Life Cycle Assessment and Sustainability

dc0511wp_cov.qxd 10/31/2005 10:34 AM Page 1A SUPPLEMENT TO BUILDING DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION NOVEMBER 2005Life Cycle Assessmentand SustainabilityThird in a Series of Annual Reports on the Green Building MovementLife cycle assessment, or LCA, is arguably today’s mosttalked-about topic in the green building movement.Architects, engineers, contractors, building owners, environmentalists,and government officials want assurance that the products andmaterials they are using to design and construct buildings are the mostbeneficial to the environment—“from cradle to grave.”Similarly, forward-looking manufacturers of green building products aresearching for scientifically objective ways to distinguish the long-termenvironmental benefits of their products.Interest in LCA was spurred a year ago, when the U.S. Green BuildingCouncil created an “LCA into LEED” Task Force to determinewhether and how LCA could be incorporated into the next version ofits LEED rating system.Other efforts, such as the U.S. Life Cycle Inventory Database project,the National Institute of Standards & Technology’s BEES program, theGreen Globes rating system, and the UNEP/SETAC Life CycleInitiative, also point to growing interest in LCA.And surely LCA will be high on the agenda of the White HouseSummit on Sustainability, scheduled for January 24-25, 2006.The editors offer this White Paper in the hope that it will inform andeducate the design and construction community as to the growingimportance of life cycle assessment to the built environment. Wewelcome your comments.Directory of SponsorsChemical Fabrics and Film AssociationVinyl Roofing DivisionThe Carpet & Rug InstituteThe Construction Specifications InstituteDuro-Last Roofing, Inc.Green Building InitiativeThe Hardwood CouncilAmerican Hardwood Information CenterLafarge North America Inc.North American Insulation ManufacturersAssociationPrecast/Prestressed Concrete InstituteTurner Construction CompanyU.S. Department of EnergyOffice of Building TechnologiesEnergy Efficiency & Renewable EnergyU.S. General Services AdministrationPublic Buildings ServiceThe Vinyl Institute

dc0511WP_Ads.qxd 10/31/2005 10:35 AM Page 5ADVERTISEMENTSUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS FOR GREEN DESIGN AND BUILDINGVersatile, durable and sustainable, American hardwoods have served builders, architects and designersfor centuries – because people respond positively to natural materials in the built environment.Nontoxic natural hardwoods bring eco-effectiveness and a warm aesthetic to floors, furniture,cabinetry and architectural millwork. They add character and contribute healthful non-allergic qualitiesto homes and workplaces.Architects and designers often specify American hardwoods because they embody sustainability betterthan many exotic woods, or newly synthesized materials meant to imitate them.Many of the hardwood species that grow in the world’s tropical forests are subjects of special concernbecause of illegal, unsustainable harvesting. In contrast, American hardwoods have a 50-year record ofsustainable renewal, and all harvesting in U.S. forests is subject to federal, state and local laws andregulations.As products proliferate, and as China and South Asia dominate manufacturing, the variables in lifecycle assessment become increasingly complex. An increasing number of products and materials will beimpossible to evaluate with traditional tools.Clearly, life cycle questions have no simple answers. There are no substitutes for product and materialresearch, professional judgment, critical thinking and common sense.Advancing technology will continue to strengthen the need for human connection to the naturalworld. Projects reflecting integrated sustainable design will foster these connections while protectingthe environment. And smart use of renewable materials, such as American hardwoods, will contributeto sustainability and enhance the built environment.Susan M. ReganThe Hardwood CouncilAmerican Hardwood Information Centerwww.hardwoodinfo.com

dc0511wp_toc.qxd 10/31/2005 10:36 AM Page 3progress report on life cycle assessmentLife Cycle Assessment andSustainabilityA Supplement to Building Design & ConstructionNovember 2005Table of Contents4612Why LCA?By Rita Schenck, PhDLife Cycle Assessment for Whole Buildings: Seeking the Holy GrailBy Nadav MalinLCA Tools Around the WorldBy Wayne Trusty, MA, and Scot HorstEditorial StaffRobert CassidyEditor-in-Chiefrcassidy@reedbusiness.com630-288-8153Dave BaristaAssistant Managing EditorJeff YodersAssociate Editor17222630343642444650525661Can ISO Life Cycle Assessment Standards Provide Credibility for LCA?By James A. Fava, PhDLife Cycle Impact Assessment for the Building Design and Construction IndustryBy Jane Bare and Thomas Gloria, PhDThe U.S. LCI Database Project and Its Role in Life Cycle AssessmentBy Wayne Trusty, MA, and Michael Deru, PhDThe Role of Life Cycle Assessment in Sustainable Product CertificationBy Kirsten Ritchie, PEApplying a Life Cycle Perspective to Federal Construction SpecificationsBy Alison Kinn BennettLCA’s Role in the Manufacture of Construction MaterialsBy Stanley P. GravelineUSGBC’s ‘LCA into LEED’ ProjectBy Nigel Howard, C Chem FRSC, and Tom DietscheThe eLCie System: A New Addition to the LCA ToolkitBy Deborah Dunning and Rob WatsonLCA and the Green Globes Environmental Assessment and Rating System forCommercial StructuresBy Jiri Skopek, AA Dip., OAA, MCIP, RIBAMasterFormat 04 and LCABy Paul R. Bertram, Jr., FCSI, CDT, LEED APIntegrating LCA into Green Building DesignBy Shannon Lloyd, PhD, Anne Landfield, and Brian GlazebrookLCA into the Future: Going Global, Getting SocialBy Gregory A. Norris, PhDWhite Paper Action PlanLarry NighSenior Art DirectorBill PattonGroup Creative DirectorBonnie JamesGraphic IllustratorBusiness StaffDean HorowitzPublisherdhorowitz@reedbusiness.comBertha PodgornyAssistant to the Publisher630-288-8081Carl JohnsonProduction ManagerBusiness Office2000 Clearwater DriveOak Brook, IL 60523www.BDCnetwork.comJim CasellaChief Executive OfficerReed Business Information®Jeff GreischPresidentRBI Chicago Divisionwww.bdcnetwork.com ▪ november 2005 ▪ building design & construction 3

dc0511WP_why.qxd 10/31/2005 10:37 AM Page 4progress report on life cycle assessmentWhy LCA? By Rita Schenck, PhDYou have probably been hearing about LCA (lifecycle assessment) and wondering what the big deal is.What has biology got to do with buildings, or withmanufacturing building products? Is this the latest fadin architecture? Is it just going to add cost and delaysto your projects?LCA is a measurement tool, a way to measure theenvironmental performance of products over their lifecycle, from “cradle” (where the raw materials areextracted) to “grave” (where the product is finally disposedof). The outcome of an LCA study is called the“ecoprofile,” the compiled measurements of indicatorsof environmental issues such as climate change,toxicity, fossil fuel depletion, and water resourcedepletion. An LCA of a building will tell you howmuch climate change was caused by the buildingfrom the point where minerals were mined to thepoint where the building waste is landfilled. It will dothe same for about a dozen other environmentalissues, including toxicity, acid rain, and resourcedepletion.In the classic example comparing paper bags to plastic bags at thegrocery store, plastic bags are more environmentally friendly—sometimes as much as 10 times more friendly—than plastic bags.Why? Because it takes lots of energy to make paper, and when youhave used (and reused) your paper bag, it goes to a landfill where itemits methane (a potent greenhouse gas) for years.Well, you might say, who cares? Why do we need tomeasure this? Anyway, don’t we already know how tobuild green buildings?As it turns out, lots of people care about havingmore environmentally friendly products. Even if youaren’t one of them, your clients probably are. Forbuilding product manufacturers, if you can provethat your product is greener, you will have moremarket to sell it in. Similarly, Building Teams thatuse environmentally friendly products may findgreater client acceptance. Market research hasshown over and over that at least 80% of people willprefer the environmentally friendly product if itdoes not cost more, and 10-20% will actually paymore for a greener product. The explosion of theLEED program of the U.S. Green Building Council(USGBC) reinforces the point.LCA is the only science-based and credible toolthat is actually designed to measure the environmentalimpacts of a product. Because it looks at all theimportant environmental issues and evaluates theentire product life cycle, an LCA uncovers the wholeenvironmental story. That way, if a product has moreimpacts during manufacture but saves impacts duringuse, you can see if it is a better environmental choice.A good example of this is insulation. The moreinsulation you use, the less energy you use to heat orcool a building. It is true that by adding insulationyou are adding manufacturing impacts, but the environmentalbenefits of insulation are so large that themore insulation you add (even with additional environmentalimpacts in the manufacturing stage) thefewer environmental impacts you get overall(because of the benefits in the use phase), for a netpositive environmental outcome. As it turns out,adding insulation decreases the costs of operatingthe building, too.One of the interesting things about LCA studies isthat they can test our assumptions about what is really“green.” For example, think about recycling as a wayto decrease environmental impacts. We know thatrecycling preserves natural resources, so making recyclableproducts and using recycled products is a goodthing, right?Many life cycle assessments have been done onthe topic of recycling and it turns out that recycling isonly environmentally beneficial if it can be doneclose to the source of the waste stream. If you haveto ship materials hundreds of miles away to a recyclingfacility, you probably are causing more environmentaldamage due to burning fossil fuels for transportationthan you would if you just disposed of themin a landfill. You are using up one natural resource(petroleum) to save another. In the context of buildings,this means that onsite recycling of buildingwastes is a good thing and offsite recycling should bescrutinized carefully, especially for large volumematerials such as waste concrete. You are trading offpetroleum losses for concrete conservation. When wethink about the impending depletion of oil versus theprevalence of gravel and the other components ofconcrete, it should give us pause.Take another example: bio-based products.Materials made from plants are obviously better forthe environment than things made from petroleum,4 building design & construction ▪ november 2005 ▪ www.bdcnetwork.com

dc0511WP_why.qxd 10/31/2005 10:37 AM Page 5progress report on life cycle assessmentright? Well, think again. In the classic example comparingpaper bags to plastic bags at the grocery store,plastic bags are more environmentallyfriendly—sometimes as much as 10 times morefriendly—than plastic bags. Why? Because it takeslots of energy to make paper, and when you have used(and reused) your paper bag, it goes to a landfill whereit emits methane (a potent greenhouse gas) for years.In fact letting paper bags decompose in a landfillcauses 20 times more climate change as burning thepaper would. Plastic bags put into a landfill don’tdecompose. Instead they act as a carbon sink, sequesteringcarbon in the landfill. Moreover, it doesn’t takemuch petroleum to make plastic bags; that’s one reasonthey’re so cheap.All this points to the need for careful measurementsif we really want to have our choices in themarketplace reduce rather than increase our environmentalimpacts.In the U.S., the most common use of LCA is in thedesign stage of product development. Engineers try tomake greener products, and they use LCA to tell themwhere impacts are coming from throughout the lifecycle of the product. Then they can work on makingthings better. This design-for-environment approachhas made a big difference in the products we buy.For example, one reason cell phones are gettingsmaller and smaller is that designers using LCAs realizedthat the materials in the phones contributed lotsof their ecoprofile: less material means less impact. Asa bonus, less material means less cost, and consumersget these cool little phones.Personal computers use less energy to operate thanthey used to, as you can see with all the Energy Starstickers you find on them. It was the outcome of LCAsperformed by IBM in the 1980s that pointed out thatthe energy required to run a PC dominated the ecoprofile.The measured environmental impacts drove PCdesigners to make them more efficient. Since then,computers have become so efficient that now the manufacturingof computer chips dominates the ecoprofile.The ball is in the chip manufacturer’s court now.I used to be an environmental manager in industry,and I often made expenditures designed to decreasethe emissions or use of toxic materials. Often thosechanges involved using more energy. In effect, I wasexchanging toxicity for global warming. I was beingmeasured on the toxics releases. If I had done anLCA, I would have been able to tell when my “pollutionprevention” actions were actually making the ecoprofilebetter or worse.An LCA should look at all important impacts, notjust the regulated ones. In the Netherlands, LCA isused as a tool for facility permits. Rather than separateair, water, and waste permits as we do here in theU.S., the Dutch have a single facility permit based onLCA. Toxicity, climate change, and land use issues areall considered at the same time. We can only imaginethe cost savings from unified permitting. Less paperworkand better environmental performance are theoutcome.In Europe, LCA is part of the policy infrastructure.The European Commission makes decisions based onlife cycle considerations, and all the countries thenimplement those policy directives with national laws.An example is the requirement that landfill space bepreserved by minimizing packaging. In Germany, youmust provide reusable containers for soft drinks,unless you can prove that supplying a reusable containeractually causes more environmental impactssupplying than a disposable one. For example, RedBull, a soft drink made in Austria, has shown that thetransportation impacts back and forth betweenGermany and Austria would create more environmentalproblems than would be saved by providingreusable containers.When we are talking about LCAs of buildings andbuilding materials, it helps to think about the wholebuilding effects. Everything from the skin to theHVAC to the flooring can have an effect on a building’s“ecoprofile,” its overall environmental impact.But the issues are pretty much the same. What canwe do to decrease the use of energy? Does a certaintype of window help with energy conservation over theentire life of the building? How many times will thewindow be replaced during the lifetime of the building?Which materials are less toxic? How important isthe end of life of the building? Does it make sense todesign the building for “deconstruction” when it’s usefullife is over? Only careful LCAs can answer thesequestions by measuring the environmental impactsover the entire life cycle of the building.Why LCA? The answer is simple. What gets measuredgets done, and LCA measures environmentalperformance. Not measuring environmental performancecould mean you are spending money andeffort on things that don’t matter. That is somethingno one wants.Dr. Rita C. Schenck isexecutive director of the Institutefor Environmental Research andEducation, a not-for-profitorganization dedicated to factbasedenvironmental decisionmaking. Trained as anoceanographer, with expertise inecotoxicology andbiogeochemistry, she representedthe U.S. in negotiating the ISOstandards on life cycle assessment.She is the author of “LCA forMere Mortals: A Primer onEnvironmental Life CycleAnalysis,” which is available atwww.iere.org. The AmericanCenter for Life Cycle Assessmentis a program of IERE.www.bdcnetwork.com ▪ november 2005 ▪ building design & construction 5

dc0511wp_ebn_lca.qxd 10/31/2005 10:38 AM Page 6progress report on life cycle assessmentLife Cycle Assessment for WholeBuildings: Seeking the Holy GrailBy Nadav MalinNadav Malin is vice presidentof BuildingGreen, Inc.,Brattleboro, Vt., editor ofEnvironmental Building News,and co-editor of the GreenSpecproduct directory. He chairs theMaterials and Resources TechnicalAdvisory Group for the U.S.Green Building Council’s LEEDrating system and is a LEED facultymember and LEEDAccredited Professional. He representsBuildingGreen on the teamthat has been contracted by thestate of California to develop anEnvironmentally PreferableProduct Database for schools andmanages the U.S. Department ofEnergy’s High PerformanceBuildings Database project. Hehas written on environmentallypreferable products for theAIA/Wiley Handbook ofArchitectural Practice and was aprincipal author of theApplications Reports for the AIA’sEnvironmental Resource Guide.This article is adapted by specialpermission from EnvironmentalBuilding News. © 2002BuildingGreen, Inc. All rightsreserved.Food bought in a supermarket is labeled with astandard nutrition form that tells you the amount ofnutrients, salt, and fat contained in each serving.Someday building materials may also have a label, listingeach product’s contribution to global warming,ozone depletion, acid rain, habitat loss, and a handfulof other environmental indicators. Eventually, wholebuildings might be measured based on their performanceagainst a similar set of indicators. When that daycomes, the label or rating system will be the result ofan environmental life cycle assessmentWhile standardized labels on building products arenot yet a reality (at least not in North America), thescience that will make it possible is rapidly becomingmore sophisticated and more widely used. While performingfull LCA studies is still a job best left to theexperts, building professionals are increasingly likelyto encounter LCA-based data or use software toolsthat compile the results of studies done by others. Tobe effective in this setting, it is important to have agood understanding of the context in which those dataand tools are created. This article describes LCA in anutshell, presents some of the challenges faced byLCA practitioners and users today, outlines the mostpromising U.S. initiatives to address those challenges,and looks at the implications of this rapidly evolvingfield for designers and other building professionals.In principle, LCA is simply common sense. If weare to understand the environmental impacts associatedwith any product, we must analyze the entire lifeof that product and consider the environmental burdensof each step along the way. Thus, product LCAstypically consider the extraction or harvesting of theraw materials, the refining and manufacturingprocesses that turn those raw materials into usefulproducts, transportation of those products, their use,and their eventual disposal or reuse. This scope ofanalysis is often called “cradle-to-grave” or, includingthe reuse potential, “cradle-to-cradle” LCA.Once we get into the details of this analysis, however,it gets complicated very quickly—and the closerwe look, the more complicated it gets. To quantifyenergy and resource flows at each step in the life of aproduct and understand the impact of those flows,we are, in effect, trying to describe the infinitely complexreal world with a bunch of categories and numbers.To make that impossible task manageable, LCApractitioners make simplifying assumptions at everystep of the way, and exploit computer databases inways that would not have been feasible a decade ago.Various international organizations are always workingon guidelines and protocols to standardize theassumptions, bringing into question approaches thatwere common a few years earlier. Even as this isgoing on, academics are pointing out the shortcomingsof the new standards and suggesting avenues forfurther improvement.LCA is often confused with the traditional engineeringpractice of life cycle costing, but the two arevery different. Where LCA is about quantifying andanalyzing environmental burdens and impacts, LCC isstrictly a financial tool for calculating the total cost ofownership over the useful life of an asset. The two toolsare related in that they both take into account how longa particular item will serve its intended purpose andwhat maintenance it will need during that time. As aresult, both tools give credit to items that are long-livedand durable, but LCA involves environmental accounting,while LCC only considers economic value.Building professionals are unlikely to be in a positionto carry out their own LCA studies, but those who areinterested in the environmental impacts of their projectsare increasingly likely to seek out, or encounter,LCA-based information. To utilize this informationintelligently, it is important to know something abouthow such studies are carried out. Most LCA studiestoday adhere to the principles laid out in a series ofInternational Organization for Standardization (ISO)documents known as the “14040 Series” within thebroader ISO 14000 category on environmental management.These documents describe four general stepsto be performed in any LCA:● Goal and scope definition, to clarify the questionsto be answered and determine how much precision,detail, and reliability are needed to answer those questions—ifan LCA is to be used for comparing competingproducts or materials, an appropriate functionalunit that defines a measure of equivalent servicefrom each of the candidate products must be defined.● Inventory analysis, in which all the energy, water,6 building design & construction ▪ november 2005 ▪ www.bdcnetwork.com

dc0511wp_ebn_lca.qxd 10/31/2005 10:38 AM Page 7progress report on life cycle assessmentand materials flowing into and out of every process inthe subject’s life cycle—including pollutants—arequantified and categorized.● Impact analysis, in which the inventory of inputsand outputs is related to actual (or assumed) impactsbased on a series of environmental indicators, such asglobal warming potential, human toxicity, andresource depletion.● Interpretation and conclusions. LCA was originallydeveloped for internal use by manufacturersconsidering options for product development. In fact,LCA in the U.S. got its start in the late 1960s whenCoca-Cola wanted to determine the environmentalimpact of switching from glass to plastic bottles.William Franklin was part of a team hired to conductthe study (which found no significant reason not toswitch), and he subsequently founded FranklinAssociates of Prairie Village, Kan., which for years wasthe sole large LCA firm in the U.S.More recently, LCA has been used for many otherpurposes, including some highly publicized studies,one comparing plastic and paper shopping bags,another comparing disposable to reusable diapers. Ingeneral, most LCA studies are designed to supportone or more of the following goals:● documenting environmental performance forcommunication and marketing purposes● developing policy and regulations● assessing potential liability● evaluating environmental performance to documentimprovement for environmental management systems● green labeling● purchasing/procurement decisions.LCAs for building materials are different from thosefor disposable items like packaging, for two reasons:first, building products tend to have a relatively longservice life or, in LCA parlance, “use phase.” As aresult, any environmental impacts relating to the use ofthese materials, such as energy use, tend to dominatethe overall life cycle profile of the product. Second, theservice life of building products is highly variable, aseven durable products may be replaced quickly for aestheticor economic reasons. “Estimating the usefulservice life of a product or a building is very problematicfor LCA,” said Wayne Trusty, director of theAthena Sustainable Materials Institute, Merrickville,Ont. This factor puts a high level of uncertainty on theresults of any LCA study conducted on a buildingmaterial. It is clear from LCA, however, that the servicelife of a product is very significant in terms of thatproduct’s environmental profile. “One thing LCA tellsus is that a greener building should have a long life orLCA Checklist for Green Building Designers● Don’t attempt to perform your own LCA studies unless you want to devote significantresources to making that endeavor a specialty.● Encourage product manufacturers to perform LCAs on their products and make the results availableby asking product representatives for LCA data. Refer to ISO-standard Type III EnvironmentalProduct Declarations (third-party–reviewed LCA results), the work of the Sustainable ProductsPurchasers Coalition, or the BEES software from NIST as mechanisms for making that data available.● Ask key questions about any LCA data provided to assess its reliability and applicability to yourdecision. Examples of such questions include:What are the sources of the data? How much is based on primary information directly from theoperations, as opposed to databases of industry-average data? Is the industry-average dataregionally specific (U.S. as opposed to Europe) and fully transparent to users or peer reviewers?What assumptions are included about the functional unit and the service life of the products inquestion? Do these correspond to your situation?What are the uncertainty factors in the information? No commonly used databases currentlyinclude this information, but “uncertainties of 20% or more are likely,” according to Sylvatica’s GregNorris. If users ask, there will be pressure to provide an answer.What is assumed about the products’ maintenance requirements or impact on building operations?Do the impact categories included in the results capture the important information, or might theresults by skewed by leaving out key categories?● Resist the temptation to reduce LCA results to a single score for each product. The weightingrequired to do this introduces assumptions that may not be appropriate, and too much informationis lost. Look instead at the results across all available impact categories and make your ownassessment based on those results.● Whether or not reliable LCA results are available, always apply life cycle thinking and criticallyreview any product information to support your choices. Resources based on life cycle thinkinginclude EBN articles and GreenSpec product listings from BuildingGreen, as well as GreenSealproduct labeling standards.● Look at the whole building from a life cycle perspective and aim to minimize overall environmentalimpacts while optimizing performance. In general, such an approach suggests that addressing theongoing impacts of building operation, including energy use, water use, and maintenance impacts,should be a higher priority than choosing materials with lower upstream environmental burdens.be made from reusable materials,” said Trusty.THE CHALLENGES OF LCAWhile LCA is simple in concept, researchers performingLCA studies or developing LCA-based toolsfor general use face challenges involving nearly everyaspect of their work. Problems arise concerning thequality, consistency, and availability of data on productsand processes; the methods used to compileinventories; and especially the assumptions and systemsused to translate inputs and outputs into measuresof environmental impact. Two of the more significantproblems—data problems and getting frominventories to impact—are discussed here.Issue #1: Problems with the dataLCA studies may focus on generic product types,www.bdcnetwork.com ▪ november 2005 ▪ building design & construction 7

dc0511wp_ebn_lca.qxd 10/31/2005 10:38 AM Page 8progress report on life cycle assessmentsuch as linoleum flooring, or on a specific product,such as Forbo’s Marmoleum. With generic productsthe study relies on industry-average data, which maycome from a sampling of manufacturers, from tradeorganizations, or from pre-existing databases. Datafrom any of these sources will vary in accuracydepending on how it was collected and compiled andhow current it is. When studying a specific product,inputs and outputs that occur at the manufacturer’sown facilities can be quantified quite accurately. Butfor products from suppliers (unless they also participatein the study) and commodities such as electricity,fossil fuels, and raw materials, the study mustrely on the same sort of industry-average datadescribed above.All these problems are exacerbated when one triesto compare alternatives for a specific application,whether they are competing products of the sametype (linoleum from Forbo vs. Armstrong) or differentproducts for the same application (linoleum vs. vinylflooring). Data collection requires so many assumptionsand estimates that, unless the same researchersare studying the different products, it is nearly impossibleto ensure that the inventories of inputs and outputswere compiled in a consistent manner.The availability of good life cycle inventory data ismuch more limited in North America than it is inEurope, where LCA is practiced and understoodmore widely. “There is more support in Europe, andLCA is viewed as a more legitimate academic pursuit,”said researcher Joel Ann Todd, author of theTechnical Reports in the AIA’s EnvironmentalResource Guide (John Wiley & Sons). Even when datasets are available, they are often proprietary, so a userof the data can see the results of the LCA but not thedetails of what information was used to generate thoseresults. It is difficult to ensure the accuracy of proprietarydata sets, as only the developers or selectedreviewers can see the actual data.When one manufacturing process yields multipleuseful products, there are differences of opinionregarding how these flows should be allocated amongthose products. The refining of crude oil, for example,yields acetone, gasoline, fuel oil, asphalt, and otherproducts. In this type of situation, traditional practicein the U.S. has been to establish a physical basis, suchas mass or energy, on which to divvy up the impacts.ISO lays out a series of steps that require either ademonstration of some basis for the allocation or movingtoward value-based allocation as a last resort.Practitioners in the U.S. are finally reaching consensusregarding how to implement the ISO guidelines,but it has taken lengthy (at times almost hostile)debate to arrive at this consensus.Issue #2: Getting from inventories to impactsSo far, we have discussed problems related to compilingthe inventory data, but that is, in many ways,the easy part. It is not the inputs and outputs themselvesthat are the issue, but rather the environmentalimpacts of those flows. Once we have a huge tablelisting the life cycle inventory of a product or process,we’re faced with figuring out what all that means forthe environment. This process, known as life cycleimpact assessment (LCIA), is an evolving sciencebased on assumptions and extrapolations from thework of scientists in many fields.The different types of environmental impacts areorganized by LCA practitioners into a series of impactcategories, such as global warming, ozone depletion,ecosystem toxicity, acidification, diminished humanhealth, resource depletion, and so on. It is not uncommonfor LCA studies to omit some of these impact categoriesfrom their scope, either because it is not feasibleto collect the relevant inventory data or becausethe science for translating inventory to impacts is notconsidered reliable. While it makes sense to avoid generatingunreliable results, there is the risk that thoseomitted impacts might be significant and that omittingcertain categories might render the results of the entirestudy questionable. In the words of LCA expert RitaSchenck, “Just because you can’t reliably quantify itdoesn’t mean it’s okay to ignore it.”The methods used to translate inventories intopotential impacts vary by impact category. Impactssuch as global warming and ozone depletion are estimatedbased on internationally established methodsthat convert emissions of a wide range of gases to acumulative impact measurable on a single scale. Inthe case of global warming, emissions of methane,CFCs, and many other gases are compared to carbondioxide based on their contribution to global warming.The cumulative emissions of these gases are thencharacterized on a scale of CO 2 -equivalency. Even inthis relatively simple example, however, the characterizationfactors depend on the time frame one isusing because in addition to having different potenciesas greenhouse gases (radiative forcing potential),they have different life spans in the atmosphere, andso any impact assessment must clearly state the timehorizonassumed in the calculations.An impact category like ecosystem toxicity is muchmore complex to quantify, and therefore the methodologyused for impact assessment is less consistent. As8 building design & construction ▪ november 2005 ▪ www.bdcnetwork.com

