Construction product manufacturers waste targeting and prioritising

Mohamed Osmani, Andrew Price, Malcolm Sutherland

Department of Civil and Building Engineering Loughborough University Loughborough, Leicestershire LEU 3TU

Drafted in April 2007; revised May 2013

Abstract
The construction industry places a significant demand on the environment through consumption of natural resources, emissions, and waste production. Each year the construction industry in the UK generates approximately 109 million tonnes of waste, comprising 60% from site-based activities and 40% from product manufacturing. Driven by legislation, client demand and increased disposal costs, waste minimisation has become an important consideration for the UK construction industry. This paper emerged from a DTI-funded project, the aim of which is to assist construction product manufacturers in the UK to make more efficient use of materials and processes. The project investigates a number of construction waste materials across their whole life cycle to examine the potential of their reuse and recycling. The aim of the paper is to discuss the findings of the first stage of the project. Representatives of construction product manufacturers and waste management consultants attended a workshop, where they identified the key cross-sector waste streams; highlighted the main benefits and challenges regarding current or potential recycling routes; and ranked the identified wastes in terms of their recycling potential. The identified waste materials considered to have the greatest recycling potential included: (i) damaged bricks/blocks; (ii) unsalable concrete units; (iii) GRP (glass-reinforced plastic); (iv) sawdust from timber production, and (v) timber packaging. Keywords
construction product manufacturers waste materials targeting prioritising re-use recycling

1: Introduction
The construction industry places a significant demand on the environment, through consumption of natural resources; greenhouse gases emissions;, and the generation of waste materials throughout the products' lifecycle, McEvoy et al (2004) reported that the transportation of construction materials accounts for over three-quarters of mass flows in general, and that in the UK, over 90% of non-energy-based mineral consumption is attributed to construction. Additionally, the capacity of landfill space is rapidly diminishing within the UK, and has been for several years (DETR, 2000). During the late 1990s, the number of landfill sites declined by nearly one third (Osmani and Li, 2006). Construction and demolition (C&D) waste disposal to landfill has been strongly discouraged for many years due to its heavy and voluminous nature, and due to the high recycling potential of several construction materials (Peng et al, 1997; Poon et al, 2004) European attention was drawn to C&D waste in 1991, when the European Commission identified it as one of the major waste streams under the Priority Waste Streams Programme (European Commission, 2001); since then, recycling rates of C&D waste in the UK have increased, particularly with "hardcore" materials such as concrete, which are a growing substitute for primary aggregates (Soutsos et al, 2004). Nevertheless, not all construction materials are as easily recyclable, and information regarding C&D waste recovery, especially of that arising from construction product manufacture and distribution, is limited (BRE, 2006). In view of these issues, a UK Government-funded project entitled 'BeAware' (Built Environment Action on Waste Awareness and Resource Efficiency) was initiated in 2005. The aim of the project is to assist construction product manufacturers in the UK to make more efficient use of materials by investigating re-engineering processes such as product design, manufacture, installation, use and eventual disposal; and examining new methods for reuse and recycle wastes emanating from products' manufacturing process. This paper reports on the findings of the first stage of the 'BeAware' project, based on the information produced by delegates representing cross sector construction product manufacturers and waste management consultants who attended the First 'BeAware' workshop. This contains a review of the following: legislative and policy drivers in the UK, which promote their recovery and recycling; current recycling practices and limiting factors in construction; and, the results of the First 'BeAware' workshop activities: o waste targeting (whereby delegates listed waste materials in their respective sector arising throughout the construction products' lifecycle); and, o waste prioritising (whereby delegates listed the recovery benefits and problems of the identified wastes, and ranked them in terms of their recycling potential).

