79,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Sprache: Englisch
GREEN BUILDING MATERIALS THE ULTIMATE USER'S MANUAL TO GREEN BUILDING MATERIALS To properly select and specify green building materials, successful architects need authoritative, real-world advice on how to select and use nontoxic, recycled, and recyclable products, and how to integrate these products into the design process in order to capitalize on the many practical and economic advantages of "going green." Green Building Materials, Third Edition is the most reliable, up-to-date resource to meet today's green building challenges--from reducing waste and improving energy efficiency to promoting proper code compliance and safeguarding against liability claims. Written by two nationally known experts on green building methods and materials, Green Building Materials, Third Edition offers in-depth, practical information on the product selection, product specification, and construction process. This new Third Edition is an excellent hands-on guide to today's newest range of green building materials: what they are, where to find them, how to use them effectively, and how to address LEED requirements. Organized by CSI MasterFormat¯® category for fast access to specific information, it features: * A new chapter on eco-labels, green standards, and product certification * A new appendix providing reference information for sustainability standards and standards development organizations * New sample specifications, including green power requirements, vegetated green roof systems, rainwater harvesting, and water reuse systems * Revised and updated review of trends affecting the future of green building materials * Updated approach and reference information for the product selection process Green Building Materials, Third Edition is an essential tool for designing environmentally friendly buildings--ones made from materials that preserve the Earth's natural legacy for future generations.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 691
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2010
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Title
Copyright
Preface to the Third Edition
Acknowledgments
Preface to the Second Edition
Preface to the First Edition
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Why Use Green Building Materials?
Liability Issues
Economic Benefits
Consumer Demand and New Markets
Regulatory Requirements
Altruism and Professional Responsibility
Green Building Materials: An Ounce of Prevention
Chapter 3: What Are Green Building Materials?
What Does Green Look Like?
Does Green Work?
Isn't Green Expensive?
Perceptions
Shades of Green
Resource Management, Toxicity/IEQ, and Performance
When Are Green Building Materials
Not
Green?
Overcoming Entropy
Chapter 4: How Does the Product Selection Process Work?
Step 1: Identify Material Categories
Step 2: Identify (Green) Building Material Performance Criteria
Step 3: Identify (Green) Building Material Options
Step 4: Gather Technical Information
Step 5: Review Submitted Information for Completeness
Step 6: Evaluate (Green) Materials
Step 7: Select and Document Choice
Chapter 5: Eco-Labeling, Green Standards, and Product Certification
Standards Development Organizations
Trade and Professional Organizations
Government
Labeling
Certification
ASTM E2432 – Standard Guide for General Principles of Sustainability Relative to Building
Future Developments
Chapter 6: How Does the Construction Process Work?
Design and Construction Relationships
The Bidding Phase
The Construction Phase
Certification Activities
The Construction Phase as the Successful End to the Project
Risk Management for Green Building Materials
Chapter 7: Green Building Materials and Green Building Programs
Local Programs
State Programs
U.S. Governmental Agency Programs
National (U.S.) Programs
National Programs (Other Countries)
International Programs
Chapter 8: Conclusion
History of Green Building Materials
The Future of Green Building Materials
Final Thoughts
Appendix A: Sources of Further Information
Appendix B: Summary of Environmental Issues in CSI MasterFormat™ Organization
Appendix C: Sample Sections and Forms
Appendix D: Sample Contracts
Appendix E: Examples of Sector-Specific Initiatives Toward Sustainability
Agriculture
Building
Carbon
Consumer Products
Corporate/Business
Education
Energy
Financial
Health
Hospitality
Packaging
Water
Glossary
Index
Advertisement
End User License Agreement
List of Illustrations
Chapter 6: HOW DOES THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS WORK?
FIGURE 6.1 Examples of Alternates in Bidding Documents
FIGURE 6.2 Product/System Sustainability Analysis
FIGURE 6.3 Sample LEED Status Report
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
Pages
Cover
Contents
ii
v
vii
ix
xi
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
GREEN BUILDING MATERIALS
A Guide to Product Selection and Specification
Third Edition
ROSS SPIEGEL
DRU MEADOWS
The numbers and titles referenced in this product are from MasterFormat™ 1995 Edition and MasterFormat™ 2004 Edition and are published by the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) and Construction Specifications Canada (CSC), and used with permission from CSI, 2005. For those interested in a more in-depth explanation of MasterFormat™ and its use in the construction industry contact:
The Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) 110 South Union Street Suite 100 Alexandria, VA 22314 (800) 689-2900; (703) 684-0300; fax (703) 684-8436 CSINet URL: http://www.csinet.org
The authors advocate the use of environmentally friendly (green) building products, systems and materials; and believe that green products and innovative technology can enhance the outdoor and indoor environment, improve the quality of life of the user, and in general, perform as well and even outperform their baseline competition. This book is intended to be a guide for researching environmental issues relative to building products. No warranty is made as to completeness or accuracy of information contained herein. References to manufacturers do not represent a guaranty, warranty, or endorsement thereof.
