A- - _,.j-5v,;, ~, * --f
'
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program
Summary Of Comments At The
Public Meeting On Proposed
Guidance On Acquisition Of
Environmentally Preferable
Products And Services
Final Report
) Printed on paper that contains at least 20 percent postconsumer fiber.
-------
-------
CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1
A. Executive Order 12873, Section 503 2
B. The public meeting . .: 2
C. EPA's proposed guidance on acquisition of environmentally preferable
products and services 3
n. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS BY TOPIC . 4
A. Comments on the effectiveness of the guidance framework 4
B. Comments on the seven guiding principles 6
C. Comments on operationalizing the principles through pilot acquisitions
and other tools ;. . . 8
D. Comments on the life-cycle assessment (LCA) approach .... 10
E. Comments on combining Principles #2 and #3 12
F. Comments on the proposed menu of environmental performance attributes
(Appendix Bl) .....;.... 12
G. Comments on establishing core environmental values and the ecological
impact matrix . . 13
H. Comments on third-party environmental certification programs 14
I. Miscellaneous comments 17
III. CONCLUSIONS 21
IV. QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSIONS 22
A. Questions for the federal agency panel and panel 1 22
B. Questions for panels 2 and 3 23
C. Questions for panels 3 and 4 24
-------
APPENDICES
A. List of comraenters
B. Commenters by interest category
C. Index of comments
25
27
28
-------
SECTION ONE
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
On September 29, 1995, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published Proposed
Guidance on Acquisition of Environmentally Preferable Products and Services (60 FR 189, 50721-
50735). EPA developed the guidance to implement section 503 of Executive Order 12873, Federal
Acquisition, Recycling, and Waste Prevention. The Executive Order directs federal agencies to evaluate
the environmental attributes of the products and services they purchase.
In a notice accompanying the guidance, EPA announced a public meeting to receive comments
from interested parties on the proposed guidance. This report summarizes oral comments presented at
the public meeting, held on October 26, 1995.
EPA requested comment on several specific topics, including:
• The general framework of the guidance
• The seven guiding principles
• Operationalizing the principles through pilot acquisitions and other tools
• Application of life-cycle assessment (LCA) concepts
• Combining Principles #2 (Multiple Attributes) and #3 (Life-cycle Perspective)
• A proposed menu of environmental performance attributes
• Establishing core environmental values and the ecological impact matrix
• The potential role of third-party environmental certification programs
Section Two of this report presents comment summaries grouped according to the above topic
areas. While EPA received comment on most of the above topics, some of EPA's requests for comment
went unanswered. Section Three presents the concluding remarks made by William Sanders, Director
of EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Section Four summarizes the questions posed
during three question-and-answer sessions at the meeting. Appendix A of this report presents a
1
-------
complete list of commenters. Appendix B is a list of comimenters by interest category. An index of
comments is provided in Appendix C.
In addition to presenting oral testimony, participants in the public meeting were asked to submit
written comments. At the request of several organizations, the written comment period was extended.
All written comments were due to EPA on December 28, 1995. A public record was established for
these comments under docket number OPPTS-00149. The docket is located in the TSCA
Nonconfidential Information Center, Room NE-B607, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460,
and is available for inspection by the public from noon to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays.
A. EXECUTIVE ORDER 12873, SECTION 503
Section 503 of Executive Order 12873, Federal Acquisition, Recycling, and Waste Prevention,
requires EPA to "issue guidance that recommends principles that Executive agencies should use in
making determinations for the preference and purchase of environmentally preferable products."
"Environmentally preferable" is defined in the Executive Order to mean "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. This comparison may consider raw
materials acquisition, production, manufacturing, packaging, distribution, reuse, operation,
maintenance, or disposal of the product or service."
B.
THE PUBLIC MEETING
Thirteen interested parties (excluding federal agencies) presented oral testimony at the public
meeting. EPA grouped the public commenters into five panels. Five sets of comments from four federal
agencies were also presented in a separate federal agency panel. Each speaker was allotted eight
minutes for comments. A question-and-answer session followed every two panels.
-------
C. EPA'S PROPOSED GUIDANCE ON ACQUISITION OF ENVIRONMENTALLY
PREFERABLE PRODUCTS AND SERVICES
EPA's document on environmentally preferable purchasing, Proposed Guidance on Acquisition
of Environmentally Preferable Products and Services, summarizes EPA's approach to developing the
guidance, presents seven guiding principles agencies should consider when purchasing environmentally
preferable products, and describes implementation activities. Copies of this document are available by
calling the Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse at 202 260-1023.
-------
SECTION TWO
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS BY TOPIC
A.
COMMENTS ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK
Most commenters agreed that the overall framework of the guidance is an effective first step in
promoting the acquisition of environmentally preferable products and services. Several commenters
expressed concern, however, that the guidance is not specific enough. One commenter, the American
Forest & Paper Association, believes that the framework is ineffective. Specific comments are as
follows:
The Department of Defense (DOD) believes that the current version of the guidance is headed
in the right direction, because it establishes policies and principles, not requirements, and because it
gives agencies the flexibility to tailor the guidelines to meet their needs. DOD asserted that a one-size-
fits-all solution is not the best way to meet agencies' varying environmental goals. DOD encouraged
EPA not to impose additional reporting requirements due to the funds needed to meet those
requirements, which often are unavailable.
