22

XI) Appendices

Appendix 1) Olympic Review of SFU Speed Skating Oval[Refer to attached PDF files]

Appendix 2) Bid Book Review of UBC Hockey Arena[Refer to attached PDF files]

Appendix 1) Bid Book Review of SFU Speed Skating Oval Appendix 2) Bid Book Review of UBC Hockey Arena Appendix 3) LEED Standards Appendix 4) Greening the Ivory Towers indicators Appendix 5) Olympic Criteria for Sustainability Appendix 6) SFU UniverCity Appendix 7) UBC University Town Appendix 8) Green Roof Examples and Engineering/ Feasibility Appendix 9) Heat Pump Examples and FeasibilityAppendix 10) Examples of Previous Olympic Sustainability Measures in Venue DesignAppendix 11) Storm Water Management StrategiesAppendix 12) Alternative Waste Management StrategiesAppendix 13) Recyclable/Reusable Materials ExamplesAppendix 14) Cogeneration ExamplesAppendix 15) Reinforced Grass Paving SystemsAppendix 16) Involved Public Process

23

Appendix 3) LEED Standardshttp://www.usgbc.org/LEED/publications.asp

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental DesignThere are five main categories which make up the LEED standards. Designed and certified buildings are evaluated on a

points system in terms of how well they incorporate the LEED criteria and prerequisites. The system was developed by the U.S.Green Building Council and has become the standard for sustainable building design in North America. Recently the CanadianGreen Building Council has been established. LEED criteria that are evaluated are as follows.

1 ) Sustainable Sitesprerequisite) erosion ands sedamentation controla) site selectionb) development densityc) brownfield developmentd) Alternative Transportatione) Reduced Site disturbancef) Stormwater Managementg) Heat Island Effecth) Light Pollution Reduction

2 ) Water Efficiencya) water efficient landscapingb) innovative wastewater technologiesc) water use reduction

3 ) Energy and Atmosphereprerequisite 1) Fundamental Building Systems Commisioningprerequisite 2) Minimum Energy Performanceprerequisite 3) CFC Reduction in HVAC&R equipmenta) Optimize energy performanceb) Additional commissioningc) Ozone Depletiond) Measurement and Verificatione) Green Power

4 ) Material and Resourcesprerequisite 1) Storage and collection of recyclablesa) building reuseb) construction waste managementc) resource reused) Recycled contente) Local / Regional Materialsf) Rapidly renuable materialsg) Certified wood

5 ) Indoor Environ Mental Qualityprerequisite 1) Minimum IAQ Performanceprerequisite 2) Environmental Tabacco Smoke (ETS) controla) Carbon Dioxide Monitoringb) Ventilation Effectivenessc) Construction IAQ management pland) Low emitting materialse) Indoor chemical and pollutant source controlf) Controllability of systemsg) Thermal comforth) Daylight and views

6 ) Innovation and Design Processa) Innovation in Design

LEED Accredited Professional

24

Appendix 4) Greening the Ivory Towers indicators

Appendix IV: CSAF Indicator Tracking*Enter "1" in first column if benchmark is met; enter "0" if it isnot met*Enter "1" in second column if indicator is not applicable to yourcampus*If any of the sections has less than 60% "n/a", zero points should be taken forthe section

People

Health and Well-being Short-termIndicatorN/A

Benchmark

Met HW-1 Recreation Space HW-2 Recreation Participation HW-3 Diet Types HW-4 Nutritional Information HW-5 Organic, Non-GMO, Fair Trade Food HW-6 Motor Vehicle Accidents HW-7 Workplace Incidents HW-8 Incidents of Assault HW-9 Physical Health Care Practitioners HW-10 Sick Days HW-11 Smoking HW-12 Mental Health Care Practitioners HW-13 Retention Rate HW-14 Spiritual Services HW-15 Mental Illness HW-16 Student Suicide Rate HW-17 Accessible Greenspace HW-18 Noise Pollution HW-19 Light Pollution TOTAL 0 0Is 60% target met? 0%if yes: TOTAL FOR SECTION 0

Community Short-termIndicatorN/A

Benchmark

Met C-1 Volunteerism C-2 Financing Volunteer Groups

25

C-3 Alumni Volunteerism C-4 Graduates in the Community C-5 Sense of Community C-6 Voter Turnout C-7 Faculty With Disabilities C-8 Staff With Disabilities C-9 Students With Disabilities C-10 Faculty of Ethnic Minorities C-11 Staff of Ethnic Minorities C-12 Student of Ethnic Minorities C-13 Faculty Gender C-14 Staff Gender C-15 Student Gender C-16 Equity of Indigenous Peoples: Faculty C-17 Equity of Indigenous Peoples: Staff C-18 Equity of Indigenous Peoples: Students C-19 Indoor Community Space C-20 On-campus Housing C-21 On-campus Housing Affordability C-22 On-campus Employment Services C-23 Community Library Cards C-24 On-campus Media Expenditures C-25 Affordability of Public Transit TOTAL 0 0Is 60% target met? 0%if yes: TOTAL FOR SECTION 0

Knowledge Short-termIndicatorN/A

Benchmark

Met K-1 New Faculty Orientation K-2 New Staff Orientation K-3 New Student Orientation K-4 Faculty Sustainability Training K-5 Staff Sustainability Training K-6 On-campus Student Sustainability Jobs K-9 Research Collaboration - On-campus K-10 Research Collaboration - Non-profit K-11 Research Collaboration - For Profit K-12 Sustainability Research Expenditures K-13 For-profit Research Contributions K-14 Faculty Sustainability Research K-15 Sustainability Pledge K-16 Sustainability Literacy Survey K-17 Courses With Applied Learning K-18 Courses With Sustainability Content K-19 Students Taking Sustainability Courses K-20 Faculty Teaching Sustainability Courses K-21 Quality of Sustainability Courses

26

K-22 Collaborative Course Development K-23 For-profit Course Development TOTAL 0 0Is 60% target met? 0%if yes: TOTAL FOR SECTION 0

Governance Short-termIndicatorN/A

Benchmark

Met G-1 University Government Policy G-2 Student Government Policy G-3 University Government Working Groups G-4 Diversity of University Government Working Groups G-5 Reporting of University Government Working Groups G-6 University Staffing for Sustainability G-7 University Financing of Sustainability G-8 Reporting of University Sustainability Staff G-9 Student Government Working Groups G-10 Diversity of Student Government Working Groups G-11 Reporting of Student Government Working Groups G-12 Student Government Staffing for Sustainability G-13 Student Government Financing of Sustainability G-14 Reporting of Student Government Sustainability Staff G-15 University Government: Implementation Planning G-16 University Government: Reporting G-17 University Government: Information Management G-18 Student Government: Implementation Planning G-19 Student Government: Reporting G-20 Student Government: Information Management TOTAL 0 0Is 60% target met? 0%TOTAL FOR SECTION 0

