# Presentation: 061638

## NDCEE

**Federal Environmental Symposium - East**
**Mr. Bill Boone,  NDCEE**
**June 3, 2008**

- The NDCEE is operated by:

***NDCEE***
- National Defense Center for Energy and Environment

**Technology Transfer – Supporting DoD Readiness, Sustainability, and Transformation**

**DoD Executive Agent**

- Office of the
- Assistant Secretary
- of the Army
- (Installations and
- Environment)

## Introduction

-     National Defense Center for Energy and Environment     	(NDCEE) Solid Waste Sustainability (SWS) Program
-  Expand the knowledge base within the DoD community to address issues concerning the reduction and diversion of solid waste,
-  Provide innovative tools and technology transfer to achieve diversion goals, and
-  Support agency-wide sustainability initiatives

## Objectives

- This presentation will provide an;
- Overview of current Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Policy.
- Introduction to SWS and impact on GHG emissions.
- Impact analysis for demolition vs. deconstruction waste management alternatives.
- DoD Family Housing
- Single Story Duplex

## GHG Emissions Related to Buildings

- United States (U.S.) Energy Information Administration states that buildings are responsible for almost half (48%) of all GHG emissions annually
- Each year, the U.S. buries about 33 million tons of wood related construction and demolition (C&D) debris in landfills
- As wood decomposes, it will release 5 million tons of carbon equivalents in the form of methane gas
- Equivalent to the annual emissions of 3,736,000 passenger cars

## Federal Policy

- Presidential GHG Emissions Reduction Goals
- “President Bush announced a new national goal to stop the growth in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2025.” On April 16, 2008. -  http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/environment/
- Executive Order (EO) 13423 “Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management”
- “Federal agencies are required to improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions ....”
- “Agency heads are also ordered to implement within the agency sustainable practices for energy efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions avoidance or reduction..., and pollution and waste prevention and recycling...”

**Notes:**
Snippet of overall policy

## GHG Reduction Accords

- _Kyoto Protocol _- http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php
- International treaty that calls for  6% reduction of GHG emissions in Canada and 5% in the U.S.
- _Urban Environmental Accord _- http://www.sfenvironment.org/
- Composed of twenty-one policy actions geared toward environmental sustainability at the urban level.
- Goal of 25% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030
- _Governors Rally for Climate Change _- http://www.eponline.com/articles/61235/
- Over a dozen governors across the U.S. signed the Declaration on Climate Change April 21, 2008.

## GHG Reduction Goals by City

- http://www.sfenvironment.org/

## Solid Waste and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

- Product Life-Cycle Stages

- http://epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/generalinfo.html

- [1] http://epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/generalinfo.html, February 2008

**Notes:**
The image below illustrates the four main stages of product life-cycles, all of which provide opportunities for GHG emissions and/or offsets.  These stages are: raw material acquisition, manufacturing, recycling, and waste management.

Discussion is in technical paper.

## Alternative Waste Management Practices

- What is Deconstruction?
- It is a process by which a building is disassembled in a reverse order to the process of construction.
- Deconstruction, as opposed to demolition, is considered an organized and systematic method, as materials need to be separated at the source in order to maximize landfill diversion through reuse and recycling.

## Analysis Approach

- Select a candidate building and evaluate it using the available software.
- Compare traditional waste management practice of demolition and landfilling to deconstruction and recycling.
- Calculate the difference in GHG emissions between waste management practices.
- Compare select products for building systems relative to GHG.

## Analysis Approach

- Validation of data through software packages
- NDCEE Decon 2.0 – Available Pending Approval.
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) WAste Reduction Model (WARM) - http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/
- National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES) - http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/software/bees/
- Athena Institute ATHENA® EcoCalculator for Assemblies - http://www.athenasmi.ca/tools/ecoCalculator/index.html

## Analysis Approach

- Decon 2.0 – Software tool designed to assist users in planning for a deconstruction project. User inputs building characteristics to assess the feasibility of a deconstruction project.  The software tabulates material quantities anticipated from demolition and deconstruction.
- WARM – Software tool that helps solid waste planners track and report GHG emissions reductions from waste management scenarios.
- BEES 4.0e – Software tool allows users to select cost-effective, environmentally-preferable building products
- ATHENA® EcoCalculator – Software tool designed to calculate environmental impacts associated with the assemblies used in your building

