United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
EPA/60Q/E-91/OZ6
June 1991
Running a
Conference as a
Clean Product
-------
-------
EPA/600/2-91/026
June 1991
RUNNING A CONFERENCE AS A CLEAN PRODUCT
International Conference on Pollution Prevention:
Clean Technologies and Clean Products
Washington, DC, June 10-13, 1990
By:
Kenneth R. Stone
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
and
Mary E. Bourassa
Science Applications International Corporation
McLean, VA 22102
EPA Contract No: 68-C8-0062
Project Officer:
Kenneth R. Stone
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
DISCLAIMER
The information in this document was funded wholly or in
part by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under EPA
contract number 68-C8-0062 to Science Applications International
Corporation. It was subjected to the Agency's peer and
administrative review, and it was approved for publication as an
EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does
not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
Today's rapidly developing and changing technologies and
industrial products and practices frequently carry with them the
increased generation of materials that, if improperly dealt with,
can threaten both public health and the environment. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with
protecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a
mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance
between human activities and the ability of natural systems to
support and nurture life. These laws direct the EPA to perform
research to define our environmental problems, measure the
impacts, and search for solutions.
The Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) is
responsible for planning, implementing, and managing research,
development, and demonstration programs. These provide an
authoritative, defensible engineering basis in support of the
policies programs, and regulations of the EPA with respect to
drinking water, wastewater, pesticides, toxic substances, solid
and hazardous wastes, and Superfund-related activities. This
publication is one of the products of that research and provides
a vital communication link between researchers and users.
This report entitled, "Running the Conference as a Clean
Product" was generated through the experiences encountered at the
RREL-sponsored International Conference on Pollution Prevention;
Clean Technologies and Clean Products. It demonstrates the
common sense value of adopting clean practices at every level of
our professional activities and is being used by RREL managers as
a guide to minimizing the generation of wastes at organized
meetings, workshops, and conferences.
The RREL and the Pollution Prevention Office plan to
continue to sponsor this conference on a biennial schedule in
order to ensure that results of research efforts and policy
decisions are transmitted rapidly between government and
industry, and between national governments, and among those
interested in the area of pollution prevention.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
More than 1,000 environmentalists attended the International
Conference on Pollution Prevention: Clean Technologies and Clean
Products, held in Washington, DC, June 10-13, 1990. With support
from the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and the
International Association for Clean Technology, this Conference
was sponsored by the EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
in Cincinnati, Ohio. Featuring 52 sessions and more than 200
speakers, this Conference took a great step into the future in
exploring the innovative technologies and socioeconomic issues
arising in the field of pollution prevention.
With an agenda of presenting successful examples of clean
technologies and clean products, the Conference became the
perfect opportunity to examine how a large meeting might itself
be run as a clean product. Several pollution prevention options
were identified and implemented, with varying degrees of success.
This report examines the development of this Conference as a
clean product, the options identified, how they were implemented,
and the level of success achieved.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract Number
68-C8-0062 by Science Applications International Corporation
under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. This report covers a period from October 1989 to
September 1990, and work was completed as of May 1991.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Disclaimer.". ... .................. ii
Foreword •..•ii> iii
Abstract iv
Table. vi
Planning the Conference as a Clean Product 1
Introduction 1
Implementation. 2
Successes and Failures . . . . 3
Use of Plastic Pouches 3
Use of Reusable Posterboards 4
Use of Paper Products 5
Onsite Efforts at Hotel. 12
Conclusion 16
Appendices
A. Response Letters. 19
B. Global Registration List 30
C. National List of Registrants 31
D. Breakout of National Registrants (U.S. Map) 32
-------
TABLES
Number
1 In-house generated waste.
Page
9
vi
-------
PLANNING THE CONFERENCE AS A CLEAN PRODUCT
INTRODUCTION
On June 10, 1990, the International Conference on Pollution
Prevention (hereinafter referred to as "Conference".) was held at
the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC. This 3-day Conference
was organized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and the International Association for Clean Technology (IACT) to
explore innovative technologies and socioeconomic issues arising
in the field of pollution prevention. The Conference provided an
opportunity for decisionmakers in government and business to
share their experiences and insight supporting the evolution of
pollution prevention from policy to practice worldwide.
With an agenda of presenting successful examples of clean
technologies and clean products, the organizers of the Conference
began looking inward last August 1989 to see how they could
incorporate clean practices. Initial concern that a Conference
with a "clean" or "green" theme should be sensitive to the types
of wastes it generates, gave rise to an organized effort to
reduce or prevent the generation of waste at every conceivable
opportunity. This is how the Conference developed into a
demonstration project of how to run a meeting as a clean product.
The staff of the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
(RREL), under EPA's Office of Research and Development, met with
the EPA contractor, Science Applications International
Corporation (SAIC), and co-organizer, IACT, to issue several
directives on the Conference features and procedures to ensure
that clean practices would be implemented such as recycled paper,
-------
ink free of lead or cadmium, and two-sided copying. Some of the
Conference planning subtasks were examined to identify pollution
prevention alternatives such as reusable posterboards and
conversion of name tags to luggage tags. The decision to
implement these alternatives was based on both the tangible value
of cost-effectiveness and the intangible value of promoting the
environmental perspective. This report will discuss the
successes and failures of the clean practices implemented
throughout the planning, onsite, and post-Conference subtasks.
IMPLEMENTATION
The attempt to prevent pollution at this Conference was an
educational experience for the organizers. The focus was oh
preventing the generation of waste and recycling whatever waste
was generated. It forced clean practices into a decision-making
process that would normally focus on just cost and product.
Also, it provided a means to collect information on how such
practices could be implemented successfully, and therefore, some
ideas on how clean practices have to be "sold" to consumers.