The Department of Energy (DOE) commended EPA for including energy efficiency as an
important aspect of the guidance. DOE also noted that the guidance is too ambitious in identifying what
environmental preferability entails; consumers might find the approach overwhelming. EPA should
instead focus on promoting high-priority environmental attributes, such as energy efficiency, recycled
content, and lower toxicity.
The American Plastics Coundl (APC) cautioned that making the guidance perfect will be
impossible. This commenter stated that EPA should finalize the general guidance, then concentrate on
pilot projects to determine how the guidance will be used.
The Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) supports the guidance as a good first step, with
some corrections. Consideration of environmental preferability should be secondary to ensuring mat
-------
products meet performance, safety, and quality criteria at a reasonable price. In addition, SPI warned
that the guidance could be hindered by too much prescription.
The American Forest & Paper Association (AFPA) asserted that environmental preferability
cannot be determined accurately or completely. As a result, the guidance is inappropriate and
unworkable and would seriously disrupt market forces. AFPA strongly urged EPA to withdraw the
guidance and completely revise it. In addition, AFPA believes that EPA should involve manufacturers
more closely throughout the development of the guidance.
The Remanufacturing Industries Council (RIC) recommended that EPA incorporate the
concept of remanufacturing in the guidance. RIC stated that remanufacturing is the ultimate form of
recycling, because it extends the life of products and saves the energy, materials, and labor that are
needed to manufacture new products or recycle existing ones. Unless EPA recognizes the differences
between remanufacturing, recycling, and reuse, RIC believes that the guidance will be incomplete and
environmentally deficient.
The Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association (CSMA) noted that the guidance
appropriately provides broad, flexible guidelines. CSMA suggested that the guidance should be risk
based rather than hazard based and should target product categories that prevent higher risks and
present opportunities for risk reduction;
The Automotive Parts Rebuilders Association (APRA) commented that the guidance would
be more effective if it included the concept of remanufacturing.
The National Recycling Coalition (NRC) expressed concern about the time EPA has taken to
get to this point in the guidance development process. NRC had hoped that EPA would simply promote
the standards and guidelines already developed in conjunction with the Comprehensive Procurement
Guideline (CPG) and Recovered Materials Advisory Notice (RMAN). The Executive Order did not
mention implementation of the guidance, and NRC felt that the proposed implementation approach
might lead to further delays.
-------
Green Seal asserted that EPA should provide specific guidance, rather than a general
framework. The guidance should be directed not just at policy officers but also at procurement
officials. The guidance should indicate which aspects of a product result in environmental preferability
and which do not (e.g., reduced toxicity). The need to give direction beyond the merely procedural
outweighs the danger that officials will apply the guidance without sufficient testing.
Rochester Midland Corporation stated that the guidance is a good start, but users demand
practical tools that will enable them to do their jobs more easily and safely.
B. COMMENTS ON THE SEVEN GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The seven guiding principles are summarized as follows:
Principle #1 (Pollution Prevention): Consideration of environmental preferability
should begin early in the acquisition process.
Principle #2 (Multiple Attributes): Environmental preferability is a function of
multiple attributes.
Principle #3 (Life-cycle Perspective): Environmental preferability should reflect life-
cycle considerations to the extent feasible.
Principle #4 (Magnitude of Impact): Environmental preferability should consider the
scale (global versus local) and temporal aspects (reversibility) of the impacts.
Principle #5 (Local Conditions): Environmental preferability should be tailored to
local conditions where appropriate.
Principle #6 (Competition): Environmental attributes should be important factors in
competition among vendors.
Principle #7 (Product Attribute Claims): Agencies should examine product attribute
claims carefully.
Commenters supported most principles, suggesting some alterations. General comments on the
seven guiding principles are as follows:
-------
The Department of Defense (DOD) supported the guiding principles, especially Principle #1
(Pollution Prevention). DOD believes that an up-front look at materials is critical to determining
products' environmental preferability.
The General Services Administration (GSA) approved of Principle #2 (Multiple Attributes),
Principle #3 (Life-cycle Perspective), Principle #5 (Local Conditions), Principle #6 (Competition), and
Principle #7 (Product Attribute Claims).
The Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) had concerns about Principle #1 (Pollution
Prevention). SPI fears that product manufacturers will feel that they have to justify every design or
process decision. EPA should clarify that the federal government will not insert itself in product design.
SPI agreed with Principle #2 (Multiple Attributes) but cautioned against a formulistic approach.
Principle #4 (Magnitude of Impact) should reflect the fact that environmental tradeoffs should consider
safety, quality, performance, and priceiconsiderations as well. SPI agreed with Principle #5 (Local
Conditions). Regarding Principle #6 (Competition), care should be taken to protect confidential
business information. SPI agreed with Principle #7 (Product Attribute Claims).
The Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association (CSMA) agreed with Principle #1
(Pollution Prevention) and reaffirmed that the guidance should be holistic. CSMA also agreed with
Principle #2 (Multiple Attributes) but believes that attributes such as health and safety benefits should
be considered as well. Determination of environmental preferability should be based on net
environmental benefits. This commenter believes that Principle #4 (Magnitude of Impact) is too broad;
no clear hierarchy establishes which values are preferable. EPA's attempts to establish such values in
Appendix E are in conflict with Principle #5 (Local Conditions) because they emphasize global
concerns over local ones. Regarding Principle #6 (Competition), CSMA asserted that comparisons
between products should be based'on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) environmental product
marketing guides. CSMA also believes that use of the FTC guides should be emphasized in Principle
#7 (Product Attribute Claims). This commenter suggested the addition of another principle as well:
agencies should identify major risk-based activities and determine how to reduce their effects.
-------
The Automotive Parts Rebuilders Association (APRA) believes that the concept of
remanufacturing should be included in several of the principles. This concept is consistent with
Principle #1 (Pollution Prevention), because remanufacturing needs to be incorporated early in a
product's design process. It meets the goals of waste prevention, as stated in Principle #2 (Multiple
Attributes). Remanufacturing also satisfies Principle #3 (Life-cycle Perspective), and the savings in
nonrenewable resources that remanufacturing achieves has long-term effects, as in Principle #4
(Magnitude of Impact).
The Scientific Certification Systems Company (SCS) agreed with Principle #1 (Pollution
Prevention) but recommended that product performance be included in the analysis of environmental
preferability. This commenter believes that Principle #2 (Multiple Attributes) is an understatement.
Environmental preferability is not a decision—it is a dynamic. A product that is considered
environmentally preferable today might not be tomorrow. The guidance proposes two ways to
determine environmental preferability: through a lengthy process or through a streamlined approach
that reduces products to a number of attributes. SCS stated that recommending the latter, as the
guidance does, is inappropriate. Streamlining an approach before all necessary information is available
will result in inappropriate determinations of environmental preferability.
C. COMMENTS ON OPERATIONALIZING THE PRINCIPLES THROUGH PILOT
ACQUISITIONS AND OTHER TOOLS
While most commenters supported the emphasis on pilot projects, several stated that pilot
projects go beyond EPA's mandate, as established in Executive Order 12873. These commenters
believe that the Executive Order does not require EPA to recommend implementation procedures for
acquiring environmentally preferable products and services, and that doing so would be costly and
time-consuming. Commenters had no suggestions for other tools EPA might propose to operationalize
the principles. Specific comments are as follows:
The Department of Defense (DOD) stated that pilot projects can be very useful. Pilots reveal
the strengths and weaknesses of various programs and provide concrete examples. DOD cautioned,
however, that operationalizing the principles would be difficult because no accepted standards exist for
labeling environmentally preferable products. DOD proposes a pilot project to improve the evaluation
8
-------
process for the Defense Logistics Agency's environmentally preferable catalog/which is currently
based on vendor information. '
The General Services Administration (GSA) approved of the emphasis on pilot testing. GSA
and EPA have already engaged in piloit tests involving environmentally preferable cleaning products
and Energy Star computers. As a result, GSA plans to have a matrix available in 1996 for use when
purchasing cleaning products. This commenter recommended that EPA expedite further pilot testing
and develop a testing schedule. Concerning operationalization of the principles, GSA felt that an
average user should be able to apply the guidance easily and that the guidance should be made available
soon.
The Department of Energy (DOE) supported pilot projects and recommended that EPA
continue to work with agencies to identify other pilots. The results of these pilots should be made
available, and the pilots should be incorporated hi the Federal Supply Schedule. To avoid
overburdening procurement officers with environmental preferability determinations, the guidance
should be expanded. This commenter supports a commonsense approach to decision-making.
The American Plastics Council (APC) wondered how agencies will operationalize the
guidance, because the guidance is relatively general. Although the guidance is a good first step, "the
devil is in the details" of the operationalization process.
The American Forest & Paper Association (AFPA) believes that pilot projects go beyond
EPA's mandate, as stated hi Executive Order 12873; the Executive Order does not require EPA to
provide implementation procedures for purchasing environmentally preferable products and services. In
addition, AFPA objected to the guidance advocating major government initiatives for pilot testing for
which no funds have been appropriated. The cost—to taxpayers and suppliers (especially small
businesses)—of conducting such pilots is substantial. Small businesses would be expected to supply a
great deal of information and would feel obligated to comply to obtain government business.
The Automotive Parts Rebuilders Association (APRA) recommended that EPA ensure that at
least one pilot project focus on remanufactured products.
-------
The National Recycling Coalition (NRC) stated its concern that the guidance does not provide
the basic criteria officials need to purchase environmentally preferable products. The guidance needs to
set forth some minimum standards that identify environmentally preferable products. Something more
akin to Canada's Environmental Choice program, although not necessarily a logo program, might be
helpful. The goal of the guidance should be to provide officials with product category specific guidance
and to help them select products that are equal in value but provide environmental benefits. NRC stated
that the fundamental issue facing EPA is whether EPA plans to issue such product category specific
guidance or only a policy directive.
NRC also expressed concern about the resources available to implement the guidance. The
process set forward in the guidance would take too long and require the use of too many resources that
are not currently available. NRC recommended that EPA consider using existing standards and
research already conducted.
Rochester Midland Corporation emphasized the need to conduct pilot projects. In addition,
the guidance needs to provide tools that will allow users to make informed decisions. Information
matrices are important, but users want a system to identify products that make it easier and safer for
them to do their jobs.