dc0511wp_ebn_lca.qxd 10/31/2005 10:39 AM Page 9progress report on life cycle assessmentan example, one method characterizes the effectsfrom emissions of hundreds of substances based noton uniform effects in the atmosphere but on the likelihoodthat sensitive organisms will be exposed tothose substances and receive doses sufficient to causeharm. To create these estimates, scientists build complexcomputer models of exposure and dose patternsthat take into account factors such as location, topography,and ambient weather.Even these impact categories do not describe environmentalconcerns directly. They are, instead, indicatorsor measures of the likelihood of a particulartype of impact. Ozone depletion, for example, is a realchange in the atmosphere, but the immediate concernis not whether the concentration of ozone in thestratosphere goes from eight parts per million to threein certain locations. Of concern to society is theincreased occurrence of skin cancer, crop damage,genetic mutations, and all the other effects of theincrease in ultraviolet radiation allowed by the thinningozone layer. Impact assessment studies refer tothese ultimate results as endpoint impacts, whileozone depletion is a link in the chain that leads tothese problems, or a midpoint impact.With the exception of the simplest categories, thereis not, at least in North America, any consensus yetabout how the impact assessment should be done orwhat characterization factors should be used to putdifferent substances on the same scale within animpact category. More work has been done in Europeon these issues, according to Schenck: “In theEuropean situation, the process was very open andtransparent, and even so different countries havetaken different approaches to characterization.”The ideal outcome of an impact assessment is acharacterized value in each impact category for theproduct or process that is the subject of the LCA.These results can be compiled like a scorecard, representingthe “ecoprofile” of the product. Ideally, allproducts would report their results in a consistentformat. “It would be great if there were an agreeduponlabel, like a food label, that provided the keydata,” said Todd. “The user could then make a decisioncomparable to choosing the low-fat, high-sugaritem over the high-fat, low-sugar item.”Making this choice between fat and sugar is anexample of “weighting”: the user has to decide whichimpact is more important in order to compare impactsthat are unrelated. Some LCA tools facilitate theweighting process, or even include default weightings,so they can boil the results down to a single score.“What everyone wants is a simple tool in which youpush a button and the answer appears,” said Todd.But reducing the results to a single score requireseven more questionable assumptions and generalizationsthan impact assessment, so it is frowned uponby many LCA experts.If all this makes you think LCA must be an impossiblechallenge, you’re right—the perfect LCA hasnever been performed. But many solutions are beingpursued, addressing all aspects of the problem. Someof these are making the results of LCA studies moreuseful and accessible today, while others are in theworks for the near or not-so-near future.One way to make LCA more feasible is to streamlineand simplify the task. The most effectiveapproach seems to be to focus intensely on the goalsof the study and identify places where shortcuts canbe taken without undermining those goals. If two similarproducts are being compared as alternatives for aspecific function, for example, it may not be necessaryto study all the processes and components that are thesame for both products. A detailed study can focusinstead on the ways in which the products differ.Economic input-output analysis can also help focuslimited LCA resources on the areas that are likely tohave the largest impacts. Finally, experienced LCApractitioners know from past work a great deal aboutthe likely results of certain parts of the study and canhelp guide the research to the most important issues.In situations for which LCA data and methods aresimply not available—like the decisions architects,engineers, and contractors face every day—applyinglife cycle thinking to the options, based on the availableinformation, is a useful first step. That approach is thebasis of many articles in Environmental Building Newsand the product selection process for the GreenSpecDirectory. “I would suggest that designers use resultsfrom LCA tools if they exist, and resources based onlife cycle thinking if they do not,” said Barbara Lippiattof the National Institute of Standards & Technology.Greater access to dataWhile reasonably good industry-average data setsare widely available for European industry, only oneproprietary database has existed in NorthAmerica—that of Franklin Associates, Ltd. Morerecently, the Athena Sustainable Materials Institute iscoordinating the U.S. Life Cycle Inventory DatabaseProject to create a publicly accessible resource foranyone wanting to use the data.Robust and reliable data on generic processes is akey piece, but product manufacturers must be willingto study and report on their internal processes as wellwww.bdcnetwork.com ▪ november 2005 ▪ building design & construction 9

dc0511wp_ebn_lca.qxd 10/31/2005 10:39 AM Page 10progress report on life cycle assessmentbefore LCA-based information becomes widely available.Many companies are now using LCA tools internallyfor product development and as part of an environmentalmanagement system. But companies arehesitant to publish detailed LCAs on their own productsfor several reasons:● If they publish the underlying data, they may berevealing trade secrets to competitors.● After the results are published, anything thatlooks negative in the study may be taken out of contextand used against them by competitors or environmentalactivists.● The study might show that their product is notthe best choice environmentally.To overcome this resistance from companies, theSustainable Products Purchasers Coalition, aPortland, Ore.-based nonprofit organization, aims tocreate incentives for manufacturers to provide LCAresults on their products. SPPC is doing this by collectingcommitments from governments and companiesto give preference to those products for whichLCA data is available. In addition, SPPC is working todevelop standard formats for companies to use inreporting on their LCAs. ISO has also published aTechnical Report (ISO/WD/TR 14025) onEnvironmental Labels and Declarations (also called“Type III Environmental Declarations”) that providesguidance on reporting the results of LCA studies.With its “BEES Please” program, NIST provides auser-friendly interface for comparing LCA data onbuilding materials. The BEES software protects proprietaryinformation by publishing only the aggregatedLCA inventory data while keeping the details on specificproducts hidden. To have their products included,manufacturers pay a fee and fill out a questionnaireon the inputs and outputs for the processes thattake place within their own gates, and NIST’s contractoruses its proprietary database of industry-averagedata to complete the life cycle inventory.For now, much of the LCA-based information inthe U.S. is still based on European data and leaves outsome categories that are difficult to measure. If initiativessuch as the ones listed here are successful, however,the consistency and reliability of product-specificLCAs will improve significantly, and LCAs performedon competing products can be consideredcomparable. Then initiatives like the U.S. GreenBuilding Council’s LEED rating system will likelybegin referencing LCA results as the basis for materialsselection credits, and the pressure on companies todeliver LCA-based information will increase greatly.As LCA becomes more widely applied in the buildingsarena, some nagging issues that have largely beenignored until now are likely to become unavoidable.Key among these is the question of how to respondwhen LCA results fly in the face of conventional wisdom.For example, Americans have a lot invested inpromoting recycling and the use of recycled-contentproducts for environmental reasons, but LCA studiesshow that recycled products do not always have thelowest overall impacts.We can shoot the messenger (as an LCA expert atone large company put it, “They don’t like me at mycompany”), but a more constructive approach is toresearch the issue further and even use LCA to figureout where the environmental burdens associated withthe recycled products are coming from. We may learnthat, for some products, recycling really isn’t the bestchoice, or we might discover that some methods ofrecycling are inappropriate and should be reinvented.“Recycling is a new industry, and it hasn’t yet beenmade efficient by decades of cost pressures,” saidAlyssa Tippens of Interface Research Corporation. Asa society we could also decide that recycling is a publicpolicy worth supporting even if it isn’t the bestenvironmental choice right now, because we’re stilldeveloping the infrastructure and scale that will makeit more sensible in the future.There are also types of environmental hazards forwhich LCA might not be the most appropriate tool,although endorsing LCA results in some areas andrejecting them in others can become a slippery slopefor policy makers. One problematic example is in thearea of endocrine disrupters, in which the effect of toxinson the system may not correlate with the size of thedose, and the science in general is not well enoughestablished to support robust impact-assessmentmethods. In addition, with substances that are highlytoxic in tiny quantities, such as dioxin, a small degreeof uncertainty in the amount of the release can lead toa large degree of uncertainty in the results of the study.Finally, the rules will keep changing. While LCA isfairly straightforward in principle, the details in practiceare so complex that researchers are constantlycoming up with ways to enhance accuracy and applicability.As new approaches are adopted, they maymake data collected or analyzed with older systemsobsolete. It is important to remember that, even asLCA is finally becoming accessible for use by buildingdesigners and other nonscientists, the science behindit is still very new and will continue to evolve.The Holy Grail—LCAs for Whole BuildingsOne day, it might be possible to model the environ-10 building design & construction ▪ november 2005 ▪ www.bdcnetwork.com

dc0511wp_ebn_lca.qxd 10/31/2005 11:20 AM Page 11progress report on life cycle assessmentmental impacts of whole buildings, so that rating systemssuch as LEED could abandon the checklistapproach and rate buildings based on a comprehensivemodel of their environmental performance, similarto the way energy modeling is done today.That goal is still far off, but the pieces that will makeit possible are coming together. The Athena LCA softwaretool has always focused on whole buildings andbuilding assemblies. “For most materials, the realanswers ultimately have to be at the level of the building,”said Athena’s Wayne Trusty. “The real functionalunit is a piece of space to fill a certain need. That’s thelevel on which we should ultimately compare.” Trustypoints out that simply comparing one floor coveringmaterial to another may not be fair if one of the productsrequires a more substantial substrate. Similarly,we at EBN have argued that comparing wood and steelas light-gauge framing materials only works if we alsoinclude rigid foam insulation in the steel assembly toprovide comparable thermal performance.Version 2.0 of Athena includes an option to input thebuilding’s annual energy use by fuel type (based onmodeling done elsewhere) and then Athena will includethe life cycle impacts of that fuel in the results for thebuilding. The Envest LCA tool from the BuildingResearch Establishment in the U.K. takes a simplerapproach: it assumes a certain energy use based on theshape of the building and includes that figure in itsresults. Nigel Howard was a developer of Envest and iscurrently chief technology officer of the U.S. GreenBuilding Council overseeing the LEED Rating System.Howard has argued that “nearly all of the most significantdecisions about a new design are made in the first10 minutes of the first design meeting,” so immediatefeedback on energy use, however crude, is still valuable.“The biggest lesson learned from using Envest is thatthere are very significant tradeoffs between materialsand specification choices and the operational performanceof buildings,” Howard said. To date, we know of notools that attempt to integrate additional resource flows,such as water use, solid waste creation, or the impact ofmaintenance operations into a whole-building LCA.Whether at the scale of product-to-product comparisons,design of building assemblies, or whole-buildingassessment, LCA-based information is a valuableresource for building designers. The checklist on page 7provides some pointers on how to take advantage of thepower of LCA and what to look out for in the process.ADVERTISEMENTTurner continues to lead the charge with sustainable, or Green, construction—it’s a promise we madeone year ago, and we have made substantial progress. More and more clients are asking about Green, andwe have been privileged to work on some remarkable projects. We have a Green advisory board, made upof independent experts who push us in our efforts, and we just announced our second Green survey, whichlooks not only at the industry, but focuses on Green in the education sector.But we still hear the question, “How much does Green cost?” One of the things that our recent surveyunderlined was the knowledge gap between the actual cost of Green and the perception of those costs. Oursurvey found that executives without experience in building Green estimate initial costs are one-third higherthan executives with Green experience—that’s a significant misperception.As the industry leader, Turner is doing what we can to raise the awareness of the benefits of buildingGreen and clarify cost perceptions. Beyond the survey, we speak at industry conferences and sponsor avariety of forums. We are proud to be part of the effort to make Green building practices standard buildingpractices.www.bdcnetwork.com ▪ november 2005 ▪ building design & construction 11

dc0511WP_Tools.qxd 11/1/2005 2:14 PM Page 12progress report on life cycle assessmentLCA Tools Around the WorldBy Wayne Trusty, MA, and Scot HorstWayne Trusty is president ofthe Athena Sustainable MaterialsInstitute, Merrickville, Ont., andits U.S. affiliate, Athena InstituteInternational. He serves as a vicechair of the board of the CanadaGreen Building Council, and onthe the boards of theInternational Initiative for aSustainable Built Environmentand the Green BuildingInitiative. He is past chairman ofan international committeeexamining the use of life cycleassessment with regard to buildingmaterials and products, andserves on a number of greenbuilding committees of the U.S.Green Building Council. He hasserved as a member of a U.S.Academy of Sciences committeeon materials flow accounting.Scot Horst is vice president ofAthena Institute International,Kutztown, Pa., and AthenaInternational manager of the U.S.Life Cycle Inventory Databaseproject. An advisor to theGovernor’s Green GovernmentCouncil in Pennsylvania and aLEED 2.0 AccreditedProfessional, he has served as amember of the U.S. GreenBuilding Council’s Materials andResources Technical AdvisoryGroup and the LEEDCommercial Interiors steeringcommittee. He holds a bachelor’sin philosophy from OberlinCollege and a BA in music fromOberlin Conservatory of Music.When choosing materials and designing buildingsto achieve sustainability, our decisions are seldom asclear-cut as we’d like. We’d all love to have a simplelist of all the products that are truly green.Unfortunately, the natural world and our interactionwith it are too complex to yield such a list. The challengeis to understand our product choices within thecontext of this complexity: otherwise we can’t possiblyknow how to design buildings that function sustainablywith nature.Once we see that there is no green “absolute,” thatall activity has some sort of impact, then we can beginto make decisions of the basis of choosing materialsthat have lower impacts relative to alternatives. Eachdecision becomes a process of seeking to optimize analignment with nature.To do this we need to measure what is occurring inthe environment through the life cycle of each material;hence, life cycle assessment. Because LCAattempts to track a complex world, it remains a complexmethodology. To simplify LCA and make it easierto understand, experts around the world havedeveloped (and continue to develop) LCA tools to fitinto the green building toolkit. The focus in this discussionis on North America, but we’ll also look at thekinds of tools available internationally.Defining a Tool Classification SystemTo give order to what may seem to be a confusingscene, let’s make use of the Athena Institute’s simpletool classification system. The system suggests threemain levels of tools, describing the spectrum fromindividual product assessments through to wholebuilding assessment and rating systems.Level 1 tools focus on individual products or simpleassemblies (e.g., floor coverings or window assemblies)and are used to make comparisons in terms ofenvironmental or economic criteria (or both), especiallyat the specification stage of project delivery.Level 1 tools can be further grouped into thoseintended for use by LCA practitioners (Level 1A) andthose intended for those who simply want the results,with the detailed LCA work done in the background(Level 1B). Some Level 1B tools, such as theGreenSpec Directory, are not LCA focused and aretherefore not included here.Level 2 tools focus on the whole building, or oncomplete building assemblies or elements, with eachtool typically providing decision support with regard tospecific areas of concern, such as operating energy,lighting, life cycle costing, and life cycle environmentaleffects. These tools tend to be data-oriented andobjective, and apply from the early conceptualthrough detailed design stages. Again, the emphasishere is on the LCA tools.Level 3 tools are the more familiar whole buildingassessment frameworks or systems that encompass abroader range of environmental, economic, and socialconcerns relevant to sustainability. They use a mix ofobjective and subjective inputs, leaning on Level 2tools for much of the objective data—energy simulationresults, for example. All use subjective scoring orweighting systems to distill the information and provideoverall measures, and all can be used to inform orguide the design process. Only those that explicitlyincorporate LCA are considered here.We urge Building Teams to take advantage of thecomplementarities among tools, even those in thesame classification level. Too often we see comparisonsbased on the implicit assumption that all LCAtools are competitive, without regard for their intendedfunction or where they fit in the decision process.The reality is that seemingly similar tools in the samelevel can complement each other. Pliers and vicegrips may appear to do essentially the same job, buteach has it own special function, and a well-stockedtoolkit will hold both. The same is true of tools forgreen building.The accompanying table shows a sample of toolsthat are either devoted to LCA or that incorporateLCA to a significant extent.One could argue that so-called “labeling systems,”such as Green Seal, the Environmental Choice program,and various forest certification systems, shouldbe included in Level 1 tools. We would caution, however,that most labeling programs focus on singleattributes or performance measures (energy use orrecycled content, for example). The product in questionmay be excellent in terms of the criteria selectedfor evaluation, but that does not necessarily mean itwould score well in a system that takes multipleattributes into account. Fully LCA-based labels orenvironmental product declarations are in a differentcategory, but are not considered tools for our purpos-12 building design & construction ▪ november 2005 ▪ www.bdcnetwork.com

dc0511WP_Tools.qxd 10/31/2005 10:41 AM Page 13progress report on life cycle assessmentes here because users can only make decisions bycomparing one label to another.Although Level 1A tools are conceptually able towork at the whole building level (and might thereforebe put into Level 2), they are not designed for suchcomplex systems and would require considerableeffort on the part of users, whereas a Level 2 tool suchas the Athena Environmental Impact Estimator performsthe LCA work in the background, freeing usersto concentrate on the effects of design changes.From time to time we see efforts to develop toolsthat supposedly streamline LCA. The basic premise isthat once you understand a product group or categoryas a result of a full LCA of one or more specific productswithin the group, then you can assess all othersin the group without having to collect as muchdata—the idea of estimating 80% of the impacts with20% of the information.The reality, however, is that products within a category(carpeting, for example) are often not as uniformas might be supposed. Also, since there has to be a fullLCA at some stage, it can be more cost-effective andmore accurate to capture the range of variation withina category through study design and the use of specializedscripting tools or wizards. 1Turning to Level 2, all of the tools cited (except theUK Green Guide to Specifications) work at thewhole building level of design, with some such as theAthena EIE also allowing comparisons at the assemblylevel (for example, wall assemblies). The GreenGuide works only at the assembly level, but has theadvantage that assemblies are pre-ranked based ondetailed LCA: users need only select those that arehighly ranked.The Australian LCADesign tool is cited, eventhough it is still under development, because it representsthe latest in a continuing effort to link LCAdirectly to a 3-D CAD program, as is the case withenergy simulation and costing tools. This is an importantobjective if LCA is to be more readily used bydesign teams and more fully incorporated in Level 3tools. However, repeated efforts in various countrieshave demonstrated that it is not easily achieved, partlybecause of the different types of detailed dataneeded for a whole building LCA compared, forexample, to an energy simulation. There is also theproblem that 3-D CAD does not seem to be widelyused at the early design stage when LCA should bebrought to bear on critical decisions. Nevertheless,this is critical area of development that should be continuedand supported.As shown in the table, the Level 2 tools use data1Evaluation of August 2002 ProposedMethod for Streamlined Life CycleReview of Products and Services forEPP. Greg Norris, PhD, July 2004.and typically incorporate building systems specific tothe region for which they are built. Conceptually, theycan be modified or adapted for use in other regions,but only with care. Considerable caution is advisedwhen using a Level 2 LCA tool from another country.It should also be noted that all of these tools are notdeveloped to the same level. Some provide sophisticatedinterfaces, others don’t. Some are supported byrobust life cycle inventory data, others are not. Someconsider all life cycle stages, others only one or two.Any tool is only as good as the data that supports it.Currently, available Level 3 tools may apply to newprojects, to existing buildings, and to major renovationsor retrofits, a wide range of building types. Somerequire external auditors. Most yield certificates orlabels indicating a building’s performance.LEED is notably absent from the Level 3 listbecause the USGBC is in the process of investigatinghow LCA can best be incorporated in future versionsof the rating system, whereas LCA is already incorpowww.bdcnetwork.com▪ november 2005 ▪ building design & construction 13

dc0511WP_Tools.qxd 10/31/2005 10:41 AM Page 14progress report on life cycle assessmentrated in one way or another in the listed systems.We want to emphasize that the accompanying tableis not a comprehensive listing. In the Level 2 and 3categories, in particular, work is going on throughoutthe world and new systems are steadily being introduced,while older systems are being modified, melded,or abandoned.NORTH AMERICAN LCA SYSTEMSAll of the Level 1A tools can be used by LCA practitionersin North America. North American data isincluded to some extent in at least some of the tools,and new data can generally be added. In Levels 1Band 2, however, there are only two tools that havebeen designed for use in North America: BEES andthe Athena EIE.An especially valuable feature of BEES is its ability to provide userswith direct comparisons between environmental performance and lifecycle costs, thereby making tradeoffs explicit. The direct economicversus environmental comparison is just one of many ways in whichusers can view side-by-side comparative results for different products.BEES: Providing Direct ComparisonsBEES—Building for Environmental and EconomicSustainability–is an LCA-based software tool developedby the National Institute of Standards &Technology, with support from the U.S. EPAEnvironmentally Preferable Purchasing Program. TheNIST Building and Fire Research Laboratory developedthe software to provide the building communitywith access to the data necessary for selecting costeffective,environmentally preferable building products.BEES does this by allowing product-to-productcomparisons based on LCA and life cycle costingdata, with the LCA data covering a full range of environmentalflows, from raw material acquisitionthrough product disposal.An especially valuable feature of BEES is its abilityto provide users with direct comparisons betweenenvironmental performance and life cycle costs,thereby making tradeoffs explicit. The direct economicversus environmental comparison is just one ofmany ways in which users can view side-by-side comparativeresults for different products. Results canalso be viewed by life stage and environmentalflow—for example, acidification flows include suchsubstances as ammonia, hydrogen chloride, and sulfuroxides—for a list of 12 performance measures, whichincludes indoor air quality, ecological toxicity, andhuman health.All regional and local impacts are scored based onnew U.S.-specific methods developed by the U.S.EPA. The significance of a product’s performancewith respect to each impact is also included in thescoring, using new U.S. EPA data that serves as ayardstick against which each impact can be scored.Thus, BEES can compare scores across most buildingelements (e.g., roof coverings and floor coverings)to see which elements get the poorest scoresand thus would benefit most from environmentalimprovement.BEES uses importance weights to combine environmentaland economic performance measures in asingle performance score, although users can select a“no weighting” option. If weighting is selected, usersmust first decide how to weight environmental versuseconomic performance—50/50? or 40/60?—and thenselect from among four alternative weighting systemsfor the environmental performance measures. Thefour alternatives include a user-defined option andequal weighting as well as two systems developed byscientific panels. Users can also change the defaultdiscount rate used for calculating the present value oflife cycle costs.BEES 3.0 includes approximately 200 buildingproducts or variations on products, including about 80brand-specific products. For example, in the “slab ongrade” product category, there are 10 generic productvariations and six brand-specific variations. In thecase of floor coverings, there are 17 distinct genericproducts and 18 brand-specific products. The genericdata covers the most representative productiontechnology or an aggregated result based on U.S.average technology for the relevant industry. Brandspecificdata was provided through the participationof a number of manufacturers in the “BEES Please”data program.BEES can be downloaded free of charge fromwww.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/software/bees.html.Athena EIE: A Whole Building ApproachThe Athena Environmental Impact Estimator softwarewas developed by the nonprofit Athena Instituteto make it possible for architects, engineers, andresearchers to assess the environmental implicationsof industrial, institutional, office, and residential14 building design & construction ▪ november 2005 ▪ www.bdcnetwork.com

dc0511WP_Tools.qxd 10/31/2005 10:41 AM Page 15progress report on life cycle assessmentbuilding designs at an early stage in the project deliveryprocess. As an LCA-based decision support toolworking at the level of whole buildings or completebuilding assemblies, the EIE captures the systemsimplications of product selections related to a building’sstructure and envelope; it therefore ensures thatproducts are implicitly compared on a fully functionalequivalence basis (see sidebar).The tool currently covers eight specific regions forCanada, four for the U.S., and a U.S. average. Itallows users to take account of the embodied effectsof material maintenance and replacement over anassumed building life, distinguishing between owneroccupiedand rental facilities where relevant. Thebuilding life is selected by the user and can be variedto assess relative service life effects.If an energy simulation has been completed for adesign, the estimated annual operating energy use bytype can be entered through a simple dialogue; theEIE will then take account of operating energy emissionsand pre-combustion effects (i.e., the energy andemissions associated with making and moving energy).It will also let users compare life cycle embodiedenergy use to operating energy use.The Estimator incorporates the institute’s lifecycle inventory databases for generic products, coveringmore than 90 structural and envelope materials.It simulates over 1,000 different assembly combinationsand is capable of modeling the structureand envelope systems for about 95% of the buildingstock in North America.A conceptual building design is entered in the EIEusing preset building assembly dialogues. The usercan then instantly see the cradle-to-grave, region-specificimplications of a design in terms of a detailed listof flows from and to nature (inventory results), as wellas summary measures, at the whole building orassembly level, or by life cycle stage. A comparisondialogue can be used to make side-by-side comparisonsof as many as five alternative designs, for anyone or all of the summary measures. The comparisonscan be among variations on a base case, or can includecompletely different projects. Similar projects withdifferent floor areas can be compared on a unit floorarea basis.For more information, go to: www.athenaSMI.ca.It is important to establish some clear and importantdistinctions when delving into the green buildingtoolkit. Does a tool work at the level of whole buildings,or is it focused more on individual products orcomponents? Does it deal with a specific topic or concern,like energy use, or does it cover a broad spectrumof sustainability issues? Is the tool quantitative,or does it include subjective or qualitative elements?Too often these distinctions are ignored and comparisonsare made between tools that are intended forentirely different purposes. For example, BEES andthe Athena EIE are complementary tools, intended tomeet different needs at different stages in the projectdelivery process, not competitive tools between whichone must choose.In LCA, the effects associated with making, transporting,using, and disposing of products are referredto as “embodied effects,” where the word embodiedrefers to attribution or allocation in an accountingsense as opposed to true physical embodiment. In thebuilding community, the tendency is to refer primarilyto “embodied energy,” but all of the extractions fromand releases to nature—to water, for example—areembodied effects. There are also embodied effects(known as pre-combustion effects) associated withthe production and transportation of energy itself.In the case of buildings, the energy required tooperate a building over its life greatly overshadows theenergy attributed to the products used in its construction.However, for other embodied effects such astoxic releases to water, effects during the resourceextraction and manufacturing stages greatly outweighany releases associated with building operations.The point is to beware of the common tendency tofocus only on embodied energy. The essence of LCAis to cast the net wide and capture all of the relevanteffects associated with a product or process over itsfull life cycle. The tools can help.Comparing buildingproducts for functionalequivalenceEnsuring functional equivalencein building product comparisons isnot as easy as it may seem. Thechoice of one product may lead to,or even require, the choice of otherproducts. Consider the followingexamples:● The choice of wood, steel, orconcrete structural systems will likelyinfluence, or even dictate, thechoice of insulation materials;● An above-grade structure usinghigh-mass materials may requiremore concrete in footings than alighter structural system;● A rigid floor covering mayrequire a different substrate than aflexible floor covering.As these examples illustrate,product comparisons must take intoaccount material-use implications ofthe alternatives. In other words,comparisons should be made in thecontext of building systems, ratherthan on a simple product-to-productbasis, whenever there are systemsimplications, especially for buildingstructures and building envelopes.Even though two products mayappear to be equivalent in terms ofspecific criteria like load-bearingcapacity, they may not be at allequivalent in the sense of true functionalequivalence.In a similar vein, we should becautious to take account of all thecomponents that may be requiredduring building construction tomake use of a product. Mortar andrebar go hand in hand with concreteblocks, just as fasteners, tape, anddrywall compound are integral tothe use of gypsum wallboard.www.bdcnetwork.com ▪ november 2005 ▪ building design & construction 15

dc0511WP_Ads.qxd 10/31/2005 10:43 AM Page 4ADVERTISEMENTThe North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA) is a trade association representingnearly all manufacturers of fiber glass, rock and slag wool insulations produced in NorthAmerica. NAIMA’s industry role centers on promoting energy efficiency, sustainable development andenvironmental preservation through the use of fiber glass, rock and slag wool insulations, while encouragingsafe production and use of these products and proper installation procedures.NAIMA members believe the creation of green building guidelines should be governed by principlesrepresenting the multi-dimensional, dynamic nature of sustainability. Among the attributes widely recognizedas pivotal: energy efficiency delivering reduced fuel consumption, cleaner atmosphere, andimproved public health.The association maintains a large literature library with information on proper installation techniques,scientific research, safe work practices, and proven facts about our members’ products. Many publicationsare free online at www.naima.org. We also have information on Federal and local tax incentives forenergy-efficient commercial and residential construction at www.simplyinsulate.com.NAIMA and its members have long promoted the need for energy efficiency and sustainable design,which serve as the building blocks for today’s green building movement. Our industry takes seriously itsrole as product and environmental stewards, and members have made many adjustments to products andmanufacturing processes over our 70-year history to address environmental needs as well.With the green building movement progressing toward the mainstream, the construction industry isrushing to promote “green” products with all the excitement that comes with building a new market.History shows us, however, that while we must move forward with innovation and excitement, we mustalso take care to be responsible market stewards. “Green” product manufacturers should be careful toprovide defendable proof that these products perform as stated.As the movement matures, it will be crucial to its success that products included in green buildingguidelines and advocated by environmentalists meet the rigorous standards of sustainability and environmentalprotection. While we welcome new products that spur innovation, NAIMA wants also to seethe industry take the proper steps to ensure products labeled as “green” will withstand the test of time.Our industry remains committed to providing replicable scientific data supporting our product claims,and commits to conduct marketing efforts in line with both the letter and spirit of the Green BuildingMarketing Guidelines from the Federal Trade Commission. We call on both new and established companiesinvolved in this movement to make the same pledge.Through our joint efforts, we can ensure that Green Building is more than just a good idea, but a newapproach to building that will become the industry standard.North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA)web: www.naima.orgph: 703-684-0084

