Waste Management & Research

Waste Management & Research 

http://wmr.sagepub.com 

Report: Treatment of commercial, construction and demolition waste in North Rhine-Westphalia: 

policy-making and operation options 

Vassilios Karavezyris 

Waste Manag Res 2007; 25; 183 

DOI: 10.1177/0734242X07075249 

The online version of this article can be found at: 

http://wmr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/25/2/183 

Published by: 

http://www.sagepublications.com 

On behalf of: 

International Solid Waste Association 

Additional services and information for Waste Management & Research can be found at: 

Email Alerts: http://wmr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts 

Subscriptions: http://wmr.sagepub.com/subscriptions 

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav 

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav 

Citations http://wmr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/25/2/183 

Downloaded from 

http://wmr.sagepub.com at University of Newcastle on May 17, 2010

Waste Manage Res 2007: 25: 183–189 

Printed in UK – all right reserved 

Copyright © ISWA 2007 

Waste Management & Research 

ISSN 0734–242X 

Report: Treatment of commercial, construction 

and demolition waste in North Rhine-Westphalia: 

policy-making and operation options 

This paper summarizes a long-term-investigation of the 

mechanical treatment of commercial, construction and demolition 

waste materials in North Rhine-Westphalia in the 

light of applied operation standards and a disposal ban on 

untreated waste. It is shown how both the allocation of output 

materials from mechanical treatment plants and the subsequent 

treatment channels have changed since enforcement of 

the ban in 2005. Based on the findings of the investigation, 

two waste management scenarios offering alternative policies 

have been defined and are discussed. It is suggested that consistent 

enforcement of the ban affects both the diversion of 

waste to incineration and the recovery of materials on a 

regional scale. On the other hand, potential energy recovery 

may be fully exploited only insofar as operators of mechanical 

treatment plants concentrate their business on the production 

of refuse-derived fuel. 

Introduction 

Under German legislation, the treatment of commercial waste, 

construction and demolition waste is controlled in such a way 

that private enterprises do not have direct access to the disposal 

market unless they are invited to participate in public– 

private partnerships. On the other hand, waste treatment may 

be left to private business provided their aim is the recovery of 

materials. Against this background, waste generators and disposers 

have frequently in the past declared their waste to be 

waste for recovery in order to avoid high disposal costs. The 

ultimate location of these so-called dummy-recovered waste 

materials has been dump sites with low environmental standards, 

often beyond national borders. This has also led to overcapacity 

in the existing mass-burn incinerators leading to 

increasing specific operation costs and waste fees. 

Vassilios Karavezyris 

Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and 

Nuclear Safety Division WA II 1. Principal Matters of Waste 

Management, Transboundary Movement of Wastes, Bonn, 

Germany 

Keywords: Commercial wastes, disposal ban, mechanical waste 

treatment, North-Rhine Westphalia, wmr 963–5 

Corresponding author: Dr Vassilios Karavezyris, Federal 

Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear 

Safety Division WA II 1. Principal Matters of Waste 

Management, Transboundary Movement of Wastes, Robert- 

Schumen-Platz 3, P.O. Box 12 06 29, D-53048, Bonn, Germany. 

Tel: +49 228 99 305 2565; fax: +49 228 99 10 305 2565; 

e-mail: vassilios.karavezyris@bmu.bund.de 

DOI: 10.1177/0734242X07075249 

Received 9 January 2006; accepted in revised form 20 November 2006 

Figures 1, 2 appear in color online: http://wmr.sagepub.com 

The German legislature has reacted to dummy recovery 

by imposing special ordinances derived from the Closed Substance 

Cycle and Waste Management Act (Krw/-AbfG 1994). 

The Waste Storage Ordinance (AbfAblV 2001) imposed a 

ban on the disposal of waste that has total organic carbon 

content greater than 3% in landfills for municipal waste; this 

regulation came into effect on 1 June 2005. The underlying 

idea was that recoverable substances were to be separated in 

state-of-the-art installations and the energy from the waste 

was to be utilized. Only a small non-recoverable part would 

remain and have to be stored in well-equipped landfills (BMU 

2005). 