2: Construction recycling drivers

Raw material extraction and waste disposal to landfill have been highly charged issues for both government and industry within the UK. The environmental benefits achieved through diversion of wastes from landfill include, reduction in greenhouse gases (namely methane); recovery of waste materials, and development of markets; reduced loss of amenity; and reduced demand for raw materials (Collins, 2003). The UK construction sector alone generates around 92 million tonnes of waste per annum, of which around 13 million tonnes comprise unused new products which are then sent for disposal; the demolition sector in England and Wales generates another 91 million tonnes of waste (DTI, 2006). The main policy-based, legislative and financial drivers behind recycling waste streams in the construction industry are listed in Table 1 over-page (relevant to 2007). Within the UK, a range of agencies and initiatives have been created, in order to facilitate increased waste minimisation and recycling, which is increasingly becoming mandatory under legislation such as the landfill, hazardous waste and packaging waste directives. In addition, tax measures to deter disposal of waste to landfill and to counter market competition from primary materials, namely aggregates, were introduced within the past decade, and some of the tax revenues are currently used to subsidise recycling programmes (Wilburn and Goonan, 1998; Guthrie et al, 1999; Hawkins and Shaw, 2004; DEFRA, 2007). The financial drivers are currently being strengthened, whereby landfill tax on active wastes will be raised by 8/tonne each year until 2010/2011, and the aggregates levy will be raised from 1.60/tonne to 1.80/tonne (HM & Customs, 2007). In addition, there is a strong economic incentive for the UK construction industry to reduce or recycle waste materials; it has been reported that up to 5% of the industry turnover is consumed by waste, with over 200 million being spent on landfill tax alone (BRE, 2006b). Case studies of construction sites within the UK have revealed that improved waste management led to savings of up to 20% of materials occurring onsite, and financial savings accounting for 3% of the build cost (Envirowise, 2006). There is limited information regarding precise quantities and volumes of construction waste materials (BRE, 2006). The composition of C&D waste is generally dominated by clay bricks, concrete and other "hardcore" products. Concrete and masonry has been estimated to comprise as much as 80% of C&D waste (European Commission, 2000). Hardcore wastes include concrete and ceramics, plaster and cement. Non-structural materials such as packaging are also significant; packaging alone may account for between 15% and 20% of total C&D waste arisings (DETR, 2000). Waste materials from the construction industry are produced as a result of demolition, offcuts, or improper material handling and management; Guthrie et al (1999) reported that as much as 20% of onsite ordered materials ended up as waste, often through poor storage or handling methods- Nevertheless, literature failed to identify robust information regarding the quantities of construction material wastes and their current recycling status within the UK (Gregory et al, 2004). This is particularly the case regarding information on waste generation during construction product manufacture, partly for reasons of commercial confidentiality (Soutsos et al, 2004; Smith et al, 2006).

Table 1: legislative and economic factors driving increased waste reprocessing in the construction industry
Legislation Restrictions and Targets The Hazardous Waste Regulations 2005 (HWR) The Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive 94/62/EC Quality Protocol on Gypsum from Waste Plasterboard (Environment Agency) Site Waste Management Plans Wastes including CD&E (construction, demolition and excavation) wastes must be assessed as to whether or not they contain absolute hazardous materials, or mirror hazardous materials (i.e. those containing dangerous substances) Hazardous properties include corrosivity or toxicity Minimum 60% weight of all packaging waste to be recovered by 2009 Minimum 55% weight of all packaging waste to be recycled by 2009 The 10% Rule governing waste plasterboard disposal to landfill (i.e. max. 10% of waste to landfill comprising gypsum) will be abolished in 2009 In future, no plasterboard shall be disposed of to landfill (in England and Wales) Implementation mandatory for projects worth over 300,000 (300k) Contractors responsible for project worth up to 500k must forecast waste arising types and quantities, and propose re-use, recycling and disposal actions Contractors responsible for projects over 500k must collate detailed waste data records and must specify if waste is being recycling onsite or offsite Contractors must ensure there is no illegal waste disposal activity (e.g. fly tipping) Nearly all household, commercial and industrial waste is classified as Directive waste, and must be assessed as to whether or not it is Hazardous Waste Taxation Aggregates Levy (UK) Climate Change Levy (UK) Fuel duty (UK) Waste Strategy for England 2007; 2007 Budget This is a tax on sand, gravel and rock excavated inland or offshore in UK waters Rate: 2/tonne (2009) Applies to electricity, natural gas supplied by gas utility, petroleum and liquid gas, coal, lignite, coke or coke derivative fuel used by businesses Rates range from 0.456 to 1.242 pence per kWh or kg, depending on type of fuel Approximately 53 pence/litre for standard unleaded petrol, rising to 0.55/litre in 2009 Approximately 57 pence/litre for standard diesel, rising to 0.60 in 2009 Landfill tax to increase by 8/tonne per annum for standard waste until 2010/11 Tax rate for inactive waste: 2.50/tonne Tax rate for standard waste: 32/tonne (2008) Incentives WRAP grants Some construction companies producing aggregates have received capital grants from WRAP, which in turn are invested in recycling testing and processing equipment Details

Waste Framework Directive

3: Current construction and demolition recycling practices

There has been widespread research into possible applications for construction waste material recycling. Gregory et al (2004) noted that in 1991, approximately 63% of C&D waste was recycled The authors also reported on a survey conducted under the DETR in 1998, which revealed that less than 10% of waste generated during construction stage was being recovered in the UK. Construction, demolition and excavation waste destinations in England include (ODPM, 2004): approximately half (45 million tonnes) being recycled for use as secondary aggregate; approximately 7% (6 million tonnes) being used for landfill restoration/engineering; approximately 15% (13 million tonnes) being used for quarry void backfill; and, the rest being deposited to iandfiil and registered exempt sites.

