Showing posts with label EBOM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EBOM. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Planning for, and profiting by, pollution prevention

My last post dealt  briefly with the synergy between LEED and various ISO standards.  I thought that it might be useful if I delved deeper into creating an Environmental Management System (EMS).  An EMS is the central provision of ISO 14001.  It is a system to address environmental matters in a strategic fashion that follows the classic system for continual improvement pioneered by Quality Management Systems.  This is the PDCA or Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle or Deming cycle. 



Why would I do this?

Why should architects and designers be interested in this? Anyone involved the operation of building and the activities that take place within the building should be concerned about its environmental impact and related costs.  Architects, at the design phase, should be cognizant that the structure may benefit from having an EMS in place and this should be part of an integrated design process.  As this is largely a document and data driven endeavor, it is better to secure this vital information as early as possible. This is even more apropos for folks seeking LEED EBOM.  Why wouldn't you consider a building that is built in the best possible manner to also be operated and maintained to a similar high standard,and also, to have same high standards for the functions that occur within the structure. 

There are several convincing  business reasons for creating an EMS, reasons beyond just doing the right thing. These include market demands, regulatory compliance, demonstrating corporate core values, public perception, and of course, marketing.  I find that the  most compelling argument, from an environmentalist perspective and a business perspective is that identifying, controlling, and reducing an environmental footprint reaps financial as well as environmental benefits.  These include reduced costs, reduced overhead, more efficient processes, improved employee performance, reduced risk, and ensuring regulatory compliance. In some cases, regulatory agencies will provide incentives for adopting an EMS such as reduced frequency of inspections, technical assistance, and even modified regulatory requirements.  Also, the emergency preparation element of an EMS helps minimize threats to human and environmental health, as well as, minimize costs associated with mitigation and remediation.  

These benefits are cumulative and directly proportional to pollution prevention milestones. These are outlined in the white paper "Sustainability Nears a Tipping Point" by the MIT Sloan Management Review.  This paper shares that companies that were early adopters of rigorous sustainability programs  have now begun to harvest the benefits as a competitive advantage.  Furthermore many executives who embraced sustainability initiatives now consider the value of their programs not just in terms of corporate goodwill and theoretical costs avoided but as a profit center in and of themselves. One caveat, these benefits  are realized over time. According to the above referenced study, organizations that have less than 2 years of experience with a sustainability program are 50% less likely to report a profit from those activities than those with 12 or more years invested in their sustainability programs. An EMS can benefit any organization that is willing to commit to the process, regardless of size or business.  The range of entities that operate under an EMS include manufactures, office buildings, laboratories, small businesses, golf courses, and, athletic facilities. In short, any business that generates any environmental impact can have an EMS. If that impact represents waste or risk, then there is a compelling business interest. 


Step by Step

Obviously, a detailed procedure for establishing an EMS is beyond the scope of this blog article.  I will attempt to briefly outline the steps below. 

A critical step is creating an Environmental Policy.  This is an over arching statement of the entities intent, aspirations,  values and goals.  At the very least the policy must insure compliance with all local, state, and federal environmental laws. It must detail pollution prevention goals, preferably with quantifiable metrics , and it must detail managements commitment to continual improvement.  This policy needs to public and it must be communicated to the employees.  It is critical that the highest levels of management are invested and involved in this process and that they support this policy.  

Next would be an identification of all environmental "Aspects" and "Impacts". An Aspect is anything that can effect the environment and an Impact is the means and degree of that effect. An Impact may be positive as well as negative.  The list of Aspects and Impacts can be extensive and this is typically drafted by an EMS committee that is composed of relevant decision makers.  Unlike LEED, these Aspects need not be contained within the fence-line or project boundary.  For example, an Aspect may be the companies desire to only conduct business with other companies with an EMS or ISO 14001 compliance.  

Once the list of Aspects and Impacts is created. The next step is to prioritize those elements. Common means of prioritizing include a matrix with frequency of occurrence (high as daily commute to low like an unlikely emergency spill) , level of Impact, cost, benefits, legal risk, and employee and community concerns.  

Along with knowing what the environmental risks are and the potential consequences. The EMS needs to detail the legal and regulatory requirements surrounding those environmental issues. This establishes the baseline actions necessary.  


