Case Study: Material Resource Efficiency in Regeneration
South Eastern Regional College,
Downpatrick, Co. Down
Material Resource Efficiency principles were used in
the demolition of the existing South Eastern Regional
College saving costs and a reduction in waste to
landfill, primary material used and CO2 emissions.
1
Summary
WRAP’s (Waste & Resources Action Programme) Materials
Resource Efficiency (MRE) principles and approach in regeneration
projects is outlined in the WRAP Regeneration Guide 1 . This guide
contains best practice guidance for policy makers, clients,
consultants and contractors alike and is intended for use by each
of these groups at demolition and new build construction phase as
well as at the interim phases through on site reclamation and
recycling of materials. This case study is an example of how the
principles in the guide were applied at demolition and construction
stages of the new £17 million second phase campus for the South
Eastern Regional College, Downpatrick, Co. Down in 2009.
McCormack Demolition were contracted by O’Hare & McGovern,
the main contractor, to provide demolition services within their
replacement school build programme at the South Eastern
Regional College School, Co. Down. This case study outlines the
approach McCormack’s and the wider construction team used in
order to maximise the reuse and quantity of recyclable materials
in the project. The demolition programme was carried out within
a compact urban site and within a tight overall construction
project programme.
McCormack Demolition achieved total savings of £165,149 and
95.7 tonnes CO2 through diverting materials from landfill and
reducing the project requirement for primary aggregates when
compared against standard practice. These savings flowed from a
targeted programme of site segregation and through the
production of site-won recycled aggregates, matching the
materials generated by the demolition process with the
construction requirements of the main contractor.
1
http://www.wrap.org.uk/construction/tools_and_guidance/regeneration.html
2
1. Key project facts
McCormack Demolition were contracted by O’Hare &
McGovern to provide demolition services within their
replacement school build programme at the South Eastern
Regional College School, Co. Down.
This case study outlines the approach McCormack’s and
the wider construction team used to maximise site-won
and recyclable materials. The demolition programme was
carried out within a compact urban site and within a tight
overall construction project programme.







The £60 million redevelopment of South Eastern Regional
College campuses in Lisburn, Downpatrick, Ballynahinch and
Newcastle have been progressed as a Public Private
Partnership with the private sector consortium responsible for
design, build, finance and operation over a 25-year period.
O’Hare & McGovern were commissioned to provide the new
campus at Downpatrick and it is the £17 million, second phase
of the development that is the subject of this case study.
This phase will add space to facilitate workshops, central hall,
media suite, general classrooms and car parking facilities.
Upon completion of the initial new build phase, the existing
college building was able to be demolished.
McCormack Demolition was required to complete demolition
works between April and September 2009 to ensure the overall
build programme was achieved.
The initial phase of the contract involved asbestos removal and
soft strip of the school premises. This was followed by the
demolition of the main school building and subsequent
materials reprocessing.
This case study summarises the reuse and recycling activities
of the demolition works.
3
2. Best practice tools
There are a number of support tools that establish best
practice techniques for materials resource efficiency. This
case study links the actions taken by the construction and
demolition team to these best practice guidelines.
2.1. Materials Resource Efficiency (MRE)
The efficient use of materials can lead to time and cost savings,
an increase in reuse and recycling of materials, reduction in
materials sent to landfill, primary resources used (e.g. virgin
aggregate) and carbon emissions. The Materials Resource
Efficiency (MRE) approach as advocated in the WRAP guide “The
efficient use of materials in regeneration projects 2 ” provides a
framework for all relevant stakeholders (policy maker,
development client, designers, demolition contractors, new build
contractors and project managers). A combined approach from all
the stakeholders will maximise project opportunities.
2.2. Quality Protocol
McCormack Demolition has in the last year developed a Quality
Protocol Management System that meets the requirements of the
WRAP Quality Protocol for the production of recycled aggregate
from inert materials. 3 This has meant that the company has been
able to crush materials on site to produce a product that has been
reused on site or made available for use off site. This has
diverted considerable amounts of aggregate materials from landfill
sites and has played a key role in increasing the recycling rates
2
3
http://www.wrap.org.uk/construction/tools_and_guidance/regeneration.html
http://aggregain.wrap.org.uk/quality/quality_protocols/
4
that McCormack Demolition have achieved in the various contracts
they have delivered in the last year.
2.3. Site Waste Management Plans
As of August 2010, Site Waste Management Plans (SWMPs) are
not a legal requirement in Northern Ireland, but have been
adopted since 2006 as procurement best practice by the
Sustainable Construction Group for public sector contracts over
£200,000 or requiring a workforce of over 50. SWMPs are an
important tool in designing out and managing wastes through the
life of a construction programme and are being actively promoted
by regulators and the construction sector as best practice.
Successful implementation of SWMPs can demonstrate a
company’s ability to enhanced sustainability and aid in winning
contracts. O Hare & McGovern had implemented a SWMP 4 for the
overall project and as such McCormack Demolition were required
to provide project waste arisings information.
