Docstoc

CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS - Amazon S3

Document Sample
CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS - Amazon S3 Powered By Docstoc
					ConstruCtion ProduCts
-	 EnvironmEntal	SafEty	and	futurE	ChallEngES



	   	   	   	   Extended	abstracts	of	the	worskhop
	   	   	   	   Edited	by

	   	   	   	   Veikko	Komppa
	   	   	   	   Margareta	Wahlström
	   	   	   	   Jutta	Laine-Ylijoki

	   	   	   	   VTT,	Finland




                Espoo, Finland
	   	 	     	   April	15	-	16,	2008
ConstruCtion ProduCts –
EnVironMEntAL sAFEtY And FuturE
CHALLEnGEs



Foreword	For	the	book	
oF	extended	AbstrActs


This	Workshop	was	held	on	April	15	–	16,	2008,	in	Hanasaari	Cultural	Centre,	Espoo,	Finland	(situated	
in	Helsinki	Metropolitian	area).	It	was	well-attended	by	nearly	100	participants	from	14	countries.	
Majority	of	participants	came	from	Finland	and	other	Nordic	countries.

This	collection	of	extended	abstracts	of	the	papers	presented	will	be	published	by	Nordic	Innovation	
Centre	for	any	possible	future	reference.	Also	the	original	PowerPoint	transparencies	will	be	published	
as	far	as	possible.

The	construction	product	market	is	becoming	increasingly	international,	and	this	is	also	influencing		
the	Nordic	Scene.	More	and	more	emphasis	is	placed	on	environmental	safety	issues	in	the	
development	of	both	products	and	services.	

The	Construction	Products	Directive	(CPD),	harmonised	standards,	conformity	assessment	and		
CE	marking	are	important	elements	to	ensure	free	circulation	and	also	environmental	safety	in	the	use	
of	construction	products	cross-borders.	To	make	the	CPD	function	better,	the	EU	Commission		
is	currently	revising	it.	

Challenges	related	to	this	revision	and	other	challenges	and	important	issues	in	the	construction		
sector	(both	Nordic	and	European)	were	presented	at	the	workshop	by	speakers	from	the	EU	
Commission	(DG	Enterprise	and	Industry),	the	industry,	research	institutes,	standardisation	bodies,	
notified	bodies,	etc.	Lively	discussions	also	occurred	and	gave	a	chance	to	discuss	these	issues	with	
colleagues	from	the	Nordic	states,	the	Commission	and	elsewhere.			

Special	interest	was	paid	on	the	third	essential	requirement	“Hygiene,	health	and	the	environment”		
(CPD-ER3)	defined	in	the	CPD,	especially	on	release	of	dangerous	substances	to	soil	and	water.		
The	workshop	was	a	unique	possibility	to	prepare	for	the	forthcoming	environmental	requirements		
on	construction	products.	Indoor	air	quality	was	purposely	left	out	of	the	scope	of	the	Workshop.

The	workshop	was	organised	by	VTT	(Finland)	together	with	the	Nordic	Innovation	Center	(NICe)		
and	representatives	from	DHI	(Denmark),	SGI	(Sweden),	SP	(Sweden),	Sintef	(Norway)	and	Linuhönnun	
(Iceland).

In	Espoo,	April	30,	2008	 	       Veikko	Komppa,	professor
	    	 	          	       	       Chairman	of	the	organising	committee
tABLE oF ContEnts
European level affairs:
Welcome	”Key		directives	and	regulations”	
Veikko	Komppa,	VTT,	Finland		....................................................................................................................... 	5
	
nordic	activities	to	remove	trade	barriers	
Mads	Peter	Schreiber,	Nordic	Innovation	Centre,	Norway		.......................................................................	10
	
new	challenges	related	to	the	revision	of	CPd	
Tapani	Mikkeli,	DG	Enterprise	and	Industry,	European	Commission	(only	power	point	presentation)
	
importance	of	CE	marking	for	business	and	need	for	an	environmental	proof	
Arne	Skjelle,		Federation	of	Norwegian	Construction	Industry,		Norway	(only	power	point	presentation)
	
interface	between	CPd	and	rEaCh
Dirk	Jepsen,	Ökopol	GmbH,	Germany	........................................................................................................	11
	
tasks	and	outcome	of	CEn/tC	351	“assessment	of	release	of	dangerous	substances”
Pekka	Vuorinen,	Confederation	of	Finnish	Construction	Industries,	Finland		..........................................	16
	
methodologies	for			“Without	testing	(Wt)”	and	”Without	further	testing	(Wft)”	
in	relation	to	Er3	properties.	Examples
Gerd	Thielen,	Verein	Deutscher	Zementwerke	e.V.	(VDZ),	Germany		 ........................................................	18
                                                                                          .
	
approach	for	environmental	assessment	of	construction	products	–	
criteria	and	experiences	of	their	implementation	in	germany
Outi	Ilvonen,	UBA,	Germany		.......................................................................................................................	20
	
Quality	requirements	for	natural	stone	to	support	safety	in	use	-	
nordic	aspects	of	importance
Björn	Schouenborg,		SP	Technical	Research	Institute	of	Sweden		............................................................	25
	
activities	in	Eota	with	links	to	Er3
Paul	Caluwaerts,	EOTA,	Belgium		...............................................................................................................	29
	
Current	criteria	for	assessment	of	environmental	acceptance	–	
possibilities	and	development	needs	for	construction	products	in	contact	with	water	and	soil
Rein	Eikelboom,	VROM,	the	Netherlands		..................................................................................................	32
	

nordic level affairs:
	
how	to	test	environmental	acceptability	of	construction	products	related	to	release	
to	soil	and	ground/surface	water
Margareta	Wahlström,	VTT,	Finland		..........................................................................................................	37
	
Knowledge	transfer	from	other	niCe-projects	:
	       -	 Sampling	for	environmental	assessment	–	a	horizontal	approach	
	       	 Bodil	Mose	Pedersen,	DHI	Water	Environment	Health,	Denmark		.............................................	41

	         -	 Experiences	from	assessment	of	Essential	requirement	“Safety	in	case	of	fire”
	         	 Per	Thureson,	SP,	Sweden		..........................................................................................................	46

	         -	 harmonisation	of	Building	requirements	(wood)	in	the	nordic	Countries
	         	 Anders	Gustafsson,	SP,	Sweden	..................................................................................................	48

aspects	of	product	declaration	and	certification	related	to	Er3	
Christian	J.	Engelsen,	SINTEF,	Norway		....................................................................................................	51
                                        .
	
Benefits	and	challenges.	Comments	from	nordic	manufacturer	and	
user	of	construction	products	(incl.	secondary	raw	materials)
Lotta	Lind,	AB	Sandvik	Materials	Technology,	SPD,	Sweden		 ...................................................................	52
                                                                       .

Comments	from	user	of	road	equipment	and	materials	
Raimo	Tapio,		Finnish	Road	Administration,	Finland	.................................................................................	53
    KEY dirECtiVEs And rEGuLAtions
    Komppa	V.,	P.O.	Box	1000	BI7,	FIN-02044	VTT,	Finland,
    e-mail:	Veikko.Komppa@vtt.fi	



    IntrodUctIon
    This	paper	reviews	the	most	important	Directives	and	Regulations	in	the	area	of	environment	in	the	
    European	Union	(EU).	There	are	many	Directives	under	preparation	or	revision	and	it	is	imperative	for	
    industry	to	know	what	the	future	demands	and	needs	are	to	be	ready	to	face	the	new	challenges.	

    In	the	EU	the	policy	areas	are	grouped	in	the	following	environmental themes:
    	     •	 Air	
    	     •	 Biotechnology	
    	     •	 Chemicals	
    	     •	 Civil	Protection	and	Environmental	Accidents	
    	     •	 Climate	Change	
    	     •	 Environmental	Economics	
    	     •	 Enlargement	and	Neighbouring	Countries	
    	     •	 Health	
    	     •	 Industry	and	Technology	
    	     •	 International	Issues	
    	     •	 Land	Use	
    	     •	 Nature	and	Biodiversity	
    	     •	 Noise	
    	     •	 Soil	
    	     •	 Sustainable	Development	
    	     •	 Waste	
    	     •	 Water
    All	these	environmental	policy	themes	have	their	own	Internet	pages	at	http://ec.europa.eu/environment/
    policy_en.htm.		All	of	them	have	several	expert	groups	and	many	drafting	committees	to	prepare	and	
    revise	Directives	and	Regulations	and	strategic	issues.	Here	the	focus	will	be	in	the	most	relevant	ones	to	
    this	Workshop	that	are	air, chemicals, industry and technology, soil, waste, and water.


    Air
    The	issue	of	air	quality	is	now	a	major	concern	for	many	European	citizens.	It	is	also	one	of	the	areas	
    in	which	the	European	Union	has	been	most	active.	Since	the	early	1970s,	the	EU	has	been	working	to	
    improve	air	quality	by	controlling	emissions	of	harmful	substances	into	the	atmosphere,	improving	fuel	
    quality,	and	by	integrating	environmental	protection	requirements	into	the	transport	and	energy	sectors.

    As	the	result	of	EU	legislation,	much	progress	has	been	made	in	tackling	air	pollutants	such	as	sulphur	
    dioxide,	lead,	nitrogen	oxides,	carbon	monoxide	and	benzene.	However,	despite	a	reduction	in	some	
    harmful	emissions,	air	quality	continues	to	cause	problems.	Summer	smog	-	originating	in	potentially	
    harmful	ground-level	ozone	-	regularly	exceeds	safe	limits.	Fine	particulates	also	present	a	health	risk	
    which	is	of	increasing	concern.	

    Commission	is	taking	action	in	October	2007	over	harmful	levels	of	air	pollution	in	EU	member	states.	It	
    has	started	infringement	procedures	against	France,	Italy,	Spain,	Slovenia	and	the	UK	for	exceeding	EU	
    limits	on	ambient	concentrations	of	sulphur	dioxide	(SO2),	an	air	pollutant	from	industrial	installations	
    that	can	cause	respiratory	problems	and	aggravate	cardiovascular	disease.	The	Commission	is	also	
    asking	23	member	states	to	provide	information	on	the	measures	they	are	taking	to	reduce	the	levels	
    of	airborne	particles	known	as	PM10	to	meet	EU	standards.	These	coarse	particles	emitted	by	industry	
    and	traffic	can	cause	asthma,	cardiovascular	problems,	lung	cancer	and	premature	death.	Some	70%	of	
    European	towns	and	cities	with	250,000	inhabitants	or	more	have	reported	exceeding	the	PM10	limits	in	
    at	least	part	of	their	area.	EU	limit	values	for	sulphur	dioxide,	PM10	and	several	other	pollutants	were	
    agreed	in	a	1999	directive.

    Commission	proposed	in	February	2007	a	comprehensive	new	strategy	to	reduce	carbon	dioxide	(CO2)	
    emissions	from	new	cars	and	vans	sold	in	the	European	Union.	The	new	strategy,	together	with	a	revision	
    of	EU	fuel	quality	standards	proposed	earlier;	further	underline	the	Commission’s	determination	to	
    ensure	the	EU	meets	its	greenhouse	gas	emission	targets	under	the	Kyoto	Protocol	and	beyond.	The	
    strategy	will	enable	the	EU	to	reach	its	long-established	objective	of	limiting	average	CO2	emissions	to	
    120	grams	per	km	by	2012	-	a	reduction	of	around	25%	from	current	levels.	By	improving	fuel	efficiency,	
    the	revised	strategy	will	deliver	substantial	fuel	savings	for	drivers.	To	encourage	the	car	industry	


NICe	workshop                                                                                                      5
    to	compete	on	the	basis	of	fuel	efficiency	instead	of	size	and	power,	the	Commission	is	also	inviting	
    manufacturers	to	sign	an	EU	code	of	good	practice	on	car	marketing	and	advertising.	

    In	January	2007	the	European	Commission	proposed	new	standards	for	transport	fuels	that	will	reduce	
    their	contribution	to	climate	change	and	air	pollution,	including	through	greater	use	of	biofuels.	The	
    proposed	changes	to	Directive	98/70	underscore	the	Commission’s	commitment	to	ensure	that	the	EU	
    combats	climate	change	and	air	pollution	effectively.	The	new	standards	will	not	only	make	petrol,	diesel	
    and	gasoline	‘cleaner’	but	will	also	allow	the	introduction	of	vehicles	and	machinery	that	pollute	less.	A	
    key	measure	is	that,	to	encourage	the	development	of	lower-carbon	fuels	and	biofuels,	suppliers	will	have	
    to	reduce	the	greenhouse	gas	emissions	caused	by	the	production,	transport	and	use	of	their	fuels	by	
    10%	between	2011	and	2020.	This	will	cut	emissions	by	a	cumulative	total	of	500	million	tonnes	of	carbon	
    dioxide	by	2020.

    Air	Quality	(AQ)	Directive	is	under	major	revision	and	the	final	draft	version	may	be	found	at	http://eur-
    lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52005PC0447:EN:NOT	and	it	is	called	Proposal	for	a	
    directive:	COM(2005)	447	final.	Activities	of	AQ	group	cover	the	following	areas:	
    	    •	 The	CAFE	Programme/	implementation	of	the	Thematic	Strategy	on	Air	Pollution	
    	    •	 Ambient	Air	Quality	
    	    •	 New	Air	Quality	Proposal	
    	    •	 Existing	Air	Quality	Legislation	
    	    •	 Implementation	of	existing	AQ	legislation	
    	    •	 Meetings	&	Workshops	-	CIRCA	website	
    	    •	 EU	Focus	on	Clean	Air.
    EU	also	has	the	Sixth	Environment	Action	Programme	of	the	European	Community	2002-2012.	The	6th	
    EAP	takes	a	broad	look	at	the	environmental	challenges	and	provides	a	strategic	framework	for	the	
    Commission’s	environmental	policy	up	to	2012.

    The	activities	of	Emissions	of	Air	Pollutants	are	grouped	into	the	following	themes:
    	   •	 National	Emission	Ceilings	Directive	(2001/81/EC)	
    	   •	 Models	on	climate	change	and	air	pollution	policies	
    	   •	 Stationary	Source	Emissions	
    	   •	 CO2	and	Cars	
    	   •	 Reports	on	Emissions	of	Air	Pollutants	
    	   •	 Solvent	Content	of	Paints	&	Varnishes.


    CHEMiCALs
    In	the	early	days	of	the	European	Community	it	was	recognised	that	there	was	a	need	to	protect	the	
    Community’s	environment	and	to	create	common	standards	to	protect	consumers	in	order	to	ensure	the	
    free	circulation	of	goods	among	the	Member	States.	For	this	reason,	the	first	Community	environment	
    legislation	dealt	with	products,	amongst	them	dangerous	chemicals.

    However,	in	recent	years,	drawbacks	of	the	current	system	have	been	identified	and	examined.	The	most	
    important	of	these	are:
    	   •	 100.106	existing	substances	can	be	used	without	testing	
    	   •	 burden	of	proof	on	public	authorities	
    	   •	 no	efficient	instrument	to	ensure	safe	use	of	the	most	problematic	substances	
    	   •	 lack	of	incentives	for	innovation,	in	particular	of	less	hazardous	substitutes.

    The	REACH	Regulation	addresses	the	shortcomings	of	the	current	system.	It	relates	mainly	to	the	
    following	legislation:
    	    •	 Directive	on	the	Classification,	Packaging	and	Labelling	of	Dangerous	Substances	
    	    •	 Directive	on	the	Classification,	Packaging	and	Labelling	of	Dangerous	Preparations
    	    •	 Regulation	on	the	Evaluation	and	Control	of	the	Risks	of	Existing	Substances
    	    •	 Directive	on	Restrictions	on	the	Marketing	and	Use	of	certain	Dangerous	Substances	and	
    	    	 Preparations.

    In	December	2006	Commission	published	also	a	paper	-	New	study	on	risk	assessment	methods	“Study	
    on	the	treatment	of	vulnerable	groups	in	EU	risk	assessment”.

    	
    industrY
    The	Directive	concerning	integrated	pollution	prevention	and	control	(IPPC)	is	a	cornerstone	of	EU	
    legislation	addressing	industrial	installations	with	a	high	pollution	potential.	Such	installations	may	only	
    be	operated	if	the	operator	holds	a	permit	containing	requirements	for	the	protection	of	air,	water	and	
    soil,	waste	minimisation,	accident	prevention	and,	if	necessary,	site	clean-up.	These	requirements	must	
    be	based	on	the	principle	of	best	available	techniques	(BAT).	



NICe	workshop                                                                                                       6
    The	public	has	the	right	to	know	about	emissions	from	industrial	installations:	this	is	why	the	Commission	
    created	the	European	Pollutant	Emissions	Register	(EPER).	In	the	future	the	emissions	data	of	
    approximately	20,000	industrial	facilities	will	be	accessible	over	the	internet.	

    As	part	of	the	EU’s	policy	towards	encouraging	voluntary	action	for	the	environment,	the	Commission	
    set	up	the	Eco-Management	and	Audit	Scheme	(EMAS)	-	a	management	tool	to	help	companies	and	
    other	organisations	to	evaluate,	report	and	improve	their	environmental	performance.	Several	thousand	
    organisations	from	the	EU	Member	States	and	Norway	have	already	joined	the	scheme.	The	European	
    Commission	has	committed	itself	to	implement	EMAS	in	its	own	services	and	buildings.	

    The	European	Eco-label	has	been	developed	to	make	it	easier	for	consumers	to	find	products	with	a	lower	
    impact	on	the	environment.	Its	easily	recognisable	flower	logo	is	used	throughout	the	EU,	as	well	as	in	
    Iceland,	Liechtenstein	and	Norway.	The	scheme	will	shortly	be	extended	to	services,	such	as	tourism.	

    To	encourage	European	industry	to	implement	environmentally	sound	policies,	the	EU	has	put	several	
    initiatives	in	place.	The	European	Awards	for	the	Environment,	which	takes	place	every	two	years,	
    recognises	the	achievements	of	European	firms	that	have	designed	innovative	products,	implemented	
    successful	environmental	management	programmes	or	worked	on	ground	breaking	projects	with	
    developing	countries.	The	previous	edition	of	this	award	took	place	in	2004	and	2006.	

    The	environmental	impact	of	major	industrial	installations	is	already	subject	to	an	assessment	at	the	
    project	stage,	according	to	the	Directive	on	the	assessments	of	the	effects	of	certain	public	and	private	
    projects	on	the	environment.	

    The	Directive	on	the	control	of	major-accident	hazards	involving	dangerous	substances	aims	at	
    minimising	the	risk	of	industrial	accidents	and	their	consequences.	

    All	products	cause	environmental	degradation	in	some	way,	whether	from	their	manufacturing,	use	or	
    disposal.	Integrated	Product	Policy	(IPP)	seeks	to	minimise	these	by	looking	at	all	phases	of	a	products’	
    life-cycle	and	taking	action	where	it	is	most	effective.	

    Part	of	IPP	looks	at	ways	in	which	the	market	can	encourage	the	adoption	of	greener	products	and	
    services.	One	aspect	of	this	is	encouraging	green	public	procurement.	Public	purchasers	spend	a	sum	
    equivalent	to	16%	of	EU	GDP	every	year	and	so	can	have	an	important	impact.	The	European	Commission	
    facilitates	action	in	this	field	through	the	provision	of	information	tools	and	the	circulation	of	best	practice.


    soiL
    Soil	is	defined	as	the	top	layer	of	the	earth’s	crust.	It	is	formed	by	mineral	particles,	organic	matter,	water,	
    air	and	living	organisms.	It	is	in	fact	an	extremely	complex,	variable	and	living	medium.	The	interface	
    between	the	earth,	the	air	and	the	water,	soil	is	a	non-renewable	resource	which	performs	many	vital	
    functions:	food	and	other	biomass	production,	storage,	filtration	and	transformation	of	many	substances	
    including	water,	carbon,	nitrogen.	Soil	has	a	role	as	a	habitat	and	gene	pool,	serves	as	a	platform	for	
    human	activities,	landscape	and	heritage	and	acts	as	a	provider	of	raw	materials.	These	functions	are	
    worthy	of	protection	because	of	their	socio-economic	as	well	as	environmental	importance.	

    Erosion,	loss	of	organic	matter,	compaction,	salinisation,	landslides,	contamination,	sealing	etc.	are	
    important	issues	of	soil	environment.	Soil	degradation	is	accelerating,	with	negative	effects	on	human	
    health,	natural	ecosystems	and	climate	change,	as	well	as	on	our	economy.	At	the	moment,	only	nine	EU	
    Member	States	have	specific	legislation	on	soil	protection	(especially	on	contamination).	

    Different	EU	policies	(for	instance	on	water,	waste,	chemicals,	industrial	pollution	prevention,	nature	
    protection,	pesticides,	agriculture)	are	contributing	to	soil	protection.	But	as	these	policies	have	other	
    aims	and	other	scopes	of	action,	they	are	not	sufficient	to	ensure	an	adequate	level	of	protection	for	all	
    soil	in	Europe.

    For	all	these	reasons,	the	Commission	adopted	a	Soil	Thematic	Strategy	(COM(2006)	231)	and	a	proposal	
    for	a	Soil	Framework	Directive	(COM(2006)	232)	on	22	September	2006	with	the	objective	to	protect	soils	
    across	the	EU.	The	Strategy	and	the	proposal	have	been	sent	to	the	other	European	Institutions	for	the	
    further	steps	in	the	decision-making	process.

    The	strategy	is	one	of	seven	Thematic	Strategies	that	the	Commission	has	presented.	The	other	strategies	
    cover	air	pollution,	the	marine	environment,	waste	prevention	and	recycling,	natural	resources,	the	urban	
    environment	and	pesticides.




NICe	workshop                                                                                                           7
    WAstE
    As	European	society	has	grown	wealthier	it	has	created	more	and	more	rubbish.	Each	year	in	the	
    European	Union	alone	we	throw	away	1.3	billion	tonnes	of	waste	-	some	40	million	tonnes	of	it	hazardous.		
    This	amounts	to	about	3.5	tonnes	of	solid	waste	for	every	man,	woman	and	child,	according	to	European	
    Environment	Agency	statistics.	Add	to	this	total	a	further	700	million	tonnes	of	agricultural	waste,	and	it	
    is	clear	that	treating	and	disposing	of	all	this	material	-	without	harming	the	environment	-	becomes	a	
    major	headache.

    Between	1990	and	1995,	the	amount	of	waste	generated	in	Europe	increased	by	10%,	according	to	the	
    Organisation	for	Economic	Cooperation	and	Development	(OECD).	Most	of	what	we	throw	away	is	either	
    burnt	in	incinerators,	or	dumped	into	landfill	sites	(67%).	But	both	these	methods	create	environmental	
    damage.	Landfilling	not	only	takes	up	more	and	more	valuable	land	space,	it	also	causes	air,	water	and	
    soil	pollution,	discharging	carbon	dioxide	(CO2)	and	methane	(CH4)	into	the	atmosphere	and	chemicals	
    and	pesticides	into	the	earth	and	groundwater.	This,	in	turn,	is	harmful	to	human	health,	as	well	as	to	
    plants	and	animals.

    By	2020,	the	OECD	estimates,	we	could	be	generating	45%	more	waste	than	we	did	in	1995.	Obviously	we	
    must	reverse	this	trend	if	we	are	to	avoid	being	submerged	in	rubbish.	But	the	picture	is	not	all	gloomy.	
    The	EU’s	Sixth	Environment	Action	Programme	identifies	waste	prevention	and	management	as	one	of	
    four	top	priorities.	Its	primary	objective	is	to	decouple	waste	generation	from	economic	activity,	so	that	EU	
    growth	will	no	longer	lead	to	more	and	more	rubbish,	and	there	are	signs	that	this	is	beginning	to	happen.	
    In	Germany	and	the	Netherlands,	for	example,	municipal	waste	generation	fell	during	the	1990s.

    The	EU	is	aiming	for	a	significant	cut	in	the	amount	of	rubbish	generated,	through	new	waste	prevention	
    initiatives,	better	use	of	resources,	and	encouraging	a	shift	to	more	sustainable	consumption	patterns.	

    The	European	Union’s	approach to waste management is	based	on	three	principles:

    Waste prevention: 	This	is	a	key	factor	in	any	waste	management	strategy.	If	we	can	reduce	the	amount	
    of	waste	generated	in	the	first	place	and	reduce	its	hazardousness	by	reducing	the	presence	of	dangerous	
    substances	in	products,	then	disposing	of	it	will	automatically	become	simpler.	Waste	prevention	is	closely	
    linked	with	improving	manufacturing	methods	and	influencing	consumers	to	demand	greener	products	
    and	less	packaging.

    recycling and reuse: If	waste	cannot	be	prevented,	as	many	of	the	materials	as	possible	should	be	
    recovered,	preferably	by	recycling.	The	European	Commission	has	defined	several	specific	‘waste	streams’	
    for	priority	attention,	the	aim	being	to	reduce	their	overall	environmental	impact.	This	includes	packaging	
    waste,	end-of-life	vehicles,	batteries,	electrical	and	electronic	waste.	EU	directives	now	require	Member	
    States	to	introduce	legislation	on	waste	collection,	reuse,	recycling	and	disposal	of	these	waste	streams.	
    Several	EU	countries	are	already	managing	to	recycle	over	50%	of	packaging	waste.	

    improving final disposal and monitoring:	Where	possible,	waste	that	cannot	be	recycled	or	reused	should	
    be	safely	incinerated,	with	landfill	only	used	as	a	last	resort.	Both	these	methods	need	close	monitoring	
    because	of	their	potential	for	causing	severe	environmental	damage.	The	EU	has	recently	approved	a	
    directive	setting	strict	guidelines	for	landfill	management.	It	bans	certain	types	of	waste,	such	as	used	
    tyres,	and	sets	targets	for	reducing	quantities	of	biodegradable	rubbish.	Another	recent	directive	lays	
    down	tough	limits	on	emission	levels	from	incinerators.	The	Union	also	wants	to	reduce	emissions	of	
    dioxins	and	acid	gases	such	as	nitrogen	oxides	(NOx),	sulphur	dioxides	(SO2),	and	hydrogen	chlorides	
    (HCl),	which	can	be	harmful	to	human	health.

    	
    the listed activities and topics are displayed in the following table.

