EPD-IES-0019890:002

Tate Strut 8x8 with 4x4 infill

Tate Strut is a strong, galvanized steel profile with a white painted finish. Uniquely integrated welded flanges support tiles, light fixtures and return air grilles—removing the need for two separate ceiling systems. The continuous open channel slot allows for full flexibility when suspending cable trays, bus bars, and other heavy accessories from the structural ceiling. Both strut main runners and structural tees are pre-drilled for infill connections based upon application specifications. Influence on operational aspects and restrictions: The Strut is designed for interior installation and installation in similarly conditioned environments. It is not suitable for outdoor installations. Tate Engineering confirms that the product is inert during the use phase and does not require energy, water, or ancillary materials for operation, maintenance, or repair. The product's design does not impose specific maintenance requirements during the product lifespan, and any such activities are determined solely by the end user. A Health Product Declaration (HPD) was developed using the Proprietary Ingredient Due Diligence Exception. In this approach, data is entered directly without verifiability of CAS numbers or other chemical identifiers, which limits the ability to confirm the presence or absence of specific hazardous substances. The Tate Strut ceiling grid system is composed exclusively of metals—including iron, aluminum, chromium, nickel, and other structural alloys—with no adhesives, sealants, or coatings designed for active emission. Given the inherent stability of these metals and the absence of organic-based treatments, the potential for volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions is negligible. Accordingly, emissions to indoor air are considered not relevant for this product type. In addition a declaration of conformity is supplied for the coating. This Declaration of Conformity certifies that their product complies with TSCA and HMIRA restrictions. The document states that the cured coating does not emit or leach Prop 65 chemicals, SVHCs, or substances with CLP hazard classifications. The declaration is in possession of Tate and is provided to the third party verifier. Finally, the product does not contain any fire retardants. If this status changes, and any such additives qualify as SVHCs, they must be declared in the HPD content inventory.

General information

EPD OwnerTate North America
Registration numberEPD-IES-0019890:002
PCR2019:14 Construction products (EN 15804+A2) 2.0.1
StatusValid
Publication date2025-09-15
Valid until2030-09-15
EN 15804 compliantYes
Geographical scopeUSA

Product images

Programme information

ProgrammeInternational EPD System
AddressEPD International AB Box 210 60 SE-100 31 Stockholm Sweden
Websitewww.environdec.com
E-mailsupport@environdec.com

Product category rules

CEN standard EN 15804 and ISO standard ISO 21930 serve as the core Product Category Rules (PCR)
Product Category Rules (PCR)2019:14 Construction products (EN 15804+A2) 2.0.1
PCR review was conducted byThe Technical Committee of the International EPD System. See www.environdec.com for a list of members. Review chair: Claudia A. Peña, University of Concepción, Chile. The review panel may be contacted via the Secretariat www.environdec.com/support.

Verification

LCA accountabilityzoe@hhc.earth, zoe@hhc.earth, Tate North America
Independent third-party verification of the declaration and data, according to ISO 14025:2006, via
Third-party verifierMarie Bellemare (Marie Bellemare Consulting)
Approved byInternational EPD System
Procedure for follow-up of data during EPD validity involves third party verifier
*EPD Process Certification involves an accredited certification body certifying and periodically auditing the EPD process and conducting external and independent verification of EPDs that are regularly published. More information can be found in the General Programme Instructions on www.envrondec.com.

Ownership and limitation on use of EPD

Limitations

EPDs within the same product category but published in different EPD programmes, may not be comparable. For two EPDs to be comparable, they shall be based on the same PCR (including the same first-digit version number) or be based on fully aligned PCRs or versions of PCRs; cover products with identical functions, technical performances and use (e.g. identical declared/functional units); have identical scope in terms of included life-cycle stages (unless the excluded life-cycle stage is demonstrated to be insignificant); apply identical impact assessment methods (including the same version of characterisation factors); and be valid at the time of comparison.

Ownership

The EPD Owner has the sole ownership, liability, and responsibility for the EPD.

Information about EPD Owner

EPD OwnerTate North America
Contact person nameEmma Johnson
Contact person e-mailejohnson@tateinc.com
Organisation addressUSA Columbia 21046 7001 Columbia Gateway Dr. Suite 500

Description of the organisation of the EPD Owner

For over 60 years, Tate has been an industry leading global manufacturer of data center solutions. We work collaboratively with our data center clients to provide structural ceilings, containment systems, airflow grills and security cages that are reliable, innovative, and high performing. Our team of professional and highly qualified technical engineers are on hand to support our clients with their specific data centre project requirements. We have a long-term commitment to delivering a sustainable agenda as part of Kingspan Group’s 10-year Planet Passionate program, that addresses climate change, circularity and protection of our natural world. We believe these can only be met through true collaboration and partnership, and are delighted that together our initiatives have been recognized by global environmental impact non-profit CDP since 2016, for driving climate change. Tate is actively pursuing 100% renewable electricity: part of this is already produced by on-site solar panels. Tate purchases Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) to offset residual grid electricity. For conservativeness, the LCA model applies the US RFC residual mix (78 %). On-site photovoltaic panels supply 22 % of the electricity used in manufacturing. The REC purchases reflect Tate’s renewable energy commitment but are not included in the LCA calculation.

Organisation logo

Product information

Product nameTate Strut 8x8 with 4x4 infill
Product identificationUN CPC class 42195, Other structures and parts of structures, of iron, steel or aluminium, n.e.c.
Product descriptionTate Strut is a strong, galvanized steel profile with a white painted finish. Uniquely integrated welded flanges support tiles, light fixtures and return air grilles—removing the need for two separate ceiling systems. The continuous open channel slot allows for full flexibility when suspending cable trays, bus bars, and other heavy accessories from the structural ceiling. Both strut main runners and structural tees are pre-drilled for infill connections based upon application specifications. Influence on operational aspects and restrictions: The Strut is designed for interior installation and installation in similarly conditioned environments. It is not suitable for outdoor installations. Tate Engineering confirms that the product is inert during the use phase and does not require energy, water, or ancillary materials for operation, maintenance, or repair. The product's design does not impose specific maintenance requirements during the product lifespan, and any such activities are determined solely by the end user. A Health Product Declaration (HPD) was developed using the Proprietary Ingredient Due Diligence Exception. In this approach, data is entered directly without verifiability of CAS numbers or other chemical identifiers, which limits the ability to confirm the presence or absence of specific hazardous substances. The Tate Strut ceiling grid system is composed exclusively of metals—including iron, aluminum, chromium, nickel, and other structural alloys—with no adhesives, sealants, or coatings designed for active emission. Given the inherent stability of these metals and the absence of organic-based treatments, the potential for volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions is negligible. Accordingly, emissions to indoor air are considered not relevant for this product type. In addition a declaration of conformity is supplied for the coating. This Declaration of Conformity certifies that their product complies with TSCA and HMIRA restrictions. The document states that the cured coating does not emit or leach Prop 65 chemicals, SVHCs, or substances with CLP hazard classifications. The declaration is in possession of Tate and is provided to the third party verifier. Finally, the product does not contain any fire retardants. If this status changes, and any such additives qualify as SVHCs, they must be declared in the HPD content inventory.
Technical purpose of productTate Strut is a strong, galvanized steel profile with a white painted finish. Uniquely integrated welded flanges support tiles, light fixtures and return air grilles—removing the need for two separate ceiling systems. The continuous open channel slot allows for full flexibility when suspending cable trays, bus bars, and other heavy accessories from the structural ceiling. Both strut main runners and structural tees are pre-drilled for infill connections based upon application specifications.
Manufacturing or service provision descriptionTate purchases parts from their suppliers. Strut production occurs mainly in Tate’s Red Lion Annex facility. The steel and aluminum strut parts are powder coated at Surtech Industries in York, Pennsylvania. They are transported from Red Lion to York to receive the powder coating. Then, the parts are shipped back to Red Lion before being distributed to the customer. The scraps value and its revenue is assumed to be negligible, compared to the revenue generated by the Strut. Therefore, no environmental burden (or benefit) was allocated to the scrap that leaves the product system in A3. All environmental burdens in A3 were allocated to the primary product under study, the Strut. The Strut structural ceilings are packaged in cardboard material and shipped on a wooden pallet.
Material propertiesConversion factor to mass: 0.21 LCA results per 1 kg Area density: 5.327 kg/m2 Thickness: 0.086 m
Manufacturing siteRed Lion USA Red Lion 17356 100 Redco Ave
UN CPC code4219. Other structures (except prefabricated buildings) and parts of structures, of iron, steel or aluminium; plates, rods, angles, shapes, sections, profiles, tubes and the like, prepared for use in structures, of iron, steel or aluminium; props and similar eq
Geographical scopeUSA
Geographical scope descriptionThe production takes place in the USA. The LCA assumed distribution and end-of-life scenarios based on data of the USA.
Actual or technical lifespan30 year(s)
Hazardous and toxic substancesThe product does not contain any substances from the SVHC candidate list in concentrations exceeding 0.1% of its weight.

