in our Cities and Counties
A Compendium off Case Studies
5""™
•ft «* t
*^*5a^w&
J5?
-------
The National Association of County and
City Health Officials (NACCHO)
The National Association of County and City Health
Officials (NACCHO) is a non-profit membership organi-
zation serving all 3,000 local health departments nation-
wide—in cities, counties, townships, and districts.
NACCHO provides education, information, research, and
technical assistance to local health departments; and facil-
itates partnerships among local, state, and federal agen-
cies, in order to promote and strengthen public health.
NACCHO
National Association of Counties
(NACo)
NACo is the only national organization that represents
county governments. Established in 1935, NACo's goals
are to improve county government, act as a liaison with
other levels of government, present the county position on
national issues, and assist counties in helping their citi-
zens achieve a better quality of life.
National Association of Counties
The National Pollution
Prevention Roundtable
The National Pollution Prevention Roundtable is the
largest membership organization dedicated solely to pol-
lution prevention. The Roundtable provides a national
forum for promoting the development, implementation,
and evaluation of efforts to avoid, eliminate, or reduce
pollution at the source. The Roundtable membership is
comprised of representatives from the federal, state, and
local government sectors, university based P2 programs,
non-governmental organizations, and private industry.
Municipal Waste Management
Association (MWMA)
The Municipal Waste Management Association
(MWMA) is a national member association affiliated with
The U.S. Conference of Mayors. The MWMA brings
together local governments and other organizations with a
common interest in the management of solid waste
through reduction, recovery, reuse and recycling of mate-
rials and energy from the waste stream.
National Roundtable
The United States
Conference of Mayors
The United States Conference of Mayors is a national
association of city governments, each represented by its
chief elected official, the Mayor. Through the Conference,
the nation's larger cities, with populations of 30,000 or
more, share experiences and cooperate to meet the chal-
lenges of urban leadership.
The authors give permission for this publication, or
portions of this publication, to be reproduced provided
that the above organizations are acknowledged.
Fall 1995
-------
-au-V ^_ \
r&ZZ
Acknowledgments
•». - .•—..M.*JA—a.f,f -,. . 3£ : ...
The National Association of Counties (NACo), the
United States Conference of Mayors and its affiliate The
Municipal Waste Management Association (USCM/
MWMA), the National Association of County and City
Health Officials (NACCHO), and the National Pollution
Prevention Roundtable (National Roundtable) are pleased
to have collaborated in this effort to document successful
examples of local pollution prevention activities. This
publication was made possible with funding from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Pollution
Prevention Division (PPD) and Office of Research and
Development (ORD). We especially thank our project
officers, Julie Shannon (PPD), Lena Hann-Ferris (PPD),
and Lawrence Martin (ORD).
For their comments, technical reviews, and tireless
assistance, we would like to thank the following members
of the National Roundtable's Local Government Work
Group: Tony Eulo, Western Center for Pollution
Prevention; Jancie Hatcher, Georgia Pollution Prevention
Assistance Division; Tom Hersey, Pollution Prevention
Program Coordinator, Erie County, NY; Andrew Murray,
Local Government Commission; Linda Giannelli Pratt,
Pollution Prevention Program Manager, San Diego
County; J. Bruce Suits, Pollution Prevention Program
Manager, City of Cincinnati; Rick Yoder, Environmental
Engineer, Environmental Health Division, Lincoln-
Lancaster County, NE; the NACCHO Environmental
Health Advisory Committee, particularly: Graham
Dameron, MPH, Director, Johnson County Health
Department, IA; Grace Eddison, MD, Former Director,
Gateway District Health Department, KY; Scott E.
Holmes, M.S., Chief of the Environmental Health
Division, Lincoln-Lancaster County, NE; Tim McDonald,
MPH, Director, Island County Health Department, WA;
Ken Pearce, MPH, Health Commissioner, Lorain County,
OH; Chris Wiant, PhD, Deputy Director and Director of
Environmental Health, Tri-County Health Department,
Colorado; and Susan Zepeda, PhD, Health Agency
Director, San Luis Obisbo County, CA; and the
NACo/USCM/MWMA Technical Review Group, particu-
larly: Steve Brachman, Pollution Prevention Specialist,
University of Wisconsin-Extension; Kay Gervasi,
Pollution Prevention Manager, Broward County, FL; and
Frank Sudol, Chief of Research and Program
Development, Newark, NJ.
We would also like to thank the staff of the individual
counties and local governments featured in this report who
described and documented their programs so thoroughly.
This report was compiled by the following individuals:
Naomi Friedman and David George (NACo); Judy
Sheahan (USCM/MWMA); Ann Saurman (NACCHO);
and Warren Weinstein (National Pollution Prevention
Roundtable). Special thanks to Jill Conley for her valuable
editorial assistance, and Richard Westbrook for cover
design and layout.
We all hope that this compendium can be used as a tool
to encourage and facilitate the free exchange of ideas and
processes and assist other local governments in the devel-
opment of their pollution prevention programs. For any
questions concerning a specific case study, please contact
the community directly or the organization listed next to
the community.
Austin
Broward County
Cincinnati
Dade County
Erie County
King County
Lincoln/Lancaster
Milwaukee
Newark
Phoenix
Olmsted County
Rock County
Rowan County
San Diego County
San Francisco
Santa Clara County
St. Clair County
Thurston County
Washtenaw County
NACo
NACo
USCM/MWMA
National Roundtable
National Roundtable
NACo
NACCHO
USCM/MWMA
USCM/MWMA
National Roundtable
NACo
NACo
NACCHO
NACCHO
USCM/MWMA
National Roundtable
NACCHO
NACCHO
NACo
This report is printed on recycled-content paper with a minimum of 20% post-consumer waste.
The information contained in this document does not necessarily reflect the views of the EPA.
-------
Pollution Prevent!*
Austin, TX 7
"• Broward Co., FL 10
Cincinatti, OH 15
LDadeCo., FL 18
~ " '" " :"""" "
Erie Co., NY 22
• King Co 25
= Seattle, WA
Lincoln/ 29
Lancaster Co., NE
Milwaukee, Wl 33
Newark, NJ 36
Olmstead Co., MN 39
Phoenix, AZ 42
' Rock Co., Wl 46
Rowan Co., KY 51
ESan Diego Co., CA 54
San Francisco, CA 57
(city/county)
USanta Clara Co., CA 62
St. Clair Co., IL 65
Thurston Co., WA 69
Washtenaw Co., Ml 74
460,000
1 .4 million
364,278
2 million +
1 million
1 .6 million
220,000
632,000
275,000
110,000
1 million
142,000
20,000
2.6 million
750,000
1 .7 million
262,852
185,900
283,000
Environmental & Conservation
Sevices Department
Dept. of Natural Resource
Protection
Office of Environmental Mgmt.
Department of Environmental
Resources Management
Environmental Compliance Div.
Local Hazardous Waste
Mngmt Prog.
(collaboration of many agencies)
Health Dept. -
Dept. of Public Works
Dept. of Engineering
Public Works Dept.
Water Services Dept.
U. of Wisconsin Extension
Health Dept.
Dept. Environmental Health
Office of Chief Admin Officer
& Dept. of Public Works
Env. Mgmt. Agency
Health Dept.
Health Dept.
Dept. Env. & Infrastructure
$259,000
$167,000
$102,400
$100,000
$150,000
See Study
$530,000
N/A
See Study
See Study
$210,000
See Study
$85,000
$15,000-50,000
$468,21 1
2 projects
$270,000
$50,000
$550,000
$135,000-
200,000
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
0
«
•
•
a
a
•
•
•
e
•
*
*
•
*
•
•
•
•
*
-------
ase Studies
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Building industry
Marinas, Boating,
Metal Finishing, Auto salvage
•
• • - .. • • '
: " ''-'--:
•
Dry cleaners, Auto
body, Automotive,
Dentists, Printers
•
Small quantity generators
•
• .
Dentists, Electroplators
& Chemical companies
Manufacturing companies
• .--..".
Small quantity
generators
- • • '
Automotive, Construction,
Landscaping/Janitorial
Those that use, store or
manufacture haz. mats. >56 gals
••
• '.-••
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
* This matrix indexes
the case studies based
on select criteria in
order to assist readers
in identifying activities
most relevant to their
circumstances. Please
note that this matrix
does not necessarily
reflect all the P2 activi-
ties occurring in the
jurisdiction, but rather
only those highlighted
in tne written case
studies.
KEY
N/A= Not Available
Agency = Lead agency
conducting P2 work
Annual P2 Budget =
Expenditures spent on pol-
lution prevention activities.
Please see case studies'
section ""Resources Used""
for further detail." MSW =
Municipal solid waste
source reduction and reuse
activities Haz. Mais =
Hazardous materials and
waste reduction Water =
Water protection, conser-
vation, and wastewater
treatment activities Air =
Air pollution reduction
activities Multi-media =
Program that focuses holis-
tically on all waste and
pollution components to the
air, water, and land.
Energy = Energy conserva-
tion On-site Assessment
= Performs on-site P2
assessment/audits of local
plants/facilities
Consumer Education =
Outreach to citizens on
consumer decisions
Outreach to Small
Businesses = Program pro-
vides P2 information
and/or technical assistance
to smaller companies (com-
pany types listed where
available) Internal
Practices = Implements P2
activities in internal county
and municipal facilities
and operations. Bldgs =
Implements P2 practices in
building construction and
operation Fleets =
Integrates P2 activities in
the operation of municipal
and county fleets
-------
Pollution prevention, also known as source reduction, is any practice that eliminates or reduces
pollution at its source (according to the 1990 federal Pollution Prevention Act). We prevent pollu-
tion when we utilize raw materials, energy, water, and other resources more efficiently, substitute
benign substances for hazardous ones, and remove toxic substances from the production process.
By minimizing the use and production of hazardous substances, we protect human health,
strengthen our economic well-being, and preserve the environment.
The purpose of this compendium is to highlight pollution prevention (P2) activities of city and
county governments throughout the country. Local government efforts to stimulate pollution pre-
vention in the community often go unrecognized. It is our hope that cities and counties that have
successfully integrated source reduction programs into their agency activities can become models
for others to emulate.
The 19 cases contained in this document include a diverse array of pollution prevention pro-
grams from government agencies of all sizes, districts of varying population densities, and
programs in all stages of development. Although some of these examples focus on reducing pol-
lution to a single medium such as air, water, or land, many of these programs focus on reducing
waste to all environmental media.
Although our intent for this publication was to include only examples of pollution prevention,
some sections of certain case studies deal with recycling, reuse or other forms of solid waste man-
agement which are considered pollution control, not pollution prevention. While it is important to
stress that source reduction is certainly the best solution, we also wanted to recognize the addi-
tional efforts cities and communities are making to protect the environment and promote public
health.
The communities featured in this compendium have incoporated pollution prevention practices
into a broad range of areas including: wastewater pretreatment and septic tank programs, water-
shed and groundwater protection programs, educational activities targeted at residents, technical
assistance and compliance assistance to local businesses and industries, partnership activities
between government agencies, and in-house practices of municipal and county facilities. Each of
these case studies includes a short summary, a description of the program, information about
costs, financing, and staffing resources, outcomes, lessons learned, and information about avail-
able P2 materials. The matrix on the previous page further describes the individual
characteristics of these programs.
We are very interested in receiving your feedback about this publication. Please contact Naomi
Friedman at NACo (202/942-4262), Ann Saurman at NACCHO (202/783-5550), Judy Sheahan at
the Conference of Mayors (202/293-7330), or Warren Weinstein at the National Roundtable
(202/466-P2P2) with any questions or comments.
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
Austin, Texas
Summary
Demographics
While the City of Austin has a
number of pollution prevention
activities, this case study focuses
specifically on the Green Builder
Program. Through this marketing
program, the city encourages con-
struction of residential buildings
that foster efficient use of
resources, prevent pollution, and
reduce waste. Green building
guidelines have also been devel-
oped for all city facilities.
Program
Description
Impetus for Pollution
Prevention Activity
Several citizens and staff
members of Environmental and
Conservation Services Depart-
ment (ECSD) were concerned
about the environmental impacts
associated with development
activities both in the local area as
well as nationally and internation-
ally. Controversy over the effects
of construction in ecologically
sensitive areas had polarized the
community. The Green Builder Program was initiated
in January 1992 with the goal of harnessing market
forces to foster reduced environmental effects of build-
ings and new construction. The program seeks to
transform construction practices \o ones that are more
environmentally sustainable as well as healthier to
inhabitants.
Austin's Green Builder Program seeks to influence
the residential building sector on a range of building
Jurisdiction:
Austin, Texas
Population:
460,000
Type:
Urban
Contact:
W. Laurence Doxsey
Coordinator, Green Builder Program
City of Austin Environmental and
Conservation Services Department
206 E. 9th St., Suite 17.102
Austin, TX 78701
Phone: 512/499-3504
Fax: 512/499-2859
Overall Annual Budget of City:
$1.2 billion
Lead Agency Conducting
Pollution Prevention Work:
Environmental and Conservation
Services Department (ECSD)
impacts. The program initially
chose four resource categories for
which to develop guidelines:
water, energy, building materials,
and solid waste. While the pro-
gram was originally designed to
address new residential construc-
tion, it now offers guidelines for
commercial buildings. Currently,
sustainable building guidelines
have also been developed for all
city facilities, including libraries,
fire stations, waste transfer sta-
tions, low-income housing, and
the new municipal airport.
Guidelines for city construction
are administered by the Depart-
ment of Public Works and
Transportation. Design teams
who direct work for the city must
follow the guidelines to the maxi-
mum extent practicable. Projects
that are budgeted for dates after
March 1995, must include addi-
tional funding to accomplish
sustainable building elements,
with a range of increased con-
struction costs from 5 to 25
percent. Additional case studies
are needed to determine exact
increases in construction costs.
Strategy
The Green Builder Program
certifies green homes on the basis of a scale of one to
four stars —each star represents a higher level of green
features and systems. This rating system was developed
based on the following criteria:
• identification of the key resource issues encom-
passed by new residential buildings;
• determination of the evaluative criteria for consider-
ing envkonmentally-friendly options;
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
• development of a model to measure the impact of
different options;
• translation of the model into a simplified presenta-
tion and rating system for general use.
A systems flow model was designed to track the
resource issues (e.g., water, energy, materials, and
waste) through interactive matrices in the areas of
sourcing, processing, using, and disposing/recycling.
This model served as the basis for the rating system
which allows for comparative analysis of different
building options and approaches.
Program staff also developed criteria to quantify the
relative "sustainability value" of listed options and their
ability to:
• optimize the use of site resources in a non-destruc-
tive manner;
• conserve resources;
• encourage recycling and the use of recycled
materials;
• stimulate the regional economy;
• minimize embodied energy (use energy resources
frugally) and negative environmental effects;
• stimulate natural processes; and
• minimize health threats to building occupants.
The program enrolls building professionals who
agree to offer their customers a range of options and
approaches that are presented in program guidelines
according to the interests of their customers and other
practical considerations. Building professionals
(builders, architects, engineers, trades persons) receive
technical and logistical assistance from the city as well
as marketing assistance in exchange for offering green
products and services. The public and building profes-
sionals are educated about the issues and values
associated with green building through seminars,
conferences, media advertising, written materials,
demonstration projects, and guest presentations. Pro-
gram participants receive recognition from the city
through a general marketing campaign.
The table, at the bottom of the page, describes some
of the Green Building options organized by resource
area.
One noteworthy initiative of the Green Building Pro-
gram is the "Green Habitat Learning Project," a
demonstration green, low-cost house built for a low-
income family. For this project, the Green Builder
Program partnered with Habitat for Humanity and the
American Institute for Learning (AIL). Habitat pro-
vided the land and family, while the AEL's Casa Verde
Program provided the construction of the building using
at-risk youth as the builders. The project features waste
reducing strategies and features, resource conserving
Austin's Green Building Options
WATER
ENERGY
MATERIALS
WASTE
Harvested rainwater
system
Low-flow showerheads
Low-flush toilets
Composting toilets
Grey water irrigation
Xeriscape (native, low
water requirement)
landscape
Pervious materials for
walkways and
driveways
|Rating from the Energy
J Star Home Rating
t Program
tPassive heating and
- cooling design
^Continuous ridge and
. soffit Denting
iThermal chimney
|Solar water heating
|Proper tree planting
* for shade
|Effigient lighting
fpaylighting
iotovoKaic system
Wood from certified
sustainably managed
forests
Concrete with fly ash
Indigenous stone and
brick
Non-toxic termite
protection
Gypsum/cellulose wall-
~ board (recycled
J material)
_ Natural paints and
sealers
Recycled doors
1 Cotton insulation
Compost system
Built-in kitchen
Ificycling center
Hazardous material
|:safety storage system
guilder recycles
F construction waste
!~-, . • ,
a~
fai-v I i
¥"-
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
8
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
materials, energy and water systems, and safe indoor air
quality. The project received attention and support from
businesses, citizens, and politicians. The Casa Verde
Program expanded as a result of this experience and is
now building 12 green low-cost homes for the city,
offering employment and training to 64 disadvantaged
youth.
When compared to five other Habitat for Humanity
homes of comparable size, the Green Builder Program
house used 50 percent less electricity over the same
five-month period.
Resources Used
Staffing Resources
The Program currently has a six-person staff with
administrative, management, technical, marketing, and
research functions. Prior to FY94 the program was
staffed by three persons and, prior to FY92, one person.
Expenditures and Funding Sources
The FY94 budget was $259,000.
Three one-year grants paid for the initial staff
person. Electric utility funds have subsequently under-
written the program. (The program was developed
within the Energy Division of ECSD which operates
demand side management programs for the utility.)
New staff, including a commercial energy technician
and Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC)
technician, joined the program through reassignment.
The city has some initial data on the cost of Green
Builder Program units in comparison to similar, non-
green units. Volume builders building in the
$125,000-$200,000 range have calculated an increase
for Level I Certification as $400 per unit including
existing rebates for energy efficiency. At Level II (the
next level of green certification), the increased cost to
the builders is $750, including rebates. Level III custom
homes generally cost the same as non-green custom
homes. A 92-unit affordable housing project is achiev-
ing a Level HI ranking of its homes. The highest priced
home is $74,000 with three bedrooms, 2 baths, and an
attached two-car garage. The city is continuing to col-
lect information on costs.
Written Materials and Technical
Assistance Sources Used
In designing the Green Builder Program, the city
relied on a variety of information sources. Those
sources include: EPA research reports; state materials;
material from non-profit organizations, such as the Cen-
ter for Resourceful Building Technology; the Canadian
Housing and Mortgage Corporation; and the Canadian
Standards Association.
Outcome and
Accomplishments
Assessment of Effectiveness
The number of buildings that are constructed using
techniques recommended by the program is a key indi-
cator of the program's success. More than 200 units are
expected to be built using program guidelines in 1995
— a dramatic increase over the previous year. Atten-
dance at program sponsored events and membership in
the program are other indicators of its effectiveness. A
recent annual Green Building Conference drew 1,500
attendees (up from 300) and program membership
exceeds 100 members and is increasing steadily.
Community and Department Gains
Community gains can be measured in energy and
water savings to end-users as well as in the positive
public response the City has received as a result of this
program. Awards from the United Nations at the Earth
Summit, Public Technology Inc., Demand Side Man-
agement Association, and Renew America have also
engendered increased interest and commitment in the
program.
Lessons Learned
Market-based initiatives such as the Green Builder
Program can be successful in fostering change in a non-
controversial manner. Integrating the program's
environmental agenda with social and economic issues
has been important in gaining support and is recom-
mended as a key strategy for others.
Pollution Prevention Materials Available
From Jurisdiction
Sustainable Building Sourcebook
Green Builder Program Residential Information Flyer
City of Austin Sustainable Building Guidelines
Green Builder Program Conference Paper
Sustainable Systems Rating Program and Green Habitat
Learning Project are available from Public Technology
Inc., Washington, DC.
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
Breward County,
Florida
Summary
Broward County, through the
Department of Natural Resource
Protection's Pollution Prevention
and Control Section, has imple-
mented a new non-regulatory
approach to pollution prevention.
This multi-pronged program
focuses its pollution prevention
efforts on both the business com-
munity and county facilities. The
outcome has been greater protec-
tion of drinking water sources,
improved regulatory compliance,
and increased collaboration
between businesses and the
Department of Natural Resource
Protection.
Program
Description
Impetus for Pollution
Prevention Activity
The Broward County Depart-
ment of Natural Resource
Protection (DNRP) sought to
establish a better relationship with
the regulated community while
improving the environment. Over
the years, the agency's role as
regulator had created an adversar-
ial relationship with the business community and the
general public. In addition, Broward County's formida-
ble water pollution and dead fish problems negatively
affected their recreational boating and tourism indus-
tries. The Pollution Prevention (P2) section of DNRP
was created as a non-regulatory entity with the mission
Demographics
Jurisdiction:
Broward County, Florida
Population:
1.4 million
Type:
Urban
Contact:
Kay Gervasi, Pollution Prevention
Program Manager
Broward County Department of Natural
Resource Protection
218 SW 1st Aye,
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone; 3Q5/519-1257 ' "
Fax 305/765-4804
Overall Annual Budget of County:
$1.4 billion
Lead Agency Conducting
Pollution Prevention Work:
Pollution Prevention Section
Pollution Prevention and Remediation
Programs Division
Broward County Department of Natural
Resource Protection
of encouraging businesses to
operate more efficiently, more
easily comply with regulations,
and prevent pollution at the
source. DNRP wanted to move
away from a regulatory approach
and toward more voluntary coop-
eration with industry. The agency
was convinced that pollution pre-
vention would succeed because it
makes sense.
The P2 Section was estab-
lished in 1992 when a new
division director, Kevin M.
Burger, joined the agency. Mr.
Burger reorganized the Haz-
ardous Material and Solid Waste
Division and renamed it Pollution
Prevention and Remediation Pro-
grams Division (PPRP). During
the reorganization, P2 Section
was created. Three full-time staff
positions were assigned to pollu-
tion prevention duties. No new
staff was hired and no new regu-
lations were promulgated to
create this program.
DNRP is committed to excel-
lence and leadership in
implementing the pollution pre-
vention concept into the agency's
mainstream activities, such as
inspections, permitting, and
enforcement.
The following goals and
objectives were set by the P2
Section in an attempt to accom-
plish environmental protection through voluntary
pollution prevention and increased regulatory
compliance:
1. Develop and implement a county-wide pollution pre-
vention program, including recommendations for
regulatory changes.
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
10
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
2. Develop a technical support program for businesses
that use hazardous materials and/or create hazardous
wastes;
• prepare best management practices for
industrial/commercial categories identified as sig-
nificant sources of pollutants in Broward County;
• provide technical assistance to the regulated com-
munity, government, and private business regarding
source reduction and waste minimization, including
waste reduction assessments, improved operating
practices, material and product substitution, tech-
nology and process modification, re-use, recycling,
treatment, and appropriate disposal as the last
resort, especially for hazardous wastes.
3. Develop educational programs, such as:
• holding pollution prevention workshops on a
variety of topics;
• preparing technical bulletins, concise fact sheets,
and brochures on Broward County environmental
regulations and pollution prevention topics;
• providing technical information on the use of alter-
native materials, processes and/or waste reduction
practices;
• creating videos, slide presentations, and a newslet-
ter;
• providing presentations on pollution prevention
issues for trade associations, schools, and the pub-
lic.
4. Develop economic incentives to increase pollution
prevention activities in Broward County, such as:
• developing positive incentives for voluntary partic-
ipation in the Broward County DNRP Pollution
Prevention Program;
• using pollution prevention issues in settlement
agreements.
5. Foster a solid working relationship between the regu-
lated community and DNRP.
Strategy
The P2 Section's program approaches pollution pre-
vention from two angles. Initially, the P2 Section was
created to work exclusively with regulated business and
the industrial community. The P2 Section then decided
that Broward County should set an example by examin-
ing pollution prevention opportunities in county
buildings and operations. This led to the creation of
the Pollution Prevention in County Operations (P2CO)
program.
Creation of the Pollution Prevention in County Opera-
tions (P2CO) Program
The P2CO program was created to conduct a
detailed evaluation of waste generating, handling, and
disposal practices for all county departments, offices
and divisions, as well as to identify recommendations
to improve practices in these areas.
The program was staged in three phases. The first
phase involved a survey of each county facility using
hazardous materials. Inspections were then conducted
to determine regulatory compliance and hazardous
material handling practices. Forty-four county facili-
ties were inspected. A memo was sent to each facility
manager responsible for environmental compliance,
detailing recommendations for improvements which
would bring each facility into compliance.
Currently underway, the second phase of the project
will generate a summary report on waste management
practices within Broward County government which
will include recommendations for improvement. Waste
management information includes an analysis of pur-
chasing and waste disposal practices.
The third phase will be the implementation of a
county government-wide waste reduction and pollution
prevention program. Booklets for each facility type
will be created and informal training classes for various
facility-types will be conducted on an on-going basis.
Each booklet will contain a summary of regulatory
information and specific pollution prevention recom-
mendations. Pollution prevention recommendations
will include hazardous material substitution, process
modification, and employee training.
Pollution Prevention and Best Management
Practices (P2-BMP)
The initial focus and purpose of the P2 Section was
a collaborative approach to regulatory compliance and
pollution prevention in the regulated community. The
Pollution Prevention and Best Management Practices
(P2-BMP) manual is an effort to accomplish just that.
P2-BMPs are under development for industrial/com-
mercial categories of business that have been identified
as pollution risks. To date, two have been completed
and one more is being developed. The P2-BMP is
meant to serve as a tool to facilitate compliance with
applicable environmental regulations, to minimize
wastes, and to foster a pollution prevention attitude
within the regulated community. The agency has plans
for continued creation of P2-BMPs for industries
throughout Broward County.