Additional legal actions to promote recovery have been 

imposed by the Commercial Waste Ordinance (GewAbfV 

Waste Management & Research 183 



V. Karavezyris 

2003), which is focused on separation, pre-treatment and 

recovery quotas (up to 85%) for commercial waste that originates 

from commerce and trade, small businesses, office buildings 

and institutions as well as construction and demolition 

waste. These two groups are defined with codes 20 03 01 and 

17 09 04 in the European List of Wastes (COM 2000) and 

are hereafter denoted as Cw and CDw. 

This paper is focused on the mechanical treatment waste 

in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) which, with approximately 

18 million inhabitants, is the largest of 16 German 

States. The total amount of municipal solid waste generated 

(including separately collected fractions) is approximately 

14 million Mg year –1 . The current requirements for pre-treatment 

are covered by 16 mass-burn incinerators (total capacity: 

5.4 million Mg year –1 ) as well as by four mechanical–biological 

treatment plants (total capacity: 0.5 million Mg year –1 ). 

The Environmental Ministry of NRW has conducted a longterm 

investigation in order to evaluate the impact of the ban 

on the disposal of untreated waste for the operation and outputs 

of mechanical waste treatment plants (MTPs) for Cw 

and CDw (MUNLV 2006). The investigation was carried out 

in two phases. In the first phase (years 2003–2005) basic 

information on number of installations, capacities, and treatment 

channels was obtained. Ample data spread in various 

State authorities were systematically collected, verified and 

evaluated in co-operation with external waste management 

experts. During the second phase (2006), the Environmental 

Ministry conducted two questionnaire surveys that addressed 

operators of plants for mechanical treatment of waste in cooperation 

with associations of waste management enterprises 

in order to verify the findings of the preceding phase and 

gain additional information about the impacts of the disposal 

ban on the business of mechanical waste treatment and plant 

operation. Further information on the output waste streams 

from mechanical treatment plants and treatment channels 

was evaluated using additional sources; for example, data 

from mass-burn incineration that were available to the Environmental 

Ministry. 

184 Waste Management & Research 

Capacities and standards for mechanical 

waste treatment 

In total, 169 MTPs for treatment of Cw and CDw were identified 

and analysed with regard to their permitted capacity, 

waste codes for the types of waste treated, technical assets and 

mass flows in the reference year, 2003. A total of 156 MTPs 

used one operation line that served for the treatment of Cw, 

CDw or, alternatively, separate waste fractions. The remaining 

13 MTPs had two or three operation lines, so that they 

were able to treat different waste streams at the same time. 

The total permitted capacity of all MTPs for treatment of 

Cw and CDw in NRW was found to be 14.4 million Mg year –1 , 

which was considered very high. Although the mean MTP 

capacity was approximately 112 000 Mg year –1 , more than 75% 

of the total capacity was within installations that were larger 

than 100 000 Mg year –1 . In NRW the permitted capacities varied 

from 37 000 Mg year –1 (arithmetic mean for District of Detmold) 

to 180 000 Mg year –1 (arithmetic mean for District of 

Düsseldorf). 

It is noteworthy that a large proportion of the installed 

capacities referred to MTPs with low or medium standards 

(Table 1). This is in contrast to the high standards of the other 

treatment (thermal and mechanical–biological) and disposal 

options for municipal waste that are actually in place in 

NRW. 

With regard to the installations for treatment of Cw, capacities 

of approximately 3.6 million Mg year –1 were associated 

with a few, simple operation units, such as sorting with a wheel 

loader. The respective installations were usually dominated 

by an open space; where waste materials were tipped and 

roughly pre-sorted (e.g. fractions such as wood, plastics etc.) 

in order to be further processed at an external recovery facility. 

