demonstration trial report rockwool and knapzak trialknapzak (… · this demonstration trial...

Demonstration Trial Report

Rockwool and Knapzak Trial

Demonstration trial report assessing the use of the Knapzak container on site to collect waste mineral wool insulation for recycling by Rockwool Ltd.

Project code: MRF 107 ISBN: [Add reference] Research date: August 2008 – March 2009 Date: June 2009

WRAP helps individuals, businesses and local authorities to reduce waste and recycle more, making better use of resources and helping to tackle climate change.

Written by: WSP Environmental Ltd

Front cover photography: Knapzak being used on site to collect waste mineral wool for recycling. WRAP and WSP Environmental Ltd. believe the content of this report to be correct as at the date of writing. However, factors such as prices, levels of recycled content and regulatory requirements are subject to change and users of the report should check with their suppliers to confirm the current situation. In addition, care should be taken in using any of the cost information provided as it is based upon numerous project-specific assumptions (such as scale, location, tender context, etc.). The report does not claim to be exhaustive, nor does it claim to cover all relevant products and specifications available on the market. While steps have been taken to ensure accuracy, WRAP cannot accept responsibility or be held liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. It is the responsibility of the potential user of a material or product to consult with the supplier or manufacturer and ascertain whether a particular product will satisfy their specific requirements. The listing or featuring of a particular product or company does not constitute an endorsement by WRAP and WRAP cannot guarantee the performance of individual products or materials. This material is copyrighted. It may be reproduced free of charge subject to the material being accurate and not used in a misleading context. The source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. This material must not be used to endorse or used to suggest WRAP’s endorsement of a commercial product or service. For more detail, please refer to WRAP’s Terms & Conditions on its web site: www.wrap.org.uk

Contents 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 5 2.0 Context for the Demonstration Trial ........................................................................................ 6

2.1 Demonstration Trial Objectives...............................................................................................6 2.2 Mineral Wool in Construction..................................................................................................6 2.3 Mineral Wool as a Recyclable Material.....................................................................................6

2.3.1 Rockwool Ltd. Customer Returns Recycling Scheme....................................................6 2.4 Selection of On Site Mineral Wool Waste Collection System......................................................8 2.5 What is Waste Segregation and why is it Important? ...............................................................8

2.5.1 Financial Benefits ......................................................................................................8 2.5.2 Business Benefits ......................................................................................................9 2.5.3 Environmental Benefits..............................................................................................9

2.6 Using the Knapzak to meet Legal Obligations or Industry Targets.............................................9 2.6.1 Duty of Care.............................................................................................................9 2.6.2 Site Waste Management Plans Regulations (2008) ......................................................9 2.6.3 Construction Commitments (Halving Waste to Landfill)................................................9

3.0 Demonstration Trial Review................................................................................................... 11 3.1 Demonstration Trial Key Facts ..............................................................................................11 3.2 Site & Contractor Details ......................................................................................................11 3.3 Mineral Wool Use On Site.....................................................................................................11 3.4 Mineral Wool Waste Generation and Handling On Site ...........................................................12 3.5 Introduction of the Knapzak Container System On Site ..........................................................13 3.6 Site Operative Training ........................................................................................................14 3.7 Health and Safety................................................................................................................15 3.8 Waste Carrier Perspective ....................................................................................................15 3.9 Receipt of Mineral Wool at the Rockwool Facility for Recycling ...............................................15 3.10 Review of Knapzak Use on Site for the Collection of Mineral Wool Waste ................................17 3.11 Review of Rockwool Mineral Wool Recycling Scheme .............................................................18

4.0 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 19 5.0 Further Information ............................................................................................................... 20 6.0 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ 22