Once you know what the environmental Aspects/risks of your business are, and the potential Impacts that can result, and the minimum necessary actions - you can develop objectives and targets for all Aspects. Not every Aspect needs to have an objective beyond the minimum legal requirements. Low priority Aspects not addressed can be addressed through  the process of continual improvement at a later date.  The Aspect/Impact need not be mitigated in one fell swoop. It can be addressed incrementally over time. A goal that is unattainable or unrealistic is not valid objective.  Again, upper management needs to be involved from a resource commitment point of view.  Also it is wise to involve those "in the trenches" that will ultimately be responsible for the successful achievement of these objectives.  

Finally a formal program needs to be established and implemented. This sets up a consistent approach to achieve each objective.  This can include guidance, information, and references. It should include timelines, resources, and detail who is accountable and responsible for achieving the objectives and targets.  It should include necessary training to demonstrate competency of those involved in meeting each and every objective.  It should include procedures for communications and document control to insure that critical documents are maintained and updated and that important communications and records are logged.  Techniques, such as operational controls, administrative controls, or engineering controls should be detailed.  These can and should be amended as the program evolves.  Finally, mistakes will happen and therefore an emergency readiness and response plan needs to be formulated for each Aspect. 


Continuous improvement keeps rolling along

At this point the EMS should be developed and implemented. The management will be on board and will be supporting the efforts to meet the defined objectives.  The responsible parties will have been assigned and will be overseeing the ongoing efforts. All necessary personnel have been made aware of their respective roles and have received access to all training needed to insure their competence. 


 The next links in the PDCA cycle is check and act. This involves determining environmental performance, identifying corrective or preventive actions for situations where expected performance was not realized, auditing the systems to insure that all elements are functioning and up to date, and preserving any relevant records.   Management needs to review the effectiveness of the EMS on a periodic basis and needs to update goals, revise Aspects and Impacts, and address shortfalls uncovered by the review/audit.  Thus the cycle starts again.  


You are not alone

The process can can be a difficult and tedious ordeal. It is highly dependent upon investigation and documentation.   However, you are not alone. There are resources available.  Consultants can be hired that can guide you through the process. There are online services that will help draft a customized EMS from a stock template.  For those that wish to wish to do it themselves, the EPA has a wealth of information available. 

The most important thing is that the EMS process forces companies to think critically about their environmental impact.  This self reflection can lead to great rewards for themselves, their shareholders, their neighbors, and the planet.

Kevin Dufour is an Environmental Scientist with Viridis Advisors. He collaborates with Tom Irwin on creating greener greenscapes. The opinions expressed by member bloggers are their own and not necessarily those of the USGBC Massachusetts Chapter.






Friday, April 19, 2013

How can we make greener leases in commercial buildings?


Endorsed by the USGBC and produced by the local Massachusetts Chapter, BuildingSmarter Buildings Forum will take place on May 9th at Suffolk University, 73 Tremont Street in Boston.

This will be a great opportunity to discuss and learn about energy efficiency incentives and ways that commercial real estate can improve both performance and marketability through sustainability.


Speakers include:
  • Brian Swett (City of Boston)
  • Bruce Percelay (Mount Vernon Company)
  • Jonathan Keefe (Cassidy Turley)
  • Cynthia Keliher (McCarter English)
  • Rives Taylor (Gensler)
  • Mark Wartenburg (Philips)
  • Derek Brown (Clean Fund)

THE MARKET

We’ve made great strides in the past 10 years. Yet great gaps still remain in construction communities with traditional separate interests: between architects – clients; between code officials – builders; between landlords – tenants; between entrepreneurs – supporters.

Landlords have little incentive to invest - in above-code approaches to maintenance, energy, water and health improvements - when payback is reaped solely by tenants.

Tenants are reluctant to renew leases in buildings that lag behind current construction practices in energy efficiency. And there’s a heavy overhang of potentially large energy cost increases in the next few years.

Green leasing is a natural extension of the green building however many barriers exist that inhibit widespread adoption of a sustainable leasing approach. Effective green leasing processes and principles remain scarcely implemented and understood by the real estate community.

