Verification is where many EPD projects lose time, and most findings are predictable. This checklist follows the order in which an independent verifier reviews an LCA and an EPD for a construction product under ISO 14025, EN 15804+A2, the General Programme Instructions (GPI) of The International EPD System and the applicable Product Category Rules (PCR). Other EN 15804-based programmes, such as MRPI, apply the same logic under their own rules. It is written for LCA practitioners and for manufacturers who prepare EPDs in-house.
1. Goal, scope and PCR
- The PCR and any complementary PCR (c-PCR) are named with their version, and that version is valid.
- The declared unit (or functional unit, with a reference service life where B modules are declared) matches the PCR.
- The system boundary is shown in a diagram, and the declared modules meet EN 15804+A2: A1–A3, C1–C4 and D, unless all the conditions for leaving out C1–C4 and D are met and justified.
- The type of EPD is clear — single product, multi-product or average — and for averages the weighting (for example by production volume) and the representativeness are explained.
2. Inventory data and data quality
- Primary data cover a representative period, normally a full year of production, and every site included in the EPD.
- The data collection sheets match the inputs in the model, and the mass balance of inputs, outputs and losses is plausible.
- Electricity and fuels are recorded per site, and the electricity model follows the PCR rules and is documented.
- Transport distances and modes are given for the main raw materials; packaging and production waste are included with their treatment.
- Background datasets are listed with database name and version, fit the geography and technology, and any proxies are justified.
- The data quality assessment required by the PCR is complete.
3. Cut-off and allocation
- Excluded flows respect the EN 15804+A2 cut-off criteria — at most 1% of primary energy use and 1% of mass input per unit process, and at most 5% of energy use and mass per module in total — and are listed.
- Allocation is avoided where possible; where it is needed, it follows EN 15804+A2 and the PCR, is applied consistently and is documented for every multi-output process.
- Recycled inputs, co-products and waste leaving the system are modelled at the right point of the system boundary, following the EN 15804+A2 rules on the end-of-waste state and the polluter-pays principle.
4. Scenarios and module D
- Scenarios for A4–A5, any declared B modules and C1–C4 are realistic, documented and representative of the market the EPD addresses.
- Module D is calculated from the net output flows and is consistent with the end-of-life scenarios in C3 and C4.
- The biogenic carbon content of the product and of its packaging is declared, and biogenic carbon flows are consistent across the modules.
5. Results and indicators
- All mandatory EN 15804+A2 indicators are reported — the core environmental impact indicators, resource use, waste categories and output flows — in the units and with the characterisation method the PCR requires.
- Results are reported per module, together with the explanatory statements the PCR requires.
- Results pass a plausibility check: the hotspots fit the product type, and differences from comparable EPDs or generic data can be explained. Sensitivity checks cover the key assumptions.
6. The EPD document
- The EPD follows the programme format and contains the mandatory content of the GPI and the PCR, and the EN 15942 communication format where it applies.
- The content declaration lists the product's components and the substances of the REACH Candidate List where the declaration rules require it.
- The tables in the EPD match the model results and the background report exactly.
- Programme information, version, validity and the verification statement are complete.
7. How findings are handled
The verifier issues written findings, each with its location in the documents, its type and the expected action. The practitioner responds and corrects the model or the text, and the verifier confirms closure. Once all findings are closed, the verifier signs the verification statement and report. Extra rounds are usually caused by the same few issues: primary data that cannot be traced to records, undocumented proxies, tables that differ between the background report and the EPD, scenarios without justification, and outdated PCR or dataset versions.
Who verifies
Amstelfy Technical Solutions is listed by The International EPD System as an accredited certification body (ISO/IEC 17029:2019, NAC-006-VV) and is recognised by Stichting MRPI as a verification bureau for MRPI®-EPD certificates. Amstelfy only verifies and does not prepare LCAs or EPDs. See our EPD verification service and how we work with LCA practitioners.
Frequently asked questions
Sources
- The International EPD System — Verification: https://www.environdec.com/verification
- The International EPD System — General Programme Instructions: https://www.environdec.com/resources/general-programme-instructions
- Stichting MRPI — recognised verifiers: https://www.mrpi.nl/epd-certificaten/toetsers/
