REPORT ON BEST PRACTICE INDICATORS FOR …

1

GTOG: From production to recycling: a circular economy

for the European gypsum Industry with the demolition

and recycling Industry

REPORT ON BEST PRACTICE INDICATORS FOR

DECONSTRUCTION, RECYCLING AND REINCORPORATION

PRACTICES

Start date of the project: 2013/01/01

Duration: 36 months

LIFE PROGRAMME: LIFE11 ENV/BE/001039

2

Identifier: DC1

Number of the associated action: C1

Date: June 2015

Class: Deliverable

Responsible partner: Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM)

Distribution: PU: public

Title: Report on Best Practice Indicators for deconstruction, recycling and reincorporation practices

GtoG project – DC1: Report on best practice indicators for deconstruction, recycling and

reincorporation practices 3

Contact Information

Lead Contact giSCI, Technical University of Madrid (UPM). Authors: de Guzmán Báez, Ana;

García Navarro, Justo; Jiménez Rivero, Ana; Rodríguez Quijano, Marta.

Phone Number +34 913365863

Email [email protected]

Document Contact giSCI, Technical University of Madrid (UPM)

Deliverable DC1: Report on Best Practice Indicators for deconstruction, recycling and reincorporation practices

Phone Number +34 91 336 5864

Email [email protected]

Participants UPM, EUROGYPSUM, CANTILLON, GRI, NWGR, REC, OCC, PIN, KSE, RECASS,

SINIAT FR, SINIAT UK, PLACOPLATRE, SG GYPROC, KNAUFKG

GtoG Project Management Bureau

Name Title Phone Email

Christine Marlet Project Director +32 2 227 11 30 [email protected]

Luigi Della Sala Project Manager +32 2 227 11 62 [email protected]

Thierry Pichon ERMC

Chair/President

of the GtoG SC

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]





DOCUMENTS HISTORY

Version Date Author(s)

00 02/06/2015 giSCI-UPM

11/06/2015 Comments from Knauf – Anna Lang

15/06/2015 Comments from Recovering – Silvia Nougarol

16/06/2015 Comments from Eurogypsum – Luigi Della Sala

01 23/06/2015 giSCI-UPM

25/06/2015 Comments from GtoG Steering Committee Members during the

SC Meeting.

02 30/06/2015 giSCI-UPM

10/07/2015 NTUA Peer review

03 15/07/2015 giSCI-UPM

04 27/07/2015 giSCI-UPM



Table of Contents

AIM AND SCOPE ............................................................................................................................ 6

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 7

2. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 7

2.1. CASE STUDIES DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................... 9

2.2. PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND ASSOCIATED PARAMETERS .................................. 12

2.2.1. Performance indicators index ............................................................................. 12

2.2.2. Deconstruction .................................................................................................... 13

2.2.3. Recycling .............................................................................................................. 26

2.2.4. Reincorporation................................................................................................... 35

3. ANALYSIS AND CASE STUDIES COMPARISON .................................................................... 49

3.1. BEST PRACTICE INDICATORS ....................................................................................... 49

3.2. TECHNICAL - ENVIRONMENTAL – SOCIAL – ECONOMIC IMPACT ............................... 52

4. CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................... 59

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................ 63



AIM AND SCOPE

Best practice indicators (BPIs), defined within the GtoG project, aim to increase the recovery

ratios of gypsum waste which is possible to recycle, as well as maximize its quality and the

percentage of recycled gypsum that can be reincorporated in the manufacturing process. They

intend to cover the whole value chain of gypsum products that is to say from the

deconstruction works, through the gypsum waste processing, until the resulting recycled

gypsum reincorporation into the manufacturing process.

The present document sets out an approach for developing Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).

The methodology followed and the BPIs selected for the monitoring of the deconstruction,

recycling and reincorporation processes are also defined. Finally, it includes the analyses of the

results obtained after implementing such indicators in the five pilot projects, from four

different European countries (Belgium, France (2), Germany and the United Kingdom), part of

the GtoG project. Differences arising in each country have also been underlined.

The defined analytical framework can be used as a decision-making tool helping to increase

the effectiveness of the gypsum End-of-Life (EoL) recycling route, measuring the performance

and progress of gypsum waste management, detecting the possibilities of improvement as well

as monitoring changes over time.

These indicators will enable not only to monitor and compare progress in different scenarios,

but also to set the basis for future formulation of mitigation measures to avoid and minimize

the negative effects derived from potential weaknesses detected.



1. INTRODUCTION

The use of indicators has become in recent years a reliable method of evaluation for the

decision-making processes [1]. Indicators give quantitative, qualitative or descriptive

information about an item and/or process [2], to ease the decisions that will be taken on the

basis of their results, in order to optimize the processes that are being measured identifying

changes and improvements [3].

This document presents a set of Best Practice Indicators (BPIs) aiming to increase the amount

of gypsum waste capable of being recycled, as well as to maximize the quality and percentage

of recycled gypsum that can be reincorporated in the manufacturing process. Thus, the

practices implemented through the whole value chain of gypsum products have been

assessed. That is to say, from the deconstruction, through the gypsum waste processing, to the

resulting recycled gypsum reincorporation into the manufacturing process. Key Performance

Indicators (KPIs) are formulated and used to monitor and compare the practices implemented

in the five GtoG pilot projects.

2. METHODOLOGY

The first part of the methodology consists on identifying key areas of influence to be

measured. The essential key areas of influence for the effectiveness of the value chain are

identified from the results of the previous GtoG preparatory actions, where data was obtained

thorough review on existing literature (regulation, construction systems and technologies,

sustainability assessment tools and other common practices), and where results of

questionnaires distributed among European stakeholders involved in the value chain as well as

the gypsum recycling business model were analysed.

The identified areas are related to each of the different processes involved in the different

stages part of the gypsum value chain: Deconstruction, recycling and reincorporation, and are

grouped in accordance with their relevant impacts in four categories: Environmental (ENV),

Social (SOC), Economic (ECO) and Technical (TECH). This grouping assists in the identification of

precise parameters, their use and evaluation by stage and type of impact in order to detect

potential deviations, overlaps or improvements.

According to this, a holistic first approach of potential Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and

their related monitoring parameters is produced. The indicators are composed by variables

(parameters) which are expressed through equations and are selected in order to enable the

data collection for the assessment of the pertinent indicator.



Once the KPIs are defined, they are applied in the five GtoG pilot projects located in distinct

national contexts: Belgium, France (2), Germany and the United Kingdom. Finally, the

interpretation of the results is carried out.

For their easy interpretation during the demonstration actions, a set of Excel spreadsheets is

developed (one for each stage of the value chain) and provided to the relevant stakeholders to

be filled with the required data. Figure 1 shows the work plan and schedule followed.

Figure 1. Work Plan summary. DEC=Deconstruction; REC=Recycling; REINC=Reincorporation;

PI=Potential Indicators; II=Improved Indicators

Deconstruction. Data-Spreadsheet was delivered in October 2013. Different

improvements were incorporated while tested on-site. Finally, an improved version was

formulated in February 2015.

Recycling. Data-Spreadsheet was delivered in January 2014. After minor fine-tuning, an

improved version was ready in February 2015.

Reincorporation. Data-Spreadsheet was delivered in February 2014. An in-depth

reformulation was carried out, due to confidential issues. After moderate fine-tuning,

the improved indicators were finally formulated in May 2015.

Figure 2 presents the summary of the developments and planned timeline.

Figure 2. Parameters, performance indicators and best practice indicator

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Parameters definition

Key areas of influence identified

DEC PI II

REC PI II

REINC PI II

Final KPIs delivered

Selection of BPIs

Monitoring actions: Data collection and analysis

2013 2014 2015

Work Plan followed for the definition of KPIs and selection of BPIs

KPIs definition:

PARAM

TERS

Measured on-site by deconstructors, recyclers and manufacturers.

Data validated in Sub-Actions C1.2 and C1.3.

PERFO

RM

AN

CE

IND

ICATO

RS

Different versions for comments:

- First deliverable of the indicators.

- Indicators with comments from partners

- Improved indicators

BEST P

RACTIC

E

IND

ICATO

RS

Selected performance indicators.