    Batteries		        	        	     	         Reporting	on	implementation	
    Biodegradable	waste		       	     	         Sewage	sludge
    Electrical	and	electronic	equipment	        Ship	dismantling
    End	of	life	vehicles	(ELV)	 	     	         Shipment	of	waste
    EU	Waste	Legislation	       	     	         Thematic	strategy	on	waste
    Hazardous	waste	            	     	         Waste	management	plans
    Incineration	of	waste	      	     	         Waste	oils
    Landfill	of	waste		         	     	         Sustainable	use	of	resources
    Mining	 	          	        	     	         Integrated	product	policy	(IPP)
    Packaging	         	        	     	         Sustainable	Consumption	and	Production
    PCBs	/	PCTs	       	        	     	         Titanium	dioxide
    Polyvinyl	Chloride	(PVC)	




NICe	workshop                                                                                                        8
    WAtEr
    Activities	are	divided	into	following	themes	and	subthemes:
    	    •	 River	Basin	Management
    	    	 	           Water	Framework	Directive	
    	    	 	           Groundwater	
    	    	 	           Chemicals	/	Priority	Substances	
    	    	 	           Ecological	Status	
    	    	 	           Common	Implementation	Strategy
    	    •	 Marine	Environment	
    	    	 	           Marine	Thematic	Strategy	
    	    	 	           International	Conventions	
    	    	 	           Marine	Pollution	
    	    •	 Water	Quantity	
    	    	 	           Flood	Risk	Management	
    	    	 	           Water	Scarcity	and	Droughts	
    	    •	 Water	and	Health	
    	    	 	           Drinking	Water		
    	    	 	           Bathing	Water	
    	    •	 Water	Pollution	
    	    	 	           Urban	Waste	Water	
    	    	 	           Industry	
    	    	 	           Agriculture	/	Nitrates	
    	    •	 EU	Water	Initiative	(to	reduce	poverty).

    the industry subtheme	refers	back	to	the	IPPC	and	includes	the	following:
    The	IPPC	Directive	is	based	on	several	principles,	namely	(1)	an	integrated	approach,	(2)	best	available	
    techniques	(BAT),	(3)	flexibility	and	(4)	public	participation.	

    The	integrated	approach	means	that	the	permits	must	take	into	account	the	whole	environmental	
    performance	of	the	plant,	covering	e.g.	emissions	to	air,	water	and	land,	generation	of	waste,	use	of	raw	
    materials,	energy	efficiency,	noise,	prevention	of	accidents,	and	restoration	of	the	site	upon	closure.	The	
    purpose	of	the	Directive	is	to	ensure	a	high	level	of	protection	of	the	environment	taken	as	a	whole.	

    The	permit	conditions	including	emission	limit	values	(ELVs)	must	be	based	on	Best	Available	Techniques	
    (BAT),	as	defined	in	the	IPPC	Directive.	To	assist	the	licensing	authorities	and	companies	to	determine	
    BAT,	the	Commission	organises	an	exchange	of	information	between	experts	from	the	EU	Member	States,	
    industry	and	environmental	organisations.	This	work	is	co-ordinated	by	the	European	IPPC	Bureau	of	the	
    Institute	for	Prospective	Technology	Studies	at	EU	Joint	Research	Centre	in	Seville	(Spain).	This	results	in	
    the	adoption	and	publication	by	the	Commission	of	the	BAT	Reference	Documents	(the	so-called	BREFs).	
    Executive	summaries	of	the	BREFs	are	also	translated	into	the	official	EU	languages.	

    The	IPPC	Directive	contains	elements	of	flexibility	by	allowing	the	licensing	authorities,	in	determining	
    permit	conditions,	to	take	into	account:	
    (a)	the	technical	characteristics	of	the	installation,	
    (b)	its	geographical	location	and	
    (c)	the	local	environmental	conditions.	

    The	Directive	ensures	that	the	public	has	a	right	to	participate	in	the	decision	making	process,	and	to	be	
    informed	of	its	consequences,	by	having	access	to	
    (a)	permit	applications	in	order	to	give	opinions,	
    (b)	permits,	
    (c)	results	of	the	monitoring	of	releases	and	
    (d)	the	European	Pollutant	Emission	Register	(EPER).	

    In	EPER,	emission	data	reported	by	Member	States	are	made	accessible	in	a	public	register,	which	is	
    intended	to	provide	environmental	information	on	major	industrial	activities.	EPER	will	be	replaced	by	the	
    European	Pollutant	Release	and	Transfer	Register	(E-PRTR)	from	2007	reporting	period	onwards.	


    rEFErEnCEs
    1.	   Material	displayed	above	has	been	extracted	and	edited	from	Commission’s	web	server	at
    	     http://ec.europa.eu/environment/policy_en.htm	and	its	subpages	on	themes	
    2.	   Air	at	http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/index_en.htm	
    3.	   Chemicals	at	http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/index.htm	
    4.	   Industry	and	technology	at	http://ec.europa.eu/environment/industry/index_en.htm	
    5.	   Soil	at	http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/index_en.htm	
    6.	   Waste	at	http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/index.htm	
    7.	   Water	at	http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/index_en.htm	

NICe	workshop                                                                                                       9
    nordiC ACtiVitiEs to rEMoVE trAdE BArriErs
    Mads	Peter	Schreiber,	Nordic	Innovation	Centre
    M.Schreiber@nordicinnovation.net


    Nordic	Innovation	Centre	(NICe)	is	the	Nordic	Council	of	Ministers’	operating	instrument	for	promoting	an	
    innovative	and	knowledge-intensive	Nordic	business	sector.	NICe	works	to	establish	the	Nordic	region	as	
    a	highly	functioning	internal	market	and	a	region	without	borders,	where	there	are	no	barriers	between	
    nations	to	hindering	the	free	movement	of	knowledge,	ideas,	capital,	people	and	goods.	
    		
    NICe	works	on	and	supports	projects	that	aim	to	improve	the	conditions	for	competitiveness	in	which	
    Nordic	companies	operate.	It	also	participates	in	projects	that	uncover	and	remove	concrete	obstacles,	in	
    particular	obstacles	that	are	of	major	economical	significance	and	affect	a	large	number	of	players.	

    When	NICe	was	established	in	2004	after	a	merger	of	Nordtest	and	Nordic	Industrial	fund,	one	of	its	main	
    priorities	was	the	creation	of	a	well-functioning	internal	market	and	the	removal	of	cross-border	barriers	
    in	the	Nordic	region.

    Many	Nordic	businesses	are	in	the	process	of	undergoing	a	major	transformation	to	a	global	market	
    situation	characterised	by	worldwide	trading,	mergers,	acquisitions,	networking	and	co-operation.	.

    The	Nordic	home	market,	though,	is	still	a	focal	point	for	trade,	alliances,	and	knowledge	sharing.	This	
    is	confirmed	by	the	companies’	Nordic	strategies	and	by	an	analysis	of	the	internal	trade	of	the	Nordic	
    countries	compared	to	trade	with	the	rest	of	the	world.	Consequently	there	is	still	a	great	need	to	create	
    good	framework	conditions	for	the	Nordic	businesses.	However,	the	efforts	to	remove	the	border	barriers	
    are	now	so	well	under	way,	and	have	achieved	such	excellent	results	that	the	next	step	in	the	integration	
    of	the	Nordic	business	community	should	be	considered.	This	step	entails	a	strategy	of	opening	up	the	
    national	commercial	and	industrial	support	structures,	research	programmes,	and	innovation	projects	to	
    Nordic	businesses	in	order	to	build	a	unified	Nordic	home	market	for	knowledge	creation	and	-sharing.

    By	creating	a	strong	Nordic	research	and	innovation	system,	the	resource	base	of	the	Nordic	business	
    community	is	increased	and	the	Nordic	countries	are	strengthened	in	the	global	economy.

    The	Nordic	countries	are	increasingly	integrated	into	the	world	economy	as	well	as	into	the	regional	
    economy.	Even	though	the	general	tendency	of	the	Nordic	countries	as	a	whole	is	increased	export	from	
    the	Nordic	market	and	import	from	the	rest	of	the	world,	the	intra-nordic	trade	is	also	on	the	increase.


    rEFErEnCE
    Nordic	Innovation	Position	report:
    From	Cross-border	barriers	to	Market	opportunities.	Free	download	from:
    http://www.nordicinnovation.net/_img/07259nicegrensehenglow1.pdf	




NICe	workshop                                                                                                     10
    intErFACEs BEtWEEn CPd And rEACH

    Jepsen,	D.	&	Lüskow,	H.	Ökopol	Institute,	Nernstweg	32-34,	22765	Hamburg,	Germany
    e-mail:	jepsen@oekopol.de	



    IntrodUctIon
    The	European	chemicals	regulation	REACH	(EC/1907/2006)	came	into	force	on	1st	June	2007.	This	
    regulation	aims	to	“ensure	a	high	level	of	protection	of	human	health	and	the	environment	as	well	as	free	
    movement	of	substances,	on	their	own,	in	preparations	and	in	articles	while	enhancing	competitiveness	
    and	innovation”.
    As	can	be	taken	already	from	this	overall	aim	REACH	regulation	includes	the	use	of	chemical	substances	
    in	construction	products.	So	a	clear	general	overlap	with	the	Construction	Products	Directive	(89/106/
    EEC)	and	its	Essential	Requirement	No.3	–	Hygiene,	Health	and	the	environment	(ER	3)	exists.

    After	a	short	explanation	of	the	similarities	and	differences	in	the	regulatory	concepts	of	the	both	
    regulations	the	authors	highlight	in	the	following	text	some	interfaces	with	a	potential	practical	relevance	
    during	the	further	implementation	process	during	the	next	years.	The	assessment	is	mainly	based	on	
    research	and	consultancy	work	carried	out	recently	in	different	projects	in	Germany	[namely:	BMVBS/
    Ökopol	2008;	UBA/Öko-Institut,	2008	and	Deutsche	Bauchemie/Ökopol,	2008].


    reGULAtorY	concePts	oF	reAch	And	cPd	er	3
    	
    Core	parts	of	both	regulations	REACH	and	CPD	ER	3	are	the	assessment	and	the	communication	of	health	
    and	environment	related	information.


    LiFECYCLE stAGEs AddrEssEd
    While	REACH	addresses	all	life	cycle	stages	form	manufacturing,	over	the	industrial	and/or	professional	
    use	to	the	use	by	private	consumers	till	the	waste	stage	CPD	ER3	only	focuses	on	the	use	phase	of	the	
    installed	construction	product	during	service	life.	
    	

    rEGuLAtEd oBjECt
    REACH	clearly	divides	between	
    	  -	substances	–	chemical	element	and	its	compounds	in	the	natural	state	or	obtained	by	
    	  	 manufacturing	process,	including	…	impurities	deriving	from	the	process…
    	  -	 preparations	–	a	mixture	or	solution	composed	of	two	or	more	substances	
    	  -	 articles	–	object	which	during	production	is	given	an	special	shape,	surface	or	design	which	
    	  	 determines	its	function	to	a	greater	extend	than	does	its	chemical	composition.

    In	contrast	to	REACH	the	CPD	ER	3	only	applies	European	harmonised	construction	products.

    Such	construction	products	addressed	by	harmonised	standards/specifications	can	either	be	substances	
    (e.g.	pigments,	glass)	or	preparations	(e.g.	coatings,	adhesives,	concretes)	or	articles	(e.g.	insulating	
    boards,	metal	screws,	..).

    Table	1	shows	draft	results	from	analysing	CPD	standards	concerning	this	REACH	differentiation.
    	    	

     stAndArds undEr CPd                                   oBjECts undEr rEACH

      Standards	to	be	cited	in	the	OJ		 	   459	   	       substances	       	        <	9

      under	CPD	after	approval	         	   	      	       Preparations	     	        55	-	120

      	     	 	 	           	           	   	      	       articles	   	     	        330	-	395



    Table	1.	“REACH-types”	of	harmonised	construction	products	




NICe	workshop                                                                                                       11
    MEtHods to dEMonstrAtE/EnsurE sAFE usE
    REACH	requires	a	registration	at	the	European	Chemical	Agency	(ECHA)	of	all	substances	manufactured	
    in	or	imported	into	the	EU	as	such	or	as	part	of	a	preparation		in	amounts	>	1	t/a	per	legal	entity.	For	
    substances	manufactured	or	imported	in	amounts	>	10	t/a	a	Chemical	Safety	Assessment	(CSA)	has	to	
    be	performed.	If	the	substance	meets	the	criteria	for	classification	as	dangerous	according	to	Directive	
    67/548/EC	or	Directive	19999/45/EC	or	it	is	assessed	to	be	a	PBT	or	a	vPvB	an	exposure	assessment	has	
    to	be	performed	and	Exposure	Scenarios	(ES)	have	to	be	generated	for	all	relevant	uses.	This	includes	
    a	risk	assessment	for	all	exposure	routes	to	human	health	and/or	the	environment	relevant	under	the	
    conditions	of	the	identified	uses	during	all	life	cycle	stages.	This	includes	e.g.	inhalation	of	indoor	air	or	
    exposure	to	surface	water.

    This	risk	assessment	comprises	two	main	elements:
    	      Q
         1.	 uantification	of	the	risks	to	human	health	and	the	environment	depending	on	the	intrinsic	
    	    	 properties	of	the	substance	and	the	exposure	estimation	occurring	under	the	conditions	of	the	
    	    	 different	intended	uses.
    	      R
         2.	 isk	characterisation	by	comparison	the	quantified	risks	with	threshold	values	for	human	health	-	
    	    	 “Derived	No	Effect	Level”	(DNEL)	-and	for	the	environment	–	“Predicted	No	Effect	Concentration”	
    	    	 (PNEC).	The	threshold	values	are	to	be	derived	by	using	commonly	agreed	scientific	assessment	
    	    	 methods	and	the	results	from	(standard)	tests	against	the	different	“endpoints”.

    The	results	of	the	CSA	and	the	respective	exposure	scenarios	(ES)	are	summarised	in	the	Chemical	Safety	
    Report	(CSR)	and	part	of	the	registration.

    Without	(prior)	registration	any	placing	on	the	market	of	the	respective	substance	is	forbidden.
    	
    Under	CPD	ER3	the	emissions	of	dangerous	substances	from	construction	products	shall	be	investigated	
    by	using	European	harmonized	testing	methods	which	are	object	of	ongoing	CEN/TC	351	work	under	
    mandate	M/366.	The	possibly	relevant	substances	for	a	specific	product	group	will	be	indicated	in	the	
    respective	harmonised	standard.	

    Source	for	this	is	the	“indicative	list	of	regulated	dangerous	substances	possibly	associated	with	
    construction	products	under	the	CPD”	(RDS-List)	drafted	by	the	European	Commission’s	Expert	Group	on	
    Dangerous	Substances.	

    This	RDS	list	contains	beside	single	substances	(as	addressed	in	REACH)	as	well:
    	    -	substance	groups	(e.g.	Chlorobenzenes)	
    	    -	substance	subgroups	(e.g.	Trichlobenzenes)
    	    -	Sum	parameters	(e.g.	volatile	halogenated	hydrocarbons)
    	    -	Some	descriptive	parameters	(e.g.	AOX,	pH)
    	
    The	following	Figure	1	shows	these	approaches	schematically

    Figure	1:	Assessment	approach	(simplified)




    tiMELinEs
    The	REACH	implementation	process	follows	quite	tied	and	strict	timelines.	Timelines	are	differentiated	
    by	tonnage	bands	of	the	substance	placed	the	marked	by	the	different	market	actors.	The	following	figure	
    shows	the	respective	deadlines	for	the	registration	including	all	information	regarding	intended	uses	and	
    safe	conditions	of	use	during	whole	life	cycle	of	the	substance.

NICe	workshop                                                                                                         12
    Figure	2:	Timelines	of	REACH	–Pre-Registration	and	CPD	ER3:	



                                                                                   > 1000 t/a

                            P r e - R e g is tr a ti o n                           100-1000 t/a   > 100 t/a
                           (all phase -in Substances, >1 t/a)                      1-100 t/a      > 1 t/a
          R E AC H
          coming into                              Environment (R50/53)
          force
                                                   Human Health (CMRs Cat. 1+2)




             June       June Dez             Dez                   June                                     June

         2007       2008             2010                       2013                                2018

                                                       CPD ER3            TC 351/M366




    A	draft	check	of	the	RDS-List	showed	that	about	146	of	theses	substances	are	listed	in	the	European	
    Substance	Information	System	(ESIS)	as	High	Production	Chemicals	(HPV)	meaning	that	they	are	marked	
    in	amounts	>	1.000	t/a,	37	substances	are	listed	as	Low	Production	Chemicals	(amounts	<	1.000	t/a)	and	
    for	another	93	substances	no	information	is	given	in	ESIS.

    This	leads	to	the	conclusion	that	for	the	majority	of	substances	used	in	construction	products	and	relevant	
    for	ER	3	of	CPD	the	assessments	and	respective	recommendations	for	the	safe	use	under	REACH	will	
    have	to	be	made	till	end	of	2010.

    On	the	other	hand	the	completion	of	the	work	of	TC	351	under	the	Mandate	M/366	on	major	elements	of	
    CPD	ER	3	like	harmonised	emission	test	standards	is	planned	for	2011/2012.	So	even	without	any	delay	
    their	publication	and	implementation	in	product	specifications	will	presumably	not	be	finalised	before	
    2014.

    This	mismatch	of	timelines	will	clearly	restrict	the	possibilities	of	using	ER	3	tools	under	REACH.



    InterFAces	wIth	PrActIcAL	reLeVAnce	For	the	
    IMPLeMentAtIon	oF	reAch	And	cPd	er	3

    struCturEd uPtAKE FroM nEW rEACH inForMAtion BY CPd Er 3
    During	further	implementation	of	REACH	the	availability	of	information	about	the	hazard	properties	of	
    substances	will	increase.	It	is	quite	likely	that	especially	more	classification	and	labelling	regarding	
    danger	for	the	environment	and	DNEL	and	PNEC	values	for	a	wider	set	of	endpoints	will	be	available	in	
    the	next	years.	This	information,	derived	under	the	responsibility	of	substance	manufacturers/importers	is	
    published	via	web	based	tools	by	the	ECHA	and	by	that	directly	accessible	to	potential	users	in	Europe.

    There	is	no	direct	link	between	such	new	information	and	CPD	ER	3	procedures,	but	it	can	be	assumed	
    that	national	regulators	and	expert	committee’s	will	have	to	consider	it	while	revising	LCI-values	and	the	
    RDS-List.	A	structured	and	commonly	agreed	procedural	approach	for	such	uptake	of	new	information	
    from	REACH	might	help	to	harmonise	material	requirements	for	construction	products	cross	European	
    market.	


    rEFinEMEnt oF rEACH ExPosurE ModELs BY EMission tEst dAtA oF
    ConstruCtion ProduCts
    Exposure	assessment	and	definition	of	required	boundary	conditions	of	use	and/or	risk	management	
    measures	under	REACH	are	mainly	based	on	commonly	agreed	exposure	models.



NICe	workshop                                                                                                      13
    Those	models	like	the	ECTOC	TRA	for	workplace	related	exposure,	the	ConsExpo	for	exposure	to	
    consumers	and	the	EUSES	for	the	environment	cover	a	wide	range	of	generic	exposure	situations.	To	
    do	so	they	are	based	on	quite	conservative	assumptions.	This	leads	to	fairly	strict	results	regarding	
    conditions	of	use	that	are	considered	to	be	safe.	E.g.	ConsExpo	includes	the	basic	assumption	that	the	
    total	amount	of	a	solvent	included	in	an	indoor	product	is	emitted	immediately.

    In	this	situation	valid	measured	emission	data	from	construction	product	tests	can	help	either	to	exempt	
    from	the	exposure	scenario	communicated	down	the	supply	chain	or	to	modify/detail	the	respective	
    exposure	models.	Prerequisites	are	a	larger	number	of	validated	test	results	and	a	scientific	link	between	
    the	emissions	test	and	an	exposure	model.	

    Recent	discussions		show	that	developers	of	the	respective	exposure	models	are	quite	open	for	discussing	
    the	options	to	enhance	their	models	for	including	the	aggregated	knowledge	of	the	CPD	community.	


    Wt-/WFt dECisions And WAiVinG undEr rEACH
    In	both	regulations	instruments	are	foreseen	which	are	heading	for	the	reduction	of	unnecessary	test	
    efforts.	Under	ER	3	it	is	the	concept	of	“without	testing”	and/or	“without	further	testing”.	Here	the	details	
    are	just	under	discussion.	During	an	exposure	assessment	under	REACH	the	registrant	can	decide	to	
    exclude	selected	“endpoints”	from	the	further	assessment	by	the	so	called	exposure	based	“waving”.	
    Such	a	waving	decision	needs	to	be	documented	and	based	on	a	scientific	rationale.

    For	including	WT-/WFT-results	into	a	waving	under	REACH	they	need	to	be	based	either	on	a	sufficient	
    number	of	measured	data	or	on	a	validated	emission-/exposure	model	covering	the	specific	situation	
    sufficiently.	On	the	other	hand	results	from	such	valid	exposure	models	could	be	included	in	the	WT/WFT-
    procedures	as	another	argument	for	decision.

    So	such	validated	Models	might	have	an	important	“bridging	function”	as	shown	in	the	schematic	form	in	
    figure	3.

    Figure	3:	Possible	function	of	validated	emission-	&	exposure	models	for	construction	product	use	under	
    REACH	and	ER	3	WT/WFT




    concLUsIons
    Overall	REACH	and	CPD	ER	3	have	different	regulatory	concepts	adressing	different	main	actors	and	
    different	main	objectives.	But	nevertheless	they	have	relevant	overlaps	regarding	the	need	to	assess	
    the	effects	of	substance	release	during	the	use	phase	of	installed	construction	products	under	defined	
    conditions	of	use	and	their	impacts	on	human	health	and	environment.

    There	are	some	chances	to	create	relevant	synergies	in	this	area	but	major	problems	in	doing	so	are	
    the	different	timelines	of	REACH	and	ER	3	implementation	and	the	missing	interaction	between	both	
    ”communities”	up	to	now.	




NICe	workshop                                                                                                        14
    reFerences
    1.	       [BMVBS/Ökopol,	2008]	
    	         ”REACH	und	CPD	ER3”,	study	by	Ökopol	Institut	GmbH,	Hamburg,	Germany	for	the	German	Ministry	
    	         for	Construction	(BMVBS),	to	be	finalised	in	June	2008

    2.	       [UBA/Öko-Institut,	2008]	
    	         “Schnittstellen	zwischen	REACH	zwischen	REACH	und	anderen	produktbezogenen	
    	         Stoffregulierungen	–	Schwerpunkt	Bauprodukte”	report	by	Öko-Institut	e.V.,	Freiburg,	Germany	for	
    	         the	German	Federal	Environmental	Agency	(UBA),	not	published	yet

    3.	       [Bauchemie/Ökopol,	2008]
    	         “REACH	Leitfaden	für	Formulierer	bauchemischer	Produkte”	guidance	document	drafted	for	
    	         formulators	of	chemical	construction	products	drafted	by	Ökopol	Institut	GmbH,	Hamburg,	Germany	
    	         und	Deutsche	Bauchemie	e.V.	Frankfurt,	Germany,	published	March	2008

    4.	       [UBA/Ökopol,	2008]
    	         “International	Conference	–	Construction	Products	and	Indoor	Air	Quality,	Berlin	June	2007,	
    	         Conference	Report”,	Report	by	Ökopol	Institut	GmbH,	Hamburg,	Germany	for	the	Germany	for	the	
    	         German	Federal	Environmental	Agency	(UBA),	published	March	2008

    5.	       [CEPMC,	2008]
    	         ”Construction	Products	and	EC	Chemicals	policy	–	analysis	of	potential	interfaces	between	REACH	
    	         and	CPD/ER3”,	report	by	CEPMC	adhoc	group	REACH-CPD	ER3,	January	2008	(internal)




    	1
       	Results	from	draft	assessment	by	Ökopol;		For	about	65	standards	a	clear	assignment	to	“preparation”	or	to	“article”	was	not	possible	without	
    a	more	in	depth	assessment	of	the	aspects	addressed	in	the	respective	standard.	For	the	time	being	this	uncertainty	is	reflected	by	the	ranges	
    given	in	table	1.
    2
        		And	under	specific	conditions	as	well	if	they	are	part	of	an	imported	article
    3
        	In	context	with	ongoing	project	BMVBS/Ökopol,	2008




NICe	workshop                                                                                                                                            15
    Construction	Products	–	Environmental	Safety	and	Future	Challenges

    tAsK And outCoME oF CEn/tC 351
    “ConstruCtion ProduCts: AssEssMEnt oF
    rELEAsE oF dAnGErous suBstAnCEs”
    Pekka	Vuorinen
    Confederation	of	Finnish	Construction	Industries	RT
    Pekka.Vuorinen@rakennusteollisuus.fi



    tHE CoMMission MAndAtE M/366; BACKGround tHE WorK oF CEn/tC351
    The	second	generation	of	harmonised	technical	specifications	under	the	Construction	Prod-ucts	Directive	
    (CPD)	requires	harmonised	test	methods	for	release	or	emission	of	dangerous	substances	to	satisfy	
    the	requirements	of	Essential	Requirement	3	(ER	3)	of	the	CPD.	The	mandate	M/366	concerning	the	
    “Development	of	horizontal	standardised	assessment	meth-ods	for	harmonised	approaches	relating	to	
    dangerous	substances	under	the	Construction	Products	Directive	(CPD)	–	Emission	to	indoor	air,	soil,	
    surface	water	and	groundwater”	was	prepared	by	the	expert	group	of	Directorate	General	Enterprise	
    of	the	European	Commission	and	then	issued	by	the	Construction	Unit	of	the	European	Commission,	
    following	consultation	of	the	Standing	Committee	on	Construction,	to	CEN	in	the	end	of	2004.	

    To	draft	the	answer	of	CEN	to	this	mandate	and	to	develop	a	Work	Programme,	NEN	pro-posed	to	set	
    up	a	CEN/BT	WG	by	submitting	a	CEN	Form	A	in	March	2005.	Resolution	CEN/BT	C	025/2005	on	the	
    acceptance	of	the	mandate	M/366	and	of	the	proposal	as	laid	down	in	the	Form	A	was	approved	by	CEN	
    members	in	May	2005	and	CEN/BT	WG	176	“De-velopment	of	horizontal	standardized	assessment	
    methods	for	harmonized	approaches	relat-ing	to	dangerous	substances”	was	established	to	provide	a	
    Work	Programme	for	the	new	CEN/TC	on	the	subject.	

