Cost recovery evaluation of Al Ain construction and demolition waste treatment plant ا و ءانبلا تايافن ةجلاعمل نيعلا عنصمل فيلاكتلا دادرتسا مييقت مدهل

Cost recovery evaluation of Al Ain construction and
demolition waste treatment plant
‫تقييم استرداد التكاليف لمصنع العين لمعالجة نفايات البناء و الهدم‬
By
Ibrahim Abdulmajid Ibrahim Taher
Student ID: 80098
Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of

MSc Project Management
Faculty of Business
Dissertation Supervisor
Dr. Paul Gardiner
Sep 2013
BUID MSc Project Management – Dissertation Ibrahim Taher - 80098
Acknowledgements
My sincere gratitude to my dissertation tutor Dr. Paul Gardiner, for providing his continuous
support, guidance, and insights, and most importantly understanding and patience without which
this dissertation would undoubtedly be incomplete.
I would like to sincerely thank Dr. Salem Al Kaabi, Acting General Manager of the Center of
Waste Management – Abu Dhabi (CWM) for his valuable comments, and moral support and
encouragement that helped me to tackle challenges and focus my ideas.
I would also like to gratefully thank my dear colleagues Eng. Faris Al Munaiei, Engineer Sayed
Akhlaq Hassan, Dr. Fadi Ataya, for their valuable discussions, continuous assistance, and
guidance which undeniably enabled the development of the model and final shape of the
dissertation.
I would also like to thank the staff at the university library and administration for their support
and assistance at all times.
My deepest appreciation and gratitude to my family for their quiet patience, unending
encouragement, and support throughout the course of this dissertation
1 of 78
Abstract
Waste management is a major challenge facing the developing countries. The rapid urban growth
and economic development in Abu Dhabi Emirate has resulted in extreme increase in the daily
generation of waste quantity. The Government of Abu Dhabi has initiated several recycling
projects toward balancing between the environmental sustainability along with the economic
growth to ensure the long-term quality of life of its citizens. The aim of this dissertation is to
evaluate the cost recovery of one of the recycling projects in Abu Dhabi Emirate, namely Al Ain
crushing and demolition waste treatment plant. In light of the aim the objectives of this research
are to explore the cost recovery scenarios for the plant under different policy and economy
options, introduce the optimum solution in terms of cost recovery considering the environmental,
social, and economic implications, and develop an integrated solution for the management of
C&D waste projects in the Abu Dhabi Emirate.
Developing a financial model and considering several assumptions for the relevant factors to
determine the cost recovery scenarios of the project, the findings of this research indicate the
negligence of clear cost recovery approach and lack of necessary legislations and financial
solutions. The identified scenarios elaborated that the current situation will fail in achieving the
return on investment during the course of the contract regardless of the adverse environmental
and economic impacts of current practices. Moreover, the prevailing practices and activities of
the construction industry indicates a real need of major governmental decrees to enhance the
supervision and monitoring related activities, create stable market for the recycled materials
through government-funded projects managed by public organizations, in addition to intensive
awareness and education programs to promote environmentally sound practices. These set of
political support, law enforcement, environment considering encouragement, will reform the
construction industry toward achieving the waste sector strategy. Nevertheless, the research
recommends developing the implementation of tipping fee mechanism as a substantial solution
toward the successfulness of the recycling projects in Abu Dhabi.
2 of 78
‫‪BUID MSc Project Management – Dissertation‬‬ ‫‪Ibrahim Taher - 80098‬‬
‫الملخص‬
‫تعتبر إدارة النفايات تحديا أساسيا تواجه الدول النامية‪ .‬و قد أدى التسارع الهائل في التطوير العمراني و التنمية االقتصادية في‬
‫إمارة أبوظبي إلى ارتفاع هائل في كمية النفايات المتولدة يوميا‪ .‬لقد أنشأت حكومة أبوظبي عدة مشاريع إلعادة التدوير بهدف‬
‫التوازن بين االستدامة البيئية و النمو االقتصادي و لضمان جودة الحياة االجتماعية لقاطني اإلمارة على المدى البعيد‪ .‬إن الغاية‬
‫من هذا البحث هي تقييم لعملية استرداد التكاليف ألحد مشاريع إعادة التدوير في إمارة أبوظبي‪ ،‬و هو مشروع العين لمعالجة‬
‫مخلفات البناء و الهدم‪.‬‬
‫في ضوء الغاية المذكورة أعاله‪ ،‬فإن األهداف المنشودة لهذا البحث هي تحري سيناريوهات و خيارات استرداد تكاليف‬
‫المشروع في ظل سياسات و أوضاع اقتصادية مختلفة‪ ،‬طرح الحل و الخيار األمثل من حيث استرداد التكاليف أخذا في االعتبار‬
‫التأثيرات البيئية و االجتماعية و االقتصادية‪ ،‬و تطوير حل و نظام متكامل إلدارة مخلفات البناء و الهدم في إمارة أبوظبي‪.‬‬
‫من خالل تطوير نماذج مالية و أخذا باالعتبار لعدة فرضيات للعوامل ذات العالقة بسيناريوهات تغطية نفقات المشروع‪ ،‬فإن‬
‫نتائج هذا البحث تبين انعدام منهج واضح و نقص في التشريعات الضرورية و الحلول المالية الالزمة لعملية استرداد تكاليف‬
‫المشروع‪.‬‬
‫لقد وضحت السيناريوهات المحددة فشل الوضع الحالي في تحقيق العائد على االستثمار للمشروع طوال مدة العقد فضال عن‬
‫التأثيرات لسلبية للممارسات الحالية من الناحية البيئية و المالية‪ .‬عالوة على ما سبق‪ ،‬فإن األنشطة و الممارسات السائدة في‬
‫قطاع اإلنشاءات تشير إلى الحاجة الملحة إلى قوانين و تشريعات حكومية لتحسين الرقابة و اإلشراف على األنشطة ذات‬
‫العالقة‪ ،‬إيج اد سوق متوازنة للمواد المعاد تدويرها من خالل مشاريع مدعومة حكوميا و تدار من قبل مؤسسات عامة‪ ،‬باإلضافة‬
‫إلى الحاجة لبرامج توعوية و تثقيفية مكثفة لتشجيع أفضل الممارسات البيئية‪ .‬إن هذه المنظومة من الدعم الحكومي‪ ،‬تطبيق‬
‫القوانين‪ ،‬و تشجيع الممارسات البيئية‪ ،‬سوف تعيد صياغة قطاع اإلنشاءات نحو تحقيق استراتيجية قطاع النفايات‪ .‬و مع ذلك‪،‬‬
‫فإن البحث يوصي بتطوير آلية تنفيذ رسوم التعرفة كحل جوهري نحو تحقيق النجاح لمشاريع إعادة التدوير في أبوظبي‪.‬‬
‫‪3 of 78‬‬
Table of contents Page Number
Acknowledgements 1
Abstract 2
Table of Contents 3
List of Figures 5
List of Tables 7
List of Abbreviations 8
Chapter 1 Introduction 9
1.0 Background 9
1.1 Context 9
1.2 Abu Dhabi 2030 vision – Growth Strategy 9
1.3 Abu Dhabi Waste Sector Strategy 10
1.4 Problem Statement 10
1.5 Aims, Questions, and Objectives 11
1.5.1 Aim 11
1.5.2 Questions 12
1.5.3 Objectives 12
1.6 Contribution to Knowledge 13
1.7 Research Content 14
Chapter 2 Literature Review 15
2.1 Solid Waste Management 15
2.2 Construction and Demolition Waste 18
2.3 Environmental Considerations 27
2.4 Illegal Dumping 29
Chapter 3 Methodology 30
3.0 Introduction 30
3.1 Data Collection 31
4 of 78
3.2 Model construction and description 31

3.2.1 Module-1 (Basic Assumptions) 31
3.2.2 Module-2a (Revenue generated from Recyclables) 33
3.2.3 Module-2b (Revenue generated from Aggregates produced) 34
3.2.4 Module-3 (Cost of Processing Aggregates) 34
3.2.5 Module-4 (Return of Investment) 35
Chapter 4 Case findings and Analysis 36
4.0 Introduction 36
4.1 Al Ain Crushing and Demolition Treatment Plant 36
4.2 Payment of Crushing and Demolition Treatment Plant Construction 38
4.3 Source of Revenue 39
4.4 Cost recovery scenarios of Al Ain C&D plant 40
4.4.1 Basic Scenario 41
4.4.2 Assumptions based scenarios 42
4.5 Details of Scenarios and Findings 44
Chapter 5 Discussion 59
5.1 C&D Waste Composition 59
5.2 Al Ain C&D waste treatment plant capacity 59
5.3 Sale Price 60
5.4 Tipping Fee 60
5.5 Environmental impact of applying tipping fee 61
5.6 tipping fee – cost recovery 63
5.7 Tipping fee and illegal dumping 68
Chapter 6 Conclusions and Recommendations 70
6.1 Recommendations 70
6.2 Conclusion 72
References 74
5 of 78
List of figures
Figure Page #
Figure 1: The C&D waste management method hierarchy 21
Figure 2: A conceptual model of the C&D waste chain 22
Figure 3: Casual loop diagram of cost-benefit analysis of the C&D waste management 23
Figure 4: Basic assumption module of the financial model 32
Figure 5: Module-2a (Revenue generated from recyclables) 33
Figure 6: Module-2b (Revenue generated from Aggregates produced 35
Figure 7: Module-3 (Cost of Processing Aggregates) 35
Figure 8: Process flow of the Al Ain C&D waste treatment plant 38
Figure 9: Revenue (AED) versus C&D waste received quantity (tons/day) as a 45

function of selling price and AED (0) TP
Figure 13: Revenue (AED) versus selling price (AED) as a function of charged TP 50
(AED/ton) and fix C&D quantity (500 tons)
Figure 14: Revenue (AED) versus sale price (AED) as a function of charged TP 51
6 of 78
Figure 21: Casual loop diagram of C&D waste management model 61
Figure 22: 3Rs (reduce, reuse and recycle) in the waste flow in Japan and its 62
relationship with PAYT
Figure 23: Percentage of revenue generated from TP (%) versus total revenue as a 64
function of selling price (AED) and charged TP (AED/ton)
Figure 24: Number of years required for breakeven versus selling price (AED) as a 65
function of C&D waste received quantity (tons/day) and fixed TP of AED (10)
Figure 25: Number of years required for breakeven (nos.) versus selling price (AED) as 67
a function of charged tipping fee (AED/ton) and the C&D waste received quantity
Figure 26: Number of illegal dumping in Abu Dhabi Emirate in 2011 versus 2012 68
7 of 78
List of Tables
Table # Title Page #
Table 4.4.1-1 Basic assumption for the recyclables 42
Table 4.4.1-2 Basic assumption for the aggregates 42
Table 4.4.2-1 Projected sale price vs. Actual sale price for the recyclables 43
Table 4.4.2-2 Projected sale price vs. Actual sale price for the aggregates 43
8 of 78
List of Abbreviations
AED: Arab Emirates Dirhams
C&D: Construction and Demolition
CWM: The Center of Waste Management - Abu Dhabi
DMA: Department of Municipal Affairs
DOT: Department of Transport
EAD: Environment Agency - Abu Dhabi
TP: Tipping Fee
QCC: Abu Dhabi Quality and Conformity Council
9 of 78
Chapter 1 – Introduction
1.0 Background:
Solid waste is considered one of most important challenges facing developing cities and urban
societies. The rapid industrial change and technological development, associated with increase of
population and quantities of generated waste consequently, caused several environmental, social,
and economic impacts which negatively affected the water, soil, and public health. Therefore, the
waste management occupies center stage in the lists of priorities for the countries for finding
scientific and radical solutions problem.
1.1 Context:
Wastes are produced in the normal course of operation in domestic, industrial, commercial,
construction, and institutional operations and can be made of organics, non-organics, inert
material, hazardous, and recyclable materials. Wastes come in solid, liquid, and gaseous form.
Waste is defined as “any discarded, rejected, abandoned, unwanted or surplus matter, whether or
not intended for sale or for recycling, reprocessing, recovery or purification by a separate
operation from that which produced the matter (Environment Protection Act 1993).
The quantity of waste generation is related to the population and the economic activities. Arab
Countries generate ninety 90 million tons of waste every year. It is predicted to increase to 200
million tons per year in 2020 by which the cost is estimated around five 5 billion US$. The GCC
countries are among the top waste generators, whereby the waste generation is 1.2 – 2.7 kg per
capita per day (AFED 2011). Abu Dhabi Emirate generates approximately 33,000 tons of waste
daily in which 65% is constituted of Construction and Demolition waste.
1.2 Abu Dhabi 2030 vision – Growth Strategy
The 24th objective of Abu Dhabi 2030 vision emphasizes on balance between the environmental
sustainability along with the economic growth to ensure the long-term quality of life of its
10 of 78
citizens. Therefore, several environmental legislation and incentives were developed to create the
sense of environmental respect and consideration in both individual and corporate level.
The Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) identifies the global ranking based on
environmental factors such as natural resources, levels of pollution, and efforts and capacity to
protect the environment. Abu Dhabi’s 2030 vision gives the protection of environment the
utmost importance and ensures that the industrial and economic expansion will not cause
negative impacts on the environment. The top-level decision making in Abu Dhabi considers the
environmental aspects as important as the social and economic aspects.
1.3 Abu Dhabi Waste Sector Strategy
The strategy document of the Center of Waste Management – Abu Dhabi has identified the lack
of treatment facilities, lack of marketing for the recyclable material, lack of communication with
public and private sectors, lack of regulatory framework, and ineffective tariff system as high
level challenges to create adverse impacts on the waste management sector. (CWMAD strategy,
June 2013). On the other hand, the Center of Waste Management – Abu Dhabi strategy has
targeted 80% waste diversion from the landfills by 2018 as a high priority five-year objectives,
the financial status of the current projects as weakness, and the operational cost reduction
through optimizing waste management as an opportunity.
1.4 Problem Statement
(CWM) was constituted by the Government of Abu Dhabi under the decree 17/2008 to manage
the waste sector. Based on this decree, the government of Abu Dhabi has allocated certain
budget for CWM for its first five 5 years operation. CWM has to provide its services
independently and based on the income generated from its own projects.
One of the major challenges faced by CWM is the management of recyclable waste especially
the Crushing and Demolition Waste (C&D). The daily generation of C&D in Abu Dhabi Emirate
is approximately 65% of the total daily waste generation. Managing the C&D and controlling its
11 of 78
environmental, social, and economic aspects is a major problem in Abu Dhabi. Furthermore,
according to CWM reports and studies, the daily amount of C&D generation is approximately
21,000 tons, and the cost of managing waste accounts for approximately Dh225 per ton.
In order to manage the C&D waste in Abu Dhabi Emirate, the CWM has outsourced the
treatment of C&D waste and established Al Ain Crushing and Demolition Treatment Plant. The
environmental and financial objectives of this project has been raised ever since it was
introduced and questions are raised regarding its effectiveness. Being an income generator to
CWM from the sales of recycled aggregates and recyclable material, the cost recovery in light of
the duration of the contract was not discussed.
This project is the largest of its kind in the UAE and serves as a test case for both researchers and
practitioners. Being an environmental / commercial recycling initiative, the project is a testing
ground for projects of similar nature where the environmental, social, and financial factors
stimulate both waste management authorities and businesses to restudy their strategy.
Given the negative enthusiasm from the result of implementation of this recycling project; it
becomes necessary to conduct a study of feasibility and the effectiveness of this project given its
and to provide recommendations for its improvement. In so doing, to provide a decision making
tool for the CWM to learn from the case and where necessary improve the effectiveness of
similar projects within the organization. For researchers; to derive results of this case and to
apply to similar streams of knowledge and practice in the region.
1.5 Aims, Questions, and Objectives
1.5.1 Aim:
The aim of this research is to explore the cost recovery scenarios in order to improve the
financial effectiveness of the C&D treatment plant, taking in consideration the social, economic,
and environmental aspects.
12 of 78
1.5.2 Questions:
This paper is meant to answer the following questions:

