EPA
 News and Notes
Jurf Your Watershed
     •- ***- f
 SfeK^L*1-    -^._ •**•-
  tility Deregulation
  *
  News and Notes
  Life Cycle Analysis
ttflasaw ja.jiฃ
  Calendar
 fP*^"1 ™a?ai*K _,'
                      United States
                      Environmental Protection
                      Agency
                                                   Office of Pollution
                                                   Prevention and Toxics
                                                   Washington, DC 20460
                    Jan-Feb-March 1998
                     EPA 742-N-98-001
                      Pollution
                      Prevention
                      News
                      Clean Water Initiative Announced
                         EPA and USDA have joined forces in
                         developing an Action Plan to carry-
                         out President Clinton's Clean Water
                     Initiative. The President has proposed
                     $568 million in new resources in his FY
                     1999 budget to carry out the plan. The
                     plan will emphasize a watershed pollution
                     prevention approach and partnership with
                     states and tribal authorities in tackling
                     some of the most intractable water pollu-
                     tion problems. Among the many goals
                     articulated in the plan are the following:
                     ^ Implementation of polluted runoff
                       controls by the year 2000 by state and
                       tribal authorities.
                     ^ Establishment of numeric criteria for
                       nitrogen and phosphorus by 2000 that
   reflect different types of water bodies
   and ecoregions of the country.
 >• An EPA strategy on controlling .pollu-
   tion from animal feeding operations.
 >• A net increase of 100,000 wetland acres
   per year by the year 2005.
 > A Unified Federal Policy, led by the
   Department of the Interior and USDA,
   to enhance watershed management on
   federal lands. Federal land managers
   will improve water quality protection
   for over 2,000 miles of roads and trails
   each year through 2005 and decommis-
   sion 5,000 miles each year by 2002.
 For more information on .the Clean Water
 Initiative, go to www.epa.gov/owowwtrl/
 cleanwater I.
                     TV;  VCR Manufacturers  Join
                     Energy Star  Program
                          On January 8, Vice President Al Gore
                          announced partnerships with
                          leading manufacturers to promote
                     energy-saving TVs and VCRs. The new
                     devices could save Americans hundreds
                     of millions of dollars in electricity bills
                     while significantly curbing greenhouse
                     gas pollution.
                      Under agreements with EPA, 11
                     consumer electronics companies will
                     produce and market products that use
                     significantly less energy than those
                     currently on the market, with no sacrifice
                     in performance or price change. Qualify-
                     ing TVs and VCRs will bear an ENERGY
                     STAR label, notifying consumers that
                     they have been certified as energy-
                     efficient by EPA.
  The energy savings will help reduce
the burning of fossil fuels and the related
carbon dioxide pollution that contributes
to global warming. If every American
family replaced its TVs and VCRs with
ENERGY STAR models, the result would
be reduction in carbon dioxide emissions
by five million tons every year — equiva-
lent to eliminating the pollution from
more than one million cars.
  Manufacturers assert that the new
models will also reduce energy leakage
by up to 75 percent, ultimately translat-
ing into more than $500 million a year in
consumer energy savings.
  Look for information about ENERGY
STAR at www.epa.gov/energystar or by
calling toll-free 888-STAR-YES.

-------
2 Pollution Prevention News
                                                                                             Jan-Feb-March 1998
 News &  Notes
   Editorial Staff:
   Maureen Eichelberger,
   Editor
   Gilah Langner
   Ann Fullerton
   Jon Readey
   Free Hand Press, Layout

   To be added to or removed
   from our mailing list, please
   write:
   Pollution Prevention News
   U.S.EPA(MC7409)
   401M Street SW
   Washington, DC 20460
   or fax to:
   Pollution Prevention News,
   202-260-2219
   or e-mail to:
   eichelberger.maureenฎ
   epamail.epa.gov

   Printed with vegetable oil-based
     . inks on. 100% recycled paper
      (50% post-consumer).
FIRST CLUSTER RULE WILL
ELIMINATE PULP & PAPER
DIOXIN RELEASES
EPA has issued a final rule requiring pulp
and paper mills to meet new baseline
limits for toxic pollutant releases to the air
and water. The new limits will virtually
eliminate dioxin discharges and cut toxic
air pollutant emissions by almost 160,000
tons annually.
   This new integrated, multi-media
regulation or "cluster rule" is the first
issued by EPA to control the release of
pollutants to two media (air and water)
from a single industry. The rule allows
pulp and paper mills to select the best
combination of pollution prevention and
control technologies to address both
regulatory requirements at one time.
   The new cluster rule also provides
incentives for mills to adopt advanced
pollution control technologies that will
lead to further reductions in toxic pollut-
ant discharges beyond the limits set in the
rule. Mills volunteering for this program
will be subject to more stringent reduc-
tions, but will receive rewards, such as
additional compliance time, for their
participation.
   The rule and additional information are
available on the Internet~at: www.epa.gov/
OST/pulppaper/.

OPPT ANNUAL REPORT
EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics has issued its FY 1997 Annual
Report which reviews progress in each
major mission area and project activities.
Print copies are available through the
TSCA Hotline, 202-554-1404. An online
version can be accessed at www.epa.gov/
 opptintr/opptpub.htm/.


