construction waste

7/29/2019 construction waste

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/construction-waste 1/22

developing a strategic approach to construction waste

20 year strategy draft for comment




2

Contents

Contact details for consultation responses:Gilli HobbsBRE, Garston, Watford WD25 9XXT: +44 (0) 1923 664856E: [email protected]

www.bre.co.uk

Developing a strategic approach to construction waste – 20 year strategy 3

Background 3

Approach to developing a strategy 3

Forward look at construction and impacts in relation to resource efficiency 4

Key issues moving forward relating to material resource efficiency 7

Developing long term targets for construction resource efficiency 8

Overview 8

1 Construction waste: Housing 9

2 Refurbishment waste: Housing 12

3 Demolition waste: All sectors 14

4 Modelling the way to achieving the strategy and targets – actions 17

Glossary 22




Developing a strategic approach to construction waste – 20 year strategy

Background

Construction, demolition and refurbishment accounts for around 100 million tonnes

of waste in the UK each year (see Figure 1). About half of this waste is recycled, from

the demolition sector and par ts of the construction sector. Over 400 million tonnes of

resources are also consumed by the construction industry each year, suggesting that

greater scope for waste reduction, reuse and recycling exists.

Due to the high amounts of waste generated by construction activity, the sector has

become a priority for Defra and the BREW (Business Resource Efficiency and Waste)

programme in terms of diverting waste from landfill and reducing the costs of waste

and resource management. This means that the BREW delivery partners are providing

increasing levels of support for this sector. These delivery partners include:

Carbon Trust

DTI Technology Programme

Environment Agency

Envirowise

Market Transformation Programme (MTP)

National Industrial Symbiosis Programme (NISP)

Regional Development Agencies (RDAs)

Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP).

Alongside these programmes, a pilot project Dvlpng A Statgc Appach T

Cnstctn Wast has been established. A partnership between BRE and AEAT,

this pilot project has arisen through the need to align BREW activities with the needs

of the construction sector in achieving resource efficiency. In the short term, a review of

current support and guidance has been cross referenced against industry views on what

they feel will help them most.

A longer term goal is to identify activities and drivers that will dictate the future direction

of the construction sector. The threats and opportunities presented by changing

practices will be mapped out in relation to resource efficiency. The final outcome of this

work will be a 20 year strategy (in the form of a road-map) that will model the way to

achieving reductions in waste, environmental impact and primary resource use. This will

be available in March 2007.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

approach to developing a strategy

Data relating to the composition , cause and amount of waste relating to construction

is fairly limited and does not promote long term assessment of how waste can be

prevented or more effectively managed into the future . Rather than let a lack of data

hold things up, an alternative approach is to identify what the industry could be

aiming for, i.e. a target, and then set up/reinforce the mechanisms needed to achieve

the target and monitor progress towards it.

Therefore, the approach to developing this strategy document has been:

A forward look at construction, along with threats/opportunities in relation to

waste and resource efficiency

Develop long term targets for improvement – where possible related to

baseline data

Model the way to achieving these targets – short/medium term actions (these

will be cross referenced to existing/planned programmes in BREW and outside

of BREW)

Identify data and actions needed to support development and implementation

of the strategy.

•

•

•

•

The waste and resources impact of construction is important in terms of profitability, non renewable resource depletion and the environmental impact of building. A 20year strategy for developing targets and actions for improvement is presented here. This will be used to steer government policy, such as the Waste Strategy, and support

provided to the construction sector.

Vws sght: Plas cmmnt n any pat f ths daft Statgy, y vws and nfmatn a vy wlcm. Th pptnty t cmmnt and

vs th cntnt s pn t all ntl 10 Nvmb 2006.

Agriculture (<1%)

Mining and quarrying (29%)

Sewage sludge (<1%)

Dredged materials (5%)

Household (9%)

Commercial (11%)

Industrial (14%)

Construction and demolition (32%)

Figure 1 Estimated total annual waste arisings, by sector United Kingdom

Source: Defra, ODPM, Environment Agency, Water UK




forward look at construction and impacts in relation to resource efficiency

The way in which construction might change, or continue unchanged, into the future is likely to be very relevant to achieving waste reduction, and greater reuse and recycling.

This question was posed at a recent industry workshop to get a view of construction in the future and impacts in relation to resource efficiency. Table 1 below summarises the

responses and other widely expressed views.

Table 1 Future construction and potential impacts and resource efficiency

Scna f ft cnstctn

(t ya 2025 )

Ptntal mpact n cnstctn sc ffcncy

Clmat chang

Low carbon buildings required at new build The design of new building types (probably off site fabricated) offers opportunities to embed resource efficiency intotheir life cycle. However, waste reduction, reuse and recycling becomes less important unless clearly aligned to the lowcarbon agenda. This requires construction material flows and options to be fully quantified and evaluated.

Retrofitting of existing buildings to lower carbonemissions – incentives to reward/offset costs

Greater amounts of waste arising from refurbishment and the provision of replacement products/materials. Unlessaligned to low carbon, as detailed above, this will be considered an acceptable consequence of achieving reducedcarbon emissions from the operational phase of buildings .

Increased demolition of buildings, especially thosenot able/viable for energy efficiency upgrade

This is a likely consequence, especially in the drive to fit more homes on existing built land. Currently the bulk of C&Dwaste is related to demolition (though we don’t know what the proportion is ). Demolition rates are around 20,000homes/year today. Estimates of 4 times this amount to meet the 60% carbon emission reduction have been suggested.This would significantly increase the amount of C&D waste from 100 MT/year to anything between 200 – 300 MT/year.Unless reprocessing facilities/markets are developed at a similar rate, resources will be lost/devalued and the percentagelandfilled will increase.

For example, opportunities need to be provided for planned re-use of demolition products at local plan level, such asuse of masonry components for internal thermal mass in lightweight buildings.

Glbal/Clmat Chang

Rapidly changing climate, both in physical andpolitical sense.

This could make it difficult to st ick to targets and systematic approaches to resource efficiency i.e . crisis managementrather than agreed, long term solutions . It is also difficult for industry to invest in new technologies and infrastructure if there is uncertainty into the future e.g. the long running debate over energy from waste v. recycling.

As above, potential for ‘inside-out’ buildings of lightweight insulated frames with interior thermal mass. Potential fit withcarbon/climate agenda and resource efficiency, but needs evaluation.

Adaptable and flexible buildings The effects of climate change and unpredictable demographics could lead to a generation of buildings that are betterequipped to change e.g. heating to cooling, home to office space. This would be beneficial in terms of waste reduction.The absence of adaptable buildings wi ll increase construction activity to provide change of use/per formance. This would

in turn increase waste.

