You are on page 1of 49

72014

S
SNAPS
SEE

&.

,..
...
.

...../
.....

kikihatz@
@igme.gr,
fch
halkiopoulou
u@igme.gr

zach@m
mred.tuc.gr

1
:




SNAPSEE(htttp://www.sn
napsee.eu/)



(Sustain
nable
Aggregates
A
Resource Management SARM)

(SSustainableSSupplyMixSSSM)

[1 SNAPSEE] [2014]

A.1

A.2

A.3

A.4

A.5

(Executivesummary)

10

.5.1

10

.5.2

12

.5.3

24

30

A.6
A.7

40

A.7.1

40

A.7.2

46

51

A.8

B
B.1

B.1.1

. :

.1.2

B.1.3

. (EKBAA):
SNAPSEE

B.1.4

JimO Brien, UEPG, SNAPSEE:


,

10

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

[1 SNAPSEE] [2014]

B.2

: 1 :

18

B.2.1

.,:

18

B.2.2

. , :

27

B.2.3

. ():
/ ,
,

38

:2:

44

B.3.1

. (EKBAA): SARM SSM

44

B.3.2

. ():

50

B.3.3

. ():
,

55

.3.4

. , ():

62

:3 :

68

B.4.1

. , :

68

B.4.2

.(..):

78

B.4.3

. (LAFARGE):
LAFARGE

85

. , HALYPS:
HALYPS

89

B.3

B.4

B.4.4

.2 :

:
1.
2.
3.

.1.1 . ( ):

. , ,

(, , ).
,
.

72014,

(,)

www.snapsee.eu

,


,
.
,,:

:SNAPSEE
SEE/D/0167/2.4/X SNAPSEE

,()
,,SNAPSEE

1.

,
2.

3.
.



.
4.


,
.
5.

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

1.

2.
3.
4.

5.
6.

www.snapsee.eu

;
;
;

;
;
/
;

www.snapsee.eu

.1.2
/.

.
. , ,
,
.
,

.
,,,
.,,
,
.
.

.

.1.3 .(...../SNAP
SEE):SNAPSEE

. SNAPSEE () INTERREG


, ,
SEE().
SARMA

(SARMSSM).:
1.

2.

.

JimO Brien,
.

[1 SNAPSEE] [2014]

,

.

.


.
SNAPSEE:


(,..).
2014.

. : )

,)

,)SNAPSEE,)
, , ,
...
SARMSSM.
, ,
,,
,
.
SNAPSEE:SNAPSEE,13,.
Fyrom,
,2713.
/,
Leoben .
,,,.
,
. .. ,
,.

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

. SNAPSEE
,

.
,
,
, .

,
.
SNAPSEE
,
, , , ,
.
,
, ,
.
, ,
.
4 .
leader leader activities.
..

[1 SNAPSEE] [2014]

:.

2.SARMaSNAPSEE

1. ..SEE

SNAPSEE(SustainableAggregatesPlanninginSouth
EastEurope) SARMa Sustainable
AggregatesResourceManagement
:

SNAPSEE .
(SEE)

,

(SARM)

(SSM)

,

.

www.snapsee.eu

www.snapsee.eu

3.SNAPSEE

,

.

SNAPSEE
:
..



(,
)

(resourceefficiency)

:2012 2014

www.snapsee.eu

www.snapsee.eu

:.
:

(ToolboxforAggregatesPlanning)

:SNAPSEE
SEE/D/0167/2.4/X SNAPSEE

1.

..SEE

2.

SARMaSNAPSEE

3.

SNAPSEE

.
.

4.

5.

.
.


,
SNAPSEE .,

(.
,
)

/..

(Aggregates
PlanningScheme)
www.snapsee.eu

www.snapsee.eu

72014,

www.snapsee.eu

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

[1 SNAPSEE] [2014]

:.

:.

T :

,
,

SARMSSM,
(resourceefficiency)
,

(
,,,
,
)
,

..,

www.snapsee.eu

,,
,,
,

SNAPSEE:

SNAPSEE:

www.snapsee.eu

www.snapsee.eu

(),

www.snapsee.eu

4.SNAPSEE
:

27
13

,
,
,

: /
LEOBEN,


(..
,,
).

()
www.snapsee.eu

www.snapsee.eu

5.
SNAPSEE:

SNAPSEE:

