2Printed on paper that contains at least 20 percent postconsumer fiber.
ii

Environmentally Preferable 

Purchasing Program

Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP) ensures that environmental considerations are included in purchasing decisions,

along with traditional factors, such as product price and performance. The EPP program provides guidance for federal agencies

to facilitate purchases of goods and services that pose fewer burdens on the environment. 

For more information about EPP contact:

Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse (PPIC)

202 260-1023

e-mail: PPIC@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV
the same manner from agency to agency, or even within a specific agency. In order to demonstrate some of the ways EPP principles are being applied, EPA is documenting various pilot

procurement projects undertaken by Executive agencies, state and local governments, and the

private sector.

The Cleaning Products Pilot Project case study documents the first of these projects. It is a

three-year collaborative effort between the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) and EPA

to develop a framework for identifying and comparing environmentally preferable commercial

cleaning products. This case study provides an in-depth look at the choices and decisions made by

the GSA/EPA team in implementing this project. It contains useful information about the project

and lessons learned while implementing an EPP framework. More importantly, it demonstrates

the feasibility of including a product’s environmental performance into purchasing decisions and

examines the benefits for both Federal customers and private sector manufacturers. We hope that

the lessons and insights documented in this case study will help you and your organization as you

begin incorporating environmental preferability into your purchasing decisions. 

iii
v

Lessons Learned. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Interagency Teamwork Works. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Be Patient as New Stakeholders Are Introduced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Satisfy the Customer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Adopt Well-Defined Objectives and Be Pragmatic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Additional Product Experience Is Important. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Does the Informational (Matrix) Model Work?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Change Is Slow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Vendor Cooperation Is Mutually Beneficial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

EPA’s Non-Regulatory Role. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Environmentally Preferable Purchasing and Reinventing Government 

Share Important Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Government Procurement Flexibility Is Important. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Appendix I—Cleaning Products Pilot Project Time Line. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Appendix II—GSA/EPA Memorandum of Understanding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1

to identify and compare environmentally preferable products, the Cleaning Products

Pilot Project is likely to influence the direction of similar pilot projects. Some of the

lessons learned from this pilot may be specific to cleaning products, while others may

be relevant for other product categories. Each environmentally preferable pilot project will be unique due to the differences among the product categories examined and

the stakeholders involved in the procurement process.

Environmentally preferable products are “products and services

[that] have a lesser or reduced effect on human health and the environment when compared to other products and services that serve

the same purpose.”

—Executive Order 12873 on Federal Acquisition, Recycling, and Waste Prevention 

October 20, 1993
OPPT staff explained that as a government agency, EPA is prohibited from endorsing or recommending specific commercial products or brand names, even as a courtesy to another government agency. As a result, OPPT declined to recommend

specific products, but agreed to join GSA team members in developing characteristics

that could be used to identify environmentally preferable cleaning products. The preliminary characteristics identified by the GSA/EPA team were: packaging and source

reduction; impact to human health, air, and water; and disposal. In addition, the team

agreed that EPA should, if feasible, examine the life-cycle impacts of cleaning products through a life-cycle assessment.2

While examining the preliminary characteristics, the GSA/EPA team realized that a

complete product life-cycle assessment would be difficult. Such an analysis involves

examining the environmental effects across five different product stages: (1) premanufacturing, (2) manufacturing, (3) distribution and packaging, (4) use, and (5) waste disposal. The time required for a complete, or even abbreviated, life-cycle assessment

exceeded GSA’s need to implement the program quickly and better serve its customers.

As a result, the GSA/EPA team decided to focus primarily on one stage in the lifecycle—product use. Product use was selected because the greatest direct health risk

from cleaning products to janitorial workers and building occupants occurs during use.

2

1 While the Cleaning Products Pilot Project did not begin until 1993, it builds upon work completed by

GSA’s Biodegradable Cleaners/Degreasers Project, which began in 1988.

2 A life-cycle assessment (LCA) is a process for evaluating the environmental burdens associated with a

product, process, or activity. LCAs identify and quantify energy and material uses and releases to the

environment. The assessment covers the entire life-cycle of the product, process, or activity, including

extracting and processing the raw materials; manufacturing, transporting, and distributing the product;

product use, reuse, and maintenance; recycling; and final disposition.