D. COMMENTS ON THE LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT (LCA) APPROACH
Several commenters approved of the emphasis on LCA but cautioned that LCA is not fully
developed, can be costly, and requires analyses that agencies might not be able to conduct; EPA should
acknowledge these concerns. Other commenters objected to the inclusion of LCA in the guidance
because this assessment is impossible to apply to every procurement decision. Specific comments are as
follows:
The Department of Defense (DOD) supports the LCA approach, but this commenter warned
that LCA can be costly and complex, and the tools to conduct it are often flawed. DOD encouraged
EPA to investigate ways to share the lessons other agencies and the private sector have learned in
practicing or studying LCA.
10
-------
The General Services Administration (GSA) approves of the emphasis on LCA and believes
that the guidance clearly defines LCA,
The American Plastics Council (APC) supports the LCA approach as the only honest way to
discuss environmental preferability but does not think life-cycle inventory or analysis can be conducted
for every product or even major product categories. In addition, LCA is static and costly and takes a
long time to conduct. :
The Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) believes that LCA should be encouraged, not
required. Because LCA is almost impossible to operationalize hi every decision, the guidance should
not recommend a procedure that will result in "paralysis by analysis."
The American Forest & Paper Association (AFPA) asserted that by advocating LCA, the
guidance is advocating analysis for which highly accurate data are not available. LCA tools are not
fully developed, and without complete information, agencies cannot conduct comparable assessments.
Reducing environmental attributes to numbers could lead to poor, arbitrary decisions and give rise to
international trade concerns.
The Remanufacturing Industries Council (RIC) stated that the concept of LCA should
include mention of remanufacturing. ;
The Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association (CSMA) believes that LCA has been
valuable when used internally by companies but stated that there is no scientifically acceptable method
to ensure accurate comparisons. LCA is a method that is maturing; policy decisions about it remain to
be made. The GSA cleaning products guidance oversimplifies the environmental aspects of products by
reducing the information to a single number.
The Automotive Parts Rebuilders Association (APRA) stated that the concept of
remanufacturing should be included in the description of LCA in Appendix A.
11
-------
The Scientific Certification Systems Company (SCS) felt that although LCA is practiced, the
approach is evolving and under constant examination. As a result, agencies should use caution when
using an LCA approach.
E. COMMENTS ON COMBINING PRINCIPLES #2 AND #3
Two commenters on this topic recommended that EPA combine Principles #2 and #3. Specific
comments are as follows:
The American Plastics Council (APC) stated that multiple attributes are composed of all
effects and should be identified throughout the life cycle of a product or service. APC also
recommended that the LCA and multiple attributes analysis consider how the product is used in the
environment in which it is used. This commenter cautioned, however, that assessment of multiple
attributes can be difficult.
The Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) also recommended that EPA combine Principles #2
and #3.
F. COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED MENU OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE
ATTRIBUTES (APPENDIX Bl)
Commenters disagreed about the proposed menu of environmental performance attributes.
While some found the list helpful in identifying which attributes contribute to environmental
preferability, others worried that the list could be used inappropriately. Several commenters suggested
other attributes to add to the list. Specific comments are as follows:
The Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association (CSMA) stated that Appendix Bl is a
"laundry list" of performance characteristics. CSMA expressed concern that the list could be used as a
checklist to create environmental winners and losers. Instead, EPA should promote voluntary disclosure
by suppliers based on the FTC guides, which encourage competition and innovation. CSMA also
suggested that risk-based rather than hazard-based assessments be used.
12
-------
The Automotive Parts Rebuilders Association (APRA) recommended that remanufacturing be
listed as a positive attribute in Appendix Bl.
The National Recycling Coalition (NRC) reemphasized that recycled content and recyclability
be considered major attributes of a product in Appendix Bl. NRC believes that these attributes produce
multiple environmental benefits throughout the life cycle of a product, whether in manufacturing,
reuse, disposal, or recycling. This commenter encouraged federal agencies to select major attributes
from .the list that produce environmental benefits across the life cycle of a product. NRC also thinks
that Appendix Bl should include source reduced attributes.
Rochester Midland Corporation noted that the list of.stressors presenting high risk, as stated
in Appendix Bl, is similar to the attributes that the commenter's American Society for Testing
Materials (ASTM) taskgroup has identified.
G. COMMENTS ON ESTABLISHING CORE ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES AND THE
ECOLOGICAL IMPACT MATRIX
Commenters disagreed about the value of the ecological impact matrix. While one commenter
believes that the matrix is sound, others stated that it has not been sufficiently developed and is difficult
to use. Specific comments are as follows:
The American Plastics Council (APC) finds the matrix difficult to understand and use. This
commenter believes that the matrix has fatal flaws, which APC will discuss in greater length in its
written comments.
One flaw APC found in the matrix is its emphasis on the renewability/nonrenewabiliry of
resources. APC provided the example of an environmentally friendly windshield wiper fluid in a plastic
container. The container is made from a nonrenewable resource, but shipping the product hi this type
of container uses fewer nonrenewable resources.1 Thus, considerations of
renewability/nonrenewability alone could result in selection of a product that is not the most
'Editor's Note: Presumably because the container is lighter and will require less energy to transport.