 OPPT DRAFT STRATEGIC
AGENDA AVAILABLE
 EPA's Office of Pollution  Prevention and
 Toxics is developing a strategic agenda for
 meeting its major programmatic objectives
 over the next six years. The final agenda
 will outline what the office hopes to
accomplish by 2005, how it plans to
measure progress, and what strategies
will be adopted.
  The agenda is being developed partly as
a response to the Government Perfor-
mance and Results Act of 1993, which
requires federal agencies to prepare a
comprehensive strategic plan, annual
performance plans, and reports that
compare goals and results. OPPT and EPA
Region 9 are coordinating planning efforts
for Goal 4 of EPA's Strategic Plan (Septem-
ber 1997), which focuses on the role of
pollution prevention in reducing risk to
communities, homes, workplaces, and
ecosystems. OPPT's strategic agenda will
describe how OPPT is planning to ap-
proach the specific elements of the agency
plan that fall within its scope of activity.
   The draft agenda will be circulated
among interested stakeholders, such as
states, trade associations, and public
interest groups, in order to obtain feed-
back on the strategies and measures put
forward. To obtain a copy, contact Hugh
Gibson, tel: 202-260-2717, fax: 202-260-
1764, or e-mail: Gibson.Hugh@epamail.
epa.gov/.

NPPC WILL UPDATE
EDUCATION DIRECTORY
The nonprofit National Pollution Preven-(
tion Center for Higher Education (NPPC) is
updating its Directory of Pollution Prevenr
tion in Higher Education: Faculty and
Programs. College educators or affiliates of
a P2 center should contact the NPPC by
June 1,1998 to be listed in the Fall  1998
edition. The Directory describes activities of
faculty who are integrating environmental
 concepts into curricula of various disci-
 plines,  including science, engineering,
business, agriculture, and architecture;
 detailed contact information is provided for
 each entry. A complete list of NPPC re-
 sources is available. Contact NPPC,
 University of Michigan, 430 East Univer-
 sity, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1115; tel: 734-
 764-1412; fax: 734-647-5841; e-mail:
 nppc@umich.edu or go to www.umich.edu/
 -nppcpub/.

-------
 3 Pollution Prevention News
                                                                                             Jan-Feb-March 1998
                                                                                           Watersheds
 Surf  Your Watershed!  First  National
 Assessment Available on  the  Internet
     EPA's first comprehensive assessment
      of U.S. watersheds shows that: 16
      percent of watersheds have good
 water quality; 36 percent have moderate
 water quality; 21 percent have more
 serious problems; and sufficient data are
 lacking to fully characterize the remaining
 27 percent. Watersheds, which include all
 areas draining into a body of water,
 represent a holistic approach to assessing
 the health of aquatic resources nationally.
   Released in October, 1997, the results of
 the assessment have been incorporated
 into a new EPA website called Surf Your
 Watershed. The study indicated that
 polluted runoff from urban and rural areas
 is a major contributor to water quality
 problems  and threatens water quality in
 healthy watersheds, as well. About 7% of
 the 2,111 watersheds in the continental
 U.S. are vulnerable to further degradation
 from polluted runoff.
   EPA made the watershed assessments
 by combining 15 individual databases
 available from many public and private
 sources into an "Index of Watershed
 Indicators" (IWI) database. Each database
 represents an "indicator" used to assess
 and score  the condition of the watershed
 and its vulnerability to degradation from
 pollution or development.
   Seven indicators are used to characterize
 watershed conditions: rivers; fish and
 wildlife consumption advisories; drinking
 water sources; contaminated sediments;
 ambient water quality using four toxic
 pollutants; ambient water quality using four
 conventional pollutants; and wetlands loss.
   Another eight indicators are used to
 assess vulnerability: aquatic/wetland
 species at risk; pollutant loads above
permitted  limits for toxic pollutants;
pollutant loads above permitted limits for
conventional pollutants; urban runoff
potential; agricultural runoff potential;
population change; hydrologic modifica-
tions from dams; and estuarine pollution
susceptibility.
   The IWI is available on the Internet at:
www.epa.gov/surf/iwi. Additional instruc-
tions and hard copy are available from:
National Center for Environmental
Publications and Information (Publication
#EPA-841-R-97-010), tel: 513-489-8190;
fax: 513-489-8645.
                 i Netscape: Search page fgi Surf your Watershed j
                                                             zmi
       jhttp //wvw epa gov/surf/surf_search html
                         Seifeared

