Embodied Carbon in Specs

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 364 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, August 19, 2019 - 11:22 am:    Monday morning excitement. I have clients asking how to put embodied carbon documentation into our specifications. I'm looking to my esteemed colleagues to collaborate on this. Who has created a Division 01 Section for embodied carbon documentation? If you haven't, but want to get started, let me know. It's the next cool thing. Soon everyone will want this. - Marc Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 510 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, August 19, 2019 - 11:28 am:    AS far as I know EPD's are the only 3rd party verified certification for "carbon" created from extraction up to the point of leaving the factory. that is where I'd start. however they are expensive so dont expect most products to have them. now, that said..YOU culd for extra money hire someone to do basic "carbon" estimation or life cycle costing for the entire project using what ever info you could find. THAT would be very cool Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 365 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, August 19, 2019 - 11:56 am:    Marc, I am going to start with industries that already have EPDs and are ready to go. - Elizabeth Kertesz New member Username: ekertesz Post Number: 1 Registered: 08-2019 Posted on Monday, August 19, 2019 - 01:50 pm:    You could use LEED v4 requirements for MR Credit Building Product Disclosure and Optimization: Environmental Product Declarations as a framework. I also like the idea of hiring an LCA specialist to conduct a Whole Building Life Cycle Assessment, or use LEED v4 requirements for MR Credit Building Life Cycle Impact Reduction as a framework. Elizabeth Kertesz Junior Member Username: ekertesz Post Number: 2 Registered: 08-2019 Posted on Monday, August 19, 2019 - 01:55 pm:    The only LCA specialist I'm aware of is Julie Sinistore with WSP. I'm hoping to incorporate this into my scope of services at some point, but too overwhelmed with work at the moment! Good problem to have, I guess. Greta Eckhardt Senior Member Username: gretaeckhardt Post Number: 99 Registered: 08-2013 Posted on Wednesday, August 21, 2019 - 02:47 pm:    I agree that the life cycle impact of construction materials and assemblies is something we may need to address in specifications, although by the time CD specifications are issued the design team should have already done their homework and selected construction assemblies and systems that will lead to the desired goal. Documentation by the CM/contractor should be only required for confirmation of what has already been identified by the design team. Pardon the following diatribe, but regarding the specific term "embodied carbon" I sincerely wish that we could start calling this something more accurate. I believe the intent of this term is to acknowledge that the life cycle of a particular product involves the emission of greenhouse gases along the way (during extraction, manufacture, etc.), and we want to minimize these emissions. However, greenhouse gases are NOT carbon - they include two carbon-containing gases (carbon dioxide and methane) and also non-carbon-containing gases (water vapor, ozone and possibly others) so the term carbon is not accurate. Furthermore, many environmentally preferable materials like wood and limestone actually contain carbon in their molecular structure - I know that is not the intended meaning of "embodied carbon", but it is such a misleading term I expect some people will interpret it that way. As specifiers who care about clear, concise and complete use of the English language, could we take the lead in identifying and promoting the use of a less confusing term? Perhaps "life cycle greenhouse gas emissions" or something like that? Marc Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 511 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 21, 2019 - 03:07 pm:    Greta, you are so right....and architects and especially sustainability consultants know so little chemistry...but that is another rant... however I feel it is important for the entire team to understand these principles as many a contractor is selected "day 0" on a project and may have significant input in the product and process selection process Greta Eckhardt Senior Member Username: gretaeckhardt Post Number: 100 Registered: 08-2013 Posted on Wednesday, August 21, 2019 - 03:30 pm:    Thanks, Marc, and I would welcome hearing your rant about chemistry knowledge on another occasion. Yes, the CM is often part of the conversation early in a project but that is before we have issued CD documents. I think the original question was about CD specifications. For example we might want to prefer one type of insulation over another because of the relative levels of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of the two products. We need to talk about that early, because cost, energy performance, exterior wall depth and other factors will all depend on it. It would not be reasonable to issue a CD specification that requires the contractor to find a product that performed according to all these criteria plus had low life cycle greenhouse gas emissions. At that point, I only think it is reasonable to ask them to submit the EPD or other documentation that confirms this property. Gail Ann J. Goldstead, AIA, CSI, CDT, LEED AP, BD+C Senior Member Username: ggoldstead Post Number: 24 Registered: 03-2015 Posted on Thursday, August 22, 2019 - 09:27 am:    I appreciate this discussion: this one is hard to get a reasonable specification written for, let alone, get it coordinated throughout all of the specs, yet it is important for our firm. Most of the projects I work on, there is someone outside of our office in charge of the sustainable requirements and I'm finding that direction and communication is not very good. Nonetheless, I looked up the out of the box Masterspec 018113.14 - SUSTAINABLE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS - LEED v4 BD+C to see if it even contained the phrase "embodied carbon". It does not. It does have some requirements for Environmental Product Declarations. Since Marc Chavez now works for Masterspec of Deltek + Avitru, I'm wondering if Marc could be a catalyst at Masterspec to get out an update on this section that would include clear requirements about "embodied carbon". I agree that Greta has some very important points to consider in possibly getting this section updated. I just submitted an update request to Avitru Masterspec. I hope Marc is on the lookout for it. Gail Goldstead Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 366 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, August 22, 2019 - 10:17 am:    I'm so happy for these responses, thank you all! A little more background, I have a client firm who want to start tracking carbon on their projects, separate from other certification systems. These Architects do consider carbon early in design, and they want to look at their projects holistically. LCC modeling is definitely on the table. They consider specifications to be an important tool in translating intent to the contractor. Who wants to follow up at SCIP? Greta, let's get together for an in person diatribe soon. - Marc Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 512 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, August 22, 2019 - 10:19 am:    as a mater of fact I'm talking to our sustainability person in just a few minutes. Our sections, however tend to prepare "the specs" for one certification