After data collection and analysis, a set of 36 KPIs is finally generated, out of which best

practice indicators (BPIs) are selected, specifically aiming to recognize and encourage best

practices through the whole value chain, as further explained in Section 2.2 Performance

indicators and associated parameters. Each indicator is associated to a quantitative or

qualitative evaluation criteria based on the outcome from the pilot project data, in order to

show the degree of compliance with a minimum level of performance established, developed

in section 3.1 Best practice indicators.

2.1. CASE STUDIES DESCRIPTION

As already mentioned, the different practices implemented have been monitored and analysed

through five pilot projects located in Belgium, France (2), United Kingdom and Germany. Table

1 shows the operators involved in the different recycling routes followed by the gypsum waste,

from its source generation to its processing and final reincorporation as recycled gypsum in the

manufacturing process.

Table 1. Operators involved in the recycling routes followed

Route Country Demolisher Recycler Manufacturer

R1 Belgium RECASS NWGR GYPROC

R2 France PIN NWGR PLACOPLATRE

R3 United Kingdom CANTILLON NWGR SINIAT UK

R4 France OCC SINIAT FR SINIAT FR

R5 Germany KSE GRI KNAUFKG

The deconstruction, recycling and reincorporation techniques were monitored in order to

compare and quantify the output from the developed performance indicators. In all cases

gypsum waste was dismantled manually or mechanically, segregated at source and

transported to different recycling facilities according to the respective project’s locations, for a

posteriori processing into recycled gypsum. The pilot projects were all tertiary buildings

located in countries where deconstruction is a usual practice.

Tables 2-4 presents the pilot projects main characteristics and the deconstruction, recycling

and reincorporation techniques implemented


reincorporation practices

10

Table 2. General data from the deconstruction pilot projects

General data -

Deconstruction

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5

Description of

the building

2 floors object

of the study,

offices

3 floor building,

commercial

12 floor

building, offices

9 floor building,

offices

5 single-floor

buildings, offices

Gypsum-based

system (m2)

2,800 340 8,640 6,750 3,450

Duration

(months)

5 2 5 6 4

Type of gypsum-

based system

found

Plasterboard

partition,

metallic frame,

mineral wool

insulation.

Gypsum block

partition;

Plasterboard

partition,

metallic frame;

Insulation

system:

plasterboard,

expanded

polystyrene;

Plasterboard

ceiling, metallic

frame.

Plasterboard

partition, metal

frame,

glass/rock wool

insulation.

Double

plasterboard

partition,

metallic frame,

glass wool

insulation.

Plasterboard

ceiling, wooden

frame, mineral

wool insulation;

Plasterboard

laminate,

metallic frame;

Plasterboard

partition,

wooden frame,

wood wool

insulation.

Recyclable GW

(t)

28.00 9.38 50.00 67.52 23.64

Non-recyclable

GW (t)

-

7.80 - - 13.00

Dismantling Mechanically Manually

(automatic

screwdriver and

pickaxe)

Removal by

hand

Manually

(crowbar,

pickaxe or

sledgehammer)

Removal by

hand

Manually

(sledgehammer )

Removal by hand

Manually

(crowbar,

pickaxe or

sledgehammer)

Removal by

hand Sorting Mechanically Manually

(wheelbarrow

and shovel)

Manually

(hopper)

Manually

(hopper)

Manually

(wheelbarrow

and shovel)


reincorporation practices

11

Table 3. Recycling pilot projects description. *Assumption for Germany, where there is no gypsum

recycler. Average distance travelled from DA1 report, GtoG project

Table 4. Manufacturing pilot projects description. *Assumption for Germany, where there is no

gypsum recycler. Average distance travelled from DA1 report [4]

Loading Mechanically

(bobcat)

Mechanically

(telescopic

rotating forklift)

Mechanically

(bobcat)

Mechanically

(bobcat)

Manually and

mechanically

Waste

management

option

Recycling

facility

Recycling facility Recycling

facility via

transfer station

Recycling facility Recycling facility

via transfer

station

Recycling

description

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5

Deconstruction-

recycling distance

(km)

64.6 39.5 199.0 86.0 150.0*

Usual average

output from

recycling

equipment

Gypsum (94%)

Paper (6%)

Metal (<1%)

Gypsum (94%)

Paper (6%)

Metal (<1%)

Gypsum (94%)

Paper (6%)

Metal (<1%)

unknown Gypsum (90%)

Paper (10%)

Metal (<1%)

Manufacturing

description

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5

Recycling-

reincorporation

distance (km)

0.00 0.00 6.60 0.00 5.00*

Usual RG

reincorporated

source

production

and C&D

waste

production

and C&D

waste

production

and C&D

waste

production

and C&D

waste

production

waste

Usual RG

reincorp rate around 10% around 15% around 15% between 10-15% up to 5%



2.2. PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND ASSOCIATED PARAMETERS

2.2.1. Performance indicators index

Criteria Stage Indicator

TECH Audit TECH1. Existence and deviation of the audit for gypsum-based systems

Deconstruction TECH2. Effectiveness of the deconstruction process

Traceability TECH3. Effectiveness of the traceability

ENV ENV1. Gypsum waste sent to landfill

ENV2. Transport emissions comparison between recycling and landfilling

Decon - Demol SOC1. Labour time difference between dismantling and demolishing

Deconstruction SOC2. Productiv ity

SOC3. Training of the deconstruction team

SOC4. Follow-up of the waste management

Audit ECO1. Audit cost

Deconstruction ECO2. Plasterboard dismantling and loading cost

ECO3. Gypsum block dismantling and loading cost

Traceability ECO4. Cost difference between recycling GW and landfilling route

Deconstruction - Performance Indicators

End route

SOC

ECO


TECH Reception TECH1. Quality of the gypsum waste received

TECH2. Gypsum waste rejected

Storage TECH3. Warehouse storage capacity for gypsum waste

Processing TECH4. Output materials of the recycling process

ENV ENV1. CO2 emissions from the recycling process

ENV2. Natural gypsum saved

SOC Reception SOC1. Recycler's satisfaction

Processing ECO1. Energy cost of the gypsum waste processing

Transport ECO2. Transport cost of the recycled gypsum

Recycling - Performance Indicators

ECO

Processing and

transport


TECH Reception TECH1. Recycled gypsum rejected by the manufacturer

TECH2. Recycled gypsum quality criteria

Storage TECH3. Warehouse storage capacity for recycled gypsum

Reincorporation TECH4. Recycled gypsum content

TECH5. Recycled content increase

Manufacturing TECH6. Production waste

ENVPreprocessing ENV1. CO2 emissions: business-as-usual compared to maximized recycled

content in the preprocessing

Manufacturing ENV2. CO2 emissions: business-as-usual compared to maximized recycled

content in the production process

SOC Manufacturing SOC1. Manufacturer's satisfaction

Reception ECO1. Cost difference between business-as-usual and maximized recycled

content quality check

ECO2. Cost difference between natural gypsum and recycled gypsum

ECO3. Cost difference between FGD gypsum and recycled gypsum

Preprocessing ECO4. Energy cost difference between business-as-usual and maximized

recycled content in the preprocessing

Manufacturing ECO5. Energy cost difference between business-as-usual and maximized

recycled content in the production process

Reincorporation - Performance indicators

ECO



2.2.2. Deconstruction

Audit

TECH1. Existence and deviation of the audit for gypsum-based systems

Description

Evaluation method

TECH1.2 Deviation 1 (%) TECH1.3 Deviation 2 (%)

Gypsum Waste foreseen - GWf (t) Recyclable Gypsum Waste foreseen - RGW f (t)

Gypsum Waste generated - GWg (t) Recyclable Gypsum Waste generated - RGWg (t)

% %

If the result of TECH1.1 is "Yes", TECH1.2 and TECH.1.3 can be applied:

TECH1.2 <10% Acceptable

TECH1.3 < 20% Acceptable

Pa

ram

ete

rs

YES/NO

TECH1.1 Pre-deconstruction audit existence

Existence of a pre-deconstruction audit for gypsum systems - (YES/NO)

*Acceptance criteria as defined in the deliverable “DB1. European Handbook on Best Practices in

Deconstruction Techniques", developed in Action B1.

Deconstruction - Technical - TECH1

EFFECTIVE/NON EFFECTIVE

Eq

ua

tio

nP

ara

me

ters

The quality of the audit will be considered "Effective" if sub-indicators TECH1.2 and TECH1.3

comply.

Existence of a pre-deconstruction audit for gypsum systems and its deviation compared with

the real amount and type of Gypsum Waste (GW) generated as well as its potential

recyclability.*

The present indicator is div ided into:

TECH1.1 Existence of the audit.