&EPA
SUIU? YOUB, WTERSHED
                                I
                               itr waterstied
                               tiqUHt
                               information
                                  -
                             STSTE MAPS
                                   use clickable state maps
                                  ป to locate your watershed
                WORDS
              Search for your Waters.,.
              by entering in your zip co~
              stream, county, HUC code,
              city, iritis, ecosystem
              protection efforts or state
                                              PLAGES
                        S'sBeograpttic Names
                       tfoff System to locate
                      •v/atetshed by querying on
                   Lakes, Airports, Rivers, Parks,
                   Schools, and more.CKctt
                    on "Feature Details" to
                     find the 8nk back/Otis
NATIONAL WATERSHED NETWORK
   Use CTlC"s clickable ttydrplogic maps
      totocateyourwalershed. tiickon
     "Watershed Map & Data" to return
                                 'KJMiJIJiiJsiilJMjfJI^fflJuMiJisJitijiJjjijiBfJjJJif'fJiiS?
  Interested in finding out just how environmentally fit
  your local watershed is?
  It's simple —just go to EPA's new Surf Your Watershed website at
  www.epa.gov/surf/. Once there you can access the Index of Watershed
  Indicators which provides a wealth of information on watersheds
  nationally and locally. You can get the big picture by clicking on the
  map of the United States, or get the scoop on your local watershed by
  clicking on your state. From there you can find out just how your
  watershed ranks against others nationally, find out what problems
  there are, then link to public and private organizations that are
  working to protect and restore your watershed.

-------
4 Pollution Prevention News
                                                                                           Jan-Feta-March 1998
 Utility Deregulation
             David M. Nerntzow
                             Deregulation is coming to one of the last remaining government-regulated monopolies: the
                             electric power industry. What effects will this restructuring of the industry have on the
                             environment? How will it affect the industry's current pollution prevention efforts? PPN
                             posed these questions to the president of an energy advocacy non-profit organization, an
                             executive vice president of a public utility, and the vice president of an energy industry
                             association. Following are their insights and views on the topic.

                             Power  Politics Portends Problems
                             for  Pollution Prevention
                     "Deregulation is
                      already leading
                      to increased
                      air pollution."
by David M. Nerntzow
President, Alliance to Save Energy

    tlie two trains hurtling down the
     tracks, electricity deregulation and
     climate change mitigation are
heading for Washington, B.C. Whether
these issues move forward smoothly
together or collide catastrophically now
commands the attention of the Clinton
administration and Congress as they
consider the future of the $200 billion per
annum electricity industry, the source of
one-third of the U.S. carbon emissions and
an even larger fraction of many other
pollutants.
   With stakes so high the debate runs
deep, especially regarding air quality.
Proponents of greater competition in the
highly regulated electric industry - while
primarily promising lower prices - also
claim thairgreater competition will lead to
heightened operating efficiencies and
cleaner air. Clean air advocates — agnostic
on the price issue - warn that vigorously
competing utilities will pollute more freely
as they switch to cheaper, dirtier fuel and
lessen investments in energy efficiency
and other pollution mitigation efforts.
   Pro-competition advocates underscore
one sobering statistic to make their case:
the typical powerplant in the U.S. today is
         only about 32 percent efficient —
         sending more than two times as
         much energy up smokestacks as
         waste heat than over the wires as
         usable electric power. (In aggre-
         gate, U.S. powerplants waste
 more energy each year than Germany uses
 for all purposes combined.) The reasons are
 many, and while the second law of thermo-
 dynamics cannot be vetoed, competition
certainly will help dismantle the Current
regulatory regime that fully reimburses
utilities for all of their costs - including
wasted fuel and inefficient powerplants.
They envision a future of highly efficient
powerplants, primarily combined cycle
combustion turbines powered by natural
gas. Additionally, they expect new competi-
tors to emerge offering consumers new
clean choices, including "green power" and
energy efficiency products and services.
   By contrast, clean air advocates warn
that utilities - looking at the current
excess of coal-fired capacity in U.S.
powerplants - will best be able to compete
cheaply by running coal plants more hours
per year, not by building and using new
gas-fired plants, which will rapidly
increase coal consumption and air emis-
sions. Additionally, they believe that
cutthroat competition will place great
downward pressure on costs, leading
utilities to limit, or even eliminate, their
existing energy efficiency and renewable
energy programs. Finally is the concern
that cheaper prices will discourage con-
sumers from using electricity efficiently.
   Unfortunately the data so far indicate
that these metaphorical trains are in fact
on a collision course and that deregulation
is already leading to increased air pollu-
tion. The U.S. Department of Energy
recently found that in 1996, utility carbon
emissions increased by 4.7 percent — twice
the rate of growth of electric demand -
"because coal-fired generation met a
disproportionately large share of the
increased demand for electricity" and
noted that between 1990 and 1996 utility
carbon emissions increased by 40 million
metric tons of carbon. Similarly,  a study of
                          Continued on page 6

-------
 5 Pollution Prevention News
                                                                                            Jan-Feb-March 1998
                                                                          1
                                                                                Utility Deregulation
 How Will Utility Deregulation Affect
 Pollution Prevention Efforts  in the U.S.?
 by Kathryn Jackson, Ph.D.,
 Executive Vice President,
 Tennessee Valley Authority

