VALUE AWORLD J O U R N A L O F T H E S O C I E T Y O F A M E R I C A N V A L U E E N G I N E E R S

V O L U M E X V 1 1 1 , N U M B E R 3 O C T O B E R 1 9 9 5

Lronmental

Late 1940 view of the 181-B Pump House, which removed water from the Columbia River lo cool B-Reactor, the world's first, full-scale

nuclear reactor.

CONTENTS

E D I T O R I A L

Don't Throw the Baby Out with the Bath Water 1

A R T I C L E S

E P A ' s Technology Innovation Strategy 2 The Honorable Carol M. Browner, EPA Administrator

Value Engineering for the Environment: Sorting Out the Criteria 4

Eric G.Meng, AIA, CVS

Value Engineering and Sustainability 8 A n Opportunity to Revolutionize the Construction Industry

Michael B. Schneider, AIA

Value: A Broader Perspective 12

Robert Black

Methodology for Rating Environmental Risks and 15

Management Response Systems

Martyn R. Phillips, P.Eng., FICE, FCIWEM, MIMGT

Increasing Value Through Design for Sustainability 18 A n Environmentally Responsible Approach to Site Selection and Facilities Design

John Flynn, AIA, and Jeffrey Hausman, AIA

The Importance of Value Engineering for Environmental Projects 23

Jill Woller, CVS

Mitigating the Impact of Personal Protective Equipment 26

Gary Stillman, PE, CCE

Fultz Landfi l l Superfund Site 29

A Value Engineering Success Story Fred McAuley and Martin Bandy, CVS

Book Reviews 31

The Heavens are Falling

Risk Assessment Methods

E S S A Y Thunder: Never Whip a Puppy 3 2

Thomas R. King, CVS, FSAVE

Continued on inside o f rear cover.

1

Editorial: Don't throw the Baby Out with the Bath Water

Visitors to this small planet o f ours might conclude

f r o m the draconian budget cuts propose by the

Republican members o f the U.S. Congress that they

are out to destroy the environment. Nothing could

be further f r o m the truth.

These lawmakers are not against the environment;

they are against the tax-supported environmental

protection bureaucracy that has become unwieldy,

antagonistic toward industry, and unaffordable.

Republican budget-cutters have set their sights on,

among other things, the Environmental Protection

Agency and the restrictions o f the Clean A i r and

Clean Water Acts.

The public by large favor the protection o f our

natural resources. Let's face it; the 1972 Clean A i r

and Clean Water Acts reversed the pollution spiral

that threatened the health o f the nation's air,

reservoirs and waterways. Proposed changes to the

acts would weaken wetland protection and allow

industry to discharge more pollutants into the air

and bodies o f water.

The federal deficit needs t r imming and the federal

environmental regulatory process is one o f many

logical areas to attack. In this case, however, the

congressional premise is wrong that states could do

a better and less costly job o f enforcing clean-water

regulations and reducing air pollution on their own.

Rivers and air currents do not respect state lines

and national boundaries and the Congress cannot

completely delegate environmental protection to

the states. I n the quest to effect economies,

lawmakers should not wreck the nation's and the

world 's fragile ecosystem. We suggest the

Congress consider V E to examine cost-effective

alternatives for environmental protection.

I t is against this backdrop that we bring you the

environmental issue o f Value World, beginning

wi th "EPA's Technology Innovation Strategy" by

the Honorable Carol M . Browner, Administrator o f

the Environmental Protection Agency. Eric Meng's

article, " Value Engineering for the Environment:

Sorting out the Criteria" is equally interesting and

could be a useful guide for our lawmakers.

Michael Schneider in his article "Value Analysis

and Sustainability: An Opportunity to Revolutionize

the Construction Industry''' confirms the belief that

environmental concern can be an integral part o f

V E .

The remaining articles present interesting

viewpoints on the role o f V E in environmental

protection. These are Robert Black's Value: "A

Broader Perspective", Martyn R. Phil l ip 's

"Methodology for Rating Environmental Risks

and Management Response Systems, John Flynn 1 and Jeffrey Hauser's "Increasing Value Through

Design for Sustainablity: An Environmentally

Responsible Approach to Site Selection Facilities

Design", J i l l Woller 's "The Importance of Value

Engineering for Environmental Projects", Gary

Stillman's "Mitigating the Effect of Personal

Protective Equipment", and Fred McAuley and

Mar t in Bandy's "Fultz Landfill Superfund Site: A

Value Engineering Success Story."

The two book reviews in this issue are appropriate

for the risk management bookshelf we introduced

in the last issue o f Value World. The books The

Heavens are Falling and Risk Assessment Methods

deal directly wi th the environment.

We close the issue wi th Tom King 's "Thunder:

Never Whip a Puppy." Tom has a cogent message

in his essay.

We are gratified by response to the feature "Value

Briefs", many o f which have been provided by our

readers. Be sure to read the value brief on page 31

regarding the local government level.

In addition, the response to our request for articles

has been most gratifying. We have received a

sufficient number o f environmental articles to

warrant a second issue on this vi tal subject.

Del L . Younker, CCE, CVS, takes over as Editor-

in-Chief wi th the next issue and I j o i n the ranks o f

the Editors Emeriti alongside my good friend Jim

V o g l . I t has been a pleasure serving as editor.

Your gracious letters, telephone calls, and other

communications made the j ob worth doing.

Goodnight and 30.

VALUE WORLD, Volume XVI I I , Number 3, October 1995

2

EPA's Technology Innovation Strategy T h e Honorable C a r o l M . B r o w n e r , E P A Admini s tra tor

Need for Better, Less Costly Technology

Twenty-five years ago, widespread public concern gave rise to the most advanced system o f environmental regulation in the world , including the creation o f the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. I n what is really a very short history, we have made tremendous progress. We have succeeded in solving the most obvious problems. We no longer have rivers catching on fire. Our skies are cleaner. Our surface waters are less contaminated by untreated sewage and industrial wastewater. U.S. environmental expertise and technology have come into demand throughout the world .

Nothing is more essential for our nation's environmental goals than developing and deploying new technologies for environmental protection. Today's technologies are not adequate to solve many o f today's environmental problems, let alone the challenges that lie ahead.

To protect public health and our environment both in the United States and abroad, we need new technologies that work better and cost less.

EPA has embarked on an ambitious program to launch a new era o f technology in environmental protection. This program is laid out in EPA's Technology Innovation Strategy. Global demand for environmental technologies is currently estimated at roughly $300 b i l l ion a year and projected to rise steeply over the coming decade.

To help the country maintain a strong and competitive environmental industry, the Clinton Administration aims to nurture environmental innovation. Our principal competitors, Germany and Japan, are positioned to capture leading shares o f the global market by supporting innovation in environmental technology. To avoid being left behind, the United States must strengthen its presence in the market in four ways.

Reprinted by courtesy of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from the EPA Journal, Volume 20, Number 4.

Changing E P A to Promote Innovation

The U.S. market for environmental goods and services is largely determined by our environmental laws and regulations. American businesses spend over $130 b i l l i on a year to comply w i t h federal environmental mandates. Yet, our laws and regulations often end up hindering innovation by making i t d i f f i cu l t to t ry out new techniques.

These barriers to innovation take many forms. For example, most environmental standards serve to "lock in" the use o f existing technologies. Companies receive neither rewards for t rying something new nor protection against failure. Even where companies are legally permitted to use alternative methods to meet a standard, they are usually unwilling to risk noncompliance or unproven technology. Traditionally, enforcement personnel have been reluctant to grant exceptions for businesses that make bona f ide attempts to comply using an innovative approach but need extra time or f a l l short o f the regulatory mark. As a result, the same old technologies are used over and over, year after year, freezing out newer and more effective options.

Another problem is the unpredictable nature o f the regulatory development process. Often, the promulgation o f a new environmental standard takes many years. Only at the end o f that long process do companies f i nd out what w i l l be required o f them. A t that point, they may be required to meet the new standards wi th in a relatively short period o f time. Yet the development cycle for new technologies can be 10 years or longer. Even when technology developers begin their efforts wel l before a new standard is promulgated, the lack o f predictability in the rule-making process makes i t hard for them to obtain financing. They run the risk o f producing an innovation that either over- or under-complies w i t h the f ina l requirement.

Many barriers that inhibit innovation are rooted in environmental laws. The Clinton Administration has proposed changes in several key laws that maintain a f i r m commitment to environmental goals while incorporating new opportunities fo r innovation. I n addition, EPA is striving to make our regulatory programs more friendly towards innovative

V A L U E W O R L D , Volume XVIII Number 3, October 1995

3

technologies. I n so doing, we hope to lead other federal, state, and local agencies to reduce barriers to innovation.

Among the measures we are considering are

Increasing the predictability o f our regulatory process through negotiated rule making and other regulatory development "processes that broaden the participation o f affected parties.

Widening the range o f technologies accepted for compliance.

Using economic incentives to reward businesses that use technology not just to meet the min imum standards, but to exceed those standards.

Streamlining our permit processes and our environmental practices to promote innovative technologies.

EPA's new Common Sense Initiative, launched in July 1994, w i l l help us carry out these objectives. The initiative is a fundamentally different system o f environmental protection that replaces the pollutant-by-pollutant approach o f the past wi th an industry-by-industry approach for the future.

Through the initiative, we w i l l analyze thoroughly the overall environmental impact o f six pilot industries. For each industry, we w i l l do a comprehensive analysis o f the successes, the failures, the problems, the achievements, and the unintended consequences o f regulation.

The six pilot industries that w i l l be the focus o f the f irst phase o f the Common Sense Initiative are the auto industry, the iron and steel industry, the electronics and computer industry, the metal plating and finishing industry, the printing industry, and the o i l ref ining industry.

Helping Developers and Users

Inventors o f new environmental technologies often lack the information, skills, tools, and facilities required to move their technology f rom the garage to the global marketplace. A t the same time, f i rms that could use these new technologies may not know enough to be able to evaluate them. Small businesses, in particular, are at a disadvantage on both counts. Nor are financial institutions, regulators, or the public consistently able to make informed decisions about innovative technologies.

V.VA is well positioned to help address these

problems. We can provide information, skills, tools, testing protocols, and facilities to make the environmental technology market function more smoothly and efficiently.

Funding Invention

EPA's unique vantage point allows us to identify emerging technologies which can f i l l a present or anticipated environmental need. I n such cases, strategically targeted EPA funding for promising new technologies can boost the chances for success.

Distributing Help

, B y strengthening institutions that compile and disseminate information on innovative technologies, EPA can broaden the choices available to potential customers and help create a more informed domestic and international market in which American developers can sell their high-quality products.

EPA can work wi th public and private organizations to spread information on company needs and what available technologies. EPA can catalyze demand by promoting federal purchases o f innovative technologies. A n d we can provide technical assistance and training to strengthen environmental infrastructures abroad, thereby expanding the global demand for innovative environmental technologies. In al l that we do, we need to work wi th businesses, regulators, environmental groups, and the public to ensure that our policies work across this country.

We also need to be sure to promote technologies that prevent pollution. To date, most environmental technologies have been designed to control pollution once i t has already occurred. Increasingly, the best environmental solutions are found to involve changes in the production process, feedstocks, and product design, so as to eliminate pollution before it is generated.

EPA is serious about fostering environmental innovation in every way possible. Over the next few years, we aim to improve the regulatory climate for technology innovation, increase the capacity o f innovators to provide new and better environmental solutions, forge new partnerships between government and the private sector, and help new American technologies compete in markets throughout the world.

The Honorable Carol M. Hrowncr is Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington. D C

V A M I K WOKI.I ) . Volume XVIII, Number 3. October 1995

4

Value Engineering for the Environment Sorting Out the Criteria

E r i c G . Meng , A I A , C V S

I n spite o f its technical ingenuity, environmental

engineering is bogged down in conflicting

regulations, liabilities, and tough-to-define criteria.

N o w an old tool, V E is being applied increasingly to

expedite progress in environmental work. This is

particularly so in the tough hazardous waste

remediation work, where V E is key to balancing

technical and safety requirements, regulatory criteria,

public concerns and costs.

When Superfund was conceived in 1980, few

envisioned the obstreperous chain reaction it would

trigger. This Pandora's Box is exploding wi th

undefinable criteria such as : Applicable, Relevant

and Appropriate Requirements; Maximum

Contaminate Levels; Potentially Responsible Parties;

and Cultural Resource Protection. These are under

the auspices o f interagency agreements such as

between D o D , USEPA, DoE, Western Governors

Association, Federal Committee to Develop Onsite

Innovative Technologies, Hazardous Waste Action

Coalition, and under regulations such as the

Comprehensive Environmental Response

Compensation and Liabil i ty Act , Clean A i r Act, and

Clean Water Act .

