Decisions

(As at April 2024)

Decisions April 2024

Decision no. 20240305-c:

The SVR decides on the Private Label Agreement as follows: If the declaration holder allows ownerships to be transferred, the declared place of manufacture remains unchanged. Only the product name, product image and declaration holder are adapted. The original manufacturer does not have to be named. Transport for relabeling would generally be considered part of module A3. This transport can be disregarded if it falls below the 5% GWP limit. However, if this limit is exceeded, module A3 must take the transport for relabeling into account and include it accordingly in the LCA.

Decisions October 2023

Decision 20230904-3:
The IBU is developing rules for the publication of EPDs for so-called reuse products. The rules have been agreed, the homepage has been updated accordingly, and they will be included as an annex in the next version of the PCR Part A. Requests from industry are welcomed by the SVR and accompanied by the IBU.

The annex to PCR Part A for ReUse products is available on request and at epd-online.com.

Decisions May 2023

Decision No. 20230523-b:

Results according to EN 15804 + A1 may be attached as a verified annex to a valid EPD according to EN 15804+A2. However, this annex is not digitized.

An EPD according to EN 15804 + A1 alone is no longer allowed.

Decision No. 20200924-e:
Due to insufficient experience in the construction sector, the application is rejected.

Decisions May 2020

Decision 20200528-b:
1. no VOC and formaldehyde emissions in core EPDs.
2. proof of formaldehyde emissions according to the test methods specified in the respective product standards
Test methods and proof of VOC emissions according to the AgBB scheme.

Decision 20200528-c:
A note on extension shall be provided in the scope of the EPD.

Decision 20200528-d:
EPD tools will continue to be presented to the SVR.

Decisions October 2019

Product Category Rules (the PCRs can be commented in the forum)

Decision no. 20191018-f:

The PCR green roof systems are to be revised in accordance with the items above and then entered into the SVR circulation procedure.

Decision no. 20191018-g:

The PCR on prefabricated supporting elements made of wood and wood-based materials is to be revised in accordance with the items above and then published.

Decision no. 20191018-h:

The procedure for PCR revision is to be supplemented by and/or revised to include the comments by the SVR.

Decisions May 2019

The IBU Advisory Board (SVR) decided in its last meeting in May 2019 on these topics.

Subsequent change following the Decision No. 20180420-f Primary energy 

(“Explanations and Rules of Calculation for the Result Indicators and Chapter 7.1.3.”)

In addition, the results table was supplemented by indicators or units (primary energy, use of secondary substances (in MJ and kg), substances for recycling (in MJ and kg), substances for energy recovery (in MJ and kg)). In the subsequent coordination with other users and EPD creators, the content and the form of the declaration in additional lines required further clarification.

As European harmonization is intended, an application to TC 350, WG 3 will be submitted. PCR Part A version 1.6 will temporarily apply for chapter 7.1.3.

 

Decision No. 20190524-e:

The following resolution is suspended

Decision No. 20190220-d:

The changes to the primary energy (Decision No. 20180420-f ) will be published with a supplement for systems with water content.

 

Decisions October 2018

The IBU Advisory Board (SVR) decided in its last meeting in October 2018 on these topics.

Supplements to the PCR, Part B: Floor coverings

  • The PCR on floor coverings does not require the AgBB scheme in section 7.1 although the AgBB scheme was developed for this application. Even if the ECA report comprises the AgBB scheme, the AgBB table must be listed here.

  • ERFMI asked IBU in January whether additional indicators can be declared in the EPD, in particular toxicity indicators. Dr Schmincke reported that owing to the current level of discussion in the CEN/TC 350 on the new EN 15804+A2, it is very likely that there will be new indicators as of 2019. Accordingly, there is no reason not to declare them in an IBU EPD.

  • The declared additional indicators would need to comply with those in the EN 15804+A2 and they would also have to be based on the same methods.

  • The indicators may not yet be declared in core EPDs.

  • A declaration of further indicators from the list of additional indicators in EN 15804+A2 is possible in an annex to the EPD if it is clearly indicated as such, whereby the “disclaimers” specified in EN 15804+A2 on methodical or data-based restrictions of the additional declared indicators must be used.

Decision no. 20181019-f:

The PCR, Part B: Floor coverings are supplemented in section 7.1. to include the AgBB scheme table.

No provisional declaration of new indicators from the EN 15084+A2

Decision no. 20181019-g: New indicators from the EN 15804+A2 may not yet be declared in a core EPD. In an IBU EPD or in an annex to a core EPD, following co-ordination with the SVR only the indicators from EN 15804 +A2 may be declared if it is clear that they involve additional information and not the core indicators, whereby the “disclaimers” specified in EN 15804+A2 on methodical or data-based restrictions of the additional declared indicators must be used. This regulation only applies provisionally; it is not a precedent for future integration of the additional indicators of EN 15804+A2 in the IBU range.

Allocation regulation for fly ash

  • Currently, the allocation regulations for handling blast furnace slag and fly ash are not consistently specified in the PCRs.

  • Fly ash can be regarded as less critical than slag.

  • Comparison of various possible allocation approaches by Dr Werner:

– No allocation (“0” allocation)

– Economic allocation (range 28-388 kg CO2/t)

– Physical allocation (484 kg CO2/t)

– Mass allocation (1373 kg CO2/t)

  • It is clear how the LCA results can vary and a “0” allocation by default is not agreed to as planned in the c-PCR.

  • The specification in PCR, Part B: Cement should also be examined for conformity with standards during further processing of this topic.

Decision no. 20181019-h:

A “0” allocation by default is not possible for blast furnace and electric furnace slag. An economic allocation is specified in the PCRs, whereby a “0” allocation can in fact be selected and justified for a very low contribution by these by-products.

