Home

Technical report templates

1. M There is a clear case for the use of a chipper In all but one trial implementation of a capture system incorporating a chipper resulted in cost savings The advantage of a chipper is that it facilitates the use of a chute without the requirement to manually break up the waste plasterboard This is repeated at skip level where the chipper waste reduces the proportion of air voids in a skip MI Itis advantageous to cover the plasterboard skip in order to reduce the potential of moisture being absorbed into the plasterboard This was shown to increase the weight of the plasterboard in a receptacle by up to 10 MM The chipper is best utilised on the floor where the waste is produced The results from the Shepherd Clarence Dock trial show that operating the chipper on the ground floor adjacent to the skip takes longer and therefore costs more Other methods to move the waste to the ground floor also have to be employed adding significant extra costs MI A chute that removes the requirement for manual handling of the waste both to and into the receptacles is Significantly more efficient Results from the Aylesbury and Clarence Dock trials demonstrate the benefit of this system In addition the success of the capture system at King s Place can be partially attributed to the use of a chute MI The most efficient capture systems limit manual handling as far as possible For example a saving can be made if dry liners place plasterboard waste directly
2. Mi The complexity of operations on a construction site often mean that trades with the potential to reuse offcuts from another trade are contractually habitually or technically restrained from doing so For example Dry liners rarely reuse offcuts due to the need for a straight edge Variations are carried out with an entirely new set of materials due to a change in contractor There often has to be a substantial case for waste minimisation before methodologies can be put into place Waste board is required to be cleared for health and safety reasons M Technical barriers concerning the recycling process are often a problem on construction sites due to the difficulties associated with keeping materials free from contamination With materials as sensitive as gypsum it requires very little moisture for the plasterboard recyclers to reject the material as unusable MI On larger construction sites plasterboard is often sourced from more than one supplier especially on phased developments Since most plasterboard manufacturers generally run recycling operations exclusively for their own materials this means that more than one capture methodology may be required on a single site If the waste is not sent back to the plasterboard manufacturer but is destined for alternative end uses the capture methodology may be less critical Table 18 Critical factors in the adoption of a plasterboard capture system on construction sites Material
3. Once the new capture system was in operation data collection was extended to include the cost of hiring the equipment chipper bins and chute The rationale for the site selection reflected three aims of the research project i e to carry out trials on sites MI producing significant quantities of plasterboard waste such that while they might pose the greatest challenges to implementing a new system they would also offer the greatest potential reward in terms of demonstrable savings MI suspected of currently sending plasterboard waste to landfill and MI where the chipper stood the best chance of achieving savings e g the environment offered by a high rise residential project suitable power supply on site quantity of material significant existing labour costs is likely to be more suited to the chipper than the environment offered by a traditional housing site where there is limited power until the final few weeks of the project a diffuse source of plasterboard waste and likely to be less plasterboard waste per unit Although the original intention was to use TWC sites exclusively for the purpose of these trials it quickly became apparent that this would not be possible because MI the timing of the trials did not fit well with current TWC sites as the majority of the dry lining work had already been completed in time for residential handovers prior to Christmas 2006 and MI all TWC sites producing significant quantities of plasterb
4. Skips bags As stated above a range of projects was selected in order to cover a number of sectors e g housing healthcare and different scales of construction It is anticipated that the number of un chipped skips bags required on each project will be significantly greater than the number of chipped skips bags An environment where the material could be segregated and weighed immediately accurately and without contamination by either other materials or adverse weather conditions Material change for better envi t ee iii ileal ial Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 37 For each project the distance travelled on each collection to the recycling facility vvas determined to enable the total distance travelled during the project under the un chipped and chipped scenarios to be calculated This vvas expressed as a total un chipped distance travelled and a total chipped distance travelled Figure 21 contains an extract from the spreadsheet tool produced to calculate estimated carbon savings and illustrates the way in which carbon savings were derived The spreadsheet shows that for a project producing 2 019 tonnes of plasterboard waste a large development the difference of 250 kg between a chipped and an un chipped bag will result in a saving of 21 86 tonnes of carbon dioxide tCOz under the evaluation applied For British Gypsum bag collections only one leg of the journey is included in the calculation as i
5. TRANSPORT Number of bags per lorry articulated 25 Max weight tonnes capacity of lorry articulated 25 Number of journeys per project chipped Number of journeys per project un chipped EMISSIONS Emissions per mile gCO2 mile Length of journey miles 53 90 Emissions per journey gCO2 Total miles travelled on job chipped Total miles travelled on job unchipped Total emissions on job chipped gCO2 Total emissions on job un chipped gCO2 TOTAL EMISSIONS SAVING gC02 12 465 668 71 TOTAL EMISSIONS SAVING kgC02 12 465 67 TOTAL EMISSIONS SAVING tC02 12 47 TOTAL EMISSIONS CHIPPED tCO2 32 15 Percentage Saving 27 94 tCO2 per tonne bags 0 016 Material change for Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 75 a better environment Table C6 GUV bag WASTE Weight of chipped bag Weight of un chipped bag Total weight of waste on project tonnes Estimated number of chipped bags on project Estimated number of un chipped bags on project TRANSPORT Number of bags per lorry articulated 25 Max weight tonnes capacity of lorry articulated 25 Number of journeys per project chipped Number of journeys per project un chipped EMISSIONS Emissions per mile gCO2 mile Length of journey miles 84 50 Emissions per journey gCO2 Total miles travelled on job chipped Total miles travelled on job unchipped Total emissions on job chipped Total emissions on job un chipped TOTAL EM
6. Total emissions on job un chipped TOTAL EMISSIONS SAVING gC02 TOTAL EMISSIONS SAVING kgC02 TOTAL EMISSIONS SAVING tC02 TOTAL EMISSIONS ON JOB CHIPPED tCO2 W n Material change for GP a better environment 336 2 3802425 29 3802 43 3 80 21 69 WASTE Weight of control 16 yard chipped skip tonnes Weight of control 16 yard un chipped skip tonnes Total weight of waste on project tonnes Estimated number of chipped skips on job Estimated number of un chipped skips TRANSPORT Max Weight of Skip on Lorry must be gt than B3 Number of journeys per project chipped Number of journeys per project un chipped EMISSIONS Emissions per mile gCo2 mile Length of journey mile Emissions per journey gCO2 Total miles travelled on job chipped Total miles travelled on job unchipped Total emissions on job chipped Total emissions on job un chipped TOTAL EMISSIONS SAVING gC02 TOTAL EMISSIONS SAVING kgC02 TOTAL EMISSIONS SAVING tC02 WASTE Weight of control 40 yard chipped skip tonnes Weight of control 40 yard un chipped skip tonnes Total weight of waste on project tonnes Estimated number of chipped skips on job Estimated number of un chipped skips TRANSPORT Max Weight of Skip on Lorry must be gt than B3 Number of journeys per project chipped Number of journeys per project un chipped EMISSIONS Emissions per mile gCo2 mile 336 2 Length of journe
7. Kings Road McAlpine Operatives load PE into bin and transfer to hoist Operates load PB from bin inte chipper Total labour costs 8 80 m MI The site at King s Place benefited from early implementation of the capture system although it took longer than expected to generate a sufficient quantity of waste a positive sign from a waste minimisation point of view M The efficiency of this capture system was supported significantly by the chute labour costs and the barge disposal costs However even within this system there were areas for improvement For example the decision to stockpile the plasterboard waste next to the chipper rather than just leave it in the bins introduced a degree of double handling in this system This was due to a lack of bins on the site MI In general this system proved very efficient When compared with the capture system at the Aylesbury site it is clear that there are significant benefits in planning such systems up front Figure 20 Chute into barge at King s Place Material change for a better environment Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 33 5 3 5 Summary of economic results To show the cost versus savings for a chipper system the labour cost and the waste disposal costs were combined for the TWC Clarence Dock site This was the only site for which site specific and suitable waste disposal costs were available Use of the chipper resulted in a 47 saving on
8. Suitable collection method I If filling directly into large waste skips place the chipper at the open ends of the skip i If filling 1 tonne dumpy type waste sacks support the sides of the bags with adequate framing or use recommended Starke Arvid bag supports ili When using Starke Arvid waste bins operate the machine with the stand in the lower position This will also improve the ergonomic operation of the machine 3 Apply the brake on the locking wheel to prevent unnecessary movement 4 Turn on the machine by pressing the green Start button The rotating blades start and the machine is ready to use 5 Use only clean waste plasterboard with the machine Avoid wet or damp boards and ensure that they are free from screws metal or other contaminants 6 When feeding the plasterboard waste into the chipper hold onto the back of the board until the chipper takes over the feeding If you are feeding longer board lengths support the board on the back end until the machine is capable of supporting its weight This is done to avoid the unsupported board breaking 7 The machine is capable of chipping most plasterboard up to a width of 700 mm and a thickness of between 9 5 and 19 mm 8 To stop the machine press the red Stop button 9 Inthe event of a material blockage i Press the red Stop button or reset the 15 amp fuse if it has tripped ll Press the reverse switch and allow plasterboard pieces to return to
9. Weight of control 40 yard chipped skip tonnes Weight of control 40 yard un chipped skip tonnes Total weight of waste on project tonnes Estimated number of chipped skips on job Estimated number of un chipped skips TRANSPORT Max Weight of Skip on Lorry must be gt than B3 Number of journeys per project chipped Number of journeys per project un chipped EMISSIONS Emissions per mile gCo2 mile 208 60 Length of journey mile 208 60 Emissions per journey gCO2 Total miles travelled on job chipped Total miles travelled on job unchipped Total emissions on job chipped Total emissions on job un chipped 1027423 18 TOTAL EMISSIONS SAVING gC02 410969 27 1027 42 TOTAL EMISSIONS SAVING kgGo2 410 97 1 03 TOTAL EMISSIONS SAVING tC02 0 41 5 86 2 34 Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 78 Table C9 Victoria Wharf skip VVASTE VVeight of control 8 yard chipped skip tonnes VVeight of control 8 yard un chipped skip tonnes Total vveight of vvaste on project tonnes Estimated number of chipped skips on job Estimated number of un chipped skips TRANSPORT Max Weight of Skip on Lorry must be gt than B3 Number of journeys per project chipped Number of journeys per project un chipped EMISSIONS Emissions per mile gCo2 mile Length of journey mile Emissions per journey gCO2 Total miles travelled on job chipped Total miles travelled on job unchipped Total emissions on job chipped
10. a better environment Executive summary Over one million tonnes of vvaste plasterboard are estimated to be produced each year in the UK from construction and demolition activities Most of this waste is currently sent to landfill even though it can easily be recycled WRAP is working to divert plasterboard waste from landfill by seeking to overcome the barriers to plasterboard recycling One area of its work is to develop markets for the materials from plasterboard recycling recycled gypsum and reclaimed paper This project describes work undertaken on a number of construction sites to demonstrate cost effective solutions to problem of how best to capture waste plasterboard for recycling The project was undertaken by a consortium including Taylor Woodrow Starke Arvid and British Gypsum Trial design The aims of the project were to MI develop the general understanding of site characteristics important when planning plasterboard capture and other waste minimisation methodologies on construction sites MI provide information to support the uptake of the most efficient means of plasterboard capture identified by this study and MI stimulate further investigation of capture methodologies for those sites shown not to be suited to traditional capture methodologies The project did not examine steps to reduce the generation of plasterboard waste i e waste minimisation the infrastructure for plasterboard waste recovery recycling and differe
11. and DISTRIBUTI ON Unloading and placement of the chipper can be by either mechanical offloading facilities or by hand The chipper must be stored within a secure compound area for security REMOVAL OF WASTE Material change for a better environment Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 25 Do not allow waste to build up around the chipper Follow standard housekeeping procedures to maintain a safe working environment NOTES 4 2 Technical development of the chipper during the project The early stages of the site trials using the chipper enabled Starke Arvid to carry out some excellent evaluation and development work Long term site exposure identified areas for improvements and highlighted modifications required to improve site performance prevent blockages and improve the operative training programme Previous trials in a controlled environment had shown the suitability of the chipper s basic design but further exposure to site behaviour and capture systems highlighted a number of issues Table 4 Table 4 Chipper issues and solutions highlighted by the site trials T Waste paper and board debris building up and causing jamming in the waste out feed Manufacturing a modified waste out feed collector Boards such as soundbloc are manufactured from a paper allowed the majority of paper offcuts to fall clear liner with several plies If the operatives snap the board by from the machine hand and rip it apart the
12. capture Environmental business case The environmental business case focused on the use of a chipper to maximise the amount of waste material within a receptacle e g bag skip or barge and consequently optimisation of its transportation off site for recycling An analysis of historic data from a range of Taylor Woodrow sites suggested that four variables can affect the level of carbon dioxide emissions associated with the transport of plasterboard waste from the site for recycling disposal These variables are W increase in skip bag capacity through use of a plasterboard chipper MI use of different size receptacles for waste plasterboard MI distance of the site from a plasterboard recycling centre and MI mode of transport used to transport the plasterboard An ideal scenario would address all four through the use of a chipper use of a 40 cu yd skip or larger a shorter journey distance and an alternative means of transport Such as a canal barge Best practice guidance The many lessons learned from the site trials have been brought together in the form of best practice guidance This guidance is intended to inform the implementation of plasterboard capture system on future sites and to provide a framework around which to target continual improvement The guidance stresses the importance of planning and highlights the roles responsibilities of the key stakeholders main contractor dry lining contractor and waste management company
13. change for a better environment Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 46 Factor Negative aspects Positive aspects Small site footprint Large site footprint A limited site footprint with little A large site with sufficient room to room to segregate plasterboard segregate plasterboard waste waste Good storage facilities Poor storage facilities Short lead in Long lead in Limited time to setup a complicated Enough time to set up alternative means capture system of disposal Rapid rate of construction Standard rate of construction No time labour to segregate the Labour available on site to police plasterboard waste segregation Client requirements Sub contract documentation proactive client degree of influence allocated to lead contractor Client manufacturer sub contractor buy in Location Rural Urban Limited alternative means of Local alternatives to landfill available disposal available locally Distance to plasterboard recycling centre applies to all Short lt 15 weeks Long gt 52 weeks A short and small scale project or A project duration long enough to strict heavy liquidated and warrant time labour investment in actuated damages LADs in segregation force Size of the waste stream Small infrastructure projects Large high rise residential Waste disposal The 10 rule enforced by the regulations Environment Agency encourages the use of general waste skips for plaste
14. conditions and the end use requirements for the plasterboard waste e g barge bins bags or skips There is limited scope in this project for reducing the cost of the different receptacles however there is potential to increase the quantity of waste in each receptacle The quantity of plasterboard in a 40 cu yd skip at the TWC site at Clarence Dock was calculated to range from 35 to 47 Through utilising a chipper the percentage of plasterboard in a skip increased to an average of 63 3 based on average of weighed skips This was calculated to provide a saving of WE 22 76 m for an 8 cu yd skip W 11 22 m for a 35 cu yd skip and NM 25 07 m for a 40 cu yd skip Controlled trails carried out at Wastecycle see section 1 4 compared the volume of plasterboard that was captured in a British Gypsum bag with a manual system 0 35 m and when using a chipper 0 48 m Both the TWC site at Clarence Dock and the Wastecycle trial achieved a significant improvement in the efficiency of waste being placed in the skip and therefore a saving in skip costs This is also evident visually in Figure 15 which shows better compaction of the plasterboard If the average calculated compaction is achieved the weight of plasterboard in a 40 cu yd skip will be 15 2 tonnes This means that the single axle lorries reported maximum lift of 16 tonnes that remove the skips are able to lift the skip If the weight of plasterboard increased to over 16
15. construction points A 40 cu yd skip fully loaded with chipped plasterboard dry should weigh 12 15 tonnes Dry lining contractor MI Ensure fixers place plasterboard waste directly into the bins so that double handling can be avoided and Stage 1 illustrated in the economic analysis can be eliminated MI Operate a chipper on the source floor to ensure that material is transferred to the ground floor receptacle in the most efficient manner It was demonstrated during the trials that chipping on the ground floor dramatically reduces the savings potential offered by the chipper This is due to the double handling of the material MI Ensure that labourers are trained and fully understand the most efficient means of plasterboard capture This includes coaching operatives in how they collect the waste the equipment they use and how they plan their workflow Arrange a suitable toolbox talk covering these aspects This will help to achieve significant efficiency gains over and above the simple volume improvements achieved in the waste containers and help towards achieving buy in Waste management company MI Provide updates on the quantities of waste being collected from site This will allow performance to be measured and any areas of concern addressed early on 7 5 Maintaining buy in throughout the project Once a capture system is up and running it should continue relatively unaided on the part of the site management In some cases and where sites
16. costs and local recycling options to the meeting MI Identify the most efficient option for the site taking account of the economic and environmental benefits identified in this report 1 4 Implementing a plasterboard capture system As mentioned previously it is preferable to implement one capture system on site although iterations of this capture system are to be expected Any substantial changes in practice mid way through a project are likely to be met with resistance When implementing a plasterboard capture system it is useful to bear in mind the best practice described in this report A division of responsibilities for ensuring this best practice is suggested below Material change for a better environment Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 50 7 4 1 Roles and responsibilities during implementation Main contractor MI if working on a high rise residential project try to incorporate a clearly labelled dedicated chute for plasterboard waste with access points at each likely source floor It may be necessary to police this to stop other trades placing materials down the chute Installing a chute avoids the need for manual handing of the waste from the source floor to the ground floor MI Try to ensure that skips are removed from site only when full Several examples within this study pointed to 40 cu yd skips being removed with as little as two tonnes of waste for the purpose of creating space on site at critical
