Full Document Text
Demolition Protocol
2008
2
About ICE
The Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) is a global membership organisation that
promotes and advances civil engineering around the world.
ICE is a leading source of professional expertise in transport, water supply and
treatment, flood management, waste and energy. Established in 1818, it has over
80,000 members throughout the world, including over 60,000 in the UK.
ICE’s vision is to place civil engineers at the heart of society, delivering sustainable
development through knowledge, skills and professional expertise.
About the Demolition Protocol 2008
The ICE Demolition Protocol was first launched in 2003 and has been subsequently
incorporated in planning guidance, as well as being implemented through the
support of a range of organisations including WRAP (the Waste and Resource
Action Programme).
The 2008 Demolition Protocol has been developed to provide an overarching
framework which enables the waste hierarchy to inform approaches for managing
buildings and structures at the end of their lives. There is more emphasis on the
need to assess the reuse of buildings, structures, elements and products prior to
demolition and recycling activities, recognising the carbon benefits of doing so.
The 2008 Protocol also provides an integrated approach to the development of
Site Waste Management Plans, with indicative targets described and approaches
which deliver major benefits to clients.
For more information on the background to the Protocol please contact
ICE communications at:
t +44(0)20 7222 7722
e communications@ice.org.uk
Acknowledgements
Steering Group
Nigel Mattravers (Chair), Director, Grant Thornton and ICE Waste Board
Lawrance Hurst, Consultant, Hurst Peirce & Malcolm and ICE Archives Panel
Jonathan Essex, Reclaimed Materials Manager, Bioregional Development Group
Research Team
Brian Menzies
David Hay, EnviroCentre Ltd
Nicola Gribble, EnviroCentre Ltd
ICE Staff Team
Andrew Crudgington
Faith Opio
Ed Horton
Vernon Hunte
Lisa Stopik
The steering group would also like to thank the organisations and individuals
from across the UK who provided input during the consultation phase of this
project.
Overview 4
Introduction 4
The target audience for the Protocol 5
What the Protocol does 6
How the target audience should use this document 7
Implementation 8
1. New build, demolition and early planning 8
2. Waste hierarchy approach 10
3. Building reuse/refurbishment audits and recovery
targets
12
4. Design: specifying reclaimed materials and value
engineering
13
5. Deconstruction and design audit 14
6. Reducing the carbon footprint 15
7. Material recovery planning: linking pre-demolition
audits with design assessments to incorporate
recycled content
16
8. Site Waste Management Planning – regulatory
compliance and the code for sustainable homes
19
9. Indicative targets for recycling 20
10. The cost benefits 22
11. Implementation through tender and contract clauses 23
12. Implementation as a planning requirement 24
13. Verification 25
14. The definition of waste 25
Appendices 26
ICE Demolition Protocol Checklist 27
Definitions 30
Table of contents
3
Introduction
The Demolition Protocol was launched by the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) in
November 2003 and has been adopted and implemented across a range of public and
private sector projects. Its use has been either required or recommended by a range
of mechanisms, including planning policy/conditions, tenders/contracts and voluntary
agreements.
This 2008 version puts greater emphasis on how the aims of the waste hierarchy can
be achieved. It describes the overarching implementation approaches for Materials
Resource Efficiency (MRE) associated with demolition and construction activities, with
a decision-making framework which emphasises the need to reuse, then recycle, with
landfill as a last resort.
The Demolition Protocol 2008 does not supersede the 2003 version, which continues
to be relevant for the detailed approaches it provides, plus the industry and policy
activity it examines in the UK and other parts of Europe at that time. The 2003 version
can be downloaded, along with this version, from the ICE website.
The proposal to develop a Demolition Protocol originally came from ICE’s Resource
Sustainability Initiative, with funding provided from landfill tax credits and ICE’s
Research and Development fund. The Protocol is effectively guidance made available
through ICE, with no Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) associated with its use and
adoption.
Since its launch it has been incorporated into many national and local planning
guidance documents, and been supported by WRAP (the Waste and Resources Action
Programme) in a number of ways, including the production of targeted audience
guides in 2004 and incorporation within the publication The Efficient Use of Materials
in Regeneration Projects, A Step by Step Guide. WRAP has also published a number
of case studies implementing the Protocol which are available on the website (www.
aggregain.org.uk/demolition/the_ice_demolition_protocol).
The appendix provides a checklist which should be followed to ensure compliance
with the Protocol. The checklist also sets out the steps for preparing a Site Waste
Management Plan, as well as those which will provide a delivery mechanism to
implement the waste hierarchy and minimise carbon footprints.
Overview
Figure 1. The first edition of the
ICE Demolition Protocol
was produced in 2003.
4
The target audience for the Protocol
The Protocol is principally aimed at policy-makers and client teams (the principal contractor in a
Site Waste Management Plan context). It sets out policy and overall development approaches for sites
where building/infrastructure reuse, demolition, stripping out and new build activities are planned. It
provides a tool which helps the client and management team (including cost advisers) to make early
considerations of potential resources available from buildings and infrastructure. Its potential is most
effectively achieved when used as a tool for cost and environmental management.
The Protocol enables connections to be made with new build activities on the same site (or in
neighbouring sites) by providing a framework for the reuse of buildings, infrastructure, products etc.
It also helps to deliver more sustainable processes by establishing quantities and targets for recovering
materials, as well as identifying the potential for procuring recovered materials in the new build.
Managing resources in this way delivers both environmental and cost benefits, as well as providing
a Site Waste Management Plan. In England this can demonstrate compliance with regulations or the
requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes. In the other UK nations the Protocol can assist in the
delivery of good practice and planning guidance, as described in section 12 of this document.
The fact that the Protocol is pro-active and not retrospective forms an important part of its
methodology. It requires fundamental project management issues to be considered from the project
outset, with a target setting process which follows the careful consideration of options and costs. The
checklist shown in the appendix assists the user in identifying how implementation of the Protocol
demonstrates compliance with good practice, regulations or other schemes.
Ownership of demolition material and MRE
Opportunities to maximise MRE on demolition and regeneration projects are heavily influenced by the
way tenders and contracts are arranged to give ownership of bulk materials produced. The demolition
industry is an innovative one and already demonstrates high levels of recovery. Demolition contractors,
when given this ownership, without conditions, will rightly seek the best available price in the market
place and manage/recover materials accordingly.
