER has released documents on the consultation on new regulations which would enable the use of

construction products to be produced from C&D waste. The uses of waste-derived materials are

assessed on a case-by-case basis. No current specification has been released so far. Draft guidelines

for Clean Fill, Construction Products, and Regulation of the use of waste-derived materials are

available. However, due to a civil court case in March 2016 the progress of these specifications has

been put on hold [51].

2.7.4 Waste Authority – Recycled Construction Products Program (RCPP)

To encourage the recycled products market, the Waste Authority initiated the Recycled Construction

Products Programme. Allowing companies to apply for a rebate for the use of RA for road base and

drainage rock. Appendix 1 of the RCPP specifications details testing requirements, handling

procedures, physical properties, and acceptable uses are available online [10].

2.8 Waste Management in Western Australia

2.8.1 Document Analysis of industry reports

2.8.1.1 Data collection and reporting structure

The WA Waste Authority recognises that the reporting and data collection that currently exists is

insufficient and in 2013 requested for more detail be collected from the recyclers to get a clearer

picture on the movements in the C&D waste supply chain. The Department of Environment

Regulation (DER) responded to the request by making amendments to the Waste Avoidance and

Resource Recovery Regulations 2008 (WARR Regulations) to include compulsory reporting of this

information [52]. A consultation document noting the changes was released by the DER, recognizing

that the current system in place lacks useful information and is currently collected on a voluntary

basis [53].

2.8.1.2 Recycling Activity Review

The Recycling Activity Review (RAR) is an annual survey that is conducted by the Waste Authority

with all known recyclers and reprocessors in the metropolitan and regional areas to estimate the

amount of Waste that is generated, landfilled or diverted. The information in these reports is

sourced from both landfill and recycling operators. It is only the landfill information that is deemed

to be accurate.


The survey data that is collected from the recyclers is based on estimates from the surveyed

companies with no incentives or regulations to ensure that the data is accurate; it appears that it

may be in the best interest of the recycling company to skew the data if they are operating higher

than their licensed limit. The survey data collected is not checked or verified; landfill data is verified

purely by volumetric survey. The recyclers that are included in this survey are only operators with a

license. Anecdotal evidence indicates that there are many operators who operate without the

requisite license and that the DER has insufficient resources to discover these. Consequently, there is

little or no checking if there are any operators that are dealing with these wastes without the

appropriate licenses and following correct procedures [52]. The data collected from local

governments on landfilling and MSW recycling is more reliable due to the influence upon them of

not being able to gain any funding through the WARR recycling account if they do not participate in

the survey; significantly no such incentives exist for the C&D waste recyclers. Stockpiles within the

supply chain are not counted currently under the reporting requirements. Large amounts of recycled

or potentially recycled products that have either been diverted illegally dumped, sitting in a stockpile

or inaccurately reported.

Stockpiles within the supply chain are not accounted for under the reporting requirements, resulting

in large amounts of recycled or potentially recycled products that have either been diverted, illegally

dumped, sitting in a stockpile or inaccurately reported (refer to stockpiles identified in Figure 8).

Included in the survey is a brief market analysis and questionnaire to give the operator an

opportunity to provide feedback on the state of the market and any difficulties or barriers that they

have encountered during that year. A brief listing of some of the feedback can be seen in Table 5.

Over the past few years, a lack of direction through regulations and incentives has not been

addressed.


Figure 8: Current material and information flows of Construction and Demolition waste.


Table 5: Identified barriers and Market problems in previous Recycling Activity Reviews [7].

Year Reported Issues

2014-15 No Demand for recycled products

Increase in raw material availability & diversion rates from levy

Lack of awareness of product

Lack of government support

2013-14 No Levy outside of metro area

Lack of regulation

Difficulties setting up new facilities, long application process


2011-12 Lack of government initiatives

Proportions of recycled product allowed in pavements by Department of Main Roads

High costs


2010-11 High transport costs

High competition with unlicensed facilities

Reluctance of Construction and Demolition contractors to use recyclers

Operators closed due to lack of economic viability

2.8.1.3 Waste Tracking and Pending Changes

Under the current reporting structure, it is not possible to accurately determine the amount of

waste that is moving through the supply chain.

Data on waste sent to landfills is collected using weighbridges where possible. However not all

landfills have weighbridges installed and in these cases, amounts of waste are estimated by use of a

table provided by the DER. The breakdown and identification of the different types of waste (C&I,

C&D, or MSW) is simply determined by visual inspection at the time of the vehicle entering the site.

The current approved method to estimate waste going into the landfill site is given in Figure 9 [54].


Figure 9: Estimation table for volume or weight [54].

A nationwide review of C&D waste was conducted in 2011. In Western Australia, it was found that

most recycling facilities calculate the waste that is brought to their facilities by volume and not

weight as most did not possess a weighbridge. Data was, therefore, generally recorded by volume

being consistent with the measure of how landfill facility licenses were issued. However, it must be

noted that recording in tonnes has commenced [55].

In 2011, issues were identified regarding government support, policies, setting standards and

specifications to increase customer confidence and navigating the government procedures and

processes for a recycling operator to expand their business [54]. Given the feedback from the RAR

reports (Table 5) some of these issues have still not been addressed.

Recognising the issues around the lack of data, in July 2016 the DER released a consultation paper

with amendments to the WARR Regulations record-keeping requirements to report in more detail

on the waste that is processed and how it moves throughout the supply chain. Mention is made of

new methods that will standardise the measuring of waste collected and how the recording and

reporting of the data will be conducted and eventually reported to the DER. However, it does not list

any detail on what these methods are [54].

The proposed recording of data can be seen in Figure 10. This is a flowchart of the basic process that

may be used to collect and process C&D waste to produce an aggregate product.


Figure 10: Proposed changes to recording data from the WARR consultation document [53]

2.8.2 Illegal Dumping

Visual evidence clearly indicates that illegal dumping is an increasing problem in the State. Prior to

the increase of the landfill levy approximately 50% of all illegal dumping occurred on building sites

normally by rogue waste management companies and providers. It is estimated that it currently

costs the industry around $8 million a year according to the Housing Industry Association (HIA) [56].

To reduce the amount of waste being sent to landfill, a levy was introduced under the Waste

Avoidance and Resource Recovery Levy Act 2007, and the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery

levy regulations 2008. In accordance to the WARR Act the Minister for Environment must allocate no

less than 25% of the predicted levy amount into the WARR account. This account funds the

management, reduction, reuse, recycling, monitoring or measurement of waste increase recycling

[57]

Recently the landfill levy on inert waste was increased significantly from its original charge of $3 and

increased to $12 per cubic meter in 2010

Table 6 below shows the landfill levy rises to its maximum charge of $105 per cubic meter of inert

material by 2019 [4]


Table 6: Schedule of landfill levy rise [4]

Period Putrescible Rate/tonne

Approx. inert rate per tonne

Inert Rate/m3

Current to 31 December 2014 $28 $8 $12

1 January 2015 to 30 June 2016 $55 $40 $60

1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017 $60 $50 $75

1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018 $65 $60 $90

1 July 2018 to 30 June 2019 $70 $70 $105

1 July 2019 onwards $70 $70 $105

Note: m3 of inert waste is treated as 1.5 tonnes of inert material.

Due to the recent levy rises starting with a 5-fold increase of the levy from $12/m3 to $60/m3 on the

first of January 2015 [4], the occurrence of illegal dumping was predicted to increase due to the

absence of a commensurate increase in monitoring and control [58]. This, in turn, would likely see

an increase and inaccurate reporting of construction waste in order to avoid paying the increased

levy.

The landfill levy is currently only collected in the Perth metropolitan area and requires all waste that

is generated inside the metropolitan area to pay the landfill levy regardless of the location of the

landfill facility used as specified in sections 12A and 12B of the WARR Levy Regulations 2008 [57].

However due to the current lack of tracking systems it is not possible to determine the sources of

the waste that is sent to landfill.

In a waste audit conducted by Flemingham [2] she observed that illegal dumping occurred in stages

1 and 2 of a new house construction. A survey conducted by Master Builders Association of WA

found that of the builders surveyed 41% encountered illegal dumping at least once a week and a

further 20% observed it on a monthly basis [59].

Below Figure 11 shows more examples of illegal dumping that have occurred in the water

catchments in the Perth metro area and some old wastes that were dumped in large quantities.


wastes from renovations, dumped in the water catchments

Rubble from possible road works

Dumped fill sand with some light rubble

Figure 11 illegally dumped waste found in various locations around the Perth metro area.

2.8.3 Western Australia Legislation

The Waste Authority and Department of Environment Regulation are the two main bodies in

Western Australia that deal with the implementation of new policy changes and regulatory

requirements which includes data collection. These two bodies provide advice to the Minister for the

Environment that passes changes and approvals in line with the current WA Waste Strategy

“Western Australia: Creating the right environment”; this plan was initially implemented in 2012.

The Waste Authority is established under the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2008

(WARR Act) and the Department of Environment operates under the Environmental Protection Act

1986 (EP Act). In a recent audit of these two government bodies it was found that confusion exists


around which agency directs waste policy, strategic planning and if advice from the Waste Authority

had to be accepted and its plans implemented [52].

The State Government does not directly legislate C&D waste management and this has proven to

create a problem. DER provides guidance on policy implementation and strategies which are passed

onto Local Governments to enable their planning. However, the Local Government may have already

developed its own bylaws and regulation before adopting DER guidance. This has created a situation

where waste handling on a construction site falls under various policies depending on the respective

Local Governments regulations for noise control, sediment control, and potential health impacts

from dust and waste; a full list of requirements of Local Governments waste handling can be found

in Flemingham [2].

To plan for future requirements to meet the targets set in the WA Waste Strategy [60] (shown in

Table 7), the initial stages were set out in the State Waste Infrastructure Plan Project (SWIPP). The

SWIPP identified what needed to happen to meet the long-term targets set by the strategy, listing

the type of facilities and key locations to meet the diversion targets. The report recommended that

the State Government and waste operators commence planning for it [61, 52]. This resulted in

various waste recovery technologies and visions of waste management in WA. Currently, only 8 of

the 30 Local Governments within the metropolitan area have a waste management plan that aligns

with the State’s waste infrastructure plan [52].

Table 7: Waste diversion targets set in the WA Waste Strategy (Waste Authority, 2012)

Sector Waste Strategy Target

2015 2020

MSW 50% Metro 30% Regional

65% Metro 50% Regional

C&I 55% 70%

C&D 60% 75%

These Local Governments, associations, and regulators all have a role in the supply chain. A process

map can be seen in Figure 12) below showing the different associations and at which point in the

chain they have an influence


Figure 12: Process Map of Influences, Regulators and Government on the CD waste SC in Perth [61, 79]


2.8.4 Builders survey

Master Builders Association of Western Australia conducted a survey of builders during the project.

