United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Mail Code 4301
EPA-820-R-94-002
May 1994
How Best To Promote
Industrial Pollution Prevention
Through The Effluent
Guidelines Process
Recommendations of the Industrial
Pollution Prevention Project (IPS)
Focus Group
Technology Innovation and
Economics Committee
National Advisory Council for
Environmental Policy and
Technology (NACEPT)
^y Recycled/Recyclable
r~\ X\ Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that
X~l<~7 contains at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
-------
REPORT OF THE
INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION PREVENTION PROJECT (IPS)
FOCUS GROUP
OF THE
TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND ECONOMICS COMMITTEE
OF THE
NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY
"HOW BEST TO PROMOTE INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION PREVENTION
THROUGH THE EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PROCESS"
February 1993
-------
-------
NOTICE
The following report and its recommendations have been written in conjunction with the activities
of the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT), a public
advisory committee providing extramural policy information and advice to the Administrator and
other officials of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Council is structured to
provide balanced, expert assessment of policy matters related to the effectiveness of the
environmental programs of the United States. This report has not been reviewed for approval by
the EPA. Hence, the contents of this report and recommendations do not necessarily represent
the views and policies of the EPA, nor of other agencies in the Executive Branch of the federal
government.
-------
-------
February 1993
To the Reader:
This report contains stimulating ideas that break new ground. It suggests a creative, new
approach for encouraging industrial pollution prevention within the context of EPA's regulatory
framework.
It is hoped that this report will be read with interest and serve as a catalyst for change.
tj'
1
John W. Liskowitz
Chairman
IPS Focus Group
-------
-------
IPS Focus Group Report
Page i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Industrial Pollution Prevention Project (IP3) Focus Group was requested by EPA to provide
specific recommendations on how best to promote industrial pollution prevention through the
effluent guidelines process. In response to that request, the Group makes the following
recommendations to EPA:
Infrodactoiy Consensus Statement
To promote more industrial pollution prevention, the effluent guidelines process must (1)
be more flexible, (2) address all media, and (3) impart a pollution prevention mindset to
everyone throughout the effluent guidelines process. To accomplish this, EPA should adopt
a specific new approach to the development and achievement of Best Available Technology
(BAT) limits.
Recommendation 1
To encourage industry to do more pollution prevention, EPA should provide industry with an
alternative approach that is more flexible than the strict requirement to attain a single Best
Available Technology (BAT) effluent limit.
Industry should be permitted to achieve a level of effluent reduction different from the
single BAT limit ~ provided the facility will implement pollution prevention measures that
will substantially reduce total emissions (all media considered) below an EPA-established
emissions reduction threshold.
-------
Page ii
IPS Focus Group Report
This new approach would not constitute a relaxation of BAT. It would apply to new and revised
effluent guidelines, and the effluent limit achieved would still be a BAT limit (because the Clean
Water Act allows for a BAT limit to be established based on multi-media tradeoff
considerations). It just would not be the "normal" single BAT limit, which is established without
allowing for multi-media tradeoffs.
The alternative approach must in EPA's (and the State's or POTW's) opinion be clearly
a better environmental choice than simply meeting the single BAT limit. Otherwise, the
alternative approach must not be granted.
To encourage an industrial facility to choose the alternative approach and implement multi-
media pollution prevention measures reducing total emissions (all media considered), EPA
should offer along with the alternative approach incentives on a case-by-case basis
depending on the situation.
Some examples of such incentives are the following:
technical assistance (for implementing pollution prevention measures)
extended permit length
extended compliance schedules
"soft landings"
« forgiveness of "brief excursions
awards
choice of mass or concentration limits
allowance for R&D in permits
provision of an ultimate limit to plan toward.
However, no incentive should be offered that would increase harm to human health or the
environment.
-------
IPS Focus Group Report
Page iii
Recommendation 2
EPA should offer incentives to industry to implement pollution prevention measures that
reduce pollution beyond the traditional single BAT limit.
Possible incentives would be the same as those suggested in Recommendation 1. (However,
multi-media tradeoffs ~ an inherent incentive in Recommendation 1 are not included in
Recommendation 2.) As in Recommendation 1, no incentive should be offered that would
increase harm to human health or the environment.
Recommendation 3
To further the incorporation of pollution prevention into the existing effluent guidelines
development process, EPA should:
Encourage pollution prevention actively in all parts of all of the Agency's
programs.
Make the development of every effluent guideline multi-media (i.e., always
address all impacts in all media with each effluent guideline and also try to have,
with the different media, concurrent rule development).
Tell the public and industry what EPA's pollution prevention philosophy and
agenda are, and elicit comments.
Gather input on pollution prevention from co-regulators early in the regulatory
development process.
Negotiate more leeway from agencies with relevant regulatory authority
regarding the definition of "process modification."
-------
Page iv
IPS Focus Group Report
Coordinate more with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
regarding the effluent guideline limits and possible issues with worker health and
safety.
Conduct more dialogue with industry during process modification/treatability
studies and site reports.