      Utility industry reformers claim that
      by deregulating the electric utility
      industry the competition that results
 will bring supplier choice to the customer,
 thus lowering the cost of electricity. There
 are differing opinions about how utility
 deregulation will affect pollution preven-
 tion efforts in the U.S. But everyone who is
 involved in crafting or influencing the
 legislation to create a deregulated utility
 market is hoping that in the aftermath,
 new laws will favor their positions.
   The worst case scenario for pollution
 prevention would be related to coal-fired
 generation. Right now utilities owning
 coal-fired plants are thought to have the
 greatest competitive advantage because
 they run below capacity. This means those
 companies are capable of selling more
 electricity the minute the law says they
 can go out and get new customers to buy
 their excess  capacity. But this also means
 that the amount of emissions from those
 facilities will increase. To prevent this
 scenario, specific legislation would have to
 be drafted.
   The cost of future environmental
 regulation will be a critical factor in
 determining which companies can compete
 and succeed in an open market. In antici-
 pation of utility deregulation, hundreds of
 millions of dollars are being spent at
 power plant  sites across the country.
 Regardless of the generation — gas, coal,
 oil, hydro, or nuclear — utilities are
 seeking new equipment, new upgrades,
 and more efficient maintenance and
 operations. Moreover, they are cleaning up
 contaminated soil and water. Why?
 Because in the future the most efficient
 energy generation will make the best
 economic sense. And efficient generation
 includes cleaner technologies and the
 avoided costs of noncompliance with
federal pollution standards.
   It appears that new federal laws will
 actually restructure the industry, not
 deregulate it entirely. Congress is inter-
 ested in ensuring that all customer classes
 benefit from a restructured industry.
 Leading Congressional deregulation
 sponsors claim that consumers are driving
 the issue. So advocacy groups could have
 significant influence on continued pollu-
 tion prevention efforts according to their
 ability to rally consumers to get involved
 in creating a free electricity market.
 Currently, organized environmental
 advocates are using the restructuring
 debate to call for the elimination of
 differences in allowable emission rates for
 power plants as a way to use deregulation
 to reduce emissions in the U.S.
   Polls show that most consumers under-
 stand that the choice between two or more
 competing companies is better than having
 no choice at all. Yet we know from
 the deregulation of other indus-
 tries that consumers can be slow
 to take advantage of competition
 These same consumers of elec-
 tricity are also citizens who seek
 environmental protections. Ad-
 equate restructuring legislation
 should recognize that not all consumers
 are alike, that there is great diversity
 among consumer expectations and needs.
 Competition should not be the end but the
 means to deliver the benefits of adequate
 and reliable electricity, ample choice, and
 attractive prices.
  Most consumers aren't yet thinking of
 their electricity in environmental terms.
 It's anticipated that eventually some
 customers, concerned with global warming
 and environmental pollution, will develop
 an increased awareness of how their
 electricity is produced and may switch
from one company to another that can
offer energy produced from non-polluting
sources. Because the capital costs of
energy production are so high, some
suppliers may have trouble filling the
                         Continued on page 6
                Kathryn Jackson
The cost of future environmental
regulation will be a critical factor
in determining which companies
can compete and succeed in an
open market."

-------
6 Pollution Prevention News
                                                                                        Jan-Feb-March 1998
 Utility Deregulation
                            Power  Politics
                            Continued from page 4
                            power generation in the Midwest over the
                            past two years by air quality officials from
                            Northeastern states found that the
                            increased use of coal-fired powerplants led
                            to the increased emission of pollutants
                            that contribute to smog and acid rain.
                              Furthermore, utility-sponsored energy
                            efficiency programs have declined dra-
                            matically over the past few years. DOE
                            recently reported that spending on de-
                            mand-side management programs has
                            sharply decreased; from 1994 to 1996
                            demand-side management spending
                            declined by 30 percent and anticipated
                            energy savings growth also fell. And while
                            many utilities are providing green power
                            options, it is unclear how many consumers
                            will voluntarily pay extra for less-polluting
                            power - especially among commercial and
                            industrial customers, who make up 62
                            percent of total electric demand.
                              With an eye on these worrisome trends,
                            numerous policy tools are being explored
                            that will permit greater competition and
                            cleaner air, including:

                            > Led by California and New York,
                              several states have adopted "system
                              benefit trusts" as an integral compo-
                              nent of deregulation. These trust funds
                              collect small fees - typically one-tenth
                              cent per kilowatthour (about 1 percent
                              of retail prices) - from all users to fund
                              efficiency, renewables, R&D and low-
                              income programs. As of this writing, the
                    Earth Day is April 22nd!

                    Thousands of events are taking
                    place nationwide. Check the Web
                    for activities in your area:
        http://www.earthday.org/
  Clinton administration's electricity
  deregulation proposal is expected to
  propose such a mechanism.

>• A "renewable portfolio standard"
  would require utility companies either
  to build or buy rights to a minimum
  amount of renewable energy.

> A "cap and trade" program - as is now
  done for SO2 - could set a fixed cap
  limiting the emissions of CO2  (or any
  other pollutant) and then let utility
  companies trade with each other for the
  right to create these emissions.

^- Various policies may be adopted that
  are designed to limit CO2 and other
  pollutants from all sectors and will
  therefore have a large potential impact
  on utility-sector emissions, including
  economy-wide cap and trade,  energy
  taxes, and R&D into new cleaner
  energy sources.