Rockwool and Knapzak Trial 3


List of Abbreviations CDEW Construction, Demolition and Excavation Wastes

EPS Expanded Polystyrene

FIBC Flexible Intermediate Bulk Container

LDPE Low Density Polyethylene

SWMP Site Waste Management Plan

WRAP Waste & Resources Action Programme

WTN Waste Transfer Note

WTS Waste Transfer Station


1.0 Introduction The Materials Recycling Programme, initiated by WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme), aims to increase the quality of materials recovered from UK businesses for recycling. A key element of the programme is to focus on Construction, Demolition And Excavation Waste (CDEW) in order to support WRAP’s wider construction sector work, which aims to help the industry as a whole to achieve the objectives set out by the government to Halve Waste to Landfill. WSP Environmental Ltd. was commissioned by WRAP to review current container options and techniques used for the collection and transport of CDEW off site for further treatment and recycling. The research was to focus on the non-inert fraction of waste materials for which collections and recycling systems are currently under developed. The materials to be considered during the research were the suite of typical non-inert waste materials generated on site including: packaging, wood pallets, timber, plastics, cardboard, tins, metals, plaster, plasterboard, insulation and ceramic materials. A research report ‘Collection Techniques for Construction, Demolition and Excavation Wastes’, case study and demonstration trial reports were produced, investigating innovative techniques for collecting waste materials on site, in order to understand the best and most practical methods available, keeping in perspective the need to collect high volumes of material for recycling whilst maintaining the best possible material quality for recycling. During the study, a potential solution was identified for the collection of mineral wool waste generated during construction projects - the Knapzak container system. There was no evidence of the collection system being used for this purpose, having been designed for the collection of plastic wastes for recycling. Although accurate data regarding the composition of construction waste in the UK is limited, a study conducted by AMA Research Ltd. on behalf of WRAP in 2007 revealed that insulation (stone wool and fibreglass) accounts for up to 15% of the construction waste stream1. A demonstration trial was conducted in order to evaluate the likely success of implementation of the Knapzak container system on site, raise awareness of an alternative, innovative way to segregate smaller waste streams on site and raise the profile of mineral wool as a recyclable material. This demonstration trial report is intended to inform the industry of an alternative waste collection option currently available to the UK market; WRAP does not endorse any specific products discussed in this document.

1 AMA RESEARCH LTD. (2007), ‘Current Practices and Future Potential in Modern Methods of Construction’ [Online] Available from: http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/Modern_Methods_of_Construction_Full.05ae9ad3.3662.pdf

http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/Modern_Methods_of_Construction_Full.05ae9ad3.3662.pdf


2.0 Context for the Demonstration Trial 2.1 Demonstration Trial Objectives The WRAP demonstration trial had a number of key objectives:

Highlight mineral wool as a recyclable material;

Identify and review a possible route for recycling waste mineral wool;

Obtain feedback from all parties to identify barriers to the recycling process;

Identify possible options to overcome any barriers to the recycling process;

Highlight an innovative collection container system as an alternative means for segregating wastes on site;

Review the success of the collection container for collecting waste mineral wool on site.

2.2 Mineral Wool in Construction Mineral wool is an inorganic product manufactured by spinning molten glass, stone or slag into a fibrous material. Mineral wool can be manufactured to a range of different densities and the resulting products may be used for thermal, fire and acoustic protection. Although accurate data regarding the composition of construction waste in the UK is limited, a study conducted by AMA Research Ltd. on behalf of WRAP in 2007 revealed that insulation (stone wool and fibreglass) accounts for up to 15% of the construction waste stream1. 2.3 Mineral Wool as a Recyclable Material Rockwool Ltd is a leading manufacturer of mineral wool products generated from stone wool. Rockwool are currently reviewing their mineral wool recycling scheme2 and are exploring practical ways in which on site waste can be collected, accumulated, screened and returned to their factory in Bridgend, South Wales for recycling. 2.3.1 Rockwool Ltd. Customer Returns Recycling Scheme Rockwool currently accept post-consumer Rockwool material, either as off-cuts or product reclaimed from refurbishment or demolition works, for recycling. With the recent commissioning of a new recycling facility and the expansion of production capacity, Rockwool are seeking to significantly increase the quantity of mineral wool waste taken from customers for recycling. As well as reducing the quantity of material being sent to landfill, a successful recycling scheme could considerably reduce Rockwool’s demand for raw materials. Rockwool are in the process of reviewing their customer returns recycling scheme to identify options to improve accessibility for customers and increase the profile of mineral wool recycling within the construction industry. At present Rockwool only accept returned materials that are wholly Rockwool mineral wool, are free from contamination and returned by a licensed waste carrier. The recyclate could include facings where they have been applied by Rockwool, including aluminium foil, glass tissue, glass scrim and steel wire netting. Any contamination in the load would result in the whole load being rejected and returned at the originator’s cost. Rockwool instructs waste producers that the material has to be returned at a pre-arranged date and time in clear, sealed plastic bags. Any transport costs incurred would be at the originator’s expense. A fee of £30 per tonne would be payable to Rockwool to contribute to the costs incurred in processing the recyclate. A printed weighbridge ticket is issued by Rockwool to confirm the weight of recyclate returned. An overview of how the mineral wool is manufactured and then recycled is provided in Fig. 2.1.