Similarly, BRE (2006) reported a very high recovery of waste materials arising during demolition, whereby approximately 80% is recycled, 13% re-used, and 7% is sent to landfill ,of which 32% was quoted to comprise hazardous wastes). Crushing of bricks, blocks and concrete produce low-grade bulk fill for nearby sites (e.g. road construction) is widely practised, particularly since these dense materials are predominant in structures, and are costly to transport and dispose of to landfill or to recycling outlets (Gregory et al, 2004). On the other hand, metals are easily reprocessed and are often entirely recycled, or in some instances re-used (Guthrie et al, 1999; McDonald and Smithers, 1998; Addis et al, 2004); while excavated soil and sub-soil is also mostly recovered, and re-used predominantly for landscaping (Guthrie et al, 1999). Comparatively lower proportions of plastics, drywall, timber, insulation and glass materials are recycled and/or re-used (Peng et al, 1997; McDonald and Smithers, 1998; DETR, 2000; Addis et al, 2004; Market Transformation Programme, 2006).

4: Recycling technical and economic limiting factors

Recovery and reprocessing of waste materials is not always practical or financially viable, and several factors need to be taken into account (Peng et al, 1997; Guthrie et al, 1999; European Commission, 2000; Tarn and Tarn, 2006b): the recycled materials market being in competition with the primary materials market; the costs of segregating, storing, transporting and reprocessing; the abundance of the waste material within a region and a specified period of time; site area and storage space available for recovering materials; the physical and chemical integrity of the recovered materials; and, potential hazards associated with particular waste materials. Recycling or re-use of waste materials will generally be more economically competitive in areas distant from landfill and raw material suppliers such as aggregate from quarries (Tarn and Tarn, 2006b), and where environmental legislation imposes strong financial disincentives on the use of primary resources and on landfilling (European Commission, 2000; Duran et al, 2006). A prime factor which may inhibit recycling is the cost of transporting materials from source to receptor, whereby the economic return on recycling is said to be negligible when the material is transported across a distance exceeding 25 km (European Commission, 2000). This is further complicated by the sporadic occurrence of varying quantities and types of waste, which add to the expense of collecting and transporting waste materials from source to receptor (i.e. recycling depot) (Guthrie et al, 1999). There is a need to add an introductory statement from literature to justify (i.e. the major construction waste streams) and introduce the waste streams that are discussed below.

4.1: Bricks/blocks and concrete waste C&D waste is dominated by inert mineral waste (namely bricks, blocks and concrete, comprising almost 80% of C&D waste), which dwarf other waste streams including plastics, metals and timber (European Commission, 2000; BRE, 2006). Although their relative abundance strongly justifies their recycling, hardcore materials (particularly from demolition) are generally used in "low-grade" applications (BRE, 2006). The re-use of "vintage" clay bricks from demolition is a more valuable market, although the removal of mortar must be conducted manually, hence at longer time and cost (Gregory et al, 2004; Tarn and Tarn, 2006). There is also a very limited market for using crushed hardcore material as aggregate in new concrete, mainly due to distrust over the perceived lower quality of recycled aggregate (e.g. contamination by plastics, wood, etc.) (Soutsos et al, 2004). Although widely practised, the recovery of bricks and blocks Is a demanding process; Gregory et al (2004) mentioned that the crushing of bricks into aggregate requires energyintensive, heavy machinery, which are expensive to operate and take up space. Plastic waste materials Plastics waste streams are heterogeneous, requiring thorough separation at source. Among these materials, PVC is said to be the predominant construction products' waste, accounting for as much as two thirds of plastic waste arisings (European Commission, 2000). In spite of this, PVC is among the least recoverable construction wastes, owing to their lightweight properties, which in turn make transportation prohibitively expensive (Leadbitter, 2002). The potential returns on recycling of plastics are also restricted by the complicated range of polymers occurring in the waste stream, as well as limited recycling outlets (Leadbitter, 2002; Collins, 2003; Addis and Schouten, 2004). Plastic wastes may also be contaminated with soil and metal components, requiring washing procedures prior to reprocessing (Rebeiz and Kraft, 1995; Leadbitter, 2002). Wood and Timber waste materials The recovery of timber materials, including packaging, is dependent on the physical integrity, as well as the presence of contaminants. Waste generated alongside timber product manufacture is minor compared with waste generated alongside joinery and during construction, and the markets for recycling residues from timber manufacture (including pallets and sawdust) is firmly established (TRADA, 2005). Physical components and design of timber products are important issues; timber pallets, planks and panels which are undamaged may be re-used, although cleaning and denailing may be necessary (Tam and Tarn, 2006). Damaged timber materials may be converted into use for soil conditioning (e.g. mulch), or chipped for use in new timber products (e.g. chipboard, furniture) (Magin, 2001). Treated wood streams, including painted and preservative-treated wood are generally less suitable for recycling (Peng et al, 1997; Kartam et al, 2004). Overall, the scope for recycling timber materials from C&D waste is limited due to a number of constraints, including a lack of recycling outlets, limited space on-site for segregation, and the presence of contaminants in treated wood (Magin, 2001).