The Conference organizers prepared a preliminary agenda of
procurement items for each subtask of the Conference. An
internal EPA newsletter, produced through the Office of
Cooperative Environmental Management (EPA CEM Message, November
30, 1989), was printed and distributed to various agencies
nationwide announcing the upcoming "Clean Product" Conference.
This newsletter produced several responses (see Appendix A).
Suggestions from these letters were considered in the ongoing
planning process for the Conference.
This report discusses each pollution prevention option
employed by the Conference organizers, evaluates the option's
level of success or failure, and provides an insight on how it
might work better in the future. To help the organizers in this
-------
evaluation process, a "Clean Conference Survey" form was passed
out to each registrant soliciting comments on the clean practices
at the Conference. The survey brought tq light some interesting
information and cautions. Of the 1,007 survey forms distributed,
75 were returned to the registration desk. These comments will
be highlighted throughout the text of this report.
Successes and Failures
Use of Plastic Pouches
The convertible name tag idea grew out of a discussion with
an EPA manager, during which he pulled open a drawer in his desk,
dumped out a stack of name tags from various conferences, and
wondered aloud, "what do I do with these things?" The fact that
the usual "disposable" name tag with its hard plastic cover was a
v.ery durable product, made the conversion to luggage tags a
natural step. Due to the promotional value of the tags and the
re-use of the clips, the premium on costs per unit was considered
negligible.
In order to accommodate the Conference name tag/luggage tag,
a clear plastic pouch with a side opening was chosen. The idea
was to provide one side of the tag bearing the Conference logo
and attendee's name and the reverse side of the insert printed
with lines to accommodate name, address, and phone number, or for
inserting a business card. A detachable clip enabled the tag to
be used without damage to clothing.
At the close of the Conference, attendees could elect to
exchange the clip for a 4-inch chain or return the plcistic pouch
and clip for use in other EPA-related conferences or ssymposiums.
The printed name tags, plastic pouches, detachable clips, and
replacement 4-inch chains cost $960 per 1,000 units. Typical
name tags with plastic covers would cost $880. Therefore, the
cost premium was $80. The cost penalty of 8 cents per tag
-------
resulted from the chain purchase to accommodate the name
tag/luggage tag exchange. Not many attendees chose to use the
chain. EPA was left with* 17 plastic pouches, 219 clips, and 650
chains to incorporate into future conferences. As one survey
comment stated, "Clip will not work for luggage and plastic cover
is open to water."
However, 55 respondents said they would be using the name
tags as post-Conference luggage tags. One survey comment
suggested, "Luggage tag good idea but think how many tags the
average government worker would have at the end of 1 year. I
suggest distributing a durable plastic sleeve and clip and
placing a box to return them at the end of the Conference. Yes,
you'd have the paper waste and some would never be returned but
think of all the ones that.could be recycled. Government ought
to provide permanent plastic name plates for employees to wear to
all your conferences. If desired, a small sticker naming the
conference could be provided."
However, from the purely pragmatic perspective, a name tag
need usually last only 3 days, and sometimes as much as 1 week.
Therefore, it is reasonable to question the value of a protective
plastic pouch. In the future, the option of employing a paper
name tag of cover-bond weight, attached directly to the clip,
would eliminate the use of the plastic pouch. The clips could
then be collected at the closing, and the paper recycled thereby
offering a savings to the organizer.
Use of Reusable Posterboards
Prior to August, the Conference organizers had decided to
donate its purchased posterboards from the Conference poster
session to a local school or community center. The posterboards
would still be usable for arts and crafts because only one side
would have been damaged by the original exhibits.
-------
As time went on, the vendor was able to offer an alternative
to purchasing posterboards for the poster session. A reusable
posterboard covered in white vinyl was agreed upon because (1)
the reusable board would cut out the cost of having to locate a
receiver for the product as well as the possible shipping and
handling of the posterboard to the receiver; and (2) the white
vinyl was reusable unless severely damaged at the Conference.
In the spring of 1990, the vendor offered a better-
alternative to the white vinyl-covered posterboards. This newly
designed board was less labor intensive (for construction and
tear down) and more lightweight, yet built of durable materials
that precluded the use of the white vinyl covering. Hence, the
Conference organizers felt that a net savings of $1,175, which
included materials and labor, was realized for renting a reusable
board. One survey respondent reported seeing reusable
posterboards at other conferences. The use of push pins, as one
respondent commented, does result in "plastic" pollution being
generated. But due to the pins' continuous use, the severity of
its pollution problem is reduced considerably.
If a meeting that uses posterboards is being held in an area
where reusable boards are not available, donating the
posterboards to a school or community center may be an effective
environmental measure.
Use of Paper Products
Practicality was the underlying approach as the tasks
developed under the contract. It was impractical to eliminate
onsite Conference materials as well as logistic materials usually
associated with any conference. Also, the intangible value of
promoting recycling through consumer preference was important
enough for the Conference organizers to limit its printing to
recycled paper, using ink free of lead or cadmium whenever
-------
possible. Therefore, if excess materials were left over, they
could be recycled. This point becomes very critical when
estimating quantities to be printed. In this case, the
organizers went ahead with the assumption that at least 1,000
registrants would attend and, therefore, printing quantities
reflected this number. Nearly 80% of the paper products
generated for this Conference were used; the remaining paper
products were either reused or recycled in some fashion.
As is commonly known, the purchase of recycled paper stock
often involves the payment of a cost premium for the consumer.
Early printings of the first and second announcement brochures
and Conference letterhead and envelopes were conducted privately
by IACT. A cost premium of $750 was incurred by IACT due to
requesting recycled paper for the second announcement brochures.
Subsequent printings were conducted by the Federal Government and
SAIC. Since the Federal Government requires the use of recycled
stock under contract specifications, printing jobs done through
the contractor, SAIC, were scrutinized for ways to incorporate
double-sided copying, use of recycled paper, using ink free of
lead or cadmium, or printing correspondence on both sides of the
stationary.
