Waste Recovery Quick Wins FINAL

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 7/27/2019 Waste Recovery Quick Wins FINAL

    1/36

    Practical solutions for sustainable construction

    Waste Recovery Quick Wins

    Improving recovery rates without increasing costs

    Guidance for construction clients, design teams and contractorsexplaining how Quick Wins boost recovery rates and thus increase profits

    Project code: WAS7-001 ISBN: 1-84405-352-0

    Research date: July 2006 Date: July 2007

  • 7/27/2019 Waste Recovery Quick Wins FINAL

    2/36

    Front cover photograph: South Lanarkshire Primary School

    WRAP and EnviroCentre believe the content of this report to be correct as at the date of writing. However, factors such as prices,levels of recycled content and regulatory requirements are subject to change and users of the report should check with their

    suppliers to confirm the current situation. In addition, care should be taken in using any of the cost information provided as it isbased upon numerous project-specific assumptions (such as scale, location, tender context, etc.).The report does not claim to be exhaustive, nor does it claim to cover all relevant products and specifications available on themarket. While steps have been taken to ensure accuracy, WRAP cannot accept responsibility or be held liable to any person forany loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. It is the

    responsibility of the potential user of a material or product to consult with the supplier or manufacturer and ascertain whether aparticular product will satisfy their specific requirements.

    The listing or featuring of a particular product or company does not constitute an endorsement by WRAP and WRAP cannotguarantee the performance of individual products or materials. For more detail, please refer to WRAP's Terms & Conditions on its

    web site: www.wrap.org.uk."

    Published by

    Waste & Resources The Old Academy Tel: 01295 819 900 Helpline freephone

    Action Programme 21 Horse Fair Fax: 01295 819 911 0808 100 2040

    Banbury, Oxon E-mail: [email protected]

    OX16 0AH

  • 7/27/2019 Waste Recovery Quick Wins FINAL

    3/36

    Improving recovery rates without increasing costs 1

    Executive summary

    Implementing good practice waste minimisation and management on construction projects will help to reduce the

    significant quantities of construction waste sent to landfill and make a substantial contribution to sustainable

    development. Reducing the amount of waste from a construction project will:

    reduce material and disposal costs;

    conserve natural resources;minimise environmental impact;

    improve competitiveness and public image;

    meet planning requirements; and

    help to achieve sustainable construction.

    On any project there are certain key waste streams that offer significant potential cost savings and environmental

    benefits and which are known as Waste Recovery Quick Wins. By implementing three to four of these Waste

    Recovery Quick Wins, there is potential to increase overall recycling rates of construction waste by more than

    20% compared with standard industry performance.

    A Waste Recovery Quick Win is an improvement in recovery (reuse or recycling) for a specific construction wastematerial, applicable on a range of construction projects, which will deliver a higher rate of recovery than standard

    practice without increasing costs and preferably with a cost saving (i.e. it is cost neutral).

    The extent to which the construction industry is improving its performance with regard to waste can be described

    using the concept of standard, good and best practice. Waste Recovery Quick Wins represent good practice; they

    involve a range of activities that are relatively easy to implement and which move sites forward from todays

    baseline performance (standard practice). Best practice reflects the leading approach in the industry but may

    involve a cost premium or require a significant change in working practice.

    WRAP has identified good practice and best practice recovery rates for a range of common wastes on

    construction sites (see table below). Evidence for these recovery rates was obtained in a study involving three

    approaches desk-based analysis of published material, consultations with stakeholders, and collection of

    information from live case studies featuring a wide range of project types.

    The construction industry is already achieving high recovery rates for some materials (e.g. metals and inerts).

    These are not the primary purpose of Waste Recovery Quick Wins. They focus on materials where recovery rates

    can be increased without the need for significant investment or major changes.

    Timber, plasterboard and packaging are typically the main Waste Recovery Quick Wins for a range of projects

    primarily during the structural, internal and fit out phases. This is due to:

    the quantities of these wastes generated; and

    the significant increase in recovery rate from standard to good practice.

    However, these Waste Recovery Quick Wins may not represent the best opportunities on all projects. It istherefore important on any project to consider all waste streams for their potential for Waste Recovery Quick

    Wins. The cost savings from adopting Waste Recovery Quick Wins will stimulate the adoption of improved

    recovery practices and motivate a sustained change in waste management practice.

    Waste Recovery Quick Wins are identified through discussion with clients and the construction supply chain

    (including local waste management contractors) to determine the cost-effectiveness of alternative practices. They

    will depend on site specific parameters such as:

    quantities of materials;

    capacity on/off site for waste segregation;

    availability of reprocessing facilities; and

    transport distances to these facilities.

  • 7/27/2019 Waste Recovery Quick Wins FINAL

    4/36

    Improving recovery rates without increasing costs 2

    Space constraints on site, time available and project type are further factors influencing the choice of Waste

    Recovery Quick Wins.

    Standard, good and best practice recovery rates by material

    MaterialStandard practice

    recovery (%)

    Good practice Quick Win

    (%)

    Best practice

    recovery (%)

    Timber 57 90 95Metals 95 100 100

    Plasterboard* 30 90 95

    Packaging 60 85 95

    Ceramics/masonry 75 85 100

    Concrete 75 95 100

    Inert 75 95 100

    Plastics 60 80 95

    Miscellaneous 12 50 75

    Electrical equipment Limited information 70 95

    Furniture 015 25 50

    Insulation 12 50 75

    Cement Limited information 75 95Liquids and oils 100 100 100

    Hazardous 50 Limited information** Limited information**

    * Excludes demolition.

    This is a required recovery target for the type of WEEE likely to be produced from construction sites, e.g. lighting (WEEE

    Regulations, January 2007).

    ** This cannot be 100% as much hazardous waste (e.g. asbestos) must be landfilled.

    The guide describes current performance and suggests measures necessary to achieve good practice and best

    practice during different construction phases (site clearance, structural, internal, fit out and external).

    Effective segregation is vital to achieving good practice. Separate skips for different waste streams are

    particularly important for Waste Recovery Quick Wins in the structural, fit out and internal phases. Planningahead to consider waste arisings and opportunities for segregation during different phases is essential, as is

    working with waste management contractors who can work with high segregation levels or offer recovery from

    mixed waste streams. Setting targets and/or establishing key performance indicators help to achieve the benefits

    of Waste Recovery Quick Wins, especially when part of a Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP).

    The case studies accompanying this guide illustrate the cost savings available from adopting Waste Recovery

    Quick Wins and demonstrate that it is possible to be significantly more efficient in the use of natural resources

    without compromising cost, quality or construction programmes. These case studies cover new build (commercial,

    housing, public and retail), refurbishment (commercial, high density housing, public and retail) and infrastructure

    projects.

    The case studies, together with a technical appendix, are available from the WRAP website

    (www.wrap.org.uk/construction). Detailed guidance on how to improve recovery rates and advice on good

    practice waste minimisation and management are also available from WRAP.

  • 7/27/2019 Waste Recovery Quick Wins FINAL

    5/36

    Improving recovery rates without increasing costs 3

    Contents

    1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................................ 41.1 Purpose of this guide .............................................................................................................5

    2.0 Why is waste recovery important?............................................................................................. 62.1 Benefits of improved material efficiency..................................................................................62.2

    True cost of waste.................................................................................................................6

    2.3 Policy drivers.........................................................................................................................7

    2.3.1 Landfill Tax...............................................................................................................72.3.2 Site Waste Management Plans...................................................................................72.3.3 Code for Sustainable Homes......................................................................................7

    2.4 Waste minimisation ...............................................................................................................82.5 Carbon savings......................................................................................................................8

    3.0 What are Waste Recovery Quick Wins....................................................................................... 83.1 Definition of a Waste Recovery Quick Win...............................................................................83.2 Identifying Waste Recovery Quick Wins ..................................................................................9

    3.2.1 Factors influencing Waste Recovery Quick Wins ..........................................................93.2.2 Sectoral variations ..................................................................................................103.2.3 Regional variations..................................................................................................10

    3.3 Performance benchmarks.....................................................................................................103.3.1 Timber ...................................................................................................................113.3.2 Plasterboard........................................................................................................... 113.3.3 Packaging...............................................................................................................123.3.4 Other materials.......................................................................................................12

    3.4 Financial benefits of Waste Recovery Quick Wins...................................................................134.0 Construction waste arisings and fate ...................................................................................... 145.0 Current performance on construction sites ............................................................................. 16

    5.1 Standard practice ................................................................................................................165.2 Good practice......................................................................................................................185.3 Best practice .......................................................................................................................19

    6.0 Waste Recovery Quick Wins in the main phases of construction ........................................... 216.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................216.2 Key phases .........................................................................................................................21

    6.2.1 Differences between new build and refurbishment....................................................246.3 The importance of segregation rather than mixed skips .........................................................246.4 Behaviour changes ..............................................................................................................25

    6.4.1 Implementing Site Waste Management Plans (SWMPs) .............................................266.4.2 KPIs and targets .....................................................................................................266.4.3 Planning ahead.......................................................................................................27

    6.5 Barriers and constraints to improved waste recovery .............................................................286.6 Moving to best practice........................................................................................................28

    7.0 Overview of case studies .......................................................................................................... 318.0 What next?................................................................................................................................33

  • 7/27/2019 Waste Recovery Quick Wins FINAL

    6/36

    Improving recovery rates without increasing costs 4

    1.0 IntroductionThe construction industry in the UK uses over 400 million tonnes of natural resources per year and generates

    more than a third of the UKs waste arisings, of which only half is reused or recycled (primarily aggregates and

    metals). Over 60 million tonnes of waste from the construction industry is sent to landfill or similar disposal sites

    every year. More efficient use of materials would make a major contribution to reducing the environmental

    impacts of construction, including reducing demand for landfill and the depletion of finite natural resources.