Other construction products' waste streams Metals can easily be segregated, re-melted and recovered, and there is a highly developed market for recycled metals in many countries worldwide (Tarn and Tarn, 2006). Hence most recovered metal, including that from construction and demolition, is currently recovered; even lower-value metals such as steel are very rarely sent to landfill (Addis and Schouten, 2004). Another waste stream which is often diverted to landfill is plasterboard, particularly that arising from demolition (partly due to being contamination by soil or other wastes). Nevertheless, this is currently being redressed by industry and government; "take-back" schemes for off-cuts arising during construction are being operated by manufacturers, alongside the recent imposition of the "10% Rule", which restricts the hazardous content permitted within landfill, due to the sulphate content of plaster, and the potential for groundwater contamination)(Market Transformation Programme, 2006).

3: Methodology
This paper details and reflects on the findings of the First BeAware Workshop, entitled Waste Targeting and Prioritisation (held in May 2006). Workshops are a valuable opportunity to network with experts and stakeholders, who simultaneously provide contemporary information based on industry experience (Park and Martin, 2007). The aims of the workshop were threefold; identify cross-sector waste streams (waste targeting); investigate the benefits and challenges associated with their re-use and recycling; and rank the identified wastes in terms of their recycling potential (waste prioritising). From the literature review, four major construction industry sectors were identified: bricks and blocks, cement and concrete, plastics, and wood and timber. The workshop was attended by 37 delegates representing a range of construction product manufacturers, demolition contractors and waste management consultants. The delegates were grouped into five functional clusters, in order to provide a focus on each industry sector. These were: Plastics manufacturers, Wood and timber manufacturers, Brick/block manufacturers, Cement/concrete manufacturers, "Catch-all" manufacturers (companies producing different products from above categories (e.g. gypsum), or a wider range of products); and, Waste management consultants. The workshop facilitated activities were threefold. During Activity A (Waste Targeting), delegates were asked to identify types of generated wastes in their respective industry sector, and locate their occurrence within the construction product lifecycle (production, distribution, point-of-use, end-of-life). During Activity B (Waste Prioritisation), delegates were asked to list drivers and barriers associated with re-using or recycling the identified

waste materials, and ranking them in terms of their recycling potential. During the Plenary session, each delegate cluster presented their findings, and general debate was held on some of the issues raised in relation to re-use or recycling.

4: Results
4.1: Waste Targeting (Table 2) During the first facilitated workshop activity, the delegates listed all the waste materials arising in their sectors, and indicated where these occurred within the construction product lifecycle (production, distribution, point-of-use, end-of-life). Certain waste materials are exclusively connected with product manufacture, such as off-cuts (e.g. PVC, timber) as well as air pollution control device dusts (e.g. air filter fines, cement kiln dust, factory wastes such as discarded containers and hydraulic oils). Packaging wastes tended to be one of the few waste materials which arise during construction product distribution, alongside over-ordered or damaged/unsalable products such as bricks or concrete units. Packaging wastes (including plastics, wood (e.g. pallets) and cardboard) also arise during point-of-use (construction), alongside product off-cuts, rejected/damaged products, as well as excavated soil. Identified wastes from demolition generally included discarded construction products, as well as other materials such as electrical components or wiring. Results of the waste targeting exercise are addressed individually for each delegate cluster throughout the remainder of this section. Plastic manufacturers' waste streams Delegates from the plastics cluster identified a wide variety of waste polymers, including PVC and HDPE (high-density polyethylene). These wastes occur as off-cuts and as discarded packaging, particularly at the point-of-use. Plastic product deliveries are accompanied by non-plastic packaging, including timber pallets and cardboard. Plastic products such as window profile, piping, and also membrane and insulation materials occur during construction and demolition. During the plenary session, it was noted that 85% of profile off-cuts generated during manufacture are currently recycled. Wood and timber manufacturers' waste streams A wide variety of by-products are produced during timber product manufacture, including WESP (wet electrostatic precipitator) sludge, boiler ash, saw-dust, timber and solid timber off-cuts, as well as excess paint alongside its application. Wood pane] off-cuts also occur during distribution and at point-of-use, and non-timber wastes including plastics (such as wrapping), glass and cardboard occur at construction sites. The three identified timber products arising during demolition include untreated wood, treated wood and panels.

Table 2: waste materials identified in the Waste Targeting exercise

Cluster Production HDPE, PVC, Profile offcuts, GRP, PET Plastics Distribution Packaging, cardboard Point of use GRP, Damaged windows, HDPE, polyethylene offcuts, PVC offcuts, pipes, polystyrene, packaging, wooden pallets End of life Rigid insulation foam, polymer, bituminous roofing, sngle poly roofing, PVC, GRP, PVC pipes, HDPE, rainwater goods, rigid insulation poly, vinyl foam, resin cones for damp-proof membranes, paper, windows and windowprofile PVC Untreated solid wood, panel board products, treated wood

Cement and concrete

Treated wood (in raw material), plastics, process by-product/off-cuts (timber, treated wood), WESP sludge, paint overspray, boiler ash, sawdust Shrink-wraps, extracted metals, cement, scrap units, end-of-mix concrete, spoiled fired bricks and refractories, used scrubbers, kiln dust, packaging, polystyrene, timber, used ceramic, fibre, waste hydraulic oil Unsaleable products, bypass dust, factory waste, packaging waste

