Buildingand Emtr,mment.VoL2-. No. I. pp. 2-'~30.1992.

0360-132392$5.00-0.00
0 1902PergamonPresspie.

Pnntedin GreatBntain.

Environmental Auditing for Building

Construction: Energy and Air Pollution
Indices for Building Materials
R A Y M O N D J. COLE*
DAVID ROUSSEAU*
The design community has a reasonable understanding of the factors which affect operational
energy in buildings and has a rariety of computational tools for assessing it. By contrast, the
broader encironmental consequences of producing and operating buildings are poorly defined.
Since operating energy represents the current extent of em'ironmental attditing, a significant
advance is to inchtde the energy and emissions associated with the production of construction
materials. This paper outlines the key issues associated with environmental assessment of the
production and use of materials and presents examples of energy and ah" pollution audits for four
comparable commercial building assemblies with similar thermal resistances.

1. INTRODUCTION

2. ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING

F R O M THE early 1970s until the mid-1980s there was a

steady transformation from viewing energy and resource
use as an ecological issue to an economic one [1].
However, with the broad-based resurgence of ecological
preservation concerns in the late 1980s this trend is
reversing. Resource use is now discussed within a broader
environmental agenda, particularly in the context of global warming, ozone depletion and local and regional
pollution.
Changing the economic equation to include current
hidden environmental costs and to restrain the rapid
depletion of certain resources will radically affect the way
building construction is viewed [2]. The significance for
the construction industry will be the expansion of
environmental auditing from a simple assessment of
operating energy to include a broader assessment of
resources used in building [3]. This will necessitate both
an improved general understanding of the environmental
consequences of buildings by design professional as well
as access to comparative evaluations of the environmental impact of various building components and
assemblies. In this regard, a significant step is to compile
the energy use and environmental emissions associated
with the production of construction materials.
This paper outlines the key issues associated with
environmental assessment of the production and use of
materials, defining which are currently quantifiable, and
presents a practical framework for energy and air pollution audits. The paper concludes with example energy
and air pollution audits of four comparable commercial
building assemblies with similar thermal resistances.

An environmental audit for building construction is an

accounting of the quantifiable environmental factors that
will be incurred in building production and use. reducing
them to equivalent terms and presenting them in meaningful categories. The purpose of the audit is to add an
environmental dimension to design decisions.
An environmental audit includes both energy and nonenergy related factors, each of which has direct and
indirect components :
Direct environmental effects include :
Emissions of carbon oxides, oxides of sulphur, oxides
of nitrogen, particulates and unburned hydrocarbons
from combustion.
Air, water and solid waste impacts of material processing and handling.
Depletion of limited reserves of non-renewables.
Indirect environmental effects include :
Damage to terrestrial and aquatic habitats due to
energy production and industrial development.
Production of hazardous wastes with long-term consequences.
The direct environmental effects of energy production
and industry are typically more readily quantifiable than
the indirect effects.
2.1 Quantifiable encironmental effects
Environmental studies have produced considerable
data on the environmental effects of the processes and
materials associated with building construction, however
very little is available in a form which is useful to the
design professions. Some of the significant environmental
factors associated with the production and maintenance

* Environmental Research Group, School of Architecture.

University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. Canada. V6T
IW5.
BAE 27:1-C

23

R. J. Cole and D. Rousseau

24

of buildings for which there is environmental data available, but which cannot set be used comparatively in
building design and operational decision making are :
The consumption of non-rene~vable energy and mineral resources incurred in the production of construction materials, components, and buildings
The pollution of air, water and soil incurred in the
transformations of energy and mineral resources in all
stages of materials and building production
The resources consumed and pollution incurred in the
maintenance and replacement of building materials
and assemblies over the life-span of the building
The recoverability of resources contained in buildings
at the time of their demolition.
The indirect consequences are extremely difficult to
quantit) and probably are best characterized as "loss of
ecological capital" [4].
The work presented in this paper pertains only to the
direct environmental effects of building production and
operation. Within this framework the scope is further
limited to the energy consumption and air pollution factors.
3. ENERGY-RELATED FACTORS
Energy related factors include all transformations of
energy in the production and use of buildings. Though
research in the mid-1970s clearly demonstrated that significant amounts of energy are required to produce a
building [5, 6], energy accounting over the past fifteen
years has focused almost exclusively on operational
energy use in buildings and the development of strategies
to reduce it. In the 1990s it is becoming increasingly
important to resume the work on evaluating the energy
for producing buildings and to extend it to embrace a
broader environmental agenda.

