George R. Thompson, Ph.D.Chemical Compliance Systems, Inc.

Lake Hopatcong, NJ

Mr. Raymond PaulsonFleet Readiness Center Southwest North Island

San Diego, CA

“Green” Comparisons

for Functionally Equivalent Products in

Federal Supply Catalogs

12TH Annual Green Chemistry & Engineering Conference

Washington, DCJune 23-27, 2008

Federal Government Terminology Transition“Environmentally Preferable” to “Green” to “Sustainable”

“ ‘Environmentally preferable’ means products or services that have a lesser or reduced effect on

human health and the environment when compared with competing products or services that serve

the same purpose.”

1993 Executive Order 12873

“ seven (7) general guiding principles designed to... identifying and purchasing EPPs.”

1995 EPA Environmentally PreferableProducts — Proposed Guidelines

EPPs re-defined (as above)“ ‘Biobased’ means a commercial or industrial product (other than food or feed) that utilizes

biological products or renewable domestic agricultural (plant, animal and marine) or

forestry materials.”

1998 Executive Order 13101

Implement environmentalmanagement systems by 12/31/05

2000 Executive Order 13148

Change DLIS-maintained Web site fromEnvironmentally Preferred Purchasing (EPP) to

Green Procurement Program (GPP)

2004 Joint Group on EnvironmentalAttributes — November Meeting Minutes

Framework selected: an environmentalmanagement system

2004 DODGreen Procurement Program (GPP)

“ ‘Sustainable’ means to create and maintain conditions, under which humans and nature can exist

in productive harmony, that permit the social, economic, and other requirements of present and

future generations of Americans”

2007 Executive Order 13423

Executive Order 13423 Partial SummaryChemical Products/Processes

Goals Sustainable Practices

d) acquired goods:i) use sustainable environmental practices

biobasedenvironmentally preferablerecycled-content

e) agencies:i) toxic materials

acquiredused disposed

ii) waste prevention & recycling programs

i) reduced greenhouse gases, energyii) renewable energyiii) water conservationsiv) acquisitionv) pollution & waste prevention, recyclingvi) toxic chemical acquisition & use

“ . . . create and maintain conditions, under which humans and nature can exist in

productive harmony, that permit the social, economic, and other requirements of present

and future generations of Americans”

“Go Environmental” — GSA Criteria

• Bio-Based

• CA Air Quality Compliant

• Comprehensive Procurement Guideline (CPG) Compliant (EPA)

• Energy Star Complaint

• Environmentally Friendly

• EPEAT (Electronic) Environmental Criteria (51)

• Environmental Technology Verification

• Federal Energy Management Program (EMP) Efficient

• Green Seal of Approval

• National Emissions Standards for HAPs Compliant

• Non-Toxic Item

• PRIME Item

• Recycled Content

• Significant New Alternatives Program (S.N.A.P.) Approved (EPA)

DLA Chaired Joint Group on Environmental Attributes

Asbestos Alternative Products

Energy Efficient Products (FEMP)

Low Standby Power Products (FEMP)

Energy Star Products (FEMP)

Low VOC Products (California)

EPA Comprehensive Procurement Guideline (CPG)

Recycled Content Guidelines

EPA Water Conserving Products

EPEAT (Electronic Products)

Washers, Gaskets, Clamps, Insulators

Lighting, Food Equipment, Industrial Equipment,Residential Equipment, Plumbing

Audio/Video, Office, Major Appliances

Equipment, HVAC, Electronics, Office,Lighting, Food

Paints, Solvents, Coatings, Inks

Construction, Landscaping, Office (nonpaper), Paper, Transportation

Plumbing

Environmentally Preferable Products(EPPS)

Environmentally Preferable Products(EPPS)

1.MATERIALS

HAZARD FACTORS

2.HUMAN HEALTH &

ECOLOGICAL STRESSORS

4.NATURAL

RESOURCESUSE

3.POSITIVE

ATTRIBUTES

Human Health HazardsAcute/Chronic Immunologic NeurotoxicCarcinogenic Sensitizer Reproductive Irritant

