performance and economic waste assessment: proceedings of the second be-aware workshop, 2007

7/28/2019 PERFORMANCE AND ECONOMIC WASTE ASSESSMENT: Proceedings of the Second Be-Aware Workshop, 2007

1/76

1

Performance and Economic Waste Assessment: 2nd

BeAware Workshop.

Copyright of LabSearch, a working title of Dr Malcolm Sutherland 2013

BE-AWARE Work Package 3 Deliverable 3.4

PERFORMANCE AND ECONOMIC WASTE ASSESSMENT

Proceedings of the Second Be-Aware WorkshopHeld at BRE, Watford, 5 February 2007

Mohamed Osmani, Andrew Price, Malcolm Sutherland

(Loughborough University)

Completed March 2007

REVISED MAY 2013:portions of the original document have been scanned, including original

tables of findings by the workshop delegates


2/76

2


BeAware Workshop.


Executive Summary

Representatives of construction product manufacturing companies, demolition and

refurbishment contractors and consultancies met to discuss the limiting factors which

restrict the recycling or re-use of waste materials, at the Second BeAware Workshop

(entitled: Performance and Economic Waste Assessment) held at BRE, Watford on 5

February 2007.

The arms of the workshop were to identify the factors which currently inhibit waste

recycling or re-use, and to propose solutions for addressing such limiting factors. Waste

materials considered during the workshop included by-products, which currently are being

recycled or re-used to a certain extent, as well as residues being sent to landfill.

The workshop was attended by delegates from a range of sectors in (or associated with) the

construction Industry. Delegates were divided into 7 clusters, as based on these sectors.

The delegate groups were as follows;

- Cluster 1: cement, concrete, bricks and blocks;

- Cluster 2: insulation and drywall;

- Cluster 3: plastics;

- Cluster 4: wood/timber;

- Cluster 5: "catch-all" manufacturers;

- Cluster 6: demolition and refurbishment contractors; and,

- Cluster 7: consultants.

The workshop consisted of two activities:

Activity A: Limiting Factors (whereby delegates listed examples of economic, material

performance-related (and other) factors which restrict recycling or re-use of waste materials

in their sector).

Activity B: Addressing Limiting Factors (whereby delegates provided suggestions for

addressing the limiting factors for selected waste materials within their sector).

During Activity A, delegates individually and collectively considered: (i) limiting factorswithin both an economic context (e.g. the costs and profitability of waste reprocessing, and

available markets); and (ii) a material performance-based context [e.g. the physical or

chemical safety and durability of the material). Delegates also provided examples of other

types of limiting factors (e.g. unfavourable legislation, or lack of Information on recycling

techniques).

Among the identified economic aspects, nearly all delegate clusters identified high waste

transportation costs, waste sorting/collection costs, and low recyclate market values as

deterrents which limited the re-use or recycling of various waste materials within their

sectors. Delegates in the Cement, Concrete, Bricks and Blocks cluster agreed that most


3/76

3


BeAware Workshop.


waste streams from their sector were costly to recycle and transport. Delegates within the

Insulation and Drywall busier also noted high waste transportation costs.

Delegates in the plastics sector reported that plastic waste streams were often too

insignificant to justify salvaging. It was reported that timber waste streams could be costly

to transport, and that markets (and market values) for recycling timber waste may be

limited. Delegates within the Demolition and Refurbishment Contractors cluster noted high

waste sorting/collection and transportation costs, as well as unattractive markets for

plasterboard, timber, glass and plastics waste streams.

The reported material performance-based limiting factors tended to vary between different

waste material streams. However, most delegates noted that waste materials may be

Intermingled and contaminated with unrelated waste materials or other impurities

particularly during demolition. Several delegates mentioned that certain waste materials

may be difficult to reprocess as a result. For example, waste materials such as damaged

bricks/blocks, and wood panel off-cuts may be of unsuitable size or shape, and used timbermay contain nails (which must be removed). It was also reported that certain waste

materials (e.g. WESP sludge) were classed as hazardous.

Other limiting factors were identified for some of the waste materials considered during

Activity A. These included a lack of understanding or negative perception of recycled

bricks/blocks, plastics and treated timber. Issues such as red tape and unfavourable waste

management legislation were also mentioned, particularly for waste timber, and

damaged/demolished bricks/blocks.