Bulky refuse, such as carpets and mattresses, would be 

removed and transferred for disposal. The occurrence of other 

equipment, such as crushers, was less frequent. Slightly more 

than half of the installations for treatment of Cw, amounting 

to capacities for 7.9 million Mg year –1 , were classified as installations 

with medium standards. At these sites machine sort- 

Table 1: Allocation of capacities for treatment of Cw and CDw with respect to mechanization standard (Mg year –1 and %). 

Low standard (a) Medium standard (b) High standard (c) Total 

(Mg year –1 ) (%) (Mg year –1 ) (%) (Mg year –1 ) (%) (Mg year –1 ) 

Cw 3 651 308 27 7 877 746 58 1 992 500 15 13 521 554 

CDw 15 600 2 812 000 98 0 0 827 600 

Total 3 666 908 26 8 689 746 61 1 992 500 14 14 349 154 

(a) Low standard: reception area and equipment for sorting, crushing or shredding of wastes; basically pre-treatment. 

(b) Medium standard: advanced shredding and screening equipment, air separators and electro-magnetic separators; possible production of 

medium-calorific RDF. 

(c) High standard; advanced technologies, e.g. NIR, eddy-current and ballistic separators; possible production of high-calorific RDF. 



ing not only sorted out disposable wastes but also protected 

the subsequent equipment from inappropriate, bulky wastes. 

More demanding machinery, such as air separators and 

magnetic separators combined with hand sorting could be 

used for the production of fractions with high net calorific 

values. In order for these separate high calorific fractions to 

be used for energy recovery, such as co-incineration in power 

stations or cement kilns, further preparation of refuse-derived 

fuel (RDF) in external installations would be needed. Finally, 

only 16 from 159 plants with a total capacity of almost 

2 million Mg year –1 were considered to meet a high technical 

standard. These plants could produce differentiated outputs, 

for example, through near infrared spectroscopy (NIR)-separation 

of polymers. Additionally, they facilitated production 

of high-calorific RDF, for example by using ballistic separators 

or other classifying equipment, which separated light and flat 

pieces from heavy, rolling pieces. 

Waste streams and treatment channels 

Before the disposal ban for untreated wastes 

It was found that for Cw a total of 7.8 million Mg year –1 were 

input and 7.4 million Mg year –1 were output from the 169 

MTPs (It should be noted that the compilation of existing 

data was based on MTP-throughputs rather than waste generation 

and so the total outputs of the MTPs presented in 

this section are higher than waste actually disposed of and/or 

recovered.). Approximately 80% of the inputs were related 

to four categories of origin, namely those described in chapters 

15, 17, 19 and 20 of the European List of Wastes (COM 

2000). Of these, waste from mechanical treatment constituted 

the biggest input, indicating operation ‘cascades’, (code 

19 12 12, almost 20%), followed by CDw (code 17 09 04, 

14%), packaging wastes (code 15 01 06, 12%) and Cw (code 

20 03 01, 3.4%). Approximately 0.8 million Mg year –1 of 

waste coded 19 12 12 was imported from abroad, particularly 

the Netherlands. The proportion of Cw in the total inputs 

was apparently low, which may be justified by the assumption 

that holders and operators declared their waste materials in 

such a way that they were not subject to recovery quotas 

according to the Commercial Waste Ordinance (GewAbfV 

2003). The difference between total inputs and outputs, which 

amounted to approximately 5%, could presumably be attributed 

to an increase in the waste quantities stored at the plants. 

Columns 1 and 2 in Table 2 show the allocation of output 

waste fractions as well as various treatment channels for all 

output. Materials recovery greatly exceeded any thermal 

treatment as well as all landfilling, the latter representing a 

little more than one-quarter of total treatment (disposal and 

recovery). On the other hand, a large portion of the output 

waste fractions (61%) was deemed to be residuals from 

Treatment of commercial, construction and demolition waste in North Rhine-Westphalia 

Table 2: Output waste fractions and treatment of Cw and CDw in NRW 

before and after 1 June 2005 (%). 