    CEN/BT	176	decided	to	establish	a	new	CEN/TC,	with	the	number	351	(BT	Resolution	C049/2005).	CEN/TC	
    351	had	its	first	meeting	in	April	2006	in	Malta.


    sCoPE And tHE WorK PACKAGE oF tHE CEn/tC 351
    The	scope	of	the	CEN/TC	351	is	described	as	follows:
    Development	of	horizontal	standardised	assessment	methods	for	harmonised	approaches	relating	to	
    the	release	(and/or	the	content	when	this	is	practicable	or	legally	required)	of	regu-lated	dangerous	
    substances	under	the	Construction	Products	Directive	(CPD)	taking	into	ac-count	the	intended	conditions	
    of	use	of	the	product.	It	addresses	emission	to	indoor	air,	and	release	to	soil,	surface	water	and	ground	
    water.	

    Based	on	the	requirements	of	the	Mandate	M/366	the	work	package	of	the	CEN/TC351,	as	described	in	its	
    Work	Programme,	is:

    	   •	   WI	1	Barriers	to	trade	(TR1)
    	   •	   WI	2	The	concept	of	horizontal	testing	procedures	(TR2)
    	   •	   WI	3	Methodologies	for	“Without	Testing	(WT)”	and	“Without	Further	Testing	(WFT)”	(TR3)
    	   •	   WI	4	Use	of	harmonized	horizontal	assessment	methods	(TR4)
    	   •	   WI	5	Sampling	and	sampling	plans	for	harmonized	test	specifications
    	   •	   WI	6	Content	of	regulated	dangerous	substances	in	construction	products
    	   •	   WI	7	Leaching	methods
    	   •	   WI	8	Eluate	analysis
    	   •	   WI	9	Methods	for	generation	of	emission	into	indoor	air
    	   •	   WI	10	Analysis	of	emissions	into	indoor	air
    	   •	   WI	11	Measurement	of	radiation	
    	   •	   WI	12	Assessment	for	potential	growth	of	relevant	micro-organisms

    This	work	is	on	the	shoulders	of	five	Task	Groups	and	WG1	“Release	from	CPs	into	soil,	groundwater	and	
    surface	water”	and	WG2	“Emissions	into	indoor	air”,	and	a	possible	new	Working	Group	“Radiation”	which	
    will	be	established	when	the	state-of-the-art-report	of	Task	Group	is	finalized.

    Mandate	M/366	requires	a	multistage	approach	to	deliver	the	standards.	The	first	stage	is	the	delivery	of	
    the	Technical	Reports	in	Work	Items	1	to	4.	It	is	expected	that	during	this	stage	the	European	Commission	
    may	finalize	the	list	of	the	priority	dangerous	substances	to	be	addressed.	This	is	then	followed	by	
    the	elaboration	of	draft	standards	or	use	of	existing	stan-dards,	validation	in	terms	of	robustness	and	
    variability-uncertainty,	and	delivery	of	the	test	method	standards,	Work	Items	5	to	12.	The	third	phase	of	
    the	work	is	amendment	of	the	harmonized	technical	specifications.	
NICe	workshop                                                                                                     16
    It	is	expected	that	horizontal	test	methods,	applicable	to	all	or	most	product	groups	that	re-lease	
    substances	under	a	specific	scenario,	can	be	found	and	adapted	for	use.	Only	when	a	justified	claim	for	
    amendment	or	even	a	vertical	standard	is	accepted,	such	assessment	methods	will	be	developed.	The	
    justification	will	typically	follow	after	the	validation	of	the	hori-zontal	method.	Construction	products	
    should	be	tested	for	specified	intended	conditions	of	use.	The	producer	cannot	be	held	responsible	in	case	
    the	product	is	used	wrongly	when	the	conditions	of	use	were	clearly	declared	by	the	producer.	It	is	clear	
    that	the	focus	of	the	CPD	is	on	the	release	of	substances,	not	on	the	content;	when	a	substance	is	bound	
    to	the	matrix	of	the	material	it	cannot	cause	a	risk	during	its	use	in	the	works.	If	there	are	legal	require-
    ments	on	European	or	national	level	(e.g.	for	CMR-substances)	the	content	of	the	dangerous	substance	
    has	to	be	evaluated	independent	if	the	substance	is	bound	to	the	matrix	of	the	ma-terial	or	not.	

    The	test	method	standards	will	be	published	initially	as	Technical	Specifications.	Such	CEN/TS	will	be	
    the	basic	document	available	to	start	the	validation	work;	only	after	validation	a	European	Standard	
    can	be	published,	since	the	validation	(in	terms	of	robustness	and	vari-ability-uncertainty)	provides	
    the	information	on	the	quality	and	usefulness	of	the	assessment	method.	The	current	requirement	to	
    publish	a	standard	within	three	years	after	the	start	of	the	work	does	not	apply	if	the	standard	needs	to	be	
    validated.	The	validation	cycle	typically	adds	two	years	to	the	development	of	a	standard.
    	
    It	is	also	clear	that	for	other	purposes,	assessment	methods	are	needed	or	already	in	place.	For	
    consistency	these	methods	will	be	reviewed	in	order	to	see	whether	they	could	be	appli-cable	for	ER3,	
    since	this	would	result	in	lowering	costs.	

    The	work	focuses	on	horizontal	harmonised	methods	for	assessment	of	construction	prod-ucts	regarding	
    ER3	of	the	CPD.	The	identification	of	the	necessary	instruments	follows	a	conceptual	framework,	
    addressing	the	procedural	conventions	needed	to	come	from	ER	3	via	selected	release	scenarios	and	
    corresponding	performance	criteria	to	the	practical	assess-ment	procedures.

    Harmonisation	of	assessment	methods	implies	that	as	far	as	possible	only	one	method	is	chosen	for	a	
    particular	parameter.	Thus,	the	costs	for	assessing	construction	products	are	limited	and	the	producer	
    has	to	have	his	products	tested	only	once	for	CE-marking,	after	which	the	product	can	be	placed	on	the	
    internal	European	market.	

    Before	the	harmonised	product	standards	can	be	amended	for	the	purpose	of	ER3,	the	Technical	Reports	
    (TRs)	need	to	be	developed	to	a	‘mature’	state,	since	choices	of	methods	and	substances	may	depend	on	
    their	outcome.	In	particular	priority	will	be	given	to	the	TRs	on	Barriers	to	Trade,	on	Horizontal	Testing	
    Procedures	and	on	Methodologies	on	Without	Testing	(WT)	and	Without	Further	Testing	(WFT).	The	
    concepts	of	WT	and	WFT	refer	to	the	principle	whereby	products	are	deemed	to	satisfy	requirements	as	
    they	do	not	contain	or	cannot	release	dangerous	substances	or	cause	adverse	impacts	on	human	health	
    and	the	environment	during	their	intended	use.	The	TR	on	the	Use	of	Horizontal	methods	(WI	4)	can	only	
    be	finalised	when	a	first	set	of	standards	is	available	to	show	how	these	could	be	incor-porated	in	the	
    harmonized	product	standards.	Preliminary	work	on	this	subject	could	start	naturally	earlier.


    CEn/tC 351 And stAKEHoLdErs
    The	work	of	CEN/TC351	is	horizontal.	To	be	successful	this	kind	of	work	requires	a	large	in-volvement	
    of	different	stakeholders	providing	their	expertise	but	also	expressing	their	needs.	Contribution	of	
    regulators,	testing	and	laboratory	experts,	researchers	and	product-TCs	as	well	as	other	industrial	
    experts	are	needed.	

    It	is	apparent	that	clear	and	transparent	co-operation	and	communication	between	different	stakeholders	
    is	crucial	in	this	kind	of	horizontal	work.	The	work	of	CEN/TC	351	more	or	less	touches	over	60	product-
    TCs	responsible	of	numerous	construction	products	under	the	CPD	but	with	different	level	of	knowledge	
    of	the	task	ahead.	Equally	testing	laboratories	are	facing	a	very	demanding	task	in	validation	phase.	When	
    results	of	the	work	of	CEN/TC	351	are	clear	and	have	an	acceptance	of	the	Commission,	EC	Member	
    States	must	be	prepared	to	adapt	a	commonly	agreed	approach	of	European	horizontal	testing	in	their	
    national	regula-tions.
    	
    Besides	numerous	meetings	of	different	working	and	task	groups	CEN/TC351	is	arranging	conferences	
    and	workshops	dealing	with	the	progress	of	the	work	and	“hot”	topics	dedicated	to	different	stakeholders.	
    To	ensure	the	goals	of	communication	CEN/TC	351	wishes	a	large	participation	to	these	meetings.

    More	information	on	CEN/TC351	web	site:	www.centc351.org




NICe	workshop                                                                                                       17
    MEtHodoLoGiEs For „WitHout tEstinG (Wt)
    And „WitHout FurtHEr tEstinG (WFt) in
    rELAtion to Er3 ProPErtiEs
    G.	Thielen,	Munich	(Rapporteur	CEN	TC	351/TG3)
    e-mail:	gth@vdz-online.de



    sUMMArY	oF	PresentAtIon
    Technical	specifications	in	product	standards	(hEN)	harmonised	according	to	the	Construction	Products	
    Directive	(	CPD)	and	responding	to	Essential	Requirement	3		“Health,	Hygiene	and	Environment”	still	need	
    to	be	worked	out	by	the	CEN-Technical	Committees	(CEN-TCs)	responsible	for	the	mandated	construction	
    products.	In	order	to	set	a	common	frame	for	such	specifications	the	EU	Commission	issued	in	March	
    2005	the	standardisation	mandate	M/366	EN	to	CEN	“concerning	the	execution	of	standardisation	work	
    for	the	development	of	horizontal	standardised	assessment	methods	for	harmonised	approaches	relating	
    to	dangerous	substances	under	the	construction	products	directive	(emission	to	indoor	air,	soil,	surface	
    water	and	ground	water)”.	

    An	important	aspect	in	this	mandate	has	been	the	introduction	of	the	two	notions”WT”	(Without	Testing)	
    and”WFT”	(Without	Further	Testing)	guiding	to	the	assessment	methods	for	which	horizontal	standards	
    are	mandated	to	be	worked	out.	A	special	work	item	in	mandate	M/366	EN	is	given	to	the	elaboration	
    of	a	Technical	Report	(TR)	defining	more	in	detail	the	technical	concept	behind	these	two	notions.	
    For	this,	CEN	established	a	Task	Force	(TF)	with	representation	from	the	principle	interested	parties,	
    administration,	environmental	agencies	and	industry.

    Any	ER3	related	assessment	procedure	has	to	bridge	the	gap	between	the	rules	regulated	in	the	CPD	
    needed	to	provide	the	necessary	information	on	construction	products	for	their	placing	on	the	European	
    market	and	the	requirements	expressed	in	EU	and	in	notified	Member	State	(MS)	Regulations	for	the	
    limitation	of	emissions	from	construction	products.	Whereas	the	information	to	be	provided	according	
    to	the	CPD	refers	to	construction	products	as	standardised	in	hENs	and	included	in	the	CE-marking	
    according	to	Annex	ZA	to	the	hEN,	the	ER3	related	requirements	in	EU	and/or	MS	Regulations	are	
    generally	expressed	in	terms	of	limits	to	the	possible	release	of	the	relevant	Regulated	Dangerous	
    Substances	(rel.	RDSs)	into	the	environmental	compartments	indoor	air	and	soil	and	water.	This	difference	
    in	the	expression	and	the	fact	that	the	limits	addressed	in		quality	and	quantity	in	the	regulations		vary	
    widely	from	MS	to	MS	have	to	be	considered	in	the	concept	for	the	WT-	and	the	WFT-	assessment	
    procedures.

    Starting	from	this,	the	WT-	and	the	WFT-assessment		procedures	must	be	based	on	a	common	set	of	
    preconditions	which	include	the	clear	definition	of	the	construction	product	in	the	underlying	hEN	and	
    the	identification	of	the	intended	use	of	the	production	product	in	view	of	possible	contacts	with	and	the	
    release	into	the	immediate	environmental	media	with	reference	to	corresponding		release	scenarios	
    modelling	standard	conditions.	Furthermore	and	most	important	the	elaboration	of	a	list	of	the	RDSs	
    relevant	for	the	construction	product	according	to	the	qualitative	and/or	quantitative	limits	regulated	
    in	existing	EU	and/or	MS	Regulations.	Since	such	limits	vary	widely	throughout	the	EU,	a	compilation	
    in	technical	classes	seems	reasonable.	If	a	construction	product	is	placed	on	a	MS	market,	where	no	
    ER3	related	requirements	are	specified	in	regulations,	the	manufacturer	can	use	the	No-Performance-
    Determined	option	(NPD-option).	

    Based	on	these	common	preconditions	the	CEN-TR	on	WT/WFT	distinguishes	between	the	two	
    assessment	methods	called	WT	and	WFT.	Both	assessment	methods	result	in	the	justification	of	the	ER3	
    related	information	to	be	included	in	the	CE-mark.	

    The	WT-procedure	is	based	on	a	dossier	to	be	prepared	by	an	applicant	(in	general	the	responsible	CEN	
    product	TC	or	a	product	related	association).	This	dossier	includes	for	the	clearly	defined	construction	
    product	to	be	applied	under	specific	conditions	of	intended	use	the	available	information	of	the	release	
    performance	of	all	RDSs	identified	as	relevant.	This	information	may	cover	factual	evidence	resulting	from	
    experience	gained	under	the	regime	of	existing	regulations	and	should	in	particular	cover	test	results	
    obtained	in	laboratory	testing	according	to	either	regulatory	testing	regimes	or	scientific	programs.	The	
    dossier	is	to	be	submitted	to	the	EU	services	which,	based	on	an	expert	body	evaluation	of	the	dossier,	
    may	propose	the	classification	as	WT.	This	classification	may	be	proposed	by	the	expert	body	and	granted	
    by	the	EU	for	the	total	product,	if	the	documented	evidence	shows	compliance	with	all	existing	EU	and/or	
    MS	Regulations.	In	the	other	cases	only	for	those	rel.	RDSs,	for	which	such	compliance	can	be	shown.	The	
    conditions	under	which	a	classification	is	given	on	the	basis	of	the	WT-	procedure	will	be	documented	in	
    the	hEN	and	are	to	be	controlled	in	the	Factory	Production	Control	(FPC).	These	conditions	may	include	to	


NICe	workshop                                                                                                     18
    control	on	a	regular	basis	(e.g.	each	12	months)	the	contents	of	one	or	some	of	the	rel.	RDSs	against	the	
    level	represented	in	the	dossier.	

    The	WFT	procedure	is	based	on	Initial	Type	Testing	(ITT)	of	the	clearly	defined	construction	product	to	
    be	applied	under	specific	conditions	of	intended	use	and	tested	according	to	harmonised	European	
    test	procedures,	which	have	to	include	all	aspects	of	testing	from	sampling	to	the	evaluation	of	the	test	
    results.	If	the	ITT	proves	compliance	with	all	existing	EU	and/or	MS	Regulations	the	construction	will	
    be	classified	as	WFT.	The	conditions	under	which	a	classification	is	made	on	the	basis	of	ITT	will	be	
    documented	in	the	hEN	and	are	to	be	controlled	in	the	FPC.	These	conditions	may	include	to	test	one	
    or	some	of	the	rel.	RDSs		on	a	regular	basis	(e.g.	each	six	months)	using	harmonised	conformity	testing	
    procedures.	This	case	is	called	Further	Testing	(FT)	in	the	CPD.

    Before	a	decision	is	taken,	which	of	the	two	procedures	to	follow,	an	Initial	Type	Assessment	(ITA)	will	
    have	to	be	made	by	the	responsible	CEN	product	TC	or	by	a	manufacturers	association	or	by	an	individual	
    manufacturer.

    Following	both	procedures	for	classification	the	CE-	mark	will	include	the	necessary	information	on	the	
    rel.	RDSs,	expressed	e.g.	in	terms	of	declared	values	or	classes.		For	the	user	of	the	construction	product	
    and	for	the	MS	authority	specifying	application	rules	for	this	product	in	contact	with	the	immediate	
    environment	only	this	information	is	of	importance	not	the	procedure	used	to	justify	this	information.	

    Responding	to	this	technical	concept,	CEN	TC	351	should	elaborate	harmonised	testing	standards	for	ITT	
    and	for	FT	and	eventually	some	further	guidance	in	form	of	TRs	covering	e.g.	ITA.	The	testing	standards	
    should	include	all	relevant	aspects	from	sampling,	specimen	preparation,	physical	testing,	analysis	of	
    the	rel.	RDSs	in	the	leachate	or	air	sample	and	finally	the	evaluation	and	expression	of	the	test	result.	
    Since	for	most	of	these	aspects	approved	standards	are	available	either	on	national	or	on	european/
    international	level,	the	work	of	the	two	responsible	CEN	TC	351	working	groups	(WT	1	on	release	into	soil,	
    ground	and	surface	water	and	WT	2	on	emission	into	indoor	air))	will	mainly	concentrate	in	an	state-
    of-the-art	analysis	of	existing	methods	and	in	their	transformation	into	harmonised	european	methods	
    followed	by	a	final	validation.		

    In	addition	to	these	technical	specifications	proposed	in	the	CEN	TR	on	WT/WFT	the	EU	Commission	
    Services	are	preparing	corresponding	administrative	specifications.	CEN	TC	351/TG3	has	offered	its	
    support	to	arrive	at	compatible	administrative	and	technical	specifications.

    In	the	oral	presentation	some	examples	will	be	shown	how	the	technical	specifications	proposed	in	CEN	
    TR3	can	be	applied.	These	examples	address	also	the	situation	where	harmonised	product	standards	
    address	constituents	(e.g.	cement)	or	half-products	of	those	construction	products	which	come	finally	in	
    direct	contact	with	the	environmental	media.	




    							




NICe	workshop                                                                                                      19
    An APProACH For EnVironMEntAL AssEssMEnt
    oF ConstruCtion ProduCts – CritEriA And
    ExPEriEnCEs oF tHEir iMPLEMEntAtion in
    GErMAnY
    Ilvonen,	O.	Umweltbundesamt,	Fachgebiet	III	1.4,	Postfach	1406,	D-06813	Dessau-Roßlau,	Germany,
    e-mail:	outi.ilvonen@uba.de	



    AbstrAct
    Many	technical	regulations	have	been	and	continue	to	be	developed	to	ensure	that	construc-tion	products	
    are	used	in	an	environmentally	sound	manner.	People	have	built	and	used	con-struction	products	for	
    millennia.	Are	new	regulations	justified?	Few	problems	seem	to	have	occurred	so	far.	Why	not	continue	
    as	before?	On	the	one	hand	the	need	for	the	assessment	of	the	effects	of	construction	products	on	the	
    environment	arises	from	the	change	in	the	materi-als	used.	New	chemical	compositions	are	introduced	
    in	a	quick	fashion.	Alternative	and	sec-ondary	materials	are	used	increasingly.	On	the	other	hand	new	
    scientific	knowledge	and	envi-ronmental	legislation	highlight	today	the	importance	of	reducing	diffuse	
    pollution.	For	soil	and	groundwater	it	is	not	important,	whether	a	contamination	comes	from	agriculture,	
    traffic	or	from	construction	works.	Therefore	the	same	criteria	apply	to	the	assessment	of	all	sources	of	
    diffuse	pollution.

    In	Germany	the	construction	authorities	have	developed	principles	for	the	assessment	of	risks	from	
    construction	products’	use	on	soil	and	groundwater	contamination	in	co-operation	with	the	environmental	
    authorities	and	construction	product	industry.	These	principles	are	applied	in	connection	with	the	
    granting	of	technical	approvals	through	the	competent	authority,	Deutsches	Institut	für	Bautechnik	(DIBt).	
    Technical	approvals	are	generally	an	instrument	to	assess	the	fitness	for	use	of	innovative	construction	
    products	for	which	no	product	standards	are	available.	For	such	products	experience	of	former	use	is	
    missing.	Therefore	the	assess-ment	of	the	environmental	effects	in	the	context	of	technical	approvals	
    is	seen	as	a	priority.	The	DIBt	Principles	represent	the	state	of	the	art	of	assessment	in	this	field	in	
    Germany.	They	are	a	flexible	tool,	which	can	be	easily	and	quickly	adapted	to	changes	in	environmental	
    legis-lation.	The	German	level	of	protection	for	the	environment	to	be	taken	account	of	in	the	har-
    monisation	work	under	the	Construction	Products	Directive	can	be	derived	from	the	DIBt	Principles.	


    IntrodUctIon
    Unexpected	environmental	effects	of	construction	products	can	become	a	nightmare	for	a	construction	
    product	manufacturer,	for	the	contractor,	for	construction	workers,	for	the	neigh-bours	of	the	
    construction	site	and	for	the	environment.	Groundwater	accidents	caused	by	grouting	material	used	to	
    seal	tunnel	surfaces	are	an	example	of	cases	with	wide	publicity.	As	a	consequence	of	the	accidents	in	
    Hallandsåsen	in	Sweden	and	in	Romeriksporten	in	Norway	the	manufacturer	withdraw	the	grout	that	had	
    released	acrylamide	from	the	market	and	in	Norway	a	ban	for	similar	products	was	introduced	(1,	2,	3).

    The	accidents	show,	how	important	it	is	to	test	products	before	they	are	placed	on	the	market.	Both	the	
    user	and	the	manufacturer	have	interest	in	a	reliable	evaluation	of	the	environmental	characteristics.	For	
    such	an	evaluation	common	criteria	are	necessary.	In	Germany	the	regula-tors	and	industry	started	to	
    develop	criteria	for	construction	products	in	common	understand-ing	about	ten	years	ago.	


    LeGAL	bAckGroUnd	For	the	deVeLoPMent	oF	crIterIA	
    For	the	enVIroMentAL	AssessMent	oF	constrUctIon	
    ProdUcts	In	GerMA-nY
    Protection	of	soil	and	groundwater	particularly	from	the	so	called	diffuse	immissions	has	gained	
    importance	in	the	environmental	policy	both	in	the	EU	and	in	Germany	during	the	last	decade.	Diffuse	
    pollutant	immissions	affect	the	chemical	quality	of	soil	and	groundwater	in	general	more	than	point	
    sources.	The	sources	for	diffuse	pollution	include	agriculture,	traffic	and	construction	activities.	New	legal	
    instruments	have	been	introduced	and	are	still	being	introduced.	Current	developments	in	Germany	are	
    the	implementation	of	the	Groundwater	Directive	(2006/118/EC)	and	a	national	ordinance	for	secondary	
    construction	materials.




NICe	workshop                                                                                                         20
    Soil	Protection	became	a	main	focus	in	the	German	environmental	policy	in	the	1990s.	The	first	regulatory	
    values	related	to	soil	and	groundwater	protection	were	included	in	the	Soil	Protection	Act	(4)	and	the	
    Federal	Soil	Protection	and	Contaminated	Sites	Ordinance	(5)	from	1998	and	1999	respectively.	Here	
    quality	criteria	are	defined	for	the	percolation	water	passing	through	the	soil	into	groundwater	(soil-
    groundwater	exposure	pathway).	Initially	the	same	values	were	overtaken	for	groundwater	under	the	
    federal	water	legislation	as	an	interim	solu-tion.	The	first	EC	Groundwater	Directive	(80/86/EEC;	in	force	
    until	2013)	and	its	implemen-tation	in	Germany	did	not	yet	contain	criteria	with	attached	limit	or	guidance	
    values	for	the	immission	or	release	of	substances.

    The	soil	contamination	threshold	values	of	the	Federal	Soil	Protection	and	Contaminated	Sites	Ordinance	
    were	the	basis	for	the	assessment	concept	for	construction	products	developed	in	Deutsches	Institut	für	
    Bautechnik	(DIBt).	Initially	the	concept	was	developed	for	the	needs	of	the	DIBt	for	the	technical	approval	
    of	construction	products.	Due	to	the	demands	of	the	new	legislation	on	soil	protection	it	was	not	possible	
    any	more	to	grant	technical	approvals	for	construction	products	affecting	soil	and/or	groundwater	without	
    an	adequate	assessment	con-cept.	This	was	also	recognized	by	construction	product	manufacturers.	The	
    first	guideline	for	the	Assessment	of	the	effects	of	construction	products	on	soil	and	groundwater	was	
    published	by	the	DIBt	in	2000	(6).

    Updated	criteria	for	the	assessment	of	the	risk	of	groundwater	contamination	became	avail-able	in	2004	
    (7).	The	Working	Group	of	the	Federal	States	on	Water	Issues	(LAWA)	deter-mined	the	insignificance	
    threshold	as	a	suitable	quality	standard	for	judging	anthropogenic	change	in	the	chemical	properties	
    of	groundwater.	The	insignificance	threshold	marks	the	borderline	between	insignificant	change	in	the	
    chemical	properties	of	groundwater	and	harm-ful	contamination.	The	insignificance	thresholds	have	also	
    been	incorporated	as	no-effect	lev-els	into	the	assessment	concept	for	construction	products	in	DIBt	(8).	
    In	a	transitory	period	it	is	possible	for	applicants	for	technical	approvals	to	choose	for	a	product	to	be	
    judged	accord-ing	to	the	“old”	or	the	“new”	concept.

    Where	construction	products	are	subject	to	harmonisation	measures	at	Community	level	in	accordance	
    with	the	Construction	Products	Directive,	the	German	authorities	aim	at	including	the	criteria	of	
    the	“Principles	for	assessing	the	effects	of	construction	products	on	soil	and	groundwater”	into	the	
    harmonisation	process	as	the	German	level	of	protection.	Although	the	CPD	does	not	introduce	any	level	
    of	environmental	protection	of	its	own,	it	requires	the	har-monisation	not	to	reduce	the	existing	and	
    justified	levels	of	protection	in	the	Member	States.

    Further	changes	in	the	assessment	criteria	for	construction	products	may	not	be	avoided.	The	EU	
    Directive	on	the	protection	of	groundwater	against	pollution	and	deterioration	(2006/118/EC)	from	2006	(9)	
    must	be	implemented	into	national	law	before	January	16th	2009.	For	this	purpose	a	federal	groundwater	
    ordinance	will	be	drawn	up.	One	of	the	key	e-lements	of	the	federal	ordinance	will	be	setting	up	limit	
    values	for	the	description	and	assess-ment	of	a	good	groundwater	quality.	The	insignificance	values	
    derived	by	LAWA	will	be	the	starting	point	for	further	considerations.


    PrIncIPLes	For	AssessInG	the	eFFects	oF	
    constrUctIon	ProdUcts	on	soIL	And	GroUndwAter
    The	DIBt	Principles	are	applied	for	granting	technical	approvals	for	construction	products.	They	apply	
    to	construction	products	that	lie	on	the	ground	or	are	in	contact	with	the	ground.	For	example	roofing	
    materials	are	thus	so	far	excluded.	Requirements	from	all	relevant	legal	fields	(construction,	water,	soil	
    conservation,	waste,	chemicals	and	ambient	air	quality)	are	taken	into	account.

