1 Introduction: state of the art of methods for the assessment of the environmental performance of construction products
2 Situation report in European countries
2.1 EPDs
Programme short | Operator name | Web page |
---|---|---|
ADEME* | Agence de l’Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l’Energie (French Environmental and Energy Agency) + AFNOR French Standard | |
ASTM | ASTM International | |
BAU-EPD* | Bau EPD GmbH | |
BRE* | BRE Global | |
CEPI | Confederation of European Paper Industries | |
CLF | Carbon Leadership Forum | |
DAPc* | Sistema Declaraciones Ambientales de Productos por la construcción (EPD System for the Construction sector) | |
EAA | European Aluminium Association | |
ecospec | Ecospecifier | |
EDF | Environmental Development Foundation | |
FDES* | Fiches de Déclaration Environnementale et Sanitaire (Environmental and Health Declaration Sheets) + AFNOR French Standard | |
FP | FP Innovations | |
IBU* | Institut Bauen und Umwelt e.V. (Institute for Construction and Environment) | |
ICC-ES | ICC Evaluation Services | |
IES* | International EPD System | |
Ift | ift Rosenheim | |
JEMAI | Japanese Environmental Management Association of Industry | |
KEITI | Korean Environmental Institute for Technology and Information | |
MVD | Danks Standard (Danish Standard) | |
NEF* | Næringslivets miljøstiftelse EPD Norge (Norwegian EPD Foundation) | |
NRMCA | National Ready Mixed Concrete Association | |
NSF | NSF International | |
PE | PlasticsEurope | |
PEP* | PEP ecopassport | |
SCS | SCS Global Services | |
TGS | The Green Standard | |
UL | UL Environment |
2.1.1 Current situation in Austria
2.1.2 Current situation in Belgium
2.1.3 Current situation in Germany
2.1.4 Current situation in France
2.1.5 Current situation in Switzerland
2.1.6 Summary EPD
Austria | Belgium | France | Germany | Switzerland | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Standards used for EPDs (PCRs, rules) | ÖN EN 15804, ÖN EN ISO 14025 | The royal Dutch decree refers to the EN 15804+A4, C and D | NF EN ISO 14025 NF EN 15804+A1 NF P 01-064/CN Decree on EPDa
| DIN EN ISO 14025, DIN EN 15804+A1 | SN EN 15804 |
Specific PCRs for product category (e.g. product TC…) | 96 different PCRs, number growing | Development of rules for verification and the acceptance of PCRs will start by the end of 2014 | No PSR but national trade unions have developed specific rules for the EPDs of their products family. Product TC PSR according to NF EN 15804 should replace the previous rules | Approx. 100 EN 15804-compliant PCRs in the IBU system, number growing | No Swiss specific PCRs existing yet |
Duration of EPD scheme development | About 3 months from submission to publication of EPD | EPD program established in 2004 in France, currently updated according EN 15804 | No Swiss EPD scheme existing yet | ||
National specific rules (e.g. national appendix of EN 15804 in France) | National appendix of EN 15804 in development | National appendix of EN 15804 in development | National appendix NF P01-064/CN with especially sanitary and comfort aspects to keep the same level of completeness as the first generation of EPDs | No national annex to EN 15804, specific rules defined in IBU’s PCR part A (applicable to all EPDs) and product category-specific PCR part B documents | National appendix SN EN 15804: addition to “data quality” and “disposal phase” |
Background database used for the LCA | Ecoinventb and GaBic
| The Royal Decree is open, but request transparent information | Available background data in LCA software (e.g. ecoinvent, GaBi…) | GaBi and ecoinvent v2.2 (limited to non-German EPDs) | Ecoinventb version 2.2 |
Organisation of the national EPD program | Bau EPD GmbHd is a cooperation of the Austrian building certification systems ÖGNBe and ÖGNIf
| OVAMg in cooperation with Brussels Environmental Administration (IBGE-BIMh) and Walloon Region and the Belgian Construction Products Producers (BMP-PMCi) Federal Public Administration of Health and Environment (Royal Decree) | Multi-stakeholders process involving public authorities, standardisation agency, CSTB, construction sectors associations, the HQE association and other players (more information in: www.inies.fr) | Institut Bauen und Umwelt (IBU) e.V.: non-profit non-governmental organization | No Swiss program existing yet |
