Environmental Building News • January 2016 Copyright © 2016 BuildingGreen, Inc. All rights reserved.

LEED v4 Tips from Early Adopters: Earn High Ratings Without Added CostsYou can avoid lower LEED v4 scores and keep costs in check. Here’s how—including the pitfalls you need to watch out for.

By Paula Melton and Robert G. Andrews Jr.

With slightly more than 400 building design and construction (BD+C) projects registered after two years, LEED v4 appears to be suffering from a case of risk aversion.

First there are uncertainties about costs. Then there’s reluctance to raise the bar on sustainability in exchange for a lower LEED rating. Not to men-tion the horror stories about hours spent on product research, followed by rejection of documentation. Since LEED v4 isn’t required yet (the U.S. Green Building Council has extended

an already-long phase-out period for LEED 2009), why risk it?

Although most building professionals we talked to have expressed that exact sentiment, some teams are already out there achieving v4 credits with slight cost premiums—and with none at all for most credits.

We’ll detail some of these below, along with a dollar-for-dollar case study of one LEED 2009 project if it had been built under v4 (see sidebars).

But there’s also less-rosy news: even familiar credits are harder to achieve now, and it’s unwise to make assump-tions about your scorecard at the outset. We’ll share caveats, solutions, and workarounds for some of these issues as well.

Perhaps you already know you’re not going to pursue v4 projects or credits until you have to. This article’s lessons from early adopters will prepare you for the inevitable day when it will be necessary.

The case study excerpted in this article first appeared in our special report The Cost of LEED v4. Here we’ve expanded on our quantitative research on v4 to provide analysis and lessons learned from the field.

Who’s Using v4?“We haven’t been recommending it,” admits Andrea Love, AIA, director of building science at Payette. “We went through the exercise two or three times and always landed on v3 as the better option.”

This conclusion is partly related to soft costs—“there’s definitely a learning curve associated with the new rating system,” she notes—and partly about prestige. With one current project, “the point tally wasn’t that different,” Love says, “but the owner wants to make sure it’s Platinum.” Love’s firm works primarily on institutional projects, and she says students and nonprofit boards prefer high levels of certifica-tion. So for many clients—and we’ve heard this from firms around the country—“getting a Platinum project

A Publication of BuildingGreen, Inc. www.BuildingGreen.com Volume 25, Number 1 · January 2016

Environmental Building NewsThe Leading Source for Environmentally Responsible Design & Construction

TM

The headquarters of the Colorado Health Foundation, designed by Davis Partnership Architects, is a LEED v4 project focusing on workplace health and wellness through active design, healthy food choices, and biophilia.

Image: Davis Partnership Architects

p. 2Environmental Building News • January 2016

is more meaningful than a v4 project,” Love says.

“I want as much experience with v4 as possible,” counters Mathilda Johnson, sustainability coordinator with Skanska Sweden, who says she recommends v4 routinely. “The client’s reaction is that they get excited to be one of the first v4 projects,” she explains, “but when they hear that they probably won’t get the Platinum level, they don’t want it as much.” Johnson thinks that’s shortsighted, particularly for the developers she works with: “My argument is that when the building is completed, v4 will be up and running, and then their clients may ask why we used the old system.”

Some owners really are excited about v4 and are beginning to adopt it, like the North Shore–LIJ Health System (which racked up seven beta projects during the pilot phase) and the Lake Mills Area School District (whose new elementary school was also a v4 beta project). In Massachusetts, LEED v4 is mandated for all new K–12 schools, so

project teams there have been working with the system since 2014.

Some contractors and architects are adopting v4 as the standard for their own fit-outs or new construction projects. This way, the firm itself absorbs any soft-cost penalties of its first project. Still other firms are experimenting with the new system by pursuing v4 compliance paths as pilot credits in LEED 2009 projects.

We spoke with many building pro-fessionals who are using v4 rating systems or credits. Below we’ll share how they’re finding—and solving—some of the problems of early adoption in each credit category.

Integrative ProcessEveryone we spoke with for this article uses an integrative design process as standard practice, and most were excited to finally get credit for it in LEED. From what we heard, documentation is not a burden, and teams are not seeing or expecting added costs. (If anything, a rigorous integrative process tends to save money.)

There are a few hiccups, however, mainly for taxpayer-funded projects.

Rewards the right things

A building project “is like a human body,” says Theresa Lehman, director of sustainable services at Miron Construction, based in Wisconsin. “When one thing’s wrong, it affects a lot of different things.”

The new Integrative Process credit, Lehman says, “Is just about doing the project the right way and docu-menting it,” and she suggests that its availability as a LEED incentive will make it easier to convince old-school clients to give integrated design and design-build models a try. “It has opened eyes and allowed alternative delivery methods to be allowed, which is pretty cool,” she says, adding that that’s a plus for these clients. “I think owners are getting better value and a more efficient, higher-quality

building—but they’re not paying more for it.”

Neil Rosen, AIA, is director of sustainability at North Shore–LIJ Health System, a major healthcare network in the New York City area. Integrative process is a no-brainer for all the group’s projects, he explains. In fact, he says, “We do more than what they’re asking us to do.” That’s because “in this industry, I can’t build something without making sure the users are happy,” so doctors, nurses, infection-control specialists, and many others are automatically included.

A fully integrative process is not necessarily the norm on some of the network’s smaller projects, though, so “I’m happy it’s in there because it forces us to do it,” Rosen notes. “It forces us to make it our standard to think it through every time.”

Tricky for public schools

For certain projects, unfortunately, earning the credit may be impos-sible. Public schools and other taxpayer-funded buildings may not be eligible—even if the team uses an integrative process—because many local governments are locked into a design–bid–build model that prevents certain team members from getting involved as early as LEED v4 would like.

“Most of the integrative process dove-tails with LEED,” notes Martine Dion,

How Much Will v4 Cost?For our LEED v4 case study, we started with a project that originally achieved Gold certification under LEED 2009. The sidebars throughout this article detail how this same project could have achieved a hypothetical upgrade to v4 Gold at a cost premium of roughly one-half of one percent (0.5%).

We first evaluated which LEED v4 pre-requisites and credits would already be achieved for the same project.

Then, because the LEED certification level dropped under LEED v4 from Gold to Sil-ver, we looked at what credits would have to be achieved to earn Gold under LEED v4, and at what cost.

This project was located in a municipality where LEED certification or equivalent was required by ordinance, so it is assumed that there is no added cost for basic LEED certification. The project was certified Gold under LEED for New Construction v2009 in March 2013, with a total of 67 points.

Excerpts from the case study appear here. The full study is available in a BuildingGreen special report, The Cost of LEED v4.

Original Project CostThe LEED 2009 Gold project analyzed for this case study is a new, urban, build-to-suit, ground up, slab-on-grade, four-story medical office building of Type B occupancy and type 2B construction. Located in Massachusetts, this 47,777 ft2 building was built with union labor.

The project construction cost was about $15,600,000, or $326.50 per ft2. Total architecture, engineering, and LEED consultant fees for the project were about $800,000, which translates to $16.74 per ft2. This includes about $80,000 in fees ($1.67 per ft2) for LEED administration, documentation of credits and prerequisites, energy modeling, and commissioning.

Total project cost amounted to $16,400,000, or $343.24 per ft2.

p. 3Environmental Building News • January 2016

director of sustainable design at SMMA, of the firm’s various K–12 school projects being designed under LEED v4. But in Massachusetts, she explains, the commissioning agent cannot be chosen and hired by the Commonwealth until after schematic design and a public vote. This automatically disqualifies all Massachusetts public schools from achieving the credit. “We will definitely pursue it in other v4 projects,” Dion says.

