An Analysis of the University of Kansas’s Current Design Standards

Green Shelters for Green Students: An Analysis of the University of Kansas’s Current Design Standards with Recommendations for Additional Green Building Practices By Michael Draper, Ryan Walsh, Patrick Kelly, Lucas Kirchhoff, Martin Farrell Table of Contents I Introduction A.) Purpose and Goals B.) University Energy Use C.) Materials and Resources II Materials A.) University Background B.) ASHRAE & LEED C.) Other Universities III Results I Introduction A.) Purpose and Goals Our project is to create recommendations for the university’s building and construction standards in order to create more sustainable buildings Buildings constitute a large percent of our university’s energy consumption, so by reducing their energy needs we could significantly lower energy expenses and save the school money This issue can easily be addressed by identifying possible improvements early in the construction process Therefore, we are hoping to add standards and requirements for new campus constructions B.) Energy The use of coal is Kansas’s primary fuel source Coal-fired power plants supply about three-fourths of the Kansas electricity market, and the single-unit Wolf Creek nuclear plant in Burlington supplies almost all of the remainder.1 Westar is the current power plant that supplies 85% of KU’s campus electricity While the reaming 15% comes from KU’s west campus which is produced through a distribution system that is owned and operated by Kansas University.2 Westar has three power plants across Kansas that use coal as their fuel source The power plant KU receives its electricity from is Westar’s Lawrence Power Plant The coal this plant receives is from Arch Coal, Inc based out of Wyoming.3 The use of coal as a fuel source undoubting results in greenhouse gas emissions One 500-MW coal-fired power plant produces approximately million tons/year of carbon dioxide (CO2).4 The Lawrence coal fire power plant produces 770 MW a year According to Cap-KU 52% of the GHG emissions come from purchased electricity as seen in Figure This compared to 44% seen at similar institutions.6 U.S Energy Information Administration Javier Ahumada, Michael Dinkel, Larry Waldron, and Andrew Wilson “Alternative Energy Proposal for the University of Kansas” Westar 2008 Annual Report Coal and Climate Change Facts Westar 2008 Annual Report Cap-KU Figure-1 Greenhouse gas emission percentages of the University of Kansas Breaking down the purchased electricity an estimated 29% is used for lighting another 48% for ventilation, cooling, water heating, and space heating Based on this analysis 77% of purchased electricity accounts for 40.04% of GHG emissions are associated with electrical use in building system 7This is shown in Table Table-1 Electrical use compared to GHG emissions in percentages Cap-KU Based on these alarming statistics, it is crucial for the university to adopted higher building performance standards to lessen or mitigate the environmental impacts of our energy consumption at the university LEED Energy Criteria A review of 60 LEED buildings compared to conventional buildings found that on average green buildings were 25-30% more energy efficient, lower electricity peak consumption, and were more likely to be able to generate renewable energy on site.8 Depending on the level of certification the energy efficiency level changes this is seen in figure On average, green buildings are 28% more efficient than conventional buildings and generate 2% of their power on-site from photovoltaices (PV) (See Figure 2.) The financial benefits of 30% reduced consumption at an electricity price of $0.08/kWh are about $0.30/ft2/yr, with a 20-year NPV of over $5/ft, equal to or more than the average additional cost associated with building green.9 C.) Materials and Resources The materials and resources used in constructing new buildings are of major importance when considering energy efficient, sustainable, and green building practices Regional materials, Green Building Costs and Financial Benefits Green Building Costs and Financial Benefits stronger materials, fewer materials, and a reuse of materials all should be emphasized in green building design and construction Many of our new buildings built in our community use materials that must be harvested, extracted, or produced a great distance away from the University of Kansas In a globalized economy, it is not uncommon to have lumber and other building materials shipped abroad We encourage the use of locally collected and transported materials that save green house gas emissions generated in transportation, while also providing a boost to our local economy Our oldest buildings on campus, for instance, are made of limestone Limestone is one of the most abundant resources in our area, and is much stronger than wood In fact, the Great Pyramids of Giza were built mostly of low-grade limestone for the core and fine white limestone as the outer casing 10In addition to using local materials, the University of Kansas sits in the central part of the nation, allowing a comfortable radius for materials to be shipped from halfway across the country in any direction.11 If local and regional materials within a 500 mile radius cannot be used, as required by LEED’s Material and Resources category12, then there is no reason why nationally domestic materials cannot at least be obtained and used for construction in new buildings When looking at the maps below, we can conclude that because of the limited forest resources in our immediate region, local harvested wood is not an option However, there is some urban wood waste that can be used in nearby Johnson