However, this approach may not necessarily serve the overall best interests of the client, or maximise the
environmental benefits in terms of avoiding haulage movements or encouraging the use of what could be
higher value reclaimed materials. These are lost opportunities, from the client’s perspective; particularly
when materials and products can be either recovered for use on the same site, or on another nearby site.
In such circumstances significant additional cost savings and
environmental benefits can be made by planning ahead and
coordinating the movement of material and products to meet
potential demand. Environmental benefits can therefore be
realised through reductions in vehicle movements and the
distances that materials are transported. Additionally, the
reuse of products leads to lower carbon footprints than
disposal, recycling and the use of new products (even
products with significant recycled content).
Figure 2. Recycled aggregates 5
What the Protocol does
This 2008 version of the Protocol provides overarching methodologies which:
Explain the role of policy-makers and the client team in delivering cost benefits, ■
by adopting the Protocol
Ensure that the principles of the waste hierarchy are adopted in the decision- ■
making process for evaluating buildings, the fit out materials and structures
Offer a process-driven approach to setting targets for deconstruction, ■
reclamation and reuse
Provide a Deconstruction/Demolition Recovery Index (DRI) – this is the ■
percentage of building elements, products or materials to be reused or recycled
Estimate bulk quantities through a pre-demolition audit, summarised in a ■
Demolition Bill of Quantities (D-BOQ)
Provides a new build recovery index (NBRI) – describing the percentage of ■
building elements, products or materials recovered for use in the new build
Demonstrate compliance with Site Waste Management Plan requirements ■
Describe how carbon benefits, through avoided haulage movements, can be ■
realised and estimated easily
Provide data for in-house and local authority monitoring of annual construction ■
and demolition waste arisings.
The 2003 version of the Demolition Protocol referenced a mechanism for driving the
supply and demand of recovered materials (reused and recycled). This mechanism is
shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Supply–demand mechanism from the 2003 protocol
Increasing supply of recovered material
Driving demand for material
Demolition
Pre-demolition audit
Bill of quantities
Managing segregated
material
Target setting
Evidence of compliance
Planning guidance,
contractual conditions
Driving procurement of
recovered material
Driving approaches of
demolition
New build
Design assessment
Supplier assessment
Target setting
Evidence of Compliance
6
It summarises the approach of the Protocol in terms of its influence on the supply and demand side of
demolition and construction projects. This indicates that policy-makers and client teams are at the heart of the
process, with contractors then working to deliver overarching objectives.
This 2008 version of the Protocol goes further by describing an approach which entails policy-makers and client
teams adopting practices to ensure that building/infrastructure reuse, deconstruction and the use of reclaimed
materials are at the heart of decision-making processes. Only once these have been given full consideration
should recycling opportunities be taken forward. These processes/practices are reflected in the diagram shown
in Figure 4.
Figure 4 therefore describes a set of overarching methodologies which allow the objectives of the waste
hierarchy to be delivered and, as in the 2003 version the Protocol, requires monitoring and verification of
performance. These approaches are described in the implementation sections of this document. A checklist is
provided in the appendix to summarise the data and steps required.
How the target audience should use this document
The target audience (policy-makers, clients and construction supply chain) may find benefit in reading the full
document to ensure a detailed understanding of the approach. Each of the following implementation sections
of this document begin by identifying the target audience (policy-makers and the construction supply chain)
which may find the information and approaches most relevant.
Figure 4. The 2008 ICE Demolition Protocol – requiring the adoption of practices which ensure
that building reuse, deconstruction and material reclamation have been considered
Providing reuse and recycling options for existing buildings/infrastructure,
products and materials
Driving the potential to incorporate reused products and recycled materials
Building reuse
or new build
Design assessment to
incorporate reused
products or recycled
materials
Supplier assessment
Target setting
Evidence of Compliance
Planning guidance,
contractual conditions
Setting sustainable
construction/procurement
requirements
Reuse of building elements
and products required
where possible
Procurement of recovered
(reclaimed/recycled)
material reqired
Assessment of existing
buildings/infrastructure
Audit
Options assessed for reuse,
deconstruction and
recycling
Development of planl
Target setting
Evidence of compliance
7
1. New build, demolition and early planning
Key Target Audience: Policymakers, clients and project managers
The most effective point for considering the opportunities represented by existing
buildings and infrastructure in a regeneration project is at the initial feasibility and
outline design stages. At this point, cost and environmental benefits can be realised
most effectively by undertaking appraisals to understand the potential for reusing
existing infrastructure/buildings, followed by the reuse of products/components and
then recycling.
The responsibility for ensuring that the above opportunities are fully maximised lie
with the client and project management team. The starting point in a project feasibility
assessment has to include consideration of building/infrastructure reuse, deconstruction
and reclamation delivered through the client setting this as a requirement for the
project management team. An important consideration in this respect, though not
within the scope of the Protocol at this point, is consideration of how design approaches
can extend the life of buildings in the future, to support their reuse.
The timescales associated with most construction and demolition projects are such
that there will be sufficient time to plan MRE approaches. When larger projects are
involved their timescales will, more often than not, allow even more opportunities to
undertake the required forward planning.
Unless these early project planning considerations take place there can be little
certainty that the most cost and resource efficient approach is being taken forward.
Deconstruction may often be a limited opportunity if, as is currently often the case,
the building/infrastructure being considered was not designed for deconstruction.
However, there may often be opportunities which an audit will bring to light, that may
have otherwise been unclear.
For example, the recovery of bricks may be possible because lime-based mortar makes
separation and reclamation much simpler than predominantly cement-based mixes. In
addition, reclamation of fit out items, plant and equipment may provide an income
or cost neutral opportunity, for example where functioning air conditioning plant,
architectural features, steel framing, floorboards and timber joists etc can be recovered.
However, if audits to assess this potential are instigated late in the development process
then other pressures associated with the project will dominate and these opportunities,
which require more time than traditional demolition approaches, will be lost.
The recycling of demolition arisings, such as concrete and brick, to produce recycled
aggregates is now a mainstream activity usually driven by the cost benefits to be made.
