THE 

GREENING 

CURVE

Lessons Learned in the Design of the 

New EPA Campus in North Carolina

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPA 220/K-02-001
THE 

GREENING 

CURVE

Lessons Learned in the Design of the 

New EPA Campus in North Carolina

November 2001

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Sandra Mendler, of Hellmuth, Obata and Kassabaum, was the 

principal author of the Greening Curve. Contributors and reviewers

included Wanda Allen,Tom Ashmore,Allen Atkins, Bob Barr, Jim

Doussard, Bill Gaines, Jamie Gagliarducci, Sandy Germann, Bucky Green,

Judy Kincaid, Bill Laxton, Sandra Leibowitz, Fred Livingston, Chris Long,

Gail Lindsey, Nadav Malin, Lisa McCabe, Billy Morris, Michael Overcash,

Robert Payne, Suzanne Roberts, Peter Schubert, Rhonda Sherman,

Donna Stankus, James White, Gail Whitfield, Joyce Yin and many others.
TABLE OF 

CONTENTS

Introduction 7

Project Summary 11

The Process

The Importance of Common Sense

The Result

Lessons Learned 13

Background 15

Sustainability 16

What is Sustainable Development?

Green Buildings

Sustainable Design Resources

Sustainable Design for Federal Facilities

Resource Conservation

Pollution Prevention

Ecosystems Protection

Indoor Environmental Quality

Design Process Discussion

The Right Start 21

Making the Commitment

Defining the Challenge

Prioritizing Environmental Goals

Embedding Green Goals in Conceptual Design

Seizing Early Opportunities

Design Optimization: A Cyclical Process 26

Evaluating Criteria/Revising Assumptions

Identifying Performance Benchmarks

Using Models and Evaluation Tools

Researching Environmental Impact

Greening the Team 31

Environmental Champions on the Team

Local Sustainability Network

Integrated Team Approach 

Maintaining the Commitment 32

Following Through on the Details

Tracking Environmental Performance

Using Green Value Engineering

Preparing for Construction

Conclusion 37
Design Issues Discussion

Site Design 38

Minimize Site Disruption

Structured Parking

Fire Lanes

Erosion Control

Loop Road

Preservation and Enhancement of Wetland Areas

Specimen Tree Study

Water Quality 41

Pollution Prevention Strategies

Erosion Control

Water Pretreatment Options

Landscaping 43

Low-Maintenance Landscaping

Grasses and Wildflowers

Wetland Plantings

Composting

Building Envelope 45

Evaluation of Building Loads

Sun Control

Glass Selection

Thermally Broken Windows

Light Shelves

Insulation

Infiltration

Albedo Control

Operable Windows 

Space Planning 49

Modular Office Design

Modular Lab Design

Building Atrium 51

Building Massing

Energy and Daylighting Analysis

Atrium Skylight Options

Lighting Systems 53

Green Lights

Daylighting

Task Lighting

Laboratory Lighting

Office Lighting

Special Spaces

Lighting Controls

Exit Signs
Building Mechanical Systems 55

Energy Modeling

Central Utility Plant

High Efficiency Chillers and Boilers

Variable Air Volume

Outside Air Economizer Cycle

Variable Frequency Drives

High Efficiency Motors and Fans

Heat Reclamation for Hot Water Generation

Laboratory Fume Hoods

Heat Recovery for Laboratory Exhaust

CFC Free Refrigeration Equipment

Building Humidification

Central Direct Digital Control (DDC) System

Building Commissioning

Building Acceptance Test Manual

Summary of HVAC Systems

Water Conservation 63

Water Conserving Fixtures

Water Efficient Cooling Towers

Ozone Treatment for Cooling Towers

Alternative Technologies 64

Photovoltaics 

Fuel Cells

Wind Power 

Solar Hot Water 

Central Hot Water vs. Point-of-Use Hot Water

Grey Water Reuse

Rain Water Catchment 

Building Materials 67

Life Cycle of Materials and Products

Durable Materials

Recycled Content

Local Materials

Low Toxic and Low VOC Materials

Sustainably Harvested Wood

Resource Recovery

Site Materials

Government Procurement Requirements

Indoor Air Quality 72

Source Control, Source Isolation and Source Dilution

Designing for Indoor Air Quality

IAQ Facilities Operation Manual

Indoor Air Quality vs. Energy Efficiency

Low-Emission Materials

IAQ Testing of Materials

Construction Procedures

Risk Prevention 78

Electromagnetic Fields

Radon Gas

Waste Management 79

Efficient Building Design

Waste Reduction
The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 

Increased Building Longevity

Building Adaptability

Collection and Handling of Recyclables

Recycling Chutes 

Reuse of On-Site Materials

Construction Waste Recycling

Gypsum Grinding

Construction 82

Partnering for Construction

Plant Rescue

Reuse of Land Clearing Debris

Rock Crushing

On-Site Concrete Batch Plant

RotoReclaimer

Salvage of Demolition Materials for Reuse

Construction Waste Recycling

Use of Recycled Content Building Materials

Submittals Review During Construction

Constant Vigilance

Endnotes
Introduction

The Greening Curve

Buildings have an enormous impact on the environment. Consuming hundreds of

tons of building materials, drawing billions of watts of electricity and burning

countless barrels of fuel during each their lifetimes, every home, school, hospital,

factory, lab or office that we build will gobble up natural resources and effect

pollution for many decades. So when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

started planning the largest facility in its history, environmental impacts were key

considerations.The Agency faced a haunting question–how could EPA build more

than one million square feet of labs and offices on a wooded, 132-acre site without

making sustainability a key consideration?

The answer was easy.As one of the leading environmental organizations in the

world, EPA had to lead by example. But what did this mean in practice? What,

exactly, should be done to build a “green” building? On a government project with

an average budget, how could EPA pay the price to build a campus that would serve

as a model for environmental stewardship? Finding the answers would prove to be

quite a challenge, especially since few people believed it was possible to be

ecologically smart without being economically foolish.

As EPA began designing this new campus, a revolution was quietly stirring.

Designers and builders around the globe were starting to work together to

define sustainable building practices.As success stories were shared and new

ideas caught on, the green building movement began to emerge.

As the national and international design and construction communities worked

diligently to address the issue of sustainability, so did the team that designed

the EPA campus.The steep learning curve for green buildings presented

countless questions, yet offered few easy answers. Nonetheless, a growing

number of architects, engineers, builders and facility owners sought to define

for themselves what was needed to build high-performance buildings in

environmentally-responsible ways.The project team for the new EPA Campus

at Research Triangle Park immersed itself in this dialogue–actively participating

and helping to shape many of the discussions.

Thus, the parallel paths met.The new EPA campus took root as sustainable

buildings began to grow in number and significance. “The Greening Curve”

shares lessons from this common journey in the hope that others will be able

to create even better, more environmentally-sound buildings in the future.

EPA Campus Milestones 

1984-1991 Planning

1992-1995 Design

1996-1997 Procurement

1997-2001 Construction

INTRODUCTION

7
The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 

Sustainable Building Milestones

1987 “Sustainability” defined by the World Commission on 

Environment and Development.

1990 American Institute of Architects (AIA) Committee on the 

Environment established.

1992 Green Building Case Studies start to emerge–Audubon 

House (New York City), Natural Resources Building

(Olympia,Washington) and others.

Environmental Resources Guide funded by EPA and

published by AIA.

Energy Policy Act passed in the United States

1993 U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) established.

Early Green Building Assessment Tools unveiled in Canada

(BEPAC) and Great Britain (BREEAM).

Federal Executive Orders issued on acquisition, recycling,

waste prevention and ozone-depleting substances. Other

Executive Orders followed through the year 2000, covering

energy and water conservation and environmental

management.

1995 Federal Guidelines for Buying Recycled issued by EPA 

(Recovered Materials Advisory Notice).

1996 Sustainable Building Technical Manual published by EPA, U.S.

Department of Energy, USGBC and Public Technology, Inc.

1997 Green Developments case studies published by Rocky 

Mountain Institute.

1998 First U.S. Green Building Assessment Tool released by

USGBC as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

(LEED).

First International Green Building Assessment Tool created

and tested through the Green Building Challenge (GBC)

conference in Canada.

Green Building Advisor guidelines and case studies issued by

the Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainable

Technology.

BEES Life Cycle Materials Database first released by the

National Institute of Standards and Technology (Building for

Environmental and Economic Sustainability–BEES).

8
Introduction

Learning Together

The team that created the new EPA campus involved itself in the development of

several of these nationally recognized sustainable building tools–such as LEED, the

Green Building Challenge, the Environmental Resource Guide, BEES and the Green

Building Advisor. Locally, the team also helped craft the Triangle J Regional High

Performance Building Guidelines, as well as the “WasteSpec” construction recycling

specification which has now become a national reference.

By joining forces with others who were eager to make better buildings, and by

tapping EPA’s own in-house environmental experts, the design team was able

to enhance the quality of the new campus while advancing the broader

dialogue on sustainability.

The Team

EPA proved that a state-of-the-art laboratory and office complex can be a

model for environmental stewardship without costing extra.The key to this

success was a dynamic, creative team approach that involved a radical shift in

culture. From day one, the environment was placed on equal footing with cost

and performance–a new mindset that helped guide every major decision and

ultimately created a model for sustainable facilities.

Key members of the project team are as follows:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

As the owner, EPA was a hands-on, active participant in the project. In

addition to full-time project managers and engineers, EPA brought

researchers and regulatory program experts in as advisors on

environmental issues.

U.S. General Services Administration

GSA served as a technical consultant during design and managed the

construction phase of the new EPA campus.

9
The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 

U.S.Army Corps of Engineers

The Army Corps of Engineers was the primary design consultant to

EPA and GSA throughout design and construction.

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

EPA’s neighbor and partner on the federal site, NIEHS operates

central campus utility services and shares responsibility for the 

on-site child care center.

Designers–HOK

Hellmuth, Obata + Kassabaum (HOK) Inc. was the lead design firm,

and their newly-formed national “Green Team” leader became an

integral member of the EPA project team. Major consultants included

Roberts/Stacy Group (associated architect), R.G.Vanderweil, Inc.

(mechanical/electrical), Greenhorne and O’Mara, Inc. (civil),Weidlinger

Associates (structural), GPR Planners (lab design), and Cortell

Associates (environmental).

Construction Manager–Gilbane

As a consultant to GSA, Gilbane Building Company provided

construction administration and quality assurance services.

Construction Contractor–Clark

Clark Construction Group built the 1.1 million square foot main

facility and campus infrastructure.

Design-Build Contractor–Beers

During the construction of the main facility, Beers Construction

Company updated and redesigned EPA’s National Computer Center

and built this separate, 100,000 square foot building on the campus.

The Green Bottom Line

Here’s what the team has delivered–a 100-year building, 40% energy savings,

80% construction waste recovery, 100% stormwater treatment through native

plants and wetlands on site, soothing daylight in offices, clean indoor air,

flexible labs and more–all with no extra budget for building “green.”

10
11

The new EPA Campus at Research Triangle Park, North Carolina is home to 

one of the world’s largest groups of scientists, engineers, policy makers and

administrators dedicated to understanding and solving environmental problems.

With hundreds of environmentally-friendly features, it’s also a model “green

building” and proof that environmental protection can be accomplished 

without raising costs. 

The new campus is the largest construction project in EPA’s history, and from the

start, EPA recognized it had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to lead by example.

EPA chose to build a home that strongly reflected the missions to be carried out

within its walls. While providing the Agency with flexible, state-of-the-art

laboratories and offices, the new campus also embodies a solid environmental 

ethic in every aspect of design, construction and operation. 

The 1.2 million square foot facility is located on a 133-acre site, part of a 511-acre

federal campus dedicated to environmental and public health research. It

accommodates more than 2,000 people and contains 600 laboratory modules in five

laboratory wings, three office wings and a six-story office tower with a cafeteria and

conference center. The buildings are organized along a series of atria that act together

as a “main street” to enhance communication among professional staff. Laboratory

types include chemistry and biology labs, materials testing labs, electronics labs,

automobile testing facilities, and large-scale combustion research labs.

The Process

From the beginning, the core design group focused on defining environmental

objectives and tracking progress toward meeting them. Work sessions included

participation by green advocates, architects, engineers and building users including

researchers and administrative officers. One of the most valuable benefits of the

process was the discussion between technical and non-technical people. Innovative

PROJECT

Project Name

SUMMARY

US EPA Campus

Location 

Research Triangle Park,

North Carolina

Completion Date 

Year 2001

Square Footage

Total gross area: 1,160,000

Net program area: 625,000

• Laboratory space: 270,000

• Office space: 220,000

• Computer center: 70,000

• Building common: 50,000

• Child care center: 15,000

Examples of Materials Used

• 4 acres of concrete block walls 

• 35 acres of drywall

• 7 acres of carpet 

• 12 acres of ceiling tile

• 2,861 interior doors

• 19.6 miles of telcom conduit

Accomplishments

Site Design

Building fits within contours of

site, reducing need to regrade

and limiting disruption to habitats

and wetlands. Natural woodlands

and wildflower plantings minimize

water, fertilizer and pesticide use,

and reduce associated

maintenance costs.

Water Quality

Stormwater runoff is treated

naturally using bio-retention, an

innovative system that uses soil

and plants to remove

contaminants from stormwater.

Reductions in impervious surface

for roadways and parking.

increase green space.
The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 

solutions emerged from systematically

reviewing multiple options, and making

comparisons with a variety of functional

and environmental benchmarks. The

environmental soundness of decisions

was tested in every phase of design.

The Importance of

Common Sense

Raising questions every step of the way,

design team members maintained a

focus on their specialties while

collaborating across disciplines to

identify creative, practical solutions. By

stepping back and viewing the whole

through the lens of environmental

stewardship, large, seemingly obvious

issues were uncovered that might

otherwise have been overlooked. 

For example:

Why install non-native turf grass that

requires ongoing maintenance and will use 250,000 gallons of water per month in the

summer, when we can use wildflowers, native grasses and native woodland plantings

that will be more appropriate to the natural site environment and require little care?

Why would water quality ponds that were intended to serve as a passive “natural”

technology require the destruction of acres of forestland? Wasn’t there a solution that

would be less disruptive to the site?

How can we install over seven acres of carpeting into a facility without understanding

how the choice of carpeting affects the longevity of the carpet, how maintenance

impacts indoor air quality and what the recyclability is at the end of its useful life?

The Result

The facility limits environmental 

impact throughout all aspects of its

design, construction and operation.

Within a fixed budget, the project 

team was able to meet all functional

requirements, reduce long-term

operating costs and improve

environmental performance. The 

result is a campus that reflects the values

of EPA through its stewardship of

natural resources while simultaneously

demonstrating the added value that can

be realized from a sustainable approach

to design and construction. 

Energy Conservation

Compared with standard new

lab/office construction, the EPA

Campus uses 40% less energy

for a projected savings of more

than one million dollars per

year–conserving non-renewable

fossil fuels and reducing air

emissions.

Lighting

Daylighting, high-efficiency lamps

and ballasts, task lighting, and

smart controls yield savings in

electrical energy use and

improve lighting quality.

Building Materials

Building materials selected to be

durable and low maintenance,

and to minimize life-cycle

environmental impact.

Specifications ensure

compliance with environmental

requirements, such as recycled

content, sustainably-harvested

wood and chemical content

limits.

Indoor Air Quality (IAQ)

Improved ventilation criteria,

special construction

requirements and careful

selection of materials and

finishes promote superior IAQ.

A comprehensive IAQ Facility

Operations Manual was

produced to guide future

operations and maintenance.

Waste Recycling

Design accommodates recycling

during occupancy. 80% of all

construction waste recycled for

a diversion of about 10,000 tons

of material from local landfills.

Design flexibility conserves

resources by minimizing impact

of future changes.

12
13 Lessons Learned

LESSONS

LEARNED

Green Design Is Better Design

In addition to being environmentally responsible, the green design strategies

employed for the EPA Campus project provided equal or better performance in

terms of comfort, durability and ease of maintenance. Benefits for occupants

include greater access to daylight, more fresh air, protected forest and wetland

areas and a design that feels more connected to nature.

Green Design Is Affordable

Energy and water conservation, low-impact site design, materials minimization

and other choices have clear economic benefits. Green design features with little

financial payback can be afforded by making trade-offs in other areas of a project.

Balance tough choices with easy wins.

Make the Commitment

Project leaders must make clear, consistent, and unambiguous statements about

their commitment to design and build a green building. An owner can underscore

their commitment to green design by including environmental design requirements

in the design contract.

Focus on the Process

The state-of-the-art for green design is evolving rapidly, and the best green design

solutions are highly responsive to their site and the unique requirements of their

building type. Focus on the design process to achieve your goals.

Seek out Green Partners

There is a growing community of architects, engineers and builders that are 

dedicated to developing green buildings. Begin with committed partners that share

your vision and enjoy the challenge of green design.

Recruit Environmental Champions

To maintain a focus on green design goals, owners, designers and builders need to

identify green champions to lead within their ranks. Green advocates on the team

can perform ongoing design reviews and promote multi-disciplinary collaboration

to achieve the best solutions. 

Identify Performance Benchmarks

Benchmarks put performance data in perspective. Seek out benchmark

information that will allow the team to understand “typical” performance as well

as the potential for “improved” green building performance. 

Tap Into the Sustainability Network

Awareness and knowledge of green design is growing rapidly, and many are eager

to share their knowledge in the interest of protecting the environment. Discover

extensive resources on the internet and in print, and place a priority on local

resources. Talk to others who have been through a green building process, and visit

their facilities. 
The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 

Reconsider Assumptions

Design criteria drive performance. Great savings can come from challenging

criteria that may no longer be valid. Encourage the team to raise questions and 

re-evaluate assumptions. 

Make Time for Research

Even though more and more resources are being created to help design teams

understand environmental impacts, innovative design solutions will require

research to identify the best solutions. Don’t rush the process unnecessarily.

Use Models and Evaluation Tools

Energy and daylighting models can help the team make choices that reduce first costs

and save energy throughout the life of the project. Green building evaluation tools

can bring a comprehensive sustainability focus to the design process, and can help

assess actual results for whole buildings and sites. Make a commitment to use energy

and daylight modeling and evaluation tools creatively to improve design performance.

Seize Early Opportunities

Make an effort to integrate green design strategies in the early phases of design.

While it is never too late to make a better choice, the cost of shifting to greener

design alternatives will increase over time.

Use Green Value Engineering

Often seen as a threat to green design because of its focus on immediate savings,

value engineering (VE) can be used as a tool for improving environmental 

performance. To ensure a balanced focus on cost, function and the environment,

assign green advocates as full-time participants in the VE process.

Prepare for Construction

Take time to explain green design goals to the construction team. Because green

design strategies are still new to many contractors, sessions to educate both 

management and the workers can be extremely valuable. Establish the

environment as a project goal on equal footing with traditional construction goals

of safety, quality, budget and schedule.

Follow Through During Construction

Pay close attention throughout the construction process, with a keen eye toward

specification compliance and substitutions.

Keep Talking

Make sure that environmental considerations are part of key conversations. It takes

constant reinforcement to maintain the focus.

14
15 Background

BACKGROUND

In 1968, the Research Triangle Foundation deeded land to the federal government

for a “U.S. Public Health Service Research Park,” setting aside 511 acres for 

federal environmental research facilities. The National Institute of Environmental

Health Sciences (NIEHS) was the first to locate there in 1980. The National

Center for Air Pollution Control, later to become EPA, had recently moved to

North Carolina from Cincinnati, Ohio. Without funds for a permanent facility,

they set up temporary quarters in leased space in the Raleigh/Durham/Research

Triangle Park (RTP) area. As EPA became established in RTP, it expanded into a

collection of leased buildings which were not ideally suited to its research needs.

This dispersion of staff led to extensive amounts of time spent traveling 

between buildings.

Between 1984 and 1991, several studies by EPA and GSA evaluated long-term

housing alternatives for EPA in Research Triangle Park. The studies consistently

found that EPA could not continue to conduct its research programs in the 

existing leased facilities, and recommended consolidation into a new governmentowned facility on the federal site. The studies also found that consolidation would

significantly reduce operating costs–saving the government millions of dollars each

year while vastly improving laboratory conditions and employee productivity. 

In considering housing alternatives, the government also evaluated the option of

renovating existing buildings to upgrade laboratories and consolidate the

workforce. Although building renovation is often viewed as environmentally

preferable to new construction, this was found to be an impractical alternative.

EPA owned none of its own facilities, and even the largest was only half the size

needed to consolidate operations. Massive investment would have been required to

upgrade structural, mechanical and electrical deficiencies and to meet current code

requirements. In late 1991, the decision was made to build a new campus when

Congress appropriated funds for design.
The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 

SUSTAINABILITY

What is Sustainable Development?

Sustainable development was defined by the United Nations World Commission

on Environment and Development in the 1987 Brundtland Report, as “those paths

of social economic and political progress that meet the needs of the present without

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”1 In 1993,

a year after the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the World Congress of Architects

similarly defined “sustainability” for the architectural community.

There is general agreement that environmental degradation is accelerating

worldwide, and that projected increases in rates of consumption and population

growth cannot be sustained. Solutions will require widespread efforts to increase

efficiency, reduce pollution and restore ecosystems. With a goal of building in

harmony with the natural environment, sustainable development involves a more

sophisticated understanding of natural systems than is required by conventional

development. Sustainable design solutions also require designers to expand their

awareness of the environmental impact related to industrial processes,

transportation and construction. Because the impact of buildings and construction

on the environment is significant, there is great potential for improving the

environment through better design of buildings. This requires a responsibility to act

differently than we have in the past to reduce traditional environmental impact.

Green Buildings

Roughly one-third of the environmental impact in the U.S. is reported to come

from constructing, operating and demolishing buildings. This impact is a result of

both the direct and indirect consequences of land use, natural resource depletion,

air and water pollution and waste generation.

Green buildings seek to limit adverse impact on the environment and health

throughout their entire life cycles–from the acquisition of materials,

transportation, construction, use and eventual disuse. To accomplish this,

Sustainability means 

meeting our needs today

without compromising the

ability of future generations

to meet their own needs.

—UIA/AIA World Congress of

Architects, June 1993

42%

40%

30%

25%

24%

20%

15%

12%

Energy Use

Atmospheric Emissions

Raw Materials

Solid Waste

Water Use

Water Effluents

Land Use

Other Releases

0% 50% 100%

Environmental Impact of Buildings

Percentage of U.S. nationwide, annual impact

 Source: Worldwatch Institute and U.S. EPA2

16
17 Sustainability

designers must view the building holistically and consider environmental impact

related to site development, transportation and infrastructure, as well as the

impact related to the full life-cycle of all building materials and products that

comprise the building.

Green buildings represent important steps in the evolution of buildings and

communities toward sustainability. As such, they consider all opportunities to:

• Conserve Resources

• Prevent Pollution

• Protect Ecosystems

• Enhance Indoor Environmental Quality

Sustainable Design Resources

When EPA began planning for its new facility, the concept of “sustainable design”

was just beginning to gain momentum in the U.S. Only a handful of green case

study buildings had been completed, and the information on what to do and how

to do it was scarce. In 1990, shortly after the 20th anniversary of Earth Day, the

American Institute of Architects (AIA) established the Committee on the

Environment (COTE) to begin the process of filling the information void for the

architectural profession. In 1991, EPA entered into an agreement with the AIA to

work together to create a comprehensive environmental design resource guide 

entitled the Environmental Resource Guide (ERG). The ERG was first published

in 1992 as an AIA publication, and was subsequently republished by John Wiley &

Sons in an updated format in 1996, followed by annual updates in 1997 and 1998. 

Throughout the 1990s, the “green building” movement continued to evolve. In

1993, the U.S. Green Building Council was formed and began work on a green

building rating system for the U.S. In 1996, a comprehensive sustainable design

resource guide entitled the Sustainable Building Technical Manual was published

by Public Technology Inc. with the support of EPA, the Department of Energy

and the U.S. Green Building Council. In 1997, John Wiley & Sons published

Green Developments, a compendium of 100 recently completed green building

case studies written by the Rocky Mountain Institute. Since this time, additional

green design resources have emerged. 

Sustainable Design for Federal Facilities

The Energy Policy Act (EPACT) of 1992 was an important milestone in the

sustainable design movement because it signaled the federal government’s

recognition of its own leverage, applied through example and through unparalleled

purchasing power. EPACT was signed into law in October 1992, shortly after

design work had begun on the new EPA Campus. It provided guidance to federal

facility planners on how to improve the energy performance of their agencies, and

it set a goal of a 30% reduction in commercial building energy usage by 2005,

based on a 1985 baseline. EPACT required that all government buildings “install

in Federal Buildings owned by the United States all energy and water conservation

measures with payback periods of less than 10 years,” and that these conservation

measures be evaluated using a life-cycle costing methodology.

EPACT also mandated that each federal agency that constructs at least five buildings

a year “designate at least one building, at the earliest stage of development, to be a

showcase highlighting advanced technologies and practices for energy efficiency, or

use of solar and other renewable energy.” Even though EPACT and the subsequent

Executive Orders (EOs) were enacted after design had already begun on the new

A Sampling of

Environmental Requirements

Mandated by Executive Orders

EO #12843:Procurement

Requirements and Policies for

Federal Agencies for OzoneDepleting Substances,4/93

Requires minimizing procurement of

ozone-depleting substances per 

phaseout schedules outlined in the

Clean Air Act.

EO #12873:Federal Acquisition,

Recycling,and Waste Prevention,

10/93

Requires EPA to publish federal

procurement guidelines for

recommended recovered content 

in certain materials.

EO #12902:Energy Efficiency and

Water Conservation at Federal

Facilities,3/94

Requires federal agencies to implement

conservation strategies in their buildings

as stated in EPACT.

EO #13101:Greening the

Government Through Waste

Prevention,Recycling,and Federal

Acquisition,9/98

Requires GSA and Department of

Defense to develop sustainable design

and development principals for the siting,

design and construction of new facilities;

requires agencies to design new facilities

based on lowest life-cycle cost.

EO #13123:Greening the

Government Through Efficient

Energy Management,6/99

Requires government to promote

sustainable building concepts and help

foster markets for emerging sustainable

technologies.

EO #13148:Greening the

Government Through Leadership

in Environmental Management,

4/00

Requires federal agencies to integrate

environmental accountability into daily

decision making and long-term planning

processes across all agency missions,

activities and functions.
The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 

Campus, it provided additional support and validation to project team members

committed to developing the EPA Campus as a showcase facility. In June 1999, the

federal commitment to green buildings remained strong as EO #13123 was issued,

further advancing the government’s pledge to green its facilities. 

Resource Conservation

Resource use, which includes energy, water and materials, is fundamental to the

impact buildings have on the environment. Non-renewable resources are being

depleted and many renewable resources, such as timber and water, are being

extracted at rates that exceed their ability to be replenished. According to the

Worldwatch Institute, three billion tons of raw materials, approximately 40% of

all materials entering the global economy, are turned into foundations, walls, pipes

and panels for building construction each year.3

Green buildings seek to use environmentally-preferable building materials. This

refers to all of the products and materials that have reduced the environmental

impact over the full life-cycle of the material, as compared to other available

options. Conservation of material resources also depends on efficient use of 

materials, enhanced durability and strategies to encourage re-use and recycling of

resources. Green buildings accommodate re-use and recycling so that waste 

generated by building occupants can be handled properly. Construction waste,

which constitutes approximately 25% of municipal landfill content, can also be

reduced, re-used and recycled. 

