WAS Final report. Applying & Testing Waste Management Quick Wins

Transcription

1 WAS Final report Applying & Testing Waste Management Quick Wins Project code: WAS7-005 ISBN: Research date: October 2006 March 2007 Date: 22 May 2007

2 WRAP works in partnership to encourage and enable businesses and consumers to be more efficient in their use of materials and recycle more things more often. This helps to minimise landfill, reduce carbon emissions and improve our environment. Front cover photograph: Composite of Site Photographs WRAP and Capita Symonds 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 is based 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 the market. While steps have been taken to ensure accuracy, WRAP cannot accept responsibility or be held liable to any person for any 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 a particular 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 cannot guarantee the performance of individual products or materials. For more detail, please refer to WRAP s Terms & Conditions on its web site: Published by Waste & Resources The Old Academy Tel: Helpline freephone Action Programme 21 Horse Fair Fax: Banbury, Oxon info@wrap.org.uk OX16 0AH

3 Executive Summary This project was to implement and test construction waste recovery Quick Wins (QWs) on several case study projects on behalf of the construction team at the Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP), to investigate construction waste streams and analyse the management and disposal process. The aim was to explore a range of possibilities and best practice options available to the construction industry to divert waste from landfill at no cost or at a cost advantage. This study identifies key areas to implement procedures and processes to successfully achieve the identified QWs. We summarise the key findings and recommendations of the report: Diagnosis of Waste Streams and Appraisal of Management Options There continues to be a distinct lack of interaction between waste processors and the construction industry at a high level. This can be mainly attributed to the different skill sets, training and industrial background that each group generally has, and this can prevent an effective analysis of the waste streams and identification of the best management options. The fact that every project is geographically unique and has different processing needs in terms of actual waste arisings and in terms of time, quality, and cost also appears to negatively impact on management s ability to make informed decisions early on. Management often lacks the appreciation of QWs and waste management on site, and perceive several behavioural, organisational and operational barriers and uncertainties to the implementation of QWs. Implementing QWs can be both cost advantageous and can further benefit the project eg through more effective programme management at no extra cost, especially if integrated early on in the operation. This however requires that decisions are based on valid and accurate information about the site, the waste streams and the potential management options. As demonstrated by the case studies, the implementation process can be both cost advantageous, and if integrated early on in the operation, it can further benefit the project e.g. through more effective programme management at no extra cost. This however requires that decisions are based on valid and accurate information about the site, the waste streams and the potential management options. Early Systemic Implementation As demonstrated by the case studies, implementation of QWs early on in the operation can have financial and efficiency benefits. While improving site operations and contractual arrangements can achieve some QWs, incorporating these systemically into the construction methodology bears most benefit especially before the construction phase. QWs implementation once construction has begun can be both contentious and less cost advantageous. The limited time span of this project meant that often the latter was the only implementation option. One of the main barriers to this is the lack of knowledge amongst high level construction management professionals, such as project managers or commercial managers, which can result in a perception that better waste management costs time and money. Bottom-up Analysis and Subsequent Benchmarking of Expectations There is a need for a bottom up analysis of costs and operational rationale, while keeping options open to enable working with more than one waste management contractor. This would minimise uncertainties, and ensure optimal utilisation of waste streams as a resource or QW. Applying and Testing Waste Management Quick Wins 1