    The	DIBt	Principles	are	divided	into	two	parts.	Part	I	provides	a	general	description	of	the	concept	for	
    assessing	construction	products	in	terms	of	harmful	changes	to	soil	or	groundwa-ter.	Part	II	is	tailored	
    to	selected	construction	products	and	specifies	the	general	concept	in	more	precise	terms	as	to	the	
    test	methods	to	be	used.	Until	now	the	product-specific	Part	II	is	available	for	example	for	concrete	and	
    concrete	constituents	and	for	products	for	the	repair	of	sewage	pipes.	The	following	section	describes	the	
    general	concept	of	assessment	(Part	I)	and	the	product-specific	Part	II	(10)	for	the	construction	product	
    group	concrete	and	concrete	con-stituents.	


    PArt i (GEnErAL)
    At	first	the	substances	included	in	the	product	are	assessed	with	the	help	of	the	chemical	composition	
    submitted	confidentially	by	the	applicant.	The	product	may	be	rejected	at	this	stage,	if	certain	exclusion	
    criteria	derived	from	chemical	and	waste	legislation	apply.	In	the	second	phase	the	release	of	substances	
    is	assessed.	The	construction	products	are	verified	as	unobjectionable	for	soil	and	groundwater,	if	the	
    insignificance	thresholds	at	the	place	of	as-sessment	are	not	exceeded	and	no	relevant	ecotoxicological	
    effects	occur.	For	this	purpose	leachates	of	construction	products	are	produced.	These	are	examined	
    regarding	the	following	parameters:


NICe	workshop                                                                                                      21
    1.		   General	characterisation	parameters	
    	      e.g.	pH	value,	electric	conductivity,	odour,	colour
    2.		   Substances
    	      The	parameters	to	be	examined	are	specified	on	the	basis	of	the	chemical	composition	of	the	
    	      construction	product.
    3.		   Biological	parameters
    	      Aquatic	and	terrestrial	tests	may	be	required.

    The	following	flow	chart	illustrates	the	two-phase	assessment	concept.
    	
    	

                                                           Construction products




             P has e 1                                 Determination of substances



      Requirements not
                                                         Exclusion criteria met?
      met
                                yes
                                                                      no


                                                                                                                Requirements
                                                          Findings on environmental
                                                                                                                completely met
                                                     compatibility or comparison with similar
                                                        products assessed positively?                     yes


                                                                      no

                                              Practice-related production of leachates
             P has e 2

            1s t s tep                            Determination of general parameters



      Requirements
                                                       Harmful alteration due to
      not met                                          general characterisation?
                          yes

                                                                       no

            2nd s tep                             Determination of chemical parameters




                                                                                                           Requirements
       Requirements
                                                            No effect levels                               completely met
       not met                              yes             TOC exceeded?
                                                                                   No, and ecotoxicological unobjectionability
                                                                                   was proven for all substances
            No, ecotoxicological unobjectionability has
            not been proven for all substances.

              3rd s tep                       Determination of biological parameters


       Requirements not                                                                                    Requirements
                                                          Ecotoxicological effects?
       met                                                                                                 completely met
                                      yes                                                       no




     F igure 2 : F low diagra m from the DIB t G uideline S oil/G roundwater for as s es s ing c ons truc tion
                 produc ts in terms of the protec tion of s oil a nd groundwa ter



NICe	workshop                                                                                                                    22
    PArt ii: ProduCt sPECiFiC sECtion on ConCrEtE And ConCrEtE ConstituEnts
    The	product-specific	Part	II	describes	the	procedure	for	determining	and	assessing	the	envi-ronmental	
    impact	on	soil	and	groundwater	for	the	approval	of	individual	construction	prod-ucts,	including	concrete	
    and	concrete	constituents.	Concrete	constituents	refer	to	cement,	ag-gregates,	additions	and	admixtures	
    for	manufacturing	concrete.		

    To	determine	the	suitable	test	methods	the	intended	use	is	specified	(above	the	groundwater	level	or	in	
    groundwater)	as	well	as	the	permeability	of	the	construction	method.	Building	with	impermeable	concrete	
    types	above	the	groundwater	level	is	generally	unproblematic.	Apart	from	a	short-term	release	that	is	
    attributable	to	wash-off	effects,	no	relevant	quantities	of	con-taminated	gravitational	water	can	arise	and	
    thus	no	relevant	contamination	of	soil	and	groundwater	is	to	be	feared.	

    When	building	with	concrete	in	groundwater,	dangerous	substances	are	frequently	released	due	to	
    diffusion-controlled	processes.	For	short	periods	of	time	after	construction	increased	concentrations	of	
    dangerous	substances	can	occur	and	the	insignificance	thresholds	can	be	significantly	exceeded	in	the	
    interface	zone	between	the	concrete	surfaces	and	the	groundwa-ter.	This	is	accepted	as	far	as	any	lasting	
    or	substantial	harmful	changes	to	the	groundwater	do	not	occur.		

    In	the	first	phase	of	the	assessment	of	concrete	and	concrete	constituents,	the	parameters	to	be	
    examined	are	specified	using	the	manufacturer’s	data	on	the	type,	manufacturing	process	and	chemical	
    composition	of	the	construction	products.	Concrete	constituents	that	are	suspected	of	having	an	
    increased	concentration	of	radio	nuclides	due	to	their	origin	or	the	manufacturing	process	must	also	be	
    examined	for	radioactivity.

    The	second	phase	of	the	assessment	concept	for	concrete	and	concrete	constituents	considers	
    substances	that	are	leached	out.	For	the	approval	of	concrete	constituents	and	concrete,	a	long-term	
    stand	test	is	required.	The	leaching	is	conducted	on	a	test	specimen	made	of	stan-dard	concrete	which	
    has	been	manufactured	with	the	respective	concrete	constituent	as	well	as	on	a	test	specimen	made	of	
    reference	concrete	in	order	to	be	able	to	attribute	the	changes	in	the	leachate	to	the	concrete	constituent.	
    The	long-term	stand	test	can	be	omitted,	if	there	is	already	evidence	for	all	relevant	constituents	to	prove	
    that	concrete	made	from	these	materials	can	be	used	without	any	risk	to	soil	and	groundwater.

    High	pH	values	and	high	electric	conductivity	are	typical	when	eluting	concrete	using	long-term	stand	
    tests.	This	must	be	taken	into	account	when	assessing	the	general	parameters.	The	parameters	specified	
    in	the	first	phase	of	the	assessment	must	comply	with	the	insignificance	thresholds	at	the	place	of	
    assessment	in	the	second	phase.	By	modelling	various	different	con-cretes	a	functional	relationship	
    has	been	identified	between	the	averaged	contact	groundwater	concentration	(in	µg/l)	and	release	
    during	the	long-term	stand	test	(in	mg/m²).	Using	the	linear	equation	so	determined,	a	maximum	
    permissible	release	corresponding	to	the	insignificance	threshold	has	been	derived	for	the	laboratory	
    test.	If	no	insignificance	thresholds	are	available	for	organic	substances	contained	in	the	product,	the	
    ecotoxicological	unobjectionability	is	proven	by	means	of	biological	tests.

    	
    ConCLusions
    The	DIBt	Principles	have	been	developed	for	the	needs	of	technical	approvals	for	innovative	construction	
    products.	In	the	assessment	procedure	the	starting	point	is	the	confidential	com-position	data	from	
    the	manufacturer.	Using	information	on	the	chemical	composition	and	on	the	manufacturing	process	
    of	the	construction	product	it	is	possible	to	specify	the	substances	to	be	examined	in	the	course	of	
    the	assessment.	The	tests	are	tailor	made	for	the	product	in	question.	Unnecessary	tests	are	avoided.	
    An	accompanying	discussion	within	an	expert	com-mittee	of	the	DIBt	is	always	possible	to	guide	the	
    assessment.

    Although	the	assessment	procedure	of	the	DIBt	Principles	can	not	be	translated	1:1	into	stan-dardisation	
    or	even	into	the	WT/WFT	classification,	the	underlying	criteria	from	the	environ-mental	legislation	are	
    valid	for	all	construction	products	that	may	affect	soil	and	groundwater	quality	in	their	intended	use.	The	
    need	to	verify	all	construction	products	as	safe	for	the	envi-ronment	before	they	are	used	is	embedded	in	
    the	German	Building	Code:	“Works	shall	be	ar-ranged,	erected,	modified	and	maintained	in	such	a	way	
    that	public	safety	and	order,	in	par-ticular	human	life,	health	and	natural	resources	are	not	endangered.”

    As	a	result	of	the	harmonisation	efforts	for	tests	of	dangerous	substances	under	the	CPD	the	German	
    authorities	expect	harmonised	technical	specifications	that	verify,	whether	the	prod-uct	conforms	to	our	
    environmental	criteria.	The	test	results	for	individual	products	should	be	made	readily	available	in	CE	
    marking	for	example	using	harmonised	technical	or	regulatory	classes	for	dangerous	substances.	




NICe	workshop                                                                                                       23
    rEFErEnCEs
    1.	   Tunnelkommissionen,	1998.	Miljö	i	grund	och	botten	–	erfarenheter	från	Hallandsåsen.	
    	     Slutrapport	av	Tunnelkommissionen.	Statens	offentliga	utredningar	SOU	1998:137.	
    	     http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/108/a/2680

    2.	   The	Department	of	the	Environment,	Transport	and	the	Regions,	2000.	Risk	Reduction	Strategy	and	
    	     Analysis	of	Advantages	and	Drawbacks	for	Acrylamide.	Stage	4	Report,	March	2000.	
    	     http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/chemicals/pdf/acrylamide_rrs.pdf

    3.	   Norwegian	Pollution	Control	Authority,	2006.	Regulations	relating	to	restrictions	on	the	manufacture,
    	     import,	export,	sale	and	use	of	chemicals	and	other	products	hazardous	to	health	and	the	
    	     environment	(Product	Regulations).	Unofficial	translation	of	the	Norwegian	regulation.	Section	2-19.	
    A	    crylamide	and	methylolacrylamide.	http://www.sft.no/seksjonsartikkel_30217.aspx

    4.	   Federal	Ministry	for	the	Environment,	Nature	Conservation	And	Nuclear	Safety,	1998:	Federal	Soil	
    	     Protection	Act	of		17	March	1998	(Federal	Law	Gazette	I	P.	502).	Translation.	
    	     http://www.bmu.de/english/soil_conservation/doc/3286.php

    5.	   Federal	Ministry	for	the	Environment,	Nature	Conservation	And	Nuclear	Safety,	1999:	Federal	Soil	
    	     Protection	and	Contaminated	Sites	Ordinance.	Translation.	
    	     http://www.bmu.de/english/soil_conservation/doc/3286.php

    6.	   Deutsches	Institut	für	Bautechnik,	2000.	Guideline.	Assessment	of	the	effects	of	construction	
    	     products	on	soil	and	groiundwater.	November	2000	version.	Schriften	des	Deutschen	Instituts	für	
    	     Bautechnik	(DIBt),	Reihe	M,	Heft	1.

    7.	   Länderarbeitsgemeinscchaft	Wasser,	2004.	Determination	of	Insignificance	Thresholds	for	
    	     Groundwater.	
    	     http://www.lawa.de/pub/kostenlos/gw/GFS-Report.pdf

    8.	   Deutsches	Institut	für	Bautechnik,	2005.	Principles	for	assessment	of	the	effects	of	construction	
    	     products	on	soil	and	groundwater.	Part	I.	Draft.

    9.	   Directive	2006/118/EC	of	the	European	Parliament	and	of	the	Council	of	12	December	2006	on	the	
    	     Protection	of	Groundwater	against	Pollution	and	Deterioration.	Official	Journal	of	the	European	
    	     Union.	L372/19-31.	27.12.2006.

    10.	 	Deutsches	Institut	für	Bautechnik,	2005.	Principles	for	assessment	of	the	effects	of	construction	
    	    products	on	soil	and	groundwater.	Part	II.	Draft.




NICe	workshop                                                                                                     24
    nordiC doCuMEnt For HArMonisEd
    rEquirEMEnts on nAturAL stonEs
    Prepared	by:	Schouenborg,	B.	CBI,	c/o	SP,	Box	857,	S-50115	BORÅS,	Sweden
    e-mail:	bjorn.schouenborg@sp.se
    Luodes,	N.	Stone	Pole	Oy,	Kuhnustantie	10,	83900	JUUKA,	Finland
    e-mail:	nike.luodes@kivikeskus.com

    Other	project	partners:	Malaga,	K.,	CBI,	Sweden.	Johansson	K.,	SFI,	Sweden.	Alnaes	L.,	SINTEF,	Norway,	
    Sandman	K.	&	Kjeserud,	R.	SIL	Norway,	Grelk,	B.,	RAMBOLL,	Denmark.	Nykänen,	I.,	Stone	Pole,	Finland,	
    Jauhiainen,	P.,	Finstone,	Finland,	Luodes,	H.	&	Härmä,	P.,	GTK,	Finland



    AbstrAct
    This	NICe	project	has	among	it’s	most	important	objectives	to	simplify	the	trade	of	natural	stones	
    between	Nordic	countries	and	also	outside	of	Norden.	In	addition,	the	project	works	as	a	network	for	
    discussing	and	proposing	improvements	to	the	existing	national	and	international	regulations	such	as	
    EN,	Product	standards	and	test	methods.	The	network	has	already	proven	to	be	a	very	powerful	tool	
    when	it	comes	to	influencing	the	European	standardisation.	By	compiling	all	partner’s	experience	of	the	
    new	standards	and	then	continue	with	international	lobby	work,	we	are	now	in	the	position	of	a	complete	
    revision	of	the	three	product	standards	for	Paving	units	prepared	by	CEN	TC	178.	In	addition,	one	of	the	
    partners	is	responsible	for	preparing	a	new	standard	on	the	combined	effect	of	frost	and	salt,	a	test	that	
    is	most	relevant	in	the	Nordic	countries.	Specifications	related	to	health	and	environmental	requirements	
    are	very	rudimentally	treated	in	the	first	generation	of	standards	and	have	to	be	dealt	with	in	depth	now	
    in	the	second	generation.	Finally,	a	major	objective	is	to	prepare	information	and	education	material	for	
    the	trade	concerning	the	EU-regulations	in	this	area,	e.g.	CE-marking.	Information	and	updates	on	the	
    activities	can	be	found	on	the	project	homepage:	www.nordicstones.org.

    Key words:	Nordic,	natural	stones,	requirements,	standards,	CE-marking,	FPC



    IntrodUctIon
    Natural	stone	is	one	of	our	oldest	construction	materials	and	has	been	used	for	many	thousands	of	years.	
    Some	of	the	most	well-know	constructions	are	more	than	four	thousand	years	old,	e.g.	the	Egyptian	
    pyramids.	The	most	common	stone	constructions	are	made	of	stone	with	local	origin.	It	is	only	in	the	last	
    couple	of	hundred	years	that	we	have	used	stones	from	abroad.	During	the	last	ten	years,	the	use	of	non-
    European	stones	has	increased	extremely	rapidly.	Stones	from	China,	India,	S	America	etc.	are	imported	
    at	very	low	prices.	This	has	increased	the	use	of	natural	stones	in	construction	and	civil	engineering	
    works	substantially.	However,	at	the	same	time	we	have	noticed	a	similar	increase	in	the	frequency	of	
    damaged	stones	(figure	1).	The	reputation	of	the	entire	trade	is	damaged	because	the	ordinary	person	
    can’t	differentiate	between	e.g.	Swedish	granite	and	granite	from	China.	During	several	hundred	years	
    we	have	been	fortunate	enough	to	learn	that	Nordic	granites	can	be	used	in	almost	any	application	and	
    in	the	toughest	of	environments.	Granites	have	therefore	received	a	reputation	of	being	the	most	durable	
    of	stone	types.	Still	some	producers	and	users	don’t	even	think	that	the	stone	needs	to	be	tested	before	
    the	use.	Others	think	that	granite	is	the	very	best	of	qualities	and	has	the	same	quality	all	over	the	world.	
    This	has	caused	a	lot	of	problem	during	the	last	five	years.	Granites	are	imported	to	Sweden,	mainly	
    from	China	and	to	Norway,	mainly	from	India.	They	are	very	cheap	compared	to	Nordic	granites	and	have	
    therefore	been	favoured	in	many	public	procurements.	However,	they	have	most	often	not	been	properly	
    tested.	Their	production	is	not	enough,	or	even	in	some	cases,	not	at	all	controlled	to	assure	homogeneity	
    of	properties	and	quality.	The	craftsmanship	too	influence	the	heterogeneous	behaviour	on	the	building	
    site,	that	added	to	the	relative	young	production	and	use	does	not	allow	to	trust	such	material	without	
    proper	preventive	control.	(figure	2).

    Before	any	European	standardisation,	stones	were	tested	about	every	50	years	or	just	before	a	specific	
    construction	project.	Nowadays,	every	stone	product	placed	on	the	European	market	has	to	be	tested	at	
    a	significantly	higher	frequency.	This	verification	of	the	high	quality	is	probably	the	best	competition	tool	
    against	non-Nordic	stone	types.	However,	documented	quality	assurance	work	is	not	something	that	
    is	well-known	to	the	Nordic	stone	producers,	nor	other	European	producers.	The	present	NICe	project	
    therefore	answers	to	many	of	these	new	demands	on	the	producers	and	other	“players”	in	this	field.




NICe	workshop                                                                                                        25
      figure	1	a.	Sanding	Chinese	granite	before             	1a.	Rusting	Chinese	granite.
      the	first	winter	season.




                                                             figure	2.	Cladding	panel	in	Hammarby	Sjöstad,	
                                                             Stockholm,	Sweden.	This	is	just	one	of	many	
                                                             poorly	crafted	stone	products	in	the	area.	The	
                                                             panel	has	been	installed	despite	a	defect	edge	
                                                             showing	a	slot	for	kerf	anchors.	




    the	ProJect
    GEnErAL inForMAtion
    The	NICe	project	06151	Harmonized	Nordic	Requirements	on	Natural	Stones	(www.nordicstones.org)	
    started	in	August	2006.	The	project	engages	partners	from	Sweden,	Denmark,	Norway	and	Finland	and	is	
    coordinated	by	SP,	Technical	Research	institute	of	Sweden.	

    The	project	is	operating	on	different	levels:
    	   a)	 compiling	previous	knowledge	concerning:
    	   	 a.		the	status	of	the	standardization	in	the	natural	stone	sector,
    	   	 b.		the	national	requirements	and	requirements	for	large	construction	projects	in	order	to	
    	   	 					harmonize	and	develop	common	Nordic	guidelines	and	requirements
    	   	 c.		good	and	bad	examples	of	use
    	   	 d.		problems	noticed	during	these	years	in	which	the	European	product	standards	and	test	
    	   	 					methods	have	been	applied
    	   b)	 Creating	a	quality	manual	template	that	will	help	the	producers	in	their	factory	production	control
    	   c)	 Classifying	technical	properties	of	stone	for	different	applications	according	to	the	needs	of	
    	   	 Nordic	utilization	and	climate	and	suggesting	complementary/alternative	tests,	more	
    	   	 representative	for	the	Nordic	climate	when	necessary
    	   d)	 Creating	an	information	package	for	architects	and	decision	makers	including	educational	
    	   	 seminars	and	educational	packages	for	stone	producers	and	organised	training	
    	   e)	 Preparing	a	document	with	common	visions	and	goals	for	the	Nordic	participation	in	the	
    	   	 European	work	of	harmonizing	standards	on	natural	stones

    The	co-operation	between	the	Nordic	countries	allows	the	definition	of	common	guidelines	and	common	
    requirements	for	the	whole	Nordic	area.	The	main	work	of	preparing	guidelines	for	the	national	
    requirements	is	to	evaluate	which	are	the	necessary	basic	properties	of	stone	material	to	be	used	in	
NICe	workshop                                                                                                     26
    buildings	in	the	Nordic	climate.	In	this	way,	the	producers	are	helped	in	the	qualification	of	their	product.	
    In	addition,	the	final	users	are	given	guidelines	for	selecting	suitable	stone	types	and	assistance	during	
    the	construction,	besides	increased	knowledge	of	the	properties	of	the	stones	and	the	meaning	of	quality	
    production.	

    A	few	areas	of	our	work	and	accomplishments	to	this	date	are	elaborated	in	more	detail	below.


    CoMMon nordiC rEquirEMEnts
    As	the	title	of	the	project	indicates,	this	is	the	main	topic	of	the	project.	However,	national	standardisation	
    and	Nordic	harmonization	is	not	possible	to	decouple	from	European	standardisation.	The	partners	of	the	
    project	have	therefore	been	chosen	carefully	to	also	be	able	to	influence	the	international	requirements	
    (see	below).	On	the	Nordic	level,	we	are	compiling	information	on	available	national	standards/regulations	
    and	documents	with	similar	status.	We	are	also	compiling	requirements	put	together	for	special	projects,	
    e.g.	the	Danish	opera	in	Copenhagen	and	the	Norwegian	opera	in	Oslo.	The	European	standards	generally	
    contain	a	list	of	different	properties	that	may	be	declared.	Only	rarely,	these	properties	are	mandatory.	
    There	is	no	guidance	for	the	producer	or	buyer	as	to	when	the	different	properties	shall	be	tested	or	what	
    level	that	should	be	requested.	Two	reports	have	been	compiled	in	relation	to	these	problems;	one	with	
    information	about	European	standardisation	and	”how	it	works”	and	another	report	on	available	national	
    regulations.	The	final	report	will	most	likely	be	based	on	the	Danish	BIPS	system,	in	which	the	standards	
    are	described	on	one	part	of	the	page	and	actual	recommended	requirements	on	the	other.	Since	the	
    project	is	not	authorized	to	prepare	national	requirements,	it	is	a	big	task	to	try	to	implement	this	after	
    the	project	has	finalised.	Training	courses	and	seminars	will	therefore	follow	in	each	country,	also	in	
    Finland	where	effective	actions	have	already	been	taken	while	the	project	has	been	proceeding,	so	that	
    first	national	requirements	will	be	available	soon	in	NAS	documents	(National	Application	Standards).	


    inFLuEnCE on EuroPEAn stAndArdisAtion
    The	partners	have	compiled	most	of	their	experience	from	the	use	of	all	European	standards	and	drafted	
    proposed	changes	where	necessary.	This	document	was	then	used	to	influence	CEN	TC	178	to	initiate	
    a	review	of	the	three	product	standards	on	Paving	units	(Kerbs,	Setts	and	Slabs)	of	natural	stones.	In	
    addition,	the	documented	comments	are	also	used	to	improve	the	standardisation	of	test	methods	in	CEN	
    TC	246	Natural	stones.	The	project	partners	from	research	and	development	organisations	are	appointed	
    national	experts	in	several	European	standardisation	groups,	like	TC	178/WG	2	Paving	units	of	natural	
    stones,	CEN	TC	246	Natural	stones	and	TC	246/WG	2	Test	methods.	

    One	of	the	most	important	properties	for	Nordic	conditions	is	the	frost	test	and	the	combined	effect	of	
    frost	and	salt	(marine	salt	and	de-icing	salts).	Test	results	using	the	existing	standard	are	not	reflecting	
    the	actual	performance	in	the	construction.	One	of	the	most	severe	climatic	conditions	is	the	one	with	
    many	freeze-thaw	cycles	in	a	marine	environment	or	where	de-icing	salts	are	used.	After	having	put	
    forward	the	NICe-project	arguments,	we	now	have	the	responsibility	to	develop	such	a	test.	The	amended	
    standard	for	testing	the	frost	resistance	is	to	be	presented	in	April	2008	and	the	new	test	for	assessing	the	
    resistance	to	the	combined	effect	of	frost	and	salt	is	to	be	ready	in	November	2008.


    CE-MArKinG rEquirEMEnts And rECoMMEndAtions For FPC
    Very	limited	information	and	guidance	is	provided	to	the	stone	producer,	supplier	and	the	buyer	about	the	
    requirements	for	CE-marking.	No	European	Guidance	paper	has	been	prepared	for	the	area	of	Natural	
    stones.	Although	some	information	can	be	taken	from	e.g.	the	aggregate	industry,	the	production	and	
    processing	conditions	are	totally	different.	Even	the	requirement	on	a	suitable	bedrock	is	different.
    According	to	the	requirement	for	CE-marking	(Attestation	conformity	system	4),	the	stone	producers	
    may	carry	out	all	control	and	testing	themselves.	Today,	no	producer	has	such	facilities/possibilities.	It	
    is	therefore	important	to	provide	such	means.	The	lack	of	clear	and	structured	recommendations	for	
    the	Factory	Production	Control	and	great	differences	in	national	requirements	for	the	CE-marking	has	
    led	to	distrust	in	the	CE-marking	system	itself.	The	CE-mark	has	only	become	the	key	for	access	to	the	
    European	market.	The	credibility	of	the	system	is	therefore	still	very	limited!	

    The	Project	group	has	developed	common	Nordic	guidelines	for	CE-marking	and	the	accompanying	FPC-
    procedures.	The	aim	is	to	develop	templates	for	all	necessary	quality	assurance	procedures	suitable	for	
    the	stone	producer	and	importer	and	to	raise	the	level	of	awareness	of	its	importance	among	all	relevant	
    people	in	the	trade.	We	are	now	in	the	process	of	providing	courses	on	the	topic	for	the	producers	and	will	
    continue	with	the	decision	makers,	architects	and	traders.	The	CE-mark	needs	to	be	strengthened	and	
    part	of	that	work	is	to	develop	clear	guidelines	that	are	accepted	throughout	Europe.


    sPECiFiCAtions rELAtEd to HEALtH And EnVironMEntAL rEquirEMEnts
    Environmentally	related	requirements	were	postponed	into	the	second	generation	of	harmonised	
    technical	specifications.	The	first	generation	contains	either	just	rudimentary	environmental	and	
    health	requirements	or	none	at	all,	referring	instead	to	nationally	applicable	regulations.	The	European	
NICe	workshop                                                                                                          27
    Commission	has	recently	upgraded	environmental	and	health	aspects	on	its	agenda	for	a	common	
    market	for	construction	products.		In	April	2005	a	mandate	M/366	was	issued	to	the	European	Committee	
    for	Standardization	(CEN)	to	develop	harmonised	approaches	for	dangerous	substances	under	the	
    Construction	Products	Directive.		CEN	has	established	a	new	Technical	Committee	(TC	351)	“Construction	
    Products:	Assessment	of	release	of	dangerous	substances”	as	a	response	to	the	EC	mandate.	

