We got a comment back from USGBC that said this:
It is unclear if the Product Replacement via EPDs optimization for aluminum extrusions, hollow structural steel, gypsum boards/sheathing, structural steel panel/deck meets the LEED requirements for this strategy. Combining EPD impacts with WBLCA results shall follow the Additional Guidance for Whole Building LCA Tool
Providers which stipulates that EPD results may only be combined provided:
i. The EPD has not expired;
ii. EPD scenarios should be representative of contemporary technologies and/or practice, and the project location;
iii. Reports all indicators and system boundary information modules required by the WBLCA tool;
iv. Characterizes the impact categories reported according to the same LCA methodology as the WBLCA tool;
v. Can be applied to the study period of the assessment;
vi. Clearly indicates which product (including manufacturer and product name) or geographical region it reflects in comparison to the industry-wide weighted average results of a material or fuel already available in the tool.
This was comment was submitted under our "Building life-cycle impact reduction" credit where we went with Option 2. WBLCA, path 3 (greater than 10% reduction) I am really at a loss of what they are needing clarification on. We used OneClick LCA to conduct the LCA and used the "LCA for LEED" calculator, and mapped all the quantities to material/EPDs that are in One Click's database. I am wondering if they are no satisfied with the software and the EPDs? But I am not sure why specifically call out the materials they did. Any thoughts on what they need clarification on as I don't see how we combined EPD impacts with WBLCA results when I did the whole analysis in OneCLick - the WBLCA Tool..
Molly Walsh
February 26, 2025 - 6:00 pm
Any update on how this was resolved? We have just got the same comment and thought the same as you
jaclyn lee
April 2, 2025 - 5:03 pm
We ended up responding with a general statement of such: Note this was recently accepted / no further questions were asked by USGBC.
"At the time of the analysis, for some of the baseline materials we used the 2021 CLF Baseline
Materials guide (v2), as that was the only document available at the time to determine what were
appropriate baseline GWPs values. As a result, within One Click LCA’s “LCA for LEED” tool
calculator’s database, we looked for materials that had similar values to those published in the CLF
guide. Then for the as-designed assessment, the materials either did not change, a material with a
lower GWP was chosen due to project documentation specifying a limit on the GWP, or project
specific EPDs that were submitted during the construction submittal process were used. "
And followed it up with snippets of the EPDs that were used.
and then replied to each bullet as such:
For each of the materials above the following as been addressed by BOLD answers.
i. The EPD has not expired; No
ii. EPD scenarios should be representative of contemporary technologies and/or practice, and the project location; Confirmed, EPDs represent baseline values available at the time of the analysis and current project status
iii. Reports all indicators and system boundary information modules required by the WBLCA tool; Confirmed. EPDs are from One Click LCA, LCA for LEED tool which complies with LEED guidelines
iv. Characterizes the impact categories reported according to the same LCA methodology as the WBLCA tool; Confirmed. No EPDs are altered and the same methodology is used in the tool
v. Can be applied to the study period of the assessment; Confirmed, all 60 year assessment
vi. Clearly indicates which product (including manufacturer and product name) or geographical region it reflects in comparison to the industry-wide weighted average results of a material or fuel already available in the tool. Confirmed.