Modeling A5 installation losses in OCL

Product LCA & EPD
1

I am using the One Click LCA EPD Generator for the French regulation (FDES).

When modelling installation losses in module A5, the tool seems to apply the loss ratio to the total mass of A1 materials including packaging. For example, when I enter a 10% installation loss, the tool calculates losses as 0.1 × (materials + packaging mass). This approach leads to an inconsistency in the mass balance, as packaging should not be subject to installation losses.

Has anyone encountered this behaviour before? Is this an intended feature of the tool, a known limitation, or am I missing a specific modelling assumption?

Thank you in advance for your feedback.

2

Hi Youcef,

Thanks for posting.

Yes, this is expected behaviour. The modelling assumption is that the 10% additional materials needed to make up for the loss during installation will also be packaged (and transported).

To ensure mass balance, the waste treatment of the additional 10% of product and packaging materials needs to be considered as output in A5.

I hope this helps to clarify,
Graham

1 Like
3

Hello Graham,

Thank you for the explanation.

So, in my case, i have 10% of product loss in A5 that is sent to the producer who reitegrate it in the production lines after grinding it. So to model this, here is what i did:

  1. in A1, i called all material with the fianl quantities when the product is installed,
  2. In A3, i called packaging materials with quantities related to the DU,
  3. In A5, i modelled 10% of installation losses, and added 10% of (material+packaging) quantity as waste treatement output

Is this correct ?

Thank you in advance.

4

Hi Youcef,

Yes, this is generally the correct modelling approach. However, I would clarify that the A1 quantities should be the final product that leaves the factory, i.e., 1m2 of product produced. Unless your declared unit is, for example, 1m2 of installed product. This is less common but can sometimes be found in EPDs for products that have overlaps when installed, e.g., roof tiles.

If you’re not sure about which declared unit to use, it is always recommended to check the relevant PCR/c-PCR, and other EPDs for similar products.

Best wishes for the New Year,
Graham

5

Hello Graham,

Thank you for the clarification. However I still have doubts regarding this situation.

When I model as you explained, the mass balance in the results page is not achieved.

My declared unit is 1m² of a product wich is equivalent to 8kg of materials, plus packaging (pallet and plastic film). The installation loss is 10%.

  1. in A1: should I model the quantity of the final installed product (only 8kg) or add the 10% of loss which gives 8,8kg ?
  2. In A3 packaging, should I model the quantity related to the final product (8kg) or with losses (8,8kg) ?
  3. In A5, I declare the transported mass to the installation site. Should I declare (8kg + packaging of 8kg) or (8,8kg + packaging of 8,8kg ) ?
  4. in A5, I declare 10% of installation losses.
  5. in A5, I add the EoL treatment of all packaging material (the same quantities I added in A3)
  6. In A5, I add the EoL treatment of the 10% lost materials (0,8kg).

Is my modelling approach correct ?

6

Hi Youcef,

I’ll reply to each point below, which hopefully clarifies the approach.

  1. In A1, you should model the quantity of the final installed product (only 8kg)
  2. In A3 packaging, you should model the quantity related to the final product (8kg)
  3. In A4, you should declare the transported mass to the installation site of 8kg + packaging of 8kg
  4. In A5, you should declare 10% of installation losses :white_check_mark:
  5. In A5, you should add the EoL treatment of all packaging material (the same quantities I added in A3 plus 10%)
  6. In A5, I add the EoL treatment of the 10% lost materials (0,8kg) :white_check_mark:

This should give you the correct mass balance.

Kind regards,
Graham

2 Likes