sustainability score - hws · pdf filesustainability score was written to provide a decision...

Hobart and William Smith Colleges 2010

Sustainability Score: Small House Renovation Standards Colette Gregoire, WS 2010

2

Table of Contents

Executive Summary…..3

Acknowledgements…..4

Introduction…..4

Reasoning…..7

Sustainability Score…..9

Application…..10

Conclusions…..11

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

3

Executive Summary

Hobart and William Smith Colleges are recognized as a leader in sustainability based upon the signing of

the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment (Climate Task Force, 2010) and the

participation in the College Sustainability Report Card (Sustainable Endowments Institute, 2010). The

Colleges strive for sustainability by integrating sustainable products and practices into the lives of the

students. Based on the College Sustainability Report Card, HWS’ B- grade in 2010 is an improvement

from a C+ in 2009 (Sustainable Endowments Institute, 2010). It should be acknowledged that there is

room for improvement and the dedication to do so, considering the consistent grade of D for 2009 and

2010 for green building. By introducing sustainable building guidelines, the HWS Sustainability Score,

Buildings and Grounds will have standards available to follow during small house renovations, therefore

allowing for more sustainable choices and greener building decision.

The LEED format of evaluating water efficiency, energy, materials, and indoor environmental quality

provides a proven and respected way to frame the argument that better performing buildings are

beneficial to the environment and the people who inhabit them. However, through consultation with

Chris Button (B&G) and Mark Maddalina (SWBR Architects), both LEED Accredited Professionals, it is has

been determined that it is not cost effective to engage in the formal LEED process for small houses due

to the small scale of the projects and the cost of registering each house with the USGBC Green Building

Certification Institute (Maddalina, 2010). Instead, renovations can be made with a sense of

environmental stewardship through the use of sustainable products and finishes.

With concepts supported by Stanford University, New York City, Steelcase Furniture, and through the

guidance of Chris Button to score building products, five Sustainability Criteria are taken into

consideration in the HWS Sustainability Score: material source and effects of extraction or production,

4

local origin, durability, end of useful life, and third party certification. This project, which created the

HWS Sustainability Score, also includes the Sustainable Renovations Checklist and the Product Analysis

(see Appendix C and D) and is inspired by the evaluation of guidelines and standards set by the Living

Buildings Challenge (International Living Building Institute, 2009), the City of New York (Department of

Design and Construction, 1999), Stanford University (Environmental Stewardship Committee, 2002), and

the United States Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (USGBC LEED)

format (USGBC, 2010).

Acknowledgements Tom Bonacci—Project Manager, HWS Buildings and Grounds Christopher Button—Senior Project Manager, HWS Buildings and Grounds Thomas Drennen—Professor of Environmental Studies and Economics James Landi—HWS Sustainability Coordinator Mark Maddalina—Architect, Manager of Sustainable Design, SWBR Architects Sarah Meyer-- FLI Community Outreach Coordinator, HWS Introduction

The main objective of this project is to create a checklist to guide HWS Buildings and Grounds (B&G)

through product choices for the renovation of small houses on the Hobart and William Smith Campus

(HWS or the Colleges). The Colleges strive for sustainability in all aspects of the campus, especially

during renovations, due to the goal of carbon neutrality by 2025 (Climate Task Force, 2010). B&G makes

efforts to take sustainability into consideration while making cost-efficient product decisions. The HWS

Sustainability Score was written to provide a decision matrix to maintain a commitment to sustainability

and also to provide explanations as to why product choices were made. The success of this project is

determined by the use the HWS Sustainability Score, a working document composed of renovation

guidelines which B&G use as a basis for the consistent, widespread practice of incorporating sustainable

5

building products in small house renovations. In addition, future success relies on revising the guidelines

to reflect progressing technology, the availability of products, and the renovation budget.

Some terms were encountered during the research of this project that could be interpreted or defined

in different ways. The words that have been defined are cradle to cradle, durable, embodied energy,

fair trade, green, local, source, sustainability, and VOC, and can be found in Appendix A. Applicable

certification programs used in this analysis include Cradle to Cradle, Energy Star, FloorScore, FSC,

Greenguard, Green Label, Green Seal, Indoor Advantage, Level, Smart, Sustainable Choice, and

WaterSense, and are further defined and explained in Appendix B.

A multitude of resources were used in the research and creation of the HWS Sustainability Score

Renovations Standards Checklist and the Product Analysis. LEED's certification system was a model for

the HWS Sustainability Score because it is recognized and highly regarded in the green building industry.

Renovations of a small house may include replacement of countertops, floors, fixtures, and cabinets.

This scale of renovation does not qualify for LEED certification due to the small scale approach of making

living more comfortable; however, it is important to still consider the environment while planning for

product replacements.

After discussing the sustainability of the Boswell athletic field renovation with Mark Maddalina of SWBR

Architects of Rochester, NY, it was determined that the LEED system can be followed without obtaining

certification. Following LEED’s requirements without registering for certification projected how many

LEED credits could be obtained if the Boswell field project was registered. The criteria that LEED focuses

on are energy savings and ensuring the high performance of buildings. The aspects of the HWS

6

Sustainability Score project that are applicable to LEED are water efficiency, energy and atmosphere,

materials and resources, and indoor environmental quality.

The presentation “Designing for Sustainability” given by Laurie Lieberman of Steelcase Furniture

recommends that manufacturers and consumers alike consider the lifecycle of a product (Lieberman,

2010). There are environmental impacts stemming from every aspect of production, and minimizing

that impact is essential. The life cycle of a product should be a closed loop, where materials for a

product are recycled, manufacturing processes use renewable power and other sustainable practices,

transportation is minimal, the use of the product is not harmful to humans, and finally at the end of the

product’s useful life, it can be recycled and reused in the manufacturing of other products. This is

referred to as the cradle to cradle approach (see Appendix A). Lieberman also discussed the triple

bottom line in the manufacturing of sustainable goods: people, planet, and profit (Lieberman, 2010).

The triple bottom line played a role in the development of the five Sustainable Criteria considered in the

Sustainability Score project:

1. Material source

2. Local Origin

3. Durability

4. End of useful life

5. Third party certification

These criteria are not prioritized, but are all weighed evenly. People, planet, and profit are integrated in

the Sustainability Criteria in that all aspects positively affect each. If workers are treated fairly and

communities are not put into jeopardy due to environmental damage, then the people side is fulfilled.

Materials which are extracted sustainably and locally reduce environmental hazards and treat the planet

with respect fulfill the planet part. Finally, reusing and recycling is a profit driven industry, as producers

7

save money through the purchase of less expensive recycled materials compared with the higher price

of virgin materials. By fulfilling the three aspects of people, planet, and profit, the integrity of human

health and welfare is protected, environmental damage is reduced, and the free market prevails.