3.1 Embodied eplergy

A complete audit of a building will include the energy
used to create building materials and components and to
construct a building, i.e. the embodied energy. Embodied
energy is the "'direct" and "'indirect" energy used to
manufacture, transport and install building products.
Direct energy is the energy actually consumed in the
construction of buildings. It represents the final transportation and installation of a component or
assembly. Direct energy is a relatively small portion of
embodied energy. European and U.S. figures estimate
the construction portion to be about 7-10% of total
embodied energy [7, 8].
Indirect energy represents the energy consumed in the
production of building materials and their associated
transportation during processing. Indirect energy is
the largest portion of embodied energy. It represents
the production of a component exclusive of its transportation to and installation on site.
Embodied energy thus represents the component or
assembly in place. However. when full life-cycle analysis
is undertaken, embodied energy should rightfully be
extended to also include the energy associated with maintaining, repairing and replacing materials and components over the lifetime of the building.

3.2 Energy intensio' vahws

Energy Intensity is the energy used only in the production of a building material or component. It represents the indirect energy in unit terms either expressed
as energy/mass or volume such as M J kg or M J m 3 or
energy/standard unit such as M J/sheet or block etc.
Energy intensity is also calculated, from statistical data,
in M J, $.
Limited international research over the past 15 years
in the field of energy intensities of building materials has
produced reasonable agreement on acceptable values for
some materials, but it has also produced some significant
differences for others (see Table I). There are several
reasons for these differences :

System boundaries
Data source reliability
International differences
Thermal energy content of feedstock materials.

3.2.1 System boundaries. There is no absolute or correct energy intensity of a material [9]. A stated value is a
direct function of what was included and what was
excluded from its derivation. An example of the importance of system boundaries is readily found in comparisons of aluminum. Figures for the Canadian aluminum industry in 1976 indicate a value of 236.3 MJ/kg
[10]. Although substantial efficiency improvements have
been made since 1976 the figure is still reasonable today
if one includes the energy costs of mining, concentrating
and shipping ore, most of which is produced in the Caribbean. The Canadian figure compares well with those of
Switzerland [11], Finland [12], and the U.S. [13]. New
Zealand studies [14] however place aluminum at only 145
MJ/kg based on some limited reporting by industry and
some analysis of the processes. New Zealand's ore, like
Canada's, is also imported, but national statistics on the
flow of energy and materials in the aluminum industry
cannot be disaggregated from other non-ferrous metals.
Assessment of energy intensity figures must, therefore,
be accompanied by definitions and clear boundaries. The
commonly accepted limit includes analysis of all of the
industrial processes of extraction, transportation and
processing of a material. This limit typically captures
about 90% of the gross energy requirements of a manufactured item [15], but there may be important exceptions
to this. For example in a case where highway transport
of raw materials is a key (or dedicated) component of a
manufacturing system, a portion of the energy capital
and maintenance energy for the highways and vehicles
should be included, and may significantly affect the
analysis.
The choice of level of analysis depends on the objective
of the analysis, the available data and the type of evaluation methods. Ideally the system boundaries must include
the following in order to reasonably reflect the embodied
energy of materials and assemblies :
. The energy requirements for extraction, beneficiation
and transportation of raw materials.
The energy requirements for primary processing such
as smelting, milling, drying, machining, chemical
synthesis etc. as well as the transportation energy
to the secondary stages.

Environmental Auditing for Building Construction

25

Table 1. Energy intensities of selected materials (MJ/kg)

Material

Canada

U.S.

N.Z.

S~itz.