A SWMP was not developed for the demolition works specifically;
however, McCormack Demolition maintained detailed weekly
records of how much demolition material was produced, recycled
and where it was sent.
2.4. ICE Demolition Protocol, 2008
The protocol outlines best practice techniques for each of the key
stages for the contractors and project designers through
demolition and new build phases. 5
4
For more information on Site Waste Management Plans refer to
http://www.wrap.org.uk/construction/tools_and_guidance/site_waste_manage
ment_planning/index.html (Accessed 21 July 2010)
5
http://www.ice.org.uk/Information-resources/Document-Library/DemolitionProtocol-2008
5
3. Planning for Materials Resource
Efficiency (MRE)
Good planning is essential to optimise material resource
efficiency during the demolition and construction phases.
As part of the project set up, the following areas were considered:







contract framework and programme;
types and Quantities of Materials arising;
types and Quantities of Materials required in Development;
demolition techniques and equipment;
site layout (opportunities and constraints);
available waste management infrastructure; and
monitoring and Reporting requirements.
3.1. Contract framework and programme
The contract tender documentation gave McCormack Demolition
freedom to carry out the project in an efficient manner. The
overall contract between O’Hare & Mc Govern and their Client
(Lisburn Education Partnership) also incorporated sustainability
clauses. The South Eastern Regional College (SERC) is the end
user for the building.
The demolition works were on the critical path for the
redevelopment project. In order to facilitate the maximum
recovery and on site recycling of material it is important to ensure
that the project phasing allows sufficient time for material testing
for recycled aggregates following processing. 3.2. Types and quantities of materials arising
A high level audit was carried out by McCormack Demolition as
part of the tender bid preparation in order to provide an initial list
of the types and quantities of materials that would be produced
6
through the demolition contract. This was further refined on
contract award.
The materials identified included:
 concrete masonry and mixed masonry;
 brick/ Rubble;
 timber;
 metal;
 plasterboard; and
 asbestos.
A pre-demolition audit is a key tool in linking the demolition and
regeneration phase and when carried out at an early stage
identifies in greater detail the quantities of material that will be
generated and integrating planning for material reuse on site,
recycling and disposal more fully.
3.3. Types and quantities of materials required
The use of site-won materials was primarily related to concurrent
construction activities including a need for aggregate to form a
temporary development platform for the next stage of the
construction programme. This material was subsequently
reclaimed and sent off site for reuse. With further planning this
material could have been used by the site contractor within the
build programme for any number of general purposes. This would
also have had additional benefits of CO2 avoidance through
reduced transport and production of virgin aggregates in addition
to saved costs of virgin aggregates.
Given that McCormack Demolition were unfamiliar with the local
recycled aggregate market in the site’s locality an advertisement
was taken out in a local newspaper in order to identify an off site
market for the materials produced. The response to the
advertisement was encouraging and the interest in the materials
outstripped the available product, although it should be noted that
7
in the current market climate, the main value gained was through
the avoidance of landfill taxes and gate fees.
3.4. Demolition techniques and equipment
The demolition works were carried out adjacent to a busy leisure
centre, residences and traffic therefore special measures were
required including some out of hours working.
The demolition contract involved a Type 3 Asbestos survey and
subsequent removal of hazardous materials from the building prior
to soft strip and demolition. Asbestos was removed from the
buildings outside of the main school term to minimise health and
safety risks.
McCormack Demolition carried out the soft strip of materials
within the building by machine and hand prior to commencing
demolition of the structure. The building was cleared on a room
by room basis, with each room being checked before being sealed
to prevent re-entry ahead of the demolition works. As the
intention was to recover aggregate, there was a particular focus
on ensuring the soft strip was rigorous to reduce contamination.
Structural demolition of the buildings was carried out using
specialist demolition rigs fitted as required with steel shears, clam
shell style grabs and concrete munchers.
The systematic deconstruction of the building made provision for
the safe and controlled demolition of the structure and the
effective management of potential environmental nuisances such
as dust, noise and vibration. It was also the basis for a systematic
identification and separation of material for reuse and recycling.
On site crushing and screening was carried out using an Extec
C12+ mobile unit under a Pollution Prevention Control (PPC)
8
permit. The material produced met the specification for a general
use sub-base type material (Class 1c Coarse Granular).
Demolition being completed on a room by room basis
3.5. Site layout (opportunities and
constraints)
The layout of the site was such that there was sufficient space for
the crusher/ screener and associated stockpiles; this is not always
the case. In negotiation with O’Hare & McGovern a suitable
location was agreed for the screening, crushing, quarantine and
stockpile activities. Once the materials were tested to confirm
they met the relevant BS Standard they were moved for use on
site or off site to ensure that the product stockpiles did not
impinge on crushing and quarantine space availability.
