Problematic consequences of the inclusion of capital goods inventory data in Environmental Product Declarations
Tóm tắt
A recent update to the Product Category Rules (PCRs) for Construction Products (of the International EPD System) has triggered a methodological issue for owners and users of Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs). The updated PCR has led to capital goods data being implicitly included in the Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) of EPDs. This paper critically examines the role of capital goods in EPDs and establishes major shortcomings in the current methodology, LCI datasets and interpretation. To evaluate the role of capital goods in EPDs, this paper provides a discourse on the fundamentals of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology, scope, available LCI data and the impact of capital goods on EPD outcomes. Using the ecoinvent database, we analyse the impact of the inclusion and exclusion of capital goods in selected 38 construction products based on the EN 15804+A2 (2019) Standard. Finally, we estimate the relative contribution of capital goods to a suite of Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) indicators based on the archetypes of capital goods available in ecoinvent and apply Monte Carlo simulation to establish the range of uncertainties in the capital goods data for the selected construction products. Our research confirms that when capital goods are included based on currently available background LCI data, they mostly have a low effect (<10% increase) on climate change, but they can have an enormous effect (>100% increase) on abiotic depletion (minerals and metals), land use and/or human toxicity indicators. Interestingly, when looking further into the ecoinvent capital goods LCI datasets, it becomes clear that there are inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and possibly incorrect estimates of capital goods and infrastructure data. These findings raise questions about the suitability of the underlying LCI background data and whether non-attributable capital goods should be allowed to define EPD outcomes. The requirement for the inclusion of capital goods leads to a major conundrum for LCA practitioners. It is suggested that capital goods be excluded until there is better refinement and improvement of the quality of LCI datasets and EPD programs provide clearer guidance on dealing with capital goods. Alternatively, EPDs could document transparently the inclusion or exclusion of capital goods, so that there is a clear separation of the effects of capital goods on LCIA indicators.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Agez M, Muller E, Patouiillard L, Sodersten C, Arvesen A, Margni M, Samson R, Majeau-Bettez G (2022) Correcting remaining truncations in hybrid life cycle assessment database compilation. J Ind Ecol 26:121–133. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13132
Andersen C, Larsen H, Raffnsøe L, Melvang C (2019) Environmental product declarations (EPDs) as a competitive parameter within sustainable buildings and building materials. In: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Env Sci,: 1. IOP Publishing, p 012145
Anderson J (2020) ConstructionLCA’s 2020 guide to environmental product declarations. https://epdaustralasia.com/2020/03/construction-epd-snapshot-a-decade-of-global-growth/. Accessed on 27 Jan 2021
Baumann H, Tillman A-M (2004) The hitch hiker’s guide to LCA: an orientation in LCA methodology and application. Lund. Studentlitteratur. ISBN 91-44-02364-2
Brogaard L, Riber C, Christensen T (2013) Quantifying capital goods for waste incineration. Waste Mgt 33:1390–1396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.03.007
Brogaard LK, Christensen T (2016) Life cycle assessment of capital goods in waste management systems. Waste Mgt 56:561–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.07.037
CEN (2013) EN 15804:2012+A1:2013 Sustainability of construction works—environmental product declarations. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels
CEN (2019) EN15804:2012+A2:2019 Sustainability of construction works - environmental product declarations - core rules for the product category of construction products. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels
Corradini G, Pierobon F, Zanetti M (2019) Product environmental footprint of a cross-laminated timber system: a case study in Italy. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24:975–988. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1541-x
Del Borghi A (2013) LCA and communication: environmental product declaration, vol 18. Springer
Del Rosario P, Palumbo E, Traverso M (2021) Environmental product declarations as data source for the environmental assessment of buildings in the context of level (s) and DGNB: how feasible is their adoption? Sustain 13:6143. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116143
Di Gianfilippo M, Costa G, Pantini S, Allegrini E, Lombardi F, Astrup TF (2016) LCA of management strategies for RDF incineration and gasification bottom ash based on experimental leaching data Waste Mgt 47:285–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.05.032
Durão V, Silvestre JD, Mateus R, de Brito J (2020) Assessment and communication of the environmental performance of construction products in Europe: comparison between PEF and EN 15804 compliant EPD schemes. Resour Conserv Recycl 156:104703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104703
Eickelkamp T (2015) Significance of fixed assets in life cycle assessments. J Clean Prod 101:97–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.03.075
Emami N, Heinonen J, Marteinsson B, Säynäjoki A, Junnonen J-M, Laine J, Junnila S (2019) A life cycle assessment of two residential buildings using two different LCA database-software combinations: Recognizing uniformities and inconsistencies. Build 9(1):20. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings9010020
Environdec (2020) Product category rules according to ISO 14025 and EN 15804 ; Construction Products and Construction Services, Version 2.32, 2020.07.01. vol PCR2012:01. EPD International AB, Stockholm, Sweden. https://www.environdec.com/PCR/Detail/?Pcr=5950