Energy conscious design reduces the use of energy resources through

improvements to siting, building envelope design and daylighting with energyefficient electric lighting. Required mechanical systems should be optimized to

maximize efficiency, and heat reclaim systems that “recycle” energy for heating,

cooling and/or humidifying the air should be investigated. 

U.S. ENERGY USE WITH

AREAS AFFECTED BY ARCHITECTURE

?%

 impact of architect's

decisions on transportation

20%

fossil fuel

space heating, cooling 

domestic hot water, misc.

11%

electricity for 

building operation

2%

electricity for

building construction

3%

fossil fuel for

building construction

energy use not

related to construction

or operation of buildings

Source: NCARB, 1993

Opportunities to 

Conserve Resources

Energy Use

• Heating and cooling

• Air circulation

• Lighting 

• Water heating

• Special equipment

• Plug loads

Water Use

• Landscape irrigation

• Plumbing fixtures

• Mechanical equipment

• Appliances 

Building & Site Materials

• Raw material acquisition 

• Production processes 

• Packaging and shipping

• Installation and finishing 

• Durability 

• Maintenance

• Waste disposal and recycling

NCARB

The National Council of

Architectural Registration Boards

is a non-profit federation of 55

state and territory architectural

registration boards in the 

United States.

18
19 Sustainability

Finally, conservation of water resources in green buildings involves strategies to use

less water for HVAC equipment and appliances, flushing fixtures, potable water

uses and irrigation. Water harvesting and water re-use strategies can reduce

demand for potable water supplies.

Pollution Prevention

Buildings and their sites contribute to the creation of waste and pollution as a

result of their use of energy, water and materials. In nature there is no waste

because all by-products of natural processes serve as “food” for other processes.

Many of the industrial processes employed in the creation of buildings, however,

release solid, liquid or gaseous by-products into the environment that serve no 

useful purpose and are potentially harmful.

Green building design searches for solutions that prevent the creation of pollution 

at the source. By limiting energy and water use, and making efficient use of 

environmentally-preferable materials, pollution can be reduced. Integrating

environmentally-sound recycling into design solutions can further reduce pollution.

Waste treatment followed by safe disposal is required for pollution that cannot be

prevented or recycled. On-site, natural treatment options should be considered to

treat waste including bioretention, constructed wetlands and composting. 

Ecosystems Protection

The impact of buildings on natural ecosystems occurs on multiple levels, including

loss of open space and habitat, intrusion on fragile ecosystems, alteration of

stormwater flows, erosion and loss of soil resources, contamination of water

resources and use of non-native and invasive species or monocultures of vegetation.

Green buildings seek to develop “low impact” solutions which work in harmony

with natural systems, and minimize disruption to plant and animal habitats.

Redevelopment of previously built sites and compact development can limit 

disruption. Native, low maintenance landscapes, reductions in impervious materials

and natural filtration of stormwater can reduce the need for treatment strategies. 

Indoor Environmental Quality

In the United States, it has been estimated that people spend more than 90% of

their time indoors.4 This makes the quality of the indoor environment critical.

Indoor environmental quality refers to comfort and building-related health and

productivity issues that result from the quality of interior lighting, acoustics, 

thermal control and indoor air quality (IAQ).

Indoor air quality depends upon a variety of factors, including the levels of

particulates, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and molds, bacteria or other

biological contaminants in the air stream. Indoor air contaminants can come from

building and finish materials, cleaning and maintenance products, mechanical

equipment, microbial growth in wet areas, tobacco smoke, radon gas, office

machines, exterior pollution and a variety of other sources. 

EPA rates indoor air pollution among the top five environmental risks to public

health. It has been estimated that unhealthy indoor air is found in up to 30% of

new and renovated buildings. Both the long- and short-term health effects of poor

indoor air are revealing themselves at an increasing rate due to occupant 

complaints, while specific IAQ problems are being discovered through testing 

and monitoring.

Sources of Pollution

Energy Use

• Petroleum extraction and

refinement 

• Oil spills

• Air emissions and nuclear waste

from energy usage

• Air pollution from automobiles 

and other transportation

• Thermal waste

• Ozone-depleting substances

Water Use

• Contaminated runoff

• Waste water

• Water treatment by-products

Materials Use

• By-products from material 

manufacture

• Wasteful packaging

• Solid and liquid waste 

• Hazardous waste 

Environmental Impact on 

Ecosystems

• Displacement of habitat for 

buildings, roadways and parking

• Increase in impervious surface

• Reduction in groundwater 

recharge

• Soil erosion

• Contamination of water bodies

• Contamination of groundwater

• Use of invasive exotic plants 

• Use of fertilizers and pesticides 

• Urban heat island effect
The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 20

Temperature of the indoor environment is also an important factor. American

Society of Heating and Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers stipulates

that the indoor comfort zone is between 68 degrees Fahrenheit and 82 degrees

Fahrenheit, and 20 to 50 percent relative humidity. If people are too hot or too

cold, the discomfort will cause inefficiency in their performance.

Equally as important is lighting. Natural lighting generally improves the

environment, uplifting people and enhancing their productivity. Electrical lighting

should be designed to simulate the effect of natural light.

Acoustics are also a critical factor in the indoor environment. In today’s fast-paced

office environment, people need quiet spaces that minimize disruptive noise and

afford a sense of privacy.

Green building design solutions promote healthy environments while also seeking

improved comfort and occupant satisfaction. Recent studies have shown that

buildings with good indoor environmental quality can provide significant financial

benefits. Effective ventilation, natural lighting, indoor air quality and good

acoustics have been shown to significantly increase worker productivity. 

Impact on Indoor

Environmental Quality

Site & Landscape

• Daylight access

• Reflectivity of exterior 

materials

• Views, connection to nature

• Noise

• Outdoor air quality

• Vehicle exhaust

• Radon

• Pollen and other allergens

Building & Site Materials

• Chemical emissions from 

materials, adhesives and finishes 

• Microbial contamination

• Respirable fibrous materials

Building Operations

• Ventilation rates

• Temperature control

• Humidity control

• Daylighting

• Electric lighting levels 

• Glare

• Acoustics 

• Chemical emissions from 

cleaning materials

• Environmental tobacco smoke

• Noise

• Pest control
21 Design Process Discussion: The Right Start

Green buildings challenge the norms of the design and construction industry. 

Design teams must actively search for better alternatives to conventional models to

successfully reduce the environmental impact related to buildings and construction.

This search requires an improved decision model that balances cost, function and the

environment. The result is an approach that expands the traditional “cost-benefit”

decision model to one that includes environmental performance as a core value.

Early on, the design team focused on explicitly defining environmental objectives,

then tracking progress at each stage of design. To support this effort, an open,

collaborative process was established which enhanced dialogue and decision

making. The group found that design innovations led not only to the creation of a

more environmentally sound facility, but to improved quality and lower operating

costs as well. 

Even though this green design process required extensive research and

investigation of design alternatives, the group found that the overall design process

gained efficiencies from the use of an inclusive approach. Guided by clear goals

and defined milestones, this approach gave a sharp focus to the design effort,

enabling more to be accomplished within the boundaries of a conventional project

schedule and budget. 

The Right Start

At the beginning of every project, there is an opportunity to define goals and

objectives and establish a strategy for meeting them. First and foremost, EPA

made a commitment to design and build a green building. From there, the design

team proceeded to incorporate environmental design goals into each stage of the

planning process.

Making the Commitment

The sheer size of the EPA Campus project–over one million gross square feet of

offices and laboratories–magnified the environmental impact of each design 

decision. Understanding that by its very nature, the construction of the new facility

posed a negative impact on the environment, EPA felt a strong responsibility to

explore design options that promised to minimize this environmental burden.

In one of the early design reviews, a proposal was presented to route the road

leading to the new Campus through an area that featured a 100-year-old Oak tree.

The EPA team made a decision to re-route the road rather than sacrifice the tree

even though it did require additional time and money. This decision not only sent

a message to the entire project team underscoring the commitment to the

environment, it represented the reality of moving toward a green facility.

DESIGN

PROCESS 

DISCUSSION

FUNCTION

COST

ENVIRONMENT

FUNCTION

COST

Traditional Decision Model

Green Decision Model
The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 

When placed in the context of EPA’s organizational mission, this sense of 

obligation was further magnified. EPA felt that the design and construction of its

new facility presented not just an opportunity, but also an obligation to lead by

example. As the building owner, EPA would control nearly all design decisions. If

done correctly, the Agency believed that its facility could become a functional

model for the greening of other public and private sector facilities, and help

advance sustainable design and construction as an industry-wide practice. 

Defining the Challenge

Before the formal design of the new facility began, EPA set the course for the 

project by describing the environmental challenge both for itself and for the 

professional design team it would solicit. Green design criteria were written into

the key project documents, including the solicitation for Architect/Engineer (A/E)

services, the Program of Requirements (POR), and the contract with the chosen

A/E. By clearly and consistently presenting its environmental goals and explicitly

integrating them into the project requirements, EPA set a direction for the design

firms and established a set of procedures for tracking environmental performance

during the design process.

The solicitation for A/E services was EPA’s first opportunity to present its vision for

the new facility to potential A/E contractors. Recognizing the importance of

choosing a partner that would share EPA’s vision, the contract solicitation required a

“demonstrated corporate ability to design environmentally sound facilities.” Because

knowledge about green buildings was not widespread in the U.S. at the time, the

responses from A/E contractors enabled EPA to gauge the level of experience,

interest and enthusiasm for the challenge of designing a green building.

Environmental Requirements in the Design Contract

General

• Energy conscious design

• Highly durable facility design–anticipate a 100-year lifespan

• Environmentally-sensitive construction materials and products

• Materials and equipment with no ozone-depleting potential

• Construction materials with no recycled content

• Aggressive recycling plan

• Radon free 

• Water conserving design

Energy Conservation

• Daylighting and the optimum use of energy efficient lighting 

• Life-cycle cost analysis of HVAC systems over a 30-year period

• Building Automated System (BAS) for monitoring and control

Indoor Air Quality

• Controls for outdoor and indoor sources of indoor air pollution

• Detailed site evaluation to determine impact of the site on IAQ

• Plan for operation and maintenance of HVAC equipment 

• Innovative approaches to maximize ventilation efficiency

• Evaluation of building materials for potential impact on IAQ

• HVAC system that minimize impact on IAQ

• Evaluation for air cleaning devices

22

Make environmental goals for the

facility explicit in the Request for

Proposals and the Program of

Requirements.

Require that the Architect 

and Engineer demonstrate both

knowledge about and commitment

to sustainable design.

“The facility shall be designed to

reflect its mission.This translates

into a facility that conserves

energy, efficiently utilizes water,

promotes effective recycling, is

radon free and provides excellent

indoor air quality to its occupants.

The architectural and engineering

design shall implement proven

methods, strategies and

technologies which respect and

protect the environment.”

–EPA Program 

of Requirements
23 Design Process Discussion: The Right Start

Development of the POR for the new facility presented another important 

opportunity to steer the project toward its environmental goals. A typical POR

itemizes square footage requirements by space type and sets standards for the 

performance and quality of the facility. EPA expanded this approach through the

inclusion of broad-based environmental design considerations, supported by

detailed descriptions of features to be considered during the design process.

Ultimately the entire POR, including the environmental design requirements,

became part of the statement of work for the A/E contract.

In addition to the environmental design requirements captured in the POR, the

A/E contract contained specific deliverables for each stage of the project that 

supported the development of environmentally-preferable design options. For 

example, there were stand-alone requirements for indoor air quality submittals,

energy analysis and reports, life-cycle cost studies, site surveys, specimen tree studies,

an environmental assessment and documentation of related environmental permits. 

Prioritizing Environmental Goals

While EPA set forth a comprehensive list of environmental design requirements

for the A/E team to meet, it also recognized that the entire design team would

need to balance many competing considerations. Consequently, it was necessary to

integrate environmental goals into the larger matrix of goals for the facility as a

whole. The process of prioritizing would also provide an opportunity to build

consensus within the group on the relative importance of the environmental goals

for the project. 

As a first step, EPA held a two-day design kickoff session for all design team 

members for the purpose of goal setting and team building. During this session,

the group brainstormed a list of primary design goals for the facility. This list was

then discussed extensively to develop consensus within the group and to prioritize

goals. The process of developing goals as a group helped each of the members

develop a sense of ownership of and commitment to these goals. 

Among these overarching design goals, functionality and environmental design

were identified as the most important. Cost control was not listed as a priority to

be debated because it was accepted as a given. There was a fixed budget for the

project and that budget could not be exceeded. In terms of functionality, the 

facility was being built to support the activities of a diverse group of EPA

programs, and meeting the operational requirements of this work was paramount.

The focus on environmental design goals for the facility was underscored when the

entire team agreed that environmental design was also of primary importance.

With this decision, environmental performance expectations expanded, beyond

what was a collection of contract requirements for specific studies and reports

documenting environmental performance, to become a core issue. 

Embedding Green Goals in Conceptual Design

Concept design marks the beginning of the design process. It was during this

phase that the design team began to identify and develop the ideas that organized

the design. There are many issues at the core of green design that need to be

addressed up front, while there is an opportunity to influence the building form

and its placement and orientation on the site. These issues included:

• limit disruption to site 

• protect wetland areas and existing trees 

• develop orientation and massing to maximize daylight access 

• develop orientation and massing to maximize energy efficiency

• develop orientation to benefit fresh air flows 

Identify specific environmental

design requirements in the

Architect/Engineer contract.

Engage all team members in 

setting project goals including

environmental goals.

Encourage development of

environmental design goals that

are overarching in nature, as well

those that are specific and 

measurable.

EPA Campus Project Goals

Top-Tier Goals

• Functionality

• Environmental design

• Low life-cycle cost

Specific Goals

• Maintainability

• Natural light

• Communication

• Flexibility

• Close proximity/walkability

• Security
The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 

During this phase, the A/E created multiple concept diagrams in search of options

that were responsive to the functional requirements of the occupants, and that

held potential for meeting environmental goals. The time invested at this stage of

the design effort later proved invaluable. By systematically searching for a concept

design solution that addressed all key issues, the group avoided the need to make

disruptive changes as the design progressed. 

Many of the defining characteristics of the selected scheme made it more

responsive to the environment. For example, an “informal” composition with

buildings and parking decks arranged to fit within the existing site contours was

selected. This arrangement left more of the original site intact. Important natural

amenities were preserved such as the knoll of trees at the high-point of the site,

and the wetlands along the lake edge. This decreased site preparation costs and

disruption of habitat, and reduced the need for stormwater control measures.

Many environmental design solutions provided design benefits which made the

Campus more people-friendly. For example, as visitors come up the drive, they see

the facility revealed one piece at a time. Because the knoll of trees was left intact at

the high-point of the site, only parts of the building are visible from each vantage

point. Just as the preservation of the knoll minimizes the impact on the site, the

limited view of the one-million-square-foot facility minimizes the impact on the

senses, which could have been overwhelming.

In addition to addressing immediate issues of the site, the selected scheme provided

opportunities for future daylighting integration, energy efficiency and features that

would protect indoor air quality. The central atrium which connects the office

tower, cafeteria and conference center with labs and office wings, promotes the

efficient use of daylight. The atrium contributes to energy efficiency by reducing

the overall building surface area, while increasing access to daylight. The narrow

proportion of the office buildings and the perimeter corridor in the lab buildings

also increase access to daylight. To protect indoor air quality in the finished facility,

the fresh air intake vents were located upwind of the laboratory exhaust stacks,

based on prevailing winds.

Explore and test scheme design

options against stated criteria 

and goals.

Design Option Matrix This matrix of design options represents generic

site organizing concepts on one axis and functional concepts on the other.

Schemes were systematically scored, based on how they met the functional

and environmental goals.

24
25 Design Process Discussion: The Right Start

Selection of the final scheme required the core group to prioritize and to make

choices that would influence the future performance of the building. For example,

the preferred concept design left long building elevations exposed to low angle

afternoon sun from the west. After analyzing the pros and cons of all of the design

options, the design team placed a higher priority on preserving natural site features

than on providing a north-south orientation for all of the buildings. A north-south

orientation is typically preferred for daylighting because it allows for controlled

daylight to be shared in open office areas. For the EPA facility, the design team 

reasoned that the need to preserve wetlands and mature habitat areas was 

more important. 

Seizing Early Opportunities 

As the project moved into schematic design, additional opportunities emerged to

incorporate environmental features. Prior to developing a detailed design solution,

the program requirements were reviewed and verified to identify ways to reduce

space demands. For example, the team developed a system for locating conference

rooms and copy areas in standardized locations which allowed these areas to be

more easily shared. The introduction of a central library and shared support spaces

further consolidated resources and reduced overall space needs.

EPA needed a flexible organizational system that could accommodate changes in

research programs, and changes in the mix of labs and offices with a minimum of

renovation. By placing a high priority on flexibility, EPA reduced future renovation

costs, as well as associated materials use and contribution to the waste stream. The

lab buildings were designed with a designated service corridor and a “flexible zone”

of space parallel to the labs that could accommodate either offices or labs. Office

space standards limited the number of office sizes. Offices are clustered in suites

with fixed circulation patterns to enhance flexibility while ensuring the occupants

access to daylight. Office buildings were designed with approximately half of the

perimeter zone designated as open office areas so daylight can reach interior zones.

A number of fairly detailed environmental requirements needed to be considered

at this stage as well. For example, plans for recycling were developed while the

basic building organization was evolving. The conference center and cafeteria were

located near the main loading dock to enhance materials handling and recycling.

Building circulation routes were developed so that recyclables could be moved

from individual collection areas in the lab and office buildings to the central 

loading dock without crossing public areas. 

EPA’s mandate to eliminate duct lining as a preventative measure had an impact on

the building’s structural and mechanical system requirements. EPA requested that

the building be designed without duct linings because they can harbor mold and

microbial growth, becoming a site of potential contamination that is difficult to

localize and expensive to clean. Building ductwork can function well without

linings, however larger ducts are required, and mechanical room layouts must be

meticulously planned so sound can be attenuated. By incorporating this

requirement early in design, the design progressed smoothly and the impact 

on cost was negligible.

Verify and consolidate program

requirements to optimize facility

size and spatial arrangement.

Explore opportunities to design

with building modules that

enhance long-term flexibility.

Integrate detailed environmental

requirements in the programming

and concept design where 

possible, such as elimination of

internal duct lining and planning

for recycling.
The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 

Design Optimization: A Cyclical Process

As the project progressed into design development, the core design group worked

systematically to “optimize” the design of the new facility. This process involved

the careful evaluation of a broad range of solutions and the establishment of 

environmental performance benchmarks to put performance data in perspective.

Advanced simulation tools were utilized to predict energy and daylighting 

performance. As concepts were tested, the information base for decision making

expanded and some earlier decisions were revisited. As a result, the design process

was a cyclical one. The willingness of the team to reconsider and revise its initial

solutions to improve the design was important to the success of the project.

Evaluating Criteria/Revising Assumptions

The design criteria for the EPA campus were initially defined by the POR, EPA

health and safety policies, the federal site master plan, GSA design standards, state

codes and local guidelines. These criteria comprised a set of design requirements

and standards identified at the outset of design. Typically such criteria are accepted

as a given and design options are explored within these parameters. However, the

group found that many of the most innovative solutions that reduced both cost

and environmental impact, came about by challenging and reevaluating these basic

design criteria. For example, they considered everything from the site area,

roadway and utility requirements, to the laboratory exhaust requirements, fume

hood design, office ventilation rates and lighting levels. 

When the first round of concept design schemes was developed for the EPA

Campus, the design firm attempted to fit more than one million square feet of

building and 2,500 parking spaces on a 64-acre site. Three stories was the 

preferred height for the building initially proposed because it allowed for extensive

use of stairways instead of elevators to enhance communication between floors.

However, evaluation indicated that all of the preliminary concepts would have

profoundly altered the existing character of the site by forcing nearly complete

clearing. To preserve the trees, the design group decided to increase the building

height of the laboratories to five stories. The National Computer Center was

relocated as a separate building on a parcel of land one-quarter of a mile north of

the main campus. With the least day-to-day interaction with other EPA programs,

the Computer Center was the logical choice for relocation. Still, the distance

between the two facilities is an easy five-minute walk. 

Even with revised massing to allow for taller buildings and a reduced footprint,

much of the site area would be impacted by buildings and parking. However, the

revised design parameters provided the group sufficient flexibility to preserve

important natural features leaving the knoll of mature trees at the high-point of

the site, the site’s wetland areas and major drainage swales largely intact. Decked

parking, which is rarely utilized locally, would also limit paved area.

As the site design progressed, more design features were revisited. For example, the

number of parking spaces was revised from 2,500 to 1,800, the access roadway

through the site was revised from four lanes to two, fire lanes were rerouted, 

electrical ductbanks were relocated to beneath the roadway, and curbs and gutters

were eliminated in favor of grassy swales and bio-retention. Each of these decisions

required the design team to challenge components of the original design criteria.

Maintaining flexibility, within the constraints of schedule and cost, the group

proactively searched for solutions that were cost-effective, practical and

environmentally-preferable. The resulting design evolved and improved over time. 

Encourage open dialogue within

the team so that members will

challenge basic assumptions as

appropriate to improve the design.

26
27 Design Process Discussion: Design Optimization

A re-evaluation of energy criteria was critical to the success of the design. Since the

laboratories represented the largest portion of overall energy use, labs were given

especially close scrutiny. Ensuring the safety of laboratory workers who must 

handle hazardous substances on a daily basis was of highest priority. Ventilation

was designed to use 100% outside air and to provide 12 to 15 air changes per

hour (ACH) so that any contaminants would be quickly exhausted. After intensive

analysis, the design team was able to present alternatives to EPA safety officers that

satisfied concerns for uncomplicated, fail-safe solutions. Safe, simple and effective

energy savings were realized by linking the full closure of fume hood sashes with

room light switches. The normal exhaust ventilation rate is reduced by half when

research staff close fume hood sashes and turn off the lab lights as they leave for

the evening. 

Unfortunately, some of the design criteria that made sense when considered in 

isolation proved to have a ripple effect on other areas of the design that led the

group to reconsider. For example, the requirement for six ACH in the office areas

seemed to be beneficial in terms of indoor air quality, because it boosted the 

supply of fresh air. However, when energy modeling predicted that the energy 

consumption would be much higher than was anticipated, the group began to 

re-evaluate the issue. To test the validity of the air change requirement, common

contaminants known to be emitted in office environments due to occupants and

furnishings were “modeled” using a computer program called “Exposure.”7 This

study led to a reduction of air change rates to a minimum of four ACH that

maintained good indoor air quality, while improving energy efficiency. 

Identifying Performance Benchmarks

During design, the design group found that identification of performance

benchmarks was key to a successful multidisciplinary design dialogue. These

benchmarks, which identify both “typical” and “improved” performance, allowed

group members to become informed participants in a discussion that would 

otherwise have excluded them. For example, when architects were able to talk to

electrical or mechanical engineers about energy consumption in BTU per square

foot per year, they were better able to measure the value of proposed design 

solutions. These measures gave both specialists and non-specialists some insight

into when the design was “on track,” and when it could be improved.

When the design team first evaluated the energy performance of the building as

designed, members were shocked to find that the design was not only inefficient,

it was worse than the “standard” benchmark values. Although, the engineers were

using typically energy efficient components in the building, such as outside air

economizers, automated lighting controls, and high efficiency chillers, boilers, fans

and motors, the full benefits were not being realized. The use of energy efficient

equipment, without design refinements and systems integration, created a poor

result. Because the results of the energy modeling could be compared to a set of

benchmark values for typical energy performance in similar buildings, the group

was alerted to the need to refine the design. This led to a series of revisions to the

HVAC design that ultimately reduced energy consumption considerably. 

The design team also searched for benchmark information to guide other aspects

of the design. For example, the key source of benchmark information for indoor

air quality was the innovative program developed for the State of Washington. By

studying the details of the Washington program and analyzing its strengths and

weaknesses, the group could build directly on earlier efforts and propose a series 

of refinements. 

Energy Performance

Benchmarks

The U.S. Department of

Energy documents commercial

buildings energy consumption and

expenditures in the United States

for the purpose of benchmarking

commercial building energy

performance, including office

buildings, educational buildings,

health care buildings and

laboratories. Primary energy use

characteristics examined include:

• Gross energy intensity

• Energy expenditures by fuel type 

Rocky Mountain Institute

(RMI) in Snowmass, Colorado, also

benchmarks building energy

performance including

• Gross energy intensity

• Connected interior lighting load

• Plug load, as used

• Mechanical-cooling sizing

• Whole system cooling

• Air handling intensity

RMI’s benchmark figures are 

provided for average, good 

practice and advanced practice.

American Society of Heating,

Refrigeration and Air

Conditioning Engineers

(ASHRAE)

• Develops standards for 

the design of HVAC systems

• Develops and does research to 

produce a set of reference 

books for the design of heating,

refrigeration and air 

conditioning systems

• Organizes conventions and 

meetings to review new 

equipment and discuss 

innovations in the industry

• Is considered by most building

codes to be the standard for

design of HVAC systems
Search for environmental

benchmarks and performance

measures.

Begin energy modeling while 

there is sufficient time for the

modeling results to inform the

design process.

Carefully review engineering design

criteria as standards have changed

over time. Oversizing and

overlighting increases energy use,

first costs and operating costs.

Do not rely on “rule of 

thumb” design.

Using Models and Evaluation Tools

As the design group evaluated options, models and other tools that simulate 

future performance became essential aids to decision making. Computer and 

physical models were used for water quality calculations and air flow modeling in

the labs. Wind tunnel testing was used to study air dispersion from the exhaust

stacks outside the labs. These simulation models provided information that led to

numerous design refinements.

Modeling Resources

• “Trace”5 by the Trane Corporation for energy modeling

• “Lumen Micro”6 and physical models for daylighting evaluation

• “Exposure”7 an EPA program for indoor air quality

Modeling, however, can improve the environmental performance of a facility 

only when it informs the design process. Typically design teams employ energy

modeling for sizing HVAC systems and estimating energy consumption, with little

or no effort spent on testing alternatives and optimizing performance. When the

energy model was used as a design tool to optimize performance, modifications

made to the building design and HVAC systems improved performance from

substandard, based on DOE benchmark values, to more than 40% better. 

Energy design optimization began with an assessment of baseline energy loads in

the lab and office components of the building. This was important because the

load profiles, which were extremely different for the lab and office portions of the

building, would guide the group to focus on load reduction strategies which

would have the greatest impact.

As the design was further defined, the energy models required refinement. The

group reviewed all of the inputs into the energy analysis program and updated

them with the anticipated operating load profiles. These profiles incorporated

diversity factors that captured such items as areas of the building not fully occupied

at the same time, and that reflected “as-used” loads instead of “connected” loads for

lighting and power. In the office areas, the as-used loads suggested energy savings

from occupancy sensors, daylight dimming and computer “sleep modes.” In the

labs, as-used loads factored in the multiple ways the labs are used, such as partial

combination of occupied and unoccupied labs and night-time airflow setback.