13
-------
environmentally preferable in the long run. APC stated that global versus local considerations in the
matrix are problematic as well. This commenter will discuss these flaws further in APC's written
comments.
The Scientific Certification Systems Company (SCS) stated that the matrix is useful hi the
determination of environmental preferability, but only as a starting point. It is not sufficiently designed,
measurable, or able to produce usable information.
Rochester Midland Corporation believes that the matrix is sound and will assist users in
understanding that many issues surround the determination of environmental preferability.
H. COMMENTS ON THIRD-PARTY ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION PROGRAMS
Commenters disagreed about the use of third-party environmental certification programs.
Although some commenters felt that such programs help determine which products and services are
environmentally preferable, others objected to their use. Those that opposed third-party certification
programs expressed concern about the use of ecoseals and stated that the government should not
delegate governmental functions to private parties. Specific comments are as follows:
The Department of Defense (DOD) recommended that EPA be more involved hi the
certification process. DOD suggested three methods: 1) EPA could serve in a certifying capacity; 2)
EPA could review the procedure for third-party certification programs; and 3) when third-party
certification organizations are involved, EPA could make sure that the appropriate testing has been
conducted. DOD stated that lack of EPA involvement hi certification will force agencies to create their
own certification systems or to accept the claims of manufacturers. DOD supported EPA hi developing
a long-term project to test third-party certification systems.
The General Services Administration (GSA) agreed that third-party certification programs are
valuable, but GSA shared EPA's concerns about the lack of accepted national standards for third-party
certification programs.
14
-------
The Department of Energy (DOE) stated that determination of environmental preferability
should occur outside the routine procurement process, by existing federal supply sources such as GSA
and the Defense Logistics Agency and by third-party certification programs such as Green Seal. EPA
should help identify third-party certification programs and should encourage agencies to purchase
environmentally preferable products through federal supply sources and EPA-approved third-party
certification programs. : ..:. '
The American Plastics Council (APC) expressed concern about the role of ecoseals in the
determination of environmental preferability. APC cautioned that unless ecoseals are used carefully,
they can have adverse 'effects; they can be based on decisions of what is politically correct at the
moment. This commenter also asked: If a product is not chosen, does the manufacturer have legal
recourse if it feels it has been the victim of discrimination?
The Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) disagreed that agencies should rely on third-party
certification programs. This commenter asserted that such programs are not reliable and cannot be
substituted for the decisions of individual procurement officials. The process of using third-party
certification programs could be too judgmental.
The Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA) expressed concern that the guidance could
become a backdoor to a government-sponsored system of ecoseals. GMA stated that Principles #1
through #5 ensure that agencies will not oversimplify the determination of environmental preferability.
Yet Principle #7 (Product Attribute Claims) and Appendix F could negate what the other principles
have established. GMA expressed concern that Principle #7 will invite agencies to equate ecoseals with
environmental preferability. !
GMA summarized why ecoseals do not work. Unlike labels that provide information, seals are
symbols awarded by stakeholders and experts based on subjective judgments. This commenter radicated
that experience with ecoseals hi Europe has revealed that they are flawed; ecoseals are not objective,
they stifle innovation, and they reward environmental inferiority by recognizing products that are
politically correct at a given time. Further, GMA stated that ecoseals train consumers to look for
symbols rather than facts.
15
-------
In addition, GMA stated that federal procurement cannot legally be based on ecoseals, because
the legal system recognizes that the government cannot make private parties cooperate with something
that is essentially a governmental duty. The requirement not to delegate governmental functions reflects
the principle that those who exercise the powers of government must be subject to special disciplines.
None of these disciplines apply to ecoseals companies. Agencies need to ensure that their decisions are
not based on value judgments.
Having established this hi its preamble, the guidance recommends that agencies rely on
ecoseals as long as they meet certain criteria. Thus, the language of the preamble and the guidance
itself contradict each other. GMA proposed that EPA clarify the guidance's reference to ecoseals so
that it echoes the preamble. EPA should make it clear that agencies should make decisions based on
objective information, not value judgments.
The American Forest & Paper Association (AFPA) is against third-party certification
programs for two reasons: 1) the government cannot legally delegate governmental functions to private
parties, and 2) third-party certification programs cannot determine environmental preferability because
there is no methodology to do so. AFPA cautioned that EPA's guidance is based on the same concepts
that the European Union ecolabel scheme is. This scheme is currently under attack by foreign
governments, industry, and the U.S. government.
The Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association (CSMA) is opposed to third-party
certification. CSMA believes that comparisons should be based on the FTC guides and should
encourage voluntary disclosure. These comparisons should be factual and substantive and maintain
confidentiality.
The National Recycling Coalition (NRC) reminded EPA that, in Executive Order 12873, the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was directed to do product testing. NRC
believes that NIST should become involved immediately regarding third-party certification progrs
This commenter encouraged EPA to consider whether certification programs are a viable means of
identifying environmentally preferable products.
rams.