B,

(SARM)&

(SSM),

www.snapsee.eu

www.snapsee.eu

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

.1.4 Jim O Brien,


(UEPG)
Goodmorningeverybody.IapologizeIcannot speakGreek, buteverybodyI metthismorning
has very good English. In the next 15 minutes I hope I can convince you of the importance of
preparinga20yearplanforaggregatesinGreeceandhowimportantthatis.Aggregatescrushed
stone, sand and gravel, you all know how important they are for all, every building and
everythingwedoinsociety.
The European Aggregates Association represents the Industry in 29 countries. There is a total
productionofapproximately2,5billiontonsfrom25.000quarriesandpitsandthereareabout
15.000companies.Manyofthemareveryverysmallcompaniesandhaveaboutonequarter
million people employed, so its a very big and a very important industry for Europe. Here in
Greece also, but all through Europe it is a very important industry. As you all too well know,
therehasbeenabigeconomicrecessionrightacrossEuropeandthetotaltonnage(youcansee
the graph) shows the decline in the last six years across Europe from 3,7 (2007) to 2,7 (2012)
billiontons,adeclineofover30%.Soitsbeenreallyasevererecessioninalloftheindustry,not
onlyinGreece.
If you compare and this is just to sympathise with you in the bailout countries, which I call
them,likeGreece,Ireland,PortugalandSpain,ifyoucomparehowtheyhaveperformedinthe
productionofaggregatesoverthelastfiveyears,thegraphshowshowdramaticthedeclinehas
beenineachofthosecountries,wherenowitsonly2530%ofwhatitwas5yearsago.Soits
really tough time and you have friends in Ireland and Spain and Portugal with similar difficult
times,butthesunwillshineagain.Thatpictureshowstheconsumptionofaggregatesintones
percapitaineverycountryinEuropeandweinUEPGwegathertheproductiondatafromevery
country eachyear,so wehavequitea goodpictureof whatishappening. You cansee thatin
somecountriesinScandinaviaisashighas16tonespercapita,others910tonespercapitaand
Greeceatthemomentis2,2tonespercapitawithatotalproductionofabout25milliontones.
But that is well down from what it should be, double at least, about 50 million tons a year,
because theaverageinEuropeis5,2tonespercapitaandithasdeclined,5yearsagoitwas7
tonspercapita.
Itsveryinterestingtocomparetheproductionin tonespercapitaintheverticalscaleagainst
theGDPpercapitainthehorizontalscale(seethegraph).Theredlineshowsthetrendandthat
s very important it shows that as the GDP per capita increases, in other words when the
economy improves the tones per capita goes up. So thats a very important message: as an
economy grows there is more need for aggregates, more production is needed, because the
economyisbuildingnewroads,newhouses,newhospitalsandsoon.
AndthenlookingattheSouthEasternEurope,thecountriesintheSNAPSEEproject,thoseare
thebestfigureswehaveforthecurrentproductionintonespercapita.YoucanseethatGreece
isactuallyatthemomentoneofthesmallerofthose,theaverageisabout3,6tonespercapita
acrossthatregion.Thatshould,asthisregionisactuallydeveloping,istheregionofEuropethat
hasthestrongestgrowthpotentialinthenext57years.So,theproductionofthatregionshould
grow from an average of 3,6tones per capita to at least 5 tones per capita. And thats very

10

[1 SNAPSEE] [2014]

importantwewillneedmoreaggregatesinthatregionandIwouldsayparticularinGreeceas
theeconomywillrecover.
And that is the reason for the SNAP SEE project. It is a voluntary initiative funded by the
EuropeanCommissiontoreallylooktothefutureofaggregatesproductioninthewholeSouth
Easternregionandthe13countriesinvolvedareinaverypositiveandfriendlycooperationand
really working forward to lain out the structure of developing the aggregates industry in the
region.TherearestakeholdermeetingstakingplaceinallofthosecountriesandIamdelighted
todaythatthefirstishappeninghereinGreece.Aggregatesthereareplentyofthemifyoulook
at the geology of Europe, there are rock resources available nearly everywhere and Greece
wouldbewellinthatpicturetoo.Buttheproblemishowdoyougetaccesstothoseresources?
This is a diagrammatic picture sowing say over the last 150 years up to now, how it is getting
more difficult to get access to resources. 150 years ago you could get aggregates nearly
everywhere, but now there are roads, there are forests, there are protected areas, there are
motor ways, there are scenic tourist areas, so there are more and more difficulties of getting
accesstoresources.Andtheotherthingtorememberaboutaggregatesisthatbecausetheyare
bulky, they are heavy that the economic transport distance is very short. If they are being
transportedbytrack,thenyouaretalkingprobablyaneconomicdistance3050km.Butifgoing
by railway then it can be maybe up to 100 km. By ship then it is a longer distance (if you are
exportingfromNorwaytoGermany).
Ingeneral,mostofthetransportisbytrack.Therefore,theaccesstotheresourcesofaggregates
hastobenearthemarket.Youmustbeclosetothemarkettobeabletoeconomicallysupply
aggregates.Andthatiswhyin2010UEPGcommissionedtheUniversityofLeobentodoastudy
of all the aggregates policies in all of the countries of Europe and they that indeed most
countries had very little planning of the futures supply of aggregates. Some of them had got
plans for minerals, but not for aggregates and some of them had no concept at all where the
aggregateswouldcomefrom.Otherhadnoconceptofwhatareasofthecountrycouldbeused
to produce those aggregates and how near the market they could be and so on. That report
concludedthatitwasreallynecessaryforeverycountrytodevelopanaggregatesplanforthe
future and we look at a 20 year horizon, because of the long time it takes to get permits you
havetolookabout20yearsahead.
Thats why in UEPG, because of the increasing difficulty of getting access to resources, we
broughtthisproblemattheattentionoftheEuropeanCommissionandI,theformerpresident
ofUEPGwewentinitiallytoseeVerheugen.Hehadaverygoodunderstandingofourproblems
in aggregates industry. Initially he had little concept of where aggregates were, but once we
explained he saw how important it was and that was the beginning of the Raw Materials
Initiative. That has been further taken forward by Antonio Tajani, the new Commissioner for
IndustryandVicePresidentastheRawMaterialsStrategy.Sonowwehavereallyastrongfocus
in the politics of Europe among the top politicians of the importance of aggregates for the
future. In that context, several countries have already now developed very good aggregates
plansforthenext20years.
Lookingatthose,theFrenchstartedwithwhattheycalledLIVREBLANCwhichlookedatallthe
aspectsofaggregatessupplyforthenext20years.InFinlanddidaverysimilarstudy,thenall

