t O \
Uafei
V P,o«G<°
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
EPA Can Help Consumers
Identify Household and Other
Products with Safer Chemicals
by Strengthening Its "Design
for the Environment" Program
Report No. 14-P-0349 September 9, 2014
-------
Report Contributors: Laurie Adams
Daniel Carroll
Jerri Dorsey
Gabby Fekete
Jeffrey Harris
Abbreviations
DfE Design for the Environment
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OIG Office of Inspector General
PM Performance Measure
Cover photo: EPA photo illustrating the use of household cleaners.
(Design for the Environment website)
Are you aware of fraud, waste or abuse in an
EPA program?
EPA Inspector General Hotline
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2431T)
Washington, DC 20460
(888) 546-8740
(202) 566-2599 (fax)
OIG Hotline@epa.gov
More information at www.epa.gov/oiq/hotline.html.
EPA Office of Inspector General
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (241OT)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 566-2391
www.epa.gov/oig
Subscribe to our Email Updates
Follow us on Twitter @EPAoig
Send us your Project Suggestions
-------
X^£D S7",
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
September 9, 2014
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: EPA Can Help Consumers Identify Household and Other Products with Safer Chemicals
by Strengthening Its "Design for the Environment" Program
Report No. 14-P-0349
This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe problems the
OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report represents the opinion of the
OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final determinations on matters in this
report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures.
The EPA office having primary responsibility for the issues evaluated in this report is the Office of
Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
Action Required
You are not required to provide a written response to this final report because you provided agreed-to
corrective actions and planned completion dates for the report recommendations. The OIG may make
periodic inquiries on your progress in implementing these corrective actions. Should you choose to
provide a final response, we will post your response on the OIG's public website, along with our
memorandum commenting on your response. You should provide your response as an Adobe PDF file
that complies with the accessibility requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended.
FROM: Arthur A. Elkins Jr.
TO:
Jim Jones, Assistant Administrator
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
We will post this report to our website at http://www.epa.gov/oig.
-------
EPA Can Help Consumers Identify
Household and Other Products with Safer Chemicals
by Strengthening Its "Design for the Environment" Program
14-P-0349
Table of C
Purpose 1
Background 1
Responsible Office 2
Noteworthy Achievements 2
Scope and Methodology 3
Results of Review 3
EPA's DfE Goals Can Be Enhanced Through Logo Improvements 4
EPA's DfE Website Has Unsupported Program Benefit Claims 5
Weaknesses Exist in EPA's Measurement of DfE Program Results 5
Conclusions 6
Recommendations 7
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 7
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits 8
Appendices
A Agency Response to Draft Report 9
B Distribution 12
-------
Purpose
Our objective was to determine how effectively the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) "Design for the Environment" (DfE) Safer Product
Labeling Program is highlighting safer products for consumer use.
Background
The DfE program is one of the EPA's pollution prevention programs. The EPA's
pollution prevention programs are designed to reduce or eliminate waste at the
source by modifying production processes, promoting the use of non-toxic or
less-toxic substances, implementing conservation techniques, and re-using
materials. The DfE achieves pollution prevention by promoting safer product
design and green chemistry. Based on data reported by the EPA, DfE is being
reported as the agency's most successful pollution prevention program in
reducing reported pounds of hazardous materials—the DfE alone accounted for
nearly half of all EPA-claimed pollution reductions in recent years.
The DfE program incentivizes companies to manufacture products that contain
safer chemicals than other alternative products on the market. Companies can join
the program and label their products as DfE-certified if they have met the
program's standards. The process used by the EPA to qualify products for the DfE
labeling program is illustrated in figure 1.
Figure 1: DfE Product Qualification Process
Applicant
Applicant makes necessary
improvements & re-submits application
Applicant makes
necessary improvements &
re-submits application
No
No
Yes
Submit to
DIE?
Meets DfE
Standard?
Third-Party
Reviewer
Yes
DfE
DfE
Submits its
application for
partnership to
qualified third-party
reviewer.
Communicates
findings to
applicant.
Performs QA on
third-party
assessment and
confirms thai
ingredienls meet
OfE critena for
human health and
the environment.
Discusses its
assessment with
applicant and third-
party reviewer
Reviews all
product ingredienls
against DfE
criteria, collects
performance
information, and
develops chemical
profiles
Partnership
agreement
signed & label
use allowed. J
Source: DfE program.