17. emissions due to increased load on a lorry It was also necessary to assume that emissions were the same regardless of the weight of the skip or bag on the lorry Euro standards The NETCEN data are differentiated on the basis on Euro standards It was assumed that the vehicles in use would certainly not all be Euro IV standard 2005 2008 and the Euro Il standard 1995 1999 was selected instead as many HGVs probably fall within this age category It should be noted that this was the most recent data available from NETCEN For British Gypsum bags the emissions per mile of a Euro II articulated lorry were used British Gypsum uses articulated vehicles and rigid vehicles but it was felt that it would benefit the analysis to assume articulated lorries were used in each case An articulated lorry of this type can hold 25 bags and a total weight of 25 tonnes HGV average speeds The NETCEN database allows for the selection of different average speeds to be defined since this has a Significant impact on the emissions per mile An average speed of 40 miles hour 64 km hour was assumed for this study This is based on the fact that the lorries will be travelling in many cases on city roads trunk roads and motorways Variation in emissions with different loads It was not possible to access data that compare emissions from different Euro Il class HGVs under different load profiles While emissions per mile increase with a greater load it is anticipated
18. feed protection Support handles Cut out switch Emergency stop Povver socket N 2 Spring adjusters Control panel Height adjusters Locking wheel Description This machine is designed specifically to reduce the bulk of waste plasterboard Material change for Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 54 a better environment It does this by reducing the vvaste plasterboard into manageable pieces therefore increasing the volume that can be placed in waste containers Two counter rotating cylinders with blades cut the board and feed the waste pieces from the machine ready for collection The machine is designed to chip most types of plasterboard from 9 5 mm through to 19 mm with the exception of thermal laminates and foil backed plasterboards I mportant Please read these instructions carefully to ensure the safe and effective use of this machine General safety rules e For plasterboards only other materials could damage yourself as well as the machine e The machine is equipped with rotating blades Do not insert hands or other foreign objects e When feeding the plasterboard waste into the chipper hold onto the back of the board until the chipper takes over the feeding If you are feeding longer board lengths then support the board on the back end until the machine is capable of supporting its weight This is done to avoid the unsupported board breaking e Only authorised personnel should
19. have to modify the capture system to suit site programme characteristics however it may be necessary to reinforce the system through a process of review and reporting of progress A suggested approach should a change of practice occur Is given below 7 2 1 Roles and responsibilities should a change of practice occur Main contractor Reconvene the stakeholders in another meeting for the purposes of reviewing the information held to date Use this review to identify Savings to date and stimulate buy in for the next phase of the capture system and any Inefficiency in the current system Dry lining contractor Mi Feedback any lessons learned from the first phase of the capture system MI Make suggestions based on this knowledge for the second phase Waste management contractor MI Highlight the savings made as a result of the good practice on site Mi Make suggestions if there are areas of inefficiency Material change for a better environment Capture of vvaste plasterboard on construction sites 51 7 6 Review When the construction project is complete take time to review the performance of the plasterboard capture system Monitoring and recording results giving praise and positive feedback all help tovvard achieving buy in on future projects This also completes the loop tovvards continuous improvement 8 0 Conclusions The project has developed a clear business case economic and environmental for the effective planning
20. nn bind ri n ar UNENE ENAS ENU NEEE EE EEEE 48 re Planning a plasterboard capture system gzu dance nn d mean nd 49 7 3 1 Roles and responsibilities during plan n Ndan 50 7 4 Implementing a plasterboard Capture system a nana aa aak anen nenave nper nenen 50 7 4 1 Roles and responsibilities during implementation ana aaa aaa aaa eke eneve pere e eee eee renien 51 7 5 Maintaining buy in throughout the project nina nana aaa enden kene kene ke veper ee pere e pere peer 51 1 5 1 Roles and responsibilities should a change of practice OCCUF nu aa ua aaa nana aaa v ave ne neve nenes 51 7 6 FN 52 8 0 CONCIUSIONS si dd r aaa kaaa 52 8 1 ECONOMIE D NON pe eters otnesen tans E E taseunoramuenratiademetnes 52 8 2 EEOC Mell DOR e denacatwardasephwbasnanadusnesanereatosonuiiesioanasuersaretest 52 8 3 Pes Ci board CDD OT en E a Wa auncudt 2ietasaaneaat ane eacuameatuaeticocmatas E 52 8 4 BeSt practice QI AT e carats eet ain icin ems ects ad aT aaie 53 8 5 Limitations of the study and further WOrk cccccceccecceeeeeceeeeeseeseeeeeeeeeeeaeeeeeaeenetaesaeeeetaeegetes 53 Appendix 1 Chipper User Manual s at rra rr Gr nt t t aaa 54 Appendix 2 Assumptions and calculations di nana asi ci sine sine sans e SE SE SE ERES ESE ERES ESE SE SEPSE SE SE SEPSE SE SE SEPSE SE SEPSE SE ES nnaman 60 Appendix 3 Environmental analysis assumptions and constraints kanuni cica sesi si sans nese sesi sesi se se ses ese se sesi 69 Appendix 4 Examples of CO e
21. of plasterboard capture systems including the use of chippers if appropriate on construction sites High rise residential sites in particular have significant potential to produce benefits both economic and environmental through effective planning Although savings can also be achieved on low rise residential and housing developments there are a number of limitations to achieving their full potential see section 2 8 1 Economic benefits Significant cost savings through a reduction in labour costs and waste disposal costs per m are possible with an effective plasterboard capture system implemented in consideration of site conditions The trials described in this report deliberately focused on the perceived quick wins exhibited on high rise residential developments In this manner it was hoped the innovative approach of these trials would stand the best chance of positive gain It was shown that existing capture systems without the use of a chipper and with often little planning have Significant potential for improvement It was also shown that savings of up to 47 see Table 5 on total costs of plasterboard capture were achievable by focussing on reducing manual handling and increasing the quantity of material in the skips Gains on low rise sites are possible with effective consideration of the site conditions but they are not expected to be in the order of those experienced on high rise sites Waste generation varies between h
22. offset the considerable reduction in the number of journeys achieved through using larger skips If it is not feasible for financial or logistical reasons e g availability of space to use a large skip such as a 40 cu yd skip then a 16 cu yd skip should be used Use of bags and 8 cu yd skips may result in high emissions levels particularly when the recycling facility is a long way from the site If this is the case use of a 40 cu yd skip should be a priority in order to offset against greater journey distances 6 3 3 Reduction of journey distance to recycling facility This analysis has suggested that the transport distance to the recycling facility is the most significant contributor to carbon emissions While larger receptacles can reduce the number of journeys on a project a significant mass of CO will be released into the atmosphere if each journey is 100 miles or more But if a recycling centre can be located close to the site then this may offset the use of smaller skips e g 8 cu yd skips 6 3 4 Use of alternative modes of transport While this analysis has stopped short of profiling in detail the carbon emissions that can be saved as a result of using barge rather than road it has indicated the potential for the use of barges On longer haul routes this would be particularly marked as the number of journeys can be reduced to one or two as barges can carry up to 80 tonnes of plasterboard waste compared with approximately 25 tonne
23. project well before the dry lining package is due to start Mi Present a logical agenda taking each step through the dry lining package Table 21 Table 21 Management of plasterboard around site Delivery to site Mi Packaging W Pallets MI Division of responsibilit MI Undercover and well protected Movement around site M Protection from damage MI Avoidance of double handling MI Consideration of specialist equipment Waste management MI Waste material movements on site devise the most efficient method for the site Include chutes bins etc MI Division of responsibilities MI Training MI What percentage waste is allowed for in takeoff Why What can be done to help reduce this MI Most efficient means of disposal skip size use of chipper etc MI Build the capture system into the project programme i e chutes etc and ensure everybody signs up to it MI Highlight the true cost of waste including labour costs material costs and damage in addition to the waste disposal costs MI Consider factors such as the site power supply if using the chipper on site Dry lining contractor MI Bring your takeoffs and your planned method of works to the meeting above MI Contribute your knowledge about where wastage occurs and suggest your preferred method of managing the waste MI Review your takeoffs and planned method of works in light of the discussions at the meeting Waste management company MI Bring details of skip sizes
24. recycling facility approximately 2 6 miles away while the other site under Taylor Woodrow s management uses a British Gypsum facility that is 160 miles away The total waste data from the TWC site can be used to compare the emissions saving that would be derived from using the closer facility Table 16 illustrates the total emissions tCO 2 from the project as a result of using the two different facilities Total emissions obviously vary depending on which size skip is used since 40 cu yd skips are more efficient on the basis of tCO2 tonne waste Table 16 shows that the level of carbon savings achievable through using a much closer recycling facility is Significant in particular for 8 and 16 cu yd skips This saving is approximately 97 in each case indicating the critical importance of distance travelled per journey in reducing emissions Table 16 Carbon savings achievable through use of closer recycling facilities to Clarence Dock Total waste on project 58 25 tonnes 6 2 6 Savings associated with using alternative modes of transport At King s Place the Sir Robert McAlpine project has been disposing of waste plasterboard by barge a short distance to a recycling facility accessible directly from Regent s Canal This analysis attempted to determine the level of carbon savings achievable through the use of canal rather than road However data for CO emissions from barges are not commonly available and it was necessary to use a fig
25. 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 For more detail please refer to WRAP s Terms amp Conditions on its web site www wrap org uk Published by Waste amp Resources The Old Academy Tel 01295 819 900 Helpline freephone Action Programme 21 Horse Fair Fax 01295 819 911 0808 100 2040 Banbury Oxon E mail info wrap org uk OX16 OAH Context VVRAP WRAP Waste amp Resources Action Programme works in partnership to encourage and enable businesses and consumers to be more efficient in their use of materials and recycle more things more often This helps to minimise landfill reduce carbon emissions and improve our environment Established as a not for profit company in 2000 WRAP is backed by Government funding from Defra and the devolved administrations in Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland WRAP and plasterboard Through its Construction Programme WRAP Is helping the construction industry cut costs and increase efficiency through the better use of materials Plasterboard is used extensively in the construction and refurbishment of buildings as a lining for walls and ceilings and for forming structures such as partitions Plasterboard waste can arise on construction sites for a number of reasons including wasteful design offcuts from its installation damaged bo
26. the King s Place site Wastecycle trial Payback is given as the number of skips taken away before the use of the chipper becomes viable It is determined by dividing the capital cost of the chipper and the chute by the total saving per skip The capital costs varied between projects depending on the capture system primarily whether a chute was used as well as a chipper Material change for better envi t ae iii ileal ial Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 34 Table 7 Economic payback in terms of skips Skip size Total saving Payback cu yd t Labour VVaste Total per skip skips The Square puss 85 1250 u22 2372 esars 1w Aylesbury a Deni I ae ae Ja fo aso se sas jeSS35 836 1122 1958 523886 22 o Clarence British Dock Gypsum 40 8 36 25 07 33 43 1 022 18 6 enad isse 262 2216 2538 15530 19 cali LSS35 227 11 22 f 1349 36090 8 Project Stages Clarence Gypsum 40 8 cu yd 6 11 m 35 cu yd 26 76 m 40 cu yd 30 58 m t Calculations for the three projects are based on the same skip size such that the charge per skip is the same Capital cost 6 500 tt Capital cost 3 000 5 4 How best to exploit business case Best practice in the use of the capture systems featured in the site trials in order to maximise the cost savings compared with the traditional capture methods currently employed on building sites is summarised below
27. the feed side of machine ili When the obstruction is clear release the black reverse button and remove the plasterboard iv Open the lid and visually inspect the machine for loose debris within the machine Remove the remaining material from the machine Note f this operation fails it may be necessary to reduce the tension on the two spring adjusters by releasing the nuts Do not remove fully Repeat the procedure as described above When finished retighten the spring adjuster to the fixed original position Care and maintenance The chipper is designed to be relatively maintenance free However regular inspection and if necessary replacement of worn parts will ensure the maximum performance of the machine Before carrying out any maintenance work on the chipper please ensure you disconnect it from the power supply e Check rotating parts for evidence of damage If necessary contact Starke Arvid for advice instructions about matters relating to servicing lubrication and changing of blades daily e Lightly grease the gears using lithium based grease type KP2K 20 monthly e Grease the bearings using lithium based grease type KP2K 20 monthly Avoid over packing the bearings e The gearbox is a sealed for life unit However if the chipper is placed on its side fluid may leak from the breather system The gearbox requires Shell Tivela S320 maximum volume 0 45 litres 6 Clean the machine regularly using a soft brush or damp c
28. tonnes this problem can be overcome by removing the skips with a double axle lorry reported maximum lift of 32 tonnes Th Vike I a i 5 AE i D 4 i si et V 13 ot We e hr wat Figure 15 Difference in compaction between chipped and un chipped plasterboard i b 4 gt Met a gfe hi Lae j may 3 sht 1 i Ae rash as iN The chipper system reduces the size of the plasterboard waste to 140 x 100 mm pieces This increases the amount of plasterboard waste that can be put in each receptacle because the smaller pieces fit into it with less air voids The percentage amount of plasterboard in the receptacle i e the volume of the receptacle occupied by the waste is therefore increased When skips are left susceptible to rain the plasterboard can absorb moisture and gain in weight During the Aylesbury trial see section 2 3 the weight of a British Gypsum bag was found to have increased by 10 24 kg after one night in the open air without prolonged rain This makes the bag more costly to dispose of and can easily be prevented by covering the skip This also reduces the risk of any dust produced becoming a nuisance 5 3 Economic site schematics and savings The savings calculated for each stage of the plasterboard capture systems at four trial sites are summarised in Figures 16 19 These schematic diagrams highlight the differences in systems employed on site and the costs at each stage Material chang
29. very effective when compared with those of the hoist and bag system The subsequent move to plasterboard skips by British Gypsum in addition to bags is likely to bring the costs of running such as capture system on a high rise project in line with those incurred with the chute to skip system MI Larger offcuts were more difficult to dispose of than smaller ones Whereas the smaller offcuts had an established mode of transport in the form of wheelie bins the more intensive manual handling associated with the large offcuts cost more than the disposal of small offcuts M Breaking plasterboard offcuts down into pieces small enough for both the chute and more significantly the British Gypsum bag was the most significant cost associated with both capture systems for the smaller offcuts For the larger offcuts the transport time to the access point proved the most costly M The additional health and safety issue associated with manual breaking up of plasterboard offcuts made it the highest priority to address MM There appeared to be a clear benefit in using the chipper to overcome the manual handling issue associated with the breaking up of offcuts If the chipper can be located at the point of waste generation then the associated transport costs to access point could provide a valuable opportunity for savings MI Further savings may be available from a better compaction rate in the final receptacle Potential issues for the development of the chippe
30. 0 18 0 91 Lancaster Road cu ya sip 2 2 02 or 1 65 6 3 How best to exploit the environmental case The key findings of the analysis are summarised below to enable the environmental case to be exploited most effectively in pursuit of reducing the carbon emissions associated with the transport of plasterboard waste for recycling The data suggest that all four of the variables identified in section 6 2 may have an impact on carbon emissions These variables include MI increase in skip bag capacity through use of the plasterboard chipper MI use of different size receptacles for waste plasterboard MI distance of the site from a plasterboard recycling centre and MI mode of transport used to transport the plasterboard In an ideal scenario a project would have access possibly via canal to a recycling facility that is local to the site and would transport plasterboard in large containers such as 40 cu yd skips This would reduce the individual journey distance and the number of journeys during the project Both these factors will have a significant impact on carbon emissions In addition the evidence suggests that a carbon saving of 14 28 can be achieved through chipping plasterboard into waste containers Obviously this scenario is not possible in all circumstances as the site footprint often inhibits the use of larger 40 cu yd skips and on many sites particularly remote ones recycling facilities may be some distance
31. 3 Projects using Skips For the projects using 8 cu yd skips the range of total savings achievable again results from differences in the total amount of waste to be recycled in each project and the distance of each site from a recycling centre But in each case the percentage level of saving through using a chipper remains at 14 9 Table 12 In all cases the distances from the recycling centre were significant compared with those of some of the projects using bags This is likely to be the reason why the tCO emitted per tonne of plasterboard waste recycled is high for these projects compared with both Orsett Village and GUV Table 12 The two smallest scale projects St Crispins and Lancaster Road produce some interesting results Despite a larger tonnage of waste at St Crispins the total emissions associated with removing chipped plasterboard waste are lower than at the Lancaster Road project This is the result of the significant extra distance travelled per journey at the Lancaster Road Health Centre which more than offsets the five extra journeys required at St Crispins This increased emissions total means that the total saving through using chipped compared with un chipped skips is almost twice as great for the Lancaster Road project Table 13 shows the savings achievable from the five skip projects in Table 12 for 16 and 40 cu yd skips see also Appendix 4 This table demonstrates that the savings achievable through a switch from un ch
32. 8 sq ft offices over five floors Stanley House and M 121 apartments Cartier House The site of Block H is similarly constrained with very limited space for skips at the building footprint Current practice is to place skips on the eastern site boundary where access is easiest Unfortunately this is also the furthest point from the source of the waste Therefore the waste is transferred from bins to tipper skips at the ground floor of the building and these are then transferred to a 40 cu yd skip at the site boundary resulting in triple handling of the material During the site visit a test was carried out to see whether it was possible to place a 20 cu yd skip on the western site boundary adjacent to the apartment building A successful test established that this skip could be used to erect a chute on the development linked to the chipper Figure 9 provides a schematic of the plasterboard capture system with and without the chipper The quantity of plasterboard waste at this site was estimated to be 5 100m 10 This was much less than that from Blocks C2 and D because Block H contains half the number of apartments than the other two blocks However there was more than enough waste to undertake a reasoned trial of the chipper The plasterboard waste on this site was removed using British Gypsum s Plasterboard Recycling Service This allowed accurate data capture of the quantities and rates of waste on this site skip data were provided