Continue to explore pollution prevention technology used overseas. (Realize that
some is government supported; factor this into the economic analysis.)
* Use the pollution prevention information clearinghouse (PPIC) in conjunction
with the effluent guideline Development Document
Initiate discussion with industry groups about market protection and any
associated product standards.
Start with the more homogeneous industrial categories where data are plentiful,
in piloting the incorporation of pollution prevention into effluent guidelines.
In addition, to get industries to do more pollution prevention through the existing process, EPA
should:
Look for and find ways to develop and promulgate effluent guidelines more
quickly so that more industries can be covered by effluent guidelines.
« Make sure that enforcement personnel and policies do not simply promote the
adoption of a BAT control technology but instead support pollution prevention.
(NOTE: Recommendations 2 and 3 above were unanimously agreed upon by all 23 members of
the Group (see Appendix B for a list of all 23 members). Twenty-one members agreed on
Recommendation 1. Two members proposed an alternative to Recommendation 1; their minority
view is contained in the Report in the discussion section under Recommendation 1. It should be
noted here that the minority view on Recommendation 1 proposes some of the same innovative
concepts as in Recommendation 1 presented above; the difference is that the minority view
applies those concepts at a different point in the effluent guidelines process.)
-------
IP3 Focus Group Report
Page 1
REPORT OF THE IP3 FOCUS GROUP
BACKGROUND In 1989, as part of a new EPA emphasis on pollution prevention, the
Agency decided to set aside 2% of its FY91 and FY92 contract budgets for
new pollution prevention initiatives. One of these initiatives was the Industrial Pollution
Prevention Project (IPS). The IPS was developed and established in 1990, and implementation
began in 1991.
As part of the IPS, the IPS Focus Group comprised of representatives from industry, labor,
environmental groups, academia, and all levels of government ~ was established in 1991 to
provide advice on all aspects of EPA's Industrial Pollution Prevention Project. At its first
meeting in September 1991, the Group was also tasked to give EPA some specific
recommendations on how best to promote industrial pollution prevention through the effluent
guidelines process.
At the Group's second meeting in December 1991, the Group was asked to tell EPA -- from the
Group Members' perspectives "what is working" to foster pollution prevention and "what is not
working" to foster pollution prevention in the effluent guidelines program. The Group discussed
this question in segregated breakout groups (i.e., a separate group for industry, for government,
for public interest groups, etc.). When the breakout groups reported back to the full group, it was
discovered that there were three key areas where all groups agreed the effluent guidelines process
needed improvement in order to foster more industrial pollution prevention. Those three areas
can be summarized as follows:
To promote more industrial pollution prevention, the effluent guidelines process must (1)
be more flexible, (2) address all media, and (3) impart a pollution prevention mindset to
everyone throughout the effluent guidelines process.
At the Group's third meeting in March 1992, Group Members presented their specific ideas and
suggestions on how the effluent guidelines process could be improved in the three areas identified
in the December 1991 meeting.
At the Group's fourth meeting in July 1992, the Group discussed selected ideas that had been
presented in the March meeting, developed them further, and began the process of reaching
closure on some of the ideas.
-------
Page 2
IPS Focus Group Report
At the Group's fifth meeting in November 1992, the Group reached closure on those ideas and
drafted Group recommendations to EPA. The draft recommendations were then put into final
form and approved at the Group's sixth and final meeting in February 1993.
THE RECOMMENDATIONS The Industrial Pollution Prevention Project (IPS) Focus
Group was requested by EPA to provide specific
recommendations on how best to promote industrial pollution prevention through the effluent
guidelines process. The Group makes the following recommendations to EPA:
Introductory Consensus Statement
To promote more industrial pollution prevention, the effluent guidelines process must (1)
be more flexible, (2) address all media, and (3) impart a pollution prevention mindset to
everyone throughout the effluent guidelines process. To accomplish this, EPA should adopt
a new approach to the development and achievement of Best Available Technology (BAT)
limits.
(NOTE: Recommendations 2 and 3 below were unanimously agreed upon by all 23 members of the
Group (see Appendix B for a list of all 23 members). Twenty-one members agreed on
Recommendation 1. Two members proposed an alternative to Recommendation 1; their minority
view is contained in the discussion section of Recommendation 1.)
Recommendation 1
To encourage industry to do more pollution prevention, EPA should provide industry with an
alternative approach that is more flexible than the strict requirement to attain a single Best
Available Technology (BAT) effluent limit
-------
IPS Focus Group Report
Page 3
Industry should be permitted to achieve a level of effluent reduction different from the
single BAT limit ~ provided the facility will implement pollution prevention measures that
will substantially reduce total emissions (all media considered) below an EPA-established
emissions reduction threshold.
This new approach would not constitute a relaxation of BAT. It would apply to new and revised
effluent guidelines, and the effluent limit achieved would still be a BAT limit (because the Clean
Water Act allows for a BAT limit to be established based on multi-media tradeoff
considerations). It just would not be the "normal" single BAT limit, which is established without
allowing for multi-media tradeoffs.
