Salvo Reclamation Protocol 1995
London West, UK -
The Salvo Reclamation and Reuse Protocol
We are often asked some pretty basic questions about reclamation by people in all walks of life. Students, Researchers, Television and Press Journalists, Home Interest Magazines, Conservationists, Environmentalists, Local Government Officers, MPs, and even the DoE and European Commission. So it seemed like a good idea to have a look at the theory, and how it is practiced.
The answer to the simple question, "Why should we reclaim old building materials?" is not so simple. It pre-supposes that we don't, or that we aren't as much as we should. Third world countries are still efficient reusers and recyclers, as Britain was up to 1950. Since then the UK has trashed ever-increasing amounts of reusable construction materials. The building boom of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s came after a Government White Paper - the 1948 Parker Morris report - recommended minimum standards to which every human in post-war Britain was entitled. These referred to daylight and ventilation, an indoor toilet, a kitchen with a ventilated pantry, and freedom from damp buildings. Buildings which failed to provide these standards were declared slums. The report stated that, although one solution would be wholesale slum clearance, this would be socially destructive. The Macmillan government simply ignored the social destruction and proceeded to 'clear slums' at a cost to the social fabric of Britain which is still reverberating through the poor areas of towns and inner cities, and the high-rise housing estates that were constructed to replace 'slums' many of which are now being demolished.
Why reclaim demolished building materials?
Answer:
1. It can save energy
2. It can save mineral resources
3. It can save forests
4. It can save architectural history
5. It can provide employment
6. It can reduce construction costs
What is the Salvo Reclamation Protocol?
We have adapted the provisos of the Rio Accord under Agenda 21 as follows, in order of merit:
1. Reuse without demolition.
The greenest and most energy efficient solution is to reuse a whole building with the minimum of alteration. It may be justifiable to uprate the insulation standard, but only if the energy saved during the remainder of the building's life is greater than the energy cost of the insulation uprating.
2. Reclaim components.
Reclamation should save as large a set of chunks as possible. The best method is to relocate an entire building, locally or further afield if necessary. If the building has a historical value, it would be better to relocate it abroad, intact, than to dismantle it and sell off bits to many buyers locally. If relocation is not an option then whole components should, firstly, be reused in the new building to be erected on the site, or secondly, sold to buyers in the local area, and thirdly, sold elsewhere. Where possible large items like windows should be kept in sets with their masonry surrounds. If a market does not exist for such large items then they should be broken down further and materials sold off individually. Architectural reclamation dealers exist who sell everything from entire dismantled buildings to individual bricks and floorboards.
The term 'Reclamation' was first used in this context by T Kay of Salvo in 1977. The term 'Architectural Reclamation' was first used by T Kay in 1991.
3. Upcycle, remanufacture, recycle
Components made from metal and plastic can be recycled by returning them to their constituent parts and reusing the resource to manufacture a new product. This has traditionally been done with scrap metals and, more recently, items like plastic motorway markers are being made from scrap plastic from buildings. The crushing of concrete for reuse as aggregate is acceptable but the crushing of old worked stone, or reclaimable bricks, to make recycled hardcore is not because the energy and resource losses are unacceptably high. It is easier to recycle components using highly capital intensive methods than to reclaim and reuse which involves human labour. The easiest route is usually the least environmentally-friendly.
4. Beneficially destruction with energy recovery.
If none of the above options are possible then carbon-based products can be burned in waste-to-energy plants creating useful heat for district heating or electricity generation. Wood can be put into engineered sealed landfill sites where methane is tapped for reuse, but not into open landfill since the methane generated during its decomposition is a greenhouse gas. A problem with 'beneficial destruction' is that once the capital is employed in building an expensive plant, the fuel must be found, and experience is now showing that such plants are seeking materials, that could be better reclaimed, for destruction in order to keep the plants operating. This does not bode well. Denmark is currently seeking reclaimable timber from Germany because it has run out of domestically available demolished material.
The reclamation protocol above was effectively agreed to by the UK government, the EC, and in Agenda 21 - the 'Sustainability' clause - at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. It has been signed to by 170 countries around the world.
Salvo recommends that building or landscaping projects should include a minimum of 5 to 10 per cent reclaimed materials by value, volume or mass. Currently the amount is less than 1 per cent. If you buy a new BMW 70 per cent is recycled. If you buy a new building less than 1 per cent is reclaimed.
How much is landfilled in the UK?
1994 DoE Guesstimate
'Managing Demolition and Construction Wastes' HMSO 1994. Consultant: Howard Humphries based on Ove Arup 1991.
TOTAL : 42m tonnes (in licensed landfill)
1991 DoE Guesstimate
'Occurence and Utilisation of Mineral and Construction Wastes' HMSO 1991. Consultant: Ove Arup. Based on 28 hrs research.
TOTAL : 70m tonnes (including fly-tipping)
1993 Salvo Guesstimate
Based on 20 years experience of the trade, hundreds of hours research in 1993, and verbally agreed to by a past president of the European Demolition Association & the UK National Federation of Demolition Contractors.
TOTAL : 100m tonnes (including all minor demolition, stripping out etc.) The comparable figure for Germany was 140m tonnes in 1993.
Table 1 - Breakdown of demolition and construction wastes in the UK based on ANNUAL DEMOLITION ARISINGS of 100 million tonnes = DAILY DEMOLITION ARISINGS of 418,000 tonnes.