A complete 

life-cycle

assessment was

impractical.
disposal.

The GSA/EPA team brought the preliminary environmental product characteristics to the attention of the Federal Supply Service (FSS), GSA’s procurement and supply division, to determine if they could be incorporated into their Supply Catalog.

Coincidentally, as part of President Clinton’s Reinventing Government initiative,

FSS’s Paint and Chemical Commodity Center was already working on a similar project, which was based on GSA’s Biodegradable Cleaners/Degreasers Project that 

began in 1988. The Federal Supply Schedule Contract for Biodegradable

Cleaners/Degreasers (solicitation number FTC-92-MT-7906B) was already underway

to identify commercially available biodegradable cleaners and degreasers. GSA’s reinvention initiatives provided the flexibility necessary for FSS members to join the project team and help evaluate the preliminary environmentally preferable product

characteristics.

Over a five month period, from November 1993 to March 1994, the GSA/EPA

team met with numerous commercial cleaning stakeholders, including manufacturers,

vendors, public interest groups, commercial janitorial companies, industry trade associations, and unions to help identify cleaning product attributes that result in fewer

burdens on human health and the environment. The stakeholders included: 3M, Abel

Industries, Inc., AFL-CIO, Amway Corporation, Buckeye International, Chemical

Manufacturers Association, Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association, CottoWaxo Co., Earth Friendly Products, Ecolab, Environmental Choice Program

(Canada), Fragrance Materials Association, Gotham Building Maintenance, Green

Seal, Hillgard Industries, International Sanitary Supply Association, L&F Products,

National Aerosol Association, Ossian, Inc., Procter and Gamble, Rochester Midland,

SC Johnson & Son, Service Employees International Union, Soap and Detergent

Association, Sunshine Makers (Simple Green), Vista Chemical Company, and the

Washington Toxics Coalition. 

3

Over 25

stakeholders

were involved.
ly as effective, in terms of cleaning effectiveness, as the baseline products. The baseline cleaning products had an average efficacy rating of 3.75 (on the five point scale

described above), while the alternative cleaners in cycle three had an efficacy rating of

3.59. Although the baseline cleaning products were slightly more effective, according

to the survey respondents, the health problems associated with them were significantly higher. Sixteen percent of the staff reported health problems with the baseline

products, while only nine percent reported health problems with the alternative cleaning products in cycle three.

Executive Order 12873

In October 1993, while the Philadelphia pilot was being conducted, President

Clinton issued Executive Order 12873 on Federal Acquisition, Recycling, and Waste

Prevention. Although the Executive Order supported the type of project that the

GSA/EPA team was developing, the Executive Order also temporarily disrupted the

project’s momentum. Several sections of the Executive Order increased EPA’s responsibilities for shaping federal agency procurement programs for environmentally

preferable products. Specifically, section 503 mandated that EPA “issue guidance that

recommends principles that Executive agencies should use in making determinations

for the preference and purchase of environmentally preferable products.”

Pursuant to the Executive Order mandate, an EPA team, which included some

members of the GSA/EPA cleaning products project, was assigned to draft environmentally preferable guidance for use by Executive agencies. Some of the initial guidance proposals, however, conflicted with proposals being considered by the cleaning

products project team. As a result, progress stalled on the GSA/EPA cleaning products project while EPA was developing the section 503 guidance.

4

Executive Order

12873 was

issued eight

months into the

project.
Meanwhile, the GSA and EPA Administrators signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU), which had been under development before the Executive Order was

signed, formalizing their cooperation on the cleaning project. After resolving inconsistencies between the EPA environmentally preferable guidance and the GSA/EPA

cleaning products project, the GSA/EPA cleaning products project became the first

environmentally preferable product pilot project under the Executive Order.

While the GSA/EPA project was integrating the principles of the EPA environmentally preferable products guidance, some of the vendors that had voluntarily

cooperated with the cleaning project became alarmed by some of the language in

EPA’s proposed guidance. They feared that EPA, as a result of the Executive Order,

would initiate additional regulations for the cleaning industry. This misunderstanding

temporarily reduced the willingness of some vendors and trade associations to 

cooperate.