It is too early to  say with certainty what
impact utility deregulation will have on
pollution prevention efforts. But both
economic theory and new data suggest
that laissez-faire electric deregulation is
likely to lead to more pollution and
quickening climate change. It's a train
whistle that the Clinton  administration
and Congress must heed.
 Effects of

 Deregulation
 Continued from page 5
 requests for energy produced from tech-
 nologies that reduce the total amount of
 particulates, CO2, SOx and NOx.
   Open-market competition can deliver
 pollution prevention benefits if we recog-
 nize that restructuring is a process, not an
 event. The important environmental
 benefits that might be derived from restruc-
 turing could possibly touch every facet of
 American life. If done carefully, deregula-
 tion could have lasting importance on
 pollution prevention efforts in the U.S.

-------
7 Pollution Prevention News
                                                                                            Jan-Feb-March 1998
                                                                               Utility Deregulation
 Electric  Deregulation  and
 Pollution  Prevention
by Robert A. Beck,
Vice President, Environmental Affairs
Edison Electric Institute

     This year could be pivotal for the
     electric utility industry. Retail
     competition is on the public policy
agenda in every state. States with nearly
half the U.S. population have adopted or
are considering their own industry re-
structuring plans. One of the many
consequences of this change is the even-
tual effect it will have on environmental
programs, including pollution prevention.
   Despite a short federal legislative
calendar, decisions will be made that by
years' end, will make the future clearer
than it is today. Today's political and
regulatory landscape includes 11 proposed
federal electric restructuring bills with
widely varying provisions, and moves
forward from a foundation of 21 hearings
by five congressional committees involving
more than 100 witnesses.
   How will this debate affect environmen-
tal issues? That remains  to be seen. But in
states where competition is nearly under-
way, environment is becoming a tool in the
marketing of electricity.
   In some parts of the country, consumers
are being courted by providers of "green"
power. Many newly deregulated competi-
tors in this marketplace are positioning
themselves as companies that take extraor-
dinary strides to protect the environment.
   These companies already have produced
outstanding pollution prevention pro-
grams. Their challenge may be to commu-
nicate the environmental worth of their
programs to a public with an appetite for
cost savings, but little taste for technical-
sounding information. Still, electric
utilities have much to tell.
   Nationally, electric utilities can point
with pride to the effectiveness of an
industry-wide program, the Climate
Challenge. The Climate Challenge is a
voluntary carbon reduction program
conducted by utilities nationwide that has
resulted in the mitigation of vast amounts
of carbon equivalent from the atmosphere.
  As individual companies, electric
utilities achieve substantial pollution
prevention through improved boiler
cleaning; building materials; better
chemical containment; antifreeze recy-
cling; lighting waste handling; hydraulic
fluid, solvents and oil recovery and waste
reduction; recycling of scrubber sludge;
and numerous other activities. While some
of these efforts have an esoteric ring to
them, they are important and result in
significant pollution prevention.
  Some of these programs demonstrate an
unrelenting commitment to ingenuity in
keeping the environment clean at an
affordable cost. At the Georgia Power
Company Bowen plant, for example, plant
operators devised a means of reducing
visible pollution during start-ups. They
solved the problem by increasing ventila-
tion in the combustion chamber and
adjusting the flow of fuel to the power
plant's igniters. The result continues to be
cleaner air for everyone near the plant.
  Some programs solve smaller but
important problems. Engineers at Duke
Power Company's Allen Steam Station, for
example, developed a device that restores
"dead" Ni-Cad batteries to life. These
batteries are used in communications and
other devices. Normally, constant recharg-
ing develops a battery memory that
eventually makes them unusable. But
rather than dispose of these, engineers
figured out how to erase the memory and
revive the batteries. The renewed batter-
ies last six to ten times longer and reduce
the  amount of hazardous waste generated
by battery disposal.
  In the national clean air debate, volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) are recognized
as a key building block of ground-level
ozone, or smog. A number of utilities are
aggressively reducing VOC emissions. One
way to do that is to use electric vehicles
(EVs) of all kinds, from forklifts to pickup
                         Continued on page 9
Robert Beck

-------
8 Pollution Prevention News
                                                                                        Jan-Feb-March 1998
 Awards
                            EPA Region 7 Honors  Pollution
                            Prevention  Projects
                                Eight innovative and cost-effective
                                pollution prevention programs
                                conducted by individuals, communi-
                            ties, schools, governments, and businesses
                            in EPA Region 7 were recognized for their
                            achievements in 1997 with Environmental
                            Excellence Awards. Recipients included:

                            Kansas City, Missouri's "Bridging the Gap"
                            Environmental Excellence Campaign —• a
                            joint-educational outreach effort by
                            businesses, individuals, schools and local
                            governments to teach people simple steps
                            to help the environment in every part of
                            their daily lives. Started in 1994, the
                            program now includes over 700 organiza-
                            tions, 18,000 individuals, and 1,100
                            teachers as active participants.

                            Midwest Iron & Metal Co., Inc.'s "Blue Bag
                            Recycling Program" — a recycling program
                            that started in Hutchinson, KS, in 1991
                            processing 28,100 pounds per month, has
                            grown to include Reno County residents,
                            the cities of Hays, Spivey, Cunningham,
                            Nashville, Zenda,  Plevna, Sylvia, Arling-
                            ton, and Willowbrook, and now processes
                            233,000 pounds of recyclables per month.

