Lca of eco sandwich wall panels

LCA of ECO‐SANDWICH® wall panels

Assessing the sustainability of a wall panel made of recycled and innovative materials in residential and commercial buildings

Date: Version: Commissioned by:

Prepared by:

17 August 2015 2.1

University of Zagreb Faculty of Civil Engineering prof. Ivana Banjad Pečur

PRé Consultants bv Ellen Brilhuis‐Meijer Laura Golsteijn

1

This report has been prepared by PRé Consultants bv. PRé Consultants puts the metrics behind sustainability, and provides decision makers with the tools, knowledge and network to make products and services more sustainable.

For more than twenty years PRé Consultants has been at the forefront of Life Cycle thinking and has built on its knowledge and experience in sustainability metrics and impact assessments to provide state of the art methods, consultancy and software tools. Internationally, leading organizations work with PRé Consultants to integrate sustainability into their product development procedures in order to create business growth and business value. PRé Consultants has offices in the United States and the Netherlands plus a global partner network to support large international or multi‐client projects.

This report has been prepared by the Dutch office of PRé Consultants. Please direct all questions regarding this report to PRé Consultants bv.

PRé Consultants bv

Stationsplein 121

3818 LE Amersfoort

The Netherlands

Phone +31 (0)33 455 50 22

consultancy@pre‐sustainability.com

www.pre‐sustainability.com

PRé Consultants bv

Table of Contents List of abbreviations ............................................................................................................ 1 Executive summary ............................................................................................................. 2 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3 1 General aspects .......................................................................................................... 3 2 Goals of the study ....................................................................................................... 3 3 Scope of the study ...................................................................................................... 4 3.1 3.2 3.3

Product description ....................................................................................................................... 4 Functional unit ............................................................................................................................... 5 System boundaries according to modular approach ..................................................................... 5

4

Life cycle inventory analysis ....................................................................................... 9

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

Description of unit processes ........................................................................................................ 9 Data sources .................................................................................................................................. 9 Data validation ............................................................................................................................... 9 Missing data ................................................................................................................................... 9

5

Life cycle impact assessment .................................................................................... 13

5.1 5.2 5.3

Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 13 Results per life cycle stage ........................................................................................................... 13 Process contribution .................................................................................................................... 14

6

Life cycle interpretation ............................................................................................ 16

6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4

Result interpretation ................................................................................................................... 16 Limitations ................................................................................................................................... 17 Data quality assessment .............................................................................................................. 17 Data Uncertainty .......................................................................................................................... 17

Appendix I ......................................................................................................................... 19 1 Declaration of general information ........................................................................... 20 2 Declaration of the environmental parameters derived from LCA .............................. 22 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5

General ........................................................................................................................................ 22 Service life .................................................................................................................................... 22 Parameters describing environmental impacts ........................................................................... 22 Parameters describing resource use ........................................................................................... 22 Other environmental information describing different waste categories and output flows ...... 24

3

Scenarios and additional technical information ........................................................ 24

3.1 Product ........................................................................................................................................ 24 3.2 Construction process stage ......................................................................................................... 24 3.3 Use stage ..................................................................................................................................... 24 3.4 End‐of‐life .................................................................................................................................... 26 3.5 Additional technical information on release of dangerous substances to indoor air, soil and water during the use stage .................................................................................................................... 27

Appendix II ........................................................................................................................ 28

List of abbreviations

B2B Business to Business

B2C Business to Consumer

CDW Construction and Demolition Waste

LCA Life Cycle Assessment

LCI Life Cycle Inventory

LCIA Life Cycle Impact Assessment

PCR Product Category Rules

1

PRé Consultants bv

Executive summary This report describes a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of the ECO‐SANDWICH® wall panel. This wall panel was developed in a cooperation of several Croatian scientific institutions and industries as part of the ECO‐SANDWICH® project. The project partners were the Faculty of Civil Engineering of the University of Zagreb as the project leader, the Faculty of Architecture of the University of Zagreb, Beton Lučko Ltd., Knauf Insulation Ltd., and EURCO Inc. The wall panel is made of recycled and innovative materials, and used in residential as well as commercial buildings.

The LCA was done according to the EN 15804 standard, which provides Product Category Rules for construction products. The goals of the study were to determine the environmental impact of the new ECO‐SANDWICH® wall panels and to identify the environmental hotspots in the life cycle.

Additionally, an environmental product information sheet was developed for communication purposes. The ECO‐SANDWICH® project leader wants to use the results from this study in a business to business (B2B) marketing strategy for the introduction of this ECO‐SANDWICH® wall panel in Europe.

The full life cycle is included, from cradle to grave, meaning that the results include the production stage, installation into a building, use and maintenance, replacements, demolition, waste processing for re‐use, recovery, recycling, and disposal. The following impact categories were included in the impact assessment: global warming, ozone layer depletion, acidification, eutrophication, photochemical oxidation, depletion of elements and depletion of fossil fuels. The results show that the product stages raw material extraction, processing, transport to the manufacturer and manufacturing are a major contribution to the impact for each of the impact categories. Which part of the product stage contributes the most varies per impact category.

The results are listed in an environmental product information sheet, which can be used for B2B communication.

2

PRé Consultants bv

Introduction The ECO‐SANDWICH® wall panel is an energy efficient sandwich facade panel with recycled concrete, which was developed in a cooperation of Croatian scientific institutions and industry as part of the ECO‐SANDWICH® project. The Faculty of Civil Engineering of the University of Zagreb is the project leader of the project. The ECO‐SANDWICH® wall panel is made of recycled and innovative materials, and intended to be used in residential as well as commercial buildings.

A cradle to grave Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) study was performed to assess the environmental impacts of the ECO‐SANDWICH® wall panels. Together with some additional elements, the results from the LCA were used to make an environmental product information sheet. The LCA consists of the following steps: goal and scope definition, life cycle inventory, life cycle assessment and interpretation. Specific product category rules (PCRs) were followed, which provide guidance each step. In this case, the EN 158041 standard was used. This standard is a PCR for building materials in general.

The advantage of using a PCR is that LCA results of products are more comparable if based on the same PCR. Therefore, environmental product information sheets are often used in business to business (B2B) communication to communicate the environmental performance of products within the supply chain, or to compare products within the supply chain. An environmental information sheet of ECO‐SANDWICH® panels is included in the Appendix of this report to provide the ECO‐ SANDWICH® project members with full product transparency, and allow comparison to information sheets of similar products that are currently on the market.

This report describes the LCA underlying the information sheet.

1

General aspects

This LCA report was commissioned by prof. Ivana Banjad Pečur of the Faculty of Civil Engineering of the University of Zagreb in Croatia). The analysis was executed and the report prepared by Ellen Brilhuis‐Meijer and Laura Golsteijn of PRé Consultants in the Netherlands.

This study was conducted according to the requirements of the most widely used PCR for construction products: EN 158041. Being compliant with this standard, the information sheet provides relevant and verified information about the environmental impact of a product.

2

Goals of the study

The goals of the study were to determine the environmental impact of the new ECO‐SANDWICH® wall panels and to identify the environmental hotspots in the life cycle. Additionally, an environmental product information sheet was developed for communication purposes. The ECO‐ SANDWICH® project leader wants to use the results from this study in a B2B marketing strategy for the introduction of this ECO‐SANDWICH® wall panel in Europe.

1

EN 15804: Sustainability of construction works – Environmental product declarations – Core rules for the product category of construction products

3

PRé Consultants bv

3

Scope of the study

3.1 Product description ECO‐SANDWICH® wall panels, of which a picture is shown in Figure 1, are ventilated prefabricated wall panels utilising recycled construction and demolition waste (CDW) and mineral wool produced using innovative technology. They represent a possible technological solution for fast construction of low energy buildings on a large scale.