This book is printed on acid-free paper. Copyright © 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey Published simultaneously in Canada
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750-8400, fax (978) 646-8600, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, (201) 748-6011, fax (201) 748-6008, or online at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and the author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor the author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
For general information about our other products and services, please contact our Customer Care Department within the United States at (800) 762-2974, outside the United States at (317) 572-3993 or fax (317) 572-4002.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books. For more information about Wiley products, visit our web site at www.wiley.com.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data:
Spiegel, Ross, 1947– Green building materials : a guide to product selection and specification / Ross Spiegel, Dru Meadows.–3rd ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-470-53804-3 (cloth); ISBN 978-0-470-88053-1 (ebk); ISBN 978-0-470-88054-8 (ebk); ISBN 978-0-470-88055-5 (ebk); ISBN 978-0-470-95071-5 (ebk); ISBN 978-0-470-95084-5 (ebk) 1. Building materials—United States—Catalogs. 2. Green products—United States— Catalogs. I. Meadows, Dru. II. Title. TH455.S65 2011 691–dc22 2010013131
PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION
As we write this, the Third Edition of what has become a leading technical primer on green building materials, we see the landscape shifting in a most dramatic manner. Green building has achieved a critical mass–and is becoming just “building.” What many of us have dreamed for decades now seems to be materializing. Green building is mainstream.
We are witnessing a fundamental transformation in the market. All levels of government are embracing green building in meaningful, enforceable ways. Major institutional purchasers and large corporations are scrambling over each other to get greener faster. Consumers are starting to embrace the New Green Economy.
Within this context, guidance on specification of green building materials is more important than ever. We are grateful that our editor at John Wiley & Sons recognizes the continuing need and has assisted us in expanding and updating this edition.
This edition includes:
A new chapter on eco-labels, green standards, and product certification
A new appendix providing reference information for sustainability standards and standards development organizations
New sample specifications, including: Green Power Requirements, Vegetated Green Roof System, Rainwater Harvesting, and Water Reuse Systems
A revised and updated review of trends affecting the future of green building materials
An updated approach and reference information for the Product Selection Process
Updated reference information for information sources
We hope that readers will find this Third Edition even more helpful than the previous editions and will continue to use it as a “toolkit” in their daily practice and learning.
Ross Spiegel Shelton, Connecticut
Dru Meadows Tulsa, Oklahoma
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
It is hard to believe that just 10 years ago the first edition of the book that you are now holding in your hands was published. In that short time span much has changed in the arena of green buildings and materials. This third edition contains updated information and expands the subject matter to keep pace with the current state of the industry. It is the result of much hard work and the product of encouragement and input from many people. Although limited space does not permit me to thank them individually, I would like to recognize the following groups: my “green” friends and fellow members in The Construction Specifications Institute; my friends in the U.S. Green Building Council; and the special people who believed in this project from the start … to the finish: my coauthor Dru Meadows, my wife and daughter, Dorine Shirinian Spiegel and Erica Shirin Spiegel; thank you all.
Please take the information contained in this edition to heart as I have, and when you finish reading this edition, sit back and remember that “a greener future is in your hands.” Make good use of the time you have.
Ross Spiegel Shelton, Connecticut
*****
For my colleagues, clients, family, and friends–all of whom have inspired me to find more sustainable solutions. And especially for the readers who care enough to act on their convictions. Thank you.
Dru Meadows Tulsa, Oklahoma
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
When we set out over seven years ago to write “a guide to product selection and specification” for green building materials, the extent of design and construction professionals' knowledge of green or environmentally friendly buildings was fairly limited. The variety of green building materials was similarly limited. In these few short years, the industry has expanded exponentially. Today, there are hundreds (if not thousands) of green building products. There are green journals, green conferences, and green committees in nearly all building trade and professional organizations. There are numerous green building rating programs, not least of which is the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED® (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design). There are now well over 100 ASTM standards related to sustainability in buildings. Spurred by the mounting public interest in green buildings, municipalities, states, and national governmental agencies are implementing green initiatives and adopting one rating system or another with increasing rapidity.
The years between the publication of the original edition and the second edition have seen an explosion in the knowledge base supporting green buildings, green building materials, and sustainability. The science informing environmental decision making continues to grow. Manufacturers are researching and developing new green product lines as well as improvements to existing products. With the increasing number of completed green, sustainable or high-performance buildings, real-life statistics about cost and energy usage are becoming available. Not only is it possible to find a definition of “sustainability” in your dictionary today, but also it is difficult to pick up a newspaper or magazine or read an electronic newsletter that does not mention “sustainability.”
In light of the progress at all levels in the green building industry, it became clear to us that an updated edition was overdue. We are grateful that our editor at John Wiley & Sons agreed. We hope that readers will find this second edition even more helpful than the first edition and will continue to use it as a “toolkit” in their daily practice and learning.
Ross Spiegel Shelton, Connecticut
Dru Meadows Tulsa, Oklahoma
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION
Much has been written in the last 25 years about the philosophical and moral impetus to design and construct green or environmentally friendly buildings. Although more and more building owners are demanding that their design professionals take environmental concerns into account for new buildings, knowledge about the process of selecting and specifying green building materials has remained sketchy.
In this book, the reader will find not only a discussion of why one should use green building materials and what green building materials are but a guide to their selection and specification as well. The reader will also find information about the construction process and how to guard against the substitution of non-green building materials. The information contained in the appendices and glossary serve to round out the package, providing the reader with valuable reference material, sample specifications, and a kit of tools to use on green building projects.
This book was a labor of love for the authors, and its creation and birth were made possible by the encouragement and understanding of their families, friends, professional colleagues, and members of the green building movement. Our thanks also go out to the editors and staff at John Wiley & Sons, who made the birthing process as painless as possible.
Ross Spiegel Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Dru Meadows Tulsa, Oklahoma
1Introduction
No man is an Island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the Main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.
—Devotions upon Emergent Occasions, “Meditation 17” John Donne
In Devotions upon Emergent Occasions, the seventeenth-century English metaphysical poet John Donne wrote, “No man is an Island, entire of itself.” Through this statement, Donne asserted that we all share a common humanity. In today's increasingly complex and interrelated world, not only is no man an island but, similarly, no building stands alone. Every building exists within an environmental context upon which it not only acts but which also has an impact upon the building. Because of today's increased complexity and interrelatedness, no building can be constructed as a microcosm. The people in charge of every building project must consider the impact it will have on the environment into which it will be placed, locally and globally.
