You are on page 1of 15

Materials from Alternative, Recycled and Secondary Sources (MARSS) 2005 - 2010: A Review of the Use of Non-Primary

Clay Raw Materials in the UK Brick Manufacturing Sector
Author: Dr. Andrew S Smith

This work by Ceram is licensed under a Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License

www.ceram.com

Summary
Many of the drivers underpinning the development of the Resource Efficiency Roadmaps at a European level, as well as at the UK national level, have evolved from the waste reduction and recycling initiatives developed back in the late 1990s. The concept is a simple one, “why use new natural resources when there may be perfectly suitable recycled or alternative materials that can be substituted?” The question is the easy part, the answer is more difficult. In the past there has been a reluctance to used recycled or waste materials in construction materials production, or so many outside the industry have thought. Within the aggregates sector there were barriers to use, predominantly resulting from the British Standards and recycled aggregate performance assessments. In the last 15 years however, all these pseudo “technical” barriers have been removed; the opportunity for the use of Materials from Alternative, Recycled and Secondary Sources (MARSS) are no longer restricted, and to all intents and purposes, treated in the same manner as any other raw material. The brick manufacturing sector has been using recycled materials for over 100 years; Victorian Town Ash heaps were traditionally used as sources of glassy materials for inclusion into the bricks, in the London environs. In addition, many brickworks evolved on the sites of coal mines, utilising the “shale and clay spoil” extracted from the mine, as well as the coal, to make the bricks that were then used in the construction of the mines. The MARSS survey was started in 2006 and collected the previous year’s raw materials usage from the UK brick manufacturers on a site-by-site basis. MARSS are used and specifically displaced materials, typically originating from natural resources, i.e. quarries and pits. This paper reviews the 2005 - 2010 survey results, and examines the trends of materials usage through one of the most turbulent periods in UK brick manufacturing history. In spite of this, the sector is still committed to using these materials, gaining benefits above and beyond the basic environmental advantages of utilising waste or recycled materials.

2
by Ceram.

Introduction
Sustainability has rapidly become one of the most important business drivers in the last decade; some would argue that it is already the most important. Aspects of how, why and what companies do, all now fall under the “sustainability” banner and have a direct impact upon the “bottom line”. Historically, sustainability has been driven top down by the European Union or National Governments through regulation or legislation. Either way, this has usually resulted in greater operating costs; encountered directly through the cost of energy or raw materials, or indirectly though “environmental, climate change and now sustainability taxes”. Sustainability has therefore become a critical factor in raw material and energy intensive businesses. Within the construction industry, and specifically the “heavy construction materials” sector, principles of sustainability have shaped the way businesses operate. Manufacturers of heavy clay construction products (bricks, blocks, pavers, roof tiles and pipes) have been subject to ever stricter energy reduction targets, resulting from the taxation of carbon dioxide emissions through either the Climate Change Agreement (CCA) operating at national level, or the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) at a European level. In addition to the energy and emissions related pressures, primary extractors of virgin raw materials have also been subject to issues surrounding planning permissions for new mineral deposits. Whilst a threat to the sector, the impacts from such pressures can also provide the basis for potential process and materials modifications to help address and mitigate some of these impacts. The use of MARSS is a good case in point. A change in materials can offer a number of opportunities to reduce not only the amount of raw materials being used, replaced by alternatives from the waste and recycling streams of other sectors, but can also offer reductions in energy and environmental impacts, amongst other benefits. As any process engineer will testify, changing one aspect of a process can have impacts not only on a specific part of the process, but also on the process as a whole. The same can be said for changes to the materials used in a process. Five areas of potential impact have been defined; all “push and pull” upon a given manufacturer or business sector, and could result from the use of MARSS. The “ESTEM©” framework has been highlighted as a means of addressing and assessing the potential benefits to a manufacturer of utilising non-primary raw materials in their manufacturing processes. The assessment of how the use of MARSS could impact upon the ESTEM© framework offers significant opportunities and convincing justification for changes to a process, or materials within a process. The areas impacted upon can be subdivided: Economic (financial) Strategic Technical (product properties) Environmental (sustainability - natural resources, water, energy and emissions) Marketing Today, “sustainability” is best defined as the sustainability of businesses and how they operate, not just the environmental or the “green” aspects of what they do and impact upon. The economic factors of any change in materials or process can have a significant influence over the viability and therefore the sustainability of a business. In some instances, the use of 3
by Ceram.