EPA CAMPUS COMPONENT PEAK LOADS

LABORATORY

Total Load 64 MillionBtu/Hr

OFFICE 

Total Load 18 Million Btu/Hr

outdoor air

77%

supply fan

8%

envelope

2%

indoor

13%

indoor

43%

outdoor air

25%

supply fan

9%

envelope

23%

28
29 Design Process Discussion: Design Optimization

Computer modeling also was used to create a quality assurance mechanism for

indoor air quality requirements. A set of emissions thresholds was established based

on what would be both acceptable and achievable, and predictive modeling was

performed to confirm that emissions thresholds could be met. Based on that 

predictive modeling, EPA was able to assure prospective contractors that if building

materials passed the emissions testing requirements, the building would also pass

baseline indoor air quality testing requirements after construction was complete. 

During the evolution of the new EPA Campus project, several rating systems for

sustainable buildings emerged. Canada and Great Britain unveiled two of the

earliest whole-building assessment tools in 1993. Along with fledgling initiatives in

the U.S., the Netherlands and a handful of other countries, these early rating

systems helped spark an international effort in 1998 that created the Green

Building Challenge (GBC). Led by the Canadians, GBC aimed to establish

international comprehensive benchmarks for environmentally-responsible building

and site design from an environmental perspective. The new EPA campus was one

of 30 case studies evaluated by the 14 participating countries in the prototype

round of GBC. 

In the United States, the U.S. Green Building Council first established its

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system in 1999.

LEED evaluates the total environmental performance of a building during all

phases of its useful life, from construction through demolition. Although LEED

emerged too late to be of use in designing the main facility on the EPA campus, it

was applied to the redesign of the National Computer Center–a separate 100,000

square foot facility on the campus. The computer center has been designed to meet

the “gold” rating criteria under LEED.

Although the international and national green building standards offer the

advantage of benchmarking performance based on broad consensus, they do face

some challenges. For example, it has been difficult to adjust for the local effects of

climate, markets, transportation infrastructure and other locale-specific factors.

Recognizing this, a number of communities and regions have brought forward their

own systems. In the Research Triangle area, the Triangle J Council of Governments

performed a detailed adaptation of LEED to create their own “High Performance

Guidelines: Triangle Region Public Facilities” (HPG). EPA’s new campus design

team helped create the HPG guidelines, which were issued in 2001. The Agency

will incorporate them, along with LEED, into the EPA/NIEHS child care center

design-build contract.

Researching Environmental Impact

The search for physical solutions to established goals and design criteria led to

supplemental research to understand the environmental impact and identify 

preferred approaches. In some areas, such as energy and water use, the research

required proved to be minimal. However in other areas, such as building materials

selection and specification, extensive research was necessary to develop resources

that did not yet exist. 

Civil engineers performed feasibility studies to explore cost-effective stormwater

management options to effectively cleanse runoff, while minimizing site impact.

The bioretention strategy that was ultimately selected was a relatively new

approach relying on “pocket wetlands” filled with permeable planting soil and

plantings to accelerate the natural processing of contaminants suspended in the

stormwater runoff. Since this technology had never been used in North Carolina

In 1999, the U.S. Green Building

Council established the Leadership

in Energy and Environmental

Design (LEED) rating system.

LEED evaluates environmental

performance from a “whole

building” perspective over a

building’s life-cycle.

When researching environmentally

preferable building materials,

gather specific information about

products by manufacturer, rather

than generalized information

about product types, whenever

possible.
The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 

at the time, the civil engineer had to educate regulators in North Carolina about

successful bioretention systems in Maryland in order to use it on this project. This

effort helped lead North Carolina officials to adopt bioretention as a Best

Management Practice for stormwater treatment across the state.

Other site issues requiring research included native plantings such as wetland and

wildflower species, alternatives for erosion control, permeable pavement options,

performance of recycled content roadway materials and re-use of on-site materials.

Specialty consultants joined the project team to develop the wetland plantings and

wildflower specifications. Topics were investigated by the civil engineers, who

applied skepticism, logic and common sense to test the performance of each 

proposed alternative material.

Environmentally preferable materials selection was a major issue requiring 

extensive research. Early in schematic design, the design team determined that

although some sources of information were available to guide decision making

about environmentally preferable products, such as the AIA’s Environmental

Resource Guide (ERG), manufacturer specific information regarding the 

environmental performance of individual products did not yet exist in any 

published form. 

In response to this information void, the A/E voluntarily initiated an effort to

gather life-cycle environmental impact information about products. With input

from experts in the green building field, the A/E developed a product

questionnaire that was sent to every manufacturer considered for use in the

project. Response to the questionnaire was good, and the data proved useful in

defining which products would be the best choices for the EPA project.

The concept of “materials benchmarking” also added an important dimension to

the research effort on environmentally preferable building materials. It led the group

to explore the range of materials and products on the market, and to compare them,

by developing benchmarks for materials. The research effort eventually extended

beyond the products and materials to considerations of how the materials were

installed, when they would be installed and, due to their potential impact on indoor

air quality, how they would be maintained. This focus on IAQ led to requirements

for emission testing of selected materials, so the potential impact on indoor air 

quality could be evaluated before materials were installed, rather than later, when

the cost of removing them or mitigating their effects could be prohibitive. 

In addition to requiring emissions data, the group collected IAQ specifications

and related information from other projects with an indoor air focus, and 

prudently reviewed them to develop uncomplicated procedures to safeguard IAQ

during construction. For example, instead of a 90-day “flush out” period which

would have required the building to remain empty while it was ventilated prior to 

occupancy, the group opted for ventilation during construction. This requirement

was coupled with IAQ testing to document air quality prior to occupancy, thereby

ensuring that chemical vapors emitted during construction had been removed and

air quality in the building met the established indoor air quality standards.

Other issues, such as the potential impact of electromagnetic fields on the health

of building occupants, represented entirely new territory that required extensive

research. Local issues, such as the details of the recycling infrastructure available in

North Carolina, required research as this information is regionally specific and

changes over time. 

Environmentally-preferable

building materials

30
31 Design Process Discussion: Greening the Team

Greening the Team 

Even though the design team understood the need to improve the environmental

performance of the facility, the design process itself involved dozens of people

working simultaneously on an assortment of tasks. Because of the complexity of the

design and the variety of demands on all team members, the project leaders worked

on greening the design team itself, to ensure that the project’s environmental goals

would not get lost in the process.

Unlike most organizations, EPA is fortunate to have its own in-house experts 

on pollution prevention, indoor air quality, energy conservation, recycling and 

a variety of other environmental issues. EPA invited input from these in-house

experts in planning for the new facility, and the project benefited from their

insights. The ultimate success of the project, however, would be determined by 

the extent to which EPA could engage all project team members in integrating 

environmental design issues into the creative decision making process.

Environmental Champions on the Team

While many design team members contributed their expertise and insight 

to the development of environmentally preferable solutions, EPA and the A/E 

each recognized that it was extremely important to have an individual with an 

understanding of the whole “champion” the environmental goals for the project.

EPA and the A/E each designated an “environmental advocate” to guide the design

internally, while also reaching out to the local sustainability network for additional

support. Environmental advocates were tasked with monitoring and supporting

environmental initiatives incorporated in the design. These advocates searched for

information that enabled the design team to assess environmental impact, raise

issues and identify strategies to consider, and facilitate the development of design

solutions requiring multidisciplinary collaboration.

Local Sustainability Network

In addition to the project team that had been assembled to design the new EPA

Campus, many others contributed throughout the process. A community of 

people involved with issues relating to sustainable design and green buildings 

provided crucial voluntary assistance. These independent resources in the design,

academic and nonprofit communities provided valuable input. For example, 

volunteers linked the group with local recycling resources, identified successful

demonstration projects that could serve as models, and assisted the A/E with 

technical information relating to emerging issues such as design for good indoor

air quality and environmentally preferable materials selection. 

EPA also organized a voluntary committee from within its own ranks called the

Pollution Prevention Committee, to support the design effort. Meetings were held

early during schematic design, which led to the creation of an extensive list of

green design strategies to be considered. Some of the members of this group

remained involved as advisors to EPA to assist during design reviews. The

Pollution Prevention Committee was a great mechanism for broadening

involvement and generating ideas that spanned many disciplines. 

Integrated Team Approach

Recognizing that optimal sustainable design strategies rely on synergy achieved

when one solution addresses multiple objectives, the design team collaborated by

physically working together. Work sessions and design reviews included EPA, the

A/E and its consultants. Though this collaboration required the group to spend

more time in meetings, the design process as a whole became more efficient.

Green Team Core Members

Although the entire team was

committed to producing an

environmentally sound design,

certain team members had

especially critical roles in keeping

the green building effort focused

and on track.

EPA Project Manager

Responsible for balancing

environmental goals against the

pressures of meeting cost,

performance and schedule

requirements.

EPA Environmental Advocate

As a member of the EPA project

management team, had the special

role of questioning all design 

decisions for their environmental

merits.

Environmental Scientist

As a member of the EPA research

community and the original

project officer for the

Environmental Resources Guide,

provided expert advice to the

core design group on a range of

pollution prevention and

sustainability issues.

Indoor Air 

Quality Coordinator

A mechanical engineer and indoor

air quality researcher for the EPA;

oversaw the development of the

IAQ manual and reviewed the

design for indoor health impact.

Project Engineers

The EPA’s lead technical staff;

directed the actual

implementation of green design

decisions.

A/E “Green Team” Leader

As part of the lead architectural

firm, had the task of assuring the

environmental soundness of the

complete range of architectural

and engineering choices made on

the project.
The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 

Design integration leads to more optimal solutions, reduces backtracking and

relieves the need to spend extensive amounts of time “coordinating” the various

disciplines after the fact.

For example, architects, interior designers, mechanical/electrical/plumbing (MEP)

engineers, civil engineers and others needed to collaborate closely to create a site

plan and building massing that would balance a diverse set of functional and

environmental goals. Interior designers provided input on site orientation and

building massing based on how it would impact future interior planning and 

daylight access. MEP and civil engineers integrated issues that might otherwise have

been deemed “secondary,” related to site infrastructure, underground utilities and

fire lanes. The “integrated” design scheme worked within the existing site contours,

allowing large portions of the site to remain forested and preserved wetland areas.

Another benefit of the integrated approach was that non-experts included in

design discussions could offer a fresh perspective. For example, when water quality

ponds emerged as the strategy of choice for stormwater treatment because of

greater effectiveness, lower cost and use of natural methods to purify the water, the

engineers did not focus on the impact that the pond would have on the landscape.

Though the ponds were not large, the grading necessary to direct runoff toward

them would have altered much of the landscape and required tree clearing for 

vast portions of the site. In one of the regularly scheduled design meetings, a

nontechnical person asked the obvious question: “Look how many trees are being

cut down to ‘save the environment’ isn’t there a better way?” This fresh perspective

led to a reinvestigation of options and to the less disruptive “pocket wetland”

bioretention method that was adopted.

Maintaining the Commitment

The challenge for any project, regardless of the investment of energy into careful

project planning and team building, is the follow through. The effort spent 

defining goals, evaluating options and performing analysis to identify the best

integrated design solution can all be lost in one misdirected value engineering 

session. Likewise, for a successful project, the construction detailing and

specifications must be developed to support the environmental design strategies.

Performance tracking, green value engineering and partnering for construction

were other strategies that proved to be instrumental in maintaining a focus on 

the environmental goals for the facility.

Following Through on the Details

Specifications and construction details are “conventional” by their very nature,

because design professionals protect themselves from risk by relying on methods

that have worked successfully in the past. Specifications and details are also heavily

influenced by third parties. Material suppliers can limit or revoke warranties if

manufacturers’ recommendations are not followed. Equally true, however, is the

fact that specifications and construction details continuously evolve in response to

innovations and changing requirements. The challenge was to direct review toward

more sustainable solutions. Each modification to conventional practice required

extensive investigation to ensure that no element of building performance would

be compromised. 

Specifications not only document choices about which materials are to be used,

but also provide information about secondary materials such as adhesives and 

finishes. In some cases, options were provided and the specifier simply needed to

32

Identify environmental champions

on both the owner and the A/E

teams.

Identify local groups 

dedicated to sustainable design

that can provide information or

design assistance.

Clearly describe performance

requirements in the specifications,

and require submittals to certify

that requirements have been met.

Review the specifications with an

eye to making environmental 

performance improvements

wherever possible.

Use Division One of the 

specifications to summarize

atypical environmental

performance requirements.

When developing specifications,

consider the environmental and

IAQ impact of adhesives and 

finishes, as well as the specific

materials.
33 Design Process Discussion: Maintaining the Commitment

choose the option that was environmentally-preferable. For example, nearly every

flooring manufacturer either makes a zero-VOC adhesive, or has approved one,

though they may still carry the old higher-solvent formulations. In other cases,

such as the high performance finishes required in the laboratory environment,

research was needed to identify alternatives to finishes that are standard in the

industry, but factory applied. 

The team also anticipated challenges that might occur during construction. 

By painstakingly defining environmental performance requirements and the

submittals required, alternate products proposed for substitution were screened 

for environmental performance. 

Division One of the contract specifications was developed specifically to highlight

unusual environmental requirements. Division One of the specifications contains

the project General Conditions, key non-technical requirements for the prime and

all subcontractors. By summarizing environmental requirements in this initial 

section as well as in the technical provisions that follow, EPA was assured that the

contractor understood the environmental requirements from a “big picture” 

perspective. A new section, Environmental Impact of Materials, was created to

diminish the possibility that either contractors or subcontractors could

misunderstand environmental requirements. Cross-referencing between this

section and the individual specification sections provided clear and consistent

documentation of environmental requirements. 

Unique specification sections were developed for Division One to clarify atypical

construction procedures. At the beginning of the project manual, a section entitled

Environmental Requirements, simply describes EPA’s environmental goals for the

project. The section begins with the following statement: “It is the goal of the EPA

to integrate the Agency’s mission into this project as much as feasible and practical;

i.e., to construct a green building.” Other Division One sections include Testing for

Indoor Air Quality, Baseline IAQ and Materials; Sequence of Installation Finishes; and

Waste Material Management and Recycling. Detailed commissioning requirements

are located in the mechanical and electrical sections to ensure that the building will

operate properly, and that energy savings will be realized. 

Tracking Environmental Performance

The core design group found that mechanisms to track environmental

performance were especially essential in the later phases of the project. The

number of decisions made on a daily basis would multiply as the project moved

into the final stages of design. Tracking environmental design strategies helped

highlight the “non-standard” features requiring special attention.

The tracking process involved ongoing design review as well as periodic 

reporting. A detailed report issued at the end of Design Development itemized all

environmental features incorporated into the design. The report was organized by

design topics: Site Design, Energy Conservation, Water Conservation, Building

Materials, Indoor Air Quality and Waste Management. The design strategies

suggested by EPA’s Pollution Prevention Committee were tracked in the report as

well as additional issues identified along the way. The report contained an energy

budget, which predicted future energy costs through computer modeling, and a

description of all of the energy conserving features of the design. This report,

updated and reissued at key milestones, led to a series of itemized checklists that

were distributed to project team members from each discipline.

Track the development of 

contract documents thoroughly 

to ensure successful inclusion of 

environmental design features.
The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 

While the checklists served as a reminder of the decisions that had been agreed

upon, design reviews were also necessary to correct misunderstandings that would

emerge. For example, at one point late in the construction documentation phase,

it was discovered that a lighting designer had introduced a large quantity of 

inefficient incandescent light sources in the entry lobby of the main facility to

make the space feel “warmer.” The design team had worked hard to develop a 

pleasing, energy efficient, lighting scheme. When it was brought to the group’s

attention, the interior designers clarified that although fluorescent lighting may

have seemed unconventional in a lobby space in the past, color rendition of 

compact fluorescent lamps had improved tremendously. If necessary, the 

coloration of the space would be fine-tuned by adjusting the stain on the wood

panels and the paint on the walls. As a result, the construction documents were

changed and the fluorescent lighting was maintained. 

Using Green Value Engineering

Throughout the design process, the issue of cost, and particularly the cost of 

green design strategies, was scrutinized judiciously. In addition to ongoing analysis

of options by the cost consultant and a member of the core design group, EPA

chose to engage in focused Value Engineering (VE) reviews. VE is often seen as

the enemy of good design in general and green design in particular. At its best 

however, VE is not merely a cost-cutting exercise, but a review process to enhance

“value.” EPA used the VE process to balance cost, function and environmental

performance when considering options. 

The VE process became especially important when extraordinary challenges 

were introduced by the political process that is unique to the design of a large 

government facility. When the U.S. Senate was considering appropriations for the

new facility, they asked EPA to review the project again to see if the total cost

could be significantly reduced. This challenged VE participants to produce creative

cost reductions without compromising functionality, reducing program area or

compromising environmental goals. The core design group not only reduced the

total project cost by approximately $30 million, but the VE cost-reduction exercise

produced a greener building.

ITEM STRATEGY ENVIRONMENTAL 

BENEFIT 

CONSTRUCTION

COST SAVINGS

LIFE CYCLE

COST IMPACT

Roadways and

Utility Lines

Depart from federal site master plan requirements for 

4–lane roads plus utility easements; design 2–lane roads and

bury electrical and communication lines under the road

Greatly decreased road and

utility footprint – preserving site

woodlands and wetlands

$2 million Less maintenance

and repair cost 

Stormwater

Atrium Skylight

Laboratory

Exhaust Hoods

Replace curb and gutter and oil–grit separators with

grassy swales, water quality ponds and bioretention

Improved on–site treatment

of stormwater

$500,000 No increase or decrease

Revise from all glass to one third glass, one third

insulated translucent panels and one third solid

Install 250 specialized fume hoods and exhaust systems

that reduce total air flow demand by 50% and eliminate

dozens of fans

Improved energy performance and indoor

environment–thermal comfort

and light quality

Prevents consumption of large

qualities of conditioned air

$500,000

$1.5 million

Lower energy cost

($50,000 / year)

Lower energy cost

($1 million / year)

Summary of VE cost savings during the Design Development phase

Encourage the VE process to

balance cost, function and

environmental performance.

Include designers and 

environmental advocates on 

the VE review team.

34
35 Design Process Discussion: Maintaining the Commitment

One reason the VE sessions were so successful was that the inclusive process

allowed for informed, interdisciplinary brainstorming to occur. Led by a special

VE group of the Army Corps of Engineers, the design team, participated in the

brainstorming of VE proposals, ensuring that the finer points of the design were

not overlooked. Together, we worked to save money retain the functional needs

and keep the project green all at once.

Given the tremendous pressure to reduce the first costs of the design, it is

surprising that many of the environmental features that required a first-cost

investment remained. Fortunately, the team recognized the importance of looking

at the project and the budget as a whole, not simply line by line. While energy

and water conservation, and materials minimization would be economically

justifiable, either in terms of first costs or life-cycle costs, other environmentally

beneficial strategies would not provide an immediate dollar payback. By

considering value broadly and making design trade-offs in other areas, EPA

justified design decisions that might never have survived purely economic scrutiny,

such as the use of certified sustainably-harvested wood.

The VE modifications are interesting to study both for what they contain as well 

as for what they do not contain. Difficult choices were made, and the trade-offs

reflect the values of EPA. For example, EPA replaced the slate flooring in the 

public areas with ceramic tile, but chose not to delete humidification from the

office buildings, because it would contribute to occupant comfort over the long

term. Rather than delete occupancy sensors, which save energy by turning off lights

when people leave their offices, EPA decided to omit doors on suite entryways.

Rather than use wood paneling that was not from independently-certified

sustainable sources, the group chose to reduce the amount of wood paneling,

using it in small quantities in public areas. Sidelights, which bring daylight into

the interior closed offices, were also maintained by making similar tradeoffs. 

One of the most important VE issues involved the decision to keep structured

parking rather than all surface parking. This decision alone represented several 

million dollars that might have been spent on the facility, however, it emphasized

the undeterred commitment to value the site environment. EPA felt strongly that

use of all deck parking, which would have required the clearing of an additional

15 acres of land, disrupted wetland areas and existing drainage patterns, and

eliminated nearly all tree coverage on the site, was not acceptable. To compensate

for the cost impact of the decision, the quantity of on-site parking was reduced by

25%, and EPA made a strong commitment to create incentives for 

employees to use alternative transportation.

Preparing for Construction

Recognizing the size and complexity of the new campus, EPA selected the 

GSA as construction manager for the project, due to their expertise with

large-scale construction.

Unfortunately, when the construction procurement was initially advertised and

competitively bid, the bid prices exceeded the project budget. This raised the

question, “Did the bids come in higher because of the environmental

requirements?” 

EPA and GSA invited the bidders to comment on what could be done to 

reduce the cost of the project. It is interesting to note that only two of the many 

comments received were related to environmental features of the design. One 

contractor commented that the “wet sponge method” for finishing drywall, which

Encourage the development

of VE proposals by interdisciplinary

teams to promote integrated design

solutions.

Educate all members of the 

construction team about the 

project environmental goals.

Encourage contractor to join the

project as a partner, and contribute

to development of creative,

environmental design solutions

during the construction phase.
The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 

was specified to protect construction workers and the building from silica dust

released into the air with dry sanding, added 50% to the cost of the gypsum board

installation. In the end, a conventional gypsum finishing method was permitted,

since a requirement by the contractor to seal off ductwork during gypsum 

finishing, and to clean the ductwork prior to building acceptance would already

ensure dust-free ventilation systems. A phased installation sequence would also

keep carpet out of work areas until dusty wallboard work was complete.

The other comment that EPA received from the contractors related to the detailed

emissions testing of material assemblies. Originally all materials that would have a

potential impact on IAQ were to be tested. It was expected that the cost of testing,

an extremely small portion of overall cost, would be borne by manufacturers eager

to participate in the project. Faced with budget concerns, and the fear expressed

by contractors that the procedure could get lengthy and complicated, the

specification was revised on the basis of relative contribution to the office air

zones. Four assemblies which presented the greatest exposed surface areas were

tested for emission potential–wall paint, acoustical ceiling tile, spray-on

fireproofing and carpet. This change reduced the paperwork burden and much of

the perceived risk for contractors while allowing EPA to retain stringent

environmental constraints on the materials used in the project.

Though the economic analysis and information from contractors indicated 

otherwise, there was tremendous temptation to remove many of the green

specifications from the project because of the concern that they were related to the

cost overrun. Fortunately the group had addressed cost issues throughout the design

process, and the research on the cost and availability of environmentally-preferable

materials was well documented. Except for the two issues previously noted, the green

specification was maintained in the next set of construction documents.

The project’s actual bid price compares favorably with government industry and

academic facilities of similar scope. The design team’s research efforts and practical

approach had kept the cost of the green design well within industry standards.

When GSA selected a general contractor, a new member and potential collaborator

joined the team. At this time, the A/E introduced a construction administration

team that contained some new players, though the environmental advocate roles

were maintained. 

The final preparatory phase prior to construction involved a partnering session to

focus the newly formed construction team on working together to enhance safety,

quality and environmental performance. The session included a presentation of 

the environmental goals for the facility and a viewing of a training video on

environmentally friendly construction practices created especially for this project.

The video was required viewing for every construction worker on the site to teach

the construction team about environmentally-sensitive practices during construction

and to explain its importance. The expectation was that construction workers and 

managers, inspired by the goals of the project, would be motivated to become 

willing partners in the creation of an environmentally-friendly construction site.

The signed partnering charter included a commitment by all parties to

environmental, safety and quality goals.

36
37 Design Process Discussion: Conclusion

Conclusion

When EPA and its partners began the long process of designing and constructing

this project, sustainable buildings were in their infancy. Reference material for

architects, engineers and builders was extremely limited, and few green building

case studies had been documented. The design team did not let this stand in the

way of its goal. 

In the absence of a full set of tools and resources, the design team recognized that

creating a sustainable campus would require a new process based on a new way of

thinking. The commitment to question, research and evaluate every possible

component of the building process was the key to making their goal a reality.

Early on, the group embraced the commitment to a sustainable process and

upheld it throughout design and construction.

The success of this project was based on the strong emphasis on environmental

quality that has traditionally been placed only on cost and functional performance.

Just as our focus on cost helps us realize better value in everyday life, the

environmental consciousness of the EPA project has yielded an improved value in

the construction of the campus. This represents a shift in thinking that is much

more significant than any individual tool or reference material.

During the past decade, there have been huge advances in sustainable building.

Through this project and others, the building industry is learning about

sustainability and incorporating it into its work. Advancements are likely and it is

EPA’s challenge to stay abreast of new technologies and practices as they relate to 

managing and operating the Campus. The design team recognized this need and

left room for improvements to be made. For example, heat recovery units for the

lab exhaust system were not justified by meager energy savings, but space was

accommodated in the laboratory penthouses so they could be added in the future

if costs become competitive.

EPA has continued to set aggressive goals for sustainability, seek fresh ideas, gauge

progress and make improvements. Without the momentum of construction it

might be hard to maintain this focus, so the EPA Campus team has taken a few

steps to avoid complacency. To unearth new innovations, an advisory committee

now focuses on sustainable

building and site operations. EPA

has also worked out an agreement

with the local power company to

install solar-powered street lights,

and has arranged for two local bus

systems to pick up and drop off at

the front door of the Campus.

With construction complete, 

EPA’s goal will be to operate the

facility in an environmentally

responsible manner.

With a dedication to continual learning and a commitment to constant improvement

throughout the life of this facility, EPA will continue to advance sustainable building

concepts and preserve the strong educational value of the campus.
The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 38

DESIGN ISSUES

DISCUSSION

Site Design

While the challenges of environmentally-sensitive site design for projects located in

urban, suburban or rural settings vary and the solutions can differ, the overall issues

are largely the same. These issues involve disruption and displacement of wildlife

habitat, increased erosion, diminished ground water recharge and threats to the

water quality of surface water bodies and aquifers. 

Minimize Site Disruption

The issue for the EPA in RTP was not where to build its new facility, but how to

best build on its land. The site, an undeveloped tract of abandoned farm land, had

been deeded to the federal government in 1968 for federal environmental research

facilities. Site features include a man-made lake, a wooded knoll, a pine and

hardwood forest and wetlands. The site’s elevation varies considerably and the

rolling topography creates distinct ridges and valleys that drain into the lake. 

Low-lying areas and drainage swales support mature hardwoods and wetlands,

which contrast with a densely wooded knoll, sixty feet higher at the site’s center.

The primary challenge of the site design for the EPA Campus was to accommodate

the needs of the building and sitework within the existing ecosystem with a

minimum of disruption. After a thorough evaluation of the site’s natural features,

topography and hydrological systems, the EPA project team developed a site plan

that would reduce large scale disruptions and protect some of the site’s unique

natural assets. The plan limited the size of the development footprint and controlled

other site components such as underground utility lines, and construction grading

and staging areas.

Following conceptual design, a decision was made to expand the 64-acre parcel 

of land originally set aside for the project to 133 acres. This did not require the

acquisition of additional land since the original site, deeded to the government in

1968, was approximately 500 acres. Half of the land had been developed by the

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences with the other half reserved for

EPA. At the same time, the design was changed from a three-story campus to a

series of three- to six-story buildings to minimize the total building footprint.

The final design for the EPA Campus organized laboratory and office buildings

and the accompanying site infrastructure within existing site contours. This

reduced the building’s impact on forest, wetlands, wildlife habitats and drainage

patterns, by greatly reducing the need for regrading at the building perimeter. The

high point, a wooded knoll at the center of the site, was preserved intact and was

highlighted by the entry drive that encircles it. The use of structured parking

decreased the overall size of the development footprint. In addition, EPA’s

commitment to carpooling and alternative means of transportation reduced the

parking requirement by hundreds of spaces. Site utilities and emergency access

lanes were carefully routed to be near the building and within areas that were

already disrupted for roadway construction.