Location & Transit, and Sustainable SitesMany of the Location & Transit and Sustainable Sites approaches will be familiar to project teams that have worked with LEED before. But don’t count your chickens before they hatch!

You should not assume you’ll achieve the v4 version of these credits just because you’re used to getting the points under LEED 2009.

Bike racks: A new cycle

LEED has always offered points for bike storage, but over the years it’s become more stringent in response to criticism that anybody could nab a gimme point for slapping a bike rack down or for spending money on features no one would really use.

The Bicycle Facilities credit in v4 is no giveaway: it raises the bar on the quality of storage, the amount of storage, and the nearby infrastruc-ture that’s required. If you’re used to getting this credit under v2009, don’t count on it now.

The long-term storage requirements can be problematic, says Dion, who adds that for many projects, the bike connectivity isn’t going to be possible at all “depending on site layout and constraints. It can be pricey” to con-nect a site to a bike path even if there happens to be one in place, she says.

“I literally have had to go to city council meetings to get them to either designate a bike lane or authorize people to ride bikes on the sidewalk,” says Lehman. Although that’s the kind of transformation that rating systems like LEED are meant to encourage, it puts a burden on the project team or building owner and could increase costs in some circumstances.

Revving up green vehicles

Green Vehicles is a perfect example of the “spend more to get fewer points” aspect of LEED v4 that many project teams and building owners are shying away from.

In LEED 2009, the Alternative Transportation credit covering alternative -fuel vehicles offered up to three points and had four distinct achievement options. These have collapsed into one point in LEED v4, and for that one point, you must provide both preferred parking and alternative fueling stations.

“That might be the only additional cost if you decide to pursue” the credit, notes Lehman, but it’s still just one point instead of three, which could be a significant hit for a project that’s trying to make v4 Gold or Platinum.

A buggy light pollution credit?

Experts we consulted agree that using the new method (backlight, uplight, and glare, or BUG ratings) to choose exterior light fixtures is far simpler than what’s done in 2009. That should save some on soft costs, and in theory, BUG-rated light fixtures shouldn’t cost more.

However, some early adopters have had trouble finding enough products to meet the credit. “We knew when we took this on that we were ahead of the game by a year,” says Richard Moore, AIA, LEED consultant for a Partners Healthcare System office complex near Boston. “BUG-compliant fixtures are not prevalent. And if they are not

Lake Mills Elementary School, designed by Eppstein Uhen Architects, is an early LEED v4 beta project that broke ground in 2013. But K-12 projects like these may have trouble achieving the Integrative Process credit due to legal constraints in their jurisdictions.

Photo courtesy of C&N Photography and Miron Construction Co., Inc. Used with permission.

Integrative ProcessAdded cost for v4 Gold: $0

The Integrative Process credit is new in LEED v4, but the project as originally exe-cuted would achieve it. The documentation requirements for LEED v4 are minimal for this credit.

Location & Transportation + Sustainable SitesAdded cost for v4 Gold: $10,000

The following v4 credits would be readily achieved by the original project because of practices or local regulations that raised the bar above v2009 requirements:

• Sensitive Land Protection

• High Priority Site

• Surrounding Density and Diverse Uses (both options)

• Access to Quality Transit

• Bicycle Facilities

• Reduced Parking Footprint

• Rainwater Management

• Heat Island Reduction

The low-emitting and fuel-efficient vehicle parking spaces provided under v2009, however, would not enable achievement of the Green Vehicles credit in v4. An electric car charging station could be added to the project for extra cost to gain this point for Gold certification.

Many of the Site Assessment credit require-ments were performed already under the previous project design, so the climate, human use, and human health effects studies could be added to the soft costs to gain this point for Gold certification.

p. 4Environmental Building News • January 2016

prevalent, you have to go back to the other method”—the more-difficult calculation option from LEED 2009.

The tide may already be turning on that front, according to Theresa Backhus, sites technical specialist at the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). “We went to a few of the major manufacturers’ websites to see if BUG info was available. We were surprised at how much there was,” she told BuildingGreen. “Definitely more are going to be coming online the longer v4 is out.” She notes that the Dark Sky requirements referenced in the credit have been available for years now, adding, “I think lighting manufacturers were starting to include this information earlier because of that.”

BUG ratings should appear in IES data sheets for exterior lighting. If you have trouble finding these online from your preferred manufacturer, just ask; most should be able to provide it.

If you can’t stand the heat, get off the island

Multiple LEED v4 users told BuildingGreen that the new version of the Heat Island Reduction credit is harder to achieve compared with LEED 2009’s divided Heat Island Effect credits (one point for roof stratgies and one for non-roof strategies).

That’s because the calculation for Option 1 is all-or-nothing, so you typically need parts of both the roof and the paved areas of the site to comply in order to achieve both points (it’s just one under LEED for Healthcare).

“If the site has a lot of roof, it’s not an issue,” says Dion. “But if you have a suburban or rural school on a large site, there’s more area required for parking spaces, and it’s unlikely that we’re going to do a whole parking lot in concrete” because it increases maintenance costs for the school. Dion says her firm will continue to use white roofs and other heat-island mitigation strategies, but “we’re going

to consider not pursuing this. It’s really challenging to meet.”

Lehman questions the wisdom of a white roof in colder climates and says her firm isn’t likely to pursue Option 1 of the credit either, now that roof and non-roof are combined. (For more on that debate, see Are Cool Roofs Green? The Answer’s Not Black and White.)

The main alternative is to put 75% of parking undercover, which is a similarly high bar for many projects to meet.

Rainwater is harder than stormwater

Depending on where your project is located, the new Rainwater Management credit in v4 may already sync perfectly with local regulations.

But if you’re used to the Stormwater Design credits from LEED 2009, and your municipality or state doesn’t require you to capture and treat all your stormwater on the site, you may be in for a surprise when you go to do your calculations (see New Concepts in LEED v4).

“The feedback I’ve heard is that in the Northeast [U.S.], a lot of cities already require new development to manage all water that falls onsite,” Sara Cederberg, AIA, told BuildingGreen. Cederberg is technical director of LEED at USGBC. “So that’s in line with local regulations, especially where there is combined sewer and storm.”

It’s not going smoothly for everyone, though. “We pursued it, but we ended up not getting it,” says Moore. “We are on a brownfield, so it’s basically capped, with no percolation of rain-water.” That’s an important sustain-ability feature on its own, but it means that for this particular project, “the only way to earn the credit is to put in a holding tank.” The project hardly needs any irrigation water, and the cost of capturing rainwater that couldn’t be reused seemed unnecessarily high.

In special circumstances like these, options can definitely be limited,

concedes Backhus. She encourages teams to try Option 2 of the credit instead because in some climates “the amount you’re required to manage is a lot less.”

A potentially more serious issue has popped up for projects outside North America, Backhus says, where neces-sary rainfall data may not be available. “We’re working with them based on what they can find,” she notes.

Water EfficiencyIn general, teams we spoke with sounded optimistic about water and energy credits alike.

“The fact that it’s a little more holistic is exciting,” says Andrea Love of Payette. She laments that one of the firm’s current projects—an energy- and water-intensive university lab—decided to stick with LEED 2009. “There are a lot of things we’re actually doing that we don’t get points for” under the older system, such as using graywater in the cooling tower. “I’m personally excited about the new opportunities” to include such measures under v4, she says. “For research labs, the cooling tower and RODI [reverse osmosis/deionization] system make up the vast majority of water in the building.”

