European Organisation of the Sawmill Industry aisbl

Transcription

1 European Organisation of the Sawmill Industry aisbl C1152 Brussels, 1 July 2011 To the member federations Dear Member, European ecolabel and public procurement criteria for office buildings Meeting at the JRC-IPTS in Sevilla on 29 June 2011 Under the revised European ecolabel directive (66/2010), the European Commission takes a more direct role in the development of European ecolabels. The Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, IPTS, from the Joint Research Centre, based in Sevilla, takes the responsibility for this and has started work on the basis of the 3 rd draft presented by the Italian competent authority in Spring 2010 (see our document 2781 of 26 May 2010). Rather than putting emphasis on buildings in general, the IPTS has decided to focus in first instance on office buildings. A first meeting was held in Sevilla on 29 June. CEI-Bois was invited to attend and was represented by Filip De Jaeger. In annex you will find a summary of the presentation given, reflecting the current status of the work, as well as main comments made by the participants. Based on this, and further comments that can be made, IPTS will work out a 2 nd draft that will be presented at the next meeting of the working group. In addition to the attached summary, the working documents from the meeting can be downloaded from the CEI-Bois website. Should you have difficulties in accessing these, then please contact the secretariat. We would very much welcome your comments on the issues raised at the meeting and thank you on beforehand for your co-operation. Yours sincerely, EOS Gabriela Gorostiza Policy Adviser Office: Rue Montoyer 24/box 20, BE-1000 Brussels - TP: TF: info@eos-oes.eu -

2 JRC-IPTS adhoc meeting on the development of ecolabel and green public procurement criteria for office buildings Sevilla, 29 June 2011 Brief report Chair: Oliver Wolf, sustainable production and consumption unit (GPP, ecolabel, ecodesign etc.) Participants come from a wide range of industries and companies, mainly representing European organizations, environmental and consumer organizations, EU Commission services and national authorities. DG Environment, introduction on the EU ecolabel Label granted to the best performing products within a product group (10-15%) Multi-criteria, life-cycle based and third party verified Currently 26 products groups, to be raised to 40 GPP part of the sustainable consumption and production action plan, with criteria for 18 product groups so far. Intention to step up. New regulation has meant that product group criteria will now be developed b y the Commission itself, through IPTS (no longer via national EU ecolabel competent bodies). This should enable a more systematic approach, involving two open workshops (1 st on general focus, 2 nd split on ecolabel (1 day) and GPP (1 day)). The final eco-label criteria will then a adopted by the EUEB (with inter-service consultation and vote in the regulatory committee), the GPP by the GPP Advisory group and an inter-service consultation. Building work is not new, as already in 2006 there was a first decision taken to work on this. Work has been performed by the Italian competent body already. Oliver Wolf, general introduction to the role of the IPTS Commission body, working for all How are criteria developed? 1. Technical analysis a. Product scope b. Market ana c. Technical ana d. Improvement potential i. Leads to a preliminary report and draft criteria proposal and technical report 2. Stakeholder consultations a. Using comments from meeting and sent in later 3. Revised proposal a. 2 nd consultation meeting 2

3 Aim of meeting: Get agreement on analysis and identified criteria areas Discuss criteria and sub-criteria With regard to the product group on buildings, the IPTS has decided to narrow the scope somewhat in discussing with the European Union ecolabel board to office buildings. Basis: LCA approach Need to link up to existing activities (national labels, non-eu activities etc.) Future meetings of the EUEB will remain open for industry sectors. The GPP advisory board has representation from UEAPME (sme) and Businesseurope (industry). Consumer organizations are not happy with the scope limitation. They would like to see this extended to residential buildings, as these are more important for consumer organizations. Alicia Boyano Larriba, Background information on office building and criteria for office building 3 impact sectors on environment: food, car and building sector Building: 40% of total energy consumption, 30% of GHG emissions, use of hazardous and sensitive materials Future trends of office buildings: 10 to 20 times higher energy consumption than residential Floor area likely to increase Comfort conditions becoming more and more important A definition for office buildings has been developed for this work in particular, as no official definition was available so far. 20% of non-residential buildings are estimated as office buildings. Future trends in the office building market not so clear LCA assessments are based on the work of CEN/TC 350, considering production phase, construction phase, use phase and end-of-life phase. Comparative assessments were made for buildings located in different climatic zones (Madrid, London and Tallinn). Main environmental issues related to heating and cooling, lighting and the use of office equipment. 15% of total GWP is attributed to embodied energy. Other issues of concern: Use of hazardous materials, regulated under Articles 6.6 and 6.7 of the EU ecolabel regulation Indoor air quality and well-being of the occupants o Quality often lower due to emissions from office equipment and noise The sustainable behaviour of the occupants, the way of getting to work etc. 3

