The Great Eight: High-Impact Material Choices for Green BuildingWe’re at a tipping point in insulation, flooring, textiles, and other product categories. Here’s what to spec and what to avoid.
by Brent Ehrlich and Paula Melton
We all want to eat right, but we also need to watch our budgets. Most of us want to buy healthful, responsibly produced food but can’t always find or afford the most sustainable option.
Enter the Dirty Dozen and the Clean Fifteen. These lists from Environmental Working Group (EWG) identify 12 types of produce with the greatest pesticide burdens and reveal which 15 fruits and veggies tend to be more sustainably farmed as a standard practice. They help shoppers under-stand when the better choice really matters—when it makes sense to shell out for organic.
Can we apply a similar filter to design and construction? That’s our goal in this article—to determine when the better choice matters most for building materials.
Don’t get us wrong. Every year, we celebrate innovative trendsetters with our Top 10 Green Building Product awards. And we set a high bar for sustainability most of the time with our BuildingGreen Approved product guidance and reviews. But for this article, we’ll focus on a select number of product categories where:
• Choosing green versus conven tional truly makes a major difference for human health, the environment, or both
• Price premiums and other issues aren’t insurmountable
• Green options go beyond one or two niche products, so you can defend your spec
We’ve focused on eight high-impact product categories, which (with a nod to EWG) we’ve dubbed The Great Eight:
• Board insulation
• Cladding
• Decking and board-walks
• Resilient flooring
• Structural materials
• Surface materials
• Textiles
• Urinals
Use each guide below to review your standard practice on projects, to help owners and other project team members prioritize product choices, and to bring your own selections and specifications up a notch or two.
Board InsulationQuick take
Rigid insulation is a key component of most
high-performance exterior wall assemblies. Yet there are several serious environmental and social impacts to be aware of. The worst of these come from chemicals used during manufacturing: blowing agents with massive global warming potential and halogenated flame retardants that are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic.
It’s critical to strike the right balance between energy performance and these unintended consequences.
A Publication of BuildingGreen, Inc. www.BuildingGreen.com Volume 25, Number 6 · June 2016
Environmental Building NewsThe Leading Source for Environmentally Responsible Design & Construction
TM
al Choices for Green Building
www.BuildingGreen.com Volume 25, Number 6 · June 2016
Locally sourced cedar and stone cladding give the new R.W. Kern Center a distinctive presence on the rural campus of Hampshire College in Massachusetts. The project, designed by Bruner/Cott & Associates, is seeking Living Building Challenge certification.
• Mineral wool with third-party verification of low formaldehyde emissions
• Materials with inherently low impacts and toxicity, such as expanded cork or wood-based boards
Not that
• Insulation made with blowing agents that have high global warm-ing potential, especially extruded polystyrene (XPS)
• Any insulation product containing halogenated flame retardants
Reality check
Completely switching your exterior insulation can be a very tough sell for lots of reasons, including:
• Practical concerns—Alternative materials are heavier and thicker (to get equivalent R-value) than XPS and other plastic foams, so exterior walls have to be designed and detailed differently. On the more positive side, mineral wool, unlike XPS, is vapor-permeable. Instead of fostering mold and
mildew, mineral wool can be detailed to allow wall assemblies to dry out.
• Cost—Mineral wool stacks up well against plastic foams in term of product cost, but bids may come in higher, depending on the detailing required and contractors’ familiarity with the material.
• Culture—Choosing an insulation material you don’t have direct experience with can feel risky, no matter how long they’ve been using it successfully in Europe.
Plan B
Finding it impossible to avoid XPS? Minimize its use by specifying it only where alternatives have a shorter history of use (such as under the slab) and use cleaner materials elsewhere.
To encourage culture change, some project teams start slow; they select alternative materials for specific applications first. For example, mineral wool has more of a track record in low-slope roofs and rainscreen assemblies.
For many applications, polyiso-cyanurate is a viable and more sustainable alternative to XPS. Polyiso
manufacturers phased out the worst blowing agents long ago, and polyiso has traditionally been made with a chlorinated flame retardant (TCPP) rather than the potent brominated flame retardant (HBCD) used in XPS. Though a 2013 study suggests TCPP is biopersistent, there is less evidence of toxicity for most chlorinated chem-icals than there is for brominated flame retardants. Additionally, at least one product is available with no halogenated flame retardant.
Mineral wool is not currently available without formaldehyde in the U.S. or Canada. We recommend third-party indoor emissions testing to protect indoor air quality.
If you’re completely avoiding formaldehyde, look for formaldehyde- free rigid fiberglass boards with high post-consumer recycled content in place of mineral wool. (Fiberglass has lower R-value per inch.)
LEED v4 and Living Building Challenge
• Insulation materials with newer blowing agents and no halogenated flame retardants may contribute to Option 2 of Building Product Disclosure & Optimization– Material Ingredients in LEED v4. This aligns with our recommendations.
• The Living Building Challenge Red List forbids use of halogenated flame retardants, which aligns with our recommendations. One brand of polyiso roofing board is Red List Free and has a Declare label.
• Although formaldehyde is on the Red List, the current version of the LBC rating system makes an exception for rigid mineral wool.
What to share with owners & your team
Board Insulation: A BuildingGreen Product Guide
Primer on PBTs (Persistent, Bioaccumulative Toxic Chemicals)
How We Chose These Product CategoriesPicking the categories for this article wasn’t easy! It took a lot of discipline—and a lot of debate—to disentangle ourselves from our usual perfectionism. We like to give you all the info we’ve got, so it was hard to let some things go. At the same time, we wanted this to be a quick-start, entry-level resource for everybody.
To help us prioritize the most relevant topics, we settled on some ground rules in addition to the three criteria listed in the article.
First, we wanted diversity: we hoped to cover several major end uses across the entire built environment. Not just enclosure, not just interiors—a little of everything.
We also wished to include product categories that tend to show up in the most projects. For example, we cover urinals, which are installed in virtually every building that has public rest-rooms. We don’t cover any specific furnishings, a more diverse category. Instead, we settled on textiles as one of the Great Eight because it has to be selected for most projects, and it can have a big impact on the sustainability of any furnishings in the space.
Finally, we wanted to focus on selections that are genuinely up for discussion during design. Although we considered looking at a variety of HVAC systems, for example, it seemed to us that most of the options and limitations relating to mechanicals would be project-specific and that details would best be worked out using an integrative design and construction process.
You can always find green selection criteria for specific product categories in BuildingGreen’s product guides, and each of these guides will also direct you to our curated product collections in Designer Pages.
What do you think? Are there categories we skipped that you’d like to see in the Great Eight? Let us know in the comments.
The Replacements: Pros and Cons of Insulation Materials
Polyiso Insulation without Halogenated Flame Retardant
A Vapor-Permeable, Wood-Based Insulation Board
CladdingQuick take
Cladding is key to a building’s design and is its first line of defense against the weather. However, some cladding materials have very high embodied energy or are made from materials that come from unsustainable sources. They may also have other significant life-cycle concerns.
Durability and expected lifetime should be the major sustainability drivers here, but many other factors also play a role. Selection of cladding and the rest of the exterior wall assembly are intertwined. Aesthetics, durability, thermal performance, moisture management, and climate come into play along with other environmental and occupant health considerations.
Spec this
• FSC-certified or reclaimed wood siding
• Terra cotta masonry products, which are made from minimally processed natural materials
• Stone cladding from sustainable sources, such as those using the Natural Stone Council’s best practices, meeting ANSI/NSC 373, or listed by Cradle to Cradle
• Cementitious products such as fiber cement and manufactured stone that have a high percentage of recycled content or offer unique environmental impact reductions, durability, or building science benefits
Not that
• Vinyl or other virgin plastic polymers
• Non-FSC-certified wood siding
• Composition siding that may not withstand commercial demands
Reality check
Lots of considerations, including aesthetics and operational energy use, can take cladding selection away from what might be the most obvious environmental choice.
For example, lightweight metal panels have high embodied energy but require less robust mounting hard-ware. That means hardware can be engineered to reduce thermal bridging and improve operational energy performance.
