developing a strategic approach to construction waste 20 year strategy draft for comment

Transcription

1 20 year strategy draft for comment

2 Contents Developing a strategic approach to construction waste 20 year strategy 3 Background 3 Approach to developing a strategy 3 Forward look at construction and impacts in relation to resource efficiency 4 Key issues moving forward relating to material resource efficiency 7 Developing long term targets for construction resource efficiency 8 Overview 8 1 Construction waste: Housing 9 2 Refurbishment waste: Housing 12 3 Demolition waste: All sectors 14 4 Modelling the way to achieving the strategy and targets actions 17 Glossary 22 Contact details for consultation responses: Gilli Hobbs BRE, Garston, Watford WD25 9XX T: +44 (0) E: hobbsg@bre.co.uk 2

3 Developing a strategic approach to construction waste 20 year strategy The waste and resources impact of construction is important in terms of profitability, non renewable resource depletion and the environmental impact of building. A 20 year strategy for developing targets and actions for improvement is presented here. This will be used to steer government policy, such as the Waste Strategy, and support provided to the construction sector. Views sought: Please comment on any part of this draft Strategy, your views and information are very welcome. The opportunity to comment and revise the content is open to all until 10 November Background Construction, demolition and refurbishment accounts for around 100 million tonnes of waste in the UK each year (see Figure 1). About half of this waste is recycled, from the demolition sector and parts of the construction sector. Over 400 million tonnes of resources are also consumed by the construction industry each year, suggesting that greater scope for waste reduction, reuse and recycling exists. Due to the high amounts of waste generated by construction activity, the sector has become a priority for Defra and the BREW (Business Resource Efficiency and Waste) programme in terms of diverting waste from landfill and reducing the costs of waste and resource management. This means that the BREW delivery partners are providing increasing levels of support for this sector. These delivery partners include: Carbon Trust DTI Technology Programme Environment Agency Envirowise Market Transformation Programme (MTP) National Industrial Symbiosis Programme (NISP) Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP). Approach to developing a strategy Data relating to the composition, cause and amount of waste relating to construction is fairly limited and does not promote long term assessment of how waste can be prevented or more effectively managed into the future. Rather than let a lack of data hold things up, an alternative approach is to identify what the industry could be aiming for, i.e. a target, and then set up/reinforce the mechanisms needed to achieve the target and monitor progress towards it. Therefore, the approach to developing this strategy document has been: A forward look at construction, along with threats/opportunities in relation to waste and resource efficiency Develop long term targets for improvement where possible related to baseline data Model the way to achieving these targets short/medium term actions (these will be cross referenced to existing/planned programmes in BREW and outside of BREW) Identify data and actions needed to support development and implementation of the strategy. Alongside these programmes, a pilot project Developing A Strategic Approach To Construction Waste has been established. A partnership between BRE and AEAT, this pilot project has arisen through the need to align BREW activities with the needs of the construction sector in achieving resource efficiency. In the short term, a review of current support and guidance has been cross referenced against industry views on what they feel will help them most. A longer term goal is to identify activities and drivers that will dictate the future direction of the construction sector. The threats and opportunities presented by changing practices will be mapped out in relation to resource efficiency. The final outcome of this work will be a 20 year strategy (in the form of a road-map) that will model the way to achieving reductions in waste, environmental impact and primary resource use. This will be available in March Agriculture (<1%) Mining and quarrying (29%) Sewage sludge (<1%) Dredged materials (5%) Household (9%) Commercial (11%) Industrial (14%) Construction and demolition (32%) Figure 1 Estimated total annual waste arisings, by sector United Kingdom Source: Defra, ODPM, Environment Agency, Water UK

4 Forward look at construction and impacts in relation to resource efficiency The way in which construction might change, or continue unchanged, into the future is likely to be very relevant to achieving waste reduction, and greater reuse and recycling. This question was posed at a recent industry workshop to get a view of construction in the future and impacts in relation to resource efficiency. Table 1 below summarises the responses and other widely expressed views. Table 1 Future construction and potential impacts and resource efficiency Scenario for future construction (to year 2025 ) Potential impact on construction resource efficiency Climate change Low carbon buildings required at new build Retrofitting of existing buildings to lower carbon emissions incentives to reward/offset costs Increased demolition of buildings, especially those not able/viable for energy efficiency upgrade The design of new building types (probably off site fabricated) offers opportunities to embed resource efficiency into their life cycle. However, waste reduction, reuse and recycling becomes less important unless clearly aligned to the low carbon agenda. This requires construction material flows and options to be fully quantified and evaluated. Greater amounts of waste arising from refurbishment and the provision of replacement products/materials. Unless aligned to low carbon, as detailed above, this will be considered an acceptable consequence of achieving reduced carbon emissions from the operational phase of buildings. This is a likely consequence, especially in the drive to fit more homes on existing built land. Currently the bulk of C&D waste is related to demolition (though we don t know what the proportion is). Demolition rates are around 20,000 homes/year today. Estimates of 4 times this amount to meet the 60% carbon emission reduction have been suggested. This would significantly increase the amount of C&D waste from 100 MT/year to anything between MT/year. Unless reprocessing facilities/markets are developed at a similar rate, resources will be lost/devalued and the percentage landfilled will increase. For example, opportunities need to be provided for planned re-use of demolition products at local plan level, such as use of masonry components for internal thermal mass in lightweight buildings. Global/Climate Change Rapidly changing climate, both in physical and political sense. Adaptable and flexible buildings This could make it difficult to stick to targets and systematic approaches to resource efficiency i.e. crisis management rather than agreed, long term solutions. It is also difficult for industry to invest in new technologies and infrastructure if there is uncertainty into the future e.g. the long running debate over energy from waste v. recycling. As above, potential for inside-out buildings of lightweight insulated frames with interior thermal mass. Potential fit with carbon/climate agenda and resource efficiency, but needs evaluation. The effects of climate change and unpredictable demographics could lead to a generation of buildings that are better equipped to change e.g. heating to cooling, home to office space. This would be beneficial in terms of waste reduction. The absence of adaptable buildings will increase construction activity to provide change of use/performance. This would in turn increase waste. Legislation/policy Price of wasted products/materials, labour and disposal/recycling increases higher than inflation levels Cost of waste and potential to reduce costs through waste reduction should increase accordingly. More transparency could be derived through whole life costing techniques that correctly value this element. Environmental crime will increase unless producers are complying with their Duty of Care obligations. Subject to EU legislation below, might provide financial drivers towards local economies in construction materials: 1 2 High value materials with inherent reclamation value Natural materials with low embodied carbon (minimal transport & processing) with zero waste options at end of life.