Cost has at times taken a back seat to these

seemingly undefinable criteria and concerns. The

initial $1.6 b i l l ion Superfund estimate has escalated

to over $100 b i l l ion fo r cleanup o f all contaminated

US sites. There are no obvious tried approaches

since hazardous site remediation engineering is in its

infancy; compounded wi th multiple conditions at

radically d i f fer ing sites, the technical solutions

demand innovation. The environmental cleanup

challenge then becomes one o f balancing untested

technology against undefined criteria wi th in tight

fundable cost l imits.

I n 1988, O M B Circular A-131 recognized that a tool

already exists which can expedite both the

development and analysis o f new technology in the

most cost-effective manner. O M B A-131 mandated

the use o f V E for all federal programs, and the

results are increasingly manifested in environmental

restoration work. V E is wel l known to the

manufacturing and construction industry, and its

application is just as precise and powerful in the

environmental arenas. A l l the lead federal and state

agencies, as we l l as many private engineering and

remediation firms, have embraced the tool .

Programs

The Corps o f Engineers supports EPA as the lead

agency for many o f the Superfund sites, and

accordingly they have developed a j o i n t V E

program. The Corps has value engineers at al l 39

Districts and 14 Division Offices and a traveling V E

study team, al l under the general coordination o f

Ted Dahlberg at Corps headquarters. The Corps V E

effor t is also applied in the mil i tary environmental

program, which is now larger than the mili tary

construction program.

The US Navy has had an active value engineering

program for its mil i tary construction since the early

1970's. Accrued value engineering savings are in

the billions o f dollars. These projects include waste

treatment plants, water treatment plants, sewage

treatment plants, o i l spill prevention facilities,

landf i l l , hazardous waste treatment, and storage

facilities. Defense environmental restoration

projects under the Comprehensive Environmental

Response Compensation and Liabi l i ty A c t and

Superfund Act are likewise included in the Navy V E

program. I n fiscal year 1994, value engineering

studies w i l l be completed on over $253 mi l l ion

dollars o f proposed environmental projects, on

which the Navy expects returns ranging f r o m 18:1 to

50:1. The Navy Superfund projects w i l l be included

in the FY95 program.

The Department o f Energy operates some o f the

most contaminated sites, including Rocky Flats, Oak

Ridge, Idaho Falls, Fernald, and Hanford. A t these

V A L U E W O R L D , Volume XVIII Number 3, October 1995

5

sites the primary mission has evolved f rom research

and production o f nuclear energy to environmental

research and remediation. DoE has embraced V E

wholeheartedly, but has allowed the field offices

f lexibi l i ty in conducting their program. Many o f the

sites are operated by private prime contractors and

subcontractors who have varying approaches to

managing their V E programs.

A t Idaho Falls, Idaho National Engineering

Laboratories and Lockheed Idaho Technical

(formerly E.G. & G.) operate the V E program for the

entire complex. Over the past 10 years they have

developed an internal program in which they have

provided V E training for over 2,500 employees, and 1

facilitate their V E studies using their seven in-house

certified value specialists (CVS), certified by the

Society o f American Value Engineers. Their

program not only addresses environmental

restoration, but also construction, and recently R & D .

Using the interdisciplinary team approach, their

facilitators apply the f u l l range o f analysis

techniques, such as statistical process control, bench

marking, and transition management wi th in the V E

work plan. W i t h their team skills, facilitators are

often asked to facilitate other management processes

such as partnering, quality circles, and so on. Most

o f the funding for studies comes f rom specific

project allocations, so the V E group also markets

staff to outside agencies.

The V E program at Hanford is perhaps the most far-

reaching. Under the direction o f Sharad Desai wi th

the prime contractor at Hanford, V E has been

routinely applied to operations, maintenance,

construction, procurement, and administrative

activities. V E results made packaging and shipping

o f hazardous materials more functional, consistent

and cost-effective. Another V E team identified four

recommendations to reduce the hiring cycle time by

43 percent. The V E process has been utilized to

develop and establish function-oriented

organizations. Wel l -dr i l l ing operations have been

improved through V E to reduce dri l l ing time and

yield a 300 to 1 benefit-cost ratio. I n al l o f these

areas the V E objective has been to expedite the

environmental restoration mission in the most cost-

effective manner, while meeting prioritized criteria.

The Hanford studies al l use trained CVS's w i th

multidisciplined teams representing DOE, EPA, and

the applicable contractors.

Hanford Reactor Water Clarity V E Study

The Hanford Reactor Water Clarity Study illustrates

how prime contractor uses V E as in decision-making

for smaller pieces o f the project. Specific tasks

reviewed have critical schedule requirements to fit

within the overall Hanford Remediation Project. The

three-day study used a traditional, rigorous V E work

plan (see Figures 1 and 2).

.A reactor abandoned ten years ago had been filled

wi th water to contain radiation. The reactor is slated

to be dismantled and the containment material must

be removed. The V E study was tasked to recommend

ways for clar i fying the water so that the materials

within the reactor would become visible enough for

removal.

For this study, functional analysis was instrumental

in defining and leading the team to explore a higher

order function to the lef t o f the scope line originally

given to the V E team. Ultimately the most valuable

proposals focused on the higher order function,

"Increase Vis ib i l i ty" , rather than the function

"Clar i fy Water", since i t was determined that the

degree o f clarity needed to see through the sediment

would be extremely d i f f icu l t and expensive to

achieve. During the speculative phase o f the study,

the team focused on the function, "Increase

visibi l i ty", rather than "Clar i fy Water", and

suggested other means such as remote photography,

chemical treatment, and barriers to improve localized

visibi l i ty.

The second factor which shaped the study was the

importance o f criteria analysis. Schedule was ranked

much higher than cost, and became the primary

determinant o f accepted options. The importance o f

applying ranked criteria to the options led the team

to explore various procurement options that could

expedite implementation.

Even though cost ranked considerably lower than

schedule for this study, the V E team did explore

costs o f various operations, leading them to propose

a smaller self-contained nuclear basin filtration

system than originally considered. This one proposal

produced savings o f more than $1 mi l l i on over a

three-year period.

V A L U E W O R L D , Volume XVIII , Number 3, October 1995

6

WHY

CRITERIA FUNCTIONS P R O T E C T

H E A L T H

P R O T E C T

UK

M E E T

S C H E D U L E

T E A M

D E T E R M I N E D

T O S T U D Y T O

THIS S C O P E

HOW -

S T U D Y

S C O P E

ONE-TIME FUNCTIONS

ACTIVATE SYSTEM

C L E A N

isNVKOKMENTr

M E E T O E C O M M .

A G R E E M E N T S B A S W

I M P R O V E

AIR

l l CLEAN U*REmOVE|! f] B A S I N f l P E B W S I j

• F IND

: D E B R I S

I IDENTIFY

D E B R I S

SEE

WORK

i [ C L A R I F Y IT

i i * a t " n

U P G R A D E L

S Y S T E M S 1

R E P A I R

E Q U I P M E N T

R E P L A C E

E Q U I P M E N T

- 1 ADD

E Q U I P M E N T

O R D E R

E Q U I P M E N T

P L A N

U P G R A D E S

A S S E S S

CONDIT IONS

S C H E D U L E

W O R K ( J C S )

E S T I M A T E

R E Q U E S T

S U R V E Y

F A C I L I T Y

OBTAIN

MANUALS

T E S T

S Y S T E M S

OBTAIN I

A P P R O V A L S I

T K I L L

A L G A E

TTgpeMTE

j SUBMIT R E S U R R E C T J D E T E R M I N E j P L A N S P R O C E D U R E S

1 R E Q U I R E M E N T S |

T E S T P R O C E D S . A S K E A G ,

A T P I N S T R U C . NEPA, U S Q

SEPARATE

SOLIDS

; D I S P O S E

| D E B R I S

FILTER

(OLIOS 'JL MOVE

SOLIDS

C O L L E C T

S O L I D S

PASS THRU

SAND

WASH

SAND

SETTLE

SOLIOS

P U M P

MIXTURE

P R E S S U R E

W A T E R

C O M P R E S S

AIR

P I P E

MIXTURE

C L E A N

T A N K S

S IPHON

T A N K S

ALL THE TIME FUNCTIONS

M U N T A M

S Y S T E M

MAINTAIN

E Q U I P M E N T

•

H SERVICE M"

EQUIPMENT [I

I N S P E C T

E Q U I P M E N T

P L A N

MAINTENANCE

|RCCALIBRATI

LUBRICATE

ADJUST

VALVES

REPAIR

eOUIPMINI DeSION REPAIR

REPLACE

EQUIPMENT

ORDER

PARTS

MAINTAIN

S A F E T Y

RCPL L i t

REPL PILTIRS

R(PL

DIMCANT

REPL PUMPS

INSPECT

OPERATORS

Ll INSPECT U

\ \ OPERATORS | j

SUPERVISE

OPCRATORS

SAUMY

OSSCRVBR

DOB

S P E C I F Y

P A R T S

S T O R E P A R T S

TRAIN

O P E R A T O R S

S A F E T Y MTGS.

A T T E N D

C O U R S E S

Figure 1 Hanford N-Basin Water Clarity Functional Diagram

ALTERNATIVE SAFE

TY

RE

GU

LA

TIO

NS

SC

HE

DU

LE

VIS

IBIL

ITY

SP

AC

E

MA

INT

EN

AN

CE

CO

ST

PE

RS

ON

NE

L

RE

US

E

1 h

WE

IGH

TE

D T

OT

AL

RA

NK

*

Activate 107-N 4 3 4 4 5 3 2 3 0 28 37 6

P1 107-N Pump Repair = = + = = + + - •

P2 107-N Reduced Maintenance - - = = = + + + -

P3 Lights 5 5 5 3 5 5 4 5 5 42 48 1 Cameras 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 43 49

P4 Isolate Work Area 3 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 0 32 38 5

P5 Chemical Treatment 4 5 5 4 3 4 5 0 35 43 2

P6 Strain Basin 3 3 3 4 5 4 4 4 0 30 34 7 Drain Basin 1 0 0 5 5 4 1 0 17 16 10

P7 In-Basin Filtration 3 3 3 4 2 3.5 2 5 4 5 30 30 9 Vacuum 2 2 4 2 4 4 4 4 5 31 27 8

P8 H2 02 Only 4 5 5 3 3 4 5 0 34 32 3

P9A 107-N Startup Only 4 3 4 3 5 4 3 4 0 30 37 6

P9B Skim Basin Only 4 4 4 3 5 4 4 4 0 32 40 4

'weighted total ranking highest to lowest, 1 to 10

Figure 2 Alternative Analysis Worksheet

V A L U E W O R L D , Volume XVIII Number 3, October 1995

7

Hanford Historical and Cultural Resource Preservation

Once again, the prime contractor at Hanford used

value analysis as a management and decision­

making tool to analyze the complex and

politically-sensitive process o f managing the

many historically and archaeologically significant

cultural sites and buildings effected by on-going

Hanford remediation work (viz., the illustration on

the front cover).

The V E process was used not only to build

consensus amongst high profile players wi th

d i f fe r ing approaches, but it was also used to

expedite management plans for dealing wi th

significant cultural resources while maintaining

the overall Hanford cleanup mission. The

functional analysis better defined the

requirements o f the National Historic Preservation

Act , Section 106 Process, the interface between

National, State and local regulatory bodies, the

local tribal governments, and additional interested

parties. The study team created alternatives for

areas such as communications, consensus-

building, funding, as we l l as more specific

methods for surveying, cataloging, and mitigating

negative effects on the cultural resources. In this

project, many going into the study felt i t was

impossible to weigh these issues against costs, but

the organized process o f defining cost and worth

fo r basic functions often forces an improved

understanding o f the cost implications o f various

approaches.

Bartolo Well Field Groundwater Study

The Bartolo Wel l Field consists o f four potable

water wells providing drinking water to 17,000

San Gabriel Valley residential connections. These

wells were contaminated by volatile organic

contaminates upstream f rom the groundwater

basin outlet. The original concept was to intercept

these contaminates prior to their reaching this

basin. The original mediation included a

treatment system o f forced draft air stripping

towers o f f w i th gas carbon treatment. Since this

project was expected to be operated for over 30

years, l i fe cycle costs including carbon

replacement, and electrical utilities were

anticipated to far exceed the initial costs, even

though the init ial costs were significant.

The Bartolo V E team included representatives

f rom the Environmental Protection Agency, Corps

o f Engineers, and Energy Administration, under

the direction o f the Corps' V E team. The V E

study produced more than 70 alternatives, f r o m

relocating the project, to changing the ground

water remediation methods. These 70 alternatives

were reduced to 15 specific proposals meriting

further investigation and nine were developed to

concept level design and estimating. The

accepted value engineering proposals reduced the

ini t ial $7.8 mi l l ion first cost to $6.7 mi l l i on and

the 30-year operating maintenance costs f r o m

$19.6 mi l l ion to $18.8 mi l l ion . The proposals

specifically recommended changes to the number

o f wel l heads, changes to piping layouts and

specifications, and changes to the funding and

bidding configuration.

