Life-Cycle Assessment of the New Jersey Meadowlands Commission Center for Environmental and Scientific Education Building

Uta Krogmann, Nick Minderman, Jennifer Senick, Clinton Andrews

October 2008
The Rutgers Center for Green Building

Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning & Public Policy Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey 33 Livingston Avenue New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901 720-932-4101 x520 www.greenbuilding.rutgers.edu

About the Authors

The Rutgers Center for Green Building (RCGB) is located at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. The Center works with industry and government to promote green building best practices, and develops undergraduate, graduate and professional education programs. The Center is quickly establishing itself as the pre-eminent interdisciplinary center for green building excellence in the Northeast, while serving as a single accessible locus for fostering collaboration among green building practitioners and policymakers. Rutgers Center for Green Building Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey 33 Livingston Avenue New Brunswick, New Jersey, 08901 Phone: (732) 932-4101, ext 520 Fax Number: (732) 932-0934 Email: jsenick@rci.rutgers.edu Website: www.greenbuilding.rutgers.edu Uta Krogmann, is an Associate Professor and Associate Extension Specialist in Solid Waste Management at the Dept. of Environmental Sciences of Rutgers University. Nicholas Minderman, is a research fellow at the Rutgers Center for Green Building, as well as a student in the MCRP program at the Bloustein School of Urban Planning & Policy Development. Jennifer Senick, is the Founder and Executive Director of the Rutgers Center for Green Building at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Urban Planning and Policy Development, Rutgers University. Clinton J. Andrews, is director of the Urban Planning Program and Associate Professor in the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University.

Table of Contents
Executive Summary............................................................................................ 4 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 6 Objectives............................................................................................................ 7 Methodology........................................................................................................ 7
Building ............................................................................................................................. 8 Environmental Impact Categories ................................................................................... 10 System Definitions, Boundaries and Data Sources ........................................................ 10 Material Placement.................................................................................................... 12 Operations Phase...................................................................................................... 14 Decommissioning Phase .......................................................................................... 15

Results and Discussion ................................................................................... 16

Primary Energy and Materials Consumption (includes Embodied Energy in Materials) . 16 Material Placement.................................................................................................... 17 Operations Phase...................................................................................................... 19 Decommissioning Phase .......................................................................................... 21 Global Warming Potential (GWP) ................................................................................... 21 Ozone Depletion ............................................................................................................. 23 Eutrophication ................................................................................................................. 24 Acidification ..................................................................................................................... 25

Summary and Conclusions.............................................................................. 25 References ........................................................................................................ 28

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The New Jersey Meadowlands Commission (NJMC) recently completed a new 9,590 sq. ft. educational facility of classrooms, wet chemistry classroom and laboratory, administrative offices, along with an observatory. This building is being certified to Leadership for Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)TM standards, and anticipates at least a LEED Gold rating. To better understand the environmental impacts and

benefits from this green building, the NJMC contracted the Rutgers Center for Green Building (RCGB) to conduct a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) using the building plans and specifications as inputs to the analysis.

Commercial buildings consume approximately 18% of energy and emit 18% of global warming causing gasses in the United States (EIA 2007). The desire to mitigate these environmental and human health impacts has led to an integration of sustainability objectives in building design. A Life Cycle Assessment evaluates the environmental impacts of the building over its entire life cycle including material extraction, manufacturing, transportation, construction, operation and the decommissioning of the building. The whole-building LCA performed here provides insight into the relative

impacts of various materials and design choices and of how these impacts may vary across life-cycle phases. The emphasis of this LCA is on primary energy consumption

and global warming impacts, but also calculates ozone depletion, acidification, and eutrophication potential. Ozone depletion potential measures the release of chemicals (e.g. refrigerants) that can cause depletion of the ozone layer that protects from UV radiation. Acidification potential calculates air pollutants released to form acids that can harm the ecosystem and buildings. Eutrophication potential measures releases of

nutrients that can cause algae bloom in surface water and eventual fish mortalities.

The bottom-line of this LCA is that the impact of the NJMC building on primary energy consumption, global warming potential, and acidification potential is significantly less than that of a conventional building. Most of the buildings environmental impact occurs once the building is occupied (operations phase). The environmental impact of the

NJMC building during the material placement phase in these same categories energy, global warming, acidification exceeds that of a conventional building due to materials used in the foundation, solar cells, concrete foundation caps and floor slab, roof decking and standing seam metal roof. These are offset by savings during the operations phase, reducing the overall impacts of NJMC building when compared to a conventional

building. The decommissioning phase is relatively less important than the materials placement and operations phase as it makes a significantly lower contribution to the impacts.

The environmental impact over the entire life-cycle of the NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education is discussed below. The building has an initial mass of 2052 tons and, including materials for renovations and replacements, 2140 tons. The material placement phase contributes 40.9%, the operations phase 58.1% and the decommissioning phase 1.1% to the total life-cycle primary energy consumption of 8.9 x 103 megawatt hours (MWh). The total life cycle global warming potential of the NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education is 1660 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent (IMPACT 2002+). The materials placement phase contributes 49.6%, the operations phase (electricity from the grid and heating) 48.9% while the decommissioning phase measures only 1.5% of the total life cycle global warming potential.

When normalized on a per-square-foot basis, we can compare these numbers to conventional buildings characterized in the literature. Energy use associated with materials placement for the NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education is 0.47 MWh/ft2, whereas for conventional buildings found in the literature it is 0.18 MWh/ft2 (Scheuer et al., 2003) and 0.10 0.31 MWh/ft2 (Cole and Kernan, 1996). However, annual energy use for building operations in the NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education is only 10 kWh/ft2 (6.5 kWh/ft2 when solar energy production is netted out) compared to 30.2 kWh/ft2 for a conventional educational facility in the MidAtlantic region (EIA, 2003). Global warming emissions and acidification potential echo this pattern.

Findings for ozone depletion potential and eutrophication potential are less robust because the results are sensitive to methodological nuances. Nonetheless, two notable findings emerge. First, linoleum, which enjoys a reputation as a green material, appears to carry a large eutrophication burden due to the way it is produced. Second, the life cycle ozone depletion potential of the NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education is minimal.

INTRODUCTION
The New Jersey Meadowlands Commission (NJMC) has been charged since its inception with the tasks of balancing economic development and environmental preservation throughout the Meadowlands, as well as with managing the landfill sites located within the Meadowlands. Following through on this mandate, the NJMC has become a leader in environmental conservation by supervising remediation of wetlands, closing landfills to prevent further uncontrolled dumping, initiating programs to capture landfill gas, and developing renewable energy resources for the District to name a few of its efforts.

In this context, when it was determined that existing educational facilities would not meet future demands, the NJMC decided to build to rigorous environmental standards. Specifically, the new NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education was designed and constructed based on the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards, developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). With the construction of this building, the NJMC has expanded upon its trend-setting role in natural preservation and pollution abatement.

The building under consideration in this study is a 9,590 sq. ft. educational facility with classrooms, and laboratory space. An observatory building, which was constructed

simultaneously but is physically separated from the classroom building, has been excluded from consideration in both this Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and a Life Cycle Cost (LCC) analysis, completed earlier this year for the NJMC. The observatory

comprises only 5.5% of the total floor area of the project, and is responsible for very little energy use since it does not contain any office or classroom facilities and is not connected to the Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system.

A Life Cycle Assessment provides an assessment of the environmental impacts of the building over its entire life-cycle. The entire life-cycle of a building includes material extraction, manufacturing, various transportation processes, construction, operation and the decommissioning of the building, whether by recycling and/or disposal. This analysis is accomplished by creating an inventory of inputs (raw materials, energy) and outputs (atmospheric emissions, waterborne wastes, solid wastes, co-products, and other releases) over the entire life-cycle of the building. The inputs and outputs are converted

to environmental impacts such as global warming potential, ozone depletion potential and acidification potential, eutrophication and primary energy consumption.

