3

2Printed on paper that contains at least 20 percent postconsumer fiber.

Research Triangle Park
Environmentally Preferable

Purchasing Program

Environmentally preferable purchasing ensures that

environmental considerations are included in purchasing

decisions, along with traditional factors, such as product

price and performance. The EPP program provides guidance for federal agencies to facilitate purchases of goods

and services that pose fewer burdens on the environment. 

For more information about either of these programs contact:

Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse (PPIC)

202 260-1023

e-mail: PPIC@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV

Design for the 

Environment

EPA’s Design for the Environment (DfE) Program helps

businesses incorporate environmental considerations into

the design and redesign of products, processes, and technical and management systems. DfE initiates voluntary partnerships with industry, universities, research institutions,

public interest groups, and other government agencies.

This document includes references to specific products and companies that assisted EPA with these

building projects. These references are included to provide additional detail and do not constitute

endorsement or recommendation for use.
g , , , 

environmentally preferable purchasing evolves and expands. Please contact the EPP program by e-mail, regular mail, or fax:

Eun-Sook Goidel

Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

401 M Street, SW. (7409)

Washington, DC 20460

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

FAX: 202 260-0178

i

Overview..............................................................................................................................1

Brief History of the Projects ...........................................................................................1

EPA’s “Green Building Design” Initiative ....................................................................1

Key Differences Between the Projects..........................................................................2

Number of Decision-Makers..............................................................................................2

EPA’s Level of Involvement ................................................................................................3

Building Sites .......................................................................................................................3

Significance of the Case Studies.....................................................................................3

CASE STUDY ONE: 

EPA’s Federal Triangle Headquarters Project in Washington, DC.........................5

Introduction........................................................................................................................6

Stakeholders .......................................................................................................................7

The Buildings of the New Headquarters Project.......................................................8

New Construction: The Ronald Reagan Building..........................................................10

Buildings to Undergo Renovation: “Testaments to the American Spirit”.....................11

The New Headquarters Team and the Planning and Design Process .................13

Differences To Be Overcome ...........................................................................................13

Developing a New Process for Decision-Making...........................................................14

Step-by-Step Decision-Making........................................................................................15

Technical Building Assessments....................................................................................15

Refining EPA’s Requirements ......................................................................................16

Space Planning ...........................................................................................................16

Planned Move Coordination........................................................................................17

Communication and Outreach.........................................................................................17

Space Design, Materials Guidelines, 

and Project Management Considerations ..................................................................18

Indoor Air Quality.............................................................................................................18

Managing Sources of Emissions...................................................................................19

Paints and Coatings ......................................................................................19

Carpets...........................................................................................................19

Flooring and Base Moldings ........................................................................20

Joint and Spackling Compounds..................................................................20

Plywood and Particle Board.........................................................................21

Furniture........................................................................................................21

Mechanical Systems Design..............................................................................................23

Construction Management...............................................................................................24

Contents
ii

Energy and Resource Conservation.............................................................................26

“Green Lights” Design .....................................................................................................26

Additional Energy and Resource Efficiency Features.....................................................27

Recycling and Reuse of Materials ....................................................................................27

Transportation ...................................................................................................................28

Lessons Learned..............................................................................................................29

Early Involvement .............................................................................................................29

Teamwork...........................................................................................................................29

Be Prepared To Learn.......................................................................................................29

CASE STUDY TWO:

EPA’s Office and Research Campus in Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina................................................................................31

Introduction......................................................................................................................32

Building Description.......................................................................................................33

Project History.................................................................................................................33

Background

EPA’s Design Team............................................................................................................33

Selecting the A/E Firm .....................................................................................................36

Specifying Design Objectives...........................................................................................36

Decision Process: Function, Environment, and Cost...............................................37

Material Selection..............................................................................................................38

Flooring Debate ..........................................................................................................39

Atrium Design............................................................................................................40

Material Conservation.......................................................................................................41

Access Roads ................................................................................................................41

Interstitial Space .........................................................................................................41

Modular Design..........................................................................................................42

Indoor Air Quality.............................................................................................................42

Eliminating IAQ Contaminants .................................................................................43

Material Selection .........................................................................................43

Sequencing ....................................................................................................45

Testing............................................................................................................46

Exhaust Stacks............................................................................................................46

Energy Conservation.........................................................................................................47

Fume Hoods................................................................................................................47

Central Utility Plant ..................................................................................................48

Building Automation System.......................................................................................48

EPA Green Lights Program........................................................................................49

High-Performance Window Glazing ..........................................................................49

Water Conservation ..........................................................................................................49

Onsite Recycling................................................................................................................49

Construction Management...............................................................................................50

Requiring the Contractor To Recycle............................................................................50

Mandatory Environmental Training...........................................................................51

Additional Contractor Requirements............................................................................51

Protecting the Natural Environment...............................................................................52

Parking.......................................................................................................................52
iii

Tree Survey.................................................................................................................53

Natural Landscaping ..................................................................................................55

Lessons Learned..............................................................................................................56

Commit to an Environmental Goal.................................................................................56

Eternal Vigilance Is Essential ...........................................................................................56

Be Persistent: Assign an “Environmental Advocate” ......................................................57

Continual Reevaluations Are Important..........................................................................57

Value Engineering Can Improve Environmental Performance.....................................58

Look at the Long Term ....................................................................................................58

Modeling Design Features Is Helpful..............................................................................58

Environmental Attribute Information Is Available .........................................................59

Appendix A: Definition of Low VOC Content Levels As 

Defined in the RTP Construction Contract..............................................................60

Appendix B: Required Minimum Recycled Content of 

Materials for the RTP Facility ......................................................................................61

Appendix C: EPA Green Buildings Vision and Policy Statement..........................62 

Appendix D: Green Building Resources.....................................................................64
iv

Acronyms

A/E Architecture and Engineering

APA American Plywood Association

ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning

Engineers

DfE Design for the Environment

DOE Department of Energy

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPP Environmentally Preferable Purchasing

fc Foot Candles

GSA U.S. General Services Administration

GWP Global Warming Potential

HCFC Hydrochlorofluorocarbon

HOK Hellmuth, Obata, and Kassabaum

HVAC Heating, Venting, and Air Conditioning

IAQ Indoor Air Quality

ICC Interstate Commerce Commission

NAPCA National Air Pollution Control Administration

NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

ODP Ozone Depletion Potential

RFP Request for Proposal

RTP Research Triangle Park

VE Value Engineering

VOC Volatile Organic Compound
T

he U.S. government is currently building two new facilities that together will

provide working space for 9,000 EPA employees. Upon completion, they will be

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) two largest facilities. The

EPA headquarters facility will provide consolidated space in Washington, DC, for the

Agency’s 6,800 headquarters personnel. It currently includes space in the new Ronald

Reagan Building and also will include space in several of the newly renovated buildings in the Federal Triangle complex. The second facility will provide laboratory and

office space for 2,200 EPA scientists and other professionals in Research Triangle

Park (RTP), North Carolina.

In keeping with its mission to protect the environment, EPA worked to ensure that

designs for both facilities minimize adverse environmental impacts. Both facilities

include features designed to protect indoor air quality, maximize energy efficiency,

reduce water consumption, encourage alternative forms of transportation, and promote pollution prevention throughout the construction process. Design teams for

both facilities also examined the environmental impacts of selected materials from a

lifecycle perspective in an attempt to select products with minimal adverse effects,

over time, to human health and the environment.

While the environmental goals for each of the facilities were similar, they were

implemented differently because of key differences between the two projects. This

document includes a case study for each of the EPA projects. Each details the 

decision-making process EPA used when selecting environmental design components.

Brief History of the Projects

When EPA was created in 1970, the first employees and their office space were

inherited from many smaller agencies and subagencies subsumed by EPA. As EPA’s

regulatory, research, and pollution prevention responsibilities increased, EPA headquarters employees were located throughout the Washington, DC, area in 10 disparate locations. Similarly, many of EPA’s research scientists were located throughout

RTP in a dozen different buildings, some as many as 15 miles apart.

By the early to mid 1980s, the lack of a centralized headquarters facility was hampering Agency efficiency as employees constantly shuttled between buildings. It also

hurt internal communication. There were similar concerns among the EPA employees in RTP. In addition, the numerous EPA laboratory facilities in RTP were aging

rapidly and were no longer able to support all of the Agency’s research needs.

EPA established headquarters and RTP teams to acquire new consolidated facilities. The efforts of each team and the specific history of each project are documented

in the following case studies. 

EPA’s “Green Building Design” Initiative

In August 1995, EPA defined its “green buildings” vision and policy statement, in

which green buildings were identified as “structures that incorporate the principles of

sustainable design—design in which the impacts of a building on the environment will

Overview ◆ 1

Overview
be minimal over the life-time of that building.” EPA’s green buildings statement identified 10 specific design objectives to achieve that goal. EPA also acknowledged, however, that some of the sustainable design goals might conflict with one another

(increased ventilation versus increased energy efficiency, for example) or with other

EPA objectives such as cost and function, or other policy goals such as environmental

justice (with regards to site selection). For a complete copy of the EPA Green

Buildings Vision and Policy Statement, see Appendix C.

In implementing these goals, EPA incorporated as many environmental features

into the design of each of the new facilities as the budgets would allow without compromising building function. While several private sector and other nongovernmental

organizations are beginning to incorporate environmental features like grey water

recycling, solar, geothermal, and fuel cell power production, and straw bale construction, EPA only incorporated features that were appropriate within the context of the

budget, construction process, building site, and existing infrastructures associated with

each project. For example, both facilities had existing power plants as sources of heat.

Developing completely new heating sources would have conflicted with each project’s

resource conservation goals and budgetary constraints.

EPA’s intent was not to build facilities that showcase the latest emerging technologies or facilities that incorporate every “green” design option available. The goal was

to design and build two functional facilities, each at a reasonable cost, and each with

reduced adverse environmental impacts. Every design decision attempted to balance

three guiding principles—function, cost, and environmental impact.

Key Differences Between the Projects

While the environmental goals for each of the projects are similar, there are fundamental differences between them—the number of decision-makers, EPA’s level of

involvement in the decision making process, and the building sites. These differences

affected some of the decisions and the way in which they were made.

Number of Decision-Makers

The Agency’s New Headquarters Project includes a new building—the Ronald

Reagan Building, which will be occupied by EPA and other federal and private sector

tenants—and renovations to existing buildings in the Federal Triangle complex, which

will be occupied solely by EPA. All of the buildings, however, are owned by the U.S.

General Services Administration (GSA). GSA is also managing the project, although

GSA and EPA are working closely together to incorporate EPA’s functional, cost, and

environmental priorities. GSA must balance EPA’s priorities with the overall project

schedule and cost and with the functional and cost priorities of the other tenants.

Balancing competing building priorities required GSA, GSA’s base building architects and contractors, EPA, EPA’s interior architects and contractors, other building

tenants, and federal employee unions to establish a framework to make many design

decisions together. Consequently, the most challenging aspect of incorporating environmental considerations into EPA’s new headquarters facility was developing an

effective decision-making process. Consequently, the headquarters case study begins

with a detailed examination of this process.

2 ◆ Overview
Overview ◆ 3

The RTP research complex, by comparison, included a more straightforward decision-making process. Unlike the headquarters project, EPA will not be leasing the

facility from GSA. EPA will own the facility and will be its sole occupant. As a result,

the RTP team was involved from the beginning of the project and was able to balance

their own functional, cost, and environmental priorities without involving as many

stakeholders.

EPA’s Level of Involvement

EPA’s involvement in designing the new headquarters facility occurred after a number of fundamental building decisions had been made, which restricted EPA’s ability

to affect the overall design. While a majority of EPA’s opportunities to minimize the

negative environmental impacts of the building affected the facility’s interior because

most of the building’s skeleton design had already been completed, the Agency was

able to influence some base building decisions, including the materials, mechanical

systems, and water conservation features.

As the owner of the RTP facility, however, EPA had complete control over the

design of the entire facility, from the location of the building on the existing federal

property to the type of paint used on the interior walls. This provided EPA with a

greater ability to affect the environmental impacts of the RTP facility.

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

Building Sites

The building sites for each of the new EPA facilities are very different. The headquarters facility is located in a historically significant block of downtown Washington,

DC. The RTP laboratory facility is being constructed on a heavily wooded, 132.5-

acre site that is part of a larger 500-acre federal property. While both projects were

designed to minimize site impact, the opportunities to do so were different for each

facility. In Washington, DC, the construction site included several historically significant buildings—minimizing impact meant preserving the historical significance of the

site. In RTP, minimizing site impact meant preserving the forest, wetlands, wildlife

habitats, and the existing watershed.

Significance of the Case Studies

These case studies not only demonstrate the feasibility of cost-effectively incorporating environmental concerns into large building projects, but demonstrate that the

environmental concerns and the methods used to address them are likely to differ

from project to project. They also demonstrate that the negative environmental

impacts of a building can be minimized whether it is owned or leased, renovated or

new, or located in an urban or rural setting. EPA’s Design for the Environment (DfE)

and Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP) programs hope that the lessons

learned from EPA’s experiences with these two projects will help others incorporate

environmental considerations into future buildings.

Case Study One:

EPA’s Federal Triangle

Headquarters Project In

Washington, DC 
6 ◆ Case Study One: EPA’s Federal Triangle Headquarters Project

Introduction

EPA has had a long-standing housing dilemma. Since its inception in 1970, EPA

has experienced significant growth in both programmatic responsibility and personnel. EPA managers recognized that they needed to plan for a new, consolidated headquarters. In the late 1980s, the Agency assembled a group of key individuals (the EPA

New Headquarters Project) to manage the housing effort and develop standards for

environmental design, beginning with employee protection and ultimately including

global environmental concerns. 

As planning continued, the problem of disparate, scattered locations worsened. By

the mid-1990s, EPA had rented space in 10 locations throughout the District of

Columbia and Virginia. Some of these facilities represented departures from their

intended uses. As a result, EPA’s efforts to integrate and run efficient programs met

with difficulties that included:

● Duplication and inequity of support services.

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

● Lack of centralized services.

● Overcrowding.

● Excessive operating costs caused by adjustments made for multiple sites

(e.g.., multiple guard services, shuttle services, etc.).

● Environmental problems, which potentially have affected employees’ health,

created excessive long-term costs, and attracted considerable negative public

attention.

EPA’s goal was to consolidate its thousands of employees in a well-planned central

location that offered greater efficiency, comfort, safety, and lower operating costs,

while maintaining consistency with its environmental mission. In addition, a 

government-owned facility would save taxpayers rental expense. Large urban facilities

with the appropriate features are not easy to locate, however, and it took many years

of planning before EPA finalized plans for a new headquarters site at the Federal

Triangle location in central Washington, DC.

In December 1993, the GSA Administrator announced plans for EPA to move into

the Federal Triangle area, saying, “One of the major goals in this administration has

been to consolidate and streamline our federal government. With this agreement, we

have solved a long-standing problem that has spanned at least three administrations.

In doing so, we give EPA the tools to carry out its critical mission, we reduce the

number of federal office buildings, and we expect to save the taxpayers money

through reduced leasing costs. Everybody wins.”

EPA employees began moving into the new headquarters space in 1994. Move-in

of all staff is expected to be completed by early 2001. About 6,800 EPA staff will work

in the Federal Triangle area.
Case Study One: EPA’s Federal Triangle Headquarters Project ◆ 7

Stakeholders

A project of this size, importance, and complexity has many stakeholders, all of

whom have to be able to coordinate and communicate their goals, needs, difficulties,

and activities on an ongoing basis. Communicating effectively with so many people

over several years poses an enormous challenge. The stakeholders for the EPA New

Headquarters Project include:

● EPA’s headquarters personnel.