Key Issues to Consider

• Rehabilitate an existing site or 

redevelop an urban infill site,

when possible

• Develop compact massing to 

preserve open space

• Preserve natural vegetation,

water sources and topography

• Preserve and enhance wildlife 

habitat

• Consider use of pervious paving

materials to minimize 

impervious coverage of the site

• Consult with site analysis 

drawings and tree surveys 

before beginning design

• Plan to save trees during and 

after construction

EPA site before construction
39 Design Issue Discussion: Site Design

Structured Parking

Parking decks and public transportation are two approaches for preserving green

space and limiting dependence on the automobile. Two factors typically drive the

selection of structured parking: construction costs and space limitations. The unit

cost for structured parking is typically about four times the unit cost for surface

parking. In addition, land is readily available in RTP and the zoning codes permit

nearly unrestricted use for parking. Consequently, the project team’s specification of

structured parking represented a departure from standard practice in the RTP area. 

However, a study of an “all-surface” parking alternative revealed that the cost of

surface parking on the site would be a little higher than average because of the need

for additional grading, retaining walls and stormwater management. The all-surface

parking scheme would have covered an additional eight acres, requiring greater

forest clearing and disrupting drainage patterns and wetlands. Though the allsurface parking scheme would save several million dollars, EPA opted for the more

compact design, which would use a mix of surface and structured parking. 

To offset some of these costs, EPA reduced the overall parking requirements by

about 25 percent. To minimize the impact of reduced parking on employees, 

EPA is creating incentives for carpooling and is exploring alternative means of

transportation. Easy access to public transit systems has also been provided. The

decked parking actually provided better service to employees and visitors by

bringing more parking closer to the buildings.

Fire Lanes

Fire lanes are required by code to provide fire truck access to all parts of the

Campus’ buildings. While essential for safety, fire lanes have the potential to wreak

havoc on tree-preservation strategies. These access lanes generally require a clear,

level and permanently unobstructed zone that is a minimum of 36 feet wide and 10

feet away from the building. If the fire lane is not a continuous loop, turnaround

areas that are at least 100 feet in diameter must be provided. 

To reduce the impact, the EPA project team worked closely with the local fire

marshal to develop a plan to meet all requirements and minimize site disruption. 

Statistics

Site: 133 acres

Building: 10.05 acres

Paved Areas: 16.9 acres

100% surface parking study

Site plan of final parking design

with both structured and surface

parking
The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 40

The plan calls for the development of roadways on the entry side of the site for fire

truck access and a grass paving system for most of the fire lanes to the west, so that

total impervious surface on site could be minimized. 

Erosion Control

Reducing the loss of valuable topsoil was particularly important on the EPA site, 

not only to protect on-site streams but also the man-made lake from sedimentation.

Developed in accordance with North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control

requirements, EPA’s erosion control plan included specifications to guide construction

and maintenance of the erosion control features. Plan measures included tree protection

devices, temporary perimeter diversions and sediment traps or basins, and silt curtains

across lake inlets. The plan also specified dust control measures and required the

stabilization of disturbed areas with temporary seeding. Topsoil removed from the site

and stockpiled for reuse was temporarily seeded.

Site planners and civil engineers worked closely with the rest of the project team to

develop an erosion control plan that is integrated with the design, and meets the

overall environmental goals for the project. When details of EPA’s erosion control

plan were reviewed, it was determined that the standard list of materials approved

by the state for stabilization of temporary coverage included some materials, such 

as asphaltic tackifier, that were undesirable from an environmental perspective. 

The specification was revised to allow only biodegradable, nontoxic substances to 

be used for soil stabilization, and to require the use of 100% recycled content

hydromulch in the seeding around all Campus buildings.

Loop Road

The 1970 U.S. Public Health Service Research Park Master Plan, that addressed the

entire 511-acre campus in RTP, specified a four-lane loop road to provide access to

all buildings. The plan also identified an underground utility loop fully accessible

for maintenance and repairs, built outside the roadways on both sides. To

implement the master plan’s design would have required clearing a 235-foot wide

swath of trees about one mile long.

View of existing lake on the EPA /NIEHS site prior to construction
41 Design Process: Water Quality

The project team questioned the master plan requirements for the four-lane loop

road as being both extremely costly and disruptive to the natural environment.

Detailed traffic studies demonstrated that a two-lane road would be more than

adequate to handle traffic flows. Based on both the cost and negative environmental

impact of the four-lane road, the design was changed to include a two-lane road.

Electrical and communication lines were moved under the roadway, further

reducing the required clearing. Combined with land-conserving parking decks and

tight construction clearing limits, the roadway redesign required less than half the

amount of clearing, saving 25 acres of forest. The narrowed roads cost $1.6 million

less–which offset much of the cost premium for decked parking.

Preservation and Enhancement of Wetland Areas

The existing site drains into a man-made lake, with more than nine acres of wetland

areas occurring in the zone where the drainage swales meet the lake. To protect these

wetlands, a buffer zone approximately 100 feet wide was established along the lake

edge. No development was allowed in this buffer zone except for a network of

walking and jogging trails. 

One exception was necessary at the site’s northern edge, where the site narrows. Here,

the new loop road disturbed 0.13-acre of wetland area. To compensate for the lost

wetlands, the project team chose to enlarge a 0.024-acre wetland to almost an acre in

size. The enlargement created almost seven times more wetlands than were lost. It also

provides a “naturalist garden” for the Campus. 

Specimen Tree Study

A tree survey is an important first step when designing and building on a wooded

site, however a survey alone is not sufficient. An integrated, “green” approach to

siting requires the entire project team, civil engineers as well as architects, to

consider specimen trees during the formative stages of scheme design. In this case,

the schematic design for the roadway to the EPA Campus was completed before the

tree survey was consulted, and the result was a design in which the main entry drive

for the facility would have destroyed many of the most mature trees on the site.

In the end, however, the roads were redesigned to save several large oak trees. 

The preserved area now forms a natural gateway to the site and serves as a living

reminder of the homesteads that stood there in the early part of the 20th century.

The “near miss” with the oak trees had a surprising side effect, making these historic

trees a symbol to the EPA project team of the importance of designing with nature. 

Water Quality

All construction sites impact their watersheds, affecting both surface and subsurface

water quality. Water contaminants from a typical building site include nutrients

from fertilizers and toxic chemicals, pesticides used on landscaped areas,

hydrocarbons from roadways and parking lots and sediment from soil erosion. 

The EPA Campus has been developed to protect water quality. The man-made lake

and wetland areas on the site act as pre-existing water quality features to control

runoff and filter contaminants. These have been supplemented by a new water

quality pond and ten biofiltration sites to provide stormwater retention, sediment

collection and filtration before water is released downstream to Burden’s Creek.

Even though the EPA Campus only affects a small portion of the 511-acre

watershed, the use of highly effective stormwater runoff control measures reduces

downstream impacts within the basin. 

Site plan with four-lane road

Site plan with two-lane road

The largest oak tree on site is 12 feet

in circumference.
42

The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 

Pollution Prevention Strategies

Many of the design decisions for the new EPA Campus, contribute to improved

water quality through pollution prevention. These pollution prevention strategies

include the use of low maintenance landscaping that relies on native and adapted

species and reduces the need for fertilizers and pesticides. Incentives for carpooling

and mass transit coupled with reductions in parking will lower traffic density,

thereby reducing airborne hydrocarbon and particulate contaminants. Parking

decks, grass paving for emergency access roads, and mulch pathways for nature trails

further reduce the total amount of impervious surface and help reduce runoff. The

facility also meets all National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

permitting requirements.

Erosion Control

Erosion control for the EPA Campus was designed according to North Carolina

requirements, which require measures including sediment traps and silt fences to

retain coarse sediment during construction, operations and maintenance. These

measures are essential to protect the on-site lake from sedimentation. As

enhancements to the State’s mandates, additional filtration measures were added to

trap fine clay particles. During construction, an experimental gypsum treatment

process was used periodically to accelerate settling of the clay, improving the

effectiveness of the sediment ponds. 

Water Pretreatment Options

Runoff from roadway and parking areas contains hydrocarbon and particulate

contaminants as well as heavy metals such as mercury. A common stormwater

treatment method is to capture these contaminants in a physical device such as an

oil-grit separator to “pre-treat” the water before it leaves the site. Oil-grit separators

were considered for the EPA Campus but ultimately not selected because other

strategies were discovered with higher contaminant removal efficiency, lower cost

and lower maintenance requirements.

The strategy preferred by the project team was one in which concentrated flows are

collected and treated in small bioretention areas. These areas are distributed around

the site in ten different locations. In the collection step, grassy swales at the edges of

paved areas are used instead of curbs and gutters to channel the water to the

bioretention areas. These swales encourage runoff to “sheet flow” over vegetated

areas, naturally filtering contaminants suspended in the runoff as the water passes

through the vegetation and percolates through the soil. Larger water quality ponds

at the northern and southern ends of the site serve as additional cleansing devices

for areas not served by bioretention ponds. These bioretention facilities and water

quality ponds were also designed as aesthetic enhancements to the site.

The realities of the site, however, required that the use of swales be balanced with

other priorities. Curbs and gutters were still used in small areas where absolutely

necessary to prevent extensive tree clearing or to control traffic.

The bioretention areas use subsurface compost and plantings to accelerate the

filtering of contaminants, while water quality ponds retain stormwater in

constructed ponds filled with wetland plantings that cleanse the water. Water quality

ponds were not selected as the primary solution because they require a larger

amount of tree clearing than the smaller bioretention areas, which can be tucked

into areas already being cleared for roadway construction. The water quality pond,

however, can accommodate a larger quantity of runoff. The pond at the south end

of the site has a storage capacity of one-half acre-feet of water (160,000 gallons).

Key Issues to Consider

• Work with natural drainage 

systems

• Minimize the use of impervious

paved surfaces

• Plan on-site stormwater 

retention where natural 

filtration is insufficient

• Protect existing water 

sources from soil erosion or 

other sources of contamination

• Maximize use of passive and 

natural methods for treating 

stormwater, such as sheet 

flow across vegetated areas 

and bioretention

What is an NPDES Permit?

Because sediment is recognized as

a significant pollutant that results

from construction activity, NPDES

permits are required for all

construction sites larger than 

five acres in size.To comply with

permitting requirements, erosion

controls are required prior to and

during construction, and

stormwater management practices

are required after construction.

What is Non-Point Source

Water Pollution?

Any source of water pollution or

pollutants not associated with a

discrete conveyance, including

runoff from fields, forest lands,

mining, construction activity and

saltwater intrusion.
Oil-Grit Separator

A three–chamber underground

structure which uses gravity to

separate the grit and oils from the

water.The grit and sediment in the

runoff settle to the bottom of the

first chamber of an oil-grit

separator. In the second chamber,

the oils rise to the top and are

trapped in the chamber by an

inverted pipe, which draws water

from the bottom of the chamber.

The third chamber then

discharges the “cleaned” runoff.

Bioretention

A depressed, heavily vegetated

area using plants and soils to

remove pollutants from

stormwater runoff.Various

physical and biological processes

including absorption, transpiration,

filtration and decomposition occur

in the root zone to improve water

quality (see Bioretention diagram).

Water Quality Pond

A permanent pool of water used

for treating stormwater runoff.

Water quality is achieved by

gravitational settling, algal settling,

wetland plant uptake and bacterial

decomposition.

43 Design Process: Landscaping

Landscaping

Low maintenance landscaping provides one of the most cost-effective opportunities

for sustainable design. By choosing plants tolerant of native soils, climate and water

availability, irrigation systems are simplified or eliminated and the associated

maintenance and irrigation costs are reduced. 

The landscape plantings selected for the EPA Campus represent a cross section of

plants that are either native or adapted to the region, and drought tolerant. Plant health

will be maintained through the use of compost and organic mulches prepared on site.

Low-Maintenance Landscaping

The new plantings for the EPA Campus are either native species or species that can

survive the local climate, soils and water availability. This minimizes the need for

fertilizers, pesticides and irrigation. Because of this reliance on native and adapted

plantings, a “quick coupler” irrigation system has been provided as a low-cost and

appropriate alternative to a fully automatic irrigation system. The quick coupler can

be connected to hose bibs at intervals throughout the site to irrigate new plants

during their period of establishment and to assist during periods of extreme drought. 

An exception to this approach was made in the main building entry plaza for

plantings in the raised planter beds. These planters provide a non-permanent

landscape that may include some “exotics.” Accent plantings on the main entry

plaza will be irrigated with an automated drip irrigation system. The drip irrigation

system provides a highly water-efficient solution for these small, localized areas

which will require irrigation. 

Grasses and Wildflowers

Instead of using traditional turf grass, the 15 acres of land along the road will be

planted with wildflowers and native warm season grasses. These wildflowers and

grasses are available in five palettes of color and species. A detailed wildflower

specification identifies species and quantities of seed for each palette, with a

schedule that will establish a permanent colony over a three-year period. The

specification includes seeding directions for spring and fall plantings,

environmentally acceptable herbicides and biodegradable soil retention blankets. 

This low-maintenance alternative will add diversity and attract wildlife while

requiring mowing with a “bush hog” only once a year to control woody vegetation. 

MAXIMUM

PONDED 

WATER DEPTH

(6 INCHES)

YARD

INLET

GROUND COVER

OR MULCH LAYER

1'-0"

MIN.

SAND

BED

BIORETENTION AREA

STORM DRAIN

OUTFALL PIPE

IN-SITU

MATERIAL

4'-0" MIN.

PLANTING

SOIL

SHEET FLOW

GRASS

BUFFER

PAVEMENT

TRASH 

RACK ORIFICES

OILS

MANHOLE

(TYPICAL)

INFLOW

PIPE

SEDIMENT

WATER

SURFACE

DRAIN

DOWN

PIPE

OUTFLOW PIPE

DAM

EMBANKMENT

RISER

OUTLET

INVERTED 

OUTLET

PIPE

FLOATING

DEBRIS AND

OILS

POND

OUTLET

PIPE

STORM

DRAIN

OUTLET

NORMAL

POOL SEDIMENT

Bioretention diagram
Key Issues to Consider

• Select plantings with minimal 

irrigation, fertilization and 

pesticide needs

• Plant native species

• Protect and enhance wildlife 

habitat

• Compost food waste and 

landscaping debris on site

• Consider alternatives to turf 

grass where appropriate

Representative Plant Mix

Wildflowers

Black-eyed Susan, Purple

Coneflower, California Ox-eye

Daisy,Yellow Cosmos,Toadflax,

Cosmos, California Poppy,

Tickseed, Moss Verbena,

Perennial Lupine

Tall Grasses

Indian Grass, Little Bluestem

Purpletop, Sideoats Grama,

Blue Grama

Wetland Plantings

Arrow Arum, Lizard Tail,Tussock

Sedge, Sweetflag, Blue Flag Iris

Wetland Meadow Plantings

Broomsedge, New York Aster,

Switch Grass, Little Blue Stem

The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 44

Wetland Plantings

A total of 0.154 acres of wetland area will be disturbed by construction: 0.13 acres

from an unavoidable road cut and 0.024 acres when wetland area is converted into a

larger wetland pond. When complete, the new pond plus the remediated wetland

areas will comprise almost an acre of new wetlands. Once the wetland pond has been

established, an underground transfer pipe will allow water to flow to the lake and

back, controlling water levels in the pond. It is anticipated that the pond will need

minimal annual maintenance to control forest succession and weedy overgrowth. 

Just as the undisturbed forested knoll at the center of the entry drive creates a public

identity for the facility, the wetland pond on the lake side of the site will form a

human-scaled, private sanctuary. The small pond with a naturalist garden of wetland

plantings will underscore the value of wetland environments.

Composting

Plant health can be greatly improved by the use of compost and organic mulches.

The project team made plans to incorporate these resources throughout the life of

the facility. 

The specifications stipulated that

during construction, land that required

clearing would first be logged for

valuable timber, and then the

remaining debris would be shredded 

in a tub grinder to create mulch for

future use on the site. This is in

contrast to the prevailing practices in

this region, where it is typical for

landscape scrap to be piled high and

burned. Mulch stockpiled on site has

been aged for use in finish landscaping.

Some of the mulch has been mixed 

Wildflowers attract wildlife Wetland plants
45 Design Process: Building Envelope

directly into the topsoil, where the decomposed material will aerate and amend 

the soil for more productive plant growth. Cafeteria waste at the Campus is also

composted and used for landscaping on site.

Building Envelope

Improvements to the building envelope typically provide the first line of defense in

energy-efficient design strategies. Sunshading, insulation, a tight building envelope

that limits infiltration and thermal bridging, and high performance glass all reduce

unwanted heat gain or loss. “Optimizing” the design of the building envelope refers

to a process that systematically evaluates options to find the best combination of

strategies that will cost-effectively improve performance. 

Evaluation of Building Loads

Before energy design strategies can be explored, an understanding of the building’s

most significant energy requirements should be developed. Major components of

the EPA facility energy load were ranked by building type (see accompanying pie

charts). These components included outside air for ventilation, internal loads

generated by occupants, lights and equipment; energy for supply air fans; and 

heat loss and gain through the building envelope. 

These initial load profiles guided the

project team as they sought design

strategies with the greatest benefit. For the

new EPA Campus, high ventilation

requirements in the laboratories, and high

internal loads in the offices lessen the

relative impact of the building envelope on

overall energy use. The relative importance

of the building envelope in terms of overall

energy use is also much greater for the

office buildings than for the laboratory

buildings. For example, office buildings

attribute 23 percent of peak energy load to

the building envelope and the labs only

attribute 2 percent. This indicates that

improvements in the building envelope of

the office building will be more costeffective than improvements in the

building envelope of the lab buildings.

Sun Control

A key goal of sun control is to provide

beneficial daylighting for building

occupants while blocking unwanted glare

and heat gain. The facility’s facades

incorporate some architectural sunshading

through the deep profile of the precast

concrete cladding. Clusters of tall trees,

some as high as 80 feet, which were

preserved during site design, also provide

valuable shading for the west side of the

low three-story office buildings. Low-E

glazing and interior mini-blinds complete

the sun control strategy in office areas. 

Benefits of Composting

• Transportation of organic 

waste from landscaping and 

food preparation of the site is 

eliminated or minimized

• Biodegradable waste is not 

stored in landfills, where it 

would be mixed with 

inorganic and often toxic 

wastes and prevented from 

biodegrading

• A renewable source of 

organic fertilizer for 

landscaping is created on site

• Plant fertilizers need not be 

transported to the site

Key Issues to Consider

• Optimize building insulation

• Optimize building glazing

• Incorporate exterior shading 

and sun control

• Evaluate impact of interior 

sunshading

• Minimize air infiltration

• Provide adequate air barrier 

and vapor retarder

• Minimize unintentional or 

uncontrolled thermal bridges

• Use light-colored roofing

EPA CAMPUS COMPONENT PEAK LOADS

LABORATORY

Total Load 64 MillionBtu/Hr

OFFICE 

Total Load 18 Million Btu/Hr

outdoor air

77%

supply fan

8%

envelope

2%

indoor

13%

indoor

43%

outdoor air

25%

supply fan

9%

envelope

23%
The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 46

Heat Flow

U–value = 1.11

This is the 

comparison for

other glazings

Solar Heat

SHGC = 0.86

14% of solar 

radiation is 

rejected

Daylight

VT = 0.90

10% of visible

light is reflected

or absorbed

86% of

solar

radiation is 

transmitted

90% of

visible light is 

transmitted

Heat Flow

U–value = 0.24

88% less heat

than single–pane

clear glazing

Solar Heat

SHGC = 0.41

59% of solar 

radiation is 

rejected

Daylight

VT = 0.72

28% of visible

light is reflected

or absorbed

41% of

solar

radiation is 

transmitted

72% of

visible light is 

transmitted

Motorized shadecloth blinds are used in public areas in the central office tower.

However, the lab buildings do not require interior blinds because all of the occupied

spaces are inboard and the deep articulation of the precast concrete outer walls help

shade strong midday sun. The cafeteria and training area facades, with 12-foot-high

floor-to-ceiling glass overlooking the lake, incorporate a deep architectural trellis

planted with deciduous vines that provide maximum sunshading in summer and

partial sunshading in winter. 

Glass Selection

The performance of types of glazing varies tremendously. Compared to most tinted

and reflective glazings, spectrally selective Low-E coatings provide a higher level of

daylight for a given amount of solar heat reduction. This feature is especially

important in cooling-dominated climates. The Comparison of Glazing Performance

(below) indicates that the improved Low-E double glazed insulating unit with

spectrally selective glass has the highest Coolness Index (CI) of all. This ability to

transmit light without heat is a major technological achievement. For the EPA

facility, the improved Low-E is used on southern and western exposures and the

atrium roof. Standard Low-E is a lower cost option and provides sufficient

performance for the northern and eastern exposures.

Comparative Performance 

of Glazing Types

Single pane clear glass (top) and

double pane glass with spectrally

selective low–E coating (bottom)

Comparison of Glazing Performance

Single pane clear glazing

Glazing types used at EPA

Glazing Type

1.09/1.03

U-Value

(Winter/Summer)

0.94

Shading

Coefficient

89%

Visible Light

Transmittance

.94

Double pane clear glazing 0.48/0.55 0.81 79% .97

Bronze tint on clear double

pane glazing

0.44/0.52 0.29 18% .62

Low-E coating on clear 

double pane glazing

0.31/0.32 .59 73% 1.24

Low-E coating on green spectrally

selective double pane glazing 1

1 Spectrally selective glass has different performance depending on the color.

2 Performance will vary depending on the film used, heavier films reduce light transmittance

and lower shading coefficient, but U-value remains about the same, HM88 and HM 44 are 

shown to demonstrate some of the range.

3 Assumes 1" insulating unit, 1 1/2" insulating unit will have a U-value of 0.23/0.27 for HM88

and 0.21/0.24 for HM44.

0.31/0.33 0.47 63% 1.34

Improved Low-E coating on green spectrally selective double pane glazing

0.29/0.30 0.35 60% 1.71

Heat MirrorTM 88 1" insulating

unit with green glazing 2, 3

0.32/0.37 0.44 61% 1.38

Heat MirrorTM 44 1" insulating

unit with green glazing 2, 3

0.31/0.35 0.24 32% 1.33

Super Windows 0.13 0.36 54% 1.5

Coolness

Index (CI)
47 Design Process: Building Envelope

Thermally Broken Windows

The largest disadvantage of aluminum as a window frame material is in its high thermal

conductance. Unless “thermally broken,” the frame readily conducts heat, greatly

raising the overall U-factor of a window unit. Moisture accumulation in the building

can also become a problem if it becomes cold enough outside to condense moisture or

frost on the inside surfaces of window frames. Consequently, all aluminum window

frames for the EPA Campus are fully thermally broken. This feature will not only

improve comfort, but it will also eliminate condensation that could lead to the growth

of molds and mildew, thus preserving good indoor air quality.

Light Shelves

Metal light shelves that would also act as a sun screening element were explored during

design. While light shelves can enhance the use of daylight in office areas, the potential

benefits for the EPA offices were limited because of the high proportion of interior

closed offices. In addition, deep window ledges and the tall existing trees adjacent to

the building already provide some sunshading. Consequently, at a cost of approximately

$500,000, light shelves were determined not to be the most cost-effective way to

improve performance. Instead, improved low-E glazing was used on the west and south

facades for a premium of $10,000. The result was almost as good as the $500,000

solution and was much more cost-effective. 

Insulation 

Due to North Carolina’s mild climate and the relatively small contribution of the

building envelope to overall thermal loads, super-insulation is not a cost-justifiable

strategy in the new facility. Even in the winter, the office buildings will be in cooling

mode most of the time, and the lab buildings will be minimally affected by their

insulative value. Due to the internal loads generated by people, lights and computer

equipment, offices on the interior are cooled virtually year round. In a typical office

building, the envelope is 15-20 percent of the load, whereas the lights, equipment,

people and outdoor air constitute the remainder of the load. In summer, light-colored

roofing and cladding will contribute to heat gain reduction, putting less of a burden

on the insulation to slow heat transmission. Therefore, insulation for the facility is

provided in moderate quantities: U-values of 0.05 for the roof and 0.07 for the walls.

Building Envelope

Refers to a building’s exterior skin.

Particularly important is the

extent to which it allows or

resists the passage of air, light,

heat, moisture, sound and pests

into and out of the building.

Coolness Index (CI)

Sometimes referred to as efficacy

(ke), this is the ratio of visible light

transmittance to shading

coefficient; a higher number

indicates better admission of

daylight with less accompanying

heat gain.

Low-E

Low-emissivity, a term used by the

glass industry for microscopically

thin metal or metallic oxide layers

deposited on a window or skylight

glazing surface primarily to reduce

the U-factor by suppressing

radiative heat flow.A typical type

of low-E coating is transparent to

the solar spectrum (visible light

and short-wave infrared radiation)

and reflective of long-wave

infrared radiation.

R-Value

A measurement of the resistance

of a material to the transfer of

heat. Insulation having high R-value

is important for walls, roofing and

foundations.Windows and doors

may have improved R-values

depending upon their design.

Shading Coefficient

measures the total solar heat gain

through the glazing compared to

1/8” clear glass under the same

design conditions; the lower the

shading coefficient, the lower the

solar heat gain.

Light shelves at National Computer Center
The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 48

Infiltration

The infiltration of outdoor air can be a major source of heat transfer through a

building’s envelope. It can also introduce unwanted moisture into the building’s

interior. The EPA Campus used low-toxicity, high performance caulks and sealants

to minimize unwanted heat loss and heat gain, to maintain required pressurization

relationships between office and lab, and to prevent infiltration of exhaust air or

ground contaminants. Air locks are provided at all public entries.

Albedo Control

Roof and exterior wall surfaces that reflect rather than absorb light limit heat

absorption through the building envelope. The measure of light reflectivity is called

“albedo.” Generally, materials with high albedo are light in color. Consequently, the

project team chose white single-ply roofing (albedo of 0.78) throughout the facility

to limit heat gain, and reduce air conditioning requirements. With an “emissivity”

of 0.90, this roofing will also shed it’s absorbed heat relatively quickly. Even though

studies show that similar white roofs lose up to 25 percent of their albedo within

the first three years following installation due to dirt accumulation, the performance

stabilizes at a level of about 0.60 albedo, which is still significantly better than

typical black-roof surfaces. 

The building cladding is a light beige precast concrete, with beige concrete masonry

units at the building base and cores. These light-colored surfaces will also contribute

to reduced cooling requirements for the facility.

Operable Windows

Air pressure relationships within the facility control the flow of air between the lab

and the office portions of the building. These pressure relationships enhance safety

within the building by ensuring that air in laboratory areas cannot migrate into

office areas, which are under positive pressure. The pressure relationships also keep

odors and fumes from spaces such as loading areas, trash docks and print rooms out

Albedo and Emissivity of Materials

Concrete

Material

0.3

Albedo

0.94

Tar paper 0.05 0.93

Bright galvanized iron 0.35 0.13

Bright aluminum 0.85 0.04

Aluminum Paint 0.80 0.27 - 0.67

Black EPDM roofing 0.045 0.88

Gravel 0.72 0.28

Emissivity

Source: The Protocols of White Roofing by James I. Seeley,

published in The Concrete Specifier, November 1997

White single ply roofing 0.78 0.90

Thermal Break

To solve the heat conduction

problem of aluminum frames, the

frame is split into interior and

exterior pieces and a less

conductive material such as plastic

is used to join them. Current

technology with standard thermal

breaks has improved aluminum

frame U-factors from roughly 2.0

to about 1.0.