Each panel is 6.2 by 2.8 meters and consists of several components: ‐ Outer concrete layer, using 50% recycled aggregate ‐ Mineral wool layer ‐ Inner concrete layer, using 50% recycled aggregate ‐ Reinforcement mesh ‐ Fixtures ‐ Transport anchors

Figure 1. ECO‐SANDWICH® wall panel

The panel is produced at about 40 km distance from Zagreb. In the panel, recycled aggregate obtained from CDW is used as a satisfactory substitute for primary aggregate, which is obtained from natural resources. Half of the CDW is demolished concrete and half is demolished brick. The cement used is CEM II, a mixture of minimally 65% Portland cement, up to 15% blast furnace slag, and other materials. The cement and aggregate are both from Croatia. The insulating mineral wool is newly developed and manufactured using Ecose® Technology. It is manufactured from abundant recycled (glass bottles, plate glass, internal mineral wool production waste; up to 85% of total content of resources) and naturally (silica) occurring materials. Production of the mineral wool occurs in Czech Republic. The reinforcement of the panel is made of ordinary steel and some additional stainless steel, in order to prevent thermal bridges. The steel is imported from Bosnia and Herzegovina (distance about 300‐400 km), whereas the stainless steel is imported from Parma in Italy (570 km).

After production, the panel is transported to the building site by truck. A feasibility study within the ECO‐SANDWICH® project showed that it is not economically feasible to transport the panel over distances larger than 500 km. The first application was in Croatia with a distance from production 4

PRé Consultants bv

site of about 150‐160 km. A crane is used to install the panel between the pillars of the reinforced concrete structure. The panel is then fixed to the building using galvanized steel fixtures from Halfen, a company with production sites in Germany and Poland. A silicon based, air and fire resistant putty (sealant) is used to make the construction air tight and fire resistant. There are ventilation profiles of perforated steel at the bottom of the panels and around windows, which cannot be entered by birds and pests. Painting or maintenance of the panel is not necessary. The expected lifetime is 50 years.

3.2 Functional unit According to the standard EN15804, comparison of the environmental performance of construction products shall be based on the product’s use in and its impacts on the building, and shall consider the life cycle. The function of the ECO‐SANDWICH® wall panel is predominantly insulation, and additionally fire protection; the panel is not intended to carry loads.

For the product group of insulation materials2, the functional unit to be used is the amount of material necessary to achieve 1 m2∙K∙W‐1 of thermal resistance.

The thermal transmittance (U) of the ECO‐SANDWICH® wall panel is U<0.20 W/m2K. Taken the maximum transmittance, which is the worst case scenario, the derived thermal resistance (R) is approximately the reciprocal of the thermal transmittance:

R

1  5m2KW 1 2 0.20W / m K

This leads to a reference flow (RF) of:

RF 

1m2KW 1  0. 2 5m2KW 1 wall panels

Only one product and one production site are under study, so no averaging is needed.

It should be noted that by referring only to the thermal transmittance of wall panel, the functional unit is defined very narrowly. Other characteristics such as fire resistance are not taken into account.

3.3 System boundaries according to modular approach The scope of the study is cradle to grave. This means that all activities throughout the life cycle of each panel should be included in the assessment, that is: the product stage, installation into the building, use and maintenance, replacements, demolition, waste processing for re‐use, recovery, recycling and disposal, and disposal. A simplified flow chart of the life cycle is shown inFigure 2, with the various modules indicated by their respective codes (for example A1‐3).

2

Product category rules according to ISO 14025:2006. Product group: multiple UN CPC codes: Insulation materials. Version 1.0. Date 2014‐04‐16. Valid until: 2017‐07‐02.

5

Figure 2. Life cycle of an ECO‐SANDWICH wall panel. This is a simplified flow chart, which means that not all processes are included in this overview. Country flags represent the location of the supplier.

6

3.3.1 Excluded processes The following processes were excluded from the analysis:  The ventilation profiles of perforated steel at the bottom of the panels and around windows are considered to be no part of the life cycle of the ECO‐SANDWICH® wall panel.

Additionally, such ventilation profiles are required for any type of wall (panels).  An existing factory, including existing machines and resources, was used. To facilitate the greater insulation thickness of the insulation material, minor adjustments to the production line were made and new equipment was bought (including crushing jaws, cleats, sieving screens and conveyor band). The current study includes only the energy for production of the wall panel, not the factory.  The energy needed for production of the fixtures is excluded.  The energy needed for production of the putty is excluded.  The energy needed for demolition of the wall panel at the end of life is excluded. Processes related to the life cycle of the crane are excluded, except for the fuel consumption required for the installation of the wall panel.

For the excluded processes, data was unavailable and we expect these processes to be of negligible influence on the overall environmental performance of each impact category, based on expert knowledge. Besides these exclusions, no cut‐off criteria were used in this LCA. Specific data is used for foreground processes and generic data is used for background processes, according to the rules specified by EN 15804.

Information on indoor air quality during the use stage and release of substances to soil and water after installation were excluded, because of a lack of European product standards.

3.3.2 Multi‐output and end‐of‐life allocation Multi‐functionality is not an issue for foreground processes. Background data were taken from the life cycle inventory databases ecoinvent version 3.1 allocation recycled content system model, which is also called the allocation cut‐off by classification system model. This system model is based on the approach that primary production of materials is always allocated to the primary user of a material.

If a material is recycled, the primary producer does not receive any credit for the provision of any recyclable materials. For multi‐functional products, allocation according to 'other relationships' (economic value) is used. This approach is in line with the three‐step procedure in ISO 14040 (2006)3, and EN 15804. Both frameworks state that where possible, processes have been split up in order to avoid allocation. Allocation for multi‐functional products should be based on physical properties (e.g. mass, volume) when the difference in revenue from the co‐products is low. Where physical relationship cannot be established or used as the basis for allocation, the inputs should be allocated between the products and the functions in a way which reflects other relationships between them, e.g. economic allocation.

For end‐of‐life allocation, the cut‐off approach is used, which means that the at the end of life, the benefits and burdens of recycling of the ECO‐SANDWICH® wall panel will not be taken into account.

This approach is applied consistently throughout both the foreground and background data.

3

ISO 14040:2006. Environmental management ‐‐ Life cycle assessment ‐‐ Principles and framework.

7

PRé Consultants bv

3.3.3 Quantification of energy and material inputs and outputs A list of all inputs and outputs of the system can be found in Table 1.

