How To Manage The Transport Logistics Of Construction Waste

Transcription

1 Final Report MRF114 Analysis of Collection Logistics for the Transportation of Construction Waste Off-Site for Reprocessing A review of the methods adopted by Waste Management Companies (WMCs) to manage the transport logistics of mixed Construction, Demolition and Excavation Waste (CDEW), including examples of emerging good practice, technology and case studies Project code: MRF ISBN: Research date: October 2008 March 2010 Date: October 2010

2 Our vision is a world without waste, where resources are used sustainably. We work with businesses and individuals to help them reap the benefits of reducing waste, develop sustainable products and use resources in an efficient way. Find out more at Written by: Entec UK Ltd Front cover photography: Ro-Ro collection vehicle WRAP and Entec UK Ltd believe the content of this report to be correct as at the date of writing. However, factors such as prices, levels of recycled content and regulatory requirements are subject to change and users of the report should check with their suppliers to confirm the current situation. In addition, care should be taken in using any of the cost information provided as it is based upon numerous project-specific assumptions (such as scale, location, tender context, etc). The report does not claim to be exhaustive, nor does it claim to cover all relevant products and specifications available on the market. While steps have been taken to ensure accuracy, WRAP cannot accept responsibility or be held liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. It is the responsibility of the potential user of a material or product to consult with the supplier or manufacturer and ascertain whether a particular product will satisfy their specific requirements. The listing or featuring of a particular product or company does not constitute an endorsement by WRAP and WRAP cannot guarantee the performance of individual products or materials. This material is copyrighted. It may be reproduced free of charge subject to the material being accurate and not used in a misleading context. The source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. This material must not be used to endorse or used to suggest WRAP s endorsement of a commercial product or service. For more detail, please refer to WRAP s Terms & Conditions on its web site:

3 Executive summary This study has been commissioned by WRAP (Waste and Resources Action Programme) to review waste collection logistics arrangements for mixed non-inert Construction, Demolition and Excavation Wastes (CDEW). These activities are typically undertaken by Waste Management Contractors (WMCs) of varying sizes, who in the UK have historically delivered mixed wastes for disposal to landfill as a low cost option. The introduction of fiscal measures such as the landfill tax has diverted waste from landfill to MRFs that can separate the recyclable fractions and reduce volumes sent for disposal. At the same time on site segregation of target waste streams, e.g. plasterboard has increased in response to legislative change. Through adoption of efficient waste collection logistics solutions, financial and environmental benefits for construction sites can be maximised. Key factors influencing decision making include: the financial cost of the service (to also include an understanding of the complexities of different pricing mechanisms used by WMCs); the environmental cost of the service selection (including the data available to monitor and measure parameters such as emissions of CO 2, NO x and SO x ); the importance of good data to monitor the service performance; and an understanding of the changing volume and composition of the site waste arisings throughout the lifetime of a project. Two main collection methods have been identified through the desk-based research and WMC engagement carried out on this study: single modal (skip) collections where an empty container is exchanged for a full container on site with subsequent delivery to the point of transfer, recovery or disposal; and multi modal collections where a number of containers are collected from multiple sites with the material compacted in the vehicle. The selection of the optimal collection service will normally be determined by practical considerations such as the space (footprint) available on the site for waste management or the nature of the construction itself i.e. a multi storey development. Good practice case studies for both limited space and multi storey examples have been produced as part of this study. These are supported by case studies covering the use of waste / container barcoding to improve waste tracking and audit, along with the use of on site logistics specialists to co-ordinate vehicle movements (on and off site) and waste management arrangements. For WMCs their priority is making effective use of vehicles and labour. Where collections are scheduled (usually larger sites) the planning and optimisation of routes is typically easier and more efficient. Technologies such as In-cab communication and tracking (e.g. Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs), Global Positioning System (GPS) and Computerised Vehicle Routing and Scheduling (CVRS) provide the waste industry with the potential to become more efficient and effective. Key to the successful use of these technologies is the need for high quality and accessible data which is currently not widely available. These innovations have been evaluated on the study through three operational trials delivered with a range of medium sized WMCs and technology providers. The use of CVRS as part of a wider review of service design and delivery, e.g. incorporating changes to site collection days, identified fuel savings up to 15% with a return on the capital invested of less than two years. A fuel efficiency trial identified significant differences between the average fuel economy of single modal (10 mpg) and the multi modal vehicles (4 mpg). This should be of particular interest to WMCs wishing to supply the most cost effective waste logistics solutions. A trial of In-cab technology using PDAs to transmit data from a central office to vehicles identified significant savings in the region of 80,000 per annum with a return on the investment of less than two years. MRF114 Analysis of Collection Logistics for the Transportation of Construction Waste Off-Site for Reprocessing 3

4 To further WRAP s understanding of the distribution of MRFs a map providing the geographical distribution of MRFs and similar transfer stations for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has been produced. The greatest density of facilities is to be found within the boundaries of the major conurbations. Waste Off-Site for Reprocessing 4

5 Contents 1.0 Introduction Background Project scope and objectives This report Scene setting: existing CDEW logistics arrangements Introduction Typical CDEW management methods What triggers a collection? Scheduled vs. reactive collections Containment and vehicles Service levels and communication System interactions Single mode (skip) collections Multi modal collections Service cost Cost commentary Environmental reporting Examples of factors affecting logistics performance Load contamination Market conditions Site Waste Management Plans (SWMPs) and segregation strategies Summary Developments in waste transport and collection logistics Introduction Transport by road Use of alternative fuels Opportunities through green procurement Transport by rail and water Innovation in logistics planning Comparing product supply and waste collection logistics practices Process and technology Summary MRF infrastructure Introduction and background context Objective Method Data Publically available data Data from the Regulators Maps Summary Case studies and trials Introduction Case studies Trials Summary Existing arrangements Collection scheduling and method Management information and communications Service costs Environmental reporting and performance MRF infrastructure Future perspective...40 Waste Off-Site for Reprocessing 5

