2.6 Sustainability

PG. 1 Page | 2.6-1

2.6 | Sustainability Design Guidelines

2.6.1 | Introduction The purpose of ‘Milestone 10 – Design Guidelines’ is to provide overall guidance to Globalfoundries when implementing sustainability practices at various phases of the project. This document has been developed assessing Estidama requirements with a brief initial analysis on various building rating systems, as per GF’s advice on October 17th 2010. This report is intended to be a ‘Living’ document to ensure that any changes with regards to project design development are incorporated into the design, while input from various project disciplines are being considered through an integrated approach.

2.6.2 | Analysis on Building Rating System: Estidama -- LEED For Abu Dhabi project (AD01), three building rating systems are potentially relevant: Estidama Pearl Rating System developed by

Urban Planning Council (UPC), Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building rating system administered by US Green Building Council and BREEAM Gulf (BRE Environmental Assessment Method), and a collaborative development by organizations in Qatar, Abu Dhabi and Dubai.

LEED has greater international recognition and is the only system currently at use in the Semiconductor industry; however, LEED credits do not fully factor the importance of water in the region. BREEAM Gulf and Estidama are currently less-known due to being newer, but are weighted more appropriately for Gulf region priorities.

Evaluation of the major criteria categories of each of the three relevant rating systems indicate that only BREEAM Gulf and Estidama emphasize water sufficiently for UAE, where water is scarce and therefore needs stronger emphasis in selection of a sustainability rating system when it comes to true performance. LEED, on the other hand, emphasizes site-related concerns more than water.

PG. 2 Page | 2.6-2

Figure 2.6-1: Comparison of Green Building Rating Systems – Categories Weighting

PG. 3 Page | 2.6-3

Table 2.6 -1 below compares the Green Building Systems and their implementation globally. This gives a good indication of system applicability and recognition.

Table 2.6-1: Building Rating System Comparison

Both the BREEAM Gulf and Estidama processes include 3 phases; design, construction, and operations. A Pearls Design Rating can be used to confirm that the proposed project design is consistent with the goals of Estidama. Once construction is complete as designed, a Pearls Construction Rating will be provided. The Pearls Operational Rating is awarded after 2 years of at least 80% occupancy.

BREEAM also has a certification system for a design stage and a post-construction stage, but unlike Estidama, BREEAM does not require a post occupancy assessment except

for its highest rating (BREEAM Outstanding), which has a mandatory requirement for a ‘BREEAM In Use’ certification within the first 3 years of operation.

LEED has an optional design submission at which no certificates are issued, and has the leanest post occupancy assessment of the three systems. The new changes in LEED 2009 show a slow shift in the direction of post-occupancy assessment with the new requirement that the USGBC has access to projects’ Whole-Building Energy and Water Usage Data.

PG. 4 Page | 2.6-4

Figure 2.6 -2: Certification Process

As BREEAM Gulf and Estidama have not been widely used in UAE, it remains to be seen how the amount of paperwork and

engineering/modeling/administrative effort will compare between the three systems.

Figure 2.6-3: Capital Investment per Rating System

We have been advised that LEED certification is a GFGF corporate requirement and shall be pursued. Estidama is now closely-tied to Abu Dhabi regulations and as of 1st September

2010, all new buildings must meet the minimum requirements in order to receive approval for construction to begin. The Estidama Pearl Rating System, developed by

PG. 5 Page | 2.6-5

the Urban Planning Council (UPC) mandates that all buildings achieve at least ONE pearl rating. All government buildings or government led investments will be required to meet the requirements of TWO pearl rating.

Considering mandatory requirement from UPC to pursue Estidama and GFGF corporate mandate for LEED certification, GF is considering pursuing both Estidama and LEED certification for AD 01 project. This document however, assesses only Estidama certification requirements consistent with client’s request on October 17th 2010.

2.6.3 | Project Boundary for Certification

Project Boundary Definition

The building rating systems are generally not geared towards industrial applications like FAB. GF was clear in their direction in July 6, 2010 presentation that they would like to get the entire Phase 1 development certified and not just the office block.

GF shared their approach for project certification boundary in the sustainability review session in Malta on August 12, 2010. It was informed that certification boundaries as shown below were selected to facilitate the energy modeling and baseline calculations. GF mentioned that they had series of discussions with GBCI to agree on the certification boundaries as shown below. Separate project boundaries were established for the Administration and FAB Building, with the utility systems (CUB building) included in the energy model calculations for the FAB.

