Life Cycle Assessment Tools

Life Cycle Assessment Tools
to Measure Environmental Impacts:

Assessing Their Applicability
to the Home Building Industry
Final Report
Prepared for:
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Policy Development and Research
451 7th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20410
Prepared by:
NAHB Research Center, Inc.
400 Prince George's Blvd.
Upper Marlboro, MD 20774
December 2001
Acknowledgements
This project was performed under a cooperative agreement with HUD and the Vinyl Institute.
This report was prepared by the NAHB Research Center, Inc. for the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Principal author was Richard Dooley; reviewing staff
were Jeannie Leggett-Sikora, David Daquisto, and Mark Nowak. Thanks go to Ed Stromberg of
HUD for his contributions and review.
This publication is based on information obtained during research conducted in 2001. Certain
information, particularly World Wide Web site references and specifics of the life cycle
assessment programs featured in the publication, is likely to change. Any references to costs or
cost premiums should also be used with care.
Although the information in this publication is believed to be accurate, neither the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Vinyl Institute, nor the NAHB Research
Center, Inc., nor any of their employees or representatives make any warranty, express or
implied, with respect to the accuracy, effectiveness, or usefulness of any information, method, or
material in this publication, nor assumes any liability for the use of any information, methods, or
materials disclosed herein, or for damages arising from such use.
Opinions expressed herein are those of the authors or workshop participants and not necessarily
those of the sponsors.
FOREWORD
America's homebuilding industry faces many new challenges in the 21st century,
particularly in the area of the environment. Not only must America's homebuilders comply with
a large number of Federal, state, and local environmental regulations, they are being challenged
to build environmentally friendly housing, i.e., housing that will actively support and promote a
better environment. While such goals are quite laudable, there are no tools of demonstrated
reliability for homebuilders to use as guidance to achieve these goals.
In the last decade, however, various organizations have developed computer-based

modeling tools that attempt to qualify the potential environmental impacts and performance of
various building materials. These models are generically known as Life Cycle Assessment
(LCA) tools. LCAs have been developed to help user choose the most environmentally friendly
building materials and building designs. Thus far, these tools have been used primarily by
architects, designers, product manufacturers, and builders and engineers in the commercial
building industry.
To date, there has been no systematic effort to examine the general validity of these tools
or their applicability and utility for the residential building industry. Given the potential
importance of these tools for America's homebuilders, HUD commissioned the NAHB Research
Center to convene a meeting of experts to thoroughly examine these issues.
This publication presents the results of this examination. The report presents a critique of
LCAs, and offers suggestions on how they could be made more useful. The results suggest that
LCA tools are not ready, and may not be ready for some time, for homebuilders to use as a
practical resource. I believe that this publication will make a significant contribution to our
understanding of the potential role of this type of environmental assessment tool in the
homebuilding process.
Lawrence L. Thompson
General Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Policy Development and Research
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Issues ........................................................................................................................................... i
Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... ii
Research Center Conclusions..................................................................................................... ii
REPORT OVERVIEW................................................................................................................... 1
SECTION I INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
Key Acronyms ........................................................................................................................... 2
ISO 14000 Series ....................................................................................................................... 2
SECTION II LCA FORUM DESIGN ......................................................................................... 4
SECTION III LCA FORUM RESULTS ..................................................................................... 5
Session #1 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 5
Session #2 LCA Tool Methodologies ................................................................................... 14
Session #3 LCA Tool Audience............................................................................................ 19
Session #4 Recommendations and Conclusions ................................................................... 21
ATTACHMENT A ATTENDEE LIST..................................................................................... 26
ATTACHMENT B LCA FORUM AGENDA .......................................................................... 27
ATTACHMENT C LCA TOOL DESCRIPTIONS .................................................................. 28
LCAid................................................................................................................................... 28
Green Guide for Housing Specification................................................................................... 29
BEES 2.0 .................................................................................................................................. 32
ATHENA ............................................................................................................................... 34
Life Cycle Explorer.................................................................................................................. 35
ATTACHMENT D ACRONYMS ............................................................................................ 36
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On April 20, 2001, a group of international experts met in Baltimore for a full-day workshop to
discuss life cycle assessment (LCA) issues and the current state of LCA tools. In particular, the
discussion focussed on the ways in which LCA tools affect and concern the home building
industry. The tools thus far have been used primarily by architects, designers, product
manufacturers, builders and engineers in the commercial building industry; the workshop was an
opportunity to examine their usefulness for the residential building sector.
The workshop included a mix of participants of varied backgrounds. The goal was to have in the
same room, not only LCA tool developers and LCA experts, but also professionals who are well
versed in the environmental indicators (impact categories) that LCA tools attempt to profile via
their algorithms.
In general, LCA tools take data and assumptions and produce an environmental rating for
building products or systems. Five LCA tools developed around the world were highlighted at
the workshop. Each tool has its own unique approach, design, and set of outputs. Tool
developers briefly presented information on each tool to help forum participants understand each
tools breadth and idiosyncrasies.
Once details of each tool were presented, the forum participants had the opportunity to ask
questions and express concerns about the tools in particular, and LCA in general. The day was
split into four facilitated sessions, each focusing on a different topic area. The first session
addressed data needs; the second concerned LCA methodologies; the third tried to determine the
audience for the tools; and the fourth session concentrated on creating a list of recommendations
to help make LCA tools more useful for the home building industry. Overall, the group felt that
LCA tools are not useful to home builders in their current form. Information produced by the
tools, however, might be useful to some people in the home building industry if its accuracy can
be reasonably assured, and if results can be presented in a simple format, such as an eco-rating or
a group of ratings. The usefulness of LCA tools to other groups that affect the product selection
process was also examined.
ISSUES
The forum participants raised numerous issues during the course of the day. A full assessment of
the issues brought up during the forum is contained in Section III of this document. Some of the
key issues included:
x The information produced by the LCA tools is not valuable as stand-alone data. The data
would need to be coupled with other information since the LCA data is not an absolute
measure of product value;
x The data output is too complex for home builders to use in a timely manner;
x Input data is sparse and includes many assumptions that are hidden from the LCA tool user;
x Uncertainty in the results is not addressed; and
i
Executive Summary
x The LCA tools and the data compilation requirements should at least meet international
standards (i.e., ISO 14040 series) regarding LCA.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Participants offered many recommendations in the discussions that took place during the forum.
Recommendations for increasing the usefulness of LCA tools to home builders include:
x Conduct market research to obtain supply chain feedback;

x Identify who has a market interest in using LCA tools;
x Increase data availability and transparency;
x Educate builders;
x Create benchmarks/inventory of real houses (site demonstrations);
x Conduct a case study to quantify the benefits of green building products;
x Investigate what the effect is of labeling a product as green;
x Understand the influence of green in the purchase decision process and long-term
satisfaction of green home buyers;
x Connect green to a performance issue tangible to homeowners;
x Periodically repeat LCA forum;
x Educate building product manufacturers about the importance of LCA; and
x Assemble market research to understand the drivers in home building material selection.
RESEARCH CENTER CONCLUSIONS

LCA tools are designed to assess the environmental impacts associated with certain building
products. The current tools, however, are in constant flux and the science is evolving. More
work remains to be done in order to make LCA useful and applicable to the home building
industry. The algorithms used for each impact category should be verified for accuracy, and the
quantitative tools need to assess and report uncertainties in the results. Input data used by the
tools needs to be improved; the amount of data and the data resolution should be enhanced.
Assumptions, algorithms, and input data should be highly transparent in order to allow third-
party and user review. A method should be developed and used to more comprehensively
validate the LCA tools accuracy. The proper role of LCA in decision-making needs to be more
clearly defined and presented in a way that is relevant and helpful to builders if the tools are to
find broad use in the residential sector.
LCA tools are currently designed to add environmental impact information to the building
product purchase decision-making process. If builders are, in fact, the target audience of users,
then the tools should include the following:
x A clear explanation that the tool does not include cost in its analysis (or an explanation of
how cost is included), but is designed to capture only the environmental impacts of the
building product;
x An explanation of the scale used in the output stage. For example, if a tools output gives
vinyl siding a number of 24 and for cementious siding, a number of 30 on what scale is this
analysis based? What are the units? Builders can understand the units used in costing a
ii
Executive Summary
product (e.g., dollars) or in sizing a product (e.g., inches). However, how do they gauge how
much better or worse a product is based on the numbers in the tools output? and
x Instructions, recommendations, or suggestions on how to factor the LCA results from the tool
into an overall product selection decision.
The final point is particularly difficult. Presumably, when other factors are equal, the product
selection decision should turn on results of the LCA. Unfortunately, other factors are rarely
equal. LCA results, it is assumed, are not intended to outweigh all other factors; any other
position would be unacceptable to most, if not all, builders. Still, without some usable guidance
on how to address the trade-off between environmental performance and other product
characteristics, builders could easily find the tool more frustrating than helpful. They might be
best advised to consider their buyers preferences and the extent to which their local market
values green construction in determining how much to weigh data from, or whether to act
upon, information developed through any LCA tool.
iii
Executive Summary
iv
Section I
REPORT OVERVIEW
Section I of this report contains background information on LCA tools and the purpose of the
LCA Forum. Section II explains how the forum was designed to elicit input from the meetings
participants and provides information on each of the tools highlighted during the event. Section
III contains primary feedback obtained from participants during each of the facilitated
discussions and recommendations regarding how to make the tools more applicable to the
residential home building industry.
SECTION I INTRODUCTION
A forum to discuss life cycle assessment (LCA) tools was held on April 20, 2001 at the Hyatt
Regency Inner Harbor in Baltimore. Hosted by the NAHB Research Center, Inc., with support
from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Vinyl Institute,
the forum brought together an international group of experts in various disciplines. Attachment
A lists the thirty-three attendees. Participants were interested in how LCA tools evaluate
potential environmental impacts of various building products and designs. The goal was to
facilitate discussion among LCA experts and professionals well versed in the environmental
indicators (e.g., indoor air quality, toxicology, solid waste) used in LCA analyses. Some of the
tools refer to these indicators as eco-indicators; this report uses the more generic term impact
category to refer to each environmental indicator.
During the last decade, several LCA tools have emerged which attempt to quantify the relative
potential environmental impacts of building materials. These tools were developed to help users
choose building materials and building designs. During the workshop, the group assessed the
capability of five such tools that have been developed around the world:
x LCAid TM (Australia)
x ATHENATM (Canada)
x Building Research Establishment (BRE) Green Guide to Housing Specification (United
Kingdom)
x Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES 2.0) (United States)
x Life Cycle Explorer (United States)
According to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Environmental

