<%BANNER%>

Improving the LEED-NC 2009 Materials and Resources Category Using International Building Assessment Systems and Standards

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041285/00001

Material Information

Title: Improving the LEED-NC 2009 Materials and Resources Category Using International Building Assessment Systems and Standards
Physical Description: 1 online resource (83 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Roberts, David
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: assessment, building, green, leed, materials, rating, resources, standard, system, usgbc
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Since 1998, the United States Green Building Council s Leadership in Energy and Environment Design (LEED) rating system has dominated the market for building assessment systems within the United States as a result of its consensus-based, market-driven principles. However, there are building assessment systems throughout the world that exemplify higher standards and methodologies for reducing the environmental impacts (e.g. Carbon emissions and ozone layer depletion) of the built environment. This study attempts to learn from other building rating systems and improve upon the materials and resources (MR) category of LEED 2009 resulting in recommendations to the USGBC technical committee for improvement. These recommendations include an approach to life cycle assessment, implementation of resource conservation through design, and changes to materials selection credits.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by David Roberts.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Kibert, Charles J.
Local: Co-adviser: Issa, R. Raymond.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0041285:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041285/00001

Material Information

Title: Improving the LEED-NC 2009 Materials and Resources Category Using International Building Assessment Systems and Standards
Physical Description: 1 online resource (83 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Roberts, David
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: assessment, building, green, leed, materials, rating, resources, standard, system, usgbc
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Since 1998, the United States Green Building Council s Leadership in Energy and Environment Design (LEED) rating system has dominated the market for building assessment systems within the United States as a result of its consensus-based, market-driven principles. However, there are building assessment systems throughout the world that exemplify higher standards and methodologies for reducing the environmental impacts (e.g. Carbon emissions and ozone layer depletion) of the built environment. This study attempts to learn from other building rating systems and improve upon the materials and resources (MR) category of LEED 2009 resulting in recommendations to the USGBC technical committee for improvement. These recommendations include an approach to life cycle assessment, implementation of resource conservation through design, and changes to materials selection credits.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by David Roberts.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Kibert, Charles J.
Local: Co-adviser: Issa, R. Raymond.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0041285:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 IMPROVING THE LEED-NC 2009 MATERIALS & RESOURCES CATEGORY USING INTERNATIONAL BUILDING ASSES SMENT SYSTEMS AND STANDARDS By DAVID M. ROBERTS A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009

PAGE 2

2 2009 David M. Roberts

PAGE 3

3 For my friends, family, and Russ DeVore

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I thank the chair, committee members, and professors at the M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction for their assistance and encouragement throughout my time here. Finally, I thank Br ock, Thomas, Greg, Mitch, and Marisa for their support. You all hav e made this experience truly remarkable.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDG EMENTS ............................................................................................... 4 LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................ 7 LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... 8 ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................... 9 CHA PTER 1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 10 Research Ob jectives ............................................................................................... 10 Problem St atement ................................................................................................. 10 Significance of the Re s earch.................................................................................. 11 Limita tions............................................................................................................... 11 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................... 12 Definitions............................................................................................................... 12 Sustainable C onstruction.................................................................................. 12 Life Cycle Assessm ent ..................................................................................... 13 Design for Deconstructi on and Disassembly (DfDD) ........................................ 16 Materials & Resources ..................................................................................... 18 Building Assessm ent Syst ems ................................................................................ 19 United States Green Building C ouncil .............................................................. 19 ASHRAE Standar d 189. 1p ............................................................................... 26 Green Building Initiative.................................................................................... 27 German Sustainable Build ing Counc il (DGNB) ................................................ 30 International Initiative for a Su stainable Built Environment (iiSBE) ................... 32 3 METHODOLOGY................................................................................................... 35 4 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS .................................................................................... 36 Materials & Resour ces Compar isons ...................................................................... 36 Collection of Recyclab les ................................................................................. 36 Building Reuse ................................................................................................. 37 Construction Waste Management .................................................................... 37 Materials Reuse ............................................................................................... 38 Recycled Content ............................................................................................. 38 Regional Ma terials ............................................................................................ 38 Rapidly Renewable Materials ........................................................................... 39 Certified Wood .................................................................................................. 40

PAGE 6

6 Resource Conservation Through Design.......................................................... 40 Life Cycle Assessm ent ..................................................................................... 41 Other Criteria.................................................................................................... 41 Conclusi ons ............................................................................................................ 42 Summary................................................................................................................ 51 5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RE SEARCH ........................................... 53 APPENDIX: MATERIALS AND RESOURC ES CREDIT FR AMEWORK ..................... 70 REFERE NCES .............................................................................................................. 81 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................................................ 83

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 The principles of su stainable c onstruction .......................................................... 55 2-2 High-performance green build ing as defi ned by GGGC ..................................... 55 2-3 ISO 14040 format ............................................................................................... 56 2-4 Principles of design for disa ssembly as applie d to bui ldings .............................. 56 2-5 Opportunities and constr aints of dec onstruction ................................................. 57 2-6 Building assessment s tandards and ra ting syst ems........................................... 57 2-7 Whole system comparis on of LEED v2.2-v3.0.................................................... 57 2-8 LEED 2009 we ighting pr ocess............................................................................ 58 2-9 Summary of information sources used for each impact c ategory....................... 59 2-10 LEED 2009 MR credits and relati ve emphasis to w hole rating system. .............. 60 2-11 Proposed ANSI st andard 01-2008p resource s & materi als................................ 61 2-12 DGNB certificate res ources and materi als cr edits .............................................. 62 2-13 Materials & res ources withi n SBTool .................................................................. 63 4-1 LEED MR credit com parison to ASH RAE 1 89.1p ............................................... 64 4-2 LEED MR credit com parison to AN SI 01-2008P ................................................. 65 4-3 LEED MR credit comparis on to DGNB ce rtificate ............................................... 66 4-4 LEED MR credit co m parisons to SBT ool............................................................ 67 4-5 Existing LEED -NC scorecard.............................................................................. 68 4-6 Proposed LEED -NC scorecard ........................................................................... 68

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Framework for sust ainable cons truction ............................................................. 69 2-2 LCA concep t (Meado ws).................................................................................... 69

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Thesis Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction IMPROVING THE LEED-NC 2009 MATE RIALS & RESOURCES CATEGORY USING INTERNATIONAL BUILDING ASSES SMENT SYSTEMS AND STANDARDS By David M. Roberts December 2009 Chair: Charles Kibert Co-Chair: Raymond Issa Major: Building Construction Since 1998, the United States Green Building Counci ls Leadership in Energy and Environment Design (LEED) rating system has dominated the market for building assessment standards within the United States as a result of its consensus-based, market-driven principles. However, there are building assessment systems throughout the world that exemplify higher standards and methodologies for reducing the environmental impacts (e.g., Carbon emissions and ozone layer depletion) of the built environment. This study attempts to lear n from other building rating systems and improve upon the materials and resources (MR) category of LEED 2009 resulting in recommendations to the USGBC techni cal committee for improvement. These recommendations include an approach to lif e cycle assessment, implementation of resource conservation through design, and changes to materials selection credits.

PAGE 10

10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Research Objectives This study compares the materials & re sources category of the United States Green Building Councils (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system to that of rating systems and building a ssessment standards worldwide. Although the mission of the USGBC does not specify environmental responsibility, the objective is to make recommendations to the LEED Technical Advisory Group (TAG) for improving the materials and resources category. These recommendations will attempt to reduce the environmental impacts associated with building construction in the United States The proposed changes would facilitate a more positive contribution to high performa nce green building in the areas of waste management, materials selection, building reuse, and resource conservation. Problem Statement Although the USGBC has implemented one of the most widely accepted and popular building rating systems in the world, there are other building assessment systems that contribute significantly more to the built environment. Through more stringent standards and differ ent methodologies, rating syst ems and standards such as the Green Building Instit ute and ANSIs proposed standard 01-2008P, the German Society for Sustainable Construction Cert ificate, the ASHRAE standard 189.1p, and the International Initiative for a Sustainable Built Environments SBTool have demonstrated exemplary performance in facilitating continued sustainable development in their respective countries. Over the past dec ade, the LEED materials & resources (MR) category relative to other assessment system s has limited the potential positive impacts

PAGE 11

11 of environmental responsibilit y to include building reuse, waste management, materials selection, life cycle assessment (LCA), and design for resource conservation. Significance of the Research Although countless studies (e.g., Schedler and Udalls LEED Is BrokenLets Fix It and Murphys LEEDing from Behind: T he Rise and Fall of Green Building) have been performed with regard to the problems associated with LEED to include its lac k of life cycle assessment and design for resource c onservation, no research has focused on LEED version 3 and its first attempt at life cycl e assessment, in addition to MR category comparisons to other systems. According to Dr. Charles Kibert, Director of the Powell Center for Construction & Enviro nment at the University of Fl orida, the MR category of LEED is its weakest and has sign ificant potential for improvement. Limitations The main limiting factor of this research is comparing the related impacts of MR in LEED certified buildings to that of other buildings us ing international assess ment systems. As a result of differing methodolog ies, varying climate conditions throughout the world, and subjective claims (e.g., produ ctivity and health increases) related to high performance green building, ther e is no full proof system for determining the superiority of one rating system to another. Furthermore, research statistics on the most and least sough credits within LEED are from 2003 and are not repres entative of the exponential increases in green building over the past si x years. This research focuses on such statistics from the White Paper on Sustainability 2003 (BD&C) that do not have significant sample sizes (i.e., 38 projects).

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This chapt er is a collection of knowledge from various sources that gives a basis for understanding of the general concepts and in formation for which this research is based. A description of the related terms of sustainable development will be addressed, as well as the pertinent details of t he building assessment systems that will be analyzed. Definitions This section addresses the relevant def initions to the research. Included are sustainable construction, high perform ance green building, life cycle assessment, design for deconstruction/ disassembly, materials & resources, and building assessment systems. Sustainable Construction Sustainable Construction, green and high performance are often used interchangeably; however, the term sustain able construction most generally addresses the environmental, social, and economic issu es of a building in the context of its community. In 1994 an international construction research networking organization known as the Conseil International du Bati ment (CIB) defined the goal of sustainable construction as creating and operating a healthy built environment based on resource efficiency and ecological design (Kibert 2005). The (CIB) articulated seven principles of sustainable construction which would in form decision making during each phase of design and construction throughout the life cycl e of the building. T hese principles are listed in Table 2-1, and Figur e 2-1 addresses these factor s when applied to evaluating the components and other resources needed for construction. The seven principles

PAGE 13

13 apply across the entire life cycle of construction, from planning to deconstruction. Additionally, the principles apply to the resources needed to crea te and operate the built environment during its entire life cycle: land, materials, water, energy, and ecosystems (Kibert 2005). High performance building and green building have become similar phrases in the United States. Green buildings can be defined as healthy facilities designed and built in a resource efficient manner, using ecologically based principles (Kibert 2005), and according to the U.S. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewab le Energy (EERE), a high-performance commercial building us es whole-building design to achieve energy, economic, and environmental performance that is substantially better than standard practice. Furthermore, the High Performance Guidelines: Triangle Region Public Facilities, published by the Triangle J Council of Governments in North Carolina (1999), focuses on three principles: sustai nability, a long-term view that balances economics, equity, and environmental impacts, an integrated approach that engages a multidisciplinary team at t he outset of a project to work collaboratively throughout, and feedback and data collection which quantifies both the finished facility and the process that created it. This serves to generate improvements in future projects. Finally, the Pennsylvania Governors Green Government Council (GGGC) defines what makes a building high-performance in its Guidel ines for Creating High-Performance Green Buildings: A Document for Decision Ma kers outlined in Table 2-2 (GGGC 1999). Life Cycle Assessment Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is a method for determini ng the environmental and resource impacts of a material, a product, or ev en a whole building over its entire life. All energy, water, and materials resources, as w ell as all emissions to air, water, and land,

PAGE 14

14 are tabulated over the entitys lif e cycle. The life cycle, or time period considered in this evaluation, can span the extracti on of resources, the manufacturing process, installation in a building, and the items ultimate disposal. The assessment also considers the resources needed to transport components from ex traction through disposal. LCA is an important, comprehensive approa ch that examines all impac ts of material selection decisions, rather than simply an items performance in t he building (Kibert 2005). The idea of LCA is conceptualized in Figure 2-2. Typically LCA involves the inventory of product and or service flows to include inputs, upstream factors of ex traction, production, transport ation and construction, use, and downstream factors of deconstruction and disposal. Global and regional impacts are then calculated based on ene rgy consumption, waste gener ation, and a variety of other impact categories such as acidificat ion, eutrophication, ozone depletion, and carbon emissions. Sometimes re ferred to as the cradle to grave approach, LCA allows the impacts from systems and materials to be weighed against each other (Keoleian and Scheuer 2002). A key element that adds value to an LCA is transparent structure. An LCA promotes clarity of information and allows for greater comparab ility of products by documenting procedures, data sources, and boundaries and assumptions utilized. The general format for LCA, accordi ng to the International Organi zation for Standardization (ISO) 14040 conventions is descr ibed in Table 2-3 (ISO 2009). The notion of LCA has been generally accepted within t he environmental research community as the only legitimate basis on which to compare alternative materials, services and components, and is therefore a logica l basis on which to

PAGE 15

15 formulate building environmental assessment standards (Kleoleian and Scheuer 2002). Researchers have attempted to use LCA to document the impacts of whole buildings, considering all building materials and operation, as opposed to just certain aspects of the building. Computer programs such as Athena, BEES, TRACI, and Envest incorporate LCA methods into tools for des ign and analysis of buildings (Kleoleian and Scheuer 2002). Criticism of the LCA methodology fo cuses on conflicts between depth and applicability. Kleoleian and Scheuer cite for example in their research Incorporating life cycle analysis in LEED that a comprehensive LCA may not be easily interpreted, but if results are overly complex, underlying but significant details may be dismissed. As previously mentioned, the trans parency of processes is impor tant for the validity of an LCA, however this may dissuade many from participating because of concern over propriety information (Kleoleian and Scheuer 2002). Finally, there is an imbalance in current assessment criteria. Ce rtain criteria, such as energy consumption and global warming potential are much easier to meas ure and their methods more established, however others such as ecotoxicity and res ource depletion are complex to assess and their methodology is strongly contested. Wh ile both types of impacts are desirable in LCA, it is the ones that are accessible that are more often included. The specificity and rigor of LCA are required for accurate and meaningful assessment because of building complexities, but difficulties in conducti ng an LCA as well as the difficulties in interpreting and communicating the results prevent them from being utilized more often (Kleoleian and Scheuer 2002).

