1

WASTECAP of Massachusetts ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRABLE CLEANING PROJECT FINAL REPORT TOXICS USE REDUCTION NETWORKING GRANT (TURN) PROGRAM 2000

2

PROJECT DESCRIPTION I. Overview

Hazardous janitorial products have been found to cause occupational health and environmental problems. Increasing the use of environmentally preferable janitorial cleaning products can be a cost-effective method for achieving environmental goals while protecting worker and occupational health. Traditional janitorial cleaning products have been satisfying their users for years, and the suggestion to switch to an environmentally preferable product may be met with the attitude of, “if it ain’t broke, why fix it?”

The Environmentally Preferable Cleaners Project was developed by WasteCap of Massachusetts, Inc. to introduce cleaning companies to the benefits of environmentally preferable janitorial products, including:

• Reduced air pollution (creating better indoor air quality in the office) • Protecting the natural environment through the use of less toxic formulas, (a good

example of this are cleaners which can be disposed of through the drain) • Protecting worker’s health by reducing the exposure of harmful chemicals through

handling.

An environmentally preferable product (EPP) is defined as a product that has a reduced effect on human health and the environment when compared with competing products that serve the same purpose. The idea behind our project was to endorse the use of environmentally preferable cleaning products by finding janitorial companies willing to substitute their current cleaning products with the environmentally preferable products free of charge for one month. At the end of the trial period, cleaning company representatives were asked to fill out a product performance and purchasing habits feedback form to help WasteCap gain insight on ways to better endorse environmentally preferable cleaners. II. Goal

In general, the goal of this project is to educate janitorial companies about a cost-effective method for achieving environmental goals while protecting workers and promoting occupational health through the use of environmentally preferable cleaning products. III. Objectives 1. Gather information on purchasing practices.

a. Approach cleaning companies that are members of Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) and who have participated in the Race-to-

3 Recycle .1 Ask the cleaning companies to answer a forthcoming purchasing habits survey and to consider testing environmentally preferable cleaning products.

b. Develop a short purchasing habits survey to identify how cleaning companies

choose products - whether purchasers will consider products’ ingredients or whether they prefer specific products.

c. Administer the purchasing habits survey to the volunteer group of cleaning

companies. 2. Develop evaluation criteria from survey results.

a. Work with the Office of Technical Assistance (OTA) to identify simple environmental criteria which can be used to evaluate specific cleaners.

b. Integrate results of the survey into evaluation criteria.

3. Test products that have passed green criteria.

a. Janitorial companies will test cleaning products. Product suppliers will be solicited to donate cleaners for limited testing. If donated supplies are not available, the janitorial companies will be asked to cover the costs. WasteCap may also use grant funds to cover some costs.

b. WasteCap will develop a short survey for all testers to assess effectiveness and

usability of the products. 4. Write Case Study.

a. WasteCap will compile the results of the pilot testing into a report. The report will cover how purchasers choose products, how environmental criteria were selected, and how the environmentally preferable cleaners performed during the pilot program.

b. Case Study will be published in WasteCap’s newsletter, Business Recycle-Link. c. Case Study will be made available to members of the Building Owners and

Managers’ Association through the 6th annual Race-to-Recycle.

d. Case Study will be published on the EPPnet listserve maintained by the Northeast Recycling Council, on the National Recycling Coalition’s Buy Recycled Business Alliance listserve, and the Massachusetts Buy Recycled Business Alliance Web site (www.mabuyrecycle.org).

1The Race-to-Recycle is the Massachusetts Office Building Recycling Contest organized by WasteCap and

BOMA, which is designed to encourage and promote recycling in office buildings.

4

IV. Description of Project Events Project Kick-Off Meeting

The project began in January 2000. A project kick-off meeting was initiated with Craig Olsen, Program Manager at WasteCap; Peter Allison from the Recycling Branch of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP); Lara Sutherland, Environmental Analyst from the Massachusetts Office of Technical Assistance (OTA); and Eric Friedman, Environmental Purchasing Coordinator at the Massachusetts Operational Services Division (OSD). The project approach was the focal point of the meeting.

Mr. Friedman and Ms.Sutherland were key to getting this project in the right direction. Both had worked together in the previous years to include environmentally preferable cleaning products on the Massachusetts State contract. It was suggested that WasteCap solicit products from the manufacturers already on the state contract2 considering that they had already passed a set of environmental, health, and performance criteria for their products that were approved by the DEP and OTA.

