A Life Cycle Approach to Waste Prevention from the Oregon Residential Construction Sector

Uploaded on

This presentation provides the results of lifecycle analysis research that prioritizes the environmental benefits of 25 different green building practices.

This presentation provides the results of lifecycle analysis research that prioritizes the environmental benefits of 25 different green building practices.

More in: Business , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide
  • DEQ hiredQuantis as our main consulting firm to conduct the lifecycle analysisEarth Advantage, who is a regional green building certification organization who and OHBA were subcontractors and partners on the projectEA and OHBA grounded the research in building design and science specific to Oregon conditionsInvaluable partners on the project and am happy to be presenting with EA today
  • DEQ has been tracking was generated in the State since 1992Trash can represent…..recycling bins represent….A few trends in the chartMore waste is being sent to the landfill per personMore waste is being recoveredThe trend, however, that is the most environmentally compelling is that Oregonians are consuming more and more stuff over timeI’m going to show you the same chart but add on data from 2008 and 2009
  • You’ll see that in 2008, the beginning of the economic recession, Oregonians started consuming less stuff and were throwing away and recycling less waste. 2008 also happens to be the first year in US history when the nations GHG emissions actually decreased. It also happened to be the first year ever when the average american home size went down. Nevertheless, DEQ is concerned with the environmental impacts of our consumption. So, what do you do about it?
  • Well, we go back to 3rd grade and remember reduce, reuse, recycle. We chose to focus on “waste prevention”, which is the reduce, reuse portion of reduce, reuse, recycle rather than recycling. There’s 2 main reasons for this. First and foremost is that the environmental benefits of material reduction and reuse are far greater than the benefits of recycling and the second is that Oregonians are getting really darn good at recycling and it’s time to be thinking about waste prevention more.
  • In 2009, Oregonians recovered (recycled, composted, energy recovery) about 45% of all waste generated. That’s pretty good! The national average is 33%. Still, however, 20-30% of our disposed waste stream is comprised of construction, remodeling, and demolition debris. Here’s the other reason why we focus on reduction and reuse
  • Here are the GHG emissions from producing, landfilling, and recycling 3 common building materials – carpet, HDPE, and asphalt roofing. You’ll see that the vast majority of the impacts over a products lifecycle is in producing that material. The GHG impact of landfilling these materials barely even shows up on the screen. Then we have the GHG emissions avoided if these materials are recycled. Recycling conserves energy and greenhouse gases in the production of new materials. So, the main benefit of recycling is NOT landfill avoidance – rather, it’s avoiding the GHG emission associated with extracting and processing new virgin materials. There is a common public misconception about this. For these materials, recycling can reduce the energy needed to make new products between 50-75%. Less energy used means less GHG emissions. That’s good, but what about the benefits of material reduction and reuse. Well, if you reduced the use of reused any of these materials you would completely avoid the production related emissions of the product’s lifecycle, which is why reduce and reuse have larger benefits that recycling.
  • JordanWe went out and met with stakeholdersto brainstorm all these different ways to use less or reuse materials and evaluated them using lifecycle analysis. We looked at lifetime benefits of the practices. For example, when evaluating small homes we looked at the benefit of using less material, the benefit of using less energy to operate a small home, and the beneftis of producing less waste at the end of the home’s life. The full lifecyclePurpose of LCA evaluation is to prioritize these practices based on environmental benefit.
  • On its own, waste generation or prevention is not a very good measure of environmental impact.Without a comprehensive view, we risk making decisions that result in waste prevention, but worse overall environmental outcomes. LCA provides a framework to look broadly across the scope of the system and across many categories of environmental impact to avoid making decisions that look good within a small view but bad within a more complete view.
  • JordanIn order to evaluate the benefits of all the practices, we needed a common baseline to compare their benefits against. Designed to represent average new construction practices and materials for new homes in Oregon. Built to 2008 energy code.Broke the home down into all of its material components and calculated the upstream impact of producing those materialsModeled the energy use of the home for 70 yearsDemolished the home and based the end of life fate of each material on DEQ’s waste composition and recovery data
  • Add more materials
  • reconsider practices chosen /
  • Discuss importance of the other impact categories. I’ve worked at DEQ for 8 years now. I’ve worked on hazardous waste cleanup, contaminated soils, sediments and groundwater. I’ve worked on surface water quality and fish contamination issues. These problems do exist and the production of building materials among other things contributes to the problem. We– that’s what the rest of my Agency works on. It’s certainly useful to use LCA to ensure efforts to reduce one impact don’t increase anotherGet a bigger legend
  • Change picture
  • Animate graphic