14-P-0349
1
-------
The DfE logo, as shown in figure 2, is the EPA's label
for safer chemical products. For over 15 years, the DfE
Safer Product Labeling Program has labeled products
that meet the criteria to be considered safer for families
and the environment. According to the EPA, when the
DfE label appears on a product, it means that each
ingredient in the product has been screened for potential
human health and environmental effects and that the
product contains only those ingredients that pose the
least concern among chemicals in their class. DfE-
labeled products include all-purpose cleaners, dishwasher detergents, car care
products, carpet cleaners, dish and hand soaps, floor care products, laundry
detergents and softeners, leather cleaners, toilet bowl and tub/tile cleaners,
window/glass cleaners, and wood cleaners.
Applicants for the DfE label must fully disclose all ingredients to the DfE
program and a qualified third-party profiler. Currently there are two third-party
profiler companies. For each DfE product, a third-party profiler compiles hazard
information on each chemical ingredient, including its detailed structure,
physical-chemical properties, human health and environmental toxicology, and
regulatory status. A product is only allowed to carry the DfE label if each
ingredient is among the safest in its ingredient class. Additionally, the product as
a whole has to meet safety criteria, qualify as high performing, and be packaged
in an environmentally friendly manner. Once products are approved by DfE, each
manufacturer must sign a partnership agreement that outlines the program's
requirements, including audits and product renewals.
Responsible Office
The EPA office having primary responsibility for the DfE program is the Office
of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention's Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics.
Noteworthy Achievements
DfE has evaluated and approved more than 2,500 products to carry the DfE logo.
In 2012, the EPA developed the Safer Chemical Ingredients List, which contains
chemicals that meet the criteria of the DfE Safer Product Labeling Program. In 2014,
the EPA updated the list by adding over 50 chemicals, bringing the number of safer
fragrance chemical ingredients to over 150 and the total number of safer chemical
ingredients to approximately 650.
Additionally, DfE has developed the "DfE Product Portal" database, providing
pertinent program-related information within one internal database system.
According to the EPA, the primary function of this database is to manage
chemical, partner and product information in a cloud-based system. The new
Figure 2: DfE Logo
£
o
U.S.EFft
Source: DfE website.
14-P-0349
2
-------
system will address shortcomings of the prior, outdated database and address
functional needs of the program. For example, the database will lend itself to
faster review of partnership applications and access to historical data related to
partnership history and decisions.
Scope and Methodology
We conducted our work from November 2013 through July 2014. We conducted
this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our audit objectives.
We reviewed relevant materials, including laws, policies, procedures and reports.
We documented the universe of DfE consumer products. We randomly selected a
sample item from each of the eight product categories that had 25 or more
approved products and we reviewed the files held by the EPA for those products.
Specifically, we reviewed the requirements under the program, documentation
provided by the third-party profilers, audit results and product labels. We also
reviewed a sample of 30 products to determine compliance with label
requirements.
We interviewed key agency staff, including the DfE Program Chief and the staff
charged with reviewing third-party profiler decisions, developing alternatives
assessments and new sector standards, reporting on performance measures, and
promoting the DfE program. We interviewed the head toxicologists at the two
third-party profilers who conduct the product assessments for the DfE program.
We reviewed the program's goals and measures, with particular focus on how the
measures are calculated and reported over time. We conducted a brief inspection
at the retail-store level to assess consumer ability to easily detect safer product
labeling information.
Results of Review
The DfE program intends to help consumers make wise choices by identifying
safer products. However, we found issues in the design and use of the program
logo that impede brand recognition. There is also the potential for consumers to
draw the interpretation that EPA endorses DfE products, which is not allowed,
and potential misuse of the logo by former program participants. Also, the agency
asserts that DfE products are cost effective, but this has not been determined or
reviewed. Further, we found weaknesses in how the performance of the DfE
program is measured.
14-P-0349
3
-------
EPA's DfE Goals Can Be Enhanced Through Logo Improvements
The EPA states that the DfE label helps consumers easily choose safer products.
However, we identified factors in the design and placement of the label that could
impede product promotion and DfE brand recognition. We also found issues
potentially impacting the integrity of the DfE logo.
The current DfE logo does not adequately communicate to the consumer that the
product is a safer product. DfE has acknowledged that the DfE mission to
promote "safer chemical based products" is not conveyed by the current logo. The
agency received stakeholder feedback showing that the logo does not fully and
effectively communicate DfE's mission. Furthermore, the manufacturers' typical
placement of the DfE label on the back of its products inhibits the promotion of
"safer chemical based products." Consumers would need to pick up, turn around
and examine a product to see the DfE labeling.