Plan B
If choosing metal, make sure to maximize thermal performance with insulation and thermal breaks.
If natural stone or terra cotta are cost-prohibitive, cementitious materials with recycled content can provide a durable alternative.
LEED v4 and Living Building Challenge
• Building Product Disclosure and Optimization–Sourcing of Raw Materials in LEED v4 provides incentives for installing FSC- certified wood as well as recycled content. Both of these incentives align with our recommendations.
• Living Building Challenge bans PVC, which aligns with our recommendations.
• As we recommend, LBC requires that all wood be either salvaged or FSC-certified.
What to share with owners & your team
Stone and Masonry Cladding: A BuildingGreen Product Guide
Wood decking often comes from unsustainable sources, and preserved wood contains copper and other biocides that can harm ecosystems. Plastics and composites are durable but may be made from virgin materials, and they typically aren’t recyclable.
Spec this
• Composites with at least 50% total recycled content
• Plastics with at least 50% post- consumer recycled content
• Naturally pest-resistant North American wood products (such as cedar, locust, redwood, or juniper) made with FSC-certified wood or reclaimed wood
• Salvaged or FSC-certified tropical hardwood decking
• Thermally modified wood
• Acetylated wood
Not that
• Preserved wood made with chromated copper arsenate (CCA), copper azole, or ammoniacal copper quaternary compound (ACQ)
Reality check
The major driver when selecting deck-ing materials is durability—how well they resist organisms of decay. The need to prevent rot and insect damage is the reason preserved wood was developed in the first place. It may be difficult to convince owners, who want reliable and low- maintenance materials, to consider some of the less common choices. This could be even more difficult in light of the recent demise of the maker of TimberSIL, a product preserved with silica rather than metals. Its high-profile failures—though arguably due to bad management and production, not the
underlying technology—won’t allay skepticism about low-toxicity alternatives.
Conventionally preserved wood requires im-pregnating wood with chemicals and typically requires coatings and re-coats to increase longevity. For either naturally rot- resistant or treated material, seek out factory- treated products; this reduces the risk of chemical exposure for installers and typically results in a longer-lasting material.
The main barrier to use of composites or plastics is likely to be look and feel, though higher-quality brands offer aesthetically pleasing, slip-resistant options.
Naturally pest-resistant, FSC-certified wood looks great, but it is usually the most expensive, with plastics and composites next. The less attractive pressure-treated decking is the least expensive (though maintenance costs will be higher for all wood products).
Plan B
All decking, including conventional pressure-treated wood, has tradeoffs. But with such a wide range of sustainable options, you shouldn’t need a plan B for avoiding copper.
Regardless of the decking you choose, though, you will need to have some materials that can safely come in contact with the ground. Most alternative wood-preservation methods don’t offer that level of durability. The exceptions are micronized copper quaternary (MCQ) and micronized copper azole (MCA); instead of dissolving copper in a corrosive solvent or alkaline bath before it’s injected into the wood, the micronizing process involves
physically grinding the copper, which is carried into the wood by water. This process uses far less copper than standard wood treatments.
Although widely used for residential applications and accepted by the International Code Council, MCA and MCQ are not considered effective preservatives by the American Wood Protection Association (AWPA), which develops standards for the treated- wood industry. Before you select micronized copper, look to your local code to ensure it does not require AWPA certification.
Many plastic structural members and a few natural woods (such as black locust) may also be rated for ground contact.
Exterior landscaping materials at the Bechtel Environmental Classroom, part of Smith College, include black locust fence posts and structural plastic lumber, seen here in place as boardwalk sleepers. Finding environmentally preferable decking and other landscaping items can be difficult, but these sleepers are made from polyethylene with high recycled content and are rated for ground contact. Designed by Coldham & Hartman Architects, the Bechtel building has achieved Living Building Challenge certification.
• Building Product Disclosure and Optimization–Sourcing of Raw Materials in LEED v4 provides incentives for installing FSC- certified wood as well as recycled content. Both of these incentives align with our recommendations.
• The Living Building Challenge bans the use of wood preservatives containing creosote, arsenic, or pentachlorophenol; that includes CCA, which we recommend against.
• As we recommend, LBC requires that all wood be either salvaged or FSC-certified.
What to share with owners & your team
Wood Decking: A BuildingGreen Product Guide
Plastic & Composite Decking: A BuldingGreen Product Guide
The Lacey Act and the Building Industry: Sourcing Legal Wood
Resilient FlooringQuick take
Resilient flooring is often made from vinyl (PVC), which contains hazard ous ingredients and poten-tially hazardous byproducts. Most vinyl flooring also contains phthalate plasticizers, many of which are known to be hazardous. These semi-volatile chemicals can slough off in dust and enter the bodies of occupants through their skin. Emissions from maintenance of vinyl composition tile (VCT) in particular can compromise indoor air quality.
Spec this
• PVC-free resilient flooring, such as linoleum, biobased plastic, cork, and certain types of rubber
• Flooring certified Greenguard Gold
• Flooring with indoor emissions test results equivalent to Greenguard Gold standards: this requires third-party verification of low TVOC emissions in addition to Floor Score or other third-party verification that the product meets California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Standard Method protocol
• Any flooring requiring maintenance with harsh chemicals
• Rubber flooring made with recycled tires, due to potentially hazardous materials not measured by emissions testing
Reality check
Vinyl flooring is inexpensive, durable, and trusted by building owners and facility managers. It can be attractive and versatile.
Rubber flooring made with recycled tires has similar advantages. However, both of these materials contain potentially hazardous additives—especially questionable given the kinds of settings where they are most popular, including schools, hospitals, and daycare facilities.
Plan B
Project team can’t let go of the low cost and durability of vinyl? Put your foot down about phthalate plasticizers. This is getting easier, with leading vinyl flooring manufacturers ditching phthalates or offering alternatives (see Phthalate Plasticizer Toxicity Explained).
In spaces where resilient flooring isn’t really needed, consider steering the project team toward other floor-ing types that have less problematic chemistry, such as FSC-certified hard-wood, high-quality laminate flooring, or even polished concrete.
LEED v4 and Living Building Challenge
• Greenguard Gold certification automatically qualifies for Low-Emitting Materials in LEED v4, which aligns with our recommendations.
• Floor Score and other CDPH testing qualifies for Low-Emitting Materials only if TVOC is disclosed. (Low TVOC, which we recommend, is not required for LEED.)
• Living Building Challenge bans PVC, which aligns with our recommendations.
What to share with owners & your team
Resilient Flooring: A BuildingGreen Product Guide
Scorecard Shows Some Plastics Are Cleaner
Rubber Flooring: A Good Use for Old Car Tires?
Phthalate Toxicity Explained
Structural MaterialsQuick take
The most common structural materials—steel, concrete, and wood—make up the most massive, permanent elements in a building and have a significant environmental impact. Steel and concrete have high embodied energy, carbon output, and polluting emissions associated with manufacturing; and engineered wood is often made with formaldehyde- based resins. These concerns are somewhat offset by the materials’ long lifespans.
Because these materials cannot be easily replaced after the building is built, initial selection is important to minimize their environmental impact and maximize their lifespan. Structures that can be disassembled and reused at the end of their lifespan have a much better environmental profile.
• Concrete products that minimize the use of cement with fly ash or other pozzolans; are manufactured using carbon sequestration; or reduce material use by way of a finished exterior face
• Steel framing that contains at least 90% recycled content or is engineered to use less material, such as through webbed rather than solid trusses
• Wood products, such as FSC- certified mass timbers, or engineered wood or cross- laminated timber (CLT) made from salvaged or FSC-certified content
Not that
• Standard concrete
• Standard steel
Reality check
The performance profiles of concrete and steel are well understood and widely relied upon. Using new structural materials or systems could cause delays or meet resistance from those accustomed to standard materials. Alternative materials have the best chance of being specified if
structural engineers are brought into the building design process early.
Wood may not be the best option, or even possible, in insect-prone areas.
Plan B
Can’t get cross-laminated timber into your project? The efficient, judicious use of high-embodied-energy materials will minimize their environ-mental footprint. Using pre-cast concrete, for example, can improve manufacturing efficiency, minimize waste and pollution, and simplify disassembly. And substituting engineered wood for some steel fram-ing can reduce the building’s overall environmental footprint.