Table 1. Quantification of inputs and outputs for 1 wall panel Type Input Input Input

Component Connections Mesh Concrete layers

Input Input Input Input Output Output Output Output

Mineral wool layer Transport anchors Fixtures Putty

Flow Stainless steel Steel Demolished concrete Natural aggregate Demolished brick Electricity for inner layer aggregate production Electricity for outer layer aggregate production Superplasticizer CEM II Water Electricity for concrete production (mixing, vibrating, curing chamber, transport within the production plant) Mineral wool Steel Galvanized steel Silicon Mineral wool for recycling Concrete for recycling Steel for recycling Waste for recycling

Amount 33.30 137.43 1686.88 2957.76 843.44 232.97 11.83 3.56 1206.40 509.60 520.28

86.80 7.90 24.00 3.51 51 (4) 46 (4) 100 (4) All remaining

Unit kg kg kg kg kg MJ MJ kg kg l MJ

kg kg kg kg % % % ‐

3.3.4 Assumptions The following assumptions are made in this study:  It is assumed that the average country consumption electricity mix is used throughout the lifecycle.  It is assumed that the ECO‐SANDWICH® wall panel is fixed to buildings with use of galvanized steel fixtures from Germany. In reality, they are produced by Halfen, a company with production sites in both Germany and Poland and the exact production site/mix is unknown.  It is assumed by the ECO‐SANDWICH® project members that painting or maintenance of the panel is not necessary.  The ECO‐SANWICH® wall panel is a new product, so it is not possible yet to use empirical data on the maintenance or life time. The lifetime of the ECO‐SANDWHICH® wall panel is 50 years.  The concrete, mineral wool and reinforcement steel can be recycled again at end‐of‐life.  It has been indicated by the ECO‐SANDWICH® project members that there is no waste during production, because waste streams can be reused and the remaining amounts of waste are expected to be negligible.  The thermal transmittance (U) of the ECO‐SANDWICH® wall panel is U=0.20 W/m2K. This is a worst case scenario.  It is assumed that there is no waste during production, since the amount is expected to be insignificant.

4

For recycling rates references, please see detailed information in Table 5. Recycling scenarios

8

PRé Consultants bv

4

Life cycle inventory analysis

The product life cycles were modelled using the LCA software SimaPro 8.04, developed by PRé Consultants.

4.1 Description of unit processes Specific data was provided by the ECO‐SANDWICH® project members. PRé provided the ECO‐ SANDWICH® LCA commissioner with a questionnaire to collect the needed data. For details, see Table 2.

Generic data was taken from the databases available in SimaPro, specifically the ecoinvent 3.1 database ‘Allocation, cut‐off by classification’ system model. This system model is preferred over other available system models, because it is the most transparent and consistent approach compared to the approach used in other background databases, such as PlasticsEurope, ELCD, USLCI, and ecoinvent version 2.2. The list of used processes can be found in Table 2.

4.2 Data sources Foreground data was used for all processes that the producer of the ECO‐SANDWICH® has influence on. Information provided includes amounts of materials, transport distances for the raw materials and (components of) the wall panel, energy or fuel required for specific processes.

Background data was used for processes that the producer has no influence on. As mentioned before, all selected background data are from ecoinvent version 3.1, allocation recycled content system model. This database uses the following methodological decisions: ‐ Average supply (unconstrained supply) of products is used, as described in market activity datasets. ‐ Partitioning (allocation) is used to convert multi‐product datasets to single‐product datasets. ‐ Benefit related to the recycling of a material is not taken into account. In this model, recyclable materials are available burden‐free to recycling processes, which means that secondary (recycled) materials bear only the impacts of the recycling processes. The model does not give any credit to producers of wastes for the recycling or re‐use of products from any waste treatment.

4.3 Data validation The specific foreground data is not older than 3 years. It is considered to be representative, verified data based on measurements, from the area under study and from processes and materials under study.

The generic background data was released in 2014. Individual datasets differ in how up to date they are. All used datasets apply with the data requirements that were set for this study. An uncertainty analysis for the generic data was done as described in par. 6.4.

4.4 Missing data For excluded processes, see par. 3.3.1. Specific data was preferred over generic data if available.

However, data gaps were filled with conservative assumptions with average (generic) data. See also Table 2 for a description of the ecoinvent processes that were used.

9

Table 2. Quantification of unit processes (data for 1 wall panel) Module A1‐3

Component CEM II (per kg)

Input Blast furnace slag Portland cement

A1‐3

Inner layer

Demolished concrete Natural aggregate Water Plasticizer CEM II Electricity Transport

A1‐3

Outer layer

Demolished brick Natural aggregate Water Plasticizer CEM II Electricity Transport

A1‐3 A1‐3

Connections (per kg) Concrete mesh (per kg)

Ecoinvent process Ground granulated blast furnace slag {GLO}| market for | Alloc Rec, S Cement, Portland {Europe without Switzerland}| market for | Alloc Rec, S ‐ Gravel, round {GLO}| gravel and sand quarry operation | Alloc Rec, S Tap water {Europe without Switzerland| tap water production, conventional treatment | Alloc Rec, S Polycarboxylates, 40% active substance {GLO}| market for | Alloc Rec, S ‐ Electricity, medium voltage {HR}| market for | Alloc Rec, S Transport, freight, lorry, unspecified {GLO}| market for | Alloc Rec, S

Amount 0.15

Unit kg

0.85

kg

Comment Ratio of blast furnace slag and Portland cement provided by ECO‐SANDWICH® project members

1690 1970

kg kg

332.8

l

2.3712

kg

790.4 346.85 0.207

kg MJ tkm

‐ Gravel, round {GLO}| gravel and sand quarry operation | Alloc Rec, S Tap water {Europe without Switzerland| tap water production, conventional treatment | Alloc Rec, S Polycarboxylates, 40% active substance {GLO}| market for | Alloc Rec, S ‐ Electricity, medium voltage {HR}| market for | Alloc Rec, S Transport, freight, lorry, unspecified {GLO}| market for | Alloc Rec, S

843 986

kg kg

Transport distances demolished concrete: 40 km, natural aggregate: 126 km, CEM II: 211 km, plasticizer: 10 km

176.8

kg

1.1856

kg

416 173.43 0.2

kg MJ tkm

Chromium steel

Chromium steel pipe

1

kg

Transport distances demolished brick: 23 km, natural aggregate: 126 km, CEM II: 211 km, plasticizer: 10 km

Steel

Steel, unalloyed {RER}| steel production, converter, unalloyed | Alloc Rec, S Wire drawing, steel {RER}| processing | Alloc Rec, S

1

kg

1

kg

Mesh production

10

PRé Consultants bv

Table 2 (continued): Quantification of unit processes (data for 1 wall panel) Module A1‐3

A1‐3

Component Transport anchors (per kg)

Input Steel

Concrete mesh Connections Transport anchors Transport

Ecoinvent process Steel, unalloyed {RER}| steel production, converter, unalloyed | Alloc Rec, S Metal working, average for steel product manufacturing, {GLO}| market for | Alloc Rec, S ‐ ‐ Glass wool mat {CH}| production, Saint‐Gobain ISOVER SA| Alloc Rec, S ‐ ‐ ‐ Transport, freight, lorry, unspecified {GLO}| market for | Alloc Rec, S

Wall panel

Outer layer Inner layer Mineral wool

Anchor production

Amount 1

Unit kg

Comment

1

kg

2052.99 4385.14 86.8

kg kg kg

137.43 33.3 7.9 134

kg kg kg tkm

Transport distances connections: 590 km, mineral wool: 759 km, transportation anchors: 156 km, reinforcement mesh: 346 km, concrete: 0 km (same plant as the wall panels) Transport distances wall panel: 160 km, transportation anchors: 160 km, fixtures: 962 km, putty: 893 km

A4‐5

Transport to building site

Transport

Transport, freight, lorry, unspecified {GLO}| market for | Alloc Rec, S

1.1E3

tkm

A4‐5

Fixtures (per kg)

Galvanized steel

1

kg

0.0064 41.55

m2 kg

3.51

kg

A4‐5

Installation (per crane)

Diesel

Steel, unalloyed {RER}| steel production, converter, unalloyed | Alloc Rec, S Zinc coat, coils {RER}| zin coating, coils | Alloc Rec, S Diesel {Europe without Switzerland}| market for | Alloc Rec, S

A4‐5

Putty

Silicone

Silicone product {RER}| production | Alloc Rec, S

107 km*0.45 l/km*0.85 kg/l = 40.9 kg The crane is coming from Zagreb (distance from Zagreb to installation site in Koprivnica is 107 km) 28.33*2*0.03 km *0.45 l/km*0.85 kg/l = 0.65 kg Average building is composed of 28.33 wall panels, which need to be transported over 30 m.