Wood and Timber

Containers (paint tins), wood bearers, plastic strapping and wrapping

Paint and preservativetreated off-cuts, glass, cardboard, wood dust, containers (paint)

Bricks and blocks

Cement, packaging waste (paper sacks, plastic wrapping, pallets)

Waste packaging (paper, plastic), wood (pallets), plastics, demolition materials, fired brick

Demolition hardcore, extract rebar

Unsaleable products

Packaging waste, expired cement

Consultants (Group A)

Plasterboard, aluminium, MDF, overburden and interburden, out-ofspecification mineral powders, waste concrete mix, scrap tiles Quarry waste, flooring, ceramics, PVC (manufacture waste, byproducts, emissions)

Catch-all

Batching plant waste, air filter fines

Tile and slate off-cuts, packaging, insulation (overordered or site off-cuts)

Plasterboard, glass, aluminium, steel, insulation, fibre cement slates, concrete/clay tiles, demolished hardcore Windows (metals, plastics, glass), flooring, mixed plastics, wood, plasterboard, treated timber, inerts (bricks, blocks, concrete) Composite materials, timber, flooring, plastic, treated timber, hazardous wastes, plasterboard, damaged products, products comprising more than one material, mix aggregate (demolition waste plasterboard, contaminated bricks), electrical equipment (WEEE)

Ceramic and wood flooring, pallets, packaging, overordered products in general

Subsoil excavation and spoil, gypsum board offcuts, packaging, overordered products in general

Off-cuts, damaged goods, packaging, raw materials

Packaging

Plastic containers, stow render, paint pots, plaster additive, insulation, plasterboard, packaging, timber, damaged products, plastics, glass, composites, geotextiles, membrane, cable and wiring, office and general site waste (e.g. hard hats, food, newspaper)

Bricks and blocks manufacturers' waste streams Several waste materials and substances are generated alongside brick and block manufacture, including scrubber/exhaust dusts, timber, hydraulic oils and plastic packaging.

Consultants (Group B)

Damaged, contaminated or spoiled bricks and blocks also occur as waste at this stage, and during construction. Packaging waste is prominent during distribution and point-of-use, including timber and plastic materials. It is interesting to note that no bricks or blocks wastage is indicated during these stages, although these products will inevitably arise as waste during demolition. Cement and Concrete manufacturers' waste streams The most recurring cement and concrete waste materials listed include unsalable products, packaging and factory wastes. Cement kiln dust was noted to occur within the manufacturing stage, whilst expired cement is produced during demolition.

Catch-all construction products manufacturers' perspectives The wastes identified include materials not listed by the previous four clusters, included: glass, plastering, metals (namely aluminium and steel), insulation, and ceramic products such as tiles. Packaging materials were deemed less prominent, featuring only at point-ofuse. Plasterboard, metals, glass, and concrete wastes arise during manufacture and end-ofuse. Mineral powders and over/inter-burden wastes arise during the manufacturing stage. Fibre cement slates and concrete tiles are also reported to arise during demolition. Waste management consultants perspectives Waste management consultants identified a widely varied and detailed range of waste materials, especially occurring during point-of-use. In addition to waste materials attributable to the construction products and their packaging, the consultants also identified excavated soil and similar spoil arising during construction, electrical and electronic waste arising from demolition (cabling, wiring), as well as non-structure-based wastes such as those from site offices (e.g. paperwork) and labourers (e.g. safety clothing). Packaging features prominently, occurring alongside distribution, point-of-use and demolition.

5.2: Waste Prioritising (Tables 3a and 3b) During the second workshop facilitated activity, delegates in each cluster listed some of the key benefits and problems associated with recycling of the waste materials identified in the first activity, and then ranked them in terms of their recycling potential. Recycling potential of plastic manufacturing wastes The plastics manufacturing industry delegates identified GRP (glass reinforced plastic) as the most promising in terms of recycling potential due to its low salvaging costs, in spite of ineffective segregation, limited facilities and absence of incentives to assist with its recycling. These problems also blight the potential recycling of PVC waste; however, this material was ranked second, due to the low collection costs, ease of reprocessing and its

Table 3a: recycling potential, benefits and problems for ranked waste materials (Plastics, Wood and Timber, Bricks and Blocks, Cement and Concrete sectors)