U-Value

A measure of heat flow is the

inverse of R-value (R=1/U).

Albedo

A measure of the light reflectance

of a material, whether a building

material, paving, ground cover, etc.

Building materials with high

albedo (lighter colors) reflect

more light off their surface and

reduce the overall heat gain

through the building’s envelope.

Emissivity

The rate at which absorbed

energy is radiated away from an

object; a desirable roofing

membrane will easily release its

absorbed heat energy and keep

the roof cooler.
49 Design Process: Space Planning

of the airstream. Operable windows would compromise the EPA’s facility’s pressure

balance, and could create indoor air quality problems due to the region’s high

humidity and heavy mold and pollen loads.

However, to help bring fresh air inside during good weather, an outside air

economizer system has been integrated into the design. When outside temperatures

permit, and humidity is not too high, the outside air economizer system provides

cooling with up to 100% outside air, filtered to remove dust, pollen and mold spores. 

Space Planning

Space planning has a significant impact on the overall environmental performance

of most facilities. Depending on how the space is designed, it will either become

obsolete after a short period of time and require complete renovation, or it will be

flexible enough to meet future needs with a minimum of effort. Consequently,

increased flexibility enhances building longevity, thereby conserving material

resources and reducing waste streams.

The new facility has been developed with a flexible organizational system to

accommodate movement of personnel, changes in research programs and changes 

in the mix of labs and offices. 

Modular Office Design 

To minimize the demand for office alterations, the design accommodates a limited

number of office sizes. Two basic sizes are provided for closed offices, and two sizes

for open workstations. The fundamental building block for office planning is a 36-

by-50-foot “pod” with fixed demising walls that separate one pod, or suite, from the

next. While this pod can accommodate open and closed offices in several different

ways, a 20-foot-wide zone along the windows is always dedicated for open

workstations so that people in the interior zone of the office floors will have access

to natural light. 

When reconfiguration is necessary, the perimeter suite walls, lights, sprinklers,

ceiling grid and electronic sensors can usually remain in place. Construction is

mostly limited to those partition walls within the pod that must be changed to

accommodate a different proportion of closed to open, or large to small offices.

Demountable partitions were considered but not chosen because the need for

reconfiguration within the office areas will not be frequent enough to justify the

additional investment. 

Key Issues to Consider

• Develop flexible space plans 

using modular design that 

anticipates future needs

• Develop mechanical, electrical 

and plumbing infrastructure 

that anticipates future needs 

and can accommodate change

• Improve efficiency of the 

building through the use of 

shared spaces

Standard office suite configuration
The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 50

Hallway

Lab

Support

Scientist

Office Technician

Office

Casework

Fume Hood

Service Corridor

Modular Lab Design

The laboratory space is designed to provide safe and efficient layouts with easy

access to utility services and investigator offices. A service corridor provides access 

to essential plumbing, exhaust risers, electrical panels and bottled gases. The

telecommunications backbone bisects each floor plate. Modular lab “building

blocks” measuring 11 feet by 23 feet are arrayed to each side of the service corridor,

and an adjacent 11-foot by 12-foot support/office block provides added flexibility 

to house science or scientists. A service ledge containing all lab support utilities

provides the core element for multi-module peninsula benches or the base structure

for utility free dividing walls. Modules can be easily combined by leaving out these

wall segments (up to eight modules in width), or by extending the base module to

33 feet by using the lab support module. Conversely, adding a wall atop a peninsula

bench allows easy division of larger labs into smaller labs without disrupting

electrical or piped utilities.

Utility distribution to lab benches is provided through the fixed service ledge 

which supports and protects all utility piping. Services include gas, compressed 

air, vacuum, water and electricity for various kinds of specialty equipment and

instrumentation. Since utility lines do not normally need to be moved when labs 

are reconfigured, there is less disruption, costs are minimized and demolition waste

is drastically reduced.

Lab casework and counter tops are designed in three- or four-foot units, each with

pullout writing boards and either high or low bench heights. Kneehole spaces

feature lockable computer keyboard drawers, and wall cabinets and open-wire shelf

units are fully adjustable. This allows ready reuse of laboratory casework over the

years of occupancy. The EPA labs have been developed so that all changes, except

those that affect the size of the lab, can be made without construction. When

construction is required it is limited to gypsum partitions between labs, while the

floor, ceiling, lighting, sprinklers, diffusers and lab services all remain intact. 

These conserving strategies greatly extend the service life of labs and equipment,

and reduce the quantity of lab furnishings and building materials typically hauled to

landfills. Waste from future renovations is limited to gypsum wall board and steel

framing, both of which are fully recyclable. Finally, very little research time will be

lost waiting for renovations to be completed.

Bracing

Wall or strut/shelves

Electrical

Air/Vacuum, Gases

Bolt–on

Casework

Plumbing

Service Ledge

with Utilities

Typical Laboratory Plan
51 Design Process: Building Atrium

Building Atrium

Building atria can enhance the functionality of a building by providing large enclosed

spaces that contribute to the sense of community within a facility. The atrium for

the new EPA facility was seen as an important strategy to encourage interaction

between EPA employees, not just within work groups but across disciplines. When

properly designed, atria can also serve as energy conservation features that reduce

heat gain and loss while bringing natural light into a building. However, careful

skylight design is necessary if the potential energy benefit is going to be realized. If

designed without proper care, an atrium can trap solar heat in the summer and lose

heat through the skylight in the winter, greatly increasing energy usage. 

Building Massing

The building massing of the EPA Campus has been developed to reduce exterior

surface area while addressing the desire for a predominantly low-rise facility. A series

of building atria connect laboratory and office buildings, to bring daylight into the

facility while providing a main street of circulation for the complex of buildings.

From a design perspective, the atria connect two otherwise separate buildings,

reducing the exterior perimeter by exchanging skylight area for what would

otherwise be exterior vertical walls. The connection provides savings, both in 

capital costs and energy costs. 

Energy and Daylighting Analysis

The goal for atrium skylighting is to meet required functional and aesthetic

requirements while balancing daylighting and energy goals. To optimize the design

of the atrium skylight, the project team used energy and daylighting analysis to

assess heat gain and loss through the atrium skylight, illumination requirements that

could be met with daylighting, and heat gain associated with electric lighting. 

The original atrium design called for a top-of-the-line, all-glass skylight, with highperformance low-E glazing. However, the project team quickly realized that this

approach was problematic. The atrium skylight would have provided too much

light. The light converts to heat energy inside the building, which impacts the

overall building cooling load. Excessive lighting also causes visual discomfort from

harsh levels of contrast. However, simply lowering the visible light transmittance of

the glass would have resulted in a gloomy, gray sky appearance, with high levels of

interior reflectance on the glass. 

After adjusting model parameters for six different atrium roof options, the optimum

skylight design was selected. Using the same high performance glass for

approximately 26 percent of the surface, the remainder of the atrium surface was

comprised of translucent panels with improved insulative value, and opaque panels

filled with insulation. The revised design reduces the atrium’s peak energy usage by

two-thirds compared to the all-glass skylight. The solution still provides plenty of

light, so that the perimeter of offices facing the atrium will require very little

artificial lighting. 

It is difficult to calculate the net benefit of the new facility’s atrium without a

detailed energy analysis of a similar scheme with no atrium. For comparison

purposes, the office portions of the adjacent central office tower next to the entry

plaza were determined to operate on the same schedules and at the same density as

the office buildings connected by the atrium. Energy calculations indicate the office

buildings fronting the atrium use 37,400 Btu/SF/Yr versus 41,000 Btu/SF/Yr for

the freestanding tower, a 10% reduction in energy consumption. This reduction is

primarily related to decreased exterior surface. 

Key Issues to Consider

• Minimize the building’s 

exterior perimeter by 

connecting otherwise 

separate buildings

• Draw natural light into the 

building interior, but avoid 

over-lighting

• Minimize heat gain and heat 

loss through the atrium roof/ 

skylight

Section through the 

central atrium
The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 52

Atrium Skylight Options

Multiple skylight options for the

EPA project were considered

(see diagram). A comparison of

the first cost and the energy cost

over a 20-year life cycle was

provided for each. Schemes one

and two were eliminated due to

their relatively high cost and

comparatively low energy

performance. Schemes three,

four and five had remarkably

similar cost and energy

performance. 

Scheme three is a modified

version of the original skylight

that faces west. In contrast,

schemes four and five introduce

a series of clerestory windows

that face north and south, a

traditionally-preferred approach

for passive solar design that

eliminates the western exposure.

The energy analysis showed a

surprisingly small added energy

benefit for schemes four and five. Scheme three was ultimately chosen because it

would be easier to maintain, due to its single, continuous slope as opposed to

multiple peaks and valleys. Scheme three also allowed a clear view of the sky from

the interior. 

Atrium skylight options

Central atrium

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

Base

Case

COST

Total Cost

$800,000

$900,000

$1,000,000

$400,000

$300,000

$200,000

$100,000

$0

Scheme

1

Scheme

2

Scheme

3

Scheme

4

Scheme

5

First Cost

Energy Cost

Base Case

Scheme 1

Scheme 2

Scheme 3

Scheme 4

Scheme 5
53 Design Process: Lighting Systems

The outcome of this rigorous analysis was the selection of an atrium skylight design

with reduced construction cost, combined with excellent daylighting and thermal

performance. In addition to the energy and cost benefits, the atrium design

contributes to the aesthetic quality, with a forest-like mix of brightness and shade,

intermingled with views of the sky. 

Lighting Systems

When electricity use and the increased cooling load due to electrical lighting are

considered together, electric lighting generally represents approximately 15 percent

of the overall energy consumption in typical office buildings. Efficient lighting

requires appropriate use of daylight, an accurate assessment of required lighting

quantities, use of efficient lamps, ballasts and fixtures, and measures to reduce

unnecessary lighting during unoccupied hours. For the EPA Campus, the

combination of sensor controls and high-efficiency fixtures produced lighting that 

is approximately 70% more efficient than a standard code-compliant building.

Besides the energy issues associated with electric lighting, there are quality of life

and productivity issues to consider. Excessive illumination can create visual

discomfort, glare, headaches and fatigue while increasing energy consumption and

associated pollutant emissions. Greater use of daylighting, reduced glare, good color

rendition, elimination of lamp flicker and correct lighting levels can contribute to

the productivity and well being of a building’s occupants.

Green Lights

EPA’s voluntary Green Lights program encourages companies to upgrade their

lighting. While the efficient lighting technologies have a higher first cost, their

payback periods are quick. Participants in the Green Lights program have found

that, on average, their lighting improvements have generated a 30 percent rate of

return. Although originally intended for existing buildings, the Green Light

principles are equally valid for new construction. Consequently, the project team for

the EPA Campus implemented the full range of measures described in the Green

Lights program, including high-efficiency lamps and ballasts, task lighting,

photoelectric dimming controls, occupancy sensors, a central lighting control system

and bulb maintenance. The combination of sensor controls and high-efficiency

fixtures produced lighting for the new Campus that is about 70% more efficient

than standard code-compliant buildings.

Daylighting

The EPA Campus design promotes the use of daylighting in a number of ways. The

building atria that connect lab and office buildings bring daylight into the building

interior. All exterior glazing has high visible light transmittance and a low shading

coefficient to provide “cool light.” Interior space planning supports daylighting

through the use of light color finishes, low partition heights and a planning concept

that designates almost 50 percent of the perimeter space planning zone to be

dedicated to open office workstations. This zone keeps exterior windows

unobstructed so that light can penetrate interior office zones.

Task Lighting

Task lighting directs light onto a work surface or object that requires illumination.

This allows the general or “ambient” lighting levels to be reduced to a more

comfortable level. Ambient lighting levels for the EPA Campus were reduced in

anticipation of task lighting which will be used in all office and lab areas. The office

areas are designed to 30-40 Foot Candles (FC) ambient and 50 FC task, and the

labs are designed to 70-80 FC ambient and 100 FC task.

Key Issues to Consider

• Maximize the benefits of 

natural daylight

• Select high-efficiency, longlasting light sources and highefficiency fixtures

• Make use of task lighting

• Balance lighting efficiency with 

visual comfort

• Control the balance between 

natural and artificial lighting 

with sensors and dimmers 

where appropriate

Ambient Light 

The overall lighting level of a

space, including primarily daylight

and overhead lighting.

Ballast 

A device used to operate

fluorescent and HID lamps. It

provides the necessary starting

voltage, while limiting and

regulating the lamp current during

operation.

Color Rendering Index (CRI)

A scale of the effect of a light

source on the color appearance of

an object compared to its color

appearance under a reference light

source (low numbers indicate

unnatural appearance; 100

indicates no color shift).

Compact Fluorescent Lamps

(CFLs)

Fluorescent lamps that are

configured to fit into a standard

incandescent socket. Many models

contain an integral ballast.

Dimming Systems

Controls that automatically turn

down the artificial lighting in areas

that receive sunlight during the

daylight hours to save electricity

and reduce the building’s 

cooling load.
The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 54

Laboratory Lighting

The laboratories for the EPA Campus are lit with direct and indirect lighting that 

is complemented by task lighting on the work surface. Numerous options were

evaluated. The direct/indirect lighting scheme proved to be considerably more

efficient than a traditional scheme using down lighting alone. It also provides better

quality lighting. The indirect component enhances the spread of light while the

direct component improves overall efficiency as well as depth perception. 

The direct/indirect scheme also reduces the connected watts per square foot (SF)

from 1.85 to 1.38 when compared to the direct lighting scheme alone. This is

because only one row of three-lamp fixtures is required instead of two rows of twolamp fixtures. This scheme also generates first cost savings. Light distribution studies

developed for the selected indirect/direct scheme demonstrate that the spread of

light in the labs will provide the desired quality. 

Office Lighting

In the office areas, indirect lighting proved to be less efficient and more expensive

than direct lighting. This was due to the high proportion of closed offices required

in these areas. Consequently, office areas for the EPA Campus are lit with two-foot

by four-foot recessed fluorescent downlights with compact fluorescent downlights in

the circulation zones. Even so, this scheme requires less than one connected watt per

SF. Daylight dimming and occupancy sensors in the office areas further reduce

lighting requirements, so that the anticipated energy use for lighting is only about

0.6 watts per SF.

Special Spaces

The lobby, cafeteria, conference center and breakout spaces in the atria are areas that

traditionally would receive some incandescent lighting. However, with the advent of

improved fluorescent lamps with high color rendering indexes (CRI) and no flicker,

this preference is no longer valid. The EPA Campus uses compact fluorescent

fixtures supplemented with metal halide fixtures in public areas where a stronger,

more intense source is desired. 

Direct lighting

Illuminates a surface or space

directly from the light source,

whereas indirect lighting reflects

the light off other surfaces.

Downlight

A type of ceiling luminaire, usually

fully recessed, where most of the

light is directed downward.

Fluorescent

A lamp that produces visible light

by emitting electromagnetic

radiation and is much more

efficient than incandescent,

requiring only 15-30% of the

energy to produce an equivalent

amount of light.

Typical laboratory section with

direct lighting supplemented by

task lighting

Typical laboratory section with

direct / indirect lighting

supplemented by task lighting

Computer-generated radiosity study of typical laboratory
55 Design Process: Building Mechanical Systems

Lighting Controls

Many types of automated control systems have been developed to reduce the 

use of electric lighting when it is not needed. These systems include a variety of

photoelectric sensors for dimming in response to daylight, occupancy sensors that

shut lights off when occupants leave the room, and time clock controls that shut

lights off based on occupancy schedules. Lumen maintenance controls use dimming

to undo the overlighting that is typically employed to compensate for degradation 

of lamp output over time.

The EPA Campus uses several of these systems in its lighting strategy. Photoelectric

sensors for daylight dimming control are used in the building atria, the cafeteria and

conferencing center, and in office building perimeter zones, including office areas

that face the atria. Photoelectric sensors are also used to control lighting in the

parking garages. Occupancy sensors are used to control lighting in open and closed

office areas, as well as support areas such as storage rooms, copy rooms and small

conference rooms. However, occupancy sensors will not be used in labs for safety

reasons. The Building Automated Control System also has a timeclock feature that

will switch off lights inadvertently left on during off hours.

Exit Signs

Although exit signs are a seemingly minor concern, they are plentiful in buildings

and are illuminated 24 hours a day, seven days a week. When relamping is

considered, the differences between available options are magnified. For example, a

typical long-life incandescent lamp in an exit sign must be replaced every eight

months versus 1.7 years for a compact fluorescent, and 80 years for a Light

Emitting Diode (LED) exit sign. To take advantage of the installation, operations

and maintenance dividends, the EPA Campus uses LED exit signs throughout. 

Building Mechanical Systems

Building mechanical systems that provide heating, cooling and ventilation generally

account for as much as 50 percent of a typical building’s total energy consumption.

The efficiency of systems, however, varies considerably–as does the potential

environmental impact. This impact can include resource depletion and habitat

Central atrium

Occupancy Sensor

A control device that turns lights

off after the space has become

unoccupied.

Photocell 

A light sensing device used to

control luminaires and dimmers in

response to detected light levels,

saving electricity when daylight is

sufficient.

Task Lighting

Any form of light that is focused

on a specific surface or object. It

is intended to provide high-quality,

flexible, lighting for a

predetermined activity.

Exit Signs

• There are more than 100 

million exit signs in buildings 

throughout the United States,

operating 24 hours a day, 365 

days a year

• Cumulatively, we spend about 

$1 billion per year just to 

operate all the exit signs in 

buildings in the U.S.

• Beginning in the year 2000,

companies could save 800 

million kilowatts of electricity 

per year through the use of 

EPA Energy Star compliant 

exit signs, a total of almost 

$70 million each year

• A typical long-life incandescent 

exit sign consumes 40 watts 

and must have the lamps 

replaced every eight months

• A typical compact fluorescent 

exit sign consumes 10 watts 

and must have the lamps 

replaced every 1.7 years

• A typical Light Emitting Diode 

(LED) exit sign consumes less 

than 5 watts and has a life 

expectancy of more than 80 

years. (An LED is a solid state 

light source with no filament)

Source: Energy Efficient Lighting

Association, 1998
The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 56

destruction from the extraction of fuel, air emissions from combustion that create

pollution and contribute to global warming, and ozone depletion from the release of

chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) and hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) refrigerants in

cooling equipment. 

From both a cost and a pollution prevention perspective, investments in energyefficient systems should be considered after all efforts have been made to eliminate

unnecessary thermal loads. Energy conservation and energy efficiency strategies for

the EPA Campus netted more than a 40 percent reduction in energy consumption

for the overall facility, compared to average building energy performance statistics

developed by the U.S. Department of Energy.

Energy Modeling

Energy modeling is an effective tool that allowed the project team to evaluate

options and find cost-effective solutions. An energy budget was developed for the

EPA Campus, providing modeling information on peak loading and operational

energy use. While reductions in peak loading can lead to first-cost savings as systems

are downsized, operational energy use must also be evaluated as an indicator of

ultimate energy consumption. Producing an energy budget during the detailed

design phase allows for an accurate simulation because systems have already been

selected. However, it limits the ability of designers to make use of energy studies to

inform system selection and architectural scheme design. Ideally, a preliminary

energy budget should be developed in schematic design and used as a design tool,

then updated during design development and final design phases. 

Central Utility Plant

The EPA Campus shares a central utility plant with the National Institute of

Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) facility across the lake. A separate utility

plant for the EPA facility was originally considered because the elimination of the

36" chilled water (CW) and 14" high temperature hot water (HTHW) campus loop

would have considerable first- cost savings and limit thermal transport losses.

However, the use of a central plant has the advantage of scale that favors the use of

high-efficiency equipment, shared operations, staff and equipment, redundancy and

load balancing. The shared plant was ultimately endorsed and, in the current design,

cross-connected underground pipes supply HTHW and CW to both the EPA facility

and NIEHS. 

In addition to shared equipment redundancy with NIEHS that offset some of the firstcost premium, the EPA Campus gained operational benefits associated with shared

plant personnel. This shared redundancy proved to be a major cost and environmental

savings to both EPA and NIEHS. One 3,500-ton chiller and one 40-million Btu/hour

boiler were cut from the project, which eliminated the purchase, production and

transport of enormous pieces of equipment. With less room needed for equipment, the

central plant building expansion was reduced by 5,000 square feet.

High Efficiency Chillers and Boilers

The efficiency of chillers and boilers can vary considerably. However, even with

high-efficiency equipment, chiller and boiler efficiencies are not fixed. Efficiencies

can vary according to loading with some machines reaching peak efficiency at full

load and others at partial load. Consequently, a good understanding of anticipated

actual loadings, not just peak loading, is important for design so that the full load

and the partial-load efficiencies of equipment can be evaluated and optimized

relative to demand.

Key Issues to Consider

• Consider the primary fuel or 

energy source to be used

• Look for equipment that does 

not use CFCs or HCFCs

• Choose high-efficiency heating 

and cooling equipment, pumps 

and motors

• Minimize reheating of 

conditioned air

• Use variable frequency drives 

for fans and pumps, and 

variable air volume boxes for 

air handling

• Explore heat reclamation.

• Optimize distribution of 

mechanical equipment to 

minimize transport losses

• Consider setting goals that 

exceed federal benchmarks 

for efficiency
57 Design Process: Building Mechanical Systems

The chillers and the boilers specified for the NIEHS/EPA Central Utility Plant

(CUP) are highly efficient units designed to operate at multiple settings. This allows

their output efficiency to be optimized. For example, the CUP chillers consume

0.54 KW/ton at 50 to 75% loads. At 100% load, consumption increases to 0.63

KW/ton, and at only 25% load, the energy consumption is an even higher 0.77

KW/ton. In other words, extremely high or low loads are the least efficient

operating modes. Because the design is based on multiple chillers in operation with

a redundant chiller provided, 100 percent output will never be required and 25

percent loading will be minimized.

Variable Air Volume 

Variable air volume (VAV) systems control temperature by varying the quantity 

of supply air based on the actual cooling required. VAV boxes can be set so that

minimum outdoor air requirements are met while varying the supply air to suit the

heating or cooling load in the space. In this situation, a variable speed drive on the 

air handler will slow down the fan, maintaining minimum system pressure and saving

fan energy. In addition, the lower airflow passing across the cooling coil reduces the

required heat transfer in the coil as well as the amount of chilled water used. 

The EPA facility uses a non-powered VAV system in the office buildings and a dualsetting constant volume system in the laboratories. The straight system was used

instead of a fan-powered VAV even though a fan-powered VAV can contribute to

better air movement and air mixing within the office space. The straight system was

selected because the fan-powered VAV is a high maintenance piece of equipment

that consumes fan energy. The simpler “straight” system is a low energy alternative,

and it also allowed EPA to specify an increased minimum airflow. The EPA facility

provides a minimum of 2.25 air changes per hour (ACH) of outdoor air, which

exceeds the one ACH minimum recommended by the American Society of Heating

and Refrigeration Engineers (ASHRAE) 62-89.

Outside Air Economizer Cycle

Each of the air handling units for the offices and the labs at the EPA Campus is

equipped with an outside air economizer cycle with enthalpy controllers to sense

relative humidity and protect the building from overly humid air. Outside air

economizer cycle operation (also known as “free cooling”) allows the air handling unit

to operate at up to a 100 percent outdoor air mode when the outdoor temperature

and humidity allows. It is the mechanical equivalent of the open window. 

Economizers become active when outdoor air temperature is at or below 55 degrees.

If the outdoor temperature continues to drop below the supply air temperature (55

degrees), the system mixes outdoor air and return air to maintain temperature.

Economizer cycles create tremendous savings in climates that are mild much of the

year and where humidity is not too high. Outdoor air economizers need to be

addressed in the early stages of design because space for larger ductwork and

shaftways is required.

Variable Frequency Drives

A variable frequency drive is a solid-state device hooked to the starter of a motor,

fan or pump to allow for the motor speed to be varied according to the demand.

This allows the system to take advantage of the slower speeds and to reduce 

energy consumption.

The EPA Campus uses variable speed drives on all water pumps and air handling

units. Sensors in the piping system and the duct system monitor fluctuations in the

static pressure or the water pressure, transmitting a signal to the variable speed drives

to slow down or increase the speed of the motor depending on the conditions.

Heat Recovery System 

Any system that recovers waste

heat generated by building

operation to satisfy part of the

building’s energy needs. Sources of

heat include exhaust air, machines,

lights, process energy and people.

Variable Air Volume (VAV) 

A feature in a mechanical space

heating/cooling system that uses

an automatic control to adjust the

air volume flow rate rather than

adjusting the air temperature.

Variable Speed Drive

A device used to control the

speed of an alternating currentdriven motor by electronically

varying the input voltage and

motor frequency.
The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 58

High Efficiency Motors and Fans

The heart of the HVAC system is the fan that pushes the air; the fan is required

whether the process requires cooling, heating, ventilation or exhaust. Consequently,

the specification of the highest efficiency fans and motors for use in the HVAC is an

important step toward the development of efficient systems. The EPA specifications

call for 90-95 percent efficient motors, a 10-15 percent savings over the customary

80-85 percent efficient motors. The specifications also call for high efficiency

centrifugal and axial fans with variable frequency drives. By combining the highest

efficiency fan design with variable speed demand high efficiency motors, a 15-20

percent overall savings in fan energy can be realized. 

Heat Reclamation for Hot Water Generation

In the EPA facility, the high temperature hot water that has been circulated through

heat exchangers to generate steam for the main building maintains sufficient heat to

make domestic hot water. Consequently, circulating the water through an additional

heat exchanger to make domestic hot water is an efficient use of the “surplus” heat.

By maximizing the overall change in temperature, heat losses are reduced in site

utility piping. This means that more of the energy per gallon of water is used and

not wasted as system losses from site distribution.

Laboratory Fume Hoods

Laboratory fume hoods are vented enclosures provided for the safe handling of

hazardous substances. They prevent the escape of contaminants to laboratory air,

thereby providing containment. In addition, they typically provide most or all of the

exhaust for the entire laboratory. 

During the design of the laboratories, it was determined that there were limited options

for conserving energy conservation in the fume hood systems while still meeting

current EPA safety performance standards. The air change requirement in the standard

chemical lab is 12 air changes per hour (ACH); other specialty labs can require up to

15 ACH. The design parameters at the outset of design were for a 1,400 cubic feet per

minute (CFM) conventional fume hood, with no provision for nighttime setback. This

EPA standard was based on the need for a minimum face velocity of 100 feet per

minute (fpm) with the sash fully open. 

The EPA’s new standard hoods were modified to provide for an 80 percent sash stop on

all of the hoods. The sash height reduction to 80 percent provides energy savings of 20

percent without compromising safety. This requires the researcher to manually override

the sash stop for setups within the hood, placing the hood in “alarm” mode, and then

to lower the sash back to the 80 percent stop or lower while chemicals are handled

within the hood. The sash height reduction requires that operators understand the

system and not attempt to work with the hood 100 percent open.