LEED v4 and Living Building Challenge
• Environmental product declarations (EPDs) for light-gauge steel, concrete, and engineered wood products can count toward Building Product Disclosure and Optimization—Environmental Product Declarations in LEED v4.
• Wood structures and other optimized structural systems can contribute to points in the LEED v4 Whole Building Life-Cycle Assessment credit.
• Building Product Disclosure and Optimization–Sourcing of Raw Materials in LEED v4 provides incentives for installing FSC- certified wood as well as recycled content. Both of these incentives align with our recommendations.
• Although formaldehyde is on the Red List, the current version of the LBC rating system makes an exception for structural components.
• As we recommend, LBC requires that all wood be either salvaged or FSC-certified.
What to share with owners & your team
Chart: Approaches to Green Structural Engineering (parts 1 and 2)
Engineering a Wood Revolution
Trade Group Releases EPD for Light-Gauge Steel Framing
How Building Materials Affect Climate Change
Introduction to Concrete Alternatives
Surface MaterialsQuick take
The materials used for countertops, reception areas, desks, tabletops, bars, and other surfaces can contain poten-tially hazardous materials (such as epoxy resins made from bisphenol-A), come from unsustainable sources, or have high VOC emissions.
Spec this
• Stone from sustainable sources, such as those using the Natural Stone Council’s best practices, meeting ANSI/NSC 373, or listed by Cradle to Cradle
• Stone composites that meet CDPH Standard Method emissions requirements and do not contain antimicrobials or epoxy resins
• Recycled paper composite surfaces that meet CDPH Standard Method emissions requirements and con-tain 100% post-consumer-recycled or FSC-certified content
• Glass composites with high recycled content and no epoxy resins
• Solid surfaces made from acrylic or polyester that meet ANSI standards, contain post-consumer recycled content, and meet CDPH Standard Method emissions requirements
• Surfaces made from FSC-certified or reclaimed wood or from rapidly renewable bamboo, wheat, sorghum, or hemp
• PVC-free laminates that meet CDPH Standard Method emissions requirements
Originally conceived with a conventional all-steel structure, the Design Building switched to a hybrid of timber and steel during the construction documents phase. Designed by Leers Weinzapfel Associates, the new building will house the architecture, landscape architecture, and building construction technology departments at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.
• Pre-cast concrete countertops with recycled content, particularly glass-reinforced products that require less portland cement
• Large-format ceramic tiles
Not that
• Surface materials made using epoxy
• Surface materials from unsustain-able sources, such as uncertified wood, or stone transported around the world for processing and then sent to the U.S. for sale
• Surface materials that emit high levels of formaldehyde or other hazardous substances
• PVC laminates
Reality check
End use, design choices, cost, and maintenance all play a role in selecting the right surface material for the job, and there are tradeoffs. Stone, for instance, can be expensive and difficult to work with, and it can travel many thousands of miles for processing. And that FSC wood tabletop will require a durable coating; with some of the toxic chemicals in the highest-performing coatings, that may diminish its green sheen.
But the adhesives used in surface materials are the biggest challenge. BuildingGreen Approved products do not use epoxy because most epoxies
are made with the endocrine disruptor bisphenol-A, which can leach out of the plastic. Acrylic (in recycled glass products), polyester (in solid surfaces), and formaldehyde-based resins (in laminates and paper composites) are all potentially hazardous during the manufacturing phase but low-emitting during the use phase. And although large-format ceramic tiles and pre-cast concrete can be energy-intensive to produce, their durability, design flexibility, and lack of maintenance can make them a reasonable choice.
Plan B
There’s no need for a Plan B here. With plenty of material options to choose from, it should be possible to find a relatively sustainable surface material that meets most project requirements.
LEED v4 and Living Building Challenge
• Greenguard Gold certification automatically qualifies for Low-Emitting Materials in LEED v4, which aligns with our recommendations.
• CDPH testing qualifies for Low-Emitting Materials only if TVOC is disclosed. (Low TVOC, which we recommend, is not required for LEED.)
• Building Product Disclosure and Optimization–Sourcing of Raw Materials in LEED v4 provides incentives for installing FSC- certified wood as well as recycled content. Both of these incentives align with our recommendations.
• Living Building Challenge bans PVC, which aligns with our recommendations.
• As we recommend, LBC requires that all wood be either salvaged or FSC-certified.
What to share with owners & your team
Countertops: Laminate, Composite, Solid Surface, or Natural?
Large-Format Porcelain Panels: Thin Is Beautiful
Biobased Materials: Not Always Greener
TextilesQuick take
Many textiles, including those made from natural fibers, have a toxic and water-intensive environmental footprint. Finished textiles often have surface treatments that can cause environmental harm or may be toxic to occupants who are exposed to them. Vinyl upholstery may contain a very high percentage of phthalate plasticizers.
Spec this
• Fabrics certified Cradle to Cradle Gold (or Silver if the finished fabric has no fluorinated compounds)
• Synthetics certified Gold under the Facts label or certified to both Oeko-Tex 100 and STeP
• Natural fabrics certified under GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard)
• Polyester or nylon (both are inherently stain- and microbe- resistant) made with recycled content
Not that
• Vinyl or vinyl-backed products
• Fabrics with antimicrobial surface treatments
• Textiles treated with flame retardants
• Stain-resistant treatments made with perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs)—such as the branded coat-ings Crypton, Teflon, GreenShield, NanoSphere, Nanotex, and Scotchgard
Reality check
Credible certifications often come with a cost premium, but the biggest hurdle
Tabletops in the Kern Center at Hampshire College feature locally sourced hardwood, shown in greater detail in the inset. Resins and finishes meet stringent Living Building Challenge standards.
to choosing sustainable options is the use of chemical treatments.
Giving up PFCs—which are close chemical relatives of the persistent, bioaccumulative toxic chemicals from Teflon plants that now contaminate groundwater in several states—is likely to be the most difficult. Added flame retardants can also be impossible to avoid, depending on local fire codes.
Plan B
These barriers are not insurmountable, but the available alternatives may be expensive or difficult to implement. Nevertheless, you should put your foot down about any type of halogenated chemical treatment (those containing bromine, fluorine, or chlorine).
To satisfy fire codes in strict jurisdictions, consider organophospor flame retardants that don’t have added halogens like chlorine. Although these products come with unknowns, they are preferable to halogenated chemicals and may be acceptable in some applications. If possible, select fabrics made with the organophosphor flame retardant integrated right into the fiber.
To replace PFCs, the best option is to choose inherently stain-resistant fabrics; these include solution-dyed wovens as well as nonwoven poly-urethanes. It’s often wise to choose a single fabric type for all furniture in a room because this simplifies the communication of cleaning and maintenance requirements to owners, facilities staff, tenants, and others.
LEED v4 and Living Building Challenge
• Choosing to avoid halogenated chemicals can help products contribute to Option 2 of Build-ing Product Disclosure and Optimization– Material Ingredients in LEED v4.
• Living Building Challenge bans PVC, halogenated flame retardants, and perfluorocarbons; this aligns with our recommendations.
What to share with owners & your team
The High Price of Stain Resistance: A Primer on Teflon and Similar Chemicals
Primer on PBTs (Persistent, Bioaccumulative Toxic Chemicals)
Three Hazardous Textile Treatments and How to Avoid Them
UrinalsQuick take
Using high-efficiency (one pint per flush) or waterless urinals is an easy way to reduce a building’s overall water consumption dramatically com-pared to the federal standard of one gallon per flush. These water savings also reduce the energy required to process that water.
Maintenance and hygiene concerns have affected the reputation of these products, limiting wider adoption.
More progressive (and water sensitive) jurisdictions, like California, have adopted 0.125 gallons per flush (gpf) as code.
One more consideration: waterless urinals (along with urine-diverting composting toilets) are a step toward the progressive practice of urine separation for nutrient recovery and conversion to fertilizer.