Revising the PCR, Part A

Dr Hauer has supplemented the annex to PCR, Part A “Explanations and calculation rules on the result indicators and section 7.1.3.” to include an example for the future declaration:

 Primary energy

 SM – Use of Secondary Materials (in MJ and kg)

 FR – Materials for Recycling (in MJ and kg)

 MER – Materials for Energy Recovery (in MJ and kg).

  • The annex is published following editorial revision, presented to the other programme owners via the ECO Platform, and also presented to the Ökobaudat group of users.

  • Publication will be followed by a transition period of 6 months for implementation. Attention is drawn to the fact that some EPDs are currently published which indicate the consumption of primary energy in accordance with PCR, Part A (last revised in 2017).

Decision no. 20181019-k:

The annex to PCR, Part A is published following editorial revision, presented to the other programme owners via the ECO Platform, and also presented to the Ökobaudat group of users. Publication will be followed by a transition period of 6 months for implementation.

Inclusion of the AgBB scheme in PCRs

Decision no. 20181019-l: The table in accordance with the AgBB scheme 2018 is to be included in the PCRs.

 

Decisions June 2018

A supplement in the PCR Part A

Decision no. 20180629-c: IBU as a supplement in the PCR Part A

Use of the European power mix data for calculating the EPD results of the use phase (Module B 6) is specified as a general reference scenario in the IBU range and regional details are also possible which require explanation in the EPD.

Requirements on (partially) automated software systems for generating and approving EPDs (so-called EPD tools)

Decision no. 20180629-f:

Section 7.2 “Requirements on (partially) automated software systems for generating and approving EPDs (so-called EPD tools)” and the accompanying process instructions are integrated in the general IBU programme instructions – this decision is published in advance on the IBU homepage.

Decision no. 20180629-g:

A new verifier is assigned for an extension or new approval of an EPD tool.

PDF document: “Requirements on (partially) automated software systems for generating and approving EPDs (so-called EPD tools)”

Results of the verifier meeting

The following text is deleted in section 5.5.2 of the PCR Part A:
If no specific information for the R1 value of the incineration plant is available, it is assumed for Germany that packaging material and, if applicable, product waste from the installation process are treated thermally in an incineration plant with R1<0.6. Thus, the loads from the combustion process of packaging are to be declared in module A5, the resulting energy benefits in module D.

The following text is retained:
When modelling the incineration plant, care shall be taken to ensure that the inventoried incineration plant corresponds to the assumed R1-value.

Decision 20180629-i:

The text change in section 5.5.2. of the PCR Part A is accepted.

Decision no. 20180629-j:

The CML 2001 (version 2012) remains the basis for the results in the EPD until implementation of the EN 15804:2012+A1:2013/prA2.

Communication of new SVR decisions to the verifiers

Decision 20180629-k: IBU

Reference is regularly made in the IBU newsletter to the SVR decisions. No further action is necessary here. The PCR Part A are updated at least once a year in accordance with the decisions of the SVR. This takes place prior to the annual verifier meeting.

Individualisation of sample EPDs for the European Chemicals Association

The SVR (Expert Council) is of the unanimous opinion that there are no reasons not to approve individualisation of EU EPDs by German companies. However, the SVR recommends that IBU promotes easy individualisation (= individual calculation) and improving the identification of EPDs based on sample EPDs. This will make it easier for users to determine which EPD they are looking at. If necessary, extending the existing category system should be considered; company EPDs are not currently differentiated on the basis of sample EPDs.

Decision no. 20180420-j:

Individualisation of EU sample EPDs by German companies is approved from a professional perspective.

Inclusion of EN 16810 in the existing PCR for floor coverings

The PCR standard for the resilient, textile and laminate floor covering industry (TC 134) was published in 2017 (EN 16810: Resilient, textile and laminate floor coverings – Environmental product declarations – Product category rules). IBU is to make a policy decision as to whether c-PCRs are to be adopted in the IBU PCR.

The following rules outlined in EN 16810 are to be adopted by the IBU system:

1.Useful life

The declaration of a useful life of 1 year does not contradict the IBU rules which is why it is adopted by the IBU PCR. In addition, the EPD must include the following note: “Depending on the application based on EN ISO 10874, the technical service life recommended by the manufacturer and the anticipated strain on the floor by customers, the case-specific useful life can be established. The effects of Module B2 need to be calculated on the basis of this useful life in order to obtain the overall environmental impacts.”

2.Disclosure of biogenic carbon

Disclosure of biogenic carbon during the life cycle 1:

  • Rules as in PCR Part A and
  • Rules of the EN 16485:2014: Round and sawn timber – Environmental product declarations – Product category rules for wood and wood-based products for use in construction
  • The resource aspect of wood is to be analysed via the properties inherent to the material as a resource extraction of CO2 from the atmosphere and the lower calorific value as consumption of renewable energy sources.

Disclosure of biogenic carbon during the life cycle 2:

  • For secondary material (waste wood), the bound CO2is considered with the correspondingly negative GWP on the input side.
  • In the case of waste wood, which is recycled or which leaves the product system to be analysed as a secondary fuel, the CO2 bound in the wood fibres to be recycled is considered with the correspondingly positive GWP on the output side.
  • If biogenic CO2 is analysed in Modules A1-A3 as part of the GWP, the module must be declared in which the CO2 bound in the product or packaging is released or leaves the analysis framework by means of recycling or as a secondary fuel.

Disclosure of biogenic carbon during the life cycle 3:

  • The volume of biogenic carbon contained in the biological material and/or packaging must be declared in the module in which the stored biogenic carbon is offset as part of the GWP.
  • The calorific value (Hu) is analysed as the “Use of renewable secondary fuels” or as “Use of secondary materials”.

