!&=-
If/EPA
fcr
2 A Look at MEPPS
3 Integrating P2 into
State Environment
Programs
r
<£-.
I- „
no
f-
4 Indiana
5 Pennsylvania
Environmental
Accounting
~ 7 NPPR's Roadmap
for the Future
8 State Officials
J Associations Want
- In on P2
P4 Pilot Project
Counties
- tj Requiem for ConnTAP
^
12 Calendar
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics
Washington, DC 20460
September-October 1997
ERA 742-N-97-004
Pollution
Prevention
News
Partnering with the States
William H. Sanders, III
Director, EPA Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics
Across the country, from corporate
boardrooms to individual house
holds, great strides have been made
in pollution prevention over the past seven
years since the nation's Pollution Preven-
tion Act was signed. Pollution Prevention
(P2) concepts now permeate all aspects of
our society, and new ideas for source
reduction are being explored and applied
to deal with the expanding complexity of
the environmental problems we face. State
pollution prevention programs represent a
great deal of this progress.
For almost a
decade now, EPA
has been providing
grants to states to
support their P2
efforts. The
Pollution Preven-
tion Incentives for
States (PPIS)
program provided
early seed funding
to help get state
P2 programs off
the ground. Innovative approaches and
demonstration projects showing the
William H. Sanders, III
Continued on page 2
Pollution Prevention and Beyond
Linda Rimer
Assistant Secretary for the Environ-
ment, North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources
The subject of pollution prevention
can be introduced this way: If we
don't change our direction, we may
end up where we are headed. For a long
time we recognized we were headed in the
wrong direction in our relationship with
our environment. Over the last decade,
however, we have risen to the occasion and
learned how to emphasize pollution
prevention over treatment and disposal.
North Carolina has a long and aggres-
sive history of promoting pollution
prevention. We opened the doors of the
first state-run
pollution preven-
tion program in
the nation in 1983.
This office is still
going strong today.
We have helped
thousands of
public and private
sector organiza-
tions rethink their
pollution problems Linda Rimer
in terms of pre-
vention.
However, we have only begun to meet
our challenges in improving environmen-
tal quality. Addressing current waste
management problems through P2 is only
Continued on page 2
-------
2 Pollution Prevention News
September-October 1997
Pollution Prevention
and Beyond
Continued from page 1
the first step. Pollution prevention can be
the building block upon which other bricks
must be laid to build a sustainable struc-
ture. Or to use another metaphor, pollu-
tion prevention aims only at the fourth
outer ring of our target. What are the
three inner rings?
The third inner ring of the target is life
cycle analysis, or product stewardship in a
manufacturing operation. Not only should
an organization look to prevent waste on
site, but it must also consider the environ-
mental implications of its choices from
cradle to grave. This consideration could
or should include everything from the
environmental impacts of extracting raw
materials from the earth to product use
and final disposal.
The second inner ring on our target is
clean technology. Pollution prevention
tends to function within the parameters of
existing operations. But even if we elimi-
nate all pollution associated with a
process, life cycle analysis tells us that
there still may be environmental impacts
both up- and downstream of the opera-
tions. If manufacturers and communities
are going to truly minimize the environ-
mental impacts of their activities, they
must explore cleaner technologies.
The bull's eye for which we are aiming
is sustainability. Sustainability involves a
commitment to long-term economic
development as it guides us to the best,
holistic environmental solution.
Sustainability helps organizations balance
their needs with those of the community,
environment, and even future generations.
Like life-cycle analysis and clean technol-
ogy, sustainability goes far beyond the
impacts of the single organization. It
guides an organization to make not just a
zero impact on the environment, but to
make a positive impact.
These four rings of the target are
fundamental to our future as the world
experiences continuing stresses from a
wide range of environmental issues. In
North Carolina, we are trying to move
toward sustainability. A range of efforts is
underway, from setting long-range envi-
ronmental goals to exploring environmen-
tal management systems. The target is
clear; now our aim must be true.
Partnering
with the States
Continued from page 1
advantages and opportunities of protecting
the environment through source reduction
began spreading across the nation largely
through university-based and other
technical assistance activities.
State P2 programs have increasingly
become institutionalized within their state
environmental protection departments.
This represents a critical complement to
the early P2 assistance programs. Today,
Texas and Indiana are just two examples
of P2 programs that have grown signifi-
cantly in partnership with their state
waste, air and water programs. I applaud
this increasing effort by states to integrate
P2 into their core media environmental
programs. The continued success of state
P2 programs is dependent on their ability
to develop partnerships with their regula-
tory programs, and to help those programs
adopt source reduction techniques to solve
environmental problems.