    	     Table	ZA	1	in	product	standards	for	natural	stones	describes	some	of	the	present	international	
    	     requirements	on	natural	stones	concerning	dangerous	substances.	However,	many	countries	have	
    	     their	own	requirements	on	specific	components	found	in	natural	stones	such	as:

    	     •	   Asbestos
    	     •	   Radioactive	material,	e.g.	special	requirements	in	Czech	rep.
    	     •	   Silica	(e.g.	quartz	contents,	e.g.	in	Sweden,	every	producer	dealing	with	a	material	containing	
    	     	    more	than	3	%	quartz	has	to	declare	the	content	and	take	measures	to	avoid	risk	of	silicosis).	
    	     	    No	standardized	test	method	for	the	determination	of	the	contents	exists.

    	     Moreover,	in	many	countries,	the	stone	slabs	are	treated	with	chemicals	before	further	processing	
    	     (figure	3).	These	chemicals	are	often	highly	toxic	and	their	influence	on	humans	once	hardened	has	
    	     not	been	investigated	in	too	much	detail.	Further	processing	means,	e.g.	cutting,	grinding	and	
    	     polishing	could	generate	breathable	dust.

    	     Finished	products	are	often	treated	with	chemicals	flooding	the	market.	Chemicals	for	cleaning,	for	
    	     stain	removal	and	for	protection	are	the	most	common	(figure	4).	

    Thus,	even	if	most	stone	types	are	themselves	harmless,	the	final	product	may	contain	a	lot	of	different	
    chemicals	that	are	not	declared	and	have	to	be	evaluated	AND	may	prevent	them	from	recycling	or	reuse.	
    Although	this	is	not	the	main	topic	of	the	NICe	project	it	is	included	together	with	all	other	parameters	
    that	are	assessed	by	the	project	group	and	that	need	to	be	declared	together	with	the	CE-marking	
    information.
    									




        Figure	3.	Toxic	chemical	for	routine	preparation	        Figure	4.	One	of	many	stands	for	cleaning	
        of	slabs	before	surface	finishing.                       and	protecting	chemicals	at	a	stone	fair.


    FInAL	dIscUssIon	And	concLUsIons
    NICe	project	06151	Harmonized	Nordic	Requirements	on	Natural	Stones	is	one	on	its	own.	National	
    projects	in	some	European	countries	have	disseminated	information	related	to	the	application	of	CE	
    marking	and	factory	production	control,	but	very	few	countries	have	already	developed	requirements	
    for	their	application.	This	Nordic	project,	besides	helping	the	Nordic	companies	to	apply	it	and	develop	
    their	production	towards	a	reliable	quality	system,	promotes	toward	the	final	users	the	meaning	and	
    importance	of	using	materials	that	have	a	high	quality	production.	That	means	homogeneity	of	properties	
    and	performance	during	the	years	in	use.	The	action	of	enlightening	and	spreading	the	Nordic	needs	
    toward	Europe	effected	the	European	standardization	and	the	European	acknowledgment	of	differences	
    between	climatic	needs.	At	the	same	time	the	compilation	of	the	maturated	experiences	and	the	creation	
    of	quality	documentation	has	been	proposed	and	discussed	at	a	larger	European	platform	and	presented	
    as	an	example	for	application	of	an	improved	quality	system	in	the	production.
    The	assessment	of	the	needs	and	the	development	of	the	requirements	concerning	the	quality	and	
    production	of	the	natural	stone	products	will	help	and	promote	its	safe	use	in	the	Nordic	countries	as	well	
    as	in	all	Europe.
NICe	workshop                                                                                                      28
    ACtiVitiEs in EotA WitH LinKs to Er3
    Ir	Paul	Caluwaerts,	Secr.	Gen.	EOTA
    40,	Kunstlaan,	1040	Brussels
    e-mail:	pcaluwaerts@eota.eu,	info@eota.eu



    roLe	oF	etAs	Under	the	cPd
    The	Construction	Products	Directive	(CPD)	approved	in	1989,	provides	that	construction	products,	in	order	
    to	bear	the	CE	marking,	shall	comply	with	the	requirements	of	technical	specifications,	i.e.
    	    -	 either	harmonised	European	(product)	standards	(hENs),	adopted	by	CEN/CENELEC	on	the	basis	
    	    	 of	mandates	given	by	the	EC	and	EFTA
    	    -	 or	European	Technical	Approvals	(ETAs)	as	described	below.
    	
    A	European	Technical	Approval	(ETA)	is	a	favourable	technical	assessment	of	the	fitness	of	a	construction	
    product	for	an	intended	use,	as	well	as	the	technical	specification	of	the	assessed	product.

    An	ETA	can	be	granted	on	request	of	a	manufacturer	for	a	particular	construction	product	when	any	of	the	
    following	conditions	applies.
    	    •	 a	harmonised	standard	or	a	standardization	mandate	does	not	(or	not	yet)	exist	for	the	product	
    	    	 and	the	European	Commission	considers	that	a	standard	cannot	(or	not	yet)	be	developed,	or
    	    •	 when	the	product	deviates	significantly	from	an	existing	harmonised	standard.

    In	most	cases	this	results	in	ETAs	drafted	for	innovative	products	or	for	complex	kits/systems.

    The	ETA	and	the	procedure	of	attestation	of	conformity	described	in	it	allows	the	manufacturer	to	affix	
    the	CE	marking	on	his	product	and	to	place	the	product	on	the	market	in	any	EEA	country	(European	
    Economic	Area).

    The	ETA	contains	the	technical	specification	of	the	product	and	the	requirements	to	be	fulfilled	by	the	
    manufacturer,	including	the	specific	provisions	for	the	AoC	(Attestation	of	Conformity),	which	are	laid	
    down	in	a	control	plan	(separate	non-public	part	of	the	ETA,	for	reasons	of	confidentiality).	In	contradiction	
    to	hENs,	which	are	drafted	for	a	family	of	products,	the	ETA	is	issued	for	a	specific	product	or	a	range	of	
    products	of	a	particular	manufacturer.	ETAs	have	a	validity	of	five	years,	and	are	renewable	thereafter.

    An	ETA	may	be	issued	on	the	basis	of	an	ETA	Guideline	(ETAG)	for	the	relevant	product	family	(according	
    to	article	11	of	the	CPD),	or	on	the	basis	of	an	assessment	method	commonly	defined	and	agreed	among	
    EOTA	members	for	the	particular	product	(according	to	art.	9.2	of	the	CPD),	internally	in	EOTA	referred	to	
    as	Common	Understanding	of	Assessment	Procedure	(CUAP)	

    As	the	ETA	is	a	measure-made	document,	which	also	includes	relevant	information	on	the	intended	use	
    and	specific	provisions	for	the	installation	of	the	product,	including	design	aspects	of	the	part	of	the	
    work	concerned,	it	is	as	such	useful	not	only	for	the	manufacturer	himself,	the	involved	notified	body,	the	
    national	authorities	and	market	surveillance	but	also	for	purchasers	and	users	of	the	product.	

    ETAs	are	issued	by	Approval	Bodies,	authorized	for	this	particular	task	by	EU	Member	States	or	EFTA	
    States	who	have	contracted	to	the	European	Economic	Area	Agreement.	Together	these	Approval	Bodies	
    form	the	European	Organisation	for	Technical	Approvals,	EOTA.

    The	role	of	EOTA	is	primarily	to	monitor	and	progress	the	drafting	of	ETA	Guidelines	(ETAGs),	to	achieve	
    consensus	on	assessment	criteria	where	Guidelines	do	not	or	not	yet	exist,	and	to	co-ordinate	all	activities	
    relating	to	the	issuing	of	ETAs,	in	particular	in	order	to	ensure	that	the	various	ETAs	issued	by	the	different	
    Approval	Bodies	are	equivalent.	EOTA	operates	in	close	co-operation	with	the	European	Commission,	
    EFTA,	CEN	and	European	trade	associations	and	industrial	organisations	that	are	also	present	as	
    observers	at	various	EOTA	levels.

    An	ETA	Guideline	(ETAG)	is	a	document	drafted	for	a	specific	product	family	by	and	for	the	EOTA	Approval	
    Bodies	as	a	result	of	a	mandate	from	the	European	Commission	and	EFTA.	Its	basic	aim	is	to	establish	
    how	Approval	Bodies	should	assess	fitness	for	use	and	evaluate	the	specific	product	characteristics	and	
    performances	which	are	relevant	for	the	fulfilment	of	the	essential	requirements	applicable	to	works,	
    as	well	as	the	procedure	of	attestation	of	conformity	including	the	CE	marking	and	accompanying	
    information.

    The	assessment	methods	referred	to	as	CUAPs	are	similar	to	ETAGs	in	their	technical	content,	however	
    with	a	rather	limited	scope.	They	are	prepared	in	the	individual	framework	of	a	particular	ETA	request	in	

NICe	workshop                                                                                                          29
    cases	in	which	the	European	Commission	did	not	give	a	mandate	to	EOTA	for	the	preparation	of	an	ETAG.	
    The	CUAPs	are	drafted	by	the	Approval	Body	to	which	the	ETA	application	was	made	and	are	submitted	to	
    the	other	Approval	Bodies	for	obtaining	consensus.	They	are	internal	EOTA	documents.

    From	this	description	it	becomes	clear	that	the	ETA	must	contain	the	result	of	the	evaluation	of	the	
    construction	product	also	with	respect	to	the	fulfilment	of	ER3	for	the	works	in	which	the	product	is	going	
    to	be	incorporated	and	that	the	ETAGs	and	CUAPs	have	to	lay	down	the	methods	how	this	needs	to	be	
    done	for	a	specific	product	or	product	family.


    how	to	hAndLe	er3	In	etAGs/cUAPs/etAs
    In	order	to	streamline	the	assessment	methods	for	regulated	dangerous	substances	in	the	ETAGs/CUAPs	
    and	ETAs,	the	EOTA	Technical	Board	has	set	up	a	horizontal	project	team	(PT9)	which	primary	goal	is	to	
    collect	the	relevant	knowledge	and	expertise	from	the	EC	Expert	Group	on	Dangerous	Substances	(EGDS),	
    CEN	TC	351	and	the	own	expertise	of	its	member	bodies,	in	order	to	give	the	relevant	guidance	to	the	own	
    specification	writers.

    To	this	effect	and	starting	from	the	complexity	of	the	products	which	the	Approval	Bodies	have	to	assess,	
    PT9	has	first	set	up	general	guidance	on	the	assessment	in	relation	to	ER3	for	ETAGs/CUAPs	and	ETAs.


    bAsIs	oF	the	GUIdAnce
    The	basis	of	this	guidance	for	assessment	is	the	European	Commission	Guidance	Paper	H,	revision	
    August	2002,	which	is	intended	to	describe	a	harmonised	approach	to	addressing	the	problem	of	
    dangerous	substances	and	preparations	as	well	as	radiation,	when	related	to	products	falling	under	the	
    Construction	Products	Directive	(89/106/EEC);	additionally	Mandate	M	366	to	CEN	is	considered,	as	well	
    as	recent	work	of	the	EGDS.

    Guidance	Paper	H	is	limited	to	those	aspects	of	the	CPD	essential	requirement	No.3	‘Hygiene,	health	
    and	the	environment’	that	are	linked	to	the	presence	of	potentially	dangerous	substances	in	construction	
    products.	

    To	conform	to	the	scope	of	the	CPD,	the	harmonised	approach	relating	to	dangerous	substances	is	limited	
    to	‘works	in	use’.	Other	phases	of	the	life	cycle	of	a	product,	i.e.	its	excavation	or	production	stages,	during	
    the	building	process,	during	demolition,	waste	disposal,	incineration	or	waste	re-use	(except	where	that	
    re-use	is	as	a	construction	product	in	the	sense	of	the	CPD)	are	not	considered	for	harmonisation	under	
    the	CPD.	

    The	requirement	on	products	is	expressed	either	as	emission	or	migration	of	dangerous	substances	or	
    radiation,	during	normal	(i.e.	foreseeable)	use.		It	is	therefore,	when	possible,	the	release	of	substances	
    that	is	the	characteristic	to	be	controlled,	taking	into	account	the	relevant	release	scenarios	and	end	
    use	conditions.	Consideration	must	also	be	given	to	the	content	of	the	construction	products,	regarding	
    dangerous	substances,	because	this	is	also	often	restricted	by	national	or	European	regulations.	

    The	criteria	for	assessment,	verification	and	judgement	of	products/kits	in	ETAGs/CUAPs	-agreed	by	
    Working	Groups/PT9/TB-	are	listed	in	a	document	still	under	development	“Guidance	on	assessment	
    for	ER	3”	which	forms	the	general	guidance	for	the	EOTA	specification	writers	to	decide,	which	aspects	
    should	be	considered	in	their	technical	specification	depending	on	the	products,	the	materials	and	the	
    intended	use	conditions.	Starting	from	the	complexity	of	the	products	to	consider	(e.g.	kits	or	systems)	
    and	the	different	components	and	materials	they	are	composed	of,	it	tries	to	list	for	each	of	them	the	
    potential	regulated	dangerous	substances	to	consider	and,	referring	to	the	related	release	scenarios,	it	
    then	defines	the	relevant	assessment/evaluation	methods	available	and	related	assessment	criteria.	For	
    the	release	scenarios,	PT9	has	chosen	to	take	over	the	ones	that	have	been	developed	by	CEN	TC	351	in	
    its	TR2	report.

    For	the	assessment	methods,	available	information	is	used	on	which	test	methods	are	currently	available	or	
    in	development	to	determine	the	products	of	leaching/run	off	(to	soil	and	water)	and	emission	to	indoor	air.	

    The	guidance	document	has	been	developed	as	a	general	checklist	which	should	then	be	adapted	by	the	
    EOTA	specification	writers	to	their	specific	needs	in	individual	ETAGs	and	CUAPs.
    The	general	structure	of	the	checklist	can	be	seen	from	the	table	below.

    This	guidance/checklist	will	gradually	continue	to	be	developed,	as	it	becomes	clearer	from	the	
    consultation	on	the	regulation	on	works	in	Member	States,	which	dangerous	substances	need	to	be	
    considered	at	European	or	at	the	various	national	levels	(problem	of	the	data	base).	It	is	also	meant	as	
    an	evolving	document,	since	it	will	be	adapted	to	the	knowledge	acquired	and	developed	in	this	context	
    by	CEN/TC	351	both	at	the	level	of	the	regulated	dangerous	substances	as	well	as	on	the	harmonised	
    assessment	methods.
NICe	workshop                                                                                                           30
    ProcedUrAL	AsPects
    In	order	to	issue	an	ETA	on	the	basis	of	an	existing	ETAG/CUAP,	the	Approval	Body	as	in	the	first	step	to	
    gather	sufficient	data	about	the	ingredients	of	the	product	and	its	intended	use;	those	are	expected	to	
    be	given	by	the	manufacturer	to	the	approval	body	in	order	to	set	him	in	a	position	to	identify	dangerous	
    substances	and	the	corresponding	release	scenarios.	If	all	these	substances,	intended	uses	and	release	
    scenarios	are	covered	by	the	ETAG/CUAP,	the	ETA	can	be	issued	by	considering	all	ER	3	aspects	as	being	
    harmonised.	It	is	obvious	that	the	Approval	Body	comes	to	the	same	resolution	when	no	dangerous	
    substances	can	be	identified	or	the	product	is	classified	as	a	“product,	for	which	no	testing	is	needed”	as	
    agreed	in	PT	9.

    If	dangerous	substances	and/or	release	scenarios	are	not	covered	by	the	ETAG/CUAP	the	Approval	
    Body	has	the	possibility	to	issue	the	ETA	by	indicating	that	for	those	substances/release	scenarios	no	
    performance	was	determined	(npd-option).	

    If	dangerous	substances	and/or	release	scenarios	which	are	not	covered	by	the	ETAG/CUAP	are	identified	
    by	the	approval	body,	PT	9	is	asked	to	find	out	assessment	or	verification	methods	for	such	substances/
    release	scenarios.	If	such	methods	are	available,	PT	9	prepares	an	amendment	of	the	ETAG/CUAP	and	
    completes	its	guidance	document.	The	amendment	shall	–	after	consultation	of	the	respective	EOTA	
    WG	-	be	endorsed	by	EOTA	TB.	The	revised	ETAG/CUAP	can	be	considered	as	being	harmonised	for	the	
    respective	substances/release	scenarios.	

    In	the	case	of	non-harmonised	dangerous	substances,	PT	9	has	to	consider	two	different	aspects:	the	
    content	and	the	potential	release	of	dangerous	substances	(emission	to	the	air	or	migration/leaching	
    to	soil	or	water).	Relating	to	the	content,	it	has	to	be	stated	whether	European	or	national	legislation	of	
    at	least	one	of	the	Member	States	has	restrictions	referring	to	this.	Concerning	the	release,	respective	
    scenarios	have	to	be	considered	taking	into	account	the	intended	use(s)	of	the	product.	For	both	aspects,	
    assessment	or	verification	methods	have	to	be	found	out	to	prepare	a	proposal	for	the	amendment	of	
    the	ETAG/CUAP.	Alternatively	already	available	methods	can	be	taken	(if	validated	for	the	respective	
    product	and	release	scenario)	or	suitable	methods	can	be	created	(e.g.	by	adapting	available	methods).	
    In	this	sense	the	future	work	of	CEN/TC	351	will	be	of	utmost	importance.	Having	definitely	determined	
    a	test	method,	EOTA	will	be	able	to	deal	with	such	substances/release	scenarios	in	a	harmonised	way	by	
    amending	the	respective	ETAG/CUAP.	


    next	stePs	
    Further	development	of	the	guidance	for	assessment	in	relation	to	each	of	the	products/kits	mandated	
    to	EOTA	for	ETAGs	would	involve	agreement	by	the	relevant	Working	Group/PT9/Technical	Board	of	this	
    checklist.	This	development	will	take	place,	considering	at	any	time	the	possible	changing	regulatory	
    conditions	in	Member	States,	the	expertise	acquired	by	the	Approval	Bodies	and	the	harmonisation	work	
    developed	by	CEN	TC	351.	


    GEnErAL struCturE oF tHE CHECKList
    “GuidAnCE on AssEssMEnt Er 3” in tHE CAsE For CrEAtinG
    A ProduCt rELAtEd AnnEx For EtAGs/CuAP

     ComPonEntS	 matErial(S)/	 dangErouS	     rElEaSE	                         PotEntial	     modEl	       modEl	                    nPd	oPtion	
       of	thE	    familiES	of	 SuBStanCE(S)	 SCEnario(S)                      EmiSSion	to	 ClauSES	for	 ClauSES	for	                  alloWEd
     ProduCt(S)/	 SuBStanCES     havE	to	BE	                                  Soil/WatEr	 vErifiCation   aSSESSing	
        Kit(S)                  ConSidErEd                                      and/or	                     and	
                                                                              indoor	air                vErifiCation

     here	the	         here	the	         here	the	          here	the	         here	the	in-       here	different	   here	different	   here	
     product(s)/       relevant	         relevant	          relevant	         corporation	of	    verification	     possibilities	    information	
     components	       material(s)/	     dangerous	         release	          the	product(s)/    methods	will	     for	assess-       is	given,	if	the	
     of	products	      families	of	      substance(s)	      scenarios	        kit(s)	into	the	   be	given,	        ing	and	          npd-option
     will	be	listed	   substance(s)	     will	be	listed,	   related	to	the	   works	is	to	       depending	on	     verification	     is	applicable
     according	the	    will	be	given,	   which	the	         verification/	    be	consid-         the	release	      will	be	given,	
     information	      for	which	an	     approval	          assessment	       ered,	e.g.	the	    scenario(s)	      depending	on	
     given	in	the	     assessment	       body	has	to	       are	given	        effects	of	any	    and	the	poten-    the	release	
     mandate	          regarding	er	3	   consider	                            covering	of	the	   tial	emission;	   scenario(s),	
     the	              is	relevant                                            product(s)/        the	verifica-     the	assess-
     product(s)/	                                                             kit(s)             tion	methods	     ment	and	
     component(s)	                                                                               will	be	given	    verification	
     of	kit(s)	are	                                                                              as	“model	        clauses	will	
     assigned	                                                                                   clauses”	for	     be	defined	
     to	product	                                                                                 the	etAG/         as	“model	
     families                                                                                    cUAP	writers      clauses”	for	
                                                                                                                   the	etAG/
                                                                                                                   cUAP	writers



NICe	workshop                                                                                                                                            31
    CurrEnt CritEriA For AssEssMEnt oF
    EnVironMEntAL ACCEPtAnCE;
    PossiBiLitiEs And dEVELoPMEnt nEEds
    For ConstruCtion ProduCts in ContACt
    WitH WAtEr And soiL
    Rein	Eikelboom,	Ministry	of	Housing,	Spatial	Planning,	and	the	Environment	(VROM),	Netherlands.
    e-mail:	rein.eikelboom@minvrom.nl	



    AbstrAct

    CArE For dAnGErous suBstAnCEs in ConstruCtion ProduCts.
    Active	protection	of	the	environmental	quality	is	necessary	for	guaranteeing	safe	and	sustainable	
    performance	and	use	of	soil	and	water.	Such	protection	should	primarily	be	performed	by	personal	
    attitude	and	interest	of	people	concerned,	enterprises,	and	public	services.	However,	implementing	such	
    attitude	may	be	facilitated	and	guided	by	policy,	general	strategies,	and	legislation.	

    Evaluation	whether	certain	activity	(e.g.	use	or	reuse	of	certain	materials	in	construction	products	on	
    a	specific	spot)	is	acceptable	from	the	view	point	of	health	and	environment	is	quite	complicated.	The	
    construction	sector	covers	a	big	market	(5-10%	of	the	GNP,	gross	national	product).	Often,	individual	
    activities	are	relatively	rather	small,	but	repeated	many	times	on	different	places.	So,	to	create	a	market,	
    it	is	very	helpful	to	give	guidance	by	general	guidelines	and	legislation.	By	such	general	rules,	one	rather	
    easily	can	determine	what	the	boundaries	for	protection	of	the	environment	are.	And	so	it	becomes	easier	
    to	convince	others	and	to	accept	that	a	product	or	a	certain	construction	can	be	considered	safe	for	the	
    environment.

    In	the	past,	even	in	construction,	several	developments	have	shown	that	risks	for	health	and	the	
    environment	can	occur	if	no	specific	care	is	taken	of	undesired	releases	of	substances.	Based	on	the	
    experiences	and	supported	by	development	of	guidelines	and	regulations,	actually	most	construction	
    products	are	produced	in	a	way	that	they	are	safe	for	health	and	the	environment.

    For	producers	of	these	safe	products,	such	general	rules	are	quite	helpful	to	confirm	for	themselves,	and	
    to	easily	explain	to	users,	the	general	public	and	to	authorities,	that	their	products	are	safe	indeed.

    Setting	adequate	borders	by	guidance	documents	and	legislation	is	practical	for	evaluating	new	
    developments	as	well.	E.g.	for	changing	production	processes,	for	use	of	new	raw	materials,	and	for	
    recycling.	Which	demolition	waste	and	other	recycled	materials	can	be	use	directly,	which	have	to	be	and	
    can	be	treated	sufficiently	and	which	(parts	of)	raw	materials	cannot	be	reused?	Is	it	possible	to	produce	
    new	materials	in	a	way	that	recycling	will	be	easier	and	safer	for	health	and	environment?	General	rules	
    may	be	helpful	to	answer	such	questions.

    	
    tEstinG
    The	need	for	testing	products	and	the	type	and	frequency	of	testing	is	a	different	question.		This	need,	and	
    the	intensity	of	testing,	depends	on	available	information	on	raw	materials,	the	production	process	and	
    the	final	product.	In	other	contributions	it	will	be	explained	more	in	detail	how	products	can	be	tested	in	
    an	adequate	and	efficient	way.	It	is	important	to	make	a	difference	in	initial	determining	if	a	product	can	be	
    regarded	as	safe,	and	determining	if	periodical	factory	production	control	testing	(FPC)	is	needed,	and,	if	
    yes,	with	what	frequency	and	for	which	parameters.	(See	figure	1,	on	top	right	side)

    European environmental directives
    Several	European	directives	have	set	general	criteria	for	protection	of	soil	and	water.	Member	States	are	
    obliged	to	implement	these	regulations	in	new	national	regulations	or	to	adapt	existing	own	regulations.		
    E.g.	the	Water	Framework	Directive	(WFD),	the	still	existing	and	the	new	Groundwater	Directive	(GWD)	and	
    the	Waste	management	directive	(WMD).	(see	figure	1,	down	left)

    The	WFD/GWD	Guidance	document	17	on	‘Direct	and	Indirect	Inputs	in	Groundwater’	explains	more	in	
    detail	how	human	activities	with	risks	on	release	of	dangerous	substances	into	groundwater	should	
    be	evaluated	and	controlled	according	these	directives.	These	human	activities	include	the	use	of	
    construction	products.	Many	other	directives	(including	some	product	directives)	take	into	account	
    protection	of	soil	and	water.	It	is	generally	acknowledged	that	soil	protection	needs	legislation	and	further	

NICe	workshop                                                                                                         32
    guidance.	But	it	is	still	under	discussion	if	this	has	to	be	supported	by	special	European	policy,	strategies	
    and/or	a	general	EU	Soil	Directive.

    In	principle,	there	is	no	difference	in	goals	and	criteria	from	whatever	source	that	may	have	impact	on	
    the	quality	of	soil	and	water.	In	my	opinion	basic	approaches	for	all	kinds	of	impacts	from	e.g.	landfill	
    activities,	agriculture,	construction	products,	traffic,	industry	should	and	could	be	similar.	Many	aspects	
    of	these	approaches	can	be	harmonised,	or	are	already	rather	similar	but	use	different	wordings	
    and	different	formats.	There	may	remain	differences	due	to	some	practical	points	or	due	to	different	
    timetables	for	implementing	measures.

    According	to	the	WFD,	GWD	and	WMD	Member	States	should	evaluate	activities	on	a	case	by	case	
    basis,	but	may	also	set	general	rules	for	such	activities	like	construction	works.	(A	draft	revision	of	the	
    WMD	is	aiming	at	facilitating	evaluation	procedures	for	recycling.)	As	experienced	in	the	Netherlands	
    and	some	other	countries,	recycling	of	construction	debris	and	reuse	of	other	secondary	materials	is	
    largely	facilitated	by	setting	general	rules	and	by	preventing	needs	of	case	by	case	evaluations.	In	the	
    Netherlands	this	lead	to	95%	recycling	of	all	waste	materials	from	construction	debris,	the	same	for	many	
    other	waste	streams.