                            The Gates Rubber Company's, "Reuse of
                            Hydrocarbons  Program" — a program
                            instituted to design, build, and install new
  New Chemicals Program Receives
  Vice Presidential Hammer Award
  For its role in supporting industry efforts to develop environmentally
  friendly chemicals, the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics' New
  Chemicals Program was awarded the Vice Presidential Hammer
  Award. The award, presented at a ceremony in December 1997 at the
  National Press Club in Washington, D.C., recognized the program's
  involvement in promoting the development of a new detergent prod-
  uct, the TRITON SP series by Union Carbride, that reduces environ-
  mental pollution.
technology that would reuse hydrocarbons
employed during a production process that
resulted in significant reductions of VOC
emissions.

Gastinger, Walker, Harden Architects,
"New York Life Building Renovation" — a
program that renovated one of Kansas
City's most significant historic structures
with state-of-the-art energy, communica-
tions and environmental capabilities to
achieve optimum efficiency and environ-
mental control.

Pella Corporation "Using Activated Carbon
for Chromium Recovery from Industrial
Wastewater" —• the company installed a
series of activated carbon filters for
chromium recovery that removed 99
percent of the heavy metals from its
industrial wastewater.

Farmland Industries, Inc.'s, "AG*21
Process" — an agricultural  crop production
management process that requires envi-
ronmentally-sound practices to preserve
soil and water resources at the co-op and
on the farm.

Mineral Area College's, "Environmental
Community-Building in the Old Lead  Belt"
— programs initiated under the leadership
of Shawn Grindstaff include: the Mineral
Area College Environmental Center, ISO
14000 implementation at Flat River Glass,
EPA Region 7 Brownfields Cooperative
Agreement with Bonne Terre, Park Hills
Industrial Park Partnership, Environmen-
tal Roundtable, and St. Francois County
Mine Waste Coalition.

Anheuser-Busch, Inc.'s "Bioenergy Recovery
System" — the world's largest system for
turning wastewater into energy is main-
tained at Anheuser-Busch's St. Louis
Brewery.

-------
9 Pollution Prevention News
                                                                                       Jan-Feb-March 1998
                                                                                           Awards
 Innovative Transportation  Solutions
 Recognized  in "Way to  Go" Awards
   In October, 1997 EPA's Transportation
   Partners Program recognized nine
   innovative transportation projects with
a "Way To Go" Award. The awards are part
of the program's effort to highlight creative
local transportation solutions that enhance
community life and conserve environmental
quality. 1997 recipients include:

City of Long Beach, CA for its program to
increase the use of bicycles through free
valet bicycle parking as a service to
downtown employees and residents.

City ofTempe, AZ for its plan to include
new bicycle and pedestrian facilities that
will reduce driver-only vehicles.

Counties ofXenia and Greene, OH where
60 miles of former railways and a former
railroad depot have been converted to
encourage increased bicycle riding and
walking to and from homes, workplaces,
and activity centers.

NISSAN, USA for environmental improve-
ment achieved by providing employees in
Gardena, Calif., with a service that
encourages commuting to work via modes
Deregulation and

Pollution Prevenion
Continued from page 7
trucks. EVs are 95 percent cleaner than
conventional vehicles, even with power
plant emissions counted. And they never
emit VOCs.
  Individual electric utilities are moving
EVs into their fleets, as vehicles become
available from major manufacturers. And
nationally, the electric utility industry
continues to lead efforts to persuade car
makers to sell electric vehicles nationwide.
  Utilities also are working to prevent or
lower VOC emissions by using low-VOC
chemicals. Soybean ink, for example, is
manufactured with soybean oil and
other than the single-occupant vehicle.

Oregon Office of Energy for its project to
encourage the use of telecommuting.

City of Aspen, CO for its compre-
hensive transportation/parking
plan which will hold traffic at
1993 levels.

Thomas J. Evans Foundation
for its project to provide an
alternative method of pollution-
free transportation and a safe
and child-friendly transportation
system in Newark, Ohio.

Rideshare Co. for developing a new non-
profit commuter system that provides a
unique, inexpensive, and environmentally-
friendly form of commuting.

University of Colorado for a student-run,
student-funded program that has increased
the use of buses five-fold in six years.
For more information on the Partners
Program, contact: EPA's Transportation
Partners, tel: (202) 260-3729, or www.
epa.gov/oppe/tp
varnish that replaces conventional petro-
leum hydrocarbon oil and varnish. Electric
utilities such as Baltimore Gas and
Electric Company now use soybean ink in
a vast array of publications, thus reducing
a source of VOC emissions. At the same
time, these companies have substituted
non-toxic chemicals for isopropyl alcohol,
commonly used in printing.
  These and scores of other pollution
prevention activities from power genera-
tion to street lighting continue at electric
utility facilities every day. Their number
will undoubtedly grow. As deregulation
sweeps across the land, electric utilities
recognize that pollution prevention can
save money, keep the environment clean,
and help build a brighter community
image wherever they do business.
       EPA's
Transportation
    Partners