5 Scenario for future construction (to year 2025 ) Increased levels of construction, especially in the housing sector, within affordability constraints. Overhaul of planning, supply chain and skills issues to facilitate this. Potential impact on construction resource efficiency Could lead to further waste if less time available to reduce, reuse, recycle. Incentives to retain and recruit good people could reduce waste. Planning could be used to greater effect in achieving better levels of environmental performance. Supply chain integration should reduce waste and promote continuous improvement. H & S requirements may preclude some types of reclamation or recycling. More integrated services required for collection/segregation/consolidation of construction waste. Further legislation from EU on: 1 Construction products 2 Producer responsibility 3 Life cycle impacts/integrated product policy Business May restrict recycled content or the use of reclaimed products/materials on grounds of performance or local emissions e.g. indoor air quality materials and the accumulation of hazardous materials. Greater take back of offcuts, packaging, end of life waste. Greater reliance on life cycle data and verification, with further improvements in design, distribution and end-of-life recycling. Business cost reduction Performance based contracting procuring on function rather than labour, plant and materials Business quality and speed Growing market share of off-site fabricated buildings and components Business quality and speed Growing standardisation of building types and products Business lower running costs Zero/low maintenance buildings Business increase profits Investment requires better returns on built asset with lower financial risk Business competition Global competition increases and/or local supply becomes more important Business capacity Keeping up with new build requirements Design, build and management of buildings should bring about improvements in terms of resource efficiency i.e. vested interest to keep whole life costs, which includes cost of products/materials, construction, refurbishment and demolition waste. Important that these elements are costed correctly in whole life costing techniques. High levels of water and energy efficiency designed in. Reduction in traditional site waste with increase in packaging waste. Shorter lifespan buildings increase in demolition waste, especially by volume. Changing composition of demolition waste from highly recyclable to difficult to recycle. For planned building programmes, such as schools and prisons, there is great scope to produce a optimum design based upon standardised components. This improves predictability of the construction programme and should reduce costs. Ideally, standardisation will have additional objectives of reduced waste and improved durability. This could be beneficial if it means that buildings last longer i.e. less chance of failure through neglect. Alternative could be that actual service life of building elements is reduced leading to greater levels of refurbishment/demolition waste. New technologies, products and materials that increase recycled content and/or reduce waste are considered higher risk until they have been proven. Demonstration, testing and third party approval will need to be accompanied by demonstrable and financial benefits to developers. Increasingly stringent planning conditions will only work if the financial returns are worth it. Around 40% of construction is procured by government, which is bound by procurement rules that promote global competition. Sustainable procurement will become increasingly important, both private and public, with haulage of resources in and waste out becoming less acceptable. Reuse of on-site resources will be a possible way of satisfying both procurement rules and proximity principles. See above comments on local material economy predictions needed on future world energy scenarios and how this might affect composition of construction materials sector. The current rate of housing replacement is around 0.1% of the stock. At that rate, houses will have to last for a 1000 years. Although this is not likely to be the case, it is obvious that the buildings around in 20 years time will be mostly those here today i.e. the building of the future is already built. In terms of resource efficiency, the main implications are those of dealing with the current building legacy, for example hazardous materials.

6 When producing a forward look it is important to be aware that things rarely go to plan. To illustrate this, detailed below are 2 scenarios presented by the Big Ideas [1] project using the same drivers of increasing legislation, technological change, a move towards considering the whole life cycle of buildings, and changes within construction education; the outcomes are very different. Obviously, there is scope to influence the future direction but this will be constrained by other drivers. This suggests that there is limited value in setting targets and agreeing a road-map unless there is a long term commitment to refine and adapt the strategy in line with construction. Construction in 2025: Scenario 1 Increasing legislation and regulation of both building performance, and the activities of construction, at national, international and global levels over the last two decades has opened up new markets for UK construction firms. Common standards have allowed expansion of the national construction sector into a global arena. Construction professionals are in great demand as being able to navigate this legislation. A significant shift towards a holistic, lifecycle based approach has integrated design, construction and facility management, and has integrated a previously fragmented landscape. Work allocation has shifted from short term construction to long term service provision. This has also allowed construction firms to expand their competencies into new areas of facility operations and management. Shifts in technology have also produced some radical changes. New materials and ways of producing them have heralded the long anticipated switch from construction being a primarily site-based industry, to an off-site one. Economies of scale can now be generated, driving down the costs of building, as well as ensuring that sustainability issues are addressed through using energy efficient, clean materials. Today s buildings are able to monitor, clean and maintain themselves, using smart cladding systems, nano technology and intelligent computers. The predictability offered by manufactured components has replaced the uncertainties of previous bespoke methods. On-site technology has also introduced benefits. The use of robotic machinery to undertake work in hazardous areas has improved construction s health and safety record to an impeccable standard. The use of common ICT systems to coordinate work has made the construction process more transparent, allowing clients to gain a better understanding of construction methods, and to take a proactive role in design. Education has played its part. The training of construction professionals is directed at producing more flexible and adaptable people, who have an understanding of the whole construction process, from design to FM and who are aware of the benefits of using new materials and ICT enabled processes. Construction in 2025: Scenario 2 Increasing legislation and regulation at national, international and global levels over the last two decades has opened up the UK market to intense competition from foreign competitors at the expense of UK based firms. Common standards have tightly constrained construction practices, and construction professionals main activities consist of wading through this extensive regulation. A significant shift towards a holistic, lifecycle based approach has integrated design, construction and facility management has meant that only firms large enough to manage the whole of the construction and FM process have survived. Specialist SME s have all but disappeared from the sector. Construction itself has become a loss-leader into more stable FM and service provision Shifts in technology have also produced some radical changes. New materials and ways of producing them have heralded the long anticipated switch from construction being a primarily site-based industry, to an off-site one pushing site-based skills into terminal decline. This is causing severe difficulties in maintaining and repairing older buildings. The increased use of manufactured components has also allowed firms from outside the traditional construction sector to enter and increase competition further and has meant a move away from bespoke and individual buildings, much to the detriment of the built environment generally. On-site technology has also brought about change. The use of robotic machinery to undertake work in hazardous on-site areas has sealed another nail in the coffin of the traditional trades. The use of common ICT systems to coordinate work has led to even more standardisation of process, at the expense of the subjective and creative abilities of construction professionals. Novelty and innovation are severely stilted. Education has played its part. The training of construction professionals is directed at producing people with an understanding of construction as an IT driven process, where accountability is directed towards standards and regulation rather than the aesthetically driven architects and engineers of the past. Traditional disciplinary distinctions have gone. [1] The Big Ideas project is about helping the industry to be prepared for future change. They ll do this by first producing a range of possible future scenarios, and then use these to work with construction organisations and professionals. Their aim is to assess the likelihood of different futures, and to think about the steps that could be taken to prepare for and exploit future opportunities, and mitigate or avoid less positive outcomes.