Technical characteristics and performance

Technical performance

Product nameWidth (m)Height (m)Depth (m)Weight (kg)
Strut 8x8 with 4x4 infill110.0865.327

Content declaration

Product content
Content nameMass, kgPost-consumer recycled material, mass-% of productBiogenic material, mass-% of productBiogenic material1, kg C/declared unitBiogenic material kg CO2, eq./declared unit
Hot rolled carbon steel4.2228.02000
Extruded aluminium0.472.72000
Powder coating0.10000
Installation material - hot rolled carbon0.251.23000
Installation material - Stainless steel0.010.07000
Installation material - Forged steel0.251.22000
Installation material - Low carbon steel0.050.22000
Installation material - Mild steel0.080.38000
Total5.4333.86000
Note 11 kg biogenic carbon is equivalent to 44/12 kg of CO2
Packaging materials
Material nameMass, kgMass-% (versus the product)Biogenic material1, kg C/declared unitBiogenic material kg CO2, eq./declared unit
Cardboard0.030.620.010.04
Wooden pallet0.437.980.20.73
Plastic film0.010.0500
Total0.478.650.210.77
Note 11 kg biogenic carbon is equivalent to 44/12 kg of CO2
Other hazardous and toxic substances if required by normative standards or regulation
Hazardous/Toxic substancesEC No.CAS No.Mass per functional or declared unit %
Metallic nickel231-111-47440-02-00
2-mercaptobenzothiazole205-736-8149-30-40

LCA information

EPD based on declared or functional unitDeclared unit
Declared unit and reference flowStrut 8x8 with 4x4 infill Area: 1 m2
Conversion factor to mass0.21
Are infrastructure or capital goods included in any upstream, core or downstream processes?
Do infrastructure and capital goods contribute more than 10% to the A1-A3 (A1-A5 for services) results of any environmental impact indicator declared in the EPD?
Datasources used for this EPDecoinvent database (general) ecoinvent 3.11 database
LCA SoftwareSimaPro SimaPro 9.6
Additional information about the underlying LCA-based informationThe model uses ecoinvent, cut-off database. This database does not fully align with the allocation principles. The ecoinvent cut-off system model assigns zero burden to secondary materials. EN 15804 / ISO 21930, on the other hand, requires economic allocation for co-products and a specific approach to recycling in Module D (benefits and burdens of recycling). An appropriate dataset is chosen to ensure correct allocation of benefit/burden in foreground processes in A1 and module D. The production of secondary steel was modelled with environmental burdens for recycling and transport processes, although the scrap material itself is burden free. The benefits of recycling in module D are calculated manually and the substituted material is modelled in the LCA software. However, for some general datasets, it is not feasible to check and adjust the background processes. Any non-aligning secondary datasets in the background processes have a minor impact on the results. All inputs and outputs for which data is available are included in the LCA. Data gaps are filled with conservative assumptions and average, generic or proxy data. The cut-off criteria for data gaps is 1% of renewable and nonrenewable energy usage and 1% of the total mass input of that unit process. The total of excluded input floss per module does not exceed 5% of energy usage and mass input. This LCA uses expert judgment and conservative considerations to determine which inputs comply with these criteria. The following processes were excluded: - The production of machinery and equipment used in manufacturing was left out, as its environmental impact over the lifetime of the product is considered negligible. - The construction and upkeep of factory buildings and related infrastructure were not included. These impacts are spread over long periods and many products, making their contribution per unit negligible. - Travel to and from work by employees is considered outside the scope of the product system and was therefore excluded. - Any emissions linked to R&D activities were excluded, as their contribution is small and generally shared across a broad product portfolio. - Any losses between the end-of-waste point and the point of substitution are considered negligible, and therefore are excluded from this LCA.
Version of the EN 15804 reference packageEF Reference Package 3.1
Characterisation methodsThe characterization factors from EC-JRD are used to calculate the EN15804+A2 indicators. Long-term (>100 years) emissions are excluded. Landfill emissions are calculated without a time limit. The GWP-biogenic indicator is calculated in line with Annex 2 of PCR 2019:14 v.2.0.1. The renewable primary energy use indicators (PERE, PERM, PERT, PENRE, PENRM, PENRT) are calculated as described in option A in Annex 3 in PCR 2019:14 v2.0.1. The waste categories are calculated in SimaPro with the impact assessment method EDIP 2003 V1.07
Technology description including background systemThe Strut consists of aluminum and steel components. The materials are sawed to size during the manufacturing process. The relevant parts are powder coated. The aluminum consists of 30.5% post-consumer scrap. The installation requires ancillary materials made from various types of steel.
Scrap (recycled material) inputs contribution levelLess than 10% of the GWP-GHG results in modules A1-A3 come from scrap inputs

Data quality assessment

Description of data quality assessment and reference yearsThe time representativeness of the used references for secondary data is accurate, since the difference between the reference year (2024) and the time period for which the data is representative (2024) is <3 years. Data was collected over a period of one year. The geographical and technological data quality level ranges from good to very good.
Data quality assessment
Process nameSource typeSourceReference yearData categoryShare of primary data, of GWP-GHG results for A1-A3
Manufacturing of StrutCollected dataEPD owner2024Primary data0%
Generation of electricity used in manufacturing of productDatabaseEcoinvent 3.112024Primary data
Transport of materialsCollected dataEPD owner2024Primary data
Production of powder coated steelDatabase Ecoinvent 3.112024Primary/Secondary data
Production of aluminiumDatabaseSupplier2022Primary data25%
Production of packagingDatabaseEcoinvent 3.112024Primary/Secondary data
Total share of primary data, of GWP-GHG results for A1-A325%
The share of primary data is calculated based on GWP-GHG results. It is a simplified indicator for data quality that supports the use of more primary data to increase the representativeness of and comparability between EPDs. Note that the indicator does not capture all relevant aspects of data quality and is not comparable across product categories.
Electricity data
Electricity used in the manufacturing process in A3 (A5 for services)
Type of electricity mixSpecific electricity mix as generated, or purchased from an electricity supplier, demonstrated by a contractual instrument
Energy sourcesHydro0%
Wind0%
Solar22%
Biomass0%
Geothermal0%
Waste0%
Nuclear0%
Natural gas71%
Coal6%
Oil0%
Peat0%
Other1%
GWP-GHG intensity (kg CO2 eq./kWh)0.6 kg CO2 eq./kWh
Method used to calculate residual electricity mixThe grid mix without renewable energy sources, also called residual mix, is modelled based on the most recent eGRID data from 2023. This data includes the total grid mix for Pennsylvania. For the residual mix, all renewable sources were removed from the mix. The share per fossil source is extrapolated.