In order to integrate environmentally sustainable initiatives into the commercial real estate process it is important to have both the landlord and the tenant work collaboratively to pursue and implement these initiatives. Green leasing dictates that building performance become transparent to all parties involved in the lease transaction.

We need more collaboration – connection – commitment. This event will help to provide that.




GREEN LEASING BARRIERS

Establishing consensus between landlord and tenants on how a particular building’s configuration and operation should support sustainability is the first step toward a successful green leasing agenda. The ideal green leasing document set not only delineates sustainability goals but also describes specific landlord and tenant behaviors that support them.

Declaring a commitment to manage through measurement is vital to any successful green leasing agenda. Quantitative metrics and sensible reporting protocols allow all parties to track their progress toward sustainability and make adjustments when necessary.

There are a real mutuality of concerns between the landlord and the tenant in respect of green leasing issues. The landlord is concerned about obtaining and maintaining the building’s sustainability certification and equally concerned about being in a position to meet any new environmental obligations that may be passed during the course of the lease. Likewise, the tenant will have the same concerns except that, being the ultimate payor of these costs, it will want to ensure that the return on its investment is a reasonable one.

A number of barriers do exist:

  • There can be the tendency of the parties and their counsel – who may be unfamiliar with the sustainable leasing process and principles – to focus excessively on certain legal aspects of the lease to the detriment of the process and the parties’ goals.
  • A lack of well-known effective approaches to overcome the “split incentive” created by many leases between landlord and tenant related to how each shares the costs and benefits of sustainability-related measures can impede progress.
  • The challenging market environment of the past several years has caused many market participants to defer implementing sustainability-related changes in their business practices and leasing operations that may be seen as costly or risky.
  • Many participants are still concerned about unsettled potential legal pitfalls posed by green leasing.
  • There is no comprehensive, widely distributed and easily digestible guide to overcoming these barriers and implementing sustainable practices into the leasing process.
  • More commercial leases do not currently stipulate any shared or unilateral environmental objectives.
  • Few leases incorporate provisions contemplating the reduction of waste production or require that the tenant improvements match the standards of LEED CI or equivalent.
  • Most existing commercial leases will not require certain types of materials to be used or mandate the use of environmentally friendly products by the parties. In fact, most leases will stipulate that the tenant must use new (or as new) building materials.


GREEN LEASING CONSIDERATION

Ultimately, pursuing a successful green initiative through the vehicle of a green lease requires the landlord and tenant to work collaboratively to establish key elements of sustainable practices and concrete methods of implementation. The main provisions that both parties will want to consider when entering into a green lease are the operating costs, utilities, landlord and tenant work, access and relocation rights, and the assignment and subletting provisions.

A green lease may also specifically detail things like environmentally preferable cleaning products, comprehensive landlord and tenant procurement guidelines, requirements for natural or low water consumption landscaping, the ability to specify higher cost.

GREEN LEASING PROCESSES AND PRINCIPLES

Effective green leasing processes and principles remain scarcely implemented and understood by the real estate community.

The Rationale for Sustainability

Because green leasing formalizes the meaning of sustainability between the owner and tenants, the process should begin with a transparent understanding of why this is good for both parties. A clear sustainability vision allows for better definition of the scope of the sustainability program, key metrics, and monitoring and enforcement protocols.

Reaching Stakeholder Consensus

All parties must work together to define expectations, balancing the ideal with the practical and incorporating the flexibility needed to cope with difficult leasing and capital markets. If consensus is not reached regarding the sustainability efforts of the property and one or more parties does not fully embrace the initiative, this could potentially damage other parties’ financial expectations or reputations when performance levels are not met.

Setting the Boundaries of the Sustainability Program

A green lease should be a framework for achieving the goals the landlord and tenants share on these issues, rather than an overly strict document that could become a barrier to tenant attraction and retention.

Moving Toward Common Ground

It helps to begin with an entirely new lease template – adding green components or making amendments to an existing lease document can prove cumbersome and limit your flexibility. If circumstances make wholesale updating of existing tenant leases impractical, a phased approach may be required. In some situations, one tenant’s lease may contradict or prohibit the sustainability goals of another tenant. Identifying and actively managing these conflicts – and striving for consistency in lease language wherever possible - can help prevent friction or disappointments among the building’s occupants.

