Cost Assessment of Wales Environment Bill Measures on Business Waste Producers in the Construction & Demolition Sector

Transcription

1 Final Report Assessment of Wales Environment Bill Measures on Business Waste Producers in the Construction & Demolition Sector Assessment of the financial implications of additional segregation / collection for typical Welsh business waste producers in the demolition, construction, civil engineering and general building sub-sectors of the Construction & Demolition industry Project code: WCB Date: May 2015 Research date: Feb Sep 2014 v2

2 WRAP s vision is a world in which resources are used sustainably. Our mission is to accelerate the move to a sustainable resource-efficient economy through re-inventing how we design, produce and sell products; re-thinking how we use and consume products; and re-defining what is possible through reuse and recycling. Find out more at Written by: AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK, May 2015 Front cover photography: Chirk Castle undergoing renovation. L. Shat / Fotolia While we have tried to make sure this report is accurate, we cannot accept responsibility or be held legally responsible for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. This material is copyrighted. You can copy it free of charge as long as the material is accurate and not used in a misleading context. You must identify the source of the material and acknowledge our copyright. You must not use material to endorse or suggest we have endorsed a commercial product or service. For more details please see our terms and conditions on our website at

3 Executive summary In October 2013 the Welsh Government launched its consultation on proposals for an Environment Bill. The Environment Bill White Paper proposes extending the separate collection requirements for paper, glass, metal and plastic, introduced through the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011, to include card, wood and food wastes. This requirement is applied to all wastes household, commercial and industrial (C&I) and construction and demolition (C&D) wastes. Under these proposals there would be a requirement for businesses to present these materials separately from general waste for recycling. This study, commissioned by WRAP Cymru on behalf of the Welsh Government, was required to assess the costs/savings of additional segregation for typical business waste producers in the C&D sector, which for the purposes of the study has been divided into the following subsectors: demolition, construction, civil engineering and general building. The assessment compares the current waste management costs for typical C&D businesses, with costs in 2017 (allowing for the one final year of additional landfill tax increase), and the costs of waste management outlined in the proposed scenarios: Source segregation of all materials (paper, plastic, metal, glass, food, card and wood); Dry recyclables and food separate; Glass, dry recyclables and food separate; and, Mixed paper and card, mixed plastics and metals, glass, wood and food separate. With regard to food waste, this has been excluded from the assessment as estimates for the study indicate quantities for typical businesses in the C&D sector would be insignificant. In summary the assessment has found that: For each of the typical businesses in the C&D sector there are potential cost savings identified for all of the proposed segregated collection scenarios. The highest relative cost savings (as a proportion of total waste collection costs), are for typical businesses in the Construction and General Building sub-sectors, which generate the most recyclables as a proportion of their overall waste arisings. A typical business in the General Building sub-sector would benefit from the greatest relative savings (29-34%) under the collection scenarios. The highest absolute cost savings are for typical businesses in the Demolition and Civil Engineering sub-sectors, which generate the greatest quantities of waste and recyclables. Waste management costs for the C&D sector are significantly affected by the composition of materials making up the individual waste streams from a project. In the Demolition and Civil Engineering sub-sectors waste management costs are dominated by the quantity of aggregates and soil waste arisings; therefore savings from the segregated collection of recyclables for these businesses are the lowest for the C&D sector at 2-6%, although absolute savings are estimated to range from 1,500 to 5,500 per year. Economies of scale impact the waste collection costs for the targeted recyclables, with larger containers attracting lower costs. This favours mixed dry recycling strategies (scenarios 3 & 4) over total or partial segregation of recyclables (scenarios 2 & 5), as the additional costs of multiple small containers may reduce savings from additional waste segregation on site. 3

4 Contents 1.0 Introduction Study Aims This Report Methodology Modelled Scenarios Typical Businesses Waste Arisings Waste Management s Limitations Case Studies Results Demolition Construction Civil Engineering General Building Summary Conclusions Appendix 1 Typical Business ONS Data Appendix 2 Waste Arisings Data & Assumptions Appendix 3 Waste Management s Data & Assumptions Appendix 4 Demolition full results Appendix 5 Construction full results Appendix 6 Civil Engineering full results Appendix 7 General Building full results Appendix 8 Case Studies... 37

5 1.0 Introduction In October 2013 the Welsh Government launched its consultation on proposals for an Environment Bill 1, including proposals to maximise the quantity and quality of material that is recycled. The Environment Bill White Paper proposes extending the separate collection requirements for paper, glass, metal and plastic, introduced through the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011, to include card, wood and food wastes. This requirement is applied to all wastes household, commercial and industrial (C&I) and construction and demolition (C&D) wastes. Under these proposals there would be a requirement for businesses to present these materials separately from general waste for recycling. This study is focussed on the cost impacts of five waste management scenarios proposed to meet the requirements of the planned Environment Bill on typical businesses in the C&D sector. 1.1 Study Aims This study, commissioned by WRAP Cymru on behalf of the Welsh Government, was required to: Assess the costs/savings of additional segregation for typical business waste producers in sub-sectors of the C&D sector (for the study the following C&D sub-sectors have been identified: demolition, construction, civil engineering and general building); and Provide good practice case studies of businesses with high recycling performance. The assessment was required to assess the following business waste management scenarios: Waste management costs now and what it would be in 2017 (incorporating the final landfill tax increase in April 2014) Source segregation of all materials (paper, plastic, metal, glass, food, card and wood); Dry recyclables and food separate; Glass, dry recyclables and food separate; and, Mixed paper and card, mixed plastics and metals, glass, wood and food separate. With regard to food waste, this has been excluded from the assessment as estimates for the study indicate quantities for typical businesses in the C&D sector would be minimal, at <1% of the recyclable arisings (Appendix 2). Following the recent publication of the Welsh national C&D survey for 2012, this report provides an update to a previous study, which was based on Welsh C&D waste data for 2005/ This Report This report presents the outputs of the cost assessment for typical C&D businesses in the demolition, construction, civil engineering and general building sub-sectors. Following this introduction, the report covers: Methodology (including data sources, key assumptions and limitations); Results (summary findings and the individual assessment for each sub-sector); and Conclusions. 1 Towards the Sustainable Management of Wales Natural Resources - Consultation on proposals for an Environment Bill, Welsh Government White Paper WG 19631, 23 October 2013, 5

6 2.0 Methodology The methodology for carrying out the cost assessment was divided into three key stages: A review of the C&D sector in Wales, identifying typical businesses for the study and available information on waste arisings and costs. Gathering information for the assessment through literature review and direct contact with relevant organisations. Development of a model to analyse available data with respect to the proposed waste management scenarios, and assessment of costs for typical C&D businesses. Two approaches have been adopted to gather information to carry out the assessment. The first has been a top-down approach that considers information relating to the whole C&D sector, scaled down to typical businesses identified in the sector. The second has been a bottom-up approach based on direct contact with Welsh construction and demolition businesses, waste management companies (WMCs), and other relevant organisations, such as Construction Excellence in Wales. During the course of the study it became apparent that the information available from individual organisations was limited in scope, so the assessment has primarily used the top-down approach, with supplementary information from individual companies providing a sense-check on data used in the model. 2.1 Modelled Scenarios The cost impact of the Environment Bill for the typical business defined under each C&D subsector has been estimated for five different future waste management scenarios in 2017: 1. Scenario 1 No change to current waste management practices 2. Scenario 2 Source segregation of all materials (paper, plastic, metal, glass, card and wood); 3. Scenario 3 Dry recyclables separate; 4. Scenario 4 Glass, dry recyclables separate; and, 5. Scenario 5 Mixed paper and card, mixed plastics and metals, glass and wood separate. The assessment compares the current estimated waste management costs for typical C&D businesses, with costs in 2017 (allowing for the additional landfill tax increase in April 2014), and the costs of waste management outlined in the above scenarios. 2.2 Typical Businesses Consistent with the recent Natural Resource Wales (NRW) 2012 survey of C&D waste in Wales 2, Welsh Government s C&D Sector Plan (2012) 3 and the Environment Agency s 2005/06 Wales C&D waste survey 4, the C&D sector has been split into the following four sub-sectors: Demolition the main activity being demolition of buildings Construction activities ranging from new builds to commercial developments Civil Engineering large scale projects such as highways, excavation and site clearance General Building installation and maintenance of buildings e.g. plumbers and electricians