● Gruzen Samton/The Croxton Collaborative, EPA’s space planning and

design architectural team.

● Staff members of EPA’s Safety, Health, and Environmental Management

Division.

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

expertise.

● The National Federation of Federal Employees and the American

Federation of Government Employees, unions that represent about twothirds of EPA employees.

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

Project. 

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

● The Federal Triangle Consortium, GSA’s developer for the Ronald Reagan

base building.

● RTKL Associates, GSA’s architect for renovations.

● All those interested in developing federal properties that are a value to the

taxpayers.
8 ◆ Case Study One: EPA’s Federal Triangle Headquarters Project

The Buildings of the New Headquarters Project

The Federal Triangle site is one of the most valuable pieces of property in the federal government’s inventory. Located in downtown Washington, DC, between

Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues, and 12th and 14th Streets, the area contains

the last major unfinished site on Pennsylvania Avenue. Nearby are Freedom Plaza,

the Willard Hotel, the National Theater, the Warner Theater, and the Old Post

Office Pavilion. Before construction began on the Ronald Reagan Building, the site

was a surface parking lot for over 50 years. 

EPA’s current housing plan involves the newly constructed Ronald Reagan Building

and several historically significant New Deal-era buildings, including the Ariel Rios,

U.S. Customs, and Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) Buildings. 

▼ The U.S. Customs,

Connecting Wing

(containing the

Mellon Auditorium),

and ICC Buildings

(left to right)
Federal Triangle Project Time Line

1970 EPA is created.

1970 EPA’s Washington, DC, headquarters staff occupies 

Waterside Mall Towers.

1971 to 1997 EPA headquarters continues to expand, eventually occupying 10 sites

in the Washington, DC, area.

1981 EPA begins planning for a consolidated headquarters.

1987 Congress approves legislation for the creation of the Federal Triangle

Building (renamed the Ronald Reagan Building in 1995).

1988 EPA New Headquarters Project team forms and begins talking with

GSA about headquarters consolidation.

1991 Excavation and construction begins on the Ronald Reagan Building.

1993 GSA announces that EPA will occupy Ariel Rios, U.S. Customs, ICC,

and Connecting Wing Buildings of the Federal Triangle Complex.

1993 GSA publishes Request for Qualifications for renovation of Federal

Triangle buildings.

1993 RTKL Associates (GSA) and Gruzen Samton/Croxton Collaborative

(EPA) are hired and planning for renovations begins.

1993 President Clinton signs Executive Order 12873: Federal Acquisition,

Recycling, and Waste Prevention.

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

1995 EPA issues Guidance on Acquisition of Environmentally Preferable Products

and Services

1995 GSA completes Prospectus Development Study for renovations.

1995 Planning begins for renovations to Ariel Rios-North.

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

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

2000 EPA moves into ICC Building (expected).

2000 to 2001 EPA moves into U.S. Customs Building and Connecting Wing

(expected).

Case Study One: EPA’s Federal Triangle Headquarters Project ◆ 9
10 ◆ Case Study One: EPA’s Federal Triangle Headquarters Project

New Construction: The Ronald Reagan Building

The design of the Ronald Reagan Building, although modern in function, blends

with the classic Revival style of the buildings on site. The gracious exterior is covered

with limestone from the same quarry that covers the older structures. The most

notable architectural feature of the

building is a 6-story glass and steel

atrium that provides generous public

space for restaurants, shops, and conference rooms. The facility, designed

by the world renowned architectural

firm of Pei-Cobb-Freed, is the second

largest federal office complex, after the

Pentagon.

The interior space of the building

totals 3.1 million occupiable square

feet. Approximately 1,000 EPA

employees are presently occupying the

200,000 square feet that comprises

EPA’s portion of the building. The

U.S. Customs Service and the U.S.

Agency for International Development

will occupy another 1.1 million square

feet of space in this building. In addition, 500,000 square feet have been

reserved for the International Cultural and Trade Center, which is being leased by

commercial trade-related organizations. Finally, the Woodrow Wilson International

Center for Scholars will occupy 50,000 square feet.

Approval and funding for this building was granted by Congress in the late 1980s,

and construction of the “base building”1 began before EPA was named a tenant in the

project. EPA, therefore, had a somewhat limited role in the construction of the base

building, although the Agency, working closely with GSA, had some modest successes

in altering the building to reflect a number of sustainable design and mission features,

including the addition of operable windows, use of low-Volatile Organic Compounds

(VOC) paints in the base building, selection of a 4-phenyl cyclohexene (4-PC) free

carpet buildingwide, incorporation of low-flow plumbing devices, use of fly ash in the

cement, and a number of mechanical system improvements that contribute to a better

indoor environment.

When designing its own interior “tenant” spaces, the Agency had much more latitude to reflect technical and environmental features. EPA’s tenant spaces include such

features as: 

● Energy-efficient pendant lighting with up and down light distribution.

▲ Ronald Reagan

Building

1

“Base building” is a construction and architectural term that usually refers to work that is done to the external

walls and foundation of a building. GSA uses this term in a different context than would a typical developer to

indicate all the aspects of construction that GSA manages (versus those areas controlled by a tenant). GSA generally tries to put as much of the work as possible into the base building, and to leave little for tenant fit-out,

partly because often no tenants have yet rented the space. This allows for more efficient and cost-effective

design and construction. Aspects of a construction project that usually fall into the “base building” category

include heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC); plumbing; electricity; exteriors; and construction of

common areas.
Case Study One: EPA’s Federal Triangle Headquarters Project ◆ 11

● A “Green Lights” approach that reduces energy consumption.

● Fully equipped Haworth workstations that meet EPA mission and functional

needs.

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

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

● Low VOC paint.

● Durable fabric wall covering for conference rooms.

● Ceiling tiles with high recycled content.

● Compact fluorescent fixtures.

● Crystalline silica-free joint compound. 

● Mechanical system refinements including direct exhaust of copy and pantry

areas.

Buildings To Undergo Renovation: “Testaments to the

American Spirit”

In addition to the new Ronald Reagan Building,

the Federal Triangle site includes several buildings

constructed during the Great Depression that

“were intended to be testaments to the resilience

and strength of the American Spirit,” according to

GSA’s lead architect for the renovation. The renovated buildings include the following:

The Ariel Rios Building: The striking exterior

architecture of this half-moon shaped building

enabled EPA to establish a meaningful “front

door.” The interior public spaces include elaborate

architectural details. The South Wing already had

been renovated when EPA inherited the space in

1993 from the U.S. Department of Justice, and the

North Wing is slated for renovations between 1997

and 1999.

The ICC Building: This building has a rectangular plan, with a central open light court extending to the basement floor and an octagonal

rotunda. Many elegant historic spaces will be preserved and protected.

The U.S. Customs Building: This rectangular

building, which forms a mirror image of the ICC

Building, has a central open light court. A water

fountain is centered in the court floor, around

which extend formal walkways and landscaped

▼ The front promenade of the Ariel

Rios North building
12 ◆ Case Study One: EPA’s Federal Triangle Headquarters Project

gardens. As is the case with the ICC Building, many historic spaces will be preserved

and adapted for modern tenants.

Connecting Wing: This structure connects the U.S. Customs Building and the

ICC Building. The elaborate three-story Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium faces

Constitution Avenue and includes a large departmental auditorium, a spacious

entrance lobby, and meeting rooms. Office space is located behind the auditorium. 

In their original form, these buildings were very inefficient by today’s standards,

because their designers were working with an entirely different set of standards and

needs. Built in an era with no mechanical air conditioning, the buildings contained

narrow office spaces off a central corridor. Slatted “louvered” doors and transoms

provided ventilation and return air to corridors. In essence, the corridors became

return air plenums used for ventilation. The EPA New Headquarters Project faced a

challenging job in upgrading the facilities to meet the needs of a technologically

focused modern agency with a conspicuous environmental mission. 

To meet historic preservation requirements, GSA had to preserve the original

structures and appearance of many publicly accessible parts of these buildings, especially hallways, atria, many conference rooms, and some offices, as well as building

exteriors. These structures are all listed on the National Register of Historic Places

and in the GSA National Capital Region Historic Properties Inventory. The construction methods, architectural details, and materials—granite, marble, black walnut,

bronze—have become irreplaceable. These buildings are viewed as national treasures

and GSA had a strong commitment to restoring them in a historically sympathetic

way and to displaying their important and historic contributions to federal government. All requested changes to the buildings were approved by the GSA Regional

Historic Preservation Office and conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards

for renovation of historic properties.
Case Study One: EPA’s Federal Triangle Headquarters Project ◆ 13

The New Headquarters Team and the Planning

And Design Process

GSA owns and manages many federal buildings in the United States, including the

Federal Triangle complex. It also manages all construction and design projects for its

properties. GSA usually oversees such projects alone, partly because there are often

no tenants for a space when the construction is being planned, but also because it is

GSA’s role to manage architectural and engineering projects for the federal government. In the case of the older buildings in EPA’s new headquarters, however, GSA

decided to proceed somewhat differently. According to one of the GSA Project

Executives, “Given the complexity and public impact of EPA’s consolidation effort, we

realized from the outset that a different approach was required to manage all planning, design, construction, and move processes of the renovated buildings. We understood that EPA had to be an integral part of that team.”

Differences To Be Overcome

The EPA and GSA team’s overall objectives included: (1) planning for a headquarters facility that would meet EPA’s functional needs now and in the future; (2) reflecting EPA’s environmental mission in the facilities; (3) adhering to historic preservation

mandates; (4) completing the move on schedule; and (5) ensuring project continuity

from planning through occupancy. When the team first began to work together in

1993, however, some significant differences in concepts, operating style, and procedures existed between EPA and GSA:

● GSA set forth baseline design guidelines for federal construction and renovation projects in a document called PQ 100.1. These guidelines, at times, did

not reflect EPA’s specific environmental and technical requirements.

● GSA often focuses only on “first costs,” meaning that it considers primarily

the cost to purchase a product or system. EPA, on the other hand, considers

“lifecycle costs”—the total costs of a product or system over its useful life—

as a more realistic method of justifying investments in environmentally

preferable items or features that better meet EPA technical performance levels.

● GSA’s organizational structure typically separates construction from operations and maintenance, which makes it difficult to capture both operational

and construction cost savings. 

● GSA’s standard process involves obtaining at least three bids from U.S.

sources for every purchase used in a federal project, a process that works well

for established systems and products that have mature markets. Conversely,

some of EPA’s environmental goals for the new headquarters focused on

newly developed materials and systems, for which markets may not have

developed fully. In such cases, the three-bid approach can be difficult or

impossible to implement and thus inhibited the purchase of a material or system suggested by EPA.

● EPA’s mission and historical problems with indoor air quality (IAQ) meant it

needed to ensure the best possible IAQ for its employees. While GSA has

extensive expertise in building construction and management, EPA believed
that its environmental expertise made it better suited than GSA to oversee its

IAQ concerns.

Developing a New Process for Decision-Making

To address these differences, the agencies first had to set in place a new system of

communication, which involved a different process of decision-making than had typically been used in past GSA construction projects (there are also differences in the

process as it relates to the Ronald Reagan Building versus the renovated buildings; see

inset next page). EPA and GSA eventually worked out a process that was collaborative, practical, and sensitive to the pressures of time and budget, while incorporating

EPA’s mission and technical requirements. The system included the following elements:

● A formal offsite partnering session was conducted for each of the renovation

projects, to break down communication barriers and to develop a mutual

understanding of project goals.

● To help EPA plan for a headquarters that truly reflected its environmental

mission and achieved its goals for efficient operations, EPA chose an architectural group with environmental expertise, Gruzen Samton/Croxton

Collaborative, to work on the renovations.

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

closely.

● Frequent team meetings were held to discuss plans, to design layouts, status,

and schedule, and to make decisions by consensus. The team discussed the

merits of approaches, materials, systems, and processes and made decisions

that satisfied the team as a whole.

● The team reviewed the design plans at several stages during development,

which helped team members understand critical issues and improve procedures for the rest of the project. Design review involved “value engineering,”

which analyzes systems while paying special attention to the overall value of

each decision. This process helped GSA and EPA prioritize their needs and

stay within the fixed Congressional budget for the renovations. 

● Stakeholders received regular communications (newsletters, automated voice

announcements, etc.) to update them on the progress of the project and to

ask for their input on specific issues.

● EPA backed up its commitment to environmental requirements by putting

Agency resources into each project.

14 ◆ Case Study One: EPA’s Federal Triangle Headquarters Project
Case Study One: EPA’s Federal Triangle Headquarters Project ◆ 15

Step-By-Step Decision-Making

To ensure EPA’s needs were met in the planning, design, construction, and renovation of the new facilities, the team set up a series of important steps to implement for

each building in the Federal Triangle complex. 

Technical Building Assessments

Information related to the architectural, mechanical, structural, and electrical

aspects of the buildings was reviewed by the EPA and GSA team, including:

● Assessment of power, heating, ventilating and air conditioning, lighting,

structure, and telecommunications issues.

New Construction (Ronald Reagan Building)

Versus Renovation Projects

The process of planning and constructing the Ronald Reagan Building differed

from that of the renovated buildings in several ways:

● Because EPA will not be the sole tenant of the Ronald Reagan Building

and was not involved in the project from its inception, EPA had fewer

opportunities to comment on or modify the design for the new construction. For the buildings to be renovated, however, none of this groundwork

had been laid, and GSA invited EPA to be a design partner from the outset. Also, EPA will be the sole tenant of all the renovated buildings.

● Because of its late entry into the design process of the Ronald Reagan

Building, EPA’s architectural firm was not a part of GSA’s design team. For

the renovation portion of the project, however, EPA did bring its own

architectural firm into the design process at the start of planning. This

early involvement enabled the team to incorporate features that were

important to EPA into the building design. 

● The Ronald Reagan Building design and construction project was managed by a private development corporation, whereas the renovated buildings were traditional GSA “design and build” projects. In the latter

process, GSA itself manages the project and has direct control over design

and construction. Thus, GSA can modify, refine, or add to the design, the

materials, or the construction process as needed to meet the needs of its

tenants.

● The Ronald Reagan Building was not subject to historic preservation

requirements because it is a completely new building, whereas the buildings slated for renovation were subject to them.

● Presidential Executive Order 12873, signed in October, 1993, affected the

renovation projects because it includes the environmental aspects of construction, renovation, and office furnishings. GSA was not required to

consider environmental attributes in construction or purchasing of materials for the Ronald Reagan Building, however, because it was approved

prior to the Executive Order. 
16 ◆ Case Study One: EPA’s Federal Triangle Headquarters Project

● Architectural analysis of the space.

● Environmental assessment of existing conditions in the renovated structures,

including asbestos, lead, lighting, electromagnetic fields, and energy efficiency.

● Analysis of historic preservation requirements, which strongly influenced

building modifications and use of space.

Refining EPA’s Requirements

In 1988, the project team developed a comprehensive Pre-Design Master Study that

defined EPA’s facility requirements for the project. Both the baseline for design and

EPA’s architectural firm selection were dependent upon this study and a variety of

other materials. Gruzen Samton/Croxton Collaborative then worked with EPA to

specify state-of-the-art sustainable design and construction principles and to determine which principles were appropriate for use in this project, in the context of the

available space and potential impacts on the projected completion schedule. The team

then developed guidelines for building design and construction processes, and source

selection criteria for design and construction materials, as well as interior furnishings.