Donne's assertion that no man is an island is also an affirmation of sustainability. Sustainability is commonly interpreted to mean living in such a way as to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet the needs of the future.1 It is frequently compared to the Native American concept of consultation with the as yet unborn future generations for their input on significant decisions—decisions that might affect them. Sustainability is a social concept in that it considers the needs of the unborn. It is an environmental concept in that it addresses the effect of pollution and resource management (or lack thereof) on Earth's ecological systems. Further, it is an economic concept in that it seeks to quantify the tolerable limits for consumption such that we can live on Earth's interest instead of depleting the principal. It is a perspective that focuses on systems and relationships instead of objects.
The term sustainability, once rare to find in a dictionary, now appears regularly. Whereas the spell checker on your personal computer used to stumble over the word, it is common now to find it included in your computer's spell checking library. Online dictionaries such as yourdictionary.com and OneLook.com include the term. Sustainabilitycan also be found in online encyclopedias such as Wikipedia. Use of the term has quickly become widespread. Another term that has come into common usage is high-performance building. A high-performance building is one whose energy, economic, and environmental performance is substantially better than one designed by standard practice. It is a building that is healthy to live and work in and that has a relatively low impact on the environment.2 The term green has also become part of our working vocabulary. It is now used not only as a name for a particular color but also as an adjective meaning “environmentally friendly.” It refers to the color of lush, healthy, unpolluted vegetation. Some local and regional programs use blue in a similar manner to indicate the idea of cool, clean, unpolluted water or air. Brown is indicative of dirty, barren, polluted areas, and has entered the industry vocabulary as a term referring to contaminated sites, brownfields. Like the terms sustainability, green, and high-performance building, integrated design is now in common usage. Integrated design describes a process used to design and construct a building in such a manner so as to promote sustainability. The integrated design process encourages all members of the building team to work together from the earliest stages of project development to achieve high performance and sustainability in the design. Green, like the other terms, has entered the vernacular. Thus, a green building does not refer to the shade of paint, but signifies the impact the building has on the environment. Simply stated, a green building is one that is located and constructed in a sustainable manner and that is designed to allow its occupants to live, work, and play in a sustainable manner.
The growth of interest in green buildings has led to the development of rating systems such as the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®) Green Building Rating System and in green building material rating systems such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) BEES (Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability) program.
Over the last decade, interest in green issues among those in both the building industry and the general public has grown considerably. Today, the proliferation of green articles, conferences, publications, websites, electronic newsletters, and projects attest to an increasing consciousness. We have been made aware, in no uncertain terms, that we are a dirty and wasteful species. Each of us has had to accept responsibility for our part.
The United States generates more waste than any other nation. In 2008, U.S. residents, businesses, and institutions produced about 250 million tons of Municipal Solid Waste, which is approximately 4.5 pounds of waste per person per day.3 For many American schools, the amount of money spent on trash disposal is at least equal to that spent on textbooks.4 The construction industry dumps between 25 and 40 percent of the total into America's solid waste stream.5 “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that approximately 170 million tons of building-related [Construction & Demolition (C&D)] debris were generated in 2003—the majority from demolition (49 percent) and renovation (42 percent). New construction generated only 9 percent of building-related C&D debris.”6 “The United States Geological Survey has estimated that in 2006 construction accounted for 77 percent of all materials used in the United States for purposes other than food and fuel.”7
We waste energy. The U.S. Department of Energy has estimated that improvements in the energy efficiency of buildings, utilizing existing and readily available technologies, could save $20 billion annually in the United States and create 100,000 new jobs.8 A significant percentage—40 percent—of the world's energy usage is dedicated to the construction and operation of buildings.9 Even more is indirectly mandated by the thoughtless siting of buildings relative to each other. Urban sprawl has been denigrated for its negative impact on quality of life. People regularly complain about the time devoted to traveling across town or the unfortunate aesthetics of their surroundings. However, as environmentalists will quickly tell you, urban sprawl is guilty of damaging the environment both directly and indirectly. It directly damages the environment as inexpensive fringe property is hastily and wastefully paved over, and indirectly as the hundreds of thousands of energy-burning vehicles drive past to conquer the next bit of fringe real estate.
We also waste our natural resources. Over 50 percent of the wetlands of the contiguous United States have been destroyed—filled, contaminated, or otherwise “reclaimed.”10 The destruction of wetlands and other natural resources has become much more efficient with technological advances. In recent decades, “… the average annual rate of deforestation worldwide was approximately equivalent to an area the size of the state of Georgia.”11 James Lovelock, creator of the GAIA theory,12 has predicted that, at current rates of deforestation, we will have lost 65 percent of all the forest of the tropics by the end of this century. This is a critical threshold. “When more than 70 percent of an ecosystem is lost, the remainder may be unable to sustain the environment needed for its own survival.”13 The building industry commandeers 3 billion tons of raw materials annually—40 percent of total global use.14 It uses almost half of all the mined, harvested, and dredged raw materials each year! It also diverts 16 percent of global fresh water annually.15 Most of the earth's water is located in our oceans and is too salty for residential, commercial, or industrial use. Only 3 percent of the water on the planet is fresh, and most of that is located in polar ice. Of all the water on the planet, only about 0.003 percent is readily available as fresh water for human use.16 The 16 percent annual usage estimate accounts for the quantity of water required to manufacture building materials and to construct and operate buildings. It does not reflect the impact of the building industry on the quality of water. It is entirely possible that future estimates of the percentage of available fresh water will decrease as we continue to contaminate our limited supply.