7 Key issues moving forward relating to material resource efficiency Climate change Climate change, and hence carbon emissions, will be a key driving force in changing construction over the next 20 years. This has a major impact on waste reduction, reuse and recycling in terms of prioritisation of building type, materials, products and new technologies. There is little suggestion that this step change to reduce carbon will have an equal reduction in material resource use. In fact it could have an adverse effect if material resources are considered far less important than energy resources. Legislation/policy Producer Responsibility could be extended to all products and Integrated Product Policy along the lines of the Energy Using Products Directive. The result of this would be two fold firstly, the life cycle impacts of products will need to be evaluated and possibly rated; secondly, that manufacturers will have to consider the resource implications of their products across the whole life cycle. This should have a very positive effect on waste production, and will also promote reuse and recycling where they offer improved life cycle impact. Construction products are already assessing their life cycle impact through Environmental Profiles [2], making improvements based upon the results is the next step. Two key points with regard to material efficiency/embodied carbon and the lowcarbon-operation are: 1 2 The more energy-efficient a building is, then the greater the proportional carbon significance of its materials. Very typical figures for a conventional building with a 100 year life would be that embodied C emissions from materials are about 10% of total emissions over building lifespan, or 10 years worth. In a building with 40% of the operational energy requirements of a conventional building (the 40% House), assuming absolute embodied C is similar, then embodied C will be more like 22% of total lifetime emissions. By the time you get to the 20% House, embodied C is more like 36% of total emissions. If building lifespans are reducing. On a 50-year lifespan, the proportions of embodied C to overall C emissions are as follows: 100% House embodied C 22% of total 40% House embodied C 36% of total 20% House embodied C 53% of total. These are rough estimates, but it is entirely plausible that material impacts will equal or outweigh operational impacts in the future. Therefore material resource efficiency should be integrated into the energy-efficiency agenda on a proper (carbon) basis. This will have wide-ranging impacts on material selection and end-of-life solutions. New products/building systems/ways of working Partly to respond to climate change, but mainly to deliver affordable buildings that can be quickly constructed, traditional construction will be replaced by standardised and factory produced buildings and elements. This may result in lower amounts of site based construction waste but off-site waste, lifespan and recyclability of demolition waste need to be factored in to give a whole life view of waste and resource use. Standardisation will enable a more focussed approach to waste reduction and resource efficiency to be developed, i.e. target the resource use of a few standardised products/ elements and the impact will be far greater than trying to influence several thousand. This could be linked to sustainable procurement, in that better performing products/ elements become the standard, e.g. A rated in the Green Guide to Specification. Conclusions To be aligned with low carbon building material use, waste, reuse and recycling should be quantifiable in terms of carbon. Improvements should result in carbon savings. Demolition and refurbishment waste are likely to increase. Traditional markets for these materials are likely to decline. This will mean that current levels of reuse and recycling will be hard to sustain. Modern methods of construction (MMC) will become more widespread. Resource use and waste over a fixed period, e.g. 100 years, should be compared for traditional versus MMC as part of the drive to reduce environmental impacts. Systems and products that give the best overall environmental performance and whole life cost should be promoted. Standardisation could promote large scale improvements in environmental performance. It is important that material resource efficiency is developed alongside other environmental criteria. Life cycle assessment is the basis for making robust decisions on improving the environmental performance of products, elements and buildings. Although adopted by some product manufacturers, this has not been applied across the sector and default information has to be used for wastage rates and proportion of waste that is reused/recycled. Impacts relating to material resource efficiency should be accessible for a particular product within overall LCA, e.g. the net environmental gain of making certain improvements could be move from one rating to a higher one. Views sought: Please comment on this forward look. Where you have differing or additional points, supporting data/ information is very welcome. [2] Life Cycle Assessment methodology for construction products

8 Developing long term targets for construction resource efficiency With little baseline data, targets and related action plans are not going to be entirely robust and will require further development. However, this strategy proposes a route to defining how this could be derived with industry and policy makers. It also tries to illustrate the scale of impact of adopting one target/approach over another. Long term targets for waste reduction, reuse and recycling are the best way to define what can be achieved and focus our combined efforts within the framework of a combined target. This is not easy to do for a wastestream that is fragmented in the following ways: Waste is being produced and sent to landfill by the actions of the whole supply chain manufacture, distribution, design, construction, maintenance, refurbishment, demolition, (resource management). Waste from manufacture, construction, refurbishment and demolition are lumped together for reporting purposes but are different in terms of amounts, composition, causes, levels of integration and separation. However, different targets for each part of the supply chain or activity would be less meaningful unless set against overarching, global targets i.e. each will have a role to play in reaching the target but the actions and relative contribution may differ in accordance with their ability to deliver. An example of this could be waste reduction and demolition waste, whereby the only realistic way to prevent demolition waste would be to have a longer lasting building this is not something the demolition sector can achieve. It is more the design, durability of products/materials and maintenance of the building that can achieve waste reduction in this instance. Overview Waste is being produced through manufacture, distribution, design, construction, refurbishment and demolition. To illustrate how targets could be set across the construction sector, the following have been expanded upon: Construction waste new build housing Refurbishment waste housing Demolition waste all sectors Following consultation, subject to having usable data and continued support, it is planned to improve the confidence of the approach and targets, and include all sectors for construction and refurbishment waste. Views sought: Manufacture, distribution and design all contribute to these wastes to a varying extent. Views on whether these areas should be expanded on separately (and why) would be welcome. Construction and demolition waste Manufacture Distribution Design Construction Refurbishment Demolition Environmental performance indicator m 3 waste/100 m 2 floor Hospitals Housing Offices Schools Figure 2 Construction and demolition waste overview