 Does the C&D waste treatment plant recover the total investment cost during the contract
life period?
 What are other available sources of income to enhance the cost recovery of the project?
 Does this project achieve the environmental objectives of a waste recycling facility?
 Considering the waste management as an integrated environmental solution, can the
project achieve its goals in isolation of external factors?
1.5.3 Objectives:
In light of this aim, the dissertation has the following objectives.
1. Explore the cost recovery scenarios of the project under different policy and economy
options.
2. Introduce the optimum solution in terms of cost recovery considering the environmental,
social, and economic implications.
3. Identify related legislations and regulations to assure achieving project’s objective.
4. Develop an integrated solution for the management of C&D waste projects in the Abu
Dhabi Emirate.
5. Present recommendations based on the study findings and implications for further
research.
13 of 78
1.6 Contribution to knowledge
With rapid development in industrial and economic activities, in addition to the high
consumption of the natural resources and its environmental, social, and economic implications,
waste management becomes one of the most important challenges to face individuals and
organizations including both public and private alike. Despite the large number of literature
available to practitioners, the current practice of waste management especially in GCC countries
has not been considered among the best. Although governments have clearly expressed their
political and financial support to environmental activities, the number and variety of the relevant
projects, in addition to the environmental outcomes has not been up to the goals and objectives.
However, Abu Dubai 2030 vision provides a regional perspective to the existing knowledge of
waste management and environment protection.
Considering the financial as well as environmental approach embodied in current projects that
have not been comprehensively evaluated, in addition to the future projects that needs a different
feasibility perspective, this research and the results of this study can be undertaken to other
projects of similar nature.
14 of 78
1.7 Research Content
Chapter one presents an introduction to the research. It provides a brief background and an
overview of Abu Dhabi 2030 Plan 2010. In addition, a highlight on the importance of waste
management and the problem statement along with the aims, questions and objectives of this
research is expressed. Finally research contribution to knowledge is demonstrated.
Chapter two provides the Literature review of this research. The literature review illustrates the
knowledge streams of waste management and the principles of relevant activities; waste
reduction, recycling, political influences and regulatory actions, in addition to the financial
studies with regards to the waste management projects.
Chapter three presents the methodology of this research, as well as the introduction and the
process flow of the methodology. Moreover, information collection sources utilized for this
research are identified along with the documents/releases/reports reviewed in association with
the researcher theoretical perception.
Chapter four covers the analysis and case findings. The chapter presents an introduction to CWM
and its initiated project, a comprehensive comparison between the feasibility studies, pre-
commencement projections, and the actual results taking into account the environmental, social,
and economic implications of considered scenarios.
Chapter five provides the comprehensive discussion considering the relevant factors to determine
the optimum scenario of the plant cost recovery.
Chapter six articulates the concluding remarks of this research. A series of recommendations
extrapolated from the case findings and analysis are provided along with the suggestions for
further research and studies. Finally references used in the research are presented.
15 of 78
2. Literature Review
2.1 Solid Waste Management
Wastes are produced in the normal course of operation in domestic, industrial, commercial,
construction, and institutional operations and can be made of organics, non-organics, inert
material, hazardous, and recyclable materials. Wastes come in solid, liquid, and gaseous form.
This project is directed towards solid waste management, wherein solid waste is defined as
“unwanted or useless solid material generated from combined residential, industrial and
commercial activities in a given area”. Waste management strategies are intended to reduce or
eliminate the effects of waste on the environment, to provide for public and worker safety, and to
maximize the efficient use of resources. Proper solid waste management reduces or eliminates
the adverse impacts on human health and the environment and supports the development of
growing economies and helps improve the value of life.
The management of solid waste involves several process operations form monitoring, collection,
transport, processing i.e. treatment or recycling, and disposal. These processes are subject to
laws, rules, and regulations. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) adopts waste management
practices that are based on international standards. The local and federal directives present the
roles and responsibilities of all concerned parties. The rules and regulations governing the
generators and transporters of waste, in addition to those governing the collection and transport,
and treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities are provided in the specified laws governing
the generation and management of wastes (for example Local Law No. (21) of 2005 for Waste
Management in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi).
Waste management is based on the “3R principle” i.e. reduce, reuse, and recycle. The most
effective and proactive management practice is to eliminate or reduce the generation of the
waste. This is referred to as pollution prevention. Minimizing or avoiding the creation of
pollutants and waste can be more effective in protecting the environment than treating them, or
cleaning them up after they have been created. Pollution prevention methods are designed to
eliminate the creation of waste in contrast to pollution control options that treat waste after it has
been created. Waste generators can reduce costs and prevent pollution by implementing
16 of 78
reduction, reuse and recycling programs through changes in operational procedures, maintenance
practices, and raw material usage.
Sustainable waste management necessitates the requirement for waste avoidance and waste
minimization at source and these options are the first to be considered in the hierarchy of waste
management. Source reduction is the practice of reducing the amount of raw material entering a
waste stream or being released into the environment before recycle, treatment or disposal. The
aim of reduction is to eliminate the production of a waste by using raw materials more efficiently
and effectively. Methods of reduction include substitution or reduction of a raw material,
production redesign, process changes, and improved maintenance activities. Second in the
hierarchy of waste management is reuse and recycle of useful resources from wastes. Reusing or
recycling hazardous waste in operating processes and the reuse of material that would otherwise
require treatment or disposal within the generating facility are other means of pollution
prevention. The recycling of materials within an industry can significantly reduce the quantities
of waste generated. Furthermore, waste exchanges and waste associations offer some opportunity
for the reuse or recycle of waste in addition to placing potential users of waste materials in
contact with waste generators.
Once waste has been created the proper treatment and disposal can be expensive and treatment
options should be considered only after acceptable waste minimization techniques have been
identified. Various waste management options are available to reduce the cost and volume of
waste requiring treatment. The process for identifying options should follow the hierarchy in
which reduction options are explored first and reuse and recycling options second. The hierarchy
effort stems from the environmental desirability of source reduction as the preferred means of
minimizing waste with main emphasis on the diverting of waste from disposal at landfills and
dumpsites to more sustainable management techniques in order to maximize resource recovering
and utilization of renewable biomass.
Waste treatment techniques transform the waste into more manageable form reducing the volume
and toxicity therefore making the waste easier to dispose of. Treatment methods are dependent
upon composition, quantity, and form of the waste material. Some waste treatment methods
being used today include subjecting the waste to extremely high temperatures i.e incineration or
17 of 78
gasification, dumping or landfilling, and using of biological, chemical, or physical processes for
waste treatment. It should be noted that treatment and disposal options are chosen as last resort,
that being in reference to the ‘best practice’ waste management strategies promoting reducing,
reusing and recycling of waste. In general, more than one process is used for treatment, with
some physical and chemical processes often applied first followed with other final solution
processes. No single process is suitable for all categories of solid waste and frequently several
processes are linked in series or in parallel configurations to form waste-specific treatment
methodologies. Therefore, all of the available treatment and disposal options must be evaluated,
in lieu of possible recycling options, and the best combination of the available options matched.
Wastes are important because of their potential hazard to human health and the environment for
when they are improperly transported and stored, treated, recycled, and disposed of. Reports
indicate that, for industrial developing nations, the increase in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is
an indicator of the increase in the generation of waste. Based on the examination of waste
generation trends in the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the
estimated waste generation rate per person per day is 4.6 pounds (for total waste not just MSW
waste) for the generation quantity of 240.9 million tons (OECD, 1999). The Organization for
Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) in 1999 examined the global MSW
generation rate trends in OECD countries and showed that the waste volume is expected to
continue growth in quantities (from 1995 to 2020) and that the trend is not related to population
numbers. The estimated waste quantities in 1997 for European countries where indicative of the
worldwide waste generation trends and show that the volume per capita ranges from 170 kg per
person per year in Finland for example to 530 kg per person per year in Denmark. The data was
collected for MSW waste and not total waste (OECD, 1999).
MacFarlane (1998) studied the linkage between waste generation rates and consumption of
resources based on the expansion in sustainable development and the involvement of the public
sector and private sector in the reduction, reuse, and recycling of waste materials. The relation
between per capita solid waste management costs and per capita Gross National Product (GNP)
showed that cities in general for both industrialized and developing countries do not spend more
than 0.5% of their capita GNP on municipal waste management services. Of this total budget, an
approximate of 45% is spent on intermediate treatment facilities (i.e. incineration plants) with
18 of 78
around 4% allocation towards collection projects and 6% for final disposal projects. This was for
high income countries. For low and middle income countries it was advised that the major
portion of the solid waste management budget is allocated to collection and transportation
services. Final disposal costs were seen to be minimal because in these countries disposal was
most of times done through open dumping rather than through containment in proper designed
landfills.
Similar trends were observed for when comparing landfill tipping fees. In the United States, for
example, the weighted average tipping fee is $94/ton being based on conservative assumptions of
the waste mix. This is not to include high tipping fees waste materials (e.g. hazardous wastes)
such as oil waste material that have tipping fees of almost $250/ton and industrial paint tipping
fees that reach almost $400/ton for disposal. It is worth noting here that tipping fees in the
European Union are on average higher than those in the United States, this being the reflection of
economics of landfills in developed areas of dense population. There was significant difference
observed between the tipping fees charged in developing countries and those tipping fees
charged in the European Union countries and in the United States. For example, tipping fees
charged were as low as $ 1.3/ton in Indonesia.
2.2 Construction and Demolition Waste
There is no uniform definition of Construction and Demolition waste “C&D waste’’. C&D waste
in general refers to the solid waste generated in the construction sector. More specifically, C&D
waste is “waste which arises from construction, renovation and demolition activities including
land excavation or formation, civil and building construction, site clearance, demolition
activities, roadwork, and building renovation” (Shen et al., 2004). In the United States, C&D
waste has been defined as solid waste that is produced in the process of construction, renovation,
and demolition of structures, roads, and bridges being that which is composed of concrete,
asphalt, wood, metals, gypsum wallboard, and roofing material Franklin et al. (1998). Moreover,
in similar but more comprehensive understanding, Shen et al. (2004) and Tam and Tam (2008)
defined C&D waste as “waste which arises from construction, renovation and demolition
19 of 78
activities including land excavation or formation, civil and building construction, site clearance,
demolition activities, roadwork, and building renovation”.
C&D wastes include a wide range of materials based on the source of the C&D waste (Fatta et
al., 2003). These include (i) excavation materials (e.g. earth, sand, gravel, rocks and clay) (ii)
road building and maintenance materials (e.g. asphalt, sand, gravel and metals) (iii) demolition
materials (e.g. debris including earth, gravel, sand, blocks of concrete, bricks, gypsum, porcelain
and lime-cast) and (iv) other worksite waste materials (e.g. wood, plastic, paper, glass, metal and
pigments) (Fatta et al., 2003). In the UAE, Globex-City Consultant in 2002 reported that
significant variation in the composition of C&D wastes reaching the Al Dhafra landfill were
observed, with aggregate materials (i.e. rock, concrete, brick, stone, and soil) forming the major
portion of the C&D waste stream. It was concluded that variations of the source of waste,
variation of the segregation competence or mixing of C&D waste with other waste streams
resulted in the composition differences which in turn impacted the landfill operations and
increased costs.
During construction, few material of high economic value are separated for recycling purposes
(e.g. plastic films and scrapping materials). Demolition of buildings is in general carried out in
two phases. First, interior finishing are removed from the buildings and these can (1) be sold
directly for reuse, or (2) be taken to locations of demolition sites for later sale, reuse, or
recycling, or (3) be transported to dumpsites should there be no other favourable possible
solutions. Second, concrete structures are then themselves demolished and the steel contained in
the demolition debris is removed to the most extent possible for sale to scrap dealers whiles the
concrete blocks are used for landscaping projects or sent to dumpsites. Asphalt removed from
road refurbishment is in most times mixed into new asphalt or used for new sub-bases.
ICF Incorporated in the report to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that was published
in 1995 identified the following main factors impacting the characteristics of C&D waste (i) type
of structure (e.g. residential or non-residential i.e institutional; , commercial, or industrial such as
building, road, and bridge configuration) (ii) size of structure (e.g. low-rise, high-rise). And (ii)
work being performed (e.g. construction, renovation, repair, demolition).
20 of 78
Several factors influence the production of C&D waste (Dolan et al., 1999). These are explained
as the following:
• Extent of economic growth and overall development. This in effect is responsible for
sector expansion and work progression in construction, renovation, and demolition.
• Special grand scale projects, such as urban rejuvenation, road construction and mega
structure repairs, and others such as unplanned happenings resulting from ‘force
majeure’ or natural related disasters.
• Presence of supporting infrastructure i.e. storage locations, pre-sorting areas and
deposit sites or landfills and recycle processing facilities etc., and costing of
collection and transport, and treatment or recycle, and disposal solutions.
• Laws, rules, and regulations concerning segregation at source, reduce, reuse, and
recycling of C&D waste. Comprehensive guidelines that can have practical
application which is to be in compliance with international standards.
• Extent of end-use markets and governmental support and qualitative standardization
of recyclable materials for obligation purchasing of contractors having projects with
government organizations.
Waste generation determination can take place through direct or indirect methods. Direct
methods for determination of waste generation and composition include weighing, measuring,
and segregating or sorting of the waste stream or these can include sampling and extrapolation
(Brunner and Ernst, 1986). Indirect methods (Hsiao et al., 2002) estimate the waste generation
rate using statistics on consumption, trading, and other economic indicators (e.g. stockpile
storage).
C&D waste management operations range from reusing to recycling to disposal in landfills
(Peng et al., 1997). The most common solution for C&D waste is landfilling either in specified
permitted C&D waste landfills or municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills, as well as in non-
permitted locations such as illegal dumping sites. Most of the C&D waste stream is composed of
21 of 78
inert solid waste and therefore regulations do not require that C&D waste landfills provide for
the same level of environmental protection (layers and liners, leachate collection systems, etc.) as
MSW permitted landfills. Therefore, C&D waste landfills generally have lower tipping fees, and
handle a large fraction of the C&D waste that would otherwise be sent for further processing.
Figure 1: The C&D waste management method hierarchy (Yuan and Shen, 2011)
Examining the effectiveness of the theoretical C&D waste management strategies, Shen et al.,
2006) demonstrates the reasons by which these C&D management principles fail in practice
which majorly refer to the lack of economic incentives. Therefore, it is of great importance to
review the cost-benefit analysis endeavors to investigate the effectiveness of the C&D
management practices.
Several studies have been conducted based on different instruments for examining the financial
effectiveness of C&D management, such as investigating related economic factors such as
disposal cost, resources, and collection (Mills et al. 1999), using mathematical equations to
identify the feasibility of waste minimization (Begum et al. 2006), and performing model based