4 Currently applied schemes already specify a number of areas for activity. In line with this, the following are proposed for the EU office buildings ecolabel: Energy consumption Material selection Indoor air quality and well-being of the occupants Water consumption and management Waste management Facilities Corporate criteria The weighting of these different criteria still need to be discussed. First comments relate to: Ecolabel positioning towards other exisiting schemes; The correctness of presented data. The glass sector does not agree with the figures as presented; Relationship with CPR (formerly CPD) Responsibility for the label (building, owner, user,...) The EU ecolabel flower has a high ambition level. CEPMC Welcomes approach towards a full building LCA Remarks that a performance based approach depends upon scope of assessment and scenarios put forward (climate scenario, use and maintenance scenario,...) Asks whether there shouldn t be an open performance basis, questioning whether one really can have one European system only As regards the scope of the assessment, focus should remain on the building as such, and not to the surrounding aspects (like public transport issues etc.) Refers to CEN/TC 350 standards that will become available by the end of 2011 and could serve as a basis for future assessment work in the context of the ecolabel (standards are under formal vote process at the moment) Decision on whether to opt for existing or new offices should depend on the client/customer UK: European scheme not to differ too much from currently existing schemes to facilitate introduction and use and the work of the competent bodies. 4

5 Criteria Energy efficiency, introduction by JRC-IPTS (Alicia Boyano Larriba) Why energy criteria? Energy consumption of office buildings causes highest environmental impact, the nature of the criteria are difficult to be determined due to location of the building, the shape and design and building age. Identified subcriteria: Internal and external lighting Presence of renewable energies Ventilation Office equipment Heat transmission Total energy consumption, gwp emissions In the 3 rd draft (document from 2010) a set of energy criteria had already been included, causing comments from stakeholders. Proposed criteria: Total energy consumption, with different options o Option A: generic energy consumption o Option B: separate maximum energy consumptions o Option C: max U-value for the entire buildings o Option D: separate U-values for materials o Option E: maximum emission of GWP gases Use of renewable energy o Option A: on-site reneable energy systems o Option B: limitation of non-renewable primary energy demands Lighting, four different options Ventilation o Option A: setting max. Ventilation rate o Option B: setting maximum indoor air quality pollutans o +3 more Heat Island Comments CEPMC: refer to the requirements of the energy performance directive, referring to building related energy (i.e. energy needs deriving from the building). Processes within the building need not be taken into account. Need to include office equipment? Views are mixed ISPRA: DG Sanco is having a study made on health-based ventilation guidelines!! The German national representative (Jens Schuberth, Umweltbundesamt) wants to exclude all materials emitting formaldehyde or VOC from inclusion in the building. 5

6 Material selection Reason for dealing with materials: the material selection of office buildings determines the environmental impacts along the whole life of the building Production phase: embodied energy, use of hazardous substances, use of recycled materials; Construction phase: release of hazardous substances, generation of waste and water pollutions; Use phase: building insulation, influence on indoor air quality (IAQ), release of indoor pollutants; End of life: feasibility for recycling, reuse, disassembling. Identified subcriteria: Selection of recycled and/or reused materials; Transportation; Selection of durable and easy maintenance materials Selection of low embodied energy materials Responsible source of materials Avoidance of hazardous substances On material criteria listed in previous drafts or documents, quite some comments were received. Proposed criteria Recycled and reused materials o Option A: use of recycled or re-used materials on the construction of the building (% in mass, volume or area) o Option B: Ease of deconstruction/dissemble and recycling (% in mass, volume or area) Low embodied energy materials o Selection of low embodied energy building components when fulfilling the same functions o kwh/kg of kg CO2 or ton of materials with the same function Transportation and on-site placing of construction materials o Building materials shall be locally produced/re-used o % weight of materials locally produced (what is locally produced?) Responsible source of materials o List of materials (weight) coming from responsible sources (e.g. sustainable forestry in the case of wood) (also for other materials!) o % of labelled materials in weight Durability and maintenance of materials o Preference of durable materials (which are these?) o % in mass, volume or area Hazardous substances o Materials presenting such substances o % in mass, volume or area 6