4 A key trait of successful case studies was the deferral of waste management decisions until sufficient information could be obtained from the bottom up. Barriers to this were a lack of technical knowledge in the management tier of material-specific management options, and a shortage of management skills in the technical roles. Policies & Procedures The project programme and execution plan principally should identify provisions for the QWs at the strategic level. This enables the QWs to cascade through the project s management tiers and translate into personal plans and objectives of all team members, especially site managers and contractors. The QWs then become a project or programme requirement from senior management, but it is also based on information relevant to the site. Therefore, the data in the system is more meaningful and resolute. The project management process should identify the root drivers of each QW to inform management in the most effective way, while constantly addressing the main waste management issues on site and recommending optimal solutions and best practice requirements. Recommendations Early Strategy and Contract Clauses The waste management needs of a construction project should be discussed at the earliest stages. A strategy that takes into consideration a number of QWs is more likely to be successfully implemented when its opportunities and limitations are taken into account at the pre-construction phase and, ideally, before the tender documents are sent to bidders. This ensures that requirements of a specific waste management strategy are taken in to account at the bidding stage, and commitments are formalised. Including requirements for better waste management at a very early stage in the process encourages analysis of the waste stream from the start and therefore more effective waste management, and also encourages and empowers construction managers to require that better waste management is incorporated in site plans. Clients should be encouraged to require their construction partners to use best practice, and case studies would assist in setting performance measurements and minimum requirements. Empowering Operational Management Another key trait identified in case studies that were successful in implementing QWs was the coupling of responsibility with authority. Operational site managers plan the logistics of the site, as well as the removal of wastes and resources in a construction project. Their agenda and priorities are, however, set at pre-construction stage and therefore it is early in the project where the QWs should be addressed, and then operational managers empowered to effect these. Training and Information It is important to enable site managers to translate the QW requirements in to recognisable terms such as ducts, pipes, lagging etc; terms and approaches that are more comprehendible and can be adhered to on site. The site manager can then adapt their own approach to implement the QWs through site inductions, training, tool-box talks, method statements and appropriate resourcing to achieve the QWs in the project. Awareness Raising One of the main barriers which inhibited implementation of QWs is the shortage of basic knowledge amongst construction professionals about the processes of construction and demolition waste recycling, segregation and benchmarking. This lack of knowledge results in a perception of uncertainty and exaggeration of the potential risks at a strategic level. Conversely, waste operators often lack awareness and understanding of construction and therefore how waste management services could be improved and QWs achieved. Case studies, best practice guides, and benchmarking would help to educate construction management professionals and waste operators and raise their awareness of potential waste management solutions. Applying and Testing Waste Management Quick Wins 2

5 Contents Diagnosis of Waste Streams and Appraisal of Management Options... 1 Early Systemic Implementation... 1 Bottom-up Analysis and Subsequent Benchmarking of Expectations... 1 Policies & Procedures... 2 Recommendations Introduction Case Studies Standard, Good and Best Practice Scope & Methodology Regional Factors for the Analysis Limitations and Risks Carbon Impact Analysis of QWs Implementation and Testing Summary Inception Feasibility Strategy 13 Pre-Construction Stage...14 Construction Stage Completion, Handover and Occupation Behaviour and Dynamics of QWs The Clients Project Strategists, Planners and Pre-construction Professionals Site Managers and Contractors...19 The Supply/Disposal Chain...19 The State of the Industry and Issues that affect QWs General Recommendations Early Strategy Selection of Skip Hire/Waste Management Contractor Proximity to Waste Source Recycling Rate...21 Discounted Rates for Segregated Waste Training and On-site Information Dissemination...22 Training should be relevant to the current waste and management process, ongoing and integrated with the site induction. Key components for successful training and informing are discussed in more detail below. 22 Site Inductions...22 Toolbox Talks...22 Suppliers Training...23 Contract Clauses Informed Method Statements and Execution Plans Summary of Findings and Key Performance Indicators Glossary Applying and Testing Waste Management Quick Wins 3

6 1.0 Introduction Quick Wins (QWs) were applied and tested throughout a range of projects within Capita Symonds portfolio. Some of these projects were under the direct managerial control of Woolf Ltd, the construction management division of Capita Symonds. This had the advantage of being able to influence current policies with a purpose-designed implementation strategy from executive to operational level. A Quick Win is defined by the WAS7-001 Draft Final Report on Waste Management QWs as: A Waste Recovery Quick Win (WR QW) denotes an improvement in recovery (re-use 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. In general, QWs (QWs) should deliver cost savings to incentivise adoption from improved recovery practices and to motivate a sustained change in waste management practice. Keeping costs neutral in applying QWs to a specific site practice encourages implementation. We have tried to achieve a cost advantage in order to make the proposed improved recycling practice more convenient to all parties involved. In reality, there is still strong scepticism amongst individuals and organisations of the efficacy of a segregation strategy on site in contributing to the wider environmental aim to reduce carbon emissions in the atmosphere. In all cases, a financial advantage is highly likely to reduce such scepticism. Current waste management practises have improved on the front of recycling construction waste. An ever rising landfill tax together with a number of recent government actions and policy drivers have encouraged a more responsible approach to handling waste generated from the construction industry. The construction industry is responsible for a high percentage of the overall production of waste in the UK. More rigid selection procedures have insured that subcontractors carry out the works required in an increasingly sustainable manner. Specific references are being included within tender documents to ensure these items are addressed as early as possible within the process however; there is still room for improvement. 2.0 Case Studies A number of case studies have been selected from a list of categories for different project types, some of these being live projects whilst others were used for data mining purposes only having been already completed. Results of the report do not necessarily show there is a peculiar trend in the results gathered after testing the implementation of QWs on different project categories. Rather, results tend to show a trend for each waste material; hence the projects used as case studies for the purposes of this report are categorised as follows: Table 1 - Case Studies Building Category Housing new-build High-density housing refurbishment Commercial new-build Commercial refurbishment Retail new-build Retail refurbishment Public new-build (schools) Public refurbishment Infrastructure project Case Study Housing Development (Horndean & Kingsworthy) High-Rise (Sheffield) Commercial Building (Barnsley) Lab Refurbishment High-Rise (Sheffield) Retail (Birmingham) City Academy Broadcasting Station (Scotland); Financial Building Refurbishment Commercial Building (Barnsley) Applying and Testing Waste Management Quick Wins 4