Finland

Metals
Aluminum
Nickel
Steel (general)
Zinc

236.3*
168.3"
25.7*
64.1"

192.0"
58.0*
39.0*

145.0" 261.7

189.0,
468.0t

Non-metallic minerals
Glass (sheet)
Gypsum
Brick
Glass wool
Cement products
Cement
Concrete
Mortar
Plastics
Polyethylene
Polystyrene
Paint (water base) : dry

32.0*
68.4*

27.7t
68.4*
21.6*
1.4+
3. l't
18.0t

10.2,
7.4"1"
4.9:~
22.3:[;

19.8"
7.2*
5.8*
14.0"

16.7"

5.9:~
1.2++
2.2:1:

9.4*
1.3"

7.4*
2.0*

87.0~
105.0++
76.0:[:

4.9"]"
0.9t
1.4"t
49.3t
122.8"t

77.7*

43.2t
16.5+
2.8t
23.4t
4.9"t

118.8+
76.7t

* Mid 1970s data,

f Early 1980s data.
++Mid 1980s data.

The energy requirements for secondary fabrication,

assembly etc., where applicable.
The thermal energy potential of the raw material
feedstock if it was to be used as a fuel (this applies
specifically to petroleum based products).
A more detailed analysis will also include the energy
cost of producing energy. For example the energy cost
of petroleum refining in Canada is 11.5% of production
[16]. As the use of building materials with recycled content expands there must also be credits applied to the
audit to reflect the energy and resource capital savings as
well as pollution reductions from the use of recovered
materials.
There are practical limitations however, particularly in
rapidly emerging areas such as recycling where reliable
data is difficult to find.
3.2.2 Data sources and reliability. The data sources for
energy intensity analysis are also problematic. There are
three main sources of energy and production data for
most industries, though all are not necessarily available.
These are :
National statistics: Records compiled by national
agencies from industry reporting.
Process analyses: Engineering analyses of processes
accounting for energy use step-by-step.
Industry statistics : Records kept internally by plants
or compiled by industry associations.
Each data source has its shortcomings in application to
energy intensity analysis and may not alone produce
reliable results. By using several types of analysis
however, one can judge the reliability of results through
comparing the consistency of figures derived from different data sources.
3.2.3 International differences. There

are several

important factors which also affect international figures

and, to some extent, even national figures. These are :
Fuel type: The most regionally available and inexpensive fuel source is likely to be used, within
regulatory boundaries. For example, virtually all of
Canada's aluminum is produced with hydroelectricity,
while production in the U.K. uses some thermal electricity. This leads to very significant increases in gross
energy input through the thermal conversion losses
encountered in the U.K.
Raw materials imports: Some industries rely on
imported raw materials for which the overseas extraction costs may be difficult to assess. The transportation factor also becomes more significant. Again,
in the aluminum industry, Canada's production relies
on ore imports from Jamaica where some of the
primary processing also takes place. Energy costs
and pollution figures are difficult to get.
Different accounting methods : For example, as noted
before in New Zealand, many non-ferrous metal
statistics are lumped together making it difficult to
distinguish copper from aluminum, etc. A similar
practice is used in Canada.
3.2.4 Energy content of feedstocks. Another problematic decision is the inclusion of the thermal energy
content of the feedstock in the gross energy requirement.
For those materials which are petroleum based it seems
clear that the thermal value of their feedstocks, had they
been burned as fuels, must reasonably be included. However should one use their theoretical thermal value, or
their actual value when burned in a process of average
efficiency? Many researchers have opted for the theoretical value and this explains the relatively high energy
intensity for most synthetic resins [17].
3.3 Direct environmental consequences of ener#y ,tse
Energy use entails emissions of carbon dioxide, particulates, oxides of sulphur, oxides of nitrogen, carbon