0.195 kg/m2 putty (proxy, includes production)

11

PRé Consultants bv

Table 2 (continued): Quantification of unit processes (data for 1 wall panel) Module B1‐5

Component Use

C1‐4

Demolition

Input Reference flow = 0.2 wall panel (see par. 3.2 Functional unit) Steel Concrete Mineral wool Waste streams remaining after separation

Ecoinvent process

Amount

Unit

Comment

Steel and iron (waste treatment) {GLO}| recycling of steel and iron | Alloc Rec, S Waste cement‐fibre slab {CH}| treatment of, recycling | Alloc Rec, S Waste mineral wool {CH}| treatment of, recycling | Alloc Rec, S Inert waste, for final disposal {GLO}| market for | Alloc Rec, S

40.5

kg (100%)

592 8.85 705

kg (46%) kg (51%) kg remaining

For recycling rates references, please see detailed information in Table 5. Recycling scenarios

All remaining waste is sent to landfill as inert waste

12

5

Life cycle impact assessment

5.1 Methodology The environmental impact was calculated using the EPD 2013 method, which is readily available for use in SimaPro.5 All impact categories in this method are in fact copies of impact categories in the CML‐IA baseline method (eutrophication, global warming and photochemical oxidation) and CML‐IA non‐baseline method (acidification). These methods can be found in SimaPro as well.6,7,8 We manually added the impact category ‘Depletion of abiotic resources: fossil fuels’ from CML‐IA baseline 2013 version 4.2 to the EPD 2013 method as required by the EN15804 standard.

The full list of used impact categories can be seen in Table 3. The corresponding characterization models can be found in the method reports belonging to this method.

Table 3. Used impact categories and their origin.

Impact category Global warming Ozone depletion Acidification Eutrophication Photochemical oxidation Depletion of elements Depletion of fossil fuels

Unit kg CO2 eq kg CFC‐11 eq kg SO2 eq kg (PO4)3‐ eq kg C2H4 eq kg Sb eq MJ

Method CML‐IA baseline 4.2 CML‐IA baseline 4.2 CML‐IA non‐baseline 4.2 CML‐IA baseline 4.2 CML‐IA baseline 4.2 CML‐IA baseline 4.2 CML‐IA baseline 4.2

5.2 Results per life cycle stage Please note that the LCIA results are relative expressions and do not predict impacts on category endpoints, the exceeding of thresholds, safety margins or risks.

The environmental impact of an ECO‐SANDWICH® wall panel is predominantly determined by the production stage (see Figure 3). The total contribution of life cycle stages A1‐A3 ‐ raw materials, transport to production, and assembly ‐ ranges from 48% for the impact category Abiotic depletion (elements) to 84% for Global warming. Regarding the total contribution of A4‐A5 (transport to building site and installing of the wall panel), the lowest contribution is found for Global warming (13%) and the highest for Abiotic depletion (elements) (51%). The contribution of the waste treatment in the end of life (C1‐4) ranges from 0% for Abiotic depletion (elements) to 7% for Eutrophication.

The life cycle stages B1‐7 ‐ use and operation ‐ do not contribute to the environmental impact, since it was assumed that no emissions and/or resource use occur. For a flow chart of the most important processes in the life cycle and the abbreviations per life cycle stage, see Figure 2.

5

This method is to be used for the creation of Environmental Product Deleclarations (EPDs), as published on the website of the Swedish Environmental Management Council (SEMC).

6 Guinee, J.B., Marieke Gorree, Reinout Heijungs, Gjalt Huppes, Rene Kleijn, Lauran van Oers, A. Wegener Sleeswijk, S. Suh, H.A. Udo de Haes, H. de Bruijn, R. van Duin, M.A.J. Huijbregts (2001). Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment, Operational guide to the ISO standards Volume 1, 2a, 2b and 3.

7 Huijbregts, M.A.J. LCA normalisation data for the Netherlands (1997/1998), Western Europe (1995) and the World (1990 and 1995).

8 Wegener Sleeswijk, A., L. van Oers, J. Guinee, J. Struijs and M. Huijbregts (2008). Normalisation in product Life Cycle assessment: An LCA of the Global and European Economic Systems in the year 2000.

13

PRé Consultants bv

Characterized results ECO‐SANDWICH 100% 90% 80% 70% 60%

C1‐4 End‐of‐life

50%

B6‐7 Operation

40%

B1‐5 Use

30%

A4‐5 Construction

20%

A1‐3 Product

10% 0% Global warming

Ozone depletion

Acidification Eutrophication Photochemical ozone creation

Abiotic depletion (elements)

Abiotic depletion (fossil fuels)

Figure 3. Graph of characterized results for an LCA of an ECO‐SANDWICH® wall panel, specified according the associated life cycle stages (impact method EPD 2013).

Table 4. Table of characterized results for an LCA of an ECO‐SANDWICH® wall panel, specified per life cycle stage (impact method EPD 2013).

Impact category

Unit

Global warming Ozone depletion Acidification Eutrophication Photochemical oxidation Depletion of elements Depletion of fossil fuels

kg CO2 eq kg CFC‐11 eq kg SO2 eq kg (PO4)3‐ eq kg C2H4 eq kg Sb eq MJ

Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage A1‐3 A4‐5 B1‐5 Use B6‐7 C1‐4 Product Construction Operation End‐of‐life 356 53 0 0 8 2.6E‐05 8.3E‐06 0 0 2.0E‐06 1.42 0.39 0 0 0.07 0.417 0.090 0 0 0.012 0.0917 0.0173 0 0 0.0023 0.00157 0.00168 0 0 0.00001 3053 761 0 0 179

5.3 Process contribution The main stage for all impact categories comes from module A1‐3, the production stage – including raw material extraction and processing, transport to the manufacturer and manufacturing. It differs per impact category, which part of the LCI is responsible for the large impact attributable to module A1‐3 (see Figure 4). For example, for global warming, 43% of the impact results from the concrete inner layer of the panel, which is a significant contributor for several other impact categories as well.

For abiotic depletion of elements, the connections caused 66% of the impact. The environmental impact of A4‐5 construction was mainly caused by transport to the building site and the fixtures used in the installation, which are made of galvanized steel (see Figure 5). The environmental impact of C1‐4 end of life treatment was mainly caused by concrete recycling (see Figure 6). An overview of the contribution of elementary flows to the impact category indicator results per life cycle stage can be found in Appendix II.

