Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
- Issuer
- Congressional materials
- Document type
- Report
- Case
- 2021 Uw Carbon Leadership Forum Seep Bcbf Progress Report Final Ab79981D 38
Summary
The Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report, dated December 27, 2021, a professional report commissioned by the State of Washington 67th Legislature and prepared by the Carbon Leadership Forum at the University of Washington with the Washington State Department of Commerce. It states that after HB 1103 did not pass the House Committee on Appropriations, budget provisos allocated $490,000 for a reporting database on environmental and labor data for state construction projects and for pilot project case studies. The covered products are structural concrete, reinforcing steel, structural steel and engineered wood. The report describes the data collection process, carbon reduction potential, stakeholder feedback on reporting templates and four enlisted pilot projects, and lists next steps. Appendices include reporting templates and case study calculations.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report.”
Original at app.leg.wa.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2021-uw-carbon-leadership-forum-seep-bcbf-progress-report-final-ab79981d-38/
, SHA-256 9ccb03aed34326534f63ac143a785d5d0c44a022cd82ed6adde72f977d793a6b.Full text
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project
Progress Report
A professional report commissioned by the State of Washington 67th Legislature
through the Operating Budget Proviso and Capital Budget Proviso
December 27, 2021
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
About the Carbon Leadership Forum
The Carbon Leadership Forum is a non-profit industry-academic collaborative at the University of
Washington. We are architects, engineers, contractors, product suppliers, building owners, and
policymakers who work collaboratively, pioneering research, creating resources, and incubating
member-led initiatives for greatest collective impact. Our goal is to accelerate transformation of the
building sector to radically reduce and ultimately eliminate the embodied carbon in building materials
and construction.
Authors
The research team from the Carbon Leadership Forum at the University of Washington College of Built
Environments who participated in this project includes:
● Meghan Lewis, Senior Researcher
● Monica Huang, Researcher
● Kate Simonen, Executive Director
● Martin Torres, Technical Consultant
The individuals from the Washington State Department of Commerce, Office of Efficiency and
Environmental Performance, Energy Division who participated in this project include:
● Hanna Waterstrat, Director
● Ian Kinder-Pyle, Policy Analyst
Author contributions: M.L. and K.S. led conceptualization; M.L., M.H., and M.T. conducted research and
analysis; M.L. and M.H. created the figures; M.L., M.H., and M.T. wrote the report; M.L., M.T., M.H.,
H.W., I.K.P. and K.S. performed review and editing.
Competing interests statement
The Carbon Leadership Forum receives unrestricted gifts from sponsors, including manufacturers and
trade associations, which are listed at this link: https://carbonleadershipforum.org/our-sponsors/
Kate Simonen is on the board of directors of Building Transparency, a non-profit organization that
supports the Embodied Carbon in Construction Calculator (EC3) tool. The EC3 tool includes a database of
environmental product declarations referenced in this report.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 2
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the following individuals for their participation in this project:
● Liz Saylor (State of Washington, Department of Commerce IT)
● Huilin Wang (State of Washington, Department of Commerce IT)
● Ross McKenzie (University of Washington, College of Built Environments IT)
● Eric Gould (University of Washington, College of Built Environments IT)
● Database consultants:
○ Matt Zumwalt
○ Erin Fahy
○ Michelle Hertzfeld
○ Jessica Schilling
○ Maryanne Wachter
● Anthony Hickling (Carbon Leadership Forum)
● Austin Scharff (State of Washington, Department of Commerce)
● Kjell Anderson (LMN Architects)
● Mark Chen (Skanska)
● Phil Northcott (C-Change Labs)
● Brook Waldman (Carbon Leadership Forum)
● Participants in the feedback survey (described in Section 2.2.3), who shall remain anonymous
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 3
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
Table of Contents
About the Carbon Leadership Forum ....................................................................................................... 2
Authors...................................................................................................................................................... 2
Competing interests statement ................................................................................................................ 2
Acknowledgments..................................................................................................................................... 3
Executive summary ....................................................................................................................................... 5
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 8
1.1 About the project ................................................................................................................................ 8
1.2 Data collection process ..................................................................................................................... 10
1.3 Carbon reduction potential............................................................................................................... 12
Case Study 1: Projects in King County, WA ......................................................................................... 14
Case Study 2: Office tower in Bellevue, WA ....................................................................................... 14
Case Study 3: Helen Sommers Building .............................................................................................. 14
1.4 Availability of EPDs............................................................................................................................ 14
1.5 Action on embodied carbon in Washington State ............................................................................ 16
1.6 Buy Clean policies ............................................................................................................................. 17
2. Current project status ............................................................................................................................. 18
2.1 Project timeline ................................................................................................................................. 18
2.2 Reporting database ........................................................................................................................... 19
2.2.1 Initial data collection templates ................................................................................................ 19
2.2.2 Consulting database experts ...................................................................................................... 21
2.2.3 Stakeholder feedback process ................................................................................................... 21
2.2.4 Feedback results ........................................................................................................................ 22
2.3 Pilot projects case study ................................................................................................................... 23
2.4 Quarterly update meetings ............................................................................................................... 25
3. Next steps ............................................................................................................................................... 25
Appendix A: Stakeholder feedback process................................................................................................ 26
Appendix B: Reporting templates ............................................................................................................... 32
Appendix C: Benchmarking material values ............................................................................................... 39
Appendix D: Case study calculations .......................................................................................................... 44
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 4
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
Executive summary
The Buy Clean Buy Fair (BCBF) Washington Project is a pilot study commissioned by the Washington
State Legislature in 2021 after House Bill (HB) 1103 – Improving environmental and social outcomes with
the production of construction materials failed to pass the House Committee on Appropriations. This
project is funded by two budget provisos that require the University of Washington (UW) College of Built
Environments to:
(1) Develop a reporting database to collect environmental and labor information from state
construction projects.
(2) Conduct a case study using pilot projects.
BCBF requires the collection of environmental and labor data for the following covered products:
structural concrete, reinforcing steel, structural steel, and engineered wood. Environmental data will be
submitted in the form of Type III environmental product declarations (EPDs), and the EPDs must be
supply chain–specific. The contractor is responsible for contacting their suppliers to submit the required
information to the reporting database. The database will also collect supplementary information about
the projects, such as basic project characteristics and material quantities. Figure 1 below summarizes
the data collection requirements and process.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 5
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
Figure 1. Overview of the data collection process for the Buy Clean Buy Fair (BCBF) Database.
Buy Clean policies, such as the one being piloted in this project, have significant potential to reduce
embodied carbon. These types of procurement policies are becoming more popular in the U.S. as more
policies are being introduced at the state and federal levels.
This Progress Report summarizes the current status of the BCBF Project, which is one-third of the way to
project completion. The project will be complete in November 2022.