PAGE 16

16 Design for Deconstruction and Disassembly (DfDD) It is undeniable that the cu rrent state of constructi on is wasteful and will be difficult to change (Kibert 2005). The US EPA estimates t hat renovation and demolition make up 25-30% of the US annual waste gener ation (Guy 2002). In order to move from wasteful materials & resources practices to closed-loop materials behavior the green building movement will be required to embrace the concepts of deconstruction and design for disassembly. Deconstruction is the whole or partial disassembly of buildings to facilitate materials recycling and co mponent reuse (Kibert 2005); Design for Deconstruction (DfD) is the conscious effort during the design phase to optimize the potential for deconstruction, as opposed to demolis hing the building in full or partially, to allow the recovery of materials for recycling and components for reuse, as well as reduce long term waste generation (Kibert 2005). It is an emerging concept that borrows from the fields of design for disassembly, reuse, remanufacturing, and recycling in the consumer products industries (Guy 2002). According to Philip Crowther of the Queensland Technical University in Brisbane, Australia, there are 27 principles of DfD as applied to buildings and are listed in Table 2-4. The problem existing for DfD is that the cu rrent state of deconstr uction is limited by several factors. Cost and time represent inte rrelated factors, the fi rst of these obstacles. The main opportunity factors for deconstr uction are the prohibitive regulations and standards of building materials disposal as we ll as the value for re covered materials in environmental and economic terms. As su ch, the economic costs and benefits of recovered materials are the quality of material s, either high-quality reuse, economically recyclable, or hazardous materials and/or ma terials and systems t hat become obsolete or difficult to separate. Finally, buildings today are not designed for deconstruction (Guy

PAGE 17

17 2002). Ultimately, closing materials loops in c onstruction will necessitate the inclusion of product design and deconstruction together in a process that might be labeled Design for Deconstruction and Disassembly (DfDD) (Kibert 2005). Table 2-5 articulates the opportunities and constraints of deconstruction and a hierarch y for DfD is listed below (Guy 2002). Hierarchy of Design for Deconstruction 1. Design Minimize building depreciation from poor energy-use, climatic and materials performance by performanc e-based materials selection. Substitute mechanical/gravity-bas ed design for chemical-based design 2. Construction Record as-built conditions Create deconstruction plan based upon construction process Record adaptations to building over its life 3. Elements. Design for modular an d panelized elements that are readily fit into common dimensional standards and possible de-panelization Principle DfD sub-goalreuse 4. Components. Design for ease of separation from the next higher building level, i.e., elements Reuse Remanufacture 5. Sub-components. Design for separation from component level Reuse Remanufacture 6. Materials. Design for separation from subcomponent level and as homogenous materials Remanufacture Recycle Bio-degrade

PAGE 18

18 Materials & Resources Because of the large amount s of embodied energy in mate rials, building material selection is important to sustainable design and construction. Carbon emissions contributing to climate change through global warming and ozone d epleting potential are the result of the extens ive network of extracting, processing, and transporting of materials to the end user. Additionally, the process of creating building materials results in land and water pollution, destruction of nat ural habitats, and the depletion of natural resources. It is estimated that buildings c onsume 40% or three billion tons annually of the raw materials produced (Lenssen and Ro odman). In recent years, products, services, and practices have attempted to reduce these negative impacts (Kleoleian and Scheuer). These environmentally conscious efforts, though widespread with increases in environmental awareness, are not standard. Such products and practices include the use of consumer and industrial bi-products and waste such as flyash in concrete, recycled plastic lumber, and engineered wood products to minimize both natural depletion of resources and end of life impac ts. Furthermore, practices such as sustainable forestry, bamboo, and wheat straw board manufacturing involve environmentally friendly resource inputs fr om the beginning to accomplish sustainable material and resource objectives. Buildi ng reuse and salvaging efforts are additional strategies in creating longevity to existing materials and resources. Through differing methodologies, building rating systems requir e material and resource strategies for certification in an attemp t to limit the negative impacts associated with building construction (Kleoleian and Scheuer 2002).

PAGE 19

19 Building Assessment Systems Building assessment standards and rating syst ems score or rate the effects of a buildings design, construction, and operatio n. Among them are envir onmental impacts, resource consumption, and occupant health. They are generally created for the purpose of promoting high-performance green building and in some cases to increase market demand for sustainable construction. A super ior building assessment rating should result in higher market value due to t he buildings lower operating costs and indoor environmental health (Kibert 2005). Table 26 outlines the building rating systems and standards to be evaluated in comparison to LEED. The following section gives a brief histor y and description of the rating systems in Table 2-6. Aspects applicable to the resear ch will be addressed to include materials and resources credits, life cycle assessment and resource conservation through design. United States Green Building Council The sustainable development movement has been evolving worldwide for almost two decades, causing significant changes in building delivery systems in a relatively short period of time (Kibert 2005). Over the past decade, however, the movement has seen exponential growth as evident by the r apid increase in membership of the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) and the arguable success of its suite of building rating systems known as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). In 2001 the membership of the US GBC was 1,137 with 527 LEED accredited professionals and five certified projects (White Paper 2003). As of January 2009, the membership was 18,086 with over 100,000 LEED APs, over 2,100 certified projects under LEED for New Construction (LEED-NC) and over 17,000 projects registered

PAGE 20

20 under LEED-NC (USGBC 2009). These stat istics are evidence of the success and rigidity of the sustainability movement within the United States. In 1993 the USGBC was founded as a non profit organization made up of government, industry, and ac ademia intended on reshaping the built environment (Kibert 2005). Between 1993 and 1998, a USGBC ta sk force worked to create a rating system that would evaluate a buildings performance relative to environmental impacts and resource efficiency. According to Kiber t, LEED removed ambiguity in the loosely interpreted concepts associated with green bui lding and sustainability (Kibert 2005). In both the private and public sectors, LEED has had rapid uptake and has significantly impacted the construction industry within the United States. The most likely reason for such wide acceptance has been the result of its authors focus on fashioning LEED as a market-driven, consensusbased rating system that facilitates cr eating buildings with higher market value (Kibert 2005). Since its inception in 1998 as a pilot project program known as LEED version 1.0, the USGBC has gone through several majo r revisions to the LEED-NC system to include versions 2.0, 2.1, 2. 2, and most recently version 3. 0. Each revision has brought about major criticism to bot h the standard and the USGBC. Schendler and Udall argue in their article LEED Is BrokenLets Fix It t hat LEED (1) is too costly for certification, (2) facilitates point mongering, (3) energy modeling in LEED is too complicated; 4) there are too few credits for saving energy, (5) th ere is excessive burea ucracy, (6) there are overblown claims of green bui lding benefits to include worker productivity, and (7) the USGBC is unreceptive to constructive criticism (Schendler and Udall 2005). Additionally, the North Am erican Coalition on Green Bu ilding has argued that the

PAGE 21

21 government should not rely solely on the USGBC and LEED to ensure building efficiency. They believe that green st andards should be developed by accredited standards organizations and that efforts sh ould be taken to ensure transparency and opportunity for significant input from organi zations affected by such standards (NACGB 2009). The American National Standards Instit ute (ANSI) coordinates the standards process development in the United States and is currently working with the Green Building Initiative on the proposed gr een building standard 01-2008P based on Green Globes, as well as a joint effort with ASHRAE, IESNA, and the USGBC on standard 189.1p based on LEED. These standards will provide a baseline for minimum green building standards into mainstream building practices (ASHRAE 2006). According to the USGBC, LEED encour ages and accelerates global adoption of sustainable green building and developmen t practices through the creation and implementation of universally understood and accepted tools and performance criteria (USGBC). The LEED-NC rating system is designed to guide and distinguish highperformance commercial and institutional projec ts, including office buildings, high-rise residential buildings, government buildings, re creational facilities, manufacturing plants and laboratories (USGBC). LEED versi on 3 was launched in April of 2009 and incorporates a revised system known as LEED 2009. The standard rates a buildings performance in the following categories: Site Selection Water Efficiency Energy & Atmosphere Materials & Resources Indoor Environmental Quality Innovation in Design Regional Priority

PAGE 22

22 The three major differences of the curr ent version to previous versions are the harmonization of suites (e.g., New Construc tion (NC), Existing Build ing: Operations & Maintenance (EB), Core & Shell (CS), Sch ools, Retail, and Healthcare, and Commercial Interiors (CI)), revised credit weightings and regionalization (i.e., regional priority credits.) Harmonization. Drawing on all common denomi nators, all credits and prerequisites from LEED commercial and in stitutional rating systems were aligned and consolidated so that all credits and prerequi sites are consistent among the suites of LEED. The necessary precedent-setting and clarifying information from Credit Interpretation Rulings (CIRs) were inco rporated into the rating systems (USGBC). Regionalization. Through USGBCs regional council s, chapters, and affiliates, regionally specific environmental issues were i dentified. For a projects specific location, six LEED credits have been prioritized because they address the specific environmental issues. Credit weightings. According to the USGBC, t he largest advancement to the LEED rating system has come from credit we ightings formulated on each credits ability to affect different aspects of environmental and health concerns. With revised credit weightings, LEED now awards more points fo r strategies that will have greater positive impacts on energy efficiency and CO2 reducti ons. According to Penny Bonda in her article The New LEED: All About Weightings the revised credit weightings are the result of the USGBC recognizing that all bui lding criteria are not of equal importance and that the revisions represent scientifically grounded reevalua tions that place an increased emphasis on carbon emissions a nd energy use reduction (Murphy 2009).

PAGE 23

23 Each credit was evaluated against a list of 13 environmental impact categories, including climate change, indoor environmenta l quality, resource depletion and water intake, etc. The impact categories were pr ioritized, and credits were assigned a value based on how they contributed to mitigati ng each impact. The results showed each credits portion of the overall system, giving the most value to credits that have the highest potential for making the biggest change to reducing environmental impacts. The credits have not changed from t he previous version; they simply are worth different amounts. As a result, LEED 2009 operates on a 100-point sca le with bonus credits for innovation in design and regional priority credits (USGBC 2009). Specific examples cited by the USGBC include for credit weightings include: Sustainable Sites c4.1: The proximity of a building to public transportation allows for building occupants to utilize alternative transportation methods which have impacts associated with fossil fuel depletion, land us e, acidification, ozone depletion, smog formation, ecotoxicity and overall human heal th effects caused by reducing singleoccupant vehicle use. It also affects the buildings carbon footprint, a significant environmental component associated with transpor tation to and from the building. As a result LEED 2009 has increased point values for this credit to re flect such theory (USGBC 2009). Water Efficiency c1: Water use reduction associated with irrigation outside the building and fixture/fittings use inside the building has impacts on resource depletion and water shortages leading to agricultural, human, plant, and animal effects. While the impacts of these credits were primarily in water use, the benefits of water reduction are heavily emphasized in LEED 2009 (USGBC 2009).

