NC-v4 MRc4: Building product disclosure and optimization - material ingredients

  • Stepping stones to optimization

    Certified Silver under v2 of Cradle to Cradle, Styrofoam extruded polystyrene insulation, manufactured by Dow Building Solutions, meets the criteria for the transparency option in the LEED v4 material ingredients credit.Certified Silver under v2 of Cradle to Cradle, Styrofoam extruded polystyrene insulation, manufactured by Dow Building Solutions, meets the criteria for the transparency option in the LEED v4 material ingredients credit.This credit comprises what may be the two most controversial points in all of LEED v4.

    The credit has no precedent in prior versions of LEED. It offers three very different options for addressing chemicals of concern, with a strong focus on disclosure of hazardous substances (hazard avoidance), rather than risk-assessment, which seeks to account for the risk of exposure to a substance, and not just its presence. A third option, that has not yet been made available, may incorporate some kind of risk-assessment methodology. (See details below.)

    Inherent value of transparency and disclosure

    The credit offers one point for material ingredient reporting. The presence of potentially hazardous materials does not disqualify a product from being counted toward this initial point—a source of consternation to some critics. With the release of the April 2016 LEED Addenda the number of resources and paths for complying with this option more than doubled, making it relatively easy to achieve on most projects. 

    But don’t underestimate the power of disclosure. According to advocates for this process, just the act of writing up an inventory of product ingredients can be transformational for manufacturers. Manufacturers may not be aware of everything that's in their products, and simply having those conversations with their suppliers and developing their inventory can lead to change without pressure from consumers.

    Option 1: Manufacturer Inventories

    Option 1 allows for several different ways to provide a “manufacturer inventory” of ingredients:

    • A manufacturer may publish Chemical Abstract Service Registration Numbers (CASRN) for all ingredients in the product; some ingredients may be kept proprietary, but their hazard potential based on the GreenScreen benchmarking system must be disclosed (see below). This inventory is very similar to the Health Product Declaration program, which has more manufacturer participation. All ingredients that constitute 0.1% (1,000 ppmParts per million.) or more of the product must be accounted for, a threshold that is 10 times lower than the typical 1% minimum threshold for reporting on a material safety data sheet (MSDS1. Material safety data sheets (MSDS) are detailed, written instructions documenting a method to achieve uniformity of performance. 2. A report that manufacturers of most products are required to make available to installers and purchasers, informing them of product information on chemicals, chemical compounds, and chemical mixtures, the existence of potentially hazardous ingredients, and providing instructions for the safe handling, storage, and disposal of products).
    • Globally Harmonized System (GHS) path: With the April 2016 Addenda a new hazard identification option was introduced that references the Globally Harmonized System for the Classification of Chemicals (GHS) instead of GreenScreen. GHS is the framework underlying standard Safety Data Sheets (SDS) which are replacing the older Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) internally as a chemical safety reporting format. While GreenScreen is partially based on GHS, it includes more stringent screening criteria than GHS. The screening criteria for GHS are tied to more common industry standards and regulatory requirements, which can vary by country. The requirement to include a list of hazards that cannot be classified due to insufficient data, however, is a nod toward additional rigor.
    • The Health Product Declaration (HPD) is a standardized format for disclosure by manufacturers of product contents, emissions, and health information. It has been likened to a nutrition label for building products focused on health-based issues not addressed by EPDs. Because the HPD is an open standard for reporting product ingredients and associated health hazards, it’s up to individual manufacturers to choose to use the HPD and to choose the level of detail to provide.
      • To qualify for LEED in a version 1.0 HPD, the manufacturer must affirm “Full disclosure of known hazards” on the front summary page and further affirm the level of disclosure with the check box under “Residuals disclosure.” Also, HPD standards for the 1,000-ppm level must be attained and the appropriate box on the summary page checked.
      • With version 2.0 HPDs the specific requirements are similar: all contents characterized and screened at the 1000 ppm level or better and a description of how residuals were considered either for individual materials within the contents list or for the contents as a whole. A graphic illustrating the requirements is available here.
    • Cradle to Cradle (C2CA protocol developed by McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry that establishes guidelines for the manufacture of products in ways that harmonize with natural systems. These guidelines require, for example, that products be recyclable indefinitely, contain no hazardous ingredients, and be manufactured using renewable energy.) is a multi-attribute sustainability certification that does not require manufacturers to publish product ingredients, making it an odd choice for a “disclosure” option. Products certified at the Bronze level or higher under version 3 of C2C have had their ingredients disclosed to a third-party assessor, who vets the list for accuracy. C2C also rates products based on energy, water, carbon, waste, and indoor air quality targets. Cradle to Cradle also now has a streamlined program that includes only the Material Health aspects of the full certification. That Material Health certification was officially accepted as a compliance option for this credit with the April 2016 Addenda. 
    • Declare, the product labeling program from the International Living Future Institute (ILFI) that’s designed to identify ingredients for the purposes of screening against ILFI’s Living Building Challenge Red List, was added as a reporting option with the April 2016 Addenda. To comply with this option Declare products don’t have to be Red List Free nor “LBC-compliant” but they must indicate that all ingredients down to 1,000 ppm were evaluated and disclosed.
    • Contract furniture products can comply using the ANSI/BIFMA e3 certification program, as long as they’ve earned at least three points in the required section of that system (7.5.1.3 Advanced Level in e3-2014 or 7.4.1.3 Advanced Level in e3-2012).

    Where to find products

    C2C-certified products are listed in an online database run by the Cradle to Cradle Product Innovation Institute (C2CPII). When LEED v4 launched, there were roughly 100 certified building products listed, including some from major manufacturers—enough to contribute to many LEED v4 projects but not all.