Lgslatn/plcy

Price of wasted products/materials, labour anddisposal/recycling increases higher than inflationlevels

Cost of waste and potential to reduce costs through waste reduction should increase accordingly. More transparencycould be derived through whole li fe costing techniques that correctly value this element . Environmental crime willincrease unless producers are complying with their Duty of Care obligations .

Subject to EU legislation below, might provide financial drivers towards local economies in construction materials:

High value materials with ‘inherent’ reclamation value

Natural materials with low embodied carbon (minimal transport & processing) with zero waste options at end of

life.

1�

2�




Scna f ft cnstctn

(t ya 2025 )

Ptntal mpact n cnstctn sc ffcncy

Increased levels of construction, especially in thehousing sector, within affordability constraints.Overhaul of planning, supply chain and skil ls issuesto facilitate this.

Could lead to further waste if less time available to reduce, reuse, recycle. Incentives to retain and recruit good peoplecould reduce waste. Planning could be used to greater effect in achieving better levels of environmental performance.Supply chain integration should reduce waste and promote continuous improvement. H & S requirements may precludesome types of reclamation or recycling. More integrated services required for collection/segregation/consolidation of construction waste.

Further legislation from EU on:

Construction products

Producer responsibility

Life cycle impacts/integrated product policy

1�

2�

3�

May restrict recycled content or the use of reclaimed products/materials on grounds of performance or local

emissions e.g. indoor air quality materials and the accumulation of hazardous materials.

Greater take back of offcuts, packaging, end of life waste.

Greater reliance on life cycle data and verification, with further improvements in design, distribution and end-of- life

recycling.

1�

2�

3�

Bsnss

Bsnss – cst dctnPerformance based contracting – procuring onfunction rather than labour, plant and materials

Design, build and management of buildings should bring about improvements in terms of resource efficiency i.e. vestedinterest to keep whole life costs, which includes cost of products/materials, construction, refurbishment and demolitionwaste. Important that these elements are costed correctly in whole life costing techniques.

Bsnss – qalty and spdGrowing market share of off-site fabricatedbuildings and components

High levels of water and energy efficiency designed in. Reduction in traditional site waste with increase in packagingwaste. Shorter lifespan buildings – increase in demolition waste, especially by volume. Changing composition of demolition waste from highly recyclable to difficult to recycle.

Bsnss – qalty and spd

Growing standardisation of building types andproducts

For planned building programmes, such as schools and prisons, there is great scope to produce a optimum design basedupon standardised components. This improves predictability of the construction programme and should reduce costs.Ideally, standardisation will have additional objectives of reduced waste and improved durability.

Bsnss – lw nnng csts

Zero/low maintenance buildings

This could be beneficial if it means that buildings last longer i.e . less chance of failure through neglect. Alternative couldbe that actual service life of building elements is reduced leading to greater levels of refurbishment/demolition waste.

Bsnss – ncas pfts

Investment requires better returns on built assetwith lower financial risk

New technologies, products and materials that increase recycled content and/or reduce waste are considered higherrisk until they have been proven. Demonstration, testing and third party approval will need to be accompanied bydemonstrable and financial benefits to developers. Increasingly stringent planning conditions will only work if thefinancial returns are worth it.

Bsnss – cmpttn

Global competition increases and/or local supplybecomes more important

Around 40% of construction is procured by government, which is bound by procurement rules that promote globalcompetition. Sustainable procurement will become increasingly important, both private and public, with haulage of resources in and waste out becoming less acceptable. Reuse of on-site resources will be a possible way of satisfyingboth procurement rules and proximity principles.

See above comments on local material economy – predictions needed on future world energy scenarios and how this

might affect composition of construction materials sector.

Bsnss – capacty

Keeping up with new build requirements

The current rate of housing replacement is around 0.1% of the stock. At that rate, houses will have to last for a 1000years. Although this is not likely to be the case, it is obvious that the buildings around in 20 years time will be mostlythose here today i.e . the building of the future is already built. In terms of resource efficiency, the main implications arethose of dealing with the current building legacy, for example hazardous materials.




When producing a forward look it is important to be aware that things rarely go to

plan. To illustrate this, detailed below are 2 scenarios presented by the ‘Big Ideas’[1]

project using the same drivers of increasing legislation, technological change, a move

towards considering the whole life cycle of buildings, and changes within construction

education; the outcomes are very different.

[1] The Big Ideas project is about helping the industry to be prepared for future change. They’ll do this

by first producing a range of possible future scenarios, and then use these to work with construction

organisations and professionals. Their aim is to assess the likelihood of different futures, and to think

about the steps that could be taken to prepare for and exploit future oppor tunities, and mitigate or avoidless positive outcomes. www.thebigideas.org.uk

Obviously, there is scope to influence the future direction but this will be constrained

by other drivers. This suggests that there is limited value in setting targets and

agreeing a road-map unless there is a long term commitment to refine and adapt the

strategy in line with construction.

CoNSTruCTioN iN 2025: SCeNArio 1

Increasing legislation and regulation of both building performance, and the

activities of construction, at national, international and global levels over the last

two decades has opened up new markets for UK construction firms. Common

standards have allowed expansion of the national construction sector into a

global arena. Construction professionals are in great demand as being able tonavigate this legislation. A significant shift towards a holistic, lifecycle based

approach has integrated design, construction and facility management, and has

integrated a previously fragmented landscape. Work allocation has shifted from

short term construction to long term service provision. This has also allowed

construction firms to expand their competencies into new areas of facility

operations and management.

Shifts in technology have also produced some radical changes. New materials

and ways of producing them have heralded the long anticipated switch from

construction being a primarily site-based industr y, to an off-site one. Economies

of scale can now be generated, driving down the costs of building, as well as

ensuring that sustainability issues are addressed through using energy efficient ,

clean materials. Today’s buildings are able to monitor, clean and maintain

themselves, using ‘smart’ cladding systems, nano technology and intelligent

computers. The predictability offered by manufactured components has

replaced the uncertainties of previous bespoke methods. On-site technology

has also introduced benefits. The use of robotic machinery to undertake work

in hazardous areas has improved construction’s health and safety record to an

impeccable standard. The use of common ICT systems to coordinate work has

made the construction process more transparent, allowing clients to gain a better

understanding of construction methods, and to take a proactive role in design.

Education has played its part . The training of construction professionals is directedat producing more flexible and adaptable people, who have an understanding

of the whole construction process, from design to FM and who are aware of the

benefits of using new materials and ICT enabled processes.