Conclusion

When dealing wi th hazardous materials

remediation, much attention must be paid to

detailed process in order to assure safety and

regulatory compliance. V E is particularly suited

to this process review because it quickly

prioritizes the many tasks and identifies value

imbalance due to the duplication o f functional

tasks, and to the overlapping regulatory

requirements.

As an analysis tool, V E is outstanding for

priorit izing criteria and understanding the cost

implications o f these often sensitive political and

subjective criteria. V E is a powerful creative tool,

well-f i t ted to environmental remediation design.

There are few known and standardized approaches

to environmental remediation, and V l i can

contribute to the search for alternative solutions.

Although first cost is seldom the highest criteria

in environmental remediation, V l i uses cost to

organize the process, and in so doing often alerts

the customer to unexpected nrens o f extremely

high, unacceptable costs,

Im- Menu, A I A , < V S i» a VI fm ihinior for Meng Aiwociutcs

in Scuttle, Wmliinjitoii

V A l t I! VVOMIII Volume XVIII. Number I, October IW5

8

V a l u e E n g i n e e r i n g a n d S u s t a i n a b i l i t y

A n O p p o r t u n i t y t o R e v o l u t i o n i z e t h e C o n s t r u c t i o n I n d u s t r y

M i c h a e l B . Schneider, A I A

I n November 1993, the Sustainable Building Collaborative o f Portland, Oregon hosted the first major conference and trade show in the Pacific Northwest to feature resource-efficient construction. The conference was titled "Building wi th Value '93".

The list o f speakers and topics seemed to be the ideal crash course for building an arsenal o f innovative ideas fo r use in value studies. Some o f the titles were "Structural Alternatives to Dimensional Lumber," "Field Experience wi th Resource-Efficient Materials," "Life-Cycle Analysis o f Common Structural Systems." The opportunities for exposure to an impressive array o f sponsors and exhibitors including the Department o f Ecology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Resourceful Bui lding Technology and Center for Maximum Potential Bui lding Systems, promised to make this a worthwhile event.

Overall, the conference was outstanding. The f lood o f valuable information completely saturated me. Many o f the things I learned at the conference continue to inspire me. Creative alternatives developed during my participation in value studies, are a byproduct o f my conference experience. I walked away f r o m the conference wi th three significant impressions:

The passion of the participants. Everybody in attendance was excited about the discussion, debate and future outlook on sustainability. Everybody soaked up every detail o f the presentations and poured their enthusiasm into the workshops.

The deja vu quality of the event. The conference transported me back to the University o f I l l inois in the 70's surrounded by environmental activists espousing virtues about Mother Earth w i th which I still (largely) agree. Some o f these same "virtues" or technologies were showcased at the conference and sadly, had not progressed in over two decades. This reflects my experience. I n the past twenty years, I have had limited success effectively integrating these concepts into the "real world."

The lack of value specialists in attendance. Despite the name "Building with Value," I learned

that I was the only representative o f the value methodology in attendance. On the first day, I asked the entire group o f attendees whether anyone was a value specialist or a member o f SAVE. Amidst the blank stares there was only one person who had served on a value study in the past.

Based on my impressions, I have concluded that there is a tremendous opportunity for practitioners o f the value methodology, especially those primarily focused on the construction industry. The practitioners o f the sustainability movement offer a valuable resource for new ideas that expand the envelope o f traditional alternatives for increasing a building's value. Our collaboration has the potential to revolutionize our practices as wel l as the construction industry.

Building with Value Is Sustainable

As an introduction to the concept o f sustainability, definitions are appropriate. Sustainable construction meets present needs without compromising the future with residual impacts. I t is best accomplished by incorporating resource efficiency throughout al l phases o f developing the built-environment including planning, design, construction, operation and demolition. Resource-efficient construction focuses on saving resources: raw materials, energy, water, land, air, time and money.

The Sustainable Building Collaborative describes the characteristics (and clearly, the advantages ) o f resource-efficient construction:

• Maximizes energy-efficiency (e.g., reducing heat loss and embodied energy while increasing the use o f clean energy technologies).

• Minimizes waste. • Maximizes the use o f recycled and salvaged

materials. • Minimizes and optimizes the use o f raw

materials and other natural resources. • Minimizes health risks to those who

manufacture building products, construct the building, and occupy or operate the building.

• Provides the most quality practical at competitive and affordable prices.

VAI I I WOMI l», Volume XVIII Numbci I. October IWH

9

Value experts are no strangers to these characteristics. They regularly appear in our studies as criteria or components o f our FAST diagram search fo r basic function. I n fact, they may be considered higher order functions i f we look at current trends in the areas o f technology and economics.

Technological Context

In the words o f French poet and philosopher Paul Valery, "The future isn't what it used to be." The technological context in which we find ourselves has given us the ability to produce almost any kind o f product f r o m any type o f matter. Technology is no longer the barrier to creativity. The good news is.* that the cost o f technology continues to go down.

Today we are learning how to extract useful work f r o m previously overlooked resources: sunlight, w ind power, byproducts o f plant material used in construction materials, heat generated f rom the soil and ground water. Wood waste is being used to create engineered wood that has superior qualities to the original product. Wind generated electricity is as cheap today as conventional power and photovoltaics have dropped to only five times the cost o f conventional electricity (compared wi th 100:1 in 1975).

There are numerous examples o f products developed as a result o f technological advances and simple ingenuity. Consider sixth grader M o l l y DeGezelle who, as part o f a science contest in 1991, tried to develop building material out o f recycled products. She ground up newspapers, added glue and baked the concoction. The consistency was not quite right. On the suggestion o f her father, a building contractor, she microwaved the mixture which resulted in a product wi th some interesting properties. Following further development o f Mol ly ' s idea, a composites manufacturer in Mankato, Minnesota is now manufacturing two by four sheets o f a material that looks like granite but can be sawed or nailed. The product is used as a hardwood substitute for furniture and casework and is substantially cheaper than conventional materials. The creativity phase o f any value study provides the perfect venue for the genesis o f such an idea.

Economic Context

To achieve sustainable communities, two common strategics are: improving efficiency and reusing/recycling materials and products. Each o f these strategics significantly impacts the economics

o f a construction project. By improving efficiency we can reduce consumption and its associated cost. W i t h careful planning and commitment, we can expect to reduce energy consumption by as much as 50 percent. We can also reduce the amount o f materials used for a specific purpose by as much as 75 percent, depending on the product.

The sustainable movement focuses on extracting value from the enormous quantity o f waste products: over one bi l l ion tons o f solid waste generated each year. I t is estimated that over 40 percent o f the waste stream to landfills consists o f construction, demolition and land clearing debris. Estimates show that the construction industry recycles only about 1 percent o f its waste. As the national average cost o f waste disposal continues to rise f rom $10 per ton ten years ago to $50 per ton today, construction managers must consider solutions that cut disposal costs. Recycling programs and architectural designs that reduce waste are effective recommendations for any value study.

In casual discussions with my value analysis colleagues, i t appears that too much attention has been paid to a myopic view o f the "bottom line," perhaps preventing adoption o f the technologies and strategies promoted by the sustainability movement. We must remember that the issue is value not cost. Although we have become fairly competent with l ife cycle costing, we seldom consider other cost dynamics such as: the embodied energy cost in developing products, materials or systems used in constructing the built-environment; disposal costs associated with material that has exceeded its useful l i fe ; and societal cost, which extends before, throughout and beyond the traditional limits o f our analysis.

Opportunity

Cultural reasons help to explain the lack o f a stronger connection between value analysis and sustainability. The reaction to sustainability is similar to other shifts f rom the current paradigm: that it represents Utopian thinking, that it is not practical, that the products are unreliable and that the building w i l l look "weird." Some o f these reactions are not entirely unfounded. In fact, the reactions are very similar to attitudes o f the design and construction industry toward value analysis.

Consider the issue o f reliability. One weakness associated with the products and systems proposed by the sustainability movement is that they have not withstood the test o f time. Yet. here arc many new

\ Al,m, WOHI l>. Volume XVIII. Number 3. October 1995

10

mainstream products launched every year that are considered worthy o f inclusion in value studies. The perceived difference between these two products and our selection o f one over another has more to do wi th marketing than a proven track record. Information about emerging technologies f r o m the sustainable arenas is often times anecdotal. Information about new products f rom the mainstream has the benefit o f glossy inserts in Sweets and highly paid sales people.

Because sustainable technologies have limited marketing budgets, i t is d i f f i cu l t to learn about available products and evaluate their features and reliability. The transfer o f this valuable information is possible, however, through a conscious collaboration between value specialists and professionals allied w i th the sustainability movement.

Ac t ion Plan

Education can bu i ld bridges between our groups. There are numerous resources available to inform the value engineering community about technological advances in materials and methods that support the cause o f sustainability (see attached list). Concurrently, the design community can learn about value methodology and better understand not only the process, but also the tremendous opportunity to seed the development o f new technologies (as a result o f the creativity phase). Invit ing environmental design professionals to participate in an appropriate value study can prove valuable. Because cost issues are so paramount to sustainability, projects that represent strong commitments to environmental issues may represent a unique market for value analysis, especially in the private sector.

I n f o r m project owners about the concept o f sustainabili ty and how i t can positively affect their bot tom line. Additionally, the owner needs to clearly understand that such choices may produce intangible benefits which may be o f even greater value: good w i l l , public relations, employee satisfaction and the like.

Forge alliances between professional associations. For example, the Seattle Chapter #078 has begun to forge an alliance with the Seattle Environmental Professional Interest Area (SEPIA) o f the local chapter o f the American Institute o f Architects. Last yenr wc loured Ihc Model Conservation Home built by Ihc King County Solid Waste Division where we »•?•*? mlrodiKcd lo n vnricly o f new products. We lo l lowt - d w i ld tt itMiil meeting unci round (able

discussion about the project. This year we w i l l visit EnviResources, a sustainable product showroom featuring environmentally-sound building products.

Test the boundaries and benefits o f these j o i n t collaborations. The Seattle Chapter o f S AVE is committed to providing pro bono value studies on projects built by Habitat for Humanity, an international non-profit organization providing housing for needy people. Establishing sustainable criteria for these projects and including SEPIA on the project team w i l l allow us to work together and test the mutual benefits o f our jo in t collaboration.

Summary

Sustainable construction is based ...on two assumptions. First, there is a threshold o f resource consumption beyond which the environment cannot sustain. Secondly, environmentally conscious choices can remove or reduce the threat o f reaching or going beyond that barrier. These choices must be made in consideration o f the context i n which they are placed. Consequently, sustainable construction becomes the ideal.

However, resource-efficient construction is achievable and clearly represents opportunities to increase value, often times wi th the added benefit o f reducing cost. Because the built-environment makes up such a large part o f energy and resource use, steps taken to redefine conventional practices in the context o f sustainability can yield significant results. Incorporating sustainability into value methodology may prove to be the catalyst needed to move both o f these practices further into the mainstream.

Acknowledgment

Statistics mentioned in this article are in the proceedings o f the Building W i t h Value '93 Resource Efficient Construction Conference and Trade Show. Special acknowledgments to keynote speaker David Morris, co-founder and director o f the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Local Self-Reliance, the Sustainable Building Collaborative o f Portland, Oregon, and Tom Palladino o f EnvironmentalWorks o f Seattle who also chairs the Seattle Environmental Professional Interest Area o f the A I A .

Michael Schneider, AIA is Vice President of the Seattle Chapter of SAVE and an Associate with Heery International, Inc. in Bellevue, Washington, with national responsibility for the development of Ilcery's Value Services Group.

« M l * «•«*•)• tt **#•*•* *v tn** •«-*<.< > « M H * < M vm

Lis t of Resources

Construction and Industrial

Recycled Products

1993-1994, Metro Market Development, Solid Waste Department, 600 NE Grand Ave, Portland, OR 07232-2736. (503-797-1650). Single copies are free to everyone. If you are outside the Metro region, you'll have to pay $5 for additional copies.

Designing with Vision:

Public Building Guidelines

for the 21st Century,

available from The Stafford Architects, 2025 Eighth Ave., Seattle. WA 98121-2603. (206-682-4042). $15 includes shipping.

Directory ot Recycled Content Building and Construction Products. Clean Washington Center, 2001 Sixth Ave.. Suite 2700. Seattle, WA 98121. (206-587-5520). Free to in-state residents: $20 for out-of-state. Call for order form.

