Case study - Maze Long Kesh regeneration study - Maze... · Case study Maze / Long Kesh Prison Regeneration Site This case study describes how 93% of all demolition materials were

Case study

Maze / Long Kesh Prison Regeneration Site

This case study describes how 93% of all demolition materials were recovered at the Maze/Long Kesh Prison regeneration site through a supportive policy framework and site demolition practices. Site-won aggregate materials to the value of £550,000 – £600,000 were generated and 2,000 tonnes of recyclable materials sent off site for reuse or recovery. 279 tonnes of CO2 emissions were prevented through reduced transportation of materials on and off site.

Project code: WAS061 Research date: January to March 2008 Date: November 2008

WRAP helps individuals, businesses and local authorities to reduce waste and recycle more, making better use of resources and helping to tackle climate change

Written by: Brian Menzies and Kathryn Tims, EnviroCentre Limited.

Front cover photography: Aerial photograph of the Maze/Long Kesh Prison Regeneration Site, Lisburn. Kindly provided by DFPNI. WRAP and Envirocentre believe the content of this report to be correct as at the date of writing. However, factors such as prices, levels of recycled content and regulatory requirements are subject to change and users of the report should check with their suppliers to confirm the current situation. In addition, care should be taken in using any of the cost information provided as it is based upon numerous project-specific assumptions (such as scale, location, tender context, etc.). The report does not claim to be exhaustive, nor does it claim to cover all relevant products and specifications available on the market. While steps have been taken to ensure accuracy, WRAP cannot accept responsibility or be held liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. It is the responsibility of the potential user of a material or product to consult with the supplier or manufacturer and ascertain whether a particular product will satisfy their specific requirements. The listing or featuring of a particular product or company does not constitute an endorsement by WRAP and WRAP cannot guarantee the performance of individual products or materials. This material is copyrighted. It may be reproduced free of charge subject to the material being accurate and not used in misleading context. The source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. This material must not be used to endorse or used to suggest WRAP's endorsement of a commercial product or service. For more detail, please refer to WRAP's Terms & Conditions on its web site: www.wrap.org.uk

Maze / Long Kesh Prison Regeneration Site 1

Key facts This case study outlines how the Central Procurement Directorate (CPD) was able to apply the principles of sustainable construction and materials resource efficiency1 during the decommissioning, demolition and initial feasibility planning stages for regeneration of the Maze/Long Kesh (MLK) prison, adjacent army site and RAF Long Kesh. The site covers an area of 146 hectares and prior to demolition contained over 170 buildings. Key outcomes of the case study were:

the Materials Resource Efficiency (MRE) approaches advocated in the WRAP Regeneration Guide have demonstrated that the demolition materials recovered on site, for potential use as recycled aggregates, have an equivalent value of £550,000 – £600,000, equating to cost savings of approximately £640,000 – £730,000 when compared with traditional disposal methods;

a further 2,000 tonnes of demolition materials (including glass, timber, recovered metals and PVC plastic) were recovered for reuse or recycling off site;

a Demolition Recovery Index (DRI) of 93% has been achieved for all demolition work undertaken;

the Retained Material (RM) KPI is between 76% and 90%, depending on how the concrete foundations are to be used in the future. This KPI indicates that the project has taken a highly sustainable approach to materials resource efficiency, with very little material being removed from site;

additional environmental benefits were identified in relation to reducing the number of vehicle trips to and from the site by 9,000 , in turn reducing the associated nuisance impacts (noise, vibration and dust); and

in terms of climate change, the carbon footprint of the development through the demolition works is improved by approximately 279 tonnes of carbon dioxide, principally as a result of the reduced number of vehicle movements.

This case study has been developed with the Department of Finance and Personnel, John Mc Quillan (Contracts) Limited, Quarry Products Association Northern Ireland, and the Northern Ireland Demolition Association.

1 These approaches are outlined in more detail in the WRAP Regeneration Guide

John McQuillan (Contracts) Ltd


Contents 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3

1.1 Best practice tools .................................................................................................................3 1.2 The Maze/Long Kesh Prison regeneration case study ...............................................................3 1.3 Description of the Maze/Long Kesh regeneration site programme.............................................4 1.4 Description of the buildings prior to demolition........................................................................5

2.0 Implementation ....................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Designing for Materials Resource Efficiency.............................................................................6 2.2 Programme objectives ...........................................................................................................6 2.3 Policy framework ...................................................................................................................6 2.4 Pre-demolition.......................................................................................................................6

2.4.1 Tender process .........................................................................................................6 2.4.2 Pre-demolition audit and outputs ...............................................................................7

2.5 Demolition Phase...................................................................................................................8 2.5.1 Demolition process and monitoring ............................................................................8 2.5.2 Demolition arisings....................................................................................................8

3.0 Linking demolition and new build phases................................................................................ 9 3.1 Description of assumptions and underpinning data ................................................................10 3.2 Scenario A: Reuse of site-won demolition material as sub-base in road and parking schemes...10 3.3 Scenario B: Reuse of site-won demolition materials for drainage in a SUDS scheme ................10 3.4 Scenario C: Reuse of site-won concrete demolition material as Recycled Concrete Aggregate (RCA) in concrete.............................................................................................................................11 3.5 Environmental benefits ........................................................................................................12

4.0 Materials Resource Efficiency context ................................................................................... 13 4.1 MRE practice in the public sector ..........................................................................................13 4.2 Recovered aggregate material reuse potential in Northern Ireland..........................................13 4.3 Current routes to market for recovered materials ..................................................................14 4.4 MRE practice in relation to future site regeneration plans.......................................................15