System boundary

Description of the system boundaryb) Cradle to gate with options, modules C1-C4, module D and with optional modules (A1-A3 + C + D and additional modules).
Excluded modulesYes, there is an excluded module, or there are excluded modules
Justification for the omission of modulesModule B (Use phase) is not included. The Tate Strut ceiling grid system is composed exclusively of metals with no adhesives, sealants, or coatings designed for active emission. Therefore, there are no expected emissions in the use phase. The LCA includes production (A1-A3), installation (A4-A5), end-of-life (C1-C4) and module D.

Declared modules

Product stageConstruction process stageUse stageEnd of life stageBeyond product life cycle
Raw material supplyTransportManufacturingTransport to siteConstruction installationUseMaintenanceRepairReplacementRefurbishmentOperational energy useOperational water useDe-construction demolitionTransportWaste processingDisposalReuse-Recovery-Recycling-potential
ModuleA1A2A3A4A5B1B2B3B4B5B6B7C1C2C3C4D
Modules declaredXXXXXNDNDNDNDNDNDNDXXXXX
GeographyGlobalGlobalUSAGlobalUSAN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AUSAUSAUSAUSAUSA
Share of specific data25%--------------
Variation - products0%--------------
Variation - sites0%--------------

Process flow diagram(s) related images

Scenarios

Name of the default scenarioDefault (Waste porcessing - US)
Description of the default scenarioThe default scenario contains a waste processing scenario based on WARM documentation of waste processing in the US.

Module A4: Transport to the building site

Explanatory name of the default scenario in module A4Average US distribution
Brief description of the default scenario in module A4This LCA studies a (weighed) average distance of 1450 km, with a 16-32t EURO6 lorry.
Description of the default scenario in module A4The strut is shipped to clients across the United States. The transportation distance varies greatly within the US. It is estimated by Tate that half of the products are transported to clients within 150 km. The other half is transported to clients 2500-3000 km from the production site. This LCA studies one scenario, a (weighed) average distance of 1450 km. The strut is transported by 16-32t EURO6 lorry.
Module A4 informationValueUnit
Distance
1450
km
Capacity utilization (including empty returns)
50
%
Bulk density of transported products
8.99
kg/m3
Volume capacity utilization factor
(factor: =1 or <1 or ≥1 for compressed or
nested packaged products)
1
N/A
Vehicle typeEURO6
N/A

Module A5: Installation in the building

Explanatory name of the default scenario in module A5Installation in the US
Brief description of the default scenario in module A5Installation based on real data, for US. Installation requires ancillary materials.
Description of the default scenario in module A5Installation based on real data, for US. Installation requires ancillary materials. Packaging waste is processed according to US scenario. The exported energy from this waste incineration affects output flows EET and EEE. Module D contains the benefits from waste processing of the packaging.
Module A5 informationValueUnit
Net fresh water consumption during installation
0
m3
Hot rolled carbon steel0.253
kg
Stainless steel0.007
kg
Forged steel0.251
kg
Low carbon steel0.045
kg
Mild steel, cold rolled0.079
kg
Electricity, US grid2.727
kWh/cycle
Waste for landfill, wooden pallet0.286
kg
Waste for incineration, wooden pallet0.067
kg
Waste for recycling, wooden pallet0.073
kg
Waste for landfill, cardboard0.008
kg
Waste for incineration, cardboard0.002
kg
Waste for recycling, cardboard0.023
kg
Waste for landfill, plastic film0.002
kg
Waste for incineration, plastic film0.0004
kg
Waste for recycling, plastic film0.0002
kg

Module C: End-of-life

Explanatory name of the default scenario in module CWaste processing US
Brief description of the default scenario in module CAverage numbers based on US situation
Description of the default scenario in module CThe electricity consumption mix on the US market is used to model the same amount of energy for C1 as for construction (2.7 kWh). Waste treatment distribution and distance (32 km) to treatment facilities in the US are collected from U.S. EPA [7]. The specific vehicle is unknown, thus 'Transport, freight, lorry, unspecified {GLO}' is used as it represents a market average. This study assumes that the incineration takes place in a Combined Heat and Power plant with 44% thermal and 36% electric efficiency.
Module C informationValueUnit
Aluminum, collected separate0.474
kg
Steel, collected separate4.852
kg
Aluminum, landfill0.324
kg
Aluminum, incineration0.068
kg
Aluminum, recycling0.082
kg
Steel, landfill2.664
kg
Steel, incineration0.582
kg
Steel, recycling1.606
kg
Distance to waste processing sites32
km
Capacity utilization (including empty returns)50
%
Bulk density of transported products8.99
kg/m3
Volume capacity utilization factor (factor: =1 or <1 or ≥1 for compressed or nested packaged products)1
N/A
Vehicle typeUnspecified
N/A

Module D: Beyond product life cycle

Explanatory name of the default scenario in module DModule D - US
Brief description of the default scenario in module DAssumptions based on situation in US.
Description of the default scenario in module DNo benefits were calculated for the incineration of steel or aluminum, since these are usually not completely oxidized. Instead, it is collected from the bottom of the incinerator. No energy benefits are attributed to this. The incineration of cardboard (15.92 MJ/kg), plastic (42.47 MJ/kg) and wood (13.99 MJ/kg) packaging materials does produce energy. The CHP has 36% electric and 44% thermal efficiency. The avoided products are Pig iron {RoW} (for steel) and Aluminium, primary, ingot {RoW} (for aluminum).
Module D informationValueUnit
Energy recovery from wood, cardboard and plastic - electricity0.36
MJ, net calorific value
Energy recovery from wood, cardboard and plastic - heat0.43
MJ, net calorific value
Burden primary aluminum ingot0.063
kg
Benefit pig iron0.351
kg
Benefit wood0.073
kg
Burden cardboard0.003
kg
Benefit plastic0.0002
kg

Additional scenarios

Name of the additional scenario100% landfill
Description of the additional scenarioThis scenario assumes 100% landfill for modules C1-C4. Module D is adjusted accordingly.

Module A4: Transport to the building site

Description of the additional scenario in module A4Same as default scenario

Module A5: Installation in the building

Description of the additional scenario in module A5Same as default scenario

Module C: End-of-life

Description of the additional scenario in module C100% landfill in end of life stage
Module C informationValueUnit
Aluminum, collected separate0.474
kg
Steel, collected separate4.852
kg
Aluminum, landfill0.474
kg
Steel, landfill4.852
kg
Distance to landfill site32
km

Module D: Beyond product life cycle

Description of the additional scenario in module DBased on 100% landfill in end of life stage
Module D informationValueUnit
Burden primary aluminum ingot0.145
kg
Burden pig iron1.255
kg
Benefit wood0.073
kg
Benefit cardboard0.023
kg
Benefit plastic0.0002
kg
Energy recovery from wood, cardboard and plastic - electricity0.36
MJ/cycle
Energy recovery from wood, cardboard and plastic - heat0.43
MJ/cycle

Additional scenarios

Name of the additional scenario100% incineration
Description of the additional scenarioThis scenario assumes 100% incineration for modules C1-C4. Module D is adjusted accordingly.

Module A4: Transport to the building site

Description of the additional scenario in module A4Same as default scenario

Module A5: Installation in the building

Description of the additional scenario in module A5Same as default scenario

Module C: End-of-life

Description of the additional scenario in module CBased on hypothetical scenario with 100% incineration.
Module C informationValueUnit
Aluminum, collected separate0.474
kg
Steel, collected separate4.852
kg
Aluminum, incineration0.474
kg
Steel, incineration4.852
kg
Distance to incineration site32
km

Module D: Beyond product life cycle

Description of the additional scenario in module DBased on 100% incineration in end of life stage
Module D informationValueUnit
Burden primary aluminum ingot0.145
kg
Burden pig iron1.255
kg
Benefit wood0.073
kg
Benefit cardboard0.023
kg
Benefit plastic0.0002
kg
Energy recovery from wood, cardboard and plastic - electricity0.36
MJ/cycle
Energy recovery from wood, cardboard and plastic - heat0.43
MJ/cycle

Additional scenarios

Name of the additional scenario100% recycling
Description of the additional scenarioThis scenario assumes 100% recycling for modules C1-C4. Module D is adjusted accordingly.

