center for a new american dream 505 penn street, suite 306 ... · pdf filecenter for a new...

Scot CaseDi t f P t St t iDirector of Procurement Strategies

Center for a New American Dream505 Penn Street, Suite 306

Reading PA 19601Reading, PA [email protected]

©2003 by Scot Case, Center for a New American Dream

1

Wh A W ?Who Are We?

The Center for a New American Dream is a non-profit organization helping Americans p g p g

consume responsibly to protect the environment, enhance quality of life and

t i l j tipromote social justice.

www.newdream.org


2www.newdream.org/procure

P t ti O i tiPresentation OrganizationQ i k O i f th N t l St•Quick Overview of the Natural Step

•Purchasing and the Environment•Defining Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP)•Environmental Attributes•Common Product/Service Categories•Successful Environmental Purchasing StrategiesSuccessful Environmental Purchasing Strategies •Developing an Environmental Purchasing Policy•Using Eco-Labels EffectivelyR i i d S i P s ls•Reviewing and Scoring Proposals

•Creating Useful Contract Language•Overcoming Common Challenges


3

•Environmental Purchasing in Action

E i t l P h iEnvironmental Purchasing

Environmentally preferable purchasing means:

Buying less polluting products f l ll i ifrom less polluting companies.


4

N d d f SNeeded for Success

Willingness

Information Opportunity


5

pp y

Quick Overview of Quick Overview of the Natural Stepthe Natural StepJust the Basics to Get Us Started


6

N t l St “F l”Natural Step “Funnel”

Decline in Life Supporting Resources

Margin for Action ?


7Population x Affluence x Technology

S i tifi P i i lScientific Principles

• Matter and energy cannot be destroyed(Law of Conservation)

• Matter and energy tend to spread spontaneously(2nd Law of Thermodynamics)V l f d• Value of matter is in its concentration and structure(Molecular configuration)(Molecular configuration)

• Green cells are essentially the only net producer of concentration and structure


8(Photosynthesis)

S t C ditiSystem ConditionsIn d f s ci t t b sust in bl n tu ’s functi ns ndIn order for a society to be sustainable, nature s functions and diversity are not systematically…

1 subject to increasing concentrations of substances1. … subject to increasing concentrations of substancesextracted from the earth’s crust;

2. … subject to increasing concentrations of substancesj gproduced by society;

3. … impoverished by physical displacement, over-h ti th f m f t m m i l ti ;harvesting or other forms of ecosystem manipulation;

4. resources are used fairly and efficiently to meethuman needs globally


9

human needs globally.

Link Between Purchasing and the

EnvironmentIt’s all connected to purchasing


10

E i t l CEnvironmental ConcernsM ti ti•Mass extinctions

•Deforestation & soil erosionAi & t ll ti•Air & water pollution

•“Super” bacteria, viruses, and insectsDwindling natural resources•Dwindling natural resources

•Cancer rates increasing•Reproductive disorders increasing•Reproductive disorders increasing•Fisheries collapsing •Water tables falling


11

•Water tables falling•Climate Change

E ti tiExtinctions•51% of freshwater animal species are declining in•51% of freshwater animal species are declining in number.

•One in four vertebrate species are in sharp decline or f p pfacing serious pressure from human activities.

•One of every eight known plant species is threatened with extinction or is nearly extinctwith extinction or is nearly extinct.

•One in ten tree species—some 8,750 of the 80,000 to 100,000 tree species known to science—are , pthreatened with extinction.

•The overall rate of extinction is estimated to be 1 000 to 10 000 times higher than it would be


12

1,000 to 10,000 times higher than it would be naturally.

Fi h i D li iFisheries Declining

•Two-thirds of the world’s major fisheries are being fished at or beyond sustainable limits.

•80% of China’s rivers are too polluted to support fish.

•For every pound of shrimp caught 5 2 pounds of•For every pound of shrimp caught, 5.2 pounds of bycatch is discarded.


13

Cli t Ch M d lClimate Change Model


14

T t ChTemperature Change


15

C i th E i tConsuming the Environment

“The major cause of the continued deterioration of the global environment is the unsustainable pattern ofthe global environment is the unsustainable pattern of production and consumption, particularly in industrialized countries.”

– United Nations Agenda 21 Report


16

E C tiEnergy Consumption

•Every gallon of gas burned emits 19 pounds of carbon E y g f g u m 9 p u fdioxide.

•Every day, the worldwide economy burns an amount of energy the planet required 10,000 days to create.


17

R C tiResource Consumption

•One ton of virgin paper requires 98 tons of resources f g p p qu 9 f uto produce.

•A single 1/10 ounce, 14-carat gold ring requires 2.8 tons of ore


18

I t f U S P h iImpact of U.S. Purchasing

The United States contains less than 5 percent of theThe United States contains less than 5 percent of theThe United States contains less than 5 percent of the world’s populationThe United States contains less than 5 percent of the world’s population, but consumes more than 40 percentof the world’s resources.


19

I t f U S P h iImpact of U.S. Purchasing

Americans throw away about 4 pounds of garbage each Americans throw away about 4 pounds of garbage each m w w y u p u f g gday

m w w y u p u f g gday, but use 120 pounds every day in natural resources extracted from farms, forests, range lands, and mines.


20

E l i l F t i tEcological Footprint

•Average U.S. citizen has a footprint of 31 acresacres.

•Average Indian citizen has a footprint of 2 g pacres.

W ld i 7 1•World average is 7.1 acres.

•Available world average is 5 3 acres


21

•Available world average is 5.3 acres.


If everyone lived like the average AmericanIf everyone lived like the average American, we would need at least five more planets.


22


If current material and population growth t d ti d l ti t bili ttrends continue and population stabilizes at 10 billion people in 2040, we will need between eight and twelve additional planetsbetween eight and twelve additional planets.


23

T C f C ff DTwo Cups of Coffee a Day

•34 gallons of coffee a year.•18 pounds of coffee beans•12 pounds of fertilizer•A few ounces of highly toxic pesticides•43 pounds of coffee pulp•Clear cutting of forests to grow even more coffee•Bird species disappearing•More erosionM i id


24

•More pesticides

R b O ThiRemember One Thing

P h si M tt sPurchasing Matters


25

I t t t R bImportant to Remember

“You can’t do business on aYou can t do business on a dead planet.”dead planet.


26

N d d I i tiNeeded Inspiration

“First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then F y g y u. y ug y u.they fight you. Then you win.”

- Gandhi


27

Environmental Environmental Purchasing HistoryPurchasing History

Why Focus on Government Purchasing?


28

G t P h iGovernment Purchasing

•U.S. government purchasing represents 20 percent of the annual Gross National Productpercent of the annual Gross National Product.

•It is very structured.y

•It is a role government has traditionally l dplayed.


29

Si f G t M k tSize of Government Market

•U.S. Federal Government: $285 billion

•State and Local Governments: $400 billion

•Colleges and Universities: $240 billion


30

St t d L l O iState and Local Overview

•State and local governments spend more than $400 billion on goods and services annually.

•Forty-seven U.S. states have some sort of “buy-recycled” policy.y p y

•EPA’s State and Local Government Pioneers case study describes 46 state and local governments going beyonddescribes 46 state and local governments going beyond “buy recycled.”


31

G t S diGovernment SpendingAs Percentage of GDP

Canada 20Mexico 8

Luxembourg 11Netherlands 13

Austria 17Belgium 14 Mexico 8

United States 14

Japan 10K 9

Netherlands 13Norway 19Poland 20Portugal 17S i 16

Belgium 14Czech Republic 17Denmark 25Finland 20F 19 Korea 9

Australia 17New Zealand 15

Spain 16Sweden 24Switzerland 15Turkey 12

France 19Germany 19Greece 14Hungary 11 y

United Kingdom 18g y

Iceland 12Italy 17


32

G t P h i Hi tGovernment Purchasing History

•Clothing sizes during the Civil War

•Small Business Administration

Automobile airbags•Automobile airbags

•Energy-efficient computersgy p

•Recycled-content paper


33

G t P h i Hi tGovernment Purchasing History

•U.S. Federal government purchases 7% of all computers worldwide.p

•Began including Energy Star requirements in mid 1990smid-1990s.

•Currently, 95% of monitors, 80% of ycomputers, and 99% of printers are Energy Star compliant.


34

Q tif i SQuantifying Success

•Minnesota has a list of 97 state contracts for “environmentally responsible products and services.”

•Lee County Florida eliminated hazardous waste production in its fleet•Lee County, Florida, eliminated hazardous waste production in its fleet maintenance facilities and is saving $17,000 annually.