dc0511wp_fava.qxd 10/31/2005 10:43 AM Page 17progress report on life cycle assessmentCan ISO Life Cycle AssessmentStandards Provide Credibilityfor LCA? By James A. Fava, PhDIn the late 1980s a number of “dueling” life cycleassessment studies attempted to illustrate the superiorityof one product over another. As these studiesgained visibility, issues associated with boundary conditions,sources of data, and functional unit wererevealed. In response to these issues, as well as to concernsby industry, government, and the public aboutthe proliferation of local and national environmentalstandards, ISO—the International Organization forStandardization, based in Geneva—established atechnical committee (TC-207) to develop environmentalmanagement tools (including LCA) thatwould be applicable worldwide.To get a sense of the ISO LCA standards and theirapplication to building products and the constructionindustry, let’s consider LCA and ISO in context.In 1990, the Society of Environmental Toxicologyand Chemistry (SETAC) sponsored an internationalworkshop which resulted in “A Technical Frameworkfor Life Cycle Assessments.” 1 Although LCA had beenused by a few practitioners in the U.S. and Europeunder various names (such as REPA, or “Resourceand Environmental Profile Analysis),” 2 SETAC establishedthe terminology and framework for LCA developmentworldwide. In North America and Europe,SETAC set up LCA advisory groups whose missionhas remained to advance the science, practice, andapplication of LCA. 3 SETAC has partnered with theUnited Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP)to establish the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiativeto develop practical tools for evaluating products andservices over their entire life cycle to achieve sustainabledevelopment. 4In 2004, the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiativeheld a forum to discuss current LCA and green buildingprograms. 5 When asked for a vision of LCA in2010, the group foresaw a number of exciting possibilities:LCA tools and data being as readily availableas geographical information systems are today; LCAas an integral part of design and permitting; readilyavailable Web-enabled access to LCA tools and databases;and a widespread understanding and use ofLCA. In addition, they saw product information carryingnot only information on product features andbenefits, but also life cycle information. 6 In five years,the group agreed, LCA would be seen as a means toimprove decision making, not an end in itself.Two issues requiring further examination also surfaced:1) the definition of a “functional unit” for buildingsand 2) the pros and cons of performance- or continuous-improvement-basedapproaches to usingLCA. LCA can be used at two levels, at the level ofthe building as a whole and at the level of buildingmaterials or products. Experience shows that the latteris easier to achieve than the former, although applicationsat the building level can also produce usefulresults. 7The characteristics of LCA tools that are requiredto implement this vision were also identified: readyaccess to databases, easy-to-use LCA tools, relevantimpact categories, and a methodology that is trusted,comprehensive, robust, accepted, invisible, reproducible,simple, transparent, credible, and accountable.It was agreed that the ISO 14040 family of LCAstandards should be used as a starting point for furtherdevelopment of LCA methodology within buildingindustry sector.The Guiding Role of the ISOIt is important to understand that SETAC’s role isnot to standardize methodology, but to improve thescience and practice of LCA. Primary responsibilityfor standardization lies with ISO, which performs thisfunction worldwide in an effort to standardize andstreamline the international marketplace for industry.Among the tools developed are environmental managementsystems, auditing, environmental performanceevaluation, life cycle assessment, and eco-labeling.More than 30 countries have participated in thedevelopment of the ISO 14000 series. More than 20specific standards have been completed, with more indevelopment (see www.iso.org).Within ISO, TC-207 has responsibility for thedevelopment of environmental management standards,including those dealing with LCA. The accompanyingtable (Table 1, next page) describes the extantISO LCA standards and technical reports. Note thatISO is combining ISO 14040, 14041, 14042, and14043 into two standards: ISO/DIS 14040(Environmental management—Life cycleDr. James Fava is managingdirector of Five WindsInternational, a sustainabilityimplementation service firm basedin West Chester, Pa. Fava was afounder of the SETAC LCAAdvisory Group and headed theU.S. delegation in the developmentof ISO LCA standards. Heis currently vice chair of theUNEP/SETAC Life CycleInitiative, a member of theAdvisory Group for the Kenan-Flagler Center for SustainableEnterprises, and chair of WorkingGroup B within the U.S. GreenBuilding Council’s LCA intoLEED initiative. He received aPhD from the University ofMaryland, College Park.1Fava, J., R. Denison, B. Jones, M.Curran, B. Vigon, S. Selke, and J.Barnum (eds.) 1991. A TechnicalFramework for Life-CycleAssessment. SETAC: Pensacola, Fla.2Hunt, R; Franklin, W. (1996): LCA- How it Came About. PersonalReflections on the Origin and theDevelopment of LCA in the USA.Int J LCA 1, 4-73One product of this effort is a recentbook, LCA in Building andConstruction. See www.SETAC.orgfor additional information onSETAC’s LCA program.4See www.uneptie.org/pc/sustain/lcinitiative/home.htm.5For a summary of the workshop, seehttp://unep.greenriver.org/other/LCAbuildings.html.www.bdcnetwork.com ▪ november 2005 ▪ building design & construction 17

dc0511wp_fava.qxd 10/31/2005 10:43 AM Page 18progress report on life cycle assessment6“Products” refers to products, services,and technology, with a cradle-tograveor cradle-to-cradle perspective.7These are the types of issues theUSGBC LCA into LEED programis addressing.Table 1. ISO LCA Standards andTechnical ReportsISO 14040 - General Principlesand FrameworkISO 14041 - Goal and ScopeDefinition and InventoryAnalysisISO 14042 - Life CycleImpact Assessment (LCIA)ISO 14043 - Life CycleInterpretationISO 14047 -Technical ReportISO 14048 - LCA DataDocumentation FormatISO 14049 - Technical ReportDescriptionassessment—Principles and framework) andISO/DIS 14044 (Environmental management—Lifecycle assessment—Requirements and guidelines).They are expected to be published in 2006.For additional ISO standards related to LCA, seeTable 2.Examining the Value of ISO LCAin the Building SectorISO standards provide excellent resources forunderstanding the basic elements and requirementsfor LCA studies. They also provide insights into factorsto consider when evaluating the results of anLCA study. Critical portions of the ISO standardsrelevant to the building sector are summarized in thenext section.Life cycle assessment is a systematic approachused to manage the potential environmental impactsof product and service systems. It is applied methodologicallyto build a quantitative inventory of environmentalburdens or releases, evaluate their potentialimpacts, and consider alternatives to interpret theresults or improve environmental performance. LCAcan be used to identify critical life cycle stages or burdensfor which additional environmental assessmenttools (such as risk assessment) may be applied to fullyunderstand the potential impacts and risks.In any application, LCA considers the potentialenvironmental impacts along the continuum of aproduct’s life (i.e., cradle to grave or cradle to cradle),from raw materials acquisition to production, use, anddisposal or recovery. The potential environmentalimpacts to consider include resource depletion,Provides the basic description and framework for LCA from which the remaining LCA standardsare based. This standard also defines the “comparative assertion” requirements, includingcritical review.Establishes at the outset the goals, purpose, audience, scope, and stakeholders that will beimpacted or influenced by the results. This information influences the actual conduct of theLCA study. The inventory analysis portion is where the resources and emissions related to theproduct system are quantifiedThe phase of life cycle assessment aimed at understanding and evaluating the magnitude andsignificance of the potential environmental impacts of a product system.The interpretation phase of an LCA, where the significance and relative contributions of theresults are broken down and analyzed.Provides illustrative examples on how to apply life cycle impact assessment.Provides guidance on factors to consider when documenting LCA data.Provides illustrative examples on how to apply goal and scope definition and inventory analysis.human health, and ecological health.LCA consists of four iterative phases:1) Goal and Scope Definition: Defining the aims,product system, and reach of the study.2) Inventory Analysis: In which extractions andemissions related to the product system are quantifiedand related to the product function.3) Impact Assessment: In which the outcome of theinventory is analyzed with respect to their environmentalrelevance and is aggregated within a smallernumber of relevant environmental issues.4) Interpretation: In which the results are comparedwith the goal of the study.Identifying Tradeoffs and OpportunitiesMany approaches to environmental protection continueto be based on “end-of-pipe” solutions, focusedon a single medium (air, water, soil), a single stage inthe product’s life cycle (production, use, disposal), ora single issue (e.g., individual chemical limits). Thesestrategies do not always lead to an overall reduction inenvironmental impacts. Pollution control resourcesare spent on activities required by laws and regulations,but which do not always provide the most efficientuse of those resources in terms of reducingimpacts.This has often allowed unexpected environmental“impacts” to occur, by, for example, allowing one environmentalproblem to be solved while generatingother, often unexpected, problems. Because they arenot designed to address a full understanding of thetradeoffs and their implications in a systematic fashion,single-issue approaches often diminish opportunitiesfor achieving net environmental improvements.The result of an LCA study helps identifies bothopportunities and risks of a product or technology, allthe way from raw materials to final disposition. AnLCA helps us recognize how our choices influenceeach of these stages, so we can choose to make positiveimpacts on the economy, the environment, andsociety. LCA helps us recognize that our choices arenot isolated, but are connected to a larger system.Life cycle assessment is not necessarily aboutmaking right or wrong decisions. It simply helps usmake decisions in the context of all stages of the lifecycle. It helps us identify unintentional impacts ofour actions and take responsibility for those impacts,and it helps us avoid decisions that fix one environmentalproblem at the expense of another environmentalissue.LCA can assist in:● Identifying opportunities to improve the environ-18 building design & construction ▪ november 2005 ▪ www.bdcnetwork.com

dc0511wp_fava.qxd 10/31/2005 10:44 AM Page 19progress report on life cycle assessmentmental aspects of products at various points in theirlife cycle.● Decision making in industry, government, or nongovernmentalorganizations (e.g. building design,material and product selection).● Selection of relevant indicators of environmentalperformance, including measurement techniques.● Marketing (e.g., environmental claims, eco-labelingor environmental product declarations).Core LCA PrinciplesAs stated in the new ISO/DIS 14040, a number ofprinciples have been added:● Life cycle perspective - LCA considers the entirelife cycle of a product, from raw material extractionand acquisition, through energy and material productionand manufacturing, to use and end of life treatmentand final disposal. Through such a systematicoverview and perspective, the shifting of a potentialenvironmental burden between life cycle stages orindividual processes can be identified and possiblyavoided.● Environmental focus - LCA addresses the environmentalaspects and impacts of a product system.Economic and social aspects and impacts are, typically,outside the scope of the LCA. Other tools may becombined with LCA for more extensive assessments.● Relative approach and functional unit - LCA is arelative approach, which is structured around a functionalunit. This functional unit defines what is beingstudied. All subsequent analyses are then relative tothat functional unit as all inputs and outputs in theLCI and consequently the LCIA profile is related tothe functional unit.● Iterative approach - LCA is an iterative technique.The individual phases of an LCA use results ofthe other phases. The iterative approach within andbetween the phases contributes to the comprehensivenessand consistency of the study and the reportedresults.● Transparency - Due to the inherent complexity inLCA, transparency is an important guiding principlein executing LCAs, in order to ensure a proper interpretationof the results.● Comprehensiveness - LCA considers all attributesor aspects of natural environment, human health,and resources. By considering all attributes andaspects within one study in a cross-media perspective,potential tradeoffs can be identified and assessed.● Priority of scientific approach - Decisions withinan LCA are preferably based on natural science. Ifthis is not possible, other scientific approaches (e.g.,Table 2. Additional ISOStandards and Technical ReportsISO 14025 - EnvironmentalLabeling and Declarations -Type III EnvironmentalDeclarations - Principles andProceduresISO 14062 - EnvironmentalManagement- Guidelines toIntegrating EnvironmentalAspects in Product DevelopmentGuide 64 - Guide for theInclusion of EnvironmentalAspects in Product StandardsDescriptionfrom social or economic sciences) can be used orinternational conventions can be referred to. If neithera scientific basis exists nor a justification basedon other scientific approaches or international conventionsis possible, then, as appropriate, decisionsmay be based on value choices.ISO and ‘Comparative Assertions’Users of LCA results sometimes seek to make environmentalclaims regarding the superiority or equivalenceof their product versus a similar competingproduct—for example, how one manufacturer’s low-eglass is superior to another’s on the basis of LCA.Although the LCA standards have been written toensure flexibility in their use within an organization—say,for research purposes—when the ISO14040 series is used to support a publicly stated environmentalclaim of superiority or equivalence—whichwithin ISO is referred to as a “comparativeassertion”—additional requirements must be met,including:● The data quality requirements shall address timerelatedcoverage, geographical coverage, technologycoverage, precision, completeness and representativenessof the data, consistency and reproducibility ofthe methods used throughout the LCA, sources of thedata and their representativeness, and the uncertaintyof the information.● The LCA study shall be peer reviewed in accordancewith the critical review process of Section7.3.3.● An impact assessment shall be performed. Thecategory indicators of the impact assessment used tosupport the comparative assertion must be sufficientlycomprehensive, internationally accepted, scientificallyand technically valid, and environmentally relevant.Weighting may not be used.Establishes the use of the ISO 14040 series of standards in the development of Type III environmentaldeclaration programs and Type III environmental declarations. The declarations coveredby this standard are primarily intended for use in business-to-business communication,but their use from business to consumers is not precluded.A technical report intended for use by those involved in the design and development of products(such as building products).A guide intended for product standard writers, to raise awareness that provisions in productstandards can affect the environment (both negatively and positively) and recommending theuse of life cycle thinking and recognized scientific techniques when addressing environmentalaspects of a product being standardized.www.bdcnetwork.com ▪ november 2005 ▪ building design & construction 19

dc0511wp_fava.qxd 10/31/2005 10:44 AM Page 20progress report on life cycle assessment● Systems shall be compared using the same functionalunit and equivalent methodological considerations,such as performance, system boundaries, dataquality, allocation procedures, decision rules on evaluatinginputs and outputs, and impact assessment. Anydifferences between systems regarding these parametersmust be identified and reported.Additional information on how LCA results can beused to making claims can be found in ISO/DIS14025. In addition, the U.S. Federal TradeCommission has developed “Guides for the Use ofEnvironmental Marketing Claims,” which prohibitunfair or deceptive advertising claims.Eight Lessons Learned from LCA ApplicationWhat have we learned from the application of lifecycle assessment based on the ISO LCA standards?Some thoughts from my experience as an LCA practitionerworking with building products and materialsmanufacturers:1. The ISO LCA standards have established a consistentmethodology for conducting LCA studies andreporting their results. They represent a serious “stakein the ground” on LCA practice.2. The ISO LCA peer review and criteria reviewprocess provides a system of checks and balances toensure that LCA studies used for external policy anddecision making undergo additional review by independentand interested parties.3. Practitioners should be able to demonstrate theirknowledge of the requirements of the ISO LCA standardsand that they have applied those requirements.4. There is a learning curve in completing LCAs. Acompany’s first LCA study (either one done internallyusing LCA software tools such as GaBi, or one doneby consultants) often takes more time and resourcesthan expected, but subsequent studies usuallybecome easier to complete.5. Within the LCA standards sufficient flexibilityexists to ensure that LCA studies can be completedon a number of applications, ranging from answer toquestion on a select list of impact categories and/orlife cycle stages, to comprehensive studies supportingenvironmental claims.6. Any LCA methodology used in the public contextmust have transparency, be publicly available, andmust have undergone appropriate peer review.7. Application internally within an organization todrive continuous improvement and innovation canachieve meaningful results, but it must be consistentlyapplied.8. LCA studies can provide information on tradeoffsand opportunities to improve a product performanceover its life cycle. However, complementaryassessments, in particular those related to site-specificenvironmental issues, are often necessary to providea fuller understanding of absolute risks and opportunities.In conclusion, the ISO LCA standards have establisheda worldwide set of rules to ensure that LCAstudies are conducted in a consistent, reproduciblefashion. The standards define what should be consideredin setting the goal and scope of the study, whatdata are needed, how to evaluate the quality of thedata, what impact assessment categories will be used(and why), how the results can be interpreted forimprovement, what information should be included,and when different levels of review are necessary.Over the next few years, LCA will, in my opinion,move even further toward becoming a practical toolfor design and development, marketing, materialselection, design tradeoffs, and environmental andbusiness improvements.Call for PapersInLCA/LCM 2006International Conference on Life Cycle AssessmentWashington, D.C.May 8-10, 2006For registration information, or to submit a proposal for a paper, contact:staff@lcacenter.org or visit www.iere.org20 building design & construction ▪ november 2005 ▪ www.bdcnetwork.com

dc0511WP_Ads.qxd 10/31/2005 10:45 AM Page 12ADVERTISEMENTLafarge North America is the U.S. and Canada’s largest diversified supplier of construction materialssuch as cement products, ready-mixed concrete, gypsum wallboard, aggregates, asphalt and concreteproducts. The company’s materials are used in residential, commercial, institutional and public worksconstruction across the U.S. and Canada.Lafarge believes that sustainability can be a competitive advantage. This long-term perspectiveincludes the need for economic, social and environmental consideration in our daily business decisions.We believe this approach will help us achieve our objectives to be the preferred supplier, communitypartner, employer and investment.Lafarge, through its North American partnership with Habitat for Humanity International (HFHI),has supported Habitat for years to provide decent, affordable housing. The partnership recognizesthat—as a whole—our contributions make us the largest supplier of cement, concrete, aggregates, andgypsum products to the world’s premiere building materials charity.As part of the Lafarge and WWF partnership, we are focusing our efforts to preserve biodiversity,restore the eco-balance of quarries and forests, and mitigate global climate change. Lafarge NorthAmerica regularly teams with the Wildlife Habitat Council (WHC), community groups, and individualsto conserve wildlife habitat.Lafarge is exploring ways to contribute to sustainable building. Our membership in the U.S. GreenBuilding Council (USGBC) demonstrates the company’s interest in partnering with “leaders from acrossthe industry working to promote buildings that are environmentally responsible, profitable and healthyplaces to live and work.”Our products play a decisive role in sustainable architecture and construction. They are contributinga sustainable component to a growing number of LEED® (Leadership in Energy and EnvironmentalDesign) projects across North America. Lafarge’s employees are also entering the USGBC’s LEEDProfessional Accreditation program, earning the designation of LEED Accredited Professional, to betterserve the environmental needs of the design and building community.lafargenorthamerica.com

dc0511wp_bare.qxd 10/31/2005 10:45 AM Page 22progress report on life cycle assessmentJane C. Bare is with the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency’sNational Risk Management ResearchLaboratory in Cincinnati. She hasbeen involved in life cycle impactassessment and the development ofTRACI for the last 11 years and wasinvolved in the development of ISOStandard 14042—LCIA. She is oneof 14 international experts on theInternational Life Cycle Panel of theUNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative.She holds a BS in chemical engineeringfrom Ohio University.Dr. Thomas P. Gloria, a seniorconsultant with Five WindsInternational, is a task force leaderfor the UNEP/SETAC Life CycleInitiative on Life Cycle ImpactAssessment. He has supported theU.S. EPA’s LCIA methodology,TRACI, and is participating in theUSGBC’s LCA into LEED initiative.Gloria holds a PhD and MSin civil and environmental engineeringfrom Tufts University and aBSc in electrical and computer scienceengineering from theUniversity of Connecticut.Life Cycle Impact Assessment forthe Building Design andConstruction IndustryBy Jane Bare and Thomas Gloria, PhDYou can measure chemical emissions and constructionwastes by the ton, but weight alone won’t tell youhow or where the emissions and waste may harmhumans or the environment. If you can apply the metricsof life cycle impact assessment, however, you canunderstand a great deal more about how much harmmight come to humans and the environment from theemissions or waste—harm in the form of global climatechange, reduction in the ozone layer, increasedrisk of cancer in humans, and the depletion of finiteresources such as fossil fuels.The most effective way to assess the potential forlong-term improvements for human health and theenvironment is through the use of consistent metricswithin a comprehensive decision-making framework.Life cycle assessment is the framework embraced bymany leading sustainability professionals. LCA can beused to evaluate the potential for impacts at all of thepoints along the process of design, construction,maintenance, use, and disassembly. Within life cycleassessment, life cycle impact assessment representsthe consistent metrics.Life cycle impact assessment is the tool that lifecycle practitioners use to see which chemical emissionshave the greatest potential to cause harm and inwhat form that harm may occur. Without this tool,releasing a pound of mercury to the environmentwould look just like releasing a pound of sand. Manyaspects of this tool were formed as little as a decadeago. Although there is still room for improvement,LCIA can now distinguish a full spectrum of areas ofconcern.The Basics of LCIALife cycle impact assessment creates the connectionbetween the life cycle inventory (the emissionsand materials used) and the components of our societythat we wish most dearly to protect—humanhealth, the natural environment, the man-made environment(not just buildings and homes, but alsothings like crops), and natural resources. As shown inthe accompanying figure, LCIA attempts to capturethe continuum of all environmental mechanisms. Thearrows in this figure should not be construed asdescribing environmental mechanisms with absolutecertainty, but they do indicate that, at minimum, thereis some quantitative evidence and qualitative understandingof the links shown.Across this continuum there are two generalapproaches to categorize life cycle impacts—a midpointapproach and an endpoint approach.The midpoint approach starts from the emissionsidentified by a life cycle inventory and takes these asinput to models that bring us further along the environmentalmechanism of accepted impact categories.One of the most well-known midpoint indicators isglobal warming potential, a measure of a chemical’spotential to affect the world’s climate. Global warmingpotential is typically expressed in terms relative to carbondioxide’s contribution to climate change, usuallyreferred to as “CO 2 equivalents.” The LCIA resultsexpressed in terms of midpoint variables are typicallyused to support decision making, as they are readilyunderstood and their scientific basis is well established.In contrast, endpoint (or “damage assessment”)22 building design & construction ▪ november 2005 ▪ www.bdcnetwork.com

dc0511wp_bare.qxd 10/31/2005 10:46 AM Page 23progress report on life cycle assessmentmodels link emissions and resources used to endpointindicators. Endpoint models typically have a higherlevel of uncertainty, since they include moreassumptions to quantify the impacts. Damageassessments also attempt to represent many morelinks across the network of environmental mechanisms,and in the absence of data to support thesecalculations, damage assessments tend to be lesscomprehensive—those endpoints which are difficultto calculate simply drop out.In addition to the impacts related to chemicalemissions, LCA typically keeps track of resourcedepletion. Resource depletion impact assessmentincludes an accounting of the amount of a materialused and the amount of material which remains,while also considering quality and the potential forsubstitution. Typical resource depletion categoriesinclude fossil fuel use, land use, water use, and mineraluse. Some LCA experts also choose to keep trackof the energy consumed within the individual lifecycle stages. Other methodologies make a distinctionbetween sources of energy (e.g., wind, fossil fuels),thus recognizing the scarcity of some fuel sources.In more formal terms, LCIA is one of the four iterativesteps of LCA as outlined by the ISO standards:1) Goal and Scope2) Life Cycle Inventory3) Impact Assessment4) InterpretationWithin the Impact Assessment step, there areseven generally accepted elements (see chart) pertainingto the process of conducting a life cycleimpact assessment.The first three elements of LCIA—selection, classification,and characterization—are mandatory.Selection pertains to the identification of relevantimpact categories. The impact categories selectedshould be consistent with the goal and scope andreflect a comprehensive set of environmental issuesrelated to the product system being studied. Althoughbroken out as part of the impact assessment phase ofan LCA study, the selection of impact categories isdecided at the very beginning, when the goal andscope of the study are being determined and beforethe collection of the supporting data begins. Selectionof impact categories determines to a great extent datacollection needs and the boundary of the conclusionsthat can be made.Classification involves assigning the emissions andresources identified by the LCIA to specific impactcategories (global warming, ozone depletion, ecologicaltoxicity, etc.) In practice, the characterizationmethod selected determines theclassification. This is an area thatrequires particular attention by theLCA consultant, as naming conventionscan cause classification mismatchesor may cause some chemicalsto drop out.Characterization is where impactassessment results are calculated.The actual calculation of impactinvolves multiplying each environmentalintervention (emissions inmass) by the corresponding characterizationfactor (effect per unit ofemission), and summing the resultswithin each impact category.Characterization factors are essentiallya rank measure of potentialharm by a chemical within animpact category.For example, carbon dioxide has aglobal warming potential (GWP) of1, while methane has a GWP of 23. This means thatone molecule of methane has the potential to affectclimate change with a potency 23 times that of carbondioxide. Characterization factors are based on underlyingcharacterization models set to specific conditions—climate,soil type, time frame, etc.The remaining four elements—normalization,grouping, weighting, and data quality—while optionalin an LCIA, can provide valuable insights.Normalization involves the calculation of relativecontribution to impact to a reference boundary, typicallya region or country. For example, results obtainedfor GWP are normalized to all emissions that occur inthe U.S. on a per capita basis. Normalization is typicallydone to obtain congruent (i.e., equal) representationof impact categories when proceeding with furthergrouping or weighting of results.Grouping is simply the assignment of impact categoriesto groups of similar impacts or ranking categoriesin a given hierarchy—high, medium, and lowpriority.Weighting is a more formalized process of groupingthat involves the assignment of relative values orweights to different impacts, allowing integrationacross all impact categories. The “weights” in theweighting step are typically determined by a panel ofexperts or stakeholders.Data quality analysis is done to better understandthe significance, uncertainty, and sensitivity of LCIAresults.www.bdcnetwork.com ▪ november 2005 ▪ building design & construction 23