However, client teams still do not often consider establishing the quantity of bulk
materials which could arise and linking this to an overall site materials management
plan – one which identifies where recycled aggregates can be re-processed on-site (or
nearby) and used for a variety of applications.
Implementation
8
Understanding the likely demand and supply of materials for a site, particularly a complex scheme
with a number of phases, will allow the client team to decide if ownership of demolition arisings is
their preferred approach, with tenders and contracts then set out to reflect this. The subsequent plans
developed will identify if there are locations for the storage and reprocessing of materials on-site.
Early planning is fundamental to any organisation that aims to demonstrate it is behaving in an
environmentally friendly manner, and which wants to create measurable reductions in its carbon
footprint by implementing improved practices. A clear example of this is the reduction in vehicle
movements achieved by eliminating or reducing the quantities of materials hauled to and from the site.
Figure 5. Aerial view of the Glasgow Harbour regeneration,
where Demolition Protocol approaches have led to hundreds of
thousands of tonnes of material remaining on-site and being
recycled. 9
Figure 6. Flowchart of
decision-making steps
for assessing the most
sustainable approach to
redevelopment
2. Waste hierarchy approach
Key Target Audience: Policymakers, clients and project managers
The Egan Review in 2004 (Skills for Sustainable Communities) described how
government should incentivise progress that enables the construction of:
“....developments that achieve carbon emissions and waste minimisation standards
consistent with a sustainable one planet level within, say eight years.”
The earlier 1998 review Rethinking Construction described how whole life costing and
value engineering required a new approach. The Waste Strategy for England 2007
identifies the benefits associated with reuse in terms of carbon. The Strategy gives the
example of how the:
“…substitution of locally-sourced reclaimed materials for new in construction work can
radically reduce the lifecycle environmental impact of that particular item, with use of
reclaimed timber estimated as having a 79% lower impact compared to new.”
As such the Protocol requires the partnering, innovation and one planet thinking
of the 2004 Egan report, responding to the call to increase the reuse of products as
mentioned in the England Waste Strategy. Actions which deliver the waste hierarchy
are called for in strategy and policy documents from all of the devolved governments
of the UK.
A building/infrastructure considered to have reached the end of its useful life can be
assessed following the method shown in the flowchart in Figure 6. This takes a client
and project management team through a process which ensures that the priorities
advocated by the waste hierarchy have been considered and form a part of the
decision-making process. The viability of approaches advocated by the waste hierarchy
(waste minimisation being the first priority) will be considered when following this
process -- in terms of cost impacts/benefits, health and safety, logistics (eg is there the
space required) and the potential to deliver wider environmental benefits.
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
Has an appraisal
indicated that the
building and/or
infrastructure can
be reused
Does a
reclamation audit
identify any reuse
opportunities for
fit out items?
Implement
reclamation
methodology - soft
strip remaining
materials
Is there a
cost effective
deconstruction
opportunity for
the structure
Consider reuse/
refurbishment
options to produce
the least amount
of waste in a cost
effective manner
Implement
demolition
methodology
Implement
deconstruction
methodology
10
A key consideration in terms of the above is that although a building or infrastructure may have
reached the end of its life, many of its elements, products/components have not.
This decision-making process therefore reflects the aspirations of the waste hierarchy as shown in
Figure 7, where the most sustainable approach involves building/infrastructure reuse followed by
deconstruction, then demolition. This hierarchy will drive (i) waste minimisation activities through
in situ building element/product reuse (ii) reclamation and the reuse of products ex situ, and (iii)
recycling or heat recovery.
Landfill is shown as the least preferred option, one which will become increasingly unwelcome as
environmental and cost pressures grow. The flowchart above and summary table below should be
used to demonstrate that the waste hierarchy has been considered when developing regeneration
approaches to buildings and infrastructure. The mechanisms and considerations required when
following the flowchart and hierarchy are described in the sections following this one.
Table 1. Summary table for the waste hierarchy decision-making process.
Consideration Stage Mechanism Outcome which demonstrates viability
Building / infrastructure
reuse
Feasibility Design and cost appraisal. Space, integrity, aesthetics, and
refurbishment costs satisfactory.
Reclamation of internal –
fit out products
Outline design Reclamation and design
audit to assess potential
for recovering internal/fit
out products for reuse.
Opportunities for reuse in situ and
ex situ identified, ie market potential
is good.
Deconstruction Outline design Audit to assess the
potential of the structure
for reuse.
Elements of structure identified
which can be reused in situ or ex
situ, ie market potential is good.
Demolition Outline design Pre-demolition audit to
assess recycling options.
Recovery targets for recycling, in situ
and ex situ set.
Demolish
Deconstruct
Reuse
Reuse in situ
Reclaim
Reuse ex situ
Landfill
Recycle/recover (heat)
Buildings and infrastructure
Materials and components
Figure 7. Waste hierarchy and delivering MRE
11
3. Building reuse/refurbishment audits and recovery targets
Key target audience: Policymakers, clients and project managers
The reuse of buildings and structures (or part of them) not only provides
environmental benefits, but an opportunity to take advantage of the legacy that
such reuse offers – maintaining heritage and connections between past, present
and future generations. This social and aesthetic opportunity sits well with the
environmental benefits to be realised from reuse. There are a number of initiatives,
papers and research documents published on the pros and cons of reusing buildings
in preference to demolition.
In the UK, the Code for Sustainable Homes, BREEAM, and EcoHomes (Scotland
only) refer to Site Waste Management Plans as a way of demonstrating responsible
behaviour. Credits are given for the reuse of elements and products.
In the US the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Green Building
Rating System provides credits on the basis of a percentage of the existing building
structure (including structural floor and roof decking) and envelope (exterior skin and
framing) being maintained (excludes window assemblies and non-structural roofing
material). Credits are awarded for different scales of retention, for example at 75%,
with more credits for 95% reuse.
These percentages refer to area (m2) being considered. The approach also extends
to interior non-structural elements where 50% of existing materials (interior walls,
doors, floor coverings and ceiling systems) should be reused. These levels of retention
can be described within the Protocol terminology as the New Build Recovery Index
(NBRI), describing the percentage of the building (by area) which is reused.