Table 3b: recycling potential, benefits and problems for identified waste materials (Catch-all and consultants clusters)

relative abundance. Additionally, the benefits associated with PVC were equally associated with PE (polyethylene), PU (polyurethane) and PES (polyether sulphone), nevertheless, these benefits are offset by high collection costs or the difficulties in segregating specific materials. Delegates also concurred that polyethylene recycling is at an embryonic stage. EPDM (etnylene propylene diene monomer) and PET (polyethylene teraphthalate) carry high market values; however, these are insignificant waste streams, hence their lower ranking. Rubber was ascribed the lowest ranking due to the difficulty of its reprocessing. Recycling potential of wood and timber manufacturing wastes Sawdust, wood chippings and off-cuts were equally given a top ranking, owing to their abundance, and their established recycling processes and markets. However, delegates noted that these advantages are offset by widespread sources of these by-products, requiring expensive transportation to recycling facilities. They noted that wood panel offcuts may also be difficult to sort, and enquired on the need to classify these as a "waste". They also commented that increased recycling of metal and plastic packaging could lead to a depletion in their recydate market value. Conversely, treated timber was given the lowest ranking, which was partly attributed to its poor mechanical qualities (e.g. damaged components) and for containing hazardous chemicals, including CCA (copper creosote arsenate). Recycling potential of brick and block manufacturing wastes Damaged products on construction sites were estimated to have the most promising recycling potential, in addition to their waste minimisation scope through improved handling, storage and controlled ordering. Bricks and blocks arising from demolition were given the second-highest ranking, due to their established reprocessing into secondary aggregate, although the delegates noted that this crushing process generates noise and produces dust. Scrubber (particulate dust) residues generated during brick manufacture were ranked third, owing to their alkalinity (lime) and potentially hazardous content (including hydrofluoric acid, chlorine and trace metals). Packaging and factory rejects were ranked below scrubber wastes, due to their arising in smaller volumes, possibly at remote locations. Recycling potential of cement and concrete manufacturing wastes Unsalable products (especially) concrete were given the highest ranking, since they can be easily reprocessed or even returned into the production process, although the re-insertion of material into products may compromise product quality. The second and third-ranked wastes included packaging and factory wastes, and delegates mentioned that these can include substances such as packaging or hydraulic oils, which can be recovered and could also be used as fuel substitute. The delegates also noted that these wastes (e.g. packaging and reinforced steel) are often recycled, although increased recycling potential is inhibited by waste collection contractors' fees, particularly for collection and transport. Expired cement and bypass (cement kiln) dust were accorded the lowest rankings due to their unsuitable material performance. The delegates noted that expired cement possess a shorter working life, whilst bypass dust was considered by delegates to be hazardous, who

stated that it is currently sent to landfill. Cross sector products' recycling potential: "Catch-all" manufacturers perspectives Timber packaging (e.g. pallets) was accorded the highest ranking, owing to its abundance and occurrence throughout the construction product lifecycle, its ease of being re-used or being converted into chippings. The delegates noted that these benefits can be offset by low volumes arising on-site, and the costs of retrieving the material; this is similar to the findings from the wood/timber cluster concerning panel off-cuts. The "catch-all" delegates also reported that timber packaging reuse potential is limited by the dimensions and design of the original product, which may not be of use to potential clients.

Delegates accorded the second-highest ranking to glass, noting that glass items may be reusable as well as recyclable. Likewise with timber packaging, the delegates also noted that these benefits are offset by the costs of retrieving glass materials, which arise sporadically over a wide regional area. Delegates noted that potentially high transportation distances and costs also limit the recycling potential of stone washing fines, although these occur in abundance. It was also revealed that variable quality of stone washing fines (including moisture/water content), and their sporadic occurrence further restricts their recycling potential. The delegates noted that waste insulation and plasterboard materials may be contaminated, and accord these with medium ratings. They stated that there is some scope for recycling plastic packaging, plasterboard and MDF due to low reprocessing costs, by noting that plasterboard and insulation can be easily recycled, whilst air filter fines and steel possess (potentially) high market values. These materials were accorded low rankings, partly since recycling facilities may either be limited (e.g. plasterboard), or may not exist (e.g. insulation, MDF). Cross sector products' recycling potential: Waste management consultants' perspective Waste management consultants identified packaging materials as being the most potentially recyclable, mainly due to their abundance and regular occurrence along the construction product lifecycle, and reported that these benefits are offset by the wide variety of packaging materials and types, leading to difficulties in segregating packaging wastes, and the need to compact the materials (e.g. bulking, baling). Concerns were also raised by delegates on confusion over packaging regulations. Subsoil was highly ranked by the waste management consultants, who commented that inert/clean subsoil can be used onsite for land reclamation, composting, as well as being screened to produce aggregates. However, they also noted that "brownfield" soil may be contaminated, leading to confusion over regulation (e.g. licenses, monitoring/remediation requirements) and public distrust; they also questioned on where to send the contaminated residues from "brownfield" soil. As mentioned, plasterboard was accorded with a medium ranking by the consultants, due to the benefits of its ease of reprocessing, large volumes and potentially large market, being offset by the issue of the "10% rule" encouraging continued disposal to landfill (as well as