7 Typical businesses for each sub-sector were identified using 2013 Office for National Statistics (ONS) data for the Welsh C&D sector, calculating the median company size in each sub-sector based on the number of employees. The median company size is defined to be the company size such that 50% of employees in the sub-sector are employed in larger companies and 50% in smaller companies. The employment sizes of typical businesses are included in Table 2.1 below, along with estimated waste arisings. Further detail on the ONS data used in identifying typical businesses is included in Appendix Waste Arisings In order to assess the costs of the proposed waste management scenarios on typical businesses an appraisal of quantities and composition of C&D waste was required. A literature review of C&D waste sector information for Wales and the UK was carried out, and it was judged that the 2012 C&D waste survey for Wales provides the best detail with respect to data on recyclable materials for use in the assessment. The evaluation of waste arisings has therefore been based primarily on data from the 2012 C&D survey; with waste quantities for businesses of a specific size identified from Table 1 of the Appendix to the 2012 survey report, and proportions of individual waste arisings for each sub-sector determined from additional information provided by NRW on European Waste Catalogue codes and waste management method (used in Tables 7-10 and of the Appendix to the 2012 survey report). Further detail on the process to determine the waste arisings for typical businesses in each sub-sector is provided in Appendix 2, along with key assumptions with respect to recyclable materials in the assessment. Additional information on waste arisings for Wales has been provided by C&D businesses and WMCs, which, although limited in availability, provided a snapshot for the C&D sector, enabling a comparison with the outputs of the 2012 survey. Also, in the absence of alternative information the composition of mixed waste with respect to un-segregated recyclables for each sub-sector, was determined from Table 5 of the 2005/06 C&D waste survey report. The 2012 C&D survey report recommends that comparisons should not be made between the 2005/06 and 2012 surveys, highlighting a change in the definition of waste for the respective surveys; this appears to be particularly relevant to aggregate and soil materials that make up a significant proportion of the C&D waste arisings, but appears to be less significant for other waste streams. The 2012 survey data indicates that the recyclable materials targeted by Welsh Government in this study represent a relatively small proportion of total waste arisings at around 7%, with aggregates and soils constituting around 80% of waste for the C&D sector. However, closer analysis of the data reveals that there are significant differences in the proportion of recyclable waste materials between the C&D sub-sectors (Table 2.1); for example at the higher end, for a typical general building business, recyclable materials are estimated to account for 37% of total annual waste arisings. A more detailed breakdown of the composition of C&D waste for typical C&D businesses, in terms of the recyclable materials considered in the proposed segregation scenarios is presented in Table 2.2. Table 2.1 Estimated waste arisings for typical businesses in C&D sub-sectors C&D Sector Number of staff in typical Average Waste Arisings Recyclables for Scenarios business (tonnes/yr) (tonnes/yr) (% of total waste) Demolition 7 4, % Construction % Civil Engineering 35 2, % General Building % Total C&D Sector - 3,359, ,800 7% 7

8 Table 2.2 Breakdown of waste materials for typical businesses in each C&D sub-sector Demolition Construction Civil Engineering General Building (t/yr) (%) (t/yr) (%) (t/yr) (%) (t/yr) (%) Targeted Recyclable Materials Glass 0 - <1 0.1% <1 <0.1% <1 0.7% Plastic 5 0.1% 8 3% 29 1% 13 11% Paper & Card <1 <0.1% 4 1% % 8 7% Wood 177 4% 24 8% 65 2% 16 14% Metal 311 6% 8 2% 25 1% 6 5% Sub-Total % 44 14% 132 5% 43 37% Materials not covered by proposed segregation scenarios Mixed Waste (excluding recyclables) 42 1% 19 6% 96 3% 17 14% Aggregates and Soils 4,081 86% % 2,529 89% 54 46% Gypsum & Insulation 9 0.2% 5 1% 9 0.3% 2 2% Hazardous 94 2% 1 0.4% 52 2% <1 0.3% Biodegradable 3 0.1% 1 0.2% 8 0.3% <1 <0.1% Sub-Total 4,229 90% % 2,694 95% 73 63% Total Waste 4, % % 2, % % 2.4 Waste Management s Waste collection prices for the targeted recyclable materials using various container sizes were sourced from a number of private sector Waste Management Companies (WMCs). The primary source of information was from survey work carried out for the commercial and industrial cost impact assessment related to this study (BHC ), which included data for three national WMCs and three Welsh based WMCs. A sense check on these costs was carried out based on additional pricing information received from a national waste broker for three Welsh-based construction projects, and a survey of WMCs on C&D waste segregation costs, carried out by Construction Excellence in Wales (CE Wales). Based on this, the waste management charges for plastics were revised (assumed to be one third of mixed waste costs), but other costs were kept the same. The pricing information did not cover a comprehensive range of skip sizes, so extrapolation was required to estimate prices for certain sizes of container, based on actual prices available for containers of a different size. Where extrapolation has been carried out these prices are highlighted in yellow in the table of Container Prices in Appendix 3. For some of the proposed segregation scenarios cost data was not available for the C&D sector, either due to a lack of data (e.g. contaminated wood), or because the scenario does not appear to represent an existing option in terms of waste management for C&D waste (e.g. mixed dry recyclables). Where prices have been assumed for a whole scenario, these are highlighted in blue in the table of Container Prices in Appendix 3. Although other C&D waste arisings (e.g. aggregates and soil, insulation and gypsum, etc) are not included in the proposed segregation scenarios, an estimation of costs for these waste streams has been included in the model to allow a comparison to be made for the impact of each scenario in relation to total waste management costs. Waste management costs for the additional waste streams have been calculated from the BRE SMARTWaste data report to WRAP Cymru 5, based on a weighted average of waste management costs reported 5 BRE SMARTWaste-Data-report FINAL V _0-1.xslx (2012), provided by WRAP Cymru 8

9 for North and South Wales for inert, gypsum and hazardous waste (Appendix 3). data for biodegradable waste was not available from the BRE Waste Tool, so an estimation of costs was calculated using WRAP Cymru s 2013 Gate Fees report 6, based on data for composting of organics available for Wales. The key assumptions with respect to pricing of specific waste streams and segregation scenarios are presented in Appendix Limitations Through the course of research for this assessment it became apparent that there are significant gaps in available C&D sector data for Wales, both in terms of waste arisings and the cost of managing the waste. When considering the results of the assessment it should be noted that: Although the cost assessment is based on the best available data, as described in the methodology above, it is primarily based on the top-down approach using 2012 waste survey data, with additional checks from information provided by specific companies. Not all the proposed scenarios represent existing options in terms of waste management for the C&D sector. Although there are some indicative costs available for clearly segregated waste streams, no costs were available for mixed dry-recyclables or mixed plastic and metals, therefore these costs arise from reasoned assumptions based on other available costs. In practice, actual costs following implementation of the new legislation in 2017 may be quite different. No distinction has been made between the ultimate recycling or recovery route for segregated wood. Market reports and discussions with WMCs suggest that there is significant regional variation in associated waste management costs for wood waste, and recycling and recovery options are dictated by market prices. There is increasing demand for both untreated and contaminated wood for biomass schemes, so waste management costs may be subject to changes that cannot be predicted in this assessment. The assessment has assumed that handling and management costs on-site would not be significantly different for the different scenarios. Feedback from C&D businesses to CE Wales indicates that regardless of a business size a more significant issue than these costs is the limitation on the physical space required to accommodate separate source segregation on-site. The model has optimised waste container sizes according to the quantity of waste arisings, rather than physical space on site (which will vary depending on individual site conditions). Physical site constraints may mean that in practice much smaller containers would have to be used when segregating wastes into multiple streams, thus considerably driving up the costs of collection, and outweighing the potential cost benefits of segregating before, as opposed to after collection. 2.6 Case Studies Case studies on C&D businesses which currently achieve high levels of recycling performance, or have made gains in performance by adopting measures that are consistent with the requirements of the Environment Bill, have been produced (Appendix 8)

10 3.0 Results The results have been assessed in terms of the estimated cost impact of each scenario for a typical business representative for each of the four C&D sub-sectors, and in terms of a general high-level assessment across the sub-sectors. Tables 3.1 to 3.4 in the following sections present the summary results for scenarios 1 to 5 for the typical businesses identified for each of the C&D sub-sectors. Where comparisons are made between typical businesses in each sub-sector, this is also put into the context of quantity of waste arisings for the subsectors Demolition Table 3.1 Demolition Estimated cost impacts for a typical business Typical Company Size (staff) 7 Waste Arisings tonnes/yr Total Waste 4,722 % of total In terms of the segregation scenarios, for the demolition sub-sector there is no difference between Scenario 3 (mixed dry recyclables with glass) and Scenario 4 (mixed dry recyclables glass separate), as no glass is identified in the waste arisings. In reality there would be some quantities of glass material from demolition projects but at insignificant levels to be recorded in the waste survey data. Discussions with a demolition contractor indicated that 10 waste % of recyclables Recyclables for proposed scenarios % 100% - Mixed Waste (with potential for recycling) % 14% - Segregated Waste (currently recycled) % 86% Total s Waste Management s (including aggregates, soils & non-recyclables) Proposed Scenario 2017 Baseline 2013 Baseline Difference ( /yr) ( /yr) ( /yr) (%) Scenario 1 (No change) 94,085 93, % Scenario 2 (All recyclables segregated) 91,581 93,175-1,594-2% Scenario 3 (Mixed dry recyclables) 87,712 93,175-5,462-6% Scenario 4 (Mixed dry recyclables - glass separate) 87,712 93,175-5,462-6% Scenario 5 (Mixed paper & card, mixed plastics & metals, glass & wood separate) 91,246 93,175-1,929-2% At 4,722 tonnes of waste per year the typical business for the demolition sub-sector has the greatest quantity of total waste arisings out of the businesses for the C&D sub-sectors, and the highest associated total waste management costs ( 88k to 92k). However, less than 11% of the total costs are attributed to the recyclable material targeted by the proposed scenarios (Table A3.3 Appendix 3). Approximately 80% of the total waste management costs for the demolition business can be attributed to aggregates and soils, which represents 86% of the total waste arisings (Table 2.2). The typical demolition business also has one of the lowest relative savings for the four recycling scenarios (2, 3, 4 & 5), at 2-6% compared to the baseline scenario (Table 3.1). This is in part a reflection of the quantity of recyclable material attributed to the sub-sector, which is around four times that of a typical business identified for civil engineering (i.e. 493 tonnes versus 132 tonnes Table 2.1). However, on a /tonne basis costs for the demolition sector come out significantly lower than for the other sub-sectors, e.g. for Scenario 3 Mixed dry recyclables, Demolition = 12/t, Construction = 36/t, Civil Engineering = 37/t and General Builder = 40/t). This is due to the relatively high proportion of metal waste arisings for the demolition sub-sector, representing approximately 60% of the targeted recyclable material arisings.