The way this alternative approach would work is that an industrial facility would have the choice
of either meeting the traditional single BAT limit or achieving a different effluent reduction
through the implementation of multi-media pollution prevention measures. However, any facility
selecting to implement the multi-media pollution prevention measures would have to show
convincingly (to EPA's satisfaction) how the pollution prevention measures will produce a better
environmental outcome than meeting the single BAT limit.
Specifically, the multi-media pollution prevention measures, if they fail to meet the single BAT
limit, must fall short of it by only a small margin. The achieved effluent reduction would be
considered to fulfill the BAT requirement, provided it also results in reducing the total mass of
emissions (all media considered) below an EPA-established emissions reduction threshold.
The emissions reduction threshold could be established by EPA by specifying a "multiplier"
(which need not be a whole number) as in the following conceptual example:
Example
If the alternative approach would result in an emission to water that is 5
Ibs/day more than the normal BAT limit, then the total emissions to all
media must be reduced by "M" times 5 Ibs/day where "M" is the EPA-
established "multiplier."
Only if the facility can convincingly show that all of the above conditions will be met, should
the alternative multi-media approach be granted.
-------
Page 4
IPS Focus Group Report
In short, the alternative approach must ~ in EPA's (and the State's or POTW's) opinion -- be
cleariy a better environmental choice than simply meeting the traditional single BAT limit
Otherwise, the alternative approach must not be granted.
Furthermore, for the alternative approach to be allowed, the promised emissions reductions in all
media must be conditions in the permit (or other legal mechanism) and there must be
enforcement assurances, including adequate compliance monitoring, in all media to verify the
desired pollution prevention results.
The alternative approach provides flexibility not only to industry but also to the permitting
authority. Many permitting authorities will welcome being given this increased flexibility for
writing permits. But some permitting authorities, for one reason or another, may not be equipped
to deal with this alternative approach. Therefore, the alternative approach should be offered at
the discretion of the permitting authority (orPOTW). A permitting authority (orPOTW) that is
not able to handle the alternative approach should not be required to offer it
Finally, to encourage an industrial facility to choose the alternative approach and implement
pollution prevention measures reducing total emissions (all media considered), EPA should offer
-- along with the alternative approach -- incentives on a case-by-case basis depending on the
situation.
Some examples of such incentives are the following:
technical assistance (for implementing pollution prevention measures)
extended permit length
extended compliance schedules
"soft landings"
forgiveness of "brief excursions
awards
choice of mass or concentration limits
allowance for R&D in permits
provision of an ultimate limit to plan toward.
EPA should not be limited to any one list of incentives. AH possible incentives should be
considered, because unique situations may call for unique incentives. However, no incentive
should be offered that would increase harm to human health or the environment
-------
7P3 Focus Group Report
Page 5
The "soft landings" incentive, listed in the examples above, is deliberately not defined. It,
however, refers generally to the idea of not heavily penalizing a facility for making a good faith
effort to try an innovative pollution prevention technology that unexpectedly fails to meet the
BAT limit. But what the "soft landings" incentive would actually turn out to be is left for EPA
or others to decide in the actual implementation of this recommendation.
The technical assistance incentive, listed in the examples above, refers primarily to making
available assistance and information that is user-friendly, through vehicles such as the pollution
prevention clearinghouses. It does not necessarily mean on-site technical assistance. However,
the Group also notes the importance of on-site technical assistance and makes a broader "policy"
recommendation:
"EPA should devote increased attention and resources to train-the-trainer training
(e.g., for State permit writers and for industrial facility managers) and on-site
technical assistance programs, as well as to information dissemination and
technology transfer."
DISCUSSION
All 23 Focus Group Members unanimously agree that there should be increased flexibility and
a broadening of BAT to include greater consideration of all media. All members also
unanimously agree that there is merit in adopting a new approach to calculating BAT, including
determining emissions to all media, for the purpose of encouraging pollution prevention.
Where dissent arises is that two members do not agree with the Group majority on how this new
approach and broadening of BAT should be structured. The Majority View (which supports
Recommendation 1) and the Minority View (which proposes an alternative to Recommendation 1)
are as follows:
Majority View: (held by 21 of the 23 members)
An alternative approach is needed.
Pollution prevention is a highly desirable goal. For many industrial categories, however,
it is difficult to incorporate significant pollution prevention into the traditional single BAT
limit. Therefore, there needs to be a different approach.
-------
Page 6
IPS Focus Group Report
EPA's effluent guidelines process needs to address an important distinction between
control technology and pollution prevention. Whereas control technology can expressly
meet a performance standard universally, pollution prevention is fundamentally different
and usually varies from facility to facility.
Therefore, even though incorporating pollution prevention along with control technology
is possible with the single BAT limit and even though industries can and will do some
pollution prevention without an alternative BAT approach, the pollution prevention that
industries will be able to implement will generally be only the relatively small amount
that can be prescribed indirectly through nationally-applicable single BAT limits, plus any
site-specific pollution prevention that is straight-forward and easy to do.
With the current approach and without an alternative approach, companies can be neither
driven nor enticed to try new technologies or to take other bold steps to further pollution
prevention.
