Waste minimisation across the supply chain: areas … › sites › files › wrap › Waste...

Waste minimisation across the supply chain: areas to focus on

Waste minimisation



Waste minimisation

This project, funded by the Construction Resources and Waste Platform (CRWP1), provides key recommendations in terms of achieving waste minimisation across the construction supply chain. For the purposes of this report, ‘waste minimisation’ is defined as ‘the reduction in the amount of waste arising from the construction process’; diverting waste materials from landfill is not included within the scope. Waste minimisation is important from a business, cost and environmental perspective and it is increasingly apparent in Government policy and standards. To achieve effective waste reduction, the supply chain needs to work together.

A number of issues have been assessed to assist in defining priorities for waste reduction. This includes the cost of certain construction materials/products. Those products/materials with a high purchase cost include certain floor coverings, tiles, bitumen and metals (especially zinc and aluminium). Therefore, there is more of a cost incentive to reduce the amount of waste arising from using these materials/products than those that may cost less.

For wastage allowances, in-situ concrete has the largest at 10%, followed by timber and board products at insulation at 9.8% and then timber and board products

at 9%. In terms of specifications, the highest wastage allowance is at 33% for repairing/renovating concrete flag paving, followed by 25% for worktops etc (timber) and also for in-situ concrete applications. Other issues analysed include the amount of waste diverted from landfill and the environmental impact of the waste/materials in terms of their manufacture and transport to site.

The impact is expressed in terms of BRE’s Ecopoints per kg of material, with the usage of the raw materials in the product having the highest environmental impact in relation to transportation and waste management. The construction products/materials with a higher impact include floor coverings, metals, plastics and insulation

When ranking these issues and aggregating them, those with the greatest impact include insulation, asphalt and tar, floor coverings (soft) then timber and board products. The data presented within this report can help organisations prioritise their waste reduction actions from a material perspective.

Factsheets and case studies are also included for the construction supply chain: client, designers, main and trade contractors and suppliers/product manufacturers.

1.The Construction Resources and Waste Platform was funded by Defra to provide support to businesses in the construction sector. For more information go to www.constructionwaste.info


Executive Summary


Waste minimisation

Index of Case Studies

General Plasterboard Packaging Flooring InsulationBrick and block

Client Case study 2

Designer/architect

Case study 3 Case study 1 Case study 1

Main contractor

Case study 1 Case study 5

Trade contractor

Case study 1 Case study 5 Case study 4

Supplier Case study 1 Case study 5

Product manufacturer

Case study 1 Case study 6


Waste minimisation

Wastage Rate Report Prepared forName Construction Resources and Waste Platform

Prepared byName Katherine AdamsPosition Principal Consultant

Approved on behalf of BREName Gilli HobbsPosition Director

BRE Garston WD25 9XX T + 44 (0) 1923 664000 F + 44 (0) 1923 664010 E [email protected] www.bre.co.uk This report is made on behalf of BRE. By receiving the report and acting on it, the client - or any third party relying on it - accepts that no individual is personally liable in contract, tort or breach of statutory duty (including negligence).

Contents

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Why waste minimisation is important 1

1.1.1 Waste hierarchy 1

1.1.2 True cost of waste 3

1.1.3 Environmental savings 3

1.1.4 Business benefits 3

1.1.5 Policy/legislation drivers 4

1.2 Cause of waste 7

1.3 Supply chain focus 9

2. Evaluation of datasets 12

2.1 Typical construction materials 12

2.2 Data sources 13

2.3 Material costs 14

2.4 Wastage allowances 16

2.5 Amount of waste generated onsite 18

2.6 Typical disposal routes 18

2.7 Environmental impact 20

2.8 Aggregation of issues 21

3. Client factsheet 24

4. Designers/architects 26

5. Main and trade contractors 28

6. Suppliers and product manufacturers 32

2. Evaluation of datasets


Waste minimisation


Page

1

Waste minimisation

This project, funded by the Construction Resources and Waste Platform (CRWP2), provides key recommendations in terms of achieving waste minimisation across the construction supply chain. For the purposes of this report, ‘waste minimisation’ is defined as ‘the reduction in the amount of waste arising from the construction process’; diverting waste materials from landfill is not included within the scope; however it should be noted that reducing waste quantities could lead to a greater diversion of waste from landfill.

Recommendations are presented in terms of key materials to focus on looking at various datasets and actions across the supply chain. The actions apply largely to the new build construction process and are appropriate for commercial and residential projects.

The key recommendations and actions have been developed through a literature review (predominately from material in the UK) and analysis of BRE datasets such as waste arisings, wastage rates and environmental impact. Much work has already been done by organisations (e.g. WRAP, Envirowise) on waste minimisation and as such this report seeks to pull this information together to assist the construction industry, in implementing waste reduction measures.

1. Introduction

2.The Construction Resources and Waste Platform was funded by Defra to provide support to businesses in the construction sector. For more information go to www.constructionwaste.info

MaterialProduct

WASTEONLY

Reduction

Re-use

Recycling & composting

Energy recovery

Landfill

Figure 1: The waste hierarchy

1.1 Why waste minimisation is important1.1.1 Waste hierarchyThe waste hierarchy (as shown in Figure 1), has been a feature of UK waste policy since the 1990s and encourages policy makers and industry to consider it within their decision making by providing a framework.


Page

2

Waste minimisation

An example of how the waste hierarchy can be applied to construction waste is shown in Figure 2. The waste hierarchy has now taken on increasing importance with the implementation of the Revised EU Waste Framework Directive3, according to which it should be applied in priority order in waste prevention and management legislation and policy. The priority order is: waste prevention; preparing for re-use; recycling; other recovery (e.g. energy recovery); and finally disposal. The

3. DIRECTIVE 2008/98/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives; available here: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:312:0003:0003:EN:PDF

revised Directive allows for departure from the hierarchy where that would deliver a better overall environmental outcome. The Directive has to be transposed in the UK by 12 December 2010. Member States should also provide waste prevention programmes by 2013 with the overall aim of breaking the link between economic growth and the environmental impacts associated with the generation of waste. Specific qualitative or quantitative benchmarks for waste prevention should be set.

Figure 2: The waste hierarchy applied to plasterboard waste

Design floor to ceiling heights to match board >sizes.Procure just enough for the job. >Store undercover to prevent weather damage >Only fit boards when building is water tight. >

Can my plasterboard waste be reduced?

Can my plasterboard waste be reused?

Large pieces of offcuts could be reused >Surplus boards can be saved for the next job >

Can my plasterboard waste be recycled?

Segregate on site and sent to a recycler as raw >material for new plasterboard

Can my plasterboard waste be sent for energy recovery?

