The National Institute of Building Sciences has produced a helpful online guide to assist federal building project managers in meeting various mandates as established by federal law, Executive Order or EPA recommendation.
The Federal Green Construction Guide for Specifiers provides a comprehensive aid for procuring Green building products and construction services within the federal government.
What this means to you:
The Guide provides listings of the sort of requirements a bidding contractor may expect to find in current and future bid documents where the project is wholly or partly backed by federal money.
The list may be viewed or downloaded at the NIBS site, either complete or in parts according to the type of work to be performed. For example, a click on “22 40 00 (15400) Plumbing Fixtures” reveals the requirements a bidding plumbing subcontractor may expect to encounter, as well as a materials call-out. For example:
2.1 MATERIALS
Fixtures:
Water management: Provide low flow fixtures and automatic, sensor operated faucets and flush valves. Provide automatic, sensor operated faucets and flush valves to comply with ASSE 1037 and UL1951.
Faucets and aerators: Maximum 2.0 gal/min when measured at a flowing water pressure of 60 pounds per square inch.
Water closets: Maximum 1.6 gallons. [Gravity tank type water closets not allowed.]
Urinals: [Maximum 1.0 gallons/flush.] [Waterless operation; provide with urine trap and 100 percent biodegradable sealant liquid as approved by manufacturer.]
Showerheads: 2.2 gal/min when measured at a flowing water pressure of 80 pounds per square inch.
Toxicity/IEQ:
Traps: Provide traps with removable access panels for easy clean-out at sinks and lavatories.
Water filter systems: Provide filters for chlorine at sinks, lavatories, and showerheads.
--------------------
The Guide, explanatory text and references are available at: http://www.wbdg.org/design/greenspec.php.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
California: Three Green Vetoes
Analysis: 2007 California Vetoes
In October of 2007 California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a package of three measures, Assembly Bills 35, 888 and 1058, which would have required state-owned, commercial and residential buildings to adopt Green practices in design and construction. AB 35 dealt with construction or renovation of State buildings; AB 888 with non-residential commercial buildings, and AB 1058 with residential buildings.
The bills were passed by the California legislature earlier in the year. The importance of these bills goes beyond their immediate success or failure as legislation. Significant points:
1. These bills represent the strength of intent among legislators and the public for the adoption of Green building standards.
2. The bills show that the standards for Green construction have been well established and are accepted to the same degree as public construction codes.
3. The specific language of two of the bills makes reference to USGB’s LEED standards: AB 888 would have required CAL EPA to adopt standards which would meet the USGBC’s Gold rating for commercial buildings of 50,000 square feet or more; AB 35 called for adoption of the USGB’s Silver rating for construction for any building leased or owned by the state.
Texts of Legislation:
Assembly Bill 888: http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0851-0900/ab_888_bill_20070411_amended_asm_v97.pdf
Assembly Bill 35: http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_35_bill_20070601_amended_asm_v97.pdf
Assembly Bill 1058: http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1051-1100/ab_1058_bill_20070907_amended_sen_v94.pdf
Schwarzenegger’s veto message noted that the measures would be costly and would unnecessarily write building standards into law instead of leaving the task to the California Building Standards Commission; the Governor also noted that the bills did not take into account the State’s earthquake and fire risks. The Governor’s veto is consistent with his previous veto of AB 1337 (the ‘Green Building Act of 2006’); that bill would have required the Integrated Waste Management Board to adopt Green standards for state buildings; this earlier veto statement also mentioned the Governor’s preference for the Building Standards Commission process.
The veto of these measures is less significant than their success in the legislature and especially, the consistent use of LEED building standards in AB 888 and 35 as a basis for determining Green qualifications.
What this means in the long run:
More than likely a return to the legislature of similar legislation, most likely with the LEED standards maintained, unless similar language or references can be drawn up and passed through the Building Standards Commission’s mechanism, a thing the governor requires as the price of his signature. For a formal statement of the administration’s position on this matter, see the Memorandum of David Walls, at http://www.bsc.ca.gov/documents/Green%20Build.%20Web%20Info.pdf
Michael McGrorty
In October of 2007 California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a package of three measures, Assembly Bills 35, 888 and 1058, which would have required state-owned, commercial and residential buildings to adopt Green practices in design and construction. AB 35 dealt with construction or renovation of State buildings; AB 888 with non-residential commercial buildings, and AB 1058 with residential buildings.