CoNSTruCTioN iN 2025: SCeNArio 2

Increasing legislation and regulation at national, international and global levels

over the last two decades has opened up the UK market to intense competition

from foreign competitors at the expense of UK based firms. Common standards

have tightly constrained construction practices, and construction professionals’

main activities consist of wading through this extensive regulation. A significantshift towards a holistic, lifecycle based approach has integrated design ,

construction and facility management has meant that only firms large enough to

manage the whole of the construction and FM process have survived. Specialist

SME’s have all but d isappeared from the sector. Construction itself has become a

loss-leader into more stable FM and service provision

Shifts in technology have also produced some radical changes. New materials

and ways of producing them have heralded the long anticipated switch from

construction being a primarily site-based industry, to an off-site one pushing

site-based skills into terminal decline. This is causing severe difficulties in

maintaining and repairing older buildings. The increased use of manufactured

components has also allowed firms from outside the traditional construction

sector to enter and increase competition further and has meant a move away

from bespoke and individual buildings, much to the detriment of the built

environment generally. On-site technology has also brought about change. The

use of robotic machinery to undertake work in hazardous on-site areas has

sealed another nail in the coffin of the traditional trades. The use of common

ICT systems to coordinate work has led to even more standardisation of

process, at the expense of the subjective and creative abilities of construction

professionals. Novelty and innovation are severely stilted.

Education has played its part . The training of construction professionals is directed

at producing people with an understanding of construction as an IT drivenprocess, where accountability is directed towards standards and regulation rather

than the aesthetically driven architects and engineers of the past. Traditional

disciplinary distinctions have gone.




key issues moving forward relating to material

resource efficiency

climate change

Climate change, and hence carbon emissions , will be a key driving force in changing

construction over the next 20 years. This has a major impact on waste reduction,

reuse and recycling in terms of prioritisation of building type, materials, products and

new technologies. There is little suggestion that this step change to reduce carbon

will have an equal reduction in material resource use. In fact it could have an adverse

effect if material resources are considered far less important than energy resources.

Two key points with regard to material efficiency/embodied carbon and the low-

carbon-operation are:

The more energy-efficient a building is, then the greater the proportional carbon

significance of its materials. Very typical figures for a conventional building with

a 100 year life would be that embodied C emissions from materials are about

10% of total emissions over building lifespan, or 10 years’ worth . In a building

with 40% of the operational energy requirements of a conventional building (the

40% House), assuming absolute embodied C is similar, then embodied C will be

more like 22% of total lifetime emissions. By the time you get to the 20% House,

embodied C is more like 36% of total emissions.

If building lifespans are reducing. On a 50-year lifespan, the proportions of

embodied C to overall C emissions are as follows:

100% House – embodied C 22% of total

40% House – embodied C 36% of total

20% House – embodied C 53% of total.

These are rough estimates, but it is entirely plausible that material impacts will equal

or outweigh operational impacts in the future. Therefore material resource efficiency

should be integrated into the energy-efficiency agenda on a proper (carbon) basis.

This will have wide-ranging impacts on material selection and end-of- life solutions.

new products/Building systems/ways of working

Partly to respond to climate change, but mainly to deliver affordable buildings that

can be quickly constructed, traditional construction will be replaced by standardised

and factory produced buildings and elements . This may result in lower amounts of site

based construction waste but off-site waste, lifespan and recyclability of demolition

waste need to be factored in to give a whole life view of waste and resource use.

Standardisation will enable a more focussed approach to waste reduction and resource

efficiency to be developed, i.e. target the resource use of a few standardised products/

elements and the impact will be far greater than trying to influence several thousand.

This could be linked to sustainable procurement, in that better performing products/

elements become the standard, e.g. A rated in the Green Guide to Specification.

1�

2�

legislation/policy

Producer Responsibility could be extended to all products and Integrated Product

Policy along the lines of the Energy Using Products Directive. The result of this would

be two fold – firstly, the l ife cycle impacts of products will need to be evaluated

and possibly rated; secondly, that manufacturers will have to consider the resource

implications of their products across the whole life cycle . This should have a very

positive effect on waste production, and will also promote reuse and recycling where

they offer improved life cycle impact. Construction products are already assessing

their life cycle impact through Environmental Profiles[2], making improvements based

upon the results is the next step.

conclusions

To be aligned with low carbon building – material use, waste, reuse and recycling

should be quantifiable in terms of carbon. Improvements should result in carbon

savings.

Demolition and refurbishment waste are likely to increase. Traditional markets for

these materials are likely to decline. This will mean that current levels of reuse and

recycling will be hard to sustain.

Modern methods of construction (MMC) will become more widespread.

Resource use and waste over a fixed period, e.g. 100 years, should be compared

for traditional versus MMC as part of the drive to reduce environmental impacts.

Systems and products that give the best overall environmental performance and

whole life cost should be promoted.

Standardisation could promote large scale improvements in environmental

performance. It is important that material resource efficiency is developed

alongside other environmental criteria.

Life cycle assessment is the basis for making robust decisions on improving the

environmental performance of products, elements and buildings. Although

adopted by some product manufacturers, this has not been applied across the

sector and default information has to be used for wastage rates and proportion

of waste that is reused/recycled. Impacts relating to material resource efficiency

should be accessible for a particular product within overall LCA, e.g. the net

environmental gain of making certain improvements could be move from one

rating to a higher one.

Vws sght: Plas cmmnt n ths fwad lk. Wh y hav

dffng addtnal pnts, spptng data/ nfmatn s vy

wlcm.

[2] Life Cycle Assessment methodology for construction products – www.bre.co.uk

•

•

•

•

•




Developing long term targets for construction resource efficiency

With little baseline data, targets and related action plans are not going to be entirely

robust and will require further development. However, this strategy proposes a route

to defining how this could be derived with industry and policy makers. It also tries to

illustrate the scale of impact of adopting one target/approach over another. Long term

targets for waste reduction, reuse and recycling are the best way to define what can be

achieved and focus our combined efforts within the framework of a combined target.

This is not easy to do for a wastestream that is fragmented in the following ways:

Waste is being produced and sent to landfill by the actions of the whole

supply chain – manufacture, distribution, design , construction, maintenance,

refurbishment, demolition, (resource management).

Waste from manufacture, construction, refurbishment and demolition are

lumped together for reporting purposes but are different in terms of amounts,composition, causes, levels of integration and separation.

However, different targets for each part of the supply chain or activity would be less

meaningful unless set against overarching, global targets i .e. each will have a role

to play in reaching the target but the actions and relative contribution may differ in

accordance with their ability to del iver. An example of this could be waste reduction

and demolition waste, whereby the only realistic way to prevent demolition waste

would be to have a longer lasting building – this is not something the demolition

sector can achieve. It is more the design, durability of products/materials and

maintenance of the building that can achieve waste reduction in this instance.

•

•

overview

Waste is being produced through manufacture, distribution, design , construction,

refurbishment and demolition. To illustrate how targets could be set across the

construction sector, the following have been expanded upon:

Construction waste – new build housing

Refurbishment waste – housing

Demolition waste – all sectors

Following consultation, subject to having usable data and continued support, it

is planned to improve the confidence of the approach and targets, and include all

sectors for construction and refurbishment waste.