For Activity B. each delegate cluster provided suggestions for addressing the limiting factorsaffecting two waste materials. Most clusters expressed the need to develop higher-quality

recycled products, provide more recycling plants, change contracts to enable more

thorough waste sorting on-site, as well as educating construction and demolition site

workers on better sorting techniques. For certain waste streams such as timber and plastics,

delegates suggested providing more technical or market information on recycling and reuse

opportunities, and expanding existing markets for recycled products. Many delegates also

advised that the landfill tax should be significantly increased to further encourage recycling

or re-use.

Delegates also speculated on the time period necessary for achieving these objectives. Formost recommendations, the predicted time period usually varied between different waste

materials, although recommendations such as improving site waste management (inducing

more waste sorting and educating site workers) were mostly considered to be short or

medium term solutions.

The data collected during the workshop will be used to develop a methodology for selecting

a number of waste materials, which in turn will be tested further in the laboratory in order

to optimise their recycling potential.


4/76

4


BeAware Workshop.


Contents

1: Introduction page 5

2: Workshop planning and organisation page 5

3: Workshop delivery pages 6, 7

4: Results pages 8 - 13

4.1: Cluster 1: Cement, concrete, bricks and blocks pages 8, 9

4.2: Cluster 2: Insulation and drywall page 9

4.3: Cluster 3: Plastics pages 9, 10

4.4: Cluster 4: Wood/timber pages 10, 114.5: Cluster 5: Catch-all manufacturers page 11

4.6: Cluster 6: Demolition and Refurbishment page 11, 12

4.7: Cluster 7: Consultants pages 12, 13

4.8: Summary and findings pages 13, 14

5: Final summary and recommendations page 14

6: Acknowledgements page 15

Tables (1 through 18) pages 16 - 26

Table 1 page 16 Table 7 page 18 Table 13 page 21



Tables 4a, 4b page 17 Table 10 page 20 Table 16 page 24



Appendices (1 through 13) pages 27 - 76

Appendix 1 pages 27, 28

Appendix 2 pages 29 - 33













5/76

5


BeAware Workshop.


1: Introduction

This workshop followed the First BeAware Workshop, a waste mapping survey, and a

literature review of waste characterisation methods.

The First BeAware Workshop was held at BRE on 1 May 2006, where waste materials arising

from different construction industry sectors were identified and ranked in terms of their

recycling potential (Appendix 1). Following the success of the first workshop, a waste

mapping exercise was then developed. This entailed an investigation into the causes,

financial costs, potential market value and current recycling status of waste materials being

produced by construction product manufacturers who participated in a survey (Appendix 2).

The waste mapping survey was followed by a literature review addressing the approaches,

technologies and methodologies of waste characterisation (Appendix 3).

The Second BeAware Workshop, entitled Performance and Economic Waste Assessment,was held at BRE, Watford, on 5 February 2007, and was attended by over 40 representatives

from construction product manufacturers, demolition and refurbishment contractors, and

industry consultancies. The aim of the workshop was to examine the economic and waste

material performance-based limiting factors of cross-sector wastes indentified in the First

BeAware Workshop. Delegates also provided recommendations for addressing the factors

limiting the recycling or re-use of selected waste materials.

2: Workshop Planning and Organisation

The workshop agenda, flyer and facilitated activities were designed by BRE, the Construction

Products Association, and Loughborough University. Following an agreement on the

workshop date and agenda, the workshop flyer was finalised and emailed to all BeAware

partners for feedback.

The workshop flyer (Appendix 4) contained a summary of the BeAware project, the aims and

expected outcomes of the workshop, and the benefits of attending the workshop. Once

the flyer was finalised, companies and organisations within a wide variety of sectors of the

construction industry were contacted (by telephone, fax, letter, and email), and delegates

were invited to attend the workshop.

Delegates who had attended the First BeAware Workshop were contacted by email and by

telephone. Over 150 other companies and organisations were contacted by telephone,

especially within the metals, cement, bricks/blocks and concrete manufacturing sectors.

Further contacts with potential delegates were made during a visit to a workshop

(Construction waste - strategic approach to materials and waste) at the CPA, London (17

January 2007). 42 delegates attended the workshop in total, and were grouped Into 7

delegate clusters (Appendix 5).


