-------
-------
s an initial step in the Agency's long-term strategy
to evaluate the Pollution Prevention Incentives for
States (PPIS) grant program, the PPIS Assessment
Study documents the full range pf activities funded
. by the PPIS grant program during the first 5 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 pro-
grams, nor is the study designed to evaluate the effectiveness ol
specific activities funded by the grant. This report represents ai
accounting of how grantees used EPA funds to stimulate and
enhance pollution prevention awareness and initiatives
throughout the country. It attempts to answer the following
questions:
M How are states using PPIS funding to support activities thai
promote pollution prevention? ;
H How are states combining regulatory and voluntary
approaches towards pollution prevention?
H Do PPIS grants support the establishment of sustainable
pollution prevention programs at the state level?
-------
B PPIS funds enabled grantees to implement a wide range of pollution
prevention activities. PPIS grant monies funded nearly 5,000 pollu-
tion prevention assessments, more than 850 workshops, and the devel-
opment of 370 pollution prevention case studies. Such a breadth of
activities illustrates the aggressive role states have assumed at the fore-
front of the pollution prevention movement.
M States targeted priority industry sectors. PPIS grantees' efforts reached
companies in 35 targeted industry sectors, including automotive,
printing, and dry-cleaning. Grantees commented that by focusing on
high-priority industry sectors, they can target their efforts and
resources most effectively. Many grantees believe that educating indus-
try about stopping waste generation at its source is the key to pollution
prevention. This finding supports conclusions made by the Office of
Technology Assessment in its 1986 report, "Serious Reductions in
Hazardous Waste." The diversity of projects implemented indicates
that grantees addressed several different areas of need within their par-
ticular states, thereby fulfilling the intent of the 1990 Pollution
Prevention Act. .
H PPIS provided direct economic benefits. According to the grantees
interviewed for this study, PPIS grants helped businesses operate more
cost effectively. By showing businesses more efficient production tech-
nologies and encouraging them to use pollution prevention equipment
as a way to proactively avoid compliance costs, state pollution preven-
tion programs helped industry recognize the economic benefits of
source reduction. In some cases, PPIS grantees' efforts achieved sub-
stantial cost savings for businesses. For example:
— Businesses that received assistance from Kentucky Partners saved
approximately $3 million annually by implementing pollution
prevention measures.1
— Florida's Waste Reduction Assistance Program (WRAP) has saved
businesses $3.7 million.2
Kentucky Partners Fact Sheet, January 1994.
; Pollution Prevention Incentives for States, Spring 1994, U.S. EPA.
-------
Executive Summary
— Companies receiving technical assistance from Alabama's Waste
Reduction and Technology Transfer (WRATT) program saved an
average of $160,000 each.3 ;
— Iowa WRAP has helped businesses in Iowa save more than $1.5 mil
lion annually.4
PPIS grants produced, environmental, results. In terms of environmenta
benefits, such as pollution avoided or waste reduced, some PPIS grantees
measured significant results. Odier grantees who were unable to measure
results perceived environmental improvements. Sample benefits include:
— Tennessee showed a decrease in toxic releases of up to 42 percent.5
— "West Virginia experienced a 53 percent decrease in toxic releases.6
— Rhode Island's PPIS program reduced 3.4 million pounds of liquid
waste and 20,000 pounds of solid waste.7. ;
he PPIS grant program, mandated by the 1990: Pollution
Prevention Act, funds states to develop and expand pollution pre-
vention programs. EPA established the program with the philoso-
phy that states should play a primary role in encouraging industry
small and medium-sized businesses, local governments, 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 environmen-
tal programs can make a unique contribution to the national effort to pro-
mote source reduction. At the outset of the PPIS grant program, EPA estab-
lished several goals, including empowering states to build pollution preventioi
programs, targeting technical assistance to those groups most in need, and fos
tering federal and. state communication on pollution prevention result.
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.
-------
From the inception of the grant program in 1989, EPA awarded
approximately $24 million to 124 organizations'through 1993.