By using the products on the state contract, we would be able to cut out some of our

project objectives such as developing our own environmental criteria to evaluate specific cleaners. We could save time and money by soliciting products from the manufacturers who already passed the state’s rigorous standards for environmentally preferable products. Six suppliers were awarded state contracts, and with the program budget and time frame, it was decided that we would solicit from half of them. Through further discussion and recommendations, we decided WasteCap should contact United Laboratories, Rochester Midland, and Simplex. Much of this decision was based on the company’s location and product applications.

Ideas and suggestions on choosing janitorial companies, developing testing procedures, and creating feedback forms were also discussed. It was WasteCap’s plan to work with janitorial companies who were members of the Building Owners and Mangers Association (BOMA) and had participated in WasteCap’s annual Race-to-Recycle program3. These janitorial companies had the most familiarity with WasteCap. We discussed testing three different products (all-purpose cleaners, bathroom cleaners, and glass cleaners) on a couple of different sites each from the janitorial companies. Also discussed were method used when writing feedback forms.

2 See the “State Contract” section of this report for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ contract policy on environmentally preferred cleaning products, a list of manufacturers included, as well as the State’s evaluation of the products. 3 For a background on BOMA and the Race-to-Recycle, see p. 21 of this report

5 The kick-off meeting was a success in getting the program underway. Much valuable information was gained from the field experts, shortcuts were discovered, and a plan of action was laid down. Research on Environmentally Preferable Cleaning Products

WasteCap4 is a “newcomer” when it comes to the field of environmentally preferable products (EPPs). In the past, WasteCap’s primary focus has been on waste reduction and recycling non-hazardous solid waste in the business community. In 1999, WasteCap decided to emphasize the promotion of EPPs to help Massachusetts businesses become more environmentally sound. Thus, much research was needed on the background of environmentally preferable cleaning products to get this project off the ground.

The month of February was spent researching background information on EPP

janitorial supplies. Phone conversations took place with Lara Sutherland, who wrote various articles on EPP cleaning products, to discuss the topic and find more sources of information. Ms. Sutherland referred us to Thomas Barron, an independent consultant, who collaborated with her for an article. Mr. Barron is at “the head of the field” when it comes to EPP cleaning products. He was the manager behind an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funded project entitled “How to Select and Use Safe Janitorial Chemicals”. This project, conducted in Santa Clara County in California, was an eighteen-month, in-depth look at cleaning product hazards, effective environmentally preferred cleaning substitutes, and outreach education among other things. The final report on the project is a useful seventy-page document outlining all of the details. Mr. Barron has also developed a Web site dedicated to this project located at: www.westp2net.org/Janitorial/jp4.htm . Contact with Mr. Barron was not established at first, but John Katz, his project coordinator from the California EPA, was reachable. Mr. Katz mailed WasteCap a copy of the report. (Later on Mr. Barron added the project report to his Web page.)

The Toxics use Reduction Institute (TURI) library was also a good source for

articles on EPP cleaners5. From there I received another article written by Mr. Barron as well as an article on a similar project done it Saint Paul, Minnesota.

Although much of the research was done in the month of February, it should be

stressed that research was done throughout the length of the project. More information was discovered from other articles and Web pages in the seven-month period.

Initial Janitorial Company Contact

In February phone calls were made to the UNICCO, a large janitorial company

based in Boston, to introduce the project to the company and encourage them to join. We chose to call UNICCO because the company is a BOMA member that has worked with

4 For a background of WasteCap of Massachusetts, Inc. see p.20 5 To see copies of the articles go to the section of the binder labeled “Background Materials”

6 WasteCap on past programs and is very familiar to us. A brief conversation was conducted with an operations manager who seemed skeptical. UNICCO wanted to be assured the products they were going to test on their clients buildings worked just as well as what they were currently using. Also, the operations manger was not confident about the ability to work outside of UNICCO’s current purchasing contract. The operations manger passed on the names of higher executives to whom he thought we should speak. A few calls were made, and messages were left without response.

Two other janitorial companies, Advanced Janitorial and A.C.P. Cleaning, were contacted around this time. These firms had also participated in past WasteCap projects. We were unable to reach the President of Advanced Janitorial. After a month’s worth of calls and messages we gave up. When contacting A.C.P. Cleaning, we learned they were temporarily short-staffed and would not be able to handle the project at that time.