7 During our discussions with the site management staff, we were able to review the Project Execution Plan, the Site Waste Management Plan or the Logistics Plan for each case study to arrive at an understanding of the standards and procedures being applied with regards to waste management on site. Initially, the aim was to assess the arising of waste per trade package. However, this proved to be less practical than expected. In fact, waste transfer notes often lack information necessary to assess the nature of the skips contents and despite there being statutory requirements in terms of the amount and detail of information to be included within these documents, at individual level, there is a degree of non-compliance. 3.0 Standard, Good and Best Practice Prior to receiving the results for the WAS7-001 report, we chose to define standard, good and best practice as indicated in Table 2 below: Table 2 - Standard, Good and Best Practice Definitions: Proposed Performance Level Definition Standard Practice Good Practice Best Practice All waste streams are collected through one skip and not segregated on site. The skip hire contractor processes a percentage of waste either at their own recycling plant or through another transfer station. Some waste goes to landfill, the percentage of which depends on the contractor s own recycling target. Wastes are segregated on sites either stockpiled or in a clearly labelled skip. The skip hire contractor offers a discount for collecting skips containing uncontaminated waste and the materials are recycled at their own recycling plant or through another transfer station. Wastes are segregated on site; either stockpiled or placed in a clearly labelled skip. Some materials are reused within the same project without travelling any distance for reprocessing. For materials that cannot be reused on the same project, the skip hire contractor offers a discount for collecting skips containing uncontaminated waste and the materials are recycled at their own recycling plant or through another transfer station. Table 2 aims to define a common practice for each performance level regardless of the trade package or the case study s specific project category. We aimed to assess the current level of performance for each case study as represented in Figure 1 and to then discuss what methodology had been implemented in order to reach the best practice level, where applicable. Following a subsequent review, we adapted the findings of this study to the definitions given in the WAS7-001 report: Table 3 - Standard, Good and Best Practice Definitions: Actual Performance Level Definition Standard Practice Good Practice Best Practice This is the baseline, describing rates of recovery currently achieved on sites without additional or special effort. This describes the performance level of the QWs, i.e. a higher rate of recovery as a result of a cost-competitive change in recovery practice. The highest level of material recovery feasible, but which currently bears a cost premium or faces technical constraints. Applying and Testing Waste Management Quick Wins 5

8 Figure 1 shows the status of each case study s waste management practice before the implementation of QWs. Through the implementation strategy, the aim was to bring all projects to a best practice level. Not every project was at the same level hence each required its own implementation strategy, the efforts and difficulties encountered depended on the initial level. QWs Benchmark of Waste Management Practice 3 Performance Level High-Rise Performance Level: 1 Standard Practice 2 Good Practice 3 Best Practice Housing Development Lab Refurbishment Commercial Building Case Studies City Academy Pre-Implementation Financial Building Refurbishment Broadcasting Station Figure 1 Pre-QWs Waste Management Practice Figure 2 shows each project s identified potential QWs in a tabular form for ease of reference. Case Study Timber Plaster Plastic Aggregates and Rubble Soil Metal Other High Rise Housing Development Retail Lab Refurbishment Commercial Building City Academy Financial Building Broadcasting Station Figure 2 The QWs Identified (gray indicates a potential QW) Applying and Testing Waste Management Quick Wins 6

