This presentation provides the results of lifecycle analysis research that prioritizes the environmental benefits of 25 different green building practices.
Ride the Storm: Navigating Through Unstable Periods / Katerina Rudko (Belka G...
A Life Cycle Approach to Waste Prevention from the Oregon Residential Construction Sector
1. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
A LIFE CYCLE APPROACH TO WASTE
PREVENTION FROM THE OREGON
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
SECTOR
Jordan Palmeri
Oregon DEQ
palmeri.jordan@deq.state.or.us
503-229-6766
Full Report: www.deq.state.or.us/lq/sw/wasteprevention/greenbuilding.htm
2. Research Partners
2
Jonathan Balkema
Indigo Teiwes
Jon Dettling Bruce Sullivan
Amanda Pike Bill Jones
Reviewed
by: ISO 14040/14044 compliant
50-member
3-member panel
external advisory
of LCA experts
committee
Arpad Horvath
Greg Keoleian
Tom Gloria
3. Overview
1. Background for research
2. Results
3. Policy actions
4. Why materials matter
9. Initial Study Question
9
Over the life of a home,
how can you use fewer
building materials or
reuse materials?
10. Waste Prevention Practices Evaluated
10
Intermediate Framing Adaptability: Reduced Remodeling
Advanced Floor Framing Design using Salvaged Materials
Homeowner Maintenance Training
Advanced Framing (w/ drywall clips)
Restoration
Smaller Homes Multifamily Housing
Insulating Concrete Forms Thermal Curtains
Structural Insulated Panels Reusable Packaging
Strawbale w/ timber frame Reduced Packaging
Single-story Homes
Adaptability: Design for Disassembly
Detailed Framing Cut List
Adaptability: Utility Chase
Offsite Prefabricated Components
Dematerializing and Design for Simplicity Flashing and Rainscreening
Design using Salvaged Materials Deconstruction
Durable roofing, siding and flooring
Purpose of LCA evaluation is to prioritize these practices
based on environmental benefit.
11. Lifecycle Analysis (process LCA)
11
Climate Change Impacts
were used as the prioritizing
criterion in this study.
Impact categories (selection):
1. Energy used
2. Greenhouse gas emissions
3. Ecotoxicity
4. Human Health
5. Respiratory
12. Standard Home
12
2262 sq.ft
3 br
2 baths
2 car garage
Stem wall foundation
Post and Beam floor system
16inch stud spacing
Vinyl windows
Asphalt roof
Gas furnace, no A/C
Designed to 2008 Oregon
energy code
Energy use modeled for
Portland, OR climate
***Lifetime = 70 years***
13. Evaluating Lifecycle Impacts/Benefits (GHG example)
13
GHG units = KgCO2e
Standard
Home 95,500 3,800 8,400 6,900 597,500 -29,400
Impact
Lifecycle Material Material
Construction Maintenance Use End of Life
Production Transport
Phases
Small
Home 74,300 2,900 4,600 3,800 373,900 -24,700
Impacts
29. REACH Code
Size-based
tiers in
residential
energy code
Oregon Building Codes Division
http://www.cbs.state.or.us/bcd/programs/reach.html
30. Earth Advantage
Revised
points
allocation
for small
homes
Revised
material
resource
points http://www.earthadvantage.org/
31. Green Point Rated - California
Accounts for home
size and materials
used in home in
scoring
http://www.builditgreen.org/greenpoint-rated/
32. Certification and Labeling programs
• LEED
• Earth Advantage Size
• Energy Star
directly
• Energy Performance Score
addressed
• NAHB Greenbuilding / ICC 700
• Living Building Challenge
Size not
• Passive House directly
addressed
33. Energy Trust of Oregon
Increased the
incentives for
Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADU)
http://energytrust.org/residential/
35. Energy Trust Incentive Requirements
Requirements for full “new home” incentives:
• ADU must have its own USPS mailing address separate from main residence
• ADU must receive an Energy Performance Score (full incentive available through EPS)
• ADU must receive its own third party verification
• ADU must be detached from the main residence
• ADU must be intended to be used as a residence
• Detached structure must be permitted as an ADU
• Builder or owner builder must be a trade ally with New Homes program
Photo: Jordan Palmeri
36. System Development Charge (SDC) waivers
$ 7 – 12K savings
Portland: April 15, 2010 and June 30, 2013
Wilsonville: Permanent
40. Space-efficient housing workgroup
• Oregon DEQ • University of Oregon
• Oregon DLCD • Orange Splot, LLC
• Metro • Cascadia Region Green Building
• City of Portland Council
• City of Eugene • Numerous space-efficient housing
advocates
Drawing: cullygrove.org
42. Past Events
Appraising ADUs – a new method At Metro Building
Bus tour
http://cascadiagbc.org/living-future/12
Pedalpalooza bike tour of
Bike tour
ADUs and Tiny Homes
51. Salvage and Reuse
51
• Prevents the most waste of any
practice
• Don‟t reuse if energy efficiency if
sacrificed
• Reuse reduces human health and
ecosystem quality impacts more than
climate change and energy use
• Short lived products are ripe for reuse
• Feature reuse – make it sexy
• It can be affordable – but beware of
labor costs
• Keep it local
• High reuse environmental benefits for
wood, metals, insulation, and plastics
52. Wall framing shows that waste prevention is an
incomplete goal
52
Increase waste
generation but decrease
GHG emissions
54. Example – Reducing embodied
carbon of building products
54
35% reduction
achieved by:
•Using wood
floors instead of
carpet
•Reducing drywall
by half and using
wood
wainscoating
•25% less
remodeling or
water damage to
framing and
hardware
•50% reduction in
siding due to
better
maintenance
55. Reducing material related impacts
55
GOAL: Reduce the embodied carbon of building
products by 50% by 2030
Architects/Specifiers: Ask for Environmental Product Declarations (Eco-labels
based on
material specific Product Category Rules)
http://architecture2030.org/2030_challenge/2030_challenge_products
56. WA state legislation
• Washington Senate Bill 5485 was signed by Governor
Gregroire in May of 2011. This bill authorizes UW and
WSU to conduct a study into opportunities to integrate the
use of life cycle assessment methodologies to evaluate
the environmental impacts „embodied‟ in building
materials and products and explore the potential of
integrating life cycle assessment methods, data and/or
standards into the state building code.