At some point, with continued unlimited growth, demand will exceed our resources. But at what point? There is a great deal of debate over the exact numbers. How much fossil fuel do we have left? Enough for 10 years? 100 years? Determining the exact limit causes genuine concern because we want to know how much we can use—and, of course, how much is it going to cost.
According to the United Nations Population Fund reports, from the beginning of time until 1950, the world population grew to almost 2.5 billion people; from 1950 to 1990, that population doubled; and by 2050, the world will add almost 2.5 billion people, an amount equal to the world's total population in 1950.17 The same resources we are now using will have to support nearly 9 billion people. Each additional person requires food, clothing, shelter, and assorted amenities. Most of this growth is anticipated in Asia and in developing countries. Currently, these areas do not have the same standard of living that developed nations do, but they are actively attempting to acquire it. Also, these areas produce the majority of the raw materials, the renewable and nonrenewable resources that developed nations use to achieve their higher standard of living. As available resources per capita decrease, the costs will increase; there is even a question as to whether or not the developing nations, as they industrialize and acquire not only the need for but also the capacity to process their raw materials, will continue to supply raw materials to the previously developed nations.
A simple objective comparison of available resources to increasing human demands indicates that the system, as currently functioning, cannot continue indefinitely. Use of nonrenewable resources must stop, either voluntarily or involuntarily. Proponents of sustainability opt for the voluntary method.
Sustainable approaches focus on two questions:
What are we using?
How well are we using it?
What we are using may be perpetual resources, resources that are “virtually inexhaustible on a human time scale,”18 such as solar, wind, or tidal energy; renewable resources, resources that can be replenished through natural processes in a relatively short time, such as trees and water; or nonrenewable resources, resources that require millions or billions of years to be replenished through geological, physical, and chemical processes, such as aluminum, coal, and oil.
The law of conservation of matter states that matter can be neither created nor destroyed. What we have inherited—perpetual (exclusive of the solar input), renewable, or nonrenewable—is, ultimately, all we've got. We can take some from here and move it there, reshape it, burn it, bury it—but it's all we are going to get. What existed at the beginning of time is what we have now.
A significant ecological aspect of the law of conservation of matter is that matter goes through cyclical transformations. Matter cycles from physical reservoirs into biological reservoirs and back again. Water, for example, regularly travels through rivers, lakes, oceans, and the atmosphere, making detours through plants and animals (e.g., human beings). Through transpiration, plants transfer water from the soil to vapor in the air. The rising vapor condenses to form clouds; rain falls, trees grow. Water vapor also condenses over the ocean. Algae in seawater produce dimethyl sulfide, which provides cloud-condensing nuclei, the particles that water condenses around to form clouds. The cloud cover lowers the temperature, causing differentials in temperature and air movement. The cloud collides with a land mass—rain.
There are some interesting environmental corollaries to the law of conservation of matter. If matter cannot be created, we never really get anything new, and we never really throw anything away. We just move it around and combine it with different materials. Therefore, we are drinking the same water that has traveled through the cycle over and over and over since day one. And, if we deposit chemicals into a stream, they are likely to travel with the water to the next location in the cycle, and the next. Ultimately, everything is in your own backyard. The time a water molecule stays at any one point in the cycle is as follows:19
Location
Residence Time
Atmosphere
9 days
Rivers
2 weeks
Soil moisture
2 weeks to 1 year
Large lakes
10 years
Underground water at slight depth
10s to 100s of years
Ocean mixed layer to a depth of 55 yards
120 years
Seas and oceans
3,000 years
Underground water at depth
up to 10,000 years
Antarctic ice cap
10,000 years
The question of how well we use our perpetual, renewable, and nonrenewable resources must be answered in terms of our effect on the quality of the resource and our impact on the cycle of the resource (rate of flow, diversion, etc.). According to the EPA, “In 2004, states, tribes, territories, and interstate commissions report that about 44% of assessed stream miles, 64% of assessed lake acres, and 30% of assessed bay and estuarine square miles were not clean enough to support uses such as fishing and swimming.”20 That survey included only 16 percent of the nation's 3.5 million miles of rivers and streams, and only 39 percent of the nation's 41.7 million acres of lakes, reservoirs, and ponds. According to the Index of Watershed Indicators for 2002, only 15 percent of the nation's watersheds had relatively good water quality.21 Hose down your driveway and you have diverted a portion of the daily one-third of flowing water in the country and added to it an assortment of petroleum products, pesticides, herbicides, and debris that will flow down the street into the stormwater system. Thermoelectric power generation is responsible for nearly half of the annual water withdrawals in the United States, amounting to approximately 195 billion gallons per day in 2000.22 A significant pollutant that power plants add to the water is waste heat.
The options for greener use of a resource are often complicated by political and economic factors. Water quite visibly travels across borders and is subjected to a variety of social, economic, and political values along the way. Of the 200 largest river systems in the world, 120 flow through two or more countries. Access to shared resources has triggered numerous conflicts over the centuries. Witness the tension in the Middle East. The 1967 Arab-Israeli war was fought, in part, over water rights to the Jordan River. The conflicting demands of agricultural, industrial, and urban uses are felt not only between countries but also between and within states. The Los Angeles aqueduct project infuriates Northern California. The mighty Colorado River has so many users that it is virtually dry at its end.
