United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics
(7409)
EPA742-R96-006
Spring 1996
Pollution Prevention
Incentives for States (PPIS)
Grant Program
Assessment Study
cctccr
In »
MllllllHll.
AA Recycled/Recyclable
C7 Printed on paper that contains at least 20 percent postconsumer fiber.
-------
Table of Contents
CHAPTER I: Introduction
A. Background on PPIS Grant Program 6
B. Purpose and Scope of Report 7
C. Methodology and Data Sources 8
C.I Limitations 9
D. Outline of Report 9
CHAPTER II: Allocation of PPIS Grant Awards
A. Organizations Funded 11
B. Types of Programs Funded 12
C. Distribution of Grant Funding by EPA Region and State 14
CHAPTER III: Summary of PPIS Grant Activities
A. Targeted Groups 18
B. Range of Activities Conducted 18
B.I Education and Outreach 19
B.2 Data Collection and Research 20
B.3 Infrastructure 21
B.4 Technical Assistance and Technical Training 23
,5 Pilot Programs and Demonstration Projects 24
B.6 Awards and Recognition 25
B.7 Regulatory Integration 25
CHAPTER IV: Measurement and Evaluation
A. Monitoring and Evaluating EPA Media Program Grants 29
B. State Strategies to Measure Effectiveness 30
B.I Overall Evaluation 31
B.2 Evaluation of Specific Services 32
B.3 Measures of Activity Level 33
C. Improving Future Measurement Efforts 34
Table of Contents 1
-------
CHAPTER V: Case Studies
A. Summary of Findings 38
A.1 Building a Pollution Prevention Infrastructure 38
A.2 Implementing Innovative Approaches to Pollution Prevention 40
A.3 Establishing and Expanding Pollution Prevention Programs 40
A.4 Providing Resources for Technical Assistance and Training 41
A.5 Fostering Information Sharing and Communication 41
A.6 Conclusion 42
B. Case Studies 43
B.I Delaware 43
Overview 43
Activities Funded by PPIS Grants 45
Analysis of PPIS Impact 49
Program Future 50
B.2 New Hampshire 52
Overview 52
Activities Funded by PPIS Grants 54
Analysis of PPIS Impact 58
Program Future 59
3 New Jersey 61
Overview 61
Activities Funded by PPIS Grants 63
Analysis of PPIS Impact 66
Program Future 67
B.4 North Carolina 68
Overview 68
Activities Funded by PPIS Grants 70
Analysis of PPIS Impact 71
Program Future 72
B.5 South Dakota 73
Overview 73
Activities Funded by PPIS Grants 74
Analysis of PPIS Impact 77
Program Future 78
Table of Contents 2
-------
Appendix
A. Ranked Distribution of Total Funding by State 82
B. Funding Breakdown by State 84
C. Funding Breakdown by Grant 89
D. Groups Targeted by PPIS Grantees 96
E. List of Contacts 98
Table of Contents
-------
Chapter I
Introduction
As an initial step in EPA's long-term strategy to evaluate the
Pollution Prevention Incentives for States (PPIS)1 grant
program, this report documents the full range of activities
funded by the PPIS grant program during the first five years.
All of the information presented in this report is based solely
on interviews or materials prepared by the grantees themselves. This report
does not attempt to compare or rate state programs, nor is the study
designed to evaluate the effectiveness of specific activities funded by the
grant. This report represents an accounting of how grantees used EPA
funds to stimulate and enhance pollution prevention awareness and initia-
tives throughout the country.
In 1994, the General Accounting Office (GAO) studied 107 state pro-
grams that were funded, in part, by PPIS funds to assess how well these
programs are implementing the federal pollution prevention strategy.2
While it is not EPA's formal response to the GAO study, this report does
attempt to answer similar questions to those raised by GAO, such as:
Are states using PPIS funding to support activities that promote pollu-
tion prevention?
How are states combining regulatory and voluntary approaches towards
pollution prevention?
Do PPIS grants support the establishment of sustainable pollution pre-
vention programs at the state level?
The conclusions from this report and GAO's report may differ given
the different people interviewed. While the GAO report surveyed contacts
from state programs from a list provided by the National Pollution
Prevention Roundtable, this study draws on material obtained from the
grant recipients themselves. Furthermore, the GAO report failed to link
the different activities at the pollution prevention programs to specific
funding sources. For example, states may provide recycling assistance, but
Introduction 5
-------
this activity is not necessarily fund-
ed with PPIS funds. This report
only looks at the PPIS-funded por-
tion of state programs to answer
the above-mentioned questions.
The remainder of this chapter
presents background information
on the PPIS grant program,
describes the purpose and scope of
the study, recounts the methodolo-
gy and data sources used, identifies
study limitations, and overviews
the contents of the remainder of
the report.
A.
Background on
PPIS Grant
Program
EPA established the PPIS grant
program with the philosophy that
states should play a primary role in
encouraging industry, small and
medium-sized businesses, local gov-
ernments, and the public to shift
priorities from pollution control to
pollution prevention. Because
states have more direct contact
with generators and hence are more
aware of their needs and problems,
EPA believes that state-based envi-
ronmental programs can make a
unique contribution to the national
effort to promote source reduction.
At the outset of the program in
1989, EPA established several
goals, including:
Empowering states to build a pol-
lution prevention infrastructure;
Learning from and building
upon innovative means of imple-
menting pollution prevention at
both state and facility levels;
Providing resources for pollution
prevention technical assistance
and training;
Supporting states in establishing
and expanding pollution preven-
tion programs; and
Fostering federal and state informa-
tion-sharing and communication.
From these broad goals, EPA
developed specific criteria to evalu-
ate grant proposals received from
states. According to these criteria,
state grant proposals should:
Target areas for risk reduction
and integrate these areas in the
state's overall pollution preven-
tion goals and strategies;
Identify multimedia opportunities;
Leverage pollution prevention
activities of other pollution pre-
vention programs or organiza-
tions in the state;
Identify measures of success;
Identify a plan for dissemination
of results; and
Identify plans for funding the
pollution prevention program
over time.
The PPIS grant program has
evolved to meet changing needs
and priorities. The initial grants
awarded in 1989 funded state pro-
grams to implement source reduc-
tion and recycling programs. After
the passage of the 1990 Pollution
Prevention Act, EPA changed the
name of the program from the
Source Reduction and Recycling
Technical Assistance (SRRTA) pro-
gram to the Pollution Prevention
Incentives for States (PPIS) pro-
gram. The new name reflects EPA's
increased emphasis on pollution
prevention.
In 1992, EPA began encourag-
ing states to build upon and
expand their existing pollution pre-
vention programs. To receive addi-
tional funds under PPIS, states
would need to show EPA that they
were either:
Integrating pollution prevention
into state regulatory programs; or
Establishing a statewide pollution
prevention infrastructure involv-
ing all levels of state government,
including promoting interagency
pollution prevention initiatives
with state departments of agricul-
ture, transportation, energy, com-
merce, and development, and
defining the roles of county and
municipal governments.
As most states have now devel-
oped basic pollution prevention
programs, EPA has shifted respon-
sibility for implementing the grant
program from EPA Headquarters
to the EPA Regions. This shift
gives Regions flexibility to focus
resources on local priorities. Some
regional priorities include:
Nonindustrial sectors. To build
a strong pollution prevention
infrastructure, some Regions
encourage applicants to establish
partnerships with state agencies
in nonindustrial sectors such as
agriculture, energy, health, and
transportation.
Indoor air quality. Because
people spend as much as 90
percent of their time indoors,
some Regions encourage states
to demonstrate solutions to
indoor air quality problems in
both industrial and nonindus-
trial settings.
Environmental justice.
Preventing pollution in low-
income and minority neighbor-
hoods is a priority for several
EPA Regions. These Regions
Introduction
-------
give extra weight to grant
proposals that plan to integrate
pollution prevention and
environmental justice.
As the PPIS grant program
matures, EPA will place increasing
emphasis on evaluationdetermin-
ing which program components
might be most effective in achieving
pollution prevention, and establish-
ing measures of program effective-
ness. This report represents a first
step in measuring pollution preven-
tion progress by documenting grant-
funded pollution prevention activi-
ties underway in the states. Over the
next few years, EPA will continue to
measure and evaluate program effec-
tiveness. Specifically, EPA plans to
offer technical assistance to the
states in pollution prevention mea-
surement and narrow PPIS award
criteria to fund the development of
measurement methodologies in fis-
cal year (FY) 1996. As EPA awards
these grants, the Agency will devel-
op criteria to assess the success of
different measurement methodolo-
gies. EPA will then use these criteria
to evaluate the impact of the PPIS
grant program in preventing pollu-
tion nationwide.
Measuring program effectiveness
and pollution prevention progress
has been a persistent problem for
state pollution prevention programs.
Finite resources, the inherent diffi-
culty in developing measurement
methodologies, and limited data
have constrained the ability of the
states to measure progress. For a
more in-depth look at the ways EPA
traditionally evaluates program effec-
tiveness and the difficulties in mea-
suring pollution prevention, please
see Chapter IV on Measurement.
B. Purpose and
Scope of Report
This report marks the first time
that EPA has taken a comprehen-
sive look at state pollution preven-
tion activities funded by the PPIS
grant program. Given that the
states themselves have only just
begun to measure their progress,
the purpose of this report is to
identify what is happening in the
states right now. The next three
chapters of this report seek to
answer the following questions:
How much money has EPA
invested in state pollution pre-
vention programs and how has
this funding changed over time?
What types of organizations have
received funding and where are
they located?
Are the funded programs regula-
tory or voluntary in nature?
Redefining the State/EPA Grant
As part of the Agency's commitment to contin-
ually improving government, EPA has estab-
lished the Performance Partnership Grant
(PPG) program. This program will enable
states and tribes to combine funds from two or
more categorical grants (including PPIS) into
a multi-program grant or PPG. Benefits of
PPGs include:
Increased flexibility. States and tribes will
have the flexibility to address their highest
environmental priorities across all media
and to establish resource allocations based
on those priorities, while continuing to
address core program commitments.
Improved environmental performance.
States and tribes can more effectively link
program activities with environmental goals
Relationship
and program outcomes as well as develop
innovative pollution prevention, ecosystem,
and community-based strategies.
Administrative savings. Recipients and
EPA can reduce administrative burdens
and costs by greatly reducing the numbers
of grant applications, budgets, workplans,
and reports.
Strengthened partnerships. EPA will
develop partnerships with states and tribes
where both parties have the same environ-
mental and program goals and deploy their
unique resources and abilities to accom-
plish these goals.
EPA will begin piloting the PPG program in
FY96.
Introduction
-------
What return did EPA receive on
its investment (measured by
what activities the grantees
implemented)?
How many people were the
grantees able to reach?
How are grantees currently eval-
uating their programs?
Are any grantees measuring actu-
al reductions in pollution?
The final chaptercase studies
of five state pollution prevention
programsexamines the role of
PPIS funding in each of these
states and places PPIS funding in
the greater context of state pollu-
tion prevention activities. The
chapter also evaluates whether or
not EPA achieved, in each of these
states, the objectives established at
the outset of the grant program.
This study does not attempt to
compare state programs or rank
states in any manner. Descriptions
of different programs are provided
to illustrate alternative models of
implementing pollution prevention
programs. This report is not intend-
ed to rate state programs, neither
does it evaluate the effectiveness of
specific activities (such as a newslet-
ter, manual, or training session)
conducted under the grant. Rather,
EPA seeks to narrate grant activities
as reported by the grantees.
The report covers SRRTA and
PPIS grants awarded from 1989
through 1993. Other EPA pollu-
tion prevention sector grants were
excluded, such as the National
Industrial Competitiveness through
Efficiency: Energy, Environment,
and Economics (NICE3);
Agriculture in Concert with the
Environment (ACE); Risk
Reduction through Pollution
Prevention (R2P2); Municipal
Water Pollution Prevention
(MWPP); and grants awarded
through EPAs media programs. In
addition, because grants awarded in
FY94 were in the early stages of
implementation during the data-
collection phase of this study, they
were not included.
c.
Methodology and
Data Sources
EPA employed the following
methodology to collect information
on PPIS-supported activities. For
Chapters II through TV, which exam-
ine PPIS-funded activities nation-
wide, EPA conducted comprehensive
interviews with each grant recipient.
These interviews enabled EPA to cat-
alogue the activities supported by the
grant, accomplishments, and barriers
to implementation. Where possible,
EPA collected quantitative measures
of activity level for each area of fund-
ing. For example, EPA collected data
on the number of audits conducted,
case studies developed, training ses-
sions held, and other parameters.
EPA also asked questions designed to
elicit information on the impact of
these activities. For example, if states
conduct waste audits for industrial
facilities, EPA asked if they track
whether or not the facilities actually
implement state-recommended pol-
lution prevention measures.
Furthermore, for those states that do
track whether or not the facilities
implement recommendations, EPA
also asked the states to describe the
fiscal and environmental impact of
implementing the recommendations,
as reported by the facilities. To deter-
mine why states might not conduct
such follow-through activities, EPA
asked states to describe the barriers to
facility followup. In addition to the
quantitative measures described
above, EPA asked grant recipients to
describe examples of successes they
had in implementing their grants.
The interviews also tracked the
industries or sectors (e.g., electroplat-
ing, agriculture, small businesses)
that different grant activities targeted.
Before conducting the inter-
views, EPA reviewed all available
in-house information contained in
EPAs Pollution Prevention
Information Tracking System
(PPITS). This system contains data
from the grant application and
semiannual progress reports,
including award amount, activities
funded, and accomplishments.
EPA also reviewed, where available,
final reports and other documenta-
tion that grant recipients supplied.
Five Regions participated in the
development of the case studies.
The pollution prevention coordina-
tor from each of these Regions
selected a representative state from
their region. For each case-study
state, EPA reviewed in-house infor-
mation and conducted comprehen-
sive interviews to assess the impact
of PPIS grant funding. In these
interviews, EPA used a standard list
of questions to assess:
The organizational structure of
each program;
The current budget and sources
of funding;
Pollution prevention legislation
and strategies in place;
Introduction 8
-------
The activities accomplished with
PPIS funding;
The impact of PPIS funding on
developing a self-sustaining
program, integrating pollution pre-
vention into the regulatory pro-
gram, and evaluating success; and
The future direction of the
program.
C.1 Limitations
The reader should keep in
mind some limitations when con-
sidering the findings presented in
this report. One limitation relates
to the type of data that EPA col-
lected. Not all states track the same
information. Some states have
much more detailed information,
on both the number of activities
supported and the impacts of these
activities on preventing pollution.
For example, one state might col-
lect detailed data on the number of
workshops sponsored, record the
exact number of attendees, and fol-
low-through to determine whether
or not the attendees actually imple-
mented any pollution prevention
actions as a result of the workshop.
Other grant recipients, however,
may track only the number of
workshops and a range of atten-
dees. Implications of this situation
are twofold. First, the report might
underestimate the number of activ-
ities supported by PPIS funds.
Second, the report presents a quan-
titative measure as a range of activi-
ty because EPA does not have exact
numbers. Additional data limita-
tions include the following:
Four states representing six
grants could not be interviewed
for the study due to scheduling
difficulties;
Some progress reports and final
reports could not be obtained;
and
Some of the grants were still in
progress at the time the study
was concluded, and thus all tasks
were not completed.
D. Outline of Report
The remainder of this report
presents EPA's assessment of the
PPIS grant program, and it is
organized as follows:
Chapter II provides an overview
of the distribution of PPIS funds
from 1989 to 1993. To frame
the context of PPIS funding, the
chapter also briefly examines
other state pollution prevention
funding sources, such as state
general funds and hazardous
waste fees. The distribution of
grant funding across EPA
Regions, states, and organization
type is also described.
Chapter III identifies the types
of businesses and industry sec-
tors that the state programs tar-
get, and summarizes the activi-
ties that the PPIS program sup-
ports (e.g., workshops, demon-
stration projects, clearinghouses)
and the types of programs sup-
ported (e.g., voluntary, regulatory).
Chapter IV examines how
grantees measure the effective-
ness of their programs, including
the actions they take to follow
up on their program activities
(e.g., audits, training) to see if
facilities actually implement pol-
lution prevention measures. The
chapter also describes the barri-
ers and problems that grant
recipients face in conducting fol-
lowup activities.
Chapter V illustrates how the
PPIS grants supported pollution
prevention activities in five states.
These in-depth case studies exam-
ine how the PPIS grants were
integrated into the states' pollu-
tion prevention programs and
highlight the effectiveness of the
grants in building infrastructure
and self-sustaining programs.
1 EPA initially called the grant program the Source Reduction and
Recycling Technical Assistance (SRRTA) program. Throughout
this report, PPIS refers to both PPIS and SRRTA grants.
2 General Accounting Office. 1994. Pollution prevention: EPA should
reexamine the objectives and sustainability of state programs.
GAO/PEMD-94-8. January.
Introduction
-------
Chapter II
Allocation of
PPIS Grant
Awards
Since the inception of the grant program in 1989, EPA has
awarded approximately $24 million through 1993. Grant recipi-
ents and other partners (e.g., local governments, industry) have
supplied over $16 million in matching funds for a total funding
amount of approximately $40 million.
This chapter overviews the distribution of PPIS funds from 1989 to
1993 and is divided into the following sections:
Organizations funded;
Types of programs funded; and
Distribution of grant funding by EPA Region and state.
A. Organizations
Funded
Applicants eligible for PPIS
funding include:
The 50 states;
The District of Columbia;
The U.S. Virgin Islands;
The Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico;
Any territory or possession of
the United States;
Any agency or instrumentality of
the states, including state univer-
sities; and
Federally recognized Indian tribes.
Although local governments,
private universities, private non-
profits, private businesses, and
individuals are ineligible for PPIS
funding themselves, EPA strongly
encourages them to team up with
eligible applicants in developing
proposals.
Over the 5-year grant period,
PPIS funds were distributed to four
categories of recipients:
State environmental/health
agencies, such as state depart-
ments of environmental quality
Allocation of PPIS Grant Awards "11
-------
and protection and state health
departments;
Other state agencies, such as
state departments of education;
Universities that manage
research-oriented grants, work
through extension programs, or
operate their own technical assis-
tance programs;
Indian tribes, which include the
Navajo EPA, the All Indian
Pueblo Council, and many indi-
vidual tribes; and
Other nonstate groups or orga-
nizations, such as the New
England Waste Management
Officials Association (NEW-
MOA), the District of
Columbia, and the American
territories.
State environmental and health
agencies received the most funding
by far (see Exhibit II-1); their 5-
year total reaches close to $18 mil-
lion, or 71 percent of all PPIS
funds. Universities received the sec-
ond greatest portion of grant
monies (approximately $3 million,
or 13 percent of total funds).
Other state agencies received 7
percent of total funding, and
Indian tribes and other nonstate
organizations (such as regional
organizations and territories)
received 3 and 6 percent of PPIS
grant funds, respectively.
The distribution of PPIS fund-
ing to these categories of recipients
fluctuated somewhat over time.
State environmental and health
agencies, however, accounted for
the majority of all grant monies
issued each year. In 1989, PPIS
grants were distributed almost
exclusively to state environmental
and health agencies with only one
exception: the New England Waste
Management Officials Association
received a $305,525 grant to devel-
op the Northeast States Pollution
Prevention Roundtable. Over time,
other organizations began to receive
more funding. For example, in
1990, university programs received
a substantial quantity of funding
and have continued to receive PPIS
monies every year since. Not until
1992 did Indian tribes begin to
receive funding to establish pollu-
tion prevention programs. In 1993,
the amount of grant monies award-
ed to tribal organizations more than
doubled from the previous year and
exceeded the funds issued to all
other nonstate groups. In addition,
the number of tribal organizations
receiving PPIS funds increased from
one tribe in 1992 to seven in 1993.
B. Types of
Programs Funded
As described in Chapter I, one
of the initial goals of the grant pro-
gram was to fund states to provide
technical assistance and outreach to
targeted industries on pollution
prevention. EPA designed the pro-
gram to concentrate early efforts on
publicizing pollution prevention,
believing that businesses would
reduce waste voluntarily once they
learned the benefits and cost sav-
ings associated with pollution pre-
vention. Thus, voluntary programs
that either provide their services
(e.g., technical assistance audits,
training, presentations) upon
request or offer them to industry
and the public on an elective basis
received the most funding. These
programs accounted for 62 percent
of PPIS funds awarded between
1989 and 1993.
As state programs gained expe-
rience, they discovered that to
build successful programs they
Exhibit 11-1
Distribution of PPIS Funds, by Organization
744,335
1,344,831
6%
3,159,018
1,600,210
7%
State Environmental/
Health Agencies
Other State Agencies
Universities
Indian Tribes
Other
17,162,516
71%
Allocation of PPIS Grant Awards 12
-------
would need to better educate their
own regulatory staff. By training
state regulatory staff, many states
believed that they could provide
pollution prevention incentives
through regulatory mechanisms.
Thus, many programs contained
both voluntary and regulatory
elements. For example, the
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP)
used its 1991 PPIS grant to fund
several outreach activities, such as
making presentations to industry,
developing fact sheets, and training
permit writers in pollution preven-
tion. Over a quarter of PPIS funds
supported these combined
programs. Since most grantees
combined regulatory integration
projects with voluntary activities,
strictly regulatory programs
received only 4 percent of total
grant monies.
PPIS monies also funded
research programs (4 percent). For
example, the Iowa Waste Reduction
Exhibit 11-2
Distribution of PPIS Funds, by Program Type
30%
62%
Voluntary
Regulatory
Combined
Other
Center studied the impact of toxic
waste on stream life as part of a pro-
ject to identify and reduce toxic
industrial discharges to small waste-
water treatment systems. Exhibit II-
2 shows the distribution of PPIS
grants among various program types.
From 1989 to 1993, funding
allocated for regulatory integration
Exhibit 11-3
Nature of PPIS Grants Over Time, 1989 Through 1993
7,363
Voluntary
Regulatory
Combined
Other
4,803
2,565
1989 1990 1991
Year
1992
1993
projects increased (see Exhibit II-
3). In 1993, a total of $516,000
was allocated for four regulatory
projects (e.g., attempts by the
Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality [DEQ] to
incorporate pollution prevention
into inspections), while in 1989,
only one grant of $300,000 was
allocated for similar projects.
Athough the 1993 allocation
supporting regulatory integration
initiatives is not substantially high-
er than the 1989 award, the 1993
grants were awarded to multiple
projects across several states rather
than to one program. The trend
over the first five years suggests a
movement away from strictly vol-
untary or technical assistance and
outreach programs and toward
increased regulatory integration.
This trend continued throughout
1994 and 1995: nearly 20 percent
of PPIS grants awarded in each of
these years supported regulatory
integration projects.
I
Allocation of PPIS Grant Awards 13
-------
C. Distribution of
Grant Funding by
Exhibit II-4 illustrates the total
PPIS funding by year. EPA funding
peaked in 1990, when over $7 mil-
lion in grant monies were awarded.
Funding was more moderate in
1991 (approximately $5 million), a
trend that continued in 1993. This
gradual increase in funding over the
1989 level was, however, broken in
1992, when only $2,565,000 was
awarded. During 1992, EPA
reduced the PPIS grant funding to
support pollution prevention in
other targeted sectors in the states.
For example, EPA awarded
$450,000 to five states to support
pollution prevention at publicly
owned treatment works (POTWs).
Just as the total amount of PPIS
dollars distributed each year has
increased, so has the total number
of grants awarded. In fact, the num-
ber of grants awarded annually has
increased substantially from 14 in
1989 to 52 in 1993. Within the
past five years, EPA has awarded
grants to 124 organizations.
At the outset of the program,
EPA funded fewer organizations
with larger grants (most were
approximately $300,000). As EPA
began funding more programs per
year, the amount of each grant
awarded decreased. Whereas the
majority of the early grants provided
seed money for nascent pollution
prevention programs, more recent
grants have helped states implement
special pollution prevention
projects.
Exhibit 11-4
Total PPIS Funding by Year
8,000
7,000
Z 6,000
o
c
u 5,000
o
| 4,000
jj 3,000
"o
Q 2,000
1,000
1989
1990 1991
Year
1992
1993
Exhibit II-5 depicts the
Regional distribution of PPIS
funds from 1989 through 1993.
With the exception of Region 1,
total grant funding by Region was
relatively equal. Most Regions
received between $1 and $3 mil-
lion in total grant funding. Region
1 received slightly more grant
funding than other states since
many of its states have been on the
forefront of the pollution preven-
tion movement. States in this
Region received several early grants
to test innovative ideas. This trend
continued over the years as EPA
continued to fund the expansion of
these programs.
The distribution of grant fund-
ing in any particular year was less
balanced. An understanding of the
award process can explain dispari-
ties among the EPA Regions in any
given year. In the first four years of
the program, EPA Headquarters
distributed the grants through a
centralized, competitive process.
An expert review panel (consisting
of Headquarters and Regional
staff) evaluated all proposals. For
the 1993 grants, EPA decentralized
the grant award process and dele-
gated responsibility to each
Regional office to enable the
Regions to fund regional pollution
prevention priorities.
EPA awarded some level of
PPIS funding to all 50 states over
the 5-year period under considera-
tion. Early leaders, such as New
York and New Jersey, received pro-
portionately more funding due to
their pioneering efforts developing
innovative pollution prevention
programs. New York and New
Jersey, as well as Rhode Island and
Massachusetts, were among the
first states in the country to
establish broad-based pollution
prevention programs.