study to assess the feasibility of C&D marketing by considering source tax and subsidies (Duran
et al. 2006). The C&D waste management is of a complicated and dynamic nature in which
several factors interact and determine the viability of this practice. Using a system dynamic
approach and focusing on C&D management activities throughout the waste chain, the cost-
benefit analysis of (Yuan et al. 2011) illustrates the landfill fee as a substantial factor to
determine the benefit of C&D management activities. However, high landfill charge will lead to
22 of 78
illegal dumping and subsequently to higher environmental management loss. Thus, the study
strongly recommends to facilitate the landfill fees through promoting necessary regulations. In
addition, it highlights the basic factors to affect the C&D management, namely (1)
Environmental awareness as a qualitative variable that influences the willingness of various
parties to manage C&D waste. The awareness of reducing C&D waste can be raised through
regulation strengthening. (2) Waste collecting as a vital and positive activity in terms of
promoting waste sorting, and reducing the illegal dumping. (3) Illegal disposal which could be
overcome by regulations and penalizing the non-compliant party. (4) Waste sorting as a factor to
promote waste recycling. (5) Recycling and reuse as a fundamental activity to increase waste
minimization and subsequently the benefit of waste management. (6) Regulations as a strong
political impact to control waste management activities. Tighter regulations lead to lower amount
of illegal dumping, while loose regulations lead to higher amount of illegal dumping. (7) Total
cost of waste management which includes both the income generated from the sale of recycling,
and the cost of treating the effect of pollution and the illegal dumping.
Figure 2: A conceptual model of the C&D waste chain (Yuan et al. 2011)
23 of 78
Figure 3: Casual loop diagram of cost-benefit analysis of the C&D waste management (Yuan et al. 2011)
Recycling C&D waste reduces the dependence on natural resources and creates less pollution
through lowering manufacturing and transportation related emissions. Reduction of the energy
and water required to produce building supplies from raw materials also contributes to the
reduction of greenhouse gases related to the manufacturing and transportation of those materials.
Concrete, asphalt, metals, and wood are most frequent to be recovered and recycled, on the other
hand, gypsum wallboard and asphalt grits are least frequent to be processed for recovering and
recycling. The major obstacles to increase in the recovering rates for these materials are the
following:
 Relative costing of collecting, sorting, and processing as compared to virgin high quality
product materials.
24 of 78
 Low value of the recycled-content material in relation to the cost of virgin based
materials, which impacts the marketable value of these recycled products.
 Reduced costing of C&D waste landfill disposal in comparison to more expensive
process plant recycle or treatment options.
C&D waste is generated worldwide. Sandler and Swingle (2006) showed that an approximate of
136 million tons of building related C&D waste is generated each year in the US, out of which
only 20–30% is recycled. In the UK, it was reported that every year around 70 million tons of
C&D materials and soil ended up as waste (DETR Circular, 2000). In Australia, C&D waste
generation accounted for 16–40% of the total solid waste generated (Bell, 1998) whereas In
Hong Kong almost 2900 tons of C&D waste was received at landfills per day in 2007 (Hong
Kong EPD, 2007). China is responsible for the production of 29% of the municipal solid waste
of the world each year, of which construction activities contribute for nearly 40% (Dong et al.,
2001; Wang et al., 2008).
The generation quantities of C&D waste are consistent with those presented prior for MSW. For
example, in the European Union, more than 450 million tons of construction and demolition
waste are generated on annual basis (EC, 2000). The stream presents the third largest in quantity
following from the quantities of waste from the mining and farming industries (Dorsthorst and
Kowalczyk, 2002). Moreover, in 2006, Spain generated roughly 47 million tons of C&D waste,
of which only 13.6% was recycled (Eurostat, 2011). This resulted in the drafting of laws, rules,
and regulations on C&D waste forcing EU countries to include new measures for waste
prevention and waste recycling. Among which, the mandating that estimated C&D waste
expected to be originated during construction projects be quantified. This ratio indicated that the
planning and execution of construction works did not take into consideration the environmental
factors because of the low cost of dumping and the easy readiness of natural resources.
In addition the European Environment Agency (EEA) estimated that on average 65% of the
waste generated was recycled in 2006 in the 27 European countries. The information indicated
that Spain showed much lower recycling rates than the rest of the EU countries on average and
25 of 78
was far from other EU countries such as Denmark, Estonia and the Netherlands, which showed
recycling indexes of over 90% (Tojo and Fischer, 2011). Nonetheless, the data are far from
achieving the targets set by the EU for 2020 wherein 70% in weight increase is to be achieved in
the treatment, recycling and other operations of C&D waste, excluding those in the 17 05 04
category of the European Waste Catalogue (EWC) (Ministry of the Environment, 2002). Because
of this, the EU countries are implementing national policies as well as different measures for
increasing the recycling and recovering of C&D wastes. To that effect, the Spanish government
issued the 105/2008 Royal Decree (RD) (Ministry of the Presidency, 2008). This RD regulated
the production and management of C&D waste and focused on the establishment of the legal
frame work for C&D waste production so as to encourage prevention, reduce, reuse and
recycling, as well as other forms of valorization.
Nassour et al (2008) examined the status and perspectives of waste management in the Arab
countries. For almost all the Arab countries (which are developing countries) waste management
conceptions were determined to be still in the premature stage. Most generated waste in Arab
countries seemed to be deposited in simple landfills and there were close to zero waste recycling
plants in the Arab world though some sorting stations existed for the separation of waste
recyclable fractions. Nonetheless, the study showed that work on plans for the establishment,
construction, and operation of waste treatment plants for the production of high calorific-value
fractions (such as RDF) to be used as secondary fuel in cement industries has started. The report
indicated that the amount of MSW generated per capita ranged between 0.3 to 5.0 kg depending
on the region being considered with the organic waste fraction having the maximum composition
percentile (70%) whilst the wood waste portion was seen to have the minimum composition
amount. Moreover, it was determined that the lack of clear legal guidelines, specifications,
norms and functioning organizations, as well as environmental policies and legal frameworks, in
addition to lack of community involvement etc. where the main drawbacks of the Arab countries
in the waste management field leading to non-compliance with existing laws, rules, and
regulations and lack of proper control, monitoring, and inspection of the waste management
practices in the Arab countries. The report concluded that the lack of proper knowledge and poor
allocation of funds were the root of the problem which was still considered to be “the suitable
treatment of waste and the optimization of disposal logistics” citing that most Arab countries at
26 of 78
present had systems in place for collection, transport, and disposal not treatment. The above
applied to C&D waste in as much as MSW.
On a local scale, the CWMAD, in reference to the quantification of the generation of municipal
solid waste in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi in the UAE, compiled the waste generation data
available from the waste management contracts into an internal report providing baseline data of
the waste stream quantities. The internal report was completed in the year 2011. The report
examined the quantity of waste generation in Abu Dhabi, Al Ain and Western region was
determined on the basis of the reports from the weighbridge tickets and from the approximate
estimation where no weighbridge data was available. The data showed that the total quantities of
all kinds of wastes generated Emirate of Abu Dhabi approximated 33, 247 tons/day where almost
50% of the total waste comprised the C&D waste portion that generated from the construction
activities in the region of Abu Dhabi. The report concluded that because of the non-availability
of weighbridges at the dumpsites in Al Ain and the Western region, the quantities of waste
received at the dumpsites are not recorded nor classified moreover, it was recommended that
comprehensive waste audit studies be conducted to determine the proper quantities and correct
compositions of all wastes generated in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi. It is worth noting here that
before 2011 there were no C&D waste recycling plants in the emirate of Abu Dhabi. For
comparison purposes, the report referenced prior data estimations for the C&D waste quantities
in Al Ain (from Entec in 1998) which had showed that the generation rates were between
750,000 tons/year and 1,000,000 tons/year in the Al Ain region. The data was compared to that
which was approximated based on the one week inspection of incoming C&D waste at the Al
Dhafra dumpsite in Abu Dhabi (from Globex-City Consultant, 2002) which showed that the
amounts of C&D waste received approximated 1,000 tons/day. Moreover, it was stated that
indirect estimates from Fichtner in 2005 showed similar results of comparable numbers (i.e. 920
tons/day to 940 tons/day).
27 of 78
2.3 Environmental Considerations
There is an important need to manage C&D waste in proper manner in order to reduce its
negative impacts on the environment. C&D waste has attracted widespread concerns from global
economies as it has become quite problematic from the environmental stance (Mills et al., 1999;
Begum et al., 2006; Hao et al., 2007; Wang and Yuan, 2009). Harmful impacts of C&D waste
on the surroundings exist and utilizing large amounts of land reserve for C&D waste landfill
disposal is of major importance. In the United States, restricted landfill capacities together with
the complications involved in the developing of new landfill spacing has led to difficulties in the
absorbing of excess amounts of C&D waste for land disposal which is becoming of major
concern to regulators (Wang et al., 2004).
Common practice in most parts of the world has been to discard C&D waste in landfills most
often the same ones being utilized for the disposal of MSW (Garrido et al., 2005). This has led to
considerable environmental concerns because of the substantial generation in volumes of C&D
waste which presented significant pressure on the capacities of landfills. (Esin and Cosgun,
2007). In all cases, however, the disposal of C&D waste cannot be seen to as the most proper
sound management practice for such end of life building materials. Fatta et al. (2003) showed
that several cases have been reported where C&D waste ended up in uncontrolled open
dumpsites causing severe burden on the environment, this being apart from the aesthetic
degradation. The environmental impacts of these wrongful practices, from soil and water
contamination to air pollution in addition to the possible resulting fires, leads to the destruction
of these open spaces and affects the landscape and reduces land value (El-Haggar Salah, 2007).
C&D waste might also include asbestos waste in addition to other hazardous waste which might
pose significant health risks in specific in building sites that are later converted into residential
areas or children playgrounds (Hendricks et al., 2000). Overall, it can be harming to the
surroundings causing hazardous pollution and can waste natural resources.
28 of 78
Possible sound practices for C&D waste reduction include the following:
 Waste prevention which can be promoted through record control and return allowances
for construction material in possible attempt to promote possible reuse of the waste
materials.
 Selective demolition which involves dismantling selected parts of buildings to be
demolished before destruction in order to recover the materials.
 On-site separation systems, for segregation at source using smaller equipment and
removing useful material for recycling.
 Crushing, milling, and reuse of secondary stone and concrete materials in order to
achieve specifications similar to approved road construction materials specifications.
Natural aggregates comprised of sand, gravel, crushed stone, and quarried rock are used for the
preparation of the foundation material for construction purposes (Poon et al., 2006). Prevailing
standards for fine aggregates and coarse aggregates provide for the specifications of the standard
sizes of aggregates in compliance with grading requirements. Tam and Tam (2006) advised that
the applications for recycled aggregates, based on their specifications, sourced from the C&D
waste recycling facility, include (i) use as foundation material for road construction works; (ii)
use as hardcore for foundation applications; (iii) use as base or fill for drainage related functions;
and (iv) use as aggregates for concrete manufacturing and general bulk filling purposes.
Recycled concrete aggregates are different from natural concrete aggregates. This is because
impurities like cement stones are still attached to the surface of the original natural concrete
aggregates even recycling. It is the high porosity of the cement stones and the other impurities
that contribute to the lowering of the particle density and overall higher porosity of the recycled
concrete aggregates resulting in qualitative differences in the recycled concrete aggregates the
and the increased water absorption properties (Paranavithana and Abbas, 2006). The
specifications of the recycled concrete aggregates in turn shall impact the marketing value of
these products as it must be consistent with the prevailing standards for the natural aggregates so
that it granted government approvals.
29 of 78
2.4 Illegal Dumping
Illegal dumping is any unauthorized disposal of waste on any public or private property. Usually,
people dump illegally to avoid collection and disposal fees, or because they believe proper
disposal is just "too much trouble”.
Illegal dumping of waste specially the hazardous waste can cause contamination of the ground
water, harm the local environment through damaging vegetation and leaching of hazardous
material into soil, threaten air quality in case of fires, and cause direct effects on peoples’ health.
In addition, removing the illegal waste and treating the pollution increase the economic burden
on the governments.
30 of 78
Chapter 3- Methodology
3.0 Introduction
From the review of literature there are several key factors which contribute to the economic
feasibility of C&D waste management projects, namely: (a) profit; (b) unit recycling cost; (c)
project specific factor such as extra revenue from location advantage.
On the other hand, not only the ratio of savings to costs varies between public and private sector
based on these factors, but also the design of recycling centers and selection of governmental
instruments are dependent on these factors as well.
Although it is evident that the fluctuation of the relevant factors will determine the economic
viability of any given project, however, the literature illustrate that the above mentioned factors
are identified from a static point of view.
Therefore, considering the high dynamic nature of C&D waste chain activities and the
integration of its essential elements, will provide a better insight to determine the relevant key
factors and understand the Interactions among the involved elements.
More specifically, other relevant factors are identified to determine the result of cost-benefit
analysis of C&D waste projects, such as: (1) Environmental awareness; (2) Waste collecting; (3)
Illegal disposal; (4) Waste sorting; (5) Recycling and reuse; (6) Regulation.
In light of the literature reviewed and the stated aim of this research; a model-based case study
approach is utilized.
Since the case study approach is implemented to maximize the knowledge gained, in addition to
the notion that it enables researchers to determine the reasons of decision making and the method
of implementing those decisions, the case study approach is considered appropriate for this
research (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003).
31 of 78
3.1 Data Collection
The data collected for this study are secondary. The data collection comprised three activities to
enable the understanding of the problem statement and to support the findings.
1. The data about generation and composition of C&D waste in Al Ain prior to the plant
construction, were collected from the report and study provided by Municipality’s consultant;
(Entec Euorope)
2. The data about the actual generation and composition of C&D waste in Al Ain were collected
from Service Provider reports; (Star International).
3. Other data concerning the related key factors such as waste management strategy and illegal
dumping, were collected from reports provided by CWM / Competent Authorities.
3.2 Model construction and description
The Crushing Plant financial model is a Basic and simple Accounting Model which has been
developed in Excel Worksheet. The purpose of developing the Model is to determine the
optimum parameters and conditions to recover the Cost of Investment made by the Government.
The Model is divided into four (4) sub-modules which are described as follows:
3.2.1 Module-1 (Basic Assumptions)
Figure 4 presents the basic assumptions module which consists of the main parameters by which
the total percentage of both recyclables and aggregates and subsequently the revenue generated
are determined. These main parameters are as following:
a) Crushing Plant Capacity: The Crushing Plant has been designed to process a maximum
of 2000 tons/day of Construction & Demolition waste delivered at the facility. This is a
theoretical design capacity on sixteen (16) hours of daily operation on a six (6) days
working week. The actual capacity based on time loss due to operational problems and
maintenance is less than the design capacity.
32 of 78
b) Quantity of C&D Waste received at the facility: This is the actual quantity of waste
delivered to the Crushing Plant facility. The quantity has not been very inconsistent due
to lack of regulation and control by the Municipality for the disposal of C&D Waste.
c) No of Working Days: The Plant operates on a six (6) days/week at the rate of sixteen
(16) hours per day. The total no. of working days excluding the Friday works out to be
313 days per year. This value has been considered as fixed during the modeling of the
scenarios.
d) Tipping Fees: This is a fee which is applied for the acceptance of C&D waste at the
Crushing Plant Facilities in many countries of the world. However, this fee has not been
applied nor practiced in the Middle East Countries. The only fee which the Center of
Waste Management collects from the C&D waste transportation companies is the
NADAFA Tariff fee, which is AED 10/= per trucks irrespective of the size and quantity
of C&D Waste. This parameter has been widely used in several scenarios in order to
improve the Return of Investment (ROI) rate during the contract period and life time of
the Crushing Plant equipment.
I. BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
Crushing Plant Capacity 2,000 Tons/Day

