New REUSING BUILDING MATERIALS: FROM WASTE TO RESOURCE. … · 2016. 10. 6. · reused CDW have high resource value and can be reused in new roads, drainage and other construction

REUSING BUILDING

MATERIALS: FROM

WASTE TO RESOURCE. Heerlen

Maastricht, 28 of May 2014 Team project: Business Innovation & Sustainable Development Course code: EBC4106 Course Coordinator: Marc Van Wegberg Tutor: Anastasios Constantinou

Ruslana Atanasova (i6068061) Johanna Carstens (i6001043)

Monika Dainyte (i6080929) Sarah Jenkins (i6083189)

Carolien Peeters (i6085445) Sam Salsal (i6005059)

Sven Weinhold (i6083642)

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1

1.1 THE SITUATION IN THE NETHERLANDS AND THE MUNICIPALITY OF HEERLEN ...... 1

2. LITERATURE ANALYSIS. REUSE OF BUILDING MATERIALS ........................................ 2

2.1 COMPARISON TO EU .................................................................................................. 2

2.2 LEGISLATION ............................................................................................................. 3

2.3 CLASSIFICATION OF DEMOLITION WASTE ............................................................... 4

2.4 DEMOLITION VS. DECONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 4

2.5 REUSE VS. RECYCLING .............................................................................................. 5

3. CURRENT PROJECT IN HEERLEN: THE BMV ALDENHOF AND ALDENHOFPARK SHOWCASE .......................................................................................................... 5

4. STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS .................................................................................... 7

5. FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS ....................................................................................... 9

5.1 OPERATIONAL FEASIBILITY ...................................................................................... 9 5.1.1 Legislative Measures ................................................................................................................. 9 5.1.2 Stakeholder Commitment ....................................................................................................... 10 5.1.3 Handling Recovered Materials ............................................................................................... 10 5.1.4 Market for Reused Materials ................................................................................................. 11

5.2 TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY ......................................................................................... 13 5.2.1 Reuse of Bricks ........................................................................................................................ 13 5.2.2 Reuse of Concrete .................................................................................................................... 14 5.2.3. 3D House Printing .................................................................................................................. 15

5.3 ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY .......................................................................................... 17

6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 18

7. METHODOLOGY AND LIMITATIONS ..................................................................... 20

8. FINAL WORDS .................................................................................................. 20

9. REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 22

APPENDIX 1: BEST PRACTICE CASE STUDIES ............................................................ 25 CASE STUDY: ROTTERDAM CITY CIRCLE .................................................................... 25

Stakeholders ...................................................................................................................................... 25 The Cycle ........................................................................................................................................... 26 Transportation .................................................................................................................................. 26 Green Deal Circle City ..................................................................................................................... 26

CASE STUDY: UNITED KINGDOM .................................................................................. 27

APPENDIX 2 ........................................................................................................ 28

APPENDIX 3 ........................................................................................................ 29

May 28, 2014 REUSING BUILDING MATERIALS: FROM WASTE TO RESOURCE. HEERLEN PAGE 1

1. Introduction

The problems and challenges which countries face are determined by different factors. For instance, the global mega trends, such as demographic shifts, accelerating urbanization, resource scarcity and climate change, technology breakthroughs or shifts in economic power, will have an impact not only on the economy and environment but also on the society (PwC 2013). Especially in the developed world, even though the population is aging and will decline in the future, these countries are using more resources than ever before. These aspects raise concern about resource efficiency and sustainability for the future.

Increased consumption leads also to large amounts of waste. But instead of only seeing it as waste, there has been a shift from disposal to recycling and recovery waste (EEA, 2014). The European Commission states that the EU produces 3 billion tons of waste each year (EC, 2014 [1]). This figure includes different waste streams, and within the EU waste generated by construction and demolition (C&D) accounts for 25% - 30% of all waste. This includes materials such as concrete, gypsum, metals, wood, bricks and glass. This high percentage illustrates the fact that debris resulting from such activities determines the most voluminous waste flows within the EU (EC, 2014 [2]). Consequently, the EU identified C&D waste (CDW) as a priority waste stream. The components of recycled and reused CDW have high resource value and can be reused in new roads, drainage and other construction projects (EC, 2014 [2]).

One of the answers to these rising waste problems is deconstruction of buildings instead of demolition. Reusing deconstruction waste would provide new materials to a community, decrease the disposal fees and project costs, and extend the life cycle of landfills. Whereas demolition and its resulting waste is usually seen as the end-of-life of buildings and materials, deconstruction waste is seen as the beginning of another life cycle (Thomsen et al., 2011): from downcycling (recycling waste at a reduced value level relative to the value of new product) to upcycling (keeping the value of discarded products intact or even adding value to them). Worldwide, a couple of initiatives and projects exist that address this cycle of deconstruction, recycling, material processing, and reusing the deconstructed material. The Netherlands are also concerned in this process.

1.1 The situation in the Netherlands and the Municipality of Heerlen

According to the European Environment Agency (EEA), the Netherlands “have been far ahead of EU policies in waste management and have more or less influenced the European policies that have been formulated in recent years (LAP, 2009)” (EEA, 2013). As such, the Netherlands is not only efficient in paper, bio waste or packaging recycling, but they have also been working on recycling and reusing CDW.

The city of Heerlen is actively working on CDW management project and would like to further decrease the loop in using CDW. Heerlen is facing a decreasing population, and currently has many


housing complexes zoned for demolition. On average, the growth rate of urbanization in the Netherlands is said to be of 0.8% till 2015, indicating the trend of migration into urban areas and cities (CIA, 2014) and resulting in empty housing. Various initiatives already exist to reuse the materials resulting from the demolition process. Instead of recycling, the municipality is looking for ways to make the transition to upcycling. In a way, the end of one life cycle process (demolition, waste, dumping) needs to be connected with new cycles (green housing, sustainable buildings, sustainable art). Hence, our research question focuses on: “How can the cycle between the Demolition and Construction business be feasibly closed in Heerlen?”

We start our report with a literature overview and then describe briefly the current situation in Heerlen. After identifying the main stakeholders involved in Heerlen project, a feasibility study looks in more detail into three areas such as technical, economic, and operational. Our report relies on two different best practice cases in C&D sector (described in Appendix 1) in the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. The last part of our report consists of conclusion, recommendations, and methodology limitations.

2. Literature Analysis. Reuse of Building Materials

The purpose of this literature review is to offer an in-depth analysis of available sources on the current state of sustainable demolition and reuse of building materials. First sections will evaluate the current situation of demolition in the Netherlands as well as legislation. After providing a thorough classification of waste materials, we will cover the differences between deconstruction vs. demolition, and recycle vs. reuse.

The analysis of the construction industry in general provides insights into why it is important to focus on sustainability for the future in the C&D sector. Construction of new buildings annually consumes 25% of virgin wood, 40% of the raw stone, gravel, and sand, and 16% of the water consumption (Woolthuis, 2010). The sector also produces around 70% of all sulphur oxides, which is a major source of air pollution (Woolthuis, 2010). Improvement in the CDW management cycle benefits not only the direct industry, but also the communities in which they operate. The construction industry in the Netherlands was growing at a rate of 40% over the years 2006-2009, which now comprises over 110,000 companies contributing 7% of the GDP and 7% of the total employment (Ngowi, 2001).