Figure 2.6-4: Project Definition – Malta FAB 8

Urban Planning Council called for a meeting to discuss with their Estidama team regarding the Pre-concept master plan submission. During this meeting with UPC, project certification boundary was discussed. Estidama team supported the idea for separate certification for Admin and Fab building considering their function and use. In addition, it was agreed that the CUB will be included in the

certification. Please find enclosed in Appendix 2.7 I the UPC response.

Project Boundary Options and

Selected Approach

Further discussions were held in sustainability review meeting on Sep 13, 2010 wherein certification boundary options were discussed

PG. 6 Page | 2.6-6

in detail. GF team concurred that it will be important to select consistent project boundaries for LEED and Estidama. It was agreed to proceed with Option 1 project boundary for certification at this stage. The FAB certification boundary will include the

CUB and GF team expressed confidence that there will be no concerns with Green Building Council (GBCI) to have slightly modified boundary selection for Abu Dhabi AD01 project.

Option 1: Select Project Certification Boundaries Suggested by Estidama Team

PG. 7 Page | 2.6-7

Option 2: Select Project Certification Boundaries Accepted by GBCI on FAB 8, New York

Option 3: Separate Project Certification for Admin, FAB and CUB

2.6.4 | Sustainability Workshops

Coordination Meeting with UPC

An initial meeting was held on the 29th of August with representatives from Urban

Planning Council, GF and CH2M HILL. The main purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Pre-Concept Plan submission and the way forward. UPC notes from the meeting can be found in the Appendix 2.7-I.

PG. 8 Page | 2.6-8

The main outcome of the meeting can be summarized as follows:

Estidama 1 Pearl will be a regulatory requirement for all buildings in Abu Dhabi as of September 2010

For governmental funded projects 2 Pearl rating will apply as a minimum requirement

Estidama certification will require GF to include the Central Utility Building

Project Sustainability Charrettes

Sustainability Charrettes, one for each building type, will be undertaken at the programming stage to ensure that client values are considered at an early stage of the design.

The main objective of these Charrettes is to assess each building anticipated rating, evaluate different design strategies, identify challenges and opportunities, as well as credit synergies and facilitate decision making process. During the Charrettes the Preliminary Estidama scorecards (please refer to Appendix) will be used to guide the brainstorming discussions.

Key Project Stakeholders that will be engaged during the workshops are: GF Sustainability, Design Technical Leads (Mechanical, Electrical, Water Building Systems, Water Processes Systems, Architect, Planning Team, and Logistics).

The main output of the workshops will be a revised set of the Preliminary Estidama Scorecards incorporating the input from various project stakeholders, while taking into consideration various client decisions during the evaluation process.

Coordination with GF

Weekly Sustainability meetings have been scheduled with the client to discuss on key

issues, decisions need to be taken and monitor progress.

2.6.5 | International Energy Conservation Code Review The International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) is a building code created by the International Code Council and is updated every three years. It establishes minimum standards for energy efficient buildings using prescriptive and performance-based provisions for residential and commercial buildings. The code’s intent is to establish criteria for energy conservation with provisions that do not unnecessarily increase construction costs.

It addresses the energy efficiency requirements for the design, materials, and equipment used for new buildings construction, renovations, and construction techniques. The Code applies to:

Wall, floor, and ceiling

Doors and windows

Heating, ventilating, and cooling systems and equipment

Lighting systems and equipment

Water-heating systems and equipment.

Materials

Table 2.6 -2 below includes a high level review of the IECC for commercial buildings. At later stages during the design the project team should review criteria for each building type to determine if provisions are achievable. The industrial nature of the FAB and CUB buildings and high-hazard provisions of the 2009 International Building Code (IBC) may warrant review of applicability. IBC provisions (based on life safety) shall supersede energy criteria.

The advantages to IECC compliance include sustainable development, reduced consumption, enhancing quality of living and reducing energy costs. Other 2009 I-codes

PG. 9 Page | 2.6-9

may also contribute to sustainable development as follows:

International Plumbing Code (IPC): water and energy conservation

International Mechanical Code (IMC): Carbon dioxide reduction,

improved indoor air quality, reduction of ozone-depleting refrigerants, energy conservation, harvesting renewable resources such as solar power, etc.