Not appropriate >

Landfill Send to a monocell within a licensed landfill >

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

NoMaterialProduct

WASTEONLY

MaterialProduct

WASTEONLY

MaterialProduct

WASTEONLY

MaterialProduct

WASTEONLY

MaterialProduct

WASTEONLY


Page

3

Waste minimisation

4. From BRE waste studies 5. http://envirowise.wrap.org.uk/uk/Sectors/Construction/Sector-Services/True-Cost-of-Waste.341603.html 6. A Strategic Approach to Construction Waste, 2006, BRE – available at www.bre.co.uk/filelibrary/pdf/rpts/waste/ConstructionWasteReport240906.pdf 7. Available at www.wastecalculator.co.uk 8. CRWP, Construction Resources and Waste Roadmap 2008, May 2008.

1.1.2 True cost of wasteBy focusing on waste minimisation, the biggest savings in terms of cost and environmental impact can be made. In simple terms, if material waste is not created then it doesn’t have to be managed or reprocessed. The ‘true cost of waste’ is thought to be up to ten times as high as the disposal costs4. This means that for a skip of waste from a new build construction project costing £150, the actual cost can be as much as £1,500. This hidden cost includes the cost of the materials that have been wasted and also the labour costs associated with the waste. Other costs that generally don’t get taken into account in costings include management and inefficiency costs (for example rework).

Envirowise produced a video case study5 showing that for skip costing £160, the cost of the materials within that skip totalled nearly £1,000, with labour adding a further £40. In terms of looking at this cost for a whole sector, then a previous study6 has shown that in 2006, the true cost of waste for a typical new build house was £6,715; and for the whole sector over a billion pounds. Indeed, it is clear business sense to reduce the amount of waste produced and, therefore, the associated costs (both visible and hidden).

CRWP has produced the web-based ‘True Cost of Waste Calculator7’ which can help companies identify costs related to wastage rates of key materials and the associated environmental impact.

Key recommendationUse the various tools (such as The True Cost of Waste Calculator) to determine the true cost of your waste for a year for your waste arisings. You will need to have a rough idea of the materials you have procured and then wasted. You may get a shock!

1.1.3 Environmental savingsA reduction in environmental impact can be made through using resources more efficiently, thus creating less waste that has to be managed. The construction industry is resource intensive, consuming an estimated 378 million tonnes of materials annually, with 21% (80 million tonnes) from recycled/secondary resources8. There are environmental impacts associated with using these resources in the extraction of raw materials, their processing and manufacture and their transportation. Impacts include energy and water consumption, air pollution and resource depletion.

By reducing our waste, we reduce the environmental impact of it. For instance, the waste created in the house building sector in 2006 was estimated to be equivalent to over 1 million tonnes of embodied CO2. We also reduce the impact of managing it, especially if the waste would have been landfilled. Landfilling waste can lead to greenhouse gas emissions and the pollution of ground and water.

1.1.4 Business benefits As well as environmental and cost savings, there are other benefits to business of focusing on waste reduction, these include:

leaner construction; >

market differentiation; >

corporate social responsibility; and >

keeping ahead of regulation. >


Waste minimisation

Page

4

1.1.5 Policy/legislation driversPolicy and legislation in England relates to the appropriate management of waste and, more specifically, the protection of the environment; much of this stems from Europe. In addition, in terms of construction, there

Table 1: Policy/legislation drivers relating to waste minimisation in construction

Name Brief description Relevance to waste minimisation Relevant part of the supply chain

Legislation

EU Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC)

Sets the basic concepts and definitions related to waste management and lays down waste management principles such as the ‘polluter pays principle’ or the ‘waste hierarchy’.

Waste prevention should be considered first in all policies within the waste hierarchy unless there is an environmental justification otherwise.

Policy makers and all waste producers.

Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) Regulations 2008

Within England, projects costing over £300,000 have to have a SWMP to plan for effective waste management and monitor progress.

Waste minimisation decisions should be recorded within the SWMP before construction starts. Decisions may be related to the nature of the project, its design, construction method or materials.

Designers, clients and contractors.

Environmental Permitting Regulations (England and Wales) 2010

Permits (or exemptions) are required to undertake waste management activities and other actives (e.g. certain manufacturing) that may have an environmental impact.

Waste minimisation can be considered as part of the permitting process.

Contractors, suppliers and manufacturers.

Policy

Waste Strategy for England 2007

Sets out a vision for waste management in England, including principles such as a ‘shared responsibility’, a focus on products, materials and sectors, investment in infrastructure and ensuring environmental benefits.

Objective to decouple waste growth (in all sectors – including construction) from economic growth and put more emphasis on waste prevention and re-use.

Policy makers and all waste producers.

are policies and standards pushing the sector into a more sustainable approach. Table 1 summarises the relevant policies and legalisation that are applicable to waste minimisation in the construction sector and who the prime audience is.


Page

5

Waste minimisation


Strategy for Sustainable Construction

A joint industry/Government strategy to set commitments, actions and targets for improved sustainability including waste and materials across the supply chain.

Overall target to divert 50% of construction, demolition and excavation waste from landfill by 2012 based on a 2008 baseline. This should be as a result of reduction, reuse, recycling and recovery.

Other actions relate to reducing packaging waste and setting up resource efficiency plans.

All

Standards

Code for Sustainable Homes

The code is the national standard for the sustainable design and construction of new homes. It aims to reduce carbon emissions and create homes that are more sustainable.

It measures the sustainability of a new home against categories of sustainable design, rating the ‘whole home’ as a complete package.

Within the waste category, a SWMP must be produced with targets for resource efficiency and include procedures and commitments for reducing waste on site.

Designers, clients and house builders.

BREEAM BREEAM (BRE Environmental Assessment Method) is the leading and most widely used environmental assessment method for buildings. It sets the standard for best practice in sustainable design and has become the de facto measure used to describe a building’s environmental performance.

Within the waste section, credits can be obtained for waste reduction based on benchmarks (amount of waste against floor area). The less waste that is created, the more credits (up to 3) can be obtained.

Clients, designers and contractors.


Waste minimisation

Page

6


Responsible Sourcing

Responsible sourcing of materials (RSM) provides a holistic approach to managing a product from the point at which a material is mined or harvested in its raw state through manufacture and processing, through use, re-use and recycling, until its final disposal as waste with no further value.

The BES 6001 standard (issued by BRE) includes requirements for organisations to establish policy and metrics for diversion of waste from landfill (including waste reduction) and for resource efficiency – using fewer materials.

BSI has also produced BS 8902:2009: Responsible sourcing sector certification schemes for construction products which also includes waste management.

Manufacturers and suppliers.

CEN/TC 350 A series of standards is being developed by CEN/TC 350 to support the sustainability assessment of construction products and the built environment.

The purpose of the work of CEN/TC 350 is to provide a framework with principles, requirements and guidelines for the development of standards to support the sustainability assessment of ‘construction works’.

The amount of resources used and the waste generated should be considered across a products lifecycle.

Manufacturers.

Other

Planning Planning authorities can stipulate requirements though supplementary planning guidance.

Requirements on waste minimisation can be set as part of the planning process.

Clients and designers.

Key recommendationAssess the potential impact current and future legislation/standards etc. may have for you on waste reduction.


Page

7

Waste minimisation

responsibility of someone other than the waste producer. The source of the waste and its cause can be attributed to all stages of construction as shown by Table 2.

1.2 Cause of waste Knowing the reason why the waste is generated in the first place is key to reducing it. It may not be possible in all cases to reduce the waste or waste reduction may be the

Table 2: Examples of common sources and causes of construction waste

Source Cause

Design Composite buildings >

Complicated design >

Changes to design >

Error in contracts/contract documents incomplete >

Specification of products and sizing of products >

Lack of knowledge of construction waste >

Procurement Over-ordering (excess materials left over) >

Errors in ordering >

Suppliers’ error >

Requirements to bulk purchase >

Materials handling Inappropriate storage leading to damage >

Damage during transportation >

Careless delivery >

Mishandling >

Packaging >

Construction Offcuts >

Poor installation/errors >

Damage caused by subsequent trades >

Rework (e.g. due to use of wrong material, poor workmanship) >

Phasing of building (i.e. only apply certain products when building is watertight >

Vandalism/theft >

Weather >

Site office waste >


Waste minimisation

Page

8

work accounting for over half of the waste generated. The results from this study are specific to a housing site and the source and cause of waste will vary depending on the construction project, though certain trends will apply. For example, plaster waste will appear during drylining and timber on carpentry first and second fixes.

Figure 3 shows an example of detailed analysis of the types of waste arising on a housing site related to the work packages, with the drylining, brick/blockwork, ICF (insulated concrete formwork) installation and site handling packages creating the most waste. Figure 4 shows the waste arisings broken down by cause, with methods of

Figure 3: Example of the amount and type of waste arisings against work packages9

Blo

ckw

ork

to D

PC

Bric

k/b

lock

wor

k

Car

pen

try

1st

�x

Car

pen

try

2nd

�x

Dry

lini

ng &

Pla

ster

ing

Ele

ctric

al 1

st �

x

Felt,

bat

ten

and

tili

ng

Floo

r st

ruct

ure

Floo

r �n

ishe

s

Floo

r sc

reed

Floo

r st

ruct

ure

ICF

Inst

alla

tion

Inte

rnal

dra

inag

e

Jet�

oor

Mai

ns u

tiliti

es

Ren

der

ing

Roo

f Tru

sses

Site

Han

dlin

g

Site

Man

agem

ent

Tile

Hun

g

Win

dow

s &

Ext

erna

l doo

rs

Timber

Plastics

Plaster

Packaging

Metals

Insulation

Gypsum

Cement

Bricks

Electrical Equipment

Concrete

120

90

60

30

0

145

Volu

me

(m3 ) Key

9. SmartLIFE Site Measurement Final Report, BRE


Page

9

Waste minimisation

Figure 4: An example of waste arisings by cause10

Designspeci�cation

Methodsof work

Miscellaneousreasons

Not de�ned Packaging

Volu

me

(m3 )

0

50

100

150

200

250

Timber

Plastics

Plaster

Packaging

Metals

Insulation

Gypsum

Cement

Bricks

Electrical Equipment

Concrete

Key

10. SmartLIFE Site Measurement Final Report, BRE11. Constructing Excellence – Supply Chain Management 19/3/04; available here: www.constructingexcellence.org.uk/pdf/fact_sheet/supplychain.pdf

There is little information to quantify the causes of waste in relation to both the construction process and waste materials and, therefore, it is difficult for companies to measure the impact of waste reduction measures. The question of how much of the waste is avoidable (i.e. can be reduced) without affecting the construction project is essential in making real progress. Information from Site Waste Management Plans (SWMPs) can start to provide this information in the form of comparing waste forecasts with actual waste arisings on a project, but detailed assessment is needed to relate the waste arising back to the construction process.

1.3 Supply chain focus The construction supply chain has been summarised in Figure 5. This is a simplified approach and shows that:

the client procures the project; >

a designer/architect is appointed (in design and build >contracts, this can be the main contractor);

the main contractor is appointed, in effect to >construct the project and manage the process;

the main contractor may appoint subcontractors to >carry out certain work and/or carry out certain work themselves;

the main/trade contractors are supplied with >materials. This can be either directly from the manufacturer or via a supplier e.g. a builders merchant. ‘Supply chain’ is the term used to describe the linkage of companies that turns a series of basic materials, products or services into a finished product for the client11 .

Key recommendationLook at your waste arisings and identify which are the most significant and a higher priority. For those wastes you think can be reduced, determine the main causes of them and implement measures to control them better.


Waste minimisation

Page

10

Figure 5: A typical supply chain within the construction sector

Client

Designers/architects

Product Manufacturers

Main Contractors

Suppliers

Trade Contractors

Construction Project

In reality, there may be a number of different supply chain approaches on a project, especially if the project is large in size. The set-up of the supply chain will also depend on the type of procurement of the project e.g. traditional, design and build, PFI and also the procurement arrangement between main and trade contractors.

In traditional procurement, the supply chain may only be linked by contracts that have been procured on lowest price against fixed specifications. The supplier is asked to deliver the specified product or service as cheaply as possible. There is little motivation to work in the client’s interest and therefore to reduce waste. In some cases the supply chain is not even linked by contract. Designers and contractors often have separate contracts with the client, for example. Integrated supply chains are now becoming more common in construction. In these cases, the supply chain has a long-term objective to work together to deliver added value to the client and these types of arrangement provide incentives for innovation and the reduction of waste, greater confidence in investment and reduced costs.

Products and services provided by the companies in a construction project supply chain typically account for about 80% of the cost of the project. The way in which those products and services are procured and managed has a profound effect on the outcome of the project - not only in terms of profitability for all parties, but also the way in which the completed facility meets the client’s justifiable expectations of cost, quality and functionality12. In terms of waste minimisation, then each part of the supply chain can play its part and also assist/influence other parts of the supply chain by working together.

12. Constructing Excellence – Supply Chain Management 19/3/04; available here: www.constructingexcellence.org.uk/pdf/fact_sheet/supplychain.pdf


Page

11

Waste minimisation

Case Study 1

Reduction of plasterboard waste during the construction of the new Garrett Anderson Diagnostic Treatment Centre, Ipswich Hospital, Suffolk

During the Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) for the hospital development, Kier Eastern, the major contractor identified that plasterboard waste was significant and potentially problematic to deal with. A wastage rate of 10% was set (compared to other Kier Eastern projects having over 25% wastage of plasterboard). To achieve this they realised that they would have to take a supply chain approach to the project.

The trade contractor, BR Hadgson, who installed the plasterboard, and their supplier, Knauf Drywall, worked together to reduce the number of layers of plasterboard required and limited the board types to three. This made installation easier and reduced the opportunity for error and helped minimise the waste produced. Drawings were also colour-coded to assist

the drylining operatives. The board supplier also suggested that a board be specially manufactured to match the 3 m room height, eliminating the requirement for a horizontal joint below the ceiling.

Additionally, Kier Eastern’s Design and Build Co-ordinator along with WSP Acoustics and AIM (a company designing and producing insulation products) designed a bespoke mineral fibre batt to meet a high acoustic specification which was assembled offsite. This was comprised of a mineral fibre batt, with a layer of 12.5mm plasterboard glued to either side and then sealed to the decking. Plasterboard waste was reduced by manufacturing this detail offsite than if had been constructed onsite.

Although the project did not meet its wastage target, (a wastage rate of 20% was achieved), valuable lessons were learnt working with the supply chain in terms of designing and specifying plasterboard and reducing waste. The project team undertook a detailed audit and found that wastage had resulted from design changes, poor weather causing water damage to a number of completed partitions and poor handling.


Page

12

Waste minimisation


In order to prioritise which construction materials could provide a focus for waste minimisation, a number of datasets have been analysed and recommendations made. These datasets cover the typical costs of materials, the wastage allowances associated with typical materials (when procuring), and the amount of waste that is generated on site and the typical disposal routes. Additionally the environmental impact of the wasted material and the waste management option is also assessed.

2.1 Typical construction materialsThe construction materials that have been assessed are listed in Table 3. These are materials that are commonly used within a construction project. The materials may be used in a number of products and applications and more than one material may be used within a product. The analysis, where appropriate, covers products/sectors.

It should be noted that when making waste reduction recommendations, these may relate to the product rather than the material itself.


Table 3: Common construction materials and applications

Common construction material

Example products

Asphalt including bitumen

Roofing >Paving and roads >

Ceramics including bricks

Bricks >Clay roof tiles >Floor tiling >Sinks, baths and toilets >

Concrete (precast and in-situ)

Foundations >Concrete frame >Screeds >Blockwork >Staircases >Formwork >Paving >

Floor coverings (soft) Carpet and carpet tiles >Vinyl >Laminate >Cork and linoleum >

Gypsum Plasterboard >Plaster >

Insulation (various materials)

Boards >Foam >Mats, batts and rolls >

Metals (ferrous and non-ferrous)

Cladding >Roof covering >Windows >Ducting >Steel frame >Hardware and ironmongery >Doors and shutters >Reinforced concrete >Lathing >

Plastics Doors and windows >Piping >Cladding >Skirting >Packaging >


Page

13

Waste minimisation

2.2 Data sources A number of data sources have been used. These are shown in Table 4. The datasets have mostly been generated by BRE and have already been published or are used within a number of tools. The datasets vary in terms of their age and relevance to waste minimisation.

Table 4: Data sources used for construction waste

Type Source Metric Date Available

Material costs Laxton’s Price Book 200813

Cost per relevant unit of material (converted to volume)

2008 Used within the ‘True Cost of Waste Calculator14’

Wastage allowances BRE’s Green Guide to Specification15, originally from Laxton’s Price Book 2005.

% of waste per product/specification

2005 Within the Green Guide to Specification and averages within the ‘True Cost of Waste Calculator16’

Amount of waste generated onsite

BRE’s SMARTWaste17 Volume of waste per 100m2 of gross internal floor area

2009 Published in the CRWP ‘Benchmarks and Baselines Report 2009’18

Typical waste management routes (from construction site data)

BRE’s SMARTWaste % of waste reused, recycled, recovered and diverted from landfill

2010 Published in the CRWP ‘Benchmarks and Baselines Report 2009’19

Environmental impact BRE’s Environmental Profiles20

Ecopoints per kg of material

2009 Embedded within BRE’s Green Guide to Specification and Environmental Profiles methodology

13. No longer published in a book form. Web-based version available: at www.laxtonslive.com 14. Available at: www.wastecalculator.co.uk15. Available at: www.bre.co.uk/greenguide/podpage.jsp?id=2126 16. Available at www.wastecalculator.co.uk17. Available at: www.smartwaste.co.uk18. Available at: www.crwplatform.co.uk/conwaste/assets/Publications/Benchmarks-and-Baselines-2009-report.pdf 19. Available at: www.crwplatform.co.uk/conwaste/assets/Publications/Benchmarks-and-Baselines-2009-report.pdf 20. For more information go to: www.greenbooklive.com/page.jsp?id=9


Waste minimisation

Page

14

Floor covering (soft)

Carpets £4,343

Vinyl £1,952

Gypsum Plaster £350

Plasterboard £139

Insulation Mineral wool £28

PU £240

EPS £160

Glass fibre £146

Wool fleece £105

Waste paper £450

Metals Mild steel £547

Stainless steel £310

Aluminium £25,516

Copper £428

Iron £224

Tin £17,866

Zinc £42,400

Lead £3,024

Plastics PVC £43

PE £52

PP n/a

GRP £596

Timber Hardwood £800

Softwood £200

Chipboard £222

Plywood £300

OSB £300

MDF £245

Hardboard £564

Low density fibre board £891

2.3 Material costsAverage material costs have been used within the ‘True Cost of Waste Calculator’ to determine the costs of materials wasted. The cost of a material may depend on a number of issues such as its application, the amount required, market availability, existing purchasing agreements and transport requirements. The units for the procurement of materials may also differ. For instance, bricks may be purchased against the number required, whilst internal building tiles may be against the area (m2). Table 5 shows the typical costs for various materials per m3 from 2008. There can be variation within a material type, for instance the cost of metals varies from iron at £224/m3 to zinc at £42,400/m3. Generally speaking categories with materials/products costing less are insulation, concrete & binders, gypsum and plastics. Categories which have higher material costs include floor coverings, ceramics (tiles) and metals.

Category Material/productsTypical cost

(£/m3)

Asphalt and tar

Bitumen £1,040

Asphalt £500

Ceramics Bricks £175

Clay roof tiles £2,153

Internal building tiles £3,119

Concrete & Binders

Roof tiles £1,200

Blocks £70

Paving £179

Structural £74

RMC £74

Cement £70

Render £85

Mortar £132

`Table 5: Typical costs of materials/products (£/m3)

Waste minimisation


Page

15

By ranking these materials in terms of cost, as shown in Table 6, the materials to focus in terms of achieving high savings through waste minimisation include zinc (common uses include to coat steel for cladding and roofing panels), aluminium (many applications including windows, doors, cladding and structural), tiles and bitumen.

Material/product Typical cost (£/m3)

Zinc £42,400

Aluminium £25,516

Tin £17,866

Carpets £4,343

Internal building tiles £3,119

Lead £3,024

Clay roof tiles £2,153

Vinyl £1,952

Roof tiles £1,200

Bitumen £1,040

Low density fibre board £891

Hardwood £800

Table 6: The top 12 most expensive products

Key recommendationWork out what raw materials/products are costing you the most and undertake actions to reduce their wastage. Higher cost materials/products may include metals, tiles and some floor coverings.


Waste minimisation

Page

16

2.4 Wastage allowancesWastage allowances have been taken from BRE’s Green Guide to Specification, which is based on a life cycle assessment methodology scoring building specifications from A+ to G. These wastage allowances, in turn, have been derived from industry cost books and after consultation with industry. The wastage allowances are used to cost for the amount of material that is required for a project, and may not be the same as the actual wastage produced. However there is little data currently available to quantify this. Table 7 shows the wastage

Material Average % Min % Max %Number of

specifications

Asphalt and tar 12 3.75 18 6

Brick and block 6.5 2.5 15 28

Ceramics 6 5 10 16

Concrete – in-situ 10.5 2.5 33 25

Concrete - precast 6.4 2.5 10 26

Floor covering (soft) 5.8 5 10 7

Gypsum 7.5 5 10 102

Insulation 9.8 1 15 12

Metals - non ferrous 5.2 2.5 20 16

Metals - ferrous 5.5 1.5 15 27

Plastics 7 2.5 20 5

Timber and board products 9 2.5 20 36

Table 7: Typical wastage allowances for common materials

allowances for typical materials.. Asphalt and tar has the largest wastage allowance at 12%, followed by in-situ concrete at 10.5%, insulation at 9.8% and then timber and board products at 9%. However, there can be a wide variation in some of the material categories, for example wastage rates for insulation can be as low as 1% (for blown foam applications) to 15% for certain foam sheeting. The range in wastage allowances is dependant upon how the material/product is used and its application.


Page

17

Waste minimisation

showed that the amount of waste generated was over 2.5 times as much as predicted using wastage allowances. This indicates that more work is required to determine the typical wastage rates for common construction products/materials and their applications.

Table 8 shows the applications with the highest wastage allowances. The highest is 33% for repairing/renovating concrete flag paving, followed by 25% for worktops etc (timber) and also for in-situ concrete applications. Other materials with a high wastage allowance for an application include plastics (trims and skirting), metals (zinc sheeting, steel formwork and cast iron surface boxes), asphalt and tar (damp proofing membrane and roofing) and insulation (latex foam sheeting). A recent CRWP report21, undertook a detailed analysis on wastage rates from three house building sites with various forms of construction which

Wastage allowance Material Application

33% Concrete – in-situ Repairing/renovating external pavings – pre-cast concrete flag paving

25% Concrete – in-situ Waterproof building paper on hardcore to receive concrete

Timber Worktops, plinth, cornice, pelmet, trim

20% Timber Rigid sheet flooring/sheathing/linings/casings – duct fronts and pipe casings

Plywood, blockboard, chipboard, & blockboard faced with laminated plastic - isolated shelves and worktops

Plastics Unframed isolated trims, skirting and sundry items – laminated plastic sheet

Metals (zinc) Perforated zinc sheeting

Concrete – in-situ Polythene sheeting on hardcore to receive concrete

18% Asphalt and tar Bitumen – flexible sheet tanking/damp proofing membranes

15% Timber Rigid sheet fine linings/panelling: veneered plywood panelling

Brick/block One and two course slates, wedging and pinning

Insulation Latex foam sheeting

Metals (steel) Formwork steel forms and reinforcement fabric

Metals (iron) Cast iron surface boxes and covers

Asphalt and tar Bitumen - sweep clean, cut out defective layer, re-bond adjacent felt and cover with one layer of felt bonded in hot bitumen

Built up felt roof coverings, skirting, collars

Concrete (in-situ) Reinforcement fabric and mesh expanded steel reinforcement

Table 8: Applications with the highest wastage allowances

Key recommendationInvestigate the wastage rates for your key products. What are your current benchmarks and baselines? Can they be reduced at all? Who is responsible for them?

21. Wastage Rate Report, available at: www.crwplatform.co.uk/conwaste/assets/Publications/Wastageratesreport.pdf


Waste minimisation

Page

18

2.6 Typical disposal routesThe same dataset used for establishing how much waste is generated on site can be used to estimate average diversion of waste from landfill figures for common construction materials/products. This is based on data from SWMPs. Table 10 shows that materials with a high diversion rate from landfill are metals (67%), gypsum and timber (65%) and bricks (64%). For all materials, over half of them are diverted from landfill.

2.5 Amount of waste generated onsiteBRE have produced benchmarks in terms of waste arisings for different types of construction projects. These are derived from BRE’s SMARTWaste system and are based on data related to SWMPs. A report has been published by CRWP for benchmarks and baselines for 200922 and this has been used for the analysis.

Table 9 shows the volume of waste arising per 100 m2 of internal gross floor area built. Timber has the highest amount of waste generation, followed by bricks, concrete, gypsum and metals. In order to achieve significant reductions in waste produced, attention should be paid to these materials and the work packages they are used in. However, it should be noted that these indicators only show waste arisings and do not take into account how this material is managed as a waste.

22. Benchmarks and Baselines 2009 Report, available at: www.crwplatform.co.uk/conwaste/assets/Publications/Benchmarks-and-Baselines-2009-report.pdf23. For more information go to: www.greenbooklive.com/page.jsp?id=58

Material/productVolume of waste

(m3/100 m2)

Bricks 1.19

Ceramics inc tiles 0.11

Concrete 1.02

Floor coverings (soft) 0.06

Gypsum 1.00

Insulation 0.59

Metals 0.84

Plastics 0.51

Timber 2.45

Table 9: Typical waste arisings for all types of construction project

Material/product % Diverted from landfill

Asphalt and tar 55

Bricks 64

Ceramics inc tiles 56

Concrete & Binders 58

Floor coverings 53

Gypsum 65

Insulation 52

Metals 67

Plastics 59

Timber 65

Table 10: Average percentage diversion rates from landfill


Page

19

Waste minimisation


Waste minimisation

Page

20

Using less products and reducing waste production will reduce the environmental impact and the number of Ecopoints. Figure 6 shows that the major causes of impact are generally the manufacture of material which is wasted and the disposal of material that is landfilled or incinerated.

The impact of transport of waste to site, and of waste to disposal or recycling is very small. The benefits of recycling can be seen to be significant, particularly for materials which are highly recycled, and which substitute primary products with high impacts.

2.7 Environmental impactBRE has assessed the environmental impact of construction materials through life cycle assessment through its Environmental Profiles methodology23. This methodology has been adapted to calculate the impact of materials in relation to when they are a waste. In this report, the impact, expressed as Ecopoints per kg of material is shown in Table 11, for the manufacture of one kg of the material (based on the raw materials) and transport to site.

Ecopoints provides a score to measure the total environmental impact of a particular product which is then expressed in standardised units (Ecopoints). This is based upon the product’s entire life cycle taken as a 60 year service life and identifies the relative importance of these impacts within society. The fewer Ecopoints a product has, the less its impact.

Table 11 shows that materials/products with a higher environmental impact are soft floor coverings, metals, plastics and insulation. Those with a lower Ecopoint score per kg include asphalt and concrete and binders.