6 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Background Key to delivering the objective of reducing Construction, Demolition and Excavation Waste (CDEW) to landfill is the development of efficient logistics systems from the point of collection to delivery for onward transfer or recovery. This study is one of a series being led by WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme) under the Materials Recycling Programme looking at effective collection and reprocessing of construction wastes, e.g. via MRFs. The wider programme is aimed at helping industry as a whole achieve the objectives set out in the Government s Waste Strategy Review to reduce waste to landfill by 50% by A considerable amount of work has been undertaken by WRAP and others to improve waste management arrangements on construction, demolition and excavation (CDE) projects, and to develop evidence of good practice and advocate this to industry. Delivering a step change in the levels of waste arising from construction projects is being driven by a combination of factors: financial increasing landfill tax levels and increased awareness of the value of wasted materials; regulatory including the need to produce Site Waste Management Plans (SWMPs) for all new projects worth more than 300,000; and advisory through ongoing programmes of work led by WRAP and other delivery bodies. 1.2 Project scope and objectives This project considers the important supply chain activities and stakeholders associated with transporting noninert CDEW 1 from points of arising to reception sites for subsequent recovery / recycling. These activities are typically undertaken by Waste Management Contractors (WMCs) of varying sizes, who in the UK have historically delivered mixed wastes for disposal via landfill. Through a combination of desk-based research and industry engagement the project has considered the following: existing approaches to planning and delivering CDEW transport operations; innovation and good practice in waste logistics that has the potential to deliver benefits in terms of collection efficiencies, direct cost savings or reduced environmental impact (through lower mileage and CO 2 emissions); the availability of MRFs across the UK; case study examples of CDE projects that have delivered positive outcomes with reference to waste transport; and trial opportunities linked to new methods of working. Given that waste transport operations are influenced by, and impact upon, activities up and downstream in the supply chain we have considered waste management activities on construction sites and MRF availability as part of the overall assessment. This has been through interactions with other WRAP projects (e.g. MRF 105 / 107) and the gathering of waste management licence (environmental permit) data for sites potentially representing outlets capable of sorting CDEW for recycling. The project outcomes are designed to help inform waste management professionals of the various options available to manage the non-inert waste fractions, for which collections and recycling are under-developed. 1.3 This report The purpose of this report is to summarise the main findings of the project, considering both existing waste transport arrangements and future opportunities. The report sets out the potential benefits to be achieved 1 For the purpose of this report non-inert CDEW represents common CDE waste streams such as wood, glass, plastic and metal (including discarded packaging materials). The term mixed load is often used to describe this material and its containment method, which has historically been via skips of varying sizes. Waste Off-Site for Reprocessing 6

7 through adopting alternative waste transport practices, alongside the likely barriers and system constraints that need to be addressed for these improvements to be realised on the ground. Following this short introduction the report is focused on: current approaches to managing CDEW collection logistics (Section 2); emerging developments in waste collection logistics, including opportunities to transport waste by rail and water (Section 3); available MRF and related CDEW reception infrastructure (Section 4); the case studies and trials progressed as part of this study (Section 5); and concluding remarks (Section 6). The report findings should be considered alongside other initiatives being progressed in the sector, such as the development of Material Logistics Plans on the supply side of construction projects and the work of the Environment Agency on the Pathway to Zero Waste in the South East of England. 2.0 Scene setting: existing CDEW logistics arrangements 2.1 Introduction Within this section of the report we have developed a baseline summary of the way in which CDEW logistics arrangements are currently managed, considering the way in which WMCs interact with source sites and typical collection planning and implementation methods. This information has been developed through direct contact made with a range of WMCs 2, brokers and logistics specialists. Where there is evidence of key differences in approach linked to the scale or nature of the construction project, or service delivery organisation, these have been drawn out in the commentary. Supporting information on the methods used by WMCs to co-ordinate CDEW collections is provided in Section 3 and within the separate trial report on Computerised Vehicle Routing and Scheduling (CVRS). 2.2 Typical CDEW management methods This sub-section considers the management methods used by the waste industry for the construction industry. The information presented is based upon a number of telephone interviews and meetings with a range of large and smaller waste management operators, discussing the movement of mixed loads of non inert construction waste. It has become clear through our engagement activities that there is not one single consistent approach taken by all of the companies, although there are similarities. The different approaches are discussed below under relevant headings and questions that describe the primary decisions to be taken during the collection process What triggers a collection? The triggers for a collection to occur were found to vary considerably, although the underlying requirement for all sites is to ensure that waste generation does not exceed available storage capacity and/or impact upon the progress of the project. Some construction sites request an ad hoc (as and when) collection whilst others request a scheduled or regular collection. Although there does not appear to be a specific pattern or logic to these decisions there is a trend towards scheduled collections for larger construction projects, whilst the medium and smaller sites tend towards the ad hoc collections. This is however not a hard and fast rule. Exceptions included a large construction project with a pro-active manager where the waste containers are monitored daily, resulting in requests for collections in advance of the container being full. Similar arrangements apply where specialist waste contractors are employed to co-ordinate waste management arrangements on and off site (examples being Premier Waste and Wilson James). Where this is the case site waste managers monitor and arrange collections at the site, liaising directly with WMC operations staff. 2 In-depth interviews were held with five WMCs. Additional information and views were obtained through Entec s wider engagement activities within the waste sector. Waste Off-Site for Reprocessing 7