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
Marine Facilities P2-BMP
The first P2-BMP was created in 1992 for marine
facilities. Historically, boat repair and maintenance
activities at marine facilities in Broward County have
been conducted outdoors on the waterfront. In many
cases, these practices have contributed to the discharge
of wastes and contaminants to the surface and ground
waters of Broward County resulting in subsequent envi-
ronmental impacts.
The program began with the formation of a DNRP
technical team charged with assessing the environmen-
tal impacts resulting from marine industry practices and
reviewing marina operational practices. This team
worked closely with industry representatives to develop
specific requirements and goals to be incorporated into
everyday operational practices at all marinas.
Working cooperatively with industry representatives,
DNRP incorporated their input and concerns into a
final document and agreed to an implementation sched-
ule to enhance compliance with all relevant provisions
of Broward County Environmental Code (Chapter 27).
This process was facilitated by conducting workshops
and by initiating open discussion and communication
regarding the concerns of all parties affected by the P2-
BMP.
As a result of this initiative, DNRP has managed to
facilitate environmental regulation compliance, enhance
waste minimization practices, and foster a "pollution
prevention" attitude throughout the marine industry of
Broward County. Boatyard employees, independent
contractors, and customers are now more educated
about the critical role pollution prevention practices and
the P2-BMP plays in protecting the natural resources of
the county. All marinas that meet the criteria for partic-
ipation in the P2-BMP are required by DNRP to
operate in accordance with these practices.
Metal Finishing Facilities P2-BMP
The second P2-BMP was designed for metal finish-
ing facilities. This P2-BMP was developed in
cooperation with the metal finishing industries of
Broward County to ensure that it accomplishes the
department's objectives and can be implemented free of
any undue technological or economic burdens. Four
workshops were conducted between January and July,
1994. At these workshops, draft P2-BMPs were dis-
tributed and comments were solicited from the industry.
The industry's hands-on involvement and active partici-
pation in the development process aided the
formulation of a P2-BMP that serves the needs and
expectations of all affected parties.
At a July 14, 1994 workshop, the final draft of the
P2-BMP was unanimously approved for implementa-
tion by DNRP and representatives of the electroplating
facilities, metal finishing industries, electronic compa-
nies, the South Florida Manufacturers Association,
consulting firms, and the Florida Department of Envi-
ronmental Protection (DEP) Waste Reduction
Assistance Program.
The P2-BMPs promote the use of good housekeep-
ing measures and the development of a preventive
maintenance programs, employee pollution prevention
training programs, and other pollution prevention tech-
niques. Since the most appropriate method of
preventing pollution can depend on site-specific consid-
erations, the P2-BMPs have been developed to be a
flexible tool for identifying source reduction obliga-
tions and matching them to the needs and capabilities
of each individual facility. This built-in flexibility
enables selection and implementation of the most cost-
effective pollution prevention options for each facility.
Automobile Salvage Yards
The third P2-BMP targets salvage yard operations
and is in the process of being developed. As with the
Marina P2-BMP, a review of salvage yards operations
was conducted to determine current status of regulatory
compliance and waste minimization practices. A sum-
mary of findings and a draft P2-BMP document were
prepared. Salvage facility operators in Broward County
were invited to several meetings to discuss the P2-BMP
effort, the P2-BMP document, regulatory requirements,
and pollution prevention opportunities.
The Salvage Facilities P2-BMP document has three
sections. The first section provides an overview of all
the governmental regulatory requirements that may
apply to salvage facilities. The second section
describes best management practice's that are recom-
mended for facilities to minimize the release of
hazardous materials to the environment. The third, and
final, section provides the basic information salvage
yard operators will need to prepare a facility pollution
prevention plan. Such a plan describes the actions to
be taken at a facility to minimize releases of hazardous
materials and wastes generated, provides a schedule for
implementation, and describes a method for measuring
progress towards reaching pollution prevention goals.
So far, participating salvage yard operators have been
very supportive of the P2-BMP process.
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
12
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
JBrowatrd* County, Florida
*^^^^^^^^^;«S^^.^4^^.^^^^5-^"^ ™^.;?J.»!.j,^!. / f , ,.
AaaLto.. i4^£^s^^^^M^S^ii£^^!ti^!S^K!^^^^&^^K^Sxjs^^^f i .,ifs^xl~r Jj. j^..i'i i-A. 1} £J^liS _: 4
Resources Used
Staffing Resources
A staff of three—the Pollution Prevention Program
Manager, an Engineer II, and a Public Education Coor-
dinator—within the P2 Section work full-time on
pollution prevention activities in Broward County.
These three positions do not represent newly created
jobs, but were established through the 1992 reorganiza-
tion. Knowledgeable DNRP staff were simply
reassigned to the P2 section. They perform non-regula-
tory, confidential site visits to regulated facilities to
provide the specific technical support described above,
maintain the P2 Library which is updated regularly,
develop P2-BMPs, create technical bulletins, fact
sheets, and brochures aimed at pollution prevention,
and conduct workshops for the regulated community
and general public.
Expenditure and Funding Sources
Funding comes from the general fund, that is, ad
valorem taxes. However, DNRP as a whole is 70 per-
cent self-supported by permitting fees. PPRP is 98
percent self-supported by permitting fees. The follow-
ing is a breakdown of the program's funding structure:
P2 sections portion approximately:
$167,000 (3 positions).
PPRP appropriations for FY 95:
$1,787,230 (32 positions).
Total agency (DNRP) budget for FY 95:
$11,447,110 (157 positions).
To date, DNRP's P2 Section has applied for four
grants. DNRP was recently informed that their 1995
EPA Environmental Education grant has been funded.
The P2 section has also applied to the 1995 Innovations
in American Government Awards Program for a Ford
Foundation grant of $100,000. Notification regarding
the first round status of the application will be forth-
coming. Decisions on two other grant applications, one
with the Florida Inland Navigation District for $90,000
and another with the U.S. EPA for $100,000 are still
pending.
Written Materials and Technical Assistance
Sources Used
The P2 Section uses a variety of U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, and the California Depart-
ment of Health Services materials and publications in
its everyday technical assistance activities. Examples
of these publications include: (Facilities Pollution Pre-
vention Guide; Guide to Pollution Prevention, Waste
Minimization Opportunity Assessment Manual, Case
studies (US E.P.A.); Florida DEP Fact Sheets; and Cali-
fornia Department of Health Services waste audit
studies.
In addition to these resources, the.section uses infor-
mation gathered at American Electroplaters and Surface
Finishers Society conferences and the Pollution Preven-
tion Workshops sponsored annually by the Florida
Association of Environmental Professionals-South
Florida Chapter.
Public or Private Sector Partners
One of the main goals of this effort is to establish
collaborative relationships or public/private partners.
To further this goal, the P2 Section worked with the
following businesses, industries, governments, and
environmental organizations: marinas, electroplating
shops, circuit boards manufacturers and other related
industries which have metal finishing operations; auto
salvage yards; Broward County's hazardous material
facilities; the Marine Industries Association of South
Florida; the Dade County Pollution Prevention Pro-
gram; the Waste Reduction Resource Center; the Waste
Reduction Institute; the South Florida Manufacturer's
Association; the University of Florida TREEO Center
(Training, Research and Education for Environmental
Occupations); and the Florida Department of Environ-
mental Protection.
Outcome and
Accomplishments
Assessment of Effectiveness
The greatest accomplishment of the P2 program is in
the collaborative relationship that was established with
the regulated community in developing P2-BMPs.
Within targeted industries and Broward County facili-
ties, compliance with all applicable federal, state, and
local environmental regulations has been enhanced. In
addition, implementation of pollution prevention and
waste minimization techniques has been furthered.
Metal finishing facilities have voluntarily agreed to
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
develop a facility-specific pollution prevention plan.
These pollution prevention plans will be revised and
improved annually. By February 1, 1995 each facility
which has metal finishing operations is to draw up its
own Pollution Prevention Plan. The quantitative and
qualitative results of this program will be evaluated one
year from now. This does not eliminate any responsi-
bility for complying with environmental laws. This
program is achieving results beyond compliance. Busi-
nesses are not just meeting pollution standards, but are
thinking about every aspect of their operations and
implementing methods of reducing hazardous material
use, generation of waste, and use of energy and water
resources.
These outcomes lead to the protection of Broward
County's drinking water, as well as its tourism industry
through the preservation of waterways used for boating
and other recreational activities.
Community and Department Gains
The pollution prevention approach allowed DNRP,
as a regulator, and local businesses , as the regulated
community, to improve relations and form a basis for
reciprocal trust. The P2 staff would inform facility
managers of any violations noted during non-regulatory
and confidential site-visits. Without enforcement
action, the facility managers are more likely to correct
identified problems. P2 staff has followed-up with the
facility managers until violations were corrected.
Lessons Learned
Businesses were initially suspicious about the idea
of a government non-regulatory program, the confiden-
tiality of site-visits, and the information provided by
the P2 staff. They had long perceived county govern-
ment as a regulator and were not accustomed to its new
non-adversarial mission. Through workshops designed
for the open and sincere exchange of opinions, they
quickly learned that Broward County government had a
new attitude. Furthermore, the strong technical knowl-
edge demonstrated by the P2 staff convinced them to
implement many of the pollution prevention techniques
recommended during site visits.
Pollution Prevention Materials Available
From Jurisdiction
The P2 section has several materials available for
review including the BMPs for Marinas, Metal Finish-
ing Facilities, and Automobile and Other Salvage
Yards. Technical bulletins and fact sheets covering
waste reduction opportunities on an for industry-by-
industry basis are also available to the public.
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
14
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
Cincinnati, Ohio
Summary
Cincinnati is aspiring to create a
model urban area pollution preven-
tion program through the creation
of a multifaceted strategy which
focuses on city government opera-
tions, business and industries and
outreach to the general public. This
is being done through pollution
prevention (P2) training, technical
assistance, and promotional efforts.
The city estimates that the poten-
tial savings are well over $2
million for 10 small to medium
sized industries that participated in
its initial P2 outreach program.
Demographics
Jurisdiction:
Cincinnati, Ohio
Population:
City proper: 364,278
CMSA::1,744,124
Type:
Urban, suburban
Contact:
J. Bruce Suits, Pollution Prevention
Program Manager, Office of
Environmental Management,
City of Cincinnati,
Two Centennial Plaza, Suite 610,
805 Central Avenue,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-1947
Phone: 513/352-6270
Fax: 513/352-4970
Overall Annual Budget of City:
Approx. $718 Million in FY95
Program
Description
Impetus for Pollution
Prevention Activity
The program began in August
1992 as a result of city leaders rec-
ognizing the importance of
pollution prevention and identify-
ing opportunities for partnership
and assistance from U.S. EPA, University of Cincinnati,
American Institute for Pollution Prevention, Institute of
Advanced Manufacturing Sciences, and other local
resources. In addition, a U.S. EPA/City of Cincinnati
agreement provided for solid waste management and P2
assistance through the Intergovernmental Personnel Act
(IPA) which provided salary cost sharing for an expert
who assisted in the start-up of the city's Pollution Preven-
tion Incentives for States (PPIS) project and P2 program.
The initial goal of the program was to create a model
urban area pollution prevention strategy for three sectors:
local governments; business/industry; and the general
lead Agency Conducting
, Pollution Prevention Work:
Office^qf^Environmental Management
..(Under the Office of the City Manager)
public. The long range goal was to
sustain local government P2 pro-
motion and implementation efforts
in all three sectors for community-
wide pollution prevention.
Strategy
The City of Cincinnati is
committed to promoting and
implementing P2 in its own opera-
tions as well as reaching out to
area business/industry and the gen-
eral public. This urban area
strategy is an attempt to provide a
model program for implementing
pollution prevention as the pre-
ferred method of environmental
protection across an entire commu-
nity. The city is in the process of
adopting a pollution prevention
policy statement and implementa-
tion plan for "in-house" pollution
prevention activities. All city
departments and divisions have
had P2 training and will be respon-
sible for implementing P2
practices on a daily basis. Base-
lines and goals are being
established along with measure-
ments for improvements and cost
savings. The city has also invited
other local and state governmental
agencies to participate in P2 training and promotional
activities. Some of these focus on P2 opportunities for air
and wastewater inspectors. The city has led the commu-
nity in adopting an "Environmental Preference"
purchasing ordinance for all city purchases. One particu-
larly noteworthy example of in-house initiatives has been
the conversion from lead, solvent-based highway line
striping paints to lead-free, waterborne paints. While
retraining employees and converting equipment has been
challenging, management and employee commitment is
beginning to produce P2 results.
Through the Institute of Advanced Manufacturing Sci-
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
ences (IAMS), the city is providing P2 training and tech-
nical assistance to small and medium-sized businesses. In
each business that is assisted, a pollution prevention team
usually consisting of employees, management, and a pol-
lution prevention expert is created. After the pollution
prevention team conducts an on-site assessment, the com-
pany is made aware of the types of waste, pollution, and
associated costs that have been identified. The team then
conducts a brainstonning session to make suggestions for
using alternative processes or materials that would create
less waste or use less toxic materials.
Resources Used
Staffing Resources
The P2 program manager in the Office of Environ-
mental Management (OEM) under the City Manager's
Office is the city's only full-time staff member dedicated
exclusively to P2. This person is responsible for coordi-
nating all in-house government P2 activities (including
the PPIS grant). Other individuals in OEM's Solid Waste
Management and Employee Safety and Air Quality Sec-
tions also dedicate various portions of their work time to
the city's P2 efforts. However, OEM's role as P2 coordi-
nator relies on cooperation and assistance from all city
departments and divisions. Each department or division
director is responsible for implementation and documen-
tation of P2 efforts and improvements. Employees trained
in P2 comprise an interdepartmental coordinating com-
mittee. The committee serves as a pool from which P2
assistance teams are formed to perform P2 opportunity
and waste reduction assessments, and help in brainstorm-
ing and implementing improvements. It is important to
point out that the city's P2 efforts are being accomplished
without the creation of an additional layer of bureaucracy.
Instead, the program relies on existing personnel and
resources to implement a P2 "culture change" and waste
reduction effort throughout city government operations.
Expenditures and Funding
(October 1992 - February 1995)
Salaries and wages $112,320
Fringes $31,747
Travel $4,000
Training $15,404
Equipment/materials/contracted service $18,000
Workshops $1,665
Indirect overhead $24,070
Subcontracted P2 Assistance $ 100,000
Total $307,206
Money is received through the U.S. EPA PPIS Match-
ing Grant which passes through the University of
Cincinnati, the City General Fund, Infrastructure Fund,
and other funds.
Written Materials and Technical Assistance
Sources Used
A variety of materials were used in the development of
the program including the following: EPA's Facility Pol-
lution Prevention Guide; Ohio EPA's Pollution Prevention
and Waste Minimization Planning Guidance Manual and
State of Ohio Pollution Prevention Strategy; material
from other local governments including Anchorage,
Alaska's Green Star Program materials; material from
other non-profit organizations including the Institute of
Advanced Manufacturing Sciences' Implementing Pollu-
tion Prevention At Your Facility; and materials from the
National Pollution Prevention Roundtable and its member
organizations, The American Institute for Pollution Pre-
vention and many others.
Public or Private Sector Partners
The following organizations have contributed to the
success of Cincinnati's P2 program: University of Cincin-
nati; U.S. EPA; Office of Pollution Prevention, State of
Ohio; Institute of Advanced Manufacturing Sciences;
National Pollution Prevention Roundtable; American
Institute for Pollution Prevention; Air and Waste Manage-
ment Association; Department for Environmental
Services, Hamilton County, Ohio; Environmental Ser-
vices, State of Kentucky; Kentucky Partners;
Environmental Advisory Council, City of Cincinnati;
Hamilton County Environmental Action Commission;
Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce; Ohio Envi-
ronmental Council; The Cincinnati Zoo; P2 Peer Review
Advisory Committee (General Electric Co., The Procter
& Gamble Co., etc.); "Make Peace With Nature" syndi-
cated television program (courtesy of WKRC-TV
Cincinnati), Citicable Government Access television;
Liebel Flarsheim Co., Amko Plastics, Inc.; and others.
Outcome and
Accomplishments
Assessment of Effectiveness
The city is still in the initial stages of implementation
of its urban area strategy. However, in the case of the out-
reach efforts to business and industry, there have been
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
some measurable successes in pollution prevention/waste
reduction, either realized or projected. Ten small to
medium-sized industries have been assisted with P2 train-
ing, opportunity assessments, and implementation
activities. Potential eliminations or reductions of pollution
and wastes were measured in millions of gallons and tons
per year. Potential cost savings were well over $2 million
annually, in materials alone. Most of the industries are
now in the process of implementing the identified P2
practices.
The city is still in the beginning stages of performing
its first departmental, or divisional, P2 waste reduction
opportunity assessments. Two "pilot" assessments have
just be completed: the City Printing Services and the
Municipal Garage. These high profile divisions were
selected because it is expected that methods and lessons
learned from their operations can be transferred to others,
both in and out of the city structure. Other city depart-
ments and divisions will soon follow using these two
divisions as models and utilizing the "cadre" of trained
P2 "cause champions" from their own departments and
from the coordinating committee pool in forming interde-
partmental P2 assistance teams. This approach will
facilitate transfer of information and identification of pos-
sible P2 opportunities in similar city operations.
P2 activities related to the third sector of the urban
area strategy—the general public—will probably be the
most difficult to measure in terms of effectiveness. How-
ever, with a goal of making P2 and waste reduction more
popular than recycling, future successes in terms of
reductions in pollution and wastes across the whole com-
munity, from all sources, are expected.
Community and Department Gains
Still in its early stages, the city's work is ongoing. One
example of early gains is that the OEM has eliminated
virtually all waste leaving its own office. Paper, the
largest part of the office's waste stream, is re-used before
it is recycled. All corrugated cardboard is either re-used
or recycled, as are packing materials, toner cartridges,
newspapers, magazines, metal, plastic, and aluminum.
The office is constantly looking for ways to improve and
is convinced improvements are possible. The example
OEM sets will help other city operations in their efforts.
The example set by city government will help the private
sector, the general public, and other institutions with their
efforts.
Lessons Learned
In the process of establishing goals for P2 reductions
and eliminations for city government operations, it may
be prudent to guard against measuring all departments or
divisions against each other by an arbitrary starting point.
In other words, if the goal is to reduce pollution and
waste by 25 percent over a two-year period, make sure
entities get credit for what they did prior to the starting
point, so that they are not penalized for their good work
prior to the baseline measuring point. Cincinnati is pay-
ing close attention to this because employee, division,
and departmental competition and recognition activities
are planned for the near future. As much as possible,
there should be a level playing field.
Another piece of advice would be to not give up. P2 is
a way of life, an ongoing, neverending process of
improvement. The process of implementing a change in
waste management culture like P2 is difficult. The
"we've always-done-it-that-way" argument can be con-
vincing, as is the statement, "It can't be done."
Fortunately, there are now too many businesses, indus-
tries, governments, and, most importantly, individuals
who can attest that there are better, safer, cleaner, and
more responsible ways of doing things.
Pollution Prevention Materials Available
From Jurisdiction
Available in September 1995: Videotape copies of the
"Make Peace With Nature" television program special
series on P2 (produced by WKRC-TV Cincinnati)—a
series of interviews with representatives from business,
industry, government (federal, state and local), and non-
profit organizations (including the National Pollution
Prevention Roundtable), all agreeing on one thing: P2
pays!
Available in September 1995: Copies of videotape on
Cincinnati's experience with changing over from solvent-
based, leaded highway line striping paints to water borne,
no-lead paints. This video and its companion report may
help others avoid some of the problems and delays
Cincinnati has encountered.
Available in September 1995: Final report (and possi-
ble video) on the PPIS grant project "Urban Area
Pollution Prevention Strategy," which will list and discuss
the City of Cincinnati's project and ongoing model pro-
gram, including successes and failures, boosts and
barriers, problems, and solutions.
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
Dade County,
Florida
Summary
Dade County is comprised of a
relatively small urban area, with a
sprawling suburban community
and an outlying rural area in the
southern region of the county.
Dade County Department of
Environmental Resources Man-
agement (DERM) has provided
local assistance for the multitude
of large, medium, and small busi-
nesses and industries in need of
assistance since it became appar-
ent in 1992 that enforcement
alone was not adequate to protect
South Florida's unique environ-
ment effectively.
Demographics
Jurisdiction:
Dade County, Florida
Population:
lOver two million
Type:
Urban, Suburban
Contact:
Dade Co. Dept. of Environmental
'Resources Kanagemeaf (DTBRM)
''33S'.W'2'n3'^e,''Smtel2a)
!Miami, Florida 33130-1540 "'""'
Phone: 305/372-6825
iFax: 305/372-6760
Overall Annual Budget of
County:
$2 billion
Lead Agency Conducting P2
Work:
Department of Environmental
Resources (DERM)
Program
Description
Impetus for Pollution
Prevention Activity
Although some pollution pre-
vention (P2) activities were initiated beforehand, Dade
County's pollution prevention program officially began
in October 1992 with funding from the Florida Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection (DEP) through
Florida EPA. The duration of the grant is three years
(ending date December, 1995), however DERM will
continue to fund the program after the grant expires.
The US Enviromental Protection Agency's Pollution
Prevention Incentive for the States (PPIS) Grant was
the primary impetus because it provided initial funding
for the program, as well as an opportunity for the State
(FDEP) and Dade County DERM to work coopera-
tively on implementing pollution prevention at the local
level. One of the most important
state and local factors providing
impetus for environmental regu-
lation and initiative is the fact
that Southeast Florida's only
source of drinking water is the
Biscayne Aquifer, ranging from
three to ten feet below the sur-
face of the ground in Dade
County. Therefore, it is impera-
tive that all measures are taken to
protect this aquifer from contami-
nation.
DERM has traditionally been
an enforcement-oriented agency,
until it became apparent that
enforcement alone was not ade-
quate to effectively protect South
Florida's unique environment. .
This progam was established to
provide local assistance to busi-
nesses and industries in need of
assistance. Further-more, the size
and population of Dade County
alone dictate that it be a leader in
pollution prevention and set an
example for the rest of the state.
The initial program goals were
as follows:
train DERM and other county staff;
provide on-site technical assistance to county
departments and local industry and help them
implement pollution prevention measures;
provide/host educational workshops/technology
transfer for local industry, government agencies,
and P2 partners;
produce and distribute P2/waste minimization edu-
cational material for local industry & county
departments; and
develop partnerships and educational modules with
local educational institutions (all levels).
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
The program focuses on the following:
• solid waste management;
• purchasing;
• POTW;
• consumer education;
• fleet maintenance;
• stormwater run-off;
• technical assistance to businesses;
• air pollution issues;
• facilities/buildings;
• energy conservation;
• small quantity hazardous waste;
• all inclusive, multi-media (primary focus); and
• county departments.
Strategy
This program strives to implement pollution preven-
tion at the local level by: 1) providing training to
in-house staff as well as to staff of all other county
departments, 2) sponsoring and hosting multiple annual
workshops, 3) producing and distributing educational
material (including a quarterly newsletter with a mate-
rials exchange), 4) providing on-site technical
assistance to county departments and local industry,
and 5) integrating pollution prevention into enforce-
ment consent agreements.
In-house pollution prevention measures include stan-
dard office waste minimization practices such as
double-sided copies, reuse of single-sided paper for
printing of draft copies, and posting or circulation of
memos (instead of copies for each employee).
An example of a noteworthy activity is the Solvent
Alternatives Exposition, held in Miami in November
1993. This exposition brought government and indus-
try experts together with local and regional industry for
a full-day of workshops on waste minimization, pollu-
tion prevention, and solvent alternatives. It included a
full exhibit floor where participants could further
research the alternatives presented in the sessions and
speak to representatives of companies which could pro-
vide these alternatives. In addition to standard
table-top displays, some vendors set up actual operating
equipment. This enabled participants to bring in parts
or other items that required cleaning and actually see
first-hand the viability of a particular cleaning alterna-
tive or type of equipment. There were more than 300
participants in this exposition and program staff still
continues to get positive feedback on the event. The
second annual Solvent Alternatives Exposition was held
on March 7-8, 1995 in Miami and was also a great suc-
cess. This year's exposition targeted solvent
alternatives and pollution prevention for the printing
and painting industries, as well as cleaning applications
for all types of industry.
Resources Used
Staffing Resources
A half-time program manager is responsible for
administering the PPIS Grant and managing the P2 pro-
gram and staff, (including speaking engagements,
publicity, workshop organization, networking, training
of county staff, technical assistance to local industry,
and production of newsletter). The program is also
staffed by a full-time engineer and a part-time clerk.
Two administrative services staff devote 20 percent of
their time. One computer services staff member works
half time for the P2 program. In addition 13 staff
members from various DERM divisions also support
the project.
Expenditures and Funding Sources
PPIS Grant - $300,000 over three years
Montenay Agreement - $75,000 ($65,000 for program
manager and $10,000 for part-time Clerk)
Joint Grant with DERM Air Section - $38,000
2 Staff from Administrative Services reassigned to
assist P2 Program part-time (listed above).
Written Materials and Technical Assistance
Sources Used
The written materials and technical assistance
sources most commonly used are as follows:
• EPA documents- P2 Guides, i.e. "Facility P2
Guide"
• state materials- P2 Programs
• material from other local governments'
P2 Programs
• material from universities University of Texas.,
Mississippi State
• material from other non-profit organizations-
Inform, EDF
• other sources/contacts (Waste Reduction Resource
Center) WRRC, Solvents Alternatives Guide
(SAGE)
The program keeps a large library of documents and
information for assistance to industry and county
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
departments making it difficult to name specific docu-
ments. The EPA, the WRRC, and other P2 Programs
have been the most helpful.