Output waste fraction Survey 2003–2005 Survey 2006 

Polymers 1 6 

Paper 5 9 

Wood 4 15 

Metals 1 4 

RDF 2 5 

Other materials 1 3 

Minerals* 25 3 

Fine fractions* – 18 

Residuals 61 37 

Total 100 100 

Treatment option Survey 2003–2005 Survey 2006 

Material recovery 57 47 

Mass-burn incineration 8 33 

Co-incineration 6 2 

Dedicated RDF incineration – 7 

Mechanical treatment – 1 

Landfill 29 10 

Total 100 100 

*Mineral and fine fractions evaluated together in survey 2003. 

–, No separate measurement available. 

mechanical treatment that were processed to further recovery 

or disposal. A closer look at treatment channels and output 

waste fractions showed that only a part of residuals went 

into a disposal operation. As a matter of fact, waste from the 

mechanical treatment of waste (coded with 19 12 12) may 

have included both separate fractions such as polymers, etc. 

that were suitable for recovery as well as residuals that could 

not be further used. It appears that approximately 45% of the 

19 12 12 wastes, i.e. 27% of the total output was processed in 

a recovery operation 

It was also interesting to see the allocation of treatment 

channels in the light of the applied technologies in the MTPs. 

Evaluation of the survey (not further presented here) showed 

that there was a substantial shift of treatment options from 

disposal to recovery according to underlying mechanization 

standards. Whereas MTPs of low standard produced almost 

60% output for disposal, such output from an MTP with high 

standards was limited to 15%. A second important shift was 

related to the recovery options. Whereas energy recovery did 

not exceed 8% when high calorific fractions were produced 

in MTPs with medium standard, it reached a level of 30% in 

the case of high-standard MTPs. 

After the disposal ban for untreated wastes 

The updated information refers only to a proportion of the total 

MTPs analysed in the 2003 survey. Thus, direct comparison 





Fig. 1: MTP-based comparison of waste throughputs according to survey in 2003 and survey in 2006: (a) inputs and outputs (sample: 61 MTPs); 

(b) mechanisation standards (2003), inputs and input ranges (sample: 59 MTPs). 

of waste throughputs was possible only for samples. For a sample 

of 61 MTPs (with total permitted capacity 5.8 million 

Mg year –1 ), it was determined that after 1 June 2005 both input 

and output were reduced to 45–48% in comparison with the 

levels of 2003 (Fig. 1a). The reduction of throughputs was 

more incisive for the larger installations. Figure 1b shows a 

comparison of the inputs to 59 MTPs in 2003 and 2005. The 

inputs of these MTP have been classified to six value ranges 

extending to 350 000 Mg year –1 . Obviously the enforcement 

of the disposal ban had a tremendous impact on those MTPs 

that could accept more than 100 000 Mg year –1 of waste. In 

practice, input stops or cuts were imposed by market conditions 



http://wmr.sagepub.com at University of Newcastle on May 17, 2010 

for the output of the MTPs. Higher incineration costs for 

waste led enterprises to throttle the operation of their MTPs. 

Almost three-quarters of the operators who responded to 

the 2006 survey stated that they had problems in finding takers 

for the waste output from their MTPs in the period following 

the disposal ban. Half of them, again, stated that they 

had no method of disposal even by means of shipment to 

another German State. It is interesting to note that these 

operators were waste management enterprises that did not 

participate in the operation of mass-burn incinerators. They 

estimated their future need for thermal treatment of their 

output to be approximately 0.6 million Mg year –1 .

The reduction in output of MTPs has been accompanied 

by a new allocation of waste treatment channels (Table 2, 

column 1 and 2). Whereas materials recovery has decreased by 

11%, landfilling of CDw has been halved in comparison with 

the level of 2003. In parallel with this, immediately after 1 

June 2005 the incineration of Cw, whether pre-treated, sorted 

etc. or not, reached almost unprecedented peaks. Moreover, 

total energy recovery (co-incineration in industrial plants 

plus dedicated RDF-incineration) has been slightly increased. 