5.0 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 15 6.0 Recommendations.................................................................................................................. 16 7.0 References ............................................................................................................................. 16 APPENDIX A Overview of the WRAP Regeneration Guide............................................................ 17


1.0 Introduction This case study is one of a number developed across the UK, demonstrating best practice in relation to the demolition and recovery of materials from regeneration project sites using the WRAP Materials Resource Efficiency approach. 1.1 Good practice tools There are a number of good practice tools that have been developed to assist in the delivery of demolition recovery of materials from regeneration sites. This case study describes the techniques and tools that were used as part of the Maze/Long Kesh site regeneration in Northern Ireland. WRAP has recently developed The efficient use of materials in regeneration projects Guide (referred to as the “Regeneration Guide” or Guide in this document). The Guide describes how adopting a Materials Resource Efficiency (MRE) approach can provide more environmentally sustainable outcomes as well as cost benefits. The Guide integrates the ICE Demolition Protocol, Site Waste Management Plans and the WRAP Recycled Content Quick Wins in a clear framework. This Guide is a resource for all parties interested in implementing requirements for the efficient use of materials in regeneration projects. A brief overview of the Guide can be found in Appendix A, with the full document downloadable from WRAP’s website www.wrap.org.uk/construction or directly at http://tinyurl.com/mrer-guide . 1.2 The Maze/Long Kesh Prison regeneration case study The following partners were involved in the delivery of the project:

Northern Ireland Local Government departments:

o Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM), site owner and project sponsor; and

o Department of Finance and Personnel, Central Procurement Directorate, the project managers.

Demolition contractor:

o John Mc Quillan (Contracts) Limited

Implementation support:

o EnviroCentre Limited

Sector support:

o Quarry Products Association, Northern Ireland (QPANI); and

o Northern Ireland Demolition Association (NIDA).

This is one of a range of case studies focussing on the issues and opportunities resulting from the implementation of materials resource efficiency (MRE). This case study focuses on the recovery and retention of materials on site for future use following reprocessing, principally recycled aggregates (RA) and recycled concrete aggregate (RCA). The case study also addresses the recovery and reuse of other materials such as glass, PVC, timber, metals and other miscellaneous salvageable materials. The case study includes an overview of the various issues, barriers and opportunities encountered at the site in terms of encouraging innovative forward planning which improves materials resource efficiency practices. This then influences the implementation of best practice principles, with the resulting financial, environmental and social benefits.

Figure 1 Cover of WRAP’s Regeneration Guide


1.3 Description of the Maze/Long Kesh regeneration site programme The Maze/Long Kesh (MLK) regeneration site is located 4 kilometres south west of Lisburn city centre and contained the redundant Maze/Long Kesh prison, adjacent army site and remnants of RAF Long Kesh. It was transferred in 2000 to its current owners, the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) under the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. The client owner requested that the Department of Finance and Personnel, Central Procurement Directorate, prepare the site for future use by removing a number of existing structures (approximately 170). The buildings were located in clusters across the 146-hectare site and most were contained within a 5-6 metre high external perimeter wall, 3 kilometres in length. The site contains a number of listed buildings. The majority of designations are connected to the site’s use as a prison but includes other buildings such as two aircraft hangars, associated blast shelters and buildings. The demolition works carried out at the site were required to ensure the ongoing preservation of these structures. All hazardous components (e.g. asbestos) were identified and removed prior to the soft strip and demolition phase. There were, however, a number of relatively small and localised instances of contamination linked with fuel storage and historical use as a firing range. These contaminated areas are undergoing treatment using insitu remediation techniques. The client specifically requested that all buildings and structures were removed to ground level, with foundations or underground services retained to facilitate future use options. It was also a requirement of the client that wherever possible the materials generated on site were retained on site. Due to the politically sensitive past use of the site it was necessary to control the end use of the materials and wastes generated from the demolition process. This has resulted in relatively small amounts of recovered material being sent off site to date, which received processing to destroy any recognisable characteristics of items that could be associated with the site.

Figure 2 Stockpile of crushed, mixed concrete and masonry demolition arisings

Following demolition, the future use of the MLK regeneration site is yet to be determined but the recovered materials that have been retained on site are intended to be used in any future development. As well as the various on-site uses for the bulk of materials recovered i.e. recovered aggregate and recovered concrete aggregate, there is also the potential to export the material to nearby infrastructure and regeneration developments in the local area. This would require the client to hold early discussions with local developers to identify local markets for materials as well as potentially stimulating new markets.


A number of other materials were recovered and where they were not suitable for reuse, alternative reuse markets were identified and as such materials were diverted from landfill. 1.4 Description of the buildings prior to demolition The site comprised a wide diversity and number of structures requiring removal as part of the demolition contract. The site was divided into nine demolition zones (A-I) and demolition was completed in a phased manner across the site from the northern entrance to the south. The zones were based on building location and fabric types. The boundary of the zones and order of their demolition has evolved through the demolition process. Zones B and F contained a number of structures that were designated as listed buildings for statutory protection and the character and appearance of parts of the site may also be protected by designation as a conservation area. The protected buildings and conservation area designations are mainly related to examples of the H-Block prison buildings such as the visitor reception buildings, entrance way, hospital area, kitchens, one of the chapel buildings and adjacent perimeter wall and watchtowers. The final decision on some of these designations had not been completed at the time of writing and as such all of these types of buildings were retained. The materials resource efficiency commentary in this case study excludes them.