Public or Private Sector Partners
The following organizations have played partnership
roles in the P2 program:
Industry Environmental Association (TEA), Greater
Miami Chamber of Commerce, Automotive Services
Association (ASA), FL Dept. of Env. Protection
(FDEP), Dade Co. Departments, Broward Co. Dept. of
Nat. Resources Protection (DNRP), EPA Region IV,
American Business Women's Association (ABWA),
Miami-Dade Community College (MDCC), S. Fla.
Assoc. of Env. Professionals (SFAEP).
Outcomes and
Accomplishments
Assessment of Effectiveness
Overall, the P2 program has been very successful in
meeting its goals. In addition to training several county
departments and initiating P2 measures at various Dade
County facilities, it has assisted several local industrial
facilities. During the two-and-a-half-year span of the
program, it has hosted or participated in more than 15
local and regional educational workshops addressing
pollution prevention. The success of the workshops is
measured by the attendance numbers as well as
responses to questionnaires. The newsletter has
received positive feedback with many requests for peo-
ple to be included on the mailing list (currently over
1,000).
Program staff would like to provide more assistance
to both local industry and county departments. How-
ever due to the small number of staff (3 full time), it
has been more effective to concentrate efforts towards
education (workshops and training) to reach the great-
est number of facilities and individuals. The county
also hopes that more staff will be assigned to the pro-
gram within the next year, which would allow more
resources to be devoted to on-site technical assistance.
Community and Department Gains
Even though the program is only two-and-a-half-
years old, Dade County has benefited in many ways.
Through the efforts of the pollution prevention pro-
gram, DERM has gained a much better public image,
particularly in the industrial community. DERM has
historically been an enforcement-oriented agency and
now the industrial community is beginning to see that
DERM can and will extend a helping hand. Although
it is hard to document, it is also anticipated that by edu-
cating and assisting the regulated com-munity, the
number of enforcement actions and new or repeat
clean-ups (remediation) will be reduced. Furthermore,
initiating pollution prevention at county facilities sends
an important message to the community. This sets an
example for local industry to follow and shows the
entire community that the county government is dedi-
cated to protecting the county's valuable resources and
environment. Any facilities, private or county, imple-
menting pollution prevention, benefit by becoming
better educated, saving money, decreasing liability and
dealing with fewer regulators (DERM enforcement).
In addition, their success stories are published in the P2
newsletter, providing good public relations. The com-
munity as a whole benefits from better education and
increased environmental responsiblity from industry.
Lessons Learned
Technical assistance is difficult with small staff. The
program has been unable to conduct the number of on-
site technical assistance audits originally anticipated
and it is difficult to properly follow through with those
facilities assisted. It has been determined that the pro-
gram would more effectively benefit the community by
concentrating efforts on education (workshops, train-
ing, newsletter, etc.). The program has also obtained
assistance with on-site technical audits from Florida
DEP's Retired Engineers Waste Reduction Assistance
Program (REWRAP).
The bureaucratic system is a general barrier. Bur-
densome procedural requirements and delays present
many barriers. For example, it is often difficult to pro-
duce educational workshops in a timely and efficient
manner. It is imperative that program staff plan well in
advance. The program also established a Pollution Pre-
vention Trust Fund from which it will finance
workshops. This will allow staff to bypass the cumber-
some and time-consuming county bid process.
DERM's existing reputation. Due to DERM's his-
tory and reputation of strict enforcement, local industry
is skeptical of the P2 program's offer of technical assis-
tance, afraid this may be a coy means by which
regulators can infiltrate their facilities and are hesitant
to invite DERM into their facilities. This is being over-
come by having the state's retired engineers help with
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
20
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
on-site audits (local facilities are less afraid of the
state) and by working closely with local trade associa-
tions (i.e.. ASA, IEA, etc.). The trade associations are
an extremely important ally because they introduce the
program and its benefits to their members and promote
the validity and value of the P2 program's assistance
and workshops. The success of the workshops has also
been important in demonstrating to the community that
DERM is really willing to provide assistance and that
this assistance is valuable. Furthermore, those facilities
that have received technical assistance from the pro-
gram are publicizing its good work.
It is difficult to overcome inertia. The difficulty of
enticing people to change is well documented and Dade
County's program has encountered that internally,
within the department, as well as externally. Those
who are accustomed to being regulators are hesitant to
give up the ticket books and "Notice of Violations" and
offer P2 solutions instead (in enforcement settlements).
Similarly, field inspectors who are accustomed to look-
ing for violations and issuing notices are hesitant to
offer "low-tech" P2 tips in the field. A persistent edu-
cation campaign and encouragement, as well as
involvement in the P2 program and decision-making
process (for enforcement settlements) is helping to
overcome this barrier. It has also been difficult to
implement the P2 ethic throughout the department for a
number of reasons. This is being overcome by involv-
ing all sections, allowing them to initiate their own P2
measures, and encouraging other sections to do the
same (rather than having all P2 tips and encouragement
come only from the P2 Program). This requires a
cooperative effort which, in itself, is sometimes diffi-
cult to obtain in such an organization.
Pollution Prevention Materials Available
from Jurisdiction
Pollution Prevention Quarterly (Newsletter)
New Best Management Practices and P2 Tips booklets
Implementing Pollution Prevention at the Local Level
Guidebook (currently being developed, will be com-
pleted by October, 1995)
Additional Comments
Considering that this program has only been in exis-
tence for two and a half years, has a staff of three and
operates on a budget of $100,000 per year, staff
believes the program has made substantial accomplish-
ments. Dade County's program has developed a
reputation throughout Region IV as one of the leading
pollution prevention programs. The program has set a
prime example of how successful pollution prevention
efforts can be implemented at the local level. The
county hopes that, with the assistance of this guide-
book, other local governments and organizations will
follow its lead.
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
Erie County,
New York
Summary
While, most of the geo-
graphic area of Erie County is
agricultural and suburban, most
of the population of the county
lives in the urban Buffalo area.
The Erie County Office of
Pollution Prevention was estab-
lished to provide pollution
prevention/environmental com-
pliance assistance to small and
medium sized businesses. The
initial program goals were to
reduce pollutant loadings from
all media throughout the county
and to educate small and
medium sized businesses on
how to reduce waste generation
at the source.
Program
Description
Demographics
Jurisdiction:
Erie County, New York
Population:
980,000
Type:
Urban, Suburban, Rural
Contact:
Thomas R. Hersey Jr.
P2 Program Coordinator
Erie County DEP
95 Franklin Street, Room 1077
Buffalo, NY 14202
Phone: 716/858-7674
Fax: 716/858-7713
Overall Annual Budget of County:
$1 billion
Impetus for Pollution
Prevention Activity
The county's Small Business Assistance Program
was started in 1985 and the pollution prevention (P2)
program was initiated in 1990.
The Erie County Office of Pollution Prevention
was established to provide pollution prevention/envi-
ronmental compliance assistance to small- and
medium-sized businesses. State level agencies
intended to concentrate their pollution prevention
efforts on larger facilities, even though smaller facil-
ities were subject to the same regulations and, when
considered as a whole, constituted a major source of
pollutant generation and a major percentage of the
local economy in Erie County.
The initial program goals were to reduce pollutant
Lead Agency Conducting
Pollution Prevention Work:
Office of Pollution Prevention and
Division of Environmental Compliance
loadings from all media
throughout the county and to
educate small- and medium-
sized businesses on how to
reduce waste generated at the
source.
The main foci of the program
includes the following:
• solid waste management,
• publicly owned treatment
works,
• consumer education,
• fleet maintenance,
• stormwater run-off,
• technical assistance to
businesses,
• air pollution issues,
• facilities/buildings,
• small quantity hazardous
waste,
• all inclusive, multi-media,
and
• agricultural business.
Strategy
The Erie County Office of
Pollution Prevention (ECOPP)
conducts programs aimed at
reducing air, land, and water
pollution in Erie County. The industrial pollution
prevention program provides information and techni-
cal assistance to businesses and public agencies, and
evaluates innovative technologies designed to reduce
pollution. Since May 1990, more than 250 industri-
ally diverse businesses have received on-site facility
reviews to identify pollution prevention opportuni-
ties. Workshops/training seminars instruct
participants how to identify practical and economical
measures to implement pollution prevention into
their operations. ECOPP is currently focusing its
efforts on local government officials' (Publically
Owned Treatment Works inspectors, building inspec-
tors, etc.) role in promoting pollution prevention.
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
22
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
Resources Used
Staffing Resources
Coordinator
Environmental Compliance Specialist
Environmental Compliance Specialist
Environmentalist, Hazardous Waste
All staff are part of the Department of Environ-
ment and Planning and spend 100 percent of their
time on this effort.
Expenditures and Funding Sources
Average annual pollution prevention expenditures
(both grant and county-line funding) is approxi-
mately $150,000 which covers the following
expenses:
Costs
Personnel
Fringe Benefits
Equipment
Travel
Supply
Contractual
Office
Percentage of budget
60%
10%
2%
2%
2%
22%
2%
Staff is funded by a combination of federal and
state grants and county resources.
Written Materials and Technical
Assistance Sources Used
The program relies on a variety of information
resources including:
• EPA documents,
• state materials,
• material from other local governments,
• material from universities, case study informa-
tion, technology research and
• development reports,
• networking with P2 programs from every level
of government.
ECOPP has established a pollution prevention
library with resources and databases of equipment
and substitute materials. Additional information or
listings of these resources is available.
Public or Private Sector Partners
The following organizations have played a part-
nership role in Erie County's pollution prevention
efforts:
State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo
Sewer Authority, Western New York Technology
Development Center, NTS Environmental Facilities
Corporation, NYS Department of Environmental
Conservation, Western New York Economic Devel-
opment Corporation, Amherst Industrial
Development Agency, and various municipalities.
Outcomes and
Accomplishments
Assessment of Effectiveness
The program met its initial goals in that clients
have become aware of pollution prevention and have
attempted to reduce the amount of waste they pro-
duce. The pollution prevention program conducts a
six-month call-back after the on-site facility review.
The reason for this is to identify any measures
implemented by clients. Success and measurements,
such as changes in procedures and costs savings,
were documented on a case-by-case basis which
could later be used as examples for similar facilities.
In an evaluation of the Erie County program, 77
percent of the survey respondents had implemented
at least one of the recommendations made by
ECOPP representatives. Sixty-eight percent of the
respondents perceived a reduction in the amount of
waste generated, while 43 percent perceived a reduc-
tion in operating cost. Seventy-eight percent of the
respondents indicated that they anticipate imple-
menting ECOPP recommendations in the future.
Most stated that implementation was contingent
upon the cost effectiveness and applicability of the
recommendations. Fifty-eight percent replied that
they had implemented internally-generated pollution
prevention strategies. Ninety-one percent of the
respondents felt that their facility was more aware of
pollution prevention as a result of ECOPP services.
Community and Department Gains
The department gained recognition throughout the
business community as an agency that provides non-
regulatory, confidential, P2/environmental
compliance service free of charge.
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
23
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
Lessons Learned
Other jurisdictions should be advised to go
through the proper channels. Even though a program
may satisfy all clientele needs, an extensive outreach
program is essential. Support from trade associa-
tions, suppliers, and other agencies (e.g. economic
development) will give a program much needed
recognition. A mailing list of newsletters and envi-
ronmental bulletins will keep the program's name on
someone's desk.
Small businesses require a lot of hand-holding to
encourage the type of change associated with adopt-
ing pollution prevention strategies. Due to limited
program resources and a target client base of over
5,000 small businesses, the Erie County staff could
only spend a limited amount of time with each facil-
ity. Erie County is expanding its pollution
prevention force by training other local government
officials to use their interfaces with industry to pro-
mote pollution prevention.
Pollution Prevention Materials Available
from Jurisdiction
The following materials are available:
Evaluation Report of Erie County Pollution
Prevention Program - 1993
Policy Report Creating Pollution Prevention
Incentives for Small Businesses - 1993
Evaluation Report for Municipal POTW
Pretreatment Inspectors - 1994
Final Report for Pollution Prevention
Incentives for States Grant - 1994
Pollution Prevention Case Studies - 1993, 1994
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
24
A Compendium of Cdse Studies
-------
King County,
Washington
Summary
King County encompasses
about 2,140 square miles, half of
which is federal or commercial
forest land. The dominant econ-
omy of the Puget Sound area is
the resource sector (forestry,
fishing, mining) and the manufac-
turing sector (wood products,
food products, and transportation
machinery); the service sector is
the fastest growing sector. King
County, in conjunction with the
City of Seattle, delivers pollution
prevention information to busi-
nesses and citizens as part of its
management plan for small quan-
tity hazardous waste.
Implemented in 1991, this pro-
gram includes information
exchange, technical assistance,
field visits to specific small busi-
nesses, household hazardous
waste programs, and interagency
regulatory analysis. It is esti-
mated that approximately 20,000
small businesses within the
county may be conditionally
exempt small quantity generators.
Program
Description
Demographics
Jurisdiction:
King County, Washington
ation:
1.6 million
Type:
Urban/suburban
Contact:
Information Contact-
Cynthia Balogh, Project Coordinator,
Technical Assistance and Pollution ,
Prevention 206/689-3075; ,
Program Manager:
David Galvin, Program Manager, King
County Department of Metropolitan
-Services 206/689-3085 :
Local Hazardous Waste Management .\
Program in King County (LHWMP)
130 Nickersoh, STE 100
Seattle WA 98109-1658 ; :
Phone:206/689-3050 ;
Fax; 206/689-3070
Overall Annual Budget of
County:
$1,158,906,329
(Lead Agencies Conducting
f Pollution Prevention Work:
I The Local Hazardous Waste Management
Program (LHWMP): King County
Department of Metropolitan Services
(Metro); Seattle-King County Department
.of Public Health; King County Solid Waste
Division; Seattle Solid Waste Utility; and
f-32 suburban cities
Impetus for Pollution
Prevention Activity
Delivering pollution preven-
tion assistance to businesses and
households fulfills a Washington State Department of increase to 33,000
Ecology mandate contained in
the State Hazardous Waste Man-
agement Act. The Act requires
King County to provide a plan
to manage hazardous wastes
generated in small quantities by
households and businesses. The
plan to address conditionally
exempt small quantity genera-
tors (CESQGs) and household
hazardous waste (HHW) in all
local jurisdictions was adopted
in 1990, with implementation
beginning in 1991. The program
is ongoing, subject to five-year
review periods.
Guidelines on implementing
the mandate require programs to
provide technical assistance
within the framework of a waste
management hierarchy that pri-
oritizes waste reduction and
recycling. In response to the
needs of small businesses, some
pollution prevention work had
begun prior to the mandate.
The goal of the program is to
reduce the amount of hazardous
materials entering municipal
waste systems and sensitive
water bodies in King County for
the protection of public health.
An estimated 19,000 tons of
hazardous waste was found in
King County's municipal waste
streams in 1989, two-thirds of
which was generated by busi-
nesses and one-third from
households. If the county did
not address this problem,
improperly disposed of haz-
ardous waste was projected to
tons per year by 2009 .
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
County. Washington
•••a^^ ^fe.«>^ra^^^»ilia.5L JJ-5L.: k ^-^y^.,^.
Strategy
The county works collaboratively with businesses
and industry on pollution prevention activities, building
on businesses' knowledge of specific problems and
processes. The Local Hazardous Waste Management
Program (LHWMP) offers businesses connections with
county and city agencies, hazardous waste information
and experience in waste reduction, recycling, and treat-
ment. The following is a list of specific pollution
prevention activities the county has undertaken:
Waste Information Network (WIN): WIN pro-
vides a non-threatening forum for discussing and
resolving waste issues that affect small businesses.
Participants in these forums include private businesses,
public agencies and other groups. Established in 1987,
WIN offers an annual Waste Expo, environmental
achievement awards, monthly meetings, and a
newsletter.
Technical Assistance: LHWMP offers technical
help with waste characterization, waste reduction, recy-
cling, and treatment for small businesses. The program
focuses on priority industries (dental, auto body, auto-
motive, and screen printers).
Hazardous Waste Library: The library provides
reference help to the general public, businesses, and
county agencies including on-line database searches,
in-house resources, and information sharing.
Field Work: Four field teams work directly with
small businesses to tailor hazardous waste management
— including pollution prevention information - to their
particular needs. The teams conduct surveys by geo-
graphical area, priority industry audits, on-site
consultations as requested by businesses, and complaint
call response. Two teams, in particular, conduct
detailed, on-site, pollution prevention technical assis-
tance with local companies.
Business Waste Line: Provides answers to ques-
tions from small businesses about their hazardous
waste.
Interagency Regulatory Analysis Committee:
Helps address regulatory barriers to pollution preven-
tion and regulatory issues around recycling. The
Committee has reviewed issues such as the use of sol-
vent stills, stormwater best management practices, and
the "Envirostars", a recognition program.
Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Education:
Emphasizes on personal contact to inform citizens
about alternatives to hazardous materials in the house-
hold; includes a consumer report-style Buyer's Guide.
HHW Schools Program: Provides resources for
teachers, including curriculum for grades 4-12.
Disposal Options: There are two permanent house-
hold hazardous waste depots in the City of Seattle and
wastemobile service throughout the rest of the county.
The disposal of waste from conditionally exempt small
quantity generators is primarily covered by private
transport storage and disposal services. To provide low
cost disposal on a regular basis may be a counter incen-
tive for reducing hazardous waste at the front end.
Instead, the county is piloting a voucher program that
would help businesses pay for a one-time disposal of
accumulated hazardous waste. This activity is coupled
with an on-site consultation to find better ways of
avoiding unnecessary waste.
Pollution Prevention Incentives: To encourage pol-
lution prevention activities within the private sector, the
county provides the following incentives:
Envirostars - A four-level recognition program for
businesses that reduce and properly manage their haz-
ardous wastes. Recognition begins with decals, logos
and certificates and increases to include public relations
pieces, local media advertisements, and nominations to
state, local, and national environmental awards.
Success Stories - Profiles of businesses reducing
hazardous waste are written and distributed to local
media. Success stories are also published in a quarterly
newsletter.
WIN Awards - Annual environmental achievement
awards are presented to businesses for significant and
comprehensive accomplishments in minimizing use of
hazardous materials, developing less hazardous prod-
ucts, and fostering an ethic of personal responsibility
for the environment among staff, colleagues, and the
public.
Incentives Database - A database provides informa-
tion on loans, grants, and awards available to small
businesses for pollution prevention efforts.
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
Resources Used
Staffing Resources
Drawn from four county and city agencies, the fol-
lowing staff works on the county pollution prevention
program. The entire Local Hazardous Waste Manage-
ment Program (LHWMP) is based on the principles of
waste reduction and recycling before treatment and dis-
posal. The county estimates that approximately 20-25
percent of these staff members' time is devoted specifi-
cally to pollution prevention duties.
Local Hazardous Waste Management Program:
Agency Staff
King County Solid Waste Division 5
Seattle King County Health Department 25
Seattle Solid Waste Utility 12
King County Dept. of Metropolitan
Services 27
Education, outreach, and field groups integrate pol-
lution prevention into their work. The Technical
Assistance and Pollution Prevention group, housed
within the Department of Metropolitan Services, con-
sists of four people. Two of those staff members focus
on waste characterization and treatment, while two
focus on promotion of pollution prevention. Contract
workers are also hired for special projects.
Expenditures and Funding Sources
The overall LHWMP budget is about $10 million.
The Metro hazardous waste section budget is about
$2.5 million. The budget for technical assistance, waste
characterization, and pollution prevention (four full-
time staff) is $738,566.
The program is funded through fees added to com-
mercial and residential garbage and sewer rates. A
portion of the funding comes from a Department of
Ecology grant.
Written Materials and Technical Assistance
Sources Used
The county has used EPA documents as well as
material generated by the state and other local govern-
ments for the design and implementation of its
program. The most helpful materials have been sam-
pling and characterization studies, field demonstrations,
and detailed industry-specific profiles.
Public or Private Sector Partners
King County's pollution prevention program is a
cooperative effort between several county agencies, the
City of Seattle, suburban cites, the State Department of
Ecology, industry-specific advisory groups consisting
of regulatory agencies, business associations, business
owners/managers, vendors associated with specific
industries (e.g., dental, dry cleaners, screen printers,
autobody, automotive repair), the Neighborhood
Business Council, and local citizen environmental
groups (Washington Toxics Coalition, Metrocenter
YMCA, Puget Soundkeeper Alliance, and the Environ-
mental Council of South Seattle).
Outcome and
Accomplishments
Assessment of Effectiveness
King County is working to more effectively measure
the success of its pollution prevention programs. For
example, specific target goals will now be formulated
at the outset of industry campaigns. A sample goal
statement might be: "At the end of our campaign, 75
percent of businesses in this sector will be handling
hazardous waste properly based on field observations
and follow-up information." The prime reason for tak-
ing a more rigorous approach is to inform policy
makers and managers in the five coordinating agencies
on the progress and direction of the program. The
county produces quarterly and annual program reports
describing progress made in achieving program and
team goals using performance and impact indicators.
The annual report is distributed to elected officials and
other interested parties.
Community and Department Gains
King County's pollution prevention program is reap-
ing environmental and public health gains. County
agencies have also improved working relationships
with local business groups and have received both local
and national recognition for the program.
Many businesses practicing pollution prevention
have saved in disposal costs and regulatory fees, mater-
ial and utility costs, and have increased customer
approval. For example, a furniture refinisher saves
$2,500 per year in disposal costs by reusing waste-
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
27
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
water. A muffler shop saves $5,700 per year by elimi-
nating chlorinated aerosols; they save another $6,400
per year using the county's Industrial Materials
Exchange. By switching to a dry-to-dry, closed loop
system, a local dry cleaner saves $2,500 per year on
perchloroethylene and $780 per year on water. (These
savings do not include reduced liability or always
reflect savings in utility costs and all disposal fees.)
In terms of environmental and public health achieve-
ments, in 1994, the activities of the field team that
offers the most in-depth technical assistance yielded the
following: 273 businesses were visited, 135 follow up
visits were conducted. As a result of visits to the 135
follow-ups sites, 3,640 gallons per year of hazardous
waste were no longer being generated; 360 gallons per
year of hazardous waste were no longer going into
landfills; 3,400 solvent-containing rags per year were
no longer going to landfills; 2,625 gallons per year of
hazardous waste were no longer being disposed of in
sewers; 500 gallons per year were avoided from dis-
posal in stormdrains.
Lessons Learned
Barriers to the Implementation of Pollution
Prevention:
• businesses' fear and mistrust of government's offer
to "help" them
• businesses' feeling overwhelmed by paperwork
and regulations
• businesses' desire for a quick-fix or "drop in"
alternatives.
• conflicting and overlapping regulations
• some regulations are counter-productive to
waste reduction
Successful Approaches:
• Respect the needs and knowledge of business own-
ers and employees. Earn their trust.
• Remember, cooperation is the key. Develop advi-
sory boards made up of regulators, business
owners, and associations as well as vendors associ-
ated with specific industries.
• Work with other agencies, tear down territorial
walls, and change regulations so that they make
sense and are effective.
• Research alternative processes, products, and
reduce/reuse/recycle possibilities.
Pollution Prevention Materials Available
From Jurisdiction
The county has a wealth of written materials avail-
able on a wide range of pollution prevention topics.
Please call for a complete listing.
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
28
A Compendium of Cas'e Studies
-------
.incoln-Lancaster County, Nebraska.
Lincoln-Lancaster
County, Nebraska
Summary
The Lincoln-Lancaster County
Health Department (LLCHD)
runs an exemplary pollution pre-
vention program. While it
encompasses many traditional
environmental health activities, it
is unique in that it integrates pol-
lution prevention (P2) into all of
its media programs, thereby mov-
ing higher up the waste
management hierarchy to prevent
the generation of waste. By
working with businesses in the
community and offering them
information, education, and eco-
nomically viable solutions to their
waste problems, Lincoln-
Lancaster County Health Depart-
ment achieves its goal to reduce
or eliminate the source of pollu-
tion as a means to reduce risks to
human health and the
environment.
Program
Description
Demographics
Jurisdiction:
City of Lincoln and Lancaster County,
Nebraska
Population:
City of Lincoln -196,000;
Lancaster County -19,000
Type:
Urban and rural
Contact:
Scott Holmes,: _ •-
Environmental Health Chief
Lincoln - Lancaster County Health
Department
3140 N Street :,i
Lincoln, NE 68510 -
Phone: 402/441-8634 : : ' ".'"
Fax: 402/441-8323
Overall Annual Budget of
Jurisdiction:
City: $78 million County: $72 million
Lead Agency Conducting
Pollution Prevention Work:
Lincoln-Lancaster County Health
Department (LLCHD) Environmental
Health Division ;
Impetus for Pollution
Prevention Activity
LLCHD's current pollution prevention program
evolved from a waste disposal permitting program
(known as the Special Waste Program) that began with
a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) in 1986. The program stemmed from a recom-
mendation of the Hazardous Pollutants Advisory
Committee, a local focus group formed in late 1984, to
define public concerns and issues dealing with threats
to environmental health. Cur-
rently, LLCHD operates a range
of pollution prevention programs
listed below.
The Special Waste Program
began as a hazardous waste
exclusion process for the opera-
tion of a new city/county landfill.
LLCHD moved the program fur-
ther up the waste management
hierarchy from managing wastes
to preventing pollution at the
front end. The evolution towards
a pollution prevention focus was
based on LLCHD's Environmen-
tal Health Division goal to assure
that the interaction between the
environment and people mini-
mizes the risk to public health
and well-being.
In early 1985, the Hazardous
Pollutant Advisory Committee
(HPAC) set the following goals
for LLCHD Environmental
Health Division:
• To prevent pollution by provid-
ing information to the public
relating to the proper use, storage,
handling, and disposal of sub-
stances that pose a health hazard.
• To ensure Lincoln-Lancaster
County government agencies
protect the health of the citi-
zens, minimize damage to
environment and wildlife, and
protect property from the adverse effects of haz-
ardous pollutants by coordinating the effort.
• To establish a county hazardous waste collection
program.
• To protect the ground water supply in Lancaster
County from chemical contamination.