Spec this
• Waterless urinals with verified functional performance based on third-party testing to the ANSI/ASME A112.19.19 standard; these fixtures should be plumbed properly and easy to maintain
• High-efficiency urinals and flushometers using <0.125 gallons per flush (gpf)
Not that
• Urinals and flushometers that use more than 0.5 gallons per flush
• Waterless urinals that don’t meet ANSI/ASME A112.19.19
Reality check
High-efficiency and waterless urinals are now widely available, but poor maintenance of waterless varieties can result in a buildup of salts and bacteria, leading to clogging and odor, and sometimes removal of the units.
This Facts Gold-certified fabric from Designtex is made from 98% recycled content (62% post-consumer) and is sold without fluorocarbon treatments.
Photo: Designtex
High-efficiency urinals are now standard in many areas, but with a good maintenance plan, waterless urinals offer even more dramatic water savings. Newer hybrid urinals like this one from Sloan provide the best of both worlds.
Proper maintenance will minimize these problems, but there are waterless urinal designs and plumbing layouts that introduce small amounts of water intermittently to help keep pipes clear. Installing a standard high-efficiency urinal at the beginning of a piping run, for instance, will help keep shared pipes clean.
Plan B
If the building owner does not want waterless urinals, high-efficiency 0.125 gpf (“pint flush”) models are the next best choice.
LEED v4 and Living Building Challenge
• LEED v4’s Water Use Reduction requirements call for 20% or less water than baseline. Highly- efficient urinals will be a key contributor to meeting this threshold.
• High-efficiency urinals will also contribute to the Living Building Challenge Water Petal.
What to share with owners & your team
Urinals: A BuildingGreen Product Guide
A “Waterless” Urinal Without the Odor
The Embodied Energy of Tap Water
NEWS ANALYSIS
EDGE: A Green Building Playbook for Developing CountriesWith this quick-start design tool, architects choose materials and strategies based on ROI as well as sustainability.
by Paula Melton
A Portuguese architect was recently hired to design a hotel. He made all the right decisions to get the quickest
payback in energy savings for a building located in Portugal.
The problem? This hotel was located on the coast of Senegal. The “imported” design specified double- glazed windows—standard for southern Europe but a questionable investment in the mild coastal climate of West Africa.
That’s just the kind of mistake a new app and certification system, called EDGE—short for Excellence in Design for Greater Efficiencies—is designed to prevent.
Getting it right the first time
Although EDGE is in part a rating system, the EDGE app can be used for free by anyone. And it could have led to a better outcome for the developer of this hotel in Senegal, said Prashant Kapoor, the creator of EDGE and team leader of the program at the International Finance Corporation (IFC), a member of the World Bank Group. “Had he invested in a better hot-water system for the same hotel, he would have gotten better returns,” Kapoor explained. But analytics like that for developing nations haven’t been at anyone’s fingertips until now, he claims.
“That’s the core of what we’re doing with EDGE,” which pairs climate files with cost data gathered from the local developers that IFC works with. “It makes it very easy to understand what works and how much it will cost” in emerging markets, said Kapoor. “We see this as an opportunity to get it right in the first place and not make the same mistakes developed countries have.”
“It is really hard to get accurate and current information on various construction components in emerging countries,” concurred Anica Landreneau, Assoc. AIA, director of sustainable design at HOK. IFC recently partnered with HOK to pilot EDGE on five building projects.
Because gathering the necessary information “takes time and may not be accurate,” she added, “there is a
tendency to overestimate the cost” of sustainable materials and strategies. Landreneau said HOK looks forward to using the credible and readily avail-able data from EDGE to “hone top strategies with clients” early in design, when there are typically too many unknowns to make better choices.
The tool is especially powerful, according to Kapoor, because it shows the intersection of greener building and ROI—a sweet spot for developers and World Bank investors.
How the EDGE tool works
The EDGE app has a simple inter-face populated with defaults that are based on climate and costs at the city level, along with some background empirical data on typical occupant behavior in the region (that aspect of the software needs further refinement, said Kapoor).
Users enter basic data—building type, area, and systems—and then can quickly compare the pre-loaded base case with outcomes of a variety of design strategies. These outcomes look at savings in energy, water, and materials. To make these comparisons, the user clicks checkboxes on the left and looks at the results on a chart to the right. First costs and operat-ing costs also change with each box checked. (See screen captures).
“The biggest frustration—architects everywhere in the world face it—is value engineering,” Kapoor told BuildingGreen. “You lose the best parts, and it typically tends to be what the client believes is nonfunctional.” What EDGE reveals, he claimed, is that many of these strategies “actually have savings” that can be readily seen and understood.
Kapoor provided an example of how returns are calculated for LED light-ing within the tool. “When you do a cost analysis, you tend to do a simple payback. How much does an LED cost versus a regular light?” In that scenario, it might take ten years to pay for itself, he claims. “But an LED not only reduces the lighting load; it also reduces cooling. That reduces
the chiller size,” and the tool accounts for elements like this automatically. This is why, according to Kapoor, the EDGE app often shows the first cost of energy- saving strategies as lower than that of conventional choices.
Embodied energy of materials
In terms of reducing the climate impact of rapid development in China, India, and other emerging economies, the operational energy of buildings is actually secondary to the embodied carbon of the building materials, noted Kapoor. (See Building Materials and the Time Value of Carbon.)
In India, just 15% of energy use comes from building operations,
and in China it’s not much more—20%, according to Kapoor. But manufacturing is very energy- intensive. “Brick alone is 5% of India’s [carbon] emissions,” he said. Right now, the database can only gauge embodied energy, not embodied carbon—another dataset that will be built out soon. “People could be [burning] rubber tires to manufacture things,” he said. “We need to get a little bit more granular before we can claim carbon reductions.”
It’s not just about avoiding brick or choosing alternative materials, though, Kapoor emphasized. “A concrete slab if used efficiently could be good,” and the tool offers options for reducing the use of energy-intensive materials.
Too simple?
Compared with the sophisticated modeling tools and rating systems used in the U.S. and Europe, EDGE may seem simplistic. But Landreneau told BuildingGreen this simplicity is central to its power. Many of HOK’s clients in the developing world “don’t have expensive consultants” to work with on specifics like energy modeling and life-cycle assessment. The tool is meant to give instant feedback in early design on “which strategies will have the most impact and payback.”
The baseline, Landreneau explained, is determined by location. “You’re comparing a building in a certain country to normal practice in that country. If natural ventilation is stan-dard practice, you have to do better than that.”
Landreneau added that an entry- level tool is needed to increase uptake in emerging markets since most projects won’t even consider certification if it’s too complicated or expensive—especially since complex rating systems simply aren’t applicable to many projects. A naturally ventilated airport, for example, is standard practice in many countries, and LEED documentation requirements simply don’t make sense there. “A lot of our projects may not have considered [green certification] till this option became available. There is a lot of potential for this with a lot of develop-ment we will see in the next few years.”
The simplicity of the tool is also critical for those who provide financing, according to Kapoor. “Private-sector banks want something commoditized. They need something predictable and standardized, with energy savings as a critical element. If [borrowers] can save energy, they can pay the debt back faster and are less likely to default.”
How the EDGE certification works
While using the tool, a user may see a message like this above the comparison charts: “Meets EDGE Energy Standard.” That appears
For this hypothetical commercial office in Honduras, a variety of strategies can help the project exceed the 20% energy savings for EDGE certification. But common items like better insulation, LEDs, and high-performance windows (above) come with a quarter-million-dollar price tag and a 16-year payback time. The designer could instead choose radiant cooling and ceiling fans (below) for an incremental cost of $80,000 and a payback time of six years.
whenever the selected strategies exceed 20% savings over the base-line. It doesn’t mean that the project automatically gets certified, though.
For that, the project must be registered, and an auditor will do a preliminary review during design and then survey the final project in person to ensure the strategies for achieving the 20% savings were actually imple-mented. Fees vary by country, Kapoor explained. In India, for example, registration costs $300 (U.S.), and certification may total around $3,000, depending on the size or complexity of the project. Though IFC wants to keep certification affordable, “it has to be a viable business for our partners.”
