When I look up EPDs in UL Spot it is not always obvious what type of EPD I'm looking at. If it's for a specfic product can I assume externally verified? How would I know the difference?
I'm hoping this article is a matter of semantics and the new v4.1 language wasn't intended to invalidate all the current EPDs https://www.oneclicklca.com/leed-v4-1-epd-credits/
Gregor Braugman
Technical SpecialistVerdacity LLC
3 thumbs up
March 2, 2020 - 4:01 pm
Michelle,
My understanding of how to determine how to classify EPD's is as follows:
First of all it's important to understand that verification party & specific-or-general are two separate questions. Since Self-Declared, Industry-wide EPD's are not a thing, that leaves us with three categories of EPD's to discuss. Also, a discussion of EPD's only touches on the "Disclosure" (OPTION-1) of the credit, not the "Optimization" (OPTION-2) which involves product life-cycle-assessments. I'm going to focus on the EPD's as it relates to OPT-1 - Disclosure.
To verify that a product is 3rd party certified requires a 3rd party such as UL Environment, SCS Global, FP Innnovation, ASTM International or NSF International. Additionally, I believe that the EPD needs to be signed by an individual from the reviewing agency. Note that EPD's are designed according to ISO 14025.
Determining if an EPD is specific or general is usually easier. A specific product EPD should tell you the name of a product (not just a type of material - eg. Aluminum) as well as a single company. Industry-wide EPD's often list multiple companies.
I hope this helps.
Michelle Halle Stern
LEED FellowThe Green Facilitator
112 thumbs up
March 3, 2020 - 11:18 am
All of that I get. But now we're being asked to distinguish between type III EPDs that are internally or externally verified. If anything is listed as 3rd party verified can be assumed to be external, then that answers my question.
Michelle Halle Stern
LEED FellowThe Green Facilitator
112 thumbs up
April 30, 2020 - 12:03 pm
I received this helpful response from USGBC.
The credit requirements do distinguish between internally and externally review EPDs, specifically whether or not the LCA data and/or the EPD document have been externally reviewed. The intent is not to disqualify any EPDs previously recognized in LEED but rather to give more credit for those EPDs that are externally reviewed. Those are weighted at 1.5 times, and those with internally reviewed LCA data and/or EPD documents are weighted as 1 product. My colleague shared that the link you sent has incorrect information and we've asked that it be corrected. In UL's EPD program there is a summary table that includes information on LCA critical review and a check-box that shows if the EPD is internally or externally reviewed. Most UL EPDs will meet the 1.5 multiplier. We also have a resource called Better Materials https://bettermaterials.gbci.org which aggregates several data bases including UL Spot to be able to have the information easily accessible to project teams. This resource will be further built out over the course of this year.
Cynthia Kaplan
Principalcmk LEED
27 thumbs up
April 30, 2020 - 1:59 pm
Thanks so much for sharing this, Michelle. I have to say I am both thrilled and dismayed about the Better Materials database. I'm thrilled that they have it. I am dismayed that it was never mentioned in any conference or webinar that I have attended in the past year, nor is it advertised in LEED Online itself.
Gregory Mason
1 thumbs up
January 12, 2021 - 2:40 am
Hi Michelle,
I am confused regarding the Internally Reviewed and Externally Reviewed EPDs. I have never come across an EPD that has not been externally reviewed by a 3rd party EPD program such UL, or other such programs. If the EPD have been done through a 3rd party EPD program, does it count as 1.5 products, or is there more that needs to be done to achieve 1.5 product weighting?
Shawn Kalyn
April 30, 2021 - 3:44 pm
Hi Michelle,
Excellent question and glad to see you are looking at the information in the EPD's. UL, ASTM, NSF and other program operators will post the document please note it is also good to review the document to see if the EPD used the correct product category rules (PCR) and the same LCA software if you are attempting to use this credit.
For example, a material like Portland cement has two PCR's one for North America and one for EU. Portland Cement is a product used in many manufactured products and the correct PCR (ISO 21930) should be used in the LCA software. A good Program operator when posting and type III epd should make sure that is the case but unfortunately. LCA Practitioner, or Program Operator don't in some case understand the product they are reviewing. I believe that the MCr2 credit needs to have more education on how EPD's established from PCR (ISO 21930) to LCA to the final EPD (ISO 14025). MRc2 create needs some reworking as ISO 21930 states that EPD's should not be used for product to product comparison. Unfortunately, people are only looking and the final GWP number and not reading the EPD which is just a executive report on how they environmental impacts were completed at a past time in history.