leed v4 and construction materials -...

©2012 Center For Environmental Innovation in Roofing, All Rights Reserved

LEED v4 AND CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

NOVEMBER 2, 2012

A CENTER WEBINAR PRESENTATION

“LEED is continuously evolving and improving. We’re not just

going for net zero; we’re going for net positive. Getting to an

entire market transformation means we need to keep moving

in the right direction.

The next update to the rating systems (LEED v4) will open up

LEED to a wider range of building types and manufacturing

industries, delivering the benefits of green building up and

down the supply chain. It will advance environmental footprint

issues, like climate change, and encourage optimization of

energy and water use.”

The Next Version of LEED

Source: U. S. Green Building Council (Italics and underlining added.) 2

LEED v4 : WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

LEED v4 Timeline

October 1, 2012:

December 10, 2012:

June 1, 2013:

Summer / Fall 2013:

June 1, 2015:

Final LEED v4 Draft released for comment Public comment period closes LEED v4 balloting by USGBC membership begins LEED v4 becomes an alternative to LEED 2009 LEED v4 replaces LEED 2009 for all projects

3


4

• Material Disclosure and Optimization: Environmental Product Declarations (MRc2)

• Material Disclosure and Optimization: Sourcing of Raw Materials (MRc3)

• Material Disclosure and Optimization: Material Ingredients (MRc4)

New LEED v4 Material Credits

4


• Disclosure: Reporting the impacts of products • Environmental impacts

• Social impacts

• Hazard impacts

• Optimization: Reducing the impacts of products • Net reduction of impacts “below industry average”

• Use of environmentally preferred product categories

• Elimination of specific hazardous chemicals

What is Disclosure and Optimization?

5


• Option 1: Disclosure – Alternate Path – Alternate Path – Alternate Path – Alternate Path

and / or…

• Option 2: Optimization – Alternate Path – Alternate Path – Alternate Path – Alternate Path

Material Disclosure and Optimization

Credit Structure

1 Point 1 Point

Max. 2 Points

6


• Option 1: At least 20 products must have… – Product-specific ISO-compliant Life Cycle Assessment*

– Product-specific ISO-compliant Environmental Product Declaration*

– Industry-wide ISO-compliant Environmental Product Declaration*

• Option 2: At least 50% of all materials must be… – Products with extended producer responsibility program*

– Products with lower impacts than “industry average” in at least 3 impact categories

Credit MRc2

Environmental Product Declarations

7


*Weighting varies

• Option 1: At least 20 products must have… – Self-declared Corporate Sustainability Report*

– Third party certified CSR*

• Option 2: At least 25% of all materials must be… – Bio-based

– FSC certified wood

– Reused

– Recycled

Credit MRc3

Sourcing of Raw Materials

8


*Weighting varies

• Option 1: At least 20 products must have… – Manufacturer self-report by CAS No.

– Health Product Declaration using Health Product Declaration Open Standard

– Cradle-to-Cradle certified minimum Silver level

• Option 2: At least 25% of all materials must… – Pass GreenScreen Benchmark 1 or 2*

– Achieve Cradle-to-Cradle Platinum or Gold*

– Have no ingredients on REACH Authorization or Candidate List

Credit MRc4

Material Ingredients

9


*Weighting varies

• Within 100 miles: 200% weighting

• Within 500 miles: 150% weighting

Credit MRc2/3/4

Local Source Weighting

Locally-sourced products receive additional weighting:

10


• EPDs and HPDs

• GreenScreen

• REACH

• Cradle-to-Cradle

LEED v4 and Materials

New Concepts

11


LEED v4 and Materials

EPDs and HPDs

12

EPD

HPD


• Focused on quantifiable measures – Environmental impacts (global warming, ozone depletion, etc.) – Resource consumption (energy, water, solid waste)

• Cradle-to-grave perspective

• Well-established methodology and rules – Standardized methodology: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) – Common rules for comparison: Product Category Rules (PCRs)

• Based on recognized global standards – ISO 14000 environmental management series

• Supported by established program operators – UL Environment, NSF, ICC Evaluation Service, and others

Environmental Product Declaration(EPD)

13


Sample EPD

14

Product: Ceiling Tile

Manufacturer: Certainteed

Certifier: UL Environment

ACCORDING TO IS0 14025

Procedure: ISO 14025


EPD Detail

15

Life Cycle / System Boundary

Life Cycle Diagram


EPD Detail

16

Impact Summary

Functional Unit:

Comparable with

Similar Products

Impact Category

Impact Units

Impact Measures


• Few EPDs have been published so far – Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is complex and costly

– Additional Product Category Rules (PCRs) must be completed

• Multiple LCA / EPD options within LEED v4 may cause confusion – LCA versus EPD

– Industry –wide versus specific product EPD

– How will “below industry average” be implemented?