2.1 Comparison to EU

In comparison to other EU countries, the Netherlands has an excellent rate in recycling of C&D materials reaching 94% in 2010 (Rijkswaterstraat, 2013). Only Scotland was the only country reusing more C&D materials than the Netherlands based on a study from 2005 (Hestin, 2011). The amount of CDW generated is based on many factors. These include population increase or decrease, city planning, and the state of legislature regulating the disposal of these types of materials. Though the Netherlands


has been strong in many aspects, C&D materials still compose 40% of its total waste (Figure 1). When calculating the CDW, both waste from construction and demolition are considered part of the same category. However, in this project we will focus on demolition material. Demolition waste often produces 20-30 times more waste per m2 than construction, making demolition waste the biggest percentage of waste in the Netherlands (Jeffrey, 2011). Demolition waste is also often contaminated with paint, adhesives,

dirt, and other contaminants making refurbishment and reprocessing necessary in the process of reusing the materials.

2.2 Legislation

Legislation on waste, recycling, and landfills can have a major impact on the success of a country’s initiatives. One major factor in Europe is the Waste Framework Directive, which was revised by the EU to require each member state to reuse or recycle 70% of their CDW by 2020 (Hestin, 2011). This policy has been a main driver producing change in the way countries see CDW. Germany, Denmark, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands are the only European member states that have reached this target of 70% (Jeffery, 2011).

A major influence pushing the Netherlands to reach this goal has been the regulations and taxation on land-filled C&D. Two policies were drafted in the Netherlands, the first “Ladder van Lansink” from 1979, and a subsequent landfill tax in 1995 and a landfill ban in 1997 (Linderhof, 2006). In many cases high labor costs, inexpensive raw materials, and low landfill costs make sustainable demolition unprofitable. However, with the imposition of these policies, the Netherlands has focused its long-term strategy on sustainability rather than profit. The rest of Europe has followed suit, and many countries are now placing landfill bans aiming to reach their 2020 goals.

Finally, the idea is to present legislation to promote the reuse of demolition materials in new construction closing the loop of the CDW cycle. Currently, the Netherlands has a national policy for waste treatment, and this policy offers incineration as a standard treatment, even for reusable materials (VROM, 2010). To meet the demand of reusing more materials rather than recycling, a change must occur.

Figure 1. Source of waste in the Netherlands 2010 by weight (CBS, 2012)


2.3 Classification of Demolition Waste

The following classification is based on the 'European waste catalog and hazardous waste list' (EWC), or in Dutch the ‘Europese afvalstoffenlijst’ (Eural) (VROM, 2001). Materials can be classified as stony materials, wood, metals, glass, paper, plastics, insulation material, asbestos containing material, furnishing, mixed materials, and sorting residue (VROM, 2001). From a study conducted by the European Commission, material composition of CDW from 2001 contained the following: concrete: 40%, masonry 25%, other mineral waste 2%, asphalt 26%, wood 2%, metal 1%, miscellaneous 7% (Hestin, 2011). The majority of deconstruction material comes from the “stony material” category. This category can include concrete, bricks, masonry, asphalt and other commonly used materials and represents the greatest reuse potential. Concrete is the second most consumed substance in the world after water (Hestin, 2011). Many countries have cut back on concrete production reaching 30% in Spain 2006-2008, but the Netherlands has had growth of more than 23% producing 8.5 million m3 in 2006 and 10.5 million m3 in 2008 (Hestin, 2011). A study by the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA) in the US concluded that up to 10% recycled concrete aggregate is suitable as a substitute for virgin aggregates for most concrete applications while UK research suggests 20% (Hestin, 2011). Increases in reuse of this category could present major improvements, environmental benefits, and economic benefits to the industry.

Another major resource used is wood. All wood waste is defined under a single category, although they have different recovery potentials. Wood A is untreated wood, Wood B has been painted, glued, contains nails or other building materials, and Wood C is treated wood that contains hazardous substances. Often the distinction between wood A and B is difficult to see, and many companies make profits by selling wood B as wood A (VROM, 2010).

Metals represent the most valuable of demolition materials, however, they comprise a small part of materials actually extracted from the building. The classification includes ferrous metal and steel, cooper, bronze and brass, aluminum, lead, zinc, tin, mixed metals, and contaminated metals and cables (Stichting). The salvage of these materials depends on the process of demolition or deconstruction, which will be discussed in the next section.

2.4 Demolition vs. Deconstruction

Deconstruction is the process of manually taking the building apart piece by piece to salvage as much reusable material as possible, while demolition uses machinery to knock the entire structure down (Bowman, n.d.). Other than the obvious benefits of diverting waste from the largest waste stream in the Netherlands, there are some benefits to deconstructing buildings rather than demolishing them. For instance, a major impact is the financial benefit to reusing or recycling the materials rather than facing the increasing landfill disposal costs. Furthermore, recycling material might seem to have economical disadvantages, but in the long run, recycling and “house deconstruction can be more cost-effective than demolition across a range of building types” (NSW EPA, 2013 [1]). Recycling does not only impact economic value such as fostering innovation, or generating economic growth, but it has also


environmental and social impacts such as generating employment or securing resources (EEA, 2014). According to the EPA, which consults the North South Wales government in Australia on environmental aspects, there are also many benefits in recovering and reusing concrete, bricks and asphalt material. Besides protecting natural resources and the environment, it has some potential cost saving benefits and enables working towards international best practices and ecologically sustainable recycling processes in the construction segment. This can contribute to protecting the environment and work on a sustainable future (NSW EPA, 2013 [2]). Greenhouse gas emission and energy used in creating buildings from raw materials will be reduced in the process. The embodied energy in new materials is extremely high due to the mining, extracting, manufacturing and transporting of these materials, and reusing will prevent that cycle from occurring again. Due to the manual labor required for deconstruction, the triple bottom line will be reached, creating benefits for all economies.

2.5 Reuse vs. Recycling

Reusing and recycling complete different loop cycles (Figure 2). For the purposes of this report, the analysis will focus on the reuse loop. Movement from incineration to reuse is needed especially for qualified materials. The world is separated into three spheres, environmental, social, and economic. These three economies come together to create the triple bottom line. Closing this loop would provide many benefits to the triple bottom line. The reuse loop is best used in small-scale loops, which reduces the environmental impact of transportation through reduction in CO2

emissions. During sustainable demolition, more attention to the environmental aspects of the projects should be given, the ethical and communal aspects of the demolition should be considered, attention on training of employees on the sustainable practices, and competition in the sector should be encouraged.

To increase competition in the sustainable demolition industry, the Dutch government introduced subsidy schemes for the industry (Werkplan, 2007). Entrepreneurs are considered extremely important to competition in this industry. Entrepreneurs can spur competition in the industry by looking at the economic gains to be made in the sector and combining this with new sustainable innovations. Another way in which entrepreneurs can contribute to the field is by discovering new opportunities for reuse of demolition materials.

3. Current Project in Heerlen: The BMV Aldenhof and AldenhofPARK Showcase

With interest in discovering a way to close the loop, several stakeholders in Heerlen started the Aldenhof showcase projects, initiated by Heerlen municipality to deconstruct existing empty buildings