  • 1. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality A LIFE CYCLE APPROACH TO WASTE PREVENTION FROM THE OREGON RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION SECTOR Jordan Palmeri Oregon DEQ palmeri.jordan@deq.state.or.us 503-229-6766Full Report: www.deq.state.or.us/lq/sw/wasteprevention/greenbuilding.htm
  • 2. Research Partners2 Jonathan Balkema Indigo Teiwes Jon Dettling Bruce Sullivan Amanda Pike Bill Jones Reviewed by: ISO 14040/14044 compliant 50-member 3-member panel external advisory of LCA experts committee Arpad Horvath Greg Keoleian Tom Gloria
  • 3. Overview1. Background for research2. Results3. Policy actions4. Why materials matter
  • 4. Oregon Solid Waste Disposed, Recovered and Generated4
  • 5. Oregon Solid Waste Disposed, Recovered and Generated5
  • 6. Focus Area – residential waste prevention6 Reduce waste prevention Reuse Recycle
  • 7. Waste Disposal and Recovery7 2009 Oregon Waste Generation = 4.6 million tons 20-30% of disposed waste is construction debris
  • 8. Greenhouse Gas emissions from Production, Landfill, and Recycling8
  • 9. Initial Study Question9 Over the life of a home, how can you use fewer building materials or reuse materials?
  • 10. Waste Prevention Practices Evaluated10  Intermediate Framing  Adaptability: Reduced Remodeling  Advanced Floor Framing  Design using Salvaged Materials  Homeowner Maintenance Training  Advanced Framing (w/ drywall clips)  Restoration  Smaller Homes  Multifamily Housing  Insulating Concrete Forms  Thermal Curtains  Structural Insulated Panels  Reusable Packaging  Strawbale w/ timber frame  Reduced Packaging  Single-story Homes  Adaptability: Design for Disassembly  Detailed Framing Cut List  Adaptability: Utility Chase  Offsite Prefabricated Components  Dematerializing and Design for Simplicity  Flashing and Rainscreening  Design using Salvaged Materials  Deconstruction  Durable roofing, siding and flooring Purpose of LCA evaluation is to prioritize these practices based on environmental benefit.
  • 11. Lifecycle Analysis (process LCA)11 Climate Change Impacts were used as the prioritizing criterion in this study. Impact categories (selection): 1. Energy used 2. Greenhouse gas emissions 3. Ecotoxicity 4. Human Health 5. Respiratory
  • 12. Standard Home12  2262 sq.ft  3 br  2 baths  2 car garage  Stem wall foundation  Post and Beam floor system  16inch stud spacing  Vinyl windows  Asphalt roof  Gas furnace, no A/C  Designed to 2008 Oregon energy code  Energy use modeled for Portland, OR climate ***Lifetime = 70 years***
  • 13. Evaluating Lifecycle Impacts/Benefits (GHG example)13 GHG units = KgCO2eStandardHome 95,500 3,800 8,400 6,900 597,500 -29,400ImpactLifecycle Material Material Construction Maintenance Use End of Life Production TransportPhasesSmallHome 74,300 2,900 4,600 3,800 373,900 -24,700Impacts
  • 15. Lifecycle greenhouse gas impacts (GHG) of a standard newly constructed OR home15 ~15% ~80%
  • 16. Lifecycle non-renewable energy impacts of a newly constructed OR home16 ~25% ~70%
  • 17. Material-related GHG impacts of an average Oregon home17
  • 18. Environmental impacts of a standard newly constructed OR home over 70 years18
  • 19. Waste Generation19*70 year lifetime
  • 21. Waste Prevented
  • 22. Greenhouse gas reductions22 z
  • 23. Size Matters23 +38% -18% -36%
  • 24. Small is effective Source: Oregon DEQ 24
  • 25. Energy Trust of Oregon data (preliminaryresults)
  • 26. Practices evaluated against the Standard Oregon home26
  • 27. House size has increased Source: City of Milwaukie and URBSWORKS 27
  • 29. REACH Code Size-based tiers in residential energy code Oregon Building Codes Division http://www.cbs.state.or.us/bcd/programs/reach.html
  • 30. Earth Advantage Revised points allocation for small homes Revised material resource points http://www.earthadvantage.org/
  • 31. Green Point Rated - California Accounts for home size and materials used in home in scoring http://www.builditgreen.org/greenpoint-rated/