6/76

6


BeAware Workshop.


3: Workshop Delivery

The workshop was chaired by Jane Thornback (Construction Products Association), who

delivered a welcoming introduction to the workshop, and a closing speech at the end of the

session.

The welcoming introduction was followed by two presentations, prior to the workshop

activities. The first presentation (Appendix 6) was produced by Gilli Hobbs (BRE) and

delivered by Amanda Conroy (BRE), win gave an overview of the BeAware project aims,

objectives and expected outcomes. The second presentation (Appendix 7) was delivered by

Malcolm Sutherland (Loughborough University), who described the aims and

accomplishments for Work Package 3, and introduced the facilitated activities.

The workshop consisted of two activities:

Activity A: Limiting Factors (whereby delegates listed examples of economic, material

performance-related (and other) factors which restrict recycling or re-use of waste materials

in their sector).

Activity B: Addressing Limiting Factors (whereby delegates provided suggestions for

addressing the limiting factors for selected waste materials within their sector).

For Activity A, each cluster was provided with two flipcharts. On the first (Appendix 5), the

top-ranked waste material was highlighted In bold, and the delegates were instructed to

provide information concerning limiting factors affecting this material.

For Clusters 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 (see Appendix 5), the "top-ranked" material was that which was

considered by the same cluster In the First BeAware Workshop to have the highest recycling

potential. For other clusters, opinions of top-ranked waste materials were collected through

contacting some registered delegates by telephone or email. Waste streams which they

considered to be most significant and with limited recycling potential were selected as top-

ranked" waste materials. For each cluster, three other materials (identified in Workshop 1)

or named by delegates via telephone or email were also listed on the first flipchart. The

second flipchart (Appendix 9) was provided for delegates to Iist other materials of their own

choosing.

Activity A lasted 35 minutes. In the first 20 minutes, delegates were asked to individually list

one economic, one technical, and one other limiting factor (optional) for (1) the top-ranked

material; and (2) a second material of their own choice. Each limiting factor was written on a

separate post-it note, and was ranked as:

C: Critical (could prevent recycling of re-use);

M: Moderate (could restrict recycling or re-use); and,

L: Low (does not usually impede recycling or re-use).


7/76

7


BeAware Workshop.


Examples of limiting factors include:

- Economic:

o high costs of transporting waste material;

o lack of recycling contractors or facilities in local area;o limited market of recycled / salvaged materials or products;

- Technical(material performance-based):

o physical or mechanical deficiencies (e.g. fracturing, frost erosion or being prone to

mechanical failure);

o chemical (e.g. impurities, corrosive reactions);

- Other factors:

o "red tape" (e.g. bureaucracy, administrative overheads);o complicated waste management legislation; or,

o lack of information or knowledge about recycling or re-use.

During the last 15 minutes of Activity A, delegates in each cluster collectively discussed their

findings, identified gaps, discarded duplicated information, and placed their post-its on the

flipcharts. At the end of Activity A, each cluster selected a second waste material alongside

the top-ranked waste material, both of which were then discussed in Activity B.

In Activity B, two flipcharts were provided tor all clusters, except the Insulation and Drywall

cluster (for which four were provided: two for the insulation sector; and another two for thedrywall sector). The first flipchart (Appendix 10) was devoted to the top-ranked waste

material. The second flipchart (Appendix 11) was devoted to another waste material

selected by the cluster.

For the first 20 minutes of Activity B, delegates individually provided suggestions for

addressing one economic, one technical, and one other (optional) limiting factor for both

waste materials. Each suggestion was written on an individual post-it, and was ranked as:

- Short-term (i.e. could be accomplished over the next 12 months);

- Medium-term (i.e. could be accomplished over the next 3 years); or,- Long-term (i.e. would take more than 3 years to accomplish).

During the last 15 minutes Of Activity B, delegates in each cluster collectively discussed their

findings, identified gaps, discarded duplicated suggestions, and placed their post-its onto

the flipcharts.

Activities A and B were followed by a plenary session led by Andrew Price (Loughborough

University}, during which individual delegates from each cluster summarised their findings

and suggestions, and particular issues were collectively debated.

The plenary session was followed by a presentation delivered by Mohamed Osmani


8/76

8


BeAware Workshop.