PAGE 24

24 Energy & Atmosphere c2: The utilization of renewable energy for a buildings energy needs reduces the dependency on less environmentally friendly energy sources, causing a variety of impacts on the env ironment and human health Using renewable energy impacts a buildings carbon footprint, contribution to fossil fuel depletion, ozone depletion and rate of particulates, which may lead to chronic and acute respiratory symptoms (USGBC 2009). The USGBC notes the changes to the weight ings result in incremental change to the system as a whole, but that existing credits maintain a substantial minimum weighting. Table 2-7 shows the whole system weighting comparisons of v2.2 to v3. Furthermore, the new impact driven, paradigm changes are superimposed on the existing skeleton and change the relative emphasis of the system but do not constitute a wholesale reinvention of the weightings (USGBC 2009). The L EED weighting system intends to provide a transparent and reproducib le approach to assign weights to credits. The system is a flexible, decision support env ironment that allows decision makers with explicit control over the integration of analytical results, policies, and values (USGBC 2009). Weighting for each LEED 2009 syst em are documented with a self-contained Microsoft excel workbook. Each workbook c ontains all calculations and rules used to assign weights to individual LEED credits. The workbook also serves as a decision support tool to evaluate the consequences of alternative scenarios on credits or the rating system as a whole (USGBC 2009). Th e design constraints of the weighting process are as follows: 1. The existing credits remain the same. 2. All credits receive a minimum score of 1.

PAGE 25

25 3. Credits are positive whole numbers (no fractional values or negative numbers). 4. Credits have one set of static weights regardless of location or potential connections. The LEED 2009 rating system explicitly inte grates building impacts with the existing structure of LEED to include six components: a building prototype impact assessment categories credit groups transportation control credit adjustments point reallocation These components work toget her to provide a represent ation of building impacts and use this information to assign points to individual credits. Each component provides an opportunity to change the ultimate weight of a credit. The mo st important single factor is the selection of a building prototype. This decisi on has the greatest potential influence and is subject to the greatest range of potential conditions (i.e.,, observed variance in key parameters). This is followed closely by the weights applied to impact assessment categories (i.e.,TRACI weights) The last three components essentially provide opportunities for fine tuning (USG BC). Table 2-8 describes the weighting process. The LEED 2009 weighting system brings together a number of informational sources such as the US EPAs Tool for t he Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI) (USEPA) Models and statistical information is used to estimate building impacts and a ssociate impacts with individual TRACI categories. Specific information sources used in individual calculation are documented

PAGE 26

26 throughout each LEED workbook. The asso ciation between impac t categories and information sources is shown in Table 2-9. The LEED 2009 weighting system is a decision support tool. It provides a framework for integrating t he structure of the existing rating system with an impactoriented weighting system. The system itself does not prov ide weights as an output. Rather, it provides a framework for evaluat ing the interlocking set of issues that contribute to weights and ultimately changes the LEED scorecard (USGBC 2009). LEED 2009 materials & resources. The intent of the mate rials & resources (MR) category of LEED is to promote building desi gn choices that protec t natural resources, and minimize the impacts of the construction process (K leoleian and Scheuer 2002). According to the USGBC, this credit cat egory encourages the selection of sustainably grown, harvested, produced and transported products and materials. It promotes the reduction of waste as well as reuse and recycling, and it takes into account the reduction of waste at a products source. Table 2-10 illustrates the seven credits and their relative emphasis on the MR category as well as the rating system as a whole. ASHRAE Standard 189.1p In 2006 the USGBC, the American Societ y of Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) and the Illuminating Engi neering Society of North America (IESNA) announced that the three organizations would co-sponsor the development of a new ASHRAE/USGBC/IESNA minimum standard for high performance green buildin g (ASHRAE 2006). The proposed standard for the design of high-per formance green buildings except low-rise residential buildings provides minimum requirements for the design of sustainable buildings to bal ance environmental responsibilit y, resource efficiency,

PAGE 27

27 occupant comfort and well-being, and community sensitivity. Using the USGBCs LEED rating system, standard 189.1p provides a base line that will drive green building into mainstream building practices (ASHRAE 2006). Currently in its fourth public co mmenting period until November 2009, the proposed standard will apply to new commercial buildings and major renovation projects, addressing sustainable sites, wa ter use efficiency, energy efficiency, a buildings impact on the atmosphere, materials and resources, and indoor environmental qualit y (ASHRAE 2006). Standard 189.1p will be an ANSI-accredited st andard that can be incorporated into building code. It is intended that the st andard will eventually become a prerequisite under LEED. The criteria for t he materials and resources section of the standard is very similar to LEED only that building reuse, and materials reuse are not included in the requirements. However, Life Cycle Assessm ent is a performance path of which the project may choose to pursue as opposed to a prescriptive path of recycled content materials, regional ma terials, and bio-based materials (ASHRAE 2006). Green Building Initiative The Green Building Initiative (GBI) is a not for profit organiza tion whose mission is to accelerate the adoption of building prac ti ces that result in energy-efficient, healthier and environmentally sustainable buildings by promoting credibl e and practical green building approaches for residential and commercial construction (GBI 2009). In 2004, GBI obtained the rights to distribute Green Globes in the US market after originally being modeled after the United Kingdoms BREEAM rating system in Canada. Furthermore, in 2005 ANSI established GB I as a standards developer and began the process of establishing Green Globes as an official ANSI standard (Ghatee 2007).

PAGE 28

28 According to the GBI, the green globes is a revolutionary green building guidance and assessment program that offers an effective, practical, and affordable way to advance the overall environmental pe rformance and sustainability of commercial buildings (GBI 2009). Essential elements of the system include: comprehensive environment al assessment protocol software tools that speed and simplify online assessment best practices guidance for green construction and operations qualified assessors with green building expertise rating/certification system Based on its recognized and proven assessment protocol, using the Green Globes software tools and ratings/certification system ensures that envir onmental impacts are comprehensively assessed on a 1,000 point sca le in multiple categories to include: Energy (360 points) Indoor Environment (150 points) Site (115 points) Water (100 points) Resources (100 points) Emissions (75 points) Project/Environment Management (50) After achieving a threshold of at leas t 35% of the total num ber of 1,000 points, new and existing commercial buildings can be certified for their environmental achievements and sustainability by pursuing Green Globes certification that assigns a rating of one to four globes. Highly qualified third-party assessors (with expertise in green building design, engineering, construc tion and facility operations) conveniently interface with project teams and building ow ners during the third-party assessment process by reviewing building documentatio n and conducting on-site walk throughs. Green Globes rating certification is suitable and practically attainable for a wide range of

PAGE 29

29 commercial buildings, and enables buildi ng owners to credibly market their environmental responsibility to shareholde rs, tenants, and the br oader community. The current version of Green Globes in cludes education credits encouraging design teams to use LCA as part of their ma terials decision making process. But with the new LCA tool commissioned by the GBI, design teams are now able to compare alternate design scenarios and building assembly choices through use of a free, easy to navigate software tool developed by the ATHENA Institut e. The software tool provides LCA results for hundreds of common building assemblies in lowand high-rise categories including exterior walls, roofs, intermediate floors, interior walls, windows, windows, and columns and beams. The ATHE NA Impact Estimator for Buildings software was used to generate the results embedded in the tool. The GBI is also in the development with ANSI of a green building standard based on the Green Globes rating system. The MR credits in bot h systems are extremely simila r, however quantifying the requirements and relative percentage empha sis is much easier using the ANSI standard. Table 2-11 illustrates the resource s and materials criteria for the proposed standard. Design for disassembly in ANSI standard 01-2008P. As shown in Table 2-11, the ANSI standard 01-2008P awards points under section 10.6: Resource Conservation through Design. Under this credit, points are awarded for design strategies that use materials and raw materials efficiently as compared to typical construction, building assemblies that perform multiple functions and building design plans that facilitate demounting or disassembly of materials without substantial damage to the materials or their surroundings (GBI 2009).

PAGE 30

30 German Sustainable Building Council (DGNB) The task of the German Sustainable Buildi ng Council is to point out and advance paths and solutions for sustainable building (D GNB 2008). This includes the planning of buildings, but also their constructi on and opera tion. The DGNB considers itself to be the central German organization for exchange of k nowledge, professional training, and for a raising public awareness for this future-oriented part of the bui lding sector. The focus of the DGNB is on awarding the certification fo r sustainable building. The first time the Sustainable Building Ce rtification was awarded was at the BAU 2009 in Munich. Initially, it was awarded for the system variation New Construction Office and Administration, Version 2008 (DGNB 2008). In version 2008, which emerged from the pilot phase of the certification system, the sustainability of office and administrati on buildings is evaluated based on six topics covering 49 criteria. The system is a trans parent and comprehensible rating system that was developed based on real-world circumst ances (DGNB 2008). It defines the quality of buildings in a comprehensive way, and enables an auditor to conduct an evaluation systematically and independently. The basis of the evaluation, which was developed with a wide consensus, includes topics of: Ecological Quality Economical Quality Socio-cultural and Functional Quality Technical Quality Quality of the Process Quality of the Location The criteria are weighted different ly depending on the building type to be evaluated (i.e., each version of the syst em based on building type has its own evaluation matrix). For each criterion, measurable target values are defined, a

PAGE 31

31 maximum of 10 points can be assigned, and t he measuring methods for each criterion are clearly defined. At the same time, each crit erion has a weighting fa ctor from 0-3: it can flow threefold into the evaluation of its re spective topic. Each criteria flows into the overall result in a clearly differentiated way. A software-supported computation displays the buildings performance: by reaching a def ined degree of performance, it is assigned the bronze, silver, or gold award. Addi tionally, grades are given for the total performance of the building as we ll as for individual topics. The evaluation is measured by degree of compliance and includes: 50% for Bronze 65% for Silver 89% for Gold A unique aspect of the DGNB certificate is the Praxis-oriented continuing development of the system. On this basis, the German Sust ainable Building certificate can be adapted, in a practicable way, to the individual requirement of different building types. Similarly, it can be adapt ed to regional requirements or social developments, for example, to the increasing importance for indi vidual criteria like indoor air quality or CO2 emissions of a building. The strength of the system is al so based on the involvement, from the beginning, of intere sted parties during the developm ent of new variations. A supplementary commenting procedure ensur es that the requirements of the construction and real estate sector are syst ematically queried an d included into the system (DGNB 2009). Table 2-12 illustrates the criterion and relative importance of the resources and materials section of the DGNB Certificate. Design for disassembly/deconstruction in the DGNB certificate. The goal of increasing the ease of deconstruction, recyc ling, and dismantling is the avoidance of

PAGE 32

32 waste, in particular by reducing its amount and hazard. 50% of the waste in Germany can be assigned to the building sector (DGN B 2009). The amount of accumulated waste is to be reduced, and is to be led into t he recycling system. Due to the comparatively long expected useful lifetime, many of t he materials that are used today will not accumulate as deconstruction material or potential waste until 50 or 100 years after construction. These materials can serve as im portant resources for future construction materials. The ability to recapture hom ogenous deconstruction materials and extract high-grade recycling materials is very important for the evaluation of this criterion. The methodology for DGNB criterion 42 includes: building services non-structural (de)construction parts non-bearing carcass structure bearing carcass structure For each group, the following topics are considered: 1. effort of dismantling-divided into 5 dismantling stages 2. effort of separation-divided into 5 stages 3. Are there hazardous building materials or materials that need to be declared that require special disposal? 4. Can these materials be easily separat ed and is a separated disposal possible? 5. Can a verifiable recycling-disposal concept be attached to the request for certification? 6. What is the potential furt her path of the vast majority (mass) of the construction components? International Initiative for a Sust ainable Built Environment (iiSBE) The iiSBE is an international non-profit organization whose overall aim is to actively facilitate and p romote the adoption of policies, methods and tools to accelerate the movement towards a global sustainable built environment (iiSBE 2009). The iiSBE

PAGE 33

33 has an international Board of Directors fr om almost every continent and has a small Secretariat located in Ottawa, Canada. T he specific objectives include 1) mapping current activities and establishing a forum for information exchange on SBE initiatives, so that gaps and overlaps may be reduced and common standards established; 2) to increase awareness of existing SBE initiati ves and issues amongst the international buildings and construction community; and 3) to take action on fields not covered by existing organizations and networks. The iiSBE is best known for the continuing development of their building performance assessment syst em formerly known as GBTool and now known as SBTool. This is a flexible framework oper ating on Excel that can be configured to suit almost any loca l condition or building type (iiSBE 2009). Green Building Challenge and SBTool. Through the work of more than 20 countries, the iiSBE has developed the SBT ool mainly through the Green Building Challenge (GBC) process that extended from 1995 to 2005. National teams participated in the development of the method and tested it on case study buildings in their own countries, then presenting the results at inte rnational SB conferences. SBTool reflects the continued work of the iiSBE and is a to tally restructured version reflecting the inclusion of a range of socio-ec onomic variables (iiSBE 2009). The SBTool allows countries to design t heir own locally relevant rating systems, and is designed to include consideration of regional conditions and values, in local languages, but the calibration to local cond itions does not destroy the value of a common structure and terminology. Accordi ng to the iiSBE the tool produces both relative and absolute results making it a very useful international benchmarking tool, one that provides signals to local industry on the state of performance in the region,

PAGE 34

34 while also providing absolute data for in ternational comparisons (iiSBE 2009). The system is a rating framework or toolbox that only becomes a rating tool when a third party calibrates the system to the specific region by defining scope and setting weights, context, and performance benchmarks. The system contains three levels of par ameters that nest within each other; Issues, Categories and Criteria; the criteria are scored acco rding to the following scale: -1 = deficient 0 = minimum acceptable performance +3 = good practice +5 = best practice Criteria scores are weighted, Category sco res are the total of weighted Criteria scores, and Issue scores are the total of wei ghted Category scores. Table 2-13 reflects the points within SBTool the materials & resources category.