TECH1.2 Deviation 1: This sub-indicator aims at assessing the deviation between the GW

foreseen and the GW generated

TEC 1.3 Deviation 2: This sub-indicator aims at assessing the deviation between the recyclable

GW foreseen and the amount of recyclable GW generated.

T ECH1.2=

T ECH1.3=



Deconstruction

TECH2. Effectiveness of the deconstruction process

Description

Evaluation method

TECH2.1 Impurities TECH2.2 Gypsum Waste accepted (%)

Presence of impurities in the GW load (YES/NO)Recyclable Gypsum Waste refused by the waste outlet-

RGWr (t)

Recyclable GW generated- RGWg (t)

%

NON EFFECTIVE / EFFECTIVE


I f the result of the qualitative sub-indicator TECH2.1 is NO, and the quantitative sub-indicator

TECH2.2 is 100% it is consired "effective". On the contrary, "non effective" will be either when

TECH2.1 is YES or TECH2.2 is below 100%.

This indicator aims at assessing to what extent the deconstruction operations of dismantling,

segregation and storage have been well managed.

The present indicator is div ided into:

TECH2.1 Impurities: a qualitative sub-indicator that assesses the presence of v isual

contaminants in the Gypsum Waste (GW) stored (wood, insulation, metal frame), before being

loaded.

TECH2.2 Gypsum Waste (GW) accepted: a quantitative sub-indicator that assesses the

deviation between recyclable GW refused by the waste receptor because of non

compliance with the specifications and the recyclable GW transferred.

Pa

ram

ete

rsEq

ua

tio

n

TECH 2.2 =



Traceability

TECH3. Effectiveness of the traceability

Description

Evaluation method

Traceability (%)

GW generated and tracked - GW t (t)

GW generated - GWg (t)

%

EFFECTIVE / NO EFFECTIVE


Deviation between the Gypsum Waste (GW) generated and the GW tracked.

Pa

ram

ete

rsEq

ua

tio

n

Regardless the final route, to be considered "effective" the result must be 100%.

Otherwise, it is considered "non-effective".

TECH3 =



End route

ENV1. Gypsum waste sent to landfill

Description

Percentage of Gypsum Waste(GW) sent to landfill.

Evaluation method

Deconstruction - Environmental - ENV1

The result is an indicative value as it depends on the type of GW generated, due to the fact

that there are non-recyclable gypsum systems. However, recyclable GW may be

inadequately sent to landfill. In any case, the result of 0% demonstrates the implementation

of efficient deconstruction practices.

Pa

ram

ete

rs

Gypsum Waste sent to landfill - GW l (t)

Gypsum Waste generated - GWg (t)

%

Gypsum waste sent to landfill (%)

Eq

ua

tio

n

ENV1 =



End route

ENV2. Transport emissions comparison between recycling and landfilling

Description

Evaluation method

ENV2.1 Recycling (kg CO2 eq) ENV2.2 Landfilling (kg CO2 eq)

Freight transportation factor - FCO2 (g CO2 eq/tkm) Freight transportation factor - FCO2 (g CO2 eq/tkm)

GW per rountrip to recycling - GW r (t) GW per rountrip to landfill - GW l (t)

Distance to recycling -Dr (km) Distance to landfilling - Dl (km)

Roundtrips to the recycling facility - RTr (No.) Roundtrips to landfill - RTl (No.)*

kg CO2 eq kg CO2 eq

Deconstruction - Environmental - ENV2

Difference between transport emissions in terms of kg CO2 equiv from the jobsite to the recycling facility

compared with the emissions from the jobsite to the landfill.

The result is an indicative value as the parameters related to the number of roundtrips, depend on the

deconstruction technique applied which influences on the GW size and shape, type of skips and the way the

waste is placed inside the skips.

I f the substraction of "ENV2.1 Recycling" and "ENV2.2 Landfilling" has a negative value, it means that the

application of recycling results in emission savings.

Pa

ram

ete

rs

*According to the economic spreadsheets in DB1, Roundtrips to landfill are considered double than Roundtrips to recycling

facility.

Eq

ua

tio

n

SAVINGS / NO SAVINGS

ENV2.1 =

ENV2.2 =



Decon - Demol

SOC1. Labour time difference between dismantling and demolishing plasterboard

Description

Evaluation method

Labour time difference (min/m²)

*In the GtoG pilot projects, labour time for demolition has been estimated based on the

deconstruction companies experience.


min/m²

Deconstruction - Social - SOC1

Difference between the labour time needed to dismantle-load and demolish-load a square meter of

plasterboard in minutes.

Demolition usually ends up with on-site C&D mixed waste collection.

Deconstruction usually ends up with on-site C&D waste segregation.

The result is an indicative value as it depends on the type of plasterboard system to be dismantled or

demolished, the type of deconstruction or demolition process (manual or mechanical), the skills of

the workers and any other peculiarity of the jobsite.

A negative value means time saving when dismantling.

Eq

ua

tio

nP

ara

me

ters

Labour time by man needed for the dismantling and loading of the GW - LPBdi(min/m²)

Labour time by man estimated to demolish and loading the GW - LPBde(min/m²)

SOC1 = ( )



Deconstruction

SOC2. Productivity

Description

Evaluation method

Productivity (m2/(workers*day))

m2/(workers*day)

Deconstruction - Social -SOC2

Square meter of gypsum waste dismantled, sorted and loaded per day and per

worker.

The result is an indicative value as it depends on the type of gypsum system to be

dismantled, the type of deconstruction or demolition process (e.g. manual or

mechanical), the skills of the workers and any other peculiarity of the jobsite.

Pa

ram

ete

rsEq

ua

tio

n

Number of workers trained for the jobsite - Nw

Duration of the deconstruction works - D (day)

Total area of gypsum block - Agb (m2)

Total area of plasterboard - Ap (m2)

SOC2=



Deconstruction

SOC3. Training of the deconstruction team

Description

Evaluation method

Trained workers (No.)


Existence of workers trained in waste dismantling, sorting and storing of gypsum waste.

There should be always trained workers in charge of the dismantling, sorting and

storing of gypsym-based systems.

Trained workers > 0

Pa

ram

ete

rs

Workers trained for the jobsite - W t (No.)

Eq

ua

tio

n

Existence of trained worker(s) in gypsum waste deconstruction

YES/NO

COMPLIANCE / NO COMPLIANCE



Deconstruction

SOC4. Follow-up of the waste management

Description

Evaluation method

Follow-up (YES/NO)


Existence of worker(s) appointed to follow-up the waste management (includ.tracking records)

YES/NO


Existence of a person responsible for the follow-up of the waste management including the

tracking records.

There should be always a person in charge of the tracking.

I f this is the case, then there is compliance.

Pa

ram

ete

rs



Audit

ECO1. Deviation of the audit Audit cost

Description

Evaluation method

Audit Cost (€/m²)

Cost of the audit - AU (€)

Deconstruction site floor area - DA (m²)

€/m²

Eq

ua

tio

n

Deconstruction - Economic - ECO1

Cost of the pre-deconstruction audit for gypsum systems, per floor area of jobsite.

The result is an indicative value as it depends among others, on the country under study.

Pa

ram

ete

rs

ECO1 =



Deconstruction

ECO2. Plasterboard dismantling and loading cost

Description

Evaluation method

Dismantling and loading cost (€/m2)

Cost of the dimantling and loading - DLp (€)

Total area of platerboard - Ap (t)

*Meaning the sum of the areas of the plasterboards forming part of the systems.

Examples:

100 m2 single plasterboard partition system = 100 m2 area plasterboard.

100 m2 double plasterboard partition system = 200 m2 area plasterboard.

€/m²


The result is an indicative value as it depends on the peculiarities of the country under

study.

Pa

ram

ete

rsEq

ua

tio

n

Cost of dismantling and loading per square meter of plasterboard*.

ECO2 =



Deconstruction

ECO3. Gypsum block dismantling and loading cost

Description

Evaluation method

€/m²

Cost of dismantling and loading per area of gypsum block partitions.


The result is an indicative value as it depends on the peculiarities of the country under

study.