No. of Workings Days / Year 313 Days
Tipping Fee - Dhs/Ton
Selling Price - Option 1 12.00 Dhs/Ton

Figure 4: Basic assumption of the financial model
33 of 78
3.2.2 Module-2a (Revenue generated from Recyclables)
Figure 5 presents the module-2a of the financial model including the parameters which
determine the total revenue generated from the recyclables. The recyclables are categorized by
type and the percentage of each type is fixed. However, the daily sales of each recyclable are
determined based on the daily received quantity of C&D waste. This module consists of the
following parameters:
a) Recyclables recovered from C&D Waste: The Feasibility report of the Crushing Plant
has assumed that the recyclables like Ferrous (iron), Plastics (bottles, jars, and utensils),
Plastic Films, Wood, Paper and Cardboard will be available in the C&D waste stream.
However, the Crushing Plant has only been receiving Steel which are embedded in the
Concrete and which cannot be recovered manually. The other recyclable materials are not
received at the facility and probably recovered and recycled from the source. Further, the
Estidama (sustainability) initiative of the government requires the construction
companies to recover the recyclables at the source and deliver the C&D waste to the
facility in segregated form.
b) Selling Price of recyclables (unit price): This is another important parameter which is
not fixed and fluctuates according to the market demand. Average market price for the
steel (iron) has been used to calculate the revenue from the recyclables. Due to absence of
other recyclables in the waste stream, only steel has been used for the modeling of the
scenarios. Other recyclables, as and when available in the waste stream can be priced in
the module.
Sales Daily Sales Annual Sales Unit Price Sales

Material Type (%) (Tons/Day) (Tons/Year) (Dhs/Ton) (Dhs/Year)
RECYCLABLES
R-1 Ferrous 0.445% 8.90 2785.70 600.00 1,671,420.00
R-2 Plastic 0.060% 1.20 375.60 300.00 112,680.00
R-3 Plastic Film 0.011% 0.22 68.86 200.00 13,772.00
R-4 Wood 1.356% 27.12 8488.56 0.00 -
R-5 Paper Cardboard 0.334% 6.68 2090.84 290.00 606,343.60
TOTAL SALES OF RECYCLABLES 2.21% 44.12 13809.56 2,404,215.60
Figure 5: Module-2a (Revenue generated from recyclables)
34 of 78
3.2.3 Module-2b (Revenue generated from Aggregates produced)
Figure 6 presents the module-2b of the financial model including the parameters which
determine the total revenue generated from the aggregates. The aggregates are categorized by
size and the percentage of different aggregates is fixed. However, the daily sales of each
aggregate are determined based on the daily received quantity of C&D waste. This module
consists of the following parameters:
a) Types of Aggregates: The Al-Ain Crushing Plant produces four (4) different sizes of
Aggregates from the processing of C&D waste at the Crushing Plant. The size of the
Aggregates are 0-20mm, 0-30mm, 20-50 mm and >50 mm. The aggregates of sizes 0-
20mm and 0-30mm does not have a very high demand in the market. However, the sizes
20-50mm and above are recommended to be used as sub-base and road base materials by
the Municipality and is thus on Sale.
b) Unit price of Aggregates: This parameter has been assumed in order to calculate the
processing cost of Aggregates. This value can be modified or amended depending on the
selling price of virgin aggregate materials available in the market.
AGGREGATES
A-1 Fraction 0-30 mm Trommel 21.00% 420.00 131,460.00 0 -

A-2 Fraction 0-20 mm Screen 19.88% 397.60 124,448.80 0 -
A-3 Fraction 20-50 mm Screen 22.72% 454.40 142,227.20 19.00 2,702,316.80
A-4 Fraction >50 mm Screen 14.19% 283.80 88,829.40 17.50 1,554,514.50
TOTAL SALES OF AGGREGATES 77.79% 1,555.80 486,965.40 4,256,831.30
Figure 6: Module-2b (Revenue generated from Aggregates produced
3.2.4 Module-3 (Cost of Processing Aggregates)
Figure 7 presents the module-3 of the financial model including fixed items as the breakdown of
the total cost of the plant. This module consists of the following items highlighting the total cost
in a monthly, annual, and full duration of the project:
a) Cost of Crushing Plant Construction: This parameter consists of the total cost of
constructing the Crushing Plant facility, mainly the civil work. The price is fixed as AED
26,022,900.
35 of 78
b) Cost of Plant, Vehicles and Equipment: The total cost of Mechanical, Electrical and
Plumbing is taken into consideration by this parameter. The cost is fixed as AED
32,552,992.
c) Operation and Maintenance Cost: This is the cost of running the operation of the Plant
for a period of twenty years (20). The cost is fixed as AED 114,653,950.
This module also estimates the revenue generated by selling the aggregates, recyclables and
tipping fee, if it has been taken into consideration. Further, cost of processing per ton of C&D
waste and the Break even selling price of the aggregates is also estimated.
III. COST OF PROCESSING C&D WASTE

20 Years Annually Monthly
(Dhs/20 years) (Dhs/Year) (Dhs/Month)
COST OF CRUSHING PLANT
Crushing Plant Construction 26,022,990.80 1,301,149.54 108,429.13
Plant, Vehicles and Equipment 32,552,992.81 1,627,649.64 135,637.47
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) 114,653,950.72 5,732,697.54 477,724.79
TOTAL COST OF CRUSHING PLANT 173,229,934.33 8,661,496.72 721,791.39
Figure 7: Module-3 (Cost of Processing Aggregates)
3.2.5 Module-4 (Return of Investment)
This is the final module consisting of the break-even price, which is used as a baseline data for
adjusting the price of selling the aggregates in order to recover the total cost of investment. The
selling price can be adjusted to be make it affordable for the market as well as recover the total
investment made by the government.
In case, the selling price cannot be reduced, then the tipping fee may be required to be imposed
and adjusted accordingly to match the recovery of total investment. The model can be re-run by
changing the value of parameters and assumptions, thus producing a scenario which is
considered as the preferred scenario under ideal terms and conditions.
36 of 78
Chapter 4 Case findings and analysis
4.0 Introduction
The economy of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is primarily being fuelled by the oil sector, as
it represents more than one-third of its GDP (as of 2005). In an effort to diversify its economy,
the country has embarked on trading, financial, and technological industries, and most recently
tourism. This has resulted into a massive construction boom. As a consequence, the demand for
building materials such as ready mixed concrete, reinforced steel, and stone cladding rapidly
increased. The mining sector of the UAE is also playing an important role to meet the current
demands for building materials. The quarries and crushers companies based in the Emirate of
Fujairah and the Emirate of Ras Al Khaimah are currently supplying the UAE with the limestone
quantities that meet the demand in the country. Due to the vast growth in construction and other
infrastructural activities in the UAE especially with the recent developments in the Abu Dhabi
residential and commercial sectors, the demand for building materials is expected to be doubled.
It is projected that in order to fulfil demand for the building materials (which will be taken from
the rocks) the process will result in the vast depletion of the natural (non-renewable) resources of
the UAE. Subsequently, the demolition process will lead to the generation of more C&D waste,
which if not reused or recycled, will increase the burden on the landfills in the UAE in addition
to other factors such as the costing for the procurement virgin raw materials at high cost and the
costing for transportation of C&D waste to landfill as well as the environmental impact of
vehicle emissions and also the pressure from the environmental agencies (e.g. the Environmental
Agency – Abu Dhabi) to look for alternatives that would promote environmental sustainable
development.
4.1 Al Ain Crushing and Demolition Treatment Plant
In December 2oo8, the Government of Abu Dhabi established the Center of Waste Management
- Abu Dhabi (CWMAD or Center) with the mandate of handling all waste management matters
in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi. The C&D waste processing plant project was awarded in Al Ain in
December 2008 and the project was commenced in March 2011.
37 of 78
The crushing plant for Al Ain was proposed by the municipality to process the construction and
demolition waste generated from the construction activities in Al Ain and its region. It was also a
requirement from environmental perspective that the construction waste should be processed in
order to divert large amount of waste from going to the landfill and disposal sites. The plant
capacity of a minimum 2000 tons/day was estimated in accordance to the number of construction
projects and activities and estimated quantities during the year 2006.
The design of the proposed plant from Caldehusa-Spain has a capacity of treating 3520-7040
tons/day as mentioned in the technical specifications of their submittal. However, the contractor
has planned its equipment and manpower based on the contractual requirements of processing
2000 Tons/day.
The C&D waste crushing plant project was developed with the purpose of segregating and
transforming the C&D wastes in order to obtain ballasts and filling materials thereby reusing and
recycling the C&D waste for conservation of natural resources and fulfilling the increasing
demand of building materials. Careful review of the requirements and the processes needed was
done to select the best options based on Best Available Techniques (BAT) and Best
Environmental Practices (BET) in C&D waste processing using top-tier “state of the art”
technologies. The plant is unique in that the process is able to process two different types of
materials depending on the degree of contamination, as follows:
 C&D waste mixed with other wastes like metals, plastics etc.; and
 “Clean” construction & demolition wastes/ road excavated waste
For the project, the C&D waste and road excavated waste is being delivered to the Crushing
Plant through external collectors and transporter. The final processing products are four different
sizes of aggregates, recycled steel, plastic, paper, wood etc. The process is started with the
inspection of the waste carrying vehicle and only authorized waste vehicles carrying acceptable
waste are allowed to enter in the facility. Weighing is done at the gate and necessary information
is recorded. Then-after depending on type of waste, trucks are diverted towards unloading area.
Oversize (more than 200mm) wastes are broken into small pieces by the jackhammer before
loading into the primary and secondary feeders. Steel is removed through powerful
38 of 78
electromagnetic systems and other impurities such as wood, paper and plastics are removed
through manual segregation at the sorting cabins. Different sizes of aggregates are then screened
thorough the 39 trommel and vibrating screens. Aggregates of size more than 80mm are subject
to further sorting in the secondary sorting cabin and are subsequently crushed through the impact
crusher to produce sizes of desired aggregates. After crushing, the aggregates are also passed
through a magnetic separator to remove embedded steel before screening through vibrating
screens. Finally, the aggregates of different sizes are stockpiled under conveyor belts and then
transferred to stockpile area.
Figure 8: Process flow of the Al Ain C&D waste treatment plant
4.2 Payment of Crushing and Demolition Treatment Plant Construction
The total cost of the project is AED 173,229,934.30 and the contract duration is 20 years. It is a
(BOT) contract where the government bear the full cost of the project, and the contractor will
build the plant according to the contract condition and specification, and perform the operation
39 of 78
as agreed, and transfer the plant to the client at the end of the contract. There are three main
components in crushing plant payment option and is explained as follows:
1. All civil works: The payment shall be made on progressive basis based on identification
of different components of civil/mechanical works to be submitted in the execution
drawings of the plant and the facilities along with the Bill of Quantities (BOQ).
2. Plant, Equipment & Vehicles (Mechanical works): Same as above.
3. Management of operation, Maintenance, monitoring & Control: To be paid on monthly
basis over a period of 20 years after the commissioning of the crushing plant and its
operation.
The result of processing the C&D waste is the recycled aggregates and the recyclable materials.
Both outcomes are saleable and form a source of revenue.
4.3 Source of Revenue
1. Selling aggregates and recyclables
The price of the aggregates and the recyclables keeps on changing all the time.
Also, the cost of producing aggregates at a lower price depends upon the quantity
of C&D waste generation and its’ processing within the same allocated budget. In
order to compete with the pure aggregates being sold in the market, the quality of
the processed aggregates shall have to be of a similar quality and a lower price.
The approximate price of the pure aggregates being sold in the market is between
eighteen to twenty AED (18 - 20).
The recyclables likely to be segregated during the process are steel, metal, plastic,
wood, cardboard etc. However, it is difficult to estimate the quantity of the
recyclables likely to be generated from the waste as the type and quantities of
C&D waste can vary widely from a project to other.
Finding a market for the aggregates and the recyclables is the responsibility of the
contractor. However, the contract document does not specify a minimum quantity
40 of 78
to be sold or minimum revenue to be generated by the contractor. Also the

incentives of 5% of the gross sale of the product is not enough to motivate the
contractor to look for a buyer.
2. Revenue from Tipping Fee
There is no precedent available with respect to the collection of tipping fee for the
C&D waste in UAE or in the Middle East. In North America and in other parts of the
world the rate has increased quite significantly in the last few years. It is in the range
of US$ 4.90 to US$ 32.00 per Ton.
A reasonable flat rate per ton shall be defined to start with the idea of collecting
revenue from the builders. The amount collected can be used to offset the cost of
processing C&D waste, thus resulting into a reduced price of processed aggregates
making it compete able with the pure aggregates available in the market.
The revenue likely to be generated from the tipping fee based on received quantity of
C&D waste will result in reducing the price of saleable aggregates to compete with
the cost of pure aggregates.
4.4 Cost recovery scenarios of Al Ain C&D plant
Although the consultant report has provided the necessary technical information, such as current
C&D waste quantity, future projection, the technical specification of the aggregates, however,
the financial aspects were not discussed. Despite the contract value and duration, neither the
sales mechanism of the aggregates and recyclables, nor the cost recovery were thoroughly
studied.
Therefore, the costing of processing the C&D waste and the aggregates to be produced from the
waste is conducted in order to evaluate the period required for the Return of Investment. This
41 of 78
includes all source of revenues; namely, the sale of aggregates, recyclable materials, and the
revenue likely to be generated from the Tipping Fees paid by the builders and developers.
The parameters of the developed financial model provides different scenarios in terms of
necessary duration to recover the cost based on the revenue generated by aggregates, recyclables,
and tipping fees. The analysis statistics may change significantly depending upon the
construction activities in the region and the fluctuation of the price of aggregates and the
recyclables. However, since the aim of the study is to optimize the cost recovery and improve the
financial effectiveness of the project, thus, the return of total investment as per the above sources
of revenue shall be completed over the contractual period of 20 years.
The different scenarios and the findings are discussed below. The discussion focuses on the
assumptions of each parameter and the required period for the cost recovery of the plant.
4.4.1 Basic Scenario
This scenario is based on the consultant report including the projections and the estimated sale
price of both recyclables & aggregates. According to the basic assumptions the sale price of
recyclable materials is variable, and the average sale price of aggregate is AED (18.25). Table
4.4.1-1 shows the different types of recyclables, the percentage, and the unit sale price of each
type. In addition, the quantity of saleable aggregate is approximately 37 % of the total aggregates
produced. Table 4.4.1-2 shows the different type of produced aggregates based on its size, the
percentage, and the unite sale price of each size.
The revenue generated from selling both recyclables and aggregates was calculated as the
following equation:
Total revenue from recyclables = received C&D waste quantity * % of recyclables * unit selling price
Total revenue from aggregates = received C&D waste quantity * % of aggregates * unit selling price
Based on the basic assumptions, the revenue generated from selling the recyclables consists
36.1%, and the revenue generated from selling the aggregates consists 63.9% of the total
revenue.
42 of 78
Table 4.4.1-1: Basic assumption for the recyclables
RECYCLABLES Sales % Daily Sales (Tons/Day) Unit Price (Dhs/Ton)

Ferrous 0.445% 8.90 600.00
Plastic 0.060% 1.20 300.00
Plastic Film 0.011% 0.22 200.00
Wood 1.356% 27.12 0.00
Paper Cardboard 0.334% 6.68 290.00
TOTAL SALES OF RECYCLABLES 2.21% 44.12
Table 4.4.1-2: Basic assumption for the aggregates
AGGREGATES Sales % Daily Sales (Tons/Day) Unit Price (Dhs/Ton)