County, Wichita, and Kansas City, MO.13 10 Winston, Alan “Building Materials of the Pyramids Builders” Tour Egypt., 2010 Scott McVey, April 2010 12 Everblue Energy “Materials and Resources” USBGC LEED Study Guide and PowerPoint Slides 2009 11 13 NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) “Biomass Resources of the United States” The quality of our materials is very important in considering green building Stronger, high quality materials may cost more money up front, but they are likely to last much longer than the cheaper, mass-produced materials many American designers and builders decide upon We believe that if we build buildings to last hundreds of years, rather than 50 years, more money will be saved in the long term The new buildings will be more resistant to high winds, warping, erosion, and other weather-related events that may increase with climate change Regardless of climate change and its effects, cheaper materials wear out faster and must be replaced more frequently The poor materials and design used to build much of our infrastructure during the Cold War era is already showing signs of failure The Minnesota bridge collapse is a prime example of a relatively young bridge failing because of poor design and materials.14 Using fewer materials may very well offset much of the cost that comes from using stronger materials Many of the extra materials used in the interior of our buildings and in our ceilings are unnecessary Often times these materials are used to fulfill a desire for an aesthetic interior design and may or may not be attractive to its occupants Using more materials not only requires greater pressure for extraction, but it also increases the amount of GHG emissions via transportation, continually rising the cost of the material both monetarily and environmentally Carpeting is one particular material that can be reduced or eliminated The glue and toxic fumes from installation are known to have a significant, negative health effect on the indoor air quality and on those who are installing it.15 By eliminating this material the university can decrease potential health lawsuits that could rise from users and installers The reuse and recycling of materials from older buildings should also be applied whenever possible It is extremely wasteful to deconstruct a building and send the remains to a landfill while buying new supplies to use in the construction of a new building We strongly encourage using older materials in the new construction of a building if at all possible This will save the unnecessary transportation pollution and cost of new materials, allowing the designers and builders to spend more money on reusing materials or at least recycling them for the use of another builder or company.16 Even waste products can be used as a strong building material Cenocell, for instance, is made from left over coal ash and can be used to replace concrete It can withstand pressures of up to 7,000 pounds per cubic inch.17 This could count as both a reuse of materials, use of stronger materials, and use of a local material The nearby Westar coal power 14 CNN “NTSB: Design flaw led to Minnesota bridge collapse” Scott McVey April 2010 16 Scott McVey April 2010 17 Physorg.com “Strong, lightweight green material could replace concrete, but contains no cement” 25 November 2008 15 plant may be an environmental blight in many ways, but we could take advantage of its waste, coal ash, as a strong building material to substitute for concrete III Materials A.) University Building Process Design and Construction Management starts out the process of a building project by creating a building program, a high level basic description of what the University wants including the function of the building, how it will be used, number of classrooms and so on Tom Warchter, current Assistant Director of Planning & Programming, is responsible for working with the department which the building will serve in order to write the program He listens to their needs pertaining to a future building, consults the university Master Plan and then writes a program The building program is thus, mostly a description of functions the building users expect Not all building programs are the same but each will included very brief descriptions of building requirements, site requirements, a description of building spaces, the project budget and schedule, funding, operation and maintenance, design for energy conservation, design standards and code requirements This is by no means a total report of mandatory elements (that will be given later); it is an introduction to the projects needs For the most part, the program does not exceed fifteen pages Figure shows two pages from the program created from a current building project at Edwards Campus The highlighted section is the “Design for Energy Conservation” While it is does not give specific instruction, it does rise the point that energy conservation is an aspect of design which KU will seek Figure It is vital for additional thought of sustainability to also be included in the initial program of the project A section similar to “Design for Energy Conservation” ought to be added into each project’s program to insure attempts for sustainable design that does not harm, pollute or disrupt the environment in a major way Below is a sample of what the section would potentially cover “Design for Sustainability The University of Kansas is committed to designing and constructing design for environment facilities by means of implementing aspects of environmentally-friendly design to create a sustainable structure Firms will take into consideration the processing and manufacturing of building products, materials