The results of this analysis provide a valuable tool for quantifying the benefits of a green building. Combined with the LCC, this analysis enables a detailed understanding of the environmental impacts associated with the specific choices made in constructing the new NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education. This understanding can be used to guide future policy making regarding the construction of green buildings throughout the Meadowlands, and may prove useful to the U.S. Green Building Councils ongoing evaluation and revision of the LEED Standards.

OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this study are: To conduct an LCA of the NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education with a focus on primary energy consumption and global warming potential To compare the results with data from the literature

METHODOLOGY
The LCA was conducted in accordance with ISO standards (ISO, 1997; ISO, 1998, ISO, 2000). The majority of the inventory data sets come from the EcoInvent 2.0 database (Frischknecht and Jungbluth, 2007). This database provides energy, material and

emissions data for various building materials and components. It covers mainly Swiss and Western European conditions, where LCA work is more common, but recent updates include conditions in other countries (e.g., US energy data). Where appropriate, the energy mix used in Western Europe and Switzerland was replaced with the US or the New Jersey energy mix. Other input data sets came from the Franklin US LCI database (Norris, 2003), the USA Input Output Database 98 database (Suh, 2003), the IDEMAT 2001 database (Remmerswal, 2001) and the Industry 2.0 database which is provided by various industry associations. The other databases were only used if no dataset was found in the Ecoinvent 2.0 database to avoid incompatibilities between databases. The LCA of the NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education was modeled in SimaPro 7.1 (Pre, 2007) which incorporates the previously discussed inventory databases.

Building The NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education consists of three classrooms, a classroom/laboratory, a wet chemistry laboratory, and administrative offices. The 9,590 sq. ft building commenced operation in April 2008. Building

characteristics are provided in Table 1 and a material inventory in Table 2.

Table 1: Building Characteristics

Building System Foundation Structure Floors Exterior Walls Specific Characteristics for NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education Chromate copper arsenate treated wood piles (diameter: 7, length 50) Wood columns (6 1/2 x 6 1/2), 8 concrete masonry units and gluedlaminated wood beams (Forest-Stewardship Council Certified (FSC)) Cast-in-place reinforced concrete slab Wood studs (FSC, 2 x 6), DensGlass Gold exterior sheathing, cement-based siding, glass fiber insulation (U-value: 0.0526 Btu/ft2 x hr x oF), gypsum board on interior Steel studs, 4 mineral wool, gypsum board on both sides (2 x 5/8 on each side). Windows: vinyl-clad wood windows, double-glazed, argon-filled, low emissivity coating, (U-value 0.349 Btu/ft2 x hr x oF), some operable. Doors: exterior aluminum-clad wood-glass doors, interior wood and wood-glass doors. Two pitched roofs, offset with north-facing clerestory windows; 20 gauge standing seam galvanized steel roof (SRI value: 69), 2 polyisocyanurate rigid insulation, laminated wood decking (FSC), 2 Solatube skylights per classroom for increased day-lighting, photovoltaic panels on south-facing sections of roof (GEPVp 200 with 54 polycrystalline cells, peak output of 200 W each). WSW-ENE axis, with classrooms turned off-axis for maximum (south) solar exposure Linoleum in classrooms and wet chemistry laboratory, linoleum and carpet in laboratory/classroom, carpet tile in offices, terrazzo in common areas Exposed laminated wood beams and laminated wood decking (FSC). Daylighting and occupancy sensors. Automated lighting controls with manual override 8 units, zone separated 8 units, zone separated 8 air handler units (integral Heat/AC units) Internally insulated round ducts Building automation system with individual classroom and office zone control overrides 68% from photovoltaic panels (~ 30% of peak load, electricity return to grid during low load), 32% from external regional utility company (Rutgers Center for Green Building 2008) Natural gas water heater on site

Interior Walls Windows and Doors

Roof

Building Orientation Flooring

Ceilings Lighting Lighting Controls HVAC Heating HVAC Cooling HVAC Equipment HVAC Distribution HVAC Controls Electricity

Water Heating

Table 2: Life-Cycle Mass

Material/Component Crushed concrete Gravel Sand Cement Wood (FSC) Cold rolled steel) Wood (non-FSC) Light weight concrete blocks Gypsum board Tap water Windows GALVALUME Lime mortar Terrazzo Fibre cement siding Fiberglass insulation Polyisocuanurate insulation HVAC - furnace & controls Photovoltaic panels Mineral wool insulation Recycled glass Black steel HVAC - cooling Linoleum PVC Exterior aluminum - clad doors Wood preservative Sanitary ceramics Motorized shades Copper Interior wood - glass doors Interior wood doors Polyester Bitumen Paint Polyurethane, flexible foam Light mortar Inverter Zinc, primary Nylon 66 Polyester Bitumen Adhesives and sealants Gray cast iron Electrical switches and receptacles Glass fibre reinforced plastic Stainless steel Electronics Total Initial Mass [tons] 761.0 390.8 305.9 118.9 94.4 87.1 59.0 53.8 36.6 35.4 27.1 18.8 10.4 7.7 6.7 5.5 4.3 4.0 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2052 Life-Cycle Mass* [tons] 761.0 390.8 305.9 118.9 94.4 93.7 59.0 53.8 36.6 35.4 54.3 37.7 10.4 7.7 6.7 5.5 8.5 11.9 6.2 3.0 2.8 2.7 5.4 7.9 1.9 2.1 1.0 1.0 1.7 1.3 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.9 4.4 1.4 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2140

Environmental Impact Categories The following standard impact categories have been used to assess the environmental impacts of the NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education: primary energy consumption, global warming potential, acidification potential, ozone depletion potential and eutrophication. Two different environmental impact methods supply the emission factors used in this study to convert the inventory data to environmental impacts: Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES) (Lippiatt, 2007, Tables 2.1-2.10) and IMPACT 2002+ (Jolliet et al., 2003, Appendix 1). These two

environmental impact methods also include other environmental impacts (e.g. human toxicity, ecotoxicity, land use), but these environmental impacts are not used in this study because they are not as well developed and accepted as the others. The BEES and IMPACT 2002+ methods yield similar results for energy use, global warming, and acidification potentials, but they diverge in their estimates of eutrophication and ozone depletion potentials. The project utilizes both impact methods to test the robustness of the results to nuances of methodology. In cases where the findings are divergent, it is necessary to scrutinize the results more closely for possible explanations. System Definitions, Boundaries and Data Sources The life-cycle phases of the NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education are illustrated in Figure 1. The following describes the activities and boundaries for each life-cycle phase. Only the building itself (foundation, structure, envelope, interior) and the retaining wall are included in the LCA. The study utilizes a 50-year building life span estimate provided by the building's architect and for comparison purposes a 75-year lifespan. It is assumed that the energy mix and the replacement materials are the same for the entire life cycle of the building. It is believed that this overestimates the

environmental impacts, because technological innovations during the life span of the building are expected to reduce the environmental impacts. The following components were excluded from the scope of the analysis: observatory, bathroom supplies,

furniture, laboratory equipment, sitework outside the building footprint, landscaping and utilities outside the building. Any impacts that may have resulted from planning and designing the building are also excluded. The primary energy consumption over the life-cycle of the building in this study was first determined based on the non-renewable energy category as is determined by IMPACT 2002+ (see Appendix 1). An adjustment for the solar energy produced by the building was made subsequently, and comparative values appear later in this report.