the difficulties and expense of segregation and collection). The consultants also mentioned further deterrents affecting plasterboard recycling, including low recyclate. Waste Prioritising The most commonly noted benefits and problems relate to reprocessing, collection and transport costs, the existence of recyclate markets and the ease of recycling. This is supported by Peng et al (1997), Guthrie et al (1999), the European Commission (2000), and Tarn and Tarn (2006 2) who acknowledged that the technical feasibility of reprocessing, and the quantities of waste available strongly determine the viability of recycling. Packaging materials (timber and plastic), timber waste (including sawdust) and some plastics (including PVC) were reported by delegates to occur in high volumes. This reflects the findings of DETR,(2000),, whereby packaging waste arising during construction can be significant., however, plastic waste streams are comparatively minor within C&D wastes (European Commission, 2000; BRE, 2006). Recycling drivers The benefits of an established market and attractive recyclate market values were also commonly identified. The importance of these factors were also widely reported in the literature (Peng et al, 1997; Guthrie et al, 1999; Tarn and Tarn, 2006). Established markets were not mentioned by the plastics cluster, which might reflect the opinion by Leadbitter (2002) on the limited recycling of plastics in general. Moreover, the benefit of established markets was noted for a wide variety of waste materials, including packaging, glass and bricks/blocks. This reflects the observation that wasted bricks and blocks (especially from demolition) are widely crushed and used as low-grade aggreqate. It may also reflect the requirement for recycling under the Packaging Waste Directive (Peng et al, 1997; Guthrie et al, 1999; Collins, 2003; Soutsos et al, 2004; Gregory et al, 2004; BRE, 2006). Recycling barriers A wider range of problems limiting the recycling of waste materials were identified by delegates. The most commonly identified barrier to recycling was the cost of collecting and transporting waste materials. This was echoed by the findings Peng et al, 1997; European Commission, 2000; Guthrie et al, 1999; Durant et al, 2006; and Tam and Tam, 2006. The issue of segregating waste materials was the second-most commonly identified recycling driver, which are of particular relevance to plastics and wood/timber wastes, and which also reflects similar comments made by Magin (2001) on timber wastes, and Leadbitter (2002) on plastic wastes. Technical and environmental problems also featured prominently among the problems identified by delegates. These include the risks of contamination within waste materials and degraded quality of the materials salvaged - issues which were reported by all delegate groups. The problems of contamination were reported for GRP, treated timber, panel offcuts, plasterboard and insulation, hardcore , and plastics in general. This reflects the literature findings, including the problem of soil and/or "alien" particles becoming mixed

within plasterboard from demolition (Market Transformation Programme, 2006), and in plastics (which require washing during reprocessing) (Rebeiz and Kraft, 1995). Attention was also drawn by delegates towards the issue of hazardous waste classification concerning treated wood, cement kiln dust (or bypass dust), contaminated sub-soil, as well as MDF (medium-density fibreboard). As mentioned, these materials are classed as "mirror" wastes due to their containing hazardous chemicals, and cannot be readily recycled without further investigation (Environment Agency, 2006). Delegates also noted the confusion over current legislation addressing the management of wastes including GRP, PVC, packaging, subsoil, treated timber, and plasterboard (mainly due to the "10%" Rule (Market Transformation Programme, 2006)).

6: Conclusions
This paper discussed the findings of the First BeAware workshop, which was attended by 37 delegates, including waste consultants, and representatives from construction product manufacturers. The delegates identified the waste materials occurring throughout the construction product cycle, mentioned the recycling drivers and barriers (benefits and problems), and ranked the waste materials in each sector in terms of their recycling attributes. The findings from the workshop provide insights into the variety and composition of cross-sector waste materials arising throughout the lifecycle of construction products, as well as drivers and barriers associated with their potential for recycling and re-use. The identified benefits and problems comprised a wide range of issues, including economic and financial factors (e.g. processing costs, supply and demand), material performance-related factors (e.g. quality, contamination), and also some environmental, health/safety and legislative issues (e.g. the "10%" Rule addressing plasterboard disposal to landfill). The most prominent drivers determining recycling potential included high waste stream volumes, ease of sorting and reprocessing, and the assurance of an established recyclate market. The main barriers impeding recycling included collection and transport costs; difficulty of segregating waste materials (especially plastics); contamination in the waste (plastics, timber, plasterboard); and small volumes of waste arisings. The top-ranked materials according to their recycling potential included: glass-reinforced plastic (GRP); sawdust and wood chippings (as well as off-cuts); damaged bricks and blocks; unsalable concrete products; and packaging materials (namely timber).

Acknowledgments The authors are indebted to all the delegates who contributed to the information collected during the first BeAware workshop, and extend their thanks to the project partners who promoted and facilitated the event.