Table 2.6-2: IECC Review

No. IECC Reference Provision

IECC Chapters 1, 2 Administration and Definitions

1 101 Application and compliance

2 102 Alternate Materials-Method of Construction, Design or Insulating Systems

IECC Chapter 3 Climate Zones and General Materials Requirements

3 Table 301.3(1)

Table 301.3(2)

Validate Abu Dhabi climate zone: 2A (warm-humid)

4 302.1 Interior design conditions:

22C maximum (heating)

24C minimum (cooling)

5 303.1 Materials, systems and equipment require labels for identification of performance.

Insulation wider than 305cm marked with R-value

Window, doors and skylights marked with U-factor

IECC Chapter 4 Energy Efficiency for Residential Buildings (Not Applicable)

IECC Chapter 5 Energy Efficiency for Commercial Buildings

6 501.1 Determine project buildings to comply with Chapter 5 requirements or ASHRAE alternative below:

IECC 502, Building envelope

IECC 503, Building mechanical systems

IECC 504, Service water heating

IECC 505, Electrical power and lighting systems

Or comply with ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1, Energy Standard for Buildings Except for Low-Rise Residential Buildings in its entirety

7 Note: Below high level criteria is indicated if compliance follows IECC rather than ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1.

PG. 10 Page | 2.6-10


8 502.1.1 Building thermal envelop shall meet requirements for Tables 502.2(1) and 502.3 based upon climate zone (use “all other” column).

Roof insulation: R-20

Walls, mass: R5.7

Walls, metal buildings: R-16

Walls, metal framed: R-13

Walls, below grade: Not required

Floors, mass: R6.3

Floors, joints/framing/steel: R-19

Slab-on-grade: Not required

Doors, opaque (<50% glass): U -

Doors, swinging: U – 0.70

Doors, roll-up or sliding: U – 1.45

9 502.3 Fenestration <40% above-grade wall

10 502.3 Metal framing with or without thermal break:

Curtain wall/storefront: U- 0.70

Entrance door: U - 1.10

All other: 0.75

11 502.3 Use Table 502.3 for solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) for glazing and skylights

12 502.4.8 Recessed lighting sealed to limit air leakage

13 503 Determine method of compliance for building mechanical systems:

Simple systems: Section 503.3

Complex systems: Section 503.4

14 504.2 Performance of water-heating equipment

15 504.3 Temperature controls for water-heating equipment:

32C setpoint

43C outlet temperature of lavatories

16 Comply with requirements for:

Heat traps

Piping insulation

Controls

PG. 11 Page | 2.6-11


17 505.2 Lighting shall comply with provisions for:

Controls

Light reduction controls

Automatic lighting shutoff

18 505.3 Comply with tandem wiring fluorescent fixtures as prescribed

19 505.4 Internally illuminated exit signs: maximum 5 watts per side

20 505.5 Follow prescriptive interior lighting power requirements

21 Table 505.5.2 Interior lighting power allowances:

Cafeteria: 1.4/0.0929m2

Fitness: 1.0/0.0929m2

Manufacturing: 1.3/0.0929m2

Parking: 0.3/0.0929m2

Warehouse: 1.0/0.0929m2

22 505.6 Comply with exterior lighting provisions

23 Table 505.6.2 Comply with lighting power densities for building exteriors

24 506 Comply with provisions for total building performance including:

Heating systems

Cooling systems

Service water heating

Fan systems

Lighting power

Receptacle loads

Process loads

Develop annual energy consumption including documentation and compliance reports

IECC Chapter 6 Referenced Standards

2.6.6 | Integrated Sustainability Decision Model and Cost Benefit Analysis The Infrastructure Sustainability Decision Model (ISDM), developed by CH2M HILL, takes a triple bottom line approach, along with targeted Building certification requirements, to guide design, construction, materials

management, and operational decisions. The ISDM for GF will be arranged to assess various scenarios for two building types of the first development phase (AD-01) of the GF FAB Park: Administration building and the Industrial unit (FAB) including CUB.

PG. 12 Page | 2.6-12

Parameters To Be Considered

The Decision Model has the capability to assess strategies on the following infrastructure components:

Potable Water

Energy

Solid Waste Management (For office Building only)

Embodied Carbon (Material Selection for: Concrete, Rebar, Structural Steel)

Scenarios To Be Developed

The model has the capability to assess up to 5 scenarios. The data will be arranged so as to assess Business as Usual (BAU) case against various conservation measures in line building certification credit goals, which will be defined as percent reduction of water, waste, energy from BAU.