For the reporting database, the research team has:
(1) Developed data structure for the database
(2) Developed early-draft reporting forms for data collection
(3) Collected stakeholder feedback on these data collection templates.
Stakeholder feedback will be incorporated into the pilot database, which will begin development in early
2021. The research team will hire a database consultant to assist in the development of the database
and a plan for a potential long-term version of the database. The research team has developed an RFP
for this database consulting work, which is currently undergoing administrative review.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 6
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
There are currently four pilot projects enlisted in the BCBF Project:
● UW’s Interdisciplinary Engineering Building (IEB) at UW Seattle
● UW’s Milgard Hall at UW Tacoma
● WSDOT's Olympic Region Maintenance Administration Facility (ORMAF) - Fuel Island
● WSDOT's Olympic Region Maintenance Administration Facility (ORMAF) - Radio Tower
The research team has engaged with the pilot project teams by having an initial kick-off meeting,
providing guidance materials and reporting templates for suppliers, having quarterly check-in meetings,
and answering questions as needed. The research team is working to acquire more pilot projects, and is
working with the Department of Enterprise Services (DES) to support reporting from three projects in a
related proviso for DES.
The next steps for the project:
● Continue supporting pilot projects
● Complete revisions of the data collections forms based on stakeholder feedback
● Hire a database consultant to:
○ Help create the prototype database and interface
○ Develop a plan for long-term database maintenance
● Create the prototype database
● Create an online portal for the prototype database
● Create a plan for long-term management of the database
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 7
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
1. Introduction
In January 2021, members of the Washington State House of Representatives introduced House Bill (HB)
1103 – Improving environmental and social outcomes with the production of construction materials. HB
1103, also referred to as the Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington (BCBF) Act, proposes environmental and
labor reporting requirements for a list of eligible structural products purchased for public works in
Washington. HB 1103 did not pass out of the House Committee on Appropriations. However, an
operating budget proviso and capital budget proviso allocated $490,000 of the state budget for the
University of Washington College of Built Environments to develop a database to collect the information
required by this bill and coordinate with up to 10 pilot projects teams to test the reporting
requirements. This project is referred to herein as the “Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project.”
1.1 About the project
Two state budget provisos specified the requirements of this project. The first proviso is from the
Operating Budget1, which appropriates $340,000 of the general fund for the Washington State
Department of Commerce to:
... contract with the University of Washington College of Built Environments to create a
database and reporting system for promoting transparency on procurement of building
materials that make up the primary structure and enclosure used for state-funded construction
projects.
The operating budget proviso also requires a case study analysis:
In conducting the analysis, the department and the university must identify up to 10 case
studies of publicly funded projects and analyze considerations including but not limited to cost
impacts, materials procured, embodied carbon contribution to reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, and supply chain considerations.
Finally, the proviso requires the submission of two reports to the legislature:
(1) a progress report by January 1, 2022, and
(2) a final report by November 1, 2022, which should report “findings from the case study analysis
and recommendations for the reporting system based on lessons learned.”
The second budget proviso is from the State’s Capital Budget2, which appropriates $150,000 from the
State Building Construction account to conduct a case study on the following two pilot projects:
1
2021 Operating Budget Section 129(68) page 48
2
2021 Capital Budget Section 1050 page 18
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 8
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
(a) University of Washington College of Engineering Interdisciplinary Education and Research
Center (30000492); and
(b) University of Washington Tacoma Milgard Hall (20102002)
Per the proviso, the purpose of the case study is to “test proposed methods and availability of
environmental product declarations and working condition information.”
The proviso requires the following information to be collected for at least 90% of the cost of each
covered product used in a project:
(a) Product quantity;
(b) Current environmental product declaration;
(c) Health certifications, if any, completed for the product;
(d) Manufacturer name and location, including state or province and country;
(e) Measures taken, if any, to promote the international labor organization's four fundamental
principles and rights at work within the manufacturer supply chain;
(f) Names and locations, including state or province and country, of the actual production facilities;
and
(g) Working condition information for the actual production facilities for all employees
The capital budget proviso defines the following:
(a) "Actual production facilities" means the final manufacturing facility and the facilities at which
production processes occur that contribute to 80% or more of the product's cradle-to-gate
global warming potential, as reflected in the environmental product declaration.
(b) "Awarding authority" means the University of Washington capital planning and portfolio
management.
(c) "Covered product" means structural concrete products, reinforcing steel products, structural
steel products, and engineered wood products.
(d) "Environmental product declaration" means a supply chain-specific type III environmental
product declaration as defined by the international organization for standardization standard
14025, or similarly robust life-cycle assessment methods that have uniform standards in data
collection consistent with the international organization for standardization standard 14025,
industry acceptance, and integrity.
(e) "Health certification" means a health product declaration, as reported in accordance with the
health product declaration open standard, and any product certification that includes health-
related criteria.
(f) "International labor organization's four fundamental principles and rights at work" means:
Effective abolition of child labor; elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and
occupation; elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labor; and freedom of association
and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 9
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
(g) "Working condition information" means the:
(i) Average number of employees by employment type: Full time, part time, and temporary
(ii) Average hourly wage, including all nondiscretionary wages and bonuses, by quartiles
(iii) Hours worked by weekly hour bands: 1-19 hours, 20-29 hours, 30-39 hours, 40-49 hours,
50-59 hours, and 60 or more hours
(iv) Maximum number of hours that an employee can be required to work per week
(v) Percent of employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement
The covered products are:
● Structural concrete
● Reinforcing steel
● Structural steel
● Engineered wood
Environmental product declarations (EPDs) must be supply chain-specific. Supply chain-specific data
refers to the use of primary data, rather than secondary, for upstream manufacturing or production
processes. An example of using supply chain-specific data is the use of a cement EPD from the cement
plant sourced by a ready mix supplier rather than the use of generic data that represents industry
average cement manufacturing in the United States.
1.2 Data collection process
The contractor is responsible for furnishing information about the project, including basic project
characteristics and material quantities of the covered products. The contractor is also responsible for
reaching out to suppliers for the supplier information. Suppliers for each covered product on the project
are expected to furnish EPDs, health certifications (if available), manufacturer names and locations,
codes of conduct (if available), and working conditions data to the contractor. Ultimately, the contractor
will be responsible for collecting all of this information and submitting the information to the database
before substantial completion. The contractor is not responsible for verification of the data collected
from the supplier.
Figure 2 describes the expected data collection process for the BCBF Database. The figure shows that
the EC33 tool may be used to submit this data to the BCBF Database. The CLF has contracted with
Building Transparency, a non-profit organization based in Seattle that manages the EC3 tool, to develop
this new feature beginning in 2022.