8 It is important to acknowledge that the waste profile changes during the various phases of construction, from typically non-compactable wastes early on in the project such as wood and steel, to compactable wastes at the mid and end phases of the construction project such as plastic packaging (i.e. once the infrastructure has been built) and also on refurbishment projects. Hence different approaches and trigger frequencies may be required at various phases of construction, as well as on different project sizes Scheduled vs. reactive collections Scheduled collections are preferred by WMCs as they can plan the resource requirements in advance. However, this can often result in containers being collected half full or indeed over full. Depending on how the waste collection service is charged these scenarios typically result in lost value for one or more of the two parties to the contract. The overfilling of containers (often with offending items protruding from the container) can result in the skip being too heavy to lift, or the driver being unable to sheet the vehicle as required under the Duty of Care requirements. A number of WMCs contacted pointed out that with key contracts a vehicle would visit every day and empty all of the full containers before moving onto other work. Acknowledging that different phases of work on site will generate wastes at different rates, it is important that times of peak (waste production) demands are effectively communicated between the site and the WMC, with as much advance warning provided as possible given that additional containers may be required during these times. The space or footprint area available for skips will often be a guiding force in deciding the management method for a site s construction waste. There is normally an exercise of judging the likely volumes to be produced versus the space available, and as such the most economic option is not always chosen. Often this is overcome by a wait and load collection where a vehicle or container is filled whilst the WMC is on site. This does however have the financial disadvantage that most WMCs will charge for this time on site Containment and vehicles The typical types of containers used are 10.7m 3 and 26.8m 3 containers (typical builders and bulk skips). Both of these containers are demountable and will be either exchanged on site or a wait and load collection can occur. As described in Section this method of containment / collection is commonly referred to as single mode. Through the interview process it was found that compactable mixed wastes, particularly from multi storey developments, were collected in portable (660 litre and 1,100 litre) wheeled containers, this being referred to as a multi modal collection method (Section 2.4.2). On a typical multi storey residential property development up to 10 x 660 litre bins will be used to store and transport waste on site to the multi modal refuse collection vehicle. These containers can be placed on each floor and wheeled out to the refuse collection vehicle for emptying. The key advantage of this is that the refuse vehicle can collect dozens of these containers before needing to tip. The containers are typically owned by the waste management contractor. This is particularly effective when specialist waste management contractor staff are engaged to monitor and manage the construction activity and removal of waste from the site. During the shop fitting phase at the White City retail development in London 700 wheeled bins were in use over a 6 week period. A challenge with providing waste management information on a site such as this was due to the fact that a different firm of shop fitters was typically involved for each store. Similar systems exist with front end and rear end loading (FEL & REL) modes of collection. The typical sizes of these containers range from 6m 3 to 10.7m 3. These are not portable containers. Approximately 8 10 FEL or REL containers can be collected before the collection vehicle needs to travel to the tip utilising a more efficient milk round than the single trip container modes. At the Birmingham new hospital development there is a 26.8m 3 compactor collected daily onsite. This alternative to the smaller bins is possible due to the use of feeder bins and waste chutes. The typical vehicles used are 26 tonne refuse collection vehicles with a 10 tonne typical payload for the multi modal collections (Figure 2.1). Smaller skips are also collected by 26 tonne vehicles with this capacity. Waste Off-Site for Reprocessing 8

9 Figure 2.1 Refuse collection vehicle (suitable for 660 and 1,100 litre container collections) The 26.8m 3 roll-on roll-off (Ro-Ro) containers are typically collected by a 32 tonne vehicle with up to 4 axles where a payload of 15 tonnes is typically achieved (Figure 2.2). During discussions with the WMCs the density of the material collected was considered to have a considerable impact upon the loads carried. Mixed loads of waste with a proportionally high content of rubble would have a far higher load density than those loads containing plastic and paper packaging. Single large items such as pallets and off-cuts of wood can affect the efficiency of the packing of a container, particularly with compaction containers. Figure m 3 container and vehicle Waste Off-Site for Reprocessing 9

10 Only one of the WMCs contacted used split compartment bins and none used specialist vehicles (beyond the standard commercial and industrial fleets available). The operating life of a vehicle needs to be recognised here as it is often not feasible or economic for a WMC to alter the vehicles available in the fleet in response to specific project requirements. Specialist vehicles can be hired but this is relatively expensive and the WMC would rather maximise use of the core vehicles that are directly available. 2.3 Service levels and communication During our conversations with the WMCs they generally felt that the construction industry had a poor understanding of the services they can provide. Typically a construction site will ask for a collection within a few hours of a request and not understand why it will be the next day before the collection occurs. This highlights a potential lack of understanding by the construction industry of the WMCs needs to schedule vehicles so that they are used efficiently. It also perhaps indicates that the WMCs are not always effective at communicating and managing expectations with regards service levels that can be achieved. Education of construction site staff to proactively manage and monitor waste arising was considered by several WMCs to be a key potential future development. Typical collection times on ad hoc services appear to be around 24 hours from the time of the request. Others tend to work on the basis that if a request is received by noon it will be collected some time the following day. One WMC highlighted that if they were not busy that the collection might be completed the same day, whilst another company suggested that at peak periods of work 48 hours was not unusual for a construction waste container collection. A general observation from the research is that the smaller companies appear more flexible to the needs of the client than the larger national companies. As might be expected, this finding suggests that there is a payoff between capacity and flexibility. The administration of construction projects by the WMCs is no different to the administration of any commercial or industrial waste contract. The legal requirements under Section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 still apply, such as keeping records for 3 years, prevention of an escape of waste, etc. Specific to the construction industry however is the use of annual framework contracts for pricing with the larger construction contractors such as Carillion. The smaller construction companies tend to manage operations on a site by site basis, with local waste management service contracts priced and awarded at that level. Typically small clients will operate to the WMCs terms and conditions and the WMCs will favour this position. The larger national and regional construction companies, e.g. BAM Construction, will have negotiated bespoke contracts that will be less biased towards the WMC. Such bespoke contracts negotiated with the construction company are likely to include clauses such as maximum waiting times for a collection to be undertaken (from the time it has been requested). A bespoke contract is also likely to build in greater flexibility for the construction company to specify how many containers are to be collected and when. This will affect the predictability of the construction sites requirements, which may in turn reduce the efficiency of the planning process for the WMC. WRAP has published a review of current contract practice with a complement of updated contractual clauses for inclusion in Waste Management Contractors standard terms and conditions. This is available via System interactions We have summarised below the interactions between different stakeholders involved in or influencing construction waste collection. Where possible we have used worked examples to demonstrate the collection mechanism. We have split the two types of collections into single mode and multi modal service formats. The key stakeholders are: developer: This is the developer who has overall responsibility for the development of the site and will have requested the planning permission for the development (e.g. St Modwen); construction company: This is the company that is actually constructing the development and may also be responsible for the demolition of the existing infrastructure (e.g. Barratts); logistics specialist: This is the specialist company that collects and transports the waste. They may also be a waste management company (e.g. Biffa and SITA); broker: A broker is a company that arranges for the waste to be removed from site using logistics specialists and or waste management companies to move the waste to a reception site (e.g. Wastefile and Biffa). N.B. the term (and role of) logistics specialist and broker are often interchangeable; Waste Off-Site for Reprocessing 10

