Professional Documents
Culture Documents
|
z Y|A| S!|A!|GY u|A|! |0| |0|||h!
u|v||0||hG A S!|A!|G|| A|||0A|u !0 |0hS!|U|!|0h WAS!|
z
Contents
Contact details for consultation responses:
Gilli Hobbs
BRE, Garston, Watford WD25 9XX
T: +44 (0) 1923 664856
E: hobbsg@bre.co.uk
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
u|v||0||hG A S!|A!|G|| A|||0A|u !0 |0hS!|U|!|0h WAS!|
3
Developing a strategic approach to construction waste 20 year strategy
bA|kG|0Uhu
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 parts 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 Developing A Strategic Approach To
Construction Waste 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.
The waste and resources impact of construction is important in terms of profitability, non renewable resource depletion and the environmental impact of building. A 20
year 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.
Views sought: Please comment on any part of this draft Strategy, your views and information are very welcome. The opportunity to comment and
revise the content is open to all until 10 November 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
u|v||0||hG A S!|A!|G|| A|||0A|u !0 |0hS!|U|!|0h WAS!|
/
|0|WA|u |00k A! |0hS!|U|!|0h Ahu |||A|!S |h |||A!|0h !0 ||S0U||| |||||||h|Y
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
Scenario for future construction
(to year 2025 )
Potential impact on construction resource efficiency
Climate change
Low carbon buildings required at new build The design of new building types (probably off site fabricated) offers opportunities to embed resource efficiency into
their life cycle. However, waste reduction, reuse and recycling becomes less important unless clearly aligned to the low
carbon agenda. This requires construction material flows and options to be fully quantified and evaluated.
Retrofitting of existing buildings to lower carbon
emissions incentives to reward/offset costs
Greater amounts of waste arising from refurbishment and the provision of replacement products/materials. Unless
aligned to low carbon, as detailed above, this will be considered an acceptable consequence of achieving reduced
carbon emissions from the operational phase of buildings.
Increased demolition of buildings, especially those
not 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&D
waste is related to demolition (though we dont know what the proportion is). Demolition rates are around 20,000
homes/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 percentage
landfilled will increase.
For example, opportunities need to be provided for planned re-use of demolition products at local plan level, such as
use of masonry components for internal thermal mass in lightweight buildings.
Global/Climate Change
Rapidly changing climate, both in physical and
political sense.
This could make it difficult to stick to targets and systematic approaches to resource efficiency i.e. crisis management
rather 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 with
carbon/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 better
equipped 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 will increase construction activity to provide change of use/performance. This would
in turn increase waste.
Legislation/policy
Price of wasted products/materials, labour and
disposal/recycling increases higher than inflation
levels
Cost of waste and potential to reduce costs through waste reduction should increase accordingly. More transparency
could be derived through whole life costing techniques that correctly value this element. Environmental crime will
increase 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
u|v||0||hG A S!|A!|G|| A|||0A|u !0 |0hS!|U|!|0h WAS!|
3
Scenario for future construction
(to year 2025 )
Potential impact on construction resource efficiency
Increased levels of construction, especially in the
housing sector, within affordability constraints.
Overhaul of planning, supply chain and skills issues
to facilitate this.
Could lead to further waste if less time available to reduce, reuse, recycle. Incentives to retain and recruit good people
could 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 preclude
some 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
Business
Business cost reduction
Performance based contracting procuring on
function rather than labour, plant and materials
Design, build and management of buildings should bring about improvements in terms of resource efficiency i.e. vested
interest to keep whole life costs, which includes cost of products/materials, construction, refurbishment and demolition
waste. Important that these elements are costed correctly in whole life costing techniques.
Business quality and speed
Growing market share of off-site fabricated
buildings and components
High levels of water and energy efficiency designed in. Reduction in traditional site waste with increase in packaging
waste. Shorter lifespan buildings increase in demolition waste, especially by volume. Changing composition of
demolition waste from highly recyclable to difficult to recycle.