The survey aimed to determine what builders are doing within the industry in regard to waste

handling practices. The survey revealed the current perception towards recycling C&D waste and

barriers to implementing C&D recycling that the builders have encountered. 300 builders responded

to the survey with 96% of builders regarding waste minimization as necessary. Survey responses

revealed the primary motivators for waste minimisation are cost driven (81%) and environmental

outcomes (42%) [59].

The survey results showed that builders are engaged in activities to reduce their waste generation

through utilising waste management plans. Selections of waste providers are influenced by cost

(58%) and other measures such as familiarity and loyalty to their current waste service provider [59].

A majority of builders are currently deploying key landfill minimisation practice such as reducing

material orders, reusing spares and sorting or directing waste for recovery are common strategies

[59]. Knowledge of the landfill levy is limited among the builders, largely due to the waste provider

including a landfill levy charge on skip bins or service fee. Only 10% of builders managed to estimate

the landfill levy charge within a 25% error margin [59]. As the landfill levy continues to rise over time

recyclers will be challenged to increase their rate of recycling to be able to remain competitive their

businesses.

To increase the recovery potential of C&D waste, waste collection strategies such as source

separation will play a key part in this. Survey results show that there are no significant barriers to

implementing source separation on site to meet these higher diversion rates [59]. Upon estimating

the recovery potential of current waste service providers, the builders currently use averaged out to

55% [59].

2.8.5 Construction and Demolition Infrastructure

The waste infrastructure in Perth currently has a number of facilities that handles C&D waste which

is generated in the metropolitan area, these are:

Landfills: Inert (Category 63) and putrescible landfills (Category 64) accept these inert

wastes.

Material Recovery Facility (MRF): These facilities process mostly mixed wastes and use

multiple processes to separate the waste streams into recyclable materials e.g. glass, metals,

paper and cardboard.

C&D Material Processors: These processors deal specifically with construction rubble and

sand portions of the C&D waste stream, using crushing processes to aggregate the material

into RCA, clean fill and sand.

Transfer Stations.

Given the lack of regulations regarding the movement of C&D waste, its collection and where

the materials are sent depends on the builder’s choice of waste provider and their proximity.

The wastes may go to a drop-off facility, landfill or a recycling facility. Currently there are 68

licensed locations in the Perth metropolitan area which are able to crush and process these

materials under the DER license Category 13 Their locations are mapped on Figure 13a and the


locations of licensed landfills are shown in Figure 13b. Given the current landfill levy on inert

waste, most C&D waste will most likely be sent to one of the locations shown on Figure 13a.

Table 8 lists the current licensing categories surrounding the handling of C&D waste that is

outlined in schedule 1 of the EP Act.

a) Map of facilities with at least a Category 13

License (crushing of building material)

b) Map of Landfills in the Perth area [61]

Figure 13: Locations of Crushing facilities and landfills in the Perth metro area


A number of transfer stations are located within the metropolitan area. These are a collection point

prior to the aggregation and recycling of any collected C&D waste products that are collected. Some

of these collection points do not accept C&D waste; this depends on the transfer station and its

respective local government. The most recent map of these transfer stations can be seen in Figure

14.

The locations and placements of the recycling facilities, transfer stations and landfills play a major

part in the configuration of the SC for each construction project; depending on the distance to each

location it may be cheaper to send C&D waste to a transfer station or recycler. Some wastes

generated on site such as clean fill does not incur the landfill levy. Figure 15 shows some possible

configurations of the SC depending on how the builder’s choice of waste service provider may

handle collection, recycling, recovery and disposal or focus on one role only such as crushing and

sorting or transport of these wastes.

Figure 14: Drop-off facilities and MRF facilities in the Perth Metro area [61]


Case a: Close to transfer stationCase a: Close to transfer station

Case b: Landfill and Recycler nearbyCase b: Landfill and Recycler nearby

Construction Site Collection Transfer Station

Recycler

Landfill

Recycling Residual

Construction Site Collection

Landfill(clean fill)

Recycled Products Market

Close to landfill and is clean fill?

Yes

RecyclerNo

Recycled Products MarketRecycling Residue

Case c: RecyclerCase c: Recycler

Construction Site Collection Recycler

Recycled Products Market

LandfillRecycling residue

Figure 15: Examples of different SC configurations

Table 8: list of current licence categories related to C&D waste, from Schedule 1 of the EP Act

Category Description Design Capacity

13 Crushing of building material: premises on which C&D waste is crushed or cleaned

1,000 tonnes or more per year

47 Scrap metal recovery: where scrap metal is fragmented, or melted, including premises on which lead acid batteries are reprocessed.

100 tonnes or more per year

61A Solid waste facility: premises (other than 67A) which solid waste produced on other premises is stored, reprocessed, treated, or discharged into land.


62 Solid waste depot: premises which waste is stored, sorted, pending final disposal or reuse

500 tonnes or more per year

67A Compost manufacturing and soil blending: premises which organic material or waste is stored pending processing, mixing, drying, or composting to produce commercial quantities or compost or blended soils.


2.8.6 Housing Trends, Incentives Programs and Current Reuse

The Housing Industry Forecasting Group (HIFG) has predicted a downturn in housing starts for

2016/2017 which will see a decrease in the C&D waste that is generated from residential

construction; Figure 16 shows the actual forecasted housing starts up to 2020. This should show a


reduction in the total C&D waste generated however there is no information to predict the amount

of commercial construction or demolition works that will occur in the same time periods.

Figure 16: HFIG dwelling commencement forecast [62]

The Recycled Construction Products Program (RCPP) is a government funded incentive program

aimed to increase the reuse of these products to build the recycling market. $2M has been reserved

for private construction projects and $8M for Local Government projects, which is to offset the

perceived higher costs of using the recycled products due to the additional testing that is required

set by the RCPP specifications [10].

The Municipal Waste Advisory Council (MWAC) conducted a survey in 2013 to determine which

Local Governments were using C&D materials. The survey asked to specify where the materials were

being sourced, the material types and what areas the materials were being used. If the local

government wasn’t using C&D materials, they were asked to list the barriers they encountered [63].

From the local governments that responded to the survey, 15 use recycled materials and 26 did not.

The common barriers to the use of recycled materials were reported to be C&D materials costs and

quality standards, the volume of material required was also a common mention in the survey [63].

Local Governments that do use the recycled materials in projects were sourced from several small-

scale recyclers. The recycled materials were generated and stored by the respective local

government and specialized companies (e.g. Capital Demolition). The utilised materials were used in

projects such as the following [63]:

Road sub-base

Verge and kerbing construction

Car park construction (Hardstands)

Leach drainage

Land contouring and regeneration

Cycle paths and shared paths.


In 2007, the City of Canning widened a section of a high trafficked highway using RCA as road base

and sub-base. The recycled materials were considerably cheaper due to the source being

considerably closer than using Natural Aggregates (NA). During the construction of the project the

use of recycled aggregates saved around $35,000 in transportation costs and their analysis

concluded that the recycled materials were safe for the use for sub base and road base for heavy

traffic roads [64].

3.0 Method and Model Development

3.1 Method The project progressed through several distinct phases over the duration of the study. These stages

are:

Literature review

Document analysis

Site visits to confirm components of the industry processes

Semi-structured interviews with industry stakeholders

Data collection from industry sources

Development of the Supply Chain Model

Model Validation

3.1.1 Literature Review

A review of literature was used to gain understanding of Supply Chain Management concepts to identify the necessary information to develop the SC. An investigation into Interstate and international governments which demonstrates high levels of C&D waste recycling was conducted, to identify the approaches or strategies implemented to achieve these levels. Advanced C&D waste processing technology was investigated to explore the potential reuse options of these materials in high-value applications such as structural concrete. This was done to explore the potential pathways to moving towards a closed loop system.

3.1.2 Document Analysis

Section 2.8.1 Document Analysis of industry reports provided the necessary information to determine the current C&D waste generation, recording information and recycling activity. This information was based off the existing structures and legislative drivers. An Initial Conceptual Supply Chain was developed using this information (Figure 8).

3.1.3 Site visits to confirm components of the industry processes

Various components of the Supply Chain were observed during site visits to construction sites, recyclers and builders. The collection processes observed on construction sites. C&D processing methods were observed during visits to recyclers.

3.1.3.1 Semi-structured interviews and data collection with industry stakeholders

During these site visits, semi-structured interviews took place with site managers or directors to gain insight on their experiences in the C&D industry. Where possible data was provided from the company. The data collected was generally used by the company to charge their clients for services, or to report their recycling capabilities.


3.1.4 Development of the Supply Chain Model

A Supply Chain model was developed to estimate the amount of waste generated from C&D activity.

The waste stream was broken down into four parts, Commercial Construction, Residential

Construction, Commercial Demolition and Residential Demolition. Where possible these were

calculated independently using various methods which are explained in detail in the following

sections. These streams were then combined to give an estimate of the total CD waste generation.

3.1.5 Model Validation

After the SC model was developed a triangulation method was used to verify the amount of waste

that the model generated. Predictions of C&D waste generation was determined from two other

data sources to determine the accuracy of the model. The first method applied the assumption that

C&D waste makes up 50% of the total stream, this was applied to the waste generation reported in

from the RAR between 2011-2015 [7]. The second source utilised data the National Waste Survey

[65], excel was used to extrapolate the missing years in the data set.

3.1.6 Waste stream breakdowns

The waste streams were broken down after the C&D waste stream quantities were calculated.

Demolition materials were taken from the breakdown provided by the waste audit conducted by

Flemingham [2]. Commercial construction C&D waste generation was determined by using the

average composition across the data provided from Company ‘D’. The data provided from this

company can be seen in 8.3 C&D waste stream breakdowns. A proportion of each stream was

calculated and applied to the amount shown in Figure 18 (0.66Mt). Residential Construction C&D

breakdowns was provided from the ‘average per house’ quantities for 2015. The proportion of each

stream was worked out and the percentage was applied to the Quantified SC Residential

construction stream (0.9Mt) (Figure 18).

3.2 Model Development

3.2.1 Conceptual Supply Chain Model

The conceptual SC shown in Figure 17 demonstrates the different phases along the chain. This model

based on information gathered during site visits, audit findings from the OAG [52] and literature

review. The players are shown along the top of the figure (Ultimate Customer, Supplier etc.). The

material initially is selected by the Ultimate Customer depending on the material requirements RA or

NA is selected, Ultimate Customers create the demand for these products. After material selection,

the construction project takes place and generates the C&D waste.

The C&D waste is collected by various methods determined by waste management plans (skip bins,

cages or source separation). This collected waste is then processed by the recovery facilities or sent

to landfill. Due to the high costs of landfilling it is unlikely C&D waste is sent directly to landfill. The

final stages in the SC show the end uses of C&D waste, some is Illegally Dumped or Sequentially

landfilled. Recycled C&D waste is primarily made into RA and ‘clean fill’ due to the size of these two

streams. These recycled materials are then sold back into the construction market.