These guidelines laid the foundation for the team to incorporate changes to the

typical GSA design management processes. The team at times considered purchases

with higher-than-usual initial costs, for example, if they could be justified by a short

payback period. GSA required EPA payment

for all items deemed beyond their standard

building treatment.

Space Planning

Careful space planning required attention to

the many programmatic divisions within EPA,

as well as to the various individual needs of

employees (e.g., facilities for conferencing,

meetings, training, documents, child care,

infant nursing, fitness, eating, and research).

Decisions regarding the types, sizes, and relative locations of spaces needed had to be made

early in the planning process. The team subsequently established detailed space use and environmental criteria. At this point, the team made

specific decisions about equipment, layouts,

materials, furnishings, and other details. The

planning process required communication with

relevant stakeholders about their needs.

The various EPA offices were distributed to

reflect the functional organization of EPA.

Program offices were consolidated physically

and placed near one another to facilitate interaction. Since these programs all interface with

the public, their offices were located to facilitate public communication and interaction. The

▼ A lobby in the

Ronald Reagan

Building
Case Study One: EPA’s Federal Triangle Headquarters Project ◆ 17

Executive, Legal, and Resource organizations were placed in Ariel Rios-North, near

the offices that relate functionally to the work of the Administrator. Also, throughout

the buildings, support functions were arranged so that they will be directly accessible

to the individuals needing their services.

Planned Move Coordination

The process of constructing space and moving several thousand federal employees

from multiple locations, already underway, will take more than seven years to complete. In addition, significant programmatic changes within EPA have affected the

Agency’s physical space needs; these have had to be incorporated into the design on

an ongoing basis. Such a massive move requires precise planning and the involvement

of representatives from the different EPA facilities and programs. 

Communication and Outreach

In an organization so dispersed both physically and programmatically, a variety of

communication mechanisms about the project had to be implemented throughout the

duration of the project, including:

● An automated informational phone line with regular recorded updates that

allows callers to talk directly to an EPA New Headquarters Project staff person. 

● Numerous physical and photographic displays about the new facilities,which

were placed at various locations around the current headquarters at

Waterside Mall and at the Agency’s satellite buildings.

● Electronic communications posted to EPA bulletin boards and on the EPA

intranet, as well as regular office briefings. 

● A demonstration area that displayed two typical workstations and interior

furnishings for the new headquarters.

● A video about the new facilities, produced by the New Headquarters Project

team and available for private and group viewings.

● Regular newsletters and fact sheets about the status of the project in the different buildings.

● Surveys of the needs and relative importance to EPA staff of various aspects

of the move and the new facilities.

● Regular briefings for all EPA employees.

● A Program Committee, which includes representatives who exchange relevant planning information.
18 ◆ Case Study One: EPA’s Federal Triangle Headquarters Project

Space Design, Materials Guidelines, and Project

Management Considerations

The design approach taken with EPA’s new headquarters complex addressed concerns of paramount importance to the Agency: functional organization of the various

Agency components; efficient utilization of available space; recognition of employee

health, safety, and comfort considerations; a workplace whose design embraces the

Agency’s mission goals and meets EPA’s technical and program needs; and implementation of these objectives within the constraints of existing structures, budget, and historical preservation limitations. In some cases, EPA was able to assist GSA in

implementing major design modifications and construction procedures to meet the

Agency’s mission and technical objectives. In other cases, only incremental improvements were feasible because of budgetary and historic preservation constraints. 

Indoor Air Quality

EPA ranks poor IAQ as one of our nation’s greatest health risk issues. IAQ may

have considerable impacts on employee productivity and absenteeism, and may affect

the general well-being of occupants. Members of EPA’s design team established IAQ

recommendations for GSA, concentrating on three categories: sources of emissions,

mechanical systems design, and management of construction and renovation processes. These recommendations were developed with the primary goal of protecting EPA’s

employees from IAQ problems that might result from material selection decisions, as

▲ An office entranceway in the Ronald

Reagan Building
Case Study One: EPA’s Federal Triangle Headquarters Project ◆ 19

well as from construction and renovation activities. Additional considerations for

selecting certain materials (joint and spackling compounds and floor and base moldings) were the health impacts on workers during manufacturing and construction

activities and the effects created when materials ultimately make their way into the

waste stream.

Managing Sources of Emissions

The EPA and GSA design team developed and implemented a number of source

control procedures. These focused on using construction materials that exhibited a

low potential for chemical emissions (called “off-gassing potential”), including lowemitting carpeting, paints, adhesives, insulation materials, and general construction

materials. The EPA and GSA team took steps to avoid building materials and products containing high levels of VOCs and toxic chemicals. Members of EPA’s Safety,

Health, and Environmental Management Division and specialists from EPA’s design

team played a critical role in reviewing material safety data sheets of key materials and

products used by GSA’s contractors and making recommendations. The general

guidelines developed by EPA to meet its IAQ source management goals follow.

Paints and Coatings

Emissions from paints and coatings may contribute greatly to IAQ problems. Some

paints and coatings contain volatile petroleum-based solvents, fungicides, and biocides, as well as crystalline silica and heavy metals2

. Although off-gassing of these

volatile substances is considerably more dramatic during application and drying periods, it continues to a lesser degree after application. Oil-based paints tend to off-gas a

greater level of VOCs on initial application than do water-based paints. Properly

selected paints and coatings, handled with correct precautions, do not contribute significantly to IAQ problems. 

EPA suggested guidelines for low-VOC paints and coatings, a number of which are

available for interior wall and ceiling surfaces. EPA also identified low-VOC caulking,

sealants, adhesives, wood finishes, and waterproofing materials. The team also recommended that these paints be applied

under maximum ventilation, which should be continued for

at least 72 hours following completion of work. 

Carpets

An earlier agreement between EPA employee unions and

management required that all carpeting used in EPA facilities

must be free of the chemical compound 4-PC, an odorous

compound that had been associated with prior EPA indoor

air complaints. Additionally, to ensure that the new carpeting

would not contribute to IAQ problems, a number of other

steps were taken. Carpeting for all EPA spaces was aired out

(i.e., carpet tiles were removed from packaging and spread

▼ Carpets ready for

air-out before

installation

2 Crystalline silica and heavy metals can become airborne occupational hazards for construction workers as a

result of sanding and scraping old paint during renovation activities. They can also become an IAQ hazard for

building occupants if the ventilation duct work is not properly cleaned after all sanding and scraping is completed.
20 ◆ Case Study One: EPA’s Federal Triangle Headquarters Project

out) for seven days at another location prior to installation in EPA space. Carpet tile

was installed using four dots of glue in each corner of the tile rather than covering the

entire surface with glue, as is traditional. Guidelines also required that all finish painting and sealant applications be applied and fully cured prior to carpet installation, to

prevent absorption and subsequent re-emission of off-gassed chemicals in carpeting.

Lastly, the contractor monitored a 21-day flush-out period after the carpets were

installed and prior to tenant move-in. During this time, the HVAC system was run 24

hours a day, with the goal of using 100 percent outside air to completely flush the

interior air.

Flooring and Base Moldings

Many flooring and base molding products contain vinyl chloride monomer, a

known human carcinogen.3 The EPA technical team noted that vinyl chloride exposure associated with flooring and base molding most likely occurs during the manufacturing of these products. In addition, vinyl chloride can be a problem in waste

incineration. The team, therefore, suggested that rubber-based materials be substituted for the vinyl-based molding, and that linoleum tile be substituted for vinyl composition tile. In addition, adhesives low in VOCs were used during application, with

maximum ventilation provided during and immediately after installation. 

Joint and Spackling Compounds

Joint and spackling compounds commonly contain hardening agents, such as crystalline silica. These agents do not necessarily pose a hazard during application, but

can become inhalable dusts

as a result of sanding or

other renovation activities.

Construction workers continually exposed to these

airborne dusts without

proper respiratory protection can also develop lung

irritations and even silicosis. Further, it is possible

for silica dusts to be introduced into a building’s

mechanical system during

construction or renovation

activities. 

In response to these

issues, an alternative joint

compound that did not

contain a crystalline silica

component was identified

and used during construction of EPA space in the

Ronald Reagan Building.

▼ An Assistant

Administrator’s

suite in the Ronald

Reagan Building

3 Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables, Office of Research and Development, Office of Emergency and

Remedial Response, U.S. EPA, 1995.
Case Study One: EPA’s Federal Triangle Headquarters Project ◆ 21

This product costs approximately the same amount as traditional silica-containing

joint compound, but it required construction workers to hand-mix the ingredients on

site. Choosing appropriate materials often provides valuable lessons for future products. In a number of locations throughout the Ronald Reagan Building, imprecise

mixing caused the compound to crack upon drying and required additional repair

work. Steps were taken to avoid these problems in subsequent applications.

Plywood and Particle Board 

Urea formaldehyde resin is often used as a bonding agent in plywood and particle

board. Formaldehyde, a probable human carcinogen and chemical irritant, is known

to off-gas at room temperature for extended periods of time in bonded products. To

reduce this potential source of indoor pollutants, the EPA team suggested that exterior grade plywood be used as one alternative in exposed interior applications, such as

telephone closets and cabinetry. Large-scale chamber tests documented by the

American Plywood Association (APA) found concentrations of formaldehyde from

exterior grade plywood, which uses phenolic formaldehyde resin, to be less than 0.1

parts per million (ppm) under APA standard test conditions. 

Furniture

Volatile chemicals, such as formaldehyde, are often used in the sealants and glues

found in indoor office furniture and have the potential to off-gas during the life of the

furniture. To identify products that would minimize this potential source of indoor air

pollutants, EPA developed chemical emissions criteria and a testing program for furniture vendors who wanted to participate in EPA’s bidding process. In 1990, the State

of Washington published its furniture procurement standards, which many furniture

manufacturers now use as a baseline for their production processes. Based on this program, the EPA team developed even stricter threshold values for chemical emissions

off-gassing from furniture for the new headquarters project:

● Maximum formaldehyde concentration in air — less than 0.05 ppm

● Maximum aldehyde concentration in air — less than 0.1 ppm

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

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

Furniture testing was coordinated by the EPA team and GSA’s National Furniture

Center, working with a nationally recognized laboratory in Marietta, Georgia. EPA

conducted and documented inspections of manufacturing sites and the furniture testing facility to ensure compliance with the established testing procedures. All testing

was done in compliance with EPA’s quality assurance and quality control procedures.
Reinventing Furniture Procurement

Traditionally, federal purchasing decisions are based on cost and performance. To

address human and ecological risks as well, EPA developed and implemented a voluntary environmental assessment checklist for furniture manufacturers. This tool was

used to assess the environmental policies in place at each manufacturer’s facilities, in

addition to the environmental characteristics of systems furniture submitted for consideration under this procurement. First, environmental performance and characteristics of the workstation were considered, including energy conservation, IAQ, and

resource conservation (i.e., use of recycled and recyclable materials). Second, the

assessment reviewed the vendors’ overall environmental sensitivity and corporate

environmental and occupational health policies, including pollution control and

strategies for energy and resource conservation and worker health and safety.

EPA was not necessarily attempting to identify the “greenest vendor.” EPA preferred, however, that the selected vendor demonstrate due diligence in a broad fashion

relative to environmental, sustainability, and ergonomic issues that advance and support EPA’s mission. Scoring for this procedure was not competitive, and vendors were

not required to have addressed every issue. A cumulative score resulted in a pass or

fail for this section of the assessment.

Haworth Inc. of Holland, Michigan, the furniture manufacturer selected to supply

furniture for EPA’s new headquarters, followed a number of positive corporate environmental practices, including:

● Using energy-efficient task lighting in systems furniture and being a corporate partner for EPA’s Green Lights program.

● Constructing and packaging systems furniture using recycled and recyclable

materials.

● Designing workstation furniture panels so they could be refurbished and

reused.

● Using water-based adhesives, high-solid paints, and other low-VOC technologies.

● Avoiding the use of chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons

(HCFCs) in insulation materials.

● Participating in EPA’s WasteWi$e and 33/50 voluntary corporate pollution

prevention programs. 

The furniture procurement process for the New Headquarters Project clearly

demonstrated that the federal government’s purchasing power can be a positive influence on the private sector. In addition to providing a higher measure of protection for

EPA employees from furniture emissions, the use of the emissions test and vendor

checklist sends a message to potential vendors that corporate practices and manufacturing processes compatible with EPA’s goals are valued and rewarded in the federal

procurement process. As EPA’s Project Manager stated, “This was a noteworthy procurement given that there were no regulatory requirements driving the process.

Basically, it demonstrates that the federal government can have a tremendously positive influence in the private sector by merely exercising its purchasing power and that

the marketplace is willing to embrace such an effort.”

22 ◆ Case Study One: EPA’s Federal Triangle Headquarters Project
Case Study One: EPA’s Federal Triangle Headquarters Project ◆ 23

The development of this testing program has had positive pollution prevention

results. One manufacturer, for example, reevaluated a chair and changed its manufacturing process to avoid using urea formaldehyde. This production change occurred

within 30 days after the chair failed EPA’s emissions test, even though this manufacturer knew at the time that the chair would not be selected by EPA. As a result of the

success of this testing approach, GSA plans to make a similar process available for

other federal agencies, thereby expanding GSA procurement selection beyond traditional technical and cost criteria to include emissions factors. The consideration of

environmental factors, (e.g., emissions values) along with more traditional factors, is a

core concept of EPA’s Environmentally Preferable Purchasing and Design for the

Environment programs.

Mechanical Systems Design

The EPA and GSA team also reviewed design drawings for the mechanical systems

at Federal Triangle, to ensure that the quality of ventilated air would be adequate to

protect employee health and that air intakes were properly located to avoid 

cross-contamination from building exhausts. To accomplish this, the separation

between exhausts and intakes was set to exceed American Society of Heating,

Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) code minimum distances

by a substantial amount. EPA also worked with GSA to ensure that copy rooms,

pantries, parking garages, toilet rooms, and commercial cooking facilities were

designed with independent exhausts to prevent recirculation of degraded air. For

these areas, air is exhausted on the roof, away from general building ventilation air

intakes. 

Additional measures related to the mechanical system that have been or will be

implemented in these structures to ensure sound IAQ include: 

● Incorporating carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide sensors at air handlers in

interior areas of concern, such as garages and lower floors of buildings, to

ensure proper ventilation.

● Installing an electronic HVAC management system in the Ronald Reagan

Building, which allows for sophisticated monitoring, ease of maintenance,

automatic adjustments for seasonal differences in heating and cooling needs,

and warnings to building staff if adverse air quality conditions develop. 

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

● Supplying a minimum of 20 cubic feet of ventilated outside air per minute,

per occupant.

● Installing or retrofitting windows so they are operable in the event of

mechanical system failure.

● Testing all building systems to ensure that they are operating as designed

prior to occupancy, including operation of the ventilation system at maximum fresh air for seven days.

The design team also evaluated GSA’s guidelines for the refrigeration systems,

which were based on extreme weather conditions. By running a Department of

Energy (DOE) computer model (DOE-2), Gruzen-Samton/Croxton Collaborative

and RTKL determined that chiller capacity would be under-utilized, resulting in inef-
24 ◆ Case Study One: EPA’s Federal Triangle Headquarters Project

ficient energy use. The design team replaced the configuration of one large chiller

with a series of seven smaller centrifugal chillers. This configuration maintained the

capacity for extremely hot conditions, but also allowed for more efficient use of

chillers when high capacity was not necessary. In addition, building managers can

extend a chiller’s useful life by rotating it in and out of use. Space in the refrigeration

plant was created for a spare chiller, which can be rotated into use when one of the

installed units needs servicing or retiring. 