As we move into the 21st century, the
practices of the past will be insufficient to
deal with the complex environmental
issues of our future. State programs, like
environmental programs at all levels of
government and in all sectors of society,
must endeavor to prevent more pollution
at the source if we are to sustain our
economic development and preserve
precious natural resources. EPA is commit-
ted to helping our P2 partners in the
states in this vital mission.
-------
3 Pollution Prevention News
September-October 1997
Tu;r-i:»ii»riiip -i»iy7 mn, IK m'11^ v-r t«ff? TO'VET T -s» '"r- •**.
_-,* 1_"^-^;-^«^ffliiS«i;/J^>.-nfH":i|iS'rjat SJ*,P-£-
Performance P2: A Look at NEPPS
by Ken Zarker, Office of
Pollution Prevention and Recycling,
Texas Natural Resources and
Conservation Commission
Pollution prevention professionals
across the country are actively
working to incorporate pollution
prevention into EPA's National Environ-
mental Performance Partnerships System
(NEPPS) to link core environmental
performance measures and program
outcomes with measurable environmental
indicators. Many P2 practitioners are
interested in the NEPPS process, since it
gives state and local governments and
tribes more flexibility to promote multime-
dia P2 integration based on their own
environmental priorities.
What is NEPPS?
NEPPS was established as part of an
effort to reform EPA policy and practices
related to oversight of state programs. The
two elements of the NEPPS are:
(l)Performance Partnership Agreements
(PPAs), strategic documents that
typically identify mutually established
agency-wide priorities, core regulatory
activities, and program-based perfor-
mance measures.
(2)Performance Partnership Grants
(PPGs), the delivery mechanism for this
new approach. PPGs tie resources to
activities, and allow states to target
resources to their highest priorities by
combining two or more grants into a
single, more flexible grant.
As of June 1997, 40 states have signed
PPGs for FY97. Currently EPA program
managers are working with state environ-
mental commissioners through the Envi-
ronmental Council of States to develop core
performance measures for FY98, including
integrating pollution prevention measures.
To promote integration, efforts are being
focused on increasing the visibility and
credibility of P2 programs. These include:
establishing P2 as an agency-wide priority
in the Pollution Prevention Act; funding
pilot P2 projects to demonstrate environ-
mental results; providing technical P2
training for agency staff; encouraging
media program to invest in P2 staff; and
establishing performance measures that
focus on environmental results.
Pilot Projects
Several states have initiated pilot projects
that could be funded through the PPA/PPG
process.
^ Oregon VOC Amnesty Project: If the
state finds a facility operating illegally
without a permit, it will waive the
applicable fines. The facility must apply
for a permit during the amnesty period
and receive advice on how to avoid or
decrease regulatory requirements
through P2. Oregon estimates that it
has reduced VOC emissions by 20-30
tons as a result of the project.
^ Pollution Prevention in Permitting
Project (P4): This pilot project in four
states will demonstrate how operating
flexibility and P2 can be integrated into
air permits. [See page 9 below]
^- Texas Emissions Inventory Data Project:
Texas is using the air emissions inventory
to identify facilities at or near regulatory
thresholds. The state will approach these
facilities with P2 technical assistance to
help them drop emissions significantly
below regulatory thresholds.
Future Activities
Many environmental programs are working
on P2 outcome measures, (e.g., the number
of permits issued, the number of P2 site
visits, the number of inspections, etc.). While
this traditional "bean counting" is useful for
tracking program outcomes, there still
exists a great need to develop measures
that align program outcomes with environ-
mental results. For example, a performance-
based outcome measure could be counting
the number of permits avoided as a result of
P2 technical assistance activities.
Future activities for continuing P2 and
NEPPS integration include expanding
public involvement in developing and
testing new core measures.
Resources:
A ten-state study, Practical
Steps for Advancing P2
through NEPPS, sponsored
by the Pacific Northwest
states and EPA Region 10,
in affiliation with the
National Pollution Preven-
tion Roundtable, offers P2
practitioners a guide to
understanding the NEPPS
process, strategies for
integrating P2 into the
NEPPS process, opportuni-
ties for furthering regula-
tory integration of P2
through NEPPS, and
performance measures
currently contained in
several NEPPS agreements.
To order, contact the Na-
tional P2 Roundtable at
202-466-P2P2.