Grant recipients and other partners, such as local governments and
industry, supplied more than $16 million in matching funds for a
total funding amount of approximately $40 million for the 5-year
period. Over the years, the number of grants EPA awarded increased sub-
stantially from 14 in 1989 to 52 in 1994, although the amount of each
grant awarded decreased. Across the 5-year period, the level of funding
across the 10 EPA Regions was fairly even, and all 50 states received some
I
level of PPIS funding.
I i
Over the 5-year period, PPIS funds were distributed to five categories
of recipients, including:
m State environmental/health agencies
II Other state agencies
El Universities
H Indian tribes
m Other groups, such as the New England Waste Management Officials
Association (NEWMOA)
As depicted in Exhibit 1, state environmental and health agencies
received the most funding; their 5-year total reaches close to $18 million,
or 71 percent of all PPIS funds awarded during that time. Universities
received the second 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 organizations
received 3 and 6 percent of PPIS grant funds, respectively.
-------
Executive Surfimary
EPA designed the pollution prevention program to< concentrate early
efforts on publicizing pollution prevention, believing that businesses
would reduce waste voluntarily once they learned the benefits and cost
savings associated with pollution prevention. Thus, voluntary programs
that provide their services ,(e-go technical assistance audits, training, and
presentations) 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. To provide incentives through regulato
ry mechanisms, states began requesting funding for regulatory integration
programs (e.g., training regulatory staff, incorporating pollution preven-
tion into permitting, enforcement, and compliance inspections) in later
years. Toward the end of the 5-year period, and into 1994 and 1995, reg-
ulatory integration projects became more prevalent. One quarter of PPIS
funds supported programs that contained both voluntary and regulatory
elements. Given that most states use voluntary elements to some extent,
strictly regulatory projects received only 4 percent of funding.
-------
rant recipients implemented a variety of activities through
PPIS funding. Activities ranged from voluntary projects, such
ais outreach and technical assistance, to regulatory initiatives,
such as integrating pollution prevention into facility permits.
Exhibit 2 shows the spectrum of activities conducted by PPIS
grantees ovep the 5-year period.
H Education and Outreach. Designed to heighten public awareness of
pollution prevention, these initiatives are implemented through a vari-
ety of projects. Grantees most frequendy conducted workshops, semi-
nars, and presentations. These activities educated participants on topics
such as conducting pollution prevention audits, current hazardous
-------
"Executive Summary
waste regulations, and cost savings achieved through pollutio:
prevention. Education efforts frequently targeted specific
audiences such as priority indusdy sectors, state environ-
mental managers, or trade associations.1 Grantees also
developed a large quantity of printed outreach materials
such as case studies and fact sheets. These materials often doc-
umented the pollution prevention and cost savings successes of compa
nies or provided general suggestions for how facilities can reduce wast<
at its source. Many state agencies have begun [accessing the Internet to
promote more effective communication with [business and industry.
Data Collection and Research. Grantees used PPIS funding for a vari-
ety of data collection and research initiatives tfo evaluate the usefulness
of current pollution prevention methods and |to learn more about new
pollution prevention technologies. These effojfts included researching
alternative cleaning solvents, studying regulatory and policy initiatives
to encourage source reduction, and analyzing TRI data from major
industries. : '. • •
Pilot Programs and Demonstration Projects.! Funding pilot and
demonstration projects allowed EPA and the states to learn how new
initiatives will work before businesses or the government invest a sig-
nificant amount of time and resources. Some PPIS grants were used tc
fund either demonstration or pilot projects that testpd innovative pol-
lution prevention techniques, such as holistic farm planning, intera-
gency coordination to avoid cross-media pollution transfer, and mate-
rials recovery from chemical, processing. ',
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, developing legislation and
regulations that promote pollution prevention!., evaluating program
effectiveness, and securing funding for the programs future endeavors.
In addition to developing pollution prevention legislation and policies
grantees used PPIS funds to hire 60 staff members, hire and train 70
interns, and provide 40 internal training sessions.
