Coordinating EPDs for Integrated Interior Systems
Walls, glass partitions, and doors are often sold as one coordinated kit. Without careful scope and sequencing, EPDs for those parts collide, numbers drift, and specifiers lose confidence. Here is a tight playbook that keeps boundaries clean, avoids double counting, and speeds submittals when the schedule is already breathing down everyone’s neck.
Why integrated systems complicate EPDs
A modular wall line is not one product. It is framing, glazing, doors, hardware, gaskets, sealants, and finishes that travel together yet follow different rules. Treat the set like a band where every instrument reads the same time signature, or the music turns to noise.
Two problems show up first. PCRs may differ across components, and functional units rarely match by default. Solving those early keeps the rest simple.
Define the system once, allocate many times
Decide if the declaration covers a kit of parts or individual components. Both paths work, but the bill of materials and allocation rules must be explicit for the choice to be credibly compared.
If publishing separate EPDs, document how shared materials and upstream processes are split among wall frames, glazed modules, and door sets. If publishing a kit EPD, confirm the configuration that represents typical sales, then show how variants scale.
Pick compatible PCRs and functional units
Start by selecting PCRs that align in scope and indicators. When that is not possible, create a crosswalk so units convert cleanly and nothing essential is lost in translation.
Common unit choices manufacturers use:
- Walls and glazed partitions measured per square meter of installed system (including framing and infill).
- Door sets measured per complete assembly (leaf, frame, core or glazing, and standard hardware).
- Hardware kits measured per set, only when sold separately.
Write the conversions that tie these together, for example one standard door module equals X square meters of partition opening. Do not leave it to the estimator.
Sequence LCAs to stop double counting
Shared glass, aluminum, and steel often appear in both wall and door BOMs. Pick one owner for each shared item and reference it everywhere else.
A simple checklist keeps teams honest:
- Who owns architectural glass mass and processing.
- Who owns aluminum mullions and door frames.
- Who owns common sealants and gasketing.
- How offcuts, scrap, and rework are allocated.
When sub-assemblies move between plants, track the transfer as a process step with transport distance and yield. It looks fussy, then it saves a week of back-and-forth.
Plan modules with system logic
A1 to A3 should reflect each component’s material reality, not a blended average that hides hotspots. A4 and A5 must capture packaging, jobsite cutting, and anchors that differ between solid panels, glazed lites, and door frames. B modules separate by maintenance profile. Glass cleaning frequency is not the same as panel touch-up paint, and door hardware replacement often dominates B4.
Where service life is uncertain, state the assumption plainly and tie it to warranty or tested cycles if available. Reliable averages for tenant fit outs vary by market, so avoid invented lifetimes.
Nail the small stuff that derails specs
Gaskets, setting blocks, tape, and shims are tiny on mass and huge on questions. Name them, or the reviewer will. Packaging is similar. Crates for glazed modules rarely match cartons for panel bundles, so A5 waste fractions deserve a line, not a footnote.
Field-applied sealant can sit in walls or doors. Declare it once. If options exist, show the worst case and the common case side by side.
One reference year, many plants
Pick a single reference year for utilities, yields, and scrap across all lines that feed the system. If the door core line started mid-year, label it prospective and explain the data coverage. That clarity prevents a reviewer from assuming a gap that is not there.
Data collection improves when bill of materials exports mirror how the EPD breaks down assemblies. Ask teams to export by sub-assembly, not by warehouse SKU that mixes generations. You will recieve better data in half the time.
Spec language that prevents scope drift
Specification copy is where good EPDs go vague. Make it boring and exact.
- Include EPD publication IDs for each component or the kit configuration.
- Name the PCRs and versions used and the functional unit for each.
- State which modules are covered and any assumptions on replacement.
- Point to a change log for rolling updates.
These four lines stop substitution confusion when alternates appear late.
Publication timing and renewals that won’t collide
Try not to publish related EPDs weeks apart with different PCR versions. Batch them or note the linkage prominently so reviewers understand comparability. Most programs set EPD validity at five years, which means coordinated renewals reduce rework and RFI traffic (EPD International GPI, 2024). The same five year cycle is also reflected by other major operators that follow ISO 14025 program rules, although specific administrative terms can vary by operator (UL, 2024).
The commercial angle that matters
Coordinated EPDs de-risk spec reviews, which shortens bid cycles and reduces substitution risk when projects score materials under LEED v5 style criteria that prioritize product specific, third-party verified declarations. The ROI is practical. Clear, comparable EPDs help design teams document carbon without guesswork, so the system stays in the spec instead of being swapped for whatever already shows compliant paperwork.
Bring the pieces together without rework
Treat the wall, glazing, and door set like a single storyline told across several chapters. Align PCRs and units early, assign ownership for shared materials, and publish on a cadence that keeps versions in sync. The result reads clean, verifies faster, and makes it easy for specifiers to say yes.
Frequently Asked Questions
How long are EPDs typically valid for and how does that affect renewals across integrated systems?
Most programs use a five year validity period, so bundling renewals for related wall, glazing, and door EPDs prevents version mismatches and duplicate work (EPD International GPI, 2024).
Can a single kit-of-parts EPD replace separate component EPDs for walls, partitions, and doors?
Yes, if the kit represents a typical sold configuration and the PCR allows it. Some buyers still request component EPDs for apples-to-apples comparisons, so documenting the mapping between kit and components is essential.
What should be included in A5 for interior systems?
Installation consumables, anchors, sealants, on-site cutting losses, and packaging waste. These differ between solid panels, glazed lites, and door frames, so list them explicitly for each component.
About the Author
Walker Ryan is a climate-tech entrepreneur focused on driving industrial decarbonization through better data. As the founder and CEO of Parq, he helps manufacturers generate high-quality, third-party–verified carbon disclosures at scale—accelerating a traditionally slow and expensive process. Before starting Parq, Walker led over $200 million in sustainability-focused investments as VP of Strategy & Growth at ReStream Solutions, following earlier experience in investment banking at Deutsche Bank. He brings a rare mix of capital markets expertise and hands-on sustainability knowledge to tackling the infrastructure of industrial emissions.