Pa

ram

ete

rsEq

ua

tio

n

Cost of the dimantling and loading - DLp (€)

Total area of gypsum block - Agb (t)

Dismantling and loading cost (€/m2)

ECO3=



Traceability

ECO4. Cost difference between recycling GW and landfilling route

Description

Evaluation method

ECO4.1 Cost of recycling (€/t) ECO4.2 Cost of landfilling (€/t)

Cost of recycling - R (€/t) Cost of landfilling - L (€/t)

Recycling transport cost - RT (€/t) Landfilling transport cost - LT (€/t)

€/t €/t

€/t

SAVINGS/ NO SAVINGS


I f the substraction of "ECO4.1 Cost of recycling" and "ECO4.2 Cost of landfilling" is a

negative value means recycling cost savings.

Eq

ua

tio

n

Cost difference per tonne between recycling and landfilling routes, either direct or v ia

transfer station, including rental of skips, unloading and loading operations, gate fee

and tax.

Pa

ram

ete

rs

ECO4.1 = R+RT ECO4.2 = L+LT



2.2.3. Recycling

Reception

TECH1. Quality of the gypsum waste received

Description

Evaluation method

TECH1.1 Impurities TECH1.2 Wet gypsum waste received (%)

Presence of plastics and foils Wet Gypsum Waste received - GWw (t)

Presence of insulation materials Gypsum Waste received - GW (t)

Presence of steels rails and bars

Presence of wood

Presence of other impurities

Impurities manually separated - I (t)

Gypsum waste received - GW (t)

Plastics and foils = High / Low / None

Insulation materials = High / Low / None

Steels rails and bars = High / Low / None

Wood = High / Low / None

Other = High / Low / None

ACCEPTED / NO ACCEPTED ACCEPTED / NO ACCEPTED

Eq

ua

tio

nP

ara

me

ters


Recycling - Technical - TECH1

Gypsum waste compliance with the recyclers' acceptance criteria in relation to the presence of

impurities and the percentage of wet gypsum waste received.

Both sub-indicators and their related parameters must be "Accepted" to comply with the overall

required quality.

"TECH1.1 Presence of impurities "*:

-Assessment criteria for each parameter:

High = >2%**: non-accepted;

Low = ≤ 2% accepted.

None = 0% accepted.

- Quantitative global assessment criteria

>2%**: non-accepted;

≤ 2% accepted.

0% accepted.

"TECH1.2 Wet gypsum waste received " criteria:

> 10%: non-accepted;

≤ 10% accepted.

0% accepted.

* Hazardous impurities are always excluded.

**The considered limit value is taken from the developed "Acceptance criteria per country", as specified in the

deliverable “DB1. European Handbook on Best Practices in Deconstruction Techniques", developed in Action B1.

TECH1.2 =

TECH1.1 =



Reception


Description

Evaluation method

Gypsum waste rejected (%)


Gypsum waste rejected - GW r (t)

%

No recycled gypsum rejected / Need of corrective actions

*"Acceptance criteria per country", as specified in the deliverable “DB1. European Handbook

on Best Practices in Deconstruction Techniques", developed in Action B1.

Eq

ua

tio

n


Rate of gypsum waste rejected by the recycler due to non-conformity with the

relevant acceptance criteria*, mainly if high moisture content or presence of

contaminants are found in the load.

I f best practices are applied during deconstruction, the result is tipically 0%.

Corrective actions in the value chain are needed when TECH3 ≠ 0%.

Pa

ram

ete

rs

TECH2 =



Storage

TECH3. Warehouse storage capacity for gypsum waste

Description

Evaluation method

Volume (m3)


Reference density - 0.40 (t/m3)

m3

Pa

ram

ete

rsEq

ua

tio

n

Recycling - Technical -TECH3

Required space for storage the gypsum waste at the recycling plant.

A properly dimensioned storage place should be set up in order to guarantee a

constant gypsum waste feedstock. Based on this, this indicator gives a rough

estimation of the required space for storage. The reference density obtained from

the GtoG pilot projects is 0.40 t/m3.

TECH3 =



Processing

TECH4. Output materials of the recycling process

Description

Evaluation method

Output (%)

Recycled gypsum obtained - RG (t)

Paper fraction - P (t)

Metal fraction - M (t)

Gypsum waste processed - GWp (t)

Recycled gypsum

%

Paper fraction

%

Metal

%



Ratio of the materials output after processing the gypsum waste.

The result is an indicative value as it depends on the functioning characteristics of

the recycling equipment.

Recycling process typical output streams are:

Recycled gypsum: 90 – 94% by weight.

Paper fraction; 6 – 10% by weight.

Metal: < 1% by weight.

Paper output > 0%: compliance.

I f paper ratio is significantly low, it can be attributed to the fact that paper hasn't

been properly removed, therefore affecting the quality of the recycled gypsum

output.

Pa

ram

ete

rsEq

ua

tio

n

TECH4.1 =

TECH4.2 =

TEC54.3 =



Processing and transport

ENV1. CO2 emissions from the recycling process

Description

Evaluation method

RG per roundtrip to reincorporation- RGrd (t)

Distance to reincorporation - Dr (km)

Roundtrips to reincorporation - RTr (No.)

C. Freight transportation factor - FCO2 (g CO2 eq/tkm)

Recycling - Environmental - ENV1

Emissions resulting from the waste recycling process and transport of the recycled gypsum.

The result can be compared with the extraction of natural gypsum from reference data*.

Savings < 2.033 kg CO2 eq/t**

Non savings ≥ 2.033 kg CO2 eq/t.

Eq

ua

tio

n

ENV1.1 Processing CO2 emissions (kg CO2 equiv/t)

Gypsum waste processed - GWp(t)

Electricity consumption - Ee (kWh)

A. Electricity emission factor - EE (kg CO2 eq/kWh)

*It should be noted that this data doesn't include either transport or further preprocessing of the raw materials.

**Calculated from Ecoinvent. 2012. Ecoinvent v2.2 Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) database, Gypsum, mineral, at mine/CH S.

Rigips Saint-Gobain, “Environmental Product Declaration Gypsum plasterboard RIGIPS PRO and RIGIPS 4PRO.” 2014.

Pa

ram

ete

rs

ENV1.2 Transport CO2 emissions (kg CO2 equiv/t)

kg CO2 equiv/t

SAVINGS / NON SAVINGS

Fuel consumption - Ef (l)

B. Emission intensity of Fuel -EF (kg CO2 equiv/l)

kg CO2 equiv/t

ENV1.1 =

ENV1.2 =



Processing and transport

ENV2. Natural gypsum saved

Description

Evaluation method

Natural gypsum saved (t)


t


Recycling - Environmental - ENV2

The amount of recycled gypsum, avoiding natural resource depletion, landscape

preservation and H2S emissions from landfill disposal.

Natural gypsum equals recycled gypsum obtained.

Savings > 0

Pa

ram

ete

rs



Reception

Description

Evaluation method

Satisfaction (high/medium/low)

TECH2. Quality of the gypsum waste received


COMPLIANCE / NON COMPLIANCE

Eq

ua

tio

n

Recycling - Social - SOC1

SOC1. Recycler's satisfaction

Satisfaction reported by the recycler in relation to the gypsum waste received.

I f the result of "TECH2. Quality of the gypsum waste received" is "COMPLIANCE" and no

gypsum waste is rejected (TECH3 = 0%), it is considered "HIGH". Otherwise, it doesn't

comply.

Pa

ram

ete

rs

TECH2 = COMPLIANCE ; TECH3 = No recycled gypsum rejected



Processing

ECO1. Energy cost of the gypsum waste processing

Description

Evaluation method

Processing cost (€/t)

€/t

Pa

ram

ete

rs

Recycling - Economic - ECO1

Energy cost of the recycling process.

The result is an indicative value as it depends on the electricity, fuel cost as well as

on the performance of the equipment, in the country under study.

Eq

ua

tio

n

Total processing electricity cost - CTE (€)

Total processing fuel cost - CTF (€)

Gypsum waste processed by the recycling equipment - GWp (t)

ECO1 =



Transport

ECO2. Transport cost of the recycled gypsum

Description

Evaluation method

Recycling - Economic - ECO2

Transport cost from the recycling facility to the manufacturer.

The result is an indicative value as it depends on the peculiarities of each country.

The nearest the manufacturing plant is to the recycling facility, the more profitable

is for the company and the easier to achieve a closed-loop gypsum recycling.

Fuel cost - CF (€/l)


Processing cost (€/t)

Number of roundtrips - RTm (No.)