Where such an approach (a building reuse/refurbishment audit) can be demonstrated
as having been employed for a project, the ICE Demolition Protocol can be considered
to have been implemented. Above 75% reuse of the building structure and envelope
will demonstrate compliance with the Protocol and for interior elements reuse of
50% or more will demonstrate compliance. In terms of the Protocol, the remaining
features described in this document can therefore be considered and implemented to
continue adding value.
12
4. Design: specifying reclaimed materials and value engineering
Key target audience: Policymakers, clients, project managers and construction supply chain
The UK construction industry has in recent years seen enormous investment in both awareness-raising
and capital equipment to increase recycling knowledge and infrastructure for processing construction
wastes. The reclamation industry has not witnessed a comparable level of investment, with the result
that the ambitions of the waste hierarchy are not being supported, and opportunities to minimise CO
2
emissions are being lost. This Protocol provides an overarching framework that requires innovative
partnering methods to deliver more sustainable approaches to regeneration projects.
Where the refurbishment or deconstruction/demolition of a building is being considered the principal
contractor should be required to demonstrate that the potential for reusing structures, components etc
has been explored effectively, as described in section 3. Where there is no opportunity to follow this
approach, or where the project will result in a new build, the contractor should be asked to demonstrate
that more than 5% reclaimed materials, by value, have been procured for the new development. These
could come from (i) the building demolished on the site (ii) a building earmarked for refurbishment/
demolition at another site or (iii) from reclamation yards/traders. This would be described in terms of
a NBRI of more than 5%, using the Protocol’s terminology, and identified separately as a reclamation/
reuse performance indicator.
The use of reclaimed products from a building/structure demolished on the same site could potentially
make for an attractive option in terms of the cost benefits and environmental sustainability. To enable
this to happen, the principal contractor would need to consider the following:
The type, quality, measurability and quantity of items with reclamation potential ■
Identify removal methods, with associated recovery rates (ie accounting for damage) ■
Additional staff time required ■
Identify a storage area for the materials. ■
In terms of the last point, support for establishing storage space (reclamation yards) could be considered
by local authorities, to assist with temporary requirements across the duration of a regeneration project.
Although on a large scale, the success of a site such as the Heathrow Consolidation Centre may be worth
considering in this context. This centre, providing an area for the stockpiling of construction materials
and packaging waste, has been described as providing an opportunity to manage stock more effectively,
with environmental benefits realised through reduced numbers of vehicle movements.
13
5. Deconstruction and design audit
Key target audience: Project managers and construction supply chain
Deconstruction of buildings is viable if their construction lends itself to being
taken apart, which will apply particularly if this option was included as part of the
original design approach. Buildings should be assessed to establish if this is the
case, or if there are aspects of the design which would suit this. A deconstruction
audit should provide a Deconstruction Recovery Index (DRI) -- a percentage which
describes, in terms of area (m
2
), how much of the structure, cladding, flooring/
ceiling elements etc is capable of being dismantled without significant risk of
damage. This DRI can then be used to develop a deconstruction target.
The Scottish Ecological Design Association (SEDA), with Scottish Government
support, has produced guidance on Design and Detailing for Deconstruction
(www.seda2.org) which can be freely accessed online or in pdf format. CIRIA has
also produced the publication Design for Deconstruction -- Principles of Design to
Facilitate Reuse and Recycling, which can be purchased from the CIRIA bookshop.
Designers should use the principles described as a core part of their design approach.
The New Build Recovery Index (NBRI) can then be used as a way of future proofing
the potential for recovering components once the building comes to the end of its
life. The NBRI can be expressed as a percentage of structural, cladding, flooring/
ceiling elements which are able to be deconstructed.
Figure 8. A steel-framed structure being deconstructed
14
6. Reducing the carbon footprint
Key target audience: Policymakers and clients
From a waste minimisation and management perspective, activities which lead to reductions in the
carbon footprint of developments will often be those which implement the waste hierarchy. Carbon
footprinting in the context of the ICE Demolition Protocol therefore focuses on this in terms of
encouraging the reuse of materials, as well as emphasising the importance of minimising associated
haulage movements ie there are significant CO
2
savings to be made by managing resources in a joined
up way, planning ahead in terms of using the resources which arise on site and avoiding unnecessary
material and product movements.
Using DEFRA’s Guidelines for Company Reporting on Greenhouse Gas Emissions, or WRAP’s CO
2
Estimator Tool, it is possible to determine the avoided impacts of minimising vehicle movements and
CO
2
emissions for different management options related to demolition arisings. To demonstrate this,
take the example of a 20-tonne payload (articulated) vehicle, which could be expected to deliver
a performance of around eight miles per gallon of diesel, or 1.7 miles per litre. With 2.63 kg of
CO
2
produced per litre of diesel, this translates to 1.55 kg of CO
2
emissions per mile.
As an example of the benefits to be realised, 1,000 tonnes of demolition material retained on-site rather
than hauled to a recycling facility (or to landfill), would avoid approximately 50 vehicle movements.
For a haulage distance of 10 miles (return journey of 20 miles) this avoids 1,550 kg (1.55 tonnes) of
CO
2
emissions. However, the overall benefit is greater than this because these site-won recycled materials
substitute for the need to import materials to site. If the haulage distance for imported materials were
also to be 10 miles then the overall saving is 3,100 kg of CO
2
. This approach to measuring CO
2
. savings
should be reported with the Demolition Protocol outputs.
Section 2 of this document refers to the Waste Strategy for England, with benefits quoted in terms of
avoiding CO
2
emissions by reusing materials. This can be elaborated on by considering the example of
a concrete framed building. The CO
2
emissions associated with the manufacture of new cement, the
production of aggregates and steel, and the haulage emissions involved in delivering materials to site
can all be avoided through reuse of the structure. The same scenario applies for cladding, flooring,
fit out items etc. Haulage apart, it is also reasonable to consider that construction products which are
recycled, or have a high recycled content, will normally be produced using less energy than that required
for primary materials (which include extraction processes) again providing CO
2
savings.
However, there are often differences in the outputs of various carbon footprinting tools used to
quantify the extent of CO
2
savings associated with reclamation and recycling. For example, wide-ranging
carbon footprinting approaches are not considered in this version of the Protocol. The assumption is
that, generally speaking, the adoption of approaches which maximise reuse, followed by recycling, will
ensure that CO
2
emissions are minimised.