Management series, life cycle assessment is defined as a compilation and evaluation of the
inputs, outputs and the potential environmental impacts of a product system throughout its life
cycle.1
1
ISO 14040 Environmental management Life cycle assessment Principles and framework, First Edition, 1997-
06-15, p. 2.
1
Section I
For the interests of this report, LCA is a way to comprehensively assess a product or systems
potential environmental impacts. In principle, an LCA tool includes all inputs (e.g., energy,
water, and raw materials) and outputs (e.g., emissions to water, land, and air). Figure 1 shows
the various phases during which a product could affect the environment.
Raw material acquisition Product manufacturing process Home building

process Home maintenance and operation Home demolition Product
reuse, recycling, or disposal
Figure 1. Building Product Phases Assessed in LCA
A growing number of builders use resource-efficient building products and advanced

technologies in their new homes. Builders usually have different opinions regarding building
products resource-efficiency. The LCA tools discussed during the forum were designed in part
to help users select the most resource-efficient product from the myriad of items available.
KEY ACRONYMS
Throughout this report a variety of acronyms will be used. Below is a list of the most commonly
used acronyms; Attachment D contains a full list of acronyms used in the report.2
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs and potential
environmental impacts of a product system throughout its life cycle.
Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) A phase of LCA involving the accounting of inputs and outputs
across a given product or process life cycle.
Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) A phase of LCA aimed at understanding and
evaluating the magnitude and significance of the potential environmental impacts of a product or
system.
Life Cycle Cost (LCC) A products initial costs plus all future costs (operating, maintenance,
repair and replacement costs, and functional-use costs) minus the products salvage value (i.e.,
value of an asset at the end of economic life or study period). All costs are discounted to adjust
for the time value of money.
ISO 14000 SERIES

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is a worldwide federation of national
standards bodies (ISO member bodies). ISO technical committees produce international
standards on a variety of topics. Draft international standards adopted by the technical
committees are circulated to member bodies for voting. Seventy-five percent of the member
bodies voting must approve the Draft International Standard in order for it to become final.
2
ISO 14040 - 14043 Standards.
2
Section I
The ISO 14000 series relates to numerous

facets of environmental management. ISO ISO 14040 Environmental management
14040 14043 were prepared by Technical Life cycle assessment Principles and
framework: Specifies the general framework,
Committee ISO/TC 207, Environmental principles, and requirements for conducting and
Management Subcommittee SC 5, Life Cycle reporting life cycle assessment studies, but does
Assessment. While ISO recognizes that LCA not describe the life cycle assessment technique
is still in a nascent stage of development, ISO in detail.
14040-14043 is a consensus-based, voluntary
ISO 14041 Environmental management
set of standards pertaining to LCA. ISO Life cycle assessment Goal scope and
14040 provides information on LCA definition and inventory analysis: Specifies the
principles and framework, while ISO 14041- requirements and procedures for the compilation
14043 provides additional information and preparation of the definition of goal and
regarding the various phases of LCA. scope for an LCA and for performing,
interpreting, and reporting a life cycle inventory
(LCI) analysis.
The standards are designed to guide the
practitioner or analyst and are not legally ISO 14042 Environmental management
binding or enforceable. They attempt to bring Life cycle assessment Life cycle impact
some consistency and credibility to the field as assessment: Describes and gives guidance on the
it emerges and takes shape. general framework for the life cycle impact
assessment (LCIA) phase of LCA, and the key
features and inherent limitations of LCIA. It
specifies requirements for conducting the LCIA
phase and the relationship of LCIA to other LCA
phases.
ISO 14043 Environmental management

Life cycle assessment Life cycle
interpretation: Provides requirements and
recommendations for conducting the life cycle
interpretation in LCA or LCI studies. It does not
describe specific methodologies for the life cycle
interpretation phase of LCA and LCI studies.
3
Section II
SECTION II LCA FORUM DESIGN

The overall goals of the forum were to:
x Determine the prospects and potential of LCA tools to provide valid, useful, and
comprehensive information that could help the home building industry;
x Determine the status of LCA tool development as it pertains to the home building industry;
and
x Identify the next steps that should be taken to meet the needs of LCA end-users.
Attachment B contains the forums agenda. During the morning session, five developers of LCA
tools were given approximately 20 minutes each to describe their tool and summarize its
strengths and weaknesses.
The balance of the forum consisted of a series of facilitated discussions. Discussion following
the presentations focussed on the availability and credibility of data used by LCA Tools. Main
topics discussed during this session included the tools transparency, degree of database
commonality, and whether or not the tools should use industry-average data for a product line
(e.g., vinyl windows) or specific product data for a specific manufacturers product.
There were three additional facilitated discussions in the afternoon session. The first discussion
focussed on the methodologies used by each tool to reach its respective output. The goal of this
session was to explore ways to check the validity of results from each LCA tool. The group also
discussed ways in which the LCA tools draw cause-and-effect relationships to assign specific
impacts to particular products. In the second discussion, participants dealt with policy issues
associated with the tools. For instance, part of the discussion addressed the purpose and value of
the existing LCA tools, including who might use the tools and in what capacity. In the third
session, the group formulated recommendations for the next steps that should be taken to make
the tools more relevant to home builders and the home building industry. Descriptions of each
tool can be found in Attachment C.
4
Section III
SECTION III LCA FORUM RESULTS

As previously noted, after the LCA tool introductory session, the forum was split into four
discussion sessions that sought answers to the following questions:
x Session #1 - What is the availability and credibility of input data for LCA tools? Are there
data gaps and, if so, how should data needs be prioritized? What methodological issues must
be addressed?
x Session #2 - How do the tools produce results from the raw data? For instance, how is a
product rated on each impact category? In addition, how are individual ratings combined to
produce an overall product rating? What are the impact categories based upon? Can the
output of each model be validated?
x Session #3 - How, where and by whom are existing LCA tools used? What is their purpose
and value?
x Session #4 What are some of the next steps that should be taken to help create tools that
meet the needs of the home building industry?
The moderator asked the participants the primary questions and kept the discussion focussed
throughout the day. Following is a synopsis of the answers provided by the participants.
SESSION #1 DATA ANALYSIS
Quality of Data
The quality of input data to LCA software
tools affects the quality of the results. In QUESTIONS ADDRESSED IN SESSION #1
addition, lack of data can lead to inaccurate x What is the availability and credibility of data
needed as inputs to LCA tools?
model results. For all intents and purposes, x Are there data gaps and, if so, how should
the quality of the LCA results is directly data needs be prioritized?
related to the quality and quantity of the input x What methodological issues must be
data. Many assumptions have to be made to addressed?
fully quantify the inputs and outputs
associated with a certain building product.
Analysis
For example, to determine the environmental impacts of mining ore to make steel c-shaped studs,
assumptions need to be made about the distance between the mining site and the manufacturing
facility, the process used to mine the ore, and the type of equipment used to mine the ore, among
others. While assumptions help fill in the current LCA data gaps, they also contribute to
uncertainty and inaccuracies in the results.
The quantity and quality of data available to LCA tools were just two of the main topics of
discussion during Session I. Below is more information on other topics discussed in the session.
5
Section III
Gaps in Data
Since the highlighted software tools were
developed and are used primarily in different According to the Society of Environmental
countries, the data sources used by each tool Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), life-cycle
differed. For instance, the BEES model relies assessment is an objective process to evaluate
the environmental burdens associated with a
partially on U.S. national averages for data product, process, or activity by identifying
related to the extraction of raw materials to the energy and materials used and wastes released to
point of delivering those materials to the the environment, and to evaluate and implement
manufacturers' gates (known as cradle-to-gate opportunities to affect environmental
data) and to the products after production (known improvements.
as gate-to-grave data), and partially on
manufacturing data. The ATHENA tool, on the other hand, uses LCI data developed from a
national program in Canada. Table 1 provides information on the data sources for each of the
LCA tools.
6
Section III
Table 1. LCA Tool Data Sources
TOOL DATA SOURCE

