XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3 1023
With this, the user can focus on data collection, specifica-
tion and interpretation. The risk of missing out on any con-
sumables or information from subcontractors is minimized
with the templates. The user needs to specify the products,
product groups, the process and other site-specific informa-
tion that is essential for the EPD documentation. Finally,
the user needs to interpret the results and perform a sen-
sitivity analysis with the tool as well. For the verification,
the process becomes simplified as well since the verifier
can focus on verifying that the data collected is done in an
appropriate manner, that all data sources are accounted for,
and interpretation of the results is in line with the infor-
mation given. With a pre-verified tool, the verifier has a
presumption of conformity with the associate standards
and directives. which also covering the LCA database, allo-
cation methods and other internal calculations done in
the backend. These automated steps significantly reduce
the necessary working hours and directs the user focus on
value-driven activities.
RESULTS
The potential environmental impact within an EPD is sum-
marised in a table of 14 mandatory indicators In Tables 1
and Table 2, the environmental impact is summarised based
on the different product groups.
Table 1. Environmental impact summary for mobile crushing
Indicator Unit Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
GWP-fossil kg CO
2 eq. 2,51E+00 2,63E+00 3,07E+00
GWP-biogenic kg CO
2 eq. 9,22E-03 9,06E-03 8,50E-03
GWP-luluc kg CO
2 eq. 1,74E-02 1,85E-02 2,21E-02
GWP-total kg CO
2 eq. 2,53E+00 2,66E+00 3,10E+00
ODP kg CFC 11 eq. 2,78E-10 2,78E-10 2,78E-10
AP mol H+ eq. 1,72E-02 1,79E-02 2,04E-02
EP-freshwater kg PO
4
3– eq. 2,46E-06 2,58E-06 3,02E-06
EP-freshwater kg P eq. 7,38E-06 7,75E-06 9,06E-06
EP-marine kg N eq. 7,84E-03 8,20E-03 9,44E-03
EP-terrestrial mol N eq. 9,17E-02 9,56E-02 1,09E-01
POCP kg NMVOC eq. 1,67E-02 1,74E-02 1,97E-02
ADP-minerals &metals* kg Sb eq. 7,89E-07 7,99E-07 8,32E-07
ADP-fossil* MJ 3,35E+01 3,51E+01 4,10E+01
WDP* m3 7,18E-02 7,29E-02 7,68E-02
Table 2. Environmental impact summary for stationary crushing
Indicator Unit Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
GWP-fossil kg CO2 eq. 2,55E+00 2,75E+00 2,80E+00
GWP-biogenic kg CO2 eq. 9,70E-03 1,04E-02 1,06E-02
GWP-luluc kg CO2 eq. 1,75E-02 1,81E-02 1,82E-02
GWP-total kg CO2 eq. 2,58E+00 2,78E+00 2,83E+00
ODP kg CFC 11 eq. 2,79E-10 2,79E-10 2,79E-10
AP mol H+ eq. 1,73E-02 1,81E-02 1,83E-02
EP-freshwater kg PO43– eq. 2,71E-05 4,25E-05 4,62E-05
EP-freshwater kg P eq. 9,02E-06 1,42E-05 1,54E-05
EP-marine kg N eq. 7,89E-03 8,16E-03 8,23E-03
EP-terrestrial mol N eq. 9,19E-02 9,42E-02 9,47E-02
POCP kg NMVOC eq. 1,68E-02 1,74E-02 1,75E-02
ADP-minerals &metals* kg Sb eq. 8,59E-07 1,07E-06 1,12E-06
ADP-fossil* MJ 4,17E+01 6,74E+01 7,35E+01
WDP* m3 1,14E-01 2,11E-01 2,34E-01
With this, the user can focus on data collection, specifica-
tion and interpretation. The risk of missing out on any con-
sumables or information from subcontractors is minimized
with the templates. The user needs to specify the products,
product groups, the process and other site-specific informa-
tion that is essential for the EPD documentation. Finally,
the user needs to interpret the results and perform a sen-
sitivity analysis with the tool as well. For the verification,
the process becomes simplified as well since the verifier
can focus on verifying that the data collected is done in an
appropriate manner, that all data sources are accounted for,
and interpretation of the results is in line with the infor-
mation given. With a pre-verified tool, the verifier has a
presumption of conformity with the associate standards
and directives. which also covering the LCA database, allo-
cation methods and other internal calculations done in
the backend. These automated steps significantly reduce
the necessary working hours and directs the user focus on
value-driven activities.
RESULTS
The potential environmental impact within an EPD is sum-
marised in a table of 14 mandatory indicators In Tables 1
and Table 2, the environmental impact is summarised based
on the different product groups.
Table 1. Environmental impact summary for mobile crushing
Indicator Unit Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
GWP-fossil kg CO
2 eq. 2,51E+00 2,63E+00 3,07E+00
GWP-biogenic kg CO
2 eq. 9,22E-03 9,06E-03 8,50E-03
GWP-luluc kg CO
2 eq. 1,74E-02 1,85E-02 2,21E-02
GWP-total kg CO
2 eq. 2,53E+00 2,66E+00 3,10E+00
ODP kg CFC 11 eq. 2,78E-10 2,78E-10 2,78E-10
AP mol H+ eq. 1,72E-02 1,79E-02 2,04E-02
EP-freshwater kg PO
4
3– eq. 2,46E-06 2,58E-06 3,02E-06
EP-freshwater kg P eq. 7,38E-06 7,75E-06 9,06E-06
EP-marine kg N eq. 7,84E-03 8,20E-03 9,44E-03
EP-terrestrial mol N eq. 9,17E-02 9,56E-02 1,09E-01
POCP kg NMVOC eq. 1,67E-02 1,74E-02 1,97E-02
ADP-minerals &metals* kg Sb eq. 7,89E-07 7,99E-07 8,32E-07
ADP-fossil* MJ 3,35E+01 3,51E+01 4,10E+01
WDP* m3 7,18E-02 7,29E-02 7,68E-02
Table 2. Environmental impact summary for stationary crushing
Indicator Unit Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
GWP-fossil kg CO2 eq. 2,55E+00 2,75E+00 2,80E+00
GWP-biogenic kg CO2 eq. 9,70E-03 1,04E-02 1,06E-02
GWP-luluc kg CO2 eq. 1,75E-02 1,81E-02 1,82E-02
GWP-total kg CO2 eq. 2,58E+00 2,78E+00 2,83E+00
ODP kg CFC 11 eq. 2,79E-10 2,79E-10 2,79E-10
AP mol H+ eq. 1,73E-02 1,81E-02 1,83E-02
EP-freshwater kg PO43– eq. 2,71E-05 4,25E-05 4,62E-05
EP-freshwater kg P eq. 9,02E-06 1,42E-05 1,54E-05
EP-marine kg N eq. 7,89E-03 8,16E-03 8,23E-03
EP-terrestrial mol N eq. 9,19E-02 9,42E-02 9,47E-02
POCP kg NMVOC eq. 1,68E-02 1,74E-02 1,75E-02
ADP-minerals &metals* kg Sb eq. 8,59E-07 1,07E-06 1,12E-06
ADP-fossil* MJ 4,17E+01 6,74E+01 7,35E+01
WDP* m3 1,14E-01 2,11E-01 2,34E-01