Retail–CI-v2009 MRpc61: Material disclosure and assessment

  • Creating transparency

    This credit replaces the former Pilot Credit 43: Certified Products “EPD Pathway”. After significant pilot credit testing and LEED 2012 public comments it was decided to expand the applicability of the certified products credit beyond non-structural materials to structure, and enclosure. Because of this major scope shift it was decided to post this as a new pilot credit. There are no pre-approved certifications for this credit; all labels meeting the listed requirements will be considered compliant for the purposes for this pilot.

    This credit strives to create a foundation of transparency for information to be gathered, shared, and used to inform project teams. The purpose is to communicate the difference between their levels of sophistication in regard to more comprehensive perspectives of sustainability.  We want LEED buildings to have more products that we know more about, and fewer products that we don’t know very much about. The credit rewards greater transparency and knowledge about product life-cycles. Moving Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) into the market with proposed requirements serves as one of the new bold moves of the LEED 2012 MR Credit Category.  Additionally, proposed requirements for material sourcing and harmful chemical avoidance seek to drive product manufacturers in a clear direction forward.

    Credit Submittals

    General

    1. Register for Pilot Credit(s) here
    2. Register a username at LEEDuser.com, and participate in online forum
    3. Submit feedback survey; supply PDF of your survey/confirmation of completion with credit documentation

    Credit Specific

    Provide a list of products purchased contributing toward credit and indicate the applicable label/certification. List the cost and number of items purchased per product and calculate the weighted value according to the table above.

    Additional Questions

    • How difficult was it to locate the applicable level of labels receiving credit?
    • How were you able to obtain EPD information for products? How difficult was it?
    • What were the major barriers to achieving credit performance? Do you think the threshold(s) is reasonable?
    • For Option 1; how was the total materials cost for non-structural products found? Is it a calculation that is tracked as part of regular construction process or was the number calculated only for the purposes of LEED?
    • What labels would you like USGBC to consider for inclusion in this pilot credit?
    • Was CEN (EN) standard 15804 available at the time you documented this credit? Was that standard applicable to your project?
  • USGBC

    Excerpted from LEED 2009 for Retail: Commercial Interiors

    MR Pilot Credit 61: Material disclosure and assessment

    Intent

    This is a pilot credit. To use any pilot credit on your LEED project, be sure to register here. Documentation requirements and additional questions are listed below.

    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 from manufacturers who have verified improved environmental life-cycle impacts.

    Requirements

    * This credit language is drawn from the LEED v4 draft. Where other point totals are noted, this pilot credit is worth 1 point in total. *

    Option 2. Multi-attribute optimization (1 point)

    Use products that comply with one of the criteria below for 50%, by cost, of the total value of permanently installed products in the project. Products will be valued as below.

    • Third party certified products that demonstrate impact reduction below industry average in at least three of the following categories are valued at 100% of their cost for credit achievement calculations.

      • global warming potential (greenhouse gases), in CO2e;
      • depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer, in kg CFC-11;
      • acidificationBuild-up of acidity in soil and water bodies from acid precipitation, which gains acidity as it falls through an atmosphere containing certain pollutants, especially sulfur dioxide from coal-burning power plants. of land and water sources, in moles H+ or kg SO2;
      • eutrophication1. Eutrophication is the increase in chemical nutrients, such as the nitrogen and phosphorus often found in fertilizers, in an ecosystem. The added nutrients stimulate excessive plant growth, promoting algal blooms or weeds. The enhanced plant growth reduces oxygen in the land and water, reducing water quality and fish and other animal populations. 2. The process by which bodies of water are starved of oxygen and light by algae and other plants that multiply due to excessive concentrations of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous. Typical sources include fertil­izer runoff and poorly managed wastewater treatment systems, frequently including home septic systems., in kg nitrogen or kg phosphate;
      • formation of tropospheric ozone, in kg NOx, kg O3 eq, or kg ethene; and
      • depletion of nonrenewable energy resources, in MJ.
    • USGBC approved program -- Products that comply with other USGBC approved multi-attribute frameworks.