For more information
EDGE edgebuildings.com
Living Product Challenge Logs First CertificationsThough only a year old, LPC has its first two entry-level certifications: Owens Corning insulation and Sirewall rammed earth.
by Tristan Roberts
Like its better-known cousin, the Living Building Challenge, the LPC sets the bar so high that it almost seems unattainable. A fully certified product would be net- positive in its impact throughout its life cycle, be fully transparent with material health and other data, and meet other requirements, such as affordability (see Can Products Do More Good Than Harm?). LPC consists of 20 specific requirements (or “Imperatives”) under seven categories (“Petals”). Imperative certification requires meeting at least seven of the 20 imperatives, including four core imperatives. Petal Certification is a higher level that requires meeting three petals, including one of the most challenging petals: Energy, Water, or Materials.
Two building products first to be certified
The first two certified products are:
• Owens Corning fiberglass insula-tion made at the company’s Mount Vernon, Ohio plant. These specific products meet 13 of 20 imperatives: AttiCat Expanding Blown-In PINK Fiberglas Insulation, PROPINK L77 Loosefill Insulation, and ProCat Unbonded Loosefill Insulation products
According to LPC director James Connelly, “The Living Product Challenge is an approach that says, ‘How can you make the best product you possibly can, and can you produce a product with a positive impact on the world?’” Along with that positive vision, Connelly credits a collaborative relationship with manufacturers for helping the program take off.
“LPC is aspirational,” he explained, “but we’re humble in how we’re implementing it.” Connelly says that ILFI conducts workshops with manufacturers in which LPC provides a framework for how to redevelop their manufacturing process. “But
rather than for us to come and tell them how to do it,” he says, ILFI is asking, “What are the best strategies for them?”
Water and energy are big challenges
According to Connelly, companies attempting LPC are both document-ing existing efforts and venturing into new areas. LPC’s net-zero-water requirement remains one of the biggest challenges, he says.
“A lot of manufacturers have never thought about using the water that comes off the roof of these giant facilities. Matching up rainfall with their manufacturing cycle has been eye opening.” Neither certified product currently meets the water require-ments, though Humanscale is close to earning full LPC certification on two furniture products. Humanscale is working on achieving net-positive water onsite at its plant, including use of a rainwater capture system and a facility-wide wastewater treatment system.
Energy is a challenge manufacturers have long been grappling with, says Connelly, but now LPC is getting companies to invest more serious-ly in renewable production. LPC
SIREWALL, a stabilized structural wall system with compacted earth and rebar and 4” of rigid insulation hidden in the center, has been certified as meeting 11 of the 20 Living Product Challenge imperatives.
calls for 105% of the energy used to produce a product to be generated renewably onsite. Owens Corning is finding an alternative way to meet the imperative—by financing a Texas wind farm currently under construc-tion at a scale that would meet LPC’s energy requirements for the Ohio plant.
Connelly says an analysis found that “you could never meet a fiberglass plant’s energy demands onsite and will need a larger ‘scale-jumping’ strategy.” In response, ILFI’s technical team is allowing off-site production under two main conditions: it results in additional renewable energy production, and the company retains ownership of renewable energy certificates (RECs). Connelly says that ILFI considered location of the wind farm relative to the Ohio plant as less important than those criteria, especially considering Owens Corning’s multiple U.S. and global facilities.
An integrative design process for products
This kind of flexibility is part of LPC’s pilot phase, explains Connelly, who says that ILFI is using early participation to flesh out program requirements, much like the dialogue between Living Building Challenge project teams and ILFI.
LPC certifications are audited by third parties, including GreenCircle Certified, SCS Global Services, WAP Sustainability Consulting, ToxServices, and LikoLab.
On other LPC topics, like employee safety and positive impact on local economies, Connelly says that companies are typically already considering these topics, but LPC gives them a way to measure and report their impact.
Jane Abernethy, sustainability officer and an industrial designer at Humanscale, told BuildingGreen that topics like regional sourcing are “things that we’ve thought about, and people want to work on them but haven’t had a specific reason or a framework for having that conversation.” She says that LPC is “systematically encouraging that.”
According to Abernethy, LPC is also helping manufacturers integrate their product design process. Sustainability teams, health and safety teams, and design and innovation teams, confronted with LPC, are talking to each other much more and sharing the challenge. “We are now seeing engineers talk to other engineers about whether there are Red List
[i.e., banned] ingredients in their products,” says Abernethy, “as opposed to sustainability people talking to engineers.”
That collaborative effect is also spanning companies. Partnering with ToxServices, a toxicology consulting firm, ILFI offers companies in the LPC network a library of GreenScreen assessments at a discount. When a manufacturer commissions a new assessment, it becomes available to others for free. LPC also recognizes Cradle to Cradle certification for relevant portions of its material health requirements.
With efforts like these, ILFI hopes to make LPC a realistic target for more companies. “It’s an expensive challenge in some ways,” says Connelly. “But I think it’s going to become more and more economically feasible.”
NEWSBRIEFS
Cutting Emissions as Cities Grow: 8 Actions from WRIEnergy efficiency is a prime investment in an era of rapid urbanization, saving $2 for every $1 invested, according to a new report.
by Candace Pearson
In the next 15 years, we have a choice: to lock our world into another century of building inefficiency, or to blaze another path. By 2030, an area equal to roughly 60% of the world’s current total building stock will be built or rebuilt in urban areas, according to the World Resources Institute (WRI), and those buildings will define our cities’ energy consumption for the next 30 to 100 years.
A new policy roadmap report from WRI, Accelerating Building Efficiency: Eight Actions for Urban Leaders, attempts to outline that other path for city-level leaders worldwide.
Globally, buildings and construction are responsible for 60% of electricity
Several lines of Owens Corning fiberglass insulation—those made in its Mount Vernon, Ohio plant—have been certified as meeting 13 of the 20 Living Product Challenge imperatives.
use, 12% of water use, 40% of waste, and 40% of material resource use. Pre-cisely because conventional buildings are so resource-intensive, increasing building efficiency is a cost-effective way to reduce climate-change-causing emissions from cities. For every $1 invested in building energy efficiency, $2 is saved in new electricity genera-tion and distribution costs, according to the report. Improving building efficiency could also reduce global CO2 emissions from buildings 83% below business-as-usual by 2050, say the researchers.
WRI’s eight actions for unlocking building efficiency:
1. Adopt local building efficiency codes and standards: Best practices include requiring or incentivizing retro-commissioning for low- performing buildings, issuing lighting standards, and phasing in performance requirements for major renovations.
2. Set efficiency improvement targets: Local governments must set clear energy reduction targets to align interests and spur action across a city.
3. Provide performance information and certifications: The collection of information about the energy use in buildings at the jurisdictional or building scale enables better policy and program design (see Energy Reporting: It’s the Law).
4. Incentivize: Revolving loan funds, trust funds, and tax-lien financing are suggested to help developers overcome upfront cost barriers. Non-financial incentives, such as priority processing of permits or greater allowed floor area, are also recommended and require no investment by local governments.
5. Lead by example: Local govern-ments should “walk the walk” by making their own building port-folios more efficient and adjusting their procurement procedures to meet certain efficiency standards.
6. Engage building owners, managers, and occupants: Private- sector building owners should be engaged through partnerships, competitions and awards, and awareness campaigns. Cities should also endorse green lease contract clauses to help address
split incentives between building owners and occupants.
7. Engage technical and financial service providers: Local govern-ments can support private-sector building service providers by providing loan guarantees and assisting with workforce training programs.
8. Work with utilities: Policies can be developed at a local level to make energy-use data available to residents, building owners, and public agencies.
Accelerating Building Efficiency includes case studies from many efforts in cities across the world, including Johannesburg, South Africa; Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam; Puebla, Mexico; Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates; and Lviv, Ukraine.
More on cities and climate change
Climate Change: Building Industry, You’ve Got This!
How Boston Reduced Its Carbon Footprint
NYC Buildings Gain Three Energy Star Points in Year Two
Study Vets Materials for Entire Wall AssembliesWhen you look at the whole assembly, it can change how you see the materials. Here XPS and fiberglass come out ahead, and SPF behind.
by Candace Pearson
Rarely is anything in the built environment made of a single product. “So why do we approach materials research and selection at the product level?” a new study conducted by Re:Vision Architecture asks.
