RESEARCH -...

www.greenbuildexpo.com/getsocialOwned and operated by Presented by

RESEARCH

EXPO: NOV. 18-19 CONFERENCE: NOV. 18-20 WASHINGTON, D.C.

2GREENBUILD 2015 | EXPO: NOV. 18-19 CONFERENCE: NOV. 18-20 WASHINGTON, D.C.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

D02: A TRIBUTE TO PERFORMANCE ARROWS: DESIGNING BETTER INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ......... 3

Author:Ihab M.K. Elzeyadi, Ph.D., LEEDAP | School of Architecture & Allied Arts - University of Oregon, Eugene, OR - USA

E12: THE IMPACT OF GREEN AFFORDABLE HOUSING: LEED FOR HOMES AND GREEN BUILDING CERTIFICATION COSTS IN THE SOUTHEAST ....................................................................................................................12

Authors:Alex Trachtenberg | Southface Energy Institute, Atlanta, GA Sarah Hill | Southface Energy Institute, Atlanta, GA Teni Lapido | Virginia Center for Housing Research, Blacksburg, VA

Andrew P. McCoy | Virginia Center for Housing Research, Blacksburg, VA

F11: TO INCREASE THE USE OF RECYCLED CONTENT IN BUILDING PRODUCTS: REDUCE HEALTH HAZARDS & IMPROVE FEEDSTOCK QUALITY ..................................................................................................................................................17

Authors:Wes Sullens | StopWaste, Oakland, CATom Lent | Healthy Building Network, Washington, DCJames Vallette | Healthy Building Network, Washington, DC Melissa Coffin | Healthy Building Network, Washington, DCBarry Hooper | San Francisco Department of Environment, San Francisco, CA Chris Geiger | San Francisco Department of Environment, San Francisco, CA

RESEARCH SESSIONS AT GREENBUILD

The Education Program at Greenbuild includes special sessions dedicated to advanced research in green building. Research sessions dig deeper into complex green building concepts, and a corresponding research paper representing original, journal quality research accompanies each session. Below are the Greenbuild 2015 research papers.


RESEARCH

D02:A TRIBUTE TO PERFORMANCE ARROWS:

DESIGNING BETTER INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY


INTRODUCTION What does indoor environmental quality mean to people in

buildings? Part of the answer to this question is to define “quality”

in terms of the multi-comfort attributes of the indoor environment

that affect the space, the people occupying it, their behavior, and

their attitudes. However, an essential component of understanding

how people perceive overall “multi-comfort” is to scrutinize

the empirical literature, where the term is used and identify the

parameters affecting the occupant’s perception of comfort under

different environmental conditions. By adopting this approach to

define multi-comfort, these environmental conditions are classified

under physical, physiological, psychological, and social parameters

of the environment that affect the experiential qualities perceived

by occupants.

Both behavioral sciences/humanities and the traditional engineering/architecture disciplines have failed to conceptualize the environment in a comprehensive way (Ring & Brager, 2000; Duffy, 1992). This paper proposes a framework for conceptualizing sustainable design as a system. In this conceptualization it builds on previous interpretation frameworks of sustainable design (Guy & Farmer, 2001) as well as action frameworks of sustainability (such as regenerative design, see Robinson & Cole. 2014). Thus acknowledging the complex systems of interactions between people and their indoor/outdoor environment on three scales/levels of analysis: (1) the micro-level relates to the individual and his/her setting, (2) the mini-level is for groups and their building, (3) the macro-level is concerned with urban setting and the surrounding environment (Elzeyadi, 2003). The product of these interactions form “attributes” of sustainable place experience (Figure 1). This systems epistemology rests on the idea that the environment is an organic structure; it has parts that are connected to each other by complex interactions in a way that smaller parts of the system can be identified; it has components, processes, products, and outcomes that can be dissected into sub-systems

(Elzeyadi, 2002).

A TRIBUTE TO PERFORMANCE ARROWS: DESIGNING BETTER INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

AUTHOR:Ihab M.K. Elzeyadi, Ph.D., LEEDAP | School of Architecture & Allied Arts - University of Oregon, Eugene, OR - USA

ABSTRACT:This paper proposes a systemic approach to conceptualize IEQ in the design as well as the post-occupancy phases of green buildings. By

applying a holistic understanding, the resulting ambience of buildings is perceived in terms of five sub-systems: thermal, visual, indoor air

quality, acoustical, and spatial comfort. To validate this model, different spatial configurations and IEQ design strategies were assessed

and measured for a number of recently completed high-performance buildings. Spatial analysis and visualization of IEQ assessments

relating the qualitative phenomenological and quantitative performative impacts of the studied spaces on both the place and the people

is presented. Its implications on the future design and research of indoor environmental quality and ambience of sustainable buildings

is discussed. The hope is to provide a decision support process and lessons for building practitioners, occupants, and building owners

that would help them prioritize and evaluate green design and IEQ strategies in a comprehensive way. Combining this perspective would

ensure that we build spaces that are both energy and people conscious.

Keywords: Indoor Environmental Quality, High Performance Buildings, Environmental Impacts, Occupants Health & Performance.

Fig. 1: A nested model of sustainable place experience layers


2. MODELLING SUSTAINABLE PLACEEXPERIENCE:More than two decades ago, Canter (1991) advocated the idea

of approaching the field of environmental design through

one comprehensive model that guides our understanding,

assessments, and actions in the environment. The result of this

conceptualization is what Canter called “A systemic model of

place experience” (p. 195). His outcome of “place experience” was

both broadly and vaguely defined. What Canter’s model lacked is

a classification for the units of analysis by which a place can be

assessed or the components by which a place can be understood.

Despite the application of this model in the field of environment

behavior studies, it was not widely adapted to other sub-filed of

architecture due to silo-like segregation in architecture discourse.

Building on early definitions of place experience and environmental

quality (Guy and Farmer, 2001; Rapoport, 1989) this paper defined

it as all the qualities of the place that are collectively perceived

and evaluated by its occupants as affecting their needs, wants,

and the tasks they perform, without impacting the global

environment in both products and process. Following a systems

perspective, qualities of a sustainable place experience can be

grouped in intellectual taxonomies according to their levels of

meaning to occupants. These are: (1) sustainable attributes,

which groups all the utilitarian qualities of the environment, (2)

sustainable aesthetics, reflecting middle-level latent meanings,

which represents value function qualities of the environment, and

(3) sustainable ambience, higher-level symbolic meanings that are

related to symbolic qualities of the environment (Rapoport, 1988).

Each level of meaning will group a number of qualities that form

a profile. Each of these qualities can be perceived as a “negative”

or “positive” attribute of the environment depending on whether

it facilitates or inhibits the occupants’ experience, as well as how

well it satisfies their wants and needs. Figure 2 presents the system

of interactions between the three-fold classification of occupants

(people) and their settings (buildings), and place. This sustainable

place experience model is classified according to three levels of

meaning into instrumental, latent, and symbolic qualities. Each one

of these levels is composed of qualities that define the sustainable

place experience.