The different scenarios for both building types shall consider the following:

Administration Building

BAU: will be established based on previous experience in Abu Dhabi

Water: scenarios will consider water conservation fixtures

Energy: scenarios will consider measures such as Higher Thickness of Roof Insulation, Triple Glazing etc.

Solid Waste Management scenarios will include waste segregation and reuse.

Embodied Carbon: will provide options to choose different materials for Concrete, Rebar and Structural Steel

FAB Unit

Baseline will be established based on common practices or BAU

technologies while various measures will be compared against BAU by indicating the capital cost, energy demand and O&M cost variance.

Water: scenarios will consider Make-up Air Units (MAU) condensate water reclamation, FAB water reclamation etc.

Energy: scenarios will consider measures such as use of dual temperature chilled water system, MAU Variable Frequency Drives (VFDs), Utilization of Fan Energy for Reheat, Premium Efficiency Motors etc.

Embodied Carbon: will provide options to choose different materials for Concrete, Rebar and Structural Steel

ISDM Output

The ISDM for GF will have the capability to run various scenarios on water, energy, materials and waste strategies to be considered with the associated capital and operational costs as a result of saving energy, water and using sustainable materials.

The model capabilities are presented in the Appendix with a dashboard arrangement demonstrating high level calculations on capital cost and additional cost & carbon saving during operation per building type.

2.6.7 | Technical Design Guidelines In order to achieve the required building certification system, it is important to incorporate relevant requirements into the design guidelines and project specifications.

A set of preliminary guidelines has been developed to ensure the implementation of the required strategies with regards to Construction Waste Management, Construction Indoor Air Quality, Minimum

PG. 13 Page | 2.6-13

Energy Performance and Energy Reduction, Erosion and Sedimentation Control Management Plan. A brief overview of each Design Guideline is provided below; the actual Guidelines can be found in the Appendix.

These guidelines have been developed in accordance with the Estidama relevant credits and they should be reviewed at the end of the UPC Detailed Review to ensure that all Estidama requirements are incorporated.

Table 2.6-3: Design Guidelines - Estidama Credits Achieved (Overview)

Guideline Estidama Credit

Construction and Demolition Waste Management

SM-R3: Basic Construction Waste Management

SM-13 Credit: Improved Construction Waste Management

Construction Indoor Air Quality LBi-3: Construction Indoor Air Quality Management

Minimum Energy Performance and Energy Reduction

RE-R1 Credit: Minimum Energy Performance

RE-1 Credit Improved Energy Performance

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Management Plan

Partial compliance with IDP-3 Credit: Construction Environmental Management *

* Estidama requires a Construction Environmental Management Plan approved by EAD. As per EAD Technical Guidelines the CEMP is required to address erosion and sedimentation impacts and stipulate specific control measures. However, the scope of the CEMP covers other issues during construction. It is understood that GF commissioned ERM to carry out the studies required (including CEMP) to obtain the necessary environmental permits.

Construction and Demolition

Waste Management (CDWM)

Objectives

a. Demonstrate Compliance with local regulation with respect to Construction and Demolition Waste Management

b. As a minimum requirement a 70 % (weight/volume) waste diversion rate from landfill for construction and demolition waste should be targeted to achieve credits under Estidama. The targeted credits to be obtained are shown on the table below.

PG. 14 Page | 2.6-14

Table 2.6-4: CDWM and Estidama Credit Breakdown

Diversion Rate Estidama

30% (weight/volume) SM – R2: Basic Construction Waste Management

50% (weight/volume) SM-13 Credit: Improved Construction Waste Management (1 Additional Credits)

70% (weight/volume) SM-13 Credit: Improved Construction Waste Management (2 Additional Credits)

Total: Mandatory + 2 Optional Credits

Design Requirements

a. Adopt design and procurement methods to minimize use of materials and waste arising as Best Practice.

b. Identify items to be recycled / salvaged and develop a log indicating activity/source of the generated for each type of waste as well as estimated volume. Consider materials such as concrete, brick, metal, wood, gypsum, plastic, cardboard etc.

c. Identify potential Waste Service Providers to be appointed for each type of waste and indicate location. Waste Service Providers must be licensed by the Abu Dhabi Waste Management Center.

d. Establish targets for diversion from landfill at a minimum rate of 70% of total waste generated during construction (weight/volume) or more (to achieve additional points).

e. Develop a Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan (CDWMP). The Plan shall include targets estimated and shall incorporate local regulatory requirements and relevant approved documentation by Regulatory Authorities.