Fraction 0-30 mm Trommel 21.00% 420.00 0
Fraction 0-20 mm Screen 19.88% 397.60 0
Fraction 20-50 mm Screen 22.72% 454.40 19.00
Fraction >50 mm Screen 14.19% 283.80 17.50
TOTAL SALES OF AGGREGATES 77.79% 1,555.80
Based on the above mentioned projections, the total revenue throughout the contract duration is
AED 133,220,938 and the break-even will be achieved in twenty six (26) years if the plant
operates at full capacity of 2,000 tons/day and there is no sale market for (i) the 0-30 mm
trommel fraction where the unit price is zero and the material is used as landfill cover and (ii) the
0-20 mm screen fraction where the unit price is zero and the material is also used as landfill
cover.
4.4.2 Assumptions based scenarios
The C&D Plant commenced the operation in March 2011. The historical data since the
commencement day shows several deviation/differences between the basic assumptions and
projections, and the real actual situation. Table 4.4.2-1 shows the comparison between the
projections and the actual sale price of the recyclables. Based on the projections, four (4) types of
43 of 78
recyclable were saleable, namely ferrous, plastic, plastic film, and paper Cardboard, whereas the
actual saleable recyclable is only ferrous. However, the average sale price of the ferrous remains
unchanged.
On the other hand, as shown in table 4.4.2-2, two (2) types of the aggregates were assumed
saleable, namely fraction 20-50 mm screen and fraction >50 mm screen, whereas the actual
saleable aggregate are fraction 0-30 mm trammel, fraction 0-20 mm screen, and fraction 20-50
mm screen. The sale price of the aggregates is dependent on the unit sale price of the pure
material in the market.
Table 4.4.2-1: Projected sale price vs. Actual sale price for the recyclables
Recyclable Type Projected Sale Price (AED/ton) Actual Sale Price (dhs/ton)
Ferrous 600.00 600.00
Plastic 300.00 0.00
Plastic Film 200.00 0.00
Wood 0.00 0.00
Paper Cardboard 290.00 0.00
Table 4.4.2-2: Projected sale price vs. Actual sale price for the aggregates
Aggregate Size Projected Sale Price (AED/ton) Actual Sale Price (AED/ton)
Fraction 0-30 mm Trommel 0 12.00
Fraction 0-20 mm Screen 0 12.00
Fraction 20-50 mm Screen 19.00 12.00
Fraction >50 mm Screen 17.50 0
44 of 78
4.5 Details of Scenarios and Findings
In order to identify the cost recovery scenarios using the developed model, several assumptions
were considered for received C&D quantities per day, sale price of aggregates, and tipping fees.
 The assumption for daily C&D quantities are: five hundred (500) tons, one thousand
(1000) tons, one thousand and five hundred (1,500) tons, and two thousand (2,000) tons.
 The current sale price of the pure material is AED eighteen (18). Due to resistance to the
recycled aggregate and to encourage the market for buying the recycled aggregate, the
starting sale price was defined to be AED twelve (12). As an assumption for developing
different scenarios, four (4) sale price is selected; AED twelve (12), AED fourteen (14),
AED sixteen (16), and AED eighteen (18).
 The assumptions for the charged tipping fees per ton of C&D waste received are: zero
(0), AED five (5), AED ten (10), and AED fifteen (15).
Scenario 1: Figure 9 shows the revenue as a function of the C&D waste received quantity for the
combined aggregates produced and the combined recyclables produced in the construction and
demolition waste treatment plant. The revenue is compared as a function of the C&D waste
received quantity for no charged tipping fee. Figure 9 shows that the revenue increases as a
function of the construction and demolition waste received quantity for each of the combined
aggregates produced and combined recyclables produced. Comparing the revenue profiles for the
various construction and demolition waste received quantities for the combined aggregates
produced and the combined recyclables produced shows that the revenue for the combined
aggregates produced is marginally higher than that of the combined recyclables produced. The
percentile quantity of combined aggregates produced (63.6%) is higher than that of the combined
recyclables produced (0.45%) with the remainder of the construction and demolition waste
process going for landfilling. Despite the percentiles, the revenue of the combined recyclables
produced which has market sale value (ferrous only) is considerably less than that of the
combined aggregates produced.
45 of 78
Considering the four (4) different assumptions for the received quantities, and the four (4)
different assumptions for the sale price of the aggregates, sixteen (16) probabilities are estimated
in terms of total revenue in which only one (1) will achieve the breakeven in approximately
twenty (20) years.
On the other hand, the ratio of the revenue generated from the sale of recyclables to the revenue
generated from the sale of aggregates is approximately 1:4.
Revenue vs. C&D waste received quantity (tons/day) as a function of selling price & no tipping fee
200.00
180.00
160.00
Revenue in Millions of Dirhams
140.00
120.00
500
100.00
1000
80.00 1500
60.00 2000
40.00
20.00
-
12 14 16 18
Selling Unit Price
Figure 9: Revenue (AED) versus C&D waste received quantity (tons/day) as a function of selling price and AED (0) TP
Scenario 2:
Figure 10 shows the revenue as a function of the construction and demolition waste received
quantity for the combined aggregates produced and the combined recyclables produced in the
C&D waste treatment plant. The revenue is compared as a function of the construction and
demolition waste received quantity for the fixed charged tipping fee of AED 5 per trip. Figure
10 shows that the revenue increases as a function of the construction and demolition waste
46 of 78
received quantity for each of the combined aggregates produced and combined recyclables
produced. Comparing the revenue profiles for the various construction and demolition waste
received quantities for the combined aggregates produced and the combined recyclables
produced shows that the revenue for the combined aggregates produced is marginally higher than
that of the combined recyclables produced. The percentile quantity of combined aggregates
produced (63.6%) is higher than that of the combined recyclables produced (0.45%) with the
remainder of the construction and demolition waste process going for landfilling. Despite the
percentiles, the revenue of the combined recyclables produced which has market sale value
(ferrous only) is considerably less than that of the combined aggregates produced.
In this scenario, one (1) probability is estimated to achieve the breakeven in approximately
twenty (20) years and four (4) are estimated to achieve the return on investment in less than
twenty (20) years.
Revenue vs. C&D waste received quantity (tons/day) as a function of selling price & AED (5) TP
300.00
250.00
200.00
500
150.00
1000
1500
100.00
2000
50.00
-
12 14 16 18
Selling Unit Price
47 of 78
Scenario 3: Figure 11 shows the revenue as a function of the construction and demolition waste
received quantity for the combined aggregates produced and the combined recyclables produced
in the C&D waste treatment plant. The revenue is compared as a function of the construction and
In this scenario, eight (8) probabilities are estimated to achieve the return on investment in less
than twenty (20) years.
48 of 78
350.00
Millions 300.00
250.00
200.00
500
1000
150.00
1500
100.00 2000
50.00
-
12 14 16 18
Selling Unit Price
Scenario 4: Figure 12 shows the revenue as a function of the construction and demolition waste
received quantity for the combined aggregates produced and the combined recyclables produced
in the C&D waste treatment plant. The revenue is compared as a function of the construction and
49 of 78
In this scenario, one (1) probability will achieve the breakeven in twenty (20) years, and nine (9)
probabilities are estimated to achieve the return on investment in less than twenty (20) years.
400.00
350.00
300.00
250.00
500
200.00
1000
150.00 1500
2000
100.00
50.00
-
12 14 16 18
Selling Unit Price
Scenario 5: Figure 13 shows the revenue as a function of the sale price for the combined
aggregates produced in the construction and demolition waste processing plant. The revenue is
compared as a function of sale price for the fixed construction and demolition waste received
quantity of 500 tons/day. The revenue is compared as a function of sale price for the various
charged tipping fee values illustrated above. A similar argument to that of the sale price for the
50 of 78
combined recyclables produced in the construction and demolition waste processing plant is
provided below. Figure 13 shows that the revenue increases as a function of sale price for the
increasing charged tipping fees.
The maximum revenue generated based on this assumptions of this scenario is approximately
equal to half of the total investment of the C&D treatment plant. In this scenario, none of the
probabilities will achieve the breakeven in twenty (20) years.
Revenue vs. sale price as a function of charged TP (AED/ton) and fix C&D quantity (500 tons)
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
0
50.00
5
40.00 10
30.00 15
20.00
10.00
-
12 14 16 18
Selling Unit Price
Figure 13: Revenue (AED) versus selling price (AED) as a function of charged TP (AED/ton) and fix C&D
quantity (500 tons)
Scenario 6: 14 shows the total revenue as a function of the sale price for the combined
aggregates produced and the combined recyclables produced in the C&D waste treatment plant.
The total revenue is compared as a function of sale price for the fixed construction and
demolition waste received quantity of 1,000 tons/day. The total revenue is compared as a
function of sale price for the various charged tipping fee values illustrated above. Comparing the
51 of 78
total revenue profiles for the various charged tipping fees shows that the total revenue increases
as a function of sale price for the increasing charged tipping fees.
In this scenario, one (1) probability will achieve the breakeven in twenty (20) years, and one (1)
probability is estimated to achieve the return on investment in less than twenty (20) years.
200.00
180.00
160.00
140.00
120.00
0
100.00
5
80.00 10
60.00 15
40.00
20.00
0.00
12 14 16 18
Selling Unit Price
quantity (1000 tons)
Scenario 7: Figure 15 shows the total revenue as a function of the sale price for the combined
function of sale price for the various charged tipping fee values illustrated above. Figure 15
52 of 78
shows that the total revenue increases as a function of sale price for the increasing charged
tipping fees.
In this scenario, nine (9) probabilities will achieve the return on investment in less than twenty
(20) years.
300.00
250.00
200.00
0
150.00
5
10
100.00
15
50.00
-
12 14 16 18
Selling Unit Price
Scenario 8: Figure 16 shows the total revenue as a function of the sale price for the combined
function of sale price for the various charged tipping fee values illustrated above. Figure 16
53 of 78
shows that the total revenue increases as a function of sale price for the increasing charged
tipping fees.
In this scenario, all the sale prices will achieve the return on investment in less than twenty (20)
years if the tipping fees are charged for the received quantities of C&D waste. However, if no
tipping fee is charged, the only probability to achieve the breakeven within the duration of the
contract is when the sale price is AED eighteen (18).
400.00
350.00
300.00
250.00
0
200.00
5
150.00 10
15
100.00
50.00
0.00
12 14 16 18
Selling Unit Price
Scenario 9: Figure 17 shows the revenue as a function of the sale price for only the combined
aggregates produced in the C&D waste treatment plant. The revenue is compared as a function of
sale price for no charged tipping fee. The revenue is compared as a function of sale price for the
54 of 78
various construction and demolition waste received quantities illustrated above. Figure 17 shows
that the revenue increases as a function of sale price for the increasing construction and
demolition waste received quantities.
In this scenario, none of the probabilities will achieve the return on investment in twenty (20)
years even if maximum quantity of C&D received and higher sale price of AED eighteen (18) is
applied.
Revenue (AED) vs. C&D waste quantity (tons/day) as a function of selling price and AED (0) TP
160.00
140.00
120.00
100.00
500
80.00
1000
60.00 1500
2000
40.00
20.00
-
12 14 16 18
Selling Unit Price
Figure 17: Revenue (AED) versus C&D waste received quantity (tons/day) as a function of selling price and
AED (0) TP
compared as a function of sale price for the fixed charged tipping fee of AED 5 per trip. The
revenue is compared as a function of sale price for the various construction and demolition waste
received quantities illustrated above. Figure 18 shows that the revenue increases as a function of
55 of 78
sale price for the fixed charged tipping fee of AED 5 per ton. Comparing the revenue profiles for
the various construction and demolition waste received quantities shows that the revenue
increases as a function of sale price for the increasing construction and demolition waste
received quantities. For a fixed sale price of production combined aggregates, figure 18 shows
that, for an increase in the construction and demolition waste received quantities, the revenue
increases with an increase in quantities of construction and demolition waste received a the
processing plant.
In this scenario, one (1) probability will achieve the return on investment in twenty (20) years,
and two (2) probabilities will achieve the return on investment in less than twenty (20) years.
250.00
200.00
150.00
500
1000
100.00 1500
2000
50.00
-
12 14 16 18
Selling Unit Price
AED (5) TP
56 of 78
sale price for the fixed charged tipping fee of AED 10 per ton. Comparing the revenue profiles
for the various construction and demolition waste received quantities shows that the revenue
processing plant.
In this scenario, seven (7) probabilities will achieve the return on investment in less than twenty
(20) years. This is only when the received quantities of C&D waste are 2,000 tons/day or 1,500
tons/day and the sale price is AED fourteen (14) and above.
57 of 78
300.00
250.00
200.00
500
150.00
1,000
1,500
100.00
2,000
50.00
-
12 14 16 18
Selling Unit Price
AED (10) TP
sale price for the fixed charged tipping fee of AED 15 per ton. Comparing the revenue profiles
for the various construction and demolition waste received quantities shows that the revenue
58 of 78
processing plant.
In this scenario, eight (8) probabilities will achieve the return on investment in less than twenty
(20) years. This is only when the received quantities of C&D waste are 1,500 tons/day or 2,000
tons/day.
350.00
300.00
250.00
200.00
500
1,000
150.00
1,500
100.00 2,000
50.00
-
12 14 16 18
Selling Unit Price
AED (15) TP
59 of 78
Chapter 5 Discussion
5.1 C&D Waste composition
The financial success of the C&D waste treatment plants is dependent on the amount and quality
of the crushing and demolition waste received. The consistency of both C&D waste quantity and
composition will determine the extent of cost recovery accomplishment.
C&D waste is distinguished into different types produce from different sources or activities, such
as: Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Refurbishment of houses, and Road refurbishment.
However, several factors may lead to variability of C&D waste, such as: varying relevant
regulations to C&D waste management industry, variety of disposal options including illegal
dumping, different cost of conventional landfill disposal, and inconsistent composition of C&D
waste.
5.2 Al Ain C&D waste treatment plant capacity
Al Ain plant was designed to receive 2,000 ton/day as maximum capacity. However, considering
the time loss in process, maintenance, and day-offs the actual capacity is less than the theoretical
2,000 ton/day. Moreover, based on the historical data since the commencement day of the plant
operation, the maximum quantity received was approximately 1,400 ton/day and the minimum
quantity received was approximately 700 ton/day. Although the historical data does not present a
steady trend for the daily received quantity, however, the monthly average of the received C&D
waste quantities is approximately equal to the average of the highest and the lowest historical
quantities. Therefore, the discussion will focus on the 1,000 ton/day as closest assumption to the
actual received quaintest at Al Ain C&D waste treatment plant.
60 of 78
5.3 Sale Price
In order to guarantee the competitiveness of the recycled C&D material, the quality of the
recycled aggregates must be assured. The pure material in the market are of an approved
standard and specifications. Unacceptance or low demand on the recycled aggregates is an
expected resistance to a major change in the C&D industry. Therefore, the sale price of
aggregates is dependent on the sale price of the pure material.
The pure material can be obtained from several sources within Al Ain region or beyond its’
borders. In order to manage and overcome the buyers’ resistance at this early phase of the
change, the sale price was set at approximately 75% of the pure material price. This percentage is
expected to remain consistent unless changes in C&D laws and regulations are announced.
5.4 Tipping Fee
This study is an attempt toward introducing optimum cost recovery scenario of Al Ain C&D
waste treatment plant and developing an integrated solution for the management of C&D waste
treatment projects. However, the concept of integrated waste management solution is a
combination of waste prevention / reduction, waste reuse, and enhance waste recycle. The goal
of these principles is to divert wastes from landfills.
The waste hierarchy or the 3R principle is the basis of the environmentally sound strategies and
most efficient guiding principle of the waste management integrated solutions. Waste reduction,
reuse, and recycling are respectively the most favored option and the disposal as the least favored
option in the waste management systems. The waste reduction not only assure the environmental
protection, but also contributes to economic benefits. It will lead to higher amount of waste
diversion from landfills (Hao et al., 2008) and subsequently lower cost of waste management
bared by governments, in addition to possibility of selling specific waste material at a lower cost
which enables construction firms to reduce their cost (Snook et al., 1995, and Guthrie et al.,
1999). This will lead to a higher level of social / economic impact in terms of increasing the
competitiveness of the construction industry (Begum et al., 2006).
61 of 78
(Yuan and Lu, 2010) concluded the waste management regulations and awareness of C&D waste
management as critical success factors (CSFs) for developing effective C&DWM strategies.
Likewise, (Zhaoa et al. 2011) discussed the relative factors that contribute to the economic
feasibility of C&D waste management. The “extra revenue” (from location advantage in his
study) was identified as a major factor of economic viability.
Figure 21: Casual loop diagram of C&D waste management model (Zhao et al. 2011)
5.5 Environmental impact of applying tipping fee
(Sakai et al. 2008) has surveyed the Unit-charging programs known as pay-as-you-throw
(PAYT) in Japan. It is an equitable tool to both individuals and businesses in order identify the
cost of solid waste services based on the amount of waste produced. It is an economy based tool
with an environmental approach which has been promoted to reduce the waste generation
(Ministry of the Environment, 2005a; Tanaka et al., 1996) in addition to encouraging recycling
and increasing the public environmental awareness.
Imposing fee on waste disposal (PAYT) has reduced the amount of biodegradable municipal
waste up to 35%. The EU’s landfill directive (1999) is a clear example of encouraging waste
reduction. (Price, 2001). Whilst flat rate system in Greece has been highly debated in terms of
unfairness (Karagiannidis et al., 2006). Since the 1990s, PAYT has been widely recognized as an
62 of 78
effective tool of waste management in several countries. It is considered a major economic