For the most part, water-efficiency credits appear to be readily

Water EfficiencyAdded cost for v4 Gold: $3,500

The original project achieved 30% indoor water savings, and plantings require no irrigation, so the project meets v4 prereq-uisites and credits for these categories.

Upgrading to v4 requires a small increase in hard costs, however, because a meter must be added to the make-up water for the evaporative condensing rooftop HVAC unit. The original project included an elec-trostatic water treatment unit on the rooftop unit condenser water; for v4 compliance, water sample analysis will need to be add-ed to gain this point for Gold certification.

Additional meters would need to be in-stalled on the domestic cold water, do-mestic hot water, non-potable water, and dental/process water systems to gain the metering point for Gold certification.

p. 5Environmental Building News • January 2016

achievable—but use the integrative process to plan ahead for some of the new requirements.

Warning: Labels!

“The only challenge was WaterSense” for the Lake Mills school project, Lehman shared. Although WaterSense has been around for a long time for residential fixtures, the commercial version is relatively new, so your favorite products might not have the label yet. Additionally, Lehman advises, “The plumbing engineer needs to be very aware of what he or she is specifying,” which may be new territory for this discipline.

The parallel energy label, Energy Star, is also relevant for the indoor water credit for schools, retail, hospitality, and healthcare projects.

Lehman warns project teams that even though the dishwashers and ice machines may not be in their scope of work, they need to make sure the owner understands that this credit covers their purchases. “Take the time to explain to the client that

these things must be Energy Star,” she cautions.

Energy and AtmosphereExperts we spoke with were not con-cerned at this stage about achieving higher energy-efficiency targets under the more stringent v4 system, which moves to ASHRAE 90.1–2010 as its energy standard. The 2010 version has already been adopted as code by several states and is used by the federal government, so this is one area where LEED is lagging. (Soon it may be necessary even for v2009 projects to up their game on energy, but they won’t have to adopt all of 90.1–2010.)

That said, the cost of bulking up envelopes and adding lighting controls is not trivial, and more than 30 U.S. states have yet to adopt the 2010 code as required (even though the current version is now 2013 instead of 2010). Some overseas projects will likely have an even harder time (though others may find these credits to be a breeze).

Our analysis suggests that Optimize Energy Performance will be the most

expensive credit to achieve—in terms of first costs—at levels teams have been accustomed to from LEED 2009.

Optimize, optimize

“We had a huge discussion during [schematic design]” about whether to pursue v4 for one project, relates Moore. “My objection was that I wasn’t sure we could meet the energy- efficiency benchmark. Buro Happold did a lot of studies and assured us that we could not only meet it but also gain 12 points in that category. Once we were sure we could meet the prerequisites, we changed” to v4.

Some cite cost-competitive LEDs as the reason this credit is unexpectedly easy—even at levels close to what they would have achieved under v2009.

“The cost of LED lighting has come down so much that most of our clients are installing them,” Lehman says. Miron clients are also typically doing ground-source heating and cooling, she adds, and starting with good envelope design and a reason-able window-to-wall ratio. “But the difference comes in with the lighting.”

Dion echoes those sentiments, adding that lighting controls play a role as well.

But not so fast, says Love: this approach isn’t likely to be a silver bullet for more energy-intensive project types like the labs her firm specializes in. Although meeting the new standard “isn’t a challenge,” Love says, “where maybe previously you were getting 13 points, now you’re getting nine.”

Making money from commissioning

It’s becoming more common for commissioning (Cx) to be required, and in Wisconsin, even envelope commissioning is the law for all public projects, explains Lehman. The more rigorous Cx requirements in v4 are only an advantage for most of her clients, many of which have already adopted ongoing verification as standard practice.

This graphic shows why including cooling tower water use in LEED v4 is a good move. “For research labs, the cooling tower and RODI system make up the vast majority of water in the building,” says Andrea Love of Payette.

Image: Payette

Cooling Towers in v4: A Big Step Forward

p. 6Environmental Building News • January 2016

“Time and time again, it’s been well worth the money,” Lehman argues, claiming that all the projects she’s worked on that have employed these practices “are performing better than what the energy model predicted.” For schools and nonprofits, this not only saves money but also allows the owner to make money by selling tax credits they can’t use to other entities.

The matter of meters

Although most LEED v4 users say there’s minimal cost associated with the energy and water meters that are required to meet new prerequisite and credit requirements, there are some caveats, Lehman points out.

“Advanced energy metering does add money, but if you talk about it as a team up front as part of integrative process, there should be no extra effort to run it all to separate panels. But if all of a sudden at the end you have lighting and plug loads in same panels

and you’re trying to separate them,” that’s going to rack up extra dollars.

Lehman additionally notes that for many college campuses, even building- level metering can be a stretch. Central steam plants are a worst-case scenario, she says, because “to do it correctly to accurately measure the energy, they’re about $20,000. Campuses are very costly.”

Materials and ResourcesMany credit categories have taken v4 project teams off guard because they’re used to earning the 2009 version of the credits. Not so for Materials & Resources.

Most people know going into v4 that the Materials & Resources section has been completely overhauled, including the addition of the Building Product Disclosure & Optimization (BPDO) credits. These are for Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs), Sourcing of Raw Materials, and Material Ingredients.

Each credit has two parts: the pure disclosure part, which requires gathering credit-compliant documents for a handful of products; and the optimization part, which requires proof of better-than-average environ-mental performance for a significant portion of products.

Many of the options are simply not achievable yet, and others are requiring more work than teams originally bargained for. “For two school projects in the design phase, we are diving into the details of v4 and finding out a lot of little things that are affecting our decision process in terms of soft costs,” Dion told BuildingGreen, echoing the words of other practitioners as well. Because public-school budgets don’t have the flexibility to add that research time, “we’re reconsidering some of those credits.”

BPDO = COST?

On the plus side, that research time is likely to shrink quickly and dramatically as more manufacturers offer more declarations for more products.

That helps, but some project teams are concerned about lingering premiums associated with proprietary specifications: having to spec products by name can hurt their buying power in the marketplace (and for many public projects, it’s not even permitted).

“Some of the products don’t cost me more,” explains Neil Rosen of North Shore–LIJ. “If the lower bidders happens to be one of the products with an EPD … happy happy!” But

Energy & AtmosphereAdded cost for v4 Gold: $53,900

A third-party commissioning agent com-missioned the building and systems and performed enhanced commissioning under LEED 2009. For LEED v4, the project would need to add commissioning for some systems to comply with the prerequisite.

Envelope commissioning and monitoring- based commissioning would need to be added to Enhanced Commissioning in order to achieve all the available points in the credit for Gold certification.

The whole-building gas and electric meters originally provided comply with the requirements for Building-Level Energy Metering.

The project as originally designed would comply with the requirements of ASHRAE 90.1–2010; however, to achieve an additional four points towards Gold certification, the project could add improvements to windows, lighting, and ventilation at some expense. Each of these items would also qualify for additional rebates from the local electric and gas utility companies, reducing the overall cost.

The project complies with Enhanced Refrigerant Management as originally designed. The project could purchase Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) for Green Power and Carbon Offsets as part of the Gold upgrade.

The Gensler-designed Administration Campus is an office complex for Partners Healthcare System near Boston. Finding products has been frustrating, but “we knew when we took this on that we were ahead of the game by a year,” says Richard Moore, LEED consultant for the project.