While sustainable approaches could benefit from political advances and new technologies, many simple and innovative options are currently available. Many not only improve the manner in which we use our resources but also have financial benefits. For example, a water recirculation system reduced the amount of water the Gillette Company used to make razor blades from 730 million gallons to 156 gallons per year, saving approximately $1.5 million a year in water and sewage bills.23
Harrah's Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas asked its customers whether they wanted their sheets changed every day. Most said no. Harrah's reduced “its energy and water costs for cleaning sheets by $70,000 per year.”24 By utilizing a landscaping technique called xeriscaping, which relies on native plants instead of water-intensive imported plants, Valley Bank in Tucson, Arizona, realized a $20,000 per year savings.25
The Earth has evolved thousands of intricate, delicately balanced cycles, each of which is woven into increasingly more complex systems to create the overall single system that is our world. The prospect of living sustainably in the midst of such complexity can be overwhelming. Some respond with a deus ex machina confidence that technology will “solve” the problems, whatever they are, or that nature will adjust as necessary. Others, overwhelmed by the enormity of the challenge, reassure themselves by asserting that the impact one individual can make is negligible. Technology may solve some problems, but only if we focus our attention on those problems and seriously endeavor to understand them. Nature will undoubtedly adjust; the question is whether or not that adjustment will involve the eradication of our species. And individual impact does add up, regardless of whether or not you choose to see the aggregate. Furthermore, history books are full of individuals who had tremendous cultural, economic, political, and environmental impact. As the anthropologist Margaret Mead pointed out, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” Solving all the problems simultaneously is as unrealistic as avoiding them. A more constructive approach is to do what you can and continue improving. Maintain the deep dark green goal, but don't let the fact that you are a few shades lighter stop you from achieving even that much.
Can you, as a designer or building owner, envision a building that neither imports nor exports material or energy during construction? During operation? If not, can you envision a trade for the imported or exported material that will balance in a larger picture? To determine how closely you come to this goal, ask these questions: What am I using? How well am I using it?
With a basic appreciation of the law of conservation of matter, the answer to the first question will have implications for the impact of your choice on our natural resources and on the relative healthfulness of our environment. These two topics—resource management and toxicity—are valuable tools for evaluating materials. The answer to the second question will have implications for the performance of the material. Performance issues include durability, energy efficiency, amount of waste generated, and potential for reuse or recycling. Performance is also a valuable tool for evaluating the greenness of a material.
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is the formal methodology for answering these questions. LCA is a process that investigates the impact of a product at every stage in its life, from preliminary development through obsolescence. At each stage, you look at the materials and energy consumed and the pollution and waste produced. Life stages include extraction of raw materials, processing and fabrication, transportation, installation, use and maintenance, and reuse/recycling/disposal. To date, there is no single accepted LCA methodology. Groups as diverse as the EPA, ASTM International, the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) each have worked on creating an outline of the process. Nevertheless, there is general consensus regarding the concept of LCA and its usefulness in quantifying sustainability. And, in 2001, an organization dedicated to increasing the capacity and knowledge of LCA was formed: The American Center for Life Cycle Assessment (ACLCA). The ACLCA developed and manages the Life Cycle Assessment Certified Professional (LCACP) Certification, which was offered for the first time at the end of 2009.
Selection of materials is only one part (albeit an important one) of making a green building. The LCA methodology helps us visualize the link between the big picture and the details, while bringing us that much closer to the goal of living sustainably. This point is emphasized by inclusion of the LCA approach specified in ISO 14000 standards in the BEES software. A future version of the LEED Green Building Rating System is scheduled to include LCA methodology as well.
Every human endeavor has as its basis a condition or state of being we wish to attain. Call it an ideal of perfection for which we strive. In order to make our struggle more manageable, we break our efforts into smaller pieces, called goals. Goals are the steps we can take on the path toward our ideal. Within the context of the subject of this book, our ideal can be described as a world of buildings that are located, constructed, and designed in a sustainable manner and that allow their occupants to live, work, and play in a sustainable manner.
An inherent quality of an ideal, of perfection, is that it is unattainable. This should not discourage us from making changes in the status quo. With a limited investment of time, money, and research, it is relatively easy to make measurable improvements. That is the crucial point: If you shift your paradigm from simple black-and-white answers to shades of gray (or should we say green), then the possibilities for environmental successes are unlimited.
The subject of green buildings has been widely discussed and often written about. This book does not attempt to be an exhaustive text on the pros and cons of going green. It also does not try to engage in a detailed discussion of green buildings. Many fine books are available on both subjects.
The goal of this book is to help designers and other members of the building construction team better understand the green building material selection and specifying process. By attaining this goal, we hope to take one more step toward reaching our ideal.
Notes
1. In the words of the landmark World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission), we should “meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Cited in Joel Darmstadter, Global Development and the Environment: Perspectives on Sustainability, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, 1992.
2. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy High Performance Buildings, www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/highperformance.
3. www.epa.gov/epawaste/basic-solid.htm.
4. The Denver Post 1991 Colorado Recycling Guide.
5. Cassidy, Robert. “Getting Down and Dirty on C&D Waste Recycling,” Building Design & Construction, July 1, 2007.
6. EPA Document EPA530-R-09-002, “Estimated 2003 Building-Related Construction and Demolition Waste Amounts,” March 2009, www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/ rrr/imr/cdm/pubs/cd-meas.pdf.
7. USGS Fact Sheet 2009-3008, “Use of Minerals and Materials in the United States From 1900 Through 2006,” April 2009, http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3008/.
8. Department of Energy, “International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol,” December 1997, DOE / EE-0157, p. 9, www.epa.gov/iaq/largebldgs/ pdf_files/impvp_december_1997.pdf.
9. Roodman, David Malin and Lenssen, Nicholas, Worldwatch Paper 124, “A Building Revolution: How Ecology and Health Concerns Are Transforming Construction” (Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute, March 1995), 23.