The table also shows the impact of mixed waste at 0.003374 Ecopoints per kg, compared to inert waste at 0.000770 Ecopoints per kg.

Material/product Ecopoints per kg

Asphalt 0.000757

Brick 0.001126

Concrete and binders 0.000725

Soft floor coverings 0.028498

Gypsum and plasterboard 0.001468

Inert waste 0.000770

Insulation 0.010699

Metals 0.012756

Mixed waste 0.003374

Plastics 0.011042

Tiles and ceramics 0.009360

Timber and wood panel products

0.002097

Table 11: Environmental impact of materials/products (manufacture and transport to site)


Page

21

Waste minimisation

2.8 Aggregation of issuesTables 12 and 13 show the results of ranking the materials for the above issues in terms of focusing on waste reduction and aggregating the issues in order of priority. In terms of the ranking; 1 = the highest score, and 10 = the lowest score for a category. Those with the lowest score overall have the largest impact in terms of the issues assessed.

Figure 6: Relative impacts (Ecopoints) from production of 1 kg of different construction waste types

Transport to site of waste

Key

Disposal of waste - typical impacts

Manufacture of waste

Transport of waste to disposal

Bene�ts of typical recycling and reuse

Eco

poi

nts

per

kg

Product Category-0.015

-0.010

-0.005

0.000

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

Timber & Wood Panel

Products

Tiles and CeramicsPlastics

Mixed WasteMetalsInsulation

InertWaste

Gypsum and

Plaster-board

Soft Floor

Coverings

Concrete and

BindersBrickAsphalt

Key recommendationUse Ecopoints as a guide to work out the environmental impact of your waste in terms of the manufacture of the wasted product/material.


Waste minimisation

Page

22

Table 13 shows that the materials/products with the greatest impact in order are insulation, asphalt and tar, floor coverings (soft) then timber and board products. However, there are savings (both environmental and cost) to be made from focusing on all of these material types. In terms of prioritising materials for waste reduction, it is up to the organisation to decide what issue or mix of issues is of most importance to it.

Key recommendationWork out what issues are most important to you, then carry out a prioritisation exercise using these figures to help you focus your waste reduction activities.

Material/productCost of

materialsWastage

%% diverted from landfill

Waste arising

Env Impact -manufacture

Total

Concrete - in situ 8 2 5 3 10 28

Insulation 10 3 1 6 4 24

Asphalt and tar 4 1 3 8 9 25

Floor covering (soft) 2 10 2 10 1 25

Timber and board products 5 4 9 1 6 25

Metals - non ferrous 1 12 10 5 2 30

Ceramics 3 9 4 9 5 30

Gypsum 7 5 8 4 7 31

Plastics 9 6 6 7 3 31

Brick and block 11 7 7 2 8 35

Concrete - precast 8 8 5 3 10 34

Metals - ferrous 6 11 10 5 2 34

Material/product Overall ranking score

Insulation 24

Asphalt and tar 25

Floor covering (soft) 25

Timber and board products 25

Concrete - institu 28

Ceramics 30

Metals - non ferrous 30

Gypsum 31

Plastics 31

Concrete - precast 34

Metals - ferrous 34

Brick and block 35

Table 12: Ranking of issues

Table 13: Overall ranking of materials/products


Page

23

Waste minimisation


Page

24

Waste minimisation

ensure waste reduction is achieved, the client should be committed to waste reduction and as such set appropriate commitments and encourage/incentivise the supply chain by working in partnership. Targets on waste reduction should be set to provide a focus for the project team (see case study 2). The key areas to focus on and the related issues are shown in table 14 below.

Clients are instrumental to achieving waste minimisation on a construction project, whether they are one-off projects or responsible for numerous projects. Much guidance exists in terms of how the client can assist in waste minimisation. Waste reduction should be considered in the context of the overall sustainability of a project and within the client’s organisation. To

3. Client factsheet

Areas Issues

Setting requirements/targets Clients can set requirements for waste minimisation within the procurement process for the project or within a framework of projects. Requirements can either be quantitative i.e. a measurable target, or qualitative i.e. wording for a ‘commitment’ to waste reduction. In order to set a target, it is important to establish what is feasible for that project. WRAP has much guidance in the setting of client’s requirements.

Embed waste minimisation within the client’s company sustainability strategy

Waste reduction should be a key feature in an overall sustainability policy and waste from construction should be included. Waste targets could be set at a corporate level (once the baseline is defined).

Monitor and report progress If a requirement/target is set, then it is important to have a system in place to monitor it and report progress . This should be done on a regular basis.

Ensure good lines of communication for the supply chain and ensure there is accountability

Communication and accountability are key for waste reduction. The client can encourage these by ensuring that the different parts of the supply chain work together in a partnership approach. The procurement of the project and the project team can assist in this.

Provide reward/incentives where appropriate

If waste reduction targets are met then it may be appropriate to provide a reward. Where there is ongoing work, then preference can be given for contractors who meet waste reduction targets.

Input into the Site Waste Management Plan

The client is actually responsible for the SWMP until construction starts (as defined within the Site Waste Management Plan Regulations 2008). As such the client should undertake an active role by working with their advisor, designer and contractor in terms of designing out waste. This is especially important during the design phase.

Overall sustainability context Waste reduction should be considered within the overall sustainability context. For instance within BREEAM and the Code for Sustainable Homes, waste reduction is an additional requirement.

Innovation Clients should encourage innovative products and systems that reduce waste and provide confidence to the supply chain.

Table 14: Client focus areas and related issues


Page

25

Waste minimisation

Case Study 2

Sustainable Development in Government TargetsThe Sustainable Development in Government framework was announced in March 2010 and is key for the Government to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and ensure that its estate is resilient to the impacts of changing climate. Government is committed to leading by example on reducing emissions further and faster. Under the new framework Government has set itself a target to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 34% by 2020 (from 1999/2000 levels).

The framework includes challenging targets on waste reduction and recovery, more efficient use of water, and it promotes the protection and enhancement of biodiversity, and positive engagement with the community.

The framework encourages Government to use its considerable purchasing power to influence suppliers positively and reduce the impact of the supply chain on the environment.

Targets for waste reduction include:

Reduce waste arisings by 20% by 2016/17, relative >to 2010/11 levels*

In support of the joint industry and Government >Sustainable Construction Strategy’s ambition of reducing construction, demolition and excavation waste (CDEW) to landfill, set procurement requirements on each project over £300k to include targets for waste reduction, reuse and recovery in the Site Waste Management Plan from an early design stage, and report annually on the percentage of waste from these projects diverted from landfill.

A project-specific waste reduction target (target to >be set by design team or contractor in design stage SWMP. The SWMP to demonstrate performance against target on completion of the Works.

Other targets are in place for the diversion of waste from landfill.