(Appendix 9), who outlined the next stages of The BeAware project, and invited delegates to

contribute to the BeAware project by completing a form contained in each delegate pack

(Appendix 10).

4: Workshop Results

The post-it notes written and placed on the flipcharts during both activities are reproduced

in Tables 1 to 14. (Top-ranked" waste materials are highlighted in bold.) These results (as

well as some of the issues raised during the plenary session) are discussed in sections 4.1 to

4.7. The workshop findings (including rankings) of economic, technical and other limiting

factors are also summarised in Tables 15 to 17 respectively.

4.1: Cluster 1: Cement, Concrete, Bricks/Blocks

Limiting factors (Table 1)

For waste materials within this sector, the most commonly reported economic limiting

factors included the costs of transportation and reprocessing; these issues were listed

beside all waste materials (with the exception of cement kiln dust). However, the disposal of

cement kiln dust carried a significant economic cost, due to its hazardous (special) waste

classification, which also prohibits its recycling or re-use. Other limiting factors reported by

delegates included low recyclate market value (tor bricks and blocks from demolition, and

expired cement), and limited markets for recycled materials (for damaged unsalable

products).

The reported technical limiting factors tend to differ between listed waste materials.

Physical and chemical limiting factors included variable or reduced quality of the material,

adverse changes to the material properties, or the presence of impurities. Environmental

limiting factors included the significant energy consumption and emissions arising from

reprocessing (of damaged or unsalable products, and packaging waste), and the strong

alkalinity of cement kiln dust.

Other limiting factors reported by the delegates mainly included the perception amongst

potential users of recycled materials being inferior in quality compared with primaryproducts. For expired cement and damaged or unsalable products, delegates raised

concerns over who is responsible for handling the waste materials (ownership). They also

noted that demolition contracts (involving bricks and blocks) may not accommodate

sufficient on-site sorting, therefore restricting recycling and re-use.

Suggestions for Addressing Limiting Factors (Table 2)

The delegates selected bricks/blocks from demolition as a second waste stream for

discussion. Several of the recommendations included fiscal or regulatory measures (mainly

on a short-term basis), including increasing the landfill tax, introducing site wastemanagement plans in order to impose waste sorting procedures, or penalising construction


9/76

9


BeAware Workshop.


product designers for creating products susceptible to breakage. Other recommendations

included further research into optimising applications of damaged/demolished products,

developing new markets for recycled materials, improving product design, and educating

construction/demolition site workers on waste management.

4.2: Cluster 2: Insulation and Drywall

For the workshop activities, two top-ranked waste materials were listed and discussed - one

from the drywall sector, the other from the insulation sector. In addition, drywall waste

from demolition was also discussed, although only the top-ranked materials were discussed

in Activity B.

Limiting Factors (Table 3)

For all the waste materials, the costs of transportation were considered to be an economiclimiting factor. In addition, it was reported that the market for insulation product trimmings

was very limited, with low recyclate market value. Amongst the technical limiting factors,

contamination was considered to be an issue for all three waste streams. The difficulties in

processing insulation trimmings were also highlighted, owing to their composite contents

(i.e. composed of several materials).

Suggestions for Addressing Limiting Factors

For drywall off-cuts arising from construction sites (Table 4a), the main recommendation

was more education to site workers on off-cuts sorting and recycling. Improving the logisticsof delivering new and retrieving demolished drywall materials on a nation-wide scale were

also recommended, since off-cut arisings occur sporadically at a local level.

For insulation dust/trimmings (Table 4b), further research into extracting and re-using the

individual composite materials within insulation boards was recommended. In addition,

delegates suggested that raising the landfill tax, and increasing sorting of insulation waste

on-site would contribute to greater recycling or re-use.

4.3: Cluster 3: Plastics


Delegates listed limiting factors for the top tour waste streams ranked by delegates from

the same cluster in Workshop 1. Two significant economic limiting factors were low waste

stream volumes, and expensive transportation of QRP, PVC and polyethylene due to their

low density. For GRP and PVC, contamination of waste materials, and low recyclate market

values were also reported. Another listed economic limiting factor was the difficulty of

separating polyurethane materials from insulation. Amongst the technical limiting factors,

the most commonly listed issues were the difficulty of segregation, plus contamination ofwaste streams; these issues were deemed serious enough to restrict or even prevent


10/76

10


BeAware Workshop.


recycling. For PVC, colour separation was also cited as a technical difficulty, whilst recycled

polyethylene was reported to degrade more easily.