innovation and to a more environmentally sustainable future A committee was created that included architects, environmentalists, building owners, real-estate agents, lawyers and other industry representatives This committee took the many factors within each profession into account and soon created a system to both define and measure green buildings This system known as LEED—for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design—was launched in 1998 and has been updated almost annually ever since These updates have evolved LEED from a simple rating system for existing buildings into many different rating systems throughout the building industry within many different sectors and scopes The specific LEED rating system we are interested in for this project, however, is LEED for New Construction 21 According to USGBC, all LEED rating systems are “voluntary, consensus-based, and market driven….based on existing and proven technology, they evaluate environmental performance from a whole building perspective over a building’s lifecycle, providing a definitive standard for what constitutes a green building in design, construction, and operation.” 22 The LEED rating system for New Construction is divided into separate environmental categories These include: Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere, Materials and Resources, and Indoor Environmental Quality In addition to this a 6th category, Innovation in Design, is included to address other categories not listed in the main categories Within each category, there are specific construction practices, building design measures, and building operation practices that are worth a certain amount of points Each individual category has its own final point value which depends on the sustainable measures and practices currently available 23 The LEED for New Construction 2009 rating system has 100 base points possible with 10 bonus points allotted for points in Innovation in Design and regional bonus points that take local factors into account Each credit is worth at least one point without fractions and are always positive numbers Every project that wishes to utilize the LEED rating system have to use the exact same scorecard The point system is weighted by the potential positive environmental impacts and benefits for humans for each individual credit These weights are defined by the 21 U.S Green Building Council “LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Design and Construction.” 2009 22 U.S Green Building Council “LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Design and Construction.” 2009 23 U.S Green Building Council “LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Design and Construction.” 2009 U.S Environmental Protection Agency’s TRACI environmental impact categories 24 This system takes into account the human or environmental “effect on the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the building, such as greenhouse gas emissions, fossil fuel use, toxins and carcinogens, air and water pollutants, indoor environmental conditions.” 25 The most important aspect to know about LEED is that it is a certification that aims to show how sustainable a building is constructed and operated LEED for New Construction is divided, based on the amount of points a building obtains, into certifications These include: Certified 40-49 points, Silver 50-59 points, Gold 60-79 points, and Platinum 80 and above If a building achieves one of these ratings, a formal letter of certification is obtained for that building 26 ASHRAE The environmental impact of building design, construction and operations is enormous; it is responsible for 39% or CO2 emissions, 40% energy consumption, 13% water consumption and 15% of GDP per year (ASHRAE Journal) Due to rising costs for energy, the university’s primary concern for new building constructions is concentrated on energy There for, the term “sustainable” in respect to environmental preservation is not on the university’s radar, according to Scott McVey, university energy conservationist and utility manager If the university would like to grow with the emerging green building movement and lower energy use, establishing a much-needed baseline of building regulations and standards which are useable and enforceable will be vital Standards such as these have already been created by various firms, but the most respected guidelines are written by ASHRAE The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, ASHRAE, was founded in 1894 with the mission of “advancing heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration to serve humanity and promote a sustainable world through research, standards writing, publishing and continuing education” (website) This society is organized into Regions, Chapters and Student Branches which share knowledge and findings 24 U.S Green Building Council “LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Design and Construction.” 2009 25 U.S Green Building Council “LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Design and Construction.” 2009 26 U.S Green Building Council “LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Design and Construction.” 