Report authors Christopher Lee, project manager, and Nicole Campion, sustainability researcher for Re:Vision, present an alternative, applying a multi-attribute assessment to five
The building sector has the most potential to reduce carbon emissions affordably, compared to other industry sectors like agriculture and transportation.
sample wall assemblies (described in the table above). The assemblies are evaluated for:
• cost
• embodied carbon footprint (using the Athena Impact Calculator)
• material toxicity and transparency (using the Living Building Challenge Red List and transparency documents like environmental product declarations)
• moisture and thermal performance
• recyclability and reusability at end of life
TJI and double wood stud score highest
Based on a decision matrix where each of these metrics was equally weighted, a truss I-joist (TJI) assembly and a double-stud wood assembly with fiberglass insulation scored highest. Both scored high in thermal performance and had low embodied carbon.
A single-stud wood assembly closely followed, only a few points behind in the toxicity category. A concrete masonry unit (CMU) and a metal stud assembly were the lowest
performers, scoring “poor” in thermal performance and embodied carbon footprint, respectively.
Notably, the study found that the metal stud assembly with spray foam had an embodied carbon foot-print more than six times that of the double-stud wood assembly with fiberglass insulation.
Split insulation wins across assembly types
In a follow-up analysis, the researchers focused on just one variable—insulation choice—for three assembly types. The findings:
1. Cellulose and fiberglass have a low embodied carbon footprint and low toxicity, but cellulose can be expen-sive, and both must be disposed in a landfill.
2. Spray foam has a high insulating value per inch but performed poorly across all other metrics in the study.
3. Extruded polystyrene (XPS) performed poorly when it came to embodied carbon footprint and toxicity, but it did well from a cost and end-of-life perspective because of its ability to be salvaged.
4. Mineral wool was average in terms of carbon footprint, toxicity, and cost, and best under end of life.
As a result, the researchers found that having XPS and mineral wool on the exterior, with fiberglass or cellulose in the cavity, scored the highest across all wall assemblies.
Each of these five 12′x24′ wall assemblies was evaluated in its entirety for the decision metrics the authors outlined, rather than by select components.
Source: Re:Vision Architects
Wall Assemblies Studied
The double wood stud and the TJI wall assemblies were the best performers across every metric analyzed.
Source: Re:Vision Architects
Wall Assembly Scoring
p. 15Environmental Building News • June 2016
More on priorities for assessing assemblies
What Makes the Building Envelope Green? BuildingGreen’s Guide to Thermal & Moisture Protection Products
Can We Replace Foam Insulation?
The Hidden Science of High- Performance Building Assemblies
Brock Environmental Center Vindicates Onsite Wind GenerationThe Brock project team achieved Living Building Challenge certification and survived to tell this story.
by Nadav Malin
The Living Building Challenge (LBC) has a strict ban on greenfield develop ment, with one exception. It allows for buildings in previously undeveloped—even ecologically sensitive—locations when they are there to help people learn about the place. As a facility that’s all about caring for and teaching people about nature, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s Brock Environmental Center fit that bill perfectly and achieved LBC certification in May 2016.
Going the extra meter
What does it take to achieve such a goal? “Dedication” is the word that comes up most often, but it hardly seems adequate to the actual experience.
Design and construction were no picnic, with frequent energy model-ing to fine-tune every aspect of the electrical, mechanical, and enclosure systems. And like other LBC project teams, the designers and contractor struggled to vet every single product against the LBC Red List and trans-portation distance constraints. (See Take Control of Your Materials: Four Empowering Lessons from Teams That Beat the Red List.)
But what makes this and other LBC projects stand out in terms of commit ment is how closely they are watched during that critical 12-month performance period. Project architect Greg Mella, FAIA, of SmithGroupJJR describes getting a nightly email from the building management system detailing the building’s energy use for the past 24 hours and checking it every day for anomalies. That vigilance paid off: the photovoltaics and wind turbines generated more energy than was predicted and a whopping 83% more energy than the building used during its first year.
The energy used in the building came in at just over 14 kBtu/ft2·year, about 80% less than the average building of its type. Overall, this energy use is slightly less than the energy models predicted, but the details show greater variation: lighting came in at 39% less than predicted because the lights are mostly off rather than dimmed to 10% output as modeled. Fans and pumps are using more energy than predicted, however. One reason for this is that the fans in the mini-split (VRF) heat pumps run continuously, which wasn’t anticipated.
“My favorite part of operating Brock is that each day is a new learning experience, and being able to use those lessons to educate our guests,” says Chris Gorri, Brock Environmental Center manager for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. You don’t have to be onsite to monitor the building’s perfor mance, however: its Lucid Energy Dashboard is available online.
Swimming to utopia
It’s not easy to supply one’s own potable water and treat wastewater at the scale of individual buildings, which is exactly what officials at Virginia Beach Public Utilities tried to tell the Brock project team when they asked about permits to run their own waterworks for the 10,500 ft2 build-ing (for more on building-scale water treatment, see Waste Water, Want Water.)
Many LBC projects are using municipally supplied water under a temporary exemption from the International Living Future Institute, which oversees LBC certification, but Brock is now the first LBC project to provide its own drinking water from
The two Bergey 10 kW wind turbines (only one of which is visible here) generate about 40% of the project’s electricity. During a five-day period that included a hurricane in October 2015, they generated enough electricity to power the building for an entire month.
rainwater with official sanction. Gorri was amazed at the amount of time and knowledge it takes to capture rainwater and treat it onsite to potable water standards. “If you would have told me a year ago that I would know so much about treating rainwater, I would have laughed at you,” he told BuildingGreen.
Blowing (more than) smoke
BuildingGreen has been skeptical of onsite wind energy as a power source for buildings (see The Folly of Building-Integrated Wind), but Mella suggests a rule of thumb for identify-ing sites with wind power potential. “If the wind frequently blows hard enough that it’s uncomfortable, you might have a good site for it,” he says. The two Bergey 10 kW turbines on this project generate about 40% of the onsite renewables at a cost of $0.38 per kWh (assuming a 25-year service life). The cost is that high mostly because anchoring the turbines in the coastal sands required multiple 110-foot-deep pilings.
The Bergey turbines spin on the horizontal axis, which is inherently more efficient than vertical-axis designs, and they are certified for performance by the Small Wind Certification Council. (BuildingGreen recommends avoiding turbines that lack this certification.) After they came online, they required adjustment to increase their maximum operating wind speed; winds onsite were so strong that the turbines were cutting out unnecessarily often.
Grand Central on the Bay
The location also made flooding an obvious concern, leading the team to incorporate a number of resilience measures, most notably raising the facility on piers to 14 feet above sea level.
For an organization dedicated to raising awareness of the need to “Save the Bay,” the best metric of success has been the tremendous visitor flow at the new facility—30,000 visitors in year one, according to the foundation. Some of these visitors came across the facility by chance—attracted, in some cases, by the wind turbines. Regardless of how they arrive, “there’s always a moment during a tour of the building when you see the light bulb go off in the group’s minds,” says Gorri. “They get it, they understand it, and they leave here inspired to do or change one thing.”
PRODUCT NEWS & REVIEWS
A PEX-Like Pipe Without the Cross-Linking ChemicalsHyperPure PE-RT drinking water piping is a new take on flexible polyethylene tubing.
by Paula Melton
Copper, chlorinated PVC (CPVC), and cross-linked polyethylene (PEX) all have advantages for potable water piping, but each also has serious issues relating to environmental impacts, toxicity, price, or all of the above.
Rigid polypropylene products are an attractive alternative because of their low impact and low toxicity. Now there’s a promising flexible alterna-tive as well—HyperPure tubing from Legend Valve & Fitting. The product is a drop-in replacement for PEX that is recyclable and appears to come with a smaller chemical footprint as well.
Strong but flexible
HyperPure is a flexible potable water pipe made from bimodal polyethylene (more on that in a moment), which
does not require crosslinking to achieve its performance properties. It is currently installed using the same fittings as PEX, but it can be heat fused, and an onsite thermal fusing system—similar to that used for rigid polypropylene—is under development.