dc0511wp_bare.qxd 10/31/2005 10:46 AM Page 24progress report on life cycle assessmentImpact Categories in TRACI1. Acidification2. Ecotoxicty3. Eutrophication4. Fossil fuel depletion5. Global warming6. Human health cancer7. Human health criteria8. Human health noncancer9. Ozone depletion10. Smog formationMidpoint MethodsEDIP97/2003http://ipt.dtu.dk/~mic/Projects.htmDutch LCA Handbookwww.leidenuniv.nl/cml/ssp/projects/lca2/lca2.htmlUSEPA TRACI methodwww.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/std/sab/iam_traci.htmEndpoint MethodsEco-indicator 99www.pre.nl/eco-indicator99/EPS 2000dhttp://eps.esa.chalmers.se/A Look at the U.S. EPA’s TRACIFor the past 10 years, the US EPA has focused ondeveloping the best possible impact assessment toolfor life cycle impact assessment, pollution prevention(known as P2), and sustainability metrics for the U.S.This research effort is called TRACI, which stands forthe Tool for the Reduction and Assessment ofChemical and other Environmental Impacts.The impact categories in TRACI (see list) wereselected based on their level of commonality withexisting literature in this area, their consistency withEPA regulations and policies, their current state ofdevelopment, and their perceived societal value. Thetraditional pollution categories of ozone depletion,global warming, human toxicology, ecological toxicology(ecotoxicity), smog formation, acidification, andeutrophication were included within TRACI becauseEPA programs and regulations recognize the value ofminimizing effects from these categories. Criteria pollutantswere preserved as a separate human healthimpact category to allow a modeling approach thatcould take advantage of the extensive epidemiologicaldata associated with the impacts of criteria pollutants.The TRACI software allows the storage of inventorydata, classification of stressors into 10 impact categories,and characterization for the listed impact categories.Consistency with previous modeling assumptions(especially within the EPA) was important in thedevelopment of the impact assessment characterizationunderlying every category. The human healthcancer and noncancer categories were heavily basedon the assumptions made for the US EPA RiskAssessment Guidance for Superfund. The EPA’sExposure Factors Handbook was utilized to makedecisions related to the various input parameters forboth of these categories as well. Another example ofconsistency with EPA modeling assumptions includesthe use of the 100-year time frame reference for globalwarming potentials.The EPA decided that TRACI should be primarilya midpoint model because this is the level that enjoysthe greatest consensus. With endpoint modeling,moreover, some of the endpoints are lost when extrapolatingto damages, since they cannot be calculated.LCIA in Building Design and ConstructionLife cycle impact assessment is already being used bythe green building community. In the United Kingdom,the Building Research Establishment has developed aproduct rating system, the Green Guide to Industry,using the Dutch Handbook (CML) Method. In theU.S., TRACI is embedded in the National Institute ofStandards & Technology’s Building for Environmentaland Economic Sustainability (BEES 3.0) method.More recently, the U.S. Green Building Councilhas initiated an investigation of applying LCA into theLeadership in Energy and Environmental Design(LEED) rating system. Workgroup B of the task forcewas charged with selecting the most appropriateLCIA methodology for inclusion within LEED.Criteria deemed important by the task force included:● Relevance to building product systems● Availablity of U.S. characterization factors (notincluding GWP and ozone depletion potential)● Site specificity selection (e.g., bioregions)● General scientific validity of the method● Relevance to the green building community● Comprehensive set of environmentally importantimpact categories● Identifies endpoints of concern and considerslinkages with inventory results● Contains U.S. normalization databaseBased on its evaluation of the above criteria,Workgroup B recommended to the LEED task forcethat TRACI be used as the impact assessmentmethodology of choice. By consensus vote, the taskforce adopted the use of TRACI within LEED.As we have seen, life cycle impact assessment isthe tool that life cycle practitioners use to see whichchemical emissions and resource uses have the greatestpotential to cause harm. With this perspective,LCIA methods are able to assist decision makers toappropriately prioritize the most beneficial options toreduce burden to humans and the environment. Thegreen building community has already started usingLCIA methods to measure product performance andthis use of LCIA is likely to increase. Tools like theU.S. EPA’s TRACI can be used to do an LCIA forindividual building materials or for whole buildings.24 building design & construction ▪ november 2005 ▪ www.bdcnetwork.com

dc0511WP_Ads.qxd 10/31/2005 10:54 AM Page 3ADVERTISEMENT“Cool roofing” is a term that has been well established for several years and has received a lot of presscoverage. As architects, building owners, facility managers and other specifiers consider cool roofingalternatives, they should remember that reflectivity is only one of many important attributes to take intoaccount, along with protection against leaks, building disruption, on-going maintenance, and warrantycoverage. Minimizing these “costs” can help ensure that a roofing system remains a good investment overthe expected life of the roof—up to 20 years, or more.Since 1978, Duro-Last® Roofing, Inc. has manufactured a custom-prefabricated, reinforced,thermoplastic single-ply roofing system that is ideal for any flat or low-sloped application. Extremelydurable and easily installed by authorized contractors without disruption to daily operations, theDuro-Last roofing system is also leak-proof, resistant to chemicals, fire and high winds, and virtuallymaintenance-free. Over a billion square feet of Duro-Last membrane have been installed on all types ofbuildings throughout North America.Initiatives such as those embodied in California's Title 24 building code are being implementedthroughout the country, and energy-efficient roofing will certainly play a major role in helping businessesand the nation contain energy costs.The Duro-Last Cool Zone® roofing system delivers real long-term cost savings for building ownersand managers. The Cool Zone system can also help in obtaining credits toward LEED and LEED-EBcertification. From reducing heat islands and optimizing energy performance, to resource reuse andthermal comfort, the Cool Zone roofing system can be a part of a comprehensive package for improvingbuilding performance.Duro-Last is excited to be exhibiting at Greenbuild 2005 in Atlanta, and we invite you to visit us atbooth 440. We're eager to demonstrate how our Cool Zone roofing system provides exceptional buildingprotection, and contributes to effective, long-term sustainable building design.Please contact me with questions or comments at 800-248-0280, or tholling@duro-last.com.Thomas G. HollingsworthPresidentDuro-Last Roofing, Inc.

dc0511WP_data.qxd 10/31/2005 10:55 AM Page 26progress report on life cycle assessmentThe U.S. LCI Database Project andIts Role in Life Cycle AssessmentBy Wayne Trusty, MA, and Michael Deru, PhDWe are experiencing a fundamental change thataffects not only how building products are developed,but how they are perceived, especially by governmentsand other high-volume purchasers and by members ofextended supply chains. We’re referring, of course, tothe evolving environmental movement that has, overthe past several decades, come to encompass more ofthe issues and activities that had previously beenBecause of their breadth, LCAs require large amounts ofinformation. LCA practitioners, industry, and government have towork together to make available the best information possible; thatmeans starting with high-quality raw data cataloguing flows fromand to nature. We call this life cycle inventory data.approached in an isolated fashion, including biodiversity,water use, transportation, and fossil fuel depletion.The 1972 Club of Rome “Limits to Growth”report, the 1987 Bruntland Report (“Our CommonFuture”), the Rio Accords of 1992, and the KyotoProtocol of 1997 are all notable milestones in thismovement.At some point in the late 1960s and early ’70s, aless well-known phenomenon began to emerge. Tworesearchers at the Midwest Research Institute,William Franklin and Robert Hunt, began working ona technique for quantifying energy and resource useas well as the environmental emissions from the manufactureand use of products. Others in Europe werefollowing parallel lines, and the result was what wenow call life cycle assessment.As environmental concerns have steadily movedfrom the periphery to center stage, transportation,energy, water supply, and related resource issues havebecome focal points on the environmental agenda.And that, of course, is a big part of what LCA is allabout—casting the net wide to capture the full spectrumof environmental concerns.Because of their breadth, LCAs require largeamounts of information. LCA practitioners, industry,and government have to work together to make availablethe best information possible; that means startingwith high-quality raw data cataloguing flows from andto nature. We call this life cycle inventory data. Toooften the tendency is to focus on the development ofattractive software without at least comparable timeand effort being spent on the data side. But the qualityof any LCA can never exceed the quality of theunderlying LCI data on which such tools depend.In a growing number of countries, there are nationalprojects planned, under way, or completed, whosepurpose is to develop publicly available LCI data forcommon materials, energy carriers, energy use, andelectricity generation. Such projects exist in Australia,Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Korea,Switzerland, and Taiwan. This article focuses on asimilar project in the United States—the U.S. LCIDatabase Project, owned and managed by theNational Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).The U.S. LCI Database Project is a public/privateresearch partnership to develop a publicly availablelife cycle inventory database for commonly used materials,products, and processes. The database providesLCI data to support public, private, and nonprofit sectorefforts to develop product life cycle assessmentsand environmentally oriented decision-support systemsand tools.The project was conceived by the Athena Instituteand initially funded by the U.S. Department ofEnergy and the General Services Administration inresponse to the lack of transparent LCI data in NorthAmerica. Prior to the release of data through this project,LCI databases in the U.S. had restricted access ordata that was not verifiable. The U.S. LCI DatabaseProject began in May 2001 with an intensive initiationand planning phase. Phase II (October 2002 toOctober 2004) was a period of basic data collection,analysis, and review. Phase III, now under way,encompasses long-term data dissemination, databaseexpansion, and maintenance.The objective of the project is to provide LCI datafor commonly used materials, products, and processesfollowing a single data development protocol consistentwith international standards. The resultingconsistent and coherent LCI datasets for basic26 building design & construction ▪ november 2005 ▪ www.bdcnetwork.com

dc0511WP_data.qxd 10/31/2005 10:55 AM Page 27progress report on life cycle assessmentprocesses make it easier to perform LCAs andincrease the credibility and acceptance of theresults. Assured data quality and user-friendly accessto the database are prerequisites to establishing LCAas a reliable tool for environmental assessment thatwill support decision making in the public and privatearenas.To date, data modules have been developed inaccordance with the following priorities established inPhase I by stakeholders:1. Fuels, energy, and transportation2. Products and materials● Building and construction● Automotive and durable goods● Commodity chemicals and materials3. Common industrial transformation processes,such as casting and painting.Seventy-three data modules have now been postedto the project web site (www.nrel.gov/lci). Future datacollection efforts will provide additional modules inthese categories as well as other identified priorities.Construction materials such as cement and concreteproducts have been identified as one of the prioritiesfor the next round of data development in order tosupport the “LCA into LEED” initiative. A majorstudy funded by the American Plastics Council isunder way to develop data on basic polymers.The data format for providing and accessing datamodules is a streamlined version of a format calledEcoSpold adopted for the Swiss “ecoinvent” project, amajor European database development. Data providedin the streamlined format can be readily convertedby NREL to the full EcoSpold format, which allowsdata sharing with the Swiss project and any othernational databases that adopt the same formatting. Inaddition, major LCA software suppliers support theEcoSpold format, which provides an easy way toimport the U.S. LCI data.Although the data modules are publicly available,they are not intended for use by the general public inthe way that full product LCAs might be used. Themodules represent unit processes and will typically beused in combination with each other and with otherdata, by users such as:● Manufacturers, researchers, policy analysts, andothers undertaking LCAs of specific products orprocesses● Developers and users of tools for LCA practitioners● Developers of tools for nonpractitioners whichtypically do not allow the user to modify embeddeddatabases● Organizations or individuals engaged in productassessment and labeling at various levels of systemcomplexity, from relatively simple consumer productsto complex systems like buildings and automobiles.The use of common data modules allows thosedoing LCAs of specific products to focus on the elementsthat are unique to a specific manufacturingplant or process.The accompanying figure illustrates the many waysin which the database serves a variety of user needs.The following are examples of how the LCI databaseis being used:● The National Institute of Standards &Technology (NIST) is switching to U.S. LCI DatabaseProject modules for energy combustion, pre-combustion,transportation, and other common processesused in its BEES software tool. BEES (Building forEnvironmental and Economics Sustainability) is usedfor making product-to-product comparisons in termsof both LCA and life cycle costing measures.● The Athena Institute is making similar changesfor the U.S. regions in its Environmental ImpactEstimator software for LCAs of whole buildings at theconceptual design stage. This will help bring NISTand Athena data more into line, thereby strengtheningthe concept of a suite of building assessment toolsthat can be used for different purposes at differentstages in the project delivery process.● The USGBC has stated that the U.S. LCIDatabase Project will “serve as a fundamentalresource” in its initiative to integrate LCA in theLEED building rating system.● Other work is under way to develop scriptingtools that will make it much easier for manufacturersto prepare brand-specific LCA information. TheU.S. LCI Database is cited as a fundamentalwww.bdcnetwork.com ▪ november 2005 ▪ building design & construction 27

dc0511WP_data.qxd 10/31/2005 10:55 AM Page 28progress report on life cycle assessmentWayne Trusty is president ofthe Athena Sustainable MaterialsInstitute, Merrickville, Ont., andits U.S. affiliate, Athena InstituteInternational. He is a vice chairof the board of the Canada GreenBuilding Counci, and a memberof the boards of the InternationalInitiative for a Sustainable BuiltEnvironment and the GreenBuilding Initiative. He is a memberof the U.S. Consortium forResearch on Renewable IndustrialMaterials (CORRIM) and serveson the U.S. Green BuildingCouncil's LEED Resources andMaterials Technical AdvisoryGroup and the LEED-NCSteering Committee. He holds anMA in economics from theUniversity of Western Ontarioand was recently named AdjunctAssociate Professor ofEnvironmental Design at theUniversity of Calgary.Michael Deru is a senior engineerwith the Center forBuildings and Thermal Systemsat the U.S. Department ofEnergy’s National RenewableEnergy Laboratory, Golden,Colo., where he is project leaderfor the development of the U.S.Life Cycle Inventory Databaseand DOE’s Performance MetricsProject. He holds PhD and MSdegrees in mechanical engineeringfrom Colorado StateUniversity and a BS in mechanicalengineering from theUniversity of Wyoming.resource for such tools.In terms of operations, the Database Project isowned and managed by NREL on behalf of the federalgovernment, with funding from various departmentsand agencies. NREL also maintains the Website and has ultimate responsibility for data qualityand ongoing data dissemination. The AthenaInstitute, a subcontractor to NREL, provides managementassistance and also undertakes certain datadevelopment tasks separately funded by public- andprivate-sector sources. As of last year, private-sectorcontributions by the Vehicle Recycling Partnership(Ford, General Motors, and DaimlerChrysler), theConsortium on Research on Renewable IndustrialMaterials (CORRIM), and the American PlasticsCouncil exceeded public sector funding. An advisoryboard is being formed with representatives ofstakeholder groups, including direct data users, tooldevelopers, ultimate users of information based onthe data, data providers, the LCA methodologydevelopment community, and public- and privatesectorfunders.The project web site (www.nrel.gov/lci) has ensuredtransparency from the outset. All key working documents,the research protocol, and the final Phase Iand II reports have been posted to that site, whichalso has provision for receiving comments on specificdocuments or the process in general.The LCI Database Project is crucial to the overallsuccess of LCAs. Without high-quality, transparentLCI data, there can be no high-quality, transparentLCAs. A major driver of the cost of LCAs is data collection,and public LCI databases addressing basic,commonly occurring processes in life cycles go a longway toward reducing the cost of all LCAs. Their usealso increases the consistency among LCAs and LCAbasedcomparisons, and their increased availabilityreduces the barrier to entry into LCA.One particularly important use of an LCI databaseis in Environmental Product Declarations. EPDs, alsoknown as ISO Type III Environmental Declarations,are intended to provide easily accessible, qualityassured,and comparable information regarding theenvironmental performance of products and services.They are used in a growing number of countries, andthe European Commission is considering the developmentof a pan-Europe Type III EPD framework.Already, some countries require that an EPD accompanyimported products, and we can expect to eventuallysee a more widespread adoption of that policy.As a result, countries that fail to develop nationaldatabases, and to thereby support the individual datadevelopment efforts of their export industries (includingbuilding products), may find it difficult and costlyto catch up.The use of LCI data for the development of designor decision-support tools such as BEES needs nofurther elaboration. In the building field, in solidwastemanagement, and in product improvementprograms, the challenge is to develop field-specificdesign tools that make LCA data readily usable bynon-LCA specialists.The central theme in all this is information—thedevelopment of the best possible data and disseminatingit to those who make or influence decisions aboutdesign, purchasing, or environmental policies. Gooddata also allows manufacturers to exercise a greaterdegree of control over their processes, and it allowsgovernments to assess and understand environmentalissues and to develop appropriate policy responses. Inthe future, data in the form of environmental declarationsor labels may be an essential part of an exportpackage, and those who fail to lay the groundworkearly will be at a serious competitive disadvantage.Overarching all of this is the fact that “sustainability”—howeveryou define that word—is becomingembedded in how we think about our world. Nowhereis this truer than in the case of the built environment.Political shifts may alter the priorities, and may eventemporarily suppress the sustainability movement insome countries.Humankind, however, is not going to back awayfrom a fundamental concern for the environment, orfail to do whatever is necessary to solve, or at leastredress, critical environmental problems like climatechange. Our future, and the future of our children,must rest on a firm and stable tripod of economic,social, and environmental consciousness.28 building design & construction ▪ november 2005 ▪ www.bdcnetwork.com

dc0511WP_Ads.qxd 10/31/2005 10:56 AM Page 9ADVERTISEMENTLife-cycle assessments have been used for decades to help manufacturers increase production efficiency. Today,they are finding broader application – for example, helping to improve our understanding of green building.Two major life-cycle studies of vinyl and competing materials were released in the past 16 months. The U.S. GreenBuilding Council's PVC Task Group used LCA, along with risk assessment, to evaluate the health and environmentalimpacts of vinyl and major competing materials in four building applications – drain/waste/vent pipe, siding, windowsand flooring. The Task Group spent two years sifting through some 2,500 studies and reports to determinewhether USGBC's LEED green-building rating system should include a credit to discourage the use of vinyl.The Task Group’s draft report, released in December 2004, concluded that current knowledge “does not support acredit in the LEED rating system for eliminating PVC or any particular material.” Credits to discourage the use ofspecific materials are “unnecessarily blunt instruments,” and a credit against vinyl “could steer designers to use materialswhich performed worse over their life cycles with respect to the bulk of the impact categories,” according to thedraft report.Similarly, a comprehensive review published in July 2004 by the European Commission of more than 200 LCArelateddocuments on PVC found vinyl can offer environmental benefits equal to or better than those of other materialsin many applications.These LCAs offer important insights into how to make environmentally sound decisions about building products:● All products have environmental impacts; the “greenness” of a product depends on what it is being compared to.● The health and environmental impact of a material depends significantly on the specific application (product).● A long-lasting product will have an entirely different life-cycle profile than a product with a shorter life span. Theuse phase will dominate in the long-lasting product.● Product design is more important than material selection.LCA is not a perfect tool. Data gaps can exist. But, as the PVC Task Group pointed out in a memo on the PVCreview process (Aug. 25, 2005), comprehensiveness and quantitative analysis are key to evaluating health and environmentalimpacts. LCA (and risk assessment) help yield comprehensive, quantitative results.Tim BurnsPresidentThe Vinyl Institutewww.vinylbydesign.com

dc0511wp_cert.qxd 10/31/2005 10:57 AM Page 30progress report on life cycle assessmentThe Role of Life Cycle Assessmentin Sustainable Product CertificationBy Kirsten Ritchie, PEKirsten Ritchie is director ofthe SCS Environmental ClaimsCertification Program, thenation’s first scientific program forindependently verifying the accuracyof environmental claims ofproducts, at ScientificCertification Systems, Emeryville,Calif. She serves as leadresearcher and developer of environmentallypreferable productspecifications for SCS, chairs theASTM Task Force onEnvironmentally PreferableProducts, and is vice chair of theU.S. Green Building Council’sMaterial and Resources TechnicalAdvisory Group. A licensed civilengineer with more than 20 years’experience, Ritchie holds a BS incivil engineering from theUniversity of California, Berkeley,and an MS in civil engineeringfrom California State University,San Jose.Product certification programs—with their necessarypartner, voluntary consensus standards—are akey component in the design and construction ofbuildings. The work of today’s architects, engineers,and contractors has been streamlined significantly byindependent standards and certification programs,such as Underwriters Laboratories’ electrical and safetystandards, NSF International’s drinking water pipingand filtration programs, and ASTM’s performanceand grading systems for steel, wood, and cement.While providing practical, easy-to-specify tools forbuilding professionals, these standards and certificationprograms also give product designers and manufacturerssomething of a road map for the designprocess. They know what targets are expected ofthem—how much weight an I-beam must support orhow much heat a carpet must withstand before itmelts.While we have come a long way in developingassessment systems for product performance andsafety, there is still much to be done to drive the developmentand use of products that can be consideredsustainable or environmentally preferable. To date, wehave focused on those particular environmental attributeswhich we believe to be of importance—for example,wood that comes from well-managed forests,energy derived from renewable resources, and productsmade from post-consumer recycled materials.But have the criteria and standards that serve ascornerstones of these “green” product certificationprograms kept up with the latest advances in ourunderstanding of the environmental impacts? Arethey providing the right road map to product designersand manufacturers to deliver environmentallypreferable and sustainable products to the marketplace,as well as to enable Building Teams to designand construct more sustainable buildings?LCA—A Scientific Approachto Environmental Impact/Benefit AnalysisThe missing link in understanding the actual ratherthan the perceived environmental benefits from specificactions is a rigorous quantitative analysis for thesystems of concern. Typically, the environmentalimpacts associated with a specific industrial systemhave to do with either the consumption of resourcesnecessary to run the system (raw materials, land, andenergy) or the release of pollution created by the system(air emissions, water effluents, and solid wastes).Common sense tells us that there should be some wayto measure all these parameters to see if proposedchanges in the system, such as requiring the use ofmore renewable energy, recycled content materials, ornoncarcinogenic chemicals, actually provide the benefitssought.Life cycle analysis, standardized in the ISO 14040series, begins to satisfy this need. LCA is, by design, asystem-based data integration and analysis approach.It is a quantitative analysis that measures energy use,raw materials consumption, air emissions, water effluents,and solid wastes along the entire life cycle of aproduction system, from the initial extraction of naturalresources to the final disposal of wastes. Thus,LCA methods can be used to allow users to see whereenvironmental burdens are high, and if proposed solutionsprovide real reductions.As the basis for determining “greenness,” LCA hasstrong support internationally from a wide range ofinterest groups: the UN Office of Environmental andCommunity Development, the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, the U.S. Department of Energy’sNational Renewable Energy Laboratory, the SwedishEnvironmental Management Agency, the CanadianElectricity Association, the National Institute ofStandards & Technology, and the Associated PlasticsManufacturers of Europe, to name a few.Interest in LCA runs high for a variety of reasons.When considering just the context of driving environmentalimprovement, facilitating product certification,and conforming to the rules of internationalcommerce, LCA satisfies several key objectives,because it is:● Technology neutral—All forms of productioncan be evaluated equally on a factual, scientific basiswith available data rather than relying on assumptionsof inherent “greenness” derived from valuebasedjudgments.● Transparent—Assumptions and methods areopen for all to see.● Flexible—The analysis avoids prescriptive meas-30 building design & construction ▪ november 2005 ▪ www.bdcnetwork.com

dc0511wp_cert.qxd 10/31/2005 10:57 AM Page 31progress report on life cycle assessmentures while providing maximum flexibility to determinewhich improvements should be made based on productionexpertise, site location, and business realities.● Nonproprietary—The methodology can beapplied by any competent researcher, policy analyst,or certification practitioner.● Thorough—The process can address the fullspectrum of relevant environmental impacts: resourcedepletion, ecosystem disruption, greenhouse gasemissions, stratospheric ozone depletion, toxic watereffluents, etc.● Actionable—Once a mechanism is in place tomeasure an activity, such as greenhouse gas emissionsor embodied energy, it is now possible to both managethe activity and improve it.Without a doubt, the main advantage of LCA is inenabling informed decision making with scientificdata and competence. However, LCA in and of itselfdoes not tell manufacturers where to make changes orimprovements, nor does it inform Building Teams asto what they should specify to produce buildings ofsuperior environmental performance. For that wemust take the next step: establishing what is importantand quantifying the performance levels expected.From LCA to Product CertificationThe overall consensus goals for environmental declarationsand product certification are:1) To communicate comprehensive, verifiable, andaccurate information—data that is not misleading inany way—regarding the environmental aspects ofproducts and services.2) To encourage the demand for and supply ofproducts and services that produce less stress on theenvironment.3) To stimulate the potential for market-driven,continuous environmental improvement.Clearly, LCA can and should play a central role asthe methodology of choice in supporting the claimsthat are made. However, it is important to recognizethe different degrees and associated nuances thatexist in the world of environmental labeling and productcertification.According to the standards of the ISO 14020series, environmental labels and declarations aredivided into three principal types:● ISO 14024, Type I environmental labeling–Principles and procedures● ISO 14021, Self-declared environmental claims(Type II environmental labeling)● ISO/TR 14025, Type III environmental declarationsType I Certified Products (Seal of Approval)Type I describes environmental labeling programswhich award their environmental label to productsthat meet a set of predetermined requirements. Thestandard provides a mechanism by which a third partycan authorize the use of environmental labels on productsindicating overall environmental preferability of aproduct within a particular product category based onlife cycle considerations. The standard requires theuse of multiple criteria in the assessment. A Type Ilabel cannot be awarded on the basis of a single attribute,such as recycled content or energy efficiency.ISO 14024 establishes the principles and proceduresfor developing Type I environmental labelingprograms, including the selection of product categories,product environmental criteria, and productfunction characteristics, and for assessing anddemonstrating compliance. The standard requires thelife cycle stages to be taken into account when developingthe product environmental criteria to include:extraction of resources, manufacturing, distribution,use, and disposal relating to relevant cross-mediaenvironmental indicators. Any departure from thiscomprehensive approach or selective use of restrictedenvironmental issues must be justified. In addition,the development and selection of criteria must bebased on sound scientific and engineering principles.Clearly, these requirements speak loudly to the useof LCA. While a product-specific LCA is notrequired to award a Type I label, obviously the LCAmethodology can and should be used, if for no otherpurpose than to understand the overall impacts of theproduct category and to discern those key pointswhere performance differentials between productscan be established. Three leading Type 1 labeling andcertification programs—Scientific CertificationSystem’s Environmentally Preferable Product program,Australia’s Environmental Choice program,and the Scandinavian Nordic Cross program—alltake this approach.Type II Certified Products (Single-Attribute Claims)Type II labeling typically consists of self-declaredenvironmental claims made by manufacturers,importers, distributors, retailers, or others likely tobenefit from such claims. Conformance with ISO14021 requires that self-declared environmentalclaims can only be considered verifiable if such verificationcan be made without access to confidentialbusiness information. As a result of this requirement,companies are turning to second- and third-partyproduct certification bodies to independently verifywww.bdcnetwork.com ▪ november 2005 ▪ building design & construction 31

dc0511wp_cert.qxd 10/31/2005 10:57 AM Page 32progress report on life cycle assessmentthe claims. By doing so, the manufacturer can protectconfidential business information that is required tosupport the claim, while giving the public confidenceas to the validity of the claim, including the scientificallysound and documented nature of the supportingcriteria and data.Type II environmental claims made with regard toproducts may take the form of statements, symbols, orgraphics on product or package labels, product literature,technical bulletins, advertising, publicity, telemarketing,or the Internet. These environmentalclaims and any explanatory statements are subject toall requirements laid out in ISO 14021. Such claimsmust be:● accurate and not misleading● substantiated and verified● relevant to the particular product, and used onlyin an appropriate context or setting● presented in a manner that clearly indicatesLCA will, where practical, be a cornerstone of certification assessmentprograms. Although there continue to be areas where LCA is more anart form than a science—for example, in the assessment of a product’stoxicity profile or land-use impact—LCA has come a long way in thelast 20 years. We can feel confident about its ability to guide us inmaking correct choices when it comes to the consumption of energyresources, global warming, and ozone depletion.whether the claim applies to the complete product,only to a component or packaging, or to an element ofa service● specific as to the environmental aspect or environmentalimprovement that is claimed.Among the claims that can be made for the productunder this program are the following:● “Compostable”● “Degradable”● “Designed for disassembly”● “Extended life product”● “Recovered energy”● “Recyclable”● “Recycled content” (including pre-consumer,post-consumer, and recycled material)● “Recovered (reclaimed) material”● “Reduced energy consumption”● “Reduced resource use”● “Reduced water consumption”● “Reusable”● “Refillable”● “Waste reduction”Product certification programs currently in placethat reflect Type II labeling scenarios include theSCS recycled content certification program, theCarpet and Rug Institute Green Label and GreenLabel Plus program, the U.S. EPA’s Energy Star program,and the Resilient Floor Covering Institute’sFloorScore program.While these types of claims tend to be the mostprevalent in the marketplace, they have the leastdirect linkage to LCA. Consequently, we must be vigilantin verifying that the claims being made do indeedlead to reduced environmental impact, or even toenvironmental improvement.Type III Certified Products (EcoProfiles andEnvironmental Declarations)Without a doubt, Type III environmental declarationsrepresent the closest alignment of LCA andproduct claims. ISO 14025, which describes therequirements for preparing a Type III label (in conjunctionwith draft standard ISO/DIS 21930 regardingthe environmental declaration of building products),requires declarations based on life cycle assessmentas described in the ISO 14040 series and onenvironmental declaration principles as described inISO 14020.A Type III environmental declaration is describedas quantified environmental life cycle product informationthat: 1) is provided by a supplier, 2) is basedon independent (i.e., third-party) verification, 3)offers systematic data, and 4) is presented as a set ofcategories for a sector group. Type III environmentaldeclarations must be nonselective but must presentthe information in a format that facilitates comparisonbetween products.In preparing a Type III certification, the followingmust be declared:● Methods of data collection and assessment,including the role of values and subjectivity, oftenreferred to as “value choices”● The choice of life cycle inventory analysis (LCI)data categories and life cycle impact assessment(LCIA) impact categories● The means of ensuring quality of environmentalinformation in terms of relevance, accuracy, anduncertainty● The means of ensuring that environmental informationis relevant and not misleading● The means of communicating with purchasers32 building design & construction ▪ november 2005 ▪ www.bdcnetwork.com