Recovery facilities can take on multiple roles within the SC. A Recycling facility can take on the role

of a waste service provider which handles the collection, disposal (if required) and recycling of C&D

waste. Additionally, the recycler can assume the role of a supplier of RA to the respective builder or

local government.


This kind of activity can be better seen in Figure 4: A life cycle model of Construction and Demolition

waste recycling in Germany with a Recycler sending materials to a quarry, Supplier and Builder. The

supplier, in this case, may be a specialised metal recycler. Metal in the C&D waste stream is small

compared to concrete, sand and bricks. C&D recyclers typically specialise into reprocessing these

materials and sell the RA back into the construction market. RA and materials sent to a 3rd party may

be reported as "diverted". This lead to the initial confusion in the reporting structure mentioned in

Section 2.8.1 Document Analysis of industry reports.


Figure 17: Conceptual Supply Chain Model developed from site visits and literature review


3.3 Quantified Supply Chain A quantification of the materials that move through the SC was attempted to be able to determine

the accuracy of the RAR, possible stockpiles within the SC and Illegal Dumping activity. The data

sources and calculations can be found in Appendix 8.1 and 8.2.

3.3.1 Commercial C&D waste generation

Using a method developed by Franklin Associates [66], Yost and Halstead [67]. To determine the

total 𝑚2 multiple assumptions were made and are listed below.

Every Commercial construction had a total floor space of 8000𝑚2 or less

Each type of Commercial Construction (warehouse and office space) was built the same way

and has a medium level of finish

Each Commercial Construction project generates the same composition of waste, and is like

the recorded waste data collected from commercial builder

Every construction generates 192𝑘𝑔

𝑠𝑞𝑚 of C&D waste based from a study in Brazil by Diogo

and Lafayette [68].

The method used by both generates the total waste produced that year by using this formula:

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (𝑡) = ∑ 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 (𝑚2) 𝑥 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒 𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (𝑡

𝑚2)

The steps taken to generate the required data are mentioned below:

1. Collect the total value of work completed that year from ABS, this table can be seen in 8.2

Commercial Construction C&D waste total 𝐦𝟐 calculation

2. Calculate sqm of area of related construction project ($/sqm) from Rawlinson [69]

3. Using estimate waste generation for commercial construction from Diogo and Lafayette

[68], calculate the total waste generated.

Given the only source of waste generation per 𝑚2 is sourced from Brazil current waste handling

practices and behaviours may be significantly different to this. Adjustments to this figure was not

possible due to lack of available information on WA commercial building activity.

This resulted in an average of 0.66Mt/yr of C&D waste generated from commercial construction

activity (Figure 18).

3.3.2 Residential C&D waste calculation

Waste generation data was calculated using the number of housing starts per year, this is collected

by the ABS and published by the Housing Industry Association (HIA) [70]. Residential C&D waste

generation rates are calculated based on the assumption that every construction project generated

43.31 tonnes. This was found in a waste audit conducted by Flemingham [2].

This came to 1.1Mt/yr of C&D waste generation from residential construction activity (Figure 18)


3.3.2.1 Residential construction material requirement

To contrast the waste generated from residential construction and gage the relative size of the

waste generated compared to the material used in these constructions. Housing starts are broken

up into two sections in the HIA forecast, these are houses and multi-unit developments.

A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) conducted by Lawania [38] determined the material requirement for

a standard double brick house construction to be 267 tonnes per construction. Multi-unit

developments require significantly more resources, Bahreh et.al. [71] provided a material

breakdown for a ‘typical’ multi-unit development by volume. These were converted into weight

which totalled 1375 tonnes per construction. These two values were then multiplied by their

respective starts found in the HIA forecasts [70]. This provided an estimate of construction materials

that would be required for all residential constructions.

Multiple assumptions were required to generate the Residential construction data and are listed

below:

Each house is built the same way and generate the same waste

Each multi-unit development is built the same way and generates the same waste

Each construction is started and completed in the same year

These assumptions allow some basic estimation of the kind of C&D waste that is generated. Waste

generation between house and multi-unit constructions would vary greatly in reality. However,

without these assumptions an estimate of C&D waste generation would not be possible. Depending

on the site waste management and how the buildings are built can greatly affect the amount of

waste generated.

These calculations came to an estimated 12.3Mt/yr of materials required for residential construction

(Figure 18).

3.3.3 Demolition activity C&D waste calculation

C&D waste generation was estimated from the number of residential demolitions found in the

Housing Industry Forecasting Group report [62]. Using the demolition information gathered from

Flemingham [2] estimated 290 tonnes of C&D waste is generated per demolition. Multiplying the

two together gave an estimate of the residential demolition waste generated.

Below is a list of assumptions that were used to generate the C&D waste generation from demolition

activity.

Each residential Demolition generates 290 tonnes of waste

Commercial Demolition C&D waste generation is 1.5 times larger than Residential

Demolition.

To estimate the amount of C&D waste produced from commercial demolition. The amount of

calculated demolition waste for a residential project was multiplied 1.5 times, as there would be less

commercial demolition projects occurring across the state the amount of waste would be

significantly larger.


Approximately 1.56Mt/yr of C&D waste is generated from Demolition Activity, this can be seen in

Figure 18.

3.3.4 C&D waste to landfill

Separation of the C&D waste stream sent to landfill was not possible using the landfilling data

available from the RAR [7]. The RAR landfill data contains all three waste streams C&I, C&D and

MSW. The MSW stream could be separated from the RAR landfill data using the Local Government

Census landfill data [72]. The difference between these two gives C&D and C&I waste that was sent

to landfill.

This is the 0.92 and 0.61 Mt/yr demolition waste generation in the Quantified Supply Chain (Figure

18).

3.3.5 Calculated recovery rate

Due to a lack of information on illegal activity and tracking of the C&D waste throughout the stream,

the information presented in Figure 18 presents a mass balance problem. The 2.88Mt/yr sent to

landfill represents both C&I and C&D waste streams. If C&I waste could be separated from this

stream a mass balance could suggest the amount of C&D waste that is illegally dumped or

sequentially landfilled.

Approximately 3 Mt/yr of C&D waste is generated from these activities. RAR reports between 2011-

15 [7]have an average C&D waste ‘material’ recovery of 1.02Mt/yr, this works out to a diversion of

35%. It's important to note the material recorded as diverted is defined as a material type. The

wastes generated from the Quantified SC show C&D waste from the activity. The C&D Materials is

defined as “asphalt, bricks, concrete, sand, soil, clean fill and rubble” [7]. This dual definition affects

the overall accuracy.

Including the stockpiling into the diversion calculation increases this rate from 35% to 76%. During

the audit conducted by the Auditor General found the DER currently estimates stockpiles of RA to be

in the order of 1.2Mt of waste at the end of 2015. The exact nature of these stockpiles is unknown as

this is the first time these stockpiles were estimated. This build-up of RA in the SC could be due to

inconsistent demand in the use of RA.


Figure 18: Quantified supply chain model on Perth C&D waste


4.0 Results

4.1 Alkimos Beach - C&D waste in new housing developments Alkimos Beach is a new land development by Lend Lease located approximately 42km North of

Perth. Residential construction was conducted by several different builders which various waste

collection providers. source separation was the most frequently observed, followed by a utilising a

single skip bin. If the house was source-separated bin types would change depending on the stage of

construction. For building of the walls and roof a general waste bin, a bag for brick straps and a

timber bin would be provided. In final stages of construction, such as electrical work a cardboard bin

and metal bin and a general waste bin would be provided. Source separated bins are emptied

regularly, and this resulted in a well-presented and safe construction site. A flowchart below

demonstrates the processes that were observed during the site visit (Figure 19).

Figure 19: Observed processes at Alkimos.

A compound located at the edge of the development keeps the separated cardboard, metals, excess

bricks, and other materials until enough is accumulated for a truck to collect these materials. Bricks,

tiles, plasterboard, cement and render are sent to an onsite crusher. These materials are then

aggregated and reused on site as sub-base for driveway construction and footpaths around the new

housing development.

Illegal dumping was observed during the site visit as waste was not correctly disposed of into the

provided bins. Other waste providers on the development utilised cages and skip bins, these bins on

many sites were overflowing. This suggests there may be an irregular schedule for these bins to be

emptied. Figure 20 shows the different bins located within the source separation compound and

some observed site conditions.


a) Construction waste left at the front of

the site, possibly due to the skip not being emptied on time creating additional hazards.

b) Bins located in the compound, each

colour represents a waste type and is marked on each bin to reduce the level of contamination.

c) Overloaded skip bin with waste around

the bin, signs that the collection schedule is not sufficient.

d) Depending on the stages of construction

a bobcat and truck collect the wastes for the crusher.

Figure 20: Alkimos site visit photos, source separation waste bins and single skip bin collection methods.

4.1.1 Source separation waste provider site visit

A semi-structured interview took place with a director from the source separation company

(Company A) to collect any available data. This waste provider takes on the role of collection and

utilises a 3rd party recycler which in Figure 19. Specifically, this company specialises in new

construction and does not handle demolition projects.

Last year 815 houses were serviced by Company ‘A’. A recycling rate of 88% was achieved with a

positive trend in recycling behaviour compared to their previous years. Data supplied by Company A

can be seen in 8.5 Company ‘A’ Collected Data. The amount of waste collected from each site is

recorded and reported back to the builder each month. This allows the builder to save money on

reducing on over ordering as shown in 8.5 Company ‘A’ Collected Data.

Plastic, General Waste, Fibre Cement and Mixed rubbish is sent to landfill. Metals are sent to SIMS or

exported interstate/overseas. Timber is made into pallets and cardboard sent to a 3rd party recycler.


A sankee diagram using the data provided from the recycler to show how each material type was

handled in 2014-15. In Figure 21 the 267t construction material was used from Lawania [38], The

larger the line reflects the size of the waste stream.

Figure 21: Average C&D waste generation from a source separation waste provider.

4.2 C&D waste processing facility site visits Site visits and semi-structured interviews took place at two C&D waste processing facilities. Company ‘B’ specialises in aggregation of demolition materials and Company ‘C’ recovers materials from skip bins. No recorded data could be provided from these sites, a site tour demonstrated the processes undertaken at each facility. Company ‘B’ during email contact later in the project provided information of a 200:1 m3 ratio of recycling: landfill.

Like the source separation both companies, all metals were exported or sent to SIMS. Plastics, cardboard, green waste, and timber is sent to a 3rd party recycler; Concrete, bricks, sand, and glass are crushed and reused in low-value applications mentioned in Table 3.