The sustainability criteria were determined through a conversation with Chris Button, Senior Project

Manager of Buildings and Grounds, in which HWS’ goals, priorities, and focus were discussed. The

source of the product and the effects of extraction and production is incredibly important in preserving

natural resources. The location of the manufacturer and distributor are essential in reducing the

Colleges’ carbon footprint, therefore local manufacturers and local materials are imperative in green

building. Next, the durability of the products is taken into account by determining the lifespan of

common interior finishes. Products that last three years are considered to be durable for goods such as

microwaves, dishwashers, and clothes washers. However, for interior finishes, products should last

between 25 and 50 years. At the end of a product’s useful life, disposal of some sort occurs, whether

through recycling, landfilling, or reusing. Recycling and reusing materials diverts waste from landfills,

therefore perpetuating the use of the same resources and maintaining a high level of profit for

manufacturers. Finally, certified materials which are tested through third party independent verification

are recognized by the sustainable design industry as fulfilling the triple bottom line in and of themselves.

By certifying a product, a scientific study of the materials and manufacturing processes is conducted,

ensuring that the product is manufactured sustainably.

Reasoning

Manufacturers today are feeling the demand by consumers for them to be “green” and sustainable in

the production of their products because of limited non renewable resources on the planet. In addition,

consumers are demanding better products due to the adverse health effects that can ensue from living

8

and working in built environments which contain chemicals and toxins. In the study “Pollution in

People,” it is determined that the persistence of chemicals in the materials that are encountered on a

daily basis can cause tremendous health problems such as cancer, infertility, and learning disabilities

(Pollution in People, 2006). As such, the health of the students, faculty, and staff on campus will benefit

from using those sustainable materials and products which do not emit toxins. For example, any

product verified by the Science Certifications System’s Indoor Advantage program (see Appendix B) does

not emit harmful chemicals and volatile organic compounds (VOCs, see Appendix A). Further, all of the

furniture in the HWS Library Learning Commons is Indoor Advantage certified, (Button, 2010). A logical

place to continue implementing sustainable products is where students live their lives on campus in

order to encompass environmental and human health concerns. There are 26 small houses on campus,

which houses a large percentage of the 2,091 undergraduate students (Hobart and William Smith,

2010). Using a sustainable design approach in residence houses can be thought of as a tool to instill

stewardship values into the lives of students.

“According to the Environmental Resource Guide, produced by the American Institute of Architects,

more than 30% of the energy consumed in the United States goes to making and maintaining buildings”

(Mumma, 1995). A priority of HWS is to decrease energy consumption and our dependence on fossil

fuels, as reflected by the purchase of carbon offsets and the implementation of renewable energy

credits. As such, the Climate Action Plan enacted by HWS requires reducing energy use to the extent of

becoming climate neutral by 2025 (Climate Task Force, 2010). The ways in which HWS is decreasing

dependence on fossil fuels is through the purchase of at least 5% of the Colleges’ energy annually from

wind power (Daneman, 2002).

9

Sustainability Score

The Residence House Renovations Specifications (HWS B&G, 2009) demonstrates the renovations that

were performed at two small houses in 2009: 129 and 191 St. Clair Street. This document is the premise

for the Sustainability Score Renovations Standards Checklist and Sustainability Score Product Analysis.

By reviewing the renovation of 129 and 191 St. Clair, certain products such as cabinets, flooring, fixtures,

and countertops were evaluated using the five Sustainability Criteria based on a scale from one to three.

The products were rated after researching the products that were used and comparing those with other

options, considered sustainable according to New York City, the University of Minnesota, and Steelcase

Furniture. The product’s resulting Sustainability Score places a numeric score on the product and the

materials recommended in the Sustainability Score Product Analysis in order to show B&G where

renovations currently score, and how future renovations can improve. Although there are cases where

B&G used the most sustainable option, renovations should strive to use products which score the

highest in the decision matrices.

The Sustainability Score Product Analysis (Appendix D) promotes Buildings and Grounds’ product

choices based on environmental measures through the use of a decision matrix, an example of which is

seen below for the scoring of countertops:

Options/Criteria Source Local Durability End of life use Certification Total

Plastic laminate 1 1 2 1 2 7

Terrazzo 3 1 3 3 1 11

Concrete 2 3 3 3 1 12

Each product is evaluated based on the five Sustainability Criteria which determines the score that the

product achieves and sets a target score that can be reached through future product choices.

10

Complementary to the Sustainability Score Product Analysis is the Renovations Standards Checklist

(Appendix C), which can be referred to during the planning of small house renovations to ensure that

the appliances, fixtures, floor coverings, cabinets, countertops, and other finishes meet certain

sustainability standards as demonstrated by LEED. Using LEED as a model, the Renovations Standards

Checklist is divided into categories including water efficiency, energy, materials and resources, and

indoor environmental quality (USGBC, 2010). It should be noted that B&G renovates the materials and

finishes of the interior of existing residential houses, so the LEED Sustainable Sites criterion is not

applicable. In this case, the 2009 Living Building Challenge’s Red List is substituted for the Sustainable

Sites criterion, which lists chemicals that are included in the production of many products, and should be

avoided during materials purchase (International Living Building Institute, 2009). The HWS Sustainability

Score Renovations Checklist aims to guide B&G in thinking systemically about all of the materials used in

the renovation, ensuring that no aspect of sustainability is left out of the project.

Application

There are many options to consider when replacing an old plastic laminate countertop with a more

sustainable option. Finding a product replacement which is sourced sustainably while also originating

within 300 miles of campus is a difficult task. The most commonly used sustainable products for

countertops are concrete and terrazzo. In order to demonstrate the HWS Renovations Standards

Checklist and the Sustainability Score Product Analysis, comparing a plastic laminate countertop with a

concrete countertop is an appropriate application, as HWS has used this approach in the renovation of

the kitchen of Sill House. First, both options put into question using the HWS Renovations Standards

Checklist (Appendix C). The evaluator will use the relevant sections, such as materials, energy, or indoor

environmental quality, to decide whether or not the product applies to each check point, such as

salvaged materials, recycled content, or low embodied energy. If the countertop product obtains at

11

least one check point for each relevant section, and does not include any of the chemicals on the Red

List (International Living Building Institute, 2009), the evaluator will next apply the products to the HWS

Sustainability Score Product Analysis (Appendix D). The Sustainability Score Product Analysis is a

decision matrix which scores products based on the standards met in the Checklist and the five

Sustainability Criteria. The most sustainable products can earn up to a 15 on the Sustainability Score,

and the lease sustainable products earn a Sustainability Score of 5. In this case study, plastic laminate

countertops earn a Sustainability Score of 7 compared with concrete countertops’ Sustainability Score of

12, as demonstrated in the decision matrix above.

Conclusions

Because the focus of the Sustainability Score Product Analysis encompasses finishes and materials for

interior renovation, it is expected that the impacts of using such products would positively affect

environmental and human health. The HWS Renovations Standards Checklist and Sustainability Score

Product Analysis are capable of being applied to any proposed product during a small house renovation.

Making students aware of which products have been used and why such products are used is a

challenge, but making it known that sustainable finishes are a part of small houses is an important step

in helping students realize their environmental stewardship. Making environmental sustainability a

priority in building materials will eventually be the norm, but in the meantime, use of the HWS

Renovations Standards Checklist and Sustainability Score Product Analysis is imperative. Again,

reviewing the guidelines in the future is necessary for the continued success of implementing

sustainable standards throughout campus. Starting with small houses and expanding the HWS

Renovations Standards Checklist and Sustainability Score Product Analysis to encompass all campus

buildings will ensure the health of the environment and of the people who live and work on campus.

