United States
             Environmental Protection
Pollution Prevention
and Toxics
December 1997
             Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program
             Two Case Studies Documenting How
             The Environmental Protection Agency Incorporated
             Environmental Features into New Buildings
Federal Triangle

               > Printed on paper that contains at least 20 percent postconsumer fiber.

    ^^his document was prepared in a collaborative effort by two programs within EPA's
          Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics—the Environmentally Preferable Purchasing
      M.  (EPP) and Design for the Environment (DfE) programs. Each of the programs pro-
    motes the understanding that pollution prevention can best be accomplished at the
    beginning of an endeavor, from the decision to  purchase or the initial design. The EPP
    and DfE programs have documented EPA's new building initiatives to demonstrate not
    only how federal buildings can be designed with environmental benefits, but also how
    purchasing decisions are an integral part of the  sustainable design process.
             Design for the
  EPA's Design for the Environment (DfE) Program helps
businesses incorporate environmental considerations into
the design and redesign of products, processes, and tech-
nical and management systems. DfE initiates voluntary part-
nerships with industry, universities, research institutions,
public interest groups, and other government agencies.
   Environmentally Preferable
        Purchasing Program
  Environmentally preferable purchasing ensures that
environmental considerations are included in purchasing
decisions, along with traditional factors, such as product
price and performance. The EPP program provides guid-
ance for federal agencies to facilitate purchases of goods
and services that pose fewer burdens on the environment.
                           For more information about either of these programs contact:
                              Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse (PPIC)
                                      e-mail: PPIC@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV
              This document includes references to specific products and companies that assisted EPA with these
               building projects. These references are included to provide additional detail and do not constitute
                                   endorsement or recommendation for use.

We want to hear from you! Please tell us about your environmentally
preferable purchasing activities and efforts. We are collecting and shar-
ing information, tools, and hints about what works and what doesn't, as
environmentally preferable purchasing evolves and expands. Please con-
tact the EPP program by e-mail, regular mail, or fax:
                        Eun-Sook Goidel

          Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program

               U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

                     401M Street, SW (7409)

                     Washington, DC 20460

               e-mail: goidel.eunsook@epamail.epa.gov

                       FAX: 202 260-0178


   United States
   Environmental Protection Agency
   Washington, DC 20460
   Official Business
   Penalty for Private Use

Overview	1
Brief History of the Projects	1
EPA's "Green Building Design" Initiative	1
Key Differences Between the Projects	2
      Number of Decision-Makers	2
      EPA's Level of Involvement	3
      Building Sites	3
Significance of the Case Studies	3

EPA's Federal Triangle Headquarters Project in Washington, DC	5
Introduction	6
Stakeholders	7
The Buildings of the New Headquarters Project	8
      New Construction: The Ronald Reagan Building	10
      Buildings to Undergo Renovation: "Testaments to the American Spirit"	11
The New Headquarters Team and the Planning and Design Process	13
      Differences To Be Overcome	13
      Developing a New Process for Decision-Making	14
      Step-by-Step Decision-Making	15
           Technical Building Assessments	15
           Refining EPA's Requirements	16
           Space Planning	16
           Planned Move Coordination	17
      Communication and Outreach	17
Space Design, Materials Guidelines,
and Project Management Considerations	18
      Indoor Air Quality	18
           Managing Sources of Emissions	19
                Paints and Coatings	19
                Carpets	19
                Flooring and Base Moldings	20
                Joint and Spackling Compounds	20
                Plywood and Particle Board	21
                Furniture	21
      Mechanical Systems Design	23
      Construction Management	24

Energy and Resource Conservation	26
       "Green Lights" Design	26
       Additional Energy and Resource Efficiency Features	27
       Recycling and Reuse of Materials	27
       Transportation	28

Lessons Learned	29
       Early Involvement	29
       Teamwork	29
       Be Prepared To Learn	29


EPA's Office and Research Campus in Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina	31
Introduction	32
Building Description	33
Project History	33
       EPA's Design Team	33
       Selecting the A/E Firm	36
       Specifying Design Objectives	36
Decision Process: Function, Environment, and Cost	37
       Material Selection	38
            Flooring Debate	39
            Atrium Design	.40
       Material Conservation	.41
            Access Roads	.41
            Interstitial Space	.41
            Modular Design	.42
       Indoor Air Quality	.42
            Eliminating IAQ Contaminants	43
                 Material Selection	43
                  Sequencing	.45
                 Testing	.46
            Exhaust Stacks	.46
       Energy Conservation	.47
            Fume Hoods	.47
            Central Utility Plant	.48
            Building Automation System	48
            EPA Green Lights Program	49
            High-Performance Window Glazing	49
       Water Conservation	.49
       Onsite Recycling	.49
       Construction Management	50
            Requiring the Contractor To Recycle	50
            Mandatory Environmental Training	51
            Additional Contractor Requirements	51
       Protecting the Natural Environment	52
            Parking	52

             Tree Survey.,..	..53
             Natural Landscaping	......55
Lessons Learned	.........................56
       Commit to an Environmental Goal [[[56
       Eternal Vigilance Is Essential	56
       Be  Persistent: Assign an "Environmental Advocate"	.....57
       Continual Reevaluations Are Important.	57
       Value Engineering Can Improve Environmental Performance...	..58
       Look at the Long Term	58
       Modeling Design  Features Is Helpful.	...58
       Environmental Attribute Information Is Available	.59

Appendix A: Definition of Low VOC Content Levels As
Defined in the RTF Construction Contract[[[60
Appendix B: Required Minimum Recycled Content of
Materials for the RTP Facility	61
Appendix C: EPA Green Buildings Vision and Policy Statement..........................62

A/E          Architecture and Engineering
APA         American Plywood Association
ASHRAE     American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning
DfE          Design for the Environment
DOE        Department of Energy
EPA         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPP         Environmentally Preferable Purchasing
fc            Foot Candles
GSA         U.S. General Services Administration
GWP        Global Warming Potential
HCFC       Hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HOK        Hellmuth, Obata, and Kassabaum
HVAC       Heating, Venting, and Air Conditioning
IAQ          Indoor Air Quality
ICC          Interstate Commerce Commission
NAPCA      National Air Pollution Control Administration
NIEHS       National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
OOP        Ozone Depletion Potential
REP         Request for Proposal
RTP         Research Triangle Park
VE          Value Engineering
VOC        Volatile Organic Compound


^^Wie U.S. government is currently building two new facilities that together will
     provide working space for 9,000 EPA employees. Upon completion, they will be
 .M. the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA^) two largest facilities. The
EPA headquarters facility will provide consolidated space in Washington, DC, for the
Agency's 6,800 headquarters personnel. It currently includes space in the new Ronald
Reagan Building and also will include space in several of the newly renovated build-
ings in the Federal Triangle complex. The second facility will provide laboratory and
office space for 2,200 EPA scientists and other professionals in Research Triangle
Park (RTF), North Carolina.

  In keeping with its mission to protect the environment, EPA worked to ensure that
designs for both facilities minimize adverse environmental impacts. Both facilities
include features  designed to protect indoor air quality, maximize energy efficiency,
reduce water consumption, encourage alternative forms of transportation, and pro-
mote pollution prevention throughout the construction process. Design teams for
both facilities also examined the environmental impacts of selected materials from a
lifecycle perspective in an attempt to select products with minimal adverse effects,
over time, to human health and the environment.

  While the environmental goals for each of the facilities were similar, they were
implemented differently because of key differences between the two projects. This
document includes a case study for each of the EPA projects. Each details the
decision-making process EPA used when selecting environmental design components.

Brief History of the Projects

  When EPA was created in 1970, the first employees and their office space were
inherited from many smaller agencies and subagencies subsumed by EPA. As EPA's
regulatory, research, and pollution prevention responsibilities increased, EPA head-
quarters employees were located throughout the Washington, DC, area in 10 dis-
parate locations. Similarly, many of EPA's research  scientists were located throughout
RTP in a dozen different buildings, some as many as 15  miles apart.

  By the early to mid 1980s, the lack of a centralized headquarters facility was ham-
pering Agency efficiency as employees constantly shuttled between buildings. It also
hurt internal communication. There were similar concerns among the EPA employ-
ees in RTP. In addition, the numerous EPA laboratory facilities in RTP were aging
rapidly and were no longer able to support all of the Agency's research needs.

  EPA established headquarters and RTP teams to acquire new consolidated facili-
ties. The efforts of each team and the specific history of each project are documented
in the following case studies.

EPA's "Green Building Design" Initiative

  In August 1995, EPA defined its "green buildings" vision and policy statement, in
which green buildings were identified as "structures that incorporate the principles of
sustainable design—design in which the impacts of a  building on the environment will


           be minimal over the life-time of that building." EPA's green buildings statement iden-
           tified 10 specific design objectives to achieve that goal. EPA also acknowledged, how-
           ever, that some of the sustainable design goals might conflict with one another
           (increased ventilation versus increased energy efficiency, for example) or with other
           EPA objectives such as cost and function, or other policy goals such as environmental
           justice (with regards to site selection). For a complete copy of the EPA Green
           Buildings Vision and Policy  Statement,  see Appendix C.

             In implementing these goals, EPA incorporated as many environmental features
           into the design of each of the new facilities as the budgets would allow without com-
           promising building function. While several private sector and other nongovernmental
           organizations are beginning  to incorporate environmental features like grey water
           recycling, solar, geothermal, and fuel cell power production, and straw bale construc-
           tion, EPA only incorporated features that were appropriate within the context of the
           budget, construction process, building site, and existing infrastructures associated with
           each project. For example, both facilities had existing power plants as sources of heat.
           Developing completely new heating sources would have conflicted with  each project's
           resource conservation goals and budgetary constraints.
                   intent was not to build facilities that showcase the latest emerging technolo-
           gies or facilities that incorporate every "green" design option available. The goal was
           to design and build two functional facilities, each at a reasonable cost, and each with
           reduced adverse environmental impacts. Every design decision attempted to balance
           three guiding principles — function, cost, and environmental impact.
           Key  Differences Between the Projects
             While the environmental goals for each of the projects are similar, there are funda-
           mental differences between them—the number of decision-makers, EPA^ level of
           involvement in the decision making process, and the building sites. These differences
           affected some of the decisions and the way in which they were made.
           Number of Decision-Makers

             The Agency's New Headquarters Project includes a new building—the Ronald
           Reagan Building, which will be occupied by EPA and other federal and private sector
           tenants—and renovations to existing buildings in the Federal Triangle complex, which
           will be occupied solely by EPA. All of the buildings, however, are owned by the U.S.
           General Services Administration (GSA). GSA is also managing the project, although
           GSA and EPA are working closely together to incorporate EPAk functional, cost, and
           environmental priorities. GSA must balance EPA's priorities with the overall project
           schedule and cost and with the functional and cost priorities of the other tenants.

             Balancing competing building priorities required GSA, GSXs base building archi-
           tects and contractors, EPA, EPA's interior architects and contractors, other building
           tenants, and federal employee unions to establish a framework to make many  design
           decisions together. Consequently, the most challenging aspect of incorporating envi-
           ronmental considerations into EPA's new headquarters facility was developing an
           effective decision-making process. Consequently, the headquarters case study begins
           with a detailed examination of this process.

  The RTF research complex, by comparison, included a more straightforward deci-
sion-making process. Unlike the headquarters project, EPA will not be leasing the
facility from GSA. EPA will own the facility and will be its sole occupant. As a result,
the RTP team was involved from the beginning of the project and was able to balance
their own functional, cost, and environmental priorities without involving as many
EPA's Level of Involvement

  EPA's involvement in designing the new headquarters facility occurred after a num-
ber of fundamental building decisions had been made, which restricted EPA's ability
to affect the overall design. While a majority of EPA's opportunities to minimize the
negative environmental impacts of the building affected the facility's interior because
most of the building's skeleton design had already been completed, the Agency was
able to influence some base building decisions, including the materials, mechanical
systems, and water conservation features.

  As the owner of the RTP facility, however, EPA had complete control over the
design of the entire facility, from the location of the building on the existing federal
property to the type of paint used on the interior walls. This provided EPA with a
greater ability to affect the environmental impacts of the RTP facility

  These differences are reflected in the  focus of the two case studies. The headquar-
ters case study addresses many interior building concerns as well as some base build-
ing issues, while the RTP case study addresses the entire project.

Building Sites

  The building sites for each of the new EPA facilities are very different. The head-
quarters facility is  located in a historically significant block of downtown Washington,
DC. The RTP laboratory facility is being constructed on a heavily wooded,  132.5-
acre site that is part of a larger 500-acre  federal property. While both projects were
designed to minimize site impact, the opportunities to do so were  different for each
facility. In Washington, DC, the  construction site included several historically signifi-
cant buildings—minimizing impact meant preserving the historical significance of the
site. In RTP, minimizing site impact meant preserving the forest, wetlands, wildlife
habitats, and the existing watershed.

Significance of  the Case Studies

  These case studies not only demonstrate the feasibility of cost-effectively incorpo-
rating environmental concerns into large building projects, but demonstrate that the
environmental concerns and the methods used to address them are likely to differ
from project to project. They also demonstrate that the negative environmental
impacts of a building can be minimized whether it is owned or leased, renovated or
new, or located in  an urban or rural setting. EPA^ Design for the Environment (DfE)
and Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP) programs hope that the lessons
learned from EPA^ experiences with these two projects will help others incorporate
environmental considerations into future buildings.


 Case Study One:

 EPA's Federal Triangle
Headquarters Project In
   Washington, DC


             EPA has had a long-standing housing dilemma. Since its inception in 1970, EPA
           has experienced significant growth in both programmatic responsibility and person-
           nel. EPA managers recognized that they needed to plan for a new, consolidated head-
           quarters. In the late 1980s, the Agency assembled a group of key individuals (the EPA
           New Headquarters Project) to manage the housing effort and develop standards for
           environmental design, beginning with employee protection and ultimately including
           global environmental concerns.

             As planning continued, the problem of disparate, scattered locations worsened. By
           the mid-1990s, EPA had rented space in 10 locations throughout the District of
           Columbia and Virginia. Some of these facilities represented departures from their
           intended uses. As a result, EPA's efforts to integrate and run efficient programs met
           with difficulties that included:

                 • Duplication and inequity of support services.

                 • Inefficient, costly, and often inappropriate use of space.

                 • Lack of centralized services.

                 • Overcrowding.

                 • Excessive operating costs caused by adjustments made for multiple sites
                   (e.g.., multiple guard services, shuttle services, etc.).

                 • Environmental problems, which potentially have  affected employees' health,
                   created excessive long-term costs, and attracted considerable negative public
                 k goal was to consolidate its thousands of employees in a well-planned central
           location that offered greater efficiency, comfort, safety, and lower operating costs,
           while maintaining consistency with its environmental mission. In addition, a
           government-owned facility would save taxpayers rental expense. Large urban facilities
           with the appropriate features are not easy to locate, however, and it took many years
           of planning before EPA finalized plans for a new headquarters site at the Federal
           Triangle location in central Washington, DC.

             In December 1993, the GSA Administrator announced plans for EPA to move into
           the Federal Triangle area, saying, "One of the major goals in this administration has
           been to consolidate and streamline our federal government. With this agreement, we
           have solved a long-standing problem that has spanned at least three administrations.
           In doing so, we give EPA the tools to carry out its critical mission, we reduce the
           number of federal office buildings, and we expect to save the taxpayers money
           through reduced leasing costs. Everybody wins."

             EPA employees began moving into the new headquarters space in 1994. Move-in
           of all staff is expected to be completed by early 2001. About 6,800 EPA staff will work
           in the Federal Triangle area.
Case Study One: EPA's Federal Triangle Headquarters Project


  A project of this size, importance, and complexity has many stakeholders, all of
whom have to be able to coordinate and communicate their goals, needs, difficulties,
and activities on an ongoing basis. Communicating effectively with so many people
over several years poses an enormous challenge. The stakeholders for the EPA New
Headquarters Project include:

     •  EPAk headquarters personnel.

     •  Gruzen Samton/The Croxton Collaborative, EPA^ space planning and
        design architectural team.

     •  Staff members of EPA's Safety, Health, and Environmental Management

     •  Other technical reviewers from EPA divisions with specific mission-related

     •  The National Federation of Federal Employees and the American
        Federation of Government Employees, unions that represent about two-
        thirds of EPA employees.

     •  The GSA-EPA team, which includes the staff of the EPA New Headquarters

     •  The two GSA Project Executives in charge of this work.

     •  The Federal Triangle Consortium, GSA^ developer for the Ronald Reagan
        base building.

     •  RTKL Associates, GSA^ architect for renovations.