EPA needs to create an atmosphere of stepping into the beyond and affording industry the
opportunity to make great strides in pollution prevention.
To foster more pollution prevention and to encourage industry to make the more difficult
commitments to pollution prevention (those that can really make a difference), the
alternative approach of Recommendation 1 ~ with its flexibility and multi-media
orientation ~ is needed.
The approach will not harm the environment
A clearly expressed stipulation of the alternative approach is that it should never be
allowed unless, in the opinion of EPA and the regulating community, it will clearly
produce a better environmental outcome than meeting the single BAT limit.
The multi-media emissions reduction threshold requirement of the alternative approach
will be established by EPA and will be as stringent as EPA decides it should be. It can
be reasonably assumed that EPA will take into account possible margins of error and set
the requirement sufficiently stringent to ensure that no harm to the environment will result
-------
IPS Focus Group Report
Page 7
The alternative approach also stipulates that the promised emissions reductions in all
media must be conditions in the permit (or other legal mechanism); and there must be
enforcement assurances, including adequate compliance monitoring, in all media to verify
the desired pollution prevention results. This is an integral part of Recommendation 1 to
ensure that the promised benefits to the environment will be realized and that
environmental harm will not result.
Also, water quality standards would always be met with the alternative approach.
Finally, any postulation that "BAT may not be attained" would be wrong. The alternative
effluent reduction would itself be a BAT limit. BAT is not relaxed but broadened. The
achieved effluent reduction in the alternative approach would be an alternative
determination of BAT with external multi-media factors taken into account. The Clean
Water Act allows for this type of broadening to more than one BAT limit.
The approach will clearly benefit the environment
Consider the following example:
A facility can apply a technology which will meet the "normal" single
BAT limit. But doing so will result in air pollution and substantial
hazardous waste. The facility can alternatively make a process change
that will come close to meeting the "normal" single BAT limit but will
significantly reduce the air pollution and the hazardous waste -- more
than would otherwise be required under the respective environmental
statutes. Furthermore, it is unquestionably clear to the State and to EPA
that the process change alternative is vastly more beneficial for the
environment. But, without the alternative approach, simply meeting the
single BAT limit is the only possibility open to the permit writer. The
facility will have to meet the single BAT limit and is not allowed to
make the process change. And the environment suffers.
In cases like the example above, offering industry the alternative approach of
Recommendation 1 can bring about results clearly more beneficial to the environment
than simply meeting the single BAT limit can.
-------
PageS
IPS Focus Group Report
The alternative approach can fill some needed roles.
To build pollution prevention into a single BAT limit, to the extent desired, may not be
possible for many categories of industries, because any given pollution prevention
measures may not be broadly applicable enough to be the basis for a single national limit.
A single BAT limit can perhaps be based on easy, straight-forward, or well established
pollution prevention measures ~ but not on the most effective measures. The most
effective pollution prevention measures tend to be site-specific for many industries.
Therefore, for many industries, the desired extent of pollution prevention ~ even though
it would be possible for some facilities within an industry ~ cannot be incorporated in
setting the single BAT limit for that industry and therefore that pollution prevention
simply will not happen ~ even at those facilities that can do it ~ unless the alternative
approach is offered.
In addition, even though the traditional single BAT limit can drive the diffusion and
adoption of existing and proven prevention technologies, it does not tend to encourage
new prevention-technology development and innovation. The alternative approach is
needed to drive innovation.
In summary, the alternative approach would not only bring about pollution prevention
when the normal BAT cannot, but it would also bring about a type of pollution prevention
that the normal BAT does not.
A separate consideration is that the alternative approach involves a degree of industry
participation and "buy-in" that does not exist with strict application of a single BAT limit.
The cooperative spirit of the alternative approach may help assure timely compliance. It
may also reduce litigation cutting the time and cost of the regulatory process and
speeding up the realization of environmental gains.
Finally, the alternative approach, with its incentives, would also encourage continuous
improvement in pollution prevention during the interim between effluent guidelines
revisions.
-------
IPS Focus Group Report
Page 9
The alternative approach will not always be the best choice.
The alternative approach is not the only way to obtain pollution prevention and is not
always the best way. There is a role for both the single BAT limit and the alternative
approach. Their respective roles need to be clear.
Meeting the single BAT limit is the primary approach. The alternative approach only has
a role where implementation of the alternative approach clearly and unquestionably leads
to enhanced not relaxed ~ protection of human health and the environment and where
it would produce a clearly better environmental outcome than meeting the single BAT
limit.
The regulating community too should have an option.
Many permitting authorities (and POTWs with pretreatment program requirements and
enforcement/compliance responsibilities) need and want to exercise the flexibility and
incentives of the alternative approach. However, any permitting authority (or POTW) that
-- for whatever reason chooses not to handle the alternative approach should not be
required to offer it.
In summary, providing flexibility and encouraging greater consideration of all media are very
important for the adoption of more pollution prevention by industry.
While the traditional single BAT limit by itself may be able to take us a long way toward our
pollution prevention goals, there are situations where the alternative approach can foster more
pollution prevention and bring about results more beneficial to the environment than meeting a
single BAT limit can.