Figure 9. Reclaimed steel section
15
7. Material recovery planning: Linking pre-demolition audits
with design assessments to incorporate recycled content
Key target audience: Clients, project managers and construction supply chain
7.1 Pre-demolition audit
A pre-demolition audit can take place either in parallel to a reclamation audit or
separately. Its aim is to identify the key building and infrastructure materials which
will arise from demolition and excavation works. This typically provides most value
by establishing the bulk quantities available on site, as well as the potential for
recovering value from timber, steel, etc for recycling. It also provides information on
contaminated materials, if present, which it will not be possible to recover.
Information can be provided in a format which suits the requirements of Site Waste
Management Plans, as described later in this section. Volumes/tonnages are estimated
for materials and recovery targets set as a percentage and quantity of materials. This
target is the DRI (Demolition Recovery Index) and can be set on the basis of standard,
good and best practice (see section 9: Indicative targets for recycling).
This description of different standards for target setting is a new addition to the
Protocol, informed by case studies and experience implementing the Protocol.
Information is then summarised in a Demolition Bill of Quantities (D-BOQ), an example
of which is shown in the table below. This demonstrates that a good practice recycling
target of 95% for concrete items has been set.
Table 2. Demolition Bill of Quantities (D-BOQ) example
*The recovery potential identified here is recycled concrete aggregates (RCA)
Recovery
Potential
Units Total
Material
Weight
(Tonnage)
Demolition
Recovery
Index (DRI)
Good Practice
Demolition
Recovered
Material
Potential
(Tonnage)
Concrete Components
Blocks RCA* 20,000 100 95% 95
Ceiling
soffits
RCA 20 10 95% 9.5
Floor slabs RCA 1,000 1,000 95% 950
Foundations RCA n/a 200 95% 190
Totals 1,310 95% 1,244
16
Figure 10. Planning ahead and producing
a Demolition Bill of Quantities will
deliver cost and environmental benefits
Figure 11. The Wembley Link project,
through implementation of the Protocol
resulted in 75% of unbound aggregates
coming from recycled sources
This is an important step in the design and costing process because it establishes the potential for recycling
demolition materials either on site, or for recovery at a recycling facility. A statement should be made
describing the use for recycled materials, on or off site, with the details of any waste management or haulage
contractors involved. In the WRAP Regeneration Guide the percentage of material recovered for use on the
same site has been classified as the Retained Material (RM) Index. This approach could also be followed here.
Taking the kind of example shown above, demolition arisings may be assessed in terms of their potential for
use as a recycled aggregate, with a site layout plan showing where reprocessing equipment and storage areas
should be located. To assist the process of estimating the quantity of waste, guidance and tools have been
established by organisations such as WRAP and BRE (SMARTWaste).
7.2 Design assessment
Linked to the demolition planning, the Demolition Protocol provides a framework for describing the quantities
of materials to be procured in the new build and the potential for recycled materials to substitute for primary
materials. Data is summarised in the New Build Bill of Quantities (NB-BOQ), with the percentage of materials
which could be procured from recycled sources identified as the New Build Recovery Index (NBRI).
The NBRI does not form the target, which is instead developed by the design team carrying out an appraisal
of recovered materials, following the three key considerations: (i) are they cost neutral or lower cost? (ii) can
they meet the quality requirements? (iii) what quantity can be supplied? The Protocol NB-BOQ was originally
established to include quantities of recycled/reused materials for internal/fit out applications. To date, the
NB-BOQ has been most commonly used to describe the potential for using recycled bulk materials such as
aggregates, concrete, soils etc.
17
Table 3. Example of New Build Bill of Quantities (NB-BOQ)
* Target is determined from consultation with reprocessors and construction product suppliers
Materials Vol
(m
3
)
Total
Material
Weight
(tonnes)
Coarse
Aggregate
Weight
(tonnes)
Recycled
Material
Allowed
%
New Build
Recovered
Material
Potential
(tonnes)
New Build
Recovered
Material
Index (NBRI)
New Build
Recovered
Material
Target
(tonnes)
Aggregates for
In situ Concrete
958 2,299 1,173 20 235 10% 118
Type 1 road
sub-base
1,000 1,500 1,500 100 1,500 100% 1,500
TOTALS 3,799 1,735 46% 1,618
New Build Recovery Index (NBRI) % = Recovered material potential/Total tonnage = 46%
For users who wish to look at the full range of recycled content in a new build (eg
including internal, fit out components etc) reference should be made to WRAP’s
publication A Step by Step Guide – The Efficient Use of Materials in Regeneration
Projects (www.wrap.org.uk/construction/). This allows the user to integrate the
Demolition Protocol with WRAP’s Recycled Content Toolkit, which describes recycled
content potential by construction value for all materials.
The NB-BOQ example below summarises bulk material quantities for two applications
to demonstrate the approach. A much wider range of applications and materials would
normally be recorded in this format.
The table identifies that specifications allow a total of 46% (the NBRI) of materials
to be procured from recovered sources. However, for the target setting process to be
realistic it has to be set following the three key considerations outlined earlier. In the
example shown, the target set means that all of the sub-base (1,500 tonnes) will come
from recycled sources, and half of the allowable recycled aggregates or in situ concrete
(118 tonnes) will be specified.
Linking this with the earlier demolition example, 1,244 tonnes of the 1,735 tonnes of
new build recovered material potential could potentially be supplied from reprocessed
demolition arisings. This would avoid hauling 1,244 tonnes from site, as well as the need
to import the same amount. This provides carbon savings as well as avoiding a significant
number of vehicle movements.
18
8. Site Waste Management Planning –
regulatory compliance and the Code for Sustainable Homes
Key target audience: Policymakers, clients, project managers and construction supply chain
Site Waste Management Plans (SWMPs), at the time of writing, are only a regulatory requirement in
England (for projects above £300,000), with different approaches adopted in the other UK nations. For
example in Scotland SWMPs are promoted through Scottish Planning Policy 10 (SPP10) – Planning for
Waste Management.
In England, the original guidance produced by the DTI on SWMPs, as a voluntary requirement,
identified the ICE Demolition Protocol as a way of delivering the required data. Subsequent legislative
requirements (Site Waste Management Plan Regulations 2008) require a number of additional features
to be incorporated. Following the checklist shown in the appendix will assist with compliance of the
SWMP regulations, as well as adding value by considering the waste hierarchy, target setting and
reducing carbon footprints, as described elsewhere in this document.