Appendix A

Glossary

2010

Appendix A

Cradle to Cradle Ensuring this harmonization brings up the idea of a cradle to cradle society where products are manufactured in a way that takes the fragile ecosystem into account in terms of inputs, then when the product needs to be replaced and disposed of, it can be recycled or reused without being landfilled or incinerated. Many manufacturers now offer programs to take old products back in order to recycle them into new products. If a product is not durable, then it could be replaced every three years or less, making take-back programs increasingly important (Lieberman, 2010). Durable A durable good is defined in manufacturing as any product that lasts more than three years. However, for the terms of this analysis, three years is not long enough, so durable in this case is a product lasting 30-50 years, with the prospect of the material being used in another building or being recycled (Button, 2010). Embodied Energy This is the energy that a material takes on during extraction and production. Typical products have high embodied energy content are tile and concrete, among others. Although precise numbers are difficult to obtain for the amount of embodied energy in a product, it can be determined which products have high and low embodied energy. It is important to understand energy inputs and to make informed decisions regarding the use of materials which have low embodied energy content (Sustainable Building Sourcebook, 2010). Fair Trade According to the Fair Trade Federation, North America is working toward “building equitable and sustainable trading partnerships and creating opportunities to alleviate poverty” (Fair Trade Federation, 2010). Fair Trade works directly with farmers and artisans to cut out middlemen who increase prices, therefore allowing goods to remain competitive on the market. HWS should buy Fair Trade products because it supports the development process in less developed nations, creates “opportunities for economically and socially marginalized producers,” and promotes environmentally sustainable production practices. It is a socially and environmentally responsible method of trading which can be supported by the Colleges. Green The term “green” often indicates a reduction of energy use and consumption of goods in order to harmonize oneself with the environment. Green technology is often thought of as a way to decrease energy use and the cost of energy, but with high start-up costs. According to Jeff Steen, contributor to Greentechmedia’s article “How Do You Define Green,” green technology is “technology developed in the physical, chemical, biological, and computational sciences that enable more efficient, productive and valuable use of, and greatly reduced ecological impact on, natural and other scarce resources as compared to what is commercially available today” (Kanellos, M, 2009). Local It is environmentally imperative to purchase goods that are manufactured locally with inputs that are supplied locally. Regional local products should be sourced within 300 miles of the destination, while local products should be sourced within 50 miles. In figure 1, the green circle represents the radius of 500 miles in which we currently obtain our products in compliance with LEED standards (USGBC, 2010). The blue circle represents the radius of 300 miles, a more local approach by which HWS should strive for

Appendix A

in buying products. This will further the path toward climate neutrality that HWS is currently following by reducing transportation costs, environmentally and economically.

Source The source of a material takes into consideration the inputs of which make up the product. It could be recycled content, renewable inputs, or by-products of other goods or processes. Sources that should be avoided are petroleum based materials, toxic inputs, and materials with high embodied energy. Figure 2 shows the percentage of energy saved by using recycled materials.

Energy required to produce from virgin material(million

Btu/ton)

Energy saved by using recycled materials (%)

Aluminum 250 95

Plastics 98 88

Newsprint 29.8 34

Corrugated Cardboard

26.5 24

Glass 15.6 5

Source:Roberta Forsell Stauffer of National Technical Assistance Service (NATAS), published in Resource Recycling,Jan/Feb 1989).

Figure 1: Products from within 500 and 300 miles (http://www.freemaptools.com/radius-around-point.htm)

Figure 2: Energy savings using recycled materials (http://www.homeenergy.org/archive/hem.dis.anl.gov/eehem/95/950109.html)

http://www.freemaptools.com/radius

Appendix A

Sustainability The definition of sustainability is supplied by the EPA and supported by Hobart and William Smith: “polices and strategies that meet society’s present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (US EPA, 2010). The idea of sustainability can be applied to the construction and remodeling of green buildings in terms of having a limited impact on environmental and human health. This requires thought into where the products came from and the future of products used in construction after the life of the product is over (Lieberman, 2010). The only way to ensure that this goal is reached is to harmonize human activity with natural processes; an idea that is on its way to reality at HWS by thinking critically about the choices made during renovations. VOC Volatile Organic Compounds are the gases that are released from thousands of products that are contacted daily. VOCs include many toxic chemicals which have been proven to cause long and short term health problems. Levels of VOCs are higher indoors than outdoors, where most people spend their days. Paints, varnishes, waxes, and adhesives, to name a few, are products which off-gas high levels of VOCs (US EPA, 2010; Sustainable Building Sourcebook, 2010).

Appendix B

Certification Glossary

2010

Appendix B

Cradle to Cradle This certification through McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry is based on engineering standards which are changing the way products are being manufactured; from linear to cyclical usage. Human health and environmental criteria are assessed, putting products into the criterion of risk: green, yellow, orange, and red. Replacement of chemical inputs can take a product from the red criteria to a less risky level. (MBDC, 2010) Energy Star The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) came up with a system of certification in 1992 to help people save money while investing in energy efficient appliances which reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Since its instatement, the program has grown to include most appliances, electronics, heating and cooling equipment, lighting, and industrial, commercial, and residential buildings. (US EPA, 2010) FloorScore The Resilient Floor Coverings Institute has consulted with third-party Scientific Certification Systems in order to comply with nation-wide standards for indoor air quality. RFCI certifies floor coverings such as vinyl, linoleum, minate flooring, engineered hardwood flooring, ceramic flooring, rubber flooring, and others. The testing not only complies with the California Section 01350 standard for indoor air quality, but also helps consumers to choose flooring that contributes to healthy indoor air. “Section 01350, which was developed by a California interagency task force on sustainable buildings, includes maximum emission concentrations for more than 78 VOCs emitted from building materials in schools and office buildings” (RFCI, 2010) Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) FSC certification is a documentation of sustainably harvested timber with a social benefit attached. Certified timber was harvested in a way that does not convert forest land, treats workers fairly, does not use hazardous chemicals, protects the rights of indigenous populations, follows all laws, and preserves areas that are identified as needing protection. A chain of custody documentation system ensures that timber certified by the FSC was logged legally and sustainably and is mixed with other timber that was harvested legally. (Forest Stewardship Council, 2010) Greenguard Greenguard Environmental Institute focuses on indoor air quality and the legitimization of sustainable products for manufacturers. A wide range of products can be certified, such as cleaners, furniture, building materials, and consumer products. Products are ensured to be low emitting and non toxic through testing and ongoing verification so that manufacturers can gain the Greenguard label and customer confidence. (GreenGuard Environmental Institute, 2010) Green Label The Green Label is put on carpets, adhesives, and cushion that are the lowest emitting products in the industry. The Carpet and Rug Institute is constantly exceeding the standards to set new best practices in indoor air quality. Quarterly testing, laboratory audits, and chain of custody documentation are among the ways that CRI ensures the best products on the market. (Carpet & Rug Institute, 2010)