11

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

the other Scandinavian countries Norway, Sweden, Denmark followed and then Germany,
Austria and Spain, UK and even in Greece there is at least a concept I thing for minerals than
specificallyforaggregates,butyouaretheexpertsinthatarea,notme.
Andthisperhapsisthecentralpieceofmypresentationofpreparingtheaggregatesplanforthe
next20years.Youhavetoestimatetheband.Well,apparentlyits25milliontonsperyearin
Greece,butprobablyitshouldbe50milliontonsperyear.Ifyoulookfor20yearsaheadyouwill
needover1billiontonsperyearforthenext20years.Thenyoulookatthesecondbox:Where
are these resources geographically in the country. What areas can you develop for the
aggregatesindustrybearinginmindtheconstrainsofplanning,ofroads,ofprotectedareasand
ofallotherthingsthatcanmakeaccesstoresourcesdifficult.Soyoureallyhavetolookcarefully
atallpartsofthecountryanddecidewhatthebestareasareandofcourseideallytheyshould
be close to the market places, probably to the big cities, where development is going to take
place.Youreallyneedanefficientpermittingsystem,sothatpeoplecanapplyforpermits,get
themineffectiveandefficientway,takingintoaccounttheconcernsofallthestakeholders,not
justtheindustry,notjusttheregulators,butalsotheNGOs,thelocalcommunitiesandideally
haveasystemwhichisaonestopshop,inotherwordsthereisonepermittingauthoritythat
youdonthavetogotomanydifferentplacestogetpermission.Thatplanshouldbereviewed
each5years.Thatistheconceptofdevelopingaplanforthenext20yearsinaggregates.
And also important to think of who are the stakeholders: its the regulators, the planning
authorities,theindustryitself.Ofcoursethecommunitiesthatsurroundthem,theNGOs,also
the municipalities and the cities, the environmental and transport departments and probably
eventhemedia.Allofthosehavetocomeintothedebatesandthatswhattodayisabout.Its
the beginning, I hope of all those people concerned beginning to talk together. And in the
context to Greece the purpose of todays meeting is to initiate a process of developing an
aggregatesplanforthenext20yearstoensureanoptimaleconomicandsustainablesupplyof
aggregates over that period for the development of the country to meet infrastructural and
economicdevelopmentneeds.Thatplanneedstobesupportedbyallthestakeholders.Itsthe
processofsittingdown,whatisbestforsocietyinGreece:weneedaggregates,wherearewe
going to get them, where is the best place that minimizes the impacts on communities, on
neighbors and what is the best solution for everybody. Some people say ah, quarrying is
destroying biodiversity, quite not true, the opposite is true in fact. The quarries and pits are
actually great habitats for biodiversity and many studies have shown that biodiversity actually
increasesinquarriesandaroundthem.Therearegoodpracticesnowavailableinourindustryto
assist in that way.Then, of course looking at other considerations, the industry must operate
responsibly. Thatis absolutely given, anecessity. And of coursethereis theproblem ofillegal
operatorsandthatIknowisaparticularquestioninGreece.

[1 SNAPSEE] [2014]

even in Ireland for example. And we did that by forming a strong aggregates association. The
responsiblecompaniesformedanassociation,notjustthebigcompanies,butalsosmallerones.
Andsaidwearegoingtothevoiceofindustryandthatwewilladoptgoodcodesofpractice,
wewillhavegoodenvironmentalperformance,goodsafetyperformanceandtheybecamethen
the voice of industry when talking to the authorities. And they could put pressure on the
authoritiestosaylookthoseguys,theyareoperatingillegally.Youllhavetoworkagainstthem,
toforcethemtostoporcomplyandbeoperatinginaresponsibleway.
IhopetherewillbeanaggregatesassociationinGreecethancanbetheleadingforceinmaking
for a really responsible aggregates industry and developing industry in Greece. The recycled
aggregates can too play a part in the supply of aggregates, but that has to be done in a
responsible way. There is a lot of techniques in producing quality aggregates. You can have
recycling and mix of the construction waste in it, but that is not a good material. To do it
properly,therightmachinery,therightprocessandproduceaggregateseventuallythatcomply
withthesamestandardsasaggregatesfromaquarry.InEurope,thereabout2milliontonesof
recycled aggregates, which is only 5% of the total supply of aggregates and it is highest in
Germany, UK, France where there are strong permitting systems and a very highly regulated
industryandalsothecostsoflandfillfordumpingC&DWisveryhigh.Allofthosefactorshaveto
beinplacetogiveastrongrecyclingindustry.ThereissomerecyclinginGreece.Itprobablywill
growinthe future,buttheimportant pointisthat itsstilla smallpercentageprobablyofthe
totalsupply.Therefore,theimportancestillremainsofhavingaccesstoresourcesfromquarries
forthefuture.Iwishyou..