McRecycle USA Database,

McDonalds Environmental Affairs, McDonald's Corporation, Kroc Drive Oak Brook, IL 60521. (708-575-3000). Published version is regional. Your address will determine which region you receive, unless you specify otherwise. Free.

A Resource Guide to

Recycled Construction and

Building Products. Marin

County Office of Waste Management. 3501 Civic Center Dr., Suite 403, San Rafael, CA 94903-4177. (415-499-6647). Free.

The AIA Environmental

Resource Guide, a quarterly

published by the AIA Committee on the Environment, does not list products by name, but does discuss material types and environmental characteristics. AIA Order Department. 9 Jay Gould Court, P.O. Box 7523, Waldorf, MD 20604. Ask about pricing structure, for yearly subscription prices vary depending on membership affiliation and quantity. A non-member pays $275 for a regular subscription. For more info, call 1-800-365-2724.

Builders Guide to

Residential Construction

Waste Management, from

NAHB Research Center. National Association of HomeBuilders Research Center, 400 Prince George's Blvd.. Upper Marlboro. MD 20772. (301-249-4000). Costs $10 (includes shipping).

Building With Junk and

Other Good Stuff: A Guide

to Home Building and

Remodeling Using

Recycled Materials, by Jim

Broadstreet; Loompanics Unlimited. Box 1197, Port Townsend, WA 98368. (206-365-5087). $19.95, plus $4 shipping.

Building With Nature Professional Networking Newsletter. P.O. Box 369,

Gualala. CA 95445. (707-884-4513). $45 for regular subscription.

The Efficient House

Sourcebook: Reviews of

Selected Books and

Directory of Organizations

Devoted to Home-Scale

Resource Efficiency, by

Robert Sardinsky and Staff of Rocky Mountain Institute. RMI, 1739 Snowmass Creek Road, Snowmass, CO 81654-9199. (303-927-3851). $15 includes shipping.

The Energy Source

Directory: Guide to

Products Used In

Energy-Efficient

Construction. Iris Communications, Inc. 258 E. 10th Ave. Suite E , Eugene, OR 97401. (503-484-9353). $175.

Environmental Building

News, RR 1, Box 161,

Brattleboro. VT 05301. (802-257-7300). Ask about price structure, for prices and allowable methods of payments vary depending on quantity ordered. A single-year "professional* subscription costs $60.

Environmental By Design:

A Sourcebook ot

Environmentally Aware

Material Choices, by Kim

LeClair & David Rousseau. Published by Hartley & Marks, Inc., P.O. Box 147. Point Roberts, WA 08281 (206-945-2017). $10 95

Professional edition available on an annual subscription basis ($40/yr). Volume I Interiors is available now. Volume II Exteriors, by Rousseau and Steve Loken will be out in Fall. 1994.

Guide to Resource-Efficient Building Elements (GREBE), and ReCraft 90: Construction of a Resource-Efficient House, published by the Center for Resourceful Building Technology, P.O. Box 3866, Missoula, Montana 59806. Prince G R E B E costs $25; ReCraft 90 costs $12.50. (Prices include shipping.)

National Materials Exchange (computer network). 522 N. Washington St:. Suite 202, Spokane, WA 99201. (509-325-0551). Modem (800-858-6625).

Reuse: The

Underestimated Source Reduction Technique. Urban Ore Information Services, 1333 Sixth Street, Berkeley, CA 94710. (510-559-4454). Free.

Recycled Products Listings. The Official Recycled Products Guide, American Recycling Market Inc. PO Box 577, Ogdensburg. NY 13669. (800-267-0707). $155 single issue; $275 annual subscription including updates and other services (newsletter).

Sale Home Digest Healthy

Building Resource Guide

1993 Ed. 24 East Ave. Suite 1300. New Canaan, CT 06840. (203-986-2090) $33 includes fact sheet. Ca* fty order form.

The Sourcebook tot

Sustainable Oeilgn,

published by in« ttoiton Society ol Aietvtetu M Broad S i . Boston, M A 02100-4301 (017 M l 1433) $2) p*u tO »ft*0*<9 CM ot writ* tot otttet torn

HeeHhM N S M H fey C M *

Good OutvtWyt*nMi>0 tloi 143. lifteoKv V A (•00 H I • ! • • > l l l t t t M s**««Nftg H m * N U SMUtey* (**«cit «*«ut»»* wtomtaton o<> to*v*enmt bwsuwvgt sftoow r» *>siatw swxt

VAI I I UOMI l> Volumo Wil l , Numlxi I . October l«WS

12

Value: A Broader Perspective Robert B l a c k

Traditionally, corporate owners have valued their facilities as the init ial value o f their capital investments and a given building's ability to support the direct labor o f their people at the moment o f occupancy. I n recent years, the dynamics o f global change and an increased awareness o f environmental issues has caused these same owners to begin to have broadened perspective. Even the concept o f "ownership" is being reevaluated in light o f these new conditions. I n this wri t ing, I attempt to portray the effects o f these new parameters on the Environmental Research Institute o f Michigan ( E R I M ) and the work I do in its Department o f Facili ty Planning Design and Construction.

E R I M is a high-technology, private, non-profit research organization, wi th its world headquarters in A n n Arbor, Michigan, specializing in the development o f innovative sensor and image processing technologies w i th applications in a variety o f disciplines f r o m engineering, to earth sciences, to medical, to manufacturing and robotics. ERIM's facilities encompass some 500,000 square feet and range in age f rom 5 to 35 years. Typically considered by management as a "poor step-child" to core-research work ("real value"), these facilities have been shaped by a low-initial-cost, make-do attitude over 25 years.

I t has been only in the past 5 to 7 years that the value o f facilities has grown beyond their functional aspects to encompass the shaping o f staff attitudes and to creating a solid real estate base for the economic stability o f the company. This new awareness, has helped to broaden the corporate focus into three significant areas o f value:

Perception and Attitude of Physical Workplace

While d i f f i cu l t to quantify in terms o f dollars, the quality o f the research staff and their ability to produce effectively has a direct correlation to their attitude about where they work. Normally this is not counted in the value equation, but it can become a serious issue where productivity lags and overhead rnlc soar*. I hiving reliable mechanical and electrical nyt lc im tt* well ns n clean and well-maintained work

environment are basic necessities to attract and maintain high quality staff.

Value analysis has guided decisions effecting both Institute staff and tenants in E R I M buildings. A V E study during a $2.1 mil l ion expansion project for the tenant, Philips Display Components, identified potential savings o f $247 thousand, which were rolled back into the project for higher quality systems and finishes and an increased project scope to better serve the building users. Another project, an 80,000 square feet renovation o f an existing E R I M building included a re-engineering o f the building's 25 year old mechanical system. A baseline scenario to re-f i t existing equipment (lowest initial cost) was compared to two alternative H V A C options using a value analysis w i t h a 10 percent discount rate and a 25 year life-cycle. The alternate scenarios yielded a direct payback period o f 9 and 10 years. Unfortunately, w i th the limited initial bond budget and a "management payback window" o f 3-5 years, the alternates were not selected. The as-built baseline scenario precluded optimum control o f temperature and humidity conditions in the building, resulting in seasonal negative impacts to building users. Costs for staff productivity and maintenance labor time "lost" were not considered factors in the value analysis. W i t h increasing awareness o f these impacts as we l l as more stringent OSHA regulations for indoor air quality, more value is being assigned to the people resource o f the company on subsequent projects.

Strategic Partnershipsjbr Leverage

While a company as a single entity can value its worth independently, E R I M is also now learning that its value can also be leveraged and enhanced through collaborations and partnerships w i th other local high-technology corporations, and institutions such as the University o f Michigan, wi th its large research endowments. W i t h greater competition for fewer national research dollars, a factor must be assigned for the value o f these local linkages, especially given the wealth o f technology resources available in the Greater Ann Arbor Area. ERIM's company value is being increased through projects which could not be

% « | I I ttiMII l l \ .**•*» \\t» Humhfi t (Mo te t I ' * * "

13

gotten on ERIM's expertise alone. For example, government funding has supported a jo in t venture between the University o f Michigan, E R I M and Perception to develop new imaging/sensor systems for the Intelligent Vehicle Highway Program. Other research funders now require that proposals include collaborations and methods to increase delivery o f products to a broader network in the ultimate market o f users. Such strategic partnerships are a necessary value component in an expanded economic equation.

Environmental Response

Like a wave that has swept through society since the 60's, the environmental movement has begun to take , its r ightful place as a critical component in the value analysis process, alongside traditional value mainstays o f cost and quality. Environmental laws, f rom meticulous OSHA regulations to sanctions for non-compliance have forced companies to include this as a necessary value component. A t E R I M , specially-trained staff have been dedicated to understand the myriad laws, implement staff training procedures and oversee changes in operations and maintenance activities just to arrive at minimal compliance. The exact value o f this increasing overhead cost has yet to be quantified, but it is clearly seen as necessary in today's system o f accounting.

A more positive approach to the environmental value factor has come about through a change in consciousness o f both management and staff. A new CEO, appointed in January, clearly values and promotes more environmentally sensitive activities and policies. Company-wide efforts at recycling are being expanded. The Facilities Planning Department is exploring more environmentally-sensitive land planning and development and also the use o f materials made f rom recycled and by-product resources for renovation and new building projects. In-house electrical staff, w i th public ut i l i ty partner, Detroit Edison, have implemented EPA's Greenlights Program in two-thirds o f the facilities, resulting in energy savings in just two-years o f $76,000. A simple value analysis, demonstrating an 18 month payback on initial investment was sufficient to convince Management o f the economic benefit to the company. A similar process is being studied to improve the energy efficiency o f other electric i k n i f v f rom computers to fans and motors I I I I < M I L | | I O I I | ihc futi l i t ies

One o f the more interesting new approaches to value management at E R I M has to do with an effort which combines all three o f the above factors in a neighborhood collaborative project to understand our collective impact on the natural watershed system. This project is centered around Miller 's Creek watershed to the Huron River. In its Sites Framework Planning Study encompassing nearly 100 acres on three sites, E R I M became aware o f the value o f the watershed to the whole river system and the impact o f local site development and maintenance practices on the major source o f drinking water for the area. Also, there existed the potential to demonstrate an environmental ethic on our own properties, which was seen as valuable to marketing efforts with certain program sponsors, and which could also have a direct impact on the corporate bottom line by reducing O & M costs for sites maintenance.

While we might be able to implement such practices on our own properties, E R I M cannot, without partnerships o f upstream and downstream neighbors, cause a significant improvement to the existing conditions overall and would still be subject to the impact o f harmful practices o f those upstream. Recognizing a unique opportunity with such neighbors as Federal agencies, world-class companies, schools, and organized adjacent residential neighborhoods (see Figure 1), meetings were held to discuss possibilities o f forming community partnerships to educate ourselves about sound water management practices. With the help o f the County Drain Commission, the Huron River Watershed Council, and the City Planning and Utilities Departments, a model planning area is being created which w i l l gradually improve the health o f the creek and the river, and help to preserve the quality and real estate value o f the neighborhood.

Such a model o f collaborative effort for mutual benefit can be an example o f how to restore a right balance between business and individual needs and environmental concerns. An expanded perspective o f "value" and continuing efforts to quantify these new factors through a sound value analysis process w i l l have broad-reaching positive impacts in business and for the environment,

Robert Black is tin A n luted nml maiiiigc* the Department of

Facility Planning, I H-nign A I M ! (omirmiiiMi nl the I nvironincnlal

KcHcnich Inttllulc ol Mulligan m Ann Arbor, Michigan

\ A l I I W O P I I 1 ) Volume XVIII, Numbei I, October 1005

14

Figure 1

Value Brief

N T I S Cata log of Products a n d Services

The National Technical information Service catalog o f products is a worthwhile addition to value practitioner libraries and what's more, it is free. The catalog lists 88 pages o f data products and services that you can obtain from NTIS at relatively low cost.

Ihc data categories arc business, energy. I i ivironmcnt. health care and medicine, military, wMcncc and technology, training and education, I tamputation, and computer soliwarc. data files, and

* U i t l» V.J«»w Wil l NumN« », (Mohcf I'M*

databases. There are nine pages o f listings devoted to

environment-related subjects. The catalog also

describes the online and offl ine information services

that are available.

For your copy o f the catalog, write to U.S.

Department o f Commerce, Technology

Administration, National Technical Information

Service, Springfield, V A 22161, o f telephone (703)

487-4650.

15

Methodology for Rating Environmental Risks and Management Response Systems

M a r t y n R . Phi l l ips , P . E n g . , F I C E , F C I W E M , M I M G T

Introduction

Increasingly stringent environmental performance standards are leading to the need for organizations lo examine their potential exposure to risk implications f rom environmental aspects o f their operations. Risk can be defined as the statistical probability o f some adverse event occurring to a particular target, which may be an ecosystem, a mnn-made structure or a (group o f ) human(s).