Figure 2. Life cycle of building material (Kim et al., 1998)


and re-using materials from them build new buildings/public parks. The idea is to not only improve the housing stock, physical situation and social cohesion in this district of Heerlen, but also to counteract the effects of a decreasing population such as empty buildings. For this, the existing housing blocks need to be restructured to use the total potential of this area. This means that nearly 200 flats need to be demolished and besides being replaced by a maximum of 96 new estate dwellings. A new public park is planned in the open place. Also, new social facilities such as two public schools and care centers will be built (Gemeente Heerlen, 2014). The Aldenhof projects do not only boost the area and make it more attractive, but they are also sophisticated projects with regard to sustainability and environmental protection. This initiative does not only consider the resource and waste aspect, but also the social value behind the neighborhood and the community. Additionally, the stakeholders include the aspect of social return on investment (SROI) by incorporating beneficiaries or underdogs in the employment market. However, one of the major challenges facing this project is the collaboration and coordination of the many stakeholders. The key coordinator for this 'new' neighborhood is Heerlen, but Woonpunt (discussed in more detail in chapter 4, on page 7) acts as the contracting company responsible for sub-contracting demolition and construction companies. Re Use Materials (RUM), a material-inventory provider, surveyed the top 10 materials for Aldenhof that can be re-used and/or recycled, such as concrete, masonry, insulation, tiles, wood, glass, metal, pavements, plastic and frames. For instance, concrete can substitute gravel and can be used for a foundation. Wood beams can be reused as parts for a roof or for different ideas such as tables, benches or garden flower containers. However, most CDW is a mixture of tiles, cement, chalk and concrete, the stony fraction of a house, small parts are seen like glass, wood, insulation mastic and earth. CDW is crushed and re-used in construction because it's readily available at low cost. The concrete fraction in it gives the extra quality needed in construction. Pure concrete is not very common, it's seen as a waste of good quality material. Pure concrete will find its way as a replacement of gravel in partly recycled (20% max typically) fresh concrete. Additionally, complementary materials were also considered like radiators, boilers, doors, sky windows, fire hoes and fire alarms. Nevertheless, some of the reprocessing requires special licenses and certificates to guarantee a specific level of safety and quality. As the project was not profitable in monetary terms and the municipality had to invest even additional money to realize the showcase project, the concern was raised whether profitable models exist and can be applied to Heerlen. Additionally, difficulties in the logistics of the deconstructed material were faced. Hence, some efficiency concerns and challenges including profit and logistic aspects needed to be analyzed and assessed. The feasibility analysis in Section 5 will look deeper into it.


4. Stakeholder Analysis

There are several main groups of stakeholders interested in the development of the Heerlen Housing project. Their interest in the project and their decision-making power depends on the degree of their

involvement in the project as well as on various external factors.

Woonpunt is the largest housing corporation in the region of South Limburg. Woonpunt is the contracting company responsible for sub-contracting demolition and construction companies. The company provides 17,700 houses to families, students, senior citizens and special target groups such as in the case of the Aldenhof projects area. The company owns all the houses as well as

the land where the Aldenhof projects are located. The houses in the Aldenhof area were designed for council housing, which are eligible for rent subsidies depending on the rent and the income of the tenant. Until the end of the third quarter of 2014, Woonpunt will demolish 249 houses in the Aldenhof area and plans to start construction work on 30 new houses in the first half of 2015.

Woonpunt subcontracts different companies for the demolition, transportation, recycling and building stages of its projects. Among others, Woonpunt’s major partners and contractors that are also engaged in the Aldenhof projects are:

1. Dirix – company specialized in transportation, construction, paving, container rental, debris recycling, and demolition;

2. LSB BAZ – company focused on asbestos removal from old housing; 3. Oesterbaai Survey & Consultancy – largest asbestos survey and consultancy firm in the

Netherlands with company base in Rotterdam, conducting risk assessments, research and advisory work;

4. L’ortye – responsible for recycling of concrete and other materials; 5. Wiel Peters – responsible for steel plates and wooden beams storage; 6. De Voorzorg – company building houses in BMV Aldenhof project; 7. 'DAT architecten' (BMV), BplusB en Buitenom (park) – architects.

Other parties working closely with Woonpunt on this project include legislation and notary service providers, gas, water and electricity advisers and a construction company that has not yet been announced.

The Heerlen Municipality is the initiator and coordinator of the Aldenhof projects. The Municipality is interested in finding a solution on how to use the debris from demolished old homes and turn it into valuable material for new green houses. This way it not only offers a sustainable and eco-efficient

Figure 3. Interest/power matrix


housing to citizens, but also eliminates the accumulation of tons of demolition waste by reusing it and closing the gap between the end-of-cycle process and the new cycle. The project took three years to devise and during that time Doenja Urlings, founder of JaDoen and former project leader for Aldenhof brought together the different stakeholders. As one of the main stakeholders, the successful and cost-efficient execution of the project is of main interest for the municipality.

The reuse of materials is an increasingly important factor in the building industry. ReUse Materials BV (RUM) is a company that provides two types of material inventory: global (Type A) and extensive (Type B) inventory. RUM also offers asbestos survey. In order to demolish for (re-)construction purposes, a company needs an environmental permit (demolition permit) and is thus, obliged by law to make an asbestos survey. The CLC System Database is being developed by RUM for the Limburg province, and it serves as a trading platform for secondary raw materials. This public database can be used to access the information stored on the following topics: range of released material, clients, property owners and resource owners, inventory organizations, demolition and construction contractors, architects, manufacturers and suppliers, location and time period of releasing materials, location. Commodities are clarified according to value, quality, reusability, etc. using standard material inventories. The database does not provide formal agreement between various parties, but the platform acts as a facilitator matching the client and contractor.

The Province of Limburg is a powerful stakeholder in this project in terms of the legal limitations. Heerlen must follow the legal regulations the regional government sets, but Heerlen can also benefit from subsidies provided if the necessary criteria are met. The Limburg Sustainable Demolition Protocol (‘Duurzaam Slopen Protocol’) was developed by RUM with funding from the Province of Limburg (BRIQX, 2014). If clients demolish housing according to the sustainable demolition protocol they qualify for a subsidy: €10.000 for houses and €7.500 for apartment buildings. The Province of Limburg is also interested in higher volume of reused or recycled materials from demolition in order to close the loop as well as in preparing and training unemployed people for the labour market by including them in the process (Protocol).

The development of this project also concerns the Heerlen inhabitants. The proposed project in Heerlen targets and affects middle class citizens. On the one hand, rent prices will rise and the ability for renters to receive housing subsidies will be diminished. This project will also decrease the number of available social or council housing for lower income inhabitants. The combination of these two aspects could pose problems for the citizens of Heerlen. On the other hand, higher quality and eco-friendly accommodation that is free of health threatening materials such as asbestos will secure the safety and wellbeing of the new inhabitants. Moreover, this project will offer employment to many people, especially to young people with inadequate qualifications or handicapped people. For instance, RUM is committed to corporate social responsibility by employing around 5 % of its staff from Social Return on Investment (SROI) employees (beneficiaries; early school leavers; job seekers employed in a subsidized job) (RUM, 2014).

Even though the municipality of Heerlen initiated the project and the idea behind reusing housing materials, the housing corporation Woonpunt is the most powerful stakeholder in the process, since it


subcontracts all the activities (e.g. demolition, construction, storage, recycle) and needs to ensure compliance of sustainability aspects. However, only a combined approach from all the stakeholders will maximize the project opportunities. If the housing corporation is not supported by the government, then projects of this type will not be feasible. Additionally, if subcontractors cannot operate economically they will not support the process. Hence, this project requires public support and awareness to be realizable.

5. Feasibility Analysis

To assess the research question of this report we conducted a feasibility study along the dimensions of operational, technical and commercial feasibility. A feasibility study is an evaluation and analysis of the potential of a project, with the intention to support decision-making. This analysis is, among others, based on the best practice case studies of Rotterdam City Circle, and the UK described in detail in Appendix 1.

Moreover, the analysis will highlight the difficulties experienced by the main stakeholders and offer possible solutions to the some of the problems. The analysis is based on information we conducted from the best two practices, information we gathered during stakeholder interviews and other secondary sources.

5.1 Operational Feasibility

To assess the operational feasibility of reusing building materials we evaluate whether the current processes and procedures are adequate to support the desired business model and under which conditions a commercially viable market might develop.

5.1.1 Legislative Measures

Problems:

The current draft version of Limburg Sustainable Demolition Protocol (Protocol) requires that 75% of construction materials used in new buildings come from materials reclaimed during demolition sector (Ralph Herbe, personal communication, May 15, 2014). However, with the currently required standards and the associated certificate problem for building materials (see Section 5.2.2), most construction companies in Limburg, are far away from reaching this threshold. Simon Duindam (personal communication, May 15, 2014), external advisor for RUM, made a remark that considering current institutional, behavioral and technical status, it might take up to ten years for construction service to achieve 75%. This could disincentivize Woonpunt and other housing companies to include sustainability practices in the demolition and material handling process, as they are not granted the €10,000 subsidy per house.

Solutions:


While our report is being conducted, the Protocol is still under discussion between construction companies and the Limburg province. Project stakeholders should engage in discussions regarding future regulation, in order to improve conditions for reused materials. Efforts should be made to adjust the requirements to realistic levels based on the experiences made in existing projects.

5.1.2 Stakeholder Commitment

Problems:

Our stakeholder assessment has shown that, from an operational perspective, the involvement of all stakeholders in the process is a main requirement for success. Scaling up this business model for reuse of building materials requires both voluntary commitment and mandatory commitment through contracts.

The experiences from the Rotterdam Circle City have shown that, only a combined approach with full commitment of all involved parties will maximize project opportunities (R. Buch, personal communication, May 19, 2014). If stakeholders have different goals, the whole process is in danger. For example, if responsibility for demolition is completely left to a contractor, the main focus is probably on financial aspects rather than on sustainability goals, targeted by the housing companies. In such a case a feasible operating model cannot be achieved.

Solutions:

A good way for the housing company to achieve the sustainability goals is to set material efficiency objectives and requirements prior to demolition, which are then translated into detailed Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that connect different steps of the process and highlight the required actions to be taken (WRAP, 2010).

In UK’s case, the Waste & Resources Action Program (WRAP) outlined several useful KPIs. The Demolition Recovery Index (DRI) describes the material recovery efficiency demolition while the New Build Recovery Index states the material potential that could be supplied from recovered demolition arising. The KPIs should be fixed in tenders and contracts, so that all parties involved in the process are aware of the requirements. Contractors can then react to tender invitations and demonstrate how they plan to meet objectives and KPIs. During the process they constantly have report their materials resource efficiency performance. With such contractual obligation it is guaranteed that only contractors that can actually meet the requirements are being chosen.

5.1.3 Handling Recovered Materials

Handling of recovered materials was identified as one of the key issues by several different stakeholders. Handling includes transportation from and to construction sites, processing of recovered materials and storage of recycled and reclaimed materials for later use.

Problems:

Certain materials like glass, pipes induce no problems in terms of logistics. Due to high demand they are taken immediately to recycling sites to produce new products. Most other recovered materials


cannot be used directly after demolition and have to be stored before being recycled or reused. This implies high cost for storage of materials combined with high demand uncertainty. For instance, Woonpunt wanted to buy and use most of the deconstructed material from the demolition company but as the demolition and construction did not take place at the same time, Woonpunt could not use all the materials as desired. The problem of time-lag between demolition and construction especially affects one time projects such as the BMV Aldenhof showcase described in Section 3, as new construction can only begin after demolition is finished and recovered materials cannot be sourced from other projects, making the planning process more difficult.

Currently every demolition company solves their logistics part individually, usually by hiring another company that transports the debris and deconstructed material from construction site to its storage facilities. At the time of reuse, materials are transported back to the new construction site. Due to this double-hauling high transportation cost and CO2 emissions occur, reducing the positive sustainability aspects of reusing materials.

Solutions:

If the materials can be used on the same site, it might be a good solution to store the materials on the deconstruction site. WRAP’s (2005) demolition guide outlines how a sufficient site management plan can be established for on-site storage. Such demolition site layout plans are a requirement for efficiently segregating and reusing demolition materials on site. For on-site processing and storage to be feasible, enough space has to be available to implement a sorting area, a processing area and a storage area. The space requirements can be calculated by using the quantities from demolition audit and calculating bulk densities.

With on site processing technologies and machines, some of the demolition contractors in Rotterdam were able to save transportation cost, as materials could be applied on site or were of reduced transportation volume in the granulated state. However, due to high investment cost, such equipment might only be available for specialists in sustainable construction.

The storage of some materials might be feasible. For example, Woonpunt pays €50 per month to one of its contractors for storing wooden beams. Valuable materials should rather be sold and bought back at time of usage, saving storage cost. Hence if bricks (see Section 5.2.1) and concrete can be brought to recycling or processing facilities and valuable materials can be sold, the actual storage requirement should be minimal and possible to handle for the demolition contractor.

The Rotterdam City Circle project has shown that there is no real need to store if the potential for reclaimed material is identified and already matched to new projects prior to demolition. For the new building projects construction companies can simply procure reclaimed materials from other demolition projects (if demand is available), thereby better aligning supply and demand and closing the cycle by integrating and linking different deconstruction and construction projects.

5.1.4 Market for Reused Materials

Problems:


A sufficient secondary market for reclaimed materials in Heerlen has not established yet. At the moment only valuable materials, especially metals like steel, can be easily sold after demolition. This is obvious, since the exhaustive reuse of building materials is a relatively new area which has only evolved in the last years. However, the missing market demand for other reclaimed materials complicates the handling of recovered materials (see Section 5.1.3).

The Protocol does not clearly reflect property rights for materials arising from demolition. Either the demolition company or the housing company keeps the property rights of materials and has to deal with them, which bears high costs. Moreover, most recycling technologies are still limited to specific terms of use and construction companies are still discovering the full potential of reusing materials in new buildings.

Solutions:

The policy making of the Heerlen municipality plays a major role in establishing a market for reusing materials. Incorporating efficient use of materials into their policy, will assist early adoption and help create a commercial market. Investments in pilot projects like the BMV Aldenhof redevelopment are steps in the right direction. However further experimenting and cooperation with other cities will be required.

The awareness of construction companies to procure used materials needs to be increased and sufficient supply and demand should be triggered by promoting the benefits of these materials to the end-consumer1. Besides financial incentives companies should also take the job creation potential and CSR benefits (sustainability certificates) into account. Setting realistic procurement requirements also drives the potential to incorporate reused and recycled materials (ICE, 2008).

In the UK several reclamation outlets are listed online in a system provided by BRE (Building Research Establishment) to assist easier procurement of reclaimed materials. Additionally, in the case of larger redevelopment projects, supplier forums are held, to get a better overview of the market for procurement of recovered materials.

Pre-selling materials and elements of the buildings before the demolition and deconstruction takes place, is a common practice used in other markets. This helps to reduce the risk of committing to the deconstruction and can save time and energy in processing, transporting and storing materials. However, it also requires good coordination of the project and the stakeholders involved. An online databases, like the CLC System, which is currently being developed, is a helpful tool to recognize the potential and prices of constructions and recycled materials. Knowing the salvage price of secondary materials in advance could help the housing company to make calculations whether sustainable demolition is cost-effective. Construction companies designing new sustainable buildings on the other hand could better evaluate benefits of substituting primary materials with reclaimed or recycled materials.

1 www.bremap.co.uk


5.2 Technical Feasibility

Establishing a sophisticated business model for sustainable C&D, depends heavily on the technical feasibility of reusing reclaimed and recycled materials in new buildings. Safety and quality concerns as well as insufficient processing technology restrict a higher proportion of waste materials in construction projects. Best practices in the UK show that currently about 95% of building materials can be recovered during demolition. However, only 10-15% can actually be applied in new buildings, either directly or indirectly as a raw material for new products (WRAP, 2005). On a smaller scale, like the Rotterdam City Circle, higher percentages could be achieved, but the commercial feasibility still has to be proven.

Most common materials in residential buildings are concrete and bricks, accounting for approximately 90% of construction debris, as well as steel and timber. While steel and timber sections and other materials like glass from windows or roof tiles can be easily reclaimed or recycled for reuse as building materials, bricks and concrete remain the biggest issue. Both materials are usually crushed and downcycled into a product of lower value. Due to less strict requirements for safety and durability, recycled concrete aggregates are mainly used as a sub-base in the road construction sector (Ralph Herbe, personal communication, May 15, 2014). Hence, the focus of this analysis lies on these two materials.