dc0511wp_cert.qxd 10/31/2005 10:57 AM Page 33progress report on life cycle assessmentADVERTISEMENTand potential purchasers in an accurateand not misleading way● Ensuring international compatibility,maximum comparability, and the use ofsufficiently specific product information.SCS and the United Kingdom’sBuilding Research Establishment (BRE)Certification Ltd. are considered to beleaders in Type III product certification.This field of product certification is continuingto evolve, driven by the need tocontinually refine the assessmentmethodology while expanding the scopeof assessment—for example, into issuesof human toxicity and land-use impacts.Type III environmental declarationsare considerably more complex anddetailed in their disclosure than Type I orType II labels. In general, Type III labelsare intended to provide detailed informationabout the product (think nutritionallabel on a bag of potato chips). It is thenup to the user to undertake a comparativeanalysis to determine whether Product Aor Product B is better for the particularapplication under consideration.However, both SCS and BRE recognizethat users often want an additionalevaluation metric—for example, a comparisonof the product or service to a recognizedbaseline. In that case, the certificationlabel may be able to provide datain both quantified form (for example,“tons of CO 2 emissions for greenhousegas loadings”) as well as comparative form(“Is the quantity of greenhouse gas emittedhigh or low for this product category?”).In addition to SCS and BRE, theSwedish Environmental ManagementCouncil, through its support of theGlobal Environmental Declaration (gednet)program, and NIST, with its developmentand support of the Building forEnvironmental and EconomicSustainability (BEES) program, are alsokey players in the development of environmentalproduct declarations. Whileneither of these organizations issuesproduct certifications, the methodologies,research, and data resources theyprovide are invaluable to the progress ofenvironmental product declarations.Scientific Fact Versus Subjective ValueThe main advantage of LCA is in supportingdecision making with scientificdata and competence, thereby distinguishingas much as possible betweenscientific facts and subjective values. Inthis context, its ambition is very close tothe mandate of product certificationorganizations, whose mission is to balancescience, cost effectiveness, and clarityof product claims.It remains to be seen how the buildingproduct industry and the design andconstruction market will respond to thevarious environmental labeling and certificationoptions now available tothem. The success of such certificationmarks as the UL label would lead to theassumption that a Type I “seal ofapproval” labeling scheme has thegreatest market opportunity. However,with the growing familiarity of Type IIIlabels, such as nutritional labels onfood packages, it is possible that theycould become the mainstream.Regardless of the labeling type, LCAwill, where practical, be a cornerstone ofcertification assessment programs.Although there continue to be areaswhere LCA is more an art form than ascience—for example, in the assessmentof a product’s toxicity profile or land-useimpact—LCA has come a long way in thelast 20 years. We can feel confident aboutits ability to guide us in making correctchoices when it comes to the consumptionof energy resources, global warming,and ozone depletion.GSA’s Public Building Service iscommitted to incorporating principles ofsustainable design and energy efficiency intoall of our building projects. The result is anoptimal balance of cost, environmental,societal and human benefits that supportsour mission of providing a superiorworkplace for the federal worker andsuperior value for the American taxpayer.To help apply principles of greenbuilding, and as a means of evaluatingand measuring our achievements, GSArequires LEED certification for all newbuildings and major renovations. We strivefor the silver level.As the first federal agency to join theU.S. Green Building Council, the creatorsof LEED, we are committed to creatingsuperior workplaces that reduce negativeimpacts on the environment, whileenhancing the health and comfort of thebuilding occupants. Already ten GSAprojects have attained LEED ratings (3gold, 3 silver and 4 certified) and fifty otherprojects are registered.You can learn more by visiting us atwww.gsa.gov.David L. WinsteadCommissionerPublic Buildings ServiceU.S. General Services Administrationwww.bdcnetwork.com ▪ november 2005 ▪ building design & construction 33

dc0511wp_specs.qxd 10/31/2005 11:03 AM Page 34progress report on life cycle assessmentApplying a Life Cycle Perspective toFederal Construction SpecificationsBy Alison Kinn BennettAlison Kinn Bennett is on thestaff of the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency’sEnvironmentally PreferablePurchasing Program, inWashington, D.C. In 2003, shecompleted an assignment in theOffice of the Federal EnvironmentalExecutive that resulted in the publicationof “The Federal Commitmentto Green Building: Experiences andExpectations.” She co-chairs theEPA Green Building Workgroupand is the Federal Liaison to theNational Capital Region chapter ofthe USGBC. She holds a BA inpolitical science and geography fromthe University of California atBerkeley and a master’s in urbanand environmental planning fromthe University of Virginia School ofArchitecture.1The Federal Green ConstructionGuide for Specifiers may be found onthe Whole Building Design Guide at:http://fedgreenspecs.wbdg.org.2Refer to ASTM’s website at:www.astm.org/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/DATABASE.CART/REDLINE_PAGES/E2129.htm?E+mystoreWhile life cycle assessment is applicable to thedesign process primarily by informing design decisions,the construction specifier’s role is crucial indelineating the specific, enforceable submittal andenvironmental performance requirements for the contractor.To do so, specifiers need accurate and meaningfulinformation about the life cycle impacts ofproducts and services.There is disagreement, however, on the most effectiveway to take this information and apply a life cycleperspective to purchasing. To some, a thorough,methodical analysis is indispensable, no matter howtime-consuming and expensive it may be. To others, anabbreviated life cycle process, in which a long list ofpotential environmental attributes or impacts (or both)is narrowed to a few, allowing for comparison across aproduct or service category, would be preferable.Ideally, specifiers would have all the necessary dataand easy-to-use tools to make scientifically defensiblepurchasing decisions based on LCA methodologies.However, LCA is an evolving science with significantdata gaps and limited tools. Given these currentrealities, the EPA-sponsored “Federal GreenConstruction Guide for Specifiers” promotes LCAin construction projects “to the greatest extent possible”and provides guidance for collecting and utilizingenvironmental and health impact data whereavailable. 1The Federal Guide encompasses more than 60 sections,organized according to the Construction SpecificationsInstitute’s MasterFormat. It is a voluntarytool providing multiple performance-based optionsthat allow for flexibility in application. It containssample language intended to be inserted into projectspecifications as appropriate to the owner’s environmentalgoals. In addition, through a number of notes,the Federal Guide educates specifiers about life cycleimpact issues, federal environmental mandates, andhelpful resources on green building.The Federal Guide’s key contribution with regard toLCA is in its identification of submittal requirementsfor the collection of life cycle-based environmental performancedata. Specifically, in Section 01611—Environmental Requirements for Products, model languageis presented for requiring product and serviceproviders to submit data via an ASTM standard questionnaire,an expanded Material Safety Data Sheet, oran acceptable LCA methodology.ASTM E2129-05, “Standard Practice for DataCollection for Sustainability Assessment of BuildingProducts,” includes a 10-page survey of general andproduct-specific questions covering the five categories:1) materials (product feedstock); 2) the manufacturingprocess; 3) the operational performance ofthe installed product; 4) the impact of the buildingproduct on indoor environmental quality; and 5) thecorporate environmental policy of the company manufacturingor fabricating the building product. Byrequiring contractors to solicit these survey responsesfrom product manufacturers or suppliers (or both),specifiers can gain access to useful information thatwill assist them in making environmentally preferablepurchasing decisions. 2Similarly, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs)Toxicological informationEcological informationDisposal considerationsTransportation informationRegulatory informationOther informationIdentify acute data, carcinogenicity, reproductive effects, and target organ effects. Provide a written descriptionof the process used in evaluating chemical hazards in the preparation of the MSDS.Include data regarding environmental impacts during the acquisition of raw materials, manufacture, and use.Include data regarding environmental impacts in the event of an accidental release.Include data regarding the proper disposal of chemicals. Include information regarding recycling and reuse.Indicate whether or not the product is considered to be “hazardous waste” under the US EPA Hazardous WasteRegulations 40 CFR 261.Identify hazard class for shipping.Identify federal, state, and local regulations applicable to the material.Include additional information relative to recycled content, biobased content, and other information regardingenvironmental and health impacts, and give the date MSDS was prepared.34 building design & construction ▪ november 2005 ▪ www.bdcnetwork.com

dc0511wp_specs.qxd 10/31/2005 11:03 AM Page 35progress report on life cycle assessmentcan be a gold mine of environmental and healthimpact information. An MSDS is required by theOccupational Safety & Health Administration toinclude informationsuch as the physicaland chemical characteristicsand hazardsof hazardouschemicals in theproduct, includinghealth hazards andthe potential forfire, explosion, andreactivity; precautionsfor safe handlingand use; andemergency and firstaid procedures. 3Building on these required elements, the AmericanNational Standards Institute has developed a standardformat (ANSI Z400.1) that includes six additionaltopics that may be useful for gaining a broader environmentalperspective on products. This expandedMSDS is required in a number of other countries;thus, many manufacturers doing business outside theU.S. may already have the information. The FederalGuide includes model language for requesting productmanufacturers to submit information in theseadditional areas (see table).Finally, the Federal Guide provides model languageintended to assist agencies in applying LCA methodologiesto the greatest extent possible. In doing so, theFederal Guide delineates various options for developingacceptable LCA data for submittal. Optionsinclude the following:● ASTM E1991: Standard Guide for EnvironmentalLife Cycle Assessment of Building Materials/Products● ISO 14040: Environmental Management—Life-Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework● BEES● Other per agency policy or project goals (or both).On a higher level, these submittal requirements,as well as those identified in Technical Sections 2-16, are useful beyond the task of product selection.First, the documentation serves to verify and recordcompliance with specified constructionprocedures—which is of key importance to federalagencies in meeting their responsibilities underEPA’s Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines,USDA’s Biobased Purchasing Guidelines, theUSGBC’s LEED rating system, and various“Greening of Government” executive orders.More importantly, by actively seeking and consideringlife cycle information, the federal governmentBy actively seeking and considering life cycle information, thefederal government can send a clear signal that its business will goto those who most thoroughly address their product’senvironmental impacts. Thus, federal specifications are not onlycritical to furthering the science of LCA but also to fosteringcompetition and encouraging a market-driven approach tocontinued improvement of environmental performance.can send a clear signal that its business will go tothose who most thoroughly address their product’senvironmental impacts. Thus, federal specificationsare not only critical to furthering the science ofLCA but also to fostering competition and encouraginga market-driven approach to continuedimprovement of environmental performance.3MSDSs are required under OSHAHazard Communication Standard1910.12001.Selecting Environmentally Preferable ProductsUnder Executive Order 13101, EPA issued Final Guidance on EnvironmentallyPreferable Purchasing for federal agencies in 1999. Seewww.epa.gov/oppt/epp/guidance/finalguidancetoc.htm.In the third guiding principle, EPA encourages purchasers to select products andservices with as few adverse environmental impacts in as many life cycle stages aspossible. A product’s life cycle includes activities associated with raw material acquisition,manufacturing, packaging, transportation, product use, and ultimate disposal.When examining the life cycle of a service, particular emphasis should be placed onthe use phase of the products required to provide the service, although the entire lifecycle of the products being used should be examined carefully. To determine environmentalpreferability, EPA suggests that purchasers compare the severity of environmentalimpacts throughout the life cycle of the product or service with those of competingproducts and services.Environmental preferability should also reflect the consideration of multiple environmentalattributes, such as increased energy efficiency, reduced toxicity, or reducedimpacts on fragile ecosystems at each phase in the life cycle. Although the determinationof environmental preferability should be based on multiple environmental attributesexamined from a life cycle perspective, purchasing decisions can be made based on asingle environmental attribute such as recycled content or energy efficiency when thatattribute is the strongest distinguishing characteristic of a product or service’s environmentalpreferability.For more about the EPA Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program’s tools andguidance, see www.epa.gov/oppt/epp.www.bdcnetwork.com ▪ november 2005 ▪ building design & construction 35

dc0511wp_grave.qxd 10/31/2005 11:04 AM Page 36progress report on life cycle assessmentLCA’s Role in the Manufacture ofConstruction Materials By Stanley P. GravelineStanley P. Graveline is vice presidentfor technical services atSarnafil Inc., a roofing manufacturerin Canton, Mass. He holds abachelor’s in chemical engineeringfrom the University of Ottawa andis registered as a professional engineerin Ontario. A veteran of 20years in the roofing industry, he issecretary of the board of the CoolRoof Rating Council, director ofthe North East Roofing ContractorsAssociation, and a member of theRoofing Consultants Institute.1Public Review Draft Approved forRelease by TSAC, December 17,2004: Assessment of Technical Basisfor a PVC-Related Material Credit inLEED, LEED Technical andScientific Advisory Committee, U.S.Green Building Council,Washington, D.C.2Ecological and Economical BalanceAssessment of US Flat RoofingSystems, Carbotech AG, Basel,Switz., 2004.3Life Cycle Assessment of PVC and ofPrincipal Competing Materials, April2004. PE Europe GmbH, IKPUniversität Stuttgart, IPU DTU,Randa Group.It is estimated that the construction industry consumesabout 40% of all raw materials and energy,making it the largest single user of these preciousresources. All stakeholders in the building segmentrecognize the need to move toward more ecologicaldesigns, installations, and materials.There are challenges, not the least of which is decidingwhich products and materials are environmentallypreferable. In the early days of ecological awareness,many manufacturers simply labeled their products as“green,” often with little or no basis for the designation.Clearly, these efforts were being driven by their marketingdepartments, not their technical groups.A variety of certification programs have evolved,some developed by the suppliers themselves, some bythird-party organizations; often these certificationsand designations focus on single issues, such as recycledcontent or impact on indoor air quality. The U.S.Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy andEnvironmental Design rating program has moved theindustry a major step forward. Although the numberof LEED-certified buildings is still small, theUSGBC’s meteoric growth and the tremendous marketawareness of LEED clearly demonstrate a stronginterest in sustainable building practices. But, evenLEED provides few specific guidelines for selectingthe most environmentally preferable products.Thus, the basic challenge remains: how best toassess the environmental profile of a material or productin a comprehensive, transparent manner. Evenmore importantly, how can this be accomplished in away that provides useful information upon whicharchitects, engineers, building owners, and contractorscan base their material choices?Life cycle assessment may just be the solution. AnLCA provides a methodology for studying a productfrom the harvesting of the raw materials, through production,use (and reuse), to the end of the product’sservice life. It can be applied to both individual materialsand complete assemblies. The assessments arebased on scientific analysis with quantifiable outputswhich clearly allow for comparisons among variousalternative solutions for a given application. Given thatISO standards governing how LCAs should be conductedalready exist, and with sustainability rapidlybecoming a key design tenet in many AEC firms, all theelements are in place for LCA to become the environmentalassessment tool for the construction industry.LCA in the Construction IndustryAlthough LCA has been around for decades, its usein the construction industry has been very limited. Acomprehensive literature search located only a fewEuropean reports—and not a single North Americanreference—to LCA analysis of commercial roofingmaterials or systems. Although LCA was one of twobases of analysis of competing materials within theLEED Technical Science and Advisory Committee’srecent study of a PVC-based credit in LEED, lessthan 2% of the documents submitted for considerationwere “comparative LCA” related. 1Why such a shortage of readily available information?A simplistic answer may be a lack of demand.Conducting even a modest LCA is not inexpensive,especially when an outside consultant is used.Without any regulatory requirement or marketdemand, why would anybody invest the time andmoney required to conduct an LCA?Building material manufacturers might do so if:● They perceive an imminent threat to their product,such as potential legislation, and are looking toaddress the issue before someone else does.● They wish to benchmark their product againstother similar materials or against competing technologies.Such an exercise might serve as a basis for modifyingor improving specific elements of their product,such as reducing the amount of nonrenewableresources used to produce it, increasing recycled content,producing it more efficiently, or improving productdurability and consequently life expectancy.● They see conducting LCAs on their products andsystems every few years as an integral part of the company’scontinuous improvement program. Dependingon the goals of such a corporately funded LCA, acompany may or may not make the results public. Insome instances, the improvements over a previousgeneration of product may be the basis for a marketingcampaign. In others, highlighting a weakness inthe product, even if it is being improved upon, issomething many companies would rather avoid, particularlywith regard to environmental issues.The most likely justification a company would havefor investing in a publicly released LCA would be toshow their product is superior to others with regard to36 building design & construction ▪ november 2005 ▪ www.bdcnetwork.com

dc0511wp_grave.qxd 10/31/2005 11:05 AM Page 37progress report on life cycle assessmentone or more environmental assessment parameters.Building Teams would benefit from this information,since it would help them identify products with lowerenvironmental impacts.Although there has been limited demand from themarketplace for such assessments, leading-edge materialsuppliers could gain a competitive advantage conductingsuch studies and disseminating the results.Any attempt to do so, however, would require overcominga number of obstacles. The following highlightssome of the challenges experienced conductinga comparative life cycle assessment of various commercialroofing products by the Swiss consulting companyCarbotech AG. 2Scoping: Is it a Material or a System?The challenges begin with the definition of thescope of the LCA. The simplest form of an LCAwould involve the assessment of the production of asingle component. Most manufacturers are likely tohave good data on this and could produce a highlyaccurate assessment. However, most building productsrepresent a single component or material whichis integrated into a complete assembly on the constructionsite—for example, a wall assembly might beconstructed of bricks, insulation, air barrier, throughwallflashing, and other components, all of which arecritical to the long-term performance of the wall unit.Therefore, studying a single material in isolation,and limiting the scope of the analysis to the productionstage, is not likely to provide meaningful information.In a review of 100 LCAs for the EuropeanCommission, it was noted that LCA comparisons performedat a material level often provide misleadingresults: environmental impacts during use and afterend of life are often more important than those relatedto material production. 3In many construction systems the performance ofone component is often highly dependent upon theperformance of other components. For example, in alow-slope roof, the durability and effectiveness of theinsulation will depend largely on the performance andlife expectancy of the membrane covering it, while themembrane’s service life can depend largely on thedimensional stability and cohesive strength of thethermal insulation. That’s why it is important to studycomplete systems.In some cases, the impacts related to a secondarycomponent are greater than those of the materialunder study. In the Carbotech study, for example, theobjective was to identify the optimal membranechoice from among four membrane types. The samethermal insulation type and thickness were used infour of the assemblies. An additional system incorporatinga second type of insulation (same R value), withthe first membrane, was also studied. As Figure 1shows, the thermal insulation has a greater impact onphotochemical smog than any of the membranes.Clearly, the impacts of all construction materialswhich make up a given system need to be consideredin an analysis, ideally from “cradle to grave.”Conducting an analysis based on an entire buildingsystem requires sourcing data from a variety of componentsuppliers in addition to generating the data fora company’s specific product. Typically, sourcing suchdata is not overly difficult, providing the various vendorsare not competitors. Manufacturers supplyingcomplete systems or assemblies incorporating a numberof private label components are typically able toaccess the required information from vendor partners.Most design and construction professionals areunfamiliar with life cycle impact categories, such asthose defined in the U.S. EPA’s Tool for theReduction and Assessment of Chemical and OtherEnvironmental Impacts (TRACI). It will take sometime for global warming (kg CO 2 equivalent), acidification(kg SO 2 equivalent), nonrenewable primaryenergy (MJ), photochemical smog (ethylene equivalents),and eutrophication to work their way into theconstruction industry’s vernacular.Life Cycle Inventory DataConducting an LCA of numerous competitive syswww.bdcnetwork.com▪ november 2005 ▪ building design & construction 37

dc0511wp_grave.qxd 10/31/2005 11:05 AM Page 38progress report on life cycle assessment4Ageing and Hail Research of PVCMembranes, F.J. Foley, J.D. Koontz,J.K. Valatis, 12th InternationalRoofing and WaterproofingConference, 2002.5Comparative Testing and Rating ofThirteen Thermoplastic Single-PlyRoofing Membranes, C.G. Cash,from Durability of BuildingMaterials & Components, Volume 2,National Research Council Canada,1999.tems presents significant issues. Although a manufacturermay have good data on its own product and maybe able to acquire data on system components frompartner vendors, getting the same information fromcompetitors can be quite difficult, to say the least.Life cycle inventory databases do exist, but they arelimited. Of all the documents submitted to theUSGBC TSAC, less than 0.5% provided LCI informationor data. Public databases depend on manufacturerssupplying the data, but most manufacturersconsider this information proprietary. They are concernedabout confidentiality, misuse of data, andexposing the strengths or weaknesses of their manufacturingprocesses. Industry associations might helpfill this gap by working with their members to generateindustry segment data for distribution to credibleLCI databases. This could insure databases are populatedwith accurate, representative data withoutexposing company-specific information.For NIST’s BEES LCI database, data on roofingmaterials is limited to residential products such asshingles, which makes it unsuitable for commercialapplications.Where data is available for a given product or system,such as in BEES (or Canada’s AthenaSustainable Materials Institute’s database, which doescontain information on commercial roofing products),it must be asked how representative the data is for allthe products within a given generic category—forexample, vinyl membranes, polyisocyanurate insulation,bituminous air barriers, etc. In all likelihood acomparative analysis of the mass and energy balancesused to quantify the various impacts associated witheach step in the production of the product wouldreveal that they are quite similar for generically similarproducts from different manufacturers. Within thecontext of the entire assessment any differences arelikely to be small and would not be expected to significantlyaffect the accuracy of the final results.A much more critical variable is life expectancy. Fora building with a 75-year design life, a roof assemblywith a 15-year life expectancy would have to bereplaced five times within that span versus threetimes for a roof with a 25-year service life. This hasobvious implications for the magnitude of each of theimpacts associated with the system. Figure 2 illustratesa sensitivity analysis from the Carbotech study.The “bubbles” indicate the life expectancies assumedfor the various roofing systems based on a variety ofsources. In terms of global warming, the impact ofsystem F06 with a life expectancy of 15 years is roughlyfour times that of system F01 with a life expectancyof 30 years. However, if both are assumed to havea life expectancy of 15 years, the difference in impactdrops to double. As can be seen from the graph, forsystems with more similar levels of impacts, a shift inlife expectancy can reverse the relative positions oftwo alternatives.Different studies of the life expectancy of roofingassemblies (and presumably other construction systems)often present confusing and contradictory data.The statistical rigor with which these studies are carriedout varies tremendously, often offering more anecdotalthan scientific evidence. Even within a givengeneric group, different levels of quality can be discerned.A study of 87 large retail stores across the U.S.,all constructed with the same basic build-up of components,noted significant differences in quality andageing behavior of the products from four different producersof the same generic roof membrane material. 4One entity that conducts life expectancy studies ina rigorous manner is the British Board of Agrément.Traditionally, it provided an estimate of the lifeexpectancy for a specific material being assessed forcertification by having inspectors physically go back toold installations (typically about every five years) andanalyze samples as the materials aged. More recently,the board has been relying on lab assessments to projectlife expectancies for building products. But, as theesteemed roof consultant C.G. Cash has noted, “Theonly rational system for selecting a roofing system isits past performance on the roof, in the same climate38 building design & construction ▪ november 2005 ▪ www.bdcnetwork.com

dc0511wp_grave.qxd 10/31/2005 11:06 AM Page 39progress report on life cycle assessmentas the new project.” 5 Nor is it wise to look to warrantydurations as a proxy for life expectancy data. This isthe worst of all options, as many suppliers offer warrantiesthat are multiples longer than their actual fieldexperience with the product.Energy consumption resulting from the operationof a building generates significant impacts. Buildingenvelope systems will have a major effect on these.This implies that for a comprehensive analysis tooccur, both direct impacts (raw material extraction,production, installation, maintenance, removal, recyclingor disposal) and indirect operational impacts(heating and cooling impacts related to the buildingenvelope system) should be considered. This maynecessitate evaluations for regional climatic conditionsfor companies selling products across the country.As can be seen in Figures 3 and 4 (nonrenewableprimary energy), operational impacts for Boston areabout double those for Los Angeles. The reduction inimpact due to the use of light-colored, highly reflectivemembranes (systems F01, F02 and F03) versusdarker materials (systems F04, F05, F06) is evident,particularly for Los Angeles.More significantly, it was found that the cumulativelife cycle impacts for all components for eachassembly, calculated on an annualized basis overeach system’s life expectancy, were typically only afraction of the operational impacts (see Figure 5 forAustin), reinforcing the need to calculate bothdirect and indirect impacts to get a true and completeassessment of the total impacts.Completing the Life Cycle AssessmentAfter sourcing the available data and making thenecessary assumptions, the life cycle assessment canbe completed using any one of a variety of availablesoftware systems. The question becomes how to presentthe data such that it provides the maximum benefitto the end users. Depending on the number of criteriaconsidered for the assessment, a dozen differentparameters might have to be interpreted if all thoselisted in TRACI are considered. For the Carbotechstudy it was decided to limit the analysis to fourparameters (nonrenewable primary energy, globalwarming, acidification, and photochemical smog).Even this modest number of parameters results in atremendous amount of data to absorb and process.Some experts propose weighting the parameterswww.bdcnetwork.com ▪ november 2005 ▪ building design & construction 39

dc0511wp_grave.qxd 10/31/2005 11:06 AM Page 40progress report on life cycle assessmentand generating a single, all-encompassing impact rating.Although this topic goes beyond the scope of thisarticle, it should be noted that any weighting schemeintroduces bias to some extent. If only aggregateresults are presented, a degree of transparency is lost.Achieving Economic SustainabilityWhile it is safe to assume that most, if not all,stakeholders would like to minimize the environmentalimpacts of the facilities they design and build, notall are willing to pay a significant premium to do so.Any architect, engineer, contractor, or owner’s representativeseeking to drive environmentally preferablematerial or system selection should also strive todemonstrate “economic sustainability” as well.This can be done by also conducting a life cyclecost (LCC) analysis (on an annualized basis), includingoperational costs, in a manner analogous to whatwas done with the life cycle and operational impacts.Combining the total impacts and costs, includingboth life cycle and operational components of each,yields an “eco-efficiency” rating (see Figure 6).Conducting both analyses and combining them providesfor a valuable metric which can be used toestablish what, if any, economic tradeoffs are requiredto achieve the superior ecological performance.Figure 7 illustrates the results for Los Angeles onthe basis of nonrenewable primary energy. In manyinstances (including the case in the Carbotech study),the system generating the lowest total impacts alsogenerates the lowest overall life cycle costs. In light ofboth the impacts and the costs being highly dependenton life expectancy and energy consumption duringthe use phase, this finding is not surprising. However,the cost angle will no doubt be invaluable in making acase for the environmentally preferred option.In conclusion, life cycle assessment clearly has thepotential to be a valuable tool on the road to ever moresustainable construction materials and practices. TheUSGBC’s initiative to include LCA in its LEED programis to be commended and supported. Althoughthe task of doing so is quite daunting, there is no doubtthat when they achieve their goal, they will have raisedthe sustainability movement to a whole new level.Nonetheless, few building product manufacturershave attempted to adopt and use LCA methodology.Without some form of market demand, most companiesare likely to neglect it as long as they can.Moreover, since some products will clearly be shownto have measurably more environmental impact thanothers, the manufacturers of such materials and systemsare not likely to be publishing LCAs or providingdata to LCI databases voluntarily.As the Carbotech study has clearly demonstrated,there are a number of hurdles to overcome in conductingan LCA in the construction materials industry.At this stage of the game, the best anyone can do isclearly document the sources of all information—and,most importantly, provide users with all the assumptionsmade in arriving at the results.Only in doing the assessments can the issues to beaddressed be identified and solutions developed. As inany endeavor, “first movers” will have the steepestlearning curve. However, leading-edge companies willno doubt see the benefits in attempting to apply thesemethods to their product lines, both in terms ofachieving a better understanding of their own systemsand in promoting their ecological and economicalbenefits.40 building design & construction ▪ november 2005 ▪ www.bdcnetwork.com

dc0511WP_Ads.qxd 10/31/2005 11:07 AM Page 14ADVERTISEMENTAre You Prepared to Manage the Complexities of a LEED Project?Site development, water efficiency, energy usage, building materials, interior building systems,construction wastes and increased recycling — you have to manage it all when you are building toachieve LEED ® certification.Sustainability and green building issues are an everyday reality — a part of the design and operationof our built environment. But that doesn’t mean LEED certification for buildings is easy to achieve.LEED certification introduced a new level of construction complexity, which then intensified with theintroduction of LEED 2.0 Gold. Not reaching the ultimate green goal could lead to disputes,professional liability claims, and significant financial losses.There is a lot at stake with a LEED project. A project that doesn’t use CSI Certified Professionals risksfailing to attain certification due to a technical error. You can improve your ability to deliver LEEDprojects on time and on budget, by becoming CSI certified.Start by earning your Construction Documents Technology (CDT) Certificate. With a CDT, you’llbelong to a select and highly respected group of construction professionals known for theircomprehensive knowledge of the writing and management of construction documents. Thendemonstrate your expertise in specifications, contract administration, and product representation withone of the higher level exams.Bottom line — CSI Certification programs give you the ability to manage complex sustainabilitybuilding issues in a highly competitive market. In today’s increasingly competitive environment, you needto stand apart from your competition. Advance to the next level — make sure you are CSI Certified.CSI offers a wide variety of education and training for professional who need to develop and constructsustainable facilities. At the 50th Annual CSI Show & Convention (March 28-April 1, 2006, Las Vegas)and other venues, CSI offers a wide variety of sessions focusing on sustainable issues. Many of ourmembers have earned the designation LEED-AP and consider it an important part of their professionalqualifications. Whether your firm specializes in specifications, contract administration, or productrepresentation, LEED is a real issue, and there’s a CSI certification program tailored for you.Sincerely,Karl. F. Borgstrom, Ph.D.CSI Executive DirectorP.S. CSI Certifications and LEED go hand-in-hand. Projects striving for LEED Certification are trulyhigh performance and need high performance professionals. Visit CSI at Booth #701 at Greenbuild inAtlanta or online at www.csinet.org/certification.

dc0511WP_Leed.qxd 10/31/2005 11:08 AM Page 42progress report on life cycle assessmentUSGBC’s ‘LCA into LEED’ ProjectBy Nigel Howard, C Chem FRSC, and Tom DietscheNigel Howard recentlyassumed the title of chief technicalofficer of the U.S. GreenBuilding Council, based inWashington, D.C. Before joiningthe USGBC in 2001 as vice presidentfor LEED and internationalprograms, he served as director ofthe Centre for SustainableConstruction at the BuildingResearch Establishment (BRE) inthe U.K., where he developed severalassessment tools linked to sustainability,notably BREEAM(the BRE EnvironmentalAssessment Method) and the lifecycle design tool Envest. Earlierin his career, he worked forBritish Gas plc and the formerGreater London Council'sScientific Branch. He graduatedin chemistry from KingstonUniversity, Surrey.Tom Dietsche is program managerfor the USGBC’s Leadershipin Energy and EnvironmentalDesign (LEED) rating system. Hejoined the council as its sixthemployee in March 2001, afterworking on IAQ and energy-efficiencyprograms at theInternational City/CountyManagement Association, assistingthe President’s Council onSustainable Development and theNational Town Meeting for aSustainable America, and consultingfor several architects andlocal governments on buildingmaterials issues. He holds a BAdegree in audio engineering.The U.S. Green Building Council has long recognizedthe value of incorporating LCA-based creditsinto its Leadership in Energy and EnvironmentalDesign (LEED) rating systems, for its potential toholistically assess building materials and assemblies.In order to explore critical issues of LCA methodologyand the practicality of LCA application within the ratingsystem, the LEED Steering Committee commissionedan ad hoc initiative to develop a report of recommendations.The Steering Committee will thendecide how to implement the results of this work, withthe assistance of its technical and product committees.Two characteristics are considered essential forincorporating LCA into LEED:1. The LCA basisof LEED creditsmust provide a levelplaying field based ona consistent methodologyapplied acrossall products and at allstages of their production,transport,use, and disposal orrecycling at end oflife. Current U.S.databases do notnecessarily providedata using consistentmethodology to a consistent scope.2. LCA is inherently complex, and the LCA tooland methods used for LCA-based LEED credits mustbe very practical and intuitive for designers, specifiers,and facilities managers to use at appropriate stages inthe life cycle of buildings.The USGBC introduced the project concept to 120interested stakeholders at a meeting in September2004. More that 60 people volunteered to be part ofworking groups. Volunteers are representatives ofmaterial and product manufacturers (from within theUSGBC membership) and related trade associations;LCA tool and database providers; and relevant LEEDcommittees (the Materials and Resources TechnicalAdvisory Group and the Technical & ScientificAdvisory Committee).Groups A, B, and D have been active since holdingface-to-face meetings in April, and coordinationThe USGBC intends that the “LCA into LEED” project willsignificantly influence related industry. Materials and productsuppliers will be motivated to generate consistent data across alevel playing field. Tool and database providers will be motivatedto generate practical tools and methods that make this dataaccessible to LEED clients. LEED clients will be motivated touse these tools and methods to design and construct locationappropriatebuildings that exhibit low environmental impact.between groups is occurring on an as-needed basis.Their work products will inform subsequent groups.Cross-pollination will continue to ensure that issuesare coordinated between the theoretical, methodological,and practical perspectives.Working Group A has determined that LCA is primarilyrelevant to EA (Energy & Atmosphere) andMR (Materials & Resources) credits, excluding managementand planning activities. Some water and sitecredits might also be amenable to LCA, but are problematicfor data or other reasons and thus will bedeferred. At this time, LCA is not able to addressindoor environmental quality. Several approaches areon the table with regard to scope, including the rankingof building assemblies; LCA used during thedesign phase; and LCA at the building level, relativeto a benchmark of common building performance.Working Group B has decided to use ISO’s LCAstandard as a framework and refine the details asnecessary for the building’s context. Progress hasbeen made regarding inventory allocation and inventoryanalysis (i.e., cut-off criteria for small quantitiesor impacts), impact assessment, normalization, andcomparison of existing standards of LCA methodologyand databases (ISO, ASTM, US LCI database,and TRACI).Recommendations for implementation withinLEED credits are scheduled to be developed duringthe third quarter of 2006, although as a project of thismagnitude evolves there may be need to modify thework program and the proposed schedule.Meanwhile, it is envisaged that a series of reports will42 building design & construction ▪ november 2005 ▪ www.bdcnetwork.com

dc0511WP_Leed.qxd 10/31/2005 11:08 AM Page 43progress report on life cycle assessmentbe prepared to document progress as each task iscompleted. This will provide an evolving source ofinformation as the methodology, data, tools, andmethods all come together.The USGBC intends that the “LCA into LEED”project will significantly influence related industry.Materials and product suppliers will be motivated togenerate consistent data across a level playing field.Tool and database providers will be motivated to generatepractical tools and methods that make this dataaccessible to LEED clients. LEED clients will bemotivated to use these tools and methods to designand construct location-appropriate buildings thatexhibit low environmental impact.The accompanying chart describes the tasksassigned to the six Working Groups, which have beenasked to utilize existing standards, methods, and toolsto the greatest extent possible.ADVERTISEMENTBuildingGreen is committed to providingdependable and timely information to helpbuilding and design professionals improvethe environmental performance of buildingsand surrounding landscapes.We provide both print and electronicresources written to help design and constructbuildings using an integrated, wholesystemsapproach that minimizes environmentalimpact and maximizes economicperformance.We believe that…● Energy-efficient, healthy, environmentallysound commercial and residentialbuildings are not only possible but alsopractical and cost-effective.● Every new construction and renovationproject should maximize its value to theowner, occupants, neighbors, and theentire global community.● Reliable, objective information is essentialfor making good decisions throughout theprocess of designing, constructing, andoccupying buildings.● Our customers expect and deservecomprehensive research, honest reporting,and well-organized information,outstanding value, and excellent service.BuildingGreen Inc.122 Birge Street – Ste 30Brattleboro, VT 05301802/257-7300www.BuildingGreen.comwww.bdcnetwork.com ▪ november 2005 ▪ building design & construction 43

dc0511wp_eLCie.qxd 10/31/2005 11:09 AM Page 44progress report on life cycle assessmentThe eLCie System: A New Additionto the LCA ToolkitBy Deborah Dunning and Rob WatsonDeborah Dunning is founder andpresident of the International DesignCenter for the Environment(IDCE), Raleigh, N.C., and a memberof UNEP-SETAC Life CycleInitiative WorkGroup II. She hasheaded a large development firm,served as president of a buildingrestoration consulting firm, andworked for the Sierra Club. Sheserves on work groups for theUSGBC “LCA into LEED” project.A graduate of Sweet Briar College,she also attended the University ofLondon.Rob Watson is a senior resourcespecialist and director of internationalenergy and green buildings projectsfor the Natural Resources DefenseCouncil. Active in international utilityissues and sustainable buildingissues in a dozen countries, includingChina and Russia, since 1987, he ledenvironmental design efforts forNRDC’s award-winning New Yorkand Washington offices. A graduateof Dartmouth College, he holds amaster’s degree from the University ofCalifornia at Berkeley. Watson servesas chair of IDCE and chair of theNational LEED Steering Committeeof the U. S. Green Building Council.Decisions regarding the selection of materials duringthe construction and operations and maintenancelife cycle of a building have serious impacts on thenatural and indoor environments, as well as on thebuilding’s economics. While they might want to contributeto a sustainable world, many architects, engineers,developers, contractors, and facility managersfeel confused about the scope and process of life cycleassessment. They want to do the right thing by theenvironment, but they’re overwhelmed by the complexitiesof LCA.To address these needs, the International DesignCenter for the Environment (IDCE) three years agoinitiated development of the eLCie System, startingwith a segment on LCA in our “KnowRoom” for theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency.IDCE’s goals for eLCie are to help make productorientedLCAs more useful, and therefore more used,and to add to the existing spectrum of LCA tools asystem for “practical LCA” that:● Provides a scientifically robust yet user-friendlytool for product evaluation and selection● Encourages many manufacturers to do productLCAs by being both cost and time efficient● Insures a level playing field through an industryspecificsoftware tool for product data collection● Presents LCA results in an efficient manner,enabling comparison of many products on one screen● Includes both environmental impacts and lifecycle costs and links to performance standards● Downloads easily into a number of existing specificationprograms, such as the ConstructionSpecification Institute’s MasterFormat 2004.As currently conceived, the eLCie System consistsof four elements: the eLCie Corporate SustainabilityIndex, the eLCie Industry Wizard, the eLCie Webtool,and the eLCie Purchasing Wizard.The eLCie Corporate Sustainability Index, developedin collaboration with Sustainable ResearchGroup, Grand Rapids, Mich., answers questions apurchaser might have about whether a manufacturer’scompanywide policies integrate best practices in sustainablebusiness. The manufacturer must answer110 questions, achieving at least 55 points to be listedas having met IDCE’s benchmark for environmentalresponsibility. The CEO must also sign a letter statingthat the firm is committed to continuous improvementin the use of sustainable business practices. 1The eLCie Industry Wizard, the most complex ofthe four tools, entails the development of a complicated,scientifically robust data collection and analysissystem that will give users key information in a simpleand easy-to-understand way.Industry-specific “wizards,” starting with the eLCieCarpet Wizard, are being developed. 2 Data collection,submission, and analysis protocols must insure thatdata on products from a given industry are complete,comparable, and transparent.IDCE plans to achieve such a level playing field bycustomizing an eLCie Wizard for key building productindustrial sectors and then requiring that all participatingmanufacturers use this software for data collectionand submission. As an added precaution, eachproduct LCA will be reviewed by an LCA practitionerfamiliar with the industry in question to ensure thatthe data is complete, credible, and transparent. Inaddition, IDCE is working with the INTENDProject, an effort by the European Union to createglobally accepted “product specification requirements”for each industrial sector.When the eLCie Industry Wizard is completed fora given industry and used to create at least three fullproduct LCAs from that industry, IDCE will integrateall of the life cycle information into a single datasetand offer it to other LCA tool developers for inclusionin their databases.The eLCie Web-tool is the piece building designprofessionals will use most widely, as it is the partwhich will enable Building Teams to compare theenvironmental impacts, both individual and aggregated,of like and unlike products. In effect, it’s thegraphic user interface of the product LCAs generatedby the eLCie Industry Wizards, presented in an easilyaccessible manner. It will enable decision makers tocompare the environmental impacts (and, later, thelife cycle costs as well) of up to 10 brand products onthe same computer screen. The Web-tool will have aback engine that will store all the data on products inthe eLCie System, converting that data into environmentalimpacts and related performance numbers44 building design & construction ▪ november 2005 ▪ www.bdcnetwork.com

dc0511wp_eLCie.qxd 10/31/2005 11:09 AM Page 45progress report on life cycle assessmentusing the TRACI software program developed by theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency.The eLCie Web-tool makes building product evaluation,comparison, and selection efficient by offeringthe user a summary of the product LCA results placedin five product rating groups based on the performancenumbers held in the back engine. Productswhich achieve a score that is 25% above industry averagewill be placed in the Registered category, followedby Silver (40%), Gold (60%), and Platinum (90%).The Platinum rating group will be reserved for productswhich truly achieve high performance throughsignificantly reduced environmental impacts. 3The eLCie Purchasing Wizard will facilitateuploading product LCA results and life cycle costsfrom the eLCie Web-tool in several frequently usedpurchasing software programs. Currently under development,the eLCie Purchasing Wizard will utilizeconcepts based on the work of IDCE board memberKevin Lyons, associate director and research scientistfor supply chain environmental management and policyat the Rutgers EcoComplex and author of Buyingfor the Future: Contract Management and theEnvironmental Challenge. Lyons has conductedapplied research on developing and integrating globalenvironmental, social, economic, and ethical criteriaand data into supply chain and procurement systemsand processes.Ongoing Peer Review ProcessIDCE is working within the “Life Cycle Initiative”framework established jointly by the UN EnvironmentProgram (UNEP) and the Society of EnvironmentalToxicology & Chemistry (SETAC). 4 The purpose ofthis initiative is to develop and disseminate practicaltools for evaluating the opportunities, risks, and tradeoffsassociated with products and services over theirentire life cycle to achieve sustainable development.As part of its commitment to “continuous improvement,”IDCE has also created an 18-person advisorypanel comprised of many of the top professionals inbuilding design, construction, life cycle assessment,manufacturing, and facility management.The Toolkit ApproachNo single tool can answer every need. The bestapproach, in our opinion, is to create a toolkit in whichthere is a spectrum of resources with different distinguishingcharacteristics (see chart). This will allowusers to look in the toolkit to see which LCA resourcewould best provide the life cycle information they need.Such a toolkit might contain a number of LCAresources. The Athena Environmental ImpactEstimator is an excellent tool for assessing the likelyenvironmental impacts of building materials and systems(rather than specific products). BEES (from theNational Institute of Science & Technology) is usefulfor comparing the relative environmental impacts ofgeneric products and life cycle costs during designprogramming.The Sustainable Products Purchasing Coalition’sEcoProfiles will offer a streamlined method to determineenvironmentally and socially preferable productsfor institutional purchasers by providing eitherlife cycle inventory or LCA information on products.It will include summary information on various TypeI, II, and III labeling claims if they are in alignmentwith the ISO Standard for LCA tools.Such a toolkit would also contain the eLCieSystem. Beginning with industry- and product-specificdata (using the eLCie Wizard), the eLCie Systemwill enable users to compare up to 10 generic andbrand products at the same time on a single screen.The eLCie System first provides the rating group inwhich a product is placed based on its product LCA.Then the user can click to see the performance numberbehind this grouping and the full product LCA.The user can then download the life cycle informationinto his or her specification software.Over the next five years, IDCE will add buildingproducts from at least 10 new industries each year.These products will be added in groups—for example,“cladding materials”—in order to developbenchmark data for each industrial sector and provideincentives to manufacturers to improve theenvironmental footprint of their products.1Examples can be found atwww.IDCE.org and www.eLCie.org.2In cooperation with the Carpet &Rug Institute and these manufacturers:C & A Floorcoverings, InterfaceFlooring Systems, J & J—Invision,Mannington, Milliken, and MohawkIndustries.3Building professionals and otherstakeholders may comment on the betaversion of the eLCie Web-tool by e-mailing: eLCieManager@IDCE.org.4An overview of best practices, “LifeCycle Approaches: The Road fromAnalysis to Practice,” is available at:http://www.uneptie.org/pc/sustain/lcinitiative/home.htm.NOTE: For the carpet industry, eLCiewill be using data developed for theConsortium for Competitiveness in theApparel, Carpet and Textile Industry byDrs. Matthew Realff of the NationalScience Foundation and GeorgiaInstitute of Technology and MichaelOvercash of the Journal of CleanerProduction and North Carolina StateUniversity, who have compiled datasetsfor latex-backed carpet broadloom andPVC-backed carpet tile.www.bdcnetwork.com ▪ november 2005 ▪ building design & construction 45

dc0511wp_greenglobe.qxd 10/31/2005 11:09 AM Page 46progress report on life cycle assessmentLCA and the Green GlobesEnvironmental Assessment andRating System for CommercialStructures By Jiri Skopek, AA Dip., OAA, MCIP, RIBAJiri Skopek is an architect, communityplanner, and technicalconsultant to the Green BuildingInitiative, the nonprofit organizationwhich owns the rights toGreen Globes for NewConstruction in the U.S. Throughhis company, ECD Energy andEnvironment Canada, he directedthe creation and evolution of theGreen Globes system in Canadaand is responsible for its continuedtechnical development. As a seniordesigner with Bregman andHamann Architects, Skopek contributedto the BCE complex indowntown Toronto. He also managedSantiago Calatrava’s office inParis, was a planning consultant tothe governments of Omar andQatar, and was chief urban designerfor the King AbdulazizUniversity in Saudi Arabia.Skopek currently serves as a representativeof the Canadian committeeto the ISO TC59/SC3 internationalteam on sustainable buildingconstruction and is a foundingmember of Sustainable BuildingsCanada.The process of integrating life cycle assessmentinto green building rating systems in North Americarepresents a fundamental shift in the way these systemshave traditionally approached green building—awayfrom a prescriptive methodology to onethat relies on objective environmental performancescoring, especially in the area of material andresource use.When the Green Building Initiative (GBI) acquiredthe rights to distribute the Green Globes environmentalassessment and rating system in the U.S., itsgoal was to encourage more people to build green—byproviding a tool that would serve as an educationalresource during the design process as well as a ratingsystem for completed structures.Likewise, the GBI’s efforts to further integrate LCAinto the Green Globes system is intended to simplifythe green design process by clarifying alternatives andfacilitating informed, scientifically based choices. Thesystem already incorporates LCA in its resource section,and work is under way to include it to a greaterdegree throughout. However, in so doing, the GBIfaces a number of challenges, both philosophical andtechnical.Few would argue with the concept of LCA,through which materials, assemblies, and evenwhole buildings can be compared and impartiallyrated in terms of a range of environmental impactindicators. However, problems have arisen becauserating systems tend to base their scoring on a longestablishedunderstanding of environmentalissues—conceptions which, in some cases, havetaken on an aura of conventional wisdom that doesn’tstand up to objective analysis.One example is the fairly entrenched idea that it’sbetter to choose materials or products that are manufacturedlocally. In many cases, this is the best environmentalchoice. But factors such as the type ofmanufacturing process and the weight of the finishedproducts (which must be factored into transportationcosts) could mean otherwise. This is an example of aprescriptive approach used as a surrogate for theunderlying environmental benefits, providing guidancewhere scientific data is presumed to be unnecessary.LCA may challenge that presumption.Without LCA, there is also a risk of confusingmeans and ends, with the means becoming objectivesin their own right—at the cost of designer flexibility,and to the possible detriment of environmental performance.Instead of rewarding solar energy, for example,it makes sense for a rating system to reward anydesign that minimizes the use of nonrenewable fossilfuels to a similar degree, whether through solar, geothermal,wind, or other renewable energy source.Technically, integrating LCA requires that theassessment system be predisposed to award scoresbased on objectively determined benchmarks, ratherthan a prescribed list of “green” features and strategies.This is difficult and time consuming, but it isentirely doable.Understanding the Green Globes SystemIt is necessary to understand Green Globes’ basiccharacteristics to understand how LCA is treated nowand the work under way to integrate LCA more fullyinto the protocol.Green Globes is a Web-based tool for buildingdesigners to use when assessing the environmentalperformance of new and existing structures, fromproject initiation to final building commissioning.Designs are evaluated through a point system, withscores based on completed measures that minimizeenvironmental impacts. The objective is to helpdesigners create structures that optimize resource useand operating effects, while minimizing emissions andpollution. Green Globes encourages designers to usean integrated approach by awarding points for achievingand certifying various interrelated objectives.The system has a number of characteristics targetedto “mainstream” users who may have limited environmentaldesign experience. Reports are written withas little jargon as possible to provide a framework forcommunication between the design team and client.First-time users are offered a free 30-day trial period,46 building design & construction ▪ november 2005 ▪ www.bdcnetwork.com

dc0511wp_greenglobe.qxd 10/31/2005 11:10 AM Page 47progress report on life cycle assessmentand its relatively low cost makes the system viablefor smaller buildings, such as low-rise offices andschools. Because the system is Web-based, itrequires minimal infrastructure. Green Globes alsoprovides feedback and helps users add green attributesduring the design process.Efforts under way to more fully integrate LCA intothe system are also tied to the objective of makinggreen building more accessible to the mainstreambuilding design and construction community. Theintent is to simplify the process of comparing the environmentalimpacts of alternate design options and tofacilitate informed choices.Evolution of Green GlobesAlthough relatively new to the U.S., Green Globeshas a long history.Partly inspired by the widely known BritishResearch Establishment’s Environmental AssessmentMethod (BREEAM), which was brought to Canadain 1996, Green Globes underwent various iterationsbefore becoming BREEAM Green Leaf in 1999 andGreen Globes in 2002.The U.S. version was adapted last year from itsCanadian counterpart—which is one of two greenbuilding rating systems (along with LEED) recognizedby the Canadian government. Under the trade nameGo Green Comprehensive, it is also the basis of theBuilding Owners and Managers Association ofCanada’s national energy and environmental programfor existing buildings. In adapting Green Globes forthe U.S. market, the only changes made were nonsubstantive,such as units of measure and the additionof U.S. references and standards.For an environmental rating system to be effective,it must evolve to reflect the latest developments inscientific thinking, technology, and societal values—asevidenced by the current effort to integrateLCA more fully into Green Globes and to introduceLCA into LEED.This past September, the Green Building Initiativesubmitted an application to have Green Globes recognizedas a standard by the American NationalStandards Institute. As per ANSI requirements, theGBI is assembling a technical committee—which willinclude a balance of users, producers, and interestedthird parties—to oversee the Green Globes system.Green Globes and LCAIn green design, the selection of materials is a balancingact that requires designers to trade one not-sogoodeffect here for a desired result elsewhere. LCAis essential to fully appreciate the tradeoffs and ensurethat decisions are grounded in an understanding ofthe various options and their consequences.Without life cycle modeling at an appropriate level(i.e., at the level of complete assemblies or the wholebuilding), design teams risk making unfair comparisonsbecause they fail to account for the implicationsof using one material over another. For example, if ateam chooses steel wall studs over wood, this couldlead to the choice of one type of insulation over another,or perhaps to the choice of a different sheathingmaterial. In this case, the full range of affected productsmust be taken into account to properly gauge theimpact on the environment. As the design progressesand major systems are selected, direct product-toproductcomparisons become relevant and LCA canbe brought to bear at a different level.However, the process of integrating LCA into greenbuilding rating systems is in its infancy.The architects, environmental planners, and otherswho contributed to the development of the GreenGlobes system made some headway with the currentversion. We believed not only that LCA wouldbecome increasingly important to the design and evaluationof green buildings, but that we had an opportunity—andto some degree an obligation—to facilitatethis end. By integrating LCA, even to a limiteddegree, our objective was to help the concept takeroot and encourage designers to view it as an option,in addition to rewarding its use.Among the technical hurdles was the fact that LCAdata was not consistently available in a readily usableform. Although work is being done to rectify this problem,the options were limited. Nonetheless, a casecould be made for initiating the process of philosophicaltransformation.At the time (the late 1990s and early 2000s), therewas a general awareness in the design and constructioncommunity that LCA was the most reliable wayto calculate and compare cradle-to-grave effects,though it was discussed more in theoretical thanpractical terms (except by those involved inresearch). It seemed clear that a significant shiftwould be required to move away from the prescriptiveapproach discussed above to one based purelyon performance. However, even though LCA representedunfamiliar terrain, it was our experience thatmost designers wanted the data to base decisions onfact instead of assumptions, and they wanted controlover the inevitable tradeoffs required in the selectionof materials.As it currently stands, Green Globes awards halfwww.bdcnetwork.com ▪ november 2005 ▪ building design & construction 47

dc0511wp_greenglobe.qxd 10/31/2005 11:10 AM Page 48progress report on life cycle assessmentthe points in its resources section for incorporatinglife cycle assessment of the building assemblies andmaterials. This provides encouragement to conductfull or partial LCAs of foundation and floor assembliesand materials, column-and-beam or post-andbeamcombinations, walls, roof assemblies, andother envelope assembly materials (such as claddingand windows).At the schematic design stage, the system recommendsthe use of modeling tools such as the AthenaEnvironmental Impact Estimator to examine the lifecycle environmental effects of a complete structure orindividual assemblies. This is the time that broad,conceptual issues are discussed and materials chosenthat will have far-reaching implications for the structure’soverall environmental impact. Users are encouragedto experiment with alternate designs and differentmaterial mixes in order to achieve the most beneficialcombination—a process that is aided by theeducational component of the Green Globes system.The objective of the Athena simulation is to helpthe user select building assemblies with the lowestreported impact in terms of energy consumption, airand water toxicity index, global warming potential,and solid waste emissions.At the construction documents stage, differenttypes of decisions must be made, so designers areencouraged to use the BEES (Building forEnvironmental and Economic Sustainability) softwareto compare the environmental impact of specificproducts and materials. Like the Athena software,BEES measures environmental performance usingthe LCA approach specified in the ISO 14000 standard.It goes further, however, by combining environmentalmeasures with economic performance measuresto provide a final rating.Next Step: Further IntegrationThe strategy, when LCA was introduced into thecurrent version of the Green Globes system, was toincorporate it more fully once it was viable to do so.This process began recently with the release of an RFPfor the comparative analysis of U.S. building systems.The primary impetus is to move Green Globesaway from prescriptive scoring and toward a greaterreliance on quantitative and objective data—givingrise to an assessment system that rewards performanceresults instead of the means to achieve them.The intent is to separately assess and rank or ratebuilding assemblies, such as complete wall or roofassemblies, using established LCA methodology.Design teams could then be credited within theGreen Globes system for using highly ranked assemblies.The Building Research Establishment has successfullyused this approach in its UK BREEAMassessment system by drawing on assembly rankingsin its Green Guide to Specifications.It is also the intent to establish a relative basis fromwhich progress can be measured. The system alreadyincorporates benchmarking as it relates to operatingenergy and water use, with a score based on how thebuilding under consideration performs against thebenchmark. A similar capability must be establishedfor comparing and scoring LCA results.That said, it is early in the process and there are stilltoo many unknowns to say precisely how the systemwill evolve. Among the issues to be investigated andresolved: At which stage of the assessment processshould it be incorporated? Can the current system ofperformance scoring provide the necessary incentiveto complete an LCA assessment? How shall targets orbenchmarks be determined for various design scenarios?What type of verification is needed to ensureproper use of LCA and LCA results?Given that the Green Globes system itself will besubject to a full ANSI review, this work will likewisebe subject to review by the ANSI technicalcommittee.LCA and the Future of Green DesignAnyone who has tried to integrate environmentalconsiderations into the design of a structure knowsthat building green is more complex than it appears.Simple rules of thumb are rare, and Building Teamsare hampered by the time and resources expendedsearching for reliable information.However, given the current tremendous push toobtain life cycle data for a more comprehensive rangeof materials, systems, and products and to incorporateit into rating systems, it’s fair to say that LCA will drasticallyalter the way green buildings are designed.Eventually, designers will have access to quantifiableand objective data for all of their design options. Untilthen, there is a great deal of work to be done.48 building design & construction ▪ november 2005 ▪ www.bdcnetwork.com