Ecologic HazardsAquatic—Avian—Terrestrial Species

Product HazardsCorrosivity, Flammability, Reactivity

RecyclabilityReusabilityDurability

Ecosystem ImpactEnergy ConsumptionWater Consumption

Resource ConsumptionNon-renewable

RenewableRapidly Renewable

BioaccumulativeOzone Depleting

Chemical Releases (TRI)Air Releases (VOCs)

Global Warming Gases

EPA-Defined Environmental Performance Characteristicsa

a From: Federal Register, Vol. 60, No. 189, Appendix B1

Lifecycle Stages

5Chemical Security Risk List

Precursor Chemical Security Risk ListTheft & Population Risks

Accessibility Factors

12 Regulations12 Regulations

11 Radioisotopes11 Radioisotopes

10 Bioterrorism Agents10 Bioterrorism Agents

9 Agent Simulants9 Agent Simulants

8 Chemical Agents8 Chemical Agents

7 Munitions – MIDAS7 Munitions – MIDAS

6 Biobased Ratings6 Biobased Ratings

5 Security Factors5 Security Factors

4 Green Criteria4 Green Criteria

3 Commercial Products3 Commercial Products

2 Alternative Chemicals2 Alternative Chemicals

1 Chemicals1 Chemicals

CCSCCSCENTRALIZEDCENTRALIZED

DATABASEDATABASE

CCSCCSCENTRALIZEDCENTRALIZED

DATABASEDATABASE

The CCS Relational Chemical and Product Database (R–CPD)

1 Cross-Reference Dictionary

Chemical Compound DictionaryChemical Alternatives

Toxicology DataHolistic Hazard Ratings

Personal Protective EquipmentSAF-T-LABEL©

Safe Storage CodesSafe Disposal Codes

Alloy ConstituentsEmergency ResponseElemental Composition

IncompatibilitiesPhysical/Chemical Parameters

2 39 Generic Categories, e.g.,

Solvents Reducing AgentsAcids SurfactantsBases BindersOxidizers AlloysAntioxidants Metal Compounds

80 Subcategories

3 Product Descriptions Product Components

MSDS ImagesMSDS Index

Generic CategoriesManufacturersUser Director

ProcessesGreen Ratings

Corrosive RatingsBiobased Ratings

443 Endpoint Criteria

Ecological—Air, Water, SoilHealth—Acute, Chronic

Safety—Fire, Reactivity, SpecialChemical-based

Objective & Quantitative

7 Munitions Characterization—MIDAS

Demil ProcessesConstituent ChemicalsChemicals Released

Green CriteriaInsensitive CriteriaCorrosive CriteriaPackaging Criteria

Transportation/Storage FactorsReliability Factors

Hazardous Waste FormsRegulations

8/9Properties

Toxicology DataHazard Issues

IncompatibilitiesStorage

RecommendationsTICs/TIMs

1020+ Agents

Disease DescriptorsPathogenesisProphylaxis

Emergency ResponseDecontamination

Treatment

11Generic Families

PropertiesEffects & Actions

Storage & SecurityDiagnosis & Treatment

DecontaminationEmergency Response

613 Endpoint Criteria

Biomass ScoreRegulatory ScoreEconomic Score

12>650 Total Regulations

LocalState

FederalInternational

Non-governmentCorporate or Trade Association

Significance of each sub-score can be individually weighted

HEALTHSCORE

(0-100%)

__% A.W.

SAFETYSCORE

(0-100%)

__% A.W.

FINALGREENGRADE

(0 - 100%)

FINALGREENGRADE

(0 - 100%)

ECOLOGICALSCORE

(0-100%)

