Any advice on reference standards (ISO etc) to require for EPDs requested in the concrete specs?
Welcome to the community! I’m not sure I follow your question. Concrete EPDs are produced to the PCR. The current PCR aligns with ISO 21930 as the core rules for the calculations with modifications as noted in the PCR.
We want to make sure that EPDs that are submitted are in compliance with the appropriate PCR. Is there a specific standard number or name we should refer to for the Concrete PCR? Or, is it sufficient to state that the EPD must be prepared in compliance with an applicable PCR complying with ISO 21930?
Generally it’s been sufficient to say that a Type III EPD is required. This would permit concrete EPDs that meet either v1.1 (The original CLF version) or the updated v1 (NSF indicate this as v1, published Feb 22, 2019) of the concrete PCR. The original CLF version was not written to comply with ISO 21930, whereas the current version was.
You could specify that only EPDs developed under the current NSF PCR are acceptable, but that could unnecessarily limit the availability of EPDs if producers have an EPD under the CLF version, but haven’t published an updated EPD under the NSF version. EPDs developed under either PCR would be acceptable for LEED.
Hi Julia and Matt. Matt has it right. I tend to think that the EPDs should be updated by now (almost two years) and given that many concrete EPDs are generated ‘on demand’ for novel mixes, I don’t think requiring the most recent PCR is too much to ask. That said, it depends on the reason for the ask and what you will do with the data. A critical issue for concrete EPDs is the quality/representativeness of the cement data. The first version of the PCR did permit alternate cement datasets which made some results less comparable.
EC3 tool is an open-access tool that allows benchmarking, assessment, and reductions in embodied carbon, focused on the upfront supply chain emissions of construction materials. Please excuse me here, but when has cement, that we use today in buildings even considered for lifecycle assessments? Are you keeping tabs on this high embodied energy, toxic cement to se when it will get better?
Isn’t the idea to get more efficient products out there without using old industry standards?
Why not, ceramic cement, fire proof, 40% more efficient then Portland, as we know doesn’t work as the West Seattle bridge, 520 Chinese cement, etc? We have two companies here in the NW that have far better products the Portland?
Just wondering ?