Materials phase:
- DPWS LCA Database
- Maintenance data from Department of Public Works and Services (DPWS)
maintenance teams and material life cycle literature
Construction phase:
LCAid TM (Australia) - Waste data during construction from literature
- Operation phase (Water and waste calculation developed by DPWS from experience
and literature; LCA of Australian energy supply; Links to thermal engines such as
Ecotect or simply enter energy requirements from other thermal engines or
benchmarks)
Demolition phase:
- Waste calculation developed by DPWS from literature
Regionally specific life cycle inventory product databases owned by the ATHENA
ATHENATM (Canada)
Institute and created with industry expert input.
Building Research Associated database of LCA data available on the Internet.
Establishment Green
Guide to Housing
Specification (United
Kingdom)
Building for Database owned by BEES.
Environmental and
Economic Sustainability
(BEES 2.0) (United
States)
- Data and modeling approaches for window energy use are from a variety of
publications, most of which are traceable to the U.S. Department of Energys
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBL).
- Data on regional heating system shares and efficiencies are from LBL.
- Data on life cycle inventory flows from U.S. electricity generation, residential fuel
combustion and pre-combustion, and transportation come from Franklin Associates,
2000.
- Data on the material input and energy requirements for manufacturing window
Life Cycle Explorer
frames are from a Swiss research institute (SZFF/EMPA 1996 Study: Ecological
(United States)
Assessment of Window Constructions Using Various Frame Materials (without
Glazing).)
- Life cycle inventory data for glazings are from the University of Amsterdams
IVAM Research Agency (IVAM 1999: University of Amsterdam, Life Cycle
Inventory Database on Building Materials.)
- Life cycle inventory data for manufacturing raw material inputs used in window
frame manufacturing are from the LCI databases found in SimaPro 4.0 available
from PRe Consultants, NL.3
3
A Transparent Interactive Software Environment for Publishing Life Cycle Assessment Results: Demonstration
Applied to Windows, Norris, G.A. and Yost, P., (to be published) Journal of Industrial Ecology.
7
Section III
Although some discrete United States (i.e., national) cradle-to-gate and the gate-to-grave
data is available, data from manufacturers on processing operations is sparse at best. There are
efforts underway to increase the amount of data worldwide. For example, the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) U.S.
Database Project is planned to create a database SIX AREAS OF LCACCESS
that would contain regionally specific LCI data x Why LCA: A broad overview of information
for the United States. Forum participants familiar to educate people about the concept of LCA.
with this project noted that the project had not yet x LCA 101: A detailed overview of how to
begun and the completion of the LCI public organize and manage an LCA project.
database is still at least a few years away. Under x Global LCI Directory: International
directory of existing LCI data sources and
the BEES project, the BEES Please initiative is other sources of data that can be used to
designed to encourage manufacturers to provide complete a life-cycle inventory.
more manufacturing data for inclusion in the x LCA Resources: A list of publications,
BEES model. books, standards, and links to other websites
that contain additional information on both
Although many forum participants noted that the managing and conducting an LCA.
x On-going Efforts: A list of on-going efforts
data used in the models should be regionally in the field of LCA.
specific, there was not much concern or x Upcoming Events: A calendar of LCA-
discussion regarding the tasks included in related conferences, meetings, and activities.
gathering and qualifying data as it becomes more For further information go to
defined. Certain assumptions are currently made http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/lcaccess/i
at the national level. If the data becomes regional ndex.htm
in scope, then those same assumptions will have
to be made or the data will have to be reevaluated and more assumptions made to account for
regional data variability.
Analysis
Going from national averages to regional averages adds another layer of complexity to the data
gathering process. As more flows are added and the level of aggregation is reduced, data
requirements grow exponentially.
One of the projects designed to help address the need for more LCI data is the U.S. EPA-
sponsored LCAccess project. LCAccess (see sidebar) is a website designed to promote LCA and
to help people make more informed decisions through better understanding of the human health
and environmental impacts of products, processes, and activities. LCAccess strives to meet this
goal by providing information on:
x EPAs role in LCA;

x The benefits of LCA;
x What is LCA and an overview of how to conduct an LCA;
x How to find LCI data sources (LCI Global Directory);
x Available LCA resources (e.g., documents, software tools, other related links);
x On-going efforts in the field of LCA (e.g., EPA, other U.S. efforts, international efforts); and
x Upcoming events.
8
Section III
LCAccess is in Phase II of its development; completion of such a system is at least a few years
away. The website can be viewed at http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/lcaccess/index.htm,
with the exception of the Global LCI Directory, which was projected to be available by the end
of 2001.
Comprehensiveness and Transparency of Data

Forum participants also discussed the concepts of comprehensiveness and transparency of the
existing data. Given that there is currently a lack of data available to developers and the users of
the LCA tools, certain assumptions need to be made to fill in data gaps. Some of the forum
participants were concerned with the assumptions being made in the modeling process and
wanted to know if the models users could view the assumptions. With some LCA tools,
assumptions are not made available to the user. This can lead to problems of misunderstanding
the models system boundaries or ability to predict how a certain building product impacts any of
the models impact categories.
Lack of ISO 14040 Conformance Among

Input Data
The International Organization for
The forum revealed that the tools are loosely Standardization (ISO) developed a series of
tied, but do not adhere, to the ISO series data guidelines, 14040 14043, related to LCA. One
compilation requirements. of the goals of the group charged with creating
these guidelines was to obtain input from
throughout the world on the guidelines content.
Analysis Although people criticize the ISO Principles and
For instance, Section 5.3.4 of ISO 14041 Framework as vague and difficult to attain, it is
the closest document that the LCA community
states that, such data may be collected from
has to an international standard.
the production sites associated with the unit
processes within the system boundaries, or
they may be obtained or calculated from published sources.4 It was unclear from the forums
discussion whether or not all calculated data came from published sources.
Data Are National, Not Regional Averages

The data and assumptions used in LCA are typically based on general, national averages, or
sometimes on data from other countries. The problem with national data is that, for example, the
time and energy used in the mining and processing of raw materials can vary from site to site.
Analysis
Thus, using the national averages may only provide a user with a general notion of a building
products potential effect on one or more of the models impact categories. The use of average
4
ISO 14041 Environmental management Life cycle assessment Goal and scope definition and inventory
analysis, First Edition, 1998-10-01, p. 6.
9
Section III
data raises additional theoretical problems. Environmental impacts are incurred or avoided at the
margin, so the relevant parameter is how flows change as the output changes. This can be larger
or smaller than average flows, but the difference cannot be determined without knowing more
about the production process. In other words, even if the data and algorithms are correct, the true
environmental impacts of a decision may differ from the impacts determined by LCA.
Section 5.3.6 of ISO 14041 addresses the issue of data quality: Data quality requirements
should be included for the following parameters:
x Geographical coverage: geographical area from which data for unit processes should be
collected to satisfy the goal of the study (i.e., local, regional, national, continental, global);
and
x Technology coverage: technology mix (e.g., weighted average of the actual process mix, best
available technology or worst operating unit).5
According to the forum participants, the NREL U.S. Database Project is designed to provide
regional data, but it will take a few years before the data from that project is available to LCA
tool users. Because each new flow must be mapped for each process, going from national
averages to regional averages adds another order of magnitude to the task of data collection.
The NREL projects goal is to produce public LCI databases for commonly used materials,
products and processes. It has a focus on user needs in that it strives to:
x Support public and private sector efforts to develop decision-support systems and tools;
x Provide regional benchmarks for generating or assessing company, plant, or new technology
data; and
x Provide the foundation for subsequent life cycle assessment tasks.6
Phase I of the U.S. Database Project began May 1, 2001. Project partners include the U.S.
General Services Administration (GSA), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and U.S.
Department of Defense (DOD). An advisory committee consisting of public and private sector
representatives familiar with LCA will review the work of the consultant team of ATHENA
Sustainable Materials Institute, Franklin Associates, Ltd., and Sylvatica and offer comments as
the project progresses. Phase II of the project will involve both government and private sources
and will expand the scope of the databases.
Analysis
The availability of accurate data in the current and foreseeable future is important to the
usefulness of LCA tools. Because some LCA tool users will not pay attention to the caveats
offered along with the tools results, users may believe that the conclusions are scientifically
valid and definitively project a products impact on one (or more) of the impact categories. In
5
analysis, First Edition, 1998-10-01, p. 7.
6
Personal communication with Wayne Trusty, ATHENA Institute, 6/27/01.
10
Section III
order to make LCA tools more reliable for use by home builders, more accurate input data and
fewer caveats on the output are necessary.
50-Year Horizons versus Shorter Time Horizons