Cost aspects (EPD, verification, registration) | EPD, 700; verfification, €1.800 for EPDs prepared by registered LCA practitioners; €3.000 for EPDs prepared by not-registered LCA practitioners; yearly fee, €1.200–9.000 depending on company/association size | Not defined yet. But a fund co-managed by the industry and the administration | Some aspects are precised in the presentation of the Environmental and Health Product Declaration (EHPD) program in the following link: www.afnor.org/content/download/62497/691387. Fees (excl. VAT)—examination of the issuer’s file, between 100 and 200€ depending on the number of EPDs; running costs for the INIES database, 100€ per year | Annual costs, first EPD 800€, prices decrease with growing number of EPDs to 100 € per EPD (5 and more EPDs) verification, 700 € per EPD; label fee, 500 € per EPD; annual membership for product manufacturers, 800 to 9.000 €, depending on size of company/association, non-members have higher annual declaration fees | No Swiss program existing yet |
Verification process | According to ecoplatformj
| According to ecoplatformj
| According to ecoplatformj
| According to ecoplatformj
| Independent external declaration |
Certification of verifiers | Verifiers have to fulfill specific criteria according to requirements of ECO Platformj; registered verifiers cannot be LCA practitioners | Procedure under development –ECO-platform will be taken into account | According to ecoplatform + exam to certify the competences of the verifiers. Verifiers must have an LCA and EPD expertise | According to ecoplatformj
| Declaration based on EN ISO 14025:2010 |
List of criteria to check | Verification criteria based on requirements of ecoplatformj
| Verification criteria based on requirements of ecoplatformj
| Verification criteria based on requirements of ecoplatformj
| Verification criteria based on requirements of ecoplatformj
| Not yet existing |
Validity of the EPD (PCR if relevant) | 5 years | 5 years | 5 years | EPD, 5 years; PCR, 3 years | 5 years |
EPD use in building labelling/certification schemes | ÖGNBe and klima:aktivk via baubookl, ÖGNIf via oekobau.datm (planned) | BREEAMn, LEEDo
| HQEp
| DGNBq
| MINERGIE-A, MINERGIE-(−P/-A)-ECOr, 2000-Watts-Development Sitess, SGNI (DGNB CH)t, Standard for Sustainable Construction SNBSu
|
2.2 Description of the PEF method and PEFCRs
2.3 Comparison between the EC PEF method and EN 15804
Criteria | EC PEF method (2013) | EN 15804:2012+A1:2013 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Resource use and emissions profile/life cycle inventory | ||||
Data quality requirements | Strict requirements for PEF studies intended for external communication. | Data shall be as current as possible (updated within 10 years for generic data and 5 years for specific data); 1-year averaged data to be used; time period shall be 100 years. Technological coverage shall reflect the physical reality. | ||
Specific data | Mandatory for all foreground processes and for background processes, where appropriate. | First choice: specific + average data However, reference is made to CEN TR15941, according to which generic data may also be used to refer to the manufacturer’s own process (on site). | ||
Generic data | Only for processes in the background system. When available, sector-specific generic data to be used instead of multi-sector generic data; shall fulfil the data quality requirements; recommended sources provided. | May be used for the processes the producer cannot influence; documentation of technological, geographical and time-related representativeness shall be provided. | ||
Cut-off | No cutoff allowed. | 1 % of renewable/non-renewable primary energy usage, 1 % of the total mass input of that unit process. Total of neglected input flows per module shall be a max. of 5 % of energy usage and mass + environmental relevance (i.e. a less than 1 % of mass or energy flow harmful has to be taken into account in the LCI). | ||
