Industrial Evolution

Designers are inundated with claims of sustainability from building-product manufacturers. These claims—some substantiated, some not—make material evaluation and selection a perplexing task. But the industry seems poised on the cusp of transformation, from one that is nearly opaque to one where robust and verifiable data are readily available.

At play are a number of factors, including a push for more transparency in both government and corporate operations. Deborah Dunning, president of the Green Standard, an organization dedicated to sustainable product development and purchasing, cites an executive order signed by President Obama in October 2009 requiring federal agencies to collect and report data on their environmental performance. She also points to an early 2010 move by the Securities and Exchange Commission to require publicly traded companies to disclose their climate-change-associated risk to investors.

Within the design and construction world, anticipation of the next version of the U.S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC) rating system, LEED 2012, is playing a major role. The document isn’t due to be finalized until November of next year, but if the draft that was released for public comment late in the summer is any indication, the rating system will have a revamped materials and resources section with credits that provide incentive for manufacturers to disclose more information about product contents and their environmental impact. The goal, according to Brendan Owens, USGBC vice president of LEED technical development, is to “fuel the decision-making engine” and create a “virtuous cycle where products are continually improving.”

The proposed credits rely heavily on life-cycle assessment, or LCA, an in-depth, data-intensive evaluation of a product’s environmental impact from raw material extraction through manufacturing, transportation, and installation, and ultimately to disposal or recycling. The methodology accounts for the contribution of the products to impacts such as global warming, ozone depletion, and abiotic depletion (the exhaustion of nonorganic resources like minerals).

A handful of North American building materials manufacturers have begun providing their LCA information through environmental product declarations, or EPDs. These multipage documents, already used extensively in the European Union and Japan, summarize LCA results and present them in a more accessible format. They typically outline product components, describe the manufacturing process, and include information about water use, energy use, and other factors. They provide “comprehensive, third-party-verified disclosure of a product’s environmental impacts,” explains Heather Gadonniex, an EPD specialist with UL Environment. One of the services UL offers is that of “program operator,” overseeing the EPD process for manufacturers.

The protocol for creating an EPD (see diagram on page 2) has been set by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). At the foundation of the process is the product category rule (PCR), which defines the scope and methodology for LCA data collection for a given type of material. It is what ensures a level playing field among manufacturers and allows specifiers to compare the environmental performance of like products. Once the EPD is compiled, its contents are verified by an independent reviewer. And, finally, the document is made available to specifiers, designers, and other interested parties, often on the program operator’s website.

The push for EPDs in North America is still in its infancy, but the first companies to tackle the information gathering and disclosure process tout its benefits. For example, carpet company Interface registered its first EPD for a product line in 2009 and expects to have completed EPDs for all its products in 2012. As a result of compiling the documents and conducting the underlying LCAs, the company learned that most of its products’ impacts were incurred before the raw materials even reached its factories. The information “completely drove our strategy to close the loop,” says John Wells, president and CEO of Interface Americas, referring to an initiative to replace the virgin material in its carpet with reclaimed carpet fibers and other recycled content.

Similarly, as a consequence of developing its recently released EPD, Kingspan Insulated Panels found that more than 90 percent of its global warming potential comes from raw materials. It is working with steel suppliers and chemical manufacturers to find ways to reduce these footprints, says Paul Bertram, Kingspan’s director of environment and sustainability.

In addition to helping manufacturers identify operational inefficiencies or areas where ecological impacts can be reduced, an EPD can send a message to customers. “Creating one demonstrates a level of commitment,” says Jack Draper, managing director of the Western Red Cedar Lumber Association. The organization released EPDs for cedar siding and cedar decking in April. The documents “tell purchasers that we want to clearly define our products’ environmental attributes and we want to do it in a way that is credible,” he says.

Despite the obvious function of an EPD as a communications tool, even boosters of the disclosure method point out that the declarations are not seals of approval. Unlike other types of “ecolabels,” an EPD does not certify that a product meets certain performance standards—for, say, low levels of volatile organic compounds or high percentages of recycled content. “An EPD isn’t a value judgment,” says Scot Case, UL market development director. “Like a nutrition label, it simply provides information,” allowing objective comparisons among products.