__% A.W.

“Endpoint” Criteria

LONG-TERM EFFECTS - SOILGroundwater Mobility Factor

CERCLA RQ

TOXICITY-WATERFish LC50

Daphae LC50Green Algae EC50

(Solubility W-LC50) BCF

LONG-TERM EFFECTS - WATEREutrophication

Theoretical Oxygen Demand

LONG-TERM EFFECTS - AIRGlobal Warming PotentialOzone-Depleting Potential

SmogAcidification

GP–CAS “Green” Scoring Process

TOXICITY - AIR(V.P. LC50) BCF

TOXICITY - SOIL(Koc O-LD50) BCF14-day Worm LC50

PersistenceExposureToxicityLong-Term Effects

PersistenceExposureToxicityLong-Term Effects

PersistenceExposureToxicityLong-Term Effects

Oral LD50Dermal LD50IDLHSTEL/CeilingInhalation LC50Skin IrritationEye IrritationOdor Threshold Value

Flammability

RadioactivityOxidizerWater-ReactiveCorrosive

Explosivity

FLAMMABILITYFlash Point

Boiling Point

Reproductive EffectsCarcinogenicityRfCRfDRadioactivitySensitizerNeurotoxicityTLV

Water Score

Air Score

Soil Score

Chronic Health Score

Fire Score

Special Score

Reactivity Score

Acute Health Score

“Green” Product Assessment Parameters

• NSNs = Functionally equivalent products

• 5 NSNs Selected from USN Facility Inventory

– 7917 Sealants [A] 3 Products– 6050 Varnish, Fungus Resistant 3 Products– 2487 Spray Lacquer 9 Products– 4597 Sealants [B] 10 Products– 6890 Spray Adhesive 10 Products

35 Products

• GP–CAS “Green” Scoring Criteria

Summarized “Green” Comparison for Five N.I. NSNs

LOLs Constituents

NSN

Product Type

No. of Products

Green Grades Noteworthy Low Scores Unique Total No. Total %

– 2487 Lacquer 9 75–79

(4)a

Fire 15–46 (9)

Chronic Health61–66 (4)

Eco – Water 62 (1)

8–9 16–63 3–11 84–110

– 6950 FR Varnish

3 79–90

(11)

Fire 18–55 (3)

7–9 12–2 7 3–11 52–173

– 4597 Sealant 10 87–100

(13)

Eco – Soil 79 (1) 1–11 1–26 1–6 2–120

– 7917 Sealant 3 85–99

(14)

Safety 63 (1)b

Fire 55 (1)

React 39 (1)

5–7 5–10 1–4 3–110

– 6860 Spray Adhesive

10 75–99

(24)

Fire 10–37 (6)

8 8–21 2–5 4–100

a Range spread (in %)b Number of products within this NSN

NSN: 8030008237917 (SEALANT)

PRODUCT MSDS GREEN

GRADE

(0–100%)MANUFACTURER NAME # CHEMs TOTAL %

Hernon Manufacturing Anaerobic ID 232 1 3.0 99

National Starch & Chemical Perma-Lok ML 124 4 7.8 98

Loctite Corp. Sealant Grade C 4 110.0 85

GREEN

GRADE

(0–100%) ECOL WATER AIR SOIL HEALTH ACUTE CHRONIC SAFETY FIRE SPECIAL REACT

99 99 98 100 99 99 99 99 98 99 99 97

98 98 97 99 97 99 98 99 97 96 98 96

85 95 91 99 95 96 94 99 63 55 96 39

NSN: 5970008326950 (FUNGUS RESISTANT VARNISH)

PRODUCT MSDS GREEN

GRADE

(0–100%)MANUFACTURER NAME CHEMs TOTAL %

Kop-Coat Inc. MIL-V-173C Varnish 3 52.0 90

Products/Techniques, Inc. PT-107 Clear Varnish 11 173.7 81

Randolph Products Co. Aerosol Clear Gloss MIL-V-173 7 100.0 79

GREEN

GRADE

(0–100%) ECOL WATER AIR SOIL HEALTH ACUTE CHRONIC SAFETY FIRE SPECIAL REACT

90 94 94 96 92 89 94 84 85 56 100 100

81 82 81 86 79 83 87 79 77 31 100 100

79 83 80 88 82 82 86 78 73 18 100 100

NSN: 8010005152487 (SPRAY LACQUER)