PAGE 35

35 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Research was conducted to analyze the strategies and methodology to the materials and resources category of L EED 2009 in comparison to the building assessment standards and rating systems: ANSI standard 01-2008P, the German Sustainability certificate, SBTool, and ASHRAE 189.1p. A comparison of LEED to these standar ds was conducted to show credit weighting within the system, credit achievement levels, and meritorious credits, strategies, and goals not recognized by LEED. Through comparison matrices, each credit within LEED is evaluated and compared against the other systems. Based upon a collection of best practices, recommendatio ns are made. The life cycle assessment approach to credit weightings of LEED 20 09 was evaluated to an LCA method for individual projects that use similar env ironmental building im pacts. Additionally, research was conducted on resource conser vation through design to include Design for Deconstruction/Disassembly and design for multi-functional assemblies to establish a structure for credit within a revised MR framework. Fi nally, credits not currently included in LEED that may result in signific ant impacts to the goals of the M&R category are considered. The collective research effort facilitates the development of a revised framework for materials and resource credits to be recommended to the LEED MR Technical Advisory Group (TAG). This shall provi de continued improvement and environmental responsibility relative to assessment systems and standards worldwide.

PAGE 36

36 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS This chapt er is divided into two majo r sections: the comparisons of building assessment standards to LEED 2009 and suggest ed modifications to the LEED rating system. Within this chapter, the LEED LCA a pproach to credit weightings is evaluated relative to an LCA of individual projects. Finally, resource conservation through design and other materials & resources elements of the standards are analyzed resulting in a revised framework for LEED M&R. Materials & Resources Comparisons This section compares the LEED 2009 rating systems materials and resources credits to that of SBTool, the DGNB ce rtificate, ANSI st andard 01-2008P and ASHRAE 189.1p. Tables 4-1 through 4-4 compare LEED to the other rating systems achievement criteria as well as credit we ighting percentage relativ e to the whole system. The details of the analysis and re sults by criterion are listed below. Collection of Recyclables The collection of recyclables is a consens us c redit/prerequisite among the rating systems that attempts to reduce the waste generation of building occupants that is hauled to landfills. It involves setting aside area based on the size of the building for the storage and collection of recyclables such as paper, cardboard, glass, plastics, and metals. Additionally, ASHRAE 189.1p based on LEED requires for residential buildings that storage area be set for reusable goods for collection by charitable organizations, as well as storage for fluorescent, HID lamps, and ballasts by all buildings.

PAGE 37

37 Building Reuse The building reuse-structural criterion among the standar ds has the same intent of attempting to reuse the existing building s tock as opposed to the negative environmental impacts of new construction. The achievement levels, based on square footage, are fairly comparable. However, LEED 2009 mandates the weighted criterion regardless of new construction as oppos ed to the proposed ANSI standard 01-2008P and the SBTool that allow fo r the criterion to be non-applicable, giv en existing building conditions. This allows for increased emphasis on credits pertinent to the project such as recycled content or design for disassembly. Construction Waste Management The intent of this credit is to reduce the generation of waste disp osal and divert to recycling pr ograms. The DGNB rating system and ANSI standard are of equal importance; however, LEED places over twice the weighting on th is credit as a result of system design rounding criteria The SBTool is unique in that weightings may be adjusted specific to individual projects and locations. The variable weightings allow for increased emphasis on this credit, for example, if materials reuse is not factored into the rating tool, the emphasis for construc tion waste management may be doubled. The achievement levels are unknown for the SBTool and DGNB but ANSI 01-2008 and LEED are comparable at 50% minimu m and 75% maximum point potential. ASHRAE 189.1p allows for the inclusion of packaging materials to be sent to the manufacturer or shipper for reuse, an inclus ion that is not recognized by any other systems. The ASHRAE standard also incorporates a total wa ste criterion in which a project with less than 5% of ex isting building, structure, or hardscape must not generate total waste of 42 cubic yards or 12,000 lbs per 10,000 square feet of building area. This

PAGE 38

38 criterion applies to all wast e whether landfilled, inciner ated, diverted or otherwise disposed of. Materials Reuse This credit intends to reduce the extrac tion of virgin resources by utiliz ing salvaged and/or refurbished materials on cons truction projects. The standards exhibit similar achievement level percentages based on materials costs. It is important to note that mechanical, electrical, and plumbing components, as well as specialty equipment such as elevators are not included in t hese calculations. The weighted percentage of LEEDs materials reuse is over twice t hat of ANSI. The DGNB and ASHRAE do not have a comparable credit and the SBT ool is project specific al lowing for inclusion if the project team so chooses to pursue. Recycled Content The intent of this credit is to reduce t he extraction of virgin resources by using post-consumer and pre-consumer recycled cont ent. Examples of such include recycled steel and flyash in concrete. The standar ds exhibit similar achievement level percentages based on total materials costs, but it is important to note that only the percentage of recycle content (b y weight) relative to the w hole assembly may contribute to this credit. If materials costs are unknow n than a default value of 45% of the total project may be used. The we ighted percentage of LEEDs recycled content credit is over twice the amounts of the other standards. The DGNB does not have a comparable credit. Regional Materials The regional materials crit eria of these various standar ds serves to promote the demand for building materials and products t hat are extracted and manufactured within

PAGE 39

39 the region, thereby supporting the use of indigenous resources and reducing the environmental impacts resulting from tr ansportation. The SBTool does not define a specific distance, as a result of their variable location adjustments and 3rd party assessment, however, LEED and the ANSI standards support regional materials extracted, processed, and m anufactured with 500 miles of the project based on total costs. If components of the asse mbly do not meet this criteria, they are not to be excluded (by weight) multiplied by the cost of the assembly. These two standards are similar in achievement levels, while SBTool demands more than three times the percentage by weight of materials as LEED and ANSI. The DGNB does not have a comparable credit. Rapidly Renewable Materials The rapidly renewable resources credit of LEED is the only such credit by definition compared to the other standards. The intent is to reduce the use and depletion of finite raw materials and long-cycle renewable materials by replacing them with rapidly renewable materials. Under the assessment methods of ANSI and SBTool, all certified bio-based materials to incl ude long-rotation (i.e ., wood products) are accepted. The achievement levels are five to seven times more stringent than LEEDs 2.5% based on material costs; however, this reflects the range of acceptance for biobased materials. According to an LCA study by Greg Norris of Sylvatico, an LCA consulting firm in North Berwick, Maine, there is no significant evidence to justify rewarding rapidly renewable resources (i.e ., cork, linoleum, wheatboard) over wood products. The weighting of this criterion thr oughout the different standards is relatively proportional.

PAGE 40

40 Certified Wood The certified wood criterion of build ing asses sment systems intends to encourage environmentally responsible forestry management. The weighted percentages of LEED are twice that of ANSI but less than t he overall weighting of the DGNB. Each rating system demands approx imately 50% certified wood for best practices achievement with the exception of ASHRAE that specifies 60%. LEED is the only standard of which the Forestry Stewar dship Councils (FSC) FSC-STD-40-004 V20 chain-of-custody is the only authorized certificate for credit award. Among the accepted organizations of this criteria fo r the DGNB and ANSI st andard are forestry stewardship programs of : Program for Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC) Council Technical Document-Oct ober 5, 2007, American Tree Farm System (ATFS) 2004-2008 AFF Standard, Canadian Standar ds Association Z809 Sustainable Forest Management Requirements and Gu idance (SFM) 2002, and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative Program (SFI) 2005-2009 Sustainable Forestry Standard (SFIS). Additionally, ASHRAE 189.1p rec ognizes sources certified thr ough a forest certification system with principles, crit eria, and standards developed us ing ISO/IEC Guide 59, or the WTO Technical Barriers to Trade. Resource Conservation Through Design Resource conservation through design or Design for Disassembly and Deconstruction (DfDD) is a criterion opport unity in the proposed ANSI standard, the DGNB Certificate, and the SBTool. The weighted average over the whole system for this credit is approxim ately 2.0%. The intent of this rating criterion is to facilitate design and planning of building assemblies so that at the end of t heir useful life (50-100 years) they can be disassembled or deconstructed in a safe and efficient manner to provide

PAGE 41

41 valuable resources and materials to future industry, thus reduci ng waste generation and future demand on scarce virgin resources. Although, these rati ng systems call out DfDD, only the DGNB gives methodology to t he achievement of this criterion. This methodology is listed in Chapter 2. It is important to note that neither LEED nor ASHRAE 189.1p have a DfDD or resource conservation through design credit. Life Cycle Assessment The environmental building impacts LCA method of LEED has been describ ed in great detail in Chapter 2 of this research. Each of the other building rating systems calls for an LCA of building impacts similar to those of TRACI. The DGNB requires LCA methods using ISO 14040, SBTool requires acc eptable LCA approaches or use of their crude embodied energy excel spreadsheet, t he ANSI standard requir es the use of the Green Globes LCA calculator for building asse mblies that covers criteria previously mentioned in chapter 2, and ASHRAE 189 requires an LCA per formance path in lieu of criterion 9.4.1-3 to include recycled cont ent, regional materials, and bio-based materials. Each of these four rating systems/standards approach LCA on an individual project basis incorporating material use al ternatives as an approach to building delivery as opposed to LEEDs methodology for weight ed criteria based on a two-story prototype office building. Other Criteria The minimum use of finish materials and vi rgin materials are synergistic credits through SBTool whose intent are to limit the extraction of virgin materials and the effects of processing, manufacturing, and transporting of finish materials. The achievement criteria is in percentage of fl oor, wall, or ceiling area in whic h structural elements are left exposed or are of non-virgin resource ma terial. Additionally, credit may be awarded for

PAGE 42

42 the use of durable finish materials as specified by ISO 15686-1 Building and Construction Assets Service Life Planni ng: General Principl es or the Canadian Standards Association CSA 478-95 Guideline on Du rability in Buildings. The intent of this credit is to prolong the useful life of the building to reduce the need of renovation, an activity that has proven to generate a significant amount of waste each year. Conclusions This section provides an anal ys is of the revised MR ca tegory framework for LEEDNC. The recommendations are based upon best practices among the standards and rating systems, collectively. In other words, no system is better at evaluating the existing categories than another because one may place more emphasis on recycled content, where as another may place more emphasis on materials reuse. Furthermore, as a result of the uncertainty of strategies and methodologies such as resource conservation through design and life cycle assessment, no assumptions can be made as to the superiority of one systems weighting of such categories. The MR framework consisting of seven credits and their points, inten t, requirements, suggested submittals, and potential technologies and strategi es is listed in the appendix. Materials & Resources prerequisite 1: Storage & Collection of Recyclables. With the excessive amount of waste gener ation by building occupants, it is environmentally responsible to make this crit erion a requirement for certification. LEED, along with ASHRAE 189.1p will continue to faci litate the reduction of waste generation of cardboard, plastics, glass, paper, metals and organic wastes during facility operations. The recommendations include ar eas for the collection and storage of

PAGE 43

43 fluorescent, HID Lamps, and ballasts for proper disposal according to local and state hazardous materials guidelines. Material & Resources credit 1.1-1.2: Building Reuse. The USGBC has great intentions for these credits. The most signi ficant potential for green building exists with the reuse of existing structures and interior elements to limit the environmental impacts of new construction. However, owners will cont inue to do new construction until there is a paradigm shift to major renovation in the building industry. Per haps the USGBC could facilitate such a movement by incorporating significant bonus credit award to projects registered as major renovation. Each bui lding assessment system recognizes the potential for the reuse of exis ting structures; however, LEED is the only system that was studied in which the points remain a factor if the project is ineligible to receive credit. In order to achieve LEED ce rtification, a minimum of 40 points is required. This methodology of certification based on achieving a minimum point level is misrepresentative of new construction a ssessment. Throughout the LEED scorecard there are credits that coul d be non-applicable (e.g., building reuse, brownfield redevelopment) therefor e making a potential difference to certification levels. In other assessment systems, non-applicabl e credits are not factored into the total points and certification is based upon a minimum percentage threshold (i.e., 35% of total points for basic certification). It is recommended that the USGBC change their point methodol ogy to reflect a non-applicable, percentage based on total points strategy. Projects registered as major renovation would have the option of attaining the various achievement levels of this credit as bonus points to the LEED scorecard representing a potential bonus of up to

PAGE 44

44 9%. This methodology could encourage project owners to consider, more heavily, the use of existing building stock in this country. The limitation to this theory is that existing building projects may take advantage of the si gnificant bonus credit and be less likely to achieve silver, gold, or platinum status. To co mbat this limitation, it is recommended that projects achieve minimum certification to be eligible for the bonus points in building reuse. Additional revisions to these credits in clude more achievement levels based upon percentage of area reused, and weightings over twice the pr eviously levels. Additions to the building may now be up to four times the size of the existing structure for credit applicability to encourage reuse of interior elements. Materials & Resources credit 2: Construction Waste Management. The intent of this credit is extremely effective and is comparable by achievement levels as the other standards researched (i.e., 50%-75% waste diversion from landfills). However, the weighting of this credit in LEED 2009 is 2% of the whole system as opposed to approximately 0.75% on average of the other system s. According to the White Paper on Sustainability: A Report on the Green Buildi ng Movement in 2003, 79% of projects achieved the 50% mark for this credit (a full listing of the most achieved and least achieved credits may be found in Appendix C). As a result of increase landfill tipping fees over the past six years, it would not be surprising to learn that this percentage is higher today. Furthermore, as a result of these high tipping fees, asphalt and concrete, both significant contributors to the total weight/volume of construction waste on projects, are recycled for the simple economic aspects of waste disposal.