10

Table 3: Environmental Impact Category Emission Factors for BEES ( NIST. 1997)
Global Warming Carbon dioxide a Carbon dioxide, biogenic a Carbon dioxide, fossil a Carbon dioxide, in air r CFC-10, tetrachloromethane a CFC-12, Dichlorodifluoromethane a CFC-14, Tetrafluoromethane a Chloroform a
a

CO2 (eq.) 1 1 1 -1 1800

Acidification Ammonia a Hydrogen chloride a Hydrogen cyanide a Hydrogen fluoride a Hydrogen sulfide a

H+ Eutrophication moles (eq./g) 95.5 Ammonia / Ammonium a, w 44.7 BOD5, Biological Oxygen Demand w 60.4 COD, Chemical Oxygen Demand w 81.3 Dinitrogen monoxide
a

N (eq.) 0.12 0.99 0.05 0.05 0.092 0.24 0.32 0.99

Ozone Depletion

95.9 40.04 50.8 33.3

Nitrate w Nitrite w Nitrogen w

10600 Nitrogen oxides, dioxide a 5700 Sulfur oxides, dioxide a 30 Sulfuric acid a

CFC-10, Tetrachloromethane a CFC-12, Dichlorodifluoromethane a Halon 1001, Bromomethane a Halon 1301, Bromotrifluoromethane a HCFC-22, Chlorodifluoromethane a HCFC-140, 1,1,1trichloroethane a

CFC11 (eq.) 1.1 1 0.6 10 0.055 0.1

Dinitrogen monoxide 296 Halon 1001, Bromomethane a Halon 1301, Bromotrifluoromethane a HCFC-22, Chlorodifluoromethane a HCFC-140, 1,1,1trichloroethane a Methane a Methane, biogenic Methane, fossil a
a

Nitrogen oxides, 0.044 monoxide, dioxide a Phosphate w 7.29 Phosphoric acid a Phosphorus a, w Phosphorus pentoxide a, w 0.354 1.12 7.29 0.489 - 3.18

5 6900 1700 140 23 23 23

Methane, mono- / 10 dichloro- a 16 Note: (a) air emissions; (r) raw; (s) soil emissions; (w) water emissions.

11

Material Placement The material placement phase of a building includes all activities during raw material extraction, refinement of raw materials to engineered materials and manufacturing, various transportation activities during the material placement phase, construction and renovations of the building. The material placement phase also includes avoided

activities (impacts) due to use of reused and recycled materials. The list of building materials (Table 2), including for renovations, is based on design specifications, construction cost estimates, final invoices, product submittals, Material Data Safety Sheets, personal communications with the architect and the owner and inquiries of manufacturers and trade organizations.

Figure 1: Life Cycle Phases of the NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education.

12

The inventory associated with material manufacturing is mainly based on the Ecoinvent 2.0 database (Frischknect and Jungbluth, 2007). For materials known to be produced in New Jersey, inputs based on the composition of the New Jersey electricity grid were used. For materials produced in other states of the US, inputs based on an average US electricty grid were used. The energy mix for New Jersey was assumed as follows: coal, 31%, oil, 1%, natural gas, 20%, nuclear, 48% (EIA, 2005). Thirty-one percent of New Jerseys electrical energy is produced in Pennsylvania and 69% in New Jersey. There are material losses during manufacturing and construction. When known, the losses were added to the inventory of materials. If these losses were unknown, a 5% loss was assumed. The replacement frequencies are based on values given in the associated literature (Table 4). Where information on replacement frequencies was unavailable from published sources, estimates were provided by the architect.

Transportation of raw materials to refinement and manufacturing is included in Ecoinvent 2.0. Transportation from the manufacturing facility to the construction site was added. During the construction phase, environmental impacts are caused by electricity use for power tools and lighting, and diesel consumption of heavy equipment. The electricity use was determined by the difference between the 2006 and the 2007 electricity usage records. Diesel consumption of the heavy equipment was included in the analysis (e.g., pile driving equipment).

13

Table 4:

Replacement Frequencies
Mechanical, Plumbing Component Air ducts 75 75
1

Building Shell and Structure Component Treated wood pile foundation Floor slab Structural wood (laminated beams, posts) Concrete masonry units Cement-based siding DensGlass Gold exterior sheathing Thermal wall insulation Wood studs GALVALUME steel roof Roofing insulation Exterior doors Windows Solatube skylights Years Life4

Electrical, Years 753 15(75 %)4 35(30 %)4 35(30 %)4 30(20 %)4 35(30 %)4 751 254 503 503 503 253 254 201 251 203 204 251 203 204 Building Interior and Finishes Component Years Roof wood decking Drywall Interior doors Terazzo floor Bathroom glass tiles Linoleum Carpet and carpet tiles Joint sealer Motorized window shades Paint on drywall 751 753 304 751 751 101 101 253 256 53

Duct insulation
1

Drinking water pipes Life 50 75 75

5 4

Sewer pipes
1

75 25-302 40 404 404 40

4 4

Natural gas pipes Sprinkler system pipes Methane collection pipes Sprinkler heads Bathroom sinks Urinals Toilets Phone and data wires Electrical wires and boxes Switches, receptacles Galvanized steel conduits Air handling unit and controls Gas furnace and controls Photovoltaic panels Flushing valves, toilet and urinal Electrical equipment (inverter, transformer, etc.)
2

Architect (personal communication),

GSPNA (2008), 3 Scheuer et al. (2003), 4

DellIsola and Kirk (2003), 5JamesHardie (2008), 6MechoShade (2008)

Operations Phase The operations phase activities include heating, cooling and ventilating the building, lighting, and water heating. Since the building is newly constructed, electricity records are not yet available. Therefore, the energy consumption during this phase was

14

modeled using the Design Builder software (DesignBuilder Software Ltd, 2008). Building use characteristics are shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Energy Consumption Details for the NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education
NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education 0.050 pers/ft2 Newark, NJ Schedule of spaces used as offices, classrooms and laboratories Floor area Internal electrical load (lighting and computers) Temperature set point, heating Temperature set back, heating Temperature set point, cooling Temperature set back, cooling Effective leakage area total Air exchange modeled Reference ASHRAE Standards Rutgers Center for Green Building (2008) Rutgers Center for Green Building (2008) Construction drawings ASHRAE Standards Rutgers Center for Green Building (2008) Rutgers Center for Green Building (2008) Rutgers Center for Green Building (2008) Rutgers Center for Green Building (2008) Rutgers Center for Green Building (2008) ASHRAE Standards

Occupant density, all spaces Weather file for energy model

Conditioned 5 am 9 pm 9590 ft2 (861 m2) 2.25 W/ft2 (24 W/m2) 68 oF (20 oC) 60 oF (16 oC) 75 oF (24 oC) 82 oF (28 oC) 2500 in2 (1.6 m2) 394 cfm/ft2 (17ft3/min and pers. fresh air)

The energy consumption during the operations phase of the building is modeled based on the use and occupancy patterns of the building, the architectural and mechanical features of the building and the local climate. Annual energy consumption is determined as 10 kWh/(ft2 * yr) (Rutgers Center for Green Building, 2008). According to the

Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (EIA, 2003) educational buildings consume on average 30.2 kWh/(ft2 * yr). The building has photovoltaic panels on southfacing sections of roof. This reduces the energy consumption to 6.5 kWh/(ft2 * yr).

Decommissioning Phase If a building is decommissioned, some building materials and components will be recycled and reused and the rest will be disposed of in a landfill. The owner of the NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education is committed to recycle or reuse as many materials and components of the building as possible. Since it is

15

unknown which building materials and components can be reused and recycled in 50 or 75 years, current practices of the local recycling industry were assumed. Currently, the following building materials and components can be recycled in New Jersey: concrete reinforcement (45%), concrete foundation caps and floor slab (100%), copper electrical wire (100%), galvanized steel conduits (100%), copper pipes (100%), rigid insulated air ducts (100%), carpet tile (100%), concrete masonry unit wall (100%), standing seam metal roof (100%), steel studs (100%) and black steel pipes (100%).

Since the actual energy consumption for the demolition of the NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education is unknown, an average energy consumption of 16.5 MJ/ft2 for decommissioning was assumed (Scheuer et al. 2003). It was also

assumed that all energy was consumed as diesel by the demolition equipment.