The prominent use of "U.S. EPA" on the logo (see figure 2) may lead consumers
to draw the interpretation that EPA endorses products that have the label. DfE
program documents state that EPA/DfE recognition does not constitute
endorsement of a product. According to the DfE partnership agreement, partners
agree to include on any advertising of the DfE-qualifying products an
endorsement disclaimer.1 The disclaimer disavows any EPA product
endorsement. Additionally, partners are to work with the EPA to find an
appropriate place (e.g., company website) to include the disclaimer.
According to EPA staff, because of the length of the disclaimer statement, most
manufacturers place the disclaimer on their websites. To test this, we randomly
sampled 30 DfE products and found this language was not included on the
webpages for all but one of the products sampled. Therefore, there is a substantial
risk that an EPA endorsement of DfE products is implied and could be so
perceived by consumers. The EPA may need to strengthen controls in this area or
remove the "U.S. EPA" from the DfE logo to eliminate any perceived EPA
endorsement.
The EPA also lacks sufficient controls over the use of its DfE logo by former DfE
program participants. We found one instance in which the DfE logo was used on a
website of a DfE partner that is no longer in the program. We also found a past
program participant that acknowledges on its website that it no longer carries the
DfE label on its products but that many of its products are still "DfE recognized."
1 Required Disclaimer: EPA/DfE recognition does not constitute endorsement of this product. The Design for the
Environment logo signifies that the formula for this product, as «Company Partner» has represented it to the EPA,
contains ingredients with more positive health and environmental characteristics than conventional cleaners.
EPA/DfE relies solely on «Company Partner», its integrity and good faith, for information on the composition,
ingredients, and attributes of this product. EPA/DfE has not independently identified, i.e., via chemical analysis, the
ingredients in the product formula, nor evaluated any of a Company's noningredient claims. EPA/DfE provides its
evaluation only as to the environmental and human health characteristics of the product, based on currently available
information and scientific understanding.
14-P-0349
4
-------
This is misleading for consumers, inconsistent with the program's purpose of safe
product promotion, and a violation of the DfE partnership agreement.
We also found the logo for the Safe Detergent Stewardship Initiative has a design
similar to the DfE program logo. Since the two programs have separate and
distinct eligibility requirements, it is important that their logos also be distinct to
avoid confusing or misleading consumers.
EPA's DfE Website Has Unsupported Program Benefit Claims
The EPA's website states that:
EPA's Design for the Environment program helps consumers,
businesses, and institutional buyers identify cleaning and other
products that perform well, are cost-effective, and are safer for
the environment.
However, the DfE program does not have controls in place to ensure one of these
three claims—cost effectiveness. The DfE review process includes an assessment
of each of the ingredients in a potential product to ensure that the product contains
only those ingredients that pose the least concern among chemicals in their class.
We found that the files documenting the process for accepting partners into the
DfE program were adequate and maintained. However the agency does not have
evidence in its files to support that DfE products are cost effective. The current
review process to qualify products does not include any review of cost
effectiveness. The agency should ensure that language describing the program's
benefits is accurate and not misleading.
Weaknesses Exist in EPA's Measurement of DfE Program Results
The EPA has used results from the DfE program to support two of the agency's
Government Performance and Results Act measures. Specifically:
• Performance Measure (PM) 264, pounds of hazardous materials reduced
through pollution prevention.
• PM P25, percent increase in use of safer products.
However, DfE results data are not appropriate or valid to support either measure.
This is significant because DfE accounted for nearly half of all EPA-claimed
hazardous material reductions (PM 264) in recent years.
DfE's contribution to PM 264 was calculated by multiplying the average annual
production volume of safer products by the number of DfE labeled products at
year end. However, the use of average production volume is inconsistent with the
definition for PM 264. PM 264 is supposed to measure the reduction of hazardous
materials, but the DfE metric focused on production of safer chemicals. Thus, this
14-P-0349
5
-------
metric did not reflect the amount of hazardous materials reduced as reported
under PM 264. In addition, an outdated formula was used to generate the DfE
average production volume. The formula was based on data from eight
participating manufacturers in 2006, but as of February 2014 half of those
manufacturers were no longer partners in the DfE program.
DfE program results data were also used to show EPA progress on the percent
increase in the use of safer products (PM P25). However, as noted above, the DfE
program measured the overall production of products with safer chemicals and
not changes in the use of safer products. Therefore, using DfE program results
data to support PM P25 was inappropriate.