-------
»*';<;,••,; c; -f'f-^- f~--t •',,•
>tecutive Surnmarj^ -'•, gg
Regulatory Integration. "While strictly voluntary initiatives focusing on
outreach and technical assistance characterized the activities of most
earlier grantees, regulatory integration is a growing trend. Typical regu-
latory activities implemented by grantees during the 5-year period
included incorporating pollution prevention reviews in permitting,
inserting pollution pfevention requirements into enforcement and •
compliance orders, developing pollution prevention checklists for
inspectors, and providing pollution prevention training for regulatory
staff. PPIS dollars helped to develop pollution prevention tools to
assist inspectors, permit writers, and other regulatory staff to incorpo-
rate pollution prevention into their work.
Technical Assistance. Grantees interviewed believe that through onsite
visits, assessments, information dissemination, and training, state pol-
lution prevention programs can help industry and other groups better
understand and incorporate pollution prevention technologies into
their everyday operations. Fifty percent of all grantees used PPIS
funding to conduct onsite visits. These assessments generally
took place outside the regulatory environment, and participation
of businesses was strictly voluntary. Grantees believe that through the
assessments, businesses learned how to save money, increase efficiency,
and build a good public image.
Awards Programs. Several PPIS grantees instituted awards programs to
recognize outstanding pollution prevention achievements, usually by
industry. The winners generally received free publicity for their efforts,
and many programs have developed case studies based on the accom-
plishments of award winners. For example, Alaska's Green Star pro-
gram has honored the pollution prevention efforts of companies such
as Phillips Petroleum, ARCO Alaska, and the Pepsi-Cola Bottling
Company. Vermont's PPIS-funded Governors Awards pro-
gram recognized IBM for its accomplishments, and New .,
York State's program selected several major companies,
such as Xerox Corp., to receive awards for pollution
prevention.
-------
Executive Summary i
raditionally, EPA monitors both the federal and state-delegate
programs primarily by counting the number of activities
underway. Media programs generally use indicators based on
the regulatory structure, such as number of permits issued or
number of compliance monitoring inspections, to ensure thai
targets are met. Unlike other federal environmental statutes such as the
Clean Air Act or the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Pollution Prevention A
of 1990 did not establish a regulatory framework. Consequently, tradition
Agency approaches to measurement 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
lj inspections, which typify regulatory programs; there is als
;> no federal model by which to evaluate state pollution pre-
^ vention programs. Documenting grant-funded activities
W"' through this report:, including program evaluation and measure
ment, is EPA's first step in the evaluation of the PPIS grant program
While many states are just beginning to evaluate elements of their pc
lution prevention programs, a few states (e.g., Alabama and
Massachusetts) have successfully evaluated their programs. PPIS grantees
used a variety of techniques to evaluate their programs, ranging from sur
veys to follow-up site visits. A> a result, several states were able to gauge
the level of satisfaction with particular services, and a few were able to
quantify the results of their pollution prevention endeavors in terms of
actual waste reductions and cost savings. Some state legislatures require
the pollution prevention programs to report on activities conducted witi
state funding. i
Generally, methods for measuring PPIS-funded programs fall into
three categories: \
B Overall Evaluation. Overall evaluations of program effectiveness
enable state programs to assess the effectiveness of their entire pollu-
tion 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
evaluations can help program managers to understand the effectiveness
of different program elements and relationships among the program
activities. They can be used to justify funding from state legislatures
and help secure private funding by demonstrating effectiveness. One of
the drawbacks of conducting overall evaluations is that they are often
resource-intensive. For this reason, only a few PPIS grant recipients
have conducted such an evaluation. Grantees that conducted overall
program evaluations include Alabama, Massachusetts, and Erie
County, New York.
Evaluation of Specific Services. Some PPIS grantees targeted resources
to evaluate priority services such as technical assistance or outreach.
These evaluations are more limited in scope than overall evaluations
and often focus on a single area of service delivery. This type of
approach tends not to be as resource-intensive as a comprehensive eval-
uation. On the other hand, it does not provide the same level of detail
and documentation as a comprehensive evaluation, particularly for cost
savings or pollution reductions. Two common approaches to evaluat-
ing specific services are:
— Follow-up visits. To evaluate technical assistance services, some
grantees conducted spot assessments and follow-up visits to client
companies. These onsite visits can provide valuable information
about the implementation rate for a technical assistance programs
pollution prevention recommendations, as well as specific data on
waste reductions and cost savings.