The following rules are not adopted from the EN 16810:
EN 16810 permits the declaration of toxicity indicators in the EPD. To this aim, the ERFMI has submitted an application to IBU to integrate them in an IBU EPD. Against the backdrop of integrating ISO 21930 in the IBU programme rules, Dr Lehmann proposes postponing the decision on the submission by ERFMI and communicating this accordingly to ERFMI.

EN 16810 is also indicated as a reference in the EPDs for resilient, textile and laminate floor coverings.

Decision no. 20180124-e:

Inclusion of EN 16810 in the existing PCR for floor coverings for the following topics: Useful life and disclosure of biogenic carbon and reference to EN 16810 on the cover sheet of the EPD for floor coverings.

Extending and renaming the PCR “Cable tray systems for cable ladder systems”

Decision no. 20171027-d:

The PCR is renamed and the scope extended to PCR, Part B: Cable carrier and cable channels for cable ladder systems

PCR Part B: for coatings with organic binding agents (following the circulation procedure)

The following remarks by the SVR concern PCR Part B:

– The scope in the existing PCR “Boards and panels made of plastic” should be changed for indoor applications.

– A new PCR is to be published under plastics for outdoor applications.

Decision no. 20171027-f:

Once the above amendments have been integrated, the PCR can be published.

Outstanding items from the verifier meeting (resubmission from the 44th meeting)

Questions 1-4 have already been answered by previous SVR decisions.

– Formulation in 3.6 Data quality: “to be done” to be changed to “to be developed”

5. recycled content:

A-C balanced 1 kg -1kg=0, D -1t –> misleading for readers: resource creating process; has to be made clear and communicated

a. proposal: A1-A3 with/without D

– Question on 5: Recycled content: Has already been answered in enclosure to PCR, Part A (not yet published)

6. Deviations in averages

One problem is that the average can be formed over an extensive range with the result that it no longer really makes sense. Conversion is not possible owing to the primary data genesis. Data variability is indicated as a % in the EPD (ranges).

– Question on 6: Averages: Answer to be taken from the guidance document for EN 15804. No requirements on maximum percentage deviations are implemented.

Decision no. 20171027-h:

Outstanding items from the verifier meeting (resubmission from the 44th meeting) have been clarified.

Regulation governing association and sample EPDs (task no. 20170712-12: Dr Werner)

The topics of representativity and individualisation are discussed.

There are 2 stages of individualisation:

1. Only the cover sheet and poss. the enclosures are changed; the owner of the declaration remains unchanged. Possible, e.g. for marketing purposes. Association logo remains on the cover sheet – not to be digitalised, only a PDF is created.

2. If individualisation is to be more extensive, i.e. if the manufacturer wishes to be the owner of the declaration, a procedure as for sample EPDs is to be presented to the SVR.

On representativity:

– In the PCR, Part B, new text is inserted in sections 3.1 Declared unit and 3.6 Data quality as well as in Scope.

Decision no. 20171027-i:

The proposal is accepted by the SVR; the requisite amendments are to be implemented in the IBU rules documents.

4.d. PCR Parts A and B: Renaming the ADP indicator description

The impact indicators are named in accordance with EN 15804:

– Abiotic depletion potential – non-fossil resources (ADP – Materials)

– Abiotic depletion potential – fossil fuels (ADP – Fossil fuels)

Decision no. 20170712-h:

The new ADP indicator name is implemented in the PCR.

 

 

4.e. PCR Part B: Supplementing the requirements in section 2.1, Product definition

PCR Part B is supplemented as follows in section 2.1 (new text in italics):

The declared products must be described. Apart from a general product description, the trade names of the products / product groups (including all product codes) are to be indicated for which the EPD applies.

If providing the names of products / product groups, e.g. within the framework of association EPDs, is not practically possible, the product description must clearly indicate the products / products groups for which the EPD applies.

Decision no. 20170712-i:

The product definition is changed in the PCR.

 

 

TOP 6. Software tools for drawing up EPDs: Supplements to IBU rules

Two areas in the IBU regulations are currently being revised:

  1. XML file
  2. Process instructions on drawing up, using and verifying System I and II EPD tools

Re. 1: XML file

Decision no. 20170712-k:

Software tools must always declare the maximum scope in the first EPD (if the tool can calculate A1-C4+D incl. scenarios, the first EPD from the tool must also depict all of these cases).

Decision no. 20170712-l:

Software tools necessitate all EPDs to be supplied as XML files (in ILCD+EPD format) to enable publication in IBU.Data. There is an exception for System II tools where it shall suffice if a reference product presented to the Expert Committee within the framework of tool approval is available as an XML file (the manufacturer makes proposals for the reference products).

 

 

TOP 7. Details on modules (resubmission)

7.a. and b. Details on modules (resubmission)

Decision no. 20170712-n:

Modules B3, B4 and B5 are only of relevance at building level and are referred to as MNR in the IBU system.

Decision no. 20170712-o:

In Module B2, the expenses associated with maintenance, repair etc. are declared over the product’s period of use in the IBU range. This decision shall apply until revoked by the ECO platform.

 

Regulations governing the RSL

The source and background information on the declaration of details concerning the Reference Service Life (RSL) should be outlined in more detail in chapter 4 of the PCR, Part B.

In the future, a distinction will be made between:

          -Details on the RSL provided by the manufacturer in accordance with ISO 15686-1, -2, -7 and -8

          – Details on the RSL in accordance with the BBSR Table and/or 2067 VDI Sheet 1

          – Details on the RSL provided by the manufacturer on the basis of empirical values, for example, (not in accordance with ISO 15686)

An indication of the RSL is only mandatory for cradle-to-grave EPDs. The three possibilities outlined above can also be provided together.