    Materials efficiency can be improved without increasing costs by:

    minimising the amount of waste produced in the first place;

    reducing the amount of waste sent to landfill through effective waste management;

    recovering materials already on the construction site for reuse and recycling; and

    using more recycled materials and those with a higher recycled content.

    Taking action in these areas enables construction projects to achieve good or best practice in materials efficiency.

    Producing less waste not only reduces raw material costs but has the added benefit of minimising the cost of

    managing the waste and removing it from the site. In light of recent and future increases in the Landfill Tax,

    reducing the amount of waste produced and improving management and recovery options will produce ever

    increasing financial savings as well as environmental benefits.

    This guide is concerned with improving recovery rates for materials wasted on construction sites withoutincreasing overall costs. On any project, there are certain key waste streams that can offer significant potential

    cost savings and environmental benefits, otherwise known as Waste Recovery Quick Wins. By implementing

    three to four of these good practice Waste Recovery Quick Wins, there is potential to increase overall recycling

    rates of construction waste by more than 20% compared with standard industry performance.

    To help those wishing to set waste recovery rate targets, WRAP has identified good practice recovery rates for a

    range of common wastes on construction sites. The evidence for these recovery rates was obtained by WRAP-

    commissioned consultants, EnviroCentre, using three approaches:

    desk-based analysis of information available on the internet including reviews, case studies and governmentreports;

    consultations with stakeholders based on specially designed questionnaires seven major constructioncompanies, four waste management companies, National Industrial Symbiosis Programme (NISP)1, London

    Remade,2 BRE,3 CIRIA4 and National Green Specification;5 and

    collection of information from different types of live project to form a series of case studies based on thepractices of Bovis Lend Lease. These case studies are available separately from WRAP (an overview is given in

    Section 7).

    The study sought views on standard, good and best practice (see Section 5) and secured information on the

    relative costs of waste disposal and recycling, and the costs of segregation versus non-segregation. Examples of

    emerging technologies and improved practices were identified. Discussions with stakeholders provided a reality

    check and allowed the questionnaire responses to be compared with information obtained from the desk-based

    research and live case studies.

    1www.nisp.org.uk

    2www.londonremade.com

    3www.bre.co.uk

    4www.ciria.org

    5www.greenspec.co.uk

  • 7/27/2019 Waste Recovery Quick Wins FINAL

    7/36

    Improving recovery rates without increasing costs 5

    The case studies cover the following categories of construction project:

    New build:o commercial;

    o housing;

    o public; and

    o retail.

    Refurbishment:

    o commercial;

    o high density housing;

    o public; and

    o retail.

    Infrastructure projects.

    Data were also gathered on the various phases of the construction project (Table 1).

    Table 1 Construction phases investigated to identify Waste Recovery Quick Wins

    Phase Examples

    Site clearance, preparations and underground services Demolition

    Remediation

    Bulk earthworks

    Utilities

    Foundations

    Structural phase Frame

    Walls

    Roofs

    Floors

    Cladding

    Internal phase Internal walls

    Plastering

    Mechanical and electrical (M & E) plantFit out Doors

    Suspended ceilings

    Bathroom suites and tiling

    Carpets and flooring

    Electrics

    External works Roads

    Pavements

    Hard and soft landscaping

    1.1 Purpose of this guideThis guide is intended to be of interest to clients, developers and major construction companies. It stresses the

    benefits of waste recovery and explains how concentrating on Waste Recovery Quick Wins during the differentphases of the construction stage will help companies make more efficient use of materials. The guide also

    describes:

    what is meant by Waste Recovery Quick Wins;

    priority waste streams for Waste Recovery Quick Wins;

    current performance on UK construction sites in recovering waste materials (standard, good and bestpractice);

    Waste Recovery Quick Wins (good practice) in the main phases of construction;

    the importance of segregation for successful recovery;

    the need for behavioural change;

    barriers and constraints to Waste Recovery Quick Wins;

    moving to best practice;

  • 7/27/2019 Waste Recovery Quick Wins FINAL

    8/36

    Improving recovery rates without increasing costs 6

    the case studies available featuring different types of project; and

    what to do next.

    Detailed advice on how to improve recovery rates on construction sites is available from the WRAP website

    (www.wrap.org.uk/construction).

    2.0 Why is waste recovery important?Efficient use of materials by recovering and recycling them contributes to sustainable construction, minimisesenvironmental damage and conserves natural resources. There are two important aspects of materials efficiency:

    Materials in product and materials selection, e.g. utilising materials recovered on site or locally; and

    Materials out good practice waste minimisation and management (WMM), e.g. returning packaging andsurplus materials for reuse/recycling and the collection, segregation and recycling of waste.

    2.1 Benefits of improved material efficiencyWaste recovery is an important element of good practice WMM. Adopting good practice WMM demonstrates a

    commitment to sustainable construction and environmental management. It is relatively straightforward to

    develop and implement, and need not impact on the overall design and financial outcomes of a project.

    If implemented correctly, good practice WMM can improve resource efficiency and achieve other significant

    benefits. These include:

    reduced material and waste disposal costs less waste generated means smaller quantities of materialsneed to be purchased and less money is spent on landfill gate fees and landfill tax;

    conserving natural resources recycling packaging and construction materials results in less demand forvirgin materials;

    minimising environmental damage reduced waste saves landfill space and reduces the environmentalimpacts associated with extracting, transporting and manufacturing/processing the raw materials making up

    construction products;

    lower carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions e.g. implementing good practice plasterboard recoverycompared with standard practice can save 4.2 tonnes of CO2 for each tonne of additionally recovered

    plasterboard;

    increased competitive differentiation benefits both developers and contractors, particularly where thiswill help to meet the sustainability objectives of prospective clients;

    increased performance against corporate social responsibility (CSR) objectives progress inachieving corporate responsibility and sustainability policies can be quantified for reporting to external

    stakeholders and employees;

    meeting planning requirements planning authorities are increasingly setting conditions forenvironmental performance as part of the development process;

    complementing other aspects of sustainable design; and

    responding to and pre-empting public policy companies that respond to policy demands for increased

    sustainability of construction and the built environment will have an advantage over those that wait until

    legislation compels them to act.

    2.2 True cost of wasteThe true cost of waste is not just the cost of paying a waste contractor to remove a skip from site. There are also

    the costs associated with:

    the materials that are bought and then wasted (often the most significant cost);

    sorting, handling and managing waste on site;

    poor packing or overfilling of skips leading to double handling; and

    the lost opportunity to sell waste for salvage or not recycling the waste.

  • 7/27/2019 Waste Recovery Quick Wins FINAL

    9/36

    Improving recovery rates without increasing costs 7

    For example, one study6 found that the true cost of filling and disposing of one skip containing mixed

    construction waste was 1343. The skip hire was only 85 and the labour cost to fill it was 163, but the cost of

    unused material in the skip was the most significant at 1095.

    The true cost of construction waste will continue to rise substantially each year due to:

    the Landfill Tax increasing each year (see Section 2.3);

    higher disposal costs; and

    taxes and levies on primary materials.

    2.3 Policy driversThe construction industry is under increasing pressure from government and others to achieve greater resource

    efficiency and reduce waste sent to landfill. Although there is currently no statutory obligation to reduce and

    manage waste to good practice standards, the following initiatives provide a clear indication of the direction in

    which policy is moving.

    2.3.1 Landfill TaxThe Landfill Tax applies to all waste disposed of to a licensed landfill site. It was introduced in 1996 to encourage

    waste producers to produce less waste, recover more value from waste (e.g. through recycling or composting)

    and to use more environmentally friendly methods of waste disposal. There are two rates of tax:

    a standard rate for active waste (substances that either decay or contaminate land); anda lower rate for inert materials (including rocks, soils, ceramics and concrete).