26

R. J. Cole and D. Rousseau

monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons from combustion. The characteristics and air pollution consequences
of these emissions are :
C O : - - o f primary concern as a greenhouse gas.
Particulates--primarily, carbon, with a range of
associated mineral and metal compounds, primarily a
local air pollutant.
SO_,--urban and regional effects both as an air pollutant and precursor to acidic precipitation.
NO~--urban and regional effects both as an air pollutant, photochemical oxidant and precursor to acidic
precipitation.
C O - - o f primary concern as a local air pollutant.
H C - - a broad range of fugitive volatile organic compounds from uncombusted fuel, primarily of concern
as photochemical oxidants.
The proportions of these vary significantly with the
type of fuel and the combustion efficiency. Table 2 shows
typical emissions expressed as g,"MJ for common stationary (non-transportation) uses of conventional fuels
[18-21]:
3.4 Air emission index
Operating energy audits have the relative simplicity of
being reducible to a common energy units. It is clearly
more difficult to compare the relative effects of different
pollutants within a particular medium (e.g. air) as well
as between media (e.g. air, water and soil). Several European researchers employ an accounting system based on
volume equivalents in which accepted limiting values are
used to determine the volume of air which is polluted
with a certain contaminant up to a limiting value [22].
The resulting polluted or consumed volumes of air are
therefore equivalent units and can then be combined and
used as simple indices to evaluate the degree of environmental air pollution associated with the material or component. For example, where the output of SO, is y mg
and the admissible level of SO,. is x mg/m 3 of air, it
can be transformed into m 3 of air contaminated to the
allowable limit by :
Used volume of air = y / x (m 3)
A critical decision within this approach to aggregating
air contaminants is the choice of acceptable limits [23].
Legislated limits, which are inevitably derived through
compromise rather than direct health criteria, can relate
to either emission rates from the plant or, more stringently, to ambient air quality. In the work reported in
this paper. Canadian ambient air quality standards have

been chosen provisionally until international criteria t\~r

environmental auditing have been agreed upon.
The volume equivalents approach is suitable for tour
of the major air contaminants which are usually regulated
in national ambient air quality programs: Suspended
particulates (from combustion), SO:, NO, and CO, The
ambient air quality objectives set by' the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act are presented in Table 3.
Although the concentrations specified in the National
Ambient Air Standards are very low and thus yield very
high volumes of contaminated air, they do provide a
useful relative basis for weighting the importance of
different air pollutants. The important criteria is clearly
the relative acceptable concentrations of the various
contaminants.
4. NON-ENERGY RELATED FACTORS
Energy related emissions account for only a portion of
overall environmental effects from an industrial process.
Process emissions refers to those emissions which are
the direct result of smelting, kilning, distilling, drying.
grinding, casting and all other industrial processes exclusive of fuel combustion. These include both the same
categories of emissions associated with fuel combustion
as well as a very wide range of other particulate and
gaseous compounds. These additional compounds each
have their own characteristics and environmental consequences, ranging from relatively benign dusts from overburden removed from mines, to highly toxic halogen
compounds and heavy metals.
In some cases, such as the cement industry, the energy
emissions are the most significant factor in the overall
assessment, because the process emissions include only
some dusts (which are relatively low risk) and some water
contamination (mostly with low risk solids). Metals
smelting, on the other hand, produces a wide range of
air emissions such as sulphur oxides from ore reduction,
and fluorides, which are high environmental stressors.
4.1 Quantifvin 9 non-eneryy related emissions
Non-energy related air emissions are relatively easy
to characterize with some accuracy, but are difficult to
quantify. For example dusts of predictable types are
inevitably produced by dry milling processes, but varying
degrees of dust controls are in place and varying amounts
of trapped dusts are returned to the process. Data is
available on "uncontrolled emissions" [24] which are
derived from process studies, but data on the effectiveness
and application of control measures is more difficult to

Table 2. Air emission by fuel and use

Fuel use
Distillate oil (conventional). 0.5% S
Natural gas
Coal (bituminous), 3% S
Coal fired electricity
Canadian electricity*

CO,
(g/MJ)

Part.
(g/M J)

SO:
(g/M J)

NO,
(g/M J)

CO
(g/M J)

HC
(g MJ)

72.1
50.5
87.5
248.9
52.3

0.0065
0.006
0.11
0.31
0.07

0.23
0.0002
0.85
2.36
0.50

0.2
0.09
0.27
0.75
0.16

0.015
0.007
0.060
0.170
0.040

0.0020
0.0080
0.0030
0.0080
0.0017

* Electricity production: Canadian split (62% hydro, 20.1% coal, 16% thermonuclear; 0.5% gas and 1.4%
oil). Based on 35% overall efficiency for thermal production.