14

PRé Consultants bv

Characterized results A1‐3 100%

Transport to production

90%

Transport anchors

80%

Connections

70%

Concrete mesh

60%

Concrete outer layer

50%

Concrete inner layer

40%

Mineral wool

30% 20% 10% 0% Global warming

Ozone layer depletion

Acidification Eutrophication Photochemical oxidation

Abiotic depletion (elements)

Abiotic depletion (fossil fuels)

Figure 4. Characterized results A1‐3, process contribution analysis

Characterized results A4‐5 100% 90% 80%

Transport

70%

Crane

60%

Putty

50%

Fixtures

40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Global warming (GWP100a)

Ozone layer Acidification Eutrophication Photochemical Abiotic depletion (fate not incl.) oxidation depletion (ODP) (elementsl)

Abiotic depletion (fossil fuels)

Figure 5. Characterized results A4‐5, process contribution analysis

Characterized results C1‐4 100% Inert waste landfill

90%

Wool recycling

80%

Concrete recycling

70%

Steel recycling

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Global warming (GWP100a)

Ozone layer Acidification Eutrophication Photochemical Abiotic depletion (fate not incl.) oxidation depletion (ODP) (elementsl)

Abiotic depletion (fossil fuels)

Figure 6. Characterized results C1‐4, process contribution analysis

15

PRé Consultants bv

6

Life cycle interpretation

6.1 Result interpretation The main results and a further look into the contributors are shown in the previous chapter. While these results represent the current situation in Croatia, the panels can also be sold outside the country where the recycling rates for mineral wool and/or concrete are higher. To investigate the effect of different recycling rates, three scenarios were calculated, see Table 5. The results shown in the previous chapter are based on the current waste recycling percentages in Croatia. To analyze a scenario in which the panels are sold in other (neighbouring) countries, the average EU‐27 recycling rates were used. Finally, complete recycling of mineral wool, concrete and steel is calculated to analyze an ideal situation. This is included because it is expected that the waste recycling percentages may change due to the effort to recycle construction waste of the producers of ECO‐ SANDWICH® and others. Figure 7 shows that higher recycling percentages for mineral wool and concrete can have a reduction of up to 3% on the results.

Table 5. Recycling scenarios

Scenario Current waste recycling percentages in Croatia Current waste recycling percentages, average EU‐27 Future waste recycling percentages

Mineral wool recycling 51 %

Concrete recycling 46 %

79 %

46 %

100 %

100 %

Steel recycling Landfill Reference(s) 100 % remaining EUROSTAT 2015 9, Calvo et al 2014 10 and Monier et al 2011 11 100 % remaining EUROSTAT 2015 9, Calvo et al 2014 10 and Monier et al 2011 11 100 % remaining Assumption

9

EUROSTAT 2015 http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/setupModifyTableLayout.do?state=new&currentDimension=DS‐ 052688WASTE (downloaded 30th of April 2015) 10 Calvo, N.; Varela‐Candamio, L.; Novo‐Corti, I. A Dynamic Model for Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste Management in Spain: Driving Policies Based on Economic Incentives and Tax Penalties. Sustainability 2014, 6, 416‐435.

11 Monier, V.; Hestin, M; Trarieux, M.; Mimid, S.; Domröse, L.; Van Acoleyen, M.; Hjerp, P.; Mudgal, S. 2011.

Study on the management of Construction and demolition waste in the EU. Contract 07.0307/2009/540863/SER/G2, Final report for the European Commission (DG Environment).

16

PRé Consultants bv

Comparison of waste recycling percentages 100%

Current recycling data Croatia

90%

Environmental impact

80% 70%

Current recycling data EU‐27 average

60% 50%

100% recycling

40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Global warming

Ozone depletion

Acidification Eutrophication Photochemical ozone creation

Abiotic depletion (elements)

Abiotic depletion (fossil fuels)

Figure 7. Graph of different End‐of‐life scenarios

6.2 Limitations The results of the study have the following limitations: ‐ The functional unit only covers part of the functionality of the wall panel. Only the thermal insulation is included, while the wall panels are also self‐bearing. ‐ The used waste scenarios use average data from the current situation. In reality, the wall panels will reach their end‐of‐life stage several decades from now, when the waste handling is likely to be different. It was illustrated that a different waste scenario can significantly influence the results. ‐ Generic data is used for the upstream and downstream processes, which means that the actual impact may deviate from the numbers listed here. The resulting uncertainty is addressed in the next paragraph.

6.3 Data quality assessment The ECO‐SANDWICH® wall panel is not yet produced at industrial scale. To date, it is produced at only one site, and all specific data is measured directly at this production site. All data is gathered as part of the ECO‐SANDWICH® project. The first application was in Croatia (distance from production site about 150‐160 km). The technological and geographical representativeness are very good. The measurements took place in the last years and thus the time related representativeness is also good.

The generic data was selected based on the best geographical match to the actual situation, which in most cases resulted in an average for either Croatia or Europe. The geographical representativeness therefore varies. In most cases a good technological match was found, though in some cases an average production process, such as ‘average metal working’ had to be used. In those cases the technological representativeness is lower. All generic data was taken from the recently released ecoinvent 3.1 database (2014), though the individual datasets differ in age.

6.4 Data Uncertainty Potential uncertainties associated with data provided by the ECO‐SANDWICH® project members are the most important for the concrete, as concrete explains most of the impact for A1‐A3, which is the

17

PRé Consultants bv

most important life cycle stage regarding the overall environmental impact. This uncertainty is not quantified.

An uncertainty analysis concerning the generic data that was taken from ecoinvent 3.1 allocation recycled content is shown in Figure 8. The 95% confidence interval of the characterized results ranges up to 200% for ozone depletion. Note that this uncertainty analysis includes only the uncertainty in the generic data, and not the uncertainty in the specific data that was provided by the ECO‐SANDWICH® project members or the uncertainty in the characterization factors used in the impact assessment.

Uncertainty in Characterized results ECO‐SANDWICH Characterized results (%)

250 200 150 100 50 0 Global warming

Ozone depletion

Acidification EutrophicationPhotochemical Abiotic ozone creation depletion (elements)

Abiotic depletion (fossil fuels)

Figure 8. Uncertainty analysis of the background data. Boxplots illustrate the 95% confidence interval of the characterized results.

18

PRé Consultants bv

Appendix I

Environmental Product Information Sheet based on a peer‐reviewed Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Assessing the sustainability of a wall panel made of recycled and innovative materials in residential and commercial buildings:

ECO‐SANDWICH® wall panel

Date: Version: Commissioned by:

Prepared by:

24 August 2015 1.0

University of Zagreb Faculty of Civil Engineering prof. Ivana Banjad Pečur

PRé Consultants bv Ellen Brilhuis‐Meijer Laura Golsteijn

19

PRé Consultants bv

1 Declaration of general information Owner of the environmental product information sheet Prof. Ivana Banjad Pečur, PhD. University of Zagreb, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Republic of Croatia ECO‐SANDWICH® project coordinator

Third party verifier University of Novi Sad Faculty of Technical Sciences Trg Dositeja Obradovica 6 21000 Novi Sad Republic of Serbia

This environmental product information is based on the Product Category Rules • ISO 14025: Environmental labels and declarations – Type III environmental declarations – Principles and procedures • EN 15804: Sustainability of construction works – Environmental product declarations – Core rules for the product category of construction products • EN 15942: Sustainability of Construction Works – Environmental product declarations – Communication format business to business

Note that environmental product information sheets of construction products cannot be compared if they do not follow the same standards.

Issue date 24 August 2015

5 year period of validity August 2015 ‐ July 2020

Name of the product ECO‐SANDWICH® wall panel

Name of the product manufacturer Beton Lučko Ltd. Puškarićeva 1b, 10250 LUČKO, Zagreb, Croatia Phone: +385 1 6599 700 Fax: +385 1 6530 070

Product description Ventilated prefabricated wall panels utilising recycled construction and demolition waste (CDW) and mineral wool produced using innovative and sustainable technology.

Each panel is 6.2 by 2.8 meters and consists of several components: ‐ Outer concrete layer, using 50% recycled aggregate ‐ Mineral wool layer ‐ Inner concrete layer, using 50% recycled aggregate ‐ Reinforcement mesh ‐ Fixtures ‐ Transport anchors

Figure 1. ECO‐SANDWICH® wall panel

Product use Insulation wall panel with self‐bearing capacity, fire resistant

Functional unit (FU) 0.2 wall panel, i.e. the amount of material necessary to achieve 1 m2∙K∙W‐1 of thermal resistance (for details, see accompanying LCA report)

Life cycle stages included Cradle to grave

Material content of the product This product contains no substances of very high concern for authorisation when their content exceeds the limits for registration with the European Chemicals Agency.