    The standard rate (24 in 2007-08) is due to increase by a rate of 8 per tonne per year until 2010-11. The

    lower rate will increase from 2 to 2.50 per tonne in 2008. These increases provide a strong financial incentive

    to divert waste from landfill.

    2.3.2 Site Waste Management PlansSWMPs involve the adoption of procedures that account for all waste and encourage reuse/recycling. A key

    component of the SWMP is to identify which waste streams can be targeted to reduce and/or recover waste.

    The use of SWMPs is expected to become a mandatory requirement for many projects throughout the UK in the

    near future (see Table 2). Advice on drawing up a SWMP is available from WRAP (www.wrap.org.uk/construction)and Envirowise (www.envirowise.gov.uk).

    Table 2 Policy on SWMPs: the position as of June 2007

    Region Position

    England and Wales A requirement for regulatory measures was included in the Clean Neighbourhoods and

    Environment Act 2005. Following separate consultations in England and Wales, it is

    expected that a basic SWMP will be a mandatory requirement from April 2008 for projects

    with a value in excess of 250,000 and a detailed SWMP for projects in excess of

    500,000.

    Scotland The 2006 public consultation on the proposed Scottish Planning Policy 10: Planning for

    Waste Management included provision for SWMPs to form part of the planning conditions

    for new developments with a value in excess of 200,000.

    Northern Ireland The Waste Management Strategy 20062020 indicated that detailed proposals for a

    statutory requirement to prepare SWMPs will follow through a public consultation.

    2.3.3 Code for Sustainable HomesThe Code for Sustainable Homes7 is aimed at new build housing and is mandatory for social housing. It is

    expected to be adapted to apply to all buildings in the longer term. It was developed by Government and the

    construction industry to be a voluntary assessment standard but it may become mandatory in the future. A

    specific requirement is for a SWMP to be in operation in order to achieve the minimum assessment rating. Further

    6Source: AMEC. Seewww.envirowise.gov.uk/media/attachments/202895/BRE-construction-resource-efficiency.pdf

    7www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/professionals/en/1115314116927.html

  • 7/27/2019 Waste Recovery Quick Wins FINAL

    10/36

    Improving recovery rates without increasing costs 8

    points are awarded where the SWMP includes procedures and commitments that minimise waste in accordance

    with WRAP/Envirowise guidance.

    2.4 Waste minimisationPreventing and reducing waste (i.e. not producing it in the first place) can save even more money and effort.

    Sources of detailed advice on minimising waste from construction projects include:

    WRAP (www.wrap.org.uk/construction);

    Envirowise (www.envirowise.gov.uk);CIRIA (www.ciria.org); and

    BRE (www.bre.co.uk).

    Materials identified during consultations for this project for targeting include:

    plasterboard ways to minimise waste include reducing over-ordering, improved storage, better protectivepackaging and reducing offcuts through better design and planning (plasterboard can make up 20% by

    volume of the waste from new build projects found in skips);

    packaging options include changing to reusable/modular systems, avoiding over-ordering and orderingmulti-packs;

    timber some waste management companies offer timber pallets that can be used for the duration of aproject as an alternative to timber pallets from merchants which often end up in skips; and

    hazardous can be reduced by changing to alternative substances (that are not hazardous waste whendisposed of) or by using mechanical fixings (e.g. nuts and bolts) rather than glues.

    2.5 Carbon savingsLife cycle analysis of the case study data carried out as part of the project indicated that adoption of Waste

    Recovery Quick Wins leads to reduced carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, i.e. carbon savings. The results are given

    in the technical appendix to this guide, which is available from the WRAP website

    (www.wrap.org.uk/construction). The analysis was based on a WRAP report, Environmental Benefits of Recycling

    an international review of life cycle comparisons for key materials in the UK recycling sector.8

    3.0 What are Waste Recovery Quick Wins3.1 Definition of a Waste Recovery Quick Win

    A Waste Recovery Quick Win is an improvement in recovery (reuse or recycling) for a specific construction waste

    material, applicable on a range of construction projects, which will deliver a higher rate of recovery than standard

    practice without increasing costs and preferably with a cost saving (i.e. it is cost neutral).

    The extent to which the construction industry is improving its performance with regard to waste can be described

    using the concept of standard, good and best practice (Figure 1). Waste Recovery Quick Wins represent good

    practice; they involve a range of activities that are relatively easy to implement and which move sites forward

    from baseline performance (standard practice).

    The construction industry is already achieving high recovery rates for some materials (Figure 2). These are not

    the primary purpose of Waste Recovery Quick Wins. They focus on materials such as plasterboard, packaging and

    timber where recovery rates could be increased without the need for significant investment or major changes.

    All clients, designers and contractors should aim to achieve good practice WMM. With only a small change in

    current working practices, they can realise cost savings, more efficient operations and lower environmental

    impact. Ultimately, the long-term aim should be to meet best practice to maximise the benefits offered by good

    practice WMM. This may involve cost on some sites and could mean changes at other project phases (e.g.

    procurement). However, the cost savings achieved through Waste Recovery Quick Wins will provide an incentive

    and the motivation to adopt a sustained change in waste management practice.

    8Available fromwww.wrap.org.uk/wrap_corporate/about_wrap/environmental.html

  • 7/27/2019 Waste Recovery Quick Wins FINAL

    11/36

    Improving recovery rates without increasing costs 9

    Figure 1 Standard, good and best practice waste minimisation and management

    Standard practice Good practice(Quick Wins) Best practice

    Baseline performance of

    the construction industry

    based on achieving

    minimum standards and

    legal requirements.

    Going beyond standard practice to

    realise Quick Wins benefits that are

    easy to achieve on a majority of

    projects without a fundamental change

    in working practice and are at least cost

    neutral.

    Reflects the leading

    approach in the

    industry, but may

    involve a cost premium

    or require a significant

    change in working

    practice.

    Figure 2 Recycling of materials: standard, good and best practice

    Standard Good Best

    Metals and high value materials

    Timber, plasterboard, packaging and inert

    Take-back schemes with suppliers for materials, packaging , etc.

    Key

    Activity carried out thoroughly on all sites

    Activity carried out occasionally or at low levels

    Activity not carried out

    3.2 Identifying Waste Recovery Quick WinsCertain types of materials lend themselves to alternative recovery practices depending on whether they are:

    produced in sufficient quantities to make the operating costs of the recovery practice economicallyattractive;

    easily segregated on site;

    significantly higher in value as a segregated waste compared with mixed waste; and

    produced in a locality where reprocessing options for those materials are readily available.

    In practical terms, Waste Recovery Quick Wins will be identified through discussion with clients and the

    construction supply chain (including local waste management contractors) to determine the economics and

    performance levels of alternative recovery practices. These will depend on site specific parameters such as:

    quantities of materials;

    capacity on/off site for waste segregation;availability of reprocessing facilities; and

    transport distances to these facilities.

    3.2.1 Factors influencing Waste Recovery Quick WinsThe extent to which material can be recovered in a cost-effective way is determined by the amount of effort and

    nature of the technology utilised. In practice, the factors that influence the choice of Waste Recovery Quick Wins

    for a project include:

    waste recovery infrastructure local availability of, for example, a company able to receive plasterboardfrom demolition and/or construction projects for onward recycling;

    gate fees the difference between the gate fee charged for material accepted at landfill sites, exempt sites

    and reprocessing facilities, and the value gained from the sale of segregated waste materials;

  • 7/27/2019 Waste Recovery Quick Wins FINAL

    12/36

    Improving recovery rates without increasing costs 10

    project baseline the baseline performance on waste recovery (standard practice) from which the projectis starting;

    site type the location and space constraints of the site; and

    time the programme and resource constraints of the project.

    3.2.2 Sectoral variationsThepotential to recover specific waste streams may vary between sectors. For example, the approach taken by

    civil engineers and demolition contractors to material recovery may not be cost-effective or replicable in othersectors (e.g. housing) and vice versa. This will be influenced by the nature of the waste arisings which, in turn,

    will be determined by the type of construction project, building structure, phase etc.

    In addition, waste management contractors may be set up to recover materials in a way that is more responsive

    and efficient for one sector than another.

    3.2.3 Regional variationsThere will be regional variations in the potential to recover certain materials as a result of the way in which waste

    management companies have developed at different locations. For example, a company in one location may be

    able to add value to a waste such as concrete fines which is not possible 50 miles away because they have a

    market outlet for these fines involving the production of hydraulically bound mixtures.

    3.3 Performance benchmarksTable 3 presents the standard, good and best practice recovery rates established during this project for 15

    common waste streams on construction sites. The recovery rates are for total waste recovery, i.e. on and off site.