Both the single BAT limit and the alternative approach have merit. Meeting the single BAT limit
should remain the primary regulatory approach. The alternative approach (offering incentives and
achieving multi-media pollution prevention) has a role only where it can provide a clearly better
environmental outcome.
-------
Page 10
IPS Focus Group Report
In Recommendation 1, the current single BAT limit approach is not denigrated but preserved.
A facility can still choose to meet the single BAT limit and do so any way it chooses. But by
also offering the alternative approach, the important pollution prevention factors of increased
flexibility and greater consideration of all media are added providing industry the opportunity
to use its creativity to make greater strides in implementing pollution prevention.
Finally, this Recommendation 1 is a suggestion to EPA from the Focus Group. As such, it is
guidance from the Focus Group, binds no one, and should not be considered to be the last word
or "chiseled in stone." Instead, it is offered so that it can be studied and debated by EPA and
other concerned parties in the normal course of reviewing and further developing the effluent
guidelines regulatory process.
Minority view: (held by 2 members: Ms. Cameron and Mr. Roy)
Introductory Statement
Pollution prevention (i.e., "source reduction" as defined by the Pollution Prevention Act
of 1990) is a highly desirable goal. EPA is required by a number of statutes, including
the Clean Water Act as well as the Pollution Prevention Act, to strive towards reduction
and elimination of discharges of pollutants to the environment, particularly toxic
pollutants. The effluent guidelines process under the Clean Water Act is perhaps EPA's
most effective pollution prevention opportunity, especially if EPA incorporates more
prevention-based approaches into the guidelines process. But we believe that this means
focusing change on the "front end" of the process (i.e., setting effluent guidelines) not
the "back end" (i.e., applying effluent guidelines).
Although there is a need for some flexibility in both the setting of effluent guidelines
themselves and in the application of the guidelines to individual plant sites, such flexibility
does not extend to the legal requirement, incumbent upon all permittees, to comply with
BAT. To enable permit writers and facilities to backslide on BAT in the name of "multi-
media flexibility" which we believe Recommendation 1 does ~ is counter to the letter and
the intent of the Clean Water Act and to the general goal of prevention policy to achieve
reductions in emissions to all media.
-------
IPS Focus Group Report
Page 11
Multi-Media Considerations Within die Guidelines Process.
Multi-media standard setting should not be a haphazard process, suggested by the concept
of flexibility in trading one medium's standards against another's. Recommendation 1
assumes that water can "take a hit" (i.e., receive greater discharges than allowed by the
normal BAT) in the name of reductions to other media. We believe that Recommendation
1 is wrong on two counts: (1) the most effective setting for considering non-water quality
impacts is in the establishment of the effluent guidelines themselves, not in the writing
of individual permits; and (2) even for site-specific approaches to prevention, assuming
that water can "take a hit" ignores and indeed removes the incentive for using the
many possibilities for toxic use reduction and source reduction of other pollutants that will
reduce emissions to all media, including water.
A Multi-Media Decision Protocol In me Setting of BAT.
In setting standards intended to protect human health and the environment regardless of
media of pollutant transport, EPA should use the same decision rules it uses to set
standards for the many pollutants that may be covered by the effluent guideline for one
industrial category. When EPA sets an effluent guideline for the several pollutants that
may be found in one wastewater stream, EPA is making the same type of decision it must
make to set an all-media standard: e.g., determining the best available technology that
is best for all pollutants (regardless of media); or, if two competing technologies perform
differently with respect to different pollutants (perhaps in different media), weighing the
relative importance of those pollutants (perhaps in different media).
As the members of the IPS Focus Group are aware, Section 304(b)(2)(B) of the Clean
Water Act requires EPA to include non-water quality impacts among the factors it must
consider when setting BAT. Unfortunately, EPA's current methodology for complying
with Section 304(b)(2)(B) is inadequate. (A full discussion of the case examples in EPA's
application of Section 304(b)(2)(B) is beyond the scope of this statement.) The members
of the IPS Focus Group were unanimous in recognizing the need for EPA to improve its
consideration of multi-media impacts when regulating industrial discharges to water.
-------
Page 12
IPS Focus Group Report
A standard decision protocol is needed to guide EPA in considering non-water quality
impacts when setting BAT. Such a protocol would consider three basic scenarios, which
may arise in the setting of a single BAT guideline for a single industrial category. This
standard protocol could be as follows:
When considering, and attempting to minimize or reduce, non-water quality impacts,
apply one of the following three rules:
1) increases in discharges to water, relative to those discharges yielded by a reference
technology, are never allowed.
2) "de minimus" increases in discharges to water, relative to those discharges yielded
by a reference technology, are allowed under certain conditions.
3) increases in discharges to water, relative to those discharges yielded by a reference
technology, are allowed according to a set formula (e.g., a 5% increase in water
discharges is allowed if it achieves no less than a corresponding 50% decrease in
discharges to air). Certain other conditions must also be attached, including
rulemaking coordination with the relevant media offices, enforcement provisions, etc.