Company ‘C’ was in the process of constructing a Material Recovery Facility (MRF), an automated system of conveyors, magnets, crushers and hand sorting to separate the wastes collected from the skip bins. This system would separate the streams into plastics, cardboard, metals, aggregates and fines. Prior to moving the C&D waste into the MRF an initial screen of the waste is done by visual inspection to collect anything of high value, pictures of the site visit can be seen in Figure 22.


a) Recycling yard at Company ‘C’, concrete

to be crushed on the right, textiles recovered from initial inspection of waste on the left.

b) Other items found in the skip bins that

can be sold at auction

Figure 22: Site photos taken at Company 'C', taken July 19th, 2016

Company ‘B’ is a waste provider and demolition company, specialising in RA and fill sand. Currently a second recovery facility is in the process to recycle and supply a wider range of recycled products. Their current service supplies aggregate to Local Governments for use in low-value applications. A large stockpile of RA was observed during the site visit (Figure 22). Largely due to inconsistent demand that was mentioned during the site visit.


a) RA stockpile.

b) Concrete being sorted and fed into a

mobile crusher.

c) RA with crushed glass

d) Demolition waste dropoff, prior to

processing. Figure 23: Company 'B' site photos, taken 2nd August 2016

4.3 Commercial Builder Company ‘D’ is a commercial construction company. To meet their own recycling targets set within

business, they required feedback from their waste service provider to determine their own C&D

waste generation rates. Multiple waste service providers were unable to provide this feedback data

and provide a breakdown of the different streams. Their current waste service provides this data on

the waste generated for each project, information feedback reduces their over ordering and in turn

reduces overall costs to the company.

4.3.1 Composition of commercial construction C&D waste stream

Upon request, some of this data was provided on several construction projects. During the

construction of these products sand and concrete produced the bulk of the weight, all cases it

consisted of more than 45% of the total waste generation (Figure 24-27). Timber was the second

highest generator, and Gyprock/plasterboard was the third largest generator across the four

different commercial construction sites. The information used to generate the diagrams for Figure

24-27 can be seen in 8.3 C&D waste stream breakdowns. The composition of the C&D waste

generation can vary depending on the buildings finish and what type of construction it is

(distribution warehouse vs. office space)


Office Construction A C&D Breakdown

Metal

Concrete/Sand

Wood

Frontlift Cardboard

Front lift General

Plasterboard / Gyprock

Organics

Plastics

Other

Urban Orchard C&D Breakdown

Metal

Concrete/Sand

Wood

Frontlift Cardboard

Front lift General


Organics

Plastics

Other

Office Construction B C&D Breakdown

Metal

Concrete/Sand

Wood

Frontlift Cardboard

Front lift General


Organics

Plastics

Warehouse Construction C&D breakdown

Metal

Concrete/Sand

Wood

Frontlift Cardboard

Front lift General


Organics

Plastics

Figure 24: C&D waste stream breakdown of an office construction B

Figure 27: C&D waste stream breakdown of an office construction A Figure 26: C&D waste stream breakdown of an Urban Orchard construction

Figure 25: C&D waste stream breakdown of a Warehouse construction


4.4 Perth C&D waste stream composition

4.4.1 Quantified SC model validation

To validate the calculations of the different C&D waste streams in the quantified SC (Figure 18) a

triangulation approach was used. Attempting to predict the C&D waste generation from three

different data sources, Figure 28 shows a graph comparing these results. The National Waste Survey

data [65] the information extrapolated from the survey contains only C&D waste materials. Both the

survey data and the quantified SC both follow the same trend. The recorded generation data from

the RAR [7] carries an assumption that 50% of the total waste stream is C&D waste. This adjusted

data fits the estimated waste generation between 2012-2015 without varying significantly from the

other two sources. With similar results from the two other calculated sources, the quantified SC

model is a reasonable prediction of the C&D waste stream in Perth.

Figure 28: Comparison of three estimates of Perth C&D waste generation

4.4.2 Waste stream breakdowns

Using the amounts calculated in the quantified SC (Figure 18) and the approach mentioned in 3.1.6

Waste stream breakdowns, the total breakdown of the C&D waste stream was calculated.

Table 9: Breakdown of Demolition Waste Stream

Demolition Breakdown % Quantity

(kt)

Green Waste 2.71 42

Concrete, Render, Sand, Tiles, Bricks,

and Pavers

91.92 1,416

Timber 2.94 45.3

Mixed Materials 2.42 37

Average Total 99.99 1,541

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

C&

D w

aste

Gen

erat

ion

(To

nn

es)

Year

Comparison of National Waste Data, 50% Reported Generation and Calculated C&D waste stream

National Data CDW Quantificated CDW stream RAR 50% Generation


Table 9 shows the proportion of waste produced from demolition activity based on an average

between 2008-15. The % is based from a waste audit by Flemingham [2]. This stream consists

primarily of a commingled waste compromised of Concrete, Render, Sand, Tiles, Bricks and Pavers.

Table 10: Breakdown of Commercial Construction C&D waste Stream

Commercial C&D waste Breakdown %

Quantity (kt)

Metal 7.4 48.6

Concrete/Sand 47.6 314..3

Wood 30.0 198.1

Cardboard 0.4 2.6


5.5 36.4

Organics 0.0 -

Plastics 0.1 497.7

Other 9.0 59.7

Total 100.0 660.6

A breakdown of C&D waste generated from commercial construction can be seen in Table 10. This

information is based from the average composition between site data provided by Company ‘D’.

Concrete/sand (47.6%) and wood (30%) make up most this waste stream.

Table 11: Breakdown of Residential Construction C&D waste Stream

Residential C&D waste Breakdown %

Quantity (kt)

Metal 3.8 42

Fill Sand 49.9 551.7

Timber 6.4 70.8

Brick 15.7 173.7

Paper/ Cardboard

5.5 61

Plasterboard 2.9 32.4

Mixed Rubbish 3.5 38.3

Plastic 5.5 61.1

Float/Render 3.5 38.2

Concrete 0.6 7

Fibre Cement 0.5 5.2

Tiles 2.1 22.9

Total 100 1,104.6

The C&D waste stream breakdown for residential construction activity is shown in Table 11. Using

the average values per house in 2015 as seen in 8.5 Company ‘A’ Collected Data. The proportion of


the residential C&D waste stream shows Fill sand (49.9%) and Bricks (15.7%) make up more than half

of this waste stream.

Table 12: Estimate total C&D waste stream Breakdown

Total Stream Estimates % Quantity

(kt)

Construction Rubble & Sand

76.5 2,529.6

Metals 2.7 90.6

Cardboard 1.9 63.7

Plastic 1.9 61.5

Other 4.1 135.4

Gyprock / Plasterboard

2.1 68.9

Timber 9.5 314.2

Green waste 1.3 41.7

Average total 100.0 3,306

Combining the three C&D waste streams, shown in Tables 9-11, gives the calculated C&D waste

stream in Perth (Table 12). Most this stream consists of sand and construction rubble which contains

Concrete, Render, Sand, Tiles, Bricks, and Pavers. The construction rubble is an easily recovered

resource by processing the waste with crushers to turn the material into RA.

5.0 Discussion

5.1 Legislation - Cross-jurisdictional analysis The ‘National Waste Policy: Less waste, More resources’ is a piece of legislation that was agreed by

all of the Australian Environment Ministers in 2009. This policy has several aims to increase the data

reporting, market activity, treatment, disposal and recovery. One of the targets is to produce a

national database of the current waste and resource recovery information for each State. This would

begin the process of harmonising the regulation, definitions and practice in respect of all types of

waste in the country.

Analysis of interstate cases, Western Australia and a review of the 2012-13 implementation report

[73] there was no consistency between these jurisdictions on data recording, reporting and

definitions. Given the 2020 deadline is now only 3 years away, significant progress to reduce these

inconsistencies and improvement of the reporting structure should be made immediately apparent.

Western Australia records its information by means of an annual survey to gauge the progress of its

recycling market with multiple definitions of C&D waste; one for activity and another for material

type. With no requirements to track or source waste movements currently, illegal dumping and levy

avoidance is more likely and with little risk to the perpetrators.

Victoria also collects its information via annual survey, through its EPA, but requires some validation

of the data and be requiring significantly more detail on the waste reports and action plans. Other


waste tracking systems are in place such as a ‘receipt of disposal’ to prove the waste has been

properly disposed of [74].

NSW is in the process of implementing GPS tracking systems for all vehicles that transport waste.

This will likely become a significant factor in the deterrence of these illegal activities [21].

In SA material guidelines are set in which waste material can be considered a product [75].

Tasmania is the only state in Australia which in the 2012-13 implementation report has a data

collection system and methodology that is aligned with the outcomes of the national waste policies,

data recording and definitions [54].

For the case of WA the waste-derived material guidelines released by DER have the same goal in

mind. Due to the Eclipse Resources v The State of WA [2016] court case these guidelines have

remained in a draft form and can no longer be directly accessed online. The sooner the appeal

process is determined the sooner the industry can proceed with more certainty.

WA is comparatively behind in its legislation and waste tracking ability when compared to interstate

arrangements. Little coherence exists between each State and their approach to regulations and

tracking of these waste streams. This state of affairs is clearly inconsistent with the principles

outlined in the National Waste Policy.

5.2 Quantified Supply Chain limitations The generation of the basic C&D waste stream shown in Figures 9-11 are based on the generation

information from a single source to determine its breakdown. Residential construction C&D

generation (Table 11) provides the most accurate breakdown of the calculated stream. The source

used is based from the average of some 800 house constructions, regardless of the different

collection methods; the composition of waste will be similar.

C&D waste generation data to produce the quantity of waste from each activity is majorly based

from international cases and a per square meter approach. These can have a significant effect on the

waste generation, for example in the residential C&D generation the model does not differ from the

amount of waste generated from a small unit construction and the construction of a 4 bedroom, 2-

bathroom house. In reality these two projects would generate different amounts.

The only information on commercial C&D waste streams was provided from Company ‘D’. The

composition of waste is based off of an average composition across the 4 construction projects (2

office constructions, 1 warehouse and an urban orchard). The breakdown provided for Commercial

Construction C&D waste varies greatly based on the level of finish, type of construction and the scale

of the project. This is not taken for account in the breakdown provided in Table 10.

C&D waste generation calculated in Appendix 8.2 assume that every building is built in the

descriptions provided, e.g. all offices are two stories with standard finishes, air-conditioned with

finished floors of a lettable type. This allowed the breakdown of the total value of work to be

converted into m2. In reality this value of work would vary greatly and have an impact on the

calculated generation rate.


No information was found on commercial demolition projects, the only information was generated

based on the assumption of 1.5 times the size of residential demolition. Due to the only breakdown

of the stream provided by Flemingham [2], the composition of the demolition waste stream can be

significantly different from what is shown in Table 9.

5.3 Influences on the Perth Supply Chain The following section breaks down the previous SC that can be seen in Figure 18, outlining the

various representative bodies and documents that influence the SC based on the information

collected throughout this study.

5.3.1 Builders influences

The Master Builders Green Living program; the Master Builders WA Smart Waste program; the HIA

GreenSmart program, Life Cycle Design and industry self-regulator codes (Green Star;

EnviroDevelopment; EcoSpecifier; NATSPEC specifications (ESD); Lean Construction); One Planet

Living – can all have an influence on the way a new building is constructed. In this case, the buildings

materials are taken into consideration that would have an impact on the overall embodied energy of

the building within the results of a life cycle analysis.