    The waste categories used in Table 3 are derived from the waste streams used in the SMARTWaste programme.

    Example components of these waste streams are given in Table 4.

    The approach taken to setting the Quick Wins recovery rate recognises a demonstrably achievable recovery level

    that is significantly higher than the baseline (standard practice) and marginally higher than the average found in

    the case studies.

    Table 3 Standard, good and best practice recovery rates by material

    Material Standard practice

    recovery (%)

    Good practice Quick Win

    (%)

    Best practice

    recovery (%)

    Timber 57 90 95

    Metals 95 100 100

    Plasterboard* 30 90 95

    Packaging 60 85 95

    Ceramics/masonry 75 85 100

    Concrete 75 95 100

    Inert 75 95 100

    Plastics 60 80 95

    Miscellaneous 12 50 75

    Electrical equipment Limited information 70 95

    Furniture 015 25 50

    Insulation 12 50 75

    Cement Limited information 75 95

    Liquids and oils 100 100 100

    Hazardous 50 Limited information** Limited information**

    * Excludes demolition.

    This is a required recovery target for the type of WEEE likely to be produced from construction sites, e.g. lighting (WEEE

    Regulations, January 2007).

    ** This cannot be 100% as much hazardous waste (e.g. asbestos) must be landfilled.

  • 7/27/2019 Waste Recovery Quick Wins FINAL

    13/36

    Improving recovery rates without increasing costs 11

    Table 4 Waste categories

    Material Examples in the waste stream

    Timber Plywood, chipboard, noggins, battens, doors and windows, MDF

    Plasterboard Plasterboard, plaster

    Packaging Pallets, cardboard, bubble wrap, cable drums

    Metals Radiators, metal formwork, metal sinks, cables and wiresCeramics/masonry Bricks, ceramic tiles, clay roof tiles, ceramic toilets and sinks

    Concrete Concrete pipes, kerb stones, paving slabs, concrete, rubble

    Inert Soils, clays, sand, gravel, natural stone

    Liquids and oils Hydraulic oil, engine oil, lubricating oil, transmission oil, liquid fuel

    Plastics Gutters and downpipes, DPC, uPVC windows and doors

    Miscellaneous Office and canteen waste, vegetation, ad hoc materials (often means mixed waste)

    Electrical equipment TVs, fridges, air conditioning units, lamps

    Furniture Tables, chairs, desks, sofas, blinds, carpets

    Insulation Glass fibre, mineral wool, purlboard, breather paper

    Cement Render, cement, fibre cement sheets, mortar

    Hazardous Paint pots, creosoted timber, asbestos, radioactive waste, bituminous mixtures with coal

    tar

    Timber, plasterboard and packaging are typically the main Waste Recovery Quick Wins for a range of projects

    primarily during the structural, internal and fit out phases. This is due to:

    the quantities of these wastes generated (see Section 4); and

    the significant increase in recovery rate from standard to good practice.

    However, these Waste Recovery Quick Wins may not represent the best opportunities on all projects. It is

    therefore important on any project to consider all waste streams for their potential for Quick Wins (Section 3.2).

    3.3.1 TimberTimber recovery is a major opportunity at the structural phase because of the quantity of form-work and

    shuttering produced. The nature of this material (its bulk, potential to be recycled and waste quantity) makes it

    worthwhile to target and manage through segregation and specialist recovery contracts (Section 6).

    For example, the project identified a Quick Win of 90% for timber in the structural phase compared with standard

    practice of 57%. The case studies achieved an average recovery rate of 82% (Section 7).

    Mixed skips can often contain 7090% timber. In one case study, mixed rates were being charged for skips that

    contained all 100% timber.

    Timber has significant Quick Win potential because:

    there are potential cost savings through segregation with rebates paid by waste management contractors;

    it can be segregated from the structural phase onwards; and

    structural phases often provide particularly good recovery rates due to the large sections of formworkproduced.

    3.3.2 PlasterboardThrough careful targeting and management, plasterboard presents major opportunities for improved levels of

    waste recovery, particularly at the internal and fit out phases; Waste Recovery Quick Wins of 90% for

    plasterboard compared with standard practice of 30% were identified.

    Plasterboard makes a good Quick Win because:

    it can be targeted and segregated at specific phases of the project; and

    there are specialist services provided by a number of companies (including British Gypsum) plus a range ofsmaller scale operators and schemes, which support the segregation of plasterboard.

  • 7/27/2019 Waste Recovery Quick Wins FINAL

    14/36

    Improving recovery rates without increasing costs 12

    The best practice recovery rate for plasterboard of 95% (Table 3) reflects the understanding obtained during this

    study of how much technology developments and improvements in behaviour could deliver improved results

    compared with good practice. In fact, four of the case studies9 (see Section 7) achieved 100% recovery of

    plasterboard. This success was obtained by setting up a separate collection system for waste plasterboard for

    particular phases of the project and arranging for the collected materials to be sent to a specialist plasterboard

    recycling facility. Such systems are efficient and capable of achieving 100% recovery if managed properly and

    utilised by all workers on site. Although the charges are generally higher (and may incur a premium) compared

    with those of waste management contractors, there are overall cost savings if significant amounts of plasterboard

    waste are generated during a particular phase. The savings also depend on the contract negotiated.

    3.3.3 PackagingPackaging is a Quick Win mainly from the internal and fit out phases where it forms a significant proportion of the

    waste produced and presents a major opportunity for improved levels of waste recovery.

    A good practice recovery rate of 85% for packaging compared with standard practice of 60% is considered

    achievable; 90% and 80% of packaging waste was recovered in two case studies.

    The choice of packaging as a Quick Win depends on having sufficient materials to justify the effort involved to

    manage the waste stream separately (e.g. there is enough waste to fill a skip). Materials handling can be

    improved by:

    using a compactor or baler on site to reduce volumes for storage and transportation; andusing enclosed containers to prevent materials blowing away.

    Rebates may be offered if paper and cardboard packaging is separated out.

    3.3.4 Other materialsTable 3 shows good practice and best practice levels of 100% for metals. This reflects the already high levels of

    recovery being achieved in the construction industry as a whole (as demonstrated in the case studies); standard

    practice is 95%. Coupled with the high market values for metals, close to 100% recovery is a reasonable level for

    both Waste Recovery Quick Wins (good practice) and best practice (100% is used for simplicity in Table 3).

    Similarly, the development of the recycled aggregates market (with procurement, policy, standards and

    specifications evolving to support this) suggests that high levels of recovery are possible for ceramic and concretewastes either on site or in a local market. The reuse of 100% of ceramics and concrete wastes has been

    demonstrated on a number of projects across the UK.10

    The good practice and best practice recovery rates of 95% and 100% respectively for concrete, and 85% and

    100% for ceramics, shown in Table 3 reflect the existing and potential marketplace. These levels were

    demonstrated to be achievable in the case studies. The project identified standard practice as 75%.

    Opportunities for the recovery of inert materials have developed in a similar fashion to concrete and masonry

    materials; standard practice is also 75%. This is because:

    high tonnages of inert materials are generated primarily during the site clearance and structural phases (ininfrastructure projects, inert materials can comprise up to 70% of the waste stream at this point);

    they are already segregated at many sites, often for reuse on site; and

    unlike plasterboard, there is no shortage of reprocessors handling inert materials.

    The good practice and best practice recovery levels shown in Table 3 are 95% and 100% respectively for inert

    materials.

    None of these materials is likely to be a Waste Recovery Quick Win the gap between standard and good

    practice is too low to achieve significant additional savings without incurring extra costs. However, this is only

    9Case Study 2: Quick Win opportunities in mixed commercial development; Case Study 4: Quick Win opportunities in

    commercial refurbishment; Case Study 9: Quick Win opportunities in high density housing development; Case Study 10: Quick

    Win opportunities in housing development

    10As shown in AggRegain (www.aggregain.org.uk).

  • 7/27/2019 Waste Recovery Quick Wins FINAL

    15/36

    Improving recovery rates without increasing costs 13

    true for the projects already achieving standard practice. In addition, maintaining this rate of recovery is vital and

    any improvement towards best practice will bring further benefits.

    Recovery of liquids and oils is already 100%; it is cheaper to collect them for recovery than to pay for their

    disposal.

    The recovery rates given in Table 3 for plastics, electrical equipment, furniture, insulation, cement and hazardous

    reflect the particular and differing circumstances associated with these waste streams. However, these materials

    may form Waste Recovery Quick Wins for some projects if the criteria for selection are met (see Section 3.2) primarily that sufficient quantities are produced to merit segregation.

    In addition, segregation of miscellaneous wastes (mixed waste) (see Section 6.3) offers significant opportunities

    to increase recovery rates of these wastes and reduce disposal costs.