20

PRé Consultants bv

Table 6. Demonstration of verification

CEN standard FprEN 15804 serves as the core PCR a Independent verification of the declaration, according to EN ISO 14025:2010

Internal

External

Third party verifier University of Novi Sad Faculty of Technical Sciences Trg Dositeja Obradovica 6 21000 Novi Sad Republic of Serbia a Product Category Rules

21

PRé Consultants bv

2

Declaration of the environmental parameters derived from LCA

2.1 General To illustrate the product system studied, Figure 2 shows a simple flow diagram of the processes included in the study.

2.2 Service life The expected lifetime of the ECO‐SANDWICH® wall panel is 50 years. Painting or maintenance of the panel is not necessary.

2.3 Parameters describing environmental impacts As there are no flows specific for the use stage (i.e. flows are not relevant), B1‐5 (Use) and B6‐7 (Operation) are excluded from the table below.

Table 7. Parameters describing environmental impact Environmental impact category full name Global warming potential Depletion potential of the stratospheric ozone layer Acidification potential of soil and water Eutrophication potential Formation potential of tropospheric ozone Abiotic depletion potential for non‐fossil resources Abiotic depletion potential for fossil resources

Abbreviation GWP ODP AP EP POCP ADP‐elements ADP‐fossil fuels

Unit kg CO2 eq kg CFC‐11 eq kg SO2 eq kg (PO4)3‐ eq kg C2H4 eq kg Sb eq MJ (net calorific value)

2.4 Parameters describing resource use Table 8 provides information on the resource use of the ECO‐SANDWICH® wall panel.

Table 8. Parameters describing resource use Parameter

Unit MJ

A1‐3 Product 0

A4‐5 Construction 0

C1‐4 End‐of‐life 0

Use of renewable primary energy excluding renewable primary energy resources used as raw materials Use of renewable primary energy resources used as raw materials Total use of renewable primary energy resources (primary energy and primary energy resources used as raw materials) Use of non‐renewable primary energy resources excluding non‐renewable primary energy resources used as raw materials Use of non‐renewable primary energy resources used as raw materials Total use of non‐renewable primary energy resources (primary energy and primary energy resources used as raw materials Use of secondary material Use of renewable secondary fuels Use of non‐renewable secondary fuels Net use of fresh water

MJ

0

0

0

MJ

0

0

0

MJ

0

0

0

MJ

0

12.6

0

MJ

101

0

0

kg MJ MJ m3

425 37 12.7 0.091

0 0 12.6 0

0 0 0 0

22

PRé Consultants bv

Figure 2. Life cycle of an ECO‐SANDWICH wall panel. This is a simplified flow chart, which means that not all processes are included in this overview. Country flags represent the location of the supplier.

23

PRé Consultants bv

2.5 Other environmental information describing different waste categories and output flows Table 9 provides a quantification of waste disposed, whereas Table 10 provides information on the recycled amounts.

Table 9. Parameters describing waste categories Parameter

Unit

Hazardous waste disposed Non hazardous waste disposed Radioactive waste disposed

kg kg kg

A1‐3 Product 0 0 0

A4‐5 Construction 0 0 0

C1‐4 End‐of‐life 0 3519 0

Table 10. Parameters describing output flows Parameter

Unit

Components for re‐use Materials for recycling Materials for energy recovery Exported energy

kg kg kg MJ

A1‐3 Product 0 0 0 0

A4‐5 Construction 0 0 0 0

C1‐4 End‐of‐life 0 3006 0 0

3

Scenarios and additional technical information

3.1 Product Table 12 provides a quantification of flows specific for the product itself.

3.2 Construction process stage Table 11 provides a quantification of the construction processes.

Table 11. Quantification of construction processes Module A4‐5 A4‐5

A4‐5

Component Transport to building site Fixtures (per kg)

Installation

Input Transport Galvanized steel

Diesel

Ecoinvent process Transport, freight, lorry, unspecified {GLO}| market for | Alloc Rec, S Steel, unalloyed {RER}| steel production, converter, unalloyed | Alloc Rec, S Zinc coat, coils {RER}| zin coating, coils | Alloc Rec, S Diesel {Europe without Switzerland}| market for | Alloc Rec, S

Amount 1097490

Unit kgkm

1

kg

0.0064

m2

41.55

kg

3.3 Use stage There are no flows for the use stage.

24

PRé Consultants bv

Table 12. Quantification of flows specific for the product itself.

Module A1‐3 A1‐3

A1‐3

A1‐3 A1‐3 A1‐3 A1‐3

Component CEM II (per kg) Inner layer

Outer layer

Connections (per kg) Concrete mesh (per kg) Transport anchors (per kg) Wall panel

Input Blast furnace slag Portland cement Demolished concrete Natural aggregate Water

Plasticizer CEM II Electricity Transport Chromium steel

Ecoinvent process Ground granulated blast furnace slag {GLO}| market for | Alloc Rec, S Cement, Portland {Europe without Switzerland}| market for | Alloc Rec, S ‐ Gravel, round {GLO}| gravel and sand quarry operation | Alloc Rec, S Tap water {Europe without Switzerland| tap water production, conventional treatment | Alloc Rec, S Polycarboxylates, 40% active substance {GLO}| market for | Alloc Rec, S ‐ Electricity, medium voltage {HR}| market for | Alloc Rec, S Transport, freight, lorry, unspecified {GLO}| market for | Alloc Rec, S ‐ Gravel, round {GLO}| gravel and sand quarry operation | Alloc Rec, S Tap water {Europe without Switzerland| tap water production, conventional treatment | Alloc Rec, S Polycarboxylates, 40% active substance {GLO}| market for | Alloc Rec, S ‐ Electricity, medium voltage {HR}| market for | Alloc Rec, S Transport, freight, lorry, unspecified {GLO}| market for | Alloc Rec, S Chromium steel pipe

Steel Mesh production Steel Anchor production Outer layer Inner layer Mineral wool Concrete mesh Connections Transport anchors Transport

Steel, unalloyed {RER}| steel production, converter, unalloyed | Alloc Rec, S Wire drawing, steel {RER}| processing | Alloc Rec, S Steel, unalloyed {RER}| steel production, converter, unalloyed | Alloc Rec, S Metal working, average for steel product manufacturing, {GLO}| market for | Alloc Rec, S ‐ ‐ Glass wool mat {CH}| production, Saint‐Gobain ISOVER SA| Alloc Rec, S ‐ ‐ ‐ Transport, freight, lorry, unspecified {GLO}| market for | Alloc Rec, S

Plasticizer CEM II Electricity Transport Demolished brick Natural aggregate Water

Amount 0.15 0.85 1690 1970 332.8

Unit kg kg kg kg l

2.3712 790.4 346.85 167023.7 843 986 176.8

kg kg MJ kgkm kg kg kg

1.1856 416 173.43 1

kg kg MJ

kg

1 1 1 1 2052.99 4385.14 86.8 137.43 33.3 7.9 104330

kg kg kg kg kg kg kg kg kg kg kgkm

25

PRé Consultants bv

3.4 End‐of‐life Regarding the end‐of‐life recycling rates, three scenarios are assessed: 1. Current waste recycling percentages in Croatia 2. Current waste recycling percentages, average EU‐27 3. Future waste recycling percentages

Table 13 provides information on the waste recycling scenarios.