3
EC3 (Embodied Carbon in Construction Calculator) is a cloud-based database of digitized EPDs maintained by
Building Transparency. Building Transparency is a non-profit organization that was established to continue the
management and development of the EC3 tool, as well as provide the resources and education necessary to
ensure its adoption. EC3 is a comprehensive database for American EPDs, and also includes a large number of EPDs
from around the world. https://buildingtransparency.org/
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 10
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
Figure 2. Overview of the data collection process for the BCBF Database.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 11
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
1.3 Carbon reduction potential
Construction products and projects have significant potential for carbon reductions.
Table 1 shows the approximate carbon reduction potential for eligible products included in the Buy
Clean Buy Fair Pilot Project, as estimated using the range in benchmarking values from the CLF 2021
Material Baselines Report.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 12
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
Table 1. Carbon reduction potential of eligible products. Approximate carbon reduction potential represents the
percentage reduction from the typical to the achievable value and from the baseline to achievable value using
the CLF 2021 Material Baselines.4 See Appendix C, “Benchmarking Material Values,” for additional information
and citations. These reduction potentials are based on national benchmark values.
Approx. Carbon
Product Category and Subtype
Reduction Potential
READY MIXED CONCRETE
0-2500 psi (0-17.2 MPa) 30-45%
2501-3000 psi (17.2-20.7 MPa) 30-45%
3001-4000 psi (20.7-27.6 MPa) 25-45%
4001-5000 psi (27.6-34.5 MPa) 20-45%
5001-6000 psi (34.5-41.4 MPa) 25-45%
6001-8000 psi (41.3-55.1 MPa) 25-45%
>8001 psi (>55.1 MPa) 25-40%
STEEL
Rebar 20-55%
Plate Steel 30-65%
Structural Steel: Hollow Sections 35-50%
Structural Steel: Hot-Rolled Sections 30-55%
Cold Formed Steel: Framing 35-50%
ENGINEERED WOOD
Composite Lumber - LSL/LVL/PSL 35-45%
Mass Timber - GLT/CLT/DLT/NLT 25-50%
Washington state architects, engineers, and contractors are leading the building industry’s
understanding, accounting, and reduction of embodied carbon. The case studies below demonstrate
some of the reductions achieved on projects in Washington State, as well some of the local leadership
on embodied carbon in Washington state. See Appendix D for full calculations on each case study.
4
Carlisle, S., Waldman, B., Lewis, M., and Simonen, K. (2021). 2021 Carbon Leadership Forum Material Baseline
Report, (version 2). Carbon Leadership Forum, University of Washington. Seattle, WA. July 2021.
http://hdl.handle.net/1773/47141
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 13
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
Case Study 1: Projects in King County
In 2020 and 2021, Skanska collaborated with clients and design partners to track embodied carbon for
concrete, rebar, structural steel, insulation, glass, and carpet on multiple projects in King County. By
collecting EPDs from suppliers and tracking their EPDs and reductions in the EC3 tool, the team was able
to measure and achieve the following approximate percentage reductions in global warming potential
(GWP) from the CLF 2021 baseline:
● 50-60% reduction for ready-mixed concrete
● 70% reduction for rebar
● 35% reduction for structural steel – hot rolled sections
● 20% reduction for board insulation
● 40% reduction for flat glass
● Used carbon negative carpet backing product5
Case Study 2: Office tower in Bellevue
In 2019, LMN and MKA collaborated to specify and track embodied carbon for concrete and rebar on an
office tower in Bellevue. Through collecting EPDs from suppliers and tracking their EPDs and reductions,
the team was able to measure and achieve the following reductions in GWP for no additional cost:
10-35% reduction from the 2019 NRMCA Pacific Northwest Regional Benchmarks for ready mix
for concrete, averaged across all mixes
70% reduction from the CLF 2021 baseline for rebar
Case Study 3: Helen Sommers Building, Olympia
The Helen Sommers Building was completed in 2017. The state of Washington used a procurement
approach similar to Buy Clean to lower the carbon footprint of the concrete used on the project. The
project’s carbon footprint was reduced by 27% compared to the Pacific Northwest average for ready mix
concrete, saving approximately 1,300 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions.6 The project required an
EPD for nearly every concrete mix. Sellen Construction collaborated with the supplier, engineer, and
architect to adapt the concrete mixes and construction schedule to achieve reductions.
1.4 Availability of EPDs
Type III EPDs are third party-verified, standardized documents that report the results of a life cycle
assessment for a particular product. EPDs are governed by international standards and product category
rules (PCRs). A PCR is a set of rules and guidelines for a particular product or group of products. EPDs are
based on product life cycle assessments that cover, at minimum, the impacts of product extraction,
5
Interface, Inc. (2021). Environmental Product Declaration – Modular Carpet. UL Environment. Retrieved
from cqd.io/e/ec3e0bu8t0.
6
https://www.sellen.com/wp-content/uploads/Measuring-and-Reducing-Embodied-Carbon-Dave-Walsh.pdf
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 14
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
transportation, and manufacturing. EPDs are therefore well-suited to capture manufacturing and supply
chain strategies that prioritize material and energy efficiency and low carbon energy sources.
The current availability of EPDs varies by state and by product type. Figure 3 shows the total number of
product-specific EPDs by state, based on data exported from the EC3 tool on October 24, 2021. This map
shows that EPD coverage varies greatly by state. Some states have many EPDs (such as California, New
Jersey, Washington, Oregon), while most other states in the country have very few or no EPDs. This
suggests that the states with more EPDs may have a head start on using EPDs in embodied carbon
policy.
Figure 3. Total number of product-specific EPDs by state. Not shown: Hawaii, which had 0 EPDs, and Alaska,
which had one EPD.
Figure 4 presents a heat map of the number of product-specific EPDs by product subcategory and state.
The top six states are shown, which are (in descending number of EPDs): 1) California, 2) New Jersey, 3)
Washington, 4) Oregon, 5) New York, and 6) Colorado. This figure shows that concrete has the largest
number of product-specific EPDs in the country (55,381), followed by masonry (98), steel (32), wood
(14), and aluminum (3).
The number of product-specific EPDs for concrete is higher than other product categories due to each
concrete mix being an individual product. This means that small changes in mix design are a new
product (and therefore new EPD). In comparison, products like structural steel or engineered wood have
standard shapes with less variations on a project, and therefore require fewer product-specific EPDs.
Tools have been created to simplify the process of creating concrete EPDs, acknowledging the need for
rapid output of EPDs to meet the needs of a project with many individual concrete mixes.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 15
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
Figure 4. Heat map of number of EPDs by product category and state, showing the top six states with the most
EPDs.
1.5 Action on embodied carbon in Washington
The following actions have been taken to introduce embodied carbon into Washington’s policies and
programs:
● The 2021 State Energy Strategy identifies reducing embodied carbon in the built environment as
a requirement to meet the state's greenhouse gas emission limits.
● Executive Order 20-01 “State Efficiency and Environmental Performance” requires consideration
of net embodied carbon on state-owned new facility construction.