Table 1 Summary of building types* Description Number Building Types 173 H-blocks prison buildings 8 Nissen Hut 6 Portacabin 23 Red brick 11 Aircraft hangar (listed) 2

Modern clad 1 Watch-tower 34 Chapel 2 Timber structure 19 Concrete brick 32 Other buildings 32

* does not include all temporary buildings that were in disrepair or foundation pads that were unoccupied during the initial site audits

The building structures across the site varied in terms of their age and purpose. A number of the prison buildings including the H-block prison cells and chapel were single storey constructions consisting of reinforced concrete internal skin with external facing concrete brick cladding, reinforced concrete roof and situated on reinforced concrete foundations. A number of the related prison buildings were single or double storey red brick masonry structures again situated on reinforced concrete foundations. Buildings associated with the RAF Long Kesh include a significant number of the temporary timber constructed buildings, portacabins, Nissen huts (corrugated steel and masonry) and timber structures are also located on reinforced concrete foundation pads. All the buildings/structures were removed to ground level, with foundations not removed as part of this contract. The only foundations removed were those associated with the perimeter wall and concrete plinths for fencing and gateposts. Bitmac roads and car parking and gravel areas are not being removed. There are also areas of grass and scrubland at the site which are largely untouched, with the intention that this remains the case. Some scrub was removed where this was adjacent to buildings to be demolished. A number of above ground fuel tanks, electricity sub-stations and water tanks (subject to a separate contract that was completed prior to this contract commencing) were also required to be removed as part of this larger site regeneration programme.


2.0 Implementation The implementation of a materials recovery programme on a regeneration site requires the gathering of relevant site and programme information to ensure that suitable objectives and requirements can be built into every phase of the project to maximise the site’s potential. 2.1 Designing for Materials Resource Efficiency Opportunities for the delivery of Materials Resource Efficiency (MRE) on demolition and regeneration projects are heavily influenced by the following factors:

having a policy framework that is supportive of MRE concepts;

the way in which tenders and contracts are devised to allow ownership of the materials;

the practicalities of the recovery process on the site (availability of land, proximity of sensitive receptors to noise or dust);

allowing adequate timescales at each of the stages to ensure MRE principles can be implemented;

the perceived availability of primary materials, and quality of recycled materials; and

opportunities for the end use(s) of on-site recovered materials or identifiable market(s) off site.

The policy framework, timescales, scale, layout and potential future regeneration scenarios were such that design for MRE was a feasible part of this regeneration project. 2.2 Programme objectives The Central Procurement Directorate as the project manager was tasked to deliver a project that met the requirements of the client (OFMDFM) i.e. to demolish the site using sustainable management techniques in line with Government sustainable construction objectives. Given the political sensitivity of the site an additional benefit of this approach to the client this would mean that as much of the material as possible would be recovered and retained on site for future reuse. 2.3 Policy framework The Central Procurement Directorate operates within a policy framework at national and local level that advocates the use of sustainable techniques. Examples of policy framework and procurement guidance documents2 include:

Office of Government Commerce (OGC), (January 2007); Achieving Excellence in Construction Procurement Guide 11: Sustainability;

Government Construction Client Group (GCCG), (2005) Achieving Sustainability in Construction Procurement, Sustainability Action Plan;

GCCG, Guidance Note 3: Construction, Demolition and Excavation Waste Materials; and

GCCG, Guidance Note 6: Demolition, Dismantling, Recovery and Reuse.

2.4 Pre-demolition 2.4.1 Tender process The tender and associated contract documentation included a description of MRE as the desired approach to be taken and made specific reference to the need for the project to be carried out using sustainable demolition methods. As part of the Northern Ireland Government’s commitment to following best practice this tender was devised to require the use of sustainable demolition methodologies.

2 These documents can be accessed at http://www.cpdni.gov.uk/index/guidance-for-purchasers/sustainable-construction.htm


By adopting this approach, CPD applied Government policy in this area, including the Northern Ireland Sustainability Action Plan. In addition, there were a number of requirements by the client that encouraged this route to be taken, primarily the requirement to retain materials on site. Consequently, all materials retained on site remained the property of the client. As part of the tender process, details of each of the building types, location and numbers were provided for each of the demolition zones by CPD to the tenderer. This information was produced from site drawings and site visits. Additional measurements, visual assessments and site visits by the prospective demolition contractor were encouraged to produce an indication of the expected demolition bill of quantities and an accurate tender bid. The successful demolition contractor would be required to provide a record of all materials transferred off site, including timber, metal, glass and plastic (PVC). All masonry and concrete was to be screened and crushed on site retained for future on site reuse. 2.4.2 Pre-demolition audit and outputs Given the large area of the demolition site it was divided into zones prior to commencement of the demolition process. In each zone a pre-demolition audit was carried out to determine the materials to be recovered in order to produce a more detailed indication of the demolition bill of quantities (D-BOQ), allocate suitable segregated aggregate stockpile locations and identify suitable reuse options for recovered materials or end use options. The pre-demolition audits indicated that the majority of the demolition material consisted of concrete and masonry, with a relatively small amount (but significant tonnage, given the scale of the site) of metal, plastic, glass and timber. This case study report focuses on the soft strip and demolition of the main building structures and internal components of the building as well as the potential for recovery of masonry and concrete aggregate. Metal at the site was identified in the form of fencing, steel prison doors, window grilles, gates, pipework and bed frames. The distinctive nature of much of this material has meant that some of the fencing was identified for immediate reuse on site. The remainder of the metal was retained on site for future reuse or removed off site using controlled procedures where it was deformed to ensure that it could not be linked to the site and bulked before being shipped to other parts of the UK for recycling. Glass was identified in the majority of the buildings and again it was distinctive to the site in that it was largely toughened or bullet-proof glass. This material was identified for localised collection prior to being removed off site for bulking in Northern Ireland. PVC was identified on site in the form of anti-climb guard that ran along the top of each of the internal walls and perimeter wall. The PVC was only a small component of the demolition arisings by weight (70 tonnes was collected across the site) but was identified as having significant recovery potential and segregated accordingly. This material was identified for removal to an offsite location in Northern Ireland for granulation and bulking before being shipped to other parts of the UK for reprocessing. The majority of the buildings associated with HMP Long Kesh and RAF Long Kesh were timber constructed buildings, portacabins or other temporary structures located on concrete foundation pads. Where timber was suitable for reuse or recycling it was segregated for recovery. The majority of the timber comprised treated wood and its poor condition prevented effective recovery for recycling or reuse, so the best option was disposal to landfill. The majority of the H-Block and related prison buildings consisted largely of concrete block with reinforced concrete roofs and foundation slabs and masonry. The potential demolition arisings from these buildings were estimated at 60,000 – 70,000 tonnes of mixed concrete and masonry materials. It was identified at this stage that there was potential for separate stockpiles to be created when large areas of concrete construction materials were being demolished e.g. the perimeter wall which was approximately 3 kilometres in length and 5.5 metres in height. It was also identified that the reuse value of the segregated concrete material may be higher than the value of the mixed concrete and masonry demolition arisings. The decision was also made at this stage by CPD following discussions with the demolition contractor to crush the aggregate materials (both mixed concrete and masonry arisings and concrete arisings) to 230 mm (9”) size in order to provide aggregate that could later be used for a variety of purposes or undergo further secondary crushing as necessary.


2.5 Demolition Phase The demolition programme was phased over various site zones, with work commencing in August 2007 and was 95% complete at the end of March 2008. An audit was carried out in each zone prior to demolition to determine the materials to be recovered and a soft strip was then carried out. The majority of materials from infrastructure such as electricity substations, along with hazardous wastes had been cleared from the site under a previous contract.

Figure 3 Reprocessed, segregated demolition arisings

Demolition arisings were screened by handpicking and magnetic techniques to remove contaminating materials that may damage the on site mobile crushing plant before processing and stockpiling. The location of the stockpiles was agreed at each stage of the demolition and three stockpile areas were created. Stockpile locations were chosen to present the least amount of disturbance to ongoing site activities and any future build scenarios. 2.5.1 Demolition process and monitoring The demolition contractor maintained records of wastes arising from the programme of works. Most of the items that were readily identifiable as arising from a prison site were temporarily retained on site until a recovery option was identified either for reuse off site or for reuse at a later date on site. Only items which had significant reuse value and where it was difficult to establish reuse options on site, such as metals and timber, were sent off site. Mixed wastes were sent off-site to transfer stations for treatment and recovery or disposal to landfill. 2.5.2 Demolition arisings Recoverable timber, plastic (70 tonnes of PVC anti-climb guard), metal (1,800 tonnes arising from fencing, prison doors) and bullet resistant glass (15-20 tonnes) were sent off site for recycling. The Demolition Recovery Index (DRI) shown indicates that 100% of these and bulk materials were recovered for reprocessing. The Retained Materials (RM) value shown indicates 100% of concrete and mixed concrete and masonry wastes will be retained for future on site reuse. Items that were readily identifiable as arising from a prison site were temporarily retained on site until a reuse option could be determined or were removed off site following traceable procedures to ensure that materials were recycled responsibly. An example of reuse is that a quantity (400 metres) of high quality fencework was reused on site to secure a number of buildings on the site that were designated for heritage value. Fencing was required to ensure that demolition in adjacent areas did not allow accidental damage to the listed buildings and those with potential to be listed and to prevent visitors to these listed buildings accessing demolition areas.


Figure 4 Demolition arisings being separated to recover metals and aggregates

Table 3 Demolition arisings – at end of March 2008 Material Tonnes Demolition

Recovery Index (DRI)

Retained Materials

End use

Concrete 10,000 - 15,0001 100% 0% or 100% RCA Mixed concrete & Masonry

75,000 - 80,000 100% 100% Recycled aggregates

Timber (recoverable)

100 100% 0% Shredded for animal bedding

Glass 15 - 20 100% 0% NI reprocessing Metals (steel) 1,800 100% 0% Bulked in NI & further

reprocessing ex NI Plastics (PVC) 70 100% 0% Granulated and bulked in

NI & further reprocessing ex NI

Miscellaneous 7,000 - 8,000 0% 0% Landfill Project Total 98,985 - 104,990 92% - 93%2 76% - 90%3 - 1 Projected figures based on perimeter wall and foundations removal. 2 Based on 91,985 to 96,990 tonnes recovered from demolition arisings. 3 The higher RM of 90% will be achieved if the 10,000 – 15,000 tonnes of concrete currently making up the perimeter wall is retained on-site.

However, there could be significant market drivers for this material to be exported from site to a concrete batching facility for use as a higher value recycled aggregate (see Section 3 – Scenario C).

3.0 Linking demolition and new build phases The preferred redevelopment option for the site had not been agreed at time of writing but the benefits of MRE practices can still be described through a number of scenarios which will be applicable to almost any new development. Scenarios described here involve the use of recovered materials in infrastructure applications which are likely to form a part of a range of future redevelopment options, such as roads/parking, Sustainable Urban Drainage Schemes (SUDS) and in concrete applications. They are therefore relevant and meaningful and describe the benefits to be realised from MRE practices in whatever redevelopment option is chosen in the future.


Potential benefits have been described for three scenarios:

Scenario A: Reuse of site won demolition material as sub-base in road and parking schemes;

Scenario B: Reuse of site won demolition material for drainage in a Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme (SUDS); and

Scenario C: Reuse of site won concrete demolition material as RCA in concrete.

3.1 Description of assumptions and underpinning data An indicative price provided by Quarry Products Association NI (QPANI) has been used for the various primary aggregate types that would need to be imported to site if they were not available on site. According to information provided, in a Northern Ireland context site won demolition aggregate materials cost £0.60/tonne more to produce/procure than imported materials. This is in contrast to other parts of the UK where recycled aggregates are normally a lower cost option than primary materials. Each scenario has been compared to a further scenario which calculates the costs associated with the use of imported aggregates and haulage/landfill off site of demolition material. It has been assumed that around 90,000 tonnes of hard materials have become available from the demolition process for use as RA, which equates to 9,000 avoided vehicle movements. The number comes from a scenario where trucks with a 20 tonne payload are used, resulting in 4,500 round trips to remove demolition arisings and 4,500 round trips to bring the same quantity of primary aggregate to the site. It has been assumed that a round trip consists of 20 miles (as the nearest landfill and quarry are approximately 10 miles away from the site location). 3.2 Scenario A: Reuse of site-won demolition material as sub-base in road and parking schemes A number of road schemes will probably be required as part of the site redevelopment and recycled aggregate can be used for this purpose. The recycled aggregate size produced (≤230mm) could be suitable for use as a capping layer or as an embankment material but it would need further crushing to be used as a Type 1, Type 2, or 6F1 aggregate. It was assumed that 91,985 tonnes of all the materials crushed and screened were recovered for use A summary of indicative cost savings associated with its use is presented below in Table 4.

Table 4 Summary of cost savings Description Use of site won aggregates

in a road scheme Use of imported aggregate and haulage/landfill

Haulage/landfill cost None £8.50/tonne1, therefore £781,873 Cost of aggregate £6.50/tonne, therefore £597,903 £5.90/tonne2, therefore £542,712 Total cost £597,903 £1,324,585 Assumptions: 1 £2.50 per tonne haul; landfill tax £2.50 and waste gate fee of £70/load = £3.50/tonne. TOTAL = £8.50/tonne 2 Ex-quarry price £3.50/tonne; haulage (20 mile round trip) £2.40. TOTAL = £5.90/tonne

Table 4 shows that an overall cost saving of £726,682 is achieved by using recycled aggregates instead of disposing of the demolition arisings and purchasing primary materials. 3.3 Scenario B: Reuse of site-won demolition materials for drainage in a SUDS scheme The regeneration site may include large areas of hardstanding in any future development plans. Where a development contains more than 5% hardstanding surface the run-off from rainfall is typically considered to increase significantly, leading to a greater likelihood of localised flooding incidents (with more pressure placed on surface water drainage systems).


As such SUDS schemes encourage the treatment of run-off locally to reduce the need for water to be removed off-site. These schemes use a variety of approaches, commonly including the use of permeable surfaces. Areas of impervious covering blocks are laid in such a way that gaps between the blocks are filled with sand or gravel allowing water to move to the permeable sub-base layer below. This sub-base layer is a single size crushed rock or other open texture material. If 10% loss of the current recovered material was allowed for as a result of the crushing and screening required to produce various single size materials this would result in 81,000 tonnes of permeable sub-base material available for SUDS drainage. A summary of the cost savings associated with this use are presented below in Table 5. The cost of processing to achieve single size materials is assumed to be £0.30 per tonne more expensive than Scenario A, with the differential between recycled and primary materials maintained at £0.60 as indicated earlier.

Table 5 Summary of cost savings Description Use of site won aggregates in

SUDS scheme Use of imported aggregate and haulage/landfill

Haulage/landfill cost None £8.50/tonne1, therefore £688,500 Cost of SUDS sub-base aggregate

£6.80/tonne, therefore £550,800 £6.20/tonne2, therefore £502,200

Total cost £550,800 £1,190,700

Assumptions: 1 £2.50 per tonne haul; landfill tax £2.50 and waste gate fee of £70/load = £3.50/tonne. TOTAL = £8.50/tonne 2 Ex-quarry price £3.80/tonne; haulage (20 mile round trip) £2.40. TOTAL = £6.20/tonne

This results in an overall cost saving of £639,900. 3.4 Scenario C: Reuse of site-won concrete demolition material as Recycled Concrete Aggregate (RCA) in concrete The stockpiles of demolition arisings on-site may in large part consist of concrete materials. However, further characterisation would be required to confirm this. In addition, the perimeter wall represents a source of concrete, which when demolished could be reprocessed as a Recycled Concrete Aggregate (RCA), a high value material. RCA can be specified to substitute for significant quantities of primary aggregates in concrete. In structural concretes the British Standard BS 8500 allows the substitution of 20% of the coarse aggregate fraction, with higher levels of substitution if the designer has confidence in the material to allow this. For non-structural concretes much higher levels of substitution are possible, determined by fit for purpose design specifications and requirements. In terms of the redevelopment options for the site, concretes will almost undoubtedly be used in a range of applications including foundations, paving slabs, dense and lightweight blocks, structural frames etc. Crushed concrete recovered for use as aggregate commands a typically higher value than mixed masonry and concrete aggregates as it can be used as a raw material within concrete production for example, even though both may have been produced to recognised quality control requirements e.g. the Quality Protocol for the production of aggregates from inert waste in Northern Ireland. It is assumed that there will be an additional £1 per tonne cost over primary aggregate used in Scenario B for these aggregates, with the differential between recycled and primary costs again kept at £0.60. The cost-benefit summary shown Table 6 applies these costs to the 15,000 tonnes of concrete mentioned earlier which can be recovered and segregated separately from other demolition arisings (from the perimeter wall).