As the IPS Focus Group members are aware, such multi-media considerations, and inter-
office coordination, are being developed and tested by EPA in its evolution of an effluent
guideline for the Pulp and Paper industry. A standard protocol, such as suggested above,
would help EPA to streamline its rulemaking, account for multi-media considerations, and
avoid an appearance of being arbitrary and capricious when setting guidelines that take
non-water quality impacts into account.
Guidance for Site-Specific Permits Promoting Prevention.
We underscore our support for source reduction programs at the site level that do better
than (go beyond) BAT in achieving greater reductions in releases to water, as well as to
other media. We also underscore our opposition to a lax BPJ (i.e., Best Professional
Judgment) approach that would allow permit writers to backslide on BAT in setting site-
specific permit limits that allow more water pollution to occur in the name of "flexibility"
and "multi-media considerations."
-------
IPS Focus Group Report
Page 13
A true multi-media approach to environmental protection should not burden the permit
writer with the responsibility of making unguided trade-offs between different media.
Instead, EPA should provide information and training to help permit writers identify and
encourage use of those site-specific prevention and control methods found to be more
protective of water resources in particular, and human health and the environment in
general, than the traditional, end-of-pipe BAT reference technologies. The basis on which
the permit writer decides which methods are more protective of human health and the
environment should be established by the BAT guidance, while always maintaining the
BAT limits as the inviolate bottom line which every permit writer must establish and
every facility must meet.
Categoiy-Wide Versus Facility-Specific Approach.
EPA's effluent guidelines process needs to make a distinction between those technologies
which can be used universally across facilities in the industry category and those whose
application varies facility by facility. Pollution prevention and pollution control methods
can both fall in either the universal or the site-specific category. Pollution prevention and
pollution control methods that can be used universally across facilities in the industry
category should be used as the reference technologies for the BAT. (EPA is starting to
do this through its Source Reduction Review Project.)
Incorporating site-specific prevention or control methods is possible without adopting
Recommendation 1; industries can and will use site-specific methods along with category-
wide methods, without any change to the current BAT methodology. But we believe that
the approach most likely to maximize pollution prevention is to require BAT as a
minimum and to combine that with site-specific strategies (as in Recommendation 2) that
enable a facility through pollution prevention measures ~ to surpass BAT (i.e., do better
than BAT in reducing emissions to water, as well as to other media). Therefore, we
believe that EPA's best way to promote site-specific pollution prevention is through
Recommendation 2 rather than Recommendation 1.
-------
Page 14
IPS Focus Group Report
Chairman's Note:
The following briefly sorts out some of the main points distinguishing the Minority and Majority
Views:
The Minority View believes that Recommendation 1 represents "backsliding" on BAT limits.
The Majority View maintains that Recommendation 1 applies to new and revised effluent
guidelines and that the limits that would derive from Recommendation 1 would, by statute, be
BAT limits; so, by definition, there would be no backsliding on BAT.
The Minority View believes that, to improve the incorporation of pollution prevention into the
effluent guidelines process, the focus should be on the "front end" (i.e., how to establish more
pollution prevention within the effluent guidelines themselves). The Majority View believes that
focusing on the "back end" (i.e., how to establish more pollution prevention in the
implementation of effluent guidelines) would be more productive.
The Minority View sees the site-specific flexibility of Recommendation 1 as haphazard, arbitrary,
and a burden to permit writers; the Minority View proposes providing established guidance to
permit writers, while requiring that the single BAT limit be the permit writers' inviolate bottom
line. The Majority View points out that the approach of Recommendation 1 is optional for
regulators and permit programs; not mandatory, and believes that regulators and permit writers
need the site-specific flexibility of Recommendation 1 to bring about greater pollution prevention
and maximize environmental benefits.
The Minority View believes that site-specific incentives should be oriented toward encouraging
industry to go beyond BAT and, therefore, supports Recommendation 2 instead of
Recommendation 1. The Majority View likewise supports Recommendation 2 but also believes
that site-specific incentives should also be offered to encourage industries to achieve the
environmental benefits that would result from Recommendation 1.
Both the Minority View and the Majority View agree on the need for more flexibility and multi-
media orientation in the effluent guidelines process. In fact, the standard multi-media decision
protocol (proposed in the Minority View) and Recommendation 1 (supported by the Majority
View) share some of the same key flexibility and multi-media concepts.
AH 23 members of the Focus Group unanimously support the following Recommendations 2 and 3.
-------
1P3 Focus Group Report
Page J5
Recommendation 2
EPA should offer incentives to industry to implement pollution prevention measures that reduce
pollution beyond the traditional single BAT limit
Possible incentives would be the same as those suggested in Recommendation 1. (However,
multimedia tradeoffs ~ an inherent incentive in Recommendation 1 ~ are not included in
Recommendation 2.) As in Recommendation 1, no incentive should be offered mat would
increase harm to human health or the environment
DISCUSSION
This Recommendation 2, which is unanimously supported by all 23 of the Focus Group
Members, is like Recommendation 1 except that it only addresses going beyond the single BAT
limit.