For more information, go to: www.defra.gov.uk/sustainable/government/gov/estates/sdigtargets.htm

* To take account of performance against the current Sustainable Operations of the Government Estate (SOGE) waste target for 2010/11:

Those who did not reach the current target will carry over their shortfall (i.e. their target will be 20% plus the shortfall a. against the current target), and

Those that exceeded the current target will be set a reduced target. Those who exceeded the current waste target b. by 10% will be set a target of 15% by 2016/17 (relative to 2010/11 levels), those that exceeded the current target by 20% will be set a new target of 10% reduction and those that exceeded by 30% will be set a 5% reduction target.


Page

26

Waste minimisation

communication and co-ordination. As such there are many opportunities for designers to design out waste; though this should be considered within the overall sustainability context. Examples of cost savings that can be seen are shown in case study 3. The key areas to focus on and the related issues are shown in table 15 below.

Many decisions are made at the design stage of a product or construction project that may indirectly or directly create waste. Many variables and restraints affect the design process, and this in turn affects the wastes arising and the resultant opportunities for designing out waste. Such issues include materials choice, complexity,

4. Designers/architects

Areas Issues

Use of prefabrication and off-site prefabrication

Use of these systems has shown that they reduce the amount of waste generated on site and provide other benefits such as quicker installation. However, thought should be given in terms of the recyclability at the end of the life for certain products.

Standard componentDesigning for standard components will reduce waste in terms of off-cuts etc and help in the installation of the products.

Realistic design formSome design forms will create more waste e.g. curved corridors. Additionally, avoiding complex jointing systems may also create less waste.

Minimising temporary worksTemporary works usually create waste. Therefore the reduction of temporary works will create less waste

Optimising design livesThe longer a building lasts for and the products and materials within means, less use of raw materials in the future due to increasing lifetimes.

Designing for recycling and ease of disassembly

Although not strictly relevant to waste reduction, consideration should be given to what will happen to the materials and product within the building at the end of their life.

Identification of materials/products which create waste

Assess which materials/products create waste. This may require discussion with the supply chain. The outcomes of these discussions and the actions taken to reduce waste should be recorded in the SWMP.

Communication

Effective communication is vital if waste is to be minimised in building design. If mistakes or omissions are made during information transfer, delays and errors will result.

Designers should also liaise with the client so they can make informed decisions relating to sustainability.

Setting own targets/requirements Targets and requirements should be set within your own organisation on waste, including waste reduction.

Table 15: Designers/architects focus areas and related issues


Page

27

Waste minimisation

Case Study 3

Design review of Middleton HotelA design review of a hotel was conducted to ascertain the waste minimisation opportunities including quantification which was carried out by BioRegional Consulting Ltd using WRAP’s guidance document.

Opportunities included the use of modern methods of construction, including: bathroom pods, volumetric beds, pre-cast walls and slabs and pre-cast columns. Other areas included the foundations, use of standard form layout and materials and logistics, supply chain management and packaging. These combined could reduce waste by 3,140 tonnes, saving £397,000 and saving 230 tonnes of embodied carbon.

The key lessons included the following:

To be effective, waste minimisation must be an >important issue early in options appraisal and the design process of construction projects. Design decisions made at an early stage in the process affect waste production onsite.

Other factors limiting waste minimisation can >be equally, and even more, important e.g. other sustainability drivers, health & safety, cost, legislative/planning requirements, CO2 footprint, ongoing maintenance requirements etc.

Sustainability, which incorporates resource >efficiency, should be a key driver in decision making to ensure waste minimisation is optimised; for example, the carbon impact of transporting pre-cast units long distances may in some cases outweigh the embodied carbon savings achieved through use of pre-cast units.

Waste of time and resources is a bigger cost and >risk than waste of construction materials.

It is not easy to quantify how much waste each >design option will create without spending considerable resources on detailed planning of multiple design solutions.

Design decisions made at an early stage in the >process affect waste production onsite.

Good planning and logistics minimise over-ordering >but some is inevitable to prevent unacceptable levels of risk to programme. Strategies should be in place to ensure the highest use for over-ordered materials.

Modern methods of construction and offsite >construction (MMC/OSC) can provide a huge opportunity to save both waste and time on construction projects.

Source: www.wrap.org.uk/construction

This could reduce waste by 3,140 tonnes, saving £397,000 and saving 230 tonnes of embodied carbon.


Page

28

Waste minimisation

The responsibility for waste management and, therefore, waste reduction usually falls to the main contractor on site. As it usually pays for the waste disposal, it has a cost incentive to reduce this. It also has an incentive in terms of winning work by showing a track record in waste reduction. The main contractor needs to be proactive to ensure that the project team works together, that work is planned well, the construction team understands their roles and responsibilities and take forward the Site Waste Management Plan including the monitoring of waste arisings. Findings can be taken from one phase of a development and applied to another. Main contractors should provide incentives for the trade contractor to reduce waste and feed back the resulting waste from design decisions.

Trade contractors have a key role to play in waste reduction, as it is usually the trade contractors that are undertaking the installation of products and creating the waste. The waste is produced from a number of issues including; offcuts, ordering of materials (if responsible), damage, rework etc. Increasingly, principal contractors are requiring more from their trade contractors to drive waste minimisation throughout projects. For example, Laing O Rourke in a memo to its suppliers, said that ‘waste minimisation will be discussed as part of our pre-contract negotiations with you. Agreed waste minimisation/re-use/recycling measures will be embedded in the project’s site waste management plan, and we will expect and support you to follow through on these measures’24. Case study 4 illustrates the potential savings from focusing on waste reduction.

Trade contractors need to work closely with the principal contractor and their own supply chain. The key areas to focus on and the related issues are shown in table 16 below.

5. Main and trade contractors

24. www.supplymanagement.com/news/2010/laing-orourke-tells-vendors-to-clean-up/


Page

29

Waste minimisation

Areas Issues

Targets for waste reduction Contractors should set waste reduction targets – these could be an overall target for the projects or on specific materials. These should then be monitored as part of the Site Waste Management Plan.

Work with trade contractors Main contractors should work closely with trade contractors and provide them with incentives for waste reduction.

Feedback to designers Information on waste generated that is related to design decisions should be fed back into the design process.

Sequencing of work This should be given due thought. Products that are susceptible to damage from water for instance, should only be installed when the project is watertight.

Ordering of materials If you are responsible for ordering your own materials, then wastage rates should be assessed in terms of the implications of reducing them (from a cost, environmental and practical point of view).

Takeback of materials If there are surplus materials, they may be able to be taken back by the supplier. The supplier may also be able to take back packaging. This will save disposal costs.

Feeding into the design element of the project

Where possible, specific trade packages should have an opportunity early on to feed into the design decisions. Trade contractors have much technical knowledge and can therefore provide solutions/recommendations for the choice of products/systems in relation to waste reduction.

Supporting the development of the Site Waste Management Plan

Data that can be used within the SWMP from trade contractors include forecasts on waste arisings (from wastage rates) and data on actual waste arisings (where appropriate). Trade contractors should be aware and trained appropriately in the requirements of the SWMP.