    Manufacturer inventories and HPDs are available on individual manufacturers’ websites, and the design firm SmithGroupJJR has created a public HPD Library. BuildingGreen, the company behind LEEDuser also collects products with LEED-compliant HPDs and other transparency documents in its Transparency Collections, which are available from the Green Products tab on BuildingGreen.com.

    Declare products are accessible in ILFI’s Declare database, which was relaunched in May 2016 with enhance search capabilities.

    The mindful MATERIALS program provides spreadsheets from manufacturers that indicate which transparency declarations and certifications are available for each product.

    BuildingGreen, the company behind LEEDuser also collects products with LEED-compliant HPDs, C2C certifications, Declare labels, BIFMA certification, and other transparency documents in its Transparency Collections, which are available from the Green Products tab on BuildingGreen.com.

    Tips & field notes

    Since the release of the April 2016 Addenda this option has become quite accessible for most whole-building projects in the U.S., where these programs are relatively well established. It’s not as easy for projects in other countries.

    Small CI projects that don’t use many different products sometimes have trouble getting to the magic number of 20.

    Watch your Vs and 2s! The C2C options for this credit are weighted differently depending on the version of C2C the product is certified under. As of 2016, there are no longer any C2C version 2 certified products so new projects and projects that have yet to specify their products will all be referencing version 3 of C2C.

    Few manufacturers have published HPDs so farFloor-area ratio is the density of nonresidential land use, exclusive of parking, measured as the total nonresidential building floor area divided by the total buildable land area available for nonresidential structures. For example, on a site with 10,000 square feet (930 square meters) of buildable land area, an FAR of 1.0 would be 10,000 square feet (930 square meters) of building floor area. On the same site, an FAR of 1.5 would be 15,000 square feet (1395 square meters), an FAR of 2.0 would be 20,000 square feet (1860 square meters), and an FAR of 0.5 would be 5,000 square feet (465 square meters). under version 2.0 of that standard, and HPDs have a lot of competition that they didn't have when the format was first introduced, so it remains to be seen how much of an option this will be. But HPDs still have strong support from the design community and are being positioned as a common data entry format that could also serve Declare and C2C. Version 2.0 of the HPD includes many technical improvements that make HPDs easier to produce and interpret.

    Option 2: Ingredient Optimization

    Here’s another area where LEED’s long-term goal of performance-based accountability begins to take shape. Option 2 offers an incentive for manufacturers to go beyond awareness and disclosure of product formulations and to begin eliminating potentially hazardous chemicals from their supply chains.

    Optimization options

    • C2C v3 Silver certification means that a manufacturer has reached the final stages of replacing hazardous materials. The C2C methodology for chemical assessment includes a list of banned chemicals (products on this “black list” can’t enter the system even at the Basic level), as well as a tiered watch list (called an “ABC-X” system, with X identifying hazards that eventually must be phased out). A v3 Silver product has had an ABC-X assessment on 95% of its ingredients and contains no known or suspected carcinogens or reproductive toxicants.
    • The GreenScreen benchmarking system looks not only at the toxicity, persistence, and bioaccumulative potential of chemicals but also at how they degrade once they enter ecosystems. | Source – Clean Production ActionThe GreenScreen benchmarking system looks not only at the toxicity, persistence, and bioaccumulative potential of chemicals but also at how they degrade once they enter ecosystems. Source – Clean Production ActionThe GreenScreen List Translator, developed by the nonprofit Clean Production Action, is essentially a mega-red-list—a collection of chemicals that are considered hazardous by a number of regulatory bodies around the world. The List Translator includes both “authoritative” and “screening” lists—but to qualify for credit, products only need to come up clean when compared against the authoritative lists. This means that none of the ingredients in the product can be flagged as the equivalent of “Benchmark 1,” which in the GreenScreen benchmarking system includes the most persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals—including known human carcinogens, mutagens, and reproductive and developmental toxicants. But for a full GreenScreen hazard assessment, the List Translator is just the beginning. With manufacturers routinely introducing new chemicals, all the red lists in the world can’t keep track of every potential hazard. A full GreenScreen assessment involves a wide-ranging review of published data about the material’s entire life cycle and the life cycles of similar chemicals. To qualify for credit, each ingredient of a product must be assessed by a licensed GreenScreen profiler and must include no Benchmark 1 chemicals throughout its life cycle.
    • REACH (short for Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemical Substances) is a European Union regulation that aims to identify the most potent hazards used in European industry. The program is gradually assessing more than 30,000 chemicals and has begun creating its Authorisation List of Substances of Very High Concern; the list contained 22 chemicals as of September 2013, and European manufacturers must get special permission to use these substances. To qualify for LEED v4, products must contain no chemicals from this authorization list and none from the Candidate List of Substances of Very High Concern for Authorisation—which includes more than 100 chemicals still being assessed for possible inclusion on the authorization list.

    Where to find products

    C2C rates products based on multiple attributes; the product gets the lowest of these scores as its rating.C2C rates products based on multiple attributes; the product gets the lowest of these scores as its rating.Finding C2C-certified products is easy in the C2CPII database.

    As of the LEED v4 launch, a central database for products and materials that have undergone a full GreenScreen assessment has not emerged. One option, however, is to use an HPD to document fully inventoried chemical ingredients to 100 ppm that have no Benchmark 1 hazards:

    • If any ingredients are assessed with the GreenScreen List Translator, value these products at 100% of cost.
    • If all ingredients are have undergone a full GreenScreen Assessment, value these products at 150% of cost.

    All companies that produce building materials for European markets should have information about their European products’ status relative to REACH. The REACH option may apply to North American products if the formulations are identical.

    Tips & field notes

    Not all international manufacturers will formulate their products the same way in Europe and North America, so check that documentation produced for a product sold in Europe translates to the U.S., and vice versa.

