Post on 15-Dec-2015
Case Study:University of Southampton
Dr Neil SmithEnvironment Manager
16th October 2007
Aims
Resource v waste management
Big v small projects
Share experience to date
What’s next
Resource v waste
Key project phases
Pre-design Design & procurement
Pre-construction
Construction
Post-construction
Estates & Facilities
Kevin Monaghan
Neil Smith PMU Steve Parker Ian Carroll(Environment (Buildings Programmes (H&S Manager)Manager) manager)
Capital programme Programme Management Unit £234M programme
Mountbatten Boldrewood IfLS Faraday
Sustainable Buildings Policy Sustainable Buildings Briefing note Guidance to Project Managers on waste Route map
Framework
Sustainable Buildings Policy:
5.2 Promote and adopt best practice:
5.2.2 Ensure the specification for new build, refurbishment and maintenance projects… sets targets for key performance indicators, such as energy and water use and waste production.
5.2.7 Ensure waste produced during building projects is minimised and
that all projects have a site waste management plan that incorporates the requirements of the Demolition Protocol.
5.2.8 Ensure materials have a minimal impact on the environment and set a target of at least 10% of the materials value of projects is derived from recycled content.
5.2.9 Set a target for all new buildings and major refurbishments to achieve an “Excellent” BREEAM rating with a minimum rating of “Very Good” where there are good and explicit reasons why an excellent rating could not be achieved.
Framework
Sustainable Buildings Policy:
5.3 Maintain and develop the University in a sustainable manner:
5.3.4 Ensure there are sufficient recycling facilities available and they are clearly marked.
5.3.5 Ensure there are adequate storage and collection facilities for other wastes,
such as chemicals, and clinical, radioactive and other hazardous wastes.
Case Study: Mountbatten
• ECS/ORC• Major fire (Nov 05)• Completion date:
Summer 2008
Site management:• Costain
Demolition (about 5,000 t reused on site)
• Bovis Environment management plan Environmental Aspects & Impacts Register KPIs Considerate Contractors Scheme Site audit
Mountbatten
Purpose KPI Target Score
Waste To measure the amount of waste removed from site during the construction processso that we can target reductions in wastage
Construction: Waste Removed (m3) / £100k spent
<10 7.6
KPI
Targets also for:• Energy use (Amount of CO2 Produced (kg) / £100k spent)
• Water use (Amount of Water Used (m3) / £100k spent)
• Timber use (% FSC Timber Used)
• Commercial vehicle movement (Total Number Commercial Vehicle Movements / £100k spent)
• CCS (Average Score)
Mountbatten
Score per section
Score references Score per section
Score references
1 Major non-compliance
4 High level beyond compliance
2 Minor non-compliance
5 Exceptional measures taken
3 Compliance
Environment (4/5)• Noise restriction• Hoarding• Risk assessments & induction• Waste monitored & segregated• Environmental policy working well• No energy saving measures on site (although corporately
energy use is well controlled)
Considerate contractor scheme audit
Case study: Faraday
• 1950s iconic building
• £20M refurbishment
• School of Civil Engineering & Environment
• BREEAM ‘Excellent’
Faraday
Gentle Associates• Decant
• Asbestos strip out(Windsor waste mgmt)
LA Moore• Enabling works(?)
Morgan Ashurst• Main contractor(?)
Faraday
Faraday: BREEAM
Management Commissioning (9):
M4 – Considerate Contractors (2)M5 – Construction site impacts (4)
- monitor construction waste- Sort & recycle construction waste
M12 – Users guide (1)
Materials (12):
MWI – Material spec (4)MW5 – Reuse of façade (1)MW6 – Reuse of structure (1)MW7 – Recycled aggregate (1)MW8 – Responsible sourcing of materials (3)MW12 – Storage of recyclable waste (1)
BREEAM rating % benchmark
Unclassified <25
Pass ≥25 - <40
Good ≥ 40 - <55
Very Good ≥ 55 - <70
Excellent ≥ 70
Faraday
Post completion recycling:
• Heelis Building• George Thomas Building
Small(er) projects Faculty Building Managers Annual budget: £5M (LTM & Client projects)
Distribution of FPM project budgets, 2006/07
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Value (£)
Nu
mb
er o
f p
roje
cts
Preliminary feasibility report Guidance to contractors Selection (approved contractor database)
Framework
Guidance to contractors:
Selection of contractors Environment policy, EMS etc
Sustainable buildings Planning, design etc
On-site management Site RA, waste etc
SU Shop refit
£150k refit in summer 2007 Flair shopfittings Ltd Select-A-Skip UK Ltd
SU Shop refitTotal Waste & Recycling Summary for Southampton University (SUSU)
All weights are approximate.
Weight (Tonnes)
% Materials
Incineration (Flair)
0.8 6 Timber, MDF
Landfill 2.7 20.3 Flooring materials, rubble
Recycling (re-condition & Re-use)
6.5 48.9 Card racks, Refrigeration, Shelving
Recycling (Environmental disposal)
3.3 24.8 Refrigeration, metalwork
13.3 100
University Road car park £230k Demolish building & provide 65 car park
spaces PT Contractors
Pollution prevention procedureSite environmental risk assessmentWaste management procedureSWMP
University Road Car Park
Type of Waste Quantities Haulier
Carrier Licence No. Location
Waste Licence No.
Green Waste (compost) 30m3 PTC HAM/406524
Eco @ Hurn WML/296
Excavated Material 320m3 R&W HAM/409392
Marchwood Aggregates W01024/05
Marchwood Quarry Exempt
% to be recycled
House No. 37
90% Recycled
Comley & Son
HAM/406449 Transfer station
HR078
10% WasteComley & Son
SWMP
Sources of information
• WRAP www.wrap.org.uk/construction/index.html www.wrap.org.uk/construction/materials_recycling/index.html
• Netregs www.netregs.gov.uk www.netregs.wastedirectory.org.uk/Index.aspx
• Considerate contractor www.ccscheme.org.uk/
• BRE www.bre.co.uk/
• Smartwaste www.smartwaste.co.uk/ www.bremap.co.uk/bremap/about.jsp
What’s next?
Influence capital/FPM colleagues Audit & verification FPM workshop Finalise FPM SWMP Work with term contractors Review guidance
Review & Any questions?
Resource v waste management
Big v small projects
Share experience to date
What’s next
Any questions?