Thermo-Pine Decking

Nordic pine taken to durability class 2 by heat and steam alone — the softwood deck that behaves, cupping and twisting far less than untreated pine because the modification has driven out most of the moisture the wood would otherwise take back up. Rich golden-brown when laid, silver-grey within a couple of years if left alone. The shortest-lived of Thermory’s three, and the least expensive.

Manufacturer page
Thermory Thermo-Pine Decking

Carbon and evidence

Product Evidence

Evidence currently held for the Thermory product record.

Thermory

Recorded Carbon Result

-588kgCO₂e/m³

A1–A3 GWP-total per m³ of board, per the EPD's own impact table. Negative because 736 kgCO2e of biogenic carbon is held in the timber. That store is not permanent: the same EPD declares C3 = +740 kgCO2e when the boards are processed at end of life, so cradle-to-grave is close to neutral rather than strongly negative.

Indicator: GWP-total

A1–A3 covers raw-material supply, transport to manufacture and manufacturing. It is product-stage information, not a whole-life result.

Environmental Product Declaration

EPD recorded
Coverage
Specific product
Declared unit
1 m³ 432 kg
Programme
EPD Hub
Registration
HUB-4211
Standard
EN 15804:2012+A2:2019/AC:2021
Valid until
2030-10-27
Verification
Third-party verified

Single product, no factory grouping. 56.9% of A1–A3 is manufacturer-specific data. Covers Thermory’s thermally modified pine boards, which serve both decking and cladding.

Read the EPDSource: PDF impact table, "GWP – total" row: A1 ‐8,74E+02, A2 3,16E+01, A3 2,54E+02, A1-A3 ‐5,88E+02, A4 6,73E+01, A5 2,32E+00, C1 1,71E‐01, C2 2,33E+00, C3 7,40E+02, C4 0,00E+00, D ‐8,37E+02.

Carbon profile

kgCO2e per 1 m³ of board · each bar starts at zero · local scale

A1-A3 product

-588

A4-A5 site*

69.6

B use

not declared

C end of life

743

D reuse / recycling

-837

Stores more carbon than making it emits — and the stored carbon largely leaves again at end of life.

adds carbon stores or removes EPD scenario* reuse/recycling potential (D)
* EPD transport and installation scenario, not this project's. Not declared: use. Module D shows potential impacts or benefits from reuse, recovery or recycling after the product's assessed life. It is reported separately and never added to A-C. Do not compare bar lengths between materials. Each chart may use a different scale and declared unit.

Reported GWP Modules

Displayed as stored; modules are not added together here.

A1–A3

-588 kgCO₂e

per 1 m³ of board

A4*

67.3 kgCO₂e

per 1 m³ of board

A5*

2.32 kgCO₂e

per 1 m³ of board

C1

0.171 kgCO₂e

per 1 m³ of board

C2

2.33 kgCO₂e

per 1 m³ of board

C3

740 kgCO₂e

per 1 m³ of board

C4

0 kgCO₂e

per 1 m³ of board

D

-837 kgCO₂e

per 1 m³ of board

* A4/A5 are EPD scenarios, not project-specific results. Module D is outside the A–C system boundary and is not added to A–C. Module nomenclature follows BS EN 15978 / EN 15804. Declared values are suitable as inputs to a whole life carbon assessment under the RICS Professional Standard (2nd edition); this panel is not an assessment.

Upfront Carbon (A1–A5)*

-518 kgCO₂e per 1 m³ of board

A1–A3 -588 + A4 67.3 + A5 2.32 · GWP-total, as declared

* Includes the EPD’s A4/A5 scenario assumptions, not project-specific transport or installation. This is the aggregation the proposed Part Z applies upfront limits to. The A1–A3 figure includes declared biogenic storage of -736 kgCO₂e; Part Z aggregates upfront carbon excluding sequestered carbon, which is the assessor's adjustment to make.

Sourced Product Claims

  • Stores 736 kgCO2e/m³ biogenic carbon, releases 740 at end of lifeThird-party verifiedSource
  • Third-party verified EPD, valid to 2030-10-27Third-party verifiedSource
  • PEFC chain of custodyThird-party verifiedSource

2 claims are held in the staging record but not presented as product evidence because an exact public source has not yet been mapped.

Comparison Status

This result should be displayed for information only and not ranked against another product.

  • • The carbon result is not linked to an evidence source.
  • • The EPD is not linked to an evidence source.

Evidence Gaps

  • 2 sustainability claims are withheld because exact public evidence is not mapped.

Design & Specification Notes

Qualitative notes for early design discussion. Not product-specific EPD evidence, and not a basis for numerical comparison.

Nordic pine taken to durability class 2 by heat and steam alone — the softwood deck that behaves, cupping and twisting far less than untreated pine because the modification has driven out most of the moisture the wood would otherwise take back up.

Typical Uses

  • Paths & paving
  • Public realm surfaces
  • Permeable groundworks

Key Performance

Durable external surface with slip resistance.

Specification Actions

  • Confirm FSC or PEFC certification for all timber products.
  • Request chain-of-custody documentation from supplier.
  • Confirm the current EPD covers the selected product, finish and manufacturing route.

Indicative Health & Indoor Air

low Risk

Thermal modification uses heat and steam only — no preservatives or biocides are added. Modified timber is more brittle than untreated softwood and the dust is fine; standard cutting-dust precautions apply. Specify stainless fixings — thermally modified timber is more acidic than untreated wood and will stain around plain steel.

Evidence:Third-party verified

Specification

Range
Thermo-pine decking
Collection
Benchmark
Finish
Thermally modified Nordic pine deck board
Country of manufacture
Estonia

Cookies — essential ones keep the site working; optional analytics help us improve it. No advertising cookies.