    Option 3: Supply Chain Optimization

    Many manufacturers of chemicals and plastics have objected to the new MR credits (see A Ban on PVC?), prompting USGBC to develop a third compliance path for MRc4. A draft implementation guide for this option was developed in 2015, but as of June 2016 it is not yet available for use by LEED projects pending field testing. Availability is expected by the time LEED v4 becomes mandatory in November 2016.

    The credit language encourages manufacturers to seek third-party verification of supply-chain optimization regarding material health. It appears to favor “risk-assessment” methods.

    A hazard assessment characterizes the inherent health and environmental dangers of a material without taking exposure into account; hence it typically focuses on the most toxic substances—chemicals for which, some would argue, there is really no “safe” amount.

    A risk assessment goes beyond identifying hazards and analyzes the level of risk involved in using a particular chemical in a particular way. A hazard assessment might identify a halogenated flame retardant as a persistent, bioaccumulative toxic chemical. A risk assessment would then focus on how much of the chemical could be considered safe for humans and ecosystems; this information is usually used to seek ways to limit exposure through environmental regulations.

    Although these methodologies are complementary, they have in the past few years come to be seen as opposing, with consumer and environmental advocates tending to argue for more hazard screenings and outright bans of certain chemicals, and industry advocates tending to argue for more risk assessments and exposure controls. 

  • MR Credit 4: Building product disclosure and optimization - material ingredients

    Intent

    To encourage the use of products and materials for which life-cycle information is available and that have environmentally, economically, and socially preferable life-cycle impacts. To reward project teams for selecting products for which the chemical ingredients in the product are inventoried using an accepted methodology and for selecting products verified to minimize the use and generation of harmful substances. To reward raw material manufacturers who produce products verified to have improved life-cycle impacts.

    Requirements

    Option 1. material ingredient reporting (1 point)

    Use at least 20 different permanently installed products from at least five different manufacturers that use any of the following programs to demonstrate the chemical inventory of the product to at least 0.1% (1000 ppmParts per million.).

    • Manufacturer Inventory. The manufacturer has published complete content inventory for the product following these guidelines:

      • A publicly available inventory of all ingredients identified by name and Chemical Abstract Service Registration Number (CASRN) and/or European Community Number (EC Number)
      • Materials defined as trade secret or intellectual property may withhold the name and/or CASRN/EC Number but must disclose role, amount and hazard screen using either:
        • GreenScreen benchmark, as defined in GreenScreen v1.2.
        • The Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals rev.6 (2015) (GHS)
          • The hazard screen must be applied to each trade secret ingredient and the inventory lists the hazard category for each of the health hazards included in Part 3 of GHS (e.g. “GHS Category 2 Carcinogen”).
          • Identify in the inventory all hazard classes for which a classification cannot be made because there are insufficient data for a particular endpoint(s).
    • Health Product Declaration. The end use product has a published, complete Health Product Declaration with full disclosure of known hazards in compliance with the Health Product Declaration open Standard.
    • Cradle to Cradle. The end use product has been certified at the Cradle to Cradle v2 Basic level or Cradle to Cradle v3 Bronze level.
    • Declare. The Declare product label must indicate that all ingredients have been evaluated and disclosed down to 1000 ppm.
    • ANSI/BIFMA e3 Furniture Sustainability Standard. The documentation from the assessor or scorecard from BIFMA must demonstrate the product earned at least 3 points under 7.5.1.3 Advanced Level in e3-2014 or 3 points under 7.4.1.3 Advanced Level in e3-2012.
    • Cradle to Cradle Material Health Certificate. The product has been certified at the Bronze level or higher and at least 90% of materials are assessed by weight.
    • Product Lens Certification
    • Facts - NSF/ANSI 336: Sustainability Assessment for Commercial Furnishings Fabric at any certification level
    • USGBC approved program. Other USGBC approved programs meeting the material ingredient reporting criteria.

    AND/OR

    Option 2. Material ingredient optimization (1 point)

    Use products that document their material ingredient optimization using the paths below for at least 25%, by cost, of the total value of permanently installed products in the project.

    • GreenScreen v1.2 Benchmark. Products that have fully inventoried chemical ingredients to 100 ppm that have no Benchmark 1 hazards:

      • If any ingredients are assessed with the GreenScreen List Translator, value these products at 100% of cost.
      • If all ingredients are have undergone a full GreenScreen Assessment, value these products at 150% of cost.
    • Cradle to Cradle Certified. End use products are certified Cradle to Cradle. Products will be valued as follows:
      • Cradle to Cradle v2 Gold: 100% of cost
      • Cradle to Cradle v2 Platinum: 150% of cost
      • Cradle to Cradle v3 Silver: 100% of cost
      • Cradle to Cradle v3 Gold or Platinum: 150% of cost
    • International Alternative Compliance Path – REACH Optimization. End use products and materials have fully inventoried chemical ingredients to 100 ppm and assess each substance against the Authorization list – Annex XIV, the Restriction list – Annex XVII and the SVHC candidate list, (the version in effect in June 2013 ), proving that no such substance is included in the product. If the product contains no ingredients listed on the REACH Authorization, Restriction, and Candidate list, value at 100% of cost.
    • USGBC approved program. Products that comply with USGBC approved building product optimization criteria.
    AND/OR
    Option 3. Product Manufacturer Supply Chain Optimization (1 point)

    Use building products for at least 25%, by cost, of the total value of permanently installed products in the project that:

    • Are sourced from product manufacturers who engage in validated and robust safety, health, hazard, and risk programs which at a minimum document at least 99% (by weight) of the ingredients used to make the building product or building material, and
    • Are sourced from product manufacturers with independent third party verification of their supply chain that at a minimum verifies:
      • Processes are in place to communicate and transparently prioritize chemical ingredients along the supply chain according to available hazard, exposure and use information to identify those that require more detailed evaluation
      • Processes are in place to identify, document, and communicate information on health, safety and environmental characteristics of chemical ingredients
      • Processes are in place to implement measures to manage the health, safety and environmental hazard and risk of chemical ingredients
      • Processes are in place to optimize health, safety and environmental impacts when designing and improving chemical ingredients
      • Processes are in place to communicate, receive and evaluate chemical ingredient safety and stewardship information along the supply chain
      • Safety and stewardship information about the chemical ingredients is publicly available from all points along the supply chain

    Products meeting Option 3 criteria are valued at 100% of their cost for the purposes of credit achievement calculation.