During our review, the EPA modified how DfE results were reported. DfE results
have been removed from the agency's performance measure that reports pounds
of hazardous materials reduced through pollution prevention. The agency will
also no longer use calculated average production volume of safer chemicals in
support of any measures. The agency has decided to no longer report on the
measure of percent increase in use of safer products.
Beginning with fiscal year 2015, a new DfE program measure will be used to
track program results. This measure calculates the number of products that have
earned the DfE label and the number of chemicals listed on the Safer Chemical
Ingredients List. This new DfE measure provides relevant and updated
information on outputs. However, while the new measure is important, it has key
limitations. Counts of products that are labeled safer and chemicals on the Safer
Chemical Ingredients List do not provide evidence that consumers are actually
purchasing and using these products instead of other products and, thus, having
the desired pollution prevention and risk reduction impact. Without measures that
better capture the use or sale of DfE products, the EPA will be limited in
accurately projecting the outcomes and impacts of this program, including its
desired impact on pollution prevention.
Conclusions
The DfE program is designed to help consumers make wise choices by identifying
safer products. There are more than 2,500 products that carry the DfE logo, and
the EPA has expressed interest in continuing to grow the program. The current
DfE logo design and EPA-acknowledged low consumer recognition of the logo
impedes the agency's goal to promote safer chemical-based products through the
DfE program. Further, use of the logo by those who left the program, as well as
by other EPA programs with different eligibility requirements, could negatively
impact the overall integrity and value of the DfE logo. Improving the DfE logo
should further the EPA's goals, better promote safer products, and support DfE
brand recognition among consumers. In addition, having valid measures that
capture DfE program results will strengthen the EPA's ability to accurately
determine program benefits and contributions to pollution prevention.
14-P-0349
6
-------
Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention:
1. Design a unique DfE logo that better conveys the program's obj ective and
eliminates any appearance of an EPA endorsement.
2. Periodically review program participants' compliance with the DfE
partnership agreement as it relates to appropriate use of DfE program
language, including disclaimers and labeling requirements.
3. Develop and implement controls for accomplishing removal of the DfE
logo from the websites of partners who leave the program.
4. Take appropriate action to address noncompliance with DfE partnership
agreements discovered as a result of this review.
5. Remove statements on the EPA's website that imply or suggest that the
EPA has determined that DfE products are a cost-effective choice, unless
valid work to support that assessment has been completed.
6. Develop robust, transparent and adequately supported performance
measures that capture the DfE program's results.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
The agency agreed with our findings and recommendations, and provided
corrective actions and estimated completion dates that meet the intent of the
recommendations. The agency has fully addressed recommendation 5 and,
therefore, it is closed. Based on the agency's written response to the report and a
meeting to discuss the agency's response, we have determined that the remaining
recommendations are resolved and open with corrective actions ongoing. No
further response to this report is required. The agency's detailed response is in
appendix A. The agency also provided a technical comment on the draft report,
which we have incorporated into our report as appropriate.
14-P-0349
7
-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS
POTENTIAL MONETARY
BENEFITS (In $000s)
Rec.
No.
No.
Subject
Status1
Action Official
Planned
Completion
Date
Claimed
Amount
Ag reed-To
Amount
7 Design a unique DE logo that better conveys the
program's objective and eliminates any
appearance of an EPA endorsement.
7 Periodically review program participants'
compliance with the DE partnership agreement as
it relates to appropriate use of DfE program
language, including disclaimers and labeling
requirements.
7 Develop and implement controls for accomplishing
removal of the DE logo from the websites of
partners who leave the program.
7 Take appropriate action to address noncompliance
with DE partnership agreements discovered as a
result of this review.
7 Remove statements on the EPA's website that
imply or suggest that the EPA has determined that
DfE products are a cost-effective choice, unless
valid work to support that assessment has been
completed.
7 Develop robust, transparent and adequately
supported performance measures that capture the
DfE program's results.
Assistant Administrator for 3/31/15
Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention
Assistant Administrator for 12/31/14
Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention
Assistant Administrator for 6/30/15
Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention
Assistant Administrator for 6/30/15
Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention
Assistant Administrator for 8/8/14
Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention
Assistant Administrator for 9/30/15
Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention
1 0 = Recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending.
C = Recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed.
U = Recommendation is unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.
14-P-0349
8
-------
Appendix A
Agency Response to Draft Report
August 8, 2014
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to Office of Inspector General Draft Report No. OPE-FY14-0008
"EPA Can Help Consumers Identify Safer Chemical Products by Strengthening
Its "Design for the Environment" Program," dated July 9, 2014
FROM: James J. Jones
Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
TO: Arthur A. Elkins, Jr.