11 glass generally gets mixed in with aggregates in the process of demolishing a building, which may account for the absence of glass as a waste arising for the demolition sub-sector; this is in part due to measures to mitigate the risk of injuries experienced by demolition staff when handling glass. The mixed dry recyclable collection costs (Scenario 3 and 4) for the demolition business are lower than the costs for Scenario 2 (all segregated) or Scenario 5 (some mixed materials). For the demolition sub-sector it has been assumed that due to the significant quantity of valuable metals in the targeted recyclable waste streams, a business is likely to separate out metals from a mixed dry recyclable collection. The volume of mixed dry recyclables and associated costs would therefore be lower than if metals were included in the volume collected. There is little difference between the costs for Scenario 2 (all segregated) and Scenario 5 (some mixed materials). Waste arisings do not account for a difference between paper and card for the C&D sector, and it has been assumed that quantities of paper would be insignificant compared to card. For the demolition sub-sector business paper and card represent <1% of the overall recyclable volume, so will have little impact on these costs. Plastic material also represents <1%of the recyclable volume for the demolition sub-sector, so in reality the mixed plastic and metals waste stream would be dominated by metals and separate collection of plastics would have little impact on costs Construction Table 3.2 Construction Estimated cost impacts for a typical business Typical Company Size (staff) 15 Waste Arisings tonnes/yr Total Waste 325 % of total waste % of recyclables Recyclables for proposed scenarios 44 13% 100% - Mixed Waste (with potential for recycling) % 46% - Segregated Waste (currently recycled) % 54% Total s Waste Management s (including aggregates, soils & non-recyclables) Proposed Scenario 2017 Baseline 2013 Baseline Difference ( /yr) ( /yr) ( /yr) (%) Scenario 1 (No change) 10,175 9, % Scenario 2 (All recyclables segregated) 8,244 9,857-1,613-16% Scenario 3 (Mixed dry recyclables) 7,822 9,857-2,035-21% Scenario 4 (Mixed dry recyclables - glass separate) 7,836 9,857-2,021-21% Scenario 5 (Mixed paper & card, mixed plastics & metals, glass & wood separate) 8,303 9,857-1,554-16% Based on waste survey data a typical construction business will have roughly a 50:50 split between mixed waste and current recycling (Table 3.2). For a typical construction business the cost of the four recycling scenarios ranges from 7.8 to 8.2k, with savings of 16 to 21% on the baseline. The costs for the targeted recyclables are estimated to be 20-25% of total waste management costs (Table A3.4 Appendix 3). For the construction sub-sector a small amount of glass is identified in the waste arisings (<0.1% of the total waste volume), which results in a difference of around 14 between Scenario 3 (mixed dry recyclables with glass) and Scenario 4 (mixed dry recyclables glass separate). So essentially there would be little difference between these scenarios for the typical construction business. 11

12 Mixed dry recyclable collection costs (Scenario 3 and 4) for the construction business are lower than the costs for segregation or mixed collections (Scenarios 2 & 5). This is primarily due to the quantity of wood included at the mixed dry recyclables collection cost rate, which is lower than the overall cost rate for separate collection of wood. For the construction subsector wood represents 50% of the total recyclable volume that would require collection. There is little difference between the costs for Scenario 2 (all segregated) and Scenario 5 (some mixed materials). Again paper and card are not separated out in these scenarios, with quantities of paper assumed to be insignificant compared to card. For Scenario 5 where metals are mixed with plastics, the waste management cost is assumed to be the marginally higher than for plastics only to allow for sorting of the materials, but no cost is attributed to the volume of metal sorted Civil Engineering Table 3.3 Civil Engineering Estimated cost impacts for a typical business Typical Company Size (staff) 35 Waste Arisings tonnes/yr Total Waste 2,826 % of total Mixed dry recyclable collection costs (Scenario 3 and 4) for the typical civil engineering business also present the greatest savings over the Baseline scenario. However, the cost margins for Scenarios 3 & 4 (mixed dry recyclables) and Scenarios 2 & 5 (segregation or mixed collections), are smaller than for the other C&D sectors. This is due to the relatively 12 waste % of recyclables Recyclables for proposed scenarios 132 5% 100% - Mixed Waste (with potential for recycling) % 45% - Segregated Waste (currently recycled) % 55% Total s Waste Management s (including aggregates, soils & non-recyclables) Proposed Scenario 2017 Baseline 2013 Baseline Difference ( /yr) ( /yr) ( /yr) (%) Scenario 1 (No change) 63,918 62,672 1,246 2% Scenario 2 (All recyclables segregated) 60,450 62,672-2,222-4% Scenario 3 (Mixed dry recyclables) 59,901 62,672-2,772-4% Scenario 4 (Mixed dry recyclables - glass separate) 59,927 62,672-2,745-4% Scenario 5 (Mixed paper & card, mixed plastics & metals, glass & wood separate) 60,606 62,672-2,066-3% For a typical civil engineering business the pattern for recyclable waste arisings (covered by the scenarios), is similar to the construction sector, with just over half the recyclable materials currently estimated to be segregated for recycling (Table 3.3). The typical civil engineering business is estimated to have 35 staff, which is the highest for typical businesses identified across the C&D sub-sectors. For a civil engineering business the cost of the four recycling scenarios is broadly similar ranging from 59.9k to 60.6k, with associated savings of 3-4% on the baseline, which along with the demolition sector represents one of the lowest relative savings from the four recycling scenarios. As with the demolition sector total waste management costs are dominated by the quantity of aggregates and soils, which represents 89% of waste arisings (Table 2.2) and over 70% of the total waste management costs. The costs for the targeted recyclables are estimated to be 8-9% of total waste management costs for the typical civil engineering business (Table A3.5 Appendix 3). As for all of the C&D sub-sectors minimal quantities of glass are identified in the civil engineering waste stream (<0.1% of total waste arisings), so again there is little difference between the segregation of glass for Scenarios 3 & 4.

13 small quantity of recyclable arisings (covered by the proposed scenarios) for a typical civil engineering business, which at just 5% of overall waste arisings represents the lowest proportion of recyclables across the C&D sectors. The costs for Scenario 2 (all segregated) are lower than for Scenario 5 (some mixed materials), by 156 per year. This marginal difference appears to be due to the extra cost factored in to sort a combined collection of plastics and metals General Building Table 3.4 General Building Esitmated cost impacts for a typical business Typical Company Size (staff) 7 Waste Arisings tonnes/yr Total Waste 116 % of total waste % of recyclables Recyclables for proposed scenarios 43 37% 100% - Mixed Waste (with potential for recycling) % 38% - Segregated Waste (currently recycled) % 62% Total s Waste Management s (including aggregates, soils & non-recyclables) Proposed Scenario 2017 Baseline 2013 Baseline Difference ( /yr) ( /yr) ( /yr) (%) Scenario 1 (No change) 6,512 6, % Scenario 2 (All recyclables segregated) 4,448 6,245-1,797-29% Scenario 3 (Mixed dry recyclables) 4,129 6,245-2,116-34% Scenario 4 (Mixed dry recyclables - glass separate) 4,129 6,245-2,116-34% Scenario 5 (Mixed paper & card, mixed plastics & metals, glass & wood separate) 4,440 6,245-1,805-29% A typical business for the general building sub-sector has the highest proportion of recyclable material currently segregated from the total waste arisings, at 23% (Table 3.4). The calculated annual mixed waste arisings for a typical business in this sub-sector are 43 tonnes, which is just 1 tonne lower than for a typical business in the construction sector. The costs of the four recycling scenarios for the general building business range from 4.1k to 4.4k. This delivers the highest relative savings out of the sub-sectors, at 29-34% on baseline costs. This is judged to be mainly a function of the low waste management costs (and quantities) for aggregates and soils in this sub-sector, at <25% of total waste management costs. The quantity of glass in waste for the general building business is higher than for the other sub-sectors but is still relatively low (0.7% of total waste arisings), and there is no appreciable difference between Scenario 3 (mixed dry recyclables with glass) and Scenario 4 (mixed dry recyclables glass separate). Although there is a difference in costs between each of the four recycling scenarios for the general building business, the variation between the lowest cost (Scenario 3 all dry recyclables), and highest cost (Scenario 2 all recyclables segregated) is minimal, at around 320/year. The proportion of metals and wood is relatively low compared to the other subsectors, which appears to account for the similarity in costs for each of the scenarios. A significant cost impact for the typical general building business is the use of smaller skips at relatively higher cost rates for the material collected. 13

14 3.1.5 Summary All the modelled scenarios for additional levels of recycling show savings to typical businesses in the C&D sectors. Quantities of glass are calculated to be minimal for the C&D sub-sectors, so there is little difference between the costs of Scenarios 3 & 4 for separating out glass from dry recyclables. Information from the demolition sub-sector indicates that glass generally becomes mixed with aggregates, which is due in part to health and safety issues experienced with handling plate glass. Baseline costs and recycling costs for each scenario are highest for the typical demolition business owing to the higher quantities of aggregate and soil wastes, and recyclable wastes that are typically generated. On a /tonne basis recycling costs are significantly lower for the demolition business due to the quantity of metals and the economics of using larger container sizes for the volumes of waste generated. The scenarios for mixed dry recyclables (including glass and with glass separate) would result in the highest cost savings for the typical businesses in each of the C&D sub-sectors (although the difference between the scenarios is more pronounced for the construction and general building sub-sectors). The higher costs associated with full or partial segregation options (Scenarios 2 & 5) relate to the extra costs required to manage segregation of different waste streams using several smaller, less cost effective containers. This is particularly apparent in relation to the higher overall cost for separate waste management of wood material, compared to the cost assumed for mixed dry recyclables. The composition of recyclable materials for the different sub-sectors has a significant impact on costs: For the construction sub-sector the high proportion of wood and relatively low proportion of metals increases the costs of segregated recycling (Scenarios 2 & 5), compared to the mixed dry recyclable collection scenarios (Scenarios 3 & 4). Again the high proportion of wood for the demolition sub-sector increases the costs of segregated recycling (Scenarios 2 & 5). For this study metals are excluded from the dry recyclable scenarios for the demolition sub-sector (because owing to the quantities generated and its higher value, in practice it would be cost beneficial to segregate metals from other materials), however if this material was included at the same cost rate, the costs of Scenarios 3 & 4 would be skewed upwards and costs would be higher than the calculated baseline. The general building sub-sector appears to achieve the greatest relative cost savings (29-34% under each scenario. Additional responses from C&D businesses to CE Wales highlight that the cost of multiple containers would be an obstacle to source segregation, but that the most significant factor affecting source segregation is the physical space available on site to accommodate even single containers, which applies to both large and small sites. As discussed in Section 2.5, due to the variation in individual site conditions it is not possible to account for this in the model but is provided here for consideration. This could potentially reduce the cost savings for typical businesses identified in the assessment, as the use of smaller containers with more frequent collections would increase waste management costs. 14