9 1 Construction waste: Housing Amount of waste per house 23 housing projects have submitted benchmarking data to Smartstart [4]. A summary of results is given in Table 3. Table 3 Benchmarking data Amounts of waste produced from different types of construction are starting to be developed [3] and improved upon. Some initial Environmental Performance Indicators are given below these are given as m 3 waste per 100 m 2 floor area, which allows for like for like comparison; and m 3 / 100,000 which can be greatly influenced by the regional, design and material costs, see Table 2. Table 2 Environmental Performance Indicators D = Demolition E = Excavation G = Groundworks M = Mainframe S = Services P = Partitions F = Fit-out Project Type Housing EPI (m 3 waste/100 m 2 ) Average Waste Group Residential x Conversion 23 no factor Tonnes Timber Concrete Inert Ceramic Insulation Plastic Packaging Metal Plaster & Cement Miscellaneous Total EPI The average amount of waste produced across these sites is 19.2 m 3 waste per 100 m 2 floor area (the environmental performance indicator EPI). Taking this figure and applying it to a typical semi of 80 m 2 gives an average material waste generation of m 3 of waste per house. When adding in an average 50% void space in the skips that would collect this waste this equates to around 30 m 3 of skipped waste. A typical skip has a volume of m 3, so around 5 skips will be needed to contain the waste from 1 house. Based upon the Environment Agency conversion factors, the weight of waste from our generic house is 9.6 tonnes m 2 per house Ë 5 skips or 9.6 tonnes Civil engineering Benchmarks E,G, M Key Performance Indicator (KPI) = m 3 / 100,000 project value Leisure G, M, S, P, F Health Care/ Hospitals G, M, S, P, F Residential G, M, S, P, F Office G, M, S, P, F Education/ Schools G, M, S, P, F Environmental performance Indicator (EPI) = m 3 /100m 2 Typical house 80m 2 Ë 15.36m 3 waste materials Ë 5 skips Figure 3 Generic house construction waste [3] Environmental Performance Indicators and other waste benchmarking in construction is subject to development through the National Benchmarking Project contact adamsk@bre.co.uk [4] Waste benchmarking tool, part of the BREEAM family

10 Cost of waste per house Studies [5] have shown that a typical construction skip costs around 1343 when you add the cost of the skip to the cost of labour and materials that fill it. The breakdown of this is: Skip hire 85 (quite low compared to current prices) 6.4% of cost Labour to fill it % of cost Cost of materials in skip % of cost Therefore, the financial cost of waste for our generic house is for 5 skips, around 6715, and rising per house Ë 5439 cost of materials, 812 labour, 430 skip cost Baseline for new housing and construction waste Around 190,000 houses were built 2004/05 financial year [8]. If this continues to be the case, the impact for new housing alone is very approximately: Per year: 2,918,400 m 3 of waste 1,824,000 tonnes or 950,000 skips 1,275,850,000 (includes 1,039,817,750 cost of wasted product) 1,033,600 tonnes CO 2 equivalent. This amount is the same amount of CO 2 emitted from driving a Ford Focus Ghia 1.6 from earth to the sun and back 20 times. Or represents 0.18% of UK CO 2 emissions for If these figures are anywhere near reality, they are very good reasons to reduce them, as illustrated next. Carbon dioxide equivalent/embodied energy of waste product per house The products and materials that are wasted during the construction process have life cycle impacts associated with their material extraction, production and distribution. It is even more difficult to make estimates here due to the lack of data in both the material composition of this wastestream and the life cycle impacts associated with the production, distribution and installation of the associated wasted products. A possible approach could be as follows: 1 2 Convert the 9.6 tonnes of materials in each category to number of ecopoints [6] Combine all the ecopoints and then convert these to an equivalent tonnes of carbon dioxide We have gone through this process with the limited data we have and made various assumptions. The end result is that the 9.6 tonnes of waste produced by our generic house has a carbon dioxide equivalent of around 5.44 tonnes. [7] Wasted product per house 5.44 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent Homes built to Part L have estimated emissions relating to heating and power of around 2-4 tonnes CO 2 per year Develop targets [9] [10] Option 1 Current best practice new housing Following best practice in terms of reuse, take back of offcuts, recycling and reducing waste through site practices could have the following effect on new housing waste. Baseline 2,918,400 m 3 of waste or 1,824,000 tonnes assume: 15% reduced 5% reused 60% recycled 20% landfilled Waste reduction is 273,600 tonnes Applying the zero net waste principle, 364,800 tonnes of recycled content would be needed. Savings from reduction ( 1343 per skip) and not paying landfill tax ( 40 per skip) 214,177,500 Reduction in carbon dioxide equivalent through reduction of new housing waste only could be in the region of: 155,040 tonnes per year Option 2 - Current best practice and reduce waste by 50% new housing Reducing waste by 50% is more difficult to achieve but is essential if significant financial and CO 2 equivalent reductions are to be attained. Baseline 2,918,400 m 3 of waste or 1,824,000 tonnes, assume: 50% reduced 40% recycled 10% landfilled Waste reduction is 912,000 tonnes Applying the zero net waste principle, 364,800 tonnes of recycled content produces a positive net waste i.e. higher recycled content than waste sent to landfill. Savings from reduction ( 1343 per skip) and not paying landfill tax ( 40 per skip) 653,125,000 Reduction in carbon dioxide equivalent through reduction of new housing waste only could be in the region of: 516,000 tonnes per year [5] Amec Darlington study [6] Ecopoints are a combination of 13 impacts that feed into the BRE environmental profile of products and materials i.e. a life cycle assessment. [7] Minimising CO 2 emissions from new homes 2nd edition AECB 2006 [8] DCLG Housing statistics [9] Zero net waste principle the amount of waste sent to landfill is balanced with an equal amount of recycled content [10] Please note these figures are illustrative and speculative, based on minimal data. 10

11 Rising costs of resource management Resource management costs are rising each year, it was not possible to predict by how much. Discussions with industry experts suggest that resource management costs will approximately double over the next ten years, from around 55 per tonne to 120 per tonne [11]. Therefore, it is important to note that savings estimated from the 2 options should be set against these rises to determine when they will be overtaken these rising costs. Some factoring in of corresponding increased savings (e.g. not paying higher landfill tax on recycled waste) would also provide a better model of when this might happen. Allocation of targets Big reductions in waste will not be possible unless they are accrued throughout the supply chain. Therefore, it would be useful to be able to allocate the target of 50% waste reduction across the relevant supply chain i.e. distributed in accordance with the ability to deliver those savings. Unfortunately little data exists that would support this approach. An idea of what this might look like is given in Figure 4 below please note the given allocations are only for illustration and have little basis of evidence. [11] Peter Jones, Biffa Tonnes of waste per home 10 8 Target Baseline Manufacture Distribution Design Site practice Total Figure 4 Option 2 Allocation of target Baseline vs target waste per house End of construction waste section. See also: Recommended actions in Section 4. Views sought: Please comment on the baseline, approach and resulting target. Supporting data/information is particularly welcome. 11