References NB: websites are longer accessible

Addis, W. and Schouten, J., 2004. Design for Deconstruction: principles of design to facilitate reuse and recycling. Chapter 2: Principles for increasing re-use of building components and recycling of materials, p26. Appendix B: the recycling of materials, pp 95 - 100. Published by CIRIA, London UK. BRE, 2006. Developing a strategic approach to construction waste - 20 year strategy draft for comment. (Website) BRE, 2006b. BRE Joins Forces with RDAs in Blitz on Construction Waste. (Website) Cheeseman, K. 2002 Waste minimisation - a practical guide. Chapter 1: Background, pp. 1 5. Chadwick House Group Ltd. Chick, A. and Micklethwaite, P. Specifying recycled: understanding UK a architects' and designers' practices and experiences. Design Studies 25 (3) (2004) pp233 - 327 Collins, K., 2003. European waste management drivers towards a sustainable Europe and how Scotland can influence the agenda. In: R.K. Dhir, M.D. Newlands, T.D- Dyer (editors. Sustainable waste management - proceedings of the international symposium held at the University of Dundee, UK, 9 - 11 September 2003, Thomas Telford Ltd, London, pp 25 - 44 DEFRA, 2007. DEFRA publishes proposals for reducing construction industry waste. (Website) DETR (Dept. of the EnvironmertL transport and the Regions), 2000. Waste Strategy 2000 - England and Wales: part 1. (Website) DETR (Dept. of the EnvironmertL transport and the Regions), 2000. Construction the price of waste. Copyright 2000 Bovis Lend Lease Ltd Duran, X; Lenihan, H.; and O Regan, B. A model for assessing the economic viability of construction and demolition waste recycling - the case of Ireland. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 46 (2006) pp302 - 320 Environment Agency, 2005. Appendix A: Consolidated European Waste Catalogue. (Website) Envirowise, 2006. Benefits of Construction Resource Efficiency. (Website) European Commission, 2000. Management of Construction and Demolition Waste: Working Document No 1. (Website) European Commission, 2001. Task Group 3: Construction and Demolition Waste. (Website) Gregory, R.J. Hughes, T.G. and Kwan, A.K. Brick recycling and re-use. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers (2004) pp155-161

Guthrie, P.M.; Coventry, S.J.; and Woolveridge, A.C. Waste minimisation and recycling in construction - technical review. Chapter 2; surveys of waste management on construction and demolition sites; pp22 - 50. Chapter 3: designer's seminar: waste reduction, reuse and recycling in construction; pp65 - 66. Published by CIRIA, London UK 1999 Hawkins, R.G-P.; and Shaw, H,S. The practical guide to waste management law. Chapter 5: Waste minimisation, recycling, bioprocessing and recovery, pp. 98 - 99, 106. Copyright 2004 Thomas Telford Publishing Ltd HM Customs and Excise, 2008. Pre-Budget Report 2008: facing global challenges: supporting people through difficult times; page 143. (Website) HM Treasury, 2007. families. (Website) Budget 2007: Building Britain's long-term future: prosperity and fairness for

Leadbitter, J. PVC and sustainability. Progress in Polymer Science 27 (2002) pp2197 - 2226 Magin, G. An introduction to wood waste in the UK. Chapter 2: Timber waste generation and disposal in the UK, pp. 9, 12. Chapter 4: Timber re-use and recycling facilities and services, p18. Copyright 2001 Fauna & Flora International, Cambridge

Market Transformation Programme, 2006. BNPB3: Plasterboard legislation and policy drivers. (Website) McDonald, B.; Smithers, M. Implementing a waste management plan during the construction phase of a project: a case study. Construction Management and Economics (1998) pp71 - 78 McEvoy, D.; Ravetz, J. and Handley, J. Managing the flow of construction minerals in the North West region of England. Journal of Industrial Ecology 8 (3) (2004) pp121 - 140 ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister), 2004. Survey of arisings and use of construction, demolition and excavation waste as aggregate in England in 2003. (Website) Osmani, M; Li, B. Cutting out waste in construction - a literature review. Published in Loughborough University, 2005 Park, S.; and Martin, A. A novel assessment tool for reusability of wastes. Journal of Hazardous Materials B139 (2007) pp575 - 583 Peng, C; Scorpio, D.E.; Kibert, C.J. Strategies for reducing construction and demolition waste recycling operations. Construction Management and Economics 15 (1997) pp49 - 58 Poon, C,S.; Yu, A.T.W.; and Jaillon, L. Reducing building waste at construction sites in Hong Kong. Construction Management and Economics 22 (2004} 461-470. Rebeiz, K.S; and Craft, A.P. Plastic waste management in construction: technological and Institutional issues. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 15 (1995) pp245 - 257

Sealey, B.J; Phiilips, P.S; Hill, G,J. Short communication: waste management issues for the Unreadymixed concrete industry. Resources, Conservation and Recycling (2001) pp321 -331 Soutsos, M.N.; Millard, S.G.; Sungey, J.H.; Jones, N ; Tickell, R-G.; and Gradwell, J. Using recycled oemolition waste in concrete building blocks. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers (2004) pp139 - 148 Tam, V.W.Y.; and Tam, C.M. Review: a review on the viable technology for construction waste recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 47 (2006) pp209 - 221 TRADE (Timber Research and Development Association). Wood: the UK mass balance and efficiency of use (summary report). Chapter 3: Results; p23. Copyright 2005 TRADA Technology Ltd, Bucks