Economy and Wealth Short-termIndicatorN/A

Benchmark

Met EW-1 Students With Loans EW-2 Student Debt Load EW-3 Student Fees EW-4 Number of Financial Awards EW-5 Value of Financial Awards EW-6 Allocation of Financial Awards EW-7 Wage Gap EW-8 Gender Pay Equity EW-9 Ethnic Minority/Caucasian Pay Equity EW-10 Indigenous Peoples/Caucasian Pay Equity EW-11 Income From Student Fees

27

EW-12 Income From Government EW-13 Income from Private Sources EW-14 Departmental Expenditures per FTE Students EW-15 Locally Purchased Goods and Services EW-16 Deferred Maintenance EW-17 Ethically and Environmentally Sound Investments EW-18 Local Investments TOTAL 0 0Is 60% target met? 0%TOTAL FOR SECTION 0

HUMAN TOTAL: 0 out of potential 5

Ecosystem

Water Short-termIndicatorN/A

BenchmarkMet

W-1 Potable Water Consumed W-2 Storm- and Grey Water Reuse W-3 Leaking Fixtures W-4 Water Metering: Potable W-5 Water Metering: Wastewater W-6 Pressure Testing for Leaks W-7 Efficiency of Fixtures W-8 Motion Detectors Installed W-9 Wastewater Produced W-10 Wastewater Treatment W-11 Stormwater Contaminant Seperation/Collection TOTAL 0 0Is 60% target met? 0%TOTAL FOR SECTION 0

Materials Short-termIndicatorN/A

BenchmarkMet

M-1 LEED Certified Base Buildings M-2 LEED Certified Interiors M-3 Paper Consumption M-4 Recycled Content of Paper M-5 Tree-free Paper M-6 Chlorine-free Paper M-7 Local Food Production M-8 Life-cycle Cost Assessment of Equipment M-9 Solid Waste and Recyclables Produced M-10 Solid Waste Reduction

28

M-11 Recyclables Being Landfilled M-12 Compost M-13 Hazardous Waste Produced M-14 Reuse of Hazardous Waste M-15 Recycling of Hazardous Waste M-16 Reduction of Hazardous Waste TOTAL 0 0Is 60% target met? 0%TOTAL FOR SECTION 0

Air Short-termIndicatorN/A

BenchmarkMet

A-1 Asbestos and Mould A-2 Scent-free Indoor Spaces A-3 Opening Windows A-4 Air Change Effectiveness A-5 Smoke-free Indoor Spaces A-6 Living Plants Indoors A-7 Chemical Free Cleaning A-8 Pesticides Used Indoors A-9 Cleaning of Air Handling Units A-10 Carbon Dioxide Monitoring Indoors A-11 Indoor Air Quality Complaints A-12 Smoke-free Outdoor Spaces A-13 Living Trees Outdoors A-14 Monitoring of Exterior Vents TOTAL 0 0Is 60% target met? 0%TOTAL FOR SECTION 0

Energy Short-termIndicatorN/A

BenchmarkMet

E-1 Renewable Energy: Buildings E-2 Renewable Energy: Fleet and Grounds Vehicles E-3 Local Energy Sources E-4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Buildings E-5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Commuting Transport E-6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Fleet and Grounds Vehicles E-7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Campus Travel E-8 Reduction in Energy Consumption E-9 Energy Metering E-10 Energy Efficient Equipment E-11 HVAC&R System Control E-12 Automatic Lighting Sensors TOTAL 0 0

29

Is 60% target met? 0%TOTAL FOR SECTION 0

Land Short-termIndicatorN/A

BenchmarkMet

L-1 Managed Greenspace L-2 Inorganic Fertilizers L-3 Pesticides L-4 Native Plants L-5 Healthy Natural Areas L-6 Restoration of Degraded Areas L-7 Protection of Natural Areas L-8 Unresolved Land Claims L-9 Impermeable Surface Coverage L-10 Parking Density L-11 Building Density L-12 Occupancy Rates: On-campus Residences L-13 Occupancy Rates: Classrooms TOTAL 0 0Is 60% target met? 0%TOTAL FOR SECTION 0

ECOSYSTEM TOTAL: 0 out of potential 5

Campus Sustainability Index: 0 out of potential 10

Appendix 5) Olympic Criteria for Sustainability

Focus on sustainabilityVancouver 2010 is broadening and strengthening the focus of sustainability beyondenvironmental stewardship to include social responsibility, economic opportunity, sportdevelopment and health promotion.

Our focus on sustainability accomplishes the following:

• Enables balancing and integration of social, economic and environmental interests• Promotes long-term thinking and legacy development• Addresses a global reality• Meets regional and national expectations that sustainability is a key consideration

30

• Showcases sustainability initiatives, technology and expertise of Canada and thehost communities

HistoryIn 1994, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) added environment as a third pillarof the Olympic Movement, along with sport and culture. This focus on environmentalsustainability has evolved to a recognition of the importance of sustainable developmentin the Olympic Movement. In 1999, the IOC adopted its own Agenda 21 which focuseson:

• improving socio-economic conditions• conserving and managing resources• strengthening the role of major groups

The sustainability framework adopted by the 2010 Bid Corporation provides policyguidance and a set of best practices based on principles of ecological limits,interdependence, long-term view, stakeholder engagement, equity, accessibility andhealthy communities.

The framework applies to planners, organizers and suppliers during both the bid phaseand organizing phase of the Vancouver 2010 Games. The framework guides the BidCorporation's planning work to build a winning proposal by following these guidelines:

• Ensure we consider citizens needs of today and tomorrow• Integrate and optimize sport, environmental, social and economic considerations• Help build community, domestic and international support• Ensure we create sustainable legacies• Enable the games to become a showcase of sustainability to the citizens of

Canada and the world• Increase understanding of sustainability through the Olympic medium

Vancouver 2010 is also developing a sustainability management system that addressesthe immediate and long-term potential impacts that the products, services and operationsof the Winter Games would have on the environment, economy and society.Environmental stewardship affirms that in every activity, the 2010 Bid Corporation willconserve resources, prevent pollution, and protect and enhance natural systems. We areinvestigating the use of the latest environmental practices for the 2010 Games, including:

• Green building standards• Sustainable transportation innovation• Energy efficiency and use of renewable energy• Wastewater treatment and water conservation• Air quality and greenhouse gas management• Waste minimization and pollution prevention• Protection/enhancement of natural landscapes

31

The 2010 Bid Corporation will undertake an environmental impact assessment of allpotential Games venues. As many of the proposed venues are existing facilities,environmental effects are expected to be negligible. When new facilities are proposed,impacts will be reduced through environmentally sensitive design, mitigation strategiesand state-of-the-art protection plans.Economic opportunityVancouver 2010 is considering strategies to promote sustainable economic opportunitiesfrom hosting the Games. These include:

• Showcasing domestic product innovation and expertise.• Extending economic benefits well beyond the period of the Games and the

Vancouver Whistler area.• Diversifying local community economies and maximizing the use of domestic

products and services before, during and after the Games.

Social sustainabilitySocial sustainability is being pursued through:

• Sport development legacies and related healthy living promotion, including theLegaciesNow program.