12 2 Refurbishment waste: Housing Extrapolating these figures [12] to local authorities in Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland [13], we estimate a steady annual total of UK local authority refurbishment waste of approximately 650,000 m 3. Extrapolating further to other tenures [14], we would expect the following breakdown of UK annual housing refurbishment waste arisings: Table 5 UK annual housing refurbishment waste arisings Local authority 650,956 m 3 RSL 368,850 m 3 Owner occupied 3,624,353 m 3 Private rented 504,121 m 3 Total 5,148,280 m 3 Costs & disposal Waste arising from refurbishment projects, especially in private dwellings, is particularly problematic because: There is very little data available on waste arising from housing refurbishment. The following argument uses heavily extrapolated figures for illustrative purposes. It is probable that actual figures are significantly higher; these need to form the basis of ongoing research. Arisings Capital refurbishment works to local authority dwellings in England are currently generating an estimated 470,000 m 3 of waste from around 750,000 refurbishment packages per year. Decent Homes refurbishments are expected to continue into the future on a rolling programme at similar levels until 2025 and beyond (although there may be some acceleration towards the 2010 Decent Homes target year). Table 4 summarises expected arisings of principal waste categories by refurbishment package. Domestic refurbishment work, unless programmed by local authorities or RSLs, tends to be small-scale with little opportunity for strategic resource efficiency planning. Domestic refurbishment work tends to be carried out by SME contractors with limited awareness of or practical policies on resource efficiency. Mixed waste is generated in small quantities with little or no site space available for storage and segregation, and little or no on-site reprocessing or reuse potential. Waste containers used will generally be smaller and more costly per m 3 capacity than for new construction. [12] This assumes a similar ratio of refurbishment packages to overall stock levels. [13] Decent Homes analogues exist in these countries, such as the Welsh Housing Quality Standard (target date 2012). [14] Based on 2003 tenure profile, but not allowing for different refurbishment profiles. Table 4 Expected arisings of principal waste categories by refurbishment package Estimated annual waste volume m 3 by refurbishment package, England LA dwellings* Waste Group Rewiring Roof structure Roof covering Windows Doors Central heating Kitchens Bathrooms Timber Concrete Inert Ceramic Insulation Plastic Packaging Metal Plaster & cement Miscellaneous Totals * Based on actual work carried out , data from local authority Business Plan statistical returns to DCLG. 12

13 A high proportion of waste is believed to consist of composite products with little or no reclamation value and limited recycling potential. Small volumes of recyclable materials may be segregated off-site and recycled, but with no associated financial reward to the contractor. Skip void space is likely to be higher than for construction waste, given both the nature of the waste (which will include removed items and assemblies with built-in voids) and logistics (different waste materials generated at same time, no intermediate storage available). These factors will tend to increase the direct costs of waste disposal from refurbishment compared to that from new construction, and at the same time to limit towards zero opportunities for on-site segregation. At the same time, the financial value of materials skipped will be lower than for construction, assuming that 80% of these are end-of-life materials whose costs have already been apportioned over their purchase and use. Factoring in the above inefficiencies and material values, we propose a true cost of 562 per m 3 skip, broken down as: Skip hire 150 plus added 20% for increased voids = 180 Labour to fill 163 Cost of new materials in skip (20% by volume) 219 Given the small scale of many refurbishment projects, this figure of 562 may represent a minimum waste disposal cost. This needs to be established empirically. Carbon dioxide equivalent/embodied energy Based on the waste profile for the Decent Homes refurbishment packages above, it is possible to put a tentative figure on the carbon dioxide impacts represented by the embodied energy of the waste materials [15]. Each m 3 of refurbishment waste matching this profile is associated with emissions of approximately 750 kg CO 2. Baseline for housing refurbishment Based on the projected refurbishment scenario outlined above, the total annual UK impacts for domestic refurbishment alone are certain to exceed: 5,148,280 m 3 of waste, equivalent to 367,685 tonnes [16] or 840,000 skips Emissions of 4 million tonnes CO 2 Disposal costs of 472 million A major caveat is that refurbishment drivers in the owner-occupied and private rented sectors are very different, and the profiles of refurbishment work and waste arisings will also differ. Extension and renovation works by owner-occupiers will produce significant quantities of inert, concrete, ceramic, cement and plaster waste not predicted by the Decent Homes refurbishment pattern. This will affect overall waste volumes and composition of relative material masses and carbon impacts. This needs further investigation. There is a lack of data concerning the recycling and disposal routes for refurbishment waste; the situation being further complicated by the fact that a significant but unverifiable proportion of segregation currently takes place off site. At present, there is insufficient confidence in the baseline data to consider future options and targets. End of refurbishment waste section. See also: Recommended actions in Section 4. Views sought: Please comment on the assumptions and approach. There was not enough data to attempt to set baselines or targets, so any supporting data/ information would be very welcome. Average CO 2 impact per refurbishment package is approximately 500 kg. [15] Figures derived from the BRE Environmental Profiles database [16] Based on the Decent Homes refurbishment profile, and not taking conversion/extension works into account 13

14 3 Demolition waste: All sectors Concrete (54%) Masonry (32%) Metals (3%) Timber (4%) Other (7%) Figure 5 Typical composition of waste An estimated 26 million tonnes of demolition materials are produced each year please note this is based on best data available and should be used for guidance only. This is broken down in Table 6 below. Recycled (80%) Reclaimed (13%) Landfilled (7%) Table 6 Demolition materials Type Amount arisings (tonnes) Percentage Hardcore 21 million tonnes 81% Mixed C&D waste 1.7 million tonnes 6.5% Reclaimed materials 3.3 million tonnes 12% Data source NFDC Annual Returns NFDC Annual Returns 2005 BigRec Survey The hardcore material represents materials such as concrete, aggregates, glass, bricks and blocks. The mixed C&D waste includes materials such as plastics, timber, composites and will originate largely from soft-strip activities (i.e. the removal of interior fixtures and fittings). The reclaimed materials include items such as architectural and ornamental antiques, reclaimed materials (timber beams and flooring, bricks, tiles, paving and stone walling), salvaged materials (iron and steel and timber) and antique bathrooms. It should be noted that an update of the BigRec survey is currently being replicated as part of the this project as anecdotal evidence suggests that there has been a fall in the amount of materials being reclaimed. No figures are included for metals as these were unavailable at the time of writing. Typical composition of demolition waste is given in Figure 5. This is based on predemolition audits carried out at BRE. It is assumed that all of the hardcore materials are recycled and that the mixed demolition waste is landfilled (based on NFDC data). Current practice in terms of waste management is shown in Figure 6. In terms of applying the principles of the waste hierarchy to demolition arisings reduction is not applicable unless the decision is taken to reuse/refurbish the building rather than Figure 6 Waste management current practice Figure 7 Hardcore recycling rates Hardcore used on-site (16%) Hardcore removed off-site (27%) Hardcore crushed on-site for use on-site (37%) Hardcore crushed on-site for off-site sale (20%) demolish. Therefore the two principle waste management routes are reclamation (i.e. reusing products preferably in the same application) and then recycling (i.e. using the material for a product). In terms of the landfill of demolition waste, 32% (0.5 million tonnes) is hazardous waste. 80% of materials recycled (i.e. hardcore) includes the recycling of 53% on site and the remaining 47% off site. The current recycling rates of 80% although high, hide the fact that the it is usually low grade recycling; with the potential for highgrade reuse higher. This has an impact in terms the cost benefits and environmentally. 14