2 ROCKWOOL (2009), ‘Returning Rockwool for Recycling’. [Online] Available from: http://www.rockwool.co.uk/sustainability/planet/recycling+rockwool/customer+returns

http://www.rockwool.co.uk/sustainability/planet/recycling+rockwool/customer+returns


Figure 2.1 Rockwool mineral wool recycling system3 Recycling mineral wool involves milling the waste material into a fine substance before bonding it with other ground raw materials to form a briquette. The briquettes can then be fired in the cupola furnace along with raw materials and undertake the normal processing, as shown in Fig. 2.1. The scheme enables clean, uncontaminated returns to be readily accepted for recycling. Contaminants, such as rubble, wood and steel can cause significant damage to the equipment used in the Rockwool manufacturing and recycling process and cannot be accepted. In addition, a consistent chemistry of the briquettes must be maintained in order to ensure the strength and integrity of the final products, and this is determined by the composition of materials entering the process. As a result, the facings of any Rockwool products returned for recycling are stripped prior to processing. Rockwool waste generated on construction sites is generally in small quantities, such as off-cuts and leftovers. This clean material is ideal for recycling and can be collected on site. There is no requirement to meet a specific volume of waste for reprocessing, and therefore small quantities are also accepted for recycling. On construction sites, there would be no need for further processing on site as Rockwool Ltd. would strip any facings from clean recyclate to enable recycling. On a demolition site, however, recovering the material for recycling would be quite different. The Rockwool material is likely to be in much larger quantities and in several different forms. A ‘deconstruction’ approach to demolition would subject the waste mineral wool to minimal contamination, making it suitable for recycling. The recovered mineral wool would need to be segregated on site and kept away from other waste streams. In order to lower the cost of transporting the material for recycling and ease handling, it may be necessary to process the material on site. Low density material could be compacted successfully and higher density material could be shredded. An appropriate screening system would be required on site to ensure that only Rockwool materials were processed in this way; Rockwool currently cannot accept other forms of mineral wool for recycling due to the unknown waste material composition and the risk of compromising output material quality from their factory. Mineral wool returned to the Rockwool factory for recycling is screened and at present, any contamination found in the load would result in the whole load being rejected and returned at the originator’s cost. The method for collection of waste mineral wool on site would depend on whether the site was conducting construction or demolition works. In either case, the material must be segregated and kept clear of contamination. Rockwool materials are treated to make them water repellent, although it should be noted that the container system used for storing the material on site must ensure that the level of exposure to water is reasonable.

3 ROCKWOOL (2009), ‘Rockwool and Recycling’ [Online] Available from: http://www.rockwool.co.uk/sustainability/planet/recycling+rockwool

Chimney

Raw material supply

Filter Recycling Recycling of insulation

waste from building sites

Environmental burnerCoolingzone

Special machinery

Direct loading

Packing Design cutting

machine

Curing oven

Spinner

Cupola furnace

Binder - oil

Weighing conveyor

Raw material silos

http://www.rockwool.co.uk/sustainability/planet/recycling+rockwool

http://www.rockwool.co.uk/sustainability/planet/recycling+rockwool


2.4 Selection of On Site Mineral Wool Waste Collection System There were certain criteria that determined the choice of container used for segregating mineral wool on site. Notably, the container needed to demonstrate an innovative way of collecting wastes on site, with the potential to improve collection efficiencies. The container needed to show potential for easing the source segregation of wastes and show potential for preserving material quality for recycling. The Knapzak collection system was selected as it met a number of these criteria, and provided a low cost alternative to traditional waste collection methods. The Knapzak container system was originally developed for the collection of synthetic packaging materials, including expanded polystyrene (EPS) and plastic film. The Knapzak is a strong, perforated bag manufactured from recycled low density polyethylene (LDPE) and is available in a range of sizes, from 200 - 2500 litre capacities. Perforations in the bag enable the bag and contents to be compacted and also enables water to drain away. The Knapzak is hung and held open using the Knapholder, a tubular steel frame which is available free standing, with wheels or as a frame that hooks onto the side of existing skips (Fig. 2.2). The container size is ideal for segregating lower volume waste streams on site and the small container footprint makes it an attractive alternative for sites with limited space. In addition, the clear Knapzak meets Rockwool requirements for waste to be placed in a clear plastic bag for recycling.