Participants recommended changing the 50-year life cycle used by LCA tools to more accurately
reflect buyers actions.
Analysis
For instance, when determining whether to make use of a commonly-used building product (e.g.,
vinyl siding) or one marketed as more environmentally friendly (e.g., cementitious siding),
buyers typically focus on the up-front costs. If a buyer were to consider a products future costs
in the decision-making process, they would likely use the time frame in which they would live in
the home. Recent data suggests this period averages about 12 years.
Section 5.3.6 of ISO 14041 states that, In all studies, the following additional data quality
requirements shall be considered in a level of detail depending on goal and scope definition:
x Representativeness: qualitative assessment of degree to which the data set reflects the true
population of interest (i.e., geographical coverage, time period and technology coverage).7
The forum participants also noted that current LCA tools go well beyond the purchasers time
horizon, in that they examine a products life cycle throughout fifty years. Thus, LCA results on
cementitious siding based on the 50-year time horizon may indicate that it costs less
environmentally and economically than vinyl siding. A five-year horizon comparing the two
siding products favors vinyl siding. Most home buyers do not live in a house for 50 years so are
less apt to consider the LCA results. In addition, LCA tools may not adequately take into
account the market acceptance or desirability of a material. For instance, cementitious siding
may need to be maintained more often than vinyl siding after five years. If a person building a
home is planning to sell the home in five to ten years, the issue of resale value becomes very
important from the buyers perspective. Very little data is available on the market valuation of
environmentally preferable alternative products, complicating the buyer's analysis.
LCA tool developers noted that the discrepancy between the time horizon used by the tools and
the time horizon used by home buyers underscored the need to educate future home buyers and
builders on the LCA results and to show how future generations are impacted by todays buying
and building decisions.
Lastly, homeowners often remodel for aesthetic reasons making a physically sound product (e.g.,
a shag carpet) functionally obsolete. So although the product makers created a product that
would last fifty years, real-world factors reduced the products effective life to less than half of
that. It is unclear how LCA tools take or should take such issues into account.
7
analysis, First Edition, 1998-10-01, p. 7
11
Section III
Proprietary and Company-Specific Data

Individual companies or industry organizations
The LCA data currently provided by currently hold much of the data needed by LCA
manufacturers is often reviewed and validated by tools. To accurately calculate an individual
products impact on the environment, the tools
consultants. These professionals generally have need specific details regarding what type and
background knowledge and expertise in amount of chemicals and other materials go into
economics, engineering, and environmental the product. Legal counsel for these companies
issues. There is a certain amount of trust built into and organizations often resist releasing the
the data review process. manufacturing data because they are concerned
with liability and/or proprietary issues. For
instance, the manufacturing data could be used
Analysis by U.S. EPA to conduct mass balance
However, when it comes to knowledge of a calculations and might bring a company under
greater scrutiny by the regulators. In addition, if
specific industrys processes (e.g., the the data is provided to the government, a
manufacture of insulated concrete forms), the companys competitor might obtain the
consultants rely on industry professionals to proprietary data through a Freedom of
verify the datas accuracy as well as the Information Act (FOIA) request. Opening the
description of the products process-mapping. company to increased regulatory scrutiny or
losing market share are barriers that may not be
overcome with the monetary incentives used by
In addition, forum participants stated that certain tool developers.
assumptions are then built into the data analysis,
which can lead to inaccurate model results
because two companies manufacturing processes may be markedly different for the same end
product. One problem is that a companys trade secrets may be built into its manufacturing
process, and to reveal those secrets to the LCA community may lead to competitive disadvantage
for that company. On the other hand, not revealing the difference in the manufacturing processes
to LCA tool developers could make one companys product appear less desirable than
competitors' products given the assumed manufacturing processes built into the LCAs tool. In
essence, the current state of LCA tools generally does not take into account the inherent
variability of the manufacturing processes across producers. Also, the people charged with
verifying the accuracy of the data are not experts in each particular industry, making it difficult
for them to identify potential problems with the companys data and assumptions.
Given that LCA is formally in its nascent stages (e.g., ISO 14040 was approved June 16, 1997),
it is time consuming to populate the databases with useful and reliable data. This is critical
because of the LCA tools heavy reliance on accurate data. For example, it took approximately
$70,000 to collect a limited dataset for windows for the Life Cycle Explorer LCA tool.
Therefore, a very large sum of money would likely be needed to gather the appropriate data to
accurately compare many different building products.
12
Section III
Database Standardization
Forum participants noted that it would be beneficial both from the LCA tool users and the
manufacturers points of view to have consistency in the data dictionaries across all databases
used by LCA tools. Such consistency could lead to a greater amount of data available for use by
an LCA tool and could help address the regional variability of some of the data.
Analysis
Each tool highlighted during the LCA forum used its own LCI data, and there is no
standardization of the databases to allow for one tool to easily use the database created for
another tool.
Usage Phase of Materials

In general, LCA tools do not take into account the ways in which building products are
maintained and operated. Certain assumptions are built into a products dataset related to how it
is used because it is difficult to determine the frequency and type of maintenance that will be
done on that product.
Analysis
For instance, how often will a homeowner shampoo a carpet or clean a hardwood floor? What
types of chemicals are in the cleaning solutions used on the product? Clearly, these are
homeowner-specific considerations, and general maintenance and operation assumptions are
difficult to incorporate into the LCA tools. Related to indoor air quality (an impact category for
at least one of the LCA tools), the amount of outgassing that occurs during the products
maintenance/usage phase may exceed the amount of outgassing derived from the product itself.
In addition, the LCA tools face great difficulties taking into account how a product acts within
the building system, for example, with respect to the operational energy. A windows
operational energy is only partly determined by heat loss through the window; it is also a
function of the efficiency of the HVAC and duct systems. However, the tools do not allow the
user to enter that efficiency data. Some of the tools isolate a products performance and potential
environmental impacts and have problems taking into account the building as a system, e.g., how
changes to a buildings design or orientation, or how the use of other products in the house could
alter the products impacts. Analyzing the window and the HVAC system separately can be
misleading because there are strong performance interactions, but analyzing them together can
make results even more complex and harder to interpret.
Finally, the extended usage phase characteristic of building materials introduces a whole new
dimension of complexity. Energy sources and associated pollutant flows will change throughout
this period, but the models are essentially static. As power plants become cleaner, for example,
the environmental impact of any window is reduced. The impacts depend on future events that
13
Section III
are difficult or impossible to predict. This problem is much less significant when LCA is applied
to disposable or short-lived products.
SESSION #2 LCA TOOL METHODOLOGIES
Assumptions Built Into LCA Methodology QUESTIONS ADDRESSED IN SESSION #2

As noted before, because of LCI data gaps, x How do the tools produce results from the
raw data? For instance, how is a product
various assumptions are built into each tool. In
rated on each ecoindicator?
addition, there are assumptions inherent in the x In addition, how are individual ratings
algorithms used to calculate a products potential combined to produce an overall product
effect on an impact category. Forum participants rating?
noted that there should be transparency in that the x What are the ecoindicators based upon?
user should be able to determine what x Can the output of each model be validated?
assumptions are used for each of the impact
categories. They indicated that background information should be made available so that each
user can determine whether or not an assumption is appropriate, such as how a products
outgassing contributes to ozone depletion or global climate change.
Analysis
If a tool is truly attempting to capture a products environmental life cycle costs, it should
consistently use the same algorithms to calculate the products impacts on each impact category.
The end-user can then change the tools settings to determine for which impact category data is
to be displayed. For instance, one person using a tool may not be interested in a products
impact on global climate change but may be interested in ozone depletion, while another person
using the same tool is interested in eutrophication but not in ozone depletion.
Forum participants noted that although the end results should not change across impact
categories, the way in which the conclusions are displayed should be adaptable to the users
preferences; the tools should not impose a fixed approach to how the data should be displayed.
Participants also commented that the combination of the individual impact category results into a
single LCA score needs to be reassessed. If a tool attempts to create a single score to simplify
conclusions, then the methodology it uses to weight the individual impact categories needs to be
transparent.
Double Counting Issues

Forum participants indicated there are two primary issues regarding double counting. First,
solely considering LCA, it was unclear whether or not the tools guard against inappropriately
applying a products potential effects to more than one impact category. For instance, if a
product is given one LCA score for global climate change, and another score for ozone
14
Section III
depletion, it is unclear whether or not some of the products contribution to global climate
change is also included in the products ozone depletion score.
Second, one of the tool developers acknowledged that there is no way to tell how much double
counting is done on a case-by-case basis as it pertains to the merging of LCC and LCA. Market
prices already reflect some of a products resource utilization and even environmental impacts.
Therefore, when a product goes through separate LCA and LCC analyses, overlap can occur. It
is difficult for tool developers to quantify the amount of overlap partially because it is difficult to
quantify a product's environmental impacts.
Analysis
Section 5.3.3.d of ISO 14042 states that the impact categories, category indicators and
characterization models should avoid double counting unless required by the goal and scope
definition, for example when the study includes both human health and carcinogenicity.8 In
addition, double counting becomes an even larger issue as the use of LCC spreads. For example,
the environmental impacts of a window may be attributed to the window, the heat pump, and the
power plant. The fact that these impacts can only be avoided once is easily lost as multiple
actors weigh them in isolation.
ISO 14040 Conformance on Methodology