Consequently, these states applied
for and received funding in the first
year of the PPIS program. These
states continued to build and
expand their pollution prevention
programs, thereby receiving addi-
Allocation of PPIS Grant Awards 14
-------
Exhibit 11-5
Regional Distribution of PPIS Funds
in
a
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
3,781
o
£ 2,000
c
jo 1,500
"o
Q
1,000
500
-
11989 I 11990 I 11991 I 11992 I 11993
3,000 3'065
2,613
1,853
2,024
1,746
1,612
2,246
10
EPA Region
tion grant support in subsequent
years. Note that, in addition to
state environmental agencies, other
groups such as state universities,
Indian tribes, and other state gov-
ernment organizations received
funding in each of the states receiv-
ing the most funding. Exhibit 11-6
shows the five states that received
the most funding, accounting for
over 15 percent of total funding.
In contrast, other states received
more limited funding from 1989 to
1993. For example, New Mexico
received $58,000 over the entire
5-year period. Similarly, Hawaii
received $185,000 in total funding
between 1989 and 1993. In addi-
tion to the reasons given above,
disparities in funding to individual
states may be attributed to several
factors, including:
States' budgets could not meet
the matching requirements nec-
essary for a large PPIS grant,
particularly when the matching
requirement was raised by
Congress to 50 percent in 1992;
Some states are more industrial
than others, making pollution
prevention a more salient issue
and thus prompting requests for
large grants; and
The competitive award process
used by EPA before 1993 gave
an advantage to states who had
Exhibit II-
begun their pollution prevention
programs first.
Appendicies A-C show the dis-
tribution of funding to each state
by Region and include detailed
breakdowns of annual funding
awards.
Top Five Recipients of Total Funding, 1989 Through 1993
State
Number of Grants
Total Funding
New York
New Jersey
Rhode Island
Massachusetts
Iowa
6
4
3
5
4
$1,342,548
$1,132,944
$800,000
$791,294
$724,378
Allocation of PPIS Grant Awards 15
-------
Chapter III
Summary of
PPIS
Grant Activities
This chapter documents the wide range of pollution prevention
activities implemented by PPIS grantees. In the time period of
the study, PPIS grant monies funded nearly 5,000 assessments,
more than 850 workshops, and the development of 370 pollu-
tion prevention case studies. In addition, PPIS grantees' efforts
reached companies in 35 industry sectors, as well as many other groups.
Such a breadth of activities illustrates not only the efforts of grantees to
disseminate the pollution prevention message to a wide and varied audi-
ence, but also the aggressive role states have assumed at the forefront of
the pollution prevention movement. The diversity of projects implement-
ed also indicates that grantees addressed several different areas of need
within their particular states, thereby fulfilling the intent of the 1990
Pollution Prevention Act.
According to the grantees interviewed for this study, PPIS grants also
helped businesses improve the environmental and economic effects of their
operations. In some cases, PPIS grantees's efforts achieved substantial cost
savings for businesses. For example:
Businesses that received assistance from Kentucky Partners were able to
save approximately $3 million annually by implementing pollution pre-
vention measures;1
Florida's Waste Reduction Assistance Program (WRAP) has saved busi-
nesses $3.7 million;2
Companies receiving technical assistance from Alabama's Waste
Reduction and Technology Transfer (WRATT) program save an average
of $160,000 each;3 and
Iowa WRAP has helped businesses in Iowa save more than $1.5 million
annually.4
In terms of environmental benefits, some PPIS grantees demonstrated
significant results. For example:
Summary of PPIS Grant Activities "17
-------
Tennessee showed a decrease in
toxic releases of up to 42
percent;5
West Virginia experienced a
53-percent decrease in toxic
releases;6 and
Rhode Islands PPIS program
eliminated 3.4 million pounds of
liquid waste and 20,000 pounds
of solid waste.7
This chapter describes in detail
the groups targeted and activities
conducted.
A. Targeted Groups
The 1990 Pollution Prevention
Act required that all grants awarded
through the matching grant pro-
gram be targeted to the groups
most in need of pollution preven-
tion assistance. Overall, the
majority of PPIS grants have been
targeted to small and medium-sized
businesses and industries, on the
assumption that these organizations
often do not have the resources to
identify and evaluate pollution pre-
vention opportunities on their own.
From 1989 through 1993, PPIS
grants reached over 35 industry sec-
tors, as well as nonindustrial groups
such as universities, Indian tribes,
trade associations, and schools. The
industry sectors most commonly
targeted by PPIS grants include:
Automotive;
Printing;
Dry cleaning;
Metals manufacturing;
Agriculture; and
Painting.
For a detailed breakdown of
groups targeted by PPIS grantees
see Appendix D.
The grantees commented that
by focusing on high-priority indus-
try sectors, they can target their
efforts and resources effectively.
Many grantees believe that educat-
ing industry about stopping the
generation of waste at its source is
the key to pollution prevention.
The grantees also indicated that
targeting nonindustrial groups,
such as schools and environmental
groups can also be useful for dis-
seminating information and instill-
ing the pollution prevention ethic
in the general population. As
shown below, PPIS-funded activi-
ties from 1989 to 1994 attempted
to address a wide range of audi-
ences by implementing a diverse
mix of program activities.
B. Range of
Activities
Conducted
This section describes the range
of activities conducted by PPIS
grant recipients.8 Categories of
activities include:
Education and Outreach;
Data Collection and Research;
Infrastructure;
Technical Assistance and
Technical Training;
Pilot Programs and
Demonstration Projects;
Awards and Recognition; and
Regulatory Integration.
Exhibit III-l shows the percent-
age of grant recipients implement-
ing each type of activity. The
remainder of this chapter describes
each activity in detail.
Exhibit 111-1
Summary of Activities
Summary of PPIS Grant Activities "18
-------
B.1 Education and
Outreach
As shown in Exhibit III-l, near-
ly all programs dedicate some
resources to education and outreach
activities. These initiatives, designed
to heighten public awareness of pol-
lution prevention, are implemented
through a variety of projects, as
illustrated in Exhibit III-2.
As shown in Exhibit III-2,
workshops and seminars are the
most frequently implemented form
of education and outreach activities,
conducted by 66 grantees (57 per-
cent). These workshops may edu-
cate participants on topics such as
conducting pollution prevention
audits, current hazardous waste reg-
ulations, and cost savings through
pollution prevention.
Presentations are also an
extremely popular outreach activity,
conducted by 41 grantees (36 per-
cent). Presentations frequently tar-
get various industry sectors (see
Appendix D for a description of
industries targeted), state environ-
mental managers, and trade associa-
tions. Topics are similar to those of
PPIS-funded workshops and semi-
nars. The prevalence of these activi-
ties is most likely attributable to the
fact that they are quick, easy ways
to directly disseminate pollution
prevention information to business-
es, industries, and the general
public.
Grantees also developed and
distributed a large quantity of
printed outreach materials such as
case studies and fact sheets. These
materials might document the pol-
lution prevention and cost-savings
successes of companies, or provide
general suggestions for how facili-
ties can reduce hazardous waste at
its source. Grantees noted that out-
reach documents are relatively sim-
ple methods of sharing pollution
prevention information.
Some grantees have placed par-
ticular emphasis on such education
and outreach areas as developing
targeted materials or sponsoring
teleconferences. For example, the
Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality's (DEQs)
Office of Pollution Prevention
(OPP) has taken a broad approach
to developing outreach materials
and tries to tailor each item for its
intended audience. OPP has pro-
duced two videosone for medi-
um-sized lithographic printers and
one for manufacturers in Virginia
which have been distributed to over
450 companies throughout the
Exhibit II1
state. In addition, OPP used PPIS
funds for two large pollution pre-
vention posters targeted to automo-
tive industries and general industrial
audiences. The program has distrib-
uted over 10,000 posters to date.10
The Montana State University
Extension Service (MSUES) target-
ed its 1992 and 1993 PPIS grants
to the automotive and drycleaning
industries. To educate these indus-
tries about pollution prevention
opportunities, MSUES has pro-
duced a set of fact sheets, a video,
and vendor and product lists target-
ed to each industry. In addition, the
grantee conducted two demonstra-
tion assessments and held 22 work-
shops (attended by a total of 443
people) for the industries.11
Two of the more innovative out-
reach materials that MSUES devel-
oped are self-assessment checklists
Education and Outreach Summary
Education and
Outreach Activities
Number of
Grants
Number Developed
With PPIS Funds
Brochures/Pamphlets/
Fact sheets
55
180
Case studies
36
370
Curricula
12
63
Conferences/
Teleconferences
57
81
Directories
Guidance materials/
Worksheets
57
91
Newsletters/Articles
33
84
Presentations
41
769
Public service
announcements
1759
Videos
22
73
Waste exchanges
Workshops/Seminars
66
858
Summary of PPIS Grant Activities "19
-------
for drycleaners and automotive
workers. The checklists assist the
targeted groups in evaluating pollu-
tion prevention opportunities in
their facilities and provide helpful
hints for hazardous waste avoid-
ance.
The Tennessee Department of
Environment and Conservation,
through the University of
Tennessee's Center for Industrial
Services, concentrated its PPIS out-
reach efforts through video telecon-
ferencing. The program developed
and produced three national tele-
conferences on the following pollu-
tion prevention topics: solvents
alternatives, painting challenges of
the 1990s, and promotion of land-
fill alternatives for solid waste. Each
teleconference was downlinked by
at least 40 states, thereby reaching
3,000 people per event. According
to the grantee, the teleconferences
were very well received. Based on
feedback from the attendees, the
Department of Health and
Environment believes that the con-
ferences had a significant impact on
pollution prevention, not only in
the state but nationally as well.12
Newsletters also are a popular
way for state pollution prevention
programs to disseminate informa-
tion to industry, other programs and
agencies, and other states. Erie
County, for example, sends its
newsletter to both small and large
businesses in targeted industry
groups. The county developed its
mailing list from community
sources including chamber of com-
merce directories, business indexes,
and standard "yellow pages." In
addition, the county used regulatory
databases to target larger businesses
and industries.13
Frequently, newsletters feature
case studies of companies that have
benefitted from pollution prevention
program efforts, articles about perti-
nent regulations and legislation, and
notices of upcoming educational and
outreach events. These newsletters
are generally free to interested parties
within the grantees' states and
offered either at no cost, or for a
nominal fee, to out-of-state sub-
scribers. Approximately 25 percent
of PPIS grant recipients published
newsletters, many with remarkably
high circulations.
For example, Kentucky Partners,
Kentucky's state pollution preven-
tion center, published over 27 issues
of their newsletter, "The Waste-
Line," and distributed each issue to a
mailing list of approximately 7,000
people.14 Similarly, the Erie County
Department of Environment and
Planning distributed five industry-
specific and one general pollution
prevention newsletter to 4,500 peo-
ple quarterly.15 Finally, the New York
State Department of Environmental
Conservation's newsletter, published
twice yearly, is distributed to a mail-
ing list of 8,000 people.16
B.2 Data Collection
And Research
PPIS supports a variety of data
collection and research initiatives to
evaluate the usefulness of current
pollution prevention methods and
to increase knowledge about new
pollution prevention technologies.
The research projects PPIS has
funded may eventually help grantees
further pollution prevention efforts,
both in their states and nationally.
These efforts frequently include the
activities shown in Exhibit III-3.
PPIS funds support research
both in the laboratory and in the
field. For example, inspired by the
terms of the Montreal Protocol,
which will effectively eliminate the
use and manufacture of chlorofluo-
rcarbon (CFC) based cleaning sol-
vents by 1995, the Navajo Nation
is researching alternative cleaning
solvents. The proposed research
and development work will be per-
formed to identify, quantify, and
implement the best alternatives to
chlorinated and fluorinated clean-
ing industrial solvents. The goal is
Exhibit 111-3 ^^^^^^^^H
Data Collection and Research Summary
Data Collection and
Research Activities
Data collection and analysis
Database development
Studies
Surveys
Number of
Grants
23
16
12
19
Percent of
Total Grantees
20
"
,0
"
Summary of PPIS Grant Activities "20
-------
to develop an alternative, environ-
mentally benign industrial solvent
to eliminate industrial contami-
nants such as solder flux, mold
release, resins, curing agents, cover
coats, waxes, greases, oils, lubri-
cants, and other similar contami-
nants found in a typical manufac-
turing environment. The Navajo
Nation hopes that this research will
eventually help prevent pollution
within Navajo lands as well as in
other areas across the country.17
On the other hand, Rhode
Island's PPIS-funded research focus-
es more on the issues affecting one
specific industrythe textile indus-
try. The research, conducted by the
Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management
(DEM), included the following
research components:
Researching and identifying reg-
ulatory and policy initiatives that
would encourage textile compa-
nies to incorporate source reduc-
tion measures and technologies
into their process and facility
operations;
Identifying Rhode Island textile
plants that represent the greatest
potential risk to health and the
environment through a compre-
hensive statewide survey, analysis
of chemical release and offsite
transfer data, and a review of the
regulatory history of facilities;
Researching, identifying, and
evaluating cost-effective manage-
ment and process operational
methods, material substitutions,
and technologies that could be
used to reduce air/water releases
and offsite transfers in facilities
that represent the highest poten-
tial environmental risk; and
Analyzing textile industry dis-
charges for toxicity.18
The DEM hopes that these
research endeavors will expand the
knowledge base and technical
resources available to Rhode Island
textile companies to reduce pollu-
tants at their source.19
The focus of the West Virginia
Department of Environmental
Protection's PPIS grant is to pro-
duce the annual West Virginia
Scorecard. Scorecard is a document
designed to provide the public with
an annual review and analysis of
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data
from all reporting industries, high-
lighting the 28 major chemical
companies in the state. It examines
trends in toxic chemical releases
across the state by region, industry
sector, and medium of release.
Information on the release of
known or suspected carcinogens as
a subset of total releases is also pro-
vided.
Collection and analysis of the
data are voluntary efforts jointly
conducted by chemical industry
representatives, state environmental
personnel, nongovernmental organ-
izations, and citizen activists. In
addition to reporting emissions
data, companies participating in
the Scorecard project also provide
narrative statements about their
facilities, in which they enumerate
their goals for environmental per-
formance and are given the oppor-
tunity to explain how these goals
were achieved or why they may not
have achieved their release reduc-
tion goals. West Virginia believes
that Scorecard assists both the pub-
lic and industry in identifying
opportunities for further reductions
in the generation, treatment, and
disposal of toxic chemicals.20
B.3 Infrastructure
A major goal of the PPIS grant
program was to help states develop
the infrastructure necessary to
establish a sustainable pollution
prevention program. Infrastructure
includes time and resources spent
on hiring and training staff, devel-
oping legislation and regulations
that promote pollution prevention,
evaluating program effectiveness,
and securing funding for the pro-
gram's future endeavors. EPA
believes that developing program
infrastructure is critical because it
ensures a solid base and continuous
support for a state's pollution pre-
vention efforts. Exhibit III-4 lists
the range of infrastructure activities
conducted through the PPIS grant
program.
PPIS funding enabled grantees
to build program infrastructure by:
Hiring 60 staff members;
Hiring and training 70 interns; and
Providing 40 internal training
sessions.
In addition, many grantees
established an advisory committee
or workgroup to oversee the estab-
lishment of the pollution preven-
tion program. These committees
consist of staff from all program
areas to give the pollution preven-
tion program a true multimedia
perspective and to promote link-
ages between the programs.
A large component of Georgia's
PPIS-funded program involved a
Summary of PPIS Grant Activities "21
-------
series of task force and advisory
committee meetings, which eventu-
ally led to the institutionalization
of the program in 1993. Three dif-
ferent groups were central to
Georgia's infrastructure-building
endeavors. One group, the
Environmental Protection Division
(EPD) New Industry Team, was
used to foster a working relation-
ship with Georgia businesses. The
team informed new industries of
the state's pollution prevention
efforts and of available technical
assistance to encourage new indus-
try prospects to design facilities
that incorporate pollution preven-
tion and waste minimization into
their operations.
Another Georgia group sup-
ported by PPIS funding was EPD's
Pollution Prevention Strategy Task
Force. Throughout its 16 meetings,
the task force developed EPD's
strategy for integrating pollution
prevention into regulatory pro-
grams. Eleven multimedia staff par-
ticipated in a survey to assess EPD-
wide pollution prevention training,
information distribution, and rele-
vant regulatory actions. The result
of the task force's efforts was a
Exhibit 111-4
Infrastructure Summary
Infrastructure Activities
strategy that included an emphasis
on a multimedia pollution preven-
tion approach to regulatory action,
increased staff training, and cre-
ation of a new EPD culture that
promotes pollution prevention over
pollution control.
EPD's Pollution Prevention
Advisory Committee, a group
consisting of representatives from
several key organizations in state
government, was active in evaluat-
ing the pollution prevention efforts
of EPD. After frequent meetings,
the committee produced a matrix
of statewide pollution prevention
and waste minimization activities.
The matrix examined activities
across seven sectors of the division,
assessed each one, and assigned an
effectiveness rating. The committee
then made recommendations to
improve the function of Georgia's
pollution prevention efforts.
The efforts of EPD's various
committees served to create and
strengthen its pollution preven-
tion program. In 1993, legislation
was passed creating the Pollution
Prevention Assistance Division
(P2AD) in the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources.
Number of Grants
Securing funding sources
Hiring interns
Developing legislation
Developing pollution prevention policy
Program evaluation
Hiring staff
Training staff
Forming workgroups/committees
9
15
8
15
30
25
32
41
According to the grantee, "where-
as the purpose of the PPIS grant
was to offer seed money to states
to develop pollution prevention
programs, this [legislation] is a
culmination of efforts initiated
over the last four years. The activ-
ities implemented by EPD under
this grant provide a strong foun-
dation for the new Pollution
Prevention Assistance Division."21
Long-term funding has also been
addressed in creating P2AD.
Although it will receive some
funding from the federal govern-
ment, the new division is primari-
ly funded through state-appropri-
ated funds and solid waste and
hazardous waste generator fees.22
Other grantees have taken dif-
ferent approaches to developing
program infrastructure. For exam-
ple, the focus of the Alabama
OEM's 1991 PPIS grant was the
institutionalization of the Waste
Reduction and Technology Transfer
(WRATT) program. As a result of
PPIS funding, the WRATT
program, Alabama's free, nonregu-
latory vehicle for technical assis-
tance, became the WRATTLER
Foundation, a stand-alone, non-
profit organization. In institution-
alizing the WRATT program,
Alabama enabled its technical assis-
tance program to receive private
funding; the WRATTLER
Foundation is now funded 50
percent by state monies and 50
percent by private funds. WRAT-
TLER receives its private funding
primarily from facilities that donate
to the foundation after saving
money by implementing recom-
mendations made during free waste
audits. In addition, the Foundation
has applied for several grants from
private foundations and to date has
Summary of PPIS Grant Activities "22
-------
received $350,000 in grant fund-
ing. With the WRATTLER
Foundation supporting it, the
WRATT program is able to con-
tinue to provide technical assis-
tance to Alabama businesses.23
The activities of the WRATT
program are also infrastructure ori-
ented. For example, one goal of the
program was to develop strategies
for 1) promoting and facilitating
the incorporation of pure pollution
prevention techniques in the plan-
ning and design process for new
and expanding companies; 2) mak-
ing technical assistance more rele-
vant and more accessible to small
businesses in Alabama; 3) improv-
ing public awareness of waste
reduction issues; and 4) measuring
the effectiveness of pollution pre-
vention activities in reducing waste
generation. Another infrastructure
element of Alabama's program
focused on program evaluation.
The DEM commissioned two stud-
ies to determine the effectiveness of
the programs technical assistance
efforts and the associated cost sav-
ings to participating businesses.
Further details about the WRATT
program's measurement initiatives,
as well as the efforts of other PPIS
grantees to measure program suc-
cess, are presented in Chapter IV.
B.4 Technical
Assistance and
Technical
Training
A major component of many
PPIS -funded programs is technical
assistance. Grantees believe that
through onsite visits, assessments,
hotline and clearinghouse informa-
tion, and training, state pollution
prevention programs can help
industry and other groups better
understand and incorporate pollu-
tion prevention technologies into
their everyday operations. Exhibit
III-5 shows the technical assistance
and training activities that PPIS
funds support.
A primary goal of the PPIS
grant program was to allocate
resources to the states to provide
technical assistance to businesses in
accordance with the 1990 Pollution
Prevention Act. Many states pro-
vided technical assistance through
onsite waste assessments or audits.
In many cases, PPIS technical assis-
tance programs offer confidential,
onsite pollution and waste assess-
ments for both large and small
businesses. These assessments take
place outside the regulatory envi-
ronment, and participation on the
part of businesses is strictly volun-
tary. Grantees believe that through
the assessments, businesses learn
how to save money, increase effi-
ciency, and build a good public
image. During a waste assessment,
engineers review all business
operations to uncover potential
waste reduction strategies and
opportunities. Later, the company
receives a detailed report that iden-
tifies and evaluates waste reduction
opportunities and provides specific
recommendations for action. The
decision to implement any recom-
mended option is entirely the
decision of the company.
Some grantees have made onsite
visits a central component of their
pollution prevention programs. For
example, the Washington State
Department of Ecology has per-
formed site assessments of 1,700
businesses, including lithographers,
screen printers, and photoproces-
sors.2^ The South Carolina
Department of Health and
Environmental Control conducted
more than 250 assessments.25 By
providing onsite assistance, many
PPIS grantees have helped busi-
nesses realize substantial cost sav-
ings. For example, the
Massachusetts Office of Technical
Assistance helped companies save
Exhibit 111-5
Technical Assistance and Technical Training Summary
Technical Assistance and Number of Number Developed
Technical Training Activities Grants With PPIS Funds
Assessments/Audits/Site visits 61
Bulletin boards 5
Clearinghouses/Libraries 32
Grants 4
Hotlines 20
Technical training 13
4,700
5
32
22
20
55
Summary of PPIS Grant Activities "23
-------
an annual average of $35,000 per
company.26 Kentucky Partners
helps Kentucky businesses save an
estimated total of $3,000,000 per
year.27 More results of this nature
are presented in Chapter IV.
Other states have taken innova-
tive approaches to site assessments.
With its 1989 PPIS grant, the
Georgia Environmental Protection
Division initiated the Pollution
Prevention Mentor (PPM) pro-
gram, whereby EPD employed
retired engineers, working in con-
junction with graduate student
teams, to provide industry with the
technical expertise and support
necessary to implement source
reduction techniques and technolo-
gies. The teams spent five days on
site per facility, then submitted
pollution prevention recommenda-
tions. The final product of these
visits was a site-specific report out-
lining source reduction options for
each company. The PPM Program
conducted over 30 assessments.28
With later grants, the Georgia
Hazardous Waste Management
Authority (GHWMA) started the
Seniors' Assessment Technical
Assistance Program (SATAP), once
again combining the talents of
retired engineers with graduate stu-
dents at Georgia Technology
Institute. The SATAP program
conducted 20 site assessments.29
Many other states, such as
Tennessee, Florida, Alabama,
Vermont, and New Hampshire
have also enlisted the help of
retired engineers for their technical
assistance programs.
Several grant recipients operate
clearinghouses, which provide busi-
nesses and the general public with
technical information on an as-
requested basis. For example, the
clearinghouse that the Virginia
DEQ maintains houses more than
3,000 books, articles, papers, and
videos that cover all aspects of pol-
lution prevention. The clearing-
house is open to other organiza-
tions, and DEQ is arranging for
the information clearinghouse
index to be available online so that
the library is accessible for search-
ing and requesting by other depart-
ment staff and the general public.
DEQ hopes that this capability will
greatly enhance both the utilization
and the usefulness of the informa-
tion clearinghouse.30
B.5 Pilot Programs
And
Demonstration
Projects
EPA encourages states to initiate
pilot and demonstration projects
that test and support innovative
pollution prevention approaches
and methodologies. The funding of
pilot and demonstration projects
allows EPA and the states to learn
how new initiatives will work
before businesses or the govern-
ment invest a significant amount of
time and resources. Twenty-one
percent of PPIS grants were used to
fund either demonstration or pilot
projects that tested innovative pol-
lution prevention techniques. Some
projects were conducted by the
grantees themselves, while others
were carried out by contractors or
through minigrants channeled to
industry through state programs.
Many of these projects have
demonstrated remarkable successes,
including a project conducted by
Cornell University's Water
Resources Institute. The Water
Resources Institute used its 1990
PPIS grant as seed money for a
holistic farm planning demonstra-
tion project aimed at nonpoint
source pollution in agriculture. The
project was the foundation of what
is now a $35 million, statewide,
multiagency initiative for New
York, and has been adopted as a
model for many other states as
well. The grantee hopes that this
project will assist water districts in
maintaining water quality through
watershed control rather than
through the installation of costly
filtration systems. The project was
piloted in upstate New York, where
it is expected to save local water
systems more than $5 billion in
construction costs and $300 mil-
lion in annual operating costs
(related to a proposed filtration sys-
tem) by encouraging the adoption
of farming practices to protect
water quality.31
Two PPIS grants were awarded
to assist in the formation and pilot-
ing of Wisconsin's Farmstead
Pollution Potential Assessment
System (Farm*A*Syst).
Farm*A*Syst, a joint effort between
EPA and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), was designed
to help farmers and rural residents
voluntarily assess well water pollu-
tion risks at the farmstead (house,
farm buildings, and surrounding
land). The system identifies best
management practices and struc-
tures at a specific site that present
pollution risks. It then recom-
mends actions to reduce or elimi-
Summary of PPIS Grant Activities "24
-------
nate identified pollution risks.
Ultimately, the system is intended
to increase users' knowledge and
understanding of their farmstead
environment, as well as existing
policies, regulations, and recom-
mendations that relate to their
activities and structures, with the
goal of helping users take voluntary
actions to reduce and prevent pol-
lution risks. The grantee used PPIS
funds for initial development of the
assessment tool, which consists of
12 workshops and 10 fact sheets.