Appendix B

Green Seal Based on international standards for eco-labeling through ISO 14020 and 14024, Green Seal was founded in 1989 to ensure that products are manufactured in a way that has positive impacts on business and improves the quality of life. Companies such as 3M, Benjamin Moore, and Andersen Windows use Green Seal certification. The Green Seal label can be found on over 40 product categories, all tested by third party certification to substantiate environmental claims. (Green Seal, 2010) Indoor Advantage Scientific Certification Systems is a third party certifier which analyzes products based on environmental sustainability and stewardship in verification of a wide range of products. Indoor Advantage is a program that certifies furniture at two levels: certified and gold. Hobart and William Smith uses products that have gained this certification. (Scientific Certification Systems, 2010) Level The newest certification through SCS is Level, a furniture certification system which applies to office and institutional furniture. The assessment of the product supply chain ensures that each step of manufacture is sustainable, from extraction to end of use. Level uses a three level certification, from one through three, where three is the highest achievement. Material use, energy and atmosphere impacts, human and ecosystem health and social responsibility are the four categories which are assessed quantitatively through extensive testing. (SCS, 2010) SMaRT The SMaRT certification system has four levels: Sustainable, Sustainable Silver, Sustainable Gold & Sustainable Platinum. It also meets all of the Sustainable Product Certification Criteria of the American National Standards Institute and is approved for credit in LEED. Building products, fabric, apparel, textile, and flooring are covered by the SMaRT certification. (MTS-Market Transformation to Sustainability, 2010) Sustainable Choice As a part of Scientific Certification Systems, the Sustainable Choice label for furniture and carpeting is a well known and respected program based on third party certification. The label is based on the NSF 140-2007, Sustainable Carpet Assessment standard. A database of products with the Sustainable Choice certification can be found at http://www.scscertified.com/products/. (SCS, 2010) WaterSense The WaterSense label is a product of the United States Environmental Protection Agency which supports water efficient products tested by independent testing and certification. Products that bear the WaterSense label are about 20 percent more water efficient than standard products. This creates a recognized standard nationwide to encourage water conservation. (US EPA, 2010)

Appendix C

Renovations Standards Checklist

2010

Appendix C

Renovations Standards Based upon High Performance Building Guidelines from the City of New York Department of Design and Construction and Stanford University, environmentally preferable materials are those which have a limited negative impact on the earth during production, use, and disposal, and benefit occupants during the entire life of the building (Department of Design and Construction, 1999; Environmental Stewardship Committee, 2002). The US Green Building Council has established a prestigious system of rating buildings based on sustainability, a system which HWS recognizes as a goal to reach and a system to follow in the interim. HWS has priorities for sustainability on campus, and the focus of these priorities can be organized using the format of LEED. Therefore, the format of LEED, which includes water efficiency, energy, materials, indoor air quality, and site selection, is followed in this checklist of criteria to be attained during each renovation project (US Green Building Council, 2010). Site selection is not applicable in this case, however, because buildings to which these standards apply are not new construction. It its place, the Living Building Challenge’s Red List has been substituted so that the Buildings and Grounds staff are aware that products with high levels of toxins can be avoided (International Living Building Institute, 2009). The criteria proposed for sustainable materials to be used in the renovations of small houses are as follows:

1. Design systems to reduce building water use despite the proximity of ample amounts of freshwater, supplied by Seneca Lake, in order to preserve this resource;

2. Reduce energy consumption in all buildings in order to reach the goal of climate neutrality by 2025;

3. Use materials which are a part of the cradle to cradle methodology, minimizing the use of virgin resources;

4. Maintain good air quality throughout the life of a building to ensure the good health of the occupants;

5. Minimize the use of toxins in all products as stated by the Red List. Water Efficiency The following guidelines allow for the conservation of water and decreased cost of water consumption. Water fixtures all should have the EPA WaterSense Seal, ensuring the conservation of thousands of gallons of water per fixture and over $100 dollars per year per fixture (US EPA, 2010). All fixtures should comply with the following efficiency standards based upon the EPA WaterSense guidelines (US EPA, 2010):

Low flow toilets, preferably dual-flush toilets, with a maximum rate of 1.28 gallons per minute (GPM), a 20 percent reduction from the EPAct (1992) standard of 1.6 GPM;

Low flow lavatory faucets with a maximum rate of 1.5 GPM;

Low-flow showerheads with a maximum rate of 2.0 GPM;

Kitchen faucets with a maximum flow rate of 2.2 GPM;

Clothes washers and dishwashers that meet EPA ENERGY STAR® requirements. Energy Electrical companies rely on coal power to generate electricity; about 54% of the United States’ electricity consumption releasing 3.7 million tons of CO2 every year (Union of Concerned

Appendix C

Scientists, 2009). In order to decrease campus’ energy impact and achieve carbon neutrality by 2025, according to the Colleges’ Climate Action Plan (Climate Task Force, 2010), the following conditions should be met for a decreased energy impact and carbon footprint:

Efficient HVAC and boiler system upgrades;

EPA ENERGY STAR® certified appliances and infrastructure;

CFL bulbs in all lighting fixtures. Materials Small house renovations focus on the finishes of interior spaces, so this category will help make critical decisions about which products to use. The method of production, transportation, and disposal of average building materials tends to use virgin resources and fossil fuels, so the use of recycled, local, recyclable materials is a priority of sustainable design (Steelcase, 2010; Environmental Stewardship Committee, 2002). The products chosen should incorporate many of the following:

Salvaged materials

Include recycled-content (post-consumer and/or pre-consumer)

Reusable, recyclable, and biodegradable materials

Materials from rapidly renewable sources (wheat, cotton, cork, bamboo, etc.)

FSC certified wood

Products from local manufacturers, within 300 miles

Materials that are durable (last 25-50 years) and are low maintenance

Homogeneous materials that are easier to recycle than composite materials o Exception: engineered wood which is more sustainable than virgin lumber

Materials with low embodied energy

Materials produced using renewable energy Indoor Environmental Quality Using products that have no or low emissions of harmful toxins enhances indoor air quality. Lighting and heating systems are critical factors in good indoor environmental quality based on the comfort of occupants (Department of Design and Construction, 1999). Following the standards below will ensure a healthy indoor environment in small houses:

Occupant control of lighting and HVAC systems;

GREENGUARD certified interior gypsum board to reduce the growth of mold and mildew in high moisture areas (Maddalina, 2010);

Low or no VOC-emitting paints, varnishes, adhesives, carpet, ceiling tiles, and furniture. Red List Based upon the Living Buildings Challenge, a Red List has been created by consisting of materials that should be phased out of production due to health/toxicity concerns (International Living Building Institute, 2009). It is a working document that takes into

Appendix C

consideration emerging science and the restrictions of the components of complex products which are supplied by the market and contain materials on this list. Those small components should be no more than ten percent of a product by both weight and volume. Some other exceptions are explained in more detail in the Living Building Challenge’s User’s Guide and documentation of requirements which can be found at http://ilbi.org/. The project cannot contain any of the following materials or chemicals:

Asbestos o Vinyl sheet/tile flooring, ceiling tiles, HVAC Duct Insulation, Wallboard (US EPA,