• Education related to sustainability.• Reduction of physical and economic barriers to Games participation.• Employment opportunities for youth and lower income citizens.• Community legacies through venue and village development.• Partnership with aboriginal communities in Games design and delivery.• Celebration of cultural diversity.• Inclusion of marginalized communities.

A social impact assessment is being conducted to ensure the Bid reflects the needs of ourhost communities.To contribute to sport development, the 2010 Bid Corporation is working on thefollowing initiatives:

• Build or renovate facilities to be appropriate for recreational use, regionalcompetitions and elite events

• Secure post 2010 Winter Games access to Games venues for amateur sport of alllevels

• Assist in providing support and education for Canadian coaches Promotion ofhealthy lifestyles is part of Canada's 2010 Winter Games Bid:

• Encourage citizens to lead more active lifestyles• Encourage citizens to participate in organized sports• Augment the physical education programs in elementary schools through

education programs related to the Games.

Find out more about our commitment to sport development.

32

In developing and enhancing the venues for the Vancouver 2010 Games, we will promoteapplication of sustainable practices.

Specific environmental initiatives will include:

• Green Buildings• Green Power Program• Fuel Cell Program• Zero Waste Program• Green Hotel Program

Appendix 6) SFU UniverCity

[Attached]

Appendix 7) UBC University Town Development

WELCOME TO THE UNIVERSITY TOWN WEB SITE

VISION

The University of British Columbia aspires to be the best university in Canada and one of

the world's finest public universities. A component of this vision involves the creation of

a University Town on the Point Grey Campus.

University Town will be an academically and culturally rich collection of University

Neighbourhoods supporting the academic core. The academic core will remain the

primary intellectual, social and economic centre of University Town. Eight

neighbourhoods will add a mix of housing, shops, parks, and other amenities as part of a

sustainable community woven into the academic and cultural fabric of campus life.

33

Appendix 8) Green Roof Examples and Engineering/ Feasibility

http://www.greenroofs.ca/grhcc/

Green roof development involves the creation of "contained" green space on top of ahuman-made structure. This green space could be below, at or above grade, but in allcases the plants are not planted in the "ground'. A green roof system is an extension of theexisting roof not potted plants, which involves a special water proof and root repellantmembrane, a drainage system, filter cloth, a lightweight growing medium and plants. Green roof systems may be modular, with drainage layers, filter cloth, growing mediaand plants already prepared in movable, interlocking grids, or, each component of thesystem may be installed separately.

1. What do I need to know about my building before I initiate a green roofinstallation?

You will need to know the slope, the structural loading capacity, and existing materials ofthe roof, as well as the nature of any drainage systems, waterproofing, and electrical andwater supply in place. You should also consider who would have access to it, who will domaintenance, and what kind of sun and wind exposure the roof gets.

2. What kinds of landscape design should I use and what plants can I grow on myroof?

Plant selection depends on a variety of factors, including climate, type and depth ofgrowing medium, loading capacity, height and slope of the roof, maintenanceexpectations, and the presence or absence of an irrigation system. A landscape architectwould be able to advise you on suitable plants and design of the plantings. See thelandscape contacts below.

34

3. How much does a green roof cost?

The cost of a green roof varies considerably depending on the type and factors such asthe depth of growing medium, selected plants, size of installation, use of irrigation, andwhether they are to be accessible on inaccessible - intensive, semi-extensive or extensive.Intensive green roofs typically require greater investment but confer the benefits ofaccessibility. An installed extensive green roof with root repellant/waterproof membranesand irrigation may be installed for $12-$24 US per square foot. For details on thevariables that impact the costs please see "Design Guidelines for Green Roofs" in theResources section. While green roofs typically require a greater initial investment, it isimportant to keep in mind that they can extend the life of the roof membrane and reducethe heating and cooling costs of your building. Speak to a qualified green roofprofessional about the range of costs and benefits for different green roof systems anddesigns.

Appendix 9) Heat Pump Examples and Feasibility

Heat Pump Examples

Ground-source Heat Pumps (Geothermal Heat Pumps)

DefinitionA ground-source heat pump extracts solar heat stored in the upper layers of the earth; theheat is then delivered to a building.

35

Building Type

newretrofit

DevelopmentStatus

newtechnology

Building Use

lowrise officelowriseapartmentRetailfood serviceinstitutional

DescriptionGround-source heat pumps (GSHP) can reduce the energy required for space heating,cooling and service water- heating in commercial/institutional buildings by as much as50%. Ground-source heat pumps replace the need for a boiler in winter by utilizing heatstored in the ground; this heat is upgraded by a vapour-compressor refrigeration cycle. Insummer, heat from a building is rejected to the ground. This eliminates the need for acooling tower or heat rejector, and also lowers operating costs because the ground iscooler than the outdoor air.

Water-to-air heat pumps are typically installed throughout a building with duct workserving only the immediate zone; a two-pipe water distribution system conveys water toand from the ground-source heat exchanger. The heat exchanger field consists of a grid ofvertical boreholes with plastic u-tube heat exchangers connected in parallel.Simultaneous heating and cooling can occur throughout the building, as individual heatpumps, controlled by zone thermostats, can operate in heating or cooling mode asrequired.

Unlike conventional boiler/cooling tower type water loop heat pumps, the heat pumpsused in GSHP applications are generally designed to operate at lower inlet-watertemperature. GSHP are also more efficient than conventional heat pumps, with higherCOPs and EERs. Because there are lower water temperatures in the two-pipe loop, pipingneeds to be insulated to prevent sweating; in addition, a larger circulation pump is neededbecause the units are slightly larger in the perimeter zones requiring larger flows.

Ground-source heat pumps reduce energy use and hence atmospheric emissions.Conventional boilers and their associated emissions are eliminated, since nosupplementary form of energy is usually required. Typically, single packaged heat pumpunits have no field refrigerant connections and thus have significantly lower refrigerantleakage compared to central chiller systems.

GSHP units have life spans of 20 years or more. The two-pipe water-loop systemtypically used allows for unit placement changes to accommodate new tenants or changesin building use. The plastic piping used in the heat exchanger should last as long as thebuilding itself.

36

When the system is disassembled, attention must be given to the removal and recyclingof the HCFC or HFC refrigerants used in the heat pumps themselves and the anti-freezesolution typically used in the ground heat exchanger.

Benefitsrequires less mechanical room spacerequires less outdoor equipmentdoes not require roof penetrations, maintenance decks or architectural blendsquiet operationreduces operation and maintenance costs

Limitationsrequires surface area for heat exchanger fieldhigher initial costrequires additional site co-ordination and supervisionhigher design cost

ApplicationThe most economic application of ground-source heat pumps is in buildings that requiresignificant space/water heating and cooling over extended hours of operation. Examplesare retirement communities, multi-family complexes and schools. Building types notwell-suited to the technology are retail shopping malls, large office buildings and otherbuildings where space and water heating loads are relatively small or where hours of useare limited.