Similar to the issue related to data acquisition, developers loosely base the LCA tools on the ISO
14040 Principles and Framework. They note, however, that the tools do not entirely conform to
the standard because of the vague nature of ISO 14040 and because it would be difficult to
adhere to every part of the international standard. For instance, forum participants noted that at
least one of the tools reviewed for ISO 14040 conformance failed to conform to the issues of
transparency and uncertainty analysis.
Analysis
Section 10.2.3.d states that in addition, for comparative assertions disclosed to the public, the
report shall include the following items: the results of the uncertainty and sensitivity analyses.9
Section 7 of ISO 14042 also addresses the potential need for additional techniques and
information that may be needed to better understand the significance, uncertainty, and
sensitivity of the tools results.10 Failure to address these issues can rob the results of a
meaningful context, and lead users to act as if the data were more reliable than it really is.
8
ISO 14042 Environmental management Life cycle assessment Life cycle impact assessment, First Edition,
2000-03-01, p. 6.
9
2000-03-01, p. 12.
10
2000-03-01, p. 10.
15
Section III
Validity Testing
When asked how the tools results were being validated, tool developers told forum participants
that the best way to confirm the accuracy of a tools results was to run the tests as often as
possible on as many products as possible, i.e., repeatability was the key. If a tool was used
numerous times to determine a products potential environmental impacts, and the outputs from
each run were similar, then tool developers concluded that the tool accurately portrays that
products impacts. Conversely, if the runs results do not make intuitive sense, or if the results
are markedly different from one run to another, then this would alert the developers to the need
for reassessment of the models algorithms and for recalibrating the model.
One of the groups participants commented that one of the hallmarks of good science is that a
result can be tested independently and proven to be right or wrong. Given the approach of the
tool developers, it can be very difficult to disprove outputs of the LCA tools.
Analysis
As was noted before, LCA must invoke numerous assumptions related to the impact categories.
For instance, one set of scientists believes that global climate change will increase the global
temperature by x degrees in 30 years, while another set of scientists thinks that the temperature
will increase by x+3 degrees. It is the role of the tool developers to determine what algorithms
and assumptions to build into the tool. The tool developer, in turn, must rely on his/her expertise
to make up for the lack of agreement in the scientific community. However, it may take many
years to come to consensus on the correct set of assumptions, if consensus is reached at all.
From another perspective, the application of flow coefficients to derive, aggregate and compare
impacts from production in itself is just arithmetic and accounting. Validation in this setting
requires examination and verification of the flow coefficients themselves, as well as the
algorithms and equations used to translate these flows into particular impact categories. The
complexity of the models and multidisciplinary nature of LCA make this very challenging. A
few of the many areas requiring assessment to validate a model are:
x Relative global warming potential of different gases;

x Environmental impact of mineral extraction methods;
x Toxic impact of disposing of materials such as lead or particulates; and
x Carcinogenicity related to ozone depletion.
Different Tool, Different Approach and Application

By highlighting the five different LCA tools during the forum, it became apparent that each tool
had its own unique application. Therefore, while each tool could be called an LCA tool, there
was little consistency in the methodologies used from one tool to another. In addition, while one
tool considered the building as a system, other tools considered primarily the products
individual attributes rather than how that specific product performed within the building system.
Forum participants suggested that it would be less confusing for the users if there was
consistency in methodology between the various tools.
16
Section III
Unequal Uncertainty Across Impact Categories

Some forum participants indicated that there is no one right answer as it pertained to the model
outputs. Rather, the tools should be used to show relative impacts when comparing two
products potential effects on an impact category. In addition, there is a different degree of
certainty related to each impact category, i.e., the amount of scientific knowledge and certainty
reflected in the algorithms varies across impact categories.
Analysis
Scientists are in general agreement on the algorithms associated with the smog impact category,
but there is a much greater range of scientific opinion when it comes to the eutrophication impact
category.
Section 8 of ISO 14042 notes that regarding the limitation of LCIA, category indicators may
vary in precision among impact categories, due to differences:
x Between the characterization model and the corresponding environmental mechanism, e.g.,
spatial and temporal scales;
x In the use of simplifying assumptions; and
x Within available scientific knowledge.11
For example, the characterization model may focus on one point in the cause-effect chain (such
as emissions to air of VOCs) which is different from the environmental mechanism of concern
(such as inhalation of ozone molecules, O3). The influence of VOC release upon O3 inhalation
will vary, depending on factors such as emissions timing (summer versus winter) and location
(rural versus urban). Thus, time and space uncertainty about releases introduces uncertainty in
the expected connection between releases (the object of LCIA characterization) and the actual
endpoints of concern (e.g., human health in this case). Such uncertainties and their potential
strength of influence can vary by impact category.12 It appears none of the tools can deal with
this explicitly.
There is also cumulative uncertainty as a tool attempts to combine the individual impact category
scores into more comprehensive LCA scores, yet no tool attempts to characterize the overall
uncertainty in its outputs. Life cycle assessment is intentionally an elaborate and very detailed
process that the tools attempt to simplify as much as possible. However, tool developers must
take care so that the process is not simplified to the extent that the conclusions are inaccurate or
not useful, or portray only worst-case scenarios.
The overall uncertainty is further complicated if the data is not separated and classified into
separate types of flows at the impact level. For example, emissions to air, land, or water need to
be separated for certain impacts such as eutrophication, to account for the dramatically different
influences they have on the environment. Likewise, the use of average data, as is common
11
2000-03-01, p. 10.
12
Personal communication with Greg Norris, Sylvatica, 11/26/01.
17
Section III
practice, should consider the period or rate of discharge and the existing conditions. A discharge
into healthy waters will produce different results than the same discharge into an already polluted
or marginally-polluted system. Likewise, a large, short-term discharge would not likely have the
same impact as a slow release over time, even though they may have the same average size.
With the right effort it may be possible to reduce the uncertainty contributed at this level,
although it is unknown if the data exists to do so or whether it would take heroic efforts to gather
it at this level.
It should also be noted that the selection and modeling of impact categories used in LCA is still
being refined. For example, the Eco-Indicator 95 method was developed for the Dutch
government with the best scientific knowledge at that time. When designers used that method to
help determine building products environmental impacts, they may have chosen certain products
based on the Eco-Indicator 95 output. However, after further review, the Eco-Indicator 95
method has been significantly revised and has been replaced by the Eco-Indicator 99 method.
This is an example of the state of impact categories. There is much we still do not know, and the
LCA tools for use in the building industry should explain or acknowledge that questions remain
regarding which impact categories should be used, and how those categories should be modeled.
In addition, each LCA tool differs in the number and type of impact categories it uses for its
analysis. For instance, LCAid includes heavy metals as one of its impact categories,
whereas BEES does not incorporate that impact category, but it does contain the category
human toxicity. This inconsistency regarding impact categories across LCA tools indicates
how hard it can be to
compare results or to LCAID IMPACT BEES IMPACT
determine whether two tools CATEGORIES CATEGORIES
are analyzing the same thing. x Acidification x Acid rain
x Carcinogenesis x Ecological toxicity
Overall, the uncertainty in x Eutrophication x Eutrophication
results from any of the tools x Greenhouse effect x Global warming
could be quite large. Perhaps x Heavy Metals x Human toxicity
more importantly, they are x Ozone Depletion x Indoor air quality
unknown and very poorly x Pesticides x Ozone depletion
x Summer smog x Resource depletion
understood, at best. Whether x Winter smog x Smog
a useful and realistic analysis x Solid waste
of uncertainty can ever be
conducted here remains to be seen. The authors of the Eco-
Indicator 95 report may sum up the uncertainty best in the following statements:
Despite all the precautionary measures taken, there is a fairly large degree of uncertainty
in the impact tables. These uncertainties are very difficult to quantify. In the same
paragraph they state that It does not seem impossible for the Eco-indicator to be erroneous
by a factor of 2 in some cases because of uncertainties in the impact table. This estimate
cannot, however, be backed up.
18
Section III
There is No Right Answer Theres a Goal of Simply Continuously Improving the Tools
The forum participants noted that users should not try to compare a building products impact
category value to the products value for that same impact category using another LCA tool as
one might do when comparing the gas mileage of two different cars. Forum participants noted
that users should pick an LCA tool and work within it, looking at the scores of different products
to help guide the decision-making process. In addition, since no one right answer exists when
trying to determine a building products impact category value, users should look at relative, as
opposed to absolute, improvement when comparing two products impacts. In essence, LCA
tools should be used to identify where the surprises exist.
Fine-Tune within Product Categories

Significant environmental differences can exist between manufacturers and products within
building material categories. For example, one carpet manufacturer may produce a significantly
superior product regarding environmental impacts when compared to another carpet
manufacturer. Currently, the LCA tools combine all of the data related to carpets and compare
that product category to other related product categories (e.g., hardwood flooring products).
To more accurately portray a particular products potential environmental impacts, an individual

products LCA data is necessary. The BEES Please program is attempting to gather
individual product data. The program is new and the extent to which manufacturers will
participate remains to be seen.
SESSION #3 LCA TOOL AUDIENCE
Clarify LCA Tools Limitations

QUESTIONS ADDRESSED IN SESSION #3
Given that there is uncertainty and numerous x How and where are existing LCA tools used?
assumptions built into each products LCA, x What is their purpose and value?
each tool should emphasize up front the tools x Who uses the tools (e.g., builders, policy
capabilities as well as its weaknesses. For makers)?
instance, a user should know the uncertainty
range that should be applied to a products impact categorys value.
Analysis
If a product has a value of 150 for the smog impact category but the uncertainty is r50 for that
value, the effective range with uncertainty included would be 100 to 200. Thus, if another
product scored 200 for smog, that would put that products value in the same range as the first
product. From a statistical standpoint, the products may not differ at all. Once again, Section 10
of ISO 14042 notes that the results of uncertainty analyses shall accompany reports that contain
comparative assertions to the public.
19
Section III
What You Get is a Generic Result