1990)

Cadmium o Protective plating on steel, in various alloys, in pigments, in stabilizers, in nickel-

cadmium batteries (National Library of Medicine, 2009)

Chlorinated Polyethylene and Chlorosulfonated Polyethlene o Wire and cable jacketing (Lianda, 2010)

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) o Refrigerants and propellants (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2005)

Chloroprene (Neoprene) (DuPont Performance Elastomers, 2010) o Synthetic rubber manufacturing

Formaldehyde (added) o Manufactured wood products, carpets, foam in cushions, paper products,

household cleaners (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1999)

Halogenated Flame Retardants o Commercial textiles (Hoechstetter Interiors, 2009)

Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) o Fire extinguishers in the 70s-80s (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2005)

Lead (added) o Vinyl mini blinds, lead based paint (New York State Department of Health, 2010)

Mercury o Appliances, heating and cooling systems, CFLs, latex paint (US EPA, 2010)

Petrochemical Fertilizers and Pesticides

Phthalates o Vinyl flooring, vinyl shower curtains, tubing made with PVC (Pollution in People,

2006)

Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) o Siding, insulation, roofing membranes, pipes, cable coatings in small and large

electronic appliances, replacement windows and doors, vinyl flooring, carpet backing, shower curtains (Greenpeace International, 2010)

Wood treatments containing Creosote, Arsenic or Pentachlorophenol Sustainable Choices By following the above standards, HWS Colleges will partake in social and environmental responsibility while saving money in the long run and bringing the Colleges closer to their goals

Appendix C

as stated in the Climate Action Plan (Climate Task Force, 2010). Making sustainability in small house renovations a top priority can demonstrate the importance of stewardship in everyday life if the story of product choice is conveyed to the students living in these residences. Best practices in the industry are constantly changing; therefore this is not a comprehensive or finite list, but rather an evolving set of standards by which to align product choice in renovations to reflect environmental stewardship.

Appendix D

Product Analysis

2010

Appendix D

Each product has the potential to earn 15 points. A perfect score means that this product thoroughly meets all sustainability criteria based on a scale of 1-3 for 5 categories: source, local, durability, end of life use, and certification. Within each product category, the product with the highest number of points should be selected. By comparing the products used in the renovation projects in 2008-2009 (HWS B&G, 2009) with more sustainable options, replacements have been suggested based on their sustainability score derived from a decision matrix. In some instances, the product used in previous renovations has the highest score, but all options should be considered. In the future, the scale should be extended and categories be reevaluated in order to make this an up to date and current study. Item: Kitchen countertops Product used in ‘08-‘09: Plastic Laminate Description: Photograph of wood, stone, or other textures and colors on a sheet of plastic applied with high amounts of pressure and an adhesive that generally has a high VOC content to layers of particle board, finished with a wood edge (Carlsen, 2002) Pros: Inexpensive, variety of styles and colors Cons: Petroleum based, nondurable, non-reparable, no end of life alternative to landfill Analysis: Not only is plastic laminate made of petroleum, but these countertops cannot be repaired if they are scratched or damaged and cannot be recycled. Score: 8 Product Replacement: Terrazzo Description: Mixed concrete and recycled glass countertop (Vetrazzo, 2010) Pros: High recycled content, high durability, resistant to scratches and damage, cradle to cradle end of life solution Cons: High embodied energy is contained in the cement aggregate material, non-local manufacturer Analysis: Made of recycled glass from bottles, sinks, toilets, tubs, old traffic lights, and stained glass scraps. However, high embodied energy is contained in the cement aggregate material. Because of the high durability of this product, it should not need to be replaced during our lifetime. Score: 11 Product Replacement: Concrete Casted Countertop Description: Concrete made from flyash, a waste product from burning coal (Maddalina, 2010) Pros: Local contractor/manufacturer who we have already established a relationship with, very durable and can be recycled at the end of its long lifecycle Cons: High embodied energy, can absorb stains even if sealed properly, must be installed by those with experience with concrete Analysis: Concrete countertops must be installed by professional installers so that the surface is not damaged. By buying locally, we are decreasing the amount of energy needed to ship the products to campus, offsetting some of the energy that is embodied in the product. Since there is little maintenance required, concrete is ideal for college residence applications and may never need to be replaced because of its durability. Score: 12

Appendix D

Decision Matrix: Countertops


Plastic laminate 1 1 2 1 2 7

Terrazzo 3 1 3 3 1 11

Concrete 2 3 3 3 1 12

Item: Flooring Wood Sealers: Product used in ’08-’09: Polyurethane varnish Description: Varnishes with high levels of VOCs (US EPA, 2010) Pros: Durable—about 10 years per refinish Cons: High levels of VOCs, toxic to handle, floor must be sanded between coats which releases further VOCs into the air Analysis: Varnishes are relatively durable, which decreases the number of times the floors need to be refinished, however, they are toxic and contain high VOCs. A more sustainable option can be obtained. Score: 7 Product Replacement: Low-VOC sealer; AFM Safecoat Polyureseal BPat, Greenguard certified Bona AmberSeal Pros: Comparable durability to conventional sealers, easy to apply and clean up (AFM, 2010) Cons: More coats required, cost prohibitive ($60-80/gal) Analysis: These products contain low VOCs and have comparable durability to varnishes. AFM brand is certified by SCS. As more products are being developed, environmentally friendly sealers may become a more economical option. Score: 7 Wood Replacement: Product Replacement: Salvaged wood Description: Wood from barns, factories, and other antique buildings that is salvaged and refinished Pros: Local manufacturer, no virgin timber resources (Earth Shared, 2010) Cons: May not be the exact uniform look that is achieved with other products Analysis: Rather than harvesting virgin lumber, salvaging wood from old buildings is a local, sustainable choice that can enhance the look and history of the house. Score: 13 Product Replacement: Engineered Wood Description: Stacked layers of unfinished plywood with a layer of wood veneer on top to achieve the consumer’s desired style (Discovery Channel, 2009) Pros: Uses fewer raw materials, durable, moisture resistant Cons: High embodied energy, can only be refinished a few times, may contain formaldehyde adhesives and urethane finishes Analysis: Engineered wood can be an incredibly sustainable choice if the core of the floor is high density fiberboard or wheatboard and is manufactured using renewable energy. Make sure to find FSC certified sources.