In 1989, the goals of the Special Waste Program
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
•Lincoln-Lancaster County, Nebraska
were to:
• Protect public health and the environment by
assuring proper management of special and haz-
ardous waste generated.
• Identify waste assistance needs through program
data.
• Provide technical assistance and education to
waste generators concerning waste reduction,
recycling, and waste exchange.
• Protect the health of waste handlers and disposal
facility workers.
• Reduce possible future city liability associated
with the landfill and to meet the initial phase of
Lancaster County's Landfill Hazardous Waste
Exclusion Program mandated by EPA.
Strategy
The Pollution Prevention Program: The Pollu-
tion Prevention Program accomplishes its goal of
toxicity reduction through pollution prevention by
increasing the public's understanding of chemical
toxicity in relation to decisions made on product pur-
chase, use, handling, storage and disposal. After
developing a better understanding of the problem,
LLCHD provides assistance to residents and busi-
nesses in identifying less hazardous alternatives to
current practices.
The Special Waste Program: The Special Waste
Program administers a regulatory pollution preven-
tion and toxics use reduction (P2/TUR) program in
conjunction with the City Public Works Department
and the Nebraska Department of Environmental
Quality. The Special Waste Inventory/Permit Appli-
cation is a survey which collects information about
wastes generated in the county. By ordinance, all
businesses and agencies in the county need to fill out
an inventory; those who wish to dispose of special
waste need a permit. LLCHD offers all businesses
on-site assistance with developing waste reduction
strategies. An on-site visit can result in suggestions
for changing input material to lower toxicity,
improving operating practices and incorporating new
process technologies. This process not only educates
businesses in appropriate disposal methods, but,
more importantly, it gives LLCHD an opportunity to
present the business owner with pollution prevention
options.
Editor's Note: The Special Waste Program is the
strongest promoter of P2, reaching every business in
Lincoln with its educational, action-oriented
process. The strength of the Special Waste Program,
and indeed all of LLCHD's programs, is that preven-
tion was incorporated into the design of the program
so that as the program grew, the goal of pollution
prevention could be achieved.
The Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Pro-
gram: The HHW Program holds monthly HHW
collections from April to September and gives the
public advice and information on ways to identify
and reduce consumption of toxic products, and
choose available alternative products. LLCHD offers
citizens an opportunity to safely dispose of their
otherwise unregulated hazardous wastes, because it
serves to effectively "open the door" to teaching
toxic use reduction techniques in the home.
The Outdoor Air Quality Program: The Out-
door Air Quality Program reviews construction
plans, issues permits and conducts compliance
inspections and monitoring to fulfill the require-
ments of federal, state and local air regulations for
sources in Lincoln-Lancaster County. Delegation of
the Title V Federal Operating Permits Program
recently has been approved by the EPA. Small busi-
ness technical assistance is a required part of that
program and LLCHD is expanding the focus from
outdoor air exclusively to include multi-media pollu-
tion prevention. As part of its technical assistance,
LLCHD offers alternatives to common waste prob-
lems, but also provides the bridge with other
resources, such as the Federal Laboratory Consor-
tium, the National and Regional Technology Transfer
Centers, and/or the University of Nebraska.
The Water-Wastewater Program: The Water-
Wastewater Program provides for safe private
sources of drinking water by inspecting new wells
and sewage systems. While the basic inspection
component of this program is a management activity,
the program moves towards prevention by incorpo-
rating pollution prevention into its future planning.
Plan reviews for new subdivisions and sewer exten-
sions assess potential impact of new projects on
public health and the environment.
The Wellhead Protection Project: The grant-
funded Wellhead Protection Project identifies village
well recharge areas and potential sources of contami-
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
:L 30
A Compendium of Cafee Studies
-------
nation in an effort to prevent any future drinking
water pollution. On-site farm P2 assessments are
now being done in wellhead protection areas.
The Clean Community System (CCS): CCS has
a goal of modifying behavior and changing attitudes
of the public in order to implement pollution preven-
tion. CCS takes a "grassroots" approach to
environmental education and frequently mobilizes
citizen groups, neighborhoods, and local schools.
CCS provides educational displays and activities
focusing on how to identify and prevent non-point
source water pollution at the Lancaster County and
Nebraska State Fairs. One major effort is the
Stormwater Awareness Project (SWAP), which
involves local Boy Scout troops and other volunteers
stenciling storm drains with "No Dumping" and
"Goes To Stream."
Special Recognition Program: The sixth annual
Earth Day presentation of Environmental Awards
included a category for Pollution Prevention in 1994.
Two local industries received the award for making
operational changes to reduce the quantity and toxic-
ity of waste generated at the source.
Resources Used
Staffing Resources
One quarter-time Assistant Chief
Two full-time Environmental Engineers
One quarter-time Environmental Health Specialist
Two full-time Community Health Educators
One full-time and one half-time Office Assistants
One full-time student intern
Expenditures and Funding Sources
Expenditures: $530,000/annum
Funding Sources:
Permit fees
Landfill gate fees
Grants
Mi emission fees
City/County general
$45,000
$240,000
$40,000
$115,000
$90,000
Public or Private Sector Partners
The Public Works and Utilities Department and
the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
have played key partnership roles in the program.
The National Pollution Prevention Roundtable, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 7,
Region 7 Pollution Prevention Roundtable, and vol-
unteers from several local businesses and industry
have also participated.
Outcome and
Accomplishments
Assessment of Effectiveness
The county has witnessed a tremendous reduction
in the wastes going to the landfill and treatment
plant. As evidence that education has had an effect,
this year LLCHD received an increase in the amount
of waste reported by businesses which were given a
list of wastes LLCHD expected to be associated with
their specific standard industry classification (SIC)
code.
Community and Department Gains
The city/county has experienced a decrease in
long-term liability from landfill operations; easier
stormwater and landfill permitting; decreased risks
to public health, environment and occupational
health; vast reduction in the quantity of very old pes-
ticides stored at home; and increased knowledge of
regulations as evidenced by reporting by citizens and
business of waste generators who dump waste
illegal. In short, Lincoln-Lancaster County has
achieved a better environmentally-educated populace
and safer workplaces.
Lessons Learned
The program is currently undergoing a complete
review. Some of the problems encountered with the
multi-agency efforts have to do with trying to main-
tain focus on the shared goals, rather than becoming
swayed by other legitimate, but tangential, needs.
Proving the point of pollution prevention in the
workplace sometimes requires accounting for long-
term liability, which some business owners (those
struggling with today's problems) seem less willing
to factor in.
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
Jjnicoin-Lancaster Countv, Nebraska
Pollution Prevention Materials
Available From Jurisdiction
The following documents were developed by
LLCHD, and are available upon request:
Periodicals and Updates:
Pollution Prevention quarterly newsletter- The Ethic
Clean Community System quarterly
newsletter - Outlook
Wellhead Protection Program -
The Underground Supply
Fact Sheets:
Be a Good Neighbor...Use Pesticides Safely
Be Yard Smart, Use Yard Chemicals With Care
Automotive Waste
Reusing, Recycling and Disposing of Paint
Managing Waste- Oil
Managing Used Antifreeze
Storm Water Awareness Program (SWAP)
Checklists:
Vehicle & Equipment Maintenance: A Right-To-
Know and Waste-Reduction Checklist
Groundwater and Environmental Pollution Self-Help
Checklist: For Farmsteads and Farm Fields
A Guide For Dentists: How to Manage Waste in Your
Practice
Guide to Household Hazardous Waste
Additional Comments
No government agency can hope to impose,
induce, or develop the pollution prevention ethic in
all areas within its domain unless it utilizes the
expertise and experience of other service providers.
Contact LLCHD and the other agencies who will be
willing to share their experience.
Pollution Prevention (P2) and Toxics Use Reduc-
tion (TUR) are the first choice solutions for
environmental risks posed to environmental health.
These are not complete solutions in every situation.
They are a part of an overall waste management hier-
archy and complement other components of this
strategy. As a health department, LLCHD recog-
nizes the importance of prevention and its role in
educating the public to using this tool to improve
public health.
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
Milwaukee,
Wisconsin
Summary
Milwaukee has a wide variety
of pollution prevention programs
that focus on expanding solid
waste source reduction efforts
city-wide, reducing air pollution,
and reducing hazardous waste
within its own departments. By
evaluating various departments
use of hazardous materials, the
city was able to reduce their gen-
eration of hazardous wastes by 75
percent since 1989.
Program
Description
Demographics
Jurisdiction:
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Population:
632,000;
Type:
Urban
.Contact:'; .-•"••• •".: -. ••;•';> ':- •'-.-.-'./;.' .".
Steve Brachrnan ;
Pollution Prevention Specialist,
University ofWisconsin-Extension,
1304 S. 70th Street, :
West Allis,WI 53214 ;:
Phone: 414/475-3824 '
Fax: 414/475-3777 "- ;'
Agency Conducting
pollution Prevention Work;
.^Department of Public Works
Impetus for Pollution
Prevention Activity
Wisconsin's mandatory recy-
cling law was passed in 1990,
leading to the expansion of solid
waste reduction efforts on a city-
wide basis. In addition, the passage of the Clean Air
Act and the reauthorization of the Resource Conserva-
tion Recovery Act (RCRA) led to an increased urgency
to implement the goals of these pieces of legislation. It
should be noted that Milwaukee is in a non-attainment
area. Finally, Milwaukee's divisions/bureaus were fairly
lax in their management of hazardous wastes since the
individual departments were not responsible for the
cost of disposal. It was determined that there needed to
be a change in the behavior of the departments so that
they would become more responsible for the waste that
they produced.
The city's initial goals for the program were to
increase employee participation in identifying and
reducing waste, develop initial facility assessments and
Overall Annual Budget of City:
$1 billion
long range compliance programs,
and create an on-going focus on
pollution prevention throughout
all levels of city government.
Strategy
In-House - Initial city efforts
were focused upon the comple-
tion of an integrated solid waste
plan, including recommendations
for the city. In-house (internal
government operations) pollution
prevention activities included on-
site assessments by the Health
Department, university, and con-
tractor staff, as well as evaluating
the internal activities of individ-
ual divisions.
Perhaps the most noteworthy
pollution prevention initiative, is
the city's hazardous waste reduc-
tion program. Prior to 1990, city
agencies rarely evaluated their
usage of hazardous materials.
Beginning then, a task force of
department representatives and
common council members began
evaluating the use and reduction
of hazardous materials. In 1991,
responsibility for hazardous waste management was
centralized in the Department of Public Works and a
more thorough accounting and management procedures
was implemented. In addition, it was recommended at
this time that each division pay for the cost of disposal
of these materials. City employees in each department
were encouraged to generate creative ideas about how
to save on disposal costs, which they did through
changing normal practices as well as substituting non-
hazardous materials. As a result, between 1989 and
1994, audits of many city facilities indicated that haz-
ardous waste usage had decreased by 75 percent.
Further waste reduction efforts were initiated in 1995
based upon these assessments.
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
In order to conserve energy as well as reduce the
amount of hazardous waste, the city converted some of
its offices as well as some of the street lighting to
sodium-based lights that were more energy efficient
and use less hazardous materials. Due to this change,
the city was also able to reduce the amount of fluores-
cent lights that were being utilized due to the higher
illumination of the sodium based lights.
As mentioned before, Milwaukee is in a nonattain-
ment area so there was a definite need to improve its
air quality. Besides converting some of the Municipal
Equipment Division's city vehicles to use cleaner fuels,
the city also implemented the use of a Geographical
Information System (GIS) for its employees. The GIS
is a resource that the city uses to track where its
employees live so as to design better commuting routes
which would encourage the use of buses, bicycle paths,
car pooling, and other forms of environmentally-
friendly transit operations. While the system has only
been used on a limited basis to track where city
employees live, it is hoped that this system can be
expanded so as to be used by private industry.
Outreach - Technical assistance efforts to business
were primarily limited to implementing the recycling
program. However, periodic task forces and work
Staffing Resources Used
groups have been formed to deal with very small quan-
tity generators and special waste problems such as
florescent lights. The city also conducted consumer
education which focused primarily on "smart shop-
ping" as a way to reduce solid and hazardous waste.
Recycling education has been on-going since 1989 and
has included a major public relations and education
effort directed at yard and solid waste reduction.
Household hazardous waste collection programs led to
an aggressive educational effort, including teaching
people the hazards of using lead-based paints. Milwau-
kee also conducted paint exchanges with nonprofits
which have used the paint for neighborhood projects
and graffiti removal.
To date, the City of Milwaukee has been more suc-
cessful in implementing internal pollution prevention
efforts than it has been with external activities. How-
ever, even more activities should be implemented.
Resources Used
Expenditures and Funding Sources
The city currently has no separate budget breakout
for P2 activities, although this is something that could
Staff* New/Existing
3 existing
1 existing
4 existing
1 existing
2 existing
Department
Public Works
City Development
Health
Attorney
Engineers
Time Spent
100%
25%
75%
20%
100%
Activities
recycling, legislation, hazardous
waste, contaminated lands,
employee commute (GIS),
stormwater management
contaminated lands
Industrial hygiene,
business assessment,
vector control
contracting, legislative review
storm water management
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
34
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
be done. Approximately $10 million is allocated, annu-
ally, including the cost of recycling. Funds are received
through the State Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) recycling grant, the State DNR stormwater
management grant, and the general tax fund.
Written Materials and Technical Assistance
Sources Used
The city relied on a variety of technical resources
including EPA's P2 audit materials for schools and state
and local government materials, including information
from Erie County, NY. The University of Wisconsin
(UW)-Extension also serves as a clearinghouse for pol-
lution prevention material and the city was able to use
some of its materials on hazardous waste. Also, the city
received information from other non-profit organiza-
tions including Citizens for a Better Environment.
Public or Private Sector Partners
The UW-Extension, consultants, DNR, and private
recyclers all serve as partners to the program.
Outcome and
Accomplishments
Assessment of Effectiveness
The city was very successful in implementing a con-
sumer recycling and waste reduction program for solid
waste. In addition, employee education has improved,
but not to the point where all employees consider P2 to
be part of their responsibility. Less successful has been
the identification of on-going problems and movement
towards solutions, with budgetary limitations being a
major factor. Since the city cannot always show a profit
from pollution prevention, some long term activities
have not been implemented, such as a more aggressive
business waste reduction effort. While the effort has
begun, there is still a long way to go.
Community and Department Gains
Significant financial savings have occurred from
waste reduction, energy conservation, and toxics reduc-
tion. Better public relations material was developed due
to the recycling program. General employee awareness
and support was increased. Legislative recognition also
has improved, especially at the state level.
Lessons Learned
Obtaining on-going political support is a challenge.
The establishment of the environmental policy coordi-
nator position in 1992 was a critical breakthrough for
the program.
Recognition of individual employee effort is still
lacking, but improving. Support from the mayor has
assisted in this effort.
Coordination among departments has improved, par-
ticularly with the establishment of the environmental
liaison work group. However, no formal recognition of
this effort has occurred.
Financial resources have been significantly aug-
mented by state grants. Lobbying for these resources
has been critical to the success of implementing the P2
program.
Pollution Prevention Materials Available
From Jurisdiction
Cash for Trash (a precycling guide)
Just Say Mow (general brochure and videotapes)
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
Newark,
New Jersey
Summary
The City of Newark aggres-
sively promotes a wide variety of
efforts to reduce solid and haz-
ardous waste as well as conserve
water and energy. Through the
city's efforts to educate con-
sumers and retailers, Newark has
increased the awareness of its cit-
izens on the importance of
pollution prevention and waste
minimization.
The City of Newark also real-
izes the importance of creating a
sustainable community. Their
slogan "Think Globally, Act
Locally!" is evident in all of their
environmental programs and
publications.
Program
Description
Demographics
Jurisdiction:
Newark, New Jersey
Population:
275,221
Type:
urban
Contact:
Frank Sudol, Chief of Research &
Program Development, City of Newark,
Room 410, 920 Broad Street, Newark,
=New Jersey 07102
.Phone: 201/733-4356
iFax: 201/733-4772
Overall Annual Budget of City:
$520,000,000
Lead Agency Conducting
Pollution Prevention Work:
Department of Engineering
Impetus for Pollution
Prevention Activity
The City of Newark has had a significant solid waste
disposal problem since mid-1987 when its local land-
fills were closed. Disposal costs increased from
approximately $25 per ton to more than $100 per ton
due to the need to transport waste to out-of-state land-
fills. As a result, source reduction became a priority to
Newark's leadership. The goals of the city were to
reduce solid waste generation by a minimum of 10 per-
cent, as well as recycle a minimum of 60 percent of the
municipal solid waste stream.
Strategy
Water Conservation
In-House Activities: The City of Newark has imple-
mented a water saving strategy
within the municipality's infra-
structure with the use of
pitometers that search for water
leaks. It has been estimated that
after the leaks have been
repaired, an older city such as
Newark, can conserve up to 20
percent of the original amount of
water used.
Consumer Education: To save
water, Newark has distributed
free water conservation kits to
many homeowners. The kit
includes flow restrictors and toi-
let tank water saving devices.
The city's goal is to install these
devices in every household.
Water conservation can save
not only water resources, but also
energy used to process both the
water and what in most cases will
become sewage. Water conserva-
tion can be achieved in both
buildings and within a municipal-
ity's infrastructure. The
conservation of filtered water can save energy at the
source, while reducing infiltration inflow to sanitary
and combined sewers.
Energy Conservation
Energy conservation can be achieved by updating
less efficient fluorescent, incandescent, and mercury
vapor street lights owned and maintained by the local
utility company to new city-owned high pressure
sodium units. For example, over the course of four
years, the City of Newark converted 16,000 such lamps
to new, energy efficient light fixtures saving the city
about $1.3 million a year in electricity cost, while pro-
viding approximately twice the illumination of the old
lights and reducing polluting mercury emissions to the
environment.
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
36
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
Energy conservation within municipal buildings can
be achieved in many cases with no upfront investments,
by working with energy management firms, which will
make the initial capital investment to achieve desired
energy conservation goals. The city saves energy, and
thus money, and the energy management firm shares on
the energy cost savings. Such programs have been
implemented in Newark City Hall and the municipal
management complex.
Reuse
Editor's note: Although reuse is not pollution pre-
vention because it does not reduce the amount of
material produced at the source, it is a better solution
than recycling. Through the extension of the useful life
of a product fewer resources are used and discarded.
Education to Consumers and Businesses: One
program the city promoted to increase the usefulness
of materials was its new guide entitled Second
Chances: The Planet Newark Guide to Donating
Unwanted Goods which was initiated to coincide
with Earth Day activities in April, 1995. In addition
to the guide's major goal of waste reduction, the
guide also allows charitable organizations to better
serve Newark residents. "Second Chances" contains a
comprehensive listing of 60 Newark organizations
that accept donations of used household and office
goods.
The guide was created to help reduce the amount
of trash thrown away in Newark by getting usable
items that one person, or company, might discard into
the hands of others who would consider the items to
be valuable. "Second Chances" is designed to provide
residents and businesses with information on local
organizations that would appreciate the donation of
these items.
The categories of materials listed in the booklet
are: appliances, automobiles, bicycles, books, build-
ing materials, car seats for babies and children,
clothing to be reused, clothing to be recycled as rags,
computer supplies, computers, dining ware (dishes,
plates and eating utensils), office furniture, household
furniture, and other items.
The guide tells readers how to use its "Index to
Materials Accepted for Donation" and the "Listing of
Organizations Accepting Donations of Used Goods"
so they will be encouraged to donate. "Second
Chances" also includes a questionnaire to be filled
out by organizations not in this year's guide that wish
to be in next year's guide. The guidebook also high-
lights the fact that donations of used goods are often
tax deductible, though only an accountant or tax
preparation service can provide complete information
on each particular donation.
Waste Minimization and Household Hazardous
Waste Reduction
Education to Consumers: The program "Second
Chances" also has a section dedicated to "Other Things
You Can Do To Reduce Waste." This section includes,
tips for reducing waste by purchasing products that use
less packaging, reusing things such as margarine tubs
with resealable lids, and avoiding disposable products.
The City of Newark also publishes a document entitled
Put the Lid on Garbage in Newark which is a precy-
cling guide distributed to its citizens. The guide
educates consumers on how to be an environmentally
smart shopper. The guide explains how a shopper
should give preference to items that: 1) do not use
excessive packaging, 2) are not disposable, 3) are made
of recyclable material, 4) are reusable, and 5) are recy-
clable.
The city has also published The Newark Resident's
Guide to Household Hazardous Waste which outlines
the dangers of household hazardous materials as well
as teaches consumers ways to reduce their use of these
materials. The guide gives environmentally friendly
alternatives to commonly used household materials
such as cleansers, drain cleaners, batteries, paints, and
pesticides.
Education to Retailers: Another initiative to reduce
the amount of packaging used by the food industry was
announced on April 22, 1989. Mayor Sharpe James
announced a new packaging ordinance which bans the
use or sale of polystyrene and polyvinyl chloride for
use in retail food establishments unless a sustained
recycling rate of 60 percent could be demonstrated.
This effectively caused retail food establishments to
switch to reusable or biodegradable material. Through
this initiative, the City of Newark hoped to increase
retailers awareness of the environmental impact of
these materials so that, in the future, they would make
more environmentally responsible decisions.
In addition, the city, through its Chamber of Com-
merce, also distributed The Newark Guide to Source
Reduction and Buying Recycled in the Workplace to all
of its businesses to educate them further.
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
Resources Used
Staffing Resources
The Newark Office of Environmental Services has a
professional staff of five individuals. A portion of their
staff time is devoted to P2 work.
Expenditures and Funding
Water Conservation: The kits are commercially
available. However, Newark has modified the kits to
display the city's logo along with and some other envi-
ronmental information. The city charges its citizens the
cost of the unit which is approximately $1.50 per kit.
Energy Conservation: The city replaces lights with
more enviromentally preferable one as a function of
routine maintenance at no additional cost.
Reuse: "Second Chances" Booklet:
Preparation: Mailing lists, questionnaire develop-
ment, solicitation materials, artwork, and typesetting
for "Second Chances". TOTAL: $9,107.54
Printing: 3,200 copies of the 40-page book were
printed, with a four-color cover and a two-color inte-
rior; Equinox 100 percent recycled paper was used with
50 percent postconsumer content. TOTAL: $5,581.60
Funding for this initiative was provided out of the
city's operating budget.
Waste Minimization and Household Hazardous
Waste Reduction: Both the "Hazardous Waste Guide"
and the "Put the Lid on Garbage" booklets cost approx-
imately $.50 each for printing and $.30 for mailing.
The City mailed these guides to 90,000 households.
Written Materials and Technical Assistance
Sources Used
Newark used a variety of EPA documents, state
materials, and materials from other local governments.
Public or Private Sector Partners
Newark's business community as well as nonprofit
organizations, churches and residents have all been
instrumental in working together to make the "Second
Chances" program successful.
Outcome and
Accomplishments
Assessment of Effectiveness
In the area of energy conservation it is estimated that
the city saved $1.3 million on electricity. However,
quantification of source reduction is difficult. Newark
is striving to achieve a significant level of reduction
through source reduction initiatives.
Community and Department Gains
Newark realized a reduction in pollution, less land-
filling, excellent publicity, and more cost-effective
municipal solid waste management.
Pollution Prevention Materials Available
From Jurisdiction
Below are just a few of the documents that are
available.
Second Chances - The Planet Newark Guide to
Donating Unwanted Goods
Water Conservation Kit
Put the Lid on Garbage in Newark
The Newark Resident's Guide to Household
Hazardous Waste
The Newark Guide to Source Reduction and Buying
Recycled in the Workplace
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
Jed County, Minnesota
fcteJtf^. »„. . / r
Olmsted County,
Minnesota
Summary
Olmsted County has a strong
belief in an integrated solid
waste management system. Pol-
lution prevention is central to
the operation of this integrated
system. Simply put, without a
reduction in the amount and
toxicity of Olmsted County's
solid waste, its disposal facili-
ties would not meet federal and
state requirements.
Program
Description
Impetus for Pollution
Prevention Activity
Changes in federal and state
requirements for waste-to-
energy facilities and landfills
propelled Olmsted County to
find ways to reduce the amount
and toxicity of waste being dis-
posed. State and federal
regulations required the contin-
ued reduction in the air
emmissions of cadmium, lead,
and mercury waste. In particu-
lar, the county was concerned with both the toxicity
and the amount of solid waste generated by the busi-
ness sector.
Another factor contributing to the creation of a
pollution prevention program was Olmsted County's
commitment to an integrated approach to solid waste
management. The county has a system that includes
recycling, composting, household hazardous waste,
Demographics
Jurisdiction:
Olmsted County, Minnesota
Population:
110,000 ;
Type:
Urban and rural
Contact:
Jack Stansfield
Waste Reduction Coordinator
Olmsted County Public Works
Department
2122 Campus Drive SB
Rochester, MN 55904-4744
Phone: 507/285-8231 '
Fax: 507/287-2320
Overall Annual Budget of County
$98.3 Million
Lead Agency Conducting
Pollution Prevention Work:
DJnlsted County Public Works
Department
waste-to-energy, and landfilling.
To complete a total integrated
solid waste management sys-
tem, pollution prevention and
source reduction programs were
added in 1990 and are operated
under the Public Works Depart-
ment. The initial goal of the
pollution prevention program
was to work with Olmsted
County departments and private
businesses to analyze their
waste streams and determine
how to reduce the amount and
toxicity of the materials being
disposed.
Strategy
Pollution Prevention Activities
With Local Business
To determine the business
sector's interest and needs
related to general business
waste management and pollu-
tion prevention, Olmsted
County conducted a comprehen-
sive business survey. The
county used information gener-
ated by the survey on business'
awareness, attitudes, and behav-
ior to design its pollution
prevention program.