In the pre-design and design stages of construction, the method of waste management would be

considered (for example, waste management plans). The selection of materials depends on the type

Figure 29: Influence on Builders in SC


of building or infrastructure. The Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia (IPWEA)

specification determines the quality of the material that would be used in infrastructure

applications. The RCPP program is an incentive program developed by the Waste Authority. This

aims to increase the use of RA in the construction market, to gain access to the funding from the

RCPP the RA used needs to meet the specifications set in Appendix 1 – product specification. MRWA

501 pavements specification includes a section for the use of RA, this was removed in 2012 due to

asbestos concerns. The 501 spec is the commonly accepted specification for the use of aggregates in

pavement and sub base course for road construction. Because the use of RA is currently not

supported by MRWA this can cause a negative view elsewhere in industry.

WHS (Road Transport Chain of Responsibility (CoR) & Compliance & Enforcement (C&E)) and waste

recovery plans take place in both demolition and building aspects of the supply chain. These sets

standards for a safe working environment, standards and penalties around the compliance of safe

transport of waste. Demolition permits are issued by Local Governments. Depending on the Local

Government this may affect bin placements for residential construction (e.g. bins not allowed on

verges) and what method of waste collection can be utilised.


5.3.2 Collection and Processing

Local Governments all have their own specific requirements when undertaking construction or

demolition in their jurisdiction and site management must respond accordingly (e.g. type of bins and

collection allowed, dust control, sediment control). WMAA provide information on best practice in

the methods of waste collection and handling.

The WARR Act, EP Act and related regulations set out the correct procedures to process these C&D

wastes, record keeping requirements and collecting the landfill levy.

Figure 30: Influence on Collection and Processors in SC


5.3.3 End Markets for recycled C&D products

The WARR Act and EP Act set out the collection of the landfill levy and environmental requirements

to operate a waste handling facility. WALGA, Waste Authority and the specifications set by DER and

IPWEA determine the quality and appropriate use for RA. The DER waste-derived material (WDM)

guidelines are currently in draft form and won’t progress until the court case (Eclipse v State of WA)

has been determined through the Court of Appeals.

The majority of the C&D waste stream is aggregates and generally referred to as Recycled Aggregate

(RA) or Recycled Concrete Aggregate (RCA). Glass cullet can be recycled; larger aggregates can be

used as drainage rock and the finer particles used as fill. Approximately 80% of the C&D waste

stream is sand/clean fill and recycled aggregates. IPWEA/WALGA specification recommends the use

Figure 31: Influences on end markets


of RA in pavement and road construction. The RCPP incentive program is designed to encourage the

use of RA in infrastructure and construction applications using the aggregates that meet its

specification.

To deter illegal dumping, the RCPP requires the RA to come from a licensed recycler that uses C&D

waste from the metropolitan area and the product needs to meet the product specification set in

Appendix 1 of the RCPP [10]. These additional requirements may be perceived as an additional layer

of paperwork and requirements for minimal gain as the rebate from the RCPP program is $2-6 per

tonne. This may not be a significant enough saving for the customer to engage in this process. Most

of the recycled products market is in RA, sand, and clean fill which is a form of recovered or

manufactured sand which occurs during the crushing process.

5.4 Barriers to better Waste practices The Recycling Activity Review (RAR) annual survey is conducted by the Waste Authority each year to

all known recyclers in the metropolitan and regional areas to estimate the amount of waste that is

generated, landfilled or diverted. Information in the recycling activity review has gaps in its

generated data. The Auditor General found in the Local Government census that 39 LGs reported

recycling C&D waste in 2014-15. Of these LGs 25 are in regional areas [76]. The city of greater

Geraldton reported that they routinely use locally sourced RA in its road construction. In their RAR,

zero diversion of C&D waste was reported but this was not reflected in the RAR [76]. Furthermore,

the levy is applied to the waste that is actually landfilled and is not applied to the waste that is

accepted into the facility.

During the audit, the Auditor General found the DER currently estimates stockpiles of RA to be in the

order of 1.2Mt of waste at the end of 2015. The exact nature of these stockpiles is unknown as this is

the first time these stockpiles were estimated. This buildup of RA in the SC could be due to

inconsistent demand in the use of RA.

No current programs exist to encourage best practice regarding RA. In previous RARs a lack of

government support, regulation, inconsistent demand, long application processes for licensing of

facilities and awareness of RA are recurring points of feedback from recyclers (Table 5).

5.5 Supply Chain

5.5.1 Push-Pull

A push in the supply chain refers to processes that occur independent of market conditions. The

push in relation to this study exists with the construction and demolition activity; regardless of the

waste handling practices, construction and demolition activity will occur. The breakpoint in the

supply chain where it shifts from a push to a pull occurs after collection and at the recyclers. It is

cheaper in the Perth area to use a recycler to collect and process these wastes. The recycled

materials sit in stockpiles at the recyclers until the material is sold back into the construction market.

The market demand for the use of RA and recovered C&D waste-derived products is typically

inconsistent. This inhibits the development of recycling technologies, quality control and general

confidence in the products. This inconsistent demand has been mentioned in the RAR [7].


Builder/LG

Virgin Product

Recycled Material

Construction

Demolition

Collection

Recycling Stockpile

Landfill

Illegal Dumping

PullPush

Recycled Product Market

Figure 32: Push-Pull Mechanics within SC.

Due to the Landfill Levy rise in 2015, wastes that were previously sent to a landfill may instead be

sent to a recovery facility, but alongside this, it is likely that illegal dumping has increased. With the

low demand in the recycled product market this causes a buildup of stockpiles within the SC. This

has a potential bullwhip effect on the chain. The sizes of stockpiles occurring within the SC were

estimated to be around 1.2Mt in 2015 [76], however, this could be larger and potentially grow

rapidly. The current infrastructure and construction markets are using only 1.02Mt per year on

average [7]. More incentives and/or education will need to be implemented to reduce these

stockpiles. This buildup is typical of a bullwhip effect: key factors such as time and supply of order

decisions, demand for the supply, lack of communication and disorganization can result in variance,

interrupting the smoothness of the supply chain, resulting in exaggerated fluctuations.

Diverted materials in the recycling activity review (RAR) refers to the product that is reused and

processed, depending on each participant in the RAR and what material they would consider

diverted. During various site visits, some confusion was found with what is considered ‘diverted' for

reporting purposes. This was also the case for what is ‘recovered’. An example of this is a stockpile of

RA that could be ‘recovered’. However, until the product is physically used in construction it is not

regarded as having been ‘diverted’ as it still has potential to be landfilled.

5.5.2 Market

The recycled products market appears to be decentralised, where each facility has limited access to

other players within the logistics network and business decisions and strategies are implemented

without consideration of its impact on other sections of the SC.

With multiple players within the recycling market and a decentralised SC, if a project that were to

consume a large amount of recycled aggregate such as a major highway extension - one

recycler/reprocessor may not have the volume capacity to meet the projects requirements. This

situation is likely to increase the risk of using RA as it would require multiple suppliers of RA with

likely varying levels of quality.

Only recently specifications for the application of RA in infrastructure and construction have become available (IPWEA and RCPP Appendix 1). Some market inertia exists which slows the adoption of the use of RA. However, the specification removes concerns for consistency of the product. These may


require time to become common knowledge among builders, civil engineers and other key stakeholders.

An opportunity to develop the recycled product market exists for government bodies to facilitate

workshops to raise awareness or create incentive programs or rebates for business to offset the

required infrastructure to produce high-quality aggregates. From the 2016 WARR account, funded

by the landfill levy, various allocations were unspent. Investing these funds into infrastructure and

programs would have a positive influence on developing the market to create a stronger demand.

Table 13 shows the funds from the WARR account budget and expenditure for 2015-16.

Table 13: WARR Account budget and expenditure for 2015-16 [77]

Program/Project Budget Expenditure %

Recycled Product Specification 75,000 0 0 Best Practice 8,030,000 2,517,775 31 Recycled C&D Market Development Program 5,550,000 3,232 0.1 Economic Instruments 11,067,000 3,825,288 35

The incomplete expenditure in the budget is symptomatic of the problems between DER and the

Waste Authority with unclear roles and responsibilities between the two entities. The court case at

the start of the year may have contributed to the lack of spending on the recycled C&D market

development program such as the WDM guidelines.

Around 2.9Mt of C&D waste is generated from the combined construction and demolition activity.

Based on a previous LCA study an estimated material requirement for a single residential

construction requires approximately 267 tonnes of materials for construction [38]. Using the

assumption every house requires the same amount of materials, the material requirement for

residential construction each year is calculated to be around 12.3Mt on average. The current

amount of waste activity consists of 76.9% construction rubble and sand. Assuming 50% of that is

RA, and the remainder is clean fill or sand, a possible 1.1Mt of RA is generated each year. The

current amount of RA and clean fill moving through the SC is not large enough to be effectively

utilised in the construction market at this point for structural applications (structural concrete). Low-

value applications such as pavement and sub base would be best suited to enable familiarity with

RA.

Large areas within the metropolitan area remain available for urban infill developments in addition

to Greenfields in peri-urban areas. Therefore, the C&D waste stream may not increase until these

Greenfields already planned and approved for urban development are exhausted, and many

buildings reach their end of life use in the future. The increase of the size of this demolition waste

stream will then require more advanced techniques to refine products for structural applications.

5.5.2.1 Potential Market Barrier

Eclipse Resources Pty Ltd v The State of Western Australia [No 4] [2016] WASC 62 has set a new

precedent in WA in that ‘clean fill’ is essentially recovered sand or uncontaminated soil that is in

excess or unwanted by its original owner. This is considered waste and can be treated as such. The

effect this has on the reuse of recovered sand and clean fill is that if it is used on a new site in excess

of 500 tonnes then it may be in breach of the EP Act. This will require an application for an

exemption of payment of the landfill levy, for only the last 500mm of material [78]. ‘Clean fill’


amounts to a large portion of the C&D waste stream. Figure 21 shows 28.9 m3 of the C&D waste is

sand which equates to 50% of the total stream, is legally considered waste and is regulated as such

regardless of its recycling value. In commercial projects, such as the Figure 25 (by Company ‘D’), 62%

of the total waste recorded was concrete and sand.

The reuse of ‘clean fill’ recovered from C&D waste creates difficulty in an emerging market. Mined

sand or quarried materials from a primary process are perceived as different to a secondary

(recovery) process.

Sand is a relatively high proportion of the residential construction (Table 11) waste stream (50%) and

can be considered as ‘clean fill’. Sand forms an even higher portion of the total C&D waste stream

(82%) (Table 12). The use of this material in land development prior to house construction or to level

a building site carries with it perceived risk. C&D waste processors contacted in this study advised

that the builders that they supply RA to would prefer to use NA over this product regardless of RA

being a cheaper option.