    3.4 Financial benefits of Waste Recovery Quick WinsThe identification, targeting and delivery of Waste Recovery Quick Wins can result in significant cost savings. For

    example, Table 5 shows that potential cost savings for a 150 million city centre development incorporating retail,

    commercial, leisure and residential. The project already makes savings of over 160,000 from recovering

    excavated soil, but adopting good practice could result in further savings approaching 100,000

    The case studies developed during this project also demonstrate the cost savings available from adopting WasteRecovery Quick Wins. These case studies are available separately from WRAP (www.wrap.org.uk/construction).

    Table 5 Example savings from a development project by adopting good and best practice recovery

    Project savings

    Material PracticeRecycling rate

    (with source segregation) Tonnes diverted

    from landfill

    Potential cost

    savings

    Current 0% 0 0

    Good 70% 575 27,200Concrete

    Best 100% 822 38,800

    Current 0% 0 0Good 93% 176 14,300Metal

    Best 100% 189 15,400

    Current 0% 0 0

    Good 70% 120 15,100Timber

    Best 90% 155 19,400

    Current 0% 0 0

    Good 60% 122 33,800Packaging

    Best 95% 194 53,600

    Current

    GoodExcavated soil

    Best

    95% 84,075

    Current Practice

    saving

    168,200

    Current 0% 0 0Good 30% 44 3,000Canteen waste

    Best 80% 118 7,900

    Current 0%

    Good 80%Plasterboard

    Best 100%

    n/a n/a

    Current Practice 84,075 168,200

    Good Practice Saving

    (above current practice)

    1,037 93,400SUMMARY

    TOTALBest Practice Savings

    (above good practice)

    441 41,700

  • 7/27/2019 Waste Recovery Quick Wins FINAL

    16/36

    Improving recovery rates without increasing costs 14

    4.0 Construction waste arisings and fateThe construction industry generates a variety of wastes depending on factors such as site practice, project

    design, the stage of construction and the type of construction. Reasons for waste generation include:

    composite designs of buildings;

    design changes;

    over-consumption of resources (including over-ordering);

    material damage from mishandling, careless delivery or storage;

    vandalism;

    lack of communication between different trades and contractors;

    lack of recording of material supplied and used on-site;

    excess material left from site preparation; and

    office and canteen waste.

    The construction industry currently accounts for 17% of total waste produced in the UK.11 Official estimates

    suggest that the amount of construction and demolition waste generated in England has remained stable at

    about 90 million tonnes from 2001 to 2005.12 In 2005, 31% of this waste in England was taken to landfill sites

    where significant amounts were used for restoration, site works and capping layers. Recycled aggregates and soil

    accounted for 52% and the remaining 17% was used at sites undertaking activities exempt from waste

    management licensing (usually land reclamation, agricultural improvement or infrastructure projects).13

    The introduction of the Landfill Tax (Section 2.3.1) led to a change in the behaviour of construction companies

    and their waste management contractors, with significantly less waste being sent to landfill. Similarly, the

    introduction of the Aggregates Levy in 2003 encouraged the further recovery of inert materials for use as

    recycled aggregates. However, recovery levels vary between regions and different parts of the UK.

    More recently, implementation of the EU Landfill Directive in the UK has resulted in landfill gate fees becoming

    increasingly expensive for a range of waste streams, thus encouraging further recovery. Other legislative changes

    have placed restrictions on the disposal of specific wastes to landfill, again promoting their segregation and

    recovery.

    Table 6 shows the amount of different materials found in the case studies as a percentage of the overall waste

    arisings for each project.

    Table 6 Relative waste arisings at the case study projects

    % of overall waste stream

    MaterialApartments Housing

    Commercial

    (offices)

    Overall

    average: A1

    Residential

    average: A2

    Packaging 19.0 18.0 9.3 15.4 18.5

    Plasterboard 6.7 14.0 3.0 7.9 10.3

    Metal 2.0 2.0 19.3 7.8 2.0

    Timber 10.0 11.7 13.8 11.8 10.8Concrete, bricks 14.7 34.0 11.4 20.0 24.3

    Insulation 4.7 3.3 7.6 5.2 4.0

    Cement and plaster 12.7 0.0 4.7 5.8 6.3

    Miscellaneous* 12.7 2.0 15.9 10.2 7.3

    Total 82.3 85.0 85.1 84.1 83.7

    * Mixed waste (including materials listed above)

    11Green Street (www.greenstreet.org.uk/index.php?ct=1&filters=f33)

    12Seewww.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/waste/kf/wrkf09.htm

    13Survey of Arisings and Use of Construction, Demolition and Excavation Waste as Aggregate in England in 2005, Department

    of Communities and Local Government, 2007 (www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1503988)

  • 7/27/2019 Waste Recovery Quick Wins FINAL

    17/36

    Improving recovery rates without increasing costs 15

    Table 6 suggests that the top five waste streams in terms of volume are:

    Residential concrete/ bricks, packaging, timber, plasterboard and mixed waste; and

    Commercial metals, timber, mixed waste, concrete/bricks, packaging

    A recent study for WRAP by AMA Research examined information on construction waste arisings from a number

    of independent studies from a range of housing, apartment and office developments. Table 7 shows that the

    largest waste streams by volume are masonry, packaging, timber and plasterboard. Figures by weight based on

    2000 data indicate waste arisings are dominated by heavier waste streams such as masonry and metals.14

    Masonry, timber, packaging and plasterboard also featured as the largest waste streams in a study by the

    Environment Agency (Figure 3).

    Table 7 Main waste streams by volume on traditional new builds

    Waste material Modal range (%)

    Broken bricks, blocks , tiles, etc. 2540

    Packaging (including wood pallets, plastic, cardboard, tins) 2535

    Timber (excluding pallets) 1525

    Plasterboard 536

    Cement and plaster 1017

    Insulation rockwool and fibreglass 615

    Metal 39

    Dry concrete products blocks, slabs, etc. 212

    Plastic products (excludes packaging) 111

    Ceramic material 18

    Source: AMA Research for WRAP, unpublished report 2006

    Figure 3 What the construction industry throws away

    33%

    26%

    18%

    10%

    3%

    10%

    Bricks and blocks

    Timber

    Packaging

    Plasterboard

    Metals

    Other

    Source: Environment Agency (as cited in Target: Zero, Wates Group, 2006;

    www.wates.co.uk/uploads/pdfs/Corporate%20Responsibililty/Target%20Zero%20Landfil%20Report.pdf)

    14Sustainable Construction The Data, BRE, 2000 (http://projects.bre.co.uk/sustainable/SusConstructionData.pdf)

  • 7/27/2019 Waste Recovery Quick Wins FINAL

    18/36

    Improving recovery rates without increasing costs 16

    5.0 Current performance on construction sitesThe study used desk-top research, questionnaires conducted with stakeholders and live projects to identify

    standard, good and best practice (see Section 3.1) in the UK construction industry in terms of waste recovery.

    This section highlights the key findings from the study regarding current performance on construction sites across

    the UK in terms of waste recovery. More detail is given in the technical appendix to this guide, which is available

    from the WRAP website (www.wrap.org.uk/construction).

    5.1 Standard practice

    Hard construction, demolition and excavation waste (CDEW)15 makes up the largest proportion of waste arisingsfrom the industry. More detailed information is needed to determine actual recovery rates, but published data

    suggest that an estimated 75% of all inert waste in the UK (Table 8) can be described as recovered based on the

    following assumptions:

    half the hard CDEW waste entering landfills is actually used for engineering, cover and site restoration worksrather than being disposed of in a landfill cell; and

    half the hard CDEW material sent for reuse in exempt activities is actually being landfilled under a differentcategory.

    WRAP estimates that plasterboard amounts to some 300,000 tonnes per year from construction sites and

    500,0001,000,000 tonnes per year from demolition.16 An increasing amount of plasterboard waste from

    construction sites is being recycled (partly due to restrictions on the landfilling of high-sulphate containing wastesimposed in July 2005) and more companies are now offering separate containers for waste plasterboard

    collection. However, the recovery rate is still only 30% (Table 8).

    Of the timber waste that is currently being recovered, the majority is recycled but some is taken offsite for use as

    a fuel. As shown in Table 8 and confirmed by the case studies, most metals (steel and non-ferrous) are already

    being recovered.

    It is estimated that around half the packaging waste generated in the UK comes from the commercial and

    industrial waste stream and half from household waste.17 However, it is not known how much the construction

    industry contributes to the commercial and industrial waste stream. According to the Department for

    Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), recovery rates for packaging waste increased from 33% in 1998 to

    60% in 2005. The latter is taken as the baseline performance for this waste stream in the construction industry.