White paper does involve a bleaching process that produces
chlorinated wastewaters. In choosing the type of paper for
conference materials, it is worth noting the suggestions made by
Greenpeace in response to our CEM Message. Appendix A provides a
copy of the letter along with a response.
In earlier discussions, it was decided that expandable
folders would be the best choice in holding or collecting
Conference materials by the attendee. The thinking was that the
folder could be dropped right into an existing filing system.
Therefore, this type of product would fit well into any office
-------
environment; at worst, it was recyclable in its present form.
Mr. Floegel (See Appendix A Greenpeace letter) suggested finding
an unbleached expandable folder thereby making the folder even
more attractive as a "clean product" for the Conference. SAIC
followed up with Mr. Floegel's suggestion, made several phone
calls to track down a U.S. distributor of unbleached folders, and
found none.
Since no U.S. distributors for unbleached expandable folders
were found, manila folders were selected instead of plastic
folders because of their high-grade recyclability. Artwork for
the folder was screened onto the face using materials free of
lead or cadmium, and the title of the Conference was stamped on
the upper lip. As compared to the plastic folders, this
alternative was very inexpensive and very reusable as it
represented a net cost savings of $1,100 for materials, labor,
and printing. Only two survey comments indicated that these
folders could not be used with their filing system. However,
most of the comments went like this: "I like the idea of getting
our conference materials in a reusable, useful folder,. Thanks!"
Or, "The paper folder was very good and [I] will continue to use
it in my file." If anything, the folders may have been too small
to accommodate the collection of conference materials,,
Due to short deadlines on printing, a large number of tele-
facsimiles (fax) had to be sent back and forth between EPA,
Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Energy (DOE), SAIC,
and IACT. The waste from these faxes is included under the
measurement of nonrecyclable trash listed on page 9 in this
report. Technological advances have brought to light a facsimile
machine that uses recyclable paper. High-volume office
environments may consider looking into this alternative as
another means to reduce pollution.
-------
One of the conditions set for presentations and for the
distribution of materials from other groups onsite was that all ..*
surplus materials must be removed by the responsible group.
Generally, groups complied with this condition,.but several
groups failed to remove their materials for reuse elsewhere,
These materials were incorporated into one of the Conference
organizers' recycling programs.
' *4 ,
In order to minimize the use of posterboard listing room
assignments, topics, and speaker names, signs were placed in
front of each session room, showing its full schedule for the
day, rather than just the next session's contents. Also,
directional signs in the main lobby, hallways, and registration
areas were printed on the reverse side of signs that had been
used in a previous meeting at the hotel.
Records were kept for the Conference materials tci determine
compliance with EPA's earlier directives. Every effort was, made
when procuring paper products from vendors such as Recorded
Resources, or Capital Convention and Exhibit Company, to comply
with the clean product theme. Reusing, recycling, or having no
material left over was the key in selecting these promotional
items. For example, Omni Shoreham Hotel offered free preprinted
reservation envelopes as part of their service. Although the
envelope was not made from recycled paper and the preprinted
portion was not free of lead or cadmium, reasonableness precluded
printing an entirely new envelope. The envelopes could be
recycled in most in-house recycling programs. The decision to
have the Conference information printed with ink free of lead or
cadmium with no cost to the Conference organizers proved to be
the best choice in this case. Ordering was kept to a minimum to
reduce possible waste. As it turns out, the Conference'
organizers had no leftover hotel envelopes to recycle.
-------
The Continental/Eastern Airlines representative was
requested to provide an insert on recycled paper with ink free of
lead or cadmium. She was able to meet the time constraints posed
to her during the initial meeting with no cost to the Conference
organizers. The count was under the amount needed to fill
requests. So, additional forms were photocopied on recycled
paper and inserted into the mailouts.
Recycling in-house generated waste associated with the
Conference was yet another area to consider pollution prevention
measures under the clean theme of the Conference. The following
is a list of items by weight and class collected for
recycle/disposal at the Conference end for each of the Conference
organizers based on RREL's recycling definitions for the
categories listed below.
TABLE 1. IN-HOUSE GENERATED WASTE
ITEM
High grade white paper1
Low grade paper2
Non-recyclable trash
Corrugated boxes
WEIGHT
130 Ibs.
139 Ibs.
22.5 Ibs.
105 boxes
'High-grade white paper includes only white paper/any color
printing, white office stationery, white copier paper, white
computer paper, white note/tablet paper, white envelopes with
water-soluble glue (flaps that stick when moistened), and, file
folders (manila).
2Low grade paper includes only envelopes used with junk mail,
soft cover books with white paper (e.g., CFRs, EPA phone books)
or remove binding and recycle as high grade white paper, brown
folders kraft, post-its, paper with insoluble glue (e.g.,
wrapping for copier paper), envelopes with plastic windows, and
envelopes with pressure-sensitive flaps and labels.
-------
Followup Conference materials were printed on recycled or
recyclable paper using double-sided copying. The followup
mailings produced an additional recyclable waste from the use of
mailing labels. These figures are included in the "Non-
recyclable trash" weight measurement listed above.
In order to minimize the volume of paper products generated,
a choice of 10 individual papers could be ordered in lieu of the
Conference proceedings. Thirty-two of the 1,007 registrants
ordered individual papers. The RREL used double-sidecl
photocopying on recycled paper for the individual papers ordered.
Printing of the Conference proceedings was done on recycled paper
using ink free of lead or cadmium. Again, these mailings
produced an additional recyclable waste from the use of mailing
labels but were later incorporated into RREL's in-house recycling
program.
Overall, paper products were of high recycle grade
materials. These products were recycled or reused in some
fashion, or could be recycled or reused by the recipient.