    CPd: dAnGErous suBstAnCEs FroM MArKEt PErsPECtiV.
    The	CPD	itself	does	not	set	environmental	and	health	criteria.	It	just	acknowledges	that	these	aspects	
    need	attention	and	that	information	on	this	should	be	provided	by	producers.	Such	producer’s	information	
    focuses	on	the	performance	in	its	phase	of	use	in	a	construction.	The	CPD	is	aiming	at	harmonising	such	
    performance	information.	This	is	only	possible	if	all	partners	in	Europe	can	agree	on	(uniform)	reference	
    test	methods	and	(uniform)	performance	of	test	results.	(see	fig.	1,	top	right)

    This	strong	position	on	harmonisation	of	test	methods	and	performance	of	test	data	is	rather	new	for	
    the	many	environmental	sectors	concerned.	This	applies	to	soil	including	groundwater,	surface	water,	
    indoor	air,	radiation,	biocides,	waste	recycling,	general	substances	evaluation,	workers	safety,	etc.	These	
    environmental	sectors	should	adapt	to	these	demands	on	harmonisation,	however,	many	of	these	sectors	
    are	not	yet	fully	aware	of	the	impact	of	this	demand	and	the	benefits	for	their	sector.	It	may	seem	that	the	
    harmonisation	process	under	CPD	is	going	rather	slowly	and	also	can	be	ignored.	But	one	should	realise	
    that	in	the	period	2007-2009	in	Task	groups	and	Working	Groups	the	basic	decisions	on	test	approaches	
    and	test	procedures	will	be	developed.	After	that	there	only	will	be	validation	and	formal	implementing	
    and	very	limited	influence	for	changes.	
    	

    HorizontAL tEstinG
    Several	environmental	sectors	step	by	step	become	more	aware	of	the	need	of	adequate	test	methods	
    with	reliable	and	reproducible	test	results.	Some	of	them	also	become	aware	of	the	need	of	horizontal	
    development	within	their	own	sector	or	even	slightly	crossing	borders	to	similar	or	comparable	products.

    The	CPD	is	crossing	borders	now	in	the	whole	environmental	sector	by	demanding	horizontal	test	
    procedures	for	all	construction	products	and	for	many	environmental	aspects.	The	results	of	these	first	
    steps	in	horizontal	development	of	tests	may	become	a	basis	for	a	wider	development	of	the	scope	of	
    horizontal	tests,	crossing	borders	of	both	environmental	sectors	and	product	sectors.	CEN	procedures	
    and	CEN	instructions	should	be	adapted	to	facilitate	such	developments.	This	is	still	a	week	point	in	the	
    process.	

    In	my	view	the	CEN	bureau	and	CEN	organisation	should	recognize	that	increasing	efficiency	
    and	decrease	of	the	number	of	duplications	of	standards	should	be	one	of	the	important	tasks	of	
    Standardisation.	Many	governments	are	working	on	simplifying	regulations	and	on	making	remaining	
    regulations	more	efficient	for	all	people	concerned.	This	approach	should	be	taken	on	board	by	CEN	as	
    well.	There	is	a	great	opportunity	right	now	to	extend	such	horizontal	test	procedures	to	a	big	part	of	the	
    environmental	and	health	sectors.	The	challenge,	given	by	the	CPD,	is	one	of	the	important	starting	points	
    and	driving	forces	for	this.


    LoCAL And rEGionAL LEGAL APProACHEs
    The	CPD	process	primarily	focuses	on	existing	European	environmental	and	health	legislation	and	notified	  	
    national	regulations.	These	regulations	are	the	basis	for	harmonisation	and	appointing	test	procedures	to	
    be	included	in	its	scope.

    To	get	an	overview	of	these	legislations,	DG-Enterprise	asked	other	DGs	and	the	MS	to	give	information	
    on	such	regulations,	as	far	as	concrete	instructions	are	included	that	affect	construction	products	with	
    regard	to	release	or	content	of	dangerous	substances.	These	regulations	and	relevant	data	on	dangerous	
    substances	will	be	included	in	a	database,	which	is	under	development	now	and	hopefully	finally	
    operational	at	the	end	of	this	year.


NICe	workshop                                                                                                        33
    For	the	time	being	an	indicative	gross	list	was	made	with	all	substances	regulated	in	one	or	more	of	
    such	regulations.	This	gross	list	is	a	starting	point	for	CEN				for	selecting	and	developing	test	standards	
    dealing	with	release	and	content	of	dangerous	substances	from	construction	products.	One	should	realise	
    that	such	database	and	such	indicative	list	cannot	provide	all	details	from	legislation.	So	the	ultimate	
    references	are	the	regulations,	mentioned	in	the	database.	

    In	our	opinion	there	are	still	some	questions	to	be	answered	on	the	position	of	some	types	of	not	notified	
    formal	regulations.	Some	types	of	regulations	don’t	need	to	be	notified	to	the	commission,	e.g.	‘Technical	
    regulations’	for	regional	or	local	level,	and	case	by	case	permits,	do	not	have	to	be	notified	(Directive	
    98/34/EC).	Such	regulations	are	often	based	on	national	regulations,	which	implement	European	
    environmental	and	health	Directives.	So	the	relevant	authorities	should	be	able	to	implement	and	enforce	
    the	necessary	requirements,	even	if	such	regulations	are	not	notified.

    There	should	be	solutions	for	these	kinds	of	regulations	and	these	kinds	of	setting	environmental	criteria,	
    and	to	include	their	objectives	in	CPD-product	management.	They	should	be	taken	into	account	in	one	
    or	another	way.	It	is	important	to	include	such	regulations	in	the	database	as	well.	It	might	be	sufficient	
    to	include	only	good	examples	of	such	regulations.		This	may	be	a	stepping	stone	to	harmonisation	of	
    technical	procedures	used	for	such	local	or	regional	approaches.

    As	far	as	I	know	for	the	Nordic	countries	this	would	be	relevant	for	water	and	soil	protection,	which	
    is	mainly	regulated	by	case	by	case	evaluation	or	other	local/regional	approaches	and	by	producers’	
    responsibility.


    EnVironMEntAL quALitY or ProduCt quALitY rEquirEMEnts
    In	general,	environmental	regulations	and	environmental	quality	plans	focus	on	specification	of	the	
    required	environmental	quality.	(E.g.	development	of	regional	river	basin	programs	on	behalf	of	the	
    WFD.)	In	such	plans	required	water	quality	is	expressed	in	maximum	levels	in	surface	water,	expressed	
    in	µg/l.	In	regulations	on	protection	of	indoor	air	quality,	the	required	quality	is	often	expressed	in	µg/m3	
    of	air.	(See	figure	1,	down	left.)			In	such	regulations	there	is	no	direct	link	to	the	individual	construction	
    products,	and	no	link	to	formalised	product	emission	values.	However,	the	product	is	not	allowed	to	be	
    used	if	it	releases	at	such	level	that	(alone	or	together	with	other	sources)	environmental	quality	values	
    may	be	exceeded.

    Producers	should	provide	adequate	information,	to	enable	architects	and	users	of	constructions	to	decide	
    on	the	selection	of	construction	products,	safe	for	such	location.	In	case	of	such	indirect	criteria	and	limit	
    values	for	construction	products,	Technical	Specifications	should	take	these	dangerous	substances	into	
    account	and	should	provide	procedures	for	delivering	relevant	information	to	users	and	be	connected	to	
    CE-marking.

    For	a	producer	of	a	construction	product,	such	kind	of	setting	limit	values	in	environmental/health	
    regulation	is	not	practical,	since	the	acceptable	level	may	vary	from	case	to	case.	It	might	be	helpful	if	
    authorities	or	others	(also)	define	generic	limit	values	for	products	for	such	cases.	E.g.	regulations	like	
    the	Building	Materials	Decree	in	the	Netherlands	or	concrete	instructions	in	case	by	case	permits.	(See	
    figure	1,	top	left)

    Experiences in the netherlands
    Just	as	example	some	developments	in	the	Netherlands	are	summarized	here.	After	15	years	of	
    development	and	implementation	of	the	Building	Materials	Decree	(BMD)	the	experiences	were	evaluated	
    and	a	new	‘Soil	quality	Decree’	(SQD)	was	finalized	and	will	set	into	force	in	2008,	step	by	step.

    The	BMD	provided	general	limit	values	for	mineral	construction	products,	as	far	as	used	in	direct	or	
    indirect	contact	with	soil/groundwater	and	surface	water.	In	the	decree,	no	difference	was	made	between	
    primary	and	secondary	materials	and	products.	This	decree	was	a	strong	basis	for	a	huge	increase	of	
    recycling,	till	95%	of	the	relevant	waste	production.	It	was	the	basis	for	a	strong	market	development	
    on	recycling	with	a	high	technical	and	environmental	quality	performance	of	products	being	reused.	It	
    provided	a	basis	for	those	who	hesitated	to	include	recycled	raw	materials	in	their	primary	products.	

    For	the	SQD,	the	risk	analysis	and	setting	of	limit	values	for	inorganic	substances	was	reconsidered.	Limit	
    values	for	construction	products	were	derived	from	environmental	criteria	values	for	soil,	groundwater	
    and	surface	water.	State-of-the-art	modelling	techniques	were	used	to	evaluate	some	main	scenarios.	
    (See	figure	1,	left	in	the	middle.)	The	extracted	limit	values	were	now	simply	specified	as	emission	values,	
    which	can	directly	be	compared	with	the	quality	data	from	testing	construction	products.	For	(families	of)	
    or	organic	substances	only	content	values	are	used.	This	concerns	only	some	key	organic	substances.	In	
    the	SQD	it	is	explicitly	explained	how	the	‘duty	of	care’	principle		works	for	other	substances	for	which	no	
    limit	values	are	included.




NICe	workshop                                                                                                          34
    The	SQD	is	divided	in	three	main	paragraphs.	
    1-	Quality	of	measurement
    2-	Construction	products
    3-	Excavated	soil	and	dredging	sludge.
    In	future	other	subjects	may	be	added	to	this	decree.	This	may	also	include	other	types	of	construction	
    materials/products,	such	as	metal	products	or	plastic	products.

    Based	on	the	regulations	in	and	experiences	with	the	BMD,	and	other	experiences	with	soil	management,	
    in	the	SQD	an	integrated	chapter	was	made	on	sampling	and	testing.	A	set	of	requirements	is	included	
    that	proved	to	be	necessary	for	obtaining	reliable	data,	with	sufficient	precision.

    A	separate	chapter	on	excavated	soil	was	developed,	now	covering	all	uses	of	excavated	soil	and	excavated	
    dredging	sludge.	The	evaluation	is	based	on	evaluation	of	content	of	substances	in	this	excavated	soil	
    and	dredging	sludge,	since	all	soil	quality	evaluation	is	still	based	on	a	content	approach.	It	is	under	
    investigation	if,	for	some	specific	categories,	tests	and	limit	values	on	release	should	be	added.	Especially	
    for	certain	reuses	of	‘slightly	polluted’	soil.

    All	unbound	use	of	‘soil	materials’,	outside	and	within	constructions,	will	be	evaluated	on	this	basis.	E.g.	
    sand,	unbound	used	in	embankments	or	foundations	for	roads,	will	be	evaluated	as	‘soil’.	In	general	it	
    should	have	the	same	quality	or	be	better	than	the	surrounding	soil.	Under	specific	conditions	a	(more)	
    polluted	soil	material	may	be	used.	One	of	the	reasons	for	this	approach	is	the	consistency	in	evaluation	
    of	soil	materials.	Another	reason	is	possible	reuse	of	soil	materials	from	a	construction	after	demolition	
    of	a	(part	of	a)	construction;	then	the	material	may	be	used	as	soil	again	on	the	same	spot	or	elsewhere.	

    All	other	mineral	materials/products,	used	in	contact	with	soil	and	water	should	fulfil	the	requirements	of	
    the	chapter	on	Construction	products.

    The	BMD	was	focussed	on	the	user	of	construction	products,	which	was	fully	and	first	responsible.	It	was	
    possible	to	use	information	from	producers,	as	far	this	information	was	produced	according	to	the	rules	of	
    the	BMD.

    The	SQD	focuses	on	the	whole	chain	from	producer	to	user.	Authorities	can	direct	focus	on	the	producer	
    when	products	are	brought	onto	the	market.	It	is	not	allowed	to	bring	such	products	on	the	market	for	use	
    in	contact	with	soil	and	water,	if	criteria	of	this	decree	are	not	fulfilled.	

    Some	main	conclusions:
    -	 European	Directives	and	national	regulations	include	general	criteria	on	soil	and	water	protection,	
    	   also	referring	to	possible	risks	from	construction	products.	Some	MS	or	other	authorities	have	
    	   transformed	these	criteria	into	general	regulations	with	limit	values,	directly	addressing	construction
    	   products.	In	many	MS	evaluation	is	still	on	a	case	by	case	basis.	Both	approaches	are	directly	linked	
    	   with	the	scope	of	the	CPD,	and	so	both	should	be	taken	into	account	and	should	be	included	in	
    	   further	developments.	
    -		 The	CPD	doesn’t	directly	cover	development	and	implementation	of	criteria	for	environmental	
    	   assessment	of	construction	products.	It	is	left	to	others,	and	other	regulations,	to	decide	if	and	how	
    	   construction	products	should	be	submitted	to	specific	environmental	criteria	and	limit	values.
    -	 Instead,	the	CPD	aims	to	ensure	that	information	on	environmental	performance	of	products	in	its	
    	   phase	of	use	in	a	construction	should	be	provided	by	producers	in	an	efficient	uniform	way.	The	CPD	
    	   is	aiming	at	harmonising	such	performance	information.	This	is	only	possible	if	all	partners	in	Europe
    	   can	agree	on	(uniform)	reference	test	methods	and	(uniform)	performance	of	test	results.
    -	 The	CPD	provides	a	big	challenge	for	harmonisation	of	test	procedures	and	presenting	data	on	
    	   environmental	quality,	when	this	is	needed	according	to	environmental	and	health	regulations.
    -	 The	common	horizontal	development	of	reference	test	methods	for	evaluation	construction	
    	   products	in	Europe	will	give	support	for	steps	to	better	mutual	understanding	and	harmonisation	of	
    	   risk	assessment.
    -	 For	authorities	it	is	relevant	to	review	their	relevant	regulations	and	to	consider	which	of	those	
    	   regulations	still	should	be	added	to	the	CPD-database	on	regulations	for	dangerous	substances,	
    	   even	if	such	regulations	or	procedures	don’t	need	to	be	notified	(according	to	98/34/EC.)




NICe	workshop                                                                                                        35
      Figure	1.		                     -	Links	between	general	environmental	criteria	and	product	criteria.
      				 	 	                        	        -	Links	between	product	criteria	and	product	performance	testing/declaration.	
      	    	 	                        	        -	Links	between	characteristics	of	reference	release	tests	and	risk	assessment	
      	    	 	                        	        		procedures




                          Risk assessment for soil and water:
                                                             D e v e lo p m e n t p ro d u c t lim it v a lu e s a n d te s tin g p ro d u c ts


                                                                                                                               C E m a rk

                                                             Em is sio n L im it va lu es                                                                    Co n stru ctio n
                                                                   fo r p ro d u cts                                                       E m is s io n       Pro d u ct
                                                                                                                                     P e rfo rm a n c e
                                                                                                                                    va lu e s /c la ss e s


                  S c e n a rio a p p ro a c h
                                                                                                                                                              Reference
        M o d e lin g fro m
      e m is s io n to e ff e c t
                                                                                                                                                             release tests
                                                 R is k
                                        a ss e ss m ent                                                                                                          (ITT)



                                                                                                                                                                 FP C /F T
                                                                                                                                                                T e st s


                        E n v iro n m e n t a l Q u a lity
                              C rit e ria / le v e ls
                                                                                             P ro p e rt ie s o f R e le a s e te s ts +
                                                                                                      d a t a p e rf o rm a n c e
      En viro n m en t                                                                 s h o u ld fit wit h in fo rm a tio n n e e d e d f o r
      W a ter / So il
                                                                                               a d e q u a te ris k a s s e s s m e n t




      Explanation	to	figure	1.

      left	part	of	the	figure:
      In	Environmental	regulations,	or	based	on	environmental	regulations,	environmental	quality	criteria	and	
      limit	values	are	set,	regarding	the	desired	environmental	quality.	(E.g.	desired	surface	water	quality)	By	
      means	of	risk	assessment	limit	values	for	specific	activities	can	be	derived.	For	this	assessment	scenario	
      approaches	and	modelling	can	be	used.	Products	are	allowed	to	be	used	if	they	meet	these	limit	values.	
      As	far	as	possible	and	practicable	to	be	expressed	as	limit	values	for	release	of	substances	from	the	
      product	in	its	intended	use.

      right	part	of	the	figure:		
      A	producer	should	investigate	if	his	product	fulfils	the	specified	emission	limit	values.	Such	evaluation	
      should	be	done	by	ITT	testing	(Initial	Type	Testing,	including	use	of	reference	release	tests	and	use	of	
      available	data	and	knowledge).	This	generally	is	not	limited	to	only	a	few	key	dangerous	substances	
      (DS),	but	a	broader	spectrum	of	potential	DS	(at	least	all	regulated	substances.)	Based	on	ITT	it	could	be	
      decided	if,	and	for	which	parameters,	periodic	control	is	necessary	(Further	Testing	in	Factory	Production	
      Control,	FT-FPC).	If	periodic	control	is	necessary	the	ITT	can	show	which	test	may	be	the	most	efficient	for	
      Factory	production	controlling	if	a	product	still	fulfils	the	same	criteria	as	determined	in	ITT.	These	might	
      be	screening	tests.

      In	selecting	and	development	of	reference	tests	it	is	important	to	identify	which	parameters	are	needed	
      for	risk	assessment,	and	which	tests	could	fulfil	the	function	of	reference	test	by	providing	adequate	
      information	on	such	parameters.

  1
    		Notification:		Obligation	in	Directive	98/34/EC	to	notify	to	the	Commission	all	national	‘technical	regulations’	that	influence	the	production,	
  import	and/or	use	of	products.	(For	further	details,	exceptions,	etc,	see	the	directive)
  2
    	Especially	for	CEN/TC351	‘Construction	products:	Assessment	of	release	of	dangerous	substances’,	and	CEN/TCs	covering	construction	
  products.
  3
    	Duty	of	care:	any	person	performing	acts	on	or	in	the	soil	and	who	is	aware	or	can	reasonably	suspect	that	such	acts	are	likely	to	contaminate	
  or	impair	the	soil	shall	be	obliged	to	take	any	measure	that	can	be	reasonably	required	of	him	in	order	to	prevent	the	soil	being	so	contaminated	
  or	impaired	or,	in	the	event	of	such	contamination	or	impairment	occurring,	to	take	remedial	action	and	to	limit	and	to	eliminate	as	much	as	
  possible	the	contamination	or	the	impairment	or	the	direct	consequences	thereof.	If	the	contamination	or	impairment	is	the	result	of	an	unusual	
  event,	the	measures	shall	be	taken	forthwith.

NICe	workshop                                                                                                                                                                   36
    HoW to tEst EnVironMEntAL ACCEPtABiLitY
    oF ConstruCtion ProduCts rELAtEd to rELEAsE
    to soiL And Ground/surFACE WAtEr
    Project	group:	
    Margareta	Wahlström,	Jutta	Laine-Ylijoki,	Tommi	Kaartinen	&	Liisa	Rautiainen,	VTT,	Finland		
    (e-mail:	margareta.wahlstrom@vtt.fi)
    Ole	Hjelmar	&	Anke	Oberender,	DHI	Water,	Environment	&	Health,	Denmark,	(e-mail:	oh@dhigroup.com)
    David	Bendz	&	Ola	Wik,	SGI,	Sweden	(e-mail:	david.bendz@swedgeo.se),
    Hans	Gustafsson,	SP,	Sweden	(e-mail:	hans.gustafsson@sp.se),
    Christian	J.	Engelsen,	SINTEF,	Norway,	(e-mail:	christian.engelsen@sintef.no),
    Harpa	Birgisdóttir,	Linuhönnun,	Iceland	(e-mail:	harpa@lh.is)


    IntrodUctIon
    This	paper	describes	the	link	between	intended	use	of	construction	products	and	test	methods	for	
    determination	of	the	release	of	regulated	dangerous	substances	to	soil	and	water.	

    The	current	work	relates	to	an	ongoing	project	“General	guidelines	for	environmental	assessment	related	
    to	CE-marking	of	construction	products	–	test	methods	and	regional	requirements	(2006-2008)	”	financed	
    by	the	Nordic	Innovation	Centre.		The	starting	point	is	the	situation	where	testing	is	required	and	there	
    may	be	a	potential	for	a	release	to	soil	and	water	during	the	intended	use	of	the	product.	The	aim	of	the	
    project	is
    	    -	 to	evaluate	with	pre-testing	appropriate	CEN-test	methods	for	the	determination	of	release	from	
    	    	 construction	products	
    	    -	 to	build	up	knowledge	on	testing	results	in	relation	to	Nordic/European	testing	and	scenario	
    	    	 conditions,
    	    -	 to	give	examples	on	how	construction	products	used	in	regional	areas	can	be	classified	according
    	    	 to	relevant	release	scenarios,	
    	    -	 to	develop	an	approach	for	interpretation	of	test	results
    	    -	 to	support	CEN/TC351	standardisation	work	with	facts	and	knowledge	on	general	and	specific	
    	    	 Nordic	conditions	and	construction	products.

    The	outcome	of	the	project	will	be	a	practical	guidance	for	the	selection	of	testing	methods	for	
    construction	products,	also	including	information	on	how	test	results	can	be	used.	


    when	to	test?	
    The	starting	point	is	always	to	collect	information	on	relevant	characteristics	of	the	construction	products	
    and	its	intended	use	and	to	check	that	the	construction	product	fall	under	the	category	of	testing	(e.g.	not	
    being	excluded	from	testing	based	on	prior	knowledge).	Evaluation	of	the	mode	of	water	contact	is	here	
    crucial.	Release	of	substances	(direct	leaching)	to	soil,	ground	water	or	surface	water	is	always	occurring	
    due	to	water	contact.	A	special	issue	important	in	testing	is	also	the	definition	of	the	end	product	to	be	
    tested	(e.g.	final	construction	system	or	materials	used	in	the	construction).

    Typical	information	required	for	the	evaluation	of	the	testing	needs	and	also	the	planning	of	the	testing	
    includes:
    	    -	 presence	of	regulated	hazardous	substances	(here	information	on	chemicals	and	raw	materials	
    	    	 used	in	manufacture	process,	description	of	manufacture	process,	ie.	reactions	between	raw	
    	    	 materials,	is	helpful	for	identification)
    	    -	 physical	properties	of	construction	products	
    	    -	 stability	of	the	manufacturing	process	(variations	in	properties)
    	    -	 results	from	leaching	studies,	if	available
    	    -	 description	of	characteristics	of	construction	product	during	the	intented	use	(parts	in	contact	
    	    	 with	water/soil,	particle	size/available	surface)
    	    -	 description	of	external	conditions	during	the	intended	use	(wet/dry	cycles,	contact	to	air,	other	
    	    	 climatological	aspects)

    Without	water	contact	there	will	be	no	release	and	no	need	for	environmental	assessment.	
    All	construction	producers	already	have	addressed	the	issue	of	exposure	to	water/moisture	and	its	effects	
    from	a	technical	viewpoint	(durability,	thermal	conductivity,	fungi	etc).




NICe	workshop                                                                                                       37
    Construction	producers	can	therefore	be	expected	to	be	able	to	easily	answer	the	questions	regarding	the	
    construction	products	and	its	intended	use:

    	          1.	   Is	the	construction	product	in	contact	with	water?
    	          2.	   Is	the	construction	product	designed	or	will	it	act	as	a	barrier	for	water	(will	it	seal	or	will	it	
    	          	     redirect	water	from	the	construction	(e.g.	ballast,	isolation	material))?
    	          3.	   Is	it	possible	for	water	to	get	into	the	matrix	of	the	construction	product?
    	          4.	   Will	the	moisture	content	in	the	matrix	vary	with	time?	Will	wet/dry	cycles	occur?
    	          5.	   Is	the	construction	above	or	under	the	groundwater	level

    It	should	be	noted	that	only	direct	release	to	the	external	environment	is	covered	here	(and	by	CEN/
    TC	351).	Releases	to	drinking	water	(e.g.	from	drinking	water	pipes)	and	releases	to	sewer	systems	are	
    covered	elsewhere.


    reLeAse	scenArIo	And	Intended	Use
    Three	basic	release	scenarios	are	relevant	for	construction	products,	based	on	the	water	contact	mode	
    and	the	hydraulic	properties	of	the	construction	products.	These	scenarios	are	illustrated	in	Table	1.	Note	
    that	all	three	scenarios	are	relevant	for	products	used	above	ground,	under	ground,	or	submerged	into	
    water.	Both	the	construction	product	and	the	specific	use	of	that	product	will	influence	which	category	of	
    scenario	is	relevant	in	a	given	case.	
    	
    Table	1.	Examples	of	typical	product	types	falling	under	three	basic	leaching	scenarios


         sCEnArio                     sPECiFiCiAton                           ProduCts(ExAMPLE)1

         i                            non	permeable	product.	water	           -		For	products	used	above	ground	this	is	surface	runoff:	sheet	
                                      flowing	over	the	surface	of	the	        metal,	surface	coating,	glazed	tiles,	glass	surfaces	etc.	
                                      product.                                -		For	products	used	underground,	or	submerged	into	water:	
                                                                              Foundations	such	as	steel	piles	(a	cover	of	polythene,	epoxy,	
                                                                              zinc	are	commonly	used	as	corrosion	protection)	used	in	
                                                                              ground	or	in	water.

         ii                           Low	permeable	product.	water	           For	typical	monolithic	products	used	above	ground,	under	
                                      is	transported	into	the	matrix	by	      ground,	or	submerged	into	water.	For	example,	tiles	(non-
                                      capillary	forces;	contribution	of	      glazed),	bricks,	concrete,	structural	concrete,	treated	wood,	
                                      core	to	surface	2)                      mortar,	coatings,	road	materials,	construction	debris	and	
                                                                              pipes.	

         iii                          Permeable	product.	water	may	           For	example,	unbound	aggregate,	drain	concrete	granular	
                                      infiltrate	into	the	matrix	driven	by	   products,	building	debris,	soil,	etc,	used	above	ground	or	under	
                                      gravity	                                ground,	or	submerged	into	water.