● In November 2021, a Low Carbon Construction Task Force was announced at COP26 as part of
the Pacific Coast Collaborative, including the states/provinces of California, Oregon,
Washington, and British Columbia, and their largest cities.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 16
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
● In 2018 and 2021, Buy Clean-type policies were introduced in the Washington State Legislature
and the Buy Clean Washington7 Study was funded in 2018.
Cities and counties in Washington are also introducing policies and programs to reduce embodied
carbon, such as the King County Climate Action Plan and the City of Seattle Green Building Incentive
Program, which both include requirements related to embodied carbon.
1.6 Buy Clean policies
Buy Clean is a procurement policy approach that addresses embodied carbon in state-funded
construction projects by incorporating low-carbon construction requirements into state purchasing,
including requirements for the disclosure of EPDs for products used on state projects. The first state-
level Buy Clean bill to be passed in the United States was Buy Clean California in 2017.
Buy Clean and similar procurement policies that require EPDs to be procured for eligible products on
government projects have increased in popularity and have now been introduced across the United
States. At the state level:
● In 2021, state legislators in eight states introduced Buy Clean or similar bills aimed at
decarbonizing construction materials through procurement (California, Colorado,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, New Jersey, Oregon, and Washington).
● The Buy Clean Colorado Act was signed into law in July 2021.
● New York SB542 targeting low embodied carbon concrete passed both houses of the New York
State Legislature in 2021.
● Minnesota’s legislature funded the University of Minnesota to perform a study on the
opportunity for reducing the environmental impacts of construction materials through state
procurement requirements in Minnesota.
At the federal level:
● President Biden signed an executive order on December 8, 2021, directing the federal
government to achieve net-zero emissions in federal procurement no later than 2050, including
a Buy Clean policy to promote the use of construction materials with lower embodied emissions.
● The House of Representatives introduced the CLEAN Future Act in March 2021, which includes a
proposal for a Federal Buy Clean program.
● Administration and for federal pilot programs at the General Services Administration (GSA)
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
7
https://carbonleadershipforum.org/buy-clean-washington-study/
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 17
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
HB 1103, the Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington policy introduced in 2021, is unique from other state and
federal Buy Clean programs in two key aspects:
1. HB 1103 is a disclosure-only bill, meaning that it requires disclosure of environmental and social
impact data but does not require contractors to procure materials below a specific carbon
footprint threshold;
2. HB 1103 is the only bill to include “Buy Fair” components, including requirements for reporting
on working conditions in facilities where construction products are manufactured.
2. Current project status
This section describes the status of the BCBF Project, including an overall timeline of the project and
more information about the current progress of the reporting database and case study on the pilot
projects.
2.1 Project timeline
The project is divided into the following tasks:
● Task 1: Develop data reporting structure
● Task 2: Solicit feedback and develop progress report (due January 2022)
● Task 3: Develop pilot database (Q1 2022) and maintenance (Q2-Q4 2022)
● Task 4: Coordinate with pilot projects (June 2021-November 2022)
● Task 5: Final report (due November 15, 2022)
These tasks are laid out in the project timeline diagram shown in Figure 5. The current status is indicated
by the red dashed line. More details about progress of the reporting database and the case study
analysis is described in the following subsections.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 18
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
Figure 5. Project timeline. Current status is indicated by the red dashed line.
2.2 Reporting database
Early on in the project, the Department of Commerce and UW team decided that the development of
the database would be split into two phases:
● First, the research team will create a prototype database for use by pilot projects during the
pilot phase, to be hosted on UW servers.
● Second, the research team will develop a plan for a long-term version of the database, including
a scope of work, technical requirements, and cost of creating and maintaining a long-term
version of the database. The long-term database could be hosted either on UW or Washington
government servers.
This section describes the process of developing the database thus far.
2.2.1 Initial data collection templates
The first task in creating the database was to determine which data fields needed to be in the database.
The minimum requirement for the database was that it include the information specified by the
Operating Budget proviso (see Section 1.1).
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 19
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
Additional data fields were included to characterize the projects to increase the utility of the data for
researchers and industry stakeholders interested in reducing the embodied carbon of construction
products and the building industry at large. Additional fields were selected following an analysis of the
data structures from multiple tools and databases that collected environmental data for buildings, listed
below:
1. Previous work done by the CLF on whole building life cycle assessment taxonomy8
2. Embodied Carbon in Construction Calculator (EC3)9
3. SE 205010 database
4. deQo11
5. AIA DDx12
6. LETI13
This further supports harmonization of embodied carbon reporting at the building and product scale,
with the goal of reducing the burden on building industry professionals and suppliers to navigate
different taxonomies.
The resulting data fields could be divided into two categories:
(1) Project-related data, to be filled out by the contractor
(2) Product-related data, to be filled out by suppliers and collected and compiled by the contractor
The contractor is ultimately responsible for making sure that the suppliers submit the data, but they are
not responsible for verification of the data sent by suppliers. An Excel file was created for each version
(later transitioned to Google Sheets) so they could be easily shared with early pilot projects and
stakeholders.
8
Taxonomy for Whole Building Life Cycle Assessment can be accessed at https://carbonleadershipforum.org/lca-
practice-guide/
9 https://buildingtransparency.org/ec3
10
SE2050 is a commitment program from the Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) of the American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) that has done work on how to characterize a building in a database.
11
deQo (database of embodied Quantity outputs) is an interactive online tool provided by the MIT Building
Technology Program that contains global warming potential and material quantity data of buildings.
12
AIA DDx is the American Institute of Architects (AIA) Design Data Exchange (DDx). It is an online database that
lets AEC professionals easily benchmark their projects against industry averages and track performance on their
journey to a carbon neutral future.
13
LETI (London Energy Transformation Initiative) is a network of over 1,000 built environment professionals
working together to put London on the path to a zero carbon future. The voluntary group is made up of
developers, engineers, housing associations, architects, planners, academics, sustainability professionals,
contractors and facilities managers.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 20
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
The Contractor Reporting Template contained the following pages:
0. Introduction
1. Project info
2. Product data
The Supplier Reporting Template contained the following pages:
0. Introduction
1. Contact info and EPD data
2. Fiber sourcing data (if applicable, for engineered wood suppliers)
3. Health certification
4. Code of conduct
5. Production facilities
6. Working conditions
The links to the full reporting templates are provided below. Appendix B includes images of each page of
the reporting template that do not include the most recent updates following the feedback collected in
November 2021.
● BCBF Contractor Reporting Template: live Google Sheets version, static PDF version
● BCBF Supplier Reporting Template: live Google Sheets version, static PDF version
2.2.2 Consulting database experts
In preparation for the development of the prototype database, the research team consulted with
several database experts in our network, showed them the initial data collection templates, and
gathered feedback. The database experts emphasized the importance of finding someone with expertise
in user experience (UX) design to create a user interface that would improve the quality and quantity of
data submitted to the database. Their advice informed the Request for Proposal (RFP) that was
developed to hire a database consultant. More information about the RFP is found in Section 3: Next
Steps.