Business quality and speed
Growing standardisation of building types and
products
For planned building programmes, such as schools and prisons, there is great scope to produce a optimum design based
upon 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.
Business lower running costs
Zero/low maintenance buildings
This could be beneficial if it means that buildings last longer i.e. less chance of failure through neglect. Alternative could
be that actual service life of building elements is reduced leading to greater levels of refurbishment/demolition waste.
Business increase profits
Investment requires better returns on built asset
with lower financial risk
New technologies, products and materials that increase recycled content and/or reduce waste are considered higher
risk until they have been proven. Demonstration, testing and third party approval will need to be accompanied by
demonstrable and financial benefits to developers. Increasingly stringent planning conditions will only work if the
financial returns are worth it.
Business competition
Global competition increases and/or local supply
becomes more important
Around 40% of construction is procured by government, which is bound by procurement rules that promote global
competition. 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 satisfying
both 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.
Business capacity
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 1000
years. Although this is not likely to be the case, it is obvious that the buildings around in 20 years time will be mostly
those here today i.e. the building of the future is already built. In terms of resource efficiency, the main implications are
those of dealing with the current building legacy, for example hazardous materials.
u|v||0||hG A S!|A!|G|| A|||0A|u !0 |0hS!|U|!|0h WAS!|
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. Theyll 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 opportunities, and mitigate or avoid
less 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 to
navigate 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 industry, 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. Todays 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 constructions 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 directed
at 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 significant
shift 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
SMEs have all but disappeared 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 driven
process, where accountability is directed towards standards and regulation rather
than the aesthetically driven architects and engineers of the past. Traditional
disciplinary distinctions have gone.
u|v||0||hG A S!|A!|G|| A|||0A|u !0 |0hS!|U|!|0h WAS!|
!
k|Y |SSU|S |0v|hG |0|WA|u |||A!|hG !0 |A!|||A|
||S0U||| |||||||h|Y
||||A!| |uAhG|
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.
h|W ||0uU|!S/bU||u|hG SYS!||S/WAYS 0| W0|k|hG
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
||G|S|A!|0h/|0|||Y
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 life 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.
|0h||US|0hS
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.
Views sought: Please comment on this forward look. Where you have
differing or additional points, supporting data/ information is very
welcome.
[2] Life Cycle Assessment methodology for construction products www.bre.co.uk
0v||v||W
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.
Views sought: Manufacture, distribution and design all contribute
to these wastes to a varying extent. Views on whether these areas
should be expanded on separately (and why) would be welcome.
1
2
3
Figure 2 Construction and demolition waste overview
environmental performance indicator
m
3
waste/100 m
2
floor
12 20 14 22
Construction and demolition waste
Manufacture Distribution Design Construction Refurbishment Demolition
Hospitals Housing Offices Schools
u|v||0||hG A S!|A!|G|| A|||0A|u !0 |0hS!|U|!|0h WAS!|
-
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 m
3
waste per 100 m
2
floor area, which allows
for like for like comparison; and m
3
/100,000 which can be greatly influenced by the
regional, design and material costs, see Table 2.
Table 2 Environmental Performance Indicators
D = Demolition
e = excavation
G = Groundworks
M = Mainframe
S = Services
P = Partitions
F = Fit-out
C
i
v
i
l
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
L
e
i
s
u
r
e
H
e
a
l
t
h
C
a
r
e
/
H
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
s
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
o
f
f
i
c
e
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
/
S
c
h
o
o
l
s
Benchmarks 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 Performance
Indicator (KPI)
= m
3
/100,000
project value
52.3 6.1 7.9 17.3 8.4 13.2
Environmental
performance Indicator
(EPI) = m
3
/100m
2
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 adamsk@bre.co.uk
A|0Uh! 0| WAS!| ||| u0US|
23 housing projects have submitted benchmarking data to Smartstart
[4]
. A summary
of results is given in Table 3.