Vws sght: Manfact, dstbtn and dsgn all cntbt

t ths wasts t a vayng xtnt. Vws n whth ths aas

shld b xpandd n spaatly (and why) wld b wlcm.

1�

2�

3�

Figure 2 Construction and demolition waste overview

envnmntal pfmanc ndcat

m3 wast/100 m2 fl12 20 14 22

Construction and demolition waste

Manufacture Distribution Design Construction Refurbishment Demolition

Hospitals Housing Offices Schools




1 Construction waste: Housing

Amounts of waste produced from different types of construction are starting to be

developed[3] and improved upon. Some initial Environmental Performance Indicators

are given below – these are given as m3 waste per 100 m2 floor area, which allows

for like for like comparison; and m3/£100,000 which can be greatly influenced by the

regional, design and material costs, see Table 2.

Table 2 Environmental Performance Indicators

D = Dmltn

e = excavatnG = Gndwks

M = Manfam

S = Svcs

P = Pattns

F = Ft-t

C i v i l

n g i n i n g

L i s u

H a l t h C a /

H s p i t a l s

r s i d n t i a l

o f f i c

e d u c a t i n /

S c h l s

Bnchmaks e,G, M G, M,S, P, F

G, M,S, P, F

G, M,S, P, F

G, M,S, P, F

G, M,S, P, F

Key PerformanceIndicator (KPI)= m3/£100,000project value

52.3 6.1 7.9 17.3 8.4 13.2

Environmentalperformance Indicator(EPI) = m3/100m2

61.7 3.7 11.7 19.2 14.1 22.2

[3] Environmental Performance Indicators and other waste benchmarking in construction is subject to

development through the National Benchmarking Project – contact [email protected]

amount of waste per house

23 housing projects have submitted benchmarking data to Smartstart[4]. A summary

of results is given in Table 3.

Table 3 Benchmarking data

Pjct Typ Hsng ePi (m3 wast/100 m2)

Avag

Wast Gprsdntal x

23 n

Cnvsn

factTnns

Timber 1.3 0.3 0.39

Concrete 2.5 1.11 2.775

Inert 1.1 1.3 1.43Ceramic 2.8 0.78 2.18

Insulation 1.0 0.16 0.16

Plastic 0.6 0.22 0.132

Packaging 2.9 0.55 1.59

Metal 1.3 0.8 1.04

Plaster & Cement 3.2 0.4 1.28

Miscellaneous 2.5 0.4 1.0

Ttal ePi 19.2 11.997

The average amount of waste produced across these sites is 19.2 m3 waste per

100 m2 floor area (the environmental performance indicator – EPI). Taking this figure

and applying it to a typical semi of 80 m2 gives an average material waste generationof 15.36 m3 of waste per house. When adding in an average 50% void space in the

skips that would collect this waste – this equates to around 30 m3 of skipped waste.

A typical skip has a volume of 6.125 m3, so around 5 skips will be needed to contain

the waste from 1 house. Based upon the Environment Agency conversion factors, the

weight of waste from our generic house is 9.6 tonnes.

[4] Waste benchmarking tool, part of the BREEAM family – www.smartwaste.co.uk

Typical house 80m2 Ë 15.36m3 waste materials Ë 5 skips

£6715

15.36 m2 per houseË 5 skips or 9.6 tonnes

Figure 3 Generic house construction waste




10

cost of waste per house

Studies[5] have shown that a typical construction skip costs around £1343 when you

add the cost of the skip to the cost of labour and materials that fill it. The breakdown

of this is:

Skip hire £85 (quite low compared to current prices) – 6.4% of cost

Labour to fill it £163 – 12.1% of cost

Cost of materials in skip £1095 – 81.5% of cost

Therefore, the financial cost of waste for our generic house is for 5 skips, around

£6715, and rising.

£6715 per houseË

£5439 cost of materials, £812 labour, £430 skip cost

carBon dioxide equivalent/emBodied energy of waste product

per house

The products and materials that are wasted during the construction process have life

cycle impacts associated with their material extraction, production and distribution.

It is even more difficult to make estimates here due to the lack of data in both the

material composition of this wastestream and the l ife cycle impacts associated with

the production, distribution and installation of the associated wasted products.

A possible approach could be as follows:

Convert the 9.6 tonnes of materials in each category to number of ecopoints[6]

Combine all the ecopoints and then convert these to an equivalent tonnes of

carbon dioxide

We have gone through this process with the limited data we have and made various

assumptions. The end result is that the 9.6 tonnes of waste produced by our generic

house has a carbon dioxide equivalent of around 5.44 tonnes.[7]

[5] Amec – Darlington study

[6] Ecopoints are a combination of 13 impacts that feed into the BRE environmental profile of products and

materials i.e. a life cycle assessment.

[7] Minimising CO2 emissions from new homes 2nd edition – AECB 2006

•

•

•

1�

2�

Baseline for new housing and construction waste

Around 190,000 houses were built 2004/05 financial year [8]. If this continues to be

the case, the impact for new housing alone is very approximately:

If these figures are anywhere near reality, they are very good reasons to reduce them,

as illustrated next.

develop targets [] [10]

[8] DCLG Housing statistics

[9] Zero net waste principle – the amount of waste sent to landfill is balanced with an equal amount of

recycled content

[10] Please note these figures are illustrative and speculative, based on minimal data.

Wastd pdct p hs

5.44 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent

Homes built to Part L have estimated emissions relating to heating and power of

around 2-4 tonnes CO2 per year

P ya:

2,918,400 m3 f wast

1,824,000 tonnes or 950,000 skips

£1,275,850,000 (includes £1,039,817,750 cost of wasted product)

1,033,600 tonnes CO2 equivalent. This amount is the same amount of CO2

emitted from driving a Ford Focus Ghia 1.6 from earth to the sun and back 20

times. Or represents 0.18% of UK CO2 emissions for 2004.

optn 1– Cnt bst pactc– nw hsng

Following best practice in terms of reuse, take back of offcuts, recyclingand reducing waste through sitepractices could have the followingeffect on new housing waste.

Baseline 2,918,400 m3 of waste or1,824,000 tonnes assume:

15% reduced

5% reused

60% recycled

20% landfilled

Waste reduction is 273,600 tonnes

Applying the zero net waste principle,364,800 tonnes of recycled contentwould be needed.

Savings from reduction (£1343 perskip) and not paying landfill tax(£40 per skip) –

£214,177,500

Reduction in carbon dioxide equivalentthrough reduction of new housingwaste only could be in the region of:155,040 tonnes per year

•

•

•

•

optn 2 - Cnt bst pactcand dc wast by 50% – nwhsng

Reducing waste by 50% is moredifficult to achieve but is essential if significant financial and CO2 equivalentreductions are to be attained.