Andtheplanningprocessmustbetransparent,timeandcosteffectiveandtheremustbegood
communicationsbetweentheindustryandallofthepartnersinvolvedwiththeauthoritieswith
thelocalcommunitiesanditwilltaketimetodevelopafullycoordinatedaggregatesplan.Its
noteasybutatleastheretodayIhopethatprocessisbeginningintherightdirection.Iknowin
Greecethereisalotofquestionsaboutillegaloperators(slight4).
Theboxintheleftshowswhattheresponsibleindustrydoesandtheboxintherightwhatthe
irresponsible industry does. That problem weve had to face in some other countries as well,

12

13

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

[1 SNAPSEE] [2014]

:JimOBrien
:JimOBrien
Aggregates Build our World!

UNION EUROPENNE DES PRODUCTEURS DE GRANULATS


EUROPISCHER GESTEINSVERBAND
EUROPEAN AGGREGATES ASSOCIATION

When shown graphically


gives interesting
comparisons
Trend would be to
expect an average of 5
tonnes/capita within 5-7
years
Which would mean
almost 50% growth in
production to ~400mt
by say 2020!

Same broad long-term


relationship between
GDP/capita and
tonnes/capita
More aggregates
needed as an economy
grows!
Aggregates are
essential to economic
growth!
Strong message for our
industry Europe must
return to economic
growth!

UEPG
The European Aggregates Association

Developing a 20-year
Aggregates Plan
First Stakeholder Consultation
Jim OBrien, Past-President UEPG
University of Leoben Team, SNAP-SEE Project
Athens, Greece
February 7, 2014

SEE Region Aggregates tonnes/capita

2012 Tonnages/c v GDP/c

11.8

4.3
3.6

4.5
3.0

4.4
3.2

2.3
3.8

3.0
4.0

3.1

3.0

2.2

4.7

So where will all these


aggregates be sourced?

Hence the SNAP-SEE Project!

European Aggregates Association

Geology of Europe & SEE Region

UEPG Tonnages 2012

UEPG was created in 1987

Despite the small uptick in


2011, the relentless downward
trend continued in 2012
Total 2012 for EU+EFTA was
2.7 billion tonnes, down
10.3% on 2011
Thus the 2013 tonnage was
32% down from the 2007
peak.
The indications are that 2013
tonnage will be down another
7.5% on 2012, about 2.5 bnt!

Brussels Office since 2003


Has 29 Member Countries
Represents Industry with:
Sales of ~20 billion
2.7 billion tonnes of
aggregates per year
25,000 quarries & pits
15,000 companies
~230,000 employed
(including contractors)

SustaiNable Aggregates Planning for South-East Europe

Aggregate deposits exist in most countries


Getting access to resources is the challenge!

Access to Local Aggregates Resources


% Tonnage Declines 2008-2012
The four main
bail-out
countries were
all badly hit by
the economic
crisis
Greece was
not alone!
Hopefully the
worst is now
over!

8.7

National 2012
production
tonnes/capita
across Europe

"Bail-Out Club"
100%
2009

60%

2010

40%

2011

20%

2012

These vary by
climate, state
of economies,
building
traditions

0%
Greece

Ireland

Portugal

Spain

16.6

16.2
8.4

6.4
3.2

Include exports
(mainly N) and
exclude imports
(mainly NL)

2008

80%

4.1

3.1

7.0
6.9 5.0

3.6
6.4

0.9

5.0

7.6

4.3
5.6

11.9

3.7
4.7
4.4

2.4

1.9
2.8

Access to Local Aggregates Resources

Aggregates are heavy, bulky, costing <1cent/kg!


Increasing competition for land use across Europe
Transport becomes uneconomic at >30-50km
Hence access to local resources is increasingly vital

4.1

8.5

8.2

3.9

3.2

5.7

Aggregate best sourced <50km from market


Main markets are the bigger urban areas

2.2
3.1

14

9.1

6.0

15

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

[1 SNAPSEE] [2014]

:JimOBrien

:JimOBrien

The UEPG/Leoben Review 2010

EU Raw Materials Strategy

UEPG Commissioned the 2010


Leoben Review to highlight
critical need for access to
local resources
Also the need for better
Minerals Planning and more
efficient Permitting Systems
Report was highly
acknowledged by Commission
Vice-President Tajani and the
two EC Working Groups

Biodiversity Good Practice Guidelines

UEPG has actively engaged with


the EC Raw Materials Initiative
since 2007, initially with
Commission VP Gnter Verheugen
Key issue for UEPG was Access to
Local Resources
Lobbying now being pursued with
Commission VP Antonio Tajani
Since February 2011, initiative has
become the Raw Materials Strategy
Now followed by Communication
on Resource Efficiency
Aggregates supply & Access to
Local Resources has high EU profile

Recommended developing
national aggregates plans

There are many EU and national


guidelines for Aggregates Industry

National Minerals/Aggregates Plans

Developing an Aggregates Plan


Estimate Aggregates Demand for next 20 years!
Where are Resources geologically available?
Which of these areas are best to extract, accounting
for Environment, Land Uses, Communities, NGOs?
Set up a fair and efficient Permitting System for the
Industry, ideally based on a one-stop-shop basis!
Review Plan every 5 years!

Legal versus Illegal Quarrying


Legal Quarrying
Responsible
Safe
Compliant with Permits
Pays Taxes
Long Term Employer
Good Operations
Biodiversity & Restoration
Quality Products
Good Community Relations
Supports Industry
Initiatives & Association

Illegal Quarrying
Irresponsible
Unsafe
Non-compliant with Permits
Does not pay Taxes
Temporary Employer
Poor Operations
No Biodiversity or
Restoration
Poor Quality Products
Bad Community Relations
Cowboys

Some Other Considerations


Aggregates Industry must operate
responsibly, and in turn needs legal
certainly
Illegal operators should not be allowed
Permitting process must be transparent,
fair, and both time- and cost-effective
There needs to be good communication,
diplomacy and understanding between
all stakeholders involved in the
consultation process
It may take time to develop an
Aggregates Plan, but success will be a
real win-win for all involved!