15 4.0 Conclusions This study has assessed the cost impacts of maintaining the status quo for C&D waste management in 2017, and four proposed segregation scenarios designed to address the expected requirements of the Environment Bill. These scenarios have been assessed for typical businesses identified for each of the four C&D sub-sectors: demolition, construction, civil engineering and general building. The assessment compared the estimated costs of current waste management practices for typical C&D businesses, to waste management costs under each of the scenarios in 2017 (allowing for the final additional landfill tax increase in April 2014). In summary the assessment has found that: For each of the typical businesses in the C&D sector there are potential cost savings identified for all of the proposed segregated collection scenarios. The relative savings (i.e. % of baseline costs) of the segregated recycling options are generally consistent with the proportion of recyclable material available for each sub-sector. The highest relative savings are attributed to a typical business in the general building sub-sector, which currently has the highest estimated proportion of the targeted recyclable materials for segregated collection. Waste management costs for the C&D sector are significantly affected by the composition of materials that make up the individual waste streams from construction, demolition, civil engineering and general building projects. As may be expected, for the demolition and civil engineering sub-sectors overall waste management costs are dominated by the quantity of aggregate and soil waste arisings associated with these businesses. Scenarios 3 and 4 (mixed dry recycling strategies) appear to deliver the highest potential savings for typical businesses in each C&D sub-sector. Due to the relatively small quantity of glass waste reported for the C&D sector there is little difference between the mixed dry recyclable scenarios. Economies of scale impact the waste collection costs for the targeted recyclables, with larger containers attracting lower costs. This favours the mixed dry recycling strategies (scenarios 3 and 4) over total or partial segregation of recyclables (scenarios 2 and 5), as the additional costs of multiple small containers may reduce savings from additional waste segregation on site. This also impacts the general building sub-sector, where the costs to collect smaller volumes of waste are higher proportionally than for the other sub-sectors. For scenarios 2 and 5 (all segregated or partial segregation) the segregation of wood for recycling also affects waste management costs. However the market for waste wood appears to be dictated by the demand for all types of wood in biomass recovery schemes, and associated waste management costs may be reduced if there is an increased demand from this outlet. 15

16 Appendix 1 Typical Business ONS Data UK Business Counts - Local units ONS Crown Copyright Reserved [from Nomis on 18 February 2014] area type area name regions Wales date 2013 legal status Total Employment Sizeband 412 : Construction of residential and nonresidential buildings 421 : Construction of roads and railways 422 : Construction of utility projects 429 : Construction of other civil engineering projects 431 : Demolition and site preparation 432 : Electrical, plumbing and other construction installation activities 433 : Building completion and finishing 439 : Other specialised construction activities n.e.c. Total 2, ,055 2,325 1,255 0 to 4 1, ,350 1, to to to to to to to Figures may differ by small amounts from those published in ONS outputs due to the application of a different rounding methodology. 16

17 Appendix 2 Waste Arisings Data & Assumptions The first stage in determining waste arisings for the C&D sector was to identify the average annual waste quantities for individual companies in each C&D sub-sector, from Table 1 in the Appendix of the 2012 survey report (Table A2.1). These were then applied to the typical businesses identified for the assessment. To account for a difference in employee size band classification used in the 2005/06 survey (3-9 staff, mid-point: 6 staff) and the ONS data available for 2013 (5-9 staff, mid-point: 7 staff), a minor adjustment was carried out to the average waste arisings for the Demolition and General Building sub-sectors. The adjustment is presented in the final results for the Demolition (Appendix 4) and the General Building sub-sectors (Appendix 7). No adjustment was required for the Construction and Civil Engineering sub-sectors. Table A2.1 Wales C&D Waste Survey 2012 Appendix Table 1 Table A2.2 Wales C&D Waste Survey 2012 Summary C&D Sector Waste Arisings from EWC Codes WASTE CATEGORY DEMOLITION CONSTRUCTION CIVIL ENGINEERING GENERAL BUILDER Total % of total Total % of total Total % of total Total % of total (tonnes) Segregated Mixed Waste (tonnes) Segregated Mixed Waste (tonnes) Segregated Mixed Waste (tonnes) Segregated Mixed Waste Dry Recyclables Glass % 0.00% % 0.00% % 0.00% 1, % 0.03% Plastic % 0.00% 14, % 0.02% 8, % 0.01% 15, % 0.14% Paper & Card % 0.00% 5, % 0.01% 2, % 0.00% 10, % 0.01% Wood 4, % 0.00% 66, % 0.07% 21, % 0.02% 21, % 0.03% Metal 8, % 0.00% 16, % 0.01% 9, % 0.00% 7, % 0.00% Other Wastes Aggregates & Soils 125, % 1,090, % 1,417, % 110, % Hazardous 2, % 5, % 29, % % Insulation/Gypsum % 19, % 5, % 3, % Biodegradable % 2, % 4, % % Mixed Waste 3, % 169, % 86, % 68, % Totals 145, % 2.40% 1,391, % 12.27% 1,583, % 5.52% 238, % 28.79% Note: Segregated: includes dry recyclables for re-use, recycling or recovery. Mixed Waste: includes dry recyclables for landfill and other waste management 17

18 Table A2.3 Wales C&D Waste Survey 2005/06 Table 5 The next stage was to determine the quantity of specific materials for typical businesses, particularly regarding the recyclable materials identified for the assessment. The proportion of waste materials for each sub-sector was calculated from background survey data provided by NRW, which identified waste quantities (tonnes) for each C&D sub-sector, categorised by EWC code and waste management method. For this assessment EWC codes were apportioned according to categories for dry recyclable materials: metal, glass, plastic, wood, paper and card, along with proportions of aggregates and soils, gypsum and insulation, hazardous (including WEEE), biodegradable and mixed/general waste (summarised in Table A2.2). Additional analysis was carried out to calculate the proportion of segregated recyclable materials with potential for recycling but included in the mixed/general waste category (e.g. under EWC code ); this level of detail was not available from the 2012 survey so was calculated from the mixed waste composition data in Table 5 of the 2005/06 survey report (Table A2.3). The calculated proportions of each waste category were then applied to the average waste arisings for typical businesses determined from the first stage, as presented in Table 2.2 (Section 2.3 of this report). To allow a cost assessment to be carried out based on the size of waste collection containers, an additional stage was carried out to convert quantities of waste from mass (tonnes) to volume (cubic metres), using appropriate bulk density values for each material (Appendices 4, 5, 6 & 7). During the course of the study certain assumptions were required with respect to the waste arisings for the recyclable materials in the assessment. Key assumptions are listed below. 7 EWC Code : mixed construction and demolition wastes other than those mentioned in , and

19 Glass For the study it has been assumed that for the C&D sector waste glass relates to plate glass rather than bottle glass. Discussions with a demolition contractor indicated that glass generally gets mixed in with aggregates in the process of demolishing a building, which may account for the absence of glass as a waste arising for the demolition sub-sector; this is in part due to measures to mitigate the risk of injuries incurred by demolition staff when handling glass. Plastic It has been assumed that all plastic materials are collected together, with no distinction between waste packaging and waste product. Paper & Card In terms of waste arisings, data for the C&D sector does not distinguish between paper and card. The majority of paper and card waste generated for the C&D sector is judged to be from cardboard packaging material with minimal quantities of waste paper, so for the assessment it is assumed that paper and card are combined under the lower value cardboard for the recycling scenarios. Through research for the study it is understood that prior to demolition, buildings are usually cleared of all internal contents, so paper is not generally part of the waste arisings. Wood With respect to wood, waste data does not typically distinguish between untreated and contaminated wood. However, following research into UK studies on the wood waste market and discussions with WMCs and C&D businesses, an attempt has been made to distinguish between costs for segregating untreated wood and contaminated wood. The assessment has made the following assumptions in relation to the composition of wood waste for the C&D sector: For the construction, civil engineering and general building sub-sectors, 56% of waste wood has been categorised as untreated (based on a WRAP Cymru study in ), the remainder has been categorised as contaminated. For the demolition sub-sector anecdotal evidence indicates that proportions of contaminated wood waste would be higher than for the other sub-sectors, so it has been assumed that 20% of this waste stream is untreated wood and 80% is contaminated wood. Metal For the study it has been assumed that all metals are collected together, with no distinction between different types. Food With respect to food, it is understood that quantities of food waste generated by the C&D sector are insignificant, which is borne out by the lack of references to food in C&D waste surveys. A specific list of European Waste Catalogue (EWC) codes is provided for typical C&D waste arisings ( to ), and although this does not exclude the reporting of other relevant waste types, e.g. food waste, no information on the quantity of food waste for the C&D sector was available. In the absence of any data a simple evaluation of the potential quantity of food waste for typical C&D businesses was made for the study. This estimated that for the typical C&D businesses food waste would amount to 0.01% to 0.6% of the total targeted recyclable 8 WRAP (2011), Realising the value of recovered wood. Market Situation Report Summer