2009 with on another Primarily, ASHRAE publishes resources used for referencing when design, purchasing and installing energy systems in a buildings Often times, the ASHRAE standards and guidelines relating to HVAC systems are immersed into state and agency building codes creating mandatory standards which the building must adhere to The developers of ASHRAE work closely with the International Code Council (ICC), the US Green Building Council (USGB) (developers of LEED) and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IES) to develop their standards LEED differs greatly from building standards and codes LEED is a voluntary certification system, acting as third-party verification that a building or community was designed and built using strategies to improve performance of all metrics; energy savings, water efficiency, CO2 emissions reductions, improved indoor environmental quality and stewardship of resources and sensitivity to their impacts (www.usgbc.org) It would be false to say “we would like to build to LEED standards…” because the standards not exist Instead, following standards or strict codes prioritizing green building, such as ASHRAE, would allow one to become LEED certified On a monthly basis, ASHRAE publishes a journal to continually educate their members and the public about new ideas, problems or technologies possible for energy saving design systems Most importantly, the society creates standards that are periodically reviewed, revised and published resulting in up to date standards that are achievable with current technologies Below is a graph which shows how annual revisions have resulted in continual energy savings Therefore it is vital that KU continually adopts the newest publication of standard 90.1 ASHRAE provides building standards which can be adopted as codes These guidelines focus on minimizing energy use Constructing a building to code is the worst building one can make; it meets the bare requirements for energy efficiency to be economically feasible In order to reach any goals for greater efficiency or lessening the environmental footprint, a building must obtain goals or standards higher than minimal building codes ASHRAE provides these guidelines to insure high performance buildings ASHRAE Standards • Standard 62.1 (2007) sets the baseline for indoor air quality standards • Standard 90.1 (2007) provides standards for minimum energy-efficient for new buildings & systems and new portions of buildings It includes criteria for determining compliance with the standard and provisions that apply to the building envelope (heating and cooling systems), water heating, electric power distribution, electric motors and belt drives and lighting 90.1 is LEED’s baseline for energy efficiency, in order to gain LEED points a building must go beyond this criteria • Standard 189.1 (2009) is a set of technically rigorous requirements, which covers criteria including water use efficiency, indoor environmental quality, energy efficiency, materials and resource use, and the building’s impact on its site and its community Standard 189.1 was written by experts representing all areas of the building industry who contributed tens of thousands of man hours Developed in a little over three years, the standard underwent four public reviews in which some 2,500 comments were received • On the forefront is the IGCC, International Green Construction Code, launched on March 11, 2010 by the International Cod Council (ICC), ASHRAE, U.S Green Building Council (USGBC) and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IES) This code broadens and strengthens building codes to accelerate high performance green building construction in the country It addresses site development and land use, material resource conservation and efficiency, energy conservation/efficiency/atmospheric quality, water resource, indoor environment quality, operating/maintenance, sustainability measures and more The code can be integrated with existing codes as an overlay, or incorporated as the comprehensive green building code C.) Other Universities In order to effectively weigh the progress that KU has made in improving building and construction efficiency and sustainability, eight other Universities were chosen, and the policies and practices were analyzed and compared For the best results that closely coincide with KU, similar campus size was necessary, as most of the universities are part of the Big 12 Additionally, schools which have an environment similar to the University of Kansas (i.e temperature and humidity) were also considered, and if a university was thought to be too dissimilar, it was omitted from the comparison Individual areas of interest when assessing a school’s building and construction included items such as whether or not there is a formal green building policy, LEED Certification and Energy-Star Labeled, energy efficient technologies, and diversion of waste from landfills University of Kansas The University of Kansas has several green policies and practices instilled, but as one will see, there is much room for improvement upon these current procedures One recent installation is the new formal green building policy that KU has adopted This would be the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 Energy Efficient Design of New Buildings (Except Low Rise Residential buildings) as a minimum guideline It is also expected that new buildings must improve 30% upon these standards in the future KU does not have any LEED-certified buildings on campus nor they plan to in the near future, so this may be one area of concern They do, however, use several energy efficient technologies such as lighting retrofits (T8 bulbs in 82% of the buildings) and several other mechanical retrofits The water saving practices comprise of process water ECM’s and replacement of bathroom sinks, showers, and toilets (Flushometer Retrofit) The specific percentage of the institution’s non-hazardous construction and demolition waste diverted from landfills is unavailable, but it is noted that cardboard packaging, asphalt, and concrete were ultimately diverted Overall, the University of Kansas received a grade of a “D” on their green