5.5.3 Data Recording

Currently the structure is lacking a level of detail to estimate accurately the movement of waste and

stockpiles even though it is currently being addressed (2.8.1.3 Waste Tracking and Pending Changes)

it may not be sufficient to deter illegal dumping. Systems similar to San Francisco requiring unique

receipts of waste disposal will allow the tracking of waste from its source (residential, commercial or

civil). Licensing of vehicles to transport non-separated wastes (skip bins, mixed loads) would further

increase the occurrence of source separation on sites allowing for higher recovery rates and a cost

incentive and deter contractors from illegally dumping wastes.

Figure 33: Proposed changes to reporting structure and framework

Figure 33 shown above is an example of possible changes to enable better regulation ability for the

DER and improved collection of data to identify stockpiles, market activity and enable more action

on controlling illegal dumping.

On logistics terms transporters are required to collect information from the collection site and

where the waste was taken, demolition and construction permits are issued by local governments


which would require the builder/demolisher to provide a plan to divert wastes and which method

they will achieve their diversion rate (e.g. listing a licensed recycler that will be used).

Issuing of receipts when receiving waste at a landfill or recycler will enable an accurate estimation of

waste that is being illegally dumped, as generation rates would be recorded from site recovery plans.

These recovery plans require the builder/LG to specify what method of waste handling, transporters

and recyclers they will use to reach a set diversion rate. This plan works complimentary to the

reporting requirements that have been released by the DER (2.8.1.3 Waste Tracking and Pending

Changes, Figure 10). The changes proposed in Figure 33 are on a higher level to capture the entire

supply chain.

These proposed changes would increase the amount of waste that is received at recyclers and

reduce the occurrence of illegal dumping. However, this does not address the low pull of the

recycled products market.

5.5.4 Illegal dumping precedence

The impulse to resort to illegal dumping due to the current reporting and tracking system enables a

company to avoid the landfill levy; this can be achieved through vertical integration of a business. In

the case of a recycler they would own the parts of the supply chain to deal with the collection,

processing, logistics and disposal. Currently tracking of the source of these wastes is not required,

for example if the location of the landfill is located outside of the metropolitan area, excess

materials that are not able to be sold easily by the recycler could then landfilled without paying the

levy. Under the WARR Levy Regulations regional landfills are required to calculate and charge the

levy on metro waste, however without any way to currently prove that the waste is from the metro

area it is easy to avoid paying the levy.

An example of this can be seen below in Figure 18; a house demolition can produce around 290

tonnes of waste [2]; resulting in around 15 truck movements with a 20m3 capacity carrying waste to

be disposed of. During the semi-structured interview with Company ‘C’ for a residential house

around 4 truckloads would need to be landfilled. Regional landfills (i.e. non-metropolitan) are not

required to charge the levy if the waste is not from the metropolitan area, this results in a saving of

$1,500 per truck or $6,000 per house demolition regardless of gate fees and costs to transport the

wastes the extra distances - a significant savings would be gained.

Waste Service Provider

House Demolition

Transport(20m3 trucks)

Recovery

LandfillTransfer station

Organic Recovery

Greenwaste + Timber1 Truck

10 Trucks

4 Trucks

StockpileRecycled

Product Market

Compost/soil improver

Figure 34: Levy avoidance example


Changes to recording the movement of waste throughout the C&D waste SC, as suggested in Figure

33, would deter the above scenario from occurring. Resolution of the court case and the re-issue of

amended WDM guidelines to allow safe reuse of the clean fill and sand recovered from the

processes undertaken at recyclers will start to increase confidence in the use of the recycled

materials. Once sufficient and consistent demand for these recycled products occur, there will be an

opportunity to increase the efficiency of recycling processes around RCA.

5.6 Alternative Supply Chain Incorporating the different technologies and reporting systems in place, with sufficient demand and

quantities available the total C&D waste stream (around 1.7Mt or 50% of construction rubble &

sand) presents an opportunity to use these products in high value application such as precast

concrete. An additional specification to allow the use of these aggregates in higher value

applications would need to be developed to ensure the material is sufficiently clean of existing

mortar to give the recycled concrete sufficient strength. Below (Figure 35) is a proposed alternative

supply chain incorporating the manufacture of precast concrete with a recycler producing product

for high and low value applications.


Generation

Commercial

Residential

Demolition

Source Separation

Recovery Facility

Primary Process

Crushing

Screening

RCA A

Secondary Process

Rotating

GrinderScreening

Cyclone Water

ImpuritiesRCA B

Specification

RCA A

(Aggregate).

RCA B (Fines)

Market (Low/Medium Value)

(Fit for Purpose Testing)

Clean Fill, Road Base, Drainage

Rock, Filter Media

Market (High Value)

Precast

concrete

Manufacture

Building spec

Requirements

Modular

Construction

Commercial

Construction

Market

Building End of

Life

Figure 35: Alternative Supply Chain with high value application


6.0 Conclusion and Recommendations Critical issues in C&D waste management facing the industry have been identified in this study

including illegal dumping, lack of standards and consistent terminology are not being addressed

adequately under current arrangements.

The Office of Auditor General [52] concluded that sufficient guidance and information is not

occurring from government in Western Australia due to the lack of coordination between the DER

and Waste Authority. This study found that this has an impact on the current supply chain.

The dual definitions of ‘C&D waste’ and ‘C&D materials’ creates confusion for recording the required

information. A single, clear definition of Construction and Demolition waste is required. This would

also better align WA with the National Waste Policy.

Source Separation is becoming common among residential construction based on the MBAWA

survey [59] with comingled waste (single bin) collection being the currently preferred option.

Utilising Source Separation increases the overall recovery potential of the C&D waste stream. The

Lend Lease Alkimos site visit demonstrates the potential to reduce the overall truck movements for

house construction, in turn significantly improving the environmental outcomes for the construction

and the state regarding emissions. Promoting this method of waste collection would be beneficial to

both the construction and recycling industry.

Multiple configurations of the C&D Waste SC exist which depend on the availability of recyclers,

transfer stations and landfills (Figure 15). The increase of the levy reduces the amount of waste

going to landfill sites. However, this waste may be illegally dumped instead of being collected by a

waste service provider. Due to lack of C&I landfill data the waste stream was not separated from the

quantified SC. This prohibited a mass balance on the system to quantify the amount of illegal

dumping that is occurring.

The configuration of the SC for waste collection, processing and ultimately disposal or recycling of

the product can be affected by the builder, demonstrated by company ‘D’ which require feedback

reports from waste service providers. If all builders required proof of disposal and waste

breakdowns, this would increase the quality of available data.

Recyclers in the Perth Metro Area currently possess the ability to produce a RA that is sufficient for

the use in road construction project and low value applications while achieving a high recovery rate

(200:1 recycling to landfill ratio). These recyclers have been a supplier to a small number of Local

Governments. Recent specifications for RA by IPWEA and the RCPP Appendix 1 encourage

confidence and the use of these materials. The effect this has had on diversion from landfill rates

have not been recorded yet. The 2016-17 reporting period may show increased diversion due to the

introduction of these specifications and incentives.

The quantified supply chain, developed in this study indicates that the recovery of C&D waste may

be lower than the reported amounts in the RAR [7] (35% Vs. 42%). The dual definition of C&D waste

and C&D materials could affect the estimated diversion rate. An average of 3.3 Mt of waste is

generated from C&D activity alone, based on information gathered from site visits and literature

review 76% (Table 12) of these materials are easily recoverable. RA and ‘clean fill’ are the two


products that arise from this portion of the C&D waste stream and can be readily used in non-

structural applications.

Stockpiles within the supply chain are not accounted for under the reporting requirements, resulting

in large amounts of recycled or potentially recycled products that have either been diverted, illegally

dumped, sitting in a stockpile or inaccurately reported. In 2015, the OAG found these stockpiles are

estimated at 1.2Mt.

‘Clean fill’ amounts to a large portion of the C&D waste stream. The reuse of ‘clean fill’ recovered

from C&D waste creates difficulty in an emerging market. Eclipse Resources Pty Ltd v The State of

Western Australia [No 4] [2016] WASC 62 has set a new precedent in WA in that ‘clean fill’ is

essentially recovered sand or uncontaminated soil that is in excess or unwanted by its original

owner. The outcome of the Eclipse case needs to be reviewed carefully and the industry provided

with guidelines on the use of ‘clean fill’ from land development. Around 1.1Mt of the C&D waste

stream can be considered ‘clean fill’ and forms a significant portion of the residential C&D waste

stream shown in (Figure 21).

The behaviour of the SC presents an opportunity to divert a significant portion of the C&D waste

exists in the recycled products market. The RCPP incentive program is a small step in the right

direction which encourages builders to use recycled C&D waste products, creating a stronger pull

from the recycled products market. Policy drivers are required to further engage and encourage this

market, creating consistent demand for the recycling market to develop. This may lead to a situation

similar to Melbourne where concrete waste is paid for due to the demand of RA being strong

enough [5].

New measures that are in the process of being implemented by the DER [53] will create a better

picture of the movement of C&D waste throughout the supply chain. International and national

examples of best practice data collection are demonstrated in San Francisco and Victoria. The

requirement of licensing for waste transporters and receipts for the disposal of waste would enable

the DER to better fulfil its role as a regulator. This system would enable DER to estimate better and

reduce Illegal Dumping. Figure 33 models a possible data and reporting structure based on literature

review and site visits conducted in this study.

In future years once available Greenfields in peri-urban areas have been exhausted an increase of

the C&D waste stream will occur. This will be due to needing to demolish an already existing

structure. In the case of a residential construction instead of 43 tonnes of waste being generated

from construction, 335 tonnes of waste would be generated. At this point the C&D waste stream will

be significantly large enough to investigate the application of RA in structural applications, an

example SC using alternate technology can be seen in Figure 35.


6.1 Recommendations 1. Implementation of waste receipts to prove correct disposal of C&D waste.

2. Provide well-coordinated guidance and information from the DER and Waste Authority

3. Raise awareness of RA throughout industry for low and high value applications.

4. Set acceptable uses for clean fill to restore confidence in using this product.

5. A single, clear definition of Construction and Demolition waste is required.

6. Implement specific measures to improve quantification and reporting:

a. Waste receipts to validate correct disposal of C&D waste.

b. Licensing of waste service providers and assets.

c. Higher level reporting structure (as shown in Figure 33).


7.0 References

[1] T. Esin and C. Nilay , “A Study Conducted To Reduce Construction Waste Generation In Turkey,”

Building And Environment , vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 1667-1674. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.02.008, 2007.

[2] C. J. Flemingham, “Residential Construction and Demolition Waste in Perth, Western Australia: Cost

Benefit Analysis of Best Practices.,” Bachelor of Environmental Engineering (Honours), Murdoch

University. , Perth, Western Australia, 2015.

[3] Blue Environment, “Waste generation and resource recovery in Australia - Report and Data

Workbooks,” 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.environment.gov.au/protection/national-waste-

policy/publications/waste-generation-and-resource-recovery-australia-report-and-data-workbooks.

[Accessed 2016].. [Accessed 2016].