Durable goods remaining include six large and four small three-
ring binders. Post-Conference file space was reduced to 2.75 in.
for EPA,- down from 2 ft., 8 in. IACT was able to reduce
Conference file space to 3 in., and SAIC reduced its Conference
material to half a file drawer space from one full file drawer at
the close of the contract. Listed below are the grade qualities
of the paper products used for the Conference.
The following items were printed on recycled material using
ink free of lead or cadmium and qualified as a high-grade product
for an in-house recycling program:
• Registration mailer
• Abstract booklet
• Printed name tags
• Conference note pads
10
-------
e
•
Accordion folders and printed logo
Hotel response forms.
The following items were printed on recycled material and
qualified as a high-grade product for an in-house recycling
program:
Conference posters
Conference survey forms
Preliminary conference agenda
Final conference agenda
Conference synopsis
Conference room chart
Hotel room map
Airport directions map
Memorandum to registrants
Registrant list
Conference proceedings order forms
IACT membership form
IACT followup evaluation conference form
Atwater tours insert form
Capital Convention & Exhibit Company insert,,
The following items were printed on recycled material using
ink free of lead or cadmium and qualified as a low-grade product
for an in-house recycling program:
• Second Conference announcement
• Airline flyer.
The following items used ink free of lead or cadmium and
qualified as a low-grade product for an in-house recycling
program:
• First Conference announcement
« Conference letterhead
• Conference envelopes.
11
-------
The following items qualify as a low-grade product for an
in-house recycling program:
lACT-sponsored luncheon invitation insert
IACT organization information insert
Recorded Resources insert.
Hotel lobby signs 'qualified as a high-grade product for an
in-house recycling program.
Again, what was left over was either recycled or reused in
some fashion. Pollution prevention measures proved successful in
these areas of the planning process.
Onsite Efforts at the Hotel
Early in the planning process, the hotel was made aware of
the Conference objectives and agreed to support the clean theme
efforts for the Conference meeting space. One survey comment
stated, "Have to rationalize between 'convenience' and real
overall prevention. Let us mot just pass along our pollution
prevention 'right-to-do' things to the poor hotel workers. Maybe
we should bring our bags, bring our cups (that we wash
ourselves), and be environmentally sufficient and accountable."
Although the hotel staff was very accommodating to our
suggestions, implementation of many clean practices proved
difficult onsite. Half of the survey comments praised the
Conference organizers for a "great job done!" The other half
felt, "Sorry to say the pollution prevention effort was only
half-hearted. It is not visible and hard to find. Educate
•whys' for pollution prevention efforts."
Attendees were granted the option of keeping their linens
throughout their stay and that the bars of soap not be. replaced
until fully used up. Unfortunately, news about the availability
12
-------
of this option did not reach a number of attendees who indicated
on the survey that they would have taken advantage of it had they
known. Although 43 of the 75 respondents opted to keep their
same linens, several indicated that the hotel did not always
comply with their requests to not replace the linens and soap
bars in their rooms. Sixty-four of the 75 respondents had no
problems with reusing the same bar of soap. (Note: Many hotels
will gladly oblige your request to limit removal of soap bars or
change linen sheets.)
Of the following bath products provided to each hotel guest,
one can see that these items were used:
Shampoo - 49
Conditioner - 18
Skin cream — 26
Wash-stand bar soap - 42
Bath soap - 47
Shower cap - 15
Sewing kit - 14
Shoe buff cloth - 21.
In regards to bath towels, the hotel had them replaced daily due
to health concerns. Attendees commonly noted on the survey a
preference to have the towels changed daily.
It was planned with the hotel staff to provide reusable
flatware, cloth napkins, cups, saucers, and plates during the
coffee breaks, Sunday evening reception, and Tuesday noon
luncheon. Unfortunately, the coffee breaks produced both paper
and plastic waste due to a mix up in communication with the
change in staff at the hotel. In future meetings, it would be
helpful to assign an individual to follow up on the specified
clean practices at the hotel site to assure performance by
vendors.
13
-------
A few respondents suggested the use of "soda fountains
rather than small containers for soda. Single serving packaging
is an unnecessary burden on our landfills and recycling
infrastructure. Next time, use larger coke bottles or a soda
fountain rather than styrofcam-wrapper small glass bottles."
Also, many attendees pointed out that the coffee breaks included
single-serving sugar packets that were a waste of paper. While
this may be considered a "waste" by some of the attendees, local
hygiene ordinances precluded the use of sugar cubes in this case.
Some of the questionnaires commented on the use of styrofoam
cups at one of the ground floor coffee shops. "Little Something
snack bar still used styrofoam for their $1.00 cup of coffee."
One respondent put it succinctly, "Nothing seems worse than a
group of environmental professionals getting together and
generating a lot of plastic and styrofoam waste just because it
is more convenient." Purchase of this coffee was strictly at the
discretion of the attendee. At the time of this writing, OMNI
only recycles its office paper. Other areas for recycling are
underway, but as one spokesperson commented, the consumer can ask
for changes that make the hotel more "environmentally" sound such
as requesting the once-used soap bars or sheets not to be
replaced during the length of stay.
Recycle bins were made available in key areas of the
designated Conference area: the poster/exhibit hall and at the
registration area. The City of Cincinnati provided courtesy
recycle bins from the "Clean Cincinnati" community recycling
program. This was done to:
• Ensure easy identification for the placement of
recyclable materials
• Promote the value of community recycling (Cincinnati
has a very successful program)
14
-------
•. Increase awareness of the Cincinnati-based KREL
research programs.