Baseline 2,918,400 m3 of waste or1,824,000 tonnes, assume:

50% reduced

40% recycled

10% landfilled

Waste reduction is 912,000 tonnes

Applying the zero net waste principle,364,800 tonnes of recycled contentproduces a positive net waste i.e.higher recycled content than wastesent to landfill.

Savings from reduction (£1343 perskip) and not paying landfill tax(£40 per skip) –

£653,125,000

Reduction in carbon dioxide equivalentthrough reduction of new housingwaste only could be in the region of:

516,000 tonnes per year

•

•

•




11

rsng csts f sc managmnt

Resource management costs are rising each year, it was not possible to predict by

how much. Discussions with industry experts suggest that resource management

costs will approximately double over the next ten years, from around £55 per tonne

to £120 per tonne[11]. Therefore, it is important to note that savings estimated

from the 2 options should be set against these rises to determine when they will be

overtaken these rising costs . Some factoring in of corresponding increased savings

(e.g. not paying higher landfill tax on recycled waste) would also provide a better

model of when this might happen.

[11] Peter Jones, Biffa

Allcatn f tagts

Big reductions in waste will not be possible unless they are accrued throughout the

supply chain. Therefore, it would be useful to be able to allocate the target of 50%

waste reduction across the relevant supply chain i.e . distributed in accordance with

the ability to deliver those savings. Unfortunately lit tle data exists that would support

this approach. An idea of what this might look like is given in Figure 4 below – please

note the given allocations are only for illustration and have little basis of evidence.

0

2

4

6

8

10Target

Baseline

TotalSite practiceDesignDistributionManufacture

Tonnes of waste per home

Figure 4 Option 2 Allocation of target – Baseline vs target waste per house

end f cnstctn wast sctn.

S als: rcmmndd actns n Sctn 4.

Vws sght: Plas cmmnt n th basln, appach and sltng tagt. Spptng data/nfmatn s patclaly wlcm.




12

There is very little data available on waste arising from housing refurbishment. The

following argument uses heavily extrapolated figures for illustrative purposes. It is

probable that actual figures are significantly higher; these need to form the basis of

ongoing research.

arisings

Capital refurbishment works to local authority dwellings in England are currently

generating an estimated 470,000 m3 of waste from around 750,000 refurbishment

packages per year. Decent Homes refurbishments are expected to continue into

the future on a rolling programme at similar levels until 2025 and beyond (although

there may be some acceleration towards the 2010 Decent Homes target year).

Table 4 summarises expected arisings of principal waste categories by refurbishment

package.

Extrapolating these figures[12] to local authorities in Wales, Scotland & Northern

Ireland[13], we estimate a steady annual total of UK local authority refurbishment

waste of approximately 650,000 m3. Extrapolating further to other tenures[14], we

would expect the following breakdown of UK annual housing refurbishment waste

arisings:

Table 5 UK annual housing refurbishment waste arisings

Local authority 650,956 m3

RSL 368,850 m3

Owner occupied 3,624,353 m3

Private rented 504,121 m3

Ttal 5,148,280 m3

costs & disposal

Waste arising from refurbishment projects, especially in private dwell ings, is

particularly problematic because:

Domestic refurbishment work, unless programmed by local authorities or RSLs,

tends to be small-scale with little opportunity for strategic resource efficiency

planning.

Domestic refurbishment work tends to be carried out by SME contractors with

limited awareness of or practical policies on resource efficiency.

Mixed waste is generated in small quantities with little or no site space availablefor storage and segregation, and little or no on-site reprocessing or reuse

potential. Waste containers used will generally be smaller and more costly per m3

capacity than for new construction.

[12] This assumes a similar ratio of refurbishment packages to overall stock levels.

[13] Decent Homes analogues exist in these countries, such as the Welsh Housing Quality Standard (target

date 2012).

[14] Based on 2003 tenure profile, but not allowing for different refurbishment profiles.

•

•

•

2 Refurbishment waste: Housing

Table 4 Expected arisings of principal waste categories by refurbishment package

Wast Gp

estmatd annal wast vlm m3 by fbshmnt packag, england LA dwllngs*

rwng

rf

stct rf cvng Wndws Ds

Cntal

hatng Ktchns Bathms

Timber 18039 12042 33062 45131 42222 7661

Concrete

Inert

Ceramic 22984

Insulation 12026

Plastic 4672 15322

Packaging 9345 28013 21111 15322

Metal 9345 70033

Plaster & cement 13224 11283 14006 31666 22983

Miscellaneous 9345 3967

Ttals 32707 18039 24068 50253 56414 112052 94999 84272* Based on actual work carried out 2004-5, data from local authority Business Plan statistical returns to DCLG.




1

A high proportion of waste is believed to consist of composite products with

little or no reclamation value and limited recycling potential. Small volumes

of recyclable materials may be segregated off-site and recycled, but with no

associated financial reward to the contractor.

Skip void space is likely to be higher than for construction waste, given both

the nature of the waste (which will include removed items and assemblies with

built-in voids) and logistics (different waste materials generated at same time, no

intermediate storage available).

These factors will tend to increase the direct costs of waste disposal from

refurbishment compared to that from new construction, and at the same time to limit

towards zero opportunities for on-site segregation. At the same time, the financial

value of materials skipped will be lower than for construction, assuming that 80%

of these are end-of-life materials whose costs have already been apportioned over

their purchase and use. Factoring in the above inefficiencies and material values, we

propose a ‘true cost ’ of £562 per 6.125 m3 skip, broken down as:

Skip hire £150 plus added 20% for increased voids = £180

Labour to fill £163

Cost of new materials in skip (20% by volume) £219

Given the small scale of many refurbishment projects, this figure of £562 may

represent a minimum waste disposal cost. This needs to be established empirically.

carBon dioxide equivalent/emBodied energy

Based on the waste profile for the Decent Homes refurbishment packages above,

it is possible to put a tentative figure on the carbon dioxide impacts represented by

the embodied energy of the waste materials[15]. Each m3 of refurbishment waste

matching this profile is associated with emissions of approximately 750 kg CO2.

Average CO2 impact per refurbishment package is approximately 500 kg.

[15] Figures derived from the BRE Environmental Profiles database

•

•

•

•

•

Baseline for housing refurBishment

Based on the projected refurbishment scenario outlined above, the total annual UK

impacts for domestic refurbishment alone are certain to exceed :

5,148,280 m3 of waste, equivalent to 367,685 tonnes[16] or 840,000 skips

Emissions of 4 million tonnes CO2

Disposal costs of £472 million

A major caveat is that refurbishment drivers in the owner-occupied and private rented

sectors are very different, and the profiles of refurbishment work and waste arisings

will also differ. Extension and renovation works by owner-occupiers will produce

significant quantities of inert, concrete , ceramic, cement and plaster waste not

predicted by the Decent Homes refurbishment pattern. This will affect overall waste

volumes and composition of relative material masses and carbon impacts . This needs

further investigation.