In addition to GRP, the delegates also selected PVC tor discussion during Activity B. For both

materials, the delegates recommended that subsidies for recycling be introduced as

economic remedies; in addition, it was suggested that markets for recycled GRP should be

identified. The main technical solution is to address waste stream contamination as soon as

possible. Another technical recommendation is to improve product design, as well as

developing processes for returning and re-using discarded materials (for PVC). Possible

medium-to-long term strategies included altering levies and taxation, in order to redress the

contrast between market prices of primary and recycled GRP and PVC.

4.4: Cluster 4: Wood/Timber


During Activity A, delegates listed limiting factors for six materials, although it was also

mentioned that sawdust and chippings produced in sawmills are completely recycled at

present. In some sawmills, residues may be incinerated to produced ash, for which

transportation costs were also reported to be a significant limiting factor.

Low recyclate market values were reported to be a significant economic limiting factor for

wood panel off-cuts, plastic packaging and treated wood. For WESP (wet electrostaticprecipitator) sludge, the cost of hazardous waste disposal was highlighted.

For treated wood and panel off-cuts, technical difficulties generally related to their physical

(e.g. chippings, fibres) and chemical composition (e.g. preservatives in treated wood).

Chemical contaminants were also a significant technical issue associated with WESP sludge.

Among other limiting factors, it was reported that the incineration of treated wood is

restricted under current waste incineration laws, and that current landfill taxation may be

too low to deter site contractors from disposing of panel off-cuts.


Alongside wood panel off-cuts, delegates also selected WESP sludge for discussion during

Activity B. For wood panel off-cuts, economic remedies included further research into

enhancing sorting waste materials on-site, improving the efficiency of recycling techniques,

and increasing awareness of the financial benefits of reprocessing off-cute. Delegates

suggested that the landfill tax should be increased further. They also recommended further

research into applications for standardised wood panels, as well as developing a less energy-

intensive technique for separating wood material from encapsulating resins.

Few recommendations were provided for WESP sludge (possibly since it is classified ashazardous). In general, delegates highlighted the need to identify potential industries which


11/76

11


BeAware Workshop.


could utilise the residue, or to develop more suitable alternatives to replace WESP sludge

production.

4.5: Cluster 5: "Catch-all" Manufacturers


Delegates discussed the limiting factors affecting a wide range of waste streams. The main

economic limiting factors included the costs of waste processing and transportation, as well

as low recyclate market value. Likewise, technical limiting factors often related to the

difficulty of sorting and processing different waste materials, namely timber (e.g. de-nailing

and removing contaminants), and glass (colour separation). In addition, the presence of

hazardous chemicals in process sludge, treated wood, MDF and wastes from tins were

highlighted. For plastic packaging- the need to identify and sort different plastic materials

was raised.

Other limiting factors included the lack of recycling centres, and confusion over

responsibility for waste handling under current legislation. In addition, the cost of recycling

materials such as plasterboard and timber was reported to exceed current landfill disposal

costs. Several of these issues were said to currently prevent the recycling of several of the

waste streams detailed in Table 9.


The delegates provided recommendations for increasing the recycling and re-use ofpackaging wastes (timber and plastic). For wood packaging, the main recommendation was

to develop pallets of standard dimensions, which could be more easily retrieved and re-used

- although this strategy would probably take a few years to accomplish. In the meantime, it

was suggested that pallet usage be limited. No short-term solutions for plastic packaging

were raised, although greater segregation and awareness of different plastic materials was

recommended.

4.6: Cluster 6: Demolition and Refurbishment Contractors


Delegates focussed on five waste streams. For several materials, low recyclale market

values and limited existing markets were identified as economic factors. High transport

costs were identified as limiting factors affecting timber and plastics. The costs of retrieving

and sorting plasterboard, plastics and timber waste were reported. In addition, storage

space for timber and demolished bricks was also considered to be a limiting factor, which

could prevent their being recycled. The costs of sorting waste, and the unattractive markets

or market value could restrict or also prevent recycling or re-use.