The EPA and GSA team also identified factors to consider in reviewing refrigerant

and chiller equipment options: global warming potential (GWP) and ozone depletion

potential (ODP) of refrigerants,4 toxicity of refrigerants, size of equipment desired

(defined by the size of the equipment room), ultimate phase-out date for refrigerant if

applicable, and cost. Early in the planning process, hydrofluorocarbon 134a (HFC

134a), a chlorine-free alternative to HCFC 123, was identified as a “cutting edge”

refrigerant because it had no ODP and a low GWP. Equipment manufacturers later

demonstrated to EPA, however, that HCFC 123 could be used in conjunction with

state-of-the-art chillers in a configuration that would produce a higher level of energy

efficiency, relatively low ODP, and a lower GWP than HFC 134a. Other factors that

were considered include HCFC 123’s higher acute toxicity and pending phase-out

date of 2030, which was not significant to the decision mainly because the expected

useful life of the chillers was rated at less than 30 years. Given similar costs for the

two refrigerants, these factors influenced the EPA and GSA team to decide upon

HCFC 123. The lesson learned in this project is that a refrigerant decision calculus

involves a complex matrix of factors, and the appropriate refrigerant choice cannot be

driven by a single consideration.

Construction Management

An important aspect of ensuring IAQ for the EPA and GSA team was to protect

employees occupying completed spaces adjacent to areas and buildings during construction and renovation. Team members were especially concerned about the buildup of construction particles, odors, VOCs and combustion particles from construction

activities (e.g., welding, painting, and carpeting), and disruptions to the HVAC systems during partial tenant occupation. The EPA and GSA team developed guidelines

(see box) to reduce the potential emissions produced during construction by managing and mitigating activities that temporarily produced airborne dust, odor, and other

contaminants.

Team members conducted regular walk-throughs of the EPA construction areas to

ensure compliance with specified materials, installation methods, and construction

practices.

4 ODP = capacity for a chemical to deplete the stratospheric ozone layer relative to CFC 11; GWP= capacity

for a chemical to retain heat in the lower atmosphere relative to carbon dioxide.
EPA Applied Construction Management Guidelines 

Maintaining IAQ in Tenant Spaces

Housekeeping:

● Avoid the use of methylene chloride-based paint removers in renovated areas.

● Lay temporary carpets in EPA space over newer carpets to avoid

tracking dusts and particulates from other parts of the work site into

renovated and furbished areas; vacuum temporary carpets weekly to

avoid contaminant buildup.

● Continuously monitor construction areas to avoid buildup or accumulation of moisture that could contaminate construction and interior materials.

● Establish onsite storage areas for volatile materials and temporary

staging areas for waste materials.

● Isolate and protect occupants in completed spaces from construction

activities using differential pressure and solid barriers between construction areas and tenant spaces.

● Locate paint lockers away from tenant spaces.

HVAC System:

● Isolate shared air handlers for space under construction from occupied tenant spaces.

● Add supplemental prefilters to all outside air intakes supplying occupied areas.

● Inspect and change filters in air handlers more frequently during

phased construction and occupancy.

● Clean return air plenums prior to phased occupancy.

● Provide minimum air flow of 20 cubic feet per minute per person for

all occupied space.

● Direct exhaust of construction floors and areas to the exterior of the

building.

● Provide additional temporary ventilation during construction activities that affect IAQ (e.g., painting and use of solvents and glues).

● Rebalance building ventilation system prior to all phased tenant

move-in.

Work Scheduling:

● Complete interior wet work (e.g., painting) and other processes prior

to installing absorbent products (e.g., carpets, systems furniture, and

ceiling tile) to avoid buildup of dust and odors.

● Schedule work when it is least likely to disrupt tenant work

(e.g.,through noise).

● Use EPA and GSA team members’ work site visits to ensure that IAQ

protection processes are being followed.

Case Study One: EPA’s Federal Triangle Headquarters Project ◆ 25
26 ◆ Case Study One: EPA’s Federal Triangle Headquarters Project

Energy and Resource Conservation

“Green Lights” Design

EPA’s Green Lights5approach to lighting design is featured prominently in the

Federal Triangle Project. The overall goal of EPA’s lighting design was to utilize a

combination of natural, pendant, and task lighting to maximize energy efficiency and

maintain a properly illuminated work environment for employees. Adequate daylight

creates a healthier and more stimulating

office environment, which leads to

improved staff morale, health, and productivity. GSA accommodated EPA’s technological requirements within the constraints

of historic mandates in the spaces undergoing renovation. 

EPA tenant spaces were designed to

enhance the flow of natural and artificial

light, including the following innovations:

● Raised the height of drop ceilings in the

Ronald Reagan Building to take advantage of additional natural lighting (“daylighting”). 

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

daylighting.

● Kept partitions, office support spaces (e.g., copy rooms), and mechanical

rooms to the interior of the Ronald Reagan Building, to maximize penetration of daylight into employee work spaces. 

● Added glass sidelights around doors and clerestory windows (glass openings

at the tops of walls) to increase the amount of natural light that reaches the

interior of the building.

● Selected workstation colors that maximize light reflection.

Bidirectional pendant (hanging) lighting fixtures that use energy-conserving fluorescent tubes and ballasts were installed. These fixtures use energy-efficient T-8

triphosphor-coated light bulbs, parabolic reflectors, and electronic ballasts. Pendant

lighting is very efficient (up to 90 percent), providing about 60 percent indirect and

40 percent direct lighting. Lighting the ceilings, as well as the spaces below, diminishes glare, dispels shadows, and creates an impression of daylight deeper into the building.

EPA also worked with GSA to devise an energy-saving strategy allowing them to

reduce the ambient lighting from the GSA standard of 50 foot candles (fc) per person

to 30 fc, with workstation task lighting supplying the remaining 20 fc. Occupancy

sensors installed in every workstation were preset to turn off workstation lights auto-

▲ Natural, pendant,

and task lighting

illuminate office

space in the Ronald

Reagan Building

5 EPA’s Green Lights is a voluntary program that encourages the widespread use of energy-efficient lighting

systems. Information about the program can be obtained by calling 202 775-6650. The web site can be reached

at www.epa.gov/greenlights.html.
Case Study One: EPA’s Federal Triangle Headquarters Project ◆ 27

matically whenever the workstation remains unoccupied for 15 minutes. In addition,

daylighting controls and floorwide occupancy sensors ensure that general space lighting also turns off when not needed. All these features increase energy efficiency while

meeting GSA requirements. 

Additional Energy and Resource Efficiency Features

Creating energy-efficient space was an important priority of the EPA and GSA

design team. Low-flow plumbing devices were installed in faucets and toilets. Also,

more than 2,000 historic windows in the renovated buildings, many of which are at

least 5 by 9 feet in size, were fitted with weatherstripping and double glazing. In addition, interior storm windows with thermal breaks were added. These features enabled

the buildings to retain the original architecture, while greatly increasing energy efficiency.

Recycling and Reuse of Materials

An important aspect of the modernization portions of the project was the reuse of

the existing structures, which supported both the historic preservation and sustainable

design objectives. This choice saved an estimated 75,000 tons of concrete, 6,000 tons

of steel, 100,000 square feet of glass, and 3,000 tons of masonry. In addition, it

reduced the use of new building materials and the overburdening of landfills with

demolition waste. Although historic preservation was the fundamental reason for

choosing to restore the several buildings at the Federal Triangle Complex, the final

result promotes resource conservation in the building industry.

The EPA and GSA team also identified a number of opportunities to procure

materials with recycled content. Suggested materials included gypsum wallboard,

ceramic and stoneware tile, steel and aluminum, roofing felt, and concrete containing

fly ash from municipal solid waste incineration facilities. If such materials could be

guaranteed to deliver comparable performance at an acceptable price and at least

three U.S. sources existed for the product, GSA was often able to purchase the suggested material. 

The furniture manufacturer supplying the EPA space in the Federal Triangle

Project used a construction and packing system that included recycled materials.

Additionally, the panels used in office partitions were designed for a “take-back” program, so that they could be returned to the manufacturer for refurbishing as needed. 

The Federal Triangle Project, like any construction and renovation project, generates waste. Severe space limitations at this construction site limited the extent of waste

separation for recycling. Additionally, much of the waste material from the older

buildings contains lead-based paint and/or asbestos, and regulations designed to protect public health limit the recyclability of such materials. 
28 ◆ Case Study One: EPA’s Federal Triangle Headquarters Project

Transportation

Parking space in downtown Washington, DC, is at a premium. Several bus lines, as

well as the Washington, DC, Metro system (subway), have stops at Federal Triangle.

Although a parking lot was incorporated into

the design of the Ronald Reagan Building, competition for spaces is high. 

EPA will continue its policy of subsidizing a

portion of the cost of public transportation for

its employees. EPA has also secured space in the

Ronald Reagan Building basement to store bicycles and has provided lockers and showers for

employees. These features encourage employees

to use alternative transportation modes rather

than driving, thereby helping prevent pollution

and conserving resources in accordance with

EPA’s mission.

▲ Metro entrance outside of the Ariel Rios

building
Case Study One: EPA’s Federal Triangle Headquarters Project ◆ 29

Lessons Learned

This last section focuses on the EPA and GSA members of EPA’s consolidation

project team, exploring what these individuals consider to be the most important

lessons they learned during their many years of collaboration. EPA hopes that the sustainable building design principles and procedures outlined in this document and the

reflections of team members shared below will be valuable to others working on renovation and new construction projects in both the public and private sectors.

Early Involvement

EPA’s New Headquarters Project team was set up in 1988, almost immediately after

Congress approved funds for the Ronald Reagan Building. From the beginning, the

EPA Project Manager envisioned this team as requiring the active participation of all

stakeholders. EPA’s architectural group, Gruzen Samton/Croxton Collaborative, composed of firms with sustainable design experience, was brought into the team when

EPA was offered the buildings in the Federal Triangle site.

Because of their very different missions, styles, and processes, EPA and GSA were

starting from dissimilar perspectives and needed to build trust and good communication in order to work together effectively. One of the environmental architects and

planners with Gruzen Samton/Croxton Collaborative, said, “We were involved with

the renovation projects practically from day one, and I cannot stress enough how

important that is. You get a better product when you are involved early in the process.

Especially with a complex project like this one—that involved so many environmental

issues with significant consequences—it was critical that we were able to start at the

very beginning and build trust gradually with all the team players.” 

Teamwork

According to one of the GSA Project Executives, “The success of a project depends

on how well the team works. There is nothing more important. The renovations of

GSA’s historical buildings at Federal Triangle require intense cooperation and constant communication among members of the team. The success of this project means

that GSA will definitely be more open to future dialogues with our tenant agencies.”

EPA’s Project Manager echoed this sentiment, saying, “A good partnership between

landlord and tenant is particularly critical to an efficient and successful building project. When everyone who is important to the outcome is included on the team and

they respect and listen to each other, the results can be outstanding.”

Be Prepared To Learn

“One of the most interesting things I rediscovered during this project,” said one of

the GSA Project Executives, “is that there simply is no ‘list of best things’—sustainable products or otherwise—to be incorporated in a project. The needs are different

each time, and they have to be worked out in the context of that specific project.”

One of the architects concurred, “There are literally thousands of small decisions that

had to be made during the course of the renovation projects, and because so many of

them involved different materials and processes, we often couldn’t rely on past experience to make them. Instead, we had to learn from each other and from the group’s

discussions.”
30 ◆ Case Study One: EPA’s Federal Triangle Headquarters Project

Comprehensive, conclusive information is rarely available about the health risks

and other environmental impacts associated with a product or material. Typically, the

project team is faced with fragmentary information of varying quality on a limited

number of hazard and exposure parameters. The project team must make product

selection decisions by applying its professional judgment to integrate the available

information as best it can. 

GSA and RTKL team members note that they will have a heightened awareness of

sustainable design in the future. GSA’s Project Executive for the Ronald Reagan

Building said, “This project demonstrated that interagency collaboration can result in

cost-effective decisions that are also environmentally sound.”

The EPA Project Manager commented, “In just the past few years, sustainable

design has been thoroughly mainstreamed into quality architectural design. Most

architects now pay attention to designing ‘for the environment.’ What makes this

aspect of designing so challenging and exciting is that it is still changing so rapidly, as

manufacturers get involved and try new techniques and processes. This process has

forced all of us to reexamine our conceptual paradigms.” 

One of the environmental architects with Gruzen Samton/Croxton Collaborative

concluded, “I would hope that everyone who reads this case study comes away realizing that significant, economically and environmentally sound purchasing decisions can

be implemented at every level of building design, demolition, renovation, and construction.” 
Case Study Two:

EPA’s Office and Research

Campus

in Research Triangle Park,

North Carolina
32 ◆ Case Study Two: EPA’s Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility

Introduction

EPA recently began constructing a new $250 million, one-million square-foot laboratory and office complex in Research Triangle Park (RTP), North Carolina—EPA’s

largest complex outside of Washington, DC. In addition to housing EPA employees

and scientists who work to protect the environment, the building was designed to

minimize its environmental impact. The design incorporates a wide variety of environmental features, including:

● Protecting indoor air quality (IAQ).

● Maximizing energy efficiency.

● Incorporating the use of recycled-content materials and other building materials with environmental attributes.

● Reducing the environmental impacts of parking and transportation.

● Promoting recycling, resource conservation, and pollution prevention

throughout the design and construction phases.

● Minimizing the building’s impact on the site by reducing the excavation

required, reducing the number of trees and amount of vegetation removed

from the site, and protecting the existing watershed.

The process used to incorporate environmental attributes into the building are as important as the attributes

themselves. EPA and Hellmuth, Obata and Kassabaum

(HOK), the architecture and engineering (A/E) firm

that designed the facility, examined the environmental

impact of every aspect of the building’s design before

decisions were finalized. These aspects included, for

example, the size and location of the building, the

materials and processes used to construct it, and building maintenance and operation. Nearly every building

attribute was examined for its function, environmental

impact, and cost throughout every phase of the building design process. To provide additional technical

expertise during the extensive design reviews, EPA

partnered with GSA and the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers. The result is a building that will meet or

exceed all of EPA’s functional needs while minimizing

costs and adverse environmental impacts.

Although design work began in 1992, before EPA issued its Guidance on Acquisition

of Environmentally Preferable Products and Services, the design process incorporated

many of the objectives described in the Guidance. As a result, this design and construction project provides a valuable model for how other agencies can integrate environmental preferability into their purchasing decisions, even acquisitions as large as a

quarter-of-a-billion-dollar building. This case study documents EPA’s decision-making process, how it was applied throughout the design phase, the results of those decisions, and the lessons learned.

▲ An artist’s rendering of the 

RTP facility
Case Study Two: EPA’s Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility ◆ 33

Building Description

The RTP laboratory and office complex is

located on 132.5 acres of a 500-acre federal property that includes a 23-acre lake and the laboratory facilities for the National Institute of

Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). The

building site rises along gently sloping terrain and

peaks 60 feet higher in elevation than the lake. It

consists primarily of second growth forest, which

is less than 50 years old. The site also contains

several groves of old-growth trees, including one

that contains a 100-year-old oak tree that is 11

feet around.

The one-million-gross-square-foot EPA facility

includes 635,000 net square feet of office and laboratory space for 2,200 EPA employees. The main facility consists of four five-story

laboratory buildings, connected by three 30-foot-wide atria to three three-story office

buildings. The main building also includes a central five-story office tower that contains a cafeteria, conference center, several auditoriums, and a library. A high-bay

engineering research wing is connected to the southern end of the complex. The laboratory and office buildings are situated alongside the lake so that they follow the

curve of the shore. The EPA National Computer Center and a jointly operated

EPA/NIEHS child care facility are located on another part of the EPA campus, less

than a quarter of a mile away. 