9 4.0 Scope & Methodology We held an initial meeting on 25 th September 06 with WRAP to discuss the QWs project scope and review the works to be conducted by the team. Further contact was made with the proposed projects and an initial site visit was carried out with the exception of the broadcasting station project. The reason for this exception was that on further review of the case study chosen, the refurbishment of a broadcasting station in Cleveland offered little or no opportunities for QWs to be implemented. In addition, as the programme of works for the Cleveland building were substantially advanced, choosing this project would have undermined the ability to influence the policy at an early stage during negotiations with the client. Had we chosen to use this project for the purpose of implementing QWs, there could have been far less valuable opportunities in comparison with a different project for the same client. Therefore an alternative project was identified at a larger broadcasting station in Inverness. We were able to review the Project Execution Plan, the Site Waste Management Plan or the Logistics Plan to arrive at an understanding, with site management staff, of the standards and procedures being applied with regards to waste management on site. We also reviewed a list of the packages and the wastes which were produced by the project to date. From the list of packages we were able to identify the potential QWs. We then discussed the forthcoming packages to find ways to implement and achieve the QWs. Having reviewed the status of each of the projects, we summarised a monitoring programme within each case study s data sheet to indicate to WRAP the implementation timeline against the arising of the relevant waste streams. Initial discussion of implementation methodologies included review of the contract clauses and possible amendments to both contract terms and working practices and the addition of prescriptive method statements tailored to the site specific needs. Based on our discussions we identified several steps to be taken in order to achieve a holistic implementation plan. These included the following: setting targets at both corporate and site level; auditing the trade package contracts; and implementing alternative waste management practices to increase recovery rates where applicable. To achieve the above, we required quantitative and accurate data that would enable us to benchmark and measure the set criteria. This was obtained by interrogating the data provided by the contractors in the form of Duty of Care waste transfer notes and associated costs information. In most cases, this provided us with the required information such as destination from site, nature of skip content, time and quantity. Based on this information, we were able to discuss any further processing or transportation issues with the relevant subcontractor/transfer station in order to understand the environment in which the waste was produced, transferred and processed. We aimed to cross check information supplied by comparing the relevant data contained in the waste transfer notes, skip schedules and payment certificates. In some cases although waste transfer notes were available and were legally compliant, the detail was insufficient for our purposes. Where this problem was noted, there is further discussion in the case studies. We found that in reality on an individual site, there is much scepticism about the practical uses and advantages of a waste management policy in general. We had to ensure the theory behind QWs was effectively conveyed to all the site operatives through our main contacts for each project by means of a user-friendly implementation strategy. During our first meetings with the various site managers and skip hire contractors, the knowledge we acquired increased steadily thus giving us the opportunity to gather enough information to be able to share the preliminary findings from the other sites for a more efficient implementation of QWs. In addition to our preliminary instructions, named individuals on each project were encouraged to contact our team for support and advice on waste management practices while the implementation and testing was being developed. Applying and Testing Waste Management Quick Wins 7

10 To quantify the benefits and successes of applying the QWs, we measured waste streams being diverted from landfill to arrive at a cost saving. The benchmark was set as the cost of an unsegregated general skip going to landfill, which is in most cases the skip hire rate. Table 4 represents our initial categorisation of information needed to assess the outcomes and benefits of a Quick Win for each case study; however, our findings in tabular form may vary for each case study. Table 4 Initial Categorisation of QWs Results Waste Quantity (tonne) Landfill Cost Saving ( ) Total ( ) Benchmark Mixed General Un-segregated 21/tonne n/a 2100 Actual Mixed General Un-segregated Metal Timber Plastic Plaster Rubble Other 5.0 Regional Factors for the Analysis In order to achieve more reliable results for the analysis and to overcome regional factors, the case studies were selected to cover a wide geological area as figure 3 shows. Commercial Building High-Rise Broadcasting Station Financial Building City Academy Retail Lab Refurbishment Housing Development Figure 3 Regional Location of Projects Applying and Testing Waste Management Quick Wins 8

