Protecto-Coat EPG

Declaration details

Manufacturer

Dudick Inc.

Program operator

Smart EPD

Declaration number

SmartEPD-2023-011-0032-01

Date of issue

December 23, 2023

Valid until

December 23, 2028

Product category rules (PCR)

PCR for Resinous Floor Coatings (version 1e)

Standard

ISO 14025:2006 and ISO 21930:2017

Functional unit

1 m2 of covered and protected flooring surface for a period of 60 years of product

System boundary

Cradle to grave (A1 - A3, A4, A5, B1 - B7, C1 - C4)

Product specificity

Product Specific

Manufacturing specificity

Manufacturer Average, Facility Specific

Manufacturing plant

Dudick - Streetsboro, OH (1818 Miller Parkway, Streetsboro, OH, USA)

Product category

Finishes › Flooring › Other Flooring

Product SKU

136D0725905D, 136D0766901D, 136D0766905D, 136D6562905D, 136DF748905D

Product service life

60 years

Verifier

Anna Lasso, Smart EPD

LCA software

SimaPro 9.5

Program instructions

Smart EPD General Program Instructions v.1.0, November 2022

Life cycle assessment results

Results per 1 m2 of covered and protected flooring surface for a period of 60 years of product.

Environmental Impact Assessment Results

Resource Use Indicators

Waste and Output Flow Indicators

Carbon Emissions and Removals

ND = not declared. Life cycle modules: A1-A3 product stage, A4-A5 construction process, B use stage, C end of life, D benefits and loads beyond the system boundary.

Material composition

Hazardous substances

Triethylenetetramine (CAS 112-24-3)

4,4-Isopropylidenediphenol-Epichlorohydrin Copolymer (CAS 25068-38-6)

4-Methyl-2-pentanone (CAS -654239)

1-methoxy-2-propanol (CAS 107-98-2)

Xylene - Mixed isomers (CAS 1330-20-7)

Toluene (CAS 108-88-3)

Scenarios

Transport to the building site (A4)

Fuel type

Diesel

Vehicle type

Truck and Trailer

Transport distance

1952 km

Capacity utilization

33%

Weight of products transported

8.943 kg

Packaging mass

1.076 kg

End of life (C1-C4)

Collected separately

8.943 kg

Landfill

8.943 kg

Incineration

0.179 kg

Product or material for final disposal

8.943 kg

Product description

Dudick’s Protecto-Coat EPG is an amine-cured, epoxy phenolic, glass flake filled coating designed for use in highly corrosive environments where abrasion and chemical resistance is required. Protecto-Coat EPG also exhibits excellent heat resistance. The unique hybrid binder in Protecto-Coat EPG provides high film integrity, and excellent chemical resistance required for prolonged substrate protection.

Interpretation

Data was collected for 12 month periods spanning calendar years 2022 and 2023 to ensure the representativeness of business activities and post-consumer materials. Manufacturing data represents Dudick’s production facility in Streetsboro, Ohio. Secondary data was obtained from ecoinvent v3.9.1, representing the most recent years available. The overall quality of the data used is considered representative of the product systems.

The system boundary is cradle to grave, excluding: construction of major capital equipment; research and development activities; point of sale infrastructure; coating applicator and its maintenance and operation; human labor and employee transport; raw material, forming, and disposal impacts from secondary/tertiary packaging; disposal of packaging materials not associated with final product; impacts associated with tool (mop) required for maintenance cleaning; building operational energy and water use; deconstruction and demolition.

Overall, the production and construction stages (modules A1-A5) combined with the replacement module of the use stage (B4), have the highest impact across all impact categories, followed by the end-of-life stage (C1-C4). Note that the B4 module includes the A1-A5 modules for each recoat required for the product’s lifetime. The upstream raw material phase (A1) is the primary contributor to all impact categories. This is largely due to the number of different raw material processes required to produce the product.

The construction phase (A4-A5), includes the transportation of the product from manufacturing to the customer. The highest impact categories in this phase include ecotoxicity, fossil fuel depletion, and global warming. The transportation miles from the point of sale to the application site (A4) account for low impacts across all impact categories. Installation (A5) is the primary driver in this stage for environmental impacts due to disposal of product packaging waste.

The use phase includes maintenance cleaning and recoats of the product. The maintenance of the product provides marginal contribution to the overall impact categories. As mentioned above, the replacement module (B4) is the primary impact driver for all the products.

The end-of-life phase (C1-C4) is the second most impactful lifecycle stage. Disposal contributes the highest to eutrophication, ecotoxicity, and non-carcinogens. Acidification and ozone depletion have the lowest impacts in this phase. Transportation to the disposal point phase (C2) has a relatively small contribution to all product life cycle impacts.

Limitations are as follows:

• The study is only applicable to the defined scenarios.

• Environmental declarations from different programs may not be comparable (ISO 14025:2006). Even when the same PCR is followed, different LCA software and background LCI datasets may lead to different results for upstream or downstream of the life cycle stages declared.

• With the current availability of data, it is nearly impossible to follow the entire supply chain associated with the product in a company-specific way. Many of the processes within the supply chains are modeled using average industry data with varying amounts of specificity (e.g., data on a more-or-less specific technology or region). This makes it difficult to accurately determine how well the unit process data represents the actual factors in the products’ life cycle.

• Primary data was modeled based on information provided by Carboline, supplemented by data from technical and safety data sheets. Proxy materials were used when suitable secondary data sets were not available.

• Material input and transportation distances are presented as averages and may not account for variations in material efficiency and supplier locations.

• While generic data sets used for material inputs, transport, and waste processing are of good quality, actual impacts from material suppliers, transport carriers, and local waste processing may differ.

• Datasets used in some instances were older than 10 years, but were judged best representation available.

• The impact assessment methodology categories do not encompass all potential environmental impact categories.

• Characterization factors used within the impact assessment methodology may entail varying levels of uncertainty.

• LCA results are expressed relatively and should not be interpreted as predicting impacts on specific environmental categories, exceeding thresholds, safety margins, or risks.

The overall data quality assessment score is judged to be "good". This judgement includes an assessment of "good" for the modeling of technology (primary drivers of model emissions are modeled using the same or similar but different technology), "fair" for time representation (dominant emissions sources are primarily within 10 years of age), and "good" for geography, completeness, and reliability, which are based on comprehensive primary data collection.