5

in competition among vendors, when appropriate.

7) Agencies need to examine product attribute claims carefully.

GSA and EPA

signed an MOU

formalizing the

cooperation.
• Percentage of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)—VOCs are known to contribute to smog formation.

• Amount of product packaging—Products with reduced packaging (sold as concentrates) decrease the volume of waste that must be disposed of.

• Presence of ozone depleters—Ozone depleting components should be minimized.

• Potential exposure to the concentrated cleaning solution—The product dispensing method should include safety precautions designed to minimize exposure

to the concentrated solution.

• Flammability—Non-flammable products are preferable.

• Presence of cosmetic additives (fragrances and dyes)—Cosmetic additives can

be considered unnecessary additives that increase overall life-cycle impacts and that

could increase health and safety and ecological concerns. However, cosmetic additives may be required to help custodians distinguish among cleaning products and

determine proper dilution strengths.

• Energy needs—Products that work effectively in cold water reduce energy consumption.

6

3 An RM1 is a preliminary risk management assessment to determine if the human health or environmental risks associated with product components warrant further investigation. The RM1 conducted as

part of the Cleaning Products Pilot Project was different from traditional RM1 assessments because

attributes other than those directly associated with risk, like product packaging, were also evaluated.
EPA did not recommend providing government purchasers with the impact of

every conceivable environmental attribute for two reasons. First, most of the environmental attributes associated with cleaning products did not differ significantly from

one product to another. If new cleaning products are introduced that differ from

other cleaners in an important environmental attribute, EPA might recommend

including the attribute in a future phase of the Cleaning Products Pilot Project.

Second, because the information being examined was to be used by federal purchasers, EPA wanted to avoid over-burdening them with information that would not

facilitate their evaluation of the environmental preferability of a given product. The

GSA/EPA team determined, based on EPA’s recommendations, that information that

fails to distinguish one product from another is not useful for comparing environmental preferability.

The Great Compromise

Following the results of the Philadelphia pilot project and the RM1 assessment, the

GSA/EPA team debated the merits of several different approaches for identifying

environmentally preferable cleaning products. While the PBS officials who initiated

what became the Cleaning Products Pilot Project were originally hoping to use an

EPA-approved list of cleaning products, it was clear from the beginning that such a

list was outside the authority of GSA and EPA. Furthermore, the GSA/EPA team

concluded that an “approved product list” was not necessarily the most beneficial

solution because it would not allow government buyers to incorporate the varying

needs of building tenants and cleaning staff or local environmental needs.

Environmental needs, for example, could differ from one community to another. For

example, some communities that do not have adequate water treatment facilities

might be more concerned with water than air emissions.

7

The GSA/EPA

team debated

several 

ways to

distribute the

information.
able products a “green dot” makes it easier for buyers, it also obscures vital environmental information including which environmental attribute(s) warranted the “green

dot”. GSA has millions of customers ranging from individuals in remote forest service

outposts to entire military bases. Each group of customers has unique environmental

and performance needs. For example, if a customer normally discharges waste cleaning water directly to surface water, a biodegradable cleaning product might be the

most important environmental consideration. If, however, a customer discharges

waste water to a water treatment facility, biodegradability may be less of a concern

than reduced product packaging.

Some members of the GSA/EPA team also suggested that the “green dot”

approach would absolve purchasers from fully examining the environmental impact of

their procurement decisions. The matrix advocates argued for an approach that provides purchasers with sufficient information to balance the independent and combined

impacts of each environmental attribute along with cost and product performance.

The matrix advocates also felt that if minimum environmental performance criteria

were established, manufacturers would have no incentive to exceed the minimum criteria. Providing Federal purchasers with environmental attribute information for each

cleaning product, however, allows them to select those products with the environmental attributes they determine are most important. In order to remain competitive,

manufacturers will supply products with the environmental attributes favored by the

Federal purchasers. As a result, market forces will encourage manufacturers to continually improve the environmental performance of their products.