3. LAYERS OF INDOOR ENVIRONMENTALQUALITY (IEQ)

3.1.1 Instrumental Level:The instrumental level of a place experience represents everyday

qualities that enable individuals and groups to perform their

tasks, behave, and act appropriately and predictably in place (see

Rapoport, 1990). These include such qualities as ambient comfort

(thermal and indoor air quality), lighting and views, noise and

auditory comfort, ergonomics and spaciousness, maintenance and

facility services, and location and setting (Elzeyadi, 2002).

3.1.2 Latent/Psychological Layer:The latent level of environmental quality represents those

subjective qualities of an environment that communicate the

identity of individuals and groups, engage them in place, and

provide subjective value to both occupants and their settings

(Rapoport, 1990; Genrereux, Lawrence & Russell, 1983). These

include such qualities as personal space, control, privacy,

personalization, indoor décor, safety, accessibility, and way finding.

Previous studies in the area of environment-behavior studies,

has primarily focused on this level of qualities (Rapoport, 1988).

However, most previous research has concentrated on occupants’

satisfaction as the outcome neglecting spatial aesthetics and

indoor environmental quality in general.

3.1.3 Symbolic Layer:The symbolic level of place experience represents those qualities

of an environment that are related to higher-level meanings of

symbols and artifacts that correspond to beliefs and combine both

the objective and subjective dimensions of place (see Doxtater,

1994; Mazumdar, 1992; Zimring & Peatross, 1997). These include

such qualities as status, value, myths, and poetics of place. Most

previous studies have neglected this level; previous studies mostly

dealt with the impact of the physical environment in work settings

on the achievement of status (Doxtater, 1994) as well as other

less common outcomes such as what one researcher has called

“environmental deprivation” (Mazumdar, 1992).

A TRIBUTE TO PERFORMANCE ARROWS: DESIGNING BETTER INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (CONT.)


4. INTERRELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN IEQ LAYERSThe IEQ framework developed (Figure 3), conceptualize indoor

environmental quality in places as a complex system, composed of

different qualities that are grouped under three levels: Attributes

(instrumental), Aesthetics (latent), and Symbolic (ambience). The

model proposes the systemic interaction of multiple parameters,

people, buildings, and the indoor/outdoor environment resulting

in sub-systems impacts on building performance, occupant’s

productivity, comfort, and well-being. These sub-systems impacts

overall IEQ in buildings and are impacted by its qualities.

There seems to be an implicit, and sometimes explicit, view

that human comfort occurs in separate envelopes, which might

be labeled differently as thermal, visual, acoustical, or spatial.

Previous post occupancy evaluation studies (e.g. Elzeyadi, 2002,

2008 & 2012) show that human comfort is a multi-faceted concept

that is affected by the fourfold components of the environment in

its physical, physiological, psychological, and social attributes and

properties. While one can assume that individuals are affected by

the environment in different ways, their general achievement of

multi-comfort is the result of their overall appraisal of its multiple

levels (i.e. thermal, visual, acoustical, indoor air quality, and spatial).


PEOPLE

BUILDINGS

Fig. 2: Sustainable Place Experience Layers

Fig. 3: Sustainable Place Experience Layers


5. APPLICATION OF THE MODEL INPRACTICETo validate the proposed IEQ model, different spatial configurations

and IEQ design strategies were assessed and measured for

a number of LEED™ rated building spaces. Spatial analysis

and visualization of IEQ assessments relating the qualitative

phenomenological and quantitative performance impacts of the

studied spaces on both the place and the people is presented

below with reference to a performance of two atria configurations

inside comparative LEED™ buildings.

5.1 Visual Comfort Analysis:To evaluate visual comfort inside multiple LEED™ certified work

environments, we measured lighting distribution metrics; useful

daylight autonomy (uDA300-1000), visual asymmetry, and glare

in the field of vision using five glare analysis metrics (DGP, DGI,

UGR, VCP & CGI) (Table 1). A comparative analysis reveals how

different spatial configurations and proportions between the two

atriums impact both daylight level distribution and glare. Both

atria have similar exterior window to wall ratios of approximately

70% for exterior facing walls but slightly different skylight to floor

ratios, Bldg. 1 is 25% and Bldg. 2 is 32% of SFR. Space proportions,

orientation, and window geometry show substantial impacts on

daylighting performance and glare management of both spaces.

The 1:2 plan proportion of Atrium 1, which is elongated in the North

South axis provided better daylighting distribution (uDA = 94%

and DGP = 0.08) over the 1:5.6 proportion of Atrium 2 (uDA = 57%

and DGP = 0.20).


Bldg. 1 Bldg. 2

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Visual Comfort Metrics of both studied building spaces

Fig. 4: Comparative Analysis of Visual Comfort Metrics for a typical floor of an atrium space of both studied building spaces

Fig. 5: Comparative Analysis of Visual Comfort Metrics for fourth floor of an atrium space of both studied building spaces


5.2 Thermal Comfort Analysis:Multi-Comfort parameters and metrics with the thermal

environment were assessed and analyzed for both atria of the

comparative buildings. Environmental sensors and data loggers

measuring temperature, relative humidity, air velocity, and air

movement stratified across the different floor levels of the

buildings, were deployed over the winter and summer seasons

respectively. In addition, infra-red (IR) imagery was taken over the

course of sampled seasonal days for the occupants works stations

to document surface temperature and mean radiant temperature

indices over the study period.

Table 2 provides a summary of the indoor thermal comfort indices

for both atria in the studied buildings. Atrium 2 maintained

average indoor conditions within the ASHRAE comfort zones for

most of the occupied hours, yet the percentage of time within the

adaptive comfort zone tend to be lower than Atrium 1. Further

analysis performed by plotting thermal comfort parameters on

the psychrometric chart (Figs 6-8) reveals that although Atrium 2

was able to maintain the majority of hours within the green zone

stipulated by ASHRAE-55 recommendations for thermal comfort,

Atrium 1 provided more temperature variation within the adaptive

zone of comfort providing more diversity in thermal conditions

suitable for occupants different clothing and metabolic levels

within the space.


Fig. 6: Comparative Analysis of Thermal Comfort Psychrometric Charts for workspaces occupying the first floors of both studied buildings

Fig. 7: Comparative Analysis of Thermal Comfort Psychrometric Charts for workspaces on typical floors of both studied buildings

Fig. 8: Comparative Analysis of Thermal Comfort Psychrometric Charts for all floors of workspaces of both studied buildings

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Thermal Comfort Metrics of both studied building spaces


5.3 Occupants Satisfaction Analysis:In addition to physical assessments and visualization of the multi-

comfort metrics of the environment, an occupant questionnaire

was administered to solicit employees’ satisfaction of both

buildings. Questions were added to address specific issues such as

Thermal and Visual comfort of the various spaces. An average of

65% of the employees in Bldg.1 and 32% of the employees in Bldg.

2 completed the questionnaire. Preliminary results of the survey

show strong occupants satisfaction with the environmental agenda

and green/LEED™ certification of both buildings. More than 75% of

occupants in both buildings agree about the importance to work

in a building that is environmentally conscious.

While both studied atria in the buildings exceeded occupants’

expectations and were perceived to have reported positive impacts

on their productivity, the perception of the atrium IEQ differed

between the two studied buildings. Figure 9, summarizes overall

occupants’ satisfaction with visual, thermal comfort attributes of

the atria, as well as the perception of diverse climatic and lighting

conditions within the comfort range that provided occupants

with choice and engagement in their settings. In general, IEQ for

the middle floors of the atria, were positively perceived by the

occupants and the fourth floor was negatively perceived due to

excess glare and overheating issues.