20 waste arisings (Table 2.3). On this basis food waste was judged to be insignificant in terms of quantities for segregated waste collection and was excluded from the assessment. Table A2.3 Estimated food waste arisings for typical businesses in each C&D sub-sector Demolition Construction Civil Engineering General Building Number of staff Daily food consumption (while at work) kg per staff member (kg) Food of daily consumption - Daily (kg) days/yr (kg) Targeted recyclable waste (tonnes/yr) Food Waste Proportion (%) 0.01% 0.34% 0.63% 0.22% 20

21 Appendix 3 Waste Management s Data & Assumptions Table A3.1 Waste Management s Container Prices from Model Builder Bag ( per 0.08m3) of 2 yrd3 ( per 1.50m3) of 6 yrd3 ( per 4.58m3) of 8 yrd3 ( per 6.10m3) of 10 yrd3 ( per 7.60m3) of 12 yrd3 ( per 9.17m3) of 16 yrd3 ( per 12.20m3) of 20 yrd3 ( per 15.30m3) of 40 yrd3 ( per 30.60m3) Container Capacity (m3) Baseline Mixed Waste ( /container) Scenario 2 - All separate Glass - Separate ( /container) Plastic - Separate ( /container) Paper - Separate ( /container) Card - Separate ( /container) Wood (untreated) - Recycling/Recovery ( /container) Wood (contaminated) - Recycling/Recovery ( /container) Metal - Separate ( /container) Scenario 3 - Dry Recyclables Dry recycling with glass ( /container) Scenario 4 - Dry recyclables- glass separate Glass - Separate ( /container) Dry recycling (no glass) ( /container) Scenario 5 - Mixed Recyclables Glass - Separate ( /container) Plastic & Metal - Combined ( /container) Paper & Card - Combined ( /container) Wood (untreated) - Recycling/Recovery ( /container) Wood (contaminated) - Recycling/Recovery ( /container) Cells highlighted green denote prices derived from survey of private sector WMCs Cells highlighted yellow denote prices derived from extrapolation of prices available for other container sizes (see text of report and model for detail) Cells highlighted blue denote prices that have had to be assumed for the whole waste segregation scenario (see text of report and model for detail) 21

22 Table A3.2 BRE SMARTWaste Data Tool Waste Management s Weighted averages for Wales Waste Type Location Sample Size Waste Disposal ( /m3) Inert North Wales South Wales Weighted Average Gypsum North Wales South Wales Weighted Average Hazardous North Wales South Wales Weighted Average The following assumptions have been made in the model with respect to pricing of specific waste streams and segregation scenarios: Wood For wood waste a lower waste management cost has been applied to untreated wood than contaminated wood. Information received from WMCs and research of wood waste market reports indicates that untreated, clean wood has a higher value as it is more suitable for recycling (e.g. into animal bedding and panelboard), and can also be used for recovery in biomass schemes without restrictions under the Waste Incineration Directive (WID). For contaminated wood waste there are fewer options for recycling, and recovery routes require that biomass schemes are WID compliant, thus raising the associated waste management costs. Container prices for collection of untreated wood are based on extrapolation of private sector WMC information and the CE Wales survey. Prices for collection of contaminated wood are based on the difference in price between clean and mixed wood from the CE Wales survey, with the assumption that collection of contaminated is 1.5 times greater than untreated wood. Mixed Dry Recyclables In the absence of actual costs for mixed dry recyclables this was estimated based on an analysis of the weighted averages of the charges for segregated materials, with an additional 10% uplift for sorting. On this basis the calculated cost for mixed dry recyclables was approximately 30% lower than the cost of general mixed waste. This provided a rate that was higher than the costs for the segregated waste streams but lower than the cost for general waste, as would be expected. Due to the large proportion of metals for the demolition sub-sector (based on the 2005/06 waste survey data metals account for approximately 80% of the targeted recyclables for demolition), the cost rate for mixed dry recyclables scenarios excludes metals for this sub-sector. This is on the basis that at these quantities, in practice a demolition business would arrange separate collection of this higher value material. Mixed Plastic & Metals No cost data was available for collection of mixed plastic and metals for the C&D sector. For the model it was assumed that the cost would be the same as for segregated plastics with a 10% uplift added for sorting plastics and metals. No cost was attributed to the metals. Materials not covered by segregation scenarios To allow costs to be determined for materials not covered by the segregation scenarios, based on costs available from the BRE Waste Tool it has been assumed that inert waste 22

23 covers aggregates and soils, gypsum waste covers gypsum and insulation materials, and hazardous waste covers hazardous and WEEE categories. To allow a cost determination for biodegradable material, the assessment assumed the median gate fee for Open-Air Windrow composting for Wales, as reported in Table 3 of WRAP Cymru s 2013 Gate Fees report. Baseline Scenario For the baseline scenario it has been assumed that existing landfill tax charges are incorporated into the mixed waste costs. Scenario 1 No change to existing waste management practice in 2017 Under Scenario 1 where there is no change in waste management practices in 2017, it has been assumed that there will be a one-off increase in landfill fill tax of 8/tonne (from April 2014), and all of this increase will be applied to the mixed waste proportion of waste arisings. It is understood that there will be no increase in the lower rate of landfill tax for inert waste or gypsum material, so no equivalent price adjustment has been made to these waste streams. Comparison of costs for recyclables and total construction waste arisings For the construction and demolition sector a significant proportion of the total waste arisings and associated waste management costs can be attributed to materials other than the recyclables targeted by the proposed segregation scenarios. This is particularly apparent for the demolition and civil engineering sub-sectors, where aggregates and soils constitute over 85% of waste arisings (Table 2.2). In order to offer some perspective on this Tables A3.3, A3.4, A3.5 and A3.6 below provide a comparison of the total waste management costs (encompassing all types of construction waste), with the costs for the targeted recyclable materials only, for each scenario and typical business. Table A3.3 Demolition Recyclables as proportion of total waste management costs Waste Management s (typical demolition business) Total s (including aggregates, soils & non-recyclables) s for targeted recyclables only ( /yr) ( /yr) % of total costs Scenario 1 (No change) 94,085 10, % Scenario 2 (All recyclables segregated) 91,581 9, % Scenario 3 (Mixed dry recyclables) 87,712 5, % Scenario 4 (Mixed dry recyclables - glass separate) 87,712 5, % Scenario 5 (Mixed paper & card, mixed plastics & metals, glass & wood separate) 91,246 9, % Table A3.4 Construction Recyclables as proportion of total waste management costs Waste Management s (typical construction business) Total s (including aggregates, soils & non-recyclables) s for targeted recyclables only ( /yr) ( /yr) % of total costs Scenario 1 (No change) 10,175 3, % Scenario 2 (All recyclables segregated) 8,244 2, % Scenario 3 (Mixed dry recyclables) 7,822 1, % Scenario 4 (Mixed dry recyclables - glass separate) 7,836 1, % Scenario 5 (Mixed paper & card, mixed plastics & metals, glass & wood separate) 8,303 2, % 23

24 Table A3.5 Civil Engineering Recyclables as proportion of total waste management costs Waste Management s (typical civil engineering business) Total s (including aggregates, soils & non-recyclables) s for targeted recyclables only ( /yr) ( /yr) % of total costs Scenario 1 (No change) 63,918 5, % Scenario 2 (All recyclables segregated) 60,450 5, % Scenario 3 (Mixed dry recyclables) 59,901 4, % Scenario 4 (Mixed dry recyclables - glass separate) 59,927 4, % Scenario 5 (Mixed paper & card, mixed plastics & metals, glass & wood separate) 60,606 5, % Table A3.6 General Builder Recyclables as proportion of total waste management costs Waste Management s (typical general builder business) Total s (including aggregates, soils & non-recyclables) s for targeted recyclables only ( /yr) ( /yr) % of total costs Scenario 1 (No change) 6,512 2, % Scenario 2 (All recyclables segregated) 4,448 2, % Scenario 3 (Mixed dry recyclables) 4,129 1, % Scenario 4 (Mixed dry recyclables - glass separate) 4,129 1, % Scenario 5 (Mixed paper & card, mixed plastics & metals, glass & wood separate) 4,440 2, % 24

25 Appendix 4 Demolition full results Sub-sector DEMOLITION Typical Business Size 2013 Nomis 2013 UK Business Counts - Local Units Range: 5-9 staff Mid-point: Indivdiual Company Waste Arising (tonnes) '2012 Waste - Business Size' 4,722 (calculated from 2012 survey Table 1) Waste Calculations Proportion Waste Bulk Density Total (%) (tonnes) (tonnes/m3) (m3) Total Waste for Typical Business % 4,722 Mixed Waste Total (excluding soils & aggregates) '2012 Waste - Materials Summary' 2.40% 113 Mixed Waste (excluding recyclables) 0.90% Recyclable Scenario Elements 0 Glass 0.00% Plastic 0.00% Paper & Card 0.00% Wood 0.98% Metal 0.53% Mixed Waste - Total Recyclables Segregated Waste Total (including soils & aggregates) '2012 Waste - Materials Summary' 97.60% 4,609 Aggregates & Soils 86.43% 4, ,265 Gypsum & Insulation 0.20% Hazardous 1.99% Biodegradable 0.06% Recyclable Scenario Elements Glass 0.00% Plastic 0.10% Paper & Card 0.004% Wood 2.77% Metal 6.05% Segregated Waste - Total Recyclables 421 1,080 Total Recyclables 493 1,275 Summary of cost impact scenarios Volume Baseline Change Baseline Change (m3/year) ( /yr) ( /yr) (%) Baseline Scenario Total 4,734 93,175 Scenario 1 (No change) Total 4,734 94, % Scenario 2 (All recyclables segregated) Total 4,734 91,581-1,594-2% Scenario 3 (Mixed dry recyclables) Total 4,734 87,712-5,462-6% Scenario 4 (Mixed dry recyclables - glass separate) Total 4,734 87,712-5,462-6% Scenario 5 (Mixed paper & card, mixed plastics & metals, glass & wood separate) Total 4,734 91,246-1,929-2% 25