15 Setting longer term targets - Best practice In terms of setting longer term targets, best practice from pre-demolition audits carried out by BRE indicates that landfill could decrease to 4% from 7%, recycling decrease from 80% to 68% with an increase in reclamation from 13% to 28%. This is based on current buildings and technology used for demolition. No account has been taken into account of the extra requirement for time and labour i.e. an increase in reclamation would require more time to demolish and possibly more labour. However the increased value of reclamation products would offset this. In terms of achieving best practice, an assumption has been made that the level of recycling on and off site remains the same as current practice. For landfill, the amount of hazardous waste is assumed to be constant. Disposal (4%) Recycling (68%) Reclaimed (28%) Therefore, currently 21,000 tonnes of CO 2 emissions are saved by recycling materials on site through savings in transportation. By currently transporting materials from site this generates 24,400 tonnes of CO 2 emissions with an additional 3,100 tonnes created from transporting this waste to landfill. For the best practice scenario the amount of CO 2 emissions increases this is because the amount of material salvaged for reuse increases requiring the movement of materials offsite. However, it should be noted that reclaimed materials can travel much further (between 100 to 7,500 miles [17] ) before their environmental benefit is lost against new materials. Impact of materials Embodied energy has been calculated from the demolition materials and is shown in Table 8 below [18]. The figures do not show the environmental impacts from the different waste management options. These figures will also take into account transportation impacts. It should be noted that the equivalent CO 2 tonnes contained in these materials will be lost when landfilled and a high proportion will be lost when the materials are recycled as the materials are used in low grade applications (the exact amount is currently unknown). In terms of reclaimed products, the equivalent CO 2 is not lost as the product is used again as a product. Figure 8 Best practice targets for longer term Transportation Emissions of CO 2 have been calculated for the distances travelled for the demolition arisings; obviously if material is being reused on site only a tiny fraction of CO 2 will be attributed to transportation impacts. Therefore, assuming the maximum distance for transportation of demolition arisings is 20 miles then the following CO 2 emissions from transportation apply, see Table 7. Table 7 CO 2 emissions CO 2 emissions from travelling 20 miles* Demolition materials Current practice Best practice Hardcore recycled on site A saving of 21,000 tonnes A saving of 18,200 tonnes Hardcore recycled off site 18,400 tonnes 14,560 tonnes Reclaimed materials 6,000 tonnes 12,740 tonnes Table 8 Embodied energy Type of demolition arisings Reclaimed materials Hardcore materials Mixed C&D waste Total Overall equivalent in CO 2 (tonnes) Current practice Reduction of 62,000 tonnes Increase of 3,900,000 tonnes Increase of 870,000 tonnes Overall increase of 4.74 million tonnes of CO 2 Best practice Reduction of 72,000 tonnes Increase of 3,300,000 tonnes Increase of 514,000 tonnes Overall increase of 3.8 million tonnes of CO 2 Data sources Based on Big Rec Survey data Based on a split between concrete and masonry Based on a split between timber and other materials Landfilled 3,100 tonnes 1,820 tonnes *Assuming 0.091kg of CO 2 for 1 tonne every 1 mile travelled [17] BRE Green Guide to Specification [18] These calculations have been derived from the BRE Environmental Profiles Database. 15

16 Costs The assumed total cost of current and best practice waste management routes from demolition are shown in Table 9 below. Table 9 Assumed total cost of current and best practice waste management routes Type of demolition arisings Total value current practice Total value best practice Data sources Reclaimed materials million million Based on BigRec Survey data Hardcore materials recycled on site Hardcore materials recycled off site Landfill mixed C&D waste Landfill hazardous waste + 35 million + 30 million Based on a cost saving of 3/tonne + 20 million + 16 million Based on a cost saving of 2/tonne 58 million 25 million Based on 50/tonne 50 million 50 million Based on 100/tonne Total million million Option 1, current practice demolition waste Assumption: 26 million tonnes arising 13% reclaimed (3.3 million tonnes) 80% recycled (21 million tonnes) 53% recycled on site (11 million tonnes) 47% recycled off site (10 million tonnes) 7% landfilled (1.7 million tonnes) 32% is hazardous waste (500,000 tonnes) Total benefit is 344 million CO 2 from transportation is 27,500 tonnes with 21,000 tonnes saved by recycling on-site. The material impact is equivalent to 4.74 million tonnes of CO 2 Option 2, achievable best practice demolition waste Assumption: 26 million tonnes arising 28% reclaimed (7 million tonnes) 68% recycled (18 million tonnes) 53% recycled on site (10 million tonnes) 47% recycled off site (8 million tonnes) 4% landfilled (1 million tonnes) 50% is hazardous waste (500,000 tonnes) Total benefit is 790 million Reclamation income increasing by 430 million Recycling income decreasing by 9 million Landfill costs decreasing by 38 million CO 2 from transportation is 29,120 tonnes an increase of 1620 tonnes with 18,200 tonnes saved by recycling on-site. The costs in Table 9 are for illustrative purposes only. It is important to note that demolition contracts are usually priced lower as the savings made through material recycling are factored in. These options are based on current practice in terms of the types of buildings being demolished and the techniques used. The following issues should be noted when implementing a strategy for demolition waste: Due to the changes in practices for construction such as the higher use of modern methods of construction, more use of composite materials etc it is likely in the longer term that it will be harder to achieve these levels of reclamation and recycling. There is a requirement for designers, architects and clients to design buildings that aid recovery options at the end of the buildings life. This involves the disassembly and deconstruction of buildings as preferential over demolition [19] and specifying materials and products which can be reclaimed or recycled. Many of the current techniques used for fixing and joining do not currently aid these principles. This is also important in terms of the amount of hazardous waste which is currently produced which is likely to rise. Factors affecting the demolition industry and the amount of materials that can be recovered include: an increasing move towards more mechanized ways of operating (largely due to health and safety requirements) which means the removal of more bulk material rather than higher value products less time to demolish buildings and therefore realise the true value of demolition arisings the interpretation of the waste legislation especially related to the recycling of waste on and off site. In terms of reclamation, issues that need to be considered are: the markets and associated logistics for increasing the number of products for reclamation the costs of reclaiming materials (i.e. usually requires more time and labour) the incentive for using reclaimed. End of Demolition waste section. See also: Recommended actions in Section 4. Views sought: Please comment on the baseline, approach and resulting target. Supporting data/ information is particularly welcome. The material impact is equivalent to 3.8 million tonnes of CO 2, a reduction of 0.94 million tonnes. [19] The CIB Task Group 39 Deconstruction involved a number of countries carrying our research studies into this area. For more info: 16