    Table 8 Baseline recovery performance for construction waste

    Category Baseline recovery (%)

    Hard CDEW 75%

    Plasterboard 30%

    Timber 57%

    Packaging 60%

    Steel 95%

    Non-ferrous* 95%

    The recovery rates in Table 8 are supported by information from construction companies about the rates of

    segregation for different materials found on construction sites today. The rate of segregation almost directly

    correlates with the rate of recovery of materials (Table 9).

    15Hard construction and demolition (C&D) waste consists of segregated or mixed unprocessed/ uncrushed materials

    (particularly concrete, masonry, bricks, tiles, etc. Excavation waste consists of naturally occurring soil, stone, rock and similar

    materials (whether clean or contaminated) that have been excavated as a result of site preparation activities. Hard CDEW

    therefore incorporates the inert, concrete and ceramics categories in Table 3.

    16www.wrap.org.uk/construction/plasterboard/background.html

    17www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/waste/kf/wrkf17.htm

  • 7/27/2019 Waste Recovery Quick Wins FINAL

    19/36

    Improving recovery rates without increasing costs 17

    Table 9 Correlation of segregation with recovery rates*

    High segregation Low segregation High levels of recovery Low levels of recovery

    Inert Insulation Metals Insulation

    Metals Packaging Inert Furniture

    Ceramics Plastics Concrete Packaging

    Concrete Electrical equipment Ceramics Electrical equipmentTimber Furniture Timber

    Liquids & oils/Hazardous Liquids & oils

    * Order of materials provides an indicative ranking

    Some materials (e.g. metals) had high levels of segregation and recycling (70%) across all construction types,

    except for refurbishment where there was often a large variation in practices.

    Some sites achieved 100% recovery for metals with, as a minimum, a general skip for mixed waste and

    segregated skips for metals, inert and hazardous wastes. This practice reduced costs by 30% and reduced the

    amount of waste going to landfill. Other sites achieved 3085% metal recovery from mixed waste skips, with

    lower rates from refurbishment projects where it is harder to separate materials.

    Inert materials in new build projects were another waste stream where recovery practices varied. Some sites

    segregated 100% of excavation and hard construction wastes for reuse on site because the high tonnages (and

    therefore costs) gave an incentive to manage the material on site. Other sites cited staff/time pressures as the

    main reason for sending 100% of hard construction waste off site for reprocessing with 100% of clays sent to

    landfill (often for site restoration, cover applications). Space limitations on some sites led to segregation of only

    40% of hard construction waste (50% reprocessed and 50% sent to landfill).

    The main reason given in the study for recovering relatively high levels of a material was cost (i.e. cheaper to

    recover than send to landfill). Lower recovery rates related to the state of development of the markets for those

    materials. While numerous outlets are available for some materials (e.g. metals and inerts), markets for materials

    such as timber, plastics and paper are less lucrative with fewer processing opportunities and less local outlets.

    Another common factor prompting the adoption of segregation for a particular waste stream was when there was

    enough material to merit this. This applied to:

    plastics;

    cement (as part of the inert waste stream);

    ceramics (bricks);

    electrical equipment; and

    plasterboard.

    The high disposal cost of hazardous waste was cited as the main reason for its segregation.

    Most construction sites have only mixed waste skips. Segregation takes place on occasions when space permits or

    when other drivers such as cost (e.g. large volumes of inert waste) provide an incentive. Waste on city centre

    sites is often not segregated as standard due to lack of space for skips and time restrictions which means that

    mixed skips are preferred during the structural phase. Infrastructure projects are more likely to have space for

    skips for different materials.

    Some sites already have SWMPs and some use an audit tool to monitor waste. However, many projects do not

    allocate time for either segregation or crushing and reuse on site. Sub-contractors have a tendency not to make

    full use of skips and to leave waste lying around.

    The largest tonnage of waste is produced during site clearance (particularly for new build projects) and this

    phase is when some of the highest recovery rates occur for some materials (e.g. cement/inert materials).

    Because the largest number of different waste streams is produced during fit out, material skips are more likelyto be found during this phase as they are able to remain in one place for longer than during other phases such as

    structural when skips have to be moved regularly to suit site work.

  • 7/27/2019 Waste Recovery Quick Wins FINAL

    20/36

    Improving recovery rates without increasing costs 18

    Waste management companies consulted during the study generally concurred with the information provided by

    the construction companies regarding segregation. They stated that the lowest rates of recovery were obtained

    for:

    plasterboard;

    insulation;

    miscellaneous;

    furniture; andsome plastics, packaging and rubber.

    5.2 Good practiceExamples of good practice identified during the study include:

    development and implementation of a Site Waste Management Plan;

    use of spreadsheets and other waste management tools to record waste quantities (totals) and percentagerecycled;

    toolbox talks to staff to raise awareness of waste and to provide training on waste management practices;

    waste segregation at all sites (space permitting);

    use of Waste Aware Construction18 colour coding for mixed, plasterboard, metal, timber and packaging skips;

    phasing of waste segregation with other demolition activities to create additional space for material skips;

    identifying a waste stream with large volumes that could potentially be segregated (e.g. plasterboard) or onefor which the company might receive payment or be picked up free (e.g. metals);

    segregation of all inerts and concrete for reuse on site;

    ensuring project timeframes allowed time for on site crushing/ reuse/ segregation;

    segregation of metals and timber for off site reprocessing;

    segregation of waste during cladding and fit out phases when there is more chance to collect waste at thepoint of creation (skips need to be moved less often);

    operating a three skip system (general, inerts and metals), leading to 100% recycling of inerts and metals;

    packaging waste targeted at the fit out phase (when amount increases);

    compacted skip (packaging/plastics) or 6 cu. yd skip (plasterboard) brought on site if enough packaging/plastic/ plasterboard waste generated during the fit out phase;

    segregation of timber during the structural phase if there is local recycling infrastructure;

    identifying local waste companies/ processors that may offer a rebate for segregated skips;

    using a local waste transfer station providing high levels of segregation;

    minimising the number of waste streams in the mixed waste skip;

    accumulating waste at sites where space constraints mean there is a one skip system until there is enough tofill a segregated skip; and

    appointing a waste management contractor(s) committed to recovering a broad range of materials.

    The case studies highlighted opportunities for improved recovery based on increased segregation, making use of

    the services available from waste contractors and local facilities (e.g. waste transfer sites) (Table 10).

    18www.wasteawareconstruction.org.uk

  • 7/27/2019 Waste Recovery Quick Wins FINAL

    21/36

    Improving recovery rates without increasing costs 19

    Table 10 Material-specific potential savings from the case studies by adopting good practice

    Case

    study

    Additional material

    recovery potential

    Cost saving Description

    1 Plasterboard 15%,

    Timber and miscellaneous

    50%

    25% by skip Segregation in this project could involve

    two materials (maximum) stored in each

    skip.

    2 Miscellaneous 50%

    Timber 10%

    Packaging 5%

    20% by skip Target miscellaneous waste (biggest waste

    stream) and reclassify some materials to

    other headings where high recovery rates

    are proven. As above for Case Study 1.

    3 Timber 45%

    Miscellaneous 50%

    Packaging 5%

    (concrete 100% recovered)

    Concrete possible

    savings

    20% by skip

    Increase quality of source-segregated

    concrete by minimising contamination with

    other materials. Ensure waste contractor

    recovers timber as part of service

    provision and that timber is not landfilled

    directly.

    4 Metals 5% Subject to contract

    negotiations

    Segregate metals during phases when this

    is a major component of the waste

    stream. Could be stored with one othermaterial.

    5 Metals 10% Metal: possible revenue

    credit or scrap value

    Segregate metals, packaging and plastics

    during phases when a major component of

    the waste stream.

    6 Packaging, timber and

    metals 11%

    Metal: 1533% saving

    Timber: 1523% saving

    Metals: 1550% plus

    revenue from re sale

    Segregate packaging, timber and metals

    during phases when this is a major

    component of the waste stream. Could be

    stored with one other material.

    7 Concrete 15%

    Ceramics 5%

    Miscellaneous 15%

    5% saving Segregate during phases when this is a

    major component of the waste stream.

    Could be stored with one other material.

    8 Inert 5%Miscellaneous 50%

    5% saving Seek to define miscellaneous wastes moreaccurately. More segregation of inert

    wastes.

    9 Packaging, ceramics 15%

    Plastics 10%

    Possible savings Segregate during phases when a major

    component of the waste stream. Could be

    stored with one other material.

    10 Packaging 10%

    Plastics 5%

    Miscellaneous 50%

    Possible savings Segregate packaging & plastics during

    phases when this is a major component of

    the waste stream. Could be stored with

    one other material. Seek to recover

    materials misallocated.

    11 Inert 85%,

    Ceramics 9%Plasterboard 14%

    Subject to contract

    negotiations, but possiblesavings

    Prioritise recovery of inert materials.