Using PPIS funds, the program was
first piloted in Wisconsin and
Minnesota. After 3 years, all 50
states have now developed a
Farm*A*Syst program based on the
Wisconsin model.32
B.6 Awards and
Recognition
Some PPIS grantees have insti-
tuted awards programs to recognize
outstanding achievements, usually
by industry, in the realm of pollu-
tion prevention. The winners gen-
erally receive free publicity for their
efforts and many programs have
developed case studies based on the
accomplishments of award winners.
Certain programs have placed
particular emphasis on awards.
Alaska's Office of the Governor
used its 1991 PPIS grant to estab-
lish a "Green Star" program that
targets businesses and industries
across the state. To receive the
Green Star, participants in the pro-
gram must complete a minimum
of 12 of 18 possible source reduc-
tion standards. Six of the standards
are required for a company to
receive its Green Star, while the
remaining six can be selected from
a pool of 12 possibilities. Examples
of the standards include double-
sided copying, yearly waste assess-
ments, and assisting at least one
other business in becoming a
Green Star member. To date, over
183 businesses are enrolled in the
Green Star program, and 40 have
earned their Green Stars.33
B.7 Regulatory
Integration
Many states have chosen to use
PPIS funds to integrate pollution
prevention into their regulatory pro-
grams. While strictly voluntary ini-
tiatives focusing on outreach and
technical assistance characterized the
activities of most earlier PPIS
hibit III
grantees,34 regulatory integration is a
growing trend. Exhibit III-6 shows
the approaches that grantees have
employed to inject pollution preven-
tion into state regulatory structure.
Compared with the level of reg-
ulatory integration in 1989, several
states have made great strides
toward regulatory integration with
PPIS funding. For example, one of
the primary objectives of the
Illinois EPA (IEPA) was to auto-
matically integrate pollution pre-
vention concepts in IEPA permit
decisions, compliance agreements,
and regulatory actions across all
media programs. A major goal of
the grant was to produce a pollu-
tion prevention guidance manual
for IEPA permit and inspection
staff in all bureaus. The manual
currently contains instructions use-
ful to Agency personnel but will
continue to evolve as successful pol-
lution prevention projects occur
and are documented.
Summary of Regulatory Activities
Activity
Incorporate pollution prevention
reviews in permitting
Number of Percent of
Grants Total Grantees
15
13
Perform mandatory waste audits
Incorporate pollution prevention
into enforcement and compliance
orders
12
10
Develop pollution prevention
checklists for inspectors
12
10
Develop pollution prevention policy
statements regarding regulatory
integration
Place pollution prevention requirements
in ordinances and regulations
Summary of PPIS Grant Activities "25
-------
Thus far, the manual has been
used to train over 200 technical and
legal staff members in seven field
offices and headquarters. IEPA also
drafted a guidance document, based
on U.S. EPA guidance, for incorpo-
ration of pollution prevention and
Supplemental Environmental
Projects (SEPs) into enforcement
settlements.
IEPA also launched a voluntary
technical assistance program for
industry whereby participating
companies worked with the agency
on pollution prevention initiatives.
In return, IEPA provided both
technical regulatory assistance
(including expedited permits and
variance support) and adjusted
standard support. Over 130 compa-
nies participated in the program.35
According to the grantee,
"Illinois regulators and companies
forged a more cooperative working
and learning relationship as a result
of the PPIS grant. Permit writers,
inspectors and [lawyers] are begin-
ning to incorporate P2 into their
work and learn more about the intri-
cacies of manufacturing processes."36
The Narragansett Bay Water
Quality Management District
Commission (NBC) provides
another example of how pollution
prevention ideas can be integrated
into state regulations. NBC owns
and operates Pvhode Island's two
largest municipal wastewater treat-
ment plants. As part of its opera-
tions, NBC operates an Industrial
Pretreatment (IPT) program that
permits, monitors, and regulates
industrial and commercial dis-
charges. One aspect of NBC's 1991
PPIS grant focused on integrating
pollution prevention into IPT. The
IPT program expanded its policy
of referring all noncompliant com-
panies to the NBC's Pollution
Prevention Program for assistance.
Furthermore, IPT refers new per-
mit applicants to NBC's pollution
prevention program.
In addition, NBC has incorpo-
rated pollution prevention into
settlement practices, including
implementation of a pollution pre-
vention project to offset assessed
fines. To be eligible as a pollution
prevention project, a proposal must
go beyond compliance and result
in an environmental benefit not
currently required by law. This
approach presents certain advan-
tages to facility owners who find
themselves involved in enforcement
action: 1) the use of company
funds to purchase and install pollu-
tion prevention equipment can
result in positive tax consequences,
as opposed to the direct payment
of fines; 2) the use of pollution
prevention equipment can increase
efficiency; and 3) the use of pollu-
tion prevention equipment often
results in decreased water usage,
which can substantially lower con-
sumption bills and/or permit fees.
For these reasons, an increasing
number of Pvhode Island compa-
nies are opting to implement pollu-
tion prevention projects in lieu of
cash settlements. According to the
grantee, instituting pollution pre-
vention projects can also benefit a
company's public image while help-
ing; the environment.37
1 Kentucky Partners Fact Sheet, January 1994.
2 Pollution Prevention Incentives for States, Spring 1994, U.S.
EPA.
3 Alabama Pollution Prevention Program Final Progress Report,
1994, Alabama Department of Environmental Management.
4 Pollution Prevention Works for Iowa: Case Studies, April 1993,
Iowa Department of Natural Resources.
5 Personal communication in May 1995 with George Smelcer,
University of Tennessee Center for Industrial Services.
6 West Virginia Scorecard, 1992, National Institute for Chemical
Studies.
7 Pollution Prevention in Rhode Island: Final Report on OEM's
Pollution Prevention Program, June 1994, Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management.
8 The data presented in this section were gathered through a series
of telephone interviews, during which many grantees were unable
to precisely quantify their activities. Many grantees presented
numbers for their activities in range format. In such circumstances,
EPA used the low end of the range to calculate totals. Therefore,
the numbers presented in this chapter most likely underestimate
the true level of activity of PPIS grant recipients.
9 This number is particularly high because Utah used PPIS funds to
develop a 4-month campaign of "Enviro-Minutes." These Enviro-
Minutes were 30- to 60-second spots highlighting what citizens
can do to prevent pollution.
101994 Pollution Prevention Evaluation Report, Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality.
11 Personal communication in November 1994 with Karen Bucklin
Sanchez, Montana State University Extension Service.
12 Personal communication in May 1995 with George Smelcer,
University of Tennessee Center for Industrial Services.
13 Erie County Pollution Prevention Program Evaluation, April 1993.
Summary of PPIS Grant Activities "26
-------
14 Personal communication in December 1994 with Joyce St. Glair,
Kentucky Partners.
15 Erie County Pollution Prevention Program Evaluation, April 1993.
16 Personal communication in November 1994 with John lannotti,
Pollution Prevention Unit, New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation.
17 PPIS Grant Assessment Study Report, November 1994, Navajo
Nation Environmental Protection Agency.
18 Assessment of Regulatory and Non-regulatory Approaches to
Source Reduction in the Rhode Island Textile Industry, Progress
Report #3, April 30, 1994, Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management.
19 Assessment of Regulatory and Non-regulatory Approaches to
Source Reduction in the Rhode Island Textile Industry, Progress
Report #3, April 1994, Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management.
20 Personal communication in November 1994 with Dr. Jan Taylor,
National Institute for Chemical Studies (West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection's partner in producing
the Scorecard).
21 Georgia Pollution Prevention Incentives for States Grant Final
Report, September 1993, Georgia Department of Natural
Resources.
22 Georgia Pollution Prevention Incentives for States Grant Final
Report, September 1993, Georgia Department of Natural
Resources.
23 For more information on WRATTLER, call the WRATT
Foundation, (205) 386-3633.
24 Personal communication in November 1994 with Darin Rice,
Washington Department of Ecology.
25 Personal communication in November 1994 with Bob Burgess,
Center for Waste Minimization, South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control.
26 The Central Massachusetts Pollution Prevention Project Summary
Report, 1992, Massachusetts Office of Technical Assistance.
27 Kentucky Partners Fact Sheet, January 1994.
28 Pollution Prevention Technical Assistance for Selected Industries
Final Report, September 1991, Georgia Tech Research Institute
(Georgia Environmental Protection Division's partner).
29 Pollution Prevention Incentives for States Program Semi-Annual
Progress Report, April 1993, Georgia Hazardous Waste
Management Authority.
301994 Pollution Prevention Evaluation Report, Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality.
31 "New York City: Case of a Threatened Watershed," Keith S.
Porter. EPA Journal, Summer 1994.
32 For more information on the Farm*A*Syst program,
call 608 262-0024.
33 Personal communication in November 1994 with Sara Peacock,
Alaska Office of the Governor.
34 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management
received a grant in 1989 to begin integrating pollution prevention
into the regulatory program.
351989 Pollution Prevention Incentives Grant Final Report, May
1993, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
36 Activate the State/Lead by Example Final PPIS Grant Report,
October 1994, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
37 Narragansett Bay Commission Pollution Prevention Incentives
for States Third Status Report, September 1994.
Summary of PPIS Grant Activities "27
-------
Chapter IV
Measurement
and Evaluation
he purpose of this chapter is to document activities underway in
the states to measure the effectiveness of grantfunded activities.
This chapter highlights different measurement methodologies used
by the grant recipients, without judging the effectiveness of any
particular methodology. As stated in the Introduction (Chapter I)
of this report, documenting grant-funded activities, including program evalua-
tion and measurement, is EPA's first step in the evaluation of the PPIS grant
program. Understanding how states are approaching measurement issues will
help EPA determine an appropriate long-term strategy to evaluate PPIS-fund-
ed programs. This chapter begins with a description of how EPA traditionally
monitors and evaluates its media programs, which provides a context for
appreciating the limitations associated with current tracking efforts as applied
to the PPIS grant program. The following section summarizes how states have
begun to measure the effectiveness of their programs. The final section out-
lines EPA's efforts to improve program evaluation in the future.
A. Monitoring and
Evaluating EPA
Media Program
Grants
EPA issues approximately $600
million in grants to the states each
year to help the states develop state
program capacity and fund ongo-
ing activities. EPA issues these
grants under the authority of the
environmental statutes such as the
Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act,
Safe Drinking Water Act, and
Resource Recovery and
Conservation Act. In cases where
states are willing and able to imple-
ment portions of the federally-
mandated requirements under
these statutes, EPA delegates
authority for implementation to
the states. Given that the Agency is
ultimately responsible for imple-
mentation of the law, EPA oversees
state activities to ensure that
Congressional requirements are
met.
Measurement and Evaluation 29
-------
Traditionally, EPA has moni-
tored both the federal and the
state-delegated programs primarily
by counting the number of activi-
ties underway. The media programs
(air, water quality, drinking water,
and waste) track a variety of indica-
tors in the following regulatory
based categories:
The number of permits issued;
The number of compliance
monitoring inspections; and
The number of enforcement
actions or formal consent decrees.
While the names and numbers
of indicators tracked differ from
program to program, the basic con-
cept remains the same. Programs
track concrete administrative
actions (e.g., permits, inspections)
to ensure that annual targets set by
program managers (or the legisla-
ture) will be met.
Unlike other environmental
statutes, the Pollution Prevention
Act of 1990 does not establish a
regulatory framework. Conse-
quently, the traditional measure-
ment approach cannot be easily
applied to the PPIS program or to
the pollution prevention program
as a whole. Not only are there no
administrative measures, such as
permits or inspections, there are
also no federal models by which to
evaluate state pollution prevention
programs. In fact, EPA designed
the pollution prevention program
to be as flexible as possible to
accommodate individual state pro-
gram needs and priorities.
The traditional "bean-counting"
approach is limited by its focus on
simple counts of actions, rather
than trying to capture environmen-
tal results. The Agency recognizes
the need to move forward in mea-
suring results and away from
administrative measures. The media
programs are grappling with this
issue and the difficult questions of
how to define environmental
results. In the future, EPA hopes to
improve the documentation of
environmental results achieved
through the grant program.
Recently, the National
Association for Public
Administration (NAPA) studied
EPAs programs and policies,
including its approach toward pro-
gram evaluation. The study found
that program evaluations are not
consistently conducted by EPAs
media programs. According to the
NAPA study, "There is no Agency
policy for the frequency of program
evaluation or for the conditions
under which it is performed."1
Furthermore, "The EPA program
offices have not taken on the
responsibility of conducting their
own rigorous [program]
evaluations... They do not know
how well activities were performed
nor how well those activities were
evaluated. None of EPAs ten
regional offices has done extensive
evaluation work either."2 Given
that the Agency lacks "a sound sys-
tem for conducting program evalu-
ations on a routine basis,"3 it
should come as no surprise that
EPA has not previously conducted
a rigorous evaluation of the PPIS
grant program. This assessment
study, however, represents an initial
step toward understanding and
evaluating the PPIS grant program.
B. State Strategies
To Measure
Effectiveness
While many states are just
beginning to evaluate elements of
their pollution prevention pro-
grams, a few have successfully eval-
uated their programs. Some state
legislatures require the programs to
report on activities conducted with
state funding. PPIS grantees have
used a variety of techniques to eval-
uate their programs, ranging from
surveys to followup site visits. As a
result, many states have been able
to gauge the level of satisfaction
with particular services and a few
have been able to quantify the
results of their pollution prevention
endeavors in terms of actual waste
reductions and cost savings.
As detailed in David
Wigglesworth's 1993 book, Pollution
Prevention: A Practical Guide,'1 there
are both internal and external
approaches to measuring progress.
The internal approach is a basic
accounting or assessment of the pro-
grams activities. The external
approach uses input from outside
the pollution prevention program to
evaluate the programs services, either
from "clients" of the program or
independent sources. Generally,
methods for measuring PPIS-funded
programs fall into three categories:
Overall evaluation of program
effectiveness;
Evaluation of specific services,
either by amount of pollution
prevented or by level of cus-
tomer satisfaction; and
Measures of activity level.
Measurement and Evaluation 30
-------
B.1 Overall
Evaluation
Overall evaluations enable state
programs to assess the effectiveness
of their entire pollution prevention
program. Usually, state programs
examine a range of data points
such as level of client satisfaction,
implementation rate of technical
recommendations, and amount of
pollution prevented. These evalua-
tions can help program managers
to understand the effectiveness of
different program elements and
relationships between the program
activities. They can be used to jus-
tify funding from state and federal
legislatures and help secure private
funding by demonstrating effec-
tiveness. One of the drawbacks of
conducting such evaluations is that
they are often resource-intensive.
For this reason, only a few PPIS
grant recipients have conducted
such an evaluation. Examples of
programs that have conducted
overall program evaluations include
Alabama, Massachusetts, and Erie
County, New York.
The Alabama Department of
Environmental Management con-
tracted with the Alabama
Universities TVA Research
Consortium (AUTREC) to provide
an evaluation of the Waste
Reduction and Technology Transfer
(WRATT) program services. The
evaluation entailed contacting com-
panies that had received technical
assistance from the WRATT pro-
gram and conducting a survey
regarding WRATT services and
confidentiality. This process revealed
that clients were pleased with the
program, and 90 percent would rec-
ommend WRATT s services to oth-
ers. AUTREC performed an addi-
tional study to determine the cost
savings and waste reductions derived
from WRATT s services.
Information for this study was col-
lected by monitoring companies'
progress in implementing WRATT's
pollution prevention recommenda-
tions. While the data are still pre-
liminary, each company that
received technical assistance from
WRATT appears to have saved
approximately $160,000. This
translates to a 1:60 ratiofor every
dollar WRATT spends on conduct-
ing the assessments, industry saves
60 dollars.?
The Massachusetts Office of
Technical Assistance (OTA) also
used the services of an outside con-
sultant to evaluate its program. The
goal of OTAs PPIS grant was the
expansion of the Central
Massachusetts Pollution Prevention
Project, a relatively new technical
assistance program. When the pro-
ject was complete, the consultant
interviewed, by telephone, 110
companies (62 companies within
the project area and 58 similar
firms outside the project area as a
control group) to determine the
awareness of, usage of, and atti-
tudes about OTA services. Eighty-
seven percent of the firms that used
program services were actively
reducing toxics, as opposed to only
39 percent of firms that did not
use program services.
In-depth personal interviews
were also conducted at 28 compa-
nies to evaluate the firms' Toxics
Use Reduction (TUR) performance
and to collect additional data on
OTA effectiveness. On average,
those who received OTA assistance
"In addition to being a requirement
of the P2 Act, it is important to eval-
uate the program to demonstrate its
effectiveness to the legislature, to
industry, and to the general public in
order to continue the program.
Another function of program evalua-
tion is to help determine how the
program should evolve over time to
meet changing needs."
Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment
reduced toxics by 65 percent.
Twenty firms that received OTA
assistance eliminated 1,250,000
pounds of chemical use through
TUR modifications. OTA technical
assistance recipients reduced an
average of 45,000 pounds per
chemical targeted. At seven firms,
OTA documented a combined
annual cost reduction of $248,000,
or an average annual cost savings of
more than $35,000 per company.6
Western New York Economic
Development Corporation
(WNYEDC) also used an integrat-
ed approach to program measure-
ment.7 The purpose of
WNYEDC's PPIS grant was to
evaluate the effectiveness of a
county-level technical assistance
program, using the Erie County
Office of Pollution Prevention
(ECOPP) as a model. The grantee
attempted to quantify pollution
prevention and the associated eco-
nomic benefits on a case-by-case
basis in order to assess the impact
of the program. This effort focused
on companies to whom the pro-
gram had provided onsite technical
assistance. ECOPP established a
routine call-back program for
onsite assistance clients.
Measurement and Evaluation 31
-------
Approximately 6 months after a
site visit is completed, ECOPP
staff telephone a representative
from the facility and complete a
telephone survey designed for pro-
gram evaluation. Companies that
implemented ECOPP's technical
assistance recommendations,
achieved quantifiable economic
benefits, and reduced or prevented
waste were asked to be the subject
of case studies.
In addition to these quantita-
tive self-evaluation efforts,
WNYEDC retained a private com-
pany to review and independently
evaluate the efficacy of each ele-
ment of the program, and to pro-
duce an evaluation report of the
results. This outside contractor
measured a range of elements,
including:
Perceived clarity of technical
information provided by
ECOPP;
Quality of ECOPP's service;
Implementation rate of the pro-
grams recommendations; and
Perceived waste reductions as a
result of the programs assistance.
This information was gathered
both through telephone survey
questions and a focus group meet-
ing, which entailed a brainstorming
session of 12 former and ongoing
ECOPP clients from a cross section
of industry groups.
Overall, 77 percent of the sur-
vey respondents had, at the time of
the survey, 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 reduction in
operating cost. In addition to the
recommendations implemented to
date, 78 percent of the respondents
indicated that they anticipate
implementing ECOPP recommen-
dations in the future.
B.2 Evaluation of
Specific Services
Some PPIS grantees evaluate
priority services such as technical
assistance or outreach. These evalu-
ations are more limited in scope
than overall evaluations, and often
focus on a single area of service
delivery. To evaluate technical assis-
tance services, some grantees con-
duct spot assessments and followup
visits to client companies. These
onsite visits can provide valuable
information about the implementa-
tion rate for a technical assistance
program's pollution prevention rec-
ommendations, as well as specific
data on waste reductions and cost
savings, useful for the development
of case studies. Other benefits of
this approach include the deepen-
ing of the relationship between the
state and the facility, an opportuni-
ty to help the facility overcome dif-
ficulties implementing pollution
prevention methods, and motivat-
ing the facility to implement addi-
tional measures.
Grantees also evaluate the
quality of technical assistance and
other services such as workshops
or training sessions by surveying
clients. This approach enables the
grantee to assess whether or not
priority services are perceived as
useful and sometimes document
cost savings and waste reduction.
Program managers can use the
results of the assessment to make
changes in services to better meet
client needs. Neither of the above
approaches are as resource-inten-
sive as a comprehensive evalua-
tion. On the other hand, these
evaluations do not provide the
same level of detail and documen-
tation as a comprehensive evalua-
tion, particularly for cost savings
or pollution reductions. Examples
of states that have conducted eval-
uations of specific program ser-
vices include Pvhode Island, Iowa,
Missouri, Alaska, Colorado, and
New Jersey.
The Rhode Island DEM used
PPIS monies to conduct technical
assistance assessments at 125
Pvhode Island companies. Each
company visited received a written
report listing pollution prevention
options available, including process
and operational changes and recov-
ery/reuse technology. Once a
company's projects started, DEM
continued to periodically visit the
facility to check on operations and
note improvements. Approximately
40 to 50 percent of the companies
DEM assisted implemented source
reduction measures.
Many companies achieved sub-
stantial cost savings as a result of
DEM's technical assistance. For
example, a jewelry manufacturer
realized an annual savings of
$26,000 in feedstock, treatment,
and disposal costs by implementing
a recommendation to replace
trichloroethylene with an aqueous
cleaner. Similarly, a fastener manu-
facturer anticipates saving $17,000
Measurement and Evaluation 32
-------
annually by changing its paint mix-
ing process.8
The Iowa Waste Reduction
Assistance Program (WRAP) also
evaluated its technical assistance
efforts quantitatively and produced
a series of case studies containing
the results. Program staff visited 16
client companies' facilities by prior
agreement and interviewed respon-
sible officials to obtain as much
detail on successful pollution pre-
vention projects as was feasible. A
seventeenth client was a Governor's
Waste Reduction Award winner,
and WRAP used this client's award
application to obtain information
about its pollution prevention
efforts. WRAP compiled the pollu-
tion prevention results of 14 com-
panies into 32 case studies.9
Together, these companies showed
a recurring cost savings of $1.5
million per year and reduced over
10,000 tons of waste per year. A
sample WRAP case study appears
on page 34.
As seen in Chapter III, PPIS
grantees commonly conduct out-
reach activities, such as workshops
and presentations. Grantees indicat-
ed that evaluating these activities
helps them gauge the effectiveness
of their targeting efforts, as well as
the level of customer satisfaction
with the events. Several grantees,
such as the University Extension at
the University of Missouri-
Columbia, distribute questionnaires
or surveys to workshop attendees to
evaluate the workshops' impact.
The program used its PPIS
funds to conduct three 3-day
courses based on a model devel-
oped by EPA. Twenty-eight repre-
sentatives from manufacturing
organizations, government agen-
cies, and the armed forces attended
the workshops. At the end of each
course, participants completed an
evaluation form which asked atten-
dees such questions as:
"Which parts of the course will
be most useful?"
"What subject matter would you
recommend be added to the
course?"
"Would you recommend this
course to other professionals?"
University Extension then
compiled all responses and pro-
duced an evaluation summary for
each workshop. This process
allowed the grantee to gauge the
perceived usefulness of the train-
ing course and make improve-
ments to course content.
Several PPIS grantees also use
short survey forms to evaluate spe-
cific aspects of their programs. For
example, the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation devel-
oped a one-page questionnaire
asking respondents to evaluate the
usefulness of assistance and infor-
mation that the program provides.
The Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment
(CDPHE) sent a multiple-choice
survey to businesses that had used
CDPHE's pollution prevention
library. Similarly, the New Jersey
Institute of Technology (NJIT) dis-
tributed a two-page survey asking
recipients of technical assistance ser-
vices to evaluate their experiences
with the program. New Jersey's sur-
vey results showed that 83 percent
of the program's clients ranked
NJIT's service between very good
and excellent, and over half of the
respondents found that the pro-
Rhode Island DEM
Technical Assistance
Results
Total amount of waste reduced:
3,375,000 pounds liquid waste
20,800 pounds solid waste
gram's technical recommendations
were very helpful.
These measures of effectiveness
are valuable to the grantees in that
they help program managers under-
stand the perceived benefits of the
services delivered.
B.3 Measures of
Activity Level
The majority of state pollution
prevention programs account for
resources expended simply by
tracking the level of activity of the
program. This approach includes
tracking the number and types of
assessments completed, the size and
types of audiences at presentations,
or the number of phone calls for
assistance received. Some programs
also examine the number of
newsletters written, facilitywide
permits granted, grants dispersed, or
case studies generated. For formal
reporting, grantees also add narra-
tive descriptions of accomplish-
ments. Such an accounting of
resources fills legislative reporting
requirements.
Examining the quantities of ser-
vices a program provides is a rela-
Measurement and Evaluation 33
-------
lively simple process that does not
require the same level of energy or
resources as an overall program eval-
uation or evaluation of specific ser-
vices. The disadvantage of this
approach is that it does not enable
the program to assess environmental
results nor the quality of services.
Measures of PPIS grantees' activity
levels from 1989 to 1993 can be
found in Chapter III.
C. Improving Future
Measurement
Efforts
EPA's success in measuring the
effectiveness of the grant program
depends, in part, on the states' abil-
ity to measure their own progress.
In turn, their ability to measure
progress depends on the ability
and/or willingness of participating
facilities to measure pollution
reductions. EPA began its effort to
improve measurement and evalua-
tion by writing this study, which
documents current efforts. Grantees
identified barriers to measurement
during the course of EPA's study.
Barriers identified by the grant
recipients include the following:
Limited time and resources.
During the early development of
state pollution prevention pro-
grams, the states devoted little
effort to evaluating the effective-
ness of program elements. States
focused their limited resources
on program delivery, rather than
on program evaluation. While
some of the mature programs
have now begun to evaluate their
programs, developing programs
may not have the resources to
conduct full-scale evaluations.
Sample WRAP Case Study
Company: Douglas and Lomason Company
Product/Industry: Automotive hardware
Waste stream: Wastewater and sludge
Modifications: Source reduction/technology
changes and procedural changes. Eliminated
zinc phosphating processing and improved
autophoretic deposition process. Improved
wastewater treatment operation.
Benefits: Reduced wastewater treatment and
sludge disposal costs, and eliminated the
materials cost of an entire process. Saved
over $145,000 per year.