    For credit achievement calculation of options 2 and 3, products sourced (extracted, manufactured, purchased) within 100 miles (160 km) of the project site are valued at 200% of their base contributing cost. For credit achievement calculation, the value of individual products compliant with either option 2 or 3 can be combined to reach the 25% threshold but products compliant with both option 2 and 3 may only be counted once.

    Structure and enclosure materials may not constitute more than 30% of the value of compliant building products.

    SITES-LEED Equivalency

    This LEED credit (or a component of this credit) has been established as equivalent to a SITES v2 credit or component. For more information on using the equivalency as a substitution in your LEED or SITES project, see this article and guidance document.

Articles

The Product Transparency Movement: Peeking Behind the Corporate Veil

An Environmental Building News feature article introducing the key concepts and tools behind the product transparency movement.

Construction Submittal

HardhatDocumentation for this credit is part of the Construction Phase submittal.

51 Comments

0
0
emily reese Sustainability Consultant Jacobs
Jun 08 2017
LEEDuser Member
1851 Thumbs Up

list of approved programs?

I could have sworn I saw a link somewhere in LEEDUser to a list of approved programs to use for this credit (that also gets updated as USGBC adds more programs), but can't find it now.
Did I imagine this?

1
2
0
Tristan Roberts LEED AP BD+C, Executive Editor – LEEDuser, BuildingGreen, Inc. Jun 08 2017 LEEDuser Moderator

Emily, we do update the credit language shown here right away when USGBC makes a change, as it has done several times with this credit, so feel confident in referencing that. 

Maybe you were also thinking of our guide to product and materials libraries?

2
2
0
emily reese Sustainability Consultant, Jacobs Jun 09 2017 LEEDuser Member 1851 Thumbs Up

No, although I do already have that page bookmarked, too, for reference.
Maybe I'm confusing it in my head with the list for Low-Emitting Materials...

Post a Reply
0
0
Nadav Malin USGBC LEED Faculty, President BuildingGreen, Inc.
Apr 20 2017
LEEDuser Moderator

April 2017 addenda

With its April 2017 LEED Addenda USGBC continues to add to the list of certifications and declarations that qualify for Option 1—Material Ingredient Reporting of the Material Ingredients credit. This time they’ve added UL’s Product Lens and Facts certification, which is based on NSF/ANSI 336: Sustainability Assessment for Commercial Furnishings Fabric.

UL’s Product Lens is supported by McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry (MBDC), the same firm that established (and still works with) Cradle to Cradle (C2C). It has a lower disclosure bar than C2C, however—it was developed explicitly to meet the LEED credit requirement of 1,000 parts per million. One thing that makes Lens unique in the industry, however, is that it explicitly assesses both hazard AND exposure at every life-cycle stage. Most systems that focus on exposure in addition to hazard do that only for building occupants. BuildingGreen’s assessment of the program here has more useful details. 

Facts is the Association for Contract Textiles certification program based on the NSF/ANSI 336 standard. Several entities, including SCS Global Services, UL, and NSF International offer certification services under the Facts program. Textiles can be certified in Facts at one of four levels (like LEED); any level of certification meets the disclosure requirement of this credit. 

The most recent addenda also clarified the requirements for projects outside the U.S. seeking to use the European Union’s REACH pathway under Option 2—Material Ingredient Optimization. To contribute, products have to have their ingredients inventoried to 100 ppm and document that none of those ingredients are on the “Restriction” list nor the “Candidate” list.  

These changes apply to all LEED nonresidential Building Design and Construction and Interior Design and Construction rating systems. They are reflected in the credit language on LEEDuser and listed in USGBC's addenda database

Post a Reply
0
0
Ashley Hu Jr. Sustainable Building Advisor Perkins+Will
Mar 23 2017
LEEDuser Member
11 Thumbs Up

Workstation Components and C2C Certification

Project Location: Canada

Hi there!

Some Cradle to Cradle (C2CA protocol developed by McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry that establishes guidelines for the manufacture of products in ways that harmonize with natural systems. These guidelines require, for example, that products be recyclable indefinitely, contain no hazardous ingredients, and be manufactured using renewable energy.) certifications notes exclusions. In the case of a workstation, one C2C certification lists particular shelves and certain laminate worksurface finishs as exclusions. I understand that a certified C2C workstation would not include any of the exclusions, but for the purposes of this credit, if the workstation includes the excluded shelf or laminate worksurface finish then would the entire workstation not contribute?

The workstation can still function without a shelf, as it is an added component. I feel that a C2C compliant product shouldn't lose it compliance due to an added component.

Please refer to this specification sheet: http://assets.c2ccertified.org/pdf/product-specification/SPEC_Steelcase_...

Thank you again!

1
1
0
Joanna Switzer Sustainability Project Manager, Atkins North America Mar 27 2017 LEEDuser Member 895 Thumbs Up

Hi Ashley,

I cannot answer with certainty, but in the example of the laminate work surface, I think use of a clearly non-compliant / excluded laminate selection would disqualify counting the workstation as C2CA protocol developed by McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry that establishes guidelines for the manufacture of products in ways that harmonize with natural systems. These guidelines require, for example, that products be recyclable indefinitely, contain no hazardous ingredients, and be manufactured using renewable energy. as it the finish is an integral part of the completed desk.