    Segregate plasterboard, ceramics,packaging (fit out) and concrete

    (structural) when a major component of

    the waste stream. Seek to recover

    materials misallocated.

    5.3 Best practiceGeneral actions and measures to deliver best practice identified by the study include:

    adoption of Site Waste Management Plans coupled with training of staff to achieve effective implementation;

    development and use of audit/resource efficiency tools to monitor waste arisings and track material usage inthe construction process;

    development of distribution centres for materials to improve the effectiveness of waste recovery;

  • 7/27/2019 Waste Recovery Quick Wins FINAL

    22/36

    Improving recovery rates without increasing costs 20

    on site consolidation centres to eliminate damage to products brought on site, minimise packaging waste andprevent the loss of materials on site;

    use of new construction techniques such as Modern Methods of Construction (MMC),19 which can reduce onsite construction time and waste but have comparable costs to traditional build;

    greater use of offsite build practices to minimise waste generated on site;

    changes to material procurement practices to buy material in sizes that minimise waste on site (e.g. use of

    plasterboard in smaller sections instead of larger sections that are more prone to damage); andgreater use of compactors on site or compactor vehicles to minimise vehicle movements associated with

    uncompacted, higher volume waste.

    Implementation of segregation may require a combination of additional time, training, innovation and capital

    investment. Practices to support the effectiveness of segregation include:

    determining whether crushing and reuse of materials on site is possible before the project begins and allowsufficient time for this to happen;

    overcoming issues related to lack of space for segregating waste by phasing segregation with phases whereadditional space may become available (e.g. post-structural phases where floor slabs are in place and

    additional space may be available);

    identifying one high-volume material to segregate or segregate high value materials where a rebate can benegotiated (e.g. ferrous and non-ferrous metals, timber and paper); and

    obtaining support from waste management companies for the use of colour coded skips together with on sitetraining on waste segregation (colour-codes magnetic stick-on labels are one option if colour-coded skips pose

    problems with multiple contractors employing different colours a problem that can be overcome by using

    the Waste Aware Construction system).

    Achieving best practice depends on market opportunities for the recovered materials. WRAP is a key player in this

    area, e.g. plasterboard (see www.wrap.org.uk/construction/plasterboard/index.html).

    Table 11 summarises market place developments for selected materials.

    Table 11 Examples of how the marketplace is developing for selected materials

    Material Example

    Plasterboard A number of companies are providing recovery opportunities for plasterboard including

    material contaminated with nails, screws, wall coverings, etc. with a performance of up to

    65% being claimed.

    Miscellaneous Increased value can be achieved by using waste transfer stations able to recover higher levels

    of material through the use of separation equipment including trommels, screening plant, air

    knives, flotation tanks, etc.

    Timber Energy recovery applications are developing where timber waste with up to 10%

    contamination can qualify for Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) and Levy ExemptCertificates (LECs).*

    Polystyrene Hot melt technology may develop to allow on-site recovery at some point in the future.

    Inerts The range of applications of inert materials is increasing and industry is moving towards the

    recovery of inert materials as higher value aggregates for Type 1, concrete applications, etc.

    Inerts Soil stabiliser additives make excavated aggregate materials a high quality reinstatement

    material.

    Hazardous Plasma gasification technologies are being developed that offer more cost-effective approaches

    to managing hazardous waste.

    * Evidence of Climate Change Levy exempt electricity supply generated from qualifying renewable sources.

    19Seewww.englishpartnerships.co.uk/mmc.htm

  • 7/27/2019 Waste Recovery Quick Wins FINAL

    23/36

    Improving recovery rates without increasing costs 21

    6.0 Waste Recovery Quick Wins in the main phases of construction6.1 IntroductionThe way in which the phasing of construction works is managed means that different activities take place on-site

    at the same time. For example structural works, internal and fit out activities can happen in parallel on different

    areas of the site/build. On some occasions, internal and fit out work will happen only after the structural elements

    have been completed and the building made watertight.

    Contracts are set up to reflect how different contractors need to work (i.e. all the internal and fit out work cannotbe resourced and worked on at the same time, so the work must be divided into packages). This way of working

    affects both the management of waste data and the setting up of contracts to manage different waste streams.

    However, there are opportunities to make significant cost savings if waste management contracts can be set up

    to target specific material streams generated during different phases.

    During the construction phase of a project, good practice waste minimisation and management implemented

    through a Site Waste Management Plan will have the most impact in terms of minimising the waste produced and

    the proportion sent to landfill. However, there is no one size fits all approach because different constraints will

    affect what can be realistically achieved (see Section 6.5).

    This section looks at Waste Recovery Quick Wins in the main phases of construction (site clearance, structural,

    internal, fit out and external works). More detail is given in the technical appendix to this guide, which is availablefrom the WRAP website (www.wrap.org.uk/construction). Waste Recovery Quick Wins from different phases are

    indicated in the case studies accompanying this guide.

    6.2 Key phasesKey phases for Waste Recovery Quick Wins were identified from the case studies and other sources (Table 12).

    Table 12 Key phases in a construction project for Waste Recovery Quick Wins

    Phase Most dominant waste arisings by tonnage

    Structural internal fit out Timber

    Plasterboard

    Packaging

    Internal fit out Packaging

    Plasterboard

    Timber recovery is a major opportunity at the structural phase mainly because of the quantity of form-work and

    shuttering produced. Packaging and plasterboard are the other Waste Recovery Quick Wins principally from the

    internal and fit out phases, where they form the most significant tonnages of waste arisings.

    Through careful targeting and management, these three waste streams represent major opportunities for

    improved levels of waste recovery without the need for major investment. Recovery rates for metals and concrete

    (inerts) are already high; Waste Recovery Quick Wins involve looking at other materials while keeping up the

    good work with these wastes. Quick Win recovery rates identified by this study as realistic and achievable are

    shown in Table 3 (Section 3.3).

    The housing sector is seen as a major opportunity for developing good practice in plasterboard recovery, while

    timber and packaging waste should be targeted in all types of project. Table 13 identifies Waste Recovery Quick

    Wins by project type and phase.

    Waste Recovery Quick Wins will often change between phases. In Case Study 11,20 for example, the combination

    of structural, internal and external work in the first phase was dominated by inert waste (69%), with smaller

    proportions of ceramics, packaging, miscellaneous and concrete waste (less than 9% each). The Quick Win in this

    phase was increasing the recovery of inert wastes to 10% by identifying local markets as an alternative to landfill.

    The second phase was fit out where the quantity of inert waste fell and was replaced by plasterboard as the

    dominant waste stream (37%), followed by ceramics (24%) and packaging (23%). The quantity of miscellaneous

    20A school new build development in South Lanarkshire by Bovis Lend Lease

  • 7/27/2019 Waste Recovery Quick Wins FINAL

    24/36

    Improving recovery rates without increasing costs 22

    waste also increased during fit out. Waste Recovery Quick Wins for this phase were therefore plasterboard

    (through improved segregation), ceramics and packaging.

    Table 13 Material specific good practice by project type

    Project type Phase Materials

    (top 3)*

    Description

    Housing All Timber

    Packaging

    Plasterboard

    100% recovered from segregated containers.

    Segregate when major component of the waste stream.

    100% recovered from segregated containers.

    High density

    housing

    Internal/ fit out Plasterboard

    Packaging

    Plastics

    100% recovered from segregated containers.

    Packaging and plastics segregate when major

    component of the waste stream.

    Commercial

    new build

    Structural/

    internal

    Plasterboard

    Timber

    Plastics

    All segregate when major component of the waste

    stream.

    Structural/ fit out Miscellaneous

    Timber

    Packaging

    Seek to recover materials reallocated.

    Timber and packaging segregate when major

    component of the waste stream.

    Commercial

    refurbishment

    Site clearance/

    structural

    Concrete

    InertTimber

    Minimise contamination.

    100% recovered.Ensure waste contractor recovers timber as part of

    service.

    Fit out Plasterboard

    Metals

    Packaging

    100% recycled from segregated containers.

    Segregate when major component of the waste stream.

    95% recovered from mixed containers.

    Structural/

    internal

    Timber

    Concrete

    Ceramics

    All segregate when major component of the waste

    stream.

    Retail new

    build

    Internal/ fit out/

    external

    Packaging

    Plasterboard

    Timber

    Segregate when major component of the waste stream.

    90% recovered from mixed containers.

    90% recovered from mixed containers.

    Public newbuild

    Internal PlasterboardMetals

    Packaging

    >90% recovered from mixed containers.Segregate when major component of the waste stream.

    Segregate when major component of the waste stream.

    Structural/

    internal/ fit out/

    external

    Inert

    Plasterboard

    Ceramics

    85% recovered from segregated containers.