f. The CDWMP shall be included in the Project Specifications for contractors compliance

g. Prepare required documentation for Credit review under Estidama rating system

Construction Requirements

a. In accordance with the CDWMP developed at the design stage and as approved by Estidama, the General contractor is required to develop a CDWMP specific to their project construction activities.

b. Compliance with the regulatory requirements and Estidama targets must be ensured through regular coordination meetings (engaging the Engineer/Client Representative as well as Subcontractors), regular site inspections and audits, as well as comprehensive waste tracking and reporting to fulfill Estidama required documentation.

c. Key personnel, from the Engineer/Client Representative as well as the Contractor, must be assigned with the responsibility of supervising the implementation of CDWMP.

PG. 15 Page | 2.6-15

d. Prepare required documentation for Credit review under Estidama rating system.

Construction Indoor Air Quality

Management

Objectives

a. Meet requirements to achieve Estidama LBi-3: Construction Indoor Air Quality Management; and.

b. Meet or exceed the recommended Design Approaches of the Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association (SMACNA) IAQ Guidelines for Occupied Buildings under Construction, 2007, 2nd Edition.

Design Requirements

a. Develop an Indoor Air Quality Management (IAQ) Management Plan to address at a minimum: Source Control during construction, Building Flush Out and Resuming Normal Building Operation upon construction completion as per Estidama requirements.

b. Prepare IAQ Planning Checklists as per SMACNA IAQ Guidelines - Appendix C.

c. Identify and evaluate proposed controls measures as per SMACNA IAQ Guidelines - Appendix C.

d. Assess the duration of pre-occupancy flush-out per Estidama requirements.

e. Prepare documentation for Credit review under Estidama rating system.


a. In accordance with the Construction IAQ Management Plan prepared at the design phase, the General Contractor is required to develop a

Construction IAQ Management Plan specific to their project work.

b. Implement control measures identified through the different phases of the project,

c. Compliance with Estidama requirements will be ensured through regular coordination meetings (engaging the Engineer/Client Representative as well as Subcontractors), regular site inspections and audits, as well as reporting to fulfill Estidama required documentation.

d. Key personnel, from the Engineer/Client Representative as well as the Contractor, must be assigned with the responsibility of supervising the implementation of Construction IAQ Management Plan.

e. Prepare required documentation for Credit review under Estidama rating system.

Minimum Energy Performance

and Energy Reduction

Objectives

a. To establish minimum level of energy efficiency for the building and systems and demonstrate a minimum of 12% performance improvement compared to baseline building performance to comply with RE-R1 Credit: Minimum Energy Performance (Estidama Rating System).

b. Achieve additional reduction in the building energy consumption during operation to achieve RE-1 Credit Improved Energy Performance (Estidama Rating System).To obtain additional credits under the Estidama

PG. 16 Page | 2.6-16

the following energy reduction must be achieved:

Table 2.6-5: Minimum Energy Performance and Reduction - Estidama Credit Breakdown

Design Requirements

a. Develop an Energy simulation model to calculate building energy consumption and identify the most cost effective energy efficiency measures. The model should comply

with ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard, 2007.

b. Ensure that the proposed design (Building envelop and systems) complies with baseline requirements as per the specified sections ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1 – 2007: Energy Standard for Building except Low-Rise Residential Buildings (Sections 5.4, 6.4, 7.4, 8.4, 9.4, 10.4)

c. Compare energy efficiency measures and optimized performance against baseline energy performance.

d. Develop and submit Energy Model Template and calculations summarizing the model results as per Estidama Design and Construction Submission requirements.

e. Prepare required documentation for Credit review under Estidama rating system.


a. Record any modifications to the Energy Model. Ensure that any changes in measures considered will not affect credit intent.

b. Prepare required documentation for Credit review under Estidama rating system

Erosion and Sedimentation

Control (ESC) Management Plan

This section was initially prepared in line with LEED credit rating requirements. Following client’s direction on 17th of October 2010 to include only Estidama requirements in this document, the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Management section is not considered relevant to the Estidama rating system.