dc0511wp_greenglobe.qxd 10/31/2005 11:10 AM Page 49progress report on life cycle assessmentUsing LCA to Evaluate Cladding OptionsFor a New Charter SchoolWhen a U.S. charter school chose the Athena Environmental ImpactEstimator (EIE) to conduct a life cycle assessment of cladding options forits new building, the intent was to combine traditional decision-making factors(such as cost and maintenance) with environmental considerations(such as the pollution produced by alternate materials).In particular, the client wanted to understand the environmental tradeoffsinherent in choosing one cladding material over another. For example, brickcladding may require a greater initial investment than wood, but couldreduce maintenance costs. Steel siding will have a greater impact on waterquality, while brick fares less well in terms of energy use. The purpose ofthe LCA was to review and clarify tradeoffs such as these and attempt tojustify a decision based on the owner’s budget, maintenance concerns, andenvironmental considerations.Athena’s EIE software was used to evaluate four options: brick, woodsiding, steel siding, and stucco. Each material was evaluated based on itsrelation to the others as opposed to its individual characteristics.In the accompanying figure, the environmental impact of steel siding on aper unit basis has been normalized to make it 100% across all categories; theother materials are compared to that baseline. Because certain assumptionswere made (for example, the service life of the building was set at zero, meaningthat maintenance and end-of-life issues were not factored in), these arebasic estimates as opposed to absolute life cycle performance indicators.As the figure indicates, brick has a high initial impact in every categoryexcept water pollution, while stucco and wood have the lowest.However, to guide a final decision, the service life of the building mustalso be considered.If a 40-50 year service life is realistic, shorter term environmental considerationsare important, as are issues related to deconstruction and recycling.On the other hand, a building intended to last 100 years or more raisesother issues, such as functional malleability, which allows future tenantsto be accommodated without the need for demolition.Based on the above factors, it was determined that, for a building intendedto last less than 50 years, wood has the least environmental impact, followedby stucco, steel, and brick, in that order. If a longer life is intended,wood’s benefits decrease relative to the other materials because of maintenancerequirements, with brick becoming more beneficial as the timeframeis extended.In the end, the developer placed a high priority on a very long service lifewith minimal maintenance and chose brick—but used recycled brick toensure as low an environmental footprint as possible within this productcategory.The point is that every material has its own environmental footprint. LCAtechniques allow designers to consider all the various factors—in this case,manufacturing and construction impacts, service life and maintenancerequirements, appearance, and the desired service life from the developer’sperspective—to be viewed in a holistic decision framework.www.bdcnetwork.com ▪ november 2005 ▪ building design & construction 49

dc0511wp_masterformat.qxd 10/31/2005 11:11 AM Page 50progress report on life cycle assessmentMasterFormat 04 and LCABy Paul R. Bertram, Jr., FCSI, CDT, LEED APPaul R Bertram, Jr., is a fellowof the Construction SpecificationsInstitute and principal of PRBPlanning, Orlando, Fla., specializingin green building product marketingstrategies. He is chairmanof ASTM E 2129 Data Collectionfor Determining the Sustainabilityof Building Product and is a memberof the Florida Green BuildingCoalition and the SustainableBuilding Industry Council. Heserves on the U.S. Green BuildingCouncil’s Materials and ResourcesTechnical Advisory Group.MasterFormat and life cycle assessment are twoseparate but useful tools that can be utilized to organizeand report information.The process of evaluating and specifying sustainablebuilding products in green building projectsrequires many complex considerations that go beyondthe analysis of basic performance criteria typicallyfound in specifications.Many green building experts strongly advocateLCA as the accepted methodology to scientificallyunderstand all the synergies and tradeoffs required toproperly select products, components, systems, andassemblies for a project.LCA as related to evaluating and specifying buildingproducts requires the reporting of data points thatrepresent a wide spectrum of environmental information,including: fossil fuel depletion, other nonrenewableresource use, global warming potential, stratosphericozone depletion, ground-level ozone creation(smog), nitrification and eutrophication of water bodies,acidification and acid deposition (dry and wet),and toxic releases to air, water, and land.Currently, LCA evaluation for environmentalimpacts and attributes of products, components, andsystems as related to specific green building criteria isin the draft protocol phase of development and application.As a result, LEED credits have become the de factocriteria for product evaluation, even though LEEDfocuses primarily on environmental attributes at theexpense of performance and durability.The Construction Specifications Institute’s firstrecommendation in product evaluation begins withCSI Form 20.1—The Product Knowledge Checklist,in accordance with CSI’s Project Resource Manual.The list calls for reporting on numerous aspects ofthe product: the product’s advantages, available informationfor specifiers, characteristics and uses, compliancedata, competitive product comparison, environmental/energyconcerns, life expectancy, how theproduct is manufactured and its raw materials contained,initial cost, installation methods, interfacewith other products, limitations, long-term costs,rated capacity, and sources of supply.During early costing analysis of a project, systemsand assemblies are analyzed for the purpose of preliminarybudgeting.CSI’s UniFormat classifies these systems andassemblies into a logical sequence:Project DescriptionA. SubstructureB. ShellC. InteriorsD. ServicesE. Equipment and furnishingsF. Special construction and demolitionG. Building site workZ. GeneralThis forms the basis for organization of LCA outputsfrom the Athena Environmental ImpactEstimator. This tool assists with material selection inthe context of LCA of an entire building and focusesat the level of whole buildings or complete buildingassemblies and therefore captures the systems implicationsof product selections related to a building’sstructure and envelope. UniFormat provides an organizationalplatform to report the LCA outputs. Thesecan be used to arrange brief project descriptions andpreliminary cost information. The General ServicesAdministration uses UniFormat in its costing analysis.Selection of building materials usually begins withperformance requirements, aesthetics, and costsbefore environmental attributes are considered.Performance criteria are typically written into projectspecifications and organized in the project documentsaccording to CSI’s MasterFormat, which is the organizationalstandard for the written instructions forconstruction work results and other information formost commercial, industrial, and institutional buildingprojects in the U.S. and Canada.The 2004 edition of MasterFormat is the result of asignificant rewrite over the last few years and now representsthe work results over the life cycle of a project.In order to better accommodate the life cycle of aproject, MasterFormat 2004 Edition expanded fromthe traditional 16 divisions to 50 divisions.MasterFormat and ‘CSI Format’MasterFormat 2004 works in conjunction withSectionFormat and PageFormat. Dennis Hall, FCSI,FAIA, committee chair of the MasterFormat expansion,calls these three documents “CSI Format,” asthey converge into the project manual.For example, LCA requirements on a project wouldbe written into Division 01 of MasterFormat 04, whileLCA requirements and sustainable reporting for prod-50 building design & construction ▪ november 2005 ▪ www.bdcnetwork.com

dc0511wp_masterformat.qxd 10/31/2005 11:11 AM Page 51progress report on life cycle assessmentucts would be organized within SectionFormat andPageFormat in their respective divisions.Commercial specification system developers(including BSD SpecLink by Building SystemsDesign, Inc.) feature several automated LEED submittalsfor many sections. MasterSpec (by ARCOM)features 95+ sections with LEED requirements, text,or commentaries within each section.The Athena EIE and NIST’s BEES and can be referencedin the administrative section of Division 01.There are also a number of CSI forms that havebeen created specifically to report product and projectinformation relating to instructions within theMasterFormat guidelines. Currently, the CSISustainable Facilities Task Team LCA requirementscan be listed in Division 01 and under 01 30 00 in theadministrative requirements. These instructions thenset the parameters for other specification requirements.The additional specification requirements willincorporate SectionFormat and PageFormat.SectionFormat provides a uniform approach toorganizing specification text continued in a projectmanual. These parts organize text consistently withineach section. The 1997 edition describes the functionand content of each of the three parts, addresses environmentalconcerns, and reflects revisions andupdates made in the 1995 edition. It is currentlybeing updated to reflect changes in MasterFormat 04.PageFormat describes the recommended arrangementof text on a specification page. It provides a systemfor consistently formatting and designating articles,paragraphs, and subparagraphs, and includesguidance for page numbering, margins, and otheraspects of formatting. It is also being updated.Some of the references may include industry standards,nongovernmental organizations, and third-partycertification. For example, in Part 1 of SectionFormat,references such as ASTM E 2129-01 StandardPractice for Data Collection for SustainabilityAssessment of Building Products could be referenced.This applied standard offers a set of instructions forcollecting data to be used in assessing the sustainabilityof elements or products for use in both commercialand residential buildings.This standard is intended to help manufacturersthat are self-reporting data to understand basic informationareas that are relative in environmental assessment.The data reported from ASTM E 2129 could beconsidered in LCA preliminary scoping. It should benoted that as of this writing ASTM E 2129 is the onlyASTM standard for reporting product information.LCAs provide data created from a scientific processthat should provide a level playing field for the comparisonof building material environmental impacts.However, LCA is not the sole answer to productselection; ultimately, it will become yet another tool tohelp Building Teams understand the tradeoffs in theselection of building products.The use of LCA to support specification of environmentallypreferable products (EPP) can beenhanced by reducing the data-reporting burden onmanufacturers, lowering the cost of LCA studies, andelevating the availability of LCA results for a relevantlywide set of product alternatives. The use ofLCA for EPP identification can also be promotedthrough specification organized within MasterFormat.Digital design and Web-based communication systemsmake some tasks easier, but the underlying informationstill must be addressed, used, and communicatedprecisely by Building Teams. The storage andeffective use of this information throughout the structure’slife cycle is extremely complex. Even in themost sophisticated communication environment, datamust be accessed using a meaningful taxonomy withina classification system that is navigable by all.OmniClass will eventually be used by all industriesinvolved with creating and sustaining the built environment—fromconception though demolition—andwill be the basis for organizing, storing, and retrievinginformation and deriving relational applications.Achieving reasonable results in product evaluationrequires the review of as many issues as possible andthe effort to use the most cost-effective green buildingstrategies available for a given project. Until LCAbecomes a clearly defined protocol with supportingtools for product evaluation, there will continue to bemarket confusion.The U.S. Green Building Council has created themomentum behind the reality of LCA becoming arequired practice in building product evaluation.Thanks to the development of BEES and the AthenaEIE tool, along with LCA efforts by building productmanufacturers, a better understanding of data informationneeds has been realized.MasterFormat has expanded to represent the lifecycle of the structure and has appropriate areas toinstruct designers as to sustainable project requirements.It is organized for the inevitable change thatsustainable design and LCA reporting will generate.The debate will go on as to what products requireLCA, third-party verification, and acceptable parametersfor self-reporting of environmental data. Theanswer is education, research, and a business modelthat embraces and supports green building principles.MasterFormat2004 EditionDivision Numbers andTitlesProcurement and ContractingRequirements GroupDiv. 00 Procurement and ContractingRequirementsSpecifications GroupGeneral Requirements SubgroupDiv. 01 General RequirementsFacility Construction SubgroupDiv. 02 Existing ConditionsDiv. 03 ConcreteDiv. 04 MasonryDiv. 05 MetalsDiv. 06 Wood, Plastics, and CompositesDiv. 07 Thermal and Moisture ProtectionDiv. 08 OpeningsDiv. 09 FinishesDiv. 10 SpecialtiesDiv. 11 EquipmentDiv. 12 FurnishingsDiv. 13 Special ConstructionDiv. 14 Conveying EquipmentDiv. 15 Reserved for Future ExpansionDiv. 16 Reserved for Future ExpansionDiv. 17 Reserved for Future ExpansionDiv. 18 Reserved for Future ExpansionDiv. 19 Reserved for Future ExpansionFacility Services SubgroupDiv. 20 Reserved for Future ExpansionDiv. 21 Fire SuppressionDiv. 22 PlumbingDiv. 23 HVACDiv. 24 Reserved for Future ExpansionDiv. 25 Integrated AutomationDiv. 26 ElectricalDiv. 27 CommunicationsDiv. 28 Electronic Safety and SecurityDiv. 29 Reserved for Future ExpansionSite and Infrastructure SubgroupDiv. 30 Reserved for Future ExpansionDiv. 31 EarthworkDiv. 32 Exterior ImprovementsDiv. 33 UtilitiesDiv. 34 TransportationDiv. 35 Waterway and MarineDiv. 36 Reserved for Future ExpansionDiv. 37 Reserved for Future ExpansionDiv. 38 Reserved for Future ExpansionDiv. 39 Reserved for Future ExpansionProcess Equipment SubgroupDiv. 40 Process IntegrationDiv. 41 Material Processing andHandlingEquipmentDiv. 42 Process Heating, Cooling, andDrying EquipmentDiv. 43 Process Gas and LiquidHandling,Purification and StorageEquipmentDiv. 44 Pollution Control EquipmentDiv. 45 Industry-specific ManufacturingEquipmentDiv. 46 Reserved for Future ExpansionDiv. 47 Reserved for Future ExpansionDiv. 48 Electrical Power GenerationDiv. 49 Reserved for Future ExpansionSource: Construction Specifications Institutewww.csinet.org/masterformatwww.bdcnetwork.com ▪ november 2005 ▪ building design & construction 51

dc0511wp_lloyd.qxd 10/31/2005 11:11 AM Page 52progress report on life cycle assessmentShannon Lloyd, PhD, AnneLandfield, and Brian Glazebrookmake up the Life CycleManagement service team at FirstEnvironment, a global strategicenvironmental management andengineering consulting firm headquarteredin New Jersey.Combined, they have over 25years of experience with LCA,green design, and the green buildingindustry, and are members ofthe USGBC’s LCA into LEEDTask Force.Dr. Shannon Lloyd is a seniorenvironmental specialist in thefirm’s Washington, D.C., office.She has conducted LCA’s of productsfor a wide range of industriesand has held engineering andmanagement positions in severalindustries. She earned a PhD inengineering and public policy andan MS in civil and environmentalengineering from CarnegieMellon University.Anne Landfield is a seniorenvironmental specialist in thePortland, Ore., office. She hasworked extensively with the metalsand mining industry on LCAand developed an LCA handbookfor corporations under the auspicesof the UNEP Life CycleInitiative program. She holds anMS in environmental managementfrom Duke University.Brian Glazebrook is a seniorassociate in the Washington,D.C., office. He has experienceproviding design for environmentsupport to a range of industries,and has led the company’s supportfor the BEES software tool. Heholds an MS in environmentalscience and an MA in publicaffairs from Indiana University.Integrating LCA into GreenBuilding DesignBy Shannon Lloyd, PhD, Anne Landfield, and Brian GlazebrookDuring the design process, a broad range of stakeholders—architects,engineers, designers, contractors,subcontractors and owners—combine technicalexpertise to produce one-off buildings with long lifespans. They must consider the consequences thattheir decisions have on many performance criteria—buildingcost, intended functionality, and occupantcomfort, safety, and aesthetics. Green buildingdesign is an integrated design approach for evaluatingand minimizing the potential environmental impactsof a building while also evaluating and optimizing themany other performance criteria.The green building design process focuses on usingenergy, water, and materials more efficiently in thedesign and operation of a building. Green buildingsoften combine strong environmental performancewith increased economic, health, and productivityperformance. While decisions made throughout abuilding’s useful life influence the impact it can haveon the environment, the critical time to employ greenbuilding principles is during the design process.The top figure on page 53 shows a hypotheticalcomparison of when committed and incurred environmentalimpacts occur. It assumes that the determinationand realization of environmental impact duringa building’s life cycle follow a similar pattern tothat of building cost. The horizontal axis representsthe building life cycle stages. During site selectionand early design, various sites and building types areconsidered. In later design phases, the specific designof the building and the materials, components, andsystems that will be used are selected. Most of abuilding’s material, energy, and environmental loadingsare likely to be committed during the designphase, whereas the environmental impacts attributedto a building occur largely during its use phase andmay extend beyond the building’s useful life. Theopportunity to reduce the building’s environmentalimpact decreases substantially after it has beendesigned and built.Green Building Design and LCAEvaluating the environmental consequences of aspecific building design is difficult because everybuilding is a unique, complex system of interrelatedcomponents and subsystems. Efforts to optimize asingle performance criterion, such as environmentalimpact, may affect other performance criteria. Giventhe long life cycles of most commercial, industrial,and institutional structures, reducing the environmentalimpact requires designers to use long-rangeplanning horizons. Finally, environmental impactdepends not only on the building system, but also onits interaction with the natural environment and itsoccupants.In order for Building Teams to be able to balanceenvironmental concerns with other performancerequirements, they need clear and concise information.For certain decisions during the design process,qualitative guidance, such as design checklists orguidelines, make sense. For other decisions, however,qualitative information may not be sufficient forevaluating the environmental tradeoffs between differentbuilding materials, products, and designs. Inthis case, quantitative information, such as that generatedthrough a life cycle assessment, provides themost value.LCA provides a systematic approach to evaluatingthe environmental impacts of a product or system overits entire life cycle. As the lower figure on page 53shows, the building life cycle includes the extractionof raw materials that make up the building, manufacturingbuilding components or products, transportingand installing building materials and products, andoperating, maintaining, and decommissioning thebuilding. By integrating LCA into the building designprocess, design and construction professionals canevaluate the life cycle impacts of building materials,components, and systems and choose the combinationsthat reduce the building’s life cycle environmentalimpact.Several types of green building tools have beendeveloped to help building designers incorporate LCAinto building design. They can be used to guide generalbuilding planning, select building materials andcomponents, and evaluate complete building designs.The amount of LCA expertise and time required toemploy the different types of tools varies widely. Theappropriate tool depends on a project’s specific environmentalobjectives and budget.52 building design & construction ▪ november 2005 ▪ www.bdcnetwork.com

dc0511wp_lloyd.qxd 10/31/2005 11:12 AM Page 53progress report on life cycle assessmentThe following tools have been used to incorporateLCA into building design: green building standardsand rating systems, tools for evaluating building materialsand components, software for evaluating wholebuildings, and general LCA software.1. Green Building Standards and Rating SystemsStandards and rating systems prescribe practicesfor reducing the environmental impact of buildingsand some certify buildings meeting these standards.Some green building standards and rating systems arebased on general guiding principles—for example, givingpreference to recycled material. Other rating systemstake a more comprehensive approach, using amore holistic life cycle framework. For example, theUnited Kingdom’s Building Research EstablishmentEnvironmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) ratingsystem uses LCA-based materials credits. TheGreen Globes assessment protocol awards points forusing LCA. The U.S. Green Building Council isstudying approaches for incorporating LCA into itsLEED green building rating system. In general, buildingstandards and rating systems require little or noexpertise in life cycle assessment to be useful to buildingprofessionals.2. Tools for Evaluating Building Materials andComponentsLCA databases and software have been developedto help building professionals select building materialsand components. Results of life cycle studies areembedded in the tool, allowing building professionalsto readily compare the life cycle impact of differentmaterials and components. This information can beused to guide material and component specificationand procurement.The National Institute of Standards & Technology’s(NIST) Building for Environmental and Economic(BEES) software is one of the most widely used materialand product oriented LCA tools available toBuilding Teams. It is a publicly available Windowsbaseddecision support software that enables designersand builders to evaluate the environmental andeconomic performance of several hundred buildingproducts. Among the categories of products found inBEES are framing, exterior wall finishes, wall sheathing,wall and attic insulation, roof coverings, interiorwall finishes, floor coverings, slab on grade, beams,and parking lot paving. The key benefit of using softwaresuch as BEES is that users don’t need to knowthe intricacies of conducting LCA studies and very littletime is required to evaluate the material or productof interest.Building professionals may want to use materialandcomponent-focused tools embedded with LCAdata when they wish to:● Compare the environmental implications of differentmaterials or components for a defined buildingapplication.● Select environmentally preferable materials orcomponents.● Identify cost-effective green materials and products.● Assess the range of options of building materialsfor a defined building applicationAnother important resource for obtaining highwww.bdcnetwork.com▪ november 2005 ▪ building design & construction 53

dc0511wp_lloyd.qxd 10/31/2005 11:12 AM Page 54progress report on life cycle assessmentquality, consistent LCI data is US LCI database,which is managed by the High Performance BuildingsInitiative at the U.S. Department of Energy’s NationalRenewable Energy Laboratory. This database containsU.S.-specific data for building and construction products,as well as other products and technologies. Allbuilding products contained in the next version ofBEES, due to be released in June 2006, will beincluded in the U.S. LCI Database. Databases suchthe US LCI Database, used on its own or implementedin software like BEES, strive to provide high levelsof data quality and consistency in analysis methods sothat Building Teams can compare various buildingproducts fairly using life cycle assessment.3. Software for Evaluating Whole BuildingsEvaluating the environmental implications of individualbuilding materials and products becomes morecomplex when the goal is to evaluate or reduce thetotal environmental impact of a specific building duringits lifespan. The choice of a specific buildingmaterial, component, or system often influences otherdesign decisions. For example, selecting either awood, steel, or concrete structural system affects theextent and type of insulating material that can beused. Overall building performance depends on theinteractions between individual components and subsystemsas well as interactions with the occupants andthe natural environment.Several software tools seek to assess overall buildingdesign. Like the material and component LCAtools described above, whole building LCA tools useembedded life cycle inventory data for individualbuilding materials and components, but they go onestep further, taking a more holistic and integrateddesign approach that assesses how different buildingcomponents, assemblies, and subsystems interactwith each other to impact overall building performanceOne such tool is the Athena Institute’sEnvironmental Impact Estimator, which can be usedto assess the environmental implications of industrial,institutional, office, multiunit, and single-family residentialdesigns. The Athena EIE can simulate over1000 different building assembly combinations.Other whole building LCA tools include Envest fromthe U.K.’s Building Research Establishment andEcoQuantum from IVAM in the Netherlands.The level of LCA knowledge and time required touse whole building LCA tools varies. Building Teamsmay find these tools useful when they want to:● Develop a comprehensive environmental lifecycle model of a building design.● Compare the environmental impacts of differentbuilding designs.● Evaluate how substituting different materials orcomponents in a building design affects its overallenvironmental impact.4. General LCA SoftwareCommercial life cycle assessment software (suchas SimaPro, GaBi, Umberto, and TEAM) can be usedto conduct a comprehensive LCA of specific buildingmaterials and components or of specific building systems.These programs include extensive LCI databasesthat are not restricted to building products, providean interface for modeling additional product lifecycles, and analyze and report the life cycle environmentalimpact of modeled products.General LCA software gives users more controlover the life cycle inventory data, underlying assumptions,model development, and impact assessment.For example, such LCA software could be used togenerate a detailed model of a specific building, assessits overall environmental impact, and evaluate analmost infinite number of material and componentsubstitutions and design alternatives.General LCA software requires a level of expertisethat usually exceeds that of most building professionals,which means internal LCA expertise must bedeveloped or a consultant must be hired. The softwareitself must be purchased, along with fees for annualdata updates. In addition, collecting original life cycleinventory data can be time-consuming and expensive.Selecting an Appropriate ToolThe four different types of tools for incorporatingLCA into building require different levels of LCAknowledge, ranging from no LCA background tohighly specialized LCA expertise. Each tool providesa different level of decision support, ranging fromgeneral prescriptions for reducing the environmentalimpact of buildings to detailed analysis of a specificbuilding design.The appropriate tool depends on the specific environmentalobjectives of the project. In general, buildingstandards and rating systems are used to obtaingreen building certification and labels, material andcomponent LCA tools are used to select and procureenvironmentally preferable building materials andcomponents, whole building LCA software is used tomodel and evaluate whole building designs, and generalLCA software is used to conduct detailed LCAs ofspecific building materials, components, and designs.54 building design & construction ▪ november 2005 ▪ www.bdcnetwork.com

dc0511WP_Ads.qxd 10/31/2005 11:13 AM Page 6ADVERTISEMENTThe Precast/Prestressed Concrete InstituteHeadquartered in Chicago with technical and marketing professionals, the Precast/PrestressedConcrete Institute (PCI) is an association of more than 2,000 members, including 230 certified producersoperating 320 plants, and 100+ supplier members. With more than 1,300 professionals (engineers,architects and academicians), PCI has been a dynamic force in the steady growth of the industrysince its inception in 1954.The organization is international in scope and influence. PCI’s goal is to assist its member companiesin achieving high levels of customer satisfaction and dramatically improved productivity through qualityperformance.PCI is a strong supporter of the concepts of sustainability in the built environment. The associationhas been active in promoting the sustainable benefits of precast concrete products and systems and hasbeen instrumental in the incorporation of “green” production processes within the industry.PCI takes pride in helping its members materialize industry growth through closer cooperation withthe design and engineering communities and through early collaboration in the design process.PCI209 West Jackson BoulevardChicago, IL 60606-6938Tel: 312-786-0300 Fax: 312-786-0353E-mail: info@pci.orgWebsite: www.pci.org