26 Calculations Volume Collection frequency Average collection Container capacity Disposal cost Container fill efficiency (m3/year) (weeks) (m3/collection) (m3) (%) ( ) Baseline Scenario Total 4,734 Enter value Choose from list ( /m3) Aggregates & Soils 3, ,940 Gypsum & Insulation Hazardous ,340 Biodegradable ( /container) Mixed Waste (excluding recyclables) % 2, Mixed Waste (including recyclables) % 10,270 Glass - Recycling % Plastic - Recycling % 335 Paper & Card - Recycling % 7 Wood (untreated) - Recycling/Recovery % 1,121 Wood (contaminated) - Recycling/Recovery % Metal - Recycling % 0 Mixed Waste (excluding recyclables) Total 81,442 Mixed Waste (including recyclables) Total 10,270 Segregated Waste Total 1,463 Baseline Scenario Total 93,175 Scenario 1 (No change) Annual Mixed Waste Mass 2014 Landfill tax increase (tonnes/year) ( /t) ( /yr) Mixed Waste (excluding recyclables) /15 landfill tax Mixed Waste (including recyclables) /15 landfill tax Scenario 1 (No change) Total 94,085 Annual Recyclable volume Collection frequency Average collection Container capacity of nominal container Container fill efficiency Scenario 2 (Source segregation - all materials) (m3/year) (weeks) (m3/collection) (m3) ( /container) (%) ( /yr) 1,275 Enter value Choose from list Glass - separate % Plastic - separate % 335 Paper - separate % Card - separate % 7 Wood (untreated) - Recycling/Recovery % 1,515 Wood (contaminated) - Recycling/Recovery % 7, Metal - separate % 0 Scenario 2 (All recyclables segregated) Total 91,581 Annual Recyclable volume Collection frequency Average collection Container capacity of nominal container Container fill efficiency Scenario 3 (Mixed dry recyclables) (m3/year) (weeks) (m3/collection) (m3) ( /container) (%) ( /yr) 1,275 Enter value Choose from list Glass, Plastic. Paper, Card & Wood - Combined % 5,931 Metal - separate % 0 Scenario 3 (Mixed dry recyclables) Total 87,712 26

27 Annual Recyclable volume Collection frequency Average collection Container capacity of nominal container Container fill efficiency Scenario 4 (Mixed dry recyclables - glass separate) (m3/year) (weeks) (m3/collection) (m3) ( /container) (%) ( /yr) 1,275 Enter value Choose from list Glass - separate % Plastic, Paper, Card, Wood & Metals - Combined % 5,931 Metal - separate % 0 Scenario 4 (Mixed dry recyclables - glass separate) Total 87,712 Scenario 5 (Mixed paper & card, mixed plastics & metals glass & wood separate) Annual Recyclable volume Collection frequency Average collection Container capacity of nominal container Container fill efficiency (m3/year) (weeks) (m3/collection) (m3) ( /container) (%) ( /yr) 1,275 Enter value Choose from list Glass - separate % Plastic & Metal - Combined % 0 Paper & Card - Combined % 7 Wood (untreated) - Recycling/Recovery % 1,515 Wood (contaminated) - Recycling/Recovery % 7,943 Scenario 5 (Mixed paper & card, mixed plastics & metals, glass & wood separate) Total 91,246 27

28 Appendix 5 Construction full results Sub-sector CONSTRUCTION Typical Business Size 2013 Nomis 2013 UK Business Counts - Local Units Range: staff Mid-point: Indivdiual Company Waste Arising (tonnes) '2012 Waste - Business Size' 325 (calculated from 2012 survey Table 1) Waste Calculations Proportion Waste Bulk Density Total (%) (tonnes) (tonnes/m3) (m3) Total Waste for Typical Business % 325 Mixed Waste Total (excluding soils & aggregates) '2012 Waste - Materials Summary' 12.26% 40 Mixed Waste (excluding recyclables) 5.95% Recyclable Scenario Elements Glass 0.06% Plastic 1.51% Paper & Card 0.78% Wood 2.79% Metal 1.17% Mixed Waste - Total Recyclables Segregated Waste Total (including soils & aggregates) '2012 Waste - Materials Summary' 87.74% 285 Aggregates & Soils 78.38% Gypsum & Insulation 1.43% Hazardous 0.41% Biodegradable 0.21% Recyclable Scenario Elements Glass 0.01% Plastic 1.03% Paper & Card 0.40% Wood 4.68% Metal 1.19% Segregated Waste - Total Recyclables Total Recyclables Summary of cost impact scenarios Volume Baseline Change Baseline Change (m3/year) ( /yr) ( /yr) (%) Baseline Scenario Total 389 9,857 Scenario 1 (No change) Total , % Scenario 2 (All recyclables segregated) Total 389 8,244-1,613-16% Scenario 3 (Mixed dry recyclables) Total 389 7,822-2,035-21% Scenario 4 (Mixed dry recyclables - glass separate) Total 389 7,836-2,021-21% Scenario 5 (Mixed paper & card, mixed plastics & metals, glass & wood separate) Total 389 8,303-1,554-16% 28

29 Calculations Volume Collection frequency Average collection Container capacity Disposal cost Container fill efficiency (m3/year) (weeks) (m3/collection) (m3) (%) ( ) Baseline Scenario Total 389 Enter value Choose from list ( /m3) Aggregates & Soils ,553 Gypsum & Insulation Hazardous Biodegradable ( /container) Mixed Waste (excluding recyclables) % 1,082 Mixed Waste (including recyclables) % 3,075 Glass - Recycling % 3 Plastic - Recycling % 290 Paper & Card - Recycling % 48 Wood (untreated) - Recycling/Recovery % 365 Wood (contaminated) - Recycling/Recovery % Metal - Recycling % 0 Mixed Waste (excluding recyclables) Total 6,076 Mixed Waste (including recyclables) Total 3,075 Segregated Waste Total 705 Baseline Scenario Total 9,857 Annual Mixed Waste Mass 2014 Landill tax increase Scenario 1 (No change) (tonnes/year) ( /t) ( /yr) Mixed Waste (excluding recyclables) /15 landfill tax Mixed Waste (including recyclables) /15 landfill tax Scenario 1 (No change) Total 10,175 Annual Recyclable volume Collection frequency Average collection Container capacity of nominal container Container fill efficiency Scenario 2 (Source segregation - all materials) (m3/year) (weeks) (m3/collection) (m3) ( /container) (%) ( /yr) 146 Enter value Choose from list Glass - separate % 18 Plastic - separate % 585 Paper - separate % Card - separate % 142 Wood (untreated) - Recycling/Recovery % 582 Wood (contaminated) - Recycling/Recovery % 686 Metal - separate % 0 Scenario 2 (All recyclables segregated) Total 8,244 Annual Recyclable volume Collection frequency Average collection Container capacity of nominal container Container fill efficiency Scenario 3 (Mixed dry recyclables) (m3/year) (weeks) (m3/collection) (m3) ( /container) (%) ( /yr) 146 Enter value Choose from list Glass, Plastic. Paper, Card, Wood & Metals - Combined % 1,591 Scenario 3 (Mixed dry recyclables) Total 7,822 29

30 Annual Recyclable volume Collection frequency Average collection Container capacity of nominal container Container fill efficiency Scenario 4 (Mixed dry recyclables - glass separate) (m3/year) (weeks) (m3/collection) (m3) ( /container) (%) ( /yr) 146 Enter value Choose from list Glass - separate % 18 Plastic, Paper, Card, Wood & Metals - Combined % 1,587 Scenario 4 (Mixed dry recyclables - glass separate) Total 7,836 Scenario 5 (Mixed paper & card, mixed plastics & metals glass & wood separate) Annual Recyclable volume Collection frequency Average collection Container capacity of nominal container Container fill efficiency (m3/year) (weeks) (m3/collection) (m3) ( /container) (%) ( /yr) 146 Enter value Choose from list Glass - separate % 18 Plastic & Metal - Combined % 643 Paper & Card - Combined % 142 Wood (untreated) - Recycling/Recovery % 582 Wood (contaminated) - Recycling/Recovery % 686 Scenario 5 (Mixed paper & card, mixed plastics & metals, glass & wood separate) Total 8,303 30