• Education will be required for design professionals to effectively integrate EPDs into material selection and project design

LEED v4 and EPDs

EPD Challenges

17


• Focused on potential hazard rather than quantifiable impact

– Primary reliance on hazard reference lists of “chemicals of concern”

– Little or no attention to levels or thresholds of chemical ingredients

• Cradle-to-grave perspective

• Emerging methodology and rules

• Based on multiple approaches to hazard definition

– Over one dozen published hazard lists and protocols

Health Product Declaration(HPD)

18


• HPD Open Standard Working Group established July, 2011 (http://www.hpdworkinggroup.org/)

• A joint initiative of Healthy Buildings Network (HBN) and BuildingGreen, Inc.

• Numerous NGO and corporate participants, including GAF & JM

• Draft HPD published October 2, 2011 and currently in pilot program

HPD Open Standard Working Group

19


http://www.hpdworkinggroup.org/

Source: Healthy Buildings Network

HPD Open Standard Draft

20

Ingredient CAS No. Hazard References


• “Open Standards” are not ASTM, ANSI or ISO standards

• Few if any HPDs have been published so far

• Inclusion of California Proposition 65 in current HPD Open

Standard Draft poses a significant challenge for many common

building materials (More to follow on Prop 65)

• Multiple hazard disclosure options within LEED v4 may

lead to confusion

• Education will be required for design professionals to effectively

integrate HPDs into material selection and project design

LEED v4 and HPDs

HPD Challenges

21


GreenScreen

22


• Considers eighteen (18)

environmental and human health end points

• Uses a variety of public and private hazard references and lists

• Evaluates chemical hazards on 4 benchmarks of action

GreenScreen

23


Source: Clean Production Action

Green Screen Hazard Categories

Carcinogenicity (C) Skin Sensitization (SnS)

Mutagenicity (M) Respiratory Sensitization (SnR)

Reproductive Toxicity (R) Skin Irritation (IrS)

Developmental Toxicity (D) Eye Irritation (IrE)

Endocrine Activity (E) Acute Aquatic Toxicity (AA)

Acute Mammalian Toxicity (AT) Chronic Aquatic Toxicity (CA)

Systemic Toxicity (ST) Persistence (P)

Neurotoxicity (N) Bioaccumulation (B)

Flammability (F) Reactivity (Rx)

GreenScreen Hazard Categories

24



GreenScreen Benchmarks

25



GreenScreen Benchmark 1

26



Green Screen Hazard Category Hazard References (Benchmark 1)

Carcinogenicity (C) US EPA Known, OSHA Carcinogen, NTP Known, IARC Group 1 or 2A, EU Category 1 or 2, GHS Category 1A or 1B,

CA Prop 65

Mutagenicity (M) EU Category 1 or 2, GHS Category 1A or 1B

Reproductive Toxicity (R) NTP Known, EU Category 1 or 2, GHS

Category 1A or 1B, CA Prop 65

Developmental Toxicity (D) NTP Known, CA Prop 65

PLUS 13 MORE CATEGORIES & CRITERIA


GreenScreen Benchmark 1

Hazard References

27


• Few if any GreenScreen evaluations have been published so far

• Some confusion exists regarding products versus ingredients in the GreenScreen protocol

• Inclusion of California Proposition 65 in GreenScreen Benchmark 1 poses a significant challenge for many common building materials (More to follow on Prop 65)

• Multiple hazard optimization options within LEED v4 may lead to confusion

• Education will be required for design professionals to effectively integrate GreenScreen into material selection and project design

LEED v4 and GreenScreen

GreenScreen Challenges

28


REACH

REACH mandates a step-by-step approach for the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of chemicals in products marketed and distributed in the EU. As part of the program, REACH has developed specific listings of chemicals of concern. These chemicals are listed either on a Candidate List for further review or an Authorization List for phased removal from the market

30


REACH and Construction Products

31


Candidate / Authorized Chemical Relevant Construction Product(s)

Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) EPS, XPS

Tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP)

SPF

Various Pthalates PVC

Coal Tar Coal Tar

4,4'- Diaminodiphenylmethane (MDA)

As a precursor of MDI, some environmental groups have claimed all polyurethanes are affected

• Although the REACH development process is grounded in

science and consensus, it is difficult for non-EU residents to

participate in the consensus process

• Some confusion exists regarding the status of precursor

chemicals as they related to finished products (e.g. MDA as

previously discussed)