     •  All those interested in developing federal properties that are a value to the
                                Case Study One: EPAk Federal Triangle Headquarters Project

                    The  Buildings of the  New Headquarters  Project

                      The Federal Triangle site is one of the most valuable pieces of property in the fed-
                    eral government's inventory. Located in downtown Washington, DC, between
                    Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues, and 12th and 14th Streets, the area contains
                    the last major unfinished site on Pennsylvania Avenue. Nearby are Freedom Plaza,
                    the Willard Hotel, the National Theater, the Warner Theater, and the Old Post
                    Office Pavilion. Before construction began on the Ronald Reagan Building, the site
                    was a surface parking lot for over 50 years.

                      EPA's current housing plan involves the newly constructed Ronald Reagan Building
                    and several historically significant New Deal-era buildings, including the Ariel Rios,
                    U.S. Customs, and Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) Buildings.
T The U.S. Customs,
   Connecting Wing
   (containing the
   Mellon Auditorium),
   and ICC Buildings
   (left to right)
          Case Study One: EPA's Federal Triangle Headquarters Project

Federal Triangle Project Time Line
1970          EPA is created.

1970          EPAk Washington, DC, headquarters staff occupies
              Waterside Mall Towers.

1971 to 1997   EPA headquarters continues to expand, eventually occupying 10 sites
              in the Washington, DC, area.

1981          EPA begins planning for a consolidated headquarters.

1987          Congress approves legislation for the creation of the Federal Triangle
              Building (renamed the Ronald Reagan Building in 1995).

1988          EPA New Headquarters Project team forms and begins talking with
              GSA about headquarters consolidation.

1991          Excavation and construction begins on the Ronald Reagan Building.

1993          GSA announces that EPA will occupy Ariel Rios, U.S. Customs, ICC,
              and Connecting Wing Buildings of the Federal Triangle Complex.

1993          GSA publishes Request for Qualifications for renovation of Federal
              Triangle buildings.

1993          RTKL Associates (GSA) and Gruzen Samton/Croxton Collaborative
              (EPA) are hired and planning for renovations begins.

1993          President Clinton signs Executive Order 12873: Federal Acquisition,
              Recycling, and Waste Prevention.

1994 to 1996   EPA moves into previously renovated Ariel Rios-South.

1995          EPA issues Guidance on Acquisition of Environmentally Preferable Products
              and Services

1995          GSA completes Prospectus Development Study for renovations.

1995          Planning begins for renovations to Ariel Rios-North.

1997          EPA moves into a portion of the Ronald Reagan Building.

1999          EPA moves into Ariel Rios-North (expected).

2000          EPA moves into ICC Building (expected).

2000 to 2001   EPA moves into U.S. Customs Building and Connecting Wing
                                Case Study One: EPAk Federal Triangle Headquarters Project

A Ronald Reagan
                      New Construction: The Ronald Reagan Building

                         The design of the Ronald Reagan Building, although modern in function, blends
                      with the classic Revival style of the buildings on site. The gracious exterior is covered
                      with limestone from the same quarry that covers the older structures. The most
                                                                  notable architectural feature of the
                                                                  building is a 6-story glass and steel
                                                                  atrium that provides generous public
                                                                  space for restaurants, shops, and con-
                                                                  ference rooms. The facility, designed
                                                                  by the world renowned architectural
                                                                  firm of Pei-Cobb-Freed, is the second
                                                                  largest federal office complex,  after the

                                                                     The interior space of the building
                                                                  totals 3.1 million occupiable square
                                                                  feet. Approximately 1,000 EPA
                                                                  employees are presently occupying the
                                                                  200,000 square feet that comprises
                                                                  EPA's portion of the building. The
                                                                  U.S. Customs Service and the U.S.
                                                                  Agency for International Development
                                                                  will occupy another 1.1 million square
                                                                  feet of space in this building. In addi-
                                                                  tion, 500,000 square feet have  been
                      reserved for the International Cultural and Trade Center, which is being leased by
                      commercial trade-related organizations. Finally, the Woodrow Wilson International
                      Center for Scholars will occupy 50,000 square feet.

                         Approval and funding for this building was granted by Congress in the late 1980s,
                      and construction of the "base building"1 began before EPA was named a tenant in the
                      project. EPA, therefore, had a somewhat limited role in the construction of the base
                      building, although the Agency, working closely with GSA, had some modest successes
                      in altering the building to reflect a number of sustainable design and mission  features,
                      including the addition of operable windows, use of low-Volatile Organic Compounds
                      (VOC) paints in the base building, selection of a 4-phenyl cyclohexene (4-PC) free
                      carpet buildingwide, incorporation of low-flow plumbing devices, use of fly ash in the
                      cement,  and a number of mechanical system improvements that contribute to a better
                      indoor environment.

                         When designing its own interior "tenant" spaces, the Agency had much more lati-
                      tude to reflect technical and environmental features. EPA^ tenant spaces include such
                      features  as:

                            •  Energy-efficient pendant lighting with up and down light distribution.
                      "'Base building" is a construction and architectural term that usually refers to work that is done to the external
                      walls and foundation of a building. GSA uses this term in a different context than would a typical developer to
                      indicate all the aspects of construction that GSA manages (versus those areas controlled by a tenant). GSA gen-
                      erally tries to put as much of the work as possible into the base building, and to leave little for tenant fit-out,
                      partly because often no tenants have yet rented the space. This allows for more efficient and cost-effective
                      design and construction. Aspects of a construction project that usually fall into the "base building" category
                      include heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC); plumbing; electricity; exteriors; and construction of
                      common areas.
           Case Study One: EPA's Federal Triangle Headquarters Project

        A "Green Lights" approach that reduces energy consumption.

        Fully equipped Haworth workstations that meet EPA mission and functional

        Carpet tiles, aired out off site prior to installation, containing no 4-PC.

        Long-wearing, cleanable wall covering, applied with low-VOC adhesive.

        Low VOC paint.

        Durable fabric wall covering for conference rooms.

        Ceiling tiles with high recycled content.

        Compact fluorescent fixtures.

        Crystalline silica-free joint compound.

        Mechanical system refinements including direct exhaust of copy and pantry
Buildings To Undergo Renovation: "Testaments to the
American Spirit"

  In addition to the new Ronald Reagan Building,
the Federal Triangle site includes several buildings
constructed during the Great Depression that
"were intended to be testaments to the resilience
and strength of the American Spirit," according to
GSA's lead architect for the renovation. The reno-
vated buildings include the following:

  The Ariel Rios Building: The striking exterior
architecture of this half-moon shaped building
enabled EPA to  establish a meaningful "front
door." The interior public spaces include elaborate
architectural details. The South Wing already had
been renovated when EPA inherited the space in
1993 from the U.S. Department of Justice, and the
North Wing is slated for renovations between  1997
and 1999.

  The ICC Building: This building has a rectan-
gular plan, with  a central open light court extend-
ing to the basement floor and an  octagonal
rotunda. Many elegant historic spaces will be pre-
served and protected.

  The U.S. Customs Building: This rectangular
building, which  forms a mirror image of the ICC
Building, has a central open light court. A water
fountain is centered in the court floor, around
which extend formal walkways and landscaped
                                                 The front prome-
                                                 nade of the Ariel
                                                 Rios North building
Case Study One: EPA^ Federal Triangle Headquarters Project

                      gardens. As is the case with the ICC Building, many historic spaces will be preserved
                      and adapted for modern tenants.

                        Connecting Wing: This structure connects the U.S. Customs Building and the
                      ICC Building. The elaborate three-story Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium faces
                      Constitution Avenue and includes a large departmental auditorium, a spacious
                      entrance lobby, and meeting rooms. Office space is located behind the auditorium.

                        In their original form, these buildings were very inefficient by today's standards,
                      because their designers were working with an entirely different set of standards and
                      needs. Built in an era with no mechanical air conditioning, the buildings contained
                      narrow office spaces off a central corridor. Slatted "louvered" doors and transoms
                      provided ventilation and return air to corridors. In essence, the corridors became
                      return air plenums used for ventilation. The EPA New Headquarters Project faced a
                      challenging job in upgrading the facilities to meet the needs of a technologically
                      focused modern agency with a conspicuous environmental mission.

                        To meet historic preservation requirements, GSA had to preserve the original
                      structures and appearance of many publicly accessible parts of these buildings, espe-
                      cially hallways, atria, many conference rooms, and some offices, as well as building
                      exteriors. These structures are all listed on the National Register of Historic Places
                      and in the  GSA National Capital Region Historic Properties Inventory. The con-
                      struction methods, architectural details, and materials—granite, marble, black walnut,
                      bronze—have become irreplaceable. These buildings are viewed as national treasures
                      and GSA had a strong commitment to restoring them in a historically sympathetic
                      way and to displaying their important and historic contributions to federal govern-
                      ment. All requested changes to the buildings were approved by the GSA Regional
                      Historic Preservation Office and conform to the Secretary of the Interior's  Standards
                      for renovation of historic properties.
12   +   Case Study One: EPA's Federal Triangle Headquarters Project

The New Headquarters Team  and the Planning
And Design Process

  GSA owns and manages many federal buildings in the United States, including the
Federal Triangle complex. It also manages all construction and design projects for its
properties. GSA usually oversees such projects alone, partly because there are often
no tenants for a space when the construction is being planned, but also because it is
GSA's role to manage  architectural and engineering projects for the federal govern-
ment. In the case of the older buildings in EPA's new headquarters, however, GSA
decided to proceed somewhat differently. According to one of the GSA Project
Executives, "Given the complexity and public impact of EPA's consolidation effort, we
realized from the outset that a different approach was required to manage all plan-
ning, design, construction, and move processes of the renovated buildings. We under-
stood that EPA had to be an integral part of that team."

Differences To Be  Overcome

  The EPA and GSA team's overall objectives included: (1) planning for a headquar-
ters facility that would meet EPA's functional needs now and in the future; (2) reflect-
ing EPA's environmental mission in the facilities; (3) adhering to historic preservation
mandates; (4) completing the move on schedule; and (5) ensuring project continuity
from planning  through occupancy. When the team first began to work together in
1993, however, some significant differences in concepts, operating style, and proce-
dures existed between EPA and GSA

      •  GSA set forth baseline design guidelines for federal construction and renova-
        tion projects  in a document called PQ 100.1. These guidelines, at times, did
        not reflect EPA^ specific environmental and technical requirements.

      •  GSA often focuses only on "first costs," meaning that it considers primarily
        the cost to purchase a  product or system. EPA, on the other hand, considers
        "lifecycle costs" — the total costs of a product or system over its useful life —
        as a more realistic method of justifying investments in environmentally
        preferable items  or features that better meet EPA technical performance lev-

      •  GSXs  organizational structure typically separates construction from opera-
        tions and maintenance, which makes it difficult to capture both operational
        and construction cost savings.

      •  GSXs  standard process involves obtaining at least three bids from U.S.
        sources for every purchase used in a federal project, a process that works well
        for established systems and products that have mature markets. Conversely,
        some of EPA's environmental goals for the new headquarters focused on
        newly developed materials and systems, for which markets may not have
        developed fully. In  such cases, the three-bid approach can be difficult or
        impossible to implement and thus inhibited the purchase of a material or sys-
        tem suggested by EPA.
             mission and historical problems with indoor air quality (IAQ) meant it
        needed to ensure the best possible IAQ for its employees. While GSA has
        extensive expertise in building construction and management, EPA believed
                                Case Study One: EPAk Federal Triangle Headquarters Project    +  13

                             that its environmental expertise made it better suited than GSA to oversee its
                             IAQ concerns.
                     Developing a New Process for Decision-Making

                       To address these differences, the agencies first had to set in place a new system of
                     communication, which involved a different process of decision-making than had typi-
                     cally been used in past GSA construction projects (there are also differences in the
                     process as it relates to the Ronald Reagan Building versus the renovated buildings; see
                     inset next page). EPA and GSA eventually worked out a process that was collabora-
                     tive, practical, and sensitive to the pressures of time and budget, while incorporating
                     EPA^ mission and technical requirements. The system included the following ele-

                           • A formal offsite partnering session was conducted for each of the renovation
                             projects, to break down communication barriers and to develop a mutual
                             understanding of project goals.

                           • To help EPA plan for a headquarters that truly reflected its environmental
                             mission and achieved its goals for efficient operations, EPA chose an archi-
                             tectural group with environmental expertise, Gruzen Samton/Croxton
                             Collaborative, to work on the renovations.

                           • Project managers at both EPA and GSA led the team and worked together

                           • Frequent team meetings were held to discuss plans, to design layouts, status,
                             and schedule, and to make decisions by consensus. The team discussed the
                             merits of approaches, materials, systems, and processes and made decisions
                             that  satisfied the team as a whole.

                           • The  team reviewed the design plans at several stages during development,
                             which helped team members understand critical issues and improve proce-
                             dures for the rest of the project. Design review involved "value engineering,"
                             which analyzes systems while paying special attention to the overall value of
                             each decision. This process helped GSA and EPA prioritize their needs and
                             stay within the fixed Congressional budget for the renovations.

                           • Stakeholders received regular communications (newsletters, automated voice
                             announcements, etc.) to update them on the progress of the project and to
                             ask for their input on specific issues.

                           • EPA backed up  its commitment to environmental requirements by putting
                             Agency resources into each project.
14   +   Case Study One: EPA's Federal Triangle Headquarters Project

 New Construction  (Ronald Reagan  Building)
 Versus Renovation Projects

 The process of planning and constructing the Ronald Reagan Building differed
 from that of the renovated buildings in several ways:

       • Because EPA will not be the sole tenant of the Ronald Reagan Building
         and was not involved in the project from its inception, EPA had fewer
         opportunities to comment on or modify the design for the new construc-
         tion. For the buildings to be renovated, however, none of this groundwork
         had been laid, and GSA invited EPA to be a design partner from the out-
         set. Also, EPA will be the sole tenant of all the renovated buildings.

       • Because of its late entry into the design process of the Ronald Reagan
         Building, EPA's architectural firm was not a part of GSXs design team. For
         the renovation portion of the project, however, EPA did bring its own
         architectural firm into the design process at the start of planning. This
         early involvement enabled the team to incorporate features that were
         important to EPA into the building design.

       • The Ronald Reagan Building design and construction project was man-
         aged by a private development corporation, whereas the renovated build-
         ings were traditional GSA "design and build" projects. In the latter
         process, GSA itself manages the project and has direct control over design
         and construction. Thus, GSA can modify, refine, or add to the design, the
         materials, or the construction process as needed to meet the needs of its

       • The Ronald Reagan Building was not subject to historic preservation
         requirements because it is a completely new building, whereas the build-
         ings slated for renovation were subject to them.

       • Presidential Executive Order 12873, signed in October,  1993, affected the
         renovation projects because it includes the environmental aspects of con-
         struction, renovation, and office furnishings. GSA was not required to
         consider environmental attributes in construction or purchasing of materi-
         als for the Ronald Reagan Building, however, because it was approved
         prior to the Executive Order.
Step-By-Step Decision-Making

  To ensure EPA^ needs were met in the planning, design, construction, and renova-
tion of the new facilities, the team set up a series of important steps to implement for
each building in the Federal Triangle complex.

Technical Building Assessments

  Information related to the architectural, mechanical, structural, and electrical
aspects of the buildings was reviewed by the EPA and GSA team, including:

     •  Assessment of power, heating, ventilating and air conditioning, lighting,
        structure, and telecommunications issues.
                                Case Study One: EPAk Federal Triangle Headquarters Project   +  15

                           •  Architectural analysis of the space.

                           •  Environmental assessment of existing conditions in the renovated structures,
                              including asbestos, lead, lighting, electromagnetic fields, and energy efficiency.

                           •  Analysis of historic preservation requirements, which strongly influenced
                              building modifications and use of space.
T A lobby in the
   Ronald Reagan
                      Refining EPA's Requirements

                        In 1988, the project team developed a comprehensive Pre-Design Master Study that
                      defined EPAk facility requirements for the project. Both the baseline for design and
                      EPAk architectural firm selection were dependent upon this study and a variety of
                      other materials. Gruzen Samton/Croxton Collaborative then worked with EPA to
                      specify state-of-the-art sustainable design and construction principles and to deter-
                      mine which principles were appropriate for use in this project, in the context of the
                      available space  and potential impacts on the projected completion schedule. The team
                      then developed guidelines for building design and construction processes, and source
                      selection criteria for design and construction materials, as well as interior furnishings.

