Stone Federation Great Britain is working with BRE on producing a generic Environmental Product Declaration for the use of stone in construction. If you don’t know what that means or how it might affect you, read on…

Some people in the stone industry feel stone gets a bit of a hard time in the BRE’s Green Guide to the environmental impact of various building products. Stone Federation Great Britain wants to avoid that with the new lifecycle standard from Europe, EN 15804, and its Environmental Product Declarations.

Natural stone is penalised in the Green Guide environmental stakes because there can be a relatively small proportion of the stone taken out of the ground that actually ends up as finished product, and because the stone that does not end up as finished product is considered waste.

Stone’s rating is also a victim of the amount of water used in sawing, shaping and finishing, even though that water can be captured rainwater and, whether it is or not, will usually be recycled.

In fact, many of the uses of stone included in the Green Guide are assessed as being at or towards the top of the A+ to E scale used. But some uses do not come out as well as processes using other products, such as brick, which might appear on an intuitive level to be less environmentally friendly because they have to be ‘cooked’ at high temperatures in fuel-burning kilns.

The A+ to E Green Guide scale is an admirable attempt to make lifecycle assessments easily understood and compared.

It has often been said that one of the reasons natural stone has sometimes not done as well in the Green Guide as it perhaps might have done is because the stone industry engaged with the process late in the day. It is an accusation Stone Federation Great Britain is keen to avoid with Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs).

EPDs are not quite like the Green Guide because they do not currently include an easily used summary of the results like the A+ to E of the Green Guide, although David Richardson, Building Technology Group Director at BRE, says EPDs will eventually include such a summary because people want it.

EPDs are based on the European standard EN 15804, published in 2012. Like the Green Guide, it is a lifecycle assessment of environmental impact of products used in construction.

It was developed by the EU in response to criticisms from industry that there were too many competing environmental standards, although whether it will actually solve that problem, even if it is universally used, is another matter because it is sufficiently adaptable for different methodologies to comply with it.

BRE has developed an assessment that is EN 15804 compliant and an increasing number of companies and organisations are using it, but it is not necessarily the same as that developed by, say, German assessors.

And organisations offering such schemes, such as BRE, are assessors, rather than compilers of the data as BRE was for the process used in the Green Guide. With EPDs it is up to those who want to be assessed to work towards EN 15804. BRE (and others) will assess the information and its compilation and issue a certificate (a sample of which is pictured left). Of course, many people wanting an EPD will use an environmental consultant to help them achieve it. “The challenge always comes in data collection,” says David Richardson.

The Brick Development Association, representing brickmakers, was quick to see the potential of EPDs and has already created a generic rating for bricks. Aggregate giant Hanson also has an EPD of its own.

Like the Green Guide, EPDs offer the opportunity for both generic and company specific assessment, and the fact that Stone Federation hopes to create a generic EPD for stone, or perhaps a number of generic EPDs for various kinds or uses of stone, will not stop individual companies from obtaining their own EPDs.

In fact, having a generic EPD to compare with a company specific EPD could be a distinct marketing advantage for some stone suppliers. For example, a generic EPD for sandstone paving that includes imported products might make an EPD for a British York stone producer look particularly good, which is clearly a marketing opportunity.

It should not be assumed, however, that British stone will automatically perform better than imports. If the imports have been produced in a particularly environmentally friendly way (perhaps using recyclable energy from wind farms or solar panels and with minimum waste) and then shipped as little more than ballast in a ship carrying other products, they might have a smaller environmental impact than indigenous products. But if both are assessed using EN 15804, at least customers will know.

No doubt there will be those who look to the heavens in despair at the thought of another standard and more red tape and will certainly be grateful that Stone Federation Great Britain intends to work towards some kind of generic EPD (although there is the caveat that it has to be paid for somehow or another because Stone Federation does not have the resources that the Brick Development Association enjoys).

More forward thinking stone specialists might prefer to think of EN 15804 as an opportunity, because whether individual companies like it or not, issues of energy conservation, climate change and ethical sourcing are not going to go away.

As reported last month (NSS April 2014), the revision of Approved Document Part L of the Building Regulations has tightened up the law on energy efficiency of buildings and it is only two more years (if it remains on schedule) before the next revision is supposed to introduce zero carbon standards on domestic properties, followed by zero carbon on non-domestic properties by 2019. If stone is to continue to be used, it will have to contribute to that aim, just as it helps in its selection if it can contribute towards BREEAM and LEED points now.

And just as the European legislation requiring CE marking on most building products (including many stone products) eventually became a legal requirement last July, it is likely that EN 15804 will also eventually become a legal requirement, perhaps in about five years, guesses David Richardson (presuming the in-out referendum on Europe promised by the Conservatives if they win the General Election next May does not remove the UK from the EU).

One thing David makes clear is that BN 15804 will not replace BEN 6001 because they have different aims: 6001 assesses how a company operates and manages its supply chain; 15804 assesses the lifecycle environmental impact of a building product.