Legend claims the product has remarkable durability, strength, flexibility, and corrosion resistance, and the company is backing those assertions with a 100-year warranty.
HyperPure is classified as a PE-RT pipe (for polyethylene-raised temperature). Originally introduced for gas pipelines and radiant heating applications, it is the first PE-RT prod-uct designed for drinking water (so it doesn’t have the added oxygen barrier required for radiant applications).
The product is actually slightly superior to PEX in flexibility—an area where PEX already performs well, according to Thomas Huck, vice president of business development at Legend. “Cross-linking can make the material a little bit stiffer.” In fact, he said, flexibility is one of the market differentiators for different brands of PEX because greater flexibility makes it easier to install. Although a prefer-ence for a certain level of flexibility is “subjective,” he admitted, “in general, [HyperPure] is just a little bit easier to work with. It lays flat and doesn’t have as much memory,” which helps the installer run tubing in tight places.
The pipe’s strength also compares favorably with that of PEX, based on third-party testing to ASTM 2769. Huck adds that PEX is also remarkably strong, and burst tests go
This view through a common area into a workstation shows how well lit the offices are even with the lights off.
Photo: Prakash Patel, courtesy SmithGroupJJR
Legend recently introduced a flexible polyethylene potable water pipe with no cross-linking chemicals.
far beyond real-world conditions, but even so, the new material performs better in the lab.
With a Level 5 rating (the highest durability rating possible), HyperPure also outperforms most brands of PEX for chlorine resistance, based on third-party testing to ASTM F2263. This standard is used to gauge how well pipe materials endure long-term exposure to chlorinated water.
Unlike PEX, HyperPure is a recyclable thermoplastic. It’s also manufactured in the U.S (in Michigan). So far, Huck says, it’s available in most states in the U.S., and he estimates that instal-lations have been in the hundreds, based on sales to distributors so far. That said, because the product is so new and because Legend is the manufacturer rather than the distributor, there is little feedback from the field so far aside from anecdotal reports of the relative ease of installation.
The chemistry
High-density polyethylene (HDPE) is an inherently strong material, according to Huck, but typical HDPE isn’t tough enough to with-stand water pressure for plumbing applications without cross-linking. HyperPure isn’t typical HDPE, though, and it isn’t cross-linked: it’s made from a proprietary “biomodal” resin developed and patented by Dow Chemical, and branded as Hypertherm.
Huck claims that the chemical process for creating the material requires no additional chemical intermediaries beyond what’s used to polymerize the HDPE; the key is in how the molecules are manipulated during the making of the plastic. (Dow refers to the process as “molecular architecture.”) “There is no leftover residue,” Huck said. “They are not adding anything to it, so there is no flushing required” as there is with PEX.
BuildingGreen spoke with Richard Sachleben, Ph.D., a member of the American Chemical Society Experts Panel. “The nice thing about
polyethylene is that the process they use to make it is very well controlled,” he said. Typically, a manufacturer changes the length of the long, thin molecules to change the performance properties of the finished HDPE. A conventional approach is monomodal, with molecules that are all about the same length, he continued, while an innovative multimodal plastic has molecules with different lengths. “They polymerize the short ones first, then make long ones in the same mixture,” which then produces “a mixture of the properties of the long ones and the short ones.” That’s what makes Hypertherm and HyperPure unique—the combination of strength (from the shorter molecules) and flexibility (from the longer molecules).
This is in contrast to cross-linking, Sachleben said, where a catalyst is introduced to twist strands together into the molecular equivalent of “three-dimensional chicken wire.” That structure is what keeps PEX from being recyclable—one of its biggest drawbacks, along with the fact that it requires fittings (which HyperPure eventually will not).
HyperPure, however, can be melted down and recycled. Legend does not have a take-back program, but
according to Mike Boehk, senior product and production engineer at Legend, HDPE is in high demand, so “almost every recycling center takes high-density polyethylene.” He adds that many customers “are really excited about the idea that they are using something that doesn’t end up in a landfill.”
Will it take off?
Penetrating the plumbing market can be tricky, given that there are affordable, reliable, and familiar options readily available, but Huck is optimistic. “There was a time when getting people to try new things was far more daunting than it is today,” he said, noting that innovative press pipe fittings have gotten uptake in the last decade despite a long track record for conventional solder fittings for copper. “When you get people re- buying it, which we have, that’s extremely encouraging. We are consistently getting re-orders” for HyperPure.
The low cost premium might help. Although it’s a new resin, the manufacturing process is very simple (Legend receives pellets from Dow and only has to melt and extrude the tubing without extra cross- linking steps). Although costs will vary throughout the country, Huck said the price is roughly equivalent to that of drinking-water PEX. Depending on the heat-fusing technology that’s eventually developed, that price could come down significantly since the need for fittings will be reduced.
The apparently low toxicity of HyperPure could help the product see growth in the green building world as well, although unknowns remain since the resin is a proprietary polymer.
BuildingGreen would like to see how the new tubing performs in testing like that conducted by Andrew Whelton, Ph.D., for a variety of other plastic pipes (see Harmful Chemicals May Leach from PEX into Drinking Water). Whelton said his research team had not yet tested HyperPure but would like to find funding to continue testing newer products like these. “Public knowledge about what these products
HyperPure currently uses the same fittings as PEX, but the material is thermally fusible, and Legend is developing a system that will require fewer fittings.
leach and for how long has not kept pace with technology innovation,” he told BuildingGreen.
That said, the material is certainly promising. Polyethylene generally has a clean chemical profile, and there is no current evidence that Dow’s multi-modal processing requires additional chemical additives.
For more information
Legend Valve & Fitting legendvalve.com/pws
The Best Indoor LED Luminaires of 2016Winners of an annual DOE competition represent some of the best LED lighting for decorative pendants, downlights, and healthcare.
by Brent Ehrlich
LED lighting is now ubiquitous—a good thing for energy efficiency, but it poses a challenge. With so many products and manufacturers to choose from, how do you know which products will last? Which ones will perform as expected or even exceed expectations?
The Next Generation Luminaires (NGL) Design Competition strives to answer these questions and more, with the winners representing the best LED luminaires available. That’s because the NGL Competition is judged by an independent, unbiased panel of some of the most accomplished lighting professionals in the U.S. At BuildingGreen, winning the compe-tition—in either the “outstanding” or “recognized” categories—is a key criterion for the lighting products that we label BuildingGreen Approved, but “notable” products may still need some refinement before being selected.
From a somewhat scattershot product selection process early in the competition’s life, to the current, focused process based on end use, the history and evolution of the NGL Competition informs which LED
product categories are currently reviewed and why. Here we take a brief look at that history and get a closer view of the 2016 indoor NGL winners.
Born of NecessityBy 2008, a glut of LEDs had flooded the market; there was little industry oversight, and some luminaires came from electronics manufacturers with little or no experience in lighting. “Designers were being bombarded with new manufacturers,” said Ruth Taylor, project manager of the ad-vanced lighting group at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) . “They didn’t know how to evaluate them, and they had building owners wanting all LED. They were all overwhelmed,” she said. The U.S. Department of Energy (now represented by PNNL for work on solid- state lighting) stepped in, teaming up with the Illuminating Engineering Society and the International Association of Lighting Designers to create the Next Generation Luminaires (NGL) Competition.
NGL started out to promote LED efficiency, spur innovation, and provide industry guidance. Awards were then given to a variety of indoor and outdoor LED luminaires, but as the contest and the number of prod-ucts grew, organizers had to narrow the scope of the contest and make the criteria more rigorous. “We try to define difficult industry problems,” Taylor said, by keying in on special target applications and refining the criteria.
In the last few years, the number of products submitted has gone down, but the quality has gone up, says Taylor, with overall improvements in efficacy, lumen maintenance
(a measure of LED longevity since they fade over time rather than failing like an incandescent), and color quality. “Three years ago, we had 350 intents [entrants] and judged 150.” This year, the 11 indoor judges evaluated 62 indoor products. The results:
• Three winners were selected with the highest “outstanding” award.
• Thirteen were selected as “recognized.”
• Three were designated as “notable”—for products that are unique or stellar in a specific way but may not be perfect, according to Taylor.