Fig. 9: Occupants Satisfaction Percentages from a POE Building Survey of Both Studied Buildings


6. CONCLUSION:To evaluate the effectiveness of IEQ parameters on multi-

comfort impacts in green buildings, a designer needs to establish

clear performance goals that acknowledge both the physical

performance as well as the impacts of the selected green design

strategies on occupants’ well-being and comfort. An established

process to ensure fine tuning of the systems and engaging the

occupants in managing them, through feedback loops, is essential.

Such feedback loops help engage the occupants in the building

management and ensure that the building as designed performs

to design goals.

The main objective of this paper is to provide detailed as well as

context specific information to assess IEQ inside green buildings

from a comprehensive approach. By establishing a comparative

approach between different strategies, the study provides an

evidence-based guide to future designs for the suitability and

performance of one strategy over others. It is important to note

that green strategies should not be perceived as “one size fits all”

in general and might not be suitable in all design situations. It is

clear from the findings that performance of some strategies can

positively impact behavior in one condition, yet have negative

impacts on others. Designers will need to balance pros and cons

of green systems as they manage the fascination with simulation

modelling graphics (Figure 10) with actual performance of spaces

and the design of a quality environment. The proposed IEQ model

conveys the complex nature of the parameters of the indoor

environment in producing a quality setting for the occupants.

The hope is to spur future research to apply the proposed

model and contribute to a better understanding of the nature

of IEQ in buildings beyond our over fascination of its graphical

representations.

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:Research assistants Shane O’Neil and Hadis Hadipour provided

assistance in data collection during various project tasks. Laurie

Canup, AIA project architect of SRG partnership (formerly THA)

contributed valuable information and consultation for the project.

Thanks are due to all participants of the study who provided

us with invaluable information regarding their work setting and

behavior related to lighting and thermal environment. I am grateful

for all these outstanding individuals for their help and support for

this research project.


Fig. 10: Rendering from a computer Simulation of Ventilation and Thermal Comfort Prediction of a workspace


8. REFERENCES:

1. Brager, G. and de Dear, R. (in press). Expectations of Indoor Climate Control. Energy and Buildings, 24, pp.179-182.

2. Canter, D. (1991). Understanding, Assessing, and Acting in Places: Is an integrative Framework Possible? In T, Garling and G. Evans(eds.) Environment Cognition and Action. New York: Oxford University Press.

3. Duffy, F. (1992). The Changing Workplace. London, UK: Phiadon Press Limited.

4. Ducker (1999). Lighting Quality: Key Customer Values and Decision Process. Preliminary Report. Ducker Worldwide ResearchCompany, Inc.

5. Elzeyadi, I. (2008). Healthy Schools: A conceptual framework for evidence-based design guidelines. Unpublished manuscript from ameta-analysis of green schools impacts on the triple bottom line. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.

6. Elzeyadi, I. (2007). Healthy Offices: Windows, Absenteeism, and Health in Work Environments - Evidence Based Guidelines. WorldCongress on Design & Health (WCDH 2007), June 29 to July 1, 2007, Glasgow, UK.

7. Elzeyadi, I. (2003). Environmental Quality - Shaping Places for People: A Systemic Framework for Conceptualizing People and theirWorkplaces. In: Shaping Places for People, pp. 71- 79. Proceedings of the Environmental Design Research Association EDRA 34thConference. May 22-26, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

8. Elzeyadi, I. (2002). Designing for Indoor Comfort: A systemic model for assessing occupant comfort in sustainable office buildings.Solar 2002 Proceedings, ASES National Solar Energy Conference, June 15-20, 2002 Reno, Nevada. CDrom.

9. Heschong, L; Elzeyadi, I & Knecht, C, (2001). Re-Analysis Report: Daylighting in Schools, Additional Analysis. New Buildings Institute,White Salmon, WA.

10. Kats, G. (2006). Greening America’s Schools: costs and benefits. A Capital E Report. Available at www.cap-e.com.

11. Kats, G. et al. (2003). The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings: A Report to California’s Sustainability Task Force. October2003. Available at www.cap-e.com.

12. Loftness, V. et al. (2002). Building Investment Decisions Support (BIDS), ABSIC Research 2001-2002 Year End report. Available at:http://nodem.pc.cc.cmu.edu/bids.

13. Loftness, V.; Hartkopf, V. & Gurtekin, B. (2005). Building Investment Decisions Support (BIDS). AIA Report on University Research Vol.1: 2005. Washington, DC: American Institute of Architects, AIA Knowledge Board.

14. Mazria, E. (2006). Architecture 2030 Challenge www.architecture2030.org.

15. Mazumdar, S. (1992). “Sir, Please Do Not Take Away my Cubicle” The Phenomenon of Environmental Deprivation. Environment andBehavior, 24:6, pp. 691-722.

16. McGraw Hill, (2007). Education Green Building Smart Market Report. McGraw-Hill Construction Research & Analytics, Smart MarketReport Series. Lexington, MA: McGraw-Hill Construction.

17. National Research Council (U.S.) (2007). Green Schools: attributes for health and learning. Washington, DC: National AcademiesPress.

18. Rapoport, A. (1988). Levels of Meaning in the Built Environment. In F. Poyatos (ed.) Perspectives on Non Verabl Communication, pp.317-336. Toronto: C.J. Hogrefe.

19. Rapoport, A. (1989a). Environmental Quality and Environmental Quality Profiles. In N. Wilkinson (Ed.), Quality in The Built Environment.New Castle (UK): Urban International Press.

20. Rapoport, A. (1990). System of Activities and System of Settings. In S. Kent (Ed.), Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space.Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

21. Ring, E. & Brager, G. (2000). Occupant Comfort, Control, and Satisfaction in Three California Mixed-mode Office Buildings. ACEEE2000 Summer Study Proceedings vol. 8, pp.317-328.

22. Sundstorm, E. (1987). Work Environments: Offices and factories. In Stokols, D. and Altman, I (eds.) Handbook of EnvironmentalPsychology, pp. 733-782. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

23. Zimring, G. & Peatross, D. (1997). Cultural Aspects of Workplace Organization and Space. In G. Moore and R. Marans: Advances inEnvironment, Behavior, and Design. New York: Plenum Press.



RESEARCH

E12:THE IMPACT OF GREEN AFFORDABLE HOUSING:

LEED FOR HOMES AND GREEN BUILDING CERTIFICATION COSTS IN THE SOUTHEAST


AUTHORS:Alex Trachtenberg | Southface Energy Institute, Atlanta, GA Sarah Hill | Southface Energy Institute, Atlanta, GA Teni Lapido | Virginia Center for Housing Research, Blacksburg, VAAndrew P. McCoy | Virginia Center for Housing Research, Blacksburg, VA

ABSTRACT:In the past decade, there has been a significant increase in affordable housing incentives for green building across the U.S. However, some in the development community contend that the costs of green building outweigh the benefits. Cost containment is often used as an argument to undermine policies supportive of green building. In an effort to support existing green building incentives and advocate for increased adoption, The Impact of Green Affordable Housing research project collected and analysed data to evaluate whether green building is as cost prohibitive as critics suggest. The project collected data on actual development and operations costs and energy usage. The sample consists of LEED for Homes and other green-certified and conventional multifamily affordable Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina.