Comparing to LEED, under Estidama rating system, there is no individual credit on Erosion

Energy Reduction %

Estidama Additional Points

12% None (Required Credit)

14% 1

16% 2

18% 3

20% 4

22% - 22.5% 5 (22.5%)

24 – 25 % 6 (25%)

27.5 – 28 % 7 (27.5%)

30 % 8

32 – 32.5% 9 (32.5%)

34 - 35 % 10 (35%)

40 % 11

44 – 45% 12 (45%)

50% 13

55% 14

60% 15

PG. 17 Page | 2.6-17

and Sedimentation Control Management. Relevant control measures fulfilling Estidama requirements (Credit: IDP – 3) are expected to be addressed under the Construction Environmental Management Plan in line with EAD ‘CEMP - Technical Guidelines Document’ (April 2010). It is understood that the GF CEMP will be prepared by ERM.

Objectives

a. Prevent the loss of soil from the construction site resulting from storm water runoff, wind erosion, and construction activities.

b. Prevent the sedimentation of storm sewers and receiving waters.

c. Prevent air pollution caused by dust and particulate matter.

d. Meet or exceed the requirements of LEED-NC Version 3.0 Sustainable Sites Prerequisite 1 “Erosion & Sedimentation Control” which specifies compliance with 2003, EPA Construction General Permit (Provisions for Phase I and Phase II of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Programme), or local erosion and sedimentation control standards and codes, whichever is more stringent.

Design Requirements

a. Identify Construction Activities with potential soil erosion and sedimentation impacts.

b. Carry out an analysis of site limitations and constraints such as slope, surface water streams, soil erodibility, etc.

c. Develop an Erosion and Sedimentation Control (ESC) Management Plan to prevent soil erosion and stormwater runoff during construction in compliance with LEED and local regulatory requirements.

d. Prepare required documentation for Credit review under Estidama/LEED rating system


a. In accordance with the Erosion and Sedimentation Control (ESC) Management Plan prepared at the design phase, the General Contractor is required to develop a Plan specific to their project work.

b. Develop a Drawing showing erosion and sedimentation control measures as described in this Section.

c. Installing erosion and sedimentation control products.

d. Supervise on site erosion and sedimentation control activities on a daily basis and coordinating erosion and sedimentation control tasks with subcontractors to ensure timely and orderly progress of the work.

e. Conduct erosion and sedimentation control inspections and making necessary repairs.

f. Prepare required documentation for Credit review under LEED rating system.

2.6.8 | Preliminary Scorecards

Preliminary Scorecards Purpose

Preliminary Scorecards have been prepared for the Administration and FAB (including CUB) buildings consistent to client decision with regards to Project Boundary definition. The purpose of preparing these preliminary scorecards is to use them as guidance for the Estidama Certification process.

At this initial stage of programming, the scorecards can be viewed as valuable tools that can be used to:

PG. 18 Page | 2.6-18

Identify credits relevant to the project scope, building use, overall vision and GF corporate policies

Identify Credits that can be easily achieved with minimum effort and least additional cost

Identify potential opportunities that can be refined via ROI analysis in Design phase

Identify Credits that require further screening between the project stakeholders through Sustainability Charrettes at this initial stage

Provide an initial evaluation of the building’s expected rating while identifying challenges and opportunities

Assist in decision making for GF and Design Team to follow certain design strategies

Identify ‘follow up’ tasks in order to facilitate credit intent implementation

During later stages, during design, upon design completion and as the project

progresses to the construction phase the team can monitor actual performance for each intended credit.

The preliminary scorecards, since are developed at an early stage with limited information available, followed a rather conservative approach. Easy to achieve credits, with minimum effort or additional cost, were identified as intended (‘Yes’), while a larger number of credits were indicated as ‘possible’ with the intention of generating brainstorming discussions within the design team (Sustainability Charrettes, Section 3) and propose different options of design strategies for GF to consider.

Preliminary Scorecards

Summary Overview

A summary overview of the scorecards per category is provided below. The detailed scorecards can be found in the Appendix. Table 2.6 -6 below summarises credits identified per category for both buildings.

Table 2.6-6: Pearl Credits Overview Per Category

Category Administration Building FAB Building

Yes Maybe No Yes Maybe No

Integrated Development Strategy 10 3 0 10 3 0

Natural Systems 2 0 10 2 0 10

Livable Buildings – Outdoor 5 5 3 5 5 3

Livable Buildings – Indoor 16 6 1 14 1 8

Precious Water 15 `9 9 19 10 14

Resourceful Energy 13 15 15 10 10 23

Stewarding Material 6 17 5 6 15 7

Innovating Practice 2 1 0 2 1 0

Total 69 66 43 68 45 65

PG. 19 Page | 2.6-19

Administration Building

The Preliminary Scorecard for the Administration Building indicates that the building can achieve a 2 Pearl rating, as required by Estidama (government led

development (Required Credits + 60 points at a minimum). The Figure below illustrates the initial assessment of the Administration building in relation to the Pearl Rating Categories.