PAGE 45

45 This collection of evidence draws the conc lusion that LEED 2009s weightings for construction waste management are too high and must be brought down to comparable levels. It is recommended that the USGBC decr ease the overall emphasis of this credit to a percentage less than is previously acco unted for and require the 50% achievement level. This would free up a percentage available for environmental innovation of concepts and strategies resulting in posit ive impacts to sust ainable design and construction. Additionally, a total waste lim itation identical to ASHRAE 189.1p has been included to further facilitate the goals and strat egies of this credit. A final note to this credit relates to ASHRAE 189.1p in that packaging materials returned to the manufacturer, shipper, or other source that will reuse the materials for future delivery are included in the calculations. This rec ent inclusion to the 4th public commenting period for this standard is environ mentally sensitive in that t he cost-benefits ratio for this strategy relative to the transportation impacts is unknown. It is recommended that if the standard is to become a prerequisite to L EED, according to an ASHRAE press release in 2006, this inclusion needs to be re-evaluated. Materials & Resources cred it 3: Materials Reuse. According to the White Paper on Sustainability 2003, only 1 of 38 proj ects was awarded for this credit. The intent of this credit has merit, however, t he feasibility of reusing building components, products, and furnishings is extremely low. Th is credit accounts for 2% of a certification under LEED, over two and half times that of SBT ool or ANSI 01-2008. It is important to note the exclusion of this credit in ASHR AE 189.1p. It is recommended that this credit be worth only one point and that the points freed up from t he may become a part of an innovative strategy for incorporating resour ce conservation through design into LEED.

PAGE 46

46 Materials & Resources credit 4: Recycled Content. According to the White Paper on Sustainability 2003, 33 of 38 projec ts were awarded the 10% achievement level for this credit. The achievement le vels are comparable across each building assessment standard, however, the weightings of which are not. LEED emphasizes this credit with over twice the weighting as ANSI 01-2008P and SBTool. Furthermore, with advances in flyash, and other pre-consumer cementitious recycled content concrete, as well as 87% of LEED projects achieving this credit, it is re commended that the USGBC require 10% achievement levels of this credi t to incorporate higher levels of standard. The inclusion of MEP is recommended accord ing to ASHRAE 189.1p, as well as the inclusion of recyclable materials criterion. The current credit calls for building ma terials with recycled content, however, if recyclable building materials were specified, the environmental benefits recognized for future generations would be significantly higher than current practices. The inclusion of recyclable materials with the given requirem ents and weighting will facilitate further development of the goals and st rategies of this credit. Materials & Resources credit 5: Regional Materials. This credit seems to have the most consensus among the rating system s studied. Between LEED and ANSI, the weighting of this category is comparabl e in each of the standards, with similar achievement levels at 10%, however, ASHRAE 189.1p specifies 15%, perhaps in recognition of the need for higher standard. SBTool does not have a specific mileage amount of which the materials must be extr acted, processed, and manufactured from. However, it does require up to 90% of the co st of materials for best practices award. Based upon third party evaluation, the mileage and amount of materials are cross-

PAGE 47

47 referenced with location, and the award is giv en. This credit may be flawed because this certainly encourages the use of regional ma terials, however, if project teams do not accept products from distant lands, how are they to be su re they are getting the very best value for the materials and products that are specified? According to the White Paper on Sustainabi lity 2003, the first achievement level of this credit was awarded to 38 of 38 projects. This overwhelming statistic could suggest that regardless of credit award, projects will purchase regional materials for simple economic reasons. The recommended changes include requiring 15% achievement in accordance with ASHRAE 189.1p. Materials & Resources credit 6: Sustainable Materials Selection. LEED is the only standard researched to specify shortrotation (10 years or less) bio-based resources. According to the White Paper on Sustainability 2003, only 2 of 38 projects received award for this credit and as previously mentioned LCA studies by Greg Norris have suggested that there is no significant benefit to the use of rapidly renewable resources as opposed to wood products. This has been a contentious credit for several years and it is recommended to the USGBC that they include both resources for credit within LEED. The weightings are of equal importance to other standards and achievement levels shall remain the same. Bio-based materials shall comply with the minimum bio-based contents of the USDAs Designation of Bio-based Items for Federal Procurement, contain the USDA Certified Bio-based Product label, or be composed of solid wood, engineered wood, bamboo, wool, cott on, cork, agricultural fibers, or other bio-based materials with at least 50% bio-ba sed content. Additional revisions to this

PAGE 48

48 credit include the mergence of MRc7 Certified Wood as a result of its synergistic nature with bio-based resources selection. As previously mentioned, the USGBC only accepts a chain of custody verification through the Forest Stewardship Council while other standards accept verification through a number of different sources. Th is has been another credit of considerable contention and as a result of similar prac tices and standards, it is recommended that the USGBC accept any certified wood content documentation by sources certified through a forest certification system with principles, criteria, and standards developed using ISO/IEC Guide 59, or the WTO Technical Ba rriers to Trade. The weightings shall remain the same, however, achievement leve ls will increase to 60% in accordance with ASHRAE 189.1p. Finally, LCA wi ll be incorporated into this credit due to the relative pertinence of sustainable materials selection. The USGBC recognizes the uncertainty and limitations to the LCA approach. Calculations to estimate impacts are based on simple scalars such as energy use per square foot, emissions per gallon, therm, or kilowatt, etc. These simple calculations inherit the limitation of t heir data sources such as the Department of Energys Commercial Building Energy Consumption Surv ey (CBECS) in which it represents the population of buildings LEED ta rgets. Errors or uncertainti es in CBECS influence the degree to which the median prototype used in the workbook represents the national average. More importantly, building scenario c hoices has a direct and significant impact on the weighting system. This is certainly t he case because the new system attempts to integrate the existing struct ure with explicit considerat ion for building impacts: when building impacts change, the importance of credits change as well as their relative

PAGE 49

49 weight within the system. The workbooks used by the USGBC are designed to illustrate the consequences of the range of conditions found across the United States. However, the rating system ultimately requires sele cting one prototype condi tion and using it as the basis for weights. This methodology does not represent a si gnificantly responsible approach to environmental building impacts in compar ison to other standards and rating systems. An LCA approach to individual projects has been included in the revisions to LEED MR in accordance to ASHRAE 189.1p. The difference is that four impact categories must show a 5% improvement over another build ing alternative as opposed to only two impacts. It is assumed that LEED should raise the performance bar relative to the standard. Other issues involved in the LCA methodology of LEED include the independent and context dependence of credit weights. As a result of synergies, credits do not always work independent but together. This is the basis for integrated design and the LEED 2009 weighting system does not yet internalize these considerations, because of the design requirement to provide stat ic, independent weights. Furthermore, the requirement for positive integers constrains t he range of variation available within a 100point system. This specification requires rou nding fractional points and fosters a manual point reallocation step, which is a result of the design constrai nts. The reallocation process also involved some value judgment s along with the weighti ng exercise. Partly because of gaps in the data, strict applicati on of the TRACI-NIST tool would have made some credits worth almost nothing, especially for the categories of indoor air quality and human health, but it was impor tant to the LEED 2009 development team to retain the

PAGE 50

50 existing credits, even those associated with relatively small environmental benefit, making all at least one point in the new system. According to the USGBC these issues cl early indicate the potential value of a dynamic, context-sensitive weighting system. The LEED 2009 weightings tool provides a prototype for the capabilities needed for dy namic weighting in a future version of LEED. However, such a step would require subs tantial effort to mo ve form the current prototype to an enterprise level software sys tem usable by project teams and capable of accommodating the breath of situations enco untered in practice. Additionally, such a system would require subst antial changes in LEED educ ational and certification processes. It is recommended that LEED us e the rounded points as well as weighted adjustments to previous credits to implemen t an M&R credit of resource conservation through design. Materials & Resources credit 7: Resource Conservation through design. For environmental benefits of virgin resource consumption reduction it is recommended that a framework for this credit be tak en from the DGNB design for disassembly criterion, the ANSI standard for design of multi-functional assembly and design service life plan, and SBTools materi als use criteria. Each of these strategies has been previously discussed and this credit inclus ion is one of the mo st important (MR) categories for the USGBC to consider in the future. Finally, during the revision process of LEED-NC v.3, the USGBC did not change any achievement criteria where credit we ightings were unaffected (e.g., recycled content, regional materials, constructi on waste management). The USGBC used the TRACI impact categories to revise credit wei ghtings, however, did not take into account

PAGE 51

51 the rapidly increasing commitment to sustai nable development. It is the opinion of the author that the USGBC continually raise the bar in achievement levels for both MR credits and other categories to ensure continued environmental responsibility relative to the growth of the sustainab ility movement. This theor y is recognized in ASHRAE standard 189.1p with the increase in achievement % of certified wood from 50% to 60%, bio-based materials from 2.5% to 5%, and regional materials from 10% to 15%. The LEED-NC scorecards of the existing system and the revised framework are listed in Tables 4-5 and 4-6. Summary Despite the recent revi sions to the L EED rating system, there is significant potential for improvements to t he materials and resources cat egory to include additional credits, reallocation of weightings, and an ov erall increase to the rigor of credit achievement to bring LEED to more compar able levels of environm ental responsibility relative to existing standards and rating systems. LEED has attempted to improve accounting to previous versions with an inco rporation of environmen tal building impacts to justify credit weightings, as well as awar d points for regional differences. However, the MR category is still limited and weak in reducing the environmental impacts of building construction in comparison to bu ilding assessment systems throughout the world. The materials and resources category of LEED has many implications on the future of the built environment and currently is among the weakest categories of LEED. There are several opportunities in the areas of life cycle assessment, resource conservation through design, construction waste management, building reuse, and

PAGE 52

52 building materials selection to incorporate more environmentally responsible building practices to recognize a more sustainabl e future for generations to come.

PAGE 53

53 CHAPTER 5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH This study brings up several theories and concepts that contain high ambiguity in the field of high performance green buildi ng. The recommendations made to the improvements of LEED are based on cons ensus criteria among international assessment standards and rati ng systems that have no claim of superiority in achievement criteria, weighti ng methodology, or criteria selection. A study on the comparison of performance of the rating systems would help in determining the superiority of one system over another. With recent additions to the LEED rating system as well as the exponential increase in registered projects research statistics should be performed that are similar in scope to the White Paper on Sustainabilit y 2003. The USGBC could learn which of the credits and their associat ed new weighting hold value to the project owner as well as those credits that are least desirable. Th is information could prove invaluable to the research and development of sustainable build ing practices for future versions of building assessment systems. Additionally, research could be conduct ed to discover if the current state of assessment standards M&R category, on av erage produces significant environmental results in the reduction of negative environm ental impacts. If there is no sizeable contribution, research efforts could be re-dir ected for a total re-eva luation of materials and resource selection throughout building assessment systems. Finally, one of the most significant aspects of green building with the most potential for making a difference to r educing the negative im pacts of building development is building reuse of both structural and interior elements. With the building

PAGE 54

54 industry accounting for more than 40% of ra w materials consumption annually, research that could facilitate a paradigm shift to major renovations of the existing building stock, as well as design for resource conserva tion through design could have significant positive impacts on the built environment for years to come.