5.2.1 Reuse of Bricks

Problems:

The quality, strength and durability of recycled bricks is extremely difficult to assess. Hence, European and national standards are very cautious issuing certificates for recycled bricks with recycled contents that can be applied in buildings. The other possibility, cleaning reclaimed bricks, is very labour intensive, meaning that construction companies have to pay a premium over new bricks. Since automatized technologies have been barely successful so far, the technical feasibility of reusing bricks depends on the availability of new techniques, which tackle such problems.

Solution:

The only viable solution we could derive from existing best practices was a processing technology developed by the Danish company Gamle Mursten. Supported by the eco-innovation initiative of the EU, Gamle Mursten initiated the project REBRICK, which intends so improve the handling of building materials by cleaning and reusing old bricks (see Appendix 2).

The REBRICK technology is based on a vibration system that cleans mortar from old bricks (Layman’s report, 2011). The fully automated system separates broken or damaged bricks from good ones. For cleaning no water or chemicals are required, making the process very environmentally friendly. After cleaning the quality of the bricks is tested according to market specific standards and they are further


sorted depending on value and physical characteristics. A robot finally stacks and wraps them automatically.

The technical ability of this technology to produce reusable bricks at economically viable cost has been demonstrated with a full scale plant in Copenhagen. With a processing potential of 6 million bricks per year and an average sales price of €0.60, a profit of €0.6 million can be generated, enabling a Return on Investment of only 1.5 years. When considering the environmental benefits of saving 0.5kg CO2 per brick and the historic value of the bricks, a sales price of €0.60 seems to be reasonable. Prerequisite for this price is free delivery of pre-sorted demolition debris.

So far, the business model has already been successfully replicated in Denmark. Moreover, a licensing strategy has been developed, which promotes the start of new SMEs who establish their business on the REBRICK technology. The possibility of technological customization ensures that the technology can be adapted according to regional requirements and the amounts of input material available. Additionally, the entire production facility can be easily disassembled and moved to another location. Hence, it is possible to locate the plant close to the demolition site and move it to a new area with high demolition potential afterwards.

5.2.2 Reuse of Concrete

Problems:

Wim Fleuren (personal communication, May 23, 2014), Project coordinator at the Infrastructure department of Heerlen municipality, highlighted that demand for CDW is about 24 million tons and for concrete alone about 4 million in the Netherlands per year. Most of it is consumed by the road construction sector. The reason why reused concrete in housing construction does not have such a high demand is that it takes time for concrete companies to obtain and then maintain certificates for such reused concrete. Traditional concrete production uses uniform raw materials, thus, the production outcome is always uniform. In case of reused concrete, different quantities and distinct mixtures are tried. In order to obtain a certificate, a significant amount of research has to be performed. It also induces that monetary and time resources have to be exploited for conducting a profound research. After a concrete manufacturer provides research results on colour, strength, safety, leaching and other parameters to the certificate institute (e.g. Kiwa) and the Dutch government, it might take up to six months to receive a certificate.

According to Marie van der Poel (personal communication, May 23, 2014) from the Association of Concrete Manufacturers (VOBN) in the Netherlands, granulate out of crushed concrete is considered to be as a normal raw material for all kind of housing construction made out of ready-mixed concrete. VBON issues special certificate “Bevust Beton” for the concrete that has 2% of granulate. However, each company sets its own policy on using the secondary materials such as granulate. The level of granulate used in concrete is not as high as VOBN would like it to be.

José Moss-Rongen (personal communication, 26 May, 2014) from BAS Research & Technologies (BASRT) stated that costs of recycling concrete might be equal to the costs of producing traditional


concrete plus EUR 10,00 per m3. While the Netherlands Committee on Concrete Research (CUR) recommends up to 50% of recycled concrete to be included in the new concrete, current Dutch legislation allows replacing 20% of concrete with aggregates coming out of recycled concrete. As a matter of fact, 100% recycled (cradle-to-cradle) concrete has been used in some pilot projects, e.g. Geusseltbad swimming pool in Maastricht. In this project, a chemical reaction using water was the basis for making the recycled concrete with qualities the same as of the new concrete. Relatively low demand for recycled concrete can be explained not only in terms of higher production costs. Sometimes manufacturers face a difficulty of getting a proper granulate. In addition, granulate can be easily used in other sectors without a need of processing. According to BASRT, the biggest struggle for concrete manufacturers is finding new creative ways how to recycle materials.

Meuleberg Recycling BV (personal communication, 27 May, 2014) produces a granulate Meulemix® which is 100% recycled from bricks, concrete, and mortar. The price of such granulate is €5.50 per ton and it can be used only for road construction. Although the demand for its product in road construction is quite high, Meuleberg Recycling does not plan to produce any recycled concrete for housing sector in near future.

There has been research done at Technical University of Eindhoven (Florea, Brouwers, 2013) to see whether recycled concrete aggregates (RCAs) could be used for producing new concrete using three different techniques. They used a jaw crusher to explore the first two techniques, i.e. smash the concrete once, and then ten times. To analyze the third technique, a special patented crusher was used that could separate concrete into sand, gravel and cement. Researchers found out that the quality of reused concrete depends on the crushing technique. They also analyzed the technical parameters of recycled concrete sand (RCS) and concluded that using an optimal crushing technique, RCAs and RCS can be a promising material for producing a ready-mixed concrete.

Solutions:

As mentioned above, one of the biggest challenges is still the gap in know-how of possible ways and procedures of recycling the concrete. As a consequence, not many companies engage in using more than 20% of recycled concrete in housing construction. With the help of independent research institutes, concrete manufacturers should invest in further R&D in testing technical parameters and different ways of waste material application in producing new concrete. Since the 20% level of recycled concrete as an aggregate of new concrete is already a common practice, only a breakthrough in technology would have a spin-off effective on manufacturers to use a higher level of granulate in producing concrete.

5.2.3. 3D House Printing

In 2013 DUS Architects (DUS) initiated the 3D Print Canal House project in Amsterdam. Together with a 3D printer company Ultimaker, DUS developed a six-meter-height 3D Kamermaker (Room Maker) that prints out an entire room at once (see Pictures 4, 5 and 6 in Appendix 2). According to


DUS, it took several months to construct the Kamermaker. Currently, the material used is biodegradable plastic that consists 75% of vegetable oil and is provided by Henkel. DUS is doing research whether a certain type of concrete – concrete foam – could be used as a base printing material for the Kamermaker. It is expected that concrete foam would make 3D printing technique much stronger. Also, concrete foam would possess certain insulation properties that would make a 3D-printed house more fireproof. DUS is building a new Kamermaker for the later material. In theory, any material that could be melted at quite low temperature (around 170 degrees Celsius) and then hardened again could be used in the Kamermaker.

DUS describes three main advantages in terms of 3D house printing. First, transportation costs and waste are reduced. The Kamermaker is located at the construction site where computer processes the design and instantly prints it. Raw materials are directly used for printing rooms, thus, there is no waste produced. Second, a 3D print house can be built in a very sustainable manner. During printing process, conducting materials (e.g. insulations, rain collectors, solar panels, light bulbs) and sensors can be installed. Sensors would follow weather changes and could directly give signals for conducting materials to adjust. For instance, if rain is forecasted, sensors would inform rain collectors to absorb water instead of letting the rainwater just drain through the pipes. Third, since the 3D-printed house is made of biodegradable materials, if needed, it will be easy to deconstruct the house and reuse the materials for another 3D construction.