33. 9 3 80 0 050 14 9 Wharf Skip Dock Skip St Crispins ye 0 032 Skip Lancaster 8 cu yd 6 2 2 Projects using bags The large scale residential development at Orsett Village created 2 019 tonnes of plasterboard waste which were transported to a recycling facility approximately 54 miles away In this case the analysis indicates that the increased capacity achieved through chipping plasterboard into bags would have resulted in a total emissions of 32 15 tCO compared with 44 61 t CO2 for un chipped plasterboard i e a saving of 12 47 tCO see Appendix 4 Summary Sheet At the other end of the scale the much smaller Western Harbour development in Edinburgh generated only 171 tonnes of plasterboard waste which were transported off site in bags Had this waste been chipped into bags this would have resulted in total emissions of 15 tCO and a saving of 5 82 tCO compared with not chipping waste However each lorry load of bags was transported nearly 300 miles to a recycling facility and therefore emissions levels were high relative to the total tonnage of waste As a result the tCO emitted per tonne of plasterboard waste recycled for Western Harbour is 0 088 compared with 0 016 for Orsett Village table 12 This is the direct result of the additional 242 miles travelled on each load for the Western Harbour project compared with the Orsett Village project In both cases the percentage of CO saving from using the chipper is 27 9 6 2
34. Dock Shepherd Construction ana 31 Dooa Cla ONCe DOCK se VC artes trance nea N 32 SoA RUNG SP acetates ete ome deceeect nee E E E 33 Boo SUMMM aly Ol CCOMOMMG LUI e A 34 5 4 How best to exploit business case 0 nanen nanen eper 35 ThE Environmental DUSINGSS CASE spin aus n d n s k n dd Sdu sdo dd d a 35 6 1 M NOCO aaieaetait saree E E E E 36 6 2 Pay Sls Ol Cabo Om SAVNO e R EER 39 6 2 1 Savings associated with using the chipper na 40 22 PETU Ng DIOS e grat AN 41 623 Pro CES USING NDS eei aia A E aR 41 6 2 4 Savings associated with using different size receptacles for VVa Ste nana ananasi 42 Material change for Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 4 a better environment 6 2 5 Savings associated with using closer recycling facilities nana nana anen eneve 43 6 2 6 Savings associated with using alternative modes of transport nana aaa ananas 43 6 3 How best to exploit the environmental CaSe a k eee eee ene eee pere nen rene eren ee ee eee erreta 44 oo eee ne eager en eee ee ee ee 44 I Or docu SiS aco creecechvcteceratzacenn REE Eni EE EE daD 44 6 3 3 Reduction of journey distance to recycling facility nana nanen 45 6 3 4 Use of alternative modes of trans pont nana 45 7 0 Implementing best practice on site sdo kur d dar dv t od 45 Ll Background the case for best practice nana ananas 45 1 2 Ie De CDCI E E Oe E E E artes ap sma es A nents 46 Tal COT PO PUON nj a E E 47 1 2 2 Sugg sted MEASUTOS ga
35. ISSIONS SAVING gC02 3 707 199 68 TOTAL EMISSIONS SAVING kgC02 3 707 20 TOTAL EMISSIONS SAVING tC02 3 71 TOTAL EMISSIONS CHIPPED tCQ2 9 56 Percentage Saving 27 94 tCO2 per tonne bags 0 02 Material change for Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 76 a better environment Table C7 VVestern harbour bag VVASTE VVeight of chipped bag VVeight of un chipped bag Total vveight of vvaste on project tonnes Estimated number of chipped bags on project Estimated number of un chipped bags on project TRANSPORT Number of bags per lorry articulated 25 Max weight tonnes capacity of lorry articulated 25 Number of journeys per project chipped Number of journeys per project un chipped EMISSIONS Emissions per mile g O2 mile Length of journey miles 296 90 Emissions per journey gCOQ2 Total miles travelled on job chipped Total miles travelled on job unchipped Total emissions on job chipped Total emissions on job un chipped TOTAL EMISSIONS SAVING gC02 5 815 630 49 TOTAL EMISSIONS SAVING kgC02 5 815 63 TOTAL EMISSIONS SAVING tC02 5 82 TOTAL EMISSIONS CHIPPED tCQ2 15 00 Percentage Saving 27 94 tCO2 per tonne bags 0 09 Material change for Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 77 a better environment Table C8 Higher Broughton skip VVASTE VVeight of control 8 yard chipped skip tonnes VVeight of control 8 yard un chipped skip tonnes Total vveight of vvaste on
36. Material change for a better environment Plasterboard technical report Capture of vvaste plasterboard on construction sites Demonstrating cost effective solutions to the capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites Project code PBD007011 ISBN 1 84405 358 X Research date September 2006 to May 2007 Date October 2007 Front cover photograph Plasterboard capture system at Block H Clarence Dock Leeds WRAP and Taylor Woodrow Construction 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
37. S E S E R REI 16 3 1 Care ne DOCK LE d e 17 3 1 1 Blocks C2 and D Shepherd Construction gen 17 3 1 2 Block H Taylor Woodrow Construction aaa aaa kene ene kene e pene reperi pere 19 Sid Capture System CON SIOOT ALIOJN S vd vennia e nn neiaa Ea d aA ra eiad 19 3 2 Kings Place MO Cross EON OO i aie eA A RAMAN ARN 20 321 Capture system consideralos gangurini i vesi ne e 21 3 3 THe Litmus Building NONA NA asni 21 331 Capture System ConsSIO OT alION S enden venin id e 22 3 4 Enigma at Bletchley Park Milton Keynes nanen enet 22 3 41 Capture system considerations vajra pn iur nan a aR a 23 The Starke Arvid plasterboard chipper nannacicicin nisi si nane SE SEE RERE SE SEE RE SE SE SE ESE SE SE SER SE SE SEE SE SE SE SS ERES ERE ESI 23 4 1 ISH NCUJON on Chi Den SS e 24 4 2 Technical development of the chipper during the project 26 4 3 Proposed route to market for the chipper ana ea anen ee k eke kene eke n ee eper ee pene eee ete 21 THE economic BUSINESS CASS j s k t dd d aaa a Ea R 21 5l DOT CO SUS a E aeeaaehcdentseaciseaaasscaetanteyeadencucoaecne 28 eL OS A a EEE ES 28 I E E tre Taree errr te er 28 Ded I 28 5 2 Wale Manageme Ni eeere eee ner renee a a arenes te nr rence err errr ere rr 28 5 3 Economic site schematics and SAVINOS s ssssrssssrsersrrrrsrrsrrrrrrrrrrnrrsrrrtrnrrerrrsrrrrrerrrrererrnt 29 5 3 1 The Square at Grand Central Aylesbury sssssssrsrssresnsrerrsrnrrsrnrrsrnrrerrrrsrrsrererrereerns 30 5 3 2 Clarence
38. Taylor Woodrow Construction TWC is a leading www taylorwimpey com Project management developer of high quality homes in sustainable Data capture field trials communities across the UK In addition to building Analysis new homes the company is also a major contractor Conclusions and with over 90 construction sites ongoing at any one dissemination time covering every aspect of plasterboard use TWC operates a dedicated in house environmental consultancy and waste management team providing consultancy and expertise to the construction and developments divisions as well as external clients TWC is part of Taylor Wimpey pic Starke Arvid Partner Starke Arvid produces intelligent material www starkearvid se Manufacture of chipper management equipment developed to make work Data capture field trials easier within the construction transport and Analysis manufacturing industries Conclusions and dissemination Starke Arvid has developed a dedicated capture technology in the form of a plasterboard chipper under trial as part of the project British Gypsum Partner British Gypsum is the UK s leading supplier and www british Provision of technical foremost authority on internal wall and ceiling qypsum bpb co uk support to the project systems vvith a long history and a proven record of providing effective lining solutions for many of the world s most prestigious buildings British Gypsum provided technical support data and guidan
39. ags and 6 cu yd Skips are given in Table 9 These were scaled up to arrive at values for larger skips Table 9 Control weights for un chipped and chipped British Gypsum bags and 6 cu yd skips Weight of British Gypsum i e bag tonnes VVeight of 6 cu yd skip tonnes These data vvere used to estimate see Figure 21 MI number of un chipped skips bags that would be filled during each project and BI number of chipped skips bags that would be filled during each project These estimates were then used to calculate for each project MI total number of journeys MI length of each journey and MI total number of miles travelled under chipped and un chipped scenarios Finally emissions data for heavy goods vehicles HGVs were used to calculate the total emissions under both scenarios and a final CO saving derived Table 10 shows the carbon dioxide in gCO mile emitted from articulated lorries used to transport British Gypsum bags and rigid lorries used to transport skips Table 10 Vehicle emissions per mile Vehicle type Average speed mph Emissions g CO mile Articulated lorry Euro II Class 2 511 Rigid lorry Euro II Class 1 076 Taken from NETCEN emissions factor database 2003 see Appendix 3 This approach was felt to allow the greatest use of existing data on plasterboard waste held by Taylor Woodrow it applied historic data to control unit data weight per skip bag on the weight of chipped and un chipped
40. am and Bletchley Park Milton Keynes sections 3 3 to 3 4 evaluated as trial sites but dismissed due to a combination of the site and project characteristics that would have made either the savings potential or the ability to implement a new capture system very difficult to achieve However these projects offered some important lessons regarding current capture systems and their inefficiencies They also illustrated how in some cases implementing more efficient plasterboard capture systems would result in savings due to the working practices employed on site 3 1 Clarence Dock Leeds Clarence Dock is the largest mixed use development in Leeds Figure 6 Three blocks of this development participated in trials of the Starke Arvid chipper Figure 6 Clarence Dock master plan London Clubs International Gonlerenca and exhibliborn Canina British Waterways Holiday Inn Express Click here to download our fact sheets Clarence Dock will provide 370 000 sq ft dedicated to caf bars shops restaurants a 131 bed Holiday Inn Express Hotel 100 000 sq ft of prime office accommodation a 50 000 sq ft London Clubs International Casino and other supporting facilities A secure covered car park for 1 650 vehicles is also located on site The 413 apartments that are already complete are home to an emerging affluent community who will eventually occupy over 1 100 homes The chipper was trialled at three sites in the Clarence Dock dev
41. any one time whereas six different houses could be fitted simultaneously Although moving waste was labour intensive the number of sources of waste made it difficult to apply a consistent capture methodology The plasterboard capture system used at Higher Broughton is based around the labour resource The labourers supplied by the dry lining sub contractor are responsible for supplying the new boards and removing the waste produced by the fixers When the plasterboard is cut to size the offcuts are stored in the rooms for future use This good practice means that only the smaller pieces are collected for disposal resulting in a major reduction in the amount of waste being sent for disposal Currently there is no dedicated system for removing the waste Once a sufficient quantity of waste has been collected the labourers carry the waste manually down to British Gypsum bags situated outside the apartments and houses Due to the pressure on the labourers to supply new boards the waste disposal operation tends to occur at the end of the working day when the fixers have finished This activity can last up to an hour Once the waste Is carried down the stairs the larger offcuts are used to shape the bag and the rest are placed into the bags being broken down if necessary The labourers repeat this process until all the collected waste is removed from the buildings Once the bags have been filled a forklift moves the bags to a compound where they ar
42. ard processed ime taken to process per m plasterboard Cost per m of waste processed o Aaaa Average from Table Al t Weighed on site by crane scale Table A11 The Square at Grand Central Aylesbury chipper system Volume of plasterboard processed ime taken to process per m plasterboard Cost per m of waste processed e Average from Table Al t VVeighed on site by crane scale Material change for Capture of vvaste plasterboard on construction sites 66 a better environment Waste cycle trials Table A12 Manual system bags Time Time multiplied by four for laboratories Labour no of people Volume of British Gypsum bag Weight Volume of plasterboard Percentage plasterboard Time taken Time taken per m Cost per m Measured by weighbridge Table A13 Chipper system bags Labour no of people Volume of British Gypsum bag Weight Volume of plasterboard Percentage plasterboard Time taken Time taken per m Cost per m NB Not wet Table A14 Chipper system skip Time Time multiplied by two for laboratories Labour Size of skip Weight Volume of plasterboard in skip Percentage of plasterboard in skip Time taken Time taken per m Cost per m NB Not wet Material change for a better environment os eae 00 Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 67 Table A15 Kings Place Kings Cross chipper system 1 0 14 4 2 25 April 2007 3 Ma
43. ard waste The data suggest that all four of the variables below may have an impact on carbon emissions MI increase in skip bag capacity through use of the plasterboard chipper MI use of different size receptacles for waste plasterboard MI distance of the site from a plasterboard recycling centre and Mi mode of transport used to transport the plasterboard waste An ideal scenario would address all four variables through the use of a chipper the use of a 40 cu yd skip or larger a reduced journey distance to the recycling centre and an alternative means of transport e g a canal barge 7 2 The best practice scenario Successful application of a plasterboard capture system depends on a number of factors common to all construction sites Thorough consideration of all relevant factors is essential to ascertain the feasibility and ease of application for a particular methodology A number of different capture systems are currently available for plasterboard waste from construction sites British Gypsum s bag system segregated skip system part segregated skip system mixed skip system mosquito fleets small trucks However there is little guidance on where and how these methodologies can best be applied This lack of guidance causes problems for those sites where traditional capture methodologies are unsuited to site conditions and can discourage sites from adopting them Typical barriers enablers are presented in Table 18
44. ards and over ordering It is estimated that over 300 000 tonnes per year of waste plasterboard is produced on construction sites It can also arise from strip out activities during refurbishment and demolition projects the waste arisings from this source are significantly higher In total it is estimated that over one million tonnes of waste plasterboard are produced each year from construction and demolition activities Most of this waste is currently disposed to landfill even though it can be easily recycled WRAP receives funding from Defra through the Business Resource Efficiency and Waste BREW programme to divert plasterboard waste from landfill by working to overcome the barriers to plasterboard recycling Additional funding is also received from the devolved administrations in Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland WRAP is working to overcome these barriers through the following key areas plasterboard waste minimisation site waste management segregation and collection of plasterboard waste development of infrastructure including waste logistics and recycling capacity market development for materials from plasterboard recycling recycled gypsum and reclaimed paper education awareness and behavioural change and informing and influencing legislation regulations and policy More information on WRAP s work can be found at www wrap org uk construction Material change for Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 1
45. are given below 2 1 Victoria Wharf Cardiff Victoria Wharf is a high rise residential development located in Cardiff Bay The development consists of three phases over four years Table 3 and is due for completion in 2008 The project is currently mid way through Phase 3 of the project Table 3 Victoria Wharf information Phase No offlats No of blocks No of floors Plasterboard provider The development consisted of 452 1 3 bed apartments spread over seven blocks between six and 14 storeys in height The blocks under construction at the time of the site visits and therefore the blocks that form the basis of this comparison were Blocks 6 and 7 Block 6 consists of 42 apartments and Block 7 consists of 84 apartments Since Block 6 was a similar design to those constructed under Phase 1 of the project the decision was taken to use Lafarge board for the build However this was the last block to use Lafarge board with the remaining 256 flats using British Gypsum board The budgeted quantity for the 126 units under investigation in the case study was 31 786 boards average 252 boards per unit It was not possible to confirm the total quantity used on the Blocks 6 and 7 as the dry lining was ongoing and the budgeted board was likely to be an overestimate of the required number of boards The site has relatively good storage provisions for both new board and plasterboard waste It also has the use of a hoist and a plasterboard chute to b
46. aste recycled are nearly identical for 8 cu yd skips and bags But while more journeys are required to transport the 2 019 tonnes of waste via 16 cu yd skips 279 than by bag 238 the difference is small enough to be significantly offset by the lower emissions of the rigid lorry compared with the large articulated lorry As a result the total emissions and the tCO emitted per tonne of Material change for a better environment z Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 42 plasterboard waste recycled are significantly lower for 16 cu yd skips compared with bags In fact the total carbon emissions for 16 cu yd skips are almost half those for bags However 40 cu yd skips require fewer journeys and are transported on the lower emission rigid lorry and as such prove to be the most carbon efficient receptacle in terms of emissions To illustrate the maximum saving possible the carbon saving achieved by making a switch from not chipping into an 8 cu yd skip to chipping into a 40 cu yd skip was calculated for the Orsett Village project Table 15 Table 15 Maximum possible savings from Orsett Village project Plasterboard capture system Total project emissions tCQ gt Un chipped 8 cu yd skips 38 02 Chipped 40 cu yd skips 6 2 5 Savings associated with using closer recycling facilities At Clarence Dock two sites are in operation within the same area However the site operated by Shepherd Construction uses a
47. ata were analysed and a rate of cost per cubic metre was calculated in order to allow comparisons between sites The assumptions made are given in Appendix 2 For comparison the systems were split into three stages M Stage 1 Collection of plasterboard waste into bins M Stage 2 Movement of waste from source floor to ground floor or access point if chute is used E Stage 3 Movement of waste into final receptacle 5 1 Labour costs The time that labourers spend moving the plasterboard waste Is a significant proportion of the capture systems currently employed Movement of the waste from the source to the skips involves repeated journeys with large often heavy bins through routes that are sometimes difficult to access Reducing the time that the labourers spend moving the waste will reduce BI the labour cost of the system and MI the physical effort of moving the bins The analysis showed that savings can be made at each stage 5 1 1 Stage 1 If fixers place the waste directly into the bins the need for labourers for this stage is eliminated and the cost incurred can be saved For the Shepherd Clarence Dock site this cost was calculated to be 6 98 m Figure 17 5 1 2 Stage 2 The use of the chipper and chute for stages 2 and 3 removes the requirement for labour to manually break and move the waste to the receptacle For the Aylesbury site the labour cost saving was calculated to be 12 51 m Figure 16 For the TWC Clarenc
48. aterial change for a better environment Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 47 Landfill mono cell Scunthorpe 1 240 Local waste management company soil conditioner 235 Plasterboard recycling system 600 For either site t Skip assumed to contain 10 tonnes of waste plasterboard 7 2 2 Suggested measures To take advantage of the potential benefits of best practice careful thought needs to be given to the plasterboard capture systems in use on site Proven measures considered to offer the most efficient means of plasterboard capture are listed below under the stage to which they apply Note that not all these measures will apply to all construction sites projects Point of waste MI Place a wheelie bin in each room currently being boarded and encourage the fixers to place the waste directly in the bins At the TWC Clarence Dock site this activity saved an average of 6 98m or 18 of the total capture system costs after chipping Mi Encourage labourers to stockpile the plasterboard waste in bins rather than directly on the floor This reduces the potential for double handling the waste and possible contamination It also reduces the risk of accidents resulting from tripping over the waste Chipping MI Locate a chipper as close to the waste production as possible ideally on the same floor WE A chipper pays for itself using 40 cu yd skips when a minimum of 56 m of plasterboard waste is created o
49. ather than the labourers removed Stage 1 in the process This saved an average of 6 98 m compared with the Shepherd Clarence Dock site M The use of the chute eliminated the need to manually transport the material to the ground floor and thereafter sort into the appropriate skips This proved the most significant saving over 8 m but was only possible through use of the chipper M The easy access to the chute via the hoist flat was one of the main reasons for the large saving on this project The high level of utilisation of the hoist meant that waiting times under the manual handling system were often long and unpredictable this problem was removed through the use of the chipper and chute M The other main efficiency saving was achieved through the placing of a skip adjacent to the footprint of the building A chute could then be fed directly into the skip rather than operating a manual handling system that involved feeding the waste from bins into the tipper skips and then these using the forklift to tip into the 40 cu yd skip Material change for a better environment Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 32 5 3 4 King s Place See section 3 2 for details of the site and the plasterboard capture system employed in the trial Figure 20 shovvs the chute discharging directly into the barge moored in the adjacent Battlebridge Basin off the Regent s Canal Figure 19 Economic schematic for King s Place King s Cross