Module A4: Transport to the building site

Description of the additional scenario in module A4Same as default scenario

Module A5: Installation in the building

Description of the additional scenario in module A5Same as default scenario

Module C: End-of-life

Description of the additional scenario in module CBased on hypothetical scenario with 100% recycling in the end of life stage.
Module C informationValueUnit
Aluminum, collected separate0.474
kg
Steel, collected separate4.852
kg
Aluminum, recycling0.474
kg
Steel, recycling4.852
kg
Distance to recycling site32
km

Module D: Beyond product life cycle

Description of the additional scenario in module DBased on 100% recycling in end of life stage
Module D informationValueUnit
Benefit primary aluminum ingot0.330
kg
Benefit pig iron3.597
kg
Benefit wood0.073
kg
Benefit cardboard0.023
kg
Benefit plastic0.0002
kg
Energy recovery from wood, cardboard and plastic - electricity0.36
MJ/cycle
Energy recovery from wood, cardboard and plastic - heat0.43
MJ/cycle

Environmental performance

The estimated impact results are only relative statements, which do not indicate the endpoints of the impact categories, exceeding threshold values, safety margins and/or risks.

Mandatory environmental performance indicators according to EN 15804

Impact categoryIndicatorUnitA1-A3A4A5B1B2B3B4B5B6B7C1C2C3C4D
Climate change - totalGWP-totalkg CO2 eq.1.88E+11.35E+04.06E+0NDNDNDNDNDNDND1.27E+02.09E-21.76E-11.20E-26.80E-1
Climate change - fossilGWP-fossilkg CO2 eq.1.95E+11.35E+03.28E+0NDNDNDNDNDNDND1.27E+02.08E-21.76E-11.20E-26.79E-1
Climate change - biogenicGWP-biogenickg CO2 eq.-7.51E-10.00E+07.74E-1NDNDNDNDNDNDND0.00E+00.00E+00.00E+00.00E+00.00E+0
Climate change - land use and land-use changeGWP-luluckg CO2 eq.2.34E-27.20E-52.91E-3NDNDNDNDNDNDND5.73E-47.85E-52.33E-45.29E-61.66E-3
Ozone depletionODPkg CFC-11 eq.1.67E-71.73E-82.06E-8NDNDNDNDNDNDND3.17E-93.23E-101.20E-92.07E-104.19E-9
AcidificationAPmol H+ eq.1.14E-12.07E-31.22E-2NDNDNDNDNDNDND3.25E-38.85E-56.33E-49.54E-56.47E-3
Eutrophication aquatic freshwaterEP-freshwaterkg P eq.1.04E-39.12E-62.34E-4NDNDNDNDNDNDND1.11E-41.33E-72.51E-68.20E-81.97E-5
Eutrophication aquatic marineEP-marinekg N eq.2.20E-24.17E-42.29E-3NDNDNDNDNDNDND4.67E-43.70E-52.42E-44.27E-58.50E-4
Eutrophication terrestrialEP-terrestrialmol N eq.2.42E-14.65E-32.48E-2NDNDNDNDNDNDND5.23E-33.99E-42.39E-34.51E-48.79E-3
Photochemical ozone formationPOCPkg NMVOC eq.8.10E-23.06E-38.99E-3NDNDNDNDNDNDND2.22E-31.26E-47.56E-41.40E-42.65E-3
Depletion of abiotic resources - minerals and metalsADP-minerals&metals1, 2kg Sb eq.1.19E-41.08E-72.23E-5NDNDNDNDNDNDND6.55E-81.70E-92.72E-71.17E-9-3.28E-8
Depletion of abiotic resources - fossil fuelsADP-fossil1MJ, net calorific value2.27E+21.76E+14.54E+1NDNDNDNDNDNDND2.27E+12.72E-11.21E+01.87E-16.38E+0
Water useWDP1m3 world eq. deprived5.14E+02.29E-27.73E-1NDNDNDNDNDNDND1.93E-13.60E-4-2.01E-3-5.27E-28.81E-2
AcronymsGWP-fossil = Global Warming Potential fossil fuels; GWP-biogenic = Global Warming Potential biogenic; GWP-luluc = Global Warming Potential land use and land use change; ODP = Depletion potential of the stratospheric ozone layer; AP = Acidification potential, Accumulated Exceedance; EP-freshwater = Eutrophication potential, fraction of nutrients reaching freshwater end compartment; EP-marine = Eutrophication potential, fraction of nutrients reaching marine end compartment; EP-terrestrial = Eutrophication potential, Accumulated Exceedance; POCP = Formation potential of tropospheric ozone; ADP-minerals&metals = Abiotic depletion potential for non-fossil resources; ADP-fossil = Abiotic depletion for fossil resources potential; WDP = Water (user) deprivation potential, deprivation-weighted water consumption
General disclaimerThe results of the end-of-life stage (modules C1-C4) should be considered when using the results of the product stage (modules A1-A3/A1-A5 for services).
Disclaimer 1The results of this environmental impact indicator shall be used with care as the uncertainties of these results are high or as there is limited experience with the indicator
Disclaimer 2The results of the impact categories abiotic depletion of minerals and metals may be highly uncertain in LCAs that include capital goods/infrastructure in generic datasets, in case infrastructure/capital goods contribute greatly to the total results. This is because the LCI data of infrastructure/capital goods used to quantify these indicators in currently available generic datasets sometimes lack temporal, technological and geographical representativeness. Caution should be exercised when using the results of these indicators for decision-making purposes.

Additional mandatory environmental performance indicators

Impact categoryIndicatorUnitA1-A3A4A5B1B2B3B4B5B6B7C1C2C3C4D
Climate change - GWP-GHGGWP-GHG1kg CO2 eq.1.85E+11.35E+03.24E+0NDNDNDNDNDNDND1.22E+02.08E-22.30E-11.20E-29.87E-1
AcronymsGWP-GHG = Global warming potential greenhouse gas.
General disclaimerThe results of the end-of-life stage (modules C1-C4) should be considered when using the results of the product stage (modules A1-A3/A1-A5 for services).
Disclaimer 1The GWP-GHG indicator is termed GWP-IOBC/GHG in the ILCD+EPD+ data format. The indicator accounts for all greenhouse gases except biogenic carbon dioxide uptake and emissions and biogenic carbon stored in the product. As such, the indicator is identical to GWP-total except that the CF for biogenic CO2 is set to zero.

Additional voluntary environmental performance indicators according to EN 15804

Impact categoryIndicatorUnitA1-A3A4A5B1B2B3B4B5B6B7C1C2C3C4D
Particulate matter emissionsPMDisease incidence1.69E-67.78E-81.88E-7NDNDNDNDNDNDND1.59E-81.73E-91.77E-82.47E-94.94E-8
Ionizing radiation - human healthIRP1kBq U235 eq.3.45E-11.35E-32.18E-1NDNDNDNDNDNDND1.87E-12.11E-57.96E-45.56E-52.04E-3
Eco-toxicity - freshwaterETP-fw2, 3CTUe1.07E+21.74E+01.63E+1NDNDNDNDNDNDND1.92E+03.19E-21.40E+04.17E+19.29E-1
Human toxicity - cancer effectsHTP-c2, 3CTUh1.86E-88.82E-112.51E-9NDNDNDNDNDNDND8.79E-113.49E-123.10E-102.98E-12-3.20E-10
Human toxicity - non-cancer effectsHTP-nc2, 3CTUh2.43E-78.69E-94.45E-8NDNDNDNDNDNDND5.44E-91.69E-102.20E-95.55E-105.88E-9
Land-use related impacts/soil qualitySQP2, 3Dimensionless1.27E+21.81E-18.90E+0NDNDNDNDNDNDND1.95E+09.66E-31.98E-12.88E-1-9.57E+0
AcronymsPM = Potential incidence of disease due to particulate matter emissions; IRP = Potential human exposure efficiency relative to U235; ETP-fw = Potential comparative toxic unit for ecosystems; HTP-c = Potential comparative toxic unit for humans; HTP-nc = Potential comparative toxic unit for humans; SQP = Potential soil quality index.
General disclaimerThe results of the end-of-life stage (modules C1-C4) should be considered when using the results of the product stage (modules A1-A3/A1-A5 for services).
Disclaimer 1This impact category deals mainly with the eventual impact of low dose ionizing radiation on human health of the nuclear fuel cycle. It does not consider effects due to possible nuclear accidents, occupational exposure nor due to radioactive waste disposal in underground facilities. Potential ionizing radiation from the soil, from radon and from some construction materials is also not measured by this indicator.
Disclaimer 2The results of this environmental impact indicator shall be used with care as the uncertainties of these results are high or as there is limited experience with the indicator.
Disclaimer 3The results of the impact categories land use, human toxicity (cancer), human toxicity, noncancer and ecotoxicity (freshwater) may be highly uncertain in LCAs that include capital goods/infrastructure in generic datasets, in case infrastructure/capital goods contribute greatly to the total results. This is because the LCI data of infrastructure/capital goods used to quantify these indicators in currently available generic datasets sometimes lack temporal, technological and geographical representativeness. Caution should be exercised when using the results of these indicators for decision-making purposes.