Table 13. Waste recycling scenarios Scenario

Current waste recycling percentages in Croatia Current waste recycling percentages, average EU‐27 Future waste recycling percentages

Mineral wool recycling 51 %

Concrete recycling

Steel recycling

Landfill

References

46 %

100 %

100 % of waste that is not recycled

79 %

46 %

100 %

100 % of waste that is not recycled

100 %

100 %

100 %

100 % of waste that is not recycled

EUROSTAT 2015 1, Calvo et al 2014 2 and Monier et al 2011 3 EUROSTAT 2015 1, Calvo et al 2014 2 and Monier et al 2011 3 Assumption

The results of this scenario analysis show that higher recycling percentages for mineral wool and concrete can have a reduction of up to 3% on the results.

1

EUROSTAT 2015 http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/setupModifyTableLayout.do?state=new&currentDimension=DS‐ 052688WASTE (downloaded 30th of April 2015) 2 Calvo, N.; Varela‐Candamio, L.; Novo‐Corti, I. A Dynamic Model for Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste Management in Spain: Driving Policies Based on Economic Incentives and Tax Penalties. Sustainability 2014, 6, 416‐435.

3 Monier, V.; Hestin, M; Trarieux, M.; Mimid, S.; Domröse, L.; Van Acoleyen, M.; Hjerp, P.; Mudgal, S. 2011.

Study on the management of Construction and demolition waste in the EU. Contract 07.0307/2009/540863/SER/G2, Final report for the European Commission (DG Environment).

26

PRé Consultants bv

Comparison of waste recycling percentages 100%

Current recycling data Croatia

90%

Environmental impact

80% 70%

Current recycling data EU‐27 average

60% 50%

100% recycling

40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Global warming

Ozone depletion

Acidification Eutrophication Photochemical ozone creation

Abiotic depletion (elements)

Abiotic depletion (fossil fuels)

Figure 3. Graph of different End‐of‐life scenarios

3.5 Additional technical information on release of dangerous substances to indoor air, soil and water during the use stage 3.5.1 Indoor air The ECO‐SANDWICH® wall panel is not exposed to indoor air after installation in buildings during the use stage. Scenarios regarding health do not require further investigation.

3.5.2 Soil and water The ECO‐SANDWICH® wall panel is not exposed to soil or water after installation in buildings during the use stage. Scenarios regarding soil or water pollution do not require further investigation.

27

PRé Consultants bv

Appendix II The following tables present the contribution of elementary flows to the impact category indicator results, per life cycle stage.

Global warming in kg CO2 eq per panel Substance

Compartment

Total of all compartments Carbon dioxide, fossil Methane, fossil Dinitrogen monoxide Methane, biogenic Carbon dioxide, land transformation Sulfur hexafluoride Methane, chlorodifluoro‐, HCFC‐22 Methane, tetrafluoro‐, CFC‐14 Ethane, 1,2‐dichloro‐1,1,2,2‐tetrafluoro‐, CFC‐114 Methane, bromotrifluoro‐, Halon 1301 Methane, dichlorodifluoro‐, CFC‐12 Ethane, hexafluoro‐, HFC‐116 Methane, tetrachloro‐, CFC‐10 Ethane, 1,1,2‐trichloro‐1,2,2‐trifluoro‐, CFC‐113 Methane, bromochlorodifluoro‐, Halon 1211 Ethane, 1,1,1,2‐tetrafluoro‐, HFC‐134a Ethane, 2‐chloro‐1,1,1,2‐tetrafluoro‐, HCFC‐124 Ethane, 1,1‐difluoro‐, HFC‐152a Methane Methane, monochloro‐, R‐40 Methane, trifluoro‐, HFC‐23 Ethane, 1,1,1‐trichloro‐, HCFC‐140 Methane, dichloro‐, HCC‐30 Methane, trichlorofluoro‐, CFC‐11 Nitrogen fluoride Methane, bromo‐, Halon 1001

Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air

Total 417.145 391.697 17.761 5.875 0.628 0.599 0.377 0.075 0.048 0.046 0.015 0.014 0.006 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Top 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

A1‐3 A4‐5 B1‐5 B6‐7 C1‐4 Product Construction Use Operation End‐of‐life 356.188 52.869 0.000 0.000 8.088 334.490 49.477 0.000 0.000 7.730 14.823 2.657 0.000 0.000 0.281 5.537 0.274 0.000 0.000 0.064 0.290 0.335 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.563 0.033 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.319 0.054 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.064 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.041 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.043 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

28

PRé Consultants bv

Ozone layer depletion in kg CFC‐11 eq per panel Substance

Compartment

Total of all compartments Methane, bromotrifluoro‐, Halon 1301 Ethane, 1,2‐dichloro‐1,1,2,2‐tetrafluoro‐, CFC‐114 Methane, bromochlorodifluoro‐, Halon 1211 Methane, chlorodifluoro‐, HCFC‐22 Methane, dichlorodifluoro‐, CFC‐12 Methane, tetrachloro‐, CFC‐10 Ethane, 1,1,2‐trichloro‐1,2,2‐trifluoro‐, CFC‐113 Methane, monochloro‐, R‐40 Ethane, 1,1,1‐trichloro‐, HCFC‐140 Ethane, 2‐chloro‐1,1,1,2‐tetrafluoro‐, HCFC‐124 Methane, trichlorofluoro‐, CFC‐11 Methane, bromo‐, Halon 1001

Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air

Total 3.6E‐05 2.5E‐05 4.3E‐06 3.0E‐06 2.1E‐06 1.3E‐06 5.4E‐07 1.6E‐07 2.0E‐08 4.5E‐09 2.9E‐09 3.2E‐12 7.0E‐13

Top 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

A1‐3 A4‐5 B1‐5 B6‐7 C1‐4 Product Construction Use Operation End‐of‐life 2.6E‐05 8.3E‐06 0 0 2.0E‐06 1.6E‐05 6.2E‐06 0 0 2.0E‐06 4.1E‐06 2.5E‐07 0 0 2.1E‐08 2.7E‐06 2.6E‐07 0 0 1.7E‐08 1.8E‐06 3.0E‐07 0 0 6.8E‐09 5.4E‐08 1.2E‐06 0 0 3.2E‐11 4.6E‐07 8.3E‐08 0 0 2.4E‐09 1.3E‐07 2.6E‐08 0 0 1.4E‐09 1.5E‐08 4.6E‐09 0 0 4.2E‐10 3.3E‐09 1.0E‐09 0 0 9.6E‐11 2.5E‐09 3.7E‐10 0 0 2.7E‐11 2.1E‐12 1.1E‐12 0 0 4.4E‐14 5.4E‐13 1.5E‐13 0 0 1.2E‐14

Acidication in kg SO2 eq per panel Substance

Compartment

Total of all compartments Sulfur dioxide Nitrogen oxides Ammonia Hydrogen chloride Hydrogen sulfide Hydrogen fluoride Hydrogen sulfide Hydrogen chloride Sulfur trioxide Sulfuric acid Sulfuric acid Phosphoric acid

Air Air Air Air Water Air Air Water Air Air Soil Air

Total 1.8755 0.8540 0.8096 0.1699 0.0299 0.0059 0.0034 0.0027 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Top 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

A1‐3 A4‐5 B1‐5 B6‐7 C1‐4 Product Construction Use Operation End‐of‐life 1.4173 0.3905 0 0 0.0677 0.7033 0.1325 0 0 0.0183 0.5875 0.1732 0 0 0.0489 0.1031 0.0665 0 0 0.0003 0.0133 0.0164 0 0 0.0002 0.0050 0.0009 0 0 0.0000 0.0028 0.0006 0 0 0.0000 0.0022 0.0004 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0 0.0000