•ilii-'^'f':"' »i " "">•-."_" r£ JT'!'i«i^i,,r>if:~1^hi|1-i|'Vl|!'.M;;ii-i_lli1
Recycling; He;cgn Ije ;:-:>y=
- „ ,-JT -W rv 'ii&wET^i JSTra'igj1 xmvvt, v yp "iw *5ei~ "ir -' - -ii- Mm.!"' ,r
sffiachedot5m-239-a]45
-------
4 Pollution Prevention News
September-October 1997
Pennsylvania Strives
For Zero Emissions
Pennsylvania's governor, Tom Ridge,
has set the following ambitious
mission for the state's Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP): "We are
now encouraging individuals, local govern-
ments and businesses to strive for a 'zero
emissions' goal in their environmental
programs." Pennsylvania citizens, compa-
nies, and local governments have already
made significant progress in meeting this
goal. Twenty-five companies which re-
ceived Governor's Environmental Excel-
lence Awards in 1996 have eliminated 2.8
billion pounds of pollution—hazardous and
residual wastes, air pollution and waste-
water. While DEP recognizes these results,
it knows it must go further. In the words of
James Seif, Secretary of DEP, "[A] goal of
zero emissions requires businesses and
communities to make an honest commit-
ment to pollution prevention at its source
through continuous improvement to their
methods of doing business."
Only companies aggressively pursuing
zero emissions goals qualify for the
Governor's Awards for Excellence. The St.
Mary's Pressed Metals firm, for example,
received an award for eliminating all
industrial wastewater discharges from its
Ridgeway facility. Armstrong World
Industries received an award for reducing
landfill waste by 91 percent, hazardous
waste by 73 percent, volatile organic
compound emissions by 70 percent, and
NOx emissions by 95 percent.
Letting P2 Sell Itself
Pennsylvania DEP believes that with the
proper information and cost accounting,
pollution prevention will sell itself to
corporate decision-makers without the
need for "regulatory flexibility." DEP has
developed tools to help companies under-
stand environmental accounting and the
savings to be gained through P2. It
provides free computer software to sim-
plify the tasks of organizing and analyzing
cost data, calculating annual cash flow, and
measuring short and long term profitability.
DEP has reprinted and distributes EPA's
manual, An Introduction to Environmental
Accounting as a Business Management Tool.
DEP helps its manufacturers make
money from their P2 successes. DEP staff
led a delegation of 28 Pennsylvania firms
to the world's largest international envi-
ronmental conference and trade show to
help sell successful environmental tech-
nologies, including P2 methods. The effort
matched one company with numerous
business opportunities in Latin American
and the Pacific Rim. DEP also publishes
$uccess $tories fact sheets which describe
successful P2 methods, waste stream/
chemical process reduction, P2 costs and
savings, and other benefits obtained by
companies that have reduced pollution or
reached zero emissions. One fact sheet, for
example, details how GE Transportation
Systems, a manufacturer of diesel engines,
installed an aqueous cleaning system that
annually eliminates the emission of about
100 tons of volatile organic compounds and
the off-site disposal of 92,000 pounds of
waste. These reductions should save the
company $500,000 per year.
DEP has integrated P2 into its overall
environmental program through the
Pollution Prevention and Site Visit
Program. The program offers suggestions
for prevention pollution after site visits by
air, water, waste and energy experts.
Suggestions vary from site to site and may
include flow and process diagrams,
outlines of environmental management
systems, alternate disposal options,
preventive maintenance schedules, and
financial analysis methods. DEP staff, for
example, helped the Sinter Metals firm of
Emporium, Pennsylvania develop a closed
loop wastewater system.
-------
5 Pollution Prevention News
September-October 1997
Indiana Integrates Pollution
Prevention From the Start
Indiana's Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) has set a high
priority on integrating pollution preven-
tion into its overall environmental pro-
gram, including training its entire staff in
P2 methods and benefits. IDEM's Office of
Pollution Prevention and Technical
Assistance (OPPTA) has trained over 324
IDEM employees to incorporate P2 in all
agency-administered regulatory and
enforcement programs. New employees
receive P2 training before they receive
training for their own jobs. The half-day
training course includes a video presenta-
tion, problem solving, and discussion.
OPPTA has developed an additional 14
technical seminars on industry-specific
P2 methods.
OPPTA also has integrated P2 recogni-
tion and training into IDEM's enforcement
program. The Department is considering
using its inspectors to encourage P2 at
individual sites. While conducting routine
compliance inspection's, inspectors may
distribute on-the-spot awards for plants
or companies which have voluntarily
reduced pollution. Other companies will
receive P2 training materials. IDEM
recognizes that inspectors will require
significant training in P2 methods for the
facilities they visit, and must be provided
with quantifiable P2 performance mea-
sures for determining progress.
OPPTA also integrates P2 into Indiana's
environmental program through regula-
tory review. Over the past few years, staff
have analyzed over 300 proposed rules and
policies for opportunities to encourage P2.