7 Comments made: Glass: embodied energy irrelevant for the glass sector. Hazardous substances: refer to the fact there should be no intentional adding of such substances during production to avoid that naturally present substances are not affected. Transportation issues to be looked into further. PU Europe: we should look at the performance of a material prior to looking at the recycled content. FEICA: move towards LCA, but not restricted to certain aspects. Should one not look at energy use over the total building and use phase, which could allow for some flexibility in choosing materials ArcelorMittal: we should look at how recycled material can be integrated, which should start at the moment of the design. Embodied energy could be included, but we should use the full package of CEN/TC 350 work. Local production emphasis could create artificial barriers to trade, unless this would be considered a local issue. There are other issues related to material choice too (such as emotional ones). Consumers: would like to have 100% sustainability requirement for wood and wood-based products CEPMC: recycling content should not be goal on itself, but can be a means to achieve something. There are other means too. In the EU one now works on resource efficiency. Technical and functional requirements remain more important. CEN/TC 350 presents 22 environmental indicators. Embedded energy is not standardised, TC 350 did not want to take it up as such and has worked on other indicators related to energy. Durability is a technical aspect. Here the lifetime aspect comes into focus. PlasticsEurope does not like the recycling aspect and strongly disagrees that PVC would not be allowed, as asked by the consumer representative. Claims that it is a sustainable and durable material. Spain: there is a political agreement at European level that the transportation criterion should not be used for GPP. Denmark: want to insist on the continuation of a certification for wood and wood-based products and the avoidance of wood from illegal sources. DG ENV: wood issue. All criteria for wood in the eco-label should be the same, referring to FSC/PEFC or equivalent. CEI-Bois Recycling products in principle OK, but need to make sure their impact is not stronger than non-recycled ones; Low embodied energy: wood sector in favour of this criterion, carbon storage in wood products to be considered too; The requirement for locally produced products to be used could limit the possibility of using the best suited materials. There are strong regional differences in product availability. Locally produced does not always mean best; Responsible sourcing of materials. CEI-Bois agrees that products ought to come for sustainable sources, but this should apply to all materials, not only to wood and wood-based products. Furthermore, also non-certified products can be from sustainable sources. No discrimination 7

8 should exist over certification schemes and one should not limit specific origin (Legality ensured by the European Union Timber Regulation); Durability: need for clarification which products would be covered; Hazardous substances: difference between content and emissions. Indoor air quality Reason for criteria IAG and well-being in an office building has significant influence Poor IAQ produces a significant health risk Provisions: o Minimise sources of pollutants o Provide adequate ventilation Subcriteria: IAQ quality o CO2, CO o VOC o Microbiological contamination o Temperature o Humidity o Formaldehyde o Dust o Radon Noise Proposed criteria Indoor air quality options o A: avoid microbiological contamination o B: basement moisture control to prevent soil gaese and moisture from entering the office building o C: eliminate off-gassing from finishes that come in contact with indoor air o Specify materials with no/low formaldehyde, no/low VOC, ;.. o Prevent condensation on interior surfaces Noise: o Maximal noise benchmark depending on the function of the room JRC-Ispra: focus on TVOC and formaldehyde. Work ongoing. Need to identify the compounds of concern. Need for a balanced approach. Netherlands: many issues of IAQ depend upon the operation of the building, which could be better dealt with under GPP rather than the ecolabel as such. H. Bloech (Greenguard environmental institute): source control will not solve all problems. CEPMC: the information in the working document on this issue is not correct and needs to be corrected. The current wording could gave rise to quite some misinterpretations Do not refer to content. Most materials or products contain specific substances. 8

9 CEI-Bois: there are already harmonised test methods for certain pollutants for specific product groups. These ought to be considered. The notion of tvoc neglects the presence of natural VOC in certain materials (such as wood). Not all VOC are to be listed as bad. Water consumption and water management Aim to minimise the impacts of water consumption. Doing more with less. Waste management Social aspects These criteria relate rather to the use of the office building than to the building phase or construction as such. As such they are beyond or out of the immediate control of the building product manufacturer or builder. Green Public Procurement for buildings Organisations / authorities experienced in the issue of gpp for buildings are requested to get in touch with the JRC-IPTS to help them working out first draft proposals. The Dutch authorities offer their support to this work. The builders (FIEC) indicate their general interest in clear public procurement rules for buildings. Future timing A final decision on ecolabel criteria will most likely not be taken before the 2 nd half of 2012, and could well be achieved only in The next meeting of the group will be held in Brussels towards the end of the year. 9