ExperienceMany buildings in Canada have ground-source heat pump systems, including over 50schools in Ontario, many within the York Region Roman Catholic, Dufferin Peel RomanCatholic and Lambton County School Boards

CostGround-source heat pump HVAC systems range from C$22 to $165/m2, depending onheat source, location of building and cost of drilling. An average cost is in the range ofC$85/m2. Approximately 20% of the total energy costs of a building can be saved withthe introduction of a GSHP system in most parts of Canada.

37

Appendix 10) Examples of Previous Olympic Sustainability Measures inVenue Design

Previous Olympic Sustainability Measures (Sydney)

Environment groups today called on the New South Wales Government to ensure that alldevelopment in Sydney will be subject to the Olympic environmental sustainabilityguidelines (or better), to ensure a lasting green legacy.

Sydney has serious environmental problems including:

· Air pollution and increasing respiratory disease - death rates go up, with higher airpollution, especially during summer· Very high greenhouse gas emissions - per person, Australians are amongst the highestgreenhouse polluters in the world· Contaminated sites· Unsustainable water use - we are a dry continent but each day Sydney pours one billionlitres of sewerage water into the ocean and rivers every day· Loss of endangered flora and fauna on the coastal plain/foothills - they occur nowhereelse on the planet, but still we destroy them

The Summer Olympics Environmental Guidelines were part of Sydney's winning bid andin 1996 the Minister for the Olympics committed the government to "working to ensurethat any future development...will have to comply with these new benchmarks...thestandards applying to the built environment will be changed forever more. "

"There has been no action as yet, but now is the time tell the world that Sydney will be aleader in environmentally sustainable urban development, giving its 4 million people abetter environment and showing the way for other cities in Australia and overseas in the21st century," said Jeff Angel Chairperson for GGW.

Green Games Watch today also released, The Green Building Legacy, outlining thelessons from the green games. These include:

38

· use of renewable energy· water conservation and recycling· life cycle assessment of materials· construction waste recycling· compulsory environmental benchmarks for tenders· environmental management plans· new skills in the development sector

Previous Olympic Sustainability Measures (Torino)

TOROC’s environmental policy is based on a fundamental principle: organising the XXOlympic Winter Games in accordance with the criteria of sustainability.

This principle can be translated into the development of environmental programmes,projects and actions which are implemented on an extensive scale, ranging from the localto the global context.

On a local level, TOROC sets itself the objective of minimising the overall environmentalimpact of the event on the area affected by the Games, influencing the management of thegames’ organisational structure, the control of facilities and competitions, monitoring ofinfrastructure construction activities, organisation of the events that accompany theGames and the development, in collaboration with the local authorities, of initiativesaimed at promoting sustainability.

On a more extensive level, TOROC intends to demonstrate its commitment tothe interested parties to protecting the environment, leaving behind it a legacy of goodpractices, together with eco-compatible behaviour models and new ways of conceiving,designing and managing mass sports events.

The frame of reference from which TOROC’s environmental policy draws inspirationcomprises various elements:

• The commitments contained in the Environmental Action Plan (Green Card),presented during the candidature phase

• The principles set out in Agenda XXI of the Olympic Movement• The indications given in the IOC Environment and Sport Manual• The contents of the Charter of Intent• The process of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) applied to the

Olympic Programme

TOROC’s activities are organised within the context of an environmental managementsystem, in accordance with the requirements of ISO 14001 standard and EC 761/01EMAS Regulations.In addition, the Committee also develops sustainability relations, initiatives and projectswith local and international organisations and institutions.

39

TOROC elaborates environmental projects and initiatives in response to the commitmentstaken during the candidature phase, the principles of the Olympic Movement's AgendaXXI, the prescriptions deriving from the process of Strategic Environmental Assessment;and in implementing its own environmental management system.

The projects are focused on both the territory involved in the 2006 Games, creatingsynergies with the local authorities, and on a wider scale, in view of the world profile ofthe Olympics as an event.

The Environmental ReportThe need for an environmental report arises from the Strategic Environment Assessmentprocedure (SEA), with the twofold purpose of interpreting the evolution of theenvironmental system involved in the realisation of the Olympic Programme and inproviding support for TOROC and public institution decision-makers, helping them tocorrectly focus the project planning process.The central topics examined by the Report are derived from the Environment MonitoringPlan, but the treatment has been extended to all those activities, significant from theenvironmental point of view, which TOROC has designed and is managing.

The Report represents a point of departure for the development of transparent dialoguewith the stakeholders and in evaluating the overall environmental operational activity ofTOROC, verifying the overall interactions, both positive and negative, due to theOlympic Programme actions.

Appendix 11) Storm Water Management StrategiesStormwater Management

Rainwater harvesting is a technology used for collecting and storing rainwater fromrooftops, the land surface or rock catchments using simple techniques such as jars andpots as well as more complex techniques such as underground check dams. Thetechniques usually found in Asia and Africa arise from practices employed by ancientcivilizations within these regions and still serve as a major source of drinking watersupply in rural areas. Commonly used systems are constructed of three principalcomponents; namely, the catchment area, the collection device, and the conveyancesystem.

A) Catchment Areas

• Rooftop catchments: In the most basic form of this technology, rainwater iscollected in simple vessels at the edge of the roof. Variations on this basicapproach include collection of rainwater in gutters which drain to the collectionvessel through down-pipes constructed for this purpose, and/or the diversion ofrainwater from the gutters to containers for settling particulates before beingconveyed to the storage container for the domestic use. As the rooftop is the maincatchment area, the amount and quality of rainwater collected depends on the area

40

and type of roofing material. Reasonably pure rainwater can be collected fromroofs constructed with galvanized corrugated iron, aluminium or asbestos cementsheets, tiles and slates, although thatched roofs tied with bamboo gutters and laidin proper slopes can produce almost the same amount of runoff less expensively(Gould, 1992). However, the bamboo roofs are least suitable because of possiblehealth hazards. Similarly, roofs with metallic paint or other coatings are notrecommended as they may impart tastes or colour to the collected water. Roofcatchments should also be cleaned regularly to remove dust, leaves and birddroppings so as to maintain the quality of the product water (see figure 1).

• Land surface catchments: Rainwater harvesting using ground or land surfacecatchment areas is less complex way of collecting rainwater. It involvesimproving runoff capacity of the land surface through various techniquesincluding collection of runoff with drain pipes and storage of collected water.Compared to rooftop catchment techniques, ground catchment techniques providemore opportunity for collecting water from a larger surface area. By retaining theflows (including flood flows) of small creeks and streams in small storagereservoirs (on surface or underground) created by low cost (e.g., earthen) dams,this technology can meet water demands during dry periods. There is a possibilityof high rates of water loss due to infiltration into the ground, and, because of theoften marginal quality of the water collected, this technique is mainly suitable forstoring water for agricultural purposes. Various techniques available forincreasing the runoff within ground catchment areas involve: i) clearing oraltering vegetation cover, ii) increasing the land slope with artificial ground cover,and iii) reducing soil permeability by the soil compaction and application ofchemicals (see figure 2).