Related to the point of LCA tools limitations, the tools currently provide generic results for
building product categories, not for an individual companys products.
The tools output should acknowledge that within a product category there can be a range of
results, and a particular products impact may differ markedly from another products impact
even though they are lumped together. The significance of this approach depends on how much
variation exists between products within a product category relative to the variation across
product categories.
A Single Group Should Advise Home Builders on Which Products are Best, Based on the
LCA Tools Results
The consensus among the group was that builders would not take the time to use these tools in
their current form. Therefore, numerous participants suggested that the NAHB Research Center
or a similar organization should perform the LCA analyses on products using the existing LCA
tools and make results available to the home builders.
People Make Choices Every Day When Buying Products LCA is Yet Another Metric to
Add to the Decision-Making Process
The assumption of the LCA tool developers is that price signals in a competitive market do not
adequately and accurately portray the environmental impacts associated with building materials.
Thus, LCA results should be used in combination with other metrics, such as first costs and LCC
to help identify the best possible product for the application.
LCA Output Should Be Very Simple for the Home Builder, and This May Not Be Possible
in the Immediate Future
The main issue is that in order to have a simple LCA output, very complex processes and
impacts need to be radically simplified. One builder suggested that the best way to help builders
utilize the LCA tools results would be to create an easy-to-use system showing an individual
products LCA results. For instance, when a builder is selecting between blown-in cellulose
insulation and fiberglass batt insulation, a simple number (or a small set of numbers) stamped on
each product could help in comparing each products potential environmental impacts.
Builders and Contractors Obtain Product Information from Building Suppliers

In the past, builders selected individual products from numerous suppliers and manufacturers
who provided them with performance information. The group discussion revealed that often
many builders now rely on building product suppliers to learn about a products performance.
Therefore, the LCA results should be understandable to the building product supplier, and
education efforts should be directed toward suppliers.
20
Section III
For many LCA tools, the focus has been on applying the concepts to commercial building where
architects and designers are often involved early in the construction/design process. However, in
residential construction, the supplier and distributor are key elements to product selection. They
have the materials and the information for the builders on what a product can or cannot do.
Potential Audiences
Below is a list of other potential end-users for LCA tools as suggested by the group.
x Specifiers x Code/regulatory personnel

x Product developers x Utilities
x Architects x Developers
x State/local/federal government personnel x Engineers
x Interior designers x Consultants
x Educators/academia x Home buyers
x Builders Large and small volume x Pre-schoolers
x Financial community (eventually) x Green building program developers
x Realtors x Subcontractors
x For builders the question is small or
large builder; Custom or production
SESSION #4 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

There are still a number of questions
associated with LCA tools and their QUESTION ADDRESSED IN SESSION #4
application to the home building industry. x What are some of the next steps that should
The forum concluded with the participants be taken to help home builders better
understand LCA tools' capabilities?
producing a list of action items illustrating
how LCA tools can help the home building
industryin particular, the home design and building product selection processes. Following is
a description of the action items offered by the forum participants.
Conduct Market Research to Obtain Supply Chain Feedback

Since builders are unlikely to use LCA tools, and builders rely on product suppliers and
distributors to provide relevant information on a products performance, focus groups should be
conducted with suppliers and distributors. These focus group sessions should attempt to identify
the information needed by suppliers and distributors in order for them to relay necessary
information to builders during the product selection process.
21
Section III
Identify Who Has a Market Interest in Using LCA Tools

From the list of potential end users identified in Session III, determine who could bring about
change in the product selection phase of the home building process, what groups would be
interested in effecting change, and why. In addition, the group felt further market research is
needed to help product manufacturers better understand what would motivate those groups to use
LCA tools.
Increase Data Availability and Transparency

Ensure that the NREL U.S. Database Project produces a regional-level database that is fully
transparent allowing the end-users or reviewers to assess the quality of the data.
Educate Builders
Create educational materials about the concept of LCA and the pros and cons of using LCA tools
to select products. Since builders and developers look to the NAHB Research Center for reliable
technical, information related to home building issues, the Research Center would be a good
candidate to lead this educational effort. Part of the process could include participating in the
NREL U.S. Database Project.
RESEARCH CENTER CONCLUSIONS

Create Benchmarks/Inventory of Real Houses (Site x LCA tools are designed to assess the
Demonstrations) environmental impacts associated with certain
building products. However, the current tools
Conduct a literature search to identify case studies of are in constant flux and the science is
homes built using LCA in the building design or evolving. More work remains to be done in
product selection process. The search results could be order to make LCA useful and applicable to
the home building industry.
compiled in a publication and marketed to key groups x The algorithms used for each ecoindicator
involved in the product selection and home design should be verified for accuracy and
processes. In the event there is a lack of such cases for quantitative tools need to assess and report
study, demonstration or field evaluation homes could uncertainties in the results.
be built in order to obtain real-world field results. x The input data used by the tools needs to be
improved in that the amount of data and the
data resolution should be enhanced.
Assumptions, algorithms, and input data
Conduct a Case Study to Quantify the Benefits of should be highly transparent in order to allow
Green Building Products third party and even user review.
Work with builders in using LCA to help select x A method should be developed and used to
more comprehensively validate the LCA
products and to design and build homes. Monitor tools accuracy.
those homes for certain criteria (e.g., IAQ, energy x The proper role of LCA in decision-making
usage, durability) and compare to conventional needs to be clearly defined and presented in a
homes. Participants noted that the project should be way that is relevant to builders if the tools are
geographically representative, establish a target to find broad use in the residential sector.
objective to demonstrate, and include economic
22
Section III
analyses. Forum participants noted that the Green Building Advisor is a case study template to
consider. The Green Building Advisor, created by BuildingGreen, Inc., is a software tool that
helps the user identify green design strategies for building projects. Linked screens describe each
strategy in detail and provide information on relative costs.
Investigate What the Effect is of Labeling a Product as Green

Conduct a study that determines if labeling a product as "green" (e.g., similar to an Energy Star
label) has an effect on buyer decisions. Work would include investigating whether buyers
demand more information about green products, or if a name indicating environmental
friendliness is sufficient. The results of this study could help determine if LCA results would be
useful to buyers. The product to be labeled green could be the one that receives the best LCA
scores within a product line.
Understand the Influence of Green in the Purchase Decision Process and Long-Term
Satisfaction of Green Home Buyers
Conduct focus groups with home buyers to identify the drivers in the purchase and product
selection decisions. For instance, do buyers emphasize the IAQ aspects of building products, or
do they place more importance on energy efficiency or durability? Overall, increase public
awareness of LCAs pros and cons.
Connect Green to a Performance Issue Tangible to Homeowners

In order to quantify the environmental performance of building products, develop a system to tie
products to tangible aspects of performance. For example, quantify the VOC reduction from
using a certain product (low- or no-VOC paint) over a conventional product (standard paint).
Educate Building Product Manufacturers about the Importance of LCA

Although there are some building product manufacturers that think LCA is an important tool in
product development and improvement, the majority of manufacturers think LCA is just another
gimmick to help sell more products. In general, manufacturers need to be educated on the
concepts of LCA and how those concepts apply to manufacturers and their products. Use
manufacturer trade associations to help spread the word within the industry by incorporating
educational sessions during regularly scheduled national or regional events.
Another idea is to work with product manufacturers to voluntarily create a one- to two-page
document similar to an MSDS for each product (similar to Europes Environmental
Declarations). The documents would simply state, Here are the environmental ingredients based
on an LCA.
23
Section III
Assemble Market Research to Understand the Drivers in Home Building Material

Selection
Survey home builders to determine the primary factors for product selection when building a
home. When is cost the overriding issue, and when do other factors such as product durability,
aesthetic value, reduction of callbacks, ease of maintenance or environmental impacts outweigh
cost? This could be an ongoing project to determine how to create a demand for green
building materials from builders and home buyers.
Periodically Repeat LCA Forum

Forum participants noted that the open dialogue between LCA tool developers, impact category
experts, and potential users was a very positive step toward understanding the issues of using
LCA. Many participants thought that a follow-up forum to further refine and prioritize the list of
recommendations would be useful.
Analysis How We See Home Builders Using These Tools

Home builders take many factors into account, particularly purchase price and installed cost,
when deciding which building product to purchase for a project. In addition, for each product
they may also consider its:
x Aesthetic appeal
x Color
x Durability
x Ease of installation
x Ease of maintenance and operation
x Environmental impacts
x Local availability
x Manufacturer
x Size
x Usability
x Warranty
Most importantly, builders will base their analysis on what a particular client or the marketplace
desires. There is no guarantee that a builder will want or need to use LCA tools. However, like
a tape measure can give the builder a products size, and a price tag can give the products cost,
the LCA tools can give a builder a products environmental impact analysis.
LCA tools are currently designed to add environmental impact information to the building
product purchase decision-making process. If builders are, in fact, the target audience of users,
then the tools should include the following:
24
Section III
x A clear explanation that the tool does not include cost in its analysis (or an explanation of
how cost is included), but is designed to capture only the environmental impacts of the
building product.
x An explanation of the scale used in the output stage. For example, if a tools output gives
vinyl siding a number of 24 and for cementious siding a number of 30 on what scale is this
analysis based? What are the units? Builders can understand the units used in costing a
product (e.g., dollars) or in sizing a product (e.g., inches). However, how are they to gauge
how much better or worse a product is based on the numbers in the tools output?
x Instructions, recommendations, or suggestions on how to factor the LCA results from the tool
into an overall product selection decision.
The final point is particularly difficult. Presumably when other factors are equal, the product
selection decision should turn on results of the LCA. Unfortunately, other factors are rarely
equal. Presumably, the LCA results are not intended to outweigh all other factors; any other
position would be unacceptable to most, if not all, builders. Still, without some usable guidance
on how to address the trade-off between environmental performance and other product
characteristics, builders could easily find the tool more frustrating than helpful. They might be
best advised to consider buyers preferences and the extent to which their local market values
green construction in determining how much to weigh data from, or whether to act upon
information developed through, any LCA tool.
25
Attachment A
ATTACHMENT A ATTENDEE LIST
NAME COMPANY CITY, STATE (COUNTRY)

