Any reason NOT to switch from v4 to v4.1 for the BPDO EPD credit?

Hi Renee, We have hesitated because of the statement "Products with third party certification (Type III) including external verification and external critical review". It's not clear what external critical review is. When queried about this, the USGBC response has been a vague they don't want to impact the ability of project's to achieve this credit.

Yes, the point values change. We are just not sure which Type III EPDs will comply with the requirement of external critical review and third party certified with external verification as it says for the Industry Wide Type IIIs. If you are third party certified, isn't that already external verification? So if you need both what does that mean? Since they couldn't give us a direct answer, we are waiting to see what happens.  If you are intending to pursue without any Type IIIs, that might be a strategy to avoid these issues. We're just not sure how feasible that is as yet. Good luck.

We are about to submit a few projects using the LEED v4.1 substitution and are hoping to claim 1.5 for EPDs meeting the definition of Product-specific Type III EPD "which conform to ISO 14025 and EN 15804 or ISO 21930 and have at least a cradle to gate scope." I agree that the "external verification and external critical review" requirement listed in the credit language is a little confusing as one would assume this to be the case for all Type III EPDs. Our hope is that what they are saying is basically, if its a Product-specific Type III EPD and conforms to ISO 14025 and EN 15804 or ISO 21930 you get 1.5 weighting. I'll follow up after review.  

Hi everyone,  We (USGBC) will be publishing updates that define what is required for critical review of the LCA data and critical review of the EPD document in the upcoming Q2 July addenda release update to the LEED v4.1 beta. Please stay tuned for that (will be published within 1-2 weeks). Also, the EPD credit is the #1 most substituted credit in LEED v4.1, which suggests most project teams are finding it a benefit to substitute the credit, especially for ID+C projects.  

Hello, I am not able to find the updates that define what is required for critical review of the LCA data and critical review of the EPD document. Where can I find that?

Hi Francesco, I'm afraid that I'm not able to find those either. I'll try to track this down and see what's up. Anyone else know what became of that promised update in the July 2019 addenda release?

In case this helps, we have had several projects substitute LEED v4.1 for EPDs and have been awarded the 1.5 weighting for Product-specific Type III EPDs that conform to ISO 14025 and EN 15804 or ISO 21930. Our review comments included a couple of notes that I thought would help others: 1) The type of LCA software used to conduct the assessment must be listed in the EPD. 2) Provide a URL link to the publicly available version of the EPD document.

Hi all - Did we ever find the mysterious July 2019 addenda update? @Summer, what exactly did you verify on your EPD to ensure it meets the 'externally critically reviewed' criteria to recieve the 1.5 weighting? I'm just not grasping what information we need to verify in order to distinguish between the Product Specific Type III that's worth 1 product vs 1.5 products.

Michelle, as far as I've seen, as long as the box is checked on the EPD that states it was reviewed externally, that has been sufficient (which is almost all of them). They tend to all have a statement similar to: This declaration was independently verified in accordance with ISO 14025: 2006. □ INTERNAL ☐ EXTERNAL As long as external is checked, it shoud be worth 1.5. Anyone seeing that differently in the reviewer comments?

Thanks, Tommy. That's what I was seeing/thinking as well but was second guessing myself after re-reading the v4.1 language "Product-specific Type III EPD -- Products with third-party certification (Type III), including external verification and external critical review in which the manufacturer is explicitly recognized as the participant by the program operator are valued as 1.5". Would love to hear a "second" to Tommy's experience!

Summer, my understanding of that "in which the manufacturer..." language is that it applies to industry-wide EPDs. If I use a Nucor steel beam, and submit an AISC industrywide steel beam EPD, it must list Nucor as a participant. 

Michelle: I agree with Tommy, on most Product-specific Type III EPDs you are going to find that internal/external content verfication checkbox and signature section at the bottom of the second page. I have not had any v4.1 review comments questioning the validity of "the manufacturer is explicitly recognized as a participant by the program operator" on a Product-specific Type III EPD. I see this as more of a consideration when reviewing Industry-wide Type III EPDs for LEED v4.1 compliance.