10. National Science and Technology Council, Technology for a Sustainable Future: A Framework for Action (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1994), 32.
11. Ibid.
12. James Lovelock first put forth the Gaia Hypothesis in 1969, and published the theory in his book Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth in 1979. With the Gaia Hypothesis, Lovelock proposed that our planet is not just a space occupied by a variety of living things but a collection of living things that act together as a single living organism.
13. James Lovelock, Healing Gaia: Practical Medicine for the Planet (New York: Harmony, 1991), 157.
14. Roodman and Lenssen, “A Building Revolution,” 22.
15. Ibid.
16. Miller, G. Tyler, Living in the Environment: An Introduction to Environmental Sciences, 7th ed. (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1992), 334.
17. United Nations Population Fund, “State of World Population,” 2004.
18. Miller, Living in the Environment, 10.
19. World Resources Institute, 1994 Information Please Environmental Almanac (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1994).
20. EPA Document EPA-841-R-08-00, National Water Quality Inventory, 2004 Report, www.epa.gov/305b.
21. EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, “Index of Watershed Indicators: An Overview,” 2002, www.epa.gov/iwi/.
22. U.S. Geological Survey, “Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000,” 2005, http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/circ1268/index.html.
23. Joel Makower, The E-factor: The Bottom-Line Approach to Environmentally Responsible Business (New York: Tilden Press, 1993), 217.
24. Joseph J. Romm, Lean and Clean Management: How to Boost Profits and Productivity by Reducing Pollution (New York: Kodansha, 1994), 4.
25. Makower, The E-factor, 217.
2Why Use Green Building Materials?
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
—Anonymous
Using green building materials can help divert indoor air quality (IAQ) liability claims, respond to consumer demand, and provide for compliance with certain regulatory requirements. And, oh yes, it's the right thing to do.
Liability concerns regarding healthy buildings and healthy sites are rising in proportion to our growing understanding of the potential hazards associated with certain materials. Asbestos and lead are classic examples. Green building products, especially those fabricated from nontoxic, natural, and organic materials, can reduce IAQ contaminants and the accompanying complaints and claims.
Consumer demand for healthy buildings and for energy-efficient structures also drives manufacturers and designers to explore options for green products. Meeting consumer demand is good business. Failure to meet consumer expectations is likely to remind you about the liability concerns.
As more and more green buildings are completed and begin to welcome both occupants and visitors, they are demonstrating why using green building materials pays benefits beyond avoiding liability claims. These buildings can result from a desire to be altruistic or to obtain a financial return on investment. Examples of buildings that exhibit “the right thing to do” are:
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation's Philip Merrill Environmental Center1 in Annapolis, Maryland. The building incorporates an external shading system made from salvaged wood from old pickle barrels that helps the building control the sun for natural heating and lighting; structural insulated panels as an alternative to conventional framing; cork flooring and wall panels from cork oak trees, wood that is Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified or obtained from sustainably managed forests; and metal siding and roofing panels made locally from recycled steel. In these ways the building leads the way in conserving raw materials as well as energy and water. Located on the Chesapeake Bay, the building physically demonstrates the Foundation's efforts to restore the natural habitat of the bay, reduce pollution, and replenish fish stocks. By locating the building on the site of a former beach club, previously undisturbed portions of the site were left untouched and the building's impact on the bay minimized. The building also minimized the use of raw materials by simply using less. This was achieved by exposing much of the structure to view with a design calling for a minimal number of interior walls. The building also avoids the use of finishes wherever possible. The resulting built environment is a healthy and energy-efficient one that offers occupants natural ventilation and light and views of the bay. Upon completion, the building received the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED® Green Building Rating System's platinum rating, its highest.
The Solaire, a 27-story, 293-unit residential building located in Battery Park City in New York, was built on landfill on the west side of the city's financial district. The building includes a green roof, materials containing recycled content, and materials that are healthy for the occupants. All of the materials incorporated into the building are free of formaldehyde and contain low or no volatile organic compounds (VOCs). A prospectus for the building touts its green features by prominently featuring the words natural materials and live naturally. The building was so successful in attracting occupants that a second building with the same features was constructed nearby.
Four Times Square, located in midtown Manhattan, is a 48-story, 1.6-million-square-foot office building that demonstrates energy efficiency, excellent indoor air quality, and the use of green building materials. The developer of the building, the Durst Organization, knew from the start that the building would be ecologically responsible. They used the building's environmental features as a marketing device, while conserving resources and making a healthy place to work. Technologies installed in the building include fuel cells, CFC- and HCFC-free HVAC systems, and photovoltaic panels integral with the curtain wall system. In the end, the building required a higher initial investment but offset this with savings on operating costs.
These economic forces are reflected in the regulatory arena. Voluntary and mandatory environmental guidelines developed at the local, national, and international levels are increasingly applicable to building design and construction. Environmental regulations can present economic and administrative headaches when approached from a business-as-usual standpoint. Conversely, green building materials and methods can make compliance much, much easier.
Altruism, however, is the most frequently cited reason to use green building materials, and we would be remiss to exclude it. As custodians of the built environment, daily decisions we make with respect to product selection have a ripple effect on the natural environment that merits a significant level of professional care. Selection of products used in buildings impacts the Earth directly and indirectly. The building industry is a major consumer of raw materials. Obviously, the type and quantity of raw materials that are extracted and how they are processed constitute the direct impact. Which materials are selected also affects how the building occupants (and, often the community in general) use the building. By obligating occupants, neighbors, and the community to use buildings in certain ways, the selection of building materials constitutes the indirect impact. If, for example, a building uses a membrane roofing system, the installation is likely to involve the release of solvents in the air. If the membrane is black, it is likely to have a negative impact on the energy demands of the building and of the adjacent structures because of the albedo (the reflected heat that raises temperatures in the microclimate). If it is a single-ply membrane system, it is likely to be fabricated entirely from synthetic chemicals and virgin materials rather than recycled materials. Single-ply systems, especially adhered systems, make future disassembly and recycling unfeasible.