Additional voluntary environmental performance indicators

Impact categoryIndicatorUnitA1-A3A4A5B1B2B3B4B5B6B7C1C2C3C4D
Ozone depletionODPkg CFC-11 eq1.80E-71.82E-82.20E-8NDNDNDNDNDNDND3.41E-93.40E-101.26E-92.18E-104.35E-9
Global warmingGWPkg CO2 eq1.94E+11.33E+03.29E+0NDNDNDNDNDNDND1.25E+02.06E-22.15E-11.18E-26.69E-1
SmogPOCPkg O3 eq1.36E+02.65E-21.35E-1NDNDNDNDNDNDND2.92E-22.32E-31.39E-22.58E-35.46E-2
AcidificationAPkg SO2 eq1.42E-11.85E-31.04E-2NDNDNDNDNDNDND2.73E-38.18E-56.03E-41.07E-45.54E-3
CarcinogenicsHTCCTUh5.10E-74.96E-107.75E-8NDNDNDNDNDNDND4.44E-99.55E-121.11E-81.60E-115.60E-9
Non carcinogenicsHTNCCTUh2.70E-61.61E-74.86E-7NDNDNDNDNDNDND5.92E-82.71E-93.34E-85.31E-93.55E-9
Respiratory effectsPMkg PM2.5 eq2.46E-24.10E-45.55E-3NDNDNDNDNDNDND3.10E-38.66E-61.11E-41.25E-56.37E-4
EcotoxicityETPCTUe1.59E+13.27E+02.48E+0NDNDNDNDNDNDND1.59E-15.54E-29.31E-11.06E-2-1.60E-4
Freshwater eutrophicationEP-fkg P eq.5.35E-44.29E-61.16E-4NDNDNDNDNDNDND4.95E-56.25E-81.71E-64.59E-89.24E-6
Marine eutrophicationEP-mkg N eq.1.19E-22.28E-41.23E-3NDNDNDNDNDNDND2.55E-41.96E-51.29E-42.23E-54.29E-4
Acronyms
General disclaimerThe results of the end-of-life stage (modules C1-C4) should be considered when using the results of the product stage (modules A1-A3/A1-A5 for services).
Justification for inclusionThese impact categories are calculated with TRACI 2.2, in order to comply with ISO 21930.

Resource use indicators according to EN 15804

IndicatorUnitA1-A3A4A5B1B2B3B4B5B6B7C1C2C3C4D
PEREMJ, net calorific value1.93E+13.49E-25.12E+0NDNDNDNDNDNDND3.05E+01.17E-33.46E-21.98E-3-1.31E+0
PERMMJ, net calorific value6.47E+00.00E+00.00E+0NDNDNDNDNDNDND0.00E+00.00E+00.00E+00.00E+00.00E+0
PERTMJ, net calorific value2.58E+13.49E-25.12E+0NDNDNDNDNDNDND3.05E+01.17E-33.46E-21.98E-3-1.31E+0
PENREMJ, net calorific value2.27E+21.76E+14.54E+1NDNDNDNDNDNDND2.27E+12.72E-11.21E+01.87E-16.38E+0
PENRMMJ, net calorific value2.55E-10.00E+00.00E+0NDNDNDNDNDNDND0.00E+00.00E+00.00E+00.00E+00.00E+0
PENRTMJ, net calorific value2.27E+21.76E+14.54E+1NDNDNDNDNDNDND2.27E+12.72E-11.21E+01.87E-16.38E+0
SMkg0.00E+00.00E+00.00E+0NDNDNDNDNDNDND0.00E+00.00E+00.00E+00.00E+00.00E+0
RSFMJ, net calorific value0.00E+00.00E+00.00E+0NDNDNDNDNDNDND0.00E+00.00E+00.00E+00.00E+00.00E+0
NRSFMJ, net calorific value0.00E+00.00E+00.00E+0NDNDNDNDNDNDND0.00E+00.00E+00.00E+00.00E+00.00E+0
FWm30.00E+00.00E+00.00E+0NDNDNDNDNDNDND0.00E+00.00E+00.00E+00.00E+00.00E+0
AcronymsPERE = Use of renewable primary energy excluding renewable primary energy resources used as raw materials; PERM = Use of renewable primary energy resources used as raw materials; PERT = Total use of renewable primary energy resources; PENRE = Use of non-renewable primary energy excluding non-renewable primary energy resources used as raw materials; PENRM = Use of non-renewable primary energy resources used as raw materials; PENRT = Total use of non-renewable primary energy re-sources; SM = Use of secondary material; RSF = Use of renewable secondary fuels; NRSF = Use of non-renewable secondary fuels; FW = Use of net fresh water.
General disclaimerThe results of the end-of-life stage (modules C1-C4) should be considered when using the results of the product stage (modules A1-A3/A1-A5 for services).

Waste indicators according to EN 15804

IndicatorUnitA1-A3A4A5B1B2B3B4B5B6B7C1C2C3C4D
HWDkg2.60E-21.83E-45.38E-3NDNDNDNDNDNDND8.47E-42.78E-64.57E-16.39E-4-3.21E-4
NHWDkg1.36E+01.46E-35.18E-1NDNDNDNDNDNDND1.53E-22.17E-55.81E-22.99E+02.81E-3
RWDkg2.27E-47.50E-71.26E-4NDNDNDNDNDNDND1.05E-41.18E-84.80E-73.48E-81.11E-6
AcronymsHWD = Hazardous waste disposed; NHWD = Non-hazardous waste disposed; RWD = Radioactive waste disposed.
General disclaimerThe results of the end-of-life stage (modules C1-C4) should be considered when using the results of the product stage (modules A1-A3/A1-A5 for services).

Output flow indicators according to EN 15804

IndicatorUnitA1-A3A4A5B1B2B3B4B5B6B7C1C2C3C4D
CRUkg0.00E+00.00E+00.00E+0NDNDNDNDNDNDND0.00E+00.00E+00.00E+00.00E+00.00E+0
MFRkg1.05E-10.00E+00.00E+0NDNDNDNDNDNDND0.00E+00.00E+01.78E+00.00E+00.00E+0
MERkg0.00E+00.00E+00.00E+0NDNDNDNDNDNDND0.00E+00.00E+00.00E+00.00E+00.00E+0
EEEMJ, net calorific value0.00E+00.00E+03.62E-1NDNDNDNDNDNDND0.00E+00.00E+00.00E+00.00E+00.00E+0
EETMJ, net calorific value0.00E+00.00E+04.43E-1NDNDNDNDNDNDND0.00E+00.00E+00.00E+00.00E+00.00E+0
AcronymsCRU = Components for re-use; MFR = Materials for recycling; MER = Materials for energy recovery; EEE = Exported electrical energy; EET = Exported thermal energy.
General disclaimerThe results of the end-of-life stage (modules C1-C4) should be considered when using the results of the product stage (modules A1-A3/A1-A5 for services).

Results for additional scenarios for modules A4-C4

Additional scenario100% landfill
Description of the scenario/methodThe results contain the mandatory impact categories from PCR2019:14 and EN15804+A2. These are followed by the impact categories required by the ISO 21930:2017, for which the impacts are calculated with TRACI for the North American market. The end of life scenario consists solely out of landfilling.
Results for additional scenarios for modules A4-C4
Impact categoryIndicatorUnitA1-A3A4A5B1B2B3B4B5B6B7C1C2C3C4D
Climate change - totalGWP-totalkg CO2 eq.1.88E+11.35E+04.06E+0NDNDNDNDNDNDND1.27E+02.09E-20.00E+02.02E-25.09E+0
Climate change - fossilGWP-fossilkg CO2 eq.1.95E+11.35E+03.28E+0NDNDNDNDNDNDND1.27E+02.08E-20.00E+02.02E-25.08E+0
Climate change - biogenicGWP-biogenickg CO2 eq.-7.51E-10.00E+07.74E-1NDNDNDNDNDNDND0.00E+00.00E+00.00E+00.00E+00.00E+0
Climate change - land use and land use changeGWP-luluckg CO2 eq.2.34E-27.20E-52.91E-3NDNDNDNDNDNDND5.73E-47.85E-50.00E+07.86E-64.49E-3
Eutrophication aquatic freshwaterEP-freshwaterkg P eq.1.04E-39.12E-62.34E-4NDNDNDNDNDNDND1.11E-41.33E-70.00E+01.28E-71.59E-4
Eutrophication aquatic marineEP-marinekg N eq.2.20E-24.17E-42.29E-3NDNDNDNDNDNDND4.67E-43.70E-50.00E+07.31E-54.55E-3
Eutrophication terrestrialEP-terrestrialmol N eq.2.42E-14.65E-32.48E-2NDNDNDNDNDNDND5.23E-33.99E-40.00E+07.77E-45.08E-2
Photochemical ozone formationPOCPkg NMVOC eq.8.10E-23.06E-38.99E-3NDNDNDNDNDNDND2.22E-31.26E-40.00E+02.40E-41.62E-2
Depletion of abiotic resources - minerals and metalsADP-minerals&metals1,2kg Sb eq.1.19E-41.08E-72.23E-5NDNDNDNDNDNDND6.55E-81.70E-90.00E+01.80E-94.02E-7
Depletion of abiotic resources - fossil fuelsADP-fossil1MJ, net calorific value2.27E+21.76E+14.54E+1NDNDNDNDNDNDND2.27E+12.72E-10.00E+03.06E-14.96E+1
Eutrophication potential, marine (ISO 21930:2017)EP-mkg N eq.1.19E-22.28E-41.23E-3NDNDNDNDNDNDND2.55E-41.96E-50.00E+03.83E-52.47E-3
Ozone depletion (ISO 21930:2017)ODPkg CFC-11 eq.1.80E-71.82E-82.20E-8NDNDNDNDNDNDND3.41E-93.40E-100.00E+03.58E-101.99E-8
Photochemical oxidant creation potential (ISO 21930:2017)POCPkg O3 eq.1.36E+02.65E-21.35E-1NDNDNDNDNDNDND2.92E-22.32E-30.00E+04.46E-32.88E-1
Global warming potential (ISO 21930:2017)GWP100kg CO2 eq.1.94E+11.33E+03.29E+0NDNDNDNDNDNDND1.25E+02.06E-20.00E+01.99E-25.03E+0
Ozone depletionODPkg CFC-11 eq.1.67E-71.73E-82.06E-8NDNDNDNDNDNDND3.17E-93.23E-100.00E+03.40E-101.83E-8
AcidificationAPmol H+ eq.1.14E-12.07E-31.22E-2NDNDNDNDNDNDND3.25E-38.85E-50.00E+01.63E-42.71E-2
Acidification potential (ISO 21930:2017)APkg SO2 eq.1.42E-11.85E-31.04E-2NDNDNDNDNDNDND2.73E-38.18E-50.00E+01.78E-42.32E-2
Water useWDP1m3 world eq. deprived5.14E+02.29E-27.73E-1NDNDNDNDNDNDND1.93E-13.60E-40.00E+0-7.70E-24.48E-1
Eutrophication potential, freshwater (ISO 21930:2017)EP-fkg P eq.5.35E-44.29E-61.16E-4NDNDNDNDNDNDND4.95E-56.25E-80.00E+07.11E-87.47E-5
Climate change - Greenhouse gases (PCR2019:14)GWP-GHGkg CO2 eq.1.85E+11.35E+03.24E+0NDNDNDNDNDNDND1.22E+02.08E-20.00E+02.01E-25.38E+0
Acronyms
DisclaimersDisclaimer 1 - The results of this environmental impact indicator shall be used with care as the uncertainties of these results are high or as there is limited experience with the indicator; Disclaimer 2 -
General disclaimerThe results of the end-of-life stage (modules C1-C4) should be considered when using the results of the product stage (modules A1-A3/A1-A5 for services).

Results for additional scenarios for modules A4-C4

Additional scenario100% incineration
Description of the scenario/methodThe results contain the mandatory impact categories from PCR2019:14 and EN15804+A2. These are followed by the impact categories required by the ISO 21930:2017, for which the impacts are calculated with TRACI for the North American market. The end of life scenario consists solely out of incineration.
Results for additional scenarios for modules A4-C4
Impact categoryIndicatorUnitA1-A3A4A5B1B2B3B4B5B6B7C1C2C3C4D
Climate change - totalGWP-totalkg CO2 eq.1.88E+11.35E+04.06E+0NDNDNDNDNDNDND1.27E+02.09E-21.86E-10.00E+05.09E+0
Climate change - fossilGWP-fossilkg CO2 eq.1.95E+11.35E+03.28E+0NDNDNDNDNDNDND1.27E+02.08E-21.85E-10.00E+05.08E+0
Climate change - biogenicGWP-biogenickg CO2 eq.-7.51E-10.00E+07.74E-1NDNDNDNDNDNDND0.00E+00.00E+00.00E+00.00E+00.00E+0
Photochemical ozone formationPOCPkg NMVOC eq.8.10E-23.06E-38.99E-3NDNDNDNDNDNDND2.22E-31.26E-46.09E-40.00E+01.62E-2
Climate change - lulucGWP-luluckg CO2 eq.2.34E-27.20E-52.91E-3NDNDNDNDNDNDND5.73E-47.85E-51.53E-40.00E+04.49E-3
Ozone depletionODPkg CFC-11 eq.1.67E-71.73E-82.06E-8NDNDNDNDNDNDND3.17E-93.23E-101.05E-90.00E+01.83E-8
AcidificationAPmol H+ eq.1.14E-12.07E-31.22E-2NDNDNDNDNDNDND3.25E-38.85E-54.22E-40.00E+02.71E-2
Eutrophication aquatic freshwaterEP-freshwaterkg P eq.1.04E-39.12E-62.34E-4NDNDNDNDNDNDND1.11E-41.33E-74.83E-70.00E+01.59E-4
Eutrophication aquatic marineEP-marinekg N eq.2.20E-24.17E-42.29E-3NDNDNDNDNDNDND4.67E-43.70E-51.82E-40.00E+04.55E-3
Ozone depletion (ISO 21930:2017)ODPkg CFC-11 eq.1.80E-71.82E-82.20E-8NDNDNDNDNDNDND3.41E-93.40E-101.11E-90.00E+01.99E-8
Global warming potential (ISO 21930:2017)GWP100kg CO2 eq.1.94E+11.33E+03.29E+0NDNDNDNDNDNDND1.25E+02.06E-21.84E-10.00E+05.03E+0
Photochemical oxidant creation potential (ISO 21930:2017)POCPkg O3 eq.1.36E+02.65E-21.35E-1NDNDNDNDNDNDND2.92E-22.32E-31.15E-20.00E+02.88E-1
Water useWDP1m3 world eq. deprived5.14E+02.29E-27.73E-1NDNDNDNDNDNDND1.93E-13.60E-4-9.90E-30.00E+04.48E-1
Eutrophication terrestrialEP-terrestrialmol N eq.2.42E-14.65E-32.48E-2NDNDNDNDNDNDND5.23E-33.99E-41.98E-30.00E+05.08E-2
Eutrophication potential, marine (ISO 21930:2017)EP-mkg N eq.1.19E-22.28E-41.23E-3NDNDNDNDNDNDND2.55E-41.96E-59.70E-50.00E+02.47E-3
Depletion of abiotic resources - fossil fuelsADP-fossil1MJ, net calorific value2.27E+21.76E+14.54E+1NDNDNDNDNDNDND2.27E+12.72E-19.18E-10.00E+04.96E+1
Climate change - Greenhouse gases (PCR2019:14)GWP-GHGkg CO2 eq.1.85E+11.35E+03.24E+0NDNDNDNDNDNDND1.22E+02.08E-21.85E-10.00E+05.38E+0
Depletion of abiotic resources - minerals and metalsADP-minerals&metals1,2kg Sb eq.1.19E-41.08E-72.23E-5NDNDNDNDNDNDND6.55E-81.70E-97.49E-90.00E+04.02E-7
Acidification potential (ISO 21930:2017)APkg SO2 eq.1.42E-11.85E-31.04E-2NDNDNDNDNDNDND2.73E-38.18E-53.88E-40.00E+02.32E-2
Eutrophication potential, freshwater (ISO 21930:2017)EP-fkg P eq.5.35E-44.29E-61.16E-4NDNDNDNDNDNDND4.95E-56.25E-84.28E-70.00E+07.47E-5
Acronyms
DisclaimersDisclaimer 1 - The results of this environmental impact indicator shall be used with care as the uncertainties of these results are high or as there is limited experience with the indicator;
General disclaimerThe results of the end-of-life stage (modules C1-C4) should be considered when using the results of the product stage (modules A1-A3/A1-A5 for services).

Results for additional scenarios for modules A4-C4

Additional scenario100% recycling
Description of the scenario/methodThe results contain the mandatory impact categories from PCR2019:14 and EN15804+A2. These are followed by the impact categories required by the ISO 21930:2017, for which the impacts are calculated with TRACI for the North American market. The end of life scenario consists solely out of recycling.
Results for additional scenarios for modules A4-C4
Impact categoryIndicatorUnitA1-A3A4A5B1B2B3B4B5B6B7C1C2C3C4D
Acidification APmol H+ eq.1.14E-12.07E-31.22E-2NDNDNDNDNDNDND3.25E-38.85E-51.90E-30.00E+0-6.72E-2
Eutrophication potential, freshwater (ISO 21930:2017)EP-fkg P eq.5.35E-44.29E-61.16E-4NDNDNDNDNDNDND4.95E-56.25E-85.34E-60.00E+0-1.91E-4
Climate change - totalGWP-totalkg CO2 eq.1.88E+11.35E+04.06E+0NDNDNDNDNDNDND1.27E+02.09E-23.65E-10.00E+0-1.29E+1
Climate change - fossilGWP-fossilkg CO2 eq.1.95E+11.35E+03.28E+0NDNDNDNDNDNDND1.27E+02.08E-23.64E-10.00E+0-1.29E+1
Climate change - biogenicGWP-biogenickg CO2 eq.-7.51E-10.00E+07.74E-1NDNDNDNDNDNDND0.00E+00.00E+00.00E+00.00E+00.00E+0
Climate change - land use and land use changeGWP-luluckg CO2 eq.2.34E-27.20E-52.91E-3NDNDNDNDNDNDND5.73E-47.85E-56.92E-40.00E+0-1.08E-2
Eutrophication aquatic freshwaterEP-freshwaterkg P eq.1.04E-39.12E-62.34E-4NDNDNDNDNDNDND1.11E-41.33E-78.34E-60.00E+0-4.05E-4
Eutrophication aquatic marineEP-marinekg N eq.2.20E-24.17E-42.29E-3NDNDNDNDNDNDND4.67E-43.70E-56.91E-40.00E+0-1.16E-2
Eutrophication terrestrialEP-terrestrialmol N eq.2.42E-14.65E-32.48E-2NDNDNDNDNDNDND5.23E-33.99E-46.78E-30.00E+0-1.32E-1
Photochemical ozone formationPOCPkg NMVOC eq.8.10E-23.06E-38.99E-3NDNDNDNDNDNDND2.22E-31.26E-42.12E-30.00E+0-4.16E-2
Depletion of abiotic resources - minerals and metalsADP-minerals&metals1,2kg Sb eq.1.19E-41.08E-72.23E-5NDNDNDNDNDNDND6.55E-81.70E-91.56E-60.00E+0-1.08E-6
Depletion of abiotic resources - fossil fuelsADP-fossil1MJ, net calorific value2.27E+21.76E+14.54E+1NDNDNDNDNDNDND2.27E+12.72E-13.38E+00.00E+0-1.27E+2
Water useWDP1m3 world eq. deprived5.14E+02.29E-27.73E-1NDNDNDNDNDNDND1.93E-13.60E-41.73E-20.00E+0-1.14E+0
Acidification potential (ISO 21930:2017)APkg SO2 eq.1.42E-11.85E-31.04E-2NDNDNDNDNDNDND2.73E-38.18E-51.80E-30.00E+0-5.75E-2
Eutrophication potential, marine (ISO 21930:2017)EP-mkg N eq.1.19E-22.28E-41.23E-3NDNDNDNDNDNDND2.55E-41.96E-53.68E-40.00E+0-6.39E-3
Ozone depletionODPkg CFC-11 eq.1.67E-71.73E-82.06E-8NDNDNDNDNDNDND3.17E-93.23E-103.15E-90.00E+0-4.56E-8
Ozone depletion (ISO 21930:2017)ODPkg CFC-11 eq.1.80E-71.82E-82.20E-8NDNDNDNDNDNDND3.41E-93.40E-103.32E-90.00E+0-4.97E-8
Global warming potential (ISO 21930:2017)GWP100kg CO2 eq.1.94E+11.33E+03.29E+0NDNDNDNDNDNDND1.25E+02.06E-24.83E-10.00E+0-1.28E+1
Photochemical oxidant creation potential (ISO 21930:2017)POCPkg O3 eq.1.36E+02.65E-21.35E-1NDNDNDNDNDNDND2.92E-22.32E-33.93E-20.00E+0-7.36E-1
Climate change - Greenhouse gasesGWP-GHGkg CO2 eq.1.85E+11.35E+03.24E+0NDNDNDNDNDNDND1.22E+02.08E-25.25E-10.00E+0-1.26E+1
Acronyms
DisclaimersDisclaimer 1 - The results of this environmental impact indicator shall be used with care as the uncertainties of these results are high or as there is limited experience with the indicator; Disclaimer 2 -
General disclaimerThe results of the end-of-life stage (modules C1-C4) should be considered when using the results of the product stage (modules A1-A3/A1-A5 for services).

Additional environmental information

Renewable electricity purchases are covered through Renewable Energy Certificates (REC). Confidential contractual evidence has been reviewed and verified by the EPD verifier.

Tate's official CDP Score Report on the CDP portal (listed as Kingspan) can be accessed through the following link: https://www.cdp.net/en/data/scores

The products powder coating contains two hazardous substances, that do NOT cross the 0.1% threshold.