Appendix D

Decision Matrix: Wood


Polyurethane Varnish 1 1 2 1 1 6

Low VOC sealer 1 1 2 1 2 7

Salvaged Wood 3 3 3 3 1 13

Engineered wood 2 1 3 2 3 11

Carpet: Product used in ’08-’09: Carpet tiles Description: 12’’ squares of carpet made from recycled materials (Mohawk Industries, 2010) Pros: Made from recycled materials, easily replaced if damaged, can be recycled at the end of the life cycle Cons: Medium durability, tiles can curl up at the edges, can be difficult to keep clean, can contribute to poor indoor air quality if adhesives with high VOCs are used Analysis: Carpet tiles are made with recycled content and can be recycled at the end of life. LEES brand products have lifetime warranties and are certified by CRI Green Label. Due to HWS’ relationship with RD Weis Companies in Henrietta, NY, an environmentally positioned flooring provider, the best option has been obtained in previous projects. Therefore, at this time, carpet by LEES or a comparable manufacturer is the most sustainable choice for carpeting. Score: 13 Decision Matrix: Carpet


Carpet tiles (LEES) 3 2 2 3 3 13

Tile: Product used in ’08-’09: Non-slip mosaic tiles (bathrooms) Description: Made from natural minerals, manufactured using water and heat (Adams, 2009) Pros: Durable, easy to clean and maintain, resistant to moisture Cons: Grout can be water damaged, tiles are cold underfoot Analysis: Conventional ceramic tile flooring has high embodied energy and there are currently no post-consumer recycling programs available. Score: 8 Product Replacement: Glazed porcelain tiles from post-industrial waste/Recycled glass tiles Pros: Diverts waste from the landfills, lower embodied energy (Adams, 2009) Cons: Can be expensive Analysis: Any glass product will have high embodied energy, so choosing a product that is made from recycled materials is the best option. Also, using sealers with low VOCs is imperative. Score: 10

Appendix D

Decision Matrix: Tile


Ceramic Tile 1 1 3 2 1 8

Recycled Glass Tile 3 1 3 2 1 10

Kitchen Flooring: Product used in ’08-09: Sheet vinyl Description: Made from PVC and coated with urethane (Armstrong, 2010) Pros: Inexpensive, variety of colors and patterns, resists dents and scratches, Armstrong manufacturer certified by Floorscore Cons: Made of PVC, covered in toxins such as urethane, cannot be recycled at the end of its lifespan of approximately ten years Analysis: Although some manufacturers are incorporating recycled content into the production, the presence of PVC and the end use makes this product the least sustainable choice. There are options available that have longer lifecycles and better durability. Score: 8 Product Replacement: Bamboo Description: Grass that regenerates every 3-5 years Pros: Renewable resource, very durable (Discovery Channel, 2009) Cons: Formaldehyde may be used in adhesives, areas are being clear cut to make space for bamboo plantations, cannot be locally sourced Analysis: The renewable nature of bamboo makes it a sustainable option for kitchens. It is also very durable, with a hardness of slightly below that of a tropical hardwood. Its long life cycle offsets the fact that it is sourced in China. Find fair trade products to ensure that workers are being paid fairly to harvest the bamboo. Score: 10 Product Replacement: Cork tiles Description: Harvested from the cork oak tree (Discovery Channel, 2009; Minnesota Building Materials Database, 2004; DuroDesign Flooring, 2010) Pros: Impact resistant, dampens sound, comes in tiles or planks, easy maintenance, non-toxic, warm underfoot, fire resistant, resistant to mold and mildew, renewable sourcing from the bark of the cork oak or from post industrial waste cork Cons: Adhesives may contain toxins and high levels of VOCs, dents easily, may not be able to be recycled because of the use of adhesives Analysis: Cork is a renewable source that should be used with non-toxic, low VOC adhesives. Recycling of the product at the end of the lifecycle is limited, but may develop in the future. Some corks forests are certified by the FSC. Score: 10 Product Replacement: Linoleum Description: Made from linseed oil, resins, binding agents from pine trees, ground limestone, and jute (Discovery Channel, 2009; Forbo, 2010) Pros: Durable, made from renewable inputs, biodegradable at the end of lifecycle, lasts about 40 years Cons: Cannot be recycled at this time, some maintenance required to polish the floor

Appendix D

Analysis: Must be applied using low or no VOC solvents and adhesives. Linoleum cannot be recycled, but does have a long lifecycle and is biodegradable. Score: 11 Decision Matrix: Kitchen flooring


Sheet Vinyl 1 1 2 1 3 8

Bamboo 3 1 3 2 1 10

Cork 3 1 2 2 2 10

Linoleum 3 1 3 1 3 11

Item: Cabinetry Product used in ’08-’09: Kemper Cabinets (Lawton Door style) Description: Furniture board and plywood construction (Kemper Distinctive Cabinetry, 2010) Pros: Manufacturer recycles waste in production, low emission coatings, certified by the Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association (KCMA) Environmental Stewardship Program, supported by the FSC Cons: Manufactured in Indiana, outside the 350 mile radius, not certified by one of the targeted programs Analysis: Although the manufacturer is located farther away than is ideal, the cabinets are produced in a way which recognizes many facets of environmental sustainability. Score: 13 Product Replacement: Lyptus Description: Made from the hybrid of two Eucalyptus species (Lyptus, 2010) Pros: Sustainably sourced, use low or no VOC adhesives and coatings Cons: Raw materials sourced from Brazil, certified by European-based Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) Analysis: Cabinets are durable and sustainably sourced. Finding a local dealer is key to reducing the embodied energy from transportation. Score: 11 Product Replacement: Bamboo Description: Grass that regenerates every 3-5 years (Bamboo Series, 2010) Pros: Renewable resource, durable Cons: Formaldehyde may be used in adhesives, areas are being clear cut to make space for bamboo plantations, cannot be locally sourced Analysis: The renewable nature of bamboo makes it a sustainable option. It is also very durable, with a hardness of slightly below that of a tropical hardwood. Its long life cycle offsets the fact that it is sourced in China. Score: 10

Appendix D

Decision Matrix: Cabinetry


Kemper 3 2 3 2 3 13

Lyptus 3 1 3 2 2 11

Bamboo 3 1 3 2 1 10

Item: Interior Doors

Product used in ’08-’09: Bolection Door Description: High density solid composite wood panels (Bolection Door, 2010) Pros: Produced from residuals of hard and softwoods, can be designed to match other doors, durable, strong Cons: Urea formaldehyde is present in binders used during production which can be released if the door is cut or sanded, production requires high heat and pressure, manufacturer located in NC and FL Analysis: Because of veneers and laminates used to coat the doors along with current disposal constraints, these products cannot be recycled at the end of their lifespan. However, a composite door which is sourced from scrap woods rather than from new woods is more important than disposal at this time. Also, Tom Bonacci has had success with this door in the past. Score: 9 Product Alternative: Humabilt Wheatcore Doors Description: Composite panels with wheat core (Humabilt, 2008) Pros: Made from agricultural waste wheat fibers, no urea-formaldehyde present, ultra low VOC adhesives, 85% renewable and recycled content, variety of styles to choose from Cons: Manufacturer located outside of 350 mile radius, cannot be recycled at end of life Analysis: The indoor air quality aspect that this brand brings is a huge advantage in many certification programs. So, this is a better choice than Bolection even though the manufacturer is located in the Midwest. Score: 10 Decision Matrix: Interior Doors


Bolection Door 2 2 3 1 1 9

Humabuilt 3 2 3 1 1 10

For the following items, the decision matrices as shown above are not applicable in terms of their categories. There are, however, specific standards to follow in the purchase of paint, appliances, fixtures, and lighting. Item: Paint Standards to be met: Low or no VOCs (see Indoor Air Quality in Appendix C)

