EAUC Conference ~ 31st March 2009
Reducing Construction Waste: An Opportunity?
John Holland - WRAP
Outline

About WRAP and the construction programme

Why take action on waste ?

Reducing waste to landfill - making a commitment

Case studies ~ Imperial, Manchester, Birmingham City,

Tools and resources for the University Sector
What is WRAP?
Waste & Resources Action Programme
 Not-for-profit organisation
 Funded by Defra, the Scottish Government, the Welsh
Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly
 Delivery body for UK waste strategies

(based in Banbury but operates nationwide)
WRAP helps individuals, businesses and local authorities to reduce
waste and recycle more, making better use of resources and helping to
tackle climate change.
WRAP’S focus
Working with…
Agriculture &
horticulture
Construction
Retailers, brands, Recycling &
waste industries
supply chain
Individuals
Regeneration &
landscaping
Local
government
Small & medium
enterprises
Manufacture &
reprocessing
Third sector
Why construction?
Construction is the biggest user of materials in the economy, consuming
>400 million tonnes of materials each year. It also generates some 122 million
tonnes of construction, demolition and excavation waste each year which is
over one third of all waste, only half of which is currently recycled or
reclaimed back into construction.
Whilst a significant amount of this 122 million tonnes is recycled and re-used
(most via re-processing of demolition materials for aggregates) there is still 25
million tonnes going to landfill. It is this figure which WRAP is trying to
influence by reducing this by 50% (12.5 million tonnes) by 2012.
+
9,019,000
@ 2.77 times
(both carriageways)
= 25 Million
Tonnes
Key Opportunities
Sustainability
goals
Energy
Water
Materials
Materials ‘In’
Maximise the reuse of
reclaimed materials
Efficient
demolition
More recycled
materials
Materials
‘Out’
Waste
reduction
Materials
recovery
Design
Site segregation
Procurement
Efficient MRF
Logistics
Site Management
True cost of a skip ?
True cost of construction waste
The original
purchase price
and
transportation
costs of the
materials
+
The cost of their
handling,
storage,
transport and
disposal
e.g. For 8 cu yd skip:
Skip hire
Labour to fill skip
Cost of materials put in skip
TOTAL TRUE COST
(Source: AMEC)
+
The loss of
income from not
salvaging the
materials
£85
£163
£1095
£1343
Why a Commitment?
(3:43 version)
WRAP ½ W2L Video
The Construction Commitments:
Halving Waste to Landfill
“We commit to playing our part in halving the amount of
construction, demolition and excavation waste going to landfill by
2012. We will work to adopt and implement standards for good
practice in reducing waste, recycling more, and increasing the use
of recycled and recovered materials.”
Clients
Contractors
Designers &
Consultants
Manufacturers
& Suppliers
Waste
management
Contractors
Why should you sign up?
Finance
Reputation
Achieve real cost
reductions
Achieve clear market
recognition
Environment
Measurement
Demonstrate clear
environmental credentials
Obtain robust,
reliable information
Who’s signed up already?
More than just compliance
England
The Strategy for
Sustainable Construction
Scotland
Zero Waste Scotland
Policy
Northern
Ireland
Requirements embedded
in sustainable
construction standards for
the CPD.
Wales
Shortly to go to
consultation
The Construction
Commitments: Halving
Waste to Landfill
The Construction
Commitments
‘By 2012, a 50%
reduction of
construction,
demolition and
excavation waste to
landfill compared to
2008’
‘We commit to playing our
part in halving the amount of
construction, demolition and
excavation waste going to
landfill by 2012.
We will work to adopt and
implement standards for
good practice in reducing
waste, recycling more, and
increasing the use of
recycled and recovered
materials.’
What are we committing to?
Universities
“We will:

set a target for reducing waste to landfill;

embed the target within corporate policy and processes;

set corresponding requirements in project procurement
and engage with our supply chain;