However, in the case of a separate "add-on" accessory - like a free standing or panel hung shelf - I think there is an argument to state the workstation is still C2C. However, the non-compliant shelf units should have their cost reported separately so that they do not contribute to C2C claimed performance under Option 2 (if it is being pursued).

Post a Reply
0
0
Ashley Hu Jr. Sustainable Building Advisor Perkins+Will
Mar 23 2017
LEEDuser Member
11 Thumbs Up

Number of Products

Project Location: Canada

Hello there,

For option 1, how many products would a workstation, with a privacy screen and storage attached be considered? I consider the privacy screen and storage to have separate functions, but they are assembled together to function as one workstation.

Please refer to page 9 of: https://www.steelcase.com/content/uploads/2015/01/cscape_brochure-1.pdf

Many thanks!

1
1
0
Nadav Malin USGBC LEED Faculty, President, BuildingGreen, Inc. Jun 13 2017 LEEDuser Moderator

That's a good question, but I'm afraid you might have to go to GBCIThe Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI) manages Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building certification and professional accreditation processes. It was established in 2008 with support from the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). for an official answer. There is some detailed info in the "MR Section Overview" from USGBC, but the examples it gives could be used to make the case either way.

Personally, I think you can make a good case that they are separate products, and you should be able to get them through that way, but if achieving the point depends on them agreeing with you, it's a good idea to get it confirmed in advance.

Post a Reply
0
0
Jason Grant Principal Jason Grant Consulting
Oct 31 2016
Guest
2128 Thumbs Up

Manufacturer Inventory

Hi Paula - If an engineered wood flooring manufacturer wanted to qualify a product line under Option 1, is it safe to assume that they would just need to publish the list of chemical ingredients of the adhesive system and the finish system (i.e. the man-made components of the product only)?

Thanks!

1
2
0
Nadav Malin USGBC LEED Faculty, President, BuildingGreen, Inc. Dec 15 2016 LEEDuser Moderator

Hi Jason. They would also have to list "wood" as an ingredient, although it's not clear that they would have to identify the species.

2
2
0
Jason Grant Principal, Jason Grant Consulting Jun 19 2017 Guest 2128 Thumbs Up

Much belated thanks, Nadav.

And is it safe to assume that one can't qualify a product for options 1 and/or 2 that have no man-made ingredients, e.g. an HPD for solid unfinished wood flooring that disclosed the species of the wood but did not break down the chemical ingredients of the wood to 100 ppmParts per million. -- and obviously has no Benchmark 1 chemicals?

Post a Reply
0
0
Jon Clifford LEED-AP BD+C GREENSQUARE
Sep 10 2016
LEEDuser Expert
7096 Thumbs Up

Structure and Enclosure

A discussion on the BPDO-EPD forum (http://www.leeduser.com/comment/redirect/66396) has started me thinking about how to treat materials that could fall on a Credit tipping point depending on whether or not one classifies them as structure/enclosure.

For example, many projects spend a significant chunk of their budgets on gypsum board (drywall). Some percentage of the board forms part of the exterior wall and ceiling assembly, making it part of the “enclosure.” In many cases, the gypsum is there as fireproofing to make combustible load-bearing elements (such as wood frame) code-compliant. Some have argued that this makes it structural. Still, in most buildings, the lion’s share of the gypsum board is for non-structural work on the interior of the building. To count this portion as non-structure/non-enclosure, are we required to tally the costs and characteristics of the interior gypsum separately from the small percentage used to enclose the structure?

Wood framing raises a similar question. Some is used for exterior walls and interior bearing elements, but some comprises non-bearing interior partitions. The sticks of wood are identical, but it appears that we must track them separately.

Since, for Option 3, structure and enclosure materials may not constitute more than 30% of the value of compliant building products, all this hair-splitting may be necessary to maximize the contributions of non-structure/non-enclosure elements. I am curious how others have handled materials like these.

Since the questions above are applicable to all BPDO Credits, I have posted them to the “Sourcing of Raw Materials” forum. Let’s continue this discussion there: http://www.leeduser.com/comment/redirect/66653.

Post a Reply
0
0
Tommy Linstroth CEO Green Badger
Jun 09 2016
LEEDuser Member
580 Thumbs Up

Option 3 tracking

It doesn't appear USGBC has updated their tracking tool/materials calculator to account for Option 3 yet, or have you seen an updated resource? This is still an old version - http://www.usgbc.org/resources/bpdo-calculator

1
1
0
Paula Melton Senior Editor, BuildingGreen, Inc. Jun 09 2016 LEEDuser Moderator

Yeah, bummer. Option 3 is still being piloted by manufacturers and isn't available for projects yet, to my knowledge.

Post a Reply
0
0
Russell Perry
May 25 2016
LEEDuser Member
9 Thumbs Up

"Published" or "Publically Available"

Paula,

Can we assume that if, as you submit above, "published" for HPDs means available on the web somewhere (manufacturer's site, Design Pages, SGJJR HPD Library, etc.), then "published" or "publically available" referring to the Manufacturer's Inventory means the same thing? That would mean that an inventory that is "available upon request" would not qualify. Correct?

1
2
0
Paula Melton Senior Editor, BuildingGreen, Inc. May 25 2016 LEEDuser Moderator

Rus, that is my understanding. I will seek clarification from USGBC.

2
2
0
Paula Melton Senior Editor, BuildingGreen, Inc. May 26 2016 LEEDuser Moderator

I have received confirmation from Sara Cederberg at USGBC that "available upon request" does not count as "publicly available." I think that should be fairly obvious ... since if it's available upon request, the manufacturer can deny your request. (This has happened to me when I have requested documents for my own edification and not for a project.)