The waste abatement staff
provides pollution prevention
technical assistance (as well as assistance in other
environmental management areas). This assistance
includes on-site visits and waste audits that identify
ways businesses can reduce the amount and toxicity
of their waste. The abatement staff also answers
telephone inquiries. The program is currently devel-
oping a database to track on-site visits and waste
stream analysis and is attempting to find a correla-
tion between types of businesses, SIC codes, and
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium or Case Studies
-------
their waste streams. Special emphasis is being
placed on the identification of businesses that pro-
duce cadmium, lead, and mercury waste.
The program staff also delivers the Olmsted
County 1995 Industrial Solid Waste Management
Plan to businesses. When delivering the plan, staff
explains to business representatives how much and
what types of waste can be handled at the disposal
facilities in a proper and cost-effective manner. Staff
also takes this opportunity to show these businesses
how they can realize savings through the implemen-
tation of pollution prevention and still meet the
requirements of the plan.
The program's latest initiative is a newsletter that
is mailed to 3,200 businesses in the county. The
newsletter provides pollution prevention and waste
reduction tips, proper disposal methods of problem
materials, and Minnesota Waste-Wise Program
updates. The newsletter also promotes the Very
Small Quantity Generator (VSQG) Program. VSQGs
are businesses that produce less than 220 pounds
(about 22 gallons) of hazardous waste per month.
Olmstead County will expand its hazardous waste
collection system in 1996 to accept limited quantities
of hazardous waste materials produced by VSQG's.
Currently, the county accepts any quantity of mer-
cury, lead, and cadmium from large-sized businesses
free of charge to reduce the amount of these metals
in the waste stream.
Internal County Activities
The waste reduction coordinator also works with
the Olmsted County Risk Management Department
to conduct training sessions for county employees
and the Rochester Public Works and Parks Depart-
ments. These sessions explore new ways to use less
toxic materials in the work of the departments.
Resources Used
Staffing Resources
The Waste Abatement Program is run by three
full-time staff which include a waste reduction coor-
dinator, a recycling services coordinator and a
household hazardous waste coordinator. The equiva-
lent of one-and a-half staff members actually work
on pollution prevention activities. The waste reduc-
tion coordinator works full-time on these activities.
These duties have recently been included in the recy-
cling services Coordinator's work plan. Both staff
persons are from the Solid Waste Division of the
Public Works Department.
Expenditures and Funding Sources
The tipping fees from the Olmsted Waste-to-
Energy Facility ($82.65 plus tax) supports all of
Olmsted County's waste management programs and
facilities, including pollution prevention activities.
Olmsted County also received a $12,320 grant in
1994 from the Minnesota Office of Environmental
Assistance solely for pollution prevention program-
ming in the county. Part of that grant also assisted
three neighboring counties with technical business
assistance programs.
Written Materials and Technical
Assistance Sources Used
The following resources were very helpful in the
development of the county's pollution prevention
efforts:
Minnesota Pollution Control Pollution Prevention
Conference;
The National Pollution Prevention Roundtable;
EPA's Facility Pollution Prevention Guide; and
resources from other states.
Public or Private Sector Partners
Olmsted County is working with the Rochester
Chamber of Commerce to promote pollution preven-
tion and source reduction activities with its
members. The chamber is developing a special man-
ufacturing committee within the organization to
address the specific needs of these members.
Outcome and
Accomplishments
Assessment of Effectiveness
The solid waste management plan is more effec-
tive since the source reduction and pollution
prevention components have been added. The first
few years were devoted to working on mandatory
recycling and trying to learn more about source
reduction and pollution prevention.
The program has since focused and has gathered
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
the necessary tools and staff to do meaningful pollu-
tion prevention work. Although it will probably be a
year before results can be quantified, businesses sup-
port the county's efforts in working with them. Some
businesses used this collaboration as a marketing
tool.
Community and Department Gains
The program has had a positive public relations
effect on the businesses in Olmsted County. The
newsletter also provides an efficient way to get basic
information to the community and provides local
contacts for more in-depth information on the vari-
ous subjects.
Lessons Learned
Two major problems the program has had to over-"
come were a lack of a program focus and not having
a network of people with experience in this field.
Initially, primary pollution prevention needs and
opportunities among business and effective methods
of disseminating such information to local compa-
nies were unclear. The comprehensive survey went a
long way in solving this issue.
Pollution Prevention Materials Available
From Jurisdiction
Copies of Trash Talk July 1995 newsletter.
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
Phoenix, Arizona
Summary
The City of Phoenix is the sev-
enth largest U.S. city and covers
450 square miles. The business
community is comprised mostly
of small businesses with a few
large industries. The purpose of
the city's pollution prevention
program is to develop best man-
agement practices (BMPs) for
industrial and commercial facili-
ties that discharge one or more of
the pollutants for which the city is
regulated. The program also aims
to form a public education effort
directed at changing consumers'
and residents' chemical products
usage.
Program
Description
Demographics
Jurisdiction:
City of Phoenix, Arizona
Population:
1,060,000
Type:
Urban
'Contact:
•7enee Gavette, P2 Coordinator,
City of Phoenix Water Service
Department,
2303 W. Durango
Phoenix, AZ 85009,
Phone: 602/262-6997
Fax: 602/534-7151
Overall Annual Budget of City:
$1.4 billion
Lead Agency Conducting
Pollution Prevention Work:
Water Services Department
Impetus for Pollution
Prevention Activity
The program was started February 1993 and is
ongoing.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits (effective 12/92) required the city to
develop and implement through its Industrial Pretreat-
ment Program, a Pollution Prevention (P2) Program.
The program implements BMPs at selected industrial
and commercial facilities in order to reduce the volume
and concentration of pollutants discharged into the
Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs) and, ultimately
into the Salt River, the discharge point of the WWTPs.
This program is also charged with developing and
implementing a public education effort directed at
changing consumer and residen-
tial chemical product usage,
again, for the purpose of reducing
pollutant contributions to the
WWTPs. To facilitate the devel-
opment and implementation of
the P2 program, in February
1992, the city council authorized
an Intergovernmental Personnel
Act (IPA) assignment with the
EPA Region 9. This IPA assign-
ment, wholly funded by the city,
provides for an EPA official to be
assigned to the Pollution Control
Division of the Water Services
Department and is responsible for
developing and implementing the
P2 program.
Through a local limits study
and a chronic toxicity identifica-
tion evaluation, the city
determined that the pollutants of
greatest concern that require
reduction in the amounts dis-
charged to the WWTPs are
mercury, arsenic, lead and copper,
and the pesticides malathion and
diazinon. For the metals, the city
concluded that it must determine what type of busi-
nesses discharge these pollutants and the opportunities
for reduction (point source control). The P2 program,
identified by SIC Code, those businesses located in
Phoenix that were likely to use the pollutants so that
on-site inspections and wastestream sampling could be
conducted to determine: (1) whether or not they actu-
ally used the pollutants; (2) whether or not the
pollutants are actually discharged to the WWTPs and at
what levels, and (3) the feasibility and benefit of imple-
menting BMPs at businesses that discharge measurable
levels of pollutants of concern. For the pesticides, the
city determined that it must identify who in the com-
munity uses the pesticides, why they use them, and
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
Phoenix, Arizona
how they dispose of them, so that an educational cam-
paign informing consumers of the ramifications of
these pesticides uses and alternatives could be imple-
mented.
The program focuses on:
• purchasing,
• publicly owned treatment works (POTW),
• consumer education, and
• technical assistance to businesses (on an all inclu-
sive, multi-media scale).
Strategy
Point source Control-
Mercury:
During 1993, the P2 program developed an inven-
tory of 1,591 potential mercury dischargers; of these,
424 were inspected. For industry types that had several
facilities (i.e., dental offices, body shops, photo finish-
ers), a representative number were inspected, between
eight and 47 percent, depending upon the industry type.
Wastewater samples were collected from 43 dischargers
which met the following criteria:
(1) likely had mercury on site;
(2) discharged to the sanitary sewer; and
(3) had an adequate sampling point.
Analytical results of the grab samples, using a detec-
tion level of 0.0002 mg/1, indicated that dentists were
collectively the largest discharger of mercury. There-
fore, during 1994, four days of composite sampling
were conducted at six stand-alone dental facilities to
obtain an adequate representation of dentists' mercury
contribution to the WWTPs. The analytical results of
these composite samples, using a detection level of
0.0002 mg/1, indicate measurable levels of mercury are
discharged from dental facilities (report available). In
addition to dental facilities, analytical laboratories were
also identified as discharging measurable levels of mer-
cury.
During 1995, the P2 program will work with the
local chapter of the American Dental Association to
identify the best and most practical method of reducing
the levels of mercury discharged to the WWTPs. It
also will also form a workgroup to study solutions to
the problem of mercury discharges. In addition, the P2
program will work closely with other municipalities
throughout the nation that have similar problems so
that all the BMP alternatives are identified and evalu-
ated.
Arsenic:
During 1994, the P2 program developed an inven-
tory of 572 potential arsenic dischargers, of these, 224
facilities were inspected. Types of facilities included,
but were not limited to veterinary services, glass prod-
ucts, electropolishing and electroplating,
semiconductors, electronic component manufacturers,
medical clinics, and printed circuit boards. Wastewater
grab samples were collected from seven dischargers
which met the sampling criteria described above. Ana-
lytical results of the grab samples from the mercury
survey indicated that some analytical laboratories dis-
charge measurable levels of arsenic. However,
measurable levels of naturally occurring arsenic are
also found in the potable water supply. Therefore, fur-
ther research and analysis of laboratories and the
potable water supply will be conducted during early
1995 to determine whether developing and implement-
ing BMPs at laboratories will be feasible and
productive.
Lead and Copper:
During 1995, the P2 program developed an inven-
tory of 1,820 potential lead and copper dischargers, a
representative portion of which will be surveyed and
sampled during the latter part of 1995. Types of facili-
ties include, but are not limited to, painting, electrical
work, bottling, wood products, commercial printing,
sheet metal work, industrial and commercial machin-
ery, and automotive repair and services.
Education and Outreach:
Industrial Outreach/Education:
During 1993, the P2 program developed materials to
support a P2 education/outreach program directed at
industrial and commercial facilities located in Phoenix.
The materials include brochures, posters, P2 promo-
tional items (cups, post-it notes, and magnets) and
graphics which can be used in a variety of settings and
forums. The graphics feature real Phoenix companies
that have implemented P2 measures and the resulting
benefits. The P2 Program uses the "Making Phoenix
Shine" logo and the "Pollution Prevention Pays" theme.
The "Pollution Prevention Pays" game—an interac-
tive, "Jeopardy"-like question and answer game—was
also developed and built by P2 Program staff. The
game features several categories, including general P2,
radiator shops, paint formulating, metal finishing, com-
mercial printing, chemical manufacturing and
formulating, printed circuit board manufacturing, photo
processing, plastic manufacturing, fleet maintenance,
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
equipment maintenance, and laboratories, all of which
have related P2 questions designed to disseminate P2
knowledge. The game and materials are taken to envi-
ronmental conferences and industrial trade shows
where visitors to the city's P2 program booth can test
their P2 knowledge.
The P2 program also utilizes water conservation lit-
erature developed by the Water Services Department's
Water Conservation Program. In addition, the P2 pro-
gram provides speakers at various training events and
conferences.
Community Outreach/Education:
During 1994, the P2 program developed materials, a
"Be a Pollution Solution" game and P2 promotional
items directed at residents and consumers. The P2 Pro-
gram utilizes the "Making Phoenix Shine" logo and the
"Be a Pollution Solution" theme. Materials, games,
and promotional items that have been developed and
utilized are described below:
• The "Be a Pollution Solution" mascot— a happy
coyote that signifies life in the desert and encour-
ages the public to "Be a Pollution Solution";
• flyers describing household hazardous products,
their proper use, alternatives, and proper disposal in
the following categories: kitchen, bathroom, work-
shop, hobby and miscellaneous, garage, and
garden. The flyers feature the "Be a Pollution Solu-
tion" mascot and the city's household hazardous
waste hot-line phone number;
• large placards that display, by category, subsets of
the information described in flyers;
• a display of real household hazardous products and
their alternatives;
• the "Be a Pollution Solution" game, is similar to
the "Pollution Prevention Pays" game, except with
the following question and answer categories: gen-
eral pollution prevention, water conservation,
product substitution, environmental awareness,
household hazardous wastes, pesticides, pollution
prevention in the office, and children and students
targeting three age groups;
• P2 promotional items that feature the "Be a Pollu-
tion Solution" theme, the "Making Phoenix Shine"
logo, and the happy coyote mascot include:
squeeze bottles, yo yos, frisbees, buttons, pencils,
pencils, screwdrivers, bag clips, refrigerator mag-
nets, and balloons. These promotional prizes are
awarded to players of the "Be a Pollution Solution"
game. The materials and game are taken to various
community events where P2 information is distrib-
uted and visitors can have their P2 knowledge
tested. The P2 program also utilizes water conser-
vation literature developed by the Water Services
Department Water Conservation Program.
Pesticides Campaign:
Currently, research is being conducted to determine
where and how the pesticides Malathion and Diazinon
are being used in the community. Once this is deter-
mined, the P2 Program will develop and implement a
very focused publicity campaign educating the public
on the proper use of these pesticides, their dangers,
alternatives, and proper disposal practices (through
1995). The campaign will likely be multi-media—
print, TV, radio and one-on-one discussions with
members of the public.
Future Goals:
By the end of 1997, the P2 program plans to:
• develop and implement of a "Waste-Wise" type
program wherein the city challenges businesses to
establish waste reduction goals and voluntarily
implement pollution prevention practices to achieve
goals. (Recognition from the city and publicity
will be the reward.);
• adopt-a-school program or a similar program in
which P2 Program staff visit classrooms, develop
curriculums, etc.; and
• form of a technical assistance program to conduct
P2 audits at businesses and assist with implementa-
tion of P2 measures.
Resources Used
Staffing Resources
The program is staffed by one pollution prevention
program coordinator who focuses on P2 development
and implementation and three Senior Water Quality
Inspectors who conduct survey/inspections, outreach,
and issue permits. All four staff members dedicate 100
percent of their time to P2.
Expenditures and Funding Sources
Personnel: $200,000; Program efforts (graphic artist,
printing, exhibit systems, promotional items, P2
games): $8,000; Registration fees: $1,500
The P2 program is entirely funded by sewer use fees.
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
Written Materials and Technical Assistance
Sources Used
EPA documents including case studies and guidances,
state materials and materials from other local govern-
ments, including pamphlets, brochures, and fact sheets.
Public or Private Sector Partners
• Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ);
• Arizona Strategic Alliance (EPA Region 9, ADEQ,
Arizona Public Service (utility company);
• Arizona State University;
• Cities of Scottsdale, Peoria, Glendale, Tempe,
Mesa, and Town of Gilbert, Arizona;
• Maricopa County, Arizona;
• City of Phoenix, Office of Environmental
Programs; and
• City of Phoenix Public Works Department
Outcome and
Accomplishments
Assessment of Effectiveness
The city of Phoenix's outreach/education program
has been extremely successful. Information booths are
visited by hundreds of people some of whom have
requested games to be used at various forums. The
interactive approach has proved to be very positive.
Developing BMPs for dentists aimed at reducing mer-
cury discharge will be challenging and, if successful,
will result in a reduction of the levels of mercury dis-
charged to the sanitary sewer system. The P2 program
has also developed an automated library which includes
more than 500 publications on P2 related materials and
literature.
Community and Department Gains
The city and department have demonstrated environ-
mental leadership and have fostered good will between
the City of Phoenix and the community. The pretreat-
ment program has been traditionally regulatory;
however, the inclusion of the P2 program provides the
customer with technical and educational assistance
resulting in good customer service- a primary goal of
the city.
Lessons Learned
The more assistance/guidance you can get from
other communities or municipalities, the better. Net-
working is also very important. Get to know your
procurement people and procurement procedures—
you'll need them.
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
Wisconsin f
Rock County,
Wisconsin
Summary
Rock County Government and
the University of Wisconsin-
Extension have teamed up to
develop a proactive, collaborative,
and participatory pollution pre-
vention initiative aimed at the
business and industrial sector of
the community. These activities
have resulted in 62 tons of haz-
ardous waste reduction and a
reported savings of $398,292 by
10 firms.
Program
Description
Impetus for Pollution
Prevention Activity
The 1989 Wisconsin Act 325
created the Solid and Hazardous
Waste Education Center
(SHWEC) as an arm of the Uni-
versity of Wisconsin-Extension.
A key purpose was to bring
industry and business into a new
era of proactive and participatory
environmental management
through research, education, and
outreach.
The Pollution Prevention Act
of 1990 caused state and federal
regulators to gradually integrate
pollution prevention concepts into
their activities, resulting in some
voluntary compliance programs
which successfully encouraged
industry to prevent pollution and
Population:
1142,000
Demographics
Jurisdiction:
Rock County, Wisconsin
Type:
Urban
ijContact;
-|oseph Moskal/cbmmunity"
Development Agent,
Rock County Courthouse,
51 S. Main St.,
Janesville, WI 53545
Phone: 608/757-5695
Fax: 608/757-5725
David Liebl, Pollution Prevention
Specialist,
Solid and Hazardous Waste Education
Center, University of Wisconsin-
Extension,
610 Langdon St., Madisonrwf 53703
Phone: 608/265-2360 ~~~ ^
Fax: 608/262-6250
Overall Annual Budget of County:
$119,927,760
Lead Agency Conducting
PoHution PreventJQn Work:
University of Wisconsin-Extension,
SoIid and Hazardous Waste Education
Center
hazardous waste at the source.
In the fall of 1992, SHWEC
embarked on its pollution pre-
vention efforts in cooperation
with county government through
the University of Wisconsin-
Extension's Rock County office
by targeting large quantity gener-
ators of hazardous waste. Over
50 percent of the hazardous
waste companies operating in
Rock County's produce such
waste through a coating process.
Solvent cleaning, metal finishing
and fabricating, product formula-
tion and cleaning represent the
remaining processes that produce
hazardous waste. County offi-
cials were concerned about
several industrial hazardous
waste spills'economic and envi-
ronmental implications. Shared
leadership was provided by a
campus-based polution preven-
tion specialist and the local
community development agent
(agent) in a coordinated outreach
effort to build a local program.
The University-Extension and
county cooperative effort seeks
to increase industry awareness of
pollution prevention options and
to generate referrals for on-site
pollution prevention opportunity
assessments. These assessments
are used to develop waste reduc-
tion recommendations.
Strategy
SHWEC employs a methodi-
cal pollution prevention strategy
that places emphasis on building
trust and support with local busi-
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case; Studies
-------
nesses and industry through outreach and education.
Rock County believes this approach is essential to get-
ting the message out to the community and gaming
the support of business for adopting pollution preven-
tion techniques.
The first step in this process is the identification of
the industrial clientele. There were several sources of
information used to identify the existing industrial
base at the county level. Among those of the greatest
use were the local and regional manufacturing directo-
ries. Further sources used were the Wisconsin
Manufacturers and Commerce Directory of Manufac-
turers, the SHWEC-County Directories of Hazardous
Waste Generators, and the Department of Industry,
Labor, & Human Relations unemployment compensa-
tion listings. A SHWEC specialist assisted the agent
in compiling this information from these sources in
both written and computer formats for mailings and
other outreach activities.
The next step was prioritizing the outreach effort.
Targeting those companies that could best be served
by an outreach effort boosted agent effectiveness and
increased the likelihood of success. A SHWEC spe-
cialist helped the agent to determine which industries
were most likely to benefit from pollution prevention
by reviewing the county hazardous waste directory
and the information on company products contained in
the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce Direc-
tory. Fifty-seven companies with waste from
manufacturing processes and a proven potential for
pollution prevention (based on companies with similar
size and manufactured products in the U.S.) were
identified as prime candidates.
Establishing local support was central to the suc-
cess of the outreach effort. It was important to
identify those persons in the county who could pro-
vide the agent with the political and organizational
support to carry out the outreach effort. The agent
already had contact within the manufacturing commu-
nity and this led to the formation of an advisory group
made up of individuals from local businesses. Other
good contacts and supporters were the Local Emer-
gency Planning Committee and local solid waste
managers because they were already working with the
major businesses and hazardous waste generators in
the county.
Preliminary publicity served to introduce the pro-
ject in a positive atmosphere. The Rock County
project was kicked off with a press conference coin-
ciding with the Governor's Higher Education and
Business Partnership Week. The press conference
included county, industry, and University representa-
tives. It provided a focal point of interest in the
community and established a firm starting point and
timetable for outreach activities. Periodic news
releases describing progress and success stories also
kept interest focused on the project. The releases had
the two-fold advantage of showing progress to county
committee members, and informing companies of
activities prior to first contact with them.
A special brochure was developed for the Rock
County project describing the benefits of pollution
prevention and the services offered by the University.
This brochure, along with the SHWEC technical assis-
tance brochure, the SHWEC fact sheet on
understanding pollution prevention assessments, and
the SHWEC pollution prevention guide were the
essential outreach materials for face-to-face meetings.
Additional materials also included news articles about
waste related issues and letters to trade organizations
and local businesses that lent credibility to Extension's
involvement with hazardous waste reduction.
The agent next contacted companies directly, which
was essential to the successful industrial extension
outreach. Companies that had been identified as hav-
ing a high potential for waste reduction based on their
waste streams and manufacturing processes were
approached first by letter, then phone, followed by a
personal visit. The objective of this approach is to use
the letter to "get a foot in the door" by summarizing
the program. The followup phone call is a way to
explore potential interest at the firm and to arrange a
person-to- person meeting. The meeting was used to
present the outreach materials and explain both the
project and the benefits of pollution prevention in
detail, as well as to better understand the issues of
concern to the company.
The point of contact within the company was gener-
ally an influential person likely to be very concerned
with hazardous waste at the facility. The owner, CEO,
plant manager or environmental/safety coordinator
were typical potential contacts. The goal of the con-
tact was to increase the awareness about the benefits
of pollution prevention as a business strategy and to
encourage direct company contact with SHWEC for a
free non-regulatory pollution prevention assessment to
be conducted on-site.
A SHWEC specialist conducted on-site pollution
prevention opportunity assessments during the inten-
sive outreach effort in Rock County. The agent
requested that interested companies contact SHWEC
directly so the specialist could schedule the assess-
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
ments. The agent sometimes joined the specialist for
one or more of the first assessments. This gave the
agent an opportunity to better understand what hap-
pens during an initial assessment. The specialist then
tours the facility noting ways to create savings through
pollution prevention. After the tour, the specialist
meets with the company representative to clarify
things that were observed during the tour. Follow-up
reports are sent to each firm. Specific alternatives are
presented to help minimize or eliminate waste streams
and to cut material and disposal costs. The specialist
provides the agent with a copy of the pollution preven-
tion assessment report to keep the agent informed
about what services are being provided. Nineteen
assessments have been performed to date.
Follow-up evaluations of industry contacts were an
essential part of the county-based outreach effort. A
face-to-face survey, measured what progress a com-
pany had made since receiving the pollution
prevention assessment report. This helped to fine-tune
the outreach effort, maintain a relationship with the
firm, give the company the opportunity to request
additional assistance, help the company to recognize
its own achievements, and provide justification of
agent's activities to county officials. Successful efforts
were publicized and used to build the case for pollu-
tion prevention activities in other firms. This was a
good way to keep the program alive and in high profile
over the long haul.
Outreach To Other Companies: The Rock County
Pollution Prevention Project also sought to provide
access to information and training on pollution preven-
tion to other waste generators in the area. A
countywide mailing that originated from the Rock
County Extension Office provided copies of the Wis-
consin Department of Natural Resources (WI-DNR)
Small Quantity Generator Handbook and included
information on SHWEC services. In this way, non-
complying businesses that had been missed by state
regulatory programs were made aware of their respon-
sibilities under Wisconsin law and other small
businesses were provided with more complete regula-
tory information and access to SHWEC for additional
waste reduction services. Some of these businesses
proved to be excellent candidates for source reduc-
tion/recycling programs as well. The SHWEC
specialist assisted in identifying companies that had
not reported to WI-DNR but might be expected to gen-
erate hazardous waste.
Resources Used
Staffing Resources
Two staff conduct Rock County's pollution preven-
tion activities. The community development agent
spends 25 percent of his county time on pollution pre-
vention activities. The pollution prevention specialist
spends 100 percent of his time on pollution prevention
activities. The specialist has statewide responsibilities
and spends approximately three "specialist" days for
each on-site assessment conducted in Rock County.
Expenditures and Funding Sources
Cost estimates of the pollution prevention initiative
are calculated based on time spent. Each pollution pre-
vention opportunity assessment performed cost three
days of the specialist's time (19 x 3 = 57 days). An
additional ten days were spent on waste forums, strat-
egy sessions, workshops, etc. The agent spent
approximately 25 percent of his time on the project
(240 days x 25 percent = 60 days). Materials devel-
oped specifically for the project were
minimal—probably less than $400. The real cost is
time.
Community Development Agent
(25 percent) 60 days
Pollution Prevention Specialist
(28 percent in Rock County)
67 days
Written Materials and Technical Assistance
Sources Used
In developing the Rock County pollution prevention
program, numerous and diverse set of materials were
used. The Program staff relies on various university
fact sheets, materials from non-profit organizations,
such as the Marathon County Hazardous Waste Coop-
erative, and sources/contacts from equipment vendors.
Public or Private Sector Partners
Rock County's pollution prevention efforts represent
a collaboration between University of Wisconsin's
Solid Waste Education Center and the Rock County
Extension.
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
Outcome and
Accomplishments
Assessment of Effectiveness
In Rock County, 19 businesses participated in Exten-
sion pollution prevention opportunity assessments
which offered specific, practical suggestions for reduc-
ing or eliminating hazardous waste. The assessments
were conducted from October 1992 through February
1993. Follow-up with the participants has shown that
75 percent of the suggestions are being implemented.