Lorry consumption - ELF (l)

€/t

Eq

ua

tio

nP

ara

me

ters

Distance to the plasterboard manufacturing plant - Dm (km)

ECO2 =



2.2.4. Reincorporation

Reception

TECH1. Recycled gypsum rejected by the manufacturer

Description

Evaluation method

Recycled gypsum rejected (%)

Total recycled gypsum received - RG (t)

Total recycled gypsum rejected - RGR (t)

%

No recycled gypsum rejected / Need of corrective actions

Reincorporation - Technical - TECH1

Rate of recycled gypsum rejected by the manufacturer due to non compliance with the

agreed quality specifications.

Pa

ram

ete

rsEq

ua

tio

n

I f best practices are applied during deconstruction and recycling of the gypsum waste,

the result is typically 0%. Corrective actions in the value chain are needed when TECH1 ≠

0%.

TECH1 =



Reception

TECH2. Recycled gypsum quality criteria

Description

Evaluation method

Quality criteria assessment

Technical parameters

Toxicological parameters



Recycled gypsum compliance with the quality criteria (agreed between manufacturers

and recyclers), in relation to technical and toxicological specifications.

When the value of all parameters is within the agreed criteria*, the result is

"Compliance". Otherwise, it is "Non Compliance".

Pa

ram

ete

rsEq

ua

tio

n

*The considered limit value is taken from the "GtoG first approach guideline", as specified in the

document “Guidance document for the quality criteria of the recycled gypsum - Technical and

Toxicological Parameters", developed in Action B2.

Technical parameters are within the limit valueToxicological parameters are within the limit value



Storage

TECH3. Warehouse storage capacity for recycled gypsum

Description

Evaluation method

Volume (m3)

Total recycled gypsum stored - RGS (t)

Reference density - 0.70 (t/m3)

m3


Recycled gypsum required space for storage at the manufacturing plant.

A properly dimensioned storage place should be set up in order to guarantee a

constant recycled gypsum feedstock. Based on this, this indicator gives a rough

estimation of the required space for storage. The reference density obtained from the

GtoG pilot projects is 0.70 t/m3.

Pa

ram

ete

rsEq

ua

tio

n

TECH3 =



Reincorporation

TECH4. Recycled gypsum content

Description

Evaluation method

TECH4.1. Pre-consumer content (%) TECH4.2. Post-consumer content (%)

Pre-consumer recycled gypsum -RGPRE (t) Post-consumer recycled gypsum - RGPOST

Total plasterboard produced - PB (t) Total plasterboard produced - PB (t)

% %

**Reference value calculated from the GtoG pilot projects.

***European current recycled gypsum reincorporation rate.

*Pre-consumer refers to waste generated from the manufacturing process after quality

inspections as out-of- specification boards, failing to meet the set quality standards. Post-

consumer refers to gypsum waste from construction (off-cuts, damaged plasterboards

etc.) and demolition/deconstruction sites.

LOW / MEDIUM / HIGH ACHIEVEMENT

Eq

ua

tio

n


Recycled gypsum rate used in feedstock, considering both pre-consumer and post-

consumer* recycled gypsum reincorporated.

When the sum of "TECH4.1 Pre-consumer recycled gypsum content" and "TECH4.2. Post-

consumer recycled gypsum content" is:

≥ 22.3%**: high achievement;

22.3% - 5.0%: medium achievement;

≤ 5.0%***: low achievement

Pa

ram

ete

rs

%

TECH4.1 =

TECH4.2 =



Reincorporation

TECH5. Recycled content increase

Description

Evaluation method

0-5% increase: low achievement;

5-10% increase: medium achievement;

>10% increase: high achievement

TECH5.1 Recycled gypsum content (%) TECH5.2 Business-as-usual reincorporation rate (%)*

Pre-consumer recycled gypsum - RGPRE (t) Recycled gypsum reincorporation rate (%)

Post-consumer recycled gypsum-RGPOST

Total plasterboard produced - PB (t)

% %

*30% is the reincorporation target rate of the GtoG project

**The business-as-usual reincorporation rate is reported by the plasterboard manufacturer.


The increase in the reincorporation rate, by comparing the business-as-usual rate* with the result

obtained in indicator TECH4.

LOW / MEDIUM / HIGH ACHIEVEMENT

%

Pa

ram

ete

rsEq

ua

tio

n

The higher the increase, the greater the effort made by the plasterboard manufacturer towards

achieving a reincorporation target rate*:

TECH5.1 =

%



Manufacturing

TECH6. Production waste

Description

Evaluation method

≤4%: within the European average;

>4%: need corrective actions;

Production waste (%)

Total plasterboard produced - PB (t)

Total non-conforming plasterboard generated - PBNC (t)

%

on average / corrective actions

*4% is the European average production waste generated. Data collected during the GtoG project.

Pa

ram

ete

rsEq

ua

tio

n


Percentage of nonconforming plasterboard during the production process.

Total amount of plasterboard produced is compared with the production waste

(nonconforming plasterboard generated during the process), according to a reference

value*. The lower the production waste, the more efficient the manufacturing process.

TECH6 =



Preprocessing

*

Description

Evaluation method

ENV1.1. kg CO2 eq emissions business-as-usual ENV1.2. kg CO2 eq emissions maximixed RC

Electricity consumption - EPRE1 (kWh/m2 board)

Natural gas - NGPRE1 (kWh/m2 board)

Waste fuel - WFPRE1 (kWh/m2 board)


B. Emission intensity of NG -EFNG (kg CO2 eq/kWh)

C. Emission intensity of WF -EFWF (kg CO2 eq/kWh)

kg CO2 eq

*According to WRAP and Environmental Resources Management Ltd (ERM), “WRAP Technical Report: Life Cycle

Assessment of Plasterboard,” 2008, ENV2 and ENV1 are expected to be the same value.

Electricity consumption - EPRE2 (kWh/m2 board)

Natural gas - NGPRE2 (kWh/m2 board)

Waste fuel - WFPRE2 (kWh/m2 board)




kg CO2 eq

kg CO2 eq

ENV1. CO2 emissions: business-as-usual compared to maximized recycled content in the preprocessing

Pa

ram

ete

rs

Reincorporation - Environmental - ENV1


Emissions difference per m2 of board, resulting from maximizing the recycled feedstock, derived from the

preprocessing stage (drying of gypsum feedstock to reduce its moisture content).

Eq

ua

tio

n

I f the subtraction of "ENV1.1 kg CO2 eq emissions generated during business-as-usual" and "ENV1.2 kg CO2

eq emissions generated during preprocessing when maximum recycled content (RC)" is a positive value,

CO2 equivalent emissions are saved.

ENV1.1 = ENV1.2 =



Manufacturing

*

Description

Evaluation method

ENV2.1. kg CO2 eq emissions business-as-usual ENV2.2. kg CO2 eq emissions maximixed RC

Electricity consumption - E1 (kWh/m2 board)

Natural gas - NG1 (kWh/m2 board)

Waste fuel - WF1 (kWh/m2 board)




kg CO2 eq

*According to WRAP and Environmental Resources Management Ltd (ERM), “WRAP Technical Report: Life Cycle

Assessment of Plasterboard,” 2008, ENV2 and ENV1 are expected to be the same value.

Electricity consumption - E2 (kWh/m2 board)

Natural gas - NG2 (kWh/m2 board)

Waste fuel - WF2 (kWh/m2 board)




kg CO2 eq

kg CO2 eq

ENV2. CO2 emissions: business-as-usual compared to maximized recycled content in the production process

Pa

ram

ete

rs

Reincorporation - Environmental - ENV2


ENV1 presents the difference in the potential emissions, per m2 of board, resulting from miaximizing the

recycled feedstock, derived from the manufacturing process (including gypsum preprocessing and

calcination and plasterboard production).

Eq

ua

tio

n

I f the subtraction of "ENV2.1 kg CO2 eq emissions generated during business-as-usual" and "ENV2.2 kg CO2

eq emissions generated duringthe manufacturing process when maximum recycled content (RC)" is a

positive value, CO2 equivalent emissions are saved.

ENV2.1 = ENV2.2 =



Manufacturing

Description

Evaluation method

Satisfaction (high/medium/low)

Plasterboard fulfillment with EN 520 Standard (YES/NO)


Reincorporation - Social - SOC1

Satisfaction reported by the plasterboard manufacturer in relation to the acceptance of

plasterboard with high content of recycled gypsum.