Unfortunately, the effort to collect recyclable materials
onsite was somewhat of a failure. Since the Conference catered
to an environmentally aware audience, the organizers presumed
that the method used was inadequate. Although recycle bins were
placed in the most heavily travelled areas of the Conference
(lobby area and poster session room), 'they were not placed in
meeting rooms as several respondents indicated they should have
been. Also, the bins were not marked clearly for collecting
recyclable wastes. And, because they were curb-side bins, they
were not tall or overly conspicuous in color. On the returned
survey forms, there were complaints that the recycle bins were
hard to find or not present at-all. Also, many attendees were
not aware that the bins were intended to collect all categories
of recyclable materials to later be segregated by the Conference
staff. The recycling effort may have been more successful
through the use of visually impressive, waist-high bins and a
more proactive effort to promote their use.
The problem of collecting and segregating recyclable
materials that would otherwise be thrown out as waste is worth
some consideration. One respondent stated, "Recycle bins were
limited in their distribution and unclear as to what materials
they were intended for." The EPA project officer in charge of ;
this Conference was also a speaker at an American Waste
Management Association (AWMA) meeting. At that meeting, he noted
the existence of high-grade and low-grade recycle bins in the
session rooms. However, the attendees were using the bins as
general trash receptacles. So, marked containers necessarily
are not indicative of producing compliance. In the future,
individuals should make the effort to seek out recycle bins and
relieve staff of separating recyclable materials.
15
-------
Of the possible 1,100 bottles of soda consumed during the
afternoon breaks, only 27 bottles were deposited in the recycle
bins including 19 aluminum cans from the hotel vending machines.
"I noticed the recycle bins and real dishes (not paper/plastic,
etc.)* Those were things that every conference should do, while
most don't. However, knowing recycling of aluminum cans is more
successful than glass, shouldn't pop have come from cans'? That,
or soda dispensers, is an option to consider for future meetings.
The main objective underlying the clean consciousness theme
is to avoid producing waste. However, it does appear that some
emphasis is required to promote individual action. Perhaps a
good method to accomplish both values would be to set up a trash
receptacle side-by-side with a general recycle bin. Hopefully,
the receptacles would be used properly, but, if not, onsite staff
would perform the unglamorous segregation of materials in both
containers after the close of the conference. In this fashion,
attendees would have a choice to make, which increases their
consciousness, but any errors in segregation would be caught by
onsite staff. This will take time and effort but it may get
better short-term results.
CONCLUSION
From the beginning of this effort, a major concern of the
Conference organizers was to explore every possible opportunity
to prevent pollution. Although this Conference was the first
effort on the part of RREL to aggressively promote clean
practices at an international, or national, meeting, such efforts
are now a matter of Laboratory policy. There was no document or
guideline available to indicate that this had ever been done
before. Such a document would have helped prevent some mistakes
and obstacles along the way. This report is the first step in
filling that need.
16
-------
Overall, the Conference organizers were successful in
applying pollution prevention measures in the pre-planning phases
of the Conference. Every effort was taken to minimize the
inconvenience to the attendee. However, as one respondent
answered the question of whether or not our pollution prevention
measures were inconvenient, unpleasant, or unnecessary, "I
wouldn't worry so much about this. If we truly believe that a
cultural change is needed, some things (that are good for us) may
initially be unpleasant or inconvenient. Let's do the easy stuff
first, but then let's move on."
Appendix A lists response letters to the CEM Message
announcing the clean practices of this Conference. Appendix B is
provided to show the breakout of registrants internationally.
Appendices C and D list the breakout of U.S. registrant, by name
and then by a map drawing, respectively. Global representation
was good for the first International Conference on Pollution
Prevention: Clean Technologies and Clean Products. But this
report recognizes that the pollution prevention measures are just
a starting point, and there are a variety of opportunities for
preventing waste at national and international meetings. The
reader is encouraged to use this document to expand the mental
process of evaluating clean alternatives not only in the
management of professional meetings but in private practice. The
sentiment to "think globally and act locally" should also include
"act individually."
"I was glad to see a 'clean' conference. I've been to other
pollution prevention conferences which I felt were
hypocritical because of the amount of waste created."
17
-------
Appendix A
Response Letters
18
-------
State Water Resources Control Board
WATER QUALITY CONTROL INSTITUTE
810 W. Los Valleclt os, Suite A
San Marcos, CA 92069-2496
744-4150
December 27, 1989
Mr. Kenneth R.
U.S. EPA/RREL
Cincinnati, Ohio
Dear Mr. Stone:
Stone
45268
While reading of the steps being taken to prevent pollution
during the upcoming International Conference on Pollution
Prevention, I was reminded of a tongue-in-cheek assessment of a
well established banquet practice that I made many years ago.
I was selected to speak to a local chapter meeting of Sigma Xi
and selected the title "Dirty Stories You May Not Have Heard" for
the talk. First among the "Dirty Stories" was LETTUCE IS A
MENACE. It went something as follows:
Truck farmers in the Central Valley work long hours, raising
succulent heads of lettuce to meet a great national demand
for their produce. They plant with care, irrigate with
diligence, thin with skill and weed with toil and sweat.
Finally, the day of harvest arrives.
They send workers into the field. There the workers strip
off the dirty outer leaves, cut each head and send the
lettuce heads to the packing sheds. At the packing shed,
other workers strip off the dirty outer leaves, pack the
heads in cartons and ship them to a wholesale dealer.
The wholesale dealer strips off the dirty outer leaves and
sends the beautiful heads of lettuce to a chef at a
conference hotel. The salad chef strips off the dirty outer
leaves and places the succulent heads of lettuce in a salad
storage refrigerator.
On the following day, the salad chef instructs his aide to
clean the lettuce. The aide strips off the dirty outer
leaves and stacks the nearly white heads of lettuce on the
preparation table. The salad chef then strips off the dirty
outer leaves, places one clean leaf on each of 240 salad
plates, adds one molded helping of cottage cheese to each
plate, and instructs the waiters to prepare the banquet
tables.
