Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Full Report: www.deq.state.or.us/lq/sw/wasteprevention/greenbuilding.htm

A LIFE CYCLE APPROACH TO WASTE

PREVENTION FROM THE OREGON

RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION

SECTOR

Jordan Palmeri

Oregon DEQ

palmeri.jordan@deq.state.or.us

503-229-6766

Research Partners

Jon Dettling

Amanda Pike

Indigo Teiwes

Bruce Sullivan

Bill Jones

Jonathan Balkema

Reviewed

by:

50-member

external advisory

committee

3-member panel

of LCA experts

Arpad Horvath

Greg Keoleian

Tom Gloria

ISO 14040/14044 compliant

2

Overview

1. Background for research

2. Results

3. Policy actions

4. Why materials matter

4

Oregon Solid Waste Disposed, Recovered

and Generated

Oregon Solid Waste Disposed, Recovered

and Generated

5

Focus Area – residential waste

prevention

Reduce

Reuse

Recycle

waste

prevention

6

Waste Disposal and Recovery

2009 Oregon Waste Generation = 4.6 million tons

20-30% of

disposed waste

is construction

debris

7

Greenhouse Gas emissions from

Production, Landfill, and Recycling8

Initial Study Question

Over the life of a home,

how can you use fewer

building materials or

reuse materials?

9

Waste Prevention Practices Evaluated

Adaptability: Reduced Remodeling

Design using Salvaged Materials

Homeowner Maintenance Training

Restoration

Multifamily Housing

Thermal Curtains

Reusable Packaging

Reduced Packaging

Single-story Homes

Detailed Framing Cut List

Offsite Prefabricated Components

Flashing and Rainscreening

Deconstruction

Durable roofing, siding and flooring

Intermediate Framing

Advanced Floor Framing

Advanced Framing (w/ drywall clips)

Smaller Homes

Insulating Concrete Forms

Structural Insulated Panels

Strawbale w/ timber frame

Adaptability: Design for Disassembly

Adaptability: Utility Chase

Dematerializing and Design for Simplicity

Design using Salvaged Materials

10

Purpose of LCA evaluation is to prioritize these practices

based on environmental benefit.

Lifecycle Analysis (process LCA)

Impact categories (selection):

1. Energy used

2. Greenhouse gas emissions

3. Ecotoxicity

4. Human Health

5. Respiratory

Climate Change Impacts

were used as the prioritizing

criterion in this study.

11

2262 sq.ft

3 br

2 baths

2 car garage

Stem wall foundation

Post and Beam floor system

16inch stud spacing

Vinyl windows

Asphalt roof

Gas furnace, no A/C

Designed to 2008 Oregon

energy code

Energy use modeled for

Portland, OR climate

Standard Home

***Lifetime = 70 years***

12

Evaluating Lifecycle Impacts/Benefits (GHG example)

Lifecycle

Phases

Small

Home

Impacts

Standard

Home

Impact95,500 3,800 8,400 6,900 597,500 -29,400

Material Production

Material Transport

Construction Maintenance Use End of Life

13

74,300 2,900 4,600 3,800 373,900 -24,700

GHG units = KgCO2e

STANDARD HOME RESULTS

14

Lifecycle greenhouse gas impacts (GHG) of a

standard newly constructed OR home

~80%~15%

15

Lifecycle non-renewable energy impacts of a

newly constructed OR home

~25% ~70%

16

Material-related GHG impacts of an

average Oregon home17

Environmental impacts of a standard newly

constructed OR home over 70 years

18

Waste Generation

*70 year lifetime

19

RESULTS FOR PRACTICES EVALUATED

AGAINST THE STANDARD HOME

20

Waste Prevented

Greenhouse gas reductions

z

22

Size Matters

-18%

-36%

+38%

23

Source: Oregon DEQ

24

Small is effective

Energy Trust of Oregon data (preliminary

results)