41

• Clearing or altering vegetation cover: Clearing vegetation from the ground canincrease surface runoff but also can induce more soil erosion. Use of densevegetation cover such as grass is usually suggested as it helps to both maintain anhigh rate of runoff and minimize soil erosion.

• Increasing slope: Steeper slopes can allow rapid runoff of rainfall to the collector.However, the rate of runoff has to be controlled to minimise soil erosion from thecatchment field. Use of plastic sheets, asphalt or tiles along with slope can furtherincrease efficiency by reducing both evaporative losses and soil erosion. The useof flat sheets of galvanized iron with timber frames to prevent corrosion wasrecommended and constructed in the State of Victoria, Australia, about 65 yearsago (Kenyon, 1929; cited in UNEP, 1982).

• Soil compaction by physical means: This involves smoothing and compacting ofsoil surface using equipment such as graders and rollers. To increase the surfacerunoff and minimize soil erosion rates, conservation bench terraces areconstructed along a slope perpendicular to runoff flow. The bench terraces areseparated by the sloping collectors and provision is made for distributing therunoff evenly across the field strips as sheet flow. Excess flows are routed to alower collector and stored (UNEP, 1982).

• Soil compaction by chemical treatments: In addition to clearing, shaping andcompacting a catchment area, chemical applications with such soil treatments assodium can significantly reduce the soil permeability. Use of aqueous solutions ofa silicone-water repellent is another technique for enhancing soil compactiontechnologies. Though soil permeability can be reduced through chemicaltreatments, soil compaction can induce greater rates of soil erosion and may beexpensive. Use of sodium-based chemicals may increase the salt content in thecollected water, which may not be suitable both for drinking and irrigationpurposes.

B) Collection Devices

• Storage tanks: Storage tanks for collecting rainwater harvested using gutteringmay be either above or below the ground. Precautions required in the use ofstorage tanks include provision of an adequate enclosure to minimisecontamination from human, animal or other environmental contaminants, and a

42

tight cover to prevent algal growth and the breeding of mosquitos. Opencontainers are not recommended for collecting water for drinking purposes.Various types of rainwater storage facilities can be found in practice. Amongthem are cylindrical ferrocement tanks and mortar jars. The ferrocement tankconsists of a lightly reinforced concrete base on which is erected a circularvertical cylinder with a 10 mm steel base. This cylinder is further wrapped in twolayers of light wire mesh to form the frame of the tank. Mortar jars are large jarshaped vessels constructed from wire reinforced mortar. The storage capacityneeded should be calculated to take into consideration the length of any dry spells,the amount of rainfall, and the per capita water consumption rate. In most of theAsian countries, the winter months are dry, sometimes for weeks on end, and theannual average rainfall can occur within just a few days. In such circumstances,the storage capacity should be large enough to cover the demands of two to threeweeks. For example, a three person household should have a minimum capacityof 3 (Persons) x 90 (l) x 20 (days) = 5 400 l.

• Rainfall water containers: As an alternative to storage tanks, battery tanks (i.e.,interconnected tanks) made of pottery, ferrocement, or polyethylene may besuitable. The polyethylene tanks are compact but have a large storage capacity(ca. 1 000 to 2 000 l), are easy to clean and have many openings which can befitted with fittings for connecting pipes. In Asia, jars made of earthen materials orferrocement tanks are commonly used. During the 1980s, the use of rainwatercatchment technologies, especially roof catchment systems, expanded rapidly in anumber of regions, including Thailand where more than ten million 2 m3ferrocement rainwater jars were built and many tens of thousands of largerferrocement tanks were constructed between 1991 and 1993. Early problems withthe jar design were quickly addressed by including a metal cover using readilyavailable, standard brass fixtures. The immense success of the jar programmesprings from the fact that the technology met a real need, was affordable, andinvited community participation. The programme also captured the imaginationand support of not only the citizens, but also of government at both local andnational levels as well as community based organizations, small-scale enterprisesand donor agencies. The introduction and rapid promotion of Bamboo reinforcedtanks, however, was less successful because the bamboo was attacked by termites,bacteria and fungus. More than 50 000 tanks were built between 1986 and 1993(mainly in Thailand and Indonesia) before a number started to fail, and, by thelate 1980s, the bamboo reinforced tank design, which had promised to provide anexcellent low-cost alternative to ferrocement tanks, had to be abandoned.

C) Conveyance SystemsConveyance systems are required to transfer the rainwater collected on the rooftops to thestorage tanks. This is usually accomplished by making connections to one or more down-pipes connected to the rooftop gutters. When selecting a conveyance system,consideration should be given to the fact that, when it first starts to rain, dirt and debrisfrom the rooftop and gutters will be washed into the down-pipe. Thus, the relatively cleanwater will only be available some time later in the storm. There are several possiblechoices to selectively collect clean water for the storage tanks. The most common is the

43

down-pipe flap. With this flap it is possible to direct the first flush of water flow throughthe down-pipe, while later rainfall is diverted into a storage tank. When it starts to rain,the flap is left in the closed position, directing water to the down-pipe, and, later, openedwhen relatively clean water can be collected. A great disadvantage of using this type ofconveyance control system is the necessity to observe the runoff quality and manuallyoperate the flap. An alternative approach would be to automate the opening of the flap asdescribed below.

A funnel-shaped insert is integrated into the down-pipe system. Because the upper edgeof the funnel is not in direct contact with the sides of the down-pipe, and a small gapexists between the down-pipe walls and the funnel, water is free to flow both around thefunnel and through the funnel. When it first starts to rain, the volume of water passingdown the pipe is small, and the *dirty* water runs down the walls of the pipe, around thefunnel and is discharged to the ground as is normally the case with rainwater guttering.However, as the rainfall continues, the volume of water increases and *clean* water fillsthe down-pipe. At this higher volume, the funnel collects the clean water and redirects itto a storage tank. The pipes used for the collection of rainwater, wherever possible,should be made of plastic, PVC or other inert substance, as the pH of rainwater can below (acidic) and could cause corrosion, and mobilization of metals, in metal pipes.

In order to safely fill a rainwater storage tank, it is necessary to make sure that excesswater can overflow, and that blockages in the pipes or dirt in the water do not causedamage or contamination of the water supply. The design of the funnel system, with thedrain-pipe being larger than the rainwater tank feed-pipe, helps to ensure that the watersupply is protected by allowing excess water to bypass the storage tank. A modificationof this design is shown in Figure 5, which illustrates a simple overflow/bypass system. Inthis system, it also is possible to fill the tank from a municipal drinking water source, sothat even during a prolonged drought the tank can be kept full. Care should be taken,however, to ensure that rainwater does not enter the drinking water distribution system.

Appendix 12) Alternative Waste Management StrategiesEcological Waste Water Treatment

44

45

DefinitionSewage treatment based on biological processes.

Building Type

new DevelopmentStatus

newtechnology

Building Use

lowrise officelowriseapartmentRetailinstitutional

DescriptionConstructed wetlands harness natural processes to treat domestic wastewater. Theseprocesses include bacterial digestion, composting and water or soil treatment. Wastewaterflows through a series of tanks where flora (algae, aquatic plants, marsh plants) and fauna(worms, snails, crustaceans) break down the wastes and eliminate nutrients. In the finalstep, waste water is treated in a pond or wetland in climate-controlled greenhouses.

The system produces usable nutrients and water, and these can be returned to theecosystem in several ways: the application of compost and nutrient-rich water into the soilfor plant uptake (as in greywater and evapo-transpiration beds); and the application ofdigested biosolids onto farmland. Water resulting from ecological treatment systems canbe re-used, as long as there are no cross-connections with potable water and the effluenthas no pathogens.

It is possible to use the principles of constructed wetlands to improve the operation ofconventional septic beds in two ways. One, the aeration of effluent and/or the ventilationof the infiltration bed increases the activity of aerobic micro-organisms. Two, theinstallation of shallow distribution pipes surrounded by sand so that the wastewater israised into the plant root zone by capillary action.

Benefitsreduces contamination of water supplies and soiltreats water without chemicalsproduces usable by-products

Limitationsrequires a light source for plant growthrequires land for accepting nutrients and water produced

ApplicationConstructed wetlands can be used in buildings (especially those not connected tomunicipal services) or as the sewage treatment plant for small municipalities. Industries

46

may install on-site systems where wastewater production exceeds sewer use bylaws.These systems work best in conjunction with water conservation (for example,composting toilets or low-flush toilets), greywater separation and kitchen composting.

Constructed wetlands systems have the advantages of requiring less land area andproducing no odour when compared with conventional sewage treatment plants.

ExperienceWhile the concepts used in constructed wetlands are decades old, some municipalauthorities may be reluctant to approve these systems. Testing has shown that constructedwetlands produce water of equivalent quality to conventional treatment systems, with theexception of higher phosphorous concentrations.

Canadian applications include The Body Shop headquarters in Toronto, the Boyne RiverEducation Centre, Shelburne Ontario, the Kortright Centre for Conservation in Toronto,the Toronto Waldorf School, the Bear River, Nova Scotia municipal facility, and theYMCA Environmental Learning Centre in Kitchener, Ontario.

CostThe cost of an on-site system is generally more expensive than a municipal sewerhookup, although the benefits may justify the use of constructed wetlands. In locationswhere sewers are not available, costs can range from equivalent to the cost ofconventional treatment to about one-third the cost of sewers and communal treatment.

Appendix 13) Recyclable/Reusable Materials Examples

Methodology

The intention of this report is to elucidate the potentials for integrating green materialsinto the design and construction of future buildings on campus, and specifically the newresidence slated for development. The research pursued by this WATgreen group wasconducted with the mandate of exploring the degree of sustainability of selectedconstruction materials.

This study is exploratory in nature and was conducted with reference to the blueprints forthe new residence on campus. It reviewed a range of potential alternate materials for fourcomponents of the building envelope: the foundation, wall-construction, insulation androofing. The general analytical framework utilized is primarily qualitative in nature.Permutations of the aspects of sustainability discussed in the previous section have beenoperationalized for each of the four components. In addition, cost-effectiveness, the localavailability of products and skilled labour and various technical limitations have beenconsidered. The guiding principle for study is the sustainability of these materials at boththe specific level of the community and in the general terms of the regenerative capacityof the ecosystem.

47

The systems diagram in Fig. 1 maps the approach followed for this assessment anddemonstrates the links between the four building components examined, the institutionalclimate of the university and the precepts of sustainability. It identifies the blueprints forthe construction of the building envelope and the socio-political atmosphere asboundaries for our research. A cursory examination of the socio-political atmospherecontextualizes the evaluation of alternate construction materials by linking the concept ofsustainability and the political attitude of the University of Waterloo to green building.

The process and ideal outcomes diagram identify potential aspects, including the flow ofwastes, the socio-political atmosphere of the University, and other ecological elements,that would be impacted by the use of more sustainable construction materials in thebuilding envelope of the new residence. As this study has aimed to identify materials thatare likely to increase the sustainability of the new residence specifically and the campusin general, these results should be interpreted as being preliminary in nature. Site-specificstudies, life-cycle and other quantitative analyses should therefore be subsequentlyundertaken when feasible or necessary.

The limitations faced during the research of building envelope materials are discussedindividually for each of the components and can be found within the appropriate sections.In general, the scope of this investigation has been restricted to a preliminary qualitativeanalysis due to time constraints and the lack of expertise. Recognizing this, werecommend more detailed study of the materials identified as sustainable within thereport or other materials that conform to the general criteria for sustainability that wehave outlined.

Foundations

In any consideration of which building materials and alternatives can feasibly beintegrated into the foundations of a large-scale development, such as a universityresidence, there are several limitations that must be considered.

In terms of the actual materials that may be used, there are three main limitations. First,because of the large scale and heavy loads that the foundations must support, strength isimperative. Any materials must be consistently strong and able to effectively distributethe weight of the structure. The second major limitation is climate. In areas such asSouthern Ontario, with sub-zero winter conditions, frost heave is a major consideration.For this reason, foundations must be deep enough to support the structure despite anychanges in near-surface volume; shallow foundations will be insufficient unless certaininnovative steps are taken. (These potential steps will be detailed further.) The limitationof climate also influences any decision on insulating foundations. Finally, there is theconsideration of cost. This consideration is reliant on material availability, cost per unit,and building techniques and associated labour. Therefore, despite intentions for entirelygreen building products, reality necessitates recognition of the criteria for feasiblematerials and alternatives (strength, climate, and cost). For these reasons, the onlymaterials that can feasibly be used are concrete and steel. Therefore, the alternatives for

48

minimizing impact lie more in the methods of construction and any realistic structuralchanges that can be made.

Realistic Construction Alternatives

The three main foundation components of concrete, steel, and insulation will beexamined as the only reasonable materials for the construction of a building withlimitations such as the residence, as earlier stated. Important considerations that arisefrom a life cycle viewpoint will be addressed. Then any different techniques, methods,construction, and composition will be analyzed with respect to the aforementioned lifecycle considerations. After discussion of such considerations, a general assessment ofalternatives for the criteria described in the introduction ( green building material criteria)will be used to come up with general recommendations. In these ways, realisticconstruction alternatives for the residence foundations will be examined for feasibleimplementation.

Concrete

Concrete is defined as, a structural material produced by mixing predetermined amountsof Portland cement, aggregates, and water, and allowing this mixture to cure undercontrolled conditions (Allen, 1999). Portland Concrete accounts for about 95% of theconcrete produced in North America (Wilson, 1993). It is the fundamental component ofthe foundation construction, receiving the building loads through walls or posts anddistributes them down and outwards through the footings (Canadian Wood Council,1997). Concrete and cement have ecological advantages which include durability,longevity, heat storage capability, and (in general) chemical inertness (Wilson, 1993).

