Unified Green Cleaning Alliance

Meeting III Summary

Meeting III Summary

Unified Green Cleaning Alliance

U.S. General Services Administration Northwest/Arctic Regional Headquarters

December 10, 2002

The meeting started promptly at 8:30 am with an introduction and welcome by Marsha Willard.  Twenty-four members were in attendance including two new members, Paul Bogart from Healthy Building Network and Gary Orr from Northwest Distributors.  Five guests also attended; Mark Petruzzi from Green Seal, Dave Herren, John Marmar from 3M Corporation, and Michael Leslie and George Twiss from Northwest Center.  Marsha began by thanking Paul Gallegos and the U.S. General Services Administration for hosting the meeting and providing refreshments. In addition, Northwest Center was thanked for sponsoring lunch.  New members were acknowledged and welcomed, as were visitors to the meeting.  Visitors were informed that time would be set  aside at the end of the meeting for them to make any comments or ask questions.  Marsha then outlined the agenda for the meeting.  First was a presentation that was originally scheduled as part of the learning process for the second meeting but was rescheduled because of lack of time. Following the presentation, the group would have a chance to discuss the criteria from the ‘Straw Man Criteria List’ and begin the process of identifying cleaning product criteria that are important to the UGCA.

Marsha then introduced the speaker, Dr. Philip Dickey.  Dr. Dickey is a staff scientist with Washington Toxics Coalition and is also a member of the UGCA.  Dr. Dickey presented an overview of alkylphenol ethoxylate (APE) surfactants including reasons for concern about those chemicals in the environment.  The presentation slides can be found under Meeting III on the UGCA web page.            

The presentation ended at 9:15 and the group was given a chance to ask questions of the speaker.  Some of the topics discussed were:

• Concern over toxicity to humans if they eat fish contaminated with APE breakdown products.  Contaminated fish will get rid of the APEs quickly if they are moved to clean water.
   

• Water treatment processes don’t completely remove APEs but rather concentrate them in the sludge and there is some concern about the fate of APEs if the sludge is applied to soil.  Some water treatment processes are more effective at removing APEs.
   

• Concentrations of APEs in cleaners relative to the levels being observed in rivers.  Concentrations of APEs vary greatly in different types of cleaning products.
   

• APEs have been shown to stimulate the growth of cancer cells, as does any chemical that acts like estrogen, including estrogen.   APEs may present less of a direct hazard to humans than to aquatic life since humans are mostly exposed to the APE surfactants as found in the products while aquatic life gets exposed to the more toxic breakdown products of APE surfactants.
   

• APEs are difficult to identify from lists of ingredients or MSDS sheets since APEs can have several different names.  However, APEs may be somewhat easier to identify by CAS number.  Nonylphenol ethoxylate (NPE – a member of the APE family) can be listed under a variety of names but the majority are listed under one of four CAS numbers with about 80% of all NPEs listed with the same CAS number.  APEs are not always even listed on MSDS sheets as there is no requirement for manufacturers to do so.

The APE discussion period ended at 9:15.

Marsha then prepared the group for the discussion on cleaning product criteria by outlining a framework for the discussion.  The UGCA is being funded through a contract with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  The main deliverable to the EPA from the meetings will be a report outlining the opinions and decisions of the UGCA, which will be shared with manufacturers and certification entities.  Marsha then outlined three possible outcomes of the six UGCA meetings:

1. The UGCA decides to concur with an existing standard or certification systems.
    

2. The UGCA agrees with most criteria from existing standards and certification systems but may recommend relatively minor modifications.
    

3. The UGCA may disagree with existing standards and certification systems and decide to generate a report highlighting its opinions and recommending alternatives.

As part of the process for coming to consensus on sustainable cleaning product attributes, other cleaning product standards have not been identified and presented at the meetings.  Marsha explained that this was done in order to first find out what is important to the UGCA without being influenced by existing systems.  As part of the discussion, the group would be asked to comment on the ‘Straw Man Criteria List’ for completeness and to identify any items that are redundant and don’t need to be in the list.  Then each member would be asked to pick the ten attributes he or she thinks are most important in order for the group to first identify those criteria upon which the majority of members agree.  Marsha asked that while voting on the criteria, the members should keep in mind the goal of sustainability in cleaning products.  Marsha then outlined the four conditions for sustainability that were presented in the first meeting.  The ‘Straw Man Criteria List’ was posted to the wall and questions were posed to the group.

Question 1: Are there any criteria that should be added to the list?

The discussion around this question started with a member asking that the group keep in mind economics and equity when creating criteria - economics to ensure that manufacturers can afford to comply with the criteria and equity so that large companies and small companies are equally able to meet the criteria.  The group then identified the following criteria to add to the list:

• Preference should be given to companies (including those that obtain raw materials, manufacturers, and distributors) that have an environmental policy and show continual improvement.
   

• Manufacturers should make life-cycle data available.
   

• Transportation should be considered and local availability preferred.
   

• The product should minimize the requirement for energy and water use.
   

• Manufacturers should make formulation information available – there was some discussion on whether the manufacturers should disclose the ingredients to the users or just the certifiers or another third party.

Question 2: Is there anything redundant on the list?

The following were discussed:

• Criteria F#2 (Must not be formulated with EDTA) may not pass if criteria EH#2 (must be readily biodegradable) passes, depending on how EH#2 is defined.
   

• Criteria F#3 (Must not be formulated with NTA) may be redundant if HH#2 (Must not be human carcinogenic) passes, depending on how HH#2 is defined.
   

• Criteria F#11 (Must not be formulated with 2-butoxyethanol) would be unnecessary if HH#7 (Must have low potential to be absorbed by the skin) is included in the criteria.
   

• Criteria P#2 (Packaged in recyclable containers) and P#5 (must be packaged in type 1 and type 2 plastic containers).

The group took a break from 10:30 to 10:45.

After the break each member was asked to vote on the ten criteria that are essential to formulate a sustainable cleaning product.  Each member was given ten colored dots to place on the criteria chart with each group (Formulators, Users, Purchasers, and Policy Makers) assigned a different colored dot.  Each member was asked to place the dots next to the ten criteria he or she felt were most essential.  Members were told that feasibility and clear definitions of the criteria would be discussed at a subsequent meeting.  However, members were also provided with post-it notes to write down and place next to any attributes any questions, comments or concerns.  The results of the voting can be seen in a document entitled Meeting III Attachment I.  Each criterion is listed with its total number of votes as well as the total number of votes from each stakeholder group.  The criteria with the most votes are highlighted in yellow and comments from the post-it notes and discussion points are listed to the side.

At 11:47 the guests were invited to share any comments.  John Marmar from 3M Corporation stated that 3M makes full disclosure on MSDS forms and commented that this can sometimes act as a detriment since a competitor may seem to have a better product just because that competitor fails to disclose everything on their MSDS forms.  Mr. Marmar noted that 3M committed to formulate all APEs out of their products (*He later amended this statement to say that they are currently in the process of eliminating all APEs from their formulations). He also noted that 3M sells products in concentrated form.  He then asked that the group consider changing its policy that guests are asked not to comment or participate until the allotted time at the end of each meeting. 

Mark Petruzzi from Green Seal also shared some comments.  He explained that a lot is happening with cleaning products nationally and he would be happy to share any information if requested since Green Seal has worked with both purchasers and manufacturers on the same issues the UGCA is discussing.  He also advised the UGCA to adopt criteria that are well defined and not open to wide interpretations.

The meeting ended at 12:00. Lunch was hosted by Northwest Center and was followed by a tour of the U.S. GSA ‘Office of the Future’ at 1:00.