Environmental Auditing for Buildin9 Construction

27

Table 3. National Ambient Air Quality Objectives

Concentration Limit (g'm ~)

Particulates

SO:

NOx

CO

0.00012

0.00003

0.00006

0.006

find [25, 26]. There are also rapid developments in plant

emissions controls which are driven by regulation. For
example Statistics Canada reports that copper and zinc
smelting are, by far. the largest industrial sources of SO~
emissions in Canada [27], however plant improvements
are expected to alter that picture in a very short time.
Other differences, such as the composition of raw
materials, also introduce variables which are difficult to
quantify. One brick kiln, for example, will produce markedly different emissions from another due to the composition of the clay.
The characteristics and air pollution consequences of
these non-energy related emissions are :

NO~ from energy related processes

CO from both energy and non-energy related processes.
The Air Emissions Index presented in this work is the
aggregate of the volume equivalents generated from the
four emission categories above. Given that the significance of an air pollution index is not in the actual
units (m 3 for example) used, but in comparisons between
the magnitude of the index derived for various materials
or assemblies, they have been reduced by an arbitrary
factor of 10-'. This gives the Air Emissions Index a more
manageable scale.

Particulates--a very broad range of carbon, mineral

and metal compounds each with specific urban and
regional air and soil effects.
SOz--urban and regional effects both as an air pollutant and precursor to acidic precipitation.
C O - - o f primary concern as a local air pollutant.
H C - - a broad range of volatile organic compounds,
many of which are environmental toxins as well as
photochemical oxidants.
The nature, extent and proportions of these emissions
are specific to each of several thousand processes within
the materials industries.

5.3 Other air pollution indices

Other air pollutant quantities are more difficult to convert into a common index because they comprise a collection of a number of different chemical compounds with
widely varying environmental risks, each of which has
to be evaluated separately. At this stage in the development of the air pollution indices these are grouped
together in two categories and presented in association
with the final Air Emissions Index. The categories are :

5. COMPONENTS OF AIR EMISSIONS INDICES

Further development of the air pollution indices will

lead to a more detailed evaluation of the environmental
impact of the various particulate emissions and fugitive
hydrocarbons through assessing their various chemical
categories and utilizing applicable concentrations for
each. Once this is accomplished they will be in comparable terms to the Air Emissions Index and can be
added to it.

An underlying premise of the work presented in this

paper is that the large body of complex data on the energy
and environmental implications of producing building
materials must be reduced to manageable terms in order
to be useful in environmental auditing of buildings. Some
data can be readily reduced to a common unit while
others cannot, and are more appropriately left discrete.
Given the commonalities and differences of energyrelated and non-energy related emissions, the following
approach has been adopted for summarizing them on a
common basis.

5.1 Carbon dioxide

CO., release from fuel combustion can be simply summarized as the mass of CO: created by the production of
a unit of building material. Concentration limits are not
applicable in the case of CO:, so it is simply presented as
the "greenhouse gas contribution" of the material or
assembly.
5.2 Air emission index
The following can be reduced to a common index
by the application of the volume equivalents method
described in 3.4 using Ambient Air Quality Standards in
Table 3 :
Particulates from fuel combustion
SO, from both energy and non-energy related processes

Particulates from non-energy related processes

Fugitive hydrocarbons from both energy use and
non-energy processes.