This has resulted in:
Hazardous waste reduction
Total investment in
waste reduction
Savings attributed to
waste reduction
New profits from customers
gained from non-hazardous
manufacturing technology
A belief that pollution
prevention strategies have
improved the work environment
132,000 pounds
$1,826,130 (13 firms)
$398,292 (10 firms)
$80,000 (1 firm)
(12 out of 18 firms)
Overall in Rock County, 31 hazardous waste genera-
tors have sought out Extension educational assistance
to better manage their hazardous waste; plus an addi-
tional 62 firms are working with the University of
Wisconsin-Extension to reduce costs through source
reduction strategies or to implement recycling pro-
grams. There are a total of 93 companies working with
the project to improve their waste management.
County Industrial Waste Forum: In Rock County,
the close interaction between the county agent and the
local businesses also led to the establishment of a
forum for Rock County waste generators. Organized
and facilitated by the Rock County Extension, this
forum provides an opportunity for businesses that gen-
erate hazardous waste to meet on a regular basis to
discuss with their peers new technologies, waste reduc-
tion strategies, regulations, and successes or difficulties
in waste reduction. This long term county-based effort
has fostered mentoring among the companies and also
gives the university an opportunity to provide long term
service to industry. Some firms have had extensive
experience with pollution prevention concepts. Encour-
aging them to share their breakthrough solutions lent
credibility to the idea that pollution prevention is a
business strategy that makes good economic and envi-
ronmental sense.
Industrial Solid Waste Issues: The SHWEC pollu-
tion prevention specialist routinely addressed solid
waste and recycling issues when conducting pollution
prevention assessments. Many manufacturers felt that
solid waste issues are of equal importance to hazardous
waste issues. SHWEC pollution prevention assess-
ments and county industrial waste forums offered the
opportunity to conduct educational programming on a
variety of solid waste and recycling issues of impor-
tance to manufacturers. This area has emerged as a
major emphasis within the agent's plan of work and an
additional way to provide value to businesses through
industrial Extension outreach efforts. One example is
the development of a materials exchange system. This
cooperative effort between the city of Beloit's Chamber
of Commerce and the UW-Extension will feature a list-
ing of materials available and wanted to turn business
discards into feedstock for other businesses or organi-
zations, such as schools and nonprofits.
Working With the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources: Making the district DNR haz-
ardous waste staff aware of the existence of the county
pollution prevention project lead to improved interac-
tion between DNR, the University, and industry. DNR
staff identified problem areas that could be addressed
through University outreach and education. They were
also available to discuss specific waste issues with indi-
vidual firms and made presentations at county waste
forums.
Community and Department Gains
Establishing an educational and technical assistance
program that is run through the University of Wiscon-
sin and the Rock County Extension network has clearly
enhanced the effectiveness of the state's industrial
waste reduction technical assistance for industry. Rock
County's positive experience in providing waste reduc-
tion outreach to business and industry has attracted
significant positive attention to the University in the
forms of publicity, funding, and credibility. The out-
reach approach works well to bring the pollution
prevention message to the community. Leveraging pro-
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
gram resources in this manner is an efficient and
accepted way to help companies, especially smaller
firms, achieve greater reductions in waste generation
and overall improvements in their environmental man-
agement practices.
Lessons Learned
Barriers to pollution prevention practices exist, espe-
cially among smaller manufacturers. It is important to
recognize that a program focused on hazardous waste
reduction will not be relevant to some potential pro-
gram participants. A willingness to develop helping
relationships over time can gradually open doors that
may initially be closed. The university's non-regula-
tory approach is clearly helpful to many businesses that
mistrust regulatory agencies. However, sustaining and
continuing to build a pollution prevention outreach pro-
gram will require increased involvement by industry
leaders.
Pollution Prevention Materials Available
From Jurisdiction
The University of Wisconsin-Extension has the fol-
lowing materials available to the public:
• outreach brochures
• press releases
• press conference remarks
• business contact sheets
• progress report
• business approach letter
• forum agenda
• business evaluation letter
• evaluation questionaire
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
50
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
Rowan County,
Kentucky
Demographics
Jurisdiction:
Rowan County, Kentucky
Population:
iipjopo r
Type:
Rural
Summary
The Gateway District Health
Department (GDHD) of Kentucky
runs a program to prevent pollu-
tion of its adjacent watersheds by
targeting old and failing septic
systems. The focus of the project
is to: provide financial and tech-
nical support to low-income
families for the removal of old
septic tanks; educate the public
on the importance of safe water
sewage systems; and encourage
newer technologies where appro-
priate.
Editors note: While this pro-
ject falls somewhat outside the
realm of "source reduction", it is
an important pollution prevention
and public health effort because
its goal is to prevent sewage dis-
charges from septic tanks into
adjacent waterways. While the
true front-end pollution preven-
tion activities have been
highlighted, some of the activities in this program are
remediation and waste management strategies. In
those sections, you will find recommendations on how
the program can continue to move up the waste man-
agement hierarchy toward pollution prevention.
Program Description
Impetus for Pollution Prevention Activity
This one-year program began when the GDHD
began receiving reports of high bacterial counts in local
streams. The program was launched after widespread,
consistent complaints from residents seeking to prevent
local waterways from becoming further polluted.
^ __ _
Grace Eddision or Barry Tonning,
Gateway District Health Department,
EGvBox 555, Owingsville, KY, 40360!
TPhone: 606/674-6396
Fax: 606/674-3071 • : ••.":'•"'-
Overall Annual Budget of County:
$6.4 million
Lead Agency Conducting
Pollution Prevention Work:
Gateway District Health Department
The project, funded by the
GDHD, the Rowan County
Health Board, and the Rowan
County Fiscal Court, is a 14-
month effort to reduce septic
system pathogen loading into
Rowan County's Triplett Creek,
Christy Creek, and two subwater-
sheds of Dry Creek (Nichols
Branch and Riddle Fork).
The project was developed in
response to high bacteriological
survey results in the project area.
Subsequent analysis confirmed
that human sewage - measured
by fecal coliform/fecal strepto-
coccus ratios — was present
downstream from residential con-
centrations throughout the project
area.
Strategy
The goal of the program was
to prevent discharges from septic
systems through: public educa-
tion, septic system upgrade and
repair, long-term monitoring, and the development of a
joint approach to financing the equipment upgrade to
enable low-income families to participate in this impor-
tant pollution .prevention activity.
Public Education: The program has a number of
different educational components, including classroom
presentations to students in the Rowan County School
District, and educating program participants (those
receiving septic system upgrade and repair). The class-
room education focuses on the impact of bacterial
contamination on streams and watersheds and the
resulting public health impacts. Other issues covered
include point-source pollution, non point-source pollu-
tion, and how faulty sewage treatment plants contribute
to these sources of pollution.
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
Recommendation: While it is crucial to give the
public a primer on sources of pollution, and the envi-
ronmental and human health impacts of polluted
streams and rivers, one -way to move the program
closer to pollution prevention would be incorporating
education about reducing waste materials in general at
the source.
GDHD educates homeowners during the site visits
and through the installation or repair of septic system
equipment. Health department staff bring literature to
the sites to educate residents on the importance of safe
and legal septic systems and to provide essential train-
ing on the operation and maintenance of-septic systems
to ensure that they last longer. Residents are also
encouraged to install newer technologies when appro-
priate. The health department advocates these steps for
preventing pathogen loading into surrounding water-
sheds.
Repair and Upgrade: The GDHD project involves
surveying and addressing on-site septic system prob-
lems in three Rowan County watershed areas. Once an
old or failing septic system has been identified, project
staff make contact with residents to examine how the
problem will be solved and to make actual repairs or
replace septic system components with upgraded equip-
ment.
Financial Assistance Program: Recipients of
financial assistance are selected on the basis of Medic-
aid eligibility and are approved by a three-member
committee. Approved applicants who have substandard
septic systems are eligible for assistance in the form of
a no-cost replacement of the wastewater line from the
residence to the septic tank, the tank itself (concrete;
1000 gallons), the line from the tank to the distribution
box, and the distribution box. Installation of the
remainder of the system (lateral leaching field,
plant/rock filter, etc.) is the responsibility of the prop-
erty owner who must agree to complete the work
within 30 days. Health department environmental staff
design and inspect all installations. The county assigns
labor contracts to the lowest bidder.
Information Dissemination: Rowan County has
been successful in generating interest in its program
through television and print media coverage and by dis-
tributing more than one hundred applications for
assistance to stores and individuals in the project area.
It is important to continually emphasize that the goal
of the program is the prevention of river and ground-
water pollution. One means to achieving this goal is
participation in the septic tank maintenance program.
Resources Used
Staffing Resources
Two staff members, transferred from other projects,
conduct all activities (monitoring, education, etc.) and
generally oversee the program. Water quality monitor-
ing for the project is being handled by graduate
students from Morehead State University's Environ-
mental Science program.
Expenditures and Funding Sources
$75,000 - Clean Water Act Funds (Section 319)
$30,000 - Shared-cost funds from county government.
The money for the shared cost portion of the project is
provided by funds from the GDHD, the Rowan County
Board of Health, and the Rowan County Fiscal Court.
Each source donated $10,000 toward the prevention
effort, for a total of $30,000.
Outcome and
Accomplishments
Assessment of Effectiveness
This pollution prevention activity is still underway.
Sample results are to be reviewed during summer 1995.
Community and Department Gains
The community gains a tremendous amount through
this program. It benefits from having upgraded and
properly functioning septic systems, increased educa-
tion, and cleaner water.
The health department gains by getting positive
media coverage for its efforts and, therefore, is able to
maintain good public relations. The program also
builds linkages with the university community, county
government, and the health department and provides all
members of the community equal access to the pro-
gram through its shared-cost program for low-income
residents.
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
52
A Compendium or Ca;se Studies
-------
Lessons Learned
GDHD found it useful to use the media to create
interest and educate the public.
There is also a financial barrier to upgrading of fail-
ing systems. The health department found that by
setting up a joint approach to financing equipment
upgrades through low-interest loans and cost-sharing, it
eased the financial barriers faced by homeowners,
while simultaneously creating incentive for public
involvement.
Pollution Prevention Materials Available
From Jurisdiction
Brochures and pamphlets on septic systems; infor-
mation on alternatives to septic systems (such as
plant-rock filters, mound systems and leaching cham-
bers); and samples of press releases.
Additional Comments
There is a need to develop shared-cost and low-inter-
est loan programs to help low- and moderate- income
individuals and families upgrade and/or install new sep-
tic systems. Rural areas that have access to
publicly-owned sewage treatment plants (POTWs) must
pay high service fees which often total $30 to $45 per
month. These fees could be offset with such a joint
approach to financing and would enable individuals in
rural areas to participate in this very important pollu-
tion prevention activity.
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Coianties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
San Diego County,
California
Summary
Demographics
Jurisdiction:
County of San Diego, California
Population:
2.6 million people
Type:
Urban, suburban, rural
Contact:
Linda Giannelli Pratt
Pollution Prevention Program
P.O. Box 85261
San Diego, CA 92186-5261
Phone: 619/338-2215
Fax: 619/338-2139
The San Diego program is a
cornerstone for many cooperative
efforts between local environmen-
tal regulatory agencies, economic
development organizations, com-
munity groups, and trade
associations. The county designs
numerous workshops to provide
environmental compliance
updates and to present the envi-
ronmental and economic benefits
of pollution prevention. Written
information for businesses is
available at no charge. The Pol-
lution Prevention Program (P2
Program) is also utilized as a
clearinghouse for additional tech-
nical and management support
information available from state
and federal agencies. The pur-
pose of these efforts is to
facilitate the exchange of infor-
mation and to establish
partnerships between the local,
state, and national "communities"
in an effort to improve the quality of the environment
and ensure sustainable economic development.
Program Description
Impetus for Pollution Prevention Activity
San Diego County recognized the need to provide an
added level of service to businesses through an educa-
tional outreach program that focused on reducing the
volume of hazardous waste. In January 1987, San
Diego County received a grant from the State Depart-
ment of Health Services that helped it to address that
need. The program has been maintained due to a
Overall Annual Budget of County:
$1.75 billion
TLead Agency Conducting
Pollution Prevention Work:
Department of Environmental Health
focused effort and commitment
of staff and management.
Strategy
The goals of the P2 Program
are as follows:
Direct Assistance to Busi-
nesses in San Diego County:
Direct assistance to business is
provided through the Environ-
mental Alliance Program (EAP),
a community-based information-
exchange and positive
recognition program for busi-
nesses. It promotes
environmental protection by
achieving the EAP standards.
These standards are designed to
improve the efficiency of waste
reduction, energy and water
usage, recycling, and education
efforts.
The compliance staff from San
Diego County Hazardous Materi-
als Management Division
(HMMD) and other local envi-
ronmental service agencies
present written information to businesses which has
been made available by the P2 Program. Some of the
inspectors have provided recommendations for improv-
ing the efficiency of processes to reduce waste
generation and/or have made referrals to the P2 Pro-
gram. The HMMD "customer service" evaluations
indicate that there may be a link between the highly
rated inspections and those that provided P2 assistance.
Comprehensive workshops for businesses are con-
ducted by staff from the P2 Program, HMMD, Air
Pollution Control District, industrial waste control pro-
grams, fire departments, and other agencies and
organizations who can address the key environmental
concerns of business.
On-site consultations conducted by P2 Program staff
help identify organizational and process changes that
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
54
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
may result in the use of safer materials, improved pur-
chasing decisions, and modification of processes so that
less waste is created.
Direct Assistance to Colleges and Universities:
San Diego County provides direct assistance to colleges
and universities through the Focus Group for Pollution
Prevention in the Chemistry Laboratory. The goal of
that group is to strike a balance between chemical use,
laboratory safety, and financial costs to achieve the
maximum reduction of waste while not compromising
educational goals. The group meets on a quarterly basis
to evaluate and design new policies, procedures and
laboratory experiments.
Direct Assistance to Local Environmental Service
Agencies: The P2 Program coordinates and facilitates
issue-specific workgroup sessions for government
agency staff. The goal is to help clarify the roles and
responsibilities of each agency, thereby fostering
opportunities to coordinate programs and ultimately
provide consistent pollution prevention information to
businesses.
Indirect Assistance to Businesses in the San
Diego-Tijuana Border Region: The P2 Program will
work with San Diego companies and their associated
facilities in the Tijuana region to ensure the successful
implementation of pollution prevention. Specific pro-
gram components include:
• Pollution prevention assessments at 5-10 facilities
in both San Diego and the Tijuana region with a
three-month follow-up assessment to quantify any
process changes and results;
• A US-MEXICO roundtable discussion to be held in
the summer of 1995;
• A student intern program with engineering students
from the University of California at San Diego
(UCSD) to work with targeted businesses in Mex-
ico to provide in-depth pollution prevention
recommendations. If this is deemed a valuable
learning experience by all involved parties, UCSD
may be willing to continue to work with Mexican
businesses after the duration of the grant program;
• Ongoing coordination with Southwestern College
and the UCSD Extension Program to facilitate
incorporation of pollution prevention information
into course work at academic institutions in the
Tijuana region; and
• A second workshop/roundtable which may be coor-
dinated for selected agencies and organizations that
have a substantial role in environmental concerns at
the border. The goal of this meeting is to identify
common efforts and explore new opportunities for
leveraging resources.
Indirect Business Assistance Through Environ-
mental Technology Programs and Partnerships:
Many federal agencies have Independently developed
extensive databases of environmental technologies and
offer many business assistance services. These
resources and services have been under-utilized. An
alliance between federal and local agencies can accom-
plish two objectives: improve the effectiveness of the
information transfer to businesses, and define the para-
meters of federal environmental monitoring information
needed for local agencies to make credible policy deci-
sions. San Diego County is spearheading an effort to
link federal and local agencies to accomplish these
objectives.
Resources Used
Staffing Resources
One staff person leads the program, with many other
local agencies contributing staff time as needed.
Expenditures and Funding Sources
The P2 Program was very fortunate to have had an
opportunity to plant the seeds of innovation. This was
made possible through funding from state and federal
agencies. Since 1987, five grants have been awarded
to the P2 Program by the State of California and the
EPA through the competitive grant process. The total
financial benefit to the county has been $245,000.
The following is a list of program expenses:
1987-1988 "Promote Landfill Alternatives Now"
(PLAN) $50,000
1990-1992 "Technical and Educational Assistance
Model" (TEAM) $55,000
1993-1994 "Partnerships for Pollution
Prevention" $50,000
1993-1995 "Transborder Assistance for
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
Developing Environmental
Excellence" (TRADEX) $75,000
1994 "Connections for Pollution
Prevention" $15,000
The business permit fees for hazardous
materials/waste provide additional funding.
Written Materials and Technical Assistance
Sources Used
There has been a significant amount of participation
by businesses, industry and trade associations in the
community which have contributed to printing and
workshop expenditures.
The P2 Program coordinates with the following local
business assistance agencies and organizations to dis-
seminate accurate and up to date information on
pollution prevention: Center for Applied Competitive
Technology; Regional Technology Center; and Califor-
nia Environmental Technology Center.
Outcome and
Accomplishments
Assessment of Effectiveness
San Diego County continues to move toward achiev-
ing its goals. Up to this point it has been successful, but
there are many areas in which greater success can be
achieved.
Community and Department Gains
The county has provided an increased level of ser-
vice to businesses. With business retention being a
primary concern, San Diego County's efforts have gar-
nered a more positive relationship between the
regulators and the regulated community. As presented
in a 1995 report, "The Progress of Pollution Prevention
in San Diego County", which was developed by an out-
side firm, the volume of waste has been reduced while
the economic indicators have improved. This is the
result of a number of factors, including the success of
the county's pollution prevention efforts. It is clear that
the P2 Program has helped to improve the quality of
the community's environment.
Lessons Learned
The most important lesson is to determine who the
various stakeholders are and to get their involvement
early in the design of a P2 program. These stakehold-
ers may be small and large businesses, universities,
households, and/or government agencies. The P2 Pro-
gram learned that it worked most effectively when it
focused on a more encompassing "customer service"
approach.
Pollution Prevention Materials Available
From Jurisdiction
The most recent documents are as follows:
Matched for Success: Federal Environmental
Technology Resources and Local Government
Capabilities (1995)
Bridging Economic Competitiveness with
Environmental Quality: A Guidebook for Small
Businesses (1993)
Guide to Environmental Service Agencies (1992)
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Cfase Studies
-------
iranjciscp, California
M?.J,- gr.b -~*i -irgjr.-m-.-if •<.•'•«•>
San Francisco,
California
Summary
The City and County of San
Francisco employs an active and
aggressive pollution prevention
program focused on reducing the
amount of hazardous waste that is
generated as well as decreasing
the amount of pollutants that
enters the city's sewer system. As
a result of its efforts, the city has
realized decreases in its waste
totals, the amount of heavy metal
mass discharged, and has noticed
changes in consumer awareness
and behavior.
Program
Description
Impetus for Pollution
Prevention Activity
HWMP's pollution prevention
activities started in 1988 in
response to the passage of a state
law in 1986 (AB 2648, Tanner)
which authorized counties to
develop county hazardous waste
management plans for the reduc-
tion and management of
hazardous waste to the year 2000.
During the development of these
plans, counties were continually
urged to focus on waste reduction
to reduce the need for treatment
and disposal facilities. Since San
Francisco was a county that
essentially exported all of its
waste, it felt this pressure from
Demographics
Jurisdiction:
San Francisco, California
Population:
750,000 .:.';'-
Type:
Urban
Contact:
Alex Dong, Acting Hazardous Waste ,
Program Manager,
Office of the Chief Administrative
Officer
Hazardous Waste Management
Program (HWMP)
1 145 Market Street, Suite 401
San Francisco, CA 94103
Phone: 415/695-7339
Fax: 415/695-7377 .
Steve Medbery, Chief
Department of Public Works
Bureau of Environmental Regulation &
Management (BERM)
,3801 - 3rd Street, Suite 600 :
San Francisco, CA 94124 :
~~ --•-
Fax: 415/695-7377
Overall Annual Budget of
Jurisdiction:
$2.9 billion (1995-1996)
Lead Agency Conducting
Pollution Prevention Work:
The Office of the Chief Administrative
Officer's Hazardous Waste
Management Program (HWMP)
Department of Public Work's Bureau of
.Environmental Regulation &
'Management (BERM).
neighboring counties as well.
The initial goals of the HWMP
were to target specific small busi-
nesses that had a lot of waste
reduction potential in an effort to
minimize illegal disposal and to
help achieve the year 2000 goal
of 10 - 40 percent waste reduc-
tion. In San Francisco, unlike
other parts of the country, small
businesses or small quantity gen-
erators, generate most of the
hazardous waste — approxi-
mately 55 percent. To encourage
small businesses to pursue waste
reduction, the plan also sought to
make city departments models of
waste minimization for the pri-
vate sector. Finally, there was an
initial major goal of educating all
users of the city's Household
Hazardous Waste Collection
Facility on safer alternatives.
The creation of BERM's Water
Pollution Prevention Program
(WPPP) in 1990 was a result of
criteria outlined in the city's
"Best Management Practices
Implementation Plan" (October
1990) which was required by the
city's Oceanside National Pollu-
tant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit require-
ments. The purpose of the WPPP
was to decrease the identified
toxic pollutants that entered the
combined sewer system which
eventually was discharged into
the San Francisco Bay or the
Pacific Ocean. The WPPP was
charged with qualifying and
quantifying the city's pollutants
of concern, identifying sources of
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
the pollutants, developing and implementing source
reduction/pollution prevention strategies, and initiating
evaluation methodologies to determine the effectiveness
of the program.
Strategy
HWMP's pollution prevention activities are proac-
tive, comprehensive, and multi-media. The city's
program addresses hazardous wastes generated by city
agencies, the private sector, and households.
The goal related to city departments is to turn them
into models of pollution prevention for the private sec-
tor. All pollution prevention opportunities are identified
or encouraged via the following: 1) review of existing
generators and waste disposal patterns; 2) on-site
assessment done in-house or by outside contractors;
and 3) development of a city employee recognition pro-
gram. Both technical assistance and some financial
assistance are offered to the city agencies. Active tech-
nical assistance include on-site assessments, waste
classification (sampling and analysis, if required), and
waste exchange. Also, publications on safer alternatives
and a quantitative methodology — much simpler than
the Life Cycle Assessment process — have been devel-
oped to identify safer products. This methodology has
been peer reviewed and has been recently published in
one of ASTM's Standard Technical Publications.
Finally, financial assistance has been provided to city
agencies to purchase waste minimization equipment,
such as a waste paint thinner recycling still.
On the private sector side, the initial focus was small
businesses, but now attention is turning to the larger
businesses. For city agencies, technical assistance and
some financial assistance, in the form of five percent
matching grants, are available. Using a very proactive
approach, staff and their contractors identify, prioritize
(based on waste reduction potential), and approach
businesses to provide technical assistance in the form
of on-site technical assistance and workshops. Three
novel projects have been conducted in the last several
years. One project looked at the possibility of technol-
ogy transfer between large-to-small quantity generators.
A recently finished project looked at quantifying waste
minimization achieved by selected groups of businesses
and the various factors that motivated them, particularly
the impact the city had in this regard. A third project,
done several years ago, involved the development and
dissemination of a self-help checklist to help property
owners minimize environmental contamination from
leaking underground tanks.
To keep the business community informed about
potentially useful waste minimization technologies and
regulations, a newsletter is published and disseminated
twice a year. Each issue of the newsletter features a
business that is doing something in pollution preven-
tion.
Finally, the city has been running a pilot collection
program for conditionally exempt small quantity gener-
ators (CESQGs). This program also disseminates waste
minimization information to the CESQGs and compiles
information on their pollution prevention activities that
are eventually disseminated to similar businesses.
In the area of household hazardous waste, city resi-
dents have been inundated with public information
•campaigns and publications promoting proper manage-
ment, using safer products, .buying only what is needed,
and recycling. For those who want to get rid of their
household hazardous waste, the city has provided a per-
manent household hazardous waste collection facility
which has been another significant educational tool in
pollution prevention. The city is trying to measure
household hazardous waste reduction by surveying
users of the facility on how their buying habits have
changed.
WPPP's P2 activities target business, industry, and
residential sectors. WPPP develops educational materi-
als for the general public and technical assistance
materials for individuals, specific business, and indus-
try. WPPP also conducts steering committees,
workshops, presentations and other public participatory
projects.
Resources Used
Staffing Resources
The above mentioned lead agencies have staff
devoted to P2 work in the following manner:
First, in the HWMP, there are five staff devoted to
P2 work. The Hazardous Waste Program manager
works on P2 approximately 75 percent of the time,
including the area of household hazardous waste.
Two assistant program managers are fully budgeted
for P2 work to help city departments and the private
sectors. Additionally, there are two graduate student
interns who provide support to the assistant program
managers.
Finally, staff resources are frequently augmented by
outside contractors for specific projects.
WPPP has two full-time staff. Staff are dedicated to
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
public education, source identification, and source con-
trol strategies.
Expenditures and Funding Sources
Exclusive of salaries, the following have been bud-
geted/spent for P2 work for fiscal year 1994-1995
(fiscal year ends June 30th)
HWMP's Budget
In coordination with other San Francisco
Bay Area counties development of a
Green Business Recognition Program $6,376
Green Ribbon Panel Awards to recognize
exemplary environmentally conscientious
businesses $7,500
Further development of the Hazardous
Materials Resource Center, which will
be open to the public in the future $7,335
Informational booklets and brochures $50,000
Computer Data Base Service to obtain
information identifying safer products $2,000
Small Business Waste Reduction Grants $25,000
Public outreach campaigns $20,000
Support for waste classification and help city
departments implement waste reduction $20,000
Total
$138,211
Note: The above does not include a couple of projects
continued over from the previous fiscal year.