•Cape May, New Jersey, saved $45,000 over five years by adopting p M y, w J y, $ , f y y p gintegrated pest management practices.

•Santa Monica, California, switched to green cleaning products eliminating 3 200 d f h d i l d d i l i fi3,200 pounds of hazardous materials and reducing cleaning costs five percent.

•Phoenix Arizona rated 5 800 chemical products based on their toxicity


35

•Phoenix, Arizona, rated 5,800 chemical products based on their toxicity and potential for environmental harm.

Defining Defining Environmentally y

Preferable Purchasing


36

E i l P h i P li iEnvironmental Purchasing Policies

States: Counties: Cities:States:ConnecticutGeorgiaIllinois

Counties:Chatham County, NCKalamazoo County, WIKing County WA

Cities:Boulder, COCincinatti, OHKansas City MOIllinois

IndianaIowaMassachusetts

King County, WAKitsap County, WAMultnomah County, ORSan Mateo County, CA

Kansas City, MOPortland, ORPhoenix, AZSan Francisco, CAMassachusetts

MissouriMinnesotaNew Jersey

San Mateo County, CASanta Cruz County, CASarasota County, FL

San Francisco, CASanta Monica, CASeattle, WA

yNorth CarolinaOregonPennsylvania

www.newdream.org/procure


37

yVermont

D fi iti C tDefinition Components

•Reduce the environmental impacts of purchasing decisionsdecisions.

•Emphasize multiple environmental attributes.

•Examine entire lifecycle.


38

B ld C l dBoulder, Colorado

“a material or product [that] is durable, repairable, reusable, or recyclable; has a minimum of packaging, , y ; p g g,toxic content, or chemical hazard potential; is resource or energy efficient in any or all phases of its manufacture use and disposal; or in its use or disposalmanufacture, use, and disposal; or in its use or disposal minimizes or eliminates the [c]ity’s potential environmental liability.”

- Environmental Purchasing Directive


39

P l iPennsylvania

“procurement of environmentally friendly commodities p u m f m y f y mmand services [that] avoid the use of toxics, minimize use of virgin materials and energy in their production, have a long useful life and can be recycledhave a long useful life, and can be recycled afterwards.”

- Executive OrderExecutive Order


40

S ttl W hi tSeattle, Washington

“environmental factors to be considered in selecting products include [a] life cycle analysis of:

ll t t l• pollutant releases;• waste generation; • recycled content;recycled content;• energy consumption;• depletion of natural resources; and• potential impact on human health and the

environment.”-- Purchasing Policy


41

Purchasing Policy

RResourcesP ll ti P ti Pollution Prevention

Information Clearinghouse202 566-0799

EPA Publication NumberEPA742-R-00-004

d m /www.newdream.org/procure


42

P i t S t C iPrivate Sector Companies


43

More Private Sector C mp niCompanies


44






45

Federal Government D fi itiDefinition

Environmentally preferable products are “products and services [that] have a lesser or reduced effect on h h lth d th i t h d thuman health and the environment when compared to other products and services that serve the same purpose. This comparison may consider raw materials p p p yacquisition, production, manufacturing, packaging, distribution, reuse, operation, maintenance, or disposal of the product or service ”of the product or service.

- Executive Order 13101, Greening the Government Through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal


46

Acquisition, September 16, 1998

Th “R l” D fi itiThe “Real” Definition




47

E d d D fi itiExpanded Definition


Buying less polluting products d i f land services from less

polluting companiespolluting companies.


48

bl E lSustainable vs. Environmental

Sustainable purchasing means:

Buying less polluting products andBuying less polluting products and services from less polluting

i h l idcompanies that also provide additional societal benefits beyond f ythe jobs, products, and services they already deliver©2003 by Scot Case, Center for a New American Dream

49

they already deliver.

E i t l P h iEnvironmental Purchasing




50

Why EPP?What Are the Incentives?


51

Wh EPP?Why EPP?

•Regulatory requirements

Executive Order mandates•Executive Order mandates

•Policy directivesy

•Cost savings

•Environmental benefits


52

C t S iCost Savings

•Lower compliance costs

L di l•Lower disposal costs

•Lower liability costsLower liability costs

•Lower injury costs

•Higher productivity


53

Ab d P i G dAberdeen Proving Ground

•Paints meeting the standard are on average $1.76 less expensive per gallon.p p g

•Saves $25,000 annually in avoided disposal costs.costs.

•Re-Nu-It facility reduces paint purchases by $10 000 annually$10,000 annually.

•Total savings: $60,000 a year.


54

P i t RPaint Resources

EPA’s Painting the Town Green (EPA742-R-99-005) November 1999

www.epa.gov/oppt/epp/pdfs/paint pdfpaint.pdf

Green Seal

www.greenseal.org


55

P t R tiPentagon Renovation

•Decrease energy consumption 55 to 60 percent.

•Reduce water consumption by 31 million gallons, a 25 percent savings.

D bl th li t•Double the recycling rate.

•Improve indoor air quality.

•Increase worker productivity 6 percent, a $72 million annual savings.


56

P t R tiPentagon Renovation

Find it in the resources section of:



57

Environmental Environmental AttributesAttributes

Defining “Green”


58

E i t l Att ib tEnvironmental Attributes

• Product-specific attributes

• Process-specific attributes

• Manufacturer-specific attributes

• Life cycle perspective


59

P d t S ifi Att ib tProduct-Specific Attributes

•Recycled ContentE d t ffi i

•Renewable resourcesP k i•Energy and water efficiency

•BiobasedL t i it

•Packaging•UpgradeableR ti•Low toxicity

•DurabilityL VOC

•Resource conservation•PBT-freeO h•Low VOC •Others


60

P S ifi Att ib tProcess-Specific Attributes

• Transportation• Use of renewable energy• Absence of hazardous byproducts• Greenhouse gas emissions• Closed-loop manufacturing facility• Others


61

M nuf ctur r Sp cific Attribut sManufacturer-Specific Attributes

• Lack of environmental violations• Credible Environmental Management System• Public environmental/social reporting procedures• Mechanism for engaging stakeholders• Absence of ongoing protests• Others


62

Lif l P tiLifecycle Perspective


63

Lif l A l iLifecycle Analysis

Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES)

http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/software/bees.html


64Note: Also available in resources section of www.newdream.org/procure

BEES R ltBEES Results


65



66



67

O t itiOpportunitiesWh C W B i ?Where Can We Begin?


68

O t itiOpportunitiesB ildi s L d i /P t•Buildings

–New construction–RenovationMaintenance

•Landscaping/Pest Management

•Meetings–Maintenance•Cafeteria Supplies

Cl i P d t

•Meetings

•Office Supplies•Cleaning Products

•Computers•Paint

•Paper•Copiers

•Electricity•Printing

•Vehicle Fleets


69•Furniture

G B ildiGreen Buildings

•Austin, Texas

•King County, Washington

•Minnesota

•Pennsylvaniay

•San Diego, California

•Santa Monica California•Santa Monica, California

•Seattle, Washington

U S F d l G t A i


70

•U.S. Federal Government Agencies

Wh B ildi ?Why Buildings?

•Building construction contracts for new structures, additions, and major alterations totaled $210 billion (1993).

•Buildings use approximately 40% of the energy in the U.S.

d d l % f•Construction and demolition waste eats up 40% of our landfill space.

•Building construction and use consume:Building construction and use consume:40% of the world's raw stone, gravel and sand25% of the virgin wood supply


71

g pp y16% of total water withdrawals

Cl i P d t /S iCleaning Products/Services

•Chatham County, North Carolina

•Indiana

J k C t Mi i

•Pennsylvania

•Richmond, California

S t M i C lif i•Jackson County, Missouri

•Kansas City, Missouri


•Santa Monica, California


•U.S. Department of Interiorg y, g

•Massachusetts

•Minnesota

p

•U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

•U.S. General Services Administration

•Multnomah County, Oregon

•National Park Service

•Vermont

•Washington


72

Wh Cl i P d t ?Why Cleaning Products?

•Institutional cleaning is a $150+ billion industry.

•The industry uses 6 to 8 billion pounds of cleaning d t

y p gproducts.

•Cleaning industry employs 3 million janitors; but due to very high turn-over more are exposedto very high turn over, more are exposed.

•Janitors tend to be minorities.

M st p pl sp nd m r th n 90 p rc nt f th ir•Most people spend more than 90 percent of their time indoors.


73

Cl i P d tCleaning Products•Janitorial workers experience relatively high injury•Janitorial workers experience relatively high injury rates (including 14 deaths annually) due to the toxic chemicals found in traditional cleaning products.