Project History

Background

EPA’s current RTP laboratory facilities include a dozen

outmoded, rented facilities dispersed throughout a 15-mile

area in three counties. The main facility, described by one

EPA employee as “an eclectic hodge-podge of wings and

labs,” was built by the National Air Pollution Control

Administration (NAPCA) as an interim facility. EPA inherited the building when President Nixon established EPA in

1970, and NAPCA was subsumed within the newly created

agency. A sign on a fence outside the building still reads,

“NAPCA Interim Facility.” The building was intended to be

a short-term measure until EPA could build a permanent,

centralized laboratory complex. 

Budget considerations prevented immediate construction,

but as EPA’s responsibilities grew, so did the need for a modern, centralized laboratory complex. In 1987, EPA began

seeking Congressional funding to build a new facility. An

Army Corps of Engineers’ estimate at that time suggested

that the time lost as EPA employees shuttled among the

existing buildings cost EPA almost $3 million a year. There

EPA’s Research Triangle Park Operations

The new EPA facility will house the

Office of Research and Development, which

investigates the effects of a variety of pollutants on human health and the environment.

Its work provides the scientific basis for

many of EPA’s regulatory and policy decisions.

The RTP facility will also house the

Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards, which is tasked with implementing the Clean Air Act. In addition, the facility will include EPA’s National Computer

Center and a number of crucial administrative groups.

▲ A model of the

National Computer

Center
34 ◆ Case Study Two: EPA’s Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility

are also significant costs associated with continually retrofitting existing space to make

it suitable for EPA research, costs that will be avoided in a new facility. EPA estimates

that the new facility will pay for itself in 22 years.

In 1991, Congress gave EPA $5 million to begin designing the new facility 6 and

the following year EPA selected HOK to design it. The design was completed in

1996. By 1997, Congress had appropriated funds to initiate construction. Ground was

broken in July 1997, and the $272 million project is expected to be completed by

early 2001. 

EPA’s Design Team

Although EPA has extensive expertise in numerous environmental arenas, the RTP

facility is one of the Agency’s only major building projects. As a result, EPA looked to

other government agencies for assistance with the design and construction plans.

Within the federal government, GSA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have the

most construction project experience, and both provided EPA with valuable assistance.

GSA brought extensive experience acquiring, designing, and constructing new and

rented federal facilities to the EPA building project. GSA provided an experienced

architect who became the lead government architect on the EPA team. The GSA

architect participated in all design reviews, ensured that the facility complied with all

necessary government standards, and made substantial improvements and contributions to the final design.

Project Time Line

1970 EPA is founded and begins conducting research in several

Research Triangle Park laboratories.

1970 to 1997 EPA expands its research capabilities, eventually occupying a

dozen rented buildings in the Research Triangle Park area.

1987 EPA seeks Congressional permission to build a new research facility.

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

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

facility.

1996 Facility design is finalized.

1997 Congress appropriates $110 million to initiate construction.

1997 Clark Construction Group begins construction on the new facility.

2001 Construction is completed and facility is occupied (expected).

6 Between 1991 and 1996, Congress incrementally increased design funding to $20 million.
Case Study Two: EPA’s Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility ◆ 35

Through an interagency agreement, GSA is also managing construction of the

EPA facility. GSA is ensuring that construction remains on schedule, on budget, and

within the contract specification requirements.

The Army Corps of Engineers provided

specialized engineering expertise throughout the design process, including a team of

design experts that led EPA and the design

team through the value engineering (VE)

process. VE is an industry-accepted design

practice intended to save money by identifying design changes that will provide the

same function at a reduced cost. Outside

experts are brought in to critique the partially completed design and to offer design

alternatives. Typically, the VE process only

examines function and cost, but EPA,

HOK, GSA, and the Corps of Engineers

also emphasized environmental factors in

their design reviews. The Corps of

Engineers VE team led design reviews

when the design was 35, 65, and 95 percent complete, and the results produced

significant cost savings and environmental

improvements, including:

● Removing the curb and gutter from the surface parking lots and using natural biofiltration to handle storm water runoff. Innovative “bioretention” facilities were added to enhance the natural system by using porous zones planted

with trees, shrubs, and herbs that absorb and break down contaminants from

heavy rains. The total cost of the bioretention system was less than conventional approaches and will improve environmental performance because less

construction materials will be required and water filtration will be improved.

● Reducing dramatically the size of the access road from a four-lane divided

highway with wide utility cuts to a simple two-lane road with electric lines

under the pavement. This will significantly reduce the cost of building and

maintaining the road and will preserve an additional 20 or more acres of

trees. In addition, road and utility rights of way will be planted with indigenous trees and wild flowers. The indigenous vegetation will not require fertilizer or frequent mowing, which will significantly reduce the pollution

concerns resulting from those activities. In addition, landscaping with native

species plants allowed the designers to remove plans for an underground irrigation system, which will save additional building costs.

As follow up to their design role, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has also

agreed to serve as a technical advisor to EPA and GSA during the construction of the

RTP facility.

▲ A model showing a

view of the facility

from the west
36 ◆ Case Study Two: EPA’s Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility

Selecting the A/E Firm

Following normal government procedure, EPA issued a standard Request For

Proposal (RFP) announcing a need for design and engineering services to design a

new laboratory and office complex. The RFP contained several environmental design

requirements, including experience maximizing energy conservation, indoor air quality, and pollution prevention. Over 80 firms submitted proposals and EPA narrowed

them to six companies based on the specific factors listed in the RFP. Each of the final

six companies was interviewed in depth about their capabilities to meet EPA’s design

needs. Following the interviews, EPA selected HOK as the winning design firm.

Specifying Design Objectives

The EPA and HOK design teams identified eight design goals. The design for the

facility, in order of importance, was required to be: 

● Functional

● Environmentally friendly

● Easily maintained

● Brightly illuminated with natural light

● Able to facilitate and promote communication between EPA employees

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

● Within walking distance of parking

● Secure

EPA asked the designers to incorporate as many environmental features into the

new facility as the budget and existing technologies allowed, without compromising

its function as a state-of-the-art research facility or exceeding the construction budget.

EPA also asked that the facility’s environmental attributes: 

● Protect IAQ by selecting materials with minimal adverse IAQ impacts and by

establishing maximum indoor air concentrations for several indoor pollutants.

● Conserve energy, water, and building materials by designing a highly

resource-efficient facility that maximizes utility while minimizing required

space.

● Promote recycling and pollution prevention through the use of materials

with identifiable environmental attributes. These included recycled-content

materials, materials from sustainably managed forests, and materials that

minimize negative environmental impacts throughout their entire life cycles,

including low-energy use during production, local availability, low toxicity,

high durability, and similar environmental attributes.

● Preserve the natural environment by minimizing the building’s impact on the

site, including reducing the amount of excavation required, decreasing 

the number of trees cleared from the site, protecting the onsite wetlands,

creek, and lake, and preventing a need for intensive grounds maintenance

following building occupancy.
Case Study Two: EPA’s Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility ◆ 37

According to the EPA Project Manager,

breaking with tradition was one of the most

difficult aspects of the project. He explained

that, although a commitment from the entire

team was essential, “at first, a number of the

team members had to be dragged kicking and

screaming into the green design discussions.”

EPA and HOK project leaders encouraged all

of the architects and engineers to go beyond

their traditional emphases on function, cost,

and aesthetics to incorporate environmental

concerns into the design process. “Many government team members also struggled with

the constant focus on ‘green design,’” according to the EPA Project Manager, “because traditional engineering approaches were

being challenged and there was constant pressure to live within a limited budget.”

Once the commitment to environmental design was fully established among all of

the partners on the design team—EPA, GSA, the Army Corps of Engineers, HOK

and all of their consultants—the designers, according to the EPA Project Manager,

“took the ball and ran with it.” EPA formed a pollution prevention advisory group

that included scientists and engineers from within the Agency. Several of these experts

stayed with the project through design completion. GSA and the Corps of Engineers

also tapped resources throughout their agencies to help identify design solutions that

were functional, cost-effective, and environmentally sound.

HOK actively participated in EPA’s pollution prevention brainstorming sessions

and design evaluation sessions, and made use of many of the ideas and concepts generated by the government team members. HOK also went much further, building

upon its existing environmental credentials. One of the firm’s lead architects on the

EPA facility explained that “[Environmental design] issues are incredibly important

and HOK is trying to integrate them as broadly as possible with our clients and

throughout the construction industry.”

Decision Process: Function, Environment, and Cost

Even more impressive than the actual design for the facility is the decision process

that was used to incorporate environmental attributes throughout it. Every aspect of

the facility’s design, construction, and operation was examined for its environmental

impact and balanced against the associated effects on building function and cost. EPA

and the A/E firm discussed these three attributes—function, environment, and cost—

before each major design decision throughout the five year design phase. The result,

according to the EPA Project Manager, produced a facility that “may not be [environmentally] perfect, but it is a long way from where it would have been and a lot closer

to where all buildings should be.”

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

affecting:

● Building materials selection

● Material conservation

● IAQ standards

Environmental Design Features

EPA asked the design firm to incorporate environmentally preferable features as part of the building’s

design that would:

● Protect indoor air quality

● Conserve energy, water, and building materials

● Promote recycling and pollution prevention

● Preserve the natural environment
38 ◆ Case Study Two: EPA’s Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility

● Energy and water conservation features

● Features and practices that promote recycling

● Efforts to protect the natural environment

Material Selection

One of the attributes of a “green” building is

that it is built with “green” materials. As part of

the design process, EPA worked closely with

HOK to select building materials that have multiple positive environmental attributes. They

looked for products that, throughout the life

cycle (production, installation, operation, and

disposal), included the following attributes:

● Consume minimal nonrenewable resources

● Require reduced amounts of energy

● Produce minimal pollutants

● Contain recycled or recyclable materials

HOK produced and conducted a product survey that asked manufacturers and vendors to provide information on the environmental impacts of their products throughout the products’ full life cycle. The survey addressed raw materials (including

recycled content percentages); production processes; packaging and shipping; installation and use; recyclability; impact on IAQ; and general information about cost, life

expectancy, maintenance requirements, and availability. The information was compiled in a database and was used by the EPA design team and HOK to analyze materials before they were incorporated into the facility’s design. The resulting database,

HOK’s Healthy and Sustainable Building Materials Database, currently includes information gathered from over 600 manufacturers on over 1,000 products. Each entry

includes a “green score” that is based on the information in the database. (For additional information, see the resource list in Appendix D.)

Working closely with HOK, EPA established minimum recycled content and maximum volatile organic compound (VOC) content levels for numerous materials and

HOK used them to identify and select appropriate building materials. (See Appendices

A and B for additional information.) The content levels were designed to promote the

use of products with positive environmental attributes without eliminating competition. For example, eliminating VOCs in paint is generally a preferable environmental

characteristic, but only a few manufacturers produce paint with zero VOCs. Many

more manufacturers, however, produce paints with less than 150 grams of VOC per

liter, which by present standards is still very low. (GSA's VOC-content specification

for virgin latex paint, for example, currently requires no more than 250 grams of

VOC per liter.) By establishing the VOC content level for paints at 150 grams per

liter, EPA is helping to protect the environment and preserving competition, which,

in addition to being required by federal law, is expected to yield more competitive

prices.

“You can make anything green if you

throw enough money at it. The challenge is to do it within the existing

budget.”

EPA Project Manager
Case Study Two: EPA’s Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility ◆ 39

Flooring Debate

For most building materials, it was relatively easy to select products that satisfied

EPA’s functional, environmental, and cost goals. Some materials, however, proved to

be more challenging. One example was the selection of the floor covering for the labs.

While cost, not environmental preferability, was the deciding factor in the final analysis, the team examined the environmental attributes of flooring materials before making that determination.

Laboratory floor coverings have to be particularly durable and chemical-resistant to

withstand chemical spills. At least three materials can be used and were considered for

this application: terrazzo, linoleum,

and vinyl. Terrazzo is made from polished marble or granite, and the only

substantive environmental impact

appears to be from mining and transportation. Unfortunately, however, terrazzo is prohibitively expensive,

especially considering the quantities

needed for the EPA laboratories. As a

result, terrazzo was eliminated from

consideration before any detailed

examination of its environmental

impacts was conducted.

Once terrazzo was eliminated from

consideration, the EPA design team

and HOK examined the remaining

two materials—linoleum and vinyl.

Linoleum is frequently promoted as a

“natural” product because it is manufactured from many renewable materials, including wood flour, pine rosin,

linseed oil, and jute (a fiber obtained

from a plant grown in India). While the use of sustainable raw materials is generally a

positive environmental attribute, there are negative environmental consequences associated with some of the fertilizers used to produce them. At this time, linoleum is also

only manufactured in Europe and requires significant resources for transportation to

the United States.

Vinyl is a plastic polymer derived from oil and can be highly polluting during

extraction, refinement, and manufacturing. It appears, however, to consume less energy and natural resources during production than linoleum and is available from several manufacturers in the United States, which reduces the energy used to transport it.

Using emission factors obtained from product literature and EPA’s Indoor

Environment Management Branch’s IAQ model, EPA modeled the IAQ impacts for

vinyl and linoleum. Under identical conditions, the predicted VOC concentrations

were similar for each of the two floor coverings, so neither could be considered environmentally preferable from an IAQ perspective.

Based on the preliminary research comparing the environmental attributes of vinyl

and linoleum, the design team could not definitively declare one environmentally

preferable to the other for EPA’s RTP facility. Doing so would require a more inten-

▲ A simulation of a

typical laboratory

interior
40 ◆ Case Study Two: EPA’s Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility

sive and scientific examination of the entire life cycle for both products, a process that

was prohibitively expensive and time consuming for EPA’s immediate needs. As a

result, EPA relied on cost as the determining factor and selected a vinyl floor covering

for the EPA labs because it was significantly less expensive than linoleum.

Atrium Design

Another example of the multiple factors that were considered for each building

component was the design of the building atria, among the most impressive features

of the new EPA facility. Each of the three 30-foot-wide, three-story atria has several

functions:

● Connects a laboratory and office building.

● Allows natural light to penetrate deep into the building.

● Reduces demand on the heating and air conditioning system by minimizing the

external surface area of the building, which lowers overall heat loss and gain.

● Decreases the need for exterior precast concrete and thermal pane glass, which

reduces costs and decreases resource consumption.

● Benefits IAQ by providing a large volume of preconditioned air that can be used in

the laboratory buildings.

● Improves the aesthetics of the facility, thereby

improving worker morale and productivity.

The atria’s benefits had to be balanced against

their potential environmental and economic costs. An

atrium, for example, can be difficult to cool in the

summer because the sun’s rays penetrate the glass and

increase the temperature inside. It can also be equally

difficult to heat in the winter because of the volume of

air that must be heated. In order to successfully balance function, environmental impact, and cost, EPA

decided to examine several different options. HOK

used computer simulations to model six different

options and compared fixed and operating cost, day

lighting, thermal efficiencies, IAQ effects, and environmental impacts.

After comparing each of the six models, EPA and

HOK determined that the most critical factor was the

atrium’s heat loss and gain because it affected the energy required to heat and cool the atrium. As a result,

they selected an atrium design that incorporated alternating panes of energy efficient glass and Kalwall, a

translucent material that allows light to enter, but

minimizes heat transfer. Compared to an atrium containing 100 percent high-performance glass, the

selected design will reduce operational costs by 66

percent without adversely affecting daylighting benefits, other functions, the environment, or procurement

▼ A model of the

atrium interior

connecting the lab

and office wings
Case Study Two: EPA’s Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility ◆ 41

cost. Coincidentally, the selected atrium design not only provided the greatest energy

savings, but also had the lowest construction cost, which helps disprove the common

misperception that “building green” costs more.