In this study, the buildings environmental impact is not decreased if a building material or component is recycled or reused in the decommissioning phase. However, the

analysis does make an allowance for avoided environmental impact when recycled materials or components are employed during the material placement phase of the building (Figure 1). Since the owner of the building owns landfills no transportation to the landfill was assumed, but transportation to local recycling facilities was taken into account.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The selected environmental impacts, primary energy consumption, global warming potential, acidification potential, ozone depletion potential and eutrophication are discussed below. Primary Energy and Materials Consumption (includes Embodied Energy in Materials) Primary energy is consumed in all three life cycle stages depicted in Figure 1: materials placement phase, operations phase and decommissioning phase. Material consumption takes place mainly in the materials placement phase.

16

Material Placement The primary energy consumption in the material placement phase is 3.6 x 103 MWh (13 x 106 MJ). In addition to the primary energy consumption, many studies determine the embodied energy of the entire building or of individual building materials. The embodied energy includes the primary energy consumption during the materials placement phase plus the feedstock energy of the materials (= higher heating value of the materials). Many building materials are non-combustible and the feedstock energy can be estimated to be negligible. Only wood, linoleum, PVC and polyisocyanurate insulation have a mass of more than 1 ton in the NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education and are combustible (Table 2). The major portions of the windows and the HVAC cooling unit are non-combustible and therefore are not included in this estimation. Assuming a higher heating value of 4.93 MWh/ton (19.55 GJ/metric tonne) for wood (Demirba, 2001), 4.69 MWh/ton (18.6 GJ/metric tonne) for linoleum (GreenFloors, 2008), 5.04 MWh/ton (20 GJ/metric tonne) for flexible PVC (Menke et al., 2003) and 6.55 MWh/ton (26 GJ/metric tonne) for polyisocyanurate insulation, the embodied energy in the NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education can be estimated as 4.5 x 103 MWh (13 x 106 MJ + 3.1 x 106 MJ = 16.1 x 106 MJ) Taking the square footage into account, this equals 0.47 MWh/ft2 (17.9 GJ/m2), which exceeds the values found in the literature (0.18 MWh/ft2 (7.0 GJ/ m2, Scheuer et al., 2003), 0.10 0.31 MWh/ft2 (4-12 GJ/m2, Cole and Kernan, 1996)). However, a higher embodied energy in the NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education is not unexpected for a green building that employs more sophisticated materials and technologies than a conventional building.

In particular, main contributors to primary energy during the materials placement phase are the foundation, the solar cells, the concrete foundation caps and the floor slab, the roof decking, the standing seam metal roof, the construction phase electricity, the polyisocyanurate roof insulation and the HVAC - furnaces and controls. (Figure 2 and Appendix 2).

17

Figure 2: Distribution of the Environmental Impacts during the Materials Placement Phase (IMPACT 2002+). The initial mass in the NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education is 2052 tons (Table 2). Taking into account 88 tons of replacement materials, the total life cycle mass is 2140 tons. Crushed concrete as porous fill under the slab has the highest mass with 37.1%, followed by 19.0%, 14.9% and 5.8% for the concrete ingredients gravel, sand and cement. The next largest mass is the Forest Stewardship Council-certified (FSC) wood with 4.6% and the steel with 4.2% which can be mostly found in the sheet pile wall and the reinforcement of the slab. The next highest masses are the non-FSC wood with 2.9%, the concrete blocks with 2.6%, the gypsum board with 1.8%, tap water with 1.7% and windows with 1.3%. All other components together contribute less than 4.1% to the total mass of the building.

The replacement materials account only for a small portion of the life cycle mass of the building (4%). Even though the embodied energy of individual materials was not

determined in this study, it is expected that materials with higher replacement frequencies such as carpets or copper wires have higher embodied energies than

18

materials with lower replacement frequencies such as sand, gravel and cement as shown by Scheuer et al. (2003). Operations Phase Based on the LCC (Rutgers Center for Green Building, 2008), the energy intensity of the NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education is much lower than the energy intensity of conventional educational buildings. Due to the improved energy efficiency (e.g., daylighting, improved insulation), the energy intensity of the NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education is 10 kWh/ft2 compared to an average educational facility with 30.2 kWh/ft2 (2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Building Survey (EIA, 2003)). If the energy intensity of the NJMC Center for

Environmental and Scientific Education is reduced by the solar energy as a credit for the reduced energy consumption from the grid, the energy intensity of the NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education would be 6.5 kWh/ft2.

As a result of both building energy efficiency measures and the inclusion of renewable solar energy, the operations phase is less dominant in the total life cycle primary energy consumption than would otherwise be the case. However, the operations phase is still an important phase in the life cycle primary energy consumption of the building, as with other buildings that have been studied.

In the hypothetical case that the NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education does not have solar panels and giving a credit for the reduced energy consumption from the grid, the operations phase (12.6 x 103 MWh (45.3 x 106 MJ)) would contribute 77.2% to the total life cycle primary energy consumption (16.3 x 103 MWh (58.7 x 106 MJ) (Figure 3).. For comparison, a classroom and hotel building at the University of Michigan consumes 97.7% of the life cycle energy for the building operation (Scheuer et al., 2003). This difference most likely can be attributed to the energy

efficiency of the NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education.

In the actual NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education with solar panels and a credit for the reduced energy consumption, the operations phase (5.1 x 103 MWh (18.5 x 106 MJ)) contributes 58.1% to the total life cycle primary energy consumption (8.9 x 103 MWh (31.9 x 106 MJ)) (Figure 3).

19

In a second hypothetical case, the building life span is extended from 50 to 75 years. The differences are minor. As built (with solar panels), primary energy consumption during the operations phase increases from 58.1% to 63.3% of total primary energy consumption across the entire lifecycle of the building.

M aterials P lacement 22.2%

M aterials P lacement 40.9%

Deco mmisio ning 0.6%

Operatio ns 58.0%

Operatio ns 77.2%

Deco mmisio ning 1 .1 %

(a)
M aterials P lacement 1 8.7%

(b)

Deco mmisio ning 0.4%

M aterials P lacement 35.9%

Operatio ns 63.3% Deco mmisio ning 0.8% Operatio ns 80.9%

(c)
Figure 3:

(d)

Distribution of the life cycle primary energy consumption for 50-year building life (a) without credit for solar power and (b) with credit for solar power, and 75-year building life (c) without credit for solar power and (d) with credit for solar power.

20

Decommissioning Phase As found in other studies, the decommissioning phase (1.1%) has a low impact compared to the other two life cycle phases, the materials placement phase and the operations phase. This confirms findings by Scheuer et al. (2003).

Global Warming Potential (GWP) The total life cycle GWP of the NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education is 1660 tons of CO2 equivalent (1500 metric tonnes) based on the IMPACT 2002+ impact method and 1710 tons of CO2 equivalent (1550 metric tonnes) equivalent based on the BEES impact method. This GWP is reduced by the GWP of the electrical energy that is equivalent to the solar energy that is given back to the grid. As expected, the life cycle GWP is largely determined by and therefore closely matches the life cycle primary energy consumption (Figure 4, Figure 5 and Appendix 2). In other words, the NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education has a slightly higher global warming potential as compared to a conventional building in analyzing only the materials placement phase of the building life cycle. Main contributors to the primary energy consumption in the materials placement phase are the foundation, the solar cells, the concrete foundation caps and the floor slab, the roof decking, the standing seam metal roof, the construction phase electricity, the polyisocyanurate roof insulation and the HVAC - furnaces and controls. (Figure 2). The slight increase in GWP that results is more than compensated for in the operations phase of the building life cycle, wherein the NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education has a markedly lower global warming potential than a conventional building. The operations phase (electricity from the grid and heating) contributes 48.9% according to IMPACT 2002+ impact method and 50.0% according to the BEES impact method to total life cycle GWP.

