Roofing scoring proposal & proposed specifications (scoring and data entry – display is not included
11/16/2011
In this Roofing proposal, I suggest
1. An existing scoring category be modified – VOC
2. Add a priority flagged attribute - aquatic toxicants – can we have category specific prioritization of attributes?
3. Add a new scoring category – reflectance – for roofing only
4. Additions and adjustments that will apply to all products for improving our collection of end of life data (phased in with audit)
5. A session to discuss associated products and components
1) Modified existing scoring category – VOC – Background: There are currently no VOC emission programs that I am aware of designed specifically for exterior products and I do not anticipate one ever being developed but we still could hold out for a lab test for zero VOC. VOC content for outdoor products tends to be higher than for indoor because of more extreme weather requirements. Additionally health impacts are lower due to not being in an enclosed space. Nonetheless, there are still both direct health impacts and indirect impacts through smog generation. We propose to set higher thresholds for scoring to accommodate the differences.
Proposed Specification:
Create an adjusted VOC scoring for wet applied exterior products associated with roofing membranes (including adhesives as well as wet applied roof coatings) and all other wet applied exterior products (such as exterior paint, driveway sealers, etc.). Wet applied exterior products will have a slightly different scale that allows reaching 9 via VOC content only (10 still requires an emissions test).
Emphasis is on smog producing VOCs, but we maintain the requirement of addressing all VOC content including EPA exempts to reach 9 or 10 as a protection for worker and adjacent occupant health during installation. Revised scale is as follows:
TVOC content/emissions scoring for wet applied exterior products10 / No VOC emissions
9 / TVOC content zero (<=5) including exempts
8 / TVOC content zero (defined as <=5)
7 / TVOC content <=50
6 / TVOC content <=100
5 / TVOC content <=200
4 / TVOC content <=300
3 / TVOC content <=400
2 / TVOC content 020 SRIart to 1ure tabilizersn enscreen hout wing wek)t back he of the credite been making witht he d ere typeisclosure . XXXXXXXXXXXX<=600
1 / TVOC content >600
For non-wet-applied exterior products, the VOC scoring would be NA (not applicable)
No data entry issues
Need to identify CSI numbers/product categories which are wet applied and exterior
2) Priority flagged attribute - Aquatic toxicants – Background: Aquatic toxicity of content has not been a priority issue for interior products. It is, however, exposed exterior applications, particularly roofing related materials that will be highly susceptible to leaching toxicants off into waterways. The Green Screen, on which the color prioritization of chemicals is based and ToxCon & MfrTox scoring is based includes aquatic toxicants but not at as high a priority as certain priority human health endpoints. I suggest that we not modify ToxCon (at this time) for exterior applications, keeping it aligned with Green Screen with a human health focus.
Although we do not know yet know how prevalent aquatic toxicants are specifically in membrane roofing materials, we have indicators of significant issues with roofing in general. Previous studies have identified problems with zinc (from galvanized roofing and gutters), cadmium, lead (tile and polyester roofs and flashing) and copper (from sheet copper roofing, gutters and flashing). I don’t at this time have the kind of data we would need to create a meaningful 10 point score on this count, nor know how much differentiation we would get in products. We need more/better aquatic toxicant lists in the CML and more assessment of the products to determine if meaningful scoring could be done and would be useful. Hence we proposed instead for the immediate term to set aquatic toxic as a flaggable attribute for roofing and have added a new list (CLP) for upload to the CML.
Proposed Specification:
- Include aquatic toxicants as an attribute for roof membrane products for listing in the Pros, Cons and unknown Aquatic toxicants can be identified by endpoint=aquatic and priority = yellow or higher.
- Add the CLP hazard list (in the “CLP list ready for upload to CML staging” Lighthouse ticket in Feature requests)
- No data entry issues
3) New Scoring category – Reflectance – Background: Reflectance is an important environmental attribute that measures how much heat from the sun a roof reflects instead of absorbs. It relates to how hard a building heating system will have to work to keep the building cool so affecting building energy performance, it relates to heat island effects, peak load reduction, heat stress on the roofing material and overall climate change impacts. The data is readily available for most products thanks to widespread use of the Cool Roof Rating Council (CRRC) rating system and a common database that covers literally thousands of products. There are six relevant quantities: the initial and aged reflectance, initial and aged emittance and initial and aged SRI (Solar Reflectance Index).
- Solar Reflectance is a requisite of Energy Star & Green Globes. It is measured on a
0.00-1.00 scale. Levels listed in the CRRC database (Cool Roof Rating Council (CRRC) www.coolroofs.org) vary from 0.94-0.03 initial to 0.87-0.07 after 3 years
- Emittance which is only a requisite of green globes and has similar values
- Solar Reflectance Index (SRI) which combines those two and is required by LEED.
SRI ranges from 120 to -6 initially and 110 to -3 for 3 year aged
About 830 of the 2200 products listed in the CRRC database are still pending the aged test – only about ¼ of those are products with any meaningful SRI to begin with (over 30)
For those with an aged SRI about 1000 show less than or equal to a 10% change but about 350 have a more significant difference ranging as high as 57 points for a 50% change
Looking at both the initial and aged values is important because some decline precipitously and others hold their performance. The proposed scoring only uses the two SRI numbers, but due to a wide variety of requirements in LEED and elsewhere for different variants on the data, I suggest we collect and display all. The majority of listed products have undergone the 3 year test already – with widely varying results.
An NSF standard currently in draft rewards further aging tests at 5 and 10 years. If that happens and the information from those tests is publicly available, I will propose an additional scoring bump for demonstrating longer term performance but that is in the future and not part of this proposal. In the meantime, I’ve proposed a precautionary point loss for any product that shows a large (20 point or more loss in three years.
Certifications: There are several to consider:
Energy Star requires initial solar reflectance >=0.65 and three year solar reflectance >=0.50
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=roof_prods.pr_crit_roof_products
NSF 347: This is a multi-attribute multi threshold (LEED style) certification of roofing products. It has no prerequisites that would drive current scoring proposal but if the scorecard is released it may be useful for research and validating attributes. But particularly interesting is that it provides points for retention of Energy Star reflectance for 5 and 10 years. This could be a useful extension to the proposed reflectance scoring proposal – that is providing an extra point for longer retention of the reflectance. Still in draft.
RoofPoint: This is a multi-attribute multi threshold (LEED style) certification of roofing systems as installed. It is therefore not appropriate to individual products, but there might be credits in RoofPoint that products can contribute to. It appears to still be in draft so I don’t think we can apply that yet.
Proposed specification:
- Create a new scoring category for reflectance applicable only to roofing materials–( that is, all roofing materials, not just membrane roofs: CSI 07 30 00, 07 41 00, 07 50 00 and 07 61 00
- Pharos scoring will be based upon the “3 year aged SRI” with a point modifier based upon the amount of loss between the Initial SRI and the 3 year aged SRI.
10 / aged SRI > 999 / aged SRI = 90-99
8 / aged SRI = 80-89
7 / aged SRI = 70-79
6 / aged SRI = 60-69
5 / aged SRI = 50-59
4 / aged SRI = 40-49
3 / aged SRI = 30-39
2 / aged SRI = 20-29
1 / aged SRI < 2020 SRIart to 1ure tabilizersn enscreen hout wing wek)t back he of the credite been making witht he d ere typeisclosure . XXXXXXXXXXXX0
Points: deduct one point if initial SRI minus aged (3 yr) SRI >= 20
- See “Reflectance scoring framework 110928.docx” for text and chart for framework section
- In Product Performance and Warranty, add the following six fields and questions which should only display for roofing products
- Initial Solar Reflectance. (Allowable values are 0.00 to 1.00)
- Aged (3 year) Solar Reflectance. (Allowable values are 0.00 to 1.00)
- Initial Thermal Emittance. (Allowable values are 0.00 to 1.00)
- Aged (3 year) Thermal Emittance. (Allowable values are 0.00 to 1.00)
- Initial Solar Reflectance Index (SRI). Allowable values are -10 to 150)
- Aged (3 year) Solar Reflectance Index (SRI). Allowable values (-10 to 150)
There are Reflectance and Emittance entry fields in the NCER Extras section but there is no data entry in the NCER section for any values, including these, for any roof membranes in the V1 database so no transfers to be done for Reflectance and Emittance from NCER.
There are already Solar Reflectance, Thermal Emittance and Solar Reflectance Index (SRI) entry fields in the Performance section also. This appears to be where the data team has entered data for roof membranes. Unfortunately it is a text field that has been used in a variety of ways. Sometimes there is a single numeric entry (and it is not clear whether it is the initial or 3 year aged SRI and the first one by Edrie that I checked appeared to not match the CRRC chart) and sometimes both the initial and the aged number are listed in the field. It does not appear that a simple transfer will be possible. This data may need to be reentered manually into the V2 system.
5) End of life data: Background: Numerous manufacturers are working on reclaiming membrane roofs at the end of their life for recycling. This could be a good product category to start paying more attention to end of life issues – collecting data better and displaying it. We do have a buy/back/take back question already in Product Performance and Warranty but are not displaying it. I suggest we expand on the end of life options data request for all products. Questions should cover both
- what to do with construction waste and
- end of service life disassembly/recycling/composting capabilities and manufacturer take back programs
We can start immediately reporting the captured information out in the product profile for roofing. The question changes should be built in for all other products as well but we should phase in display as we do our audits on older products.
We’re not ready to set up a scoring system but at least collecting and reporting the info out to end users as the manufacturer reports it would be a good start. And can move us towards eventually having a scoring system that includes recyclability or other good end of life loop closing.
Proposed Specification:
Data entry:
Add the following question for all products
1. Installation waste: Describe how installation waste can be recycled, reclaimed or composted? (open text)
2. End of Life disposition: Describe how much of the product can be recycled or composted, what kind of facility is necessary and where facilities are available. (open text)
Add the phrase “installation waste or” to the Buy back/takeback question:
1. Buy back / Take back program details. Describe here if the manufacturer will buy back or take back installation waste or product for refurbishment or recycling at the end of its life. Describe cost or payments and geographic availability of the program.
In Basic Product Information:
Add the following explanatory text to the “Product description” question (to give some guidance to insure that manufacturers provide basic information:
“Product description: Please briefly describe the product, the specific applications it is designed for and any general installation considerations. (e.g., “A 30, 45 or 60 mil reflective rubber membrane roofing material designed for low slope roofs with very light foot traffic. May be attached with adhesive or mechanically.”)
6) Other considerations – components:
Roofing products have associated products that are required for installation that can vary widely, such as adhesives and mechanical attachment devices. The team should set up a time when Larry & Sarah are ready to discuss the current plan for handling components and alternates and associated products. This will be highly relevant for this product category where there are various coatings and adhesives and attachment packages that must be used depending on the attachment process selected so should be displayed and affect the score. For example we will want to make sure that a product with an already applied adhesive is compared to the product plus adhesive for others. And that the mechanical attachment options can be scored differently.