Environmental
- Production - use of raw materials
- Production - use of energy
- Release of chemicals during service
- Waste during installation
- Health and safety during manufacturer and installation
- Disposal
- Recycling
SPRA funded independent research by Building Research Establishment (BRE) in 2006/7.
- Manufacturers of PVC and FPO submitted detailed raw material, energy and production information.
- International experts on the environment independently set a priority against a wide range of environmental impacts (e.g. energy use, waste, water use).
- Manufacturers’ data was set against these criteria.
- Manufacturers can obtain individual Ecopoint® assessments which can be used to produce Green Guide ratings in a given specification. The generic assessment is generally reduced to allow for the range of manufacture that was not included in the research.
- Ecopoint® assessments for generic PVC and FPO products were produced.
- The rating for PVC was 14.3; the rating for FPO was 11.4 This equates to a difference of 25% in a product which is just 1.2 or 1.5mm thick, so it is hardly significant in the full roof system.
THE GREEN GUIDE TO SPECIFICATION (see www.thegreenguide.org.uk)
The Green Guide published by BRE in 2008 looks at ‘cradle-to-gate’ environmental impact by combining EcoPoint® assessments for components with waste and durability data over a 60 year period for the complete building element (e.g. the roof). For example, a warm roof of PVC on all insulation types on a profiled steel deck achieves an A+ rating. A similar specification with FPO membrane is also A+. The A+ to E scale divides the range of EcoPoints® evenly so a product type such as windows (with a small range) may only differ by 0.5 Ecopoints/m2 across the range whereas roofing varies by over 1.5EcoPoints/m2 (so E is four times worse than A+. Therefore ratings for different product types should not be compared. There are moves to build this method into a whole-building rating (similar to that for energy performance.