2.2.3 Stakeholder feedback process
To collect stakeholder feedback on the initial data collection templates, the research team performed
the following tasks:
1. Created two online surveys, one for each reporting template, with general and targeted
questions about the reporting template. Respondents were notified that the research team
would not share identifying information. Data is reported in aggregate (such as “Feedback from
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 21
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
[concrete suppliers, contractors, researchers, etc.] included _______.”).
The links to PDF versions of the surveys are provided below:
a. BCBF Contractor Reporting Form - Feedback Survey
b. BCBF Supplier Reporting Form - Feedback Survey
2. Invited stakeholders to provide feedback. The email sent to the stakeholders (Contractor
version) is included in Appendix A. The supplier version of the invitation email is similar. The
research team sent the emails on Oct. 25, 2021, and set the Nov. 23, 2021 as the deadline for
feedback.
3. Held two online presentations to introduce each reporting template and answer questions.
The research team held the Contractor Reporting Template presentation on Oct. 27, 2021 and
the Supplier Reporting Template presentation on Oct. 28, 2021. The research team recorded the
presentations and emailed the slides and recording to stakeholders after, along with a summary
of the Q&A that happened after the presentations. Appendix A includes a copy of that email.
After these presentations, attendees had the opportunity to ask questions individually or set up
meetings to give guidance and feedback as they navigate these reporting forms and templates.
4. Collected feedback through online surveys and revised the data collection templates based on
the feedback. The research team collected the feedback from online surveys and made some
immediate updates, such as improving or further explaining terminology. Additional feedback is
summarized in Section 2.2.4.
The target audience (stakeholders) for the feedback process consisted of:
● Contractors
● Manufacturers
● Architects and engineers
● Developers of related databases (AIA DDX, SE2050, EC3)
● Researchers/NGOs interested in outputs and data
For the full list organizations invited to participate in the stakeholder feedback process, see Appendix A.
2.2.4 Feedback results
This section summarizes the stakeholder feedback provided on both reporting templates. Broadly, the
research team received two types of feedback.
The first type of feedback provided direction as to how the templates could more clearly communicate
the intent and requirements for reporting and using the BCBF reporting database. This type of feedback,
summarized below, will be integrated as quickly as possible to improve the user interface for quicker
and easier reporting:
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 22
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
● Expand the introduction tabs on both templates to cover definitions and background
information, FAQs, motivation for BCBF, its history, and intent for how the data collected will be
used.
● Better distinguish the introduction of each spreadsheet to more directly address the supplier
and contractor, respectively.
● Reorganize and reformat sections to consolidate instructions.
● Clarify which data is anonymous.
● Update instructions to better address “edge-cases” (that is, unusual or ambiguous scenarios)
and clearly outline our intention.
● Make slight wording changes to align more closely with industry-standard terminology.
● Distinguish between industry-average and product-specific EPDs and clarify the type of EPD
being asked for in the Supplier Reporting Template.
● Use a different classification system for building type in the Contractor Reporting Template
Project Information sheet to allow for more options for ”building use type.”
The second type of feedback required more substantial changes to the reporting database interface or
reporting requirements. The following items will be reviewed in more depth to confirm that they align
with the intentions and requirements of the BCBF project and are possible within the prototype
database:
● Update the format of the product data collection sheet in the Contractor Reporting Template to
more clearly emphasize that structural products are required, and other products are
encouraged but optional.
● Remove the requirement to include the building component (such as stair, column, structural
wall)
● Include MasterSpec sections for all products identified.
● Update the wood-fiber sourcing tab to focus on ASTM D7612: Standard Practice for Categorizing
Wood and Wood-Based Products According to Their Fiber Sources.
● Reformat the entire spreadsheet to allow for multiple product inputs on the same spreadsheet
rather than requiring different submissions for each entry.
● Include the option for a secondary building use type as applicable on the Project Information
sheet of the Contractor Reporting Template.
● Allow those with supply chains entirely in North America to opt out of the Code of Conduct
section due to local and national labor laws.
2.3 Pilot projects case study
The goal of conducting a case study analysis is to test the proposed data collection requirements and
methods. As the BCBF Project progresses, the research team will:
(1) Support pilot project teams to help them understand and fulfill the requirements of the BCBF
Project
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 23
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
(2) Collect user feedback on the data collection templates, which will inform the design of the final
prototype database.
The capital budget proviso specified the Interdisciplinary Engineering Building (IEB) at UW Seattle and
Milgard Hall at UW Tacoma as two required pilot projects. The research team held a kick-off meeting
with each of the pilot project teams in late May to discuss the project. At the time of the kick-off
meetings, IEB was in very early schematic design and Milgard Hall was in the late stages of design.
Construction at Milgard Hall began in summer 2021.
The team also secured two pilot projects from the Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) in early November: A fuel island and radio tower at the new Olympic Region Maintenance
Administration Facility. Both of these projects are scheduled to begin construction in early 2022 and be
complete by fall 2022.
A summary of the pilot projects is presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Pilot project information.
Project name Current Construction schedule Covered products in project
project stage
Interdisciplinary Engineering Design May 2021-May 2024 Concrete, rebar, structural
Building at UW Seattle (anticipated) steel
Milgard Hall at UW Tacoma Construction Summer 2021-October 2022 Concrete, rebar, structural
steel, mass timber
Olympic Region Maintenance Design March 2021-July 2022 Concrete, rebar, structural
Administration Facility - Fuel steel
Island
Olympic Region Maintenance Construction December 2021-January Concrete, rebar, structural
Administration Facility - Radio 2022 steel
Tower
The research team has supported the pilot projects by:
● Having a kick-off meeting with each pilot project team. These meetings usually involve two to
three people from the construction firm, one or two project managers from UW (if it is a UW
project), and sometimes two to three additional people from the architecture firm.
● Having quarterly check-in meetings with each pilot project.
● Providing the contractor with a letter to suppliers that can then be sent to each of the suppliers.
This letter explains the requirements of the BCBF Project.
● Sending them reporting templates and inviting them to stakeholder meetings.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 24
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
The research team is working to acquire more pilot projects and is continuing to work with the
Department of Enterprise Services (DES) to support reporting from the following projects included in a
related proviso for DES:
● Western Washington University Sciences Building Addition and Renovation
● Shoreline Community College Allied Health, Science, and Manufacturing Replacement
● Secretary of State Library Archive Building
2.4 Quarterly update meetings
The research team holds quarterly meetings to update general stakeholders about the progress of the
BCBF Project. Invitees include Representative Davina Duerr, Representative Sharon Shewmake, Senator
Derek Stanford, and representatives from local labor unions and environmental NGOs. To date, the
research team has held one quarterly update meeting (Sept. 30, 2021), and sent the presentation slides
after the meeting. Thirteen people attended this meeting (including the research team), with
representation from environmental and labor NGOs, UW, contractors, and engineers.