50. by British Gypsum The erection of a chute and the use of the Starke Arvid waste bins facilitated a significant reduction in both labour costs and the skip volumes required to dispose of the plasterboard waste on this block see section 5 3 3 3 1 3 Capture system considerations MI itis essential to plan for the adoption of a plasterboard capture system early on in the project Decisions made at the beginning of the contract such as the design of the scaffolding made it impossible to operate the most efficient means of plasterboard capture on Blocks C2 and D W In order to achieve buy in for a plasterboard capture system it is preferable to implement the most efficient system from the start rather than proceed with iterations Resistance to change of practice was witnessed frequently throughout these trials Mi Despite possessing a very small site footprint Block H managed to accommodate a 40 cu yd skip adjacent to the building see front cover photo which with the provision of a chute offered the best economic and environmental savings Mi Double handling of plasterboard waste appears to be standard practice Constant reinforcement of a more efficient approach is required in order to stimulate change Material change for a better environment Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 19 Figure 9 Schematic of plasterboard capture system at Block H Clarence Dock with and without chipper Clarence Dock TVW Telehand
51. ce to the project as providers through its Plasterboard Recycling Service PRS of TWC s plasterboard recycling system 1 3 Project phases The vvork undertaken during the various phases of the project is summarised belovv Apart from Milestone 2 reports vvere prepared for VVRAP at the end of each milestone 1 3 1 Pre project trial A one day trial using a prototype of the Starke Arvid chipper was carried out on 30 August 2006 at a TWC site This trial was undertaken to evaluate the following in a live site environment MI a noise test to confirm that the chipper did not exceed the 85 dB A limit for use of plant on site without the use of personal protective equipment PPE MI an evaluation of the equipment against the operational parameters set out by WRAP during the earlier project PBD006011 M a speculative analysis of the labour requirements for the equipment based on its current configuration and MI potential considerations for the chipper s ongoing development 1 3 2 Milestone 1 During this first phase of the project all existing technical and market knowledge and expertise within the research consortium relevant to the planning stages of the site trials was collated within a desk study This covered Material change for a better environment Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 7 MI construction site characteristics and their impact on site waste minimisation management methods MI different plast
52. ck down more effectively reducing void space per unit of weight compared with bags Chipping may therefore reduce the void spaces in bags more significantly than in skips when chipped a greater increase in weight is observed in bags than skips It is possible that any combination of the factors above may have had an impact on the data used in this project as data for skips were derived from a live project environment Table 12 indicates the total CO savings associated with the use of the chipper for three projects using bags and five projects using skips 8 cu yd As shown in the Summary Sheet in Appendix 4 the carbon savings associated with use of the chipper range from 12 47 tCO Orsett Village bags to 0 04 tCO St Crispins 40 cu yd skips This range results predominantly from differences in the total weight of plasterboard waste requiring transport but also the distance of the site from the recycling centre Material change for better envi t PE e hese Capture of vvaste plasterboard on construction sites 40 Table 12 Total emissions total savings and savings tCO t waste chipped for eight Taylor Woodrow projects Unit Total tCO tCO per 2 Total distance Total Proiect Removal eee e U Sih tonne of Saving J method ee Chipped 9 waste tonnes journey chipped tCO2 miles nee Orsett Village GUY Bag 383 85 f 13 27 956 3 71 0 025 279 Harbour Broughton skip VONG E 336 25 49 21 6
53. e Dock site the saving was calculated to be 8 35 m Figure 18 as use of the chipper also eliminated Stage 3 5 1 3 Stage 3 This stage is eliminated by systems that utilise a chute directly into a skip The Wastecycle trial compared the manual and chipping filling of plasterboard bags The saving due to chipping into the bags was calculated to be 13 69 m Table 5 The Shepherd Clarence Dock site chipped directly into the skip compared with manually emptying the bins This still required the movement of the bins or skip to the ground floor The cost of chipping was 0 74 m more than manual handling Figure 18 The preferred capture system is to utilise a chipper and chute to transfer the waste from the source floor directly to the receptacle This removes the need to manually handle plasterboard waste between floors and into the receptacle 5 2 Waste management Waste plasterboard has a variety of end uses The actual end use Is often determined by factors such as 3 During this four labourers for the purpose of speed were employed to break up the plasterboard and fill the British Gypsum bags This is not anticipated to be standard practice Material change for a better environment Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 28 MI the site location MI the space available and MI supplier agreements made with the waste management contractor The waste receptacle on each site will vary according to the site
54. e Old Academy Tel 01295 819 900 Helpline freephone Action Programme 21 Horse Fair Fax 01295 819 911 0808 100 2040 Banbury Oxon E mail info wrap org uk OX16 OAH www wrap org uk
55. e for a better environment Capture of vvaste plasterboard on construction sites 29 5 3 1 The Square at Grand Central Aylesbury This trial vvas carried out using the chipper developed by Optimum Recycling Systems and not the Starke Arvid chipper See section 2 3 for details of the site and the plasterboard capture system employed in the trial Figure 16 Economic schematic for The Square at Grand Central Aylesbury Plasterboard Crusher Manual Handling Total labour cost Total labour cost 11 90 m 24 41 m MI Use of the chipper results in a 51 saving in labour costs This saving is likely to be much higher had the trial taken place on level 3 rather than level 1 however the schedule of works made this impossible to achieve in the time frame available MI Given the conservative estimate of waste per plot and the lack of accounting for wasted time fatigue in the calculations these figures should be considered a worst case scenario if no hoist or tower crane is available to Support the removal of plasterboard waste from the building MI itis clearly uneconomical to manually handle plasterboard waste from a building even if it is only from the first floor MI This capture system was less economical than later ones studied due to the nature of the construction This was a housing site where the rate of construction and plasterboard waste generation was a lot slower than on some of the later trials This meant that less of a collect
56. e in the UK by mid J une 2007 with additional volume arriving after the Swedish holiday period By October 2007 the machine was in its fourth or fifth production series M The aim would be to sell 50 units by December 2007 MI Additional technical support personnel would be recruited to provide additional sales support and on site training A technical support manager started work on 1 September 2007 5 0 The economic business case The cost of dealing with plasterboard waste Is the principal driver for dry lining subcontractors when assessing capture systems It is known that managing plasterboard waste can be costly and reducing these costs Is a Significant incentive for the sub contractors The aim of this economic analysis is to identify the savings from a more efficient system in order to establish the business case for that system The main factors within the capture systems identified as having potential cost savings are MI labour costs MI running costs of the system and MI disposal costs of the plasterboard waste To compare plasterboard capture systems with and without a chipper it was necessary to collect data on both existing and new systems Collected data included Material change for a better environment Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 27 MI time spent using the system and the associated cost MI weight of waste in the skip and the costs of its disposal and MI cost of equipment hire The d
57. e stored until a sufficient number is available for collection by British Gypsum usually a minimum of 6 10 Material change for a better environment Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 15 The site has good storage for both new plasterboard and waste waiting to be collected This storage is located outside the main site on a secure hardstanding Plasterboard Is transported by a forklift from the compound to the road outside the blocks under construction The new boards are lifted on to a scaffold loading bay and carried by labourers along the scaffold and in through doors or windows A number of boards are stored in the rooms prior to the fixers starting work Figure 5 provides a schematic of the capture system at Higher Broughton Figure 5 Schematic of plasterboard capture system at Higher Broughton British Gypsum Higher Broughton Salford FLATS HOUSES on block ata time up to 6 individual at any one time k W taken to site z ound for pi st deshanderi 2 4 1 Capture system considerations MI Some working practices may make it difficult to establish a single capture system Working on six houses at a time means that achieving efficiencies in the collection process can be challenging MI The positive measure of encouraging reuse of board actually makes data collection difficult as labourers are reluctant to move the waste until the work is complete MI Given the potential problems of data collection o
58. ed skips TRANSPORT Max Weight of Skip on Lorry must be gt than B3 Number of journeys per project chipped Number of journeys per project un chipped EMISSIONS Emissions per mile gCo2 mile Length of journey mile Emissions per journey gCO2 Total miles travelled on job chipped Total miles travelled on job unchipped Total emissions on job chipped Total emissions on job un chipped TOTAL EMISSIONS SAVING gC02 TOTAL EMISSIONS SAVING kgC02 TOTAL EMISSIONS SAVING tC02 WASTE Weight of control 40 yard chipped skip tonnes Weight of control 40 yard un chipped skip tonnes Total weight of waste on project tonnes Estimated number of chipped skips on job Estimated number of un chipped skips TRANSPORT Max Weight of Skip on Lorry must be gt than B3 Number of journeys per project chipped Number of journeys per project un chipped EMISSIONS Emissions per mile gCo2 mile Length of journey mile 160 8 Emissions per journey gCO2 Total miles travelled on job chipped Total miles travelled on job unchipped Total emissions on job chipped Total emissions on job un chipped TOTAL EMISSIONS SAVING gC02 97637 18 TOTAL EMISSIONS SAVING kgC02 97 64 TOTAL EMISSIONS SAVING tC02 0 10 0 56 Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 80 Written by Jon May Jessica Heathcote Huw Maggs and Tony Thompson Taylor Woodrow Technology Taylor Woodrow Published by Waste amp Resources Th
59. elopment Block H Block C2 and the 19 floor Block D tower Taylor Woodrow Construction is responsible for Block H and Shepherd Construction is undertaking construction of Blocks C2 and D 3 1 1 Blocks C2 and D Shepherd Construction Block C2 La Salle has 19 183 sq ft of retail leisure and 210 apartments Block D Clarence House has 25 234 sq ft of retail leisure and 228 apartments The site footprint for these blocks is relatively small allowing little space for skips or storage beyond the building footprint Space located on the west side of the development is being used for the site office compound and Skips The quantity and rate of plasterboard waste on this development was found to be significant in the order of 25 Once the waste has left site it is transported to a waste transfer station where it is segregated and mixed according to LSS Waste Management Ltd www lsswaste co uk with top soil to form a soil conditioner Figure 7 Material change for a better environment Capture of vvaste plasterboard on construction sites L7 Figure 7 Preparation of soil conditioner at LSS VVaste Management Ltd Unfortunately the site footprint meant it was not possible to erect a chute on either Block C2 or Block D This was due to the construction stage of both blocks when the trial began The decision was taken to trial the chipper using a Xena platform a retractable landing platform instead The plasterboard capture s
60. ement options before selecting your waste management contractor for plasterboard The cost of recycling plasterboard can vary significantly depending on local end use options Material change for a better environment Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 48 However all these suggestions are best attempted in consultation with all the stakeholders in the plasterboard capture system The next section provides some guidance on how to undertake this process 1 3 Planning a plasterboard capture system For capture systems to function effectively it is important to ensure stakeholder buy in early on in the project Early implementation is preferential to trying to implement a capture system mid way through a programme By planning the operation of a capture system upfront in the programme and involving all the relevant stakeholders it is not necessary to stimulate change in the site practices later on It also allows for the planning and erection of chutes and other auxiliary items The stakeholders involved in a plasterboard capture system are MI main contractor MI dry lining sub contractor and M waste management company plasterboard recycling company If a project is dealing directly with a plasterboard manufacturer or indirectly through a distributor it is advantageous to also engage with these parties To stimulate change on site there needs to be a strong proven business case in order to ensure buy in Different l
61. emissions associated with the transport of waste plasterboard are compared and savings calculated for MI wastage arising with un chipped and chipped plasterboard MI different waste containers bags and different sized skips MI varying recycling facility destinations and MI use of different modes of transport road and canal barge All these parameters are expected to have an impact on carbon emissions In order to present a range of different potential carbon savings the project team added value to the analysis by utilising historical data sourced through British Gypsum from a number of Taylor Woodrow projects Table 8 for which information was available on total weight of plasterboard waste Table 8 Taylor Woodrow projects used to demonstrate the environmental business case Orsett Village development Essex British Gypsum bag Grand Union Village GUV London British Gypsum bag Western Harbour Edinburgh British Gypsum bag Higher Broughton Salford Skip Victoria Wharf Cardiff Skip Clarence Dock Leeds Skip St Crispins Hospital redevelopment Northampton Skip Lancaster Road Hartlepool new hospital Skip King s Place King s Cross London Barge The projects were selected to achieve a range of build types geographical locations and total weights of plasterboard waste The list represents the best mix available from the project data to which the team had access Where skip collection was used emissions estimates we
62. ent Table C2 Comparison of different skips emissions savings Ro O Orsett Village Se Total 8 cu yd chipped ea Total 8 cu yd un chipped 38 02 Total 16 cu yd un chipped 19 01 Total 40 cu yd un chipped Total 8 cu yd un chipped 38 02 Total 40 cu yd chipped Total 8 cu yd chipped 32 35 Total 40 cu yd chipped 25 88 Lancaster Road Total 8 cu yd chipped Total 16 cu yd chipped Total 40 cu yd chipped Total 8 cu yd un chipped Total 16 cu yd un chipped Total 40 cu yd un chipped Total 8 cu yd un chipped Total 40 cu yd chipped 040 O Saving o S OT Total 8 cu yd chipped Total 40 cu yd chipped 0w Table C3 Comparison of barge and road Barge emissions on job Average of bags 8 16 and 40 cu yd skips Table C4 Comparison of different recycling centre locations Clarence Dock tCO based on 8 cu d skip Total emissions on job chipped Total emissions on job chipped i close recycling centre Material change for Capture of vvaste plasterboard on construction sites 74 a better environment In Tables C5 to C10 yellow cells contain data that are either generated by the spreadsheet or are a consistent set of values Green cells show calculated emissions Table C5 Orsett village bag WASTE Weight of chipped bag Weight of un chipped bag Total weight of waste on project tonnes Estimated number of chipped bags on project Estimated number of un chipped bags on project
63. erboard capture systems already in operation on TWC sites MI causes of waste during the dry lining process MI constraints on the recycling of plasterboard waste and MI the plasterboard chipper and some potential partner methodologies for use during the project 1 3 3 Milestone 2 The second phase of the project consisted of the manufacture of a number of plasterboard chippers based on the recommendations made during the pre project trial This included MI a visit to a tool factory belonging to Alia parent company of Starke Arvid at Ljungskile Sweden and MI visits to two constructions sites where these tools are being used as part of plasterboard capture systems The lessons learned from this visit were recorded in a visit report and incorporated into later project milestones The chippers were manufactured at the Alia factory and shipped over to the UK during the second week of November 2006 1 3 4 Milestone 3 During milestone 3 the construction sites for the trial were selected and the methodology for data collection finalised A period of data collection on the existing systems was then undertaken to act as a control for the project The data collection was tailored to address the economic and environmental business cases for the chipper This included monitoring BI time spend on materials handling MI the cost of this time labourers in hour MI skip weights and MI skip costs waste management contractor in tonne
64. ertaken under an earlier WRAP project PBD006011 1 1 Report structure Section 1 outlines the roles played by the different project partners the work undertaken during the various phases of the project and the controlled trial at Wastecycle Ltd www wastecycle co uk The next two sections describe the sites that took part in trials during a previous project PBDOOGO11 and the sites participating in this project PBD007011 respectively together with the lessons learnt from both sets of trials Section 4 contains details about the chipper supplied by Starke Arvid and its development during the project In order to persuade site managers of the advantages of operating an efficient capture system for waste plasterboard two business cases were developed reflecting the findings of this study The economic business case IS examined in section 5 and the environmental business case in section 6 Section 7 brings together the lessons learnt from the site trials as guidance that details the steps necessary for planning implementing and maintaining a best practice plasterboard capture system on construction sites The final section draws conclusions from the project and sets out recommendations for future work 1 2 Project roles The roles taken by various project partners are summarised in Table 1 Material change for a better environment Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 6 Table 1 Project roles Taylor Woodrow Lead partner
65. evels of management require different levels of business case Table 20 both in terms of incentives and also in terms of methodology Table 20 Requirements to promote buy in to the proposed plasterboard capture system Management level Level of business case Site management High level figures Proven case studies Demonstration of machine Ensure buy in before approaching labourers Demonstrate usage on site As noted above there is often a need to highlight the misconceptions regarding existing systems This could include MI ensuring that the true cost of waste is understood MI highlighting inefficiencies with current methods of plasterboard capture and MI ensuring clear and delegated responsibilities Once all parties are engaged it is preferable to hold a meeting with everyone present in order to work through a logical progression of the dry lining process on site This meeting should seek to MI identify any inefficiency with the proposed method of works materials lying around on site for a time double handling of the waste excess waste budgeted for in the take off If it is 10 why Is it 10 2 and MI work together to propose more sustainable solutions Material change for a better environment Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 49 7 3 1 Roles and responsibilities during planning Main contractor MI Bring together the stakeholders in the dry lining package at a meeting held early on in the
66. from the site As such it is important to try to optimise the capacity of the project to reduce emissions by considering which of the variables are viable in the project s context For example projects sited a large distance from a recycling facility should aim to offset carbon emissions by using larger waste containers The general principles that should be considered in reducing emissions on projects are discussed below 6 3 1 Use of the chipper Use of the chipper results in carbon savings by reducing the total number of collections required during a project This saving can be as much as 12 tonnes of CO on large scale residential developments The results also suggest that the level of carbon savings derived through chipping is greater in bags 27 9 than in skips 14 990 However this information should be used with caution as the data suggest that bags are not generally the best means of reducing carbon emissions on a project 6 3 2 Use of 40 cu yd skips The use of 40 cu yd skips appears to be the most effective way to achieve maximum capacity in terms of waste transfer by also reducing the total number of collections required during a project The analysis was not able to account for the increase in emissions per mile that results from having a heavier load on the back of a lorry but Material change for better envi t a iii ileal ial Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 44 this increase is not anticipated to