The following information is to be supplemented in chapter 4 of the PCR, Part B:

  1. Headline:
    In case a reference service life according to applicable ISO standards is declared then the assumptions and in-use conditions underlying the determined RSL shall be declared. The same holds for a service life declared by the manufacturer.
  2. In the Declaration of the RSL in accordance with ISO 15686-1, -2, -7 and 8, the following information must be listed:
    a. Declared product properties (at the gate) and finishes etc.
    b. Design application parameters (if instructed by the manufacturer), including the references to the appropriate practices and application codes
    c. An assumed quality of work, when installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions
    d. Outdoor environment (for outdoor applications), e.g. weathering, pollutants, UV and wind exposure, building orientation, shading, temperature
    e. Indoor environment (for indoor applications), e.g. temperature, moisture, chemical exposure
    f. Usage conditions, e.g. frequency of use, mechanical exposure
    g. Maintenance, e.g. required frequency, type and quality and replacement of components
  3. Where relevant, the details listed in 2. are also provided as manufacturer’s information which is not established in accordance with ISO 15686.

Decision no. 20170315-e:

The SVR hopes for an unambiguous designation of the term “life span (according to the manufacturer)” and if possible an explanation for the author of the EPD with regard to the information to be provided. Once the changes have been integrated by IBU, the new texts will be published in the PCR, Part B.

 

Supplements to the PCR, Part A

6.a.       Task no. 20161104-11: Revision of the PCR, Part A, on the issue of R1 for waste incineration plants (Dr Werner)

 

Decision no. 20170315-j:

The changes on R1 in the PCR, Part A, are accepted. (chapter 5.5.6)
 

 

Decision no. 20170315-h:

The following decisions of the SVR are withdrawn:

  1. Decision no. 20121004-e: Requirements on drawing up ESDs
  2. Decision no. 20140704-c: Definition of ESD
  3. Decision no. 20150630-e: technical data for declared product

 

Task 2016318-6: Declaration of packaging volumes

Background:
In a comprehensive analysis of a construction product, e.g. within the framework of a building assessment, disposal of the packaging materials must also be included. If Module A5 is not declared, the information permitting quantification of disposal of packaging volumes on the construction site must be made available.

Application:
PCR Part B is supplemented as follows:

“If the use of packaging material for the declared product is analysed in Module A3 in EPDs but Module A5 involving the disposal of packaging material on the construction site is not declared, the analysed volumes of packaging materials must be declared as technical scenario information for Module A5 in the EPD, chapter 4.”

Decision no. 20161104-m:

Decision on including the text on packaging volume in PCR Part B, chapter 4

 

Decision no. 20161104-k:

The following text supplement (italics)/change (crossed out) for the non-core EPD:

In the case of construction products treated with biocides, the active substance and the product type (in-can preservative, film preservative, wood protection etc. according to the Ordinance on Biocide Products) must be indicated (see also 1.4).
Ancillary materials and additives remaining on the product must also be declared.
If additives such as fire retardants or plasticizers or biocides are used, their functional chemical group must be indicated.
Other declarations such as “… is free of …” may not be used.

 

Decision no. 20161104-j:

The CRM substances can not be addressed in the core EPD but as CRM substances will soon become SVHC substances, IBU includes them in the Declaration.
Note following the meeting: This information is supplemented in chapter 2.6. of the PCR Part B.

 

UBA paper and current communication format for SVHC from Decision no. 20151210-e

2.6 Base materials / Ancillary materials
The primary product components and/or substances must be indicated as a percentage by mass enabling the EPD user to understand the composition of the product on delivery. These details should also support safety and efficiency during installation as well as use and disposal of the product.

The declaration of the product content must at least include a statement concerning the substances contained in the product which are listed in the “Candidate List of Substances of Very High Concern for Authorisation”, whereby the last amendment date of the candidate list must be indicated to which the declaration refers. CMR substances in categories 1A and 1B must also be indicated if a European harmonised classification is available as well as information on treatment with biocides. Insofar as the content of a substance of very high concern (SVHC) exceeds the limit value of 0.1 mass percentage in the construction product (or a lower specific concentration limit value), it must be listed. The same applies for listing the CMR substances not on the candidate list.

If the construction product is a substance or mixture under chemical law, the concentration limit value refers to the entire product; if it is a product, the partial product applies as a unit of reference. Insofar as the construction product is a mixture, the safety data sheet must be made available with the EPD (e.g. as an Annex) and any SVHC and their concentrations must be indicated in the EPD.

This declaration must take the following form:

Contains substances on the candidate list (date: dd.mm.yyyy) exceeding 0.1 mass percentage in at least one partial product: yes/no
Contains other CMR substances in categories 1A or 1B which are not on the candidate list, exceeding 0.1 mass percentage in at least one partial product: yes/no

Biocide products were added to this construction product or it has been treated with biocide products (this then concerns a treated product as defined by the Ordinance on Biocide Products): yes/no
If yes:
– List of the SVHC, other CMR substances, biocides referred to above

For SVHC / other CMR substances: Information on the concentration and/or concentration range (analogue to the information in a safety data sheet), information on hazardous properties and poss. information on the partial product in the case of products

In the case of construction products treated with biocides, the active substance and the product type (in-can preservative, film preservative, wood protection etc. according to the Ordinance on Biocide Products) must be indicated (see also 1.4).

Other statements such as “… is free of …” may not be used. The declaration of the material product content must list at least those substances contained in the product which appear in the “Candidate List of Substances of Very High Concern for Authorisation”, insofar as such content exceeds the limit values for registration with the European Chemicals Agency.

Information such as “… is free of …” may not be used.
Ancillary materials and additives remaining on the product must also be declared.
If additives such as fire retardants or plasticizers or biocides are used, their functional chemical group must be indicated.