Post a Reply
0
0
Suzanne Drake
Mar 30 2016
Guest
16 Thumbs Up

HPD - predicted by process chemistry

Project Location: United States

"Predicted by process chemistry" is indicated on the HPD I am reviewing. Is this acceptable in any way toward the Building Product Disclosure credit? Given that there are no ppms associated with it, it seems like a non-starter in regard to this credit. Is that correct?

1
3
0
Paula Melton Senior Editor, BuildingGreen, Inc. Mar 30 2016 LEEDuser Moderator

Suzanne, do you have a link to the HPD? I think it might depend on the product.

2
3
0
Suzanne Drake Mar 31 2016 Guest 16 Thumbs Up

I have them in PDF form, from the contractor (not a link). How can I attach them (2) for you?

3
3
0
Paula Melton Senior Editor, BuildingGreen, Inc. Mar 31 2016 LEEDuser Moderator

Suzanne, unfortunately, I already have an answer to your question, and it is NO. The HPD has to be publicly available to even be considered for LEED compliance. So step one is to ask them to post it online, perhaps by sending it to BuildingGreen to place on Designer Pages or to SmithGroupJJR to add to its HPD library. Feel free to continue this dialogue with me by email: paula@buildinggreen.com

Post a Reply
0
0
Bill Freeman Consultant RFCI
Feb 27 2016
Guest
7 Thumbs Up

Option 2

Paula, has there been an official ruling from USGBC on whether REACH can be used under Option 2 for LEED projects within the U.S. If yes, is there a document that provides this information?

1
1
0
Paula Melton Senior Editor, BuildingGreen, Inc. Feb 29 2016 LEEDuser Moderator

Bill, yes, there has. But it was ridiculously difficult to find.

http://www.usgbc.org/articles/leed-addenda-release-october-2014

  • MR Credit Building Product Disclosure and Optimization – Material Ingredients has been revised to clarify that U.S. projects cannot use the REACH alternative compliance path.

 

Post a Reply
0
0
Emmanuel Pauwels Owner Green Living Projects s.l.
Jan 13 2016
LEEDuser Member
4517 Thumbs Up

Combining different material credits and options for materials

Can we value one and the same product multiple times for different credits and credit options as farFloor-area ratio is the density of nonresidential land use, exclusive of parking, measured as the total nonresidential building floor area divided by the total buildable land area available for nonresidential structures. For example, on a site with 10,000 square feet (930 square meters) of buildable land area, an FAR of 1.0 would be 10,000 square feet (930 square meters) of building floor area. On the same site, an FAR of 1.5 would be 15,000 square feet (1395 square meters), an FAR of 2.0 would be 20,000 square feet (1860 square meters), and an FAR of 0.5 would be 5,000 square feet (465 square meters). as the Building product disclosure and optimization credits is concerned. For example a product has an EPD (MRC2,option 1) and recycled content Defined in accordance with the International Organization of Standards document ISO 14021 D Environmental labels and declarations D Self-declared environmental claims (Type II environmental labeling).(MRc3, option 2), Cradle to Cradle v2 Platinum (MRc4 option 1 and option 2) can we calculate it as compliant with each one, or do we have to choose and account it only for one of the Building product disclosure and optimization credits?

1
1
0
Paula Melton Senior Editor, BuildingGreen, Inc. Jan 13 2016 LEEDuser Moderator

As farFloor-area ratio is the density of nonresidential land use, exclusive of parking, measured as the total nonresidential building floor area divided by the total buildable land area available for nonresidential structures. For example, on a site with 10,000 square feet (930 square meters) of buildable land area, an FAR of 1.0 would be 10,000 square feet (930 square meters) of building floor area. On the same site, an FAR of 1.5 would be 15,000 square feet (1395 square meters), an FAR of 2.0 would be 20,000 square feet (1860 square meters), and an FAR of 0.5 would be 5,000 square feet (465 square meters). as I know, counting the same product for multiple different credits and options is NOT considered double counting and should be totally acceptable!

Post a Reply
0
0
Dalton Ho
Nov 19 2015
Guest
27 Thumbs Up

Option 1 - HPD Residual Disclosure

Option 1 requirements state that for the HPD to be applicable, the “HPD standards for the 1,000-ppmParts per million. level must be attained and the appropriate box on the summary page checked”. However, after reviewing several HPDs, it's apparent that the 1,000 ppm level of disclosure can be attained either through the “Measured 1,000 ppm” or “As per MSDS1. Material safety data sheets (MSDS) are detailed, written instructions documenting a method to achieve uniformity of performance. 2. A report that manufacturers of most products are required to make available to installers and purchasers, informing them of product information on chemicals, chemical compounds, and chemical mixtures, the existence of potentially hazardous ingredients, and providing instructions for the safe handling, storage, and disposal of products (1,000 ppm)”. Is anyone able to provide clarity as to whether either method of disclosure is acceptable to meet the credit requirements? Or how either method of disclosure to the 1,000 ppm level differs from the other?

1
4
0
Paula Melton Senior Editor, BuildingGreen, Inc. Dec 28 2015 LEEDuser Moderator

Dalton, sorry I missed this before.

MSDS1. Material safety data sheets (MSDS) are detailed, written instructions documenting a method to achieve uniformity of performance. 2. A report that manufacturers of most products are required to make available to installers and purchasers, informing them of product information on chemicals, chemical compounds, and chemical mixtures, the existence of potentially hazardous ingredients, and providing instructions for the safe handling, storage, and disposal of products level is 10,000 ppmParts per million. for most substances and therefore does not meet the credit requirements. The HPD format is confusing that way.... HPDC now has guidance on its website about which boxes must be checked to meet credit requirements. Go to hpdcollaborative.org and hover over the "HPD Open Standard" dropdown, then choose "LEED v4 Credit Achievment."

