- EnvironmEntal SafEty and futurE ChallEngES
Extended abstracts of the worskhop
April 15 - 16, 2008
ConstruCtion ProduCts –
EnVironMEntAL sAFEtY And FuturE
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
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,
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:
• Civil Protection and Environmental Accidents
• Climate Change
• Environmental Economics
• Enlargement and Neighbouring Countries
• Industry and Technology
• International Issues
• Land Use
• Nature and Biodiversity
• Sustainable Development
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.
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.
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
• 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
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”.
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 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
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
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
Activities are divided into following themes and subthemes:
• River Basin Management
Water Framework Directive
Chemicals / Priority Substances
Common Implementation Strategy
• Marine Environment
Marine Thematic Strategy
• Water Quantity
Flood Risk Management
Water Scarcity and Droughts
• Water and Health
• Water Pollution
Urban Waste Water
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,
(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.
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
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.
Nordic Innovation Position report:
From Cross-border barriers to Market opportunities. Free download from:
NICe workshop 10
intErFACEs BEtWEEn CPd And rEACH
Jepsen, D. & Lüskow, H. Ökopol Institute, Nernstweg 32-34, 22765 Hamburg, Germany
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
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.
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:
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.
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
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)
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)
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
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
rEFinEMEnt oF rEACH ExPosurE ModELs BY EMission tEst dAtA oF
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: Possible function of validated emission- & exposure models for construction product use under
REACH and ER 3 WT/WFT
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
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)
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.
And under specific conditions as well if they are part of an imported article
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”
Confederation of Finnish Construction Industries RT
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
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
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)
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
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
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
Ilvonen, O. Umweltbundesamt, Fachgebiet III 1.4, Postfach 1406, D-06813 Dessau-Roßlau, Germany,
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
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.
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
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
The parameters to be examined are specified on the basis of the chemical composition of the
3. Biological parameters
Aquatic and terrestrial tests may be required.
The following flow chart illustrates the two-phase assessment concept.
P has e 1 Determination of substances
Exclusion criteria met?
Findings on environmental
compatibility or comparison with similar
products assessed positively? yes
Practice-related production of leachates
P has e 2
1s t s tep Determination of general parameters
Harmful alteration due to
not met general characterisation?
2nd s tep Determination of chemical parameters
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
met completely met
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.
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
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
1. Tunnelkommissionen, 1998. Miljö i grund och botten – erfarenheter från Hallandsåsen.
Slutrapport av Tunnelkommissionen. Statens offentliga utredningar SOU 1998:137.
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.
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.
5. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation And Nuclear Safety, 1999: Federal Soil
Protection and Contaminated Sites Ordinance. Translation.
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
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
Luodes, N. Stone Pole Oy, Kuhnustantie 10, 83900 JUUKA, Finland
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
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
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 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
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:
• 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
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: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
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
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
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
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
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 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
NICe workshop 30
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.
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
NICe workshop 31
CurrEnt CritEriA For AssEssMEnt oF
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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’
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
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 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
- 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
- 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
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
M o d e lin g fro m
e m is s io n to e ff e c t
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.
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)
Especially for CEN/TC351 ‘Construction products: Assessment of release of dangerous substances’, and CEN/TCs covering construction
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
Margareta Wahlström, Jutta Laine-Ylijoki, Tommi Kaartinen & Liisa Rautiainen, VTT, Finland
Ole Hjelmar & Anke Oberender, DHI Water, Environment & Health, Denmark, (e-mail: email@example.com)
David Bendz & Ola Wik, SGI, Sweden (e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org),
Hans Gustafsson, SP, Sweden (e-mail: email@example.com),
Christian J. Engelsen, SINTEF, Norway, (e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org),
Harpa Birgisdóttir, Linuhönnun, Iceland (e-mail: email@example.com)
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
- to evaluate with pre-testing appropriate CEN-test methods for the determination of release from
- to build up knowledge on testing results in relation to Nordic/European testing and scenario
- 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
- 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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
- the properties of critical substances, e.g. inorganic/volatile organic/non-volatile (semi-volatile)
- 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
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
NICe workshop 39
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
• surface and groundwater properties (e.g. high DOC, salt content, low temperature and low buffer
• 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”).
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).
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
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
Data a nal ys is
(A 8) requir emen ts
cyc le (A) M easuri ng
Data hand ling strat egy (A 3)
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)
Tra nspo rt and M ethod /techn iques
stora ge (B 8) /proced ures (B2)
cyc le (B)
Pr e-treat men t Equi pmen t (B 3)
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
• 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/.
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
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/.
/1/ ISO/IEC 17025: General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories
/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.
NICe workshop 45
ExPEriEnCEs FroM AssEssMEnt oF EssEntiAL
rEquirEMEnt “sAFEtY in CAsE oF FirE”
Thureson, Per. SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden, Sweden,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
- 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
Teknologisk Institut, Danmark
TCN, TräCentrum Norr, Sverige
TMF – Trä- och Möbelindustriförbundet, Sverige
Byggkostnadsforum, Boverket, Sverige
Skanska Residential Development Nordic AB
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.
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
NICe workshop 51
stEEL ProduCtion BY-ProduCts in
Lind, L., AB Sandvik Materials Technology, S-811 81 Sandviken, Sweden,
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
Director Raimo Tapio, Finnish Road Administration, Finland,
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.
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
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.
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