MARSS can result in “cost savings” or a potential revenue stream, making it therefore extremely appealing and easily justifiable. The strategic importance of material substitution from primary raw materials to MARSS may not immediately be obvious, however a planning process on the development of new quarries, now typically taking 5 to 7 years, if not longer, can have a significant impact upon time and costs incurred, not only in the actual extraction/mining process, but also in the time and resources needed to secure the planning permissions. Even the modest substitution of primary raw materials (predominantly clays in the heavy clay sector) with MARSS can result in an extended life of a given existing quarry, buying time and deferring incurred costs. MARSS offer some potentially attractive technical benefits, occasionally transforming a moderate quality clay body into one with increased physical and technical properties; ultimately having an impact upon the final properties of the fired clay products. The environmental benefits of using MARSS can be the most significant of all the ESTEM© factors. When viewed as “sustainability” benefits, as opposed to just environmental, these become even more apparent. Some MARSS can offer both energy reduction potential (from lower primary fuel requirements) and lower emissions, not only of greenhouse gas (GHG) e.g. CO2, but also from pollutants, e.g. hydrogen fluoride (HF) and other acid kiln gases. The use of MARSS is also a “beneficial” use of materials that may otherwise require landfill disposal; reducing the need for additional primary raw materials to be “extracted”. Finally, there are potential benefits in the marketing and promotion of products that fall within a “mature” market sector. The ability to promote a “new” aspect of a traditional product allows new publicity, as does tailoring the promotional information to the requirements of the sector or clients needs; if a construction project has a high sustainability profile, the collateral information from a materials supplier based on MARSS usage, may place one product above another in the “preference list”. The use of alternative materials in the UK brick manufacturing sector is not a new concept, since Victorian times alternative materials have been blended with primary clays to change the physical properties or aesthetic characteristics of the products. In the last 50 years, many of the UK brickworks have “dabbled” with the use of MARSS, however this was often on a “trial and error” basis, poorly controlled and rarely documented. When MARSS “worked”, the use remained until external forces resulted in abandonment, or the materials were substituted as supply pressures affected the supply chain. In the last 25 years, the use of MARSS has become more controlled and driven by the need for technical performance characteristics or aesthetic factors. Despite regular use, such data was not collected and published centrally on behalf of the sector; therefore as recycled materials content declaration became “vogue” for certain construction products in the late 1990s, the use was never routinely captured or reported. The development of the MARSS Survey in 2006 by Ceram was aimed at addressing this lack of sectoral data, and has since been undertaken annually.

4
by Ceram.

UK Brick Production 2005 - 2010
When putting the report statements into context, it is worth reviewing the UK brick production statistics for the period from 2005 through to 2010. This period saw some significant reductions in production output, reflecting the reduction in sales (deliveries) over the same time period. The UK Government, through the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS), formerly The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), collect and publish statistics of brick production, delivery and stock levels on a monthly basis. As this report spans a turbulent period in the UK brick production and construction industry in general, more specifically the house building sector, Government data has been used to place this paper into context. Over a longer time frame, brick deliveries have fallen by nearly 70% since the most recent 40-year high in 1989, reflecting a delivery in the order of 4,559 million bricks. More recently, in 1995, deliveries peaked at 3.292 billion bricks, but over the following 10 years (1996 2005) deliveries hovered at around 2.816 (± 0.160) billion bricks per annum. BIS collect construction materials statistics on a monthly basis. The February 2011 statistics (http://stats.berr.gov.uk/construction/building/#historic) were used to construct Figure 1. Figure 1 illustrates the significant changes between 2005 and 2010. Of specific note is the halving of production between 2005 and 2009, a result of the down turn in the UK economy in 2007 and 2008, particularly within the housing market. Although production was falling at a steady rate, it was, until late 2008, still in excess of sales, therefore stock levels were consistently increasing year-on-year. At its peak in 2008, the UK brick stocks were capable of supplying bricks into the market for approximately 9 months without a single brick needing to be manufactured. Since 2008, measures have been undertaken to reduce the production levels, and these currently run at just below annual sales levels, resulting in a modest “take” from national stock. 2010 saw the first upturn in sales and production since the start of the survey in 2005, and reflects the start of house building again in the UK market. Between 2005 and 2008 significant brick production capacity was removed by closure or long-term “mothballing” of brickworks across the country. Figure 1. UK Brick Production, Delivery and Stock (BIS Data)

