Construction activities affect the environment in two ways. First, buildings change the appearance of the landscape, while altering the manner in which people interact with the environment. Second, the use of resources by the industry is staggering. It consumes 6500 ha of land and 260 million tonnes of minerals, and in doing so generates 70 million tonnes of waste. About 13 million tonnes of the latter comprises material delivered to site which is discarded without being used.
The more efficient the construction industry can be, the greater the degree of sustainability it will achieve. The built environment will become more efficient to operate, minimising the impacts on the natural world and maximising its contributions to society.
Occupants will value their surroundings more, with higher levels of satisfaction and work output. This means that getting the design right at the outset will minimise the need for further alterations or changes in a building’s life.
And it is the entire lifecycle of buildings that has become the focus of sustainability. Proposed amendments to Part L of the Building Regulations reflect this change in attitude. Rather than concentrating on construction, the amendments are seeking an holistic approach to environmental impact, with greater focus now being placed on building operation.
Government has previously tried to engage construction industry over sustainability, but with little success. This is often due to the conflict of sustainable needs and business achievements. A deliberate change in thinking has taken place and governments around the world have begun to think in a co-ordinated way. Legislation is being put forward in a harmonised basis, where taxes and legal responsibility for polluting are being used to affect the business case.
What sustainability means to you
For construction, the Government wishes to see an industry that is profitable and competitive, while delivering high levels of satisfaction and value to its clients. Government believes these goals can be brought about by fair treatment of construction industry staff. This should create more willingness to innovate in methods of reducing waste and energy consumption. It should also produce an industry with a greater social conscience.
To achieve these targets, construction must radically change the manner in which it engages with its clients. As whole life responsibility for a product increases, the demand for a contractor to offer a cradle to grave service will also rise. This could drive the corporate private finance initiative market, where a particular party handles responsibility of the system life, releasing any risk or responsibility of the user. Changes in Part L of the Building Regulations further support this idea.
More importantly, construction must work with its customers, ensuring that any project’s lifecycle will have minimal environmental effects. Best Practice research has shown that these actions include having definite social and environmental objectives written into the project brief. Innovative design and procurement arrangements also allow business benefits to be gained through good environmental performance.
The WEEE directive
On the 13 June the European Commission launched draft proposals for a new directive which will hold manufacturers and suppliers of electrical and electronic equipment responsible for the taking back, disassembly and reuse of all their products. This legislation is far reaching, for it affects anyone who supplies to the European market.
The regulations comprise two parts: Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulation (WEEE) and the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. It is part of the Integrated Product Policy (IPP) and is seeking a European- wide policy to sustainability in consumer goods.
WEEE looks specifically at the manufacturing and reprocessing of electrical equipment. It requires environmental-friendly manufacture, together with the development of a reprocessing strategy. The main driver behind WEEE was the increasing amount of electronic waste (e-waste). This waste is a cocktail of metals and toxins, including chlorinated and brominated substances, gases, metals, acids and plastics additives.
In 1998, six million tonnes of waste electrical and electronic equipment was generated. This is currently 4% of municipal waste. It is expected that this will increase by 4% each year for the next 12 y.
Currently 90% of a computer can be recycled, but less than 6% is reused. Producers will now have to assume life-cycle responsibility for their products.
Part two of the regulations demands that producers reduce the hazardous substances used in the product and its manufacture. Heavy metals like lead, mercury and cadmium must be phased out and and replaced with substitutes.
Recycling rates are also established for various products:
- 75% for large domestic appliances
- 65% for computer equipment
- 50% audio-visual equipment
- 70% cathode ray tubes
The principle of the directive is that the polluter pays. The design and manufacturing stages have the greatest opportunity to incorporate recycling. Manufacturers have long complained about the lack of fairness in sustainable design. By requiring all manufacturers to design for disassembly and reuse, they are all placed on an equal playing field, with greater innovation in design adding economic benefit. Manufacturers must link with waste recyclers to ensure a whole life design solution is developed.
Items that are currently covered by the directive include domestic heating and large cooling appliances; IT and telecommunications equipment, and monitoring and control instruments.
