1

A Cleaner WorldGreen Cleaning Conference Call

October 9, 2001

Center for a New American Dreamwww.newdream.org/procure

610 373-7703

2

Participants

•Scot Case, Center for a New American Dream

•Tom Barron, Civil Engineer/Consultant

•Mark Petruzzi, Green Seal

•Doug Kievit-Kylar, Vermont

•Judy Jamieson, Vermont

•Brian Johnson, Santa Monica, California

3

JanitorialMaintenanceChemicals

Center for New American Dream Conference Call• 9 October 2001

Thomas Barron, Civil Engineer<tsbarron@attglobal.net>

(925) 283-8121

4

Introduction

• Safety or The Environment?

• High Risk Chemical Products

• Injuries That Occur

• How Safe Are Your Chemicals?

• Alternative Products

• Where to find more info

5

Safety or The EnvironmentWhich Should You Emphasize?

“Personal Safety” = An Immediate Issue

“Protect The Environment” = Abstract Idea

Safer Chemical = Less Environmental Impact

Therefore Emphasize Safety

6

High Risk Chemicals

Janitorial• Dust Mop Spray• Toilet Bowl Cleaner• Floor Finish Restorer• Glass Cleaner• Metal Polish

Maintenance• Graffiti Remover• Spray Lubricants• HVAC Coil Cleaner• Drain Opener• Electrical Cleaners

Plus Many More

7

Injuries That OccurInjuries Per Year (per 100 Janitors)

– Workers’ Comp. Claims 2 per 100

– unreported 4 per 100

Average Cost Per Claimed Injury– Lost Time $350– Medical $375

$725

Source: Washington State • Dept. of Labor & Industry

8

Specific Product RisksDust Mop Spray Central Nervous System

[Petroleum Distillates - Light Naphtha]

Toilet Bowl Cleaner Burns / Blindness[Hydrochloric or Phosphoric Acid]

Floor Finish Reproductive Toxin[Glycol Ether - Ethylene Glycol Methyl Ether]

Glass Cleaner Skin Absorbing Poison[Glycol Ether - Ethylene Glycol Butyl Ether]

Metal Polish Carcinogenic / CNS[Perchloroethylene, Toluene, or Hexane]

9

Ethylene Glycol Butyl Ether

• 2-Butoxyethanol; EGBE

• CAS # 111-76-2

• Absorbs Through Skin

• Poisons Blood, Liver, & Kidneys

• Safe 8-hour Exposure = 20 mg/l

Typical Cleaner = 30,000+ mg/l

Unsafe After 20 Second Skin Exposure

10

How Can You Reduce Risk?

Key Concept:

Risk = Hazard x Exposure

Reduce Hazard or Exposure or Both– Change To Milder Product– Wear Gloves & Goggles– Reduce Overall Chemical Use

11

How Safe Are Your Products?

• Check Material Safety Data Sheets

• Read The Labels

• Ask Supplier or Distributor– Sales Representative– Customer Service– Chemists & Other Technical Staff

• Hire Product Review Services

12

Example Criteria

Health & Safety• Non-Carcinogenic

• No Reproductive Harm

• Non-Corrosive

• Non-Flammable• Does Not Absorb

Thru Skin

Environmental• No Ozone Impacts

• No Smog Precursors

• No Endocrine Modifiers

• Readily Biodegradable

• Recycled Packaging

Some Criteria Are Very Hard To Evaluate

13

Finding Safer Products

Three Alternatives

1 Follow The Pioneers

2 Buy Certified Low-Risk Products

3 Evaluate Products Risks Yourself

Reminder:

Always Test Product Effectiveness

14

Follow The Pioneers

• Here In California– City of Santa Monica

– City of San Francisco

– State Dept. of General Services

• Other Locations– Washington

– Minnesota

– Massachusetts

– Federal Government

15

Rely on Ratings By Others

• Green Seal

• Washington Toxics Coalition

• Janitorial Chemicals P2 Project

16

Rate Products Yourself

• Establish Your Criteria

• Ask Vendors For Detailed Information[Use A Questionnaire]

• Review & Compare Products

• Takes A Lot Of Time & Effort

17

More Info

US EPA Region 9http://www.westp2net.org/janitorial/jp4.htm

•••••••••••••••••••••••Building Service Contractors Assoc. InternationalPacific Assoc. of Building Service ContractorsJanitorial & Building Maint. Trade Press

•••••••••••••••••••••••Chemical Hazard Datahttp://www.chemfinder.com

18

Environmental Standards can make your life easier and

greener.The how and why.

Center for New American DreamConference Call• October 9, 2001

Mark T. PetruzziGreen Seal202-872-6400 ext 23202-872-4324 faxmpetruzzi@greenseal.org

19

Why do we need Environmental Standards?