Figure 2. UK National House Starts and Completions (Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) Data) Figure 2 depicts the UK National House starts and completions from 1998 - 2010. Although there was a steady decline in starts from the house building peak in 2005 - 2006, 2007 2009 saw a halving in new housing unit starts; this is reflected in the similar scale of brick production reduction shown in Figure 1. Since 2008 - 2009 there has been a small increase in house starts, however completions still remain at a higher level, therefore the number of houses in the process of being built is decreasing. 5
by Ceram.

The MARSS Survey
In 2006, Ceram was requested by the Manufacturing Steering Group of the Brick Development Association (BDA) to undertake a survey of BDA member companies (brick manufacturers) regarding their annual use of MARSS added to the brick body during the manufacturing process. The survey was established with the aim of producing a “Confidential” and “Anonymous” annual report (1-year in arrears), for the UK brick industry to record the annual usage and type of substitute alternatives to primary raw materials. Pressure over recent years, from energy pricing, environmental impact and customer expectations, has resulted in an increased interest in the potential benefits from the use of alternative materials, often from recycled or secondary sources, to help achieve more efficient manufacturing whilst minimising pollution and GHG emissions. During the last 25 years, Ceram has undertaken numerous trials and materials assessments on behalf of its Members and the brick industry in general, however, there is little in the way of comprehensive information about what is being currently used. Manufacturers were requested to supply the following information: Manufacturing Site Kiln Type Location and Parent Company Tunnel Kiln Intermittent Hoffmann, etc. Extruded Wire Cut Soft Mud Handmade Pressed Carboniferous (Coal Measure) Shale Etruria Marl Keuper Marl (+ Blends) Weald (+ Blends) Other (including Lower Oxford Clay, Gault, Alluvial Clays, Brickearth, etc.) Tonnage of this body used in brick manufacture on a yearly basis. Ash Products – e.g. PFA, ISSA, Town Ash, etc Hydrocarbons – e.g. Coal Fines, Coal Slurry, Coke Breeze, Petcoke Industrial Minerals – e.g. Slags, Grog Minerals – e.g. mineral by-products: Fireclays (WRAP Rules apply), Shales, Marls Organics – e.g. Sawdust, Sugars/Starch Tonnage of alternative materials used in the specific body type (rounded to the nearest 10 tonnes)

Product Group

Primary Raw Materials

Yearly Tonnage of Primary Raw Materials Used Alternative Materials

Yearly Tonnage of Alternative Materials Used

6
by Ceram.

The MARSS Survey is conducted at the end of Q1/beginning of Q2 annually by means of a questionnaire to the BDA Member manufacturers. The questionnaire records the MARSS usage on a site-by-site basis; the data is collated by a senior technical representative from each of the manufacturers. Since 2006 (production year 2005), the results have been published as one of the UK brick industry’s KPIs. The results present the amount of MARSS being used by tonnage and percentage, based on the sites surveyed. Although the survey has never captured all the data from all the production sites, it does include the UK’s 4 major brick manufacturers, and a small proportion of the single-site operators. The UK’s 4 major brick manufacturers: • • • • Ibstock Brick Ltd Hanson Building Products Ltd Michelmersh Brick Holdings Ltd Wienerberger Ltd