The initial plan was to conduct this program with the participation of the three companies above (those most familiar with WasteCap). When the above difficulties arose, WasteCap regrouped in various meetings with Peter Allison from the DEP, as well as Eileen Gunn, Program Coordinator at the Toxics Use Reduction Institute (TURI), to reformat our plan. After discussing UNICCO’s concern with product quality, it was decided that we would try to reach the EPP product suppliers before going back to the janitorial companies. We decided it would be better to have an actual EPP product to show, as well as the test results from the state contract. In this way they would know exactly what products they would considering instead of going into the project blindly. Contacting Environmentally Preferable Cleaner Suppliers

Phone calls were made to the three suggested product suppliers on the state contract: United Laboratories, Rochester Midland, and Simplex. Response was received first from Joel Cohen, a sales representative from United Laboratories. The project was discussed briefly over the phone and a formal meeting was planned at WasteCap to discuss the possibility of United Laboratories’ involvement. Peter Allison from the DEP, Craig Olsen from WasteCap, and Barry Cullen the Executive Director from WasteCap were present at the meeting with Mr.Cohen. At the meeting Mr. Cohen explained the background of his company’s product, and WasteCap described the project goals. At the conclusion of the meeting Mr. Cohen expressed willingness to be involved with the project.

A similar introduction meeting was held with Bob Proulx, a sales representative

from Rochester Midland. After the project outline and goals were explained, Mr. Proulx decided to join the efforts of the project.

Charlie Rice, a sales representative from Simplex, was unable to attend a formal

introduction meeting due to a busy schedule. As an alternative, conversations took place over the phone. After a series of conversations Mr. Rice also explained his interest in the project.

7 Contacting the Janitorial Companies After failing to recruit janitorial companies in February, WasteCap retried the process in April. This time WasteCap utilized the resources of its project partner, the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA). The new attempt to contact cleaning companies was initiated in a meeting with the BOMA Executive Director, Jim Wetzel. Mr. Wetzel was able to supply WasteCap with a database printout of sixteen members who are janitorial companies in the Boston area. At this time, a meeting was set up by Mr. Wetzel to introduce the project to Gerald Lavallee, an account executive at UNICCO. Mr. Lavallee expressed interest during the meeting. A later phone converation was planned to discuss the project further. For the next month various call were made and messages were left to Mr. Lavallee and other executives without response. WasteCap gave up its attempt to encourage UNICCO to join the project. Throughout April and May phone calls6 were made to the other fifteen janitorial companies found on the BOMA database. When contacting cleaning companies about the project, the incentives for joining the program were described: • First, the products they would be trying had already been tested by the state for

environmental and performance criteria. • Second, they would not have to pay for the trial use of the products; it would either be

donated or covered by grant money. • Third, they would receive free publicity from WasteCap, BOMA, and TURI. • And last, but not least, they would be helping the environment while promoting

occupational health. The two main issues encountered with a number of the contacted companies were: • They had contracting issues and weren't allowed to use another cleaner or • They had a general lack of interest, which leads to the belief that they were in the "if

it ain’t broke don't fix it " frame of thought. People were just happy with what they had and how it worked and did not want to be hassled even if it was free.

WasteCap was able to contact representatives from ten out of the sixteen companies

on the list. In many cases multiple calls were made without receiving a response back. Three companies expressed interest in trying the project and attending an introduction meeting. The companies included: Eastern Building Services Corporation, Alliance Service Corporation, and Triangle Services, Incorporated.

It is important to note how valuable BOMA was as a project partner. Through the

6 To view the phone conversation script written to encourage janitorial companies to join the project see Appendix A on pg 22.

8 use of BOMA’s resources, as well as their name and reputation, WasteCap was able to get “through the door” to the association’s members. Many of the companies contacted had no idea what WasteCap was. It is our opinion that by showing the project approval of BOMA, an association the companies were members of, we had an easier time reaching the janitorial companies.

Creating an Awareness Brochure and Project Poster

In the month of May, WasteCap created a cleaning chemical awareness brochure. The brochure was created in an attempt to show janitorial companies in BOMA the potential hazards of various cleaning chemicals.

Information was gathered from many of the articles previously researched. A

phone call was made to Thomas Barron, coordinator of the EPA-funded cleaners project, who gave WasteCap permission to incorporate his research in the brochure. Another call was made to Pat Shoenecker, the project manager of a similar project implemented in Minnesota. She gave WasteCap permission to use a specific quote from her project report.

The brochure was divided into sections including: “quick facts”, a section taken

from Mr. Barron’s report showing statistics on injuries to janitors; “Do You Use These?”, a section containing a chart on high risk, frequently used products; and a section explaining possible reasons why companies are not taking advantage of the less toxic products available. The back of the pamphlet contained the Web page addresses of Thomas Barron’s project Web site, and the Massachusetts Operational Services Division Web site, which contains the list of environmentally preferable cleaning products on the state contract. These brochures were distributed to janitorial companies expressing interest in the project.