Unfortunately, since 3D Print Canal House is a pilot and still R&D project, which will last until 2016, we were not able to get any information on financial data of this project. In addition, Ultimaker (personal communication, May 27, 2014) does not consider starting the production of 3D concrete printers in the near future.

The Freeform Concrete Team at Loughborough University (UK) specializes in doing research in 3D concrete printing and additive manufacturing process for housing construction. In their experiments, instead of powder and glue they use cement-based mortar to produce large-scale architectural and construction parts that incorporate various installments such as cables and pipes. According to Richard Buswell (personal communication, May 19, 2014), the Principal Investigator in the Freeform Concrete Team, fundamentally, there should be no problem to use waste material in a 3D concrete printing process. However, the maximum aggregate size the Team’s printers produce today is still quite small. Therefore, waste materials would require significant processing before being incorporated in 3D printing. In addition, printing properties are sensitive to components being used. Since they use a cement-based mortar, their printers would have to be redesigned for using crushed concrete.

The Freeform Concrete Team was not able to provide us with commercial costs of their 3D printers since the whole process is still in the research stage. However, they commented that the production costs for 3D printing while using a high-strength concrete could be estimated considering the volume of the material, the run time of the machine (power consumption) and then any overheads such as staff, and factory maintenance.


5.3 Economic Feasibility

To measure the cost-effectiveness of sustainable demolition and material reuse a cost-benefit analysis can be applied. This helps us to assess under which financial conditions scaling up the management of reuse materials is viable. Since the figures are highly dependable on the specific project and a lot of the relevant data was not available to us, we did not include a case-specific analysis but attached a supplementary excel model, which serves as a basic calculation tool for the stakeholders (Appendix 3).

We first identified all cost and benefit drivers associated with such a business model, which are listed in table 1. The net benefit is calculated by subtracting total costs from total benefits. Begum et al. (2006) developed a similar calculation scheme to evaluate the net benefits of reusing construction waste. Cost drivers are mainly related to sustainable demolition and the subsequent handling of recovered materials. Benefits stem from revenue generated from selling recovered materials and savings in purchasing cost or landfill charge. Besides economic drivers, unquantifiable benefits such as Co2 savings, corporate social responsibility or reduced resource consumption have to be considered as well.

Table 1: Cost and benefit drivers of reusing reclaimed and recycled materials from demolition

When combined with the inventory data created during the demolition audit and information on material prices from suppliers the calculation tool could help to estimate the net benefit of the whole process. Moreover the tool will point out the main cost drivers that have to be elaborated on in order to make sustainable demolition. Eventually, even if the cost-benefit analysis yields a negative result the social and environmental benefits associated with material reuse should be weighed against the quantitative result.

Drivers Description

Costs

Demolition cost Total cost of sustainable demolition including demolition audit, permit, labor cost, asbestos removal, equipment usage cost etc.

Transportation cost

Cost for transporting the reclaimed and recycled materials to the new construction site, the storage place or the processing site

Storage cost Cost for storage of reclaimed and recycled materials Processing cost Cost for processing recovered material

Benefits

Salvage value Revenue from selling recovered demolition materials Primary resource substitution

Purchasing cost savings ( incl. transportation cost savings) from reusing reclaimed and recycled materials

Landfill charge savings

Savings from reduced landfill disposal (incl. transportation cost savings) compared to normal demolition

Subsidies Grant for compliance with sustainable demolition protocol

Soft benefits Energy savings, reduction of air pollution, CO2 savings, preservation of historic value, reduced consumption of new resources, saving landfill space, CSR and public image, certifications, job creation


6. Conclusion and Recommendations

In conclusion, this report attempts to explore in depth the key issues that were faced by the Municipality of Heerlen. After collecting the initial data from the major stakeholders on the BMV Aldenhof project, we provide a list of steps to be taken in short and long term prospects with respect to our report question: “How can the cycle between the Demolition and Construction business be feasibly closed in Heerlen?”

Joining forces with Rotterdam City Circle

After many years of experimenting, Rotterdam City Circle is finally extending its network, therefore, looking for partners across the Netherlands to share the knowledge and expertise. Since Rotterdam and Amersfoort represents the northern part of the Netherlands, including Heerlen into the network would significantly scale out the City Circle project. Efficiency, cost-benefit and know-how would be improved significantly. In return, Heerlen would gain an advantage on technical and management aspects since City Circle embodies many well-known companies that are intrinsically motivated in making C&D industry sustainable. In addition, Heerlen would adjust its supply and demand for waste materials because of greater number of parties and projects involved. It could profoundly cut the costs in terms of storage due to eliminating the time gap between construction and demolition. City Circle going nation-wide would facilitate a greater number of stakeholders (researchers, architects, experts, etc.) that could easily find a niche for their ideas across the Netherlands.

Raising inclusiveness and awareness

Stakeholders should be included at the earliest stage possible. Before the project is launched, all contracting parties should participate setting up Key Performance Indicators such Demolition Recovery Index and New Building Recovery Index. Clarifying everyone’s roles, and obligations, weaknesses and strengths, as well as aspirations in the project would help to establish clear guidelines and requirements that could be easily followed through the whole (de)construction process. An adequate level of legislation together with subsidies can help to promote the overall benefits of reusing demolished materials. More firms would initiate sustainable (de)construction, and more other stakeholders (habitants of other cities, architects, researchers, sub-contractors) would be invited to share their knowledge and ideas.

Establishing nation-wide database

In order to increase the level of up-cycling (keeping the value of discarded products intact or even adding value to them) in C&D business, a proper market for secondary raw materials should be established. First of all, property rights and the overall procurement process of waste materials should be specified in the Limburg Sustainable Demolition Protocol. Only then owners of secondary raw


materials would be willing to engage in trade because existing demand for waste materials would assure them of low demolition costs and risks. The former option of combining Heerlen project with City Circle could not work properly if there were no sufficient information on existing waste materials. Consequently, cooperation among several cities would be a kick-start for conducting a national database. Since Re Use Materials is creating a database for Limburg, and has already done research for City Circle, they could be responsible for conducting and managing the nation-wide data. Such database should be followed by an e-platform where individuals and companies could buy and sell materials in any desired volumes. In addition, pre-demolition sales or even future auctions should take place.

Network of logistics

Considering that Heerlen joins the City Circle, storage and transportation of C&D waste should be well coordinated in order to avoid cross-travels and unnecessary CO2 emissions. We would recommend to establish a centrally coordinated platform where abundant number of logistics companies could suggest their services according to their capacity and proximity to the site.

Continuing research

Reusing concrete in housing construction is still a challenge in terms of limited techniques. The Technical University of Eindhoven and its Building Materials Group specializes in researching technical parameters of recycled concrete while developing distinct concrete processing techniques, and experimenting with various mixtures of aggregates. Expanding the scope of City Circle would provide conditions for researchers to test different crushing techniques at different sites across the Netherlands. Costs of material handling, storage, and processing could be reduced because demolished concrete could be taken to close-proximity research centers for testing – providing the advantage for business, science and environment.

Sharing expenses

Although the REBRICK technology would be too costly for Heerlen alone, sharing the expenses with other City Circle participants could bring real returns in the long-run. REBRICK production facility is easy to disassemble, relocate and customize, therefore, Heerlen together with other City Circle members could engage in economies of scale sharing the costly REBRICK technique. Following a licensing strategy in Denmark, municipalities of City Circle could support sub-contractors (especially SMEs) that try to acquire licensing permits for REBRICK. Such governmental support would incentivize stakeholders to adopt efficient and sustainable technological solution in C&D sector.

In summary, Heerlen should enter Rotterdam City Circle in the short-run and adjust the Protocol according to existing capabilities of various stakeholders. Afterwards, secondary raw materials should be registered and traded on national scope. Network of storage and transportation should be established


across the Netherlands. In parallel, support for research in the field of recycling the concrete should be provided.

