I've been dinged for not marking up EPDs, but most EPDs are secure documents that can't be annotated. Short of taking screenshots - any suggestions on how to respond to what I expect will be a recurring reviewer request.
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Denise Bevilaqua
HIGHLAND ASSOCIATES26 thumbs up
June 10, 2021 - 9:49 am
Martha, I have found that most EPD's are able to be marked up in a pdf program, although I have encounted a few that are protected. I might suggest using your "snip" tool to take snapshots of the relevant pieces and compile them into another document that you could upload as a companion to the orginal EPD. The snip tool allows you to highlight or use the "pen" to draw on the images, so you can effectively "mark-up" to show compliance.
Emily Purcell
Sustainable Design LeadCannonDesign
LEEDuser Expert
318 thumbs up
June 10, 2021 - 11:30 am
That's an odd request when it seems to me like most of the secure EPDs are also ones that follow a very standard format - there must be a couple major EPD operators who lock their documents AND have a company template. I absolutely recommend highlighting documents to help out your reviewer as a general practice! But with EPDs specifically, the locked ones never struck me as a problem because the same operators show up time after time and reviewers can Ctrl+F to find the info.
So if you're also seeing the same EPD formats, you could create a cover sheet with a table of contents like "Validity date - bottom of page 2, ISO standards - top of page 3" and reuse it for multiple EPDs. Of course you couldn't assemble the protected sheets with the cover page, but you could upload it separately and list which files it applies to. If it is the same location for the info on multiple EPDs that would be more efficient than screenshotting each one.
Martha Norbeck
PresidentC-Wise Design and Consulting
70 thumbs up
December 28, 2021 - 10:17 am
Thanks Emily for the reply. For any USGBC staff who might read this - this thread is an excellent example of a common complaint about LEED documentation. It is too complicated. The suggestions - that I take screen shots, or create a cover sheet for common locaitons of information of common EPD formats are burdensome, time consuming busy work.
For a brief while, under v2009, there were welcome changes to the documentation requirements for recycled and regional content - such that only a fraction of back-up documentation had to be provided. Now here, with the EPDs and HPDs, we are back to hours of busy work.
Of course it is hard for me as a LEED Fellow to encourage firms to take ownership of their own LEED work (rather than hire a consultant). LEED documentaiton should be managable for an average firm in a modest amount of time.
Emily Purcell
Sustainable Design LeadCannonDesign
LEEDuser Expert
318 thumbs up
December 28, 2021 - 6:03 pm
I should add to my comment, this REALLY shouldn't be an issue affecting whether you earn the credit. Highlighting relevant info for the reviewer is a great practice to help them find the relevant info in a long or complex document, but it's never been a credit requirement and unless you're making the relevant info *hard* to find (every reviewer has, unfortunately, gotten a 500-page PDF of scanned submittal docs in no particular order at some point...) it shouldn't affect achievement.
I think the bigger question there is whether it is worth the reviewer's time to check the expiration date and ISO standards on every EPD document for every project, and therefore worth the project team's time to organize the information so the reviewer can do that. The v2009 change was extremely welcome as manufacturers were getting better at delivering recycled/regional/VOC product data and EPDs/HPDs seem to be reaching that point now. But even if that weren't the case this level of review detail seems like a lot of effort for little gain on both sides.