Figure 5 Concrete perimeter wall, with anti-climb PVC

Table 6 Summary of cost savings Description Use of site won aggregates as

car park sub base material Use of imported aggregate and haulage/landfill

Haulage/landfill cost None £8.50/tonne1, therefore £127,500 Cost of concrete aggregates £7.80/tonne, therefore £117,000 £7.20/tonne2, therefore £108,000 Total cost £117,000 £235,500 Assumptions: 1 £2.50 per tonne haul; landfill tax £2.50 and waste gate fee of £70/load = £3.50/tonne. TOTAL = £8.50/tonne 2 Ex-quarry price £4.80/tonne; haulage (20 mile round trip) £2.40. TOTAL = £7.20/tonne

This results in an overall cost saving of £118,500. 3.5 Environmental benefits Environmental savings associated with avoided transport movements were calculated as prevented emissions of CO2 using DEFRA data (Guidelines for Company Reporting on Greenhouse Gas Emissions). WRAP’s CO2 Estimator Tool can be used for this as well as for calculating a wider range of impacts beyond transportation. The approach used determines the impacts of vehicle movement on CO2 emissions for different options. It was assumed that 20 tonne payload vehicles could be expected to deliver a performance of around 8 miles per gallon of diesel3 or 1.7 miles per litre. With 2.63 Kg of CO2 produced per litre of diesel, this then translates to 1.55 Kg CO2 emissions per mile travelled. It is also assumed that imported aggregates have been hauled in 20 tonne payload vehicles from a depot nearby that requires a 20 mile round trip and that haulage/landfill disposal off-site of materials also requires a 20 mile round trip. Use of site-won recycled aggregate or recycled concrete aggregate instead of imported primary aggregate will require fewer vehicle movements, avoiding CO2 emission generation. A summary of the scale of the emissions prevented is highlighted in Table 7, by using Scenario A as an example.

3Road Haulage Association (2008) Goods Vehicles Operating Cost Tables. Accessible at http://www.rha.net/business-services/plonearticle.2006-04-20.7693855555/. Values for a 32 tonne vehicle loaded


Table 7 Summary of CO2 emissions CO2 emissions (Kg) Description Scenario A:

Use of site won aggregates Use of imported aggregate and haulage/landfill

Demolition phase: Export of aggregates off site

- 139,500

New build stage: aggregate demand - 139,500 Total CO2 emissions prevented 0 279,000 This results in an overall prevention of CO2 emissions of 279 tonnes. 4.0 Materials Resource Efficiency context Materials Resource Efficiency principles have been applied at a number of key stages of this regeneration project. This section introduces some of the opportunities and barriers experienced. 4.1 MRE practice in the public sector The public sector, in terms of procurement, operates within wider Government policy and this has been a positive driver in terms of this project. The CPD operate within the Policy Framework for the Procurement of Public Sector Construction Projects and associated documents (including the “Sustainability Action Plan” and guidance documents such as “Achieving Excellence in Construction Procurement Guide 11: Sustainability”). This framework has embedded within it the concept of sustainable construction. Additional guidance to support the Project Sponsors and Project Managers has been provided by the CPD Sustainable Construction Group which was established in 2004. Key targets for CPD relating to sustainable construction projects include:

10% of the material value of the projects should derive from recycled or reused content;

Site Waste Management Plans, whilst not yet a legislative requirement in Northern Ireland, should be implemented for all projects over £250,000 (excluding mechanical and electrical projects); and

The WRAP “Quality Protocol for Recycled Aggregates” should be promoted where feasible.

The CPD have found that MRE principles adopted in this project have resulted in significant cost savings over traditional methods and that there have been additional environmental benefits associated with on-site recovery. 4.2 Recovered aggregate material reuse potential in Northern Ireland Market factors have changed in Northern Ireland in recent times, providing a more positive climate for the recovery and reuse of aggregate materials. However, from discussions with Northern Ireland Demolition Association (NIDA) and the Quarry Products Association NI (QPANI) there remains a perception within their client base that there is limited demand for recovered aggregate material in Northern Ireland given the combined factors of locally abundant primary material near development-intense areas (160 quarries and pits producing 24 million tonnes of material/year4), the presence of exempt sites to take inert construction and demolition waste and an 80% discount on the Aggregates Levy for primary aggregates through participation in the Aggregate Levy Compliance Scheme (ALCS). As a result of these factors it is felt that that market is still somewhat underdeveloped and that physical infrastructure to support the recycling of aggregate is not in place on any scale comparable to other parts of the UK. A changing regulatory regime will limit the use of exempt sites in future. Coupled with the increase in Landfill Tax charges (from 1 April 2008) this is likely to generate greater interest in recycled aggregates. This will have a particular impact in the west of the province where rock quarry materials are not widely locally available. The use