 

Task 20160715-1: To date, projects for system verification were presented to the CoE prior to verification. This regulation is to be revised and the level of detail of the project presentation specified.

The IBU office continues to request a presentation and estimate by the CoE of the following items:
1. Scope (companies, products, LCA modules etc.)
2. Tool target
3. Tool users
4. Verifiability/Manipulability of the tool
5. Random examination of the EPDs from the tool
6. Revision (Planning)
7. Potential volume of EPDs from the tool

The CoE supplements this list to include the following topics:
8. Sample EPD from the tool
9. How the tool works (e.g. variable/invariable parameters)

Specifications for system verification are already in place (e.g. Decision number 20130322-o). These should be examined with regard to the individual steps of system verification:
1. Presentation to the CoE
2. Initial system verification
3. Re-verification

This should regulate the unique numbering of the EPDs and examination routines as well as regulations governing access to the documentation (sample EPD and verification report) for the CoE.
The checklists used for verification and the regulations governing System 1 and 2 verification can be found in the annex to the protocol. This topic will be discussed again at the next meeting.

 

Task 20160318-5: Rules on the duration of verifier tasks:

IBU proposes the following for the regulation in the general programme guides in chapter 3.2 Competencies of the CoE:

– The CoE is authorised to release verifiers from their tasks.
– If a verifier has been inactive for 2 years (or has not participated in the mandatory verifier meeting), he must be re-appointed by the CoE.

The CoE notes that appointments could be limited to a term of 5 years. IBU will examine the contracts with the verifiers.

Decision no. 20161104-b:

The additional competencies of the CoE for releasing and re-appointing verifiers are included in chapter 3.2. of the general IBU programme guide.

 

Decision No 20160715– m+n+o+p:

Revision of the model for EPDs (August 2016)

 

Chapter 2.1 Description/definition of the  product

(Specifications of the manufacturer)

After the specifications of the manufacturer for all „alternatives“ respectively the following model text:

/Alternative 1a: Product according to the CPR based on a hEN/:

For the placing on the market of the product in the EU/EFTA (with the exception of Switzerland) Regulation (EU) No. 305/2011 (CPR) applies. The product needs a Declaration of Performance taking into consideration /EN xyz,date, title/ and the CE-marking.

For the application and use the respective national provisions apply.

 

/Alternative 1b: Products according to the CPR based on an  ETA/.

For the placing of the product on the market in the EU/EFTA (with the exception of Switzerland) the Regulation (EU) No. 305/2011 (CPR) applies. The product needs a Declaration of Performance taking into consideration /ETA.xyz,date, title/ and the CE-marking.

For the application and use the respective national provisions apply.

 

/Alternative 2a:  Product not harmonised in accordance with the CPR but in accordance with other harmonisation provisions of the EU/:

For the placing on the market in the EU/EFTA (with the exception of Switzerland) the following legal provisions apply:

/Directive No. xyz, date, title /

/Regulation No.xyz, date, title/

and the harmonised norms based on these provisions:.

/EN xyz, date, title/

The CE-marking takes into account the proof of conformity with the respective harmonized norms based on the legal provisions above.

For the application and use the respective national provisions apply.

 

/Alternative 2b: Product harmonized as well in accordance with the CPR as with other harmonisation provisions of the EU/:

For the placing of the product on the market in the EU/EFTA (with the exception of Switzerland) the Regulation (EU) No. 305/2011/ (CPR) and the following other harmonisation provisions apply:

/Directive  (EU) xyz, date, titlel/ or /Regulation (EU) No. xyz, date, title/ respectively. The product needs a Declaration of Performance in accordance with the CPR taking into consideration /EN xyz: date, title/ or /ETA No. xyz , date, title/  respectively, and the CE-marking.

The CE-marking for the product takes into account the Declaration of Performance in accordance with the CPR and the proof of conformity with the following harmonised norms based on the other harmonisation provisions.

/EN…../

For the application and use the respective national provisions apply.

 

/Alternative 3: Product for which no legal harmonization provisions of the EU exist/

For the use and application of the product the respective national provisions at the place of use apply, in Germany for example the Building Codes of the Länder and the corresponding national specifications.

 

Chapter 2.2: Application and use of the product

(Specifications of the manufacturer)

Chapter 2.3:Technical data of the product

(Data tabled)

/Alternative 1a:Product according to the CPR, based on a hEN/:

·         Performance data of the product in accordance with the Declaration of Performance with respect to its Essential Characteristics according to /EN xyz   date, title/

·         Voluntary data: /source, date, title/ ((Not part of CE-marking)).

 

/Alternative 1b: Product according tot he CPR, based on an ETA /:

·         Performance data of the product in accordance with the Declaration of Performance with respect to its Essential Characteristics according to /ETA xyz No., date, title/

·         Voluntary data: /source, date, title/ ((Not part of CE-marking)).

 

/Alternative 2a: Product not harmonised in accordance with the CPR but in accordance with other harmonisation provisions of the EU/:

·         Performance data of the product according to the harmonised norms, based on the harmonisation provisions.

·         Voluntary data: /source, date, title/ ((Not part of CE-marking)).

 

/Alternative 2b : Product harmonized as well in accordance with the CPR as with other legal provisions of the EU/:

·         Performance data of the product in accordance with the Declaration of Performance with respect to its Essential Chacteristics according to /EN xyz, date,, title/ or /ETA xyz, No., date, title/ respectively.

·         Performance data of the product, based on the harmonised norms, in accordance with the other lharmonisation provisions

·         Voluntary data: /source, date, title/ ((Not part of CE-marking)).

 

/Alternative 3: Product for which no legal harmonization provisions of the EU exist/:

Performance data of the product with respect to its characteristics in accordance with the relevant technical provision ((No CE-marking)).