The bills were passed by the California legislature earlier in the year. The importance of these bills goes beyond their immediate success or failure as legislation. Significant points:
1. These bills represent the strength of intent among legislators and the public for the adoption of Green building standards.
2. The bills show that the standards for Green construction have been well established and are accepted to the same degree as public construction codes.
3. The specific language of two of the bills makes reference to USGB’s LEED standards: AB 888 would have required CAL EPA to adopt standards which would meet the USGBC’s Gold rating for commercial buildings of 50,000 square feet or more; AB 35 called for adoption of the USGB’s Silver rating for construction for any building leased or owned by the state.
Texts of Legislation:
Assembly Bill 888: http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0851-0900/ab_888_bill_20070411_amended_asm_v97.pdf
Assembly Bill 35: http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_35_bill_20070601_amended_asm_v97.pdf
Assembly Bill 1058: http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1051-1100/ab_1058_bill_20070907_amended_sen_v94.pdf
Schwarzenegger’s veto message noted that the measures would be costly and would unnecessarily write building standards into law instead of leaving the task to the California Building Standards Commission; the Governor also noted that the bills did not take into account the State’s earthquake and fire risks. The Governor’s veto is consistent with his previous veto of AB 1337 (the ‘Green Building Act of 2006’); that bill would have required the Integrated Waste Management Board to adopt Green standards for state buildings; this earlier veto statement also mentioned the Governor’s preference for the Building Standards Commission process.
The veto of these measures is less significant than their success in the legislature and especially, the consistent use of LEED building standards in AB 888 and 35 as a basis for determining Green qualifications.
What this means in the long run:
More than likely a return to the legislature of similar legislation, most likely with the LEED standards maintained, unless similar language or references can be drawn up and passed through the Building Standards Commission’s mechanism, a thing the governor requires as the price of his signature. For a formal statement of the administration’s position on this matter, see the Memorandum of David Walls, at http://www.bsc.ca.gov/documents/Green%20Build.%20Web%20Info.pdf
Michael McGrorty
California Green Building Update: AB 1460
On October 18th 2007 California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law Assembly Bill 1460, which will provide additional incentives for builders who use sustainable methods in construction funded under the state’s Multifamily Housing Program (MHP).
[To date the MHP has received $800 million in funding through Proposition 46 and $590 million through Proposition 1C.]
Previously existing law established the Department of Community Housing and a set of rules, including a point system, for prioritizing certain types of development, construction and rehabilitation, especially those in proximity to public transit, public schools, parks or job centers. The new law amends the old legislation to include among projects receiving priority points those using “Sustainable building methods established in accordance with the criteria listed under paragraph (8) of subdivision (c) of Section 10325 of Title 4 of the California Code of Regulations.” The cited building methods are not especially complex. With regard to the pipe trades, they include, “Use of natural gas for space heating,” and “Use of either . . . flow restrictors on kitchen (2gpm) and bathroom faucets (1.5gpm) or dual flush toilets.” For additional information, see California Department of Housing and Community Development, Multifamily Housing Program, at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/fa/mhp/ and California Code of Regulations, Title 4, Section 17, at http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/CTCAC/programreg/100504_adopted.pdf Michael McGrorty
[To date the MHP has received $800 million in funding through Proposition 46 and $590 million through Proposition 1C.]