16
-------
The Scientific Certification Systems Company (SCS) believes that there is a role for third-
party certification programs, but that role is inappropriately defined. This commenter noted that the
FTC guides are a good starting point, but they do not define environmental preferability or provide
information to an audience in a useful way. SCS stated that judgment of environmental preferability by
a panel is inappropriate because environmental preferability changes from one day to the next. In
addition, third-party certification programs do not create or use products and technologies; they can
identify that a product is what it claims to be and that data are sufficient to substantiate that claim, but
they cannot determine environmental preferability.
Green Seal asserted that federal agencies need the assistance of third-party certification
programs to determine which products are environmentally preferable. The National Performance
Review of the Federal Government makes it clear that federal agencies should rely on private sector
approaches. Green Seal pointed out that the private sector relies on third-party certification programs,
and the government should, too. Government-only standards limit creativity.
I.
MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS
Additional comments presented at the meeting ranged from suggestions that agencies procure
municipal solid waste (MSW) services hi accordance with RCRA to recommendations that agencies
acquire products developed by the Alternative Agriculture Research and Commercialization Center of
the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Specific comments are as follows:
The General Services Administration (GSA) recommended a two- to three-day conference on
purchasing environmentally preferable products, in which EPA could bring together government
agencies, third-party certification programs, and manufacturers to discuss implementation of the
guidance. GSA believes that these parties all have the same goal; they next need to work together to
determine how best to accomplish that goal.
The Department of Energy (DOE) emphasized the importance of energy efficiency in federal
procurement. DOE encourages energy'efficiency in government purchasing under Section 161 of the
Energy Policy Act of 1992. The federal policy of encouraging energy efficient purchasing is described
in detail in Section 507b of Executive Order 12902, which directs all agencies to increase their use of
17
-------
energy efficient products. The Executive Order defines energy efficient products as those in the top 25
percent of the market in terms of energy and water efficiency or those at least 10 percent more efficient
than any DOE issued national standards.
To assist agencies in complying with the Executive Order, DOE has teamed up with the Office
of Federal Procurement Policy of the Office of Management and Budget to sponsor an energy
efficiency challenge. The challenge asks federal agencies to take a leadership role in making energy
efficiency a part of then- practices. Twenty-two agencies representing $10 billion in products joined in
the effort by signing the challenge. The next step is for each agency to update its procurement policies
and practices to make them more energy efficient.
DOE is also developing technical guidelines to provide energy efficient levels2 for common
products. DOE will disseminate these guidelines in printed and electronic forms.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) encouraged federal agencies to purchase
environmentally preferable products that have been developed by the Alternative Agriculture Research
and Commercialization Center of USDA. The center has developed 54 environmental products and
invested $23 million, matched by $93 million from the private sector. USDA provided examples of
some of these products, which include an ethanol-based windshield wiper fluid made from corn, a
transmission fluid substitute made from rapeseed, wheat straw that is used for constructing interior
walls, and a particleboard also made of wheat straw. USDA cautioned that several federal requirements
hinder the use of these products, such as the regulation that federal agencies must purchase recycled
content paper. This regulation prohibits agencies from using tree-free paper made of kenaf, for
example. USDA encouraged EPA to work to overcome these regulations.
The American Plastics Council (APC) cautioned EPA from going beyond the realm of federal
procurement to tell private sector purchasers which products are environmentally preferable. This
commenter does not believe that the government should dictate to the private sector which products are
environmentally superior. EPA should also be wary that purchasing environmentally preferable
products will probably not reduce costs in the short run, although it may in the long term. This
2Editor's Note: Presumably, energy efficient ratings.
18
-------
commenter also noted that the guidance is not the origin of environmentally preferable purchasing. The
market has already seen many products with recycled content and energy efficient attributes, which
were driven by industry's desire to satisfy more environmentally aware consumers. APC believes that
the government is now catching up to the private sector in terms of environmental purchasing.
The Remanufacturing Industries Council (RIC) stressed the importance of remanufacturing
hi the determination of environmental preferability. RIC recommended that EPA incorporate
remanufacturing as a specific concept in the guidance, establish incentives to promote the use of
remanufacturing, and create a remanufacturing advisory committee.
Ogden Projects, Inc., emphasized the federal government's need to procure solid waste
services that are in compliance with RCRA and other federal regulations. Ogden Projects noted that the
federal government is the nation's largest disposer of MSW, yet a very small amount of MSW disposed
of by the government is managed in accordance with RCRA and other regulations. Ogden Projects
stated that EPA should require that federal agencies dispose of their MSW only in combustion facilities
and landfills that are in compliance with RCRA and the Clean Air Act. This commenter also believes
that the federal government should purchase power from companies that generate it with less pollution.
The Automotive Parts Rebuilders Association (APRA) believes that the guidance should
distinguish between remanufacturing and recycling so that federal agencies appreciate how
remanufacturing can contribute to environmental preferability. APRA also asserted that the guidance
should dictate a preference for products that are remanufactured where the costs support such a
preference. This commenter believes that EPA should actively promote remanufacturing. In addition,
the guidance should be clarified so that remanufacturing and recycling are applied to product
components as well as final products. Finally, APRA stated that the guidance should create positive
incentives for manufacturers to build remanufacturing into their products and expand remanufacturing
to more products.