Figure 2.2 Knapzak and Knapholder in use at a Dutch construction site4

PRM Waste Systems Ltd. are currently the sole distributors of the Knapzak system in the UK and were able to provide a demonstration model for use in the trial. 2.5 What is Waste Segregation and why is it Important? Segregating wastes on site for recycling can introduce significant financial savings and enhance your business’s green credentials. An outline of the key benefits is summarised below: 2.5.1 Financial Benefits

Waste diverted from landfill immediately reduces direct costs. Landfill tax has increased in April 2009 to £40

per tonne, and is set to increase further.

Well managed segregation maximises skip space and reduces collection costs.

Waste materials that are properly segregated can have financial value; in certain circumstances where higher

quality materials are generated in bulk it may be possible to sell the material directly to recyclers or

reprocessors.

4 KNAPZAK BENELUX BV(2009), ‘B.M. van Houwelingen’ [Online] Available from: http://www.knapzak.nl/index.asp?id=382

http://www.knapzak.nl/index.asp?id=382


2.5.2 Business Benefits

Taking an active approach to waste management through encouraging resource efficiency and recycling can

be a commercial advantage for your business. Clients are becoming increasingly aware of the need to act

sustainably, and those companies that can deliver innovative approaches to resource efficiency and waste

management will ultimately improve their reputations, strengthen their bids for work and become more

attractive to the best employers.

The Government’s National Procurement Strategy requires authorities to ensure sustainability considerations

are built into their procurement contracts.

2.5.3 Environmental Benefits

The energy used to manufacture new materials is partly saved through recycling wastes into new products,

thereby maximising resource efficiency.

Some materials will degrade in landfill sites, releasing harmful greenhouse gases.

2.6 Using the Knapzak to meet Legal Obligations or Industry Targets Segregating waste materials on site for recycling can help construction businesses to meet their legal obligations or industry targets such as the Construction Commitments: Halving Waste to Landfill5. The use of the Knapzak container system encourages the easy segregation of wastes on site, which will contribute to the requirements set out in the Duty of Care6 and the Site Waste Management Plans Regulations7. 2.6.1 Duty of Care The Duty of Care is set out in section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and associated regulations, and applies to anyone who is a holder of controlled wastes. The Duty of Care places a number of responsibilities on those generating and transporting waste. Waste must be managed properly, recovered or disposed safely, must not cause harm to human health or pollution of the environment and must be transferred only to authorised businesses, such as registered waste brokers and carriers. An accurate record of all waste transported must be kept through completing Waste Transfer Notes (WTNs). WTNs contain detailed information regarding the quantity and types of waste leaving the site, allowing safe handling, processing and disposal of the material within the law. 2.6.2 Site Waste Management Plans Regulations (2008) In April 2008, regulations were introduced requiring all construction projects in England over the value of £300,000 to have a Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP). The SWMP records information about the types and quantities of waste generated on site alongside details of how the materials will be reused, recycled or disposed of. A detailed SWMP can benefit construction companies through a number of means, by helping businesses to:

answer waste-related queries from environmental regulators or the local authority;

avoid prosecution through monitoring and recording the destinations of their wastes;

develop on site waste management practices, helping to identify areas to improve efficiencies, save money

and reduce waste and

forecast likely waste arisings for future projects and aid resource efficiency and waste facility planning.

2.6.3 The Construction Commitments: Halving Waste to Landfill

5 WRAP (2009), ‘The Construction Commitments: Halving Waste to Landfill’ [Online] Available from: http://www.wrap.org.uk/construction/halving_waste_to_landfill/index.html 6 HMSO (1990), ‘Duty of care etc., as respects to waste’ [Online] Available from: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1990/ukpga_19900043_en_5#pt2-pb3-l1g34 7 HMSO (2008) ‘Site Waste Management Plans Regulations 2008’ [Online] Available from: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/uksi_20080314_en_1

http://www.wrap.org.uk/construction/halving_waste_to_landfill/index.html

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1990/ukpga_19900043_en_5%23pt2-pb3-l1g34

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/uksi_20080314_en_1


In 2008, the Government released the Strategy for Sustainable Construction8 in recognition of the environmental and economic impacts of the significant levels of wastage and landfilling of material resources in the construction industry. The Strategy established the following overarching target for construction waste in England:

By 2012, a 50% reduction in construction, demolition and excavation waste to landfill compared to

2008.

WRAP are involved in supporting the industry in meeting this target. Further information about The Construction Commitments: Halving Waste to Landfill can be found on the WRAP website:


8 BERR (2008) ‘Strategy for Sustainable Construction’ [Online] Available from: http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file46535.pdf


http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file46535.pdf


3.0 Demonstration Trial Review 3.1 Demonstration Trial Key Facts Site Location: Samlesbury, Balderstone, Lancashire

Demonstration Trial Overview: The on site segregation of waste mineral wool using the Knapzak

container system to enable recycling

Timescale: 3 week trial during March 2009

Main Contractor: Eric Wright Construction Ltd.