http://courses.washington.edu/lcaforwa/wordpress/
DEQ hiredQuantis as our main consulting firm to conduct the lifecycle analysisEarth Advantage, who is a regional green building certification organization who and OHBA were subcontractors and partners on the projectEA and OHBA grounded the research in building design and science specific to Oregon conditionsInvaluable partners on the project and am happy to be presenting with EA today
DEQ has been tracking was generated in the State since 1992Trash can represent…..recycling bins represent….A few trends in the chartMore waste is being sent to the landfill per personMore waste is being recoveredThe trend, however, that is the most environmentally compelling is that Oregonians are consuming more and more stuff over timeI’m going to show you the same chart but add on data from 2008 and 2009
You’ll see that in 2008, the beginning of the economic recession, Oregonians started consuming less stuff and were throwing away and recycling less waste. 2008 also happens to be the first year in US history when the nations GHG emissions actually decreased. It also happened to be the first year ever when the average american home size went down. Nevertheless, DEQ is concerned with the environmental impacts of our consumption. So, what do you do about it?
Well, we go back to 3rd grade and remember reduce, reuse, recycle. We chose to focus on “waste prevention”, which is the reduce, reuse portion of reduce, reuse, recycle rather than recycling. There’s 2 main reasons for this. First and foremost is that the environmental benefits of material reduction and reuse are far greater than the benefits of recycling and the second is that Oregonians are getting really darn good at recycling and it’s time to be thinking about waste prevention more.
In 2009, Oregonians recovered (recycled, composted, energy recovery) about 45% of all waste generated. That’s pretty good! The national average is 33%. Still, however, 20-30% of our disposed waste stream is comprised of construction, remodeling, and demolition debris. Here’s the other reason why we focus on reduction and reuse
Here are the GHG emissions from producing, landfilling, and recycling 3 common building materials – carpet, HDPE, and asphalt roofing. You’ll see that the vast majority of the impacts over a products lifecycle is in producing that material. The GHG impact of landfilling these materials barely even shows up on the screen. Then we have the GHG emissions avoided if these materials are recycled. Recycling conserves energy and greenhouse gases in the production of new materials. So, the main benefit of recycling is NOT landfill avoidance – rather, it’s avoiding the GHG emission associated with extracting and processing new virgin materials. There is a common public misconception about this. For these materials, recycling can reduce the energy needed to make new products between 50-75%. Less energy used means less GHG emissions. That’s good, but what about the benefits of material reduction and reuse. Well, if you reduced the use of reused any of these materials you would completely avoid the production related emissions of the product’s lifecycle, which is why reduce and reuse have larger benefits that recycling.
JordanWe went out and met with stakeholdersto brainstorm all these different ways to use less or reuse materials and evaluated them using lifecycle analysis. We looked at lifetime benefits of the practices. For example, when evaluating small homes we looked at the benefit of using less material, the benefit of using less energy to operate a small home, and the beneftis of producing less waste at the end of the home’s life. The full lifecyclePurpose of LCA evaluation is to prioritize these practices based on environmental benefit.
On its own, waste generation or prevention is not a very good measure of environmental impact.Without a comprehensive view, we risk making decisions that result in waste prevention, but worse overall environmental outcomes. LCA provides a framework to look broadly across the scope of the system and across many categories of environmental impact to avoid making decisions that look good within a small view but bad within a more complete view.
JordanIn order to evaluate the benefits of all the practices, we needed a common baseline to compare their benefits against. Designed to represent average new construction practices and materials for new homes in Oregon. Built to 2008 energy code.Broke the home down into all of its material components and calculated the upstream impact of producing those materialsModeled the energy use of the home for 70 yearsDemolished the home and based the end of life fate of each material on DEQ’s waste composition and recovery data
Add more materials
reconsider practices chosen /
Discuss importance of the other impact categories. I’ve worked at DEQ for 8 years now. I’ve worked on hazardous waste cleanup, contaminated soils, sediments and groundwater. I’ve worked on surface water quality and fish contamination issues. These problems do exist and the production of building materials among other things contributes to the problem. We– that’s what the rest of my Agency works on. It’s certainly useful to use LCA to ensure efforts to reduce one impact don’t increase anotherGet a bigger legend
Change picture
Animate graphic
EXCLUDE OR COME UP WITH A BETTER GRAPH / POSSIBLY USE DIFFERENT WALL FRAMING TECHNIQUES…