17 4 Modelling the way to achieving the strategy and targets actions Table 10 summarises the immediate actions needed to develop this strategy and associated targets. Table 12 captures actions that could be taken across and within the supply chain to improve resource efficiency in the short to medium term. Table 10 Actions to develop strategy Actions needed to better define the target Construction 1 Generate better Environmental Performance Indicators across the range of construction sectors and building types: amount, composition volumes and tonnes (some of this is being developed in the National Benchmarking project). Allocate across the supply chain if possible Develop wastage rates for commonly used construction products (actual rather than Laxton approach) and allocate across the supply chain. (Modelling of future waste impacts for construction products being carried out by MTP) Annual statistics on the flow of construction products and materials used in the UK (currently being explored in Strategic Approach to Construction Waste project) Establish a common methodology for true waste costing for construction waste which is compatible with cost methods for refurbishment and demolition. Predictions/modelling of the future costs of resource management related to specific waste types and regional differences e.g. inert, timber recycled, mixed landfill, hazardous waste. Establish a common methodology to derive the benefits of resource efficiency, allocate across the supply chain. Establish robust methodology for predicting waste generation (some of this is being developed in the National Benchmarking project) Establishing site, company, regional and national waste prevention targets (being explored in Strategic Approach to Construction Waste project) Quantifying the waste impact of modern methods of construction and/or standardisation across the whole life of the building (being explored in DTI Be Aware Project; by MTP, BRE Design for Manufacture & SmartLIFE, WRAP and Envirowise) Establish a method of carbon accounting for typical construction wastes and work packages, including a methodology for crediting/debiting offsite impacts in addition to embodied energy impacts, including recycling pathways and disposal impacts Actions needed to better define the target Refurbishment 1 Generate better data on housing refurbishment and waste profiles by tenure, and on public and commercial refurbishment by type e.g. shopfitting, schools, hotels, offices etc. (some of this is being developed in the National Benchmarking project) In particular, identify rates and waste impacts of owner-occupier refurbishment and extension/conversion work (some of this will be explored in the DTI TZERO project). Establish baseline figures for non-capital renewal works including decorating, replacement of guttering etc. Identify priority patterns of refurbishment waste by work package, type and disposal issues, in order to produce specific guidance for clients, specifiers and contractors. Establish a common methodology for true waste costing for refurbishment waste which is compatible with cost methods for construction and demolition. Research whole life costing of refurbishment options (currently being explored in Strategic Approach to Construction Waste project) Establish a method of carbon accounting for typical refurbishment wastes and work packages, including a methodology for crediting/debiting offsite impacts in addition to embodied energy impacts, including recycling pathways and disposal impacts. Actions needed to better define the target Demolition 1 Generate and collect data on the rates of demolition for different sectors and building type enabling future scenario modelling and prediction Define sector, building and material type Environmental Performance Indicators for demolition to establish baseline figures and set appropriate targets (some of this is being developed in the National Benchmarking project) Gain a better understanding of the composition of demolition waste for products and materials by establishing a common data methodology and collection process (some of this is being developed in the National Benchmarking project) Collect data on the types of materials that arise from different demolition processes i.e. bulk materials versus actual products Establish a better data set for routes for demolition waste and the associated costs including revenue versus cost of different options (especially relevant for deconstruction versus demolition); include transportation costs Establish a mechanism/tool for calculating the whole life costs for demolition waste and prediction of future costs Collect data on the actual environmental impacts of the demolition process and subsequent waste management routes (including transportation) to establish a life cycle assessment tool to help with the decision making process. Use the data identified above to establish a method for carbon accounting for demolition waste including a methodology for crediting/debiting offsite impacts in addition to embodied energy impacts, including recycling pathways and disposal impacts 17

18 Table 12 Actions that could be taken across and within the supply chain to improve resource efficiency in the short to medium term. Actions needed across the supply chain Construction 1 Designing out waste manual that relates to product selection and wastage, whole life costing, optimal use of MMC & standardisation, and design for deconstruction (links to work areas of Envirowise, WRAP, MTP and DTI Be Aware project) Case studies and guidance that clearly and consistently define the business case and opportunities for resource efficiency (links to work areas of Envirowise, WRAP and RDAs) Site waste management plans to include waste prevention targets and a system of collecting data from them (links to work areas of Envirowise, WRAP, RDAs, EA and BRE s SMARTWaste) Explore use of enhanced capital allowances to promote construction resource efficiency Quantifying the effects of different types of contracts and procurement on resource efficiency, also exploring the use of incentives and penalties to reach targets (links to work areas of Envirowise and WRAP) Greater use of consolidation centres to maximise resource use, minimise over-ordering and surplus materials (links to work areas of Envirowise and WRAP) Producer responsibility voluntary agreements with manufacturers and other stakeholders that are based upon reducing the life cycle resource impacts of products (links to work areas of MTP and DTI Be Aware project) Promote compliance with Duty of Care certification of resource management sites (possibly leading to a BREEAM type system for transfer stations), provision of recycling facilities for SMEs at Household Waste Recycling Centres (links to work areas of BRE Certification, EA, WRAP and RDAs) Local collections or milk rounds for surplus products and materials, with resulting local supplies of small/part packages of products/low impact materials possibly with community sector but health and safety risks would need to be mitigated. 10 Changing culture and raising awareness develop consistent and linked training packages, from on-site induction to various professions, from school through to relevant vocational and higher educational courses (links to DfES programme, CITB, BRE, CIRIA, RDA, WRAP and Envirowise activities) 11 Quantification of material resource efficiency potential through adopting lean construction techniques (links to CLIP and Envirowise) 18