  • Metallic nickel: Up to 0.0000192% by coating weight (0.192 PPM)
  • 2-mercaptobenzothiazole: Up to 0.0925% by coating weight

Abbreviations

CAS: Chemical Abstracts Service

CEN: European Committee for Standardization

CDP: Carbon Disclosure Project

CHP: Combined Heat and Power

CLP: Classification, Labelling and Packaging

EC-JRC: European Commission Joint Reserve Directorate

EDIP: Environmental Design of Industrial Products

eGRID: Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database

EN: European Norm

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency

EPD: Environmental Product Declaration

GBC: Green Building Council

GLO: Global

HMIRA: Hazardous Materials Information Review Act

HPD: Health Product Declaration

ISO: International Organization for Standardization

LCA: Life Cycle Assessment

LHV: Lower Heating Value

MJ: Mega Joule

ND: Not Declared

N/A: Not Applicable

PCR: Product Category Rules

RE100: Renewable Energy 100%

REC: Renewable Energy Certificate

RoW: Rest of World

R&D: Research & Development

SVHC: Substances of Very High Concern

TRACI: Tool for Reduction and Assessment of Chemicals and Other Environmental Impacts

TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act

UN CPC: United Nations Central Product Classification

USA: United Stated of America

VOC: Volatile Organic Compound

WARM: Waste Reduction Model

References

[1] 'ISO 14040: Environmental management - Life cycle assessment – Principles and Framework', International Organization for Standardization, ISO14040:2006.

[2] 'ISO 14044: Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Requirements and guidelines', International Organization for Standardization, ISO14044:2006.

[3] 'ISO 14025: Environmental labels and declarations - Type III environmental declarations - Principles and procedures’, International Organization for Standardization, ISO14025:2010.

[4] ISO 21930: Sustainability in buildings and civil engineering works — Core rules for environmental product declarations of construction products and services. International Organization for Standardization, ISO21930:2017.

[5] ‘EN 15804: Sustainability of construction works - Environmental product declarations - Core rules for the product category of construction products’, European Committee for Standardization, EN15804:2012+A2:2019.

[6] IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, EPD International Secretariat [IVL]. (2025-06-05). PCR 2019:14 Construction products (EN 15804:A2) (v2.0.1). In The International EPD System.

[7] ICF. (2020). Documentation for Greenhouse Gas Emission and Energy Factors Used in the Waste Reduction Model (WARM): Background Chapters. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/documents/warm_background_v15_10-29-2020.pdf

[8] Detailed Data | US EPA. (2025, March 21st). US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/egrid/detailed-data

[9] United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2020). Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: 2018 Fact Sheet. In Assessing Trends in Materials Generation and Management in the United States. Geraadpleegd op 9 juni 2023, van https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-01/documents/2018_ff_fact_sheet_dec_2020_fnl_508.pdf

[10] Muchová, L., Eder, P., European Commission, Joint Research Centre, & Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. (2010). End-of-waste Criteria for Aluminium and Aluminium Alloy Scrap: Technical Proposals (EUR 24396 EN). Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2791/43228

[11] Muchová, L., Eder, P., European Commission, & Joint Research Centre. (2010). End-of-waste Criteria for Iron and Steel Scrap: Technical Proposals. In EUR 24397 EN. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2791/43563

[12] CHP Benefits | US EPA. (2024, October 22). US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/chp/chp-benefits#efficiency

[13] IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2013. The Physical Science Basis. Cambridge University Press. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm

[14] Heijungs R., Guinée J.B., Huppes G., Lankreijer R.M., Udo de Haes H.A., Wegener Sleeswijk A. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Products: Guide and Backgrounds. CML. Leiden University, Leiden, 1992

[15] Hauschild M.Z., & Wenzel H. Environmental Assessment of Products. Springer, US, Vol. 2, 1998

[16] van Oers L.F.C.M., de Koning A., Guinée J.B., Huppes G. Abiotic Resource Depletion in LCA: Improving Characterization Factors for Abiotic Depletion as Recommended in the New Dutch LCA Handbook. Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, Delft, 2001

[17] WMO. 1999. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1998, World Meteorological Organization Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project – Report No. 44, WMO, Geneva

[18] Jenkin M.E., & Hayman G.D. Photochemical ozone creation potentials for oxygenated volatile organic compounds: sensitivity to variations in kinetic and mechanistic parameters. Atmospheric Environment. 1999, 33 (8) pp. 1275–1293

[19] Seppälä, J., Posch, M., Johansson, M., & Hettelingh, J. P. (2006). Country-dependent characterisation factors for acidification and terrestrial eutrophication based on accumulated exceedance as an impact category indicator (14 pp). The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 11, 403-416.

[20] Posch, M., Seppälä, J., Hettelingh, J. P., Johansson, M., Margni, M., & Jolliet, O. (2008). The role of atmospheric dispersion models and ecosystem sensitivity in the determination of characterisation factors for acidifying and eutrophying emissions in LCIA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13, 477-486.

[21] Struijs J, Beusen A, van Jaarsveld H, Huijbregts MAJ (2009b) Aquatic eutrophication. Chapter 6. In: Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts MAJ, De Schryver A, Struijs J, Van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008 A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Report I: characterisation, first edition, 6 January 2009

[22] Van Zelm R, Huijbregts MAJ, Den Hollander HA, Van Jaarsveld HA, Sauter FJ, Struijs J, Van Wijnen HJ, Van de Meent D (2008) European characterization factors for human health damage of PM10 and ozone in life cycle impact assessment. Atmos Environ 42:441–453

[23] Guinée JB (ed), Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning A, van Oers L, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Suh S, Udo de Haes HA, de Bruijn JA, van Duin R, Huijbregts MAJ (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment: operational guide to the ISO standards. Series: eco-efficiency in industry and science. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

[24] Van Oers, L.; De Koning, A.; Guinée, J.B.; Huppes, G. Abiotic resource depletion in LCA. Improving characterisation factors for abiotic resource depletion as recommended in the new Dutch LCA handbook. RWS-DWW: Delft, The Netherlands, 2002. Available online: http://www.leidenuniv.nl/cml/ssp/projects/lca2/report_abiotic_depletion_web.pdf

[25] Boulay, A. M., Bare, J., Benini, L., Berger, M., Lathuillière, M. J., Manzardo, A., ... & Pfister, S. (2018). The WULCA consensus characterization model for water scarcity footprints: assessing impacts of water consumption based on available water remaining (AWARE). The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23, 368-378.

[26] Vigon, B., Fantke, P., McKone, T. E., & Jolliet, O. (2016). Characterizing health impacts from indoor and outdoor exposure to fine particulates. In Society of Environmental Toxicology and chemistry Asia/Pacific 2016 Conference.

[27] Frischknecht R, Braunschweig A, Hofstetter P, Suter P (2000) Modelling human health effects of radioactive releases in life cycle impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 20(2):159–189

[28] Henderson A, Hauschild M, Van de Meent D, Huijbregts MAJ, Larsen HF, Margni M, McKone TE, Payet J, Rosenbaum RK, Jolliet O (2011) USEtox fate and ecotoxicity factors for comparative assessment of toxic emissions in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(8):701–709

[29] De Laurentiis, V., Secchi, M., Bos, U., Horn, R., Laurent, A., & Sala, S. (2019). Soil quality index: Exploring options for a comprehensive assessment of land use impacts in LCA. Journal of Cleaner Production, 215, 63-74.

[30] Phyllis2 - cardboard (#2740). (n.d.). https://phyllis.nl/Biomass/View/2740

[31] Phyllis2 - wood, pallets (#1666). (z.d.). https://phyllis.nl/Biomass/View/1666

[32] Hauschild, M., Potting, J., & Institute for Product Development. (2005). Spatial differentiation in Life Cycle impact assessment - The EDIP2003 methodology. In Environmental News. https://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2005/87-7614-579-4/pdf/87-7614-580-8.pdf

[33] Bare, J.C. (2002), Traci. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 6: 49-78. https://doi.org/10.1162/108819802766269539

[34] EPD International AB. (2025-02-27). General Programme Instructions for the International EPD System. (v5.0.1.) https://www.datocms-assets.com/37502/1740651239-gpi5-0-1_20250227.pdf

Version history

Original version of the EPD