7. Methodology and Limitations

We initially approached Sylvia Göttgens, the Environment policy officer at Heerlen municipality, who remained the main coordinator between the Maastricht University and all stakeholders throughout all our project time. Ms Göttgens briefed us about the current status, process, challenges and progress of BMV Aldenhof showcase and provided us with a list of its stakeholders. After conducting a literature analysis on current status of C&D sector within and outside the Netherlands, we arranged phone interviews and meetings with a couple of Heerlen stakeholders (Woonpunt, Re Use Materials, other representatives of Heerlen municipality). In order to address our research question in broader sense, we reached people outside Heerlen asking to share their expertise and experience in C&D field (Rotterdam City Circle, Utrecht Sustainability Institute, Rebrick, Ultimaker, 3D Print Canal House, the Association of Concrete Manufacturers in the Netherlands, BAS Research & Technologies, Meuleberg Recycling BV, The Freeform Concrete Team).

Due to the many stakeholders involved, it was a challenge to sort the interests and roles of different parties in an adequate sequence. Not all stakeholders in Heerlen project responded or provided sufficient amount of information, therefore, it was difficult to picture the overall process of the project. We encountered some difficulties while performing financial feasibility analysis due to some companies’ resistance to share their financial data. Some projects are still in a pilot and development phase. Nevertheless, in communication with people outside of the Heerlen stakeholders’ list we managed to gain an understanding of existing initiatives and analysed their issues and procedures in more detail. As a result, a comparative case study analysis between Heerlen project and other initiatives was conducted to find efficient partial solutions for Heerlen municipality. Finally, the Limburg Sustainable Demolition Protocol is still in its draft version, therefore, such details as the level of subsidies and the threshold for the percentage of C&D waste reused has still not been finalized.

8. Final Words

Despite possible limitations, we hope that this report and its recommendations will provide the Municipality of Heerlen with valuable ideas for the future development of the city. We also hope that other major stakeholders such as Woonpunt who showed genuine interest in our research during this project will find these insights beneficial and fruitful. Moreover, this report could also be of interest for external stakeholders who would like to be involved or expand their operations to the most southern region of the Netherlands. We would like to thank Sylvia Göttgens for providing us with useful tips and contacts throughout the process as well as the Rotterdam City Circle for sharing their excitement in


collaborating with Heerlen in the future. We wish the municipality of Heerlen a successful path towards sustainability.


9. References

Activiteiten. (n.d.). Oranje BV. Retrieved May 12, 2014, from http://www.oranje-bv.nl

Begum, R. A., Siwar, C., Pereira, J. J., & Jaafar, A. H. (2006). A benefit–cost analysis on the economic feasibility of construction waste minimisation: the case of Malaysia. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 48(1), 86-98.

Bowman, A. (n.d.). Deconstruction and Materials Reuse. Rx Rebuilding Exchange. Retrieved May 21, 2014, from http://static.rebuildingexchange.org/pdf/rbx-faqs.pdf

BRIQX, Het Limburgs duurzaam sloopprotocol, retrieved May 22nd, 2014 from http://briqx.nl/?page_id=2027

CBS, PBL, and Wageningen UR. (2012). Afvalverbrandingsinstallaties, aantal en capaciteit, 1970-2010. (indicator 0394, version 11). Retrieved May 19, 2014. www.compendiumvoordeleefomgeving.nl. CBS, Den Haag; Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving, Den Haag/Bilthoven and Wageningen UR, Wageningen.

Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook, retrieved May 21st, 2014 from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/nl.html

Cirkelstad. (n.d.). Holcim Nederland. Retrieved May 11, 2014, from http://www.holcim.nl/duurzame-ontwikkeling/cirkelstad.html

Duurzaamheid. (n.d.). BAM Utiliteitsbouw. Retrieved May 18, 2014, from http://www.bamutiliteitsbouw.nl/themas/duurzaamheid

EEA, 2013, Municipal waste management in the Netherlands, retrieved May 17th, 2014 from http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/managing-municipal-solid-waste

EEA, 2014, Waste and Material resources, retrieved May 22nd, 2014 from http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/waste/intro

European Commission (EC), 2014[1], Waste, retrieved May 22nd, 2014 from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/index.htm

European Commission (EC), 2014 [2], Waste- Construction and Demolition Waste (CDW), retrieved May 19th, 2014 from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/construction_demolition.htm

Florea M.V.A, Brouwers H.J.H., (2013). Properties of various size fractions of crushed concrete related to process conditions and re-use. Cement and Concrete Research, 52 (2013), 11–21


Future of Construction Process: 3D Printing (video). Retrieved May 25, 2014 from

http://www.buildfreeform.com/views.php

Guy, B. (2003). A Guide to Deconstruction, deconstruction institute, University of Florida Center for Construction and Environment

Hestin, M., & Monier, V. (2011, February 2). Service Contract on Management of Construction and Demolition Waste. European Commission. Retrieved May 19, 2014, from http://www.eu-smr.eu/

Home. (n.d.). Rotterdam Cirkelstad. Retrieved May 11, 2014, from http://www.rotterdamcirkelstad.nl

ICE (2008) Demolition Protocol. Retrieved May 20, 2014 from http://www.ice.org.uk/Information-resources/Document-Library/Demolition-Protocol-2008

Jeffrey, C. (2011, September 1). Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling. Dalhousie University's Office of Sustainability. Retrieved May 20, 2014, from http://www.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/sustainability/Final%20C%26D%20literature%20review.pdf

Kim, J-J, B. Rigdon and J. Graves (ed.). (1998). Sustainable architecture module: qualities, use, and examples of sustainable building materials. National Pollution Prevention Center for Higher Education, Ann Arbor, United States.

Linderhof, V. and H. Bartelings. (2006). Het wel en wee van de stortbelasting. B&G, 33(3), 26-28.

Ngowi, A.B. Creating competitive advantage by using environment-friendly building processes. Bldg. Environ. 2001, 36, 291-298.

NSW EPA, 2013 [1], House deconstruction- House deconstruction information booklet, retrieved May 19th, 2014 from http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/warr/housedeconpubs.htm

NSW EPA, 2013 [2], Specification for supply of recycled material for pavements, earthworks and drainage, retrieved May 20th, 2013 from http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/warr/greenspec.htm

Over Ons. (n.d.). Robedrijf. Retrieved May 18, 2014, from http://www.robedrijf.nl/rob:over_ons?ch=ROB

PwC, 2013, Building trust in a time of change, Global Annual Review, retrieved May 22nd, 2014 from http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/annual-review/2013/assets/pwc-global-annual-review-2013.pdf

Recycledetroit. (n.d.). Recycledetroit. Retrieved May 26, 2014, from

http://csiminski.wix.com/recycledetroit


ReUse Materials, Social Return on Investment, retrieved May 22nd, 2014 from http://reusematerials.nl/sroi/

Rijkswaterstaat (2013). Nederlands afval in cijfers, gegevens 2006-2010. Version 1.0. Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment. Rijkswaterstaat Leefomgeving, Retrieved May 19, 2014.

Stichting Duurzaam Bouwmetaal. (n.d.). Meer weten over koper, lood, zink en verzinkt staal? Retrieved May 22, 2014, from http://www.duurzaambouwmetaal.nl/meerweten

Thomsen, A., Schultmann, F. and Kohler, N. (2011). Deconstruction, demolition and destruction. Building Research and Information, 39, 327-332.

Using Detroit's History for a Brighter Future!. (n.d.). Reclaim Detroit. Retrieved May 23, 2014, from http://reclaimingdetroit.org/

VROM. (2001). Europese afvalstoffenlijst (Eural) – Handreiking Eural. Ministry of VROM. Nijmegen.

Retrieved May 19, 2014.