Previously existing law established the Department of Community Housing and a set of rules, including a point system, for prioritizing certain types of development, construction and rehabilitation, especially those in proximity to public transit, public schools, parks or job centers. The new law amends the old legislation to include among projects receiving priority points those using “Sustainable building methods established in accordance with the criteria listed under paragraph (8) of subdivision (c) of Section 10325 of Title 4 of the California Code of Regulations.” The cited building methods are not especially complex. With regard to the pipe trades, they include, “Use of natural gas for space heating,” and “Use of either . . . flow restrictors on kitchen (2gpm) and bathroom faucets (1.5gpm) or dual flush toilets.” For additional information, see California Department of Housing and Community Development, Multifamily Housing Program, at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/fa/mhp/ and California Code of Regulations, Title 4, Section 17, at http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/CTCAC/programreg/100504_adopted.pdf Michael McGrorty
Friday, October 12, 2007
Success Equals Green Opportunity
A Lesson in Politics
In 2001, voters in the Los Angeles Community College District were faced with the following question in the election held that April:
Shall the Los Angeles Community College District increase educational opportunities, raise student achievement and improve health and safety conditions for students at Los Angeles City College, East Los Angeles College, Los Angeles Harbor College, Los Angeles Mission College, Los Angeles Pierce College, Los Angeles Southwest College, Los Angeles Trade Technical College, Los Angeles Valley College and West Los Angeles College, replace/repair deteriorating buildings, construct/furnish/equip classrooms, laboratories, libraries and related facilities; repair/upgrade electrical wiring for computer technology, heating, air conditioning and plumbing; complete earthquake retrofitting; improve campus safety, fire security, parking and lighting; and improve/acquire real property to relieve overcrowding by issuing, at interest rates within legal limits, $1,245 billion in bonds with citizens' oversight for each college and annual independent performance/financial audits, but with no money for administrators' or others' salaries?
--The answer from the voters was a resounding ‘Yes.’
In May of 2003 the District’s voters were again asked,
To prepare students for jobs and four-year colleges, train nurses, police, firefighters, emergency medical personnel, improve health, safety, security conditions at Pierce College, Valley College, East Los Angeles College, Harbor College, Los Angeles City College, Los Angeles Southwest College, Mission College, West Los Angeles College, Los Angeles Trade Technical College; construct computer technology centers to train students for high-tech jobs; repair deteriorating classrooms, science laboratories, libraries; expand educational centers in underserved communities; upgrade heating, plumbing, wiring, roofs, sewers, energy efficiency, water conservation; improve campus environmental standards, safety, lighting, fire alarms, sprinklers, intercoms, fire doors; and acquire/improve real property and/or build new classrooms to relieve overcrowding, shall the Los Angeles Community College District issue $980 million dollars in bonds at interest rates within legal limits, require citizens' oversight for each college, annual independent financial audits, with no money for administrators' salaries?
--Voters approved this measure as well.
Taken together, the Proposition A/AA funding amounts to over two billion dollars in available construction funding. Being publicly-funded, these building projects were of course covered by state prevailing wage standards, whose rates are very close to, if not precisely matched by the union rates in the same area; in this case, Los Angeles County. In addition, the Proposition A/AA projects are covered by a local Project Labor Agreement, which provides much greater opportunity for successful bidding among signatory contractors in all the pipe trades. The District’s PLA, combined with its labor compliance effort and pre-bid scrutiny insure that reputable and responsible bidders will be awarded work; in other words, on a level playing field ideal for sub-bidding by union firms.
Within the requirements specified for these projects is the District’s own callout for Green construction: As directed by the District’s Board of Trustees, all new buildings that are at least half funded with Proposition A/AA bond monies will be Green buildings, built to LEED certification standards.
This language is a prime example of how local awarding agencies are creating Green standards for themselves, and a sign that Green building, especially on the LEED model, is fast becoming the norm rather than the exception in public works construction.
Effort equals Opportunity
The LACCD Proposition A/AA situation should be seen as the end result of a effort which began long before the election date, through which signatory contractors’ and labor organizations’ work was repaid with substantial opportunity. For many years the organized pipe trades had been asking for the chance to have public works bid specifications written in such a way as to make it possible for honest contractors to obtain work. That request has been answered with programs like those arising from Proposition A/AA. All that is required now is that contractors comply with the Green requirements of the agency, which are fairly laid out in advance and no more complex than those found in the ordinary run of work. Taken together, the PLA/Green combination is a chance to maintain a firm hold on profitable work and to exercise skills and experience that will be required to obtain work in the future.