                        These guidelines laid the foundation for the team to incorporate changes to the
                      typical GSA design management processes. The team at times considered purchases
                      with higher-than-usual initial costs, for example, if they could be justified by a short
                                                        payback period. GSA required EPA payment
                                                        for all items deemed beyond their standard
                                                        building treatment.

                                                        Space Planning

                                                            Careful space planning required attention to
                                                        the many programmatic divisions within EPA,
                                                        as well as to the various individual needs of
                                                        employees  (e.g., facilities for conferencing,
                                                        meetings, training, documents, child care,
                                                        infant nursing, fitness, eating, and research).
                                                        Decisions regarding the types, sizes, and rela-
                                                        tive locations of spaces needed had to be made
                                                        early in the planning process. The team subse-
                                                        quently established detailed space use and envi-
                                                        ronmental  criteria. At this point, the team made
                                                        specific decisions about equipment, layouts,
                                                        materials, furnishings, and other details. The
                                                        planning process required communication with
                                                        relevant stakeholders about their needs.

                                                            The various EPA offices were distributed to
                                                        reflect the functional organization of EPA.
                                                        Program offices were consolidated physically
                                                        and placed near one another to facilitate inter-
                                                        action. Since these programs all interface with
                                                        the public,  their offices were located to facili-
                                                        tate public  communication and interaction. The
          Case Study One: EPA's Federal Triangle Headquarters Project

Executive, Legal, and Resource organizations were placed in Ariel Rios-North, near
the offices that relate functionally to the work of the Administrator. Also, throughout
the buildings, support functions were arranged so that they will be directly accessible
to the individuals needing their services.

Planned Move Coordination

   The process of constructing space and moving several thousand federal employees
from multiple locations, already underway, will take more  than seven years to com-
plete. In addition, significant programmatic changes within EPA have affected the
Agency's physical space needs; these have had to be incorporated into the design on
an ongoing basis. Such a massive move requires precise planning and the involvement
of representatives from the different EPA facilities and programs.

Communication and Outreach

   In an organization so dispersed both physically and programmatically, a variety of
communication mechanisms about the project had to be implemented throughout the
duration of the project, including:

      • An automated informational phone line with regular recorded updates that
        allows callers to talk directly to an EPA New Headquarters Project staff per-

      • Numerous physical and photographic displays about the new facilities,which
        were placed at various locations around the current headquarters at
        Waterside Mall and at the Agency's satellite buildings.

      • Electronic communications posted to EPA bulletin boards and on the EPA
        intranet, as well as regular office briefings.

      • A demonstration area that displayed two typical workstations and interior
        furnishings for the new headquarters.

      • A video about the new facilities, produced by the  New Headquarters  Project
        team and available for private and group viewings.

      • Regular newsletters and fact sheets about the status of the project in the dif-
        ferent buildings.

      • Surveys of the needs and relative importance to EPA staff of various aspects
        of the move and the new facilities.

      • Regular briefings for all EPA employees.

      • A Program Committee, which includes representatives who exchange rele-
        vant planning information.
                                 Case Study One: EPAk Federal Triangle Headquarters Project   +   17

A An office entrance-
  way in the Ronald
  Reagan Building
                    Space  Design, Materials Guidelines, and Project
                    Management  Considerations

                      The design approach taken with EPAk new headquarters complex addressed con-
                    cerns of paramount importance to the Agency: functional organization of the various
                    Agency components; efficient utilization of available space; recognition of employee
                    health, safety, and comfort considerations; a workplace whose design embraces the
                    Agency's mission goals and meets EPA's technical and program needs; and implemen-
                    tation of these objectives within the constraints of existing structures, budget, and his-
                    torical preservation limitations. In some cases, EPA was able to assist GSA in
                    implementing major design modifications and construction procedures to meet the
                    Agency's mission and technical objectives. In other cases, only incremental improve-
                    ments were feasible because of budgetary and historic preservation constraints.
                    Indoor Air Quality

                      EPA ranks poor IAQ as one of our nation's greatest health risk issues. IAQ may
                    have considerable impacts on employee productivity and absenteeism, and may affect
                    the general well-being of occupants. Members of EPA's design team established IAQ
                    recommendations for GSA, concentrating on three categories: sources of emissions,
                    mechanical systems design, and management of construction and renovation process-
                    es. These recommendations were developed with the primary goal of protecting EPA
                    employees from IAQ problems that might result from material selection decisions, as
          Case Study One: EPA's Federal Triangle Headquarters Project

well as from construction and renovation activities. Additional considerations for
selecting certain materials (joint and spackling compounds and floor and base mold-
ings) were the health impacts on workers during manufacturing and construction
activities and the effects created when materials ultimately make their way into the
waste stream.

Managing Sources of Emissions

  The EPA and GSA design team developed and implemented a number of source
control procedures. These focused on using construction materials that exhibited a
low potential for chemical emissions (called "off-gassing potential"), including low-
emitting carpeting, paints, adhesives, insulation materials, and general construction
materials. The EPA and GSA team took steps to avoid building materials and prod-
ucts containing high levels of VOCs and toxic chemicals. Members of EPA's Safety,
Health, and Environmental Management Division and specialists from EPA's design
team played a critical role in reviewing material safety data sheets of key materials and
products used by GSXs contractors and making recommendations. The general
guidelines developed by EPA to meet its IAQ source management  goals follow.

  Paints and Coatings

  Emissions from paints and coatings may contribute greatly to IAQ problems. Some
paints and coatings contain volatile petroleum-based solvents, fungicides, and bio-
cides, as well as crystalline silica and heavy metals2. Although off-gassing of these
volatile substances is considerably more dramatic during application and drying peri-
ods, it continues to a lesser degree after application. Oil-based paints tend to off-gas a
greater level of VOCs on initial application than do water-based paints. Properly
selected paints and coatings, handled with correct precautions, do not contribute sig-
nificantly to IAQ problems.
                                                                                 T Carpets ready for
  EPA suggested guidelines for low-VOC paints and coatings, a number of which are     air-out before
available for interior wall and ceiling surfaces. EPA also identified low-VOC caulking,     installation
sealants,  adhesives, wood finishes, and waterproofing materi-
als. The team also recommended that these paints  be applied
under maximum ventilation, which should be continued for
at least 72 hours following completion of work.


  An earlier agreement between EPA employee unions and
management required that all carpeting used in EPA facilities
must be free of the chemical compound 4-PC, an odorous
compound that had been associated with prior EPA indoor
air complaints. Additionally,  to ensure that the new carpeting
would not contribute to IAQ problems, a number of other
steps were taken. Carpeting for all EPA spaces was aired out
(i.e., carpet tiles were removed from packaging and spread
2 Crystalline silica and heavy metals can become airborne occupational hazards for construction workers as a
result of sanding and scraping old paint during renovation activities. They can also become an IAQ hazard for
building occupants if the ventilation duct work is not properly cleaned after all sanding and scraping is com-
                                  Case Study One: EPAk Federal Triangle Headquarters Project    +   19

           out) for seven days at another location prior to installation in EPA space. Carpet tile
           was installed using four dots of glue in each corner of the tile rather than covering the
           entire surface with glue, as is traditional. Guidelines also required that all finish paint-
           ing and sealant applications be applied and fully cured prior to carpet installation, to
           prevent absorption and subsequent re-emission of off-gassed chemicals in carpeting.
           Lastly the contractor monitored a 21-day flush-out period after the carpets were
           installed and prior to tenant move-in. During this time, the HVAC system was run 24
           hours a day, with the goal of using 100 percent outside air to completely flush the
           interior air.
              Flooring and Base Moldings

              Many flooring and base molding products contain vinyl chloride monomer, a
           known human carcinogen.3 The EPA technical team noted that vinyl chloride expo-
           sure associated with flooring and base molding most likely occurs during the manu-
           facturing of these products. In addition, vinyl chloride can be a problem in waste
           incineration. The team, therefore, suggested that rubber-based materials be substitut-
           ed for the vinyl-based molding, and that linoleum tile be substituted for vinyl compo-
           sition tile. In addition, adhesives low in VOCs were used during application, with
           maximum ventilation provided during and immediately after installation.
             Joint and Spackling Compounds
   An Assistant
   suite in the Ronald     Joint and Spackling compounds commonly contain hardening agents, such as crys-
   Reagan Building     talline silica. These agents do not necessarily pose a hazard during application, but
                                                                            can become inhalable dusts
                                                                            as a result of sanding or
                                                                            other renovation activities.
                                                                            Construction workers con-
                                                                            tinually exposed to these
                                                                            airborne dusts without
                                                                            proper respiratory protec-
                                                                            tion can also develop lung
                                                                            irritations and even silico-
                                                                            sis. Further, it is possible
                                                                            for silica dusts to be intro-
                                                                            duced into a building's
                                                                            mechanical system during
                                                                            construction or renovation

                                                                              In response to these
                                                                            issues, an alternative joint
                                                                            compound that did not
                                                                            contain a crystalline silica
                                                                            component was identified
                                                                            and used during construc-
                                                                            tion of EPA space in the
                                                                            Ronald Reagan Building.
           3 Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables, Office of Research and Development, Office of Emergency and
           Remedial Response, U.S. EPA, 1995.
Case Study One: EPA's Federal Triangle Headquarters Project

This product costs approximately the same amount as traditional silica-containing
joint compound, but it required construction workers to hand-mix the ingredients on
site. Choosing appropriate materials often provides valuable lessons for future prod-
ucts. In a number  of locations throughout the Ronald Reagan Building, imprecise
mixing caused the compound to crack upon drying and required additional repair
work. Steps were taken to avoid these problems in subsequent applications.

  Plywood and Particle Board

  Urea formaldehyde resin is often used as a bonding agent in plywood and particle
board. Formaldehyde, a probable human carcinogen  and chemical irritant, is known
to off-gas at room temperature for extended periods of time in bonded products. To
reduce this potential source of indoor pollutants, the  EPA team suggested that exteri-
or grade plywood  be used as one alternative in exposed interior applications, such as
telephone closets and cabinetry. Large-scale chamber tests documented by the
American Plywood Association (APA) found concentrations of formaldehyde from
exterior grade plywood, which uses phenolic formaldehyde resin, to be less than 0.1
parts per million (ppm) under APA standard test conditions.


  Volatile chemicals, such as formaldehyde, are often used in the sealants and glues
found in indoor office furniture and have the potential to off-gas during the life  of the
furniture. To identify products that would minimize this potential source of indoor air
pollutants, EPA developed chemical emissions criteria and a testing program for fur-
niture vendors who wanted to participate in EPA^ bidding process. In 1990, the  State
of Washington published its furniture procurement standards, which many furniture
manufacturers now use as a baseline for their production processes. Based on this pro-
gram, the EPA team developed even stricter threshold values for chemical  emissions
off-gassing from furniture for the new headquarters project:

      • Maximum formaldehyde concentration in air — less than 0.05 ppm

      • Maximum aldehyde concentration in air — less than 0.1 ppm

      • Total VOC concentration in air — less than 0.5 milligrams per cubic meter

      • 4-PC (as  an odorant) — below the limits of  detection

  Furniture testing was coordinated by the EPA team and GSA^ National Furniture
Center, working with a nationally recognized laboratory in Marietta, Georgia. EPA
conducted and documented inspections of manufacturing sites and the furniture test-
ing facility to ensure compliance with the established testing procedures. All testing
was done in compliance with EPA's quality assurance  and quality control procedures.
                                 Case Study One: EPAk Federal Triangle Headquarters Project    +   21

                     Reinventing Furniture Procurement

                       Traditionally, federal purchasing decisions are based on cost and performance. To
                     address human and ecological risks as well, EPA developed and implemented a volun-
                     tary environmental assessment checklist for furniture manufacturers. This tool was
                     used to assess the environmental policies in place at each manufacturer's facilities, in
                     addition to the environmental characteristics of systems furniture submitted for con-
                     sideration under this procurement. First, environmental performance and characteris-
                     tics of the workstation were considered, including energy conservation, IAQ, and
                     resource conservation (i.e., use of recycled and recyclable materials). Second, the
                     assessment reviewed the vendors' overall environmental sensitivity and corporate
                     environmental and occupational health policies, including pollution control and
                     strategies for energy and resource  conservation and worker health and safety.

                       EPA was not necessarily attempting to identify the "greenest vendor." EPA pre-
                     ferred, however, that the selected vendor demonstrate due diligence in a broad fashion
                     relative to environmental, sustainability and ergonomic issues that advance and sup-
                     port EPA's mission. Scoring for this procedure was not competitive, and vendors were
                     not required to have addressed every issue. A cumulative score resulted in a pass or
                     fail for this section of the assessment.

                       Haworth Inc. of Holland, Michigan, the furniture manufacturer selected to supply
                     furniture for EPA's new headquarters, followed a number of positive corporate envi-
                     ronmental practices, including:

                           •  Using energy-efficient task lighting in systems furniture and being a corpo-
                             rate partner for EPA^ Green Lights program.

                           •  Constructing and packaging systems furniture using recycled and recyclable

                           •  Designing workstation furniture panels so they could be refurbished and

                           •  Using water-based adhesives, high-solid paints, and other low-VOC tech-

                           •  Avoiding  the use of chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons
                             (HCFCs) in insulation materials.

                           •  Participating in EPA's WasteWi$e and 33/50 voluntary corporate pollution
                             prevention programs.

                       The furniture procurement process for the New Headquarters Project clearly
                     demonstrated that the federal government's purchasing power can be a positive influ-
                     ence on the private sector. In addition to providing a higher measure of protection for
                     EPA employees from furniture emissions, the use of the emissions test and vendor
                     checklist sends a message to potential vendors  that corporate practices and manufac-
                     turing processes compatible with EPA's goals are valued and rewarded in the federal
                     procurement process. As EPAk Project Manager stated, "This was a noteworthy pro-
                     curement given that there were no regulatory requirements driving the process.
                     Basically, it demonstrates that the federal government can have a tremendously posi-
                     tive influence in the private sector by merely exercising its purchasing power and that
                     the marketplace is willing to embrace such an effort."
22   +   Case Study One: EPA's Federal Triangle Headquarters Project

  The development of this testing program has had positive pollution prevention
results. One manufacturer, for example, reevaluated a chair and changed its manufac-
turing process to avoid using urea formaldehyde. This production change occurred
within 30 days after the chair failed EPA% emissions test, even though this manufac-
turer knew at the time that the chair would not be selected by EPA. As a result of the
success of this testing approach, GSA plans to make a similar process available for
other federal agencies, thereby expanding GSA procurement selection beyond tradi-
tional technical and cost criteria to include emissions factors. The consideration of
environmental factors, (e.g., emissions values) along with more traditional factors, is a
core concept of EPA% Environmentally Preferable Purchasing and Design for the
Environment programs.

Mechanical Systems Design

  The EPA and GSA team also reviewed design drawings for the mechanical systems
at Federal Triangle, to ensure that the quality of ventilated air would be adequate to
protect employee health and that air intakes were properly located to avoid
cross-contamination from building exhausts. To accomplish this,  the separation
between exhausts and intakes was set to exceed American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) code  minimum distances
by a substantial amount. EPA also worked with GSA to ensure that copy rooms,
pantries, parking garages, toilet rooms, and commercial cooking  facilities were
designed with independent exhausts to prevent recirculation of degraded air. For
these  areas, air is exhausted on the roof, away from general building ventilation air

  Additional measures related to the mechanical system that have been or will be
implemented in these structures to ensure sound IAQ include:

      •  Incorporating carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide sensors at air handlers in
        interior areas of concern, such as garages and lower floors of buildings, to
        ensure proper ventilation.

      •  Installing an electronic HVAC management system in the Ronald Reagan
        Building, which allows for sophisticated monitoring, ease of maintenance,
        automatic adjustments for seasonal differences in heating and cooling needs,
        and warnings to building staff if adverse air quality conditions develop.

      •  Using filters on all air handling units to remove up to 85 percent of particles.

      •  Supplying a minimum of 20 cubic feet of ventilated outside air per minute,
        per occupant.

      •  Installing or retrofitting windows so they are operable in the event of
        mechanical system failure.

      •  Testing all building systems to ensure that they are operating as designed
        prior to occupancy, including operation of the ventilation system at maxi-
        mum fresh air for seven days.

  The design team also evaluated GSA% guidelines for the refrigeration systems,
which were based on extreme weather conditions. By running a Department of
Energy (DOE) computer model (DOE-2), Gruzen-Samton/Croxton Collaborative
and RTKL determined that chiller capacity would be under-utilized, resulting in inef-
                                 Case Study One: EPAk Federal Triangle Headquarters Project    +   23

                      ficient energy use. The design team replaced the configuration of one large chiller
                      with a series of seven smaller centrifugal chillers. This configuration maintained the
                      capacity for extremely hot conditions, but also allowed for more efficient use of
                      chillers when high capacity was not necessary. In addition, building managers can
                      extend a chiller's useful life by rotating it in and out of use. Space in the refrigeration
                      plant was created for a spare chiller, which can be rotated into use when one of the
                      installed units needs servicing or retiring.