Opportunity: Douglas and Lomason manu-
factures automotive hardware for several
national accounts. The company requested
that WRAP perform an onsite assessment to
assist it in implementing a waste reduction
program. Previously many parts and sub-
assemblies were coated in a zinc phosphating
process that involved multiple stages and
used immersion tanks. The process was cost-
ly, experienced some operational difficulties,
and generated considerable wastewater and
sludge that required treatment and disposal.
Change: Douglas and Lomason eliminated
the zinc phosphating process by changing the
manufacturing process and adding protective
measures. The wastewater and sludge from
this process are no longer being generated,
and the equipment and tanks are being
removed. The company also finalized options
to reduce the usage and sludge generation in
an existing autophoretic deposition coating
process.
Savings/Benefits: The elimination of zinc
phosphating has drastically reduced the load
on the in-plant wastewater treatment facility
and thus reduced its operating costs. The
reduction in treatment operating costs and
sludge disposal costs is approximately
$20,000 per year. The material cost savings
for eliminating the process totals over
$125,000 annually. Improvements to the
autophoretic deposition process have reduced
sludge generation by 85 percent.
Measurement and Evaluation 34
-------
Linking reductions to elements
of state pollution prevention
programs. Isolating a grantee's
efforts from overall influences
that encourage waste-reducing
behaviors is difficult. For exam-
ple, much of the pollution pre-
vention process originates in the
private sector, making it difficult
for state programs to measure
overall results derived solely from
their PPIS-funded initiatives.
Obtaining data from facilities
on pollution reductions. Some
facilities that receive technical
assistance from the state are
reluctant to share information
on results obtained. Such facili-
ties view this information as
confidential, proprietary infor-
mation. Other facilities lack the
time and resources to measure
progress.
Use of unsuitable data. Certain
methodologies used by the states
may yield inconclusive results.
Some PPIS grantees, for exam-
ple, attempt to evaluate their
programs using overall state
quantitative data on emissions
and wastes, such as the TRI.
This type of measure, however,
may not accurately consider the
possibility of multiple causes for
changes in generation or release
rates, such as:
Fluctuations in production
levels or economic activity;
New treatment techniques
that reduce the amounts
reported while leaving gener-
ation rates unchanged;
Increases in overall education
efforts and awareness of pol-
lution prevention;
Changes that shift releases to
different media; and
Material substitutions that
may result in new types of
wastes or releases that are reg-
ulated differently or not at all.
Lack of measurement method-
ologies and EPA guidance.
Given that it is difficult to mea-
sure something that does not
exist (i.e., pollution not made),
states have had trouble develop-
ing measurement methodologies.
A number of PPIS grantees cited
lack of EPA guidance on mea-
surement as an impediment to
program evaluation. Specifically,
grantees believe that EPA did
not provide adequate direction
for measuring progress outside
the traditional "bean count"
methodology used by other
media programs.
While EPA cannot address all
of the barriers described above, it
is making efforts to help grantees
measure progress. In recent years
EPA has provided evaluation assis-
tance to an increasing number of
programs. The Agency will contin-
ue to increase its measurement
support to the states in the future.
For example, in FY96, EPA
plans to narrow PPIS award crite-
ria to fund states to develop mea-
surement methodologies.
Additionally, EPA plans on pilot-
testing block grants to states that
will enable the states to measure
progress according to environmen-
tal performance, rather than activ-
ity measures alone. Over time, as
the states gain more experience
and knowledge about measure-
ment and begin sharing this infor-
mation, EPA will learn more
about what works and what does
not work. EPA will then facilitate
the exchange of information on
lessons learned between the states
to improve subsequent measure-
ment efforts.
1 National Association for Public Administration, A New Direction for
EPA, p. 168.
2 National Association for Public Administration, A New Direction for
EPA, p. 169.
3 National Association for Public Administration, A New Direction for
EPA, p. 168.
4 Wigglesworth, D.T., ed. 1993. Pollution prevention: A practical
guide for state and local government. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis
5 Figures based on telephone interview with Alabama DEM staff.
6 Massachusetts Office of Technical Assistance for Toxic Use
Reduction. 1994. The Central Massachusetts Pollution Prevention
Project summary report.
7 Further details of measurement procedure and results may be
found in the Erie County Pollution Prevention Program evaluation
(April 1993).
8 More information about these examples and other Rhode Island
case studies are available in Pollution Prevention in Rhode Island:
Case Studies of the Rhode Island On-Site Technical Assistance
Program, a document published by the Rhode Island Department
of Environmental Management, Office of Environmental
Coordination.
9 Further examples of pollution in Iowa may be found in Pollution
Prevention Works for Iowa: Case Studies, an April 1993 document
published by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources.
Measurement and Evaluation 35
-------
Chapter V
Case Studies
This chapter explores in detail how the PPIS grants influenced the establishment
of comprehensive pollution prevention programs in five states. These in-depth
case studies examine how the PPIS grants were integrated into state pollution
prevention programs as a whole and highlight the effectiveness of the grants in
building infrastructure and self-sustaining programs. As in previous chapters of
this report, this chapter does not seek to describe a preferred state program model nor
compare different approaches undertaken by the states. Rather, the purpose of the chap-
ter is to showcase several state pollution prevention programs and describe the influence
of PPIS funding in each state.
EPA designed the grant program to be flexible to meet different state needs. States
defined the type of program organization that works best for them and the best method
of building a sustainable program. Thus, the states highlighted (Delaware, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, and South Dakota) differ in a number of ways.
For example, some states implement their programs from a centralized office in the state
regulatory agency (e.g., North Carolina, Delaware). Other states have used a decentral-
ized approach to structure their programs. South Dakota, for instance, implements its
grant activities through the media programs and partnerships with local agencies.
Another difference between the states is the method used to secure future funding. While
New Jersey and North Carolina fund their programs through fees on waste generation,
New Hampshire is trying to secure future funding through general funds. Other states,
such as South Dakota, are trying to integrate pollution prevention into the state regula-
tory agency so that future funding is not needed. While these different approaches to pro-
gram implementation may raise questions as to which methods are the most effective, this
report limits the discussion to recounting how states developed their pollution prevention
programs and whether they achieved the initial PPIS program goals established by EPA.
Case Studies i 37
-------
A. Summary of Findings
This section summarizes the findings of the case study states, examining PPIS-fund-
ed activities in light of the grant program's goals. As described in Chapter I, EPA estab-
lished the following goals at the outset of the program:
Empowering states to build a pollution prevention infrastructure.
Learning from and building upon innovative means of implementing pollution
prevention at both state and facility levels.
Supporting states in establishing and expanding pollution prevention programs.
Providing resources for pollution prevention technical assistance and training.
Fostering federal and state information sharing and communication.
A.1 Building a Pollution Prevention Infrastructure
PPIS provided seed money to the states to develop sustainable pollution prevention
programs. States used a variety of tools to institutionalize pollution prevention, including
developing pollution prevention legislation and strategies, establishing
advisory committees, designing information systems, and securing
Infrastructure development activities: future funding. For example, New Jersey and Delaware worked with
Strategies and legislation state legislatures to develop pollution prevention legislation concur-
Advisory committees rent with their PPIS grant applications. Legislatures in both states
Information systems enacted proposed legislation. The enactment of this legislation will
Secure non-federal funding help ensure that pollution prevention remains a formal state commit-
ment. The New Jersey legislation also established a fee on hazardous
waste generation, thus providing a source of funding for the program.
Three of the case study states, Delaware, New Hampshire, and South Dakota,
established a task force or advisory committee to guide the state's pollution prevention
program. These committees have brought together representatives from state media
programs and other state agencies. The committees guide the development of the state
pollution prevention program, foster communication between the media programs, and
help institutionalize pollution prevention. In Delaware, the advisory committee includes
other pollution prevention stakeholders, such as universities, utilities, local governments,
and chambers of commerce. The meetings have created linkages between these different
organizations interested in promoting pollution prevention, ensuring that pollution
prevention activities continue long after PPIS funding ceases.
Although New Hampshire and South Dakota have not enacted legislation, these states
have developed pollution prevention strategies to ensure the implementation of pollution
prevention activities well into the future. These strategies also help states to incorporate
pollution prevention into their regulatory programs. The strategies in both states make it
clear that pollution prevention is the highest priority of the state environmental agency
and direct regulatory managers to design their programs to foster pollution prevention.
Case Studies 38
-------
Another method of institutionalizing pollution prevention is to develop the structure
within the state to support pollution prevention. North Carolina used PPIS funding to
develop an integrated management system to link all of the environmental databases in
the state regulatory agency, including the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), annual reports
from hazardous waste generators, permit information, and monitoring data. The agency
uses the system to compare data reported by industry and assess opportunities for waste
reduction at specific facilities. The system also helps the pollution prevention program
target activities, including technical assistance, training, grants, research, and demonstra-
tion projects, to high-priority industries in the state.
Since the outset of the program, PPIS has encouraged states to develop permanent
sources of funding within the state. Given that state legislatures across the country have
begun cutting back funding for all nonmandated programs, the case study states demon-
strate that they are making inroads to securing permanent funding. To receive the PPIS
grant, each state has secured matching funds of 100 percent (half of the total cost of the
grant) to support program activities. In addition, New Jersey and North Carolina have both
secured future funding from their state legislatures to continue program activities.
Delaware currently provides funding for two staff in the pollution prevention pro-
gram. In the future, Delaware plans to leverage additional resources by working with the
NIST-funded Manufacturing Extension Partnership center in the state.
New Hampshire currently has a bill pending in the state legislature to fund staff posi-
tions in the Department of Environmental Services. The state is also evaluating the fol-
lowing options:
Grant flexibility. Use a portion of each media or program grant to create a pool of
funds to support multimedia pollution prevention activities. Alaska and New York
have successfully used this approach.
Small Business Technical Assistance Program (SBTAP). At least partial funding for
pollution prevention assistance efforts could be obtained through proposed funding
mechanisms in the Clean Air Act, through the SBTAP.
Pollution Prevention Planning/Toxics Use Reduction (TUR) Law. Passage of pol-
lution prevention planning by businesses could provide for the set-up and operation
of a technical assistance program without a self-sustaining, fee-based system.
Other methods. The state is investigating other options for supporting pollution pre-
vention, such as environmental block grants with a pollution prevention component,
state general funds, existing funding sources currently used for cleanup and remediation,
and permit fees.1
South Dakota is not currently seeking future funding. Rather, the state plans to focus
on integrating its pollution prevention program into the regulatory structure, so that a
special pollution prevention program would no longer be needed. The state envisions that
pollution prevention activities will be carried out through media programs, county gov-
ernments, and other partners. Furthermore, the state hopes that its educational efforts
will instill the value of pollution prevention in students and teachers to ensure its future.
Case Studies 39
-------
A.2 Implementing Innovative Approaches to Pollution
Prevention
The case studies demonstrate the innovative approaches that PPIS supports to offer
incentives to target groups to reduce waste, including voluntary challenges to businesses,
grants, and recognition. The states also used innovative approaches to reduce barriers to
preventing pollution, including those prompted by regulatory requirements, limited
technical information, and research gaps. Delaware established a voluntary challenge pro-
gram (modeled on EPA's 33/50 program) to encourage industries to reduce the amount
of toxic chemicals they emit. New Jersey instituted a Governor's Award Program to rec-
ognize the achievements of businesses that successfully reduce waste and other organiza-
tions and people that have furthered pollution prevention in the state. North Carolina
offers challenge grants to industry to reduce waste.
To reduce cross-media transfer of pollutants, possibly prompted by regulatory require-
ments, New Jersey and Delaware conducted demonstration projects to test the feasibility
of issuing industrial facilities a facilitywide permit. When issued, these permits will include
all regulatory requirements of the air, water, and waste programs. The states are testing
these permits to gauge their administrative feasibility and to assess their effectiveness.
North Carolina conducts pollution prevention research, in conjunction with the
Pollution Prevention Research Center at North Carolina State University, to provide
innovative solutions to persistent pollution problems at North Carolina businesses.
A.3 Establishing and Expanding Pollution Prevention
Programs
Four of the five states whose case studies are featuredDelaware,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, and South Dakotahad limited pollu-
Four Of the five States Whose case tion prevention activities under way but no sustainable pollution pre-
Studies are featuredDelaware, vention program in place prior to receiving PPIS funding. In all of
New Hampshire New Jersey and these states, PPIS provided the seed money to establish pollution pre-
South Dakotahad limited pollu- vention programs.
tion prevention activities under North Carolina, one of the first states to establish a pollution pre-
way but no Sustainable pollution vention program, used PPIS funding to expand its activities. PPIS
prevention program in place prior funding enabled the state to better target pollution prevention tech-
tO receivina PPIS fundina nical assistance by developing an information management system
that integrated all of the state's environmental databases, and to
expand technical assistance activities in conjunction with a media
program. In sum, each case study demonstrates that PPIS funding supported the states in
establishing or expanding their pollution prevention programs.
Case Studies 40
-------
NJTAP conducted more
A.4 Providing Resources for Technical
Assistance and Training assistance audits with PPIS
funds. Including all funding
All of the states highlighted in the case studies have provided onsite . MJTAP ho
technical assistance to targeted groups to help them prevent pollution in
, ^ ., rrfr r assisted nearly 200
innovative ways. South Dakota is promoting better farmland and ranch
, run r> TU- u companies.
management through the Bootstraps Project. 1ms project aims to teach
farmers and ranchers that sustaining a profitable operation is directly relat-
ed to using practices that maintain or improve the environmental health of
range and crop lands. Under Bootstraps, each family learns how to complete a natural
resource inventory for their ranch or farm, develop a management plan, and select the
best management practices (BMPs) to implement the plans. South Dakota provides
technical assistance to help select and implement the BMPs to both protect the environ-
ment and promote economic stability. Delaware targeted the printing industry as a high-
priority industry. The state has developed a fact sheet to help printers reduce waste and
offers site assessments to all printers in the state. New Hampshire conducted nearly 40
site assessments to offer businesses innovative solutions to reducing waste.
The New Jersey Technical Assistance Program (NJTAP) conducted more than 75
onsite technical assistance audits with PPIS funding. Including all funding sources,
NJTAP has assisted nearly 200 companies. While NJTAP responds to any business that
requests services with either a phone call or an onsite visit, it also targets high-priority sec-
tors in accordance with the state pollution prevention law. North Carolina identified
appropriate small business categories and developed and distributed informational mate-
rials to the targeted industries. During this process, the Office of Pollution Prevention
formulated training materials and identified future research needs for pollution preven-
tion in small businesses.
A.5 Fostering Information Sharing and Communication
The case studies demonstrate that PPIS funding helped the case study states share
information with each other and other states. For example, some of the case study states
used their funding to transfer lessons learned from their demonstration programs to other
states. South Dakota has made presentations to North Dakota to explain lessons learned
from its innovative Bootstraps Project and plans to do the same in Colorado, Nebraska,
Missouri, and Kansas. South Dakota has also received inquiries from foreign govern-
ments. New Jersey shared information on its facilitywide permitting project with
Delaware as Delaware designed a similar project. In addition, as New Jersey formulated
its technical assistance program, it consulted North Carolina for advice on how to design
the program. Without PPIS funding, states would be operating in a vacuum. By sharing
lessons learned with each other, the states avoid duplication of effort, as well as save
money, time, and other resources.
States share information with EPA through a variety of vehicles, including semiannu-
al progress reports, final grant reports, conferences, and publications. Together, the states
featured in the case studies submitted more than 40 reports to EPA to document their
Case Studies 41
-------
progress implementing pollution prevention activities. From these reports, EPA learns
about grantee accomplishments, as well as what obstacles grantees encountered during
implementation and how they overcame the obstacles. EPA can then compile data on
grant activities and share this information with other states. States also share the publica-
tions created under the grant with EPA. For example, Delaware shares all new case stud-
ies on its information clearinghouse with EPA's Pollution Prevention Information
Clearinghouse (PPIC).
PPIS has also enabled grantees to sponsor conferences to share information. Although
not highlighted in the case studies, EPA has consistently supported the states to cospon-
sor semiannual conferences of state pollution prevention programs with the National
Pollution Prevention Roundtable.
A.6 Conclusion
In sum, the case studies demonstrate that PPIS has achieved the initial objectives
establsihed at the outset of the grant program. States are making efforts to build sustain-
able programs by writing legislation, developing pollution prevention strategies, securing
independent funding, and incorporating the pollution prevention ethic throughout state
governments. The states are providing innovative solutions to persistent pollution prob-
lems and providing direct technical assistance to small and medium-sized businesses, as
stipulated by Congress. Furthermore, since the inception of the program states are shar-
ing information and trying to leverage resources with other environmental organizations.
Prior to the inception of the PPIS program, very few organizations provided environ-
mental assistance. Only a handful of states offered any kind of technical assistance. PPIS
funding has dramatically increased the number of states offering outreach, training, and
technical assistance. Today, several other organizations have begun providing environmen-
tal assistance, many of them with a pollution prevention focus, including:
Small Business Administration (SBA) funds Small Business Assistance Centers
throughout the country that provide technical assistance to small businesses.
National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) funds the Manufacturing
Extension Partnerships (MEP), also located in a number of states.
Small Business Development Centers provide technical assistance to small business-
es to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments emphasizing pollution
prevention.
EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance (OECA) is funding four
compliance assistance centers.
Given this growing awareness of groups providing environmental services, the FY95
PPIS grant recipients are required to leverage the capabilities of other organizations in
their states. Such coordination will ensure that there is no duplication of effort and will
help to spread pollution prevention information.
Case Studies 42
-------
B. Case Studies
Each case study begins with an overview of the state's pollution prevention program,
including the organization structure,2 program funding and budget, and any pollution
prevention legislation or strategy in place. The case studies then describe the different
activities supported by the grants as well as state accomplishments related to these activ-
ities. Finally, the case studies assess the impact of the PPIS grants on the state program
and describe future challenges for each state. As described above, EPA selected the fol-
lowing states in five EPA regions for the case studies:3
Delaware (Region 3)
New Hampshire (Region 1)
New Jersey (Region 2)
North Carolina (Region 4)
South Dakota (Region 8)
B.1 Delaware
Overview
Delaware established its pollution prevention program in June 1990 with the passage
of the Waste Minimization/Pollution Prevention Act. The mission of the Delaware
Pollution Prevention Program (DPPP), as specified in the act, is to demonstrate and facil-
itate the potential for pollution prevention in Delaware by:
Providing technical assistance to targeted industries
Providing education and outreach in waste minimization and pollution prevention
Developing a statewide recycling program
Organizational Structure. The DPPP, located in the Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), focuses on education, technical assis-
tance, and financial incentives to help businesses and residents take actions that will not
only improve environmental quality but also save money. The initial technical assistance
arm of DPPP was the Delaware Waste Reduction Assistance Program (DELWRAP) at the
University of Delaware. The technical assistance program has since moved to the DPPP.
DPPP also has joint activities with the Delaware State Chamber of Commerce, the
Delaware Economic Development Office, and the Departments of Transportation and
Administrative Services. Each of these organizations helps to implement the pollution
prevention strategy. Exhibit V-l summarizes the pollution prevention infrastructure in
Delaware.
Program Funding and Budget. PPIS funds, including the state match, provide over
80 percent of DPPP's funding, including funding for two staff positions. Coastal man-
agement and nonpoint source grants fund the remainder of the program. Exhibit V-2
summarizes FY95 funding sources.
Case Studies 43
-------
Exhibit V-
During the period of this study, Delaware received two PPIS grants. The first grant,
Development of a Pollution Prevention Program for the State of Delaware, was awarded in
June 1990. The grant established a multimedia, nonregulatory pollution prevention pro-
gram to demonstrate and facilitate the potential for pollution prevention and waste
reduction in Delaware. EPA awarded the second grant, Enhanced Pollution Prevention
Program, in January 1993- The purpose of this grant was to integrate pollution preven-
tion into the media-specific regulatory programs and to prepare a pilot multimedia per-
mit for one facility. Exhibit V-3 summarizes Delaware's grants.
Strategy and Legislation. As described above, Delaware enacted the Waste
Minimization/Pollution Prevention Act in 1990. In addition to establishing DPPP, the
POLLUTION
Organization
Delaware Chamber of
Commerce
Key Activities
Industry roundtable co-sponsor
Outreach
Delaware Economic
Development Office
On-line information
Clearinghouse
Financial assistance
Delaware Solid Waste
Authority
Recycling centers
Department of
Administrative Services
State office paper recycling
program
Green procurement policy
Department of Natural
Resources and
Environmental Control
Implementation committee
Strategy/Legislation
Industry roundtable
Technical assistance
Outreach and education
Voluntary reduction program
Training
Regulatory integration
Multimedia permitting project
Waste exchange
Program evaluation
Department of
Transportation
Tree recycling
Reuse of fly ash
NIST Manufacturing
Extension Partnership
Technical assistance
Training courses
Demonstrations
University of Delaware
Research
Seminars
Teleconferences
Case Studies i 44
-------
Exhibit V-2
FY 1995 Pollution Prevention Program Funding Sources
Coastal management/nonpoint source
PPISEPA portion
PPISState match
Total Funding
$39,420
$89,790
$89,790
$219,000
act also declared an environmental policy for the State of Delaware in accordance with
EPA's waste management hierarchy:
Waste that is generated should be, in order of priority, reduced at its source,
recovered, reused, recycled, treated, or disposed of so as to minimize the pre-
sent and future threat to human health and the environment.4
The act also required DNREC to establish an implementation committee to guide
program development and ensure implementation of the waste management hierarchy.
The act stipulates that the implementation committee must consist of representatives of
a wide range of groups, including state and local governments, nonprofit organizations,
utilities, and academia.
I
Exhibit V-3
PPIS Grant Summary
Grant
Year Amount
Development of a Pollution Prevention
Program for the State of Delaware
Enhanced Pollution Prevention Program
Total Funding
1990
1993
$293,000
$199,000
$492,000
Activities Funded by PPIS Grants
PPIS supports a wide range of activities at DPPP in the areas of infrastructure devel-
opment, technical assistance, education and outreach, and regulatory integration:
Infrastructure development. PPIS-supported activities to build Delaware's infra-
structure include an implementation committee, an industry roundtable, and a vol-
untary program that challenges businesses to reduce hazardous emissions.
Technical assistance. Activities supported by PPIS funding include onsite audits, an
information clearinghouse, and an internship program.
Outreach and education. DNREC conducts a wide range of activities to promote
pollution prevention concepts to businesses, citizens, local governments, and farmers.
Case Studies 45
-------
Implementation Committee
Members
Department of Administrative
Services
Department of Agriculture
Delaware Development Office
Department of Public Instruction
Department of Transportation
Delaware Solid Waste Authority
University of Delaware
Delaware State College
Delaware Technical and Community
College
State Chamber of Commerce
Central Delaware Chamber of
Commerce
Maryland/Delaware Solid Waste
Association
League of Women Voters
Delaware League of Local
Governments
Chemical Industry Council
D&J Recycling
Delmarva Power & Light
Activities include developing outreach materials, giving presentations and workshops,
and developing curriculum materials.
Regulatory integration. PPIS supports the integration of pollution prevention into
Delaware's regulatory program by training media program staff in pollution prevention
techniques, a pilot project to assess facilitywide permitting, and regulatory review.
These activities are described further, below.
Implementation Committee. PPIS funding allowed Delaware to establish the
Pollution Prevention Implementation Committee, which oversees the activities of DPPP
and guides the program's future direction. The Implementation Committee consists of
members from a wide range of backgrounds, including other state agencies, industry,
civic and environmental organizations, and faculty from the University of Delaware
College of Engineering. The committee selected the first two target industries and iden-
tified locations for technical assistance utilizing SARA Title III Section 313 data. The
committee has met on a monthly basis from 1990 through 1992 and quarterly from 1992
through 1994.
Industry Round-table. DNREC and the Delaware Chamber of Commerce estab-
lished the Pollution Prevention Industry Roundtable in August 1991 to create a forum in
which companies could learn from each other and share experi-
ences and information on pollution prevention and recycling.
Meetings have included tours of facilities (including Zeneca
Pharmaceuticals and DuPont Edge Moor Plant) and presenta-
tions on waste reduction programs. Membership has expanded
from eight participants at the first meeting to an average atten-
dance of 30 industrial facility representatives per meeting.
Currently, the roundtable has 115 members that represent 62
Delaware companies. The roundtable meets on a quarterly basis.
Voluntary Reduction Program. Modeled after EPA's 33/50
program, DNREC has established a voluntary program to
encourage manufacturers to reduce the amount of toxic chemi-
cals they release into the environment. The goal of the program
is to reduce toxic emissions as reported under the TRI by 50 per-
cent statewide by the end of 1995- Twenty Delaware companies
have agreed to participate in the program. Thus far, facilities par-
ticipating in the program have reduced emissions by 12 percent.
Onsite Assistance Audits. DELWRAP, and now the DPPP,
provides pollution prevention technical assistance to small and
medium-sized companies on a voluntary, nonregulatory, and
confidential basis. According to the DPPP, technical assistance
focuses on smaller companies because they generally do not have
the economic or technical resources necessary to evaluate pollu-
tion prevention opportunities.
DELWRAP initially targeted the printing industry and later
expanded to include all manufacturing options. To publicize the
program and encourage participation by Delaware companies,
DELWRAP conducted a number of outreach activities. These
Case Studies 46
-------
activities included radio interviews, articles in local newspapers
and business newsletters, and a mailing to all 77 printers in the
state. The mailing included a letter, a brochure describing DEL-
WRAP, and an application for technical assistance. Other meth-
ods of marketing the program included publicity through the
Delaware State Chamber of Commerce, trade shows, and refer-
rals from DNREC's regulatory program, where appropriate.