31 Appendix 6 Civil Engineering full results Sub-sector CIVIL ENGINEERING Typical Business Size 2013 Nomis 2013 UK Business Counts - Local Units Range: Mid-point: Indivdiual Company Waste Arising (tonnes) '2012 Waste - Business Size' 2,826 (calculated from 2012 survey Table 1) Waste Calculations Proportion Waste Bulk Density Total (%) (tonnes) (tonnes/m3) (m3) Total Waste for Typical Business % 2,826 Mixed Waste Total (excluding soils & aggregates) '2012 Waste - Materials Summary' 5.51% 156 Mixed Waste (excluding recyclables) 3.41% Recyclable Scenario Elements Glass 0.01% Plastic 0.53% Paper & Card 0.31% Wood 0.94% Metal 0.31% Mixed Waste - Total Recyclables Segregated Waste Total (including soils & aggregates) '2012 Waste - Materials Summary' 94.49% 2,670 Aggregates & Soils 89.48% 2, ,023 Gypsum & Insulation 0.32% Hazardous 1.84% Biodegradable 0.28% Recyclable Scenario Elements Glass 0.002% Plastic 0.51% Paper & Card 0.15% Wood 1.35% Metal 0.58% Segregated Waste - Total Recyclables Total Recyclables Summary of cost impact scenarios Volume Baseline Change Baseline Change (m3/year) ( /yr) ( /yr) (%) Baseline Scenario Total 2,686 62,672 Scenario 1 (No change) Total 2,686 63,918 1,246 2% Scenario 2 (All recyclables segregated) Total 2,686 60,450-2,222-4% Scenario 3 (Mixed dry recyclables) Total 2,686 59,901-2,772-4% Scenario 4 (Mixed dry recyclables - glass separate) Total 2,686 59,927-2,745-4% Scenario 5 (Mixed paper & card, mixed plastics & metals, glass & wood separate) Total 2,686 60,606-2,066-3% 31

32 Calculations Volume Collection frequency Average collection Container capacity Disposal cost Container fill efficiency (m3/year) (weeks) (m3/collection) (m3) (%) ( ) Baseline Scenario Total 2,686 Enter value Choose from list ( /m3) Aggregates & Soils 2, ,193 Gypsum & Insulation Hazardous ,953 Biodegradable ( /container) Mixed Waste (excluding recyclables) % 5,245 Mixed Waste (including recyclables) % 5,332 Glass - Recycling % 4.50 Plastic - Recycling % 911 Paper & Card - Recycling % 160 Wood (untreated) - Recycling/Recovery % 914 Wood (contaminated) - Recycling/Recovery % 1,076 Metal - Recycling % 0 Mixed Waste (excluding recyclables) Total 54,276 Mixed Waste (including recyclables) Total 5,332 Segregated Waste Total 3,065 Baseline Scenario Total 62,672 Scenario 1 (No change) Annual Mixed Waste Mass 2014 Landfill tax increase (tonnes/year) ( /t) ( /yr) Mixed Waste (excluding recyclables) /15 landfill tax Mixed Waste (including recyclables) /15 landfill tax Scenario 1 (No change) Total 63,918 Annual Recyclable volume Collection frequency Average collection Container capacity of nominal container Container fill efficiency Scenario 2 (Source segregation - all materials) (m3/year) (weeks) (m3/collection) (m3) ( /container) (%) ( /yr) 444 Enter value Choose from list Glass - separate % 34 Plastic - separate % 1,557 Paper - separate % Card - separate % 436 Wood (untreated) - Recycling/Recovery % 1,546 Wood (contaminated) - Recycling/Recovery % 1,832 Metal - separate % 0 Scenario 2 (All recyclables segregated) Total 60,450 Annual Recyclable volume Collection frequency Average collection Container capacity of nominal container Container fill efficiency Scenario 3 (Mixed dry recyclables) (m3/year) (weeks) (m3/collection) (m3) ( /container) (%) ( /yr) 444 Enter value Choose from list Glass, Plastic. Paper, Card, Wood & Metals - Combined % 4,855 Scenario 3 (Mixed dry recyclables) Total 59,901 32

33 Annual Recyclable volume Collection frequency Average collection Container capacity of nominal container Container fill efficiency Scenario 4 (Mixed dry recyclables - glass separate) (m3/year) (weeks) (m3/collection) (m3) ( /container) (%) ( /yr) 444 Enter value Choose from list Glass - separate % 34 Plastic, Paper, Card, Wood & Metals - Combined % 4,848 Scenario 4 (Mixed dry recyclables - glass separate) Total 59,927 Scenario 5 (Mixed paper & card, mixed plastics & metals glass & wood separate) Annual Recyclable volume Collection frequency Average collection Container capacity of nominal container Container fill efficiency (m3/year) (weeks) (m3/collection) (m3) ( /container) (%) ( /yr) 444 Enter value Choose from list Glass - separate % 34 Plastic & Metal - Combined % 1,713 Paper & Card - Combined % 436 Wood (untreated) - Recycling/Recovery % 1,546 Wood (contaminated) - Recycling/Recovery % 1,832 Scenario 5 (Mixed paper & card, mixed plastics & metals, glass & wood separate) Total 60,606 33

34 Appendix 7 General Building full results Sub-sector GENERAL BUILDER Typical Business Size 2013 Nomis 2013 UK Business Counts - Local Units Range: 5-9 staff Mid-point: Indivdiual Company Waste Arising (tonnes) '2012 Waste - Business Size' 116 (calculated from 2012 survey Table 1) Waste Calculations Proportion Waste Bulk Density Total (%) (tonnes) (tonnes/m3) (m3) Total Waste for Typical Business % 116 Mixed Waste Total (excluding soils & aggregates) '2012 Waste - Materials Summary' 28.78% 33 Mixed Waste (excluding recyclables) 14.40% Recyclable Scenario Elements Glass 0.23% Plastic 4.56% Paper & Card 2.57% Wood 4.91% Metal 2.10% Mixed Waste - Total Recyclables Segregated Waste Total (including soils & aggregates) '2012 Waste - Materials Summary' 71.22% 83 Aggregates & Soils 46.19% Gypsum & Insulation 1.63% Hazardous 0.29% Biodegradable % Recyclable Scenario Elements Glass 0.49% Plastic 6.21% Paper & Card 4.49% Wood 8.88% Metal 3.03% Segregated Waste - Total Recyclables Total Recyclables Summary of cost impact scenarios Volume Baseline Change Baseline Change (m3/year) ( /yr) ( /yr) (%) Baseline Scenario Total 227 6,245 Scenario 1 (No change) Total 227 6, % Scenario 2 (All recyclables segregated) Total 227 4,448-1,797-29% Scenario 3 (Mixed dry recyclables) Total 227 4,129-2,116-34% Scenario 4 (Mixed dry recyclables - glass separate) Total 227 4,129-2,116-34% Scenario 5 (Mixed paper & card, mixed plastics & metals, glass & wood separate) Total 227 4,440-1,805-29% 34

35 Calculations Volume Collection frequency Average collection Container capacity Disposal cost Container fill efficiency (m3/year) (weeks) (m3/collection) (m3) (%) ( ) Baseline Scenario Total 227 Enter value Choose from list ( /m3) Aggregates & Soils Gypsum & Insulation Hazardous Biodegradable ( /container) Mixed Waste (excluding recyclables) % 1,142 Mixed Waste (including recyclables) % 2,679 Glass - Recycling % 45 Plastic - Recycling % 511 Paper & Card - Recycling % 202 Wood (untreated) - Recycling/Recovery % 251 Wood (contaminated) - Recycling/Recovery % 296 Metal - Recycling % 0 Mixed Waste (excluding recyclables) Total 2,260 Mixed Waste (including recyclables) Total 2,679 Segregated Waste Total 1,306 Baseline Scenario Total 6,245 Scenario 1 (No change) Annual Mixed Waste Mass 2014 Landfill tax increase (tonnes/year) ( /t) ( /yr) Mixed Waste (excluding recyclables) /15 landfill tax Mixed Waste (including recyclables) /15 landfill tax Scenario 1 (No change) Total 6,512 Annual Recyclable volume Collection frequency Average collection Container capacity of nominal container Container fill efficiency Scenario 2 (Source segregation - all materials) (m3/year) (weeks) (m3/collection) (m3) ( /container) (%) ( /yr) 159 Enter value Choose from list Glass - separate % 15 Plastic - separate % 885 Paper - separate % Card - separate % 318 Wood (untreated) - Recycling/Recovery % 384 Wood (contaminated) - Recycling/Recovery % 452 Metal - separate % 0 Scenario 2 (All recyclables segregated) Total 4,448 Annual Recyclable volume Collection frequency Average collection Container capacity of nominal container Container fill efficiency Scenario 3 (Mixed dry recyclables) (m3/year) (weeks) (m3/collection) (m3) ( /container) (%) ( /yr) 159 Enter value Choose from list Glass, Plastic. Paper, Card, Wood & Metals - Combined % 1,735 Scenario 3 (Mixed dry recyclables) Total 4,129 35

36 Annual Recyclable volume Collection frequency Average collection Container capacity of nominal container Container fill efficiency Scenario 4 (Mixed dry recyclables - glass separate) (m3/year) (weeks) (m3/collection) (m3) ( /container) (%) ( /yr) 159 Enter value Choose from list Glass - separate % 15 Plastic, Paper, Card, Wood & Metals - Combined % 1,720 Scenario 4 (Mixed dry recyclables - glass separate) Total 4,129 Scenario 5 (Mixed paper & card, mixed plastics & metals glass & wood separate) Annual Recyclable volume Collection frequency Average collection Container capacity of nominal container Container fill efficiency (m3/year) (weeks) (m3/collection) (m3) ( /container) (%) ( /yr) 159 Enter value Choose from list Glass - separate % 15 Plastic & Metal - Combined % 877 Paper & Card - Combined % 318 Wood (untreated) - Recycling/Recovery % 384 Wood (contaminated) - Recycling/Recovery % 452 Scenario 5 (Mixed paper & card, mixed plastics & metals, glass & wood separate) Total 4,440 36