The life cycle concerns of concrete are as follows. First, there is land and habitat lossfrom mining activities. Furthermore, the quality of both air and water quality suffer fromthe acquisition, transportation, and manufacture. Carbon dioxide emissions are also anegative environmental impact accrued through the production and use of concrete.Similarly, dust and particulate are emitted at most stages of the concrete life-cycle. Bothcarbon dioxide and particulate matter have negative impacts on air quality(Solstice.Crest, 2000). Water pollution is also another concern associated with theproduction of concrete at the production phase. Richard Morris of the National ReadyMix Concrete Association believes that, wash-out water with high pH has seriousenvironmental implications (E. Build, 1993). However, the largest environmental concernwith this building material is the disposal of demolition waste. Concrete accounts for67% of the weight and 53% of the volume of all demolition waste in North America(Solstice.Crest, 2000). Though this is not a consideration in the initial building of theresidence, it is a fact of which the university should be aware in future endeavors and inthe eventual disposal of the residence concrete. Despite these considerations, concrete isstill one of the most green alternatives available.

49

In examination of alternative concrete usage for more sustainable building, three mainoptions will be addressed. First, the innovative technique of ëfoamed concreteí will beanalyzed for environmental benefits and feasibility. Second, the use of fly ash as acomponent of cement will be assessed. Finally, the option of pre-cast concrete systemswill be analyzed for environmental benefits.

Foamed Concrete is also known as Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (AAC). It was inventedin Sweden in 1914 and is just starting to be available in North America, distributed byHebel USA. In concrete, the coarse aggregate is made with lime, water, and finely groundsand (Allen, 1999). If aluminum powder is added then ëfoamed concreteí is created toharden in a mold and then cured in an autoclave (a pressurized steam chamber). Thebenefits of this method are that it has a lesser density, but a higher insulating capacity.Therefore less concrete material is required, reducing mining impacts. As well, the higherinsulating capacity reduces heat and energy loss by creating a more efficient buildingenvelope. Autoclaved Aerated Concrete could potentially be integrated into a portion ofthe foundations. However, there are limiting factors that rule out the possibility that AACcould be the sole concrete used in the foundation. First of all, it has a compressivestrength of only one tenth and that severely restricts its use in a large heavy structure suchas the residence. As well, as new product it has limited availability in Southern Ontario,and is not reasonably priced per unit. For these reasons, ëfoamed concreteí may not befeasible as the entire foundation for the residence. However, for a portion of thefoundation, a smaller portion of the larger building, or a smaller structure, AAC couldpotentially be integrated in the future and should therefore be kept in mind as areasonable alternative. (E. Build, 1996).

Another way to reduce the environmental impacts surrounding concrete use in buildingfoundations is to specify a high ëfly ash contentí (Wilson, 1993). Fly ash is by-product ofthe energy production from coal-fired plants and increasing its proportion in cement isenvironmentally beneficial in two ways. First, it helps in reducing the amount of solidwaste which requires disposal. As well, fly ash in the cement mixture reduced the overallenergy use by changing the consistency of the concrete. Fly ash, increases concretestrength, improves sulfate resistance, decreases permeability, reduced the water ratiorequired, and improves the pumpability and workability of the concrete (Wilson, 1993).Now in the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency requires that allbuildings that receive federal funding contain fly ash and most concrete producers haveaccess to this industrial waste (Wilson, 1993).

Finally, the option of pre-cast concrete systems should be considered as a way to reduceenvironmental impacts. The integrated footer/ foundation wall/ insulation system , asproduced by Superior Walls, Inc., uses a reduced amount of raw materials and therebyreduces demand on natural resources (Wilson, 1993). This system is more clearlyexamined in the section on Wall

Construction.

50

There are alternative methods of both making concrete and building foundations with thisconcrete that have environmental benefits, no matter the structure scale or climate. Theseinclude Autoclaved Aerated Concrete, the increased integration of fly ash into the cementmixture, and the use of pre-cast foundation systems to reduce resource use. Throughconsideration and possible integration of these alternatives, impacts could potentially bereduced.

Steel

As wood resources are becoming limited, steel is increasingly popular with builders. Inthe case of a large-scale building such as the McKenzie-King Residence, steelreinforcement is basically a necessity for overall strength and weight distribution.

The initial life cycle impacts of steel use are similar to those of concrete. These includeland and habitat loss from mining activities, and air and water quality degradation frommaterials acquisition and manufacture (Solstice.Crest, 2000).

However, the largest proportion of steel used nowadays contains a percentage of recycledmaterials. In terms of improving environmental conditions by reducing impacts, this isthe only real recommendation for the use of steel in building foundations; to purchaserecycled steel products. Not only would this reduce industrial and commercial solidwaste, such a decision would also reward the manufacturers of such products.

Insulation and Concrete Construction Systems

New and innovative pre-cast building foundations are becoming increasingly availableand feasible for implementation, as earlier addressed. These new systems can reduce theoverall raw material use, as well as conserve energy through the creation of an efficientbuilding envelope. The two main insulation and concrete alternative construction systemswhich will be examined include ëFrost Protected Shallow Foundationí (FPSF), and ëslab-on-gradeí systems.

A ëFrost Protected Shallow Foundationí (FPSF) is a reasonably new alternative whichmay lack the local know-how for immediate implementation but may also be a potentialconsideration for future undertakings. This foundation technique is often considered apractical alternative to deeper, more costly foundations in cold regions with seasonalground freezing and the potential for frost heave (Anderson, 1999). FPSF has been usedmost extensively in Nordic countries and accounts for the foundations of over one millionhomes built in the last forty years.

In slab-on-grade construction of foundations, the concrete slab is both the foundation andfinished floor surface, and is insulated underneath by rigid polystyrene insulation(www.its-canada.com). A further used of this rigid insulation as a skirt around thebuilding foundations helps to eliminate any potential frost problems, improve drainage,and help further reduce heat loss (www.its-canada.com, 2000). A polyethylene air and

51

water vapor barrier is applied above the insulating layer, as is a three to four inch layer ofsand.

These shallow foundation systems have excellent insulating properties, decreased use ofraw materials for concrete, and comparatively low demands for labour. However, the useof rigid insulation is increased. Also, in soils where frost and drainage is a considerationadditional piles in the centre of the foundation may be required to prevent movement(www.its-canada.com, 2000). This increases the relative land disturbance, although itremains still much less than that of deep foundation systems.

Shallow foundations are structurally sound and are becoming increasingly common incolder climates. There are strength considerations associated with these new techniqueswhich must be addressed by someone with the technical ability to do so, before they canbe feasibly recommended for the building of the new residence.

Conclusions

As discussed above, there are limitations to the sustainability of any foundationconstruction materials used. In other words, there are environmental impacts associatedwith all types of foundations. For these reasons, a primary recommendation is the use ofsecondary materials (fly ash and recycled steel) in the construction of foundations. Thisreduces the overall demand for virgin renewable resources and non-renewable resources,which is an important criteria for any material to be considered green .

Appendix 14) Cogeneration Examples

Cogeneration DefinitionCogeneration, also called combined heat and power, is the simultaneous production ofheat energy and electrical or mechanical power from the same fuel in the same facility.Cogeneration is achieved through the capture and recycle of rejected heat that escapesfrom an existing electricity generation process.