Altruism is certainly the most laudable reason to use green building products. Self-interest, however, is generally the most compelling. Using green building materials can satisfy some very self-interested motives: deflection of liability, economic gain, and simple regulatory compliance. Self-interested motives beautifully illustrate the relative worth of an ounce of prevention and a pound of cure.
Liability Issues
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 ushered in, among other changes, a new term—biochemically handicapped—that is not specifically cited in Title III of the ADA (the part that addresses building design). Title III prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities. Biochemically handicapped describes individuals diagnosed with multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS). Such individuals are acutely affected to varying degrees by chemicals commonly found in building products. They suffer headaches, nausea, rashes, and potentially life-threatening asthmatic attacks. Remember the boy in the bubble? He now has recourse under the ADA, as do all of us. But that recourse is still relatively nebulous. ADA case law presents an interesting phenomenon. While hundreds of cases involving MCS have been filed, few, if any, have gone to trial. Apparently, no building owner or material manufacturer wants to test this far-reaching document relative to responsibilities for environmental hazards. No one wants to risk the potential public liability. No one wants to set the precedent on the books. Nevertheless, various agencies and jurisdictions have recognized MCS as a handicap under certain circumstances. Although the Department of Justice (DOJ) declined to state categorically that environmental illness (also known as MCS) was a disability, it recognized that sometimes an individual's respiratory or neurological functioning is so severely affected that he or she satisfies the requirements to be considered disabled under the ADA.2 In other words, determination of whether or not MCS is a disability is made on a case-by-case basis.
The single greatest culprit in triggering multiple chemical sensitivity reactions—and subsequent ADA filings—is poor IAQ, often referred to as sick building syndrome. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), as many as 30 percent of buildings exhibit some kind of sick building syndrome problem. The EPA has stated that the health risks associated with breathing indoor air are 2 to 5 times the risks of breathing outdoor air. The EPA places poor IAQ fourth on the list of high cancer risks, with 3,500 to 6,000 deaths per year attributable to indoor air pollution. According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the relative causes of indoor air pollution are as follows:
53 percent inadequate ventilation
15 percent indoor contaminants
19 percent outdoor contaminants
13 percent unknown
Poor IAQ is expensive; estimates range from tens of thousands to billions of dollars annually in employee sick leave, earnings, and productivity losses. There may also be significant costs associated with IAQ issues for those who find themselves part of a growing body of IAQ legislative case history. Examples of IAQ case law include:3
Bloomquist v. Wapello County, 500 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 1993).
Plaintiffs sued employers and builders for providing an unsafe work environment due to an inadequate HVAC system. The jury awarded $1 million, finding chemical exposure associated with pesticide application and inadequate ventilation. The judge set aside the verdict because of inadequate scientific basis. However, the Iowa Supreme Court reversed the judge's decision and reinstated the original verdict.
Flores v. Winegrad, No. 87-283 4 5 B, Harris County, District Court, Texas.
The owners and manager of apartment complexes terminated the services of a licensed pest control operator in April 1985 and used their own maintenance staff to apply termiticides. When they sprayed chlordane negligently, without notice to tenants, 311 plaintiffs brought a class action seeking compensatory and punitive damages, alleging negligence. As a test case, a number of the plaintiffs were awarded $10.5 million by the jury as a result of the exposure to the misapplied chlordane.
Uricam Corp. v. Partridge Investment Co., No. CJ882691, OK D.C. (Oklahoma 1988).
The owner of an asbestos-contaminated building occupied by the Oklahoma Department of Commerce sued the building's prior owner for $2.9 million, the cost of asbestos inspection, abatement, and damages. The suit was based on a breach of seller's representations and warranties. The asbestos was discovered by Department of Commerce employees. In addition to damages, the complaint sought indemnification against third-party liability. The suit was settled.
Bloomfield Co. v. State, 3AN-87-2082 (Alaska).
The state of Alaska moved out of a building owned by Bloomfield Company, alleging sick building syndrome. When the landlord sued the state for $1.8 million for vacating the premises, the state countersued for $1 million in moving expenses. The case was settled.
Janna Andrejevic, et al v. Board of Education of Wheaton-Warrenville School District et al., Ill. Circ., DuPage Co., No. 200, No. 99 L 00671 (Illinois).
A class action suit was brought against a Wheaton, Ill., school district alleging that numerous children attending a school were exposed to mold and other unhealthy conditions that caused respiratory ailments. The class action alleges that students suffered and continue to suffer permanent respiratory ailments, causing their parents to suffer financial losses associated with medical bills and lost wages. The plaintiffs are seeking $67 million for injuries and injunctive relief to close the school until the allegedly poor environmental conditions are remedied.
4
Knauf et al Chinese Drywall Litigation.
In late 2006, reports began surfacing of drywall imported from China offgassing sulfur-like odors in newly constructed homes in Florida. At the same time, there was evidence of failure of metal devices installed behind sheetrocked walls, such as HVAC systems and electrical wiring and conduit. A shortage of construction materials manufactured in the United States resulted in builders purchasing products from overseas. Testing conducted on behalf of the Florida Department of Health revealed the presence of strontium sulfide in addition to pyrite in the drywall. Subsequently, it was discovered that the possibly tainted drywall was installed in new homes in New Jersey, Connecticut, Maryland, New York, and Virginia in addition to Florida. In May 2009, the EPA released new information from tests they conducted on materials used in Chinese drywall, confirming that it contained sulfur and two other organic compounds generally used in the production of acrylic paint but not used in the manufacture of drywall in the United States. By June 2009, over 70 class action cases were pending nationally.