— Surveys. Grantees also evaluated the quality of technical assis-
tance and other services such as workshops or training sessions by
surveying clients. This approach enabled the grantee to assess
whether or not priority services are perceived as useful and some-
times document cost savings and waste reduction. Program man-
agers can use the results of the assessment to make changes in ser-
vices to better meet client needs.
Measures of Activity Level. The majority of state pollution prevention
programs accounted for resources expended simply by tracking the
level of activity of the program. This approach includes tracking the
-------
Executive Summary
number and types of assessments completed, the size and types of
audiences at presentations, or the number of phone calls for assistano
received. Some programs also tallied the number of newsletters writ-
ten, facility-wide permits granted, grants disbursed, or case studies
generated. For formal reporting to state legislatures, grantees also
added narrative descriptions of accomplishments. Such an accounting
of resources fulfilled legislative reporting requirements. Examining thi
quantities of services that a program provides is a relatively simple
process that does not require the same level of energy or resources as
an overall program evaluation or evaluation of specific services.
Through the National Environmental Performance Partnership
Systems (NEPPS) and the Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs),
EPA is looking at new ways to evaluate environmental performance
including focusing on measurement outcomes. This new model pro-
vides greater opportunities for seeing the impact pollution prevention
is playing in advancing environmental protection. :
PA conducted an in-depth analysis of five states8 to examine ho
these states integrated PPIS grants into state.-pollution preventi<
programs as a whole,, EPA placed particular emphasis on deter-
mining the effectiveness of the grants in building infrastructure
and self-sustaining programs. EPA evaluated the effectiveness o:
these grants in meeting the goals established at the outset of the grant pn
gram. These goals were: j
H 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.
B Supporting states in establishing and expanding pollution prevention
programs.
H Providing resources for pollution prevention technical assistance and
training.
m Fostering federal and state information sharing and communication.
8 The states studied are Delaware, New Hampshire. New Jersey, North Carolina, and South Dakota.
-------
ecutive Summary1"* 12
X
\ ••
ff
Building a Pollution Prevention Infrastructure :
PPIS provided seed money to the states to develop sustainable pollu-
tion prevention programs. The five case study 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 permanent funding.
Drafting Legislation. New Jersey and Delaware helped craft pollution
prevention legislation concurrent with their PPIS grant applications,
which were later enacted by their state legislatures. The New
Hampshire legislature is considering a bill to establish permanent
funding for the pollution prevention program. While New Hampshire
and South Dakota did not enact legislation, these states developed pol-
lution prevention strategies consistent with EPAs waste management
hierarchy to ensure the implementation of pollution prevention well
into the future. The strategies in both states make it clear that pollu-
tion prevention is the highest priority of the state environmental
agency and direct regulatory managers to design their programs to fos-
ter pollution prevention.
Establishing Advisory Committees. 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
continue to guide the development of the state pollution prevention
program, foster communication between the media programs, and
help institutionalize pollution prevention. In Delaware, the advi-
sory committee includes other pollution prevention stakeholders,
such as universities, utilities, local governments, and chambers of
commerce. These meetings have created linkages between these
different organizations interested in promoting pollution preven-
tion, ensuring that pollution prevention activities continue long
after PPIS funding ceases.
Securing Permanent Funding. Since the outset of the program, PPIS
has encouraged states to develop permanent: sources of funding within
-------
the state. Even though state legislatures across the country hav
begun cutting back funding for all nonmandated programs, the
case study states demonstrate that they are making inroads tc
securing permanent funding. To receive the PPIS grant, eacJ
state secured matching funds of 100 percent (half the total
cost of the grant) to support program activities. In addition,
New Jersey and North Carolina both secured future funding fron
their state legislatures to continue program activities. Delaware cur-
rently provides funding for two staff in the pollution prevention pro-
gram. In the future, the state plans to leverage additional resources by
working widi the NIST-funded Manufacturing Extension Partnership
center in the state. New Hampshire currently has a bill pending in the
state legislature to fund staff positions in the Department of
Environmental Services. 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 pol-
lution prevention program would no longer be needed. The PPIS
grants provide the needed flexibility to ,the states to design their pro-
grams in a way that reflect the characteristics and goals of the states.