19 Actions needed across the supply chain Refurbishment 1 Reduction of packaging waste impacts through overall packaging reduction, preference for reusable and recyclable packaging materials, facilities and arrangements for return, re-use and recycling (some of this is being done by WRAP and Envirowise) Promote durable, higher-value materials and products which have a longer service life and represent greater economic and environmental reclamation and recycling value upon decommissioning. Introduce market disincentives for inherently non-durable alternatives. Consider parallel market transformation in use of paints, adhesives, treatments and finishings which restrict end-of-life options to the lower end of the waste hierarchy. Promote the use of materials with recycled and/or reclaimed content (WRAP have a focus on increasing recycled content in buildings). Consider options for maintaining the value of installations and designing for planned updating which permits maximum retention of existing materials. This may involve leasing of kitchen and/or bathroom installations, increasing standardisation of fixtures and fittings to allow for continual upgrades with minimum disruption (some of this will be explored by MTP and in the DTI TZERO project). Promote small-scale, local segregated waste collection and reclamation/recycling services tailored to needs of refurbishment market and SME contractors. Increase awareness of clients and specifiers of environmental, resource and whole life cost impacts of refurbishment options (some of this will be explored in the DTI TZERO project). This could take a number of forms: Produce case studies and guidance on reduction, reuse and recycling of refurbishment waste Focus on future growth area of low-carbon refurbishment to help users better evaluate material resource impacts of options Incorporate the resource efficiency of predicted maintenance schedule into the Home Information Pack Work towards legislation for a housing maintenance manual which sets out predicted maintenance and refurbishment schedules, specifications, options and impacts. Increase producer responsibility: Product tagging for identification and traceability of materials Product labelling with recommended service life effectively a best before date which allows clients and specifiers to better predict service life, design for scheduled replacement and compare options on the basis of long-term cost Increased take-back and remanufacture of end-of-life products and materials Involvement of builders merchants and DIY chains in promotion of resource-efficient refurbishment products and systems Develop resource efficiency action plans for social housing refurbishment programmes by local authorities and registered social landlords. 10 Design for adaptable buildings to minimise material wastage for foreseeable refurbishment and improvement phases including loft conversion, extension, knockthrough, kitchen & bathroom refit (some of this will be explored in the DTI TZERO project). 19

20 Actions needed across the supply chain Demolition 1 Ensure the usage of Site Waste Management Plans for demolition projects including the setting of appropriate targets for recovery; include a mechanism for analysis of these datasets (some of this work is being done by WRAP and Envirowise) Requirement of pre-demolition audits to ensure the potential for the reclamation and recycling of products/materials is identified and then realised. Mapping of demolition activities in relation to new build activities and waste management facilities (including reclamation) to enable a resource planning tool to be implemented e.g. through the use of BREMAP (a geographical information system which currently maps waste facilities) Increased linkage to the community sector through reuse and recycling schemes (links to Community Recycling Network and RDAs) More emphasis on the disassembly and deconstruction of buildings to achieve higher levels of reclamation including: Research and development into technologies that aid deconstruction and the associated increased value of materials e.g. the use of remote controlled robotics, microwave technology, laser technology and other suitable technologies Design buildings for future reuse and recycling by using techniques that aid deconstruction.e.g. lime mortar, simplified fixing systems and use products/materials which aid this with the avoidance of hazardous materials Provide information including as build drawings and maintenance logs including identification of components and materials and associated points for disassembly Develop the skill base for deconstruction and ensure adequate training Work with designers and architects to encourage the flexible use and adaptation of property at a minimal future cost and maximise the lifespan of buildings. In terms of supporting higher levels of reclamation the following actions are recommended: Stimulate the reclamation market through increased access to products which are cost effective, available, aesthetically pleasing and perform technically. Assess the potential for incentives the use of reclaimed materials e.g. lower VAT Recognised training and accreditation programmes for the reclamation sector to ensure access on demolition sites (links to, CITB, NFDC and SALVO) Provide certification, building codes and specifications for reclaimed materials Provision of localised storage centres for reclaimed materials for the short term and possibly longer term i.e. storage of key demolition products to aid procurement options and logistical requirement Develop alternative markets for demolition arisings particularly related to products that are being used currently which may prove difficult to recover (some of this work is being done by WRAP) Investigate new treatment technologies for hazardous waste arising from demolition activities (some of this work is being done by DEFRA) Provide a better linkage between the demolition and new build phases of the project through planning requirements and project management i.e. through the use of tools such as pre-demolition audits, ICE demolition protocol and SWMPs (links to work being carried out by WRAP) 11 Promote the positive image of both the demolition and the reclamation sectors (links to NFDC, IDE and SALVO) 12 Provision of guidance, best practice case studies to inform the supply chain in terms of the cost and environmental benefits and technical requirements for using reclaimed and recycled materials from demolition (some of this work is being done by WRAP). Views sought: These actions will be refined and further actions added through this consultation and associated workshops. It is also likely that links to existing work have been missed. Any comments on the actions listed, additional actions or missed links will be very welcome. Industry and other stakeholder views are very important to developing the strategy. As detailed at the beginning of this document, please send in your views and comments by 10 November We will also be organising several workshops to capture industry views, please or phone if you would like to attend one of these workshops. Contact details for consultation responses: Gilli Hobbs BRE, Garston, Watford WD25 9XX T: +44 (0) E: hobbsg@bre.co.uk 20

21 Glossary Be Aware Built environment Action on waste awareness and resource efficiency EPI Environmental performance indicator (m 3 waste/100 m 2 floor area in this document) BRE Building Research Establishment FM Facilities management BREEAM BREMAP Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Model Building Research Establishment Materials and Planning H & S ICE IDE Health and safety Institution of Civil Engineers Institute of Demolition Engineers BREW Business Resource Efficiency and Waste programme LCA Life cycle assessment C/CO 2 Carbon/carbon dioxide MMC Modern methods of construction C & D waste Construction, demolition and refurbishment waste MT Million tonnes CIRIA CITB CLIP DCLG Defra DfES DTI EA Construction Industry Research and Information Association Construction Industry Training Board Construction Lean Improvement Programme Department for Communities and Local Government Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs Department for Education and Schools Department of Trade and Industry Environment Agency MTP NFDC NISP RDA Salvo SME SWMP TZERO WRAP Market Transformation Programme National Federation of Demolition Contractors National Industrial Symbiosis Programme Regional Development Agency Information organisation for the reclamation sector Small and medium size enterprise Site Waste Management Plan Towards Zero Emission Refurbishment Options Waste and Resources Action Programme 21

22 Contact details for consultation responses: Gilli Hobbs BRE, Garston, Watford WD25 9XX T: +44 (0) E: