Saving money and raw materials by reducing waste in construction: case studies

GG

493

This Good Practice Guide was produced by

Envirowise

Prepared with assistance from:

BRE

with kind help from:

Arup BioRegional Development GroupCarillion plcCasella Stanger Centre for Research in the Built Environment (CRiBE)CIRIAConstruction Industry Environmental Forum (CIEF)New Construction Research and Innovation Strategy Panel (nCRISP)School of the Built Environment, Nottingham Trent UniversityTRADA

Saving money and raw materials byreducing waste in construction:case studies

Summary

The construction industry consumes vast amounts of materials every year, mostly fromprimary sources that are not renewable. It also uses large quantities of energy to transportmaterials and wastes. Taking action to maximise resource efficiency and to reduce, re-useand recycle waste will reduce the operating costs and improve the environmentalperformance of all companies in the construction industry and related sectors.

This Good Practice Guide contains 23 case studies covering a wide range of construction types(eg housing, offices, hospitals, government buildings and roads). All of the projects haveincorporated measures that have reduced waste - and thus saved money - during theconstruction of buildings and infrastructure.

The case studies are set out in colour-coded sections that follow the various stages ofresponsibility for resource efficiency in the construction industry. These include:

� demonstrating client commitment;

� changes to contracts and design;

� engaging with manufacturers of construction products and materials;

� contractor commitment;

� improved site practices;

� resource efficient refurbishment;

� re-using resources on-site.

The case studies illustrate the benefits of practices such as:

� measuring and recording the amount of waste generated;

� separating out different types of waste for easier re-use and recycling;

� changing design, procurement and site practices;

� encouraging manufacturer take-back of packaging, surplus material and off-cuts for re-useas manufacturing feedstock;

� re-use of demolition products/materials in construction on the same site;

� re-use of construction and refurbishment materials and products on-site.

The information provided in summary form in the case studies in this guide is available in moredetail from other publications or websites (references provided). The guide also contains a list ofsources of further information about sustainable construction and minimising waste in theconstruction industry.

Contents

Section Page

1 Introduction 11.1 Benefits of waste minimisation in the construction industry 21.2 Construction industry overview 21.3 Resource use in the construction industry 31.4 Overview of the case studies 4

2 Client commitment and contracts 10Case study 1: Luxury housing development, Laing Homes 5Case study 2: Small builders - Centre for Research in the Built Environment 6Case study 3: Chiswick Park Development, London 7Case study 4: Greenwich Millennium Village 8Case study 5: St Andrews waste water treatment works 10

3 Design and procurement 16Case study 6: Sustainable housing project, Edinburgh 11Case study 7: Wessex Water operations centre, Claverton Down 12Case study 8: Large-scale office and laboratory for BP, Sunbury 13Case study 9: Gatwick Bridge 14Case study 10: The Great Western Hospital, Swindon 15

4 Contractors and construction 21Case study 11: Pegasus Court social housing project, Oxford 16Case study 12: Office development by Try Construction 17Case study 13: Simons Construction Ltd, Lincoln 17Case study 14: Waste Neutral Strategy at the Eden Project 18Case study 15: GCHQ, Cheltenham 19

5 Resource efficient refurbishment 25Case study 16: Modernisation of the Environment Agency’s Anglian Region offices 20Case study 17: Change of use for Odo Street Church, Swansea 21Case study 18: Modernisation of sewage treatment works for Southern Water 21Case study 19: Maintenance of trunk roads and motorways (Northamptonshire) 22

6 Re-using resources 29Case study 20: Whipps Cross University Hospital 23Case study 21: Farnborough Business Park project 24Case study 22: Alexandra Parade, Glasgow 24Case study 23: BedZed, south London 25

7 Further information 267.1 Free help from Envirowise 267.2 Regulators 267.3 Others 27

2 Client commitment and contracts 5

3 Design and procurement 11

4 Contractors and construction 16

5 Resource efficient refurbishment 20

6 Re-using resources 23

11

sect

ion

1

Introduction

The construction industry consumes vast amounts of materials every year, mainly fromprimary sources that are not renewable. Far greater adoption of the following would notonly reduce this level of resource use but also achieve significant cost and other benefits.

� Waste should be reduced wherever possible to maximise resource efficiency.

� Recycled, secondary and renewable resources should form a far greater proportion of thematerials used.

This Good Practice Guide contains short summaries of already published case studies of projectsfrom around the UK that have minimised waste (see box below) during the construction ofbuildings and infrastructure. These case studies highlight the benefits of taking action to reducewaste during the various stages of responsibility for a construction project and for different typesof construction.

The ideal approach would be to design, from the outset, for minimum use of resources andgeneration of waste. Once site operations have started, the range of opportunities for resourceefficiency are more limited but significant gains can still be achieved by employing good sitewaste management practices, as demonstrated in these case studies.

The case studies highlight the benefits of a range of cost-effective practices including:

� waste reduction through changing design, procurement and site practices;

� manufacturer take-back of packaging, surplus materials and off-cuts for re-use asmanufacturing feedstock;

� re-use of demolition products/materials in construction on the same site;

� re-use of construction and refurbishment materials or products on-site;

� waste benchmarking (monitoring waste arisings and comparing the data with previousperformance by the same organisation or others);

� keeping different types of waste separate for easier re-use and recycling.

As a technique for resource efficiency, waste minimisation (also known as wasteprevention and resource reduction) is the design, purchase, manufacture or use ofproducts/materials to reduce the amount of waste generated. Recycling is not wasteprevention, but an effective way of managing waste materials once they have beengenerated. Waste minimisation actually reduces the amount of raw material usedand, therefore, the amount of wasted resources discarded.

Follow the waste management hierarchy (prevention, reduction, re-use, recycling,treatment and disposal) for the best long-term benefits and look for solutions foryour organisation that are as close as possible to the top of this hierarchy.

WasteWise: Increased profits at your fingertips (IT313) is an interactive wasteminimisation CD-ROM that brings together all the essential information companiesneed to minimise waste and save money. To obtain a copy, call the Environmentand Energy Helpline free on 0800 585794 or visit the Envirowise website(www.envirowise.gov.uk).

What is waste minimisation?

11se

ctio

n

2

1.1 Benefits of waste minimisation in theconstruction industry

The benefits of waste reduction and material re-use in the construction industry include:

� reduced purchasing costs for raw materials;

� reduced waste disposal costs;

� potential revenue from recovered materials;

� reduced transport costs;

� less local disruption from lorry movements;

� improved environmental performance, eg material recovery for re-use, more waste divertedfrom landfill and fewer lorry movements;

� cleaner and safer site conditions;

� better project communication;

� demonstration of a commitment to continuous improvement in sustainable construction(increasingly demanded by potential clients and contractors).

1.2 Construction industry overview

The construction industry can be viewed as just on-site construction activity or, in a broadercontext, as covering the extraction of materials, sales and manufacture of construction products.

The size of the industry is illustrated by the following statistics:

� Construction contributes 5 - 10% of UK gross domestic product (depending on the definitionof the industry).

� There are up to 355 000 companies involved in construction (see Fig 1).

� Contractors alone have a gross annual output of around £70 billion.

� Around 1.5 million people are employed on-site.

2 248

20 863

192 404

81 997

57 636

Mining and quarryingof construction materials

Manufacture ofconstruction products

Contractors

Sale of constructionproducts

Professional services

Fig 1 Number of construction and construction-related companies in the UK

Source: The social and economic value of construction: the construction industry’s contribution tosustainable development. D. Pearce for the New Construction Research and Innovation Strategy Panel(nCRISP), October 2003 (www.ncrisp.org.uk).

11

sect

ion

3

The case studies in this guide cover a wide range of construction types, including:

� housing;

� offices;

� water and sewage treatment works;

� laboratories;

� airport structures;

� hospitals;

� leisure;

� government buildings;

� places of worship;

� roads.

1.3 Resource use in the construction industry

The UK construction industry consumes over 420 million tonnes of material resources every year.1

On-site construction primary material use is around 360 million tonnes/year, with 90 milliontonnes/year converted to construction and demolition waste. Each year, around 45 milliontonnes of this waste is recycled, principally in the form of recycled aggregates for relatively lowvalue applications.

Each year, the industry also uses around 8 million tonnes of oil energy equivalent in the transportof products and waste. However, the biggest energy use is associated with the operational phaseof buildings, ie heating and lighting when the building is occupied. This accounts for half ofenergy use in the UK and contributes half of its carbon dioxide emissions.

In terms of resource efficiency, there are two main drivers for change in the constructionindustry, ie:

� The requirement by construction clients and contractors to demonstrate continualimprovement in sustainable construction.

� The rising costs of waste disposal and construction products. These costs are beingaccelerated through:

- higher landfill tax2 (increasing by £3 per tonne per year to reach at least £35 per tonneby 2013);

- higher disposal costs (as landfill sites fill up and regulatory impacts increase);

- taxes and levies on primary materials (eg the aggregates levy2).

1 The construction industry mass balance: resource use, wastes and emissions. R.A. Smith, J.R. Kersey and P.J.Griffiths. Viridis Report VR4. Viridis, 2002 (www.trl.co.uk/viridis/1024/mainpage.asp?page=71) (NB Data arefor 1998).

2 For more information, see www.hmce.gov.uk

11se

ctio

n

4

1.4 Overview of the case studies

The 23 case studies in the guide are taken from previously published reports and websitematerial. They cover a wide range of construction types and are assigned to different stages ofresponsibility for resource efficiency in the construction process.

The case studies are presented in five colour-coded sections covering:

� client commitment and contracts;

� design and procurement;

� contractors and construction;

� resource efficient refurbishment;

� re-using resources.

Each case study contains a short description of the project, a summary of its key features anddetails of the waste reduction and cost savings achieved. Details of how to obtain furtherinformation are given at the end of each case study.

The case studies cover the construction sectors and stages of responsibility shown in Table 1. Thecost savings were identified in half of the case studies and these totalled £4.5 million - anaverage of £500 000/project. The total amount of materials diverted from landfill identified infive case studies was around 170 000 tonnes - an average of 35 000 tonnes/project.

Details of the further information available from Envirowise and other sources on reducing wastein the construction industry are given in Section 7.

Stage of responsibility

Sector

Airports

Commercial

Health

Housing

Public buildings

Roads

Sports/leisure

Utilities

Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6

Clie

nt

com

mit

men

tan

d c

on

trac

ts

Des

ign

an

dp

rocu

rem

ent

Re-

usi

ng

reso

urc

es

Co

ntr

acto

rsan

dco

nst

ruct

ion

Res

ou

rce

effi

cien

tre

furb

ish

men

t

Table 1 Scope of case studies

22

sect

ion

5

Client commitment and contracts

Clients play a vital role in all the case studies in this guide. It is often their desire to buildan exemplar development in terms of sustainability that drives resource efficiencythrough all the stages that follow.

Clients can have a major influence in areas such as:

� setting targets and benchmarking, eg maximum wastage rates per dwelling;

� contracts and partnerships.

It is important that a requirement to reduce waste is specifically stated in the main contract andin any sub-contracts. This ensures that the whole project team is fully signed up to reducingwaste - ideally in the form of a partnership approach, where savings are distributed according toassociated effort.

The case studies in this section highlight the benefits of including waste minimisation in theproject plan from the beginning, with targets for reducing waste and procedures to monitorwaste arisings. Knowing where waste is coming from makes it easier to identify opportunities toprevent waste and/or re-use recovered materials.

Case study 1: Luxury housing development, Laing Homes

Langley Park in Beckenham is one of Laing Homes’ largest housing developments.

Key features

� Contractual controls - the project environmental plan incorporated waste minimisation andsub-contractors’ obligations.

� Waste amounts recorded and different waste streams kept separate for easier re-use andrecovery.

� Re-use of materials from demolition.

� Efficient storage of re-usable products, eg timber pallets returned for re-use.

� Staff training and awareness.

� Use of standard dimensions to reduce potential for waste.

Facts and figures

� Recovery of 500 000 roofing tiles from demolished buildings for re-use.

� Re-use of 40 000 tonnes of demolition spoil as sub-base.

� Total cost savings of £525 000 (3.5% of project costs).

� £480 000 saved from re-use of roofing tiles and demolition concrete.

� Waste disposal costs reduced by £600/housing unit - mainly from rigorous segregation ofdifferent wastes rather than waste reduction.

22se

ctio

n

6

Further information

Demonstrating waste minimisation benefits in construction CIRIA Report C536 2001ISBN 0860175367www.ciria.org.uk/acatalog/C536.html

WRAP case study: Reusing demolition materials pays dividendswww.wrap.org.uk

Case study 2: Small builders - Centre for Research inthe Built Environment

The Centre for Research in the Built Environment (CRiBE) obtained funding from the NationalAssembly of Wales and the European Regional Development Fund to help small-to-mediumconstruction companies introduce waste minimisation activities and collect data on waste arisings.The study covered eight construction sites involved in timber and traditional building construction.

Key features

� Site-based practices implemented to minimise waste.

� Waste plans developed with improvement targets.

� Data collected on waste types and amounts arising from different stages of the constructionprocess.

Facts and figures

� The composition of waste over the housing projects was as shown in Fig 2.

Outcome and benefits

The main conclusion from the project was that waste could be minimised far more easily if itformed a fundamental element of the contracts between the client, designer and contractor. Thisintegration is best achieved using specific clauses (see Fig 3). Incorporating these activities intoenvironmental management systems can help to move waste minimisation from being an ad hocactivity to a continuous improvement activity.

36%

Plasterboard

Packaging

Cardboard

Insulation

Timber

Chipboard

Canteen waste

Rubber, cable, plastic23%

20%

10%

4%

2%2% 3%

Fig 2 Composition of waste from CRiBE study

22

sect

ion

7

Further information

Construction waste minimisation: good practice guideCentre for Research in the Built Environment (CRiBE), Welsh School of Architecture, CardiffUniversity (prepared for Construction and Domestic Energy Branch, Housing Directorate, WelshAssembly Government)2003www.housing.wales.gov.uk/content/English/e/E48.pdf

Case study 3: Chiswick ParkDevelopment, London

The Chiswick Park Development consists of 11 buildings with163 107 m2 of office space intended to serve a community of7 000 people, an on-site leisure club, an estate managementoffice, kiosk shops, cafes, restaurants, a central lake, a naturepark and provision of associated groundworks, roads and publicfacilities. The main contractor was Bovis Lend Lease and BREwas responsible for benchmarking waste from phase 1 (threebuildings, 45 182 m2) using its SMARTWaste system. Thedevelopment cost was £150 million (shell and core).

Information for tender documentation (main contractor)

When preparing a contract tender, demonstrate that the environmentalmanagement plan includes the following:

1. Allow time for a waste plan to be devised and implemented on-site. This willinclude:

- the appointment of a part-time waste manager (could be combinedwith other duties);

- storage of raw materials, products and components;

- sorting a maximum of three separate items of waste, excludingspecial waste, into separate containers.

2. Arrange for recycling companies, or other local development projects, toprovide containers and remove waste. Show offset against usual cost entry forskips/gate fees because some source-separated waste will also be removed byrecyclers who may pay for content and also provide a container.

3. Allow time to liaise with regional schemes for waste minimisation.

4. Allow time for employees and sub-contractors to undergo on-site training.

5. Set up agreements so that major sub-contractors minimise waste and areinvolved in ongoing waste minimisation schemes both on-site and off-site.

6. Make best efforts to source products and materials from suppliers withenvironmental policies and/or EMAS registration/ISO 14001 certification.

7. Set up agreements with suppliers so that they take back packaging items.

8. Re-use ‘leftover’ items where possible, eg send paint to a Re>Paint scheme orsend clean, safe items to a play resource centre.

Cardiff University/CIRIA/Mandix March 2001

Fig 3 Example clauses to promote waste minimisation

22se

ctio

n

8

Key features

� Data collected during phase 1 were used to identify waste minimisation and managementstrategies that could be used to develop and implement a material waste managementstrategy for phases 2 and 3.

� Packaging was found to be the main cause of waste. In the next phases, this could beminimised by:

- working with suppliers to reduce packaging at the delivery stage;

- arranging take-back schemes;

- increasing re-use, eg of pallets and cable drums.

� Recommendations of waste minimisation activities for key waste products for adoption inphases 2 and 3.

Facts and figures

� Recyclable or re-usable packaging was the main cause of waste (43%), followed by off-cuts(26%).

� Waste costs on phase 1 exceeded £140 000, but the true cost is thought to be almost£565 000.

Further information

SMARTWaste case study: Chiswick Parkwww.smartwaste.co.uk/smartaudit/downloads/chiswick.pdf

Case study 4: Greenwich Millennium Village

Greenwich Millennium Village (GMV) forms part of the redevelopment of the GreenwichPeninsula, and is a joint venture development by Countryside Properties and Taylor Woodrow(Greenwich Millennium Village Ltd; GMVL) with English Partnerships.

Various sustainability targets were incorporated in the development specification from thebeginning of the project. These included targets for reducing:

� energy consumption during construction and building use;

� water consumption;

� construction cost;

� project duration;

� number of defects;

� construction waste.

The waste reduction target over the lifetime of the development was 50% of the volume, from50 m3 per dwelling to 25 m3 per dwelling.

A three-year construction waste benchmarking and minimisation project was funded by landfilltax credits from the Hanson Environment Fund with matching contributions from GMVL. BREworked with the project teams to benchmark waste, make recommendations for reducing it andmonitor the effectiveness of the actions taken.

22

sect

ion

9

Key features

The lessons learnt at Greenwich included:

� Make waste a key site improvement target from the start - but make it realistic.

� Use a monitoring tool to check performance and target specific products and work packages.BRE’s SMARTAudit was used at GMV, with BRE’s benchmarking tool, SMARTStart, beingdeveloped to enable the main contractors to continue monitoring once BRE had left the site.

� Make waste minimisation contractually binding through the use of specific contract clauses.

� Make someone on-site a waste champion and ensure that they have support from the projectdirector.

� Pinpoint responsibility for specific wastes.

� Use toolbox talks, posters and newsletters to let everyone know that waste reduction isimportant and happening on their site.

� Don’t be complacent - waste volumes tend to increase towards completion.

� Packaging is a major contributor to waste.

� Ensure materials are stored appropriately.

� Segregate unavoidable waste for recycling and know what facilities exist in the area forresource recovery. The resource management geographical information system, BREMAP, wasused to identify some recycling sites.

� Organise re-use of off-cut material with sub-contractors.

� Organise take-back of unusable off-cuts (eg plasterboard) to the supplier.

� Engage the whole supply chain in waste minimisation, including:

- the waste management contractor;

- designers of subsequent phases and developments;

- suppliers of products (and packaging);

- suppliers of surplus products.

Facts and figures

For the first phase of the development (phase 1a and 2a), waste was reduced to 23.4 m3 and20.5 m3 per dwelling, respectively (excluding segregated waste), from the 50 m3 per dwellingbase-line.

Outcome and benefits

Two best practice guides are available:

� Reduction, re-use and recycling of construction waste: a project management guide(www.smartwaste.co.uk/smartaudit/downloads/gmv_project_guide.pdf).

� Reduction of site construction waste, recycling and re-use of materials: a site guide(www.smartwaste.co.uk/smartaudit/downloads/gmv_Site_Guide.pdf).

Further information

SMARTWaste (www.smartwaste.co.uk) for SMARTAudit, SMARTStart and BREMAPGMV project - www.smartwaste.co.uk/smartaudit/gmv.jsp

22se

ctio

n

10

WRAP case study: Minimising waste, adding valuewww.wrap.org.uk

Case study 5: St Andrews waste water treatmentworks

During the reconstruction of St Andrews waste water treatment works for East of ScotlandWater, Carillion Infrastructure Services undertook a number of environmental initiatives,including waste minimisation, community interaction, energy reduction, dust abatement andnoise mitigation.

Key features

� East of Scotland Water appreciated that waste on a construction site can be an issue and soa waste reduction target was included in the contract.

� Large quantities of concrete waste were generated and specifications were improved toenable the material to be re-used as backfill for structures.

Facts and figures

� Some 20 000 tonnes of fill were saved that would otherwise be purchased and brought on-site.

� The project wastage rate was 3.2% compared with an industry average of 5%.

� The re-use of material on-site not only saved the cost of disposing of and buying 20 000tonnes of fill, it also avoided vehicle movements and associated impacts.

Further information

Carillion plcwww.carillionplc.com/sustain-2001/index.htm

33

sect

ion

11

Design and procurement

The design of a development or structure specifies the method of construction and thematerials to be used. Overly designed buildings can create excessive waste, while poorprocurement practices can lead to excess and surplus materials.

As demonstrated by the case studies in this section, design and procurement offer majoropportunities to minimise waste, costs and disruption during construction projects, for example:

� standardisation of components;

� modern methods of construction (MMC) such as off-site fabrication (OSF) or off-sitemanufacturing (OSM);

� manufacturer take-back schemes, ie only buying from suppliers that will accept returnedmaterials such as packaging;

� incorporating resource efficiency within a framework of sustainable design, eg use of BRE’sEnvironmental Assessment Method BREEAM.3

Case study 6: Sustainable housing project,Edinburgh

Wren and Bell managed a £4.5 million sustainable housing project at Comely Green Place inEdinburgh that consisted of 95 residential flats. Hart Builders constructed the four-storey timber-framed structures. The first phase of the development was sold privately to provide funds for thesecond phase to be rented by a housing association.

Key features

� Re-using materials on-site where possible, when moving from one unit to the next, eg off-cuts/spare materials were used in the next unit of works rather than using new materials.

� Good materials handling.

� Regular site audits to monitor use and wastage of materials.

� Off-site manufacturing of major building components such as wall units.

� Use of standard dimensions and ordering of materials to size (less off-cuts).

� Staff training and awareness - toolbox talks were given to site operatives on how to managetheir waste.

Facts and figures

� Bricks, blocks and timber waste kept below 1.5% (the industry ‘norm’ is 5 - 10%).

� Dry lining kept to 3.5% of the material used on-site (the ‘norm’ is often over 10%).

� Waste disposal cost £19 000 (0.42% of the project cost).

� The full cost of waste, including procurement and storage costs, was about £200 000. Ifmore usual levels of waste had been generated, this would probably have been £600 000.

3 http://products.bre.co.uk/breeam/

33se

ctio

n

12

Further information

Demonstrating waste minimisation benefits in construction CIRIA Report C536 2001ISBN 0860175367www.ciria.org.uk/acatalog/C536.html

Case study 7: Wessex Water operations centre,Claverton Down

The £22.5 million new Wessex Water operations centre at Claverton Down near Bath will housesome 580 people. The building was designed throughout with sustainable development in mind.The site was a Constructing Excellence demonstration project and achieved an excellent ratingfrom BRE’s Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM).

Key features

� The design minimised the excavation required and located the building so that the maximumamount of excavated material could be re-used on-site.

� Off-cuts were reduced by using standard dimensions throughout (eg standard curtain wallingand window sizes).

� Contractual arrangements/materials management - over-ordering was discouraged by tradecontracts that were fixed price and set out targets for material quantities. Wessex Watercovered the cost of materials up to these targets, but any excess material cost due to wastageof materials was paid for by the trade contractor.

� Separate collection of timber and metal waste from mixed waste. The latter was taken off-site for segregation.

Facts and figures

� Some 5 000 m3 of excavation materials were re-used, eg stone was used to build sections ofthe site boundary wall. It was also crushed on-site and used as fill and general backfill forstructures.

� Estimated £25 000 saved through the re-use and recycling of excavated material.

� Total quantity of waste removed from the site was 1 956 m3.

� The cost of waste removal (including labour and equipment costs for segregating waste) was£57 000 (0.25% of the project cost).

� The full cost of waste, including procurement and storage costs, was estimated at £630 000.

Further information

Demonstrating waste minimisation benefits in construction CIRIA Report C536 2001ISBN 0860175367www.ciria.org.uk/acatalog/C536.html

BREEAM - http://products.bre.co.uk/breeam/

WRAP case study: Grand designs for sustainable constructionwww.wrap.org.uk

33

sect

ion

13

Case study 8: Large-scale office and laboratory forBP, Sunbury

The £58 million redevelopment of BP’s site at Sunbury was designed and constructed with wasteminimisation and environmental performance as core elements. The construction manager wasSchal, part of Carillion plc, and the project was the first phase of the redevelopment of the 13 ha site. Work included demolishing buildings and constructing three office buildings and achemical technology building with laboratory facilities. The buildings had a steel structure andglass curtain wall construction. The first building completed obtained a BREEAM excellent rating.

Key features

� Staff training and awareness - a waste reduction initiative booklet was produced and wastemanagement training was included in the site induction process.

� Off-site fabrication of glass curtain walling, suspended ceilings, raised floors, and boiler roomand roof plant pipework.

� Reduction of packaging waste - trade contracts specified that materials should be obtainedfrom suppliers that actively minimised packaging consistent with product protection andquality. This resulted in glazing cassettes being delivered in re-usable metal stillages andluminaries in bulk packaging rather than individual boxes.

� Segregation of waste materials into timber, metal, paper/cardboard and general waste.

Facts and figures

� Estimated waste savings of 15% (by weight) due to off-site fabrication.

� Estimated 40% of potential packaging waste eliminated at no additional cost to the project.

� At 65% completion, the waste disposal cost was approximately £80 000 (0.2% of the projectcost).

� The full waste cost at that stage (including procurement and storage) was estimated at£800 000. The likely cost at the end of the project was expected to be around £1.2 million.

Further information

Demonstrating waste minimisation benefits in construction CIRIA Report C536 2001ISBN 0860175367www.ciria.org.uk/acatalog/C536.html

BREEAM - http://products.bre.co.uk/breeam/

33se

ctio

n

14

Case study 9: Gatwick Bridge

Arup is working with contractor, Mace, to build a 197-metre long, 2 400 tonne prefabricatedpassenger bridge at Gatwick Airport for BAA, which will link the North Terminal with the newPier 6 satellite building. The pre-assembled Gatwick Bridge was lifted into position in May 2004,having been made at a prefabrication yard 1.5 km from the site. Here, the steel structure wasassembled, clad, glazed and fitted with all mechanical and electrical services, before beingtransported by self-propelled modular transporters across the taxiway, together with two hugelifting towers, to be connected across the taxiway. This reduced taxiway closure from manymonths (with traditional bridge construction) to ten days. The bridge is due to be opened inspring 2005.

Key features

� The £15 million bridge will save around 50 000 coach movements each year for theestimated 3.5 million passengers that use Pier 6. This will reduce both emissions and noise.A further energy saving will come from the use of ‘on demand’ travelators and escalators,which will operate only when triggered by passengers via a sensor.

� The alternative to a bridge was an underpass - a more typical solution, but this was rejectedbecause:

- the taxiway would still need to be closed for months to reduce the risk of collapse whilework was on-going;

- more excavation and concrete waste would have been created.

� Less disruption to passengers and reduced waste from excavation.

Facts and figures

� The production of an estimated 81 000 tonnes of soil/excavation waste and 20 000 tonnesof concrete waste was prevented by the decision to have a bridge rather than an underpass.

Further information

Arup website (www.arup.com/europe/feature.cfm?pageid=3204 andwww.arup.com/europe/project.cfm?pageid=3201)

33

sect

ion

15

Case study 10: The Great Western Hospital, Swindon

The existing Princess Margaret Hospital would have required major renovation and an increasein patient capacity in order to cope with double the population that it had originally beendesigned for in the 1950s. Instead, a new hospital, the Great Western Hospital, was built on anew site at a cost of £100 million. The project was financed by a private finance initiative (PFI)and the contractor was Carillion Building Special Projects. The timeframe for the project wasOctober 1999 to November 2002.

Key features

� Sustainable approach to design, construction and operation. The design phase incorporatedspecifications aimed at reducing waste through the use of long-lifespan materials.

� Efficient use of resources - a target was set to reduce waste to landfill by 50%.

� Plasterboard was specially designed and made by the manufacturer to use a single ratherthan a double skin, ie one 15 mm panel rather than two 12.5 mm panels. The panel wasdesigned to withstand wear and tear, and was pre-sealed, eliminating skimming andreducing the amount of paint used. Instead of being delivered on traditional wood pallets,the plasterboard was delivered on plasterboard pallets, which were sent back to themanufacturer.

� Recyclable flooring - many different types of flooring were compared to find the mostsustainable option. The final choice of a mix of linoleum and rubber sole has improveddurability over other flooring types, and requires lower maintenance and replacing lessfrequently. All of this provided pre-emptive waste minimisation and reduction.

Facts and figures

� Plasterboard:

- Overall, raw material inputs were reduced by 50% and the boards can be recycled attheir end of life. The cost saving on labour and paint was £285 000.

- The manufacturer collected 717 tonnes of plasterboard waste in a separate skip for re-use. This reduced landfill costs by £4 860 and saved £14 940 in transport/skip hire.

� Recyclable flooring:

- Direct environmental savings of £1.15 million are expected over the lifetime of thehospital due to the need for less frequent replacement.

Further information

Sustainability accounting in the construction industryPublished by CIRIA on behalf of Carillion, Casella Stanger and Forumfor the FutureCIRIA report X1052003ISBN 0860178080Can be downloaded free fromwww.ciria.org/bookshop_downloads.htm

WRAP case study: Making sustainability a cornerstone of the businesswww.wrap.org.uk

44se

ctio

n

16

Contractors and construction

The benefits of reducing waste and re-using materials are considerable, especially whencompared with the typically low profit margins of most projects. Contractors should beencouraged to be the champions of resource efficiency on construction sites. They arealso ideally placed to take forward good practice to new sites and to improve uponprevious waste reduction strategies.

As shown by the case studies in this section, success is based on factors such as:

� a clear and strong contractor commitment to reducing waste;

� monitoring waste arisings and seeking ways to improve performance;

� keeping site-based activities within the control of contractors;

� having waste champions to maintain the momentum and to help communicate the wastereduction plans throughout the supply chain;

� giving sub-contractors and small to medium-sized enterprises within the supply chain clearobjectives for waste reduction and re-use (preferably within contracts).

Case study 11: Pegasus Court social housing project,Oxford

This development of 42 houses and 27 flats was funded through Oxford City Council’s singleregeneration budget (SRB), with additional funding from the Housing Corporation and EalingFamily Housing Association. Wilmott Dixon Housing Ltd was the main contractor responsible forthe construction work, which was traditional on-site construction. BRE was responsible for awaste audit and minimisation scheme.

Key features

� Waste auditing using BRE’s SMARTWaste tool allowed opportunities to reduce waste on-siteto be identified.

� Direct costs of wastage calculated on an individual product basis (including costs of materials,labour costs for moving materials and disposal costs).

� Waste minimisation shown to be efficient and cost-effective, with an estimated cost savingof 50% (material waste).

Facts and figures

� Average wastage rate was 5% compared with the industry average of 5 - 10%.

� Costs for materials wasted on-site were over £46 000 (£700 per unit built) but, on an averagesite, such costs can be high as £100 000 (more than £1 400 per unit built).

Further information

Waste minimisation on a construction siteC. McGrath and M. AndersonBRE Digest 447 June 2000

44

sect

ion

17

ISBN 186081400Xwww.brebookshop.com/details.jsp?id=32983

SMARTWaste - www.smartwaste.co.uk

Case study 12: Office development by TryConstruction

This six-storey office rebuild in Stanhope Gate, London, achieved significant savings despitehaving no space outside the new building footprint for materials and waste management.

Key features

� Comprehensive materials management policy with just-in-time (JIT) deliveries and proceduresto reduce late variations.

� Staff training and awareness, eg:

- waste minimisation included in an introductory site booklet;

- site posters with the slogan ‘No space for waste’;

- bad practice corrected by trade contractors.

� Auditing of materials ordered and used.

� Contractual arrangements - sub-contractor obligations specified, with ability to deductmonies for failures to comply.

Facts and figures

� Wastage rate for bricks of 4% compared with industry ‘norm’ of 5 - 8%.

� Wastage rate for blocks of 5% compared with industry ‘norm’ of 10%.

� The low brick and block wastage rates saved £500 in direct waste disposal costs. When thepurchase costs of materials and transport are included, this figure rises to £2 000.

Further information

Demonstrating waste minimisation benefits in constructionCIRIA Report C536 2001ISBN 0860175367www.ciria.org.uk/acatalog/C536.html

WRAP case study: Saving money through good waste management on small siteswww.wrap.org.uk

Case study 13: Simons Construction Ltd, Lincoln

Simons Construction Ltd is a nationwide construction company with a progressive environmentalagenda. It aims to raise awareness of recycling waste and to reduce the amount of wasteoccurring at its sites through segregating skips and having on-site reclaim/re-use facilities.

Key features

� Area on land set aside for a reclaim/re-use facility to prevent wastage.

� Waste deposited in this area is segregated. Reclamation areas allow materials andcomponents to be stored and stockpiled for re-use.

44se

ctio

n

18

� Information on available resources is provided through the company’s intranet system.

Facts and figures

� Almost half of all waste is available for recycling (previously it was all landfilled).

� Improved construction waste management practices have reduced the cost per tonne ofwaste by 26%.

� The overall cost of the Lincoln waste operation fell from £3 000/month to £500/month - asaving of over 80%.

Further information

WasteWise: Increased profits at your fingertips (IT313)An interactive waste minimisation CD-ROM that brings together all the essential informationcompanies need to minimise waste and save money. Available through the Environment andEnergy Helpline on 0800 585794 or the Envirowise website (www.envirowise.gov.uk).

Case study 14: Waste NeutralStrategy at the Eden Project

The Eden Project has had over 5 million visitors since it openedin March 2001. Extensive development had taken place aroundthe biomes including buildings, roads and car parks. The aim ofthe Waste Neutral Strategy is that, after reduction and re-use,the weight of products made from recycled materials boughtback is equal to, or greater than, the weight of recyclates andresidual waste leaving the site.

Key features

� The Eden Project aims to recycle 55% of construction waste and waste from its operations.

� Waste champions were used to implement the project’s waste management policy (ie theWaste Neutral Strategy).

� The Strategy was built into the tendering process and must be adhered to by sub-contractors.Training is provided.

� A dedicated area was set aside for waste management purposes, creating a recycling centre.

� Wood waste is generated daily and is one of the main waste streams. Bins of wood wasteare delivered to the recycling centre, where the timber waste is sorted. Timber deemed notre-usable is sent off-site for recycling. Timber waste deemed re-usable is placed in a storagearea. Everyone using timber on-site is trained about how to minimise waste and how to makeuse of the reclaimed timber whenever possible.

Key benefits

� Lower waste disposal costs because timber waste is utilised on-site.

� Reduced cost of buying timber through re-use of better quality off-cuts.

� Demonstrates the Eden Project’s commitment to environmental and social responsibility.

44

sect

ion

19

Further information

The Eden project - a waste neutral strategy in construction and operationResearch Information Sheet RIS 2/2004TRADA Technology LtdMay 2004 Can be downloaded free from www.trada.co.uk/bookshop/

Case study 15: GCHQ, Cheltenham

This £350 million project was a private finance initiative (PFI) atthe Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) inCheltenham, with Carillion Building Special Projects as the maincontractor and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as theclient. The main waste management elements on this projectwere to design out waste and to set up contracts with sub-contractors that resulted in economic and environmentalbenefits.

Key features

� Examples of designing out waste included:

- The redesign of drainage lines to utilise spare materials rather than order new products,eg manhole rings and new pipes.

- Finished ground levels at the site ensured that the quantity of excavated materialsmoved off-site was minimal. All suitable excavated materials were used in haul roadsand lay down areas.

� Examples of economic and environmental benefits from contracts included:

- the contract with the earthworks contractor contained target costs and was set up in away that encouraged the re-use of as much excavated material as possible;

- the contract with the fencing contractor encouraged the re-use of existing fencing astemporary site fencing instead of new products.

Facts and figures

� A re-use rate of 48% was achieved in this project.

Further information

Case record: GCHQ sustainability initiativesCarillion Building2003www.carillionplc.com/sustain-2003/assets/downloads/sustain-2003/CR_GCHQ_sust_init.pdfwww.carillionplc.com/sustain-2003/performance/z1_1_CR_gchq_sust_initiatives.htm

55se

ctio

n

20

Resource efficient refurbishment

Additions to the building stock are insignificant when compared with the amount ofrefurbishment work required to maintain existing buildings and infrastructure.However, there have been few detailed studies of the quantities and types ofrefurbishment waste in the UK.

The case studies in this section feature a church, office buildings, a sewage treatment works androads/motorways. Together, they demonstrate some of the characteristics that can facilitate theefficient use of resources and minimisation of waste. These include:

� The choice between refurbishment and new build. The retention of a structure rather thancomplete demolition and rebuild conserves resources. Consideration of the whole life costs ofrefurbishment compared with those for demolition/new build will determine the best optionoverall. Account should be taken of energy efficiency, service life, maintenance cycles, etc.

� Stripping out old fixtures, fittings, services and internal walls usually precedes fitting out.Evaluation of component, material and structure retention is vital for resource efficiency.

Case study 16: Modernisation of the EnvironmentAgency’s Anglian Region offices

Rather than demolishing them, the Environment Agency office buildings in Cobham Road,Ipswich, were refurbished and refitted. Avoiding demolition and incorporating waste reductionmeasures in the design resulted in a substantial waste saving.

Key features

� The designers produced waste minimisation schedules which categorise each element of theexisting building according to whether it could:

- remain in situ;

- be re-used on-site or off-site;

- be recycled or disposed of as waste.

� Use of prefabricated cladding panels reduced waste during construction.

� Re-use on-site of materials such as doors, sanitary fittings, built-in furniture, windows andbricks.

� To eliminate the unnecessary waste that is often produced when working to meet tightdeadlines, a tight construction programme was not imposed and there were low damagesfor late completion.

Further information

Demonstrating waste minimisation benefits in construction CIRIA Report C536 2001ISBN 0860175367www.ciria.org.uk/acatalog/C536.html

55

sect

ion

21

Case study 17: Change of use for Odo Street Church,Swansea

A redundant church building in Swansea was refurbished in a major redevelopment inassociation with Gwalia Housing Group. The church re-opened in June 2001 and nowincorporates ten purpose-built flats, as well as a worship area, hall and kitchen facilities.

Key features

� Waste re-use and recycling encouraged through better awareness and training.

� Use of the retained structure allowed improved storage.

� Re-use of old stone walling for new compound walls.

� Prefabricated timber frame modules inserted inside the old structure.

� Where possible, the material content of components was lowered to enable a reduction inthe use of load-bearing partitions.

� House types were designed to a 600 mm module, thus reducing the amount of waste put inskips.

Outcome and benefits

� Reduced costs and environmental impact through reducing waste and resources used.

Further information

Proceedings of conference on Minimising Construction Waste held 27 September 2001Construction Industry Environmental Forum (CIEF)2001

Construction waste minimisation: good practice guideCentre for Research in the Built Environment (CRiBE), Welsh School of Architecture, CardiffUniversity (prepared for Construction and Domestic Energy Branch, Housing Directorate, WelshAssembly Government)2003www.housing.wales.gov.uk/content/English/e/E48.pdf

Case study 18: Modernisation of sewage treatmentworks for Southern Water

Redevelopment of Southern Water’s Havant and Portsmouth Sewage Treatment Works involveddemolition and replacement of the treatment beds and filter beds, installation of new treatmentand pumping facilities, and construction of new storage and aeration tanks.

Key features

� Materials re-used on-site.

� Improved material and waste storage and handling.

� Rapid and effective waste auditing - a low-cost means of maintaining tighter controls onwaste generation.

55se

ctio

n

22

Facts and figures

� Some 45% of old filter bed clinker material was re-used on-site as sub-base for site roads.The remainder was removed to be crushed and sold as bulk fill.

� Some 29% of the concrete obtained from demolition was re-used on-site. The rest wascrushed and re-used elsewhere.

� The re-use of clinker materials and concrete resulted in an estimated total saving of £250 000.

� More efficient waste storage and segregation resulted in some savings, but these were onlya small proportion of the project value.

Further information

Demonstrating waste minimisation benefits in construction CIRIA Report C536 2001ISBN 0860175367www.ciria.org.uk/acatalog/C536.html

Case study 19: Maintenance of trunk roads andmotorways (Northamptonshire)

Carillion plc is contracted to maintain trunk roads and motorways in Highways Agency Area 8(Northamptonshire and parts of surrounding counties). With a total carriageway length of 1 200miles, the company is keen to reduce the amount of waste produced. Work includes themaintenance of road pavement, footpaths, drainage works, barriers and signs, the control oflitter and debris, and the reconstruction of road surfaces.

Key features

� All asphalt planings generated are re-used:

- in base course or road base;

- as aggregate in lower pavement layers or footpaths;

- for track construction on agricultural land;

- as car park surfacing (with an emulsion polymer).

� Some 35% of the roadside drainage filter media is removed and crushed to form 6F1material, which is used primarily as fill.

� Of the remaining 65% of the roadside drainage filter media, 80% is cleaned (using dryscreening off-site) and re-used.

Facts and figures

� Some 5 000 tonnes of asphalt planings are re-used.

� Over 50% of the 12 000 tonnes of roadside drainage filter media that are generated iscleaned and re-used, saving an estimated 20% compared with replacement.

Further information

Demonstrating waste minimisation benefits in construction CIRIA Report C536 2001ISBN 0860175367www.ciria.org.uk/acatalog/C536.html

66

sect

ion

23

Re-using resources

Re-use of resources on the same site reduces both the amount of waste leaving the siteand the need to bring in new materials and products. Many of the case studies in earliersections have focused on the re-use of off-cuts and temporary materials such asplasterboard and formwork.

The demolition phase should be considered as providing a builder’s yard already on-site with heavilydiscounted construction products. There are further benefits from the massive decrease in vehiclemovements and waste disposal costs. The case studies in this section demonstrate the partnershipbetween demolition and construction, and illustrate the concept of closing the loop. All featurelarge-scale projects, from the demolition of a hospital in east London to the award-winning BedZedeco-village in south London. However, the concept can be applied to all sizes of construction project.

Case study 20: Whipps Cross University Hospital

A pre-demolition audit at the Whipps Cross University Hospital (WCUH) in Leytonstone, eastLondon, was carried out to help the project team optimise the resources held in existing buildingsas part of the hospital redevelopment. This work was partly funded through a Department ofTrade and Industry (DTI) project to provide information on the deconstruction and re-use ofconstruction materials. The subsequent report included a reclamation valuation survey and anenvironmental quantification of a range of materials and products expected to generate from thedemolition of the existing WCUH.

Key features

� Pre-demolition audit conducted by BRE using BRE’s SMARTWaste tool allowed key demolitionproducts (KDPs) with potential for re-use and recycling to be identified.

� Amounts of KDPs with potential for re-use or recycling were determined.

� Potential income from the decommissioning process optimised and the cost of disposing ofthe old buildings reduced.

� Identification and development of local markets for the KDPs.

� Identification of potential employment opportunities for local people.

� Opportunities for re-use on-site identified and maximised.

� The contract process is being used to ensure that the demolition contractor is informed ofthe requirement for maximum re-use and recycling.

� The number of journeys through the local community to transport construction materials wasminimised.

� Other environmental benefits from re-using and recycling materials were quantified.

Facts and figures

� The audit showed the volume of KDPs to be 24 515 m3, which could realise a resale value ofbetween £0.5 million and £7 million depending on the methods of deconstruction and themarket at the time of sale.

� Conversely, if there was no reclamation and all the material ended up in landfill, a tax of£34 000 would be payable.

66se

ctio

n

24

� Diverting the identified KDPs from landfill could:

- reduce the estimated 3 000+ lorry journeys required to dispose of the demolition waste;

- minimise the number of lorry loads of new materials delivered to the site.

� Calculation of the environmental benefits showed that re-use and recycling of the KDPs couldhelp to realise environmental rewards similar to either the environmental impact of about1 190 UK citizens over one year or the amount of carbon that can potentially be sequesteredby 1 060 - 2 516 hectares of rainforest.

Further information

SMARTWaste - www.smartwaste.co.uk

Case study 21: Farnborough Business Park project

Significant cost savings were achieved in this project by Carillion Building at the FarnboroughBusiness Park, which involved recycling and re-using materials on-site.

Key features

� Recycled material was used to raise the levels of development plots. More than 35 000 m3 ofmaterial were passed though a screen to produce 25 000 m3 of 75 mm structural fill. Theoversized material was removed and the structural fill stockpiled. Once the stockpiledscreened material had been distributed across the site, it was rolled and compacted to 95%.Lime stabilisation was not required before further construction work.

Facts and figures

� The cost of recycling was £6.50/m3. Removing material would have cost £13.43/m3 andreplacing it with suitable structural fill £29/m3.

� A cost saving of £26.93 was achieved for every m3 of material recycled into a grade re-usableas structural fill.

Further information

Case record: Farnborough Business ParkCarillion BuildingAugust 2001www.carillionplc.com/sustain-2002/documents/pdf/Farnborough%20Business%20Park.pdf

WRAP case study: A commitment to sustainability achieves real savingswww.wrap.org.uk

Case study 22: Alexandra Parade, Glasgow

The recycling and re-use of materials at this residential development project in Glasgow has ledto reduced costs and improved relations with clients and the local communities.

Key features

� Some of the waste management actions implemented on-site included:

- crushing demolition material and using it as a capping layer;

- using Heras fencing instead of timber hoarding;

- removing excavated material off-site by the transport bringing hardcore on-site;

66

sect

ion

25

- adjusting the levels of floors and roads to minimise the removal of excess material off-site;

- using recycled planings for the capping layer and lower level of the sub-base;

- re-use of existing fence for a new boundary wall;

- early excavation of the road box and formation of a new road, thus eliminating theneed for temporary haul roads;

- steel tubes from oil rigs were re-used as piles.

Further information

Case record: Alexandra Parade, GlasgowCarillion BuildingSeptember 2002www.carillionplc.com/sustain-2002/documents/pdf/Alexandra%20Parade%20Glasgow.pdf

Case study 23: BedZed, south London

The Beddington Zero Energy Development (BedZed) at Wallington in southLondon, is the UK’s largest carbon neutral eco-village. It was developed bythe Peabody Trust in partnership with BioRegional Development Group. Thismixed tenure development for rent and sale consists of 99 apartments,galleried apartments, maisonettes and houses. It also has 1 695 m2 ofworkspace and community buildings including a health centre, nursery andsports club. Construction began in 2000. The first units were completed inMarch 2002, with total completion and occupation in September 2002.

Key features

� Project aimed to significantly reduce demand for heat, electricity and water.

� Construction materials were sought within a target 35-mile radius of the site, though theaverage sourcing distance was 66.5 miles.

� Materials were selected from renewable, recycled or reclaimed sources, wherever possible.Materials used included:

- reclaimed steel;

- reclaimed timber for internal studwork;

- reclaimed floorboards;

- reclaimed bollards;

- recycled aggregates;

- recycled crushed green glass.

Facts and figures

� Re-use of material generated on-site as sub-grade fill avoided the need to purchase andtransport 846 m3 of materials.

Further information

Construction materials report for the Beddington zero (fossil) energy developmentBedZed toolkit for carbon neutral developments: Part 2BioRegional Development Groupwww.bioregional.com

77se

ctio

n

26

Further information

7.1 Free help from Envirowise

The Environment and Energy Helpline on 0800 585794 can:

� put you in touch with a technical expert - free of charge;

� provide free, up-to-date advice on environmental issues;

� tell you about relevant environmental and other legislation that could affect your business,eg the latest hazardous waste legislation;

� send you copies of free, relevant Envirowise publications;

� suggest other sources of information;

� arrange for a free, confidential on-site waste review (known as a FastTrack visit) by anEnvirowise advisor;

� arrange for a counselling visit from an Envirowise consultant to discuss a specificenvironmental issue at your site.

All Envirowise’s free information and advice can also be accessed via its website(www.envirowise.gov.uk).

7.2 Regulators

Environment AgencyThe Environment Agency regulates a wide range of businesses in England and Wales. Advice isgiven to help all businesses improve their environmental performance. Guidance for theconstruction sector is available from:www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/444304/502508/Tel: 08708 506506 (enquiries)

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)SEPA’s aim is to provide an efficient and integrated environmental protection system forScotland. Guidance and useful links can be downloaded from: www.sepa.org.uk/wastemin/sector/construction.htmTel: 01786 457700 (Corporate Office); for nearest local office, see phone book orwww.sepa.org.uk/contact/index.htm Waste Action Line 0800 389 5270

Environment and Heritage Service Northern IrelandThe Waste Management and Contaminated Land (WMCL) Unit is responsible for theimplementation of waste management policy and the promotion of a more sustainable approachto dealing with waste in Northern Ireland. Guidance can be downloaded from:www.ehsni.gov.uk/environment/wasteManage/guidance.shtmlTel: 028 9054 6422 (general waste enquiries)

NetRegsThe easy-to-use NetRegs website (www.netregs.gov.uk) provides practical advice to helpcompanies in the UK to understand their legal obligations with respect to waste management.It was developed by the Environment Agency in partnership with SEPA and Northern Ireland’sEnvironment and Heritage Service.

77

sect

ion

27

7.3 Others

BREBRE provides a range of tools, training and publications to help the construction industry improveenvironmental and business performance. Publications can be purchased from BRE Bookshop(01344 404407 or www.brebookshop.com) and case studies can be downloaded from theSMARTWaste website (www.smartwaste.co.uk).

The Carbon TrustThe Carbon Trust provides free, independent advice and information to UK businesses and publicsector organisations to help them cut their energy costs. It offers an extensive library of freepublications, a number of free services such as site surveys, and interest-free loans to encouragebusinesses to improve energy efficiency and cut carbon emissions.www.thecarbontrust.co.ukEnvironment and Energy Helpline 0800 585794

CIRIAThe Construction Industry Research and Information Association (now known as CIRIA) providesa range of events and publications to help the construction industry be more resource efficient.Its construction and waste resources website (www.ciria.org/cwr) seeks to achieve wastereduction and improved resource productivity in the building and civil engineering sectors.Tel: 020 7549 3300

Construction Industry Environmental Forum (CIEF)CIEF’s mission is to help companies involved in construction improve their environmental andsustainability performance. Information about its services is given at: www.ciria.org/cief_intro.htmTel: 020 7549 3300 (CIRIA)

Constructing ExcellenceConstructing Excellence is funded by the Department of Trade and Industry with the aim ofachieving a step change in construction productivity by tackling the market failures in the sectorand selling the business case for continuous improvement. A range of tools and publications canbe downloaded from: www.constructingexcellence.org.ukHelpdesk 0845 605 55 56

New Construction Research and Innovation Strategy Panel (nCRISP)nCRISP provides independent advice on research and innovation to the Strategic Forum forConsultation and the construction industry as a whole. Its aim is a sustainable and profitableconstruction industry addressing UK national objectives as well as industry priorities. Informationabout its work and its publications is given at:www.ncrisp.org.ukTel: 020 7061 7007 (Davis Langdon LLP Management Consulting - providers of managementsupport for nCRISP)

Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP)WRAP aims to accelerate resource efficiency by creating markets for recycled materials, whilstremoving barriers to waste minimisation, re-use and recycling. It is a not-for-profit company thatworks with the public, private and community sectors, and is funded by the Department forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department of Trade and Industry, the ScottishExecutive, the Welsh Assembly Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. Moreinformation can be found at: www.wrap.org.uk

Envirowise - Practical Environmental Advice for Business - is a Government programmethat offers free, independent and practical advice to UK businesses to reduce waste atsource and increase profits. It is managed by Momenta, an operating division of AEATechnology plc, and Technology Transfer and Innovation Ltd.

Envirowise offers a range of free services including:

Free advice from Envirowise experts through the Environment and EnergyHelpline.

A variety of publications that provide up-to-date information on wasteminimisation issues, methods and successes.

Free, on-site waste reviews from Envirowise advisors, called FastTrack visits, thathelp businesses identify and realise savings.

Guidance on waste minimisation clubs across the UK that provide a chance forlocal companies to meet regularly and share best practices in waste minimisation.

Best practice seminars and practical workshops that offer an ideal way toexamine waste minimisation issues and discuss opportunities and methodologies.

For further informationplease contact the

Environmentand EnergyHelpline0800 585794© Crown copyright. First printed July 2005. Printed on paper containing a minimum of 75% post-consumer waste.

This material may be freely reproduced in its original form except for sale or advertising purposes.

Harwell International Business Centre | Didcot | Oxfordshire | OX11 0QJE-mail: helpline@envirowise.gov.uk Internet: www.envirowise.gov.uk

Practical Environmental Advice for Business