This paper deals in a broad sense with the identification o f inherent environmental risks, prioritization o f their significance and assessment o f Ihc related environmental management response systems in place wi th in the organization.

The fol lowing describes a comprehensive, workshop approach to determine which areas within a large, diverse organization, should be examined more closely. This is achieved through assessment o f the fo l lowing:

Extent and priority o f primary environmental risk areas.

Degree to which each civic operating area impacts each o f those risk areas.

Environmental management systems that are in place to respond to those risks.

Figure 1 shows a FAST diagram for examining environmental risk and management response systems.

HIGH ORDER ruNcnoN\

IReduce

Liability

t» HOW

'•Ensure \\Demonstrate \ i compliance \ -.due diligence j

WHY

'•Protect l ft •environment: g

j Integrate ; £5

\ EM Systems I 0

Quantify Issues

BASIC FUNCTIONS

Manage

Risks

I

Recommend Improvement

Areas

Prioritize Actions

Identify Weaknesses

lEvaluate Systems

Implement Procedures

I Rectify

Deficiencies!

Monitor Performance-

Improve Awareness

Compile Ranking Matrix

. 1 .

Compare

Costs

Categorize Areas

1

Compile Ranking Matrix

. 1 .

Compare

Costs

Categorize Areas

Accept

Liability

| 1 1 Accept

Liability Differentiate Concerns

Compile Remediation

Costs

Develop Ranking System

1

Differentiate Concerns

Compile Remediation

Costs

Develop Ranking System

Reduce Risks

Differentiate Concerns

Compile Remediation

Costs

Develop Ranking System

Reduce Risks Compile

Avoidance Costs

Train Staff

Compile Avoidance

Costs

Prioritize Risks

Identify Impacts

Examine Operating

Areas

Identify Risks

Exarnine Departments

'MTUTING FUNCTION

Examine Activities

SAME TIME

or WHEN

SCOPE OF PROCESS UNDER STUDY

Figure 1 F A S T Diagram for Assessment of Environmental Risks and Management Response Systems

V A L U E W O R L D , Volume XVIII , Number 3, October 1995

16

Risk Identification

The procedure for identifying and prioritizing categories o f potential risk for selected civic operating areas is based on a weighted ranking system. Risks may relate to health, ecology, civic liabilities, penalties for non-compliance and potential cleanup costs. Each type o f risk is distinct and therefore can be assessed separately, requiring different types o f technical and managerial responses.

Risk is typically quantified in terms o f the probability o f the occurrence and consequences o f adverse events.

Assessment Step 1: Examination of Risk Areas

Table 1 defines the categories and the relative weighting criteria by which primary environmental risk areas are evaluated on a weighted ranking system.

Table 1 Relative Weighting Criteria By Categ ories

Categories Weight

Health and Safety Risks to human life 20 Potential death 15 Long term disability 10 Potential harm not yet proven 5

Negative environmental impact 12 High probability, frequency, and duration 12

Medium probability, frequency, and duration 8 Low probability, frequency, and duration 4

Civil Liabilities Definite potential 9 Maybe or don't know 6 Low potential 3

Probability of Penalties or Prosecution High 9 Medium 6 Low 3

Probability of Incurring Significant Costs 6 High 6

Medium 4 Low 2

Prioritization of Risk Areas

Aiirnimcnt Step 2: Categorizing of R i sk Areas und Determining Responsibility

Wherever possible for each o f the primary environmental issue areas examined, specific «l*s|MMinenlH rind branches arc designated as having

primary responsibility or control, a degree o f impact f rom operations, or major impact f r o m operations

Assessment of Environmental Response

Environmental Management Systems Rating

The procedure for assessing department and branch environmental management systems (EMS) follows closely the self-assessment program introduced by Global Environmental Management Initiative ( G E M I ) . G E M I is an environmental self-assessment program developed in 1992 by 21 major US companies.

This procedure is used to examine organizational values and environmental management systems in use for the already identified high risk operational areas, for the categories o f systems and procedures, planning, monitoring and reporting, implementation and education, managerial priority, and other predominantly cost-related issues. Each o f these categories is broken down further into sub­categories for closer examination.

The EMS assessment addresses the management approach for the business attributes in Table 2.

Table 2 Business Attributes

Managerial Priority Environmental policy and priority Integrated management Process of improvement Contributing to the common effort

Planning Prior assessment Products and services Precautionary approach

Systems and Procedures Facilities and operations Research Contractors and suppliers Emergency preparedness

Monitoring and Reporting Openness to Concerns Compliance and reporting

Implementation & Education Employee education Customer advice Transfer of technology Contributing to the common effort

Other Mainly cost-related issues

Performance level ratings are applied in accordance wi th Table 3.

t M I t %M*tl l l V.<Jumt Wi l l Nwntwi 1. < Molxri I'M*

17

Table 3 Performance Level Ratings

Level 1 Compliance with environmental regulations. Response based on as needed or informal manner.

Level 1.5 Basic monitoring and response systems under development.

Level 2 Basic monitoring and response systems developed and implemented.

Level 2.5 Basic monitoring and response systems and environmental specialists utilized on an as needed basis by operational personnel.

Level 3 Formal environmental planning and accountability systems integrated into regular business function. Line personnel trained to routinely consider environmental implications as part of operational decision-making.

Level 3.5 Some measurement of results targets and feedback into planning system as part of the continuous improvement process.

Level 4 Total quality approach applied through integrated environmental management systems and continuous re-evaluation for improve.

Combined Assessment

Assessment Step 3: Prioritizing for Action

Each operational area is evaluated against the G E M I environmental business principles for significance to the organization and management response systems and practices in place. The ratings are 1 for low, 2 for medium, 3 for high, and 4 for very high.

The rated management response systems are grouped and prioritized for future action. Table 4 gives the grouping and prioritization.

Notes on Output from a T r i a l Assessment

I t should be noted that performance to Level 4 is not the objective for environmental management to attain. The level o f risk is the main driver for determining recommended priorities for action.

The highest corporate risk is due principally to both the high costs and health impacts o f dealing wi th any potential incidents that could conceivably occur. Another high risk area is where a single co­ordinating area has not been clearly identified as being responsible for a particular risk activity that is carried out by several other operating areas.

The highest ranked risk areas do not necessarily constitute the highest priorities for action. This depends on the related management systems in place.

Table 4 Grouping and Prioritization

High Priority Areas For Further Examination

Category 1.51 Higher significance activities, low management response, basic environmental systems under development.

Category 2A Higher significance activities, medium management response, basic environmental systems developed and implemented.

Category 2.5A Higher significance activities, medium management response, basic monitoring & environmental response systems implemented plus environmental specialists involved.

Areas Requiring Some Further Examination

Category 1.5B Medium significance activities, low management response, basic environmental systems under development.

Category 2B Medium significance activities, medium management response, basic environmental systems developed and implemented.

Category I C Lower significance activities, low management response, basic compliance with environmental regulations.

Activity Areas with Reasonable Application Of Environmental Managerial Priority

Activity Areas with Over Application of Environmental Managerial Priority

Typically, the higher rated environmental management systems are in place in operational areas where there is direct control over the higher rated risk areas. Conversely, the lowest rated environmental management responses arc in operational areas where environmental training and legislative compliance reporting have not yet been required to be normal business functions.

A general theme was the need for assigning higher management priority to accountability, control, awareness, and training. Closer examination is required for employee education, compliance and reporting, and customer advice, facilities and operations, contractors and suppliers, and transfer o f technology.

Acknowledgment

The author is indebted to the City o f lidmonton. Alberta, Canada, for the details o f the approach.

Martyn R. Phillips is n civil engineer nml n project und value management consultant in Alberta. Canada.

VAI.UK WOKI.D. Volume XVIII. Number 3. October 1995

18

Increasing Value Through Design for Sustainability An Environmentally Responsible Approach to Site and

Facilities Design

J o h n F l y n n , A I A , and Jeffrey H a u s m a n , A I A

A n environmentally responsible approach to site and facilities design requires commitment to a process. Clients need to commit to the concept and project teams must be w i l l i n g to challenge existing paradigms. Project teams must investigate wide ranges o f information, define objectives for the project, and be w i l l i n g to take risks.

This article discusses the principles that were applied to the design o f a headquarters and research building for the Consortium for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN). CIESIN was established in 1989 as a private, non-profit organization dedicated to furthering the interdisciplinary study o f global environmental change. Its mission is: "To provide access to, and enhance the use o f information worldwide, advancing understanding o f human interactions in the environment and serving the needs o f science and public and private decision-making."

CIESIN efforts are directed toward making the data collected by U.S. government agencies, the scientific community, non-governmental organizations, and international governmental organizations available for widespread use in scientific research, public policy making and education. CIESIN established a facilities development task force in 1991 which selected f i r m o f Smith, Hinchman & Grylls, Inc. (SH&G) , to design its permanent Headquarters Facility and Research Center.

Project Description

The CIESIN faci l i ty w i l l occupy 15 acres at the northern end o f Ojibway Island along the Saginaw River in downtown Saginaw. The southern portion o f the island is an urban park, the northern portion largely unused except for a river walk connecting the island to the mainland.

Editor's Note

Wc witivc our policy of not mentioning company names in this Value World article because SH&G is willing to share with our reader* (heir propcrtary environmental model that is described in llu* article

The building contains 170,000 gross square feet, 108,600 net, wi th a net to gross ratio o f 64 percent. The building population is projected to be 300. A construction budget o f $32,500,000, including $3,850,000 in site costs, has been established for the project wi th a $168 cost per gross square foot. The total project cost is $40,400,000

A variety o f public and private spaces are included in the buildings. The public spaces for meetings, conferences and training are contained in the rotunda. The private spaces wi th in the building contain off ice and work areas. Most o f the interior is based on open off ice planning, w i th 10-foot ceilings and indirect lighting.

CIESIN established a list o f fourteen qualities to be incorporated into the design o f the faci l i ty . They wanted a world-class faci l i ty that would establish a new paradigm for design and use. I t must also allow for f lexib i l i ty o f use and promote interaction.

The faci l i ty w i l l make a bold architectural statement, incorporating timeless, enduring materials wi th innovative and cutting edge approaches in systems design.

CIESIN and the design value team held a series o f interactive workshops during the pre-design phase to establish program, cost and quality models, and to apply value engineering principles to the decision-making process.

Using a software database developed by the deign team, the team was able to reconcile the cost, quality and program models to insure that balance between the three was achieved.

Sustainability Criteria

During the schematic design phase, sustainability criteria was over-laid on program, cost, and quality models. Extensive research was done to gain access to known information on sustainability. This included analysis o f resource material, such as the A I A "Environmental Resource Guide" supplemented wi th data collected in a survey.

V \ \ | | : H I I M I | i Vol»m» XVII I NuroNr i , (kiobcr IW5

19

B y using this material, the design team was able to "benchmark" its design criteria against particular features of other projects. The result of this effort was to establish design criteria in the following areas:

Environmental model. A comprehensive analysis of all factors relating to sustainability. Design objectives were identified for the Natural Environment, Design and Materials, and construction and Operation. Table 1 and Figure 1 describe selected components of the three elements of the proprietary Environmental Model developed

by the design team for the project. These objectives will be turned into specification requirements during the contract document phase.

Operation model. Trash disposal; security; data and communication; maintenance procedures; work environments and building usage.

Intelligent Building Technology. Raised access flooring to optimize wiring distribution; "smart building" technology; occupancy sensors; integrated systems and controls. Emphasis on personal control of heating, cooling, lighting and ventilation.

Figure 1 Components of Environmental Model

Indoor air quality. Raised access floor cavity for return air, increased use of outside make-up air and filtration methods, avoidance of materials and products that produce off-gassing.

People friendly. Greater human interaction; ability for maximum flexibility; maximize exterior views and day lighting; team and personal space; ability to attract world class employees and visitors.

Demonstration project. Document the project process so that others may learn from it. Work closely with agencies, utilities, trade organizations and others to establish achievable standards.

Selected Design Features

Site and building design concepts, and facility system selections were influenced by the sustainability criteria, as well as cost, quality and program models.

Site. The orientation of the building was carefully chosen to optimize solar exposure and day lighting potential. The two office wings arc oriented to capture views across the Saginaw River, across adjacent Lake Linton and the park area to the aoulh.