(Keywords: multifamily, affordable housing, green, utility bills, O&M, LEED for Homes, construction costs)

INTRODUCTION The impact of above-code green building certification programs on multifamily affordable housing development and operation has long been misunderstood from a lack of data and analysis, particularly in the Southeast United States. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that over the next twenty years, the Southeast, the most impoverished region in the nation, will lead the nation in both housing starts and net change in population growth. As such, it is necessary to design and construct housing in the most efficient, sustainable and affordable manner possible. The industry is recognizing that above-code green building certification programs provide triple bottom line benefits (economy, environment, and equity) to their business practices, but empirical data collection, analysis and evaluation have not been performed to make the correlation. An enhanced understanding of the costs and benefits is necessary to make the argument that green affordable housing is a worthwhile investment. This paper begins to address the risks of costs for green certification in the southeast United States (US).

The research team, consisting of Southface, a non-profit in Atlanta, GA and the Virginia Center for Housing Research (VCHR) at Virginia Tech University, conducted a year-long research project to collect and analyse data on the impact of above-code green building certification programs, such as LEED BD+C: Homes, when applied to affordable multifamily housing development. A total of eighteen affordable housing developments in Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina participated in the study. Eleven of which are above-code green building program certified (Green) and seven are conventional or energy code-compliant (Non-Green). Two projects represented in this study are LEED BD+C: Homes certified projects.

GREEN BUILDING CERTIFICATION AND RISKNationally and regionally, independent building contractors and tradespeople are the stakeholders primarily responsible for implementing green buildings in the residential built environment [1]. These stakeholders are also primarily responsible for either veto or endorsement of innovative products, processes and systems in residential construction [2-8]. According to Ng et al., “Green building means improving the way that homes and home building sites use energy, water, and materials to reduce impacts on human health and the environment” [9].

While the intent and concept are straightforward, early adopters among independent building contractors and tradesmen have recognized a need for communicating specific benchmarks of green building, similar to the “organic” label used for produce. This type of product certification helps to manage expectations, provide measurable deliverables, and establish a metric that can be tied to economic value. Similarly, high performance construction, such as green building certification, establishes expectations, measurable deliverables and metrics for professionals. Product certification and building certification are integral to green building and lend confidence to the risks in implementing a new and relatively unknown system. The industry has moved quickly to address these risks, as almost 50 local and regional green building labelling programs have emerged, many of which have resulted in pieces of national-level programs. It is now important to understand if the risks of cost are indeed presenting a hindrance to the adoption of certifications for builders. The following section begins to answer this question for the south eastern United States.

METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGSConstruction CostsThe researchers have removed all development names to ensure confidentiality of the sample. The research team solicited construction cost information in two forms: 1) cost certifications required by Housing Finance Agencies and AIA G702’s and 2) a survey of participating developers on costs and experience. We solicited eighteen projects from four states in the Southeastern United States: Alabama (AL), Georgia (GA), South Carolina (SC) and North Carolina (NC).

Development sizes range from 31,352 to 202,343 sf. It is important to note that costs of the developments can be highly affected when comparing on a square foot basis between large and small buildings.

Building type is an important factor in the development cost. For example, high-rise construction requires more stringent codes and types of materials (steel or reinforced concrete) in its design and construction than low-rise (wood or steel composite). The majority of the green developments in this study are low-rise with eight and two mid-rise. Green 1 is a renovation, while the other developments are new construction. All of the non-green developments in this study are low-rise new construction. As with development size, we will account for these characteristics when reporting our findings.

THE IMPACT OF GREEN AFFORDABLE HOUSING: LEED FOR HOMES AND GREEN BUILDING CERTIFICATION COSTS IN THE SOUTHEAST


Table 1 includes project type and total costs for ten green developments participating in the study. Four of these ten developments are located in Georgia, five in North Carolina and one in South Carolina. Above-code green building certification programs used by the sample include EarthCraft, ENERGY STAR and LEED BD +C: Homes, with EarthCraft being the most commonly used among the developers. Green 3 and 4 achieved LEED for Homes Silver and Gold certification, respectively.

Total costs for seven non-green developments are in Table 2. The majority (five) of these developments are located in Alabama, and two are in South Carolina. These developments also have a wide range in size, from 40,367 to 109,232 sf.

Table 1: Green Development Building Characteristics and Total Cost

Table 2: Non-Green Development Building Characteristics and Total Cost

Green construction certification has long been anecdotally considered more expensive to develop, design and construct. Comparing these data sets, the green developments were nine percent less expensive per square foot to construct than the non-green developments. Each value is the average cost/sf for all buildings of that type. Breaking down the cost into hard (materials, labor and equipment used directly in the building construction) and soft (design and construction fees associated with management of the development process) costs paints a more complex picture. Green development hard costs were approximately two percent higher, while soft costs were more than six percent lower than non-green developments (Table 3). More specifically, our analysis indicates that above-code green certified developments in GA, NC and SC cost less to design and build than non-green alternatives

in AL and SC. Such a finding could suggest that green building processes have diffused into the industry significantly and do not exhibit a price premium.

Table 3: Non-Green Development Building Characteristics and Total Cost

Utility Tracking and Energy ConsumptionThis study also tracked and analyzed electrical utility data with at least twelve months historical data for seasonal variation to determine cost-benefits to residents of green versus non-green developments related to resource and energy efficiency (Energy and Atmosphere credits).

Electrical utility data across the various types of projects in our study are reported in Tables 4 and 5. Data include utility readings from the period of January 2014 to December 2014. It is important to note that not all units contained complete data for that year, occasionally missing one month due to unit turnover. Such inconsistencies in the data, albeit common and difficult to control for these types of studies, mean that certain developments cannot be compared uniformly with the remaining sample and are not shown in the following findings and analysis (Green 8 and 9).

Based on electricity usage, green-certified developments in Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina used 2.35% kWh/sf and 3.97% kWh/unit less electricity (on average) than non-certified developments in Alabama and South Carolina. One building’s monthly record of utility usage for the low-rise green developments below 50,000 square feet (sf) was reported at 0.979 kWh/sf. It should be highlighted that while this green development has the greatest average monthly kWh/sf in the sample, this is the only green low-rise building below 50,000 with utility information, the only renovation represented in this study, and the number of units and residents per sf is significantly greater than most developments in the study, meaning that it will naturally have a greater kWh per sf. When comparing the kWh/unit, Green 1 falls more in line with the non-green low rise construction projects of the same size, which is notable when comparing renovated projects to new construction.

THE IMPACT OF GREEN AFFORDABLE HOUSING: LEED FOR HOMES AND GREEN BUILDING CERTIFICATION COSTS IN THE SOUTHEAST (CONT.)