There was almost unanimous concern over the difficulty in segregating different waste


12/76

12


BeAware Workshop.


materials. In general, physical and chemical contamination of waste materials (e.g. nails in

timber, mixtures of plastic or wood waste) were listed. Some Health and Safety issues were

raised, including dust emanating from plasterboard disposal and processing, hazardous

preservatives in treated timber, and handling broken glass. In addition, MDF chipboard

waste contains hazardous resins, and the "10% rule" governing the sulphate content of

waste restricts the plasterboard content therein.


Delegates focussed on the limiting factors affecting plasterboard and timber waste streams.

In the shorter term, economic recommendations included raising the landfill tax, and

subsidising businesses trying to increase recycling/re-use. Longer-term remedies include

developing more recycling depots, and altering site contracts to allow for more waste

segregation (namely through site waste management plans (SWMPs)).

Delegates also recommended that further information should be produced on recyclingapplications, and greater efforts should be undertaken (through educating site workers, and

increasing the recycled content in buildings) to increase the recycling of plasterboard and

timber. It was also recommended that waste timber incineration should be increased in the

long-term, and that the "10% rule" restricting plasterboard disposal should be relaxed.

4.7: Cluster: Consultants


The consultants discussed the limiting factors for three types of packaging, as well as for

treated timber, plasterboard and glass. They also reported that the economic costs of

collecting and sorting timber and plastic packaging are prohibitive. Likewise, the incineration

of treated timber is also a financial hindrance (possibly due to hazardous waste regulations

stipulating higher combustion temperatures). Among "other" limiting factors, the delegates

identified social aspects such as negative perception within the construction industry of

utilising treated wood and recycling plastic packaging.

A common technical limiting factor affecting all wasle streams (except for timber packaging)

is contamination, and the fact that mixtures of similar materials (e.g. wood, glass) aredifficult to segregate. One important limiting factor affecting plastic waste streams is their

low density, particularly with polythene (due to its air content). The hazardous chemical

content in treated timber was also rated as a critical safety issue.


The consultants focussed on the limiting factors affecting plastic and timber packaging.

Their proposed economic solution was to develop more recycling facilities and increase

markets for recyclates. Enhanced recycling processes in the UK are also required in order to

counter the current export of polythene waste to China.


13/76

13


BeAware Workshop.


The delegates also suggested that site workers should be further educated on waste sorting

and recycling techniques, and that current waste licensing regulations should be altered in

order to allow greater reprocessing to develop. These potential solutions were predicted to

be achievable over the short or medium term.

4.8: Summary of Findings

The limiting factors identified by the seven delegate clusters are summarised in Tables 15 to

17. Economic limiting factors are summarised in Table 15. The most commonly reported

economic limiting factor was the cost of transporting waste materials, particularly plastic

waste streams (partly as a result of their low density, which necessitates using more

transport vehicles). Another widely reported economic limiting factor was the expense of

reprocessing materials, especially plastics (GRP, PVC) and demolished bricks/blocks. Low

recyclate market values were said to affect the utilisation of demolished bricks/blocks,

plastics (GRP, PVC), wood (e.g. panel off-cuts) and also plasterboard. A fourth widelyreported economic limiting factor were the economic costs of sorting, which affect

plasterboard, timber and plastic packaging, insulation trimmings and glass.

Technical limiting factors are summarised in Table 16. The main limiting factors include

separating out different materials from a complex mixture, the mechanical difficulty of

processing waste streams, and the reduced quality of recyclate materials, compared with

primary products or raw materials. Other physical limiting factors included low density

(especially with plastics), the presence and required removal of nails in timber, and

unsuitably shaped wood panels and demolished bricks/blocks, which prevent their re-use.

An important chemical (composition) limiting factor is the presence of impurities or

contaminants in waste streams, particularly with plasterboard from demolition (as

plasterboard can disintegrate and become intermingled with adjacent non-drywall

materials). Some environmental issues were reported, such as the high carbon "footprint"

(greenhouse gas emissions) arising from transporting and reprocessing damaged

bricks/blocks and packaging. Among health and safety issues, the most commonly reported

was the toxic/hazardous character of materials such as WESP sludge, treated timber and

MDF. In addition, the importance of colour-based segregation of glass and PVC waste

streams were highlighted.