End 683 words
In 2001, voters in the Los Angeles Community College District were faced with the following question in the election held that April:
Shall the Los Angeles Community College District increase educational opportunities, raise student achievement and improve health and safety conditions for students at Los Angeles City College, East Los Angeles College, Los Angeles Harbor College, Los Angeles Mission College, Los Angeles Pierce College, Los Angeles Southwest College, Los Angeles Trade Technical College, Los Angeles Valley College and West Los Angeles College, replace/repair deteriorating buildings, construct/furnish/equip classrooms, laboratories, libraries and related facilities; repair/upgrade electrical wiring for computer technology, heating, air conditioning and plumbing; complete earthquake retrofitting; improve campus safety, fire security, parking and lighting; and improve/acquire real property to relieve overcrowding by issuing, at interest rates within legal limits, $1,245 billion in bonds with citizens' oversight for each college and annual independent performance/financial audits, but with no money for administrators' or others' salaries?
--The answer from the voters was a resounding ‘Yes.’
In May of 2003 the District’s voters were again asked,
To prepare students for jobs and four-year colleges, train nurses, police, firefighters, emergency medical personnel, improve health, safety, security conditions at Pierce College, Valley College, East Los Angeles College, Harbor College, Los Angeles City College, Los Angeles Southwest College, Mission College, West Los Angeles College, Los Angeles Trade Technical College; construct computer technology centers to train students for high-tech jobs; repair deteriorating classrooms, science laboratories, libraries; expand educational centers in underserved communities; upgrade heating, plumbing, wiring, roofs, sewers, energy efficiency, water conservation; improve campus environmental standards, safety, lighting, fire alarms, sprinklers, intercoms, fire doors; and acquire/improve real property and/or build new classrooms to relieve overcrowding, shall the Los Angeles Community College District issue $980 million dollars in bonds at interest rates within legal limits, require citizens' oversight for each college, annual independent financial audits, with no money for administrators' salaries?
--Voters approved this measure as well.
Taken together, the Proposition A/AA funding amounts to over two billion dollars in available construction funding. Being publicly-funded, these building projects were of course covered by state prevailing wage standards, whose rates are very close to, if not precisely matched by the union rates in the same area; in this case, Los Angeles County. In addition, the Proposition A/AA projects are covered by a local Project Labor Agreement, which provides much greater opportunity for successful bidding among signatory contractors in all the pipe trades. The District’s PLA, combined with its labor compliance effort and pre-bid scrutiny insure that reputable and responsible bidders will be awarded work; in other words, on a level playing field ideal for sub-bidding by union firms.
Within the requirements specified for these projects is the District’s own callout for Green construction: As directed by the District’s Board of Trustees, all new buildings that are at least half funded with Proposition A/AA bond monies will be Green buildings, built to LEED certification standards.
This language is a prime example of how local awarding agencies are creating Green standards for themselves, and a sign that Green building, especially on the LEED model, is fast becoming the norm rather than the exception in public works construction.
Effort equals Opportunity
The LACCD Proposition A/AA situation should be seen as the end result of a effort which began long before the election date, through which signatory contractors’ and labor organizations’ work was repaid with substantial opportunity. For many years the organized pipe trades had been asking for the chance to have public works bid specifications written in such a way as to make it possible for honest contractors to obtain work. That request has been answered with programs like those arising from Proposition A/AA. All that is required now is that contractors comply with the Green requirements of the agency, which are fairly laid out in advance and no more complex than those found in the ordinary run of work. Taken together, the PLA/Green combination is a chance to maintain a firm hold on profitable work and to exercise skills and experience that will be required to obtain work in the future.
End 683 words
Monday, October 8, 2007
Caltrans District 7
Example Project: Caltrans District 7
In 2004 the State of California took possession of a new Headquarters building for Caltrans District 7. The building also houses the offices of the Los Angeles Department of Transportation. The 13-story structure was a design-build project with over 750,000 feet of office space and parking for more than a thousand cars. The building contains 52 bathrooms with 450 sinks and 700 toilets. Total value of the work was $165 million.