8
pp, pp

vides additional information on the seven environmental attributes for each product,

voluntarily provided by the manufacturers and suppliers. The catalog explains the

environmental and human health and safety significance of each attribute and GSA

customers are encouraged to consult the matrix to balance environmental, health and

safety, performance, and cost tradeoffs when selecting a cleaning product. The original matrix is reprinted on pages 10 and 11.

Following publication of the original environmental attribute matrix, more than 60

manufacturers and suppliers contacted GSA to ask about being included in future

matrix updates. Manufacturers provided environmental attribute information for

three additional products, which were added to the matrix and published in the

March 1997 catalog. GSA also expanded the matrix to include all of the products

listed in the biodegradable cleaners and degreasers section of the catalog. In addition,

the updated matrix also includes the National Stock Numbers for each product,

which makes ordering easier for government buyers. (Call 800 241-7246 to request

the most recent catalog.) 

9
10

p

ERL Grease Cutter M Not Reported 34.7 No No No/NA NA

Gaylord Formula Exempt 8165 NA No No Yes/Yes –

G-510

L&B (Arrowak) Not Reported Exempt 12.7 Yes Yes Yes/Yes –

Klean E-Z

L&B (Arrowak) Not Reported Exempt 12.7 Yes Yes Yes/Yes –

Klean E-Z Concentrate

PCI Hurrisafe 9010 N-SL Exempt 2 No No No/NA NA

PCI Hurrisafe 9030 SL Exempt 8 No No Yes/NA –

PCI Hurrisafe 9040 SL Exempt 15 No No Yes/NA –

Rochester Biogenic SL Exempt 1 No No Yes/NA +

377C

Sunshine Simple Green N-SL Exempt 0.8 Yes Yes Yes/Yes 0, Larger units, 

(–) smaller units

SOQ Ecomate SL Exempt NA No No Yes/Yes –

Webaco Scuzz-RTU ST Exempt 3.3 No No No/NA NA

Webaco Scuzz ST Exempt 3.3 No No Yes/NA –

West Penetone M Exempt 31 No No No/NA NA

Citrikleen Aerosol

West Penetone Citrikleen M Exempt 6 No No Yes/NA –

West Penetone M Exempt 10.5 No No Yes/NA –

Citrikleen HD

West Penetone M Exempt 10 No No No/NA NA

Penair HD-1
(VOCs). When these products are used, the

VOCs may escape to the atmosphere and react to

form smog. Smog and other atmospheric pollutants have been shown to cause irritation of the

eyes, nose, throat and lungs and to cause asthma

attacks. Many state and local authorities have restrictions on the

use of VOCs. The numbers reported refer to the percent by

weight of VOCs in the ready-to-use product. “NA” (not applicable) indicates that there are no VOCs of concern present. The

lower the number, the more preferable the product. An “NA”

would be most preferable for this attribute.

4. Fragrances

This attribute does not refer to natural odors which

are associated with cleaning agents (e.g., a lemon

odor in a citrus-based cleaner). It refers instead to

fragrances that are added to the formulation to

improve its odor or to mask an offensive odor.

While fragrances added to a formulation have little

cleaning value, they may provide aesthetic benefits important to

many users. On the other hand, some people prefer products

without added fragrances. A basic principle of pollution prevention is to avoid additives that are unnecessary. A “Yes” indicates

that fragrances have been added; a “No” indicates that they

have not been added.

5. Dyes

This attribute refers to dyes that have been added

to a formulation to enhance or change the color

of the product. While the addition of these dyes

contributes little to the cleaning value of the

product, it may be important for safety reasons.

These additives may help end users differentiate

between products by color or to prevent misidentification as

7. Product Includes Features to Minimize Exposure

to Concentrate

Although packaging a product in concentrated

form may result in reduced packaging, it raises

the potential that the end users of the product

will be exposed to the concentrate. Exposure to

the concentrate may place the end user at greater

health risk than exposure to the ready-to-use product.

A “+” in this column indicates that the concentrate is part of a

system by which chemicals are transferred only among closed

containers. This offers less exposure potential. A “0” in the column indicates that the concentrate is premeasured and

prepackaged but not designed to be transferred among closed

containers. A “-” in the column indicates that the concentrate is

shipped without specific exposure controls. This offers greater

exposure potential. “NA” means that the product is not a concentrate.