67. ge for Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 60 a better environment Calculations Table A3 TWC Clarence Dock manual system 29 Nov 06 30 Nov 06 1 Dec 06 4 Dec 06 5 Dec 06 6 Dec 06 7 Dec 06 8 Dec 06 rotalbinss 7 4 5 6 2 wt ol 6 No of 1 Combined periods Total time Total bins collected Total volume m Rate minutes m 4 048 98 81 oe Je 2 681 74 60 o w n 2 965 116 36 ee a T 2 s fae ag Average time per m 88 36 minutes m 1 47 hours m Cost 11 96 m Material change for i E A re a aan a Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 61 Table A4 TWC Clarence Dock chipper system Volume of bin voume ct Movement 3 waste Time taken Level Total time Time m m m time 12 17 31 61 a ae i ee ee 06 Feb 07 red 0 231 10m40s_ 10 67 blue 31 54 15 24 78 107 27 10 23 36 54 9 3457 7 04 066 O 2 o o2 8m5os 88 7 pa be 066 0231 mars 9738 32 Fepo7 2 red 040 028 10m 4s 1023 o o 2 ow oz mas 968 7 Calculated using the 35 plasterboard in skip from Table A2 Total volume of waste processed 1 687 m Total time taken 76 36 minutes Time to process per m 0 754 hours m 45 26 minutesi m Cost per m 6 13 m Material change for Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 62 a better environment Table Ab Shepherd C
68. h a British Gypsum bag and an 8 cu yd Skip It also allowed an accurate comparison of manual handling and chipping into both these receptacles in respect of the time taken and the weights that could be achieved These data were used to inform the economic and environmental analyses 2 0 Lessons learned from earlier site trials During the course of the earlier project PBD006011 trials of plasterboard capture systems took place on four TWC sites Table 2 Table 2 Sites involved in earlier trials project PBD006011 High rise residential Victoria Wharf Cardiff St James Apartments Cheltenham Low rise residential The Square at Grand Central Aylesbury Higher Broughton Salford Material change for a better environment Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 9 The aim of these trials vvas to MI examine the capture system at operational sites against a set of criteria the basis of the economic business case see section 5 and MI establish a benchmark performance standard for any replacement capture system specifically one involving a plasterboard chipper Subsequently two sites Cheltenham and Aylesbury were trialled with the addition of a chipper This was partly to establish MI compliance of the machinery with the performance criteria devised by WRAP and the health and safety department at Taylor Woodrow and MI the most beneficial scenarios for a chipper the quick wins Summaries of these trials
69. hat may be difficult to quantify add additional costs to the management of plasterboard waste These include E internal transport costs i e forklift time F storage costs and G lost time costs i e through hoist being tied up moving waste Section 5 highlights some of the savings that can be achieved through the use of an efficient plasterboard capture system These savings focus on points A C above MI Waste costs at the TWC Clarence Dock example were 45 less with the chipped system compared with the manual one Table 5 Market Transformation Programme September 2007 Plasterboard industry product and market overview BVPB1 Version 1 3 www mtprog com ApprovedBriefingNotes PDF MTP_BNPB1_2007October9 pdf Material change for a better environment Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 45 MI At the Aylesbury example labour costs were reduced by 51 through the use of a chipper and a chute over manual handling Mi The King s Place example highlighted the benefits of early implementation of an efficient plasterboard capture system in delivering efficient labour costs for a large project From an environmental perspective the critical element highlighted in section 6 is the mass or volume of the plasterboard waste By reducing the number of vehicle movements to a minimum through maximising the quantity of waste per journey it is possible to lessen the environmental impact of moving the plasterbo
70. he use of chipper Use of the chipper The development and trial of the chipping machine manufactured specifically by Starke Arvid to reduce the bulk of waste plasterboard formed a substantial part of the project The importance of effective operator training was one of the main lessons learnt The Starke Arvid chipper is now in full scale production for worldwide sales Economic business case The economic business case proved the primary driver during the trials and an important means of buy in from site management to the plasterboard capture system Existing capture systems on UK construction sites have significant potential for improvement Significant cost savings through a reduction in labour costs and waste disposal costs per m can be achieved by implementing Material change for Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 2 a better environment an effective plasterboard capture system designed to take account of site conditions Cost savings are possible at all three stages of vvaste plasterboard capture MI collection of waste into bins Mi movement of waste from the source floor to the ground floor or access point to a chute and MI movement of waste to final receptacle for off site removal Results from the trials undertaken in this project identified that measures to reduce manual handling and Increase the quantity of material in the skips bags could achieve savings of up to 47 on the total costs of waste plasterboard
71. ich provided some indication as to where the inefficiencies lay with the control capture systems 1 3 6 Milestone 5 Milestone 5 consisted of an update on the trials and an explanation of the methodology proposed to produce the economic and environmental business cases 1 3 7 Milestone 6 Towards the end of March 2007 trial work finished on one of the sites and consequently a new site was found for trial This new site offered a good opportunity to test a best practice capture system from the outset of a project This has been a stumbling block in the past as once implemented sites were often reluctant to change their capture systems The Milestone 6 report contained MI an update on progress with each of the capture systems under trial MI some preliminary results for these capture systems in terms of the economic and environmental business cases presented in this final report and MI some of the technical development made to the chipper throughout the course of the project extended and recorded in section 4 2 of the final report 1 4 Controlled trial at Wastecycle Ltd It became increasingly apparent during the project that there was a need for a trial of the chipper under controlled conditions i e conditions that could be fully monitored This trial was undertaken at the Wastecycle transfer station in Nottingham part of the British Gypsum PRS system This trial facilitated an accurate assessment of the time taken to fill bot
72. igh rise and low rise sites a team of fitters only works on one block of apartments at any one time whereas six different houses may be fitted simultaneously But although the movement of waste is labour intensive the number of sources and the relatively low quantity of board in any one place make it difficult to apply a consistent plasterboard capture methodology 8 2 Environmental benefits The economic savings illustrated in section 5 also translate into environmental savings in terms of tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions saved as it becomes possible to move more material per journey and thereby reduce the number of journeys required by a site All four of the variables below may have an impact on carbon emissions These variables include MI increase in skip bag capacity through use of the waste plasterboard chipper MI use of different size receptacles for waste plasterboard MI distance of the site from a plasterboard recycling centre and MI mode of transport used to transport the plasterboard An ideal scenario would address all four of these variables through the use of a chipper the use of a 40 cu yd Skip or larger a reduced journey distance to the recycling centre and an alternative means of transport such as a canal barge These savings can be achieved by MI placing the largest receptacle possible on a site a barge was shown to operate well if such a facility exists and MI chipping the waste plasterboard directly i
73. in conformity with the following directive or other documentation of regulation Machinery Directive 98 37 EC EMC Directive 89 336 EEC also addition 92 31 EEC and 93 68 EEC LVD Directiv 73 23 EEC also addition 93 68 EEC Is manufactured according to or parts of following harmonize standards EN 1050 Authorized p rson Ljungskile 2006 11 07 i STS Box 93 459 22 TE Sweden 46 0 522 22 000 I Machine manufactured in Sweden by ALIA AB 46 522 22000 Box 93 Lyckasvagen 3 459 22 Ljungskile Sweden Material change for Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 59 a better environment Appendix 2 Assumptions and calculations Assumptions Plasterboard density Table Al Plasterboard density 15 mm board 10 70 712 Data from British Gypsum Amount of waste in skip bin Skips were compared before and after the use of a chipper Two skips from the TWC Clarence dock site were used during the Milestone 6 analysis to determine the amount of waste in a skip The worse case percentage was used in calculations Table A2 Amount of waste plasterboard in skip Waste weight 7 520 kg Waste volume i e weight density 7 520 710 10 59 m Volume of skip 40 cu yd 30 58 m Percentage of waste in skip by volume 10 59 30 58 35 Using same percentage for a bin volume of 0 66 m gives volume of plasterboard in bin Volume of waste plasterboard in bin 0 66 x 0 35 0 231 m Material chan
74. into bins rather than employing labourers to collect the waste later on Further savings can be achieved if waste from these bins is placed directly into the chipper or Skip rather than being stockpiled first MI Sites need to ensure that skips are emptied or removed and replaced when full This in turn ensures that the most efficient volume of waste is captured and therefore that best value for money is achieved 6 0 The environmental business case The chipper maximises the efficiency of transportation of plasterboard waste from the site The expected reduction in emissions derived through its use result from the greater utilisation of the full load capacity of each truck on each journey This is turn results from each waste receptacle containing a higher weight of waste and having a lower void space In essence an increase in the weight of plasterboard in each skip bag reduces the total number of collections required during a project Material change for better envi t a iil hese Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 35 As such the environmental analysis aims to quantify the carbon emissions savings associated with the optimisation of waste material transportation for recycling through the use of the chipper A number of recycling and project scenarios were analysed MI British Gypsum bag collections M 8 cu yd skip collections M 16 cu yd skip collections and MI 40 cu yd skip collections In each case the carbon
75. ion system was set up and the process of manually handling the waste out of the building was more complicated than if a planned route had been established M The British Gypsum bag was unsuited to the chute and time was lost unblocking the chute where it had backed up due to there being less space for the plasterboard chips to spread out Material change for a better environment Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 30 5 3 2 Clarence Dock Shepherd Construction See section 3 1 1 for details of the site and the plasterboard capture system employed in the trial Figure 17 Economic schematic for Shepherd Construction site at Clarence Dock Leeds Clarence Dock Shepherd Block D Stage 1 Labour cost 6 98 m QOperatwes load PB into bin and transfer to heist Stage 2 Labour cost 3 36 m Ca n i NO Stage 3 Operatives load PB from bin ane Labour cost transfer to skip Total t otal labour cos 2 52 12 86 m Stage 1 Labour Operatives load 6 98 m PB into bin and transfer to hoist flat No lt ye 3 our cost 26 m _ Total labour cost 10 24 m M The difficulty encountered in erecting a chute on this project reduced the potential savings significantly The alternative of using a Xena platform was relatively effective when in operation but there were difficulties in securing both crane time and ensuring a consistent supply of plasterboard in the hoist flats The
76. ions on projects with respect to which receptacles to use It is assumed that the weight of the skip will make it possible to transport It has also been assumed for this analysis that the carbon emissions resulting from the use of the chipper itself are negligible compared with the transport related carbon emissions from HGV vehicles A chipper running on a 18 2 amp 110 volt supply for 2 hours time taken to fill a skip would have an extremely small energy consumption compared with transport via HGV over the project lifecycle Table 11 Example emissions savings from different skip sizes Total emissions 40 cu yd chipped 2 34 40 cu yd un chipped 2 76 Emissions savings chipped versus un chipped Total emissions 8 cu yd un chipped Total emissions 40 cu yd chipped 2 34 Emissions saving OOOO O uB ee I sose E E 6 2 Analysis of carbon savings The analysis considered four key variables associated with carbon emissions MI increase in skip bag capacity through use of the plasterboard chipper MI use of different size receptacles for waste plasterboard MI distance of the site from a plasterboard recycling centre and Mi mode of transport used to transport the waste plasterboard In the case of the increased capacity of the skip bag through chipping the carbon savings result from the fewer journeys required to transport an equal weight of waste For the use of different size receptacles e g 40 cu yd skip instead of 8 cu
77. ipped to chipped Material change for better envi t ee iii ileal ial Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 41 Skips decrease as the receptacle increases in size This is because more journeys are required with smaller skips and therefore there is a greater weight of emissions to save against by chipping While the saving from chipping remains at 14 9 this saving is greater where more emissions are released This is reflected in the fact that the tCO emitted per tonne of plasterboard waste recycled drops as larger skips are used and fewer journeys are undertaken This observation is expanded on in section 6 2 4 Table 13 Comparison of carbon savings achievable from chipping waste plasterboard into three skip sizes P 8 cu yd 16 cu yd 40 cu yd roject 6 2 4 Savings associated with using different size receptacles for waste The analysis above might at first glance suggest that plasterboard bags are the most effective receptacle for transferring waste to recycling centres since the percentage saving associated with a switch to chipped plasterboard 27 9 is nearly twice that for skips 14 9 However this difference is only an indication of the effectiveness of chipping to increase capacity and therefore emissions in bags and skips respectively It does not have any bearing on which receptacle type is most efficient in general at utilising full lorry capacity and therefore reducing emissions Table 14 shows a com
78. ite MI The high level of support for the plasterboard capture system resulted in stronger economic benefits for the site M The use of a barge over road haulage to transport the waste plasterboard away for recycling yields environmental and economic benefits 3 3 The Litmus Building Nottingham The Litmus Building Figure 11 forms Phase 1 of the larger Litmus Project which will be the largest residential new build project of its type to be built in Nottingham The complex is being built on an important site within Nottingham s Eastside regeneration zone and Is the largest new build apartment complex of its kind in the Midlands The Litmus Building features 296 one and two bed apartments all with balconies or terraces with multi level basement car parking a gymnasium a pool sauna steam rooms and a 24 hour a day concierge reception The development stands 13 floors tall The main contractor on this development is Laing O Rourke and the dry lining subcontractor is Reynolds Building Systems Both companies support the objectives of the WRAP research project The unique feature of this development compared with the Clarence Dock development is that the dry lining sub contractor Is responsible for waste management on the project and therefore not only has an incentive to reduce waste but also an incentive to handle it in the most efficient manner Material change for a better environment Capture of waste plasterboard on constructio
79. jects using bags the percentage saving from using the chipper will be 27 9 even if the total weight of plasterboard waste and distance to recycling centres differ These data were derived in the case of bags from controlled filling and for skips from trials at the St James Apartments project in Cheltenham However other data indicate that the percentage improvement in weight and therefore resultant carbon emissions can vary significantly due to several factors as outlined below NM Different specifications Different specifications for different dry lined structures will result in varying mixes of boards being present in skips In some cases a greater total density of board in a skip may result in it being heavier than in other cases This could increase the level of saving achievable through chipping E Differences in water content Skips can vary greatly in weight depending on the amount of water that has either been absorbed by the plasterboard itself or is held within the skip This can result in a change in weight which could also increase the level of saving achievable through chipping Factors such as these could affect weights by up to 10 20 The difference in percentage savings between bags 27 9 and skips 14 9 may be because plasterboard offcuts broken down by hand are likely to create significant void spaces within bags due to their limited size compared with the size of the off cut Similar sized offcuts in skips are likely to pa
80. l plasterboard recycler at each stage in the process Conclusions The project demonstrated a clear business case for the effective planning and implementation of plasterboard capture systems including the use of chippers if appropriate on high rise construction sites The use of a plasterboard chipper improved efficiency in terms of both labour costs and waste disposal costs at all sites trialled apart from one The trials highlighted the chipper s potential and the need for well planned capture systems that take account of critical factors at the site space time client requirements location duration size of waste stream waste disposal regulations The distance to the recycling centre the size of waste container use of a plasterboard chipper and mode of transport can all have an impact on reducing the carbon dioxide emissions associated with the transport of waste plasterboard off site for recycling Both existing and new construction sites are urged to examine how an effective plasterboard capture system could be implemented and to follow the best practice guidance suggested in the report Recommendations The site trials highlighted the considerable work still needed to minimise the generation of plasterboard waste on site and to improve waste management practices within the dry lining sector There is also a need to develop cost effective solutions to the capture of waste plasterboard on low rise developments Material change fo
81. l un chipped skips estimated using the total waste weight which would represent a scenario where all skips are filled to capacity and the number of un chipped Skips actually used on the projects But for comparison with the chipped skips for which there are no data it is more pertinent to use the control un chipped skip weight as the unit weight The outputs of the analysis are thus very much best case scenarios In reality a number of other factors may mean that un chipped or chipped skipsi bags will leave site without being full Since it is anticipated that larger skips will also further reduce the total distance travelled during each project and therefore carbon emissions the project team scaled up unit weights from the control 8 cu yd skips to represent 16 and 40 cu yd skip sizes From this it was possible to derive total projected carbon emissions for chipped and un chipped plasterboard for each skip size and on each project This approach was not applicable for projects that used British Gypsum bags only one size exists Available emissions data Emissions data gCO2 km for both rigid and articulated HGVs are available from the National Environmental Technology Centre NETCEN Vehicle Emission Factor Database These data have been used to derive an estimate of the total emissions per project for un chipped and chipped plasterboard collection based on the total distances travelled The data were taken from the Vehicle Emissi
82. labour costs This is likely to have been much higher had the trial taken place on level 3 rather than level 1 but the schedule of works made this impossible to achieve in the time frame available The volume reduction in the receptacle represents approximately one extra British Gypsum bag for every seven used on site When extrapolated across the whole development assuming 90 plots at a minimum of two bags per plot at 15 per bag this equates to a cost saving of 386 over the course of the trial 2 3 1 Capture system considerations Mi Monitoring waste management on this site was a very time consuming process due to the relatively slow pace of plasterboard installation In order to trial the chipper it was necessary to allow a few days of waste to build up before using the machine A recommended minimum of five fixers is needed to maintain a sufficient quantity of waste to feed through the chipper MI Data collection needs to be both rigorous and of sufficient volume to enable complete analysis MI Close liaison with the site management and banksman allowed for a smooth trial The pace of construction on another site may make this harder to achieve and therefore the earlier these parties are brought into the trial the better 2 4 Higher Broughton Salford During June 2006 a control trial was undertaken at a residential development in Salford A chipper trial was not considered feasible due to complications associated with collecting waste o