Through this analysis OPPTA attempts to
work with rule writers from all IDEM
programs to encourage P2. OPPTA is now
beginning to review existing rules for P2
opportunities.
OPPTA has awarded eight P2 Challenge
Grants totaling $196,790 to manufactur-
ers, universities and consultants to
encourage P2. For example, Altec Engi-
neering received $25,000 to reduce styrene
emissions at its fiberglass plant by 50
percent. Millennium Environmental
received over $25,000 to teach P2 to
municipal wastewater treatment opera-
tors. OPPTA views these grants as one of
the most practical methods for encourag-
ing P2 in the state.
Finally, Indiana is one of approximately
40 states that have entered into National
Environmental Performance Partnerships
with EPA. (See related article on page 3.)
P2 is the first priority embodied in the
Performance Partnership Agreement
between IDEM and EPAKegion 5. The P2
goals and specific objectives embodied in
the Agreement, stated in measurable
performance indicators, indicate where
IDEM will be directing its P2 efforts. (See
box below for a partial listing of P2 goals
and objectives.)
Sample of Goals & Objectives in Indiana's
Performance Partnership Agreement
Goal A-1: Use pollution prevention to reduce toxic
chemicals in environmental waste from manufacturers.
Objectives:
A.I.I: Ninety percent of companies required to meet maximum achiev-
able control technology standards under the Clean Air Act will
comply through P2.
A. 1.2: Fifty percent of treatment works that have a potential or real
impact on Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW's) will conduct
P2 opportunity assessments for 25 percent of their significant
industrial users before 1999.
A.1.3: Reduce the amount of hazardous waste shipped from operations
other than environmental cleanup sites by 10 percent before 2000.
(May be modified to include cleanup wastes.)
A.1.4: Use P2 to reduce the quantity of toxic chemicals in manufactur-
ers' environmental waste by 20 percent before 2001.
A. 1.5: Develop and implement a comprehensive quality assurance
program for the annual reporting of toxic chemicals through the
federal Toxic Release Inventory.
A. 1.6: By 2000, 75 manufacturing facilities will implement P2 recom-
mendations of the Clean Manufacturing Technology and Safe
Materials Institute.
-------
6 Pollution Prevention News
September-October 1997
Carrying the Environmental
Accounting Torch in ftfew Jersey
Melinda Dower, New Jersey Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection
N
successful in leading some
'
ew Jersey's Pollution Prevention
Act of 1991 mandated pollution
prevention planning for the
approximately 700 manufacturing firms in
New Jersey required to perform Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI)
reporting. The Act requires
firms to list facility and
process-level materials,
provide accounting data, and
develop goals for reducing
nonproduct output and
chemical use. In addition,
firms must examine a
variety of environmental
costs associated with their
manufacturing processes.
The New Jersey Department of Envi-
ronmental Protection views calculation of
environmental costs as critical to the
widespread adoption of P2 principles.
Therefore, it has asked New Jersey
manufacturers to estimate their costs in
the following categories:
> Storage and handling, including safety
and health compliance
^ Monitoring, tracking and reporting
^- Treatment
^ Transportation and disposal
>• Manifesting and labeling
^ Permit fees
K Liability insurance, if applicable
Rather than prescribing a detailed report-
ing format, NJDEP tries to get production
managers to think about how much time
and money they spend on the above items.
NJDEP also points out to firms how
quantifying these costs can lead to better
business decisions. Specifically, NJDEP
describes how better cost data lead to
better pricing decisions, raw material
savings, decreased production times, and
better product mix decisions.
Evaluation Conducted
NJDEP recently completed an in-depth
evaluation of the P2 planning program.
The evaluation covered 115 firms and
included on-site plan reviews, a question-
naire on the firm's operations and motiva-
tions, an analysis of P2 goals and TRI
data, and statistical analyses to determine
which planning elements led to greater
pollution reduction.
Overall, the study found that planning
appears to be successful in leading some
facilities to identify new P2 opportunities
and in continuing to provide an impetus to
facilities already experienced in finding P2
opportunities. However, not all aspects of
planning were equally successful and not
all facilities benefited equally. Significant
findings of the evaluation include:
^- Savings realized by facilities outweigh
the costs of P2 planning. Depending on
the figures used to calculate average
savings and costs, the savings to cost
ratios range from 3:1 to 8:1.
> Facilities conducting detailed P2
planning realized greater savings, and
cost-effective P2 opportunities continue
to be plentiful.
>• Most of the 115 participating facilities
did not complete the required cost
accounting, leaving NJDEP unable to
conclude that cost accounting prevented
more pollution. Currently, many firms,
particularly smaller ones, simply do not
have the time or inclination to estimate
environmental costs.
