LEED v4.1 BD+C | MR credit Building Life-Cycle Impact Reduction

Hello everyone,

I’m exploring the Whole-Building Life-Cycle Assessment (WBLCA) methodologies defined by the LEED and Level(s) frameworks, and I’m curious about understanding the specific differences in the scope and calculation method for the following environmental impact indicators:

a) Depletion of Nonrenewable Energy (MJ) according to ISO 14040 & ISO 14044 (CML 2002, November 2012), as required by LEED;

b) Abiotic Depletion Potential (ADP – fossil) for Fossil Resources (MJ) according to EN 15804 & EN 15978, as required by Level(s).

Can anyone provide some clarity on this?

Thanks in advance for your insights.

Hi João,

Thanks for the question and welcome to our Community!
You can read the certification specifications in our Help Centre or our website.
For example:

Regarding scope specifications, we recommend checking the LEED and Level(s) Manual.

Hope this helps!

1 Like

Hi @Alice, @Steven, I’m comparing baseline and design and the ozone depletion is +20% and all other impact categories show reductions. Concrete floors and slabs are the culprit, however, I’ve tried swapping many different types of mixes FA/SL, etc. and cannot understand what is driving the ozone impacts. They seem all over the place. What should I look for in concrete mixes (4000 psi) that will reduce the ozone depletion?? Does it have anything to do with the grid mix? Transportation? Reinforcement?

Thanks in advance!

Hi Kai! Ozone impacts can be tricky and even a single data point can have a negative effect. Ozone emissions are tiny compared to, say, Global Warming Potential, or even Acidification and eutrophication. Sometimes the difference comes down to how one manufacturer models their EPD versus another. While the “big” impacts usually stem from materials, I can’t say for sure in your case without seeing your project. Could you send it over in a Private Message (or contact support) so we can take a look and give you the right recommendation?