Figure 2.6-5: Administration Building - Initial Pearl Rating Assessment

Pearl 1

RE‐ 59

Pearl 2 Pearl 3 Pearl 4 Pearl 5

Required Credits 60 ‐84 85‐114 115‐139 140 +

69 points 66 Points

FAB Unit

The Preliminary Scorecard for the Administration Building indicates that the building can achieve a 2 Pearl rating, as required by Estidama (government led development (Required Credits + 60 points at

a minimum). GF will need to agree with UPC on the Baseline for energy and water consumption of the FAB which will determine the total number of credits achieved. The Figure below illustrates the initial assessment of the Administration building in relation to the Pearl Rating Categories.

Figure 2.6-6: FAB Building - Initial Pearl Rating Assessment

Pearl 1

RE‐ 59

Pearl 2 Pearl 3 Pearl 4 Pearl 5

Required Credits 60 ‐84 85‐114 115‐139 140 +

68 points 45 Points

2.6.9 | Estidama Registration Upon completion of the planning review stage with a planning permit obtained by UPC, GF can proceed with the project registration for Estidama Certification.

The Estidama application form, which is included in the Appendix, must provide the following information: Estidama rating targeted, confirmation on project funding (private or governmental) to establish the

minimum rating requirements, general project information and details of the Project Qualified Professional assigned for the project (including documentation verifying that the PQP is an Accredited Professional). No administrative fees have been specified by UPC at the moment.

2.6.10 | Supply Chain Strategy Maintaining an effective management of supply chain is important to sustainability

PG. 20 Page | 2.6-20

objective. The diagram below demonstrates key parameters for effective supply chain

management from design to end of life disposal.

Figure 2.6-7: Supply Chain –Key Parameters

For a typical building, 90% of carbon footprint (embodied carbon) and around 80% of building costs are attributed to just three

materials: Concrete, Steel and curtain walling windows.

Figure 2.6-8: Carbon Contribution of Materials in Buildings

Insulation1%

Wood1%

Finishes2%

Plaster6%

Curtain WallingWindows

10%

Steel21%

Concrete59%

PG. 21 Page | 2.6-21

For an effective strategy, we decided to focus on concrete, structural steel and rebar as they are the major materials with significant impact for AD01 development. A rough initial estimate of materials for AD01 is indicated below:

Concrete: 120,000 cubic meters

Steel: 14,000 metric tons

Rebar: 5,000 metric tons

The suppliers listed below are based in the UAE. This list is indicative and it requires further investigation to identify additional local suppliers and evaluate their building products against Estidama requirements. It is recommended therefore, that a comprehensive pre-qualification process for suppliers is established at the design stage of the project to evaluate sustainability performance of their products (together with other criteria such as cost, availability, delivery timeframe etc.) and identify potential strategic partnerships.

Concrete

Cast in Place

The manufacturing of cement is one of the most CO2 intensive processes on the planet. It is estimated that 6% of the world’s carbon production will come from the manufacturing of cement. Cement is also one of the most widely utilized building materials as it is a key ingredient to the ready mix concrete production and usage.

The concrete mixtures incorporating recycled-content, Portland-cement-reducing admixtures such as fly-ash are desirable in order to obtain Material Selection related Credits under Estidama building rating system.

Products listed below incorporate recycled content or have desirable environmental attributes:

AL FALAH READY MIX

AL FALAH READY MIX owns 36 production plants strategically located over the UAE. They have established around 20 Batch Plants in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, which operate under an integrated Management System for Quality, Environment, Occupational Health & Safety, accredited and certified according to ISO 9001:2000, ISO 14001:2004 and OHSAS 18001:2007.

Their “green” concrete uses re-cycled materials and byproducts from other industrial processes (such as GGBS and Pulverizes Fuel Ash) in order to reduce Portland cement and carbon impacts. Al Falah can provide an on-site batching plant working as partner with GF on the development of “green” concrete.

UNIBETON

Unibeton is present in the UAE for about 30 years with six production branches, with two to three Batching Plants in operation for each branch, within the Abu Dhabi emirate. They are accredited to QHS&E (Quality ISO 9001, Health & Safety OHSAS 18001, and Environment ISO 14001) Management System.