Environdec (2021) Product Category Rules PCR 2019:14, Construction Products, Version 1.11, 2021-02-05. EPD International AB, Stockholm, Sweden
Espada J, Rodríguez R, de la Peña A, Ramos M, Segura JL, Sánchez-Carnerero E (2023) Environmental impact analysis of surface printing and 3D inkjet printing applications using an imine based covalent organic framework: a life cycle assessment study. J Clean Prod 395:136381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136381
Finnveden G, Hauschild M, Ekvall T, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, Koehler A, Pennington D, Suh S (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manage 91:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.06.018
Frischknecht R, Althaus H, Bauer C, Doka G, Heck T, Jungluth N, Kellenberger D, Nemeccek T (2007) The environmental relevance of capital goods in life cycle assessments of products and services. Int JLife Cycle Assess 12. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2007.02.309
Globa A, Costin G, Tokede O, Wang R, Khoo CK, Moloney J (2021) Hybrid kinetic faca d Arch. Eng and Des Mgt 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2021.1941739
Hertwich EG (2021) Increased carbon footprint of materials production driven by rise in investments. Nature Geoscience 14:151–155. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-021-00690-8
Huisingh D (1992a) Workshop conclusions on inventory session. Paper presented at the Life cycle assessment, Brussels, Belgium, 2 - 3 December 1991
Huisingh D (1992b) Workshop conclusions on inventory session. In: Life-cycle assessment. Proceedings of SETAC-Europe workshop on environmental life cycle assessment of products, December 2–3, 1991 in Leiden, SETAC-Europe Brussels, pp 71-72
Ibáñez-Forés V, Pacheco-Blanco B, Capuz-Rizo SF, Bovea M (2016) Environmental product declarations: exploring their evolution and the factors affecting their demand in Europe. J Clean Prod 116:157–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.078
Islam M, Sohag K, Hammoudeh S, Mariev O, Samargandi N (2022) Minerals import demands and clean energy transitions: a disaggregated analysis. Energy Econs 113:106205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2022.106205
International Organization for Standardization (2006) ISO 14025:2006; Environmental labels and declarations — Type III environmental declarations — Principles and procedures. ISO
International Organization for Standardization (2006) ISO 14040:2006; Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework. ISO
International Organization for Standardization (2006) ISO 14044:2006; Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines. ISO
Klint E, Peters G (2021) Sharing is caring-the importance of capital goods when assessing environmental impacts from private and shared laundry systems in Sweden. Int J LCA 26:1085–1099. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01890-5
Lasvaux S, Habert G, Peuportier B, Chevalier J (2015) Comparison of generic and product-specific life cycle assessment databases: application to construction materials used in building LCA studies. Int J LCA 20:1473–1490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0938-z
Pahri SDR, Mohamed AF, Samath A (2016) Life cycle assessment of cockles (Anadara granosa) farming: a case study in Malaysia. Env Asia 9
Passer A et al (2015) Environmental product declarations entering the building sector: critical reflections based on 5 to 10 years experience in different European countries. Int J LCA 20:1199–1212
Qin Y, Suh S (2017) What distribution function do life cycle inventories follow? Int J LCA 22:1138–1145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1224-4
Rasmussen FN, Andersen CE, Wittchen A, Hansen RN, Birgisdóttir H (2021) Environmental product declarations of structural wood: a review of impacts and potential pitfalls for practice. Build 11:362. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11080362
Saxe S et al (2020) Taxonomy of uncertainty in environmental life cycle assessment of infrastructure projects. Env Res 15:083003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab85f8
Silva FB, Yoshida OS, Diestelkamp ED, De Oliveira LA (2018) Relevance of including capital goods in the life cycle assessment of construction products. LALCA: Revista Latino-Americana Em Avaliação Do Ciclo de Vida 2:7-22
Subramanian V, Ingwersen W, Hensler C, Collie H (2012) Comparing product category rules from different programs: learned outcomes towards global alignment. Int J LCA 17:892–903. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0419-6
Tokede O, Love P, Ahiaga-Dagbui DD (2018) Life cycle option appraisal in retrofit buildings. Energy and Build 178:279–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.08.034
Turconi R, Simonsen CG, Byriel IP, Astrup T (2014) Life cycle assessment of the Danish electricity distribution network. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:100–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0632-y
UNEP, SETAC (2011) Global guidance principles for life cycle assessment database. United Nations Environment Programme, Brussels
von Brömssen C, Röös E (2020) Why statistical testing and confidence intervals should not be used in comparative life cycle assessments based on Monte Carlo simulations? Int J LCA 25:2101–2105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01827-4
Wang Y, Levis JW, Barlaz MA (2021) Life-cycle assessment of a regulatory compliant US municipal solid waste landfill. Env Sci & Tech 55:13583–13592. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c02526
Weidema BP et al. (2013) Overview and methodology: data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3. vol 3. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories
Wernet G, Bauer C, Steubing B, Reinhard J, Moreno-Ruiz E, Weidema B (2016) The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. Int J LCA 21:1218–1230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8