2016 Outstanding Indoor WinnersFor 2016, high-output downlights were the target application for indoor lighting, but none met the high expectations of the judges, according to Taylor, with only one high-output winner in the “recognized” category. Instead, the majority of products were white tunable lighting; cove and wall-wash luminaires; or linear and
Focal Point’s Nera linear pendants incorporate an opening in the center of the luminaire that provides both direct light downward and indirect light on the ceiling. They are available in square and rectangular shapes and in a variety of sizes.
Advanced Lighting Control Solution, Enlighted Inc.
Connected Lighting Systems
Offices, multiple applications N/A
SpaceWise Technology, Philips Lighting
SpaceWise Technology, Philips
Lighting
Offices, multiple applications N/A
Cree SmartCast Technology, Cree
Connected Lighting Systems
Offices, multiple applications N/A
Next Generation Luminaries: 2016 Winners (continued)
Source: Next Generation Luminaires (NGL) Solid-State Lighting (SSL) Design Competition
p. 21Environmental Building News • June 2016
decorative pendants. Of these, three indoor products were deemed out-standing, and 16 were recognized. The outstanding products are:
• Nera linear pendant from Focal Point
• Portfolio downlight from Eaton
• MedMaster Balance from Kenall Lighting
Focal Point’s Nera linear pendant
Focal Point’s Nera won the outstand-ing award for linear pendants, com-bining efficacy (up to 114 lumens per watt, or lpw) with an elegant design. It incorporates an opening in the center of the luminaire that works with the LED optics to provide both direct light downward and indirect light on the ceiling. The power supply is built into the adjustable suspension system, so no wires are visible.
Nera luminaires are available in two-, three-, and four-foot squares, and in four-, five-, six-, and eight-foot rectangular shapes that can be connected end-to-end to create longer runs. They can provide between 2,000 and 8,000 lumens, depending on luminaire shape and size, with a correlated color temperature (CCT) of 3,500K (a “warm” color) and a color
rendering index (CRI, a measure of how close the light is to an ideal) of 80. Though the CRI is low compared with that of many LEDs that are now above 90 (100 is ideal), such as the Portfolio and MedMaster, the judges still thought the light quality was good.
Eaton’s Portfolio downlight
Eaton’s Portfolio four-inch recessed downlight won the outstanding award for its “dim-to-warm” perfor-mance, meaning the color tempera-ture gets warmer (more orange/red) as it dims from 3,000K to 1,800K, in much the same way that a standard incandescent lamp dims. According to the judges, the Portfolio also had excellent color consistency and quality, holding the CRI above an impressive 95 throughout the dimming range. It achieves this while delivering more than 70 lpw.
Kenall Lighting’s MedMaster Balance for healthcare
Kenall Lighting’s MedMaster Balance won the outstanding award for white-tunable lighting, which allows the color of the white light to be tuned from a warm, orange-ish 2,700K to a cool, bluer 6,500K. This luminaire is intended for use in patient rooms and can match daylight cycles or can be
adjusted to function as a nightlight all the way up to a 13,670-lumen light for patient exams. Similar to the Portfolio, the MedMaster also operates at greater than 70 lpw and delivers a CRI greater than 95.
Recognized and Notable ProductsThe 2016 NGL target product was high-output downlights, but only one of the entries was awarded the recog-nized distinction: the 6” High Lumen Recessed Downlight from Meteor Lighting, with a 7,722-lumen light output. (See the table for additional recognized products.)
The three notable products were connected lighting systems that had controllers and software included. Those were:
• Enlighted’s Advanced Lighting Control Solution, which is part of a package that includes external sensors and controls
• Philip’s SpaceWise Technology
• Cree’s SmartCast CR Troffer
The latter two integrate sensors and controls into the luminaires for a plug-and-play system.
Continuing to EvolveEarly adoption of LED luminaires was driven by energy efficiency, but “it doesn’t matter how efficacious light-ing is if a designer isn’t going to use it,” said Taylor.Eaton’s Portfolio 4″ recessed downlight can dim from 3,000K to 1,800K, like a standard incandescent lamp,
while holding above 95 CRI.
Photo: Eaton
Kenall Lighting’s MedMaster Balance patient room luminaire can match natural light cycles and can function as anything from a nightlight to a 13,670-lumen light for patient exams, all while delivering >95 CRI.
Photo: Kenall
p. 22Environmental Building News • June 2016
This basic idea was the catalyst for much of the NGL Competition, and though efficacy has continued to improve for LEDs, so have color quality, optics, controls, and other factors. Taylor points to advancements in the color tuning products from 2015, where the winners were only able to meet the “notable” criteria. For 2016, “we had two outstanding winners and three other white-tunable recognized,” Taylor said.
What products or product categories do you think should be covered? Post a comment and let us know.
For more information
Next Generation Luminaires™ (NGL) Solid-State Lighting (SSL) Design Competition
ngldc.org
PRIMER
Phthalate Plasticizer Toxicity ExplainedPhthalates are used as plasticizers in vinyl. Some are toxic, some less so—yet many manufacturers are avoiding them altogether.
by Paula Melton
We commonly talk about “vinyl” flooring, wallcoverings, and upholstery. But these materials, while mostly made of PVC, also contain a relatively high percentage of plasticizer—up to 40% or 50%, depending on the product. Plasticizers are added to the rigid PVC to make it flexible. Conventional plasticizers are almost universally a type of phthalate ester (phthalate for short), a class of chemical that’s coming under increasing scrutiny.
It’s common to lump phthalate plasticizers together. But in fact there are dozens of common phthalates on the market, and they have diverse chemical compositions, depending on what kind of alcohol is used to make them (phthalates are made with
phthalic acid plus an alcohol). They can be grouped into many different categories. One of the more common distinctions is between those with low molecular weight (containing up to six carbon atoms per chain) and those with high molecular weight (contain-ing chains of seven or more carbon atoms).
Low-molecular-weight phthalates are the ones most commonly associated with reproductive toxicity, endocrine disruption, and other health effects. Many are considered antiandrogens, meaning they block testosterone and other hormones. “The size and shape of phthalates are important,” accord-ing to Stephen K. Ritter, writing in Chemical & Engineering News. “Many natural and synthetic chemicals encountered at home, at work, and at play have roughly the same size and shape as hormones such as estradiol and testosterone, or share structural features with them. …That activity can fool the body into overreacting, underreacting, or responding at inappropriate times.” Phthalates with low molecular weight are also more likely to migrate out of the plastic, which could increase the risk that people will be exposed—for example, by touching the material or through indoor air or household dust.
Phthalates with low molecular weight include DEHP (di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate), an ingredient restricted in toys and other children’s items in the
U.S. and Canada. That has led to a near phaseout of DEHP in many other products, though it remains in most medical equipment.
Phthalates with higher molecular weights are not necessarily above reproach. DiNP (diisononyl phthalate) is banned in children’s toys in Europe due to a risk of liver damage in infants. DiNP is also a known endocrine disruptor, though it’s weaker than DEHP in that regard, according to Ritter. And it’s listed as a carcinogen by the State of California (see Phthalate Exposure Persists Despite Regulations); large doses of DiNP can cause liver tumors in rodents.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has disputed this listing and has even filed a lawsuit against the state, maintaining that phthalates with high molecular weights, including DiNP, “have been reviewed by numerous scientific panels, and … the phthalates used in commercial products do not pose a risk to human health at typical exposure levels.”
Despite these claims, many chemical manufacturers are offering non-phthalate alternatives in response to demand from consumers as well as retailers. (Many retailers, for example, no longer sell flooring products containing phthalates.)
Alternatives are widely available, but as with phthalates themselves, potential toxicity varies. A report by the Healthy Building Network points toward a number of preferable alternatives, including biobased options and a terephthalate (DEHT) sold under the brand name Eastman 168. Despite their name, terephthalates are not phthalate esters, and studies show no evidence of carcinogenicity or endocrine disruption, according to the report.
Certain phthalates have been restricted in children’s items in the U.S., Canada, and Europe for several years. Now, many manufacturers are moving away from this entire class of plasticizers.