    For credit achievement calculation, products sourced (extracted, manufactured, purchased) within 100 miles (160 km) of the project site are valued at 200% of their base contributing cost.

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

    General Pilot Documentation Requirements

    Register for the pilot credit

    Credits 1-14

    Credits 15-27

    Credits 28-42

    Credits 43-56

    Credits 57-67

    Credits 68-82

    Credits 83-103

    Credit specific

    Provide a list of products purchased contributing toward credit and indicate the applicable label/certification. List the cost and number of items purchased per product and calculate the weighted value according to the table above.

    Additional questions:
    1. How difficult was it to locate the applicable level of labels receiving credit?
    2. How were you able to obtain EPD information for products? How difficult was it?
    3. What were the major barriers to achieving credit performance? Do you think the threshold(s) is reasonable?
    4. What labels would you like USGBC to consider for inclusion in this pilot credit?
    5. Was CEN (EN) standard 15804 available at the time you documented this credit? Was that standard applicable to your project?
    Changes
    • Changes as a result of 3rd Public Comment (3/1/2012):

      This credit replaces Pilot Credit 43: Certified Products “EPD Pathway”

      Deletion of Self declared LCA – while this is an admirable first step in product transparency, it does not depict leadership in the market. USGBC wishes to push the development of Product Category rules and their implementation.

    • Changes as a result of 5th Public Comment (01/15/2013):

      Credit updated to align with Building product disclosure and optimization - environmental product declarations - Option 2
    Additional questions
    1. Did your project use the actual or default materials cost to determine the total materials cost?
    2. How did your team determine or estimate the actual materials cost? What method was used?
    3. Where there any challenges in determining the total materials cost? What were they?
    4. If applicable, how would using the actual materials cost verses the default materials cost have effected credit achievement?

9 Comments

0
0
Vibha Pai Student University of Cincinnati
Jun 19 2016
Guest
458 Thumbs Up

Master's Research Survey

Project Location: United States

I am conducting this survey in affiliation with University of Cincinnati for my Master's thesis in support of my hypothesis. It would just take 10-15 minutes of your time and by completing this survey you would help me in giving my research the required depth in understanding the achievability of the credit points in the Material and Resource category of LEED v2009 and v2013. I will send in the end results of this survey to you, which could potentially make your decision process easier on any future LEED Registered projects you intend to work on.

The following is the link to my survey:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/XR3ZVZN
Every response is valuable to my research.Thank you in advance for your time.

Post a Reply
0
0
Catherine Blakemore Architect, LEED AP BC+D HOLT Architects
Jun 11 2013
LEEDuser Member
2229 Thumbs Up

Credit Requirements

What exactly are the credit requirements?
I read through the reference Pilot Credit 43 and also what I could find ON CEN (EN) standard 15804. And am still not sure.

Is CEN (EN) standard 15804 available in the US? My project is located in upstate NY.

Would the Kalzip and Gyproc EPD's noted in the Pilot Credit-43 link be good examples to forward to vendors and manufacturers as a sample of what is expected in terms of credit documentation on their part?

Can some please just spell it out in black and white? I'm doing my best to work with vendors and manufacturers to help them understand the requirements and facilitate the credit submittal / documentation process, but I feel 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). falls short in this regard. We are all excited to meet the challenge of this credit, but simplify the verbiage and get to the point.

Also examples of acceptable documentation would greatly facilitate the credit documentation for all parties. I am finding that many vendors and manufacturers receive different requirements from project to project. We all would like to streamline the process and get it right the first time around.

In addition, I also find that even if vendors' or manufacturer's products don't meet credit requirements, they are more than willing to step up to the challenge to make the necessary changes to meet credit requirements in the near future or for the next project.....IF they have the correct information and a concise path of options to follow in order to achieve credit compliance.