• Define what is environmentally responsible• Lifecycle approach to purchasing• Avoid debate over single attributes and competing

claims (e.g., recycled content OR energy efficiency)• Insulation from complaints • Help meet EPP mandates• Make it easier to purchase green products that

work• Using private sector standards is required by law

and regulation (PL 104-113, OMB A-119, OMB A-76, OFPP 92-4)

20

Recommendation: Use the wheel that’s already been

invented• “The Department of the Interior is adopting Green

Seal Standard No. GS-37 [Environmental Standard for General-Purpose, Bathroom, and Glass Cleaners] for janitorial chemicals used at its offices and parks.”“DOI recommends following Green Seal standards, which are the best known and most widely accepted guidelines available. Green cleaning is still a relatively new concept, and managers who follow Green Seal standards will be on the cutting edge of green cleaning...”

• Also being used by Pennsylvania, Aberdeen Proving Ground (U.S. Army)

21

Examples of Environmental Standards for Cleaning Products

• National– Green Seal (GS-37 I&I Cleaners, GS-34 Degreasers)

• State– Vermont, Oregon, Massachusetts

• Local– Santa Monica, CA, King County, WA, Kansas City, MO

Potential environmental and economic benefits are diffused:- too many different requirements- “weak” standards drive out strong- manufacturers get confused and ignore

22

Green Seal Environmental Standards

• Lifecycle approach• Broad input from stakeholders & public• Currently consensus (ISO, OMB, ANSI

def’ns)• Performance criteria• Standard test methods• Totally transparent• Meet EPA criteria, ISO 14020 & 14024,

Global Ecolabelling Network criteria

23

How Green Seal Sets Environmental Standards

• Appoint Stakeholder Committee (includes Manufacturers, Trade Groups, Users, Government, Environmentalists, Others)

• Study category• Environmental Evaluation• Draft standard• Public review• Response document• Stakeholder ballots• Publish standard

24

Stakeholder Committee for Industrial and Institutional

CleanersManufacturers• Seventh Generation• 3M• Spartan Chemical• Clean Environment Co.• Church & DwightUsers• US Postal Service• Aberdeen Proving Ground• Int’l Exec Housekeepers Assn• American Federation of

State, County, & Munic. Employees

Government• GSA• City of Santa Monica

• MN Ofc Of Env Assist.• MA Exec Ofc of Env Affairs• US EPAOthers• UMass Toxics Use Reduction

Institute• John Paul KuszEnvironmentalists• INFORM• Global Toxics Campaign,

WWF• Washington Toxics Coalition• Environmental Health

Coalition

25

Criteria for Industrial & Institutional General-Purpose, Bathroom, &

Glass Cleaners in GS-37

• Performance Tests• Human Toxicity• Carcinogens &

Reproductive Toxins• Skin & Eye Irritation• Skin Sensitization• Combustibility• Smog Production/IAQ

(VOCs)

• Aquatic toxicity• Aquatic

biodegradability• Eutrophication• Packaging• Concentrates• Fragrances• Prohibited ingredients• Training• Animal Testing

26

Benefits of using Green Seal Environmental Standards

• Best available science• Lifecycle approach• Consensus, transparent, public review• National, not local• Competitive purchasing climate• Save resources• Third party authority, insulation• Meet mandates• Make it easier

27

Environmentally Preferable Purchasing in

VermontCustodial Cleaning Chemicals

Center for A New American Dream Conference Call

Tuesday, October 9, 2001

Doug Kievit-Kylar, Pollution Prevention PlannerJudy Jamieson, State Purchasing Agent

28

Custodial EPP in Vermont

• On Earth Day, April 22, 1994, Vermont Governor Howard Dean issued an Executive Order establishing a Clean State Program for state government.

• Among the initiatives established was one that identified existing cleaning supplies required for State custodial purposes -- and served to identify, and contract with vendors to supply the State of Vermont, with environmentally preferable alternatives.

“You must become the change you wish to see in the world.” Mahatma Gandhi

29

Who Was Invited to the Table?

• Invited to participate was:– Department of State Buildings

– Agency of Transportation

– Purchasing & Contract Administration Div.

– Department of Travel & Tourism

– Military Department & VT Veteran’s Home

– Department of Health (State Toxicologist)

– Department of Forests, Parks & Recreation

– Department of Environmental Conservation

30

Why Environmentally Preferable Custodial Cleaning Chemicals?