The case studies demonstrate the innovative approaches that PPIS
grantees implemented to offer incentives to target groups to reduce waste,
including voluntary challenges to business, grants, and recognition. The
states also used innovative approaches to reduce barriers to preventing pol
lution, including those prompted by regulatory requirements, limited
technical information, and research gaps. For example, Delaware estab-
lished a voluntary challenge program, modelled on EPA's 33/50 program,
to encourage industries to reduce the amount of toxic chemicals they
emit. New Jersey instituted a Governors Award Program to recognize the
achievements of businesses that successfully reduce waste and other orga-
nizations and people that have forthered pollution prevention in the state.
North Carolina offers challenge grants to industry to reduce waste.
-------
Goat Si
Establishing and Expanding Pollution
Prevention Programs
Four of the five states studied—Delaware, ;New Hampshire, New
Jersey, and South Dakota—had limited pollution prevention activities.
underway and no sustainable pollution prevention program in place prior
to receiving PPIS funding. In all of these states, PPIS provided the seed
money to establish pollution prevention programs.
North Carolina, one of the first states to establish a pollution preven-
tion program, used PPIS funding to expand its program. PPIS funding
enabled the state to better target pollution prevention technical assistance
by developing an information management system that integrated all of
die states environmental databases. The funding also helped to expand
technical assistance activities in conjunction with the media programs.
GoaM:
Providing Resources for Technical Assistance
All of the states highlighted in the case studies have provided onsite
technical assistance to targeted groups to help them prevent pollution in
innovative ways. For example, South Dakota is promoting better farmland
and ranch management through the Bootstraps Project, which aims to
teach farmers and ranchers about improving the environmental health of
range and crop lands. Under Bootstraps, each family learns how to com-
plete a natural resource inventory for their ranch or farm, develop a man-
agement plan, and select the best management practices to implement die
plans. The state provides technical assistance to help Bootstraps partici-
pants select.and implement their plans. In addition, Delaware targeted the
printing industry as a high priority. The state developed a fact
sheet to help printers reduce waste arid offers site assessments to
all printers in the state. New Hampshire conducted nearly 40
site assessments to offer businesses innovative solutions for
reducing waste.
-------
Executive Summary a 1
New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection conducted
more than 75 onsite technical assistance audits with PPIS funding.
Including all funding sources, the New Jersey Technical Assistance
Program (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 highrpriority sectors in accordance with the
state pollution prevention law. North Carolina identified appropriate
small business categories and developed and distributed informational
materials to targeted industries. During diis process, North Carolina for-
mulated training materials and identified future research needs for pollu-
tion prevention in small businesses. l
PPIS funding helped the case study states share information with each
other and other states. Some of the case study states used their funding to
communicate lessons learned firom their demonstration program to other
states. For example, New Jersey shared information on!its facilitywide per-
mitting 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. Without PPIS funding, states would
be operating in a vacuum. By sharing lessons learned, the states avoid
duplication of effort, as well as save money, time, and other resources.
States shared information with EPA through a variety of vehicles,
including semiannual progress reports, final grant reports, conferences,
and publications. Together, the states featured in the case studies submit-
ted more than 40 reports to EPA to document their progress
implementing pollution prevention activities. From
these reports EPA learns about grantee accomplish-
ments, as well as what obstacles grantees encoun-
tered during implementation. EPA and many
states are now accessing the Internet as a
means to facilitate communication.
-------
The case studies demonstrate that PPIS has achieved the initial
objectives identified at the onset, of'the grant program. States
are making efforts to build sustainable programs by writing
legislation, developing pollution prevention strategies, securing
independent funding, and incorporating the pollution preven-
tion ethic throughout state governments. The states are providing innova-
tive solutions to persistent pollution problems and providing direct tech-
nical assistance to small and medium-sized businesses, as stipulated by
Congress. Furthermore, states have identified priority industry sectors and
targeted technical assistance efforts to die groups most in need. Since the
programs inception, states have been sharing information with each other
and EPA. Prior to the PPIS grant program, very few organizations provid-
ed environmental 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, thereby pro-
viding businesses with die tools they need to improve their environmental
'performance.
-------
-------
-------
-------
------- |