There is a lack of data concerning the recycling and disposal routes for refurbishment

waste; the situation being further complicated by the fact that a significant but

unverifiable proportion of segregation currently takes place off site.

At present, there is insufficient confidence in the baseline data to consider future

options and targets.

end f fbshmnt wast sctn.

S als: rcmmndd actns n Sctn 4.

Vws sght: Plas cmmnt n th assmptns and appach.

Th was nt ngh data t attmpt t st baslns tagts, s

any spptng data/ nfmatn wld b vy wlcm.

[16] Based on the Decent Homes refurbishment profile, and not taking conversion/extension works into

account

•

•

•




1

An estimated 26 million tonnes of demolition materials are produced each year

– please note this is based on best data available and should be used for guidance

only. This is broken down in Table 6 below.

Table 6 Demolition materials

TypAmnt asngs

(tnns)Pcntag Data sc

Hardcore 21 million tonnes 81%NFDC Annual

Returns 20052

Mixed C&D waste 1.7 million tonnes 6.5%NFDC AnnualReturns 2005

Reclaimedmaterials 3.3 million tonnes 12%

BigRec Survey19983

The hardcore material represents materials such as concrete, aggregates, glass,

bricks and blocks. The mixed C&D waste includes materials such as plastics, timber,

composites and will originate largely from soft-strip activities (i .e. the removal

of interior fixtures and fittings ). The reclaimed materials include items such as

architectural and ornamental antiques, reclaimed materials (timber beams andflooring, bricks, tiles, paving and stone walling), salvaged materials (iron and steel

and timber) and antique bathrooms. It should be noted that an update of the BigRec

survey is currently being replicated as part of the this project as anecdotal evidence

suggests that there has been a fall in the amount of materials being reclaimed. No

figures are included for metals as these were unavailable at the time of writing.

Typical composition of demolition waste is given in Figure 5. This is based on pre-

demolition audits carried out at BRE. It is assumed that all of the hardcore materials

are recycled and that the mixed demolition waste is landfilled (based on NFDC data).

Current practice in terms of waste management is shown in Figure 6. In terms of

applying the principles of the waste hierarchy to demolition arisings – reduction is

not applicable unless the decision is taken to reuse/refurbish the building rather than

demolish. Therefore the two principle waste management routes are reclamation (i.e.

reusing products preferably in the same application) and then recycling (i .e. using the

material for a product).

In terms of the landfill of demolition waste, 32% (0.5 million tonnes) is hazardous

waste. 80% of materials recycled (i.e. hardcore) includes the recycling of 53% on site

and the remaining 47% off site. The current recycling rates of 80% although high,

hide the fact that the it is usually low grade recycling; with the potential for high-

grade reuse higher. This has an impact in terms the cost benefits and environmentally.

3 Demolition waste: All sectors

Other (7%)

Timber (4%)

Metals (3%)

Masonry (32%)

Concrete (54%)

Recycled (80%)

Reclaimed (13%)

Landfilled (7%)

Hardcore usedon-site (16%)

Hardcore removedoff-site (27%)

Hardcore crushed on-sitefor use on-site (37%)

Hardcore crushed on-sitefor off-site sale (20%)

Figure 5 Typical composition of waste

Figure 6 Waste management – current practice

Figure 7 Hardcore recycling rates




1

setting longer term targets - Best practice

In terms of setting longer term targets, best practice from pre-demolition audits

carried out by BRE indicates that landfill could decrease to 4% from 7%, recycling

decrease from 80% to 68% with an increase in reclamation from 13% to 28%. This is

based on current buildings and technology used for demoli tion. No account has been

taken into account of the extra requirement for time and labour i .e. an increase in

reclamation would require more time to demolish and possibly more labour. However

the increased value of reclamation products would offset this.

In terms of achieving best practice, an assumption has been made that the level of

recycling on and off site remains the same as current practice. For landfill , the amount

of hazardous waste is assumed to be constant.

transportation

Emissions of CO2 have been calculated for the distances travelled for the demolition

arisings; obviously if material is being reused on site – only a tiny fraction of CO2 will

be attributed to transportation impacts. Therefore, assuming the maximum distance

for transportation of demolition arisings is 20 miles then the following CO2 emissions

from transportation apply, see Table 7.

Table 7 CO2 emissions

Co2 mssns fm tavllng 20 mls*

Demolition materials Current practice Best practice

Hardcore recycled on site

A saving of 21,000

tonnes

A saving of 18,200

tonnes

Hardcore recycled off site 18,400 tonnes 14,560 tonnes

Reclaimed materials 6,000 tonnes 12,740 tonnes

Landfilled 3,100 tonnes 1,820 tonnes

*Assuming 0.091kg of CO2 for 1 tonne every 1 mile travelled

Therefore, currently 21,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions are saved by recycling materials

on site through savings in transportation. By currently transporting materials from

site this generates 24,400 tonnes of CO2 emissions with an additional 3,100 tonnes

created from transporting this waste to landfill.

For the best practice scenario the amount of CO2 emissions increases – this is

because the amount of material salvaged for reuse increases requiring the movement

of materials offsite. However, it should be noted that reclaimed materials can travel

much further (between 100 to 7,500 miles[17]) before their environmental benefit is

lost against new materials.

impact of materials

Embodied energy has been calculated from the demolition materials and is shown

in Table 8 below[18]. The figures do not show the environmental impacts from the

different waste management options. These figures will also take into account

transportation impacts. It should be noted that the equivalent CO2 tonnes contained

in these materials will be lost when landfilled and a high proportion will be lost when

the materials are recycled as the materials are used in low grade applications (the

exact amount is currently unknown). In terms of reclaimed products, the equivalent

CO2 is not lost as the product is used again as a ’product’.

Table 8 Embodied energy

Typ f

dmltnasngs

ovall qvalnt n Co2 (tnns)

Data scsCnt pactc Bst pactc

Reclaimedmaterials

Reduction of 62,000 tonnes

Reduction of 72,000 tonnes

Based on Big RecSurvey data

Hardcore materials Increase of 3,900,000 tonnes

Increase of 3,300,000 tonnes

Based on a splitbetween concrete

and masonry

Mixed C&D waste Increase of 870,000 tonnes

Increase of 514,000 tonnes

Based on a splitbetween timber

and ‘other’materials

Ttal ovall ncasf 4.74 mllntnns f Co2

ovall ncasf 3.8 mllntnns f Co2

[17] BRE Green Guide to Specification

[18] These calculations have been derived from the BRE Environmental Profiles Database.