6. ENERGY AND AIR P O L L U T I O N AUDITS O F

WALL ASSEMBLIES
Material selection in the building industry is rarely
made in isolation. Materials used in buildings can only
reasonably be compared in the context of their performance in building assemblies. For purposes of
environmental auditing, one must invariably compare
alternative building assemblies offering similar performance characteristics [28].
Figure 1 shows sections of four non-load bearing wall
assemblies used in commercial construction which all
attain an approximate RSI = 3.6 m 2 Deg C/W :
Wall #1 is a precast concrete panel clad wall with
rigid polystyrene board insulation and gypsum board
interior finish.
Wall # 2 is brick clad construction with lightweight
steel framing containing fibreglass insulation and
gypsum board finishes.
Wall # 3 is an exterior insulation and finish system

R. J. Cole and D. Rousseau

28

.I ~
i

Material
75mm precast concrete panel
Steel reinforcement
Steel anchors (galvanized)
Weather barrier (polyolefin)
Steel flashings (galvanized)
Steel furrings (galvanized)
75ram polystyrene insul, board
15mm interior gwb. (finished)
3 coats latex paint (0.3 litres)
TOTAL

__

Wall

Mass/m 2
180.0 kg/m2
7.2
3.0
0.07
0.5
2.5
3.8
11.8
0.4
209.3 kg/m2

,"

Material
Mass/m 2
lOOmmface brick (clay)
165.0 kg/m2
Mortar
28.0
Steel shelf angle (strut. steel)
4.0
Steel ties and screws (galvanized)
1.0
Weather barrier (polyolefin)
0.07
Sheathing (wp. gwb.)
9.8
150ram steel studs (galvanized)
10.0
150ram fiberglass batt insulation
5.4
Vapour barrier (polyethylene)
0.05
12.5ram interior gwb. (finished)
10.0
3 coats latex paint (0.3 litres)
0.4
TOTAL
233.8 kg/m2

Wall #2

[,

>-<...j

i/!i:: i:?.

Wall #3

Material
Mass/m 2
2 coats acrylic rood. stucco
6.0 kg/m2
Glass fiber mesh
0.8
19ram polystyrene insul, board
0.6
Steel fasteners and flashings (galv.)
1.0
Weather barrier (oolyolefin)
0.07
Sheathing (wp.gwb.)
9.8
100ram steel studs (galvanized)
6.9
100ram fiberglass batt insulation
3.6
Vapour barrier (polyethylene)
0.05
12.5ram interior gwb. (finished)
10.0
3 coats latex paint (0.3 litres)
0.4
TOTAL
39.3 kg/m2

Material
Porcelain steel, or
Anodized aluminum, or
6ram glass sheet
Aluminum mullion/rail/spandrel
Weather barrier (polyolefin)
150ram steel studs (galvanized)
150ram fiberglass batt insulation
Vapour barrier (,polyethylene)
12.5ram interior gwb. (finished)
3 coats latex paint (0.3 litres)
TOTAL

#1

Wall #4

Mass/m 2
9.6 kg/m 2
5.3
16.0
22.0
0.07
10.0
5.4
0.05
10.0
0.4
57.6 kg/m2 (Steel)
53.3 kg/m2 (Alum.)
64.0 kg/m2 (Glass)

. .

Fig. 1. Sections of non-load bearing wall assemblies used in commercial construction.

using acrylic stucco, polystyrene board insulation and

lightweight steel framing with gypsum board finish.
Wall # 4 is an aluminum curtain wall system with
three alternative cladding panels: porcelain steel,
aluminum, and glass. It incorporates fibreglass insu-

lation

and

gypsum

board

interior

finish.

Table 4 presents the total mass/m 2 and summary

energy use and air pollution characteristics for the
four wall assemblies in Fig. 1.

E n v i r o n m e n t a l Auditing f o r Building Construction

29

Table 4. Environmental characteristics of different wall assemblies

Energy

Mass
kgm-'
Wall # I
Wall #2
Wall #3
Wall #4: steel
Wall #4: alum.
Wall # 4 : glass

209.3
233.8
39.3
57.6
53.3
64.0

Emissions

Total
Ref.
Nat.
energy Feedst. Pet.
Gas
Coal Elect. Other
MJ/m2 MJ:mz MJ/m: MJ/m: MJ/m: MJ/m2 MJ/m2
1148
1799
929
6235
7263
5974