Material Conservation

Even more important than using recycled content

and other materials with environmental attributes is

minimizing the amount of material needed. Several

times, EPA’s design team or HOK reexamined a design

aspect to reduce the amount of construction materials

needed as well as their associated costs. Three examples

are the facility’s access roads, the labs’ interstitial space,

and the flexible, modular interior office design.

Access Roads

The original master site plan included a four-lane divided road entering and exiting

the EPA facility. The master plan also included a 20-foot wide utilities easement that

paralleled the road. During the VE process, the design team questioned the need for

so much roadway because of the significant quantity of paving and asphalt materials

required, the large number of trees that would have to be cleared to accommodate it,

and the cost.

After learning that there were no safety or traffic considerations to justify a fourlane divided road, EPA requested that it be redesigned as a simple two-lane road and

that the necessary utilities be placed under the road rather than next to it. It was relatively easy to reduce the size of the road, but several engineers maintained that utilities always have to be placed beside the road because placing utilities under the road

could severely disrupt traffic if any utilities needed to be repaired. EPA explained that

the road was unique because it would primarily be used only during the early morning and late afternoon when EPA employees arrive at and leave work. Any necessary

maintenance could occur throughout the workday without adversely affecting traffic

flow. In addition, because there are two routes in and out of the facility, traffic can be

rerouted if extensive repairs are necessary.

Reducing the size of the road from four lanes to two and placing the utilities under

the road rather than next to it reduced the size of the clearing by over 75 feet, prevented over 20 acres of trees from being cleared, reduced by one-half the quantity of

materials necessary to construct the road, and reduced the cost of the road by almost

50 percent.

Interstitial Space

Laboratory configurations are frequently rearranged to accommodate new experiments. As a result, many laboratories are designed with a corridor of space adjacent to

them (known as interstitial space) that contains all of the gas, water, and ventilation

piping as well as the electrical, computer, and laboratory equipment wiring. Such a

configuration makes it easy to access the laboratory utilities and to rearrange laboratory setups for new experiments.

“What’s the use in using recycled-content

materials if you are building twice as much

building as you need?”

EPA Project Manager
42 ◆ Case Study Two: EPA’s Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility

In many laboratory buildings, the interstitial space is located above each floor of

laboratories. Consequently, a building with five laboratory floors must be 10 stories

high to accommodate the interstitial space. This is considered by some lab designers

to be the most flexible and serviceable configuration and was given early consideration for the RTP facility. EPA, however, asked the design firm to present space- and

material-saving alternatives.

Instead of locating the interstitial space above each lab, HOK recommended placing it beside each lab. By designing service corridors rather than horizontal interstitial

space—floors between floors—EPA avoided a potential 50 percent increase in building height, which would have added the rough equivalent of 100,000 square feet of

space without increasing usable floor space. Minimizing the total volume of the building will have significant advantages, including reducing the cost and quantity of

required construction materials. It also will

reduce the load placed on the heating and air

conditioning system, thereby saving energy

and reducing heating and cooling costs.

Modular Design

Over the life of a building, interior space is

typically renovated many times to meet

changing needs. Each time interior space is

reconfigured, however, waste is created and

new materials are required. In an attempt to

minimize the cost and environmental impacts

of future renovation, HOK proposed a modular design that allows large portions of every

floor to be easily reconfigured. When reconfiguration is necessary, the lights, sprinklers,

electrical outlets, heating and air conditioning

vents, and automated building sensors remain

stationary. All that needs to move are the partitions that designate individual work spaces. The design, according to one of HOK’s

lead architects, allows EPA to “move people, not walls,” and dramatically reduces the

material and cost requirements for renovation.

Indoor Air Quality

The interplay between function, environment, and cost extends beyond building

materials to entire building systems. One of the most critical of these systems

attempts to optimize IAQ and energy efficiency. These two objectives, however, typically conflict—as one increases, the other decreases. 

The easiest way to improve IAQ is to increase the volume of clean outside air circulating through a building. This drastically increases heating and cooling costs in most

climates, including the part of North Carolina in which EPA’s new facility is being

built. Similarly, one of the largest energy drains on a building is the heating and air

conditioning system. The easiest way to reduce the energy required to heat and cool a

building is to minimize the volume of outside air entering the building. This reduction

in outside air circulation usually lowers IAQ.

▲ A simulation of a

double-bay laboratory interior
Case Study Two: EPA’s Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility ◆ 43

To address these competing demands, EPA worked closely with HOK to develop a

150-page Indoor Air Quality Facilities Operation Manual that documents the necessary

IAQ procedures during building construction and maintenance. The manual outlines

procedures to maximize both IAQ and energy efficiency by: 

● Eliminating as many IAQ contaminants as possible.

● Increasing energy efficiency throughout the building to offset any reductions

in energy efficiency due to the need to increase air circulation.

Eliminating IAQ Contaminants

EPA and the A/E firm worked to eliminate as many IAQ contaminants as possible.

They accomplished this by specifying materials with minimal contaminants of concern that also met functional and cost requirements, establishing appropriate installation sequences to prevent IAQ contaminants from being absorbed into the building,

requiring extensive IAQ testing before building occupancy, and incorporating design

features to eliminate specific IAQ hazards following building occupancy.

Material Selection

The largest sources of potential IAQ contaminants are interior building materials,

office furniture, and equipment. Interior building materials, including carpets, carpet

padding, paints, sealants and caulking, glues, floor and ceiling tiles, cabinets, molding,

composite wood products, and other wood work, can contain contaminants that are

gradually emitted (off-gassed) throughout the life of the material. The contaminants

include formaldehyde, 4-PC, other VOCs, and small particulate substances that act as

eye or throat irritants. Additional IAQ contaminants can originate with office furniture, room dividers, and photocopiers (Indoor Air Quality Facilities Operations Manual,

EPA Research and Administration Facility, July 1996).
44 ◆ Case Study Two: EPA’s Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility

Before any material was specified for use in the building, it was examined for possible adverse affects on IAQ, in addition to its general environmental impact. If possible, products containing materials known to adversely affect IAQ were not specified.

To further protect IAQ, the construction contract requires the contractor to test

indoor paint, carpet, ceiling tiles, and fireproofing materials in an environmental

chamber on an appropriate substrate, which is designed to simulate the actual application and materials interaction as much as possible. This testing will help ensure that

the materials meet the design established for the facility by the EPA design team.

Materials with contaminants of concern below the EPA-designated levels can be used

throughout the facility. If a product exceeds EPA’s designated levels, an alternative

product will have to be selected. 

Several EPA employees explained that, although it is not required, it might be in

the contractor’s best interest to test additional materials because the building must

pass strict EPA-defined IAQ tests before occupancy. (See the section on testing

below.)

Indoor Air Quality

IAQ can be affected by the order in which interior materials and finishes are

installed. When possible, Type One materials will be allowed to dry before Type

Two materials are installed.

Type One Materials:

● Composite wood products, specifically including particle board from

which wood paneling, doors, or furniture may be fabricated.

● Adhesives, sealants, and glazing compounds.

● Wood preservatives, finishes, and paint.

● Control and/or expansion joint fillers.

● All hard finishes requiring adhesive installation.

● Gypsum board and associated finish processes.

Type Two “Fuzzy” Materials:†

● Carpet and padding.

● Fabric wall covering.

● Exposed insulation.

● Acoustic ceiling materials.

● Fabric covered acoustic wall panels.

● Upholstered furnishings.

†

Materials that may be categorized as both Type One and Type Two are considered Type One materials.
Sequencing

IAQ is affected not only by the materials that are used but also by the order in

which they are installed. Certain materials and finishes (Type One materials), off-gas

potential indoor contaminants for a short duration after they are manufactured or

installed. The contaminants off-gassed by Type One materials can be adsorbed by

“fuzzy” materials and finishes (Type Two), which are woven, fibrous, or porous in

nature. Type Two materials can become repositories for substances that can be

released much later or that promote subsequent bacterial growth.

The construction contract specifies air exchange rates and proper air filtration procedures to ensure that whenever possible any necessary off-gassing from Type One

materials is dissipated before Type Two materials are installed. These procedures prevent Type Two materials from adsorbing substances that might later reduce IAQ.

The contractor is also required to properly clean all duct work and replace all air

filters before building occupancy.

Case Study Two: EPA’s Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility ◆ 45
Testing

After building construction is complete, but before EPA occupancy, the construction contractor is required to hire an independent IAQ consultant to test levels of

indoor air contaminants to ensure that they are within EPA-specified requirements.

The contractor will test 16 locations over three consecutive days throughout the

building as directed by EPA with the building operating at normal ventilation rates.

The average results will be used to determine compliance with contract IAQ requirements as defined in the table below. 

If the building fails any EPA standards, the construction contractor must rectify the

problem and retest the building at no additional expense to the government. 

Exhaust Stacks

EPA was also concerned about potential IAQ concerns following building occupancy. One of the primary areas of concern was the exhaust gas from the EPA labs. The

EPA laboratory complex includes 13 exhaust stacks—three on each of the four laboratory buildings and one on the high bay engineering research wing. Together, they

vent exhausts from nearly 300 fume hoods. The exhaust stacks were originally

46 ◆ Case Study Two: EPA’s Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility

Maximum Indoor Air Concentration Standards

Indoor Contaminants Allowable Air Concentration Levels*

Carbon Monoxide (CO) <9 ppm 

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) <800 ppm 

Airborne Mold and Mildew Simultaneous indoor and outdoor readings 

Formaldehyde <20 mg/m3**

Total Volatile Organic 

Compounds (TVOC) <200 mg/m3**

4 Phenyl Cyclohexene (4-PC)*** <3 mg/m3

Total Particulates (PM) <20 mg/m3

Regulated Pollutants <National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) 

Other Pollutants <5% of Treshhold Limit Value - Time 

Weighted Average (TLV-TWA) 

* All levels must be achieved prior to acceptance of the building. The levels do not account for

contributions from office furniture, occupants, and occupant activities.

** Above outside air concentrations.

*** 4-PC is an odorous contaminant constituent in carpets with styrene-butadiene-latex rubber

(SBR).
designed to be 20 feet high and, although the primary fresh air intakes for the buildings will be located well away from the exhaust stacks, EPA officials questioned

whether the stacks would be high enough to prevent potentially hazardous materials

from recirculating into the building.

In order to determine if the stacks were tall enough, EPA had a 1:192 scale model

of the buildings and site terrain constructed. EPA scientists placed the model in the

EPA Meteorological Wind Tunnel where ethane gas was emitted from the model’s

exhaust stacks and its concentration measured at the model’s fresh air intakes. Wind

direction and speed were systematically varied in order to identify worst case scenarios.

The results indicated that there was some risk of exhaust reentry during certain

wind conditions that occur with some frequency at the building site. The scientists

increased the height of the exhaust stacks on the model and repeated the experiment

to determine if it would reduce exhaust reentry. After completing the experiment,

they concluded that increasing the stack height by 10 feet would improve IAQ by significantly reducing the potential for exhaust reentry at the fresh air intakes. Although

the potential risk of exhaust reentry was minimal at the original 20-foot stack height,

it was virtually eliminated at the 30-foot stack height.

As a result of the modeling, EPA decided to increase the height of the buildings’

exhaust stacks from 20 to 30 feet. While the increase will require more material to

construct the stacks, increasing the stack height will improve overall indoor air quality

and should reduce required maintenance of filters at the air intakes.

Energy Conservation

Based on Department of Energy statistics for average energy use in laboratory and

office buildings, the new EPA facility will use 42 percent less energy than the average

laboratory and, depending on which building is being evaluated, between 52 and 64

percent less energy than the typical office building. These reductions in energy use

are expected to save approximately $1.5 million a year when compared to facilities of

similar size and function.

Energy conservation has been a focus of architects and engineers since the 1970’s

energy crisis. As a result, the EPA design team and HOK had numerous off-the-shelf

energy conservation technologies and programs from which to choose, including several automated building systems and EPA’s Green Lights program. In addition to offthe-shelf solutions, which were incorporated as needed throughout the facility, EPA

and HOK also developed additional energy conservation solutions unique to the EPA

facility.

Fume Hoods

There are nearly 300 fume hoods in the RTP laboratory complex. Fume hoods are

vitally important to human health and safety in a laboratory environment because

they provide well-ventilated areas in which to safely conduct experiments involving

potentially hazardous substances. Unfortunately, fume hoods are not typically very

energy-efficient because each contains a large exhaust fan that is used to ventilate the

room at a rate of about 1,400 cubic feet a minute. In addition to the fans’ energy

consumption, fume hoods also decrease the efficiency of the ventilation system

Case Study Two: EPA’s Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility ◆ 47
because, in the process of removing potentially hazardous fumes, they also remove the

heat or air conditioning from the room.

The design team investigated options for increasing the efficiency of the fume

hoods while continuing to maximize safety. One of the first things it examined was

the need to have an exhaust fan for each fume hood. After consulting with the appropriate health and safety inspectors, the team designed an exhaust system with a centralized air flow control system that drastically reduces the number of fans. Instead of

individual fans, plus backup fans, for each of the fume hoods, each laboratory wing is

supported by a large collector plenum on the rooftop that pulls exhaust above the roof

using only a few large, energy-efficient fans.

Each fume hood also has a specially designed sash that allows researchers to control

the volume of air being removed. The sash can be opened fully to set up or change

conditions in the hood, but can also be set to an 80 percent open position, which cuts

air demand by 20 percent. In addition, the fume hoods are connected to the building

automation system (BAS) [described below] so that if a scientist closes the sash, leaves

the room and turns out the light, the fume hood’s energy use will be 70 percent less

than in its full-open position. Together these efforts increased the fume hoods’ energy

efficiency without reducing safety or IAQ.

Central Utility Plant

The EPA research facility, like other large office complexes, needs access to large

volumes of hot and cold water for heating and cooling. While EPA could have built

its own central utility plant, it instead chose to expand the natural gas-powered plant

that currently serves the NIEHS building located nearby on the same 500-acre federal site. Expanding the existing plant will save money and, compared to building a new

plant, will drastically reduce the cost and quantity of required materials.

Building Automation System

EPA selected an off-the-shelf BAS that will help maintain good IAQ and promote

energy conservation. It will allow EPA operations staff to monitor and control

whether ventilation fans are on or off, whether filters are clogged, when motors or

pumps need to be repaired, and other energy consuming aspects of the building,

including:

● Temperature, pressures, and humidity

● Electrical systems

● Refrigeration and boiler equipment

● Maintenance indicators and alarms

● Lighting, security, and communications

High-efficiency motors with variable speed drives will be programmed to operate

only when necessary and only at the rate needed. When compared with constant

speed drives, variable speed drives have a longer operational life and consume less

energy. The BAS will also include variable air volume controls that will provide additional energy savings.

48 ◆ Case Study Two: EPA’s Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility
EPA Green Lights Program

EPA’s Green Lights Program, established and maintained by EPA’s Atmospheric

Pollution Protection Division, was another off-the-shelf program that assisted the

design team for the new EPA facility. The team incorporated several features identified by the Green Lights Program, including specifying high-efficiency lamps and

ballasts, photoelectric dimming controls, a central lighting control system, extensive

task lighting, and occupancy sensors that will turn off lights in unoccupied offices.