building practices (grade is based on a normal 4.0 scale, “Green Report Card”) Below are brief assessments of a few comparable schools, with a focus on only the most important aspects of that school’s green building policy and practice University of Missouri The University of Missouri has formal green building policies which include renovation of campus buildings (thirty-four campus buildings have been identified for renovation); while adding no significant operating cost (minimum increase) It has plans for future buildings to be cognizant of sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources, and indoor environmental quality It was noted that the university would not strive to seek certification through the USGBC (LEED process), but that the building designs would achieve an equivalent; in special cases, LEED certification may be a possibility if the budget is in line Two buildings on campus are Energy Star labeled (totaling 131,703 sq ft.), and HVAC systems have been controlled in 80% of campus buildings, as well as LED replacements and daylight sensors Low flow design reduces water use and all build renovations have water conservation fixtures Green Report Card Score: “C” University of Iowa The University of Iowa’s formal green building policy includes a plan that all new buildings and major renovations will meet or exceed the U.S Green Building Council’s guidelines for silver level LEED certification No buildings currently are LEED-certified, but seven buildings in the process of design, construction, or renovation are scheduled to at least meet LEED-Silver certification Aside from that piece of information, not much else is stated about the current situation on campus; Green Report Card Score: “C” University of Nebraska The University of Nebraska has one LEED certified building on campus (38,315 sq ft.), and nine buildings which meet LEED criteria but are not certified (848,974 sq ft.) The number of buildings that meet LEED-EB renovation and retrofit criteria but are not certified totals twelve (1,322,995 sq ft.), so although they are not certified, they still meet the standards by which LEED is based upon Some schools decide that it is not necessary to have the LEED certification in order to be just as energy friendly, and this does not negate their progress towards becoming green Also, LED and T8s are used to reduce overall energy consumption, and closed loop water systems reduce total annual water consumption by 1,280 acre feet annually The final Green Report Card Score: “B” In addition, 70% of the construction and demolition waste produced is diverted from landfills Kansas State University Kansas State University received an “F” for their green building score, and it is apparent because they have no formal policy regarding green building construction and design The only real data on their green building efforts says that T8 bulbs replaced the old T12s, and old AC units were being replaced The student union has motion sensor lighting in all the bathrooms, but that seems to be a standard in most schools What KSU needs is some formal policy to force these changes to come about If there is no policy, there will be little incentive and push to meet standards and reach goals University of Colorado The only school to receive an “A” for their green building assessment is the University of Colorado, Boulder Their formal green building policy is that all new buildings and renovations must meet LEED gold standards, and plan to upgrade to what is called a “LEED Gold-plus” standard (LEED Gold + 40% over ASHRAE 90.1 in E&A) They currently have five LEED certified buildings on campus (one silver and four gold), which combined comprise of about 800,000 square feet Eleven other buildings meet the criteria but are not yet certified (1,011,959 sq ft Gold-level) Some of these may even meet LEED-platinum but it is too early to tell About 75% of construction and demolition waste is diverted and normal energy and water saving techniques are used This was the best model school for what is possible at other universities, and they are a prime example of a school’s ability to meet goals and set high standards Oklahoma State University Oklahoma State’s formal policy states that they will reach the highest level of certification possible, meet Energy Star designation and adopted the Oklahoma HB3394 High Performance Green Building policy This prefers the highest standard available, focusing on achievable goals with realistic criteria Ten buildings are currently Energy Star labeled, combining a total of 802,453 sq ft., and energy saving technology incorporates meeting energy star while exceeding ASHRAE energy standards with It should be noted that not many water conservation techniques are in practice yet, and 0% of waste is diverted from landfills, however a goal of 50% waste diversion is set for all future major new construction and renovation projects Iowa State University Iowa State University, like CU, set goals for all new and major projects to be LEED certified at the Gold level This formal policy gets ISU a score of a “B”, and though only one building is currently LEED certified, three meet LEED criteria and all new construction will become LEED-gold certified In addition, LED lamps are installed all over campus, and various water saving technologies are in place They divert about 85% of their waste from landfills, and relative to the other schools compared in this study, are relatively high on the scale University of Oklahoma The last school observed is the University of Oklahoma Like Kansas State University, they have no formal policy in place, but apparently have declared intent and are trying to make progress