The materials were crushed on site using a suitably licensed
machine, regulated by Down District Council, the local authority,
in this case. There was no requirement to register the site as a
waste management facility as materials were not being imported.
9
3.6. Available waste management
infrastructure
Due to the tight time constraints on the project, similar to most
demolition projects, the only feasible option was for the soft strip
materials including timber and plasterboard to be collected and
sent to a nearby recycling facility (approximately 20 mile round
trip). McCormack Demolition carried out the haulage to the facility
and paid a gate fee charge for the materials deposited. The
recycling facility then had the responsibility of separating the
waste for recyclable and reusable components.
3.7. Monitoring and reporting requirements
McCormack’s measured the amount of recycled aggregate and
material sent off site for re-processing using a delivery note and
log book system, which also supported their internal project
management needs.
Recycled aggregate product was provided to external contractors
at no cost, excluding haulage. The size of the lorry container and
average aggregate weight were used to determine volumes
leaving the site. An alternative method would have been to
measure the dimensions of the product stockpiles; however given
the need to remove materials off site quickly McCormack’s
determined the first method was more appropriate for this project.
McCormack’s, through the development of an in house
environmental and quality management system, have been
monitoring the demolition recovery index for selected projects in
order to set internal targets by demolition project. This has been
done primarily through the analysis of demolition and wastes
arising post demolition from consignment and transfer notes.
This information can also be fed back into their client’s overall Site
Waste Management Plan.
10
4. Recovery, reuse and recycling rates
By measuring key data, a comparison can be made with
best practice indicators and targets set for future projects.
Demolition arisings data were derived from transfer consignment
notes and site logs. All information is stated in tonnes unless
otherwise indicated.
Table 4.1: Demolition data and KPI’s
Recovered
items
Concrete /
mixed
masonry
Plasterboard
Quantity
arising
Recovery
(%)
Recovered
on site
Recovered
off site
Tonnage
disposed
-
55
9,063
99%
9,008
24
100%
-
24
-
7
100%
-
7
-
Metal
875
100%
-
875
Mixed
waste
320
0%
-
Timber
Totals
-
0
320
9,008
906
375
Tonnage
recovered
for use on
site (Q1)
Tonnage
recovered
for use off
site (Q2)
Tonnage
disposed
(Q3)
Demolition Recovery Index (DRI) (Q1+Q2) / (Q1+Q2+Q3)
96.2%
Retained Material (RM) Q1 / (Q1 +Q2)
93.9%
11
5. MRE practice benefits
In order to quantify the economic and environmental benefits of
adopting materials resource efficiency on site, three scenarios
have been developed for comparison. Scenario A shows the cost
and impact if all material went to landfill. Scenario B is an
example of fairly standard practice and Scenario C is good
practice, demonstrating what was done on this project.
Table 5.1: MRE scenarios
Scenario
6
Landfill
Off site
recovery
On site
recovery
-
-
A
Concrete/ Mixed
masonry
Plasterboard 6
Timber
Misc rubble
Metal
Mixed waste
B
Misc rubble
Mixed waste
Concrete/
Mixed
masonry
Plasterboard
Timber
Metal
C
Misc rubble
Mixed waste
Plasterboard
Timber
Metal
Concrete/
Mixed
masonry
There are currently no suitably licensed cells that can accept plasterboard
waste in Northern Ireland
12
5.1. Project costs and savings
A summary of indicative cost and carbon savings and impacts
associated with its use is presented below in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2: Summary of project savings.
Scenario
A
Materials
disposed (£)
Materials
imported (£)
Materials off
site CO2
Materials
imported CO2
B
C
£254,379
£184,159
£81,165
£62,155
£62,155
£0
29.9 t
28.5 t
18.8 t
86.0 t
86.0 t
0.0 t
TOTAL COST
£316,534
£246,314
£81,165
Total CO2
115.9 t
114.5 t
18.8 t
£70,220
1.4 t
£235,368
97.1 t
£165,149
95.7 t
Savings compared to
Scenario A
Savings compared to Scenario B
Table 5.2 shows that an overall cost saving of £235,368 is
achieved by recovering and recycling materials on site where
practicable when compared to all materials being sent off site to
landfill and an equivalent tonnage of aggregate materials being
imported. A more realistic saving is when compared to scenario B
which shows a cost saving of £165 149 when some material
streams are recovered for use on site.
In addition, using site-won recycled aggregate instead of imported
primary aggregate results in an avoidance of 95.7 tonnes of CO2.
Written by Kathryn Tims and David Hay, EnviroCentre Limited
The Authors wishes to thank the following for their contribution in developing this case study: Mc Cormack Demolition, O’Hare
and Mc Govern and Department of Employment and Learning.
While steps have been taken to ensure its accuracy, WRAP and EnviroCentre cannot accept responsibility or be held liable to
any person for loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading.
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 our Terms & Conditions on our website: www.wrap.org.uk
www.wrap.org.uk/construction