Dealing with data gaps | Any data gaps shall be filled using best available generic or extrapolated data and shall not account for more than 10 % of the overall contribution to each impact category considered based on the initial screening exercise. | In case of insufficient data or data gaps for a unit process, see cutoffs allowed. | ||
Handling multi-functionality | Hierarchy: (1) subdivision or system expansion; (2) allocation based on a relevant underlying physical relationship; (3) allocation based on some other relationship. | Hierarchy: (1a) avoidance by subdivision; (1b) subdivision without data available on sub-processes, partitioning reflecting the underlying physical relationship; (2) allocation based on physical properties when the difference in revenue from the co-products is low; in all other cases, it shall be based on economic values (exception: material flows carrying specific inherent properties shall always be allocated reflecting the physical flows, irrespective of the allocation chosen for the process). | ||
End-of-life (EoL) allocation | To be included: until the product is returned to nature as a waste or enters another product’s life cycle. EoL allocation formula is provided based on the 50:50 approach. Combined approaches where parts of the supply chain are subject to quantitative analysis and others to qualitative descriptions of potential environmental hotspots are also possible. | EoL system boundary: until the end-of-waste state is reached: EoL processing assigned to the product system that generates the waste, further processing may be necessary in order to replace the primary material or fuel input in another product system. Such processes are considered to be beyond the system boundary and are assigned to the optional informative module D. | ||
Environmental impact assessment | ||||
Number of impact categories | 14 | 7 | ||
Indicators (and models if mentioned) | Indicator | Model | Indicator | Model/method |
Global warming | kg CO2 eq. | Bern model (IPCC) | kg CO2 eq. | IPCC/CML v 4.1 2012 |
Ozone depletion | kg CFC-11eq. | EDIP model based on WMO | kg CFC-11 eq. | CML v 4.1 2012 |
Ecotoxicity for aquatic fresh water | CTUe (comparative toxic unit for ecosystems) | USEtox model | – | – |
Human toxicity—cancer effects | CTUh (comparative toxic unit for humans) | USEtox model | – | – |
Human toxicity—non-cancer effects | – | – | ||
Particulate matter/respiratory inorganics | kg PM2,5 eq. | RiskPoll model | – | – |
Ionising radiation—human health effects | kg U 235 eq. (to air) | Human health effect model | – | – |
Photochemical ozone formation | kg NMVOC eq. | LOTOS-EUROS model | kg ethene eq. | CML v 4.1 2012 |
Acidification | mol H+ eq. | Accumulated exceedance model | kg SO2 eq. | CML v 4.1 2012 |
Eutrophication—terrestrial | mol N eq. | kg (PO4)3− eq. | CML v 4.1 2012 | |
Eutrophication—aquatic | Fresh water: kg P eq. marine: kg N eq. | EUTREND model | – | – |
Resource depletion—water | m3 water use related to local scarcity of water | Swiss ecoscarcity model | – | – |
Resource depletion—mineral, fossil | kg antimony (Sb) eq. | CML2002 model | MJ, net calorific value | CML v 4.1 2012 |
Resource depletion—non-fossil | – | – | kg antimony (Sb) eq. | CML v 4.1 2012 |
Land use | kg (deficit) | Soil organic matter (SOM) model | – | – |
Normalisation | Not required if applied, methods and results shall be reported under “additional environmental information”. Normalised results shall not be aggregated as this implicitly applies a weighting factor (i.e. one). | No normalisation: impact assessment only includes classification and characterisation. | ||
Weighting | Optional step, if applied: to be reported under additional environmental information. | No weighting: impact assessment only includes classification and characterisation. | ||
Interpretation of results | ||||
“Identification of hot-spots” and “Conclusions, limitations and recommendations” are mandatory. Assessment of the extent to which methodological choices such as system boundaries, data sources, and allocation choices influence the analytical outcomes is mandatory. | No identification of hot-spots nor recommendations required. |