5
One of the main reasons that manufacturers, designers, and building owners do not want to set precedents relative to MCS and the ADA is that while IAQ may be the main culprit, it is not the only trigger for MCS reactions; it is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. As scientific evidence continues to accumulate, chemicals previously considered inert or relatively benign come under suspicion. As we learn more about the complex workings of our ecosystems, we begin to recognize how naïve we were not to ask more questions about the scientific wonders the chemical industry heralded. And, of course, we look for the responsible parties, those who made the materials and those who profited from them. The potential legal exposure under ADA is immense. Any building occupant (employee or guest) can file a suit alleging discrimination on the basis of a disability. However unintentional this result may have been, the ADA is perhaps one of the most powerful pieces of environmental legislation on record.
Economic Benefits
Obviously, the potential for liability has a considerable economic corollary. The use of green materials, particularly materials considered green because they are natural, organic, or nontoxic, can help reduce claims made by MCS individuals under the ADA. The costs associated with potential liability are directly proportional to the size, location, type, and function of the building, and they can be pretty hefty. Anyone caught in the situation, with the clarity of hindsight, can appreciate the wisdom of the old adage, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Similarly, it is easier and more cost-effective to prevent waste than to clean it up afterward. Waste costs money. An ounce of waste prevention is easily worth a pound of waste mitigation. While trash may be the most familiar manifestation of waste, it is not the only one. Waste exists at every stage of a product's transition from a raw material through manufacturing, transportation, and use. Waste refers to the unused byproducts, the excess energy or heat, and the pollution produced along the way. It encompasses everything from packaging to greenhouse gases. Waste is lost profits. It is something you have purchased but cannot sell or use. Cut the waste, and you reclaim lost profits.
By performing an eco-audit of your building design, building operations, and manufacturing process, you can identify waste and possibilities for trimming it. An eco-audit is an earth-friendly review of the materials and operations in your building conducted to identify cost-effective opportunities for improving indoor air quality, water quality and efficiency, energy efficiency, waste minimization, and the environmental integrity of the local ecosystem. An eco-audit is not a review for compliance with environmental regulations. It is a perspective of the building as a living system. An eco-audit reviews the system to identify the input (the energy, materials, and labor required to create the product or service), the output (the product or service itself), and the byproducts (the waste products created in the process). The systems approach examines processes and relationships in addition to materials. An eco-audit is useful for planned new construction and for evaluating existing construction. Opportunities exist to improve efficiency and to green a building and its operations within all schedules and budgets.
Green products can help mitigate economic losses from waste. Hundreds of opportunities exist in nearly every arena. Water conservation and water quality management, for example, boast numerous products and systems that can pay for themselves quickly.
Water use in the United States more than doubled from 1950 to 1995, increasing from 680 billion liters (180 billion gallons) per day to more than 1.5 trillion liters (400 billion gallons) per day.6 The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the country currently uses 410 billion gallons of water each day.7 Fresh water is the most precious and one of the most limited resources on our planet. The United Nations Population Fund estimates that only 2.5 percent of the water on the Earth is fresh and only about 0.5 percent is accessible ground or surface water. As the global population has grown, increasing threefold over the last 70 years, the use of freshwater resources has increased sixfold. The World Bank reported in 2001 that agriculture accounts for 70 percent of annual worldwide water use, industry for 22 percent, and household use for 8 percent.
The building industry diverts an estimated 16 percent of global fresh water annually. This estimate accounts for the quantity of water required to manufacture building materials and to construct and operate buildings. It does not reflect the impact of the building industry on the quality of water. It is entirely possible that future estimates of the percentage of available fresh water will decrease as we contaminate our limited supply.
Simply replacing a leaky faucet can save 160 liters (36 gallons) per day. Sensor-operated faucets and flush valves are classic examples of automatic controls to reduce waste. Low-flow fixtures are another way to conserve water. Homes with older fixtures use about 75 gallons of water per person per day; homes with water-saving fixtures that are now required by most plumbing codes use between 25 and 50 gallons of water per person per day.8 The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), in compliance with Executive Order 12902, “Energy Efficiency and Water Conservation at Federal Facilities—March 8, 1994,” installed new multistage dishwashing equipment in a federal cafeteria. Multistage dishwashers reuse water from the rinse cycle to prewash dishes. The DOD installation cost $57,800 and resulted in an annual savings of 500,000 gallons of water, $2,000 in water costs, and $19,000 in labor costs. Payback was 2.7 years and is projected to save almost $500,000 over the 25-year life of the installation.9
Selecting indigenous plant material (xeriscaping) instead of decorative hothouse species could reduce municipal water requirements more effectively than low-flow fixtures or sensor-operated faucets. Because native plants are appropriate to the climate, they are easy to maintain. They do not need extra water or care, except perhaps during the 12-month establishment period. Buffalo grass is replacing many lawns in the prairie states. Buffalo grass requires 25 inches of water per year compared to Bermuda grass, which requires 40, Zoysia, which requires 45, and St. Augustine, which requires 50. Compare such water requirements with the average 35.45 inches annual rainfall in the Dallas–Fort Worth area10 or the average 35.30 inches in Canton, Illinois.11 Furthermore, not only is less water required but also less chemical fertilizers and pesticides.