to a formal one This led them to receive a “D” on their report card for building policy design and construction, and these numbers are surely due to their lack of policy Also, most of the numbers that each category looked at were missing or unavailable If the university would monitor their levels and energy, that is one of the first steps in developing a policy To simply say that a policy is in the process of being investigated means that this school, along with KSU, is behind relative to most of the other schools investigated In summary, KU scores relatively low in the area of green building standards and practices Though the university has adopted a new formal green building policy, this is but the first step and improvement is always a possibility Simply put, the schools that set the highest standards (while they may have more adequate sources of money allocated to the process) are the ones that receive the highest marks The University of Colorado and Iowa State University are prime examples of making sure future projects are as environmentally safe and sustainable as possible, and they both show that they can set the bar by making all new major projects not only to LEED standards, but going above and beyond and announcing that LEED-Gold certified buildings will be customary This is a pleasant notion to think that while some universities of equal size have no policy whatsoever instilled, others are looking to the future and paving the way for these types of standards to be expected and routine As one may observe, the two lowest grades given to the schools in analysis were those who had no formal policy and little to no data regarding environmental factors of building construction and operation The University of Kansas is on its way towards raising the bar of building standards, however, KU must observe how high that bar has already been set by several schools Whatever policies and practices are put into place, the university must continually push forward if we want to be viewed as a leader and an ever-greening university.27 27 Greenreport.com Figure 2: University Sustainability at Nine Universities (grades are based on a 4.0 scale) Case Studies Two case studies that implemented ASHRAE 90.1 + 30% energy efficiency were conducted in similar zones (meaning that they had comparable environments to KU - zone 4) were Knightdale High School in North Carolina, and Third Creek Elementary, also in NC Respectively, the Knightdale project cost a total of $26.5 million (281,000 sq ft.) and Third Creek cost $8.7 million (92,000 sq ft.), but the cost of the two schools was $95/ft sq for both Similarities in the projects include day-lighting in the main entry, commons and media center, south facing classrooms to control direct sunlight and reduce solar heat gain, and heated/cooled with a four pipe chilled and hot water system Energy demand was lowered through energy efficient equipment and design, and extensive day-lighting Third Creek Elementary consolidated and replaced two aging schools, and was the first K-12 school to earn a LEED v2.0 Gold Certification from the USGBC Other light energy saving techniques include dimmable lighting, building orientation, skylights and exterior shading and exterior parking lot lighting HVAC equipment, condensed boilers, and natural ventilation also provided the school with additional savings, allowing the Knightdale High School to currently operate at 54.4kBtu per square foot Third Creek Elementary employs lighting control (T8’s and occupancy sensors), HVAC condensed boilers, a cooling tower, and energy recovery ventilators, in addition to using Energy Star computers, totaling an energy use of a 59.8kBtu/ft sq-yr Energy modeling also shows a reduction in annual energy costs of 25% over ASHRAE 90.1 in 1999, and each year since has had an energy reduction, bringing a 33% decline in 2005.28 III Results Below is a table of our recommendations for implementing sustainable design and green building practices Recommendation Description Cost Benefit Green Building Specialist An architect/engineer specialized in green design and systems $65,000-80,000 annually Increases environmental design and systems lowering energy costs and carbon footprint Green Building Guide To be used during schematic design phase; a simple document regarding questions to ask and issues to address with respect to the building and the environment Task for DCM Increases consideration of sustainable design Use alternative cement Cenocell (made from coal ash waste) and permeable concrete should be adopted as a primary building material Material- $50/cubic yard Permeable surfaces alleviate storm-water runoff, increase drainage and reuse material Both have high strength and are light weight Continually renew ASHRAE Standards Renew university standards parallel to updated ASHRAE publications $119 every years Progresses university standards with available technology and knowledge Occupancy Sensors Electronic sensors controlling lights and/or climate control of a given space $20-200 each Eliminates energy waste within individual rooms Individual Building Energy Evidence Show building users the energy usage and cost $0 Influence energy conservation mentality Added section to Building Program "Design for Sustainability" $0 Early ideology for sustainable design 28 “Advanced Energy Design Guide for K-12 School Buildings; Achieving 30% Energy Savings Toward a Net Zero Energy Building” Copyright 2008 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc Monitor building Continue to monitor building systems every years after construction to insure it is performing to standards Student work Assurance that the building is meeting the