measure performance at a project level relative to a
corporate baseline; and

report annually on overall corporate performance.”
½ Waste to Landfill : University Signatories
~ Imperial College, London (the first UK Signatory)
~ University Of Manchester
~ Birmingham City University (City Campus Project)
~ University of Leeds
~ Environmental Association for Universities & Colleges
WRAP & Other UK Universities
Brunel University ~ Paul Thomas, MD Operations & Resources and his team
are keen to engage with WRAP during 2009 to establish support to their Future
Estates Strategy
Oxford University ~ Kate Aydin, the Environmental Manager for the University
has utilised the WRAP SWMP as a basis for her main framework contractors to
report on waste
University of Nottingham ~ WRAP is working with Tim Brooksbank, the
Development Director and Gavin Scott, Environmental Manager to place
Nottingham in a position where the Commitment can be signed and baseline
assessment, training and a project-specific NetWaste tool exercise completed
Leeds Metropolitan University ~ Mark Warner, Sustainability Manager is
seeking to work with WRAP to reduce waste and identify cost savings
Royal Holloway College ~ Paul Chappell, Head of Projects is using the WRAP
procurement wording to drive down costs and ensure that his contactors identify
waste and where better recycling can be achieved at an early date
Oxford Brookes University ~ Harriet Waters, Environmental Co-Ordinator and
her colleagues in Estates are seeking to work with WRAP from April/May 2009 to
introduce and utilise some of the consulatncy support and tools/resources
available
WRAP & Other UK Universities
Anglia Ruskin University ~ Mark Norman, Environmental Manager
Kingston University ~ Andrew McEwan, Director for Property Management
Newcastle University ~ Daniel O’Connor, Waste Manager
University Of Salford ~ David Sims, Quantity Surveyor
University Of Wales ~ Ann Hann, Senior Lecturer
University of West of England ~ Simon Brennan, Compliance Manager
University of Westminster~ Vall Rasaratnam, Energy & Environment Manager
Dundee University ~ Colin McNally, Capital Projects & Development Manager
University of the West Of Scotland ~ Claire Roxburgh, Energy & Environmental Manager
St. Andrews University ~ Roddy Yarr, Environment & Energy Manager
Strathclyde University ~ Fraser Bell, Head of Project Management
Case Studies ~ Universities
Case study – University Of Manchester
2008-09 ~ What are
Manchester Doing Now ?
• Already have a well developed system of
segregating municipal wastes within the
university (e.g. Jodrell Bank Campus)
• Use an in-house ‘Waste reporting Form’ for
Project Managers to fill out at the end of each
project to obtain data on waste streams
• Have recently completed several new multi
million pound new build projects which have
achieved a good rating for sustainability
• Now want to use their Site Waste Management
Plan (SWMP) information, historic recycling
rates and work with WRAP to establish a
baseline which they can then measure each
new project against and improve year on year
Manchester have already installed a
successful recycling scheme for municipal
waste at sites such as Jodrell Bank
Manchester works to the
3’R’s principle
Waste Re-duction
Re-use of materials
Re-cycle
Case study – University Of Manchester
2009 ~ 2010 : Projected
• Training for Project managers in the Design
Services Unit so that they can undertake
reporting and implement best practices
• Incorporate the WRAP wording for best
practice into the University’s procurement and
contract documentation – particularly for a
forthcoming large projects
• Specifically use the proposed new Learning
Communications Building as an example of
what can be achieved and how a project can
work towards being sustainably ‘excellent’
• Assess how waste data and best practice
objectives can be ‘embedded’ into smaller
(<£300k) projects
Manchester 2015
Agenda which aims to
make the University
one of the top 25 in
the world by 2015
Case study – University Building
Strathclyde University
SIPBS
Opportunities to increase recycled
content, top 5 Quick Wins:
rubber floor finish
 in-situ concrete frame
 reinforced in-situ concrete slab
 rain screen cladding
 plasterboard partitions