I f new plasterboards fulfill quality requirements (EN 520 Standard), it is considered "HIGH".

Otherwise, it doesn't comply.

Eq

ua

tio

n

SOC1. Manufacturer's satisfaction

Pa

ram

ete

rs



Reception

Description

Evaluation method

Cost difference (€/t)

Conventional feedstock quality check total cost - CFQCC (€)

Total conventional feedstock - CF (t)

Recycled gypsum feedstock quality check total cost - RGQCC (€)

Total recycled gypsum feedstock - RG (t)

€/t


Deviation between the quality check cost of the business-as-usual feedstock and the quality check

cost of the feedstock with maximized recycled content.

Reincorporation - Economic - ECO1

A positive value means savings.

Pa

ram

ete

rsEq

ua

tio

n

ECO1. Cost difference between business-as-usual and maximized recycled content quality check

ECO1 =

-



Reception

Description

Evaluation method


Cost of natural gypsum per tonne, including transportation- NGC (€/t)

Cost of recycled gypsum per tonne, including transportation - RGC (€/t)

€/t


Reincorporation - Economic -ECO2

Comparison between the cost of natural gypsum and the cost of recycled gypsum.


Pa

ram

ete

rsEq

ua

tio

n

ECO2. Cost difference between natural gypsum and recycled gypsum

ECO2 = NGc - RGc



Reception

Description

Evaluation method


Cost of FGD gypsum per tonne, including transportation- FGDC (€/t)

Cost of recycled gypsum per tonne, including transportation - RGC

(€/t)

€/t



Comparison between the cost of FGD gypsum and the cost of recycled gypsum.


Pa

ram

ete

rsEq

ua

tio

n

ECO3. Cost difference between FGD gypsum and recycled gypsum

ECO3 = FGDc - RGc

GtoG project – DC1: Report on best practice indicators for deconstruction, recycling and reincorporation practices

Preprocessing

Description

Evaluation method

Electricity consumption - EPRE1 (kWh/m2 board and kWh/t Electricity consumption - EPRE2 (kWh/m2 board and kWh/t

Natural gas - NGPRE1 (kWh/m2 board and kWh/t board) Natural gas - NGPRE2 (kWh/m2 board and kWh/t board)

Waste fuel - WFPRE1 (kWh/m2 board and kWh/t board) Waste fuel - WFPRE2 (kWh/m2 board and kWh/t board)

A. Cost of electricity - EC (€/kWh) A. Cost of electricity - EC (€/kWh)

B. Cost of natural gas - NGC (€/KWh Lower Heating Value) B. Cost of natural gas - NGC (€/KWh Lower Heating Value)

C. Cost of waste fuel - WFC C. Cost of waste fuel - WFC

€/m2

In €/t:€/m2

In €/t:

In €/t:

Reincorporation - Economic -ECO4


€/m2

I f the substraction of "ECO4.1 Business-as-usual energy cost - preprocessing" and "ECO4.2.Maximum RC energy cost - preprocessing" is a

positive value, savings are achieved.

Cost difference in the preprocessing stage (drying of gypsum feedstock to reduce its moisture content), using business-as-usual feedstock

against increasing the recycled gypsum content on it.

Eq

ua

tio

nP

ara

me

ters

ECO4. Energy cost difference between business-as-usual and maximized recycled content in the preprocessing

ECO4.1. Business-as-usual energy cost - preprocessing (€/m2 and €/t) ECO4.2. Maximum RC energy cost - preprocessing (€/m

2 and €/t)

ECO4.1 = (EPRE1 x Ec) + (NGPRE1 x NGc) + (WFPRE1 x WFc) ECO4.2 = (EPRE2 x Ec) + (NGPRE2 x NGc) + (WFPRE2 x WFc)


Manufacturing

Description

Evaluation method

ECO5.1. Business-as-usual energy cost - production

(€/m2 and €/t)

ECO5.2. Maximum RC energy cost - production (€/m2

and €/t)

Electricity consumption - E1 (kWh/m2 board and kWh/t Electricity consumption - E2 (kWh/m2 board and kWh/t

Natural gas - NG1 (kWh/m2 board and kWh/t board) Natural gas - NG2 (kWh/m2 board and kWh/t board)

Waste fuel - WF1 (kWh/m2 board and kWh/t board) Waste fuel - WF2 (kWh/m2 board and kWh/t board)

A. Cost of electricity - EC (€/kWh) A. Cost of electricity - EC (€/kWh)

B. Cost of natural gas - NGC (€/KWh Lower Heating Value) B. Cost of natural gas - NGC (€/KWh Lower Heating Value)

C. Cost of waste fuel - WFC C. Cost of waste fuel - WFC

€/m2

In €/t:€/m2

In €/t:

In €/t:€/m2



Cost difference in the whole production process (including gypsum preprocessing and calcination and plasterboard production),

comparing business-as-usual feedstock with an increase in the recycled gypsum content.

I f the substraction of "ECO5.1 Business-as-usual energy cost - production" and "ECO5.2.Maximum RC energy cost - production" is a positive

value, savings are achieved.

Pa

ram

ete

rsEq

ua

tio

n

ECO5. Energy cost difference between business-as-usual and maximized recycled content in the production process

ECO5.1 = (E1 x Ec) + (NG1 x NGc) + (WF1 x WFc) ECO5.2 = (E2 x Ec) + (NG2 x NGc) + (WF2 x WFc)



3. ANALYSIS AND CASE STUDIES COMPARISON

3.1. BEST PRACTICE INDICATORS

Best Practice Indicators (BPIs) can be defined as those impacting and encouraging closed-loop

gypsum recycling practices and in particular, throughout the different stages of the

plasterboard value chain. BPIs have been selected from the developed KPIs.

Tables 5-7 that follow, refer to the three stages part of the plasterboard value chain, and

include the evaluation criteria as well as the reason to discard them as a BPIs, after

consolidating the data and having developed several improved versions.

Whilst for deconstruction and recycling there are several socio-economic indicators that have

been discarded, mainly due to their variability depending on the country under study, for the

case of reincorporation all of them are considered crucial, if compared with initial approaches.

Table 5. Deconstruction Best Practice Indicators (BPIs)

DECONSTRUCTION

INDICATORS

BP

INDICATOR

BP

CRITERIA

NON SELECTED

INDICATORS CRITERIA

TECH1. Existence and deviation of the audit for

gypsum-based systems TECH1.1 = yes; TEC1.2 <10%; TECH1.3<20% -

TECH2. Effectiveness of the deconstruction

process TECH2.1 = NO; TECH2.2 =100% -

TECH3. Effectiveness of the traceability 100% -

ENV1. Gypsum waste sent to landfill 0% -

ENV2. Transport emissions comparison between

recyclnig and landfilling ENV2.1 - ENV2.2 < 0 kg CO2 equiv -

SOC1. Labour time difference between

dismantling and demolishing plasterboardX -

SOC1 doesn't impact on the implementation

of best practices

SOC2. Productivity X -

Variable depending on skills of the workers

and peculiarities of the country under

study.

SOC3. Training of the deconstruction team Yes -

SOC4. Follow-up of the waste management Yes -

ECO1. Audit cost X - Variable depending on the country under

study.

ECO2. Plasterboard dismantling and loading cost X - Variable depending on the country under

study.

ECO3. Gypsum block dismantling and loading

costX -

Variable depending on the country under

study.

ECO4. Cost difference between

recycling GW and landfilling route ECO4.1 - ECO4.2 < 0 €/t -



Table 6. Recycling Best Practice Indicators (BPIs). *The considered limit values are taken from

the deliverable “DB1. European Handbook on Best Practices in Deconstruction Techniques",

developed in Action B1.

RECYCLING

INDICATORS

BP

INDICATOR

BP

CRITERIA

NON SELECTED

INDICATORS CRITERIA

TECH1. Quality of the gypsum waste

received TECH1.1 ≤ 2%; TECH1.2≤ 10%* -

TECH2. Gypsum waste rejected 0% -

TECH3. Warehouse storage capacity

for gypsum waste TECH3 ≥ 0.40/GW m3 -

TECH4. Output materials of the

recycling process Paper output > 0%: -

ENV1. CO2 emissions from the

recycling process

ENV1.1+ENV1.2 < 2.033 kg CO2

eq/t -

ENV2. Natural gypsum saved ENV2 > 0 -

SOC1. Recycler's satisfaction High -

ECO1. Energy cost of the gypsum

waste processingX -

Variable depending on the country

under study and the equipment

performance.