approach to promote 3Rs concept. Case studies showed the amount of waste to reduce in some
municipalities by 20-30%. (Oshima, 2006; Kusumoto, 2003).
Figure 22: 3Rs (reduce, reuse and recycle) in the waste flow in Japan and its relationship with PAYT
(Sakai et al. 2008)
63 of 78
5.6 tipping fee – cost recovery
The case findings and the scenarios elaborated that charging tipping caused significant increase
in the total revenue generated. The scenarios presented in detail that regardless of the daily
received C&D waste quantity, when the minimum tipping fee of AED five (5) was applied, and
based on four assumptions of sale price, namely AED 12, 14, 16, and 18, the revenue generated
from the tipping fee varied between 33% and 26%.
When the second assumption for the tipping fee of AED ten (10) was applied, the revenue
generated from the tipping fee varied between 49% and 41%.
When the third assumption for the tipping fee of AED fifteen (15) as highest assumption was
applied, the revenue generated from the tipping fee varied between 59% and 52%.
Since the tipping is charged per each ton of C&D waste, the contribution of the revenue
generated by the tipping fee to the total revenue increases by the decrease in the sale price. Based
on this reciprocal relationship between the charged tipping fee and the sale price, the percentage
of the total revenue generated from the tipping fee increases up to approximately 7% when
minimum sale price of AED 12 is applied.
On the other hand, regardless of the sale price, the percentage of the total revenue generated from
the tipping fee significantly increases when a higher tipping fee is applied. Specifically, for any
assumption of the sale price, the total revenue generated from the tipping fee increases by 16%
when the tipping fee increases from AED five (5) to AED ten (10), and it increases by 20%
when the tipping fee increases from AED five (5) to AED fifteen (15).
64 of 78
Percentage of revenue generated from TP (%) vs. selling price (AED) as a function of charged TP
(AED/ton) and C&D waste quantity
Revenue generated from TP (%) out of total 70
60
50
40
revenue
12
14
30
16
20 18
10
0
5 10 15
TP unit price
Figure 23: Percentage of revenue generated from TP (%) versus selling price (AED) as a function of charged
TP (AED/ton) and C&D waste received quantity
As demonstrated by the twelve (12) scenarios, when no tipping fee is charged, the only
probability in which the return on investment is achieve in twenty (20) years, is when both the
highest quantity and the highest sale price are guaranteed for the all duration of the contract.
Figure 22 shows the breakeven required number of years as a function of the construction and
demolition waste received quantity. The total revenue is evaluated based on the total revenue
generated from (i) the sale of the combined aggregates produced and (ii) the sale of the combined
recyclables produced and (iii) fixed charged tipping fee quantity of 10 dirhams/trip for each
annum. The breakeven required number of years is compared as a function of the construction
and demolition waste received quantity for the various total sale prices of the combined
aggregates produced and the combined recyclables produced. The combined cost (CAPEX and
OPEX) for the project has been set at 173 million dirhams. Therefore, the breakeven required
number of years can be determined as a function of the construction and demolition waste
received quantity at each total sale price of the combined aggregates produced and the combined
65 of 78
recyclables produced. Figure 8 shows that the breakeven required number of years decreases as a
function of the construction and demolition waste quantity received for the fixed charged tipping
fee of 10 dirhams/ton and the fixed total sale price of the combined aggregates produced and the
combined recyclables produced. Comparing the breakeven required number of years profiles for
the various total sale prices of the combined aggregates produced and the combined recyclables
produced shows that the breakeven required number of years decreases as a function of the
construction and demolition waste quantity received for the fixed charged tipping fee of 10
dirhams/ton for the increasing total sale price of the combined aggregates produced and the
combined recyclables produced. For a fixed construction and demolition waste received quantity,
figure 8 shows that, for an increase in total sale price of the combined aggregates produced and
the combined recyclables produced, the breakeven required number of years decreases.
Number of years required for breakeven vs. selling price (AED) as a function of C&D waste
quantity (tons/day) and AED (10) TP
60.00
Number of years required for breakeven (Nos.)
50.00
40.00
12
30.00
14
16
20.00
18
10.00
-
500 1000 1500 2000
C&D waste Quantity
Figure 24: Number of years required for breakeven versus selling price (AED) as a function of C&D waste received
quantity (tons/day) and fixed TP of AED (10)
66 of 78
Figure 9 shows the breakeven required number of years versus sale price as a function of the
charged tipping fee and the C&D waste received quantity. The total revenue is evaluated based
on the total revenue generated from (i) the sale of the combined aggregates produced and (ii) the
sale of the combined recyclables produced and (iii) fixed demolition waste received quantity of
1000 tons/day. The breakeven required number of years is compared as a function of the charged
tipping fee for the various total sale prices of the combined aggregates produced and the
combined recyclables produced. The combined cost (CAPEX and OPEX) for the project has
been set at 173 million dirhams. Therefore, the breakeven required number of years can be
determined as a function of the charged tipping fee at each total sale price of the combined
aggregates produced and the combined recyclables produced. Figure 9 shows that the breakeven
required number of years decreases as a function of the charged tipping fee for the fixed
demolition waste received quantity of 500 tons/day and the fixed total sale price of the combined
aggregates produced and the combined recyclables produced. Comparing the breakeven required
number of years profiles for the various total sale prices of the combined aggregates produced
and the combined recyclables produced shows that the breakeven required number of years
decreases as a function of the charged tipping fee for the fixed demolition waste received
quantity of 500 tons/day for the increasing total sale price of the combined aggregates produced
and the combined recyclables produced. For a fixed charged tipping fee, figure 9 shows that, for
an increase in total sale price of the combined aggregates produced and the combined recyclables
produced, the breakeven required number of years decreases.
67 of 78
Number of years required for breakeven vs. selling price (AED) as a function of charged TP (AED/ton)
and the C&D waste quantity
Number of years required for breakeven (Nos.) 40.00
35.00
30.00
25.00
12
20.00
14
15.00 16
18
10.00
5.00
-
5 10 15 20
Tipping Fee
Figure 25: Number of years required for breakeven (nos.) versus selling price (AED) as a function of charged
tipping fee (AED/ton) and the C&D waste received quantity
In conclusion, the construction and demolition activities determine the daily quantity of C&D
waste received at the plant. Although the increase of the C&D waste quantities will increase the
amount of the recycled aggregates and subsequently the sales, However, it has not been reported
neither projected to exceed the maximum capacity of the plant ever since the commencement of
plant operation. In addition, the reports are evident that the average quantities is approximately
equal to the 50% of the maximum plant capacity. Therefore, the contribution of the C&D waste
quantity to the cost recovery is not a tool for managerial decision making.
On the other hand, the sale price is a factor of less flexibility. As discussed, in order to assure
sales stability, the competitiveness of both quality and price of recycled aggregates must be
guaranteed. Thus, the price of the recycled aggregates shall remain less than the price of the pure
material which was the basis of the sale price assumptions.
68 of 78
Therefore, the tipping fee will not only determine the cost recovery and the successfulness of
achieving the return on investment during the course of the contract, but also provides
environmental benefits and supports implementing the waste management strategy in terms of
waste reduction from the source, and promotes use of recycled material.
5.7 Tipping fee and illegal dumping
Although tipping fee is used as a tool to enforce waste reduction and encourage the reuse and the
recycling practices, however, high tipping fees may lead to illegal dumping which causes
adverse environmental and economic impact, especially when high tipping fee is charged. Figure
26 shows the number of illegal dumping incidents in Abu Dhabi emirate. The amount of illegal
dumping has significantly reduced in Al Ain city, whereas Abu Dhabi city and Western Region
still face the challenge of huge illegal waste quantity.
Number of illegal dumping in Abu Dhabi Emirate in 2011 vs. 2012
800
Number of illegal dumping (Nos.)
700
600
500
400
2011
300 2012
200
100
0
Abu Dhabi Al Ain Western Region
Cities
Figure 26: Number of illegal dumping in Abu Dhabi Emirate in 2011 versus 2012
69 of 78
To overcome the illegal dumping, competent authorities shall develop sufficient enforcement
system including deterrent penalties for non-compliance incidents. The enforcement system will
reduce the amount of the illegal dumping which will subsequently result in to increase of C&D
waste sent to the C&D waste treatment plant.
Lastly, in order to avoid sending C&D waste to the dumpsites as mixed waste, dumpsites fees
shall be imposed on the waste generators which not comply with waste segregation at source.
The dumpsites fees shall set at a higher amount of that of applied at the C&D waste treatment
plant.
The dumpsites fee will assure higher amount of waste diversion from landfills, and the illegal
dumping penalties will assure higher amount of waste received at the C&D waste treatment
plant.
70 of 78
Chapter 6 Conclusions and Recommendations
6.1 Recommendation
Legislative Orders: The competent authority could issue legislative orders making it
compulsory for all demolition projects to obtain NOC certificate from the Center of Waste
Management – Abu Dhabi. The demolition contractor will need to submit a consultant report
identifying the estimated amount of recyclable C&D waste produced at site, in addition to an
undertaking to abide by the regulations regarding C&D waste.
Similar mechanism could apply to all new construction projects. The submitted report should
include a waste reduction plan in addition to undertaking by the builders / developers to dispose
their construction waste at the crushing plant.
The builders should obtain NOC certificate from the Center of Waste Management – Abu Dhabi
in order to receive the competition certificates of the project. The NOC certificate will be issued
based on the approval of both waste minimization at site and the C&D waste disposal at the
C&D waste treatment plant.
Moreover, it is recommended that relevant legislative orders to be issued by competent