-------
10 Pollution Prevention News
                                                                                            Jan-Feb-March 1998
 News & Notes
Weyerhaeuser!: Oglethorpe plant
PROJECT XL MODEL MILL
COMPLETES FIRST YEAR
EPA Deputy Administrator Fred Hansen,
company executives, staff, and public
officials gathered in January to mark the
first anniversary of the innovative EPA
	1  regulatory effort called Project-XL
       at the Weyerhaeuser Flint River
       pulp mill in Oglethorpe, GA.
         The mill, which produces fluff
       pulp, the absorbent component
       used in the manufacture of dia-
       pers, is a Project XL model created
       to demonstrate the superior
       environmental results that can be
       accomplished by working beyond
       the normal regulatory system.
       Through EPA-recommended
management practices and a state-of-the-
art facility that uses less water than most
similar pulp mills, the XL program in one
year reduced solid waste by 41%, wastewa-
ter emissions by 32%, and air emissions by
13%. Further information is available on
the Internet at: www.epa.gov IProjectXLI.

RULE WOULD REQUIRE 22
STATES TO ADDRESS OZONE
TRANSPORT
EPA has proposed a rule to require 22
states and the District of Columbia to
submit state implementation plans that
address the regional transport of ground-
level ozone, the main component of smog.
   By improving air quality and reducing
emissions of nitrogen oxide, or NOx, a
precursor to ozone formation, the actions
directed by these plans will decrease
transport of ozone across state boundaries
in the eastern half of the U.S.
   The states subject to the proposed Ozone
Transport Rule are: Alabama, Connecticut,
Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York,
North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vir-
ginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
   Under the proposed rule, states may
reduce emissions from any sources they
choose. However, utilities and large non-
utility point sources are among the most
likely sources.
  Eight northeastern states recently
petitioned EPA, under Section 126 of the
Clean Air Act, to take action to reduce NOx
emissions from sources in upwind states.
On December 19, EPA and the eight states
signed a Memorandum of Agreement that
harmonizes the timeframe on the Section
126 petitions with EPA's anticipated
schedule for action on the Ozone Transport
Rule. A short summary of this document,
including a timeline for action is available
at: www.epa.gov/airlinks/.

EPA, FIRM TO COLLABORATE
ON P2 FOR DETERGENTS
EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics recently signed a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) with Anderson
Chemical Co. of Litchfield, MN, to develop
and promote laundry detergents with
minimized environmental impacts for
institutional cleaners.
  Under the MOU, EPA will provide
technical advice and support in developing
products that use no alkali; incorporate a
neutral pH detergent enhanced with
natural, biodegradable enzyme systems
and surfactants; and use oxygen-based
bleaching systems and biodegradable
softeners. The goal is for the products to
increase water and energy  efficiencies and
extend fabric life.
  The voluntary agreement was estab-
lished under EPA's Design for the Environ-
ment program. For more information, go to
www.epa.gov/dfe or call 202-260-3374.

RECIPES FOR CLEANER AIR
The Cookbook for Cleaner Air is a guide to
gathering the critical ingredients within
local communities to launch voluntary
clean air initiatives. Businesses, concerned
citizens, industry leaders, environmental-
ists, and regulators can collaborate in
creative and innovative ways to bring
about positive environmental results.
Although it is still under consideration by
a subcommittee of the Clean Air Act
Advisory Committee, a draft version is
available at www.epa.gov/oar/recipes/.

-------
11 Pollution Prevention News
                                                                                            Jan-Feb-March 1998
                                                                                          Conferences
Life Cycle Analysis  Hits  Its Stride
    Life cycle analysis (LCA) methodologies
     have been used for several years now
     to assess the environmental impacts
of products and industrial processes over
their entire "life cycle" — from inputs to
final disposal. To address the many
challenges of implementing LCAs, the
Research Triangle Institute in cooperation
with EPA held a two-day conference in
September 1997 on "Streamlining Life
Cycle Assessment." Conference attendees
included representatives from govern-
ment, industry, consulting firms,
academia, and environmental groups.
Discussion at the conference ranged from
the problems of defining the scope of LCAs
and obtaining data to new tools available
to help perform LCAs.

>• Data. One of the key ingredients
necessary for conducting an LCA is good,
reliable data. It has also been the most
commonly raised concern about their
application.
  First, little has been done to define the
specific types of data that are needed for
LCA studies. Second, a standard for
developing LCA data needs to be set.
Third, because no standard has been set,
data are often inconsistent within and
across industries. For example, many
industries in the U.S. are currently
developing life cycle databases, but there
is no one central organization guiding the
data development or implementing the
data in a publicly available source. Some
interest was expressed in having EPA
develop and maintain a standard U.S.
LCA database to house industry data.