Because the information on these attributes is intended only for

purposes of relative comparison, it does not substitute for other

guidance on safe product usage. The information on environmental attributes should help you decide which products to

buy; it does not provide guidance on HOW to use the products. You should continue to carefully follow guidance on

Material Safety Data Sheets, labels and other product-specific

information to ensure safe usage.

11
ment has contributed to this increase by procuring over $12.2 million worth of

biodegradable cleaning products since 1993. It is unknown at this point how much of

the recent procurement increases can be attributed to the successes of the Cleaning

Products Pilot Project or to general increased sensitivities about the environmental

impacts of procurement practices. The GSA/EPA team believes, however, that these

positive trends will continue due, in part, to the success of the project.

In addition to quantifying increased sales, the GSA/EPA team is attempting to

quantify the environmental benefits associated with the increased use of environmentally preferable cleaning products. Several methods of quantifying this data are being

considered, including working with the Service Industry Employees Union (SIEU) or

the American Association of Poison Control Centers to obtain information on custodial health complaints.

EPA is helping FTC promote the existence and use of FTC’s Guides for the Use of

Environmental Marketing Claims. The guidelines are designed to prevent the false and

misleading use of environmental terms such as “recyclable,” “degradable,” and “environmentally friendly” in the advertising and labeling of products. EPA is promoting

their use among all manufacturers because it provides customers with accurate information regarding the environmental impact of their purchasing decisions. EPA is promoting use of the guidelines among cleaning product manufacturers so that the

information they voluntarily provide for use in the environmental attributes matrix is

accurate. EPA is also promoting their use among federal customers and suppliers to

facilitate a general understanding of environmental marketing terminology.

Finally, the GSA/EPA team has initiated discussions with research teams at the

University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) and the City of Santa Monica, both

of which are working on projects to quantify the advantages of using environmentally

preferable cleaning products.

12

cleaners have

increased.
13

GSA is also interested in expanding its customer base because it must be financially

self-supporting and is no longer a mandatory source for government purchases. The

Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) of 1995 allows GSA to expand their customer base by permitting state and local governments to buy products and services

from GSA’s FSS schedules. Although implementation of this section of FASA is currently on hold, if the GSA schedule is opened to non-federal customers, the environmental attribute matrix developed by the GSA/EPA Cleaning Products Pilot Project

will enjoy greater visibility, which will likely increase GSA’s cleaning product sales.

T

he Cleaning Products Pilot Project is the first pilot project under the proposed

Guidance for Acquisition of Environmentally Preferable Products under Executive

Order 12873. As a result, many of the lessons learned could help guide future

pilot projects. The following are highlights of some of the most important lessons

learned:

Interagency Partnership Works

Interagency teamwork is not always easy due to different agency missions and cultures. In the Cleaning Products Pilot Project, for example, PBS officials were originally hoping for a list of environmentally preferable cleaning products that it could

immediately begin using in the 7,700 Federal buildings it oversees. At times, PBS

Lessons Learned
14

One of the unexpected difficulties encountered by the Cleaning Products Pilot

Project team was identifying all of the stakeholders. Although attempts were made to

identify all potential stakeholders before the project began, new stakeholders appeared

at various times throughout its development. Each new stakeholder presented their

own understanding of environmentally preferable purchasing and these understandings were not always compatible with the previous consensus. As a result, significant

time was spent explaining, defending, and modifying decisions that had been made

earlier in the process.

Satisfy the Customer

The customers in the Cleaning Products Pilot Project are Executive agency personnel who purchase cleaning products through GSA. Procedures for identifying

environmentally preferable products must be easy for them to follow. Otherwise, the

ultimate goal to increase the purchase of such products will not be achieved.

While the environmental attribute matrix was under development, the GSA/EPA

team consulted with some of the government purchasers who would be using it.

Their input was invaluable. For example, the language used in the catalog to explain

how to use the matrix was crafted with the help of purchasing agents. Customer input

helped guide the direction of the project and will help ensure its success.