2
4
0
Dalton Ho Jan 04 2016 Guest 27 Thumbs Up

Thanks for the reply Paula and pointing out the HPDC guidance.

I guess my next question is how an MSDS1. Material safety data sheets (MSDS) are detailed, written instructions documenting a method to achieve uniformity of performance. 2. A report that manufacturers of most products are required to make available to installers and purchasers, informing them of product information on chemicals, chemical compounds, and chemical mixtures, the existence of potentially hazardous ingredients, and providing instructions for the safe handling, storage, and disposal of products at 1,000 ppmParts per million. (not the typical 10,000 ppm) differs from the HPD "Measured at 1,000 ppm" given they're both at the same level. I've reached out to the HPDC but have yet to hear back. If you had any knowledge you could share on this it would be much appreciated!

3
4
0
Paula Melton Senior Editor, BuildingGreen, Inc. Jan 04 2016 LEEDuser Moderator

This is something I do not fully understand myself, but the answer is going to differ between v1 and v2 of the HPD. For v1, here is the guidance provided. Note that the MSDSes in question are NOT those of the product itself but those of the suppliers to the product manufacturer:

  • As reported by suppliers on MSDS: Fully disclose all residuals that exist in the product based on current MSDS requirements. It is acceptable to rely on MSDS disclosure from suppliers rather than perform direct measurements. Residuals that are identified as health hazards as per CFRCurrent facilities requirements: the implementation of the owner's project requirements, developed to confirm the owner's current operational needs and requirements. 1910.1200 are disclosed at 0.1% (1000 ppmParts per million.) for carcinogens and at 1% (10,000 ppm) for all other substances.

4
4
0
Dalton Ho Mar 30 2016 Guest 27 Thumbs Up

This is the official response I received from HPDC. Should help clear things up a bit.

"The difference between "Measured 1,000 ppm” and "As per MSDS1. Material safety data sheets (MSDS) are detailed, written instructions documenting a method to achieve uniformity of performance. 2. A report that manufacturers of most products are required to make available to installers and purchasers, informing them of product information on chemicals, chemical compounds, and chemical mixtures, the existence of potentially hazardous ingredients, and providing instructions for the safe handling, storage, and disposal of products (1,000 ppm & 10,000 ppm)" is that MSDS information does not always represent the actual composition of the final material as it is just targeted toward occupational safety during manufacturing. i.e.: It is possible that residuals and impurities are listed without distinction or may not be included at all.

Instead, "Measured 1,000 ppm” means all substances present at or above 1,000 ppm (0.1%) concentration in a material are listed without exclusions. "

Post a Reply
0
0
Paula Melton Senior Editor BuildingGreen, Inc.
Nov 14 2015
LEEDuser Moderator

Option 3 Guidance Now Available!

The actual points won't be achievable for a few months, but USGBC has released implmentation guidance. Please see the details here:

https://www2.buildinggreen.com/article/usgbc-chemical-industry-reach-his...

Post a Reply
0
0
Raphael Sperry Senior Consultant Arup
Sep 09 2015
Guest
27 Thumbs Up

Adding up Options 2 and 3?

The credit language here says "For credit achievement calculation, the value of individual products compliant with either option 2 or 3 can be combined to reach the 25% threshold but products compliant with both option 2 and 3 may only be counted once." Not the clearest language, but it suggests that if you have enough products to meet, say, 20% of Option 2 and 5% of Option 3 you could get one point (as long as any specific product is only counted once). That would basically mean then that you have a pool of both options and get 1 point for 25% and 2 points for 50%. Is that right?

1
1
0
Candace Pearson Research Associate, LEEDuser, BuildingGreen Inc. Sep 11 2015 LEEDuser Moderator

That is how I read it as well Raphael, although to my knowledge, there is still no viable way to document products under Option 3.

Post a Reply
0
0
Paula Melton Senior Editor BuildingGreen, Inc.
Jul 09 2015
LEEDuser Moderator

Conveying systems now accepted for this credit

A recent Interpretation states that fire-suppressing equipment and conveying systems now count toward the whole group of Transparency & Optimization credits.

Post a Reply
0
0
Randy Van Straaten
Sep 25 2014
Guest
13 Thumbs Up

Required Manufacturer Documentation for Option 3

Project Location: United States

Is there more guidance available for manufacturers on the documentation necessary for their products for this products. For instance how along the "supply chain" do they need to go. For instance, say you make a plastic membrane. You buy plastic pellets. The company that sells you the pellets buy chemicals from various suppliers. How farFloor-area ratio is the density of nonresidential land use, exclusive of parking, measured as the total nonresidential building floor area divided by the total buildable land area available for nonresidential structures. For example, on a site with 10,000 square feet (930 square meters) of buildable land area, an FAR of 1.0 would be 10,000 square feet (930 square meters) of building floor area. On the same site, an FAR of 1.5 would be 15,000 square feet (1395 square meters), an FAR of 2.0 would be 20,000 square feet (1860 square meters), and an FAR of 0.5 would be 5,000 square feet (465 square meters). does a manufacturer need to go?

1
4
0
Nadav Malin USGBC LEED Faculty, President, BuildingGreen, Inc. Oct 07 2014 LEEDuser Moderator

Hi Randy,

Sorry--just re-read your question and saw that you are specifically asking about Option 3. That option hasn't really been defined yet (see full explanation above, available to LEEDuser members), so we'll have to stay tuned to see what exactly is required. For not it's not available as a reporting option.

About the other options: The short answer is that you have to go all the way up your supply chain. The intent of this credit is to reward companies that have taken control of the information flow associated with their supply chain, and are not putting out product without knowing what's in it.