State of California
George Deukmefian, Governor
19
-------
The banquet begins. Two hundred forty conferees; set down.
Each one carefully eats the cottage cheese and leaves the
lettuce leaves to be carted back to the kitchen for addition
to the other lettuce leaves in the garbage.
At the head table the keynote speaker then rises to discu
the importance of pollution, control and conservation.
give the speaker their undivided attention because this
conservation stuff is pretty damned important.
We have, by well established habit, arranged to have employment
for farmers, lettuce weeders, lettuce harvesters, wholesalers,
kitchen helpers, salad chefs, waiters, garbage haulers and
sanitary engineers who can talk for hours about the difficult
problems,of finding ample land for sanitary land fills.
Sincerely yours,
Donald E. Proctor,, Ph.D.
Director
Sanitary Engineer
Garbologist
No - Never a Salad Chef
20
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY
CINCINNATI. OHIO 45268
January 2, 1990
Donald E. Proctor, Ph.D
Director,
Water Quality Control Institute
810 Los Vallecitos, Suite A
San Marcos, California 92069-1496
Dear Dr. Proctor,
I have received and appreciated your thoughtful letter
in regards to this conference and its "clean" theme. I have
shared it with my colleagues here and, after the chuckling
subsided, we picked the lesson, out of it. The Conference
will bring its clean practises into the Hotel's kitchen for
the luncheon.
By the way, in regards to the scoop of cottage cheese
atop that solitary shred of clean lettuce, I have to confess
that my culinary tastes are such that I would eat the lettuce
and send the cottage cheese back. My mother went through a
health food kick in the early seventies; home cooking became
a menu of things like wheat germ breads, eggshell pancakes,
something odd made out of zucchinis, and cottage cheese
surprize - the surprize came from never knowing in what dish
the muck was going to turn up.
r<
Thanks again for your letter. Somewhere around here you
should find a copy of our registration/agenda brochure, which
will give you the low-down on what we will be covering at the
Conference. I hope you will consider joining us in June.
OULv
'Kenneth' R. Stone
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
21
-------
^«° «.^ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Tj REGION III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia. Pennsylvania 19107
January 10, 1990
Kenneth R. Stone
U.S. EPA/RREL
Cincinnati, OH, 45268
= *.
Dear Mr. Stone:
With regard to finding ways of preventing- pollution (at
conferences), an important yet somewhat less'-obvious issue is one
of how the food (offered at conferences: coffee breaks,
luncheons?) is produced. A viable alternative to traditional
western agriculture is emerging in the form, of • smaller organic
farms and farms which are implementing sustainable agricultural
practices. Such efforts to reduce or .eliminate,-the use of
pesticides and chemical fertilizers would' be '.encouraged by
providing a strong market for such products: ;The .benefit of
sustainable agriculture has far-reaching implications for
improving environmental, health i.e. reducing/agricultural runoff,
and the health of human populations.
Whereas availability of organically'grown .food-is riot currently
widespread, considering the possibility of including foods which
reflect high environmental (and nutritional) -values could be a
worthwhile endeavor. It would send a important message to
producers and consumers that alternatives' vexist . for reducing
•environmental pollution which benefit many, not' just a few.
I wish to commend.you for your efforts in finding .ways to reduce
pollution and waste at public events. If you have any questions
or comments concerning the above, feel free to-contact me at FTS
597-7828. I would be happy to assist you in any way.
Sincerely,
Susan McDowell, 3ES43
22
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY
CINCINNATI. OHIO 45268
January 21, 1990
Susan McDowell
U.S. EPA/Region 3, 3ES43
841 Chestnut Bldg.
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Dear Ms. McDowell,
Thank you for your considerate letter of January 10. I am forwarding it to our
conference coordinator, Mary Bourassa of SAIC. In regards to the use of organic
foods, we have received a few letters expressing the same concern and we are working
with the hotel to determine what options are available.
Having some background in retail food service, I am also interested in checking
out the hotel kitchen services to see how they handle food and what methods are
utilized to prevent preparation of too much product, as well as its subsequent
disposal.
From the responses to the GEM Message, I have been receiving some excellent
suggestions on how to minimize waste in various media. I am enclosing a few of them
for your information. Also enclosed is a registration brochure for your
consideration. '
I certainly appreciate the time you have taken to write us with your
information. If you have names and addresses of specific suppliers of organic foods,
please send them to Mary Bourassa (her address is in the enclosed brochure).
Thanks again, and I hope you will consider joining us in June.
fennet'h" RY Stone
Pollution Prevention Research Branch
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
cc: J. Bridges, EPA/RREL
M. Bourassa, SAIC
23
-------
CONCERN, INC
1794 Columbia Road, NW Washington, DC 2OOO9 202 328-816O
January 16, 1990
ADVISORY COUNCIL
MIChial Collins
QllbtnQud*
Philip H«m,T.«r
Gordon, MacDonlld
Lolt Rtdlord
Wllllim X. Rallly
Elliot L. Richardson
Gcxilrty A. RoeKi!«U«r
F«rw«II Smllh
RutMll E. Train
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Burki Lapham
Ciaa
Suun F. Boyd
E»»cutiv« Oracle*
Btvtrty Csrttr
J«n W. Oootfu
•JU N. FwW
R Graham
buiuuw T. Humpjloo*
Joan Martin-Brown
Cynthia K. MeGrim
Oaiey Michatl
B4IM Buflw Mo)tr
RavMa K. Pionc-n
Barbara W, Roaik
Roulirxl M, Rockwell
Mary P. Siayton
Countnay Slemtr
FOUNDING MEMBERS
Cynthia Halms
Nancy Ignatius
Margtrn S. Mlck*y
Joan Snoray
AtlMfl B. Train
Kenneth R. Stone
U. S. EPA/RREL
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Dear Mr. Stone:
Concern, Inc. was most interested in your innovative
ideas for preventing the generation of waste at conferences
in general and particularly at the International Conference
on Pollution Prevention to be held in June 1990.