The design of the laboratories evolved to accommodate two-position variable air

volume control for each lab module. Called a “nighttime setback,” this feature allows

for energy savings in the lab module during unoccupied hours. A two-position supply

volume box is provided in each lab module. Each fume hood is connected to a riser

with a two-position exhaust volume box in the penthouse. The system has been devised

so that when the fume hood is at maximum flow, the volume boxes are positioned to

provide for a flow of 1120 CFM through the fume hood. If the lights are off and the

sash is closed on the fume hood, the volume boxes will reduce the airflow through the

lab module by approximately 50 percent. This saves energy by reducing the air

handling unit flow rate and slowing down the motor on the fans. The reduced airflow

eases cooling and reheat requirements. Fan energy is also saved when the exhaust

requirements are reduced by using variable frequency drives on the exhaust fans.

Cooling (or heating)

 coils as needed

No cooling or heating 

 coils needed

25 deg.

95 deg.

40 deg.

55 deg.

Recirculated

high percentage

of total

Return

from 

building

No cooling or heating 

 coils needed

Recirculated

about 50o

No

recirculated

air

Economizer Cycle 

(aka “outside air economizer”) A

system whereby cool outdoor air

is used, as available, to ease the

burden on a refrigeration cycle as

it cools recirculated indoor air.

Economizer cycle controls

the relationships between

supply and return air:

• When outside air is hot (or

very cold) the economizer

cycle is inactive

• As very cold outside air gets

warmer, it can be blended with

recirculated air, and neither

heating nor cooling coils are

needed

• When outside air is cool, it can

completely replace recirculated

air, making mechanical cooling

inactive

Source: Stein and Reynolds,

Mechanical and Electrical

Equipment for Buildings, 1992
59 Design Process: Building Mechanical Systems

Other energy conserving options, such as full VAV and combination

vertical/horizontal sash fume hoods, were considered and rejected by the EPA team.

EPA placed a high priority on low maintenance solutions that do not require

expensive operator training. Some of the newer energy conserving strategies had too

few successful installations to validate them when the design decisions were being

made for the EPA Campus. 

Heat Recovery for Laboratory Exhaust 

Heat exchangers operate in a number of different ways depending on the medium that

is being used, and the proximity of the intake and exhaust streams. Their function is to

use waste heat and waste cooling to accomplish preheating and precooling. The

potential for energy savings can be quite high, particularly for building types like

laboratories that require large volumes of conditioned air to be exhausted. 

A value engineering study prepared during concept design for the EPA facility

evaluated the cost-effectiveness of installing a glycol runaround system in the

laboratory air handling equipment. The glycol system was proposed because it

avoids possible contamination between air streams, and won’t freeze in the outside

air stream. In the winter, warm exhaust air transfers heat to a glycol solution, which

is then pumped to the coil in the air handling unit to preheat outdoor air. Incoming

air is warmed as it passes over the glycol loop before passing through the heating

coil, thus reducing the energy required to heat the outdoor air. This is also true in

the cooling season where cooler exhaust air cools the glycol solution, which then

precools the outdoor air.

Much to everyone’s surprise, the study indicated that the glycol heat recovery system

would cost $915,000 to install and approximately $8,900 more per year to run than

the system without the runaround cycle. This cost differential was attributed to the

extremely low electric rates of the local electric power provider and the absence of

profound, long-duration extremes in North Carolina weather. The glycol system had

increased fan static pressure caused by the heat recovery coils, and additional energy

Conventional Fume Hood

One of the oldest forms of

laboratory fume hood, it is

designed so that all exhaust air is

drawn in through the front face

opening.This type of hood can

suffer from excessive face velocities

and poor containment because the

air velocity at the face increases

proportionately as the sash is

lowered.

Fume Hood Energy 

Conservation Strategies

Sash Height Reduction

Because fume hood exhaust air

quantities are determined by the

area of the face opening and the

need to maintain a minimum face

velocity, a reduction in the sash

height reduces the total required

air flow.

Night Set Back

A sliding sash closes the fume

hood and slows air flow during

evening or unoccupied hours.

Variable Air Volume Fume Hood

Provides a constant velocity across

the hood face opening by varying

the supply and exhaust air volume

when the sash is opened or closed.

Requires sophisticated controls

and a response time of not more

than five seconds to safeguard

against backdrafts.

Horizontally Sliding Sash

Horizontal panels reduce the face

opening decreasing the total

required air flow.

Combination Sash Fume Hood

Horizontal sashes are used in

combination with vertical sashes,

providing the opportunity to save

air flow by restricting the sash

opening either vertically or

horizontally.

Industry Standard 6-Foot Hood

Sash

100%

open

1,400 CFM

All the time

EPA Hood: Set-Up Mode

Sash

100%

open

1,120 CFM

20% minimum savings all the time

EPA Hood: Operational Mode

Sash

80%

open

1,120 CFM

20% minimum savings all the time

EPA Hood: Night Setback (Unoccupied) Mode

Lights

off

660 CFM

53% total savings

ALARM

Sash

closed
The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 60

requirements for the glycol loop pumps. The energy to run the reheat system was

enough of an additional load to actually make heat recovery a more expensive

system to operate. As a result, EPA did not install a heat recovery system, but

provided space in the mechanical penthouse to allow installation of a system should

technology and economics make heat recovery a prudent choice in the future.

CFC Free Refrigeration Equipment

Because of the impact CFCs have on the ozone layer, CFC refrigerants have been

largely replaced by HCFC substitutes. Federal legislation has mandated strict

phaseout dates that further impact decision making. Among the common

substitutes for CFCs are HCFC-22, which has one-twentieth the ozone depleting

potential of CFC-11 and will be phased out in 2020; HCFC-123 which has less

than half the ozone depleting potential of HCFC-22 and will not be phased out

until 2030; and HFC 134a, which has no measured ozone depleting potential and

does not have a phase out date scheduled at this time. There are pros and cons to

HCFC-123 and HFC-134a, the two most viable substitute refrigerants. While

HCFC-123 is more efficient, it is scheduled to be phased out of production due to

its ozone depletion potential. HFC 134a is a safer alternative that has less ozone

depleting potential, but is a higher pressure refrigerant that is slightly less efficient

and requires slightly larger equipment and more floor area. 

In the end, EPA selected HFC-134a because it is a 0-rated refrigerant for ozone

depleting potential. Gas absorption chillers were rejected as an option because the

cost was prohibitive given the extremely low electricity rates at RTP. 

Building Humidification

Humidification is recommended in regions where winter conditions are particularly

dry and may adversely impact the health and well-being of occupants in office

environments. In laboratories, humidification can be essential to the success of

research projects. To provide the necessary humidification, the EPA facility uses a

water atomizing system that employs compressed air and softened water to provide a

minimum relative humidity (RH) of 35 percent in the laboratories and offices. A

value engineering study verified that energy savings made this type of system cost

effective even with its higher first cost. Steam systems require high temperature hot

water to be converted to steam with special re-boiler generators that have inherent

inefficiencies, as well as heat loss from piping. With the water atomizing system,

cooling requirements are reduced because cool vapor from the humidifier acts as an

evaporative cooling medium, giving the system a certain amount of free cooling in

the air stream. Because of these savings, the cost of the system was acceptable.

Central Direct Digital Control (DDC) System

Central control systems allow building operators to have close control of their

equipment and save energy by allowing systems to be turned down or off when they

are not needed. The typical direct digital control (DDC) system uses a central

computer and remote control panels into which the various pieces of equipment are

wired for control. The system has an electronic base and is far more accurate than

the pneumatic (compressed air control) systems of the past. Even if the main

computer console goes down, the remote panels can stand alone and continue to

control the equipment. 

A central DDC system has been specified to control all of the HVAC systems and

many of the electrical components as well. The building operator will be able to

monitor multiple control parameters including temperatures, pressures, whether

lights and fans are on or off, whether filters are clogged and other aspects of air

handling units as well as pumps and cooling tower operation. 

Global Warming Potential

The ratio of the warming caused

by a substance to the warming

caused by a similar mass of 

carbon dioxide.

Ozone-Depletion Potential

The ratio of the impact on ozone

of a chemical compared to the

impact of a similar mass of 

CFC-11.

Ozone-Depleting Substances

Those chemicals that contribute

to stratospheric ozone depletion,

including chlorofluorocarbons

(CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons

(HCFCs), halons, methyl bromide,

carbon tetrachloride and methyl

chloroform.

Central DDC System 

• Schedules start/stop

• Optimum start/stop

• Duty cycling

• Load shedding

• Demand limiting

• Enthalpy economizer

• Temperature set back

• Supply air settings

• Water temperature settings 

• Chiller optimization

• Chiller demand limiting

• Lighting systems control

• Security systems control

• Critical and maintenance alarms
61 Design Process: Building Mechanical Systems

These systems can be started, stopped and otherwise controlled for maximum

efficiency. Alarms will feed back to a central console so that the condition of all

equipment can be assessed at all times. As the actual building operating characteristics

are established, the system operators will be able to make adjustments to operating set

points to optimize system performance and reduce energy usage. A telephone interface

module (TIM) allows for modem interface and touch tone overrides from any touch

tone telephone. Wall thermostats provide office and lab occupants with digital readings

of temperatures within the office suites. Occupants can request adjustments with a

phone call to the building automation system operator.

Building Commissioning

In the past, commissioning has been used primarily as a procedure to verify the

performance of HVAC equipment. It ensures that equipment is installed and

operating properly before the building is occupied. Studies have shown that

buildings that are not properly commissioned can lose as much as 20 percent of

their operational energy efficiency due to improperly operating systems.

“Full systems” commissioning is becoming increasingly common. At the EPA

facility, operators and maintenance personnel have been included in the

commissioning process to enhance their understanding of the building’s systems and

their intended performance. Participants have included EPA personnel such as the

building engineers, HVAC operation and maintenance personnel and building

security personnel. A separate testing and start-up procedure was required for the

DDC system to ensure that it is working properly and building engineers know how

to operate it.

Building Acceptance Test Manual

A Building Acceptance Test Manual was developed by the project team to provide

an operations manual for the building owner to use during commissioning and

occupancy. All building systems–HVAC, electrical, fire safety, security,

communications and architectural–were itemized and appropriate testing protocols

were identified. This document serves as an important guide for ongoing

maintenance and recommissioning over time.

Systems to be

Commissioned

• Each HVAC supply air system

• Each HVAC exhaust air 

system

• HVAC hot water system

• HVAC chilled water system

• HVAC HTHW system

• HVAC steam system

• Fuel oil system

• Animal watering system

• Water heaters

• Fire pumps

• Raceway system

• Conductor system and 

wiring devices

• Grounding system

• Lighting control system

• Fire and voice alarm system

• Security system

• Emergency stand-by power

system
The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 62

Summary of major heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems.

Variable Speed Drives

Item

Variable speed drives have been provided for all water pumps

and air handling units. Sensors in the piping or duct system

record fluctuations in static pressure or water pressure and

transmit a signal back to the variable speed drives, which then

slow down or increase the motor speed.

VAV Boxes in Office Areas A standard Variable Air Volume (VAV) System is provided for

the office spaces. A variable speed drive on the air handler will

slow down the fan, thereby maintaining minimum system

pressure and saving fan energy.

Air Economizer Cycle Each air handling unit for the office space is equipped with a free

cooling economizer cycle. The air handling unit will operate at

100% outdoor air mode when the outdoor air temperature is

below the space return air temperature. When the temperature 

drops, the system would then mix outdoor air and return air 

in order to maintain temperature.

Lab Air Handling Units -

Optimum Operating

Efficiency

Each of the main lab buildings contains five air handling units.

As the building load increases, the control sequences will have

the units operate at 60%, 80% and then 100% to optimize

efficiency.

Pipe Sizing Piping has been sized so that the pressure drop is below the

recommended values in Standard 90.1 Section 9.5.5.1, creating

greater energy savings than required by ASHRAE or the

applicable building codes.

Two Position VAV for

Laboratories

Two-position air flow control for the laboratories: when the fume

hood is at maximum flow, the box is fully open to provide 1120 CFM

exhaust. If the lab is unoccupied and the hood sash is closed,

the boxes will go to a 50% position, saving energy by reducing the

air handling unit flow rate.

Building Infiltration

Controls

By ensuring that pressurization exists, outside air infiltration is 

minimized to reduce loading on the heating system.

HVAC Control System A direct digital control (DDC) central building automation

system will monitor and control all equipment set points to

maximize efficiency and monitor performance.

Air Filter Pressure Static pressure sensors for each filter bank in all air handling

units monitor pressure drop across filters and alert maintenance

staff as when they need to be changed, thereby improving

energy efficiency of fans.

Ductwork and Pipe

Insulation

Meets the ASHRAE Energy Conservation Standard 90.1

requirements.

High Temperature Hot

Water/Domestic Water

Generation

High temperature hot water is circulated through heat

exchangers to generate steam and also to make domestic hot

water. This means that more of the energy per gallon of water 

is utilized and not wasted as system losses in the

site distribution.

Water Atomizing

Humidification

A water atomizing system for humidification has been

incorporated into the laboratories and office spaces. Also serves

as an evaporative cooling medium.

Impact on Energy Efficiency
63 Design Process: Water Conservation

Water Conservation

Building operations consume an estimated 16 percent of the fresh water in the

United States.8 The portion used for landscape irrigation can be controlled through

the use of native plantings and water reuse strategies. The water usage for

equipment will vary based on the types of systems used, with one-pass cooling and

evaporative strategies using the largest quantities of water. While water usage for

plumbing fixtures has been reduced considerably due to the mandatory water

efficiency requirements in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT), more can be

done to promote water conservation. 

Water Conserving Fixtures

The EPA Campus uses EPACT standard low flush toilets and urinals. Lavatories

used for hand washing have been demonstrated to perform quite well at 0.5 gallons

per minute, instead of the 2.5 allowed by the EPACT. Consequently, aerators and

flow restricting nozzles for faucets and showers were used to make the facility more

1992 Energy Policy Act (EPACT) Requirements

for Water Conserving Fixtures, effective 1/1/94

Showerheads, any type (excluding safety showers)

Shower Heads and Faucets

Fixture Type

2.5 gallons per minute

Maximum 

Water Use

Lavatory faucets 2.5 gallons per minute

Lavatory replacement aerators 2.5 gallons per minute

Kitchen faucets 2.5 gallons per minute

Kitchen replacement aerators 2.5 gallons per minute

Metering faucets .25 gallon per cycle

Gravity tank-type toilets (non commercial)

Water Closets and Urinals

Fixture Type

1.6 gallons per flush

Maximum

Water Use

Gravity tank-type toilets (commercial) 1.6 gallons per flush

Flushometer tank toilets 1.6 gallons per flush

Electromechanical hydraulic toilets 1.6 gallons per flush

Blowout toilets 3.5 gallons per flush

Urinals (any type) 1.0 gallons per flush

United States Projected

Water Savings from

Efficiency Standards

Water Fixture Use

(Billions m3/year)

0

5

10

1995

Without EPACT standards

2000 2010 2015 2020

15

20

25

With EPACT standards

Source: Worldwatch Institute, 1996

Key Issues to Consider

• Meet or exceed the EPACT 

fixture requirements for 

water conservation

• Consider automatic shut-off 

faucets in high-use areas

• Consider alternative toilets 

and urinals

• Eliminate the use of chillers 

that use “one pass” water

• Explore water-efficient 

cooling tower options, such as 

drift eliminators and 

automated blow down
The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 64

water efficient than the EPACT standard. For the EPA Campus, manual flush 

valves were used, and touchless “sensor-operated” lavatories provide for improved

sanitation and heightened water conservation. Availability of hot and cold water has

been improved by a recirculating system with automatic temperature controls.

Water Efficient Cooling Towers

Cooling towers provide an efficient complement to chilled water cooling systems, 

by rejecting the waste heat from the recirculating chilled water system. These towers

maximize the surface area contact between outdoor air and the warm waste water,

creating cooling action through evaporation. They have been made more water

efficient by limiting “drift,” or excessive water content, in the hot air that is rejected,

and by recirculating the condensate water. Most, but not all, cooling tower

manufacturers have incorporated drift eliminators as standard features that 

decrease water consumption. 

Cooling towers, however, must be protected from corrosion and contamination.

Typically, this is done with chemical additives. The type and the quantity of additive

used to treat the water varies regionally due to natural variations in the water

chemistry. Generally, these additives include corrosion inhibitors, dispersants, algae

and bacteria control agents, alkaline additives and oxygen scavengers. To determine

the correct amount of a given additive for a specific cooling tower, periodic water

tests are performed. The tests enable the development and regulation of a

maintenance program with an automated system that controls dosage and

“blowdown.” Blowdown is the term for water that is discharged from the

condensate water system to control the concentration of chemicals, salts and 

other impurities in the circulating water.

The EPA Campus has incorporated some innovative features to improve the water

efficiency of cooling towers, generating an estimated savings of approximately four

million gallons a year. These features include a dynamic water analysis system that allows

the quantity of blowdown to be reduced to a minimum. The system regularly monitors

water quality, allowing better control of the additive dosage and thereby reducing the

need to apply a “safety factor” in anticipation of days when the water quality may be

atypical. The dynamic sampling system increases the cycles of concentration from 6-8,

which is the industry standard, to 12-14. While the system conserves water, it also

reduces reliance on chemicals and has a two- to three-year payback. 

Ozone Treatment for Cooling Towers

An ozone system was considered early on by the project team as a nearly chemical-free

option for treating condensate water in the cooling towers. The ozone system offered

an attractive option because it not only conserved water, but it also greatly reduced

reliance on chemicals for water treatment. Unfortunately, the system could not be cost

justified for this application. The first cost premium for the system was estimated at

$300,000–350,000, and the system also had higher maintenance costs.

Alternative Technologies

Alternative technologies were defined by the EPA project team as those that are not

yet common in the marketplace. Some technologies were included in this category

because they are new. Others were included even though they had not yet gained

widespread acceptance because they only proved cost effective where rates for

electricity, water or sewage treatment have become especially high. This was a

subjective judgment that is not based on the merit of the individual technologies.

Though all of the alternative technologies considered for the EPA Campus had

positive environmental characteristics, most would have come at a significant cost

WARM

WARM

COOLED

WATER OUT

WET DECK

SURFACE

AIR INLET

LOUVERS

AIR AIR

NOZZLES

HOT

WATER

IN

HOT

WATER

WARM IN

AIR OUT

IN IN

Cooling tower

Cooling Towers Save Water

The EPA campus uses innovative

features that will save about 4

million gallons of water per year.
65 Design Process: Alternative Technologies

premium. In the interest of balancing environmental benefits with cost and

functional performance, EPA chose to use only those alternative technologies 

which were most appropriate for this project.

It should be noted that the determination of cost effectiveness for some technologies

was greatly impacted by the costs of electricity in RTP. Electricity costs vary widely

across the U.S. At the current commercial rate in RTP of 4-5 cents per a kilowatthour (KWH), the cost of electricity is low. For example, rates in New York City or

Boston are closer to 12-13 cents per KWH. While the low rate keeps the cost of

operations down, it proved to be a disincentive to incorporating energy-efficient

technologies that have marginal cost benefits. 

Photovoltaics

Photovoltaics, or solar electric cells, convert sunlight into electricity. Many different

types of technologies are available, but the two basic types are polycrystalline and

thin film. The polycrystalline options are generally more efficient and more

expensive than thin film options. 

Photovoltaics were evaluated for the EPA Campus. However, working with a limited

construction budget, the project could not bear the full first cost of photovoltaic

electric systems for the entire campus. By exploring alternative funding strategies,

the project team was able to incorporate two photovoltaic applications onto the

campus.

Aided by grant funds from the federal Department of Energy and the State of

Virginia, EPA chose to install a 100 kilowatt array on the roof of the National

Computer Center building. This solar array provides power directly to the building.

Since the building houses extensive computing systems, and has an unusually high

power demand, the building is also connected to the electrical grid. 

EPA also negotiated a lease-purchase arrangement with the local power company 

to install 70 photovoltaic lights along the site roadways–creating one of the largest

solar road lighting projects in the U.S. Since the lights would be owned by the

power company, prior to an optional buyout by EPA, the power company took

advantage of a 35% tax credit from the State of North Carolina for solar power

equipment purchases. The tax credit significantly reduced the cost of the solar lights

to make the system cost-justifiable for EPA. Over a 20-year life cycle, EPA expects

these solar lights to cost the same as standard street lights.

Fuel Cells

Fuel cells are highly efficient engines that convert natural gas into heat energy and

electricity. For building applications, they are most appropriately used where there is

a constant demand for electricity and heat 24 hours a day. Because of the size and

weight of fuel cells, they need to be integrated into early conceptual planning to be

accommodated successfully. In 1992-93, when the EPA Campus was in the early

stages of design, fuel cells were not a viable option and were ruled out. They were

later considered for the National Computer Center as a source for conditioned

power and a replacement for the uninterruptible power supply, but again proved

cost prohibitive. However, fuel cells have evolved rapidly over the past decade, and

should be considered as a possible cost-effective source for large constant loads.

Wind Power

Wind generators are becoming increasingly prevalent in some parts of the country.

They were determined to be inappropriate for the EPA Campus because of the

forested nature of the site, the relatively low wind velocities in the area, and the

Key Issues to Consider

• Optimize energy and waterefficiency of standard facility 

design and systems

• Determine total resulting 

energy and water-use needs,

including daily and seasonal 

variations

• Gather data on local and 

micro-climate, including solar 

incidence, average monthly 

temperature, wind patterns,

relative humidity and average 

monthly rainfall

• Research currently available 

technologies for hydrogen fuel 

cells, wind power, photo

voltaics, solar water heating,

point of use water heating,

grey water recycling,

rainwater catchment and 

pervious paving

• Determine cost effectiveness 

of each alternative technology 

explored

• Investigate local, state and 

federal financial incentive pro

grams for alternative 

technologies

Photovoltaics (PV)

Solid state semiconductor devices

that convert light directly into

electricity.They are usually made of

layers of silicon or other

semiconductor material with traces

of other elements. PV cells are

housed and wired together in

“modules,” which may be used

singly or grouped in an “array.” PV

systems may include battery storage

or may be wired directly to the

utility line, although some systems

may use neither. Systems with

batteries need electronic devices to

control their charging or limit their

discharging of the batteries.
Fuel Cell

A fuel cell converts chemical

energy directly into electricity via a

modified oxidation process; that is,

by reversing electrolysis. By

combining hydrogen and oxygen

from an outside source, the fuel cell

makes electricity like a battery that

does not need to be recharged

because the fuel comes from

outside.The process also produces

heat, water and carbon dioxide

depending upon the fuel used.

Solar Water Heater

A system in which direct heat

from the sun is absorbed by

collectors and transferred by

pumps to a storage unit.Typically,

the heated fluid in the storage unit

conveys its heat to the building’s

hot water via a heat exchanger.

Controls are needed to regulate

the operation.

Point-of-Use Water Heater 

A small water heater that services

only the water to be used at one

location, such as a single lavatory

faucet, rather than storing hot

water in a central tank and

distributing it throughout the

building via pipes, from which

much of the heat will escape.

Some point-of-use water heaters

are “tankless,” while others use

very small storage tanks at each

location.

The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 66

abundant low-cost electricity available on the site. Trees would have to be cleared to

make room for wind generators on the site and this would have defeated the effort

to minimize habitat disruption. 

Solar Hot Water

Solar hot water technology provides an efficient application of the sun’s energy to

directly heat water for use. Given the low local cost of electricity, solar hot water heating

offered the most likely cost-effective solar alternative. However, the central water system

proposed for use on the EPA Campus was also very efficient and made use of heat

recovery. Consequently, solar hot water generation was never formally evaluated. 

Central Hot Water vs. Point-of-Use Hot Water

Point-of-use heaters for water can be an attractive option because heat is only

generated when it is needed and heat energy is not lost in transmission as hot water

is pumped and recirculated through the building. A study completed for the EPA

facility to evaluate the potential benefit of using a point-of-use system for water

heating made a clear case for the use of the central system. While the first cost of

the point-of-use system is slightly lower, the life cycle costs are dramatically higher,

since these systems are less efficient than a central hot water system. Heat recovery is

more easily accommodated into a central system and maintenance is simpler when

fewer pieces of equipment require servicing.

Grey Water Reuse

Grey water is defined as all wastewater not originating from toilets or urinals. It includes

water from lavatories, coffee sinks, showers and drinking fountains. The grey water study

for the EPA Campus considered reuse of various sources of grey water ranging from the

highly purified reverse osmosis (RO) water used in laboratories through the condensate

from air handlers, and eventually to all the possible grey water sources combined. North

Carolina codes restrict grey water use within the building, and the EPA’s outdoor

irrigation requirements were minimal. An option that treated black water (water from

flushing fixtures) was also considered.

One interesting discovery from this study, however, was that there were nearly

enough relatively clean water sources to provide the entire water requirement for

flushing and irrigation without any need to introduce expensive filtration systems

for water reuse of wastewater streams that would contains soaps and other

contaminants. The water generated from condensate alone is 500-3,100 gallons per

hour during the cooling season.

Typical PV system including

battery and controller, Solarex

Hot water piping system $20,744.00

Water heaters $148,900.00

Miscellaneous installation $20,250.00

Annual energy cost $34,802.94

Annual maintenance cost $16,330.00

Total 20-year cost $1,744,534,74

Point of Use

20 Year Warranty

$20,744.00

$109,156.00

$20,250.00

$46,147.76

$19,996.52

$2,151,799.00

Point of Use

10 Year Warranty

$140,694.90

$65,400.00

$1,600.00

$13,172.78

$6,700.00

$799,468.13

Central Hot

Water Plan

Point-of-Use versus Central Hot Water Heating

Array

Controller Inverter

Load

Battery
67 Design Process: Building Materials

With minimal need for irrigation and restrictive codes for indoor use, along with 

a very high cost for dual plumbing systems, EPA opted not to include grey water

reuse in the project.

Rain Water Catchment

Rain water catchment refers to systems that collect rain water in storage tanks or

cisterns for reuse in the building or for irrigation. This was viewed as a landscape

irrigation feature, and because nearly all irrigation requirements had been eliminated

from the design, this option did not receive a formal investigation. Rain cisterns

were considered as a possibility but were quickly eliminated due to code constraints

for indoor use and little need for outdoor watering.

Building Materials

Through their design decisions and specifications, architects and engineers directly

influence the purchase of millions of tons of materials each year. These design

decisions impact the marketplace and influence the kinds of products that industry

produces. In turn, these market decisions affect the selection of raw materials, the

use of energy and water, the depletion of non-renewable resources and the creation

of waste and pollution. 

The project team for the EPA Campus considered the environmental impact of

building materials over their entire life cycle in selecting materials for the new

facility. Then, as the specifications were developed, specific performance criteria

were documented to the greatest extent possible.

Life-Cycle Impacts of Materials and Products

Most standard building materials and products have a fairly wide field of manufacturers

and, consequently, products vary. Therefore, selecting environmentally preferable

building materials and products requires a proactive approach that examines the

environmental and health impact of a product at each stage of its life cycle.

