Green Building News February 2004
Certain recycled materials generate no more indoor pollution than conventional materials according to a study recently conducted by the California Department of Health Services. Seventy-seven materials were tested, including acoustical ceiling panels, carpet, fiberboard, gypsum board, paint, particleboard, plastic laminates, resilient flooring, tackable wall panels, thermal insulation and wall base. Thirty-four of these products were identified as "standard" materials, while 43 were labeled "alternative" (most had high percentages of recycled content). The tests were conducted according to California's Section 01350 specification with loading and ventilation rates consistent with a classroom and an office. In general, the indoor air emissions from alternative products were no different than from standard products. Interesting results from the study:
- Both linoleum products generated levels of acetaldehyde that were four times the 3150 standard. Acetaldehyde irritates the respiratory tract and may be carcinogenic.
- Two brands of fiberglass insulation exceeded the 3150 threshold for formaldehyde -- including one that was advertised as formaldehyde free.
- Emissions from one carpet sample bearing the Carpet and Rug Institute (CRI) “Green Label” exceeded CRI’s published 24-hr emissions criteria for the label and another sample was just below these criteria. This is noteworthy since the test results reported here were obtained after a 10-day conditioning period followed by a 4-day test period. CRI’s tests are 24-hr-based with no prior conditioning.
- In general, the recycled-content products exceeded the emissions standard as much as standard products. Neither group did better than the other.
- In the fiberboard, particleboard and gypsum board categories, the standard products exceeded the concentration limits, while the alternative products did not.
- Naphthalene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde were the chemicals most frequently exceeding the standard.
The full report -- Building Material Emissions Study -- is available from the California Waste Management Board Web site.
Report Quantifies Costs and Benefits of Green Building
A new economic analysis conducted for California's Sustainable Building Task Force -- the most comprehensive green building cost benefit analysis completed to date -- sustainable design features can be included with little or no increase in construction costs. The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings: A Report to California's Sustainable Building Task Force , "finds that an upfront investment of less than two percent of construction costs yields life cycle savings of over ten times the initial investment."
Integrating “sustainable” or “green” building practices into the construction of state buildings is a solid financial investment. A minimal upfront investment of about two percent of construction costs typically yields life cycle savings of over ten times the initial investment. For example, an initial upfront investment of up to $100,000 to incorporate green building features into a $5 million project would result in a savings of at least $1 million over the life of the building, assumed conservatively to be 20 years.
The financial benefits of green buildings include lower energy, waste disposal, and water costs, lower environmental and emissions costs, lower operations and maintenance costs, and savings from increased productivity and health. Some savings, such as energy cost reductions which can be measured and monitored, are predictable within a reasonable margin of error. Other gains, such as worker productivity and health improvements, are not precisely understood and more difficult to predict.
Nevertheless, the overall return on the sustainable design features exceeds the costs. In fact, energy savings alone exceed the average increased cost associated with building green.
Model Green Home Building Guidelines Initiative Launched
Over the last 15 years, at least a dozen local and regional green building programs have been launched around the U.S. Re