dc0511wp_norris.qxd 10/31/2005 11:13 AM Page 56progress report on life cycle assessmentLCA into the Future:Going Global, Getting SocialBy Gregory A. Norris, PhDGregory A. Norris founded anddirects Sylvatica, based in NorthBerwick, Maine. He manages thelife cycle inventory program forthe United Nations EnvironmentProgramme/SETAC Life CycleInitiative, and teaches graduatecourses on LCA and IndustrialEcology at the Harvard School ofPublic Health, where he is a visitingscientist. He consults on LCAand sustainable consumption andis the founder and executivedirector of New Earth, a globalfoundation for grass-roots sustainabledevelopment. Norris hasdeveloped several software tools toassist analysis and decision makingrelated to LCA and sustainableenterprise. He is an adjunctresearch professor at the ComplexSystems Research Center,University of New Hampshire,program associate in the Centerfor Hazardous SubstanceResearch at Kansas StateUniversity, and an editor of theInternational Journal of LifeCycle Assessment. He holds abachelor’s in mechanical engineeringfrom MIT, an MS inaeronautics and astronautics fromPurdue, and a PhD in naturalresources from the University ofNew Hampshire.1WCED, World Commission onEnvironment and Development,1987. Our Common Future.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Three decades ago, as the environmental movementwas just beginning to gain credibility andacceptance, small teams of engineers and physicistsin the U.S., continental Europe, and the UnitedKingdom, acting independently, were called upon bycorporations and government policy makers to providea comprehensive account of the environmental andresource implications of a popular new consumeritem—disposable plastic packaging and bottles. Eachof these teams invented a methodology that subsequently,in the 1990s, came to be called environmentallife cycle assessment.With the rise of “product policy” and “extendedproduct (or producer) responsibility” in the 1990s,LCA shifted from a little-known cottage industry tobecome an internationally standardized analytical toolin support of environmental management. LCA isnow used by thousands of companies, by many governments,by consumer and environmental groups,and even by the United Nations EnvironmentProgramme, to shed light on the “cradle-to-grave”environmental consequences of product-related decisions.In 2002, the leaders of many of the world’s nationalgovernments, along with representatives fromindustry and civil society, converged in Johannesburgat the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Atthis meeting the participants took stock of the successesand failures of the past 30 years, and lookedahead to the promise and perils facing humanity inrelation to the challenge of sustainabledevelopment—development which, according to thepopular definition from the Brundtland Commission,meets the needs of the present with out sacrificing theability of future generations to meet their needs. 1Among other outcomes, the World Summit led to a“Plan of Implementation for Changing UnsustainablePatterns of Consumption and Production.” Amongthe key elements of this plan is a call to “improve theproducts and services provided, while reducing environmentaland health impacts, using where appropriate,science-based approaches, such as life cycleanalysis.”Thus, life cycle analysis (or, as it has been calledthroughout this White Paper, life cycle assessment),originally developed to inform environmental policiesat the dawn of modern environmentalism, finds itselfcalled upon to assist the current search for sustainablepatterns of consumption and production. This articletakes a look at the future of LCA in the context of twoimportant trends: 1) the widening geographic scope ofparticipation in LCA and 2) the increasing scope ofimpacts, including social impacts, being examined inlife cycle assessments.Widening Geographic Scope of Participation in LCAUntil the 1990s, nearly all LCA activity took placein Europe and North America. This activity included:a) development of the databases of “inventory data”about the pollution and resource flows in product supplychains; b) development of methods for impactassessment, which aggregate pollutant and resourceflows in terms of their relative expected strength ofinfluence on different impact categories; and c) applicationsof LCA within companies and by policy makers.During the 1990s, first Japan and later Australiaand Korea saw significant increases in LCA activity.However, until the 21st century, LCA activity in therest of Asia, in Latin America, and in Africa was quitelimited. This has begun to change, and quite dramatically.It should be noted, however, that at Johannesburg,the call for activity on “sustainable consumption andproduction” and life cycle methods was resisted bymany developing nations, for fear that it represented apotential barrier to trade. The concern stemmed fromthe observation that companies operating in the richnations had greater financial resources and greaterlevels of prior investment in pollution controls andefficient use of energy and material inputs. From thisbasis, officials from developing nations feared that lifecycle-based methods such as eco-labeling would favorthe products produced in the richer countries, blockingimports from developing regions of the world. Thisconcern continues to be raised.At the same time, however, activity in life cycleassessment is rapidly growing in Latin America, and toa lesser but still significant extent in South Asia andAfrica. The Brazilian government recently launched anational project to develop life cycle inventory data.LCA practitioners are also actively developing dataand impact assessment methods and applying them in56 building design & construction ▪ november 2005 ▪ www.bdcnetwork.com

dc0511wp_norris.qxd 10/31/2005 11:14 AM Page 57progress report on life cycle assessmentthe public and private sectors in Mexico, Argentina,Chile, Colombia, Peru, and other nations in LatinAmerica and the Caribbean. Several of these countrieshave initiatives for national-level purchasing of“environmentally preferable products” which includethe development of life cycle-based criteria for environmentalpreferability.At the global level, the United NationsEnvironment Programme (UNEP) and the Society forEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC)teamed up to launch the Life Cycle Initiative.* Thevariety of global task forces operating under this initiativeshare the goals of raising the availability, credibility,capability for, and comparability in life cyclemanagement approaches, inventory data bases, andimpact assessment methods worldwide. The initiativehas helped spawn and strengthen regional LCA networksin Africa, Latin America, and South Asia. TheAfrican LCA Network recently hosted an LCA trainingworkshop in which the participants began thedevelopment of life cycle inventory data for theirrespective countries, starting with the supply chainsup to and including the generation of electricity.Increasing Scope of ImpactsAs LCA activity grows in developing regions, sodoes the influence of those regions upon LCA itself.One way this will increasingly take place is by addingnew categories of impact. Historically, LCA impactcategories have focused on direct damages to the environment,environmental pathways to human healthimpacts, and depletion of natural resources. Thus,among the three “pillars” of sustainability—environmental,economic, and social—LCA historicallyfocused strictly on the environmental pillar. Withinthis pillar, increased LCA activity in new regions isbringing new impact categories, such as soil salinizationfrom irrigation.As noted above, environmental issues are increasinglyseen by stakeholders and companies alike asembedded within the broader context of sustainabledevelopment and corporate social responsibility. AsLCA opens up to these other types of impacts, it canhelp decision makers avoid “burden shifting” amongthe social, environmental, and economic objectives,and highlight ways that purchasers and productdesigners can drive not only environmental improvementbut social and economic progress—perhapsespecially in the developing world, where needs andopportunities are greatest.Here we touch on two ways in which this expansioncan take place. First, by integrating economic models* www.uneptie.org/pc/sustain/lcinitiative/home.htm2Hofstetter, P. and G. Norris, 2003:“Why and how should we assessoccupational health impacts inintegrated product policy?”Environmental Science andTechnology 37(10):2025-2035.3World Bank, 2001. WorldDevelopment Report 2000/20001:Attacking poverty. Washington,D.C.4WHO Europe, European HealthReport 2002, Copenhagen, 2002.and databases, LCA is able to address impacts andperformance measures which are routinely tracked atthe level of economic sectors rather than engineeringunit processes. An example of such an impact group isoccupational health and safety. A recent investigationconcluded that the health effects of occupationalhealth and safety issues and incidents in product supplychains appear to be in the same order of magnitudeas the expected near-term human health consequencesof supply chain pollution releases. 2Secondly, integrating economic modelingapproaches and databases into LCA allows us toacknowledge that product supply chain activitiesbring benefits—as well as burdens to the agenda ofsustainable development. Sustained growth in economicoutput in developing countries is linked tomajor gains in human health, through the mechanismsof poverty reduction, greater investment in andaccess to education, and increased public investmentsin the public health infrastructure. 3 As we have seen,traditional LCA, with its focus on pollution impactsand a blind eye to development benefits, is seen bysome in developing countries as biased against theirprimary concerns. By addressing the benefits of economicdevelopment alongside the costs of pollutionand resource degradation, extensions of LCA have thepotential to address these concerns head-on, empoweringpurchasers and building designers to harness thepower of product supply chains to reduce poverty andimprove public health.The 2002 European Health report underlines therelation between socioeconomic factors and health.Poverty, in particular, is recognized as “the mostimportant single determinant of ill health.” The reportnotes the influence of gross domestic product onhealth at the national level, and explained: “WhileGDP [has] a significantly positive correlation with lifeexpectancy, this relationship works mainly throughthe impact of GDP on a) the incomes of the poor andb) public expenditure ... faster economic growth witha strong employment component [leads to] theenhanced economic prosperity being used to expandrelevant social services such as education, social securityand health care. … Unemployment as a cause ofpoverty and ill health is a major issue in all Europeancountries.” 4The importance of poverty in the global burden of diseaseis even clearer in the World Health Organization’s2002 report, which found that “in both Africa and Asia,unsafe water, sanitation and hygiene, iron deficiency, andindoor smoke from solid fuels are among the 10 leadingrisks for disease. ... As with underweight, these risks conwww.bdcnetwork.com▪ november 2005 ▪ building design & construction 57

dc0511wp_norris.qxd 11/1/2005 2:15 PM Page 58progress report on life cycle assessment5WHO 2002: World Health 2002.Geneva: World HealthOrganization, pp. xiv-xv.6Commission on Macroeconomicsand Health. Macroeconomics andhealth: investing in health for economicdevelopment. Geneva:World Health Organization, 2001.7See, for example, Norris, 2003:“Life Cycle SustainableDevelopment: Evaluating thehealth impacts of income changesand development in life cycleassessments”, available viahttp://unit.aist.go.jp/lcacenter/english/symposium/e-program031212.html,and Norris,Suppen, Ugaya, and doNascimento, 2005, “Socio-economicimpacts in product lifecycles”, in Caldeira-Pires,Armando, ed., 2005: Life CycleAssessment in Latin America.tinue to be some of the most formidable enemies ofhealth and allies of poverty.” 5Health and socioeconomic status influence eachother in both a vicious and virtuous way: On the onehand, improvements in health promote economicdevelopment over time, while research shows thatcountries with the weakest conditions of health andeducation find it much more difficult to achieve sustainedgrowth than do those with better conditions ofhealth and education. 6Pathways from product decisions to human healthoutcomes are charted in the accompanying figure.The gray arrows indicate the pathways traditionallymodeled in LCA, from process activity levels tohuman health. These pathways start with increasedpollution emissions, leading to changed levels ofhuman exposure to hazardous substances. The finalhealth impacts may be measured strictly in terms ofmortality impacts (e.g., life-years lost), or may alsoinclude non-lethal impacts on health (impaired functioning,chronic pain, and other morbidities).Green arrows indicate the new pathways addressedin this paper. They show how changed levels of economicactivity throughout the supply chain lead to thetwo impacts on socioeconomic pathways to health.For example, increased output will increase employmentor wages (or both), as well as tax receipts by thegovernment. These in turn will reduce income poverty,and thereby increase individuals’ healthstatus—provided the wage and employment benefitsreach people who are otherwise in poor socioeconomicstatus. Likewise, increased tax receipts by the governmentcan improve health if the greater amount oftax receipts results in an increase in health-promotingpublic investments.Long-term benefits of an incremental increase inGDP vary significantly by country. In general, in countriesbelow $5000 per capita GNP, there is a verysteep influence of economic growth on life expectancy;while above $5000 per capita, the influencebecomes much slighter. International data on lifeexpectancy and GDP per capita were used to developa country-level simplified model of the possible healthgains from product life cycle output at the countrylevel. These factors were used in a multi-nation LCAcase study of Dutch electricity production, whichfound that while less than 10% of the economic outputin the this commodity’s supply chain takes placein developing countries, this output has the potentialto bring gains in life expectancy which may wellexceed the total health impacts from the life cycle pollution.7Now, economic development does not occur in avacuum. The construction and operation of a majorfactory in most locations on earth—in industrializedcountries and especially in developingcountries—have significant impacts on lifestyles,social dynamics, and even the culture of the affectedregion.The results of the preliminary investigations citedabove indicate that the average, long-term influencesof socio-economic development on health can be atleast as powerful as the pollution consequences of therelated processes. Combining this finding with thereality that there are profound differences in the socialinfluences of new economic output per year from onelocation to another leads me to make two forecasts forsocio-economic impact evaluations within LCA:1) Social impacts of product life cycles, on healthand other impact indicators, are profound, especiallywithin developing countries.2) Addressing social impacts in life cycle assessmentwill pose major new challenges—and opportunities—todevelop and apply entirely new systems forpublishing and using site-specific information in lifecycle assessments.58 building design & construction ▪ november 2005 ▪ www.bdcnetwork.com

dc0511WP_Ads.qxd 10/31/2005 11:16 AM Page 2ADVERTISEMENTAt the Green Building Initiative (GBI), we believe that the integration of Life Cycle Analysis is animportant step in the evolution of North American green building standards. GBI is the non-profitorganization that markets the Green Globes environmental assessment and rating system in theU.S.—and, while the current version of Green Globes incorporates LCA in its resource section, werecently began work to make it a more central part of the system.The mandate of the GBI is to promote practical approaches that encourage a greater number of peopleto design and build green. Of particular significance in the context of LCA is the fact that Green Globesis web-based. It also serves as an educational tool during the design process, offering advice and allowingdesign teams to compare alternate scenarios. Once LCA is further integrated, these characteristics willenable designers to compare the impact of materials, systems and products at a more detailedlevel—without a lot of extra work or time incurred.As an initial step, the GBI will soon commission a comparison of life cycle data for common U.S.building systems that will be integrated into the Green Globes environmental design and assessmentsystem. Once this data is added, it should enable designers and builders to better understand and controlthe true environmental impact of their projects.We believe that greater integration of LCA—as well as our recently announced initiative to establishGreen Globes as an American National Standard—are important steps for our organization as we striveto increase adoption of green building practices by mainstream builders and designersFor more information on the GBI, Green Globes or the ANSI process, please visit www.thegbi.org.Ward HubbellExecutive DirectorGreen Building Initiative

dc0511WP_Ads.qxd 10/31/2005 11:17 AM Page 7ADVERTISEMENTWith energy efficiency now accepted as a significant component of sustainability, cool roofing hasgone mainstream – becoming a significant solution to critical national energy and environmental challengesas well as a strategy for reducing building energy consumption.Reflective vinyl roofing membranes achieve some of the highest reflectivity and emissivity measuresof which roofing materials are capable. The U.S. EPA recognizes all vinyl roofing manufacturers of theChemical Fabrics and Film Association as ENERGY STAR Partners for their commitment to continue toproduce specific products that exceed aggressive energy-efficiency criteria.As a sustainable roofing option, vinyl has been selected on numerous LEED-certified buildings.Reflective or vegetated roof systems reduce building cooling energy demand and help alleviate urbanheat islands. Furthermore, architects and specifiers who have selected vinyl roofing membranes know itis not unusual for worry-free performance and an aesthetically pleasing appearance to converge in oneproject.Life cycle analyses comparing vinyl roofing to similar products made of alternative materials haveshown them to perform favorably in terms not only of low embodied energy and energy efficiency, butalso in regard to maintenance costs, contribution to greenhouse gases and long service life.For more than 40 years, this versatile, highly-engineered material has been protecting buildings of alltypes in all climates around the world. Numerous vinyl roofing membranes installed in the UnitedStates during the 1970s are still in place and performing well.We invite architects, specifiers, building owners and roofing contractors to consult our website atwww.vinylroofs.org to learn more about our leadership role in sustainability.The members of the Vinyl Roofing Division of the Chemical Fabrics and Film AssociationCanadian General-Tower LimitedDuro-Last Roofing, Inc.GenFlex Roofing SystemsHPG International, Inc.Sarnafil Inc.Seaman Corporation

dc0511wp_action.qxd 10/31/2005 11:17 AM Page 61progress report on life cycle assessmentWhite Paper Action PlanIn two previous White Papers, the editors ofBuilding Design & Construction have offered positiverecommendations to our 76,008 subscribers, the U.S.Green Building Council, government officials,NGOs, environmental groups, and others involved inthe sustainable design and construction movement.The following scorecard offers a review of progressto date, with recommendations for future action. Westart with past Action Plan items with positive outcomes.Federal Initiatives1. Convene a White House Conference on GreenBuilding.The Office of the Federal Environment Executive,under OFEE Director Edwin Piñero, will sponsor aWhite House Summit on Sustainability on January24-25, 2006. Although plans were tentative at publicationtime, the summit is expected to draw 200-250to Washington for high-level discussions of greenbuilding issues. The summit will undoubtedly havethe effect of spotlighting the green building movementin the media. Score one for the OFEE.2. Sign a Memorandum of Understanding at thesenior federal staff level promoting best practices ingreen building for federal departments and agencies,and issue an Executive Order to that effect.This “MOU” has been in the works for two years,and, at this writing, it appears that the BushAdministration will indeed issue it at the WhiteHouse Summit in January. Such a memorandumwould energize federal departments and agencies totake positive steps with regard to sustainability in federalconstruction projects; it’s also possible that theMOU could morph into an even more powerfulExecutive Order. One point for the OFEE, the Officeof Management and Budget, the Federal GreenBuilding Council, and the Interagency SustainabilityWorking Group, which initiated the MOU process.While we’re at it, we also applaud the OMB andOFEE for coming through on our recommendation(in the 2003 White Paper) to establish the FederalGreen Building Council, a senior-level group withinthe administration charged with establishing greenbuildingpolicy.State and Local Initiatives3. Develop model guidelines for green-building legislationand regulation at the state and local level.There is a need to provide guidance to governors,mayors, and county officials on their options for introducingsustainability laws or regulations into theirjurisdictions. Too many politicians have simplyjumped on the LEED bandwagon without consideringwhether LEED is the best option for local conditions.However, on a more positive note, Portland,Ore., has steadily adapted LEED to meet local climatic,economic, and social conditions. Likewise, thecity of Chicago has been streamlining its building permitprocess for green projects, giving priority of stafftime to projects that clearly have a positive environmentalagenda. Kudos to these cities, and let’s seeother cities and states use some imagination when itcomes to green building laws and regulations.USGBC Initiatives4. Admit trade associations to the U.S. GreenBuilding Council.In a somewhat surprising move, the USGBCExecutive Board voted to overturn the council’s longstandingopposition to membership. The rationalebehind this had to do with the USGBC planning tohave LEED go through the standards-setting processset up by ANSI, the American National StandardsInstitute. Industry groups had for years complainedthat LEED should not be adopted by federal agencies,state governments, or municipalities because (theysaid) the LEED system failed to meet ANSI rules fortransparency and consensus building.Score one for the USGBC board and CEO RickFedrizzi for using sound business judgment, and tothe trade groups that pushed for membership. Now itis up to trade associations that choose to join theUSGBC to show that they can be honorable membersand uphold the mission and goals of the council. Anytrade groups that disrupt the council’s mission shouldbe disciplined or expelled. As a loyal member of theUSGBC, we at BD&C will be the first to call attentionto any inappropriate activities by trade groupswith regard to disrupting the council’s mission.5. Place greater emphasis on life cycle assessmentin the building products industry.The USGBC’s “LCA into LEED” initiative is to beapplauded for recognizing the need for more scientificallybased evaluation of “green” building productsand materials. Three cheers for the USGBC and thebuilding products industry for creating this task force,and to the many volunteers who are doing the legworkwww.bdcnetwork.com ▪ november 2005 ▪ building design & construction 61

dc0511wp_action.qxd 10/31/2005 11:17 AM Page 62progress report on life cycle assessmentADVERTISEMENTto make LCA a reality in LEED and other green-building rating tools. Thisis hard work, but it has to be done if “green” is going to be more than“greenwash.”6. Continue to upgrade LEED.Congratulations again to the USGBC staff and volunteers for theirwork on LEED version 2.2, which addresses many of the shortcomings ofearlier versions. There is still a long way to go to move to LEED 3.0, whichwill seek to incorporate LCA in some way (see above). But 2.2 is a big stepin the right direction.Finally, we would be remiss if we did not salute the work of the PVCtask force of the USGBC Technical & Scientific Advisory Committee forits report (two years in the making) recommending against singling outvinyl for exclusion from LEED. The task force reviewed the scientific evidenceand made the right decision, and a courageous one.Those are the plusses. On the negative side, our recommendation tohave contractors recycle or reuse at least 50% of construction and demolitionwaste has been taken up by some leaders in the industry, but thegreat majority of construction firms are still dragging their feet on C&Dwaste disposal. The Associated General Contractors of America needs tomove more aggressively in this arena.We’re also still seeing slow adoption of sustainability by healthcareorganizations and hospital chains. Even with the Green Guide for HealthCare to aid them, the medical and health establishment has been slow togo green—which is ironic, since our hospitals should be more sustainablydesigned and operated than any other building type.The biggest disappointment, though, is that we still have no scientificstudy by a major federal research agency (such as the National ResearchCouncil) proving definitively that green buildings, whether LEED or otherwise,are in fact “healthier” for occupants, or that they do indeed makeworkers (in offices or factories) and children (in schools) more productive.That’s a huge shortcoming. Without such a study, the real estate industryhas to fall back on marketing and public relations to find some reason tojustify going green. Armed with a rigorous scientific study by a major federalresearch entity, progressive developers would be able to go into themarketplace and get a premium for their green buildings.So, time to roll up our sleeves. There’s still plenty of work to be done.The Office of Energy Efficiency and RenewableEnergy (EERE) leads the Federal government’sresearch, development, and deployment (RD&D)efforts to provide reliable, affordable, andenvironmentally sound energy for America’s future.Our vision is: A prosperous future where energy isclean, abundant, reliable, and affordable.As a Federal office, EERE’s role is to invest inhigh-risk, high-value research and development thatis both critical to the Nation’s energy future andwould not be sufficiently conducted by the privatesector acting on its own. EERE also works withstakeholders to develop programs and policies tofacilitate the deployment of advanced clean energytechnologies and practices. EERE is organizedaround 11 programs: Biomass; BuildingsTechnologies; Distributed Energy and ElectricityReliability; Federal Energy Management;FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies;Geothermal Technologies; Hydrogen, Fuel Cells,and Infrastructure Technologies; IndustrialTechnologies; Solar Energy Technology;Weatherization and Intergovernmental; and Windand Hydropower Technologies. To learn more aboutEERE, visit our Web site at www.eere.energy.gov.In our buildings today, we consume 39% of theenergy and more than 70% of the electricity in thiscountry. Thus, improvement of the energy efficiencyof the nation’s building sector is critical to thelong-term security, reliability, and sustainability ofthe United States. This white paper on green buildingsaddresses the importance of energy efficiency,and the Building Technologies Program is pleasedto again be able to underwrite its development.Note: The views and opinions of the authorsexpressed herein do not necessarily state or reflectthose of the United States Government or anyagency or contractor thereof. Reference to any specificcommercial product, process, or service doesnot necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,recommendation, or favoring by the United StatesGovernment or any agency or contractor thereof.Building Technologies ProgramEnergy Efficiency and Renewable EnergyUnited States Department of Energy62 building design & construction ▪ november 2005 ▪ www.bdcnetwork.com

dc0511WP_Ads.qxd 10/31/2005 11:19 AM Page 11ADVERTISEMENTThe Carpet and Rug Institute (CRI) is the source for balanced facts and insight into how carpet andrugs can create a better environment – for living, working, learning, and healing.CRI is the national trade association representing the carpet and rug industry. Headquartered inDalton, Georgia, the Institute’s membership consists of manufacturers representing over 95 percent ofall carpet produced in the United States, and suppliers of raw materials and services to the industry.Our industry creates products and services that make life better for people – both today and tomorrow.The benefits of our industry are accompanied by enduring commitments to a sustainable world.Of the many sustainable aspects the industry is focused on, diverting post-consumer carpet from landfillsholds a high priority. The Carpet America Recovery Effort (CARE) was formed through a consortiumof industry and government officials to seek out solutions and foster creative thinking in an effortto deal with the post-consumer carpet issue. Today, with oil and natural gas prices continuing to escalateon an almost weekly basis, interest has never been higher in finding new avenues for which toreclaim raw materials from our product.We are making good progress and we are focused on enabling growth along the classic “S curve.”Despite many obstacles – two major carpet recycling facilities closed in 2003 – CARE continues toreport an increase in landfill diversion. During its first three years of existence, almost 260 millionpounds of post-consumer carpet diversion were reported. Activity level has increased in 2005, especiallyin the second half of this year, and those numbers are expected to grow as demand continues to rise.Ours is an industry that accepts its responsibility as a corporate citizen willing to actively contributeto a sustainable future. We support and embrace the Green Building movement and are pleased toannounce a new ANSI approved draft sustainable carpet standard. Jointly developed with MTS and abroad stakeholder group, it is another example of leadership thinking by our industry. This standard representsa major step forward on a national level that will ensure our responsibility as good environmentalstewards. Ours is a very competitive industry, yet it demonstrates extraordinary unity and a commitmentto do what is right when it comes to our journey toward a sustainable world.This is not an about an industry making a product, but rather an industry making a difference.Sustainability has been incorporated across our industry not only as a business strategy, but also as a corporateresponsibility.We can all be justifiably proud that CRI member companies are finding solutions that work: new products,new technologies, changed minds, and changed approaches that provide improved service, betterinformation, and wider choices with drastically reduced impact on the environment.Find out more about our sustainable efforts as well as our remarkable product by visiting our websiteswww.carpet-rug.org and www.carpetrecovery.org.Sincerely,Robert PeoplesDirector of Sustainability, CRIExecutive Director, CARE

dc511wp_bkcov.qxd 11/1/2005 2:12 PM Page 2progress report on life cycle assessmentBuilding Design & Construction White Paper:Life Cycle Assessment and SustainabilityDirectory of SponsorsChemical Fabrics and Film AssociationVinyl Roofing Division1300 Sumner AvenueCleveland, OH 44115-2851216-241-7333www.chemicalfabricsandfilm.comThe Carpet & Rug Institute310 Holiday AvenueDalton, GA 30720706-278-3176www.carpet-rug.orgwww.carpetrecovery.orgMailing Address:PO Box 2048Dalton, GA 30722-2048The Construction Specifications Institute (CSI)99 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 300Alexandria, VA 22314800-689-2900www.csinet.orgThe Green Building Initiative222 SW Columbia Street, Suite 1800Portland, OR 97201877-424-4241www.thegbi.orgNorth American Insulation Manufacturers Association44 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 310Alexandria, VA 22314703-684-0084www.naima.orgThe Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute209 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 500Chicago, IL 60606312-786-0300www.pci.orgTurner Construction Company375 Hudson StreetNew York, NY 10014212-229-6000turner@tcco.comwww.turnerconstruction.com/greenbuildingsU.S. Department of EnergyBuilding Technologies ProgramEnergy Efficiency & Renewable Energy1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.Washington, DC 20585202-586-8288www.eere.energy.govBuilding Design &Construction White PaperLife Cycle Assessment andSustainability‘Life Cycle Assessment andSustainability’ at Greenbuild IVConferenceRobert Cassidy, editor-in-chief of BD&C,will host a one-hour discussion of LCAissues with several of the authors of thisWhite Paper, including Wayne Trusty andKirsten Ritchie.Join us from 1:30 to 2:30 p.m., Wed.,November 9, 2005, Room A410 of theGeorgia World Congress Center, Atlanta.Greenbuild attendees are cordially invitedto join in the discussion of LCA.BD&C White Papers Available forDownload on BD&C Web SiteThe entire contents of our 2003 WhitePaper on Sustainability, 2004 ProgressReport on Sustainability, and 2005 WhitePaper on Life Cycle Assessment andSustainability may be downloaded in .pdfform at:www.BDCnetwork.comCopyright 2005 Reed BusinessInformation ® . All rights reserved.PUBLISHED BY:Duro-Last Roofing, Inc.525 Morley DriveSaginaw, MI 48801800-248-0280www.duro-last.comThe Hardwood CouncilAmerican Hardwood Information Center400 Penn Center Boulevard, Suite 530Pittsburgh, PA 15235412-829-0770www.americanhardwoods.orgLafarge North America, Inc.12950 Worldgate Drive, Suite 500Herndon, VA 20170703-480-3808www.lafargenorthamerica.comU.S. General Services AdministrationPublic Buildings Service1800 F Street, N.W.Washington, DC 20405-0001www.gsa.govThe Vinyl Institute1300 Wilson BoulevardArlington, VA 22209703-741-5666www.vinylinfo.orgwww.vinylbydesign.comBuilding Design & ConstructionA Reed Business Information ®Publication2000 Clearwater Drive,Oak Brook, IL 60523Phone: 630-288-8000Fax: 630-288-8155www.BDCnetwork.comAddress all inquiries to:Robert Cassidy, Editor-in-Chief630-288-8153rcassidy@reedbusiness.comReed Business Information, a unit of Reed Elsevier Inc.,is the publisher of specialized Business Publicationsand Market Intelligence for Building & Construction,Interior Design, Lodging and Foodservice, Engineering,Entertainment, Furniture Manufacturing/RetailFurnishings, Manufacturing, Medical/Scientific andProcessing, Publishing, Printing and Packaging.Copyright ©2005 Reed Business Information ® .All rights reserved.Printed on 100% post-consumerrecycled paper with soy/vegetable inks.