PAGE 55

55 Table 2-1. The principles of sustainable construction 1. Reduce resource consumption (reduce). 2. Reuse resources (reuse). 3. Use recyclable resources (recycle). 4. Protect nature (nature). 5. Eliminate toxics (toxics). 6. Apply life-cycle costing (economics). 7. Focus on quality (quality). Table 2-2. High-performance gr een building as defined by GGGC 1. A project created via c ooperation among building owners, facility managers, users, designers and construction professionals through a collaborative team approach. 2. A project that engages the local and regional communities in all stages of the process, including design, construction, and occupancy. 3. A project that conceptualiz es a number of systems that when integrated, can bring efficiencies to mechanical operation and human performance. 4. A project that consider s the true costs of a build ings impact on the local and regional environment. 5. A project that considers the life-cycle costs of a product or system. These are costs associated with its manufacture, operation, maintenance, and disposal. 6. A building that creates opportunities for interaction with the natural environment and defers to contextual issues such as c limate, orientation, and other influences. 7. A building that uses resources effici ently and maximizes use of local building materials. 8. A project that minimi zes demolition and construction wastes and uses products that minimize waste in their production or disposal. 9. A building that is energyand resource-efficient. 10. A building that can be eas ily reconfigured and reused. 11. A building with health y indoor environments 12. A project that uses appropriate tec hnologies, including natural and low-tech products and systems, before applying comp lex or resource-intensive solutions. 13. A building that includes an environm entally sound operations and maintenance regimen. 14. A project that educat es building occupants and users to the philosophies, strategies, and controls included in the design, construction, and maintenance of the project.

PAGE 56

56 Table 2-3. ISO 14040 format LCA Phase Primary Activities Goal & Scope Definition Life Cycle Definition Functional Unit Definition System Boundary Definition Data Quality Determination Inventory Analysis Data Collection Quantification of inputs/outputs Impact Assessment Classification Characterization Weighting Interpretation Reporting Critical Review Table 2-4. Principles of design fo r disassembly as applied to buildings 1. Use recycled and recyclable materials. 2. Minimize the number of types of materials. 3. Avoid toxic and hazardous materials. 4. Avoid composite materials & make inseparable products from the same material. 5. Avoid secondary finishes to materials. 6. Provide standard and permanent ident ification of material types. 7. Minimize the number of different types of components. 8. Use mechanical rather than chemical connections. 9. Use an open building syst em with interchangeable parts. 10. Use modular design. 11. Use assembly technologies compat ible with standard building practice. 12. Separate the struct ure from the cladding. 13. Provide access to all building components. 14. Design components sized to suit handling at all stages. 15. Provide for handling components during assembly and disassembly. 16. Provide adequate tolerance to allow for disassembly. 17. Minimize numbers of fasteners and connectors. 18. Minimize the types of connectors. 19. Design joints and connectors to wit hstand repeated assembly and disassembly. 20. Allow for parallel disassembly. 21. Provide permanent identification for each component. 22. Use a standard structural grid. 23. Use prefabricated subassemblies. 24. Use lightweight materials and components. 25. Identify the point of disassembly permanently. 26. Provide spare parts and storage for them. 27. Retain information on the building and its assembly process.

PAGE 57

57 Table 2-5. Opportunities and constraints of deconstruction Opportunities Constraints Management of hazardous materials Increase worker safety/health hazard Reduction in landfill debr is More time required Economic activity via reused materials Site storage for recovered materials Preservation of virgin resources Lack of standards for certain recovered materials reuse Removal of inefficient/obsolete structures Lack of established supply/demand chains Reduction in site nuisance compared to demolition None Table 2-6. Building asse ssment standards and rating systems Table 2-7. Whole system comparison of LEED v2.2-v3.0 Category Version 2.2 Version 3 Pts % Pts % Water Efficiency 5 7% 10 9% Energy & Atmosphere 17 25% 35 32% Materials & Resources 13 19% 14 13% Indoor Environment Quality 15 22% 15 14% Innovation & Design 5 7% 6 5% Regional Priority 0 0% 4 4% Total 69 100% 110 100% Rating System Organization Country LEED version 3 USGBC United States ANSI 01-2008P GBI/ANSI Canada/United States DGNB certificate DGNB Germany SBTool iiSBE International ASHRAE 189.1p ASHRAE/IESN A/USGBC United States

PAGE 58

58 Table 2-8. LEED 20 09 weighting process 1. Building impacts are estima ted based on a build ing prototype. 2. Impacts are described with res pect to 13 TRACI impact categories 3. Impacts are associated with up to 6 groups of credits (activity groups)-this assigns some number of potential points to groups of credits. 4. Points are allocated proportionally to cr edits within an activity group=the default is that each credit in the group contributes equally to the impact associated with the category and consequently receives an equal score. 5. Some credit weights are adjusted to refl ect the relative performance of individual credits-this changes the dist ribution of points within a category (points in other groups are not changed). 6. Impact scores for each activity group are adjusted based on individual and aggregate capabilities of existi ng credits (e.g.,, control over transportation)-this means uncontrolled points from transpor tation are distributed proportionally across the other groups. 7. Credit weights for the 13 TRACI impac t categories are integrated by taking a weighted average across all impact categories based on weights from the TRACI/BEES exercise. 8. Combined credit weights are rou nded tot the nearest whole number and the residual created during the rounded is tallied. 9. Residual points (i.e.,, points created by rounding) are manually reallocated across the system based on specific rulesthe LSC directed t hat points be allocated with priority for green house gas emissions reduction potential. 10. Results are transferred back to the existing scorecard for each system.

PAGE 59

59 Table 2-9. Summary of information sources used for each impact category TRACI category BEES weights Description of categor y Information Source Greenhouse gas emissions 25 Operational greenhouse gas emissions (C02e/yr) Empirical calculations based on CBECS Fossil fuel depletion 9 Consumption of nonrenewable, fossil fuels SimaPro/USA Input Output 98 library Water use 7 Consumption of water throughout the life cycle of a building SimaPro/USA Input Output 98 library Land use 5 Consumption of land throughout the life cycle of a building SimaPro/USA Input Output 98 library Acidification 3 Generation of acid rain emissions associated with acidification throughout the life-cycle of a building SimaPro/USA Input Output 98 library/Ecocalculator Eutrophication 5 Generation of nutrient pollution throughout the lifecycle of a building SimaPro/USA Input Output 98 library/Ecocalculator Ozone depletion 2 Generation of ozone depleting emissions throughout the life-cycle of a building SimaPro/USA Input Output 98 library/Ecocalculator Smog formation 4 Generation of smog forming emissions throughout the lifecycle of a building SimaPro/USA Input Output 98 library/Ecocalculator Ecotoxicity 6 Generation of ecotoxic pollutants throughout the lifecycle of a building Generation of ecotoxic plants at the site SimaPro/USA Input Output 98 library/Ecocalculator Particulates 8 Generation of particulate emissions throughout the lifecycle of a building SimaPro/USA Input Output 98 library/Ecocalculator Human healthcancer 7 Generation of cancer-causing compounds throughout the life-cycle of a building SimaPro/USA Input Output 98 library Human healthnon cancer 4 Generation of non-cancercausing compounds throughout the life-cycle of a building SimaPro/USA Input Output 98 library Indoor environmental quality 15 Impacts on building occupants and the indoor environment No model; association based on credit function

PAGE 60

60 Table 2-10. LEED 2009 MR credits and re lative emphasis to whole rating system. MR Credit Points % Weighting among MR Weighting among LEED 2009 Prerequisite 1: Storage and collection of recyclables Required n/a n/a MRc1.1: Building Reuse: maintain existing walls, floors, and roof 1-3 pts 21.4% 3% MRc1.2: Building Reuse: maintain interior non structural elements 1 pt 7.10% 1% MRc2: Construction Waste Management 1-2 pts 14.30% 1% MRc3: Materials Reuse 1-2 pts 14.30% 1% MRc4: Recycled Content 1-2 pts 14.30% 1% MRc5: Regional Materials 1-2 pts 14.30% 1% MRc6: Rapidly Renewable Materials 1 pt 7.15% 1% MRc7: Certified Wood 1 pt 7.15% 1% Total 14 pts 100% 14%

PAGE 61

61 Table 2-11. Proposed ANSI standard 01-2008p resources & materials R/M credit Points % In R/M % Within whole system 10.1.1 Assemblies-structural system/envelope using LCA calculator or 10.1.2 Assemblies using recycled, bio-based and regional materials 33 pts Or 25 pts 25.98% 18.92% 3.36% 2.55% 10.2 Furnishings, finishes, and fitouts 17 pts 13.39% 1.73% 10.3 Other material properties-off site salvaged materials and certified wood 12 pts 9.45% 1.22% 10.4 Reuse of existing structuresystems, facades, non-structural elements n/a for new construction n/a n/a 10.5 Reduction, reuse, and recycling of waste 9 pts 7.10% 0.917% 10.6 Resource conservation through design 14 pts 11.02% 1.02% 10.7 Building enveloperoofing membrane, roof/wall openings, foundation systems, below grade wall slabs, and flashings 30 pts 23.62% 3.06% 10.8 Air Barriers 6 pts 4.72% 0.61% 10.9 Vapor Retarders 6 pts 4.72% 0.61% Total 127 pts 100% 12.93%

PAGE 62

62 Table 2-12. DGNB certificate resources and materials credits Criterion Points % Within MR % of whole system C1:Global warming potential-LCA* required for building structure and materials used, EnEV 2007 for operational inputs 30 points 13.33% 3.5% C2:Ozone depletion potentialLCA* required for building structure and materials used, EnEV 2007 for operational inputs 5 points 2.22% 0.6% C3:Photochemical ozone depletion potential-LCA* required for building structure and materials used, EnEV 2007 for operational inputs 5 points 2.22% 0.6% C4: Acidification potentialLCA* required for building structure and materials used, EnEV 2007 for operational inputs 10 points 4.44% 1.2% C5: Eutrophication potentialLCA* required for building structure and materials used, EnEV 2007 for operational inputs 10 points 4.44% 1.2% C6: Risks to the local environmentmaterials listed individually and per product basis: Items that fall under REACH and biocide guidelines, etc. 30 points 13.33% 3.5% C8: Other impacts on the global environmentcertified wood by Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) or PEFC 10 points 4.44% 1.2% C10: Non-renewable primary energy demand reduction calculated over construction, reconditioning, operation, and disassembly. LCA* required for building structure and materials used 30 points 13.33% 3.5% C11: Total primary energy demands LCA required for building structure and materials used, EnEV 2007 for operational inputs 20 points 8.89% 2.34% C16: Building related life cycle costsproduction costs, follow-up costs, disposal/disassembly costs 30 points 13.33% 3.5% C40: Ease of cleaning and maintenance of the structure. 20 points 8.89% 2.34% C42:Ease of deconstruction, recycling, & dismantling 20 points 8.89% 2.34% C48: Construction site/ process-low waste subsection 5 points 2.22% 0.6% Total 225 pts 100% 26.4%

PAGE 63

63 Table 2-13. Materials & resources within SBTool Criteria Weight withi n groupWeight within system B4.1 Reuse of existing structure 16.7% 2.3% B1.1 Life cycle non renewable energy: Annualized non-renewable primary energy embodied in construction materials.* 4.1% 1.0% B4.2 Minimal use of finishing Materials 7.4% 1.0% B4.3 Minimal use of virgin materials 3.7% 0.5% B4.4 Use of durable materials 7.4% 1.0% B4.5 Use of salvaged materials 11.1% 1.5% B4.6 Use of recycled materials from off site sources 7.4% 1.0% B4.7 Use of bio-based sources 11.1% 1.5% B4.8 Use of cement supplementing materials in concrete 16.7% 2.3% B4.9 Use of materials that are locally produced 7.4% 1.0% B4.10 Design for disassembly, reuse, and recycling 11.1% 1.5% C1.Annualized GHC emissions embodied in construction materials 4.0% 1.5% C3 Solid wastes (during construction and during occupancy) 9.4% 3.5% Total Various categories 19.6% Use of appropriate LCA method required or use of embodied energy spreadsheet accessible in excel spreadsheet.