performance requirements it was intended to meet Below are mandatory sections of the International Green Construction Code that we suggest the University of Kansas adopt as building standards Mandatory Standards to be added Material and Waste Management Below is a list of sections from the International Green Construction Code Section 502: Construction material and waste management plan, post construction waste recycling, storage of lamps, batteries and electronics Material Selection Section 503: Material selection and properties, material selection, environmental stewardship Building Electrical Power and Lighting Systems Section 609: Interior light reduction controls, exterior light reduction, exterior lighting and signage signage shutoff, automatic daylight controls, plug load controls, transformer efficiency, voltage drop in feeders, voltage drop in branch circuits, exterior lighting, verification of lamps and ballasts HVAC Systems Section 803: Construction phase requirements (Duct openings, indoor air quality, ductless system or filter), isolation of pollutant sources, ductless system and filters Day-lighting Section 808: Day-lighting of building spaces, side-lighting, top-lighting, daylight simulation Bibliography Books/Magazines/other W Corman, J Long, J Modig, D Riat, and J Louis 2001 Design and Construction Standards University Press of Kansas University Department of Design and Construction Management (PDF) http://www.dcm.ku.edu/standards/design/files/KU-DesignStandards.pdf USGBC 2009 LEED New construction and major renovations U.S Green Building Council Inc U.S Green Building Council 2005 LEED-NC for new Construction Reference Guide ASHRAE Journal, March 2010, Vol 52, No “Climate Action Plan for KU” “International Green Construction Code; public version 1.0” The American Institute of Architects Copyright 2010 International Code Council, inc Publication: March 2010 “Advanced Energy Design Guide for K-12 School Buildings; Achieving 30% Energy Savings Toward a Net Zero Energy Building” Copyright 2008 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc Javier Ahumada, Michael Dinkel, Larry Waldron, and Andrew Wilson “Alternative Energy Proposal for the University of Kansas” (2007) U.S Green Building Council “LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Design and Construction.” 2009 Everblue Energy “Materials and Resources” USBGC LEED Study Guide and PowerPoint Slides 2009 Websites National Institute of Building Science; Whole Building Design Guide http://www.wbdg.org/design/index.php Accessed February 10, 2010 Passive Solar Design http://passivesolar.sustainablesources.com/#Define Accessed March 10, 2010 Green Associate Training http://www.everblueenergy.com/ Attended February 16, 18, 23, 25, 2010 US Green Building council (website) http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=124 Accessed: March 4th, 2010 LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations Rating System (PDF) http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=5546 Accessed: April 19th, 2010 National Institute of Building Science; Whole Building Design Guide http://www.wbdg.org/design/index.php Accessed: April 25th, 2010 Hartford's St Paul Travelers Campus Achieves Energy Star Designation http://thesop.org/story/press_releases/2006/10/07/hartfords-st-paul-travelers-campus-achievesenergy-star-designation.php Accessed: March 10th, 2010 The College Sustainability Report Card http://www.greenreportcard.org Accessed: March 16th, 2010 Energy Star Building Design Profile: Thornburg Campus http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=new_bldg_design.project_thornburg Accessed: March 20th, 2010 NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) “Biomass Resources of the United States” http://www.nrel.gov/ Accessed: April 13th, 2010 Physorg.com “Strong, lightweight green material could replace concrete, but contains no cement” 25 November 2008 http://www.physorg.com/news146851488.html Accessed: April 6th, 2010 Winston, Alan “Building Materials of the Pyramids Builders” Tour Egypt http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/material.htm 2010 Accessed: April 24th, 2010 CNN “NTSB: Design flaw led to Minnesota bridge collapse” CNN.com/US http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/14/bridge.collapse/index.html 2008 Accessed: March 23th, 2010 Westar 2008 Annual Report, http://phx.corporateir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MzMwODgyfENoaWxkSUQ9 MzEyODEwfFR5cGU9MQ==&t=1 Accessed: April 24th, 2010 Coal and Climate Change Facts, http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warmingbasics/coalfacts.cfm Accessed: April 20th, 2010 U.S Energy Information Administration, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=KS Accessed: April 8th, 2010 Interviews Scott McVey, Energy Conservation and Utility Manager, April and May 1, 2010 Jeff Severin, Director of Center for Sustainability, April 7, 2010 Wayne Kirchhoff, Landscape Architect and LEED certified, February 10, 2010 ... the Green Building Specialist and project financer Reference the State of Vermont’s “High Performance Design Guide” for an example University Current Standards In regards to energy use, the university? ??s... Books/Magazines/other W Corman, J Long, J Modig, D Riat, and J Louis 2001 Design and Construction Standards University Press of Kansas University Department of Design and Construction Management (PDF) http://www.dcm.ku.edu /standards /design/ files/KU-DesignStandards.pdf... Code that we suggest the University of Kansas adopt as building standards Mandatory Standards to be added Material and Waste Management Below is a list of sections from the International Green