11 Waste Management Company (WMC): This is a company that encompasses any combination of logistics and reception facilities of various types including landfill, transfer stations and materials recycling facilities. A WMC normally adds value to the individual elements of its infrastructure by integrating processes (e.g. Biffa, SITA and Weirs); and reception site operator: is the operator of reception facilities such as landfill, transfer stations and materials recycling facilities (e.g. Biffa, SITA and Weirs) Single mode (skip) collections A single mode collection is where a single container is typically collected using one vehicle; this includes the traditional skip style container and the Ro-Ro containers. The delivery of containers is generally one at a time and normally as an exchange to the container being removed from site for the disposal of the waste. There is potential with stackable traditional skip containers to stack up to 3 for delivery. This option is not possible with a Ro-Ro container. Only one container on both options can be collected. Some waste management operators use skip vehicles with trailers and there are some emerging new vehicle technologies with two small skips on the back of a single vehicle. However, these are not yet commonplace in the industry. WMCs often run low on stock of these containers and will often undertake wait and load collections. This service format is preferred by some construction sites despite being inefficient in terms of loading time. The travel time and distance required are not significantly affected. The WMC will usually charge for the wait and load time on site where it is dictated by the customer. These collections should not be confused with collect and return collections where the same container is collected and returned to the same site. Collect and return waste collections tend to require more time and distance to be travelled and as such are less efficient than a wait and load collection. Single mode collections are applicable to both compactable and non compactable materials. The collection may be either ad hoc or scheduled. The exception to the rule here is the on site compaction containers that should only be used for compactable construction wastes. A typical collection trigger will be either a phone call for an ad hoc collection or the schedule request via the WMCs system. The exception to this is a handful of construction sites that may send an (higher in recent times due to the popularity of Blackberry type devices) or an from a broker to WMC. Subsequent to the collection trigger the collection will be placed into the WMCs IT system to schedule the following days worth of work. Alternatively, if the traffic controller or administrator has knowledge of an underutilised vehicle they may pass the collection to the driver to action the same day. Developments in IT with PDA and XDAs (similar to a PDA but designed to be more robust) have improved the efficiency of this process. Small WMCs such as single vehicle operators will typically work purely from a paper-based system. Operational issues that affect the ability of the WMC to undertake the collections include incomplete collections, breakdowns and sickness. Once the collection has been placed into the collection schedule the driver will collect instructions for the days work. This is traditionally in the form of paperwork but is now integrated into paperless systems with some contactors. The days work will be achieved and the relevant paper work will be returned to the office. This can be achieved in real time with the use of In-cab technologies (described later in the report). The collections are achieved by exchanging the container leaving an empty container on site and tipping the full container to be taken to the next site for exchange. Exceptions to this are the wait and load service and also where the client owns the container and requires the same container to be returned. The work is complete when all the collections are achieved for the day or the driver hours are used. The effective number of containers that are collected in one day will vary dependant upon the location of the construction sites, reception facilities and the abilities (and a can do attitude) of the driver Multi modal collections A multi modal collection is where a container is emptied on site such as the 660 and 1,100 litre containers and the REL and FEL service modes. These containers are emptied into the main body of the vehicle for compaction on a collection round. This mode of collection can only collect compactable wastes and would not be suitable for large pieces of wood or high density materials. Waste Off-Site for Reprocessing 11

12 This mode of collection is predominantly scheduled with regular collections occurring anywhere between once per week and daily (sometimes more than once per day). The triggers for a collection are similar to the single mode collections. The scheduling and routing of collections is the same for this mode of collection as it is for the single mode collections. The main benefit with the multi modal collection format is the increased number of collections that can be achieved in a day due to the (logistically) more efficient collection round approach. In this service mode the vehicle will continue to make collections until the payload capacity of the vehicle is reached, or it makes logistical sense to offload (tip) material. As a guide REL and FEL modes can typically make up to 50 collections per day. Collections made from 660 and 1,100 litre containers may enable 120 lifts to be made each day (from locations). These productivity levels are variable dependant on the container fill levels and the density, specific gravity and compaction ratio of the waste materials. A typical project where an existing building is being demolished and the new building is being constructed will experience a number of phases of waste production. Initially through the demolition phase high density and non compactable materials such as rubble will be produced. In later phases when the new building is being constructed packaging wastes such as card and plastic, gypsum, wood, etc will dominate the waste streams. Many of these wastes from the later phases of construction are compactable. An example of this is the phases of waste production experienced at the Aston Student Accommodation project in Birmingham. The multi modal service option is not suited to the collection of the initial phase of heavy high density material but is suited to the collection of later materials that are compactable. Thus the WMC service requirements for this project changed as the project progressed. 2.5 Service cost The methodology for charging for CDEW collections is dependent upon the mode of collection. The multi modal method of collection tends to be priced per bin lifted with a rental cost for the container. This is how the 660, 1,100 litre and the REL / FEL services are generally priced. The skip and the Ro-Ro collections are priced differently, often on the basis of separate transport and disposal costs. The transport costs are normally based upon time (or mileage) and the tonnage disposal rate is charged per tonne, with a minimum tonnage to be charged. The decision to charge for rental of the containers will be dependant upon the size of the contract and the WMC. In some cases no rental charge applies. The consensus view of the WMCs interviewed was that larger containers with mixed construction waste or multi modal collections (660, 1,100 litre and REL / FEL) generally represented the cheapest option to the client, requiring less resource to collect and move a given amount of waste. This approach was also considered by the WMCs to have environmental benefits due to the reduced mileage, fuel requirements and hence reduced emissions of CO 2, NO x, PM10, (particulates). It should be acknowledged however that the WMCs stating this had not given consideration to the emissions linked to disposal of the material or potential sorting with onward transport to recycling facilities, their focus was purely on the collection activity itself. It is also worthy of note that the WMCs surveyed did not always identify that the waste arisings would change throughout the life of a construction project. The impact of this is that the original containers supplied are often used throughout all of the phases of the project regardless of the wastes being produced. This can lead to sub optimal logistics being employed to collect the waste. Thus the recognition by the WMCs and the construction contractors of the changes to waste arisings at different phases of a construction project is essential to effectively manage the costs of CDEW logistics. The typical costs for the collection of construction wastes vary depending on the size of the container and the mode of collection. The smaller multi modal services are typically priced at a single all in bin lift price (includes the transport and disposal costs). Average costs from the WMCs consulted defined the cost of a CDEW 660 litre container at 5-7 and the 1,100 litre container at 6-8 (including collection and disposal, correct for September 2009). Where multiple containers are supplied to single sites the unit rates are likely to be lower but will be determined on a site by site basis. The charging for the rental of containers was inconsistent. Where rental for these containers was charged it was in the region of 0.10 per day. The charging of rental in some cases was at the discretion of the sales person and in part depends on the bin lift price. Single mode collections can be weighed and the technology to do so is readily available. The function of weighing multi modal containers requires onboard vehicle weighing which is currently not widespread within the waste industry. This is especially true of vehicles delivering material to landfill sites that are subject to greater wear and tear, potentially causing damage to weighing equipment. Waste Off-Site for Reprocessing 12