DELWRAP completed 17 onsite technical assistance visits
and responded to 30 technical inquiries. Each facility received a
report outlining waste reduction recommendations and an offer
of followup and assistance on implementation. An oversight
committee (consisting of officials from the University of
Delaware, DNREC, and the Delaware State Chamber of
Commerce) evaluated the program by reviewing the pollution
prevention assessment reports that were given to clients and
comparing them with reports written by other states. The com-
mittee concluded that the level of activity was comparable and
that the reports were well written.
Information Clearinghouse. DNREC and the Delaware Development Office estab-
lished a waste minimization/pollution prevention information clearinghouse as part of
the Delaware On-Line Database housed at the Delaware Development Office. The clear-
inghouse includes bibliographies and case studies sorted by standard industrial classifica-
tion (SIC) codes. DNREC updates the clearinghouse as new documents are added to its
pollution prevention library and as new Delaware case studies are received. DNREC
shares new case studies with EPA's Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse.
Internship Program. In coordination with the University of Delaware, DNREC is in
the process of establishing an internship program for engineering students. Through this
program, interns will join DPPP staff on technical assistance visits. At these visits, the
interns will provide their expertise and learn about pollution prevention in the process.
Outreach Materials. Delaware used PPIS funds to create many outreach documents,
including fact sheets, manuals, and home audit kits. Pollution prevention fact sheets for
the following industry sectors were developed:
Auto repair
Printing
Dry cleaning
Chemical manufacturing (targeted to small manufacturers)
Construction and demolition
Metal finishing
General business
The program developed a Waste Reduction Self-Evaluation Manual to help businesses
conduct self-assessments of pollution prevention opportunities. To date, 82 businesses
have ordered copies of the manual. In addition, DPPP has supplied copies of the manu-
al to DNREC regulatory programs. The program also sent promotional material to tar-
geted groups. For example, DNREC distributed 175,000 home audit kits to Delaware
Avoiding Duplication
DELWRAP tentatively identified the
plastics industry as a second target
industry for technical assistance.
DELWRAP surveyed 67 Delaware
companies in the plastics industry to
gather data to develop the program. Of
the 22 responses received, most com-
panies were already receiving assis-
tance from the Composite Center at the
University of Delaware. To avoid dupli-
cation of effort, DELWRAP decided not
to target the plastics industry, but rather
provide assistance to any type of busi-
ness that requests its services.
Case Studies 47
-------
homes through Sunday newspapers. Additionally, the Delaware Chamber of Commerce
publication, News, included a magazine insert that featured articles on DNREC pollu-
tion prevention activities and services for businesses, articles on DELWRAP, and articles
by companies on pollution prevention activities at their facilities. News has a statewide
circulation of 14,000.
Workshops and Presentations. Delaware conducted several hundred presentations,
seminars, and workshops with the help of PPIS funds. These activities targeted specific
companies, schools, and community and government groups. Examples of topics
include:
Pollution prevention training for Delaware industries
Promoting landfill alternatives
Facility planning
Twenty-three attendees representing 17 companies attended the facility planning
workshop. After the workshop, DELWPvAP contacted participants with a letter and a
phone call to answer any pollution prevention questions and encourage them to take
advantage of DELWPvAP technical assistance services. As a result of the workshop and
followup activities, 10 companies requested onsite technical assistance audits. Six addi-
tional companies expressed a strong interest in DELWPvAP services and requested future
contact.
Education. To provide early education on protecting the environment and to help
instill a waste reduction ethic in Delaware's youth, DNPvEC developed a pollution pre-
vention curriculum for grades K-8. The curriculum ties reducing, reusing, and recycling
into the basic curriculum subjects, such as history, science, and math. More than 300
teachers have been trained in using the curriculum since 1991. These teachers have the
potential to reach more than 7,500 students each year.
DNPvEC staff also use curriculum materials during outreach events, such as special
children's programs at schools, fairs, and festivals. To supplement the curriculum, the pro-
gram routinely publishes an environmental education newsletter for children.
To address the special needs of day-care centers and preschools, DNPvEC purchased a
special waste reduction curriculum for children ages 3 to 5. The curriculum is available
at all teacher learning and resource centers in the state.
Reference Materials. DNPvEC has established a pollution prevention reference col-
lection in each of Delaware's libraries and bookmobiles. Books included in the collection
address water and energy conservation, household hazardous substances, environmental
consumerism, and nonpoint source water pollution.
Training. PPIS funded DPPP to train DNREC staff in the fundamentals of pollution
prevention to enable staff to incorporate pollution prevention into their daily activities.
Approximately 50 regulatory staff, including scientists, engineers, and senior managers,
attended the 1-day pollution prevention training course, and more than 30 staff from the
regulatory programs, including air, water, and hazardous waste programs, have attended
a 3-day course on pollution prevention assessments. DNREC also provides cross-training
to media program staff concerning the other regulatory programs.
Facilitywide Permitting. A major initiative funded by the second PPIS grant is a pilot
project to evaluate the issuance of multimedia permits in Delaware. A multimedia permit
Case Studies 48
-------
is a facilitywide permit that incorporates the requirements of the air, hazardous waste,
solid waste, and water pollution control programs. By issuing the permit on a multime-
dia basis, DPPP hopes to promote pollution prevention and avoid cross-media transfer of
pollutants in the regulatory process.
To implement the demonstration project, DNPvEC formed a multimedia focus group
consisting of staff from the air, NPDES, RCRA, solid waste, and pollution prevention
programs. The focus group contacted several states with experience in multimedia per-
mitting to learn about their experiences. The focus group then invited a DuPont facility
to participate in the project. Following meetings with DuPont, the focus group decided
first to develop a mock permit for a fictitious company to work out the details of issuing
a multimedia permit. DuPont assisted in developing the mock permit. DNREC has
received the pilot project facility's permit application and is currently working on pollu-
tion prevention opportunities with the facility prior to permit review.
Regulatory Review. At the request of the NPDES program, DPPP staff reviewed pro-
posed NPDES regulations for opportunities to incorporate pollution prevention. The
revised regulations (currently in draft form) embrace the concept of pollution prevention
as the preferred waste management method and provide incentives for facilities to reduce
their discharges through pollution prevention. These draft regulations serve as a model
for many other states as they review their NPDES regulations.
Analysis of PPIS Impact
Prior to PPIS funding, Delaware had no formal pollution prevention program. PPIS
funding has enabled the state to provide technical assistance and outreach, but perhaps
more importantly, Delaware has developed the infrastructure necessary to sustain DPPP
over time.
Infrastructure. The passage of legislation concurrent with the PPIS grant application
was the first step toward institutionalizing pollution prevention in Delaware. PPIS fund-
ing created a network of people interested in instilling the pollution prevention ethic in
businesses throughout the state. The implementation committee brought together a
diverse group of individuals to steer state pollution prevention policy. Implementation
committee meetings enabled participants to brainstorm ideas, share information, and
link services. The industry roundtable and Voluntary Reduction Program cemented the
program links with Delaware businesses. The Implementation Committee is actively
seeking funding for the program once PPIS funds are terminated. The legislature is also
considering legislation that would establish a state matching grants program to assist
businesses with pollution prevention projects.
Regulatory Integration. Delaware's activities currently focus on the transition to
multimedia integration. A prime example is the multimedia permit pilot program, which
seeks to determine the feasibility of reorganizing the regulatory structure of DNREC.
DPPP has also formed a multimedia focus group within the agency to work on the bar-
riers to multimedia regulation. The program has worked with all of the media programs
and has trained its entire staff in cross-media transfer issues. Finally, the technical assis-
tance program looks at all media when working with a facility to reduce waste generation.
Case Studies 49
-------
The small size of the programs and the centralized location of the staff makes coordina-
tion and communication easier.
In addition to the multimedia activities of DPPP, the program is expending a signifi-
cant effort to integrate pollution prevention into the regulatory programs of DNREC.
DPPP staff will join compliance inspectors from the hazardous waste, air, and water pro-
grams to help identify pollution prevention opportunities and to inform facilities about
the services of DPPP DPPP has also helped draft NPDES permit regulations that include
pollution prevention incentives.
As in most states, there was limited coordination between regulatory programs in
Delaware before the formation of the DPPP. At present, many lines of communication
have opened between the media programs, resulting in increased efforts to implement a
pollution prevention strategy and projects by all the major media programs (air, NPDES,
RCRA, and industrial solid waste). Enhanced communication between the media pro-
grams is a major step toward integrating pollution prevention into the regulatory process.
Program Evaluation. Currently, DPPP is struggling with the question of how to eval-
uate the success of a pollution prevention program. In its enabling legislation, DPPP is
required to report activities conducted to the state legislature in an annual report. This
report is a narrative description of activities undertaken and accomplishments achieved.
The document does not attempt to measure actual pollution reductions. According to the
grantee, one difficulty is measuring any direct, quantitative results of its activities when
companies generally do not share the results of pollution prevention projects. Another
challenge is accurately attributing pollution prevention results to DPPP efforts, consider-
ing that pollution prevention information is available from multiple sources.
Nonetheless, DPPP has evaluated several components of its program. For example, it
conducted a survey of the Pollution Prevention Industry Roundtable and considers atten-
dance at presentations and workshops an indication of its success at publicizing its work.
The study's findings include the following:
Eighty-seven percent of respondents stated that the programs and services of the
DPPP have been beneficial to their companies.
Eighty-nine percent of the respondents rated the industry roundtable meeting formats
as "good" or "excellent."
Seventy-eight percent of respondents rated the information exchange between com-
panies as "medium" to "high."
Additional publication of roundtable meetings was suggested by several respondents
as a way to increase membership.
The technical assistance program evaluates the quality of its services by compiling
followup questionnaires to the facilities.5 DELWRAP also followed up with workshop
participants to see if they would like additional assistance in implementing pollution pre-
vention activities. As described above, 10 out of 17 companies requested that DELWRAP
conduct an onsite visit after attending one of the workshops. Six of the remaining seven
companies expressed an interest in receiving additional information.
Case Studies 50
-------
Program Future
To enable DPPP to focus on source reduction, the top of the waste management hier-
archy, DNPvEC separated pollution prevention and recycling programs. DPPP was
moved to the Office of the Secretary to enable better coordination with programs
throughout DNREC. The two programs will continue to coordinate assistance efforts.
Delaware currently provides funding for two DPPP staff. No additional funding for
DELWPvAP was obtained; the technical assistance function has been moved to the DPPP
and the NIST-funded Delaware Manufacturing Alliance. The reception to assistance
from the DPPP has been quite positive.
DPPP believes its challenge for the future is to continue the program's existing inte-
gration efforts and to expand its assistance to greater numbers of small businesses in the
state.
Contact
Andrea Farrell
Delaware Pollution Prevention Program
Phone: 302739-3822
Fax: 302 739-6242
Case Studies 51
-------
B.2 New Hampshire
Overview
Organizational Structure. New Hampshire divides responsibilities for implementing
pollution prevention activities among several organizational units. Within the
Department of Environmental Services (DES) Waste Management Division is the New
Hampshire Pollution Prevention Program (NHPPP), a nonregulatory program that con-
ducts pollution prevention workshops and provides onsite technical assistance assess-
ments for businesses upon request. In addition, NHPPP staff provide technical assistance
over the phone and maintain a library of information on new technologies, pollution
prevention products and vendors, fact sheets, and case studies, which are available to busi-
nesses and industries. The department also has a full-time pollution prevention coordi-
nator in the Office of the Commissioner. The coordinator is responsible for pollution
prevention policy development and regulatory integration initiatives. Although not fund-
ed by the PPIS program, DES also maintains a Small Business Technical Assistance
Exhibit V-4
HIRE POLLUTION
PREVENTION NETWOR
Organization
Department of Environmental
Services
Office of the Commissioner
Key Activities
Task force
Regulatory integration
Strategy
Department of Environmental
Services
Pollution Prevention Program
Technical assistance (on and
off site)
Information clearinghouse
Outreach materials
Presentations and workshops
Conferences
Educational partnerships
Recognition program
Department of Environmental
Services
Small Business Technical and
Environmental Compliance
Assistance Program
Technical assistance
Outreach materials
Presentations
Small business ombudsman
Regulatory assistance
University of New Hampshire
Pollution Prevention
Partnership
Pollution prevention curriculum
Internship program
Advisory committee
Business and Industry
Association of New Hampshire
WasteCap
Materials exchange
Newsletter
Technical assistance
Presentations and workshops
Onsite asssessments
Case Studies 52
-------
Program (SBTAP) in the Air Resources Division. SBTAP was established and funded
under the Clean Air Act to help small businesses meet and go beyond current and pro-
posed regulations.
A Pollution Prevention Partnership with the University of New Hampshire comple-
ments DES activities. The university is currently developing a pollution prevention cur-
riculum and coordinates a student internship program. Exhibit V-4 further describes the
roles of each organization.
Program Funding and Budget NHPPP currently has a staff of 1.8 full-time employ-
ees and is still working under the original 3-year PPIS grant of $296,000. This funding
for the NHPPP is 100 percent federal funding and was awarded in September 1991. The
first grant was designed to formalize nonregulatory pollution prevention initiatives in the
DES with a pollution prevention program (NHPPP). EPA awarded a second grant, A
Pollution Prevention Partnership, in October 1993- The purpose of this grant was to incor-
porate pollution prevention into the higher education system and to provide an addi-
tional university-based, nonregulatory source for technical assistance in New Hampshire
via an internship program. Exhibit V-5 summarizes grant awards during the period of this
study.
Exhibit V-5
PPIS Grant Summary
Grant
Year
Amount
New Hampshire 1991 $296,000
Pollution Prevention Program
A Pollution Prevention Partnership 1993 $84,000
Total Funding $380,000
Strategy and Legislation. Currently, there is a bill pending in the state legislature to
formally establish the pollution prevention program, mandate the offering of technical
assistance services, and fund two positions. Prior to enacting any legislation, the state
incorporated pollution prevention goals into DES's Strategic Plan and developed a pol-
lution prevention strategy. The plan, released in early 1994, articulates the department's
mission statement, goals, objectives, and implementation schedule. The plan is intended
to shape DES's activities over the coming years. Of the seven goals established by the
plan, the first goal is "to prevent, minimize, and clean up environmental degradation in
order to protect public health, safety, and the natural environment." To implement this
goal, DES identified several objectives, including to "continually guide, educate, and pro-
vide technical assistance to those affected by the department's permitting and other
requirements, with an emphasis on pollution prevention."6
In addition to the Strategic Plan, DES released a pollution prevention strategy in
January 1995- The Pollution Prevention Strategy describes the department's pollution
prevention goals, outlines existing pollution prevention activities, and discusses and rec-
ommends actions on specific issues in the areas of infrastructure, targeting activities, out-
Case Studies 53
-------
Goal Statement
"It is the goal of the department to
promote pollution prevention actions
consistent with the definition as the
preferred option for meeting established
environmental quality goals. We recog-
nize, however, that in some cases pol-
lution prevention may not be feasible at
this time. In those cases, the
Department will strive to ensure that
pollution prevention options are consid-
ered first, followed by recycling, treat-
ment, and disposal. Decisions that do
support efforts to prevent pollution at
the source of generation or release
should be re-examined periodically in
an effort to continually strive toward our
pollution prevention objectives."7
reach, and regulatory integration. Specific activities, including
timetables for completion, identified by the strategy include:
Develop appropriate pollution prevention outreach materials
for internal distribution.
Provide pollution prevention orientation training for all DES
employees (more than 80 percent complete).
Provide advanced pollution prevention training for appropri-
ate field and technical staff such as inspectors, permit writers,
and engineers.
Provide multimedia training for selected regulatory and tech-
nical assistance staff.
Reward employees who provide significant contributions to
pollution prevention efforts within DES.
The strategy also discusses the need for identifying long-term
funding of pollution prevention activities. It recommends that
DES examine several options for securing long-term funding:
Grant flexibility. Use a portion of each media or program
grant to create a pool of funds to support multimedia pollu-
tion prevention activities. Alaska and New York have success-
fully used this approach.
Small Business Technical Assistance Program (SBTAP). At least partial funding for
pollution prevention assistance efforts could be obtained through proposed funding
mechanisms in the Clean Air Act, through the SBTAP.
Pollution Prevention Planning/Toxics Use Reduction (TUR) Law. Passage of a pol-
lution prevention planning by businesses could provide for the set-up and operation
of a technical assistance program without a self-sustaining, fee-based system.
Other methods. The state is investigating other options for supporting pollution pre-
vention, such as environmental block grants with a pollution prevention component,
state general funds, existing funding sources currently used for cleanup and remedia-
tion, and permit fees.8
Activities Funded by PPIS Grants
PPIS funds have allowed New Hampshire to develop a pollution prevention infra-
structure, provide technical assistance to businesses, integrate pollution prevention into
the regulatory programs, and educate New Hampshire businesses, residents, and students
about pollution prevention. These activities are described further below.
Infrastructure. PPIS-funded activities to develop infrastructure include an agency-
wide task force, the pollution prevention strategy document, and strategic plan.
Regulatory integration. Activities to incorporate pollution prevention into the regu-
latory programs include identification of regulatory barriers to pollution prevention,
staff training, increasing coordination between the NHPPP and the regulatory offices,
and incorporating pollution prevention into some permits and enforcement settle-
ments through Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs).
Case Studies 54
-------
Technical assistance. PPIS funding enables DES to provide a range of technical assis-
tance services to businesses, including onsite assessments and an information clear-
inghouse.
Outreach and education. New Hampshire sponsors a wide range of education and
outreach activities including conferences, a pollution prevention curriculum, a student
internship program, and an advisory committee. The NHPPP has also worked with
the New Hampshire Department of Education to develop and provide teacher train-
ing at the grade school level.
Task Force. In May 1992, PPIS funds enabled DES to establish a multimedia pollu-
tion prevention task force to guide and integrate pollution prevention into all department
activities. Task force representatives consisted of staff from each
of the DES media programs (air, water, and waste) and included
a cross section of staff levels, including staff from technical, Task Force PurpOSG
enforcement, policy, and administrative positions. The task force "JQ (Jjrgct coordinate and promote
identified the following objectives: strategies that prevent pollution of air,
Facilitate information exchange among and between task force land and water Such Strategies
members and related organizations.
Pursue, where appropriate, integration of pollution prevention reduction, waste minimization, and best
measures directly into the regulatory process for air quality, management practices to conserve nat-
water quality (including surface water, ground water, and wet-
, ,, , & . . , ural resources and protect human
lands), and waste management permits, inspections, and
c health and the environment."9
enforcement.
Establish a target list of pollution types and sensitive resources
to be addressed through pollution prevention efforts, based on priorities established
by air, water, and waste programs.
Make recommendations in the area of pollution prevention technical assistance to be
offered by the Department.
Develop a pollution prevention strategy that recommends procedures and policies for
implementing pollution prevention projects and initiatives.
The task force has achieved many of these goals. The task force has increased the
dialogue between the different media programs and fostered the integration of pollution
prevention throughout DES, as described further below. Additionally, the task force com-
pleted the Pollution Prevention Strategy, as described above, to further institutionalize
pollution prevention in the state.
Barriers Study. The task force analyzed barriers to integrating pollution prevention
throughout the department's regulatory programs. To identify barriers, the task force
researched barriers identified by the media program staff. DES also solicited information
on barriers from the regulated community. In a workshop sponsored by DES, 30 com-
pany representatives identified specific barriers to implementing pollution prevention at
their facilities and ways the department could facilitate implementation of pollution pre-
vention projects. The report, Barriers to Pollution Prevention Within a Regulatory Agency,10
identifies several types of barriers, including:
Specific prohibitions of pollution prevention activities
Lack of flexibility in interpreting rules/policies
Case Studies 55
-------
Informational barriers
Procedural and processing barriers
Lack of positive incentives
In the future, the department will continue to identify additional barriers and means
of resolving the barriers to pollution prevention in the regulatory program. The depart-
ment also plans to improve its procedures for making and tracking consistent and effi-
cient regulatory determinations. By doing so, the department will address some of the
procedural barriers identified by the facilities.
Staff Training. One important barrier identified in the report is "resistance to
change." To overcome this barrier, the task force recommended staff training and edu-
cation. To this end, more than 85 percent of the department personnel of 420 has par-
ticipated in a 3-hour introductory pollution prevention training seminar.
Incorporating Pollution Prevention into Compliance and Enforcement. As a
result of the task force and strategy, DES has increased communication between the com-
pliance and enforcement programs and NHPPP. For example, during air, water, and
waste inspections, regulatory staff routinely refer facilities to NHPPP for assistance.
During the inspection itself, inspectors may pose questions on pollution prevention activ-
ities at the facilities, refer the facility to NHPPP for technical assistance, or distribute pol-
lution prevention literature. Furthermore, inspectors also refer facilities to NHPPP when
they discover deficiencies at the facility. The standard language for "Letters of Deficiency"
emphasizes that the goal of the department is to promote pollution prevention at the
source as the preferred means of achieving environmental goals. The standard language
of the letter also refers the facility to the DES pollution prevention coordinator.
The Hazardous Waste Compliance Section has instituted a "partial inspection" program
to reach a greater number of New Hampshire small-quantity hazardous waste generators.11
Using an abbreviated checklist, inspectors focus on waste generating processes and storage
in the partial inspection. A strong component of these inspections is the pollution preven-
tion referral.
Another way that DES is incorporating pollution prevention into compliance and
enforcement is negotiating Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) that encourage
pollution prevention as part of enforcement settlements. SEPs allow a facility that violates
environmental rules to conduct a project that benefits the environment in lieu of a por-
tion of the fine. Examples of SEPs with a pollution prevention focus at DES include
offering free seminars to other facilities on waste prevention and management and the
development of outreach materials (such as brochures or videos) on proper waste man-
agement techniques. An additional project required the facility to install an Ammoniacal
Etchant recovery system that will allow the facility to regenerate etchant on site.12
Regulatory Review. As described above, DES plans to do a thorough review of its
procedures to make regulatory determinations to make the procedures more efficient and
welcome to pollution prevention. As part of this process, DES has identified several
instances where it can encourage pollution prevention through the regulatory process.
Examples of regulatory changes that encourage pollution prevention include:
Reuse of cloth wipers via industrial laundering. New Hampshire developed specif-
ic requirements for laundering contaminated cloth wipers. By managing the cloth in
Case Studies 56
-------
an environmentally sound manner, as described in the requirements, facilities may
avoid full regulation under the New Hampshire Hazardous Waste Rules and RSA. Ch
147-A.!3
Use of performance standards over prescriptive regulations. The air program seeks
to encourage pollution prevention by writing regulations that are performance based.
For example, DES changed regulations to allow facilities to meet emission limitations
through performance standards. The standards encourage facilities with coating oper-
ations (e.g., can, paper, film, metal parts manufacturers) to obtain and use coatings
that are inherently low in volatile organic compounds that do not require the use of
stack emission control devices.14 This approach allows facilities to use innovative tech-
nologies and pollution prevention to comply with air regulations.
Incorporating Pollution Prevention in Permitting. DES is incorporating pollution
prevention into the permitting process in several areas. For example, DES uses a permit
process questionnaire to obtain feedback from the regulated community on the permit
process. DES plans to use this tool to facilitate pollution prevention in the permitting
process. In addition, DES and the City of Lebanon are developing a model pretreatment
program and Sewer Use Ordinance. Through this project, the POTW will work with
local businesses to reduce the amount of pollution discharged to the POTW.
Onsite Assessments. NHPPP provides onsite, nonregulatory technical assistance
directly to businesses upon request. For each client, NHPPP examines processes that the
business uses that generate waste and recommends actions to prevent waste and pollution.
The program uses the expertise of retired engineers to deliver this assistance. Thus far, the
program has conducted more than 40 onsite assessments.
In a review of technical assistance service delivery, the task force recently found that
New Hampshire companies are not taking full advantage of available technical assistance
services. Even though DES promises that onsite assessments are confidential, the task
force believes that some businesses do not request onsite assessments for fear that DES staff
might find violations of environmental regulations and initiate enforcement procedures.
Because businesses seem to be hesitant to use technical assistance services on a volun-
tary basis, the Pollution Prevention strategy recommends that the technical assistance
program "emphasize targeted pollution prevention assistance through workshops, fact
sheets, technical bulletins, etc." While the strategy does not refuse service to any business
that requests assistance, it does recommend that the program "direct onsite activities
toward those companies that have either regulatory difficulties or special needs, as well as
toward municipalities and other state agencies."
Information Clearinghouse. NHPPP maintains a technical assistance hotline to
answer phone inquiries about pollution prevention options. The program also maintains a
library and electronic database of approximately 1,500 documents, vendors, and case stud-
ies. The NHPPP maintains close contact with other state technical assistance programs
through the National Pollution Prevention Roundtable to share clearinghouse materials.
Conferences. PPIS funding allowed New Hampshire to strengthen ties between
NHPPP and the University of New Hampshire (UNH). To facilitate networking and
information exchange between government, universities, and the business community,
several jointly sponsored pollution prevention conferences have been held statewide.
Case Studies i 57
-------
Workshops and Presentations. NHPPP has conducted workshops, seminars, and annu-
al conferences for diverse groups of people. At the time of the case-study interview, NHPPP
had conducted 70 presentations and workshops and two annual conferences that have been
attended by approximately 1,750 people. The program also hosted a "Solvent Alternatives
Bazaar," attended by 150 companies and 35 vendors, and co-sponsored a "Tracking
Workshop" to provide information and training on electronic waste-tracking packages.
Curriculum and Internships, To instill the pollution prevention ethic into future
engineers, UNH developed a curriculum and internship program for chemical engineer-
ing students. The University created a model pollution prevention training program for
the students. The University also contacted New Hampshire companies to identify those
interested in sponsoring interns at their facilities. The program is now self-sustaining as
participating businesses fund the students for their work. As of the second year of the pro-
gram, the Pollution Prevention Partnership trained and placed 25 chemical engineering
students. According to the state pollution prevention coordinator, the program has been
well received by students and businesses alike.
Publications NHPPP has published several documents to help companies learn
about pollution prevention, such as fact sheets on pollution prevention options and
resources for targeted industries. NHPPP is also preparing case studies of New
Hampshire success stories in pollution prevention. In addition, approximately 500 com-
panies, individuals, and government officials receive Wastelines, a quarterly newsletter
published by NHPPP.
Analysis of PPIS Impact
Pollution prevention activities in New Hampshire were very limited before the state
received PPIS grant funding. Because the federal hazardous waste Capacity Assurance
Program (CAP) required states to examine their capacity to manage hazardous waste,
New Hampshire initiated limited waste reduction activities, including a needs survey of
New Hampshire businesses, before receiving any PPIS funding. Additionally, at the time
of the PPIS grant application, New Hampshire co-developed the WasteCap program to
help businesses reduce their generation of solid wastes. Once PPIS funding was approved
for New Hampshire, NHPPP activities were formally organized. These activities includ-
ed the training of retired engineers for onsite assistance, the establishment of the
Pollution Prevention Task Force, the organization of the clearinghouse and database, and
outreach activities such as workshops and newsletters. The NHPPP program coordinator
comments, "Although some pollution prevention activities already existed in several pro-
grams [prior to the task force], there was general recognition that many opportunities
existed to shift traditional "command and control" efforts toward pollution preven-
tion."i5
Infrastructure. As in so many other states, a formal pollution prevention program
would not exist in New Hampshire without PPIS grant funding. Through the NHPPP's
efforts and those of the pollution prevention coordinator and the pollution prevention
task force, pollution prevention has become firmly established in the culture of DES.
Although NHPPP has not yet secured independent funding after the grant expires,
there is a bill pending in the state legislature to fund two pollution prevention positions in
Case Studies 58
-------
the department. Even if New Hampshire does not receive the projected funding for two
positions in FY96 (as part of the pending bill), the task force will continue its regulatory
integration activities within the DES. In addition, technical assistance and the intership
program will continue through existing resources and the partnership with UNH.
The final element of infrastructure development is the Pollution Prevention Strategy,
which lays out a timetable and specific goals for DES to continue pollution prevention
efforts. To achieve this, all staff are being educated about the fundamentals of pollution
prevention and how to incorporate them into their daily activities. As described earlier,
more than 85 percent of DES staff (375 employees) have already been trained.
Regulatory Integration. Although the location of the technical assistance program
within a regulatory agency may have caused some concern in the business community, it
has enabled NHPPP to more easily integrate pollution prevention into the state's regula-
tory program. For example, regulatory staff refer facilities to NHPPP during compliance
inspections and in letters of deficiency, negotiate pollution prevention SEPs, review rules
to encourage pollution prevention, and endeavor to reduce barriers to pollution preven-
tion in the permitting process.
The task force is perhaps the most notable example of the success of program coordi-
nation through the PPIS grant. The task force meets every month, has evaluated internal
barriers to pollution prevention, and has developed the Pollution Prevention Strategy to
overcome these barriers and make pollution prevention the driving force within DES.
The task force has also provided an arena in which to discuss multimedia issues and to
help move the department in that direction.
NHPPP and the pollution prevention task force have made great strides in enhancing
communication between the regulatory programs. To date, DES has initiated some cross-
media inspections and is currently considering methods to expand these efforts. The
Pollution Prevention Strategy sets goals and timetables to evaluate the feasibility of mul-
timedia permits and concurrent changes in inspections and enforcement procedures.
Program Evaluation. Before the first grant application, state staff conducted a survey
of New Hampshire businesses to see which services they would like from a pollution pre-
vention program. The results of this pre-evaluation survey were used to develop the struc-
ture of NHPPP. The program is presently surveying businesses to assess once again the
direction and effectiveness of the program. Results are expected by late September 1995-
In order to obtain reliable information, a marketing firm was utilized to collect and eval-
uate the survey data. The results of this effort will allow the NHPPP to accurately assess
the present demand for its services.
Program Future
A pollution prevention bill was drafted by the department and introduced in the 1995
New Hampshire legislative session. The bill contained provisions to:
Formally establish a pollution prevention program.
Create a legislative mandate to provide regulatory and technical pollution prevention
assistance to small businesses.
Case Studies 59
-------
Create and fund two positions (currently funded through two PPIS grants) with non-
federal funds.
While the bill was successful in the Senate, it was not as successful in the House. On
a vote of 10-3, the House Environment and Agriculture (E & A) Committee voted to re-
refer the bill. Through this procedure the legislation has been tabled for this session but
will automatically be reintroduced in the 1996 session, which begins January 1. While
E & A Committee members endorsed the policy implications of the bill, they did not all
support funding the program. A legislative subcommittee had been working with the
department to revise the legislation and address funding issues. The revised version of the
bill will be introduced into the 1996 legislative session. Should the legislation pass, it will
provide additional resources for DES pollution prevention efforts.
With the assistance of PPIS funding, DES has succeeded in establishing a strong pres-
ence for pollution prevention in the media programs and creating a multimedia techni-
cal assistance program. DES will continue to seek further integration of pollution
prevention into the media programs while evaluating multimedia structures. Without the
PPIS grants, efforts to incorporate pollution prevention into DES and the higher educa-
tional system in New Hampshire would have been greatly impaired.
Contacts
Vincent Perelli, Manager
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
Pollution Prevention Program
Phone: 603271-2902
Fax: 603 271-2456
e-mail: des-vp@granite.mv.net
Stephanie D'Agostino, Pollution Prevention Coordinator
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
Office of the Commissioner
Phone: 603271-6398
Fax: 603 271-2867
Case Studies 60
-------
B.3 New Jersey
Overview
Organizational Structure. New Jersey's 1991 Pollution Prevention Act established an
Office of Pollution Prevention (OPP) in the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) to implement a comprehensive, multimedia pollution prevention
program. OPP concentrates on integrating pollution prevention into the state regulatory
program and implementing the Pollution Prevention Act. Currently, the office is collect-
ing summaries of approximately 700 pollution prevention facility plans mandated by the
legislation. OPP also assists businesses in the development of these facility plans. While
OPP focuses on pollution prevention in the regulatory program, the New Jersey
Technical Assistance Program (NJTAP) concentrates on voluntary pollution prevention
assessments. Located within the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT), NJTAP
offers direct technical assistance to small and medium-sized businesses (including onsite
pollution prevention audits), as well as training, seminars, and workshops. Exhibit V-6
summarizes the different elements of New Jersey's pollution prevention program.
Program Funding and Budget. OPP currently has a staff of 14 full-time employees
and a budget of $2,100,000 funded through a fee established by the 1991 New Jersey
Pollution Prevention Act. NJTAP has an annual budget of approximately $250,000 and
employs a full-time staff of four people and a part-time staff of four retired engineers.
PPIS grant monies account for approximately 8 percent of NJTAP's funding. The
remaining portion comes from NJDEP and other grants.
Exhibit V-6
. POLLUTION
PREVENTION NETWOR
Organization
New Jersey Institute of
Technology
Key Activities
Pollution prevention opportunity assessments
Information clearinghouse
Seminars, workshops, and presentations
Training
Demonstration project
Data collection, integration, and analysis
Office of Pollution
Prevention
Legislation
Regulations
Regulatory integration
Data collection and analysis
Compliance monitoring
Industrial training and outreach
Facilitywide permit pilot project
Award program
Guidelines
Case Studies 61
-------
Prior to the establishment of OPP, NJDEP received three PPIS grants and helps to
oversee a fourth grant administered to NJIT. New Jersey received one of the original
grants, Multimedia Source Reduction and Recycling Technical Assistance Proposal for New
Jersey, in 1989 to establish a technical assistance program to help hazardous waste gener-
ators minimize the amount of waste they produce. The grant also funded research on
waste minimization opportunities, targeted technical assistance, and outreach and educa-
tion to waste generators. EPA awarded the second grant, Pollution Prevention Incentives
for States Grant Application, in June 1990. This grant provided much of the base funding
for staff salaries that researched state legislation and that established the initial program
in the agency, which later became permanent and stably funded via legislation. NJIT
received its grant, Development and Demonstration of an Industrial Extension Program for
Local Level Implementation, in September 1991. This grant had two purposes: 1) to
develop a model for county-level pollution prevention technical assistance and 2) to pro-
vide a pollution prevention vocational training program. NJDEP's third grant,
Development of a Pollution Prevention-Based Facilitywide Permit Pilot Project, awarded in
July 1993, assisted in funding additional salary costs needed to undertake DEP's pollu-
tion prevention-based, multimedia permitting pilot project. Exhibit V-7 summarizes
New Jersey's PPIS grants.
Strategy and Legislation. In addition to establishing OPP, the 1991 Pollution
Prevention Act requires industrial facilities that are covered under TRI to prepare a
Pollution Prevention Plan. In the Pollution Prevention Plan, among other provisions,
companies must conduct a process-level materials accounting, develop a list of potential
pollution prevention options, analyze a minimal list of full costs associated with their use
and generation of hazardous substances, and set 5-year goals for reducing the use and gen-
eration at the source of hazardous substances. These companies are also required to report
progress achieving their goals. New Jersey's legislation is consistent with EPA's waste
management hierarchy and its pollution prevention definition is consistent with EPA's
pollution prevention definition. New Jersey PPIS funds have only gone to true pollution
prevention-based programs.
Exhibit V-7
PPIS Grant Summary
Grant
Year Amount
Multimedia SRRTA Proposal for NJ 1989 $300,000
Pollution Prevention for States Grant Application 1990 $301,000
Industrial Extension Program for Local Implementation 1991 $300,000
Pollution Prevention Facilitywide Permit Pilot Project 1993 $207,000
Total Funding $1,108,000
Case Studies 62
-------
Activities Funded by PPIS Grants
PPIS funds have enabled New Jersey to develop the state's pollution prevention infra-
structure, examine facilitywide permitting, develop a county-level technical assistance
program, and educate both students and businesses about pollution prevention.
Specifically, PPIS funded the following activities, which are described below in detail.
Infrastructure development. PPIS-funded activities to develop New Jersey's infra-
structure include strategy development, data collection, recognition program, and
green purchasing policy.
Regulatory integration. To integrate pollution prevention into the regulatory pro-
gram, New Jersey provided training to regulatory staff and tested the feasibility of
facilitywide permitting.
Technical assistance. PPIS-supported activities in the technical assistance area include
onsite audits, a demonstration program, and an information clearinghouse.
Outreach and education. Outreach and education efforts in New Jersey include inte-
grating pollution prevention into vocational training, providing guidance manuals to
educate businesses on how to develop a successful pollution prevention plan, and con-
ducting workshops and presentations.
Strategy Development. The purpose of the 1990 grant was to develop an operational
strategy and procedures for OPP, work with the state legislature on developing a statewide
pollution prevention law, analyze existing NJDEP data to start measuring pollution pre-
vention trends, and institutionalize a pollution prevention program in the agency. To
attain this goal, NJDEP expanded the staff of OPP by three full-time employees. These
employees established basic OPP operating procedures.
Using the state's Release and Source Reductions Report and Community Right-to-
Know data, NJDEP evaluated facilities' successes in reducing pollution to determine
what industry sectors to target and how to measure pollution prevention more effective-
ly. In response to this evaluation, the pollution prevention program worked with the New
Jersey Right-to-Know (RTK) program to maximize the RTK survey's ability to track
progress.
Data Collection. New Jersey conducted a case study of 15 facilities to determine if
throughput data, in conjunction withTRI data, are a more effective measure of pollution
prevention progress than TRI data alone. In addition, NJDEP used TRI, materials
accounting, economic, and environmental permitting and compliance data to develop
industry profiles of five industry sectors in New Jersey.16 The state is using the profiles to
examine trends.
Guidance Documents. OPP developed a guidance package for facilities preparing
pollution prevention plans. NJTAP developed industry-specific manuals for electro-
platers, printers, and the fabricated metal industry.
Recognition Program. Through PPIS funding, New Jersey developed a Governor's
Award for Outstanding Achievement in Pollution Prevention that includes a wide range
of categories.
Green Purchasing Policy. OPP evaluated the state's procurement policies for incen-
tives and obstacles to implementing pollution prevention activities.
Case Studies 63
-------
Facilitywide Permitting. New Jersey's 1991 pollution prevention law requires
NJDEP to conduct a facilitywide pollution prevention pilot project with 18 companies.
PPIS monies were provided to NJDEP to offset additional salary costs needed to under-
take the facilitywide permitting project. Not only will the facilitywide permit meet the
requirements of all the media programs, it will also attempt to integrate pollution
prevention planning into the permit process. This unique experiment should provide
valuable lessons for the states and EPA as the organization of environmental regulation
along media lines is evaluated.
To implement the project, OPP established a strong relationship with NJDEP staff in
charge of the media permits. As part of this relationship, OPP provided training in pol-
lution prevention for the media program staff. Then, NJDEP staff began working closely
with the industrial facility to assist in the facility's development of a draft pollution
prevention plan and facilitywide permit application. Multimedia teams from NJDEP
evaluated and commented on the application, which led to necessary revisions.
Ultimately, 18 facilities will receive these permits, which will go through a standard
permit review process. To date, one final faciltywide permit has been issued, and the
remaining are expected in fall 1995-
At the end of the pilot project, state law requires OPP to analyze the effectiveness of
facilitywide permitting. OPP will evaluate the environmental protection implications of
facilitywide permitting and make recommendations to the state legislature about stream-
lining the permitting process through facilitywide permits.
Onsite Audits. NJTAP has conducted more than 75 onsite technical assistance audits
with PPIS funding. Including all funding sources, the program has assisted nearly 200
companies. For a sample of one success story, see the box below. NJTAP will respond to
any business that requests services with a phone call or onsite visit.
The program targeted the following SIC codes for technical assistance, in accordance
with the 1991 Pollution Prevention Act:
Paper and allied products (SIC 26)
Chemicals and allied products (SIC 28)
Rubber and miscellaneous products (SIC 30)
Primary metals industries (SIC 33)
Fabricated metal products17 (SIC 34)
NJTAP follows through with all companies that receive technical assistance and con-
ducts an annual survey to evaluate the success of the program. NJTAP identifies two
salient barriers to measuring progress. First, companies often do not respond to the tech-
nical assistance evaluation form. The response rate to the survey routinely is around 30
percent. Second, the program cannot necessarily attribute results to its actions. "If a com-
pany we visit decreases its wastes, it is often difficult to attribute it solely to our efforts or
to other process changes," says NJTAP director Dr. Marcus J. Healey.
In August 1994, NJTAP surveyed 98 clients who received services in FY94. Of the 18
clients that responded to the mail survey, 77 percent rated the overall quality of service as
"excellent" or "good." According to one technical assistance recipient, Union Carbide,
NJTAP helped them by:
Case Studies 64
-------
Confirming that they were moving in the right direction
Explaining some confusing regulations
Providing some good literature to review
These 18 clients identified 40 distinct types of pollution pre-
vention assistance rendered by the program, demonstrating the
wide range of issues addressed by technical assistance staff
Clients reported saving a total of $70,000 through the imple-
mentation of NJTAP recommendations. NJTAP believes that
clients will continue to save money as they implement these
activities.
Demonstration Project In this project, NJTAP is testing the
feasibility of using an industrial extension service to provide pol-
lution prevention technical assistance to local businesses. NJTAP
is developing the model in Burlington County, New Jersey, then
plans to test the model in Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico represents an
area with environmental problems that are similar yet different
enough to test the transferability of the model.
NJTAP Success Story
City Auto Radiator
Activity: Mechanical cleaning elimi-
nated a significant portion of dis-
charge to POTWs and saves the
company $1,650 per year.
Activity: The company implemented
counterflow rinsing and tank refill pro-
cedures to achieve a zero discharge
process, reducing discharge to
POTWs by 100,000 gallons.
Activity: The company switched to
water-based paints from solvent-
based paints, which completely elimi-
nated volatile organic compound
emissions.
Activities funded by PPIS include identifying target industries
for technical assistance and conducting outreach on the program's goals and services to
those industries. Staff conducted site visits to evaluate process and procedures and deter-
mined what level of assistance the program should provide. As experience with program
implementation grows, staff will be evaluating the effectiveness of the model and devel-
oping a report on its implementation. A preliminary site assessment will be conducted in
Puerto Rico to determine emission activity and program needs. Finally, an Advisory
Management Committee (AMC) will be created to oversee the implementation and
potential expansion of the model in Puerto Rico.
Notable achievements of the demonstration project include:
The Burlington County program received the Governor's Award for Outstanding
Achievement in Pollution Prevention.
The Burlington County program compiled a list of local printers.
The Burlington County program manager is developing recommendations for a
small-quantity generator collection program.
NJTAP hosted the Puerto Rican Corporation for Technological Development of
Tropical Resources (TROPICO) representatives for pollution prevention training.
The Puerto Rico TAP agreed to host a workshop for the metal finishing and fabrica-
tion industry.
Information Clearinghouse. While PPIS funds do not specifically support an infor-
mation clearinghouse, NJTAP has collected more than 2,000 articles in 70 different pol-
lution prevention categories. In addition, the program has more than 50 videotapes on
pollution prevention.
Curriculum. NJTAP implemented a program, the Vocational Environmental
Education Program (V-Project), to integrate pollution prevention into vocational educa-
tion. The major goal of the V-Project is to develop curricular materials for vocational stu-
Case Studies 65
-------
dents in conjunction with the New Jersey Department of Education and NJDEP. In addi-
tion, V-Project staff will conduct training courses for corporate management that will
combine pollution prevention activities with other aspects of a total quality management
program. Thus far, NJTAP has developed a workplan for the V-Project, and the techni-
cal committee is commenting on a draft curriculum.
Workshops and Presentations. PPIS funding enabled NJTAP to conduct more than
40 presentations reaching more than 600 people. In addition to electroplaters, printers,
and the fabricated metal industry, NJTAP targeted textile finishers and the dry cleaning
industry for workshops and presentations. For these groups, NJTAP conducted extensive
training sessions for more than 100 people using PPIS funds.
Analysis of PPIS Impact
PPIS provided seed money to launch New Jersey's pollution prevention program, both
at OPP and NJTAP. OPP began with one staff person funded by an existing NJDEP pro-
gram but did not have a significant operational budget. PPIS funding enabled the pro-
gram to hire additional staff and work with the legislature to develop enabling legislation.
Prior to PPIS funding, the technical assistance program did not exist. PPIS monies
enabled the program to get off the ground and to secure future funding from the state.
Now, PPIS funds account for only about 8 percent of NJTAP's funding.
Infrastructure. While OPP existed before the first PPIS grant, it had no permanent
funding source and was only just developing its program. PPIS allowed the development
of enabling legislation to make OPP a permanent part of NJDEP. During this time, OPP
evaluated potential roles of the regulatory programs in promoting pollution prevention
and developed guidelines for incorporating pollution prevention into NJDEP activities.
PPIS funding enabled New Jersey to develop the RTK reporting to be an initial tool
for tracking industrial pollution prevention progress. It was also instrumental in devel-
oping the processes by which the media programs would coordinate the development of
facilitywide permits. The project might ultimately result in the transition to a truly multi-
media regulatory agency.
The grants have also helped NJTAP and OPP to coordinate efforts. The programs
interact frequently (at least two to four meetings per month) to coordinate activities.
Regulatory Integration. PPIS increased regulatory integration by funding a part of
the facilitywide permitting project. The project helped reduce barriers to pollution pre-
vention by promoting increased communication and coordination between regulatory
staff. Staff from all of the media programs worked together with OPP staff to develop
procedures for writing a facilitywide permit. Without PPIS funding, the regulatory pro-
gram would not have been able to support this project.
Clearly, New Jersey is far ahead of many of the states in developing a multimedia per-
mit process. This pilot project, and the report on its effectiveness, will serve as a model
for all states that are considering multimedia reform.
Program Evaluation. Currently, OPP is conducting its own program evaluation and
has also contracted with an outside consultant to help determine the impact of the pro-
Case Studies 66
-------
gram on pollution prevention. The study evaluates the pollution prevention planning
process and its impact on companies' actual waste generation. This process has been sim-
plified by the collection of throughput data, which allows an actual accounting of waste
generated based on production output.
Program Future
NJDEP and NJTAP will continue to coordinate efforts in the future. While OPP con-
tinues to focus on regulatory affairs, NJTAP will focus on outreach, information dissem-
ination, education, and training and pollution prevention technology development.
Future PPIS grant requests from NJTAP will be project oriented.
Contact
Jeanne Herb
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Office of Pollution Prevention
Phone: 609984-5339
Fax: 609 777-1330
Dr. Marcus J. Healey
New Jersey Technical Assistance Program
Phone: 201 596-5864
Fax: 201 596-6367
e-mail: healy@hertz.njit.t
Case Studies i 67
-------
B.4 North Carolina
Overview
North Carolina, one of the original states to establish a pollution prevention program,
began implementing pollution prevention activities, such as a waste reduction conference
and workshops, as early as 1981.18 Early funding for pollution prevention education
activities was obtained from the Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation. The state institut-
ed the program in the state regulatory agency in FY85 with a $116,000 appropriation
from the state legislature.
Organizational Structure. While North Carolina has reorganized its program sever-
al times since its inception, the basic program structure has not changed since 1990. At
that time, the state established the Office of Waste Reduction within the Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR). Within the Office of Waste
Reduction, the state established two programs: the Solid Waste Reduction Program and
the Pollution Prevention Pays (PPP) Program. The Solid Waste Reduction Program
focuses on the reduction of municipal solid waste. The PPP program provides a variety
of services to North Carolina businesses in multimedia waste reduction, including on-
and offsite technical assistance, an information clearinghouse, education, training, out-
reach, and challenge grants. The goal of the program is to promote the elimination,
reduction, or recycling of industrial waste prior to treatment or disposal. PPP also coor-
dinates activities with other components of the state environmental protection program,
endeavors to integrate the pollution prevention ethic into the regulatory staff, and evalu-
ates pollution prevention progress.
The Pollution Prevention Research Center at North Carolina State University also
provides a number of pollution prevention services, including research, onsite technical
assistance for large businesses, outreach, and technical training. These activities are coor-
dinated with the PPP program.
The Waste Reduction Center of the Southeast, established in 1989, was a joint ven-
ture between North Carolina, EPA Region 4, and the Tennessee Valley Authority. The
center provides onsite technical assistance and training to the Region 4 states19 using a
staff of retired engineers.
Exhibit V-8 depicts the organizational structure of North Carolina's pollution pre-
vention program.
Program Funding and Budget. The PPP program employs a staff of 12 full-time
people and has a budget of $500,000 per year. More than 80 percent of funding comes
from the state (from the state general fund and emission fees). North Carolina, one of the
original 13 PPIS grant recipients, also received two PPIS grants. EPA awarded the first
grant, Multimedia Waste Reduction Management System for Government and Industrial
Applications, in March 1989- The grant was a cooperative effort between the Department
of Natural Resources and Community Development (the predecessor to DEHNR), the
Governor's Waste Management Board, the Department of Human Resources, and the
Department of Crime Control and Public Safety. The department received a second PPIS
grant, Small Business Waste Reduction Technical Assistance, in September 1993- Under this
Case Studies 68
-------
Exhibit V-8
OLINA POLLUTION
PREVENTION NETWORK
Organization
Department of
Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources
Key Activities
Technical assistance
Training
Outreach and education
Information clearinghouse
Matching grants
Regulatory integration
Program coordination
Program evaluation
North Carolina State
University
Research
Technical assistance
Training
Outreach
Waste Reduction Center
of the Southeast
Technical assistance
Training
Outreach and education
Information clearinghouse
grant, members of the PPP Program worked closely with the Office of Small Business
Ombudsman in the DEHNR's Air Quality Section to provide technical assistance to
small businesses. Exhibit V-9 summarizes North Carolina's PPIS grants.
Strategy and Legislation. North Carolina enacted its first piece of waste reduction
legislation in 1981. As a result of recommendations by the Governor's Waste Manage-
ment Task Force, North Carolina enacted the Waste Management Act of 1981, which
issued a strong policy statement that hazardous waste should be minimized:
The General Assembly of North Carolina hereby finds and declares that
prevention, recycling, detoxification, and reduction of hazardous wastes should be
encouraged and promoted.20
A second piece of legislation, the 1989 Hazardous Waste Management Commission
Act, formally established the PPP program at DEHNR. As specified in the act, the pur-
Exhibit V-9
PPIS Grant Summary
Grant
Year Amount
Multimedia Waste Reduction Management System 1989 $300,000
Small Business Waste Reduction Technical Assistance 1993 $56,000
Total Funding $356,000
Case Studies 69
-------
pose of the program is to promote voluntary waste and pollution reduction efforts
through information, grants, and technical assistance. The legislation also establishes a fee
structure to encourage generators of hazardous waste to minimize the quantity and toxi-
city of the waste they generate and requires them to submit a description of any program
they have to minimize waste.
Activities Funded by PPIS Grants
Unlike most other states, North Carolina already had an established, funded pollution
prevention program at the outset of the PPIS grant program in 1989- Thus, the state used
PPIS funding to further develop its pollution prevention infrastructure. To do so, the PPP
program created a new data management system. PPIS also funded technical assistance
to businesses.
Database Development. PPIS funded the development of a multimedia information
management system to link all of the environmental databases in the DEHNR, includ-
ing the TRI, annual reports from hazardous waste generators, and air emission and water
discharge monitoring data. The department uses the system to compare data reporting by
industries and assess opportunities for waste reduction at specific facilities. The system
also helps the PPP program target activities, including technical assistance, training,
grants, research, and demonstration projects, to priority industries in the state.