Jane Anderson Building Research Establishment Environmental Garston, UK
Assessment Method (BREEAM)
John Burrows Canadian Wood Council Ottawa, Canada
Scott Chubbs International Iron & Steel Institute Brussels, Belgium
David Dacquisto NAHB Research Center, Inc. Upper Marlboro, MD
Graham Davis Habitat for Humanity International Colorado Springs, CO
Mark Decot U.S. Department of Energy Washington, DC
Richard Dooley * NAHB Research Center, Inc. Upper Marlboro, MD
Chris Fennell * NAHB Research Center, Inc. Upper Marlboro, MD
Bill Franklin Franklin Associates Prairie Village, KS
Kurt Frantzen University of South Florida Tampa, FL
Bill Freeman, Jr. Resilient Floor Covering Institute Lancaster, PA
Brian Glazebrook EcoBalance Bethesda, MD
Ruth Heikkinen U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC
Dominique Hes Center for Design - RMIT Melbourne, Australia
Mike Levy Environmental Strategies & Solutions McLean, VA
Bobbi Lippiatt National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, MD
(NIST)
Chris Long U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Research Triangle Park, NC
Research Triangle Park
Jamie Lyons NAHB Research Center, Inc. Upper Marlboro, MD
Medgar Marceau Construction Technology Labs Chicago, IL
Greg Norris Sylvatica North Berwick, ME
Mark Nowak NAHB Research Center, Inc. Upper Marlboro, MD
John Ritterpusch NAHB Washington, DC
Bev Sauer Franklin Associates Prairie Village, KS
Bob Schubert Virginia Tech Blacksburg, VA
Tim Skone Science Applications International Corporation Reston, VA
(SAIC)
Ed Stromberg U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Washington, DC
Development
Jeff Terry Vinyl Institute, Inc. Arlington, VA
Joel Todd The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc. Gaithersburg, MD
Wayne Trusty ATHENA Institute Ontario, Canada
D'Lane Wisner PolyOne Cleveland, OH
Steven Young Five Winds International Ontario, Canada
* Facilitator
26
Attachment B
ATTACHMENT B LCA FORUM AGENDA
8:00 8:20 a.m. Registration & refreshments

8:20 8:30 Forum opening remarks and agenda review
8:30 10:30 Overview of existing LCA tools (LCAid; BEES 2.0; ATHENA;
LCExplorer; Green Guide)
10:30 10:45 Break
10:45 12:30 p.m. Facilitated discussion What is the availability and credibility of the data
needed in the LCA tools? Are there data gaps and, if so, should we prioritize
our data needs? What methodological issues must be addressed?
12:30 1:00 Lunch
1:00 2:45 Facilitated discussion How do the tools get from the raw data to the end
result? For instance, how does a product get rated on each impact category? In
addition, how are those individual ratings combined to produce an overall
product rating? What are the impact categories based on? Can one validate the
output of each model?
2:45 3:00 Break
3:00 4:00 Facilitated discussion Assess the purpose and value of existing LCA tools.
How and where are they used, and who uses them (e.g., builders, policy
makers)?
4:00 4:15 Break
4:15 5:00 Facilitated discussion (Action item development) participants recommend
what needs to be done next in order to meet the home building industrys needs
5:00 5:15 Forum closing remarks
27
Attachment C
ATTACHMENT C LCA TOOL DESCRIPTIONS

The LCA Forum was not intended to determine which of the five highlighted tools is superior;
rather, it used the tools as examples of how LCA can be applied to the home building design and
product selection processes. Tool developers emphasized to forum participants that each tool
had a unique application and cautioned against comparing the various LCA outputs to one
another. Following is a capsule summary of each tool.
LCAID
LCAid is a software package created by the Australian Department of Public Works and
Services (DPWS). It is a tool that can be used to evaluate the environmental performance and
impacts of designs and options over the entire life cycle of a building, development, system or
object. Figure C1 illustrates the environmental issues and scope considered by LCAid.13
ISSUES
OVER THE WHOLE BUILDING LIFE CYCLE
* ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS SUCH AS GLOBAL WARMING AND OZONE DEPLETION
* ADDITIONAL REPORTING ON WASTE GENERATION AND WATER CONSUMPTION
BUILDING LIFE CYCLE
SCOPE
MATERIALS CONSTRUCTION OPERATION DEMOLITION
MAINTENANCE
DATA SOURCES
LCA OF CONSTRUCTION WASTE DATA DURING WATER AND WASTE WASTE CALCUATION
MATERIALS FROM DPWS CONSTRUCITON CALCULATION DEVELOPED BY DPWS
LCA DATABASE FROM LITERATURE DEVELOPED FROM LITERATURE
BY DPWS FROM
MAINTENANCE DATA EXPERIENCE
FROM DPWS AND LITERATURE
MAINTENANCE TEAMS
AND MATERIAL LIFE LCA OF AUSTRALIAN
CYCLE LITERATURE ENERGY SUPPLY
LINKS TO THERMAL
ENGINES SUCH AS
ECOTECT OR SIMPLY
ENTER ENERGY
REQUIREMENTS FROM
OTHERTHERMAL
ENGINES OR
BENCHMARKS
Figure C1. Environmental Issues and Scope of LCAid
13
Personal correspondence with Dominique Hes, Center for Design RMIT, April, 2001.
28
Attachment C
LCAid Scope and Issues

The software package was created to help building designers and to provide a benchmark of
building performance after construction. Data can be input manually, and in what is a unique
feature of this tool, data can be imported from 3-D architectural drawing (Computer Aided
Drafting or CAD) packages.
LCAid uses Eco-Indicator 95, which provides global and some general environmental impacts
of building materials. Eco-Indicator 95 was produced for the National Reuse of Waste Research
Programme (NOH) in the Netherlands and includes the following impact categories:
x Acidification
x Carcinogenesis
x Eutrophication
x Greenhouse effect
x Heavy Metals
x Ozone Depletion
x Pesticides
x Summer smog
x Winter smog
The tool can report results in two different ways: a comparison can be made to a benchmark
building, or the environmental impact of each lifecycle stage can be presented to determine the
stage having the greatest environmental impact.
GREEN GUIDE FOR HOUSING SPECIFICATION

The Green Guide for Housing Specification was developed by Britains Building Research
Establishment Ltd., (BRE). It is a tool that assesses the environmental impacts of over 150
various materials and components most commonly used in home construction. The Guide takes
environmental issues into account, then adds measurements and user-defined weighting to arrive
at environmental impacts, measured as Ecopoints for each building material being assessed.
Figure 3 is a sample output screen showing the comparative Ecopoints for floor finishing
options. A lower score translates into a decreased environmental impact.
29
Attachment C
Ecopoints for Floor Finishing Options
2.5
Vinyl
2 Wool/ Nylon Carpet
Ecopoints per m2
Nylon Carpet
1.5
Linoleum
0.5
0
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61
years
Figure C2. Green Guide Output Screen for Floor Finishing Options
For each building material category (e.g., wall, roof, floor), the environmental impacts are
plotted on a simple environmental rating scale running from A (good) to C (poor) along with
simple costs and service life estimates. Twelve different environmental impacts are individually
scored, together with an overall summary rating, which enables users to select materials and
components according to overall environmental performance over the life of the home. Since
ratings are also given for individual environmental issues, such as climate change, the user can
alternatively select materials and components on the basis of personal preferences or priorities,
or take specification decisions based on the performance of a material against a particular
environmental parameter. Figure 4 provides a sample page from the guide indicating the relative
ratings for external wall options.14
The materials and components have been arranged into construction categories (e.g., external
wall construction, internal walls, and upper floor construction) so that users can compare and
select from similar systems or material specifications. Ratings are based only on a specifications
performance within its respective construction category.
14
Personal communication with Jane Anderson, BREEAM, 7/12/01.
30
Attachment C
Figure C3. Sample Output from Green Guide for External Wall Options
To ensure that credible, similar comparisons are made, a functional unit of comparison has
been defined for each category. To compare dissimilar building materials, the software evaluates
the amount of material that is needed to build similar functional units. For instance, in the case
of external walls the functional unit of 1 m2 of wall satisfies UK Building Regulations. Thus,
the environmental impacts of 1 m2 of each external wall specification listed have been assessed
and compared with each wall including sufficient insulation to give a U value of 0.45 W/m2K.
Using functional units for comparing specifications means that variables such as the mass of
material needed to fulfill a particular function, such as structural stability, are taken into account.
This is important because comparing the environmental impacts of, for example, one ton of
structural steel and one ton of structural concrete would be misleading since less steel may be
needed to perform the same function.
31
Attachment C
BEES 2.0
The Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES) 2.0 software tool measures
the environmental performance of building products. It was developed by the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST) with support from the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program and the Partnership
for Advancing Technology in Housing (PATH).
BEES 2.0 analyzes a products life cycle, including raw material acquisition, manufacture,
transportation, installation, use, and recycling and waste management. Up to ten environmental
impacts are measured across the life cycle stages, including:
x Acid rain
x Ecological toxicity
x Eutrophication
x Global warming
x Human toxicity
x Indoor air quality
x Ozone depletion
x Resource depletion
x Smog
x Solid waste
BEES measures economic performance using life cycle costing, which covers the costs of initial
investment, replacement, operation, maintenance and repair, and disposal. The life cycle cost
method sums these costs over a fixed period of time. Figure C4 shows the overall BEES 2.0
approach to LCA.
BEES uses multi-attribute decision analysis to wrap environmental impacts together with
economic performance to form an overall performance measure. The BEES user specifies a
weighting factor used to combine environmental and economic performance scores based on the
relative importance to the user or based on defaults provided with the software. The user then
may test the sensitivity of the overall scores to different sets of weighting factors.
LEED vs. BEES Study

