Sustainable Building....... Waste Reduction

Of the 20,000 landfills located within the United States, more than 15,000 have reached
capacity and closed.9 Many more are following this pattern each year. Construction-related
waste constitutes more than 25 percent of landfill content and equals total municipal
garbage waste generated in the United States.1 0 As a result of this volume of waste, an
increasing number of landfills will not permit, or are charging extra for, the dumping of
construction-related waste. In response, recycling of such debris is increasing at the job
site. Materials such as gypsum, glass, carpet, aluminum, steel, brick, and disassembled
building components can be reused, or, if that is not feasible, recycled.

In addition to construction-waste recycling, the building industry is beginning to
achieve significant waste reductions through more building reuse and adaptation, as
opposed to demolition. In past decades, the trend has been to raze a building at the end
of its first life (assumed to be the “useful” life) and replace it with a new building. With
ingenuity, older structures can be successfully renovated into cost-effective and efficient
“new” structures. Adaptive reuse of older structures can result in financial savings to
both sellers and purchasers. One example is the National Audubon Society headquarters
building in New York, the product of a 1993 project that recycled a 100-year-old eight story
building. Conservation of the building’s shell and floors saved approximately 300
tons of steel, 9,000 tons of masonry, and 560 tons of concrete. Audubon estimates a savings
of approximately $8 million associated with restoration instead of demolition and
new construction

Sustainable building.....Water Efficiency

Water conservation and efficiency programs have begun to
lead to substantial decreases in the use of water within buildings.
Water-efficient appliances and fixtures, behavioral
changes, and changes in irrigation methods can reduce consumption
by up to 30 percent or more.7 Investment in such
measures can yield payback in one to three years. Some water
utilities offer fixture rebates and other incentives, as well as
complimentary water surveys, which can lead to even higher
returns.
As Figure 1 reveals, for a typical 100,000-square-foot office building, a 30 percent reduction
in water usage through the installation of efficiency measures can result in annual
savings of $4,393. The payback period is 2.5 years on the installed conservation and efficiency
measures. In addition to providing a 40 percent return on investment, the measures
result in annual conservation of 975,000 gallons of water.
As demand on water increases with urban growth, the economic impact of water conservation
and efficiency will increase proportionately. Water efficiency not only can lead to
substantial water savings, as shown in the above example, it also can reduce the requirement
for expansion of water treatment facilities. Non-residential water customers
account for a small percentage of the total number of water customers, but use approximately
35 percent or more of the total water.8 More information on water conservation
programs and incentives can be obtained from your local water utility, or by calling
Water Wiser, a national water-efficiency clearinghouse of the American Water Works
Association and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, at 800/559-9855.

WATER EFFICIENCY
in a Typical 100,000 sq. ft. Office Building
Water Usage
Number of Building Occupants 650
Water Use per Occupant per Day 20
Total Annual Building Water Use (gallons) 3,250,000
Total Annual Building Water Use (HCF*) 4,345
Water Cost
Water Cost per HCF $1.44
Sewer Cost per HCF $1.93
Total (water + sewer) Cost per HCF $3.37
Total (water + sewer) Annual Cost $14,643
Savings
Initial Cost of Water Measures** $10,983
Annual Water Conservation, at 30% Reduction (HCF) 1,304
Annual Water + Sewer Savings (1,304 HCF at $3.37) $4,394
Payback Period 2.5 years
*One hundred cubic feet (HCF) = 748 gallons
** Measures include efficient, low-flow appliances and fixtures
as well as control sensors.
Source: Figures based on communicat ions with Water
Department specialists in San Diego, Phoenix, and Sacramento.

Sustainable building ........Energy Efficiency

Approximately 50 percent of the energy use in buildings is devoted to producing an artificial
indoor climate through heating, cooling, ventilation, and lighting.4 A typical building’s
energy bill constitutes approximately 25 percent of the building’s total operating
costs. Estimates indicate that climate-sensitive design using available technologies could
cut heating and cooling energy consumption by 60 percent and lighting energy requirements
by at least 50 percent in U.S. buildings.5

Returns on investment for energy-efficiency measures can be
higher than rates of return on conventional and even high yielding
investments. Participants in the Green Lights program
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
have enjoyed annual rates of return of over 30 percent for
lighting retrofits. When participants complete all program related
improvements, Green Lights could save over 65 million
kilowatts of electricity, reducing the nation’s electric bill
by $16 billion annually.6
If the United States continues to retrofit its existing building
stock into energy-efficient structures and upgrade building
codes to require high energy efficiency in new buildings, it
will be able to greatly reduce the demand for energy resources.
This reduction, in turn, will lessen air pollution, contributions
to global warming, and dependency on fossil fuels.

The Economics of Green Buildings

Few realize that construction, including new construction and building renovation,
constitutes the nation’s largest manufacturing activity.1 Over 70 percent of this effort is
focused on residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional buildings; the remaining
30 percent on public works. Construction contributes $800 billion to the economy, or 13
percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and provides nearly 10 million professional
and trade jobs. More than 50 percent of the nation’s reproducible wealth is invested in
constructed facilities.2 Because of the building industry’s significant impact on the
national economy, even modest changes that promote resource efficiency in building
construction and operations can make major contributions to economic prosperity and
environmental improvement.
Several parties—including owners, tenants, and the general public—bear the cost of
building construction. The main direct cost expenditures fall within the categories of
building construction, renovation, operation, and building-related infrastructure.
Indirect cost expenditures stem from building-related occupant health and productivity
problems as well as external costs such as air and water pollution, waste generation, and
habitat destruction.
A building’s “life” spans its planning; its design, construction and operation; and its ultimate
reuse or demolition. Often, the entity responsible for design, construction, and
initial financing of a building is different from those operating the building, meeting its
operational expenses, and paying employees’ salaries and benefits. However, the decisions
made at the first phase of building design and construction can significantly affect
the costs and efficiencies of later phases.
Viewed over a 30-year period, initial building costs account for approximately just
two percent of the total, while operations and maintenance costs equal six percent,
and personnel costs equal 92 percent.3 Recent studies have shown that green building
measures taken during construction or renovation can result in significant building
o p e rational savings, as well as increases in employee productivity. Therefore, building related
costs are best revealed and understood when they are analyzed over the life
span of a building