ECO2. Transport cost of the recycled

gypsumX -

Variable depending on the country

under study.



Table 7. Reincorporation Best Practice Indicators (BPIs).The considered limit value is taken

from the "GtoG first approach guideline", as specified in the document “ uidance document

for the quality criteria of the recycled gypsum - Technical and Toxicological Parameters",

developed in Action B2.

REINCORPORATION

INDICATORS

BP

INDICATOR

BP

CRITERIA

NON SELECTED

INDICATORS CRITERIA

TECH1. Recycled gypsum rejected by the

manufacturer 0% -

TECH2. Recycled gypsum quality criteria Compliance with the agreed criteria* -

TECH3. Warehouse storage capacity for recycled

gypsum TECH3 ≥ 0.70/RGS m3 -

TECH4. Recycled gypsum content TECH4.1+TECH4.2 ≥ 22.3% -

TECH5. Recycled content increase TECH5.1-TECH5.2 > 10% -

TECH6. Production waste TECH6 ≤ 4% -

ENV1. CO2 emissions: business-as-usual

compared to maximized recycled content in the

pre-processing ENV1.1 - ENV1.2 ≥ 0 kg CO2 eq -

ENV2. CO2 emissions: business-as-usual

compared to maximized recycled content in the

production process ENV2.1 - ENV2.2 ≥ 0 kg CO2 eq -

SOC1. Manufacturer's satisfaction High -

ECO1. Cost difference between business-as-

usual and maximized recycled content quality

check ECO1 > 0 €/t -

ECO2. Cost difference between natural gypsum

and recycled gypsum ECO2 > 0 €/t -

ECO3. Cost difference between FGD gypsum and

recycled gypsum ECO3 > 0 €/t -

ECO4. Energy cost difference between business-

as-usual and maximized recycled content in the

pre-processing ECO4.1 - ECO4.2 > 0 €/t -

ECO5. Energy cost difference between business-

as-usual and maximized recycled content in the

production process ECO5.1 - ECO5.2 > 0 €/t -

*The considered limit value is taken from the "GtoG first approach guideline", develop in B2 Action.



3.2. TECHNICAL - ENVIRONMENTAL – SOCIAL – ECONOMIC IMPACT

3.2.1. Deconstruction

Table 8 shows the results obtained after testing the BPIs in the deconstruction pilot projects.

Table 8. Deconstruction results

Existence and deviation of the audit for gypsum-based systems (TECH1):

Only one pilot project complied with the criteria established (R2). For the case of R3, a pre-

deconstruction audit didn’t exist as it is not mandatory in this country. In the other three

cases, the deviation of the audit in relation to the real amount of recyclable gypsum waste

generated is above the criteria, 20%. The main reason is that the construction systems that

emerged during the deconstruction weren’t those expected. For the case of 4, presenting the

highest deviation, wooden systems were confused with by gypsum-based systems during the

audit.

Effectiveness of the deconstruction process (TECH2):

The results show that during dismantling, segregation and storage operations, best practices

were implemented, as all gypsum waste was accepted by the recyclers, with no presence of

impurities in the loads.

Effectiveness of the traceability (TECH3):

All the gypsum waste generated was effectively tracked in the five pilot projects (from the

jobsite to the recycling facility).

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5

TECH1 Non effective Effective Non effective Non effective Non effective -

TECH2 Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective -

TECH3 Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective -

ENV1 0.00 45.40 0.00 0.00 54.99 %

ENV2 Savings Savings Savings No savings Savings -

SOC3 Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance -

SOC4 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes/No

ECO4 Savings Savings No savings Savings - -

Deconst

indicator

RouteUnit



Gypsum waste sent to landfill (ENV1):

In R2, plaster blocks and plasterboards appeared glued to ceramics and sound / thermal

insulation respectively.

In R5, around 55% of the plasterboard waste was laminates, which are currently considered as

non-recyclable1.

Transport emissions comparison between recycling and landfilling (ENV2):

In all cases, recycling facility is closer than landfill, except for R4, where the recycling route

doubles the landfilling distance.

Training of the deconstruction team (SOC3):

All case studies comply with the criteria established.

Follow-up of the waste management (SOC4):

All case studies reported the existence of a person appointed to follow-up the waste

management.

Cost difference between recycling GW and landfilling route (ECO4):

R3 has a higher recycling fee than landfill. This is the reason why it is the only one not

providing savings.

R5 couldn´t be calculated due to confidential issues.

1 Gypsum waste acceptance criteria agreed by the GtoG participating recyclers that consider laminates

as non-recyclable gypsum products.



3.2.2. Recycling

Table 9 shows the results obtained after testing the BPIs in the recycling pilot projects.

Table 9. Recycling results

Warehouse storage capacity for gypsum waste (TECH1):

The figures obtained are indicative as they highly vary according to the amount of gypsum

waste received. The compliance of this indicator mainly relies on having the adequate space

for storage.

Quality of the gypsum waste received (TECH2):

There is neither a relevant presence of impurities nor a significant amount of wet gypsum

waste received in any of the case studies.

Gypsum waste rejected (TECH3):

All gypsum waste has been accepted.

Output materials of the recycling process (TECH4):

There is paper output in all cases.

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5

TECH1 Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance -

TECH2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 %

TECH3 550.00 510.55 121.50 169.05 92.50 m3

TECH4 Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance -

ENV1 - - - - - -

ENV2 Savings Savings Savings Savings Savings -

SOC1 Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance -

RouteUnit

Recycling

Indicators



CO2 emissions from the recycling process (ENV1):

Could not be calculated due to the lack of pertinent data.

Natural gypsum saved (ENV2):

As all the recyclable gypsum waste has been processed into recycled gypsum, a total of 547.02

tonnes of natural gypsum has been saved.

ecycler’s satisfaction (SOC1): All case studies comply with the criteria established.

3.2.3. Manufacturing

Table 10 presents the results obtained after testing the best practice indicators in the

reincorporation pilot projects.

Table 10. Reincorporation results. RG=recycled gypsum; C=compliance; NC=no compliance

Recycled gypsum rejected by the manufacturer (TECH1):

All recycled gypsum was accepted. However, R5 reports 20% of not usable material.

Recycled gypsum quality criteria (TECH2):

R2 and R4 comply with the technical and toxicological parameters as defined in the “ uideline

for the establishment of Quality criteria for recycled gypsum at European level” [5]. In the

Route

R2 R3 R4

TECH1 No RG rejected No RG rejected No RG rejected -

TECH2 C C NC NC C NC C NC NC -

TECH3 314.3 62.9 1647.1 m3

TECH4 High achievement High achievement Medium achievement -

TECH5 High achievement Medium achievement Medium achievement -

TECH6 Need of corrective actions On average On average -

ENV1 - - - -

ENV2 Savings No savings No savings -

SOC1 Compliance Compliance Compliance -

ECO1 - - No savings -

ECO2 - Savings Savings -

ECO3 - n/a n/a -

ECO4 - - - -

ECO5 - No savings No savings -

Reincorp

indicatorUnit

R1 R5

No RG rejected Need of corrective actions

0.0 285.7

High achievement Medium achievement

High achievement High achievement

On average Need of corrective actions

- -

No savings No savings

Compliance Compliance

No difference No savings

n/a n/a

Savings n/a

- -

No savings Savings



other three cases, free moisture or purity don’t comply with the technical requirements and

Ni, Pb and/or Zn are the toxicological parameters which result in higher values over the

proposed limits.

Warehouse storage capacity for recycled gypsum (TECH3):

The figures obtained are indicative as they highly vary according to the amount of recycled

gypsum received. The compliance of this indicator mainly relies on having the adequate space

for storage. R1 is a particular case, in which a conveyor belt for the feeding and transferring of

the recycled material is used, being the recycled gypsum stored by the annexed gypsum

recycler.

Recycled gypsum content (TECH4):

The range of recycled gypsum content, considering all cases, is between 17 and 28%.

Recycled content increase (TECH5):

The average reported business-as-usual recycled gypsum content [4] has been compared with

the result obtained in TECH4. The range of recycled gypsum content increase, considering all

cases, is between 5 and 16%.