Practices evaluated against the

Standard Oregon home26

Source: City of Milwaukie and URBSWORKS

27

House size has increased

POLICY WORK

REACH Code

Oregon Building Codes Division

http://www.cbs.state.or.us/bcd/programs/reach.html

Size-based tiers in

residential energy code

Earth Advantage

Revised points

allocation for small homes

Revised material resource

points http://www.earthadvantage.org/

Green Point Rated - California

http://www.builditgreen.org/greenpoint-rated/

Accounts for home size and materials used in home in

scoring

Certification and Labeling programs

• LEED

• Earth Advantage

• Energy Star

• Energy Performance Score

• NAHB Greenbuilding / ICC 700

• Living Building Challenge

Size

directly

addressed

Size not

directly

addressed

• Passive House

Energy Trust of Oregon

http://energytrust.org/residential/

Increased the incentives for

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)

Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Potential34

Requirements for full “new home” incentives:

• ADU must have its own USPS mailing address separate from main residence

• ADU must receive an Energy Performance Score (full incentive available through EPS)

• ADU must receive its own third party verification

• ADU must be detached from the main residence

• ADU must be intended to be used as a residence

• Detached structure must be permitted as an ADU

• Builder or owner builder must be a trade ally with New Homes program

Energy Trust Incentive Requirements

Photo: Jordan Palmeri

Portland: April 15, 2010 and June 30, 2013

Wilsonville: Permanent

System Development Charge (SDC) waivers

$ 7 – 12K savings

Portland permit data

Source: City of Milwaukie and URBSWORKS

38

Households are getting smaller

Source: Oregon AARP and US Census Bureau

39

More 65+ seniors

Space-efficient housing workgroup

• Oregon DEQ

• Oregon DLCD

• Metro

• City of Portland

• City of Eugene

• University of Oregon

• Orange Splot, LLC

• Cascadia Region Green Building

Council

• Numerous space-efficient housing

advocates

Drawing: cullygrove.org

41

accessorydwellings.org

Past Events

http://cascadiagbc.org/living-future/12Bus tour

Bike tour

Pedalpalooza bike tour of

ADUs and Tiny Homes

Appraising ADUs – a new method At Metro Building

Upcoming Events

October 26th, 2012

Portland

44

WHY MATERIALS MATTER

Short/Long term GHG Mitigation

~15%

~25%

45

Short/Long term Energy Reductions

~25%

~35%

46

Environmental impacts of a standard newly

constructed OR home over 70 years

47

• Evaluated

– Asphalt vs. Metal roof

– Fiber cement vs. Cedar

– Carpet vs. Wood floor

Durable Materials

Appropriate durability

Granite?

COR-TEN panels?

48

We need shelter

Limitations of some LCA – occupant exposure

50

Salvage and Reuse

• Prevents the most waste of any

practice

• Don‟t reuse if energy efficiency if

sacrificed

• Reuse reduces human health and

ecosystem quality impacts more than

climate change and energy use

• Short lived products are ripe for reuse

• Feature reuse – make it sexy

• It can be affordable – but beware of

labor costs

• Keep it local

• High reuse environmental benefits for

wood, metals, insulation, and plastics

51

Wall framing shows that waste prevention is an

incomplete goal

52

Increase waste

generation but decrease

GHG emissions

Relative impact of materials change with

energy efficiency53

18%

30%

Example – Reducing embodied

carbon of building products54

35% reduction

achieved by:

•Using wood

floors instead of

carpet

•Reducing drywall

by half and using

wood

wainscoating

•25% less

remodeling or

water damage to

framing and

hardware

•50% reduction in

siding due to

better

maintenance

Reducing material related impacts

Architects/Specifiers: Ask for Environmental Product Declarations (Eco-labels

based on

material specific Product Category Rules)

55

http://architecture2030.org/2030_challenge/2030_challenge_products

GOAL: Reduce the embodied carbon of building

products by 50% by 2030

WA state legislation

• Washington Senate Bill 5485 was signed by Governor

Gregroire in May of 2011. This bill authorizes UW and

WSU to conduct a study into opportunities to integrate the

use of life cycle assessment methodologies to evaluate

the environmental impacts „embodied‟ in building

materials and products and explore the potential of

integrating life cycle assessment methods, data and/or

standards into the state building code.

http://courses.washington.edu/lcaforwa/wordpress/

Thank You!

• Jordan Palmeri

– Oregon DEQ

– 503-229-6766

– palmeri.jordan@deq.state.or.us

– http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/sw/wasteprevention/

greenbuilding.htm

57