To develop the system, the PPP program reviewed existing reporting formats to assess
the data they collect, including level of detail, units of measurement, and compatibility.
From each report, the program extracted the most useful data to characterize sources and
types of releases. Using this analysis, the program assessed potential integration methods
for feasibility, ease of implementation, and applicability for the intended uses of the waste
reduction management system. The program developed a users' manual for the data sys-
tem and training materials, then trained DEHNR staff on how to use the system.
Technical Assistance. The federal Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) require that
states assist small businesses in meeting new air quality standards. PPIS funds allowed
North Carolina to provide waste reduction technical assistance targeted to thousands of
North Carolina small businesses. Through PPIS funding, the PPP program ensured that
waste reduction remains a key component in the state's overall small business assistance
program under the CAAA.
To complete this grant, the PPP program first identified appropriate small business
categories, then developed and distributed informational materials to the targeted indus-
tries. During this process, the program formulated training materials and identified
future research needs for pollution prevention in small businesses. Other activities includ-
ed monitoring of technical assistance and regulatory efforts to ensure that pollution pre-
vention methodologies are incorporated and establishing a quality assurance and quality
control program.
Thus far, PPIS funds have enabled North Carolina to provided technical assistance to
74 small businesses. Of these companies, 11 received onsite audits and 63 received pub-
lications or technical assistance over the telephone.
Case Studies i 70
-------
Analysis of PPIS Impact
Infrastructure. Instead of funding the development of a pollution prevention strategy
or the development of state legislation, PPIS funding helped North Carolina to create a
data management system. This system integrates reporting data statewide and enables the
program to target pollution prevention activities such as technical assistance and training.
Thus, PPIS helped North Carolina expand the infrastructure of its pollution prevention
program, rather than initiate a program as it did in New Hampshire or Delaware.
Program Evaluation. PPIS funding has helped North Carolina measure the progress
of pollution prevention activities. The state recently conducted an evaluation of the tech-
nical assistance portion of its program. The survey asked facilities which of the pollution
prevention recommendations they implemented and why or why not. Of the businesses
surveyed, 90 percent implemented at least one of the recommendations. Overall, 38 per-
Regulatory Integration Efforts in North Carolina*
While the PPP program remains entirely voluntary, it does coordinate
activities with regulatory programs in the state to foster pollution prevention.
Activities include rule development, training, referrals, and supplemental
environmental projects (SEPs). Currently, the program is working closely
with water quality staff to review new water discharge rules to identify possi-
ble means of incorporating pollution prevention concepts. Draft rules include
a requirement that facilities consider pollution prevention activities under
way when they submit the permit application. The program has also assist-
ed the hazardous waste program in developing pollution prevention SEPs
and analyzing the annual hazardous waste report. Regulatory staff often
refer the facilities to the PPP program for technical assistance. Currently, the
program is developing guidance materials for
hazardous waste inspectors and boilerplate language to promote pollution
prevention in notices of violation.
The PPP program has also developed a train-the-trainer program to
educate regulatory staff. All air quality staff were trained through the
program. Permit writers were trained to point out pollution prevention
options to facilities as they develop the permits. Recently, the water
quality program also requested such training. The PPP program is also
planning to train regulatory staff on pollution prevention options by
industry sector. While a few individuals have resisted incorporating
pollution prevention into their daily work, most have embraced pollution
prevention concepts. Given the increased time and effort needed to fully
incorporate pollution prevention into daily work, pollution prevention staff
are encouraged by the widespread acceptance by the regulatory staff.
* Regulatory integration activities are not directly funded by PPIS.
Case Studies 71
-------
cent of the recommendations given were implemented. All but one of those surveyed
thought that the pollution prevention program was a good use of taxpayer dollars.
The PPP program encountered a few difficulties conducting the evaluation. First, a
number of companies did not respond to the survey. A student intern, who designed the
survey, followed up with all of the companies to encourage them to respond to the sur-
vey and clarify responses. The PPP program manager believes that this followup was cru-
cial to ensuring a high response rate and quality data. A major difficulty was quantifying
the amount of waste reduced as a result of implementing the suggestions. While some
companies did not want to release this information for fear of release to competitors,
most companies did not have the time or resources to measure waste reduction. Evidence
from companies willing to release information indicates that most saved between $10,000
and $20,000 per year as a result of the recommendations, and some saved as much as
$500,000 per year.
The program has not yet tried to measure the effectiveness of other activities, partic-
ularly its outreach efforts, although it is considering conducting a readership survey of its
newsletter. While not a formal means of measuring success, the program manager notes
that during a 1-year period when the newsletter was not published, the program received
a number of requests for it.
North Carolina is currently developing a methodology to help itself and other states
measure pollution prevention progress. Modeled on the NIST program, the methodolo-
gy will help states measure the cumulative effect of services such as onsite assistance,
newsletters, and grants to individual businesses.
Program Future
As described above, North Carolina will focus some if its resources in the coming years
on developing a methodology to measure pollution prevention progress. The PPP pro-
gram also will continue providing outreach and education to state businesses and resi-
dents. In addition, the program hopes to further integrate pollution prevention into the
regulatory program. While North Carolina would like to retain the same level of pollu-
tion prevention activity in the future, the state legislature has reduced the program's fund-
ing in FY96.
Contact
David Williams
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Pollution Prevention Program
Phone: 919571-4100
Fax: 919 571-4135
Case Studies i 72
-------
B.5 South Dakota
Overview
Organizational Structur The South Dakota Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR), the state environmental regulatory agency, houses South
Dakota's pollution prevention program. The primary mission of the program is to inte-
grate the pollution prevention ethic into all state activities. With only one half-time
employee and a budget of $427,000, the program's main function is to oversee the budget
and coordinate activities. To accomplish its mission, DENR has established partnerships
with other state agencies, county governments, the academic community, and businesses.
Instead of hiring a large staff solely dedicated to pollution prevention within DENR, the
program employs the assistance of its partners to implement pollution prevention activi-
Exhibit V-10
.^k POLLUTION
PREVENTION NETWO"
Organization
Department of
Environment and Natural
Resources
Key Activities
Regulatory integration
Advisory committee
Coordination
Presentations
Newsletter
Public service announcements
Conferences
Staff training
Program evaluation
Clearinghouse
Other State Agencies
Staff training
Green purchasing policies
Integrated pest management
South Dakota Discovery
Center
Teaching module
Technical assistance for a
community
State Library
Library of pollution prevention
videos
State University
Cooperative Extension
Service
University courses
Workshops
Pollution prevention training
for teachers
Bootstraps video
Home*A*Syst modules
Todd and Mellette County
Conservation Districts
Technical training
Technical assistance
Monitoring manual
Technology transfer
Evaluation
Trade Associations
Distribution of Bootstraps
manual
Computer programs based
on Bootstraps
Case Studies i 73
-------
Exhibit V-11
PPIS Grant Summary
Grant
Year Amount
Sustaining Pollution Prevention in South Dakota
Enhancing Pollution Prevention in South Dakota
Total Funding
1992
1993
$123,000
$112,500
$235,500
ties. The fact that the partners implement the pollution prevention activities themselves
furthers the integration of the pollution prevention ethic into these organizations. Exhibit
V-10 describes the roles of pollution prevention partners in South Dakota.
Program Funding and Budget. The PPIS grants, along with state and local match
provided by program participants, fund the entire pollution prevention program in South
Dakota. DENR received two PPIS grants. EPA awarded the first grant, Sustaining
Pollution Prevention in South Dakota, in September 1992. The grant established a part-
nership between DENR and the South Dakota Departments of Agriculture,
Transportation, Energy, Health, and Games, Fish, and Parks. The partnership also
included the South Dakota State University Cooperative Extension Service and Research
Station. In October 1993, EPA awarded the second grant, Enhancing Pollution Prevention
in South Dakota, which provided funding to expand outreach efforts to all sectors (includ-
ing children) and to transfer lessons learned from Bootstraps to other programs. Exhibit
V-11 summarizes South Dakota's PPIS grants.
Strategy and Legislation. In 1992, DENR formally incorporated pollution preven-
tion into its goal statement and identified pollution prevention as the first alternative for
all programs. In doing so, South Dakota has developed an environmental policy consis-
tent with EPA's policy. The state has also incorporated pollution prevention into the
State-EPA Agreement. At this time, South Dakota does not plan to enact any specific pol-
lution prevention legislation.
Activities Funded by PPIS Grants
PPIS funded a wide range of activities in South Dakota, from infrastructure develop-
ment to technical assistance and training, regulatory integration, and outreach and edu-
cation. These activities are described further below.
Infrastructure. PPIS funding allowed South Dakota to form an advisory committee
as well as build the pollution prevention infrastructure through "green" purchasing
policies.
Regulatory integration. PPIS supports regulatory integration in South Dakota by
funding training for staff in the regulatory program.
Technical assistance and demonstration projects. Bootstraps, a technical assistance
demonstration project, has helped South Dakota farmers and ranchers to prevent pol-
Case Studies 74
-------
lution through education and onsite assistance. PPIS also funds the transfer of lessons
learned from Bootstraps to other states as well as an information clearinghouse.
Education and outreach. Outreach activities funded by PPIS include conferences,
teacher training, outreach materials, presentations, and public service announcements.
Task Force and Advisory Committe< The first PPIS grant enabled DENR to commis-
sion a task force to assess pollution prevention opportunities within both DENR and the
entire state government. The task force included one representative from each of the five
divisions within DENR. After examining the department's activities, the task force recom-
mended that pollution prevention become the department's primary objective. As a result
of the task force recommendation, DENR issued a policy statement declaring pollution pre-
vention as DENR's primary objective. PPIS funds also enabled the task force to develop an
action plan to implement pollution prevention throughout DENR and the state.
The second PPIS grant funded a reorganization of the five-member task force into an
11-member advisory committee. The advisory committee represents all of the major pro-
grams within DENR and continues to guide both DENR and other state agencies in fos-
tering pollution prevention.
Green Purchasing Policies. In addition to examining opportunities within DENR,
the task force assessed pollution prevention opportunities throughout the entire state gov-
ernment. As a result of this assessment:
The State Office of Purchasing and Printing purchases products made from postcon-
sumer materials when economically feasible.
State agencies purchase energy-efficient computers.
The Division of Buildings and Grounds substitutes nonhazardous materials for haz-
ardous material when possible.
The state uses integrated pest management principles, which minimize pesticide use,
to control insects.
Regulatory Integration. As a result of the recommendations of the advisory com-
mittee, DENR management has instructed the regulatory programs to integrate pollution
prevention into all activities. First, the program trained DENR and Department of
Agriculture staff in pollution prevention techniques. DENR now conducts 10 to 12 mul-
timedia inspections each year and includes pollution prevention provisions in all mining
permits. In the future, DENR plans to conduct all inspections on a multimedia basis and
use a multimedia approach to issuing all permits. The regulatory program is also incor-
porating pollution prevention into the enforcement process. For example, when the spill
prevention program issues a notice of violation, it includes information on spill preven-
tion in the notices of violation and recommends that the violator implement a spill pre-
vention program. The program also plans to supply onsite technical assistance to repeat
violators on how to develop a spill prevention plan.
Technical Assistance. In coordination with the Todd, Mellette, Gregory, Stanley, and
Jerauld Conservation Districts, and the Lower James Resource Conservation
Development Association, DENR is promoting better farmland and ranch management
through the Bootstraps Project, funded by PPIS. This project aims to teach farmers and
ranchers that sustaining a profitable operation is directly related to using practices that
maintain or improve the environmental health of range and crop lands. Under
Case Studies i 75
-------
Bootstraps, each family learns how to complete a natural resource inventory for their
ranch or farm, develop a management plan, and select BMPs to implement the plans.
DENR provides technical assistance to help select and implement the BMPs to both pro-
tect the environment and promote economic stability.
As part of the project, DENR and its partners created a manual and video to assist
participants. DENR received such positive feedback on the Bootstraps video and manual
that the National Cattleman's Association decided to reprint and distribute the manual
to association members as a primary tool for improving operations and resource
management. The National Cattleman's Association also plans to develop a computer
program based on the manual. Furthermore, DENR leveraged funding ($25,000) from
a private company, Moorman Feed Company, to produce the manual. As a result of their
participation in the Bootstraps Project, farmers in Todd and Mellette Counties have
embarked on a grassroots effort to increase ground water protection in their counties.
DENR achieved the following accomplishments with the Bootstraps Project:
The Bootstraps video and manual were developed and distributed (more than 140
copies).
120 families from 100 farms or ranches participated in the project.
More than 80 percent of the participants have implemented one or more BMP
About 60 percent of the participants have implemented two or more BMPs.
Pollution on approximately 620,000 acres of ranch and farmland in five counties was
reduced.
Technology Transfer. Lessons learned from the Bootstraps Project will be transferred
into a model for pollution prevention in rural communities including Native American
reservations. DENR has made presentations on Bootstraps to a wide range of organiza-
tions, including several counties in South Dakota, the National Association of
Conservation Districts, and the National Stockgrower's Association. South Dakota also
hopes to transfer the program to other states and possibly other countries. The program
has made presentations to the North Dakota Department of Agriculture, and several
other states have also requested presentations, including Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri,
and Kansas. Representatives from several Eastern European governments have also
requested additional information on Bootstraps. South Dakota has presented lessons
learned from Bootstraps to over 500 people thus far.
Information Clearinghouse. A central clearinghouse was developed to answer infor-
mational requests. Some of the topic areas available include: household hazardous waste,
composting, spill prevention, energy conservation, Farm*A*Syst, and Home*A*Syst.
Conferences. To introduce the state's urban population to pollution prevention,
DENR is planning two conferences to be held over an interactive television network. One
conference will target businesses and industries, and a second conference will target local
governments. DENR also plans to attend a conference on pollution prevention for Native
American tribes.
Publications. DENR developed a brochure to explain the benefits of pollution preven-
tion to the general public of South Dakota and a booklet on household hazardous waste
reduction. DENR also developed a brochure describing South Dakota's Green Lights
Program, a voluntary program to encourage businesses to use energy-efficient lighting.
Case Studies i 76
-------
Technical Training. In conjunction with the South Dakota Discovery Center, DENR
developed a training course for teachers on pollution prevention. Together, the organiza-
tions trained 170 school teachers from 20 school districts on how to incorporate
environmental awareness into the classroom. The training included specific modules on
pollution prevention. DENR has received approximately 60 to 70 followup calls from
teachers for additional information and plans to offer the training at additional locations.
Presentations and Workshops. DENR has presented pollution prevention information
to many South Dakota trade associations and businesses, as well as to the general public. In
addition to presentations designed to share the lessons learned from Bootstraps, DENR has:
Purchased and distributed 1,500 "waste wheels" to inform homeowners of pollution
prevention alternatives.
Distributed pollution prevention information to more than 50,000 people at the
South Dakota State Fair.
Conducted a holistic management workshop for farmers.
Conducted a presentation on pollution prevention at a TRI workshop sponsored by
EPA and DENR.
Conducted a presentation at an annual meeting of the South Dakota Council of
Teachers of Mathematics and the South Dakota Science Teachers Association (usual-
ly attended by more than 700 teachers).
To promote spill prevention in homes and businesses, the state is developing three pub-
lic service announcements. The series will discuss how to prevent home heating fuel spills.
Analysis of PPIS Impact
Infrastructure. PPIS funding has enabled South Dakota to develop a pollution pre-
vention program and institutionalize the concept of pollution prevention. Prior to the
PPIS grant, South Dakota had no formal pollution prevention program. While some staff
in the media programs conducted ad hoc pollution prevention activities, such as training
industry representatives in ways they could reduce pollutants in their industrial dis-
charges, no formal pollution prevention strategy existed, and coordination of activities
between the media programs did not occur.
One of the major successes of this grant is that it has enabled DENR to coordinate
activities between several state agencies and South Dakota State University. The grant also
established links between DENR and trade associations, businesses, and national pro-
jects, including:
Department of Agriculture
Department of Transportation
Department of Energy
Department of Health
Department of Games, Fish, and Parks
State University Cooperative Extension Service and Research Station
National Cattleman's Association
Farm*A*Syst
Case Studies 77
-------
Regulatory Integration. The grant also helped DENR establish pollution prevention
links within all media programs in DENR, including the nonpoint source, spill preven-
tion, air, and hazardous waste programs. The pollution prevention program supplies
technical information on pollution prevention to each of these regulatory programs.
Given the small size of DENR, pollution prevention staff can keep in close contact with
the regulatory programs.
DENR, on the recommendation of the grant-funded task force, identified pollution
prevention as the first alternative for the department. Thus, PPIS directly contributed to
the shift of the prevailing attitude from pollution control to prevention, followed by recy-
cling. Through this policy, DENR management has instructed the regulatory programs
to integrate pollution prevention into all activities. As described above, DENR is in the
process of converting both inspections and permitting from a single-medium approach to
a multimedia approach.
Program Evaluation. The pollution prevention program has conducted a survey of
all Bootstraps participants on the Rosebud reservation and Todd and Mellette Counties
to measure the success of the program, including BMPs implemented. The survey found
that more than 80 percent of the participants have implemented one or more BMP. In
addition, the program includes an evaluation component in all of the tasks it subcon-
tracts. For example, for the public relations campaign, the program collected such infor-
mation as the number of people viewing television ads, demographics of viewers, etc. It
records the number of participants attending training sessions and surveys these partici-
pants for their reactions to the materials presented. For technical materials, the program
engages in a peer review of the materials to ensure a high-quality content.
Program Future
While DENR has not secured future financing, the program believes that such financ-
ing will not be necessary once grant objectives have been achieved. For example, the state
will move the successful Bootstraps program to the nonpoint source program. By insti-
tutionalizing pollution prevention into the media programs, a separate pollution preven-
tion office will not be necessary.
Contact
Dennis Clarke
South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pollution Prevention Program
Phone: 605773-4216
Fax: 605 773-4068
Case Studies 78
-------
1 New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Pollution Prevention Strategy, January 1995.
2 While a state regulatory agency might coordinate program activities, different groups such as universities,
local governments, or small business development centers often implement pollution prevention activities.
These relationships are further explored in the exhibits throughout this section.
3 Chapter I describes the methodology for choosing these states.
4 Delaware 1990 Waste Minimization/Pollution Prevention Act.
5 Results of this survey were unavailable at the time of publication..
6 New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Strategic Plan, 1994, Page 111-1.
7 New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Pollution Prevention Strategy.
8 New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Pollution Prevention Strategy, January 1995,
pp.12-13.
9 New Hampshire Pollution Prevention Strategy.
10 New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Barriers to Pollution Prevention Within a Regulatory
Agency, January 1995.
11 New Hamphshire Department of Environmental Services small-quantity generators produce under 100 kg
hazardous waste per month.
12 For more information about incorporating pollution prevention into enforcement and compliance at DES, see
Barriers to Pollution Prevention Within a Regulatory Agency, January 1995.
13 New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Environmental Fact Sheet: Contaminated Cloth
Wipers for Laundering, Technical Bulleting WMD-1994-17.
14 Barriers to Pollution Prevention Within a Regulatory Agency, January 1995, p. 13.
15 Personal communication with Stephanie D'Agostino, November 1994.
16 NJDEP, Profile of New Jersey Industry: Issues Relating to Pollution Prevention at Facilities in SIC Groups 26,
28, 30, 33, and 34, April 1994.
17 Except machinery and transportation equipment.
18 For additional information on the North Carolina program, see "Factors contributing to thedevelopment of
state programs: A case study, In: Wigglesworth, D., ed. Pollution Prevention: A Practical Guide for State and
Local Governments.
19 Region 4 states include Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina,
and Tennessee.
20 Hunt, G. 1993. Factors contributing to the development of state programs: A case study. In: Wigglesworth, D.,
ed. Pollution prevention: A practical guide for state and local governments, p. 16.
Case Studies 79
-------
Appendix
A. Ranked Distribution of Total Funding by State
B. Funding Breakdown by State
C. Funding Breakdown by Grant
D. Groups Targeted by PPIS Grantees
E. List of Contacts
Appendix 81
-------
Ranked Distribution of Total
Funding By State
State
New York
New Jersey
Rhode Island
Massachusetts
Iowa
Michigan
Washington
Illinois
Nebraska
Georgia
Indiana
Colorado
Oregon
Delaware
Maine
California
Texas
Alaska
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Region 9 Territories
Utah
Oklahoma
Louisiana
New Hampshire
Number of Grants
6
4
3
5
4
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Total Funding 1
$1,342,548
1,132,944
800,000
791,294
724,378
715,572
697,000
694,000
675,000
626,250
626,250
597,445
561,616
545,035
533,804
504,210
496,978
488,120
466,547
441,970
441,970
422,755
422,211
410,000
393,305
380,050
Appendix 82
-------
Ranked Distribution of Total Funding By State (Continued)
State
Vermont
Connecticut
Tennessee
South Carolina
Florida
Mississippi
North Carolina
Kentucky
Wisconsin
Missouri
Kansas
Nevada
Minnesota
Region 10 Tribes
Montana
Region 6 Tribes
South Dakota
Alabama
Arkansas
Ohio
Idaho
Arizona
Maryland
Wyoming
Hawaii
New Mexico
Number of Grants
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
5
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Total Funding
$380,000
366,396
361,250
356,250
356,250
356,250
356,250
356,250
340,000
324,689
300,000
299,888
299,634
297,045
290,000
265,000
235,609
231,250
229,944
215,000
202,500
200,000
Appendix 83
-------
B. Funding Breakdown By State
Region 1
EPA PPIS and SRRTA Funding, 1989-1993
^
# *x
? «₯r
A*
$P
^<
^^
Regior
EPA PPIS and SRRTA Funding, 1989-1993
1,500
1.200
"3T
o
3
e
s
"o
Q 300
Appendix 84
-------
Funding Breakdown By State (Continued)
Region 3
EPA PPIS and SRRTA Funding, 1989-1993
600
500
"3T
o
e 400
i
| 300
°
200
100
n
n
Region
EPA PPIS and SRRTA Funding, 1989-1993
800
700
? 600
o
g 500
| 400
e
? 30°
n
^ 200
Q
100
Appendix 85
-------
Funding Breakdown By State (Continued)
Region 5
EPA PPIS and SRRTA Funding, 1989-1993
800
700
^ 600
o
§ 500
o
£ 400
c
30°
100
EPA PPIS and SRRTA Funding, 1989-1993
500
~ 400
n
w
|
_e
£
-------
Funding Breakdown By State (Continued)
Region 7
EPA PPIS and SRRTA Funding, 1989-1993
Regie
EPA PPIS and SRRTA Funding, 1989-1993
600
500
40°
V)
3
£ 300
2
i
200
100
Appendix 87
-------
Funding Breakdown By State (Continued)
Region 9
EPA PPIS and SRRTA Funding, 1989-1993
600 i-
01
0
0
Dollars (in th
-L N tt
000
E
n
Regio
EPA PPIS and SRRTA Funding, 1989-1993
800
700
^ 600
o
§ 500
o
£ 400
e
J 30°
n
1 !
100
j*
Appendix 88
-------
C. Funding Breakdown By Grant
Organization
Year Federal Funds State Match
Total
Region 1
Connecticut
Technical Assistance Program
Department of Environmental Protection
Indian Tribes/Other Organizations
New Eng. Waste Management Officials Assn.
Maine
Department of Environmental Protection
Department of Environmental Protection
University of Maine
Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection
Office of Technical Assistance
Coastal Zone Management
Department of Environmental Protection
Department of Environmental Management
New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services
Department of Environmental Services
Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management
Narragansett Bay Water Quality Mgt. Dist.
Department of Environmental Management
Vermont
Agency of Natural Resources
Agency of Natural Resources
1993
1991
Total
1989
Total
1993
1992
1990
Total
1993
1993
1992
1990
1989
Total
1993
1991
Total
1992
1991
1989
Total
1993
1991
Total
$67,000
$299,396
$366,396
$305,525
$305,525
$59,565
$200,000
$274,239
$533,804
$50,000
$100,000
$64,000
$288,384
$288,910
$791,294
$84,000
$296,050
$380,050
$200,000
$300,000
$300,000
$800,000
$80,000
$300,000
$380,000
$67,000
$299,396
$366,396
$30,000
$30,000
$59,565
$483,353
$42,995
$585,913
$50,000
$160,000
$64,000
$32,043
$266,740
$572,783
$87,181
$296,824
$384,005
$232,237
$300,000
$49,957
$582,194
$80,000
$300,000
$380,000
$134,000
$598,792
$732,792
$335,525
$335,525
$119,130
$683,353
$317,234
$1,119,717
$100,000
$260,000
$128,000
$320,427
$555,650
$1,364,077
$171,181
$592,874
$764,055
$432,237
$600,000
$349,957
$1,382,194
$160,000
$600,000
$760,000
REGION 1 TOTAL
$3,557,069
$2,901,291
$6,458,360
Appendix 89
-------
Funding Breakdown By Grant (Continued)
Organization
Year Federal Funds State Match
Total
Region 2
New Jersey
Dept. of Environmental Protection and Energy
Institute of Technology
Department of Environmental Protection
NJ Hazardous Waste Facilities Siting Comm.
New York
Department of Environmental Conservation
Cornell University - Center for the Environment
Cornell University
Industrial Technology Assistance Corp.
Western NY Economic Development Corp.