Image: Gensler

p. 7Environmental Building News • January 2016

if North Shore goes into the deal demanding specific products with EPDs up front, it can lose its negoti-ating position, and “then I’m going to get a 10% to 15% markup. If I force somebody to do something, even if it saves them money, then it costs me money.”

Rosen says his projects are also taking a big hit from the loss of diversity in the Materials & Resources section, and particularly the discontinuation of the standalone Regional Materials credit from v2009; it’s now incentivized as a multiplier on the other credits. “I’m on the East coast, and last I checked they don’t manufacturer anything in the Atlantic Ocean,” he joked. “And the distances are getting shorter. That also hurts.”

They earned it

Despite the trouble that the BPDO credits are giving many people, they have all been earned by at least one project, says Sara Cederberg.

No v4 projects (except in beta) have earned the Material Ingredients credit yet, she says, but some teams that are using v4 compliance paths as pilot credits in v2009 have earned it.

Early on, we were hearing intense frustration from project teams as they discovered that most Health Product Declarations (HPDs) don’t actually meet LEED criteria. But since then, the Health Product Declaration Collaborative (HPDC) has posted a LEED v4 “crosswalk” on its website, so the number of achievers is likely to keep going up.

That doesn’t hold true for the disclosure option under Sourcing of Raw Materials, says Cederberg; that’s the one incentivizing corporate sustainability reports (CSR). “People are not even attempting” that one, she says, because existing CSRs just don’t have the information that’s required. Companies “have to report their manufacturing processes, locations of their plants, and the origin of their raw materials,” Cederberg explains. “In some cases, that’s the most sensitive information from a supplier.

They don’t want to disclose those locations.”

USGBC is working on a fix, she notes. “It’s at the top of our agenda for 2016.” Possible workarounds could involve disclosure to a third party instead of to the public (as happens with Cradle to Cradle certification, under the Material Ingredients credit), or referencing the same chain-of-custody programs that are currently available under Option 2 (like certified wood or certified biobased materials).

Whole-building LCA

Although there’s been a lot of interest in whole-building life-cycle assessment (WBLCA), which is one of the options under Building Life-Cycle Impact Reduction, there’s also a lot of confusion, admits Cederberg. Several different types of WBLCA software already exist or are in development, and as teams consider this credit, they are looking for guidance on which tools meet the requirements of the credit.

The answer is quite simple. “We are not approving software tools for whole-building LCA,” Cederberg says. “Any program that can report the impacts that we require can be used.”

USGBC has worked with a variety of software providers, though, to ensure they are up to the task—like the tool ELODIE, used in France, which doesn’t report eutrophication. “They have created a workaround so they can add that into the simulation.”

Similarly, various software programs in use in North America may or may not have gaps, so it can be frustrating for designers who want to DIY their WBLCA but don’t have expertise in the field.

“Our IE4B [Impact Estimator tool] is the only North American whole-building LCA tool that includes all the life-cycle phases required in the LEED credit,” claims Jenni-fer O’Connor. She is president of the Athena Institute, the nonprofit that develops the software—which

it distributes for free. Its main competitor, Tally, fits more easily into designers’ workflow because it’s a Revit plugin, but according to O’Connor, Tally “is missing the construction phase, so users would have to somehow add it in by hand.” (Tally is also not free.)

The other alternative is to hire a professional, and the cost of an expert LCA can be comparable to that of an expert energy model. Lehman main-tains that WBLCA is an excellent idea, but she doubts her client base will go for it anytime soon due to the high cost of expert modeling, which she estimates will be around $15,000. “The reality is that the majority of clients are not going to pay this kind of money,” she argues, because it’s too difficult to justify to “taxpayers, the community, or the board.”

Both the Athena Impact Estimator and Tally are intended for designers to use, but there may be a steep learning curve for some users, so plan for soft costs (see Whole-Building Life-Cycle Assessment: Taking the Measure of a Green Building).

Materials & ResourcesAdded cost for v4 Gold: $0

All the following efforts on the original project would still help meet credit requirements under LEED v4:

• Areas to collect and store recyclable materials

• 97% diversion of construction and demolition waste

• 27.7% recycled content

• 45.67% regional materials

For this case study, we did not conduct a detailed review to determine which products offer disclosure or optimization data that would qualify the project for LEED v4 points. However, given the large number of products and materials used and the increasing availability of EPDs, we would likely have been able to provide EPDs for achievement of at least one point.

We can realistically assume that one point would also be achieved under Sourcing of Raw Materials due to the Regional Materials multiplier.

p. 8Environmental Building News • January 2016

Indoor Environment QualityOverall, Indoor Environmental Quality—a large and diverse credit category—seems fairly stable. But two things seem to be causing turmoil as building professionals catch up to the new requirements of v4: the reworked Low-Emitting Materials credit, and the new Indoor Air Quality Assessment.

Although USGBC confirms that teams have earned the credits, we’ve heard rumblings that they are next to impos-sible. USGBC tells us it’s working on communicating with project teams, manufacturers, and testing labs to support credit achievement.

Even with that help on the way, the credit is not a breeze, as Richard Moore points out. “Both VOC content and the general emissions evaluation are required to meet the credit,” which is new for wet-applied products. And the v4 version of this credit newly applies to all materials to the interior of the weather barrier—not just interior finishes.

That’s likely to add some cost, and it’s also proving harder to get the data from manufacturers of these newly included products, at least for early adopters.

Where’s the beef TVOC?

Dozens of desperate phone calls, emails, and LEEDuser posts were generated as it dawned on architects, contractors, and LEED consultants

that having a third-party VOC label wasn’t enough anymore. That’s right: Low-Emitting Materials comes with a “disclosure” component of its own now, with manufacturers having to report on the total VOC (TVOC) count from their CDPH Standard Method v1.1–2010 test results.

But fear not: manufacturers who’ve used CDPH already have that magic TVOC range—even if they don’t know it. Their products can count toward the credit once they disclose that TVOC range to you. That’s true even if the range is high, provided they meet the CDPH Standard Method requirements for specific VOCs.

Additionally, any product certified to Greenguard Gold (not just regular Greenguard) should meet the credit requirements, according to Scott Steady, product manager at UL Environment, which owns the Greenguard label. That’s because Greenguard Gold is only awarded to a product if it falls into the lowest TVOC range on the CDPH test—so the certification itself effectively tells you which range the product is in.

This trouble is likely to disappear completely fairly soon, as other third-party programs are starting to report the TVOC number on every certificate.

Testing the air

On its surface, the v4 Air Quality Testing credit doesn’t look that different from the pre-occupancy Construction IAQ Management Plan credit from v2009. But the details are tripping up project teams that were expecting to pass with flying colors based on prior experience.

“The IAQ assessment credit com-pounds align with the low- emitting materials credit,” points out Cederberg. “That list of compounds comes from a chamber- testing protocol, and it’s easier to test in a controlled environment than out in the field.” Because of this, some project teams have been told that the test is technically impossible.

Not so, according to Cederberg, who says USGBC is actively working on the credit. “It is possible for people to per-form this test, but it requires changes to the way they calibrate their tools, and the run times might be longer.” Where there are technical hurdles or major cost barriers to the testing, USGBC is addressing that by working closely with the industrial hygiene industry. “We have had people earn the credit, so we know it is possible. But it is close to the top of the list of things that we are continuing to dig out and understand better.”