First Cost Premium

Annual Costs 1

1 Annual costs refers to annual energy and maintenance costs

Annual Water Savings

Payback

$70,940

$6,500/yr

$6,380/yr

N/A

$147,700

$7,400/yr

$15,000/yr

19.4 years

$409,500

$11,600/yr

$23,000/yr

35.9 years

$744,400

$26,800/yr

$27,200/yr

1860 years

$1,480,000

$68,800/yr

$29,100/yr

N/A

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5

Reuse RO

reject only

Reuse all

pure water

waste

streams

Option 2

plus clear

condensate

from air

handlers

Option 2

plus grey

water

Option 4

plus black

water

reuse

Raw Material

Composition

Production

Process

Packaging

& Shipping

Installation

& Use

Resource

Recovery

Grey Water Recycling

Any system of reusing wastewater

not originating from toilets or

urinals. In commercial buildings

this includes waste water from

lavatories, showers, drinking

fountains and janitor’s sinks.

Sometimes it includes stormwater.

Grey water may be reused once

to flush a toilet before being sent

to sewage treatment or may be

diverted to an irrigation system,

depending upon its contaminants.

Rainwater Catchment

A system that gathers rain that

falls on a roof or yard and

channels it to a storage tank

(cistern).The first wash of water

on a roof is usually discarded and

the subsequent rainfall is captured

for use if the system is being used

for potable water.Alternatively, a

sand filter may be used.

Key Issues to Consider

• Gather data to evaluate lifecycle impact of materials and 

systems

• Balance environmental 

performance with cost and 

durability

• Dimension materials carefully 

to minimize waste

• Avoid the unnecessary use of 

finish materials

• Design for disassembly and 

reuse of materials

• Establish maximum volatile 

organic compound (VOC) 

content levels

• Establish minimum recycled 

content levels

Grey Water Reuse Study
The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 68

• Raw Material Composition

Are the materials nontoxic? Renewable? Salvaged? From a sustainable source? 

Do they contain recycled content?

• Production Process

How much energy and water is used in the manufacturing process? How much 

solid, aqueous and gaseous waste is emitted? Is manufacturing waste reused? Is 

the manufacturing plant energy efficient? Does the manufacturing plant 

conserve or reuse water?

• Packing and Shipping

Is the product locally manufactured? Is minimal, reusable or recycled packaging 

used? Are efficient shipping methods used?

• Installation and Use

How durable is the product? Can it be repaired? Is the installation method 

hazardous? Does the product, or related adhesives or finishes, produce chemical

emissions? Is the product low maintenance? Do maintenance procedures produce

chemical emissions?

• Resource Recovery

Is the product salvageable, recyclable or biodegradable? Does the manufacturer 

have a take-back program?

Durable Materials

EPA’s long-term commitment to its new facility and its location in RTP is reflected

in the stated design goal to create a “100-year-building.” This view is intended to

reduce long-term operating and maintenance costs. Highly durable materials have

an environmental advantage because fewer materials are used over time and less

material is disposed of. Examples of durable materials selected for the facility

include cementitious terrazzo, mud-set ceramic tiles and the precast concrete

exterior wall system. The ceramic tile will last almost forever when properly

installed, and the cladding is anchored to masonry backup walls, detailed with

stainless steel flashing, and sealed to enhance longevity and maintainability. 

Recycled Content

Specification of materials with recycled content helps to conserve virgin resources

and drives the market for recycling. Therefore, the specification for the EPA facility

included detailed requirements for minimum recycled content by material type. The

EPA’s Recovered Materials Advisory Notices (RMAN) provided preliminary

guidance. Then, research into market availability was performed using a detailed

questionnaire. The goal was to evaluate the cross-section of products available so a

competitive range of manufacturers could be selected. 

Products specified with recycled content include rubber flooring, ceramic tiles,

asphalt paving, cast-in-place concrete, insulation, wood fiberboard, gypsum

wallboard and more. The following figure presents all of the recycled content

provisions in the final specification. The list represents minimums and many

materials have been procured that contain more than the minimum required. The

following chart summarizes the improvement that the specification represents

compared to standard practice for many of the material types.

During construction, EPA was unable to find local asphalt plants that could

produce 25% recycled content asphalt as designed. The quality of the specified

asphalt from plants unfamiliar with this production became a concern. As an

alternative, EPA accepted asphalt with slightly lower recycled content which

incorporated roofing shingle scrap–a waste that is typically difficult to recycle.

Sample of EPA 

Campus Materials

• 4 acres of concrete block walls

• 2 acres of Low-E glass

• 35 acres of drywall

• 7 acres of carpet

• 12 acres of ceiling tile

• 2,861 interior doors

• 19 miles of telcom conduit

What is RMAN?

RMAN stands for Recovered

Materials Advisory Notice. It

provides guidance on recycled

content materials and was issued

by the EPA in May 1995.

Construction materials include:

• Cement and concrete 

containing fly ash (previously 

issued January 28,1993 as 48 

FR 4230)

• Building Insulation (previously 

issued February 17, 1989 as 

54 FR 7327)

• Structural fiberboard

• Laminate paperboard

• Plastic pipe and fittings

• Geotextiles

• Cement/concrete using 

ground granulated blast 

furnace slag

• Carpet

• Floor tiles

• Patio blocks

• Hydromulch

Palette of finish materials used in

the main facility
69 Design Process: Building Materials

RMAN Update

An update was issued in

November 1997, that added the

following construction materials

categories:

• Latex paint

• Shower and toilet partitions

• Parking stops

How is RMAN Enforced?

Once the EPA designates items

that are or can be made with

recycled content, RCRA section

6002 requires any procuring

agency when using appropriated

federal funds to use the highest

percentage of recovered material

practical.

Pre-Consumer Waste 

(aka in-plant-scrap)

Comes from material off-cutting,

damaged material or other

manufacturing waste.

Post-Consumer Waste

Comes from products discarded

by end users (consumers).

Examples include newspapers,

magazines, beverage containers,

building materials, etc.

Renewable Materials

Are replenished at a rate equal to

or greater than their rate of

depletion.

Heavy Metals

Includes mercury, lead, cadmium,

thallium, cobalt, nickel and

aluminum. Most are very toxic and

persistent in the environment.

Minimum Required Recycled Content

Asphaltic concrete paving

Material or Product

25% by weight 1

Reinforcing steel in concrete 60% recycled scrap steel 2

Reinforcing bars in precast concrete 60% recycled steel 2

Concrete masonry unit 50% recycled content

Reinforcing bars in concrete unit masonry 60% recycled steel 2

Framing steel 30% recycled steel 2

Fiberglass batt insulation 20% recycled glass cullet 3

Fiberglass board insulation 20% recycled glass cullet 3

Mineral wool insulation 75% recycled material (slag) 3

Mineral wool fire safing insulation 75% recycled material by weight (slag) 3

Gypsum board 10% recycled or synthetic gypsum

Facing paper of gypsum board 100% recycled newsprint including post consumer waste 3

Mineral fiber sound attenuation blankets 75% recovered material by weight (slag) 3

Steel studs, runners, channels 60% recycled steel 2

Acoustic panel ceilings 60% recycled material by weight

Ceiling suspension systems 60% recycled material

Rubber floor tiles 90-100% recycled materials 3

Hydromulch 100% recovered materials 3

Structural fiberboard 80-100% recycled content 3

Recommended Recycled Content

1 As per North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) recommendation.

2 60% represents the average recycled content for the U.S. steel industry. Use of U.S. manufactured

steel will meet this requirement.

3 As per EPA Comprehensive Guideline for Procurement of Products Containing Recovered 

Materials (60 FR 21370, effective 5/1/95) and its corresponding Recovered Materials Advisory 

Notice (RMAN), 5/1/95.

0

10

20

Fiberglass

batt/board

insulation

Specified

Recycled

Content

Mineral wool Material

insulation/

fire safing

Acoustic

panel

ceilings

Rubber

floor

tiles

Structural

fiberboard

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Conventional

Comparison of Recycled Content Levels Specified with Conventional Materials
The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 70

Local Materials

Many materials selected for the EPA Campus were locally manufactured including

concrete, brick pavers, concrete masonry block and precast wall panels. The

specification of local materials was a good environmental choice because, all other

things being equal, it minimized energy use and the pollutants generated during

transportation. Local materials also are generally less costly and have shorter lead

times than alternatives that need to be shipped long distances. 

Consideration of local markets also affected the development of the specifications in 

a more general way. As environmental specification requirements such as minimum

recycled content were being developed, the project team researched the potential for

local manufacturers to meet those requirements. The team did not want products,

especially bulky materials such as drywall, to be shipped from remote locations just to

satisfy an extreme environmental requirement. Consequently, trade-offs were made

and the final design specifications reflected those products in the local market with

better-than-average environmental performance.

Low Toxic and Low VOC Materials

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are carbon-based chemicals which are in a

gaseous phase at ambient temperatures. VOCs can include irritants and some

carcinogens that are commonly found in building materials. VOCs are emitted from

these materials as a result of the selection of raw materials and intermediate

chemicals used in manufacturing processes.

EPA specifications require low-VOC adhesives, finishes, sealants, joint compounds

and paints. See the following figure for a complete listing of requirements.

Certifications were also required to document that no heavy metals were present 

in paints, adhesives and sealants. 

For the building occupant, the concern over VOCs involves the extent to which

they are “off-gassed” into the indoor air from a specific material. VOCs for liquidbased products can be measured in grams per liter (g/L). Grams per liter represents

the total quantity of VOCs in the material; the volatility of the material determines

how quickly they will evaporate from the material surface. 

Material selection to reduce VOCs in the building interior is an excellent way to

practice pollution prevention. Many commonly used products have been

reformulated to be water-based instead of solvent-based. Simply reducing the

quantity of solvents can lead to performance problems, as was the case when the

first generation of low-VOC paints and adhesives was developed. However, many of

the reformulated products today are equal to or superior to their conventional

solvent-based counterparts. For example, a good quality, high-performance acrylic

latex paint can outperform the conventional alkyd enamel that has typically been

used for high-wear applications in all categories of performance: hardness, abrasion

resistance and washability. With the myriad of options that exist for paints and

coatings (which are constantly changing), it is extremely important to research the

available options and reference performance standards when specifying.

VOCs 

(Volatile Organic Compounds)

Chemicals that are carbon-based

and evaporate from material

surfaces into indoor air at normal

room temperatures (referred to

as off-gassing).
71 Design Process: Building Materials

Form Release Agents

Material or Product

350

Plastic Laminate Adhesive 20

Casework and Millwork Adhesives 20

Transparent Wood Finish Systems 350

Cast Resin Countertop Silicone Sealant 20

Garage Deck Sealer 600

Water Based Joint Sealants 50

Non-Water Based Joint Sealants 350

Portland Cement Plaster 20

Gypsum Drywall Joint Compound 20

Terrazzo Sealer 250

Acoustic Panel Ceiling Finish 50

100

Vinyl Flooring Adhesives 100

Carpet Adhesive 50

Carpet Seam Sealer 50

Water Based Paint & Multicolor Finish Coatings 150

Solvent Based Paint 380

Performance Water Based Acrylic Coatings 250

Pigmented Acrylic Sealers 250

Catalyzed Epoxy Coatings 250

High Performance Silicone 250

Casement Sealant 50

Liquid Membrane-forming Curing & Sealing Compound 350

Resilient Tile Flooring Adhesive

VOC Content

(Grams/Liter)

Performance Low-VOC Content Requirements

Standards for Paint

The durability of paints and

coatings is a critical factor of their

total life-cycle impact: low-toxic

paints that require additional coats

to cover or that must be 

re-coated more often than

conventional products have lesser

overall environmental advantages.

Applicable Testing Standards

for Interior Paint

Performance

• ASTM D2486-89 for 

scrubbability (abrasion 

resistance)

• ASTM D2805-88 for hiding 

power (opacity)

• ASTM D3359-90 Method B for 

washability (stain resistance)
The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 72

Sustainably Harvested Wood

Wood was used in very limited quantities as an accent material in the new facility.

In addition, all finished wood millwork and paneling was specified to come from a

certified sustainable source. All of the species specified are domestic hardwoods.

Wood that was used has been mounted with clips that allow for future removal and

reuse as needed. When wood paneling was reviewed in value engineering, the team

chose to maintain the aesthetic qualities of wood in the design, but opted to use 

half as much as originally intended. 

Resource Recovery

The impact of resource recovery was addressed throughout the material selection

and detailing process. The objective was to enhance the potential for future

recyclability, reuse or salvage. If these options proved impractical, then the potential

for enhanced biodegradability was considered. Use of metals without alloys,

mechanical fastening of wood panels and specification of certified recyclable

carpeting are examples of ways that recycling was encouraged. With a facility that

will use more than seven acres of carpet, the team believed it was very important to

be certain that the material could be returned for recycling at the end of its life.

Site Materials 

When working on a 133-acre site with a building footprint of more than 10 acres,

the quantities of material generated during site clearing, excavation, roadwork and

landscaping can become significant. Consequently, every effort was made to consider

the site when thinking about environmentally preferable materials. Reuse of on-site

material proved to be an especially sound environmental initiative because it

conserved resources and eliminated waste at the same time. All land-clearing debris

was shredded for use as landscaping mulch or as a soil amendment. Excavated rock

was crushed for use as fill material. The project team also found opportunities to use

large quantities of recycled materials. For example, concrete aggregate and recycled

asphalt are used in the roadwork, and the hydromulch is a 100 percent recycled

cellulosic or wood product.

Government Procurement Requirements

Government procurement rules require that a minimum of three products be

capable of meeting the specification to ensure a competitive bid. While it is good

practice to ensure competitive bidding on all projects–not just for government

contracts–it can limit the use of some emerging new “green” products. Although

this proved to be a challenge for the EPA Campus project, designers were able to

identify competitive sources for all materials specified.

Indoor Air Quality

The quality of indoor air delivered to the breathing zone can influence the health,

comfort and workplace productivity of a building’s occupants and visitors. To

ensure that indoor air quality (IAQ) concerns were integrated throughout the design

process, EPA made design for good IAQ a prominent issue in its request for

proposals and in its design contract with the A/E. All significant program

requirements, design criteria and design features were documented in an Indoor Air

Quality Facility Operations Manual developed by the A/E team, which will provide

guidance for the IAQ program in the occupied facility.

Source Control, Source Isolation and Source Dilution

Traditional methods of ensuring good indoor air quality rely almost exclusively on

ventilation strategies. In these instances, fresh air is introduced into the space to

Certifying Sustainably 

Harvested Wood

The Forest Stewardship Council

accredits agencies to certify

forestry operations and chain-ofcustody wood products

distributors.Two major FSCaccredited agencies include

Scientific Certification Systems

and the Rainforest Alliance’s

Smartwood Program, which has 

a growing number of regional

affiliates across the United States.

Key Issues to Consider

• Designate building a nonsmoking facility

• Test for radon

• Require full-systems 

commissioning

• Adopt ASHRAE 55-1992

• Adopt ASHRAE 62-1989

• Locate intakes and 

exhaust to avoid 

re-entrainment

• Limit use of fibrous material 

exposed to the airstream,

including duct liner

• Select “low-emission” materials

• Develop IAQ management plan 

for construction

• Designate an IAQ manager.

• Ventilate, but don’t “bake out”
73 Design Process: Indoor Air Quality

dilute contaminants that accumulate over time. A more proactive and cost-effective

strategy involves a life cycle approach to indoor air quality. The EPA campus

approach employs source control, source isolation, and source dilution for design

and construction, together with an integrated IAQ management plan for the

operations and maintenance phase.

Source control strategies eliminate possible sources of contamination before they are

introduced into the building. Examples include designating a building as nonsmoking, limiting the use of exposed friable fibrous materials which can become

airborne, and avoiding possible sites of microbial growth. The judicious selection of

building materials can minimize emissions of VOCs, toxic chemicals and other

irritating substances. 

Source isolation strategies control sources of contamination that cannot be

completely eliminated. Office buildings, for example, will contain copy machines,

food preparation areas, loading docks and toilet rooms. In addition to these sources,

the EPA Campus has chemical and biological laboratories that could pose significant

risk to the air supply in the case of an accidental spill or release. All of these areas are

separately ventilated to the outside so that exhaust air is not recirculated into the

buildings. Building pressurization and appropriate location of building openings

further reinforces source isolation. To ensure proper isolation of laboratory exhaust

stacks from air intake vents, EPA built a scale model and ran a wind tunnel study to

test worst-case atmospheric conditions. As a result of the study, the exhaust risers were

extended 10 feet higher into the air.

Source dilution, the final method in the hierarchy of IAQ control strategies, refers to

ventilation and filtration of building indoor air. Flexible design combined with

commissioning at the end of construction ensures ventilation effectiveness. Temporary

ventilation is used to purge the building of contaminants during construction. By

ensuring ventilation effectiveness, indoor air quality is enhanced and energy 

efficiency is improved. 

Designing for Indoor Air Quality

Factors that impact IAQ include outdoor air quality, site conditions, building and

HVAC design, interior design, materials selection and construction procedures. Design

for IAQ requires a strong dialogue between all members of the team. An IAQ advocate

should be identified to champion IAQ issues in project team work sessions. An IAQ

manager also should be identified on the owners team to track issues as design and

construction progress, and to help manage the IAQ program in the completed facility. 

IAQ Facilities Operation Manual

The EPA project team created the Indoor Air Quality Facilities Operation Manual to

document design decisions that will impact IAQ throughout the life of the facility, so

future building renovations will not undermine those features. This manual also

describes IAQ-related construction provisions including IAQ testing of materials,

sequence of finish installation, temporary ventilation, baseline IAQ testing and

commissioning. Preprinted forms, including HVAC Equipment Inspection Forms and

an IAQ Management Checklist were developed to guide building operators throughout

the occupancy phase.

Indoor Air Quality vs. Energy Efficiency

The design team took great care to balance energy efficiency with good indoor air

quality. While an abundant supply of fresh air with frequent air circulation will help

promote good IAQ, it can be energy-intensive. The challenge for the EPA campus

project was to strike a balance–optimizing IAQ performance without creating an

excessive energy demand.

What is a VOC?

Volatile Organic Compounds

(VOCs) are carbon-based

chemicals that contain carbon

molecules are volatile enough to

evaporate or “off-gas” from

materials surfaces into indoor air

at normal room temperatures.

VOCs include Methane, Ethane,

Methylene Chloride,

1,1,1-Trichloroethane, CFCs,

HCFCs, HFCs, Formaldehyde and

other chemical compounds.

Source Control

Eliminates potential contaminants

at the source, preventing their

entry into the building.

Source Isolation

Physically separates potential

sources of contamination from the

airstream.

Source Dilution and Removal

Utilizes ventilation and filtration to

dilute and remove contaminants in

the airstream.
The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 74

Fortunately, some strategies promote good IAQ while at the same time saving

energy. For example, outside air economizers provide EPA’s offices with “free

cooling” when weather conditions are right. These economizers are digitally

controlled and filter the outdoor air to remove mold spores, pollen and other

contaminants while bringing in increased quantities of fresh air.” 

EPA’s offices are conditioned with a simple, low-cost “straight” VAV system. This

was deemed to be a better choice than a fan-powered VAV system, which uses more

energy and demands more maintenance. Using indoor air modeling based on this

system, the design team calculated the air circulation rates that would be required to

meet ASHRAE recommendations for fresh air supply. In order to achieve

ASHRAE’s recommended minimum of 20 CFM outdoor air per person, the system

could be set as low as only one air change per hour (ACH). But since air movement

is just as important as fresh air in achieving good IAQ, the VAV system was set to a

minimum of 2.25 air changes per hour (ACH)–about twice the minimum indicated

by using the ASHRAE standard alone.

The office heating and air conditioning system has also been designed to constantly

supply a minimum of 25% outdoor air. Based on actual demand, however, this

percentage can be increased. Carbon dioxide monitors continually sample the air in

return plenums to detect CO2 buildup in offices and meeting spaces. If levels are

high, indicating increased human activity in the space and a higher demand for fresh

air, the ventilation system will respond by bringing in more outside air. By preventing

the excessive use of outdoor air and supplying more fresh air when needed, the CO2

monitoring approach will save energy while promoting healthy IAQ.

Low-Emission Materials

Chemicals present in building materials and products can lead to the off-gassing of

substances that are irritants and, in some cases, even health hazards in the interior

environment. Off-gassing is measured in emission rates or emission factors, which

can vary significantly for similar materials by different manufacturers. Without

testing, emission factors are difficult to ascertain. The EPA project team sought

published reports of previous studies and some material manufacturers were willing

to share testing data, however the information was still scarce. 

In the absence of testing data, one of the few resources for evaluating chemical

content is the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) on which the manufacturer is

required to list all chemical constituents making up at least one percent of the

material, and not deemed “proprietary.” For liquid-based materials such as paint and

adhesives, the total concentration of VOCs is listed in grams per liter. However, the

MSDS is limited in that the manufacturers may omit chemicals that they consider

trade secrets, and the MSDS does not list compounds that result from reactions

among the constituent chemicals. 

IAQ Testing of Materials 

IAQ testing and modeling gave the team an indication of what air quality would

ultimately be like in the building. The purpose was to determine the composition

and the rate of chemical emissions. The testing is typically conducted in either a

large or a small-scale environmental chamber that has been carefully designed and

instrumented. Using a predictive modeling tool developed by EPA staff called

EXPOSURE, the emissions testing results were then used to predict the ultimate

concentration of indoor air contaminants that would result over time, based on the

anticipated ventilation rates. 

Factors That 

Impact Indoor Air Quality

Outdoor Air Quality

• Building exhaust from adjacent 

buildings

• Vehicle exhaust from adjacent 

roadways 

• Releases from adjacent

industrial and agricultural sites

• Soil gas (radon)

Site Conditions

• Vehicle exhaust

• Pesticides and fertilizers

• Sporulating plants

Building and HVAC Design

• Location of fresh air intakes 

and exhaust

• Interior pollutant-generating 

sources, e.g., print rooms,

loading docks

• Air and moisture flows through 

the exterior wall

• Fibrous insulation exposed to 

the airstream, e.g., internal 

duct liner

• Ventilation and filtration 

standards

Interior Design

• Air circulation

• Location of copy machines

• Housekeeping equipment and 

product storage

Materials Selection

• Fibrous materials

• Microbial contamination

• Emissions of VOCs 

• Toxic components

Construction Procedures

• Proper installation and 

balancing of equipment

• The sink effect

IAQ Materials Testing

• Paint on gypsum board

• Carpet and adhesive

• Ceiling tile

• Fireproofing
75 Design Process: Indoor Air Quality

The team established thresholds for the maximum allowable concentrations of

contaminants in the indoor air, based on health effects research and an

understanding of what is possible to achieve in a new building with materials

commonly available in the market. These thresholds were used to screen selected

finishes and as testing criteria for overall indoor air quality in the finished facility. At

the end of construction, ambient air sampling and testing were required to be

performed at 16 locations throughout the office areas of the new EPA facility. 

The project team originally specified that all materials used in large quantities with

potential to impact indoor air quality be chamber-tested by the contractor, with

results to be used by EPA to model predicted concentrations of chemicals. Based on

concerns about the cost of this extensive testing program, however, the requirements

were revised to focus on the four materials most commonly exposed to the air in the

building. These four materials were required to be tested as they would be assembled

in the building–paint applied to gypsum wallboard, carpet adhered to concrete,

fireproofing spray on steel, and acoustical ceiling tile.

Construction Procedures

EPA specifications require many of the same IAQ-related construction procedures

that were employed by the Natural Resources Building in Olympia, Washington.

Some changes were made, however, based on the lessons learned in construction of

the Washington project.

Prior to construction, the contractor for the EPA Campus was required to 

submit a schedule that described the sequence of material and finish installation.

Construction sequencing recommended that “wet” materials that release indoor air

contaminants as they cure, be applied before the installation of “fuzzy” materials

that absorb airborne contaminants and re-emit them over time. Temporary

ventilation during construction further protected the building from absorbing

contaminants during the construction process. From the time the building was 

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

All levels must be achieved prior to acceptance of building. The levels do not account

for contributions from office furniture, occupants and occupant activity.

Above outside air concentrations.

4-PC is an odorous contaminant constituent in carpets with styrene-butadiene-latex rubber (SBR).

TLV - TWA = Threshold Limit Value - Time Weight Average.

*

**

***

 

< 9 ppm

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) < 800 ppm

Airborne Mold and Mildew Simultaneous indoor & outdoor readings

Formaldehyde < 20 μg/m3** 

Total Volatile Organic Compounds (TVOC) < 200 μg/m3**

4 Phenylocyclohexene (4-PC)*** < 3 μg/m3

Total Particulates (PM) < 20 μg/m3

Regulated Pollutants < NAAQS

Other Pollutants < 5% of TLV-TWA****

Indoor Contaminants Allowable Air Concentration Levels*

Maximum Indoor Air Concentration Standards

Natural Resource Building,

Olympia,Washington

The Natural Resources Building

(NRB) is a 300,000-square-foot,

six-story office building completed

in Washington state in 1992.

During its design, construction and

commissioning, three steps were

taken to promote good IAQ:

• The HVAC system was designed

to the requirements of ASHRAE

62-89

• To avoid potential high-emitting 

materials in the building, major 

materials used in the 

construction, finishing and 

furnishing of the building were 

required to be tested in an 

emission test chamber

• To allow all materials emissions

to decay, the empty building was

flushed out with 100% outside

air for 90 days prior to

occupancy
The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 76

substantially enclosed until occupancy, the building was required to be ventilated

with 100 percent outside air. Any ductwork used during construction was required

to be cleaned prior to occupancy.

The EPA project team used an alternative to the extended 90-day 

post-construction flush-out period that was employed by the Natural Resources

Building. Specifications for the EPA Campus required the contractor to ventilate

during construction and perform baseline indoor air quality testing prior to

acceptance to determine whether indoor air concentrations comply with maximum

allowable limits (see chart below). If materials are installed as specified and 

What is the “Sink Effect”?

The sink effect refers to the

absorption of chemicals by a

surface, which slowly releases

them into the building atmosphere

over time. Finishes with the

highest accessible surface area

(e.g.,“fuzzy” materials such as

carpet, upholstery and ceiling tiles)

per unit mass tend to have the

highest sink effect.

Sequences of 

Finish Installation

Wet “off-gassing” materials must

be installed before dry or fuzzy

“sink” materials to the greatest

extent possible.

“Wet” materials include, but are

not limited to: adhesives, sealants,

glazing compounds, particle board

and paint.

“Dry” or fuzzy materials include,

but are not limited to: carpet and

padding, ceiling tiles and fabricwrapped acoustical panels.

What is “Flush-Out”?

Flush-out refers to increased

ventilation to remove, or “flushout” contaminants from the

building. Flush-out is best

performed with 100% outside air

that is exhausted directly to the

outside and not recirculated.

Scheduling of flush-outs during

construction, pre-occupancy and

before start-up after the systems

have been down will enhance

indoor air quality.

Why Not “Bake Out”

Running building at high

temperatures post-construction to

“bake” chemicals out could

possibly cause unusual chemical or

biological conditions, and is not

recommended.

