1. Comparisons for Functionally Equivalent Products in
“Green”
Comparisons for Functionally Equivalent Products in
Federal Supply Catalogs
George R. Thompson, Ph.D.
Chemical Compliance Systems, Inc.
Lake Hopatcong, NJ
12TH Annual
Green Chemistry & Engineering Conference
Washington, DC
June 23-27, 2008
Mr. Raymond Paulson
Fleet Readiness Center Southwest North Island San Diego, CA

2. Federal Government Terminology Transition
“Environmentally Preferable” to “Green” to “Sustainable”
1993 Executive Order 12873
2000 Executive Order 13148
“ ‘Environmentally preferable’ means products or services that have a lesser or reduced effect on human health and the environment when compared with competing products or services that serve
the same purpose.”
Implement environmental
management systems by 12/31/05
2004 Joint Group on Environmental
Attributes — November Meeting Minutes
Change DLIS-maintained Web site from
Environmentally Preferred Purchasing (EPP) to
Green Procurement Program (GPP)
1995 EPA Environmentally Preferable
Products — Proposed Guidelines
“ seven (7) general guiding principles designed to... identifying and purchasing EPPs.”
2004 DOD
Green Procurement Program (GPP)
Framework selected: an environmental
management system
1998 Executive Order 13101
EPPs re-defined (as above)
“ ‘Biobased’ means a commercial or industrial product (other than food or feed) that utilizes biological products or renewable domestic agricultural (plant, animal and marine) or
forestry materials.”
2007 Executive Order 13423
“ ‘Sustainable’ means to create and maintain conditions, under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans”

3. Executive Order 13423 Partial Summary Chemical Products/Processes
Goals
Sustainable Practices
d) acquired goods:
i) use sustainable environmental practices
biobased
environmentally preferable
recycled-content
i) reduced greenhouse gases,  energy
renewable energy
water conservations
acquisition
pollution & waste prevention, recycling
 toxic chemical acquisition & use
e) agencies:
i)  toxic materials
acquired
used disposed
ii) waste prevention & recycling programs
“ create and maintain conditions, under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans”

4. “Go Environmental” — GSA Criteria
Bio-Based
CA Air Quality Compliant
Comprehensive Procurement Guideline (CPG) Compliant (EPA)
Energy Star Complaint
Environmentally Friendly
EPEAT (Electronic) Environmental Criteria (51)
Environmental Technology Verification
Federal Energy Management Program (EMP) Efficient
Green Seal of Approval
National Emissions Standards for HAPs Compliant
Non-Toxic Item
PRIME Item
Recycled Content
Significant New Alternatives Program (S.N.A.P.) Approved (EPA)

5. DLA Chaired Joint Group on Environmental Attributes
Asbestos Alternative Products
Washers, Gaskets, Clamps, Insulators
Lighting, Food Equipment, Industrial Equipment,
Residential Equipment, Plumbing
Energy Efficient Products (FEMP)
Low Standby Power Products (FEMP)
Audio/Video, Office, Major Appliances
Equipment, HVAC, Electronics, Office,
Lighting, Food
Energy Star Products (FEMP)
Low VOC Products (California)
Paints, Solvents, Coatings, Inks
EPA Comprehensive Procurement Guideline (CPG) Recycled Content Guidelines
Construction, Landscaping, Office (nonpaper), Paper, Transportation
EPA Water Conserving Products
Plumbing
EPEAT (Electronic Products)

6. Environmentally Preferable Products
EPA-Defined Environmental Performance Characteristicsa
Human Health Hazards
Acute/Chronic Immunologic Neurotoxic
Carcinogenic Sensitizer Reproductive
Irritant
Ecologic Hazards
Aquatic—Avian—Terrestrial Species
Product Hazards
Corrosivity, Flammability, Reactivity 1.
MATERIALS
HAZARD FACTORS 2.
HUMAN HEALTH &
ECOLOGICAL
STRESSORS
Bioaccumulative
Ozone Depleting
Chemical Releases (TRI)
Air Releases (VOCs)
Global Warming Gases
Environmentally Preferable Products
(EPPS) 4.
NATURAL
RESOURCES
USE 3.
POSITIVE
ATTRIBUTES
Ecosystem Impact
Energy Consumption
Water Consumption
Resource Consumption
Non-renewable
Renewable
Rapidly Renewable
Recyclability
Reusability
Durability
Lifecycle Stages
a From: Federal Register, Vol. 60, No. 189, Appendix B1