PAGE 64

64 Table 4-1. LEED MR credit comparison to ASHRAE 189.1p System LEED ASHRAE 189.1p Criterion Achievement % of system Achievement % of system Collection of recyclables Storage/collection glass, plastics, metals, paper, cardboard Required Storage/collection glass, plastics, metals, paper, cardboard, fluorescent, HID bulbs Required Exterior building reuse 55%,75%, or 95% 3% None None Interior building reuse 50% by area of interior walls, floors, ceilings 1% None None Construction waste management 50% or 75% Diversion based on weight or vol. 2% 50% Diversion based on weight or vol. and max waste generation of 42 c.y. or 12,000 lbs/ 10,000 sq. ft Required Materials reuse 5% or 10% Based on total materials costs 2% None None Recycled content 10% or 20% Based on total materials costs 2% 10% Based on total materials costs Required: If choosing prescriptive path Regional materials 10%-20% Based on total materials costs extracted, processed, and manufactured within 500 miles 2% 15% Based on total materials costs extracted, processed, and manufactured within 500 miles Required: If choosing prescriptive path Rapidly renewable resources 2.5% based on total materials cost (bio-based materials with 10year or less rotation 1% 5% based on total materials costs (50% content bio-based materials, any rotation period) Required: If choosing prescriptive path Certified wood 50% based on total wood costs must be FSC certified 1% 60% based on total wood costs must be in certified in accordance with forestry guidelines Required: If choosing prescriptive path LCA None None Performance path procedures in accordance with ISO 14040 Required: If choosing performance path

PAGE 65

65 Table 4-2. LEED MR credit comparison to ANSI 01-2008P System LEED ANSI 01-2008P Criterion Achievement % of system Achievement % of system Collection of recyclables Storage/collection glass, plastics, metals, paper, cardboard Required Storage/collection glass, plastics, metal, paper, cardboard 0.2% Exterior building reuse 55%,75%, or 95% 3% 10%-95% 1.22% Interior building reuse 50% by area of interior walls, floors, ceilings 1% 10%-95% 0.61% Construction waste management 50% or 75% Diversion based on weight or volume 2% 25%-75% Diversion based on weight or volume 0.71% Materials reuse 5% or 10% Based on total materials costs 2% 1%-9% Based on total materials costs 0.61% Recycled content 10% or 20% Based on total materials costs 2% 1%-20% Based on total materials costs 0.81% Prescriptive path Regional materials 10%-20% Based on total materials costs extracted, processed, and manufactured within 500 miles 2% 1%-20% Based on total materials costs harvested, extracted, process, and manufactured within 500 miles 1.43% Prescriptive path Rapidly renewable resources 2.5% based on total materials cost (bio-based materials with 10year or less rotation 1% 1%-20% Structural and finishes: bio-based materials any rotation 0.55% Prescriptive path Certified wood 50% based on total wood costs must be FSC certified 1% 10%-60% Based on total wood costs must be certified (numerous agencies) 0.61% Interior finishes, fit outs, and furnishing None None Recycled, bio-based, regional materials, and LCA (various %) 1.73% LCA (structural systems and envelope) None None Conduct LCA using Green Globes LCA calculator for building assemblies 3.36% Performance path Resource conservation through design None None Architect letter on service life plan, multifunctional assemblies, & DfDD 1.43%

PAGE 66

66 Table 4-3. LEED MR credit co mparison to DGNB certificate System LEED DGNB Certificate Criterion Achievement % of system Achievement % of system Collection of recyclables Storage/collection glass, plastics, metals, paper, cardboard Required None None Exterior building reuse 55%,75%, or 95% 3% None None Interior building reuse 50% by area of interior walls, floors, ceilings 1% None None Construction waste management 50% or 75% Diversion based on weight or volume 2% 3rd Party assessment based on computer model 0.6% Materials reuse 5% or 10% Based on total materials costs 2% None None Recycled content 10% or 20% Based on total materials costs 2% None None Regional materials 10%-20% Based on total materials costs extracted, processed, and manufactured within 500 miles 2% None None Rapidly renewable resources 2.5% based on total materials cost (bio-based materials with 10year or less rotation 1% None None Certified wood 50% based on total wood costs must be FSC certified 1% 3rd Party assessment FSC or PEFC certified 1.2% LCA None None 3rd Party assessment, use ISO 14040 3.25% Resource conservation in design None None See criteria in literature review 2.34% Risks to local environment Integrated in IEQ Integrated in IEQ REACH guidelines, prohibited items 3.5% Life cycle costs None None 3rd Party assessment 2.34% Ease of cleaning/maintenance None None 3rd Party assessment 2.34%

PAGE 67

67 Table 4-4. LEED MR credit comparisons to SBTool System LEED SBTool Criterion Achievement % of system Achievement % of system Collection of recyclables Storage/collection glass, plastics, metals, paper, cardboard Required Storage/collection glass, plastics, metals, paper, cardboard Required Exterior building reuse 55%,75%, or 95% 3% 25%-85% based on area 2.3% Interior building reuse 50% by area of interior walls, floors, ceilings 1% None None Construction waste management 50% or 75% Diversion based on weight or volume 2% Unavailable 1.4% Materials reuse 5% or 10% Based on total materials costs 2% 1%-15% based on total materials costs 1.5% Recycled content 10% or 20% Based on total materials costs 2% 7%-25% based on total materials costs and 8%-50% by volume of the use of cement supplementary materials 3.3% Regional materials 10%-20% Based on total materials costs extracted, processed, and manufactured within 500 miles 2% 42%-90% based on total materials costs, no distance specified 1.0% Rapidly renewable resources 2.5% based on total materials cost (biobased materials with 10-year or less rotation 1% 9%-15% based on total materials costs of bio-based materials (any rotation) 1.5% Certified wood 50% based on total wood costs must be FSC certified 1% Required for biobased materials N/A Interior finishes, fit outs, and furnishing None None Use durable finish materials (3%-5%), minimal use of finish and virgin materials (8-80%) based on area left exposed and total materials costs of non-virgin origin 2.5% LCA None None embodied energy workbook or ISO 14040 2.5% Resource conservation in design None None Design for disassembly3rd party assessment 1.5%

PAGE 68

68 Table 4-5. Existing LEED-NC scorecard Materials & Resources Points MRp1: Storage & collection of recyclables Required MRc1.1: Building reuse-maintain 55-75-95% existing walls, floors, roof 1-3 points MRc1.2: Building reuse-maintain 50% interior floors, ceiling, doors, etc 1 point MRc2: Construction waste management divert 50-75% from disposal 1-2 points MRc3: Material reuse, 5-10% 1-2 points MRc4: Recycled content 10-20% (postconsumer +1/2 preconsumer) 1-2 points MRc5: Regional materials,10-20 % extracted, processed, manufactured, etc. <500 miles 1-2 points MRc6: Rapidly renewable ma terials, 2.5% 1 point MRc7: Certified wood, 50% FSC certified 1 point Total in materials & resources 14 points Table 4-6. Proposed LEED-NC scorecard Materials & Resources Points MRp1: Storage & collection of recyclables Required MRc1.1: Building reuse-maintain 55-75-95% existing walls, floors, roof 3-7 bonus points MRc1.2: Building reuse-maintain 50% interior floors, ceiling, doors, etc 2 points MRc2: Construction waste management divert 50-75% from disposal Required;1 point MRc3: Material reuse, 5% 1 point MRc4: Recycled content 10-20% (postconsumer +1/2 preconsumer) Required;1 point MRc5: Regional materials,15-20 % extracted, processed, manufactured, etc. <500 miles Required; 1 point MRc6: Rapidly renewable materials, 2.5%; bio-based materials, 5% certified w ood, 60%; LCA showing 5% improvement of four impacts 1-6 points MRc7: Resource conservation through design, DfDD, service life plan, multi-functional assemblies, minimal finish materials, use of durabl e interior materials 1-6 points Total in Materials & Resources 18 points; 7 bonus points

PAGE 69

69 Figure 2-1. Framework for sustainable construction (drawing by Bilge Celik). Figure 2-2. LCA concept (Meadows)

PAGE 70

70 APPENDIX A MATERIALS AND RESOURC ES CREDIT F RAMEWORK MR prerequisite 1: Storage and Coll ection of Recyclables and Discarded goods Required Intent To facilitate the reduction of waste gener ated by building occupants that is hauled to and disposed of in landfills. Requirements Provide an easily accessible ar ea that serves the entire building and is dedicated to the collection and storage of non-hazardous materials for recycling. Materials must include, at a minimum: paper, corrugated cardboard, glass, plastics, metals. Provide an area that serves the entire building for the colle ction and storage of fluorescent and HID lamps and ballasts and fac ilitates proper disposal and/or recycling according to state and local hazardous wa ste requirements. The requirements for recycling area are listed below: Building sq. footage Min. recycling area (sf) 0-5,000 82 5,001-15,000 125 15,001-50,000 175 50,001-100,000 225 100,001-200,000 275 200,001-greater 500 Suggested Documentation Construction drawings, specific ations, and related submittals. Potential Technologies and Strategies Designate and area for recyclable collection and storage that is appropriately sized and located in a convenient area. Identify local waste handlers and buyers for glass, plastics, metals, office paper, new spaper, cardboard, organi c wastes, HID lamps and ballasts. Instruct occupants on recycling procedures. Consider employing cardboard balers, aluminum can crusher s, recycling chutes, and other waste management strategies to furt her enhance the recycling program.

PAGE 71

71 MR credit 1.1 Building ReuseMainta in Existing Walls, Floors, and Roof 3-7 Points Intent To extend the life cycle of existing building stock, conserve natural resources, retain cultural resources, reduce wast e and reduce environmental impacts of new buildings as they relate to ma terials manufacturing and transport. Requirements Maintain the existing building structure (including structural floor and roof decking) and envelop (the exterior skin and framing, excluding window assemblies and non-structural roofing material ). The minimum percentage bui lding reuse for each point threshold is as follows: Building Reuse Points 55% 3 65% 4 75% 5 85% 6 95% 7 Suggested Documentation Construction drawings, cut sheets, and specification Calculations of floor, roof, and wall area retained Potential Technologies & Strategies Assess the project for nonpolluting and renewable energy potential including solar, wind, geothermal, low-impact, hydr o, biomass and biogas strategies. When applying these strategies, take advantage of net metering with the local utility.

PAGE 72

72 MR Credit 1.2: Building Reuse-Mainta in Interior Nonstructural Elements 2 Points Intent To extend the lifecycle of existing buildi ng stock, conserve resources, retain cultural resources, reduce waste and reduce environmental impacts of new buildings as they relate to materials manufacturing and transport. Requirements Use existing interior nonstructural elem ents (e.g.,, interior walls, doors, floor coverings, and ceiling systems) in at least 50% (by area) of the completed building, including additions. If the project includes and addition with square footage more than 4 times the square footage of the existing building, this credit is non applicable. Suggested Documentation Construction drawings, cut sheets, and specifications Calculations of interior walls, doors, floor coverings, and ceiling systems area reused. Potential Technologies & Strategies Consider reusing existing building structures, envelopes, and interior nonstructural elements. Remove elements that pose a contamination risk to build ing occupants, and upgrade components that would improve energy and water efficiency such as mechanical systems and plumbing fixtures. Quantif y the extent of building reuse.

PAGE 73

73 MR Credit 2: Construction Waste Management 1 point Intent To divert construction and demolition debr is from disposal in landfills and incineration facilities. Redirect re cyclable recovered resources back to the manufacturing process and reusable materials to appropriate sites. Requirements Total Waste: For new building projec ts on sites with less than 5% existing buildings, structures, or hardscape, the tota l amount of constructi on waste generated on a project shall not exceed 42 cubic yards or 12,000 lbs per 10,000 square ft (35 cubic meters or 6000 kg per 1000 sq meters) of new building floor area. This shall apply to all waste whether diverted, land filled, incinerated or otherwise disposed of. Recycle and/or salvage non-hazardous construction and demolition debris. Develop and implement a construction wast e management plan that, at a minimum, identifies the materials to be diverted from disposal and whether the materials will be sorted on-site or commingled. Excavated so il and land-clearing debris do not contribute to this credit. Calculations can be done by we ight or volume, but must be consistent throughout. The minimum percentage debris to be recycled or salvaged is as follows: Recycled or Salvaged Points 50% Required 75% 1 point Suggested Documentation Construction Waste Management Plan Tipping Records Consistent calculations of wa ste generation (weight or volume) Potential Technologies & Strategies Establish goals for diversion from dispos al in landfills and incineration facilities and adopt a construction waste management pl an to achieve these goals. Consider recycling cardboard, metal, brick, mineral fiber panel, concrete, plastic, clean wood, glass, gypsum wallboard, carpet and insula tion. Construction debris processed into a recycled content commodity that has an open ma rket value (e.g.,, wood derived fuel [ WDF], alternative daily cover material, et c.) may be applied to the construction waste calculation. Designate a spec ific area(s) on the construc tion site for segregated or commingled collection of recycl able materials, and track recyc ling efforts throughout the construction process. Identify constr uction haulers and recyclers to handle the designated materials. Note that diversion may include donation of materials to charitable organizations and salvage of materials on-site.