Regulatory Background
The District 7 project was subject to a number of environmental/conservation requirements in addition to those of local building codes and the design specification. This situation is becoming very common in large scale construction, particularly under public works contracts. The applicable specifications required compliance with:
1. California’s Excellence in Public Buildings Program (EIPB)
2. Governor’s Executive Order S-20-04
3. U.S. Green Building Council LEED Silver objective
It should be noted that these requirements are not compounding or competitive but mutually reinforcing—many of them being call-outs or references to the others. For example, California’s Excellence in Public Buildings Program (EIPB) incorporates the LEED rating system and other similar initiatives, and any State of California building project is required to conform to EO S-20-04, which in turn refers explicitly to LEED certifications. This being the case, the simplest path to follow is to conform to LEED’s current standard.
An examination of the project from the standpoint of a bidding contractor reveals nothing in the way of end-use plumbing significantly different from non-green installations. The mechanical contractor installed the following fixtures and appliances in the Caltrans building:
Dexter urinals type K-5016-ET, Kohler Kingston toilet bowls type K4330; Kohler Caxton sinks type K2210. Faucets are Zurn Aquasense “A” battery-powered. Showerheads are Delta Cambridge pressure-balancing 11T5-333.
In most green projects, and especially those undertaken under LEED guidance and review, the project manager or prime contractor will assume responsibility for compliance with the documentation requirements under LEED or similar standards. What this means is that the satisfaction of these requirements is no more complex or daunting than the ordinary run of documentation; the installing contractor merely follows the customary path of obtaining specified hardware, then installs according to code and accepted practice, maintaining ordinary documentation of these milestones along the way.
In terms of operation, LEED requirements may be considered a completion requirement for the subcontractor and a documentation requirement for the prime or construction manager. For that matter, most of what constitutes LEED requirements occurs in the design phase—in the choice of spec and material. At the installation end, very little is different than in non-green construction.
End 429 words
In 2004 the State of California took possession of a new Headquarters building for Caltrans District 7. The building also houses the offices of the Los Angeles Department of Transportation. The 13-story structure was a design-build project with over 750,000 feet of office space and parking for more than a thousand cars. The building contains 52 bathrooms with 450 sinks and 700 toilets. Total value of the work was $165 million.
Regulatory Background
The District 7 project was subject to a number of environmental/conservation requirements in addition to those of local building codes and the design specification. This situation is becoming very common in large scale construction, particularly under public works contracts. The applicable specifications required compliance with:
1. California’s Excellence in Public Buildings Program (EIPB)
2. Governor’s Executive Order S-20-04
3. U.S. Green Building Council LEED Silver objective
It should be noted that these requirements are not compounding or competitive but mutually reinforcing—many of them being call-outs or references to the others. For example, California’s Excellence in Public Buildings Program (EIPB) incorporates the LEED rating system and other similar initiatives, and any State of California building project is required to conform to EO S-20-04, which in turn refers explicitly to LEED certifications. This being the case, the simplest path to follow is to conform to LEED’s current standard.
An examination of the project from the standpoint of a bidding contractor reveals nothing in the way of end-use plumbing significantly different from non-green installations. The mechanical contractor installed the following fixtures and appliances in the Caltrans building:
Dexter urinals type K-5016-ET, Kohler Kingston toilet bowls type K4330; Kohler Caxton sinks type K2210. Faucets are Zurn Aquasense “A” battery-powered. Showerheads are Delta Cambridge pressure-balancing 11T5-333.
In most green projects, and especially those undertaken under LEED guidance and review, the project manager or prime contractor will assume responsibility for compliance with the documentation requirements under LEED or similar standards. What this means is that the satisfaction of these requirements is no more complex or daunting than the ordinary run of documentation; the installing contractor merely follows the customary path of obtaining specified hardware, then installs according to code and accepted practice, maintaining ordinary documentation of these milestones along the way.
In terms of operation, LEED requirements may be considered a completion requirement for the subcontractor and a documentation requirement for the prime or construction manager. For that matter, most of what constitutes LEED requirements occurs in the design phase—in the choice of spec and material. At the installation end, very little is different than in non-green construction.