Disposal (4%)

Recycling (68%)

Reclaimed (28%)

Figure 8 Best practice targets for longer term






1

Table 10 summarises the immediate actions needed to develop this strategy and associated targets. Table 12 captures actions that could be taken across and within the supply

chain to improve resource efficiency in the short to medium term.

Table 10 Actions to develop strategy

Actns ndd t btt dfn th tagt – CoNSTruCTioN

Generate better Environmental Performance Indicators across the range of construction sectors and building types: amount, composition – volumes and tonnes (some

of this is being developed in the National Benchmarking project). Allocate across the supply chain if possible.

Develop wastage rates for commonly used construction products (actual rather than Laxton approach) and allocate across the supply chain. (Modelling of future waste

impacts for construction products being carried out by MTP)

Annual statistics on the flow of construction products and materials used in the UK (currently being explored in Strategic Approach to Construction Waste project)

Establish a common methodology for true waste costing for construction waste which is compatible with cost methods for refurbishment and demoli tion.

Predictions/modelling of the future costs of resource management related to specific waste types and regional differences e.g. inert , timber recycled, mixed landfill,

hazardous waste.

Establish a common methodology to derive the benefits of resource efficiency, allocate across the supply chain.

Establish robust methodology for predicting waste generation (some of this is being developed in the National Benchmarking project)

Establishing site, company, regional and national waste prevention targets (being explored in Strategic Approach to Construction Waste project)

Quantifying the waste impact of modern methods of construction and/or standardisation across the whole life of the building (being explored in DTI Be Aware Project;

by MTP, BRE – Design for Manufacture & SmartLIFE, WRAP and Envirowise)

Establish a method of carbon accounting for typical construction wastes and work packages, including a methodology for crediting/debiting offsite impacts in addition

to embodied energy impacts, including recycling pathways and disposal impacts

1�

2�

3�

4�

5�

6�

7�

8�

9�

10�

Actns ndd t btt dfn th tagt – reFurBiSHMeNT

Generate better data on housing refurbishment and waste profiles by tenure, and on public and commercial refurbishment by type e.g. shopfit ting, schools, hotels,

offices etc. (some of this is being developed in the National Benchmarking project)

In particular, identify rates and waste impacts of owner-occupier refurbishment and extension/conversion work (some of this will be explored in the DTI TZERO project).

Establish baseline figures for non-capital renewal works including decorating, replacement of guttering etc.

Identify priority patterns of refurbishment waste by work package, type and disposal issues, in order to produce specific guidance for clients, specifiers and contractors.

Establish a common methodology for true waste costing for refurbishment waste which is compatible with cost methods for construction and demoli tion.

Research whole life costing of refurbishment options (currently being explored in Strategic Approach to Construction Waste project)

Establish a method of carbon accounting for typical refurbishment wastes and work packages, including a methodology for crediting/debiting offsite impacts in addition

to embodied energy impacts, including recycling pathways and disposal impacts.

1�

2�

3�

4�

5�

6�

7�

Actns ndd t btt dfn th tagt – DeMoLiTioN

Generate and collect data on the rates of demolition for different sectors and building type enabling future scenario modelling and prediction

Define sector, building and material type Environmental Performance Indicators for demolition to establish baseline figures and set appropriate targets (some of this is

being developed in the National Benchmarking project)

Gain a better understanding of the composition of demolition waste for products and materials by establishing a common data methodology and collection process

(some of this is being developed in the National Benchmarking project)

Collect data on the types of materials that arise from different demolition processes i.e. bulk materials versus actual products

Establish a better data set for routes for demolition waste and the associated costs including revenue versus cost of different options (especially relevant for

deconstruction versus demolition); include transportation costs

Establish a mechanism/tool for calculating the whole life costs for demoli tion waste and prediction of future costs

Collect data on the actual environmental impacts of the demolition process and subsequent waste management routes (including transportation) to establish a life cycle

assessment tool to help with the decision making process.

Use the data identified above to establish a method for carbon accounting for demolition waste including a methodology for crediting/debiting offsite impacts in

addition to embodied energy impacts, including recycling pathways and disposal impacts

1�

2�

3�

4�

5�

6�

7�

8�

4 Modelling the way to achieving the strategy and targets – actions




1

Table 12 Actions that could be taken across and within the supply chain to improve resource efficiency in the short to medium term.

Actns ndd acss th spply chan – CoNSTruCTioN

Designing out waste manual that relates to product selection and wastage, whole life costing, optimal use of MMC & standardisation, and design for deconstruction

(links to work areas of Envirowise, WRAP, MTP and DTI Be Aware project).

Case studies and guidance that clearly and consistent ly define the business case and oppor tunities for resource efficiency (links to work areas of Envirowise, WRAP and

RDAs)

Site waste management plans to include waste prevention targets and a system of collecting data from them (links to work areas of Envirowise, WRAP, RDAs, EA and

BRE’s SMARTWaste)

Explore use of enhanced capital allowances to promote construction resource efficiency

Quantifying the effects of different types of contracts and procurement on resource efficiency, also exploring the use of incentives and penalties to reach targets (links to

work areas of Envirowise and WRAP)

Greater use of consolidation centres to maximise resource use, minimise over-ordering and surplus materials (links to work areas of Envirowise and WRAP)

Producer responsibility – voluntary agreements with manufacturers and other stakeholders that are based upon reducing the life cycle resource impacts of products (links

to work areas of MTP and DTI Be Aware project)

Promote compliance with Duty of Care – certification of resource management sites (possibly leading to a BREEAM type system for transfer stations), provision of

recycling facilities for SMEs at Household Waste Recycling Centres (links to work areas of BRE Certification , EA, WRAP and RDAs)

Local collections or milk rounds for surplus products and materials, with resulting local supplies of small/part packages of products/low impact materials – possibly with

community sector but health and safety risks would need to be mitigated.

Changing culture and raising awareness – develop consistent and linked training packages, from on-site induction to various professions, from school through to relevant

vocational and higher educational courses (links to DfES programme, CITB, BRE, CIRIA, RDA, WRAP and Envirowise activities)

Quantification of material resource efficiency potential through adopting lean construction techniques (links to CLIP and Envirowise)

1�

2�

3�

4�

5�

6�

7�

8�

9�

10�

11�




1

Actns ndd acss th spply chan – reFurBiSHMeNT

Reduction of packaging waste impacts through overall packaging reduction, preference for reusable and recyclable packaging materials, facilities and arrangements for

return, re-use and recycling (some of this is being done by WRAP and Envirowise).

Promote durable, higher-value materials and products which have a longer service life and represent greater economic and environmental reclamation and recycling

value upon decommissioning. Introduce market disincentives for inherently non-durable alternatives.

Consider parallel market transformation in use of paints, adhesives , treatments and finishings which restrict end-of-life options to the lower end of the waste hierarchy.