Manufacturers could be seeing more demand for EPDs from specifiers and designers as the nonprofit Architecture 2030 ramps up its 2030 Challenge for Products. The organization, which had previously been focused on reducing carbon emissions from building operations, launched the products initiative in February with the interim goal of cutting the carbon embodied in construction materials by 30 percent by 2014 and an ultimate target of halving it by 2030. According to the group, up to 8 percent of annual U.S. energy consumption and associated emissions can be attributed to building products and the construction process. As a prerequisite for adopting the challenge, manufacturers will be required to have LCAs for their products, though EPDs are preferred, says Francesca Desmarais, director of the 2030 Challenge for Products. “The ambition is to have more products with data and then get serious about comparing one to another.”

Despite the rigor of the life cycle methodology underlying EPDs, the assessments do not account for some environmental impacts as well as others. For example, one of the widely acknowledged shortcomings of LCA is its inability to provide enough information to evaluate the effect of materials’ choices on human health. But for many designers, especially those heavily involved in the design of health-care facilities, identifying potential toxins in building materials is a priority over other environmental impacts such as embodied energy. “We are focused on the health piece because it is part of our clients’ mission statement,” says Tyler Krehlik, a senior associate with Anshen + Allen (now part of Stantec). Among the firm’s current health-care projects is a 289-bed hospital complex on the Mission Bay campus of the University of California San Francisco.

Health-care owners aren’t the only type of clients concerned about potential toxins in building materials. In November 2010, Google committed to ridding its renovated and newly constructed office spaces in North America of substances identified on the so-called “red list” that is part of the stringent building certification system called the Living Building Challenge. The list includes many materials and chemicals commonplace in building products, such as polyvinyl chloride, added formaldehyde, and halogenated flame retardants. The company plans to expand the program to its international offices in 2012. “Google wants to create the healthiest workplace possible,” says Mary Davidge, a Los Gatos, California–based consultant working with the tech giant’s real estate services division to implement green strategies. So far, Google has completed 13 projects that comply with the self-imposed restrictions.

To determine the contents of products, Google asks manufacturers to complete a survey. It has encountered a range of responses. Some manufacturers are easy to work with, says Davidge, but many vendors are unwilling or unable to provide the desired data. “For some products the supply chain is very deep and often the manufacturers’ suppliers don’t even have the requested information,” she says. Other manufacturers are simply confused by requests from multiple design firms and certifying organizations for similar information but with differing requirements or formats.

To help specifiers and others evaluate the potential toxicity of building products, several tools have emerged in recent years, including the subscription-based service Pharos, launched by an environmental advocacy group, the Healthy Building Network (HBN), in 2009. Pharos has a library of construction materials scored in several environmental and health impact categories. The same year, Perkins+Will made its Precautionary List—a database that lists building product types and the chemicals often found in them—available free of charge on its website. The just-revamped resource, found at transparency.perkinswill.com, now includes additional information about asthma triggers and flame retardants.

One recently announced initiative that could greatly improve access to data about the potential toxicity of building materials is an effort to create a standardized format for health product declarations (HPDs), with which manufacturers could disclose product-content information. The group of experts crafting the format, led by HBN and sustainable building information provider BuildingGreen, released a draft in October, and next plans to conduct a pilot phase with eight manufacturers who have volunteered to test it. The standard will be free and held in the public domain. “There is no vision that it would be proprietary,” says Bill Walsh, HBN executive director.

Although most of the disclosure efforts are focused primarily on the information needs of specifiers, some of the recent endeavors target a wider audience. One initiative is an ingredients label, which manufacturer Construction Specialties debuted in October for an entrance-mat product. The approximately 1-by-12-inch tag, created with Perkins+Will, is intended to stay on the product as long as the mat remains in place in the building. It contains basic information about material makeup and directs people online for general information regarding product attributes, such as water and energy use during manufacturing, packaging makeup, and recyclability. According to the two companies, the label is the construction industry’s first such on-product disclosure, devised to answer the questions of installers, maintenance staff, and demolition workers, as well as specifiers. “It is based on the premise that the people who handle the material will also want information,” says Peter Syrett, Perkins+Will associate principal.

Regardless of the target audience, or whether the reporting tool is an EPD, HPD, or an on-product label, the overarching goal of the recent disclosure initiatives is the same, say sources. The ambition of all of these efforts is to put more easily evaluated data about building materials and their impact on people and the planet into the hands of those who need it, while simultaneously providing an incentive for manufacturers to improve their products. At least a handful of manufacturers are convinced that a new level of disclosure will soon be a necessary part of doing business. As Kingspan’s Bertram, says, “We’re simply positioning ourselves for the future.”

Learn At Your Own Pace:

Learning Objectives

Course Outline: