Green Star Design & As Built and Green Star Interiors ......Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a design tool which is used to help minimise a building’s impacts across a broad range

Green Star – Design & As Built and Green Star – Interiors Minor Update

Life Cycle Assessment: Consultation Paper

Life Cycle Assessment Consultation Paper

1

initiator:[email protected];wfState:distributed;wfType:email;workflowId:6458d6e7e3fbcb49b85a1cd34cc09b1c



Instructions

We are seeking your written feedback on the proposed updates to Green Star – Design & As Built and Green Star - Interiors. Your

feedback is important to us and will assist us to ensure the rating tools continue to promote best practice outcomes.

All feedback must be submitted by January 27th 2017.

How to give feedback

This is one of eight consultation papers.

1. Overview

2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3. Building Air Tightness 4. Life Cycle Assessment 5. Structural Engineered Timber 6. Construction Environmental Management 7. Metering & Monitoring 8. Innovation

The Overview paper is a summary of critical issues that you should be aware of. The others provide detail on specific issues.

You can respond to the Overview consultation paper, any of the detailed consultation papers, or all. You can give as much or as

little feedback as you wish. You do not need to complete all the questions if you do not wish to. There are two ways to send feedback to us.

1. Respond to questions within the consultation papers then press submit. An email will be sent to GBCA. 2. Send a written submission. You can send us a written submission instead or in addition to written comments in the

consultation papers. Please send your feedback to [email protected].

If you are unsure where to put your comment, don’t worry, all comments will be considered. Just save your comments and press submit and it will be sent to GBCA or send it to us via email.

Further information

If you have questions on how to provide feedback, we will be hosting a free webinar on December 6th at 12:30pm. Click here to sign

up. If you missed the date, it will be available for viewing from December 7th free of charge.

For further information or assistance with the submission papers or consultation process, please contact Naomi Martin

([email protected]) or Karl Desai ([email protected]).

Respondent Details

1. Name

2. Company

3. Email

4. Are you submitting on behalf of your company? Y N

2

mailto:[email protected]





Contents Request for feedback ............................................................................................................................................................................ 4

Background ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Overview .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 5

Operational Energy Impacts .............................................................................................................................................................. 5

Minimum Expertise and Review Requirements ................................................................................................................................. 5

Life Cycle Impact Characterisation Methods ..................................................................................................................................... 5

Technical requirements ..................................................................................................................................................................... 6

Operational Energy Impacts .............................................................................................................................................................. 6

Minimum Expertise and Review Requirements ................................................................................................................................. 8

Life Cycle Impact Characterisation Methods ..................................................................................................................................... 9

Other comments .................................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Appendix A: Proposed Credit .............................................................................................................................................................. 10

Appendix B: Previously Considered Options for Operational Energy .................................................................................................. 11

3



Request for Feedback The Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) is proposing to introduce changes within the ‘Life Cycle Assessment’ pathway in the

‘Life Cycle Impacts’ credit of Green Star – Design & As Built v1.2 and Green Star – Interiors v1.2. These rating tools will be released

in the second quarter of 2017.

This Consultation Paper seeks industry input on the proposed introduction, the language within the credit, and whether any

additional guidance or aspects need to be clarified. The Consultation Paper has been developed with the assistance of the GBCA’s

Life Cycle Assessment working group.

To assist in the consultation for this topic, a draft version of the Green Star – Design & As Built ‘Life Cycle Assessment’ credit has

been prepared and is attached as Appendix A. This draft credit includes the proposed changes described in this paper. It is

recommended that this consultation paper be read in conjunction with the draft credit.

In addition, a draft calculator has been supplied with this consultation paper so that stakeholders are able to input data from projects

to test the results, and also to test the impact of different percentage cap levels.

Interested parties are requested to provide feedback on this Consultation Paper no later than Friday 27 January 2017.

Background Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a design tool which is used to help minimise a building’s impacts across a broad range of categories

throughout its lifetime. In Green Star, life cycle assessment was first introduced as an Innovation Challenge. It then graduated to a

Performance Pathway in Green Star – Design & As Built and Green Star – Interiors.

The driving aims of introducing LCA in Green Star was to:

Create an industry of practice around LCA.

Make industry comfortable with LCA as a design tool.

Reward optimal material selection and use in a building.

While the first two goals are being met, though some work is still required, the current makeup of the rating tool is providing an

incentive to not engage in optimising material selection.

For the majority of projects, LCA studies have found that operational energy impacts far outweigh impacts associated with materials

and design. This is in part influenced by the current locked in assumptions i.e. that the building will stand for 60 years with no

technology changes or improvements (grid electricity etc.). This limits the benefit gained from selecting lower impact products and

materials in the project’s design based on the LCA results.

Whilst it is recognised that operational energy impacts do indeed have the greatest lifecycle impact for projects, this is intentionally

rewarded under ‘Greenhouse Gas Emissions’. These two sustainability topics are rewarded relative to their importance in the Green

Star rating tool (i.e. in Green Star – Design & As Built the ‘Greenhouse Gas Emissions’ credit is worth 20 points and the ‘Life Cycle

Assessment’ credit is worth 7 points).

Data submitted by projects has shown that where projects demonstrate operational energy improvements, they are currently doubly-

rewarded by using both credits. This means the ‘Impacts from Materials’ credit is not creating the intended momentum for

optimisation of design and use of materials, or for any further energy use optimisation outside of that implemented for the

‘Greenhouse Gas Emissions’ credit.

In many cases it has become simply an exercise of performing an LCA study to pick up another 7 points.

As the v1.2 release will be a technical/tactical (minor) update, there are limitations to the extent to which the credit or rating tool

structure may be changed. However, it is acknowledged that this is a significant issue and therefore a change to how points are

calculated has been proposed. In the meantime a more comprehensive review is occurring for future updates.

4



Overview This paper proposes amendments to how the Life Cycle Assessment pathway can be amended to avoid or reduce double-counting,

thereby encouraging other methods of life cycle impact optimisation in addition to operational energy improvements.

The use of LCA to support environmental impact improvement for the built environment is gaining momentum. The principles of the

LCA credit are to:

Ensure that life cycle impacts are considered from the inception of a project;

Ensure that impacts are considered on a whole-of-building, whole-of-life (cradle-to-grave) basis;

Promote the optimisation of environmental impact at every stage of the building life cycle;

Consider multiple environmental impacts and prevent transfer of impact from one category to another; and

Ensure valid analysis is undertaken for the purposes of Green Star assessment.

As the science and methods of LCA practice continue to develop, the GBCA recognises the valuable input that the built environment

is contributing through a lot of good work happening in Green Star projects, which is reflected in points gained within the LCA credit.

1. Do you agree with the principles stated in the overview? Please explain why you agree, or not.

The GBCA intends to update the LCA credit to continue to reinforce the above principles. Three key areas for improvement have

been identified.

Operational Energy Impacts

The aim of the LCA credit, which is located within the Materials category, is to “reward the reduction of the environmental impacts of

building materials for the whole building over its entire life cycle”. Currently, the credit is recognising the dominance of operational

energy improvements at the expense of other whole-of-building material improvements.

Minimum Expertise and Review Requirements

The credit requires that the LCA work is carried out by a “Competent LCA Practitioner” and also that it is peer reviewed by a person

with the same minimum level of expertise. These requirements are based on the need to ensure the validity of the LCA results, and

recognise the expertise needed to produce a study with valid results that may be used for assessment purposes.

Industry has expressed a desire for update of these criteria. The GBCA is seeking feedback on alternatives which match the robust

nature of the current requirements but introduce recognised alternative pathways.

Life Cycle Impact Characterisation Methods

It is anticipated that as the science of LCA improves, characterisation methods in LCA calculations will need to be updated. A

proposal for update to the Climate Change category is presented.

The additional life cycle impact reporting component of the credit is designed to provide incentive for increased uptake and therefore

refinement of methods in less recognised impact categories. Some changes are also proposed for the way that these categories are

addressed.

5



Technical Requirements Operational Energy Impacts

It is proposed that the LCA credit be updated to reduce the double-counting of points related to operational energy improvements, in

order to drive other whole-of-building material and design improvements. The update will address the points calculation method in

the credit and not the actual LCA process.

There were a number of options put forward and assessed by the LCA sub-group. The group determined a preferred option, based

on its ability to address the double-counting issue and also provide most flexibility for projects to achieve points while supporting the

aim of the credit. The other discounted options are presented in Appendix B for interested parties to review if desired.

It was noted in the discovery process that operational energy improvements also have significant influence on other impact

categories (eg acidification and photochemical ozone creation), which are not specifically acknowledged under the ‘Greenhouse

Gas Emissions’ credit, although the reward assigned under that credit is a proxy for rewarding all environmental impact

improvements due to reduction of energy consumption.

The preferred solution from the LCA working group was to introduce a cap to the number of points that can be gained through

operational energy improvements, as follows:

To limit the extent of benefit achieved from operational energy improvements, a cap would be placed on the number of

points that can be achieved from improvements in operational energy, Module B6 (EN 15978). Projects with significant

operational energy improvements will continue to be rewarded substantially under the ‘Greenhouse Gas Emissions’ credit

(up to 20 points), with less reward under the ‘Life Cycle Assessment’ credit.

The cap for Module B6 is proposed to be set at 50%. That is, no more than 50% of the 6 points available for cumulative

environmental impact reduction in the Green Star – Design and As Built LCA credit1 can be achieved for operational energy

improvements alone. 3 points are currently allocated for the first 70% cumulative improvement, therefore the cap for B6

improvements would effectively be 70% for 3 points. The additional 60% improvement and 3 points available must be

achieved under other Modules. The initial 3 points will also be available for improvements other than in B6 if desired by

projects – this is only a cap and not a mandatory split in points. A draft calculator has been supplied with this consultation

paper so that stakeholders are able to input data from projects to test the results, and also to test the impact of different

percentage cap levels.

Use of a points cap recognises the future uncertainty and likely reduction of operational energy impacts (e.g. technology

improvements, grid efficiency) and places a higher importance to the stages affected by design and construction – those

stages which the design team have significant control over.

LCA results will be required to be reported on according to lifecycle modules, in order to understand the distribution of

impact improvements, and facilitate the new calculation method.

As an example:

o Project X achieves a 130% improvement under Module B6 and 50% improvement across all other Modules.

Points: (3 points for Module B6, with points cap) + (2.5 points for all other Modules) = 5.5 points achieved.

o Project Y achieves 40% improvement under Module B6 and 70% improvement across all other Modules, with a

cumulative impact reduction of 110%.

Points: 5 points achieved (points cap does not come into play)

1 This also applies to 50% of the 18 points in the Green Star – Interiors ‘Life Cycle Assessment’ credit.

6



The GBCA recognises that this method diverges from a “pure LCA” approach, however with the current configuration of the Green

Star rating tool as a whole, it is considered that this is a preferable solution compared to the current double-counting and

subsequent lack of incentive for environmental improvement using the LCA credit. Feedback is welcomed.

2. Do you agree that a points cap approach is a suitable method of addressing the current double-counting issue? Why or

why not?

3. Is a 50% (3 points) cap for operational energy appropriate for Green Star – Design & As Built? Why or why not? If not,

what do you suggest?

4. Should the percentage or approach differ for Green Star – Interiors? If yes, how and why?

5. Do you have any comments on the attached draft calculator?

6. Can you suggest an alternative method to reduce double-counting of operational energy improvements?

7



Minimum Expertise and Review Requirements

Competent LCA Practitioner

The following excerpt is from the current version of the LCA credit:

The competencies of the LCA practitioner to undertake LCA and peer reviewer to review LCA must be demonstrated. For

the purpose of this credit, an LCA practitioner is an individual or organisation who have produced, co-produced and/or

independently peer reviewed at least five LCA studies in the past three years.

Projects are required to submit competencies statements from the practitioners undertaking both the LCA and the peer

review. This statement shall include reference to the five previous studies; any building, product or service LCA study is

acceptable.

7. Do you agree with these requirements? Should the ALCAS “LCA Certified Practitioner” qualification be added as an

alternative? Anything else?

Peer Review

The following excerpt is from the current version of the LCA credit:

The LCA must be peer reviewed by an independent practitioner as stated in ISO 14044 Clauses 6.1 and 6.2. The ISO

14044 Standard requires critical LCA reviews to be performed and this provides an assurance of the credibility of the LCA

and its results. In general, the peer review shall include investigation of whether:

The methods used to carry out the LCA are consistent with ISO 14040 and 14044.

The methods used to carry out the LCA are scientifically and technically valid.

The data used are appropriate and reasonable in relation to the goal of the LCA.

The interpretations reflect the limitations identified and the goal of the LCA.

The LCA report is transparent and consistent.

The peer review statement must also confirm that the LCA report that has been reviewed is the same LCA report (including

any revisions) that has been provided for assessment.

8. Do you agree with these requirements? Do you have a valid and robust alternative pathway that you could

recommend?

8



Life Cycle Impact Characterisation Methods

The proposed updates are as follows:

Core Impact Categories:

Impact Category Unit Characterization Methods Proposed Change

Climate change kg CO2 equivalent IPCC AR4 Change characterization method to:

IPCC AR5

Additional Life Cycle Impact Reporting Categories:

Impact Category Unit Characterization Methods Proposed Change

Human Toxicity Kg 1,4 DB equivalent USEtox Change unit to:

CTUh

Land use

Land Transformation m2 UNEP/SETAC Land Use

Indicator Value Calculation in

Life Cycle Assessment

Change characterization method to:

Soil Organic Matter method (Calans

et al).

Ionising Radiation kg U-235 equivalent to air Human Health Effect model Change characterization method to:

kBq U-235 eq.

9. Do you agree with these updates? Do you recommend any other changes? Any suggestions / comments?

Other comments

10. Any final comments / suggestions?

9



Appendix A: Proposed Credit

10

Green Star – Design & As Built and Green Star – Interiors Minor Update Life Cycle Assessment: Consultation Paper

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT Credit 19A

Points available: 7

PATHWAY CRITERIA

19A.1 Comparative Life Cycle

Assessment

Up to 6 points are available where a whole-of-building,

whole-of-life (cradle-to-grave) life cycle assessment (LCA) is

conducted for the project and a reference building.

Points are awarded based on the extent of environmental

impact reduction achieved against environmental impacts

categories, when compared to a reference building.

19A.2 Additional Life Cycle

Impact Reporting

1 additional point is available where the LCA conducted by

the project includes reporting of five impact categories in

addition to those required under the ‘Comparative Life Cycle

Assessment’ credit element.

COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS

19A.1 COMPARATIVE LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT

Up to 6 points are awarded where a whole building life cycle assessment (LCA) is conducted for the

project building and a reference building. Project teams shall demonstrate the reduction of

environmental impacts when compared to the reference building. Points are awarded based on the

extent of environmental impact reduction achieved against nominated environmental impacts

categories.

The LCA shall use a whole-of-building, whole-of-life methodology and an appropriately defined

reference building. The LCA shall be peer reviewed. Both the LCA and the peer review shall be

carried out by a competent LCA practitioner.

Project teams shall describe in a narrative how the LCA was used as a decision making tool for the

resulting material selection, project design or other project features.

Points are awarded based on a cumulative percentage impact reduction calculation. This is defined

as the sum of all impact category changes between the project and the reference building. One point

may be claimed for the first 30% cumulative reduction and an additional point for every additional 20%

cumulative reduction to a maximum of 6 points (i.e. a 130% cumulative reduction), in line with Table

19A.1. The final score is rounded to one decimal pointplace.

|| The points available due to operational energy reduction (EN 15978 Module B6) are capped at 3 out

of the 6 points. This is in place to avoid the double-counting of operational energy benefits, as

rewarded within the ‘Greenhouse Gas Emissions’ credit. The remaining 3 points available must be

achieved under the other Modules. The points cap may not always be applied – a total of 6 points

may be achieved under the other Modules, however no more than 3 points can be achieved under

Module B6.

Project teams are required to input the results for the reference and proposed projects in the Green

Star – Design & As Built: LCA Calculator which applies the above calculation methodology. || R2.19A.01

Impact categories reductions are unweighted. Increases are subtracted from the cumulative sum. Where the impact of the categoriesin a category is increased by more than 10%, no points may be claimed for this entire credit.

11


Table 19A.1: Points Allocation for LCA Categories Impact Reduction

Cumulative Impact Reduction Points Awarded

30% 1

50% 2

70% 3

90% 4

110% 5

130% 6

19A.1.1 LCA METHODOLOGY

The LCA methodology shall comply with the following requirements:

Scope - Whole-of-Building as defined in EN 15978. In particular, refer to section 7.5 ‘The

Building Model’.

System Boundary - Cradle to grave including all life cycle modules (modules A to D) and

scenarios as detailed in EN 15978.

Functional Unit – Impacts are assessed and reported on a per square metre (m2) project

Gross Floor Area (GFA) basis. In addition, project teams may report on other functional units

as desired.

Service Life - The service life required by the client or through regulations. If no required

service life is defined, a default service life of 60 years is to be applied.

II Project teams shall describe in a narrative how the LCA was used as a decision making tool for the

resulting material selection, project layout or other project features. This shall include:

Description of at least one (1) material selection choice that was made as a result of the LCA

model. This shall include the original option, the alternative option and the decision making

criteria, quoting the Impact Categories below. II R1.19A.01

12


Impact Categories

Project teams shall assess impacts under the following categories:

Impact Category Unit Characterisation

Methods

Climate change kg CO2 equivalent || IPCC AR4AR5

||R2.19A.02

Stratospheric ozone depletion potential kg CFC 11 equivalent WMO 1999

Acidification potential of land and

water

kg SO2 equivalent CML

Eutrophication potential kg PO4 equivalent CML

TroposphericPhotochemical ozone

formationcreation potential

Photochemical Ozone

Creation Potential (POCP)

[Ethylene equivalents] kg

C2H4 equivalent

CML

II Mineral depletion* (Abiotic Depletion

Potential)

kg Sb equivalent CML

Fossil fuel depletion* (Abiotic

Depletion Potential)

MJ net calorific value CML

*Abiotic Depletion Potential (ADP) is calculated and declared in two different indicators:

Mineral depletion (ADP-elements): include all non-renewable, abiotic material resources

(except fossil resources);

Fossil fuel depletion (ADP-fossil fuel): include all fossil resources. II R1.19A.032

LCA Data The selection of data shall be based on EN 15978. Data quality shall be reported and peer reviewed.

Use of Australian data shall take precedence over imported data, where available. Where imported

data is used, this must be adapted for relevance to Australian conditions, and documented to show

how the data was adapted.

When conducting the LCA for the project, the following Green Star based inputs shall be used:

Reference building operational energy benchmarks as used in the Greenhouse Gas

Emissions Calculator for the project;

Standard Portland cement content in concrete as benchmarked in the Life Cycle Impacts –

Concrete credit; and

Product specific and industry wide Environmental Product Declarations submitted in response

to the Sustainable Products credit.

13


19A.1.2 DEFINITION OF REFERENCE BUILDING

Two options are available for comparison to the project’s life cycle assessment, using a standard

practice reference building or using an actual reference building, defined as follows:

A. Standard practice reference building - A hypothetical building that represents standard

contemporary construction and operation practices.

B. Actual reference building - A building constructed in the last five years that is similar to the

usage, construction and operation of the project building.

19A.1.2A Standard Practice Reference Building

The standard practice reference building shall be agreed through consultation with structural,

mechanical, electrical and architectural professionals.

The standard practice reference building and the proposed project building must have the same:

Structural requirements

Scale

Function

Location

Tenant requirements

Aesthetics

Site conditions including underlying

geology

Planning constraints

Orientation

Season of construction

Materials

The standard practice reference building is to be defined using conventional materials predominant

for the building and deemed to satisfy current National Construction Codes (NCC), as detailed in the

NCC Volume 1 Building Code of Australia. Building fabric must be compliant with NCC V1 Section J

Deemed-to-Satisfy (DTS) requirements.

Energy

Modelled energy consumption of the standard practice reference building shall be based on NCC V1

Section J DTS compliance. Maximum permissible lighting levels in line with NCC shall be used.

Heating and cooling appliances must comply with efficiencies which meet the latest Minimum Energy

Performance Standards (MEPS) and where relevant Section J DTS requirements.

19A.1.2B Actual Reference Building

This reference building is only applicable where data for a suitable existing building is available to

project teams. The existing building must have been constructed in the past 5 years.

The age of the reference building is measured from the project’s Green Star registration date and the

date of occupancy certificate for the reference building.

The actual reference building and project shall have the same:

Structural requirements.

Scale.

Function.

Location.

Site conditions including underlying geology.

14


Where possible, the actual reference building and project should have similar:

Planning constraints.

Orientation.

Season of construction.

Tenant requirements.

Aesthetics.

Where there is no actual reference building that has the same scale as the project, it is acceptable to

adjust data of an actual reference building to reflect the scale of the project building.

19A.1.3 PEER REVIEW

The LCA must be peer reviewed by an independent practitioner as stated in ISO 14044 Clauses 6.1

and 6.2. The ISO 14044 Standard requires critical LCA reviews to be performed and this provides an

assurance of the credibility of the LCA and its results. In general, the peer review shall include

investigation of whether:

The methods used to carry out the LCA are consistent with ISO 14040 and 14044.

The methods used to carry out the LCA are scientifically and technically valid.

The data used are appropriate and reasonable in relation to the goal of the LCA.

The interpretations reflect the limitations identified and the goal of the LCA.

The LCA report is transparent and consistent.

The peer review statement must also confirm that the LCA report that has been reviewed is the same

LCA report (including any revisions) that has been provided for assessment.

Competent LCA Practitioner

The competencies of the LCA practitioner to undertake LCA and peer reviewer to review LCA must be

demonstrated. For the purpose of this credit, ana Competent LCA practitioner isnis either:

A) An individual or organisation who have produced, co-produced and/or independently peer

reviewed at least five LCA studies in the past three years.; or

B) || A person who is qualified as an “LCA Certified Practitioner” (LCACP) through ALCAS /

LCANZ / ACLCA. || R2.19A.02

Projects are required to submit competencies statements or LCACP qualifications from the

practitioners undertaking both the LCA and the peer review. ThisA competency statement shall

include reference to the five previous studies; any building, product or service LCA study is

acceptable.

15


19A.2 ADDITIONAL LIFE CYCLE IMPACT REPORTING

One (1) additional point is awarded where the LCA conducted by project teams includes reporting of

the following five impact categories in addition to those required under the comparative life cycle

assessment (19A.1).

The additional impact categories shall be reported for the project only, not the reference building.

Impact Category Unit Characterisation Methods

Human Toxicity Kg 1,4 DB equivalent|| CTUh

||R2.19A.04

USEtox

Land use

Land Transformation m2 UNEP/SETAC Land Use

Indicator Value Calculation in

Life Cycle Assessment|| Soil

Organic Matter method (Calans

et al) ||R2.19A.05

Resource depletion - water m3 water use related to local

scarcity of water

Water Stress Indicator

Ionising Radiation kgkBq U-235 equivalent to air Human Health Effect model

Particulate Matter kg PM2.5 equivalent RiskPoll

16


DEFINITIONS

Acidification potential of land and water - Acidification potential quantifies acidifying pollutants and

their wide variety of impacts on soil, groundwater, surface waters, biological organisms, ecosystems,

materials and buildings. The major acidifying pollutants are sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides

(NOx) and reactive nitrogen (NHx).

Climate change - Climate change is defined as the impact of human emissions on the radiative

forcing of the atmosphere with its adverse impacts on ecosystem health, human health and material

welfare. The major climate change gases are carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4).

CML - CML refers to the Institute of Environmental Sciences at the Universiteit Sciences, specifically

the CML-IA database which contains characterisation factors for life cycle impact assessment.

http://cml.leiden.edu/software/data-cmlia.html#downloads

Eutrophication potential - Eutrophication potential quantifies compounds with high nutrient content

that are released into water sources. Eutrophication is a natural process for a water body, but human

activity such as material extraction, processing, manufacturing, construction and maintenance

procedures can greatly speed up the process. This impact is measured in kilograms phosphate

equivalents (kg PO4 eq).

Human Toxicity - Human toxicity is an indication of the risk to human health based on material

concentrations tolerable to humans.

Ionising Radiation - Ionising radiation refers to radiation resulting from nuclear reaction.

Independent Practitioner - An internal or external Competent LCA Practitioner, independent of the

LCA for the project. This may be a person from an external organisation, or a person from an

organisation involved the project who has not preciously been involved in the LCA.

IPPC AR4 - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Fourth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Land Use - Land use refers to transformation of land through use in human activities.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) - An evaluation of the environmental effects of a product or activity

holistically, by analysing the entire life cycle. The LCA consists of four complimentary components:

goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment and interpretation. Further

definitions and guidance can be found in ISO 14040 and ISO 14044.

Mineral and fossil fuel depletion - This metric is related to extraction of scarce minerals and fossil

fuels. This is generally based on remaining reserves and rate of extraction. This impact is measured

in kilograms Antimony equivalents (kg Sb eq). This impact category is also known as abiotic

depletion.

Particulate Matter - Particulate matter is defined as a mixture of solid and liquid particles of organic

and inorganic substances resulting from human activities and suspended in the atmosphere.

Stratospheric ozone depletion - The thinning of the stratospheric ozone layer as a result of

anthropogenic emissions.

Tropospheric ozone formation potential - Tropospheric ozone potential quantifies the formation of

reactive chemical compounds such as ozone (O3) by the action of sunlight on certain primary air

pollutants.

Water Depletion - Water depletion refers to scarcity of water.

WMO 1999 - World Meteorologic Organization Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion :1999.

17

http://cml.leiden.edu/software/data-cmlia.html#downloads


GUIDANCE

Impact Categories

The number of impact categories to be reported as part of the methodology is based on credit use

and national or international developments in LCA.

Whole-of-building Whole-of-life LCA Methodology

The scope of EN 15978 in relation to operational energy excludes in-use appliances IT and other

often tenant installed uses, the methodology may be changed to require these energy uses are

accounted for in the LCA in addition to the scope of EN 15978 in certain circumstances.

Prior experience in building LCA may be an advantage to the practitioner but is not required.

The credit requires building parameters for the model and reference building to be agreed by

architects and engineers.

The aim of the peer review is to provide a third party opinion on how the LCA was conducted and

whether the results are to be accepted to demonstrate credit compliance.

Referenced documents Green Star – Design & As Built Greenhouse Gas Emissions credit

Green Star – Design & As Built Sustainable Products credit

Standards

EN 15804 Sustainability of Construction Work - Environmental Product Declarations - Core Rules for

the Category of Construction Products

EN 15978 Sustainability of Construction Works – Assessment of environmental performance of

buildings - Calculation method

ISO 14040 Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework

ISO 14044 Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Requirements and guidelines

Additional information

Additional information can be found in the following documents:

Athena Sustainable Materials Institute 2013, ‘Athena publishes first North American building

declaration to EN 15978’, http://www.athenasmi.org/

EeBGuide 2013, various documents found at http://www.eebguide.eu

Eurime 2012 ‘Analysis of five approaches to environmental assessment of building components in a

whole building context’, thttp://www.eurima.orgGrant, P. And Peters, G. (2008) ‘Best Practice Guide

for Life Cycle Assessment in Australia’, Australian Life cycle Assessment Society

Ignacio Zabalza Bribián, ,Antonio Valero Capilla, Alfonso Aranda Usón (2011), ‘Life cycle assessment

of building materials: Comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts and evaluation of

the eco-efficiency improvement’ Building and Environment Volume 46, Issue 5, May 2011, Pages

1133–1140, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360132310003549

18

http://www.athenasmi.org/

http://www.eebguide.eu/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360132310003549


DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS

DESIGN REVIEW RATING

Projects teams shall submit documentation or information marked with an asterisk* for a ‘Design

Review’ rating.

Project teams are encouraged to read the Introduction section of the Submission Guidelines, in

particular ‘How documentation is described in the Submission Guidelines’, for further information on a

‘Design Review’ rating submission.

AS BUILT RATING

All project teams shall submit the following documentation:

Submission Template*

Green Star – Design & As Built: LCA Calculator*

Supporting Documentation

Project teams shall provide documentation supporting credit compliance. The following documents

may be used to demonstrate compliance:

LCA Report - The LCA report is to be presented in accordance with ISO 14044. The LCA

report must confirm the LCA methodology of the credit has been followed and that no impact

increases by more than 10% when compared to the reference building score. The peer review

statement, comments of the practitioner and any response to recommendations made by the

reviewer shall be included in the LCA report.

Peer Review Statement - A peer review statement is a summary of the peer review findings

signed by the peer reviewer, it must be clear that the peer reviewer statement refers to the

final LCA report for the project, the same report which is submitted for this credit, by reference

to specific document versions, dates or other means.

LCA practitioner competencies statement or LCACP certificate for practitioner and peer

reviewer.

Standard Practice Reference Building Documentation - Signed declarations from the

principal architect and engineer for the project, confirming that the reference building was

constructed in accordance with the specific requirements and guidance of this credit. Also

confirming the reference building design, technologies and construction are true

representation of contemporary practice for the type and function of the project.

Actual Reference Building Documentation - Signed declarations from the principal

architect and engineer for the project, confirming and demonstrating how the reference

building meets the specific guidance above.

19


REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS

Revision No. Date of Release Description

2 TBC R2.19A.01: Proposed update to the credit’s calculation methodology.

R2.19A.02: Proposed update to the characterization method

used for Climate Change.

R2.19A.02: Proposed new pathway to the ‘Competent LCA

Practitioner’ requirement.

R2.19A.03: Proposed update to the unit used for Human

Toxicity.

R2.19A.04: Proposed update to the characterization method

used for Land Use.

1 01/07/2015 R1.19A.01: Detail was added on how project teams shall describe using the LCA as a decision making tool for the resulting material selection.

R1.19A.02: Abiotic Depletion Potential (ADP) is calculated and declared in two different indicators:

Mineral depletion (ADP-elements): include all non-

renewable, abiotic material resources (except fossil

resources);

Fossil fuel depletion (ADP-fossil fuel): include all

fossil resources.

This was done to remain aligned with international best

practice, as outlined in EN 15804:2013.

Minor wording corrections throughout to improve clarity.

Added ‘Design Review’ note to Documentation Requirements

section.

0 16/10/2014 Initial release.

20



Appendix B: Previously Considered

Options for Operational Energy The LCA technical working group considered a variety of options in resolving the issue outlined under ‘Operational Energy Impacts’

in this paper. The options previously considered are provided below for interested parties to review. The original intent is discussed

along with the rationale as to why it was not pursued.

A) Points across LCA modules are capped

A fixed maximum number of points to be awarded for operational energy improvements (EN 15978 Module B6) is

introduced.

The points capping would be applied to the different lifecycle stages of the LCA. A higher weighting would be applied to the

stages affected by design and construction – those stages which the design team have significant control over. A lower

weighting would be applied to stages affected by operational energy – already being rewarded under the ‘Greenhouse Gas

Emissions’ credit. Refer to example table below.

LCA Module A1-3 A4-5 B1-5 B6-7 C1-4

Maximum points available 2 1 1.5 0.5 1

Rationale for discontinuing

This approach would be a departure from conducting a scientifically valid LCA.

Adding a points cap to the LCA modules creates complexity in understanding how the points calculation works.

The points cap was deemed arbitrary – there was no clear method for determining the points allocation across the different

LCA modules.

It is desirable that projects can have design freedom in determining at which point in the building life cycle the impact

savings are made, eg initial materials investment vs maintenance requirements and replacement frequency.

B) Minimum improvement benchmark introduced

A minimum improvement benchmark to be introduced to reward best practice for operational energy improvements. A

threshold would need to be reached before any reward for operational energy could be achieved. The below illustration

uses 25% as a threshold value, however this is an example only.

This approach recognises the double-counting of operational energy improvements within the rating tool. This results in the

following outcome for projects:

o Projects which have good energy improvements only rewarded in the ‘Greenhouse Gas Emissions’ credit.

o Projects which have best practice energy improvements rewarded in both the ‘Greenhouse Gas Emissions’ and

‘Life Cycle Assessment’ credits.

21



Rationale for discontinuing

There is currently not enough data available to be able to establish a minimum improvement threshold. This would be an

educated guess at best.

C) Operational energy is modelled equally in the reference and proposed models

The reference and proposed models could use the same building services, as presented in the proposed model, thereby

nullifying reward for energy efficiency improvements. Energy efficiency improvements will continue to be rewarded under

the ‘Greenhouse Gas Emissions’ credit (e.g. efficient building systems), with other over-and-above energy improvements

also being recognised under the ‘Life Cycle Assessment’ credit (e.g. passive design improvements).