That didn’t help Neil Rosen when we needed it. Because of the timing of the assessment, there may be other challenges for some projects, he notes. “We kept failing,” he says, because new staff were being trained on how to use equipment in an imaging center. It turned out that a cleaning product used to sanitize the machines between procedures (which happened more than usual during the training) was to blame. “We had to work around when they wiped down the equipment—almost trying to jerry rig it to work for us, which is not what we want to be doing.” The project finally reverted to

Photo: North Shore-LIJ Health System

With a whopping seven beta projects, North Shore-LIJ Health System has been a very early and enthusiastic v4 adopter. But certain requirements, like the unexpected changes in the IAQ assessment, have led the network to stick with v2009 for the time being.

Indoor Environmental QualityAdded cost for v4 Gold: $20,000

This project would meet ASHRAE 62.1–2010 as it was originally designed. All the requirements of Enhanced Indoor Air Quality Strategies were included in the original project. The contractor’s original Indoor Air Quality Management plan would still comply, and the project originally included air-flow measurement. Smoking was already prohibited in the building.

For the Low-Emitting Materials credit, most of the products originally specified meet the credit requirements, but furniture could be added (at extra cost) for an additional point toward LEED v4 Gold certification.

Some additional soft cost would be needed for the supplemental lighting design and quality analysis needed to gain an additional point toward Gold certification.

Daylight and views were not pursued for privacy reasons. However, given the full-height walls that were originally installed, the Acoustic Performance credit would likely be achieved if some acoustic analysis were added as a soft cost.

p. 9Environmental Building News • January 2016

v2009 certification, in part because of this issue.

Less rigor, please

“I can prove with actual daylight meters that we achieved the [Daylight] credit,” says Theresa Lehman. “But when I plug into the model, I’m not achieving it.” (Luckily, this credit can still be achieved based on actual mea-surements under Option 3.) Lehman suspects there’s a problem with the software tools.

She’s not alone, though John Mlade, senior sustainability manager at YR&G, thinks the problem could be the metrics themselves (spatial day-light autonomy, or sDA, and annual sunlight exposure, or ASE). “Certainly sDA and ASE are more robust than the far simpler measures in LEED 2009—but perhaps they are too robust?” says Mlade. “It seems as though the level of performance is such that even very well designed and daylit buildings are not able to comply.”

Mlade also has a quibble with ASE, mainly because it is “a measure of glare that is required to be measured when all shades and blinds are open.” That’s fine for commercial spaces, he suggests, but what about multi family buildings, where occupants have plenty of control over the blinds?

It’s a ProcessDespite their critiques of the v4 rating BD+C rating system, the professionals we spoke with all had positive things to say.

“It is by far the most robust rating system in the LEED family, and it gives the design teams the license to

innovate and think more deliberately about site, energy, water, materials, and health,” says Mlade, adding that “it is not easy,” but because of that “projects will again receive acco-lades for achieving high levels of certification.”

Love concurs, though in the future tense: “I think it’s going to be a good thing and what the industry needs. It’s time to make it harder.”

Mlade sums up: “If you have a client that wants to move the needle but may not be ready for the Living Building Challenge, LEED v4 may be for you.”

FROM THE EDITOR

A New Year’s Toast to Practically Perfect ProductsOur Top 10 products are leading toward a more sustainable future. They are not perfect, but let’s not make a desire for perfection the enemy of the good.

By Brent Ehrlich

In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. … But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations. The new needs friends. – Anton Ego, food critic, Ratatouille

In our quest to provide unbiased information, BuildingGreen often plays the role of the critic. We risk championing products while also acknowledging their faults and knocking them down a peg or two.

We loved the energy efficiency of fluorescent lamps, for example, but we hated their light quality, poor dimming, and mercury content. When the first commercially viable residen-tial white LEDs became available back

in 2005, we recognized that they were the future of lighting and gave them a Top 10 award.

But we also saw that they were not even as efficient as CFLs, they had questionable performance and reliability, and you just about had to refinance your home to pay for one.

Yet LEDs were a “risk” worth championing. They are now ubiquitous and cost-competitive, and they are opening new frontiers in what is possible for lighting design. Though still not perfect, they continue to improve.

The truth is, it is hard not to find fault with even the “greenest” new building product or material.

Don’t confuse “top 10” with “perfect 10”

All products have environmental or health impacts at some point in their life cycle, and with all of our pressing environmental and health concerns, we tend to want solutions now. It’s all too easy to see products with flaws as a step backward ... or at least sideways.

There are still plenty of reasons for optimism, though, which is why every year I enjoy focusing on new, industry- transforming products for our Top 10 Green Building Products list. The manufacturers of these

FindingsIt would take this LEED v2009 Gold project an additional $9,000 to achieve LEED certification in v4, which is 0.05% of the total original cost.

To match its LEED v2009 Gold certification with a LEED v4 Gold plaque, the project would incur an extra cost of $78,400. With the addition of the $9,000 for LEED v4, this amounts to 0.533% of the original total cost.

Photo: BuildingGreen

Brent Ehrlich, Products & Materials Specialist at BuildingGreen

p. 10Environmental Building News • January 2016

products bring innovation and leader ship to a generally risk-averse building community.

I am proud to be part of a team that discovers and defends these selections, and even prouder of the manufacturers that have to fight the status quo to get these products to market.

But the critic in me also knows these are not perfect products—and we have received feedback suggesting I am not the only one who feels this way.

Criticizing trees, ignoring the forest

Honeywell’s Solstice blowing agents and refrigerants, for example, are revolutionary. They will soon replace blowing agents with high global warming potential in foam insulation and similar chemicals in many refrig-eration loops, significantly improving the environmental performance of insulation and our buildings (see Avoiding the Global Warming Impact of Insulation).

The first product in North America to use Solstice, spray polyurethane foam (SPF), provides excellent R-value and seals the building envelope. Unfortunately, SPF is also a petro chemical that typically con-tains halogenated flame retardants, and if it’s installed without proper protection, it can cause respiratory problems for workers or occupants—subjects we have covered in depth (see EPA Raises Health Concerns with Spray Foam Insulation, Getting Flame Retardants Out of Foam Insulation, and others).

Guess which feedback I have heard the most: Solstice is a revolutionary blowing agent with a GWP of 1? Nope. SPF is a toxic building product? Yup.

I have heard similar negative feedback repeated for other selections as well—critiques like these.

Ecovative’s backing in Gunlocke’s chair: A niche product that is not scalable.

Powerwall: Tesla will never meet production quotas or high expectations.

Heat pump clothes dryer: Too complicated and expensive.

Hyperchair: Just put on a sweater.

Sloan’s Hybrid urinal: NO! Not another “waterless” urinal!

In each case, the criticisms are based in fact yet miss the bigger picture in their pursuit of perfection.

Stepping stones to better products

All of our Top 10 products have com-pelling, positive sustainability stories to tell.

Ecovative’s mycelium board is actually close to the perfect cradle-to-cradle material. And the Hybrid Urinal offers the potential for massive water savings (and asso-ciated energy savings) with almost none of the problems of waterless products. Powerwall and NuLed’s PoE technologies will change how we interact with power and lighting in our buildings—thanks in large part to those first white LEDs we recognized ten years ago for their potential rather than for their perfection.

Their benefits far outweigh the nega-tives, and they are stepping stones to better future products. I am not just optimistic about our current crop of Top 10 winners: I’m genuinely excited by them.

Perfection may be the enemy of the good, but these products are very, very good and have set a high bar for what is possible. They may not be perfect, but they are all great products and ideas that are worth celebrating.

Look how far we’ve come

The green building industry should be proud of the collective positive contributions these companies are making.