4 Quarry Products Association, NI (2007) Facts and Figures [online] Available on 12 March 2008 at http://www.qpani.org/pro_figures01.htm


of demolition arisings as inert materials to raise site levels etc. will no longer be authorised unless such activities can be strictly identified as a needed requirement of the new build process. As well as impacting on the demand for aggregate the landfill tax will increase the cost of disposal of aggregate considerably, particularly if this is mixed with active waste. The landfill tax for active waste is £32/tonne (an increase of £8/tonne over the previous year) with inert landfill tax set at £2.50/tonne (an increase of £0.50 over the previous year). In common with many parts of the UK there is an increasingly limited amount of landfill space available, and in some areas no space remains. This will continue to drive disposal costs higher over time. For a number of primary material producers there is an increasing driver through the ALCS scheme to promote the use of recovered aggregates. As producers make good progress in environmental improvements more challenging targets involving the growth of the market for recycled materials will develop. This will ensure continued accreditation and inclusion in the scheme which runs to March 2012. Another factor, which is particularly relevant to the local market, and that may play a positive role in the generation of market demand for site won aggregate materials is the slowing of the development sector following rises in housing prices in recent years which greatly exceed those in the UK (an average 36% in 2006, more than 3 times the UK average5). The University of Ulster Quarterly House Price Index showed that house prices had fallen by an average of £20,000 in the last quarter of 2007 and predicted an overall decline in value of 5-10% by the end of 20086. A housing market which is more competitive and where margins are tighter may lead to increased pressures to manage resources more efficiently than before, for example resulting in greater demand to use site-won arisings/resources in the new build. 4.3 Current routes to market for recovered materials Information from the public registers maintained by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, Waste Management Unit on accredited packaging exporters and reprocessors suggests that there are a number of local outlets for packaging (and by inference demolition waste) timber, metal, plastic, paper and cardboard . A search of commercial databases for the Northern Ireland region (e.g. Yellow Pages, www.NIBusinessInfo.co.uk) shows 80-90 companies classing their main activity as recycling. This includes wastes such as timber, glass, paper, cardboard, metal, batteries, waste electrical equipment and oils. As recycling and reuse options become a more attractive and necessary aspect of management approaches to construction, the market should develop to be able to sustain more outlets. At present a number of these recyclers are collecting, storing and bulking materials prior to export to other reprocessing plants within the UK and further afield. Again as more materials are released into the market this may drive a demand for facilities to accommodate local reprocessing of materials. The site involved the recovery of a number of unusual materials such as bullet proof glass and PVC anti climb guard. Recovery options were successfully identified for these options in addition to more commonplace materials such as metals and untreated timber. Salvageable materials such as the internal furnishings (approximately 400 metal framed beds) are being retained on site for on site reuse where possible and sent for reuse or recycle options off site where no further on site use has been identified. Aggregate materials were crushed on site using mobile crushing plant, licensed through the Industrial Pollution Control (IPC) permit system. It is anticipated that all the site aggregate arisings shall be reused in any future re-development of the site. Elsewhere in Northern Ireland there are dedicated sites currently licensed for the reprocessing of aggregate materials licensed under waste management regulations. There are two main routes that allow the use of secondary aggregates off site. Aggregate materials that are crushed to the Quality Protocol specification can be classed as a resource and not a waste. Where material is not crushed to meet this standard the material must only be transferred to a site with a waste management licence exemption. As market pressures (resource costs, client specification, material disposal costs) increase within the construction sector these routes will become more attractive.

5 Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), 2008 [online]; European Housing Review, 2007, RICS, UK. Accessed at http://www.rics.org/NR/rdonlyres/5B277011-8346-4111-9299-C7A6991B2090/0/EuropeanHousingReviewfullreport.pdf

6 University of Ulster(2008) [online] University of Ulster Quarterly House Price Index (Quarter 4, 2007), Accessed at http://news.ulster.ac.uk/releases/2008/3617.html


With respect to the availability of recycled aggregate content the Northern Ireland Waste Management Strategy has recommended that this is one of the areas that could be improved in relation to development of a more robust recycling and reprocessing sector. This may include the introduction of suitable storage facilities for the crushing and stockpiling of recycled aggregates in city centre areas where onsite crushing space would be prohibitive. This was not an issue during this project, but is acknowledged that having sufficient space to carry out demolition and crushing activities in tandem is an important consideration when choosing onsite resource recovery as an option in both public and private sector regeneration developments. Again as market pressures increase to make onsite resource recovery more attractive so too will the need to provide suitable spaces to facilitate on-site crushing in space limited areas. One of the challenges for the project managers and demolition contractor during this project has been locating suitably licensed recyclers, exporters or reprocessors to receive some of the extended construction materials (i.e. materials arising from demolition which are less significant in terms of quantity/bulk and which form part of a less developed recovered materials market). Licensed facilities were available for most of the materials generated, and this was facilitated by WRAP e.g. PVC anti climb. Whilst it is acknowledged that outlets do exist it would appear that there is a need for continued knowledge transfer and knowledge capacity building in this area between recyclers, reprocessors and/or exporters and potential clients (waste producers). 4.4 MRE practice in relation to future site regeneration plans The next stage of the site’s future redevelopment will be subject to a separate design and build tender/contract and as such it will be important that MRE practices are specified in the future tender and contract documentation - to ensure the materials being stockpiled and potentially available (e.g. foundations) are used to their best potential. As this case study has described, there are a number of high value end uses for the reprocessed material which can be realised through secondary crushing. Trials could be carried out to determine the optimum grading of materials and their potential end uses that can be achieved, to maximise future cost benefits. It should also be noted that there are considerable quantities of concrete and reinforced concrete foundations that have yet to be recovered from the site. The materials have been left in place to facilitate any future building at the site. This material should be recovered and stockpiled separately during any future works to ensure a higher quality aggregate can be generated. As mentioned in this case study report, such materials can be recovered and reprocessed to a higher value premium product such as RCA. 5.0 Conclusions