Sub-contractor: Total Firestopping Systems Ltd.

Knapzak container provision: PRM Waste Systems Ltd.

Mineral wool waste collection and transport: The White Group (White Reclamation Ltd.)

Mineral wool recycling: Rockwool Ltd

3.2 Site & Contractor Details BAE Systems Ltd. are currently conducting works on a 100,000 m2 development at their Samlesbury site in Lancashire. The development will include modern industrial and office space for up to 6,000 BAE Systems employees9. Total Firestopping were sub-contracted to provide acoustic, fire stopping and air sealant works for a building on the site. Four to six Total Firestopping labourers were on site providing the works during a nine week period from February - March 2009. 3.3 Mineral Wool Use On Site A range of mineral wool based products are used on site to provide thermal, fire and acoustic protection. The products include Rockwool 60mm Flexislab (Fig. 3.1), which is used within the walls and the denser 25mm beam clad used to provide 30 minutes of fire protection to structural columns (Fig 3.2). Ablative board is also used on site, which has a mineral fibre core and is coated with a water-based acrylic sealant on both sides. This material is used as a fire-stopping air sealant at the top of all internal walls. Figure 3.1 Rockwool 60mm Flexislab mineral wool fitted to an internal wall.

9 BAE SYSTEMS (2007), ‘BAE Systems to Develop Major UK Manufacturing Site’ [Online] Available from: http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/autoGen_10751416183.html

http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/autoGen_10751416183.html

Figure 3.2 25mm beam clad used to protect structural columns.

3.4 Mineral Wool Waste Generation and Handling On Site Mineral wool waste generated on site was in the form of off-cuts from the wall insulation, beam clad and ablative board. To minimise wall insulation waste on site, operatives positioned any larger off-cuts into the walls as well. This was not considered efficient for smaller off-cuts, which would usually be collected on site for disposal, allowing operatives to continue with ‘fee-paying’ works. It was estimated that approximately two to three 400 litre capacity Knapzak bags of mineral wool waste would be generated during the full site works. The majority of the mineral wool waste was to be produced mid-way through the works as the mineral wool insulation is fitted, following the installation of services and prior to the backboard being fixed. Waste from the works would usually be placed in the main contractor’s general waste skip; Total Firestopping does not currently recycle the off-cuts as there is no established or financially viable system in place for collecting and transporting the waste to a recycling facility. They considered that if a practical, affordable solution was found, it would present an attractive alternative to using contractors and sub-contractors to collect the material for disposal.

Figure 3.3 Rockwool mineral wool in use on site.


3.5 Introduction of the Knapzak Container System On Site The Knapzak container system was delivered to site by courier. The Knapholder frame came fully assembled and the rolled Knapzak bags stored in a cardboard box ready for use (Fig. 3.4). The Knapzak bags were stored in a convenient location ready for use. On a larger site, the box containing the Knapzak bags would have been placed in a separate container store on site.

Figure 3.4 Knapzak bags were delivered to site in rolls.

There were initial concerns with the Knapzak frame which meant that it was not being used as designed - to be hooked on to the side of a skip in an outdoor designated waste storage area. There were also concerns that the main contractor would mistakenly collect the bag and the frame for disposal. In addition, there was a risk that other sub-contractors working on site would place other waste materials in the bag, leading to contamination. As a result, the Knapzak bag was used to collect waste off-cuts at source and the full Knapzak bags were intentionally kept away from the existing waste collection area on site (Fig. 3.5).

Figure 3.5 Designated on site waste storage area.

Some of these issues could have been resolved if the Knapzak system had been introduced at the beginning of the project, where all parties on site could have been informed of the role of the Knapzak container system and the waste mineral wool recycling scheme at the site induction. In addition, liaison with the licensed waste contractor for the project would be necessary to ensure that there was no risk of the segregated waste stream or frame being discarded.


Figure 3.6 Knapholder – frame for holding the Knapzak bag.