Use
Use of
of recycled
recycled content
content (as
(as aa %
% of
Use
of
recycled
(as a %
total
value
of materials):
of total
value
ofcontent
materials):
of total value of materials):






actual
with
8% saving
on
Standard
practice:
15.95%
actual
practice:
16.5%
materials
cost:
20%
achievable with top 5 quick
readily17.11%
achievable
with
6%
potential
at no extra
project
wins:
saving
on
materials
cost:
20%
cost:
30%
potential at no extra project
potential
at no extra project
cost:
17.37%
cost: 30%
Case study – University Building
Aberdeen University
Library
Requirements to increase
recycled content set in
Contract Documentation:
‘At least 10% of the total value of
materials used in the construction
project must be derived from recycled
and re-used content in the products and
materials selected.’
Currently working with the
University to develop a Case Study
Case study : Imperial College, London
First UK University To Sign
WRAP ½ W2L Commitment
• Imperial have been looking at their waste
streams for some time and were the first Uk
university to sign-up to WRAP’s ½ Waste to
Landfill Commitment
• They have previously employed a specialist
consultant to prepare a bespoke Site Waste
Management Plan (SWMP) and Waste Audit Tool
which can be used by their in-house design and
project team and also by framework consultants
• Work currently being undertaken with WRAP
(using MACE as the delivery consultant) to assist
with full training and implementation of SWMP
tool; establishment of a baseline for recycling
and application of the WRAP NetWaste Tool to
identify potential cost savings
Imperial video
Dennis Murphy & Steve Howe of Imperial explain the
University’s Commitment to Halving Waste to Landfill
Example cost savings : New Build Halls Of Residence
Resources available
Procurement
Guidance
Technical
Manuals
Tools
Training materials
One to one
advice
Procurement Guidance
Project Stage
Policy

Preparation
&
Design

PreConstruction
&
Construction
Post
Completion
Model wording for
Construction Commitment on Waste
 High level targets
 Project level targets


Design Team Tendering
Employers Requirement
Design team appointment
Contractor tendering
 Contractor appointment


Reporting
Technical Manuals - Demolition
Pre demolition audit – assess the quantity and
type of available materials)
Demolition Recovery Index (DRI) – KPI that
assesses the proportion of materials that are reused
Retained Materials Index (RM) – The proportion
of materials retained on site
Technical Manuals - Logistics Planning

KPIs

Waste reduction through
 material specifications
 delivery of materials
 storage of materials
 handling of materials
 use of materials
 disposal of materials

Materials Logistics Plan Template
Technical Manuals - Recycled content
Benefits:
Diversion of ‘waste’ materials away
from landfill
Reduction in extraction / utilisation of
raw materials
Bulk aggregates
Bricks
Concrete
Plasterboard
Asphalt
Ceiling tiles
Drainage
products
Chipboard
Pre-cast products
Insulation
Concrete tiles
Carpets
Concrete blocks
Sheet flooring
SWMP Template
The Net Waste Tool
My Projects ~
fill out details
Create an
education project
Put in the project details
[Project runs from March 2009 to June 2010]
Input of
substructure
concrete strip
requirements
Possible to save
£5,277 just on
concrete strip
improvements
Net Waste Tool in context
Product Guide
W2L Reporting
Portal
(Under construction)
Achieving resource
efficiency portal
SWMP Template
Aggregate resources at
www.aggregain.org.uk
Net Waste Tool
Design stage
- Identify high
wastes
- Identify
recycled
content
Quick wins
Pre
Construction
Construction
- Waste
forecasts
(tonnes, volume,
value and cost of
waste disposal)
SWMP
- Skip strategy
- Management Actions
Post
Construction
- Project
reporting and
review
Net Waste Tool Outputs
Recycled Waste Waste to Value of
Cost of
content arisings landfill
wasted
waste
(t)
(t)
materials disposal
(£)
(£)
Total
cost of
waste
(£)
Baseline
13%
11
5
700
650
1,350
Good
20%
4
2
270
430
700
Targeted
17%
7
3
400
500
900
Note – all numbers all for illustration only
Summary of key actions
Start measuring
Determine your baseline
Set targets
Look for your Quick Wins
Report your progress
Your next steps
 Register your interest
 Attend half day events
 Talk to WRAP
 Start the process…
 Sign the Commitment
Questions??
John Holland
John.holland@wrap.org.uk