Between them, the major manufacturers and single-site operators accounted for over 85% of the 2010 UK brick production capacity; 45 of the 69 production sites manufacturing at some point during 2010. “Minerals” are one of the main components of MARSS for which data is collected. Initially, these would appear to be typical types of clay-based mineral deposits worked as primary raw materials; however, the mineral deposits classified here are defined as: Mineral recovered as a result of the intent to expose and work other mineral deposits. The primary aim of extraction is therefore not to win these minerals, but to “remove them to allow access for the main purpose of the excavation”. Such mineral deposits included in this “definition” are some of the “Fireclay” deposits won as a result of the extraction of coal through opencast mining. This definition was been agreed with Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP) in the production of the “Guide for product manufacturers; Calculating and declaring recycled content in construction products, ‘Rules of Thumb’ guide”, March 2008. The classification and definition of “recycled” Fireclay is presented as follows: Fireclays extracted from sites where the sole purpose of the operation is to extract fireclays for sale would be classed as a primary raw material and therefore not recycled. However, fireclays that arise as a result of the opencast extraction of coal as the intended primary product (so that the fireclay arisings are incidental to the operation of the site and have been verified as by-products by Ceram) are considered to be recycled materials. In practice, mineral deposits of this type are won as “by-products” rather than “co-products” of other mineral extraction or civil engineering projects. The recovery and use of these materials is justified on the basis that, if not utilised, a new quarry would be opened up in a different location to extract the same type of material. A core principle of “sustainability” is to maximise the efficiency of any operation, specifically the use of natural resources. In this instance, excavating and utilising a higher proportion of the materials won is more sustainable, and meets the requirements for the Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO).

7
by Ceram.

MARSS Usage in Brick Production 2005 - 2010
In the 6 survey years since 2005, there have been a number of significant changes in the usage of MARSS within the brick manufacturing sector. Total usage (tonnage) has varied yearly; 2006 saw a peak where over 700kt of MARSS was reported. This is a slightly skewed value as all the UK Fireclay materials used were included. In 2006 - 2007, during the drafting of the WRAP “Rules of Thumb” guide, agreement on an acceptable definition for the use of clays and other extractive mineral-based materials was developed. In subsequent years, this has led to a reported reduction in the tonnages of Fireclays included in the MARSS figures.

Figure 3. UK Brick Production Plotted Against the Reported Annual MARSS Usage from the MARSS Reports (BIS Data) Figure 3 displays the trends for both the reported MARSS usage and the UK brick production on an annual basis. Underlying the MARSS usage values is the significant reduction in production output since 2005. In some cases this was reflected in the significant reduction in MARSS tonnages; a result of works on reduced production, mothballed, or at worst, closed completely. For some specific MARSS materials, this has had a significant impact, especially where certain works use the majority of a given MARSS material reported. 2008 - 2009 saw the main impact of the economic downturn; UK production levels and MARSS usage (in terms of tonnage) declined. As a percentage, MARSS usage has been relatively consistent throughout the 2005 - 2010 period, hovering around the 10-13% level. In 2010 there was a slight increase in the MARSS tonnage used, reflecting the modest increase in brick production in the same period.

MARSS Usage by Production Process
One of the key factors regarding the use of MARSS is the type of material and the manufacturing process or primary raw material type, the MARSS are used with. Technically, non-“Minerals” based MARSS are easier to incorporate into bricks using the “soft mud” manufacturing process. This process typically uses clay raw materials with a higher plasticity and a higher water content during manufacture; therefore making both incorporation and mixing/distribution easier. In tonnage terms, the soft mud process only accounts for approximately a 1/6 of the annual total MARSS tonnage used. Materials classed within the MARSS “Minerals” group account for the majority of the tonnage used in the soft mud manufacturing process; as seen in Figure 4. These are typically clays and sands won from other mineral operations, unrelated to brick making, and typically regarded as overburden, interburden or waste streams, frequently being “dumped” back into the quarry once the primary minerals have been extracted.

8
by Ceram.

Figure 4. Annual MARSS Usage by MARSS Group for the “Soft Mud” Manufacturing Process Brick manufacturing not only utilises this “waste” material, but also minimises the “double working” of extraction sites to obtain the required raw materials for different sectors or end users. Although the use of “Hydrocarbons” has declined since a peak in 2007, the “Hydrocarbons” and “Ash” MARSS are still an important part of the soft mud brick production process; both providing technical and aesthetic properties to the bricks manufactured using this technique. Figure 5 shows the same annual usage of MARSS by group for the extrusion based manufacturing process. This is traditionally the largest part of the UK brickmaking production portfolio, however, since 2006 the balance of soft mud vs extruded product production has changed with the closure of a number old and small volume extrusion works, and the increase in capacity and the construction of a large new soft mud brickworks at Measham in the East Midlands.

Figure 5. Annual MARSS Usage by MARSS Group for the “Extrusion” Manufacturing Process As previously stated, the extrusion based production sites account for 5/6 of the total MARSS tonnage used in the UK, in 2010. This was dominated by one MARSS group, “Minerals” which accounted for the vast majority of the reported usage. Within this MARSS group, fireclays and shales dominate, and the total “Minerals” usage closely followed the total usage for this production process. Waste clays, strictly speaking, 9
by Ceram.

by-product clays and shales from other extraction processes have commonly been used in brick manufacturing, mainly due to the direct similarities in the properties or types of clay being used. The use of “recycled” clays and shales therefore aids sustainability through maximising the end use of all the materials extracted from a quarry, rather than just the materials that the quarry or pit was originally planned for, typically aggregates or coal.

MARSS Usage by Primary Clay Type
One of the key factors to the use of MARSS revolves around the types of clays and shales being used in any particular brickworks. Compatibility, not only with the manufacturing process, but also with the main clay raw materials, is an important factor in determining the use of MARSS, specifically if used in any volume. Issues with blending the feedstock into the works and the resulting plasticity and water demand can have an impact on the type and tonnage of MARSS that can be used in any given works. Figure 6 displays the tonnage of MARSS used per annum by primary clay raw material type. The Carboniferous Shale group consists of the clays and shales (including Fireclays) associated with the coal measure deposits in the UK. These are predominantly located in the Midlands and North of the UK, and as such, typically associated with extrusion based manufacturing processes. The vast majority of the MARSS group used in association with the Carboniferous Shale group of raw materials is again dominated by the “Minerals” type materials, and once more specifically, Fireclays and Shales. Since 2008, the trend for MARSS to be used in conjunction with ‘Etruria Marl’ type primary raw materials has increased annually. Etruria Marl is regarded as the “Rolls Royce” of brick making clay raw materials. Historically, Eturia Marl has not tended to be blended, but instead used as a blending clay with others, to improve the technical and aesthetic properties of poorer clays such as the Keuper Marl or some Shales. This upwards trend is most likely to be as a result of the blending of both Fireclays and byproduct sources of Etruria Marl, rather than a significant use of other types of MARSS.

Figure 6. Annual MARSS Usage by Primary Raw Materials Type The brickworks whose primary raw materials are either Weald + Blends or Keuper + Blends have on the whole decreased the use of MARSS over the survey period. This is likely to be as a result of a reduction in production during the period, rather than a fundamental change in the use of MARSS in the body mix.

Usage of MARSS in UK Brickworks
Figure 7 shows the percentage of brickworks using MARSS along with both the total tonnages of primary and MARSS used on an annual basis. During the survey period, the

10
by Ceram.

lowest recorded percentage of brickworks using MARSS was 55% (2006); however a peak of 71% was achieved during 2007 - 2008. Whilst the average content on a brick-by-brick basis for those works that use MARSS, is around the 10-13%, the survey does highlight the widespread use of MARSS in recent production years.

Figure 7. Annual: Percentage of UK Brickworks Using MARSS, Total Raw Material Usage (‘000 tonnes) and Total Usage of MARSS (‘000 tonnes)

MARSS Type Usage by Specific MARSS Types
Within the 5 MARSS Groups, several MARSS types constitute the aggregated totals used. Often the MARSS group tonnages do not reflect the variability of the constituent MARSS types recorded. Such variations result from the availability of these materials on the market, and specifically for the “Minerals” group of MARSS; supplies that become available for short periods of time, as and when quarries are developed or extended. Table 1 shows the variability and fluctuations in the recorded usage of the types of MARSS throughout the 2005 to 2010 period. It is apparent that some materials have an exceptionally short usage period, e.g. some of the ‘Ash’ group materials such as ISSA and Boiler Ash were only recorded during 2005 and 2006. Other MARSS types have consistent usage throughout the survey period; however the volumes used varies, e.g. PFA and Town Ash. The fluctuations in these types of materials reflect the production trends within the period, or changes in the operational status of certain brickworks. Of note is the usage of the “Organic” group of MARSS, sawdust and sugar/starch derivatives. The closure, or specifically the cessation of a specific production line within a single brickworks resulted in a marked decline in usage of this group of materials. A similar picture reflects the demise in the use of the “Industrial Minerals” group of materials. The use of materials such as Slag, were again, only associated with a single production site. Changes in production schedules and product type resulted in this usage being reduced through 2006 to 2008, with no further usage since.

11
by Ceram.

MARSS Group

MARSS Type Boiler BottomAsh ISSA (Incinerated Sew age Sludge Ash) PFA (P ulverised Fuel Ash) Tow Ash n Anthracite Fines Coal Slurry Coke Breeze Petcoke/Metcoke FoundrySands Glass (Container glass) Grog (Fired w aste - non-brick) Rockw ool Slag (All ty pes) Boulder Clay Carboniferous Shale CollierySpoil Etruria Marl Filter Cake (P otteryClay+ Glaze) Fireclay Keuper Marl Lime Limestone Paper Sludge Red Shale Silt Sands W ater Treatment Residue Saw dust Starch/Sugars Total

2005 564 7,250 1 9,820 3,324 27,640 26,636 20 4,1 88 500 1 9,008 9,500 5,01 2 396,795 4,490 1 ,476 01 1 ,258 2,500 30 630,01 1

2006 370 470 1 2,300 5,580 7,640 1 8,820 29,341 3,600 60 1 3,460 45,290 25,050 20,060 5,060 289,331 5,440 6,430 1 ,360 14,900 1 16,946 1 1 ,040 1 ,820 30 724,398

MARSS Usage (tonnes) 2007 2008 7,600 1 ,050 9,889 1 9,796 25,731 3,600 89 60 1,073 1 41 ,279 1 9 2,31 9,486 266,080 1 80 8,1 7,398 57 75,665 1 4 3,41 2,090 1 ,600 1 0 526,466 7,600 1 ,030 1 0,591 1 6,756 8,502 6,855 1 60 6,790 65,822 1 3,700 1 ,307 1 56,936 1 ,320 4,470 48,360 1 ,020 11 ,14 1 0 352,343

2009 21 00 ,1 482 7,205 8,830 2,791 6,480 63,425 4,1 44 4,043 88,384 28,572 51 3 8 235,977

201 0 1,400 1 1 ,026 5,235 1 6,300 3,029 4,879 650 62,17 1 52,1 21 3,791 14,803 1 2,085 28,301 305,737

Ash

Hy drocarbons

Industrial Minerals

Minerals

Organics

Table 1. Annual Usage of MARSS Group and Type 2005 - 2010 As previously stated, the use of the “Minerals” group of MARSS dominates the annual returns. Some of these materials are by-products from current extraction of other minerals, and typically include Fireclays from opencast coal operations and other clays such as Etruria Marl, Carboniferous Shale and Keuper Marl, as a result of other types of mineral/aggregate extraction, where they are usually overburden or interburden materials. Mineral based “waste” type materials such as Colliery Spoil, Paper Sludge, Red Shale, Silt Sands and Water Treatment Residues are all produced as by-products of other types of mineral based operations, either as a result of a manufacturing process or treatment of mineral bearing products. Producers often regard these as “wastes”, and thus utilisation in brick manufacturing is regarded as a extremely beneficial end use, avoiding the ultimate option of landfill disposal.