A conscious decision was made to "tread lightly" «m the island by minimizing disturbance of the »ite during construction and use, and limiting pur king spaces. Mature trees and pin tiling* will be preserved, while native plant specie* will be specified to the extent possible Meadow areas featuring native grasses will eovef mosi developed areas with very limited mowed lawn near lite building. No fertilizer* or irrigation syrtetm will he used. Storm water management is an important feature of the design I >ml«rgtmtml ttottn piping will be minimized oy grading ami Mml ing tile run­off to it detention pond and a f»toflllr*ik*i ANte This will purify the storm water and dlrevt il inlo lake Union

V M M W l W J i t * ¥ « * « • * * V I I I •*«<•*< I ( k to twi I " "

20

Table 1 Selected Components of Environmental Model

Throughout ant human history und especially from teem spues trml. m tmn learned f/ss unique nature ol this planet in this sols system... Sat iitt art our biosphere is nurtured and maintained «m tight, mimth and energy from only one stngie source: ititsw.

0«! j l faelttrf for tt*>! Ul«.

Optimize daylight strategies In building.

Minimize "sunMghf (or Ma i occupancy of Interna! heat load dominated use - but alio* for conversion in the future, it need be, to passive aolar heating strategy.

Orient particular outdoor spaces to receive morning, mid-day and afternoon light

DMIJH facility fnr xolar Warm*.

Minimize solar surface build-up and penetration during cooling season.

Mow solar gain In appropriate locations in winter - both inside and outside building.

Oesiaa facility tor i»lar Entity.

Demonstrate photo-voltaic electric application on-site.

Design facility lo allow application of fuhire solar technologies.

Building Ecology «r sr*

We acknowledge that ths methods, materials and systems si oar buildings an tew a negative impact on ths health md mi-being ot their occupants...t/!eretor>. we commit to creafng the most healthy and lite-enhancing building and site possible.

Imam* krfeer Physical Eavtwamtni.

Document and Understand conventional sources oi Indoor Air Quality problems.

Establish CIESIN Facility as a smoke-frea environment.

oducaiional graphics about 1A0. issues and solutions.

Specify materiais to reduca toxic emissions and air pollutants.

Design to minimize impact from electro-magnetic fields (EMFs).

Specify equipment and systems and design acoustical environment to minimize noise pollution.

traarwa Irnfeor Caemitat Eavliwmtat.

Specify materials to minimize toxic effects fram chemical substances.

Encourage Food products which are organic, locally produced and preservative and pesticide free.

Waste/Recycle (Cs recognas that there is no 'amy'anymore - fef we are reaching the limits ofwr natural systems to accept the waste lam our current mays of living., we strive to redefine our concepts of service and waste in this facility and to Reduce, Reuse and Recycle...

Work ta Blmtate Concapt ol Watte,.

Merttfy Sources ofWiet*, Tyaee ef Watti Proaaeta, Wattattram Sink*.

Oociiment material sources, recycling and waste In Existing Test-Bed Facility.

Oratt ideal concepts for Service and Waste in New Facility.

Involve and empower Staff in creating and implementing more intelligent work procedures towards elimination of "waste".

Uaaaratut City Solil Waita Pettctoa.

Work with City Solid Wasta Department staff to understand current and projected waste handling methods and procedures.

Wort together to create a transition pian for CIESIN service and wasta procedures which will serve as a model for the entire City.

Datiaa ta mtfllmha waste aariai ConttracUoa Pane.

US

mmmm

CD

"cS

08 s

.EP ' v >

CD

O

* t i l t K H U N t l S<*—* XVIII Hum»>te 1 IMoIwi l<W»

21

Architectural. The concept o f sustainable architecture, sometimes referred to as "green" architecture is relatively new. To date there has been little consensus on guidelines, or even definition o f terms.

The A S T M Subcommittee E-50.06 is in the f inal draft stages o f formulating a standard for commercial "Green Buildings". Responsible architects need to take into account these standards and generally accepted principles o f sustainability such as; energy conservation, recyclability, solid waste disposal and environmental impact when designing a faci l i ty .

Exterior Envelope. Material and systems' selections were based upon the fourteen qualities established by the Task Force, sustainability criteria, and traditional criteria such as cost and aesthetics. Application o f value analysis principles helped the team achieve a balance o f all o f the above. The fol lowing material and systems have been identified

Brick cavity wal l construction consists o f face brick, 2-inch air space, air barrier, C M U backup insulation o f R-19, vapor retarder and gypsum board interior f inish. Curtain wa l l and window systems have fluorocarbon f inish, high-performance insulating glazing (1-inch glass units, argon f i l led, tinted, wi th Low-E coating). Punched windows serve three purposes; upper unit wi th horizontal light shelf to bounce daylight into the faci l i ty; and lower vision units to permit outside views; and operable unit to allow natural ventilation. Natural rubble stone occurs at the building base. Copper sheets in f lat seam pattern used as a siding material.

Brick and stone masonry are excellent choices because o f their recyclability potential, elegant appearance and abili ty to be integrated into a thermally excellent wal l . The exterior wal l envelope described above, using R-19 insulation, greatly exceeds the A S H R A E allowable total R value for a building in the Saginaw area ( U = 0.012 vs. 0.30 allowable).

Interior material and systems. Finish materials were selected and specified using the fo l lowing criteria:

A v o i d materials w i t h volatile organic compound content, carcinogens, and off-gas toxins. Use recycled and recyclable materials where possible. Avo id non-renewable or endangered materials sources. Take advantage o f embodied energy.

Mechanical

During the initial design stages specific selection criteria were established for the various systems. These include minimizing energy use, first cost/operating costs, reliability/ease o f maintenance, environmental safety, ecological awareness and optimum indoor air quality.

Using this criteria, system alternatives were identified. A matrix was developed to evaluate the alternatives against the specific criteria. The major systems are summarized as follows:

Heat ing and cooling. The combination o f direct-f i red absorption chillers-boilers and stainless steel cooling towers allows for energy conservation, staging and unloading in off-peak hours. Direct digital controls provide maximum energy savings and efficient use o f the cooling and heating equipment.

Absorption chillers-boilers use a water based solution as a medium instead o f CFC or HCFC refrigerant. They do not pose the environmental threat that a refrigerant based compression chiller system poses. The system consists o f several chillers which provide f lexib i l i ty and stand-by redundancy. The system requires only natural gas input. Equipment w i l l be centrally located. Stainless steel cooling towers provide a pleasing aesthetic feature on a prominent site and a long useful life-cycle.

A i r side. High volume, low velocity air distribution and local temperature control provide excellent occupant comfort and indoor air quality.

A i r is supplied f rom above the ceiling and returned below the raised access floor. Control is achieved through individual room and zone thermostats and humidistats connected to V A V boxes and fan coil units. Thermafusers provide V A V control o f open spaces.

Indoor air quality w i l l be enhanced by incorporation o f anti-microbial pre-filters, stainless steel cooling coil casing and drain pans, f ina l filters as the last element in the air handling unit, use o f air monitors wi thin the building and continuous monitoring o f outside air.

Plumbing. Energy efficient low water consumption fixtures are specified. Domestic water heat exchangers utilize absorption-chiller heat.

VAI.UK W O R M ) , Volume XVIII. Number .1. October IW5

22

Conclusion

Commitment to the process was mandatory to insure that the design satisfied the project objectives. The success o f the CIESIN faci l i ty w i l l result f rom a thorough understanding o f goals and objectives, resolution o f cost, program, value and quality parameters, and application o f sustainability criteria.

A t the beginning o f the project, the facilities development task force stated that the faci l i ty should make a statement about CIESIN, its mission, and its people. Commitment to the process should make that goal a reality.

The reader w i l l note that in this article more emphasis is given to process than to product. The reason is that the project value team feels very strongly in the process as a way o f achieving an environmentally responsible approach to site and building design. The rigor o f the process was develop using value analysis techniques and procedures.

Note: The CIESIN project was recently put on indefinite hold

due to funding reductions at the sponsoring agency NASA.

John Flynn, A I A and Jeffrey Hausman, A I A are with Smith, Hinchman, and Grylls Associates, Inc., Engineers/Architrects, in Detroit, Michigan.

Value Brief

A T a l e of T w o Cities

This is really a tale o f a city-owned ut i l i ty and a county. The entities are the Orlando Utilit ies Commission and Orange County, both located in Central Florida.

The two entities are engaged in construction projects, which interestingly w i l l materialize in structures that are 24 stories high. The Orlando Utili t ies Commission is completing the second electric power generating unit, referred to as Stanton I I , at the Curtis H . Stanton Energy Center. We reported on the Center in the Special Energy Issue o f the February 1995 Value W o r l d .

Stanton I I w i l l be completed and come on-line wi th its customers six months ahead o f schedule, A p r i l 1996 instead o f January 1997. I n addition, the project w i l l be completed for $42 mi l l ion less than the budgeted $$480 mi l l ion . The cost includes $96 mi l l ion for scrubbing devices that dramatically reduce the amount o f coal-generated pollutants, such as sulphur, that be released in the air by the generator.

The capacity o f the Stanton Energy Center w i l l exceed regular customer demand by more than 300 megawatts, which w i l l allow the Orlando Utilit ies Commission to sell power to other utilities until its own customer load increases.

This reduction in operating cost is passed on to the customers. Orlando Utilit ies Commission already enjoys the reputation o f being the most affordable and most reliable ut i l i ty. .

I n contrast Orange County has undertaken the construction o f a new 24-story Courthouse, w i th a slipping schedule and escalating cost. Occupancy was originally scheduled for January 1997. The completion date has now slipped to at least July 1997. The original cost was estimated at $125 mil l ion I t is now expected that the budget w i l l be exceeded by at least $15 mi l l ion .

We have no insight into the management practices at either o f the two construction jobs and cannot explain the difference in schedule and cost performance.

We do know, however, that the General Manager o f the Orlando Utilit ies Commission, M r . Bob Haven, is a long-time supporter o f V E . Do you think that this might account for the difference in performance?

Be i t as it may, Stanton I I w i l l j o i n Stanton I in showing that coal-generated electricity is a safe, environmentally benign and inexpensive alternative to o i l - generated and nuclear-generated electric power.

% 41 i • * * « t ft * VII I * * • * * • ) • > IM«4!>» ! ' « <

The Importance of Value Engineering for Environmental Projects

Jill Woller, CVS

Environmental concerns have been growing within

the consciousness o f Americans over the past

twenty-five years. W i t h this awareness have come

federal legislation judicial consent orders, and layers

o f regulatory oversight. State and local governments

have either initiated or been directed to initiate

actions to remediate or mitigate impairments.

Sometimes they have tried to anticipate changing or

evolving standards, but more often, they have been

forced in a period o f increasing fiscal constraints and

the withdrawal o f federal funding to respond to

regulatory pressures wi th extensive and expensive

capital programs.

The City o f New York has experienced these same

trends and pressures, but at a larger scale than most

local governments. Because o f their size and

complexity, environmental projects in New York

have been appropriate subjects for value engineering

(VE) in the past three fiscal years (1993, 1994 and

1995), the City o f New York (NYC) V E Program has

reviewed projects wi th an aggregated estimate o f

cost o f $5 b i l l ion .

O f these amounts, the environmental projects

represented 70 percent o f the total cost. These

projects f i t the Off ice o f Management and Budget

( O M B ) V E Program criteria o f cost, complexity and

technological sensitivity that determine which

projects are candidates for f u l l V E reviews in support

o f OMB's charter responsibility to approve all capital

expenditures.

The projects have ranged f rom upgrades and

expansions o f water pollution control plants to

combined sewer overflow facilities, f rom an

environmental education and lab center to sludge

management facilities and a water filtration plant.

These projects are excellent subjects for V E for a

number o f reasons. They are dealing wi th

technological solutions in a field where the state-of-

the art is anything but static.

Most governments prefer to build facilities where

there is a widely accepted conventional approach

wi th a proven track record and local familiari ty with

operational and maintenance requirements. With

environmental projects designed to meet evolving

regulations, this is not always possible.

N Y C Department o f Environmental Protection

(DEP) has taken advantage o f the V E Program's

ability to bring in professionally certified V E

facilitators, who fo l low the classical structured f ive-

step V E workshop format, and specialists in these

emerging technologies to supplement their designers'

expertise and to achieve a greater level o f confidence

in the resulting projects.

Because the O M B V E Program emphasizes the l i fe

cycle operations and maintenance impacts when

reviewing capital projects, facili ty operators or plant

superintendents, both f rom the city staff and f rom

outside, are usually included on the team. They

work together during a study to provide a reality

check for any alternative systems process or

equipment proposed, either by the project designers

or by the V E team itself. V E has proven

instrumental in identifying opportunities to reduce

unnecessary costs, and has given DEP a forum to

discuss more comprehensive approaches to

watershed management.

V E has also focused on the staging or phasing o f

complex environmental projects to assist DEP in

minimizing operational disruptions during the

construction o f these facilities. Through examining

these projects using V E , the City has been able to

anticipate problems or risks early enough to resolve

them during design, and has ensured that there is

adequate consideration given to alternative ways to

meet the projects' functional requirements.