317
115
300
42
42
42

125
221
90
691
766
639

254
930
263
543
4ll
510

246
214
95
236
170
120

169
297
166
4715
5866
4656

37
22
16
8
8
8

CO:
g
52200
90260
36700
113200
110700
94500

Part. :
,Air
NonEmiss. Energy HC
Index
g
g
2810
2850
1610
7710
7640
7240

1230
2230
420
630
560
580

310
560
220
370
260
260

Notes:
Total Energy; energy of wall assembly including feedstock energies.
Feedstock : gross thermal content of petroleum used in feedstocks for synthetic resins.
Fuels ; fuel use, by type, used in production of the component materials.
C02; total mass of CO., created by fuel combustion in the production of the assembly.
Air Emissions Factor: mass of particulates SO,, NO~, and CO, divided by their respective Canadian national ambient air quality
maximum concentration limits.
Non-energy related particulates ; summary,of all particulates from processes.
HC; all fugitive hydrocarbons from both energy and non-energy related processes.

The energy summary includes :

Total
The total embodied energy of 1 m 2of wall
Energy :
assembly including feedstock energies.
Feedstock :
The feedstock energy represents the gross
thermal content of petroleum used in synthetic resins. Feedstock energy is not
included in the calculations of emissions
from energy use.
Fuels:
These represent fuel use by type consumed in production of the component
materials. Other fuels represents mainly
the wood waste used in paper production
for gypsum wall board and the waste rubber, wood etc. burned in cement kilns.
The emissions are presented according to the four
categories :
C02 :

Air
Emissions
Index :

Non-energy
related
particulates :
HC:

A summary of the mass of CO2 created

by fuel combustion in the production of
the assembly.
Generated by summing all particulates
and NO~ from energy use, SO2, and CO
from both energy and non-energy processes, and dividing them by their respective
Canadian national ambient air quality
maximum concentration limits (Table 3).
A summary of all particulates from processes based on the emission factors and
typical control efficiencies from the data.
All fugitive hydrocarbons from both
energy and non-energy related processes,
also incorporating typical control
efficiencies, These reflect emissions from
boilers, coal coking, polymer production,
degreasing etc. Both particulates and
HCs represent far too wide a range of
chemical compounds to readily convert
to air emissions factors at this time, and
are therefore presented separately.

Emissions from fuel use are calculated from the fuel

factors given in Table 2 except the electricity used in

primary aluminum production which is assumed to be
all hydro in Canada.
6.1 Key observations
The following observations can be made :
It is often assumed that low mass construction
implicitly has low environmental consequences. This
comparison shows that, although the lowest mass
assembly (Wall #3) does indeed demonstrate this
point, others with similar mass (Wall # 4) have energy
and air emissions that are greater by an order of magnitude.
Even within the family of non-metallic mineral
materials with similar mass, there are distinct differences in energy intensity and CO_, emission. Wall # 1,
for example, entails the emission of 52.3 kg of CO.,.
Wall # 2, despite having similar mass, entails 90.25
kg. However the Air Emissions Index of these two
wall assemblies is almost identical.
The very high embodied energy figures for the walls
which are largely composed of steel and aluminum are
also reflected in proportionally higher COz production
and Air Emissions Index. However, what is not
reflected in these figures is the inherent capacity to
eventually reduce a significant portion of future
environmental costs through recycling.
Although the selection of a glass cladding panel in
Wall # 4 has little effect on mass, there are distinct
reductions in embodied energy, CO: emission and the
Air Emissions Index.

7. CONCLUSION
This paper has presented key characteristics of
environmental auditing as well as examples of audits in
use. It is clear that embodied energy is only one part of
environmental auditing: environmental emission from
both energy use by fuel type and non-energy related

30

R. J. Cole and D. Rousseau

process emissions are. in man5 cases, more significant

indicators of the environmental cost of materials.
Environmental audits, including energy use for
materials production and installation as well as air pollution indices can provide criteria for design decisions
when choosing materials and assemblies offering similar
performance for a given application. Generalities about
the environmental impact of materials choices do not
stand up well due to the distinct and markedly different
environmental attributes of the families of materials used

for comparable applications, e.g. non-metallic minerals

are fundamentally different from metals.
Acknowledgements--Funding for on-going research is provided
by an operating grant from The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). The authors also
wish to acknowledge the research assistance of Beate NemethWinther, Robert Boyd and Gary Helps, and extend this
acknowledgement to Dr Niklaus Kohler at LESO. Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology Lausanne. for offering direction in the
formative stages of the project.