7. The CCS Relational Chemical and Product Database (R–CPD)
CENTRALIZED
DATABASE 1
Cross-Reference Dictionary
Chemical Compound Dictionary
Chemical Alternatives
Toxicology Data
Holistic Hazard Ratings
Personal Protective Equipment
SAF-T-LABEL©
Safe Storage Codes
Safe Disposal Codes
Alloy Constituents
Emergency Response
Elemental Composition
Incompatibilities
Physical/Chemical Parameters 7
Munitions Characterization—MIDAS
Demil Processes
Constituent Chemicals
Chemicals Released
Green Criteria
Insensitive Criteria
Corrosive Criteria
Packaging Criteria
Transportation/Storage Factors
Reliability Factors
Hazardous Waste Forms
Regulations 6
13 Endpoint Criteria
Biomass Score
Regulatory Score
Economic Score
1 Chemicals
2 Alternative Chemicals 2
39 Generic Categories, e.g.,
Solvents Reducing Agents
Acids Surfactants
Bases Binders
Oxidizers Alloys
Antioxidants Metal Compounds
80 Subcategories
3 Commercial Products
8/9
Properties
Toxicology Data
Hazard Issues
Incompatibilities
Storage Recommendations
TICs/TIMs
4 Green Criteria 3
Product Descriptions
Product Components
MSDS Images
MSDS Index
Generic Categories
Manufacturers
User Director
Processes
Green Ratings
Corrosive Ratings
Biobased Ratings 10
20+ Agents
Disease Descriptors
Pathogenesis
Prophylaxis
Emergency Response
Decontamination
Treatment
5 Security Factors
6 Biobased Ratings 11
Generic Families
Properties
Effects & Actions
Storage & Security
Diagnosis & Treatment
Decontamination
Emergency Response
7 Munitions – MIDAS 4
43 Endpoint Criteria
Ecological—Air, Water, Soil
Health—Acute, Chronic
Safety—Fire, Reactivity, Special
Chemical-based
Objective & Quantitative
8 Chemical Agents
9 Agent Simulants 5
Chemical Security Risk List
Precursor Chemical Security Risk List
Theft & Population Risks
Accessibility Factors 12
>650 Total Regulations
Local
State
Federal
International
Non-government
Corporate or Trade Association
10 Bioterrorism Agents
11 Radioisotopes
12 Regulations

8. GP–CAS “Green” Scoring Process
Significance of each sub-score can be individually weighted
“Endpoint” Criteria
ECOLOGICAL
SCORE
(0-100%)
__% A.W.
Persistence
Exposure
Toxicity
Long-Term Effects
TOXICITY - AIR
(V.P.  LC50)  BCF
Water Score
Air Score
Soil Score
Persistence
Exposure
Toxicity
Long-Term Effects
LONG-TERM EFFECTS - AIR
Global Warming Potential
Ozone-Depleting Potential
Smog
Acidification
FINAL
GREEN
GRADE
( %)
Persistence
Exposure
Toxicity
Long-Term Effects
Oral LD50
Dermal LD50
IDLH
STEL/Ceiling
Inhalation LC50
Skin Irritation
Eye Irritation
Odor Threshold Value
TOXICITY-WATER
Fish LC50
Daphae LC50
Green Algae EC50
(Solubility  W-LC50)  BCF
HEALTH
SCORE
(0-100%)
__% A.W.
Acute Health Score
LONG-TERM EFFECTS - WATER
Eutrophication
Theoretical Oxygen Demand
Reproductive Effects
Carcinogenicity
RfC
RfD
Radioactivity
Sensitizer
Neurotoxicity
TLV
Chronic Health Score
TOXICITY - SOIL
(Koc  O-LD50)  BCF
14-day Worm LC50
SAFETY
SCORE
(0-100%)
__% A.W.
LONG-TERM EFFECTS - SOIL
Groundwater Mobility Factor
CERCLA RQ
Fire Score
Special Score
Reactivity Score
Flammability
Radioactivity
Oxidizer
Water-Reactive
Corrosive
FLAMMABILITY
Flash Point
Boiling Point
Explosivity

9. “Green” Product Assessment Parameters
NSNs = Functionally equivalent products
5 NSNs Selected from USN Facility Inventory
7917 Sealants [A] Products
6050 Varnish, Fungus Resistant 3 Products
2487 Spray Lacquer Products
4597 Sealants [B] 10 Products
6890 Spray Adhesive 10 Products
35 Products
GP–CAS “Green” Scoring Criteria

10. Summarized “Green” Comparison for Five N.I. NSNs
LOLs
Constituents
NSN
Product Type
No. of Products
Green Grades
Noteworthy Low Scores
Unique
Total
No.
Total %
– 2487
Lacquer 9
75–79
(4)a
Fire 15–46 (9)
Chronic Health 61–66 (4)
Eco – Water 62 (1)
8–9
16–63
3–11
84–110
– 6950
FR Varnish 3
79–90
(11)
Fire 18–55 (3)
7–9
12–2 7
52–173
– 4597
Sealant 10
87–100
(13)
Eco – Soil 79 (1)
1–11
1–26
1–6
2–120
– 7917
85–99
(14)
Safety 63 (1)b
Fire 55 (1)
React 39 (1)
5–7
5–10
1–4
3–110
– 6860
Spray Adhesive
75–99
(24)
Fire 10–37 (6) 8
8–21
2–5
4–100
a Range spread (in %)
b Number of products within this NSN