authorities to penalize the non-compliant parties and those who conduct illegal dumping. The
penalties with regard to the illegal dumping should be of a high deterrent amount to guarantee
disposing the wastes at the designated plants / sites.
In addition, in order to avoid variation in the composition of C&D waste being sent in a mixed
form of waste to the dumpsites, legislative orders could be issued for the non-compliant
construction / demolition companies with waste segregation at source. On the contrary,
companies show commitment to the segregations and reuse of material will gain financial
incentives and compensations.
Tipping Fees: The CWM-AD could develop a mechanism and time frame to implement the
collection of tipping fee for C&D waste. The tipping fees will be charged by CWM-AD at the
crushing plant based on tonnage of waste and issue a weighbridge ticket stating the quantity of
71 of 78
waste, unit rate and amount. The suggested amount for the tipping fee at this stage is ten (10)
AED/ton.
A higher amount for the tipping fee at the dumpsites to be charged by CWM-AD in order to
enforce transferring the C&D waste to the treatment plant. The dumpsites fees will turn the
recycling financially competitive with the conventional disposal.
Awareness and Education Programs: CWM-AD could conduct continuous market awareness
about the waste reduce, reuse, and recycling benefits in the construction industry. Various
incentives could be announced in order to persuade construction companies to abandon the
current practices for more sustainable and environmentally safe actions.
Marketing: the recycled aggregates needs to be approved by the Abu Dhabi Quality and
Conformity Council (QCC) in order to encourage construction companies using the recycled
material in their projects. It is highly recommended to support and encourage the use of recycled
material by the General Secretariat of the Executive Council (GSEC) through enforcing the use
of recycled material in the government projects. Necessary decree can specify the minimum
amount of the recyclable material usage in each of government-funded project. The major
departments to use the processed aggregates in their projects are Department of Municipal
Affairs (DMA), Department of Transport (DOT), and Etihad Rail (UR).
The above mentioned government departments should specify the recycled material and the
processed aggregates in the treatment plant in the bill of quantities of their bids. Specified
amount for use of recycled material will be compulsory for their contractors.
The marketing programs may include customizing attraction incentives for the companies
achieve usage of certain amount of recycled material in their projects.
72 of 78
6.2 Conclusion
The Center of Waste Management – Abu Dhabi (CWM-AD) being the competent authority in
the waste management sector, has initiated environmentally sound projects which deploy
advanced solutions toward sustainability.
The waste management strategy is part of greater Abu Dhabi’s 2030 vision in which the
environmental sustainability is identified among key priority areas that will develop and
strengthen the architecture of Abu Dhabi’s social, political and economic future. Al Ain C&D
waste treatment plant is an example of several environmental projects wherein the government
has supported and significantly subsidized.
The study highlights important issues in regards to the financial and environmental objectives of
Al Ain C&D waste treatment plant.
This case study provides insights into the cost recovery efficiency of the project and the
management of the construction and demolition waste. It was undertaken by identifying the
relevant factors, reviewing the feasibility study of the project, analyzing the current situation, and
developing a financial model in order to identify optimized scenario for the cost recovery and
provide an integrated solution for the management of construction and demolition waste.
The literature review provided helpful guidance in identifying the relevant factors. The
considered factors were as following: (1) waste hazards and its’ environmental adverse impacts
and on the other hand, the potential benefits of managing waste. This includes the environmental,
social, and economic benefits. (2) The construction and demolition waste in specific, the sources
and composition of C&D waste, the generated quantity of C&D waste, the factors influencing
the quantities produced, and the current practices including disposal or treatment of the C&D
waste. (3) The strategies and principles of managing waste which focused on reduce, reuse, and
recycling. Moreover, the environmental, social, and economic benefits of implementing these
principles. (4) The costs involved in recycling projects and the sale of recycled material, relevant
laws and legislations, and the environmental impacts of current practices and recommended
solutions.
73 of 78
The findings of the study highlighted the negligence of clear cost recovery approach, lack of
necessary legislations and financial / managerial solutions. A financial model was developed to
identify the likely scenarios based on reasonable assumptions. The model consist of major
relevant factors which will determine the revenue and the duration of cost recovery. The
identified scenarios elaborated that the current situation will fail in achieving the return on
investment during the course of the contract regardless of the adverse environmental and
economic impacts of current practices.
The study promoted the tipping fee as a widely implemented tool for recovering the investments
in waste management and the enforcement of environmentally sound practices. It provided as
well different options in terms of cost recovery duration in addition to a set of integrated solution
to better manage the construction and demolition waste.
The study recommendations a number of solutions which collectively will provide an integrated
solution for an efficient and cost effective environmental practices. It includes developing
legislative orders by the competent authorities which will lead to waste reduction, segregation at
source, higher amount of waste diversion from disposal sites, and illegal dumping prevention.
The relevant decrees will enhance the quantity of waste to be recycled and enforce the reuse of
recycled material, in addition to providing specified penalties for the non-compliance.
More importantly, developing a mechanism and time frame to implement the collection of
tipping fee of ten (10) AED/ton at the treatment plant and higher amount for the tipping fee at the
dumpsites were recommended.
Finally, the governmental support and encouragement were introduced as marketing solutions,
besides the awareness and education programs.
74 of 78
References
1. Abu Dhabi Economic Vision 2030, Abu Dhabi Council For Economic Development,
Available at:
https://www.abudhabi.ae/egovPoolPortal_WAR/appmanager/ADeGP/Citizen?_nfpb=true
&_pageLabel=p_citizen_homepage_hidenav&did=131654&lang=en.
2. Banias, G., Achillas, C., Vlachokostas, C., Moussiopoulos, N., Tarsenis, S., (2010),
Assessing multiple criteria for the optimal location of a construction and demolition
waste management facility, Building and Environment, (45), 2317-2326.
3. Begum, R.A., Siwar, C., Pereira, J.J., Jaafar, A.H., (2006). A benefit–cost analysis on the
economic feasibility of construction waste minimisation: the case of Malaysia,
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 48 (1), 86–98.
4. Center of Waste Management – Abu Dhabi, Globex-City Consultant Report, (2002).
5. Center of Waste Management – Abu Dhabi, Strategy Document, (2013).
6. Dantata, N., Touran, A., Wang, J., (2005), An analysis of cost and duration for
deconstruction and demolition of residential buildings in Massachusetts, Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, (44), 1–15.
7. Duran, X., Lenihan, H., O’Regan, B., (2006), A model for assessing the economic
viability of construction and demolition waste recycling – the case of Ireland, Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 46 (3), 302–320.
8. Gomes, C.F.S., Nunes, K.R.A., Xavier, L.H., Cardoso, R., Valle, R., (2008), Multicriteria
decision making applied towaste recycling in Brazil, Omega, (36) 395 – 404.
9. Guzman, J.S., Marrero, M., Montes-Delgado, M.V., Ramirez-de-Arellano, A., (2009), A
Spanish model for quantification and management of construction waste, Waste
Management, (29), 2542–2548.
10. Henry, R.K., Yongsheng, Z., Jun, D., (2006), Municipal solid waste management
challenges in developing countries – Kenyan case study”, Waste Management, (26), Issue
1, pages 92–100.
11. Ichinose, D., Yamamoto, M., (2011), On the relationship between the provision of waste
management service and illegal dumping, Resource and Energy Economics, (33), 79–93.
75 of 78
12. Jaeger,S.D., Eyckmans, J., (2008), Assessing the effectiveness of voluntary solid waste
reduction policies: Methodology and a Flemish case study, Waste Management,
(28),1449–1460.
13. Kartam, N., Al-Mutairi, N., Al-Ghusain, I., and Al-Humoud, J., (2004), Environmental
management of construction and demolition waste in Kuwait, Waste Management, 24,
1049-1059.
14. Lavee, D., Regev, U., Zemel, A., (2009), The effect of recycling price uncertainty on
municipal waste management choices, Journal of Environmental Management, (90),
3599–3606.
15. Longo, C., Wagner, J., (2011), Bridging legal and economic perspectives on interstate
municipal solid waste disposal in the US, Waste Management, (31), 147–153.
16. Lu, W., Yuan, H., Li, J., Hao, J.J.L., Mi, X., Ding, Z., (2011), An empirical investigation
of construction and demolition waste generation rates in Shenzhen city, South China,
Waste Management, (31), 680–687.
17. Lu, W. and Yuan, H. (2010), Exploring critical success factors for waste management in
construction projects of China, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55, 201–208.
18. Lu, W., Yuan, H., (2011), A framework for understanding waste management studies in
construction, Waste Management, (31), 1252–1260.
19. Lu, W., Yuan, H., (2010), Exploring critical success factors for waste management in
construction projects of China, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, (55), 201–208.
20. Massarutto, A., Carli, A., Graffi, M., (2011), Material and energy recovery in integrated
waste management systems: A life-cycle costing approach, Waste Management, (31)
2102–2111.
21. Molinos-Senante, M., Hernández-Sancho, F., Sala-Garrido, R., (2010), Economic
feasibility study for wastewater treatment: A cost–benefit analysis, Science of the Total
Environment, (408), 4396–4402.
22. Morrissey, A.J., Browne, J., (2004), Waste management models and their application to
sustainable waste management, Waste Management, (24), 297–308.
23. Nguyen, U.N., Schnitzer, H., (2009), Sustainable solutions for solid waste management
in Southeast Asian countries, Waste Management, (29), 1982–1995.
76 of 78
24. Nunes, K.R.RA., Mahler, C.F., Valle, R., Neves, C., (2007), Evaluation of investments in
recycling centres for construction and demolition wastes in Brazilian municipalities,
Waste Management, 27 (2007) 1531–1540.
25. Parthan, S.R., Milke, M.W., Wilson, D.C., Cocks, J.H., (2012), Cost estimation for solid
waste management in industrializing regions – Precedents, problems and prospects,
Waste Management, (32), 584–594.
26. Phillips, P.S., Pratt, R.M., Pike, K., (2001), An analysis of UK waste minimization clubs:
key requirements for future cost effective developments, Waste Management, (21), 389-
404.
27. Saghafia, M.D., Teshnizia, Z., (2011), Building deconstruction and material recovery in
Iran: An analysis of major determinants, Procedia Engineering, (21), 853-863.
28. Sakai, S., Ikematsu, T., Hirai, Y., Yoshida, H., (2008), Unit-charging programs for
municipal solid waste in Japan, Waste Management, (28), 2815–2825.
29. Salhofer, S., Wassermann, G., Binner, E., (2007), Strategic environmental assessment as
an approach to assess waste management systems. Experiences from an Austrian case
study, Environmental Modelling & Software, (22), 610-618.
30. Serpell, A., Alarcon, L.F., (1998), Construction process improvement methodology for
construction projects, International Journal of Project Management, 16 (4), 215–221.
31. Skumatz, L.A., (2008), Pay as you throw in the US: Implementation, impacts, and
experience, Waste Management, (28), 2778–2785.
32. Sorvari, J., (2008), Developing environmental legislation to promote recycling of
industrial by-products – An endless story?, Waste Management, (28), 489–501.
33. Stake, R.E. (1995), The Art of Case Study Research, Sage Publishers, London.
34. Wastes and Pollution Sources of Abu Dhabi Emirate, Environment Agency Abu Dhabi,
(2005).
35. Weng, Y.C., Fujiwara, T., (2011), Examining the effectiveness of municipal solid waste
management systems: An integrated cost–benefit analysis perspective with a financial
cost modeling in Taiwan, Waste Management, (31), 1393–1406.
36. Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publishers, London.
37. Yuan, F., Shen, L.Y., Li, Q., (2011), Emergy analysis of the recycling options for
construction and demolition waste, Waste Management, (31) 2503–2511.
77 of 78
38. Yuan, H., Lu. W., (2011), A framework for understanding waste management studies in
construction, Waste Management, 31, 1252-1260.
39. Yuan, H., Chini, A.R., Lu, Y., Shen, L., (2012), A dynamic model for assessing the
effects of management strategies on the reduction of construction and demolition waste,
Waste Management, (32) 521–531.
40. Yuan, H.P., Shen, L.Y., Hao, J.L., Lu, W.S., (2011), A model for cost-benefit analysis of
construction and demolition waste management throughout the waste chain, Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, (55), 604–612.
41. Yuan, S. Shen, L. (2011), Trend of the research on construction and demolition waste
management, Waste Management, 31, 670-679.
42. Zhang, D., Keat, T.S., Gersberg, R.M., (2010), A comparison of municipal solid waste
management in Berlin and Singapore, Waste Management, (30) 921–933.
43. Zhaoa, W., Rena, H., Rotterb, V.S., (2011), A system dynamics model for evaluating the
alternative types in Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling Center – The case of
Chongqing, China, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, (55), 933– 944.
44. Zerbock, O., (2003), Urban Solid Waste Management: Waste Reduction in Developing
Nations, Written for the Requirements of CE 5993 Field Engineering in the Developing
World, Michigan Technological University.
45. Zurbrügg, C. Urban solid waste management in low-income countries of Asia e how to
cope with the garbage crises. Urban Solid Waste Management Review Session, Durban,
South Africa, November 2002.
78 of 78

Cost recovery evaluation of Al Ain construction and demolition waste treatment plant ا و ءانبلا تايافن ةجلاعمل نيعلا عنصمل فيلاكتلا دادرتسا مييقت مدهل

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cost recovery evaluation of Al Ain construction and demolition waste treatment plant ا و ءانبلا تايافن ةجلاعمل نيعلا عنصمل فيلاكتلا دادرتسا مييقت مدهل

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cost recovery evaluation of Al Ain construction and demolition waste treatment plant ا و ءانبلا تايافن ةجلاعمل نيعلا عنصمل فيلاكتلا دادرتسا مييقت مدهل

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cost recovery evaluation of Al Ain construction and

demolition waste treatment plant

‫تقييم استرداد التكاليف لمصنع العين لمعالجة نفايات البناء و الهدم‬

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of

Table of contents Page Number

3.2 Model construction and description 31

Figure 1: The C&D waste management method hierarchy 21

Figure 2: A conceptual model of the C&D waste chain 22

Figure 4: Basic assumption module of the financial model 32

Figure 5: Module-2a (Revenue generated from recyclables) 33

Figure 6: Module-2b (Revenue generated from Aggregates produced 35

Figure 7: Module-3 (Cost of Processing Aggregates) 35

Figure 8: Process flow of the Al Ain C&D waste treatment plant 38

Figure 9: Revenue (AED) versus C&D waste received quantity (tons/day) as a 45

(AED/ton) and fix C&D quantity (2000 tons)

Figure 21: Casual loop diagram of C&D waste management model 61

Table # Title Page #

Table 4.4.1-1 Basic assumption for the recyclables 42

Table 4.4.1-2 Basic assumption for the aggregates 42

AED: Arab Emirates Dirhams

C&D: Construction and Demolition

CWM: The Center of Waste Management - Abu Dhabi

DMA: Department of Municipal Affairs

DOT: Department of Transport

EAD: Environment Agency - Abu Dhabi

TP: Tipping Fee

QCC: Abu Dhabi Quality and Conformity Council

1.2 Abu Dhabi 2030 vision – Growth Strategy

1.3 Abu Dhabi Waste Sector Strategy

1.4 Problem Statement

1.5 Aims, Questions, and Objectives

This paper is meant to answer the following questions:

In light of this aim, the dissertation has the following objectives.

3. Identify related legislations and regulations to assure achieving project’s objective.

1.6 Contribution to knowledge

1.7 Research Content

2.1 Solid Waste Management

2.2 Construction and Demolition Waste

2.3 Environmental Considerations

2.4 Illegal Dumping

3.1 Data Collection

3.2 Model construction and description

3.2.1 Module-1 (Basic Assumptions)

Crushing Plant Capacity 2,000 Tons/Day

Selling Price - Option 1 12.00 Dhs/Ton

Figure 4: Basic assumption of the financial model

3.2.2 Module-2a (Revenue generated from Recyclables)

Sales Daily Sales Annual Sales Unit Price Sales

TOTAL SALES OF RECYCLABLES 2.21% 44.12 13809.56 2,404,215.60

Figure 5: Module-2a (Revenue generated from recyclables)

3.2.3 Module-2b (Revenue generated from Aggregates produced)

A-1 Fraction 0-30 mm Trommel 21.00% 420.00 131,460.00 0 -

TOTAL SALES OF AGGREGATES 77.79% 1,555.80 486,965.40 4,256,831.30

Figure 6: Module-2b (Revenue generated from Aggregates produced

3.2.4 Module-3 (Cost of Processing Aggregates)

III. COST OF PROCESSING C&D WASTE

TOTAL COST OF CRUSHING PLANT 173,229,934.33 8,661,496.72 721,791.39

Figure 7: Module-3 (Cost of Processing Aggregates)