13 For the single mode container (e.g. 10.7m 3 skip and 26.8m 3 Ro-Ro) pricing is more complex than with the multi modal pricing. The single mode containers are typically weighed by taking a tare weight on and off a weighbridge at the tipping site. This provides the WMC with an opportunity to charge per tonne for the disposal and provide a separate charge for the transport. The transport of the containers is typically charged at an hourly rate for most collections rather than by distance (albeit time and distance will have some association). The prices charged for the transport are in the region of 55 to 70 per hour. The disposal pricing ranges between 22 and 60 per tonne (including landfill tax) with a minimum tonnage stipulated. The minimum tonnage ranges (on which the minimum charges are based) are between 2 and 3 tonnes depending upon the operator. Where the waste density is low the minimum tonnage may exceed the actual weight. Construction companies will need to be aware of this pricing mechanism and ensure that the best collection methods are applied at the various phases, further highlighting the need for constructors to understand the changing composition of waste arisings through out the phases of a construction project. The rental prices for the containers again showed variability, as per the multi modal collection options. Where rental is charged (26.8m 3 Ro-Ro) it is in the region of 5 per week based upon our consultation with the waste industry. Exceptions to the above included one company that will collect 10.7m 3 skips for all in (includes transport, disposal and rental). Another WMC charges 110 transport up to 25 miles from the depot for the 10.7m 3 skips and the 26.8m 3 Ro-Ro containers. One WMC interviewed provided 26.8m 3 Ro-Ro containers at an all in (fixed) price of (including transport, disposal and rental costs) Cost commentary The information above illustrates the complexity of the pricing mechanisms used by WMCs for the single mode and the multi modal waste collection options. The key issue is the difficulty in comparing two systems where two different parameters are used to determine the pricing. The single mode collections predominantly use weight as the pricing mechanism, whilst the multi modal collections are priced on volume (per container lifted). Although the use of material density analysis would help compare the costs of the two modes of collection, the inconsistent waste streams produced from construction sites are likely to make this analysis overly complex. It may, however, be useful to periodically collate benchmark costs for the two systems where they are being used to collect a range of waste streams. From this it may be possible to identify generic types of waste for which one mode is more cost effective than the other. In order for the two modes to be directly comparable the multi modal collections would need to move to a weight based pricing mechanism. Although not common place the on board weighing technology is readily available and is being trialled by a number of WMCs including Biffa and SITA. It is unlikely that a WMC would enter into a purely volume based pricing mechanism for single mode containers due to the potential financial exposure of such an option. 2.6 Environmental reporting The environmental impacts, and specifically CO 2 emissions, of CDEW transport operations are not well documented under existing operating arrangements. The direct cost driver associated with minimising fuel usage, e.g. by efficiently scheduling and routing vehicles, has been the main factor contributing to WMC objectives of reducing vehicle mileage and thus transport emissions. There is evidence that the situation is changing. For example, SITA have produced a reporting mechanism to indicate the carbon impacts of a contract for key clients seeking to develop their ISO 14001/Environmental systems. However, this is still in the early stages of development. With the exception of SITA all of the other WMCs contacted (at the study outset) had not found that the construction industry was requesting carbon or other environmental data. It should be noted that this is however used as part of the sell to clients by the WMCs when providing guidance to use large containers for mixed waste or multi modal collection formats. As carbon becomes increasingly important as a measure of environmental performance, methodologies and emissions data describing the carbon footprint of CDEW processes and products are being developed on an ongoing basis. Existing tools developed to quantify the impact of different CDEW management strategies (e.g. the Net Waste tool and the Reverse Logistics model developed by Entec for WRAP) include calculations of carbon Waste Off-Site for Reprocessing 13

14 emissions, albeit these are subject to limitations on the number and range of management methods (transport and waste handling) that can be assessed. An issue to be considered going forward is that of standardising the methodologies for calculating carbon emissions, including the setting of appropriate system boundaries and carbon reporting timescales. Although not considered in detail here, should it be possible to liken the composition of CDEW to MSW/C&I waste streams then the Environment Agency s WRATE (Waste and Resources Assessment Tool for the Environment) tool could be used to evaluate the life cycle (Gate to Grave) impacts of construction waste management, including transport. Within the wider assessment of the carbon impacts of managing waste, the transport element is considered to be relatively small. The carbon-related waste research to date has therefore concentrated on the treatment and disposal phase of the waste life cycle. Only a small amount of research has been undertaken to determine the real impacts of the transportation of waste, and much of this is based upon standard road vehicles rather than purpose built refuse collection vehicles (RCVs). Carbon conversion factors also do not take account of the differing activities that form part of the daily operation of RCVs. Further research in this area would help to define the actual amounts of carbon produced by the logistics phase of waste collections, and thus set a baseline upon which targets could be determined for the waste management industry. This subject is explored further in the vehicle emissions trial report prepared under this study. 2.7 Examples of factors affecting logistics performance Within this sub-section we have summarised some of the factors cited by the stakeholders engaged on the project as having an impact on collection logistics performance, and perhaps driving changes to the way in which systems are operated in the future Load contamination Through our discussions with the WMCs, contamination of loads was felt to be a particularly topical issue, which led to debate on the effectiveness of site-based waste segregation. Several WMCs interviewed stated that many segregated containers on construction sites are actually moved as mixed loads due to observed levels of contamination, e.g. plastics in a wood container or glass in a container for plastics. The view of the WMCs interviewed was that mixed waste containers were generally easier to manage than segregated containers. This may indicate that containers targeting a range of recyclable materials (co-mingled) are more tolerant to site practices than dedicated material containers. However, this is dependent upon having a MRF outlet capable of effectively separating the materials such that they can be recycled, and measures to ensure non-recyclable materials are not deposited in the containers. The WMCs also mentioned that special wastes such as plasterboard and adhesives in either segregated or mixed skips caused loads to be refused (potential for an illegal deposit) from site resulting in time consuming and costly sorting exercises and additional transport costs. Special wastes should be segregated from these skips to be cost effective (a contaminated skip with special waste could cost up to 5 times more for disposal) and be compliant with legislation. It was also mentioned by several companies that canteen wastes should also be segregated due to the animal by-products regulations Market conditions At the time of this report being researched, the depressed recycling market meant that some materials which were historically viable to collect for recycling were unattractive financially (e.g. glass and cardboard). This was mentioned by several of the companies interviewed to be encouraging a greater use of mixed construction waste containers on construction sites. With the focus of this study being on transport, specific commentary on the impact of fuel price fluctuations has been provided. During 2008 the UK experienced an increase in fuel costs of 30%, with a litre of diesel increasing from less than 1.00 to 1.30 at retail pumps. Towards the end of 2008 however the cost of diesel returned to levels experienced early in 2008, before the increase. The actual costs of bunkered fuel varies slightly but the overall increase was around 30%. Given the uncertainty in the UK and indeed world markets, and also the slight increase in diesel costs in the early part of 2009, the efficient use of fuel has never been so important. In 2008 one WMC found the fuel bill increased from 12% of turnover to over 16% of turnover, directly affecting the profitability of the company. In addition to the above financial uncertainties there is the certainty that the landfill tax will continue to increase at a rate of 8.00 per tonne per annum up until By this time it will be per tonne for all active Waste Off-Site for Reprocessing 14