We conclude that we must continue
developing educational materials, case
studies, and outreach efforts to convince
firms of the benefits of environmental
accounting.
For further information or for a copy of
the evaluation study, contact Melinda
Dower at 609-292-1122 or via e-mail at
mdower@DEP.STATE.NJ.US.
-------
7 Pollution Prevention News
September-October 1997
Setting Out a Roadmap
for Future P2 Efforts
Andrea Kreiner Farrell, Chair,
National Pollution Prevention
Roundtable
First formed in 1985, the National
Pollution Prevention Roundtable is
the largest membership organization
in the United States dedicated solely to
avoiding, eliminating and reducing
pollution at the source.
Over the past decade, members of the
National Pollution Prevention Roundtable
have achieved substantial results in
reducing pollution entering the nation's
air, land and water resources. The
Roundtable's core constituencies of state,
local and tribal government officials, have
long been the vanguard of innovative
environmental protection efforts and at
the forefront in developing comprehensive
pollution prevention programs.
After years of "working in the trenches,"
public and private sector pollution preven-
tion programs can now document dramatic
reductions in waste and toxic substances
as a result of their efforts. Quantitative
evaluations across the country now
attest to the effectiveness of pro-
moting pollution prevention mea-
sures as the first line of attack in
achieving superior environmental
results. These striking results
have been achieved by making efficient use
of minimal resources.
While significant progress has been
achieved, several issues impede the
country's ability to truly achieve a preven-
tion-based national environmental protec-
tion framework:
>• Multi-media, prevention-based environ-
mental protection approaches are not
routinely considered and used by
environmental media programs in
federal, state or local government.
^ The current federal environmental
framework is not designed to ad-
equately foster pollution prevention,
provide flexibility for innovation within
industry and within state and local
governments. The current laws also do
not send appropriate environmental
cost signals to consumers and industry,
resulting in an inefficient use of re-
sources and pollution.
> Even with conventional and costly end-
of-pipe control and treatment technolo-
gies, the nation's air, land and water
resources are still being impacted—often
by small difficult to manage pollution
from dispersed and persistent sources.
fr> Funding is a major problem. Preven-
tion-based programs are competing for
resources with traditional well-funded
end-of-pipe environmental programs.
Roadmap for the Future
National, state, and local environmental
policies and programs must incorporate a
prevention-first approach to environmen-
tal management and support innovation
during regulatory and non-regulatory
interactions with business, government
and local communities. A strong network
of state, local, NGO and other pollution
prevention service providers must be
expanded and strengthened to
support national efforts to
reduce pollution. In addition the
price of goods and services must
reflect true environmental costs.
Two key efforts on the part of Congress
and the Administration would help define
P2 as the cornerstone of our nation's
environmental policy:
1. Assess and strengthen the Pollution
Prevention Act (PEA) of 1990. PPA
needs to be amended to reflect the dra-
matic changes that have occurred in the
field of pollution prevention since 1990. It
is no surprise the PPA has been considered
to be fairly ineffective. The Act has a
limited mandate and competes with much
better funded, end-of-pipe environmental
statutes such as the Clean Air Act, the
Clean Water Act, and RCRA. This year a
mere $5 million is being made available
Continued on page B
-------
8 Pollution Prevention News
September-October 1997
State Officials' Associations
Keep P2 Fires Burning
Despite good intentions and general
acceptance of the benefits of pollu-
tion prevention, the major associa-
tions representing state air and waste
officials are finding that getting their
members' attention for pollution preven-
tion is an uphill battle. EPA's Media
Association Pollution Prevention Forum
brings together state environmental
officials from air, water, and solid waste
programs, and has been a major driver in
helping state associations integrate
pollution prevention into their mandates.
Two associations' efforts follow.
STAPRA/ALAPCO
The Pollution Prevention/Sustainability
Committee of the State and Territorial Air
Pollution Program Administrators and the
Association of Local Air Pollution Control
Officials (STAPPA/ALAPCO) estimates
that approximately one-third of state and
local air programs nationwide are actively
involved in P2 activities. For the past
several years, however, state and local air
program staff time and effort have largely
been consumed by implementation of the
1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act.
Still, members of the P2/Sustainability
Committee are determined to keep pollu-
tion prevention issues on the radar screens
of their peers through regular monthly
conference calls, panels at the semi-annual
membership meetings and the compilation
of regulatory integration success stories.
The Committee believes that if air pro-
gram staff can access P2 information at
the locations they usually consult for
permitting and enforcement activities,
they will be more likely to recommend P2
options to the sources they work with.