11 6.0 Limitations and Risks The following are general risks which were identified when an initial report was issued, applicable to all case studies chosen. However, within each project case study data sheet we have identified specific risks. Risk / Limitation Mitigating Measures Outcome Initial visits have already been Physical access to areas of carried out and future visits Physical access granted on all sites. interest during ongoing will be arranged in advance (Risk eliminated) works with the relevant project. Inaccuracy of waste transfer notes or total absence. Lack of information for a particular day, package or material Lack of consistency & representation of information Info collected over a sample of projects, packages may not necessarily reflect general trend in construction Weight & volume variations Where a skip contains more than one material, weight of skip / percent content of each material The projects named have progressed since the proposal, thus some opportunities may have lapsed Projects may stop, thus impacting on analysis Some projects may not be controllable, especially where contract is not Construction Management An overall programme slippage may cause a delay in gathering the information required for the final report. To obtain skip hire contractor s own records to cross check against the site s waste transfer notes. Collect a wider section of information to minimise potential data shortfall. The information reviewed will be compared to the site s specific waste transfer notes and skips schedule which enables us to cross-check information From our initial review of the projects, this does not appear to be an issue any longer. Our standard method of measurement will be based on weight (tonnes) throughout the study. Investigate the waste sources to identify proportions of waste through discussion with site foremen/operatives and waste management contractors. Projects already reviewed with potential QWs highlighted. Continual monitoring of project to keep abreast of developments. Informal talks at executive and operational level to encourage implementation of QWs. Close monitoring and reporting to WRAP of any change or slippage to construction programme. City Academy: no record on site of accurate transfer notes. Skip contractor reluctant to disclose information prior to project completion. Please refer to each specific case study s Quick Win. Generally the case for most projects but no major impact on findings. Tested QWs are likely to reflect general trend in construction. (Risk Eliminated) Figures used in the report refer to average per skip size/contractor/type of waste. Possible to mitigate risk on some case studies Findings are based on each case study s relevant construction phase. Broadcasting Station Inverness: Client withdrew the project hence testing of QW implementation was not possible. All relevant parties agreed to QWs Implementation. Please refer to each specific case study s Quick Win. Applying and Testing Waste Management Quick Wins 9

12 7.0 Carbon Impact Our proposed assessment of the carbon impact of each Quick Win relied upon the findings of the WAS7-001 report. Our findings refer to values already proposed by WRAP on their web site. As a result, the carbon impact is limited to the transportation of the material to and from the site gate using current values. On and off site processing and storage of materials will not contribute towards the impact calculations. Similarly, the impact of replacement material and its transportation will be included but not its processing or extraction. For the purpose of this report, it is not appropriate to compare the carbon impact of QWs against the waste being sent to landfill because the latter would have to take into account a number of variables (e.g. waste material, leakage in containment system, alternative uses of landfill gas, etc) which are outside the scope of this report. Applying and Testing Waste Management Quick Wins 10

13 8.0 Analysis of QWs Implementation and Testing Summary In implementing and testing the WRAP QWs, we have identified several strategic, operational, and organisational behavioural traits have either hindered or facilitated the QWs and indeed impacted the achievement of good and best practice respectively, in site waste management as a whole. For the purposes of analysing the QWs, we have used the development life-cycle as described in the Project Management Code of Practice (PMCOP) as a diagnostic base: inception, feasibility, strategy, pre-construction, construction, and finally completion, hand-over and occupation. Inception: How the construction phase progresses is shaped by decisions made at this stage. These decisions were often based on uncertainties and assumptions and made with little understanding of waste management and the options available. Feasibility: The project execution plan (PEP) is completed at this stage. The client and project manager should prepare a brief such that the project manager has sufficient information to identify the opportunities and limitations of the project and proceed to subsequent stages. Once various surveys and studies have been completed, a number of policies should be completed including a clear waste management policy. These polices and management style are just as important in many construction projects as any requirements set by the client. Strategy: To be effective, a strategy must be based on accurate, authoritative and up to date information. The procurement strategy in particular has a significant influence on waste management and QWs. At this stage the responsibility for waste is passed to the construction manager and on to the waste management contractor. When the construction manager has the flexibility and responsibility to select, appoint manage and monitor the waste management contractor, QWs can be implemented far more easily. Pre-construction: At this stage the full design brief and tender documents are finalised and a constructor is brought on board. The constructor needs to be involved as early as possible, to ensure the project has buildability. For the same reasons the waste management contractor should also be involved at a early stage as they have the knowledge and experience to identify and implement QWs. If those involved at early stages in the process have good understanding of waste management and the options available, this would be less important. Construction: Major changes to the project scope at this stage has implications for the cost and quality of the project, and also for waste management as systems will have been chosen based on the information available. QWs should be identified and implemented before construction wherever possible; however if the construction manager and the waste management contractor are given sufficient flexibility to negotiate and make alterations within the framework of policies and strategies, then QWs can still be achieved. Completion, Handover and Occupation: The post-completion review should include information on the waste streams produced and the management options along the lines of a site waste management plan. Any issues and lessons should be recorded and incorporated in to future projects. Each stage is discussed in further detail below and relevant examples are given from the case studies. Inception In most projects, the activities in the construction phase were shaped by decisions made in earlier stages of the development life-cycle such as the inception stage. These decisions were often based on uncertainties, assumptions, and made with poor knowledge of waste management. The client decides during this inception stage what is required to best suit their needs in terms of costs, time and quality. The client should appoint the management team with the appropriate skills at this stage to ensure the client s needs are met with the most efficient solution from inception to handover. In complex construction projects, this may involve the creation of sophisticated organisational structures to deal with the various aspects of the project. Applying and Testing Waste Management Quick Wins 11