    Segregate when major component of mixed stream.

    Segregate when major component of mixed stream.

    Public

    refurbishment

    Structural/ fit out Packaging

    Timber

    Metals

    All segregate when major component of the waste

    stream.

    * Materials are listed in order of priority

    The highest tonnages of waste materials are produced during the site clearance phase. These materials should be

    targeted for recovery and recycling. Other key measures include:

    Structural phase. Replace mixed skips with segregated skips for at least the top one or two materials (e.g.timber, metals) in terms of volumes produced and recovery potential.

    Fit out. Use smaller containers in this phase if there are space restrictions. Adopt separate skips for differentmaterials as the skips are more likely to stay put during this phase (unlike phases such as the structural phase

    where the rate of development means skips have to be moved regularly).

    Infrastructure. Use separate skips for recyclable materials such as plastics and packaging, which haverecovery potential if segregated.

    Table 14 suggests opportunities for Waste Recovery Quick Wins, highlighting the actions to be taken during

    different phases. Detailed guidance on how to improve material recovery for different materials is available fromthe WRAP website (www.wrap.org.uk/construction).

  • 7/27/2019 Waste Recovery Quick Wins FINAL

    25/36

  • 7/27/2019 Waste Recovery Quick Wins FINAL

    26/36

    Improving recovery rates without increasing costs 24

    6.2.1 Differences between new build and refurbishmentNew build often takes place on brownfield sites, so there is often more waste to be managed during the site

    clearance phase than with refurbishment projects. However, because new builds are responsible for bringing all

    materials onto site, waste is more predictable, tends to be clean (i.e. not contaminated with nails/paint) and can

    be controlled better.

    Waste from refurbishment projects tends to be harder to recycle and segregate as its composition is more

    difficult to predict. For example, much of the material is composites which have fewer opportunities for

    segregation (e.g. painted surfaces or plaster and blockwork mixed together). There are fewer opportunities forsegregation, or segregation is more difficult due to the additional effort required to separate out the different

    materials. Waste from refurbishment projects contains less inert materials and more soft materials such as

    packaging and cabling. On-site segregation can be more difficult as there is often less space for multiple skips for

    different materials.

    New build

    Good practice: During the site clearance phase, where practicable reuse all appropriate material (i.e. non-contaminated or remediated) on-site for landscaping/site fill.

    Best practice: Introduce site management practices to control all materials coming onto site to minimisewaste (e.g. off-site manufacture or cut to size). This should be specified in contracts with sub-contractors.

    Refurbishment

    Good practice: If there is limited space for segregation, use waste contractors that offer a high level ofsegregation. Some waste companies can achieve over 90% recovery from mixed wastes.

    Good practice: Identify dominant materials through a pre-refurbishment audit (or Bill of Quantities). Provideseparate containers for only the top one or two materials to minimise disruption to current site practices and

    pressure on restricted space.

    Good practice: Applying design for deconstruction principles while this may not help sites in the immediatefuture this is a good practice Quick Win that will help future refurbishment sites, while being able to

    segregate waste materials more easily.

    Best practice: Careful planning and company practices allow even sites with limited space to segregate waste.Best practice: Site Waste Management Plans are compulsory on all sites.

    6.3 The importance of segregation rather than mixed skipsThe production of waste at any stage of the construction process translates into extra costs and reduced profits

    for the client and the contractor. An average 8 cu. yd skip costs around 150, yet the average cost of its contents

    is over 1,200.21

    Effective segregation of different waste materials is crucial for Waste Recovery Quick Wins. Use of separate skips

    for different waste streams rather than mixed skips makes it easier to recovery materials and thus reduces the

    hire cost of the skip as the value of its contents offsets some of the charge. The actual overall cost reduction will

    depend on the additional labour cost on site to manage the separate skips. However, labour costs would need todouble before the cost benefits are wiped out (Table 15). Separate skips for different waste streams are

    particularly important for Waste Recovery Quick Wins in the structural, fit out and internal phases.

    Table 15 Cost savings from replacing mixed skips with material specific skips

    Scenario Cost saving (/tonne) Percentage cost saving

    Segregated 21.40 67%

    Segregated + 20% labour cost 19.28 60%

    Segregated + 100% labour cost 10.80 34%

    21The Small Environmental Guide for Construction Workers, SEPA and CIRIA

    (www.sepa.org.uk/pdf/publications/leaflets/wastemin/env_guide_cons_workers.pdf)

  • 7/27/2019 Waste Recovery Quick Wins FINAL

    27/36

    Improving recovery rates without increasing costs 25

    While waste management companies are generally willing to provide separate skips, current practice on

    construction sites is to use mixed skips (see Section 5.1). However, the study findings emphasise the importance

    of segregation in boosting recovering rates and achieving cost savings. Greater application of the Waste Aware

    Construction colour-coded labelling on skips would help to rationalise skip colours and make skip management

    easier. Table 16 highlights the differences in cost between segregated and mixed skips. Skips can often be

    sourced for free if there is good local recycling infrastructure (e.g. one site identified by the study had four out of

    nine skips provided free).

    Table 16 Difference in costs between segregated and mixed skips

    Material Mixed costs* Segregated costs* Cost of disposal versus

    recovery

    Ceramics General skip: 75/tonne Inert skip: 15/tonne

    Can be 40% cheaper.

    30/tonne more to dispose

    Electrical

    equipment

    Currently no major

    difference

    Currently no major difference. Recovery costs: 250

    300/tonne. Landfill costs are

    typically lower than this.

    Inert General skip: 75/tonne Inert skip: 15/tonne

    Can be 40% cheaper.

    Approx 10/tonne disposal.

    Can save 5/tonne by recycling.Can reuse on-site for free.

    Metals General skip: 75/tonne,

    110/skip

    50% cheaper to segregate.

    Skip can be provided free

    Can get paid (e.g. 70/tonne).

    Can cost up to 80/tonne more

    to dispose.

    Packaging General skip: 75/tonne,

    110/skip

    Sometimes free.

    Depending on type but can be

    20% cheaper to segregate.

    Up to 40/tonne more to

    dispose.

    Plastics General skip: 75/tonne,

    110/skip

    Sometimes free.

    Depending on type but can be

    20% cheaper to segregate.

    Up to 40/tonne more to

    dispose.

    Concrete General skip: 75/tonne Inert skip: 15/tonne

    Can be 40% cheaper.

    Approx 10/tonne disposal.

    Can cost up to 60/tonne more

    to dispose.

    Furniture General skip: 75/tonne Not segregated Limited market, and depends on

    type.

    Insulation General skip: 75/tonne Not segregated

    Misc. General skip: 75/tonne,

    110/skip

    n/a 75/tonne

    Plasterboard General skip: 75/tonne Up to 120/tonne. Various estimates some state

    more to dispose (10/tonne

    more), others state more to

    recycle (no figure given).

    Cement General skip: 75/tonne Inert skip: 15/tonne

    Can be 40% cheaper.

    Approx 10/tonne disposal.

    Can cost up to 60/tonne more

    to dispose.

    Timber General skip: 75/tonne 25/tonne

    Can be 40% cheaper.

    Can cost up to 40/tonne more

    to dispose.

    Liquid oils General skip: 75/tonne 1000/tonne Cheaper to recycle exact

    figure not provided.

    Hazardous General skip: 75/tonne 1000/tonne Cheaper to recycle exact

    figure not provided.* By tonne or based on 8 cu. yd skip. Estimated costs based on more than one consultee (some responses were provided by skip and some by tonne).

    6.4 Behaviour changesThe key behavioural changes to support the Waste Recovery Quick Wins for each material identified by the study

    include:adopting Site Waste Management Plans (see Section 6.4.1);

  • 7/27/2019 Waste Recovery Quick Wins FINAL

    28/36

    Improving recovery rates without increasing costs 26

    establishing targets and key performance indicators (KPIs) (see Section 6.4.2);

    planning ahead to consider waste arisings and opportunities for segregation during different phases (seeSection 6.4.3);

    setting tender and contract requirements for the delivery of more segregated waste systems; and

    appointing contractors who can work with segregation levels of90%.

    High recovery rates can still be achieved with mixed waste streams, although success will depend on the

    employment of suitable contractors.

    A further alternative is to incorporate improved waste recovery performance through an environmental

    management system (EMS). Waste impacts could be identified as key environmental aspects of the EMS, with

    objectives and target setting increased recovery and then forming a part of a delivery mechanism.

    6.4.1 Implementing Site Waste Management Plans (SWMPs)A SWMP can be used to change site behaviour and reduce the quantity of waste being sent to landfill. The Plan

    could include:

    measurement and monitoring of waste arisings and their fate;

    tailoring of segregation for different phases of construction (e.