A word on Recycled Aggregates


Recycled Aggregates can
be an important part of
aggregates supply
However recycling is often
economic only in urban
areas where there are
constraints on disposal of
Construction & Demolition
materials
Recycling requires good
quality control to produce
good quality secondary
aggregates

Who are the Stakeholders?

What is the Consultation Objective?


To develop an Aggregates Plan
for Greece, covering the next
20+ years
To ensure an optimal,
economic and sustainable
supply of Aggregates over that
time period...
To meet Greeces
infrastructural and economic
development needs
A Plan that is agreed and
supported by all stakeholders!
All stakeholders are looking for
the best solution for Society!

Regulators & Planning Authorities


Environmental
& Transport
Authorities

The Media?

Aggregates
Plan

Aggregates
Industry (or
Association)
Communities,
NGOs & Society

Municipalities & Cities

Recycled Aggregates

To conclude..

188mt represents 4.9% of


total EU demand, fairly
constant over recent years
Recycling most attractive in
major cities/islands
Greek figure likely to remain
fairly small
Every good luck with your
stakeholder consultation!
It is a very important task
Thanks for your attention, I
am very grateful and
honoured to be with you
today!

16

17

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

.2. :1:

.2.1 . ():

, . ,
2 .
,
,
,,
.
.

. ,
..., . ,
Brien. .. (
), 3 91% .
, ,
,
, 50%2009
. 2012 30
.2013,.
. .

. ,
,....
,
.

. 2002,
20% ,
.,
.,
,
.
.
,.,
, ,

18

[1 SNAPSEE]

[2014]

, 1,5 2 . ,
..

, ,
.
. 100

. .
. ,
.,
, 1428 , .
, , ..
. SARMA
, .
, .
38,
,
. 4042
. 2020.
334 , 5328 ( )
, ....
,
2012 .
.

. ,
.
,
,23,
,.
, ,
,
. ,
, ,

, ,
....
.:
.
:,
,
SARMa .
,

19

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

20

,
, .
, .
:
natura,
,
,.
:
, ,
. , .
, , ,
3040 6070

.
, ,

,

. ,
( ) .
.
, .
.
, ,
,
,,
.
.
SARMa
,,,
,
.
.,
.
,,
.
,
..
(nogozones),
. ,
.
: ,
nogozones,
.,

[1 SNAPSEE]

[2014]

(6)
, ,
,
.
SARMa
,,
. SNAPSEE
.
.
,,
,,
...,,
.
),,
,

40,,.
.
.,
(
.
, ,
.
,
(??)
.

.
.
,
,(
.. ).

,
.

..

21

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

[1 SNAPSEE]

[2014]

:.
:.

18.000/.(2./.)
250185..
114.000./.

.
,

,
7 2014

,



,,...

(510/.)

(30 40.)

,
20%
,
.(..2002)

1,52./(2)

(2)
()

(1)

3.

3
.
91%

5%
.



()

(..)

N587/1914""

.1428/1984(43/)()
.2115/1993(15/)(. )
.2576/1998 (25/) 8
.2702/1999(70/) 6,7,814.
.2837/2000(178/) 712
.2947/2001 (228/) 9
.3190/2003(249/) 19
.3335/2005(95/) 1317
.3438/2006(33/) 14
.4001/2011(179/) 182,183
.4203/2013 (235/) 17

20092012
250.000

2009

2010

2011

2012

166.773

(000)

150.000

()

194.814.893 166.773.465

94.432.887

76.130.875

()*

82.000.000

39.000.000

31.000.000

100.000

70.000.000

94.432
82.000

39.000

31.000

: Latomet *()

76.130

70.000

50.000

22


,
,
,
..1219/38(191. ')

*1000

194.814

200.000

2009

2010

2011

2012

23

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

[1 SNAPSEE]

[2014]

:.

:.

.4042(24//13.2.2012)

2008/99/
2008/98/
,.

..334/1994(176)
:

89/106//21.12.1988,
93/68//22.7.1993,

,.
,
,
5328/122/2007(386//20.3.2007),
.


(2008/98/)
,,
11.2
2020
70% ()


(6070)



(,,)

,
.
.

.
.

2.

1.:
. .

1.

(126202002)
(13043
2002)
(131392002)
(132422002)
(
134502002)
(133831
2002)
(1305512002
1305522004)

24


Natura.

.998/79


,.

,
SARMa .

5328/122/232007

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

(2)

(
).
SARMa
(SustainableAggregatesResourcesManagement)
.

.

.

.

Spanish
NationalAggregates
Association(ANEFA)
.

,:

()

:www.aridos.org

http://materiaux.brgm.fr/SchemasCarrieres.aspx

25

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

[2014]

:.

4.:SERA(Sociallyand
EnvironmentallyResponsibleAggregate)

3.

("nogo"zones).
,
(
)


(NOGO)

(MAYBE)


(GOCAREFULLY)

http://www.geologie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/dokumente/p
df/poster/poster_2007_egu2007_heimar_at_al.pdf

(,)

.