14 Usually, as early as the inception, a project manager is appointed to provide an independent service to the client to monitor costs, time and performance of the project, and to involve the relevant parties that may impact on the project at later stages. The PMCOP claims this is particularly the case and ideally when the client s knowledge on the project to be carried out is limited. Project Examples and Issues While the client s knowledge of actual waste management on site was limited on these projects; only on the Commercial Building, the Financial Building and the Lab Refurbishment were the contractors who were to deal with waste consulted at this stage. In the case of the latter it was because the building was destroyed by fire and the client handed over the responsibility to the construction manager very quickly. The client s building knowledge was limited, thus he also handed over the authority with the only condition being transparency and the need to justify decisions for the purpose of insurance loss adjustors. At the Commercial Building, the client needed to consult with the construction manager as there were some out-standing planning issues. In the Financial Building, the client had a professional project manager who did not coordinate the construction responsibilities and authorities. Decisions were based on the information available and these were only made once sufficient information was available. In the case of actual construction; there was a clear lack of emphasis on waste management early on in the project inception. This translated to a lack of emphasis in waste management practices during the construction stage. Feasibility The most important document completed at the feasibility stage is the Project Execution Plan (PEP). At this stage the client, together with the project manager, prepare a project outline brief through which the latter can specifically assess any objectives and constraints of the project. Additionally, in order to proceed to the next stage, a number of studies are carried out to further investigate opportunities and limitations of the project. Some of the surveys and studies stated in the PMCOP include a land and geotechnical survey, statutory requirements, funding options, environmental, health and safety issues. Once all the relevant issues have been addressed, it is possible to compile a detailed project brief that would ideally include a design brief and the various H&S, logistics and environmental policies. A clear waste management policy is a useful tool that clients and constructors can use to communicate commitment to recycling or resource efficiency at this stage, to encourage the integration of good waste management, and to influence other teams involved in the construction project but not necessarily in waste management. In some cases this may be a planning requirement, although this did not apply to any of the case studies. The most successful PEPs are developed for the individual projects and are not generic documents. Project Examples and Issues In all projects where Woolf were involved, liaison was between the waste management contractors, and the site & construction managers (collectively known as the construction team constructor ). It has come to our attention that the constructor s management style and priorities are based on policy statements and procedures as much as requirements set by the client. These often stem from ideas conceived at the feasibility stage. For example, in the case of the Financial Building, the client had stated their environmental commitment; their policy was translated in the project execution plan and the constructor had implemented this requirement in the delivery of the project, capitalising on the logistics constraints and lack of space to the advantage of the site, by creating a process that solves the latter problem while being resource efficient. The same is also true in the Commercial Building, where the client had a clear environmental commitment, reinforced by a required BREAM rating. However this was compromised to some extent by the need to accelerate the programme. As shown in the Site and Environmental Management Plan (SEMP) the opportunities for recycling reduced in priority despite being acknowledged as potentially advantageous. However as these documents were present on site, site staff were continually reminded of the issue and priority was regained during audits. In projects which lacked this policy, Applying and Testing Waste Management Quick Wins 12