3. Next steps
The next steps for the BCBF Project:
1. Continue supporting pilot projects. The research team will continue to support pilot projects by
having quarterly meetings with them and will continue to identify new pilot projects.
2. Complete revisions of the data collections forms based on stakeholder feedback.
3. Hire a database consultant. The research team has written the first draft of a request for
proposals (RFP) for a database consultant and have circulated this RFP to the Department of
Commerce and University of Washington for review. The research team anticipates soliciting
proposals using this RFP in January 2022, with the goal of selecting a database consultant to
begin work in February 2022. The consultant will help create the prototype database and
interface and develop a plan and scope of work for a potential long-term database.
4. Create the prototype database. Initial consultations with the database experts suggest that the
database will be straight forward to create, since the data structure is relatively simple. The
database will be hosted on UW servers.
5. Create an online portal for the prototype database, which will include the revised data
collection forms (see Section 2.2.1 and Appendix B) as a web form instead of a spreadsheet.
6. Create a plan for long-term management of the database. The research team will rely on the
expertise of the database consultant to develop a scope of work and cost estimate for
maintaining this database on a yearly basis.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 25
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
Appendix A: Stakeholder feedback process
Table 3 presents a list of stakeholders invited to the feedback sessions.
Figure 6. Email invitation to stakeholders for feedback process.
Figure 7. Follow-up email to stakeholders (after presentation) for feedback process.
Table 3 (next page). List of stakeholders invited to complete feedback survey and attend feedback sessions.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 26
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
Number of invitees to each meeting
Meeting 1 - Meeting 2 -
Type of Contractor Supplier
organization Organization Template Template Both
Architect EHDD 1
KieranTimberlake 2
LMN 1
Miller Hull 1
Perkins + Will 2
ZGF 1
Contractor Absherco 1
AGC of Washington 1
Andersen Construction 2
BNBuilders 2
Hensel Phelps (design builder) 2
Hoffman 1
Lewis Builds 1
McKinstry 1
Mortenson 1
Sellen 1
Skanska 2
Tiger Construction 1
Turner Construction 1
Webcor 1
Engineer MKA 1
Independent Independent consultant with relevant 1 3 1
consultant experience
NGO - building AIA 1
industry
SE2050 / LeMessurier 1
SE2050 / Meyer Borgman Johnson 1
NGO - Blue Green Alliance 1
environmental
National Indian Carbon Coalition 1
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 27
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
Number of invitees to each meeting
Meeting 1 - Meeting 2 -
Type of Contractor Supplier
organization Organization Template Template Both
Washington Environmental Council 1
Washington Forest Protection Association 1
Labor United Steelworkers District 12 1
USW District 338 1
Washington Fair Trade 1
State University of Washington Project Managers 3
Washington State Department of Enterprise 3
Services
Supplier - Cadman (a Lehigh Hanson company) 1
concrete
Cal Portland 2
Lehigh Hanson 1
Stoneway Concrete 1
Supplier - glass Saint-Gobain 2
Supplier - BASF Corporation (polystyrene) 1
insulation
Hunter Panels (polyiso) 1
Supplier - Clark Pacific 1
precast
concrete
Supplier - steel Nucor Steel 1
Tri States Rebar (Spokane) 1
Supplier - wood Weyerhaeuser 2
Supplier - wood Structurlam 1
(mass timber)
Vaagen Timbers 1
Trade American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) 2
association
American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) 1
American Wood Council (AWC) 1
Fenestration and Glazing Industry Alliance 1
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 28
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
Number of invitees to each meeting
Meeting 1 - Meeting 2 -
Type of Contractor Supplier
organization Organization Template Template Both
North American Insulation Manufacturers 1
Association (NAIMA)
National Glass Association (NGA) 1
National Insulation Association (NIA) 1
National Ready Mixed Concrete Association 2
(NRMCA)
Grand Total 31 37 8
Invitation email to stakeholders to participate in feedback process (Supplier version)
Hello,
I am reaching out to invite you to participate in the stakeholder feedback process for the Buy Clean Buy Fair
(BCBF) Washington Project being led by the Washington State Department of Commerce and University of
Washington College of Built Environments. A brief description of the project is attached for your reference.
We are asking you to provide feedback on the Supplier Reporting Template (a separate form collects Contractor
reporting information). This reporting template will be used to collect environmental and social impact data for
a select list of materials used in state-funded construction projects.
How to submit feedback:
● To provide feedback, please complete the following survey: Survey on Supplier Reporting Template. A
link to the template is in this survey. If any of the questions in this form aren't relevant to you, please
feel free to skip as you see fit. Emails are only collected for clarification.
● The goal of this survey is to collect user feedback that will help us 1) create a data collection form that
is clear, straight-forward, and user-friendly, and 2) create a database of material data that will contain
useful environmental information about construction projects. Therefore, please share this email with
the appropriate team member who can provide feedback on the required data collection.
● We are only accepting written feedback at this time to ensure that we accurately capture feedback
from all stakeholders.
Deadline:
The deadline to submit feedback via the survey form above is November 23, 2021.
What will we do with this feedback?
● We will include a summary of feedback in our progress report to the Washington Legislature in January
2021, as well as a list of which organizations were invited to participate.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 29
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
● We will use this feedback to improve the format, user experience, and structure of the reporting
templates and database.
● We will not attribute feedback to specific individuals. However, we may attribute feedback
anonymously by organization, such as “Feedback from [concrete suppliers, contractors, researchers,
etc.] included _______.”
Questions?
We are happy to answer questions via email: please reach out to Monica Huang and Meghan Lewis.
There is an optional meeting Thursday, October 28 at 11am PST that will be recorded and shared with invited
participants following the meeting. This will only provide an overview and an opportunity to answer questions.
Meeting Information: Oct 28, 2021 11:00 AM PST
Join meeting: https://washington.zoom.us/j/91775941953
Meeting ID: 917 7594 1953
Find your local number: https://washington.zoom.us/u/aelxjAc1ig
Thank you in advance for your participation in this feedback process, and please reach out with any questions!
Sincerely,
Meghan Lewis, Senior Researcher, UW College of the Built Environment
Monica Huang, Researcher, UW College of the Built Environment
Figure 6. Email invitation to stakeholders for feedback process.
Follow-up email to stakeholders to following (Supplier version)
Hello all,
I am writing to follow-up on our invitation to provide feedback on the BCBF WA Reporting Database and to
provide a link to the overview meeting last Thursday.