WPPP's Budget
Public education $178,000
Cooling towers $76,000
Small businesses, e.g.;screen printers,
jewelers, and automotive services $79,000
Total $330,000
HWMP is funded by the impound account — the
garbage monies. Very infrequently this is supple-
mented by small state grants.
WPPP is funded by the sewer service charge.
Written Materials and Technical Assistance
Sources Used
The City and County of San Francisco uses a variety
of documents including EPA's P2 facilities management
guides, state materials, material from other non-profit
organizations, and material from other local govern-
ments which is collected from all Bay Area and
California agencies for each other's use.
Public or Private Sector Partners
The Printing Industry of Northern California, San
Francisco Dental Society, California Dental Society,
American Dental Association and Hospital and metal
finishing associations have been partners.
Outcome and
Accomplishments
Assessment of Effectiveness
The city has done very well in meeting and pursuing
its goals, especially those related to the private sector
and household hazardous waste.
The city has used various techniques, manifest data,
and surveys over the last few years to assess progress in
waste minimization. The manifest data appears to show
that the city has done a better job in waste reduction for
the period 1989 to 1992 than perhaps seven of the eight
other counties in the San Francisco Bay Area, taking
into account changes in the number of generators and
employment data. Some Bay Area counties have had
totals similar or slightly higher for the period, whereas,
the city has shown an approximately 25 percent
decrease in its waste totals. This achievement is
matched by only one other San Francisco Bay Area
county. Since the inception of the P2 program, surveys
have been done as a matter of course to assess the
effectiveness of projects. Finally, a recent study's pre-
liminary results show that almost all the facilities
demonstrating waste reduction practice at least one
method of waste minimization and the most common
techniques are better management practices and house-
keeping. Fifty percent of the facilities received
information from HWMP and 21 percent have
expressed interest in participating in a city-sponsored
waste minimization assessment. The next phase of the
survey is to verify waste minimization claims by con-
ducting on-site waste assessments.
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
In the area of household hazardous waste, surveys
show that 75 percent of the users of the city's house-
hold hazardous waste collection facility have been
buying less toxic or safer products. To verify this, the
city has evaluated the volume of waste brought in by
participants. These have shown significant decreases
for the last several years. For example, each participant
brought in 9.4 gallons in 1988 (the year of inception
when there were 50 participants per week) versus 7.0
gallons in 1993 (when there were 225 participants per
week) and 40 percent of the users were new.
Over the past 15 years, the quality of the influent to
the city's water pollution control plant has improved.
Specifically, from 1975 through 1990, the total heavy
metal mass loading discharged into the SEWPCP
(influent) decreased 91 percent. Most of this reduction
can be attributed to the city's aggressive pretreatment
program. However, it appears that the WPPP has
played a significant role in reducing the silver levels in
the influent from photo finishers and printers when
they were added to the list of regulated silver discharg-
ers. A second method that WPPP uses to measure the
effectiveness of its program is bi-annual phone surveys
of city residents, which began in 1992. The second sur-
vey, in 1994, showed that, in general, residents were
using toxic products at a lower rate and that they
appear to be taking a greater personal responsibility in
reducing water pollution.
Community and Department Gains
The HWMP has, through its pollution prevention
efforts, helped city departments and businesses save
money and reduce exposures to toxics. In return, it has
received national recognition, such as the 1992 Award
for Best Local Government Reduction Program in the
Nation presented by the HAZMACON Conference.
WPPP's efforts are reducing the levels of toxic pol-
lutants discharged to sewer systems which helps the
city to meet NPDES limits. Efforts also assist busi-
nesses in complying with wastewater discharge
permits. Finally, efforts provide residents and small
businesses with information on proper disposal outlets
and product alternatives.
Lessons Learned
There are two basic approaches to a waste minimiza-
tion program; passive and active. Passive approaches
rely on such tools as newsletters. Active approaches
involve soliciting participation on a one-to-one basis
and providing on-site consultations. Many waste mini-
mization programs are passive. San Francisco's
program has elements of both, but is more active than
passive. The passive approach is less expensive, but
San Francisco has found the active approach more
effective. San Francisco believes that a model waste
minimization program must contain elements of both.
The city found that personalized solicitations such as
telephone calls were extremely effective in getting busi-
nesses to attend workshops and allow waste
assessments of their facilities. Doing workshops prior
to the waste assessments is another way ~ the most
effective way found to date — to engender cooperation
from businesses.
The city found that field testing educational and
technical pieces ~ review by members of the target
audience - was very effective in producing readable
and usable materials.
The grant program for small businesses has been
successful. The city found in implementing the grant
program that the paperwork that businesses needed to
fill out to apply and receive the grant was sometimes
daunting. In fact, one business decided against receiv-
ing the grant because of the paperwork. As a result, the
city streamlined the bureaucracy.
San Francisco has found that in the development and
implementation of a waste minimization program, it is
important to continually solicit the input and comments
of businesses. San Francisco has accomplished this
through focus meetings with key representatives of the
target businesses at the developmental stage and
through follow-up questionnaires and telephone sur-
veys.
The city discovered that a waste minimization pro-
gram is more favorably received when it operates in
conjunction with a program that addresses waste that
would still be generated. It seems businesses are more
receptive to waste minimization programs when they
know there will be a place where they can afford to dis-
pose of the waste they will continue to generate.
Another observation is that success or participation
might have been greater in some of the above programs
if they were done in such a way that the businesses did
not feel that their participation could lead to enforce-
ment in other areas.
The success of the waste minimization program for
city departments, depends a great deal on top manage-
ment's endorsement and the development of collegia!
relationships with counterparts in the city agencies.
Otherwise, turf invasion might become a concern. One
key to developing a collegial working relationship is to
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
-------
work on projects jointly and to recognize the contribu-
tions of the participating department through a jointly
authored report and a recognition program. A big hin-
drance is the bureaucratic nature of government, which
seems so often to have instilled the fear of liability in
government personnel, paralyzing them from attempt-
ing something new.
Overall, however, especially in cases where one has
control through the chain of command, it appears that
is easier to try out new products or processes in a gov-
ernment setting. This is perhaps due to the fact that
government is not profit oriented, making it a more
conducive environment for experimentation.
It appears that government and big businesses are
more likely to explore new technologies. Small busi-
nesses with limited funds, are more risk-adverse and, in
some cases, must be induced by grants to try "off-the-
shelf technologies. Also, social psychological research
studies done in the early 1980's may have relevance in
encouraging small businesses to implement waste
reduction activities. These studies showed that rational
economic models (REMS) often failed to change the
behavior of small groups or individuals, especially
when benefits are marginal or hard to detect in terms of
energy conservation. In these cases, it seems that REMs
that are presented using social psychological tools
make a significant difference in changing behavior. An
underlying theme is that whatever approach is used
should be user-friendly and showcase peers who are
already successfully using the techniques or technolo-
gies. The latter is of paramount importance in terms of
encouraging the use of new techniques or technologies.
Another obvious recommendation is program elements
should be affordable to the targeted businesses.
Pollution Prevention Materials Available
From Jurisdiction
HWMP's Publications and Materials
On the Safe Side Newsletter, biannually.
Automotive Radiator Repair Shops Fact Sheet, 1995
Lighting Manufacturing Facilities Fact Sheet, 1995
Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing Facilities Fact
Sheet, 1995
Reprographics Facilities Fact Sheet, 1995
Silversmithing and Electroplating Facilities Fact Sheet,
1995
Tallow Manufacturing Facilities Fact Sheet, 1995
Quick Checklist for Auto Body Repair Shops, 1994
Quick Checklist for Automotive Repair Shops, 1994
Quick Checklist for Painting Contractors, 1994
Quick Checklist for Printers, 1994
Small Business Hazardous Waste Reduction Technology
Transfer Opportunities and Public Assistance Needs
in San Francisco - Lessons from the Lithographic
Printing and Commercial Painting Industries,
August 1994
City Safe Fast Facts #1 - Industrial Solvents, 1994
City Safe Fast Facts #2 - Adhesives, 1994
Your Guide to Less Toxic Shopping, 1994
Waste Reduction Assistance for Small Quantity
Generators, 1993
Service Station Hazardous Waste Reduction and
Management Checklist, 1991
WPPP's Publications and Materials
Water Warriors, newsletter
When Something goes Down the Drain..., general
public brochure
Get to the Root of the Problem, homeowners brochure
Help Paint the Town Green, pollution prevention tips
for painting contractors
The Green Wrench Guide, pollution prevention tips for
auto repair & body shops
Rxofa Healthy Environment, pollution prevention tips
for hospitals and medical office buildings
Estuarywise, brochure for citizens
Public Education Plan, document
Clean Image., pollution prevention tips for photopro-
cessing and printing operations
Note: Both the HWMP and the WPPP produce a vari-
ety of bill inserts, bus transit signs, point-of-purchase
posters, and door hangers.
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
f
Santa Clara
County, California
Summary
Demographics
Santa Clara County is an
urban and industrial county that
is a center for high-tech indus-
tries. The major metropolitan
area is San Jose. The popula-
tion is diverse, mobile and
well-educated. The Santa Clara
County Pollution Prevention
(P2) Program was created to
promote effective countywide
pollution prevention. P2 pro-
gram activities are directed by
the Hazardous Materials Advi-
sory Committee, a countywide
coalition of government, indus-
try, and public interest
organizations. The P2 program
coordinates with a variety of
stakeholders in the community
to conduct cost effective, com-
plimentary technical assistance,
business recognition, and regu-
latory streamlining activities.
Jurisdiction:
Santa Clara County,
California
Population:
1,7 million
Type:
Urban
Contact; . . .,, „ ..,,,_ ^ ,
;Isao Kobashi,, program Manager
Environmental Management Agency
1735 N. First Street, Suite 275
San Jose, CA 95112
Phone: 408/441-1195
Fax: 408/ 441-0365
Overall Annual Budget of County:
$1.25 billion
Lead Agency Conducting
Pollution Prevention Work:
P2 Program
The P2 program activities
include technical assistance,
incentive programs, regulatory
streamlining, and policy coordi-
nation. The P2 Program has a
broad environmental focus,
examining hazardous materials
as they affect land, air, and
water resources.
Strategy
The pollution prevention
strategy has four major foci:
• Technical assistance to
business
• Regulatory structuring
• Incentive or recognition
programs
• Evaluation and regional
policy coordination
Program Description
Impetus for Pollution Prevention Activity
The current Hazardous Materials Advisory Com-
mittee, which directs the P2 Program, evolved out of a
countywide planning process to examine siting crite-
ria for treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.
Waste reduction and pollution prevention were identi-
fied as important parts of the plan created to avoid the
need for new hazardous waste facilities. The P2 pro-
gram is the technical staff of the Hazardous Materials
Advisory Committee which was created as a county-
wide forum for developing consensus on hazardous
materials issues and promoting pollution prevention.
P2 program activities have
worked to promote pollution
prevention in various sectors.
Activities have been primarily
directed at small and large
industry, schools, and govern-
ment. To ensure that it is providing effective and
complementary activities, the P2 program works
closely with a number of other organizations, includ-
ing: regulatory agencies, publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs), trade associations, local chambers
of commerce, environmental organizations and com-
munity colleges.
Resources Used
Staffing Resources
The staffing resources include four full-time
employees, including a program manager, an
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
4 £Jara '(2ounty;California
employee who directs regulatory streamlining activi-
ties and two employees who focus on technical and
incentive programs. The staff are employed on a
contractual basis except for the program manager
who is classified as a regular county employee. The
P2 program is able to accomplish numerous activi-
ties with limited staff by using interns, contracting
specialists, and leveraging resources.
Expenditures and Funding Sources
The annual budget for pollution prevention expen-
ditures is approximately $270,000 which comes from
the following sources:
County $90,000
15 cities combined contribution $90,000
Santa Clara Valley Water District $90,000
Total $270,000
In addition, the P2 program has received grant
funding from US EPA and California EPA for spe-
cific projects.
Written Materials and Technical
Assistance Sources Used
The written materials and technical assistance
sources most commonly used are as follows:
California EPA Department of Toxic Substances
Control Technology Clearinghouse publications;
Local government materials, like those developed by
the Bay Area Hazardous Waste Reduction Committee
(BAHRC); US EPA publications; Technical assis-
tance from Lawrence Livermore National Labs;
In-Kind Contributions of Consultants
Public or Private Sector Partners
The P2 Program targets activities through partner-
ships with other organizations including joint
ventures with diverse groups: Partners include:
County Office of Education;
Santa Clara County Bar Association;
Printing Industries of Northern California;
National Metal Finishers Association;
Community Colleges;
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition;
Chambers of Commerce;
Business Environmental Assistance Center;
Santa Clara Valley Manufacturing Group;
Joint Venture Silicon Valley;
Lawrence Livermore National Labs;
University of California Extension;
League of Women Voters;
Business Environmental Network; and
The Semiconductor Industry Association
The P2 program uses in-kind contributions from
the business community to maximize its activities.
During the past three years, the P2 program has suc-
cessfully obtained industry contributions of
equipment and services exceeding $100,000.
Outcomes and
Accomplishments
Assessment of Effectiveness
The P2 Program has successfully translated its
objectives into a number of projects including: sev-
enteen P2 workshops, two technical assistance
documents, and an awards program. Recently, the
P2 program initiated a project to provide on-site
waste minimization technical assistance for printed
circuit facilities through a partnership with Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, the San Jose/Santa
Clara POTW, and the Business Environmental Assis-
tance Center (BEAC). The P2 program conducted an
analysis of regulatory overlap and staffed a county-
wide effort to consolidate hazardous materials and
waste regulatory agencies.
Assessing the effectiveness of these activities has
been a serious challenge for the P2 program. Sur-
veys of attendees, unsolicited letters of support, and
high attendance rates all indicate that the technical
workshops and publications provide valuable infor-
mation and are highly regarded by the business and
regulatory communities. Due to the complex nature
of pollution prevention decisions, the P2 Program
has had little success in actually identifying pollu-
tion prevention measures directly related to its
activities. The P2 Program is currently creating a
consolidated environmental database that may assist
with tracking waste generation rates. Although the
P2 program conducts cost effective outreach through
its partnerships with other organizations, it has had
limited success obtaining publicity in the broadcast
media for its award winners. Increasing public
awareness of the program activities remains an
important goal.
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
»anta Clara County/ California
Community and Department Gains
The P2 program activities have created a positive
collaboration between business and government to
deal with hazardous materials issues. The P2 Pro-
gram has played a critical role in bringing resources
to the community including the following:
• locating funding and office space for the Busi-
ness Environmental Assistance Center;
• developing consensus and leading negotiations
for the creation of"a permit assistance center;
• creating a joint project with Lawrence Livermore
National Lab to provide technical assistance for
local companies; and
• obtaining grant funding for local P2 projects.
HMAC workshops and publications benefit the
business community by providing low-cost waste
management and minimization information that
would not otherwise be available.
Pollution Prevention Materials Available
From Jurisdiction
The Hazardous Waste Survival Guide-a small and
medium business resource for hazardous waste
management and reduction (100 pages)
Who Regulates What? A quick reference guide to
environmental regulatory agencies
Financial Resources Factsheet
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
_§t._pair County, Illinois
St. Clair County,
Illinois
Summary
Demographics
Jurisdiction:
St. Clair County, Illinois
Population:
262,852V ,:
Type:
Urban, suburban, and rural
The St. Clair County Health
Department's pollution preven-
tion program was carefully
planned to expand the environ-
mental protection, remediation,
recycling, and waste manage-
ment strategies included in the
county solid waste management
plan. By forming partnerships
with the business community
and reaching out to the commu-
nity through forums and other
educational projects, the county
was able to increase awareness
about how pollution prevention
methods can resolve environ-
mental problems.
Editors note: This case study
represents many important envi-
ronmental protection activities,
but not all of them are pollution
prevention (source reduction).
The activities that are true front-
end prevention efforts have been
highlighted. Other activities
which fall outside the realm of source reduction, such
as remediation, recycling and waste management
strategies, include recommendations on how they can
move further up the waste management hierarchy
towards pollution prevention.
Program Description
Impetus for Pollution Prevention Activity
In 1987, the health department initiated a solid
waste enforcement program as a means to halt the
creation of illegal dumps and as a deterrent to ran-
dom dumping. This initial approach was expanded to
Contact: ::.-:
Bonnie Robinson, Pollution Prevention
Manager, St. Claiir County Health
Department, 19 Public Square, Suite
150, Belleville, IL 62220,1624. ="
Phone; 618/233-7769
Fax: 618/233-7713
Overall Annual Budget of County:
$325 million
Lead Agency Conducting
Pollution Prevention Work:
St. Clair County Health Department
include a recycling program and
a pollution prevention education
effort.
The recycling program began
in November 1989,*in response
to the Illinois Solid Waste Plan-
ning and Recycling Act. That
act required counties with popu-
lations over 100,000 to develop
a solid waste management plan
and recycle 25 percent of
municipal waste by the end of
the fifth year of the program.
As the program evolved, it
became apparent that it was nec-
essary to find ways to reduce
the generation of solid waste.
Townships, cities, and busi-
nesses must come to terms with
the need to manage and reduce
solid waste in a way that bal-
ances economics with public
health protection. Pollution pre-
vention, a viable component of
solid waste management, is a
preferred approach to address-
ing a multitude of
environmental concerns. Rather than paying the
financial and environmental costs of waste manage-
ment, it encourages waste prevention. Establishing a
pollution prevention program helps meet the county's
solid waste management needs by minimizing the
level of waste generated and providing local busi-
nesses with a means to achieve compliance with
environmental regulations.
The St. Clair County pollution prevention goal is
to assist the public and businesses in identifying pol-
lution prevention opportunities and to encourage the
implementation of pollution prevention activities.
Strategy
The program's main pollution prevention activities
include: coordinating projects with the U.S. Environ-
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
mental Protection Agency (EPA), establishing advi-
sory groups, and promoting citizen awareness
through educational activities.
The major activities include an industrial/manufac-
turing waste minimization education program, a
program to find alternatives to leaf burning, a safe-
tire disposal program, and a household hazardous
waste collection program.
Partnerships with Businesses: In order to reach
state solid waste management goals, the St. Clair
County Health Department found that it is essential
to have the cooperation of every entity. The U.S.
EPA and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agen-
cies (IEPA) provided an environmental forum for
business and industry, "Realities, Recycling, and Pol-
lution Prevention." The purpose of that forum was
to get businesses involved in pollution prevention
programs. One result of the forum was the establish-
ment of the Industrial/Manufacturer's Environmental
Advisory Group, a group of businesses that agree to
establish waste minimization programs at their
respective companies. Those businesses are working
together to share ideas and expand programs.
In 1995, the advisory group assisted with a confer-
ence, "Recycling in 1995 is Good Business," that
focused on recycling and source reduction. More
than one hundred participants attended the conference
and fourteen businesses provided exhibits. Represen-
tatives from the Department of Energy and Natural
Resources, IEPA, and businesses, such as Monsanto
and Schnucks Stores, provided information about
recycling, industrial materials exchange and the steps
to take for waste minimization.
Recycling is an excellent first step to conserving
enery and reducing waste. However, pollution pre-
vention (source reduction), which is the efficient
utilization of raw materials, energy, water, and other
resources, the substitution of benign substances for
hazardous ones, and the removal of toxic substances
in all stages of the production process, is the pre-
ferred solution and the goal of this compendium for
achieving waste minimization.
The pollution prevention manager of the St. Clair
County Health Department has developed a training
program for solid waste educators. That program,
"Solid Waste Solutions," will prepare trainers in con-
ducting presentations to businesses about the EPA's
Waste Wise Program — a program which is designed
to motivate businesses to incorporate waste reduction
into their operations. Once the program is estab-
lished, this pollution prevention information will be
shared with industry and manufacturers throughout
the county. Monthly meetings of the commercial
advisory group and quarterly meetings of the indus-
trial/manufacturing advisory group will continue to
focus on information sharing and developing methods
of waste minimization.
Educational Activities on Alternatives to Leaf
Burning: Studies by the Environmental Health Cen-
ter of Illinois and American Thoracic Society, the
Medical Branch of the American Lung Association,
have found that the levels of pollutants, organic alde-
hyde, ketones, and particulate matter produced by
leaf burning result in an increase in acute respiratory
illness, particularly in pre-school children and older
adults. A leaf management coalition was formed
with representatives from the St. Clair County Health
Department, American Lung Association, Illinois Soil
and Water Conservation District, Illinois Nurses
Association, and area hospitals to identify alterna-
tives to leaf burning and to educate the public about
environmentally sound leaf management.
Currently, the city of O'Fallon, IL is using a
vacuum for the management of leaves and has pro-
vided demonstrations for other communities on leaf
composting. Also, the village of Freeburg, IL is con-
ducting a pilot study of the feasibility of using a
"billy goat" which is a smaller piece of equipment
that mulches the leaves as it collects them. Several
communities have expressed an interest in locating
farms that will accept leaves to apply at an agronomi-
cal rate.
The St. Clair County Health department invited
area firemen to participate in a forum, "Learn Not to
Burn Leaves." Fire departments from several cities in
the county have agreed to assist in educating students
about the environmental and human health problems
associated with leaf burning during Fire Prevention
Week, as well as throughout the year.
Safe Tire Disposal: St. Clair County has had a
tremendous problem with inappropriate, illegal tire
disposal. The six states in EPA's Region 5 — Indiana,
Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin
— produce more than 46 million scrap tires every
year. An EPA report indicates that stockpiled scrap
tires, estimated at two to three billion tires nationally,
pose potentially serious health and safety problems.
Whole tires serve as breeding grounds for disease-
carrying mosquitos and rodents; uncontrolled tire
PrevcMiting Pollution in our Cities and Counties;
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
piles are fire hazards which can burn out of control
for months.
In order to prevent the environmental and public
health problems generated by illegal tire dumping, St.
Clair County, together with EPA is working to reduce
illegal dumping and to encourage proper tire dis-
posal. Main activities include: providing the public
with accurate and accessible information about the
scrap tire problem; holding educational forums with
active community groups about proper tire manage-
ment; and coordinating county-wide tire clean-up
programs with the IEPA and host sites.
Recommendation: This activity is an excellent
example of a waste management activity that
addresses both environmental protection and public
'health. To be a true pollution prevention activity,
however, the health department would need to find
ways to prevent the problems of tire disposal from
happening in the first place. One way would be for
the health department to educate the public on the
purchase of longer-lasting tires and improved tire
maintenance to extend the life of automobile tires.
Those activities prevent or reduce the amount of tires
in need of disposal.
Hazardous Household Waste Collection: The St.
Clair County Health Department brings the public
and government together to resolve environmental
issues with projects such as the Household Hazardous
Waste Collection Program. This program educates
residents on the health risks posed by hazardous
household waste and sets up collection days and
drop-off sites. Participation has increased each year
due to strong support from advisory groups and com-
munity leaders and an increased emphasis on public
education.
The success of the program results from public
education, consisting of forums and workshops,
ongoing publicity campaigns, and linkages with gov-
ernment agencies such as the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency and the Illinois Department of
Energy and Natural Resources to obtain technical
assistance.
Recommendation: This program is a waste man-
agement program which consists of the collection of
hazardous wastes. It is not considered a pollution
prevention program until its focus shifts from man-
agement to prevention of pollution. In other words,
the health department can move towards pollution
prevention by incorporating into its educational cur-
riculum alternatives to household products which
produce hazardous wastes or other ways to reduce
the consumption of such products.
Resources Used
Staffing Resources
Pollution prevention projects are currently the
responsibility of the pollution prevention manager. It
is anticipated that the activities will soon require an
additional staff person. The manager handles pollu-
tion prevention activities by planning, developing,
and organizing initiatives that respond to specific
environmental issues. The county's environmental
health needs are assessed in cooperation with repre-
sentatives of municipalities, industry, manufacturers,
business, government, and citizens.
Expenditures and Funding Sources
Staffing - $34,310; Indirect Costs - $24,209
Staff are engaged in both pollution prevention activi-
ties and recycling efforts.
Funding is provided from a surcharge based on
waste being disposed of in landfills in St. Clair
County.
Public or Private Sector Partners
Lists of the advisory/support groups are available.
Outcomes and
Accomplishments
Assessment of Effectiveness
St. Clair County is very proud of its environmental
record. A representative sample of waste generated
indicates that through combined efforts the solid
waste generation rate has decreased from 4.3 pounds
per person per day (estimated in 1990) to 2.99
pounds in 1994. However, the county is continuing to
study waste generation rates. Participation in recy-
cling is at a record high and the community has
clearly expressed an interest in getting further
involved with more expanded pollution prevention
efforts. An advisory group is used to evaluate the
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
effectiveness of existing programs and a community
assessment is planned to identify additional environ-
mental issues that need to be addressed.
Community and Department Gains
The biggest success of the program has been that
individual citizens, businesses, and government offi-
cials have worked together to solve the community's
pollution problems.
Lessons Learned
Advisory groups made up of businesses, commu-
nity activists, and government officials greatly
expand the level of involvement in the community.
Successful projects spawn increased participation in
future pollution prevention activities.
Pollution Prevention Materials Available
From Jurisdiction
A resource library of materials from the USEPA,
IEPA, the Illinois Department of Energy and Natural
Resources, and the National Association of County
and City Health Officials are available. In addition,
examples of materials developed by the health depart-
ment are available.
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
hurjtpn County, Washington
Thurston County,
Washington
Summary
Thurston County runs a com-
prehensive waste management
program which addresses preven-
tion, recycling, and disposal of
household hazardous waste, and
conditionally exempt small quan-
tity generator waste. The goal of
the program is to educate the pub-
lic on the health and
environmental risks of such haz-
ardous wastes and to protect the
water resources and quality of life
in Thurston County.