 

Chapter 2.4: Placing on the market/application rules: Delete.

Addition: This decision replaces Decision No 20160318-e + f.

 

Decision No 20160715-h:

New Version of IBU PCR Part A: The new Version 1.5 includes clarifications in chapter 7.1.3 Details for the declaration of energy related indicators in the end of life.

 

Decision No 20160715-s:

Mr Kreißig (DGNB) is appointed as a new member of the SVR.

 

Decision no. 20160318-m+n:. LCA results for modul B4 and B5:

In some EPDs modules B4 (replacement) + B5 (remodeling / renovation) are declared as “0.00” with the reason of a long durability.

Decision no. 20160318-m: As an interim solution modules B4 and B5 declared as “0” are accepted for the declaration.

Decision no. 20160318-n: To declare a value of “0” in a module, it must be a provable “0”

 

Decision no. 20160318-h:

Prof. Wigger (Jade University) is appointed as a new member of the SVR

 

Decision no. 20160318-g:

Prof. Irmschler resigns at his own request from the SVR. The successor for the chair of the SVR will be Dr. Frank Werner.

 

Decision no. 20160318-e+f: Changes to standard text in PCR Part B

Revised standard text for 2.3:

The technical specifications of the products that are within the scope of the EPD are to name with reference to the individual assessment rules (for example, standards).

For products with CE marking, in particular the performances must be specified in accordance with the performance declaration

Revised standard text for 2.4:

For those products mentioned in the scope of the EPD the valid application rules shall be declared (e.g. standards, directives and other regulations).

Requirements for Chapter 2.13 Reference useful life:

The following sentence was added and accepted:

Decision

“If no RSL has been declared according to ISO 15686, the specifications should indicate which assumptions were made with respect to a product’s useful life.”

Chapter 3.6 data quality

The following sentence was added and accepted:

“An estimate of the data quality (foreground and background data) is to be made with an indication of the age of the background data used.

The background database used is to be indicated.”

 

 Decision number 20150210-f:

If module D is declared, it must be declared in accordance with the mandatory modules C3 or C4. Even if the value of which is indicated by “0”.

Addition: The same applies for each module A4 to C2, in which material or energy flows are generated, which will be awarded in module D as benefits and burdens.

 

Decision-No. 20151008-d:

The requests 6.a. and 6.b. will be rejected for the following reasons: The Association is responsible for the representativeness of the information contained in the EPD. This concerns both the data collection as well as the evidence.

Underlying Requests from the General Meeting:

  • 1.a) Harmonization of requirements for Association -EPD and Manufacturer-EPD (I):

Request for disclosure of companies and production facilities in the Association-EPD (however, not all members of the association, but only for those who actually delivered its foreground data for the creation of the Association-EPD).

  • 1.b) Harmonization of requirements for Industry-EPD and Association-EPD (II):

Request for disclosure of companies and product, whose audit report(s) will be used in the Association-EPD.

 

Decision number 20150630-b:

In accordance with the EN 16485:2014-07 product standard, the text in Part A of the PCR on the Declaration should be supplemented in section 8.1 (amendments of the original proposed text must be in italics).

On the Declaration of the primary energy stored in a material at the EoL stage:

A distinction can be made between the following cases (see also EN 16485):

Recycling
Exports of renewable/non-renewable energy stored in the material are declared in Module C3 as a negative value (identical to the positive value declared in Modules A1-A3 as a non-energetic renewable/non-renewable primary energy),

The use of recycled material is declared in Module D with the “Use of secondary materials” indicator.

Energy recovery (in a plant with an R1 value > 0.6)
Exports of renewable/non-renewable energy stored in the material are declared in Module C3 as a negative value (identical to the positive value declared in Modules A1-A3 as a non-energetic renewable/non-renewable primary energy),

The use of recycled material as fuel is declared in Module D with the “Use of secondary fuels” indicator.

Thermal waste treatment (in a plant with an R1 value < 0.6)
Non-use as material of renewable/non-renewable energy stored in the material is declared in Module C4 as a negative value (identical to the positive value declared in Modules A1-A3 as a non-energetic renewable/non-renewable primary energy).

The use of renewable/non-renewable energy stored in the material as fuel is declared in Module C4 as a positive value (identical to the positive value declared in Modules A1-A3 as a non-energetic renewable/non-renewable primary energy),

The export of energy generated is declared as exported energy; its substitution effect is indicated in Module D.

Landfilling
No other indicators are declared on the use of primary energy.

 

Decision number 20150630-e:

In order to depict representativity, the figures in the technical data must refer to the declared product.

 

Decision number 20150630-k:

CO2-certificates may no longer be included in the IBU EPDs. Part A of the PCR document is to be amended accordingly.

 

Decision number 20150210-e:

EPDs of the IBU can get a voluntary, informative annex without verification with the parameters according to the Swiss KBOB. This appendix must be optically clearly separated, so that is clearly evident that this Annex is a self-declaration and is not verified.

 

Decision number 20150210-f:

If module D is declared, it must be declared in accordance with the mandatory modules C3 or C4. Even if the value of which is indicated by “0”.

 

Decision number 20150210-j:

Determination of the procedure for a verifier application
Procedure for future applications verifier:

  1.  The documents received in the office to be checked for completeness.
  2. Complete documentation shall be submitted to the SVR, while essentially suitability of / applicants / invited to present in front of the SVR.
  3. Only after successful performance in front of the SVR / candidates / in with two verifications under the supervision of an experienced IBU verifier can start (min. 20 tested EPDs)
  4. The report on the verification under supervision is submitted to the SVR. The SVR decides on admission as a verifier at the IBU.