21

100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% GWP AAP ANP TA/NP OD NRE

Material Placement Phase 49.6% 59.2% 97.3% 69.5% 59.4% 40.9%

Operations Phase - Electricity 28.9% 34.1% 1.3% 22.2% 15.3% 39.9%

Operations Phase - Heating 20.0% 2.9% 0.2% 3.5% 23.9% 18.2%

Decommissioning Phase 1.5% 3.8% 1.2% 4.7% 1.5% 1.1%

(a)
100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% GWP AAP ANP TA/NP OD NRE

Material Placement Phase 44.3% 55.9% 97.7% 67.9% 57.1% 35.9%

Operations Phase - Electricity 32.2% 37.8% 1.3% 24.7% 16.3% 43.5%

Operations Phase - Heating 22.4% 3.2% 0.2% 3.9% 25.5% 19.8%

Decommissioning Phase 1.1% 3.0% 0.8% 3.5% 1.1% 0.8%

(b)
(GWP Global Warming Potential, AAP Aquatic Acidification Potential, ANP Aquatic Eutrophication, TA/NP Terrestrial acidification/nitrification, OD Ozone Depletion, NRE - NonRenewable Energy)

Figure 4: Distribution of selected environmental impacts based on IMPACT 2002+ for (a) 50-year building life and (b) 75-year building life

22

100.0%

90.0%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0% GWP AP NP OD

Material Placement Phase 48.5% 60.5% 92.4% 93.5%

Operations Phase - Electricity 29.1% 34.1% 5.6% 2.4%

Operations Phase - Heating 20.9% 3.0% 0.5% 1.6%

Decommissioning Phase 1.5% 2.4% 1.4% 2.4%

GWP Global Warming Potential, AP Acidification Potential, NP Eutrophication, OD Ozone Depletion)

Figure 5: Distribution of selected environmental impacts based on BEES 4.0

In the sensitivity analysis comparing a 50-year building life span to a 75-year life span, global warming potential impacts attributed to various phases of the building life cycle did not exhibit a significant change. As may be noted in Figure 3b, the global warming potential impacts of the material placement phase drops about 5% compared to overall impacts, and this was the greatest change. Operations phase electricity increases its share of global warming impacts by about 3%, while heating increases by less than 2%. The sensitivity analysis only utilizes the IMPACT2002+ methodology as the results with BEES 4.0 are similar. Ozone Depletion The total life cycle ozone depletion of the NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education is 0.47 lb of CFC-11 equivalent (213 g) based on the IMPACT 2002+ impact method and 0.23 lb of CFC-11 equivalent (106 g) based on the BEES 4.0 impact

23

method. This ozone depletion potential is reduced by the ozone depletion potential of the electrical energy that is equivalent to the solar energy that is given back to the grid. This is generally a very low ozone depletion potential over the life-time of the building. While the materials placement phase contributes 93.5% based on the BEES 4.0 impact method (Figure 5), this phase only contributes 59.4 % based on the IMPACT 2002+ (Figure 4). The IMPACT 2002+ impact accounts for more compounds contributing to the ozone depletion potential. A large portion of the ozone depletion potential based on IMPACT 2002+ is CFC-114 that is used during uranium enrichment, but CFC-114 is not included as a substance in the BEES 4.0 impact method (Table 3 and Appendix 1). As a result, the operational phase makes a significant contribution to the life cycle ozone depletion based on the IMPACT 2002+ impact method. For the materials placement phase, the motorized window shades, the concrete sealant, the fibre cement siding and the HVAC cooling unit are major contributors.

Eutrophication While the IMPACT 2002+ impact method assesses the aquatic eutrophication impacts in a phosphorus limited watershed, the BEES 4.0 impact assessment addresses watersheds that are also affected by nitrogen releases to water, land and air. The IMPACT 2002+ covers the nitrogen releases to air under a separate environmental impact (Terrestrial Acidification/Nutrification, see below). eutrophication impacts assessed by these two methods differ. As the result, the

The total life cycle aquatic eutrophication of the NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education is 333 lb (151 kg) of phosphorus (PO4) equivalent based on the IMPACT 2002+ impact method and 4256 lb (1930 kg) of nitrogen (N) equivalent based on the BEES 4.0 impact method. These total life cycle impacts account for the reduction of electrical energy consumption from the grid due to the solar power. While based on IMPACT 2002+ the materials placement contributes 97.3 % to the aquatic eutrophication (Figure 4), this phase contributes 92.4% to eutrophication based on the BEES 4.0 impact method (Figure 5).

The linoleum flooring is the dominant contributor of eutrophication impacts to the materials phase of the building's life cycle. A significant portion of the nitrogen and

24

phosphorus applied to the agricultural fields to grow flax, one of the raw materials for the linoleum, is released as non-point pollution. The release of the fertilizer to the

environment is responsible for the eutrophication impacts.

Acidification The total life cycle aquatic acidification for the NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education is 10.2 tons (9.2 metric tonnes) of sulfur dioxide (SO2) equivalent, and the total life cycle terrestrial acidification/nitrification is 33.5 tons (30.4 metric tonnes) of SO2 equivalent, according to the IMPACT 2002+ methodology. According to the BEES 4.0 methodology, the total life cycle acidification is 528 (479 metric tonnes) of hydrogen ion (H+) ton moles equivalent. These acidification impacts account for the reduction of electrical energy consumption from the grid due to the solar power. All acidification impacts match the distribution of the primary life cycle energy consumption impact and the global warming potential impact (Figure 4 and 5). Also, the acidification contribution of the different materials in the materials phase matches the findings for primary energy consumption and global warming potential (Figure 2).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The LCA of the NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education provides an assessment of the environmental impacts of the building over its entire life cycle. The life cycle includes the materials placement phase (material extraction, manufacturing, various transportation processes, construction of the building), the operations phase and the decommissioning phase (recycling, reuse and disposal of the building). An inventory of materials, energy and emissions over the entire life cycle of the building was determined mainly based on design specifications, construction plans and construction cost estimates of the NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education and utilizing life cycle assessment databases. Based on these data, the following

environmental impacts were modeled using the BEES 4.0 and IMPACT 2002+ methods: primary energy consumption, global warming potential, acidification, eutrophication and ozone depletion potential.

The LCA was successful in evaluating life cycle energy related aspects of the NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education. The NJMC Center for Environmental

25

and Scientific Education has an initial mass of 2052 tons and of 2140 tons if materials for renovations and replacements are included. The material placement phase contributes 40.9%, the operations phase 58.1% and the decommissioning phase 1.1% to the total life-cycle primary energy consumption of 8.9 x 103 MWh. The LCA showed that the life cycle primary energy consumption of the NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education is much less dominated by the operations phase than in conventional buildings, due to the energy efficiency of the NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education and the solar panels. However, the embodied primary energy

during the materials placement phase seems to be higher than in conventional buildings. The decommissioning phase is of less importance compared to the other two life cycle phases when assessing the life cycle primary energy consumption. Similar effects as found for the life cycle primary energy consumption were also found for the global warming potential and the acidification potential. The total life cycle global warming potential of the NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education is 1660 tons of CO2 equivalent (IMPACT 2002+). The materials phase contributes 49.6%, the

operations phase (electricity from the grid and heating) 48.9% and the decommissioning phase 1.5% to the total life cycle global warming potential.

For the environmental impacts closely associated with the non-renewable energy consumption (primary energy consumption, global warming potential and acidification) the results modeled by BEES 4.0 and IMPACT 202+ agree well. However for other environmental impacts such as ozone depletion potential and eutrophication, the results differ because different inventory data are assessed by the different methods. For

example, eutrophication in IMPACT 2002+ focuses on a phosphorus-limited watershed and does not include the nitrogen compounds in the impact assessment.

The LCA also highlights how building material choices may inadvertently shift impacts across impact categories and/or geographies (e.g., the eutrophication effects of linoleum). This was confirmed by other studies that compared wood, linoleum and PVC flooring materials and concluded that wood flooring is the most favorable floor material followed by linoleum and then PVC (Jnsson et al., 1995). However, wood flooring is the most expensive flooring material.