15 wastes. This is likely to continue to increase the cost of the landfilling of wastes to clients and will encourage improvements and entrepreneurial enterprise to develop the existing and new MRF and reprocessor infrastructure in the UK. It should be noted that the waste management market remains very competitive with numerous national and regional WMCs. This should keep the cost to the clients to a minimum, subject to increases passed on as a result of landfill tax and fuel price escalations discussed above Site Waste Management Plans (SWMPs) and segregation strategies The introduction of SWMPs (in England 3 ) has had an impact on how construction site managers consider waste. The requirement to provide a waste management plan for construction sites has, according to the WMCs interviewed, enabled the WMCs to become more involved with the management of wastes at some sites. This has also led to greater interactions between the construction company site managers and WMCs where the site managers are seeking advice on the most effective and efficient methods of managing waste. The more progressive WMCs are using this requirement for advice in combination with waste training, compliance and reporting to seek to add value and gain a competitive advantage. Of the five WMCs interviewed on this study four felt that SWMPs were part of the reason for an observed increase in segregation of construction wastes on site. Three of the WMCs also suggested that construction companies believe that greater recycling would occur with greater segregation. Indeed the quality of source segregated material can be higher than with mixed wastes, but not all construction sites have the space to be able to source segregate effectively and efficiently. There is also, according to the WMCs, a perception that mixed loads of construction wastes cannot be recycled and that this material would go to landfill. A mixed load of construction waste can achieve recycling rates in the order of 90 to 95% of the waste received at a MRF dependent on the separation technologies employed. The higher end of these recycling rates can be achieved when potential contaminants such as food waste are segregated at source. 2.8 Summary Under existing CDEW collection methods a range of approaches are adopted by WMCs to facilitate the removal of waste from construction sites. From our engagement activities on this study it has been shown that it is important to understand the changing composition and production profile of construction site waste so that the optimal collection service can be specified. In order to avoid half empty or overflowing containers from being removed from site the trigger for a collection tends to come from site. This then requires the WMC to integrate that request in to a schedule of work that makes optimum use of the available resources (vehicles, containers and drivers). On larger sites where there is a need for ongoing and regular collections then it is easier for the WMC to build this work in to an efficient schedule. The choice over whether to operate single mode (skip) or multi modal collections (where a number of pick ups are made on a round) depends on the nature of the sites being served by the WMC, space and waste production profiles on site, and the assets available to the waste service provider. As the sample figures have shown it can be difficult to compare the performance of one system versus another due to inconsistent pricing approaches and limited data. As site waste management practices change, costs of disposing of waste to landfill increase and the infrastructure and practices facilitating effective waste segregation improve, logistics arrangements need to change in response. Later sections of this report cover some of these issues, identifying how new approaches to managing CDEW collection logistics can help inform decision making and improve service performance. 3 SWMPs are a legal requirement for construction projects after the 6 th April 2008 and over an estimated 300,000. There is no legal requirement currently for SWMPs in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland but the use of SWMPs is encouraged. Waste Off-Site for Reprocessing 15

16 3.0 Developments in waste transport and collection logistics 3.1 Introduction This section of the report reviews the primary transport methods applicable to CDEW and presents details of emerging good practice and innovation in waste collection logistics. For road-based transport (as the primary method currently adopted) there has been a focus on initiatives to improve the performance of vehicles and how they are utilised. For rail and water applications the current status of these options and emerging opportunities are summarised through presentation of reference information on the subject. The second half of the section presents details of processes and technologies being developed to improve waste collection logistics planning and delivery, many of which have come from product supply logistics. 3.2 Transport by road The vast majority of CDEW is currently removed from sites via road, this being the most common transport method by which services and customers gain access to, and materials are removed from, construction sites in the UK. By their very nature CDE projects are temporary (albeit some can last a number of years), meaning that waste management arrangements are unlikely to be sufficient to warrant investment in dedicated material handling facilities for water or rail transfer. As mixed CDEW has historically been sent to landfill as the primary disposal route, the location of these sites has not typically facilitated transport of waste via means other than road (except perhaps in London where waste transfer infrastructure has been developed along the River Thames). The economic and environmental burden of moving CDEW between points of arising and treatment / disposal by road can be reduced through a number of methods. Examples of these include: maximising material payloads on vehicles thus minimising the number of trips required; improving scheduling / routing so that vehicles are efficiently utilised; adopting principles such as reverse logistics so that non-productive road miles (i.e. the element of journeys spent with empty vehicles) are reduced; and reducing unit emissions from vehicles used to transport waste, e.g. through use of electric, hybrid or alternative fuels such as biofuels and hydrogen. Considering the final point, as a result of the Government s Energy Review 4 a number of initiatives are in place to deliver safe, secure and sustainable energy supplies, and ultimately a low-carbon economy. The Low Carbon vehicle Partnership is one example of an initiative that is driving investment in this area, e.g. through Cenex (the low carbon and fuel technology Centre of Excellence). One of the trials undertaken on this project covers technology designed to reduce the unit operating emissions on vehicles, summary details of which are provided in the mini case study below. 4 The Government s current energy policy is set out in the Energy White Paper of May 2007 (Meeting the Energy Challenge: A White Paper on Energy, May 2007, DTI), building on previous work including the 2003 Energy White Paper and the Energy Review Report in Addressing emissions from transport is key to securing progress against the UK government s goal of cutting CO2 emissions by 60% by Waste Off-Site for Reprocessing 16