To be enforceable, each EU country will have to convert the directive into a specific piece of legislation, which may cause various problems. Differing national policies on the management of e-waste will hamper the effectiveness of recycling policies, which may create more cross-border movement of e-waste. The legislation will be enacted and enforced differently in all countries, imposing different burdens on producers depending on their manufacturing locations.
To minimise these problems the directive acts in a three-step way. First it seeks to prevent e-waste, second it encourages the reuse, recycling and recovery of waste, and third, it minimises the risks and impacts to the environment from the treatment and disposal of e-waste.
The directive will require a suitable legislation to be developed in the UK over the next two years, followed by a five year phase-in period. Since the 1990’s, Austria has had legislation on the take-back and recovery of lamps and white goods. Germany is in the final stages of enacting similar legislation. In Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden, local authorities are already responsible for the collection and recovery of most electrical and electronic equipment. By contrast, the UK is considerably behind in its legislative process.
What does all this mean to construction? Already rumours are beginning that the next target for Brussels will be the building industry. As manufacturers are now required to accept whole life responsibility for their products, we could witness a fundamental change in market strategy. Each component will require explicit detailing covering operation and maintenance, together with all necessary dismantling and recycling procedures. Instructions must also be included of how to provide notification to pick-up and reprocess components.
A full copy of the directive, together with various guideline documents on its practical application, can be obtained from the Industry Council for Electronic Equipment Recycling at www.icer.org.uk
Case study: recycling at Vent-Axia
The WEEE and EEE (Electric and Electronic Equipment) directives will have wide and varying effects. Manufacturer Vent-Axia believes that full compliance may cost up to 1% of its turnover. Some of this cost will be due to changing manufacturing processes to meet the requirement of banned metals. The use of lead-free solder will have a cost implication: circuit boards must be redesigned to take higher soldering temperatures. Vent-Axia believes the implications will continue down the supply chain. Each component supplier will have to provide detailed information on the part. This may include sensitive manufacturing and materials information which is often subject to unique patents or processes. The company’s Ian Andrews has been monitoring the progress of the directives. He believes that they have not been produced with a full understanding of the impacts and reactions to industry. Building services components are part of an anonymous system, with specific components difficult to track. The liability of a manufacturer for products is not totally clear. Vent-Axia produces products for other companies under different brand names and Ian questions the extent of a sub-manufacturers liability in these cases. He further queried the liability that a company will inherit if it takes over another. All of these issues will require companies to set aside money for take-back of existing products or future liabilities. This draining of funds could cause stifling of technical innovation or company development. Quality implications are also very complex. A system will need to be set up that will collect and redistribute waste economically and effectively, allowing the intended environmental benefits to be realised. A comprehensive industry already exists for the handling of scrap metals and a number of uses can be found for lower grade metals. The reuse and recycling of plastics is still in its infancy. Currently Vent-Axia uses 1-2% reground plastics in all its production with it being mainly used in low critical items like non-fire rated ductwork. Any part with a fire rating must have certified plastics quality. Regraded plastics material does not meet this stringent requirement. Andrews also queries what will be the possibility for reuse of component parts. Reuse could stifle technology and innovation through the use of dated component technology. Manufacturers could offer consumers incentives for cashing in equipment to increase the market churn, but this would be counter-productive to the legislation. The speed of banning is not in step with research into plastics reuse and design for disassembly or other parts of legislation. Ian questions what legislation will be put into place to control the standards maintained with those importing into Europe, as responsibility rests with the manufacturer and not the importer. Currently UK legislation is not conducive to this type of quality control, as it requires a complaint by HSE or Consumer Trading Standards before legal action can be mounted. Consequences of alternative types of manufacturing and materials could also seriously affect the purpose of the directive. Manufacturers are obliged to disassemble products, while phasing out of dangerous metals and other potentially harmful processes. Ian Andrews points out that it may be correct to ban mercury or cadmium, but alternatives may have other problems. He cites the example of the call to ban hfcs. The alternatives are isobutene or ammonia – one is highly explosive and the other highly toxic. Hence any legislation must respect the research required to ensure alternatives are completely safe. The legislation will have far reaching effects for Vent-Axia and the industry, but it is clear that several problems must be addressed by the Government when it converts the directive to legislation.Source
Building Sustainable Design
Postscript
Chris Marsh is the manager of the BSRIA Best Practice Programme. For further information contact 0845 606 5704.