26

The NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education uses FSC and non-FSC wood as major building materials in the foundation, the structure and the frame of the building. The FSC wood was modeled as non-FSC wood because the datasets to

model FSC wood are not yet available. However, it is not evident that there would be many differences concerning the environmental impacts that were addressed in this study. It is expected that further research will show that the major difference between the use of FSC and non-FSC wood will be more closely tied to land use and management (USGBC MR TAG, 2007) than resource consumption. For example,

though FSCs Principles and Criteria (FSC, 1996) do not preclude the use of chemicals (only ones that have been deemed hazardous are to be avoided), logging practices are required to maintain the integrity of the forest ecosystema significant environmental benefit that is not easily quantified using existing LCA techniques.

In closing, this life-cycle assessment confirms that the new NJMC Center for Environmental and Scientific Education has a relatively light environmental footprint compared to a conventional building. This study highlights the importance of design choices in determining environmental impacts during materials placement, operation, and decommissioning of buildings. It shows that choices imposing higher impacts during the materials placement phase can yield dramatically lower impacts during operation. These findings are indicative of the benefits builders can expect from green building practices.

27

REFERENCES
Cole, R.J. and Kernan, P.C. (1996). Life-cycle energy use in office buildings. Buildings and Environment 31: 307-317. Demirba, A. (2001). Relationships between lignin contents and heating values of biomass. Energy Conversion and Management 42: 183-188. DesignBuilder Softwae Ltd. (2008). DesignBuilder Version 1.5.0.076. Gloucestershire, UK. EIA (2007). Annual Energy Review 2007. http://www.eia.doe.gov/overview_hd.html (Accessed on August 28, 2008). EIA (2005). State Electricity Profiles. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/ e_profiles_sum.html (Accessed on May 28, 2008). EIA (2003). Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/ (Accessed on May 28, 2008). Frischknecht, R. and Jungbluth, N. 2007. Overview and Methodology. Data v2.0. Ecoinvent report No. 1. Dbendorf, Switzerland. www.ecoinvent.org/fileadmin/documents/en/01_OverviewAndMethodology.pdf (accessed on August 4, 2008). Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) (2006). The FSC Principles and Criteria for responsible forest management. http://www.fsc.org/pc.html (Accessed on August 28, 2008) GALVALUME Sheet Producers of North Alerica (GSPNA) (2008). Steel Roofing. http://www.steelroofing.com/faqs.htm (Accessed on August 19, 2008). GreenFloors (2008). Attributes that Make Linoleum Floors green. http://www.greenfloors.com/HP_Linoleum_Table_Insert.htm (Accessed on August 26, 2008) JamesHardie (2008). HardiePlankTM Lap Siding. http://www.jameshardie.com/homeowner/products_siding_hardieplankLapSiding.py (Accessed on October 28, 2008).

Jnsson, A., Tillman, A-M. and Svensson, T. (1995): Life Cycle Assessment of Flooring Materials: Case Study (A. Jnsson, A-M. Tillman and T. Svensson, 1995)
Humbert, S., Margni, M., Jolliet, O. (2005) IMPACT 2002+ v2.1 User Guide. http://www.sph.umich.edu/riskcenter/jolliet/IMPACT2002+/IMPACT2002+_UserGuide_fo r_v2.1_Draft_October2005.pdf (Accessed August 28, 2008) ISO. ISO 14040. 1997. Environmental Management Life Cycle Assessment Principles and Framework. International Organization for Standardization.

28

ISO. ISO 14041. 1998. Environmental Management Life Cycle Assessment Goal and Scope Definition and Inventory Analysis. International Organization for Standardization. ISO. ISO 14041. 2000. Environmental Management Life Cycle Assessment Life Cycle Impact Assessment. International Organization for Standardization. Jolliet, O., Margini, M., Charles, R., Humbert, S., Payet, J., Rebitzer, G. and Rosenbaum, R. (2002). IMPACT 2002+: A new life cycle impact methodology. International Journal of Life-Cycle Assessment 8: 324-330. DellIsola A.J. and ,Kirk, S.J. (2003). Life Cycle Costing for Facilities, Reed Construction Data, Kingston, MA. Lippiatt, B (2007) Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability Technical Manual and User Guide. http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/software/ bees/download.html (Accessed on 29 August, 2008) MechoShade Systems (2008). WindowManagement SolarTrac. http://www.mechoshade.com/aac/index.cfm (Accessed October 28, 2008). Menke, D., Fiedler, H. and Zwahs, H. (2003). Dont ban PVC: Incinerate and recycle it instead! Waste Management & Research 21: 172-177. Norris, G.A. (2003). SimaPro Database Manual. The Franklin US LCI Library. PR Consultants and Sylvatica, Amersfoort, Netherlands. http://www.pre.nl/download/manuals/DatabaseManualUSAIODatabase98.pdf (Accessed on August 4, 2008). Pr Consultants. 2007. SimaPro 7.1. Amersfoort, Netherlands. Remmerswal, H. (2001). IDEMAT 2001. Delft Technical University, Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University, Netherlands. Rutgers Center for Green Building (2008). Life Cycle Cost Analysis of the New NJMC Building. Final report for the NJ Meadowlands Commision. New Brunswick, NJ. Scheuer, C., Keoleian, G.A. and Reppe, P. (2003). Life cycle energy and environmental performance of a new university building: modeling challenges and design implications. Energy and Buildings 53: 1049-1064. Suh, S. 2003. MIET 3.0 User Guide. An Inventory Estimation Tool for Missing Flows Using Input-Output Techniques. CML, Leiden University, Netherlands. http://www.pre.nl/download/manuals/DatabaseManualUSAIODatabase98.pdf (accessed on August 4, 2008). USGBC MR TAG US Green Building Council Material and Resources TAG (2007) http://www.yale.edu/forestcertification/pdfs/2007/USGBC/6%20%20Task%202%202%20July%2007.doc (Accessed on August 27, 2008).

29

APPENDICES

Phone: 732/932-4101 x520 !

www.greenbuilding.rutgers.edu ! Fax: 732/932-0934

Appendix 1

Environmental impact category emission factors for IMPACT 2002+

Global warming
1-Propanol, 3,3,3-trifluoro2,2-bis(trifluoromethyl)-, a HFE-7100 1H,1H,2H,2HPerfluorohexan-1-ol, HFEa 7200 Butane, 1,1,1,3,3a pentafluoro-, HFC-365mfc Butane, perfluoroButane, perfluorocyclo-, a PFC-318 a Carbon dioxide a Carbon dioxide, biogenic a Carbon dioxide, fossil a Carbon monoxide a Carbon monoxide, biogenic a Carbon monoxide, fossil Chloroform a Dimethyl ether a Dinitrogen monoxide Ethane, 1-chloro-1,1a difluoro-, HCFC-142b Ethane, 1-chloro-2,2,2trifluoro-(difluoromethoxy)-, a HCFE-235da2 Ethane, 1,1-dichloro-1a fluoro-, HCFC-141b Ethane, 1,1-difluoro-, HFCa 152a Ethane, 1,1,1-trichloro-, a HCFC-140 Ethane, 1,1,1-trifluoro-, HFCa 143a Ethane, 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoro-, a HFC-134a Ethane, 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2a trifluoro-, CFC-113 Ethane, 1,1,2-trifluoro-, HFCa 143 Ethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoro-, a HFC-134 Ethane, 1,2-dichloro-1,1,2,2a tetrafluoro-, CFC-114 Ethane, 1,2-difluoro-, HFCa 152
a a

CO2 (kg)

Aquatic acidification

SO2 (kg)

Aquatic eutrophication

PO4Plim (kg) 0
a, w, s

Terrestrial SO2 acid/nutrification (kg)

120 17 280 12400 14500 1 0 1 1.57 0 1.57 9 1 156 740 110 220 37 42 1600 400 2700 100 330 8700 13

Ammonia

a, w

1.88
a, w a, a,

Ammonia

a, w, s

Ammonia

15
a

Ammonia, as N
w, s w, s w, s

2.28 0.88 1.6 1.88 0.5 0.51 1.07 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.98 1 1 0.8 0.65

