Steri-Flor UV

Declaration details

Manufacturer

Dudick Inc.

Program operator

Smart EPD

Declaration number

SmartEPD-2024-015-0091-01

Date of issue

March 27, 2024

Valid until

March 27, 2029

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

Facility Specific

Manufacturing plant

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

Product category

Finishes › Flooring › OtherFlooring

Product SKU

F1560000915D, F1560000A05D, F1560910B05D

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

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

Polyoxypropylene-2, 10-diamine (CAS 9046-10-0)

para-nonylphenol (CAS 84852-15-3)

Benzyl alcohol (CAS 100-51-6)

2-Methyl 1,5 Pentane diamine (CAS 4974879)

4-tert-Butylphenol (CAS 98-54-4)

1,3 Cyclohexanedimethanamine (CAS 2579-20-6)

1,3-Bis(aminomethyl)benzene (CAS 1477-55-0)

Scenarios

Transport to the building site (A4)

Fuel type

Diesel

Vehicle type

Truck and Trailer

Transport distance

992 km

Capacity utilization

33%

Weight of products transported

1.388 kg

Packaging mass

0.099 kg

End of life (C1-C4)

Collected separately

0.028 kg

Collected with mixed construction waste

1.36 kg

Landfill

1.36 kg

Incineration

0.028 kg

Product or material for final disposal

1.388 kg

Product description

Dudick's Steri-Flor UV is a multi-functional epoxy floor coating with increased UV stability compared to conventional epoxies. It provides good resistance to common chemicals and daily traffic and may be used as a base/color coat, receiving coat, or grout coat for decorative broadcast floors.

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 replacement module of the use stage (B4), has the highest impact across all impact categories followed by the production stage, specifically module A1. Use stage accounts for approximately 60% to 90% of the total impact in all the impact categories depending on the design life. 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 production stage (A1-A3) contributes to around 10% to 25% of the total emissions in all the impact categories, where the major impact is from raw material extraction and processing of secondary input materials stage (A1).

The construction stage (A4-A5), includes the transportation of the product from manufacturing to the customer. They account for less than 3% of the total emissions in almost all the impact categories. 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. Product maintenance provides marginal contribution to the overall impact categories. As mentioned above, the replacement module (B4) is the primary impact driver for all the products.

In end-of-life phase (C2-C4), disposal contributes the highest to eutrophication and global warming with biogenic carbon. 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.