When Sustainability Conflicts With Security

Although sustainable building design and construction is mandated for U.S. government projects, sustainable concepts often conflict with Department of Defense mission readiness objectives.

The federal government, including the Department of Defense, wants to fit sustainably into surrounding communities, use energy efficiently, and reduce unused facilities. However, it can be difficult to follow civilian industry standards that are often circumvented by exceptions provided by lifecycle cost effectiveness, military building codes, and mission compatibility.

Nonetheless, the movement toward sustainable design continues in military and federal projects, albeit more slowly when compared to progress in the private sector.

ACHIEVING SUSTAINABILITY

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, (LEED) emerged in the 1990s as a green building rating system developed and administered by the U.S. Green Building Council. The federal government jumped on the bandwagon with UFC 3-400-01 in mid-2002, which focused mostly on energy conservation as good practice, not a requirement. That standard has since been superseded by UFC 1-200-02 High Performance and Sustainable Building requirements. In addition, Congress passed the Energy Policy Act in 2005, which required federal agencies to increase efficiency, optimize performance, eliminate unnecessary usage of resources, and protect the environment.

These new programs focus on resolving conflicts that military facilities face and working within limitations set forth by the government building codes and standards, pushing the envelope of sustainable design in military construction.

In 2016, the UFC was rewritten to avoid sole sourcing a single green building rating program and allowed the use of any third-party certification that met the federal standards. As a result, new green building certification programs tailored to UFC 1-200-02 emerged, including The Green Building Initiative’s Department of Defense Guiding Principles Compliance for New Construction. These new programs focus on resolving conflicts that military facilities face and working within limitations set forth by the government building codes and standards, pushing the envelope of sustainable design in military construction.

Over time, the programs have become more flexible and adaptative to each site and function. This has allowed design teams to get credit for thinking outside the box in delivering a sustainable facility without compromising the mission. The UFC now requires all domestic facilities with a construction cost of at least $3 million or a gross area of 10,000-ft² or more to obtain third-party certification. The High Performance and Sustainable Building checklist still follows many of LEED’s original concepts, with a primary focus on energy efficiency, water conservation, and indoor environmental quality.

By 2025, the U.S. government has a goal of 15 percent compliance across the existing federal building portfolio.

CONFLICTING WITH SECURITY

Many defense officials still see third-party certification as a desirable higher standard. However, when building designs are large enough to require validation by a third party, there are some common conflicts encountered by high-security facilities.

Daylighting and views. Sustainability requirements related to natural lighting and lowered electricity use pose a significant challenge. Windows are generally not permitted in high-security buildings.

Water efficient landscaping. Landscaping that meets sustainability requirements often conflicts with base design guides. LEED, for example, requires that plants not be watered after a two-year establishment period. Base guidelines may not be flexible enough to select drought-resistant plants, or the species may produce berries or fruit that are not permitted near runways.

Materials and sourcing credits. LEED requires that a large percentage of all construction materials be sourced and manufactured within 500-mi of the construction site. The remote location of an installation or strict campus appearance may not lend itself to compliance with this standard.

Mechanical energy efficiency. Third-party certification programs require mechanical units that exceed the energy efficiency standards of ASHRAE 90.1. This is typically achieved through recycling air and high efficiency units. Secure facilities require 100 percent outside air, with limited opportunities for energy savings. The lifecycle cost analysis and base mechanical standards can also conflict with energy efficient unit selection.

Stormwater control. Bases often do not have space for stormwater drainage systems that follow sustainable concepts, or the possible design solutions do not comply with anti-terrorism and force protection UFC requirements.

Public transportation access. LEED requires three public transportation options, such as hiking trails, public bus, or train service. These modes are typically unavailable on a military base.

Onsite renewable energy. Equipment such as solar panels and wind turbines may not be permitted on some installations due to lack of space, concern of solar glare hazards on military aircraft, or they are not deemed lifecycle cost effective.

STRIKING A BALANCE

Navigating between sustainability and security was essential for a new administrative facility at Schriever AFB in Colorado Springs, Colo. Not only did the structure have to meet security standards for the restricted area of the base, but it also had to qualify for LEED Silver certification using a design-build project delivery method. The design had three components: a new two-story, 20,000-ft² free-standing administrative building; an elevated walkway connecting the new building to the existing one; and minor modifications to the old structure.

As sustainability continues to become an integral part of the design and construction process, and evolves from being a specific project goal to an inherent driver of the overall planning, it is important to adapt High Performance and Sustainable Building guiding principles for all facility types, including highly secure assets, in order to create efficient, resilient, and adaptable structures ready for current and future missions.

Challenges to obtaining LEED Silver abounded, including the contracted design-build approach, which incentivized saving on cost rather than achieving LEED points. The mission-critical facility also had several levels of security, strict adjacency requirements, and uninterrupted utility requirements through construction. Overcoming these scoring challenges required innovative thinking.

• Limited space and anti-terrorism/force protection requirements gave planners fewer options for storm drainage. Engineers designed a sand filter detention basin and grass swales to obtain zero post-development discharge and remove suspended solids.
• The high-security pedestrian campus required extensive site lighting, which increased light pollution levels. Careful site area limits and walkway light bollards contributed to a design that narrowly met LEED required lighting cutoffs.
• Workspace and personnel were crammed into hallways in the older building. The new facility needed flexibility. The design team achieved innovation design credits with full height demountable partitions and raised access flooring that allowed for workstation revisions as the mission Flexible whips, or conduits, were connected to ports in the access floor panels, allowing the power and communications receptacles to shift as needs changed.
• Because a local quarry had closed, the precast concrete aggregate mix had to be altered. This opened the opportunity to source material within a 500-mi radius and achieve the procurement credit.
• The alpine desert climate of Colorado would not support base standard vegetation without permanent irrigation, so the landscape design was revised to incorporate several drought-tolerant species native to the region.
• Planners scored a 10-point win on energy efficient mechanical design by incorporating systems that were already available on the base. This included the central plant with free cooling technology that generated low-cost chilled water. A dedicated outdoor air system with fan coil units more efficiently satisfied the 100 percent outside air requirement.
• A hidden win during construction was discovering that the base heavy repairs shop was able to accept 30,000-lb of reinforced concrete pipe, diverting the waste from local landfills and enabling the “recycling during construction” credit.
• Although bicycles are not permitted within the secure campus, a bike rack labeled the “sculpture” helped gain a point.

Ultimately, the project received 52 points on the LEED score sheet, with a minimum of 50 required for certification. The score could have been higher, but once Silver Level was attained, the paperwork was not completed for additional points.

Several lessons were learned on the project: the importance of planning for stretch or backup credits that allow flexibility during design and construction reviews; how creative thinking and alternative compliance can push a maybe credit to a yes; and being realistic in planning and programming for sustainability. However, the most critical takeaway was the awareness to ask installation leadership what programs are already in place that could be submitted as a design credit.

As sustainability continues to become an integral part of the design and construction process, and evolves from being a specific project goal to an inherent driver of the overall planning, it is important to adapt High Performance and Sustainable Building guiding principles for all facility types, including highly secure assets, in order to create efficient, resilient, and adaptable structures ready for current and future missions.

Jennifer Olson, AIA, is Architecture Technical Discipline Lead, and Jessica Olson, AIA, LEED AP, is Architectural Department Manager, Stanley Consultants. They can be reached at olsonjennifer@stanleygroup.com; and olsonjessica@stanleygroup.com.

[This article first published in the November-December 2021 issue of The Military Engineer.]