PAGE 74

74 MR Credit 3: Materials Reuse 1 point Intent To reuse building materials and products to reduce demand for virgin materials and reduce waste, thereby lessening impac ts associated with the extraction and processing of virgin resources Requirements Use salvaged, refurbished or reused materi als, the sum of which constitutes at least 5% or 10%, based on cost, of the tota l value of materials on the project. The minimum percentage materials reused for each point threshold is as follows: Reused Materials Points 5% 1 Mechanical, electrical, pl umbing fire safety system s, and transportation devices shall not be included in the ca lculations except for piping, plumbing fixtures, ductwork, conduit, wiring, cabling, and elevator and esca lator framing. Calculations shall include materials permanently installed in the project. A value of 45% of the total construction cost may be used in lieu of the actual total cost of ma terials components. Suggested Submittals Total project material cost or default 45% of project costs (divisions 2-10) Table of salvage/reused materials, source/vendor, and costs Narrative of reuse strategy Potential Technologies & Strategies Identify opportunities to incorporate salvaged materials into the building design, and research potential material suppliers. Consider salvaged materials such as beams and posts, flooring, paneling, doors and frames, cabinetry and furniture, brick, and decorative items.

PAGE 75

75 MR Credit 4: Recycled Cont ent and Recyclable Materials 1 point Intent To increase demand for building products that incorporate recycled content and recyclable materials, thereby reducing impact s resulting from extraction and processing of virgin materials. Requirements Use materials with recycled content such that the sum of postconsumer recycled content plus of the precons umer content constitutes at least 10%, based on cost, of the total value of the materials in the project. Use recyclable building materials in asse mblies to include copper, aluminum and steel. The minimum percentage materials re cycled for each point threshold is as follows: The recycled content value of a material assembly is determined by weight. The recycled fraction of the assembly is then multip lied by the cost of assembly to determine the recycled content value. Mechanical, electrical, pl umbing fire safety systems, and transportation devices shall not be included in the ca lculations except for piping, plumbing fixtures, ductwork, conduit, wiring, cabling, and elevator and escala tor framing. Calculations shall include materials permanently installed in the project. A value of 45% of the total construction cost may be used in lieu of the actual total cost of ma terials components. Suggested Submittals Total material costs or default 45% of project costs (divisions 2-10) Table of recycled materials, source/vendor, and costs Narrative of recycling strategy Construction drawings, specifications, and submittals for recyclable materials Potential Technologies & Strategies Establish a project goal for recycled content and recyclable materials, and identify materials suppliers that can achiev e this goal. During construction, ensure that the specified recycled content materials are installed. Consider a range of environmental, economic, and performance a ttributes when selecting products and materials. Recyclable MaterialsPoints 10% Required 20% 1

PAGE 76

76 MR Credit 5: Regional Materials 1 Point Intent To increase demand for building material s and products that are extracted and manufactured within the region, thereby supporting the use of indigenous resources and reducing the environmental impacts resulting from transportation. Requirements Use building materials or products t hat have been extracted, harvested or recovered, as well as manufac tured, within 500 miles of t he project site for a minimum of 10%, based on cost, of the total material s value. If only a fraction of a product or material is extracted, harvested, or reco vered and manufactured locally, then only that percentage (by weight) can contribute to t he regional value. The minimum percentage regional materials for each point threshold is as follows: Regional Materials Points 15% Required 20% 1 Mechanical, electrical, plum bing fire safety systems, and transportation devices shall not be included in the ca lculations except for piping, plumbing fixtures, ductwork, conduit, wiring, cabling, and elevator and esca lator framing. Calculations shall include materials permanently installed in the project. A value of 45% of the total construction cost may be used in lieu of the actual total cost of ma terials components. Suggested Documentation Construction drawings, specif ications, and related submittals Total material costs or default 45% of project costs (divisions 2-10) Table of regional materials and calc ulations of appropriate percentages Potential Technologies & Strategies Establish a project goal for locally s ourced materials, and identify materials and material suppliers that can achieve this goal. During construction, ensure that the specified local materials are installed, and quantify the total percentage of local materials installed. Consider a range of environmental, economic, and performance attributes when selecting products and materials.

PAGE 77

77 MR Credit 6: Sustaina ble Materials Selection 1-6 Points Intent To encourage sustainable forestry management practices, selection of bio-based and rapidly renewable resources, and account for environmental impacts associated with materials selection. Requirements Use rapidly renewable building materials an d products for 2.5% of the total value of all building materials and products used in the project, based on costs. Rapidly renewable building materials and products ar e made from plants that are typically harvested within a 10-year or shorter cycle (1 point) Suggested Documentation Construction drawings, specific ations, and related submittals Total material costs or default 45% of project costs (divisions 2-10) Table of rapidly renewable materials and costs Use bio-based building materials and produc ts for 5% of the total value of all building materials and products, based on co sts. Bio-based materials include wood and agricultural products that may be on a long-rotation basis. (1 point) Suggested Documentation Construction drawings, specific ations, and related submittals Total material costs or default 45% of project costs (divisions 2-10) Table of bio-based materials and costs Use a minimum of 60% (based on cost) of wood-based materials and products including, but not limited to, structural fram ing, sheathing, flooring, sub-flooring, wood window sash and frames, doors, and architectural millwork. It shall be tracked through a chain of custody process either by physical separation or percentage-based approaches. Acceptable certified wood cont ent documentation shall be provided by sources certified through a forest certific ation system with princi ples, criteria, and standards developed using ISO/IEC Guide 59, or the WTO Technical Barriers to Trade. Include only materials permanently inst alled in the project. (1 point) Suggested Documentation Construction drawings, specific ations, and related submittals Total material costs or default 45% of project costs (divisions 2-10) Chain-of-custody from appropriate forestry certification program Table of project wood costs A life cycle assessment shall be performed in accordance with ISO 14040 for a minimum of four building alternatives, resu lting in a 5% improv ement over the other

PAGE 78

78 alternative. The impact categories are: l and use, resource use, climate change, ozone layer depletion, human health effects, ec otoxicity, smog, ac idification, and eutrophication. (3 points) Suggested Documentation Construction drawings, specific ations, and related submittals Input and results from appropriate LCA method using ISO 14040 with 3rd party analysis and verification. Potential Technologies & Strategies Establish a project goal for bio-based, rapi dly renewable resources, and certified wood. Identify products and suppliers that can support achievement of this goal. Consider materials such as wood, bamboo, wool, cotton insulation, agrifiber, linoleum, wheatboard, strawboard, and cork. During cons truction, ensure that the specified materials are installed. For LCA, perform a life cycle inventor y that accounts for all individual environmental flows to and from the material s components in a building throughout its life cycle. Compare the two building alter natives using a published third-party impact indicator method and report the LCA findings to include documentation of critical peer review by a third party including the resu lts from the review and reviewers name and contact information.

PAGE 79

79 MR Credit 7: Resource Conservation through Design 1-6 Points Intent To facilitate longer service life buildings, materials reuse by future generations, and mitigate the environmental im pacts of major renovations to include demolition and demand for virgin resources. Requirements A Building Service Life Plan was prepared and includes: (1 point) Service life estimates for structural, building envelope, and hardscape materials that need to be replace during the life of the building, not in cluding mechanical and electrical assemblies. Expected service life for building assemblies and materials that require inspection and/or need to be replaced durin g the service life of the building, where service life was based on the following: o Temporary buildings<10years o Medium-life buildings e.g., indus trial and parking structures>5 years o Long life building types >50 years Documentation of the project design serv ice life, the basis for determination and the following details for each assembly or component used in the building: o Building assembly and material description o Design service life in years o Predicted service life in years o Effects of failure o Maintenance frequency and maintenance access Informational Reference(s) CSA S478-95 ISO 15686 Multi-Functional Assemblies (1 point) The architect or design professional to provide letter documentation describing how the building design uses assemblies that perform multiple functions. The letter included specific examples, includi ng applicable calculations, drawings, or specifications. Design for Disassembly/Deconstruction (2 points)

PAGE 80

80 The architect or design professi onal to provide letter documentation describing the building design of modular and paneliz ed elements, components, sub-components, and materials for reuse, remanufacture, and/ or biodegrade. Provide record of the construction process to include as-built conditions a deconstruction plan based upon the construction process and adaptations to the build ing over its life. Design is to encompass full and partial disassembly for maintenance purposes over the lif e of the building. Minimal Use of Finish Materials (1 point) The percent of above-grade interior fl oor, wall, or ceiling surface areas in which structural elements are le ft exposed is approximately: Percent Area Points 15% 1 Suggested Documentation Letters and building models from t he architect or design professional Construction drawings, specific ations, and related submittals Formal building service life plan Potential Technologies & Strategies Consider the design for partial and fu ll disassembly of building elements, components, and materials. Specify interior durable materials and products as well as design for longer service life. Design the build ing to include minimal finish materials to limit the demand on virgin resources.

PAGE 81

81 REFERENCES Anderson, J., Shiers, D. and Steele, K. (2009). The Green Guide To Specification, 4th ed., Wiley-Blackwell, United Kingdom. Bonda, P. (2009) All about weightings. http://www.interiordesign. net/blog /1860000586/post/430038843.html (Sep. 8, 2009) CASBEE Technical M anual 2008. (2008). CASBEE. http://ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/download/CASBEE-NCe_2008manual.pdf (Sep. 8, 2009). DGNB HandbookStructure-Applic ation-Criteria. (2009). DGNB. http://www.dgnb.de/fileadmin/downloads/DGNB_Handbuch_44S_20090423_onli ne_EN.pdf (Sep. 21, 2009). Ghatee, M. (2007). Improving LEED NC-2.2 Us ing The Green Gl obes Building Assessment System. University of Florida, Gainesville. Guidelines for Creating High-Performanc e Green Buildings: a Guide for Decision Makers. 1999. Pennsylvania Green Government Council (GGGC). Available at www.gggc.state.pa.us/publictn/gbguides.html Guy, B. et al. (2002) Design for Deconstruction and Materials Reuse. http://www.deconstructioninstitute.com/files/downloads/75508728_DesignforDec onstructionPaper.pdf (Sep. 8, 2009). Integrating LCA into LEED working gr oup A (Goal and Scope) Interim Report #1 USGBC (2006). http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=2241 (Sep. 21, 2009). ISO 14040 For mat for Life Cycle Assessment 2009. International Standards Organization. Available at http://www.iso.org/iso/cata logue_detail.htm?csnumber=37456 Keoleian and Scheuer. (2002). Evaluation of LEED usin g Life Cycle Assessment Methods. National Institute of St andards and Technology. http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlp ubs/build02/PDF/b02170.pdf (Sep. 10, 2009). Kibert, C. J. (2005) Sustainable Construction: Green B uilding Design and Delivery. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Lewis and Nigel. (2003). The Future of LEED. ED&C. ED&C http://www.edcmag.com/Articles /Leed/c5f7916daa697010VgnVCM100000f932a8 c0____ (Sep. 21, 2009).

PAGE 82

82 Lenssen and Roodman (1995). Worldwatch P aper 124: A Building Revolution: How Ecology and Health Concerns are Tr ansforming Construction. Worldwatch Institute. Meadows, D. and Spiegel, R. (2006) Green Building Material s: A Guide to Product Selection and Specification, 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. Murphy, P. (2009). LEEDing fr om Behind: The Rise and Fall of Green Building, Part I. Community Solutions http://www.communitysolution.or g/pdfs/NS18.pdf (Sep. 21, 2009). Murphy, P. (2009). LEEDing from Behind: The Rise and Fall of Green Building, Part II. Community Solutions http://www.communitysolution.or g/pdfs/NS19.pdf (Sep. 21, 2009). Progress Report on Sustainability (2004). Building, Design, & Construction. http://sc.leadix.com/bdcuniversity/f iles/course_pdf/bdc 04White_Paper.pdf (Sep. 21, 2009). Schendler and Udall. (2005) LEE D is Broken-Lets Fix it. GreenBuild. http://www.igreenbu ild.com/cd_1706.aspx Smith, G. (2007). LEED: Is It Adequate? University of Florida, Gainesville. Sustainability Bu ilding Challenge 2008. iiSBE. http://www.iisbe.org/iisbe/sbc2k8/sbc2k8-download_f.htm (Sep. 7, 2009). USGBC: LEED v3. (2009). USGBC. http://www.usgbc.org/Disp layPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1970 White Paper on Sustainability (2003). Building, Design, & Construction. http://www.loginandlearn.com/files/c ourse_pd f/BDCWhitePaperR203_lowrespdf. pdf (Sep. 21, 2009).

PAGE 83

83 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH David Roberts was born in 1986. After being raised in Altamonte Springs, FL, he attended Florida State Univer sity and earned a Bachelor of Science degree from the College of Business in management. Having worked for both a building and roofing contractor, he applied to graduate school at the M.E. Rinker, Sr. School for Building Construction at the University of Florida. He received his M.S.B.C. degree in the fall of 2009 and has since pursued career opportunities in construction management.