Department of Environmental Conservation
1993
1991
1990
1989
Total
1993
1993
1990
1992
1990
1989
Total
$207,452
$300,000
$325,492
$300,000
$1,132,944
$222,276
$20,272
$300,000
$200,000
$300,000
$300,000
$1,342,548
$326,385
$300,000
$34,069
$40,000
$700,454
$277,724
$20,314
$33,334
$335,288
$35,165
$115,532
$817,357
$533,837
$600,000
$359,561
$340,000
$1,833,398
$500,000
$40,586
$333,334
$535,288
$335,165
$415,532
$2,159,905
REGION 2 TOTAL
$2,475,492
$1,517,811
$3,993,303
Region 3
Delaware
Dept. of Natural Resources and Env. Control
Dept. of Natural Resources and Env. Control
Total
District of Columbia
Environmental Regulation Administration
Metro. Washington Council of Governments
Total
Maryland
Department of the Environment
Total
Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection
Center for Hazardous Materials Research
Total
Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality
Department of Waste Management
Total
West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection
Division of Natural Resources
Total
REGION 3 TOTAL
1993
1990
1993
1990
1992
1993
1990
1993
1990
1993
1990
$198,940
$346,095
$545,035
$47,110
$462,131
$509,241
$200,000
$200,000
$146,547
$320,000
$466,547
$150,000
$299,970
$449,970
$150,000
$291,689
$441,689
$2,612,482
$217,189
$123,282
$340,471
$47,138
$26,780
$73,918
$200,000
$200,000
$146,547
$100,000
$246,547
$155,800
$70,750
$226,550
$198,588
$44,771
$243,359
$1,330,845
$416,129
$469,377
$885,506
$94,248
$488,911
$583,159
$400,000
$400,000
$293,094
$420,000
$713,094
$305,800
$370,720
$676,520
$348,588
$336,460
$685,048
$3,943,327
Appendix 90
-------
Funding Breakdown By Grant (Continued)
Organization
Year Federal Funds
State Match
Total
Region 4
Alabama
Department of Environmental Management
Department of Environmental Management
Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation
Department of Environmental Regulation
Georgia
Hazardous Waste Management Authority
Hazardous Waste Management Authority
Department of Natural Resources
Kentucky
Department of Environmental Protection
Department of Environmental Protection
Mississippi
Department of Environmental Quality
Department of Natural Resources
North Carolina
Dept. of Env., Health, and Nat. Resources
Department of Nat. Resources & Comm. Dev.
South Carolina
Dept. of Health and Environmental Control
Dept. of Health and Environmental Control
Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation
Department of Health and Environment
1993
1991
Total
1993
1991
Total
1993
1991
1990
Total
1993
1989
Total
1993
1989
Total
1993
1989
Total
1993
1991
Total
1993
1990
Total
$66,250
$165,000
$231,250
$56,250
$300,000
$356,250
$56,250
$300,000
$270,000
$626,250
$56,250
$300,000
$356,250
$56,250
$300,000
$356,250
$56,250
$300,000
$356,250
$56,250
$300,000
$356,250
$61,250
$300,000
$361,250
$66,250
$165,000
$231,250
$60,000
$429,842
$489,842
$56,250
$300,000
$30,000
$386,250
$56,250
$33,333
$89,583
$966,372
$109,360
$1,075,732
$56,250
$100,000
$156,250
$56,250
$300,000
$356,250
$61,368
$33,334
$94,702
$132,500
$330,000
$462,500
$116,250
$729,842
$846,092
$112,500
$600,000
$300,000
$1,012,500
$112,500
$333,333
$445,833
$1,022,622
$409,360
$1,431,982
$112,500
$400,000
$512,500
$112,500
$600,000
$712,500
$122,618
$333,334
$455,952
REGION 4 TOTAL
$3,000,000
$2,879,859
$5,879,859
'
Appendix 91
-------
Funding Breakdown By Grant (Continued)
Organization
Year Federal Funds State Match
Total
Region 5
Illinois
Hazardous Waste Research Information Research Center
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Protection Agency
Total
Indiana
Department of Environmental Management
Purdue University
Department of Environmental Management
Total
Michigan
Michigan State University
Department of Education
Department of Commerce and Resources
Department of Natural Resources
Total
Minnesota
Office of Waste Management
Total
Ohio
Department of Development
University of Cincinnati
Total
Wisconsin
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Department of Natural Resources
Total
REGION 5 TOTAL
1993
1992
1991
1993
1990
1989
1990
1990
1991
1989
1990
1993
1992
1993
1991
$195,000
$200,000
$299,600
$694,600
$20,000
$300,000
$300,000
$620,000
$250,359
$125,163
$100,000
$240,050
$715,572
$299,634
$299,634
$195,000
$20,000
$215,000
$40,000
$300,000
$340,000
$2,884,806
$268,969
$206,945
$128,300
$604,214
$20,000
$33,333
$33,333
$86,666
$28,030
$33,289
$11,000
$94,057
$166,376
$33,276
$33,276
$195,000
$20,000
$215,000
$49,500
$300,044
$349,544
1,455,076
$463,969
$406,945
$427,900
$1,298,814
$40,000
$333,333
$333,333
$706,666
$278,389
$158,452
$111,000
$334,107
$881,948
$332,910
$332,910
$390,000
$40,000
$430,000
$89,500
$600,044
$689,544
$4,339,882
Appendix 92
-------
Funding Breakdown By Grant (Continued)
Organization Year Federal Funds
State Match
Total
Region 6
Arkansas
Department of Pollution Control and Ecology 1991
Total
Indian Tribes/Other Organizations
All Indian Pueblo Council 1993
All Indian Pueblo Council 1992
Total
Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality 1993
Department of Environmental Quality 1 989
Total
New Mexico
Environment Department 1993
Total
Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality 1 993
Department of Health 1990
Total
Texas
Texas Water Commission 1 993
Lower Colorado River Authority 1993
Texas Water Commission 1 989
Total
REGION 6 TOTAL
$229,944
$229,944
$65,000
$200,000
$265,000
$20,000
$373,305
$393,305
$58,022
$58,022
$110,000
$300,000
$410,000
$107,378
$89,600
$300,000
$496,978
$1,853,249
$229,944
$229,944
$65,000
$226,100
$291,100
$20,765
$300,000
$320,765
$58,023
$58,023
$110,000
$33,334
$143,334
$107,378
$143,072
$33,333
$283,783
$1,326,949
$459,888
$459,888
$130,000
$426,100
$556,100
$40,765
$673,305
$714,070
$116,045
$116,045
$220,000
$333,334
$553,334
$214,756
$232,672
$333,333
$780,761
$3,180,198
Appendix 93
-------
Funding Breakdown By Grant (Continued)
Organization
Year Federal Funds State Match
Total
Region 7
Iowa
Iowa Waste Reduction Center - U. of N. Iowa
Department of Natural Resources
Iowa Waste Reduction Center
Department of Natural Resources
Kansas
Department of Health and Environment
Missouri
University of Missouri
Department of Natural Resources
Nebraska
Department of Environmental Quality
University of Nebraska, Lincoln
1993
1993
1990
1990
Total
1991
Total
1993
1991
Total
1993
1990
Total
$24,378
$100,000
$300,000
$300,000
$724,378
$300,000
$300,000
$24,689
$300,000
$324,689
$300,000
$375,030
$675,030
$24,378
$100,000
$67,655
$33,334
$225,367
$331,919
$331,919
$24,689
$33,334
$58,023
$300,000
$112,520
$412,520
$48,756
$200,000
$367,655
$333,334
$949,745
$631,919
$631,919
$49,378
$333,334
$382,712
$600,000
$487,550
$1,087,550
REGION 7 TOTAL
$2,024,297
$1,027,829
$3,051,926
Region 8
Colorado
Department of Health
Department of Health
Department of Health
Total
Montana
Montana State University
Montana State University
Total
South Dakota
Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
Total
Utah
Department of Environmental Quality
Department of Environmental Quality
Total
Wyoming
State of Wyoming
Total
REGION 8 TOTAL
1993
1992
1990
1993
1992
1993
1992
1993
1991
1992
$125,000
$172,985
$299,460
$597,445
$90,000
$200,000
$290,000
$112,500
$123,109
$235,609
$122,500
$299,711
$422,211
$200,000
$200,000
$1,745,265
$125,000
$172,985
$120,964
$418,949
$90,000
$200,000
$290,000
$112,500
$123,438
$235,938
$122,500
$314,418
$436,918
$200,000
$200,000
$1,581,805
$250,000
$345,970
$420,424
$1,016,394
$180,000
$400,000
$580,000
$225,000
$246,547
$471,547
$245,000
$614,129
$859,129
$400,000
$400,000
$3,327,070
Appendix 94
-------
Funding Breakdown By Grant (Continued)
Organization
Year Federal Funds
State Match
Total
Region 9
Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality
California
Trade and Commerce Agency
Department of Health Services
Hawaii
Department of Health
Nevada
University of Nevada, Reno
Region 9 Territories
American Samoa EPA
Navajo EPA
N. Mariana Islands Dept. of Public Health
American Samoa EPA
REGION 9 TOTAL
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
1992
1993
1990
1992
1991
1993
1993
1993
1990
$200,000
$200,000
$204,210
$300,000
$504,210
$185,316
$185,316
$299,888
$299,888
$50,000
$182,290
$13,300
$177,165
$422,755
$1,612,169
$200,000
$200,000
$204,210
$33,333
$237,543
$187,212
$187,212
$299,888
$299,888
$224,500
$6,650
$231,150
$1,155,793
$400,000
$400,000
$408,420
$333,333
$741,753
$372,528
$372,528
$599,776
$599,776
$50,000
$406,790
$19,950
$177,165
$653,905
$2,767,962
Region 10
Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation
Office of the Governor
Department of Environmental Protection
Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare
Indian Tribes/Other Organizations
Chugachmiut Tribe
Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
Kwetthluk I.R.A. Council
Shoshone-Bannock Tribe
Swinomish Indian Tribal Community
Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality
Department of Environmental Quality
Washington
Department of Ecology
Department of Ecology
Department of Ecology
REGION 10 TOTAL
NATIONWIDE TOTALS
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
1993
1991
1991
1989
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1991
1993
1992
1990
$21,120
$270,000
$197,000
$488,120
$202,500
$202,500
$21,594
$193,826
$30,000
$27,500
$24,125
$297,045
$261,198
$300,418
$561,616
$200,000
$200,000
$297,000
$697,000
$2,246,281
$24,010,910
$21,120
$270,000
$33,000
$324,120
$22,500
$22,500
$22,500
$10,201
$30,000
$32,000
$24,125
$118,826
$261,198
$300,000
$561,198
$200,000
$200,000
$33,000
$433,000
$1,459,644
$16,636,902
$42,240
$540,000
$230,000
$812,240
$225,000
$225,000
$44,094
$204,027
$60,000
$59,500
$48,250
$415,871
$522,396
$600,418
$1,122,814
$400,000
$400,000
$330,000
$1,130,000
$3,705,925
$40,647,812
Appendix 95
-------
Groups Targeted by
PPIS Grantees
Targeted Industry Sectors ^^^^^^^^^^^^^1
Targeted Industries
Automotive industry (includes auto body
repair and vehicle maintenance)
Printing
Dry cleaners
Metal manufacturing
Agriculture
Painting
Electroplating
Solvents users
Metal plating
Chemical production
Food processing
Refineries
Electronics
Photography
Air conditioning/CFCs
Utilities
Furniture
Textiles
Health care
Pulp and paper
Pesticide applicators
Glue manufacturing
Pharmaceutical
Jewelry
Machine shops
Transportation
Number of Grants
24
24
17
15
13
13
12
11
10
11
6
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
Percent of Total
21
21
15
13
11
11
10
10
9
10
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
Appendix 96
-------
Groups Targeted by PPIS Grantees (Continued)
Targeted Industry Sectors (Cont.) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^H
Targeted Industries Number of Grants
Surface coaters
Plastic manufacturing
Wood products
Lithographers
Beauty parlor
Silver
Underwater equipment
Mining
Roofing
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Percent of Total
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Targeted
Targeted Group
Number of Grants
Percent of Total
Environmental regulators
Teachers/students
Universities
Environmental groups
Trade associations
Local governments
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)
Indian Tribes
22
16
11
9
9
7
6
4
19
14
10
8
8
4
5
4
Appendix 97
-------
List of Grant Contacts
Region 1
Ms. Mary Sherwin
Office of Poll. Prev., Waste Mgmt Bureau
CT Dept. of Environmental Protection
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106-5127
203/424-3297
Ms. Rita Lomasney
Connecticut Hazardous Waste
Management Service
50 Columbus Blvd
Hartford, CT 06106
203/241-0777
Mr. Ron Dyer
Director, Office of P2, Maine Department
of Environmental Protection
State House Station #17
Augusta, ME 04333
207/287-4152
Ms. Susan Peck
Bureau of Waste Prevention
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection
1 Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
617/292-5870
Ms. Barbara Kelley
Director, Exec. Office of Env. Affairs
Massachusetts Office of
Technical Assistance
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202
617/727-3260X680
Mr. Kakisz
Toxic Waste Source Reduction Program
Coordinator,
Massachusetts Office of Env. Affairs
Coastal Zone Management,
Buzzards Bay Project
2 Spring Street
Marion, MA 02738
508/748-3600
Mr. William Kacher
MA Dept. of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Waste Prevention
1 Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
617/556-1131
Mr. James McCaughey
Narragansett Bay Water Quality
Management District Commission
235 Promenade Street, Suite 500
Providence, RI 02908
401/277-6680
Mr. Vincent Perelli
Waste Mgmt. Spec., P2 Program
NH Dept. of Environmental Services
Waste Management Division
6 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03302-0095
603/271-2901
Ms. Stephanie D'Agostino
P2 Coordinator
Waste Management Division
NH Department of Environmental Services
6 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03302-0095
603/271-2901
Ms. Terri Goldberg
Northeast Waste Management
Official's Association
129 Portland Street, 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02114
617/367-8558
Mr. Richard Emander
Principal Env. Scientist
Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management
83 Park Street
Providence, RI 02903
401/277-3434
Appendix 98
-------
List of Grant Contacts (Continued)
Ms. Marquita Hill
University of Maine
5737 Jenness Hall
Orono, ME 04469-5737
207/581-2301
Mr. Gary Gulka
Vermont Agency of Natural
Resources/Department of
Environmental Conservation
103 South Maine Street
Waterbury VT 05671-0404
802/241-3888
Region 2
Mr. Keith Porter
Cornell University
Water Resources Institute
Holister Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853
607/255-5941
Ms. Ellen Harrison
Office of Sponsor Programs
Cornell University
120 Day Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853
607/255-8576
Mr. Kevin Kelly
NY City Industrial Technology
Assistance Corporation
253 Broadway, Room 302
New York, NY 10007
212/240-6920
Ms. Jean Herb
Director, Office of Pollution Prevention
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection & Energy
CN427
Trenton, NJ 08625-0427
609/984-5339
Mr. Steven Anderson
NJ Dept. of Environmental Protection
Office of Pollution Prevention
401 East State Street, CN-423
Trenton, NJ 08625
609/777-0518
Mr. Kevin Gashlin
New Jersey Institute of Tech.
Advanced Technology Center
University Heights
Newark, NJ 07102
201/596-5864
Mr. John E. lannotti
NY Department of Environmental
Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233-8010
518/457-2480
Mr. Thomas Hersey
Environmental Compliance Service
Erie County Department of
Environment and Planning
95 Franklin Street
Buffalo, NY 14202-3973
716/858-6370
Region 3
Mr. Steve Ostheim
Director, Env. Info & Education
Center for Hazardous Materials Research
University of Pittsburgh Trust
320 William Pitt Way
Pittsburgh, PA 15238
412/826-5320
Ms. Andrea Farrell
DE Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control
89 Kings Highway/P.O. Box 1401
Dover, DE 19903
302/739-3822
Mr. Nick Kauffman
DC Government Env. Reg. Admin.
2100 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave., SE
Suite 203
Washington, DC 20020
202/645-6080
Appendix 99
-------
List of Grant Contacts (Continued)
Ms. Liz Taddeo
Pollution Prevention Coordinator
Maryland Dept. of the Environment
Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Coord.
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
410/631-3977
Mr. George Nicholls
Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments
777 N. Capitol Street, NE, Ste. 300
Washington, DC 20002-4226
202/962-3355
Ms. Meredith Hill
Chief, Source Reduction Program
Bureau of Waste Management
PADER
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063
717/787-7382
Ms. Sharon Kenneally Baxter
Office of Pollution Prevention
VA Dept. of Environmental Quality
629 East Main Street, 7th Floor
P.O. Box 10009
Richmond, VA 23240-0009
804/762-4000
Mr. Randy Huffman
West Virginia Department of
Natural Resources
1356 Hansford Street
Charleston, WV 25301
304/558-6350
Dr. Jan R. Taylor
West Virginia Div. of
Environmental Protection
Office of Waste Management
1356 Handsord Street
Charleston, WV 25301
304/346-6264
Region 4
Mr. Daniel Cooper
Chief, Special Projects
AL Dept. of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 301463
Montgomery, AL 36130-1463
205/260-2783
Ms. Betsy Galocy
Florida Department
of Environmental Regulation
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
904/488-0300
Mr. Greg Andrews
Georgia Pollution Prevention Assistance Div.
7 Martin Luther King Highway
Suite 450
Atlanta, GA 30334
404/651-5120
Ms. Nini Hughes
KY Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Cabinet
14 Reilly Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
502/564-6716
Mr. Thomas Whitten
Director of Pollution Prevention Div.
Mississippi Dept. of Environmental Quality
Office of Pollution Control
P.O. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39289-0385
601/961-5241
Mr. Gary Hunt
NC Dept. of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources
Office of Waste Reduction
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
919/571-4100
Appendix 100
-------
List of Grant Contacts (Continued)
Mr. Bob Burgess
Center for Waste Minimization
South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
803/734-5360
Ms. Tracy Thompson
Div. of Pollution & Env. Awareness
TN Department of Environment
and Conservation
401 Church Street, 14th Fl., L&C Tower
Nashville, TN 37243-0454
615/532-0760
Region 5
Mr. Michael Hayes
Illinois EPA
Office of Pollution Prevention
2200 Churchill Rd./P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
217/785-0833
Mr. Tom Neltner
Dir., Office of Pollution Prev. & Tech. Ass.
IN Dept. of Environmental Management
100 North Senate Ave./P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
317/232-5964
Ms. Alice Tomboulian
Consultant
798 West General Road
Rochester, MI 48306
810/652-4903
Ms. Barb Spitzley
Michigan Department of Commerce
and Natural Resources
P.O. Box 3004
Lansing, MI 48909
517/373-9283
Ms. Kathy Eraser
Michigan State University
Cooperative Extension
1200 North Telegraph, Dept. 416
Pontiac, MI 48341
810/858-0895
Ms. Marcia Horan
Department Specialist,
Waste Reduction Services, Waste
Management Division,
Departments of Commerce and Natural
Resources
Lansing, MI 48909
517/373-9122
Mr. Kevin McDonald
Minnesota Office of Waste Management
1350 Energy Lane
St. Paul, MN 55110
612/649-5744
Dr. Norman Chagnon
Ohio Dept. of Development, Technological
Innovation Division
77 South High Street
P.O. Box 1001
Columbus, OH 43216-1001
614/466-5888
Dr. Lynn Corson
Director, IN Pollution Prevention Institute
Purdue University
1291 Cumberland Ave., Suite Cl
West Lafayette, IN 47906-1385
317/494-6450
Ms. Jackie Peden
University of Illinois
Haz. Waste Research & Info Center
801 South Wright Street/109 Coble Hall
Champagne, IL 61820
217/333-8946
Appendix 101
-------
List of Grant Contacts (Continued)
Mr. Tom Eggert
Director, Office of Pollution Prevention
WI Dept. of Natural Resources
101 S. Webster Street
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707-7921
608/267-9700
Mr. Gary Jackson
Farm*A*Syst program
B142 Steenbock Library
550 Babcock Drive
Madison, WI 53706-1293
608/265-2773
Mr. Bruce Suits
Program Manager,
City of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, OH 45237
513/352/6270
Region 6
Mr. Tim Chavez
All Indian Pueblo Council
Pueblo Office of Environmental Protection
3939 San Pedro, NE
Albuquerque, NM 87110
505/884-0480
Mr. Bob Graham
Small Business Ombudsman
AR Dept. of Pollution Control and Ecology
8001 National Drive/P.O. Box 8913
Little Rock, AR 72219-8913
501/570-2877
Ms. Joanna Gardner
LA Dept. of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 82263
Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2263
504/765-0738
Mr. Bill Mollere
LA Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 82178
Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2178
504/765-0333
Mr. Mark Johnson
Project Manager,
Lower Colorado River Authority
Environmental Services
P.O. Box 220
Austin, TX 78767
800/776-5272 X2868
Mr. Mitch Hanrahan
New Mexico Environment Department
Solid Waste Bureau
P.OBox26llO
1190 St. Francis Drive
Santa Fe, NM 87502
505/827-2938
Ms. Dianne Wilkins
Pollution Prev. Program
OK State Department of Env. Quality
1000 Northeast 10th Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73117-1212
800/869-1400
Mr. John Janak
Fin Admin./Budget & Planning Dept.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission
P.O. Box 13087, Capital Stat., 345 Rm.
Austin, TX 78711-3087
512/239-0212
Region 7
Mr. John Atkinson
Curators of the University of Missouri
W1000 Engineering Building, East
Columbia, MO 65211
314/882-8880
Mr. Mark J. Slatterly
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Waste Management Assistance Div.
Wallace State Office Building
DesMoines, IA 50319
515/281-5697
Appendix 102
-------
List of Grant Contacts (Continued)
Mr. John Konefes
Iowa Waste Reduction Center
University of Northern Iowa
75 Biology Research Complex
Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0185
319/273-2079
Ms. Theresa Hodges
KS Department of Health & Env.
Forbes Field
Building 740
Topeka, KS 66620-0001
913/296-6603
Ms. Becky Shannon
Tech. Assistance Program
MO Dept. of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
314/526-6627
Ms. Teri Swarts
NE Dept. of Environmental Quality
The Atrium
1200 N Street, Suite 400
P.O. Box 98922
Lincoln, NE 68509-8922
402/471-4218
Dr. Mohamed Dehab
University of Nebraska
W348 Nebraska Hall
Lincoln, NE 68588-0430
402/272-5020
Region 8
Ms. Parry Burnap
Pollution Prev. Waste Reduction Prog.
CO Dept. of Health
4300 Cherry Creek Dr., S.
Denver, CO 80222-1530
303/692-3009
Ms. Karen Bucklin Sanchez
P2 Coordinator
Montana State University
Extension Service
Taylor Hall
Bozeman, MT 59717-0312
406/994-3451
Mr. James Raysor
SD Department of Environmental
and Natural Resources
Div. of Water Resources Management
523 East Capitol, Joe Foss Building
Pierre, SD 57501-3181
605/773-4216
Ms. Sonja Wallace
Office of Executive Director
Utah Dept. of Environmental Quality
168 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4910
801/536-4480
Ms. Pat Gallagher
Senior Env. Analyst
Solid Waste Management
WY Dept. of Environmental Quality
122 West 25th Street, Hershler Bldg.
Cheyenne, WY 82002
307/777-7752
Region 9
Ms. Sheila Wiegman
American Samoa Environmental
Protection Agency
Executive Office Building
Pago Pago, AS 96799
684/633-2304
Ms. Sandra Eberdt
Arizona Dept. of Environmental Quality
Office of Waste Programs
3033 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85012
602/207-4210
Appendix 103
-------
List of Grant Contacts (Continued)
Region 10
Ms. Kathryn Barwick
Waste Mgmt. Engineer/Dept. of
Toxics
CA Dept. of Toxics Substances
Control
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, CA 95812-0806
916/323-9560
Ms. Maria Morris
CA Trade & Commerce Agency
Office of Small Business
801 K Street
Suite, 1700
Sacramento, CA 95814
916/322-2252
Ms. Carrie McCabe
Hawaii Department of Health
5 Waterfront Plaza, Suite 250D
500 Ala Moana Boulevard
Honolulu, HI 96813
808/586-4227
Mr. Malcolm Curly
Office of Contracts & Grants
The Navajo Nation
Navajo Environmental Protection
Administration
P.O. Box 9000/Navajo Nation
Winderock, AZ 86515
602/871-6470
Mr. Kevin Dick
University of Nevada, Reno
College of Business Admin.
Small Business Development
Center, MS 032
Reno, NV 89557-0100
702/784-1717
Mr. Paul Jackson
Chugachmiut
Community Health Services Div.
4201 Tudor Centre Drive, Suite 210
Anchorage, AK 99502
907/562-4155
Mr. David Wigglesworth
Pollution Prev. Office
AK Dept. of Environmental
Conservation
3601 C Street, Suite 1334
Anchorage, AK 99503
907/563-6529
Ms. Katie Sewell
Dept. of Health & Welfare
ID Div. of Environmental Quality
1410 North Hilton
Boise, ID 83706
208/334-5860
Ms. Lyn Muench
Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
1033 Old Blyn Highway
Squim, WA 98382
206/681-4631
Mr. Tim Michael
Kwethluk I.R.A. Council
Organized Village of Kwethluk
AVCP
Bethel, AK 99559
907/757-6714
Ms. Sandy Gurkewitz
OR Dept. of Environmental Quality
811 SW 6th Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
503/229-5918
Mr. Charles Bidondo
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
P.O. Box 306
Foot Hall, ID 83203
208/238-3733
Ms. Sarah Peacock
Director of Admin. Services
State of Alaska
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 10001
Juneau, AK 99811
907/465-3918
Ms. Lauren Rich
Swinomish Indian Tribal
Community
P.O. Box 817
LaConner, WA 98257
206/466-3163
Ms. Tamie Kellogg
WA Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 6741
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
206/407-6741
Mr. Jerry Parker
WA State Dept. of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
206/407-6700
Mr. Darin Rice
WA State Dept. of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
206/407-6743
Appendix 104
-------
??"° °
111
fa
3-g
- en
"0 5'
§'85
ffl CO
CD
C
CO
CD
(B
CO
21
3''
S
o
D
O
m
CO
CD
CO
m
CD
T)
O
CD
UD
CD
------- |