A project poster, containing the information on the brochure as well as a summary

of the project, was created to display at the Toxics Use Reduction Network (TURN) grants poster session at the Pollution Prevention (P2) Conference in Boston. The poster was also displayed at the TURN grant year-end event at the Massachusetts State House. Project Participant Meeting The project participant meeting was held on May 16th at the Boston office of the MA DEP. Attendees from the janitorial companies included Sumner Friedstein, an Quality Assurance Manager from Eastern Building Services; and Gene Bailey, the President of the Alliance Service Corporation. An Operations Manager from Triangle Services, Inc. was scheduled to attend but not show up. Attendees from the product distribution companies included Joel Cohen from United Laboratories, and Charlie Rice from Symplex. Bob Proulx, the Sales Representative from Rochester Midland, was unable to participate in the meeting due to a prior commitment. Eventually, Mr. Proulx would have to withdraw from the project as a whole due to time constraints. Representatives from the Environmentally

9 Preferable Cleaners Project included Craig Olsen from WasteCap, Eileen Gunn from TURI, and Peter Allison from the MA DEP. The meeting covered the objectives and goals of the project as well as the opinions and viewpoints of all three parties: the product suppliers, the janitorial companies, and the project coordinators. During the meeting Eastern Building Services agreed to test products from Symplex, and Alliance Service Corporation agreed to test products from United Laboratories. Due to budgeting issues, WasteCap limited testing to one all-purpose cleaning product from each supplier with enough supplies to clean one to two floors of an office building. After the meeting Mr. Rice contacted WasteCap with a possible janitorial company to test his product. In an effort to persuade Commonwealth Maintenance Systems (a janitorial company who was previously contacted without reply) to try his product, Mr.Rice described the WasteCap project stressing the free-of-charge, one month trial testing. Commonwealth Maintenace Systems agreed to try the project and was added on as the third participating janitorial company. Product Testing Throughout the months of June and July the product testing occured. Both sales representatives set up their products at their respective Janitorial partners designated test sites. Mr. Cohen from United Laboratories set up the Liquid Sunhine all-purpose cleaner at an Alliance Services Corporation account. Mr. Rice set up the H2Orange2 all-purpose cleaner at Eastern Building Services and Commonwealth Maintenance Systems7. United Laboratories donated the all-purpose cleaner as well as the dispensing equipment. The cost to test the Symplex materials (product plus dispensers) totaled $1,168.00 to do sufficient testing at two sites. Testing lasted four weeks or more depending on how soon the companies began. All testing was completed by the first week of August. Project Feedback Forms Shortly after all the janitorial companies completed their four-week testing, project feedback forms were mailed out. The feedback forms asked detailed questions about the test sites, the product evaluation, purchasing habits, and project effectiveness, etc. All Forms were faxed back to WasteCap by August 16th. After the feedback forms were received follow-up calls were made to clarify answers and obtain answers for questions left blank. For completed feedback forms see the section labeled “Feedback Forms” in this binder. To see an assessment of the feedback form responses see page 16. 7 For informational pamphlets on the products and their Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) see the “Product MSDS” section of this binder.

10 Project Report and Case Study The project report was written in mid-August. The case study is included with this project report and includes an analysis of the responses received from the feedback forms. Grant money was received from the MA DEP to the funding of this case study and make it available for their use.

11

Case Study Results from the product testing were determined by written answers received through the feedback forms. Addition project evaluation was made by participants through follow-up phone calls. Copies of the actual feedback forms returned to WasteCap can be viewed on section labeled “Feedback Forms” in this binder. Summary of Answered Feedback Form Questions

A = Alliance Service Corporation C = Commonwealth Maintenance Systems E = Eastern Building Services

Evaluators Position:

A = President C = President E = Quality Assurance Manager

I. Testing Site Information

Test Site Address: A = 990 Washington Street Dedham, MA 02026 C = Baldwin Park Winchester Hospital Suite Woburn, MA

E = TelLabs 30 North Avenue Burlinton, MA

Building Type:

A = Office C = Hospital/Office/Health Center E = Office Approximate length of product trial period: A = 8 weeks C = 4 weeks E = 4 –5 weeks

12 Size of test site (in sq ft.): A = 50,000 sq ft C = 10,000 sq ft E = 1000 sq ft (?) Number of building floors used in the test site: A = 2 C = 2 E = 2

I. Product Evaluation What is the name and company of the all-purpose cleaner that you are testing? A = United Laboratories’ Liquid Sunshine All-Purpose Cleaner C = H2Orange2 all-purpose cleaner E = H2Orange2 all-purpose cleaner What is the name and the company of the all-purpose claner that you currently purchase?