Hydrogen chloride Hydrogen fluoride Hydrogen sulfide

a

Ammonium, ion 0 COD, Chemical a, w, Oxygen Demand s 0.022 Nitrate

a a, w, s

Nitric oxide

8.44
a a

Nitrogen dioxide Nitrogen oxides Sulfur dioxide a Sulfur oxides a Sulfur trioxide
a

5.49 5.49 1 1 0.8

a,

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.97 3.06 1.34 3.06

Nitrate a, w, s Nitric acid a Nitric oxide a Nitrite a Nitrogen dioxide a Nitrogen oxides a, w, Phosphoric acid
s

Nitric acid a Nitric oxide a, w Nitrite a, w, s Nitrogen a Nitrogen dioxide a Nitrogen oxides a, w, s Nitrogen, total Phosphate a, w, s Phosphoric acid a, w, s Phosphorus Phosphorus a, w, s pentoxide Phosphorus, total
w, s a, a, w, s

Sulfur dioxide a Sulfur oxides Sulfur trioxide Sulfuric acid

a, w, s

Phone: 732/932-4101 x520 !

www.greenbuilding.rutgers.edu ! Fax: 732/932-0934

Appendix 1

Environmental Impact Category Emission Factors for 2002+ (cont.)

CO2 (kg) 190 36 9900 4 18000 1100 18 230 Aquatic acidification SO2 (kg) Aquatic eutrophication PO4Plim (kg) Terrestrial SO2 acid/nutrification (kg)

Global warming Ethane, 2-chloro-1,1,1,2a tetrafluoro-, HCFC-124 Ethane, 2,2-dichloro-1,1,1a trifluoro-, HCFC-123 Ethane, chloropentafluoro-, a CFC-115 a Ethane, fluoro-, HFC-161 Ethane, hexafluoro-, HFCa 116 Ethane, pentafluoro-, HFCa 125 a Ethanol, 2,2,2-trifluoroEther, 1,1,1-trifluoromethyl a methyl-, HFE-143a Ether, 1,1,2,2Tetrafluoroethyl 2,2,2trifluoroethyl-, HFE-347mcf2
a

150 9 130 2000 180 180 170 9200 560 13200 450 850 7 0 1 390 150 www.greenbuilding.rutgers.edu ! Fax: 732/932-0934

Ether, 1,1,2,2Tetrafluoroethyl methyl-, a HFE-254cb2 Ether, 1,1,2,3,3,3Hexafluoropropyl methyl-, a HFE-356pcf3 Ether, di(difluoromethyl), a HFE-134 Ether, difluoromethyl 2,2,2a trifluoroethyl-, HFE-245cb2 Ether, difluoromethyl 2,2,2a trifluoroethyl-, HFE-245fa2 Ether, ethyl 1,1,2,2tetrafluoroethyl-, HFEa 374pc2 Ether, pentafluoromethyl-, a HFE-125 a H-Galden 1040x a Hexane, perfluoroa HG-01 a HG-10 a Methane a Methane, biogenic Methane, bromo-, Halon a 1001 Methane, bromochlorodifluoro-, Halon a 1211 Methane, bromodifluoro-, a Halon 1201

Phone: 732/932-4101 x520 !

Appendix 1
Environmental Impact Category Emission Factors for 2002+ (cont.)
CO2 (kg) 2700 540 16300 1 3 5200 65 170 30 7 1 Aquatic acidification SO2 (kg) Aquatic eutrophication PO4Plim (kg) Terrestrial SO2 acid/nutrification (kg)

Global warming Methane, bromotrifluoro-, a Halon 1301 Methane, chlorodifluoro-, a HCFC-22 Methane, chlorotrifluoro-, a CFC-13 a Methane, dibromoMethane, dichloro-, HCC-30
a

Methane, dichlorodifluoro-, a CFC-12 Methane, dichlorofluoro-, a HCFC-21 a Methane, difluoro-, HFC-32 a Methane, fluoro-, HFC-41 a Methane, fossil a Methane, iodotrifluoroMethane, monochloro-, R-40
a

5 Methane, tetrachloro-, CFCa 10 580 Methane, tetrafluoro-, CFCa 14 8900 Methane, trichlorofluoro-, a CFC-11 1600 a Methane, trifluoro-, HFC-23 10000 Pentane, 2,3dihydroperfluoro-, HFCa 4310mee 470 a Pentane, perfluoro13200 Propane, 1,1,1,2,2,3a hexafluoro-, HFC-236cb 390 Propane, 1,1,1,2,3,3a hexafluoro-, HFC-236ea 390 Propane, 1,1,1,2,3,3,3a heptafluoro-, HFC-227ea 1100 Propane, 1,1,1,3,3a pentafluoro-, HFC-245fa 300 Propane, 1,1,1,3,3,3a hexafluoro-, HCFC-236fa 7100 Propane, 1,1,2,2,3a pentafluoro-, HFC-245ca 200 Propane, 1,3-dichloro1,1,2,2,3-pentafluoro-, a HCFC-225cb 190 Propane, 3,3-dichloro1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoro-, a HCFC-225ca 55 a Propane, perfluoro12400 Propanol, 1,1,1,3,3,3a hexafluoro-259 Phone: 732/932-4101 x520 !

www.greenbuilding.rutgers.edu ! Fax: 732/932-0934

Appendix 1
Environmental Impact Category Emission Factors for 2002+ (cont.)
Aquatic SO2 Aquatic CO2 acidification (kg) eutrophication Global warming (kg) a Propanol, pentafluoro-113 a Sevoflurane 100 a Sulfur hexafluoride 32400 Note: (a) air emissions; (r) raw; (s) soil emissions; (w) water emissions. PO4Plim (kg) Terrestrial SO2 acid/nutrification (kg)

Phone: 732/932-4101 x520 !

www.greenbuilding.rutgers.edu ! Fax: 732/932-0934

Appendix 1

Environmental Impact Category Emission Factors for 2002+ (cont.)

Ozone layer depletion Ethane, 1-bromo-1,1-difluoroa Ethane, 1-bromo-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroa Ethane, 1-bromo-2-fluoro-, FC-151b1 a Ethane, 1-chloro-1,1-difluoro-, HCFC-142b a Ethane, 1,1-dibromo-2,2-difluoroa Ethane, 1,1-dichloro-1-fluoro-, HCFC-141b a Ethane, 1,1,1-trichloro-, HCFC-140 a Ethane, 1,1,1-trifluoro-2-bromoEthane, 1,1,1-trifluoro-2,2-chlorobromo-, Halon a 2311 Ethane, 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoro-2-bromo-, Halon 2401
a a

CFC-11 (kg) 0.47 0.92 0.084 0.07 0.55 0.12 0.12 1.1 0.14 0.92 1 0.02 1 0.41 0.55 0.8 8.6 0.02 0.94 0.47 0.035
a

Non-renewable energy Coal, 18 MJ per kg, in ground r Coal, 26.4 MJ per kg, in ground r Coal, 29.3 MJ per kg, in ground r Coal, brown (lignite) r Coal, brown, 10 MJ per kg, in ground r Coal, brown, 8 MJ per kg, in ground r Coal, brown, in ground r Coal, feedstock, 26.4 MJ per kg, in ground Coal, hard, unspecified, in ground Energy, from coal r Energy, from coal, brown r Energy, from gas, natural Energy, from oil r Energy, from uranium r Energy, unspecified r Gas, natural (0,8 kg/m3) r Gas, natural, 30.3 MJ per kg, in ground r Gas, natural, 35 MJ per m3, in ground Gas, natural, 36.6 MJ per m3, in ground r Gas, natural, 46.8 MJ per kg, in ground Gas, natural, feedstock, 35 MJ per m3, in r ground Gas, natural, feedstock, 46.8 MJ per kg, in r ground r Gas, natural, in ground r Gas, petroleum, 35 MJ per m3, in ground r Methane r Oil, crude, 38400 MJ per m3, in ground r Oil, crude, 41 MJ per kg, in ground r Oil, crude, 42 MJ per kg, in ground r Oil, crude, 42.6 MJ per kg, in ground r Oil, crude, 42.7 MJ per kg, in ground Oil, crude, feedstock, 41 MJ per kg, in r ground Oil, crude, feedstock, 42 MJ per kg, in r ground r Oil, crude, in ground r Peat, in ground r Uranium ore, 1.11 GJ per kg, in ground r Uranium, 2291 GJ per kg, in ground r Uranium, 451 GJ per kg, in ground r Uranium, 560 GJ per kg, in ground r Uranium, in ground r Wood (16.9 MJ/kg) r Wood, hard, standing r Wood, soft, standing
r r r r r