Ensuring materials are stored and transported effectively

By having appropriate storage and transportation, less damage will occur to materials. At the end of the day, operatives should be encouraged to return excess materials to the store area.

Training site operatives to avoid waste

Operatives should be trained in terms of waste reduction – they should also be asked why they think the waste arises and this should be fed back to the project team and if possible, action taken.

Working with other trade packages

Attention should be given in terms of the work of follow on trade packages, where waste could be created from a lack of understanding.

Setting your own target and requirements

Targets and requirements should be set within your own organisation on waste, including waste reduction.

Table 16: Main and trade contractor focus areas and related issues


Waste minimisation

Page

30

Case Study 4

Assessing the costs and benefits for reducing waste in trade packages – dense concrete blocks and facing bricks, with mineral wool insulation batts.

This case study, funded by WRAP, looks at the potential costs and benefits of waste minimisation in a structural blockwork trade package (including insulation and facing bricks) at RIBA stages C/D (once the overall design is known).

Cost savings of £7,370 were identified equivalent to 7.37% of the £100k spend for the project. In terms of waste reduction this includes reducing the wastage rate from 20% (baseline) to 5% (good practice) saving nearly £2,500 and for facing brickwork reducing the wastage rate from 30% to 10%, saving nearly £2,400.

In total, if the trade contractor is responsible for procuring materials then they could make savings of nearly £5,000 although it could cost over £1,000 to

implement some of the actions below (based on trade contractors’ time for quality control and training).

Potential actions include:

providing dedicated storage areas to protect >materials from weather and accidental damage;

establishing an approach to quality control to avoid >wastage and rework;

only removing protective packaging from materials >when they are needed;

collecting offcuts and using before new materials; >

considering using double-faced bricks instead of >single ones;

considering thin joint masonry brickwork solutions; >

considering the wastage implications of site mixed >mortar over ready mixed.

Source: www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/Brick_block_trade_package_CBA.b609c8d0.7003.pdf

Cost savings of £7,370 were identified equivalent to 7.37% of the £100k spend for the project.

Waste minimisation


Page

31


Page

32

Waste minimisation

(see case study 6). The overall environmental impact of the product should also be assessed. Suppliers can ensure that waste is reduced in their depots through waste reduction measures such as good storage and logistics and appropriate packaging. Both suppliers and product manufacturers should be regularly talking to their supply chain about reducing waste.

The key areas to focus on and the related issues are shown in table 17 below.

Suppliers and product manufacturers can influence waste reduction within the supply chain by offering takeback schemes for products and packaging (see case study 5) and also ensuring that materials arrive undamaged. They can also assist by encouraging appropriate ordering (i.e. reducing bulk ordering). Product manufacturers can create products that create less waste during installation. In terms of their own operations, product manufacturers should look at opportunities for reducing the waste resulting from their manufacturing process, including their raw material use

6. Suppliers and product manufacturers

Areas Issues

Takeback of materials/productsConsideration should be given in terms of the takeback of materials to be used for stock, return hauls could be used. Takeback of packaging may assist in meeting packaging targets for the customer.

Efficient ordering Encourage efficient ordering by looking at how products are procured. For instance, discounts for bulk purchasing may create more waste. A sale and return system could be set up.

Appropriate protection, storage and transportation of materials

Some materials get easily damaged. Appropriate storage and transportation is needed as is optimised packaging.

Inherently less wasteful productsProduce products which are inherently less wasteful in their installation e.g. they are made to size or require less materials for assembly on site.

The manufacturing processAssess the manufacturing process, in terms of the opportunities for waste reduction including the usage of raw materials.

Environmental impactInvestigate the environmental impact of your product; it is likely that the biggest impact will be the raw materials, so a focus on this may be important.

Link with installationMuch waste can arise from installation. It is important to ensure that the product is installed properly and also get feedback/data in terms of waste generation.

Setting your own target and requirements

Targets and requirements should be set within your own organisation on waste, including waste reduction.

Table 17: Suppliers and product manufacturers focus areas and related issues


Page

33

Waste minimisation

25. Converted from US Dollars on the 27/9/10, using an exchange rate of $0.63 to £1

Case Study 5

Jewson’s pallet initiative This initiative provides a new approach to pallet management delivering both environmental benefits and cost savings. The service, which initially ran throughout its branch network, was rolled out in December 2008. Under the initiative Jewson ensures that pallets from its 500 branches, and from the construction sites it delivers to, are ‘backhauled’ on empty lorry space after delivery. These pallets are taken to one of three Jewson Timber Distribution Centres: Grangemouth, Newport and Hull. From there, the pallets are refurbished and reintegrated into the supply chain using European Logistics Management, who redistributes them to companies in need of pallets. The initiative reduces the requirement for new pallets, reduces the waste-to-landfill ratio, and has the potential to cut lorry miles by an estimated 135,000 miles per year.

Rod Leigh, Saint-Gobain’s (the parent company of Jewson’s) Quality Manager and the scheme’s creator, says: “The benefits of implementing a system like this work on so many levels. There are the environmental benefits brought about by reusing existing materials, negating the need to produce more of the same; the lorry miles are significantly reduced through the collection of pallets on return journeys; and less material is sent to landfill. From an internal perspective Jewson branches are cleaner and tidier and health and safety risks are reduced. The scheme is a product of everyone working together to generate tangible results.”

Simon Wright, Supply Chain and Sustainability Director at Mansell, a construction co0ntractor,,is supporting the initiative and comments: “The sustainability objectives

of the scheme combined with its ability to support our Site Waste Management Plans mean that it’s becoming a key component of our overall waste strategy. We’re pleased to be part of the initiative and can see that it is creating a really positive change within the industry.”

Source: www.jewson.co.uk/en/templates/sustainability/mainpage.jsp?page=11500003

Case Study 6

Interface FLORInterface FLOR have the objective of ‘mission zero’ which is to eliminate any negative impact it has on the environment by 2020. This focuses on seven key areas, including: the elimination of waste and closing the loop i.e. recycling post-consumer material into new products, and it has recently started an initiative entitled ‘A War on Waste’. The company’s achievements to date include:

The introduction of ‘random design’ which allows >for non-directional installation. This reduces installation waste to 1-2% compared to 3-4 % for carpet tiles and 12-15% for broadloom carpet;

Takeback scheme for old carpet tiles for reuse and >recycling, known as ReEntry 2.0, which has diverted 91,000 tonnes of waster from landfill since 2005;

Cool Green Process to use carpet waste and tiles >into the backing of new tiles;

80% reduction in manufacturing waste sent to >landfill saving £277 million25.

Source: www.interfaceflor.eu/internet/web.nsf/webpages/52_EN.html

PROJECT PARTNERS

Waste minimisation across the supply chain: areas … › sites › files › wrap › Waste...

Documents

Transcript of Waste minimisation across the supply chain: areas … › sites › files › wrap › Waste...