Building Type

NewRetrofit

DevelopmentStatus

Maturetechnology

Building Use

IndustrialCommercialbuildingsInstitutionalbuildingsInstitutional

52

DescriptionCogeneration is a highly efficient means of generating heat and electric power at thesame time from the same source. Traditional coal, oil or natural-gas fired thermalgenerating stations convert only about one-third of the initial energy contained within thefuel into useful electricity. The remainder of the energy is discarded as waste heat.Approximately 15% of Canada's primary energy use is wasted by conversion losses inpower plants. However, with a cogeneration system, it is possible to harness the heatgenerated and use it for process heat (steam) in many industries or as lower temperatureheat suitable for space heating in buildings. Cogeneration can increase fossil fuelefficiency from an average of 40% to over 80%. This increase in efficiency can translateinto lower costs and fewer pollutant emissions than the conventional alternative ofgenerating electricity and heat separately.

Cogeneration also offers a large amount of flexibility as cogeneration equipment can befired by fuels other than natural gas. There are installations in operation that use wood,agricultural waste, peat moss, and a wide variety of other fuels.

Benefitsincreases energy efficiencyreduces energy costsreduces green house gas emissionsstabilizes energy costs

LimitationsSubstantial initial investmentfinancial returns vary according to price of electricity and fuels

ApplicationOriginally, cogeneration systems were designed for buildings with large steady electricalloads. However, recent technology developments have brought a range of much smaller-scale generation systems to the energy market. They include engines, turbines, micro-turbines and fuel cells. These localized systems (also known as 'decentralized','distributed' or 'embedded') can produce electricity in homes, offices and factories. Theconcept of cogeneration can now be applied to power plants of any size from micro-cogeneration units for individual houses to full size grid connected utility generatingstations. They can be as small as a 1 kWe micro-generation plant, or as large as a 500MWe industrial on-site cogeneration system.

ExperienceAlthough cogeneration has been in use for nearly a century, it was in the mid-1980s thatrelatively low natural gas prices made it a widely attractive alternative for new powergeneration. In fact, cogeneration is largely responsible for the dramatic decline of nuclearand hydraulic power plant construction that occurred in the 1980s. Cogeneration accounts

53

for well over half of all new power plant capacity built in North America in the lastdecade.

As one example, the Gerald Pariesien cogeneration facility located in Cornwall, Ontariohas been designed to harness the rejected heat it produces. This rejected heat is then usedto heat the hot water piped through the City's district energy system.

CostThere are two cost factors for cogeneration systems. The first concerns the cost of thecogeneration unit itself in $/kW of output rating as it might be purchased from a supplier.The second cost factor is the total installed cost, which includes such items as:

building and associated soundproofingelectrical interconnectionHeating system interconnectionEngineeringsoft costs including project development, environmental, legal and permitting costs

Both factors are affected by economies of scale. This means that large installations costless on a $/kW basis than smaller projects. An example is given for a 5MW plant.

building and Civil Costs: C$1.7 millioncogeneration Plant: C$5.9 million ($1200/kW)engineering: C$0.9 millionsoft costs: C$0.4 millionas built costs: C$1800/Kw

Very large plants may be in the region of $800/kW as built, and very small plants couldbe in the region of C$3000-$4000/ kW.

54

Appendix 15) Reinforced Grass Paving Systems

Reinforced Grass Paving Systems

55

DefinitionGrass paving systems are an alternative to asphalt that are strong enough to support heavyvehicle loads and yet are water permeable.

Building Type

NewRetrofit

DevelopmentStatus

Maturetechnology

Building Use

Highrise officelowrise officeHighriseapartmentLowriseapartmentRetailfood serviceinstitutionalArena

DescriptionApproximately 60 % to 90% of suburban building sites are paved to accommodate surfaceparking. Asphalt is a fossi- fuel product that retains heat, raises the ambient temperaturearound buildings and thus increases building cooling loads. Asphalt prevents waterpenetration and thus contributes to flash flooding by overloading storm seer systems.Asphalt does not provide any opportunity for community use during the hours thatcommerical buildings are in use.

Grass paving systems developed in earlier years were made of concrete. These systemswere unsuccessful because the roots of grass burned and the plants failed. Modern grasspaving systems are of two types. In one system, open cells of reinforced plastic aredesigned to house the roots of the grass. This open cell system houses and protect the plantwhile allowing the blades of grass to fil- in completely for a "lawn" that hides the supportsystem. The roots stay cool and the grass thrives. Driving on the grass has no effect on theprotected roots, just as moving the blades of grass strengthens and thickens it. In thissystem, turf is pressed into the open cells. If the roots are above the cells, car wheels willspin the grass off the grass pave structure.

A second system has open spacers of plastic fitted with pavers that allow gaps between thepavers for gravel or grass. This rigid spacer system allows for surface drainage between thepavers to replenish groundwater and creates an attractive, durable hard surface ofcobblestone suitable for light to medium loaded parking areas. This system will notaccommodate fire truck loading, nor does it cool the site to reduce the ambient airtemperature. In this system, grass is seeded into sand.

Both types of grass pave installations may be swaled to collect rainwater and direct waterto storm drains or catchment systems. Grass paving with a porous sub-base allowsrainwater to percolate through the soil to the groundwater. A catch basin and undergrounddrain system is not required in these installations.

56

BenefitsReduces surface temperatures around buildingsPermits surface water filtration/drainageeliminates need for a catch basis system

LimitationsLimited use in droughty areassub-base must be permeable and drainreluctance of users to park on grass

ApplicationGrass paving installations can be used in any situation where low to medium use parkingsurfaces are required. The open cell system can also be used to support heavy vehicleloading. Grass paving is appropriate for both drive aisle and parking stall applications.

Grass paving is most successful when the sub-base is designed to suit the soil conditionsand loading requirement while allowing for drainage. Wood blocking or edging is notrequired and may create a dam effect in heavy rain.

Parking stalls may be marked with white lines or buttons that clip into the supportstructure. Concrete curbs may be installed with lines or painted numbers to contain anddesignate stalls.

Installation takes 2-3 months to develop root system from seed so constructioninstallation must be timed for opening. Installation can be ready for immediate useinstantly if turf is installed.

Snow removal is similar to unpaved roads, and the snow removal blade must be lifted 2"to clear grass.

ExperienceGrass Pave is used extensively in Europe. Some applications have been installed inCanada, New Zealand and the USA. Municipalities with high water tables that precludeunderground parking or with high ambient temperatures are best suited to adopt the grasspave systems.

CostGrass Pave products range from C$9.00 to C$12.00 per ft2 based on the quality of theproduct (heavy duty vs. light duty). The sub-base is equal to or less than the sub-baserequired for asphalt. The elimination of a catch basin and drainage system required bynon-porous installations provides a credit against the grass paving installation. Theresultant cost of grass paving over a large area without drains and catch basins is less thanthe cost of asphalt parking.

57

Appendix 16) Involved Public Process

[Attatched]