Big Green: Achieving LEED IEQ Credit 1

[sagefarm at comcast.net]

Dear Lisa:

Have you ever had the opportunity to specify an approach for monitoring carbon 
dioxide concentrations in the achievement of LEED IEQ Credit 1?

If so, are you aware of the "shared-sensor" approach that offers significant 
benefits over the use of individual distributed sensors in large buildings?

Sincerely,

David W. Bearg, PE, CIH

--
Director of IAQ Programs
AIRxpert Systems, Inc.
www.AIRxpert.com
978-369-5680

 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Lisa <lisa at kalinassociates.com>
> Chris,
> 
> Thank you for weighing in on this issue.  I appreciated your perspective.  I
> would respectfully request that, in the future, fellow Architects posting
> "scientific" data also provide footnotes and references.
> 
> I have always hoped that life cycle assessment (LCA) would help us
> Architects with material selection.  I believe that LCA will always be
> dependent on someone¹s value judgments.  A recent article in the
> Construction Specifier magazine outlined issues related to LCA and metal
> selection.  Do we have any LCA people on this list?
> -- 
> Lisa J. Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED AP
> Kalin Associates Inc.
> Specifications Consultants
> 1121 Washington Street
> Newton, MA  02465
> Tel:  617-964-5477
> Fax:  617-964-5788
> www.kalinassociates.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/25/06 3:55 PM, "Hewitt, Chris" <hewitt at aisc.org> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Folks,
> > 
> > I was going to stay out of this conversation, as my part of the steel
> > industry has nothing to do with handrails or stainless steel and I
> > didn't want you guys to slam me as a greenwasher, but I took notice with
> > some of the things that were tossed out there yesterday for steel
> > products that do not seem correct to me and if my understanding is
> > misguided, I would appreciate you letting me know.
> > 
> > "On a more scientific note: The primary energy consumption to make
> > stainless steel is about 16 MJ per kg of material, while that for
> > galvanized (black) steel is about 37 MJ/kg. Global warming emissions
> > have a very similar ratio: S.S.: 1.2 kg of CO2 equivalent vs. 3.2 for
> > galvanized."
> > 
> > I don't know where these statistics of been drawn from, or what you
> > specifically mean by "black steel" (do you mean pipe products, or basic
> > oxygen furnace (BOF) steel?).  Stainless steel today is predominantly
> > made from a modified kind of electric arc furnace, called an EAF-AOD.
> > The process is at first EAF and then there is a post-process to
> > production.  This should have similar energy consumption to a galvanized
> > piece of steel produced by electric arc furnace steel production, or
> > slightly higher energy consumption than galvanized BOF steel, but for
> > BOF steel to have twice the energy consumption in production doesn't
> > seem to make sense to me and I would appreciate knowing the source of
> > these statistics that you are looking at.
> > 
> > 
> > "While potentially cheaper than S.S., solutions like powder coatings,
> > enamels etc.on black steel bring with them hazardous air emissions
> > during the (smelting-based) recycling of the steel.
> > Those various toxic emissions from the paints, coatings, etc. metals
> > being recycled in furnaces are very hard to control/capture...(yes, some
> > 
> > just burn, others go straight out the stack, especially worrysome in
> > these days of industrial "self-regulation" of emission standards, and a
> > tooth-less EPA)."
> > 
> > I would like to know what air emissions are being referred to here.  As
> > with just about anything that is produced, there are CO2 emissions, and
> > while I can not speak for the stainless or BOF folks, I don't generally
> > agree with the comments on hazardous air emissions.  The EPA requires
> > tracking and reporting of emissions statistics within their limits and,
> > at least on the structural side of things, there are no toxic emissions
> > going "straight out the stack".  The outputs of the steel making
> > processes today are actually very clean compared with those of some
> > years ago, and I am certain that you would be surprised to see just how
> > efficiently the byproducts of production are suppressed, collected, and
> > sold in alternative markets.
> > 
> > Now, I am by no means a Zinc expert, but I know that when concentrated
> > over a certain level, some people believe that Zinc, while not a heavy
> > metal, may be harmful to the environment, and others agree.  Despite
> > which side of this argument you are on, when I spoke with a few people
> > across the steel industry on this (including folks at the AGA) all agree
> > that this is not an issue for the steel industry.  Almost all steel is
> > recycled, and when you recycle a galvanized member, the Zinc has a lower
> > melting point than the steel and will rise to the top of a heat of steel
> > and be skimmed off and recycled, as it has value as a recycled material.
> > Also, as I understand it, Zinc at normal levels is a vital component of
> > the environment.  There is a pretty thorough discussion of this at:
> > 
> > http://www.nature.nps.gov/hazardssafety/toxic/zinc.pdf#search=%22zinc%20
> > environmental%22
> > 
> > I hope that this positively contributes to the discussion.
> > 
> > Sincerely,
> > 
> > Chris Hewitt, LEED A.P.
> > Engineering and Research Department
> > American Institute of Steel Construction
> > _______________________________________________________________
> > This green building dialogue is provided as a public service
> > by Drew George, along with Environmental Building News
> > http://www.buildinggreen.com. For instructions see
> > http://www.biggreen.org/discussion.html
> > _______________________________________________________________
> > 
> > 
> 
>