Wherever DEP has had a particular area o f concern

or sensitivity relating to a project, the V l i team hns

V A L U E W O R L D . Volume XVIII, Numbei 1. < Model I'M*

24

been structured to include authoritative experts to

address it . Areas such as water quality modeling and

odor control have often been pivotal issues which

have benefited f r o m a point-counterpoint dialogue.

These projects are complicated and expensive. The

public i n general, and neighboring community

groups in particular, often offer resistance to them.

The City agencies make a considerable effort to be

objective in the siting o f these facilities and to meet

w i t h community groups to explain the facility's

purpose. However each new project requires

sensitivity to neighborhood concerns. I n the course

o f N Y C V E studies, these issues have been taken

very seriously. Sometimes they are the impetus for

V E ideas designed to shorten the construction period

or to reduce the amount o f area impacted by the

project. Some V E team experts have been able to

offer DEP the benefit o f their experience in handling

similar community pressures elsewhere. NYC's

problems are usually not unique, just bigger, and we

can and do learn f r o m others.

Over the past dozen years since the N Y C Off ice o f

Management and Budget initiated its V E Program,

hundreds o f millions o f dollars have been saved on

environmental projects i n a combination o f initial

construction cost reductions, operations and

maintenance savings and avoidance o f foreseeable

extra costs.

Annually these V E cost reductions typically average

10 to 15 percent or more o f the projects' estimated

cost while the studies themselves are measured in

tenths o f a percent. Non-monetary benefits include

operational enhancements, better coordination during

design and construction and remedying any project

deficiencies.

As resources continue to shrink and regulations

continue to grow, V E is becoming more

indispensable to the City in its effor t to keep water

rates f rom rising steeply. Every project reviewed

gets tangible benefits and the City gets cost effective

assistance in cost and program management. They

work together during a study to provide a reality

check for any alternative systems process or

equipment proposed, either by the project designers

or by the V E team itself.

Frequently the City has found itself advancing

several concurrent environmental initiatives,

competing for scarce funding. V E has proven

instrumental in identifying opportunities to reduce

unnecessary costs, and has given DEP a forum to

discuss more comprehensive approaches to

watershed management.

Jill Woller, CVS, is the Deputy Chief Engineer with the New York City Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and manages the NYC VE program.

Value Brief

New York City

New York is the largest city in the United States and lies at the mouth o f the Hudson River on the southernmost extension o f New York State. The city's population o f 7,322,564 in 1990 is divided among f ive boroughs, each o f which is a county o f N e w York State. These are Manhattan (New York County), Brooklyn Kings County), Bronx (Bronx County), Queens (Queens County), and Staten Island (Richmond County). The f ive boroughs cover an area o f 321 square miles. The city's metropolitan area, wi th a population o f 18,087,251, includes Long Island and parts o f southern New York State, northeastern New Jersey, and southwestern Connecticut.

Manhattan is located on an island. Bronx is on the mainland and Manhattan Island by the Harlem River. Queens is located on western Long Island and is separated f rom Manhattan and Bronx by the East River. Brooklyn is located to the west and south o f Queens. Staten Island is located to the west side across the Lower Bay.

Many smaller islands dot the bays, rivers, and estuaries. Among the more important are Ellis Island, Governors Island, Liberty Island, Randall's, Island, Roosevelt Island, and Ward's island.

The Statue o f Liberty is located on Liberty Island.

V A L U E W O R L D , Volume XVIII Number 3, October 1995

• Indicates Plant Location Within Drainage District

V A L U E W O R L D , Volume XVIII, Number 3, October 1995

26

Mitigating the Impact of Personal Protective Equipment

Gary Stillman, PE, CCE

Overview

During the execution o f the remedial construction

project, the health and safety o f the personnel at the

site is o f utmost concern. The project specific

health and safety plan is one o f the first documents

to be produced and no work can occur at the site

unt i l this plan has been approved by the regulating

agency and the client (or client's representative).

During the execution o f the work, a health and safety

off icer is assigned to the project to ensure that the

work proceeds as specified. This person has the

authority to stop work at the site i f unsafe conditions

appear or i f a deviation to the plan occurs.

To protect the hazardous waste workers at the site,

personal protection equipment (PPE) specified in the

health and safety plan for the site conditions and

contaminants is worn. As the work proceeds, the

work areas are monitored and the health and safety

plan updated to ensure that PPE being worn can

handle the concentration levels and types o f

contamination that occur.

Unfortunately, the wearing o f PPE has impacts to the

costs o f the project due to

Productivity loss Cost o f PPE, purchase and disposal

Premium pay

Addit ional personnel

During the pre-mobilization period, or during the

bidding period, alternative approaches are reviewed

to reduce the level o f PPE to be worn so that worker

productivity impacts w i l l be minimized. The

remedial contractor w i l l t ry to have the on-site

personnel wear the lowest level o f PPE that still

meets the requirements o f the health and safety plan.

The impact due to wearing PPE and the associated

costs w i l l be discussed first. Then, examples o f cost

savings due to alternative engineered approaches to

minimize these impacts w i l l be shown.

PPE Impact

The different levels o f safety and the PPE required

are described below.

Level of Safety Equipment D. Modified-one piece

coverall, disposable boots, tyvek (or similar)

coverall, steel toed boots, inner gloves, outer gloves,

hard hat (with a safety shield i f required)

Level of Safety Equipment C . Same as D ,

Modi f i ed , except w i th a respirator w i th an air

pur i fying cartridge.

Level of Safety Equipment B. Same as C, except

w i th a self contained breathing apparatus.

The loss o f productivity due to wearing PPE is

estimated for each job based on the activities

involved, the air temperature, the contaminants being

remediated and the schedule for completion. Typical

productivity adjustment factors (1) are:

Condition

Normal Work

Level D Modi f ied

Level C

Level B

Productivity Adjustments

1.00

1.25

2.60

5.07

The adjustment factors are used to modi fy the

productivity units or estimated time that the workers

are expected to complete the activity under normal

conditions. For example, an activity which would

take a crew of 4 people 3 hours to complete (12 craft

hours) under normal conditions, would take about 31

craft hours to complete wearing level C PPE an

increase o f 19 craft hours. As shown, increasing the

level o f protection almost doubles the productivity

adjustment factor.

The PPE has a purchase and disposal cost associated

wi th it . Based on several recent projects, the average

cost per craft day for each level o f protection is:

V A L U E W O R L D , Volume XVIII Number 3, October 1995

27

Condition

Level D

Level C

Level B

Cost per Craft Day

$12.00

$25.00

$40.00

Many hazardous waste f irms pay their workers

additional wages for working wi th face protection

(as required in Levels C, B , and A ) . This bonus can

range f r o m $2 per hour to 20 percent o f the base

salary. Many unions who supply craft labor also

have this requirement.

When a crew is working at Level C or higher,

additional personnel are required for the work. For'

each activity, a person is assigned for a safety watch

to raise an alarm i f the workers are overcome by heat

or contaminants or are injured during the activity.

This additional person can watch anywhere f rom one

to several people concurrently depending on the

activity.

A crew working at Level C or higher may experience

fatigue or heat exhaustion due to wearing the PPE

thus l imi t ing the time period that they can

continually work. In order for eight hours o f work to

be completed wi th in a day, two crews may be

required, doubling the labor costs. The first crew

w i l l be working while the second crew is recovering

f rom their work period. The recovering period may

last up to several hours depending on the activity, the

PPE worn and the weather conditions. The higher

the heat index, the less time a crew can work and the

longer the recovery period.

The successful contractor w i l l t ry to work wi th the

least level o f PPE that is allowed for each activity

due to these cost and productivity impacts. The

fo l lowing compares the costs for an activity that is

completed wearing PPE at Level D and Level C.

Impact Level D vs. Level C

Normal Labor Hours: 1,000 vs. 1,000

Adjusted Labor Hours: 1,250 vs. 2,600

Labor Cost (at $20 per hour): $25,000 vs. $52,000

Craft Days o f Work at 10 hours per day: 125 vs. 260

PPE Cost: $1,500 vs. $6,500

Premium Face Protection Pay at $20 per craft day:

$0; $5,200

Work Days, assuming a 5 person crew: 25 vs. 52

Safety Watch at $200 per day): $0 vs. $10,400

Total Cost Impact: $26,500 vs. $74,100

Cost Differential Base: $47,100

In this example, a contractor estimating this activity

using Level C would have a $47,100 penalty in the

bid as compared to working in Level D modified the

entire period. In addition, the overall schedule

would be 27 days longer (wi th the associated

overhead costs).

However, due to safety requirements for the

personnel, a contractor cannot unilaterally change

the level o f protection. Engineered controls and

judgement are required to lower the PPE

requirement. Cost alternative studies are performed

during the bid period and prior to starting work on

site to reduce the level o f protection required for the

workers while still maintaining the safe working

environment.

Two examples o f how a contractor may safely

reduce the level o f protection for the workers based

on sound judgement fo l low.

Examples

Additional Ventilation and Control

Excavation and earthwork activities are usually

covered wi th temporary structures to minimize the

release o f contaminants to the atmosphere.

However, work inside the structure must proceed

safely normally with protection levels B or C due to

the dust created, the release o f the contaminants f rom

the soil, and the exhaust f rom the earthwork

equipment. Contractors w i l l analyze different

approaches to this work to minimize the PPE

required. For example, a ventilation system may be

added which w i l l create a cleaner atmosphere in

which the craft may work. This system w i l l provide

several changes o f air per hour which w i l l allow the

work to continue in Level C instead o f Level B (or

maybe Level D) . The cost o f the ventilation system

is offset by the savings in the impacts o f the PPE. I f

in the earlier example, the ventilation system cost

$25,000, the contractor would sti l l have saved about

V A L U E W O R L D , Volume XVIII , Number 3, October 1995

28

$22,100 plus several days o f overhead. The work

area would be continuously monitored to ensure that

the contamination in the air would allow the work to

proceed in the lower level o f PPE.

Initial Removal of the Contaminant

Often in hazardous waste work, only a portion o f the

area being remediated is contaminated. For

example, in the demolition o f a building, only the

walls' surface may be contaminated. Rather than the

entire project being conducted in a high level o f

protection, the contractor may remove the

contamination during the f irst phase o f the project

and then complete the project at the lower level o f

protection. This approach may extend the schedule

o f the project (with additional overheads) which w i l l

be compared to the savings due to wearing the lower

level o f PPE.

Summary

Wearing PPE increases the costs o f a hazardous

waste remediation project. The safety o f the workers

is o f utmost concern during the execution o f the

project and protocols must be fol lowed. Successful

contractors w i l l specify an appropriate level o f

protection using engineering judgement and

experience to tailor the levels o f protection required

to minimize these impacts.

Bibliography

Selg, Richard et al, Hazardous Waste Cost Control.

New York City; Marcel Dekker, Inc. 1993, pg.79.

Gary Stillman, PE, CCE is the Manager of Cost and Schedule Controls for Roy F. Weston, Inc., in Malvern, Pennsylvania.

Value Brief

Recycling Water in the Semiconductor Industry

Ultrapure water is a necessity in the manufacturing

o f semiconductor products. The production o f a

single wafer uses about 2,500 gallons o f ultrapure

water. Typical semiconductor plants consume up to

f ive mi l l ion gallons o f ultrapure water a day.

The process o f making ultrapure water is quite

involved. I t involves water softening, fi l tration,

reverse osmosis, deionization, and f inal ly exposure

to ultraviolet l ight.

Economic and regulatory pressure is making

recyclying o f ultrapure water an equally important

necessity. Although, the Japanese have used

recycled ultrapure water for some time, American

manufacturers are now getting their feet wet.

The reclamation o f used ultrapure water is even more

complex than the purification o f the original f lu id .

I f not done properly the result can be disasterous to

both products and processes. The purification

process begins wi th identifying the impurities that

can be a host o f organic and inorganic compounds.

For this reason, current emphasis is on sensor

technology that can detect, localize, and identify

contaminants in used ultrapure water. Knowing the

contaminants that need to be removed, simplifies the

development o f purification methods and the actual

purification process.

V A L U E W O R L D , Volume XVIII Number 3, October 1995

•

29

Fultz Landfill Superfund Site A Value Engineering Success Story

Fred McAuley and Martin Bandy, CVS

This V E study was planned for success by

establishing the right players or team members to

participate in the study. The study sponsor, the

Omaha District o f the Corps o f Engineers,

furnished experienced Corps designers including

environmental, structural and geotechnical

disciplines, and representation f rom an

environmental management consulting f i rm . The

Remedial Project Manager f rom Region 5, US

Environmental Protection Agency, was also a

critical supporting player providing historic

prospective and guidance regarding possible

changes to the project design. The Study was lead

by the Corps' V E Study Team, providing both

experience in V E and experience in EPA's

Superfund Program.