Appendix D

Product used in ’08-’09: ICI Gripper, ICI Dulux, Zinsser Perma-white oil based satin -NO, ICI Ultra-Hide flat, Benjamin Moore Satin Impervo Description: Conventional paint Pros: Durable, scrub resistant, most have anti-mold and mildew agents Cons: Not low or no VOC Analysis: Indoor air quality is compromised using paints with high levels of VOCs Product Replacement: Lifemaster No VOC by Glidden (ICI was acquired by Glidden) Description: Acrylic, no VOC paint (Akzo Nobel Paints LLC, 2010) Pros: Environmental stewardship is a concern of the company, manufactures with no VOCs, durable, resistant to mold and mildew Cons: Paint may take longer to harden Analysis: No VOC paints will contribute to better indoor air quality during application and are manufactured in an environmentally conscious way. Product Replacement: Benjamin Moore Natura Paint Description: Water based, zero VOC paint (Benjamin Moore, 2010) Pros: No VOCs, dries in 30 minutes, certified by Greenguard Cons: $50/gal Analysis: No VOC paints are optimal by reducing toxins in indoor air. This paint is also certified by Greenguard. As price competitive options are developed, this will be the number one choice. Item: Appliances/Fixtures Appliances: Standards to be met: All should be Energy Star products per Appendix C and the HWS Climate Action Plan Faucets (Kitchen & Bathroom): Standards to be met: See Water Efficiency in Appendix C for more water conservation standards Product used in ’08-09: American Standard # 4175503.002 (kitchen) Analysis: Kitchen faucets should be low flow fixtures with a maximum flow rate of 2.2 GPM, and certified by the EPA Water Sense program (US EPA, 2010). Product used in ’08-’09: American Standard #2275505.002 (bathroom) Analysis: Bathroom faucets should be low flow fixtures with a maximum flow rate of 1.5 GPM, and certified by the EPA Water Sense program (US EPA, 2010). Toilets: Product used in ’08-’09: American Standard Cadet Pros: Included in the EPA Water Sense program, 1.6 gal/flush Cons: Not a dual flush product Analysis: Although this product does use less water than conventional option, HWS should aim for dual flush models which save even more water (American Standard, 2010).

Appendix D

Product Replacement Ideal: American Standard H2Option models with dual flush Pros: Saves more water, 1.1 gal/flush Analysis: These products save even more water than the standard low flush model, and are comparable in price (American Standard, 2010). Item: Lighting Standards to be met: Energy saving and efficient; all bulbs should be CFLs Product used in ’08-’09: American Fluorescent Corp. model CMS2039 Pros: Meet Energy Star criteria Cons: Fluorescent bulbs contain mercury Analysis: If the bulbs used in these fixtures are of CFL standards and meet Energy Star ratings, then they are the ideal choice. Company specs show that these are CFQ lamps (American Fluorescent Corporation, 2010). Product Replacement: LED Lights Pros: Last 6 times as long as CFLs, use 500 KWh less energy per 60,000 hours, do not contain mercury Cons: Cost prohibitive, narrow stream of light Analysis: Once LEDs become a more affordable and comfortable light source, then they will be the ideal that should be implemented. In the meantime, CFL use is imperative (Kane, 2009).

Appendix E

Resources

2010

Appendix E

Adams, C. (2009, September 4). Green Home Guide. Retrieved February 2010, from USGBC: http://greenhomeguide.com/know-how/article/green-stone-tile-recommendations AFM . (2010). Safecoat. Retrieved March 2010, from AFM: http://www.afmsafecoat.com/ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (1999). Formaldehyde Fact Sheet. Retrieved April 2010, from Natural Organic Health: http://www.health-report.co.uk/formaldehyde-fact-sheet.htm Akzo Nobel Paints LLC. (2010). Lowest Environmental Footprint. Retrieved March 2010, from Glidden Professional: https://www.gliddenprofessional.com/gliddenProProducts.do?other=x&platform=Lowest%20Environmental%20Footprint&pnameNoTrade=Lifemaster%20No%20VOC American Fluorescent Corporation. (2010). CMS Series. Retrieved April 2010, from American Fluorescent Corporation: http://www.americanfluorescent.com/afl_product_overview.cgi?id_num=40085&product_category=2 American Standard. (2010). Products. Retrieved March 2010, from American Standard: http://www.americanstandard-us.com/ Armstrong. (2010). Vinyl Sheet Buyer's Guide. Retrieved February 2010, from Armstrong: http://www.armstrong.com/flooring/floor-buying-guide/vinyl-sheet.html Bamboo Series. (2010). Retrieved February 2010, from Green Tech Cabinetry: http://www.greentechcabinetry.com/bamboo.html Benjamin Moore. (2010). Natura. Retrieved April 2010, from Benjamin Moore: http://www.benjaminmoore.com/ Bolection Door. (2010). Door Construction. Retrieved March 2010, from Bolection Door: http://bolectiondoor.com/door-construction.htm Button, C. (2010, February). Sr. Project Manager. Carlsen, S. (2002, October). Buying Countertops. Retrieved March 2010, from Reader's Digest: http://www.rd.com/19215/article19215.html Carpet & Rug Institute. (2010). Green Label/Green Label Plus. Retrieved April 2010, from CRI: http://www.carpet-rug.org/commercial-customers/green-building-and-the-environment/green-label-plus/ Climate Task Force. (2010, January 30). ACUPCC Reporting System. Retrieved April 2010, from American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment: http://acupcc.aashe.org/cap-report.php?id=411 Colombia Forest Products. (2009, October). Certified Wood. Retrieved April 5, 2010, from Colombia Forest Products: http://www.columbiaforestproducts.com/Content/Documents/FSC-Certified-Wood.pdf

Appendix E

Daneman, M. (2002, August 7). Geneva colleges tap into wind farm electricity. Democrat and Chronicle . Department of Design and Construction. (1999). High Performance Building Guidelines. New York. Discovery Channel. (2009, October 20). Green Materials Guide. Retrieved February 2010, from Planet Green. DuPont Performance Elastomers. (2010). Applications. Retrieved April 2010, from DuPont Corporation: http://www.dupontelastomers.com/Products/Neoprene/apps.asp DuroDesign Flooring. (2010). Cork Flooring. Retrieved March 2010, from DuroDesign: http://www.duro-design.com/ Earth Shared. (2010). Retrieved February 2010, from Pioneer Millworks: www.pinoeermillworks.com EcoCabinetry. (2010). Retrieved February 2010, from Executive Cabinetry: http://www.ecofriendlycabinets.com/ Environmental Protection Agency. (2010). Retrieved 2010, from EPA: http://www.epa.gov/ Environmental Stewardship Committee. (2002). Sustainable Guidelines. Stanford University. Fair Trade Federation. (2010). About Fair Trade. Retrieved April 2010, from Fair Trade Federation: http://www.fairtradefederation.org/ht/d/sp/i/2733/pid/2733 Forbo. (2010). Taking Care of the Environment. Retrieved February 2010, from Forbo Flooring Systems: http://www.forbo-flooring.com/default.aspx?menuid=595 Forest Stewardship Council. (2010). FSC Certification. Retrieved March 2010, from FSC.org: http://www.fsc.org/pc.html Green Building Materials : Tile and Countertop. (2009, August 10). Retrieved February 2010, from iGreenbuild.com: http://www.igreenbuild.com/_coreModules/common/categoryDetail.aspx?entityType=7&categoryID=562 Green Building Supply, Inc. (2010). Marmoleum: The Multi-purpose Natural Floor. Retrieved March 2010, from Green Building Supply: http://www.greenbuildingsupply.com/Public/NaturalFlooring/Marmoleum/index.cfm Green Building: The Cost of Building Green. (2008, 11 28). Retrieved 03 2010, from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Green Cabinets. (2009). Retrieved February 2019, from Greenbuilding.com: http://www.greenbuilding.com/green-home-improvement/green-cabinets Green Myth Buster #1: Cork is endangered. (2010). Retrieved February 2010, from Green Living: http://www.greenlivingonline.com/article/green-myth-buster-1-cork-endangered