K Tools. Two new LCA tools were
presented at the conference. EcoSys,
developed at the Sandia National Labora-
tories, is a computer-based tool to help
develop environmentally conscious
product/process designs by assessing the
environmental impacts of existing or new
processes and identifying the processes
causing the most harm.
  Another tool presented at the confer-
ence, developed by Battelle Memorial
Institute, was the Environmental Profile
Screening System (EPS), a 35-40 page
handbook of environmental analysis
routines that can be used to compare
alternative systems or processes. The EPS
contains approximately 30 criteria, such
as raw material and energy consumption,
toxic materials releases to air or water,
and solid waste volume, that cover the
entire life cycle of a product or process. An
indexed scoring system ranks each crite-
rion from one to nine on environmentally
desirability.
  For more information on EcoSys, e-mail
W.T. Whellis at: wtwheel@sandia.gov; for
more information on Battelle's EPS, e-mail
Bruce Vigon at: vigonb@battelle.org.
For more information on the
LCA conference, contact
Keith Weitz, 919-541-6973,
kaw@rti.org/.
   Disposables vs. Cloth: The Diaper Dilemma
  No issue has embodied the challenges of life cycle analysis more acutely
  than the choice between cloth and disposable diapers.
     Disposable diapers consume energy during manufacturing and
  release pollution and waste water. According to The Garbage Project,
  a program of the Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology, the
  University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ), cloth diapers require a comparable
  amount of energy to grow cotton, which takes large amounts of water
  and pesticides, and to fuel a lifetime average of 180 launderings.
  Diaper services utilize mostly renewable resources, but also use
  chemical detergents, water, and gasoline.
     The key difference: non-renewable plastic in disposable diapers
  takes 500 years to decompose, while cloth diapers take six months.
  Disposables account for 85-90% of all diapering done in America—
  a higher percentage than five years ago.
     Some inventors hope to combat the problem of landfill volume. The
  Diaper Club of Knowaste LLC (Mississauga, Ontario) recycles
  disposables, providing home delivery and pick-up. The recycling
  process, which consists of shredding, washing, and separating the dirty
  diapers, uses non-toxic, proprietary chemicals to yield high-grade wood
  pulp, mixed plastics, and the diaper's absorbent gel, which the company
  is researching for possible agricultural applications. The Diaper Club
  currently serves about 3,000 customers in Toronto and plans to expand
  the service in Boston, Buffalo and Detroit this year. For more informa-
  tion, see the October 1997 issue of Waste Age.

-------
12 Pollution Prevention News
                                                                                          Jan-Feb-March 1998
Calendar
DATE/SITE EVENT
April 28-Mayl P2 Gncinnoti '98:
Gncinnali, OH Spring Conference
April 28 Stakeholders Dialogue on Future
Gntinnali,OH of P2 Grants to States
(part of P2 Gncinnati, see above)
May 3-6 National Conference on
Knoxvilie, TN Environmental Decision Making
May 7-8 TOPical TEChnical symposium: Making
Queens, NY Hybrid Electric Vehicles Commercially Viable
May 11-13 Environmental Summit '98
Research Triangle Pork, NC
May 27-31 7th International Symposium on Society
Columbia, MO and Resource Management: Culture,
Environment, and Society
June 1-4 Pollution Prevention Conference XIV
Seattle, WA
June 3-5 Florida's 2nd Annual Pollution
Prevention Conference
June 14-18 91 st Annual Meeting and Exhibition:
San Diego, CA Bridging International Boundaries, Clean
Production for Environmental Stewardship
June 23 2nd Annual P2 Conference
Tcrre Haute, IN
July 7-1 0 4th International Interdisciplinary
Washington, DC Conference on the Environment
Aug. 25-28 3rd Annual Joint Service Pollution
San Antonio, TX Prevention Conference & Exhibition
Moving? Please enclose mailing label!
United States Environmental
Protection Agency (MC7409)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
SPONSOR
National P2 Roundtable
EPA
National Center for
Environmental Decision Making
The Society of Engineers/Northeast
Sustainable Energy Association
Environmental Resource
Center
University of Missouri-Columbia
DOE
University of Florida/Center for
Training, Research and Education for
Environmental Occupations
Air & Waste Management Association
Terre Haute Wastewater Treatment Plant
Interdisciplinary Environmental
Association
National Defense Industrial Assoc.



CONTACT
Tel: 202-466-P2P2
Fax: 202-466-7964
Christopher Kent
Tel: 202-260-3480
Tel: 423-974-3939
Tel: 41 3-774-6051
Fax:413-774-6053
Tel:888-4ES-1998
Fax:919-469-4173
Tel: 573-882-0861
Fax:573-882-1473
Tel: 509-372-1 627
Fax: 509-373-0743
E-MAIL/WWW
michelrusso@cornpuserve.com
kent.christopher@
epamail.epa.gov
ggodfrey@utk.edu
http://www.nesea.org
bramos@ercweb.com
ssrsjsr@muccmail.
missouri.edu
http://www.hanford.gov/
polprev/conference/index.htm
Tel: 352-392-9570, ext. 1 27 train@treeo.doce.ufl.edu
Fax:352-392-6910
Tel: 41 2-232-344, ext. 31 37 kwander@awma.org
Fax:412-232-3450
Bill Cultice
Tel: 81 2-232-6564
pretreat@indy.net
Tel: 508-767-7557 dkantar@eve.assumption.edu
Fax: 508-767-7382
Tel: 703-522-1 820 ckline@ndia.org
Fax:703-522-1885 cberry@ndia.org





BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
Penalty for Private Use $300

Forwarding & Return Postage Guaranteed
Return Service Requested

-------