The Focus Group believes that EPA should (1) give guidance to permit writers to promote
pollution prevention that goes beyond the single BAT limit and (2) offer incentives to industry
to encourage industry to implement pollution prevention that goes beyond that limit.
This Recommendation 2 would clearly benefit the environment and would apply in situations like
the following:
A facility is in an industrial subcategory where the single BAT limit
because of the nature of the majority of the facilities in that subcategory
had to be based on a control technology. This facility, however, is
more advanced than most and could put in pollution prevention
technology that would do better than the single BAT limit. But it would
be less costly to put in the control technology and simply meet the limit.
Without the availability of the incentives of Recommendation 2, the
facility will simply meet the limit. And the environment suffers. With
the incentives of Recommendation 2, the facility may choose to go
beyond the single BAT limit. And the environment benefits.
-------
Page 16
IPS Focus Group Report
Recommendation 3
To further the incorporation of pollution prevention into the existing effluent guidelines
development process, EPA should:
Encourage pollution prevention actively in all parts of all of the Agency's programs.
Make the development of every effluent guideline multi-media (i.e., always address
all impacts in all media with each effluent guideline and also try to have, with the
different media, concurrent rule development).
Tell the public and industry what EPA's pollution prevention philosophy and agenda
are, and elicit comments.
Gather input on pollution prevention from co-regulators early in the regulatory
development process.
Negotiate more leeway from agencies with relevant regulatory authority regarding the
definition of "process modification."
Coordinate more with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration regarding
the effluent guideline limits and possible issues with worker health and safety.
Conduct more dialogue with industry during process modification/treatability studies
and site reports.
Continue to explore pollution prevention technology used overseas. (Realize that
some is government supported; factor this into the economic analysis.)
Use the pollution prevention information clearinghouse (PPIQ in conjunction with
the effluent guideline Development Document
-------
IPS Focus Group Report
Page 17
Initiate discussion with industry groups about market protection and any associated
product standards.
Start with the more homogeneous industrial categories where data are plentiful, in
piloting the incorporation of pollution prevention into effluent guidelines.
In addition, to get industries to do more pollution prevention through the existing process, EPA
should:
Look for and find ways to develop and promulgate effluent guidelines more quickly
so that more industries can be covered by effluent guidelines.
Make sure that enforcement personnel and policies do not simply promote the
adoption of a BAT control technology but instead support pollution prevention.
DISCUSSION
EPA is already incorporating pollution prevention into its development of effluent guidelines.
(See Appendix A.)
However, the Focus Group split in half when it tried for consensus to endorse how EPA is now
incorporating pollution prevention into the effluent guidelines development process. Half of the
Group felt EPA is doing it very well. The other half felt that pollution prevention should not be
included at all in the development of the basic BAT limit and therefore could not endorse what
EPX is doing.
Those Group members who could not endorse basing the BAT limit on pollution prevention
believe that pollution prevention is best implemented creatively. To put it into the determination
of the basic BAT limit makes it too prescriptive and stifles the creativity which should
characterize pollution prevention implementation. Basing BAT on a prevention technology can
successfully diffuse that technology, but it discourages innovation.
-------
Page 18
IPS Focus Group Report
Another concern is that, even if it might be okay to include easy, housekeeping pollution
prevention measures in the basis for the BAT limit, it is not appropriate to incorporate process
changes. For EPA to be dictating industrial processes and therefore possibly an industry's
products is not the way for the effluent guidelines program to go.
Therefore, the Group lacked a consensus to endorse EPA's including pollution prevention in the
development of the basic BAT limit. But, believing that EPA will continue to do it anyway, all
23 of the Focus Group Members agreed on the thirteen suggestions above on how EPA can do
the pollution prevention incorporation better.
The next to last of the thirteen suggestions above recommends that EPA look for and find ways
to get more effluent guidelines out more quickly. The Focus Group realizes that the effluent
guidelines process in the past has been greatly encumbered in many ways. The Group recognizes
these difficulties and understands why it has not been possible up to this point to do more
guidelines more quickly.
The Group also knows that this issue is the focus of EPA's Effluent Guidelines Task Force and
hopes that the task force will be able to develop the needed solutions. The Group believes that
this would promote pollution prevention because, if more effluent guidelines are developed and
their promulgation is speeded up, this will bring more industries "to the table" and enable EPA
to promote pollution prevention to a wider audience.
The last of the thirteen suggestions is based on the recognition that it is not enough simply to
promote pollution prevention through the development of the technology-based standards of the
effluent guidelines. The promotion of pollution prevention needs to extend all the way -- through
permits, compliance, and enforcement.
The last suggestion focuses on enforcement practices and policies because the Focus Group
believes that mindset changes in this area especially ~ are key to successful implementation
of industrial pollution prevention throughout the whole effluent guidelines process.
-------
IPS Focus Group Report
Page 19
It is the Focus Group's observation that a present-day reality is that enforcement personnel and
policies tend to cause industry to implement a control technology rather than pollution prevention.