Program
Description
Impetus for Pollution
Prevention Activity
Demographics
Jurisdiction:
Thurston County, Washington
Population:
185,900 :
Type:
Urban, suburban and rural
"Contact:." ';;:: ; :"'., - ;--";••"•:. .-'.•"
Sally Toteff, Senior Hazardous-Waste
Specialist, Thurston County
Environmental Health, 2000 Lakeridge
Drive, Olympia, WA 98501
Phone: 360/754-4663 /
Fax: 360/754-2954
Overall Annual Budget of County:
$162 million
Prior to 1991, no comprehen-
sive program existed in
Washington State for properly
preventing, reducing, or manag-
ing the production of small amounts of hazardous
waste. Federal and state hazardous waste disposal laws
applied only to large producers — for industries produc-
ing more than 100 kilograms of hazardous waste per
month. Businesses that produced hazardous waste
below the state threshold were slipping through the reg-
ulatory cracks. Households that dumped out old
pesticides, used motor oil, unwanted paints and sol-
vents, or miscellaneous cleaning or hobby products also
were exempted from state and federal hazardous waste
laws.
In 1985, the Thurston County Environmental Health
Division and Public Works Department began hosting
annual household hazardous waste collection events; in
Lead Agencies Conducting
Pollution Prevention Work:
Public Health and Social Services
Department and Department of Water
and Waste Management :
1987, a permanent collection
facility was opened and provided
weekly collection service. These
collection services were only get-
ting at the tip of the hazardous
waste iceberg. Staff estimated as
much as 1,919 tons of hazardous
waste was being produced annu-
ally by small businesses and
homeowners. All of this slipped
through the cracks of the state
and federal regulatory system. In
the same year, the state legisla-
ture passed a bill mandating local
governments to plan and imple-
ment local hazardous waste
programs.
In 1988, the Thurston County
Board of Health and Environ-
mental Health Division decided
that a more comprehensive local
action must be taken. The health
and welfare of the 161,000 peo-
ple living in Thurston County
depend on clean and pure envi-
ronmental resources unaffected
by hazardous waste contamina-
tion. The board and staff clearly
understood that hazardous wastes
exempted or excluded from state
regulations due to their small quantity or household ori-
gin had the potential to pose significant risk to public
health and the environment if not properly managed. In
the previous year, planning and implementation grants
were created through a new state tax on certain haz-
ardous materials. The health department applied for
state grants to prepare a local plan.
In 1989 and 1990, a broad-based committee created
a five-year hazardous waste plan. The plan was
adopted by the eight local jurisdictions in Thurston
County and by the Washington State Department of
Ecology. Implementation of the plan began in 1991.
Development of recommended programs began imme-
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium or Case Studies
-------
diately. By the end of the third year of implementation,
program development was nearly complete. As the pro-
gram has transitioned into more program maintenance
(as opposed to program development), budget demands
have decreased. An update to the five-year plan is
underway and will lay out a road map into the year
2001.
Strategy
The adopted plan includes a variety of programs
aimed at reducing the mismanagement of hazardous
waste from small sources. Waste reduction is identified
as the most important waste management goal through-
out the plan. A mix of education, technical assistance,
waste collection, and enforcement programs are recom-
mended for small businesses and homeowners.
Evaluation techniques are also identified in the plan to
help gauge success or failure of programs. In addition,
dedicated local funding sources are identified for the
program.
Common Sense Gardening: This program focuses
on reducing the use of pesticides by interested residen-
tial gardeners. Activities include dissemination of
integrated pest management (IPM) information via
common sense gardening guides, community-based
workshops, local festivals, and a youth program using
insect puppets.
A consumer point-of-purchase program is co-spon-
sored by local gardening stores. That program uses:
"shelf-talkers" to highlight least-toxic products; plant
signs that feature disease and drought-tolerant plants; a
brochure rack that displays common sense gardening
guides; and banners and posters advertising the pro-
gram.
Common Sense Flea Control: This is a pesticide
reduction program targeting pet owners. The Common
Sense Flea Control Guide is distributed through pet
stores and animal clinics.
School Program: This program offers messages
about prevention, recycling, and safe disposal of haz-
ardous household waste. Environmental educators
offer two classroom presentations, and illustrative
activities from the "It All Begins at Home" curriculum
guides. Separate curriculum guides were created for
grades K-6 and 7-12 and are distributed to schools
throughout the county. A specific program about envi-
ronmental car care targets students enrolled in driver's
education. The program includes a teacher's folder,
student folder, and a video starring "Cheers" TV char-
acter Cliff Claven. The student folder offers a
maintenance log, a list of recycling and disposal sites,
and recipes for least-toxic car cleaners.
Green Cleaning Consumer Education: This pro-
gram teams with local grocery stores to promote
awareness of least-toxic cleaning products. The pro-
gram also teams with local solid waste reduction and
ground water programs. An interactive display is set
up for two-week periods near the entrance of a partici-
pating store. Shoppers can sign up for weekend store
tours that will discuss least-toxic cleaning products.
Green Cleaning Kits and recipe cards for least-toxic
products are awarded after the tour.
Paint Waste Reduction Consumer Education:
"Give Excess Paint the Brush Off' teams with local
paint retailers. The messages of this program are: mea-
sure first so you'll know how much paint you'll need;
choose latex over oil-base; store leftovers safely; dis-
pose of unusable paint at "Hazo House." The program
uses shelf-talkers and a brochure that explains how to
reduce the creation of unwanted or excess paint.
General Community Education and Coordina-
tion: This activity involves workshops, special
presentations, and participation at local fairs and festi-
vals. It also includes integrating and coordinating
messages and programs among other environmental
education efforts underway in the county. This also
involves operation of a local information line about
household hazardous waste disposal and alternative
products.
While disposal of household hazardous waste is not
pollution prevention, finding and encouraging the use
of safer substitutes to prevent such hazardous waste is a
way to move one step further up the hierarchy toward
pollution prevention.
Operation: Waterworks - Business for a Clean
Future: This activity is inter-jurisdictional between
two cities and the county. The goal of the program is
to assist businesses in complying with stormwater and
hazardous waste requirements through education and
technical assistance. The program targets automotive,
construction, landscaping, and janitorial business cate-
gories. The program continues to offer workshops,
consultations, and handbooks.
Operation: Waterworks achieves its goal of compli-
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
70
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
ance education through surveys, brochures, business-
oriented handbooks, self-assessment/pollution
prevention worksheets, workshops, community recogni-
tion, and pollution prevention follow-up consultations.
Business Pollution Prevention Program: This is a
major activity that includes education, technical assis-
tance, and compliance assistance. Source reduction is
built into each step whenever possible. The program
evolved after a comprehensive survey of conditionally
exempt small quantity generators was completed during
the second year of implementation. The program
involves targeting business categories and offering vol-
untary technical assistance audits followed by mandatory
compliance visits.
There are a number of steps in the process of target-
ing a business category. These include: researching the
waste streams and alternative products or technologies;
communicating with existing business groups; coordinat-
ing with other regulatory agencies; compiling a mailing
list for the target audience; preparing fact sheets; sending
letters; following up letters with telephone calls; carrying
out waste audits; following up audits with letters; record-
ing data; conducting follow-up compliance visits; issuing
"notices of violation" where necessary; awarding "cer-
tificates of environmental achievement" when a business
is in compliance; and compiling final reports at the end
of a campaign. A different approach that will target a
geographic area composed of mixed business types will
be implemented in year five of the program.
This program is an excellent example of how to reach
out to businesses in the community, find the users of
toxic substances and generators of hazardous waste, and
create common goals of regulatory compliance and pub-
lic health risk reduction. However, it is important in any
regulatory compliance assistance endeavor to emphasize
source reduction strategies and to incorporate pollution
prevention goals into the design of all compliance plans.
Small Business Information, Education and Out-
reach: This activity is the umbrella for the general
activities that are carried out by the Business Pollution
Prevention Program. Activities include operation of an
information line, creation and updating of basic waste
management and pollution prevention materials, presen-
tations, participation in workshops and trade fairs, and
coordination with building departments and other local
agencies.
Resources Used
Staffing Resources
Staffing levels began, in 1989, with funding for two
staff positions. Funding has increased to accomodate
more than six positions in 1995.
Expenditures and Funding Sources
The budget for program implementation began in
1990 at $150,000. In 1991, the budget grew to
$574,000 and increased steadily until 1993 while one-
time only state grants were available to help offset the
costs of putting the plan in motion. The cost of the
program in 1995 was $550,000.
The local hazardous waste management program is
supported by solid waste tipping fees and state grants.
A long range funding study concluded that two addi-
tional revenue sources should be developed:
enforcement penalties and a user fee for business waste
collection programs.
Hazardous waste specialists, environmental educa-
tors, and hazardous waste collection facility operators
have been hired specifically to carry out the new tasks
mandated by the adopted local plan. Public informa-
tion specialists and clerical support staff are contracted
through another county department based on annual
needs.
Public or Private Sector Partners
The local hazardous waste program serves the seven
cities and unincorporated areas of Thurston County and
consequently represents a partnership of these eight
public entities. The program also partners with the pri-
vate sector when appropriate. In the four consumer
point-of-purchase education programs, local retailers
are partners in public education. In the used oil collec-
tion network, local businesses "host" and maintain the
site and the county provides the collection tank, oil col-
lection service, and recycling.
In the Business Pollution Prevention Program, local
business groups are often tapped for advisory commit-
tees, co-sponsorship of workshops, or endorsement of
programs. Product suppliers and vendors are also regu-
larly consulted.
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
Outcomes and
Accomplishments
Assessment of Effectiveness
The local hazardous waste plan includes evaluation
goals for a number of the recommended programs.
Eight of the 12 evaluation goals have been achieved. A
list of the evaluation goals is available.
The methods used for evaluation include residential
opinion surveys, business surveys, targeted audience
surveys, data collected during waste audits and compli-
ance visits, data collected on distribution of materials,
data collected on waste collection and participation
rates, and interviews.
Several significant accomplishments in pollution
prevention activities include:
• Household hazardous waste awareness and prac-
tices: In the first and third years of plan
implementation residential telephone surveys were
carried out. In the third year, about 80 percent of
respondents could correctly identify hazardous
products; 92 percent of respondents reported they
used at least one least-toxic alternative product; and
45 percent of respondents reported they properly
dispose of household toxics.
• Small quantity generator reduction, recycling, and
disposal: In the fourth year of plan implementation
51 percent of businesses that received waste audits
implemented at least one new waste reduction
activity. Forty-six percent of businesses that were
audited improved their recycling or disposal of haz-
ardous waste.
Community and Department Gains
The effect on the small business community and
homeowners has been significant. Since 1991, thou-
sands of people have directly benefitted from the
program. More and more requests come in every week
for information about hazardous waste disposal and
waste reduction techniques. The volume of household
hazardous waste being collected at the collection facil-
ity has nearly tripled since 1991. The number of small
businesses using a hazardous waste recycling or dis-
posal service has more than doubled. The percentage
of businesses who have come into compliance with the
local ordinance is very high. As more and more small
amounts of hazardous waste are properly managed,
there is decreasing risk for releases of hazardous waste
into water, land, or air. Furthermore, as homeowners
and business operators become attuned to the health
risks associated with exposures to hazardous wastes,
they are taking more precautions when handling these
substances. The health risks to garbage haulers, landfill
operators, and fire fighters are also reduced when even
small quantities of toxics are properly disposed.
The effect on the Environmental Health Division and
Water and Waste Management Department has also
been significant. Program staff have gained experience
and credibility and have been able to link their efforts
with other local environmental or resource protection
programs. Program staff are regularly consulted by oth-
ers in county departments as well as by other agency
staff regarding hazardous waste issues.
Lessons Learned
• Communicate to your audiences the cost of dis-
posal vs. the cost of prevention whenever possible -
and communicate who pays and who benefits.
• Build program evaluation into your initial program
design. Collect different kinds of evaluation data
throughout the phases of each program to ensure
you have the right kind of data needed to carry out
regular evaluations.
• When developing programs, seek advice and
review from a range of community, agency, and
private perspectives/audiences.
• When designing programs, link up and coordinate
messages that are going to the same target audi-
ence.
• Plan programs with the team of people who will be
involved in implementing the program, including
technical, public relations, management, and sup-
port staff.
• Don't assume your target audience knows or
remembers what a hazardous substance or waste is.
Use examples of substances or products.
• Set up a data collection and data management sys-
tem early in the program so you can do mailings,
track trends, create reports, and evaluate effective-
ness.
• Integrate technical assistance and compliance into
a single program.
• Communicate with other regulatory agencies about
their requirements, target audiences, field schedule,
permit fees, and interagency coordination to avoid
duplication or the appearance of duplication.
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
rston County, Washington
l 3t .% 1..... ^.. . StTa,.// ..>^-v.*>**fc.-^ J
-------
Washtenaw
County, Michigan
Summary
Demographics
Jurisdiction:
Washtenaw County, Michigan
Population:
283,000
Type:
Urban, rural and suburban
Washtenaw County's pollution
prevention programs include vol-
untary and regulatory
components. The county's volun-
tary pollution prevention
activities involve joint projects
directed at business and industry
involving a coalition of various
organizations, and individual pro-
grams such as a non-point source
pollution reduction initiative.
The Pollution Prevention Inspec-
tion Program (P2EP) is a
regulatory effort headed by the
Washtenaw Department of Envi-
ronment and Infrastructure
Services (DEIS). DEIS Public
Works Division P2EP staff inspect
business that use, store or manu-
facture hazardous materials in
quantities greater than 56 gallons
for compliance with the County
pollution prevention regulation.
During these inspections, busi-
nesses are also informed of
applicable state and federal envi-
ronmental regulatory
requirements.
Program
Description
Strategy
Pollution prevention activities in Washtenaw County
can be categorized into two primary areas of focus:
l)Voluntary and 2) Regulatory.
Voluntary
Pollution Prevention Coalition: County agencies
Contact:
; Rebecca A: Head,PhJX, DABT,
^Director, or Lemuel D. Amen. M.S.,
Senior Environmental Manager
Washtenaw County
Department of Environment &
Infrastructure Services
PO. Box 8645
Ann Arbor, MI 48107-8645
Phone: 313/994-6361
Fax: 313/994-2459
Overall Annual Budget of County:
$73,000,000 (approximate)
Lead Agency Conducting
Pollution Prevention Work:
Department of Environment &
Infrastructure Services (DEIS)
identified a need for a voluntary
approach to pollution prevention
(P2) and in 1994, initiated the
Washtenaw County P2 Coalition.
Community co-sponsors for a
county-wide P2 coalition were
identified and invited to facilitate
initiation of this process. The ini-
tial goals were to create a
self-sustaining network of orga-
nizations involved in P2 efforts,
to draft a county-wide vision for
P2, and to promote partnerships
aimed at expanding P2 options in
the public and private sectors.
Coalition meetings are well-
attended and well-received by
representatives of small and large
businesses, institutions, agencies,
and community groups with a
common interest in reducing pol-
lution. The co-sponsors guide
and support the coalition's activi-
ties, and have played an active
role in hosting and planning
coalition meetings, providing
outreach, and presenting P2
resources and success stories.
Four workgroups are meeting
and working to plan and imple-
ment joint projects agreed upon
by the members of each group.
The Department of Environment
and Infrastructure Services
(DEIS) serves as the lead agency
for the coalition. Other County
agencies participate in the coali-
tion, as well as their own P2 programs which are
described below.
Clean Air Act Amendments/ Accident Release Pre-
vention Program: Washtenaw County's Office of
Emergency Management (OEM) and DEIS are con-
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
(ashtenaW County/ Michigan
f .... -. lv.> <...'» '*.. .**l>',.,J__.^...','__.,^^.,,a^i;.^;a^itn!tsi^.Mmt«,.x,
ducting a joint effort to facilitate businesses' under-
standing and compliance with Section (112R) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended in 1990. OEM, as
the lead agency on this
project, provides assistance to local businesses. Partici-
pation in this project is voluntary, and regulatory
compliance with the Clean Air Act is under federal/state
authority.
The CAA Accident Release Prevention Program is
being applied to determine the level of Local Emergency
Planning Committee (LEPC) services needed to support
facilities that use, produce or store some type of haz-
ardous substance in developing risk management plans
(RMPs) that are required under the Clean Air Act. In this
project, targeted businesses (many of which are located
in low-income urban areas) include SARA/Title HI facil-
ities and smaller, more at-risk facilities that may not be
regulated under SARA/Title III but that may pose a risk.
This is being accomplished by conducting a legisla-
tive and regulatory review, assessing the risk and needs
of the relevant facilities in the county, and coordinating
the efforts of county pollution prevention programs. Pro-
ject deliverables include a facility database to manage
information on all facilities requiring a RMP, and a
process management seminar for targeted businesses. An
assessment tool is being developed to identify the 500
facilities in the county most in need of assistance.
Community Partners for Clean Streams Program:
The Washtenaw County Drain Commissioner's Office
has developed working partnerships with business,
industrial, and institutional property owners in the Ann
Arbor-Ypsilanti urban area to address non-point source
pollution and stormwater runoff issues.
Targeted groups (e.g. automotive care facilities, land-
scaping firms, and maintenance for large facilities) are
invited to attend workshops to learn about: basic water
quality issues, the affect of their business and site man-
agement practices on water quality, and ecologically
sound methods for controlling stormwater runoff specific
to each type of operation. Participants enter into partner-
ship agreements and prepare water quality action plans
outlining the steps that they have taken and will take to
protect water quality. Technical assistance is provided by
county staff. Each participating group that develops a
plan approved by the county will become a "Community
Partner for Clean Streams" and be presented with a win-
dow decal, acknowledging their active participation in
the program. Each organization will also receive public
acknowledgment of participation through media events.
Green Acts for Green Backs: Innovative Grant
Program: In 1994, Washtenaw County DEIS Public
Works Division offered small grants to local busi-
nesses, non-profits, governments, and individuals
throughout the county for projects that demonstrate
good ideas for solid waste management and pollution
prevention. The first annual "Green Backs for Green
Acts" grant program specified three categories under
which project proposals could be submitted: Cutting
Edge Technology, Market Development, and
Model/Educational. The funding is intended to pro-
mote innovative practices and technology relating to
solid waste reduction and recycling. In April 1995, six
organizations were awarded funding.
Regulatory
Pollution Prevention Inspection Program: In 1987,
Washtenaw County implemented a fee-funded
Community Right-to-Know (CRTK) Program to
address local concerns regarding hazardous chemicals
and to provide a funding source to help meet federal
requirements under SARA/Title III. Typically, inspec-
tions are conducted at all businesses that use, store or
manufacture hazardous materials in quantities greater
than 56 gallons. Associated fees to cover the cost of the
inspections are graduated and based on aggregate vol-
umes of hazardous materials. Those facilities reducing
on-site volumes are assessed reduced fees.
In 1992, the county amended its regulation, renam-
ing it the Washtenaw County Pollution Prevention
Regulation (PPR). The county DEIS Public Works
Division inspectors enforce the regulation via the Pollu-
tion Prevention Inspection Program (P2IP). The
primary goals of the P2IP are: 1) to encourage facili-
ties to plan the management of hazardous materials; 2)
to promote facility improvements; and 3) to reduce the
potential risk of exposure to hazardous substances for
the community, via various mechanisms such as pollu-
tion prevention.
The strategic approach for implementing the P2IP
requires each regulated party to submit an annual report
listing all regulated substances and volumes. The focal
point of the P2IP is the annual inspection. The inspec-
tion also allows county officials to educate regulated
facilities and to assist in identifying opportunities for
pollution prevention in chemical use, storage, and dis-
posal.
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
:y, Michigan
.riSptiu ifi aiMiimijjuat.Jrf.au iwn&lgami.i.., i I-..J..K.
Resources Used
Staffing Resources
Voluntary:
75% of 2 full time equivalent (FTE)
25% of 1 FTE: supervisory staff
Regulatory:
2 FTE: inspection staff
1 FTE: support staff
one half-time supervisory staff
Expenditures and Funding Sources
Voluntary: Annual budget approximately
$35,000 - $100,000 per year per program
Supported by grant funds & special funds,
some general (tax) funds
Regulatory: Annual budget approximately $100,000.
Fee-supported
Written Materials and Technical Assistance
Sources Used
County agencies use a variety of written materials
for the design and implementation of its programs.
These include: U.S. EPA reports (including Pollution
Prevention Case Studies Compendium and Facility Pol-
lution Prevention Guide); materials generated by the
Michigan Office of Waste Reduction and the Minnesota
Technical Assistance Program (MNTAP); information
from local governments, such as San Diego County;
and material from various universities and nonprofit
organizations, including the National Pollution Preven-
tion Center at the University of Michigan.
Public or Private Sector Partners
Partners involved in the P2 Coalition include repre-
sentatives from:
Academia: University of Michigan, Washtenaw Com-
munity College, Eastern Michigan University, and the
National Pollution Prevention Center for Higher Educa-
tion
Large Business: Ford Motor Co., 3M, and Browning-
Ferris Industries
Small Business: Milan Screw Products, Saline Valley
Fertilizer, and Resource Recycling Systems
Agriculture: Washtenaw County Farm Bureau and the
National Resources Conservation Service
Environmental Organizations: Ecology Center of
Ann Arbor and the Huron River Watershed Council
Economic Development Organizations: Ann Arbor
Area Chamber of Commerce, Dexter Chamber of Com-
merce, Washtenaw Development Council, Minority
Business Owners of Washtenaw County, and the
Washtenaw County Institute for Community and
Regional Development
Private Non-Profit Business: NSF International, and
the Environmental Research Institute of Michigan
Government: Washtenaw County Emergency Man-
agement, W. County Drain Commissioner's Office, W.
County Department of Environment and Infrastructure
Services, MSU Extension, and the Saline and Milan
Mayor's Offices
Outcome and
Accomplishments
Assessment of Effectiveness
Voluntary
As a result of the P2 Coalition, participants agree
that county-to-business communication and interactions
are improving. Businesses are learning about what P2
resources are available and how to utilize them. Evalua-
tions of coalition meetings have been very positive.
The agencies' individual programs have received recog-
nition and active participation from the targeted
organizations. Many of these programs are new, there-
fore results will be more evident in two to three years.
Regulatory
As a P2IP, facilities have improved the management
and use of hazardous materials every year. For exam-
ple, more facilities are in compliance with state and
federal regulations, secondary containment measures
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
naw County, Michigan
t^M^t^m/'^iM^m'M&Xi'f^^f^^^^^^if^^,^,^,
have improved, the amounts and toxicities of hazardous
materials have decreased, and the incidents of releases
from fixed site facilities have decreased. Since 1989 to
1994, the percentage of facility sites with^a confirmed
release of hazardous material has declined from 17 to 6
percent. That change can be attributed to a reduction
of on-site volumes of materials, the installation of the
appropriate secondary containment strategies at 85 per-
cent of all inspected facility storage sites, and a greater
awareness by facility operators, of proper hazardous
material management.
Community and Department Gains
Community awareness of how to incorporate pollu-
tion prevention techniques into issues of toxic materials
use, containment, and disposal has increased as a result
of the county's P2 programs.. As indicated, many of the
voluntary programs are new and gains are still to be
measured.
The P2IP, through its inspections, has helped busi-
ness owners understand requirements pertaining to
them under state and federal laws (e.g., Worker Right
to Know, Community Right to Know under SARA/
Title III). Because state and federal agencies do not
have the resources to complete on-site inspections, they
are not in a position to provide on-site enforcement.
Hence, those state and federal regulations are often not
implemented.
The county-initiated inspections require each busi-
ness to complete an inventory of all aggregate volumes
of hazardous chemicals stored, used, or produced on-
site. Reporting requires that a business indicate the
highest volumes at any one time during the calendar
year. Businesses are offered incentives (reduced fees) to
reduce the use of these chemicals, implement product
substitution, and handle the materials more appropri-
ately. Additionally, those that come into compliance
are eligible for reduced inspection frequency —
another mechanism to reduce how often fees are
incurred. Any business in the reduced inspection
mode, can submit a report form, or a "status sheet",
accompanied by a small administrative fee.
Lessons Learned
One barrier to the P2IP program has been the per-
ception by small businesses that the service duplicates
state and federal requirements and that the businesses
are unduly burdened by the fees. However, federal and
state agencies often do not have the resources to per-
form inspections. Therefore, the county program may
be the first contact these businesses have with an
inspector, making it their introduction to applicable
state and federal laws. The county's program serves to
facilitate the business community's compliance with
state and federal regulations
The most important lesson Washtenaw County has
learned is the importance of opening communication
with small businesses and encouraging them to become
part of the implementation process. The county has also
worked to include small businesses and small business
groups in the building of the voluntary-based P2 coali-
tion.
Pollution Prevention Materials Available
From Jurisdiction
Materials from all the voluntary programs are avail-
able and can be acquired by contacting the lead agency.
The DEIS staff can provide that information.
For the P2IP, "status sheets" have been developed.
The status sheet also functions as a worksheet for com-
pleting the SARA/Title III paperwork (Sections
312/313). Additional materials, including copies of the
regulation, are also available from the county.
Additional Comments
Washtenaw County has formed an internal P2 Task
Group to coordinate all P2 programs offered by the
county agencies. This assists in the county's efforts in
creating partnerships for different projects and in pre-
venting duplication of efforts.
Washtenaw County is also embarking on an internal
environmental management systems program that
includes an audit of county activities and assessment of
how and where to implement more environmentally-
friendly practices (e.g., transportation-fleet, lightening,
etc.).
Preventing Pollution in our Cities and Counties:
A Compendium of Case Studies
-------
-------
National Association of Counties
The National Association of Counties
440 First Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
202-393-6226
202-737-0480 Fax
NACCH
The National Association of County
and City Health Officials
440 First Street, NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20001
202-783-5550
202-783-1583 Fax
The National Pollution Prevention Roundtable
2000 P Street, NW
Suite 708
Washington, DC 20036
202-466-P2P2
202-466-7964 Fax
The United States Conference of Mayors/
The Municipal Waste Management Association
1620 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
202-293-7330
202-429-0422 Fax
-------
------- |