A = 3M Compublend

C = Butchers Speedball and Zep Dazzle E = 3M General Purpose (Twist & Fill)

Rate the following questions with a 1-5

5 – outstanding, 4 - above average, 3 - average, 2 - below average, 1 - poor

How well did this product clean?

A = 5 C = 4 E = 4

How do you rate the usefulness and design of the product’s dispensing equipment ?

A = 5 C = 4 E = 4

How do you rate product effectiveness, (did you have to use more product than

recommended)?

A = 5 C = -- E = 3

How easy was the cleaner for your staff to use?

A = 5 C = 4 E = 4

13 How would you rate the product’s scent?

A = 5 C = 5 E = 4

Overall, what is your general opinion about the product’s performance?

A = 5 C = 4+ E = 5

Please compare the overall cost of use for the product you are testing to the product you currently purchase. Please take in account the price per gallon, the amount used, the area cleaned, and the applications the product was used for.

A = Overall it is roughly $0.10 more per gallon when diluted

C = Overall cost about the same when dilution rate is considered. E = Not at liberty to discuss the price of the product they are

currently purchasing

Are you aware of any potential hazardous ingredients in your all-purpose cleaner?

A = No C = No E = No

What applications did you use the trial all-purpose cleaner for? Please list

A = Glass, doors, restroom, floors, sinks, urinals, and general spot cleaning

C = Restroom, walls, and floors E = Floors and walls

Was the product that you tested able to handle all of the same applications of the current all-purpose cleaner that you purchase?

A = Less C = More, It cleaned the same surfaces as our regular all-purpose

cleaner plus glass and stainless steel E = About the same

What is your overall feeling regarding the cleaner that you tested compared to the all- purpose cleaner that you currently purchase?

A = Excellent product. Our cleaners preferred the glass cleaner we used. It was less smudging and not as foamy

C = We feel that it does as good a job or better than our regular product and in end use dilution is just as cost effective.

E = As good or a little bit better

14 II. General Information

Are you considering changing from the current all-purpose cleaner that you purchase to the all-purpose cleaner you are testing?

A = No, further testing is needed for a longer period over a broader base to justify a full-scale corporate retooling.

C = Yes, in some applications; in others no because of the cost of changing our dispensers.

E = No, not considering due to contracting issues and good relationship with current supplier (Spectrowax).

If you have decided to change from using your old product to using the new product you are testing, are you making this change throughout the entire company or only for specific accounts?

A = We have not decided as yet , but will do another in-house study to make a determination.

C = Specific accounts because of dispenser cost. E = --

Is the fact that the all-purpose cleaner that you tested is an environmentally preferable product and may be healthier for your employees and clients enough for you to consider changing from your current brand all-purpose cleaner?

A = At Alliance we do not use all-purpose detergents. We use a neutral cleaner because of its’ tendency not to leave residues and its low alkaline content.

C = Price is a big factor but would consider changing because of health issues.

E = Need to have company permission to do so.

15 What qualities do you look for when purchasing a new cleaning product (low price, cleaning ability, scent, safeness, worker exposure, environmental impact, etc.)? Please rank from highest to lowest priority.

Do you feel that a four-week trial period of this product is long enough for you to make a decision about the product’s quality?

A = No, because some of the tasks on our cleaning schedules are

periodic; therefore the detergent was only tested on routine work and not on tasks that the soil had a longer period of time to buildup.

C = Yes, definitely long enough; could tell with one week that H2O2 was an exceptional product.

E = Yes.

What has prevented your company from using environmentally preferable cleaners in the past?

A = Real knowledge and thorough testing over a four month

period as to the products’ ability to sustain a clean surface without leaving residual residue and able to clean longer periods of soil build up.

C = Never properly presented to us before, and the ones that were did not do the job.

E = Lack of general knowledge. Usually look at cleaners for their cleaning ability not at its environmental impact. There is a lack of knowledge on the subject.

1 A = cleaning ability C = cleaning ability E = cleaning ability

4 A = environmental impact C = odor E = safeness

7 A = concentration C = E =

2 A = safeness C = safeness E = price

5 A = fragrance C = price E =

8 A = product line C = E =

3 A = worker exposure C = worker exposure E = scent

6 A = price C = environmental impact E =

9 A = manufacturer C = E =

16 What could we do to encourage companies to switch to using environmentally preferable

cleaners?

A = Require these types of chemicals to be used in the State Building Cleaning Request for Response (RFR). Provide it to the cleaning companies to be used. Make literature on these product lines detailing the pricing, the cleaning ability, and the safeness.

C = Get the word out – Let them try the product like we did. E = Price and cleaning ability (?)

17

Assesments WasteCap’s Assessment of the Feedback Forms Product evaluation assessment

In general, our assessment determined that the EPP cleaners tested were overall considered “above average” products by all three janitorial companies involved in the program. One company has decided to switch to using the EPP cleaner on some of its accounts. Another company is still considering; they are conducting another in-house test on the EPP cleaner on their own before making a final decision. The last company, although recognizing the EPP cleaner they tested is “ as good if not better” than the product they were currently using, is not considering making a change. Upper management of the company has been notified of the EPP product testing but is contracted to buy products from another company with which they have a “good relationship” with the other company.

The answers given on the project feedback forms shows that all three of the

janitorial companies do consider worker safety when purchasing products, but are unaware of the hazards imposed by the chemicals they are using or the safer alternatives available. Two of the companies stated that when looking at product quality, they considered the products safeness as well as worker’s exposure before considering the price.

All three company representatives stated that they were unaware of hazardous

ingredients in their current all-purpose cleaners. The material data safety sheets (MSDS) of the products revealed that all the products currently purchased contained some type of chemical considered a possible hazard. Chemicals ingredients such as 2-Butoxyehanol, Ethanolamine, and Monoisopropanolamine are found in the cleaners being purchased. These chemicals are listed as Massachusetts’ Right-To-Know chemicals for being a possible health hazard. One product contained ispopropyl alcohol, a chemical reported in the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act due to its toxic properties.

There was a mixed response when asked if the EPP cleaner they tested was able to

handle the same applications of the current product they purchased. Eastern Building Services and Commonwealth Maintenance gave positive responses. One stated it could handle more applications, the other stated that it was about the same. The third company, Alliance Service Corporation, stated that the cleaner they used handled less applications. A response from Alliance was that the janitors preferred the glass cleaner they were using because the EPP cleaner left smudges. The response from Joel Cohen, the product supplier, was that the product solution was not being diluted properly. He stated that he returned to the test site and showed the workers how to properly dilute the solution. When asked what prevented the companies from using EPP cleaners in the past, all three companies replied that they lacked knowledge on the issue, or it wasn’t properly

18 presented to them. This was a very common reply by most janitorial companies who were asked the same question during WasteCap’s initial attempts to gain participants. Due to the feedback received, WasteCap feels that more outreach and education needs to be made to janitorial companies, office managers, and building owners about the chemicals being used to clean their buildings. People have to realize the hazards before further corrections can be attempted. As people realize the hazards, we need to supply them with the information about existing alternatives. It is important that efforts be made to let the public know that there are programs such as the state contract containing environmentally preferable cleaners. Due to the feedback responses, meetings, and telephone interviews, it is our overall opinion that a greater amount of awareness is needed on a subject that is taken too lightly.

In this program WasteCap focused mainly on workers health and the environment. In the future, with more funds, efforts need to be made to not only educate janitorial companies, but office workers and building managers as well. Workers health issues, indoor air pollution, and environmental pollution are all factors associated with toxic cleaning chemicals.

Purchasing Habits Assessment For two of the janitorial companies WasteCap partnered directly with the organization’s president. Working with these companies gave WasteCap the most suitable data because the presidents were responsible for purchasing. We worked with the Quality Assurance Manager of the third company. He did not make decisions on product purchasing, the job of his company’s Director of Operations, and therefore lacked an ideal knowledge on the subject. As stated above, when asked what prevented the companies from using EPP cleaners in the past, all three companies replied that they lacked knowledge on the issue, or it wasn’t properly presented to them. This reply was common among most janitorial companies who were initially contacted by WasteCap to join the program. When asked to rank the qualities looked for when purchasing a new cleaning product, all three companies logically stated cleaning ability as the number one quality. After the first ranking the answers were split between those given by the two company presidents and the statements of the quality assurance manager.

Of the two presidents, one considered: cleaning ability, safeness, worker exposure,

environmental impact, and fragrance before considering price. The other considered cleaning ability, safeness, worker exposure, and scent before considering the price (environmental impact was considered right after price). The Quality Assurance Manager stated that price was the second consideration after cleaning ability. Scent was his third choice and safeness was last. There was no mention of environmental impact.

19 It was surprising that two of the companies ranked price as low a consideration as

they did. It was thought that the answers were going to reflect the type of answers given by the Quality Assurance Manager. It is highly possible that answers may be biased due to the fact that this was a program that stressed environmental and safety issues. When looking at the answers given by the Quality Assurance Manager you see that issues such as product scent is a higher consideration then its safeness.

Making a cost comparison of the price of the product the companies tested as

opposed to the product that they were currently using, two companies found that the prices were about the same, with Alliance Service Corporation noting that their cleaner was roughly 10 cents cheaper per gallon. Mr. Bailey felt that this was in no way a large number and would not discourage him from purchasing the products after completing further evaluation. The last company stated that they were not at liberty to discuss their prices.

When discussing the purchasing habits with program participants as well as other

janitorial companies many of them raised the issue that they contracts and good relationships with their current product supplier. Joel Cohen, the sales representative at United Laboratories, described the same problems when trying to persuade new customers to purchase his product. He stressed, “It is hard to convince someone to switch products who already has a long relationship with their supplier.”

This study has also determined that overall cost issues impeding the switch to EPP

cleaners are due to expensive equipment replacement. Commonwealth Maintenance Systems has decided to purchase the EPP cleaner that they tested but not for all of their accounts. They explain that it is too expensive to replace all of the dispensing equipment used in their buildings. The dispensing unit is what dilutes all-purpose cleaner concentrations depending on the various tasks it is used for. For example, an all-purpose cleaner might be used at a higher concentration for bathroom cleaning than for glass cleaning. The problem seems to be not the price of the chemicals as much as it is replacing the equipment that dilutes it.

While the cost of a cleaning chemical plays an important role when deciding

whether or not to purchase a EPP product, it is not the only factor. Major factors include: a general knowledge of what an environmentally preferable cleaner is, whether the janitorial company already has a good relationship with their current supplier who does not offer EPPs, and the price of replacing dispensing equipment for products that need different dilution settings.

Project Results The Environmentally Preferable Cleaners Project produced results by demonstrating to janitorial companies the safer cleaning alternatives available through the dissemination of information and a hands-on experience with the products.

20 All three janitorial companies that WasteCap worked with stated that before the project, they had a lack of general knowledge of environmentally preferable cleaners or the EPP products were never properly presented to them. WasteCap created pamphlets to be used as a resource for safe cleaning by outlining high-risk chemicals and supplying Web pages with more information, among other things. Phone conversations and meetings with EPP product suppliers also contributed to making the janitorial company executives aware of alternative cleaners and the issues surrounding them. The one-month testing period allowed Janitorial Companies to take the hands-on approach by trying an EPP cleaner in the workspace free of charge. This enabled the companies to make a first-hand decision on the product effectiveness without hesitating due to the expense of testing a new product. As a result of the test period, Commonwealth Maintenance Systems will be switching some of its accounts to using the H2Orange2 all-purpose cleaner distributed by Symplex. The company will not be changing all of its accounts because of the cost of replacing all of the dispensing equipment (the machine used to dilute the all-purpose cleaner concentrate) that was purchased for the old cleaning product would be too high. Alliance Service Corporation is still undecided. Alliance will use the remainder of the product from the pilot testing to do its own 4-month in-house testing to determine the product’s long-term effectiveness. The results from this test will influence its final decision. Eastern Building Services has decided not to switch to the EPP cleaner that it has tested. The Quality Assurance manager from Eastern stated that it was “due to contracting issues and good relationship with current supplier.” The issues surrounding EPP cleaners and the Environmentally Preferable Cleaners Project have been made available to the public through articles in the Boston Business Journal, WasteCap’s newsletter and Web site, and “Pollution Prevention Week” handouts created by the MA DEP. WasteCap, the MA DEP, and TURI received copies of this report. All publications created by WasteCap for this project can be found on-line at www.wastecap.org for the use of the general public. Individuals or organizations that want to gain a better understanding of janitorial companies’ perspectives on EPP cleaners may use the information and assessments in this report. The report can also be used as a resource to start another EPP cleaners campaign. Future Recommendations WasteCap suggests that the findings in this program as well as its methodology be used as a stepping-stone to further educate building owners and managers, janitorial companies, and office workers about the possible hazards of cleaning chemicals and the alternatives available.

21 Due to the low knowledge about EPP cleaning products indicated in the feedback of companies involved directly with this project, as well as the ones that were questioned which declined to participate, WasteCap believes that educational programs or workshops would be key in informing the business community about the possible hazards of certain cleaning chemicals and the less hazardous products available. Workshops or programs would be an excellent way to address a group, such as office building managers, at one time. More aggressive work with associations such as BOMA may prove to be very helpful in spreading information. As a result of the outcome of WasteCap’s pilot testing, we believe that this hands-on approach may be the key to getting large janitorial firms to try EPP cleaners. We believe that pilot testing on a high profile site, such as the state capitol, the State Courthouse, the Museum of Science, or other similar locations may bring about more publicity to the issue. Project Leader: WasteCap of Massachusetts, Inc. WasteCap of Massachusetts, founded in 1994, is a nonprofit environmental organization that works with the Massachusetts business community on voluntarily recycling, buying recycled content products, and source reduction issues. Among the many activities dedicated to achieving its mission are:

• Managing the MA Buy Recycled Business Alliance • Managing recycling cooperatives for small businesses • Conducting site visits, workshops, and open houses • Publishing a recycling newsletter, an annual Recycling Services Directory, and an

annual Recycled Product Suppliers Directory • Providing recycling technical assistance to businesses • And researching environmentally preferable products

In the past year, WasteCap has decided to emphasize the promotion of environmentally preferable products, or EPPs for short, to help Massachusetts businesses become more environmentally sound. Because of WasteCap’s emphasis on assisting state businesses in their efforts to improve the environment, we feel that promoting environmentally preferable products goes hand in hand with issues such as source reduction and recycling. WasteCap is now refocusing its efforts to not only educate businesses on environmental issues, but also to engage in projects such as this that produce positive and measurable results. The Toxics Use Reduction Networking grants offered by the Toxics Use Reduction Institute have helped us by providing funding and resources needed to implement one of our first projects dealing with the promotion of EPPs to Massachusetts businesses.

22 For more information about WasteCap visit our web page at www.wastecap.org Project Partner: The Building Owners and Manufacturers Association (BOMA) Through its federation with BOMA International, BOMA Boston gives its 550 commercial real estate owners and managers representation on the local, state, and national levels. BOMA members account for more than 150 million square feet of commercial space in the region. From an advocacy perspective, BOMA is involved in a host of issues, ranging from development rights, environmental, and taxation proposals to matters that affect the operation of the buildings. Each year, BOMA also works with WasteCap and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection to organize the Race-to-Recycle. The Race-to-Recycle is a annual office building recycling competition open to BOMA members and affiliates. In 1999, Race Participants recycled 2,326 tons of material, and all winning participants achieved a recycling rate over 50%. Special Thanks

WasteCap would like to express its gratitude to Eileen Gunn and the rest of TURI for giving us the opportunity to work on a project like this. Without their funding, resources, and in-kind support this would not be possible. WasteCap would like to recognize our project partner, BOMA, for donating their time to getting the word out and helping us to find interested janitorial companies. Special thanks goes to Eric Friedman and Laura Sutherland for their expertise and in-kind support, which lifted this project off the ground, and saved a lot of time. Lastly, thanks to Peter Allison and the MA DEP for the support and guidance through much of the project as well as the funding for this case study.

23

Appendix A

The following is a script for the initial pitch given by WasteCap to Custodial companies to try the program (conducted over the phone):

“Hi, My name is Craig Olsen, I work for WasteCap an non-profit environmental organization dedicated to working with the Massachusetts business community to promote voluntary recycling and solid waste reduction efforts I recently received your name from Jim Wetzel, the Executive Director at the Building Owners and Managers Association. I’m calling you because we recently received a grant to do a joint project with BOMA to test Environmentally Preferable Janitorial Cleaners. Cleaners that are less toxic to workers and the environment.(items include products such as glass cleaner, bathroom cleaners, all purpose,etc.) Do you know of any Environmentally Friendly cleaners that you use now? What we want are cleaning companies who are members of BOMA to test some Environmentally Preferable cleaners for a month, free of charge on three selected locations ( a location meaning 1 floor) Within that period we would ask you to fill out a purchasing habits survey to see what Cleaning companies consider when making their product purchases.” “All products to be tested are already on the state contract and have gone through rigorous testing for performance and Environmental criteria. This project will give you free PR in the BOMA newsletter, the wastecap newsletter and web page. After the study, you will not be pressured into buying the products. We just want feedback as to your opinion on the product. It is also a risk free chance for your company to try a product that may be safer for its employees.”