17 Box 1 Fitch Units Fuel Harmonics, UK/US Fuel Harmonics import catalysts (Fitch units) that are produced in the US. These can be fitted to combustion engines on anything from a lawn mower to a cruise ship. They can save between 4 and 8% fuel consumption and reduce emissions. They were invented and developed by the same scientist who invented the catalytic converter that is fitted as standard to cars. The units are cylindrical and the small ones are the size of a bumper tube of Smarties. They are also being fitted to boilers/power plants (CHP) on large housing developments in the US. They have been extensively trialled and are in widespread use in the States but are relatively new to the UK. UK engineers don't want to rely on US trials because the measured gains are more dramatic over there - because their fuels are not as clean as UK fuels. So the company is trialling their units in the UK and is just beginning to fit them to vehicle fleets. Further information on this technology is available in the MRF114 waste collection vehicle fuel efficiency trial report Use of alternative fuels Alternative fuels are subject to considerable interest and investment for both domestic and commercial transport applications, supported by an increasingly complex set of regulatory and market-based instruments. These include the 20 pence per litre fuel duty incentive on the use of biofuels for transport, and renewable energy and fuels obligations (including the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO)). Examples of vehicle and fuel innovations relevant to waste collection are provided below, covering biofuel and hybrid technologies. Biofuels / liquefied natural gas Increasingly, WMCs and wider waste management stakeholders are exploring options for converting biogas derived from landfill and anaerobic digestion facilities into liquid biofuels. This is considered to be an attractive proposition where biodegradable wastes are collected as it introduces scope for vehicles to be powered by the gas generated from the waste carried. The example below demonstrates this technology. Box 2 Production of Liquefied Biofuels Gas Rec, UK Gas Rec have developed a plant to clean up landfill gas and liquefy it and use it as a liquid biofuel. They have built a plant at Albury in Surrey on a SITA landfill site. The process consists of H 2 S removal, compression, drying, CO 2 removal, liquefying, storage and export as LBM liquid biomethane, which is essentially LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas). The process is expensive so it is not always easy to justify the capital expenditure against installing traditional gas engines. The main limitation is around securing source sites with sufficiently large volumes of biogas to make the investment in the conversion plant viable. It becomes more attractive if there is no electrical link to the grid or it is a large cost to make an electrical connection. During 2009 SITA trialled a duel-fuel RCV with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea in London. The six month trial which involved a vehicle running on 30-34% biomethane and 66-70% diesel is 12-18% more efficient than its diesel counterpart. The results indicate an equivalent drop in well-to-wheel 5 CO 2 emissions of 25-37%. For end users (fleet operators) there is a preference for compressed gas rather than liquefied fuel, on the grounds that it is much cheaper in terms of capex, but with comparable energy value (i.e. equivalent miles per gallon out of the gas). Hybrid technology Hybrid RCVs where traditionally-fuelled (diesel) engines are combined with an element of electric power are starting to emerge on the market, albeit they are not yet actively deployed in the UK or on CDEW applications. At the Pollutec trade show held in France at the end of 2008 a number of vehicle manufacturers demonstrated hybrid vehicles typically incorporating plug-in electro-hydraulic body/hopper options. There are also manufacturers of bin lifting systems that use electric power in order to deliver claimed benefits in terms of noise emissions and vehicle fuel efficiency over traditional systems. 5 For a description of this Life Cycle Assessment : Waste Off-Site for Reprocessing 17

18 The mini case study below demonstrates the use of diesel/electric hybrid RCVs. Box 3 Use of diesel/electric hybrid RCVs Renova, Sweden Renova, a commercially independent co-operative providing waste and recycling services in Sweden is one of the first operators to put diesel/electric RCVs into service. As a pre-production prototype the vehicle used by Renova incorporates a plug-in system applied to the lifting and compaction system for wheeled containers. The hybrid element goes beyond this in that the battery is also used to power the vehicle for short periods of stop/start motion until the diesel engine kicks in (charging the battery). Consistent with modern petrol hybrid cars the vehicle includes a flat screen information system in the cab containing information on the gross weight, number of bins lifted, CCTV. Noise impacts are significantly reduced and Renova are aiming for a 30 percent reduction in fuel usage. The vehicle is expected to be in full production and available for delivery in At the time of this report being published Veolia Environmental Services are trialling the use of a hybrid (diesel and electric) vehicle with Westminster City Council in London. The two year trial will test claims of the Geesink Norba vehicle (built by Volvo) delivering up to 30% lower fuel consumption Opportunities through green procurement Should the situation arise where non-inert CDEW is collected through greater integration with C&I (and ultimately domestic) waste collection services, additional benefits may be realised through Green Public Procurement requirements affecting waste collection vehicles and services. EU Green Public Procurement criteria, and the UK Sustainable Procurement Quick Wins standards developed to implement the requirements, include targets around exhaust gas and noise emissions as well as eco-driver training. Where services are outsourced there is also a requirement for annual fuel and emissions data to be provided. This is a requirement that companies may wish to adopt, where contract conditions applying to WMCs could be developed specifying certain standards to be met. Should construction companies move towards greater use of wheeled bins for waste containment then part-load collections on rounds with other customers and waste types could bring these outcomes forward. 3.3 Transport by rail and water For point-to-point movements of CDEW to be made by rail or water there is a requirement for loading facilities to exist in the proximity of the production site and the handling facility. Proposals for waste management facilities with water or rail head facilities are considered favourably by developers and regulators on sustainability grounds, however they are only viable in key locations along transport corridors where the infrastructure has the capacity to handle significant volumes of material. A number of research studies have been carried out in the UK considering the role of alternative transport media for waste management applications. Examples of these include STRAW (Sustainable Transport Resource and Waste) and the technical publication on Multi modal transport produced by the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management. A summary of these studies is provided in Table 3.1 below. Table 3.1 Transport of waste by rail and water reference studies Source / reference Research / reference summary STRAW (Sustainable Transport Resources and Waste) The focus of this landfill tax funded project (via Biffaward) is on the opportunities to co.uk develop an integrated network of Strategic Resource Recovery Facilities (SRRFs) in England and Wales, and how the movement of waste and materials between these facilities can be optimised. The STRAW project brings together inter-modal transport, integrated waste and resource management and spatial planning. The study report highlights that transporting waste solely by road is no longer sustainable as waste is likely to start travelling greater distances due to the move away from disposal via landfill. The transport infrastructure analysis carried out shows that there is a lot of potential in the utilization of the existing waterway network. Through the production of three position papers on the Carriage of Waste by Water, Road and Rail the project details examples of where the waterways and rail network are used for the transport of waste. The waste industry accounts for 6% of the heavy goods vehicle movement per annum in the UK according to the Waste Off-Site for Reprocessing 18

19 STRAW position on rail. The research highlighted that it would rarely be feasible to manage waste solely by road or rail, without an element of inter modal movement by road. It is important that standard size containers are used as indicated by STRAW reports. This is so the containers can be handled by standard equipment so that they can be easily transferred from one mode of transport to another. This needs to be taken into consideration when planning transport logistics on a construction site, although it is likely to be the case that an initial journey leg based on standard waste containers would be adopted, with onward bulk movement via road or rail from a strategically located waste transfer facility. CIWM report on intermodal transport Intermodal Transport for Wastes Management, CIWM, April 2003 Published in 2003 through a technical working group, this publication introduces the concept of multi modal transport as applied to waste. It provides useful background information on the subject covering issues such as legislation, health and safety, systems in development and case studies available at the time. For rail and water the publication discusses the national state of transport infrastructure and the operating constraints to be considered when planning movements via these media. Development of a multi modal Refuse Collection Vehicle for London Developing a Multi modal A development that integrates road with rail and/or water transport methods is the Refuse Collection System Transport for London (TfL) project to launch a Multi Modal Refuse Collection System for London, Transport for (MMRCV). This 2 year project involved the design of a new vehicle, with a sealed London freight unit, demountable (ISO container-type) body, and a number of trials evaluating the November 2008 vehicle application and associated infrastructure requirements and operating practices. The project has resulted in the development of a bespoke rear end loading vehicle and compaction unit with a slightly reduced payload when compared with equivalent RCVs collecting MSW (Municipal Solid Waste). The key benefit of the approach is that when full, containers can be demounted from the vehicle body and replaced with empty ones, theoretically at a point close to the collection round thus reducing collection mileage and downtime. Pending additional development work to make the containers compatible with existing water and rail container transfer facilities, the MMRCV opens up the opportunity to utilise combined road and water/rail transport routes for a range of waste streams (including CDEW collected in via multi modal containers). The potential application of the MMRCV concept to CDEW transport logistics is likely to be most successful in an urban context where sites use 660 or 1,100 litre wheeled containers. Areas where there are multiple CDE sites in relatively close proximity, each with regular waste collection needs, are also likely to benefit as collection rounds can be operated with container de-mounting at specified points. The economics of the process improve in areas that are remote from traditional transfer stations or MRFs meaning there is high downtime and mileage incurred at the points on the round when the vehicle becomes full. In order for the multimodel element to be taken up sites will need to be in relatively close proximity to rail or water bulkheads with crane / hoist facilities, providing access to downstream MRFs or reprocessors capable of handling the material collected. In addition to the above studies a number of local projects have considered multi modal transport options for waste. Examples include work funded by Sita Trust and carried out by British Waterways considering the feasibility of switching waste transport from road to water via the Lee navigation canal, and development-specific applications of multi modal transport such as Peel s intended development of a Resource Recovery Park at Ince Marshes. Further information on the proposed Peel facility is provided in the case study below. Waste Off-Site for Reprocessing 19

20 Box 4 Multi modal transport as part of the proposed Resource Recovery Park at Ince Marshes The Resource Recovery Park proposed by Peel Holdings at Ince Marshes, Cheshire is built around the concept of having a cluster of reprocessors in close proximity to one another thus creating value through economies of scale in transport and materials handling. The Ince Marshes development covers 100 hectares of land between the Manchester ship canal and the Ellesmere Port to Helsby railway line, both of which have existing bulk connection facilities. The site also has easy access to junction 14 of the M56. Amongst the materials identified as having market outlets in the region is reprocessed construction material (primarily wood), as well as recovered glass, plastics, WEEE, paper and tyres. On the basis that the economics of utilising rail and water transport is dependent upon sufficient volumes of material (more so than the distances the materials travel) the site appears well served in this regard. Major population centres in the North West have access to commercial water transport via the Mersey estuary, Manchester ship canal, Weaver navigation and sea ports at Seaforth and Irlam. The Greater Manchester authorities are already served by rail-based waste transport terminals (e.g. at Northenden, Bredbury and Dean Lane). Rail freight trains would most likely be hauled via Arpley yard, Warrington which acts as a hub for the EWS Enterprise service offering daily rail connections to major population centres. Developer Peel Holdings has a range of transport and land use interests, including multiple waste management options. The intention is to build an internal rail network linking the different activities and a new quay at the existing (redundant) bulk liquids berth. 3.4 Innovation in logistics planning The increasing costs of waste management (e.g. due to landfill tax) and legislation / commitments promoting greater levels of diversion from landfill is driving investment in new logistics infrastructure (including containers, vehicles and materials handling facilities). At the same time, the logistics of transporting multiple waste and resource streams (prompted by greater source segregation) has become more complex and expensive (e.g. linked to underlying rising costs of fuel) and market prices for recyclate have fallen during 2008/09. In order to remain competitive and to meet the changing needs of the construction sector, WMCs have started to adopt new technology and approaches to logistics planning. These changes have already started to apply to other areas of waste management, particularly where the costs are high or where legislation has driven change at a fast pace. Such conditions have been met in municipal solid waste management where operators (Local Authorities and WMCs) have been faced with the need to target multiple waste streams for recycling in order to meet statutory targets. In the following sub-sections a number of approaches and supporting technologies being adopted in waste management (not exclusively CDEW) are introduced, providing insight to how things might change in the future. The section starts with an overview of some of the key differences between product supply and waste collection supply chains. The waste management industry has typically looked to the material supply industry (through hauliers and supply chain management companies) for good practice and technology to support efficient logistics planning with practices historically operated in this areas such as double-shifting of vehicles now being applied in waste management. Because products in their new state have a much higher perceived value than waste at the end of its useful life, investment in material supply chains and making them as efficient as possible has been significant over the years. There is considerable and ongoing research in this area, with useful websites including the Department for Transport Freight Best Practice pages ( and academic work coming out of the Green Logistics project ( As recent innovations in the waste management sector have demonstrated (as discussed later in this section of the report) it is clear that there is much that can be learnt and transferred from product supply logistics systems by waste management operators. This will continue as the shift from waste to resource management occurs in the UK Comparing product supply and waste collection logistics practices Table 3.2 contains summary information on the primary supply chain activities for both product supply and waste collection, supported by commentary on how the construction sector is developing new practices to improve efficiency in these areas. Waste Off-Site for Reprocessing 20