Since you requested further ideas, we were wondering-if
you had considered filling the reusuable cups and saucers you
plan to feature with organic food. It seems to us that one of
the best ways to reduce pollution at its source is to eliminate
the use of toxic products, some of the most pervasive of which^
are pesticides. The National Coalition against the Misuse of
Pesticides has served organic food at its annual conference for
several years and this practice has been greeted enthusiastic-
ally by participants.
We salute your efforts at source reduction and hope that
your will add, this suggestion to your list of ways to accom-
plish this goal.
Yours sincerely,
Lois Knaus
100°° -acyc/ed paper
24
-------
•t HKX*
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY
CINCINNATI. OHIO 45268
January 21, 1990
Lois Knaus
Concern, Inc.
1794 Colombia Road, NV
Washington, DC 20009
Dear Ms. Knaus,
Thank you for your considerate letter of January 16. I am forwarding it to our
conference coordinator, Mary Bourassa of SAIC. In regards to the use of organic
foods, we have received a few letters expressing the same concern and we are working
with the hotel to determine what options are available.
Having some background in retail food service, I am also interested in checking
out the hotel kitchen services to see how they handle food and what methods are
utilized to prevent preparation of too much product, as well as its subsequent
disposal.
From the responses to the CEM Message. I have been receiving some excellent
suggestions on how to minimize waste in various media. I am enclosing a few of them
for your information. Also enclosed is a registration brochure for your
consideration.
I certainly appreciate the time you have taken to write us with your
information. If you have names and addresses of specific suppliers of organic foods,
please send them to Mary Bourassa (her address is in the enclosed brochure) .
Thanks again, and I hope you will consider joining us in June.
1 ~ : "
Pollution Prevention Research Branch
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
cc: J. Bridges, EPA/RREL
M. Bourassa, SAIC
25
-------
ADELAIDE « AMSTERDAM • ANCHORAGE • AUCKLAND • BOSTON . BRUSSELS • BUENOS AIRES • CHICAGO .COPENHAGEN . DUBLIN
FORT LAUDERDALE • GOTHENBERG • HAMBURG • LEWES - U.K. . LONDON • LUXEMBOURG . MADRID . MONTREAL • OSLO « PALMA DE MALLORCA
PARIS . ROME . SAN FRANCISCO . SAN JOSE - COSTA RICA . SEATTLE . STOCKHOLM . SYDNEY . TORONTO . VANCOUVER. VIENNA
^^^ WASHINGTON. WORLD PARK BASE-ANTARCTICA. ZURICH
GREENPEACE
Greenpeace USA • 1436 U Street NW • Washington DC 20009 • Tel (202) 462-1177
Tlx 89-2359 • Fax (202) 462-4507
January 16, 1990
Kenneth R. Stone ,
U.S.EPA/RREL
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Dear Mr. Stone,
I am writing in response to your £ElOle.sjs_aafi. of November 30,
1989. I applaud your intentions to use recyclable and reusable
materials at the International Conference on Pollution
Prevention, and I would like to suggest another area in which to
lower the environmental impact of the conference.
While recycled paper products have an obvious environmental
advantage over virgin paper products, many of them have been
unnecessarily bleached with chlorinated agents during the
recycling process. This chlorinated bleaching results in the
formation of dioxin, which is a threat in both the recycling
mill's effluent and in the paper products themselves.
There are mills which do not rebleach the paper when it is
recycled, which results in a stock which has a buff tan color'and
has all the qualities of bleached recycled paper. In addition to
being better for the environment, this paper is cheaper to
produce, as the bleaching phase is eliminated from the recycling
process.
Sadly, virgin paper products are also bleached with chlorinated
agents. Although alternative processes are being used in Europe,
non-chlorine bleached virgin paper is still unavailable in North
America.
A number of paper brokers around the country carry lines of
recycled paper that has not been rebleached and I encourage you
to use this type-of paper for the conference.
If you are interested in more information on this option for
conference materials, please write or call me at the above
address and telephone
number. . Ji
Sincerely, "
Mark J. P^Loegel
U.S. Pulp/Paper Campaign
R E C .Y C L E D
PAPER
26
-------
™ \
m*
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
January 19, 1990
Mark J. Floegel
U.S. Pulp/Paper Campaign
Greenpeace USA
1436 U Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009
Dear Mr. Floegel,
Thank you for your considerate letter of January 16. I am forwarding it to our
Conference Coordinator, Mary Bourassa of SAIC. In regards to -future paper purchases,
we are working out methods to consume the minimum possible while still producing a
quality conference. One idea of particular interest is to give the conferee an
option of receiving the proceedings on a floppy disk, or just selected papers,
because the complete book will be substantial.
The enclosed brochure was printed on good quality white, recycled paper stock
because we have found (as you probably already are aware) that many office recycling
programs limit themselves to letterhead quality paper. We are quite concerned that
ICPP products distributed to conferees should be of a nature that is easily
Integrated into any recycling program.
On a similar note, I have recently heard scuttlebutt that some groups are
collecting/purchasing scrap white paper from small printing shops as stock for
recycling. This enables them to produce their own white paper stock without adding
chlorinated agents to the waste stream. Unfortunately, I have not yet been able to
track down such a group.
I certainly appreciate the time you have taken to write us with your
information. If you have the names and addresses of specific suppliers of unbleached
recycled paper, please send them to Mary Bourassa (her address is in the enclosed
brochure) .
Thanks again
, and I hope you will consider joining us in June.
A • i n-'
I ~N ' /
Beat Regard/is,
s-
Kenneth R.wStone
Pollution Prevention Research Branch
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
cc: J. Bridges, EPA/RREL
M. Bourassa, SAIC
27
-------
DATE: January 17, 1990
SUBJECT: Ideas for Waste Minimization at the "Clean Conference"
FROM: Don frownT"wHWTRD , MWB
TO: Ken Stone, WMDDRD, WMB
I am accepting the invitation you issued in the 11/30/89 CEM Message for
suggestions to prevent the generation of wastes at conferences. Soine of these
are too late for this year's ICPP, but can be used in the future.
1. Severely limit the press run on program brochures, and avoid mass
mailings. Rely instead on notices in magazines, journals, news-
letters, etc., all of which have a "Calendar of Coming Events"
section* Your notice can give a phone number which interested
persons can call for more information. Callers can be given enough
information over the phone to determine whether they really want to
receive a program brochure or not. Brochures can be printed and/or
photocopied and mailed only as necessary. While this would probably
, cost more than a mass printing and mailing, it would save EPA the
embarrassment of having to recycle hundreds (or thousands) of extra
copies.
2. Discourage mass handouts of papers, etc, by speakers. Instead let
attenders specifically request only those papers for which they
truly have an interest. Order forms could be used to let those
attending request either advance copies (as per the Annual Hazardous
Waste Research Symposium) or papers after the conference. The order
forms should encourage people to use discretion and not just order
everything (make them feel guilty about collecting papers which they
might never read) . TX-c i*-~-«_ 4/>/>/'ts •£> f^^f^J-t^ts.
3. Send advance registrants information (including a map) about using
public transportation, and encourage them to use it. (Metro has a
stop a half block from 'the Omni Shoreham.)
4. Encourage attenders to bring their own toiletries, rather than use
the complimentary soap, shampoo, etc. provided by the hotel.
5. See if the hotel (which seems very cooperative) will further reduce
wastes by not changing linens and towels nightly (who uses a fresh
towel or changes the sheets every day when they're home?).
[Printed on Scrap Paper to Hiniiize Sastei
28
-------
1436 U Street, NW
te 201-A
Washington, DC 20009
TEL (202) 462-8817
FAX (202) 462-4507
r
February 1» 1990
Mary Bourassa
Conference Coordinator
SAIC
8400 Westpark Dr.
McLean, VA 22102
Dear Ms. Bourassa, .
I am writing at the request of Kenneth Stone of EPA/RREL. I
believe he forwarded a letter I wrote him regarding the use of
recycled paper products that have not been rebleached in the
recycling process.
Mr. Stone asked me to recommend specific suppliers of
unbleached recycled paper. Two companies that I know of that can
supply the types of paper that such a conference would need are:,:
- Conservatree Paper Company
10 Lombard St. Ste. 250
San Francisco, CA 94111
1-800-522-9200
- Earth Care Paper Company
100 S. Baldwin
Madison, WI 53703
608-256-5522
There may be other companies that can provide this type of
paper. I mention these two companies for information purposes
only. In no way do I or Greenpeace Action endorse any particular
company.
If I can be of further assistance in this matter, please
write or call me at the above address and telephone number.
Mark J. F^oegel
U.S. Pulp/Paper Campaign
29
-------
APPENDIX B
GLOBAL REGISTRANT LIST - 1,007
Australia - 2
Austria - 7
Bangladesh - 1
Belgium - 1
Brazil — 2
Canada - 22
Chili - 2
Cuba - 1
Czechoslovakia - 1
Denmark - 5
Federal Republic of Germany - 4
France - 8
Ghana - 1
Greece - 2
Holland - 1
Hong Kong - l
Hungary - 2
India - 6
Ireland - 1
Italy - 2
Martinique - 1
Mexico - 3
Netherlands
Norway - 6
Philippines
- 10
- 2
Puerto Rico (U.S. Territory) - 1
Republic of China - 5
Republic of Singapore - 1
Saipan - 1
Saudia Arabia - 1
Sri Lanka - 1
Sweden - 2
Switzerland - 2
Thailand - 5
United Soviet Socialist Republic
United States of America - 870
United Kingdom - 9
Venezuela - 3
West Germany - 5
West Indies - 1
Yugoslavia - 4
- 2
30
-------
APPENDIX C
NATIONAL LIST OF REGISTRANTS - 871
Alabama - 5
Alaska - 2
Arizona - 3
California - 46
Colorado - 11
Connecticut - 9
Delaware - 11
Florida - 10
Georgia -7
Hawaii - 1
Idaho - 7
Illinois - 30
Indiana - 4
Iowa - 1
Kansas - 2
Kentucky - 5
Louisiana - 4
Maine - 4
Maryland - 42
Massachusetts - 37
Michigan - 12
Minnesota - 16
Mississippi - l
Missouri - li
Nebraska - 3
New Mexico - 6
New York - 29
New Jersey - 44
New Hampshire - 3
North Carolina - 20
Ohio - 44
Oklahoma - 4
Oregon - 3
Pennsylvania - 39
Rhode Island - 1
South Carolina - 6
Tennessee - 14
Texas - 19
Vermont - 4
Virginia - 69
Washington, DC - 247
Washington - 22
West Virginia - 1
Wisconsin - 9
Wyoming - 2
Puerto Rico - l
31
-------
APPENDIX D
£5
I
O
fa
o
I
32
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1991 - 54H-187/40S10
-------
-------
-------
-------
o?
2
-i u
;:• (D
Is
C
tn
a>
CO
O
O
c*
o
o
ro
ib
o
NJ
If you
detac
upper
o n
or
eft-
-
° w' o
se m
ch or
hand
» =
S.8
o
I
5 2.
> m <
CQ 3
O O
•< 3
CD
D
5T
§
O
il
NJ
cn
o>
o
ro
T3
m
3J
m
------- |