[4] Department of Environment Regulation, “Landfill levy rates to rise from January 2015,” 2014.

[Online]. Available: https://www.der.wa.gov.au/about-us/media-statements/112-landfill-levy-rates-

to-rise-from-january-2015#content. [Accessed 2016].

[5] NetBalance, “Sustainability Victoria | Market analysis of recovered resources,” 2014. [Online].

Available: http://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/publications-and-research/research/market-

analysis-of-recovered-resources#BSC. [Accessed 2016].

[6] Rawtec, “South Australian Waste Industry Snapshot Update 2015,” Local Government Association of

South Australia (LGA SA), South Australia, 2015.

[7] ASK Waste Management, “Recycling Activity Review,” Waste Authority, 2016. [Online]. Available:

http://www.wasteauthority.wa.gov.au/programs/data/recycling-activity-review/.

[8] V. Saez, d. R. M. P. M. and C. Porras-Amores, “Estimation Of Construction And Demolition Waste

Volume Generation In New Residential Buildings In Spain,” Waste Management & Research, vol. 30,

no. 2, pp. 137-146. doi:10.1177/0734242x11423955. , 2011.

[9] Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW, “Report into the Construction and

Demolition Waste Stream Audit 2000-2005,” Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW,

ed. 59–61 Goulburn Street: Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW, 2007.

[10] Waste Authority, “Recycled Construction Products,” 2016. [Online]. Available:

http://www.wasteauthority.wa.gov.au/programs/funded-programs/construction-demolition/rcpp.

[Accessed 2017].

[11] V. W. Tam, “Comparing the implementation of concrete recycling in the Australianand Japanese

construction industries,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 688-702,

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.11.015, 2009.

[12] N. Chileshe, R. Rameezdeen, M. R. Hosseini and S. Lehmann, “Barriers to implementing reverse

logistics inSouth Australian construction organisations,” Supply Chain Management: An


International Journal, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 179 - 204. doi:10.1108/SCM-10-2014-0325, 2015.

[13] Department of Environment Regulation and Waste Authrotiy of Western Australia, “Economic

Drivers of Waste,” 2014. [Online]. Available:

http://www.wasteauthority.wa.gov.au/publications/economic-drivers-waste. [Accessed 2016].

[14] B. M. Beamon, “Supply Chain Design And Analysis: Models And Methods,” International Journal Of

Production Economics, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 281-294. doi:10.1016/s0925-5273(98)00079-6, 1998.

[15] D. Simchi-Levi, P. Kaminsky and E. Simchi-Levi, Designing And Managing The Supply Chain, Boston:

McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2008.

[16] J. Sarkis, “A strategic decision framework for green supply chain,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol.

11, no. 4, pp. 397–409. doi:10.1016/S0959-6526(02)00062-8, 2003.

[17] Edge Environment Propriety Limited, “Construction and demolition waste guide - recycling and re-

use across the supply chain,” 2011. [Online]. Available:

http://www.environment.gov.au/protection/national-waste-policy/publications/construction-and-

demolition-waste-guide. [Accessed 2016].

[18] S. K. Srivastava, “Green supply-chain management: A state-of-the-art literature review,”

International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 53-80, 2007.

[19] D. A. Taylor, Supply Chains A Managers Guide, Boston: Addison-Wesley, 2004.

[20] Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia (IPWEA) (NSW Division), “EPA NSW,” 2010. [Online].

Available: http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/resources/waste/100004-supply-recycled-material.pdf.

[Accessed 2016].

[21] EPA NSW, “7. Waste and recycling | State of the Environment 2015,” 2015. [Online]. Available:

http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/soe/soe2015/07Waste-Recycling.htm. [Accessed 2016].

[22] Sustainability Victoria, “Victorian Recycling Industry Annual Report 2013-14,” 2015. [Online].

Available: http://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/publications-and-research/research/victorian-

waste-and-recycling-data-results-201314/victorian-recycling-industry-annual-report-201314..

[Accessed 2016].

[23] EPA Victoria, “Construction and demolition waste,” 2016. [Online]. Available:

http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/your-environment/waste/construction-and-demolition-waste#Info.

[Accessed 2016].

[24] Worksafe Victoria, “Recycling Construction and Demolition Material,” 2007. [Online]. Available:

http://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/info/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/12445/recycling_construction_d

emolition.pdf. [Accessed 2016].

[25] EPA South Australia, “Licensing for waste facilities,” 2015. [Online]. Available:

http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/environmental_info/waste_management/resource_recovery/licensing_


waste_facilities. [Accessed 2016].

[26] Deloitte, “Screening template for Construction and Demolition Waste management in The

Netherlands V2,” 2015. [Online]. Available:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/deliverables/CDW_The%20Netherlands_Factsheet

_Final.pdf. [Accessed 2016].

[27] F. Tomosawa and T. Noguchi, “New technology for the recycling of concrete – Japanese

experience.,” in Concrete technology for a sustainable development in the 21st century, London,

New York, E & FN spon, 2000, pp. 274-287.

[28] B. J, G. Ding and K. Vessalas, “A Closed-Loop System Of Construction And Demolition Waste

Recycling,” in The 31st Inernational Symposium On Automation And Robotics In Construction Mining,

Sydney, Australia, 2014.

[29] M. Li, A. Kühlen and F. S. Jay Tang, “Improvement of the Statutory Framework for Construction and

Demolition Waste Management exemplified in Germany and Australia,” in Urban Environment ,

Springer Netherlands, 2013, pp. 15-25. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-7756-9_2.

[30] Sfenvironment, “Construction and Demolition Debris Recovery Requirements,” 2011. [Online].

Available: http://sfenvironment.org/article/construction-amp-demolition/about-construction-and-

demolition-requirements.. [Accessed 2016].

[31] San Fransico Department of the Environment, “Construction and Demolition Forms and Resources,”

2016. [Online]. Available: http://sfenvironment.org/article/construction-amp-

demolition/construction-and-demolition-resources. [Accessed 2016].

[32] J. Xiao and T. Ding, “Research on recycled concrete and its utilization in China,” Front. Struct. Civ.

Eng., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 215-226. doi: 10.1007/s11709-013-0212-z, 2013.

[33] L. Xuping, “Recycling and reuse of waste concrete in China Part II. Structural behaviour of recycled

aggregate concrete and engineering applications,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 53,

no. 3, pp. 107-112. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2008.11.005, 2009.

[34] Green Building Council Australia, “Green Building Council of Australia,” 2013. [Online]. Available:

https://www.gbca.org.au/green-star/pixel/. [Accessed 2016].

[35] Y. Dosho, “Development of a Sustainable Concrete Waste Recycling System,” Journal of Advanced

Concrete Technology, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 27-42, 2007.

[36] M. A. Rahman, M. A. Imteaz, A. Arulrajah, J. Piratheepan and M. M. Disfani, “Recycled construction

and demolition materials in permeable pavement systems: geotechnical and hydraulic

characteristics,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 90, pp. 183-194.

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.042, 2015.

[37] D. M. Anda, “The Waalitj Complex: Use of Waste Materials in Earth Wall Construction,” in


International Workshop: 'Earthern architecture education in the world: current status and future

action', CRATerre-Ecole d'Architecture de Grenoble, France, 2001.

[38] K. K. Lawania and B. K. Wahidul, “Achieving environmentally friendly building envelope for Western

Australia’s housing sector: A life cycle assessment approach,” International Journal of Sustainable

Built Environment, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 210-224. doi:10.1016/j.ijsbe.2016.04.005, 2016.

[39] K. K. Lawania and B. K. Wahidul, “Cost-Effective GHG midigation strategies for Western Australia'a

housing sector: a life cycle management approach,” Clean Technology Environmental Policy, vol. 18,

no. 8, pp. 2419-2418. doi:10.1007/s10098-016-1217-9, 2016.

[40] S. Senarante, G. Lamborusis, O. Mirza, V. W. Y. tam and W.-H. Kang, “Recycled concrete in structural

applications for sustainable construction practicies in Australia,” in International High-Peformance

Built Environment Coneference - A Sustainable Built Environment Conference 2016 Series (SBE16)

iHBE 2016, Sydney, 2016.

[41] SBEnrc, “Investigating the Mainstreaming of Building Manufacture in Australia: A Sustainable Built

Environment National Research Centre (SBEnrc) Industry Report,” Curtin University, Perth, Griffith

University, Brisbane, Australia, 2015.

[42] Master Builders Association, “Smart Waste - Master Builders Western Australia,” 2017. [Online].

Available: http://www.mbawa.com/building-construction/smartwaste/. [Accessed 2017].

[43] Master Builders Association, “Green Living Program,” 2017. [Online]. Available:

http://www.mbawa.com/green-living-program/. [Accessed 2017].

[44] Housing Industry Association, “GreenSmart training and accreditation,” 2017. [Online]. Available:

https://hia.com.au/ProductsServices/GreenSmart/GSTraining.aspx.

[45] EnviroDevelopment, “Technical Standards,” 2011. [Online]. Available:

http://www.envirodevelopment.com.au/01_cms/details.asp?ID=200. [Accessed 2017].

[46] Green Building Council of Australia, “Design & as Built,” 2015. [Online]. Available:

http://new.gbca.org.au/green-star/rating-system/design-and-built/. [Accessed 2016].

[47] Waste Authroirty, “Waste Hierarchy,” 2013. [Online]. Available:

http://www.wasteauthority.wa.gov.au/publications/waste-hierarchy. [Accessed 2017].

[48] L. Marchant, “Recycled Construction And Demolition Waste,” 2013. [Online]. Available:

http://www.wastenet.net.au/recycled-construction-and-demolition-waste.aspx. [Accessed 2016].

[49] Department of Environment and Conservation, “Publications - Department of Environment

Regulation,” 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.der.wa.gov.au/our-work/licences-and-works-

approvals/publications. [Accessed 2016].

[50] Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia, “Specifications,” 2016. [Online]. Available:

http://v1.ipwea.asn.au/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=85&Itemid=18.


[Accessed 2017].

[51] Department of Environment Regulation, “Waste-derived Materials,” Department of Environment

Regulation, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.der.wa.gov.au/your-environment/waste/waste-

derived-materials. [Accessed 2017].

[52] Auditor General, “Key Findings,” 19 10 2016. [Online]. Available: https://audit.wa.gov.au/reports-

and-publications/reports/western-australian-waste-strategy-rethinking-waste/key-findings/.

[Accessed 2016].

[53] S. Gill, “Proposed Amendments To The Waste Avoidance And Resource Recovery Regulations 2008

To Require Record-Keeping And Annual Reporting Of Waste And Recycling Data,” Department of

Environmental Regulation, Perth, Western Austrlia, 2016.

[54] Department of Environment Regulation, “Landfills – levy calculation and recordkeeping,” 6 2016.

[Online]. Available: https://www.der.wa.gov.au/your-environment/waste/380-landfills-levy-

calculation-and-recordkeeping. [Accessed 2016].