11. NSN: 8030008237917 (SEALANT) PRODUCT MSDS GREEN GRADE (0–100%)
MANUFACTURER
NAME
# CHEMs
TOTAL %
Hernon Manufacturing
Anaerobic ID 232 1
3.0 99
National Starch & Chemical
Perma-Lok ML 124 4
7.8 98
Loctite Corp.
Sealant Grade C
110.0 85
GREEN
GRADE
(0–100%)
ECOL
WATER
AIR
SOIL
HEALTH
ACUTE
CHRONIC
SAFETY
FIRE
SPECIAL
REACT 99 98
100 97 96 85 95 91 94 63 55 39

12. NSN: 5970008326950 (FUNGUS RESISTANT VARNISH)
PRODUCT
MSDS
GREEN
GRADE
(0–100%)
MANUFACTURER
NAME
CHEMs
TOTAL %
Kop-Coat Inc.
MIL-V-173C Varnish 3
52.0 90
Products/Techniques, Inc.
PT-107 Clear Varnish 11
173.7 81
Randolph Products Co.
Aerosol Clear Gloss MIL-V-173 7
100.0 79
GREEN
GRADE
(0–100%)
ECOL
WATER
AIR
SOIL
HEALTH
ACUTE
CHRONIC
SAFETY
FIRE
SPECIAL
REACT 90 94 96 92 89 84 85 56
100 81 82 86 79 83 87 77 31 80 88 78 73 18

13. NSN: 8010005152487 (SPRAY LACQUER) PRODUCT MSDS GREEN GRADE (0–100%)
MANUFACTURER
NAME
# CHEMs
TOTAL %
Pacific Aerosol
Lacquer 5
86.0 79
Sherwin Williams
1951 Clear Lacquer Aerosol 7
87.0
Sprayon Products
01951 Clear LAC
85.0
Illinois BP&P Co.
Lacquer TT-L-50G 3
84.3
LHB Industries
Clear (14-100) 6
91.8 77
Borden Inc.
Krylon Spray #1303
110.0 76
Seymour of Sycamore Inc.
Clear 11
90.0
Aerosol 14B100 (G/O) Clear Lacquer 8
101.0 75
Krylon 1303 (Old Form)
94.0

14. NSN: 8030007534597 (SEALANT) PRODUCT MSDS GREEN GRADE (0–100%)
MANUFACTURER
NAME
# CHEMs
TOTAL %
3M Company
Sealant B-1/2 2
2.0
100
Goal Chemical Sealants
GC-408 CL-B 3
29.0 99
Products Research & Chemical
PR-1440 Part B
10.0 98
PE-1422 Class B
14.0 96
Advance Chemistry
MC-236 Base Type II 5
44.3 94
Morton Thiokol, Inc.
Thiokol MC-236 Base
65.4 93
Flamemaster Corp.
CS 3204 Part B 1
65.0 91
PR-1440 Part A
Thiokol MC-236 6
120.0 87
MC-236 Accelerator

15. NSN: 8040009386860 (SPRAY ADHESIVE) PRODUCT MSDS GREEN GRADE (0–100%)
MANUFACTURER
NAME
# CHEMs
TOTAL %
3M Company
Spray Adhesive 77 4
4.0 99
Camie-Camp[bell Inc.
General Purpose Adhesive Spray 5
43.0 90
National Aerosol Products
MMM-1058A Adhesive 2
77.0 84
Contact Industries
Multipurpose Spray-On Adhesive
55.0
Plasti-Kote
Multipurpose Spray-On Adhesive MMM-A-1058A
58.0 83
LHB Industries
MMM-A-1058A Rubber Adhesive
77.5 81
So-Sure Rubber Adhesive #532D800
83.8 80
MMM-A-1058 Rubber Adhesive
90.0 78
Camie-Campbell Inc.
L-6261 GSA Adhesive
3M Super 77 Spray Adhesive
100.0 75

16. Conclusions
Only 1/5 Functionally Equivalent NSNs Was Equally “Green” – Spray Lacquer
Differences in Product “Green Grades” Within an NSN Ranged From 4–24%
Inverse Proportionality Between “Green” Grades and MSDS Total % Constituents
GP–CAS Quantitatively Grades Individual Product Greenness
GP–CAS Effectively Compares Product Greenness for Functionally
Equivalent NSNs
GP–CAS readily:
Differentiates”Green” Disparities Within NSNs
Identifies Unique & Total Regulatory Impacts
Tallies the # and % MSDS Constituents

17. Chemical Compliance Systems, Inc.
“Green” Comparisons for Functionally Equivalent Products in Federal Supply Catalogs
For a remote demonstration of GP–CAS,
or more information, contact . . .
Dr. George Thompson
Chemical Compliance Systems, Inc.
706 Route 15 South, Suite 207• Lake Hopatcong, NJ 07849