.
2008
,18.000
275
400.000
.


1.

2.

3.

..

.
:?
24,1:
.
....

http://www.sercoinsc.com/blog_detalle.php?id=129

.2.2 .:

2 : , ,
,
,

.
.....

5.

26

[1 SNAPSEE]

,
, (
),,
, ... ,
,()
,
.
,

.
:()
, ,
, , ()

.

,

( ) ,

27

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]


. ?

,.
.
, ,
.
, ,
.

.
, ,
.

.
.

28


.
.
3982/2011

/

.15
.
.
,
.
.
, ,
.,
,
,
(9/1301958,
21/2012).

,.
, ,
, ,
.
(..
) .
,
,

[1 SNAPSEE]

[2014]



, .
10.4203/2013(
235)
,
3432/2013.

/ ,
, ,
.
,
.

.

,
,
,

. 4203/2013

.

3432/2013.

:
1.

,
.
.
,
,
.
2.


,:

. :

. ,
,
.
.
. ,

, .
.
3.

,
30.

4.

29

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

3.

5.

,
.

6.

7.

,
,.

8.

.
.

..,



.

9.

:
1.

5 [1:
5
.5.4011/2011
. 1412014

.
,..
,
.]
2.

:
.
. ,
,,:


.
. .

,.

30

[1 SNAPSEE]

..:

[2014]

,
.
.
.
4.

[2:,,
,
,.]
5.

(
).

[2:
,
.
.]
:
[2:
.
:]
1.


..
,.
,
.

2.


(
/).

3.


.
,
.

4.

,.,
.
(Aarhus,..)

.

..:

31

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

[1 SNAPSEE]

[2014]

:.

:.

32

33

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

[1 SNAPSEE]

[2014]

:.

:.

34

35

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

[1 SNAPSEE]

[2014]

:.

:.

(
Aarhus, ..)

.



..

,
.
.

36

37

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

.2.3 . ():

.
,,.

,
.,

.

38

[1 SNAPSEE]

[2014]

,...60%

,
.
.

.
.
,,
2012.??
,
,2004,
80.
.
90 .
. ,
,,
. (
)

.
, .
. .
,.
, ...
, , ,
,

, .. ,
.
.

.
,
.

.

. ,
.,
(),
,
.
,,
,.

,
NATURA. , ..
(.. ),
...

.
.....

.
. ,
.

..

,

. ,
, .
500
.

.,,67%

.
,
( ,
....,
,
. ..
, ,

.
........
....
. ?

39

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]


.
.

.

.
,

.
.


. ,
,,
, ,
,
,
, ... ...
.
.

40

[1 SNAPSEE]

.. .... ,
?? ( )

,.....
.,
500.
...
.
.
.
.

...
,.

..
,
,
...

.
,35
.:
?? ,
,.
??
???
, ??? ,
, 180

.
.
50%,
. ??
, , . (..:
),
, .
..

??? :
.
??:
.... ...

[2014]

41

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

[1 SNAPSEE]

[2014]

:.

:.

42

43

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

.3:2:

.3.1 . (/): SARM


SSM


, SARM SSM.
....
SARM, SARMa,

,
,
.,SustainableSupplyMix,

,
, (
)
.

,
, , .
,
.
().
,
.
,
.

.
,
,

, ?, ?,
?,,,
....,

44

[1 SNAPSEE]

[2014]

,
.
.

,
,
, ,
.
.
2002 ,
,
.,
.
..
,,

,.
,
,.
??
,
.

,
,
.
, .

, .,
,
,()
.
,
(,).
, . ,
,,
. , reports
,,
?,??
, : 1)
,,2)
.

45

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

.
.
6%
. marineaggregates
.
.
()
.

[1 SNAPSEE]

[2014]

:.

( )

.,
,().
.

,/
/ (
)
.
:/
, .
()

,
,
.


.
. ,
,
. ,
,
,

.
.

46

47

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

[1 SNAPSEE]

[2014]

:.

:.

48

49

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

.3.2 . ():

.
.
:

; .
,
.,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,.
2008/98/E
4042/2012. , ,
2006/21/E MineWasteDirective,
39624/2209/103/2009 ( 2076).
,,
2009 .
,
2009/360/,
, , .... , 2009/337/,

.
, , .
,,
,
,,
3 ,
.
.
, ,
,
.2009/359/,
.
,
, .

50

[1 SNAPSEE]

[2014]

.

.
, ,
.
, . ,
...
..
,
.


.,
,.
,



/ , 48

.().
,
, .
,,
,
, ,
.
().
:

. ,
,
,
,.
.(
).
, ,
. RiskAssessment
.
,,

focus,
.

51

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

,
.

.
.
, ,
, NATURA 2000.
,
; ; ,
;
.


.,
, ,
,,
(backfilling).
,
, , ,
,
. focus
,

,.backfilling
,
.
(),
.
2009,,
,
,
.
.
, ,

, ,
,
.
,
:
;
, .
,
,

52

[1 SNAPSEE]

[2014]

,
..

:.


, ,

(1 )

:

, ,

.

,
/
.....
07.02.2014

2009/337/,

III
2006/21/
2009/359/,
22 1 ) 2006/21/

2009/360/,
, 2006/21/
2009/358/,
22
1 ) 18 . 2006/21/
2009/335/,
2006/21/

- 2006/21/
-

39624/2209/103/2009
( 2076)


i)

-
-

ii)
,
iii) ,


/
: )
) (
)
5

iv)

v) .