The effect of all other impacts (non-energy efficiency for building services) will be magnified relative to this.

22



Rationale for discontinuing:

The manipulation of the ‘reference’ model to include the building systems from the ‘proposed’ model was considered a

redundant exercise. This would increase the modelling work required, for Green Star purposes only, and not be an

accurate representation of either ‘reference’ or ‘proposed’.

Nullifying any reward for operational energy improvements was considered to impact the points score too significantly for a

minor rating tool revision. This would create marked inequity between projects registered under different versions of the

rating tool.

o For example, if a Green Star – Design & As Built v1.1 project was achieving 5 out of 6 points for operational

energy improvements and this was reduced to 0 out of 6 points for a Green Star – Design & As Built v1.2 project,

it would actively create a ‘uneven playing field’.

D) LCA used to reward the ‘Greenhouse Gas Emissions’ and ‘Potable Water’ credits

Operational energy and water impacts are accounted for in separate credits within the rating tool – ‘Greenhouse Gas

Emissions’ and ‘Potable Water’, respectively. Given the LCA would also account for these impacts, this approach proposed

using the LCA model as a proxy or pathway in place of the other two credits. This option became known as the ‘super

credit’.

Project could potentially tap into 39 points under the Green Star – Design & As Built rating tool using this approach:

Credit Points

Life Cycle Assessment 7

Greenhouse Gas Emissions 20

Potable Water 12

Total 39

The ‘reference’ project LCA model would need to be developed in line with the respective Green Star Calculation Guides

for energy and water. This would effectively provide clear guidance on the ‘reference’ project modelling requirements which

is currently not well-defined in the LCA credit. Additionally, this would result in efficiencies from not having to complete any

individual energy and water modelling.

23




The group agreed that LCA modelling took a relatively coarse approach of analysing a building, when compared to energy

and water modelling. In line with this, the refined approach of the energy and water credits in Green Star were deemed to

produce results to a greater degree of accuracy.

The group agreed that the approach had merit, however that there were significant challenges that would need to be

worked through in order for this to work. This was seen as a potential development for the next major revision to the rating

tool.

E) Operational energy is reported on however not considered for the points calculation

Operational energy is removed from the points calculation, given it is adequately addressed in the ‘Greenhouse Gas

Emissions’ credit.

Projects would be required to report on it, to appreciate the magnitude of operational energy impacts, however it will not

affect the points calculation thereby driving improvements across all other lifecycle modules.


This was considered to be a departure from a traditional LCA, weakening its ability to inform design choices. Given

operational energy impacts demonstrably have the greatest impact across a project’s lifecycle, then not including this as

part of the points calculation and treating it as an ‘externality’ was seen to be creating perverse outcomes.

Nullifying any reward for operational energy improvements was considered to impact the points score too significantly for a

minor rating tool revision. This would create marked inequity between projects registered under different versions of the

rating tool.

o For example, if a Green Star – Design & As Built v1.1 project was achieving 5 out of 6 points for operational

energy improvements and this was reduced to 0 out of 6 points for a Green Star – Design & As Built v1.2 project,

it would actively create a ‘uneven playing field’.

F) Greenhouse gas emissions impacts from Module B6 are not included in comparative calculations

The operational energy (Module B6) greenhouse gas emissions impacts would not be included in the points calculation for

the ‘Life Cycle Assessment’ credit on the basis that this is being reported in the same units and already addressed under

the ‘Greenhouse Gas Emissions’ credit.

The ‘Greenhouse Gas Emissions’ credit already rewards operational energy improvements. Reward for the same reduction

within the LCA credit could be simply removed.

In the illustration below, the cell highlighted black indicate the impact category result proposed to not be considered as part

of the points calculation.

24



Greenhouse gas emissions impacts only from Module B6 are not included in points calculations:

Module A1-3 Module A4-5 Module B1-5 Module B6 Module B7 Module C1-4

Climate change

Stratospheric ozone depletion potential

Acidification potential of land and water

Eutrophication potential

Tropospheric ozone formation potential

Mineral depletion

Fossil fuel depletion


Improvements to operational energy use do not only reduce GHG emissions. Reduction in use of conventional electricity

supplies, for example, also reduces other environmental impacts from electricity generation, eg photochemical smog and

water pollution.

Removing only GHG emissions from module B6 is a relatively insignificant change due to the remainder of the B6 impacts.

That change would be likely to only have a small influence of between zero and two points at most, with many projects that

have currently submitted data not seeing any likely impact from the change due to the magnitude of LCA benefit from

operational energy reductions.

If no change is evident, then the imperative to increase consideration of materials and design is not achieved.

25

Documents

Green Star Design & As Built and Green Star Interiors ......Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a design tool which is used to help minimise a building’s impacts across a broad range