Deci­sions

---

(As at Octo­ber 2023)

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.

If you are inter­est­ed in the appen­dix, it is avail­able for the first time only by request!

---

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.