New Century Technology................
                              High Biobased Content................





       Utilithane® Polyurethanes
       Advanced Biobased Polyurethanes Coatings & Products


 

NIST-BEES-Analysis

The FB4P [Federal Biobased Products Preferred Procurement Program] requires that the National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST]-OAE-BEES Model-“Life Cycle Analysis” be completed prior to becoming a designated Biobased Product in FB4P.

The BEES Model “Life Cycle Analysis” was completed in the Summer of 2004 for the Utilithane® Polyurethane. Recognizing the Utilithane® Polyurethane has many different applications and uses, five [5] studies were completed for the Utilithane® Polyurethane for a variety of product applications.

A description of the BEES Model “Life Cycle Analysis” is below. Links to the program are at the bottom of the page

 

BEES for USDA

Federal purchasers are increasingly asked to address the issues of environmental preferability and long-term cost performance. Is a product automatically environmentally preferable if it has recycled content? Do mainstream products marketed and perceived as "environmentally friendly" perform better than emerging biobased products? Do environmentally preferable products always cost more? The BEES software tool says, "not necessarily." The 2002 Farm Bill mandated the creation of a program awarding Federal purchasing preference to biobased products. To address the questions of environmental and cost performance, candidate biobased products will be evaluated by the BEES (Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability) tool, and performance results shared with Federal purchasers. While the BEES tool has been primarily used to evaluate building products to date, its evaluation methods are applicable to any product, used for any purpose. Indeed, its database has recently been updated to include performance data for the production of eight major inputs to biobased products: soybeans, corn, wheat, rice, cotton, canola, potatoes, and wool. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce that works with U.S. industry to develop and apply technology, measurements, and standards, began developing the BEES decision-making tool in 1994. With over 9,000 users worldwide, BEES has become the most popular tool of its kind in the world. Its power lies in providing understandable, science-based information often lacking from "green" marketing claims. BEES development has been supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. EPA Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program, and NIST.

BEES measures the environmental performance of products by using the internationally-standardized and science-based life-cycle assessment approach specified in ISO 14000 standards. All stages in the life of a product are analyzed: raw material acquisition, manufacture, transportation, installation, use, and recycling and waste management. Economic performance is measured using the ASTM standard life-cycle cost method, which covers the costs of initial investment, replacement, operation, maintenance and repair, and disposal. The figure below shows the impacts evaluated over time for each performance measure. It is important to distinguish between the time periods used to measure environmental performance and economic performance; these periods begin at different times. The time period over which environmental performance is measured begins with raw material acquisition, whereas economic performance is evaluated over a period that does not begin until purchase and installation of the product.

Due to its comprehensive, multi-dimensional scope, BEES can account for shifts of environmental and economic burdens from one life-cycle stage to another, or one environmental medium (land, air, or water) to another. The tool highlights the tradeoffs that must be made to genuinely reduce overall environmental and economic impacts. For example, environmental claims based on recycled content alone do not account for the fact that one impact may have been improved at the expense of others. And a short-lived, low first-cost product is often not the cost-effective alternative. A higher first cost may be justified many times over for a durable, maintenance-free product. In sum, the answers lie in the tradeoffs.

Links:

image
image
image