- Candidate Building
- DoD installation duplex,1600 square foot (ft2), single story, 1970’s construction

**Approach**

**Notes:**
~ PWTB 200-1-4830 Opportunities for Reducing C&D Waste from Residential Communities Initiative (RCI) Programs June 2007,  utilized for estimating quantities of material streams and percent recovery for reuse/recycle. Light-Framed, Detached House with Slab-on-Grade

## Decon 2.0 Input

**Notes:**
Total Building Material140,000lb or 70Tons or 157 CY
Material Diversion 127,660lb or 63.83Tons or 123 CY
Landfill Diversion Rate 91%

## Decon 2.0 Material Summary

**Landfill Diversion Rate:** 91%

**Total Building Weight: 70Tons**

**Material Diversion: **63.83Tons

**Notes:**
Total Building Material140,000lb or 70Tons or 157 CY
Material Diversion 127,660lb or 63.83Tons or 123 CY
Landfill Diversion Rate of 91%  Based on actual case studies PWTB 200-1-4830 Opportunities for Reducing C&D Waste from Residential Communities Initiative (RCI) Programs, June 2007

## WARM Analysis Input – Baseline Waste Management Scenario (Demolition)

**Notes:**
Straight Demolition and Landfilling Case

Assumptions
No Landfill Gas Recovery
20 Miles Assumed for Hauling Distance
Material that is source reduced is from Virgin Materials

WARM now recognizes 34 material types, which are presented in the table below; their emission factors are available for viewing in units of metric tons of carbon equivalent (MTCE) or metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2Eq). Note that the emission factors represent the GHG emissions associated with managing 1 short ton of MSW in the manner indicated. GHG savings should be calculated by comparing the emissions associated with the alternative scenario with the emissions associated with the baseline scenario, as opposed to simply multiplying the quantity by an emission factor. For instance, the GHG savings of recycling 1 short ton of aluminum instead of landfilling it would be calculated as follows:
(1 short ton x -3.70 MTCE/short ton) — (1 short ton x 0.01 MTCE/short ton) = -3.71 MTCE

## WARM Analysis Output – GHG Emissions from (Demolition)

**Notes:**
Results
The GHG Emissions is 2 Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent Straight Demolition and Landfilling .

Assumptions
No Landfill Gas Recovery
20 Miles Assumed for Hauling Distance
Material that is source reduced is from Virgin Materials

## WARM Analysis Input - Alternative Waste Management Scenario (Deconstruction)

**Notes:**
.

Assumptions
No Landfill Gas Recovery
20 Miles Assumed for Hauling Distance
Material that is source reduced is from Virgin Materials

WARM now recognizes 34 material types, which are presented in the table below; their emission factors are available for viewing in units of metric tons of carbon equivalent (MTCE) or metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2Eq). Note that the emission factors represent the GHG emissions associated with managing 1 short ton of MSW in the manner indicated. GHG savings should be calculated by comparing the emissions associated with the alternative scenario with the emissions associated with the baseline scenario, as opposed to simply multiplying the quantity by an emission factor. For instance, the GHG savings of recycling 1 short ton of aluminum instead of landfilling it would be calculated as follows:
(1 short ton x -3.70 MTCE/short ton) — (1 short ton x 0.01 MTCE/short ton) = -3.71 MTCE

## WARM Analysis Output – GHG Emissions from Deconstruction

**Notes:**
Results
The GHG Emissions is 5 Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent deconstruction and ~ 91% material recovery scenario.

## WARM Analysis – Results

- Net Reduction in GHG Emissions of 7 Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalents

**Notes:**

Results
The net difference in GHG Emissions between Demolition and Deconstruction is 7 Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent

## BEES Analysis

- Building Materials Evaluated for;
**Cement Slab**
- Floor Covering
- Interior Wall Partitions
- Exterior Wall Finishing
**Roof Sheathing**
- Roofing
- Evaluation Criteria
- Global Warming by Life-Cycle Stage,
- Global Warming by Flow,
- Overall Environmental and Economic Performance

**Notes:**
Evaluated certain materials building systems

## BEES Analysis

- Cement Slab
- Products Analyzed
- 100% Portland Cement
- 20% fly ash
- 20% slag cement
- 20% limestone cement
- Lafarge Silica Fume
- Anonymous IP Cement
- Lafarge New Cem (20%)

**Notes:**
BEES can be used to compare a variety of products for a particular building system.  For the case of a slab this data compares products relative to global warming over life cycle, global warming by flow, and overall performance. 