The Materials Resource Efficiency (MRE) approaches advocated in the WRAP Regeneration Guide have demonstrated that the demolition materials recovered on site, for potential use as recycled aggregates, have an equivalent value of £550,000 – £600,000, equating to cost savings of approximately £640,000 - £730,000 when compared with traditional disposal methods.

A Demolition Recovery Index (DRI) of 92-93% has been achieved for this case study.

The Retained Material KPI is between 76% and 90%, depending on how the concrete aggregate is to be segregated in the future. Regardless, this KPI indicates a highly sustainable approach to materials resource efficiency, with very few materials being removed from site.

Additional environmental benefits were identified in relation to 9,000 fewer vehicle trips and their associated nuisance (noise, vibration and dust) impacts.

In terms of climate change, avoided carbon emissions of approximately 279 tonnes of carbon dioxide were achieved through fewer vehicle movements

The use of recycled materials potentially reduces the demand of primary aggregate materials, improving the longevity and sustainability of this industry moving into the future.

During consultation with a number of stakeholders it was recognised that the perceived barriers to the recovery of aggregate and other demolition materials and their reuse opportunities are diminishing as market drivers change (for example, the removal of exemptions on the payment of landfill tax for construction and demolition wastes).


There are further opportunities to be realised in the development of the recycling infrastructure for the reprocessing of aggregate materials other than through the use of on-site mobile crushing plant.

Northern Ireland does have access to onsite crushing facilities and a range of reprocessors that can accept demolition materials. There is a need to continue to develop relationships between reprocessors and their potential clients. As the market continues to grow there will be an increased demand for Northern Ireland-based reprocessing activities.

6.0 Recommendations

The volume of materials recovered at the end of the project should be verified and stockpile locations recorded in order to ensure that this information is available for the eventual site redevelopment option.

Concrete structures should be demolished separately and segregated from other materials where feasible. By stockpiling separately, reprocessed concrete structures, known as RCA (Recycled Concrete Aggregate) can be used in structural and non-structural concrete applications – a higher value use which maximises the return for the client.

Future new build specifications should be informed by the potential of the existing stockpiles to meet new build demand. The use of recycled aggregates in a range of high value applications has become mainstream across the UK and the opportunity to adopt similar approaches in Northern Ireland should be driven by client teams.

Clear linkages should be made in any future redevelopment tenders/contracts to how Materials Resource Efficiency approaches should be further taken forward, for example by requiring the use of all site won material in the new build, where volumes and material demand permit.

7.0 References and resources 1 Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) [online]: Demolition Protocol

www.ice.org.uk/knowledge/specialist_waste.asp [2003 issue] www.ice.org.uk/knowledge/specialist_community_waste_downloads.asp [2008 update]

2 WRAP [online]: The efficient use of materials in regeneration projects - a step by step guide

www.wrap.org.uk/construction/achieving_resource_efficiency/materials_resource_efficiency_in_regeneration/index.html (or http://tinyurl.com/mrer-guide)

3 WRAP [online]: Aggregain – the free information service on sustainable aggregates

www.aggregain.org.uk www.aggregain.org.uk/demolition - for detailed information on recovering aggregates from the demolition phase for use in the new build phase. Targeted information brochures for key parts of the project team: - Policy makers and planners www.wrap.org.uk/document.rm?id=1937 - Developers and designers www.wrap.org.uk/document.rm?id=1938 - Contractors www.wrap.org.uk/document.rm?id=1939 - Suppliers of recycled aggregates www.wrap.org.uk/document.rm?id=1940

4 WRAP [online]: Aggregates Quality Protocol – with supporting checklists

www.aggregain.org.uk/quality/quality_protocols 5 Environment Agency [online]: Site Waste Management Plans

www.netregs.gov.uk/netregs/legislation/380525/1555007/ Also WRAP SWMP Template www.wrap.org.uk/construction/construction_waste_minimisation_and_management/swmp_form.html


APPENDIX A Overview of the WRAP Regeneration Guide Introduction This guide is a resource for all parties interested in implementing requirements for the efficient use of materials in regeneration projects. It incorporates good practice:

in demolition – through the use of the ICE Demolition Protocol and Site waste Management Plans;

in new build construction – through WRAP’s recycled content, waste minimisation and site waste management guidance; and

between the demolition and new build phases – through on site reclamation and recycling of materials.

Efficient use of materials in regeneration Regeneration projects, in the context of this guide, are those where existing buildings and infrastructure contribute materials to the new build stage. The efficient use of materials can lead to time and cost savings, reductions in material sent to landfill and extraction of primary resources and reduce carbon emissions. Introducing good practice in the efficient use of materials involves:

effective design;

efficient procurement, and

recycling of site arisings

Figure A1 Overview of materials resource efficiency in regeneration

www.wrap.org.uk/construction

Documents

Case study - Maze Long Kesh regeneration study - Maze... · Case study Maze / Long Kesh Prison Regeneration Site This case study describes how 93% of all demolition materials were