    1)
       	note:	it	is	possible	that	some	generic	type	of	products	(e.g.	coatings)	include	different	specific	products	that	due	to	their	
    characteristic,	will	fall	under	different	scenarios.		the	selection	of	the	scenario	due	to	their	physical	properties
    2)
       	A	special	case	is	permeable	compacted	granular	material	used	in	constructions	partially	sealed	by	impermeable	layers,	for	
    example	a	paved	construction.	the	physical	properties	of	the	pavement	structure	influence	the	way	and	the	extent	to	which	the	
    construction	materials	become	exposed	to	water,	here	different	zones	develop	dominated	by	gravity	flow	and	capillary	flow	and	
    diffusion,	respectively.




    how	to	choose	Method?
    The	choice	of	methods	for	testing	of	leaching	potential	should	be	based	on:

    	          -	    the	dominating	release	mechanisms	(solubility	controlled,	availability	controlled,	diffusion	or	
    	          	     surface	controlled)
    	          -	    the	properties	of	critical	substances,	e.g.	inorganic/volatile	organic/non-volatile	(semi-volatile)	
    	          	     organic	substances
    	          -	    critical	test	conditions	for	substances	of	interest	(e.g.	pH,	DOC)

    The	basis	for	the	selection	of	test	methods	for	determination	of	leaching	potential	is	a	limited	number	of	
    existing	standardised	test	methods	(or	methods	under	standardisation).	Table	2	contains	information	on	
    suitable	methods	for	the	three	basic	leaching	scenarios.	



NICe	workshop                                                                                                                                     38
    	Table	2.	Test	methods	linked	to	basic	scenarios.


      sCEnArio                suitABLE MEtHods                      rEMArKs on CritiCAL AsPECts to ConsidEr


      i                       •	Monolithic	tank	leaching	test	      •	sample	preparation		prior	to	testing
      impermeable products    (standard	under	development	by	
                              cen/tc	292)                           examples:
                                                                    in	case	test	specimen	is	cut	from	a	product,	new	cut	edges	
                                                                    are	to	be	sealed	or	wrapped.	Also	reverse	sides	and	edges	of	
                                                                    construction	products	are	to	be	sealed.

                                                                    If	the	structure	consists	of	two	or	more	material	surfaces	
                                                                    which	will	be	exposed	to	water	contact,	the	surfaces	of	these	
                                                                    need	to	be	left	unsealed	

                                                                    A	special	category	of	construction	products	are	those	which	
                                                                    properties	are	different	from	raw	materials	and	which	change	
                                                                    in	application	(e.g.	paint,	resins).

      ii                      •	Monolithic	tank	leaching	test	      •	sample	preparation	(see	above)
      low permeable product   (standard	under	development	by	
                              cen/tc	292)                           example:	degree	of	compaction	prior	to	testing
                              •	compacted	granular	tank	
                              leaching	test	(dutch	standard	
                              available	nVn	7347)

      iii                     •	Upflow	column	leaching	test	for	    •	grain	size	distribution	of	sample	to	tested
      permeable product       granular	waste	(cen/ts	14405)
                              •	batch	leaching	test	for	granular	   note!	crushing	of	material	prior	to	testing	creates	new	surface
                              waste	(en	12457-1,	2,	3)




    Information	on	the	leaching	potential	of	a	product	in	relation	to	a	given	use/release	scenario	may	be	
    obtained	using	a	limited	number	of	basic	leaching	procedures	associated	with	the	release	mechanisms	
    in	question.	It	is	thus	not	necessary	to	simulate	the	release	from	all	the	different	possible	scenarios	when	
    carrying	out	the	testing.	If	the	tests	selected	reflect	the	relevant	release	mechanism(s),	scenario-specific	
    conditions	may	be	taken	into	account	by	the	models	used	to	interpret	and	apply	the	test	results.	If	further	
    studies	are	needed	relating	to	the	scenario	and	possible	external	influences	(that	may	e.g.	cause	changes	
    in	pH	over	a	shorter	or	longer	time	period),	the	results	from	other	basic	leaching	tests	may	be	applied	to	
    address	specific	aspects	in	the	test	programme.	Especially	the	leaching	tests	aimed	at	determining	the	
    influence	of	pH	and/or	total	availability	for	leaching	(prCEN/TS	14429:2005,	prCEN/TS	14997:2006)	are	
    often	used	for	supplementary	information.

    The	above	mentioned	methods	are	primarily	aimed	at	the	determination	of	the	leaching	of	inorganic	
    substances	(and	dissolved	organic	carbon).	No	standardised	CEN	methods	are	currently	available	for	the	
    determination	of	the	leaching	of	organic	substances.	If	it	becomes	desirable	to	determine	the	release	of	
    certain	specific	organic	substances	(e.g.	substances	with	low	volatility	such	as	PAH	and	mineral	oil),	the	
    methods	must	be	adjusted	as	necessary	to	accommodate	this	purpose.	Some	guidance	in	this	respect	
    could	be	found	in	the	methods	developed	by	ISO/TC	190	“Soil	quality”,	which	address	the	leaching	of	both	
    inorganic	and	non-volatile,	organic	substances	from	soil.

    In	cases	where	relevant	leaching	methods	are	not	available	to	determine	the	release	of	certain	substances	
    from	certain	products	under	certain	conditions,	or	in	cases	where	the	total	content	of	a	substance	is	
    expected	to	be	less	than	the	relevant	limit	value	for	the	released	amount,	determinations	based	on	
    total	content	may	substitute	released	amounts	as	an	“emergency”	estimate	(in	lack	of	better)	or	as	a	
    conservative	estimate.

    In	collection	of	samples	for	testing	it	is	important	to	evaluate:
    	    -	 how	to	get	representative	samples	from	the	production	(is	the	sampling	concept	for	other	
    	    	 properties	suitable	for	ER	3	properties)
    	    -	 special	test	requirements	concerning	test	samples	for	laboratories	(e.g.	size	of	samples,	need	for
    	    	 sub-sampling	large	sized	products,	sampling	of	raw	materials	(paint)	for	preparation	of	test	
    	    	 portions	in	the	testing	laboratories)
    	    -	 how	to	handle	samples	appropriately	to	avoid	contamination	or	damage	during	transport	to	
    	    	 testing	laboratory




NICe	workshop                                                                                                                         39
    REGIONAL	ASPECTS
    Special	features	to	be	considered	in	assessment	–	some	thoughts:

    1.	   Regional	aspects	need	to	be	taken	into	account	in	assessment	of	environmental	impacts		and	in
    	     development	of	national	criteria	(e.g.	attention	needs	to	be	paid	to	sensitivity	of	the	environment,	
    	     exposure	routes	e.g.	surface	water)

    2.	   Only	limited	needs	for	development	of	special	test	procedures	due	to	regional	conditions.	The	
    	     following	regional	features	may	need	to	be	considered	and	discussed:	

    	     •	   freezing	and	thawing	(e.g.	resistance	to	weathering,	water	contact,	influence	of	snow	and	ice)
    	     •	   use	of	winter	tyres	that	grinds/erodes	the	road	surface	(mechanical	impact).	
    	     •	   atmospheric	corrosion	potential	(e.g.	presence	of	atmospheric	pollutants	or	particulates)
    	     •	   soil	properties	(e.g.	low		temperature,	high	DOC,	low	buffer	capacity,	redox	sensitive	sulphidic	
    	     	    soils)
    	     •	   surface	and	groundwater	properties	(e.g.	high	DOC,	salt	content,	low	temperature	and	low	buffer
    	     	    capacity)
    	     •	   the	use	of	de-icing	agents	(sodium/calcium	chloride)	on	roads	in	winter	maintenance
    	     •	   the	properties	of	construction	products	(e.g.	the	use	of	special	additives	in	cement,	preservation	
    	     	    agents,	biocides,	“material	processability”).



    FURTHER	WORK
    In	the	NICe	project	the	applicability	of	various	test	methods	to	a	number	of	construction	products	in	
    relation	to	various	release	scenarios	will	be	evaluated	by	practical	testing,	and	results	will	be	made	
    available	for	the	standardisation	work.	Especially	in	study	of	surface	dependent	leaching,	there	are	needs	
    for	guidance	on	sample	preparation.	The	preparation	of	test	samples	needs	special	attention	because	
    the	storage	of	construction	products	may	very	well	influence	the	subsequent	leaching	behaviour	of	some	
    of	the	substances	of	interest.	The	changes	can	go	in	two	directions,	both	chemical	incorporation	into	
    the	matrices	resulting	in	a	decrease	in	release	or	in	degradation	resulting	in	an	increase	in	release	(of	
    degradation	products).	The	preparation	of	test	samples	is	also	dictated	by	practical	aspects	(available	
    equipment	for	sampling	and	limitations	in	testing	conditions	with	respect	to	contact	time,	requirements	
    for	obtaining	measurable	concentrations).	It	is	important	that	the	definition	of	a	test	sample	of	a	given	
    product	is	clear	ensuring	reproducible	results	from	testing.

    An	approach	for	the	evaluation	of	test	results	will	be	presented	(e.g.	how	to	take	into	account	regional	
    conditions	in	the	interpretation	of	test	results).	



    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
    The	project	is	funded	by	Nordic	Innovation	Centre,	the	participating	research	institutes,	Ministry	of	
    Environment	in	Finland	and	some	Nordic	stakeholders.




NICe	workshop                                                                                                        40
    sAMPLinG For EnVironMEntAL AssEssMEnt
    - A HorizontAL APProACH
    Pedersen,	Bodil.	Mose.,	DHI,	Agern	Allé	5,	DK-2970	Hørsholm,	Denmark
    bop@dhigroup.com



    IntrodUctIon
    When	working	on	sampling	issues	very	quickly	it	becomes	obvious	that	as	for	sampling	of	solid	or	liquid,	
    the	sampling	could	preferable	be	tackled	through	a	set	up	of	horizontal	activities	where	mutual	points	
    of	interest	and	principle	issues	are	handled	in	the	same	manner.	The	obvious	benefits	are	that	the	
    similar	concepts	and	terminology	are	used	facilitating	communication	and	reducing	trade	barriers	and	
    comparison	of	environmental	data.

    The	project	“Development	of	Nordic	generic	horizontal	standards	for	sampling”	will	provide	the	Nordic	
    environmental	laboratories	and	authorities,	who	perform	environmental	control	and	process	control,	with	
    tools	for	uniform	sampling	methods	and	concepts,	which	hopefully	will	give	rise	to	better	performance	of	
    representative	sampling	and	the	belonging	documentation.	In	this	way	reliable	data	become	available	for	
    industries	and	for	the	environmental	authorities.	Similar	concepts	facilitate	communication,	reduce	trade	
    barriers	and	improve	comparison	of	environmental	data.

    The	project	was	initiated	in	September	2006	and	will	be	finalized	in	October	2008.	The	project	is	being	
    carried	out	by:
    	    •	 Bodil	Mose	Pedersen	and	Jette	Bjerre	Hansen,	DHI	Water	Environment	Health	(Denmark)
    	    •	 Bertil	Magnusson,	SP	Swedish	national	testing	and	Research	Institute	(Sweden),	
    	    •	 Ragnar	Storhaug,	Aquateam	AS	(Norway)	
    	    •	 Johan	Nordbäck,	Swedish	Geotechnical	Institute	(Sweden),	
    	    •	 Jutta	Laine-Ylijoki	and	Margareta	Wahlström	VTT	Technical	Research	Centre	(Finland)	

    A	horizontal	standard	is	a	standard	that	describes	sampling	activities	of	a	broad	group	of	targets	with	
    similar	properties	including	targets	related	to	similar	sampling	situations	–	stationary	or	dynamic	
    sampling	situations.	For	each	step	in	the	sampling	cycle	(see	figure	1)	the	horizontal	standard	guides	the	
    sampling	planner	in	selecting	the	best	available	operational	standard.	At	the	tactic	horizontal	standard	
    being	developed	within	this	project,	focus	is	on	sampling	of	solid	granular	material	and	liquids.

    The	horizontal	standard	points	out	the	best	available	operational	sampling	standards	within	defined	
    sampling	activities	and	it	is	the	first	basic	guidance	a	person	involved	in	sampling	should	read.	A	
    horizontal	standard	is	more	of	a	general	handbook	for	samplers	harmonizing	concepts	and	terminology	
    for	a	number	of	different	sectors.	

    The	overall	objective	is	to	point	out	best	available	operational	standards	for	each	activity	in	the	sampling	
    process.	In	addition	to	that	it	is	the	objectives	to	improve	the	possibilities	for	application	of	appropriate	and	
    reliable	standards	outside	the	traditional	scopes	given	by	trades,	industrial	and	environmental	sectors.


    tHE MonitorinG CYCLE And tHE sAMPLinG CYCLE
    The	basis	of	understanding	the	horizontal	concept	on	sampling	is	the	general	measuring	cycle	and	
    the	belonging	sampling	cycle	(see	figure	1).	The	measuring	issue	might	be	related	to	environmental	
    monitoring	e.g.	monitoring	of	water	pollution	sources	or	waste	products	from	power	stations.	The	client	
    could	be	an	environmental	manager	at	an	industry	or	environmental	authorities.

    The	measuring	cycle	(A)	is	used	as	a	generic	framework	for	designing	an	information	collecting	system	
    connected	to	the	sampling	cycle	(B).	Each	of	the	activities	in	the	sampling	cycle	is	linked	to	sub-cycles	
    which	equally	can	be	conceived	as	cyclic	processes.	Measuring	activities	are	in	this	connection	kept	within	
    measurements	that	require	a	sample	and	subsequent	analysis.

    The	common	activity	belonging	to	the	measuring	cycle	(A)	as	well	as	to	the	sampling	cycle	(B)	is	the	input	
    to	the	sampling	plan	and	production	of	a	sample	to	be	analysed.	If	the	quality	of	the	information	in	one	
    step	is	poor	it	will	affect	the	quality	of	the	resulting	information.	That	is	what	happens	when	the	activities	
    belonging	to	the	sampling	cycle	have	not	been	passed	and	the	requirements	within	each	step	not	fulfilled.
    The	first	step	in	the	sampling	cycle	is	to	look	through	the	input	(A5)	from	the	sampling	criteria.	The	
    input	(A5)	should	include	determination	of	increment	size,	number	of	increments	to	make	up	composite	
    samples,	associated	increment	and	sample	masses	and	sampling	procedures.


NICe	workshop                                                                                                            41
    Based	on	the	input	a	standardised	sampling	method	or	a	method	(B2)	expected	to	fulfil	the	quality	
    requirements	set	for	the	sampling	is	chosen.	Corresponding	standards	about	suitable	equipment	(B3)	can	
    be	found	in	a	tactic	standard.

    Quality	assurance	(B4)	is	all	those	planned	and	systematic	sampling	actions,	procedures	and	checks	
    which	are	necessary	to	ensure	representative	samples.	The	actions	must	satisfy	the	requirement	for	
    quality	related	to	a	current	measurement	cycle	being	the	basis	for	reliable	analytical	results.

    In	general,	the	quality	assurance	of	sampling	methods	should	be	done	within	the	framework	of	ISO	17025	
    /1/	and	the	principles	put	down	in	the	Theory	of	Sampling	/2/.	ISO	17025	(section	5.4.5	note	1),	which	say	
    that	validation	of	test	and	analyses	may	include	procedures	for	sampling,	handling	and	preservation.	It	
    is	not	common	practice	for	laboratories	to	carry	out	a	validation	of	sampling	procedures	at	the	same	
    technical	level	as	done	for	laboratory	tests	or	analysis.	Many	sampling	errors	could	be	avoided	by	using	
    standards	based	on	the	sample	principles	and	recommendation	concerning	validation	of	sampling	
    methods	included	in	the	Theory	of	Sampling.

    The	need	for	quality	in	the	sample	collection	cycle	(B6	sampling	procedure)	involves	proper	procedures	
    and	correctly	designed	equipment	taking	into	account	that	all	increments	in	the	sampling	target	must	
    have	the	same	probability	for	being	sampled.	In	connection	with	handling	of	equipment	there	are	
    other	important	fields	like:	installation	of	automatic	samplers	(power	and	control),	training	and	skills,	
    maintenance,	storage,	cleaning	of	sampling	equipment,	etc.

    From	the	beginning	to	the	end	of	the	sampling	cycle	and	the	delivery	of	the	sample	at	the	laboratory,	
    many	parameters	might	change	by	biological,	chemical	or	physical	reactions.	The	changes	depend	on	the	
    composition	of	the	sample,	and	to	reduce	or	avoid	these	changes	pre-treatment	(B7)	might	be	needed

    Storage	and	transport	(B8)	of	samples	shall	take	place	in	such	a	way	that	the	state	of	the	sample	at	the	
    time	of	sampling	is	not	affected	or	changed	to	any	considerable	extent.	The	sampling	report	(B9)	delivered	
    to	the	client	or	the	laboratory	shall	contain	information	which	is	necessary	for	the	identification	of	the	
    sample	and	for	the	assessment	of	the	uncertainty	belonging	to	the	sampling.	It	is	important	to	set	quality	
    requirement	for	the	sampling	which	in	many	cases	is	associated	with	the	target	variability	(heterogeneity).	
    The	sampling	cycle	ends	at	the	door	step	of	the	laboratory,	where	the	sample	is	analysed	(A6).
    	




NICe	workshop                                                                                                      42
                                                         D ecision on
                                                         result (A 10)
                                                                                       Cli en t issue
                    Repo rti ng                                                        (A 1)
                    Reco m me ndation
                    (A 9)




                                                                                                              D efine
          Data a nal ys is
          (A 8)                                                                                               requir emen ts
                                                                                                              (A 2)

                                                             Measu ring
                                                             cyc le (A)                                       M easuri ng
          Data hand ling                                                                                      strat egy (A 3)
          (A 7)




                               La bo rat ory                                             Crit eria
                               anal ys is (A 6)                                          doc um ent (A 4)

                                                         Sa mp ling (A 5)
                                                         Inp ut for the pla n
                                                         Result/ samp le

                                 Repo rti ng and                                   Sa mp ling pla n
                                 samp le                                           (B1)
                                 (B 9)



            Tra nspo rt and                                                                             M ethod /techn iques
            stora ge (B 8)                                                                              /proced ures (B2)
                                                            Samp ling
                                                            cyc le (B)
            Pr e-treat men t                                                                            Equi pmen t (B 3)
            and sub-
            samp ling (B 7)



                                 Sa mp ling in the                              Qualit y
                                 field (B 6)                                    Ass urance (B 4)
                                                     Sa fety and
                                                     H ealt h (B 5)




    Figure	1:	Connection	between	the	measuring	and	the	sampling	cycle.



    struCturAL APProACH
    The	concept	(level	1)	for	sampling	standards	forms	the	first	level	among	three	levels	within	the	overall	
    horizontal	approach.	The	two	underlying	structural	levels	are	the	tactic	(level	2)	and	the	operational	level	
    (level	3),	respectively	(see	figure	2).	The	scope	of	the	three	levels	is:	

    1.	    To	give	the	overall	structure,	rules	and	contents	of	the	documents	belonging	to	the	tactic	(level	2)	and
    	      the	operational	level	(level	3).
    2.	    To	act	as	guidance	for	the	planning	of	the	sampling	process	and	to	the	selection	of	the	best	available	
    	      standards	among	the	vast	number	of	standards	that	are	available	for	all	different	materials,	sampling
    	      situations	and	different	parameters.	The	tactic	standard	includes	lists	of	appropriate	operational	
    	      sampling	standards.	
    3.	    To	make	sure	that	operational	sampling	standards	are	classified	in	categories	that	moves	focus	from
    	      specific	trades,	material	and	locations	to	the	sampling	activity	and	promote	the	use	of	sampling	
    	      standards	across	trades.	The	operational	level	consists	of	existing	operational	sampling	standards,
    	      guides	and	technical	reports.


NICe	workshop                                                                                                                   43
    The	concept	covers	sampling	of	all	types	of	materials,	sampling	situations	and	activities	unlike	the	
    underlying	tactic	and	operational	standards.	

    	


                                                                Concept
                                 Ba ckground an d stru ctur e of the ho rizon tal ap proac h. Stru ctur e
                                             for ta ctic and ope rati on al do cu men ts
                                                                                                                            Level 1



                             Hor izontal standard s r ela ted to sam pling of s pecif ied
                                mate r ia l in dyn a mic an d/or stationar y settings                                       Level 2
                             Cove ring activities w ithin the samp ling cyc le: M ethods and proced ur es,
                             Equi pmen t, Qualit y assura nce , Sa fety and H ealt h, Sa mp ling process in
                                                       the field, Pr e-treat men t,
                                                  Tra nspo rt and stora ge , Repo rti ng




                                                                                                                            Level 3
                                                     Op erationa l standar ds
                     Samp ling sta nd ar ds /guide lines /techn ical repo rts relat ed to a samp ling tar ge t and to the
                                                       steps in the samp ling cyc le
                                (A ll proced ur es ar e no t ex pec ted to be cove red by one sta ndar d)


    Figure	2:	Structural	approach	of	sampling	standards.




    tACtiC stAndArds
    A	tactic	standard	focuses	on	the	necessary	activities	within	the	sampling	process	and	the	identification	
    and	compilation	of	sampling	standards	related	to	sampling	from	a	specified	sampling	target/lot	(see	
    figure	2).	The	key	factors	determining	the	best	available	standard	are	different	within	different	sampling	
    targets	and	are	therefore	pointed	out	in	relation	to	sampling	target	and	sampling	situation	(stationary	or	
    dynamic).	The	tactic	standard	being	developed	within	the	project	includes	compilation	of	best	available	
    standards	and	specifies	decision	rules	for	the	identification	of	operational	standards.

    Horizontal	standards	must	provide	real	and	useful	practical	guidance	for	the	reader	and	support	selection	
    of	underlying	operational	standards,	which	are	specific	with	respect	to	sampling	target	(e.g.:	sampling	of	
    solids	from	a	falling	stream)	or	with	respect	to	activity	(e.g.:	preservation	of	samples).	These	underlying	
    operational	standards	might	still	be	horizontal	with	respect	to	sampling	target.

    It	is	likely	that	more	horizontal	standards	have	to	be	developed.	In	this	context	the	horizontal	tactic	
    standard	focuses	on	liquids	and	solid	granular	material.	On	the	tactic	level	it	is	also	important	to	
    distinguish	between	sampling	from	dynamic	systems	and	stationary	systems.	Dynamic	systems	are	for	
    example	conveyer	belt	transporting	solid	granular	material	or	channels	with	streaming	water.	Stationary	
    systems	are	for	example	stock	piles	or	batches	with	liquids.


    oPErAtionAL stAndArds
    The	International	Classification	of	Standards	(ICS)	mostly	categorise	standards	based	on	specified	
    conditions	found	within	a	delimit	trade.	There	are	cross-categories	as	well	like	for	instance	Generalities	
    (01),	Services	(03)	Mathematics	(07),	Metrology	and	measurements	(17)	and	Testing	(19).	Within	the	field	
    “Environment”	(13)	you	find	standards	on	“Water	Quality”	(13.060)	and	below	this	category	“Sewage	Water”	
    (13.060.30).	In	this	category	the	standard	ISO	5667-10	“Guidance	on	sampling	of	waste	water”	is	placed.	
    An	alternative	to	this	classification	could	be	collection	of	all	sampling	standards	in	the	category	Metrology	
    and	measurements.	Below	this	headline	sampling	standards	are	with	advantage	grouped	into	standards	
    dealing	with:
    	     •	 Sampling	theory.
    	     •	 Sampling	strategy,	sampling	programmes	and	plans.
    	     •	 Sampling	procedures,	methods,	techniques,	equipment.
    	     •	 Sample	handling:	labelling,	pre-treatment,	sub-sampling,	storage,	transport,	preservation.
    	     •	 Health	and	safety	aspects.
    	     •	 Quality	assurance,	validation.
    	     •	 Records,	reports,	use	of	sample	data	for	decision	making.

NICe	workshop                                                                                                                         44
    The	advantage	of	this	classification	will	put	on	more	attention	to	sampling	standards	outside	ones	
    own	working	field	and	that	might	be	a	starting	point	to	follow	a	new	and	more	appropriate	standard	for	
    carrying	out	sampling.	In	the	long	term	the	advantage	shall	be	a	more	uniform	structure	of	the	standards	
    and	standards	based	on	the	principles	set	up	in	the	structural	approach	called	Theory	of	Sampling	/2/.


    ConCLusions
    An	alternative	to	the	international	classification	of	sampling	standards	could	be	collection	of	all	sampling	
    standards	under	the	category	Metrology	and	measurements.	Then	focus	moves	from	a	specific	trade,	
    material	and	locations	to	the	sampling	activities	and	promote	use	of	sampling	standards	across	trades.	
    For	instance	a	standard	for	sampling	of	milk	might	probably	be	useable	for	sampling	of	drinking	water	for	
    microbiological	examination.

    The	advantage	of	a	new	classification,	application	of	the	concept	for	sampling	standards,	and	development	
    of	tactic	horizontal	standards	will	give	more	attention	to	sampling	standards	outside	ones	own	working	
    field	and	that	might	be	a	starting	point	to	follow	a	new	and	more	appropriate	standard	for	carrying	
    out	sampling.	In	the	long	term	the	advantage	shall	be	a	more	uniform	structure	of	the	standards	and	
    standards	shall	be	based	on	the	principles	set-up	in	the	Theory	of	Sampling	/2/.


    rEFErEnCEs
    /1/	 ISO/IEC	17025:	General	requirements	for	the	competence	of	testing	and	calibration	laboratories	
    (1999)

    /2/	 Smith,	Patricia	L.	A	Primer	for	sampling	Solids,	Liquids,	and	gases,	Based	on	the	Seven	Sampling	
    Errors	of	Pierre	Gy.	Society	for	Industrial	and	Applied	Mathematics	and	American	Statistical	Association.	
    (2001)




NICe	workshop                                                                                                       45
    ExPEriEnCEs FroM AssEssMEnt oF EssEntiAL
    rEquirEMEnt “sAFEtY in CAsE oF FirE”
    Thureson,	Per.	SP	Technical	Research	Institute	of	Sweden,	Sweden,
    E-mail:	per.thureson@sp.se	


    The	Construction	Products	Directive	(89/106/EC)	was	adopted	December	1988	and	published	in	the	Official	
    Journal	February	1989.	The	aim	was	to	create	a	European	Single	Market	by	removal	of	regulatory	barriers	
    to	trade.