Inspector General
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the issues and recommendations in the subject report.
This memorandum provides the Agency's response to OIG's recommendations, and identifies
corrective actions the Agency will be taking in response.
One item in the draft OIG report, which we did not comment on in our response to the
discussion draft, pertains to the use of the DfE logo by another EPA pollution prevention
initiative. The example cited in page 5 of the draft report is the DfE Safer Detergents
Stewardship Initiative (SDSI). We propose a technical correction to the OIG report to replace
the subject paragraph to more completely reflect how DfE has managed use of the DfE Safer
Product Labeling Program logo (Attachment A).
The report contains a total of six recommendations. Below we list each recommendation and
the OCSPP response, including timeframes for implementation.
Recommendation 1. Design a unique DfE logo that better conveys the program's objective and
fully eliminates any appearance of an EPA endorsement.
OCSPP agrees. We are in the process of redesigning the DfE logo to enhance its ability
to communicate with consumers, attract the interest of product and chemical
manufacturers, and increase the frequency of the logo's use on products to meet the
human and environmental health protection goals of the program. We have worked with
the Agency's Office of General Counsel to ensure that the redesigned logo complies with
ethics considerations on use of the EPA name and potential endorsements.
Timeline. We will be gathering stakeholder and public comment on our logo designs this
summer and fall. We plan to have a new, more effective logo for use on DfE-labeled
products early in 2015. Completion date: Q2/FY15.
14-P-0349
9
-------
Recommendation 2. Periodically review program participants' compliance with the DfE
partnership agreement as it relates to appropriate use of DfE program language, including
disclaimers and labeling requirements.
With respect to DfE partner posting of endorsement disclaimers, the DfE program will
enhance its regular auditing procedures to ensure that auditors look for the disclaimer
language and note its absence in audit reports.
Timeline. We have instructed the third party auditors to include inspection for
endorsement disclaimers in their audits and reports. The revised auditing process has
been initiated (DfE email correspondence dated August 4, 2014); all desk audits
beginning October 1, 2014 will include this component. Completion date: Q1/FY15 and
ongoing.
Recommendation 3. Develop and implement controls for accomplishing removal of the DfE
logo from the websites of partners who leave the program.
The DfE program will increase efforts to ensure that former partners do not use the logo.
When a new program management system comes online, DfE will be able to better
monitor and enforce appropriate use of the logo by current and former partners, as well as
partner posting of the endorsement disclaimer.
Timeline. The new program management system is expected online this spring as a
program monitoring tool, including to help ensure appropriate logo and endorsement
disclaimer use. Completion date: Q3/FY15 and ongoing.
Recommendation 4. Take appropriate action to address noncompliance with DfE partnership
agreements discovered as a result of this review.
As stated in our response to recommendations 2 and 3, the DfE program will increase its
follow-up activities to address and remedy partner noncompliance, and we expect our
new program management system to help considerably in this regard.
Timeline: As indicated in our response to recommendation 3, the new program
management system is expected online this spring. Completion date: Q3/FY15 and
ongoing
Recommendation 5. Remove statements on the EPA's website that imply or suggest that the
EPA has determined that DfE products are a cost-effective choice, unless valid work to support
that assessment has been completed.
OCSPP will remove this claim from the DfE web site and outreach materials. DfE
historical documents may also contain reference to cost-effectiveness. DfE will
implement this change in technical documents as they are updated.
Timeline. DfE has removed this claim from its web site and outreach materials.
Completed: Q4/FY14
14-P-0349
10
-------
Recommendation 6. Develop robust, transparent and adequately supported performance
measures that capture the DfE program's results.
OCSPP agrees that DfE performance measures capturing outcomes need to be developed.
The new program management system referenced above will help capture relevant data
such as production volumes and sales information on DfE-labeled products.
Timeline. DfE continues to work on new outcome-oriented performance measures and
hopes to have them in place this fall. The new program management system should
begin capturing these measures by the summer of 2015. Completion date: Q4/FY15.
If you have any questions or need further information about this response, please contact
Deborah Hartman, OCSPP's Audit Liaison at (202) 564-1488.
14-P-0349
11
-------
Appendix B
Distribution
Office of the Administrator
Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO)
Agency Follow-Up Coordinator
General Counsel
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for External Affairs and Environmental Education
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
14-P-0349
12
------- |