Major companies are taking global warming seriously; small innovators are changing how we heat and cool

our buildings; breakthrough materials are finally being used.

And there are other positive-but- imperfect advances taking off through-out the green building industry. Data is being collected through Environmental Product Declarations and Health Product Declarations that will eventually allow us to improve our material selections.

LEED, Passive House, and Living Building Challenge projects are expanding our ideas of what green buildings can be.

And businesses such as Google and Kaiser Permanente are investing in the future of their employees and patients through careful material selection and biophilic design.

There is a lot to be grateful for in the New Year, and I for one will be toasting the imperfect successes of the past year along with the efforts of all my colleagues. To all the imperfect perfectionists out there, I say Cheers! And keep the constructive criticism coming.

NEWS

Employee Performance Doubled in Well-Ventilated BuildingsReducing VOCs and adding more fresh air resulted in cognitive test scores that were 101% higher in a double-blind study.

By Candace Pearson

Well-ventilated buildings have a secret superpower: they double the thinking abilities of those who step through their doors.

That’s not hyperbole: it’s the findings from a joint study from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health’s Center for Health and the Global Environment, SUNY Upstate Medical University, and Syracuse University.

Researchers at Carnegie Mellon, the Rocky Mountain Institute, and the

p. 11Environmental Building News • January 2016

U.S. Department of Energy have argued since the mid-1990s that worker productivity benefits far outweigh energy savings as return on green building investments, but those productivity benefits are notoriously hard to quantify. This study represents a breakthrough in that conundrum, at least as far as air-quality impacts are concerned.

The elegantly designed experiment found that people working in a build-ing with low VOCs (a common feature in green building standards) scored 61% higher on tests of cognitive func-tion than they scored when working in a building with typical air quality. When ventilation was added on top of that, scores were 101% higher, with the biggest spikes occurring in skills that are considered “high-level” functioning, such as crisis response, information usage, and strategy.

The direct link to better employee decision-making gives employers new impetus to invest in better indoor air quality for their workplaces, which would likely also translate to healthier employees.

The experiment

The double-blind study involved taking 24 professional employees to an office to perform their work for two weeks. The “office,” however, was the Willis Carrier Total Indoor Environmental Quality (TIEQ) Laboratory at the Syracuse Center of Excellence. The TIEQ lab is a LEED Platinum building with confirmed low VOC levels of around 50 micro-grams per cubic meter (μg/m3), so the building served as the experiment’s base “green” condition.

It is also equipped with environmental monitoring stations and an ambient air monitoring system on the roof, so researchers were able to reliably adjust environmental factors and check to see that they met certain thresholds. At the end of each workday, the researchers gave participants a 1.5-hour cognitive assessment to see if that day’s environ-mental conditions affected their decision- making and productivity.

For example, the researchers simulated a conventional office space by placing typical VOC sources—like exposed particleboard, packing tape, and an open bottle of whiteout—near diffusers. The aim was to reach a VOC concentration level just above 500 μg/m3 (the maximum allowed by the LEED v4 indoor air quality assessment credit).

In this case, all nine areas of cognitive functioning were detrimentally affected. The assessment consisted of presenting participants with a scenario, such as handling an emergency as a town mayor, and a software program evaluated how effectively they made decisions. Scores were nearly two times lower in informa tion usage and strategy than they had been in the green condition.

That case demonstrated that low VOC levels allowed the participants to think better. Could scores be further improved by adding fresh air venti-lation? The answer proved to be yes. Bumping the ventilation rate from 20 cubic feet per minute (cfm) per person to 40 cfm per person resulted in a 25% increase in average scores—or a 101% average increase over performance in the simulated “conventional” condition.

The researchers claim their methods are more reliable than those used by others because neither test subjects nor those processing the results knew how conditions had changed during the test period. Most studies of this kind have relied on self-reporting by participants.

Image: Screen capture from thecogfxstudy.com

Indoor Air Quality Effects on Cognitive Function

Information usage scores were 172% higher when VOCs were minimized and 299% higher when ventilation was also increased, compared to scores that were achieved when participants were exposed to conventional air quality conditions.

p. 12Environmental Building News • January 2016

CO2 as a direct pollutant

The researchers tested one more variable: the impact of carbon dioxide (CO2). “Historically, the scientific community has thought that carbon dioxide, at concentrations we typically see indoors, is generally benign and useful only as an indicator of ventilation and overall air quality,” the study’s principal investigator, Joseph Gardner Allen, DSc, told BuildingGreen. “This is changing.”

Prompted by another study conducted at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which suggested that CO2 itself could adversely affect human well-being at levels commonly found indoors, researchers injected ultra-pure CO2 into the building’s air supply while keeping the ventilation levels relatively high, at 40 cfm per person.

When CO2 was raised to moderate levels (around 945 ppm), cognitive function scores were 15% lower than scores achieved in the greenest condi-tions (low VOCs combined with high ventilation). When CO2 concentrations were raised to around 1,400 ppm, scores were 50% lower. The findings suggest CO2 does have a direct effect on cognitive function.

Three variables, one lesson

“Our study disentangled the effects of each variable,” said Allen, but it was really the combined effect of all three that led to the greatest variation in test scores. “In practice, this is all controlled through ventilation,” he continued. “If you enhance ventila-tion, then you minimize the levels of CO2 and VOCs indoors.”

That’s a little oversimplified: the findings also point to the significant impact of avoiding VOCs in the first place through a building’s design and specification, with average scores improving 61%. However, considering only ventilation for a moment makes an interesting and compelling payback analysis; doubling the ventilation rate in typical office buildings comes at an energy cost between $1 and $18 per person per year, according to the

researchers, and generates $6,500 in improved productivity per person per year.

That’s a whole new scale for those used to basing return on investment on energy cost savings. In fact, the researchers note, just 10% of a build-ing’s typical operating costs are attributed to energy, maintenance, and rent. Now that indoor air quality is connected to the other 90%, which is spent on people’s salaries and benefits, there is a basis for rapid new investment in green building. If these findings are corroborated in future work and combined with other studies showing benefits from daylighting and views of nature, the case will become even stronger.

“Designers and architects should be thinking of themselves as health companies,” concludes Allen. “We know from years of research that improving indoor environmental health leads to health benefits, and our recent research suggests that these improvements also lead to better cognitive function. Health needs to be a selling point.”

More on green design and well-being

Productivity and Green Buildings

Attention, Employers: Green Design Tied to Fewer Sick Days

Preliminary Study Supports LEED Productivity Benefits

PRODUCT NEWS & REVIEWS

Greenest of the Green Energy-Saving Products from GreenbuildThe Greenbuild 2015 expo featured some exciting innovations, including a DC-powered “net-zero energy zone.”

By Brent Ehrlich

Greenbuild’s expo floor always has products that save water and energy,

use rapidly renewable resources, and improve our indoor air quality. But we’re looking for the standouts that deserve extra recognition.

This year, we’ve selected some innovative solutions to some of our biggest environmental challenges, including a few exciting new products from previous BuildingGreen Top 10 winners.

DC Power: The Future of Building EnergyA developing DC (direct current) power distribution and storage industry was on full display at Greenbuild. This is great news since our electrical grid supplies AC (alternating current) power to buildings, which then has to be converted to DC for use by LED lighting and many other end-uses, leading to energy and materials waste.

DC-based systems—such as this year’s BuildingGreen Top 10 award winners NuLED Power-over-Ethernet lighting and Tesla’s lithium ion battery energy storage—are helping pave the way for more efficient products and systems.

Microgrids are coming!