The design team also made extensive use of natural lighting throughout the building, including expansive windows and strict protection of open zones along the

perimeter of the building that allow light to penetrate into interior offices. Interior

doors with glass panels also help improve interior lighting.

Based on Department of Energy statistics for electricity consumption from lighting, adopting Green Light principles in the new EPA facility will reduce electricity

consumption for lighting by 70 percent in the office buildings and 43 percent in the

laboratory buildings compared with conventional designs, without adversely affecting

lighting quality.

High-Performance Window Glazing

Increasing window area reduces the need for artificial lighting. While this reduces

electricity consumption for lighting, it can also increase heating and cooling costs due

to heat gain and loss through the windows. To minimize those costs, the A/E firm

specified extensive use of spectrally selective tinted glass with an improved low 

E-coating that maximizes the amount of visible light entering the building, while

minimizing the accompanying heat gains and losses.

Water Conservation

As with energy conservation, there are many off-the-shelf technologies to promote

water conservation. EPA incorporated water-efficient fixtures throughout the facility,

including flow-restricting nozzles, automated shutoff, and hot and cold water delivery

systems with automatic temperature controls. The lavatories will have sensor operated

metered faucets that regulate the amount of water flow, which will save water and the

energy needed to heat it.

EPA also intends to minimize outdoor water use by landscaping with only native

species plants that do not require routine watering.

Onsite Recycling

EPA and HOK designed the RTP complex to facilitate the occupants’ recycling

efforts. Designated recycling areas were created to accommodate the collection of

paper, glass, aluminum, plastic, and cardboard. An underground service tunnel links

the collection points to the main loading area. A designated composting area for landscape refuse is also located on the site.

Case Study Two: EPA’s Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility ◆ 49
Construction Management

While it is relatively easy to get their fellow EPA employees to recycle, the EPA

design team also wanted to use the new facility as a model for promoting recycling,

source reduction, and pollution prevention throughout the building industry. 

Requiring the Contractor To Recycle

Typically, contractors dispose of most of their construction debris by placing it in

large dumpsters and paying to have it removed. EPA requires its construction contractor, Clark Construction Group, to salvage and to recycle or reuse the following

materials:

● Land clearing debris

● Concrete, masonry, and other inert fill materials

● Metals

● Untreated wood

● Gypsum wallboard scrap

● Reusable lumber, fixtures, and building supplies

● Cardboard

● Paper

● Plastic buckets

● Beverage containers

● Other mixed construction and demolition waste

EPA also requires that materials be sorted and collected according to procedures

specified in the construction contract. Glass, for example, must be sorted by color or

type. Gypsum wallboard can be deposited at an offsite gypsum reclamation or recycling facility, or ground up and used as an onsite soil amendment (within established

limits based on the soil composition at the site).

Clark Construction Group was also required to submit a Construction Waste

Management Plan before starting construction. The plan outlined how the contractor

proposes to collect, segregate, and dispose of all construction waste and debris produced during construction, subject to EPA approval. It also lists the local facilities that

will accept each construction material for reuse or recycling.

While limited recycling already occurs at many construction sites, the construction

contract details several nonstandard industry practices. Before requiring the collection

of construction materials, EPA worked with a local regional construction waste task

force to identify all of the construction materials being recovered in the Research

Triangle Park area, even those on a limited scale.7 EPA expects that the growing local

recycling market will support the contractor in meeting the recycling requirements. 

50 ◆ Case Study Two: EPA’s Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility

7 The Triangle J Council of Governments in RTP, funded by an EPA grant, developed an off-the-shelf

“WasteSpec” that is now available for use by any designer or builder. The EPA design team participated in the

development of the specification and incorporated many of its measures into the new RTP facility. (For additional information, see the resource list in Appendix D.)
EPA believes that the contractor will discover that it is less expensive and perhaps

even profitable to recycle. EPA’s intention is to demonstrate these economic incentives to the contractor with the hope that the practices will be continued on other jobs

and by other contractors, which will have positive and enduring effects on the local

economy.

Mandatory Environmental Training

Construction safety is a concern at every construction site. To promote worker

safety, many construction firms require workers to participate in a safety awareness

program prior to beginning work at a new construction site. The program typically

includes a discussion of worker safety and a video that addresses any site-specific or

project-specific safety concerns.

As part of the training for EPA’s laboratory facility, EPA expanded the scope of the

training to include environmental concerns. For a significant portion of the worker

orientation, including about half of the 12-minute training video, environmental

issues are addressed, including:

● Separating construction waste for reuse or recycling.

● Maximizing indoor air quality.

● Protecting site ecology.

Every worker on the project must complete the training. Upon completion of the

training, workers are issued a sticker stating, “I’ve been trained.” The sticker must be

displayed on each worker’s hard hat to indicate that they have completed the training

and to remind workers that both safety and environmental protection are always a

concern.

Additional Contractor Requirements

The EPA design team is also requiring the contractor to adopt other environmentally preferable practices. For example, in an attempt to minimize truck traffic and the

atmospheric pollutants that accompany it, and to preserve landfill space, the contractor is not allowed to dispose of surplus excavated materials off site. The contract also

encourages the contractor to use crushed excavated rock in structural fills on site to

avoid the need to transport the materials to the site. EPA is also encouraging the contractor to mix all concrete on site to minimize the need to transport it long distances.

Mixing concrete on site will eliminate an estimated 75,000 truck miles during construction, conserve approximately 15,000 gallons of fuel, and eliminate the associated

emissions.

The construction contract prohibits the contractor from using slash and burn techniques to clear the construction site. On a typical construction site, the contractor will

sell the trees for timber and burn the remaining ground cover. EPA is requiring that

any remaining wood be ground up and used as mulch on the site after construction is

completed with any surplus being transported to a local wood recycling facility.

EPA is also requiring the construction contractors to reuse construction materials

when possible. For example, EPA is expanding the existing onsite central utility plant

and is requiring the contractor to remove and preserve the existing precast concrete

Case Study Two: EPA’s Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility ◆ 51
panels from one end of the building so that they can be reused on the new addition.

This reduces costs for disposal and new material acquisition, saves landfill space, and

promotes source reduction.

Protecting the Natural Environment

Although many of the environmental features of the new EPA facility will not be

visible to the casual observer, employees and visitors will immediately recognize the

results of EPA decisions to protect the natural beauty of the site. When balancing

function, the environment, and cost, EPA often discovered that protecting the site’s

natural environment saved money and promoted other environmentally desirable

goals.

Parking

One of the most challenging environmental design decisions made by EPA’s design

team affected the amount of parking at the new office complex. In a conscious effort

to minimize the environmental impacts of large surface parking lots, EPA limited the

number of available parking spaces. In so doing, EPA reduced the amount of land that

had to be cleared and the number of trees that needed to be removed and reduced

future automobile emissions by promoting carpooling and the use of public transportation.

The new office complex will have about 1,800

spaces for approximately 2,200 employees. After

excluding designated handicapped and visitor

spaces, there will be roughly two parking spaces

for every three employees. While this ratio is not

unusual for most urban areas, it is unusual in the

RTP region because land is abundant and relatively inexpensive. Most nearby facilities—including

the NIEHS facility, which is on the same 500-acre

federal site as the new EPA complex—provide

large surface parking lots with one parking space

per employee.

EPA is promoting public transportation as an

environmentally preferable option. It is negotiating with the local public bus service to extend a

bus route to the EPA campus following building

occupancy. The proposed route will also pass the

existing NIEHS facility, and EPA hopes the new route will encourage additional federal employees to use public transportation.

In an attempt to further reduce the environmental impacts associated with parking,

EPA decided to construct two three-level parking decks and two small surface parking

areas, rather than constructing 16 acres of surface parking, which would have required

clearing almost 20 acres of trees. Parking decks have several environmental benefits,

including:

● Less land needs to be cleared for the same number of parking spaces, which

allows more trees to be preserved and protects the natural beauty of the site.

52 ◆ Case Study Two: EPA’s Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility

▲ An aerial view of

the facility with

arrows indicating

the parking decks

(model)
● Large surface parking lots require extensive storm water management procedures that disrupt the natural water cycle, including the resupply of underground water tables.

The remaining surface lots are small enough to employ natural biofiltration techniques to manage storm water runoff. This reduces the need for curbs, gutters, and

pipes, which saves additional money and

reduces material usage.

Although HOK estimated that parking

decks at the EPA facility would cost oneand-a-half times as much as surface parking, EPA determined that the

environmental and aesthetic benefits were

worth the additional cost. Due to their

higher cost, the parking decks were a constant target during cost-cutting exercises.

Rather than abandoning the environmental benefits of parking decks, however,

EPA project officials implemented other

cost-saving design changes to offset their

additional cost. For example, EPA and the

designers downgraded some of the building’s finish materials to less costly but

equally durable products. They also

removed over 200 interior office suite

doors, which saved money and reduced the quantity of construction materials

required. Many other trade-offs were made to cover the cost of important environmental measures including the highly energy-efficient building systems and the parking decks.

Tree Survey

The site of the new EPA building is abandoned family farmland that was overgrown with second-growth forest long before it was sold to the government in 1960.

It also includes several groves of old-growth oak trees, including a 100-year old oak

with a trunk over 11 feet in circumference. When planning the new facility, EPA

elected to preserve as many of the old-growth groves as possible, both because of

their natural beauty and because they are relatively rare in the RTP region.

In order to facilitate this goal, EPA commissioned a “Specimen Tree Study” that

noted the location, diameter, and approximate age of every tree on the property. This

study was used by EPA and HOK when situating the EPA facility on the property and

when designating the location for the access roads and utility causeways.

Case Study Two: EPA’s Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility ◆ 53

▲ An aerial perspective of the entire

federal campus

before the access

roads were reduced

to two lanes. EPA’s

facility is at the top

right of the photo.

The National

Computer Center

is at the top left

and NIEHS’s facility is at the bottom.
.

54 ◆ Case Study Two: EPA’s Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility

Plant Rescues

As the building plans were finalized, several EPA employees realized that a significant number of indigenous flowers and plants would need to be cleared

because they were located where the new EPA facility or connecting roads would

be built. While the trees would be removed for lumber, several people were concerned that the flowers and plants would simply be destroyed. They decided to do

something about it and initiated the first of several EPA-sponsored, volunteer

“plant rescues” to preserve the “inherent and intangible value” of the native flowers and plants.

Prior to the first plant rescue, one member of EPA’s design team spent several

days talking with EPA and other government lawyers to obtain official permission

to conduct the rescue. “Basically, what we were proposing to do,” he explained,

“was give away government property because the plants were on EPA-owned

land.” Eventually, EPA entered into an agreement with the North Carolina

Botanical Gardens, which had sponsored numerous plant rescues on private land

in the Research Triangle Park area, to assist with the EPA plant rescue.

After addressing the legal concerns, EPA invited members of the public to join

EPA employees and North Carolina Botanical Gardens volunteers at the site and

relocate as many plants as possible to prevent them from being destroyed during

construction of the new facility. Approximately 150 volunteers over four Saturdays

“saved” over 3,000 plants from a variety of native species, including Christmas

ferns, dogwood, downey arrowood, winged elm, green and gold, and wild azaleas.

Individual plants were excavated and relocated on the EPA property, the nearby

NIEHS site, or to the homes of volunteers
Natural Landscaping

EPA also ensured that the landscaping surrounding the laboratory facility minimizes the resources and costs required to maintain it. The landscaping emphasizes

indigenous, low-maintenance plants that require little fertilization, pesticide use, or

irrigation. Fifteen acres of native grasses

and wild flowers will be planted along

the roadways to minimize the need to

mow the grass. Grass is typically cut 21

times a season. EPA estimates, that by

minimizing that need, it will prevent at

least 800 pounds of carbon dioxide from

being emitted by the lawnmowers each

year.

The landscaping, according to the

EPA project team, is also designed to be

“naturally manicured,” which means

that there will not be any effort to maintain a “neat, golf course” appearance.

Dead trees that do not present a hazard

to human health or safety, for example,

will remain on the grounds to serve as

natural wildlife habitats. This will reduce the need for artificial fertilizers, reduce

maintenance, and save money. 

In addition, EPA plans to formally manage the site as a wildlife habitat when the

facility is occupied. It has already joined in a partnership with NIEHS, which shares

the 500-acre federal site with EPA, to promote environmental responsibility in

grounds management.

Case Study Two: EPA’s Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility ◆ 55

▲ A view of the RTP

facility’s front

entrance
Lessons Learned

The size and scope of the RTP laboratory construction project provided many

valuable lessons about the environmental attributes of numerous materials, products,

and processes. A few of the lessons are specific to the EPA project and, therefore, are

not applicable everywhere. There are, however, many lessons that would be relevant

to any attempt to incorporate environmentally preferable purchasing into building

design and construction.

Commit to an Environmental Goal

With most design and construction projects, function and cost are the primary, and

sometimes the only, concerns. As a result, unless there is a strong environmental commitment at the executive and project management levels, most project participants

will not consider the project’s environmental impacts. It is helpful to assign a senior

project manager to the job who is committed to environmental design and who will

ensure that everyone involved with the project examines the environmental consequences of each decision in the design process. Assigning environmental oversight

responsibilities to one or more people will further ensure that all three factors—function, cost, and environment—are adequately considered and prevent people from

examining only the traditional factors of function and cost.

Eternal Vigilance Is Essential

Due to the size and complexity of large

building projects, numerous people are

involved with the design. Unless each of

them fully understands the functional, environmental, and cost concerns driving the

project, someone can unintentionally or

unnecessarily remove an environmental feature.

One example often cited by the EPA design team was the attempt to locate an

access road through an old-growth oak grove. Although EPA had a “tree survey” prepared to designate which trees should be protected, an engineering firm that was not

familiar with all of EPA’s design objectives located the road directly through the

grove. EPA had assumed that the access road would follow the existing gravel road,

which would not significantly threaten any of the oak groves. When the access road

was being located, however, the engineers did not consult the tree study and instead

placed the road along the shortest distance between the building and the first public

road.

Before the path for the road was cleared, EPA discovered the discrepancy and notified the engineers. EPA explained that one of their design goals was to protect the

old-growth trees and explained that it was less expensive and less environmentally

destructive to relocate the road. Designing the road to follow the existing gravel road,

eliminated the costs of removing the trees and grading a new surface, which more

than offset the costs of the additional materials needed to construct the slightly longer

road. It also prevented the destruction of an existing creek and saved an additional

two- to three-acres of trees, including the oak grove containing the 11-foot-circumference oak tree. Relocating the road also, coincidentally, alleviated the traffic conges56 ◆ Case Study Two: EPA’s Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility

“If you aren’t watching closely, people

forget about the environmental implications of their actions.” 

EPA Project Manager
tion that would have resulted under the original plan because the entrance was located

farther away from a major intersection. If EPA had not closely scrutinized every phase

of the design process, it would not have been able to incorporate as many positive

environmental attributes as it did.

Similarly, without HOK’s commitment to constantly evaluating the environmental

impacts of the design, the environmental quality of the building would have been

diminished. For example, when the initial construction bids were significantly higher

than EPA anticipated, EPA focused on the recycled-content requirements as a probable cause and was prepared to reduce those requirements in an attempt to reduce

costs. (Contractors were not required to itemize their bids, which left EPA without a

mechanism to adequately determine the reasons for the higher costs.) HOK, however,

supplied EPA with information documenting the availability of competitively priced

recycled-content products, suggesting that the cost overruns were due to factors other

than the recycled-content requirements. As a result, EPA preserved the requirements,

which will improve the overall environmental performance of the building.

To be truly effective, environmental vigilance must come from all parties involved

with the design, design review, and construction of the facility.