• Minimize workplace exposures to hazardous cleaning chemicals while maintaining or surpassing custodial performance standards

• Utilize the strategies of hazardous waste reduction and toxics use reduction to minimize negative environmental consequences of the State’s cleaning operations

• Develop custodial product procurement criteria for State purchasing agents

31

Three Very Basic Criteria

• Environmental Health & Human Health and Safety Considerations

• Cost Considerations

• Product Efficacy Considerations

“To safeguard the health of custodial workers, building occupants, and the environment…”

32

Why Go It On Our Own?

• EPP Standards for the broad array of cleaning supplies used by State Government were largely unavailable (or unidentified) at the time

• Human “spark plugs” and Team ready and willing to accept the task

33

Environmental Screening Tool

• Pass/Fail Criteria– Probable carcinogens, mutagens, etc.

– Ozone Depleting Chemicals (ODCs)

– EPA’s list of priority pollutants, TRI, etc.

• Environmental & Human Health Criteria– Biodegradability

– Likelihood of Exposure (high volatility or vapor pressure)

– Corporate Environmental Responsiveness

34

Green Seal Certification

• Custodial Cleaning Chemicals already having Green Seal Certification were assumed to already have passed the Pass/Fail Criteria and nearly all of the remaining Environmental & Human Health Criteria.

35

Product Review & Selection

• Vendors (not formulators) submitted MSDS and completed scoring sheet for each cleaning chemical

• State toxicologist and VT ANR reviewed• Acceptable products field tested• Environmental, Cost, and Efficacy findings

evaluated together to select products and vendors• Custodial training by vendors

36

Exclusive Availability

• EPP Custodial Cleaning Chemicals do not have to compete with other Cleaning Chemicals in State catalog

• The ONLY Custodial Cleaning Chemicals available on State contract are those contracted for as environmentally preferable

37

A Few Lessons Learned

• “Trade Secrets” allowed for less than full disclosure

• Technical screening stressed available expertise

• Field Testing Survey Tool didn’t ask enough of the important questions

38

Round IIYear 2000 and Beyond

• Resources/Buy-In– Multi-Agency Group– Diverse Job Focus– Management Support– Previous Experience– Pertinent Expertise– End-Users (maintenance, custodians, etc.)

39

Round IIYear 2000 and Beyond

• Brainstorming Goals– Environmental, Health & Safety Criteria– Effectiveness at Cleaning– Cost Considerations– Other

• Dispensing Systems

• Service Training

• Responsiveness

40

Round IIYear 2000 and Beyond

• Focus Groups– Health & Environment

• Redefined Criteria

• Designed Scoring/Screening Tool

– Product Effectiveness• Redesigned Evaluation Form

• Field Testing

41

Round IIYear 2000 and Beyond

• New, more sophisticated screening tool; the Manufacturer’s Product Assessment Tool (MPAT)– Critical Product Exclusion Criteria

• No Persistent Bioaccumulative & Toxic Chemicals• No Carcinogens, Mutagens and Teratogens• No Ozone-Depleting Compounds (ODCs)• Low Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)• No Hazardous Waste Characteristics• No Phosphate or Phosphonates• No Combination Cleaner-Disinfectants

42

Vendor Submittals

• MPAT completed by product formulators• MSDS submitted -- with ALL active and

inert ingredients accounted for• Submittals Reviewed by Risk Management

Division and ANR• Field Testing with new custodial-designed,

4-page evaluation form completed for each product/site; including new School partners

43

Outcomes of Round II

• Two vendors selected (+ one product)

• One vendor worked with product formulator to reformulate product to meet Vermont criteria in MPAT

• Training on proper use conducted

• Schools urged to take advantage of EPP research and contract prices

44

A Few Lessons Learned

• Consider limiting scope of product types

• Use available standards or criteria

• To justify decisions, establish defensible standards or criteria

• Plan for on-going administration of contracts -- and incorporate new solutions and products

45

For Additional Information

• Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Report: Practicing Toxic Use Reduction in the Selection Of Custodial Cleaning Supplies: http://www.bgs.state.vt.us/pca/new.htm

• U.S. EPA’s EPP Website http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/epp/

46

For Additional Resources

• Both the Manufacturer’s Product Assessment Tool (MPAT) and the Environmentally Preferable Custodial Product Evaluation Form used in Field Testing are available upon request by contacting:– Doug Kievit-Kylar at (802) 241-3628

dougk@dec.anr.state.vt.us

– Judy Jamieson at (802) 828-2217 judith.jamieson@state.vt.us

47

Additional Contacts

Scot CaseDirector of Procurement StrategiesCenter for a New American Dream505 Penn Street, Suite 306Reading, PA 19601610 373-7703scot@newdream.org

Brian JohnsonCity of Santa Monica200 Santa Monica Pier, Suite JSanta Monica, CA 90401310 458-8228brian-johnson@santa-monica.org