EMerge Alliance is spearheading the move toward wider adoption of DC power, and they built a “Net Zero Energy Zone” at Greenbuild that was capable of running off-grid via onsite renewable power supplied from PV and wind (though I never saw the wind turbines moving). DC power may be the future of power distribu-tion in buildings, and the products and systems in the microgrid are optimized for DC use.

This AC/DC hybrid microgrid was one of the most visible displays and took up an entire corner of the expo floor. It used Aquion batteries (see below), Pika Energy inverters and systems, LumenCache DC lighting, and other systems to power the booths of about 20 exhibitors. DC microgrids are an important development, so stay tuned for more BuildingGreen coverage.

p. 13Environmental Building News • January 2016

Energy storage without the toxic chemicals

Because solar and wind are not always reliable energy sources, batteries are going to be an integral part of DC power strategies, but standard energy- storage batteries usually combine two toxic ingredients—lead and acid. Though less-hazardous lithium ion batteries are gaining traction (such as our 2016 Top 10 Tesla Powerwall), there is another battery option available from Aquion Energy that is based on even greener, safer chemistry. Aquion’s aqueous hybrid ion (AHI) batteries use a manganese oxide cathode, an activated carbon anode, and a sodium sulfate electrolyte to store energy without acids, flammability concerns, or toxic fumes.

These are effectively saltwater batteries that are made using a simple, efficient manufacturing process to keep costs down, according to the company, and because of their longevity and low maintenance, they cost less over their lifespan than other battery technologies.

Aquion is offering its technology in the S-Line, a 2+ kWh residential energy storage system that can be linked together into the larger 25 kWh M-Line that uses 12 S-lines in parallel. By joining even more together, you can get enough storage for commercial- and utility-scale applications.

Improving HVAC EfficiencySealing ductwork is an easy way to improve the energy efficiency of an HVAC system, and a new product aims to simplify that process. We also showcase new equipment from a pioneer in heat-pump technology that can give old HVAC ducts new life.

Simplified duct sealing: no mastic or tape required

Sealing ductwork with tape and mastic is a necessary, time-consuming job, but Heating & Cooling Products may just eliminate (or at least greatly reduce) this practice. Its TotalSeal HVAC duct pipes and fittings contain a factory-installed butyl sealant along

both the transverse (where the pipes come together) and longitudinal (length of the pipe) seams so that when pipes are joined they are immediately sealed and don’t need additional tapes or mastic.

The 60" long pipe sections will be available in 24, 26, and 28 gauge and 6"–10" diameter. Currently available primarily for commercial applications, the products will be available in a residential version soon. Though they cost more up front, less onsite labor reduces the installed cost of these pipes, according to the company.

Better heat pumps and air handlers

Mitsubishi offers some of the most versatile air-source heat pumps in the industry, and this year the company highlighted several new products, including a more efficient heat exchanger technology for its commercial City Multi variable- refrigerant-flow (VRF) heat pumps—a BuildingGreen 2012 Top 10 winner. This L-Generation air-source unit uses HexiCoil flat-tube heat exchangers. It is not only more efficient but is also 30% smaller than predecessors with up to 50% reduction in refrigerant charge, according to the company.

On the residential side, Mitsubi-shi introduced the intriguing MVZ air handler, which hooks up to a home’s ductwork and is paired with the MXZ air-source heat pump to replace inefficient oil-burning forced-air systems. This eliminates the use of fossil fuels and leading to 40% energy savings. The unit can also be supplemented with ductless indoor units to provide more-customized HVAC.

Building Envelope and WindowsWe also found some understated, but important, products that improve the thermal performance of the building envelope, as well as afford-able, high-performance commercial windows.

Extending the thermal performance of window openings

Installing board insulation on exterior sheathing requires the window and door framing to be extended for siding installation. These window and door extensions, or “bucks,” are typically built from wood, so they are time consuming to install and provide little thermal insulation.

ThermalBuck is made from a high-density EPS and a proprietary (non-vinyl) coating that provides the extension and wraps along the interior of the window opening, providing a structural thermal break between window and framing. ThermalBuck exceeds compressive strength require-ments for a rough opening extension support element (ROESE) and can support triple-glazed windows, yet it is easy to cut and install with standard tools.

Photo: Mitsubishi

Mitsubishi’s MVZ air handler connects the company’s MXZ air-source heat pump to a home’s ductwork, replacing inefficient oil-burning forced-air systems.

p. 14Environmental Building News • January 2016

An extra 1" of spacing is required for the window opening to allow for the material’s thickness, and the company recommends installing the system using Dow Corning 758 silicone weather-barrier sealant.

Corrosion-resistant rainscreen systems

The most vulnerable part of a rain-screen assembly, the metal framing, sits hidden behind the cladding. Knight Wall Systems, a 2012 Top 10 winner that makes thermally broken continuous insulation rainscreen systems, now uses ZAM corrosion- resistant steel for its components.

Corrosion can be a significant problem for rainscreen supports, especially where galvanization gets worn by bolts, but ZAM hot-dipped zinc- aluminum-magnesium-alloy-coated steel provides the durability of stainless steel—and better corrosion protection than galvanized aluminum—at a significantly lower cost. Knight Wall is the only rainscreen system using ZAM, according to the company.

Affordable Passivhaus windows

Intus Windows, a Lithuanian company whose windows are often used in Passivhaus projects, displayed its Arcade uPVC high-performance windows for multifamily, hospitality, healthcare, and other commercial applications.

Intended to be an affordable high- performance window option, these triple-glazed units offer impressive performance, with U-values as low as 0.16 and some options appropriate for Passive House projects. This is good news because PVC windows selected by BuildingGreen are held to a higher standard due to PVC’s environmental footprint. The Arcade line is available in operable tilt-and-turn models that have steel reinforcement so they can be installed in large openings.

The end of high-global-warming-potential SPF?

Honeywell’s Solstice blowing agent is the next generation of blowing agents, with a global warming potential similar to that of CO2. We have covered Solstice extensively in BuildingGreen and even made it a 2016 Top 10 winner.

We thought it might take some time for Solstice to be fully adopted by the spray polyurethane foam (SPF) industry, but we discovered that Demilec is going to be using Solstice starting later in 2016. This develop-ment is particularly important because Demilec will be the first large SPF manufacturer to use Solstice, which will likely force competitors to follow suit, potentially spelling the beginning of the end of high-global-warming- potential SPFs.

Many More Products To CoverWe always lament that it’s difficult to find all the cool products in so little time at Greenbuild, but we keep researching leads from the show. Look for more products from the 2015 Greenbuild expo in our companion article on interiors, in upcoming features, and among our BuildingGreen Approved collections on Designer Pages.

And if you saw anything interesting on the floor, please let us know!

Greenest Greenbuild Products for the Indoor Environment and MoreWe look at products that improve indoor environmental quality and check in on advances from previous Top 10 winners.

By Brent Ehrlich

We are used to talking about building products and materials that introduce toxic substances into our buildings,

but what about products engineered to keep them out?

At Greenbuild this year, we did look at furniture with low emissions, but we also scoped out products that reduce the carcinogen radon—a significant problem in many areas—and those that improve the indoor environment through natural daylighting. We also visited previous Top 10 winners that displayed advances on their original technologies.

Environment- and Budget-Conscious InteriorsEnvironmentally responsible interior products can be pricey, but they don’t have to be. These daylighting and furniture options go green for those with less green.