Slides of the meeting are attached, and here is a recording of the call:
https://washington.zoom.us/rec/share/E2CoEZ78rECAmmD75HS7DpNDLRKyKTwlAHLKdCTdiGM4QdsFhBN_lKbg
Vg_8vQNP.8LmntPhDspTOhPAs
A few questions that came up during the call:
● When are EPDs collected? The BCBF pilot project and database is testing the requirements of HB 1103.
Per that bill, EPDs are not required until project completion and (eventually) at time of install. Neither
the legislation nor pilot program require EPDs at time of bid.
● Which materials are included in the pilot? Structural and reinforcing steel products, concrete products,
and engineered wood products are included in the pilot. However, envelope materials such as glass and
insulation are included in the material quantities list and database per the scope of the database set by
legislature.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 30
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
● What do contractors fill out? Contractors will be responsible for providing project information and
material quantities. Material quantities are linked to a specific product via EPD number (if an EPD is
required). See the contractor reporting form here, for reference.
● Why don't the dropdowns work? If you would like edit access to the form to be able to use the
dropdown functionality shown in the recording, please reach out. We are happy to change it from view
access.
As a reminder, here is the survey for providing feedback. We ask that you complete this survey by November 23
at the latest, to ensure we can incorporate feedback in the progress report to WA legislature that is due January
1. Please reach out with any questions, and thank you again for your participation.
Best,
Meghan
Figure 7. Follow-up email to stakeholders (after presentation) for feedback process.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 31
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
Appendix B: Reporting templates
Figures 8-10 capture the three sheets of the Contractor Reporting Template, and Figures 11-17 capture
the six sheets of the Supplier Reporting Template. These images reflect updates made to the templates
based on survey feedback. Additional edits may be made in response to feedback in January and
February 2022.
Figure 8. Sheet 0: Introduction from the Contractor Reporting Template
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 32
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
Figure 9. Sheet 1: Project Info from the Contractor Reporting Template
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 33
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
Figure 10. Sheet 2: Material quantity data from the Contractor Reporting Template
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 34
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
Figure 11. Sheet 0: Introduction from the Supplier Reporting Template
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 35
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
Figure 12. Sheet 1: Contact Info and EPD Data from the Supplier Reporting Template
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 36
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
Figure 13. Sheet 2: Fiber Sourcing Data from the Supplier Reporting Template
Figure 14. Sheet 3: Health Certification from the Supplier Reporting Template
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 37
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
Figure 15. Sheet 4: Code of Conduct from the Supplier Reporting Template
Figure 16. Sheet 5: Production Facilities from the Supplier Reporting Template
Figure 17. Sheet 6: Working Conditions from the Supplier Reporting Template
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 38
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
Appendix C: Benchmarking material values
The values listed in Table 4 below relate to national benchmarks. Regional benchmark values are
published by the National Ready Mix Concrete Association for ready mix concrete, but not are not
included below. While the magnitude of values here would be different if the focus were only on
Washington, the approximate reduction potential is the same.
Table 4 (next page). Global warming potential benchmarking values (kg CO2e per Declared Unit) for eligible
materials for the Buy Clean Buy Fair project, extracted from the 2021 CLF Material Baselines report.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 39
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
Global warming potential
benchmark values:
Material Category and (kg CO2e) per Declared Unit Declared
Data Source
Subtype unit
Achievable Typical Baseline
(Low) (Median) (High)
READY MIXED CONCRETE
0-2500 psi (0-17.2 MPa) 190 266 340 m3 Typical = NRMCA USA benchmark
value per strength class (NRMCA,
2501-3000 psi (17.2-20.7 2020, Table E1); Low = IW-EPD
210 291 380 m3
MPa) Ready Mixed Concrete (NRMCA,
3001-4000 psi (20.7-27.6 2019) minimum value per strength
260 343 470 m3 class; High = IW-EPD Ready Mixed
MPa)
Concrete (NRMCA, 2019)
4001-5000 psi (27.6-34.5 maximum value per strength class
320 406 580 m3
MPa) + uncertainty factor to account for
cement variation (Building
5001-6000 psi (34.5-41.4
330 429 610 m3 Transparency analysis, citation
MPa)
forthcoming). Note that the
NRMCA Industry Average EPD
(NRMCA, 2019) provides data for
strength ranges (e.g., 3001 – 4000
6001-8000 psi (41.3-55.1
380 498 710 m3 psi), while the NRMCA Benchmark
MPa)
Report (NRMCA, 2020) provides
data for specific strength values
(e.g., 4000 psi).
NRMCA does not publish data for
concrete mixes over 8000 psi in
their IW-EPD or benchmark report.
Low = EC3 20th percentile, Feb
2021, drawn from 120 product-
specific EPDs. Typical = EC3
>8001 psi (>55.1 MPa) 411 535 710 m3
average, Feb 2021, drawn from
120 product-specific EPDs. High =
default to CLF High Baseline for
next-highest strength class value
(6001-8000 psi) until more data is
available.
STEEL
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 40
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
Global warming potential
benchmark values:
Material Category and (kg CO2e) per Declared Unit Declared
Data Source
Subtype unit
Achievable Typical Baseline
(Low) (Median) (High)
Typical = IW-EPD Fabricated Steel
Reinforcement (CSRI, 2017); Low =
EC3-calculated 20th percentile Jan
Rebar 0.8 0.98 1.7 kg 2021; High = EC3-calculated 80th
percentile Jan 2021 drawn from
IW-EPD and 64 product-specific
EPDs.
Typical = IW-EPD Fabricated Steel
Plate (AISC, 2016c); Due to low
number of EPDs, Low = point
between IW-EPD value and
estimated global low based on ICE
Plate Steel 1.0 1.47 3.0 kg
database (Circular Ecology, 2019);
High = point between IW-EPD
value and estimated global high
based on ICE database (Circular
Ecology, 2019).
Typical = IW-EPD Fabricated
Hollow Structural Sections (AISC,
2016a); Low = CLF beta low value;
Structural Steel: Hollow
1.5 2.39 3.0 kg High = adjusted to reflect similar
Sections
ranges as other steel products on
this list due to shortage of
available data.
Typical = IW-EPD Fabricated Hot
Rolled Structural Sections (AISC,
2016b); Low = EC3-calculated 20th
Structural Steel: Hot-
0.8 1.16 1.7 kg percentile Jan 2021; High = EC3-
Rolled Sections
calculated 80th percentile Jan 2021
drawn from IW-EPD and 34
product-specific EPDs.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 41
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
Global warming potential
benchmark values:
Material Category and (kg CO2e) per Declared Unit Declared
Data Source
Subtype unit
Achievable Typical Baseline
(Low) (Median) (High)
Typical = IW-EPD Cold-Formed
Steel Studs and Track
Manufactured in U.S. and Canada
(SRI, 2016); Due to low number of
EPDs, Low = point between IW-EPD
value and estimated global low
based on ICE database (Circular
Cold Formed Steel:
1.5 2.28 3.0 kg Ecology, 2019); High = point
Framing
between IW-EPD value and
estimated global high based on ICE
database (Circular Ecology,
2019).These numbers match the
20% and 80% figures in EC3 as of
Jan 2021, drawn from IW-EPD and
4 product-specific EPDs.