•Traditional cleaning products have been linked with “sick building” syndrome.

•Many traditional cleaning products are known to contain:

Carcinogens Endocrine disruptors•Carcinogens•Asthmagens•Skin and eye irritants

•Endocrine disruptors•High VOC content•Other hazardous materials


74

•Toxic chemicals

C tComputers

•Massachusetts


•Washington State Contracting Alliance


75

Wh C t ?Why Computers?

•Today, 1.5 million computers enter waste streams annuallyB 2004 315 illi b l t t•By 2004, as many as 315 million obsolete computers

could end up in landfills1.2 billion pounds of lead2 illi d f d i2 million pounds of cadmium400,000 pounds of mercury

•In 1998, only 6 percent of discarded computers were , y p f precycled•By 2005, most people will trade in their computers f d l ithi 2 f h


76

for newer models within 2 years of purchase

M tiMeetings

•California

Penns lvania•Pennsylvania

•Texas

•Virginia

•U.S. Environmental Protection Agency


77

Wh M ti ?Why Meetings?

•Travel and tourism is the world’s largest industry.

•More than $280 billion annually is spent on meeting-More than $ 80 b ll on annually s spent on meet ngrelated travel.

•Environmental impacts include activities such as:k i hmarketing the event,

travel to/from eventsLodgingfood servicesfood services

•An average hotel purchases more products in a week than 100 families purchase in an entire year.


78

Wh M ti ?Why Meetings?

•93,000 Federal travelers are traveling on any given business day to 8 000 locations across the country forbusiness day to 8,000 locations across the country for meetings.

This t sl t s i t 24 illi i hts f–This translates into 24 million room nights of hotel space in the US annually.


79

PaperPaper

•Portland, Oregon

h

•San Francisco, California

d•Ohio

•Oakland, California

•Indiana

•Massachusetts

•Vermont

•Minnesota

•U.S. EPA

•Washington


80

Wh P ?Why Paper?•About 42% of the wood harvested for industrial use•About 42% of the wood harvested for industrial use goes to making paper.

•In the U S the pulp and paper industry is the secondIn the U.S., the pulp and paper industry is the second largest consumer of energy and uses more water to produce a ton of product more than any other industryindustry.

•An average office worker uses about 10,000 sheets of copier paper per year!of copier paper per year!

•Office paper is the fastest growing use of paper. The cost of printing, copying, mailing, storing and


81

p g, py g, g, gdisposing can exceed the initial price by as much as 10 times!

P h i C OPurchasing Co-Ops

•Massachusetts

Mi•Texas

•Minnesota

•Missouri•Vermont

•Washington•Ohio

g


82

P i tPaints

•Cincinnati, Ohio

•North Carolina

•Pennsylvania•Pennsylvania

•Vermont

•Washington


83

P t C t lPest Control

•Cape May, New Jersey

•Chatham County North Carolina

•Massachusetts

•Portland OregonChatham County, North Carolina

•Connecticut

K Cit Mi i

•Portland, Oregon


S l W hi•Kansas City, Missouri




84

Successful EPP Successful EPP StrategiesStrategies

How Do We Make It Work?


85

EPP St t iEPP Strategies

•Written Policies

C p r tiv Eff rts

•Approved Product Lists

Ec L b ls•Cooperative Efforts

•Price Preferences

•Eco-Labels

•Incentive Programs

•Lifecycle Costing

•Best Value Purchasing

•Employee Training

•Plagiarize

•Green Teams

•Vendor Outreach

•Pilot Projects


86

P li C t *Policy Components*

•State intent

f ll f bl h•Define environmentally preferable purchasing

•Identify priorities

•Establish measurable goals

•Assign responsibilitiesg p


87*Note: We will cover this in more detail later.

C ti Eff tCooperative Efforts

•Pool resources

•Avoid duplicating efforts

L b i t i•Larger buying power means cost savings


88

P i P f *Price Preference*Express a willingness to pay more for products or•Express a willingness to pay more for products or

services with desired environmental attributes.

•Being used by a number of U S communities including:Being used by a number of U.S. communities, including:•Cincinnati, Ohio – 3% for products it considers environmentally preferable.•Kansas City and Jackson County Missouri – 15% for products theyKansas City and Jackson County, Missouri 15% for products they consider environmentally preferable. •King County, Washington – 10 % for re-refined motor oil; 15% for recycled-content paper.S Di C C lif i 5 % f i ll f bl•San Diego County, California – 5 % for environmentally preferable

products.•Santa Barbara, California – 12% for recycled-content paper.•Vermont – 5% for recycled-content products


89

Vermont 5% for recycled-content products.•Washington – 10% for EPA-designated recycled-content products

Lif l C ti *Lifecycle Costing*

•When comparing costs, examine the total financial cost of the product throughout its useful lifecost of the product throughout its useful life.

•Costs to consider:

•Initial cost

•Operating costs

•Depreciation costs

•Upgrade costs

•Maintenance costs •Disposal costs


90

B t V l *Best Value*

•Assign relative weights to price, performance, and environmental criteriaenvironmental criteria.

•Score all competing products.

•Compare the results.


91

G T M bGreen Team Members

•Senior management supportg pp

•Environmental “expert”

•Purchasing official

•Users


92

V d O t hVendor Outreach

•Alert vendors that environmental impacts are important.p p

•Identify specific areas of concern.

•Conduct vendor surveys.

•Hold vendor fairs.


93

P d t Li tProduct Lists

•Develop list of preferred environmental criteria.

•Identify products meeting the criteria.

P h s d ts f th list•Purchase products from the list.

•Update the list regularly.


94

E L b l *Eco-Labels*

•Green Seal <www.greenseal.org>

•Scientific Certification Systems <www scs1 com>Scientific Certification Systems <www.scs1.com>

•Environmental Choice <www.environmentalchoice.com>

Bl A l bl l d /E li h/i d ht•Blue Angel <www.blauer-engel.de/Englisch/index.htm>

•Lots of others


95

I tiIncentives

•Awards

•Recognition

P f•Performance reviews

•Cost savings•Cost savings


96

T i iTraining

•New employee orientation

•Purchasing training

•Credit card training•Credit card training

•Senior management trainingg g


97

Pl i iPlagiarize

•Center for a New American Dream <www.newdream.org/procure>

•EPP Contracts Database <www.epa.gov/oppt/epp/database.htm>

•EPPNet <www.nerc.org/eppnet.html>

•King County, Washington; Massachusetts; Minnesota; Santa Monica, California


98

Pil t P j tPilot Projects

•Test the productsTest the products

•Test the process•Test the process


99

Developing an Developing an Environmental En r nm nta

Purchasing Policyg y


100

E i l P h i P li iEnvironmental Purchasing Policies

States: Counties: Cities:States:ConnecticutGeorgiaIllinois

Counties:Chatham County, NCKalamazoo County, WIKing County WA

Cities:Boulder, COCincinatti, OHKansas City MOIllinois

IndianaIowaMassachusetts

King County, WAKitsap County, WAMultnomah County, ORSan Mateo County, CA

Kansas City, MOPortland, ORPhoenix, AZSan Francisco, CAMassachusetts

MissouriMinnesotaNew Jersey

San Mateo County, CASanta Cruz County, CASarasota County, FL

San Francisco, CASanta Monica, CASeattle, WA

yNorth CarolinaOregonPennsylvania



101

yVermont

I t t C tImportant Caveats

•The ultimate objective is not to develop a wonderful policy, it is to implement wonderful actions.

•A perfect policy does not do any good unless it is implemented

•It might be better to focus efforts on green

implemented.

g gpurchasing activities than to focus on green purchasing policies.


102

P li C tPolicy Components

•Senior management buy-in

•Incorporate into an existing or planned EMSp g p

•State intent

•Define environmentally preferable purchasing

•Identify priorities

•Establish measurable goals

A i ibiliti


103

•Assign responsibilities

St t I t tState IntentU.S. Environmental Protection Agency


104

EPA’ R d d P liEPA’s Recommended Policy

Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policy

The purchase and use of products and services can have a profound impact on the environment. [NAME OF DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY] recognizes the positive impact that it can make on the environment through the purchasing decisions that its employees make. It is the intent of [NAME OF DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY] to integrate environmental considerations into every aspect of acquisition. Although the environment may not be the core of our professional mission, the integration of these factors will result in economic, health, and environmental gains that will further our goals.


105

EPA’ R d d P liEPA’s Recommended PolicyO ll S f P liOverall Statement of Policy

• Agency personnel should seek to reduce the environmental damages associated with their purchases by increasing their acquisition of environmentally preferable products and services to the extent feasible, consistent with price, performance, availability, and safety considerations.