15 such as High-Rise project, it was difficult to promote the issue of resource efficiency during audits as there was no reason to see it as other than low priority. In contrast, on the Lab Refurbishment the QWs were achieved at an astonishing rate despite the lack of a specific policy by the client. Discussing how to achieve the programme, the fact that the project could be deconstructed, and Woolf s early involvement to present the QWs as a means of achieving the client requirements enabled their successful implementation. These factors, and the personal willingness of the constructor to accept the case for the QWs, ensured these were still achieved. However personal motivation is not always present, and so the existence of a policy not only influences formulation of the PEP, but encourages the integration of good waste management throughout the project rather than being seen as a bolt on. The waste management policy should be set to ensure diverse teams do not lose their direction, such as non-construction teams such as marketing. In the case of the Financial Building, the marketing team sought to enforce the client s environmental credentials and in the Commercial Building sustainability issues were used in property marketing material. A policy, methodology or PEP may sometimes be a planning requirement, but in the case of the selected case studies there were no such requirements. With the exception of the Commercial Building project, none of the projects had a bespoke PEP that was relevant to the specific site needs. The other projects had generic PEPs and it is clear that a bespoke approach was more effective. The main purpose of the early planning stages should be to collect information, and appraise options in order to scope the approach or strategy. Progressing to implementation before the scoping stage is completed results in waste management options and therefore QW opportunities being lost before they can be identified. Where projects succeeded in terms of QWs it was because the constructor made informed decisions based on waste audits or forecasts. The Commercial Development was successful in identifying the main waste streams early on in the project, based on a detailed ground survey. The Lab Refurbishment was able to identify the specific waste arisings as a result of specific demolitions works, e.g. trays, ducts, pipes & conduit as opposed to metals only. The constructor at the Lab had the advantage and liberty of doing the assessment and carrying out the management. On other projects it was a nominated contractor, requested by the client. On the Retail project, the client was eager to mobilise quickly which resulted in simultaneous strip-out and inception. This is common in retail projects due to time constraints from the commercial occupiers. While waste initially went in one skip; the potential for QWs was quickly realised, once the waste segregates were acknowledged and the implementation of the QWs was deemed not to have a negative impact on the programme. This illustrates the importance of a waste audit, and how the early stages of a project should be geared to collation of information and appraisal of options. The same can be said of the Financial Building, where, while it did not have a waste audit early on, the constructor was left to devise waste management once they were appointed and had a better idea of the options. The constructor in turn consulted with the waste management contractors on the options available and arrived at an arrangement that was both economic and suitable for the project needs. In the Lab Refurbishment, the Financial Building and the Retail project, our approach involved dissecting the waste element by reviewing the packages, the appointed contractors, what waste they were likely to produce and its quantity and timing. Strategy As previously discussed any effective strategy has to be based on accurate, authoritative and up to date information. The main focus of this stage is the procurement strategy, which greatly affects the QWs and the fate of wastes. It is the stage at which the responsibility for the waste is transferred to the construction manager who then works directly with the waste management contractor. Where the construction manager has the authority and sufficient responsibility to select, appoint, manage, monitor and remove the waste contractors (and indeed any other contractor) they can stipulate the rules governing the site. This is the case where a management contractor arrangement is used. Applying and Testing Waste Management Quick Wins 13

16 The same is true of Construction Management in terms of the constructor being a coordinator, however, this can be less successful because the client is in contract with the contractors and can make decisions to appoint a waste management contractor and site logistics team independent of the construction manager. While this is reversible and the contractors were contractually obliged to adhere to the constructor s requirement, the construction manager is not able to impose the QWs to their full potential if the client disagrees. Another complication is that the construction management team is appointed for the purpose of managing the packages to meet the programme. The team are therefore not able to monitor waste the same way if QWs are not perceived as priority by the client. Project Examples and Issues The role of the construction manager worked effectively in the case in the Financial Building where the manager, in this case called the management contractor, managed the procurement and was in direct contract with the waste management contractor, and could interact with the design team and client. In this scenario the constructor had both sufficient authority and responsibility, and included provisions for contractors to take back their unused items and to procure trades as required. In the Lab Refurbishment, using construction management the constructor was left to procure all packages. Even the specialist and nominated contractors had to conform to the site rules and were made aware of the construction management procurement route before tendering. The early establishment of the system also lead to its acceptance as the norm on site, which was enforced by the programme requirements. In addition to procurement, the PMCOP also emphasises that at the strategy stage a master programme of works should be developed along with cost planning & control procedures, and systems requirements. Partnering options should be appraised at this stage. In this case study construction management performed very well. Some trade packages had been procured by the High-Rise client and partnering agreements were in force prior to the appointment of the construction manager. This produced an added complication that had a negative impact on the QWs implementation. At the Lab Refurbishment, while the client knew there were specialist contractors to be used, they were referred to deal with the construction manager directly which in turn enforced the site management system, the programme and therefore the QWs implementation. Pre-Construction Stage The pre-construction stage involves finalisation of the full design brief and the tender documents. Based on these documents the project s team supervises the tendering process and a constructor is brought on board. The late involvement of the constructor is claimed to be a main factor that could affect the buildability of the project. This is also true of the late involvement of waste management contractors and not allowing them to appraise the options for managing waste according to project type. This is an issue that many contractors and sub-contractors have raised; that they were not involved early enough in the project and are only instructed to follow methodologies that they have not been allowed to influence. It should be noted that while the constructor is given the task of managing construction, and the waste management contractor is responsible for managing the waste, the actual co-ordination and responsibility for site waste does not rest with one party. Project Examples and Issues On the Financial Building, the Lab Refurbishment, and more recently at the Retail project, the constructor has overall responsibility for the waste along with the site. The constructor appointed a contractor(s) to manage the various trades waste as required by the project. The waste (just like any other trade package) is made to interface with what resources are available. The waste management at the Lab Refurbishment was treated as a H&S issue; it was clear that the construction manager took overall responsibility, including planning the skip deliveries. On the Financial Building project, the responsibility ultimately rested with the management contractor; who in turn had sublet the on-site co-ordination and off-site haulage element of waste management to a contractor but retained the ability to manage the other contractors waste. We can draw a clear correlation between the assignment of an individual to deal with the QWs (or waste management) and its effective execution or implementation. In the Financial Building project, the QWs were achieved because there was a site manager who constantly enforced the requirements on site, the standards were there, and the operatives adhered to them. Applying and Testing Waste Management Quick Wins 14