You do NOT, however, have to include every ingredient and precursor chemical that went into making the product--for the most part the reporting options listed here just focus on what's in the final product.

2
4
0
Julien Richard Artelia Oct 22 2015 Guest 123 Thumbs Up

Hi,
Do you know if the USGBC has published more guidance on Option 3 regarding the documentation that we must ask to manufacturers to achieve compliance ?

3
4
0
Nadav Malin USGBC LEED Faculty, President, BuildingGreen, Inc. Oct 22 2015 LEEDuser Moderator

Hi Julien,

No, USGBC has not yet published any further guidance. I expect that they will soon share the draft guidance that the working group developed, however, and there will be a session at the Materials & Human Health Summit at Greenbuild in Washington DC on Nov 17 where we'll be talking about it. Until they make it public, however, I'm afraid that I'm not allowed to share more specifics in this public forum.

In the meantime, if you want to get a sense of the direction that guidance is taking, you can read the minutes of the Working Group meetings any time. To find the minutes go to the Resources section of USGBC.org, check the box on the left to filter for minutes, and then search for "supply chain".

4
4
0
Paula Melton Senior Editor, BuildingGreen, Inc. Oct 22 2015 LEEDuser Moderator

Julien, this is getting much closer to resolution, I believe. Online minutes for the Supply Chain Optimization Working Group suggest they are getting close to finalizing language. We'll probably have a news article at BuildingGreen.com when something gets resolved!

Post a Reply
0
0
Corey Carter Director of Safety & Sustainability Metroflor Corporation
Jul 15 2014
LEEDuser Member
13 Thumbs Up

CASRN Publishing

Can someone explain exactly what is required under the first option in Option 1? Is this a self certification utilizing GreenScreen or must this be third party?

1
1
0
Nadav Malin USGBC LEED Faculty, President, BuildingGreen, Inc. Aug 06 2014 LEEDuser Moderator

Hi Corey, 

That first option within Option 1 does NOT require any third-party verification or certification--it's just a report from the supplier listing the contents (and additional info for any contents not identified). The Bird's Eye View above describes it pretty well. 

Post a Reply
0
0
Nancy Hulsey Sustainable Design Administrator HKS, Inc.
Jun 05 2014
Guest
12 Thumbs Up

Declare labels

Do you know if Declare labels are under consideration by USGBC as an alternative for Option 1 reporting?

1
3
0
Nadav Malin USGBC LEED Faculty, President, BuildingGreen, Inc. Jun 06 2014 LEEDuser Moderator

I know that this has been raised as a possibility, but I don't where things stand in terms of any possible change. 

2
3
0
Alicia Silva CEO, Revitaliza consultores Jul 04 2016 LEEDuser Member 2437 Thumbs Up

Declare label has now been approved as a reporting tool, MR tagLEED Technical Advisory Group (TAG): Subcommittees that consist of industry experts who assist in developing credit interpretations and technical improvements to the LEED system. approved it few months back

3
3
0
Nadav Malin USGBC LEED Faculty, President, BuildingGreen, Inc. Jul 08 2016 LEEDuser Moderator

Thanks for the update, Alicia! The Birds-eye View section for this credit has now been updated to include Declare and all the other new reporting options that were added with that recent set of addenda.

Post a Reply
0
0
Jane Wigren Chemist SundaHus i Linköping AB
Jan 15 2014
LEEDuser Member
26 Thumbs Up

Alternatives for Option 1. material ingredient reporting

For Projects outside of the United States using national systems for creating a complete Product content inventory (e.g. SundaHus in Sweden (http://www.sundahus.se/services/environmental-data.aspx), can a point be received for their use for Option 1. material ingredient reporting?

1
5
0
Tristan Roberts LEED AP BD+C, Executive Editor – LEEDuser, BuildingGreen, Inc. Jan 15 2014 LEEDuser Moderator

Jane, that would comply if it meets the requirements set out under the "Manufacturer Inventory" option. Have you reviewed the specifics of the SundaHus system with this in mind and compared them with the LEED requirement?

2
5
0
Julien Richard Artelia Oct 14 2015 Guest 123 Thumbs Up

If a product do not contain ingredients listed on the REACH authorization or candidate list, can it contribute to both option 1 and 2 ?

3
5
0
Paula Melton Senior Editor, BuildingGreen, Inc. Oct 14 2015 LEEDuser Moderator

No. The REACH path only covers optimization (option 2), not transparency (option 1).

4
5
0
Julien Richard Artelia Oct 28 2015 Guest 123 Thumbs Up

Hi Paula,
Do you know if Greenscreen benchmark and HPD are international labels that manufacturers outside the U.S. can use ? The manufacturers I contacted here (in France) do not know the existence of these programs and felt concerned about intellectual property.

5
5
0
Paula Melton Senior Editor, BuildingGreen, Inc. Oct 28 2015 LEEDuser Moderator

Hi, Julien! The GreenScreen List Translator (which provides the screening tool for the HPD) as well as the HPD were both developed in North America but are available for anyone's use all over the world. The List Translator references hazard lists from global government agencies and NGOs. The HPD is totally open for use by anyone.

Manufacturers who are concerned about revealing proprietary information can report hazard levels WITHOUT revealing the exact chemistry.

Another option for them is the LEED-specific manufacturer inventory. In that framework, they report all ingredients, their function, and their quantity (% by weight). If there are ingredients they want to keep proprietary, instead of the chemical name and number, they need report any associated hazards, based on a GreenScreen List Translator screening.

I hope this is helpful!

Post a Reply

Start a new comment thread

Jul 24 2017
Type the characters you see in this picture. (verify using audio)
Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can't read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated. Not case sensitive.

Copyright 2017 – BuildingGreen, Inc.