29

PRé Consultants bv

Eutrophication in kg PO4—eq per panel Substance

Compartment

Total of all compartments Phosphate Nitrogen oxides Ammonia COD, Chemical Oxygen Demand Nitrate Dinitrogen monoxide Ammonium, ion Nitrogen Phosphorus Phosphorus Phosphorus Nitrogen Nitrate Nitrite Nitrate Nitrogen Phosphoric acid

Water Air Air Water Water Air Water Water Soil Water Air Air Soil Water Air Soil Air

Total 0.5194 0.2932 0.1503 0.0316 0.0256 0.0104 0.0053 0.0012 0.0006 0.0005 0.0004 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Top 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

A1‐3 A4‐5 B1‐5 B6‐7 C1‐4 Product Construction Use Operation End‐of‐life 0.4168 0.0903 0 0 0.0123 0.2525 0.0386 0 0 0.0022 0.1091 0.0322 0 0 0.0091 0.0192 0.0124 0 0 0.0000 0.0205 0.0044 0 0 0.0008 0.0087 0.0016 0 0 0.0001 0.0050 0.0002 0 0 0.0001 0.0006 0.0006 0 0 0.0000 0.0005 0.0001 0 0 0.0000 0.0004 0.0001 0 0 0.0000 0.0003 0.0000 0 0 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0 0 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0 0.0000

30

PRé Consultants bv

Photochemical oxidation in kg C2H4 eq per panel Substance

Compartment

Total of all compartments Carbon monoxide, fossil Sulfur dioxide Methane, fossil Benzene Formaldehyde Pentane Propene Cumene Butane Ethane Hexane Ethene Propane Toluene Acetaldehyde Carbon monoxide, biogenic Heptane m‐Xylene Methane, biogenic Methanol o‐Xylene Acetone Benzene, ethyl‐ Acetic acid Ethanol Methyl ethyl ketone Ethene, tetrachloro‐ Styrene Ethyl acetate Ethyne 2‐Propanol Propionic acid Formic acid

Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air

Total 0.1113 0.0495 0.0410 0.0043 0.0034 0.0025 0.0015 0.0012 0.0011 0.0011 0.0010 0.0009 0.0007 0.0007 0.0006 0.0006 0.0004 0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Top 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

A1‐3 A4‐5 B1‐5 B6‐7 C1‐4 Product Construction Use Operation End‐of‐life 0.0917 0.0173 0 0 0.0023 0.0410 0.0076 0 0 0.0009 0.0338 0.0064 0 0 0.0009 0.0036 0.0006 0 0 0.0001 0.0029 0.0005 0 0 0.0000 0.0022 0.0003 0 0 0.0000 0.0010 0.0003 0 0 0.0001 0.0011 0.0001 0 0 0.0000 0.0011 0.0000 0 0 0.0000 0.0007 0.0002 0 0 0.0001 0.0008 0.0001 0 0 0.0000 0.0007 0.0002 0 0 0.0000 0.0005 0.0001 0 0 0.0000 0.0005 0.0001 0 0 0.0000 0.0005 0.0001 0 0 0.0000 0.0004 0.0002 0 0 0.0000 0.0003 0.0001 0 0 0.0000 0.0002 0.0001 0 0 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0 0 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0 0 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0 0.0000

31

PRé Consultants bv

t‐Butyl methyl ether Isoprene Methyl formate Propanal Pentane, 2‐methyl‐ Methane, dichloro‐, HCC‐30 1‐Propanol Chloroform Methane, monochloro‐, R‐40 Methane Cyclohexane 1‐Pentene 1‐Butanol 2‐Butene, 2‐methyl‐ 2‐Methyl‐1‐propanol Ethane, 1,1,1‐trichloro‐, HCFC‐140 Butadiene Methyl acetate Diethyl ether Benzaldehyde

Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air Air

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Abiotic depletion (elements) in kg Sb eq per panel Substance

Compartment

Total of all compartments Cadmium Chromium Lead Nickel Silver Copper Gold Zinc Molybdenum Tin Iron Uranium

Raw Raw Raw Raw Raw Raw Raw Raw Raw Raw Raw Raw

Total 3.3E‐03 9.6E‐04 7.5E‐04 6.6E‐04 2.8E‐04 2.1E‐04 1.5E‐04 1.1E‐04 1.0E‐04 3.9E‐05 4.2E‐06 2.5E‐06 1.3E‐06

Top 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

A1‐3 A4‐5 B1‐5 B6‐7 C1‐4 Product Construction Use Operation End‐of‐life 1.6E‐03 1.7E‐03 0 0 1.2E‐05 1.6E‐04 8.0E‐04 0 0 3.5E‐06 7.4E‐04 1.1E‐05 0 0 6.4E‐07 1.1E‐04 5.4E‐04 0 0 2.5E‐06 2.7E‐04 7.5E‐06 0 0 2.8E‐07 4.8E‐05 1.6E‐04 0 0 9.1E‐07 1.2E‐04 2.9E‐05 0 0 1.8E‐06 7.6E‐05 2.9E‐05 0 0 1.5E‐06 1.7E‐05 8.3E‐05 0 0 3.7E‐07 3.0E‐05 8.5E‐06 0 0 6.2E‐07 2.8E‐06 1.3E‐06 0 0 5.3E‐08 2.2E‐06 3.8E‐07 0 0 7.9E‐09 1.3E‐06 8.2E‐08 0 0 7.7E‐09

32

PRé Consultants bv

Manganese Indium Sulfur Platinum Iodine Palladium Bromine Phosphorus Zirconium Lithium Rhenium Tellurium Aluminium Tantalum Cobalt Gallium

Raw Raw Raw Raw Raw Raw Raw Raw Raw Raw Raw Raw Raw Raw Raw Raw

1.0E‐06 7.0E‐07 2.0E‐07 2.0E‐07 7.7E‐08 7.6E‐08 5.6E‐08 4.1E‐08 4.0E‐09 3.3E‐09 2.9E‐09 2.7E‐09 3.2E‐10 3.1E‐10 1.4E‐11 1.3E‐11

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.0E‐06 1.2E‐07 1.1E‐07 1.7E‐07 7.4E‐08 6.7E‐08 5.3E‐08 1.6E‐08 2.8E‐09 3.3E‐09 2.0E‐09 2.0E‐09 2.9E‐10 2.4E‐10 1.0E‐11 1.2E‐11

4.1E‐08 5.9E‐07 8.9E‐08 2.4E‐08 2.7E‐09 7.3E‐09 2.3E‐09 2.5E‐08 1.1E‐09 1.4E‐11 7.1E‐10 5.9E‐10 3.1E‐11 6.8E‐11 3.7E‐12 1.3E‐12

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.4E‐09 2.6E‐09 8.9E‐10 5.3E‐09 6.7E‐10 1.3E‐09 5.5E‐10 3.0E‐10 1.5E‐10 1.4E‐12 2.3E‐10 4.3E‐11 3.4E‐12 5.1E‐12 7.8E‐13 1.4E‐13

Abiotic depletion (fossil fuels) in MJ per panel Substance

Compartment

Total of all compartments Oil, crude Coal, hard Gas, natural/m3 Coal, brown Gas, mine, off‐gas, process, coal mining/m3

Raw Raw Raw Raw Raw

Total 3994 1933 1172 725 141 23

Top 0 0 0 0 0 0

A1‐3 A4‐5 B1‐5 B6‐7 C1‐4 Product Construction Use Operation End‐of‐life 3053 761 0 0 179 1295 481 0 0 157 1000 162 0 0 9 606 106 0 0 13 131 9 0 0 1 20 3 0 0 0

33