Conclusions
Whilst the absolute tonnage of MARSS used in the UK brick sector has fluctuated over the past 6 years, the average content within bricks has remained relatively static at 10-13%. This indicates that MARSS, despite economic pressures, do have a valuable and long-term place as alternatives to primary raw materials, and as such, contribute both in terms of sustainability and resource efficiency within the brick making process.

12
by Ceram.

In many cases the MARSS are locally sourced; therefore usage is dominated by geographical location of the resource and user, rather than being a widely available “commodity” type material. The local sourcing and usage falls clearly within the goals of sustainability, and often the impact of transporting a bulky low-value material across the UK is not warranted or cost effective. Ultimately this may have a limiting impact on the usage growth of MARSS across the sector. However, having discussed this in the paper, the location of many of the UK’s largest brickworks are in the Midlands and North of England, and therefore associated with other industrial and manufacturing activities where “byproducts” and wastes are generated. The key to further expanding of the use of these types of materials is more of a supply issue rather than an availability one. This also requires the suitability and technical compatibility of the MARSS with the existing brickworks and product ranges. At present it is possible to manufacture very high MARSS content bricks (>70%) and achieve the technical performance and aesthetics, however the barrier has been the continuity of supply, specifically into larger production sites. An archetypal UK brickworks produces in the order of 1 million bricks per week which requires around 3,000 tonnes of raw materials per week. If the supply chain of these MARSS by-products and waste stream materials are not readily available over a 5 - 10 year period, investment and migration away from primary raw materials is commercially too risky. Such a conundrum is not unique to the brick sector and MARSS usage, other recycling and recovery initiatives, especially those that target high volume arisings, are always at risk of the producer adopting one of the first rules in the recycling hierarchy, “reduce”. This ultimately puts the availability of these materials and the longevity of supply at risk; as reflected in the MARSS survey returns between 2005 and 2010. The ability to move from one material to another, when supply is interrupted, does highlight the flexibility of the brick manufacturing process to a wide range of MARSS. MARSS do currently, and will in the future, play an important role in the resource efficiency and sustainable use of materials in the brick manufacturing sector, however it is unlikely to replace the extraction of primary clays in the foreseeable future, if at all.

13
by Ceram.

Appendices
Table A1: UK Brick Production, Delivery and Stock Levels (BIS Data - Monthly Statistics of Building Materials and Components, Feb 2011, No. 432) UK Production Deliveries Stock
Values are millions of bricks

2010 1351 1484 778

2009 1216 1388 921

2008 1822 1687 1090

2007 2313 2248 948

2006 2359 2254 887

2005 2601 2419 776

Reference: http://stats.berr.gov.uk/construction/building/#historic

14
by Ceram.

About the Author
Dr. Andrew S Smith Principal Consultant, Construction & Sustainability Andrew is an Industrial Minerals Geologist by training, holding a Joint Hons Degree in Geology and Physical Geography, a MSc in Industrial Mineralogy, and a PhD in Concrete Technology. He is a fellow of the Geological Society of London and a qualified Expert Witness, holding the Cardiff University Expert Witness Certificate. Sustainability Services Andrew has over twenty years experience in academic, industrial manufacturing and R&D/Consultancy roles within the evaluation, use and in-service evaluation of construction and other manufacturing processes and products, much of which has been in the assessment of the manufacturing process or the impact of use of these products in the environment and energy, climate change and greenhouse gas fields. Andrew specialises in the development or adaptation of existing measuring and assessment tools within the field of sustainability and carbon impact within the manufacturing and construction sectors. He is a trained lead Assessor for EU ETS and sits on a number of sustainability and environmental committees within the construction materials sector and represents the UK on matters relating to Regulated Dangerous Substances in the European Standards Committees for Construction. Waste Materials - Alternative, Secondary and Recycled Materials Andrew was formerly the Head of Research & Technical Development for Hanson Brick where he developed many of the methodologies for assessment of non-primary raw materials that the UK brick manufacturing sector use today. For the past twelve years Andrew has worked closely with the UK’s heavy clay construction products sector and developed assessment methodologies for the evaluation (technical, environmental, financial and strategic) and screening of materials from alternative sources in order to minimise the use of primary raw materials.

www.ceram.com
by Ceram