or another and not sustainability in general. I'll send more info as I get it. Greta Eckhardt Senior Member Username: gretaeckhardt Post Number: 101 Registered: 08-2013 Posted on Thursday, August 22, 2019 - 10:28 am:    Marc, The language of MasterSpec has a large impact on the design & construction industry and in the past has been based on sound science and accurate use of the English language. I would be sad to see the work "carbon" used in a sloppy manner. In your discussions with the Avitru sustainability person, could you ask them to use "greenhouse gas emissions" rather than "carbon" and "life cycle greenhouse gas emissions" rather than "embodied carbon" in MasterSpec? Or perhaps you and other specifiers can suggest other terms such as "global warming potential" that could be used? Marc Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 513 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, August 22, 2019 - 10:51 am:    ok message sent to our sustainability guru. I have also discussesd with her a NON-certification specific sustainability section, the new division 01 section would be relatively easy..how the architect would then carry that thru the rest of the sections would be another issue. It is on her list of things to investigate. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 908 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, August 22, 2019 - 03:25 pm:    I think that we need to differentiate between requirements needed to satisfy certification requirements and requirements imposed to make a real difference. When dealing with certification systems I would expect that the specifications would be customized for each system. Thus maybe MasterSpec needs to have options for each of the common systems. Your focus is not on what is best for the environment but what is the best way to get certification points. I will suggest that if your desire is to make a real difference imposing project specific requirements on building construction is not necessarily the most effective strategy. Yes we should design more energy efficient projects and we should be sensitive to environmental concerns but until we as a society replace oil and coal with other sources of energy our options during design will only have secondary effects. If you desire non-certification specific specification requirements I challenge you to ask will these requirements make a real difference or do they just make you and your client feel good. When this gets sorted out by our society I suggested that it will make the process of writing specifications much simpler. Marc Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 514 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, August 22, 2019 - 04:40 pm:    ummm we do. we have separate sections in div 01 for major certifications and a separate database that "automatically" selects the language for your technical spec sections for the certification you are going after. As for non-specific sections i believe I understand your point and I am (personally) not a huge "point chase" loving person. i too want to see real science backed change....as for making specifications simpler....that would an interesting topic for a beer. How would balancing Life Cycle cost, CO and CO2 emissions, etc etc, against other social needs and the true resiliency we need in our construction be simpler? better, absolutely ...simpler? Greta Eckhardt Senior Member Username: gretaeckhardt Post Number: 102 Registered: 08-2013 Posted on Thursday, August 22, 2019 - 04:55 pm:    Yes - I would hope that making a real difference would be the goal, with or without certification, but I will admit that to some extent the point-chasing certification systems are changing the market and helping to make new materials and systems available that have the potential for making a real difference. Back to Lisa's original question, I can see that some language in Division 01 could help to achieve project sustainability goals that are not simply references to credits in a certification system. We can state up front something like: "This project has been designed to minimize the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from its construction and operation - any substitutions or other changes proposed by the contractor will be evaluated in terms of whether they support or interfere with this goal." (I am sure that MasterSpec authors can improve the wording on this!). Such a statement could be included in a sustainable design summary section and cross-referenced in specifications covering substitution procedures, etc. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 632 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Thursday, August 22, 2019 - 05:38 pm:    As many of our architects have clients that are not willing to pay for "point chasing," we've written a Sustainable Design Requirements for Non-LEED Projects that largely tackles the IEQ issues that are then detailed in the individual sections. We sometimes add LBC Red List general information to this section. I and our project teams believe we are pushing the outside edge of practical sustainable specifying with LEED v4, Living Building Challenge, and WELL all on the table. I am very concerned about the viability of adding another whole layer of complexity with LCA, CO and CO2 emissions, and the rest - not to mention how are we all to amortize the research cost impact on our fees? And are we trying to put out the Amazon rain forest fire with a garden hose here? Maybe industry members should pay more attention to whose political campaigns they support. End of rant, and I promise I won't go there again because it is simply too discouraging to drag politics into this wonderful forum. The good news is one of our client projects was just certified as a NetZero school. Cautiously Optimistic (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, August 22, 2019 - 06:07 pm:    Science backed, you say? The only science-based green building rating system is hot off the griddle, and ready for use: https://www.thegbi.org/content/misc/ANSI-GBI_01-2019_Publication_-_final_6-14-19_.pdf Is MasterSpec planning to update its sections to be in alignment with this ANSI Standard? Marc Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 515 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, August 23, 2019 - 09:59 am:    again ummmmm Why yes, we DO have Green Globes as a choice along with LEED 2009, LEED V4, IgCC (now including ASHRAE 189.1) Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1460 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, August 23, 2019 - 03:11 pm:    I have a real problem with using something like the Red List, LCA, CO2 emissions as a rationale for selecting products -- unless you really do have multiple products that are suitable for a use, and these additional bits of information are the only distinguishing factor. We've all had issued with the early iterations of Low VOC products -- and how awful some of them were. I've seen spectacular failures of "rapidly renewable" materials as well. We have some clients in northern California who will pay for consulting to distinguish between products based on this type of criteria, and for those clients, we are happy to contribute to the research. But... as one of my developer owners said recently to me "we know the contractor isn't reading the specs". We are adapting to the price pressures more than some of these other issues. As more and more of these various designations come into the market, I'm starting to see more clients who are ready to just throw up their hands and have us meet CalGreen… and nothing else.