Adopt Well-Defined Objectives and Be Pragmatic

The Cleaning Products Pilot Project has been successful, in part, because the project began with a narrow, but well-defined scope. The project was not designed to

develop criteria for evaluating the environmental preferability of all cleaning products

purchased by the government. Instead, the team decided to focus on evaluating a particular subset of cleaning products—daily-use general purpose cleaners and
15

gests otherwise. Customers have found the information very useful. The GSA/EPA

team is continuing efforts to assess the effectiveness of the informational approach

through more formal means. 

Change Is Slow

At the time this report was written, the GSA Commercial Cleaning Supplies catalog

had been available for less than a year. While sales of biodegradable cleaners have

steadily increased, they are still only a small part of the overall cleaning products market, even among government customers. Information dissemination is slow because

government procurement is so decentralized. One GSA official compared changing

the government’s procurement procedures with turning the Queen Mary cruise ship

in a bathtub, “It’s not impossible, it just takes time and patience.”

Vendor Cooperation Is Mutually Beneficial

Despite constraints limiting GSA and EPA’s ability to gather complete cleaning

product formulations, the Cleaning Products Pilot Project succeeded in developing

practical and effective methods that allow purchasers to make environmentally preferable decisions based on information voluntarily provided by vendors. While not all

vendors cooperated equally, those that provided information for the matrix have

enjoyed increased visibility in GSA’s Commercial Cleaning Supplies catalog.

EPA’s Non-Regulatory Role

While the GSA/EPA team members acknowledge that EPA’s involvement with the

Cleaning Products Pilot Project was a crucial component in its success, some manufacturers and vendors were reluctant to voluntarily provide product information

because of concerns that EPA was preparing to regulate the industry. These fears
16

develop government specifications for each cleaning product, a process that required

significant time and resources. The increased flexibility under the new procurement

procedures allows government buyers to immediately switch to environmentally

preferable cleaning products.

The additional flexibility has also allowed GSA to expand its role beyond managing

government contracts and overseeing supply. GSA is becoming a vital source of product information. GSA’s Commercial Products Acquisition Laboratory (CPAL), for

example, is currently investigating numerous commercially available products that

could be made available to government customers at GSA’s discounted rates. The performance and attribute information GSA is collecting will be made available to government customers to help them select products appropriate for their needs. GSA’s

new role will save federal buyers significant time and money because they will not

have to independently collect the information necessary to compare products. 

A more general benefit of the federal government’s increased purchasing flexibility

and emphasis on environmentally preferable purchasing results from the influence the

government’s purchasing preferences have on the consumer market. The government

market is large enough that manufacturers will begin developing additional products

with beneficial environmental attributes. These products will also be available to the

public, which will result in an increase in the availability and use of environmentally

preferable products.
17
19

p

June 5, 1995 GSA/EPA hold a series of meetings and briefings on the pilot project.

June 9, 1995 GSA sponsors a meeting with 12 affected vendors and trade associations to 

discuss information requests.

July 1995 EPA formats the environmental attribute information in a matrix that will 

be modified by the GSA/EPA team and published in the GSA catalog.

August 1995 EPA completes the RM1 for the 19 GSA cleaning products tested as part 

of the Philadelphia experiment.

August 1995 GSA/EPA complete the Draft Guidance Document for Reporting 

Information on Environmental Attributes of Cleaning Products and Their 

Components.

September 29, 1995 EPA publishes a Federal Register notice announcing proposed Guidance 

for Acquisition of Environmentally Preferable Products and Services and 

establishes seven guiding principles.

October 26, 1995 EPA holds a public meeting on the proposed general guidance on 

environmentally preferable products.

March 8, 1996 GSA Commercial Cleaning Supplies catalog is published, which includes 

the Biodegradable Cleaners and Degreasers section and environmental 

attributes matrix.

* Dates that are not bolded reflect events that occurred independently of the Cleaning Products Pilot Project. 

They are included as reference points.
20
Eun-Sook Goidel

Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

401 M Street, SW. (7409)

Washington, DC 20460

e-mail: goidel.eunsook@epamail.epa.gov

FAX: 202 260-0178