SWMPs, from a regulatory perspective, do not require a target to be set for recovering demolition
arisings. However, target setting, as required by the Protocol adds an extra dimension which can deliver
cost savings and more integrated project management. These aspects of the Protocol will be of value
across the UK, in terms of delivering more sustainable outcomes and transparency.
The Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) applies to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but at time of
writing not to Scotland. It requires that SWMPs state a target for recovering wastes. However, the Code
is not prescriptive in terms of the level of target to be set. This 2008 version of the Demolition Protocol
provides standard, good and best practice targets, as summarised in the following section, which can be
used by project teams when producing a CSH SWMP.
Following the checklist, as mentioned above, enables compliance with the CSH requirements. The
checklist also summarises the monitoring approach required and therefore allows the user to demonstrate
how performance compares with the targets set.
The CSH has a number of non-mandatory elements for SWMPs, with the minimisation of construction waste
resulting in two credits being awarded as part of the overall scoring scheme. The requirements involve
confirmation that an obligation will be made to (i) reduce construction waste and (ii) divert waste from
landfill. Two checklists in the CSH technical guide must be completed (checklists 2b and 2c) to demonstrate
compliance.
The Demolition Protocol can provide sufficient evidence that construction waste is being reduced on site and
that waste is being diverted from landfill eg by recycling and reusing demolition material on the same site.
Table 3. Example of New Build Bill of Quantities (NB-BOQ)
* Target is determined from consultation with reprocessors and construction product suppliers
Materials Vol
(m
3
)
Total
Material
Weight
(tonnes)
Coarse
Aggregate
Weight
(tonnes)
Recycled
Material
Allowed
%
New Build
Recovered
Material
Potential
(tonnes)
New Build
Recovered
Material
Index (NBRI)
New Build
Recovered
Material
Target
(tonnes)
Aggregates for
In situ Concrete
958 2,299 1,173 20 235 10% 118
Type 1 road
sub-base
1,000 1,500 1,500 100 1,500 100% 1,500
TOTALS 3,799 1,735 46% 1,618
New Build Recovery Index (NBRI) % = Recovered material potential/Total tonnage = 46%
19
9. Indicative targets for recycling
Key target audience: Project managers and construction supply chain
The indicative targets provided here are for materials recovered from demolition for
recycling, rather than for materials/components to be reused. Target setting for the
reuse of buildings, deconstruction and reclamation follows a different approach as
set out in previous sections (by identifying the area (m
2
) of a building/structure to be
reused/deconstructed etc).
Case study results from implementing the Demolition Protocol indicate that close to
100% recycling performance can be achieved for concrete and masonry where a soft
strip process has removed materials/wastes that would be considered contamination. In
addition, work carried out by WRAP (Waste Recovery Quick Wins, 2007) has resulted in
standard (baseline), Quick Wins (good practice) and best practice recovery rates being
established for different wastes from construction and demolition projects.
This information complements data gained from Demolition Protocol case studies, with
the results summarised in the table 11, opposite. These DRIs can be specified by client
teams, principal contractors etc, as a way of requiring minimum levels of performance.
Other wastes are referenced in the WRAP publication, but apply to a construction site
context rather than to demolition (see Table 12). With careful consideration and detailed
soft strip approaches these targets could also be set for a demolition project, but it is
recommended that this would follow detailed consultation with a demolition contractor.
The WRAP report also provides recovery rates for insulation, hazardous materials and
electrical equipment. However, no targets can be provided in a demolition context
until more data is secured from case studies.
More information on good practice in waste minimisation and management is
provided on the WRAP website at: www.wrap.org.uk/construction/construction_waste_
minimisation_and_management/good_practice_wmm.html
20
Table 11. Potential demolition recovery indices/targets
Material Standard DRI % Good practice DRI % Best practice DRI %
Concrete 75 95 100
Ceramics (eg masonry
such as bricks)
75 85 100
Metals 95 100 100
Timber 57 90 95
Inert (eg subsoils) 75 95 100
Table 12. Summary of recovery rates from construction (not demolition) sites
Material Standard DRI % Good practice DRI % Best practice DRI %
Plasterboard 30 90 95
Plastics 60 80 95
Furniture 0-15 25 50
Figure 12: Reclaimed timber
21
10. The cost benefits
Key target audience: Clients and project managers
Demolition Protocol case studies consistently demonstrate the cost savings to be
realised by adopting this approach. Cost savings in case studies have been achieved
through:
Avoiding haulage costs associated with exporting material from site for ■
reprocessing and/or landfill
Avoiding haulage costs associated with the reuse of site-won material instead of ■
importing material
The lower costs associated with using recycled instead of primary aggregates ■
(primary aggregates incur a £1.95/tonne levy)
The reuse of reclaimed items with significant value such as mechanical plant, ■
carpets, flooring, tiles, bricks etc.
Case studies commissioned by WRAP, involving implementation of the Protocol,
identified the following cost savings:
Glasgow City Council, Schools Regeneration Programme (2006): The Council ■
stated that £150,000 was saved by substituting (for primary aggregates) site-won,
reprocessed demolition arisings. This was the result of market price differentials, as
well as through avoided haulage movements of materials, either to intermediate
sites for reprocessing, or to landfill. 12,500 tonnes of reprocessed demolition
arisings were retained on different sites for reuse, with 7,000 tonnes exported
following a carefully produced project plan
London Borough of Brent Council, the Wembley Stadium Access Corridor (2006): A ■
conservative estimate of £23,910 cost savings were identified, for the use of 6,000
tonnes of aggregates. This case study saw 95% recovery of demolition material,
with more than 50% of the aggregates used coming from recycled sources.
Cost savings associated with the reuse of buildings, products, deconstructed items etc
are likely to be significant, and will become increasingly so in the future. Approaches
which involve minimal impacts in terms of embedded CO
2
(the use of fossil fuels) will
deliver cost savings. Those processes and materials which require most energy use will
increasingly become less attractive in terms of overall costs.
Figure 13. The Protocol was
employed on the Wembley
Stadium Access Corridor
development.