ASTSWMO
The Association of State and Territorial
Solid Waste Management Officials
(ASTSWMO) also recognizes the need to
promote P2, and facilitates information
sharing through its Waste Programs
Pollution Prevention Subcommittee. The
Subcommittee's three task forces concen-
trate on P2 implementation, technology
transfer and training, and resources.
The Subcommittee's mission is to
integrate P2 into all waste management
programs. Like STAPPA/ALAPCO,
ASTSWMO's Subcommittee is compiling a
summary of P2 success stories. In addi-
tion, the Subcommittee is establishing a
network of state waste program P2
contacts, providing P2 information at
annual meetings, and preparing a concept
paper on whole facility management.
Future P2
Continued from page 7
under Pollution Prevention Incentives for
States (PPIS), the only dedicated federal
funding set aside for state prevention
activities. This amounts to less than one
percent of federal grant funds to states for
environmental programs. P2 deserves a
larger percentage of funding.
2. Incorporate a prevention-first
approach, in EPA's ambitious National
Environmental Performance Partner-
ship System (NEPPS), EPA's innovative
version of block grants to the states. The
NEPPS program has tremendous potential
to leverage more resources and commit-
ment to P2 nationwide. It is important for
EPA to include strong prevention activities
and incentives into the agreements signed
by the state environmental agencies.
While we work on cross cutting strategies,
such as amending the PPA of 1990, we
must help make P2 a key component of the
existing system.
The Roundtable will continue to be an
aggressive advocate for pollution preven-
tion and its practitioners and will continue
to raise the profile of prevention in the
national discussion of environmental
management.
-------
9 Pollution Prevention. News
September-October 1997
P4 Pilot Project Injects Pollution
Prevention into Air Permits
Dave Dellarco, EPA Region 10
EPA developed the Pollution Preven-
tion in Permitting Pilot (P4) Project
in an effort to find an effective way
to promote pollution prevention within the
Clean Air Act. Another goal ,of the project
is to advance the Clinton Administration's
"reinvention" initiative for flexible,
facility-wide air permits.
The P4 permits developed to date have
pioneered the introduction of pollution
prevention as an important tool in prepar-
ing flexible, streamlined, and environmen-
tally beneficial air permits. These permits
enhance operational flexibility through
tools such as advanced minor New Source
Review (NSR) and streamlined compliance
demonstration. They also show that
measurable pollution prevention progress
can generate unique opportunities for
providing sources with operational flexibil-
ity. For example, several P4 permits
include a mechanism for offsetting emis-
sions increases with emissions reductions
through P2.
Because changes in existing control
technology can trigger minor NSR and Title
V permit modifications, it can be less costly
for a source, and less burdensome for a
source and permitting authority, to use P2
offsets rather than control technology
offsets. For example, EPA estimates that
Searle Pharmaceutical can earn up to $1
million for every day that it does not need
to wait for a permit to produce a new drug.
In addition to creating greater flexibil-
ity, P4 permits also realize pollution
prevention gains through the use of
emissions caps. Annual facility-wide caps,
plant-wide applicability limits, and daily
stationary source caps all serve as incen-
tives for sources to engage in pollution
prevention. At a minimum, these caps
ensure environmental "neutrality" over
the course of the permit term. However, if
these caps remain fixed over time, the
permits will actually reduce pollution if
the source experiences economic growth.
States Reap Multiple Benefits
State permitting authorities that have
participated in P4 projects have already
realized numerous benefits. First, provid-
ing greater regulatory flexibility for a
source often results in less time and
paperwork for the permitting authorities.
Further, sources can become more satis-
fied with the permitting process and more
willing to comply with permit terms.
Some state permitting authorities
credit P4 with an enhanced working
relationship with air pollution sources. For
example, Ray Bishop of the Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality
believes that his agency's reputation
among the regulated community has
improved substantially. Mr. Bishop and
other "P4 alumni" are looking forward to
applying lessons learned from their pilot
projects to additional sources in the future.
Communicating such "lessons learned"
to all levels of government and making
pollution prevention a routine component
of Clean Air Act permitting are important
future goals of the P4 Project. To help
ensure a broad distribution of P4 experi-
ence and benefits, new P4 projects are
being developed in different EPA regions
across the country. In addition, several
sources which have already participated in
a P4 project have expressed interest in
transferring their knowledge to facilities
under different permitting authorities.
Educational materials and P4 training
workshops are being developed for both
permit writers and state and local air
program managers. These workshops, in
combination with continued pilot projects,
will help guarantee that an increasing
number of state and local permitting
authorities will experience the many
benefits of P4.
-------
10 Pollution Prevention News
September-October 1997
Coffilli
U.S. Counties Make
Pollution Prevent ion Work
Thuriton County, WA staff helps a
local print shop outline pollution
prevention opportunities.
The National Association of Counties
(NACo), which represents the
country's 3,000 county governments,
is playing a role in advancing local P2
efforts. As a national organization, NACo
provides a link across counties and between
counties and national P2
organizations.
Counties are well posi-
tioned to lead P2 efforts. In
providing such services as
garbage collection and
disposal, drinking water
purification, and sewage
treatment, they are often
the first point of contact
between citizens and public
health and environmental
officials. This same proxim-
ity to residents and busi-
nesses means that counties are well
positioned to distribute P2 information
and assistance. County workers such as
fire inspectors, permitting and licensing
officers, health officials, and zoning and
planning board members have numerous
opportunities to promote P2. Moreover, in
their capacity as building owners and
managers, fleet operators, and procure-
ment agents, county governments can
incorporate P2 into internal operations
and provide the benefit of their experience
to the community.
With increased devolution of responsi-
bility from the federal to the state and
local levels and greater regulatory flexibil-
ity, counties have more opportunities to
serve as leaders in the pollution preven-
tion field. However, county officials need
information and assistance — on how to
staff and finance programs, and how to set
priorities and measure progress.
Closing the Info Gap
NACo wants to help close this information
gap. One of the best sources of information
for counties is other counties. County
officials benefit greatly from learning how
their peers have resolved similar prob-
lems. NACo has a variety of mechanisms
for helping counties link with each other.
These include two major and two minor
conferences per year, regional seminars
and trainings, vidoeconferences, state-
level meetings, a bi-weekly newspaper
with a circulation of 35,000, a quarterly
environmental newsletter, a host of
publications, and telephone referrals.
To provide counties concrete examples
of how pollution prevention can be put into
practice, NACo published Preventing
Pollution in our Cities and Counties: A
Compendium of Case Studies, that has
been disseminated to over 5,000 local
governments and individuals. In conjunc-
tion with the National Recycling Coalition,
NACo co-wrote Making Source Reduc-
tion and Reuse Work in Your Commu-
nity: A Manual for Local Governments.
We will soon be publishing County Case
Studies: Flushing our Problems with
Septic Tanks.
NACo also has numerous forums for
county leaders to meet with each other in
small groups. For example, for our new
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing
Project, we have formed an advisory
committee of local elected officials,
environmental staff, and procurement
officials, and established a series of
county-based pilot projects. Through
these pilots, participating counties can
connect with other counties researching
and testing environmentally preferred
purchasing in eight areas: automobile
and heavy equipment; cleaners; pesticides
and lawn chemicals; office supplies;
paints; construction and demolition;
buildings design and energy efficiency,
and printing. By "buddying" pilot commu-
nities with other local governments,
pioneers are given the support and
information they frequently lack when
beginning a new program. NACo is
developing a "starter kit" to help counties
nationwide embark on similar efforts.
-------
11 Pollution Prevention News
September-October 1997
Requiem for a State TAP
The decade-old ConnTAP — Connecti-
cut Technical Assistance Program —
closed its doors on July 1, 1997, a
victim of legislative budget cuts. Over the
years, ConnTAP answered thousands of
telephone hotline requests, issued match-
ing grants and loans, and published
reports, case studies, and fact sheets.
Perhaps its most visible effort was a Site
Visit Program that helped 150 Connecticut
companies identify ways of operating more
efficiently while reducing the amount of
hazardous emissions they generate.
Operating with only five retired
engineers, the free Site Visit Program
targeted small and medium-sized busi-
nesses. ConnTAP estimated that its
recommendations to businesses with
which it worked would result, if fully
implemented, in annual reductions of 115
million gallons of wastewater, 3 million
pounds of air emissions (volatile organic
compounds), and 11 million pounds of
hazardous waste. In follow-up surveys,
ConnTAP's clients have indicated that
they have implemented about half of
ConnTAP's recommendations.
Among ConnTAP's other efforts was a
Materials Exchange to provide businesses
with an alternative to the disposal of
unwanted materials. The exchange
focused on materials that would otherwise
require disposal as hazardous waste.
Listings of materials offered and materials
needed were published in ConnTAP's
quarterly newsletter.
According to Rita Lomasney, Hazardous
Waste Program Director, when ConnTAP
started out in 1987, "not many people were
convinced that pollution prevention could
deliver on its promise to simultaneously
reduce waste generation and costs."
Thousands of cases later, Lomasney
believes that "pollution prevention has
delivered on its promises, despite the fact
that it is has gotten harder, not easier, to
find ways to reduce waste. Early on, better
housekeeping and simple operating
modifications yielded remarkable results.