Production waste (TECH6):

In R1, R3 and R4, the percentage of production waste generated is below the European

average (4%). In R2, the percentage of production waste generated is slightly higher than the

reference value. In R5, the plasterboard manufactured doesn’t reach the manufacturer’s

requirements, so it is considered production waste.

CO2 emissions: business-as-usual compared to maximized recycled content in the pre-

processing (ENV1):

There is a lack of data regarding energy consumption in the pre-processing stage, as data

reported by manufacturers include the whole manufacturing process. Therefore, this indicator

cannot be calculated.



CO2 emissions: business-as-usual compared to maximized recycled content in the

production process (ENV2):

The CO2 emissions figures are generally very similar when “business-as-usual” and “maximized

recycled content” production trials are conducted, but are slightly higher in the latter.

According to the available literature, this difference can be attributed to the gypsum

preprocessing stage, which consists on drying the gypsum feedstock to reduce its moisture

content [6].

Manufacturer’s satisfaction (SOC1):

All case studies were found to conform to the EN-520 Standard [5].Cost difference between

business-as-usual and maximized recycled content quality check (ECO1):

Only for R1, there is no cost difference between business-as-usual and maximized recycled

content quality check. For the cases of R2, R4 and R5, they report a higher amount of quality

checks for the case of recycled gypsum than for conventional feedstock. However, R2 does not

provide cost data and R3 does not report a specific amount of quality checks. Therefore, ECO1

cannot be assessed in these two cases.

Cost difference between natural gypsum and recycled gypsum (ECO2):

Savings are obtained in R3 and R4. This indicator does not apply for the case of R1, as this plant

uses FGD gypsum in its feed material mix, and R5, as currently there is not a market for post-

consumer recycled gypsum. 2 doesn’t report data for the assessment.

Cost difference between FGD gypsum and recycled gypsum (ECO3):

Savings are obtained in R1. This indicator does not apply for the case of R3 and R4, as these

plants uses natural gypsum in their feed material mix, and R5, as currently there is not a

market for post-consumer recycled gypsum.

Energy cost difference between business-as-usual and maximized recycled content in

the pre-processing (ECO4):



There is a lack of data regarding energy consumption in the pre-processing stage, as data

reported by manufacturers include the whole manufacturing process. Therefore, this indicator

cannot be calculated.

Energy cost difference between business-as-usual and maximized recycled content in

the production process (ECO5):

In general, all the cases result in non-savings, except for R5, where energy cost difference

between business-as-usual and maximized recycled content in the production process is near

to zero. ECO5 cannot be calculated for R2 due to lack of data.



4. CONCLUSIONS

The report presents a set of 37 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and the selected 29 Best

Practice Indicators (BPIs) recognizing and encouraging the implementation of best practices

(Figure 3). These BPIs address the entire gypsum value chain (deconstruction, recycling and

reincorporation), being classified per category: technical, social, economic and environmental;

and per stage: pre-deconstruction audit, gypsum-based systems deconstruction, gypsum waste

traceability, end route, reception by the gypsum recycler, storage, processing and transport of

the recycled gypsum, reception by the plasterboard manufacturer, storage, reincorporation,

preprocessing and plasterboard manufacturing.

The defined analytical framework can be used as a decision-making tool helping to increase

the effectiveness of the gypsum EoL recycling route, measuring the performance and progress

of gypsum waste management, detecting the possibilities of improvement as well as

monitoring changes over time.

Best practices are implemented during the deconstruction process if:

A pre-deconstruction audit for gypsum systems exists, and a minimum deviation

compared with the real amount and type of gypsum waste generated results.

There is no presence of impurities in the gypsum waste, and as a result there is no

recyclable gypsum waste refused by the waste outlet.

All gypsum waste generated is tracked.

There is no recyclable gypsum waste sent to landfill.

Transport emissions are kept as low as possible.

Trained workers are in charge of the dismantling, sorting and storing processes.



At least one person is appointed to follow-up the waste management including the

tracking records.

When comparing the cost of recycling and landfilling, which include the rental of

skips, unloading and loading operations, recyclers’ gate fee and tax, the cost of

recycling is favourable.

Best practices are implemented during the recycling process if:

ypsum waste at the recycling plant complies with the recyclers’ waste acceptance

criteria thus no gypsum waste is rejected nor sent to landfill.

A properly dimensioned storage place is set up in order to guarantee a constant

feedstock, avoiding further presence of impurities and moisture content at the

same time, once received.

Paper is generated as an output material of the recycling process, when

plasterboard is present at the waste load.

CO2 emissions resulting from the recycling process are lower than those generated

from the extraction of natural gypsum.

The use of recycled gypsum in the manufacturing of new plasterboard saves natural

gypsum from extraction.

Best practices are implemented during the reincorporation process if:

Recycled gypsum at the plasterboard manufacturing plant complies with the agreed

quality criteria thus no recycled gypsum is rejected.

A properly dimensioned storage place is set up in order to guarantee a constant

recycled gypsum feedstock, avoiding further presence of impurities and moisture

content at the same time, once received.

The recycled gypsum reincorporated is kept as high as feasible.



The nonconforming plasterboard during the production process is below the

European average.

Energy consumption, costs and CO2 emissions have no significant negative impact

when maximizing the recycled gypsum feedstock.

Plasterboard with maximized recycled content fulfil with the implementing

European standards.


Figure 3. Overview of the 5 routes

Audit Stor. Recep Stor.

TECH1 TECH2 SOC3 SOC4 TECH3 ECO4 ENV1 ENV2 TECH1 TECH2 TECH3 SOC1 TECH4 ENV1 ENV2 TECH1 TECH2 ECO1 ECO2 ECO3 TECH3 ENV1 ECO4 TECH4 TECH5 TECH6 ENV2 SOC1 ECO5

R1 - n/a - -

R2 - - - - - - -

R3 - - n/a - -

R4 - n/a - -

R5 - - n/a n/a - -

Non available data / not aplicable

Best pract ices applied

Need correct ive act ions

DECONSTRUCTION

Deconstruct. Traceability End route

The results of the deconstruction

processes implemented show best

practices in the majority of cases.

Main challenges observed are

related to the pre-deconstruction

audit of materials (TECH1). Due to

the different construction systems

that finally appeared which weren’t

those expected or because the

audit is not mandatory.

The results of the recycling

processes implemented show

best practices in all cases.

Main challengues observed

are related to data collection

for the calculation of CO2

emissions from the recycling

process (ENV1) regarding

processing and transport

stages.

Preprocess. Reincorp. M anufacturing

REINCORPORATION

The results of the reincorporation processes implemented

show:

- Non-compliance with at least one of the technical or

toxicological parameters, according to the “ uideline for the

establishment of Quality criteria for recycled gypsum at

European level” (TECH2).

- A reincorporation rate of recycled gypsum between 17 and

28% (TECH4 and TECH5).

- A lack of data regarding the pre-processing stage (ENV1 and

ECO4) and quality check costs (ECO1) during the reception

stage.

- No remarkable impact on energy, cost (ECO5) and CO 2

emissions (ENV2) when comparing business-as-usual and

maximized recycled content.

Process. & transp. ReceptionReception



REFERENCES

[1] . S. Srinivasan, W. Ingwersen, C. Trucco, . ies, and D. Campbell, “Comparison of

energy-based indicators used in life cycle assessment tools for buildings,” Build.

Environ., vol. 79, pp. 138–151, Sep. 2014.

[2] J. García Navarro, L. Maestro Martínez, R. Huete Fuertes, and a. García Martínez,

“Establecimiento de indicadores de sostenibilidad para entornos degradados: el Valle

minero de Laciana (León, España),” Inf. la Construcción, vol. 61, pp. 51–70, 2009.

[3] X. Picado, “Hacia La Elaboracion De Indicadores De Evaluación,” Ts.Ucr.Ac.Cr, pp. 1–24,

1997.

[4] ypsum to ypsum project LIFE11 ENV/BE/001039, “DA.1: Inventory of current

practices. to  : From production to recycling : a circular economy for the European

ypsum Industry with the Demolition and ecycling Industry.,” 2013.

[5] National Technical University of Athens (NTUA). Gypsum to Gypsum project LIFE11

ENV/BE/001039, “DB4: eport of Production Process Parameters,” 2015.

[6] WRAP and Environmental Resources Management Ltd (E M), “W AP Technical eport:

Life Cycle Assessment of Plasterboard,” 2008.

Documents

REPORT ON BEST PRACTICE INDICATORS FOR …