                        The EPA and GSA team also identified factors to consider in reviewing refrigerant
                      and chiller equipment options: global warming potential (GWP) and ozone depletion
                      potential (ODP) of refrigerants,4 toxicity of refrigerants, size of equipment desired
                      (defined by the size of the equipment room), ultimate  phase-out date for refrigerant if
                      applicable, and cost. Early in the planning process,  hydrofluorocarbon  134a (HFC
                      134a), a chlorine-free alternative to HCFC  123, was identified as a "cutting edge"
                      refrigerant because it had no ODP and a low GWP. Equipment manufacturers later
                      demonstrated to EPA, however, that HCFC 123 could be used in conjunction with
                      state-of-the-art chillers in a configuration that would produce a higher level of energy
                      efficiency, relatively low ODP, and a  lower GWP than HFC 134a. Other factors that
                      were considered include HCFC 12 3's higher acute  toxicity and pending phase-out
                      date of 2030, which was not significant to the decision mainly because the expected
                      useful life of the chillers was rated at less than 30 years. Given similar costs for the
                      two refrigerants, these factors influenced the EPA and GSA team to decide upon
                      HCFC 123. The lesson learned in this project is that a refrigerant decision calculus
                      involves a complex matrix of factors, and the appropriate refrigerant choice cannot be
                      driven by a single consideration.

                      Construction Management

                        An important aspect of ensuring IAQ for the EPA and GSA team was  to protect
                      employees occupying completed spaces adjacent to areas and buildings during con-
                      struction and renovation. Team members were especially concerned about the build-
                      up of construction particles, odors, VOCs and combustion particles from construction
                      activities (e.g.,  welding, painting, and carpeting), and disruptions to the HVAC sys-
                      tems during partial tenant occupation. The EPA and GSA team developed guidelines
                      (see box) to reduce the potential emissions produced during construction by manag-
                      ing and mitigating activities that temporarily produced airborne dust, odor, and other

                        Team members conducted regular walk-throughs of the EPA construction areas to
                      ensure compliance with specified materials, installation methods, and construction
                      4 ODP = capacity for a chemical to deplete the stratospheric ozone layer relative to CFC 11; GWP= capacity
                      for a chemical to retain heat in the lower atmosphere relative to carbon dioxide.
24   +    Case Study One: EPA's Federal Triangle Headquarters Project

EPA  Applied Construction Management Guidelines
Maintaining IAQ in Tenant Spaces
HVAC System:
              Avoid the use of methylene chloride-based paint removers in renovat-
              ed areas.
              Lay temporary carpets in EPA space over newer carpets to avoid
              tracking dusts and particulates from other parts of the work site into
              renovated and furbished areas; vacuum temporary carpets weekly to
              avoid contaminant buildup.
              Continuously monitor construction areas to avoid buildup or accu-
              mulation of moisture that could contaminate construction and interi-
              or materials.
              Establish onsite storage areas for volatile materials and temporary
              staging areas for waste materials.
              Isolate and protect occupants in completed spaces from construction
              activities using differential pressure and solid barriers between con-
              struction areas and tenant spaces.
              Locate paint lockers away from tenant spaces.
              Isolate shared air handlers for space under construction from occu-
              pied tenant spaces.
              Add supplemental prefilters to all outside air intakes supplying occu-
              pied areas.
              Inspect and change filters in air handlers more frequently during
              phased construction and occupancy.
              Clean return air plenums prior to phased occupancy.
              Provide minimum air flow of 20 cubic feet per minute per person for
              all occupied space.
              Direct exhaust of construction floors and areas to the exterior of the
              Provide additional temporary ventilation during construction activi-
              ties that affect IAQ (e.g., painting and use of solvents and glues).
              Rebalance building ventilation system prior to all phased tenant
Work Scheduling:
              Complete interior wet work (e.g., painting) and other processes prior
              to installing absorbent products (e.g., carpets, systems furniture, and
              ceiling tile) to avoid buildup of dust and odors.
              Schedule work when it is least likely to disrupt tenant work
              (e.g.,through noise).
              Use EPA and GSA team members' work site visits to ensure that IAQ
              protection processes are being followed.
Case Study One: EPAk Federal Triangle Headquarters Project

A. Natural, pendant,
  and task lighting
  illuminate office
  space in the Ronald
  Reagan Building
                      Energy and  Resource Conservation
                      "Green Lights" Design

                        EPA's Green Lights' approach to lighting design is featured prominently in the
                      Federal Triangle Project. The overall goal of EPA's lighting design was to utilize a
                      combination of natural, pendant, and task lighting to maximize energy efficiency and
                                                            maintain a properly illuminated work envi-
                                                            ronment for employees. Adequate daylight
                                                            creates a healthier and more stimulating
                                                            office environment, which leads to
                                                            improved staff morale, health, and produc-
                                                            tivity.  GSA accommodated EPA^ techno-
                                                            logical requirements within the constraints
                                                            of historic mandates in the spaces under-
                                                            going renovation.

                                                            EPA tenant spaces were designed to
                                                            enhance the flow of natural and artificial
                                                            light, including the following innovations:

                                                            • Raised the height of drop ceilings in the
                                                              Ronald Reagan Building to take advan-
                                                              tage of additional natural lighting ("day-

                           •  Maintained high ceilings in renovated spaces to enhance spatial openness and

                           •  Kept partitions, office support spaces (e.g., copy rooms), and mechanical
                              rooms to the interior of the Ronald Reagan Building, to maximize penetra-
                              tion of daylight into employee work spaces.

                           •  Added glass sidelights around doors and  clerestory windows (glass openings
                              at the tops of walls) to increase the amount of natural light that reaches the
                              interior of the building.

                           •  Selected workstation colors that maximize light reflection.

                        Bidirectional pendant (hanging) lighting fixtures that use energy-conserving fluo-
                      rescent tubes and ballasts were installed. These fixtures use energy-efficient T-8
                      triphosphor-coated light bulbs, parabolic reflectors, and electronic ballasts. Pendant
                      lighting is very efficient (up to 90 percent), providing about 60 percent indirect and
                      40 percent direct lighting. Lighting the ceilings, as well as the spaces below, diminish-
                      es glare, dispels shadows, and creates an impression of daylight deeper into the build-

                        EPA also worked with GSA to devise an energy-saving strategy allowing them to
                      reduce the ambient lighting from the GSA standard of 50 foot candles (fc) per person
                      to 30 fc, with workstation task lighting supplying  the remaining 20 fc. Occupancy
                      sensors installed in every workstation were preset to turn off workstation lights auto-
                     5 EPAjs Green Lights is a voluntary program that encourages the widespread use of energy-efficient lighting
                     systems. Information about the program can be obtained by calling 202 775-6650. The web site can be reached
                     at www.epa.gov/greenlights.html.
          Case Study One: EPA's Federal Triangle Headquarters Project

matically whenever the workstation remains unoccupied for 15 minutes. In addition,
daylighting controls and floorwide occupancy sensors ensure that general space light-
ing also turns off when not needed. All these features increase energy efficiency while
meeting GSA requirements.

Additional Energy and Resource Efficiency Features

   Creating energy-efficient space was an important priority of the EPA and GSA
design team. Low-flow plumbing devices were installed in faucets and toilets. Also,
more than 2,000 historic windows in the renovated buildings, many of which are at
least 5 by 9 feet in size, were fitted with weatherstripping and double glazing. In addi-
tion, interior storm windows with thermal breaks were added. These features enabled
the buildings to retain the original architecture, while greatly increasing energy effi-

Recycling and Reuse of Materials

   An important aspect of the modernization portions of the project was the reuse of
the existing structures, which supported both the historic preservation and sustainable
design objectives. This choice saved an estimated 75,000 tons of concrete, 6,000 tons
of steel, 100,000 square feet of glass, and 3,000 tons of masonry. In addition, it
reduced the use of new building materials and the overburdening of landfills with
demolition waste. Although historic preservation was the fundamental reason for
choosing to restore the several buildings at the Federal Triangle Complex, the final
result promotes resource conservation in the building industry.

   The EPA and GSA team also identified a number of opportunities to procure
materials with recycled content. Suggested materials included gypsum wallboard,
ceramic and stoneware tile, steel and aluminum,  roofing felt, and concrete containing
fly ash from municipal solid waste incineration facilities. If such materials could be
guaranteed to deliver comparable performance at an acceptable price and at least
three U.S. sources existed for the product, GSA was often able to purchase the sug-
gested material.

   The furniture manufacturer supplying the EPA space  in the Federal Triangle
Project used a construction and packing system that included recycled materials.
Additionally, the panels  used in office partitions were designed for a "take-back" pro-
gram, so that they could be returned to the manufacturer for refurbishing as needed.

   The Federal Triangle Project, like any construction and renovation project, gener-
ates waste. Severe space limitations at this construction site limited the extent of waste
separation for recycling. Additionally, much of the waste material from the older
buildings contains lead-based paint and/or asbestos, and regulations designed to pro-
tect public health limit the recyclability of such materials.
                                 Case Study One: EPAk Federal Triangle Headquarters Project    +   27


                       Parking space in downtown Washington, DC, is at a premium. Several bus lines, as
                     well as the Washington, DC, Metro system (subway), have stops at Federal Triangle.
                                                       Although a parking lot was incorporated into
                                                       the design of the Ronald Reagan Building, com-
                                                       petition for spaces is high.

                                                         EPA will continue its policy of subsidizing a
                                                       portion of the cost of public transportation for
                                                       its employees. EPA has also secured space in the
                                                       Ronald Reagan Building basement to store bicy-
                                                       cles and has provided lockers and showers for
                                                       employees. These  features encourage employees
                                                       to use alternative transportation modes rather
                                                       than driving, thereby helping prevent pollution
                                                       and conserving resources in accordance with
                                                       EPA's mission.
A. Metro entrance out-
  side of the Ariel Rios
          Case Study One: EPA's Federal Triangle Headquarters Project

Lessons Learned

  This last section focuses on the EPA and GSA members of EPA's consolidation
project team, exploring what these individuals consider to be the most important
lessons they learned during their many years of collaboration. EPA hopes that the sus-
tainable building design principles and procedures outlined in this document and the
reflections of team members shared below will be valuable to others working on reno-
vation and new construction projects in both the public and private sectors.

Early Involvement

  EPA's New Headquarters Project team was set up in 1988, almost immediately after
Congress approved funds for the Ronald Reagan Building. From the beginning, the
EPA Project Manager envisioned this team as requiring the  active participation of all
stakeholders. EPA's architectural group, Gruzen Samton/Croxton Collaborative, com-
posed of firms with sustainable design experience, was brought into the team when
EPA was offered the buildings in the Federal Triangle site.

  Because of their very different missions, styles, and processes, EPA and GSA were
starting from dissimilar perspectives and  needed to build trust and good communica-
tion in order to work together effectively. One of the environmental architects and
planners with Gruzen Samton/Croxton Collaborative, said,  "We were involved with
the renovation projects practically from day one, and I cannot stress enough how
important that is. You get a better product when you are involved early in the process.
Especially with a complex project like this one—that involved so many environmental
issues with significant consequences—it was critical that we  were able to start at the
very beginning and build trust gradually with all the team players."


  According to one of the GSA Project Executives, "The success of a project depends
on how well the team works. There is nothing more important. The renovations of
GSA's historical buildings at Federal Triangle require intense cooperation and con-
stant communication among members of the team. The success of this project means
that GSA will definitely be more open to future dialogues with our tenant agencies."
EPA's Project Manager echoed this sentiment, saying, "A good partnership between
landlord and tenant is particularly critical to an efficient and successful building pro-
ject. When everyone who is important to the outcome is included on the team and
they respect and listen to each other, the results can be outstanding."

Be Prepared To Learn

  "One of the most interesting things I rediscovered during this project," said one of
the GSA Project Executives, "is that there simply is no 'list of best things'—sustain-
able products or otherwise—to be incorporated in a project. The needs are different
each time, and they have to be worked out in the context of that specific project."
One of the architects concurred, "There  are literally thousands of small decisions that
had to be made during the course of the renovation projects, and because so many of
them involved different materials and processes, we often couldn't rely on past experi-
ence to make them. Instead, we had to learn from each other and from the group's
                                 Case Study One: EPAk Federal Triangle Headquarters Project   +   29

                        Comprehensive, conclusive information is rarely available about the health risks
                      and other environmental impacts associated with a product or material. Typically, the
                      project team is faced with fragmentary information of varying quality on a limited
                      number of hazard and exposure parameters. The project team must make product
                      selection decisions by applying its professional judgment to integrate the available
                      information as best it can.

                        GSA and RTKL team members note that they will have a heightened awareness of
                      sustainable design in the future. GSA^ Project Executive for the Ronald Reagan
                      Building said,  "This project demonstrated that interagency collaboration can result in
                      cost-effective decisions that are also environmentally sound."

                        The EPA Project Manager commented, "In just the past few years, sustainable
                      design has been thoroughly mainstreamed into quality architectural design. Most
                      architects now pay attention to designing 'for the environment.' What makes this
                      aspect of designing so challenging and exciting is that it is still changing so rapidly,  as
                      manufacturers get involved and try new techniques and processes. This process has
                      forced all of us to reexamine our conceptual paradigms."

                        One of the environmental architects with Gruzen Samton/Croxton Collaborative
                      concluded, "I would hope that everyone who reads this case study comes away realiz-
                      ing that significant, economically and environmentally sound purchasing decisions can
                      be implemented at every level of building design, demolition, renovation, and con-
30   +   Case Study One: EPA's Federal Triangle Headquarters Project


  Case Study Two:

EPA's Office and Research
in Research Triangle Park,
     North Carolina

A An artist's ren-
   dering of the
   RTF facility
                        EPA recently began constructing a new $250 million, one-million square-foot labo-
                     ratory and office complex in Research Triangle Park (RTP), North Carolina—EPA^
                     largest complex outside of Washington, DC. hi addition to housing EPA employees
                     and scientists who work to protect the environment, the building was designed to
                     minimize its environmental impact. The design incorporates a wide variety of envi-
                     ronmental features, including:

                           • Protecting indoor air quality (IAQ).

                           • Maximizing energy efficiency.

                           • Incorporating the use of recycled-content materials and other building mate-
                             rials with environmental attributes.

                           • Reducing the environmental impacts  of parking and transportation.

                           • Promoting recycling, resource conservation, and pollution prevention
                             throughout the design and construction phases.

                           • Minimizing the building's impact on the site by reducing the  excavation
                             required, reducing the number of trees and amount of vegetation removed
                             from the  site, and protecting the existing watershed.

                                                The process used to incorporate environmental attrib-
                                                utes into the building are as important as the attributes
                                                themselves. EPA and Hellmuth, Obata and Kassabaum
                                                (HOK), the architecture and engineering (A/E) firm
                                                that designed the facility, examined the environmental
                                                impact of every aspect of the building's design before
                                                decisions were finalized. These aspects included, for
                                                example, the size and location of the building, the
                                                materials and processes  used to construct it, and build-
                                                ing maintenance and operation. Nearly every building
                                                attribute was examined for its function,  environmental
                                                impact, and cost throughout every phase of the build-
                                                ing design process. To provide additional technical
                                                expertise during the extensive design reviews, EPA
                                                partnered with GSA and the U.S. Army Corps of
                                                Engineers. The result is a building that will meet or
                                                exceed all of EPA^ functional needs while minimizing
                                                costs and adverse environmental impacts.

                        Although design work began in 1992, before EPA issued its Guidance on Acquisition
                     of Environmentally Preferable Products and Services, the design process incorporated
                     many of the objectives described in the Guidance. As a  result, this design and construc-
                     tion project provides a valuable model for how other agencies can integrate environ-
                     mental preferability into their purchasing decisions, even acquisitions as large  as a
                     quarter-of-a-billion-dollar building. This case  study documents EPAk decision-mak-
                     ing process, how it was applied throughout the design phase, the results of those deci-
                     sions, and the lessons learned.
          Case Study Two: EPAk Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility

Building Description

  The RTF laboratory and office complex is
located on 132.5 acres of a 500-acre federal prop-
erty that includes a 2 3-acre lake and the laborato-
ry facilities for the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). The
building site rises along gently sloping terrain and
peaks 60 feet higher in elevation than the lake. It
consists primarily of second growth forest, which
is less than 50 years old. The site also contains
several groves of old-growth trees, including one
that contains a 100-year-old oak tree that is 11
feet around.