, ,

53

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

[1 SNAPSEE]

.3.3 . ():
,

:.


/
/


.

/

/
7

,
, ).

5 1958/2012.

(
)
.


( )

(
)
9

10

54

[2014]

,
SARMaSNAPSEE,
.
. ,
, ,
.,
.
,

,
.
.,
,30%(2010).
,,.,
, .

,.,
, . .
.
..,,
.,
,
, , ,
..,

.
. 2006 MineWasteDirective
2009.
. , ,

, ,
.
. ,
(),
,
.
2009/359/ .

, .

55

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

56

,
.
,
,,
..
, , ,
, .
,
,
, ,
, ,

,,
,.
,
,,
,
,.
. (4) , 1.
, 2.
,3.logistics(:
,
,
.
,,
, 4.
, .
, ,
,
,
,,
, . ,

. ,

2008 ISTONE.
.
,,
.MineWasteDirective,

, , , ,

.,
,,2008,

[1 SNAPSEE]

[2014]

LATOMET, , .
, , ,
.,
,
.,
, 2%
. ,
5:1.
ISTONE.

57

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

[1 SNAPSEE]

[2014]

:.
:.
3 ..., : "

1.
2.
3.
4.

S<0,1%S<1%<3

<
()
5.

()

,
, ,M.Sc.Ph.D,

21.2.2014

1,72014,,

2006/21/

(39624/2009/103,
13588/725/2006,.2009/359/,.
2009/360/)

1,72014,,

01/12/ 2009 ECHMES Ltd. .. .

21.2.2014

/ &

&
:

,.
/

(
,,
,)

IStone(2008):EU
Integratedproject

1,72014,,

EU27,2010,

1,72014,,

.,
21.2.2014

1,72014,,

.,

.,
21.2.2014

2009/359/:5
:

21.2.2014

&

58

( MWD2006/21,39624/2209/103)


,



,
,

IStone(2008):EU

IStone(2008):EU
Integratedproject

Integratedproject

59

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

[1 SNAPSEE]

[2014]

:.

:.

,

,


/
:

&
:

,
,

,,

,750,000t
1,72014,,

www.latomet.gr

<<<
,~2%.

EE,2009,MWD

1,72014,,
.,

21.2.2014


, 2013

.,
21.2.2014

www.latomet.gr

/
,
.

>>>
EE,2009,MWD
1,72014,,

1,72014,,

.,
21.2.2014

.,

21.2.2014

...
1,72014,,
.,

21.2.2014

60

61

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

.3.4 . ():
,

, ()
2939/01.3854/10,.
4042/2012 36259/1757/103/2010
. 36259/1757/103/10,
, ,
,
,
.
( . 2 2
13588/725/2006),,

(6
13588/725/2006),,
,
,,
.
,.
,,,
, ,
. 36259/1757/103/10
. ,

. ,

,
().,
(),
.
(:
, . ,
.,

.
.)

62

, . 2011
(2011/753/.) ,
, , ,
.,,,
(7)

[1 SNAPSEE]

[2014]

,
.,
,
,
, .
.
, , . ,
,,
, , .
,
.,,
.
,
. ,
,
(). ,
,
, ,
,.
(..) ,

.,
, ,
,,
, . ,
,
. , 2015, 50%
(),
., ,
70% 2020.
,..2939/01,
2001
,,.
, . ,
,
,.,2011
, 2010 ,
(14).,
,,,,
..,
..
.
,
,

63

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

.
(15)54

,.
, , laser
Roedgen. 10
,.
..2020
. ,
, .
,,2004,
,
,
,2004,
.
.....

.
,
.,
,.
, , ,
. ,
,
.
.,
, .
Eurostat
.

40.4030/2011,
, .

, .

[1 SNAPSEE]

:.

) 2939/01

) 3854/2010

/ ...
SNAPSEE
2014

) 4042/12
) 36259/1757/103/2010



..
,
,
.
&

.
3

,,
,
,

.

2011/753/

64

[2014]

65

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

[1 SNAPSEE]

[2014]

:.

:.

)
,,

).
).
)
.
)

,
.

13


...

10

.
.
.

.
.
.

15

16

..

.
&

,,,&
.
404030/11
/,


.

.

.

.

50%2015
70%2020

11

.
.

..

RECYCLONDOM

.&..

...

.
..
......

14

(
).
.
.
.
..
.
..

2939/01
3854/10.

12

17

18

.
.

66

67

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

.4 : 3
:

.4.1 . ( ):

..(...:)..........................................................
,
, ,
. . , ,
,,
,
. ,

. , 1500 ,
,
, . . ,
, 20% 80% , .
, , ,
.
,
,
,
.,
. ,
, ,
, ,
,
.

.
.
,
, 22. .
.,
20032008, , , 4 .
, .

68

[1 SNAPSEE]

[2014]

, , o
o .
.,,
50%,
.2003,
, .
, , ,
. ,
, ,
,
,
.,
,

.,,.,
2011 50.000
.
,
,
(, ), ,
,,
,
, ,
. ,
,.PSV
.,
, ,
,
. (...:
)
.2010,
,
, .
,,15%,
,,
(, ) ,
, .
.