I feel there is a huge disconnect between the building trades, manufacturers and vendors in terms of what is acceptable LEED credit documentation and how it should be composed. It would greatly facilitate credit documentation if GBCI include sample documentation with each credit. This may be a mundane request, but I sure the folks at GBCI see all sorts of documentation....often more than what is needed...and spend a lot of time filtering through all the documentation to determine if credit requirements have been met.

Anyhow, I apologize for the deviation of topic. Just want to do the job right the first time and streamline the review process for all parties...GBCI included.

Again if anyone can help, I would greatly appreciate it?

1
7
0
Catherine Blakemore Architect, LEED AP BC+D, HOLT Architects Jun 11 2013 LEEDuser Member 2229 Thumbs Up

Ok so in an effort to answer my own questions, I found the following:

Intent: This is a pilot credit. To use any pilot credit on your LEED project, be sure to register here. Documentation requirements and additional questions are listed below.

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 from manufacturers who have verified improved environmental life-cycle impacts.

Requirements:
* This credit language is drawn from the LEED v4 draft. Where other point totals are noted, this pilot credit is worth 1 point in total. *

Option 2. Multi-attribute optimization (1 point)
Use products that meet at least one of the attributes below for 50%, by cost, of the total value of permanently install products in the project. Products will be valued as below. USGBC approved program Products that comply with multi-attribute frameworks approved by USGBC Certifications that verify impact reduction below industry average in at least three of the following:
1) global warming potential (greenhouse gases), in CO2e;
2) depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer, in kg CFC-11;
3) acidificationBuild-up of acidity in soil and water bodies from acid precipitation, which gains acidity as it falls through an atmosphere containing certain pollutants, especially sulfur dioxide from coal-burning power plants. of land and water sources, in moles H+ or kg SO2;
4) eutrophication1. Eutrophication is the increase in chemical nutrients, such as the nitrogen and phosphorus often found in fertilizers, in an ecosystem. The added nutrients stimulate excessive plant growth, promoting algal blooms or weeds. The enhanced plant growth reduces oxygen in the land and water, reducing water quality and fish and other animal populations. 2. The process by which bodies of water are starved of oxygen and light by algae and other plants that multiply due to excessive concentrations of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous. Typical sources include fertil­izer runoff and poorly managed wastewater treatment systems, frequently including home septic systems., in kg nitrogen or kg phosphate;
5) formation of tropospheric ozone, in kg NOx or kg ethene; and
6) depletion of nonrenewable energy resources, in MJ.

Programs meeting the multi-attribute optimization criteria that become
available will be evaluated and added as appropriate.

Products that meet the above criteria are valued according to source location
(extraction, manufacture, and purchase point must be within the distances noted below):

Products sourced within 100 miles (160 km) of the project site are
valued at 200% of their cost.

Final product value is determined by the following equation:

(base product value x valuation factor based on attribute criteria)*(valuation
factor based on location)

Structure and enclosure materials may not constitute more than 30% of the value of compliant building products. An individual product may be counted in more than one attribute category. If only a fraction of a product or material meets the requirements, then only the fraction, based on weight, contributes toward the credit.

For the scope of this credit, furniture, piping, pipe insulation, ducts, duct
insulation, conduit, plumbing fixtures, faucets, showerheads, and lamp housing may be included if they are included consistently in cost-based Materials and Resources credits. Exclude wood products purchased for temporary use on the project.