  The one-million-gross-square-foot EPA facility
includes 63 5,000 net square feet of office and lab-
oratory space for 2,200 EPA employees. The main facility consists of four five-story
laboratory buildings, connected by  three 30-foot-wide atria to three three-story office
buildings. The main building also includes a central five-story office tower that con-
tains a cafeteria, conference center,  several auditoriums, and a library. A high-bay
engineering research wing is connected to the southern end of the complex. The lab-
oratory and office buildings are situated alongside the lake so that they follow the
curve of the  shore. The EPA National Computer Center and a jointly operated
EPA/NIEHS child care facility are  located on another part of the EPA campus, less
than a quarter of a mile away.
                                                  A A model of the
                                                     National Computer
Project History

  EPA's current RTP laboratory facilities include a dozen
outmoded, rented facilities dispersed throughout a  15-mile
area in three counties. The main facility, described  by one
EPA employee as "an eclectic hodge-podge of wings and
labs," was built by the National Air Pollution Control
Administration (NAPCA) as an interim facility. EPA inherit-
ed the building when President Nixon established EPA in
1970, and NAPCA was subsumed within the newly created
agency. A sign on a fence outside the building still reads,
"NAPCA Interim Facility." The building was intended to be
a short-term measure until EPA could build a permanent,
centralized laboratory complex.

  Budget considerations prevented immediate construction,
but as EPA^ responsibilities grew, so did the need for a mod-
ern, centralized laboratory complex. In 1987,  EPA began
seeking Congressional funding to build a new facility. An
Army Corps of Engineers' estimate at that time suggested
that the time lost as EPA employees shuttled among the
existing buildings cost EPA almost $3 million a year. There
                              EPA's Research Triangle Park Operations

                                The new EPA facility will house the
                              Office of Research and Development, which
                              investigates the effects of a variety of pollu-
                              tants on human health and the environment.
                              Its work provides the scientific basis for
                              many of EPA's regulatory and policy deci-

                                The RTP facility will also house the
                              Office of Air Quality Planning and
                              Standards, which is tasked with implement-
                              ing the Clean Air Act. In addition, the facili-
                              ty will include EPA^ National Computer
                              Center and a number of crucial administra-
                              tive groups.
Case Study Two: EPAk Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility

                      are also significant costs associated with continually retrofitting existing space to make
                      it suitable for EPA research, costs that will be avoided in a new facility. EPA estimates
                      that the new facility will pay for itself in 22 years.

                        In 1991, Congress gave EPA $5 million to begin designing the new facility6 and
                      the following year EPA selected HOK to design it. The design was completed in
                      1996. By 1997, Congress had appropriated funds to initiate construction. Ground was
                      broken in July 1997, and the $272 million project is expected to be completed by
                      early 2 001.

                      EPA's Design Team

                        Although EPA has extensive expertise in numerous environmental arenas, the RTP
                      facility is one of the Agency's only major building projects. As a result, EPA looked to
                      other government agencies for assistance with the design and construction plans.
                      Within the federal government, GSA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have the
                      most construction project experience, and both provided EPA with valuable assis-
                       Project Time Line

                       1970         EPA is founded and begins conducting research in several
                                     Research Triangle Park laboratories.

                       1970 to  1997 EPA expands its research capabilities, eventually occupying a
                                     dozen rented buildings in the Research Triangle Park area.

                       1987         EPA seeks Congressional permission to build a new research facil-

                       1991         Congress gives EPA $5 million to begin design; it was incremen-
                                     tally increased to $20 million.

                       1992         Hellmuth, Obata and Kassabaum are selected to design the new

                       1996         Facility design is finalized.

                       1997         Congress appropriates $110 million to initiate construction.

                       1997         Clark Construction Group begins construction on the new facility.

                       2001         Construction is completed and facility is occupied (expected).
                        GSA brought extensive experience acquiring, designing, and constructing new and
                     rented federal facilities to the EPA building project. GSA provided an experienced
                     architect who became the lead government architect on the EPA team. The GSA
                     architect participated in all design reviews, ensured that the facility complied with all
                     necessary government standards, and made substantial improvements and contribu-
                     tions to the final design.
                      ' Between 1991 and 1996, Congress incrementally increased design funding to $20 million.
34   +   Case Study Two: EPA^ Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility

  Through an interagency agreement, GSA is also managing construction of the
EPA facility. GSA is ensuring that construction remains on schedule, on budget, and
within the contract specification requirements.

  The Army Corps of Engineers provided
specialized engineering expertise through-
out the design process, including a team of
design experts that led EPA and the design
team through the value engineering (VE)
process. VE is an industry-accepted design
practice intended to save money by identi-
fying design changes that will provide the
same function at a reduced cost. Outside
experts are brought in to critique the par-
tially completed design and to offer design
alternatives. Typically, the VE process only
examines function and cost, but EPA,
HOK, GSA, and the Corps of Engineers
also emphasized environmental factors in
their design reviews. The Corps of
Engineers VE team led design reviews
when the design was 35, 65, and 95 per-
cent complete, and the results produced
significant cost savings and environmental
improvements, including:

      •  Removing the curb and gutter from the surface parking lots and using natur-
        al  biofiltration to handle storm water runoff. Innovative "bioretention" facili-
        ties were added to enhance the natural system by using porous zones planted
        with trees, shrubs, and herbs that absorb and break down contaminants from
        heavy rains. The total cost of the  bioretention system was less than conven-
        tional approaches  and will improve environmental performance because less
        construction materials will be required and water filtration will be improved.

      •  Reducing dramatically the size of the access road from a four-lane divided
        highway with wide utility cuts to  a simple two-lane road with electric lines
        under the pavement. This will significantly reduce the cost of building and
        maintaining the road and will preserve an additional 20 or more acres of
        trees. In addition, road and utility rights of way will be planted with indige-
        nous trees and wild flowers. The indigenous vegetation will not require fer-
        tilizer or frequent mowing, which will significantly reduce the pollution
        concerns resulting from those activities. In addition, landscaping with native
        species plants allowed the designers to remove plans for an underground irri-
        gation system, which will save additional building costs.

  As follow up to their design role, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has also
agreed to serve as a technical advisor to EPA and GSA during the construction of the
RTF facility.
                                                   A A model showing a
                                                      view of the facility
                                                      front the west
Case Study Two: EPAk Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility

                     Selecting the A/E Firm

                        Following normal government procedure, EPA issued a standard Request For
                     Proposal (RFP) announcing a need for design and engineering services to design a
                     new laboratory and office complex. The RFP contained several environmental design
                     requirements, including experience maximizing energy conservation, indoor air quali-
                     ty, and pollution prevention. Over 80 firms submitted proposals and EPA narrowed
                     them to six companies based on the specific factors listed in the RFP. Each of the final
                     six companies was interviewed in depth about their capabilities to meet EPAk design
                     needs. Following the interviews, EPA selected HOK as the winning design firm.

                     Specifying Design Objectives

                        The EPA and HOK design teams identified eight design goals. The design for the
                     facility, in order of importance, was required to be:

                           • Functional

                           • Environmentally friendly

                           • Easily maintained

                           • Brightly illuminated with natural light

                           • Able to facilitate and promote communication between EPA employees

                           • Of flexible design that permits modifications to handle future EPA needs

                           • Within walking distance  of parking

                           • Secure

                        EPA asked the designers to incorporate as many environmental features into the
                     new facility as the budget and existing technologies allowed, without compromising
                     its function as a state-of-the-art research facility or exceeding the construction budget.
                     EPA also asked that  the facility's environmental attributes:

                           • Protect IAQ by selecting materials with minimal adverse IAQ impacts and by
                             establishing maximum indoor air concentrations for several indoor pollu-

                           • Conserve energy, water, and building materials by designing  a highly
                             resource-efficient facility that maximizes utility while minimizing required

                           • Promote recycling and pollution prevention through the use of materials
                             with identifiable environmental attributes. These included recycled-content
                             materials, materials from sustainably managed forests, and materials that
                             minimize negative environmental impacts throughout their entire life cycles,
                             including low-energy use during production, local availability, low toxicity
                             high durability, and similar environmental attributes.

                           • Preserve the natural environment by minimizing the building's impact on the
                             site, including reducing the amount of excavation required, decreasing
                             the number of trees cleared from the site, protecting the onsite wetlands,
                             creek, and lake, and preventing a need for intensive grounds  maintenance
                             following building occupancy.

36   +   Case Study Two: EPA^ Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility

  According to the EPA Project Manager,
breaking with tradition was one of the most
difficult aspects of the project. He explained         EPA asked Ae design firm to incorporate environ-
that, although a commitment from the entire      mentally preferable features as part of the building's
team was essential, "at first, a number of the       desisn that would-
team members had to be dragged kicking and
screaming into the green design discussions."      •   Protect indoor air quality
EPA and HOK project leaders encouraged all         „,
 r i     i -            -           i     j       •   Conserve energy, water, and building materials
of the architects and engineers to go beyond                        6''
their traditional emphases on function, cost,       .   Promote recycling and pollution prevention
and aesthetics to incorporate environmental
concerns into the design process. "Many gov-     •   Preserve the natural environment
ernment team members also struggled with
the constant focus on 'green design,'" accord-
ing to the EPA Project Manager, "because traditional engineering approaches were
being challenged and there was constant pressure to live within a limited budget."

  Once the  commitment to environmental design was fully established among all of
the partners  on the design team—EPA, GSA, the Army Corps of Engineers, HOK
and all of their consultants—the designers, according to the EPA Project Manager,
"took the ball and ran with it." EPA formed a pollution prevention advisory group
that included scientists and engineers from within the Agency. Several of these experts
stayed with the project through design completion. GSA and the Corps  of Engineers
also tapped resources throughout their agencies to help identify design solutions that
were functional, cost-effective, and environmentally sound.

  HOK actively participated in EPA^ pollution prevention brainstorming sessions
and design evaluation sessions, and made use  of many of the ideas and concepts gen-
erated by the government team members. HOK also went much further, building
upon its existing environmental credentials. One of the firm's lead architects on the
EPA facility  explained that "[Environmental design] issues are incredibly important
and HOK is trying to integrate them as broadly as possible with our clients and
throughout the construction industry."

Decision Process:  Function, Environment, and  Cost

  Even more impressive than the actual design for the facility is the decision process
that was used to incorporate environmental attributes throughout it. Every aspect of
the facility's design, construction, and operation was examined for its environmental
impact and balanced against the associated effects on building function and cost. EPA
and the A/E firm discussed these three attributes—function, environment,  and cost—
before each major design decision throughout the five year design phase. The result,
according to the EPA Project Manager, produced a facility that "may not be [environ-
mentally] perfect, but it is a long way from where it would have been and a lot closer
to where all buildings should be."

  The interplay between function, environment, and cost are evident in the decisions

      • Building materials selection

      • Material conservation

      • IAQ standards

                            Case  Study Two: EPAk Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility    +   37

                           •  Energy and water conservation features

                           •  Features and practices that promote recycling

                           •  Efforts to protect the natural environment

                      Material Selection

                        One of the attributes of a "green" building is
                      that it is built with "green" materials. As part of     "You can make anything green if you
                      the design process, EPA worked closely with        throw enough money at it. The chal-
                      HOK to select building materials that have mul-     lenge is to do it within the existing
                      tiple positive environmental attributes. They        budget."
                      looked for products that, throughout the life
                      cycle (production, installation, operation, and              EPA Project Manager
                      disposal), included the following attributes:

                           •  Consume minimal nonrenewable resources

                           •  Require reduced amounts of energy

                           •  Produce minimal pollutants

                           •  Contain recycled or recyclable materials

                        HOK produced and conducted a product survey that asked manufacturers and ven-
                      dors to provide information on the environmental impacts of their products through-
                      out the products' full life cycle. The survey addressed raw materials (including
                      recycled content percentages); production processes; packaging and shipping; installa-
                      tion and use; recyclability; impact on  IAQ; and general information about cost, life
                      expectancy, maintenance requirements, and availability. The information was com-
                      piled in a database and was used by the EPA design team  and HOK to analyze materi-
                      als before they were incorporated into the facility's design. The resulting database,
                      HOK's Healthy and Sustainable Building Materials Database, currently includes informa-
                      tion gathered from over 600 manufacturers on over 1,000 products. Each entry
                      includes a "green score" that is based on the information  in the database. (For addi-
                      tional information, see the resource list in Appendix D.)

                        Working closely with HOK, EPA established minimum recycled content and maxi-
                      mum volatile organic compound (VOC) content levels for numerous materials and
                      HOK used them to identify and select appropriate building materials. (See Appendices
                      A and B  for additional information.) The content levels were designed to promote the
                      use of products with positive environmental attributes without eliminating competi-
                      tion. For example, eliminating VOCs in paint is generally a preferable  environmental
                      characteristic, but only a few manufacturers produce paint with zero VOCs. Many
                      more manufacturers, however, produce paints with less than  150 grams of VOC per
                      liter, which by present standards is  still very low. (GSA's VOC-content specification
                      for virgin latex paint, for example, currently requires no more than 250 grams of
                      VOC per liter.) By establishing the VOC content level for paints at 150 grams per
                      liter, EPA is helping to protect the  environment and preserving competition, which,
                      in addition to being required by federal law, is expected to yield more competitive
38   +   Case Study Two: EPA^ Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility

Flooring Debate

  For most building materials, it was relatively easy to select products that satisfied
EPA's functional, environmental, and cost goals. Some materials, however, proved to
be more challenging. One example was the selection of the floor covering for the labs.
While cost, not environmental preferability was the deciding factor in the final analy-
sis, the team examined the environmental attributes of flooring materials before mak-
ing that determination.

  Laboratory floor coverings have to be particularly durable and chemical-resistant to
withstand chemical spills. At least three materials can be used and were considered for
this application: terrazzo, linoleum,
and vinyl. Terrazzo is made from pol-
ished marble or granite, and the  only
substantive environmental impact
appears to be from mining and trans-
portation. Unfortunately, however, ter-
razzo is prohibitively expensive,
especially considering the quantities
needed for the EPA laboratories. As a
result, terrazzo was eliminated from
consideration before any detailed
examination of its environmental
impacts was conducted.

  Once terrazzo was eliminated from
consideration, the EPA design team
and HOK examined the remaining
two materials—linoleum and vinyl.
Linoleum is frequently promoted as a
"natural" product because it is manu-
factured from many renewable materi-
als, including wood flour, pine rosin,
linseed oil, and jute (a fiber obtained
from a plant grown in India). While the use of sustainable raw materials is generally a
positive environmental attribute, there are negative environmental consequences asso-
ciated with some of the fertilizers used to produce  them. At this time, linoleum is also
only manufactured in Europe and requires significant resources for transportation to
the United States.

  Vinyl is a plastic polymer derived from oil and can be highly polluting during
extraction, refinement, and manufacturing. It appears, however, to consume less ener-
gy and natural resources  during production than linoleum and is available from sever-
al manufacturers in the United States, which reduces the energy used to transport it.

  Using emission factors obtained from product literature and EPA's Indoor
Environment Management Branch's IAQ model, EPA modeled the IAQ impacts for
vinyl and linoleum. Under identical conditions, the predicted VOC concentrations
were similar for each of the two  floor coverings, so neither could be  considered envi-
ronmentally preferable from an IAQ perspective.

  Based on the preliminary research comparing the environmental attributes of vinyl
and linoleum, the design team could not definitively declare one environmentally
preferable to the other for EPA's RTP facility. Doing so would require a more inten-
^ simulation of a
typical laboratory
                             Case Study Two: EPAk Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility

                      sive and scientific examination of the entire life cycle for both products, a process that
                      was prohibitively expensive and time consuming for EPA's immediate needs. As a
                      result, EPA relied on cost as the determining factor and selected a vinyl floor covering
                      for the EPA labs because it was significantly less expensive than linoleum.
T A model of the
  atrium interior
  connecting the lab
  and office wings
                      Atrium Design

                        Another example of the multiple factors that were considered for each building
                      component was the design of the building atria, among the most impressive features
                      of the new EPA facility. Each of the three 30-foot-wide, three-story atria has several

                      • Connects a laboratory and office building.

                      • Allows natural  light to penetrate deep into the building.

                      • Reduces demand on the heating and air conditioning system by minimizing the
                        external surface area of the building, which lowers overall heat loss and gain.

                      • Decreases the need for exterior precast concrete and thermal pane glass, which
                        reduces costs and decreases resource consumption.