Sunshine Makers, Inc., emphasized that environmentally preferable products should bring
about the elimination of hazardous wastes. This commenter recommended that agencies use the
following steps when acquiring environmentally preferable cleaning products (these steps were part of
Sunshine Makers' recommendations to the Northeastern Wyoming Coal Producers Association): 1)
19
-------
determine what needs to be changed; 2) survey your agency to find people who use the product and ask
for their input; 3) do not assume that you need to acquire new equipment to get a newer cleaning
technology; 4) make the selection requirements for the replacement cleaner rigorous, and verify all
claims; 5) once you have determined which product to purchase, ensure that the product is clean when
it enters your organization; 6) request that the supplier provide toxic contaminant leaching procedures
(TCLP) and certify that the product is below the required emissions level for volatile organic
compounds and other hazardous substances; and 7) complete LCA and ensure that the product can be
disposed of safely and in an environmentally friendly manner.
20
.
-------
SECTION THREE
CONCLUSIONS
In closing the meeting, William Sanders, Director of EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, summarized the comments made at the meeting. He stated that there is general, although not
unanimous, agreement that the guidance is a good first step and that LCA should be part of the
framework. Commenters have expressed concern, however, about whether LCA can be used without
overwhelming purchasers. Mr. Sanders stated that although commenters did not agree about the role of
third-party certification programs, EPA will need to address this issue as the Agency moves towards
implementation of the guidance. Mr. Sanders also stated that commenters approved of the need for
pilot projects and agreed that EPA needs to move more quickly in implementing the guidance.
21
-------
SECTION FOUR
QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSIONS
A question and answer session followed every two panels. Attendees were invited to submit
their written questions to the moderator, who read them aloud. Panelists to whom the questions were
addressed were not obligated to answer the questions at this time. All questions were entered into the
record and will be considered by EPA and the appropriate agencies as EPA reviews comments offered
during the public meeting and submitted to the docket.
A. QUESTIONS FOR THE FEDERAL AGENCY PANEL AND PANEL 1
Federal Agency Panel
Carole Parker, U.S. Department of Defense
John Stanberry, U.S. General Services
Administration
Rick Klimkof, U.S. Department of Energy
Ron McHugh, U.S. Department of Energy
Bruce Cram, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Panel 1
Rick Otis, American Plastics Council
Maureen Healey, The Society for the
Plastics Industry
From David Sussman, Ogden Projects, Inc.
To Carole Parker and Rick Klimkof
The first two speakers discussed procurement of products and had no mention of services. Is this an
oversight or are services of no interest to these two agencies?
From Larry Errelich, George Washington University
To Rick Klimkof
Will the program you described be separate or part of this program? If it is to be integrated, how will
that be done?
From Stephen Evanoff, Lockheed-Martin Corporation
To Carole Parker and Rick Klimkof
Please comment on the role of prime contractors in general and government operators in particular in
implementing this program.
From Ken Farber, Hogan and Hanson for PIMA
To Fran McPoland
How will this program be coordinated with DOE's energy-efficient product program, particularly if
there is a potential conflict of methodologies, assumptions, and criteria?
22
-------
From David Isaacs, EIA
To Carole Parker
You mentioned the difficulties associated with evaluating the environmental attributes of complex
defense systems. Can you elaborate on those difficulties?
From Stephen P. Ashkin, Rochester Midland Corporation
To various agency environmental executives
Would each agency identify what pilot projects are currently underway and what may be in the works?
From Eun-Sook Goidel, EPA
To Panel 1
Are there alternative frameworks apart from LCA that can help us capture the multidimensional aspects
of environmental preferability?
From Eun-Sook Goidel, EPA
To Panel 1
A number of commenters have indicated that they are concerned about the use of third parties in
determining environmentally preferable products because such a determination is inherently a
governmental function. Could the federal agencies comment on this?
From John Shoaff, EPA '.
To Maureen Healey
In regard to the LCA and multiple attributes, can you elaborate on your comments that the government
should ask how product design considerations are internalized into operations?
From Dave Core, Steel Shipping Container Institute
To Eun-Sook Goidel, EPA
Will these guidelines allow waivers for products that must first meet other regulatory requirements,
e.g., DOT hazmat regulations?
B. QUESTIONS FOR PANELS 2 AND 3
Panel 2
E. Donald Elliott, Grocery Manufacturers
of America
Amy Schaffer, American Forest & Paper
Association
Mike Conlon, Remanufacturing Industries
Council
Panel 3
Ralph Engel, Chemical Specialties
Manufacturers Association
David Sussman, Ogden Projects, Inc.
Mike Conlon, Automotive Parts Rebuilders
Association
No questions were posed to these two panels.
23
-------
C, QUESTIONS FOR PANELS 4 AND 5
Panel 4
Edgar Miller, National Recycling Coalition
Chet Chaffee, Scientific Certification Systems
Company
Arthur Weissman, Green Seal
Panels
Stephen Ashkin, Rochester Midland
Corporation
Lloyd Murphy, Sunshine Makers, Inc.
From Rick Otis, American Plastics Council
To Arthur Weissman
How do you address the concern that the ecoseal certification process is too slow to accommodate
changes in product design, manufacturing processes, and ingredients? Will not the delay slow down
product innovation?
From Rick Otis, American Plastics Council
To Arthur Weissman
You said "all things being equal" with respect to an attribute like a toxic ingredient. How do you
ensure that all other things are equal? And when they are not, what value judgments do you use to
weigh the differences?