Data on technical assets analysed in the 2003 survey was 

not specifically updated. However, it may be assumed that 

there was a shift from low standard MTPs to medium standard 

MTPs. The quota of more advanced MTPs (Table 1) was 

considered to have remained unchanged. 

Outlook 

Based on this analysis, it appears that a legally enforced ban 

for disposal of untreated wastes has played a most influential 

role in shaping waste streams and directing treatment channels 

for Cw and CDw (Fig. 1a). The impact of the ban has 

been obviously greater than the effects exerted by long-lasting 

legal definitions, including those on waste hierarchy and 

recovery/disposal. Generally speaking, it seems that respective 

definitions as proposed by the Commission (COM 2005) 

for a new European Directive on waste will be less important 

for treatment channels of Cw and CDw. 

A side-effect of diverting wastes from landfill is an increased 

demand for thermal waste treatment. In spite of higher incineration 

prices for both waste generators and operators of 

MTPs, most of the 16 mass-burn incinerators for municipal 

solid waste are now operated at their maximum capacity. 

Incineration of Cw and CDw amounts to approximately 

525 000 Mg year –1 and accounts for 38% of the total permitted 

capacity. More than half of this quantity, namely 296 000 Mg 

year –1 , is derived from mechanical waste treatment that takes 

place in NRW (wastes with code 19 12 12), whereas on the 

other hand, imports of 19 12 12 waste from abroad have 

decreased almost to zero. As in the short term, increases in 

waste inputs are only possible to a limited extent, for example 

by lowering their heating value, it is unclear whether surplus 

untreated waste and treatment ‘bottlenecks’ will arise. At this 

point, policy-making is asked to define important parameters 

for the treatment of waste which cannot be disposed of immediately 

due to a shortage in mass-burn capacity. 

From the policy-makers’ point of view, an issue of major 

importance is to safeguard both self-sufficiency for waste disposal 

and high environmental standards for the linked systems 

of waste treatment, disposal and energy recovery. The 

Environmental Ministry in NRW is resolutely opposed to 

spatial or temporal externalization of this problem, that is, 


through intermediate storage or exporting of waste materials. 

Instead, both waste generators and disposers are urged to 

intensify source separation; 

enhance materials recovery and energy recovery; 

construct and operate advanced MTPs; and 

extend existing capacities for thermal treatment of Cw, 

particularly by enhanced utilization of RDF. 

It is interesting to look at the implications of these goals in a 

generalized waste management framework. Figure 2 summarizes 

the information of Table 2 and shows MTP output and 

treatment channels for two scenarios of legislation on disposal 

in NRW. The output of MTP is deemed to consist of 

waste fractions, which are directly forwarded to a recovery 

operation and residuals, which may either go to disposal or 

recovery. Total mass-burn incineration is here considered as 

a disposal operation, an assumption which might well be 

modified to waste-to-energy, namely a recovery operation. 

(Note that the European Commissions’ proposal on a new 

Directive on waste (COM 2005) defines incineration as 

energy recovery on the ground of an efficiency formula as 

high as 60%. Notwithstanding the arduous legal discussion 

on recovery and disposal definitions, attention here should 

be paid to the technical aspects of MTP outputs per se.) 

Scenario (a) depicts a state of low and medium standard 

for total MTPs, the organic output of which may be disposed 

of without thermal or other pre-treatment. Materials recovery 

(approximately 18%) is not fully exploited, because landfilling 

is frequently less expensive than mechanical treatment. 

Obviously, a large part of the residuals and mineral 

waste fractions from MTP will be recovered provided that 

these are processed to further mechanical treatment. Scenario 

(b) applies to consistent pre-treatment of Cw before 

landfilling (no dummy recovery possible, where no further 

significant investment in advanced operation standards is 

made). The increase in incineration costs after the disposal 

ban for untreated wastes induces additional pressure on MTP 

operators and waste generators leading to maximization of 

materials recovery (45%). Whereas the potential for less 

demanding materials recovery is fully exploited through the 

operation of MTPs with low and medium standards, it seems 

hardly reasonable to process residuals to further mechanical 

treatment before thermal treatment and final disposal. As a 

consequence, the proportion of non-recovered residuals is 

very high notwithstanding their potential for energy recovery. 

The transition from scenario (a) to scenario (b) suggests 

that consistent enforcement of the disposal ban affects the 

diversion of waste to incineration but does not guarantee 

energy recovery as a whole. It also depicts a trade-off between 





Fig. 2: Estimations for output proportions of MTP and treatment operation for Cw and CDw in NRW; (a) before enforcement of landfill ban (b) after 

enforcement of landfill ban. 

materials recovery and energy recovery, as described by Preetz 

(2005). Given the current state of materials recovery, the 

emerging question is how to achieve higher quotas in energy 

recovery. In technical terms, this is quite possible insofar as 

innovative engineering concepts are realized. Energy recovery 

may be optimized with respect to both medium 

(14 MJ Mg –1 ) and high calorific RDF (20 MJ Mg –1 or 

higher). Whereas negatively selected, medium calorific RDF, 

References 

AbfAblV ( Abfallablagerungsverordnung) (2001) Ordinance on the environmentally 

compatible storage of waste from human settlements of 

2001. Federal Law Gazette, I, 305. 

BMU (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit) 

(2005) A milestone for environmental protection: landfilling of 

untreated wastes consigned to the past. From Federal Ministry for 



http://wmr.sagepub.com at University of Newcastle on May 17, 2010 

polluted with higher concentrations of heavy metals, chlorine 

and ash content may be prepared for dedicated RDF 

incineration, positively selected, quality assured and high calorific 

RDF can be directly used in industrial co-incineration. 

However, the evaluation of the mechanical waste treatment 

presented here indicates that raising energy recovery ultimately 

depends on the economically ruled decisions of waste 

managers. 

Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, www.bmu.de/ 

waste-management (3.11.2005). 

COM (Commission of the European Communities) (2000) Commission 

Decision 2000/532/EC of 3 May 2000 replacing Decision 94/3/EC 

establishing a list of wastes pursuant to Article 1(a) of Council Directive 

75/442/EEC on waste and Council Decision 94/904/EC establish-

ing a list of hazardous waste pursuant to Article 1(4) of Council Directive 

91/689/EEC on hazardous waste. Official Journal, L 226, 6.9.2000, p. 3. 

COM (Commission of the European Communities) (2005) Proposal of the 

European Parliament and the Council on waste, 667 final, Bruxelles. 

GewAbfV (Gewerbeabfallverordnung) (2003) Ordinance on treatment of 

commercial municipal wastes and certain construction and demolition 

wastes. Federal Law Gazette, I, 1938. 

KrW/-AbfG (Kreislaufwirtschafts- und Abfallgesetz) (1994) Closed Substance 

Cycle and Waste Management Act of 27 September 1994. 

Federal Law Gazette, I, 2705. 


MUNLV (Ministerium für Umwelt und Naturschutz, Landwirtschaft und 

Verbraucherschutz) (2006) Erhebung des Status quo der Gewerbeund 

Baumischabfallaufbereitung in NRW (Survey on status quo of 

treatment of commercial, construction and demolition wastes in 

NRW) http://www.munlv.nrw.de/sites/arbeitsbereiche/boden/gewerbeabfall.htm. 

Preetz, Th. (2005) Brennstoffproduktion aus Gewerbeabfällen (RDF production 

from commercial waste). Müll und Abfall, 7, 344–351.

Waste Management & Research

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?