•Environmental factors should be taken into account as early as possible in the acquisition planning and decision-making process.

R ibilit f i t ll f bl h i h ld b•Responsibility for environmentally preferable purchasing should be shared among the program, acquisition, and procurement personnel.

•Environmentally preferable purchasing represents one important


106

component of this agency’s commitment to pollution prevention.

EPA’ R d d P liEPA’s Recommended Policy

[NAME OF DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY] is committed to the following:

•Increasing the acquisition of environmentally preferable products•Increasing the acquisition of environmentally preferable products and services.

•Identifying and implementing pilot projects to test the best ways to incorporate environmental preferability into acquisition.

•Establishing incentive and award programs to recognize those people, teams, and interagency work groups who are most successful p p , , g y g pat promoting the purchase of environmentally preferable products.


107

Define Environmentally P f bl P h iPreferable Purchasing

Environmentally preferable products are “products and services [that] have a lesser or reduced effect on h h lth d th i t h d thuman health and the environment when compared to other products and services that serve the same purpose. This comparison may consider raw materials p p p yacquisition, production, manufacturing, packaging, distribution, reuse, operation, maintenance, or disposal of the product or service ”of the product or service.

- Executive Order 13101, Greening the Government Through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal


108

Acquisition, September 16, 1998

Id tif P i itiIdentify PrioritiesFrom National Association of Counties Recommendations:

•By [date], all copy paper should contain 30% post-consumer content.

f

content.

•By [date], all products should meet Energy Star standard.

•By [date] establish a 10% price preference for process•By [date], establish a 10% price preference for process chlorine-free paper.

•By [date], all cleaning products should be “readily y [ ], g p ybiodegradable.”

•By [date], implement an integrated pest management program.


109•By [date], eliminate products associated with dioxin formation.

E t bli h G lEstablish Goals• % of purchases will meet environmental standard•__% of purchases will meet environmental standard within ___ months.

•At least contracts will include environmental•At least __ contracts will include environmental requirements within ___ months.

•At least $ in environmentally preferable•At least $____ in environmentally preferable products will be purchased within ___ months.

•Environmental standards for at least products•Environmental standards for at least ___ products will be developed within ___ months.

•At least purchasing officials will undergo green


110

•At least ____ purchasing officials will undergo green purchasing training within ___ months.

A i R ibilitiAssign ResponsibilitiesKing County, Washington

Action By: Action:Purchasing Agency and 7.1 Designate products, processes, and procedures to Solid Waste Division be evaluated…, maintain a designated product list, and

periodically transmit this information to departments …7.2 Provide … technical assistance …

County Departments, Offices, and Agencies

7.3 Assign appropriate personnel to evaluate each designated product …7.4 Revise contracting [procedures] …7 5 T it l ti lt d h d t f7.5 Transmit evaluation results and purchase data for designated products … to the Purchasing Agency by July 30th each year.

Purchasing Agency and 7 6 Transmit an annual report to the County Council on


111

Purchasing Agency and Solid Waste Division

7.6 Transmit an annual report to the County Council on the status of policy implementation.

RResource

www.newdream.org/procure/policy/index.html

•Includes 3 generic policies

•Contains 26 state/local government policiesContains 26 state/local government policies

•Can be sorted by jurisdiction, environmental focus, or policy typeor policy type


112

Using Eco-Labels Using Eco Labels EffectivelyEff t y

Can Someone Else Tell Me What’s G n?Green?


113

E L b l Obj tiEco-Label Objectives

•Communicate verifiable and accurate information.

•Encourage demand and supply of environmentally sound products and services.

•Reduce stress on the environment.

•Stimulate market driven continuous environmental•Stimulate market-driven continuous environmental improvement.


114

Id tif i G d L b lIdentifying a Good Label•Meaningful and verifiable informationg•Clear, consistent meaning•Lifecycle-based approach•No conflict of interest•Standards reviewed and updated regularlyA il bl t ll d di i d i•Available to small and medium sized companies

•Consistent with FTC labeling guidelines•Transparent labeling development process•Transparent labeling development process•Key stakeholders involved throughout development process


115

•Open to public comment throughout development process

B f l d lBeware of Misleading ClaimsE s f M d ith t i•Eco-safe

•Environmentally friendlyE h f i dl

•Made with non-toxic ingredients•Degradable•Earth friendly

•Earth smart

Degradable•Biodegradable•Compostable•Environmentally safe

•Environmentally preferable

Compostable•Environmentally safe•CFC free•Essentially non-toxic

•Practically non-toxic

•CFC-free•Ozone friendlyR l bl


116

•Recyclable

FTC G M k i G id liFTC Green Marketing Guidelines

Available at:

ftwww.ftc.gov


117

R ti “G ” B ildiRating “Green” Buildings


118

LEED O i *LEED Overview*


119*Information based on LEED v.2.1 as revised 3/14/03.

LEED O i *LEED Overview*

•Includes both mandatory and desirable attributes.

•Regimented certification proceduresRegimented certification procedures.

•Projects can earn up to 69 total points.

P j t t d di t f ll i•Projects rated according to following:•Certified (26 – 32 points)•Silver (33 – 38 points)•Gold (39 – 51 points)•Platinum (52 – 69 points)


120*Information based on LEED v.2.1 as revised 3/14/03.

T f E L b lTypes of Eco-Labels

ISO Types ISO Number Year FinalizedISO T I 14024 1998ISO Type I 14024 1998

ISO Type II 14021 1999yp

ISO Type III (ISO/TR 14025) Not Yet


121

T I E L b lType I Eco-Labels

•Seal of approval label

•Third party certification

•Multiple criteria with life cycle consideration

A d d t th b t i t l f•Awarded to the best environmental performers


122

T I E L b lType I Eco-Labels

CANADA CROATIAAUSTRIAEU

CHINA

FRANCEGERMANY

JAPAN NORDIC COUNTRIES

INDIA


123USATHE

NETHERLANDSSINGAPORE The CZECH REPUBLICTHAILAND

T II E L b lType II Eco-Labels

•Statement or symbol

•Self declaration

•Single attribute


124

T II E L b lType II Eco-Labels•Statements•Statements

•Compostable, biodegradable, recyclable

•Symbols


125

T III E L b lType III Eco-Labels

•Report card

•Third party verification

•Quantitative information

•Multiple attributes with life cycle consideration


126

T III E L b lType III Eco-Labels


127

Wh Sh ld Y T t?Who Should You Trust?


128

C th PCompare the ProgramsEnvironmental Criteria Excerpts FSC-US SFI ‘02-’04Environmental Criteria Excerpts FSC-US SFI 02- 04

Prevents forests from being converted to plantations Yes NoProtects old-growth forests (U.S.) and high conservation value forests (international)

Yes Noconservation value forests (international)Adequately controls large-scale clear cutting Yes NoPrevents use of genetically modified organisms Yes NoIncludes social factors in certification Yes NoIncludes social factors in certification Yes NoRequires field-based performance thresholds Yes NoIncludes “chain of custody” tracking system Yes NoRequires consistent application of standards Yes NoRequires consistent application of standards Yes NoIndependent of vested industry interests Yes NoRequires public consultation during certification process

Yes No


129

processEmbraced by most major environmental organizations Yes No

B f “ d” CBeware of “Improved” Criteria

•15 attributes 31 tt ib t s


130

•15 attributes •31 attributes•Rating system (3 stars is best)

B f “ d” CBeware of “Improved” Criteria

•15 mandatory attributes 9 d t 22 dditi l


131

•15 mandatory attributes •9 mandatory; 22 additional•Rating system (3 stars is best)

B f “I d” C it iBeware of “Improved” Criteria

Some of the highest ranking products g g p(three stars) under the “improved” system would not meet the minimumsystem would not meet the minimum requirements of the “weaker” criteria.


132

U i L b l Eff ti lUsing Labels Effectively

•U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidance

•Commonwealth of Pennsylvania


133

L b li RLabeling Resources

• www.eco-labels.org -- Maintained by Consumers U i bli h f C R t I l dUnion, publishers of Consumer Reports. Includes an assessment of more than 90 (and growing) labels.

• www.epa.gov/oppt/epp -- EPA’s Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program. Includes list of questions for evaluating labeling and certifying claimsquestions for evaluating labeling and certifying claims.


134

R i i P lReviewing ProposalsBalancing Environmental Concerns with

Price and Performance


135

P i P fPrice PreferenceExpress a willingness to pay more for products or•Express a willingness to pay more for products or

services with desired environmental attributes.