From Birgit Leuschel, New Jersey Institute of Technology
To Chet Chaffee
How does the ISO 14000 series relate to the EPA guidelines? To what extent could an ISO 14001
certified company meet the proposed criteria?
24
-------
APPENDIX A
LIST OF COMMENTERS
American Forest & Paper Association
Amy Schaffer
Senior Director
1111 19th Street, NW.,' Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036
202463-2585
Fax: 202 463-2423
American Plastics Council
Rick Otis
Director
1275 Case Street, NW., Fifth Floor '
Washington, DC 20005
202371-5319
Fax:202371-5679
Automotive Parts Rebuilders Association
Mike Conlon
General Counsel
1818 M Street, NW., Suite 700
Washington, DC 20036
202 331-7050
Fax:202331-9306
Chemical Specialties Manufacturers
Association
Ralph Engel
President
19311 Street, NW.
Washington, DC 20006
202872-8110
Fax: 202 872-8114
Green Seal
Arthur Weissman
Vice President of Standards
1730 Rhode Island Avenue, NW., Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20036
202 331-7337, Extension 32
Fax: 202 331-7533
Grocery Manufacturers of America
E. Donald Elliott
Counsel
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 800
Washington, DC 20004
202 639-7170
Fax: 202 639-7372
National Recycling Coalition
Edgar Miller
Director of Policy
1727 King Street, Suite 105
Alexandria, VA 22314-2720
703 683-9025
Fax: 703 683-9026
Ogden Projects, Inc.
David Sussman
Senior Vice President
1212 New York Avenue, NW., Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005
202371-5144
Fax: 202 371-9236
Remanufacturing Industries Council
Mike Conlon
General Counsel
1818 M Street, NW., Suite 700
Washington, DC 20036
202331-7050
Fax: 202 331-9306
Rochester Midland Corporation
Stephen Ashkin
Vice President
333 Hollendec Street
Rochester, NY 14603-1515
716 336-2200
Fax: 716 336-2357
25
-------
Scientific Certification Systems Company
Chet Chaffee
Vice President, Marketing
1 Kaiser Plaza, Suite 901
Oakland, CA 94612
510 832-1415
Fax: 510 832-0359
The Society of the Plastics Industry
Maureen Healey
Director, Federal Government Affairs
1275 K Street, NW., Suite 400
Washington, DC 20005
202 371-5219
Fax: 202 842-1165
Sunshine Makers, Inc.
Lloyd Murphy
Dkector, Industrial Education
1059 Jennings Station Road
St. Louis, MO 63137
314 867-8725
Fax: 314 867-8791
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Bruce Grain
Director, Alternative Agriculture Research and
Commercialization Center
0156 South Building
12th Street and Independence Avenue, SW.
Washington, DC 20250
202 690-1633
Fax: 202 690-1655
U.S. Department of Defense
Carole Parker
Director, Pollution Prevention
Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense—Environmental Security
5109 Leesburg Pike, Suite 310
Falls Church, VA 22041
U.S. Department of Energy
Rick Klimkof
Program Manager, Federal Energy
Management Program
1001 Independence Avenue, SW. (EE92)
Washington, DC 20585-0121
202 586-8287
Fax: 202 586-3000
U.S. Department of Energy
Ron McHugh
1001 Independence Avenue, SW. (EE92)
Washington, DC 20585-0121
202 586-8287
Fax: 202 586-3000
U.S. General Services Administration
John Stanberry
Environmental Executive
18th and F Streets, NW.
Washington, DC 20405
202 208-7929
26
-------
APPENDIX B
COMMENTERS BY INTEREST CATEGORY
CATEGORY
Federal Agency
Consumer and/or Commercial
Products Manufacturer
Industrial Products Manufacturer
Environmental Advocacy
Organization
Trade Association
Standards and Certification
Organization
Miscellaneous
COMMENTER
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Department of Defense
U.S. Department of Energy (two commenters)
U.S. General Services Administration
Sunshine Makers, Inc.
Rochester Midland Corporation
National Recycling Coalition
American Plastics Council
American Forest & Paper Association
Automotive Parts Rebuilders Association
Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association
Grocery Manufacturers of America
Remanufacturing Industries Council
The Society of the Plastics Industry
Green Seal
Scientific Certification Systems Company
Ogden Projects, Inc.
27
-------
APPENDIX C
INDEX OF COMMENTS
Commenter
American Plastics Council
American Forest & Paper Association
Automotive Parts Rebuilders Association
Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association
Green Seal
Grocery Manufacturers of America
National Recycling Coalition
Ogden Projects, Inc.
Remanufacturing Industries Council
Rochester Midland Corporation
Scientific Certification Systems Company
The Society of the Plastics Industry
Sunshine Makers, Inc.
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Department of Defense
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. General Services Administration
Pages Where Comments Appear
4, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18
5,9, 11, 16
5, 8, 9, 11, 13, 19
5, 7, 11, 12, 16
6,17
15
5, 10, 13, 16
19
5, 11, 19
6, 10, 13, 14
8, 12, 14, 17
4, 7, 11, 12, 15
19
18
4, 7, 8, 10, 14
4, 9, 15, 17
7,9,11,14,17
28
------- |