83. larence Dock Block D manual system Time minutes Floor level Oor NET 04 Dec 06 05 Dec 06 07 Dec 06 11 Dec 06 12 Dec 06 11 Jan 07 otal time taken 274 minutes 4 567 hours Floor level Time minutes 11 Jan 07 C eee eee eee eee eee 13 3 7 15 84 otal time taken 132 minutes 2 2 hours Floor level Time minutes 04 Dec 06 05 Dec 06 07 Dec 06 11 Dec 06 12 Dec 06 11 Jan 07 2 13 A Se ss E Material change for Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 63 a better environment Table A6 Shepherd Clarence Dock Block D chipper system Stage 3 Factored Volume of volume plasterboard in 2 3 of skip skip m Time taken min 06 reb 07 1 8 61 403 285 f 5100 07 Feb 07 1 n 8 61 4o 255 3813 w c 12 Mar 07 1 1 8 61 40 255 100 00 oes af w s wo 14 Feb 07 1 n 8 61 4o 255 3835 k pa aa of plasterboard in skip taken from average of all veined Skips Total volume of plasterboard processed 12 75 m Total time taken 307 5 minutes 5 12 hours Table A7 Shepherd Clarence Dock Block C2 chipper system percentage of plasterboard in skip Weight of plasterboard 2 4 tonnes 2 400 kg Density of plasterboardt 710 kg m Volume of plasterboard in skip 3 380 m Volume of skip 8 cu yd 6 116 m Weighed by crane minus weight of skip t Average from Table Al Material change for Capture of waste plasterboa
84. ler used to transfer tipper skip to 40 cu yds skip 3 2 Kings Place Kings Cross London During the later stages of this study an opportunity arose to trial a bespoke plasterboard capture system from the beginning of the construction project As noted above this offers an important advantage in ensuring buy in for a capture system and allows for the inclusion of key elements of best practice such as chutes King s Place consists of a seven storey office development a major new arts venue including a 420 seat conference hall art galleries waterside restaurants and a bar located 150 metres from King s Cross railway station The project is being managed by Sir Robert McAlpine and employs MPG Contracts Ltd as the dry lining contractor for the development Starke Arvid had already contacted MPG Ltd regarding the promotion of its chipper and auxiliary tools trestles bins etc After further inspection of the King s Place development it was decided it provided an ideal site for trial due to the following favourable factors M The site was still in the early stages of construction and therefore offered the potential to tailor the plasterboard capture system to suit MI The site management both from Sir Robert McAlpine and MPG Ltd were proactive in identifying innovative approaches to plasterboard capture and were receptive to the idea of the plasterboard chipper As noted previously site buy in is crucial to ensuring successful develo
85. loth remove any debris from the scrap outlet weekly After any maintenance procedures it is important to carry out the safety test referred to earlier in the general Safety rules section Material change for Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 57 a better environment VVaste out feed Scrap outlet Chipper fails to start e Ensure all electrical cables are plugged in and the power supply is switched on e Release the emergency stop switch with the key e Ensure lid is correctly closed to disengage the safety cut out protection e Check the 15 amp reset fuse e Check if plasterboard is jammed in the machine e Press the green Start button Technical specification Power supply 110 volts 50 Hz 18 2 amp Motor power 1 5 kW Geared output final drive speed 25 metres minute Maximum sound power level lt 80 dB A Operating thickness 9 5 19 mm Operating width lt 00 mm Weight 145 kg Work height 900 or 1 110 mm Overall size 1 270 mm length x 770 mm width x 1 035 or 1 245 mm height Notes Material change for Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 58 a better environment STARE ARVID DECLARATION OF CONFORMITY EDOK 1 0 Directive 98 37 EC article 4 2 and Appendix Il A mean Kacturer or the He representative qen 3 459 22 Ljungskile Box 93 459 22 Ljungskile Declare under own responsibility to which this declaration relates is
86. mission calculations unun na nse s i sinan si se DERE E SE SE SE SESI SE SE SEPSE SE SE ERE SE SEE PESE RERE RR ESE 71 Material change for Capture of vvaste plasterboard on construction sites 5 a better environment 1 0 Introduction This final report for project PBD007011 describes work undertaken on a number of UK construction sites to demonstrate cost effective solutions to the problem of how best to capture waste plasterboard on construction sites for recycling The plasterboard capture systems used during these trials all incorporated a chipping machine designed specifically to reduce the bulk of waste plasterboard in the collection receptacle The project aimed to MI develop the general understanding of site characteristics important when planning waste plasterboard capture and other waste management measures on construction sites MI provide information to support the uptake of the most efficient means of waste plasterboard capture identified by the study and MI stimulate further investigation of capture systems for those sites shown not to be suited to traditional capture methodologies The project did not cover MI steps to reduce the generation of plasterboard waste i e waste minimisation MI the infrastructure for plasterboard waste recovery recycling and Mi comparisons between disposal routes although some are made to illustrate cost perceptions about plasterboard recovery This project PBDO07001 built on work und
87. n chipped Value in gCO2 TOTAL EMISSIONS SAVING gCo2 71 S60846 39 TOTAL EMISSIONS SAVING kgc 2 71860 85 4 Fa Ta eee a in TOTAL EMISSIONS SAVING C02 21 56 E k H orsett Village Phase 2 bag GUV bag Western Har The values entered for the control weight of chipped and un chipped bags are intended to illustrate how the tool works They are not the actual weights used in the analysis t Yellow cells contain data that are either generated by the spreadsheet or are a consistent set of values The green cell shows the calculated emissions Material change for a better environment i s Capture of vvaste plasterboard on construction sites 38 The same approach vvas applied to projects using skips except that a tyvo vvay journey to and from the recycling centre vvas assumed In addition an evaluation vvas carried out that aimed to assess the emissions savings associated vvith the use of different size skips As an example of the results Table 11 shows the different values obtained for the Higher Broughton project vvhich produced a total of 189 tonnes of plasterboard vvaste and vvas situated 104 miles from the recycling centre The values were obtained using the spreadsheet shown in Appendix 4 following input of the control weights of chipped and un chipped 8 cu yd skips and their scaling up to 16 cu yd and 40 cu yd skips The main aim of the comparison is to illustrate the most effective means of reducing carbon emiss
88. n a project However this payback relies upon sufficient quantities being created at one location such as a floor or a unit WE if lt 56 m of waste is being created at one point the labour costs associated with moving the waste to the chipper are likely to exceed the value gained from chipping the waste Manual handling MI Try to minimise the amount of manual handling in the capture system A large proportion of manual handling and therefore cost can be eliminated through the use of wheelie bins and chutes and the location of skips adjacent to the building footprint Receptacle M The best receptacle from an economic and environmental perspective is a large one From an economic perspective larger receptacles are cheaper per m due to economies of scale on behalf of the waste management company From an environmental perspective the reduced number of collections required for larger receptacles translates into reduced carbon dioxide emissions from transportation MI Covering skips particularly if using chipped material is advantageous if paying for skips by weight It was shown during the trials that wet plasterboard can increase skip weights by over 10 MI Try to locate the receptacle as close to the building footprint as possible particularly if using chutes as this reduces the labour costs associated with moving the waste into the receptacle Waste management MI Undertake a thorough examination of all local waste manag
89. n multi activity sites such as this it may be possible to get the plasterboard sub contractor to self monitor in order to improve the quantity of the data set and potentially the accuracy MI On this site three blocks were being boarded simultaneously at different locations on the site Monitoring each block required more than one person as the waste management operation often occurred simultaneously 3 0 Lessons learned from site trials during this project On the basis of the lessons learned during the earlier project regarding the suitability of site characteristics for the use of a chipper it was decided to focus trials during this project on those sites that offered the most likely costs savings i e high rise residential sites This reflects the traditionally high labour costs associated with moving wastes out of these types of construction projects All three trial sites fitted the high rise residential model considered to offer the most potential for positive change Mi Block H Clarence Dock Leeds TWC MI Blocks C2 and D Clarence Dock Leeds Shepherd Construction and Material change for a better environment Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 16 Mi King s Place King s Cross London Sir Robert McAlpine Summaries of the site trials using the chipper and some of the lessons learned are given below in sections 3 1 to 3 2 These are followed by details of two developments The Litmus Building Nottingh
90. n sites 21 Figure 11 The Litmus Building Nottingham 3 3 1 Capture system considerations MI The site footprint is restricted and extends no more than 10 metres from the building footprint at its widest point the western boundary Space for skips and materials is therefore limited However Reynolds had negotiated enough space for a 40 cu yd skip although this was not being used MI The quantity and rate of plasterboard waste on this development was significant despite the understandable adoption of measures to reduce the quantity of waste These measures include the use of custom sized boards and a revised door detailing which it is claimed has saved as much as five full boards per floor in plasterboard waste MI The plasterboard waste is removed from site in 800 litre and 660 litre bins in batches of 10 One bin is placed on each working floor Once filled they are transported to the ground floor using the hoist and collected by the waste management contractor Ward Recycling www wardrecycling com MI it was not possible to erect a chute as there was nowhere to attach it to the side of the building and no space at the building footprint to place a skip The perception of the supportive site management was that the chipper would provide sufficient volume savings to outweigh any additional labour costs associated with its operation MI The current plasterboard capture system presented some significant health and safety risks through the
91. n this development particularly the many sources of waste The site is a residential development in Salford that forms a major part of Salford City Council s Regeneration Plan in partnership with public and private companies The overall development will last seven years and consists of approximately 700 new houses Material change for a better environment Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 14 The phase under construction at the time of the trial vvas Phase 1 This occupied a 30 acre site and included a mix of apartments and town houses ranging from two to four storeys Figure 4 The various blocks of housing within Phase 1 were at different stages of construction with the plasterboard fit out taking place in the east of Block B The apartments forming the basis of the comparison were four storeys high and were accessed by a shared stairwell The houses were three storeys high with a dedicated stairwell within each house Figure 4 Higher Broughton site plan APARTMENT 3 STOREY CORNER BLOCK APARTWENT 3 STOREY MD BLOCK APARTWENT 4 STOREY CORNER BLOCK APARTMENT 4 STOREY Bock fm HOUSE 3 STOREY tim MOUSE STOREY 10m HOUSE 3 STOREY tim HOUSE 4 STOREY 4m MOUSE 3 STOREY HOUSE TYPE 13 LEGEND CI Es o aa CXI Ee ai Ca E3 ESTATE BOUNDARY Waste generation varied slightly from apartments to houses since a team of fitters worked only on one block of apartments at
92. need to push heavy 800 litre bins full of plasterboard waste up a 45 slope to the hoist This required 2 3 labourers 3 4 Enigma at Bletchley Park Milton Keynes This housing development Figure 12 under construction by Taylor Woodrow Developments is part of the historic Enigma site Unfortunately the many different sources of plasterboard waste one per house made the siting of the plasterboard chipper an impossible task without adding to the time spent dealing with the plasterboard waste which is often the most expensive factor In addition the much slower pace of construction meant that there was not the same need to deal with the plasterboard waste so efficiently and time could be spent breaking up the waste board before placing it in the British Gypsum bags 1 Knauf Eco Jamb 2 See www bletchleypark org uk Material change for a better environment Capture of vvaste plasterboard on construction sites 22 Figure 12 Bletchley Park site plan 3 4 1 Capture system considerations Mi Managing more than one source of plasterboard waste across a wide area such as that of a housing site will require more than one chipper In these cases each source will need to produce the required minimum amount of waste board to make the capture system effective MI The rate of boarding at a housing site may be insufficient to provide an acceptable payback on the use of a chipper MI Power constraints on a housing site where power is often
93. not available until much later in the project may make the use of a chipper impractical 4 0 The Starke Arvid plasterboard chipper The machine Figure 13 is designed specifically to reduce the bulk of waste plasterboard It does this by reducing the waste plasterboard into manageable pieces thereby increasing the volume that can be placed in waste containers Two counter rotating cylinders with blades cut the board and feed the waste pieces from the machine ready for collection Figure 13 Starke Arvid plasterboard chipper The machine is designed to chip most types of plasterboard from 9 5 mm to 19 mm with the exception of thermal laminates and depending on the site s recycling requirements possibly also foil backed plasterboards Material change for a better environment Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 23 The rate of plasterboard through the machine is geared to 25 metres per minute Throughout the trials it vvas observed that the limiting factor on the rate of plasterboard that can be chipped by the machine is the labour required to feed the plasterboard rather than the gearing of the machine Assuming the use of standard vvall board 2 800 x 1 200 x 15 mm the chipper could physically process at a rate of 0 45 m minute The fastest rate of plasterboard capture observed during the project the Wastecycle trial using a 8 cu yd skip see section 1 4 equated to 0 067 m minute Successful use of the pla
94. nt waste management options for plasterboard A previous project PBD006011 examined the plasterboard capture systems at four Taylor Woodrow Construction TWC sites covering both high rise and low rise residential developments This project focused on trials at high rise developments because such sites appeared to offer the largest cost savings reflecting the traditionally high cost of moving plasterboard waste out of high rise buildings These trials were located as follows Mi Block H Clarence Dock Leeds Taylor Woodrow MI Blocks C2 and D Clarence Dock Leeds Shepherd Construction and Mi King s Place King s Cross London Sir Robert McAlpine The King s Place trial offered the opportunity to trial a bespoke plasterboard capture system from the beginning of the construction project It also allowed the environmental impact of road and barge transport of the waste plasterboard to be compared The plasterboard capture system utilised in all three trials incorporated a Starke Arvid chipper in order to improve efficiency by increasing the capacity of the skip or bag used for collection One of the sites featured in the previous project PBDOOGO11 at The Square at Grand Central Aylesbury used a chipper supplied by Optimum Recycling Solutions The results from this trial were therefore included in the analysis undertaken to present the economic and environmental business cases for a best practice plasterboard capture system including t
95. nto the receptacles in order to reduce air voids 8 3 Plasterboard chipper The trials of the plasterboard chipper showed it worked well in improving the business and environmental cases for a capture system In all but one trial the implementation of a capture system incorporating a chipper resulted Material change for a better environment Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 52 in cost savings This highlighted both the potential of the plasterboard chipper and the need to plan its application carefully This project also facilitated some valuable development vvork on the Starke Arvid chipper which is now being marketed in the UK and elsewhere in the world 8 4 Best practice guidance Throughout the project many lessons vvere learned through the implementation of plasterboard capture systems at the trial sites This information is reported in the form of guidance see section 7 and provides a framevvork within which to target continual improvement in this area This guidance stresses the need to plan a plasterboard capture system and gives examples of what could be considered best practice in light of the findings from this study It also highlights the roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders main contractor dry lining sub contractor waste management company at each stage in the process 8 5 Limitations of the study and further work As explained in section 1 the following areas were not investigated in this
96. oard waste take advantage of the British Gypsum Plasterboard Recycling Service PRS with the result that very little plasterboard waste is sent to landfill It was therefore necessary to look at other sites in the industry for suitable trials This was done with the help of sub contractors in Taylor Woodrow s supply chain and through Starke Arvid contacts This approach also had the advantage of giving a broader perspective to the project Material change for a better environment Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 8 1 3 5 Milestone 4 By 2 March 2007 a significant amount of vvork had been undertaken to MI examine the capture systems in operation on sites and M improve these systems and in some cases applying an entirely new methodology based on the lessons learned during the trial To confirm the revised capture systems were proving successful a further period of data collection was undertaken against the same criteria used in Milestone 3 This included qualitative data capture in terms of how the site stakeholders viewed the revised capture systems such that best practice and lessons learned could be recorded for future applications The Milestone 4 report provided an update on the data collection already completed including the planned revisions to the capture systems proposed for implementation on site The report also contained some preliminary analysis based on the data collected during the control period wh
97. on factor Database v02 8 xls issued in January 2003 This database was produced by NETCEN as part of the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory NAEI Programme in consultation with the Transport Research Laboratory TRL This includes adoption of the new TRL factors for Euro and II vehicles and takes into account the reduction in emissions anticipated for Euro III and IV vehicles A lack of vehicle specific data Contact was initially made with Wastecycle the contractor responsible for transporting skipped waste to British Gypsum facilities to request makes and models of their lorries used for 8 16 and 40 cu yd skip removal The various manufacturers of these vehicles were then consulted to obtain specific emissions data for each lorry type However manufacturers only provided information on which Euro standard each vehicle meets Therefore there was no way of distinguishing between the emission levels of rigid lorries removing the three different sizes of skips from sites The emissions per mile value provided by NETCEN for rigid HGVs were used instead However this did not distinguish between rigid HGV types and thus it was assumed that emissions were the same regardless of what size of skip was being removed Similarly no means was found by which to calculate Now part of AEA Energy amp Environment from the AEA Group Material change for Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 69 a better environment differences in
98. parison between the emissions that would have been derived from the Orsett Village project through the use of chipped bags 8 cu yd skips 16 cu yd skips and 40 cu yd skips Table 14 Comparison of emissions from the Orsett Village project through the use of different receptacles Total carbon emissions from tCO tonne of number jem chipping tCO plasterboard waste Bag 238 32 15 0 0159 8 cu yd skip 558 32 35 0 016 16 cu yd skip 279 16 18 0 008 Vehicle emissions per mile for skips are 1 076 gCOImile rigid lorry and 2 511 gCO mile articulated lorry for bags Total waste generated was 2 019 tonnes and the distance of each journey was 54 miles The data indicate that the lowest level of carbon emissions would have been achieved by transferring waste plasterboard to a recycling centre using large 40 cu yd skips The next most effective container is the 16 cu yd Skip Finally bags and 8 cu yd skips produce the greatest volumes of carbon dioxide the difference in tCO per tonne of waste between them is negligible In the case of 8 cu yd skips significantly more journeys are required 558 compared with bags 238 In this case the additional 320 journeys required for disposal by skip are almost exactly offset by the rigid skip lorry carrying the skips emitting approximately 1 5 times less CO per mile than the articulated lorry carrying the bags As such both the total emissions and the tCO2 emitted per tonne of plasterboard w