•Being used by a number of U S communities including:Being used by a number of U.S. communities, including:•Cincinnati, Ohio – 3% for products it considers environmentally preferable.•Kansas City and Jackson County Missouri – 15% for products theyKansas City and Jackson County, Missouri 15% for products they consider environmentally preferable. •King County, Washington – 10 % for re-refined motor oil; 15% for recycled-content paper.S Di C C lif i 5 % f i ll f bl•San Diego County, California – 5 % for environmentally preferable

products.•Santa Barbara, California – 12% for recycled-content paper.•Vermont – 5% for recycled-content products


136

Vermont 5% for recycled-content products.•Washington – 10% for EPA-designated recycled-content products

P i P fPrice Preferences

P d t A P d t BP d t A P d t BProduct A Product B$1,734 $1,873

Product A Product B$1,734 $1,873


137

P i P fPrice PreferencesAdding a 10% Price Preferenceg f

P d t A P d t BP d t A P d t BP d t A P d t BProduct A Product B$1,734 $1,873

x 90


x 90


x 90x .90x .90$1,734 $1,686

x .90


138

Lif l C tiLifecycle Costing

•When comparing costs, examine the total financial cost of the product throughout its useful lifecost of the product throughout its useful life.

•Costs to consider:

•Initial cost

•Operating costs

•Depreciation costs

•Upgrade costs

•Maintenance costs •Disposal costs


139

IPM C t C iIPM Cost Comparison

Base Case “Cover Spray” Application

Base Date Cost OccurrenceDiscount Factor

(3%) Present ValueInvestment Cost $5 000 Base Year 1 00 $5 000Investment Cost $5,000 Base Year 1.00 $5,000Pesticides $7,970 Annual 14.88 $118,573Monitoring $0 Annual 14.88 $0Other Labor $2,500 Annual 14.88 $37,194Other Labor $2,500 Annual 14.88 $37,194Total $160,707Alternative – Integrated Pest Management

Investment Cost $10,000 Base Year 1.00 $10,000Pesticides $3,583 Annual 14.88 $53,306Monitoring $2,642 Annual 14.88 $39,306Other Labor $2,500 Annual 14.88 $37,194


140

Total $139,806

Alt ti HVAC S tAlternative HVAC SystemsBase Case HVAC Technology

Base Date Cost YearDiscount Factor

(3%) Present ValueInvestment Cost $103,000 Base 1.00 $103,000F R l $12 000 12 0 0 $8 41Fan Replacement $12,000 12 0.70 $8,417Residual Value <-$3,500> 20 0.55 <-$1,938>Electricity $20,000 Annual 14.88 $297,549O&M $7 000 Annu l 14 88 $104 142O&M $7,000 Annual 14.88 $104,142Total $511,171Alternative – “Green” HVAC Technology

Investment Cost $110 000 Base 1 00 $110 000Investment Cost $110,000 Base 1.00 $110,000Fan Replacement $12,500 12 0.70 $8,767Residual Value <-$3,700> 20 0.55 <-$2,049>Electricity $13,000 Annual 14.88 $193,407


141

Electricity $13,000 Annual 14.88 $193,407O&M $8,000 Annual 14.88 $119,020Total $429,146

B i L i C tBuying vs. Leasing Carpet

Purchasing Carpet


(3%) Present ValueInvestment cost $20,000 Base year 1.00 $20,000Replacement cost $25,000 20 14.88 $18,602Disposal cost $2,000 20 14.88 $1,107Total $38,602Alternative – Leasing Carpet

Investment cost $5,000 Base year 1.00 $5,000Annual lease $1,000 Annual 14.88 $14,877Tile replacement $750 Annual 14.88 $11,158Total $31,036


142

B t V lBest Value

•Assign relative weights to price, performance, and environmental criteriaenvironmental criteria.

•Score all competing products.

•Compare the results.


143

B t V lBest Value

Product A Product B Product CPrice $800 $900 $1,000

Product A Product B Product CPrice $800 $900 $1,000$ $ $ ,

Performance 75 90 85

$ $ $ ,

Performance 75 90 85TotalTotal


144

B t V lBest Value

Product A Product B Product C

Price $800 $900 $1 000

Performance 75 90 85

Price $800 $900 $1,000

Environment

Total85 80 98

TotalTotal


145

M h tt Cl nin P d tMassachusetts Cleaning Products


146

Th S ll P i tThe Small PrintC fti U f l C t t LCrafting Useful Contract Language


147

Ti f S f l RFPTips for a Successful RFP

• Reference existing environmental standards and programs.

I l d d d d i bl ib•Include mandatory and desirable attributes.

•Place references to the environmental requirements throughout the RFPthroughout the RFP.

• Hold pre-bid meetings to discuss environmental requirementsrequirements.

• Provide potential bidders with additional time to complete environmental sections.


148

complete environmental sections.

P t It E hPut It Everywhere

• Specifications development (Section C)

• Packaging and marking (Section D)Packaging and marking (Section D)

• Specific contract requirements (Section H)

• Proposal instructions (Section L)• Proposal instructions (Section L)

• Evaluation criteria (Section M)

• Statement of work


149

P l I t tiProposal Instructions

1. All copies shall be printed double sided.

2. All submittals and copies shall be printed on recycled paper with a i i t t t f 30% t f All ffminimum post-consumer content of 30% or on tree-free paper…. All offers

shall note the level of recycled content contained in the paper being used.

3. Unless absolutely necessary, all submittals shall minimize or eliminate y y,use of non-recyclable or non-reusable materials such as plastic report covers, plastic dividers, vinyl sleeves, and GBC binding. Three-ringed binders, glued materials, paper clips and staples are acceptable.

4. Offerors shall submit materials in a format which allows for easy removal and recycling of paper materials.


150

P l I t tiProposal Instructions

5. Offerors are encouraged to use other products which contain recycled content in their proposal documents. Such products include, but are not limited to, folders, binders, paper clips, diskettes, envelopes, boxes, etc. Wh i t ff i h t t hi h d t i th iWhere appropriate, offerors may wish to note which products in their proposals are made with recycled materials.

6. Unnecessary samples, attachments or documents not specifically asked y p , p yfor shall not be submitted.


151

Ki C t Cl i P d tKing County Cleaning ProductsTECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONSTECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

Product Safety

The constituents of the cleaners, cleansers and polishes must not f h h l l d h hcontain any of the chemicals listed in the Washington State Dangerous

Waste Regulations, WAC 173-303-9903. The cleaners, cleansers and polishes must not contain any carcinogens, suspected carcinogens or mutagens and it must not be flammable In addition the cleanersmutagens and it must not be flammable. In addition, the cleaners, cleansers and polishes supplied by the Vendor must meet OSHA and any other federal, state and/or local safety requirements. The Vendor shall be held responsible for any damage to personnel, buses, or equipment di tl t bl t th l l d li hdirectly traceable to these cleaners, cleansers and polishes.

Products whose Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) requires the use of respiratory protective equipment for use by personnel with not be cc pt bl


152

acceptable.

Ki C t Cl i P d tKing County Cleaning ProductsTECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (cont.)Environmental Chemical ProductsAll vendors must comply with Paragraph 2-22, Hazardous Chemical Communication. The County will require the following:A MSDS must contain percentages of hazardous constituentsA. MSDS must contain percentages of hazardous constituents.B. MSDS must contain Hazardous Materials Inventory Systems (HNES) codes.C. MSDS must state intended use of the product.pD. Products must not contain carcinogens (suspected or positive).E. Products must not contain Ethylene Chloride.F. Products must not contain butyl cleaners.m yG. Aerosol propellant must not be chlorinated fluorocarbons.H. Products must not contain chlorinated solvents.I. Product pH must be between 2.0 and 12.5.


153

. roduct pH must be between . and .5.J. Vendors must accept return of all 55 gallon drums used for their product at no additional cost to King County.

Ki C t T C t idKing County Toner CartridgesTechnical Specifications:1. All toner cartridges supplied shall meet or exceed original equipment manufacturer's (OEM) standards of quality and performance…

5. During remanufacture, cartridges shall be disassembled, all parts shall be cleaned d i t d d d d t h ll b l dand inspected, and damaged parts shall be replaced.

6. Drums shall be of the "long-life" type, where available. The OEM primary corona roller surfaces are to be stripped and recoated with a polymer resin material. Drums and drum-coating resins shall meet or exceed OEM standards and drums shall be an rum coat ng r s ns sha m t or c OEM stan ar s an rums shatested for continuity at least every ten cycles. Bidder shall indicate in this bid the original manufacturers) and part number(s) of drum(s) and coating polymer(s) offered.