PRODUCT MSDS GREEN

GRADE

(0–100%)MANUFACTURER NAME # CHEMs TOTAL %

Pacific Aerosol Lacquer 5 86.0 79

Sherwin Williams 1951 Clear Lacquer Aerosol 7 87.0 79

Sprayon Products 01951 Clear LAC 7 85.0 79

Illinois BP&P Co. Lacquer TT-L-50G 3 84.3 79

LHB Industries Clear (14-100) 6 91.8 77

Borden Inc. Krylon Spray #1303 6 110.0 76

Seymour of Sycamore Inc. Clear 11 90.0 76

LHB Industries Aerosol 14B100 (G/O) Clear Lacquer 8 101.0 75

Borden Inc. Krylon 1303 (Old Form) 5 94.0 75

NSN: 8030007534597 (SEALANT)

PRODUCT MSDS GREEN

GRADE

(0–100%)MANUFACTURER NAME # CHEMs TOTAL %

3M Company Sealant B-1/2 2 2.0 100

Goal Chemical Sealants GC-408 CL-B 3 29.0 99

Products Research & Chemical PR-1440 Part B 2 10.0 98

Products Research & Chemical PE-1422 Class B 3 14.0 96

Advance Chemistry MC-236 Base Type II 5 44.3 94

Morton Thiokol, Inc. Thiokol MC-236 Base 3 65.4 93

Flamemaster Corp. CS 3204 Part B 1 65.0 91

Products Research & Chemical PR-1440 Part A 2 65.0 91

Morton Thiokol, Inc. Thiokol MC-236 6 120.0 87

Morton Thiokol, Inc. MC-236 Accelerator 6 120.0 87

NSN: 8040009386860 (SPRAY ADHESIVE)

PRODUCT MSDS GREEN

GRADE

(0–100%)MANUFACTURER NAME # CHEMs TOTAL %

3M Company Spray Adhesive 77 4 4.0 99

Camie-Camp[bell Inc. General Purpose Adhesive Spray 5 43.0 90

National Aerosol Products MMM-1058A Adhesive 2 77.0 84

Contact Industries Multipurpose Spray-On Adhesive 2 55.0 84

Plasti-Kote Multipurpose Spray-On Adhesive MMM-A-1058A

4 58.0 83

LHB Industries MMM-A-1058A Rubber Adhesive 4 77.5 81

LHB Industries So-Sure Rubber Adhesive #532D800 5 83.8 80

LHB Industries MMM-A-1058 Rubber Adhesive 4 90.0 78

Camie-Campbell Inc. L-6261 GSA Adhesive 5 90.0 78

3M Company 3M Super 77 Spray Adhesive 5 100.0 75

Conclusions

• Only 1/5 Functionally Equivalent NSNs Was Equally “Green” – Spray Lacquer

• Differences in Product “Green Grades” Within an NSN Ranged From 4–24%

• Inverse Proportionality Between “Green” Grades and MSDS Total % Constituents

• GP–CAS Quantitatively Grades Individual Product Greenness

• GP–CAS Effectively Compares Product Greenness for Functionally Equivalent NSNs

• GP–CAS readily: Differentiates”Green” Disparities Within NSNs Identifies Unique & Total Regulatory Impacts Tallies the # and % MSDS Constituents

Dr. George Thompson973-663-2148

georgethompson@chemply.com

Chemical Compliance Systems, Inc.706 Route 15 South, Suite 207• Lake Hopatcong, NJ 07849

www.chemply.com

For a remote demonstration of GP–CAS,or more information, contact . . .

“Green” Comparisons for Functionally Equivalent Products in Federal Supply Catalogs