Lightshelf and shading in one

Indoor Sky’s Dayliter Shade combines a fabric roller shade and a light-shelf into one system so light can be reflected into the room while occupants are protected from glare. For the S-series, a single, adjustable fabric lightshelf is attached to the top of the roller shade assembly; the L-series is used for taller windows and can be specified with a number of smaller lightshelves.

Available in automated or manual options, the Dayliter Shade is made to be a cost-effective daylighting shade system, but the company can design custom lightshelves and shading to meet project needs.

PVC-free fabrics and those with reflective metallic coatings on the window side (to keep rooms cooler) are available.

Giving furniture another life

Sending old furniture to the landfill is a waste of resources and landfill space, but Davies remanufactured furniture takes old office furniture and systems and transforms them into like-new condition.

The company can match old furniture and panels to current interiors or

p. 15Environmental Building News • January 2016

create a new design, and it can do so with zero-VOC paints and adhesives. While not a new product or company, Davies is the largest office furniture remanufacturer and is the only one to be ANSI/BIFMA level 1 certified.

Radon: A Serious, Overlooked ProblemMonitoring and keeping radon, a carcinogen, out of homes and businesses is a priority in many regions, and Radon Environmental offers several products that provide unique solutions to this problem.

Venting and insulation in one

Radon Guard is an alternative to gravel- based radon mitigation systems, using instead a structural under-slab insulation system to allow radon to vent outside. Made from high-density EPS with interconnected 1.5"-high channels on the underside, Radon Guard provides a capillary break, a space where radon can escape through a vent pipe, and thermal insulation in one product.

Code-compliant in the U.S. and Canada, Radon Guard is installed on

level, compacted soil and is topped with a vapor barrier, such as its 20-mil Radon Block, before the concrete slab is poured. It is available in 4", 4.5", and 5" thicknesses (R-10.1, R-12.1, and R-14.1, respectively), and unlike standard gravel-based systems, it will not clog over time. It also provides better airflow, potentially reducing the size of the required exhaust fan, according to the company.

Monitor and vent

The company’s Radostat is the first system we’ve seen that monitors the air for radon in real time. Installed on a wall in the occupied space, it automatically activates the building’s radon ventilation system if levels reach 150 becquerels per cubic meter, the EPA-recommended action level.

When Radostat activates the ventila-tion, it also creates positive pressure that helps keep additional gases from entering the occupied space, but it can save energy as well by keeping the vent fan off when levels are low.

Revisiting Past Top 10 WinnersYou may have read about new products and materials from previous Top 10 winners, Knight Wall and Mitsubishi, in our companion article on energy-saving products, but check out these cool innovations from other past winners.

CO2-sequestering ready mix

CarbonCure earned a Top 10 award in 2013 for its technology that injects CO2 directly into CMU production, helping sequester carbon. Until recently, it has been used solely for CMUs and precast, and many in the industry never thought it would get beyond these niche markets, but Vulcan Materials is now going to be using specialized trucks to make CarbonCure technology available in ready-mix applications.

Swiss whey-based exterior coatings, of course!

Vermont Natural Coatings, a 2008 Top 10 winner, uses byproducts of milk production in its PolyWhey coatings, and it is now collaborating with the Swiss company Böhme to provide exterior coatings that combine that company’s natural oils with VNC’s whey-based technologies.

Böhme was founded in 1866 and has been manufacturing water-borne stains for 40 years, and incorporating VNC’s milk-byproduct-based technology with a Swiss product seems like a natural fit.

New Products, More ResearchWe’ll be doing more in-depth analysis of some of these products in the upcoming months, so keep an eye out. In the meantime, take a look at more products from Greenbuild, and let us know if you saw anything interesting.

Indoor Sky’s Dayliter Shade fabric roller shade and lightshelf systems are available with adjustable fabric lightshelves attached to the top of the roller shade assembly.

Photo: Indoor Sky

p. 16Environmental Building News • January 2016

BACKPAGE PRIMER

Green Chemistry Meets Green BuildingWhat is green chemistry, and how does it fit into LEED? We explain the relationship—and some tensions.

By Paula Melton

Green building and green chemistry sound like a natural fit, but until recently the two concepts didn’t have much interaction, at least explicitly. That’s changed with the introduction of green chemistry into the LEED v4 rating systems (see USGBC, Chemical Industry Reach Historic Compromise on Product Optimization). But how does green chemistry relate to other strategies for avoiding toxic chemicals in building products?

At its core, green chemistry suggests that chemical and product manufacturers should first reduce impacts like waste and toxicity, and then manage any remaining risks to the environment or human health. Paul Anastas and John Warner developed the original 12 Principles of Green Chemistry in the 1990s, which we’ve restated here:

1. Prevent pollution instead of cleaning it up afterward.

2. Reduce waste: design processes such that the mass of the initial chemicals is similar to the mass of the end product.

3. Begin and end with substances that have little or no toxicity to humans or natural systems.

4. Design alternative chemicals and products that are just as effective as the originals but are less likely to cause harm.

5. Avoid solvents, and use less-toxic solvents when they are necessary.

6. Conserve energy by preferring reactions that work at ambient temperature and pressure.

7. Choose renewable feedstocks over fossil fuels or minerals.

8. Avoid temporary modifications during synthesis; these require extra chemicals whose derivatives become waste.

9. Prefer catalyst-driven reactions; catalysts are used in small amounts and can initiate the same reaction multiple times.

10. Design chemicals and products that degrade safely after use.

11. Monitor chemical reactions in real time to prevent generation of toxic byproducts.

12. Design chemical forms and processes to minimize the risk of spills and other accidents.

If some of these principles sound familiar, that’s because they over-lap with various regulations and programs for building products. For example, VOC emissions testing encourages manufacturers to avoid using harmful VOCs (#3), many of which are toxic solvents (#5). GreenScreen for Safer Chemicals and the Cradle to Cradle certifica-tion program aid manufacturers in identifying less-toxic alternatives to toxic ingredients (#4). Cradle to Cradle additionally emphasizes safe

degradation, reuse, or recycling of products after use (#10).

All of those programs are relevant in LEED v4, but none represents a full green-chemistry framework. Option 3 of Building Product Disclosure and Optimization–Material Ingredients attempts to do that to a greater de-gree while still heavily emphasizing toxicity issues over those related to energy and waste (the latter may be addressed through life-cycle assess-ment and environmental product declarations). The credit option requires product manufacturers to commit to green chemistry and green chemical engineering (which has its own related principles) by eliminating hazards to the extent possible and then managing the risk of exposure to remaining hazards.

This holistic green-chemistry approach has many advantages: like some other programs, it considers potential harm during manufacture and degradation of a product, and it emphasizes functional performance when assess-ing less-toxic alternatives. But unlike existing programs, it also requires engagement with the entire supply chain, and it encourages responsible management of hazards when they cannot be eliminated altogether.

After the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, BP applied a dispersant later found to be toxic, biopersistent, and possibly carcinogenic. Preventing pollution instead of cleaning it up later is the first principle of green chemistry.

Photo: kris krüg. License: CC BY-SA 2.0.

p. 17Environmental Building News • January 2016

One weakness of the approach in comparison with other programs for building products is that it doesn’t create or reference any standard methodologies for eliminating hazards or managing risk. This makes it difficult for those selecting products to judge how successful a manufacturer has been in adopting the principles of green chemistry.

Geek out on avoiding toxic chemicals

Five Ways Project Teams Are Using HPDs

Dance with Hazards: How Real Experts Pull Human Health into Design

Finding Furniture without Toxic Flame Retardants

For more information

Twelve Principles of Green Chemistry (with videos) ecy.wa.gov