When enforcement personnel look for compliance, the result often is that they look for the
prescribed control technology; pollution prevention measures often seem not to be an option. Part
of this is due to the fact that the effluent guideline Development Documents, used by enforcement
personnel, typically have contained control technologies and not prevention technologies. The
Focus Group's fourth suggestion above addresses this part of the problem. But the other part of
the problem is that EPA's policies promoting pollution prevention, it seems, are not being
communicated effectively from EPA Headquarters to all Regional and State enforcement
programs.
Consequently, the perception continues to persist that an effluent guideline simply determines a
specific control technology. Because this perception exists, the program is viewed as an obstacle
to pollution prevention. If pollution prevention is to be encouraged, this perception needs to be
eliminated. EPA needs to find ways to communicate to enforcement personnel and others that
there is more to the effluent guidelines process than simply implementing a prescribed control
technology that industry can, and often should, implement something else, such as pollution
prevention.
If EPA is going to be successful in encouraging pollution prevention through an effluent
guideline, that success has to continue through that guideline's implementation. As EPA strives
to promote pollution prevention in its effluent guidelines standards-setting process, that same
emphasis on pollution prevention needs to be promoted all the way through permits, compliance,
and enforcement.
-------
Page 20
IP3 Focus Group Report
AN UNRESOLVED ISSUE
While all of the above recommendations of the IPS Focus Group are about pollution prevention,
it is important to note mat the Focus Group could not agree on how "pollution prevention" should
be defined. The Group calls to EPA's attention that how "pollution prevention" is defined is very
important.
Some Group members strongly believe that "pollution prevention" should be defined exactly the
way EPA defines it. Other Group members believe just as strongly that "pollution prevention"
should be more inclusive than EPA's definition and should include out-of-process recycling and
reuse.
L
-------
IPS Focus Group Report
Page 21
Appendix A
Effluent Guidelines Flowchart
REGULATION DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
Critical path
Non-Critical path
bxkiittry Designated in
Effluent Guidelines Plan
±
Review available data
identify data oaps
Shaded boxes denote
pdndjal stop* '%:v-
! affecting pollution '*
:|)reventkM decisions ,
. ,v < " f ff ff fr V ;X * fv-Sj.^.
Survey Questionnaire
^ iiEngineering v
s';'', »Economic ' V"
Plant Visits / %.
.; - Process & treatment
assessment
jln^cKwss & stream
sampling '" --v ,-V
-" Engineering,
%''t economic^
Statistical Analysis
-' of Responses
Statistical Analysis
of field data
I
-f Assess Technology / ;
* technology performance, water usa,
< , - costs, fesTduate,'-«tCi ;,*s" - ,^>
.__.__-..'» ^«.«»..-.*.«..;
^ ^ " ^' ' ^ * % -3 ^ -. > *
Technology, ] ~Subcategor- !" JEconornic
Costing { bation >> Analysis
' ' ''
SEPA
Effluent Guidelines Program
OVWOST/EAD 11/92
Documents
Development Document
Economic Impact Analysis
Environmental Assessment
-------
Page 22
IP3 Focus Group Report
Appendix B
Technology Innovation and Economics
Committee of NACEPT
INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION PREVENTION PROJECT
FOCUS GROUP
Chairman:
John V. Liskovitz
Executive Director
Hazardous Waste Institute
N«u Jersey Institute of Technology
Newark, HJ
Members*
Steven Anderson
Office of Pollution Prevention
Mev Jersey Dept. of Environmental
Protection and Energy
Trenton, KJ
Richard Brovnell
Halcolm-Firnie, Inc.
Mahuah, KJ
Cynthia McManus
Du Pont
Newark, DE
Michael Overcash
Pollution Prevention
Research Center
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC
Diane Cameron
Natural Resources Defense Council
Washington, DC
Bruce cranford
U.S. Department of Energy
Washington, DC
Steve Dishion
Procter and Gamble Cellulose
Memphis , TO
Theresa Dodge
County Sanitation Districts of
Loi Angeles
Whittier, CA
Kilton Gordon
Maples, FL
William Haney, III
Molten Ketal Technology
Cambridge, MA
William Holman
Conservation Council of
Horth Carolina
Sierra Club, Horth Carolina
Chapter
Raleigh, HC
Richard Jacobs
PPG Industries
Pittsburgh, PA
Richard Lanyon
Metropolitan Water Reclamation
District of Greater Chicago
Chicago, IL
Bruce Piaseclci
Center for Science and
Technology Policy
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Troy, NY
Adrians Renescu
County Sanitation Districts of
Orange County
Fountain Valley, CA
Manik Roy
Environmental Defense Fund
Washington, DC
William Sonntag
National Association of
Metal Finishers
Washington, DC
Don Walter
U.S. Department of Energy
Washington, DC
Dan Watts
Hazardous Substance Management
Research Canter
New Jersey Institute of Technology
Newark, NJ
Keith Williams
Dnited Steelworkers of America
Buffalo, NY
Azita Yazdani
Pollution Prevention International
Brea, CA
Tom Zosel
3M Corporation
St. Paul, MH
------- |