Assembling a Green Document Set

The best approach is to supplement the lease itself with the following exhibits or appendices:

  • Guidelines for materials and procedures related to tenant fit-out
  • A tenant primer that extends the concept of green to office equipment, recycling, travel and day to-day practices (e.g., the proper use of operable windows in air-conditioned spaces)
  • Procurement guidelines that reinforce the building’s goals of resource-efficiency, indoor air quality, etc.


This integrated set of materials provides greater detail than any single document could. Moreover, this approach distinguishes items that are within the landlord’s control and enforceable under the terms of the lease from ones that may be just as important to the building’s sustainability profile but depend on the tenant’s voluntary compliance.

Requirements and Enforcement Protocols

A green lease should facilitate the achievement of mutually agreed upon levels of sustainability. Both landlord and tenant need to understand what a good job looks like, how their respective performances will be tracked, and how failures to meet standards will be identified and remedied. Before obligating either party to any green standard, practice or reporting protocol, be sure it is both attainable and cost-effective.



Incentives for Collaboration

The ideal green leasing arrangement is one where the landlord forms a collaborative rather than a paternalistic relationship with its tenants. Clearly delineated mutual goals and transparency in reporting are two key elements of this collaboration. And make sure your lease form defines “who pays for” and “who benefits from” greening investments where appropriate.

Managing Through Measurement

Reporting is critical to the success of any green program. Your green leases should delineate the type of reporting that you intend to request and provide. Establish upfront which data sets will be exchanged, at what frequency and at what cost, in order to satisfy the reporting needs of the landlord or any tenant. Each party needs to understand what level of reporting will be required and agree to allocate the dollars and human capital needed to deliver data in a timely fashion.

Considering that the relentless pursuit of energy efficiency is perhaps the most significant step that a commercial building can take on its path to sustainability, any green lease should include a clause that requires the cooperation of landlord and tenants in benchmarking the building’s energy performance with EPA’s Energy Star Portfolio Manager tool.

Certification Strategy and Frequency

Once you decide to pursue a sustainability program for your building, you need to investigate whether you (and/or your tenants) are willing to invest the time and money necessary to secure third-party validation of its sustainability. Decide if you’re simply seeking a one-time certification or are willing to commit to tracking and certifying your building’s performance over the long term. The latter choice should not be made casually – you’ll need to stay up-to-date as green standards and rating systems evolve.

Allocating Greening Expenses

Retrofits that enhance the building’s energy efficiency; engineering and other assessments related to various building certifications; and, higher insurance premiums that entitle you to have damaged portions of your building rebuilt to green standards (and recertified as such) are just a few examples of the cost of greening a building. A green lease should clearly reference these expenses and describe how they will be allocated between landlord and tenant. Some tenants may insist on setting a limit on the amount of green expenses that they will be asked to shoulder in any given year.


[This article written by Dennis Walsh, Building Better Buildings Organizer]


Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Pests, Poison, & People

Managing a landscape with or without pesticides is a difficult decision.  What’s so difficult you may ask? Pesticides are created to kill things. They are an inherently dangerous product. This should be an easy decision.  However, the pests they seek to eliminate also bring a danger. There's a reason one of the Four Riders of the Apocalypse was pestilence.  After immersing myself, at the request of a client, in the study of this subject and trying to separate the science from the emotion, I find that the subject is, as in most things, far more nuanced than I initially believed.

I, like most people, initially approached the subject from the aforementioned position that pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides are designed to kill things and therefore must be bad for the environment and bad for human health. I also assumed that organic products, being ‘natural’ would be better. When you are asked to counsel a client on their landscape management plan, you will probably find that it's not quite so simple.

Thursday, February 7, 2013

Free Money For Green Groundskeeping

Its always difficult getting folks to break out of their routine and embrace a better way of doing things.  This is even more true when you propose a more environmentally sound way of doing things.  The innovation may be a bit easier to adopt if it came with such benefits as lower costs, less maintenance, a better user experience, and, demonstrable environmental benefits.