ENGINEERED WOOD
Category includes multiple product
types created by combining wood
veneers, strands, or flakes with
adhesive. Types differ by
manufacturing process and
performance qualities. Typical =
Composite Lumber - IW-EPD Laminated Veneer Lumber
230 361 400 m3
LSL/LVL/PSL (AWC/CWC, 2020); Due to low
number of EPDs, Low = CLF 2019
beta value = IW-EPD value minus
estimated uncertainty factor; High
= CLF 2019 beta high value = IW-
EPD value plus estimated
uncertainty factor.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 42
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
Global warming potential
benchmark values:
Material Category and (kg CO2e) per Declared Unit Declared
Data Source
Subtype unit
Achievable Typical Baseline
(Low) (Median) (High)
Category includes multiple product
types created by combining
individual wood laminations
(dimension lumber) with adhesive
or fasteners into panels and/or
larger-dimension beams and
columns. Types differ by
manufacturing process and
performance qualities. Typical =
Mass Timber -
104 137 200 m3 IW-EPD NA Glue Laminated Timber
GLT/CLT/DLT/NLT
(AWC/CWC, 2020); Low = EC3-
calculated 20th percentile Jan
2021; High = EC3-calculated 80th
percentile Jan 2021 drawn from
IW-EPD and 7 product-specific
EPDs, plus additional 5% factor to
approximate manufacturing
variability between product types
and manufacturers.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 43
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
Appendix D: Case study calculations
Table 5. Calculations for Case Study 1 and 2, percentage reduction from the CLF 2021 Material Baselines. Carbon
intensity values measured as global warming potential per functional unit, for life cycle stages A1-A3.
Product Baseline Carbon Intensity 14 Actualized Carbon Intensity (based Approx.
(based on 2021 CLF on EPD of procured product) Reduction
Baselines)
Calculations for Case Study 1 in King County
Ready-Mixed 470 kgCO2e / cubic meter 235 kgCO2e / cubic meter 15 50%
Concrete, 4000 psi
Ready-Mixed 610 kgCO2e / cubic meter 233 kgCO2e / cubic meter 16 60%
Concrete, 6000 psi
Structural Steel – 1.7 tCO2e / metric ton 1.12 tCO2e/metric ton17 35%
Hot Rolled Sections
Board Insulation 20 kgCO2e / 1 m2-Rsi 12.7 kgCO2e / 1 m2, Rsi18 20%
Flat Glass 2300 kgCO2e / metric ton 1370 kgCO2e / metric ton19 20%
Calculations for Case Study 1 and 2
Rebar 1.7 tCO2e / metric ton 0.499 tCO2e/metric ton 20 70%
14
Carlisle, S., Waldman, B., Lewis, M., and Simonen, K. (2021). 2021 Carbon Leadership Forum Material Baseline
Report, (version 2). Carbon Leadership Forum, University of Washington. Seattle, WA. July 2021. University of
Washington ResearchWorks Archive.
15
Cadman Materials Inc. (2020). Environmental Product Declaration – Mix MC4C44438, Redmond Plant. ASTM
International. Retrieved from cqd.io/e/ec3n04x4uw
16
Cadman Materials Inc. (2020). Environmental Product Declaration – Mix MC6RCA41428, Redmond Plant. ASTM
International. Retrieved from cqd.io/e/ec3qchrr3z
17
Gerdau Long Steel North America. (2016). Environmental Product Declaration – Structural Steel, Petersburg Steel
Mill. SCS Global Services. Retrieved from cqd.io/e/ec33ex0bda
18
Owens Corning. (2021). Environmental Product Declaration – Foamular NGX XPS Insulation. UL Environment.
Retrieved from cqd.io/e/ec3hs2mwce
19
Vitro Architectural Glass. (2017). Environmental Product Declaration – Flat Glass Products. ASTM International.
Retrieved from cqd.io/e/ec302wc3cy
20
Nucor Steel Seattle Inc. (2017). Environmental Product Declaration – Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar and
Merchant Bar Products. UL Environment.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 44
Buy Clean Buy Fair Washington Project Progress Report
Table 6. Calculations for Case Study 2, percentage reduction from the NRMCA Member National and Regional
LCA Benchmark. Carbon intensity values measured as global warming potential per cubic meter of ready-mixed
concrete, for life cycle stages A1-A3.
Product Baseline Carbon Intensity 21 Actualized Carbon Intensity (based Approx.
(based on Pacific Northwest on EPD of procured product) Reduction
NRMCA Benchmarks)
Calculations for Case Study 2 in Bellevue
Ready-Mixed 430 kgCO2e / cubic meter 277 kgCO2e / cubic meter 22 35%
Concrete, 4500 psi
Ready-Mixed 455 kgCO2e / cubic meter 350 kgCO2e / cubic meter 23 20%
Concrete, 6000 psi
Ready-Mixed 290 kgCO2e / cubic meter 267 kgCO2e / cubic meter 24 10%
Concrete, 3000 psi
Ready-Mixed 430 kgCO2e / cubic meter 303 kgCO2e / cubic meter 25 30%
Concrete, 5000 psi
Ready-Mixed 544 kgCO2e / cubic meter 415 kgCO2e / cubic meter 26 20%
Concrete, 8000 psi
21
National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA). (2020). Appendix D: NRMCA Member National and
Regional LCA Benchmark (Industry Average) Report – Version 3. Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. Retrieved
from https://www.nrmca.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/NRMCA_REGIONAL_BENCHMARK_April2020.pdf
22
Stoneway Concrete Inc. (2019). Environmental Product Declaration – Mix 450174, Black River Plant. ASTM
International.
23
Stoneway Concrete Inc. (2019). Environmental Product Declaration – Mix 665174, Black River Plant. ASTM
International.
24
Stoneway Concrete Inc. (2019). Environmental Product Declaration – Mix 350175, Black River Plant. ASTM
International.
25
Stoneway Concrete Inc. (2019). Environmental Product Declaration – Mix 458374C, Black River Plant. ASTM
International.
26
Stoneway Concrete Inc. (2019). Environmental Product Declaration – Mix 880374C, Black River Plant. ASTM
International.
Carbon Leadership Forum
Washington State Department of Commerce 45
File and source
- File
- 2021_uw-carbon-leadership-forum-seep-bcbf-progress-report-final-ab79981d-38.pdf
- Size
- 2,797,340 bytes
- SHA-256
- 9ccb03aed34326534f63ac143a785d5d0c44a022cd82ed6adde72f977d793a6b
- Original
- app.leg.wa.gov