As the leading national industry association for the recycling and resource recovery sector in Australia, the Australian Council of Recycling (ACOR) has long advocated for a circular economy where resource recovery, remanufacturing and recycling are recognised and supported as integral functions of this circular process.

Nowhere is the adoption of circular principles more crucial than in the construction sector. Many leaders in Australia’s built environment have taken great strides in reducing operational emissions over the last decade. However, a lack of capability for sorting at source and a redundant regulatory framework are significant barriers to the sector playing a bigger role in the circular economy – and reaping its financial benefits.

Sorting on site

The construction and demolition (C&D) recycling sector can be divided into two important functions. The first is the recovery of materials from construction and demolition activities, and the second is recycling these recovered materials back into construction and other applications. Both functions play a critical role in a circular economy, and present opportunities in design, procurement and innovation.

Providing appropriate space and equipment for separating and storing waste on construction sites is essential for both these functions. For the construction sector, one of the most important resources on a job site is time. Workforce shortages, broken supply chains, noise ordinances, and even the weather all affect the construction timeframe. These factors place additional pressure on what gets prioritised on a worksite to meet deadlines. Unfortunately, this often leaves the correct sorting of ‘waste’ materials as a nice-to-have on the worksite and is very rarely classified as an operational necessity.

Appropriate on-site education and facilities that separate ‘waste’ are essential to give the materials collected the best chance to be remanufactured and redeployed in the construction industry and other applications. For example, a site that separately sorts recoverable materials such as timber, aggregates, glass and PVC – rather than dumping them all into a single skip bin – reduces the potential of contamination and improves the value of each material stream.

There is also an opportunity for better collaboration between constructors and recyclers to improve resource recovery outcomes. For example, Job Site Recyclers in Victoria works with constructors to source-separate discarded materials onsite, which not only maximises recycling and reuse outcomes but also improves site cleanliness and safety.

At a major-project scale, companies like Repurpose It, take materials such as tunnel spoil and vegetation and convert them back into aggregates and landscaping materials – providing closed-loop infrastructure outcomes.  Whilst these companies also have the capability to clean contaminated materials, this should be a last-resort outcome, rather than a product of poor practice onsite.

Another innovative closed-loop solution that is being deployed internationally to aid the correct sorting of materials for reuse is the ‘materials passport’. The materials passport innovation is in use at Venlo City Hall, in The Netherlands, where all components of the building have been documented during construction in a materials database – or ‘materials passport’ – that describes the materials and provides an end-of-life plan, such as how to disassemble and recycle or return them to the manufacturer. Through smart material choices and designing for disassembly, these materials passports will make it possible for the constructor to recoup some of the original investment, as materials can be sold back to manufacturers through a ‘buy and buy-back’ scheme, and ultimately used again.

Regulatory frameworks

In Australia recovered resources from C&D are primarily regulated through state or territory and local governments, with legislative frameworks often complex and involving multiple pieces of legislation and policy instruments. The ongoing inconsistencies between these jurisdictional regulations have given rise to barriers that impede effective C&D resource recovery and recycling activities.

A review of differences in jurisdictional regulatory frameworks conducted by RMIT and supported by the Sustainable Built Environment National Research Centre found that among the jurisdictions in 2021, VIC and WA have the largest number of regulatory acts in place, followed by the ACT, NSW and SA with three, and TAS and NT with only one act. In some jurisdictions, other authorities and departments have also produced acts that contribute to the regulation of C&D waste or amend the primary EPAs acts. In total, there are a staggering 28 different agencies and authorities nationally that contribute to waste management legislation – an average of 3.5 for every jurisdiction.

All the way back in 2010, the Australian Government’s National Waste Policy Implementation Plan set an objective to develop a “national definition and classification system for wastes …that aligns with definitions in international conventions, provides for when a product or material ceases to become a waste and reflects these classifications in relevant policies and instruments.” After 13 years, we are still waiting for federal leadership on this point, while legal definitions of waste and their practical applications continue to develop independently in each jurisdiction.

The lack of classifications and operational divergences becomes particularly stark when considering contaminants. In the sorting and collection of C&D onsite materials, the presence of any asbestos in any material stream results in the entire load of potentially recoverable resources being transported securely and disposed of at a landfill site licensed to accept asbestos waste. While asbestos is a known and dangerous contaminant, there are other materials in the contamination grey zone, who’s classification can change just by crossing state lines.

For example, in New South Wales, PFAS-contaminated waste is classified as an emerging contaminant and must be managed according to specific requirements, including testing, labelling, and transport. In Western Australia, PFAS-contaminated waste is classified as a prescribed industrial waste and must be treated and disposed of at a licensed facility.

Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances – or PFAS – have been widely used for many decades in household products such as non‑stick cookware, stain protection and food packaging, as well as in C&D applications, such as firefighting foams, mist suppressants and coatings. Emerging contaminants such as PFAS that have an acceptable, tolerable daily intake by humans determined by the Commonwealth Department of Health contribute to a grey area where the state and territory agencies are left to invoke their own regulations and disposal protocol as they see fit. This increases the cost of C&D waste management and creates confusion for constructors, and missed resource recovery opportunities.

Conclusion

In every phase of a building’s life cycle, there is an opportunity to apply zero waste principles and embed circularity – from design to construction, to occupation, to adaptation and demolition. Australia is already a global leader in property sustainability, placing at the top of the Global Real Estate Sustainability Benchmark for environmental, social and governance rankings for eleven years. With solid advances in emissions reduction, it is now time for the construction sector to turn its attention to circularity and address onsite challenges, such as available tools for sorting recoverable resources at the source.