                      • Benefits IAQ by providing a large volume of preconditioned air that can be used in
                        the laboratory  buildings.

                                                  • Improves  the aesthetics of the facility, thereby
                                                    improving worker morale and productivity.

                                                      The atria's benefits had to be balanced against
                                                  their potential environmental and economic costs. An
                                                  atrium, for example, can be difficult to cool in the
                                                  summer because the sun's rays penetrate the glass and
                                                  increase the temperature inside. It can also be equally
                                                  difficult to heat in the winter because of the volume of
                                                  air that must be heated.  In order to successfully bal-
                                                  ance function, environmental impact, and cost, EPA
                                                  decided to examine  several different options. HOK
                                                  used computer simulations to model six different
                                                  options and compared fixed and operating cost, day
                                                  lighting, thermal efficiencies, IAQ effects, and envi-
                                                  ronmental impacts.

                                                      After comparing each of the six models, EPA and
                                                  HOK determined that the most critical factor was the
                                                  atrium's heat loss and gain because it affected the ener-
                                                  gy required  to heat and cool the atrium. As a result,
                                                  they selected an atrium design that incorporated alter-
                                                  nating panes of energy efficient glass and Kalwall, a
                                                  translucent material that allows light to enter, but
                                                  minimizes heat transfer. Compared to an atrium con-
                                                  taining 100 percent high-performance glass, the
                                                  selected design will reduce operational costs by 66
                                                  percent without adversely affecting daylighting bene-
                                                  fits, other functions, the environment, or procurement
          Case Study Two: EPA^ Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility

cost. Coincidentally, the selected atrium design not only provided the greatest energy
savings, but also had the lowest construction cost, which helps disprove the common
misperception that "building green" costs more.

Material Conservation

  Even more important than using recycled content
and other materials with environmental attributes is         "What's the use in using recycled-content
minimizing the amount of material needed. Several         materials if you are building twice as much
times, EPA's design team or HOK reexamined a design      building as you need?"
aspect to reduce the amount of construction materials
needed as well as their associated costs. Three examples            EPA Project Manager
are the facility's access roads, the labs' interstitial space,
and the flexible, modular interior office design.

Access Roads

  The original master site plan included a four-lane divided road entering and exiting
the EPA facility. The master plan also included a 20-foot wide utilities easement that
paralleled the road. During the VE process, the design team questioned the need for
so much roadway because of the significant quantity of paving and asphalt materials
required, the large number of trees that would have to be cleared to accommodate it,
and the cost.

  After learning that there were no safety or traffic considerations to justify a four-
lane divided road, EPA requested that it be redesigned as a simple two-lane road and
that the necessary utilities be placed under the road rather than next to it. It was rela-
tively easy to reduce the size of the road, but several engineers maintained that utili-
ties always have to be placed beside the road because placing utilities under the road
could severely disrupt traffic if any utilities needed to be repaired. EPA explained that
the road was unique because it would primarily be used only during the early morn-
ing and late afternoon when EPA employees arrive at and leave work. Any necessary
maintenance could occur throughout the workday without adversely affecting traffic
flow. In addition, because there are two routes in and out of the facility, traffic can be
rerouted if extensive repairs are necessary.

  Reducing the size of the road from four lanes to two and placing  the utilities under
the road rather than next to it reduced the size of the clearing by over  75 feet, pre-
vented over 20 acres of trees from being cleared, reduced by one-half the quantity of
materials necessary to construct the road,  and reduced the cost of the road by almost
50 percent.

Interstitial Space

  Laboratory configurations are frequently rearranged to accommodate new experi-
ments. As a result,  many laboratories are designed with a corridor of space adjacent to
them (known as interstitial space) that  contains all of the  gas, water,  and ventilation
piping as well as the electrical, computer, and laboratory equipment wiring. Such a
configuration makes it easy to access the laboratory utilities and to rearrange labora-
tory setups for new experiments.
                             Case Study Two: EPAk Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility   +   41

A A simulation of a
  double-bay labora-
  tory interior
                        In many laboratory buildings, the interstitial space is located above each floor of
                     laboratories. Consequently, a building with five laboratory floors must be 10 stories
                     high to accommodate the interstitial space. This is considered by some lab designers
                     to be the most flexible and serviceable configuration and was given early considera-
                     tion for the RTF facility. EPA, however, asked the design firm to present space- and
                     material-saving alternatives.

                        Instead of locating the interstitial space above each lab, HOK recommended plac-
                     ing it beside each lab. By designing service corridors rather than horizontal interstitial
                     space—floors between floors—EPA avoided a potential 50 percent increase in build-
                     ing height, which would have added the rough equivalent of 100,000 square feet of
                     space without increasing usable floor space. Minimizing the total volume of the build-
                     ing will have significant advantages, including reducing the cost and quantity of
                                                         required construction materials. It also will
                                                         reduce the load placed on the heating and air
                                                         conditioning system, thereby saving energy
                                                         and reducing heating and cooling costs.
                                                          Modular Design

                                                            Over the life of a building, interior space is
                                                          typically renovated many times to meet
                                                          changing needs. Each time interior space is
                                                          reconfigured, however, waste is created and
                                                          new materials are required. In  an attempt to
                                                          minimize the cost and environmental impacts
                                                          of future renovation, HOK proposed a modu-
                                                          lar design that allows large portions of every
                                                          floor to be easily reconfigured. When recon-
                                                          figuration is necessary, the lights, sprinklers,
                                                          electrical outlets, heating and air conditioning
                                                          vents, and automated  building  sensors remain
                                                          stationary. All that needs to move  are the par-
                      titions that designate individual work spaces. The design, according to  one of HOK's
                      lead architects, allows EPA to "move people, not walls," and dramatically reduces the
                      material and cost requirements for renovation.

                      Indoor Air Quality

                        The interplay between function, environment, and cost extends beyond building
                      materials to entire building systems. One of the most critical of these systems
                      attempts to optimize IAQ and energy efficiency. These two objectives, however,  typi-
                      cally conflict—as one increases, the other decreases.

                        The easiest way to improve IAQ is to increase the volume of clean outside air circu-
                      lating through a building. This drastically increases heating and cooling costs in  most
                      climates, including the part of North Carolina in which EPA's new facility is being
                      built. Similarly, one of the largest energy drains on a building is the heating and  air
                      conditioning system. The easiest way to reduce the energy required to heat and cool  a
                      building is to minimize the volume of outside air entering the  building. This reduction
                      in outside air circulation usually lowers IAQ.
          Case Study Two: EPA^ Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility

  To address these competing demands, EPA worked closely with HOK to develop a
150-page Indoor Air Quality Facilities Operation Manual that documents the necessary
IAQ procedures during building construction and maintenance. The manual outlines
procedures to maximize both IAQ and energy efficiency by:

      • Eliminating as many IAQ contaminants as possible.

      • Increasing energy efficiency throughout the building to offset any reductions
        in energy efficiency due to the need to increase air circulation.
Eliminating IAQ Contaminants

  EPA and the A/E firm worked to eliminate as many IAQ contaminants as possible.
They accomplished this by specifying materials with minimal contaminants of con-
cern that also met functional and cost requirements, establishing appropriate installa-
tion sequences to prevent IAQ contaminants from being absorbed into the building,
requiring extensive IAQ testing before building occupancy, and incorporating design
features to eliminate specific IAQ hazards following building occupancy.
  Material Selection

  The largest sources of potential IAQ contaminants are interior building materials,
office furniture, and equipment. Interior building materials, including carpets, carpet
padding, paints, sealants and caulking, glues, floor and ceiling tiles, cabinets, molding,
composite wood products, and other wood work, can contain contaminants that are
gradually emitted (off-gassed) throughout the life of the material. The contaminants
include formaldehyde, 4-PC, other VOCs, and small particulate substances that act as
eye or throat irritants. Additional IAQ  contaminants can originate with office furni-
ture, room dividers, and photocopiers (Indoor Air Quality Facilities Operations Manual,
EPA Research and Administration Facility, July 1996).
                             Case Study Two: EPAk Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility   +  43

                        Indoor Air Quality

                        IAQ can be affected by the order in which interior materials and finishes are
                        installed. When possible, Type One materials will be allowed to dry before Type
                        Two materials are installed.

                        Type One Materials:

                              • Composite wood products, specifically including particle board from
                                which wood paneling, doors, or furniture may be fabricated.

                              • Adhesives, sealants, and glazing compounds.

                              • Wood preservatives, finishes, and paint.

                              • Control and/or expansion joint fillers.

                              • All hard finishes requiring adhesive installation.

                              • Gypsum board and associated finish processes.
                        Type Two "Fuzzy" Materials:1

                              • Carpet and padding.

                              • Fabric wall covering.

                              • Exposed insulation.

                              • Acoustic ceiling materials.

                              • Fabric covered acoustic wall panels.

                              • Upholstered furnishings.
                        fMaterials that may be categorized as both Type One and Type Two are considered Type One materials.
                         Before any material was specified for use in the building, it was examined for possi-
                      ble adverse affects on IAQ, in addition to its general environmental impact. If possi-
                      ble, products containing materials known to adversely affect IAQ were not specified.
                      To further protect IAQ, the construction contract requires the contractor to test
                      indoor paint, carpet, ceiling tiles, and fireproofing materials in an environmental
                      chamber on an appropriate substrate, which is designed to simulate the actual applica-
                      tion and materials interaction as much as possible. This testing will help ensure that
                      the materials meet the design established for the facility by the EPA design team.
                      Materials with contaminants of concern below the EPA-designated levels can be used
                      throughout the facility. If a product exceeds EPA's designated levels, an alternative
                      product will have to be selected.

                         Several EPA employees explained  that, although it is not required, it might be in
                      the contractor's best interest to test additional materials because the building must
                      pass strict EPA-defined IAQ tests before occupancy. (See the section on testing
44   +    Case Study Two: EPA^ Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility


   IAQ is affected not only by the materials that are used but also by the order in
which they are installed. Certain materials and finishes (Type One materials), off-gas
potential indoor contaminants for a short duration after they are manufactured or
installed. The contaminants off-gassed by Type One materials can be adsorbed by
"fuzzy" materials and finishes (Type Two), which are woven, fibrous, or porous in
nature. Type Two materials can become repositories for substances that can be
released much later or that promote subsequent bacterial growth.

   The construction contract  specifies air exchange rates and proper air filtration pro-
cedures to ensure that whenever possible any necessary off-gassing from Type One
materials is dissipated before Type Two materials are installed. These procedures pre-
vent Type Two materials from adsorbing substances that might later reduce IAQ.

   The contractor is also required to properly clean all duct work and replace all air
filters before building occupancy.
                              Case Study Two: EPA^ Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility    +  45


                        After building construction is complete, but before EPA occupancy, the construc-
                      tion contractor is required to hire an independent IAQ consultant to test levels of
                      indoor air contaminants to ensure that they are within EPA-specified requirements.
                      The contractor will test 16 locations over three consecutive days throughout the
                      building as directed by EPA with the building operating at normal ventilation rates.
                      The average results will be used to determine compliance with contract IAQ require-
                      ments as defined in the table below.
                                  Maximum Indoor Air Concentration Standards

                       Indoor Contaminants                Allowable Air Concentration Levels*

                       Carbon Monoxide (CO)               <9 ppm

                       Carbon Dioxide (CO2)                <800 ppm

                       Airborne Mold and Mildew            Simultaneous indoor and outdoor read-

                       Formaldehde                        <20
                       Total Volatile Organic
                       Compounds (TVOC)                 <200 jig/m3**

                       4 Phenyl Cyclohexene (4-PC)***        <3

                       Total Particulates (PM)                <20

                       Regulated Pollutants                  
designed to be 20 feet high and, although the primary fresh air intakes for the build-
ings will be located well away from the exhaust stacks, EPA officials questioned
whether the stacks would be high enough to prevent potentially hazardous materials
from recirculating into the building.

  In order to determine if the stacks were tall enough, EPA had a 1:192 scale model
of the buildings and site terrain constructed. EPA scientists placed the model in the
EPA Meteorological Wind Tunnel where ethane gas was emitted from the model's
exhaust stacks and its concentration measured at the model's fresh air intakes. Wind
direction and speed were  systematically varied in order to identify worst case scenar-

  The results indicated that there was some risk of exhaust reentry during certain
wind conditions that occur with some frequency at the building site. The scientists
increased the height of the exhaust stacks on the model and repeated the experiment
to determine if it would reduce exhaust reentry. After completing the experiment,
they concluded that increasing the stack height by 10 feet would improve IAQ by sig-
nificantly reducing the potential for exhaust reentry at the fresh air intakes. Although
the potential risk of exhaust reentry was minimal at the original 20-foot stack height,
it was virtually eliminated at the 30-foot stack height.

  As a result of the modeling, EPA decided to increase the height of the buildings'
exhaust stacks from 20 to 30 feet. While  the increase will require more material to
construct the stacks, increasing the stack height will improve overall indoor air quality
and should reduce required maintenance of filters at the air intakes.
Energy Conservation

  Based on Department of Energy statistics for average energy use in laboratory and
office buildings, the new EPA facility will use 42 percent less energy than the average
laboratory and, depending on which building is being evaluated, between 52 and 64
percent less energy than the typical office building. These reductions in energy use
are expected to save approximately $1.5 million a year when compared to facilities of
similar size and function.

  Energy conservation has been a focus of architects and engineers since the 1970's
energy crisis. As a result, the EPA design team and HOK had numerous off-the-shelf
energy conservation technologies and programs from which to choose, including sev-
eral automated building systems and EPA's Green Lights program. In addition to off-
the-shelf solutions, which were incorporated as needed  throughout the facility, EPA
and HOK also developed additional energy conservation solutions unique to the EPA
Fume Hoods

  There are nearly 300 fume hoods in the RTP laboratory complex. Fume hoods are
vitally important to human health and safety in a laboratory environment because
they provide well-ventilated areas in which to safely conduct experiments involving
potentially hazardous substances. Unfortunately, fume hoods are not typically very
energy-efficient because each contains a large exhaust fan that is used to ventilate the
room at a rate of about 1,400 cubic feet a minute. In addition to the fans' energy
consumption, fume hoods also decrease the efficiency of the ventilation system
                             Case Study Two: EPA's Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility   +   47

                      because, in the process of removing potentially hazardous fumes, they also remove the
                      heat or air conditioning from the room.

                        The design team investigated options for increasing the efficiency of the fume
                      hoods while continuing to maximize safety. One of the first things it examined was
                      the need to have an exhaust fan for each fume hood. After consulting with the appro-
                      priate health and safety inspectors, the team designed an exhaust system with a cen-
                      tralized air flow control system that drastically reduces the number of fans. Instead of
                      individual fans, plus backup fans, for each of the fume hoods, each laboratory wing is
                      supported by a large collector plenum on the rooftop that pulls exhaust above the roof
                      using only a few large, energy-efficient fans.

                        Each fume hood also has a specially designed sash that allows researchers to control
                      the volume of air being removed. The sash can be opened fully to set up or change
                      conditions in the hood, but can also be set to an 80 percent open position, which cuts
                      air demand by 20 percent. In addition, the fume hoods are connected to the building
                      automation system (BAS) [described below]  so that if a scientist closes the sash, leaves
                      the room and turns out the light, the fume hood's energy use will be 70 percent less
                      than in its full-open position. Together these efforts increased the fume hoods' energy
                      efficiency without  reducing safety or IAQ.

                      Central Utility Plant

                        The EPA research facility, like other large office complexes, needs access to large
                      volumes of hot and cold water for heating and cooling. While EPA could have built
                      its own central utility plant, it instead chose to expand the natural gas-powered plant
                      that currently serves the NIEHS building located nearby on the same 500-acre feder-
                      al site. Expanding  the existing plant will  save money and, compared to building a new
                      plant, will drastically reduce the cost and quantity of required materials.

                      Building Automation System

                        EPA selected an off-the-shelf BAS that will help maintain good IAQ and promote
                      energy conservation. It will allow EPA operations staff to monitor and control
                      whether ventilation fans are on or off, whether filters are clogged, when motors or
                      pumps need to be  repaired, and other energy consuming aspects  of the building,

                            •  Temperature, pressures, and humidity

                            •  Electrical systems

                            •  Refrigeration and boiler equipment

                            •  Maintenance indicators and alarms

                            •  Lighting, security, and communications

                        High-efficiency motors with variable speed drives will be programmed to operate
                      only when necessary and only at the rate needed. When compared with constant
                      speed drives, variable speed drives have a longer operational life and consume less
                      energy. The BAS will also include variable air volume controls that will provide addi-
                      tional energy savings.
48   +    Case Study Two: EPA^ Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility

EPA Green Lights Program

  EPA's Green Lights Program, established and maintained by EPA^ Atmospheric
Pollution Protection Division, was another off-the-shelf program that assisted the
design team for the new EPA facility. The team incorporated several features identi-
fied by the Green Lights Program, including specifying high-efficiency lamps and
ballasts, photoelectric dimming controls, a central lighting control system, extensive
task lighting, and occupancy sensors that will turn off lights in unoccupied offices.