Project Background

The Fultz Landf i l l Site Record o f Decision was

issued by the US Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, in September 1991. The plan

was intended to reduce risk to the Bayesville,

Ohio, area public by direct contact and exposure

to contaminated water sources, The present cost

over the 30-year l i fe was estimated at $19.4

mi l l i on ($15.7 mi l l ion first cost and $218,000

annual Operation and Maintenance). The State o f

Ohio EPA concurred wi th the selected remedy.

Major components o f the selected remedy fol low:

• Institutional controls to reduce exposure

through legal restrictions.

• Site fence to reduce direct exposure to

contamination.

• Alternate water supply for down-gradient

wells i f risk is attributed to site.

• Long term monitoring o f air, surface and

ground water, and leachate.

• Subsurface structural supports for mine voids - to

prevent cap damage and reduce bedrock

fracturing between landfi l l and deep aquifer.

• Surface water and sediment control.

... • Berm and mul t i layer cap to reduce infil tration,

' prevent erosion and reduce risk f rom direct

contact wi th contaminates.

• Leachate collection system o f 2 gallons per

minute.

• Extraction wel l system for intercepting

contaminated groundwater in the shallow aquifer

migrating into the deep coal mine aquifer.

• On-site water treatment to treat six mi l l ion

gallons o f contaminated groundwater annually

and leachate.

• Discharge permit for treated water discharge to

surface streams.

• Wetland replacement to restore ponds and habitat

disturbed by remedial action.

Preliminary Remedial Plan

The consultant's preliminary remedial design draft

report defined the work features to remedy the 30

acre landfi l l site. Supported by geotechnical and

preliminary level design investigations, the contractor

was able to significantly redefine project features

while maintaining f u l l technical compliance wi th the

Record o f Decision (ROD). A modified multi-layer

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Subtitle C,

compliant cap was configured to cover the site. A

plan for stabilization o f coal mine voids for

subsidence by injecting grout pillars was formed.

Treatment alternatives for groundwater and leachate

were developed to include storage tanks and

monitoring, and hauling to existing municipal

treatment facilities.

V A L U E W O R L D , Volume XVIII, Number 3, October 1995

30

The preliminary capital cost estimate was reduced

to $8.2 mi l l ion , significantly below the $15.7

estimate f r o m the ROD.

Value Engineering Plan

The major cost items were identified so the V E

team could focus attention on them. Cost models

were made o f general items o f work and were

further broken down into components. For

example, the landf i l l cap o f $7.1 mi l l ion was

comprised o f select fill materials ($1.2 mil l ion) ,

sheetpile ($1.0 mil l ion) , gravel drainage layer

($.9 mil l ion) , geosynthetic clay liner ($.9 mill ion),

geotextile layer ($.8 mi l l ion) , gas collection ($.6

mil l ion) , polyethylene liner ($.6 mil l ion) , top soil

($.5 mi l l ion) , engineered base ($.3 mi l l ion) ,

seeding ($.07 mil l ion) , and grading ($.03 mill ion).

The V E team produced 6 major proposals wi th

some ideas competing or offering different

alternatives for designers to eliminate or

substitute items. Two polyethylene liners were

suggested to insure sloped site conditions could be

met, and two methods for eliminating sheetpile

retaining walls were developed. The original total

costs savings were $2,238,979 when adjusted for

competing proposals.

The V E study further documented the superior

technical performance o f geosynthetic clay liner

over traditional 24-inch thick clay layers, and

eliminated gravel drainage and base bedding

layers by using a composite geotextile fabric-

geonet drainage wi th the polyethylene liner and

geosynthetic clay liner.

The revised cap section was reduced f rom 6.5 feet

to approximately 32 inches thick. Speed o f

construction w i l l result f r o m use o f new materials,

and the landfi l l cap w i l l be lighter weight thereby

reducing loading on mining voids. The thinner

cap section effectively eliminated grout pillars

and all retaining walls.

Groundwater and leachate storage were separated

using two independent tanks. Gas collection was

modif ied wi th smaller diameter piping, but

retained future active extraction capabilities.

The V E study report fol lowed wi th an in-depth

formal technical presentation supported by Omaha

District and the consultant. This interface influenced

the Ohio EPA to concur w i th landf i l l cap

modifications using enhanced geotextiles-

geosynthetics.

Project performance and execution were improved,

and savings based on completed final design were

realized for the fo l lowing proposals:

• Revised landfi l l cap section: Saving o f $910,000.

• Elimination o f retaining wal l systems: Saving o f

$498,000

• Separate groundwater and leachate storage tanks:

No saving, but enhanced operations and

monitoring

• Modifications to gas collection: Saving o f

$66,960

Final design changes resulted in a total o f $1.48

mi l l i on in project savings which are in addition to

cost avoidance o f approximately $7.5 mi l l ion made

by the consultant in the preliminary design.

Team members were able to affect these significant

changes for a t ightly regulated program and a

preliminary design which was already 60 percent

completed.

This project's V E effort was so successful the results

have been presented in three national forums

including the Federal Construction Value

Engineering Conference in A p r i l 1994, the Hazardous

Materials Control Superfund X V Conference in

December 1994, and the USEPA's National Remedial

Project Managers Conference in June 1995.

Good value engineering is hard to keep a secret!

Fred McAuley and Martin Bandy, CVS, are with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Savannah, Georgia.

VALUE WORLD, Volume XVIII Number 3, October 1995

31

Book Reviews

The Heavens Are Falling The Scientific Predictions of Catastrophes in Our Time

Walter J . Karpus, Plenum Press, 1992

• AIDS epidemic.

• Population explosion.

• Another great depression.

"• Earthquakes.

The author is a professor o f computer science at

U C L A and has made predictions for al l kinds o f

phenomena by generating models and computer

simulation. His decades o f experience have

taught h im what we can and cannot predict wi th

any degree o f accuracy.

Dr . Karpus surveys the most hotly debated

catastrophes that many scientists have predicted

w i l l imminently endanger the lives o f countless

people al l over the globe. These catastrophes

include:

• Depletion o f the ozone layer.

• Greenhouse effect.

• Nuclear radiation.

• A c i d rain.

He assesses the strengths and weaknesses o f

arguments propounding the seriousness o f these

calamities. A l l the while, he never allows us to lose

sight o f the profound shortcomings o f scientific

prediction.

The book is an il luminating and entertaining work

that bestows on us the wisdom to make informed

judgments before taking arms against a sea o f

trouble. We recommend The Heavens Are Falling as

a worthwhile addition to the risk management

bookshelf o f value practitioners.

Risk Assessment Methods Approaches for Assessing Health and Environmental Risks

Vincent T. Covello and Miley W. Merkhofer, Plenum Press, 1993

The authors have brought together in one book a

wide range o f risk assessment methods for

describing and quantifying health and

environmental risks. Drs. Covello and Merkhofer

propose a generalized way o f thinking about risk

and risk assessment, and introduce terms,

definitions, and concepts to clar i fy the similar

aspects and relationships among the wide-ranging

methods.

The framework used throughout the book

provides:

• Common language for communication

between risk assessors and risk managers.

• Information for identifying methods that may be

effective for analyzing problems other than those

for which the method was originally developed.

• A i d for pinpointing weak links in the sequence o f

methods needed to conduct risk assessment.

Using taxonomy as the organizational structure, the

book evaluates and compares different risk

assessment methods. Quantitative methods are

recommended for their precision and accuracy in

addressing risk and we recommend Risk Assessment

Methods as a worthwhile addition to the risk

management bookshelf o f value practitioners.

VALUE WORLD, Volume XVIII, Number 3, October 1995

32

Never Whip a Puppy

Thomas R. King, CVS, FSAVE

I am a master o f negotiations.

Yes, I am.

Scarred by numerous battles over the years, I do

not fa l l easy prey to those on the other side o f the

desk or table.

I know about the big-pot ploy, offering less than

you are w i l l i n g to concede; asking for more than

you are w i l l i n g to take.

I know about letting sunlight stream into the eyes

o f those across the table while sitting in relative

comfort myself.

I know about negotiating on home tur f when my

position is strong, off-site when my position is

weak.

I know about changing negotiators to confuse the

opposition on long drawn out processes.

I know about assigning fe l low negotiators who

have only l imited authority to make on the spot

decisions.

I have brought used car salesmen to their knees in

completing an agreement during the last snowy

day in January.

I have impressed Pitt University students wi th my

negotiating strategy acumen.

I've learned something about myself. Usually this

occurs when the party I am dealing wi th is cloaked in

innocence, youth or in their senior years; or you just

plain like them.

Essentially, they are vulnerable and vo id o f power,

except the power o f having no power.

There is a quality o f having no power that often

disarms the opposition; something you might want to

consider in your every day dealing wi th people.

Here is a case in point.

I fol lowed up on a newspaper ad for an almost new

hunting r i f le for which the suggested price was

publicly stated.

On the trip over, I speculated what m y counter offer

would be, providing the condition o f the article was

as stated.

Imagine my surprise to f i nd that the seller, also the

owner, was a twelve year old farm boy wi th freckles

and a friendly dog. Having purchased the r i f l e just

weeks before, he wanted to change over to a model

similar to his brothers.

Can you guess how much dough this thriving

industrial executive shaved o f f the asking price?

Sure wish my grandson, now four years old, had been

there to even things up.

A n d on and on.

No t that I either recommend or use all o f these

tactics as a rule.

A n d yet armed wi th this knowledge and skil l ,

there are occasions, when to put i t mildly , I am

had, but badly.

Thomas R. King, CVS, FSAVE, is a SAVE Past President and with Joy Technologies, Inc. in Franklin, Pennsylvania.

V A L U E W O R L D , Volume XVIII Number 3, October 1995

V A L U E B R I E F S

N T I S Catalog of Products and Services 14

A Tale of Two Cities 22

New Y o r k City 24

M A S T H E A D Back Cover Editorial Policy, Editorial Staff, Instructions for Authors Production Office, Subscriptions, and Change of Address

VALUE WORLD V A L U E W O R L D is published three times a year by the Society of American Value Engineers in the months of February, June, and October, and

is distributed internationally.

E D I T O R I A L P O L I C Y

V A L U E W O R L D welcomes original articles on value engineering and related disciplines. Reprints or abstracts of articles from other journals and periodicals are acceptable provided that prior permission has been obtained from the original publishers. V A L U E WORLD'S policy is to provide the medium for contributors to express themselves professionally on advances in the statc-of-lhe art. The views expressed in V A L U E W O R L D are neither approved nor disapproved by the Society of American Value Engineers.

E D I T O R I A L S T A F F

Editor-in-Chief: Jack V. Michaels, Ph.D, PE, CVS Editor Emeritus: O. James Vogl, CVS, FSAVE Managing Editor: Del L. Younker, CCE, CVS Associate Editor: Harold J. Heydt, CVS Production Editor: Doris J. Huston Contributing Editors: Construction: Rex G. Wood, CVS

Education: Theodore C. Fowler, CVS Finance: Jeffrey L. Van Atten, CVS Industry: Thomas W. Warwick, CVS ' (

International: William F.Lenzer, PE, CVS Marketing. Stephen J. Kirk, Ph.D, AIA, CVS Membership: Eugene A. Degenhart, PE, CVS Service: Alfred I . Paley, CVS At Large: Thomas R. King, CVS, FSAVE; Joseph V. Lambert, CVS;

Ginger R. Adams, CVS; Larry W. Zimmerman, PE, CVS, FSAVE

INSTRUCTIONS F O R AUTHORS

Articles may be submitted in hard copv or computer diskette (3.5" or 5.25") in I B M and Word Perfect or Microsoft Word compatible format. Artwork should be camera-ready. The lead time for publishing articles in any given issue is three months. Forward papers to the Editor-in-Chict at the Production Office address along with permission to publish the papers by the copyright owner i f required. Include your full name, home address and telephone number, your title, affiliation, and affiliation address and telephone number.

P R O D U C T I O N O F F I C E

V A L U E W O R L D Telephone: (407)382-0289 3515 Idle Hour Drive Facsimile: (407)382-6291 Orlando, FL 32822-3037

S U B S C R I P T I O N S : A yearly subscription for SAVE members is included in the annual dues. The yearly rate for nonmembers in the U.S is $75.00; international $100.00 including airmail postage.

C H A N G E O F ADDRESS: Send address changes to V A L U E W O R L D , 60 Revere Drive, Suite 500, Northbrook, IL 60062.

Copyright©1995 by the Society of American Value Engineers. All rights reserved.

Society of American Value Engineers B U L K R A T E

60 Revere Drive, Suite 500 ^ m ^ 1 ' Northbrook, I L 60062

Orlando, IT. Permit # 1

A D D R E S S C O R R E C T I O N R E Q U E S T E D