Promote the use of materials with recycled and/or reclaimed content (WRAP have a focus on increasing recycled content in buildings ).

Consider options for maintaining the value of installations and designing for planned updating which permits maximum retention of existing materials. This may involve

leasing of kitchen and/or bathroom installations , increasing standardisation of fixtures and fittings to allow for continual upgrades with minimum disruption (some of this

will be explored by MTP and in the DTI TZERO project).

Promote small-scale, local segregated waste collection and reclamation/recycling services tailored to needs of refurbishment market and SME contractors.

Increase awareness of clients and specifiers of environmental, resource and whole life cost impacts of refurbishment options (some of this will be explored in the DTI

TZERO project). This could take a number of forms:

Produce case studies and guidance on reduction, reuse and recycling of refurbishment waste

Focus on future growth area of low-carbon refurbishment to help users better evaluate material resource impacts of options

Incorporate the resource efficiency of predicted maintenance schedule into the Home Information Pack

Work towards legislation for a housing maintenance manual which sets out predicted maintenance and refurbishment schedules, specifications, options and

impacts.

Increase producer responsibility:

Product tagging for identification and traceability of materials

Product labelling with recommended service life – effectively a ‘best before’ date which allows clients and specifiers to better predict service life, design for

scheduled replacement and compare options on the basis of long-term cost

Increased take-back and remanufacture of end-of- life products and materials

Involvement of builders merchants and DIY chains in promotion of resource-efficient refurbishment products and systems

Develop resource efficiency action plans for social housing refurbishment programmes by local authorities and registered social landlords.

Design for adaptable buildings to minimise material wastage for foreseeable refurbishment and improvement phases including loft conversion, extension, knock-

through, kitchen & bathroom refit (some of this will be explored in the DTI TZERO project).

1�

2�

3�

4�

5�

6�

7�

•

•

•

•

8�

•

•

•

•

9�

10�




20

Actns ndd acss th spply chan – DeMoLiTioN

Ensure the usage of Site Waste Management Plans for demolition projects including the setting of appropriate targets for recovery ; include a mechanism for analysis of

these datasets (some of this work is being done by WRAP and Envirowise)

Requirement of pre-demolition audits to ensure the potential for the reclamation and recycling of products/materials is identified and then realised.

Mapping of demolition activities in relation to new build activities and waste management facilities (including reclamation) to enable a resource planning tool to be

implemented e.g. through the use of BREMAP (a geographical information system which currently maps waste facilities)

Increased linkage to the community sector through reuse and recycling schemes (links to Community Recycling Network and RDAs)

More emphasis on the disassembly and deconstruction of buildings to achieve higher levels of reclamation including:

Research and development into technologies that aid deconstruction and the associated increased value of materials e.g. the use of remote controlled robotics,

microwave technology, laser technology and other suitable technologies

Design buildings for future reuse and recycling by using techniques that aid deconstruction .e.g . lime mortar, simplified fixing systems and use products/materials

which aid this with the avoidance of hazardous materials

Provide information including ‘as build’ drawings and maintenance logs including identification of components and materials and associated points for disassemblyDevelop the skill base for deconstruction and ensure adequate training

Work with designers and architects to encourage the flexib le use and adaptation of property at a minimal future cost and maximise the lifespan of buildings .

In terms of supporting higher levels of reclamation the following actions are recommended:

Stimulate the reclamation market through increased access to products which are cost effective, available , aesthetically pleasing and perform technically.

Assess the potential for incentives the use of reclaimed materials e.g . lower VAT

Recognised training and accreditation programmes for the reclamation sector to ensure access on demolition sites (l inks to, CITB, NFDC and SALVO)

Provide certification, building codes and specifications for reclaimed materials

Provision of localised storage centres for reclaimed materials for the short term and possibly longer term i.e. storage of key demoli tion products to aid procurement

options and logistical requirement

Develop alternative markets for demoli tion arisings – particularly related to products that are being used currently which may prove difficult to recover ( some of this work

is being done by WRAP)

Investigate new treatment technologies for hazardous waste arising from demolition activities (some of this work is being done by DEFRA)

Provide a better linkage between the demolition and new build phases of the project through planning requirements and project management i .e. through the use of

tools such as pre-demolition audits, ICE demolition protocol and SWMPs (links to work being carried out by WRAP)

Promote the positive image of both the demolition and the reclamation sectors (links to NFDC, IDE and SALVO)

Provision of guidance, best practice case studies to inform the supply chain in terms of the cost and environmental benefits and technical requirements for using

reclaimed and recycled materials from demolition (some of this work is being done by WRAP).

1�

2�

3�

4�

5�

•

•

••

6�

7�

•

•

•

•

•

8�

9�

10�

11�

12�

Industry and other stakeholder views are very important to developing the strategy. As detailed at the beginning of this document, please send inyour views and comments by 10 Nvmb 2006. We will also be organising several workshops to capture industry views, please email or phoneif you would like to attend one of these workshops.

Vws sght: Ths actns wll b fnd and fth actns addd thgh ths cnsltatn and asscatd wkshps. it s als lkly that

lnks t xstng wk hav bn mssd. Any cmmnts n th actns lstd, addtnal actns mssd lnks wll b vy wlcm.

Contact details for consultation responses:Gilli HobbsBRE, Garston, Watford WD25 9XXT: +44 (0) 1923 664856E: [email protected]




21

Glossary

Be Aware Built environment Action on waste awareness and

resource efficiency

BRE Building Research Establishment

BREEAM Building Research Establishment EnvironmentalAssessment Model

BREMAP Building Research Establishment Materialsand Planning

BREW Business Resource Efficiency and Waste programme

C/CO2 Carbon/carbon dioxide

C & D waste Construction, demolition and refurbishment waste

CIR IA Construction Industry Research and InformationAssociation

CITB Construction Industry Training Board

CLIP Construction Lean Improvement Programme

DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government

Defra Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

DfES Department for Education and Schools

DTI Department of Trade and Industry

EA Environment Agency

EPI Environmental performance indicator

(m3 waste/100 m2 floor area in this document)

FM Facilities management

H & S Health and safety

ICE Institution of Civil Engineers

IDE Institute of Demolition Engineers

LCA Life cycle assessment

MMC Modern methods of construction

MT Million tonnes

MTP Market Transformation Programme

NFDC National Federation of Demolition Contractors

NISP National Industrial Symbiosis Programme

RDA Regional Development Agency

Salvo Information organisation for the reclamation sector

SME Small and medium size enterprise

SWMP Site Waste Management Plan

TZERO Towards Zero Emission Refurbishment Options

WRAP Waste and Resources Action Programme



Contact details for consultation responses:Gilli HobbsBRE, Garston, Watford WD25 9XX

T: +44 (0) 1923 664856E: [email protected]

Documents

construction waste