[55] Hyder Consulting, Encycle Consulting and Sustainable Resource Solutions, “Construction and

demolition waste status report - management of construction and demolition waste in Australia,” 2

2011. [Online]. Available: https://www.environment.gov.au/protection/national-waste-

policy/publications/construction-and-demolition-waste-status-report. [Accessed 2016].

[56] Waste Authority, “Case study 10 C&D Waste and Illegal Dumping,” 28 5 2015. [Online]. Available:

http://www.wasteauthority.wa.gov.au/programs/communication-guidelines/case-studies.

[Accessed 2016].

[57] Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Levy Regulations 2008.

[58] H. Yuan, L. Shen, J. J. Hao and W. Lu, “A model for cost–benefit analysis of construction and

demolition waste,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 604-612.

doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.06.004, 2011.

[59] C. Ashton-Graham, “Master Builders – Smart Waste Survey Report 2016,” Master Builders

Association (WA Division) (Unpublished Report), Perth, 2016.

[60] Waste Authority, “Western Australia Waste Strategy: "Creating The Right Environment",” Western

Australia Waste Authroity, Perth, Western Austrlia, 2012. [Online].

Available:http://www.wasteauthority.wa.gov.au/publications/western-australian-waste-strategy-

creating-the-right-environment. [Accessed 2016].

[61] Waste Authroity, “Strategic Waste Infrastructure Planning Working Group (SWIPWG),” 2015.

[Online]. Available: http://www.wasteauthority.wa.gov.au/programs/strategic-waste-infrastructure-

planning/strategic-waste-infrastructure-planning-working-group/. [Accessed 2017].

[62] Department of Planning, “Housing Industry Forecasting Group,” 2016. [Online]. Available:


https://www.planning.wa.gov.au/716.asp. [Accessed 2017].

[63] Municipal Waste Advisory Council, “Recycled Construction and Demolition Waste,” 2013. [Online].

Available:

http://www.wastenet.net.au/Assets/Documents/Content/Information/CD_Report_Feb_2013.pdf.

[Accessed 2016].

[64] C. Leek, “Field Trials & Projects,” 2010. [Online]. Available:

http://sustainableaggregates.com.au/docs/field_trials/WA_Demo_Leek.pdf. [Accessed 2016].

[65] Department of Environment and Energy, “Waste generation and resource recovery in Australia -

Report and Data Workbooks,” 2016. [Online]. Available:

https://www.environment.gov.au/protection/national-waste-policy/publications/waste-generation-

and-resource-recovery-australia-report-and-data-workbooks. [Accessed 2016].

[66] Franklin Associates, “Characterization of building-related construction and demolition debris in the

United States,” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste

Division Office of Solid Waste REport No. EPA530-R-98-010, 1998.

[67] P. A. Yost and J. M. Halstead, “A methodology for quantifying the volume of construction and

demolition waste management,” Waste Management & Research, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 453-461, 1996.

[68] P. H. Diogo and K. P. Lafayette, “Forecasting of construction and demolition waste in Brazil,” Waste

Management & Research, vol. 34, no. 8, pp. 708-716. doi:10.1177/0734242X16644680, 2016.

[69] Housing Industry Association, “Housing Forecasts,” 2016. [Online]. Available:

https://hia.com.au/BusinessInfo/economicInfo/housingForecasts.aspx. [Accessed 2016].

[70] R. Bahreh , S. Rehan and K. Hewage, “Emergy-based life cycle assessment (Em-LCA) of multi-unit and

single-family residential buildings in Canada,” International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment,

vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 207-224, 2014.

[71] Waste Authority, “Local Government Census,” 2016. [Online]. Available:

http://www.wasteauthority.wa.gov.au/programs/data/lg-census/. [Accessed 2016].

[72] Department of the Environment and Energy, “National Waste Policy publications and resources,”

2016. [Online]. Available: http://www.environment.gov.au/protection/national-waste-

policy/publications. [Accessed 2017].

[73] EPA Vic, “Construction and demolition waste,” 2016. [Online]. Available:

http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/your-environment/waste/construction-and-demolition-waste#Info.

[Accessed 2016].

[74] EPA SA, “Licensing for waste facilities,” 2015. [Online]. Available:

http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/environmental_info/waste_management/resource_recovery/licensing_

waste_facilities. [Accessed 2016].


[75] Auditor General, “Waste Strategy targets were not met but progress has been made,” Office of the

Auditor General, 19 10 2016. [Online]. Available: https://audit.wa.gov.au/reports-and-

publications/reports/western-australian-waste-strategy-rethinking-waste/key-findings/waste-

strategy-targets-not-met-progress-made/. [Accessed 2016].

[76] Auditor General, “Appendix 1: WARR Account budget and expenditure 2015-16,” 2016. [Online].

Available: https://audit.wa.gov.au/reports-and-publications/reports/western-australian-waste-

strategy-rethinking-waste/appendix-1-warr-account-budget-expenditure-2015-16/. [Accessed

2016].

[77] P. McQueen and C. Wallace, “Clean fill deposited on a development site creates potential liability to

pay the Landfill Levy: A short summary of the decision of Beech J in Eclipse Resources Pty Ltd v The

State of Western Australia [No 4] [2016] WASC 62.,” 17 5 2016. [Online]. Available:

http://legacy.lavanlegal.com.au/index.php/publications/publicationdetail/clean_fill_deposited_on_

a_development_site_creates_potential_liability_to_p. [Accessed 2017].

[78] S. V. Walton, R. B. Hanfield and S. A. Melnyk, “The Green Supply Chain: Integrating Suppliers into

Environmental Management Process,” International Journal of Purchasing and Materials

Management, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 2-11, 1998.

[79] S. Gheewala and O. Kofoworola, “Estimation of construction waste generation and management in

Thailand,” Journal of Waste Management, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 731-738, 2009.

[80] D. P. Fatta, M. F. Kourmoussis, M. E. Sgourus and M. Loizidou, “Estimation methods for the

generation of construction and demolition waste in greece,” in International Conferences of

Sustainable Waste Management and Recycling, London, 2003.

[81] A. F. Masudi, C. R. Che Hassan, N. Z. Mahmood and S. N. Mokhtar, “Waste quantification models for

estimation of,” International Journal Global Environmental Issues, vol. 12, no. 2/3/4, pp. 269-281.

doi:10.1504/IJGENVI.2012.049378, 2012.

[82] K. Cochran and T. Townsend, “Estimating construction and demolition debris generation using a

materials flow analysis approach,” Waste Management, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 2247-2254.

doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2010.04.008, 2010.

[83] Earthcare Recycling, “Builders Waste Management in WA,” Earthcare Recycling, 2017. [Online].

Available: http://earthcarerecycling.com.au/the-ecr-story/builders-waste-management-in-wa/.

[Accessed 2017].

[84] Auditor General, “Agency roles are unclear leading to poor planning and reporting and delays in

funding,” 2016. [Online]. Available: https://audit.wa.gov.au/reports-and-

publications/reports/western-australian-waste-strategy-rethinking-waste/key-findings/agency-

roles-unclear-leading-poor-planning-reporting-delays-funding/. [Accessed 2016].


8.0 Appendix

8.1 C&D waste stream generation calculation Values calculated and used in Figure 18 can be seen below in the averages


8.2 Commercial Construction C&D waste total 𝐦𝟐 calculation


Appendix number Rawlinson construction descriptions [69]

1.3.4 Police station, suburban single story, 24hr services, air-conditioning, public reception, general duties officer, charge room and maximum 2 holding cells, operational support facilities, mixed staff change rooms and amenities ($2500 per sqm)

2.1.4.2 + 2.1.4.5 Agricultural machine shed, lean-to fully enclosed, sliding doors to long wall, windows to end walls ($130 per sqm). Plus electrical services and ground slab ($65 per sqm)

4.1.2.1 Secondary School, max 3 story construction, standard finishes, built-in cupboards and fittings, buildings only, no air-conditioning ($1625 per sqm)

6.1.2 General Hospital, multi-story, 200 beds, all facilities, lift, air-conditioning ($5505 per sqm)

7.4.1.2 Three-star hotel, multi-story, one or two bedroom units, lifts, room air-conditioning, high standard electrical services, fire sprinklers and alarms, ground floor with reception and provision for restaurant, excluding balconies ($3105 per sqm)

8.1.1.4 Industrial Warehouse, High ceilings precast or tilt-up concrete external walls ($685 per sqm)

8.3.3 Maintenance Workshop, large span for heavy use, brick walls, service pits, lubrication areas, small office area, toilets and amenities. No ventilation fire sprinklers or special equipment ($1260 per sqm)

8.4.1 Garage, service station, simple single story brick construction, metal roof, lubrication area, workshop toilets; all serviced excluding special equipment and fuel tanks ($1515 per sqm)

9.1.2.3 Offices, two story with standard finishes, air-conditioned with finished floors of lettable type ($1865 per sqm)

11.6 Gymnasium, singles story, standard construction, vinyl sports floor finish; excludes change rooms ($1700 per sqm)

12.2.2 Religious building, medium standard construction and finishes, includes seating ($2145 per sqm)

13.5.4 Nursing home aged care 2-3 story, self-care and central care units, medium standard finish, air-conditioning, lift and communal dining, amenities and social areas ($2060 per sqm)

14.1.3.1 Suburban retail shopping centre, standard shell construction including shop fronts, plasterboard ceilings, electrical services, plumbing service only, air conditioning, fire sprinklers and mall areas ($1345 per sqm)


8.3 C&D waste stream breakdowns


8.4 Data Comparisons for Figure 28


8.5 Company ‘A’ Collected Data Material by volume and % recycling Average per house shows reduction in waste generation per site.

Average per house

Material Quantity 2015 in M³

% Recycled Proportion of stream (%) Material Quantity 2015 in M³

Quantity 2014 in M³

% Difference

Plastic 1728 0 5.53

Plastic 3.20 4.60 -30.43

Brick 4914 95 15.73

Brick 9.10 11.38 -20.04

Paper/Cardboard 1728 82 5.53

Paper/Cardboard 3.20 5.22 -38.70

Concrete 199.8 100 0.64

Concrete 0.37 0.34 8.82

Float/Render 1080 74 3.46

Float/Render 2.00 6.00 -66.67

Fill Sand 15606 100 49.95

Fill Sand 28.90 26.81 7.80

Green Waste 0 0 0.00

Green Waste 0 0 0

Plasterboard 918 100 2.94

Plasterboard 1.70 1.88 -9.57

Metal 1188 100 3.80

Metal 2.20 2.45 -10.20

Tiles 648 96 2.07

Tiles 1.20 1.43 -16.08

Fibre Cement 145.8 0 0.47 Fibre Cement 0.27 1.07 -74.77

Timber 2003.4 100 6.41 Timber 3.71 4.3 -13.72

Mixed Rubbish 1085 0 3.47 Mixed Rubbish 2.01 1.73 0

Total 31244 88% Total 57.86 67.21 -13.91