  The design team also made extensive use of natural lighting throughout the build-
ing, including expansive windows and strict protection of open zones along the
perimeter of the  building that allow light to penetrate into interior offices. Interior
doors with glass panels also help improve interior lighting.

  Based on Department of Energy statistics for electricity consumption from light-
ing, adopting Green Light principles in the new EPA facility will reduce electricity
consumption for lighting by 70 percent in the office buildings and 43 percent in the
laboratory buildings compared with conventional designs, without adversely affecting
lighting quality.
High-Performance Window Glazing

  Increasing window area reduces the need for artificial lighting. While this reduces
electricity consumption for lighting, it can also increase heating and cooling costs due
to heat gain and loss through the windows. To minimize those costs, the A/E firm
specified extensive use of spectrally selective tinted glass with an improved low
E-coating that maximizes the amount of visible light entering the building, while
minimizing the accompanying heat gains and losses.
Water Conservation

  As with energy conservation, there are many off-the-shelf technologies to promote
water conservation. EPA incorporated water-efficient fixtures throughout the facility,
including flow-restricting nozzles, automated shutoff, and hot and cold water delivery
systems with automatic temperature controls. The lavatories will have sensor operated
metered faucets that regulate the amount of water flow, which will save water and the
energy needed to heat it.

  EPA also intends to minimize outdoor water use by landscaping with only native
species plants that do not require routine watering.

Onsite Recycling

  EPA and HOK designed the RTP complex to facilitate the occupants' recycling
efforts. Designated recycling areas were created to accommodate the collection of
paper, glass, aluminum, plastic, and cardboard. An underground service tunnel links
the collection points to the main loading area. A designated composting area for land-
scape refuse is also located on the site.
                             Case Study Two: EPA^ Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility   +  49

                      Construction Management

                         While it is relatively easy to get their fellow EPA employees to recycle, the EPA
                      design team also wanted to use the new facility as a model for promoting recycling,
                      source reduction, and pollution prevention throughout the building industry.
                      Requiring the Contractor To Recycle

                         Typically, contractors dispose of most of their construction debris by placing it in
                      large dumpsters and paying to have it removed. EPA requires its construction con-
                      tractor, Clark Construction Group, to salvage and to recycle or reuse the following

                            • Land clearing debris

                            • Concrete, masonry, and other inert fill materials

                            • Metals

                            • Untreated wood

                            • Gypsum wallboard scrap

                            • Reusable lumber, fixtures, and building supplies

                            • Cardboard

                            • Paper

                            • Plastic buckets

                            • Beverage containers

                            • Other mixed construction and demolition waste

                         EPA also requires that materials be sorted and collected according to procedures
                      specified in the construction contract. Glass, for example, must be sorted by color or
                      type. Gypsum wallboard can be deposited at an offsite gypsum reclamation or recy-
                      cling facility,  or ground up and used as an onsite soil amendment (within established
                      limits based on the soil composition at the site).

                         Clark Construction Group was  also required to submit a Construction Waste
                      Management Plan before starting construction. The plan outlined how the contractor
                      proposes to collect, segregate, and dispose of all  construction waste and debris pro-
                      duced during construction, subject to EPA approval. It also lists the local facilities that
                      will accept each construction material for reuse or recycling.

                         While limited recycling already occurs at many construction sites, the construction
                      contract details several nonstandard industry practices. Before requiring the collection
                      of construction materials, EPA worked with a local regional construction waste task
                      force to identify all of the construction materials being recovered in the Research
                      Triangle Park area, even those on a limited scale.7 EPA expects that the growing local
                      recycling market will support the contractor in meeting the recycling requirements.
                      7 The Triangle J Council of Governments in RTF, funded by an EPA grant, developed an off-the-shelf
                      "WasteSpec" that is now available for use by any designer or builder. The EPA design team participated in the
                      development of the specification and incorporated many of its measures into the new RTP facility. (For addi-
                      tional information, see the resource list in Appendix D.)
50   +    Case Study Two: EPA^ Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility

  EPA believes that the contractor will discover that it is less expensive and perhaps
even profitable to recycle. EPA's intention is to demonstrate these economic incen-
tives to the contractor with the hope that the practices will be continued on other jobs
and by other contractors, which will have positive and enduring effects on the local

Mandatory Environmental Training

  Construction safety is a concern at every construction site. To promote worker
safety, many construction firms require workers to participate in a safety awareness
program prior to beginning work at a new construction site. The program typically
includes a discussion of worker safety and a video that addresses any site-specific or
project-specific safety concerns.

  As part of the training for EPA's laboratory facility,  EPA expanded the scope of the
training to include environmental concerns. For a significant portion of the worker
orientation, including about half of the 12-minute training video, environmental
issues are addressed, including:

      • Separating construction waste for reuse or recycling.

      • Maximizing indoor  air quality.

      • Protecting site ecology.

  Every worker on the project must complete the training. Upon completion of the
training, workers are issued a sticker stating, "I've been trained." The sticker must be
displayed on each worker's hard hat to indicate that they have completed the training
and to remind workers that both safety and environmental protection are always a

Additional Contractor Requirements

  The EPA design team is also requiring the contractor to adopt other environmen-
tally preferable practices. For example, in an attempt to minimize truck traffic and the
atmospheric pollutants that accompany it, and to preserve landfill space, the contrac-
tor is not allowed to dispose  of surplus excavated materials off site. The contract also
encourages the contractor to use crushed excavated rock in structural fills on site to
avoid the need to transport the materials to the site. EPA is also encouraging the con-
tractor to mix all concrete on site to minimize the need to transport it long distances.
Mixing concrete on site will eliminate an estimated 75,000 truck miles during con-
struction, conserve approximately 15,000 gallons of fuel, and eliminate the associated

  The construction contract prohibits the contractor from using slash and burn tech-
niques to clear the construction site. On a typical construction site, the contractor will
sell the trees for timber and burn the remaining ground cover. EPA is requiring that
any remaining wood be ground up and used as mulch on the site after construction is
completed with any surplus being transported to a local wood recycling facility.

  EPA is also requiring the construction contractors to reuse construction materials
when possible. For example,  EPA is expanding the existing onsite central utility plant
and is requiring the contractor to remove and preserve the existing precast concrete
                             Case Study Two: EPA's Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility    +   51

A An aerial view of
  the facility with
  arrows indicating
  the parking decks
                     panels from one end of the building so that they can be reused on the new addition.
                     This reduces costs for disposal and new material acquisition, saves landfill space, and
                     promotes source reduction.

                     Protecting  the Natural Environment

                        Although many of the environmental features of the new EPA facility will not be
                     visible to the casual observer, employees and visitors will immediately recognize the
                     results of EPA decisions to protect the natural beauty of the site. When balancing
                     function, the environment, and cost, EPA often discovered that protecting the site's
                     natural environment saved money and promoted other environmentally desirable


                        One of the most challenging environmental design decisions made by EPA^ design
                     team affected the  amount of parking at the new office complex. In a conscious effort
                     to minimize the environmental impacts of large surface parking lots, EPA limited the
                     number of available parking spaces. In so doing, EPA reduced the amount of land that
                     had to be cleared  and the number of trees that needed to be removed and reduced
                                                     future automobile emissions by promoting car-
                                                     pooling and the use of public transportation.

                                                     The new office complex will have about 1,800
                                                     spaces for approximately 2,200 employees. After
                                                     excluding designated handicapped and visitor
                                                     spaces, there will be roughly two parking spaces
                                                     for every three employees. While this ratio is not
                                                     unusual for most urban areas, it is unusual in the
                                                     RTP region because land is abundant and relative-
                                                     ly inexpensive. Most nearby facilities—including
                                                     the NIEHS facility, which is on  the same 500-acre
                                                     federal site as the new EPA complex—provide
                                                     large surface parking lots with one parking space
                                                     per employee.

                                                     EPA is promoting public transportation as an
                                                     environmentally preferable option. It is negotiat-
                                                     ing with the local public bus service to extend a
                                                     bus route to the EPA  campus following building
                                                     occupancy. The proposed route  will also pass the
                     existing NIEHS facility, and EPA hopes the new route  will encourage additional fed-
                     eral employees to  use public transportation.

                        In an attempt to further reduce the environmental impacts associated with parking,
                     EPA decided to construct two three-level parking decks and two small surface parking
                     areas, rather than  constructing 16 acres of surface parking, which would have required
                     clearing almost 20 acres of trees. Parking decks have several environmental benefits,

                           •  Less land needs to be cleared for the  same number of parking spaces, which
                             allows more trees to be preserved and protects the natural beauty of the site.
          Case Study Two: EPA^ Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility

      • Large surface parking lots require extensive storm water management proce-
        dures that disrupt the natural water cycle, including the resupply of under-
        ground water tables.

  The remaining surface lots are small enough to employ natural biofiltration tech-
niques to manage storm water runoff. This reduces the need for curbs, gutters, and
pipes, which saves additional money and
reduces material usage.

  Although HOK estimated that parking
decks at the EPA facility would cost one-
and-a-half times as much  as surface park-
ing, EPA determined that the
environmental and aesthetic benefits were
worth the additional cost. Due to their
higher cost, the parking decks were a con-
stant target during cost-cutting exercises.
Rather than abandoning the environmen-
tal benefits of parking decks, however,
EPA project officials implemented other
cost-saving design changes to offset their
additional cost.  For example, EPA and the
designers downgraded some of the build-
ing's finish materials to less costly but
equally durable products.  They also
removed over 200 interior office suite
doors, which  saved money and reduced the quantity of construction materials
required. Many other trade-offs were made to cover the cost of important environ-
mental measures including the highly energy-efficient building systems and the park-
ing decks.

Tree Survey

  The site of the new EPA building is abandoned family farmland that was over-
grown with second-growth forest long before it was sold to the government in 1960.
It also includes several groves of old-growth oak trees, including a 100-year old oak
with a trunk over 11 feet in circumference. When planning the new facility, EPA
elected to preserve as many of the old-growth groves as possible, both because of
their natural beauty and because they are relatively rare in the RTP region.

  In order to facilitate  this goal, EPA commissioned a "Specimen Tree Study" that
noted the location, diameter, and approximate age of every tree on the property.  This
study was used by EPA and HOK when situating the EPA facility on the property and
when designating the location for the access roads and utility causeways.
A An aerial perspec-
  tive of the entire
  federal campus
  before the access
  roads were reduced
  to two lanes. EPA's
  facility is at the top
  right of the photo.
  The National
  Computer Center
  is at the top left
  and NIEHS's facil-
  ity is at the bottom.
                             Case Study Two: EPA's Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility

                       Plant Rescues

                         As the building plans were finalized, several EPA employees realized that a sig-
                       nificant number of indigenous flowers and plants would need to be cleared
                       because they were located where the new EPA facility or connecting roads would
                       be built. While the trees would be removed for lumber, several people were con-
                       cerned that the flowers and plants would simply be destroyed. They decided to do
                       something about it and initiated the first of several EPA-sponsored, volunteer
                       "plant rescues" to preserve the "inherent and intangible value" of the native flow-
                       ers and plants.

                         Prior to the first plant rescue, one member of EPA's design team spent several
                       days talking with EPA and other government lawyers to obtain official permission
                       to conduct the rescue. "Basically, what we were proposing to do," he explained,
                       "was give away government property because the plants were on EPA-owned
                       land." Eventually, EPA entered into an agreement with the North Carolina
                       Botanical Gardens, which had sponsored numerous plant rescues on private land
                       in the Research Triangle Park area, to assist with the EPA plant rescue.

                         After addressing the legal concerns, EPA invited members of the public to join
                       EPA employees and North Carolina Botanical Gardens volunteers at the site and
                       relocate as many plants as possible to prevent them from being destroyed  during
                       construction of the new facility. Approximately 150 volunteers over four Saturdays
                       "saved" over 3,000 plants from a variety of native species, including Christmas
                       ferns, dogwood, downey arrowood, winged elm, green and gold, and  wild azaleas.
                       Individual plants were excavated and relocated on the EPA property, the nearby
                       NIEHS site, or to the homes of volunteers
54   +   Case Study Two: EPA^ Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility

Natural Landscaping

  EPA also ensured that the landscaping surrounding the laboratory facility mini-
mizes the resources and costs required to maintain it. The landscaping emphasizes
indigenous, low-maintenance plants that require little fertilization, pesticide use, or
irrigation. Fifteen acres of native grasses
and wild flowers will be planted along
the roadways to minimize the need to
mow the grass. Grass is typically cut 21
times a season. EPA estimates, that by
minimizing that need, it will prevent at
least 800 pounds of carbon dioxide from
being emitted by the lawnmowers each
  The landscaping, according to the
EPA project team, is also designed to be
"naturally manicured," which means
that there will not be any effort to main-
tain a "neat, golf course" appearance.
Dead trees that do not present a hazard
to human health or  safety, for example,
will remain on the grounds to serve as
natural wildlife habitats. This will reduce the need for artificial fertilizers, reduce
maintenance, and save money.

  In addition, EPA plans to formally manage the site as a wildlife habitat when the
facility is occupied. It has already joined in a partnership with NIEHS, which shares
the 500-acre federal site with EPA, to promote environmental responsibility in
grounds management.
                                                    A A view of the RTF
                                                      facility's front
Case Study Two: EPAk Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility

                     Lessons Learned

                        The size and scope of the RTF laboratory construction project provided many
                     valuable lessons about the environmental attributes of numerous materials, products,
                     and processes. A few of the lessons are specific to the EPA project and, therefore, are
                     not applicable everywhere. There are, however, many lessons that would be relevant
                     to any attempt to incorporate environmentally preferable purchasing into building
                     design and construction.

                     Commit to an Environmental  Goal

                        With most design and construction projects, function and cost are the primary, and
                     sometimes the only, concerns. As a result, unless there is a strong environmental com-
                     mitment at the executive and project management levels, most project participants
                     will not consider the project's environmental impacts. It is helpful to assign a senior
                     project manager to the job who is committed to environmental design and who will
                     ensure that everyone involved with the project examines the environmental conse-
                     quences of each decision in the design process. Assigning environmental oversight
                     responsibilities to one or more people will further ensure that all three factors—func-
                     tion, cost, and environment—are adequately considered and prevent people from
                     examining only the traditional factors of function and cost.

                     Eternal Vigilance Is Essential

                        Due to the size and complexity of large
                     building projects, numerous people are            "#>» aren'1 etching closely, people
                     involved with the design. Unless each of       /or£<* about tbe environmental implica-
                     them fully understands the functional, envi-
                     ronmental, and cost concerns driving the
                     project, someone can unintentionally or
                     unnecessarily remove an environmental fea-

                        One example often cited by the EPA design team was the attempt to locate an
                     access road through an old-growth oak grove. Although EPA had a "tree survey" pre-
                     pared to designate which trees should be protected, an engineering firm that was not
                     familiar with all of EPA's design objectives located the road directly through the
                     grove. EPA had assumed that the access road would follow the existing gravel road,
                     which would not significantly threaten any of the oak groves. When the access road
                     was being located, however, the engineers did not consult the tree study and instead
                     placed the road along the shortest distance between the building and the first public

                        Before the path for the road was cleared, EPA discovered the discrepancy and noti-
                     fied the engineers. EPA explained that one of their design goals  was to protect the
                     old-growth trees and explained that it was less expensive and less environmentally
                     destructive to relocate the road. Designing the road to follow the existing gravel road,
                     eliminated the costs of removing the  trees and grading a new surface,  which more
                     than offset the costs of the additional materials needed to construct the slightly longer
                     road. It also prevented the destruction of an existing creek and saved an additional
                     two- to three-acres of trees, including the oak grove containing  the 11 -foot-circum-
                     ference oak tree. Relocating the road also, coincidentally, alleviated the traffic conges-
56   +   Case Study Two: EPA^ Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility

tion that would have resulted under the original plan because the entrance was located
farther away from a major intersection. If EPA had not closely scrutinized every phase
of the design process, it would not have been able to incorporate as many positive
environmental attributes as it did.