The opportunity is sweetened further if it comes with some free money.

This is exactly the case with switching from gas powered outdoor maintenance equipment to propane power and it can be done now with significant grants to offset the initial costs. These grants are available from  the Propane Education and Research Council. They provide for up to $500 to convert a gas powered commercial mower to propane and up to  a $1,000 rebate for the purchase of new propane powered mower.  More info can be found here. 

Why would somebody want to do this? After all you are just swapping one fossil fuel for another?  That is true, but anyone pursuing LEED-EBOM will be putting together a forward looking landscape maintenance plan. This is also important under a SITES certification.  LEED v4 specifically offers credits for site management plans that adopt gasoline free and low emission landscaping.  Finally it just makes sense from a fiscal and a sustainability perspective.

Reducing costs
All groundskeepers whether on a commercial campus or a public park/school are concerned about ever shrinking budgets.  Converting to propane based equipment can help.  The cost per gallon equivalent is between 30% and 50% less because, unlike gasoline, it is easier to negotiate a contract price for a full year.  Secondly, the maintenance interval for propane equipment is much longer - many people see oil changes move from every 25 hours to every 100 hours. Thirdly, The equipment lifespan is frequently increased.  Commercial mowers typically need to be rebuilt or replaced at about 2,500 hours.  Propane powered equipment can see a 50% improvement due to cleaner oil and pistons.  Finally, the loss of fuel due to theft and spillage is virtually eliminated.

Reducing environmental impact
Spillage of gasoline is an often overlooked environmental problem. The EPA estimates that 17 million gallons of gasoline are spilled annually when fueling landscaping equipment. The lack of spilled fuel is just one of many environmental benefits.  According to the EPA, about 5% of ALL air pollution is generated by lawn care equipment. Propane powered equipment can help with this problem.  Propane yields more than a 25% reduction in green house gasses versus gasoline. It reduces carbon monoxide emissions by  greater 60% and it generates fewer ground level ozone precursors and fine particulates than conventional gasoline powered equipment.  Conversion kits are certified by both the EPA and the very strict California Air Resources Board (CARB).   Most jurisdictions even allow for the use of propane powered equipment during ozone action days when ground level ozone concentrations force the shut down of gasoline powered small engines.

Similar performance to gasoline
A question often asked is, "The benefits are obvious, but how does it perform?".  The market itself is beginning to answer that question. Many major landscaping outfits, particularly in the south and west where they are often subject to ozone action shutdowns, are switching to propane.  They claim that they have the same power with all the benefits. Operators like it because it can be quieter and they are exposed to less fumes.   One issue that I have uncovered is that propane is somewhat less energy dense than gasoline. This results in the range of a tank of propane being equal to about 3/4 of that of a comparable gasoline tank.  The issue of fuel transfer can also be an issue.  Large operators will benefit from an on site tank filling infrastructure, but this is a large upfront expense.  These costs can often be offset by grants and rebates, these are worth pursuing.  Smaller operations can have a  dedicated tank exchange installed, similar to those seen at supermarkets or hardware stores. 

One advantage to investing in a propane filling station is that it allows for the future expansion into vehicles.  I have driven propane and natural gas vehicles and have found them to be identical in performance to gasoline.  Having a fueling station would allow for large vehicles to be converted to  propane.  The lack of a wide array of fueling stations limits a vehicles use, but operating out of a central location, equipped with a fueling station, makes sense.

A reasonable alternative
Of course, electric powered equipment would be the best choice. They could be powered via alternative means and would emit next to nothing in hazardous air pollutants.  There are several viable electric options available for smaller pieces of equipment (blowers, trimmer, saws etc,) but electric still does not have the range or power needed for larger pieces of machinery.  Propane, however, can power smaller engines, such as blowers,  as well as  the larger ones.  One of the best solutions I have seen is a solar array that powers a battery recharging station with interchangeable batteries for the smaller pieces of equipment and propane for the higher power equipment.  This could be a bridge solution that is enhanced by the prospect of free money.

Kevin Dufour is an Environmental Scientist with Viridis Advisors. He collaborates with Tom Irwin  on creating greener greenscapes.