When the Knapzak container system arrived on site, there were no accompanying instructions for its use. This led to some initial confusion about how to use the frame and bags on site. It was also suggested that some form of labelling or signage should be made available to aid material segregation and help to ensure that other sub-contractors on site did not mistake the container system for a general refuse container. It was felt that for this trial, the Knapzak collection system would be more successful using the stand alone frame model to enable effective waste collection at source, rather than segregating the materials externally at the skip. The sub-contractor felt that the system would work well for city centre sites where there is very limited space, due to the small footprint of the Knapzak container. The Knapzak bag was not enclosed or provided with a lid, meaning that if used outside the materials placed within the container would be susceptible to water damage. Perforations in the bag are designed to enable water to drain away although there was no system to prevent water from entering the bag. This may not pose a problem where plastic packaging is collected, although more vulnerable materials should to be kept under cover to prevent degradation. In the case of mineral wool for recycling, the material can tolerate a limited amount of water exposure. 3.6 Site Operative Training It was felt that training on how to install the Knapholder and Knapzak system would have been beneficial. Training was not delivered by the product supplier due to a lack of availability during the trial period. However, it was not stated that the product supplier would be available for standard installations of the Knapsack system on site. To combat this training issue in future, it would be beneficial to distribute an information leaflet with simple instructions or images/photographs of the Knapzak operation. In house training could then be delivered at minimal cost to ensure that site operatives are fully informed of the Knapzak purpose and operation on site. Introduction of the Knapzak system at the beginning of the project would have helped to ensure that the licensed waste carrier and all sub-contractors on site were aware of the role of the Knapzak collection system, avoiding the risk of contamination or incorrect disposal of the bag and/or frame. Unfortunately, this was not undertaken for the trial. It was noted during the site visit on 19 March 2009 that a number of mineral wool off-cuts were present in the general waste skip in the on site waste storage area. This gave an indication that instructions on the availability of Knapzak bags for mineral wool waste segregation had not reached all of the site operatives. Contamination of one of the Knapzak bags with plastic wrapping was also identified; the site operative was asked to remove it prior to collection for recycling.


3.7 Health and Safety Use of the Knapzak collection system introduced no additional health and safety requirements. However, handling of the bags once waste materials were placed inside should be reviewed under the site’s manual handling risk assessments and appropriate safety precautions taken. There was some concern expressed about the strength of the Knapzak bag and whether it would split under the weight of the waste mineral wool. The bags are capable of holding loads up to 20kg.

Figure 3.7 Full Knapzak containing waste mineral wool off-cuts.

Use of the Knapzak collection system enabled waste to be collected at source, which improved housekeeping and helped to ensure that the site was kept clear of debris and loose waste materials. 3.8 Waste Carrier Perspective At present, collection of mineral wool for recycling is not always sustainable or financially viable when considered on an individual site by site basis. To overcome this problem, it would be beneficial to collect waste from several sites within a region for bulking at a central depot. The material could then be baled before being transported to the recycling facility. In addition, the gate fee currently charged by recycling companies or reprocessors to accept this material is too high when compared with the fee for landfilling. 3.9 Receipt of Mineral Wool at the Rockwool Facility for Recycling Mineral wool waste generated during the trial was returned to the Rockwool facility at Bridgend in South Wales for assessment and recycling. In total, two full bags of waste were generated during the trial period, with a total weight of 19kg (Fig. 3.8). Rockwool will accept small quantities of waste mineral wool providing that it has been agreed prior to delivery, as with larger quantities of waste.



Figure 3.8 Receipt of the full Knapzak bags containing waste mineral wool off-cuts at the Rockwool Ltd facility10.

The material returned to the Rockwool facility for recycling was of a ‘fair quality’. The key problem encountered was contamination found in the load, including some metal fragments (Fig. 3.9) which would have caused significant problems during reprocessing if they had not been removed. Under the existing customer returns recycling scheme, the entire load would have been rejected at the waste producer’s cost. Coated batt material (slabs treated with fire retardant paint) was present in the load and is acceptable for recycling.

Figure 3.9 Metal fragment contaminants found in the load could have damaged reprocessing machinery10.

10 ROCKWOOL LTD. (2009)

3.10 Review of Knapzak Use on Site for the Collection of Mineral Wool Waste

Figure 3.10 Knapzak Collection System Trial Review

Trial Observations Options for Improvement

No instructions for installation and use were provided with the frame/bags.

The Knapzak UK distributor, PRM Waste Systems Ltd., was considering the introduction of a leaflet proving an image of how to use the frame/bags.

Training in how to segregate the correct mineral wool materials for recycling would be beneficial.

Appropriate training could be introduced as part of the site induction. This would help to ensure that the licensed waste carrier and all sub-contractors are aware of the role of the collection system and how materials should be segregated on site. This was not possible during the trial as works had already commenced on site.