Be Persistent: Assign an “Environmental Advocate”

Environmentally preferable building design is still a relatively new approach for

many segments of the building design and construction community. EPA discovered

that it was helpful to assign “environmental advocates” because frequently people

deny that there are environmentally preferable ways of doing something because they

have never taken the time to investigate them. EPA’s environmental advocates learned

that persistence pays off. Asking questions and investigating alternatives allowed EPA

to incorporate many environmental considerations that might not otherwise have

been included.

While design teams typically have many different types of specialists—architects,

interior designers, mechanical, civil, and electrical engineers, cost consultants, and

others—it is rare to find a design team with a designated environmental advocate.

Typically, designs are reviewed throughout the design process by the design firm, the

customer, and, on large projects, by an outside reviewer. In the case of EPA’s new

RTP facility, the review process also included the environmental advocates who had

the specific responsibility to ask, “Is it environmentally sound?” This environmental

review created a dynamic atmosphere in which traditional concepts were challenged

and improved the overall environmental quality of the final design.

Continual Reevaluations Are Important

It is very important to continually reevaluate the environmental preferability of

each design decision in relation to the overall environmental preferability of the project. Often times a change to one portion of the design can adversely affect or provide

new opportunities to improve other parts of the design. Many such challenges were

presented during the design of the EPA facility and are discussed in the case study.

For example, increasing the amount of natural lighting by increasing the number of

windows is an important environmental consideration, but it also affects the overall

efficiency of the ventilation system. The environmental preferability of the final

Case Study Two: EPA’s Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility ◆ 57
design, therefore, is contingent not only

on the number of environmental attributes

included in the design, but on how they

interact with each other. Making a “green”

decision early in the process does not

guarantee the same result later because

other factors may have changed. The

design process, therefore, should include

continual reevaluations of earlier environmental design decisions.

Value Engineering Can Improve Environmental Performance

As described in this case study, the VE process can improve the environmental performance of a design. Traditionally, the VE process only examines two factors—cost

and function. EPA successfully incorporated a third factor—environmental impact—

into the VE process, which resulted in significant cost savings and significant

improvements in the facility’s environmental performance without compromising

function. When the group conducting the VE evaluation is aware of the environmental goals and when the project’s environmental advocates actively participate in the

VE process, VE can enhance both the financial and environmental efficiencies of a

project.

Look at the Long Term

The true costs and benefits of many design features are not immediately obvious,

unless they are assessed from a long-term perspective. Many of the environmental

features recommended under the Green Lights program, for example, dramatically

increase initial costs. These energy-efficient purchases, however, will pay for themselves over a period of 7 to 12 years. Given the 50-to 150-year life of a building, the

higher initial cost will be worth it from an economic and environmental perspective.

Other investment costs, such as those for waste minimization or recycled-content

building materials, are harder to quantify. Their benefits tend not to be realized in

terms of dollar “payback” over a number of years, but rather in terms of improvements to society or the sustainability of the planet. “In other words,” according to the

EPA Project Manager, “they are just the right thing to do.” In these cases, it might be

necessary to make trade-offs, sometimes difficult ones, to pay for some positive environmental attributes.

Modeling Design Features Is Helpful

EPA and HOK made extensive use of models to identify how selected features or

segments of the building would affect indoor air quality or other environmental

objectives. While extensive modeling increases design costs, these information costs

quickly pay for themselves because they allow the most efficient design to be selected.

Two examples in which modeling was beneficial were in determining the height of the

exhaust stacks for the fume hoods on each of the laboratory buildings and in selecting

the most appropriate design for the atriums that connect the laboratory and office

buildings.

58 ◆ Case Study Two: EPA’s Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility

“In the future, I would require a written

environmental design analysis at every

step—initial conceptualization through final

design. That would help focus the entire

team—architects, engineers, and reviewers—

on the environmental impacts of their decisions at every step of the process.”

EPA Project Manager
Environmental Attribute Information Is Available

EPA and HOK found that there is a lot of information available to help determine

the environmental preferability of various building designs, materials, products, and

processes. By encouraging all design and construction contractors to seek out the

available information and to ask manufacturers and suppliers to provide it, EPA had

access to the best available information on the subject. As more customers begin asking for environmental attribute information, additional manufacturers will begin providing it and designing products that maximize each positive attribute, while

minimizing the negative ones.

Case Study Two: EPA’s Research Triangle Park Laboratory Facility ◆ 59

Appendix A: Low VOC Content Levels ◆ 61

Definition of Low VOC Content Levels As Defined in the RTP 

Construction Contract

Materials or Product VOC Content Level 

Form Release Agents 350 g/L 

Plastic Laminate Adhesive 20 g/L 

Casework and Millwork Adhesives 20 g/L 

Transparent Wood Finish Systems 350 g/L

Cast Resin Countertop Silicone Sealant 20 g/L 

Garage Deck Sealer 600 g/L

Water Based Joint Sealants 50 g/L 

Non-water Based Joint Sealants 350 g/L

Portland Cement Plaster 20 g/L 

Gypsum Drywall Joint Compound 20 g/L

Terrazzo Sealer 250 g/L 

Acoustic Panel Ceiling Finish 50 g/L 

Resilient Tile Flooring Adhesive 100 g/L 

Vinyl Flooring Adhesives 100 g/L 

Carpet Adhesive 50 g/L

Carpet Seam Sealer 50 g/L

Water-based Paint & Polychromatic Finish Coatings 150 g/L

Solvent-based Paint 380 g/L

High Performance Water-based Acrylic Coatings 250 g/L

Pigmented Acrylic Sealers 250 g/L

Catalyzed Epoxy Coatings 250 g/L

High Performance Silicone 250 g/L

Casework Sealant 50 g/L

Liquid Membrane-forming Curing and Sealing 

Compound 350 g/L

Appendix A

Appendix B: Recycled Content Requirements ◆ 63

Required Minimum Recycled Content of Materials for the RTP

Facility

Material or Product Recommended Recycle Content

Asphaltic Concrete Paving 25% by weight3

Reinforcing Steel in Concrete 60% recycled scrap steel1

Reinforcing Bars in Precast Concrete 60% recycled steel1

Concrete Unit Masonry 50% recycled content 

Reinforcing Bars in Concrete Unit Masonry 60% recycled steel1

Framing Steel 30% recycled steel1

Fiberglass Batt Insulation 20% recycled glass cullet2

Fiberglass Board Insulation 20% recycled glass cullet2

Mineral Wool Insulation 75% recycled material (slag)2

Mineral Wool Fire Safing Insulation 75% recycled material by weight

(slag)2

Gypsum Board 10% recycled or synthetic gypsum 

Facing Paper of Gypsum Board 100% recycled newsprint including

post consumer waste2

Mineral Fiber Sound Attenuation Blankets 75% recovered materials by weight

(slag)2

Steel Studs, Runners, and Channels 60% recycled steel1

Acoustic Panel Ceilings 60% recycled material by weight 

Ceiling Suspension Systems 60% recycled material1

Rubber Floor Tiles 90-100% recycled materials2

Hydromulch 100% recovered materials2

Structural Fiberboard 80-100% recycled content2

Appendix B

1 60% represents the average recycled content for the U.S. steel industry. Use of U.S. manufactured steel will

meet this requirement.

2 As per EPA Comprehensive Guideline for Procurement of Products Containing Recovered Materials (60 FR

21370, effective May 1, 1996).

3 As per North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) recommendation.

Appendix C: Green Buildings Vision and Policy Statement ◆ 65

EPA Green Buildings Vision and Policy Statement†

In order to maintain leadership in environmental protection, EPA must lead by

example. Through sustainable design and construction of EPA facilities we will model

responsible environmental behavior and help create the framework within which the

building industry as a whole can shift towards practices which will promote “Green

Buildings.”

Green Buildings are structures that incorporate the principles of sustainable

design—design in which the impacts of a building on the environment will be minimal over the life-time of that building. Green Buildings incorporate principles of

energy and resource efficiency, practical applications of waste reduction and pollution

prevention, good indoor air quality and natural light to promote occupant health and

productivity, and transportation efficiency in design and construction, and during use

and reuse.

Agency facilities, both new and existing, should serve as models for a healthy workplace with minimal environmental impacts. To achieve this goal, EPA will utilize both

innovative “state of the art” technologies and a holistic approach to design, construction, renovation and use. EPA will work with the private sector to identify opportunities for innovation and to help create markets for both products and design concepts.

Important considerations in the design, construction and use of EPA owned and

leased facilities include the following:

● Site planning that utilizes resources naturally occurring on the site such as

solar and wind energy, natural shading, native plant materials, topography

and drainage.

● Location and programs to optimize use of existing infrastructure and transportation options, including the use of alternative work modes such as

telecommuting and teleconferencing.

● Use of recycled-content and environmentally preferable construction materials and furnishings, consistent with EPA Procurement Guidelines.

● Minimization of energy and materials waste throughout the building’s lifecycle, from design through demolition or reuse.

● Design of the building envelope for energy efficiency.

● Use of materials and design strategies to achieve optimal indoor environmental quality, particularly including light and air, to maximize health and

productivity.

● Operation systems and practices which support an integrated waste management system.

● Recycling of building materials at demolition.

Appendix C

† As described in EPA’s Environmental Procurement Strategy, August 1995 (EPA200-R-95-001).
66 ◆ Appendix C: Green Buildings Vision and Policy Statement

● Management of water as a limited resource in site design, building construction and building operations.

● Utilization of solar and other renewable technologies where appropriate.

Evaluation of trade-offs will be an important component of the design of Green

Buildings. Where the goals of a Green Building are contradictory (for example

increased ventilation vs. increased energy efficiency), the trade-offs will have to be

evaluated in a holistic framework to achieve long-term benefits for the environment.

Also, the physical considerations must be balanced with other policy objectives such as

environmental justice, particularly with regards to site location. We anticipate that

there may not always be single answers to recurring building issues, but we will adopt

a consistent approach to evaluating all buildings for sustainable design considerations
Appendix D: Green Building Resources ◆ 67

Green Building Resources

This appendix includes a list of resources for obtaining additional information

about the new EPA facilities and about the design, construction, and maintenance of

"green" buildings. This is not a comprehensive list of sustainable building resources.

Selected products or organizations are included because they are referenced in this

document or were mentioned during interviews conducted while researching the case

studies. Inclusion of specific products or organizations on this list do not constitute

endorsement or recommendation by EPA.

Environmental Building News

28 Birge Street

Brattleboro, VT 05301

Phone: 802 257-7300

Fax: 802 257-7304 

Web Site: www.ebuild.com

Publishes information ten times a year on environmentally sustainable design and

construction practices, including material selection, siting, indoor air quality, day

lighting, and energy-efficiency. The web site includes subscription information, access

to back issues, a checklist for environmentally responsible design and construction,

and an e-mail discussion list on green buildings.

HOK's Healthy and Sustainable Building Materials Database

Sustainable Design Group

Hellmuth, Obata + Kassabaum, P.C.

Canal House

3223 Grace Street, NW

Washington, DC 20007

Phone: 202 339-8700

Fax: 202 339-8800

Web Site: www.hok.com/sustainabledesign/database/welcome.html

Contains information gathered from over 600 manufacturers on over 1,000 products. The information is based on results of a survey conducted by HOK that asks

vendors and manufacturers to provide information on the environmental impacts of

their products. It includes information on raw materials (including recycled-pcontent

percentages); production processes; packaging and shipping; installation and use; recyclability; indoor air quality impact; and general information on product cost, life

expectancy, maintenance requirements, and availability. Each entry includes a "green

score" compiled by HOK based on information contained in the database.

Appendix D
68 ◆ Appendix D: Green Building Resources

The National Park Service's Sustainable Design and Construction Database

Web Site: www.nps.gov/dsc/dsgncnstr/susdb/index.htm

Includes information on approximately 1,300 product listings from over 550 manufacturers; lists over 7,000 construction debris recyclers; and contains an extensive listing of books, periodicals, organizations, and online sources of sustainable design

information. The database is not online; it is a downloadable application that operates

from within the Windows environment.

Ronald Reagan Building Web Site

Web Site: www.gsa.gov/regions/r11/projects/reagan.htm

Contains additional information about and pictures of the Ronald Reagan building

along with a history of the Federal Triangle site.

U.S. EPA's Design for the Environment Program

Pollution Prevention Clearinghouse

401 M Street, SW. (3404)

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: 202 260-1023

Fax: 202 260-0178 

Web Site: www.epa.gov/dfe

Helps businesses incorporate environmental considerations into the design and

redesign of products, processes, and technical and management systems. DfE initiates

voluntary partnerships with industry, universities, research institutions, public interest

groups, and other government agencies.

U.S. EPA's Energy Star Buildings Program 

U.S. EPA Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Division

401 M Street, SW. (6202J)

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: 202 775-6650

Fax: 202 564-9575

Hotline: 888 STAR-YES (782-7937)

Web Site: www.epa.gov/appdstar/buildings

Encourages energy-efficiency building design and operation, including "Green

Lights" upgrades, building tune-ups, load reductions, fan system upgrades, and heating plant and cooling system upgrades. The program has developed several publications and software packages to evaluate energy needs. They are available by

contacting EPA or via the program's web site. 
Appendix D: Green Building Resources ◆ 69

U.S. EPA's Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program

401 M Street, SW. (7409)

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: 202 260-1023

Fax: 202 260-0178

Web Site: www.epa.gov/opptintr/epp

Promotes the consideration of environmental factors in purchasing decisions, along

with traditional factors such as product price and performance. The EPP Program

provides guidance for federal agencies to facilitate the purchase of goods and services

that pose fewer burdens on the environment.

U.S. EPA's Green Lights Program

U.S. EPA Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Division

401 M Street, SW. (6202J)

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: 202 564-9190

Fax: 202 564-9569 

Hotlines: 888 STAR-YES 

202 564-9659 [fax-back information line]

Web Site: www.epa.gov/greenlights.html

Promotes the use of energy-efficient lighting to prevent the creation of air pollution. The program developed several publications and software packages to analyze

lighting needs. They are available by contacting EPA or via the program's web site.

U.S. EPA's Research Triangle Park Facility Web Site

Web Site: www.epa.gov/rtp/new-bldg

Provides visitors with information about the new facility including its environmental features, a tour of the site, construction updates, contact information, and links to

several green building sites. It also includes a 47-page "Green Building Bibliography"

containing over 200 references that was compiled by one of EPA's design team members.

U.S. Green Building Council

90 New Montgomery Street, Suite 1001

San Francisco, CA 94105

Phone: 415 543-3001

Fax: 415 957-5890

Web Site: www.usgbc.org/programs/programs.html

Promotes the understanding, development, and implementation of "green building" policies, programs, technologies, standards, and design practices. The Green

Building Council published the Sustainable Building Technical Manual that identifies

the environmental issues that should be considered throughout the entire life of a

building. It also published a draft of the Leed Green Building Rating System, which

establishes an environmental rating for new and existing commercial office buildings

based on selected environmental criteria.
70 ◆ Appendix D: Green Building Resources

WasteSpec

Triangle J Council of Governments

P.O. Box 12276

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

Phone: 919 558-9343

Fax: 919 549-9390 

Web Site: www.tjcog.dst.nc.us/TJCOG/solidwst.htm

Provides architects and engineers with specifications for and information about

construction and demolition waste reduction, reuse, and recycling. The 114-page

book includes model specifications for each of the 16 divisions of the Construction

Specification Institute (CSI) system of specifications, cost information, a sample waste

management plan, a checklist of 135 demolition materials, and a list of resources for

additional information. It also comes with a diskette containing model specifications

that can be "cut and pasted" into existing specifications.