Products analyzed: 100% portland cement, 20% fly ash, 20% slag cement, 20% limestone cement, Lafarge Silica Fume, Anonymous IP Cement, Lafarge New Cem (20%)

Lower values are less impact and more environmentally friendly.

## BEES Analysis

- Cement Slab

**Notes:**
Anonymous Industrial Product (IP) Cement - The manufacturer of this product has chosen to release neither its product details nor its company and product names.

## BEES Analysis

- Cement Slab

**Notes:**
Anonymous IP Cement

## BEES Analysis

- Cement Slab

## BEES Analysis

- Cement Slab

## BEES Analysis

- Roof Sheathing
- Products Analyzed
- Oriented Strand Board (OSB)
- Plywood

**Notes:**
BEES can be used to compare a variety of products for a particular building system.  For the case of a roofing this data compares products relative to global warming over life cycle, global warming by flow, and overall performance. 

Products compared are: Oriented Strand Board (OSB) and Plywood Sheathing

Lower values are less impact and more environmentally friendly.

## BEES Analysis

- Roof Sheathing

**Notes:**
Plywood is better relative to GWP

## BEES Analysis

- Roof Sheathing

## BEES Analysis

- Roof Sheathing

## BEES Analysis

- Roof Sheathing

## ATHENA® EcoCalculator

**Notes:**
Example: Concrete from slab on grade
GWP – Global Warming Potential –This is the amount of greenhouse gases created in the extraction, processing, transportation, construction, and disposal of each material.  Measured in tons unless specified otherwise.

May be inconsistencies.  Work in progress.

## Conclusions

- Deconstruction along with proper material selection can result in reductions in GHG emissions
- Decon 2.0 Analysis suggests certain DoD buildings are good candidates for deconstruction
- WARM Analysis shows that deconstruction activities can decrease GHG emissions
- BEES Analysis: when analyzing the global warming by life-cycle stage, raw materials acquisition contributes the most to GHG emissions
- BEES Analysis identified carbon dioxide as the most prevalent GHG emission
- Deconstruction can help the DoD meet EO 13423

## Next Steps

- Incorporate GHG emissions calculator into Decon 2.0
- Continue to assist installations in validating carbon credit for innovative waste management  alternatives to meet anticipated GHG tracking and reporting requirements.
- Assist installation in identifying alternate funding sources for meeting new federal GHG policy goals.
- Identify emerging building materials and technology alternatives most suitable for solid waste sustainability, energy efficiency, and reduction of GHG.
- Provide technology transfer for alternatives tailored to meet new DoD-wide solid waste sustainability policy.

## Acknowledgements

**NDCEE Executive Agent****	**Mr. Tad Davis, DASA (ESOH)
**NDCEE Program Director****	**Mr. Hew Wolfe, ODASA (ESOH)
**NDCEE Program Manager**	Dr. Charles Lechner, ODASA (ESOH)
**NDCEE Contracting Officer’s ****	**Mr. Tom Moran, ODASA (ESOH)
**	****Representative**
**	****	****	**
**Government Technical Monitor****	****  **Dr. Eddy Smith, P.E.,  USACE
**NDCEE Program Manager**	Mr. Bill Boone

## Points of Contact

**	**
- Mr. Bill Boone, Program Manager
- NDCEE-*CTC*
- (727) 549-7251
- boonew@ctc.com
**	****	**
- Mr. Scott Maurer, Technical Lead
- NDCEE-*CTC*
- (727) 549-7031
- maurers@ctc.com
- Dr. Eddy Smith, Government Technical Monitor
- USACE ERDC-CERL
- (217) 373-3488
- Edgar.D.Smith@usace.army.mil

*This work was funded through the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations and Environment) and conducted under contract W74V8H-04-D-0005 Task 449.  *

*DISCLAIMER: The contents of this document are not to be used for advertising, publication, or promotional purposes. Citation of trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products. All product names and trademarks cited are the property of their respective owners. The views, opinions, and/or findings contained in this presentation are those of the author(s) and should not be construed as an official Department of the Army position, policy, or decision unless so designated by other official documentation.*