17 On the Lab Refurbishment and the Retail project, the site manager made sure that different operatives used different skips. At the High-Rise development, while the client procured a contractor, he was merely responsible for co-coordinating the logistics and skips, not the actual contractor arisings. An individual must be given the necessary authority to manage wastes arising to be in a position to forecast, predict and thus manage the waste effectively. Construction Stage The construction stage is the culmination of all previous works. It begins with the mobilisation of plant and operatives and the commencement of actual construction and demolition operations. It should be noted that major changes at this stage lead to an increase in the costs of the works; as well as an overall programme slippage. Therefore, all QWs should be identified and steps taken to implement them prior to construction where possible. The first set of site rules and procedures will set the norm and form the basis of subsequent operations irrespective of their effectiveness. The overall message should be clear though not too prescriptive at that stage; such as unwanted packaging to be returned, standard pallets to be placed at the forecourt. Similar expectations in terms of waste management should be clear in tender negotiations. Ultimately the waste coordination responsibility should rest with the party that is in a position to request what unused materials should be sent back and which site waste can be sanctioned to go elsewhere. The construction phase programme is a powerful tool for planning waste resources and communicating waste arisings. It can be developed to show quantities and when the wastes are produced. At no point in the projects did any programme make formal provision for waste management, or even acknowledge that there are waste arisings to be dealt with. This can fundamentally be attributed to two factors; the lack of waste audits and the fact that programme schedules are activity orientated. It is normal in the industry for construction managers to review activities and manage the resultant waste arisings. However this approach becomes complicated if aspects of the programme begin to shift. Waste management should be orchestrated on site by an individual who is both acquainted with the site and its wastes, but more importantly the nature and scope of works carried out. This is so that when he inducts individuals, including the managers of operatives, he is aware of what the challenges and scope of their activities are and can brief them with relatable information which they can use in later tool box talks. Fundamentally however, the best time to intervene for implementing waste management QWs is in the phases prior to construction. Project Examples and issues The Lab Refurbishment, High-Rise and Retail projects demonstrate that the first set of site rules and procedures will set the norm and are the basis of subsequent operations. On the Lab Refurbishment project, there was one contractor on site, who left as the construction manager came in. The construction manager looked at the project plan and formulated the package scope documents in light of the site layout and project needs. The site procedures and induction pack (including waste management) were present early on and contractors who viewed the site prior to tender were made aware of the site rules. In the High-Rise development, the waste management contractor was existent, and therefore the precedent was set. At the Retail project, while waste initially went un-segregated, this was quickly rectified with an ensuing enforcement regimen by the site manager and foreman. The interaction between the various contractors and construction manager is based on a precise set of documents. The accessibility of the construction manager in the Lab Refurbishment project enabled one of the contractors to identify another site where the stripped roofing could be used, saving the cost of the panels going into the skips. Unused materials are a typical symptom of the industry s fragmentation on site operations. On the Lab Refurbishment, the form of contract priced works such that only works and materials carried out plus a 7.5% waste allowance were paid for. Applying and Testing Waste Management Quick Wins 15