Table 4: Green Average Monthly Electricity Usage

Table 5: Non-Green Average Monthly Electricity Usage

Operations and Maintenance CostsTable 6 details the operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for the sample of green developments included in the study. Each column represents components of O&M costs as reported by property owners and managers for the development. Findings indicate that non-green developments are fifteen percent less expensive to operate and maintain, which is surprising and contradicts the literature reviewed by the research team and many goals of green building but supports the survey results from property managers. Green buildings are often designed to reduce O&M, assuming that the residents are trained by the property management staff to properly use the systems. It is also important to note that O&M costs exclude taxes, insurance, benefits, payroll fees, security and elevator costs as these will vary widely by geographic location,

building type and size. When broken down into detailed areas of O&M, maintenance is thirty-four percent more expensive, utilities are twelve percent less expensive and administration is seventeen percent more expensive for green developments.

Recent work by McCoy et al. [10] regarding affordability for residents of multifamily buildings in Virginia found that education of maintenance staff on technology of green buildings is needed. Findings in this study suggest that the gap between green and non-green developments is wider than simply education of managers and residents (Awareness and Education), but includes cost budgeting and procurement for O&M as well.

Table 6: Green vs Non-Green Average Annual Development O&M Costs/sf Summary

DISCUSSIONThe research presented in this report adds weight to the anecdotal argument that green buildings save money and energy and disputes the perception that upfront costs for green are prohibitive. This research reveals that the price premium for green building certification for these developers is approximately 2% of hard costs; furthermore, on average, green buildings in this study are 9% less expensive to construct in terms of overall cost. This suggests that we are making significant strides towards diffusion of green building best practices as industry standards, and it appears that the affordable housing industry in the Southeast has overcome the learning curve and cost-premiums associated with achieving above code green building certifications.

While the construction industry in Georgia and North Carolina appear to have overcome some of the perceived cost-implications of the green building learning curve, our research also suggests that more education and technical assistance is required to help property managers and residents understand and integrate green building best practices for operations and maintenance of these units. While the owner-paid utility costs were 12% less, on average, for green-certified properties, the overall maintenance and operations costs are 15% higher than non-green buildings.

Green building certification programs, such as LEED BD+C: Homes, contribute value to affordable housing, providing a more consistent quality, higher performing housing stock for the low-income community. Incentivizing green building certifications in state Qualified Allocation Plans provides additional quality assurance and more consistent performance results for federal tax credit developments, saving residents money while reducing resource consumption.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.The authors would like to specifically thank all of the developers, residents, property managers and the Housing Finance Agencies of Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Alabama without whose support this project would not have been possible. This report was made possible through the generous support from an anonymous donor.



REFERENCES

1. McCoy, A. P., O’Brien, P., Novak, V., & Cavell, M. (2012). Toward understanding roles for education and training in improving greenjobs skills development. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 8(3), 186-203.

2. Koebel, C. T. (2008). Innovation in homebuilding and the future of housing. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74 (1),45-58.

3. Koebel, C.T. and McCoy, A.P. (2006). “Beyond first mover advantage: the characteristics, risks and advantages of second moveradoption in the home building industry.” Presented to the American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association Meeting,Washington, DC: April, 2006.

4. Koebel, C.T., Papadakis, M., Hudson, E. and Cavell, M. (2004) “The Diffusion of Innovation in the Residential Building Industry.” USDept. of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, Washington, D.C.

5. Koebel, C. T., & Renneckar, P. (2003). “A review of the worst case housing needs measure.” A report by the Virginia Center forHousing Research at Virginia Tech.

6. Slaughter, S. (1993a). Builders as sources of construction innovation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 119 (3),532-549.

7. Slaughter, S. (1993b). Innovation and learning during implementation: A comparison of user and manufacturer innovations.Research Policy, 22 (1), 81-95.

8. Slaughter, S. (1998). Models of construction innovation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124 (3), 226-231.

9. Ng, E. (2010). “Designing high-density cities for social and environmental sustainability.” Earthscan.

10. McCoy, A. P., Franck, C., Jones, M., Scott, S, & Lapido, T. (2015). Impact of Energy Efficient Design and Construction on LIHTCHousing in Virginia. Housing Virginia website: http://www.housingvirginia.org/Blog-2015-02-10-New-Housing-Virginia-Study-Finds-Residents-of-Energy-Efficient-Affordable-Rental-Housing.aspx.



RESEARCH

F11:TO INCREASE THE USE OF RECYCLED

CONTENT IN BUILDING PRODUCTS: REDUCE HEALTH HAZARDS & IMPROVE

FEEDSTOCK QUALITY


AUTHORS:

Wes Sullens | StopWaste, Oakland, CA

Tom Lent | Healthy Building Network, Washington, DC

James Vallette | Healthy Building Network, Washington, DC Melissa Coffin | Healthy Building Network, Washington, DC

Barry Hooper | San Francisco Department of Environment, San Francisco, CA Chris Geiger | San Francisco Department of Environment, San Francisco, CA

ABSTRACT:The recycling industry has made significant strides toward a closed loop material system in which the materials that make up new products today will become the raw material used to manufacture products in the future. However, contamination in some sources of recycled content raw material (“feedstock”) contain potentially toxic substances that can devalue feedstocks, impede growth of recycling markets, and harm human and environmental health. Since May 2014, the Healthy Building Network, in collaboration with StopWaste and the San Francisco Department of Environment, has been evaluating 11 common post-consumer recycled-content feedstocks used in the manufacturing of building products. This paper is a distillation of that larger effort, and provides analysis on two major feedstocks found in building products: recycled PVC and glass cullet. This research partnership seeks to provide manufacturers, purchasers, government agencies, and the recycling industry with recommendations for optimizing the use of recycled content feedstocks in building products in order to increase their value, marketability and safety.

(Keywords: green building, health, recycling, feedstock, purchasing, PVC, glass, cullet, policy, hazards)

INTRODUCTIONIn California and other states where green building is increasingly becoming standard practice, demand for recycled-content building products has never been higher. These products perform as well as, and are generally priced competitively with, their non-recycled counterparts. Products with post-consumer content change the conventional linear model of make-use-discard to a more virtuous closed loop model of make-use-remake. For these reasons, recycling and recycled content products are an important attribute that should be encouraged and celebrated within the building products industry.

However, concurrent with this growing demand for recycled-content building products is growing scrutiny of environmental and human health issues associated with building products. Increasingly, owners and occupants want assurances that the carpet, furniture, paint, glues, fabrics, plastics and other materials in their buildings are healthy and safe now, and that they won’t burden future generations with a legacy of pollution and toxic waste later. In addition, designing products and building projects with healthy materials today fosters a healthy closed loop economy for these materials in the future.

To this end, this Greenbuild 2015 research paper presents a new framework for evaluating recycled feedstocks used in building materials. It focuses on two materials – glass cullet and recycled PVC – as examples of how this framework can be applied.* These evaluations identify pathways for reducing health hazards in recycled feedstocks, protecting human and environmental health, increasing the economic value of these feedstocks, creating green jobs, and maximizing the use of feedstocks that otherwise go to waste.

The target audiences of this research are building product manufacturers, architects, designers, specifiers, building owners, purchasers, government agencies, and the recycling industry as a whole. Each has a role to play in ensuring recycled feedstocks are optimized for their highest, healthiest, and best use.