Unibeton, recently introduced a new technology called ‘iCrete’ applied for the production of optimized concrete and is closely working with UPC regarding concrete mixtures that would satisfy Estidama requirements.

PG. 22 Page | 2.6-22

Unibeton has exclusive rights to use ‘iCrete’ technology across UAE.

Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag

Cement production is energy-intensive and polluting; concrete mixtures incorporating recycled-content, performance-enhancing, portland-cement-reducing admixtures such as fly-ash are desirable. Recycled materials used in place of mined stone aggregate - such as slag, a byproduct of steel production – ease landfill burdens and can improve the concrete's strength-to-weight ratio and thermal properties. Products listed here incorporate recycled content or have other desirable environmental qualities.

GULF CEMENT CO

Gulf Cement Company claims annual production capacity of 2.5 million tons cement and 1.3 million tons clinker. GCC has been awarded with ISO 9002:1994, ISO 9001:2000, ISO 14001:2002. GCC grinds and sells pulverised slag as Ground Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS) complying with BS 6699. Also, their product carries the BSI KITEMARK.

SHARJAH CEMENT FACTORY

Sharjah Cement Factory produces Portland Cement, Moderate Sulfate - Resisting Portland Cement, Sulfate - Resisting Portland Cement, Ground Granulated Blast furnace Slag.

GGBS produced is manufactured to comply with the requirement of BS 6699 and exceeds the minimum strength and fineness requirement by a considerable margin. Their product carries the BSI KITEMARK.

Precast Concrete Slabs

For the production of precast concrete, concrete is cast in a reusable mould, cured in a controlled environment, transported to the construction site and lifted into place.

MAMMUT TECHNOCRETE

Mammut Technocrete (MTC) was formed in 2005 to manufacture pre-cast concrete products for the contracting sector. Their factory commenced supply to the UAE market within the year of 2005 with the ability to provide material with recycled concrete. Using precast concrete has the following advantages:

100% Elimination of slab formwork

50/75 % reduction of slab reinforcement work

15/50 % reduction of slab concreting work

Reinforcing Steel (Rebar)

A rebar, or reinforcing bar, is a common steel bar, and is commonly used in reinforced concrete and reinforced masonry structures. It is usually formed from carbon steel, and is

given ridges for better mechanical anchoring

into the concrete.

PG. 23 Page | 2.6-23

EMIRATES STEEL INDUSTRIES

Emirates Steel Industries is a wholly owned government factory strategically located at the recently developed Industrial City of Abu Dhabi (ICAD). Their production asset has the capacity of producing more than 720,000 tons of rebar per annum (This figure applicable for 2007 capacity). Deformed Bar product produced by Emirates Steel complies with British Standard BS 4449/97 GR 460 B.

According to their statement, Emirates Steel is applying a series of technologies to minimise environmental impacts during the production phase: minimization of CO2 emissions through CO2 absorption system, process generated waste supplies other types of industries (e.g. Iron oxide fines used in cement industry). Utilizes more than 50% post consumer recycled content in production.

CICON

CICON Building Materials imports, stocks and distributes building materials in the U.A.E. CICON owns an operating plant with an

annual crude steel capacity of 1.200.000 MT.

According to their statement CICON is using Best Available Techniques to minimize energy consumption.

Structural Steel

The list of the suppliers below is indicative: the recycled content of their products needs to be clarified during the forthcoming design stages

through a comprehensive pre-qualification process as mentioned earlier.

MAMMUT BUILDING SYSTEMS

Mammut Building Systems was established in 1997, in response to the increasing global demand for Quality Pre Engineered and Structural Steel Buildings. The total production capacity of their units is at 6000 tons of steel per month.

CLEVELAND BRIDGE & ENGINEERING MIDDLE EAST

Cleveland Bridge & Engineering Middle East (Pvt) Ltd., (CBEME), is a Dubai based company specializing in the design, manufacture and erection/installation of structural steelwork and associated items.

Refer to the Appendix 2.7 I: UPC Response on GF Pre-concept

Review Submission

ISDM Model output

Sustainability Design Guidelines

o Construction and Demolition Waste Management

o Construction Indoor Air Quality Management

o Minimum Energy Performance

o Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan

Preliminary Estidama Scorecards (Follow up tasks identified)

Estidama Registration Form

Response to GF Comments on Draft Report

Documents

2.6 Sustainability