LEED v4 AND CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS

Transcription

1 NOVEMBER 2, 2012 A CENTER WEBINAR PRESENTATION LEED v4 AND CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS 2012 Center For Environmental Innovation in Roofing, All Rights Reserved

2 The Next Version of LEED 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. Source: U. S. Green Building Council (Italics and underlining added.) 2

3 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 New LEED v4 Material Credits Material Disclosure and Optimization: Environmental Product Declarations (MRc2) Material Disclosure and Optimization: Sourcing of Raw Materials (MRc3) Material Disclosure and Optimization: Material Ingredients (MRc4) 4

5 What is Disclosure and Optimization? 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 5

6 Material Disclosure and Optimization Credit Structure Option 1: Disclosure Alternate Path Alternate Path Alternate Path Alternate Path and / or Option 2: Optimization Alternate Path Alternate Path Alternate Path Alternate Path 1 Point 1 Point Max. 2 Points 6

7 Credit MRc2 Environmental Product Declarations 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 *Weighting varies 7

8 Credit MRc3 Sourcing of Raw Materials 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 *Weighting varies 8

9 Credit MRc4 Material Ingredients 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 *Weighting varies 9

10 Credit MRc2/3/4 Local Source Weighting Locally-sourced products receive additional weighting: Within 100 miles: 200% weighting Within 500 miles: 150% weighting 10

11 LEED v4 and Materials New Concepts EPDs and HPDs GreenScreen REACH Cradle-to-Cradle 11

12 LEED v4 and Materials EPDs and HPDs EPD HPD 12

13 Environmental Product Declaration(EPD) 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 environmental management series Supported by established program operators UL Environment, NSF, ICC Evaluation Service, and others 13

14 Sample EPD ACCORDING TO IS Procedure: ISO Manufacturer: Certainteed Product: Ceiling Tile Certifier: UL Environment 14

15 EPD Detail Life Cycle / System Boundary Life Cycle Diagram 15

16 EPD Detail Functional Unit: Comparable with Similar Products Impact Category Impact Units Impact Measures Impact Summary 16

17 LEED v4 and EPDs EPD Challenges 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 17

18 Health Product Declaration(HPD) 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 18

19 HPD Open Standard Working Group HPD Open Standard Working Group established July, 2011 ( 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 19

20 HPD Open Standard Draft Ingredient CAS No. Hazard References Source: Healthy Buildings Network 20

21 LEED v4 and HPDs HPD Challenges 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 21

22 GreenScreen 22

23 GreenScreen 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 Source: Clean Production Action 23

24 GreenScreen Hazard Categories 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) Source: Clean Production Action 24

25 GreenScreen Benchmarks Source: Clean Production Action 25

26 GreenScreen Benchmark 1 Source: Clean Production Action 26

27 GreenScreen Benchmark 1 Hazard References 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) Reproductive Toxicity (R) EU Category 1 or 2, GHS Category 1A or 1B 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 Source: Clean Production Action 27

28 LEED v4 and GreenScreen GreenScreen Challenges 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 28

29 REACH

30 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

31 REACH and Construction Products Candidate / Authorized Chemical Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) Tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP) Various Pthalates Coal Tar 4,4'- Diaminodiphenylmethane (MDA) Relevant Construction Product(s) EPS, XPS SPF PVC Coal Tar As a precursor of MDI, some environmental groups have claimed all polyurethanes are affected 31

32 LEED v4 and REACH REACH Challenges 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) 32

33 Cradle-To-Cradle 33

34 Cradle-To-Cradle (C2C) 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 34

35 C2C and Construction Products C2C Level Basic Silver Gold Platinum Relevant Requirement No PVC products No PVC and all other halogenated hydrocarbons <1000 ppm No halogenated hydrocarbons No halogenated hydrocarbons 35

36 LEED v4 and C2C C2C Challenges 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 36

37 California Proposition 65 37

38 What is Prop 65? 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 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. Source: California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 38

39 How are Chemicals Listed in Prop 65? 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. Source: California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 39

40 Prop 65 and REACH Number of chemicals included Hazard criterion CA Prop 65 List Over 800 May include chemicals that are either known or suspected to be hazardous REACH Candidate / Authorized List Less than 3 dozen Includes only chemicals known to be hazardous 40

41 Prop 65 and Construction Products Prop 65 Chemical Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) Tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP) Bitumens, extracts of steam-refined or air-refined Carbon Black (CAS ) Titanium Dioxide, airborne, unbound particles of respirable size Relevant Product(s) EPS, XPS SPF APP, SBS, BUR, Bituminous Coatings EPDM Almost all white roof covers and coatings 41

42 LEED v4 and Construction Materials Observations 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 42

43 LEED v4 and Construction Materials Observations 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) 43

44 LEED v4 and Construction Materials Observations 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) 44

45 LEED v4 and Construction Materials Observations 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? 45

46 LEED v4 and Construction Materials Suggestions 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 46

47 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

48 Center for Environmental Innovation in Roofing 816 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC Center For Environmental Innovation in Roofing, All Rights Reserved