TO INCREASE THE USE OF RECYCLED CONTENT IN BUILDING PRODUCTS: REDUCE HEALTH HAZARDS & IMPROVE FEEDSTOCK QUALITY


METHODSThe scope of the investigation was limited to the state of the feedstock as it is typically delivered to manufacturers for inclusion in building products sold within California’s San Francisco and Alameda counties. Where possible, investigations included California Bay Area-specific data, though some sources of information were only as specific as the West Coast region. Research methods included literature review, interviews with recycling industry experts, and communication with building product manufacturers. Specific lines of inquiry included:

• Examination of shipping records and other trade datato identify the companies and countries through whichfeedstocks move

• Exploration of regulation/policy addressing contaminants inrecycled materials

• Review of screening protocols used by recyclers andmanufacturers to remove contaminants

Four criteria were developed by which the feedstocks would be investigated and rated:

1. Environmental and health impactsa. Does the recycled material contain contaminants of

concern for human health and the environment?b. Does the recycled material processor screen for and/

or eliminate contaminants of concern?c. Does processing recycled material into feedstock

for building products require the use of chemicalsor technologies that are potentially hazardousto ecosystems, workers, and surrounding residents?

2. Supply chain quality control and transparencya. Is information about potential feedstock

contamination communicated throughoutthe supply chains of the products in which itis incorporated?

b. Do feedstock processors publish contentspecifications for their end products that areprotective of human health and the environment?

c. Do manufacturers disclose the origins of the recycledcontent used in their products?

3. Green jobs and other local economic impactsa. Where does feedstock recovery and recycling take

place? Are quality jobs created as a result?b. What are the economic impacts for feedstock

collection, processing, and remanufacture for California?

4. Room to growa. What is the potential for increasing recycling rates of

the feedstock?b. Can local demand for feedstock reprocessing and

remanufacturing be increased?c. Is the feedstock’s economic value and potential for

reuse being maximized through the use of screeningpractices to remove hazardous content?

RESULTS This paper presents an application of these evaluation criteria against two very different recycled feedstocks for comparison: PVC and glass cullet. Table 1 summarizes the evaluation results, followed by an explanation of each metric.

Post-Consumer Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)

Environmental Health ImpactsPVC is produced by polymerizing vinyl chloride monomer. The resulting material is hard and resinous, and requires additives to achieve key performance characteristics, such as flexibility or protection from ultraviolet degradation. These additives can include lead, cadmium, and phthalate plasticizers, all of which have known serious effects on the human body. [1,2] U.S. and European manufacturers have replaced many of these additives with safer alternatives in many— but not all — applications. [3]

As PVC products made prior to the use of safer alternatives enter into the waste stream, legacy contaminants such as lead, cadmium, and phthalates come with them. When captured for recycling, PVC thereby becomes an avenue by which the same problematic additives being purposefully removed from virgin PVC are reintroduced to the marketplace.

Testing by the Ecology Center in late 2014/early 2015 revealed how old PVC additives are reintroduced into building products through recycled content. It identified the composition of 74 PVC floors (representing eight manufacturers and collected from six leading

Recycled Feedstock

Environ-mental

& Health Impacts

hours/session

Supply Chain

Control

Green Jobs

Room to Grow

Polyvinyl Chloride

Glass Cullet

Table 1 PVC & Glass Cullet Feedstock Evaluation Summary

Evaluation Criteria

Key:

Very good: Feedstocks are superior to comparable virgin or pre-consumer feedstocks, or pose minimal risks to human health and the environment.

Room for improvement: Feedstocks are frequently better options than using similar virgin or pre-consumer materials, but may not be the best choice in all instances.

Significant concerns: Feedstocks showed potentially higher levels of concern than their virgin or pre-consumer counterparts, and should be prioritized for supply chain improvements.

TO INCREASE THE USE OF RECYCLED CONTENT IN BUILDING PRODUCTS: REDUCE HEALTH HAZARDS & IMPROVE FEEDSTOCK QUALITY (CONT.)


retailers) using X-ray fluorescence (XRF). The top layers of the floors were made with virgin PVC while the inner core contained recycled PVC. The composition of the recycled content showed higher amounts than the virgin content of several elements that have historically been used in PVC products other than floors.

Element

Recycled PVC Virgin PVC

Average Maximum Average

Gold 107 225 2

Bromine 194 2,328 10

Cadmium 1,846 22,974 0

Lead 1,144 10,608 5

Copper 1,343 2,260 183

Table 2: Selection of Contamination Found in Recycled PVC Flooring (parts per million (ppm)) [4]

Supply Chain ControlA globalized recycling economy sometimes seeks the lowest-cost processing operations, which do not always adequately protect environmental or occupational health. This can lead to the reintroduction of hazardous substances into the environment, workers, and building products, such as those using recycled PVC.

The leading recycling processor in the world is China, which handles an estimated 82% of the United States’ PVC waste scrap exports. [5] The dominant method for sorting and extracting PVC is known as “mechanical recycling,” but it is not, as the name implies, machine-based. It requires workers, often poorly trained and given low wages and minimal protective equipment, to hand-sort the waste in small batches, sometimes disassembling products, stripping wires and cables by hand, or burning plastics in open pits in order to extract precious metals. [6]

A wide variety of PVC scrap products are comingled in this process. The product survey summarized in Table 2 confirms this: bromine, gold and copper are common elements in PVC product formulations used in applications other than resilient flooring. They are common in electronic waste, for example, but are not standard additives in resilient flooring. Their presence in the recycled portion of a resilient floor signals that the recycled content in those floors came from a waste stream of PVC from multiple sources, including jacketing from wire and cable scrap. [7] PVC jacketing is a particularly problematic e-waste input to the recycling waste stream. In addition to cadmium and lead additives, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were also common PVC jacketing components until the 1970s. [8]

PVC receives a Red/Significant Concerns for Supply Chain Control.

Green JobsAccording to the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, recycling-based plastic manufacturers create 93 jobs per 10,000 tons per year of plastics recycled. [9] However, far more PVC scrap generated from the US is being recycled and incorporated into new products overseas than domestically: PVC waste or scrap exports from the US grew from 13,339 metric tons in 1993 to 228,747 tons in 2013 — a 1,715% increase in 20 years. [10] PVC feedstock therefore receives Red/Significant Concerns for Green Jobs.

Room to GrowRecycling rates for PVC are very low compared to other plastics (far less than 1%). [11,12] In the short term, growing public awareness about contamination in recycled PVC may cause more building product manufacturers to refrain from using the feedstock, especially in interior products. However, in the longer term, the outlook is a bit brighter. Reformulated PVC products that do not contain hazardous additives will eventually enter the waste stream, making the feedstock cleaner and healthier. For this reason, PVC receives Yellow/Room for Improvement for the Room To Grow evaluation criterion.

Glass Cullet

Environmental Health ImpactsCullet, defined as waste or broken glass destined for re-melting, has many end uses in building and construction. [13] Insulation is the second largest consumer of glass cullet. [14] Preferred sources of cullet used in insulation are bottle glass and float glass (used to make windows). Other types of glass, particularly leaded cathode ray tubes from old computer monitors and television sets, can contaminate cullet supplies without adequate separation and screening. [15]

Because there is a significant statewide glass cullet recycling economy in California, and this system is exemplary, this analysis looks at the use of glass cullet in the manufacture of fiber glass insulation in California. Cullet used in California fiber glass manufacturing is reliably low in hazardous content due to state regulations that ensure a clean, source-separated glass supply; and proactive practices by the sole cullet supplier to the state’s insulation factories (Strategic Materials) ensure that its output complies with these regulations.