The U.S. Green Building Council has developed the Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) building rating tool that places certain values on building products; LEED is not
an LCA software tool. LEED is used by some architects and building designers to build
sustainable commercial structures. A study was conducted comparing the ways in which one
LCA tool (BEES 2.0) valued a buildings components to the relative values LEED placed on
those same building materials. Although both tools attempted to assess the products
environmental impacts throughout its life cycle, preliminary results indicate that product values
differed markedly in some cases. The studys final conclusions are expected to be published by
the end of 2001.
32
Attachment C
Carbon Dioxide
Methane Global Warming

Acid Rain
Nitrous Oxide
Eutrophification
Resource Depletion Environmental
Indoor Air Quality Performance
Score
Solid Waste
Smog
Ozone Depletion Overall
Ecological Toxicity Score
Human Toxicity
Economic
First Cost Performance
Score
Future Costs
Figure C4. BEES Approach to LCA
33
Attachment C
ATHENA
ATHENA is an environmental assessment tool being developed by the ATHENA Sustainable
Materials Institute in Canada. It does not assess environmental impacts of individual building
products. Instead, ATHENA allows the users to look at the life cycle environmental effects of
a complete structure or of individual assemblies and to experiment with alternative designs and
different material mixes to arrive at the best scenario.
Figure C5. Example Results Screen for ATHENA
Manufacturers can also use the model to benchmark processes and assess the environmental
effects of alternative technologies or production processes.
ATHENA allows comparisons of conceptual building designs in a holistic, life cycle

framework. It includes vertical and horizontal structural assemblies using wood, steel, and
concrete products. The model datasets encompass typical assemblies, standard structural
products, and existing typical technologies for producing products. The datasets currently focus
on Canada, with the intention to include data from the United States in the future.
34
Attachment C
In the latest version of ATHENA, environmental measures are calculated and presented (for
structural assemblies only) for the first three stages (e.g., manufacturing, construction, operations
and maintenance) in a buildings life cycle. Also included are transportation costs within and
between stages. Figure C5 shows an example results screen from the ATHENA model.
LIFE CYCLE EXPLORER

Life Cycle Explorer (LCE) is a software tool (currently in prototype mode) developed by
Sylvatica that portrays the life cycle environmental performance of windows. Its analysis begins
at manufacturing inputs and ends at the window disposal phase. It is intended to allow users to
compare the relative performance of alternative products. It also shows the characteristics that
are the primary influence on a windows environmental performance. Figure C6 is a sample
output screen comparing different window types over their lifetime.
0.08
0.07
External Costs from Life Cycle
0.06
0.05
Pollution
0.04 Pre-Usage
0.03 Usage
End-of-Life
0.02
0.01 End-of-Life
0 Usage
Aluminum Pre-Usage
Wood-Alu Wood
PVC
Frame Material
Figure C6. Example Output Screen from Life Cycle Explorer
The LCE does not determine which window is best from an environmental perspective; however,
it can provide answers to many questions that one might wish to ask when making such a
decision. Some of the questions the LCE attempts to answer include:
x Which are the most important pollutants or environmental impacts in the window life cycles?
x Which parts of the window life cycle are most influential environmentally?
x Which design aspects of a window are most influential environmentally?
x Which processes or material components of a window are most influential environmentally?
x How does a specific window design or alternative compare with other specific
designs/alternatives?
35
Attachment D
ATTACHMENT D ACRONYMS
BEES Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability
BRE Building Research Establishment
CAD Computer Aided Design
DOD U.S. Department of Defense
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
DPWS Australian Department of Public Works and Services
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
GSA General Services Administration
HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
IAQ Indoor Air Quality
ISO International Organization for Standardization
LCA Life Cycle Assessment
LCC Life Cycle Costing
LCE Life Cycle Explorer
LCI Life Cycle Inventory
LCIA Life Cycle Impact Assessment
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
NOH National Reuse of Waste Research Programme
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
PATH Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing
ROI Return on Investment
36
Attachment D
SETAC Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
37
PATH (Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing) is a new private/public effort to develop,
demonstrate, and gain widespread market acceptance for the Next Generation of American housing.
Through the use of new or innovative technologies, the goal of PATH is to improve the quality, durability,
environmental efficiency, and affordability of tomorrows homes.
PATH is managed and supported by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In
addition, all federal agencies that engage in housing research and technology development are PATH Partners,
including the Departments of Energy, Commerce, and Agriculture, as well as the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). State and local governments and
other participants from the public sector are also partners in PATH. Product manufacturers, home builders,
insurance companies, and lenders represent private industry in the PATH Partnership.
To learn more about PATH, please contact
451 7th Street, SW

Washington, DC 20410
202-708-5873 (fax)
202-708-4277 (phone)
e-mail: [email protected]
website: www.pathnet.org
Visit PD&Rs website

www.huduser.org
to find this report and others sponsored by
HUDs Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R).
Other services of HUD USER, PD&Rs Research Information Service, include listservs;
special interest, bimonthly publications (best practices, significant studies from other sources);
access to public use databases, and a hotline 1-800-245-2691 for help accessing the information you need.

Life Cycle Assessment Tools

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Life Cycle Assessment Tools

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Life Cycle Assessment Tools

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Life Cycle Assessment Tools

to Measure Environmental Impacts:

In the last decade, however, various organizations have developed computer-based

x Conduct market research to obtain supply chain feedback;

RESEARCH CENTER CONCLUSIONS

According to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Environmental

Raw material acquisition Product manufacturing process Home building

Figure 1. Building Product Phases Assessed in LCA

A growing number of builders use resource-efficient building products and advanced

ISO 14000 SERIES

The ISO 14000 series relates to numerous

ISO 14043 Environmental management

SECTION II LCA FORUM DESIGN

SECTION III LCA FORUM RESULTS

SESSION #1 DATA ANALYSIS

Table 1. LCA Tool Data Sources

TOOL DATA SOURCE

x EPAs role in LCA;

Comprehensiveness and Transparency of Data

Lack of ISO 14040 Conformance Among

Data Are National, Not Regional Averages

50-Year Horizons versus Shorter Time Horizons

Proprietary and Company-Specific Data

Usage Phase of Materials

SESSION #2 LCA TOOL METHODOLOGIES

Assumptions Built Into LCA Methodology QUESTIONS ADDRESSED IN SESSION #2

Double Counting Issues

ISO 14040 Conformance on Methodology

x Relative global warming potential of different gases;

Different Tool, Different Approach and Application

Unequal Uncertainty Across Impact Categories

Fine-Tune within Product Categories

To more accurately portray a particular products potential environmental impacts, an individual

SESSION #3 LCA TOOL AUDIENCE

Clarify LCA Tools Limitations

What You Get is a Generic Result

Builders and Contractors Obtain Product Information from Building Suppliers

x Specifiers x Code/regulatory personnel

SESSION #4 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Conduct Market Research to Obtain Supply Chain Feedback

Identify Who Has a Market Interest in Using LCA Tools

Increase Data Availability and Transparency

RESEARCH CENTER CONCLUSIONS

Investigate What the Effect is of Labeling a Product as Green

Connect Green to a Performance Issue Tangible to Homeowners

Educate Building Product Manufacturers about the Importance of LCA

Assemble Market Research to Understand the Drivers in Home Building Material

Periodically Repeat LCA Forum

Analysis How We See Home Builders Using These Tools

ATTACHMENT A ATTENDEE LIST

NAME COMPANY CITY, STATE (COUNTRY)

ATTACHMENT B LCA FORUM AGENDA

8:00 8:20 a.m. Registration & refreshments

ATTACHMENT C LCA TOOL DESCRIPTIONS

BUILDING LIFE CYCLE

MATERIALS CONSTRUCTION OPERATION DEMOLITION

Figure C1. Environmental Issues and Scope of LCAid

LCAid Scope and Issues

GREEN GUIDE FOR HOUSING SPECIFICATION

Ecopoints for Floor Finishing Options