Source: Brent Council
22
11. Implementation through tender and contract clauses
Key target audience: Clients and project managers
Opportunities to maximise MRE on demolition and regeneration projects are heavily influenced by
the way in which tenders and contracts are arranged to give ownership of materials. Tenders and
contracts should incorporate clauses which clearly articulate the requirements of the Protocol, with the
responsibilities of different parties set out.
This is a fundamental requirement to ensure that each link in the supply chain understands its role in
the process. This becomes particularly important when there are changes to the project team and where
sub-contractors are appointed who may not be party to previous discussions and arrangements.
To support the implementation of the Protocol, a tendering and contractual framework is required. Key
considerations for potential tender/contract clauses include the following:
Reference should be made as early and as clearly as possible in the tender/contract documentation. ■
This is important because the approach may be non-standard and attention therefore needs to be
drawn to it as soon as possible
For aggregates only, refer to the WRAP publication Tender and Contract Clauses To Encourage ■
Greater Use of Recycled and Secondary Aggregates. A pdf version of this document can be found at
the WRAP Procurement webpage, which provides various resources to assist sustainable practices:
www.aggregain.org.uk/procurement
A checklist summarising the key implementation requirements eg target setting ■
Method statement – tenderers to submit a method statement describing their compliance with the ■
ICE Demolition Protocol.
23
12. Implementation as a planning requirement
Key target audience: Policymakers and clients
Demolition protocols are referenced in the Practice Guide (Planning and Minerals) to
Minerals Policy Statement 1 (MPS1) for England. The MPS1 Guide states that:
“In recent years, the proportion of construction, demolition and
excavation waste productively used has increased to the point where
additional recovery depends on improved segregation of waste
materials at the demolition site. Demolition protocols have been
proposed to address this issue.”
Demolition protocols are also referenced in Scottish Planning Policy 10 (Planning for
Waste Management), where it is stated that:
“Waste reduction at demolition and construction sites through
protocols and site management should be supported.”
SEPA (the Scottish Environment Protection Agency) has stated that there is an
opportunity to promote demolition protocols within development planning policy
and the assessment of planning applications. Reflecting this, the Protocol has been
incorporated within many local authority supplementary planning documents on
sustainable construction, and has been implemented through planning conditions or
agreements (Section 106 in England & Wales, Section 75 in Scotland).
Examples of this approach can be found by reading case studies funded by WRAP,
involving the London Borough of Brent Council and in particular in the redevelopment
of the Wembley area (www.aggregain.org.uk/demolition/the_ice_demolition_protocol).
Although, SWMPs are now a regulatory requirement in England, implementation of
the Demolition Protocol and its range of MRE methodologies can deliver a wider range
of benefits, while at the same time ensuring that regulatory requirements are met. For
projects across all parts of the UK, the 2008 Protocol can provide improved delivery in
terms of the waste hierarchy, stimulating practices such as reclamation, refurbishment
and target setting. The approach also has the added benefit of providing transparency
and measurable performance.
24
13. Verification
Key target audience: Policymakers, clients, project managers and construction supply chain
Site Waste Management Plans require verification that the plan has been followed. The Demolition
Protocol, when not implemented as a SWMP, requires the verification procedures described in the
following table.
Table 13. Summary of verification requirements
Protocol element Verification method
Building reuse/Refurbishment audit Statement of viability from the client
Reclamation and design audit Reclamation NBRI provided
Deconstruction audit Statement of the opportunities and a
Deconstruction DRI produced
Design for deconstruction Statement of the guidance followed and key
opportunities
Pre-demolition audit D-BOQ, DRI, stockpile measurements, transfer
note summary.
Design assessment to incorporate recycled content NB-BOQ, summary of purchases
Report CO
2
emissions Statement based on avoided vehicle movements
which corresponds with the D-BOQ and DRI
14. The definition of waste
Key target audience: Policymakers, clients and project managers
Guidance from the UK regulators on the definition of waste means that the ICE Demolition Protocol
goes hand in hand with WRAP’s Quality Protocol for the Production of Aggregates from Inert Waste.
Where there are appropriate planning permissions in place, demolition arisings processed and tested
in accordance with the WRAP Protocol may not need to be defined as waste before use. Planning
permissions would also need to be in place prior to the stockpiling and movement of material.
Essentially, if there is a guaranteed market the regulator may not need to have further involvement.
Planning permissions and use of the Demolition Protocol, by providing quantities of arisings and targets
for reuse in defined applications, could be considered as a way of providing certainty of use. However, it
should be noted that if further treatment of material is needed then this may need to be controlled by
the regulator.
Further guidance on the definition of waste can be obtained from the regulators’ websites:
SEPA, Is it Waste – Understanding the Definition of Waste ■
www.sepa.org.uk/pdf/guidance/waste/is_it_waste_v2.pdf
Environment Agency, The Definition of Waste: Developing Greenfield and Brownfield Sites ■
www.environment-agency.gov.uk/commondata/acrobat/dowv10506_1386151.pdf ■
25
26
Appendices
Appendix A - ICE Demolition Protocol Checklist
Appendix B - Definitions
Appendix A - ICE Demolition Protocol Checklist
This checklist should be followed to ensure compliance with the ICE Demolition Protocol 2008. The checklist also identifies
the compliance areas for producing Site Waste Management Plans (SWMPs), as required by legislation (in England) and as
also required by the Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH). The CSH has now replaced EcoHomes as an environmental standard
in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Although SWMPs are not a regulatory requirement in Scotland, they are encouraged through Scottish Planning Policy
10 (SPP10) – Planning for Waste Management. As such this checklist can be used to assist in determining the scope of
implementation of the Protocol and SWMPs in Scotland.
It should be noted that the Duty of Care requirements referred to in this checklist apply to all projects, regardless of size,
and records must be maintained to reflect this.
DP
ICE Demolition Protocol (DP)
Requirement
Site Waste Management Plan
(SWMP) Requirement
above £300,000
Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP)
Requirement above £500,000
CSH
M
Mandatory elements to comply
with Code for Sustainable Homes
CSH
Additional elements to score points in Code for
Sustainable Homes
Information about the basic details of the project
Data Required Compliance
1. The client name
DP
CSH
M
2. The principal contractor name
DP
CSH
M
3. The person who drafted the Protocol / SWMP
DP
CSH
M
4. The location of the site
DP
CSH
M
5. The estimated cost of the project
DP
CSH
M
Actions required at the beginning of the feasibility and design stages
Actions Required
Compliance
6. Description of any decisions taken on the nature of the project, its design, construction
method or materials employed in order to minimise the quantity of waste produced on site.