A stand alone frame would be beneficial for ‘at source’ waste segregation.

Equivalent Knapzak stand alone frames are also available from PRM Waste Systems Ltd. (Fig. 3.11) Use of the stand alone frame would enable source segregation of wastes, avoid contamination risks and prevent the material from being accidentally disposed of.

Bags were not placed by the skip due to concerns of it being disposed of and/or sub-contractor contamination.

This can be overcome through an appropriate site induction and contractor liaison with the licensed waste carrier.

Concerns about strength of bag and whether it would rip under the weight.

The 400 litre Knapzak is capable of holding approximately 20kg waste. This should be labelled appropriately, although since the material is bulky but relatively light, it is thought unlikely that the maximum weight would be exceeded.

If the Knapzak system was used in the open to collect mineral wool, the material would be vulnerable to wet weather.

Perforations in the Knapzak bag enable water to drain from the bag. Although waste mineral wool for recycling at the Rockwool facility is able to withstand a limited amount of water exposure, the Knapzak should ideally be protected from the elements.

Using the Knapzak collection system on site enables waste collection at source, improving housekeeping

No action necessary.

The Knapzak collection system is suitable for sites with limited space due to the small footprint of the container


The Knapzak collection system uses bags manufactured from 70% recycled LDPE.


INTR

OD

UCI

NG

KN

APZA

K CO

LLEC

TIO

N S

YSTE

M

The Knapzak collection system uses clear bags, meeting the Rockwool requirement for waste mineral wool to be delivered to site in a clear plastic bag.




Figure 3.11 Stand alone Knapzak collection system used for collecting Rockwool packaging waste11

3.11 Review of Rockwool Mineral Wool Recycling Scheme

Figure 3.12 Rockwool Mineral Wool Recycling Scheme Review

Trial Observations Options for Improvement

No signage/labelling available to indicate which material to segregate using the chosen selection system.

Rockwool are considering the option of producing labels/signage to aid waste segregation on site.

High gate fee for acceptance of mineral wool waste (Currently £30/tonne)

Rockwool are currently reviewing their recycling process to identify areas to improve operational efficiencies and promote recovery of the material.

Not a cost effective solution for managing mineral wool waste on a single site by site basis (high gate fees, collection and transport costs).

Rockwool are currently reviewing the option to include the collection and bulking of mineral wool from sites within a region by a single waste contractor, before this material is transported to the Rockwool factory for recycling.

Some additional paperwork is incurred by site staff to ensure that the appropriate Waste Transfer Notes are provided for the segregated waste stream when collected by a licensed waste carrier.

This is a legal obligation for all waste materials leaving the site and should not pose a significant obstacle for contractors.

Uncertainty about acceptable waste materials.

Active promotion of suitable waste streams that can be recycled, not simply via website but by other information tools as well.

ROCK

WO

OL

REC

YCLI

NG

SCH

EME

Contamination was found in the mineral wool material generated on site.

In order to maximise recycling rates from construction customers, some form of screening system will be necessary to avoid contamination issues. Although site operatives can be well informed regarding the problems associated with contamination, the trial has proven that the high standard of segregation required will be challenging to achieve in practice.