California is one of 19 states that have enacted a Toxics in Packaging law [16] limiting the presence of lead and select other heavy metals in bottle glass, to 100 ppm. [17] Float glass can generally be assumed to be relatively free of contaminants, because even minute amounts of metals or plastics in glass will cause distortions or other imperfections in the glass making them unsuitable for use as windows. [18] According to communications with Curt Bucey of Strategic Materials, a single supplier processes container and float glass into Toxics in Packaging-compliant cullet. It supplies the same cullet to both bottle and fiber glass manufacturers in California. As a result, the glass cullet used in the manufacture of insulation in California complies with the 100 ppm threshold, and receives a Green/Very Good rating for Environmental and Health Impacts. This finding does not apply nationwide.

Supply Chain ControlStandard glass cullet scrap is sorted and washed multiple times, mainly to remove dirt, paper and plastic, which, according to Curt Bucey, can represent up to 50% of the weight of collected material. [19] As previously noted, a single supplier provides all cullet used in California and it complies with the 100 ppm threshold set by the Toxics in Packaging law.

The lack of contamination of California cullet is due to state regulations on container glass and compliance to that standard by the sole supplier to insulation. The United States fiber glass insulation industry’s ASTM standards for cullet cap heavy metal oxides at 0.1%, or 1,000 ppm. [20] This allows heavy metal content ten times higher than the Toxics in Packaging law requires. By comparison, European insulation manufacturers restrict non-ferrous metal content (including lead, mercury, and chromium) in cullet to a total of 20 parts per million, which is five times lower than the Toxics in Packaging law. [21] Further, insulation manufacturers in the United States do not publicly disclose the sources of their cullet. Glass cullet therefore receives a Yellow/Room for Improvement rating for Supply Chain Control.



Green JobsGlass recycling creates many jobs, earning it a Green/Very Good evaluation for Green Jobs. A 2011 report prepared for the BlueGreen Alliance estimates that diverting 1,000 tons of glass from the municipal waste stream generates about 11 jobs (1.67 collection jobs, 2 processing jobs, and 7.35 reuse/remanufacturing jobs). [22] According to a 2013 CalRecycle survey, “15 facilities [in California] use about 700,000 tons of cullet per year.” [23] Applying the arithmetic of the BlueGreen Alliance estimates 7,700 jobs created.

Room To GrowMore glass containers are recycled in California than any other state; about 2.5 billion glass containers (80% of redeemable bottles sold per year) are recycled. [24] The state requires that fiber glass insulation contains at least 30% recycled glass. [25,26] But there is still room to grow. CalRecycle notes that those same 15 facilities leave some 100,000 tons of cullet unused each year. [27]

California’s screening programs support the economic viability of the feedstock, as uncontaminated cullet supplies are worth more on the market than cullet from mixed streams. [28] Cullet earns Green/Very Good for Room to Grow.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONSThrough review of these two important feedstocks, three major findings have emerged. Recommendations for improving the safety, quality, and marketability of recycled-content feedstocks in building products are also provided.

Finding 1 Contaminants reduce feedstock value. Product designers can eliminate or minimize problematic ingredients that can contaminate future recycled-content feedstocks.

Recommendations:Products and building projects should be designed with deconstruction and reuse in mind. In a closed-loop economy, the materials of new products today will become feedstocks for products in the future. Designing new products that are free of problematic contaminants will reduce possible future harm and increase the quality and market value of future recovered feedstock.

For example, PVC flooring manufacturers today are producing products devoid of additives of concern, which means that floors made today are desirable feedstocks for future materials. [29]

Finding 2 Some feedstocks contain hazardous substances in quantities that exceed allowable limits for virgin feedstocks.

Recommendations:The recycling industry should screen and remove these substances prior to selling the material for use in building products, especially where they come into contact with people or the environment. Through screening and extraction practices, it is possible to remove toxic content. For example, some glass cullet processors take great care in removing as many contaminants as possible. Several leading vinyl flooring manufacturers only incorporate post-consumer PVC where the source is known, contaminants are identified, and the incorporation of the feedstock does not elevate contamination levels in the final product above established thresholds of concern. [30] X-ray fluorescence and other techniques can effectively detect heavy metal contaminants, and the recycling industry has tools available to eject heavy metals from the waste stream.

The recycling industry, certifiers, consumers of recycled feedstocks, industry associations, and regulators all have roles to play in fostering a healthier recycled feedstock stream, that will enhance the value – and reuse – of these commodities.

Industry associations and regulators should establish limits on concentrations of toxic material in recycled content materials. Where thresholds exist for substances of concern in virgin materials, those same thresholds may be suitable for recycled content materials as well. Best practice guidelines for dealing with banned substances if found in feedstocks or products should also be established, as well as incentives for public and private investments in waste processing improvements.

Recyclers’ screening protocols should be publicly available. Their end products should be third party certified as compliant with the established content thresholds protective of human health. Meanwhile, purchasers should prioritize manufacturers sourcing clean feedstocks. In the absence of regulatory action on toxic content in feedstocks or final products, all parties should collaboratively develop unified voluntary thresholds and methodologies for screening and testing.

Finding 3The risk of harm is highest where regulations are the most relaxed.

Recommendations:The best way to ensure recycled content feedstocks are healthy is to process them where worker rights, labor laws, and environmental regulations are strong and enforced: domestically, and ideally within the same communities where the waste is produced. Both government agencies and the recycling industry should increase investments in domestic recycling capacity, through a combination of higher standards, procurement incentives, research and development, and investments in screening technologies.

Additionally, manufacturers should preferentially source recycled materials from domestic suppliers whenever possible, and seek suppliers in compliance with environmental and labor laws when domestic supplies are not available. They should also implement a company environmental management system to account for all ingredients within recycled content feedstock sources. Purchasers should give preference to products with recycled content sourced from places with high worker safety standards, and require annual sustainability reports or other documentation from manufacturers that explains how worker and environmental health is protected.

Glass cullet recycling in California contrasts sharply with PVC recycling in China; in California, where regulation exists to limit contamination from entering waste streams to begin with (the Toxic Packaging law), feedstocks emerging at the other end of processing are clean and healthy, and the workers handling the scrap have avoided exposure to harmful substances.



CONCLUSIONThis report provides a snapshot of the work done by the authors and their organizations to illuminate the challenges of producing healthy building products through the use of recycled feedstocks, using PVC and glass cullet as examples. Much work remains to optimize recycled content products, but the future is promising: by identifying problems, we are also identifying solutions and pathways to ensure that materials are not wasted and that both human and environmental health are prioritized.

Further detailed findings and recommendations from this first phase of our collaboration to optimize recycling for use in building materials are available at: http://healthybuilding.net/content/optimize-recycling.

* Additional research on other feedstocks helped the authors understand the current reality of recycled materials used in building products. Feedstocks researched in our collaboration include Asphalt Shingles, Flexible Polyurethane Foam, Ground Tire Crumb Rubber, Nylon 6, Nylon 6,6, Polyethylene, Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement, Steel, and Wood Fiber.