End 429 words
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Building Green Introduction
Building Green
What is a green building? It might be better to ask what it is not. All of us, contractors and workers alike, have been constructing non-green buildings for over a century. Until recently that meant installing, maintaining and repairing systems whose only object was to meet a specification and satisfy a customer. In other words, to bring water, heat, and take away waste in the most efficient, safe, and economical manner. Doing this was, and remains, our business. It is why we exist.
The green building concept has largely developed over the past decade. Fundamentally it means the practice of increasing the efficiency of buildings and their use of energy, water and materials, while reducing impacts on the environment. This is done through a conscious effort over the entire building cycle, from design through construction, operation, maintenance and even demolition or removal.
The difference between these two approaches and their methods is actually quite small. For professionals in the field it is merely another series of options—familiar choices about materials, installation and tools. On the other hand, because of the increasing popularity of green building, and the rising number of projects whose specifications include green building provisions, thinking, bidding and working green is becoming profitable; in the future it is likely to become the only reliably profitable mode of operation in a large part of the construction industry. Today green building practices are encouraged and sometimes required: in the future they will increasingly become mandated as part of industry codes and specifications.
Of course, every segment of our industry is already acquainted with conservation of energy and material; after all, that’s what plumbing, piping, heating and cooling are all about. Building green is simply another expression of the same effort and work.
New Practices for New Goals
Green building standards are rapidly being adopted in both the public and private sectors, for work as varied as a simple faucet replacement to the design and construction of major facilities. Most contractors are familiar with these standards as elements within a larger set of specifications; for instance, as a local requirement for the use of graywater in the irrigation system of a public park. It is becoming increasingly common for customers and awarding agencies to establish or to refer to standards which are comprehensive in scale—ranging from particular origins and composition of construction materials to the type and use of tools and methods of installation, all the way through to the elements of the final punch list, and occasionally beyond. One significant difference is that the green building is perceived as a set of ongoing functions rather than a temporary challenge of construction to be accomplished and left for another job. These functions often begin before the traditional scope of construction work and end beyond it, too.
Standards and Guidelines
The established standards for Green construction are mainly found in the following places:
As elements of previously-existing codes
As adoptions of local ordinance
As requirements of a certifying agency
Many elements of what can be considered Green construction are already present in the common codes of the plumbing/heating/HVAC industry. Others are the result of local or regional adoption or political action, perhaps by a city council or county utility. The most complex and far-reaching requirements are those put together by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) through its rating system, known as LEED, for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design.
LEED
The LEED Green Building Rating System is the nationally accepted benchmark for the design, construction and operation of green buildings. The LEED system provides:
A process of project registration
A system of guidelines
A rating system for project elements
Essentially, LEED is a third-party standard which functions very much like traditional code requirements, with the exception of the initial project registration and that the LEED certification is based upon cumulative credits for meeting various listed criteria, rather than a go/no-go standard as is common in industry building codes.
Typical language from California Plumbing Code:
“All drip irrigation supply lines shall be polyethylene tubing or PVC class 200 pipe or better and Schedule 40 fittings.”
Typical LEED standard:
“Water Efficiency: Reduce by 50%, 1 Point. Requirements: Reduce potable water consumption for irrigation by 50% from a calculated mid-summer baseline case.”
The difference is that the CPC standard calls out only the material type for irrigation, while the LEED standard requires a measured reduction in final environmental effect. The credit for this achievement is added to a final score which will determine the classification of the project on the LEED scale, from a basic Certification through Silver, Gold and Platinum levels. As its publications state,
“LEED promotes a whole-building approach to sustainability by recognizing performance in five key areas of human and environmental health: sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection, and indoor environmental quality.”
One of the benefits of Green building on the LEED model is that the final product acts as an advertisement for the contractor’s effort, essentially broadcasting that the firms involved have passed a progressive standard and are ready to do more of the same work for new customers.