Having 6001 will not help in achieving 15804, although some of the standards contributing towards a 6001 rating (such as the management standard ISO 9001) will be relevant for 15804 because they will mean you already have the processes in place to record your use of water and energy, for example.

With either standard, the experience of achieving it should be beneficial for the company involved.

David: “It shouldn’t just be a burden; that they have to do it and are really resentful of the money they pay for the accreditation… it shouldn’t be that way. It should be collaborative, so they have a good experience and obtain business benefits.”

There is still a generous helping of scepticism about the need for environmental standards because it is the experience of most stone companies that whatever conciliatory noises come from the top echelons of a company, at site level, where it makes a difference, nothing much is changing and it all comes down to price.

If those in the boardrooms of major contractors and developers really do want a change and are not just playing the politics of appearing to be on side, they have to close the gap between their leather chairs and the steel toecap boots on the ground.

Iain Kennedy, the Managing Director of Realstone and current President of Stone Federation Great Britain, says the way forward with all of these standards, including CE marking, is education. And he believes insurers should be insisting on seeing CE marks and 6001 certificates to drive their use forward.

“All these things take time to get into people’s psyche,” he says. “It’s heading in the right direction.”

Too much greenwash raises the value of standards

Albion Stone, which minimises its environmental impact by mining some of the Portland limestone it extracts and has solar panels on its extensive workshop roof, has gained BES 6001, the BRE’s responsible sourcing standard. Realstone expects to achieve it by this summer. Hard landscaping companies Marshalls and Johnsons Wellfield already have it and Cumbrian quarry company Burlington is now working towards an individual Green Guide rating.

It is an indication of the increasing importance being attached to environmental issues by clients and specifiers that more companies are going to the expense and effort of achieving these standards. As Albion Managing Director Michael Poultney says: “There’s been so much greenwash that people want something a bit better than that now.”

Albion Stone got the environmental standard ISO 14001 and the quality management standard ISO 9001 to contribute towards its ‘Very Good’ rating for BES 6001, which the company intends to upgrade to the top rating of ‘Excellent’ next year with the help of BS OHSAS 18001 for health & safety, which it is currently working towards.
BES 6001 contributes points to BREEAM ratings by providing an all-inclusive approach to managing a product throughout the  manufacturing process and supply chain. As part of achieving the standard, Albion Stone addressed aspects such as management of the supply chain, labour practices and stakeholder engagement.

David Richardson, Group Director of Sustainable Products at the BRE, says: “Responsible sourcing of construction products is an increasingly important issue for specifiers and clients around the world. Albion Stone is not only doing the right thing environmentally and ethically with its certification to the standard but it is also enhancing its competitiveness in the international arena. Well done to Albion – we look forward to certifying them to the next level of ‘Excellence’ soon!”

Michael Poultney says achieving BES 6001 cost Albion about £40,000, but he describes that as “chicken feed” compared with the savings it will produce – which, he says, have already exceeded £40,000.

And he points out that the cost of gaining the standard is in keeping with the size of the company, so a smaller stonemasonry company would not have so much to do and it would cost less. He also says that grants and other funding are often available, which was something highlighted by Geoff Dudden, the consultant Albion employed for 14001 at the suggestion of BSI, which Albion chose as its 6001 assessor.

Michael says the biggest benefit for Albion of going through the 6001 process was the recording and auditing of what happens in the company. “It stops people taking shortcuts when they’re busy,” says Michael. “When people do that, it unravels somewhere else.”

He says to achieve the standard it is necessary to demonstrate the implementation of controls, goals and targets, and show how they are being regularly reviewed.

Procedures such as sending out customer feedback forms (and monitoring and discussing the responses) and having fortnightly ‘toolbox talks’, which can so easily be put off and forgotten about, now take precedence because there is a procedure in place to record that they have been done.

The workforce has been told that quality of the product lies with each of them. They are now required to think about whether  the stone is of the right quality or not. Michael: “Our guys in the mine and the quarry and the factory have reacted to it… it raises their game and they start thinking about what they do.”

A ‘wall of shame’ has been introduced recording the number of finished products rejected. There is discussion about how the product got so far along the production process before it was rejected, so everyone can see what should be rejected at a far earlier stage.

There is less waste and by sorting what waste there is rather than just putting it all in a landfill skip, more can be recycled. Some, such as zinc templates, even change from being a cost to dispose of to producing an income by being sold for recycling. Separating out paper and cardboard from general waste produces savings because the waste disposal companies charges less for removing paper and cardboard.

Michael: “It does not make a big difference to the costs but it changes people’s attitudes. It’s difficult to put a value on that but it’s significant.”

Thinking about how they are working has also reduced the amount of handling and rehandling in the mines, quarries and factory, which is producing major savings on the cost of fuel used on Portland.

Michael Poultney recommends BES 6001 as a worthwhile standard for companies to achieve, but says they should go into it with their eyes open, understanding it will incur costs and take management time. But he believes that a reasonably well run company will end up with an improved management structure at the end of the process, as well as a worthwhile standard that should help win work as long as main contractors can be persuaded there is more to consider than simply price.