PERFORMANCE AND ECONOMIC WASTE ASSESSMENT: Proceedings of The Second Be-Aware Workshop, 2007

1
BE-AWARE Work Package 3 Deliverable 3.4
PERFORMANCE AND ECONOMIC WASTE ASSESSMENT Proceedings of the Second Be-Aware Workshop
Held 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
Performance and Economic Waste Assessment: 2 BeAware Workshop. Copyright of LabSearch, a working title of Dr Malcolm Sutherland 2013
nd
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 factors within 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
nd
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 timber may 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 factors affecting 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. For most 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.
nd
Contents
1: Introduction 2: Workshop planning and organisation 3: Workshop delivery 4: Results

4.1: Cluster 1: Cement, concrete, bricks and blocks 4.2: Cluster 2: Insulation and drywall 4.3: Cluster 3: Plastics 4.4: Cluster 4: Wood/timber 4.5: Cluster 5: Catch-all manufacturers 4.6: Cluster 6: Demolition and Refurbishment 4.7: Cluster 7: Consultants 4.8: Summary and findings
page 5 page 5 pages 6, 7 pages 8 - 13

pages 8, 9 page 9 pages 9, 10 pages 10, 11 page 11 page 11, 12 pages 12, 13 pages 13, 14
5: Final summary and recommendations 6: Acknowledgements Tables (1 through 18)

Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Tables 4a, 4b Table 5 Table 6 page 16 page 16 page 17 page 17 page 17 page 18 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 page 18 page 19 page 19 page 20 page 20 page 21 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 Table 18
page 14 page 15 pages 16 - 26

page 21 page 22 page 23 page 24 page 25 page 26
Appendices (1 through 13)

Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 Appendix 6 Appendix 7 Appendix 8 Appendix 9 Appendix 10 Appendix 11 Appendix 12 Appendix 13
nd
pages 27 - 76
pages 27, 28 pages 29 - 33 pages 34 - 36 pages 37 - 40 pages 41 - 43 pages 44 - 52 pages 53 - 60 pages 61, 62 pages 63 - 65 pages 66, 67 pages 68, 69 pages 70 - 74 pages 75, 76
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).
nd
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 topranked" 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).
nd
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 the drywall 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
nd
(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 primary products. 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 waste management plans in order to impose waste sorting procedures, or penalising construction
nd
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 economic limiting 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 logistics of 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 Limiting Factors (Table 5) 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 of waste streams; these issues were deemed serious enough to restrict or even prevent
nd
10
recycling. For PVC, colour separation was also cited as a technical difficulty, whilst recycled polyethylene was reported to degrade more easily. Suggestions for Addressing Limiting Factors (Table 6) 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 Limiting Factors (Table 7) 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 electrostatic precipitator) 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. Suggestions for Addressing Limiting Factors (Table 8) 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 energyintensive technique for separating wood material from encapsulating resins. Few recommendations were provided for WESP sludge (possibly since it is classified as hazardous). In general, delegates highlighted the need to identify potential industries which
nd
11
could utilise the residue, or to develop more suitable alternatives to replace WESP sludge production.
4.5: Cluster 5: "Catch-all" Manufacturers Limiting Factors (Table 9) 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. Suggestions for Addressing Limiting Factors (Table 10) The delegates provided recommendations for increasing the recycling and re-use of packaging 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 Limiting Factors (Table 11) 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
nd
12
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. Suggestions for Addressing Limiting Factors (Table 12) 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 recycling applications, 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 Limiting Factors (Table 13) 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) are difficult 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. Suggestions for Addressing Limiting Factors (Table 14) 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.
nd
13
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 widely reported 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 were categorised (e.g. technical) in Tables 2, 4 (a, b), 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14, some recommendations
nd
14
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 performancerelated 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 reuse 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). Some waste 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 suggested that the landfill tax be raised further, or that construction product designers be penalised
nd
15
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 will be 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.
nd
16
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)
nd
17
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
nd
18
Table 6: suggestions for addressing limiting factors (Plastics cluster)
Table 7: limiting factors identified by the Wood/Timber cluster
nd
19
Table 8: suggestions for addressing limiting factors (Wood/Timber cluster)
Table 9: limiting factors identified by the Catch-all manufacturers cluster
nd
20
Table 10: suggestions for addressing limiting factors (Catch-all manufacturers cluster)
Table 11: limiting factors identified by the Demolition and Refurbishment cluster
nd
21
Table 12: suggestions for addressing limiting factors (Demolition and Refurbishment cluster)
Table 13: limiting factors identified by the Consultants cluster
nd
22
Table 14: suggestions for addressing limiting factors (Consultants cluster)
nd
23
nd
24
nd
25
nd
26
Table 18: suggestions for addressing limiting factors
nd
27
nd
28
nd
29
nd
30
nd
31
nd
32
nd
33
nd
34
nd
35
nd
36
nd
37
nd
38
nd
39
nd
40
nd
41
nd
42
nd
43
nd
44
nd
45
nd
46
nd
47
nd
48
nd
49
nd
50
nd
51
nd
52
nd
53
nd
54
nd
55
nd
56
nd
57
nd
58
nd
59
nd
60
nd
61
nd
62
nd
63
nd
64
nd
65
nd
66
nd
67
nd
68
nd
69
nd
70
nd
71
nd
72
nd
73
nd
74
nd
75
nd
76
nd

PERFORMANCE AND ECONOMIC WASTE ASSESSMENT: Proceedings of The Second Be-Aware Workshop, 2007

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

PERFORMANCE AND ECONOMIC WASTE ASSESSMENT: Proceedings of The Second Be-Aware Workshop, 2007

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

1

BE-AWARE Work Package 3 Deliverable 3.4

Mohamed Osmani, Andrew Price, Malcolm Sutherland

1: Introduction 2: Workshop planning and organisation 3: Workshop delivery 4: Results

page 5 page 5 pages 6, 7 pages 8 - 13

5: Final summary and recommendations 6: Acknowledgements Tables (1 through 18)

page 14 page 15 pages 16 - 26

Appendices (1 through 13)

2: Workshop Planning and Organisation

Examples of limiting factors include: - Economic:

- Technical (material performance-based):

5: Final Summary and Recommendations

Table 5: limiting factors identified by the Plastics cluster

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

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

Table 13: limiting factors identified by the Consultants cluster

Você também pode gostar