SalvoWEB: antique & recliamed for sale
We are often asked some pretty basic questions about reclamation by people in all walks of life. Students, Researchers, Television and Press Journalists, Home Interest Magazines, Conservationists, Environmentalists, Local Government Officers, MPs, and even the DoE and European Commission. So it seemed like a good idea to have a look at the theory, and how it is practiced.
The answer to the simple question, "Why should we reclaim old building materials?" is not so simple. It pre-supposes that we don't, or that we aren't as much as we should. Third world countries are still efficient reusers and recyclers, as Britain was up to 1950. Since then the UK has trashed ever-increasing amounts of reusable construction materials. The building boom of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s came after a Government White Paper - the 1948 Parker Morris report - recommended minimum standards to which every human in post-war Britain was entitled. These referred to daylight and ventilation, an indoor toilet, a kitchen with a ventilated pantry, and freedom from damp buildings. Buildings which failed to provide these standards were declared slums. The report stated that, although one solution would be wholesale slum clearance, this would be socially destructive. The Macmillan government simply ignored the social destruction and proceeded to 'clear slums' at a cost to the social fabric of Britain which is still reverberating through the poor areas of towns and inner cities, and the high-rise housing estates that were constructed to replace 'slums' many of which are now being demolished.
Why reclaim demolished building materials?
Answer:
1. It can save energy
2. It can save mineral resources
3. It can save forests
4. It can save architectural history
5. It can provide employment
6. It can reduce construction costs
What is the Salvo Reclamation Protocol?
We have adapted the provisos of the Rio Accord under Agenda 21 as follows, in order of merit:
1. Reuse without demolition.
The greenest and most energy efficient solution is to reuse a whole building with the minimum of alteration. It may be justifiable to uprate the insulation standard, but only if the energy saved during the remainder of the building's life is greater than the energy cost of the insulation uprating.
2. Reclaim components.
Reclamation should save as large a set of chunks as possible. The best method is to relocate an entire building, locally or further afield if necessary. If the building has a historical value, it would be better to relocate it abroad, intact, than to dismantle it and sell off bits to many buyers locally. If relocation is not an option then whole components should, firstly, be reused in the new building to be erected on the site, or secondly, sold to buyers in the local area, and thirdly, sold elsewhere. Where possible large items like windows should be kept in sets with their masonry surrounds. If a market does not exist for such large items then they should be broken down further and materials sold off individually. Architectural reclamation dealers exist who sell everything from entire dismantled buildings to individual bricks and floorboards.
The term 'Reclamation' was first used in this context by T Kay of Salvo in 1977. The term 'Architectural Reclamation' was first used by T Kay in 1991.
3. Upcycle, remanufacture, recycle
Components made from metal and plastic can be recycled by returning them to their constituent parts and reusing the resource to manufacture a new product. This has traditionally been done with scrap metals and, more recently, items like plastic motorway markers are being made from scrap plastic from buildings. The crushing of concrete for reuse as aggregate is acceptable but the crushing of old worked stone, or reclaimable bricks, to make recycled hardcore is not because the energy and resource losses are unacceptably high. It is easier to recycle components using highly capital intensive methods than to reclaim and reuse which involves human labour. The easiest route is usually the least environmentally-friendly.
4. Beneficially destruction with energy recovery.
If none of the above options are possible then carbon-based products can be burned in waste-to-energy plants creating useful heat for district heating or electricity generation. Wood can be put into engineered sealed landfill sites where methane is tapped for reuse, but not into open landfill since the methane generated during its decomposition is a greenhouse gas. A problem with 'beneficial destruction' is that once the capital is employed in building an expensive plant, the fuel must be found, and experience is now showing that such plants are seeking materials, that could be better reclaimed, for destruction in order to keep the plants operating. This does not bode well. Denmark is currently seeking reclaimable timber from Germany because it has run out of domestically available demolished material.
The reclamation protocol above was effectively agreed to by the UK government, the EC, and in Agenda 21 - the 'Sustainability' clause - at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. It has been signed to by 170 countries around the world.
Salvo recommends that building or landscaping projects should include a minimum of 5 to 10 per cent reclaimed materials by value, volume or mass. Currently the amount is less than 1 per cent. If you buy a new BMW 70 per cent is recycled. If you buy a new building less than 1 per cent is reclaimed.
How much is landfilled in the UK?
1994 DoE Guesstimate
'Managing Demolition and Construction Wastes' HMSO 1994. Consultant: Howard Humphries based on Ove Arup 1991.
TOTAL : 42m tonnes (in licensed landfill)
1991 DoE Guesstimate
'Occurence and Utilisation of Mineral and Construction Wastes' HMSO 1991. Consultant: Ove Arup. Based on 28 hrs research.
TOTAL : 70m tonnes (including fly-tipping)
1993 Salvo Guesstimate
Based on 20 years experience of the trade, hundreds of hours research in 1993, and verbally agreed to by a past president of the European Demolition Association & the UK National Federation of Demolition Contractors.
TOTAL : 100m tonnes (including all minor demolition, stripping out etc.) The comparable figure for Germany was 140m tonnes in 1993.
Table 1 - Breakdown of demolition and construction wastes in the UK based on ANNUAL DEMOLITION ARISINGS of 100 million tonnes = DAILY DEMOLITION ARISINGS of 418,000 tonnes.
Story Type: Reference