37 Appendix 8 Case Studies 37

38 Case study Barratt Homes College Green, Pontypridd Effective segregation of construction waste by Barratt Homes for the new homes development at College Green ensured that 97% of waste was recycled and a 20% reduction in waste management costs for the project. Introduction Barratt Homes is part of the Barratt Developments plc, one of the nation s largest house builders operating throughout Great Britain. At the heart of its business is a commitment to creating sustainable homes and communities in a way that minimises the environmental impact of its operations. The Barratt Group has paid careful attention to the management of construction waste and has worked for many years to minimise or recycle waste from its developments. It has maintained a diversion of waste from landfill rate of 95% or greater since What they did The construction of new homes at the College Green development delivered 160 houses and flats, in Rhydyfelin, Pontypridd. Barratt Homes worked with its partner Reconomy throughout the course of the project to identify the most effective approach to manage waste arisings. Construction waste was segregated into key waste streams on site to maximise opportunities for recycling, whilst ensuring that the development could proceed efficiently and without disruption. An important aspect in the success of this strategy was Reconomy s on-line waste management tool, which enabled Barratt Homes to track quantities of waste recycled for the project and implement actions on site to meet its recycling targets. College Green Development Rhydyfelin, Pontypridd Separate collections were arranged for the following waste arisings: Inerts (aggregate, blocks and soil) Timber Light Mixed Waste Plasterboard Hazardous Waste The Barratt Group sees waste management as a key element within its Sustainability Strategy. The quality of the waste management and landfill diversion rate delivered on the College Green site is testament to that philosophy being delivered by our local team, and the data and support of our waste partner Reconomy. John Adams Group Procurement Manager 38

39 Case study Barratt Homes To minimise the amount of waste going to landfill, mixed waste from the site was sent to a Material Recovery Facility (MRF), for additional sorting and recycling of materials such as plastics, metals and cardboard. The Results As a result of its measures to segregate waste on site, Barratt Homes was able to achieve a recycling rate of 97% for the construction waste going off-site. This included the diversion from landfill of 39 tonnes of timber and 27 tonnes of mixed waste arisings. The approach adopted by Barratt Homes is estimated to have delivered a 20% reduction in total waste management costs. Further Information For further information on Barratt Homes please see Link While we have tried to make sure this case study is accurate, we cannot accept responsibility or be held legally responsible for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. This material is copyrighted. You can copy it free of charge as long as the material is accurate and not used in a misleading context. You must identify the source of the material and acknowledge our copyright. You must not use material to endorse or suggest we have endorsed a commercial product or service. For more details please see our terms and conditions on our website at

40 Case study Taylor Wimpey Community Wood Recycling, South Wales Talyor Wimpey partnered with community wood recyling schemes to achieve 100% recycling or re-use of timber waste collected from its construction projects in South Wales. Introduction Taylor Wimpey is one of the UK s largest house builders, operating from a network of local businesses, including in South Wales. It seeks to be a responsible organisation, making positive contributions to the communities and environment in which it operates. Taylor Wimpey has a comprehensive Waste and Resources Strategy, which combined with its supply chain, enables more efficient use of materials and keeps generated waste to a minimum. When building homes its focus is on separating and recovering as much material from a site as possible, and it is committed to continual improvement in this area. This approach has resulted in a continual reduction of waste going to landfill, with 92% recycling of construction waste in What they did Over the course of 2013/14 Taylor Wimpey has carried out the construction of 450 new homes over 11 developments in South Wales. As part of its strategy to divert construction waste from landfill Taylor Wimpey works with a number of partners to increase the recycling of waste that cannot be re-used on site. One area that was particularly successful for these construction projects was the segregation of wood waste arisings on site. Taylor Wimpey has worked with the social enterprise National Community Wood Community Wood Recycling Depot Image courtesy of National Community Wood Recycling Project Recycling Project (NCWRP), to collect and manage the end-use of segregated wood waste. Uses for wood waste include re-use into new timber products and recycling into wood chip for the panel board industry, animal beddings, landscaping surfaces, play areas and filter beds. A more recent trend has been the use of waste wood as fuel in biomass schemes. Taylor Wimpey is committed to eliminating, re-using or recycling potential waste wherever possible. The success of the community wood recycling scheme for our sites in South Wales demonstrates how strategies implemented at a local level have contributed to our overall objective, to reduce the amount of construction waste going to landfill. Mark Williams Buyer, Taylor Wimpey South Wales 40

41 Case study Taylor Wimpey In addition to segregating wood waste Taylor Wimpey ensured that mixed waste from the sites was managed by an appropriate waste management company, to achieve further recycling of its construction waste. It also works with its suppliers to reduce packaging waste generated on site. The Results Over the course of one year (2013/14), Taylor Wimpey has managed to recycle and re-use 100% of the wood waste generated across its new home developments in South Wales (Wood Recyclers Association estimates a UK average wood recycling rate of 60% in 2011). Depending on the nature of the material the community wood recycling scheme aims to re-use as much of the waste wood as possible (e.g. for DIY, pallet manufacture, kindling), with the remainder being recycled (e.g. for chipboard). Information provided by NCWRP for Taylor Wimpey s sites in South Wales reports that 13 tonnes of the wood waste was able to be re-used, and 197 tonnes was recycled. This represents a total of 210 tonnes of waste wood diverted from landfill in one year, and estimated savings of 9,300. Further Information For further information on Taylor Wimpey please see Link While we have tried to make sure this case study is accurate, we cannot accept responsibility or be held legally responsible for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. This material is copyrighted. You can copy it free of charge as long as the material is accurate and not used in a misleading context. You must identify the source of the material and acknowledge our copyright. You must not use material to endorse or suggest we have endorsed a commercial product or service. For more details please see our terms and conditions on our website at

42 Case study VINCI Construction UK BBC Drama Village, Cardiff VINCI Construction UK carried out the construction of the Drama Village at the BBC s Roath Lock Studios, Cardiff Bay, implementing Site Waste Management Plan actions to segregate construction waste streams and achieve a recycling rate of 96% for the project. Introduction VINCI Construction UK is a national civil engineering, construction and facilities company, operating from regional offices across the UK. The company strives to reduce impacts on the environment throughout a project s lifetime. The requirement to reduce waste from construction projects was an integral part of VINCI Construction UK s commitment to half waste to landfill by The BBC Drama Village constructed by VINCI Construction UK was the UK s first industrial building to gain the BREEAM Outstanding rating. What they did VINCI Construction UK was contracted by igloo Regeneration to carry out the construction of the BBC s Roath Lock Studios, including nine studios, two outdoor filming areas and associated infrastructure works. Planning & Monitoring Monitoring and minimising waste was one of the key priorities for the project. VINCI Construction UK developed a Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) to ensure a cohesive approach to dealing with waste. This enabled the project team to monitor waste minimisation performance, including the amount and type of construction waste produced on site and how waste was recycled. In the first instance VINCI Construction UK sought to eliminate waste at source i.e. through designing out waste or re-use on site. For waste going off-site VINCI Construction UK used the Construction BBC Drama Village, Roath Lock Studios, Cardiff Bay Excellence Green Compass scheme to source accredited waste handlers, and identify options for waste segregation to enable improved recycling and diversion of waste from landfill. Waste Segregation Three waste stations were located on site which facilitated the segregation of waste into the following waste streams: Metal Plastic Timber Cardboard Mixed Waste Hazardous Waste The majority of waste going off site was collected by a local Green Compass Scheme accredited waste management company (WMC) who provided reports identifying the type and quantity of each waste stream and end markets for the material recycled from the project. 42

43 Case study VINCI Construction UK The segregation of construction waste also enabled collection of specific wastes streams by other schemes promoting use of recycled products. The majority of wood waste from the site was collected by Reseiclo Community Wood Recycling (not-for-profit) company based in Newport. The Results The segregation of construction waste enabled VINCI Construction UK to divert 96% of waste produced by the site from landfill, amounting to 203 tonnes. Overall savings including re-use of soils, aggregate and other materials represented a 1.2m saving to the client, igloo Regeneration Partnership. Details on the end markets for key waste streams are listed below. Metal All metal waste was taken to a local metal recycling facility and then reused in the production of steel in Cardiff. Plastic Plastics were separated into differing types and baled at the nearby waste handler prior to being sent off for recycling. The plastic waste was used to produce new products such as bottles, cartons, and food plastics. Mixed waste was sent to a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF), enabling further segregation of materials into the different waste streams. This resulted in approximately 16 tonnes of mixed waste being recycled. Packaging I have been particularly impressed by VINCI Construction UK s focus on sustainability and community engagement throughout the scheme. They gave something back to the community and to the construction industry. Mark Hallett igloo Development Director Suppliers were encouraged to return as much packaging to the sender as possible. In total 40 tonnes of packaging waste was recycled, which not only reduced the number of skip exchanges onsite but increased the recycling rate for the project. Further Information For further information on VINCI Construction UK please see Link Wood Approximately 400m 3 of timber (25% of the total recycled waste) was directed for community use which would have otherwise been taken to a waste transfer station. Any wood waste not suitable for community use was shredded, with the resultant wood chip graded to produce a number of different products including animal bedding, equestrian surfaces, panel board manufacture and green power generation. Paper & Cardboard Paper and cardboard was baled at a nearby facility and then sent to a recycling operator in Gwent for use in the manufacture of paper and cardboard products. Mixed Waste While we have tried to make sure this case study is accurate, we cannot accept responsibility or be held legally responsible for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. This material is copyrighted. You can copy it free of charge as long as the material is accurate and not used in a misleading context. You must identify the source of the material and acknowledge our copyright. You must not use material to endorse or suggest we have endorsed a commercial product or service. For more details please see our terms and conditions on our website at

44