{"id":50024,"date":"2018-12-10T12:04:52","date_gmt":"2018-12-10T12:04:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.pbctoday.co.uk\/news\/?p=50024"},"modified":"2018-12-10T12:04:52","modified_gmt":"2018-12-10T12:04:52","slug":"plastics-in-construction","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.pbctoday.co.uk\/news\/planning-construction-news\/plastics-in-construction\/50024\/","title":{"rendered":"Plastics in construction \u2013 Impacts, issues and alternatives"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Alliance for Sustainable\u00a0Building\u00a0Products\u2019 (ASBP) third annual conference and exhibition will explore \u2018Plastics in Construction \u2013 Issues, Impacts and Alternatives\u2019<\/h2>\n

We know we need to wean ourselves off our plastic habit, which is going to be hard, given it is such an amazing product; light, durable and cheap.<\/p>\n

Construction is the second largest consumer of plastics behind retail. Single-use packaging is estimated to be a third of mixed waste leaving site. Much of this is then landfilled or sometimes fly-tipped, some is burnt and only 2-4% is actually recycled.<\/p>\n

It is estimated only 14% of plastics are collected to be recycled, with just 2% recycled in a closed loop, 8% down-cycled and 4% lost.\u00a0 Of the rest, 14% incinerated, 40% goes to landfill and 32% leaks into the environment.<\/p>\n

The largest response to a call for evidence on single-use plastics in the Treasury\u2019s history was received this summer, with 162,000 responses.<\/p>\n

And then there is the plastic in our construction products from flooring, insulation, paints and finishes, windows, doors, pipes, services etc, etc. How do we avoid unintended consequences of switching to alternatives? Where should we start?<\/p>\n

14 reasons it\u2019s complex!<\/h3>\n

1) We\u2019re addicted<\/strong>: Plastic is so common and in so many products we build with, it is difficult to know where to start or identify the low hanging fruit.<\/p>\n

2) Soooo many chemicals: <\/strong>The Overview of known plastic packaging-associated chemicals and their hazards lists contains 906 chemicals likely associated with plastic packaging and 3,377 substances that are possibly associated. The researchers stated: \u201cOur work was challenged by a lack of transparency and incompleteness of publicly available information on both the use and toxicity of numerous substances<\/a>.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

3) Information overload<\/strong>. We don\u2019t really know the health implications of human ingested plastics, so it is very difficult to take a risk based approach. 100,000 potentially neurotoxic substances are in commercial use and 2,300 new ones are produced each year. [i]<\/sup><\/a> How can we possibly keep up?<\/p>\n

4) So many plastics<\/strong>. We know plastics are everywhere; in natural insulation, OSB, and particleboard. This plastic is there for a reason and the product might not be fit for purpose without it. Which plastics are worst and why?<\/p>\n

5) We know there is a real danger of unintended consequences<\/strong>, from switching away. We need to be sure any switch, does actually reduce the environmental impact or performance, whilst being preferably being at no cost.<\/p>\n

6) Quality of Information<\/strong>: A detailed life cycle analysis and Environmental Product Declarations is the way forward but these are still relatively rare. It is difficult to compare across product groups or benchmark. Some manufacturer\u2019s claims are not evidenced based and do not stand up to scrutiny. Some of the information in the public domain is at best unhelpful \u2013 please see my note below on BPF.<\/p>\n

7) Some Life Cycle Analysis shows plastic is better \u2013<\/strong> The Environment Agency study on plastic bags<\/a> shows that in order to do better than a conventional \u2018single use\u2019 carrier bag, a paper bag would need to be reused 3 times, and the equivalent figures for LDPE bags for life and cotton bags were 4 times and 131 times respectively.<\/p>\n

8) Whilst being pretty sure there are links between plastics and health effects and allergies due to implications with plastics from phthalates, heavy metals, BPA, fire retardants, toxicity, etc. we lack the evidence<\/strong> to support this.<\/p>\n

9) Although the inhalation of toxic smoke is the biggest killer<\/a> and the largest cause of injury in fires, it is very much the neglected area of fire science and fire safety<\/strong> engineering.<\/p>\n

10) Is plastic just the wrong stuff in the wrong place<\/strong> or is it the right stuff that needs improved stewardship?<\/p>\n

11) New words such as Nurdle<\/strong>: A 2018 survey by FIDRA<\/a>\u00a0revealed that 93% of our beaches have plastic nurdles on them, with one 100m stretch of beach in Cornwall having an estimated 10m nurdles<\/a>. This is a common form like a lentil for transportation for plastics. However, tracing the nurdles back to a source is complex.<\/p>\n

12) Should we be purchasing on the basis of recycled content<\/strong> and what are the issues around legacy stabilisers, such as cadmium and lead? Should we be viewing the built environment as a sink for waste plastic? Bath University estimate 10% of sand could be replaced in concrete<\/a>.<\/p>\n

13) Are bio-plastics<\/strong> the next problem waiting to happen?<\/p>\n

14) Finally, why would we switch? Plastics are amazing<\/strong>.<\/p>\n