11 PRM Waste Systems Ltd. The UK Distributor for Knapzak

4.0 Conclusions Although accurate data regarding the composition of construction waste in the UK is limited, a study conducted by AMA Research Ltd. on behalf of WRAP in 2007 revealed that insulation (stone wool and fibreglass) accounts for up to 15% of the construction waste stream1. It is essential that contractors consider the minimisation of waste from a resource efficiency (and therefore cost savings) perspective, ensuring that the correct amount of construction materials are ordered in the first instance and managed correctly on site. At present, there are no easily accessible systems for contractors that enable the recycling of mineral wool generated as a waste on construction projects. In order to recycle the material at present, the contractor is required to provide a container for segregating the material on site, arrange transport and pay £30 per tonne gate fee at the Rockwool recycling facility. Taking these costs into consideration and the comparatively small volume of the waste material on each site, in many cases it is not currently financially viable for most contractors to recycle the material. It can be appreciated that space constraints on site mean that it is often difficult to segregate a large number of waste materials for recycling, especially those with a low weight or volume. Those materials which tend to have precedence for recycling are those of larger weight or volume, typically metals, timber and inert waste. However, as detailed in this report there are alternative collection options available, such as the Knapzak system, which do not necessarily take up space or require any major change in day-to-day site operations. These collection systems can be used to aid waste management on site and enable waste diversion from landfill. When introducing any new waste collection system on site, it is essential that site operatives receive full induction training. The system should then be regularly monitored to avoid any material contamination or accidental disposal of recyclable materials in general waste skips. The recycling systems available need to deliver real financial savings for contractors in comparison to alternative methods of disposal in order to encourage take up and participation. If the costs are more expensive or comparable to landfill, then contractors will not easily be persuaded to recycle. Gate fees and additional waste collection and transport costs currently make the recycling of mineral wool unattractive and would need to offer better incentives to encourage full participation in the scheme. By bulking waste material in a central location prior to transport to the recycling facility, there is the potential to reduce financial costs for contractors and improve the environmental sustainability of the recycling scheme as fewer long haul vehicle movements may be necessary. Reprocessors need to ensure that there is absolute clarity regarding the materials that can be accepted and at what costs and that customers are made fully aware of the scheme and the benefits it brings. At present, only certain brands of insulation material may be collected, and there is uncertainty about which product types can be recycled. Difficulty in discerning appropriate materials for recycling by operatives on site will undoubtedly lead to contamination. Reprocessors need to be aware that although the message of segregating waste at source can be promoted on site, the reality of the situation is that there will need to be some degree of waste material screening to ensure that contaminants are not present in the recovered materials.


5.0 Further Information

WRAP

WRAP helps individuals, businesses and local authorities to reduce waste and recycle more, making better use of resources and helping to tackle climate change. This case study applies to two key work areas covered by WRAP: Construction - Helping the construction industry cut costs and increase efficiency through the better use of materials.

Recycling Industry - Providing practical help and support to enable a sustainable and profitable industry.

More information on WRAP’s work can be found on http://www.wrap.org.uk/

Main Contractor: Eric Wright Construction Ltd.

Eric Wright Construction Ltd. forms part of the Eric Wright Group Ltd., offering a range of services including civil engineering, construction, and property and facilities management. Further information can be found on their website: http://www.ericwright.co.uk/

Sub-contractor: Total Firestopping Systems Ltd.

Total Firestopping Systems Ltd. has over 20 years of experience installing all forms of passive fire protection. They are approved installers of all Passive Fire Protection products produced by the major manufacturers of and are founder members of the Association of Specialist Fire Protection Contractors. Further information can be found on their website: http://www.totalfirestopping.co.uk/

Knapzak container provision: PRM Waste Systems Ltd.

PRM Waste Systems Ltd. offers an extensive range of recycling and waste management equipment to optimise waste segregation, handling, storage and transportation. PRM Waste Systems Ltd. are currently the sole UK distributor for Knapzak collection systems. Further information can be found on their website: http://www.prmwastesystems.com/

Mineral wool waste collection and transport: The White Group (White Reclamation Ltd.)

White Reclamation Ltd. has over 50 years experience providing recycling and waste management solutions in the north west of England. White Reclamation Ltd. specialise in providing solutions for the construction industry, but also provide services to the commercial, industrial and domestic sectors. Further information can be found on their website: http://www.thewhitegroup.co.uk/

Mineral wool recycling: Rockwool Ltd

Rockwool is a leading UK manufacturer of mineral wool insulation for thermal, fire and acoustic protection. They currently operate a Rockwool customer returns recycling scheme and are in the process of exploring practical


http://www.wrap.org.uk/

http://www.ericwright.co.uk/

http://www.totalfirestopping.co.uk/

http://www.prmwastesystems.com/

http://www.thewhitegroup.co.uk/

ways in which Rockwool waste generated on site can be collected, accumulated, screened and returned to their factory for recycling. Further information about Rockwool Ltd can be found on their website: http://www.rockwool.co.uk/ and information about Rockwool’s customer returns recycling scheme can be found at: http://www.rockwool.co.uk/sustainability/planet/recycling+rockwool/customer+returns


http://www.rockwool.co.uk/

http://www.rockwool.co.uk/sustainability/planet/recycling+rockwool/customer+returns


6.0 Acknowledgements WSP Environmental Ltd. would like to thank the following people for their support and kind assistance during this project:

Kathryn James, Rockwool Ltd

Simon Bloor, Total Firestopping Ltd

Brent Knox, Eric Wright Construction Ltd

Chris Naylon, The White Group Ltd

Paul Hughes, PRM Waste Systems Ltd

www.wrap.org.uk/constructionmrf

http://www.wrap.org.uk/constructionmrf

demonstration trial report rockwool and knapzak trialknapzak (… · this demonstration trial...

Documents