In the next section we will examine a series of construction projects to determine how Green building works in operation, what the ground-level situation looks like, and the differences and challenges of this new type of work.
end: 900 words
What is a green building? It might be better to ask what it is not. All of us, contractors and workers alike, have been constructing non-green buildings for over a century. Until recently that meant installing, maintaining and repairing systems whose only object was to meet a specification and satisfy a customer. In other words, to bring water, heat, and take away waste in the most efficient, safe, and economical manner. Doing this was, and remains, our business. It is why we exist.
The green building concept has largely developed over the past decade. Fundamentally it means the practice of increasing the efficiency of buildings and their use of energy, water and materials, while reducing impacts on the environment. This is done through a conscious effort over the entire building cycle, from design through construction, operation, maintenance and even demolition or removal.
The difference between these two approaches and their methods is actually quite small. For professionals in the field it is merely another series of options—familiar choices about materials, installation and tools. On the other hand, because of the increasing popularity of green building, and the rising number of projects whose specifications include green building provisions, thinking, bidding and working green is becoming profitable; in the future it is likely to become the only reliably profitable mode of operation in a large part of the construction industry. Today green building practices are encouraged and sometimes required: in the future they will increasingly become mandated as part of industry codes and specifications.
Of course, every segment of our industry is already acquainted with conservation of energy and material; after all, that’s what plumbing, piping, heating and cooling are all about. Building green is simply another expression of the same effort and work.
New Practices for New Goals
Green building standards are rapidly being adopted in both the public and private sectors, for work as varied as a simple faucet replacement to the design and construction of major facilities. Most contractors are familiar with these standards as elements within a larger set of specifications; for instance, as a local requirement for the use of graywater in the irrigation system of a public park. It is becoming increasingly common for customers and awarding agencies to establish or to refer to standards which are comprehensive in scale—ranging from particular origins and composition of construction materials to the type and use of tools and methods of installation, all the way through to the elements of the final punch list, and occasionally beyond. One significant difference is that the green building is perceived as a set of ongoing functions rather than a temporary challenge of construction to be accomplished and left for another job. These functions often begin before the traditional scope of construction work and end beyond it, too.
Standards and Guidelines
The established standards for Green construction are mainly found in the following places:
As elements of previously-existing codes
As adoptions of local ordinance
As requirements of a certifying agency
Many elements of what can be considered Green construction are already present in the common codes of the plumbing/heating/HVAC industry. Others are the result of local or regional adoption or political action, perhaps by a city council or county utility. The most complex and far-reaching requirements are those put together by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) through its rating system, known as LEED, for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design.
LEED
The LEED Green Building Rating System is the nationally accepted benchmark for the design, construction and operation of green buildings. The LEED system provides:
A process of project registration
A system of guidelines
A rating system for project elements
Essentially, LEED is a third-party standard which functions very much like traditional code requirements, with the exception of the initial project registration and that the LEED certification is based upon cumulative credits for meeting various listed criteria, rather than a go/no-go standard as is common in industry building codes.
Typical language from California Plumbing Code:
“All drip irrigation supply lines shall be polyethylene tubing or PVC class 200 pipe or better and Schedule 40 fittings.”
Typical LEED standard:
“Water Efficiency: Reduce by 50%, 1 Point. Requirements: Reduce potable water consumption for irrigation by 50% from a calculated mid-summer baseline case.”
The difference is that the CPC standard calls out only the material type for irrigation, while the LEED standard requires a measured reduction in final environmental effect. The credit for this achievement is added to a final score which will determine the classification of the project on the LEED scale, from a basic Certification through Silver, Gold and Platinum levels. As its publications state,
“LEED promotes a whole-building approach to sustainability by recognizing performance in five key areas of human and environmental health: sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection, and indoor environmental quality.”
One of the benefits of Green building on the LEED model is that the final product acts as an advertisement for the contractor’s effort, essentially broadcasting that the firms involved have passed a progressive standard and are ready to do more of the same work for new customers.
In the next section we will examine a series of construction projects to determine how Green building works in operation, what the ground-level situation looks like, and the differences and challenges of this new type of work.
end: 900 words
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)