REFERENCES

1. I. Cooper. Environmental quality: responding to a new agenda. Proceedings: Designing.~)r Ent'ironmental Quality "89. Solihull, U.K., September (1989),
2. D. Cope, Reported in "Towards Green Buildings'. Richard Lorch, RIBA Journal, pp. 58-59 (Februar,.
1990).
3. R. Lorch, RIB.4 Journal. pp. 58-59 (February, 1990).
4. H.T. Odum. Energy .4nalysis, Energy QualiO" and Environment. Energy Analysis: A New Public
Policy Tool, Westvie~ Press (1978).
5. R.G. Stein. D. Serber and B. Hannon, Energy Use for Building Construction, Center for Advanced
Computation. University of Illinois. and R. G. Stein and Associates. U.S. Department of Energy.
EDRA Report (1976).
6. P.F. Chapman. The energy costs of materials, Energy Policy, pp. 47-57 (March 1975).
7. R.G. Stein. et al.. (1976) op cit.
8. R. Salokangas. A. L. Perala and P. Kontuniemi, Energi-lnnehallet 1 Husbyggande (Energy Contents
q/" House Buildings--Finland) Nordic conference on total energy in buildings and energy related
environmental effects. Copenhagen, (Sept. 11, 1990) (in Swedish).
9. N. Kohler. Life c~cle costs of buildings. Proceedings: Buildings attd the Em'ironment, University or
BC. Vancouver, Canada. (March 15th 1991) (in press).
10. Energy Mines and Resources Canada, Mineral Policy Series # 164, Present and Projected Energy
Consumption in the Mineral Industry of Canada, Ottawa (1976).
11. N. Kohler. Energy consumption and pollution of building construction, Proceedings oflCBEM '8-.
Lausanne Sept. 28-Oct. 2nd (1987).
12. R. Salokangas ez al. (1990) op cit.
[3. R.G. Stein et al. (1976) op cir.
14. G. Baird and S. A. Chan. The Energy Cost of Houses and Light Construction Buildings, New Zealand
Energy Research and Development Committee (NZERDC contract # 3175), Auckland, New Zealand
(1983).
15. Ibid.
16, The Canadian Statistical and Socio-economie Information Management System (CANSIM Mainbase) data seeice of Statistics Canada is the source &national and regional data used in this research.
17, OECD, The Petrochemical Industry--Energy aspects of structural change, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (1985).
18. Environment Canada. Canadian emissions inventory of common air contaminants (1985), Report
EPS 5-AP-3. Otta~a (1990).
19. Statistics Canada, Human Actieity and The Emironment, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa
(1986).
20. U.S. EPA. Compilation @Air Emission FactorsJbr the 1985 NAPAP, National Technical Information
Services, Wash., DC (1989).
21. G. Marland and R. M. Rotty, Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels .... Carbon Dioxide
Research Di~ ision, Report # DOE/NBB-0036 TR-003, US Dept. of Energy (1983).
22. N. Kohler(1991).opcit.
23. N. Kohler and Th. Lfitzkendorf. Energie- und Oekobilanzen yon Niedrigenergiegebduden.
Statusseminar Energieforschung im Hochbau. EMPA-KWH, Zfirich (1990).
24. U.S. EPA (1989), op cir.
25. M. Sittig, Enz'ironmental Sources and Emissions Handbook, Noyes Data Corp., New Jersey (1975).
26. Environment Canada, Nationwide Inventory of Emissions of Air Contaminants (1976). Report
# EPS 3-AP-80. Ottawa (1981).
27. Statistics Canada (19861. op cir,
28. P. Russell. S. Moffit and K. Cooper, Sustainable housing: Criteria, design tools and materials,
Proceedings ~y'6th Canadian Building Congress, Toronto (Dec. 1990) (in press).