Table 17 summarises oiher limiting factors described during the workshop. The main issue

was the perception of recycled materials being inferior in quality compared with primary

materials, although this was only highlighted by Cluster 1 (for damaged or demolished

products) and Cluster 7 (plastic and treated timber). Other issues such as bureaucracy, lack

of awareness of recycling/re-use opportunities, and ownership (i.e. who is responsible for

handling and processing waste materials) were also raised, but none of the limiting factors

in Table 17 affected a broad spectrum of waste materials.

Table 18 generalises the suggestions for addressing the limiting factors for the selected

waste materials discussed in Activity B. Although the comments written on post-its werecategorised (e.g. technical) in Tables 2, 4 (a, b), 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14, some recommendations


14/76

14


BeAware Workshop.


could redress both technical and economic issues at the same time. An example may be to

test and improve the mechanical quality of recycled products, thereby opening up new

markets or raising the value of the product. Although red tape and regulation were

considered to be issues under the "other" category in Activity A, measures such as raising

landfill tax also have economic implications. Table 18 therefore lists the recommendations

raised by delegates.

There appeared to be a general consensus that potential markets, more recycling plants and

better reprocessing technogbn logy is needed in order to increase timber and plastics

recycling or re-use. For timber and plastics waste (as well as damaged bricks/blocks), it was

also widely recommended that higher quality (and more marketable) recycled products

should be developed. Other recommendations tended to be less specifically addressed to

any particular waste materials. For bricks/blocks, concrete and cementitious waste

materials, there was a particular focus on improving site waste management methods,

allowing for more thorough segregation of waste materials, and introducing "take-back"

schemes for damaged items, all within the short term.

5: Final Summary and Recommendations

The Second BeAware Workshop delegates worked in seven cluster groups (each

representing a broad sector), and highlighted the economic and material performance-

related limiting factors (as well as other limiting factors, such as social or legal constraints,

e.g. waste legislation). Each delegate cluster then proposed suggestions for addressing the

limiting factors affecting (1) the "top-ranked" waste material, and (2) a second waste

material of their collective choosing.

During Activity A, delegates listed the limiting factors which restricted the recycling and re-

use of waste materials in their sector. Amongst the economic limiting factors listed by

delegates, the most common issues were the costs of transporting waste (e.g. to a recycling

plant), the low value of recycled products, and the difficulties in sorting and handling waste

materials on-site (which can be expensive, requiring time-consuming, labour-intensive

methods).

A widely reported limiting factor (based on the material performance) is the difficulty of

sorting a waste mixture into individual waste materials (especially with plastics). Somewaste materials were also noted to be potentially hazardous, namely cement kiln dust, MDF

and WESP sludge. Relatively few "other" limiting factors were listed; these included a

perception amongst potential clients that recycled products are of inferior quality, and

identifying which organisations are held responsible for waste handling or reprocessing.

In Activity B, delegates proposed suggestions for addressing the limiting factors for a

restricted number of waste materials. Several delegate clusters highlighted the need to

develop better markets for recycled waste materials, to provide more time, training and

resources for sorting and collecting waste material streams from construction/demolition

sites, and to provide more sites and technology for recycling. Some delegates also suggestedthat the landfill tax be raised further, or that construction product designers be penalised


15/76

15


BeAware Workshop.


for releasing breakable products onto the market.

There were also suggestions for developing higher-quality recycled/re-used products,

including plastics, wood, insulation, bricks/blocks, and concrete materials. Following from

the Second BeAware Workshop, further research will be conducted into the economic and

material performance-based aspects of the waste streams discussed (mainly) in Activity B.

This will focus on the existing markets for recycled materials, the market values of

recycled/re-used and primary products, the required waste material properties for

reprocessing, and the composition of waste material streams.

Further interviews are underway to collect data from some of the delegates who attended

the Second BeAware workshop, through waste mapping interviews, and a Performance and

Economic Waste Assessment (PEWA) survey interview.

Following the waste mapping and PEWA survey interviews, a methodology will be

developed, in order to select waste materials with high recycling potential, which in turn willbe investigated through laboratory testing, in order to develop and/or optimise applications

for re-use or recycling.

6: Acknowledgments

The authors express their gratitude for the advice, information and contribution given by

the BeAware project partners towards organising and delivering the workshop. The authors

would particularly like to thank Jane Thornback for communicating with people in industry,

and inviting them to attend and participate at the event. The advice of Dr. Jacqueline Glass

on designing activities for the workshop is also gratefully acknowledged.