7. The OEM magnetic roller sleeve is to be resurfaced at least every 5 cycles.

8. The hopper shall be filled to capacity with new toner meeting or exceeding OEM standards. Bidder shall indicate in this bid the original manufacturers) and part number(s) of toner supplied.

9 Th f lt f m th f s ll d if sh ll b m d d pl d ith


154

9. The felt from the fuser roller wand, if any, shall be removed and replaced with new heat-resistant oil impregnated felt or a new fixing wand meeting OEM standards shall be included.

Ki C t T C t idKing County Toner CartridgesTechnical Specifications: (cont )Technical Specifications: (cont.)10. A toner hopper seal/separator meeting or exceeding OEM standards shall be inserted to prevent spillage of toner during shipping.

11 The original OEM recovery blade shall be replaced with one manufactured of pliable11. The original OEM recovery blade shall be replaced with one manufactured of pliable poly-mylar material, meeting or exceeding OEM standards, and this blade shall be replaced as needed thereafter, at least every five cycles.

12. The original OEM drum-wiper blade shall be replaced with a heat-resistant blade, i di OEM d d d hi bl d h ll b l d d dmeeting or exceeding OEM standards, and this blade shall be replaced as needed

thereafter, at least every five cycles.

13. The original OEM corona-wire assemblies, if any, are to be cleaned and tested for continuity and a magnetic strip is to be installed in the corona wire assembly tocontinuity and a magnetic strip is to be installed in the corona wire assembly to minimize contact of toner residue.

14. Cartridges for use in printers with exposed corona wire shall be accompanied by instructions for cleaning the corona wire.


155

15. All cartridges are to be tested before remanufacturing by installing the cartridge in an applicable printer and running test copies.

Ki C t T C t idKing County Toner CartridgesTechnical Specifications: (cont )Technical Specifications: (cont.)16. All cartridges are to be tested after remanufacturing by installing the cartridge in an applicable printer, running and inspecting test copies.

17 The cartridge shall be packaged and sealed in an anti-static bag meeting OEM17. The cartridge shall be packaged and sealed in an anti static bag meeting OEM standards.

18. Packaging shall be constructed to permit users to re-package spent cartridges for return to vendor.

19. Bidders shall provide up to two (2) samples of each item listed in this solicitation for testing and evaluation, at the request of the County.

20. Bidders shall furnish documentation with this bid indicating the current and d f il f id li d d hiexpected failure rate of cartridges supplied under this contract.


156

DOI Cl i C t tDOI Cleaning Contract

“For the recycled content products evaluation, all non-chemical products proposed for use under this contract must conform to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Comprehensive Procurement Guide (CPG) if the products are CPG-designated items.Guide (CPG) if the products are CPG designated items. It is desirable for products that meet the desired objective (e.g., ability to clean effectively) and are not CPG designated items also to contain the highestCPG-designated items also to contain the highest-possible amounts (by percentage) of recovered material(s) and post-consumer content.”


157

DOI Cl i C t tDOI Cleaning Contract(1) Bathroom tissue - The bathroom tissue must contain at least 100% recovered materials and 50% post-consumer content.

(2) Toilet Seat Covers - Toilet seat covers must contain at least (2) Toilet Seat Covers Toilet seat covers must contain at least100% recovered materials and 50% post-consumer content.

(3) Paper Towels - The paper towels must contain at least 100% recovered materials and 40% post consumer contentrecovered materials and 40% post-consumer content.

(4) General Purpose industrial wipes - The general purpose industrial wipes must contain at least 100% recovered materials

d 40%and 40% post-consumer content.

(5) Plastic trash bags - Plastic trash bags must contain at least 25% post-consumer content.


158

p

Massachusetts Computer Purchase

T h i l ifi ti f d i blTechnical specifications reference desirable attributes in the following categories:

•Toxic constituentsToxic constituents•Recycled content•Packaging

d l•Upgradability•Design for recycling•Take back provisionsTake back provisions•Worker health and safety•Third party certification


159

•Other environmental issues

EPA G P P hEPA Green Power PurchaseA 10 RENEWABLE POWERA.10 RENEWABLE POWER

The EPA would like to take advantage of the opportunity to reduce the environmental impact of their electricity consumption t th EPA Ri h d CA l b t b h i l t i itat the EPA Richmond, CA laboratory by choosing an electricity

supplier that provides 100 percent renewable power. For the purposes of this contract, renewable power is defined as biomass, solar thermal photovoltaic wind geothermal small hydropowersolar thermal, photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, small hydropower of 30 megawatts or less, digester gas and landfill gas. This is the definition for “renewable electricity generation technology” contained in California Public Utilities Code 383 5 but excludescontained in California Public Utilities Code 383.5, but excludes waste tire and municipal solid waste generation technologies. In the case of a tie, priority will be given to renewable power from “New” renewable generation facilities. “New” facilities are those


160

gwhich became operational on or after September 23, 1996, per California law.

Ki C t Cl i P d tKing County Cleaning ProductsTECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONSTECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

General Scope

Many King County facilities are located on or near major waterways, h f ktherefore King County is continuing take innovative steps in using

environmentally safe chemicals and janitorial cleaning products. The County will continue to require qualification testing of all new products before a contract is issued for any non-approved products Thisbefore a contract is issued for any non approved products. This Invitation will contain several schedules. The items listed in each schedule will be awarded to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder. Test results shall be provided at no expense to the County when

t d Alth h it i th C t ' bj ti t bt i th b trequested. Although it is the County's objective to obtain the best products at the lowest prices, the following factors will influence the final determination and should be noted.

A En i nm nt ll s f nd bi d d bl p ducts


161

A. Environmentally safe and biodegradable products.

B. Product safety and product storage safety…

EPA G P P hEPA Green Power PurchaseA 11 GREEN e REQUIREMENTSA.11 GREEN-e REQUIREMENTS

Green-e certification, including strict adherence to the Green Power Board’s Code of Conduct (see Exhibit 1) is the minimum t d d f thi t t Thi i th t ffi i t f thstandard for this contract. This is the most efficient way for the

EPA to ensure that the Contractor is adequately fulfilling its obligation to provide green power, as specified in this contract. The Contractor’s product must be Green e certified within 45The Contractor s product must be Green-e certified within 45 days of contract award. Failure to obtain the Green-e certification, failure to deliver 100 percent renewable energy, as measured by the one year settlement period described in Sectionmeasured by the one year settlement period described in Section A.4, or the loss of the Contractor’s Green-e certification shall be grounds for Termination for Cause. The Contractor’s liability to the EPA under a Termination for Cause shall be the cost of


162

reprocurement, as well as any incidental or consequential damages incurred as a result of the termination.

EPA G P P hEPA Green Power PurchaseA 11 GREEN e REQUIREMENTS (cont )A.11 GREEN-e REQUIREMENTS (cont.)

Green-e requirements can and do change from year to year.Contractors will be expected to meet all new Green-e

i t i l di th i t th t t frequirements, including the requirement that a percentage for renewable generation come from "new" sources (see Exhibit 2).

If the Green-e brand name ceases to exist, the Contractor shall be responsible for submitting to the Contracting Officer or his Authorized Representative a report that includes all the information specified in the Green-e Code of Conduct, Section VI P d b h h ll b d bProduct Substantiation. The report shall be accompanied by a signed affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the report. If the Contractor knowingly renders erroneous information, in addition to other remedies available to the Government the Contracting


163

to other remedies available to the Government, the Contracting Officer may terminate the contract for cause.

Overcoming Common Overcoming Common ChallengesChallengesNegating the Myths


164

R thi kRethink

8 11 15 5 14 1 7 6 10 13 3 12 28, 11, 15, 5, 14, 1, 7, 6, 10, 13, 3, 12, 2


165

N ti th M thNegating the MythsM th #1 N i ki t d itMyth #1: No one is asking me to do itMyth #2: Products Are UnavailableM th #3 P d t T E iMyth #3: Products are Too ExpensiveMyth #4: Products Don’t WorkM h #5 E i l I f i i U il blMyth #5: Environmental Information is UnavailableMyth #6: I Can’t Do It Because I’m Not An

Environmental ExpertEnvironmental ExpertMyth #7: It’s Illegal Under WTO RulesMyth #8: Buying Green Doesn’t Solve the “Real”


166

Myth #8: Buying Green Doesn t Solve the Real Problem

Negating the MythsMyth #1: No One Is Asking Me To Do It

•I am.

•Future generations are•Future generations are.

•Your boss is.


167

Negating the MythsMyth #2: Products Are Unavailable

•4,000 products now carry Germany’s environmental label.

•25 U S eco-label programs created more than 300 standards25 U.S. eco label programs created more than 300 standards covering more than 4,000 products.