LEED v4 and REACH

REACH Challenges

32


Cradle-To-Cradle

33


Cradle-To-Cradle (C2C)

34

• Product certification system managed by McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry (MBDC)

• Evaluates products on five criteria • Material Health • Material Reutilization • Renewable Energy Use • Water Stewardship • Social Responsibility

• Certifies products in four classes • Basic • Silver • Gold • Platinum


C2C and Construction Products

35


C2C Level Relevant Requirement

Basic No PVC products

Silver No PVC and all other halogenated hydrocarbons <1000 ppm

Gold No halogenated hydrocarbons

Platinum No halogenated hydrocarbons

• C2C is a proprietary certification program not subject to a

consensus standard process

• The near-blanket ban on all halogenated fire retardants and

PVC poses a significant challenge for many common building

materials

LEED v4 and C2C

C2C Challenges

36


California Proposition 65

37


“In 1986, California voters approved an initiative to address their growing concerns about exposure to toxic chemicals. That initiative became the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, better known by its original name of Proposition 65. Proposition 65 requires the State to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm. This list, which must be updated at least once a year, has grown to include approximately 800 chemicals since it was first published in 1987.

Proposition 65 requires businesses to notify Californians about significant amounts of chemicals in the products they purchase, in their homes or workplaces, or that are released into the environment. By providing this information, Proposition 65 enables Californians to make informed decisions about protecting themselves from exposure to these chemicals.”

What is Prop 65?

38 Source: California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment


“A chemical can be listed if either of two independent committees of scientists and health professionals appointed by the Governor find that the chemical has been clearly shown to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm.

A second way for a chemical to be listed is if it has been identified as causing cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm by agencies such as the U.S. EPA, the U.S. FDA, NIOSH, and IARC.

A third way for a chemical to be listed is if an agency of the state or federal government requires that it be labeled or identified as causing cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm.

A fourth way requires the listing of chemicals meeting certain scientific criteria and identified in the California Labor Code as causing cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm.”

How are Chemicals Listed in Prop 65?

39 Source: California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment


CA Prop 65 List

REACH Candidate / Authorized List

Number of chemicals included

Over 800 Less than 3 dozen

Hazard criterion May include chemicals that are either known or suspected to be hazardous

Includes only chemicals known to be hazardous

40

Prop 65 and REACH


41

Prop 65 and Construction Products


Prop 65 Chemical Relevant Product(s)

Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) EPS, XPS

Tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP)

SPF

Bitumens, extracts of steam-refined or air-refined

APP, SBS, BUR, Bituminous Coatings

Carbon Black (CAS 1333-86-4) EPDM

Titanium Dioxide, airborne, unbound particles of respirable size

Almost all white roof covers and coatings

• Some options could be simplified – No compelling need for “ISO-compliant LCA” since it can easily

be converted into an Iso-compliant EPD

– Weightings may add more confusion than value

• Some options may need additional time for broad adoption by product manufacturers – EPDs: Need more PCRs and LCA studies

– HPDs: Need fully vetted HPD standard

LEED v4 and Construction Materials

Observations

42


• Chemical hazard categories need to be harmonized – Why should some chemicals be accepted under some options

and rejected under others?

– CA Prop 65 is particularly problematic in terms of hazard definition and consensus development

• Some options are overly proprietary or lack consensus input – GreenScreen

– C2C

– REACH (Outside of EU)


Observations

43


• The current approach to optimization ignores important optimization strategies – Trade-off strategies

– Continuous improvement strategies

• Some options lack consensus support or are obviously proprietary – GreenScreen

– C2C

– REACH (Outside of EU)


Observations

44


• Some options fail to demonstrate tangible sustainable benefit – Does local sourcing necessarily reduce environmental impact or

hazard?

– Do single-attribute products necessarily reduce environmental impact or hazard?


Observations

45


• Focus on disclosure first, and then optimization – Work on improving consistency and reliability of disclosure

options

– Keep optimization options in the Pilot Credit Library

• Restrict hazard references to the most authoritative global sources – Specifically eliminate the use of regional lists such as Prop 65

• Add opportunities for trade-off and continuous improvement

– Consider closed-loop recycling and other trade-off strategies

– Consider levels of reduction rather than blanket bans


Suggestions

46


LEED v4 Timeline

October 1, 2012:

December 10, 2012:

June 1, 2013:

Summer / Fall 2013:

June 1, 2015:

Final LEED v4 Draft released for comment Public comment period closes LEED v4 balloting by USGBC membership begins LEED v4 becomes an alternative to LEED 2009 LEED v4 replaces LEED 2009 for all projects

47


leed v4 and construction materials -...

Documents