REFERENCES

1. PHAROS PROJECT. (2014) Hazard Lists: Intnl Agency for Rsrch on Cancer - Cancer Monographs: Group 1: Agent is carcinogenic to humans. [Online] Available from: https://pharosproject.net/hazard/hazard/show/102 [Accessed: August 2015]

2. PHAROS PROJECT. (2014) Hazard Lists: US NIH - Reproductive & Developmental Monographs: A-Clear evidence of adverse reproductive toxicant effects. [Online] Available from: https://pharosproject.net/hazard/hazard/show/191 [Accessed: August 2015]

3. SIKA SARNAFIL. PVC Recycling, PVC Roof, and PVC Roof Recycling. [Online] Available from: http://usa.sarnafil.sika.com/en/group/roofing-sustainability/what-is-sustainable-roofing/pvc-roof-recycling.html. [Accessed: April 2015]

4. The Ecology Center, 2015 test results, as published in: HEALTHY BUILDING NETWORK. (2015) Post-Consumer Polyvinyl Chloride in Building Products: A Healthy Building Network Evaluation for StopWaste and the Optimizing Recycling Collaboration. Available from: http://healthybuilding.net/uploads/files/post-consumer-polyvinyl-chloride-pvc-report.pdf

5. POWELL, J. Plastics: The Big Picture. [Powerpoint slides] Available from: http://www.swananys.org/pdf/BigPicture.pdf

6. BASEL ACTION NETWORK & SILICON VALLEY TOXICS COALITION. (2002) Exporting Harm: The High-Tech Trashing of Asia. February 25, 2002. Available from: http://www.ban.org/E-waste/technotrashfinalcomp.pdf

7. GEARHART, J. (2015) 1. Post-consumer Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) [E-mail]. Message to: Vallette, J. April 6, 2015.

8. CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD. (2006) Health Concerns and Environmental Issues with PVC-Containing Building Materials in Green Buildings. October 2006. Available from: https://pharosproject.net/uploads/files/sources/1/92a1942b929687784f14c705de323cec0fcfb7ea.pdf

9. INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL SELF-RELIANCE. (2002) Recycling Means Business. [Online] February 1, 2002. Available from: http://ilsr.org/recycling-means-business/ [Accessed: August 2015]

10. UNITED NATIONS, referenced in: FACTFISH. United States: Polyvinyl chloride waste or scrap, export weight (kg). [Online] Available from: http://www.factfish.com/statistic-country/united%20states/polyvinyl%20chloride%20waste%20or%20scrap%2C%20export%20weight [Accessed: August 2015]

11. US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. (2012) WARM Version 12: Plastics. [Excerpt] Available from: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/downloads/Plastics.pdf

12. GIBSON, S. (2011) Job-Site Recycling: PVC. [Online] August 25, 2011. Available from: www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/green-buildingblog/job-site-recycling-pvc

13. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES RECYCLING AND RECOVERY. (2007) Glass Recycling: Definitions and Specifications. [Online] Available from: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Glass/Definitions.htm [Accessed: August 2015]

14. CATTANEO, J. (2010) Glass Bottles: Reaching 50% Recycled Content. [Powerpoint slides] Available from: http://www.vrarecycles.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=jP3bJ0xHPuo%3D&tabid=58

15. ASTM INTERNATIONAL, SUBCOMMITTEE F40.01. (2007) Work Item Summary: WK15289 New Test Methods for Analysis of Heavy Metals in Glass Using X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF). April 26, 2007.

16. TOXICS IN PACKAGING CLEARINGHOUSE. Frequently Asked Questions. [Online] Available from: http://toxicsinpackaging.org/faqs/ [Accessed: August 2015]

17. TOXICS IN PACKAGING CLEARINGHOUSE. (2012) Model Toxics in Packing Legislation. [Online] Available from: http://toxicsinpackaging.org/model-legislation/model [Accessed: August 2015]



18. NSG GROUP. (2011) Cullet Usage Within The NSG Group. [Online] April 2011. Available from: http://www.nsg.com/en/sustainability/performancesummary/energyandresourceusage/~/media/NSG/Site%20Content/sustainability/Downloads%20attached%20to%20pages%20in%20sustainability%20section/CulletUsageWithintheNSGGroupApril2011.ashx

19. CBS DFW. (2012) Local Company Has Many Uses For Recycled Glass. [Online] January 13, 2012. Available from: http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/01/13/texas-company-has-many-uses-for-recycled-glass/ [Accessed: August 2015]

20. ASTM INTERNATIONAL, SUBCOMMITTEE D34.03. (2010) ASTM D5359 - 98(2010): Standard Specification for Glass Cullet Recovered from Waste for Use in Manufacture of Glass Fiber. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.

21. VIEITEZ, E. et. al. (2011) End-of-Waste Criteria for Glass Cullet: Technical Proposals. Available from: http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC68281.pdf

22. TELLUS INSTITUTE WITH SOUND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. (2011) More Jobs, Less Pollution: Growing the Recycling Economy in the U.S. Available from: http://docs.nrdc.org/globalwarming/files/glo_11111401a.pdf

23. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES RECYCLING AND RECOVERY. (2013) AB 341’s 75 Percent Goal and Potential New Recycling Jobs in California by 2020. July 2013. Available from: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/publications/Documents/1463%5C20131463.pdf

24. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES RECYCLING AND RECOVERY. (2015) Notice: [re.] Biannual Report of Beverage Container Sales, Returns, Redemption, and Recycling Rates. [Online] May 8, 2015. Available from: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/BevContainer/Notices/2015/Biannual.pdf [Accessed: August 2015]

25. Fiberglass Recycled Content Act of 1991. CA Pub Res Code § 19511 (through 2012 Leg Sess). Available from: http://law.justia.com/codes/california/2011/prc/division-12-9/19510-19512/19511/

26. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES RECYCLING AND RECOVERY. (2010) Glass Recycling: Supply and Demand. [Online] Available from: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Glass/SupplyDemand.htm [Accessed August 2015]

27. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES RECYCLING AND RECOVERY. (2013) AB 341’s 75 Percent Goal and Potential New Recycling Jobs in California by 2020. July 2013. Available from: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/publications/Documents/1463%5C20131463.pdf

28. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE RECYCLING MARKET DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COUNCIL. (2015) 2014 Annual Report. Available from: http://www.schouse.gov/reports/DeptofCommerce/RMDAC_Annual%20Report_2014_Final.pdf

29. TARKETT FLOORING. (2013) Tarkett Announces the Deployment of Phthalate-free Technology. [Online] September 13, 2013. Available from: http://www.tarkett.com/en/content/tarkett-announces-deployment-phthalate-free-technology [Accessed August 2015]

30. HEALTHY BUILDING NETWORK. (2015) Post-Consumer Polyvinyl Chloride in Building Products: A Healthy Building Network Evaluation for StopWaste and the Optimizing Recycling Collaboration. Available from: http://healthybuilding.net/uploads/files/post-consumer-polyvinyl-chloride-pvc-report.pdf


Date post:	16-Apr-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times