99. ply of good quality power cables Material build up on waste chutes On sites using waste chutes there was a need to ensure Starke Arvid intends to look into a chute adapter to W they are set up in a way to prevent the chipped boards e creating a blockage Dust generated from vvaste chutes On sites using waste chutes there was a need to minimise The situation is improved by the dust generated when chipped boards fall down the M reducing the overall chain length of the chute chute sections and MI where practical covering the waste container 4 3 Proposed route to market for the chipper During the last few months of the trials Starke Arvid made a number of decisions regarding the future of the machine MI Initially sales would be directly to the market Depending on site situations Starke Arvid expected the sub contractor or possibly the main contractor to be the purchaser of the equipment MI Starke Arvid planned to achieve effective selling through demonstration of the various solutions as well as offering on site support and coaching New sales would involve a minimum of half a day of on site practical training with further follow up visits M The initial target market would be the top 20 dry lining sub contractors in the UK particularly on larger format projects M The cost of each machine would be 3 450 VAT delivered and including half a day of on site training MI The first production series would arriv
100. pment and management of a best practice capture system MI The project was large enough to ensure investment in establishing a best practice plasterboard capture system and to realise its savings MPG Ltd was the main architect of the plasterboard capture system with support from Sir Robert McAlpine and Starke Arvid Taylor Woodrow was only involved in reviewing the site from the perspective of this study Figure 10 provides a schematic of the capture system developed for the trial at King s Place The system makes use of the proximity of the site to the Battlebridge Basin off Regent s Canal to remove the waste plasterboard by barge The barge is operated by Wood Hall amp Heward Limited which also provides barges bringing materials to Material change for a better environment Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 20 the site and the recycling company is Povverday plc www powerday co uk whose materials reclamation facility MRF at Old Oak Sidings in north London is next to the Grand Union Canal Figure 10 Schematic of plasterboard capture system at King s Place Kings Road McAlpine Operatnes load PE rom bin into chipper 3 2 1 Capture system considerations The follovving are considered specific positives for this site W Establishing a best practice plasterboard capture system at the beginning of the project helped to ensure an appropriate level of support and to ease its implementation on s
101. project Mi measures to reduce the generation of plasterboard waste i e waste minimisation MI infrastructure for plasterboard waste recovery recycling and MI comparisons between waste management options though some are made in section 7 2 1 to illustrate cost perceptions about plasterboard recovery These limitations were deliberate so that the study could focus on those aspects directly relevant to the plasterboard capture system on site However it is implicit that these factors do have a bearing on improving waste management practices within the dry lining sector In particular considerable benefit could be achieved by targeting future work on the minimisation of plasterboard waste as figures from the analysis of the site trials show there is much work still to do in this area A further limitation relevant to plasterboard capture systems was the omission of low rise sites from the analysis Although there was a good reason for omitting these sites from this study there is still a need to develop solutions for these types of site Initial indications suggest that work should look first at waste minimisation and then address labour and waste disposal costs with environmental aspects forming a significant component of the decision making process Material change for a better environment Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 53 Appendix 1 Chipper User Manual SARAR VID DE A Chipper User s Manual In
102. project tonnes Estimated number of chipped skips on job Estimated number of un chipped skips TRANSPORT Max Weight of Skip on Lorry must be gt than B3 Number of journeys per project chipped Number of journeys per project un chipped EMISSIONS Emissions per mile gCo2 mile Length of journey mile Emissions per journey gCO2 Total miles travelled on job chipped Total miles travelled on job unchipped Total emissions on job chipped Total emissions on job un chipped TOTAL EMISSIONS SAVING gC02 TOTAL EMISSIONS SAVING kgto2 TOTAL EMISSIONS SAVING tC02 TOTAL EMISSIONS ON JOB CHIPPED tCO2 Material change for a better environment Wires 208 60 2054846 36 2054 85 2 05 11 72 WASTE Weight of control 16 yard chipped skip tonnes Weight of control 16 yard un chipped skip tonnes Total weight of waste on project tonnes Estimated number of chipped skips on job Estimated number of un chipped skips TRANSPORT Max Weight of Skip on Lorry must be gt than B3 Number of journeys per project chipped Number of journeys per project un chipped EMISSIONS Emissions per mile gCo2 mile Length of journey mile Emissions per journey gCO2 Total miles travelled on job chipped Total miles travelled on job unchipped Total emissions on job chipped Total emissions on job un chipped TOTAL EMISSIONS SAVING gC02 TOTAL EMISSIONS SAVING kgC02 TOTAL EMISSIONS SAVING tC02 WASTE
103. r Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 3 a better environment Contents 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 R L ON iaiiccicisnscuwnntdcakasncannnaneisd dius EREA ANARE 6 1 1 Report SIT e Tec re re tT errr er rT ary rr 6 1 2 PIO ECU Ole aE abencaateeeutatustesusare mses ueucaeteutateu sane eotanceseuaaedausatedecsasustaaveumuaedauaeomeaenatt 6 1 3 rojet DANa GG aaea R S E xcamea tte 7 ToL PEDO CE E E A E TE antoonidamendeia ss 7 Ko Me One Dea ranean naielvansucukaananenenaaainyanada ya tinnanaa me aaneadea ueunanatanadles 7 Bh MON Zan crit nacteruth E A E tigate pauotinanntonsaiaradntgaea 8 TI ME ORNE gena E moan eanaNtaanIane anna 8 Toa MONE eee eee eee ee ene er ee eee ee rere Tre ee 9 keko MESONERO A at tanieaat acacia 9 to ME 9 1 4 Controlled trial at Wastecycle Ltd naive nm 9 Lessons learned from earlier Site trials ka nnasinni sesi sinan ni si SEPSE SESI SE SEPSE SE SEE SE SE SE SEPSE SE SE SEPSE SE SE SE ES ERES ERE SERA 9 2 1 MILO Nani Valon 10 2 1 1 Capture system considerations nnaaaaaanaen ee 12 2 2 St ames Aparimenis ne LEN NAM num 12 2 2 1 Capture system considerations guazinecccsni nin 13 2 3 The Square at Grand Central Aylesbury nanen anen enden 13 2 3 1 Capture system CONSIGEGFAUIONS gjini sonde 14 2 4 maner BOUL FICO lt 5 alo 14 2 4 1 Capture system considerations aaa 16 Lessons learned from site trials during this Proj ct na una nana cica nina nse nia p SESI SE ERE SE SE SER ERES ERE E SE
104. r performance as well as causing permanent damage to the chipper Ensure no screws or foreign objects are embedded in the waste plasterboards MACHI NE OPERATION 1 Locate the chipper on flat even ground as near as practical to a 32 amp site transformer to reduce the length of extension cable to minimise voltage drop and gain the maximum power from the machine 2 Choose a suitable collection method a If filling directly into large waste skips place chipper at the open ends of skip b If filling 1 tonne dumpy type waste sacks support the sides of the bags with adequate framing or use recommended Starke Arvid bag supports c When using Starke Arvid waste bins operate the machine with the stand in the lower position This will also improve the ergonomic operation of the machine 4 Apply the brake on the locking wheel to prevent unnecessary movement 5 Turn on the machine by pressing the green Start button The rotating blades will start and the machine is ready to use 6 Ensure that only clean waste plasterboard is used with the machine ensuring it is free form screws metal or other contaminants When chipping longer pieces of board support the board by hand until it can support its own weight The machine is capable of chipping boards up to 700 mm wide To stop the machine press the red Stop button 0 In the event of a material blockage follow procedure laid down in the User Manual p NG ad UNLOADI NG
105. r raised as a result of this study include MI the frequent assertion by British Gypsum that it cannot accept offcuts lt 120 mm in size in its bags because its recycling plant cannot separate the paper from the plasterboard on pieces below this size and WE access on site to a power supply of the correct size as some sites may not have access to a 32 amp supply the power supply required by the chipper should be 16 amp 110 volts There was widespread support for such a capture system from within TWC and its plasterboard contractors Material change for a better environment Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 11 2 1 1 Capture system considerations M The choice of plasterboard may have implications for the type of capture system in place on a site For instance most of the Taylor Wimpey sites using British Gypsum board use the bag system For TWC sites where the choice of board is the responsibility of the client or site the choice of end receptacle is less prescriptive MI Phased developments may mean that capture systems suitable on earlier stages are no longer possible on later stages In this case it was not possible to replicate the chute system operated for the Lafarge system on later stages using British Gypsum board because there was insufficient space at the building footprint boundary to site a skip 2 2 Stjames Apartments Cheltenham This new residential development consists of 142 one and two bed apartmen
106. rboard disposal where no local plasterboard recycling scheme is available 7 2 1 Cost perceptions The perception that recycling plasterboard is prohibitively expensive compared with sending it to landfill under the 10 rule is a consistent barrier to the development of the recycled market for plasterboard If sites automatically contract waste management companies to dispose of plasterboard waste to landfill rather than investigating possible plasterboard recycling schemes locally they may be missing a more sustainable and competitive option and in turn stunting the development of a recycling market for plasterboard Throughout this project it was evident that local waste management options for plasterboard recycling can be extremely competitive Increasingly companies appear to be taking advantage of a more established market for plasterboard waste and are directing wastes to end uses such as soil conditioners Leeds or soil stabilisers London Where such a local facility exists it is often more economical than landfill This is illustrated in Table 19 which gives the costs associated with the disposal recycling of a 40 cu yd or equivalent skip of plasterboard waste from Clarence Dock Leeds Table 19 Costs of different waste management options at Clarence Dock Environment Agency July 2005 Gypsum wastes and high sulphate bearing wastes GEHOO705B X E E www environment agency gov uk commondata acrobat gypsum3_1122535 pdf M
107. rd on construction sites 64 a better environment Table A8 Shepherd Clarence Dock Block C2 chipper system Skip full to brim no weight limit for Xena platform Skip full estimated 2 4 tonnes crane weigh 27 Mar 07 29 Mar 07 r Skip two thirds full eight bins Ni Using percentage calculated from an average of all vveighed skips Total volume of vvaste processed 14 199 m Total time taken 164 minutes 2 733 hours Time per m 0 193 hours n 11 55 minutesim Cost m 1 57 Material change for Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 65 a better environment Table A9 St James Cheltenham chipper system Skip volume 6 cu yd 4 56 m Plasterboard density 710 kg m average from Table A1 Waste Transfer Net weight of plasterboard Note Reference Date Material tonnes 25 Aug 06 Plasterboard un chipped 2 34 29 Aug 06 plasterboard un chipped 2 30 29 Aug 06 Plasterboard un chipped 2 28 30 Aug 06 Plasterboard chipped 2 12 From weighbridge tickets only what was in the skip Weight of plasterboard chipped 2 12 tonnes Volume of waste in skip 3 83 m Percentage of plasterboard in full skip 84 01 Time taken to process skip 1 66 hours Time taken to process 1 m plasterboard 0 43 hours m 26 00 minutesim Labour cost per m 3 52 Table A10 The Square at Grant Central Aylesbury manual system Plasterboard density Volume of plasterbo
108. re calculated to represent of the use of 8 16 and 40 cu yd skips 6 1 Methodology The following methodology was used to assess the level of carbon dioxide CO2 emission savings achievable through use of the chipper to process plasterboard waste The various assumptions that had to be made to overcome a number of constraints to the analysis are presented in Appendix 3 including the issues raised by the lack of data on skips containing chipped waste t As carbon dioxide emissions Material change for a better environment Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 36 Data on the total weight of plasterboard generated on a range of Taylor Woodrow projects Table 8 were collated To enable the best case number of skips that could be filled to be determined the project team determined the weight of chipped or un chipped plasterboard waste that could be carried in different waste receptacles A trial was undertaken in a controlled environment to assess the weights of British Gypsum bags containing either un chipped or chipped plasterboard waste these values are referred to subsequently as control weights Data from the St James Apartments Cheltenham on the weight of chipped and un chipped 6 cu yd skips were used as representative of skip weights as these were the most consistent data available in terms of numbers of Skips in a relatively consistent environment The control weights determined for British Gypsum b
109. ring material both up and down from the working floors At the time of the trial the project had two plasterboard capture systems in place One of these systems operated for buildings using Lafarge boards and the other for buildings using British Gypsum boards At the time of the trial British Gypsum boards could only be returned to the manufacturer if offcuts were loaded into specialised British Gypsum bags Lafarge board could be loaded into skips When full British Gypsum bags did not fit easily around the core of the buildings under construction and therefore final loading into these bags had to take place outside the building at ground level This had implications on the capture system method requiring additional activities compared with Lafarge board Figure 1 provides a schematic of the capture system at Victoria Wharf British Gypsum bags are referred to in this figure and others as BG bags Material change for better envi t S e hese Capture of vvaste plasterboard on construction sites 10 Figure 1 Schematic of the plasterboard capture systems used at Victoria Wharf Cardiff Lafarge Victoria Wharf Cardiff Chute BG Bag Method eei SMALL EDIUM OFFCUTS The main conclusions from this trial were as follows M The chute to skip system benefited from a bespoke design and achieved an average 27 saving over the more restrictive hoist and bag method The smaller number of steps in the chute to skip capture process proved
110. s from placing their hands within the machine e Do not attempt to modify alter or tamper with any of the guards or electrical safety devices in any way Material change for Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 55 a better environment Safety tests Check safe operation of safety cut outs daily prior to commencement of vvork If any items below fail the safety tests the machine must not be used 1 With the machine running lift the cover This will cause the machine to stop 2 With the machine running strike the emergency stop button This will cause the machine to stop 3 Remove plug to isolate the machine Measure the gap between the finger protection and the bottom plate on the out feed If the gap is greater than 3 mm replace the finger protection see photo 1 Photo 1 Out feed protection ZHITIA Finger protection Bottom plate Control panel key 1 Green Start button 2 Red Stop button 3 Black Reverse button 4 15 amp fuse push button in to reset 5 Emergency stop Note f the emergency stop is activated it requires a key to unlock it Material change for Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 56 a better environment Operating instructions 1 Locate the chipper on flat even ground as near as practical to a 32 amp site transformer to reduce the length of extension cable to minimise voltage drop and gain the maximum povver from the machine 2 Choose a
111. s on articulated lorries 7 0 Implementing best practice on site Many lessons can be learnt from the project on the implementation of plasterboard capture systems on construction sites This section seeks to document and illustrate where appropriate these lessons by first establishing the case for investment drawing together the business and environmental cases from previous sections illustrating a best practice scenario and then detailing some step by step points on implementing a capture system and how to maintain buy in for these systems 1 1 Background the case for best practice It is estimated that on average 12 of all plasterboard brought to site is wasted Throughout this project however wastage rates as high as 25 were witnessed While this is a significant cost in terms of raw material and waste disposal costs the economic analysis in section 5 highlights just how significant this volume of waste Is in terms of labour costs Obviously best practice is not to waste the plasterboard in the first place and much work is being done in the minimisation of plasterboard waste However this study is concerned with the management of those wastes that are not eliminated From a purely economic perspective the true cost of plasterboard waste includes A cost of disposal recycling B labour costs of handling the waste C equipment costs of handling the waste i e bins chutes and D cost of the material Further factors t
112. s the development progressed with the installation of a central hoist in the lift Shaft and a change in location for the skips 2 3 The Square at Grand Central Aylesbury A trial of the plasterboard chipper developed by Optimum Recycling Solutions ORS was undertaken at this development between 11 September and 15 September 2006 The development at Aylesbury consisted of 144 one two and three bed apartments over blocks with three and four floors Completion was scheduled for J anuary 2007 but at the time of the trial the project was running slightly behind schedule Dry lining activities were carried out by Quality Textures Limited QTL At the time of the trial dry lining activities were not progressing at full capacity due to more weather proofing being required on the development Two capture systems were in operation before the trial of the ORS chipper One involved the labourers handling the board out of the building manually to a central storage point while the other utilised the tower crane to hoist out full British Gypsum bags Figure 3 provides a schematic of the capture system at this development with and without the chipper Material change for a better environment Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 13 Figure 3 Schematic of the plasterboard capture system at The Square Aylesbury vvith and vvithout the chipper Plasterboard Crusher Manual Handling Use of the chipper resulted in a 51 saving in
113. se factors reduced the efficiency of this system MI The narrow corridors in Block D meant that it was not feasible to use bins to collect the waste This meant that the fixers could not contribute to the process by placing their waste in the bins and all the plasterboard waste had to be manually handled to the hoist flat This was a major cost and could not be reduced through the use of a chipper MI The trial on Block C2 operating an identical means of plasterboard capture identified a significantly improved saving at Stage 3 1 741m This can be attributed to a more consistent supply of plasterboard on all but one occasion a full skip of plasterboard was chipped in one go This is not likely to be representative of site practice and meant it was difficult to achieve reliable data on Stage 2 for this project As a result these data were not included in the economic analysis Material change for a better environment Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 31 5 3 3 Clarence Dock TWC See section 3 1 2 for details of the site and the plasterboard capture system employed in the trial Figure 18 Economic schematic for TWC site at Clarence Dock Leeds Clarence Dock TW ed fa Telehandler used to transfer tipper Total labour cost skip to 40 cu yds skip Total labour cost 14 48 m VJ 6 13 m MI The instruction by site management that the fixers should fill the bins r
114. sterboard chipper requires adequate provision for effective training of the workforce This should involve coaching operatives in MI the methods used to collect the waste MI the equipment they use and MI how they should plan their work flow Such training helps to achieve significant efficiency gains over and above the simple volume improvements in the waste containers It is a misconception that this kind of machinery can be a plug in and use solution to the waste issues presented on construction sites Other Starke Arvid products e g board handling trolleys trestles and waste bins complement the whole concept of efficient material movements be that products in or material waste out of the building These gains can be achieved only by getting closer to the customers understanding individual site situations and offering effective solutions The User Manual supplied by Starke Arvid for the chipper is reproduced in Appendix 1 4 1 Instructions on chipper use TWC issued a method statement Figure 14 on the use of the Starke Arvid chipper at its construction site at Clarence Dock Leeds These instructions were based on the User Manual produced by Starke Arvid see Appendix 1 Figure 14 Method statement issued by TWC for the Clarence Dock site trial Ref TWCO1 HBS Date 14 01 07 Starke Arvid Chipper Taylor Woodrow Construction site Clarence Dock Leeds MACHI NE DESCRIPTION This machine is designed specifically to red