PAINTS

SEALANTS

COMPOSITES

ADHESIVES

GYPSUM WALL BOARD

FABRIC COVERED

PANELS

CARPET

CEILING TILE

INSTALL 

OFF-GASSING

MATERIALS

BUILDING

ENCLOSED

TEMPERATURE 

AND HUMIDITY 

CONTROL

V ENTIL ATE W ITH 100% O U T S I DE AIR D NORMAL

 M O D E

SUBSTANTIAL

COMPLETION

100%

COMPLETION

INSTALL 

FUZZY

MATERIALS

INSTALL

FURNISHINGS

OCCUPY

BUILDING

PROJECT TIMELINE AND MILESTONES PROJECT TIMELINE AND MILESTONES

IAQ

TESTING

INDOOR AIR

SAMPLING

AND ANALYSIS

Generic Schedule Sequence of Finishes

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

0

0.2

0.4

Predicted TVOC Concentration During 30-Day Flush-Out

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

DAY 2

EXPOSURE Model

Modeling courtesy of Jason M. Cortell & Associates
77 Design Process: Risk Prevention

ventilation is provided during construction, the building should pass the test shortly

after the building construction is complete. See the EXPOSURE modeling on the

following page for results of a study indicating the building VOC levels should fall

within the acceptable range about 12 to 14 days after construction is complete. If

limits were not met, the contractor would be required to ventilate the building until

it met the required limits and bear the expense of retesting. 

Indoor Air Quality Facility

Operations Manual

• Offers guidance for provision 

and maintenance of IAQ for the

new EPA Campus during 

construction, pre-occupancy and

post-occupancy

• Documents the design criteria 

employed and major design 

decisions made

• Describes IAQ-related 

construction provisions 

including IAQ emissions testing 

of materials, sequence of finish 

installation, temporary 

ventilation, base-line IAQ testing

and commissioning

• Contains HVAC equipment 

inspection forms, IAQ 

management checklist and other

forms

Siting of Building

Item

Locate exhaust downwind from

outside air intakes and separate

by more than 100 feet.

Maximize separation between

parking areas and air intakes.

Location of Parking Garages Locate parking structure away

from the building.

Laboratory Exhaust Stacks Stack height increase to 30' based

on wind tunnel testing.

Radon Site specific testing confirmed

low levels of radon.

Delivery/Loading Zone Maintain negative pressure in

loading area, positive pressure

in building.

Landscaping Low maintenance and

non-sporulating plants selected.

Plants used as a barrier for

vehicle exhaust.

Laboratory Fume Hoods Install flow guages and alarms.

Acoustical Insulation of Ducts Ductwork increased in size to

eliminate need for acoustical

insulation. In select areas, mylar

coated silencers are used as

ductwork transitions out of

equipment rooms.

Moisture Accumulation Install drain pans pitched toward

drain pipe.

Humidity Control No moisture carry-over into

system.

Corrosion Inhibitors Inhibitors do not contain

volatile amines.

Minimizes reentrainment of

laboratory exhaust at air

intakes.

Reduces potential vehicular

exhaust entering the

building.

Reduces the potential for

vehicular exhaust entering

the building

Minimizes reentrainment of

laboratory exhausts into 

air intakes.

Confirmed that radon levels

are safe.

Eliminates entrainment of 

delivery vehicle exhaust.

Intake of spores, fertilizer or

chemicals entering the

building is reduced.

Minimizes entrainment of

vehicular exhaust.

Provides warning of air

contaminants present in 

laboratory areas due to loss

of air flow.

Minimizes potential for release of 

fibers into the airstream and 

possible contamination of 

the HVAC system (duct liners

are difficult to monitor and clean 

and can be sites of microbial

contamination).

Reduces moisture, which

could result in introduction 

of bacterial contamination

into HVAC system.

Minimizes moisture in HVAC

system and resultant

bacterial contaminants.

Eliminates exposure to

certain air contaminants.

Decision Impact on IAQ

Fireproofing Spray Cementitious mix specified for

return air plenum.

Helps minimize potential for

airborne fibers.

Design Decisions Matrix
The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 78

This EXPOSURE model predicted the

concentration of VOC in the indoor air 

over a 30-day flush out period beginning after

construction is complete. Furniture was

projected to be installed on the 6th day after

flush-out began, and VOCs reached acceptable

levels by the 14 day. Although this analysis

considered “typical” furniture available from the

marketplace, EPA further extended its IAQ

protections into furniture procurement. The

products in EPA’s new offices were, like the

products used during construction, required to

have low VOC and formaldehyde

emissions.The IAQ Facility Operations Manual,

developed by the EPA project team, includes a

design decisions matrix outlining exterior and

interior design components of the new campus

and the impact these decisions had on IAQ.

Risk Prevention

Building-related health risks are often difficult to recognize prior to the scientific

discoveries that provide a verifiable link to health effects. However, the high cost of

asbestos and lead remediation has building owners, operators and occupants

thinking carefully about how to avoid exposing themselves to similar financial risk

from other building-related problems in the future. Consequently, the team for the

EPA Campus carefully considered the potential risk associated with electromagnetic

fields (EMFs) and radon gas. 

Electromagnetic Fields

The team reviewed available literature on EMFs and their threat to health and

determined that while EMF radiation could be measured, its threat to humans had

not yet been proven or disproved. Nevertheless, the team recommended adopting a

philosophy of prudent avoidance toward EMF risks and undertook modifications of

the building design to reduce occupant exposure.

EMF radiation can be mitigated by distance and by shielding. Distance offers

maximum protection and is “low-tech,” while the costs associated with shielding are

high and the results are difficult to measure. Consequently, the design team chose to

create “buffer zones” to reduce prolonged exposures in portions of the building that

are occupied for long periods of time, such as the laboratories and offices.

The largest sources of EMF were identified as the building’s transformers, the

electrical rooms with their many cables, and the electrical conduit that was routed

under the building atria. As a first step circulation and utility spaces were used to

maximize the separation between a source and any potential receptors. An analysis

revealed that the conduit under the floor of the atrium would not be problematic

because the time for possible exposure in that circulation space is minimal. However,

the electrical rooms had to be relocated next to restrooms and utility spaces and away

from occupied areas such as offices, laboratories or meeting spaces. 

Because EMF radiation diminishes geometrically over distance, the floor of the

main electrical room was lowered so that a separation of at least six feet could be

made between the electrical transformers and building occupants on the office floor

above. Research has shown that EMF exposures are minimal beyond a distance of

six feet from the source. 

Key Issues to Consider

• Adopt a philosophy of 

avoidance toward all risks to 

human health and well-being

• Predict EMF levels at different 

locations in the building;

identify major sources

• Increase occupant distance 

from major sources of EMF

• Modify floor plan to buffer 

spaces of regular long-term use

from major EMF sources

• Have soils tested for radon if 

building is located in a region 

where radon occurs

• If necessary, incorporate a 

radon mitigation system into 

the building design

Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs)

Electric and magnetic fields may

occur alone or in combination and

are a form of non-ionizing

radiation. Electricity flowing in a

wire or being used in an appliance

creates electric and magnetic

fields around them, as do power

lines and electrical equipment

used in commercial buildings.
79 Design Process: Waste Management

Radon Gas

Radon is a colorless, odorless radioactive gas produced by the radioactive decay of

radium-226, an element found in varying concentrations in many soils and bedrock.

As a gas, radon can easily move through small spaces between particles of soil and thus

enter a building, reaching levels many times higher than outdoor levels.

Radon levels are usually measured in picocuries per liter of air (pCi/L). It is

currently recommended that radon levels be reduced to less than 4 pCi/L, if not as

close to ambient levels as feasible (0.4 pCi/L). The radiation released by the decay of

radon isotopes can damage lung tissue and can increase one’s risk of developing lung

cancer. The health risk depends upon both the levels and the length of exposure to

radon decay products.

Radon typically enters a building from the soil through pressure-driven transport,

where the conditions in the building draw air up and into an opening. Radon can

also enter a building through diffusion, well water and construction materials.

While radon mitigation is an issue that most people associate with residential

construction, the risks for commercial building occupants are real. Because radon

gas is naturally occurring in the soils of some portions of North Carolina, EPA

believed that it was prudent to have its site tested for radon gas. While EPA was

prepared to take action if necessary, the tests proved that radon was not present on

the site and that no mitigation was needed. 

Waste Management

The EPA Campus is designed to optimize waste management opportunities during

design, construction and operation. Waste management occurs on many levels,

beginning with efficient use of resources, a design approach that maximizes building

longevity, and a thorough and systematic approach to reuse, recycling and

responsible disposal of waste materials. 

Efficient Building Design

Efficient building design conserves resources and reduces waste through design

efficiencies. This issue is important when considering space planning efficiencies as

well as volume, which standard net-to-gross calculations often overlook. For

example, “interstitial” planning is a common strategy for providing services to

laboratory areas. This approach requires extra ceiling height above the lab space

through which services are routed. The overall effect is that the floor-to-floor height

is boosted by as much as five to six feet in all lab areas, as well as in office areas that

fall within the laboratory block in order to accommodate the necessary services.

After reviewing the options, the EPA project team chose to make use of a service

corridor to deliver utilities and accommodate future changes. As a result, the overall

height of the building and total building volume was reduced, material

consumption was lowered and access to the utilities was enhanced.

Waste Reduction

Modular design that is coordinated with standard building material dimensions can

greatly reduce waste from trimming. Consequently, standard-size building materials

were used wherever possible in the design and detailing of the EPA facility to

minimize waste in manufacture and installation. Use of standard slopes for tapered

roof insulation, for example, decreases waste by as much as 50 percent. 

Increased Building Longevity

While it is common in the design and construction industry to design for a 30-year

life cycle with cost paybacks limited to a three-five year time frame, EPA has a longRadon Prevention 

Measures Commonly 

Used in Commercial

Buildings

• Active soil depressurization

• Pressurization of the building 

using the HVAC system

• Sealing all major radon entry 

routes

Key Issues

• Design in modules to minimize

construction waste

• Develop construction waste 

recycling plan, including salvage 

of existing construction

materials

• Mulch landscape debris and 

other organic waste on site,

both during construction and 

occupancy

• Develop hazardous materials 

management plan for both 

construction and occupancy

• Develop a recyclable materials 

collection system for building 

users

• Minimize the amount of

building to be built

• Consider renovation and reuse 

as alternatives to new 

construction

• Focus on adaptability of 

structures
The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 80

term interest in this facility. In addition, the project team recognized that the actual

use of a building often exceeds the projected design timeframes requiring extensive

refurbishments and maintenance. To address these issues within the context of

sustainability, the new facility was conceived as a “100-year” building and designed

accordingly. Key elements like the facility’s structure, the cladding, the flashing and

the fireproofing are intended to survive with minimum repair for the projected life.

The overall consequences of the extended design are a reduction in materials usage

and the increased adaptability over the life cycle of the building. 

Building Adaptability

Designing for adaptability is important because even if a building’s physical

structure is long-lived, overly specific building designs that cannot adapt to

changing needs can become obsolete before their time. Ample ceiling height, a

generous column bay and good access to daylight make the EPA facility an easily

adaptable structure. Provisions have been made to accommodate growth of

laboratory programs within the laboratory block itself. Approximately 20 percent of

the space in the laboratory buildings is occupied by offices. This office space is

convenient for lab workers but also serves as a built-in buffer for growth. If office

space needs grow and lab needs shrink, more offices can be accommodated in the

lab building. This “swing space” was important to creating a flexible facility design.

Collection and Handling of Recyclables 

The EPA Campus has been designed to accommodate the recycling of paper, glass,

aluminum, plastic and cardboard. Convenient collection locations have been

provided near areas that generate large quantities of recyclable waste (such as copy

rooms and galleys). These areas are located near elevators to aid collection.

Consequently, collection areas were located in copy rooms and building break

rooms where the majority of recyclables will be generated. In addition, the break

rooms were located directly adjacent to the service elevator lobby, and the copy

rooms were less than 50 feet away. The service elevator is used by janitorial staff to

transport the recyclables to the loading dock via an underground service tunnel that

moves material on electric carts. This means that recyclables can be transported to

the staging area at the loading dock without having to pass through any public

areas. The loading dock has been designed with ample room for staging of

recyclables before pickup, and a compactor for cardboard has been provided. 

Recycling and waste reduction is well integrated into the cafeteria design as well.

Reusable china and flatware will be used in the cafeteria. Recycling collection areas

will be built into the tray drop area in the cafeteria, and the vending areas. An

organic waste recycler will be used for pre- and post-consumer compostables from

food service.

Recycling Chutes

Recycling chutes are vertical shaftways that allow recyclables to be dropped to a

collection area below. Chutes were initially evaluated for the EPA facility, with the

service corridor acting as a lower-level zone to manage collection. Unfortunately,

recycling chutes are most efficient in predominantly vertical buildings where

relatively closely spaced chutes can accommodate occupants. However, in the fivestory, approximately quarter-mile long floor plan of the EPA facility, recycling

chutes were a costly and redundant vertical transport system that would have

become a maintenance burden. Recycling chutes can also become maintenance

problems if the wrong wastes are sent through. For example, sticky residue from soft

drinks can attract pests or promote the growth of bacteria and mold. Instead,

recycling containers were located near elevators, and the underground service tunnel

was used to provide direct access to the loading dock. 

Plan of typical floor circulation flow

Flexible Laboratory
81 Design Process: Waste Management

Reuse of On-Site Materials 

All material generated on the site from land-clearing activity and excavation is

reused on site. Land-clearing debris remaining after the valuable materials have been

sold as timber is shredded for use as mulch. The excess material is composted with

topsoil as a soil amendment. Excavated topsoil is being stockpiled for reuse and

excavated rock is crushed for use as structural fill. 

Construction Waste Recycling

Construction waste occupies about 25 percent of the space at municipal landfills in

the United States. To reduce the demand on landfills, construction and demolition

waste landfills were created to offer a lower cost alternative to municipal landfilling

for the construction industry. Debris that is essentially clean and inert can be

dumped for a lesser fee than municipal waste because the landfill does not 

require a liner.

Three basic types of construction waste recycling are on-site separation, 

phase-based sorting by hauler and off-site sorting of mixed waste. Before developing

a specification, research should include landfill and recycling tipping fees and the

availability of recycling companies that will accept recyclable material. WasteSpec is

a model waste specification that was created by the Triangle J Council of

Governments in Research Triangle Park. The information applies to all parts of the

country and a resource list in the appendix provides names and contact phone

numbers for recycling coordinators for all 50 states, the Canadian provinces,

Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico.

Cover of WasteSpec,

published 1995

CONSTRUCTION WASTE MATERIALS

SPECIFIED FOR RECYCLING

1 Land clearing debris: Solid waste generated solely from land 

clearing operations, such as stumps and trees

2 Concrete, masonry and other inert fill material: Concrete,

brick, rock, clean soil not intended for other on-site use, broken 

asphalt pavement containing no ABC stone, clay concrete, and other

inert material

3 Metals: Metal scrap including iron, steel, copper, brass and aluminum.

4 Untreated wood: Unpainted, untreated dimensional lumber,

plywood, oriented strand board, masonite, particleboard and wood 

shipping pallets

5 Gypsum wallboard scrap: Excess drywall construction materials 

including cuttings, other scrap and excess material

6 Salvaged Materials: Reusable lumber, fixtures and building supplies

7 Cardboard: Clean, corrugated cardboard such as used for 

packaging, etc.

8 Paper: Discarded office refuse such as unwanted files,

correspondence, etc.

9 Plastic buckets: Containers for various liquid and semi-solid or 

viscous construction materials and compounds

10 Beverage containers: Aluminum, glass and plastic containers
The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 82

The EPA project team chose to use on-site separation because clean separated

recyclables have the highest value and many haulers will collect the separated

material in the RTP area. The EPA Construction Waste specification lists materials

recycled and requires the contractor to develop a construction waste management

plan to be approved prior to the start of construction.

Gypsum Grinding

Gypsum can be problematic in landfills because it forms hydrogen sulfide gas under

anaerobic conditions. The best way to solve the problem is through recycling and

keeping the gypsum out of landfills. North Carolina’s RTP area is one of the few

regions in the country with an active gypsum recycling industry. The recycled

material is not being reformed into gypsum at this time, but it is being made into

chemical absorbents such as those used in cat litter. Gypsum also makes an excellent

soil amendment if it is ground finely and used in the proper quantities. 

The EPA Construction Waste specification gives the contractor the option of

recycling gypsum or grinding it for use on the site. For on-site application as a soil

amendment, 50 pounds per 1,000 square feet, or approximately one ton per acre, of

material ground to a fine particle size can be incorporated into the soil surface. This

quantity can be increased if a soil analysis is reviewed by and approval granted from

the Solid Waste section of the North Carolina Department of Environment and

Natural Resources. 

Construction

Most construction processes impact the building site and beyond through

excavation and related soil erosion, disruption of vegetation, wildlife habitat and

topography, compaction of the soil from transportation onto the site, drainage into

nearby water bodies, and even contamination of the site by hazardous materials

when not properly controlled. Other environmental issues include construction

waste, energy used during the construction processes and the effects of material

installation on building indoor air quality. 

The impact of these construction processes can be minimized through the creation

and implementation of effective construction management plans, including rigorous

employee education. Just as important, the general contractor should join the team

as a partner with a stake in meeting the environmental goals of the project.

Groundbreaking ceremony, October 1997
83 Design Process: Construction

Partnering for Construction

Prior to construction, EPA and the General Services Administration (GSA) held a

partnering session with the general contractor and A/E representatives involved in

construction administration. Typical partnering focuses on safety, quality, schedule

and budget. For the EPA project, the environment was placed on equal footing. The

environmental goals for the project were discussed and a training video on

environmentally friendly construction practices was shown. This training video,

produced in both English and Spanish, became required viewing for every

construction worker on site. 

The video describes the broad range of environmental initiatives included in the

project, including environmentally preferable material specifications, tree protection,

top soil preservation, construction practices to limit potential for contamination of

future indoor air quality, and waste separation and recycling. Site workers and

managers learned not just what is expected of them but why it is important, in the

hope of enlisting each of them as willing partners in the creation of an

environmentally friendly construction site. During clearing, grading and concrete

production, no material left the site as waste, signaling successful reduction and

reuse of materials.

Plant Rescue

While every effort was made to minimize the amount of land that had to be cleared

for the project, EPA utilized plant rescues to help limit the impact of clearing by

physically relocating plant material away from the construction limits before it was

destroyed. A plant rescue involves volunteers entering an area slated for clearing, in

this case the project site, to remove plants that otherwise will be bulldozed during

the construction. 

A delay in project start-up from winter 1996 to early summer 1997 afforded the

perfect window of opportunity for a plant rescue operation, as spring is the ideal

time to transplant native plants to maximize their chances for survival. Together

with their neighbors, the National Institutes for Environmental Health Sciences

(NIEHS), with help from the North Carolina Botanical Gardens at Chapel Hill,

EPA saved more than 3,500 plants during several weekends in April and May 1997.

Many plants were transplanted to the NIEHS Campus by volunteer employees to

enrich the wooded understory in front of the NIEHS main building. The rest of the

plants were donated to the Botanical Gardens and relocated by volunteers to public

and private gardens in the area.

Reuse of Land-Clearing Debris

Land clearing generates enormous quantities of biodegradable and potentially useful

organic material, none of which need be lost to landfills. During the clearing of the

EPA site, the contractor successfully salvaged all cleared timber for either sawlogs or

pulpwood, highlighting the usefulness of precious wood resources. The remaining

woody debris was ground into mulch. Often the topsoil and mulch were mixed to

facilitate composting of the mulch and amending the topsoil for future use on the site.

Limbs, stumps and other debris resulting from the site clearing operation was

stacked up ready to be ground into mulch by portable tub grinders. With

conventional construction, piles like these would be burned on the site, and the

stumps would be hauled to a local landfill. On the EPA project, none of the clearing

and grubbing wastes were disposed of off site, and no burning was allowed.

Plant rescue

Plant rescue
The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 84

Rock Crushing

In addition to the reuse of plant material from the construction site, reuse of

excavated soil and rock from excavation debris reduces both material waste and

transportation from hauling off-site. The contractor has used portable rock

crushers on site to process rock from site excavations as well as scrap concrete, later

in construction. There are two machines: the first is the actual crusher, which

takes rocks up to 24" diameter and discharges material smaller than 3". The

second machine is the sieve and screen, which takes the crusher product and

separates the unwanted gradations and fractions to produce specific aggregates. 

Although the excavated rock and weathered rock may not be durable enough to

use as road aggregate, the contractor has used the product in his structural fills and

backfill throughout the site. The aggregate material produced on site has been

used for temporary haul roads and access during inclement weather. To date, the

contractor has not hauled any rock waste from the project. 

Debris grinding with tub grinder

Land–clearing debris
85 Design Process: Construction

On-Site Concrete Batch Plant

The construction contract offered the contractor the option to erect an on-site

plant, provided it would require no additional clearing. An on-site plant was

chosen due to economics and control over the supply. A portable concrete batch

plant was erected on the site, in the south surface lot for the National Computer

Center. One of the contractor’s first activities was to rough grade this parking lot,

the largest surface lot in the project, to prepare it for the batch plant. 

Tremendous environmental benefits are realized by this decision, including the

elimination of an estimated 75,000 highway miles of concrete transit truck traffic

and a savings of 10,000 gallons of fuel.

RotoReclaimer

The RotoReclaimer is a device installed at the concrete batch plant to eliminate

concrete delivery truck washout wastes. The system is a prefabricated unit consisting

of a rotating drum, conveyors and settling tanks. The entire process is self contained

and generates no wastes. Like the batch plant itself, this device was not required by

the contract but was something the contractor chose to employ. The environmental

benefits of the decision, however, are apparent regardless of the motive.

On-site concrete batch plant

Rock crusher
The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 86

When an empty concrete transit mixer returns to the plant from the placement, its

ramp is backed up to the stand pipe to be washed out. The RotoReclaimer pumps

the reclaimed water into the truck mixer drum to clean it out. The waste slurry is

then dumped into the center of the rotating drum of the RotoReclaimer, where it

is washed and the fine and coarse aggregates are separated. The cleaned aggregates

exit the device on two conveyors and are collected in stockpiles for reuse in the

batching operation. The wash water is pumped into a series of three holding tanks

where it settles to allow the cement to settle out. Clean water is recovered from the

final tank and returned to the system to wash the next truck. Periodically, the

settling tanks are allowed to dry and the solids are cleaned out to be processed

through the rock crusher with the site rock and then reused. 

Salvage of Demolition Materials for Reuse

New construction rarely addresses the reuse of salvaged materials, an important

waste-reduction strategy. At the central utility plant, the existing precast concrete

panels on the south walls had to be removed to make room for the plant

expansion. The contractor removed the panels intact, loaded them directly to a

The RotoReclaimer collects wastewater from the concrete mixer to wash and

separate aggregate.

Dismantling precast concrete panels for reuse in plant expansion
87 Design Process: Construction

waiting flatbed truck and stored them on the site to reinstall, where possible, on

the expanded plant. This action saves materials, fabrication, delivery, and disposal

costs compared with traditional demolition and replacement.

Construction Waste Recycling

Using aggressive programs to separate wastes at their sources, the contractors

recovered 80% of the waste generated on site. Including site preparation wastes,

this amounted to about 20 million pounds of resource material that would

normally have been sent as “waste” to landfills. Separate waste hoppers were

provided for drywall, metal, cardboard, wood and other wastes in the buildings

and special crews hauled the hoppers to specially-marked dumpsters. Routine

visual checks ensured that recycling haulers would leave the site with

uncontaminated loads

Use of Recycled Content Building Materials

While minimum recycled content requirements were specified for many

construction materials, good partnering for construction has led to materials with

even better recycled content than originally specified. Recognizing the

environmental goals of the project, the general contractor has searched for and

found some materials with higher recycled content than the minimums required

in the specification. For example, all rebar is made from a mill that uses the

electric arc process, a process that utilizes 100 percent recycled scrap steel.

Another instance in which the general contractor volunteered additional use of

recycled content was for the roadway base course. The use of a minimum of 20

percent recycled concrete aggregate was originally specified for the roadway base

course, however the requirement was one of a few environmental specifications

deleted when the project went out for rebid. Zero aggregate base course was used

due to the unavailability of local waste materials of acceptable quality and

gradation. Now that the project is under construction, however, the general

contractor has volunteered to use 100 percent crushed concrete scrap for the base

course when salvaged material is available.

Submittals Review During Construction

Review of submittals is a particularly important step in the construction process.

Submittal packets were compiled by the various subcontractors and sent to the

project team by the general contractor, often including substitutions to the

products specified. Environmental and other specifications must be tracked by the

architects to avoid getting lost in the process and defeating the team’s efforts in the

final stages of the project.

In the EPA Campus, for example, the main building’s specifications clearly listed

volatile organic compound (VOC) limits for paint products as well as prohibited

hazardous substances, for which certification of compliance was required. Yet in

the various paint submittal packets received, many of the substitutions included

clearly non-compliant products. Midway it was discovered that the paint

subcontractor did not have a copy of the environmental criteria. Individual

substitutions were rejected based upon noncompliance with these criteria until full

compliance, with little exception, was achieved–a process that took over six

months. This illustrates the importance of maintaining a consistent level of

attention to the integrity of the specifications, particularly for environmental

criteria which are less familiar to many of the parties involved.
The Greening Curve: Lessons Learned in the Design of the New EPA Campus in North Carolina 88

Constant Vigilance

Through close attention to detail at every step of the process, the project team 

has seen most of the environmental design goals of the new EPA campus come to

fruition. And for every small detail that has not ultimately materialized, there have

been new, unexpected environmental gains such as the voluntary concrete

recycling program offered by the contractor. The key to this success has been the

commitment by all parties to the common goals of high quality, cost-effectiveness,

and environmental stewardship. 

As the chapters of design and construction draw to a close, and operations begin,

EPA continues its commitment to make this a model, sustainable campus–still

climbing the greening curve.
ENDNOTES

1 Our Common Future:The World Commission on Environment and

Development, Chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland of Norway,

Oxford University Press, New York, 1987.

2 David Malin Roodman and Nicholas Lenssen, A Building Revolution: How

Ecology and Health Concerns are Transforming Construction, Worldwatch

Paper 124,Worldwatch Institute,Washington, DC, March 1995; and the

U.S. EPA solid waste program.

3 Lester R. Brown et. al., State of the World, Making Better Buildings,

page 95. (chapter by Nicholas Lenssen and David Malin Roodman) 

W.W. Norton & Company, New York, NY, 1995.

4 Report to Congress on Indoor Air Quality,Volume II:Assessment and Control of

Indoor Air Pollution, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of

Air and Radiation (OAR), (Washington, DC, 1989).

5 The Trane Company,Trane Air Conditioning Economics (TRACE), an 

analytical tool enabling building system designers to optimize the 

building, system and equipment designs on the basis of energy utilization 

and life cycle cost.

6 Lumen Micro, Lighting Technologies Inc., software that provides tools to 

create, simulate and analyze lighting layouts for both indoor and outdoor

applications.

7 Sparks, L.E.; Exposure Version 2:A Computer Model for Analyzing the 

Effects of Indoor Air Pollutant Sources on Individual Exposure,

EPA-600/8-91-013 (NTIS PB91-507764). Air Pollution Prevention and

Control Division, Research Triangle Park, NC,April 1991.

Note:The Exposure model has been replaced with a new model called RISK.

8 David Malin Roodman and Nicholas Lenssen, A Building Revolution:

How Ecology and Health Concerns Are Tranforming Construction,

Worldwatch paper 124, page 23. (Washington, DC:Worldwatch Institute,

March 1995. Library of Congress number 95-060295).
To obtain a copy of “The Greening Curve” contact:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Administration and Resources Mgmt.

MD-C-604-05

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711