VROM. (2010). Landelijk afvalbeheerplan 2009 - 2021 (LAP)- Bijlagen. Version 16 februari 2010. Ministry of VROM, Den Haag. Retrieved May 20, 2014.

Werkplan Nederland Ondernemend Innovatieland—Maatschappelijke Vraagstukken Oplossen Door Innovatie; Ministerie van Economische Zaken: Den Haag, The Netherlands, 2007. Retrieved May 21, 2014.

Wie we zijn | Woonbron. (n.d.). Woonbron. Retrieved May 12, 2014, from http://www.woonbron.nl/OverWoonbron/OverWoonbron/Paginas/Wie-we-zijn.aspx

Woolthuis, R. J. (2010, February 4). Sustainable Entrepreneurship in the Dutch Construction Industry. Sustainability - Open Access Journal. Retrieved May 22, 2014, from http://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

WRAP (2005) Demolition: Implementing Best Practice. Retrieved May 20, 2014 from http://aggregain.wrap.org.uk/demolition/implementing_best_practice/

WRAP (2010) The efficient use of materials in regeneration projects. Retrieved May 20, 2014 from http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/demolition-and-regeneration


Appendix 1: Best Practice Case Studies Case Study: Rotterdam City Circle

As one of the case studies examined to propose a best practice for the City of Heerlen, the Rotterdam Circle City project was evaluated. The Rotterdam Circle City project’s main purpose it to create a society “zonder afval, zonder uitval” (without waste, without fallouts), referring to both their environmental focus as well as their societal focus (Home, n.d.). This is the first project of its kind in the Netherlands, and it has not only made a major impact in the field of sustainability in the building and construction sector, but it has also successfully provided people with poor job prospects with fixed contracts, as outlined by Rutger Buch, Secretary at Rotterdam Circkelstad (personal communication, May 19, 2014).

Rotterdam Circle City is a collaboration initiated ten years ago by Roteb (social employment company), Woonbron (social housing), Oranje (deconstruction company) and Holcim (cement company) when they decided to close the materials’ life cycle and create employment opportunities for people with poor career outlooks. In order to close the loop – by reusing materials from demolition projects in the area – they brought together several stakeholders (R. Buch, personal communication, May 19, 2014).

Stakeholders

The main partners of the Rotterdam City Circle:

1. Woonbroon is a housing corporation that not only provides the buildings to be demolished but also initiates social housing projects (Wie we zijn | Woonbron, n.d.).

2. Oranje BV demolishes the buildings in a sustainable way. Oranje BV is a specialist in sustainable deconstruction and reusing and recycling the resulting waste (Activiteiten, n.d.).

3. The construction company within this collaboration is Koninklijke BAM. BAM Utiliteitsbouw is part of this company and is focused on the life cycle of buildings and integrating this knowledge from an early stage of the construction process (Duurzaamheid, n.d.).

4. Robedrijf (Roteb) provides people with poor employment prospects to complete the tasks at hand. Individuals that are disintegrated from the labour market have the opportunity to start at for example Oranje BV, which then also provides training on the job and a better employment prospect (Over Ons, n.d.).

5. Holcim is one of the biggest producers and suppliers of cement and concrete and is actively involved in increasing the use of recycled materials. The company uses the demolition waste from Oranje and turns them into materials ready to be reused (Cirkelstad, n.d.).

6. The architecture firm Doepel Strijkers integrates the reused materials into their designs. Not only does it design buildings with reused materials, but it also proactively thinks about the deconstruction process for the future to make this process as efficient as possible and optimize the value and possible reuse of the materials (R. Buch, personal communication, May 19, 2014).


Besides these main players within the demolition-construction loop, several research and advising institutes (Search and Hogeschool Rotterdam) are involved as well to analyze and advise on the built environment.

The Cycle

RUM, one of the stakeholders in the Heerlen case, has also been involved with Rotterdam Circle City. The company mainly provides an inventory of available materials or materials that will become available after current deconstruction projects, and could be used for new projects. Oranje deconstructs the buildings in such a way that Holcim can reuse the demolition material for producing concrete elements. Woonbron buys these materials for their new buildings and Roteb supplies laborers that can participate in training on the job provided by Holcim and Oranje (R. Buch, personal communication, May 19, 2014).

Transportation

The partners arrange the transportation among themselves and it is very project-specific (R. Buch, personal communication, May 19, 2014). Oranje, for example, has special equipment to recycle or prepare waste materials for reuse (Activiteiten, n.d.). For instance, the demolition company had a special container created for leftover concrete. This container is placed on the demolition site so the material can be granulated onsite. Since granulate is more compact to transport than the unprocessed leftover concrete, costs of transportation and CO2 emissions are reduced. For some projects, granulate can even be directly reused on the location itself or in the direct area.

Green Deal Circle City

During the interview, Rutger Buch disclosed that after ten years of trial and error, experiments and close collaboration, Rotterdam Circle City has been able to close the demolition materials loop and is ready to expand outside Rotterdam. The partners of the initiative are ready to share their knowledge and experience and involve other cities in order to close the loop on a bigger scale. The Rotterdam Circle City project has recently paired with the Utrecht Sustainability Institute to implement their project on a nationwide scale. This is being done under Green Deal Circle City with the aim to have 5 additional participants. Amsterdam and Amersfoort have already committed to the initiative. In order to contribute and become one of the participants, some outlines and requirements are described. As such, Green Deal Circle City looks for participants that:

- have an intention to participate and are committed but not just on the paper - have a project during which they can obtain and gain experience - can identify the stakeholders from within the chain (both physical and social) and get their

commitment - are willing to share their knowledge and experience - sign the intention of Green Deal - are also willing to pay the contribution.


The essence of the Rotterdam City Circle collaboration is that all partners are intrinsically motivated and actively searching for a more sustainable construction and demolition process. Moreover, all of them are very committed to the goal of closing the loop and advocate this practice. They are connected not only by their common goal but also by Rotterdam City Circle, which mainly coordinates, facilitates and monitors the collaboration (R. Buch, personal communication, May 19, 2014)

Case Study: United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom a whole range of initiatives have been launched to increase sustainability in construction and demolition and to improve the link between them, in terms of resource efficiency.

Similar to Heerlen and Rotterdam, the main stakeholders include the municipality and companies from the whole supply chain. The Materials Resource Efficiency (MRE) approach is advocated in the WRAP guide (2010). WRAP is and independent non-profit organization set up in 2000 and they stimulated the recycling process in the UK. Not only did the organisation create a market for recycled materials, it also helps governments to set-up strategies to approach the associated issues.

The guide, “The efficient use of materials in regeneration projects”, provides a framework for all relevant stakeholders. It supports the implementation of good practices by integrating the ICE Demolition Protocol (similar to the Limburg Sustainable Demolition Protocol), Site Waste Management Plans and the WRAP Quick Wins approach. The framework is mainly focused on a better recovery of demolition materials. Moreover, it provides guidelines for increasing use of recovered materials in new built projects. More efficient minimization and management of site waste are addressed as well. With this framework, clear outlines are provided to the stakeholders on the deconstruction and reuse aspects.


Appendix 2

Figure 4. REBRICK equipment

Figure 6. Inside of Kamermaker Figure 5. Outside of Kamermaker Figure 7. Staircase made by Kamermaker


Appendix 3

The cost- benefit calculation tool can be accessed via the following link:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hhwgtmshzyep5fd/BSID_Heerlen-Project_Cost-Benefit-Tool.xlsm Please download the excel file for further editing. Figures for cost and benefit drivers can be inserted in the respective input sheets. The results will be shown in the 'output' sheet.

Documents

New REUSING BUILDING MATERIALS: FROM WASTE TO RESOURCE. … · 2016. 10. 6. · reused CDW have high resource value and can be reused in new roads, drainage and other construction