2
7
0
Catherine Blakemore Architect, LEED AP BC+D, HOLT Architects Jun 11 2013 LEEDuser Member 2229 Thumbs Up

What are the industry standard for the following:

1) global warming potential (greenhouse gases), in CO2e;
2) depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer, in kg CFC-11;
3) acidificationBuild-up of acidity in soil and water bodies from acid precipitation, which gains acidity as it falls through an atmosphere containing certain pollutants, especially sulfur dioxide from coal-burning power plants. of land and water sources, in moles H+ or kg SO2;
4) eutrophication1. Eutrophication is the increase in chemical nutrients, such as the nitrogen and phosphorus often found in fertilizers, in an ecosystem. The added nutrients stimulate excessive plant growth, promoting algal blooms or weeds. The enhanced plant growth reduces oxygen in the land and water, reducing water quality and fish and other animal populations. 2. The process by which bodies of water are starved of oxygen and light by algae and other plants that multiply due to excessive concentrations of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous. Typical sources include fertil­izer runoff and poorly managed wastewater treatment systems, frequently including home septic systems., in kg nitrogen or kg phosphate;
5) formation of tropospheric ozone, in kg NOx or kg ethene; and
6) depletion of nonrenewable energy resources, in MJ

3
7
0
Catherine Blakemore Architect, LEED AP BC+D, HOLT Architects Jun 11 2013 LEEDuser Member 2229 Thumbs Up

Would the Kalzip EPD in the link below be a good example of sufficient documentation for this credit?

http://www.kalzip.com/PDF/eur/Kalzip_EPDsECO.pdf

4
7
0
Catherine Blakemore Architect, LEED AP BC+D, HOLT Architects Jun 11 2013 LEEDuser Member 2229 Thumbs Up

Would 3rd party certificates from GREENGUARD, GreenSpec or SCS for example, also be needed to validate manufacturer claims for the "green-ness" of their products...like say for example the recycled content of a material?

5
7
0
J. McNaughton (closed account) Jul 25 2013 Guest 260 Thumbs Up

Catherine,
Did you get a response to any of these?
Jessica

6
7
0
Catherine Blakemore Architect, LEED AP BC+D, HOLT Architects Jul 26 2013 LEEDuser Member 2229 Thumbs Up

No. I contacted 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). and asked for a form to track submittal information and costs for this credit. They gave me the MR calculator for LEED v4. So that's what I am using as a form. I will submit that along with any 3-rd party certificates and EPD's and hope for the best!

-Cate

7
7
0
Melissa Vernon Consultant Jul 31 2013 Guest 871 Thumbs Up

Catherine,
These requirements are drawn from Option 2 of the new MR c2 Building product disclosure and optimization - environmental product declarations in LEED v4.
Option 1 asks manufacturers to have an EPD (product specific, or industry average) or an LCA.
Option 2 then intends to assess performance of the specific product to ensure that the environmental impacts are lower than industry average.
Sounds fairly straightforward. However, how do we calculate an industry average? Do we do simple math and add up the impacts from all EPDs published for a category (i.e. Flooring) and divide by the number of EPDs? Do we create a sales weighted average to account for EPDs for niche products? EPDs for environmentally unfriendly products are probably not being published, so how do we ensure we are getting close to a true average?
Interface is exploring a few ways to demonstrate how our carpets are below industry average and comply with Option 2 but we don't have anything verified yet.

There is no current methodology for creating an 'industry average' and until enough manufacturers within a specific industry publish EPDs, it will be challenging to contribute to Option 2.

To complicate the determination of product performance vs. industry average, there also must be an external verification. We are exploring how to add this into existing verification programs, such as NSF 140 (Sustainability Assessment for Carpet), as opposed to hiring an auditor for this single verification requirement.
The 3rd party verifiers you list may be able to verify performance vs industry average, but you will definitely need to make sure the USGBC credit requirements are actually covered. This is new and so existing 3rd party certifications likely do not already include this environmental impact comparison.

EN15804 is the new Product Category Rule standard for building products, and is being developed in Europe. Currently, there are different PCRs for each product category (e.g. Flooring), and therefore for an entire building there will be numerous different PCRs. EN15804 attempts to streamline the process and have a single set of rules that all building products will follow. Interface's European EPDs all follow EN15804 and our US ones will follow shortly.

Post a Reply

Start a new LEED comment thread

Feb 19 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.