DP
CSH
M
7. Description of how tender and contracts will implement the Demolition Protocol and/
or SWMP.
DP
CSH
M
8. Are examples of clauses available / provided?
DP
CSH
M
27
28
Detailed implementation actions
Requirement Comment and how to achieve compliance Compliance areas
9. Building reuse/
refurbishment audit
Requires a statement of the viability for reusing ■
the building, influenced by the required design
aesthetic, space, cost and socio-economic factors.
If viable, the percentage of external & internal ■
components to be recovered should be stated as a
NBRI (New Build Recovery Index) percentage, using
area (m
2
) as the metric.
DP
10. Reclamation and
design audit.
NBRI stating the value of reclaimed products ■
incorporated. This should be a minimum of 5%, by
value, of the construction.
DP
11. Deconstruction audit State deconstruction potential of the building / ■
infrastructure.
The percentage of elements to be deconstructed, ■
should be stated as a DRI, using area (m
2
) as the
metric.
DP
12. Design for
deconstruction
Demonstration that good practice guidance has ■
been adopted.
DP
13. Pre-demolition
audit, if required.
Produce a D-BOQ (Demolition Bill Of Quantities) to ■
describe the DRI.
This delivers SWMP compliance by describing (i) ■
each waste type to be produced in the course of
the project and (ii) the quantity of each.
DP
CSH
M
14. Design assessment
to incorporate recycled
content
NBRI to be produced for recycled content of bulk ■
items.
WRAP Recycled Content Toolkit to be used (in ■
terms of £ value) for internal/fit out items.
DP
15. Report CO
2
emissions
avoided from avoided
haulage movements
Calculated from the quantity of material recovered ■
and reused on-site.
DP
16. Verification of ICE
Demolition Protocol
elements
Summary of requirements provided in Section 13 of ■
main Protocol document
DP
17. Identify the waste
management action
proposed for each
different waste type,
including re using,
recycling, recovery and
disposal
This is identified in the D-BOQ table as the recovery ■
potential.
This should be complemented by a description, ■
stating the use with details of any waste
management or haulage contractors involved.
DP
CSH
M
18. Records to be kept Identity of the person removing the waste. ■
Types of waste removed. ■
Site that the waste is being taken to. ■
DP
CSH
M
Waste carrier registration number of the carrier. ■
Copy of, or reference to, the written description of ■
the waste required by section 34 of the Environmental
Protection Act 1990.
Whether the operator of that site holds a permit ■
under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2007
or is registered under those Regulations as a waste
operation exempt from the need for such a permit.
CSH
M
Requirement Comment and How to Achieve Compliance
Compliance Areas
19. Within three months
of the work being
completed additions to
the plan are required
Confirmation that the plan has been monitored on ■
a regular basis to ensure that work is progressing
according to the plan and that the plan was
updated in accordance with this regulation.
An explanation of any deviation from the plan. ■
CSH
M
A comparison of the estimated quantities of each ■
waste type against the actual quantities of each
waste type.
An estimate of the cost savings that have been ■
achieved by completing and implementing the
plan.
CSH
M
20. Not less than every
six months a review and
update is required
Review the plan. ■
Record types and quantities of waste produced. ■
Record the types and quantities of waste that have ■
been
re-used (and whether this was on or off site) ■
recycled (and whether this was on or off site) ■
sent for another form of recovery (and whether ■
this was on or off site)
sent to landfill or ■
otherwise disposed of ■
Update the plan to reflect the progress of the ■
project
CSH
M
21. Set targets for the
recovery of wastes
The Protocol requires targets to be set for ■
recovering demolition waste (the DRI).
Indicative targets for different materials are ■
identified in this 2008 Version of the Protocol.
The Protocol quantifies, through target setting, ■
how waste is being diverted from landfill.
DP
CSH
M
CSH
22. Demonstrate that
waste reduction is being
delivered on-site
The DRI, D-BOQ and methods used identify the ■
quantity of waste being recovered for reuse on site.
DP
CSHM
CSH
23. Describe the three
key waste groups
identified for diversion
from landfill
This could refer to wastes shown in the D-BOQ ■
– e.g. such as concrete, masonry, soils, identified
because they are the largest wastes by weight.
CSH
The following declaration is required.
The client and the principal contractor will take all reasonable steps to ensure that:
CSH
M
All waste from the site is dealt with in accordance with the waste duty of care
in section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Environmental
Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991.
Materials will be handled efficiently and waste managed appropriately.
Signed:
Name:
Company and position:
Date:
29
Appenix B - Definitions
To avoid confusion the Demolition Protocol uses the definitions shown below for activities related to the
reuse and recycling of building elements, products and materials.
Activity
Definition
To recover
A generic term which means that a material, product/component is
managed by a defined process so that it either does not become waste,
or is taken out of the waste stream.
To reuse
Buildings/infrastructure, products, components etc recovered for use
without reprocessing activities or alterations to their characteristics.
In situ reuse could refer to the refurbishment of a building, involving
the reuse of the steel frame, without any disassembly. Ex situ reuse is
synonymous with reclamation, and involves the disassembly or removal
of products/components prior to their reuse.
To reclaim
Refers to the removal of products/components from a building or
structure, with the aim of subsequently reusing them.
To recycle
To take a product/component (e.g. concrete block) and, because of the
nature and characteristics of its constituent material, put it through a
reprocessing activity. The output will be a material which can then be
used in a range of products and applications, including its previous use.
To deconstruct
Synonymous with ‘reclaim’ and typically referring to the action of
disassembling products/components as part of an overall approach to
managing entire elements of a building (e.g. the roof, walls etc). ‘Design
for deconstruction’ is the commonly used term to describe how the end
of life of a building/structure is considered at the outset - to ensure the
future ease of disassembly for components/elements.
31
Registered charity number 210252
Charity registered in Scotland number SC038629
One Great George Street
Westminster
London SW1P 3AA
t +44 (0)20 7222 7722
f +44 (0)20 7222 7500
ice.org.uk