  • 32. Certification and Labeling programs• LEED• Earth Advantage Size• Energy Star directly• Energy Performance Score addressed• NAHB Greenbuilding / ICC 700• Living Building Challenge Size not• Passive House directly addressed
  • 33. Energy Trust of Oregon Increased the incentives for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) http://energytrust.org/residential/
  • 34. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Potential34
  • 35. Energy Trust Incentive Requirements Requirements for full “new home” incentives: • ADU must have its own USPS mailing address separate from main residence • ADU must receive an Energy Performance Score (full incentive available through EPS) • ADU must receive its own third party verification • ADU must be detached from the main residence • ADU must be intended to be used as a residence • Detached structure must be permitted as an ADU • Builder or owner builder must be a trade ally with New Homes programPhoto: Jordan Palmeri
  • 36. System Development Charge (SDC) waivers $ 7 – 12K savings Portland: April 15, 2010 and June 30, 2013 Wilsonville: Permanent
  • 37. Portland permit data
  • 38. Households are getting smaller Source: City of Milwaukie and URBSWORKS 38
  • 39. More 65+ seniors Source: Oregon AARP and US Census Bureau 39
  • 40. Space-efficient housing workgroup • Oregon DEQ • University of Oregon • Oregon DLCD • Orange Splot, LLC • Metro • Cascadia Region Green Building • City of Portland Council • City of Eugene • Numerous space-efficient housing advocates Drawing: cullygrove.org
  • 41. accessorydwellings.org 41
  • 42. Past EventsAppraising ADUs – a new method At Metro Building Bus tour http://cascadiagbc.org/living-future/12Pedalpalooza bike tour of Bike tourADUs and Tiny Homes
  • 43. Upcoming Events October 26th, 2012 Portland
  • 45. Short/Long term GHG Mitigation45 ~15% ~25%
  • 46. Short/Long term Energy Reductions46 ~25% ~35%
  • 47. Environmental impacts of a standard newly constructed OR home over 70 years47
  • 48. Durable Materials48• Evaluated – Asphalt vs. Metal roof – Fiber cement vs. Cedar – Carpet vs. Wood floor Appropriate durability  Granite?  COR-TEN panels?
  • 49. We need shelter
  • 50. Limitations of some LCA – occupant exposure50
  • 51. Salvage and Reuse 51• Prevents the most waste of any practice• Don‟t reuse if energy efficiency if sacrificed• Reuse reduces human health and ecosystem quality impacts more than climate change and energy use• Short lived products are ripe for reuse• Feature reuse – make it sexy• It can be affordable – but beware of labor costs• Keep it local• High reuse environmental benefits for wood, metals, insulation, and plastics
  • 52. Wall framing shows that waste prevention is an incomplete goal52 Increase waste generation but decrease GHG emissions
  • 53. Relative impact of materials change with energy efficiency53 18% 30%
  • 54. Example – Reducing embodied carbon of building products54 35% reduction achieved by: •Using wood floors instead of carpet •Reducing drywall by half and using wood wainscoating •25% less remodeling or water damage to framing and hardware •50% reduction in siding due to better maintenance
  • 55. Reducing material related impacts55 GOAL: Reduce the embodied carbon of building products by 50% by 2030 Architects/Specifiers: Ask for Environmental Product Declarations (Eco-labels based on material specific Product Category Rules)http://architecture2030.org/2030_challenge/2030_challenge_products
  • 56. WA state legislation• Washington Senate Bill 5485 was signed by Governor Gregroire in May of 2011. This bill authorizes UW and WSU to conduct a study into opportunities to integrate the use of life cycle assessment methodologies to evaluate the environmental impacts „embodied‟ in building materials and products and explore the potential of integrating life cycle assessment methods, data and/or standards into the state building code.http://courses.washington.edu/lcaforwa/wordpress/
  • 57. Thank You!57 • Jordan Palmeri – Oregon DEQ – 503-229-6766 – palmeri.jordan@deq.state.or.us – http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/sw/wasteprevention/ greenbuilding.htm