    When	the	building	product	directive	came	in	place	it	was	clear	that	harmonised	methods	for	fire	testing	
    and	classification	of	building	products	were	required	as	a	prerequisite	for	allowing	building	products	to	be	
    CE-marked	and	to	have	access	to	a	large	market.

    reaction to fire	as	well	as	resistance to fire	of	building	products	and	building	elements	was	included.	
    As	there	were	no	common	tests	in	use	in	the	different	EU	member	states	it	became	necessary	to	develop	
    or	modify	existing	international	standards	in	order	to	have	a	set	of	standards	that	would	be	common	to	
    all	countries.	This	task	was	given	to	CEN,	the	European	Committee	for	Standardization.	A	CEN	standard	
    is	called	EN,	European	Norm,	and	the	CEN	member	countries	must	implement	a	CEN	standard	within	
    a	certain	time.	Considerable	progress	has	been	made	by	CEN	in	producing	standards	and	a	package	
    for	products	reaction	to	fire	is	in	operation	since	some	years.	Many	of	the	required	standards	for	fire	
    resistance	are	also	operational.	

    Having	the	test	standards	available	is	not	enough,	as	the	classification	criteria	for	the	European	fire	
    classes	must	also	be	available.	In	order	to	make	the	European	classification	system	a	part	of	the	legal	
    system	in	EU	the	European	Commission	takes	a	formal	decision	and	publishes	that	in	the	publication	
    the	Official	Journal.	The	European	fire	classes	according	to	the	EN	13501-series	are	expressed	in	a	
    completely	different	way	compared	to	former	national	systems.

    The	reaction to fire	system	includes	40	classes	for	construction	products	(excluding	floorings	and	linear	
    pipe	thermal	insulation	products).	The	number	of	classes	for	floor	coverings	is	11	and	the	number	of	
    classes	for	linear	pipe	thermal	insulation	products	is	40.

    A	European	fire	class	is	declared	as	for	example	B-s1,d0.	The	reason	for	the	many	classes	is	that	each	
    member	state	wishes	to	identify	its	own	class	in	its	own	building	code.	Considering	the	differences	in	
    testing	and	classification	system	between	countries	it	is	clear	that	a	large	number	of	European	fire	
    classes	can	be	the	result.	However,	each	country	is	expected	only	to	use	a	very	small	fraction	of	the	
    possible	combinations.

    Table	1.	gives	a	summary	on	the	situation	of	the	implementation	of	the	European	reaction	to	fire	
    classification	system	in	the	Nordic	countries.	The	figure	shows	the	national	classes	in	each	country	and	
    the	corresponding	European	fire	classes	implemented	in	the	building	regulations.
    	

    Table	1.		European	classes	for	Reaction	to	Fire	–	National	translations	and	implementation	–	Status	2006


      EuroCLAss          EArLiEr nAtionAL CLAss

                             Denmark          Finland           Iceland           Norway            Sweden

     Officially	              2004                 2002          2006              2003              2002
     implemented	in	
     building	codes

      A1	                       	                   NC	           NC	                	

      A2	                      NC	                  NC	            	                NC	               NC

      B	                       A	                    1/I	          A	             In1/Ut1	             I

      C	                        	                 1/II,	1/-	       	                 	                 II

      d	                       B	                   2/-	          B	              In2/Ut2	            III

      E	                        	                     	            	                 	

      F	                        	                   -/-	           	                 	

      NC	=	non-combustible



NICe	workshop                                                                                                       46
    The	resistance to fire	system	is	a	combination	of	performance	characteristics	(load	bearing	capacity	R,	
    integrity	E,	insulation	I,	radiation	W,	mechanical	action	M	etc.)	combined	with	the	classification	period,	as	
    for	example	REI	120-M.

    The	visible	sign	that	a	product	conforms	to	the	requirements	of	the	Construction	Products	Directive	is	
    the	CE-mark.	To	be	able	to	CE-mark	a	product	all	the	essential	requirements	of	the	directive	must	be	
    declared.	This	includes	also	other	properties	than	fire,	for	example	insulation	properties.	The	full	set	of	
    requirements	is	covered	in	a	product	standard.	For	the	case	of	fire	the	product	standard	makes	reference	
    to	the	relevant	classification	standard.	At	present	more	than	400	product	standards	are	published	in	the	
    Official	Journal.




NICe	workshop                                                                                                        47
    HArMonisAtion oF BuiLdinG rEquirEMEnts
    (Wood) in tHE nordiC CountriEs
    Anders	Gustafsson,	SP	Technical	Research	Institute	of	Sweden	
    /Building	Technology	and	Mechanics/Wood	Technology		
    Adress:		SP	Trätek,	Skeria	2,		SE-931	77	Skellefteå
    e-mailt:	anders.gustafsson@sp.se
    Homepage:	http://www.sp.se



    AbstrAct
    The	Nordic	project	”Harmonisation	of	building	requirements	in	the	Nordic	Countries	for	wooden	houses”	
    has	been	going	during	2007	and	will	be	completed	during	2008.	The	project	is	carried	out	within	the	
    framework	of	Nordic	Innovation	Centre’s	work	to	make	the	Nordic	countries	to	a	well-functioning	market	
    and	an	integrated	region.	NICe	finances	the	project	along	with	industry	and	organisations	in	Sweden,	
    Norway	and	Denmark.	

    The	objective	of	the	project	is	to	strengthen	the	Nordic	industry	through	similar	and	transparent	
    requirements,	so	with	minimum	of	technical	”trade	obstacles”	the	market	can	increase	with	the	intention	
    to	further	development	of	the	building	industry	of	wooden	houses.		The	aim	is	to	compile	a	package	of	
    requirements	that	the	industries	experience	as	obstacle	and	to	influence	a	reduction	of	the	differences	in	
    the	current	Nordic	regulations	and	standards.	



    IntrodUctIon	
    The	transformation	of	the	wooden	manufacturing	industries	from	local	suppliers	of	products	to	creators	
    of	concepts	establishes	conditions	for	new	companies	and	company	groups.	However,	the	ability	of	
    companies	to	adjust	to	new	markets	can	take	long	time	and	generate	high	costs.	It	is	therefore	important	
    to	make	it	easier	for	the	industries	to	address	bigger	markets	by	removing	obstacles	in	the	form	of	
    differences	in	building	regulations	and	recommendations.	By	making	it	easier	for	the	industry	to	get	a	
    bigger	market	the	productivity	can	be	increased	and	give	opportunities	for	development	of	new	innovative	
    and	non-standard	products.		Considered	over	a	longer	period	of	time	the	simplification	will	also	reduce	
    the	total	costs	for	houses.	At	the	request	of	the	industry	a	project	was	started	to	find	out	what	the	industry	
    understand	as	the	biggest	problems	when	making	deliveries	to	other	Nordic	countries.



    ProJect	
    The	project	is	divided	in	three	parts,	Analysis	of	obstacles,	Communication,	and	Innovative	
    Standardization.	All	three	parts	are	important	to	get	a	good	understanding	for	differences	between	the	
    countries	and	give	good	possibilities	for	future	changes	of	the	requirements.	The	project	goal	is	based	on	
    information	from	the	industries,	to	show	way	for	changes.


    PArt 1 AnALYsis oF oBstACLEs
    Gathering	information	from	the	industry	is	included	in	the	first	part.	We	will	find	out	the	most	important	
    obstacles	and	problems	experienced	by	the	industries	within	exporting	wooden	houses/products	inside	
    the	Nordic	countries.	The	information	from	all	countries	will	be	compiled	in	a	short	report	and	will	then	be	
    analysed	and	compared.	The	result	will	be	a	proposal	for	a	package	of	changes	that	will	be	presented	in	
    the	final	report.	

    Included	are	regulations	and	recommendations	that	have	given	problems	and	extra	work	or	costs	to	get	
    houses	accepted	by	an	authority	or	future	proprietor	in	any	participating	country.	It	can	for	example	relate	
    to	sizes	and	dimensions,	design	of	rooms	and	houses,	building	products	or	structural	design	rules.	
    	
    About	60	questionnaires	have	been	sent	to	the	wood	house	industries	and	construction	companies	in	
    order	to	get	information	about	their	problems.	So	far	four	different	areas	have	been	pointed	out	as	most	
    interesting	to	analyse;	stairs,	size	and	dimensions	of	specific	rooms,	energy,	structural	design	and	
    moisture	protection	in	bathrooms.




NICe	workshop                                                                                                         48
    There	are	different	types	of	requirements,	formal	and	informal	that	a	manufacturer	of	wooden	houses	has	
    to	have	knowledge	about	for	e.g.	cultural	differences,	building	regulations,	and	building	requirements.	
    Some	of	the	requirements	you	can	find	in;		
    	    -	 Sweden:	Planning	and	Building	Act,	Technical	requirement	for	construction	works,	Building,	
    	    	 Regulations	and	Design	Regulations,	Swedish	standards,			
    	    -	 Denmark:	Planning	Act,	Building	regulations,	Building	regulations	for	small	houses,	Danish	
    	    	 standards
    	    -	 Norway:	Planning	and	Building	Act,	Technical	requirements,	Norwegian	standards	
    	    -	 Finland:	Land	use	and	Building	Act,	National	Building	Code	of	Finland,	Finnish	standards.


    Example:	Stairs	in	residential	houses	
    Totally	it	is	a	lot	of	information	that	a	manufacturer	must	have	good	knowledge	about,	so	every	small	
    harmonization	is	important.	For	stairs	there	are	more	than	20	types	of	measures	of	lengths,	heights	
    and	dimensions	you	have	to	check	before	manufacturing	the	stair,	see	table.		All	the	Nordic	countries	
    have	more	or	less	performance	regulations	regarding	stairs	in	residential	houses	based	on	the	
    safety	of	walking	in	the	stairs.	But	there	are	small	differences	which	have	importance	during	design,	
    manufacturing	and	erecting	a	house.	The	differences	in	rise,	height	of	the	handrail,	openings	in	the	rail	
    and	designing	methods	for	stairs	need	to	be	taken	into	account.



    tABLE: stAirs in rEsidEntiAL HousEs, soME oF tHE diFFErEnCEs


     MEAsurEs/tYPE         dEnMArK            FinLAnd                   norWAY                     sWEdEn

     rise	                 -	                 ≤	180/190	mm	(indoor)	    120-160	(outdoor)	         intervals	of	even
     	                     	                  ≤	120-160	mm	(outdoor)	   	                          distance	

     Headroom	             ≥2,1	m	            -	                        ≥2,0	residential	          -
     	                     	                  	                         ≥2,2	working	area	
     	                     	                  	                         ≥2,1	other	rooms	
     	
     slope of staircase	   -	                 design	model:	            design	model:	             even	slope
     	                     	                  2h+d=630	mm	              ”opptrinn+	1
     	                     	                  Max.	660	mm	outside	      intrinn=620	mm”
     	                     	                  	                         17-30	degrees,	outside		




    PArt 2 CoMMuniCAtions
    Part	2	of	the	project	includes	a	survey	and	description	of	ongoing	works	with	development	of	digital	
    information	and	communication	systems	in	Nordic	countries.	The	aim	is	to	clarify	the	systems’	principles,	
    the	used	of	communication	standards	and	their	compatibility,	and	how	well	they	describe	the	properties	
    and	functions	of	the	products.	A	test	will	be	done	using	the	system	“BuildingSmart”.	Building	Information	
    Modelling	(BIM)	refers	to	the	use	of	the	concepts	and	practices	of	open	and	information	exchanges,	
    emerging	technologies,	new	business	structures	and	influencing	the	re-engineering	of	processes	in	
    ways	that	dramatically	reduce	multiple	forms	of	waste	in	the	building	industry.	The	BIM	Standard	is	a	key	
    element	of	the	overall	industry	transformation	being	supported	and	coordinated	by	the	BuildingSmart.			
    Implemented	in	software,	the	consensus-based	standard	will	form	a	basis	for	more	accurate	and	efficient	
    commerce	within	the	building	industry.	BIM	Standard	is	also	intended	to	help	participants	in	processes	to	
    achieve	more	reliable	outcomes	from	different	agreements.	

    Part	2	will	analyze	if	the	development	of	the	systems	function	contribute	to	conserve	or	remove	or	
    create	trade	obstacles.	The	importance	for	different	users	will	be	evaluated	and	possibly	give	advice	for	
    harmonisation	in	this	field.		




NICe	workshop                                                                                                          49
    PArt 3 innoVAtiVE stAndArdizAtion
    In	part	3	the	different	standards	for	wooden	products		and	performances	that	are	relevant	for	building	
    permits	and	products	will	be	studied	and	compared	with	the	requirements	in	the	Nordic	building	
    regulations.	Basis	for	the	contents	of	performance	standards	will	be	analysed.	Proposal	for	a	Nordic	
    organisation	of	the	standardization	work	and	report	will	complement	the	survey	in	part	1.




    Participants in the project
    SP	Trätek,	Sverige	
    SINTEF,	Norge
    Teknologisk	Institut,	Danmark
    TCN,	TräCentrum	Norr,	Sverige	
    TMF	–	Trä-	och	Möbelindustriförbundet,	Sverige
    Byggkostnadsforum,	Boverket,	Sverige
    Skanska	Residential	Development	Nordic	AB
    Boligepodusentene,	Norge
    Norlund-	Viskum	Trae,	Danmark
    Dansk	Standard.	Center	för	byggeri	
    	    	




NICe	workshop                                                                                                 50
    AsPECts oF ProduCt dECLArAtion And
    CErtiFiCAtion rELAtEd to Er3
    Engelsen,	C.	J.,	SINTEF	Building	and	Infrastructure,	P.O.Box	123,	N0314	Oslo,	Norway.
    e-mail:	christian.engelsen@sintef.no




    AbstrAct
    In	order	to	ensure	safe	health,	hygiene	and	environment	when	using	construction	products,	Essential	
    Requirement	3	(ER3)	in	the	construction	product	directive	(CPD)	needs	to	be	fulfilled.	In	short	this	means	
    that	the	construction	products,	properly	installed	in	the	works,	shall	not	pose	any	unacceptable	emissions	
    to	indoor	air	or	release	dangerous	substances	to	soil,	ground	and	surface	water.

    Declaration	and	certification	of	construction	products	have	long	traditions	in	the	Nordic	countries	but	
    mostly	for	other	technical	features	than	ER3.	In	order	to	understand	in	what	way	the	new	procedures	
    regarding	ER3	will	affect	the	declaration	and	certification	procedures	used	today,	it	is	necessary	to	
    explain	the	current	situation.	In	order	to	CE	mark	a	construction	product	it	needs	to	fulfil	all	6	essential	
    requirements	in	the	CPD.	How	the	conformity	of	the	products	to	these	requirements	are	attested	and	
    by	whom	(producer	and/or	third	party),	are	laid	down	in	the	CPD	in	the	system	called	Attestation	of	
    Conformity	(AoC).	The	AoC	level	is	specified	in	the	harmonised	technical	specifications	(hEN	or	ETA).

    In	general,	certification	is	carried	out	by	attestation	of	compliance	with	a	standard	or	another	technical	
    specification	and	in	relation	to	products	that	fall	under	the	CPD,	the	producer	need	to	follow	the	AoC	
    system.	Two	types	of	certification	is	recognised,	factory	production	control	(AoC	system	2+)	and	product	
    certification	(AoC	system	1	and	1+).	Such	certification	is	in	most	cases	issued	with	a	one	page	document	
    (certificate).	The	term	approval	is	often	used	in	this	context	and	is	in	general	a	conformation	of	fitness	
    for	use	for	a	specific	area	of	application	including	requirements	for	installation	and	use.	In	relation	to	
    products	that	fall	under	the	CPD,	approvals	are	related	to	European	Technical	Approval	(ETA)	which	is	a	
    document	that	also	forms	the	basis	for	CE	marking.	ETA	is	used	for	products	that	are	not	covered	by	a	
    harmonised	European	standard	(hEN).

    The	European	Commission	appoints	so	called	notified	bodies	(according	to	national	building	authorities	
    recommendations)	to	carry	out	the	certification,	inspection	and	testing	after	harmonised	technical	
    specifications.	The	AoC	level	of	the	product	will	determine	to	what	extent	a	notified	body	is	involved.	
    In	relation	to	product	compliance	according	to	ER3	the	AoC	level	needs	to	be	decided,	which	in	turn	
    determine	how	the	conformity	is	to	be	carried	out.	The	AoC	level	can	be	different	for	different	essential	
    requirements	which	can	influence	the	burden	of	testing	for	some	construction	products.

    In	the	Norwegian	legislation,	which	includes	technical	regulations	(Teknisk	forskrift:	TEK),	the	CPD	is	
    implemented.	The	central	building	authority	in	Norway	is	the	Ministry	of	local	government	and	regional	
    development,	who	administrates	the	legislation	through	the	National	office	of	Building	Technology	and	
    Administration.	The	overall	regulation	is	that	all	relevant	properties	of	a	construction	product	shall	be	
    documented	before	being	placed	on	the	market	and	used	in	Norway.	The	building	authorities	interpret	this	
    documentation	in	the	way	that	the	provisions	for	CE	marking	consolidated	in	the	CPD	shall	be	followed.	In	
    Norway	the	CE	marking	is	thoroughly	described	in	TEK	although,	in	principle,	the	marking	in	itself	is	not	
    mandatory.




NICe	workshop                                                                                                       51
    stEEL ProduCtion BY-ProduCts in
    ConstruCtions
    Lind,	L.,	AB	Sandvik	Materials	Technology,	S-811	81	Sandviken,	Sweden,
    e-mail:	lotta.lind@sandvik.com	




    AbstrAct
    The	production	of	slags	from	the	iron	and	steel	production	in	Sweden	amounts	to	approximately	1.5	
    million	tons	per	year.	Out	of	that,	only	40-45%	(mainly	Blast	Furnace	slag)	is	used	in	constructions	and	
    approximately	30%	is	landfilled.

    Slag	is,	thanks	to	chemical	and	physical	properties	like	hydraulic	binding,	strength,	durability,	etc,	very	
    useful	in	constructions.	It	is,	for	example,	used	in	the	construction	of	roads	and	railways,	in	stabilisation	
    of	soil,	as	ballast	in	asphalt,	as	ballast	and/or	binder	in	concrete,	etc.	In	e.g.	road	construction,	much	
    less	slag	than	crushed	rock	material	can,	thanks	to	the	properties	of	the	slag,	be	used	to	build	a	thin,	but	
    strong	and	in	all	technical	aspects	acceptable	road,	with	much	lower	environmental	impact.

    There	are	several	reasons	to	why	so	low	amounts	of	the	produced	slag	is	used	in	constructions;	i.e.	
    lack	of	rules	and	guidelines	regarding	testing,	assessment	and	use	of	slag,	as	well	as	technical	and	
    environmental	problems	like	disintegration,	volumetric	expansion,	and	potential	leaching	of	metals	from	
    some	of	the	slag	types.	Most	slags	are	also	defined	as	waste,	which	in	Sweden	causes	large	problems	
    with	for	example	very	strict	limits	for	leaching.
    The	technical	and	environmental	problems	could	be	overcome	by	modifications	(chemical	and/or	physical)	
    of	the	slags	in	question.	The	administrative	problems	arising	from	the	waste	definition	are,	however,	more	
    difficult	to	overcome	today,	even	though	there	is	now	a	possibility	for	some	materials	to	chose	between	
    the	waste	and	the	REACH	interpretation.

    If,	however,	the	CPD	will	become	a	reality,	including	harmonised	standards	for	testing	of	all	properties	
    in	the	construction,	with	all	raw	materials	investigated	and	looked	upon	in	a	similar	way	irrespective	of	
    its	origin,	and	with	the	test	methods	for	environmental	properties	as	e.g.	leaching	similar	to	those	within	
    REACH,	the	possibilities	for	materials	as	slags	will	probably	increase.
    	




NICe	workshop                                                                                                        52
    CoMMEnts FroM usEr oF roAd EquiPMEnt
    And MAtEriALs
    Director	Raimo	Tapio,	Finnish	Road	Administration,	Finland,
    e-mail:	raimo.tapio@finnra.fi	



    FInnrA	And	ce	MArkInG
    The	Finnish	Road	Administration	has	a	dual	role.	The	FinnRA	is	at	the	same	time	procurer	and	regulator.	
    The	FinnRA	has	responsibility	for	a	road	network	over	70.000	km.	According	to	the	Road	Traffic	Act	
    and	Decree	the	FinnRA	is	the	regulator	of	traffic	guiding	device	for	the	whole	road	traffic	sector;	for	all	
    roads	and	streets.	According	to	the	Highway	Act	the	FinnRA	is	the	regulator	for	roads	under	its	own	
    responsibility.	The	Commission	has	an	opinion	that	the	FinnRA	has	a	predominant	market	share	and	
    therefore	its	requirements	are	considered	as	general	requirements.

    The	FinnRA	is	a	standard	writing	body	of	the	Finnish	Standards	Association	SFS	for	road,	bridge	and	
    geotechnical	standardisation	inclusive	geotechnical	Eurocodes.	The	standardisation	work	programme	
    consists	over	50	harmonised	product	standards	(hEN)	and	about	350	test	methods	and	other	standards.	
    Satisfying	the	requirements	of	a	hEN	the	producer	or	his	agent	may	label	the	product	with	CE	marking.	
    CE	marking	is	not	obligatory	in	Finland.	Pursuant	to	a	resolution	of	the	Parliament	the	use	of	the	marking	
    is	primary.	For	vital	products	the	FinnRA	has	required	a	mandatory	CE	marking.

    The	first	generation	of	harmonised	standards	contain	only	a	ready-made	statement	for	the	Essential	
    Requirement	number	3	(ER	3)	“Dangerous	substances”.	Many	CEN	technical	committees	have	already	
    begun	working	with	ER	3	and	parallel	with	the	work	of	CEN	TC	351	they	are	quite	ready	to	make	progress.

    The	FinnRA	may	not	have	an	adequate	expertise	in	the	evaluation	of	the	environmental	acceptability	
    of	road	materials.	Therefore	it	is	important	that	a	close	required	collaboration	has	developed	between	
    e.g.	The	Ministry	of	the	Environment,	the	Environment	Centre	(SYKE),	Geological	Survey	of	Finland,	VTT	
    Technical	Research	Centre	of	Finland,	material	deliverers,	consultants	and	contractors.	In	the	re-use	
    of	waste	the	Ministry	of	the	Environment	is	the	main	regulator.	The	collaboration	has	been	intensified	
    eminently	by	the	national	UUMA	(The	development	of	new	material	technology)-project.
    	


    dAnGeroUs	sUbstAnces
    The	products	the	FinnRA	uses	may	crudely	be	divided	in	two	groups:	road	equipments	and	road	materials.	
    Road	equipments	are	made	of	steel,	plastics	and	aluminium	and	the	release	to	soil	and	ground	water	
    is	far	under	all	limits.	Only	road	marking	materials	and	their	components	might	have	some	release	to	
    reconsider.	Also	timber	protective	liquid	may	be	harmful.

    With	respect	to	road	materials	natural	aggregate,	crushed	stone,	common	cement	and	bitumen	could	
    be	considered	“safe”.	For	them	“Without	testing”	or	“Without	further	testing”	procedures	are	normally	
    sufficient.	Some	types	of	aggregate	may	however	content	ore	minerals,	radioactivity	or	fibres	which	are	
    harmful	during	production	or	in	use.	Main	concerns	create	different	by-products,	recycled	materials,	
    various	soil	stabilising	substances,	injection	agents,	concrete	repair	and	surfacing	materials	and	de-icing	
    agents.

    The	most	relevant	way	to	evaluate	the	dangerous	substances	in	by-products	and	usable	waste	is	to	
    measure	leaching.	High	content	is	not	a	problem	if	nothing	is	dissolved.

    Unfortunately	the	reality	is	not	this	simple.	Conditions	change:	A	flood,	change	from	aerobic	to	anaerobic	
    conditions	or	change	in	pH	may	increase	leaching	from	original	tests	in	normal	conditions.	Besides,	frost	
    action	may	break	bonds	in	stabilized	materials	which	may	increase	leaching.	Therefore	product	standards	
    should	include	tests	for	a	variety	of	conditions.	At	the	beginning	the	manufacturer	could	cover	the	most	
    common	conditions,	only,	and	the	purchaser,	or	the	responsible	authority,	decides	in	which	cases	each	
    test	is	required	and	what	are	the	threshold	values.	

    The	task	of	CEN	should	be	to	select/develop	existed	tests	and	to	write	an	informative	annex	on	conditions	
    where	the	tests	are	considered	to	be	valid.	It	is	the	task	of	Authorities	in	each	country	to	decide	on	how	
    condition	classes	are	used	and	on	threshold	levels.	




NICe	workshop                                                                                                      53
    Though	leaching	test	is	the	primary	test	type,	content	tests	are	necessary	for	two	reasons:	If	content	of	all	
    dangerous	substances	is	low	it	is	easy	for	the	Authority	to	decide	that	no	or	only	a	few	leaching	tests	are	
    necessary.	Content	information	is	also	necessary	to	consider	risks	when	the	material	is	removed	from	a	
    road	and	relocated.

    Another	question	concerns	how	road	administrations	may	approve	new	products	and	what	kind	of	
    conditions	for	use	of	them	is	necessary.	A	large	amount	of	new	product	comes	on	the	market	every	year.	
    Normally	the	FinnRA	allows	a	temporary	or	permanent	licence	to	use	based	on	the	product	information,	
    test	results	and	in	some	cases	on	additional	tests	and	on	information	from	other	countries.

    As	stated	earlier	information	in	CE	marking	for	dangerous	substances	must	embody	some	information	
    for	conditions	of	use	because	leaching	may	vary	tens	of	times.	This	knowledge	is	needed	for	national	
    regulation.	In	some	cases	exceptional	weather	conditions	(heavy	rains)	during	usage	may	cause	
    temporally	very	high	leaching	values.



    nordIc	dIMensIon
    	
    There	has	been	a	lively	collaboration	between	Nordic	Road	Administrations	and	professionals.	The	lack	of	
    resources	reduce	traditional	studies,	joint	researches,	present	state	briefing	and	exchange	of	information.	
    Meetings	of	narrow	sectors	and	regular	handling	of	special	questions	will	continue.	Dangerous	
    substances	of	construction	products,	regulation	and	harmonisation	of	regulations,	risk	management,	
    eco-effectiveness,	influence	on	CEN	work	etc.	will	undoubtedly	create	new	close	Nordic	collaboration.




NICe	workshop                                                                                                        54

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:10
posted:10/12/2012
language:English
pages:55