Table 3 Benchmarking data
Project Type
Housing ePi (m
3
waste/100 m
2
)
Average
Waste Group
residential x
23 no
Conversion
factor
Tonnes
Timber 1.3 0.3 0.39
Concrete 2.5 1.11 2.775
Inert 1.1 1.3 1.43
Ceramic 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
Total ePi 19.2 11.997
The average amount of waste produced across these sites is 19.2 m
3
waste per
100 m
2
floor area (the environmental performance indicator EPI). Taking this figure
and applying it to a typical semi of 80 m
2
gives an average material waste generation
of 15.36 m
3
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 m
3
of skipped waste.
A typical skip has a volume of 6.125 m
3
, 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 80m
2
15.36m
3
waste materials 5 skips
6715
15.36 m
2
per house 5 skips or 9.6 tonnes
Figure 3 Generic house construction waste
u|v||0||hG A S!|A!|G|| A|||0A|u !0 |0hS!|U|!|0h WAS!|
!
|0S! 0| WAS!| ||| u0US|
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 house 5439 cost of materials, 812 labour, 430 skip cost
|A|b0h u|0r|u| |0U|vA||h!/||b0u||u |h||GY 0| WAS!| ||0uU|!
||| u0US|
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 life 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 CO
2
emissions from new homes 2nd edition AECB 2006
1
2
bAS|||h| |0| h|W u0US|hG Ahu |0hS!|U|!|0h WAS!|
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.
u|v||0| !A|G|!S
-T !T
[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.
Wasted product per house
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 CO
2
per year
Per year:
2,918,400 m
3
of waste
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 CO
2
equivalent. This amount is the same amount of CO
2
emitted from driving a Ford Focus Ghia 1.6 from earth to the sun and back 20
times. Or represents 0.18% of UK CO
2
emissions for 2004.
option 1 Current best practice
new housing
Following best practice in terms of
reuse, take back of offcuts, recycling
and reducing waste through site
practices could have the following
effect on new housing waste.
Baseline 2,918,400 m
3
of waste or
1,824,000 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 content
would be needed.
Savings from reduction (1343 per
skip) and not paying landfill tax
(40 per skip)
214,177,500
Reduction in carbon dioxide equivalent
through reduction of new housing
waste only could be in the region of:
155,040 tonnes per year
9
10
u|v||0||hG A S!|A!|G|| A|||0A|u !0 |0hS!|U|!|0h WAS!|
z
Actions needed across the supply chain 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 disassembly
Develop the skill base for deconstruction and ensure adequate training
Work with designers and architects to encourage the flexible 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 (links 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 demolition products to aid procurement
options and logistical requirement
Develop alternative markets for demolition 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 in
your views and comments by 10 November 2006. We will also be organising several workshops to capture industry views, please email or phone
if you would like to attend one of these workshops.
Views sought: These actions will be refined and further actions added through this consultation and associated workshops. it is also likely that
links to existing work have been missed. Any comments on the actions listed, additional actions or missed links will be very welcome.
Contact details for consultation responses:
Gilli Hobbs
BRE, Garston, Watford WD25 9XX
T: +44 (0) 1923 664856
E: hobbsg@bre.co.uk
u|v||0||hG A S!|A!|G|| A|||0A|u !0 |0hS!|U|!|0h WAS!|
z!
Glossary
Be Aware Built environment Action on waste awareness and
resource efficiency
BRE Building Research Establishment
BREEAM Building Research Establishment Environmental
Assessment Model
BREMAP Building Research Establishment Materials
and Planning
BREW Business Resource Efficiency and Waste programme
C/CO
2
Carbon/carbon dioxide
C & D waste Construction, demolition and refurbishment waste
CIRIA Construction Industry Research and Information
Association
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
(m
3
waste/100 m
2
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 Hobbs
BRE, Garston, Watford WD25 9XX
T: +44 (0) 1923 664856
E: hobbsg@bre.co.uk
www.bre.co.uk