115. t is assumed to be a milk round collection where bags are collected from various sites Figure 21 lIllustration of the emission saving calculation t WASTE Weight of chipped bag weight of Un chipped bag 1 Weight in tonnes of chipped and un chipped bags 2 Total waste plasterboard on project Total weight of waste on project tonnes from British Gypsum data Estimated number of chipped bags on project 3 Total waste divided by weight of control bag Estimated number of un chipped bags on projec TRANSPORT 25 29 Number of bags per lorry articulated Wax weight tonnes capacity of lorry articulated 4 Estimated number of bags divided by Number of journeys per project chipped number of bags per lorry chipped un Number of journeys per project un chippecdi chipped EMISSIONS 5 NETCEN data on emissions per mile Emissions per mile qC Qiimile of articulated lorry Length of journey imiles i 5299 lt _ 6 Length of journey based on distance from site to relevant recycling centre Emissions per journey ati 7 Number of journeys per project see above multiplied by length of each journey chipped and un chipped Total miles travelled on job chipped Total miles travelled on job unchipped Total emissions on job chipped Total emissions on job un chipped 8 Total miles travelled per job multiplied by emissions per mile chipped u
116. t waste board had been produced to warrant a clean up The sub contractor stated that three hours per labourer were allocated for four labourers to complete this process Figure 2 provides a schematic of the plasterboard PB capture system at St James Cheltenham Material change for a better environment Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 12 Figure 2 Schematic of the plasterboard capture system at St James Cheltenham Lafarge St James Cheltenham on PE waste is loaded into the lift shaft and transported to ground floor At ground floor the PE waste is loaded onto a pallet for storage in the basement Once full the skip is loaded onte a barry far delivery te the recy br 2 2 1 Capture system considerations MI it was not feasible to provide a chute on the external face of the building However the design of the building allowed for skips to be placed in the basement car park located in the central atrium Although this was accessible the disparate creation of the plasterboard waste prevented the installation of a chute system MI The severely restricted access on this development influenced the size and types of skips accessible on site For example it was not possible to use anything larger than an 8 cu yd skip due to the restrictions on the size of lorry able to access the basement car park anything larger would not fit under the soffit of the building MI The capture system changed a
117. that the reduced total number of journeys required throughout a project would easily offset this small increase in emissions per journey As such it was necessary to assume that emissions would be the same despite differences in the weight of loads of chipped versus un chipped skips and bag collections Transport distances Two British Gypsum recycling centres serve all UK sites Sites within London and the south east are served by the centre at Robertsbridge East Sussex and those elsewhere in the UK by the centre at East Leake in Leicestershire Distances have been calculated accordingly depending on the location of each project site For each skip movement an outward and return journey from the relevant recycling centre was included For British Gypsum bag collection however each lorry usually visits a number of sites on each journey It was not possible to factor this in and therefore it was decided to include only the return leg of the journey for British Gypsum bag sites The methodology presented above was expected to be the most effective method with which to derive the potential projected carbon savings achievable on a range of project types through use of the chipping machine and as such get the most out of available data The volume of historic data available on un chipped conventional plasterboard disposal is a useful resource and was seen as adding value to the project Through use of unit data derived through controlled filling of 8 c
118. the which prevent operatives from placing their fingers out feed of the chipper in the back of the machine and keeps the board pressed against the bottom of the waste out feed thus preventing any blockages This appears to be an excellent solution and has been retrofitted to each machine on the trial with positive results Reverse button ineffective In the unlikely event of a jam in the rollers the reverse Starke Arvid intends to install a capability to button was installed to offer an easy way to remove any manually reverse the cylinders by using a crank jammed plasterboard However it was discovered that the handle in the drive unit It will only be possible to characteristics of 110 volt site power mean that insufficient do this with the chipper safely isolated Internal torque from the motor is generated from a standing start discussions are underway about the need to retain to effectively unblock the jam the reverse switch as it remains useful for the cleaning of the scrap out feed Although the machine draws less than 16 amp when in Minimising the length of the power cable and Material change for a better environment Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 26 Problem operation and has in fact a safety trip switch rated at 15 ensuring that it has a minimum thickness of amp the site trials suggest that a 32 amp power supplyis 2 5 mm should minimise any power drop along the required on site to ensure a sup
119. total costs for this project Table 5 Table 5 Comparative costs of manual handling and use of a chipper at TWC Clarence Dock Manual m Chipped m Saving m 56 00 30 98 2501 Table 6 summarises the economic results for these four sites together vvith those from St James Apartments Cheltenham see section 2 2 and the Wastecycle trial see section 1 4 The Wastecycle calculations are shown in Tables Al2 Al4 in Appendix 2 Table 6 Economic results summary e Te Si Je e system St James Apartments The Square at Grand 24 41 Central Aylesbury ego 7 e Manual 6 98 Nodata S ia QE 36 Nodata S Shepherd Block D Manual E 252 Chipper removes Stage 2 Clarence Dock Stages 2 amp 3 manual together see t 2 62 th f Chipper 3 26 cos more than use 0 at 2 Manal 11 96 TVVC Clarence Dock Manual 2 52 8 36 aa Kom snepnerd siterat 3 ny Dock 6 13 Removes RemovesStage2 1 2 tipper 3 47 No control data McAlpine Kings Cross I 5 33 Chipper 0 00 Manual bags 20 15 13 Chipper bags 6 46 a 6 20 Based on these results it is possible to calculate the total cost savings for a certain size of skip and therefore the payback period at which the savings would exceed the cost of purchasing the chipper and the chute This payback period is shown in Table 7 for the three sites for which comparable data are available Comparable data are not available for
120. ts being constructed for Crosby Homes The development is a concrete structure to the fifth floor with a steel frame on the sixth top floor of the building A trial of the plasterboard chipper developed by Starke Arvid took place at St James Apartments in Cheltenham on 30 August 2006 This one day trial was undertaken for the same reasons as given in section 2 1 for Victoria Wharf At the time of the trial the project was a substantial way towards completion 18 months in with completion scheduled for J anuary 2007 Remaining construction activities consisted predominantly of second fix fit out with the first of two handovers occurring in October 2006 The site used Lafarge board for all apartments with Wastefile UK www wastefile com providing the waste management services for the return of the waste plasterboard During conversations with the plasterboard subcontractor TJ Services it was estimated that an average of 120 boards were to be used per apartment with 2 700 mm wallboards and 2 400 mm ceiling boards being used It was estimated that the equivalent of approximately 2 000 boards would be wasted during the construction process The capture system in place was active at most once a day with operatives storing waste board outside each apartment until fixing had finished for the day and the clear up started Unfortunately it was not possible to observe this during the site visit as the dry lining process was delayed and insufficien
121. u yd skips and scaling this information up to 16 and 40 cu yd skips it was possible to use these existing data Material change for Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 70 a better environment Appendix 4 Examples of CO emission calculations Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 71 Summary sheet Total waste Unit distance Total tCO Total tCO Total savings Zn m un chipped _ tCO Orsett Village 20199 38215 2 47 NR 13 27 Western Harbour mesem Harbour gay po 20 81 1290 15 00 I t ar ae tCO ee savings 8 Total savings 16 Total savings 40 fomnes aa a al 8 cu yd cu ee tCO cu yd tCO gt cu yd tCO gt Higher Broughton Broughton 13378 11 OO ILR o 205 0 41 TT a DA N a DR RR y VEN E E CarenceDock Il se ser T sz os los JU oa Joao Dt Grispins o a O a S as T ao T oo O oo Jo O Lancaster Road 2 38 23 0 07 Material change for E KAFE SAN 4 better environment Capture of vvaste plasterboard on construction sites 72 Analysis Table C1 Comparison of bags to skips emissions savings lt n Milage _aneaster Bond Total waste tonnes 2w o o S 2 O Unit TT me 4 308 e e SO Bags o G O S a S 8cu ydskis o o No of journeys BH S Bo as Se W6cuydskips TI Material change for Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 73 a better environm
122. uce the bulk of waste plasterboard It does this by reducing the waste plasterboard into manageable pieces therefore increasing the volume that can be placed in waste containers Two counter rotating cylinders with blades cut the board and feed the waste pieces from the machine ready for collection The machine is designed to chip most types of plasterboard from 9 5 mm through to 19 mm with the exception of thermal laminates and dependant on the site recycling requirements possibly foil backed plasterboards Note Information contained within this method statement should be used in conjunction with the chipper User Manual and practical training issued to operatives on site Material change for a better environment Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 24 TAKI NG DELI VERY AND MOVEMENT OF CHI PPER Deliveries are usually made by a small truck maximum 7 5 tonne vehicle Unloading will be in the form of forklift mechanical self off load hi ab or by hand Guidance notes for the correct lifting slinging of the chipper are contained within the user manual Deliveries of chippers will be scheduled to main contract programme requirements The chippers are generally delivered banded shrink wrapped on a timber pallet GENERAL SAFETY RULES Operation of the chipper is to be carried out in accordance with current health amp safety regulations and practical common sense Please read and adhere to the guidelines set out in our
123. ure quoted in a European Commission study in order to make ballpark estimates of the savings potential from using canal instead of road This study stated that one sixth of the energy is used per unit transported by barges compared with lorries At King s Place the recycling facility is only 6 4 miles from the site by road Had the project used 8 cu yd skips in which to chip into and transported this material via road then total emissions would have amounted to 0 108 tCO However the use of barge means that total emissions may have been as low as 0 01 tCQ gt Cited in a case study by Sea and Water www seaandwater org downloads canarywhart pdf Material change for a better environment Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 43 To illustrate the potential of using a canal barge as a means of transporting plasterboard waste for recycling Table 17 shows the approximate CO savings that could be achieved on each of the projects in the analysis by using a barge The table uses bags first three projects and 8 cu yd chipped skips last five projects as a means of comparison Table 17 Approximate savings achievable on each project as a result of replacing road transport with canal barge method tonnes chipped road chipped barge tCO Orsett Village Guy Beg 383 f 98 159 797 Western Harbour Bag IM f 1580 25 1 29250 CorenceDock 8cu ydskp SQ PJ 232 St Crispins 8 CU yd skip l 09
124. use the machine e To immediately stop the machine strike the red emergency stop button Reset using the safe operation key e Keep the work area clean to avoid risks of slips trips and falls e Ensure the braked wheel is engaged to prevent unnecessary movement when the machine is in operation e Maintain a dry and well lit workspace area to ensure safe operation for you and other personnel e Never leave the machine running unattended e When lifting the chipper ensure correct straps are used and are placed in the correct position The machine should always be turned off and disconnected from the power supply before moving or lifting it 6 Metal to metal contact with the rotating blades could significantly reduce chipper performance as well as causing permanent damage to the chipper Ensure no screws or foreign objects are embedded in the waste plasterboards Guards e The machine is installed with an emergency stop switch that should be struck in the event of an emergency e The machine is equipped with a cut out switch in the cover that will automatically stop the machine if the lid is opened during operation e The guard for the out feed is equipped with finger protection inside the out feed that prevents you from touching the rotating knives e The in feed has a protection that is designed to prevent operatives from placing their hands within the machine e The scrap outlet has a protection that is designed to prevent operative
125. user manual Guards e The machine is equipped with a cut out switch in the cover that will automatically stop the machine if the lid is Opened during operation e The machine is installed with an emergency stop switch that should be struck in the event of an emergency e The in feed has a protection that is designed to prevent operatives from placing their hands within the machine e The scrap outlet has a protection that is designed to prevent operatives from placing their hands within the machine e Do not attempt to modify alter or tamper with any of the guards or electrical safety devices in any way General safety rules continued For plasterboards only other materials could damage yourself as well as the machine The machine is equipped with rotating blades Do not insert hands or other foreign objects Only authorised personnel should use the machine To immediately stop the machine strike the red emergency stop button Reset using the safe operation key Keep the work area clean to avoid risks of slips trips and falls Ensure the braked wheel is engaged to prevent unnecessary movement when the machine Is in operation Ensure a reasonable workspace area to ensure safe operation for you and other personnel Never leave the machine running unattended When lifting the chipper ensure the correct straps are used and are placed correct position Metal to metal contact with the rotating blades could significantly reduce chippe
126. y mile 336 2 Emissions per journey gCO2 Total miles travelled on job chipped Total miles travelled on job unchipped Total emissions on job chipped Total emissions on job un chipped 190121265 TOTAL EMISSIONS SAVING gC02 760485 06 1901 21 TOTAL EMISSIONS SAVING kgC02 760 49 1 90 TOTAL EMISSIONS SAVING tC02 0 76 10 84 4 34 Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 79 Table C10 Clarence Dock skip WASTE Weight of control 8 yard chipped skip tonnes Weight of control 8 yard un chipped skip tonnes Total weight of waste on project tonnes Estimated number of chipped skips on job Estimated number of un chipped skips TRANSPORT Max Weight of Skip on Lorry must be gt than B3 Number of journeys per project chipped Number of journeys per project un chipped EMISSIONS Emissions per mile gCo2 mile Length of journey mile Emissions per journey gCO2 Total miles travelled on job chipped Total miles travelled on job unchipped Total emissions on job chipped Total emissions on job un chipped TOTAL EMISSIONS SAVING gC02 TOTAL EMISSIONS SAVING kgC02 TOTAL EMISSIONS SAVING tC02 TOTAL EMISSIONS ON JOB CHIPPED tCOQ2 W F e Material change for GP a better environment WASTE Weight of control 16 yard chipped skip tonnes Weight of control 16 yard un chipped skip tonnes Total weight of waste on project tonnes Estimated number of chipped skips on job Estimated number of un chipp
127. y 2007 9 May 2007 10 May 2007 15 May 2007 18 May 2007 Total quantity of material 4 06 tonnes Material change for Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 68 a better environment Appendix 3 Environmental analysis assumptions and constraints A number of constraints made it necessary to make certain assumptions in order to facilitate an effective estimation of the carbon savings achievable An absence of data on chipped skips across projects The project team felt that it vvas important that the environmental analysis should allovv for some comparison in emission savings betyveen different types of project In order to do this it vvas necessary to use historical data from Taylor Woodrow projects Since these projects had not apart from Clarence Dock had a chipper on site the project team instead decided to undertake controls to assess the weight of plasterboard that different waste receptacles can hold with and without the use of a chipper As such and although the historic data contain information on the number and weight of skips leaving sites only the total weight of plasterboard waste generated on each project has been used In each case the total weight was divided by the respective control weights for chipped and un chipped skips bags to give an estimate of the best case number of skips filled during the project for under both scenarios Clearly there will be a difference between the number of contro
128. y produce long lengths of liner as Incorporating in the training procedure a well as irregular board pieces which when chipped cause requirement for operatives to considerable debris This debris has a tendency to build up E periodically clean the out feed and inside the machine E simply tear away the larger pieces of paper and place them directly in the skip Synchronisation of the drive belts During the early stages of the project it was noticed that Re tensioning the drive assembly cured the the cutting cylinders were going out of synchronisation problem and this issue did not re occur on any sites Initially it was thought that the bushes that connected the for over a month belts to the drive shafts were slipping However it was deduced that the bolts that attach both the cutting In full production of the chipper Starke Arvid plans cylinders to the chassis were insufficiently tightened to to use the higher specification Kevlar based drive cope with the torque generated during the chipping belts which offer a superior performance process Revision of out feed to ensure function and conformity with CE requirements The initial solution proved to be unreliable due in The original out feed design needed to be modified to part to the debris build up noted above The conform to CE requirements i e to prevent the potential second solution incorporated some steel fingers for an operative to touch the cutting cylinders from
129. yd skip the savings also result from fewer journeys being required to transport an equal Material change for better envi t a e tla Capture of waste plasterboard on construction sites 39 vveight of vvaste This class of saving is related to increasing load capacity in order to reduce the total number of journeys required for a project The distance of the site from a recycling centre has an obvious effect on CO emissions since the further avvay the recycling facility the greater the emissions per journey Finally the mode of transport impacts on CO emissions due to differences in the CO emitted per mile by different vehicles e g articulated versus rigid lorry Thus variables associated with CO emissions are associated with MI capacity i e weight of plasterboard waste achievable on each journey MI distance of that journey and MI carbon efficiency of the vehicle used to transport the waste 6 2 1 Savings associated with using the chipper Use of the chipper saves 27 9 of carbon emissions on projects using bags and 14 9 of carbon emissions on projects using skips Table 12 The difference in the percentage of carbon saved is because the difference in weight of a chipped bag compared with an un chipped bag 38 is greater than this differential in skips 17 The percentage of emissions saved as a result of chipping remains constant regardless of the size of the project or the distance travelled on each journey Across all pro
130. ystem Figure 8 Is thus as follows M Stage 1 operatives load bins and move to hoist flat initially on floor 11 and subsequently on floor 13 in response to the progress of the second fix W Stage 2 operatives transfer waste from bins and run it through the chipper directly into a skip on the Xena platform W Stage 3 once the skip is two thirds full it is removed using the tower crane and replaced with an empty skip Figure 8 Schematic of plasterboard capture system at Block D Clarence Dock with and without chipper Clarence Dock Shepherd Block D Operatives bad PB dire Operatives load nto bin and transfer Ern PE into bin and transfer to hoist ro to hoist flat uag 7 K a Operatives kad FE from bin and j F transfer to skip AN Material change for a better environment Capture of vvaste plasterboard on construction sites 18 During the site tour there vvas a strong contrast in opinion regarding the potential for using a chipper on the site between site managers strongly positive and site operatives very sceptical It was difficult to establish why this was so it seemed the site operatives thought of waste and the cost of dealing with it as inevitable while site managers recognised it as an area of opportunity 3 1 2 Block H Taylor Woodrow Construction Block H consists of M 131 bed Holiday Inn Express complete MI exhibition and conference centre M 21 829 sq ft retail leisure M 22 65

Technical report templates

Contents

Download Pdf Manuals

Related Search

Related Contents