  Similarly, without HOK's commitment to constantly evaluating the environmental
impacts of the design, the environmental quality of the building would have been
diminished. For example, when the initial construction bids were significantly higher
than EPA anticipated, EPA focused on the recycled-content requirements as a proba-
ble  cause and was prepared to reduce those requirements in an attempt to reduce
costs. (Contractors were not required to itemize their bids, which left EPA without a
mechanism to adequately determine the reasons for the higher costs.) HOK, however,
supplied EPA with information documenting the availability of competitively priced
recycled-content products, suggesting that the cost overruns were due to factors  other
than the recycled-content requirements. As  a result, EPA preserved the requirements,
which will improve the overall environmental performance of the building.

  To be truly effective,  environmental vigilance must come from all parties involved
with the design, design review, and construction of the facility.

Be Persistent: Assign an "Environmental Advocate"

  Environmentally preferable building design is still a relatively new approach for
many segments of the building design and construction community. EPA discovered
that it was helpful to assign "environmental  advocates" because frequently people
deny that there are environmentally preferable ways of doing something because they
have never  taken the time to investigate them. EPA's environmental advocates learned
that persistence pays off. Asking questions and investigating alternatives allowed EPA
to incorporate many environmental considerations that might not otherwise have
been included.

  While design teams typically have many different types of specialists—architects,
interior designers, mechanical, civil, and electrical engineers, cost consultants, and
others—it is rare to find a design team with a designated environmental advocate.
Typically, designs are reviewed throughout the design process by the design firm, the
customer, and, on large  projects, by an outside reviewer. In the case of EPA's new
RTP facility, the  review process also included the environmental advocates who had
the  specific responsibility to ask, "Is it environmentally sound?" This environmental
review created a dynamic atmosphere in which traditional concepts were challenged
and improved the overall environmental quality of the final design.

Continual Reevaluations Are Important

  It is  very important to continually reevaluate the environmental preferability of
each design decision in relation to the overall environmental preferability of the pro-
ject. Often  times a change to one portion of the design can adversely affect or provide
new opportunities to improve other parts of the design. Many such challenges were
presented during the design of the EPA facility and are discussed in the case study.

  For  example, increasing the amount of natural lighting by increasing the number of
windows is  an important environmental consideration, but it also affects the overall
efficiency of the ventilation system. The environmental preferability of the  final
                             Case Study Two: EPAk Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility   +   57

           design, therefore, is contingent not only
           on the number of environmental attributes
           included in the design, but on how they
           interact with each other. Making a "green"
           decision early in the process does not
           guarantee the same result later because
           other factors may have changed. The
           design process, therefore, should include
           continual revaluations of earlier environ-
           mental design decisions.
                                                                 "In the future., I would require a written
                                                               environmental design analysis at every
                                                               step—initial conceptualization through final
                                                               design. That would help focus the entire
                                                               team—architects, engineers, and reviewers—
                                                               on the environmental impacts of their deci-
                                                               sions at every step of the process."
                                                                      EPA Project Manager
           Value Engineering Can Improve Environmental Performance

             As described in this case study, the VE process can improve the environmental per-
           formance of a design. Traditionally, the VE process only examines two factors—cost
           and function. EPA successfully incorporated a third factor—environmental impact—
           into the VE process, which resulted in significant cost savings and significant
           improvements in the facility's environmental performance without compromising
           function. When the group conducting the VE evaluation is aware of the environmen-
           tal goals and when the project's environmental advocates actively participate in the
           VE process, VE can enhance both the financial  and environmental efficiencies of a
           Look at the Long Term

             The true costs and benefits of many design features are not immediately obvious,
           unless they are assessed from a long-term perspective. Many of the environmental
           features recommended under the Green Lights program, for example, dramatically
           increase initial costs. These energy-efficient purchases, however, will pay for them-
           selves over a period of 7 to 12 years. Given the 50-to 150-year life of a building, the
           higher initial cost will be worth it from an economic and environmental perspective.

             Other investment costs, such as those for waste minimization or recycled-content
           building materials, are harder to quantify. Their benefits tend not to be realized in
           terms of dollar "payback" over a number of years, but rather in terms of improve-
           ments to society or the sustainability of the planet. "In other words," according to the
           EPA Project Manager, "they are just the right thing to do." In these cases, it might be
           necessary to  make trade-offs, sometimes difficult ones, to pay for some positive envi-
           ronmental attributes.
           Modeling Design Features Is Helpful

             EPA and HOK made extensive use of models to identify how selected features or
           segments of the building would affect indoor air quality or other environmental
           objectives. While extensive modeling increases design costs, these information costs
           quickly pay for themselves because they allow the most efficient design to be selected.
           Two examples in which modeling was beneficial were in determining the height of the
           exhaust stacks for the fume hoods on each of the laboratory buildings and in selecting
           the most appropriate design for the atriums that connect the laboratory and office
Case Study Two: EPA^ Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility

Environmental Attribute Information Is Available

  EPA and HOK found that there is a lot of information available to help determine
the environmental preferability of various building designs, materials, products, and
processes. By encouraging all design and construction contractors to seek out the
available information and to ask manufacturers and suppliers to provide it, EPA had
access to the best available information on the subject. As more customers begin ask-
ing for environmental attribute information, additional manufacturers will begin pro-
viding it and designing products that maximize each positive attribute, while
minimizing the negative ones.
                            Case Study Two: EPA^ Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility   +   59


Appendix A
Definition of Low VOC Content Levels As Defined in the RTF
Construction Contract
Materials or Product
Form Release Agents
Plastic Laminate Adhesive
Casework and Millwork Adhesives
Transparent Wood Finish Systems
Cast Resin Countertop Silicone Sealant
Garage Deck Sealer
Water Based Joint Sealants
Non-water Based Joint Sealants
Portland Cement Plaster
Gypsum Drywall Joint Compound
Terrazzo Sealer
Acoustic Panel Ceiling Finish
Resilient Tile Flooring Adhesive
Vinyl Flooring Adhesives
Carpet Adhesive
Carpet Seam Sealer
Water-based Paint & Polychromatic Finish Coatings
Solvent-based Paint
High Performance Water-based Acrylic Coatings
Pigmented Acrylic Sealers
Catalyzed Epoxy Coatings
High Performance Silicone
Casework Sealant
Liquid Membrane-forming Curing and Sealing
VOC Content Level
600 g/L
3 50 g/L
20 g/L
20 g/L
250 g/L
50 g/L
100 g/L
100 g/L
50 g/L
50 g/L
150 g/L
380 g/L
250 g/L
250 g/L
250 g/L
250 g/L
50 g/L

3 50 g/L
 Appendix A Low VOC Content Levels


Appendix B
Required Minimum Recycled Content of Materials for the RTF
Material or Product
Asphaltic Concrete Paving
Reinforcing Steel in Concrete
Reinforcing Bars in Precast Concrete
Concrete Unit Masonry
Recommended Recycle Content
25% by weight3
60% recycled scrap steel1
60% recycled steel1
50% recycled content
Reinforcing Bars in Concrete Unit Masonry  60% recycled steel1
Framing Steel
Fiberglass Batt Insulation
Fiberglass Board Insulation
Mineral Wool Insulation
Mineral Wool Fire Safing Insulation

Gypsum Board
Facing Paper of Gypsum Board

Mineral Fiber Sound Attenuation Blankets

Steel Studs, Runners, and Channels
Acoustic Panel Ceilings
Ceiling Suspension Systems
Rubber Floor Tiles
Structural Fiberboard
30% recycled steel1
20% recycled glass cullet2
20% recycled glass cullet2
75% recycled material (slag)2
75% recycled material by weight
10% recycled or synthetic gypsum
100% recycled newsprint including
post consumer waste2
75% recovered materials by weight
60% recycled steel1
60% recycled material by weight
60% recycled material1
90-100% recycled materials2
100% recovered materials2
80-100% recycled content2
1 60% represents the average recycled content for the U.S. steel industry. Use of U.S. manufactured steel will
 meet this requirement.
2 As per EPA Comprehensive Guideline for Procurement of Products Containing Recovered Materials (60 FR
 21370, effective May 1, 1996).
3 As per North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) recommendation.
     Appendix B: Recycled Content Requirements


 Appendix C
EPA Green  Buildings Vision and Policy Statement^
  In order to maintain leadership in environmental protection, EPA must lead by
example. Through sustainable design and construction of EPA facilities we will model
responsible environmental behavior and help create the framework within which the
building industry as a whole can shift towards practices which will promote "Green
  Green Buildings are structures that incorporate the principles of sustainable
design—design in which the impacts of a building on the environment will be mini-
mal over the life-time of that building. Green Buildings incorporate principles of
energy and resource efficiency, practical applications of waste reduction and pollution
prevention, good indoor air quality and natural light to promote occupant health and
productivity, and transportation efficiency in design and construction, and during use
and reuse.
  Agency  facilities, both new and existing, should serve as models for a healthy work-
place with  minimal environmental impacts. To achieve this goal, EPA will utilize both
innovative "state of the art" technologies and a holistic approach to design, construc-
tion, renovation and use. EPA will work with the private sector to identify opportuni-
ties for innovation and to help create markets for both products and design concepts.
Important considerations in the design, construction and use of EPA owned and
leased facilities include the following:

     • Site planning that utilizes resources naturally occurring on the site such as
        solar and wind energy, natural shading, native plant materials, topography
        and drainage.

     • Location and programs to optimize use of existing infrastructure and trans-
        portation options, including the use of alternative work modes such as
        telecommuting and teleconferencing.

     • Use of recycled-content and environmentally preferable construction materi-
        als and furnishings, consistent with EPA Procurement Guidelines.

     • Minimization of energy and materials waste throughout the building's lifecy-
        cle, from design through demolition or reuse.

     • Design of the building envelope for energy efficiency.

     • Use of materials and design strategies to achieve optimal indoor environ-
        mental quality, particularly including light and air, to maximize health and

     • Operation systems and practices which support an integrated waste manage-
        ment system.

     • Recycling of building materials at demolition.
 f As described in EPAs Environmental Procurement Strategy, August 1995 (EPA200-R-9S-001).
                                   Appendix C: Green Buildings Vision and Policy Statement    +   65

                            • Management of water as a limited resource in site design, building construc-
                              tion and building operations.

                            • Utilization of solar and other renewable technologies where appropriate.

                         Evaluation of trade-offs will be an important component of the design of Green
                      Buildings. Where the goals of a Green Building are contradictory (for example
                      increased ventilation vs. increased energy efficiency), the trade-offs will have to be
                      evaluated in a holistic framework to achieve long-term benefits for the environment.
                      Also, the physical considerations must be balanced with other policy objectives such as
                      environmental justice, particularly with regards to site location. We anticipate that
                      there may not always be single answers to recurring building issues, but we will adopt
                      a consistent approach to evaluating all buildings for sustainable design considerations
66   +    Appendix C: Green Buildings Vision and Policy Statement

Appendix D
Green Building Resources

  This appendix includes a list of resources for obtaining additional information
about the new EPA facilities and about the design, construction, and maintenance of
"green" buildings. This is not a comprehensive list of sustainable building resources.
Selected products or organizations are included because they are referenced in this
document or were mentioned during interviews conducted while researching the case
studies. Inclusion of specific products or organizations on this list do not constitute
endorsement or recommendation by EPA.
Environmental Building News
28 Birge Street
Brattleboro, VT 05301
Phone: 802 257-7300
Fax: 802 257-7304
Web Site: www.ebuild.com

  Publishes information ten times a year on environmentally sustainable design and
construction practices, including material selection, siting, indoor air quality, day
lighting, and energy-efficiency. The web site includes subscription information, access
to back issues, a checklist for environmentally responsible design and construction,
and an e-mail discussion list on green buildings.
HOK's Healthy and Sustainable Building Materials Database
Sustainable Design Group
Hellmuth, Obata + Kassabaum, PC.
Canal House
3223 Grace Street, NW
Washington, DC 20007
Phone: 202 339-8700
Fax: 202 339-8800
Web Site: www.hok.com/sustainabledesign/database/welcome.html

   Contains information gathered from over 600 manufacturers on over 1,000 prod-
ucts. The information is based on results of a survey conducted by HOK that asks
vendors and manufacturers to provide information on the environmental impacts of
their products. It includes information on raw materials (including recycled-pcontent
percentages); production processes; packaging and shipping; installation and use; recy-
clability; indoor air quality impact; and general information on product cost, life
expectancy, maintenance requirements, and availability. Each entry includes a "green
score" compiled by HOK based on information contained in the database.
                                      Appendix D: Green Building Resources    +  67

                     The National Park Service's Sustainable Design and Construction Database
                     Web Site: www.nps.gov/dsc/dsgncnstr/susdb/index.htm

                        Includes information on approximately 1,300 product listings from over 550 manu-
                     facturers; lists over 7,000 construction debris recyclers; and contains an extensive list-
                     ing of books, periodicals, organizations, and online sources of sustainable design
                     information. The database is not online; it is a downloadable application that operates
                     from within the Windows environment.
                     Ronald Reagan Building Web Site
                     Web Site: www.gsa.gov/regions/rll/projects/reagan.htm

                        Contains additional information about and pictures of the Ronald Reagan building
                     along with a history of the Federal Triangle site.
                     U.S. EPA's Design for the Environment Program
                     Pollution Prevention Clearinghouse
                     401M Street, SW (3404)
                     Washington, DC 20460
                     Phone: 202 260-1023
                     Fax: 202 260-0178
                     Web Site: www.epa.gov/dfe

                        Helps businesses incorporate environmental considerations into the design and
                     redesign of products, processes, and technical and management systems. DfE initiates
                     voluntary partnerships with industry, universities, research institutions, public interest
                     groups, and other government agencies.
                     U.S. EPA's Energy Star Buildings Program
                     U.S. EPA Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Division
                     401M Street, SW. (6202J)
                     Washington, DC 20460
                     Phone: 202 775-6650
                     Fax: 202  564-9575
                     Hotline:  888 STAR-YES (782-7937)
                     Web Site: www.epa.gov/appdstar/buildings

                        Encourages energy-efficiency building design and operation, including "Green
                     Lights" upgrades, building tune-ups, load reductions, fan system upgrades, and heat-
                     ing plant and cooling system upgrades. The program has developed several publica-
                     tions and software packages to evaluate energy needs. They are available by
                     contacting EPA or via the program's web site.
68   +   Appendix D: Green Building Resources

U.S. EPA's Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program
401 M Street, SW. (7409)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-1023
Fax: 202 260-0178
Web Site: www.epa.gov/opptintr/epp

  Promotes the consideration of environmental factors in purchasing decisions, along
with traditional factors such as product price and performance. The EPP Program
provides guidance for federal  agencies to facilitate the purchase of goods and services
that pose fewer burdens on the environment.
U.S. EPA's Green Lights Program
U.S. EPA Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Division
401 M Street, SW. (6202J)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-9190
Fax: 202 564-9569
Hotlines: 888 STAR-YES
         202 564-9659 [fax-back information line]
Web Site: www.epa.gov/greenlights.html

  Promotes the use of energy-efficient lighting to prevent the creation of air pollu-
tion. The program developed several publications and software packages to analyze
lighting needs. They are available by contacting EPA or via the program's web site.
U.S. EPA's Research Triangle Park Facility Web Site
Web Site: www.epa.gov/rtp/new-bldg

  Provides visitors with information about the new facility including its environmen-
tal features, a tour of the site, construction updates, contact information, and links to
several green building sites.  It also includes a 47-page "Green Building Bibliography"
containing over 200 references that was compiled by one of EPA's design team mem-
U.S. Green Building Council
90 New Montgomery Street, Suite 1001
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415 543-3001
Web Site: www.usgbc.org/programs/programs.html

  Promotes the understanding, development, and implementation of "green build-
ing" policies, programs, technologies, standards, and design practices. The Green
Building Council published the Sustainable Building Technical Manual that identifies
the environmental issues that should be considered throughout the entire life of a
building. It also published a draft of the Leed Green Building Rating System, which
establishes an environmental rating for new and existing commercial office buildings
based on selected environmental criteria.
                                                     Appendix D: Green Building Resources    +   69

                     Triangle J Council of Governments
                     P.O. Box 12276
                     Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
                     Phone: 919 558-9343
                     Fax: 919 549-9390
                     Web Site: www.tjcog.dst.nc.us/TJCOG/solidwst.htm

                        Provides architects and engineers with specifications for and information about
                     construction and demolition waste reduction, reuse, and recycling.  The 114-page
                     book includes model specifications for each of the 16 divisions of the Construction
                     Specification Institute (CSI) system of specifications, cost information, a sample waste
                     management plan, a checklist of 135 demolition materials, and a list of resources for
                     additional information.  It also comes with a diskette containing model specifications
                     that can be "cut and pasted" into existing specifications.
70   +   Appendix D: Green Building Resources