Now, however, companies are finding that
capital and technology are needed to
produce additional waste reductions."
Lomasney noted that Connecticut's
manufacturing sector has been in decline
and that small and medium-sized compa-
nies are doubly burdened by limited
resources that make it difficult to
comply with regulations and stay
current with regulatory and
technology changes. "What's sad
is that Connecticut's manufactur-
ing companies need more, not
less, assistance. The fact that
ConnTAP was a nonregulatory
program enabled us to gain the trust of the
businesses we served and increased our
effectiveness. As of July 1, 1997, there is
no nonregulatory state agency able to
provide Connecticut companies with
environmental assistance."
Dozens of Connecticut companies rose
to the defense of ConnTAP in the recent
legislative session, although to no avail.
Carol Violette of the Delta Rubber Com-
pany in Danielson, CT wrote, "Because of
ConnTAP's assistance, our company was
able to identify a number of practical and
economical ways of reducing and, in some
cases eliminating, waste generation at the
plant." Lomasney laments the fact that
funding was cut off despite ConnTAP's
record of achievements, and advises other
TAPs to investigate fee for service possi-
bilities to avoid a similar fate.
ConnTAP's demise has elicited both
surprise and regret from counterparts in
state and federal programs. Lena Ferris,
who manages state pollution prevention
grants for EPA's Pollution Prevention
Division, commented, "We and the people
of Connecticut will certainly miss
ConnTAP's hard work and commitment to
pollution prevention in the coming years.
The unexpected precariousness of the
program's financing brings home to all of
us how important it is for technical
pollution prevention assistance programs
to be part of the mission of state environ-
mental agencies in order to ensure the
sustainability of these programs."
Editorial Staff:
Ernestine Jones-Lewis,
Editor
Wendy Campbell
Gilah Langner
Julie Saulnier
Free Hand Press, Layout
To be added to our mailing
list, please write:
Pollution Prevention News
U.S. EPA(MC7409)
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
or fax to:
Pollution Prevention News,
202-401-8142
Printed with vegetable oil-based
fRt inks on 100% recycled paper
(50% post-consumer).
-------
12 Pollution Prevention News
September-October 1997
Calendar
DATE/SITE
November 12-14
CA
Hovemberl7-19
Allanlo, GA
December 8-10
Providence, Rl
D«ember8-12
WiflfanHburaVA
EVENT
NPPR Fall Workgroup Conference
SPONSOR
National Pollution Prevention
Roundtable
CONTACT
Tel: 202-466-3908
E-MAIL/WWW
es.inel.gov/nppr Northern
GA Pollution Prevention/
Green Manufacturing Conference
for Industry and Business
NEPPS Performance Partnership
Workshop
The Environment 2000 Institute:
Proactive Environmental Strategies
for Forward-Thinking Organizations
EPA Region 4
EPA Region!,
ECOS
Government Institutes
EPA Region 4
404-562-8649
Katrina Kipp
617-565-3520
Jesus Ferro
Tel: 301-921-2345
Fax:301-921-0373
kipp.katrina@epamail.epa.gov
giinfo@govinst.com
www.govinst.com
NATIONAL P2 NETWORK MOVING FORWARD
EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics has awarded over $1
million in grants to maintain four existing regional pollution prevention
information centers and create five new centers. These regional centers
will be coordinated as part of a national Pollution Prevention Informa-
tion Network. The network will improve the quality, standardization,
and accessibility of pollution prevention information, while avoiding du-
plication of effort.
The regional centers will supply and update information for training
and operation manuals, case studies, and technical aids. Users are expected
to include states, as well as businesses and other interested parties. Each
regional center will establish an advisory committee of state representa-
tives to ensure the relevance and accuracy of the information it provides.
For further information, contact Beth Anderson, EPA, at tel: 202-260-2602;
fax: 202-260-0178, or e-mail: Anderson.Beth@epamail.epa.gov.
P2 Information Center Web Sites
Waste Reduction Resource Center
(EPA Regions 3&4)
www.owr.ehnr.state.nc.us/wrrcl.htm
Great Lakes Regional Pollution
Prevention Center (EPA Region 5)
www.inhs.uiuc.edu/hwric/hmlhome.html
University of Texas at El Paso
(EPA Region 6) www.utep.edu/im3/p2/
Pacific Northwest Pollution
Prevention Resource Center
(EPA Region 10) pprc.pnl.gov/pprc/
Moving? Please enclose mailing label!
United States Environmental
Protection Agency (MC7409)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Forwarding & Return Postage Guaranteed
Return Service Requested
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
------- |