MJ
PRIMARY

18 26.4 29.3 9.9 10 8 9.9 26.4 19.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 40.3 30.3 35 36.6 46.8 35 46.8 40.3 35 50.4 38400 41 42 42.6 42.7 41 42 45.8 9.9 1110 2290000 451000 560000 560000 0 0 0

Ethane, 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoro-, CFC-113 a Ethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloro-1-fluoro-, HCFC-121 Ethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloro-1,2-difluoro-, CFCa 112 a Ethane, 1,2-dibromo-1-fluoroa Ethane, 1,2-dibromo-1,1-difluoroa Ethane, 1,2-dibromo-1,1,2-trifluoroa Ethane, 1,2-dibromotetrafluoro-, Halon 2402 a Ethane, 1,2-dichloro-1,1-difluoro-, HCFC-132b Ethane, 1,2-dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoro-, CFCa 114 a Ethane, 2-bromo-1,1-difluoroEthane, 2-chloro-1,1,1-trifluoro-, HCFC-133a
a

Ethane, 2-chloro-1,1,1,2-tetrafluoro-, HCFC-124 a Ethane, 2,2-dichloro-1,1,1-trifluoro-, HCFC-123 a Ethane, chloropentafluoro-, CFC-115 a Ethane, pentachlorofluoro-, CFC-111 a Ethane, tetrabromofluoroa Ethane, tribromodifluoroa Ethane, tribromofluoroa Ethane, trichlorodifluoro-, HCFC-122 a Ethane, trichlorofluoro-, HCFC-131 Methane, bromo-, Halon 1001
a a

0.02 0.02 0.44 1 0.49 0.95 0.33 0.04 0.019 0.38 6 0.74 0.73 12 0.12 0.05 0.02 1 1 1 0.04

Methane, bromochlorodifluoro-, Halon 1211 a Methane, bromodifluoro-, Halon 1201 a Methane, bromofluoroa Methane, bromotrifluoro-, Halon 1301 a Methane, chlorobromo-, Halon 1011 a Methane, chlorodifluoro-, HCFC-22 a Methane, chlorofluoro-, HCFC-31 a Methane, chlorotrifluoro-, CFC-13 a Methane, dibromofluoro-, HBFC-22B1 a Methane, dichlorodifluoro-, CFC-12 a Methane, dichlorofluoro-, HCFC-21

Phone: 732/932-4101 x520 !

www.greenbuilding.rutgers.edu ! Fax: 732/932-0934

Appendix 1
Environmental Impact Category Emission Factors for 2002+ (cont.)
Methane, monochloro-, R-40 a Methane, tetrachloro-, CFC-10 a Methane, trichlorofluoro-, CFC-11 a Propane, 1-bromo-1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoroa Propane, 1-bromo-2-fluoroa Propane, 1-bromo-3-fluoroa Propane, 1,2,2-tribromo-3,3,3-trifluoroa Propane, 1,2,3-tribromo-3,3-difluoroa Propane, 1,3-dibromo-1,1-difluoroa Propane, 1,3-dibromo-1,1,3,3-tetrafluoroPropane, 1,3-dichloro-1,1,2,2,3-pentafluoro-, a HCFC-225cb a Propane, 2,3-dibromo-1,1,1-trifluoroa Propane, 3-bromo-1,1,1-trifluoroPropane, 3,3-dichloro-1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoro-, a HCFC-225ca a Propane, bromodifluoroa Propane, bromopentafluoroa Propane, bromotetrafluoroa Propane, chloroheptafluoro-, CFC-217 a Propane, dibromofluoroa Propane, dibromopentafluoroa Propane, dichlorodifluoro-, HCFC-252 a Propane, dichlorofluoro-, HCFC-261 a Propane, dichlorohexafluoro-, CFC-216 a Propane, dichlorotetrafluoro-, HCFC-234 a Propane, dichlorotrifluoro-, HCFC-243 a Propane, heptachlorofluoro-, CFC-211 a Propane, hexabromofluoroa Propane, hexachlorodifluoro-, CFC-212 a Propane, hexachlorofluoro-, HCFC-221 a Propane, monochlorodifluoro-, HCFC-262 a Propane, monochlorofluoro-, HCFC-271 a Propane, monochlorohexafluoro-, HCFC-226 a Propane, monochloropentafluoro-, HCFC-235 a Propane, monochlorotetrafluoro-, HCFC-244 a Propane, monochlorotrifluoro-, HCFC-253 a Propane, pentabromodifluoroa Propane, pentabromofluoroa Propane, pentachlorodifluoro-, HCFC-222 a Propane, pentachlorofluoro-, HCFC-231 a Propane, pentachlorotrifluoro-, CFC-213 a Propane, tetrabromodifluoroa Propane, tetrabromofluoroa Propane, tetrabromotrifluoroa Propane, tetrachlorodifluoro-, HCFC-232 a Propane, tetrachlorofluoro-, HCFC-241 a Propane, tetrachlorotetrafluoro-, CFC-214 a Propane, tetrachlorotrifluoro-, HCFC-223 a Propane, tribromofluoroa Propane, tribromotetrafluoroa Propane, trichlorodifluoro-, HCFC-242 a Propane, trichlorofluoro-, HCFC-251 a Propane, trichloropentafluoro-, CFC-215 Phone: 732/932-4101 x520 !
a

0.02 0.73 1 1.5 0.12 0.12 1.1 0.56 0.32 1.5 0.03 0.5 0.24

Wood, unspecified, standing/m3

0.02 0.24 1.1 1.1 1 0.13 1.3 0.014 0.0063 1 0.053 0.029 1 0.67 1 0.032 0.0063 0.0055 0.045 0.12 0.035 0.0095 0.62 0.44 0.03 0.067 1 0.65 0.39 0.73 0.028 0.019 1 0.028 0.095 1 0.025 0.0032 1 www.greenbuilding.rutgers.edu ! Fax: 732/932-0934

Appendix 1
Environmental Impact Category Emission Factors for 2002+ (cont.)
Propane, trichlorotetrafluoro-, HCFC-224 0.03 a Propane, trichlorotrifluoro-, HCFC-233 0.04 Note: (a) air emissions; (r) raw; (s) soil emissions; (w) water emissions.
a

Phone: 732/932-4101 x520 !

www.greenbuilding.rutgers.edu ! Fax: 732/932-0934

Global Warming, Impact 2002+, 2% Cut-Off

Appendix 2

Aquatic Acidification, Impact 2002+, 2% Cut-Off

Appendix 2

Appendix 2

Terrestrial Acidification/Nutrification, Impact 2002+, 2% Cut-Off

Appendix 2

Ozone Layer Depletion, Impact 2002+, 2% Cut-Off

Appendix 2

Non-Renewable Energy, Impact 2002+, 2% Cut-Off

Appendix 2

Global Warming, BEES 4.0, 2% Cut-Off

Appendix 2

Acidification, BEES 4.0, 2% Cut-Off

Appendix 2

Eutrophication, BEES 4.0, 2% Cut-Off

Appendix 2

Ozone Depletion, BEES 4.0, 3% Cut-Off

Appendix 2