•The Official Recycled Products Guide includes more than 4,500 l d f

y ,recycled-content manufacturers.

•Co-Op America prints a 200-page catalog.

•U.S. Defense Logistics Agency prints a 186-page catalog.


168

•U.S. General Services Administration prints a 170-page catalog.

Negating the MythsMyth #3: Products Are Too Expensive

•Some environmental products are less expensive.

•Many environmental products are less expensive from a lifecycle cost perspective.

•Higher quality products can be more expensive.

•Innovative products can be more expensive.


169

Negating the MythsMyth #4: Products Don’t Work

•A 1996 survey reported that 97 percent of respondents are happy with their recycled content purchases.

•Many commonly used products already meet environmental criteriaenvironmental criteria

•Lots of new products don’t work as advertised and pproduct performance improves over time. This is true of all products, not just “environmental” products.


170

Negating the MythsMyth #5: Information is Unavailable

C t f N A i D d /•Center for a New American Dream <www.newdream.org/procure>

•EPA’s Environmental Purchasing Web site <www.epa.gov/oppt/epp>

•EPA’s Buy Recycled Web site <www.epa.gov/cpg>

•EPA’s Energy Star Web site <www epa gov/energystar>EPA s Energy Star Web site <www.epa.gov/energystar>

•EPA’s Environmental Purchasing Database <http://notes.erg.com>




171

g pp

Negating the MythsMyth #6: Can’t Do It; Not An Expert

•Very few of us are experts at anything, but it doesn’t stop us from doing things.

•Just need to know what kinds of questions to ask.- Common senseCommon sense- Eco-labels- Listservs- Technical experts


172

Negating the MythsMyth #7: It’s Illegal Under WTO Rules

•WTO rules cover federal government action not state, local, or private transactions.

•WTO Dispute Settlement Body has not made any rulings on the subject.

•Protecting the environment is a legitimate goal under Article 2 2 of•Protecting the environment is a legitimate goal under Article 2.2 of the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement.

•Many environmental standards are developed in accordance with y pISO procedures.

•Member states are unlikely to formally challenge actions based on sound environmental rationale


173

sound environmental rationale.

Negating the MythsMyth #8: Doesn’t Solve the “Real” Problem

•Buying green is an important first step towards a truly sustainable society. y y

•It forces us to begin developing the necessary toolstools.

•It is only part of the solution, but it is a y p ,necessary part.


174

EPP I A tiEPP In ActionSelected Environmental Purchasing

Case Studiesu


175

EPP I A tiEPP In Action

•Paint

•Pest Management

•Cleaning Productsan ng ro ucts


176

P i t APG M l dPaint—APG, Maryland

•Painting related activities covered by CAA, RCRA, and CERCLA.

•Paint represented about 5 percent of Aberdeen’s 50,000 reportable hazardous materials under EPCRA.

L d•Located in an ozone non-attainment zone.

•Used to use or store 2,200 different paints and ti s ( x l di l diff s)coatings (excluding color differences).

•565 were architectural or anticorrosive paints.


177

M i VOC L lMaximum VOC LevelsType of Paint VOCs VOCs Type of Paint VOCs

(grams/liter)VOCs

(pounds/gallon)Interior ArchitecturalFlat 50 0.42Nonflat 100 1.25Exterior ArchitecturalFlat 100 0.83Nonflat 200 1.66AnticorrosiveAnticorrosiveFlat 250 2.10Semigloss 250 2.10


178

Gloss 250 2.10

P hibit d M t i lProhibited Materials

Inorganic Materials: AntimonyCadmiumHexavalent chromium

LeadMercury

Organic Compounds: 1,1,1-trichloroethane1,2-dichlorobenzeneA l i

Dimethyl phthalate EthylbenzeneF ld h dAcrolein

Acrylonitrile BenzeneButyl benzyl phthalate

FormaldehydeIsophoroneMethyl ethyl ketoneMethyl isobutyl ketone

Di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalateDi-n-butyl phthalateDi-n-octyl phthalateDiethyl phthalate

Methylene chlorideNaphthaleneToluene (methylbenzene)Vinyl chloride


179

T t R ltTest ResultsEl m t Q tit P t f Element Quantity Percentage of

Paints EvaluatedPaints Evaluated 565 --

Paints eliminated due to unacceptable ingredients or reported VOC levels

351 62.1

Paints no longer manufactured 96 17.0

Paints unavailable for testing 11 1.9

Paints tested for VOC levels 107 18 9Paints tested for VOC levels 107 18.9

Paints meeting APG’s standard 71* 12.6


180

*Two anticorrosive paints added later.

MSDS EMSDS ErrorsActual Versus Reported VOC Levelsp

(Within 10 Percent of Reported Levels)

41%19%

40%

Below Reported Levels Above Reported Levels Within Reported Levels


181

MSDS EMSDS ErrorsActual Versus Reported VOC Levelsp

(Within 50 Percent of Reported Levels)

8% 18%

74%

Below Reported Levels Above Reported Levels Within Reported Levels


182

APG R ltAPG Results

•Paints meeting the standard are on average $1.76 less expensive per gallon.p p g

•Saves $25,000 annually in avoided disposal costs.costs.

•Re-Nu-It facility reduces paint purchases by $10 000 annually$10,000 annually.

•Total savings: $60,000 a year.


183

P i t Ci i ti OhiPaint—Cincinnati, Ohio

•Switched traffic line paint to aqueous-based paints.

•Eliminates lead cadmium other heavy metals and•Eliminates lead, cadmium, other heavy metals, and reduces VOCs.

•No longer has to be treated as a hazardous waste•No longer has to be treated as a hazardous waste.

•Avoids need for harmful cleaning solvents.

•Removes 33,000 pounds of lead and 36,000 pounds of VOCs from environment.


184

P i t U S Ai FPaint—U.S. Air Force

•75 percent of hazardous waste is related to aircraft painting, stripping, and repaintingaircraft painting, stripping, and repainting operations

R f l d f C 1 $1 6 ll•Reformulated paint for C-17 saves $1.6 million annually per aircraft.


185

P i t U S A Paint—U.S. Army

•Eliminated need for $4.5 million dollar scrubbers.

R du d p int us b 67 p nt VOC missi n•Reduced paint use by 67 percent, VOC emission by 78 percent, painting time by 33 percent, and saves $114 per gallon of paint usedsaves $114 per gallon of paint used.


186

P i t Oth Paint—Others

•Lee County, Florida

•Vermont

•Washington

•North Carolina


187

P i t RPaint Resources

EPA’s Painting the Town Green (EPA742-R-99-005) November 1999

www.epa.gov/oppt/epp/pdfs/paint pdfpaint.pdf

Green Seal

www.greenseal.org


188

P t M tPest Management

•Every year, the United States uses 4.5 billion pounds of chemicals to control insects rodentspounds of chemicals to control insects, rodents, and weeds.

•These activities are regulated under CERCLA, CWA, CAA, EPCRA, FIFRA, and ESA.


189

I t t d P t M tIntegrated Pest Management

•Cape May County, New Jersey

•Chatham County, North Carolinay

•Massachusetts

•King County WashingtonKing County, Washington

•Monroe County, Indiana

P tl d O•Portland, Oregon

•San Francisco, California


190


IPM i S F iIPM in San Francisco

•IPM ordinance passed in 1996.

E t bli h d it id IPM di t•Established a citywide IPM coordinator.

•Pest control contractors required to use less toxic h fi tapproaches first.

•If needed, contractors must select from a list of 45 d d k dreduced-risk pesticides.

•One-time exemptions available from IPM coordinator.


191

IPM i S F iIPM in San Francisco

•San Francisco’s Recreation and Parks Department reduced pesticide use by 60Department reduced pesticide use by 60 percent.

•In 1999, 72 percent of pesticide contractor visits required no pesticide applications.


192

IPM C t C iIPM Cost Comparison

Base Case “Cover Spray” Application


(3%) Present ValueInvestment Cost $5 000 Base Year 1 00 $5 000Investment Cost $5,000 Base Year 1.00 $5,000Pesticides $7,970 Annual 14.88 $118,573Monitoring $0 Annual 14.88 $0Other Labor $2,500 Annual 14.88 $37,194Other Labor $2,500 Annual 14.88 $37,194Total $160,707Alternative – Integrated Pest Management

Investment Cost $10,000 Base Year 1.00 $10,000Pesticides $3,583 Annual 14.88 $53,306Monitoring $2,642 Annual 14.88 $39,306Other Labor $2,500 Annual 14.88 $37,194


193

Total $139,806

Oth IPM S St iOther IPM Success Stories

•Monroe County, Indiana, decreased pest control costs by 35 percent and pesticide use by 90 percentby 35 percent and pesticide use by 90 percent.