The authors would like to thank the BeAware project partners for informing their members

of the event, and for their contribution at the workshop. The authors also extend their

thanks to other consultants and industry-based delegates who attended the workshop.

The authors express their thanks to the delegates who recommended a list of waste

materials to be discussed for each sector, particularly for the Insulation and Drywall, and the

Demolition and Refurbishment clusters.


16/76

16


BeAware Workshop.


Tables

Table 1: limiting factors identified by the Cement, Concrete, Bricks and Blocks cluster

Table 2: suggestions for addressing limiting factors (Cement, Concrete, Bricks and Blocks cluster)


17/76

17


BeAware Workshop.


Table 3: limiting factors identified by the Insulation and Drywall cluster

Table 4a: suggestions for addressing limiting factors: Drywall sector (off-cuts from construction sites); and

Table 4b: suggestions for addressing limiting factors: Insulation sector (dust/trimmings from manufacturers)

Table 5: limiting factors identified by the Plastics cluster


18/76

18


BeAware Workshop.


Table 6: suggestions for addressing limiting factors (Plastics cluster)

Table 7: limiting factors identified by the Wood/Timber cluster


19/76

19


BeAware Workshop.


Table 8: suggestions for addressing limiting factors (Wood/Timber cluster)

Table 9: limiting factors identified by the Catch-all manufacturers cluster


20/76

20


BeAware Workshop.


Table 10:suggestions for addressing limiting factors (Catch-all manufacturers cluster)

Table 11: limiting factors identified by the Demolition and Refurbishment cluster


21/76

21


BeAware Workshop.


Table 12: suggestions for addressing limiting factors (Demolition and Refurbishment cluster)

Table 13: limiting factors identified by the Consultants cluster


22/76

22


BeAware Workshop.


Table 14: suggestions for addressing limiting factors (Consultants cluster)


23/76

23


BeAware Workshop.



24/76

24


BeAware Workshop.



25/76

25


BeAware Workshop.



26/76

26


BeAware Workshop.


Table 18: suggestions for addressing limiting factors


27/76

27


BeAware Workshop.



28/76

28


BeAware Workshop.



29/76

29


BeAware Workshop.



30/76

30


BeAware Workshop.



31/76

31


BeAware Workshop.



32/76

32


BeAware Workshop.



33/76

33


BeAware Workshop.



34/76

34


BeAware Workshop.



35/76

35


BeAware Workshop.



36/76

36


BeAware Workshop.



37/76

37


BeAware Workshop.



38/76

38


BeAware Workshop.



39/76

39


BeAware Workshop.



40/76

40


BeAware Workshop.



41/76

41


BeAware Workshop.



42/76

42


BeAware Workshop.



43/76

43


BeAware Workshop.



44/76

44


BeAware Workshop.



45/76

45


BeAware Workshop.



46/76

46


BeAware Workshop.



47/76

47


BeAware Workshop.



48/76

48


BeAware Workshop.



49/76

49


BeAware Workshop.



50/76

50


BeAware Workshop.



51/76

51


BeAware Workshop.



52/76

52


BeAware Workshop.



53/76

53


BeAware Workshop.



54/76

54


BeAware Workshop.



55/76

55


BeAware Workshop.



56/76

56


BeAware Workshop.



57/76

57


BeAware Workshop.



58/76

58


BeAware Workshop.



59/76

59


BeAware Workshop.



60/76

60


BeAware Workshop.



61/76

61


BeAware Workshop.



62/76

62


BeAware Workshop.



63/76

63


BeAware Workshop.



64/76

64


BeAware Workshop.



65/76

65


BeAware Workshop.



66/76

66


BeAware Workshop.



67/76

67


BeAware Workshop.



68/76

68


BeAware Workshop.



69/76

69


BeAware Workshop.



70/76

70


BeAware Workshop.



71/76

71


BeAware Workshop.



72/76

72


BeAware Workshop.



73/76

73


BeAware Workshop.



74/76

74


BeAware Workshop.



75/76

75


BeAware Workshop.



76/76

76

performance and economic waste assessment: proceedings of the second be-aware workshop, 2007

Documents