Appendix E

Green Seal. (2010). About Green Seal. Retrieved April 2010, from Green Seal: http://www.greenseal.org/about/index.cfm GreenGuard Environmental Institute. (2010). GreenGuard Certification. Retrieved March 2010, from GreenGuard: http://www.greenguard.org/faq.aspx#3 Greenpeace International. (2010). What We Do. Retrieved April 2010, from Greenpeace International: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/polyvinyl-chloride/pvc-products Hobart and William Smith. (2010). About. Retrieved April 2010, from Hobart and William Smith Colleges: www.hws.edu Hoechstetter Interiors. (2009, April 17). Fire Retardants Do More Harm Than Good? Retrieved April 2010, from Hoechstetter Interiors: http://hoechstetterinteriors.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/fire-retardants-do-more-harm-than-good/ Humabuilt. (2008). Sustainable Interior Doors. Retrieved April 2010, from Humabuilt Sustainable Doors: http://humabuilt.com/Pages/Doors.html HWS B&G. (2009). Residence House Renovations Specifications. Geneva, NY, USA. International Living Building Institute. (2009). Living Building Challenge 2.0. Johnsonsite. (2010). Environment. Retrieved March 2010, from Johnsonite Environment: http://johnsoniteenvironment.com/ Kane, E. E. (2009, July 17). Pros and Cons of LED Light Bulbs. Retrieved April 2010, from Eco-wisdom.com: http://www.eco-wisdom.com/tips/electronics/pros-and-cons-of-led-light-bulbs.html Kanellos, M. (2009, October 27). Articles. Retrieved March 2010, from Greentechmedia.com: http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/what-is-green-tech-exactly/ Kemper Distinctive Cabinetry. (2010). About Us. Retrieved March 2010, from Kemper : http://www.kempercabinets.com/about_us/index.cfm Landi, J. (2010, February). Sustainability Coordinator. Lianda. (2010). Products. Retrieved April 2010, from Lianda Corporation: http://www.liandacorp.com/chlorinated_polyethylene.php Lieberman, L. (2010, April 16). Sustainability Coordinator, Steelcase Furniture. Lyptus. (2010). Sustainability and Fibria Forests. Retrieved April 2010, from Lyptus: http://www.lyptus.com/homeowners/environmental-information/ Maddalina, M. (2010). Project Sustainability Report: Athletics Additions and Renovations. Geneva: SWBR Architects.

Appendix E

MBDC. (2010). MBDC: Cradle to Cradle. Retrieved April 2010, from MBDC: http://www.mbdc.com/c2c_home.htm Minnesota Building Materials Database. (2004, May 31). Retrieved February 2010, from Center for Sustainable Building Research: http://www.buildingmaterials.umn.edu/ Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (2005, July 25). Special Pollutant: Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Retrieved April 2010, from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/cfc.html Mohawk Industries. (2010). Environmental Attributes. Retrieved April 2010, from LEES Carpets: http://www.leescarpets.com/lea/Fpage.aspx?Style_Num=D8446&Style_name=Heartland&BackingID=1 MTS-Market Transformation to Sustainability. (2010). SMART© Consensus Sustainable Product Standards. Retrieved April 2010, from MTS: http://www.sustainableproducts.com/mts/smartstandards.html Mumma, T. (1995, January). Home Energy Magazine Online. Retrieved April 2010, from Home Energy: http://www.homeenergy.org/archive/hem.dis.anl.gov/eehem/95/950109.html National Library of Medicine. (2009, July 23). Tox Town. Retrieved April 2010, from Cadmium: http://toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/text_version/chemicals.php?id=63 New York State Department of Health. (2010, April). Sources of Lead. Retrieved April 2010, from New York State Department of Health: http://www.health.state.ny.us/environmental/lead/sources.htm Pollution in People. (2006). Phthalates. Retrieved April 2010, from Toxic Chemicals in Washingtonians: http://pollutioninpeople.org/toxics/phthalates Resiliant Floor Coverings Institute. (2010). FloorScore. Retrieved April 2010, from RFCI: http://www.rfci.com/int_FloorScore.htm Scientific Certification Systems. (2010). Certification Standards by Program. Retrieved April 2010, from SCS: http://www.scscertified.com/program_standards.php SCS . (2010). SCS Sustainable Choice- Carpet. Retrieved April 2010, from SCS Scientific Certification Systems: http://www.scscertified.com/gbc/sustainablecarpet.php SCS. (2010). Introducing Level. Retrieved April 2010, from SCS Scientific Certification Systems: http://www.scscertified.com/gbc/level.php Sustainable Building Sourcebook. (2010). Retrieved March 2010, from Austin Energy Green Building: http://www.austinenergy.com/Energy%20Efficiency/Programs/Green%20Building/Sourcebook/materials.htm Sustainable Endowments Institute. (2010). Report Card 2010. Retrieved April 2010, from The College Sustainability Report Card: http://www.greenreportcard.org/report-card-2010/schools/hobart-and-william-smith-colleges

Appendix E

Swarbrick, K. (2001). Santa Barbara County Green Building Guidelines. Santa Barbara. The Village at Playa Vista: Residential and Mixed Use Deign Guidelines. (2006, March). Retrieved March 2010, from http://plncts.lacity.org/EIR/PlayaVista/DEIR_RS/issues/E.ii.pdf Union of Concerned Scientists. (2009). Coal vs. Wind. Retrieved April 2010, from Clean Energy: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c01.html United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2010). About Energy Star. Retrieved April 2010, from US EPA: http://www.energystar.gov/ US EPA. (2010). An Introduction to Indoor Air Quality. Retrieved April 2010, from US EPA: http://www.epa.gov/iaq/voc.html US EPA. (1990). Asbestos in your Home. Retrieved April 2010, from US EPA: http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/pubs/ashome.html US EPA. (2010). Table of Products That May Contain Mercury and Recommended Management Options. Retrieved April 2010, from US EPA: http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/tsd/mercury/con-prod.htm US EPA. (2010). WaterSense. Retrieved April 2010, from The WaterSense Label: http://www.epa.gov/watersense/about_us/watersense_label.html US Green Building Council. (2010). LEED Rating Systems. Retrieved March 2010, from USGBC: http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=222 Vetrazzo. (2010). Sustainability. Retrieved March 2010, from Vetrazzo: http://www.vetrazzo.com/sustain.asp