, , ,
.
, ,
, 2 ..

69

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

, 300.000 ,
,.
, .
1985
2000,5..,
,.
EN1971,,
,.,
15 30
,
,EN1971.
,
, , .
EN1971, . 2014
. ,
10%Portland,

,.
,
,

.
,,
,.
, 8,4%
, 90%
. , , 25 .
.,2,5%
, 26 .
:100.000,100.000,100.000
300.000.,25.
,,
.

[1 SNAPSEE]

[2014]

:.

.....

....

..

70

71

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

[1 SNAPSEE]

[2014]

:.

:.

.....

95 - 97

83 - 90

Fe2O3

0.4 - 1.4

2.0 - 3.5

CaCO3

SiO2

0.8 - 1.9

2.0 - 6.0

Al2O3

0.3 - 0.8

0.3 - 1.0

MgO

0.3 - 0.7

0.8 - 6.0

Cr2O3

0.01 - 0.08

0.08 - 0.15

.....

15,0 .
.
5,5.

1,5.

22,0.

Los Angeles
(ASTM C131-1996)

25 - 28 %


(ASTM C88-1990)
( )

1.4 - 2.5 %


(AASHTO T-176/2000)

70 - 80

( 408)

64 - 71 Mpa

72

73

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

[1 SNAPSEE]

[2014]

:.

:.

.....

.....

20

()

50

15

(OSH)

Los Angeles

5
7

2,8

()

1,47

.....

....

3540(c/s)/gr*104

<200(c/s)/gr*104

....

...

...

74

5,88

0,16

0,04

Fe total

6,32

SiO2

54,60

CaO

8,19

MgO

5,21

Al2O3

16,21

CaCO3

14,66


....
&

.....


( )

AIV

PSV

AAV

12

15

2SO4

MgSO4

12

10

17

57 61
3


...

: ,
EN12457.04As,Ba,
Cd,Cr,Cu,Hg,Mo,Ni,Pb,Sb,Se,
2003/33/
Zn,(Cl,F,SO4)
.

75

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

[1 SNAPSEE]

[2014]

:.

:.

&

%
8,4%

%
22,0
84,0%
2,0
7,6%

26,2

FeNi

%
0,1
4,5%
0,4%

/
/

%
0,1
4,5%
2,0
90,9%
0,4%
7,6%

2,2
26,2

%
1,7
85,0%
6,5%

2,0
26,2

2,2


300.000

%
0,3
15,0%
1,1%

19852000
5.

(.)

%
8,4%

....

2,2

2,5%
(26)

.
100.000& (0,4%)
100.000
(0,4%)
100.000(0,4%)
300.000
(1,1%)

%
22,0
84,0%
2,0
7,6%

25.

,
,

26,2

.....

....

76

77

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

.4.2 . ():

,
,
, .
,
.,
,.
.

.
,
, , ,
,
,
CE.
,,,.
, , .
2008,
, ,
.,
(),
,
. ,
,
,
, . ,
,

,
. , 6
70%,.
.
,
,
,
.,,.
,50%
, ,
.
,
25 50% .

78

[1 SNAPSEE]

[2014]

, .
,,
.
,.
,
. (. )
. ,
,.,
, ,
..,
,
.
,
. ,
, ,
ISO14001,

. 40
,
,
.
,
, ,
, ,
, .
.,
,
. .
,
,
,
.
, ,
, .
,
.,
. , ,
,
. ,
. ,
,
,

,,

79

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

,
,,
,
,
.

[1 SNAPSEE]

[2014]

:.

:.

80

81

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

[1 SNAPSEE]

[2014]

:.

:.

82

83

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

84

[2014]

:.

[1 SNAPSEE]

.4.3 . (LAFARGE):

LAFARGE

. ,
,,
.
. .
.
SNAPSEE. , ,
. LAFARGE 10
3.(
2),,
.
.. , 669/77.
.,
.
.
, , ,
. .
, ,

.
,....,
,,
, . .
.
,
. .
, ,
.
...
.
,
.,,
. ,
. ,
,
. ,
,
, .
.,
, , ,
.

85

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

.
(
5).,,
,
. ,
. 8 . 2115
.
. . ,
,.
,,.
,
(.. )
.

,.
, .

,
,
, .
,
().
, . .

.

.()
.
() , , ...

,
.,
,
.
.

[
1

SNAPSEE]

[2014]

:.

86

87


SNA
APSEE]
[201
14] [1

88

[2014]

:
.

[1 SNAPSEE]

.4.4 . (HALYPS):

HALYPS
./HAPYPS
ITALCEMENTIGROUP.
, , ,
, . ,
.,
22,4.53,10
, 7 , 449 115 .
2012 4,5 . .
, .
.
,
.
. ,
,
,.,
,,
, .
201313.5,
100%,.
HALYPS,
, .
,
,
, ISO 14001.
520 . ,
.HALYPSISO
9001&14001CE.1400
.12
,.
.
, , ,
(), , , /
.,,
, , .
, .
(),
,CE,
. . , ,
.
. , ,

89

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

, .
,
.HALYPS.
. 3..
,,..
. (, CE
, ) ,
.,,.
,,30,
, 3 .
().
,,
. .
.

[1 SNAPSEE]

[2014]

:.

:.

90

91

[2014] [1 SNAPSEE]

:.

92

Copyright

&&/.....
....(25200/2011)
13677
.2131337012