•Santa Monica, California, reduced pest control costs b 30 t d st l i ts h d s dby 30 percent and pest complaints have decreased.

•Cape May County, New Jersey, saved $45,000 over p y y yfive years.


194

IPM RIPM Resources

EPA has an extensive list of resources atEPA has an extensive list of resources at

www.epa.gov/oppt/epp/ipm.htmp g pp pp p


195

Cl i P d tCleaning Products•Janitorial workers experience relatively high injury•Janitorial workers experience relatively high injury rates (including 14 deaths annually) due to the toxic chemicals found in traditional cleaning products.

•Traditional cleaning products have been linked with “sick building” syndrome.

•Many traditional cleaning products are known to contain:

Carcinogens Endocrine disruptors•Carcinogens•Asthmagens•Skin and eye irritants

•Endocrine disruptors•High VOC content•Other hazardous materials


196

•Toxic chemicals

J it i l I j iJanitorial Injuries

•Injuries Per Year (per 100 Janitors)–Workers’ Comp. Claims 2 per 100U t d 4 100–Unreported 4 per 100

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

$725


197Source: Washington State • Dept. of Labor & Industry

S l P d t H dSample Product HazardsD t M S C t l N s S st•Dust Mop Spray - Central Nervous System

[Petroleum Distillates - Light Naphtha]

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

•Floor Finish - Reproductive Toxinp[Glycol Ether - Ethylene Glycol Methyl Ether]

•Glass Cleaner - Skin Absorbing Poison[Gl l Eth Eth l Gl l B t l Eth ][Glycol Ether - Ethylene Glycol Butyl Ether]

•Metal Polish - Carcinogenic – Central Nervous System[Perchloroethylene Toluene or Hexane]


198

[Perchloroethylene, Toluene, or Hexane]

G Cl P hGreen Cleaner Purchasers•King County WashingtonKing County, Washington •Massachusetts•Minnesota•National Park Service •Pennsylvania•Santa Monica, California•Seattle, WashingtonU S D t t f I t i•U.S. Department of Interior

•U.S. Environmental Protection Agency•U S General Services Administration


199

U.S. General Services Administration•And many others

Ch i l t A idChemicals to Avoid

AcetoneAmmonia/Ammonium Hydroxide 2 B h l

Sodium Hydroxide Sodium Hypochlorite, Bleach

2-Butoxyethanol Diethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether Hydrochloric Acid Naphthalene

yp ,Sodium Tripolyphosphate Tetrachloroethylene 1,1,1-Trichloroethane TolueneNaphthalene

Perchloroethylene Phosphoric Acid Polyethylene Monophenyl Ether

Toluene Xylene


200

E i t l C id tiEnvironmental Considerations

Raw Materials •absence of petroleum- or hydrocarbon-based materials

•use of biobased materials


201


Manufacturing/Product Content •company's overall environmental impact

tifi i l d f•artificial dyes or fragrances

•chemical content

•known carcinogens•known carcinogens

•ozone-depleting chlorinated compounds

•reproductive toxinsreproductive toxins

•use of regulated hazardous materials


202


Product Packaging •concentrated formula

k i d i d t d t t ith t t•packaging designed to reduce contact with concentrate

•recyclable packaging

•recycled content packaging•recycled-content packaging

•reduced packaging

•refillable bottlesrefillable bottles

•nonaerosol container

•products shipped in bulk


203

p pp


P d t UProduct Use •acute toxicity •affects on air quality q y•chronic toxicity •corrosiveness •flashpoint•flashpoint •irritation potential •likelihood of exposure to concentrate •pH level •skin and eye irritation potential •use with cold water instead of hot


204

use with cold water instead of hot •VOC content


Product Disposal •aquatic toxicity q y

•biodegradability


205

Th EPP Ch llThe EPP Challenge

•There were too many sets of competing standards w m y f mp gand purchasing criteria.


206

Th EPP S l tiThe EPP Solution

•Work with the innovative pioneers to reach consensus on a single set of environmental criteria that could be

d ti llused nationally.

•Used Green Seal (GS-37) standard as a baseline.

•Added additional criteria for products not covered by the Green Seal standard.

•Purchasers are beginning to use the new criteria.

•The Center will list those products meeting the new it i th id tifi d


207

criteria as they are identified.

F M h tt RFRFrom Massachusetts RFR

Multi-State Approach

This procurement has been designed in consultation with various state and l l h f h f bli hi flocal governments across the country for the purpose of establishing a set of minimum criteria that they and others can use in drafting their contract bids. This effort was coordinated by the Center for a New American Dream and included the participation of Massachusetts; Minnesota; Missouri;included the participation of Massachusetts; Minnesota; Missouri; Washington; King County, Washington; Phoenix, Arizona; Santa Monica, California; Seattle, Washington; and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Additional information on this working group is available fromLaboratory. Additional information on this working group is available from Marcia Deegler at 617 720-3356 or Scot Case at 610-373-7703.


208

M d t C it iMandatory Criteria

•12 mandatory environmental•Toxicity

•Carcinogens &

•Aquatic Toxicity

•Eutrophication•Carcinogens & Reproductive Toxins

•Skin & eye irritation

•Skin sensitization

•Combustability

•Eutrophication

•Aquatic Biodegradability

•Concentrates

•Fragrances•Combustability

•Smog, Ozone, & IAQ•Prohibited Ingredients

3 dditi l m d t•3 additional mandatory•Training

•Packaging

•Labeling


209

D i bl C it iDesirable Criteria

•Desirable criteria for all productsproducts

•Additional desirable criteria f s l t d d tsfor selected products


210

I f ti R tInformation Request

It is desirable that bidders id i f tiprovide information on

asthmagens.


211

Current Status of Massachusetts RFR

I d O t b 2002•Issued October 2002.

•16 bidders with products from 11 manufacturers.

•Of the 11 manufacturers:•4 have been disqualified

•3 passed completely

•4 still being evaluated pending additional information from the manufacturers

•Products are currently being tested for effectiveness by TURI.


212•Anticipated award late-March 2003.

O ll B fitOverall BenefitsIT’S FINALLY EASY!!

•One set of criteria.

IT S FINALLY EASY!!

•One set of necessary documentation.

•Nationwide list of acceptable products will beNationwide list of acceptable products will be developed.

•Manufacturers not dealing with confusing and g gpotentially conflicting environmental requirements.


213

Additi l I f tiAdditional Information

•Center for a New American Dream -www.newdream.org/procure/products/cleaners.html

•INFORM’s “Cleaning for Health” report -www.informinc.org/CFHbook.htm

•Janitorial Products Pollution Prevention Program -www.westp2net.org/Janitorial/jp4.htmp g J jp m

•U.S. Environmental Protection Agency “Cleaning Wizard” - www epa gov/opptintr/epp/cleaners/select/


214

Wizard www.epa.gov/opptintr/epp/cleaners/select/

RResourcesWh t B i ?Where to Begin?


215

Wh t B i ?Where to Begin?

www newdream r /pr curewww.newdream.org/procure

scot@newdream [email protected]

610 373-7703610 373-7703


216






217






218



EPA Publication NumberEPA742-F-00-008



219

Additi l C St di *Additional Case Studies*•The City of Santa Monica's Environmental Purchasing ProgramThe City of Santa Monica s Environmental Purchasing Program•Cleaning Products Pilot Project•Defending the Environment at the Department of DefenseF d l Pi•Federal Sector Pioneers

•Green Spending: A Case Study of Massachusetts’ Environmental Purchasing Program •Leading by Example--Two Case Studies Documenting How EPA Incorporated Environmental Features into New Buildings•Painting the Town Green•Paving the Road to Success•Private Sector Pioneers•State and Local Government Pioneers


220

State and Local Government Pioneers

*All are available in the resources section of www.newdream.org/procure

RResources

•Center for a New American Dream <www.newdream.org/procure>

•Energy Star program <www.energystar.gov>

•EPA’s “Buy Recycled” Program <www.epa.gov/cpg>

•EPA’s EPP Web site <www.epa.gov/oppt/epp>

•EPP Contracts Database <www.epa.gov/oppt/epp/database.htm>



•Office of the Federal Environmental Executive <www.ofee.gov>


221

g

Scot CaseDi t f P t St t iDirector of Procurement Strategies

Center for a New American Dream505 Penn Street, Suite 306

Reading PA 19601Reading, PA [email protected]


222

center for a new american dream 505 penn street, suite 306 ... · pdf filecenter for a new...

Documents