 

Decision number 20140704-b:

PCR Part A:
8.2 Parameters for describing the environmental impacts as per EN 15804

The characterisation factors published in the EN 15804:2012+A1 standard (October 2013) (Annex C) are used for calculating the impact categories. These characterisation factors were published as “baseline” in the 2012 version by CML (Institute of Environmental Sciences Faculty of Science University of Leiden, The Netherlands).

New characterisation factors should be developed for environmental impacts for which no characterisation factors are indicated in the EN 15804+A1 standard. They must follow the CML method. Material flows which are not characterised and which could lead to the cut-off criteria being exceeded must be indicated.

If specific ADP values are known for fossil fuels, they must be indicated with sources and used.

The standardised use of characterisation factors must be confirmed in the background report and in the verification report.

A transition period of max. 2 years applies for new Environmental Product Declarations.

If the characterisation factors published in EN 15804+A1, Annex C are not used during the transition period, an explanation must be provided in the background report.

The corresponding reference to the characterisation factors must be indicated in the background report and in the EPD.

8.3 Optional supplements to the EPD within the scope of verification

Mutual recognition of the EPD under IBU and under ULe on the American market requires an additional evaluation with characterisation factors in accordance with TRACI (Version 2.1) (Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of

Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts; United States Environmental Protection Agency).

An evaluation of the same EPD according to various systems of characterisation factors CML and TRACI must be based on the same software model for the ecological analysis, i.e. using the same compilation of life cycle inventories without changing the background data base. This must be confirmed accordingly in the background report and in the EPD.

 

Decision number 20140704-c:

Changes in the PCR document Part A: Information on the background data base
One sentence has been added in Chapter 7.4 of PCR Part A.
The background report must include:

  • references to the background data base used, incl. year and version number
  • indication of the data sets used and their sources (e.g. name of data base, literary source), incl. indication of the year for which the data set is representative
  • documentation of the representativity of data sets used
  • documentation of how missing data is handled
  • an assessment of the data quality …

 

Decision number 20140704-c:

When creating the EPDs for certain product groups – the compilation and operation of construction product systems – much of the calculation can be spared by drawing on existing EPD results. This approach to calculation is designated by the term “Environmental System Declaration” or ESD. The document itself is simply called an Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) without differentiation or changes to the name.

Definition of ESD

An ESD is an EPD created by merging existing EPD results in compliance with EN 15804 applicable at the time of generation and referring to a “construction product” or “kit”, e.g. WDVS, comprising various components and installed permanently in building structures.

An ESD outlines the process of calculating an EPD. Apart from values from applicable EPDs for components for which no environmental data is available from an EPD, other data such as inventories from data bases may be used in an ESD, whereby it must be ensured that the data sets used also comply with EN 15804. The share of minor constituents must not exceed 25%. This share refers to the results of the declared impact categories for Modules A1-A3 (ADPE, ADPF, AP, EP, GWP, ODP, POCP).

All EPD data used must be referenced, valid and published.

If a kit permits the use of components adapted to the respective application, the ESD must be either limited to a defined combination or the “worst-case” technical combinations must be declared.

If an ESD is performed on the basis of the published impact estimate instead of based on full inventories, an analysis is limited to the characterisation models used in the EPDs. (If, for example, results are only available in accordance with the CML method, an additional analysis in line with TRACI can not be carried out.)

 

Decision number 20140704-c:

If a period of use can not be established as a Reference Service Life (RSL) taking consideration of ISO 15686 (or it is not of relevance for analysis of the LCA), the period of use may be indicated in accordance with the BBSR Table “Nutzungsdauern von Bauteilen zur Lebenszyklusanalyse nach BNB” taking consideration of the explanatory document to the BBSR Table (http://www.nachhaltigesbauen.de/baustoff-und-gebaeudedaten/nutzungsdauern-von-bauteilen.html); the requisite information for building installation systems is indicated in VDI 20673.

As an alternative to the BBSR Table, information supplied by the manufacturer can also be made available. Such information must be justified (e.g. simulation, testing, analysis of manufacturer, statistical values). If the period of use is not established taking consideration of ISO 15686, this must be explicitly indicated in the EPD.

As a general rule, the manufacturer is responsible for indicating a period of use.

 

Decision number 20140324-1:

Mr. Prof. Reinhardt resigns from the presidency.

Mr. Prof. Irmschler takes the Presidency of the SVR over from the 38th meeting.

 

Decision number 20140324-a:

Analysis by TRACI method:
The background report must ensure that the existing EPD and the addition of evaluations with TRACI characterization factors are based on the same software model. Otherwise, a complete verification is necessary.

The proof can be carried out that in addition to the analysis according to TRACI at the same time again a CML evaluation is performed which then has to deliver the same values as in the published EPD.

 

Decision number 20140324-l:

The background database Ecoinvent Version 3 don`t meets the requirements of the EN15804 anymore. The use of the Ecoinvent background database is prohibited for developing EPDs at the IBU-Program until this decision is repealed.

Addition on 20th August 2014: With the publication of ecoinvent versions 3.01 (May 2014) and 3.1 (July 2014), an option permitting the evaluation of the ecoinvent database has become available that via the “allocation, cut-off by classification” system model offers an evaluation methodologically reproducing ecoinvent version 2. SVR resolution number 20140325-I thus no longer applies; ecoinvent versions 3.01 and 3.1 can now be used with the “allocation, cut-off by classification” system model for the calculation of IBU EPDs while at the same time taking account of the stipulations set out in the IBU product category rules in chapter 7.4. This means that the “cut-off by classification” allocation method must be employed when using ecoinvent versions 3.01 and 3.1.

 

Decision number 20140324-n:

The EN 15804 provides no clear definition for the declaration of water indicators.

Up to a new outcome of the Working Group of the TC 350 on the subject of declaration of water indicators, the procedure described in the PCR document Part A remains unchanged.

 

Decision number 20131129-g:

Theme: Process for individualising sample EPDs

Decision: The general application of sample EPDs (with worst-case approach) to a variety of building products can lead to unforeseen difficulties. It is not generally possible to transfer the system to a sample EPD.

If a sample EPD (with worst-case approach) is to be drawn up for a product group, an application must be submitted to the SVA.

 

Decision number 20131129-j:

Theme: Product Category Rules – PCR Part B – new and revised PCR documents (IBU)

Decision: Indicating technical data in EPDs: If a line in the table with technical data specified in the PCR is not declared, an explanation is provided in the background report.

In the EPD, the table specified in the PCR is depicted in full and the line not declared indicated as “not relevant”.

 

Decision number 20130704-m:

Theme: Communication of SVA decisions / Co-ordination with verifiers

Decision: Decisions made by the Expert Committee (during meetings and circulation procedures) are indicated (public/semi-public/private), numbered in the protocols and published on the homepage for everyone or in a protected area for verifiers. Additional information to known distribution groups is possible.

 

Decision number 20130704-r:

Theme: Evidence for sample EPDs and average EPDs

Decision: If an EPD is based on a sample EPD, the product-specific evidence must be supplied for the declared product.

 

Decision number 20130322-l:

Theme: Wood materials

Decision: An abbreviated term of validity of 1 year remains for EPDs of wood materials which do not provide evidence of AgBB measurements.

 

Decision number 20130322-o:

Theme: Software tools – Type I and type 2 system verifications

Decision: Process

 

Decision number 20130107-f:

Theme: Supplement to 20121004-f

Decision: The proposed texts for the declaration of water and waste are accepted. Declaration of indicator for water: Data based on industrial data surveys, often does not support the methodical approach of the “Blue water consumption” (evaporated water) water indicator. If it is impossible to avoid using these non-EB 15804-conformant data sets when calculating the EPD, a distinction should be made between various cases:

Case 1: The non-EN 15804-conformant data sets are relevant/significant for the overall result. The indicator is not shown in line with the SVA decision of 04.10.2012 and a footnote that the data sets used do not support the methodical approach.

Case 2: The non-EN 15804-conformant data sets are not relevant/significant for the overall result. The indicator is shown along with an additional explanation. Not all background data sets support the methodical approach of the water indicator. The value of the indicator is therefore subject to greater uncertainty.

Individual depiction of “Blue water consumption” can lead to misinterpretations. (The value “0” does not mean that no water is required.) As an option, it is possible to indicate the overall water input (Blue water use) factor in the text.

Declaration of indicators for waste: Data based on industrial data surveys, often does not support the methodical approach of the waste indicators (landfilled waste / hazardous waste). If it is impossible to avoid using these non-EB 15804-conformant data sets when calculating the EPD, a distinction should be made between various cases:

Case 1: The non-EN 15804-conformant data sets are relevant/significant for the overall result. The indicators are not shown in line with the SVA decision of 04.10.2012 and a footnote that the data sets used do not support the methodical approach.

Case 2: The non-EN 15804-conformant data sets are not relevant/significant for the overall result. The indicators are shown along with an additional explanation. Not all background data sets support the methodical approach of the waste indicators. The indicator values are therefore subject to greater uncertainty.

Supplement:

Material volumes contributing more than 3% (mass) to product manufacturing are regarded as significant. Alternatively, the significance can be explained in the form of a sensitivity analysis in the background report.

In addition to SVR decision 20130107-f

Clarification of to waste indicators according to the SVR decision from the 07.10.2013: There is deposited non-hazardous waste, deposited hazardous waste and the amount resulting of radioactive waste meant.

 

Decision number 20121004-b:

Theme: Possibility of approving PCR in the circulation procedure

Decision: In urgent cases for new or smaller modifications to PCR documents, it is possible for them to be approved by the SVA (expert committee) in a circulation procedure. The circulation procedure generally takes 14 days.

 

Decision number 20121004-c:

Theme: Process for appointing auditors

Decision: The process for appointing verifiers is regulated in section 7ff of the general IBU principles.

 

Decision number 20121004-e:

Theme: Requirements on drawing up ESDs

Decision: The term “Environmental System Declaration” can be used synonymously with the term “Environmental Product Declaration” Furthermore, the same calculation rules and requirements apply for systems and ESDs as for EPDs. Likewise, ESDs are verified the same way as EPDs.

 

Decision number 20121004-f:

Theme: Specification of the guidelines in EN 15804 for calculation and declaration of the fresh water and waste indicators

Decision: Fresh water: Calculation of the “Use of net fresh water” indicator in EN 15804 is not clearly defined. Decision: The calculation currently complies with the standard in the Water Footprint Discussion in accordance with ISO 14046: Net fresh water = consumptive freshwater use = evaporation + evapotranspiration + embedded freshwater + drainage of freshwater into the ocean (excluding rainwater) Waste: In the standardisation body, the term “disposed waste” has been interpreted as the volume disposed of. Decision: Declaration of waste flows:

– Hazardous waste disposed of in kg: The volume of hazardous waste disposed of in a class III or IV landfill. Radioactive waste is not included.

– Non-hazardous waste disposed of in kg: The volume of non-hazardous waste disposed of in a class 0, I or II landfill

– Radioactive waste disposed of in kg: The volume of radioactive waste disposed of

 

Decision number 20121004-h:

Theme: Optional toxicity indicators in EPDs

Decision: No toxicity indicators may be indicated within a core or IBU EPD.

No reference may be made to an additional document with toxicity indicators within the EPD. Toxicity indicators are not a component of verification.